[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY AND VOICE
OF AMERICA: SOFT POWER AND THE FREE
FLOW OF INFORMATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-24
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-255 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RON PAUL, Texas
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
DIANE E. WATSON, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JOE WILSON, South Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York CONNIE MACK, Florida
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
GENE GREEN, Texas MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
LYNN WOOLSEY, California TED POE, Texas
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
BARBARA LEE, California GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
JIM COSTA, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RON KLEIN, Florida
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Europe
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida, Chairman
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOE WILSON, South Carolina
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York TED POE, Texas
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
JIM COSTA, California
Jonathan Katz, Subcommittee Staff Director
Eric Johnson, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member
Richard Mereu, Republican Professional Staff Member
Mariana Maguire, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Jeffrey Gedmin, Ph.D., President and CEO, Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty........................................................ 7
Mr. Danforth Austin, Director, Voice of America.................. 15
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Jeffrey Gedmin, Ph.D.: Prepared statement........................ 10
Mr. Danforth Austin: Prepared statement.......................... 17
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 44
Hearing minutes.................................................. 45
The Honorable Robert Wexler, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Europe:
Prepared statement............................................. 46
The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California: Prepared statement.................... 48
RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY AND VOICE OF AMERICA: SOFT POWER AND
THE FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Europe,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Wexler
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Wexler. The Europe Subcommittee will come to order.
I want to welcome our two witnesses, Dr. Jeff Gedmin,
President of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, and Dan
Austin, director of Voice of America. We are extremely
fortunate to have two of the most articulate and ardent
supporters of international broadcasting and freedom of the
press testifying on the continued importance of U.S.
international broadcasting, and its role in ensuring the free
flow of information.
While there is certainly a place for constructive and
critical debate in Congress, the administration, the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, and among broadcasters
regarding the role, content, scope, and independence of
international broadcasting, I am convinced U.S. international
broadcasting is an indispensable smart power tool, given the
foreign policy challenges facing the United States, the high
level of anti-Americanism abroad, and a disconcerting decline
in freedom of the press globally.
This hearing comes at a critical time as the world's most
repressive regimes, in places such as Iran, crack down,
suppress, and stifle the freedom of expression by the media.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America are
critical smart power tools that are on the front line of
international broadcasting, providing unfettered information
globally in multiple language and formats, and acting as media
surrogates where freedom of the press does not exist.
I strongly condemn, as I know all of my colleagues do,
censorship and the intimidation of the press in Iran, Russia,
and globally. It is critically important that the United States
support those individuals around the globe seeking access to
news and other forms of information. The Twitter revolution in
Iran, and the Iranian regime's immediate and violent clampdown
on media freedoms, is a reminder that media transparency is one
of the greatest threats to the rule of autocratic regimes.
President Obama has made international broadcasting a top
priority for American foreign policymakers, and it is
imperative that Congress provide additional funding and
resources to give U.S. international broadcasters the tools
they need to ensure the free flow of information. Congress must
also examine closely the export of American technology to other
nations that use technology to monitor and suppress freedom of
expression and press, especially on the Internet.
In 2009, many Americans take media freedom more or less for
granted. RFE/RL provides a voice, as well as an outlet, to
millions of people that would otherwise not have one.
Additionally, despite decades of technological advances, there
are still places globally where the infrastructure to keep
citizens informed is simply not available. VOA and RFE/RL fill
this void by bringing timely, factual information to
populations that otherwise would be kept in the dark.
When I recently visited RFE/RL headquarters in Prague, I
was greatly impressed that its broadcasts have an overwhelming
share of the radio market in Afghanistan. Meeting with RFE's
Afghan service, I learned more about RFE's direct interaction
with its audience, including letters by the bag full, phone
calls, e-mails, cell phone text messages, and even scrolls that
were meticulously crafted and delivered to RFE/RL from
Afghanistan.
As both Mr. Austin and Dr. Gedmin know, international
broadcasting is not without risk. It often involves
broadcasting in conflict zones like Iraq, Iran, and
Afghanistan, where journalists are too often threatened,
attacked and killed. Additionally, VOA and RFE/RL must address
the concerted, round-the-clock effort by some governments to
block the delivery of programming, regardless of the medium or
technology.
Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, should
be commended for promoting freedom of the press and democracy
in an increasingly difficult and dynamic global information
environment. I applaud both of you gentleman for your efforts
and leadership and look forward to hearing your assessments on
whether VOA and RFE/RL are successfully fulfilling your mission
to ``promote freedom and democracy and to enhance understanding
through multimedia communication of accurate, objective,
balanced news, information, and other programming about America
and the world to audiences overseas.''
What I would like to do at this point is give my colleagues
who have so graciously joined us this morning an opportunity to
make opening remarks, if they will. I will reserve Mr.
Gallegly's time, should he be here.
With everyone's indulgence, Mr. Wilson was here bright and
early, so I will ask Mr. Wilson if he would like to begin.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
Chairman Wexler, thank you for your introductory comments.
We may hit a height of bipartisanship today, and that is that I
truly see members here from both parties who truly appreciate
Voice of America, Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Europe. I want
to commend you.
Who would have imagined? Just 20 years ago today, nobody
projected, November 9th, 1989, the collapse of the Berlin Wall
and the liberation of hundreds of millions of people throughout
the world; and I really believe that your efforts and your
predecessors' helped make that possible. I know that was backed
up. President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic has given such
accolades that indeed freedom and democracy were enhanced and
the spirit was kept alive.
And I have seen it firsthand. Last year, I was in Bulgaria
and Romania. Everywhere I went, there were references, from my
first visit to Bulgaria in 1990, references to the fact that
they knew of a better life, a better world, through your
efforts.
It is exciting to me to see the new media opportunities
that you have. I can't wait for you to tell the American
people.
I have had the privilege of being on China Service, where
it was broadcast, television with call-in, and it never
occurred to me that I would be speaking to people from Xian or
Kunming. And my dad served there during World War II with the
Flying Tigers.
So I am so hopeful that people around the world can learn
about our country, but also learn about the benefits of
freedom, democracy and free markets.
So I want to thank you and commend you. And I look forward
to working with Chairman Wexler. This is an amazing
achievement, that we will be working together, all of us. So
thank you very much.
Mr. Wexler. Thank you. That is terrific. Bipartisanship is
always a good thing, generally speaking.
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America, they
are our branding organs for the United States of America
abroad. I often wondered who would have happened, especially
during World War II, if there was no Radio Free Europe. They
were there long before we got CNN and Fox News Channel and all
the cable broadcasts that we have now around the world. It was
Radio Free Europe and it was voice of America that really
shined the light on what America stands for.
We all know the importance of marketing, and certainly we
as politicians have had to brand ourselves through the media,
lest someone else do it for us. And in marketing, in the
marketing world, it becomes necessary from time to time for
rebranding, for engaging in an initiative to change the
public's perception of who and what we are and what we are
trying to sell. And never before in recent history has there
been a more necessary time for rebranding and letting the world
know truly that America is that shining beckon on a hill.
In my opinion, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of
America are, at their core, communications and marketing tools.
Regardless of what they are reporting on or the programs they
run, they are, in essence, selling and branding our Nation,
America. Every day, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice
of America are on the front lines of shaping what the world is
thinking about us.
However, right now, the American brand is damaged. We need
to understand that.
I get around the world often, maybe three or four times a
year, as a member of our NATO Parliamentary Assembly and on
various codels, and the challenge is there. We have and we must
live up to our ideals and also understand that we have got to
repair the damage to our reputation around the world. Critical
to this is Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio
Liberty. We are indeed that shining beckon of democracy and of
freedom, and we must make sure we are perceived as that. It is
time for America to rebrand itself, to be what we know we ought
to be and what we stand for. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
and Voice of America once again are vital to those efforts.
I have been on Voice of America, most recently 2 months ago
or maybe 1 month ago, when I was speaking to all of the people
of China, and I felt real good about that. I worked all night
to prepare myself for that, because China is so vital to our
future as a planet and as an economy.
So I know firsthand the quality of the work that they
produce. I have been on Radio Free Europe as we have discussed
our NATO challenges, and I know firsthand the work that they
are doing in reaching audiences around the world who have
limited exposure to the American experience and western media.
As such, I am strongly in support of their efforts and
encourage my colleagues to support them as well. We need to
ensure that they have the resources, both in terms of personnel
and money, in order to complete their mission; and I assure you
that I stand at the front of the line to help them to receive
these vital resources that they need.
It has never been more vital to us to improve what the
world thinks about us, for we are indeed the leader of the
world, and we will need governmental partners in all of these
nations in our endeavors around the world. That will invariably
mean that these governments will need popular support from
their people. So Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of
America will help us build that support.
