Voice of America v. Al Jazeera

[Rex Brynen]

This sort of thinking is hardly exclusive to the Third World. Many supposedly well-educated people in the First World have similarly fixed viewpoints, often about the Third World.

Absolutely.

I would also add that al-Jazeera and the other satellite TV stations in the Middle East are not the "enemy." Certainly, they play to their audience, and their audience is deeply suspicious and bitterly critical of US foreign policy. In this sense, they in the Arab context Arabs what Fox New's ultra patriotism is on the US media scene. But al-Jazeera and others are also a free media, and provide voice for reformers and democrats who were long stifled by authoritarian regimes.

Frankly, it is hard for a US-branded media to make many inroads--the brand has been discredited, the policy is unpopular, and propaganda efforts look like, well, propaganda efforts. The dismal performance of (American) al-Hurra TV and Radio al-Sawa is a case in point.

In my own view the US can do far better by engaging the Middle East media as it exists, and articulating different views on and through it, than trying to compete with it.

[Ken White]

and no one pays much attention to me either...

You said:

Frankly, it is hard for a US-branded media to make many inroads--the brand has been discredited, the policy is unpopular, and propaganda efforts look like, well, propaganda efforts. The dismal performance of (American) al-Hurra TV and Radio al-Sawa is a case in point.

I'd suggest that the pathetic US Media is so very bad that they deserve little attention being paid them -- and that long pre-dates al-Hirra / al-Sawa. It will also unfortunately be true long after no one recalls those two failed efforts

Our numerous errors in the ME over the last 60 years have come home to roost. Lick upon us. The fascinating thing to me is that the Arabists in academia and the government who should have kept us out of most of these messes are in fact those that contributed the most to us being where we are today.

[Tom Odom]

Our numerous errors in the ME over the last 60 years have come home to roost. Lick upon us. The fascinating thing to me is that the Arabists in academia and the government who should have kept us out of most of these messes are in fact those that contributed the most to us being where we are today.

Ken,

While I completely agree our ME policy has been proked up for some time, let's be real. Number one please define the term "Arabist". Do you mean someone targeted toward ME policy? Or someone who speaks Arabic? Or someone who sympathizes with "Arabs," as usually defined by someone who does not?

Second, when has academia been in charge of ME policy? And when have we depended on academia to set said policy?

As for "Arabists" in government keeping us out of trouble, there are similar problems with that thesis. You yourself have said good luck changing the poilticians on current policy regarding US-Israeli relations. I would advise you that one might expect similar luck in changing political policy toward the Saudis, especially with a Republican Administration. The point being that "Arabists" or "Africanists" influence policy within boundaries set by politicians. If they screw it up, they certainly got help in doing so.

Best
Tom

[Rex Brynen]

Second, when has academia been in charge of ME policy? And when have we depended on academia to set said policy?

I agree with Tom, and would go a step further: until recently, it was not unusual for the policy and academic community to do their things in almost complete isolation from each other. Folks in the IC box rarely got out of that box to talk to academic experts. People in State and DoD were too busy on daily issues to have the time or inclination to engage scholars working on the region.

The problem was equally severe on the academic side. In the US ME Studies community, distaste for US policy was so great that many scholars were pleased not to be engaged with policy makers. A great many scholars, moreover, have no real sense of how the policy process operates, or how to engage/influence it. Certainly the reward system in university settings places little value in doing so.

Regarding ME issues, this has changed substantially since 9/11, and the interaction is much more extensive. It is still not what it could be (and it will be interesting to see whether the 2008 Middle East Studies Association annual conference, which will be in DC in November, will involve some policy-academic dialogue, or whether it will continue to be almost entirely academics talking to themselves).

Moreover, whether the two sides really know what they can (and can't) get from each other, and how best to do so, is still a bit of an open question. It requires real strategizing to make it work. Also open for question is, as Tom notes, the actual influence of all this on policy.

[Ken White]

I agree with Tom, and would go a step further: until recently, it was not unusual for the policy and academic community to do their things in almost complete isolation from each other. Folks in the IC box rarely got out of that box to talk to academic experts. People in State and DoD were too busy on daily issues to have the time or inclination to engage scholars working on the region.

were educated by those in the academic community. There were and are people in both communities that truly understand the ME and will look under the table to determine what's going on -- my observation has been that too many in both do not do so.

