Hearing of the House Oversight Committee's National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee - Six Years Later: Assessing Long-Term Threats

Hearing of the House Oversight Committee's National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee - Six Years Later: Assessing Long-Term Threats, Risks and the U.S. Strategy for Security in a Post-9/11 World

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. BETTY MCCOLLUM (D-MN): Well, I appreciate you being able to stay and I really found your July editorial in the Washington Post where you argue that America needed a new creative solution to match the challenge of global terrorism very insightful. In the editorial, you outlined several strategies, including the creation of new public diplomacy organizations for the global age. And I strongly agree that we need an effective public diplomacy. It's indispensable in America's toolbox in the fight against terrorism.

And during the Cold War, and we've been -- the Cold War has been discussed -- the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe helped win the hearts and minds by giving invaluable information out to people regardless of their income and their occupation in those countries. U.S. policy was able to spread information about America culture and values, which is democracy. The current crisis in Burma, though, is to me is more than ever demonstrating that a proven low-cost strategy like Voice of America radio is so essential. The BBC reported in recent days that less than one percent of the Burmese people have access to Internet and the government has blocked Internet traffic into and out of the country. Radio Netherlands is reporting that Burmese stores are sold out of short-range radios because people want news and information, and that's the only way that they can receive it. Laura Bush and Chairman Lantos both recently broadcast to the Burmese people on Bush's America.

Now I bring this up because I do agree with you -- we need to look at all the tools in the toolbox. Yet the Board of Governors -- the Broadcasting Board Governors, which oversees Voice of America with absolutely no transparency -- no transparency -- is rushing to close down radio transmitters all around the world.

And I can supply you with the proof. You look shocked; I was shocked to find that out, too.

The BBG is silencing America's voice in a time when reaching the poor and the oppressed populations in the world is even more important.

Now, I've introduced a bill to try to get the board of governors' attention, and it's H.R. 3598. We need to do exactly what you were suggesting, Mr. Isaacson -- make big investments in new public diplomacy efforts. But I believe we must renew our commitment to Voice of America Radio and other proven, cost-effective strategies. Voice of America is -- is only $10 million in a 688 million-dollar budget. That's less than the inflationary increase of the GBG's administrative expenses in'08, and they're cutting it.

MR. ISAACSON: Wow.

REP. MCCOLLUM : So could -- I know you believe in -- in using everything that's available out there, and I want to make sure that we have your voice heard clear on Voice of America.

MR. ISAACSON: Let me make it extremely clear. I love radio; I think it's an awesome and effective technology. I agree with Bob to my left that the dismantling of the U.S. Information Agency was a very bad problem, and that's another thing that perhaps you could look at. I think that the BBG has not -- has not risen to the task in the past of winning the hearts-and-mind battles. But I absolutely --

I'm a believer in a lot of old technology, including even print, believe it or not. But radio will be, of the next 100 years, an incredibly effective way to communicate. So let's no disparage radio.

MR. LIEBER: You know, I strongly agree with your point about VOA. VOA, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and other radios are of immense importance. We ought not to be cutting services and broadcasts and budgets, but increasing them. They are an extremely important, long-range investment.

One other point, in passing, with -- again, some disagreement with Jessica about China. China has played a very negative role in Burma, in Darfur, and in some other third world environments, sustaining repressive regimes for reasons that are at times economic, at times political. We don't control the situation in Burma. China is a country with huge influence and, alas, it appears, to the extent we can tell, not to have used the leverage it might have to improve things, rather than allow them to get worse.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source