When I was in college, there was an African American
reporter by the name of Mal Goode who worked for Voice of
America. And after I talked with him, I said, one day I want to
be on Voice of America. And surely 1 month ago I was, and it
was a great experience.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Wexler. Thank you. That was the most listened-to
program I am sure ever in the history of Voice of America.
Mr. Scott. Certainly in China.
Mr. Wexler. Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think there is no doubt that the neo-Marxist left and the
hard left have done quite a number on the U.S. reputation
around the world, and radical Islamist broadcasts haven't
helped either. No doubt some of our own missteps in foreign
policy have hurt us as well.
But a lot of the broadcasts that you get out of
totalitarian regimes against the U.S., and certainly a lot of
the broadcasts that I listen to, the translations of radical
Islamist broadcast, have to do with issues other than whatever
missteps we have made in foreign policy. And over the years, I
think it has become very, very clear that if we want to
engage--and certainly we did a lot of this during the Cold
War--if we want to engage and set a stage for an outcome where
people really understand and have an opportunity through
surrogate radio to get other information, we have to use
instruments like RFL. We have to use Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty models where we didn't use it.
I carried legislation to broadcast into what is now
formerly Yugoslavia. We were not able to get that up and
running until the bombs were falling on Serbia. I spent years
trying to get it implemented. The former Yugoslavia desk was
opposed. Serb interests were opposed to us doing that. So all
people heard in Yugoslavia was hate radio.
I remember a Croatian journalist with tears in his eyes
saying to me when I was there during the civil war, he said to
me, ``Finally, the radio is up and running.'' But for all of
those years, unlike in Czechoslovakia, people weren't able to
hear the other side of the story. He said, ``In Czechoslovakia,
they split the country by plebiscite without the loss of a
single human life.''
He said, ``I credit that to the ideals that Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty gave people, and the Slovaks and Czechs
were able to work this out, unlike the wars that are raging
here in Yugoslavia, where we are working it out to the death.''
He said, ``One of the great errors you made was in not getting
those broadcasts up and running.''
I also authored the legislation for Radio Free Afghanistan
broadcasts, but we didn't get those up and running until after
Mussaf's death and it became clear to the United States, after
5 years of trying to get it implemented, that it was important
that something offset Sharia broadcasts, the hate radio
broadcasts that the Taliban were running that were funded
through al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic organizations. That
kind of broadcasting is now all over Central Asia.
I carried the legislation to expand Radio Free Asia
broadcasting. Again, it is very disconcerting and one of the
issues we should look at, a U.S. company out of Texas sold the
technology out of China to help them block the broadcasting.
What we have done is on Tinian Island erected the largest
transmitter in the world. We have new methodologies.
But we have got to keep ahead of these regimes, because
repressive governments understand something we take for
granted, and that is that the free flow of information is a
mortal threat to them.
And these stringers that we have on the ground--and, like
Chairman Wexler, I have talked to some of these stringers and
some of these folks that we have at headquarters in Prague, the
risks that they are taking in these countries to get
information out there and what is done in terms of the great
bravery that they show. But the threat under which they operate
shows the amount of thought that we have to apply in terms of
trying to protect them, getting resources deployed and blocking
this jamming as we go forward.
So I am very much cognizant. They say to control
information is to control the battlefield. In Afghanistan, that
is going to be increasingly true because of the amount of
influence that the Gulf states are putting in terms of
resources into the hands of radical Islam in that area.
Fortunately, 70 percent of the Afghans now listen to Radio
Free Afghanistan, but all through that region, people are
listening to Sharia radio still. It is a war of ideas, and you
gentlemen are going to have to be part of the solution to this.
Chairman Wexler, thank you again for this hearing.
Mr. Wexler. Thank you.
Mr. Sires of New Jersey.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Chairman. I want to thank you for
holding this hearing, and I couldn't concur more with my
colleagues on all of the things that have been said here.
I want to thank you on behalf of all those people that
listen to you and listen to the truth.
Two years ago, I took a bipartisan trip to Poland,
Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, and in the discussions that we had
with different people that we met, they sang the praises of the
work that you do and the important role that you played in all
the changes that occur. So I just want to say thank you.
I am looking forward to what you have to say, and I am
looking forward to supporting whatever help you need to make
sure that this continues to be a viable voice for all those
people that cannot hear what the rest of the world is doing.
Thank you.
Mr. Wexler. Thank you.
I want to genuinely thank my colleagues for their unusually
thoughtful remarks this morning, which I think is a great
indicator of the support that your efforts have in a bipartisan
way.
At this point, I would like to read the biographies of our
two witnesses and then go forward with their testimony.
Our first witness is Dr. Jeffrey Gedmin, President and CEO
of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Prior to assuming this role
in 2007, Dr. Gedmin served as the director of the Aspen
Institute in Berlin and prior to that was a resident scholar at
the American Enterprise Institute, as well as executive
director of the New Atlantic Initiative, where he worked with
policymakers, journalists, and businesses to revitalize and
expand Atlantic democracies.
Dr. Gedmin has authored several widely published articles
on U.S. Foreign policy and public diplomacy that have appeared
in leading U.S. and European publications, and authored the
book, ``The Hidden Hand: Gorbachev and the Collapse of East
Germany.''
Dr. Gedmin was also executive editor and producer of the
award winning 1995 PBS television program, The Germans:
Portrait of a New Nation, and co-executive producer of the 207
documentary, Spain's 9/11 and the Challenge of Radical Islam in
Europe.
Dr. Gedmin holds a Ph.D. in German area studies and
linguistics from Georgetown University.
Our second witness is Mr. Dan Austin, director of Voice of
America. Mr. Austin assumed this post in 2006 after a 36-year
career with Dow Jones and Company, where he last served as
chairman and CEO of the company's community media subsidiary.
Mr. Austin also served as vice president for circulation and
director of corporate relations for Dow Jones.
Previously, he worked for the Wall Street Journal,
beginning his career there in 1970 as a staff reporter in the
Dallas bureau. Then, in 1985, he advanced to deputy news editor
in New York and became editor of Wall Street Journal Reports in
1986. Mr. Austin served as Vice President and General Manager
of the Journal and served on the board of its first magazine,
Joint Venture Smart Money.
Mr. Austin served with the U.S. Army in Vietnam and was
decorated with a Bronze Star and an Air Medal for his service.
Gentleman, it is our privilege to have you with us.
Dr. Gedmin, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY GEDMIN, PH.D., PRESIDENT AND CEO, RADIO
FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY
Mr. Gedmin. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thanks to your
colleagues for their very powerful, very eloquent statements.
Mr. Chairman, thanks to you for your initiative and
leadership in convening this meeting this morning. You
mentioned your visit recently to Radio Free Europe's
headquarters in Prague and you kindly praised our Afghan
service and the interaction with the audiences and the bags and
bags of letters we get each week.
Congressman Royce, you know a lot about that. You led on
this from the beginning. You failed to mention that you helped
a little bit, too, and you were kind enough to do an interview
for us that reached those people and took part in that
interaction.
To you, Mr. Chairman, and everybody on the committee, thank
you for holding this meeting, this hearing today, for many
reasons, but one that you might have overlooked, if I may say.
We do have in fact, as you alluded to, have hundreds--and I am
certain I speak for Dan, also--hundreds of people who work for
us, most of whom come from the countries where we broadcast;
and I think that at times they can feel a little bit out-of-
sight, out-of-mind. As your colleague said, they risk a great
deal, and I think this hearing that you convened this morning
is a tribute to them, and I thank you for that. It is deeply
appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, I met recently a young Czech woman who asked
me where I worked, and I told her where, and it didn't ring a
bell with her. She must have been 21, 22, 23.
She said, ``Okay, Radio Free Europe, okay.'' She said,
``What do you do? What does it do?''
I told her a little bit about what we do. Then a light bulb
went on and she said, ``You know, my grandfather after the
Second World War listened to Radio Free Europe,'' and she said,
``I remember him getting so frustrated and angry with the
changes in our country after the Second World War and communism
and dictatorship that he took his radio one day, he put it in
the window, and he started blasting it down to the street
below.'' And the next thing--a true story; as I say, you can't
make this sort of thing up--she said, ``then they came for my
grandfather, took him away, and we never saw him again.'' She
said, ``Now I know what Radio Free Europe is. It didn't ring a
bell at first.''
If you are in my business, you come across these stories
literally all the time and they remind you of some very basic
things. One is the power of free media as an indispensable part
of civil society, of democracy, of freedom.
You and some of your colleagues alluded to the fact that it
was only 20 years ago--I am living in a city, Prague that only
20 years ago was the world of Soviet communism, the Berlin
Wall, Iron Curtain, and it is gone. It is down.