The problem was equally severe on the academic side. In the US ME Studies community, distaste for US policy was so great that many scholars were pleased not to be engaged with policy makers.

Also true and frankly, I'm not sure who that is an indictment of. Perhaps no one. Regardless, it is a significant problem but I also suggest that some nominal academic experts that make public statements fail to convince me that they really understand the subtleties of ME political machinations. Or the depth of that distaste I mentioned...

Will also ackowledge the politeness that pervades the ME and the zahir / batin phenomenon can be confusing...

I agree with most of the rest of your comment.

...Also open for question is, as Tom notes, the actual influence of all this on policy.

True but I submit the evidence in the public domain is that the actual influence of those to whom I apply the tag in the Intel and Foreign Policy communities while not totally pervasive is indicative of enough influence -- and enough misreading no matter how well intentioned -- to have caused more than one of our many miscues in the region.

That said, it an exceedingly difficult cultural divide to transcend and I fully understand that. That applies to both the Western - ME divide and the Academy - Policy divide...

[John T. Fishel]

so much credit - or blame. I don't know how many times my former students have disappointed me by doing things that I thought I had showed them had backfired in the past. On the other hand, I've talked with other former students - who did things things that followed logically from my courses - only to find that they had other reasons of their own for doing them!

Cheers

JohnT

[Ken White]

People are seeing an attack where none was intended -- or made.

Your point is acknowledged -- more than and I can sure empathize; seen the same thing...

It is just my perception that in the realm of ME studies and expertise in the west in general and in the US in particular, there happen to be a surprising number of practitioners who miss many of the undercurrents -- and I also have said that in that area of the world, that is very easy to understand. I am certainly no expert and don't claim to be. However, I have learned that in that part of the world little is as it seems and there are almost always hidden motives and to us westerners, hidden agendas. One 'interprets' the words and actions from there with considerable caution -- and ideally, very, very slowly. Unless one is overfilled with certitude or has an agenda, that is...

I think it's a given that one can lead a student to water but cannot make him drink. There are others that will find the water on their own; still more that can be lead and will drink. Experts in any realm can and do err.

If that realm entails the true understanding and accurate interpretation of a vastly different culture then the number of truly knowledgeable experts in the field from a given sized pool will be far smaller than will that of truly knowledgeable experts in the field from a similar sized pool of say, civil engineers. Engineering is essentially a science with firm rules.

Interpreting the intent of humans, particularly humans who do not think like you do, is like warfare, it isn't a science -- it's an art. All the education in the world will not help those who aren't artists.

[Ken White]

Ken,

While I completely agree our ME policy has been proked up for some time, let's be real. Number one please define the term "Arabist". Do you mean someone targeted toward ME policy? Or someone who speaks Arabic? Or someone who sympathizes with "Arabs," as usually defined by someone who does not?

I meant those who 'study' Arab culture and the region and who as a result become become at least mildly enamored of the culture and people and who then frequently, in my observation, have a tendency to favor Arab centric policies. They also in my observation do not truly understand the subtlety of Arab political maneuvering and do not seem to understand that what is said in English and what is said in Arabic -- and in private -- are frequently three quite different things. I can cite DS/DS and the 'diplomatic' efforts in the year or two before it, to include listening to what Saddam and Mubarak said as opposed to watching what he did as but one example. Syria's move into Lebanon, encouraged by us, is an earlier one. I won't even go into the total misreading of Arafat.

Long way of saying one who sympathizes, I guess -- though I am not one who does not...

Second, when has academia been in charge of ME policy? And when have we depended on academia to set said policy?

You're kidding, right? They aren't in charge of policy -- but the folks who are were educated in those schools and under those people.

As for "Arabists" in government keeping us out of trouble, there are similar problems with that thesis. You yourself have said good luck changing the poilticians on current policy regarding US-Israeli relations. I would advise you that one might expect similar luck in changing political policy toward the Saudis, especially with a Republican Administration. The point being that "Arabists" or "Africanists" influence policy within boundaries set by politicians. If they screw it up, they certainly got help in doing so.

Best
Tom

We can disagree on much of that. The policy toward the Saudis has been very consistent from FDR forward under Admins from both parties; the Republicans just have more time on station.

