Paul
Goble
Staunton, November 8 – Vladimir
Putin’s moves to silence Ekho Moskvy, the Russian capital’s last independent
radio station, and thus establish a virtual monopoly over the broadcast media
in Moscow demand a US response, something Washington can and must do if it is
to effectively counter the Kremlin leader’s aggressive course.
That response should at a minimum
take the form of reviving and expanding US international broadcasting, a
low-cost option that proved its effectiveness against Hitler during World War
II and against the Soviets during the Cold War and that can be equally
effective against Putin now.
At a minimum, there are five things
that the US should do now.
First,
while working to launch a direct-to-home satellite television system that can
broadcast directly to Russian viewers, the US should restart its shortwave
broadcasting. At the end of the Cold War and because of changes in
listenership patterns, the US curtailed and then ended its shortwave
broadcasting to the former Soviet space.
Some thought the Internet would be
sufficient to make up for that, but others recognized that radio broadcasting
reaches a different and larger audience. And consequently, even as people
talked about an Internet future, they sought to open FM broadcasting stations
to reach that audience.
In the 1990s, such a strategy
appeared sensible if not beyond criticism. But it no longer is. That is because
it has put US broadcasting in a stranglehold Putin fully understands. To
broadcast in FM, the US in almost all cases must have stations on the
territories of Russia or countries it wants to reach.
On the one hand, that gives governments
a veto over the existence of these stations.But on the other, and more subtly
and seriously, it means that in some cases, American broadcasters have engaged
in self-censorship lest they provoke the “host” governments into moving against
them, an approach that may be understandable but is in fact inexcusable.
Shortwave broadcasting, as its
opponents always say, is indeed difficult to listen to and has a declining
audience. But its stations can be on US or allied soil and as a result the US
can deliver accurate news without its journalists or their managers looking
over their shoulders at governments which are anything but interested in honest
journalism.
Second,
the US should revive the basic principles of surrogate broadcasting even as it
continues to have a national service in the same languages. During the Cold
War, the US had two distinct kinds of broadcasting, surrogate and national.
Each had its special characteristics, and each served a particular need.
Surrogate broadcasting involved
having people from a region broadcast to their homelands, like the famous BBC
broadcasts to occupied France in which “Frenchmen are speaking to Frenchmen.”
It enjoyed special credibility as a result, and it operated under the principle
of not broadcasting anything that was “inconsistent with US policy.”
That principle was very different
from the one under which the government broadcasters staffed by Americans or
those with green cards operating. They were required to broadcast only that
which was “consistent with US policy,” a distinction that highlights why both
were needed and both were listened to.
Soviet-era listeners turned to the
surrogate broadcasters of RFE/RL in order to hear what they would hear from
their own stations if their countries had been free. They turned to the VOA in
order to learn not only more about the United States but also about what
Washington policies in fact were.
Both were necessary, and both remain
necessary. Unfortunately, in recent years and in the name of saving money, the
distinctions between the two have been blurred, with the allocation of
resources following language lines rather than being divided between surrogates
and national stations. That should be changed and changed now.
Third, the US should increase the
number of non-Russian languages of the Russian Federation in which it
broadcasts. RFE/RL
currently broadcasts to the Russian Federation in Russian, Tatar, Bashkir, and
three languages of the North Caucasus. For obvious reasons, it should be
broadcasting in other non-Russian languages as well.
Among the primary candidates for new
services in this area are the Finno-Ugric peoples of the Middle Volga and the
North and, especially in the current context, the large number of Ukrainians
who have been living in the Far East for more than a century. (The US did
broadcast to this language community briefly in the mid-1980s.)
Such broadcasts like those to the
union republic nations in Soviet times would send a message of hope to these
peoples that they are not forgotten and their aspirations are respected by the
West, even as it sent a message to Moscow that the whole world is watching what
the Russian regime is doing to its own people outside Moscow’s ring road.
Fourth, the US should begin, in
cooperation with the non-Russian countries around Russia currently threatened
by Putin’s aggressive policies, 24/7 television networks in Russian. The last year
has shown how dangerous it can be when Russian speakers in the non-Russian
countries around Russia get their news, information, and ideas from Moscow
broadcasters.
In all too many cases, the
governments of the former Soviet republics and the three formerly occupied
Baltic states have been reluctant for domestic reasons of nation building to
broadcast in Russian. But what that has meant is that Russians and Russian
speakers listen not to national services but to Moscow-supplied ones.
That was a problem even before Putin
began exploiting it for his aggressive purposes. Now, because he is doing so in
Ukraine and elsewhere, it is so serious that at least some of these countries
are changing their approach, and the US in cooperation with them and the EU has
launched special daily programs, with repeats, in Russian for this audience.
That is a start, but it is only a
start. What is needed are channels Russians and Russian speakers in these
countries will turn to for all of their programming needs. It is unfortunately
the case that few will watch Moscow television for entertainment and then switch
to such US programming for news and commentary.
And fifth, because Putin is making
it ever more difficult for normal journalistic activities, the US should
restore a research function for its radios. During the cold war, it was
extremely difficult to get information about many things going on in the USSR;
now, thanks to Putin and his policies, it is once again becoming difficult.
In Soviet times, the US established
at RFE/RL a serious research program. (The author of these lines is proud to
have been associated with that program in 1989-1990.) With the end of communism
and the explosion of news sources, those who oversaw the radios assumed that
journalists could do the job without special research support.
That position was never as
defensible as many thought, but it did lead to a cutback and then the destruction
of this research function. Now, the situation has changed, and a research
effort is needed once again.
No comments:
Post a Comment