You were there this summer. I don't know how deeply you
think about it when you come, but I know how deeply I think
about it every day when I work there. The Czech Republic is a
member of NATO. The Czech Republic is a member of the European
Union. The Czech Republic is a key ally of the United States on
everything from culture to commerce. Twenty years ago, it was
profoundly different.
You were there this summer, Mr. Wexler. The President of
the United States was there this summer in Prague. The
Secretary of State was in Prague this summer. Vaclav Havel, Mr.
Wilson referred to him, he was with us recently, too. He lives
in Prague.
You can't make this sort of thing up. A man who was a
chain-smoking playwright, who became a leader of a democracy
movement and then President of a free Czech Republic. He came
over to our new building about 3 months ago. He actually ran
for us an editorial meeting where he, President Havel, ex-
President Havel, sat with Afghan colleagues, Iranian
colleagues, Russian colleagues, Bosnian colleagues, Ukrainian
colleagues, and he told them that what they do today is every
bit as important as what we did then.
And he told them, you know, it is not just about news and
information, and we need that, reliable, accurate, honest,
truthful. He told them, Vaclav Havel said this, that RFE/RL
provides intellectual nourishment, moral inspiration, and the
very seeds of civil society and democratic growth and
development.
Mr. Chairman, let me make two points; and then I will
conclude.
I think when people ask me, including Americans when I
travel, including my own family in North Carolina, who ask me,
why does it make sense? What is it? What does it do? Why should
I pay for it as an American taxpayer? I say there are two
things to consider. I am speaking for my company, but I think
Dan Austin broadly would sign on to these things, too, if I may
say.
The first thing is this is a working organization, an
institution of ideals and idealism, and it is in the best of
American traditions. It is bipartisan, it supports American
values, and it supports American values that, as the President
reminds us frequently, are universal.
When I travel to our countries, whether it is Central Asia
or Russia, whether it is the Caucuses, I often meet with
representatives of foreign governments who don't always like
what we do, and they suggest at times that we are out to
propagandize or dictate or impose or manipulate. And I always
say, we don't do that. It is not the mission. It is not the
character. It is not the spirit.
I try, Mr. Chairman, in a non-patronizing way, if I may
say--I always bring this little blue book with me, and when I
sit with that government official of a foreign country, I say,
Mr. Minister, this is the United Nations Declaration on
Universal Human Rights. It is not an American dictate. It is
not an American partisan issue. And article 19 says that every
citizen of this planet should have access to a free flow of
information and ideas, regardless of border and frontiers.
That is all we do. Nothing more, nothing less. It is an
American value. It is a universal value, and it is very
idealistic.
The second point I make is it is idealistic, but we are not
in the charity business. It is not a charity. What we do
supports American interests. It supports enlightened American
interests. And I believe, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, if you
believe in development and democracy--or let me put it another
way, if you believe in combating and fighting things like
nationalism and extremism, if you believe in fighting and
combating things like anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, if
you are an American policymaker, you have to avail yourself of
the full spectrum of policy, opportunities and instruments.
But I don't think you get any traction if you don't
believe, support, and pursue the free flow of information and
ideas, discussion, debate, dissent, no matter what country,
what time, what place.
Let me conclude. The Secretary of State came. You came this
summer. The President of the United States came this summer. We
have the Treasurer, Vaclav Havel, living and visiting us
frequently there in Prague.
The Secretary of State came this summer, and she said this
kind of broadcasting is smart power at its best. And, of
course, we like hearing that. But we think it is true. We think
it is smart power at its best because it is cost-effective and
it actually works.
I am very eager to hear from you about what you are
interested in and what Dan and I do and what our organizations
do, but I will tell you what, the list of examples of how it
works is endless.
It can be profound, like in Afghanistan where a suicide
bomber, a would-be suicide bomber calls up and says, ``I have
had a change of heart. I listened to you. There is another way.
It is an alternative. I want out.''
It can be very simple and practical, and maybe equally
profound, as a program we do in Kiev on maternity options for
health care, or in Ukraine recently there was a study on the
most polluted cities in Ukraine. Well, we are the ones who not
only reported on the report but told our listeners, if you have
kids, how do you care for them? How do you protect them? How do
you address their health concerns if you are living in a
polluted city?
Well, 20 years ago, part of Europe has prospered
tremendously, the Czech Republic. But I don't have to tell you
that the job isn't done. It was 20 years ago that a President
called for a Europe whole and free, and we are about halfway
there. Maybe we are 60 percent there, or 47 percent there.
There is an immense amount to be done. I think we play an
important role. We like to be of service to you. We would like
to be accountable and of service to the American taxpayers.
If I may say, in conclusion, like the countries we
broadcast, Mr. Chairman, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is a
work in progress, and I invite you to help us make it better. I
think we are going to profit from the discussion this morning.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gedmin
follows:]Jeffrey Gedmin.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wexler. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Austin, please.
STATEMENT OF MR. DANFORTH AUSTIN, DIRECTOR, VOICE OF AMERICA
Mr. Austin. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
members of the subcommittee.
I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Voice of
America and the contribution we make to a very fundamental
tenet of our democracy, the free and unfettered flow of
information, opinions and ideas.
I would like to submit rather lengthy testimony for the
record, if that is all right, and then just briefly summarize
in my oral statement here.
Mr. Wexler. Without objection.
Mr. Austin. VOA has been a trusted purveyor of a
quintessentially American style of journalism since 1942 when
our very first broadcast made to Nazi Germany proclaimed this:
``The news may be good, the news may be bad. We shall tell you
the truth.''
Today, the Voice of America is the largest U.S.
international broadcaster, reaching out around the world in 45
languages, distributing news and information by radio, by
television, the Internet, and social media platforms. In fact,
this hearing today is being covered in part through Twitter,
with my colleague behind me here sending tweets to a VOA news
Twitter feed and a VOA Facebook page for redistribution around
the world.
VOA's conventional audience also continues to grow. We have
an estimated 134 million people who now turn to our radio and
television programming every week. Now, I can't tell you that
every one of those 134 million people like America or like
American policies. We do know, however, that they listen to VOA
regularly, they interact with us, and they depend upon us to
sustain their right to accurate, trustworthy news and
information about the world, about their region, about their
nation.
We also know our programs enhance their understanding of
the United States, of our policies, our culture, and our
people. We attract the high numbers of listeners and viewers
that we do by striving to produce programs that, as both the
VOA charter and the U.S. International Broadcasting Act have
it, are consistently reliable and authoritative, as well as
accurate, objective, and comprehensive.
Perhaps more important, by presenting news and information
in this way and to these standards, we achieve a credibility
with our audiences that lets them cut through the din of shrill
propaganda and the fog of misinformation and disinformation
that make up so much of the world's media these days.
Before I talk more about VOA, I would like to take a moment
to salute VOA's 1,300 regular employees and the hundreds more
of VOA stringers and contractors worldwide. It takes people,
often very brave people working in dangerous places, to produce
the reports that form the basis of our 1,500 hours of
broadcasting every week.
The Taliban, to pick one example, are targeting VOA
stringers in Pakistan's northwest frontier province to prevent
us from simply gathering the news. Recently, these militants
looted and then blew up the house of Rahman Bunairee earlier
this month in retaliation for his reporting for the Voice of
America. And in Somalia, where five journalists have been
killed so far this year, VOA stringers are constantly
threatened by Al-Shabab terrorists.
About half of VOA's audience accesses our programming
through television, which in many countries, including places
in the Balkans, Iran, Central Asia, has become the preferred
way of getting news and information. In Iran, for example,
something like 96 percent of the people there say they watch
television daily. Almost 30 percent tell us that they watch
VOA's Persian language television programming every week. In
Albania, some 64 percent watch VOA television in Kosovo alone.
Then, of course, there is Russia, which presents a special
challenge for the Voice of America and indeed for all
international broadcasting. Tightening government control over
television and many print media and radio outlets has cost us
our Russian radio and television affiliates. This has prompted
VOA to redefine our idea of traditional content delivery.
The result: In Russia, we are now a multimedia, Web-based
service produced for a country where Internet usage is growing
rapidly. At a very critical juncture in United States-Russia
relations, this strategy allows audiences to increase their
understanding of American policies, politics and culture and
American views of Russia. It also, frankly, galvanizes
conversation among its audience through utilization of these
so-called Web 2.O tools.
The footprint of this service's efforts can already be seen
in the Russian market, with over 60,000 views per month on
VOA's Russian YouTube site; and indeed some 65 percent of those
YouTube users have given our Russian-service-produced videos a
rating of five stars. That is the highest rating available.