I wasn't talking about changing any policies; what I said was the Arabists ""who should have kept us out of most of these messes are in fact those that contributed the most to us being where we are today"" (emphasis added / kw). Many but certainly not all of those Arabists have consistently misinterpreted signals from the ME and operated in some cases under the delusion that the Arabs are like us -- or want to be -- and that they think pretty much like we do. Nothing could be further from the truth. Goes back to the 'rational actor' argument; the Arabs are quite rational actors, more so than we are in many cases and they're certainly generally more moral and honest -- but the rationality is quite different and honesty is very differently perceived in the two cultures. Neither is wrong, they're just different.

That's all I said.

I spent enough time in and did enough travel around the ME almost 40 years ago to know we were roundly despised even then, a borderline laughing stock because of out national naivete and that our media and culture were anathema to many. I was also told by a great many people in several nations that the quality of thought emanating from the US with respect to the ME was dangerously wrong and excessively western-centric. My belief is that any changes in that over the last 40 years have not been for the better. If that is true, then I suggest it sort of makes my case; the very people who should have contributed to keeping us out these pickles sort of inadvertently and with the best of intentions, helped put us in the jar.

[Tom Odom]

spent enough time in and did enough travel around the ME almost 40 years ago to know we were roundly despised even then, a borderline laughing stock because of out national naivete and that our media and culture were anathema to many. I was also told by a great many people in several nations that the quality of thought emanating from the US with respect to the ME was dangerously wrong and excessively western-centric. My belief is that any changes in that over the last 40 years have not been for the better. If that is true, then I suggest it sort of makes my case; the very people who should have contributed to keeping us out these pickles sort of inadvertently and with the best of intentions, helped put us in the jar.

Ken

I would agree that many have the wrong ideas about the Middle East and some of them have been associated with various institutions and branches of the government.

I would not agree that anyone who studies the region becomes what you call an Arabist as in "Arab" sympathizer. Knowledge does not necessarily equate to sympathy.

Tom

[Ron Humphrey]

Ken

I would agree that many have the wrong ideas about the Middle East and some of them have been associated with various institutions and branches of the government.

I would not agree that anyone who studies the region becomes what you call an Arabist as in "Arab" sympathizer. Knowledge does not necessarily equate to sympathy.

Tom

I consider myself an equal opportunity sympathizer.
I feel bad for anyone who isn't me

[Norfolk]

I consider myself an equal opportunity sympathizer.
I feel bad for anyone who isn't me

Then cry a river for me Ron.

Fundamentally, if the mere appearance of Western media or IO efforts inspires more or less general loathing amongst the ME "audience", then any but the most minimal IO efforts on our part are almost certainly a waste of time. Instead, we have to be able to take quiet advantage of what domestic ME media or "IO" efforts by reformers and the like succeed against our more intractable opponents in the region.

We can't make them "like" us (in both senses of "like") no matter what we do; we can, at best, make ourselves useful to them - and we must only make ourselves so when it is useful to us, too. Given the circumstances, when it comes to Western and especially US IO directed towards the ME, less is more.

[Ken White]

I would not agree that anyone who studies the region becomes what you call an Arabist as in "Arab" sympathizer. Knowledge does not necessarily equate to sympathy.

Not 'anyone' -- just some. Thus my caveats in the original in the sub thread that I emphasized above.

My concern is not with those who truly understand the region -- but with those who purport to to do so but in actuality do not and thus, (as I also said) inadvertently give bad advice. They were the ones I targeted.

[George L. Singleton]

Ken,

While I completely agree our ME policy has been proked up for some time, let's be real. Number one please define the term "Arabist". Do you mean someone targeted toward ME policy? Or someone who speaks Arabic? Or someone who sympathizes with "Arabs," as usually defined by someone who does not?

Second, when has academia been in charge of ME policy? And when have we depended on academia to set said policy?

As for "Arabists" in government keeping us out of trouble, there are similar problems with that thesis. You yourself have said good luck changing the poilticians on current policy regarding US-Israeli relations. I would advise you that one might expect similar luck in changing political policy toward the Saudis, especially with a Republican Administration. The point being that "Arabists" or "Africanists" influence policy within boundaries set by politicians. If they screw it up, they certainly got help in doing so.

