SUMMARY OF A ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON THE FUTURE OF RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY

The Senate Dirksen Office
Building

Washington, D.C.

19 June 1996

Momentous changes are afoot in Eastern and Central
Europe and the former Soviet Union. In particular, recent
elections suggest that the full transition of nations in
the region to democratic liberalism and free market
economies is far from assured. The implications for U.S.
interests should such a critical transformation not occur
could be very significant.

In the past, the United States used its “Freedom
Radios” — Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty
(RFE/RL) — to promote the rule of law, respect for human
rights, democracy and capitalism behind what was once the
Iron Curtain. In the aftermath of the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the necessity for continuing to operate
these assets at taxpayer expense was sharply questioned.
Indeed, the Congress in 1994 directed that various
national services of RFE/RL be spun-off or privatized,
with the complete end of U.S. government underwriting to
occur by 1999. RFE’s Hungarian service has already been
liquidated; the Czech service is scheduled to be
off-the-books by September 1996.

The question arises: Does it still make sense to allow
Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty to waste away? Or
should these assets be preserved as important instruments
by which the U.S. can encourage freedom to take root and
nurture that process where it has actually begun?

In the interest of examining these and related topics,
the Center for Security Policy, the Nixon
Center for Peace and Freedom and National
Review magazine joined forces on 19 June
1996 to host a blue-ribbon Roundtable Discussion on the
Future of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Among the
distinguished participants in the Roundtable were
Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Joseph
Biden (D-DE); Malcolm “Steve”
Forbes, Jr., former Chairman of the Board for
International Broadcasting; Ambassador Michael
Zantovsky, the Czech Ambassador to the United
States; and Kevin Klose, the President
of RFE/RL. Also present were current and former
international broadcasters including senior
representatives of the U.S. Information Agency, Voice of
America and RFE/RL; past and present members of the
Freedom Radios’ presidentially appointed oversight
boards; and congressional staff and members of the press.

The Roundtable featured a thorough discussion of: the
changing geopolitical environment and the need for
RFE/RL; the current status of the Freedom Radios and the
future of RFE/RL. This summary offers highlights of the
principal issues considered by the participants. While no
effort was made to define or formally to approve
consensus positions or recommendations, the points
summarized here reflect the sentiment evident in the
overwhelming majority of comments — namely, that Radio
Free Europe and Radio Liberty continue to be unique and
important instruments for advancing U.S. interests in
their listening areas and should, accordingly, continue
to receive financial underwriting from the federal
government.

RFE/RL’s Historic Mission

• The United States’ main interest
  internationally is to promote security,
  well-being and the expansion of the community of
  nations that respect the democratic rights of
  their peoples. This has been of some
  concern recently, as polling in Russia and
  elsewhere in the former Soviet empire has
  underscored the fact that considerable political
  uncertainty continues in the nations of Central
  Europe. It is easy to appreciate, when one
  examines this political uncertainty, that the
  battle of ideas is still being fought in the
  former Soviet sphere of influence.
• The essence of the United States’ ties to other
  democracies — and to its European allies in
  particular — is a philosophical and humane one.
  They share the same conception of the human
  being, namely, that each individual has inherent
  worth and individual rights, and the belief that
  the power of government should be limited by
  those individual rights. They also share the same
  concepts of the democratic electoral process,
  private property rights and freedom of conscience
  and speech.
• Indeed, the Cold War was won by an idea —
  freedom — and the willingness and determination
  to defend that idea. Communism failed because it
  was built upon a wrong idea: an unnatural
  conception of man. Ideas, then, have powerful
  consequences in international affairs.
• Because of its belief in certain enduring
  principles and ideas, isolationism cannot be an
  option for the United States. It has a
  responsibility to share and foster these ideas,
  and in the past one of the best and most
  cost-effective ways to meet that
  responsibility has been by using Radio Free
  Europe and Radio Liberty.
• During the Cold War, the “free radios”
  of RFE/RL helped to keep those living under the
  yoke of totalitarian communism informed about
  what was actually happening in their countries
  and around the world. The radios provided timely
  and unbiased coverage of news events in the
  languages of its audience — a trusted
  alternative to the propaganda served up by the
  communists’ state-run media outlets.
• RFE/RL was particularly helpful in keeping the
  populace of many countries informed about the
  activities of domestic opposition groups,
  information that their governments were
  desperately trying to suppress.
• RFE/RL played a valuable role after
  the momentous changes of 1989 as well.
  In the chaotic media environment of the time,
  RFE/RL was able to set a standard in the region
  for independent and professional broadcasting, a
  standard that many journalists in fledgling
  democracies such as Czechoslovakia used to rate
  their own work.
• RFE/RL also served as a valuable source of news
  concerning the economic transformations that
  began occurring in many parts of the Radios’
  listening area. They provided needed information
  as well about existing and successful free market
  economies, helping to foster popular support for
  privatization, investment and trade.
• With its tradition of independence from the
  governments in the countries on the receiving end
  of their broadcasts, RFE/RL offered a model for
  freedom of the press to which democratic
  reformers throughout the Radios’ listening areas
  could aspire.