The recent protests in Iran and the turmoil along the
Pakistan-Afghan border are the latest examples of VOA's ability
to use both old media and new media in the furtherance of our
mission. I have got some video highlights I would like to show
you briefly of our multimedia efforts in both of these critical
regions.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Austin. To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
thank the Congress for its support of the Voice of America and
indeed of all of U.S. international broadcasting. We believe
that, dollar for dollar, we are one of the better investments
that the American taxpayer can make. We are all very proud of
our role in bringing light to dark corners and, in the case of
Voice of America, helping millions to see America and Americans
as we truly are.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Austin
follows:]Danforth Austin
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wexler. Thank you to both gentlemen.
I want to thank Mr. Delahunt for joining us and give him an
opportunity before we start the questioning to say a few words,
if he wishes.
Mr. Delahunt. No, thank you.
Mr. Wexler. Okay, even better.
Let me begin then.
Yesterday, Mr. Austin, I was somewhat fascinated when we
had an opportunity to speak and you, just in an organizational
sense, shared with me why it is we have a Radio Free Europe and
a Voice of America. Could you just share with the committee and
the audience why we have both and the two roles that you play
in a complementary fashion?
Mr. Austin. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. Jeff, please
weigh in as well. We very much see our roles as complementary
to each other.
As you mentioned earlier, sir, Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty functions very much as a surrogate media, and that is
to say they function as media would function if media were
allowed to be free in the countries where they operate.
The Voice of America functions more as an international-
news-gathering organization. We report on local events, but we
put them in context of the region and the world, and we also
explain to that world about our country, our policies, our
people and our culture. So we have different but very
complementary roles. If you line up our content on any given
day, you will see that. And we both support and reinforce I
think each other's mission.
Mr. Gedmin. It is hard to be more succinct or eloquent than
that, but I will just reinforce it.
We listen to our audiences very carefully, and we--Dan and
I and our colleagues--hear regularly that they need surrogate
broadcasting. They need information that is about them, that is
reliable and accurate and fair-minded. And that is principally
what we do as a so-called surrogate broadcaster.
I mentioned in the Ukraine quality maternity care or how do
you cope with problems of pollution. It may be a corruption
issue. It may be social affairs, domestic development, a wide
variety of things that they would have if they had their own
free, independent media.
We like to say we are the oxygen of civil society. We
support and we promote all of those good democratic values that
hopefully will mature into institutions and the real habits and
values and behavior of democracy.
But we, too, Mr. Chairman, hear constantly about Dan's work
and Voice of America. CNN is not enough. They want quality,
rich, broad programming that offers a U.S. perspective and
illuminates, gives a window on American society, American
thinking, American culture, American politics, in a serious,
credible, truthful way.
So I do believe that they are distinct, but I am a strong
believer that they are complementary, mutually reinforcing and
both very much needed.
Mr. Wexler. Thank you.
I just want to ask one more specific question, and then I
will turn it over to Mr. Royce.
As both of you I know are very familiar, recently several
quite prominent Central and European leaders, including Lech
Walesa and former Czech President Havel, sent an open letter to
President Obama urging him to reinvest in NATO and
transatlantic nation relations, and to make certain that the
new engagement with Russia does not come at the expense of our
allies in Central and Eastern Europe.
One of the things that struck me in their letter was a
somewhat ominous point of view about the region in terms of the
next 5-10 years with regard to the challenges, the foreign
policy, and domestic policies that those countries face,
particularly as they relate to Russia, and the concern that the
United States was not necessarily as focused as it might need
to be on this region.
Many of the people who signed that letter were in the
vanguard of the democratic, democracy, and human rights
movements in those countries. They were several of the
principals that were responsible for bringing down the Iron
Curtain.
What suggestions might you have in terms of the role of
public diplomacy as, Dr. Gedmin, you very eloquently said, 20
years ago we never could have imagined where the Czech Republic
and countries like the Czech Republic would be today. But in
terms of 5 years from now, 10 years from now, given the fairly
significant challenges that these countries now face in what
may be referred to as the next phase of their evolution, what
role does public diplomacy and international broadcasting play,
particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, and do we have the
resources, do you have the resources, to successfully do what
you think you need to do?
Mr. Gedmin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take the first
crack at that. There is a lot there that you put out.
First of all, if you care about alliances--and we do--and
our principal alliance remains with European democracies for a
variety of reasons. We care about global perspective, but you
can't be soft at the center and then build on the periphery.
You have to be solid at the center, and we are partially solid
at the center.
We said before that in the project of Europe Whole and
Free, we have made enormous progress in two decades, but the
progress is not complete. I learned myself, I have to tell you.
I took this job 2 years and 2 months ago, and when we were
facing very difficult budget pressures, very difficult. You
have to make choices. You have to prioritize. I will be quite
candid with you. I told our board and I told my colleagues in
Prague, if we have to cut, I think we ought to cut Southeastern
Europe and the Balkans, if we have to cut.
But I will tell you, the last 2 years and 2 months have
been an education process for me, and I have listened and I
have learned and I have traveled. I have noted the influence
that Russia is exerting in that region. I have noticed the
influence that Iran from the south is trying to exert in that
region. And we have taken a hard look at new nationalism, anti-
Semitism, extremism.
I concluded, Mr. Chairman, that it would be a big mistake--
so did my board, the Broadcasting Board of Governors--it would
be a big mistake, it would be premature to leave Southeastern
Europe, to leave the Balkans. We are still broadcasting there.
We intend to still broadcast there.
I think, What does one do? One recognizes the strategic
reality of what is done and what is not done, and there is a
lot not done. One looks at letters like the one that you
alluded to from Vaclav Havel and others and sees that when
these things occur and when they are on the rise, extremism,
nationalism, anti-Semitism, you have to do something about it.
Well, you asked practically--I will turn it to Dan in a
moment--what do you do? One thing you do is you show up. You
don't leave. And we are trying to do that.
And, by the way, let me applaud the Vice President of the
United States for an early trip to Belgrade and Kosovo. I was
in Belgrade about 3 weeks ago. Astonishing. All parts of the
political spectrum. It means a lot when the United States shows
up, pays attention, and makes clear that we care about
stability, security, and democracy in the region.
I applaud the Vice President also for going to the Ukraine
and Georgia right after the President went to Russia. Those are
tangible signals and symbols that the United States remains
committed and vested.
The last thing I would like to say is what you don't do,
Mr. Chairman, is you don't fall for false dichotomies that lead
you to a direction or a conclusion that you must either be a
hardheaded realist and care about tough security issues and
commercial relations--and we care about security and we care
about business and commercial ties--you have to be either that
or you are in the human rights business, thoughtful, serious,
its development, democracy. But that is the other end of the
spectrum. They are not mutually exclusive.
That is why you mentioned Russia. Whether it is Russia or
its neighborhood in Eastern Europe, the Caucuses, Central Asia,
I think broadly we need a hardheaded policy that looks at
security and human rights at the same time, business and
commercial relationships, coupled with human rights and rule of
law at the same time. It is, after all, what we did in the Cold
War. We had summits. We had arms control. We talked about a
variety of hardheaded commercial interests. But we never
neglected human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
So show up, stay engaged, and make sure these things are
not mutually exclusive; they are part of one integrated policy.
Mr. Wexler. Thank you.
Mr. Austin. Jeff is absolutely right.
I want to be careful here. We don't engage in the conduct
of foreign policy. We leave that to the professionals at the
State Department and elsewhere. But, having said that, as you
look at these different regions, you find different information
needs that I think both of us are trying very hard to meet.
I think particularly of Russia. As I mentioned, it is
incredibly important to keep a conversation going with the
Russian people. They are at a stage now, especially among
younger people, where they are at once very nationalistic, feel
they are back in the game, et cetera, et cetera, but, on the
other hand, not quite so sure that they are ready to believe
and take in everything that they hear from the Kremlin.
This is a great opportunity for RFE/RL and the Voice of
America to engage in direct dialogue with these people, whether
through call-in shows, whether through the Internet, blogs.
Blogs are a big deal in Russia. But we need to do more of that,
engage and get the conversation going, because otherwise it is
likely to be very one-sided.
In countries such as Ukraine, where RFE/RL has a sizable
radio audience and we have a sizable television audience, we
probably need to adapt our programming to some of these newer
realities, more interactivity, more engagement with audiences,
instead of just we talk, you listen kind of programming. So I
certainly see room for improvement there. But the level of
engagement is absolutely critical.
Mr. Wexler. Thank you.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Thank you.
Mr. Gedmin, the Iranian regime has developed, with the
assistance of European telecommunications companies, a method,
a rather sophisticated one, for controlling and censoring the
Internet. Congressman Sherman and I have introduced legislation
that would prohibit those companies in Europe that were
involved in that process from doing any business with the
United States Government.