Best
Tom

Tom:

First, no quotes please as this note above ended with:

__________________

Quote:
History... is-a made at night! Character... is what you are in the dark! We must WORK, while the clock, she's-a ticking!
Dr. Emilio Lizardo, My Minter and Roal Moddle

Secondly, we are dealing in a multi-racial, not all Arab culture and climate in the war on terror. A few examples:

1. Pakistanis in the main are not Arabs.
2. Many Afghans also are not Arabs.
3. Iranians in the main absolutely are not Arabs.

We are also dealing in a clash of Muslim cultures, let alone Muslims vs. the rest of the world so to speak.
a. Sunnis and Shia break down into many subsets.
b. An example of a good and effective, moderate Shia subsect are the followers of the Agha Khan, among whose followers I have friends here in the US and back in Pakistan.
c. In a broad sense democracy is not friend of either radical Islam nor in many cases of undemocratic but more moderate Islamic nation states of broader Islam, as the haves will loose out under a democracy in most cases.

The tornades here seem to be done, at least for now. Power back on for 34,000 of us in our immediate area now. Hence getting back on the Internet, although briefly.

Remember, no quotes and have a good weekend,
George (USAF, Ret.)

[George L. Singleton]

http://www.khyberwatch.com/forums/sh...=Voice+America

IF this link works it takes you to a Sept. 2006 discussion among Pakhtuns inside Pakistan about forthcoming Voice of America TV and related programming which they are looking forward to.

It may not be clear but the article link I posted a few days ago, the article about me in the April 2008 issue of OFFICER MAGAZINE involves MOAA, the Military Officers Association of America, the fourth largest veterans organization/lobby in the US, largest of all officer veterans organization, is helping focus the need to complete implementing the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations to increase funding for and programming/languages beyond Arabic [my pet interest] to fight the long term ideological war against terrorists and terrorism worldwide.

We, and some others in MOAA, think that the focus right now is a combination of Iraq, of course, and Afghanistan and Pakistan.

House and Senate appropriations committee hearings on the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) which is the policy end of Voice of America, are ongoing these days in DC. I am for, obviously more funding and expanded number and types of linguists. You who are opposed have every right to lobby the Congress against while we "for guys and gals" lobby the Congress for more funding and linguists.

The many young Marines, Army troops, Navy (especially SEALS), Air Force and Coast Guard I know direcly and am in contact with are pretty unamiously FOR a better PSYOPS, ie, VOA program, as it helps them help the people where they are now fighting the enemy, who are largely boasted about and of in and by Al Jazeera, which in my view ain't no mom and pop we have a different point of view outfit, it is aimed at our destruction in it's foreign affairsrs reporting and still unique/sole access to Taliban and al Qaida leadership.

[JJackson]

George I do not want to hi-jack David's Afghan thread but parts of your post bought up a VoA related question.

Saudi Wahabbi terrorist version of Islam are funding the madrassahs, the syllibus, and in some cases both the teachers in madrassahs and some of the al Qaida fighters and trainers of Taliban and al Qaida fighters.

&

... except that in Afghanistan Christian missionaries are against the law, even under President Karzai. Go figure that one.

As I understand it a major part of the role of the VoA were to "(3) clearly present the policies of the United States." and spread "Freedom & Democracy" how do you envisage that working in somewhere like Saudi where the US foreign policy interests lead to deafening silence for behaviour which - had it occured in Iran - would probably lead to sanctions. Do you envisage VoA ships blasting calls for democracy, civil rights and evangelical Christian TV through Saudi Jamming?

[Tom Odom]

Tom:

Secondly, we are dealing in a multi-racial, not all Arab culture and climate in the war on terror. A few examples:

1. Pakistanis in the main are not Arabs.
2. Many Afghans also are not Arabs.
3. Iranians in the main absolutely are not Arabs.

We are also dealing in a clash of Muslim cultures, let alone Muslims vs. the rest of the world so to speak.
a. Sunnis and Shia break down into many subsets.
b. An example of a good and effective, moderate Shia subsect are the followers of the Agha Khan, among whose followers I have friends here in the US and back in Pakistan.
c. In a broad sense democracy is not friend of either radical Islam nor in many cases of undemocratic but more moderate Islamic nation states of broader Islam, as the haves will loose out under a democracy in most cases.