RFE/RL Today

• Today as in the past, a viable democracy
  requires an informed citizenry. That is
  the first, the cardinal principle of establishing
  functioning self-government and civil societies.
• The Radios’ mission remains to develop an
  informed citizenry across the region served by
  RFE/RL. They accomplish it in unique ways
  that are not matched by any other international
  information service or radio broadcast service.
• As a result, RFE/RL’s listenership remains high
  and committed. Independent surveys indicate that
  the Radios’ programming reaches up to sixty
  percent of the “elites” in the
  countries receiving their broadcasts.
  Importantly, those most committed to democratic
  reform and transformation are devoted listeners.
• Importantly, RFE/RL moved its operations from
  Munich, Germany, to Prague in the Czech Republic
  roughly one year ago. This move permitted
  dramatic economies to be realized,
  reducing the annual operating budget from some
  $220 million per year to approximately $72
  million (of which nearly $20 million is earmarked
  to pay outstanding pension obligations).
• These savings have been made possible, in part,
  by the Czech government’s provision of superb
  broadcasting facilities virtually gratis.
  The lower cost of living and labor regulations in
  the Czech Republic have also permitted the
  operation to become far more efficient without
  sacrificing broadcast quality or hours. For
  example, in Munich, RFE/RL had about 1,100 staff
  members, excluding engineering, but including the
  Research Institute. It now has a total table of
  organizations of 419 persons in Prague, in the
  United States and worldwide.
• The move to Prague has had a number of other
  benefits, as well. It has allowed RFE/RL greater
  access to the region to which the Radios
  broadcast than was the case in Munich. Visa
  requirements, for example, are less strict in the
  Czech Republic, allowing for easier movement of
  RFE/RL employees to and from headquarters. Munich
  is a provincial city, whereas Prague is a true
  world capital. The steady stream of heads of
  state, foreign ministers, trade missions, etc.,
  makes Prague a very lively crossroads for the
  exchange of ideas and affords the Radios an
  opportunity to subject officials from target
  nations to Western-style scrutiny.
• The Radios also serve as an invaluable training
  ground for a number of young and talented media
  professionals from the Czech Republic and other
  post-communist countries.
• Another important change made possible by
  the end of the Cold War is the opportunity for
  RFE/RL to operate from target nations that still
  resemble “denied territory” — i.e.,
  nations where individual freedoms have not yet
  been fully established or are honored in the
  breach. For example, the RFE/RL bureau
  in Minsk, Belarus recently contributed to the
  progress of democracy there when it offered the
  parliament’s leader a vehicle by which to
  encourage the Belarussian people to vote in
  recent parliamentary elections, an opportunity he
  was denied by the state-controlled media. Turnout
  proved sufficiently high to seat the parliament.

Terminating Broadcast Services:

• As part of its downsizing, however, RFE/RL has
  begun to eliminate broadcast services to areas
  judged to have a “free press.” The
  Radios have already liquidated the Hungarian
  service and are scheduled to eliminate the Czech
  service at the end of September 1996. Under
  current plans, the Polish service will be the
  next to go, with the entire operation to be
  “privatized” by the end of 1999.
• Unfortunately, according to Freedom House’s 1996
  report on freedom of the press, of the twenty-one
  countries to which RFE/RL broadcasts, only
  five are considered to have a free press. The
  other sixteen have either a partially-free press
  or they have no press freedom at all.
• In the latter sixteen, examples abound
  of: covert and overt government interference in
  the media; the exertion by the government of
  economic pressure on the media; the misusing of
  state-controlled media for electoral purposes;
  and the misuse of the media by the government to
  spread ethnic and national hatreds. Such
  activities argue for the continued presence of
  RFE/RL in these countries.
• A case study of the difference Free Radios can
  make in “post-communist” societies with
  little or no press freedom might be that of the
  former Yugoslavia. Until recently, RFE/RL was
  barred by U.S. government policy from
  broadcasting to the Yugoslav people, denying them
  an antidote to the ethnic hatred-fomenting
  propaganda routinely spewed forth as
  “news” by state-controlled media. The
  absence of alternative sources of information
  appears to have contributed directly to the
  genocidal mayhem that has been perpetrated there.
  Once its South Balkans service finally was
  allowed to begin operations, RFE/RL’s good
  offices have been employed to foster dialogue
  between the previously warring factions and to
  encourage the faithful implementation of the
  Dayton peace accords. Indeed, the Radios’
  linguistically-integrated Slavic Service affords
  Serbians, Croatians and Bosnian Muslims an
  opportunity to work together in programming — a
  civilizing and democratizing influence in the
  war-torn region.
• Even in those nations where press
  freedoms are being generally observed — notably,
  Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland —
  political uncertainties and economic conditions
  are combining to raise questions about the wisdom
  of “spinning off” their respective
  services from RFE/RL and the feasibility of their
  sustained operation as independent broadcast
  entities. For example, the media in such
  countries may still be reluctant to broadcast
  certain stories that a truly independent media
  organization such as RFE/RL would broadcast.
  Recently in Poland, for instance, the head of
  state television and radio commented that
  democratically-elected officials should not be
  criticized in the media because they represent
  the will of the people.