Do you think we should apply that same standard to the
business here in the United States that assisted the Beijing
regime in developing counterstrategy to try to block broadcasts
from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty or Radio Free Asia? I
happen to think we should, but I wanted to ask your opinion on
that.
Mr. Gedmin. Thank you, Congressman.
I certainly can't speak for Radio Free Asia, which is a
different company and a sister organization of ours, and they
do equally important work there in the surrogate broadcast
business.
But broadly speaking, as long as you were kind enough to
ask, I will give you my best answer. We do have a problem with
business in the United States in the way it conducts itself
with hostile regimes and undemocratic rulers. And the problem
is not, in my view, that we want to restrict free trade.
Because we believe in markets and believe in free trade. I know
you do. And we believe fundamentally that this kind of
capitalism should be tempered if not by regulations or
sanctions in some instances but, you know, back to democracy,
by values and habits and behaviors. Democracy isn't a
formalistic concept. We have elections. It is democracy. It is
habits, values, and behaviors.
So the first thing--you didn't ask me this--but I would
encourage all of us to engage those business leaders in very
aggressive education about the intended and unintended
consequence of their transactions.
Mr. Royce. I am going to ask you later if you could give us
a list, the chairman and I, of those business executives and
those companies. Because I think Mr. Sherman, and I, and
perhaps Mr. Wexler, would certainly be interested in such a
dialogue with those individuals.
Mr. Gedmin. I would be happy to help and happy to provide
that. Because in the majority--I would like to say I am kind of
an idealistic guy, and in the majority of these instances I
think these are men and women of good will who want to make
money and grow an economy and provide for their employees and
their stockholders. But they may not always know precisely what
happens, both intended and unintended consequences, first of
all.
Second of all, if I may volunteer, European businesses in
particular fall into trouble in these matters and sometimes I
think too distinctly from public policy and values and ethical
obligations.
The last, Congressman, do you think we should apply such
sanctions more broadly? Well, you know, education on the one
hand and then carrots and sticks on the other. We are all human
beings. And whether it is tax policy or sanctions policy,
policies that encourage the right behavior and discourage the
improper behavior I think are always useful.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Dr. Gedmin.
The other question I was going to ask goes to the
competitive landscape out there. I had an opportunity to go to
Afghanistan after the government fell, and I asked the driver
to take me to Radio Free Afghanistan in Kabul. He spoke Dari,
so I ended up at a Radio Free Afghanistan that was actually the
Iranian service. But, since I was there, the driver could speak
Dari, I figured I would go ahead and do a broadcast, because
Shia Muslims were on the receiving end of the Taliban's hatred.
But later I got a chance to meet up with Ali Jalali, who
was the director of our service, and it has become increasingly
clear to me that this is probably one of the least
confrontational methodologies in foreign policy but most
effective, and expanding this further, I believe, across the
globe, especially where radical Islamists are engaged, is very
important.
What I am sharing with you is that Iran clearly is engaged
in this. You might be able to tell us a little bit about
Venezuela and Russia in terms of their engagement.
Lastly, I just wanted to mention that Ambassador Holbrooke
when I was in Pakistan told me about 150 FM radio stations--
actually, he mentioned that here--in the Swat Valley, 150 radio
stations, and he likened them to Radio Mille Colline, the hate
radio in Rwanda, as a major, major gap to be filled. Is that
gap closing? And, again, what can you tell us about the
Venezuelan and Russian broadcasts that are going on?
Mr. Gedmin. I will start, Congressman, and then turn it
over to Dan, who does broadcast to Venezuela and also
broadcasts to Russia and Afghanistan.
First of all, you are right to point out that countries
like Russia and Iran do understand the value of soft power,
smart power, information, and the battle for hearts and minds.
They play and they pay. They are quite serious about their
investment and their networks.
They just opened or started a new FM station, I am told, in
Bosnia, the Iranians did, and it is not pro-American. It is not
for liberal democracy and pluralism and tolerance and all those
things.
I think examples are countless. You are a father of Radio
Free Afghanistan. I think you know more about it than I.
From our service--this is why I support spreading it as
much as possible--the kinds of things that happen on a daily
basis that have positive powerful effects are countless.
One, we had students--I told Congressman Wexler this when
we were in Prague. We had students in Kabul recently call up
our radio station. Very simple. All the things we take for
granted. They were disabled students. They said, next week
there are exams in the university, and there is no handicapped
access, and we don't think it is fair, and we don't know where
to turn.
And then the next moment a minister from the Afghan
Government is on our radio station saying sorry about that. We
will fix that. And the next moment others are on the station
saying, ``But a one-off fix isn't enough.'' We need a debate
about this, about the handicapping and society's responsibility
and government's responsibility.
Sometimes it is a suicide bomber defecting, and sometimes
it is other things we take for granted that are very practical
that have to do with civic-minded journalism and people
learning.
Some of my Afghan colleagues will say, ``Well, this country
is not going to be in your sense, Jeff Gedmin, democratic any
time soon, any period soon.'' But they will adopt values,
habits, and behaviors that support religious tolerance, that
eradicates anti-Americanism, that don't promote extremism. It
flourishes in Afghanistan. It has a grand tradition in that
country, actually. It is not us. We are not dictating or
imposing. It comes from them. It is universal.
In all of these cases, we have tangible benefits. It is
cost efficient, and it works. It has traction. There is a
market for Radio Free Afghanistan, by the way. If there weren't
a market, we wouldn't be there. And Chairman Wexler referred to
this. If they didn't care, we wouldn't get bags and bags and
bags of letters every single week. Poetry, music, lifestyle,
women's rights, religious tolerance. There is a market for it.
The other guys, they pay, they play, they are competitive,
they are present, they adapt, and they co-opt our language.
Radio Free Iran. They don't talk about dictatorship. They talk
about freedom, they talk about democracy, they talk about a
republic, and they know they mean something profoundly
different. It is a very vicious competition.
I think there is a lot we can do, and it is so cost-
efficient. I don't think in any of these areas, Congressman,
anybody will look back 10, 20, or 30 years from now and say,
``You know what, in Pakistan, the Americans really did too much
of this sort of thing.'' I doubt it.
Dan, do you want to expand on that?
Mr. Austin. Well said. Yes.
In areas, say, the Swat Valley in Pakistan with all those
Pashtun speakers, our Dewa radio service, we just expanded it.
We were 6 hours in the evening. We added another 3 hours in the
morning. We are all countering all those Sharia-law FM folks
that literally ride around on the back of Jeeps with
transmitters. It is psychological warfare of the first order.
This is very hard to measure, to do research in areas like
this. But we look at, say, the volume to our call-in shows, and
we get like 300 calls a day, people calling in, cell phones, et
cetera, wanting to comment, ask questions. We have got the
funding now. I think Jeff and his folks are going to join us in
that region, and this again is absolutely a case where you
can't do too much to counter some of these efforts.
In some of the other places, Jeff is right, VOA does
broadcast to Latin America, specifically to Venezuela. I spent
last week actually in Latin America visiting. I was in
Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, El Salvador, just to get a sense of
the market and what was going on.
Clearly the influence of Hugo Chavez is great and growing.
Telesur, which is a network that the Venezuelan Government has
started and is financing, the quality of that network has
improved substantially. I watched it on television in my hotel
room. They are good, and they are getting better. As Jeff says,
it is slick stuff, it really is.
But it is also pretty clear, talking to journalists and
other folks in those other countries, that they are looking
very, very nervously at what is going on in Venezuela. The
folks in Bolivia, the media people there are looking at Morales
folks and saying, ``How much longer before the crackdown comes
to us?'' They have already been accused in their country of
being unpatriotic, and they figure a shutdown cease and desist
order can't be too far behind. We have seen certainly in
Venezuela the crackdown is now extending to local media
outlets, out in the countryside. Globovision, which was the
last big cable operator, basically is out of business down in
that country. So there is absolutely a need for us to step up
our game in that part of the world, for example.
Iran, you know, we were both there. I will say on the
Internet piece of this, especially with Iran, it is interesting
these countries that do jamming of the Web, and we encounter
this all the time, the risk they run, because the Web has
become so integral to everybody's economy, is that they can
shut themselves down, too.
We experienced a lot of jamming of other television
programming in Iran around the recent election. What our
engineers did, and they have a lot of fun doing this, they
simply moved our signal to the state broadcasters so those guys
were jamming themselves.
There are a lot of things that we can do on the Internet
through proxy servers, peer-to-peer devices. We have technology
that, while it can't defeat it, it can certainly combat many of
these efforts, and we are learning every day and trying to
apply that technology.
Mr. Wexler. Thank you.