George,

As a former Middle East FAO I am well aware of the complexity of the Middle East, George. I have served in Turkey, Sudan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Israel. I served in Gulf War one as the current intel guy for the Army Staff on the Middle East. I lost two friends in Lebanon--one blown up by an IED and another taken hostage and murdered. Don't presume to give me a regional overview based on your time in south Asia.

My comment above was in regard to the term Arabist and how it was laid out and frankly had not a tinkers damn to do with your response.

You have a nice weekend too

Tom US Army Retired

[George L. Singleton]

Tom:

I am always glad to know the background of e-mail website correspondents and article writers.

My time, through and including the Gulf War (I) included and also included years earlier time in: Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon, and Crete. These references took me down to retirement from Reserve in mid-1990s. This is now "dated" experience.

I was wounded in the Rann of Kutch between India and Pakistan in January, 1965, but another story for another day perhaps.

My US Embassy tour while dated, 1963-1965, still keeps me in touch via e-mail with such Pakistani legends as retired Air Chief Marshal Ashgar Khan, who was first head of the Pakistani Air Force, as of today in 2008. He is much older than me, in his 80s, of course. I was the Liaison Officer for our old U-2 and Intel Comm base at Badabar, which is suburban Peshawar.

As a US Civil Service career budget officer with the USPHS and VA, I was able to engineer leave and military leave, minus weekends not counted on short active duty Orders on TDY tours as a reservist to do work for and with old US Readiness Command, which became USSOCOM per the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the late Bill Nichols have been a close personal friend from down here.

Also had the pleasure and opportunity to do short active duty tours during my post active duty reserve life (after the 6 years regular USAF active duty) with FORSCOM, CINCLANT (w/Admiral Kelso, who didn't do it), and other "outfits." NOTE: I was in the paper only Inactive Reserve from late 1967 to Nov. 1971, while recuperating from back/spinal injuries from the Jan. 1965 wounding, where we were "blown up" in a PIA Land Rover in Pakistan, etc, etc.

Volunteered back on active duty the end of 1990 to help run the Desert Storm Airlift as a reserve 06. Worked out of both Charleston and Saudi.

In between all this active and reserve times I spent a few years as an Internaitonal Banking Officer in NYC, covering SW Asia, among other desk assignments as a traveling loan officer.

SUMMARY: In no way do I ever intend knowingly to demean or be rude to anyone's comments unless they are first openly rude to me. I only mean to share how they come across to me, since we until now, knew next to nothing about each other's implied meaning(s).

I am glad to know of your expertese, but my comments differentiating Arabs from non-Arabs were hopefully read by others who didn't know or don't know the difference until now of you intended or implied meaning and could have as easily misunderstood your writing, and mine, for that matter.

Peace toward victory of our ideology of democracy over terrorist tyranny is our common goal.

By the way, you are better read than I am in current tense books about our world situation and war on terrorism. The last book I read, over a year ago, on these topics was THE OSAMA BIN LADEN I KNEW by Peter Bergen. That is because I have been inundated with e-mails from Muslims overseas, as well as here in the US; being invited to write on several Muslim and specificlaly Pakhtun websites, including at two different Pakistani Universities, and other such stuff that eats up one's time when you are also working full time, putting three late in life children through two college degrees each, and doing the normal stuff of a married life. Have now published over 200 letters to Muslim editors and articles (fewer in number by far) in some of same Islamic overseas press.

In the middle of these things over my lifetime I was happy to have made time to co-found and be an early unpaid State Director of the Chuck Colson Prison Ministry for all Alabama and to be for six years on the Alabama Department of Youth Services Board and concurrent Board of Education. I have shared some of the DYS (junvenile jails) experiences with some in Pakistan who are struggling with their slant on juvenile crime seeking constructive ways and means today over there to reform criminal minded and dangerous youth there.

Any comments off line on the LSU and Alabama (my alma mater) football prospects for 2008?

Cheers,
George

[Tom Odom]

SUMMARY: In no way do I ever intend knowingly to demean or be rude to anyone's comments unless they are first openly rude to me. I only mean to share how they come across to me, since we until now, knew next to nothing about each other's implied meaning(s).

