• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Friendly Fire Paralyzes U.S. Internet Strategy

    Just weeks after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton complained to Congress that America is losing the information war against Al Qaeda, China and Russia, it appears that Clinton’s own State Department is one of the impediments to success.

    For more than 18 months, the State Department has hoarded nearly $30 million, appropriated by Congress for Internet freedom measures across the globe. While that money sits in a State Department bank account, repressive regimes are blocking Internet access and restricting information. China and Russia have even developed their own English-language broadcasts.

    What’s worse is that the State Department is withholding the funding from another government agency that wants to put the money to use immediately. The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which oversees the U.S. international broadcasting complex is also home to a modest Internet freedom staff of experts, who are far more tech savvy than anything the State Department can boast.

    The BBG very much wants a greater share of State Department funding, in large part because its strategic five-year plan calls for moving more of its services to the Internet and away from radio and television. This has already happened to the Russian Service, and the BBG’s 2012 budget request proposes that the Chinese Service follow the Russian model.

    These moves away from radio and television and to the new media have caused intense controversy at Voice of America, as well as on Capitol Hill. The wisdom of this broadcasting strategy is currently being questioned in a series of congressional hearings. Indeed, Clinton herself questioned the strategy in congressional hearings last month, emphasizing the continued importance of traditional media and stating that “We are in an information war, and we are losing that war.” That was a direct and very public criticism of the BBG.

    Yet at the same time, if Internet expertize exists at the BBG, it only stands to reason that the U.S. government ought to capitalize on it for the benefit of cyber dissidents in repressive societies.  The BBG did receive a modest $1.4 million grant from State in August 2010, which it has used to support two proven programs, Ultrareach and Freegate, the latter of which was created by Falun Gong members to circumvent the Great Firewall of China. According to the BBG, those investments have allowed millions to access the Internet since the Tunisian uprising took on speed and spread around North Africa and the Middle East.

    The rift between State and BBG has resulted in inaction. At fault is the U.S. State Department’s Office of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, which is just now moving forward with grants for Internet freedom projects after pressure from Congress. Lawmakers have given the agency nearly $20 million in the past few years for Internet freedom. Another $30 million is at stake in the continuing resolution currently before Congress.

    It is increasingly evident that if the U.S. government is to be effective in advancing freedom in the new media sphere, there has to be a single center or agency within the government that sets policy, controls funding, and coordinates assets — a center or agency for strategic communication. As currently configured, the U.S. government agencies that have a slice of the communications pie too often work at cross purposes in an atmosphere of mutual distrust.

    Washington Post columnist Anne Appelbaum [4] perceptively summed up the paradox at the center of the U.S government’s tangled Internet policy:

    “One part of the U.S. government has anti-censorship technology but no money to expand its use. Another part of the U.S. government has money for anti-censorship technology but hasn’t spent it. The American political system is too dysfunctional, in other words, to create ‘a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas.’”

    Applebaum is spot on in her analysis of the current debacle, but there is a remedy. As many as 15 major organizations — The Heritage Foundation among them — have studied the communications failures of the U.S. government and recommended creating an agency or center for strategic communication. As recommended by Heritage in 2008, such an agency or center would be the heart of U.S. outreach to the world, including public diplomacy policy, Internet freedom, and broadcasting strategy.

    In its absence, the State Department will continue the folly of trying to hoarding scarce funding, and U.S. broadcasting will continue to waste resources on a top-heavy, duplicative structure that ends up shortchanging listeners abroad. So, to Clinton: Yes, we can win this information war, but we need a general in charge to prevent friendly fire incidents, like the one currently unfolding.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Friendly Fire Paralyzes U.S. Internet Strategy

    1. Edite Lynch says:

      There has been a very successful organization in place for many years and fielded by many talented, qualified, experienced people.All this organization requires is the funding and technical assets to do the work. Why this conundrum in trying to change things and truncate VOA when it has worked so effectively for many years around the world, especially Europe. Why are politicians and bureaucratic hacks so intent on changing what is clearly not broken. The lib-leftists are famous for doing just that. Stop it!

    2. LZ, Pennsylvania says:

      The US gov't needs to stop subverting other governments by funding propaganda that does not work and blatantly supporting foreign anti-government groups. Instead, the US gov't should focus its attention more on what it is elected to do, which is improving the lives of everyday Americans at home.

    3. Pingback: ~ JUST IN ~ {Extended} Daily News Digest for Saturday, April 9, 2011 | Just Piper

    4. C. Craig, Washington says:

      Thanks to Helle Dale for presenting this bureaucratic and somewhat technical issue in such an easy to grasp way.

      The issue indeed is not so much related to a strategy to shift from traditional media to internet, but a dire necessity to reach aduiences in closed societies. China and Iran have led efforts in blocking free access to the internet for more than a decade. The BBG engineers have found the best circumvention technologies that are effective in penetrating the authoritarian walls. The State Department funds could be a lifeline for continuing and expanding the capacity of these technologies. Millions of Iranians and Chinese are using the so-called "proxy" systems provided by the BBG to read news and participate in on-line deiscussions about the future of their socities.

      The bureaucratic mind-set is sometimes really sickening and this is one example.

    5. john, NH says:

      This government is so big and incompetent, every day we find out some massive shortcoming perpetrated by our 'public servants'. We cannot believe anything coming out of Washington. Politics, power and money rule the day.

    6. Jim says:

      The BBG shouldn't be given another dime of taxpayer money. Its budget should be halved or quartered at the very least, and it's mission should be pared to telling America's story–not being a third rate CNN, run by 9 nincompoops who have no stake in how well the agency is run.

      People who want to get around Internet firewalls don't our government or any other for that matter to tell them how.

    7. Pingback: State Department Faces Congressional Scrutiny Over Internet Freedom Funding | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.