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let us continue on Iran for a moment, because it will be
very interesting. As civil unrest has increased after the June
12th elections, there has been a crackdown on restrictions of
journalists. They have kicked out British journalists, other
Western journalists.
What measures are you taking to verify that, reports or
videos or photographs that are submitted to Voice of America
and Radio Free Europe following the Iranian Government's
crackdown on foreign journalists and media, and how do you
respond to the criticisms and accusations that the viewers,
users in Iran right not be representative of the population
and, therefore, might not provide an accurate picture of
popular sentiment throughout the country? How do you verify the
truthfulness of what you are receiving in to you?
Mr. Austin. Yes, sir. It is a question that we pay very,
very close attention to. During the height of the unrest, two
blocks west of here in our Cohen Building headquarters, we were
receiving almost a video a minute, it felt like. You are
absolutely right, this is so-called user-generated content,
citizen journalism if you will. It is easy to manipulate. We
had to watch very carefully those videos. We obviously have on
our staff people who have lived in the country, so they can
look at locations, time of day, begin to triangulate is this
real, or was this manufactured. Our technical people were doing
the same thing. We tried to--in the case of really outrageous
statements, until we could get some sort of confirmation, we
would not run them. We watched for the excessive violence.
Mr. Scott. May I ask what would that confirmation be?
Mr. Austin. If we could have a second source, for example,
about a demonstration coming from, say, a wire service; the
Associated Press was still operating there, or other press
even, or someone else. We have people from within the country
that we have dealt with and we know are reliable from past
experience. We would listen to them as well. But it is a matter
of triangulation, and I can't tell you that we aren't in danger
of being manipulated; we just have to guard against that in
this situation.
Mr. Gedmin. Thank you, Congressman.
If I may, that is a particularly intelligent question. I
sign on to everything Dan says.
I came across a report recently. I try to keep an eye on
what is flowing through our Iranian service. As an example, I
came across a report that we aired on Tehran's securities
forces. Intelligence forces had raided a student dormitory at
the university. And we had video and eyewitness accounts that
the security forces were quite violent. They arrested several
dozen people. They damaged a great deal of property. And we had
a quick editorial meeting, and we asked ourselves a question.
It sounded all plausible, but we asked ourselves the question,
do we know for a fact that it is an accurate, current account?
Can we say with certainty that there isn't exaggeration? Three
people were arrested, maybe 8 people arrested, maybe 30 people
arrested. Was there violence?
Dan is right: You look for second sources, you look for
reliable sources, you look for good editorial judgment to see
if it smells right, if it feels right. Then, I may add, you try
to label it, because it is no different from a Snickers bar in
a way, if I may say. There is a consumer there, and they want
truth in advertising and want to know where the ingredients
come from. We try to label it, and use this expression ``user
generated content.'' We try to make our consumer in Iran
understand in this instance this is user-generated content. We
cannot 100 percent reliably verify its accuracy. We think it
sounds, smells and checks out to be right.
Mr. Scott. Let me ask this as my time is winding down. I
want to ask about your budgets. What are you asking for and
what do you need in order to do the job?
Mr. Gedmin. I will be happy to go first, Congressman, and
turn it over to Dan Austin.
We have a Broadcasting Board of Governors that is our
oversight board. They are a Federal agency. They are part of
the President's budget, and they provide for our needs. In my
case we are a grantee of this agency. So I would be happy if we
could refer that question to them, my boss.
But you were kind to ask, so I will give you a broad
answer. We, as a company, Radio Free Europe, have a budget of
just north of $90 million a year. I kept saying I think it is
cost-efficient. Well, $90 million, if you are an American
taxpayer with all this good values, information and interest,
we reached 21 countries from Russia to the Middle East and
about 25 million people. If I may put it in perspective, our
$90 million, the budget of PBS in New York City is about $200
million.
I think it is really cost-effective what we do, if I may
say. And if you ask me broadly speaking what our needs are,
usually it is not very fancy or complicated. Our business is
driven by--this is back to your question, by the way, how do
you get those things right? You make sure you have enough money
to recruit good people, to train good people and to supervise
good people.
Mr. Scott. My time is running out, so I want to make sure,
you are asking for $90 million as a budget.
Mr. Gedmin. That is our current budget.
Mr. Scott. And you are into--reaching into 21 countries?
Mr. Gedmin. That is correct.
Mr. Scott. And Mr. Austin.
Mr. Austin. Yes, sir. We are--the fiscal 2010 budget
request is for $201 million for Voice of America, roughly
double what Jeff is asking for. That is up slightly from the
current level of funding. It does reflect several things: One,
increased programming in some key areas. I mean, Iran, for
example, we just added 2 hours of original television
programming. We are trying to fund that internally. We cannot
do that forever, so we are hopeful that we can put that on a
more sustained basis.
Mr. Scott. In how many countries Voice of America?
Mr. Austin. Forty-five languages, audience of 134 million.
So we are roughly about 27 percent of the Broadcasting Board's
overall budget, and roughly 80 percent or so of the total
audience reached by the BBG.
Mr. Scott. You said 45 languages. Is that 45 countries?
Mr. Austin. No, there are fewer countries than that. We
tend not to look at them as countries, but language groups. But
there are fewer countries than that.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wexler. If I may, the 134 million is that which is
least accurately identifiable. There are countries such as
North Korea and China where it is not necessarily identifiable.
Mr. Austin. That is correct.
Mr. Wexler. And the information which you don't credit with
additional viewership, but information received in a more ad
hoc way. As people leave North Korea and so forth, you get
anecdotal information through interviews. So the number may, in
fact, be quite higher.
Mr. Scott. Yes. And I think it is also good for us to add
that both of these entities are into very difficult, dangerous
areas where you can't measure as much as you should. So thank
you very much.
Mr. Austin. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wexler. No, thank you.
With Mr. Boozman's kind deference, we will go to Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. I will be so kind that I will defer to Mr.
Delahunt.
Mr. Wexler. Too much kindness.
Mr. Delahunt. I appreciate the kindness from both Mr.
Boozman and Mr. Sires. I will be very brief.
If you both could submit the surveys that define your
audiences clearly, and particularly those that you feel are
accurate. I would like to have an opportunity to review the
methodology, to know what your target audiences are, your
listenership, if you will. I think that is important.
It is my belief that our strength here in this country is
focused on dissent. Oftentimes one could attend a congressional
hearing and hear and observe vigorous debate on significant
issues. We do have a certain capacity, although at times it is
suppressed, for self-criticism.
You know, we are at a disadvantage on this panel because
obviously we don't hear your programming. Does there exist
independent assessments and appraisals of your programming,
whether it be the GAO or other groups? If you could be very
brief in your answers.
Mr. Austin. The brief answer is yes. Yes, sir, we do. The
Inspector General's Office, it is part of their usual routine
rotation, will inspect our language services, for example.
There is an internal but separate program review.
Mr. Delahunt. Any outside groups?
Mr. Austin. We have had GAO look at us and OIG. Outside the
Federal Government, no, not that I am aware of.
Mr. Delahunt. Okay. And I presume the same thing is true in
terms of Radio Free Europe.
Mr. Gedmin. Congressman, it is the same formula. And I
think the more of this, the better. This is a tough business.
As you suggested, we are broadcasting to closed, difficult
societies in the main, and we are working with journalists who
come from these countries who have their own----
Mr. Delahunt. And I understand all of that. My question is
you have those surveys. I would particularly appreciate the
opportunity to review those surveys, those assessments,
particularly the ones that would tend to be critical, because I
think we can learn from that in terms of fulfilling our
obligation to conduct oversight.
Mr. Gedmin. Let me simply specifically add this point,
nothing to what Dan said, but both of us regularly on an ad hoc
basis reach out to the best and brightest in the editorial and
scholarly world to get them to jump in and write a paper, or
conduct a discussion, or do a little postmortem on what we have
done, and we can make them available to you also.
Mr. Delahunt. I appreciate that. I am sure you do, and I am
sure it does assist you in terms of your mission.
I guess this would be to Mr. Austin. We have received now
in the past week several reports coming from a variety of
groups dealing with Honduras, Reporters without Borders,
various groups saying that there is a serious suppression of
the media in Honduras in the aftermath of the coup. What are
you hearing from the VOA in terms of, and is the VOA responding
to that particular crisis, that situation?
Mr. Austin. Yes, we do broadcast in the region. Last week
was in Central America speaking with a number--I was next door
in El Salvador and speaking with a number of journalists from
San Salvador who had gone into Honduras.
Mr. Delahunt. And what are they reporting?
Mr. Austin. They were reporting a lot of crackdowns,
suppression. Being Salvadorans, they were somewhat proud of
themselves for being much better, in a much freer society than
their next door neighbors had, and actually credited
themselves.
