From: Stewart_William_C@bns.att.com
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:50:07 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Radio-Free Europe
Message-ID: <H000029c016de63e@MHS>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Fortunately, the net is harder to jam than radio.
Esther Dyson's new book has a good line about how the Net is a
breeding-ground
for conspiracies, but television is better-suited for propaganda.

=======================================================================
Copyright 1997 Times Mirror Company
Los Angeles Times
December  3, 1997, Wednesday, Home Edition
Part A; Page 5; National Desk

INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK;
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE;
U.N. Hate-Radio Jamming Would Send Wrong Signal

JIM MANN

WASHINGTON -- In foreign policy, sometimes the noblest of intentions
leads
to lousy ideas.

   That's certainly the case with the recent curious proposal for a
special United Nations "jam squad"--a special U.N. team that could be
hurriedly dispatched to crisis points around the world carrying
equipment
to jam, or block, harmful radio and TV broadcasts.

   Writing in the current issue of "Foreign Affairs" magazine, Jamie M.
Metzl, a former United Nations human rights officer, proposes the
creation
of what would officially be called an "independent information
intervention unit" at the U.N.

   Its goal, he writes, would be "countering dangerous messages that
incite people to violence." A U.N. unit could monitor local news media
to
see where crises might erupt, air its own messages of peace and, where
necessary, prevent other radio or TV broadcasts from being heard.

   The idea for the U.N. jam squad originated in the genocidal horrors
of
Rwanda. In 1994, the country's main radio station, the Radio-Television
Libre des Milles Collines, then controlled by Hutu extremists, began
broadcasting hate messages targeting members of the rival tribe, the
Tutsis, and moderate Hutus.

   The Rwanda station even broadcast lists of enemies to be hunted down.
"Take your spears, clubs, guns, swords, stones, everything, sharpen
them,
jack them, those enemies, those cockroaches," the station urged
listeners.
The result was one of the world's worst blood baths, in which more than
500,000 unarmed Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered.

   This was, certainly, as compelling a case for jamming as you can get.
And Metzl has one cogent argument on behalf of his proposal: When
there's
an ethnic conflict in a place like Rwanda, sending in a United Nations
jamming team would be considerably easier and less costly than sending
in
troops.

   "I think it's a worthy idea," says Rep. Edward R. Royce
(R-Fullerton),
chairman of the House International Relations subcommittee on Africa.
"I'm
sure we would try to go out and jam in Rwanda if those circumstances
came
up again."

   Indeed, the United States and its allies are conducting a somewhat
similar operation in Bosnia.  Two months ago, NATO troops seized and
effectively shut down a station run by hard-line Bosnian Serb forces
after
the station broadcast inflammatory attacks on NATO forces trying to keep
the peace there.

   But it's a long step to go from these situations to the creation of a
permanent, formal unit run by the United Nations and scouring the world
in

search of radio broadcasts to jam.

   Who would determine exactly what kinds of radio programs should be
blocked and which programs could be aired? What would ensure that the
jamming decisions were not motivated by politics? Wouldn't the creation
of
such a United Nations operation strengthen the hand of governments that
want to jam radio transmissions for much less noble reasons?

   "This opens up a Pandora's box, really," says Richard Richter, the
director of Radio Free Asia, the federally funded station that
broadcasts
into Asian countries with repressive governments. "You'd have China
claiming that we American broadcasts should be jammed by the United
Nations."

   Ultimately, a U.N. jamming squad would give official sanction to
restrictions on the free flow of information. Metzl's article has a
response to this problem, but it's a weak one.

   "During the Cold War, when the United States faced a Soviet adversary
intent on jamming the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe . . . , it
made sense for the United States to promote an absolute standard for the
free flow of information," he wrote. "Now, a more nuanced view should be
possible."

   But that's precisely backward: The free flow of information wasn't
merely a temporary means to winning the Cold War, but one of the goals
of
the endeavor.

   Although the problem of hate-filled radio broadcasts is a serious
one,
there are ways of dealing with it that don't involve creating some huge,
supranational censorship unit.

   One alternative is simply to provide other, competing radio
broadcasts.
In Rwanda, for example, the United Nations set up its own radio
stations,
both in the capital of Kigali and in radio camps.

   Royce's subcommittee has been exploring the possibility of creating a
Radio Free Africa, similar to Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia and
Radio
Marti, which broadcasts to Cuba.

   There are serious questions about whether such a new organization is
necessary, when VOA, the official U.S. government station, already
broadcasts intensively into Africa. But the underlying idea makes sense:
to transmit better, more accurate information to Africa, rather than
focusing on jamming or censorship.

   There are other ways of combating hate radio too. Those who directly
incite violence over the airwaves can be brought to justice. At the
moment, a war-crimes tribunal, set up under U.N. auspices, is
prosecuting
those responsible for the massacres in Rwanda. Among the suspects in
custody are some of those responsible for the Milles Collines radio
broadcasts.

   But a worldwide, U.N.-run jamming team? As a Hollywood script, maybe
the idea has possibilities. As foreign policy, it's a loser.

   Jim Mann's column appears in this space every Wednesday.

PHOTO: U.S. member of NATO peace force guards television transmitter in
Udrigovo, Bosnia.  PHOTOGRAPHER: Associated Press --

========================================================================
=





**************************************************
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Ben Franklin, ~1784
**************************************************
 


Received: from speedy1.bns.att.com by casnfc01.bns.att.com with ESMTP
	(1.40.112.8/16.3) id AA273649564; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:52:44 -0800
Received: from attrh2.attrh.att.com (attrh2.attrh.att.com [135.38.12.15]) by speedy1.bns.att.com (8.7.3/2.5) with SMTP id SAA01642 for <Stewart_William_C@bns.att.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:58:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: by attrh2.attrh.att.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.2 sol2)
	id SAA21574 for Stewart_William_C@bns.att.com; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:53:29 -0500
Received: from kcig2.att.att.com by attrh2.attrh.att.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.2 sol2)
	id SAA21547 for <billstewart@att.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:53:26 -0500
Received: (from nuucp@localhost)
	by kcig2.att.att.com (AT&T/GW-1.0) id RAA25810
	for att.com!billstewart; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 17:43:55 -0600 (CST)
>Received: by kcgw2.att.com; Thu Dec  4 17:38 CST 1997
Received: by kcgw2.att.com; Thu Dec  4 17:38 CST 1997
Received: (qmail 850 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 1997 23:47:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 818 invoked by uid 516); 4 Dec 1997 23:47:49 -0000
Delivered-To: ip-sub-1-outgoing@majordomo.pobox.com
Message-Id: <199712042347.SAA23465@home.seas.upenn.edu>
X-Sender: farber@linc.cis.upenn.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Release Candidate 3
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 18:47:09 -0500
To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
Subject: IP: U.N. Hate-Radio Jamming Would Send Wrong Signal 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
Precedence: list
Reply-To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"