I am glad to know of your expertese, but my comments differentiating Arabs from non-Arabs were hopefully read by others who didn't know or don't know the difference until now of you intended or implied meaning and could have as easily misunderstood your writing, and mine, for that matter.

George,

Let me make this clear. If you take my comments on something else and then launch into a lecture on a subject I have spent most of my professional life on, you are being rude because you have not bothered to acertain first what I said and second who I am. My comment on "Arabists" was related to another post and in no way implied that Afghans are Arabs or anything close to the subject. As for my own experience, I am still involved in this fight and by they way I teach cultural affairs to Soldiers as part of it.

As a moderator on here, let me suggest that you read what is written befoire you respond to it and don't use another's post to launch off on a tangent. I try and avoid implied meanings in a forum like this one simply because they do get misinterpreted.

Now I suggest that we cease this exchange.

Tom

[George L. Singleton]

Absolutely.

I would also add that al-Jazeera and the other satellite TV stations in the Middle East are not the "enemy." Certainly, they play to their audience, and their audience is deeply suspicious and bitterly critical of US foreign policy. In this sense, they in the Arab context Arabs what Fox New's ultra patriotism is on the US media scene. But al-Jazeera and others are also a free media, and provide voice for reformers and democrats who were long stifled by authoritarian regimes.

Frankly, it is hard for a US-branded media to make many inroads--the brand has been discredited, the policy is unpopular, and propaganda efforts look like, well, propaganda efforts. The dismal performance of (American) al-Hurra TV and Radio al-Sawa is a case in point.

In my own view the US can do far better by engaging the Middle East media as it exists, and articulating different views on and through it, than trying to compete with it.

While I respect your different opinion, we need our own Voice of America TV and radio broadcasts into Afghanistan and Paksitan, now, not some muddle of untrusthworthy Middle East Arab broadcasts.

Al Jazeera is owned and funded by a UAE Shiek, hardly a "democratic" fellow.
[COLOR="red"]Since 1995, Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani has ruled Qatar, seizing control of the country from his father Khalifa bin Hamad Al Thani while the latter vacationed in Switzerland. Qatar ranks as the ninth richest country in the world per capita.

Qatar served as the headquarters and one of the main launching sites of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. This is noted to be objective in disagreeing with you.

In 2005, a suicide-bombing killed a British teacher at the Doha Players Theatre, shocking a country that had not previously experienced few acts of terrorism.

Afghanistan and the NWFP area of Paksitan, where I served for two years both speak Pashto. The rest of Pakistan depending on the Province involved speak: Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, Saraiki, and Balochi.

The key reason we disagree here is that VOA must be our propaganda arm for the next 100 years in the context of the long term ideological war with radical Islam. VOA is an within the US State Department, our official propaganda organ, VOA, which is why we cannot use local Arab media in lieu of VOA. In this war on terrorism we are mainly fighting an ideological war, extremist, terrorist, to my understanding heretical Islamic jiihadists, but many other Muslims without the balance of VOA in their native dialects are being brought into the terrorist thinking Muslim camp thanks in part to the pro-radical Islam Al Jazeera interviews, coverage, and release of terrorists messages to the world using Al Jazeera as their communications medium.

Too, please note that Paks, Afghans, and Iranians, in the main, are not Arabs and few speak Arabic. Al Jazeera is just now expanding their pro-terrorist broadcasts, TV and radio, into Pakistani dialects and the in common Afghan-NWFP Pashto dialect. We must compete to deal in the long term, 100 years horizon, if not longer, in this religiously based ideological debate.

Here are some illiteracy data on non-Arabic speaking poorest of the poor Muslims of both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Quote: Of 166 million Pakistanis, 46 million are illiterate and depend solely on TV or radio for news, which Al Jazeera, the terrorist network out of the UAE currently provides to them.

Out of a total Afghan population of 37 million, 26.3 million are illiterate. They, too depend on Al Jazeera for news.

Voice of America needs to get correct dialect speaking on 24/7 TV and radio programming into Pakistan and Afghanistan, yesterday.

Here is a bit of the 9/11 Commission Report which due to it's July, 2004 issue date and focus misses the point of non-Arabic speaking hot spots which are belatedly, now, to be fair, identified as Pakistan and Afghanistan, all over again.