Mr. Delahunt. But by their assessment there is significant
suppression of the media by the so-called de facto government.
Mr. Austin. They were very specific. There was suppression
of the media, but a lot of self-censorship of the media. The
media in Honduras is apparently not anything close to
developed. It has either been in the pocket of one special
interest or another, either worked overtly for the government,
or was in the pocket of some opposition group.
Mr. Delahunt. So you would conclude it is a serious issue
at this point?
Mr. Austin. Yes, sir, I would.
Mr. Delahunt. Let me ask you just one final question in
terms of the programming. Do you, as a matter of course,
report--again, this goes back to my initial observation--do you
report on dissent here in the United States on issues that
obviously impact the opinion of the rest of the world regarding
the United States, the war in Iraq, for example, or what we do
in Afghanistan, or our policy? Do you underscore the fact
that--I think it was stated earlier, I don't know which one of
you said it, about the American view. Well, the reality is
there are multiple American views. And I think that is what we
should, and this is only a personal opinion, want to convey to
the rest of the world, that a viable democracy means that we
can have profound disagreements on a particular policy.
Mr. Austin. Sir, I couldn't agree more. I mean, fundamental
to our programming is credibility with our audience. People
around the world know propaganda when they see it. We do not do
propaganda. We do report on debate and dissent. We are required
by law--if you look at that VOA charter, it is a public law--we
are required by law to practice good journalism. As a
journalist who comes out of the private sector, I find it a tad
ironic, but it actually works.
But yes, dissent, disagreement. People around the world,
that is what they find so engaging about this country, that
people can dissent. They can lose an election and still stand
up and say things and not be carted off to the hoosegow,
absolutely.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you very much. I yield back, and I
thank the gentleman from New Jersey as well as the gentleman
from Arkansas for their kindness.
Mr. Wexler. Thank you.
I guess at this point we will go to Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yesterday we had a number of scholars and a number of
individuals who testified about Iran. And one of the comments
that they initially brought up said in Iran BBC was listened to
a great deal, and again were somewhat critical of the efforts
that we were making. So I would like for you to comment on that
a little bit.
I know you mentioned money and resources and things. I
guess I would just like to know where you think we are going
with that.
The other thing that they mentioned was that one of the
problems they might see is that with it being headquartered, I
think they said, in Budapest; is that right?
Mr. Gedmin. We are in Prague.
Mr. Boozman. In Prague, I am sorry.
With a section like Iran being headquartered there, that
they were maybe a little bit more subject to intimidation, some
of your broadcasters, in the sense that that society is--you
know, it is a lot more cosmopolitan, and there is a lot more
coming and going; that it might be more difficult with some of
your broadcasters either being threatened subtly or indirectly
or whatever, that maybe they weren't as aggressive as they
ought to be. So their recommendation was that we ought to think
about maybe pulling some of that back here so that you could be
more aggressive in this society versus that society.
So can you comment on those things for me?
Mr. Gedmin. Congressman, I am happy to start.
First of all, I think there is a need for BBC and Voice of
America and our brand in Iran, it is called Radio Farda, and I
think they all play complementary roles. I think in each case
you could probably quibble about this program or that, and if
anybody raised specific questions about our programming, I
would be happy to address them specifically.
I will just take up the one. Our whole headquarters is in
Prague for reasons of history. After the Cold War we moved from
Munich to Prague because Vaclav Havel invited Bill Clinton to
move us.
It is true that the Iranian regime is quite talented and
tenacious in finding ways to intimidate people, and they do
that to our journalists. And we are, in fact, moving some of
our colleagues here to Washington. I would be happy to engage
you off line any time on the pros and cons of moving them all
to Washington. There are about 40 of them. If we did that, of
course, they would disconnect from the larger company and their
colleagues, and there may be some advantages, and there may be
some disadvantages, but it is a thoughtful remark.
Mr. Austin. Right. The VOA Persian News Network, as we
style it, is headquartered here in Washington. We have a total
of about 200 people, part-time contractors and full-time
employees, and we are broadcasting 8 hours of live television a
day into the country. So it is a substantial presence. I think
it is costing the government around $16-17 million a year to do
that.
Our British friends just started their television effort
back, I believe, in March of this year. They are spending
roughly twice what we are. The BBC has wonderful production
values. There is no doubt about it.
It remains to be seen how we are doing competitively. We
know from our previous research that we had about a 30-percent
market share in Iran. Now a commercial network would kill for
numbers like that, believe me, believe me. We did some flash
research in the turmoil past the election. These results are
not projectable to the entire country, so I want to be very
careful here, but the indication we got was about half of the
people that we did survey were using VOA television as a means
of getting their information. Now, we know that the BBC was up
there as well, and they are our competitor, and I absolutely
agree with Jeff, the more, the merrier. The more voices you
have, the people of Iran will be the ones who benefit, and that
really is the idea.
Mr. Boozman. You know, Dan, you actually had me come over
and do a live show. If that is something you have not done, Mr.
Chairman, you will enjoy, and the rest of the panel. But I was
very impressed by that. I thought the call-ins and e-mails were
very good, and, again, the ability for the in sync translation,
all those kind of things. So I would encourage the committee,
with your group being so close, that that is something these
guys might enjoy doing.
Mr. Austin. Congressman, thank you. It is great when we can
get Members of Congress to go on the call-in shows. You have an
opportunity. You did it with China, I think. You can do it with
Iran and other parts of the world where you can actually engage
in dialogue directly with the people. We hold that out
obviously to Members and to people in the administration when
they can do it. It is a great way to keep that conversation
going.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you.
Mr. Gedmin. Mr. Chairman, may I have 30 seconds?
Now, Dan Austin is my friend, and we are complimentary and
reinforcing, but we have to have a little competition here. You
can't only go over to the Cohen Building and do Voice of
America. Now, we may be in Prague, but we have teleconferencing
equipment, and you can appear on our program any time of day.
I just want to mention as a footnote that these Iranians
who work for us in Prague, who are subject to intimidation,
they do a great job. And I tell you two things. Where not so
long ago the Government of Iran had fuel rationing, and these
long lines at gas stations sprouted up everywhere, we had quiet
freelancers inside of the country who would go to the gas lines
and stick a microphone under people's noses and say, what are
you doing here, what is this all about? One guy said, I don't
know, because we are an energy-rich country, and I'm waiting 5
hours for gas for my car, and my Government is giving my tax
money to Hezbollah.
I tell you recently when the Government of Iran or in
Tehran decided that it would be illegal to have pet dogs walked
in parks because it was not consistent with the ruler's version
of Islam, we did a report on that. We were the only one. And
all of sudden we found out very quickly from our audiences that
it wasn't just pet owners who were upset, the police in Tehran
were upset that they had to enforce these foolish laws.
So just parenthetically, our guys in Prague who are
subjected to these threats and blackmail, they do some pretty
courageous work.
Mr. Wexler. Thank you.
Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. Yes, thank you very much for being here.
How do you determine--I know you talked a little bit about
it--how much penetration do you have into a country? They are
always saying they are trying to block you, that they make all
these efforts, the intimidation, but how do you really measure
or determine how much you get into that country? Is there such
a measuring device?
Mr. Austin. Yes, sir, and it does vary. I think, as we
mentioned earlier, in the case of North Korea, which is very
difficult, the only way we get any information about listening
habits is by interviewing people who come out of North Korea
into China. Sometimes there is a business relationship there,
so these are people who are coming out and going back in. Other
times it is people who are defecting. It is not reliable or
projectable, but it is the only intelligence that we can get.
In other places, however, including Iran, where you have a
number of people who have telephones and all that sort of
stuff, we do conventional survey techniques, random samples. We
will back that up with qualitative research where we will get
focus groups, if you will, of people to comment on specific
programs. We will use outside experts to do the same thing.
But in terms of projecting the audience, it does vary. We
do contract with an outside, third-party research firm,
InterMedia, which, by the way, does research for RFE/RL, but it
also does research for other international broadcasters. So
they have an arm's-length and professional approach.
Again, we do understand the difficulty of extracting
meaningful information from some of these societies. It is
easier in some places than others. I wish I had a one-size-
fits-all answer, but I don't, sir.
Mr. Sires. The reason I ask that question is because Radio
Marti, you know, there is always the big question here of the
funding of Radio Marti. The only reason I know there is
penetration is because every time I have been on the radio,
sooner or later in the next week or so I am touted as a
terrorist in the papers.
So, you know, it is always the question of how much
penetration you do get to these countries. What technologies
are you using to sidestep that? Are you constantly looking into
that or----
Mr. Austin. Yes, sir, we are. I think in the case you
mentioned, Cuba, the Martis, this is a classic example. We have
done telephone research in Cuba. The difficulty is only about
12 percent of the population have telephones. And the people
who tend to have telephones tend to be associated with
government. So that doesn't necessarily give you a lot of
reliable data.
