Intermap

By Shawn Powers

Literally. File this one under “not good.”

Last July, the Iranian Parliament passed a draft law, that has since become codified, that allows judges to apply the death penalty to bloggers and website editors who “promote corruption, prostitution or apostasy.” Indeed, the so-called father of the Persian bloggosphere, Hossein Derakhshan, now faces the death penalty after being arrested on trumped up charges of “spying for Israel.” In truth, Derakhshan visited Israel in 2006 and “recently begun to express anti-Israeli views in his postings,” according to Israeli commentators.

While the Internet–and political blogging in particular–have been hyped as a critical means of opening up and even democratizing countries like Iran, this new law, permitting the use of the death penalty against any blogger or online editor that “promotes corruption” is yet another sign that the Internet will not do the hard work of building civil societies and democratic cultures. In fact, countries are using the Internet to actually track down and squash dissent, particularly in the Middle East. Egyptian authorities recently used facebook to monitor and eventually arrest 26 Egyptians that had organized a peaceful protest in Alexandria last July. Indeed, the most telling evidence of the crackdown on online communication came in the Committee to Protect Journalist’s 2008 census (titled, “Online and in Jail“), which found that 45% of journalists jailed in 2008 were online journalists, compared to the 42% who were print-based journalists. Put another way, for the first time ever, you are more likely to be jailed for being a journalist if you publish your reporting via the World Wide Web than any other medium.

On that note, I’m signing off.

by Shawn Powers

Probably not. But he did register his strong disapproval of the DOD’s decision to enlist an additional $300 million of support for “media services” (formerly known as information and psychological operations) from four U.S. private contractors. Criticisms of the plan were logged here at Intermap, on Matt Armstrong’s MountainRunner, and at Marc Lynch’s Abu Aardvark. Simply put, some of the smartest minds in PD noted this to be one in a long line of bad decisions to move US PD efforts back into a Cold War mentality of communications that will simply not work in today’s increasingly networked and transparent society. The DOD’s efforts to propagandize Iraqis into forgetting the ravaging of their society that was prompted by the US-led invasion fail to meet the standards of what effective public diplomacy today requires. Importantly, this is not simply a waste of resources, but it risks discrediting other more appropriate public diplomacy efforts throughout the region. How can any administration ask for Arab citizens to trust the news they hear on Radio Sawa when it openly supports the manipulation of media in Iraq? Knowledge of this DOD effort inevitably spills over into broader thinking of US public diplomacy as a whole. Simply changing the name of propaganda from information and psychological operations to media services makes not a fooled Arab citizenry. Credibility is a prerequisite to any effective public diplomacy initiative, and the DOD’s communications work in Iraq is part and parcel of why US PD efforts more broadly lack credibility in the region.

Yesterday, Senator Webb issued a letter to Defense Secretary Gates asking Gates to “put these contracts on hold until the Armed Services Committee and the next Administration can review the entire issue of U.S. propaganda efforts inside Iraq.” Senate Committee on Armed Services chairman Carl Levin was CC’ed and issued an additional letter asking him to schedule hearings on the matter first thing in the new in 2009.

Webb makes a number of compelling arguments: (1) the US government is in grave financial distress; (2) The Iraqi government is not and in fact has $79 billion in cash on hand; (3) Despite our best efforts (that’s me, not Webb), Iraq is now a sovereign country, with its own government, policies and opinions; (4) Funding propaganda efforts in sovereign foreign countries typically raises eyebrows and is likely to face opposition from the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, or more likely, both. So far so good. In debate we would call this a pretty strong initial salvo of arguments.

Senator Webb doesn’t stop there, however. Perhaps foreshadowing what American PD would look like under an Obama administration, Webb takes a few more swings at Secretary Gates and the DOD’s strategic communications efforts in Iraq, arguing the move to further fund DOD information operations: (1) further disparages the Department of State’s efforts in Iraq (where, it seems, he’d rather see the money going); (2) is contradictory to the National Defense Authorization Act’s (and thus, Congress’) call to better coordinate strategic communications in Iraq with the Department of State; and (3) will likely end up violating Congressional statute given the likelihood that the contractors “media services” will not only be read by Iraqis, but Americans too (Smith-Mundt, etc).

I look forward to see how this plays out. Secretary Gates, we’re awaiting your rebuttal.

by Shawn Powers

This June’s Foreign Policy web edition included an article by Steven A Cook, entitled “The Myth of Moderate Islam”. I’m guessing that the title wasn’t his idea. The article caught my eye for a number of reasons, one of which was the importance that public diplomacy scholars and practitioners, particularly those located in the United States, place upon engaging moderate Muslims in public diplomacy efforts. Indeed, when recently confirmed Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs James Glassman spoke earlier this month, he argued that public diplomacy was not about the popularity of the United States abroad, but rather about taking a side in the battle taking place within Islam itself: “We cannot step aside and simply watch Muslims slug it out among themselves.” If the ‘moderate Muslim’ is a non-existent Western construct, then it becomes unclear exactly what role public diplomacy can play in the current struggle to combat Islamist extremism.
continue reading…