PARTIAL QUOTE FROM JULY 2004 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:

Recognizing that Arab and Muslim audiences rely on satellite television and radio, the government has begun some promising initiatives in television and radio broadcasting to the Arab world, Iran, and Afghanistan. These efforts are beginning to reach large audiences. The Broadcasting Board of Governors has asked for much larger resources. It should get them. (Page 377) The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) was established under the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201). The BBG provides oversight and guidance to U.S. non-military international broadcast services, including Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, WORLDNET Television and Film Service, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Sawa, and the Middle East Television Network (METN). Radio Sawa is a region-wide Arabic language radio station that combines western and Arabic popular music with news broadcasts and specialized programming. METN is an Arabic language television station designed to bolster U.S. public diplomacy efforts in the Middle East. See GAO, State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors Expand Post-9/11 Efforts but Challenges Remain , GAO-04-1061T, Aug. 23, 2004. The pending Commerce, Justice, and State Department Appropriations bill, H.R. 4754, FY 2005, provides 65 million for broadcasting in Arabic ($20 million increase over President's request). Contacts: Mark Speight, Assistant General Counsel, IAT; Ernie Jackson, Senior Attorney

And here are some facts about Al Jazeera which on balance do not agree with your postive view that Al Jazeera "isn't all bad." It is against us, against the War on Terrorism, and is the "Voice" of al Qaida and the Taliban to the rest of the world, which I for one don't find either friendly or democratic.

Al Jazeera is a television network headquartered in Doha, Qatar, UAE. The UAE and Pakistan prior to 9/11 were the only two nations in the world to recognize the Taliban governed, al Qaida infested old Afghanistan, lets be clear on these facts.

Initially launched as an Arabic news and current affairs satellite TV channel with the same name, Al Jazeera has since expanded into a network with several outlets, including the Internet and specialty TV channels in multiple languages, and in several regions of the world.

The original Al Jazeera channel's willingness to broadcast dissenting views, including on call-in shows, created controversies in Persian Gulf States. The station gained worldwide attention following the September 11, 2001 attacks, when it broadcast video statements by Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders.[/COLOR]

History

The original Al Jazeera channel was started in 1996 with a US$150 million grant from the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa.

In April 1996, the BBC World Service's Saudi-co-owned Arabic language TV station, faced with censorship demands by the Saudi Arabian government, shut down after two years of operation. Many former BBC World Service staff members joined Al Jazeera, which at the time was not yet on air. The channel began broadcasting in late 1996.

Al Jazeera's availability (via satellite) throughout the Middle East changed the television landscape of the region. Prior to the arrival of Al Jazeera, many Middle Eastern citizens were unable to watch TV channels other than state-censored national TV stations. Al Jazeera introduced a level of freedom of speech on TV that was previously unheard of in many of these countries. Al Jazeera presented controversial views regarding the governments of many Persian Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar; it also presented controversial views about Syria's relationship with Lebanon, and the Egyptian judiciary. Critics accused Al Jazeera of sensationalism in order to increase its audience share.

It wasn't until late 2001 that Al Jazeera achieved worldwide recognition, when it broadcast video statements by al-Qaeda leaders. The original Al Jazeera and today's Al Jazeera are quite different. Today Al Jazeera is clearly pro-terrorist in terms of public relations and communcations as the enabler of recordings, video tapings, and such of key al Qaida terrorists used to broadcast to and threaten the rest of the non-radical Muslim and all other faith systems world.

Funding

Further to the initial US$ 150 million grant from the Emir of Qatar, Al Jazeera had aimed to become self-sufficient through advertising by 2001, but when this failed to occur, the Emir agreed to continue subsidizing it on a year-by-year basis (US$30 million in 2004,according to Arnaud de Borchgrave). Other major sources of income include advertising, cable subscription fees, broadcasting deals with other companies, and sale of footage. In 2000, advertising accounted for 40% of the station's revenue.

Remember the Emir is a potentate for life, hardly a democratic form of government for Qatar.

Thanks for you views and for allowing me mine. Voice of America helped win the Cold War and we need a greatly expanded, better funded VOA in all the right linguistic dialects not in just the short run but for the next 100 years if not longer in our long term ideological war against terroristm and radical Islam.