We also interview people who are coming out of the island
in Miami. We worked out an arrangement with the immigration
folks where they will let us administer surveys about did you
listen to Radio Marti or see TV Marti. So that helps us a
little bit, but that is not projectable to the population
either.
In terms of overcoming efforts to censor us, we are jammed
in Cuba, no doubt about it. We take different methods to
overcome----
Mr. Sires. I would assume Venezuela is doing the same
thing.
Mr. Austin. Venezuela is starting to. They are not actively
jamming us yet. What they are doing is taking control over the
means of the distribution of most media, and they are trying to
work it that way. I am not aware of them actively jamming some
of our short-wave signals, for example, yet. They could; they
have the capability to do that. Typically the way we respond is
by increasing the number of frequencies.
Jamming is very expensive, the North Koreans are bedeviled
by it because it is very fuel- and oil-intensive to run those
jamming transmitters, for example.
Satellite distribution is an issue, again, with Iran, where
we were jammed first on the ground. They literally sent trucks
with microwave equipment through neighborhoods, which is very
dangerous if you were living in those neighborhoods to get
microwaved like that, the so-called downlink jamming, which
again we combatted by changing directional signals.
They then began jamming us at the satellite source, which
is a much more serious offense. This got the interest of our
Space Command folks out in Colorado; you know, the guys who
only talk in first names and all that. What we did there was
simply add the number of satellites that we were using to reach
Iran. Eventually they backed down from that. But it is a spy-
versus-spy, cat-and-mouse kind of game in these places.
Mr. Sires. And of the money that you requested, are you
going to increase funding for your efforts in South America and
Central America to combat the obvious Chavez influence?
Mr. Austin. We would very much like to do that. Where we
are in Latin America, I think, is reexamining all of our
current programming. I am frankly not satisfied with what we
are doing now, but before I go ask the taxpayers for more
money, I want to make sure we have a really good plan to
address a changing media situation there.
Mr. Sires. It seems already Chavez is already ahead of us
in terms of promoting his version.
Mr. Austin. Absolutely. This Telesur operation of his, as I
mentioned, is really quite impressive and has come out of
nowhere in a relatively short amount of time.
Mr. Sires. And what are we doing to combat that with the
resources that we have?
Mr. Austin. With the resources that we have, I think we are
trying to--and one of the things we are asking for in the 2010
budget is some prototype money to come up with new television
approaches to that market which would be much more significant
than the efforts we are making now.
Mr. Sires. And TV Marti has the same problem, I assume, as
Radio Marti.
Mr. Austin. Yes, the same difficulty in terms of jamming.
The Cuban Government doesn't like either one of them. We know
they are listened to because the Cuban Government constantly
complains to the ITU. This is the international group that
regulates frequencies. They are always complaining that we are
interfering with their broadcast.
Mr. Sires. There was an issue of a plane that they used to
direct television into Cuba. That was more effective?
Mr. Austin. Yes, sir, it was. We did have basically a
balloon that we put up and broadcast from that balloon, but it
was stationary and very easy to jam. The aircraft, a Lockheed
1, which is able to broadcast, I think, over UHF and VHF
channels, flies in a pattern, it is like a lazy 8, but in U.S.
waters, but makes it very difficult for the Cubans to at any
one time completely jam that broadcast.
Mr. Sires. The reason I ask is because I just had a
relative come over, and I was shocked to tell how much she knew
about Obama, which was shocking to me.
Mr. Austin. That is great.
Mr. Sires. Thank you. You do a great job. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Austin. Thank you.
Mr. Wexler. Thank you Mr. Sires.
I would like to follow up with two points, given the
conversation with Mr. Sires in terms of the satellite issue. My
understanding over the July 4th weekend, there were reports of
cyber attacks on a number of U.S. Government computer
operations, including the VOA, and that the government seemed
to have the capability to respond fairly quickly. And I would
inquire of both of you gentlemen, how prevalent are these cyber
attacks on your particular facilities? And do you have the
capability as you understand it to respond as well as you would
like? And if not, what do we need to help you?
And second on a totally different note, the GOA and others
have reported in a very extensive fashion the problem of anti-
Americanism or the phenomenon of anti-Americanism and its
impact one way or another on U.S. Foreign policy, its impact on
American economic interests, the ability of our military to
pursue its goals most effectively, and also the security of
individual Americans as they travel around the world.
I was wondering if in the context of international
broadcasting, if you could give us a sense in terms of what the
Obama administration is seeking to do in this regard. Do you
see any impacts in terms of the first 6 months of the
administration? Are we making any headway? Any thoughts that
you may have in this regard?
Mr. Austin. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Let me address the
cyber attacks issue first, if I may.
Yes, over that holiday weekend we were hit by a really
substantial denial-of-service attack. We encounter cyber
attacks all the time as a daily occurrence. This was a whole
order of magnitude different from anything we have experienced.
It took us down for a good 3 or 4 hours on Sunday, that is
Sunday, until we figured out where this might be coming from.
We determined it was Korea, and we did sort of cut off Korea
and isolate that part of the system so that our users in that
part of the world were without VOA; they would either get an
error message when they went onto our Web site, or they would
get old material. But we quickly--because we were able to
isolate that, we continued service to the rest of our worldwide
audience.
We have our countermeasure which we put into place which
was basically to spread our servers content over 28,000
different servers operated by a contractor that we use, and
that makes it very, very difficult for one of these distributed
denial-of-service attacks to be sustained.
Did we learn something from the experience? We did. We need
to be better at predicting early on what is going on, and we
need to be able to respond more quickly. We will never
successfully--don't say ``never''; I am not an electrical
engineer--but everything I have been told, we will never be
able to prevent a cyber attack from happening, but we can
offset it and do a better job than we have been doing in that
regard. But that is a reality in this digital age that we are
going to have to live with.
I wanted to say one thing about the impact, the second
question about the impact of some of the things the Obama
administration is doing, and Jeff can certainly weigh in on
that. The President has been on the road giving some very
successful and important, I think, addresses, talking to the
Russians, Rome at the G-8, Ghana in Africa. We have been aware
of the White House efforts to use new media in those addresses
to connect with those audiences. We are aware of them because
we do it ourselves and obviously want to broadcast and talk to
our audiences about that as well.
I have to say, from our observation, they are learning that
they have been, I think, pretty successful in really beginning
to take advantage of that, and that does reach, by definition,
most younger people, and if that is your target audience, that
is an important group to get after.
Mr. Wexler. Thank you.
Mr. Gedmin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't mean to be so positive, but first I agree with
everything Dan Austin said, as always.
To the cyber attacks, we experienced a very significant
cyber attack last year, a serious disabling one, and we got
tremendous support from colleagues in Washington, from Dan at
VOA, from the Defense Department, and, if I may add, from the
tiny democratic nation of Estonia, a Baltic country, because
they were a victim several years ago and decided to become
experts on this, and they are experts. If I may say, I think
they were kind of pleased that big-shot Americans would come to
Estonia and say, we need your help. But they certainly provided
it. And the President of the country, Tom Ilves is President,
is a former Radio Free Europe reporter.
You know better than I, it is a very complex subject, if I
may say, and we have had anti-Americanism since the founding of
this country. It comes in all varieties. One of Germany's great
poets, 19th century posts, Heinrich Heine, penned a number of
lyrics that were terribly anti-American, before George W. Bush,
before the Cold War, in the 19th century.
But to your very specific question, two points. The message
is important from the U.S. perspective, but so is the
messenger. And don't think there is any doubt that the American
President, whether you are Republican or Democrat--there isn't
any doubt that because of his intellect and his emotional
intelligence and his charisma as a messenger, it helps, I
believe that. But I also believe that will only carry us so
far, and that will not be a solution, and 2 and 3 years into
this administration, I think we are going to still be grappling
with real anti-Americanism both in Europe, where we have
allies, and especially in developing countries as well. So I
think it is a good start, but I don't think it is going to be
enough.
Mr. Wexler. As you can tell from the bells, a whole series
of votes have been called. As far as I am concerned, perfect
timing. You gentlemen have provided, I think, an extraordinary
forum this morning. I am deeply grateful, Dr. Gedmin and Mr.
Austin, for all that you do 365 days a year, but especially
that you took your time this morning to share what your
respective organizations do year in and year out. I am deeply
grateful. I think we have done your audiences and our missions
and your missions some good this morning, and I thank you very
much.
Mr. Austin. Thank you.
Mr. Gedmin. Thank you.
Mr. Wexler. We are at this point adjourned. Thank you very
much.
[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record Notice.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wexler statement
Gallegly statement
__________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
