|
|
|
Pundits Tesify: Is New US Aid Czar Sought? In late May, rumors abounded that a new post-Soviet aid czar was about to be appointed in Washington, replacing Ambassador Thomas W. Simons Jr., Coordinator of US Assistance to the New Independent States. According to the Wall Street Journal, May 27, Simons has been told he would be replaced because of legislative concern that aid to the former Soviet Union has been poorly managed. In the meantime, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and Thomas A. Dine, Assistant Administrator, Europe and the New Independent States, USIA, testified on May 10, before the House Appropiations sub-committee on foreign operations, export financing and related programs. The testimony was bareboned and straightforward. Few complexities of providing assistance in the development of democracy were explored. In the area of media, the main program cited was the grant to Internews to build a network of news broadcasts “that have reached more than 70 million people.” The hearings have been interesting for the statement from the private sector consultants and advisors. The tone was something of the usual pitchman’s spiel: you’ve got trouble, right here in River City. The medicine you’re prescribing doesn’t work. And I’ve got the solution. The “trouble,” according to the testimony, is that the press is being “held hostage” to “outside financial bosses” (banks and businesses trying to gain influence); self-censorship is the rule, not the exception. “Publishers are on the take,” and in Moscow, “not one knowledgeable person . . . claimed that there is press freedom.” Maybe Russians can say this about themselves, but some humility is necessary before parachuting experts from the United States make the same claims. Those with a better way also have a heavy dose of suspicion for most of the U.S. assistance programs. The need for the advisers to be persuasive takes a familiar rhetorical turn. The consultant du jour sees his or her ideas as a breakthrough while what other people do is inferior or not well thought out. The person testifying sees the need for independent media. Others, apparently don’t. Competitors seem to be “imposing their ideas.” The witness, for some reason, though he seems to have strong views, is immune from this criticism. This familiar approach is bothersome not for its identification of real problems. There is trouble in River City. It’s also true that the U.S. aid agencies are still searching to determine what is an effective way for one government to enhance an independent press in another country. Everyone is seeking to obtain better solutions to intractable circumstances. |
Last Updated: 11/20/99 |
|
© 1999 Post-Soviet Media Law &
Policy Newsletter |