The Future of RFE/RL

Recent developments have precipitated a series of
challenges for the Freedom Radios. Comments made in the
course of the Roundtable Discussion identified the
following as among the most serious of these challenges
for the future operation of RFE/RL:

Maintaining RFE/RL’s Independence and
Integrity:

Concerns were expressed by a number of
participants about the ability of the Freedom Radios to
maintain their independence from their target governments
were the U.S. government to stop supporting them.
As the economies of many countries that receive RFE/RL
broadcasts are in very poor shape, commercial news
services may simply be a luxury that the private sector
cannot afford to provide. “Spinning
off” the Radios under such circumstances might
amount to driving them into the arms of regimes
interested in converting the Freedom Radios into new
outlets for officially sanctioned propaganda.

A warning was also sounded that this danger could
befall the Radios even before privatization was
completed. RFE/RL’s increasing use of stringers and other
local hires, notably for the purpose of broadcasting
cost-effectively from remote regions and/or “denied
territory,” gives rise to the possibility that the
Freedom Radios might inadvertently be used to disseminate
material contrary to their charters and to U.S.
interests. This can be one of the unintended results of
hiring personnel who have little or no first-hand
experience with the liberties and values of the West.

The RFE/RL management acknowledged this danger
and vowed to continue to monitor the broadcasts closely
and to take corrective action promptly where necessary.
It noted, moreover, that every director — many
with long experience in the Radios’ surrogate
broadcasting business — in charge of one of the 19
services that had operated from Munich made the move to
Prague. In doing so, they often brought along as well the
best and the brightest of their employees. This fact is
the more remarkable since substantial severance pay-outs
were available to them in Germany. They nonetheless
followed the Radios to Prague out of a belief that it
offered an opportunity to perform their ongoing mission
from an advanced base, giving the United States a great
leg-up the world-wide struggle of ideas.

In addition to the continuity provided by such senior
personnel, another means of protecting the Radios against
undesirable influences is the training provided by RFE/RL
to the majority of its new employees. This practice also
benefits the target nations by enhancing the quality of
their respective journalistic corps.

Avoiding Duplication with Other U.S.
International Broadcast Services:

An issue that provoked much discussion was the
question whether RFE/RL really offered unique programming
or substantially duplicated that available elsewhere,
notably from the U.S. Information Agency’s Voice of
America. The idea that the Freedom Radios are redundant
was strongly disputed not only by individuals currently
or previously associated with RFE/RL and its oversight
board but also by senior officials from USIA and VOA. The
latter stated definitively that they believed the two
services perform complementary functions and that the
role of RFE/RL remains extremely important in the world.

Several participants noted, in addition, that a
different atmosphere and freedom of journalistic
expression existed at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as
opposed to VOA, arising from certain editorial
restrictions that posed problems with day-to-day
broadcasting on the official international radio service
of the United States government. To varying degrees,
these differences are evident to the listening audience
which often regards RFE/RL as “their” radio
versus the U.S. radio services provided by Washington
through VOA.

Determining When the Freedom Radios Will No
Longer Be Needed:

There was considerable discussion of what criteria
should be used to determine when a particular country no
longer “needs” RFE/RL. Although such a calculus
is not an exact science, there are certain indicators
that can be looked for: free and periodic elections, a
controlled police and military, an independent judiciary,
a free press and the establishment of basic freedoms such
as freedom of assembly.

Countries in Central Asia, such as Uzbekistan, are
having political pressures placed on them by Russia and
Iran. The importance of maintaining the free radios there
should be obvious. In a similar vein, in countries where
democracy is clearly flourishing such as Poland and
Hungary, many of the communist rulers are beginning to
come back to power. Although there is good reason to be
optimistic about the future course of the latter states,
there is no way to tell what the future will hold.

Clearly, as long as such uncertainties persist, a
basic proposition should be borne in mind: It is
far easier and far less costly to retain the capabilities
of RFE/RL now than to have to try to create them anew
should they prove to be needed again in the future. To
leave RFE/RL in place is a relatively inexpensive
insurance policy. The fact that the Freedom Radios
continue to operate, moreover, may contribute to the
continued expansion and maturing of democracy in their
target countries — thereby obviating the need for the
vastly more costly steps that might be necessary to deal
with renascent totalitarianism in the region.

Conclusion

There seemed to be general agreement among
participants in this Roundtable Discussion that there
is a continuing and clear need for RFE/RL to broadcast to
the former Soviet empire. While differences were
evident about the desirability of indefinitely
maintaining the Free Radios’ operations in nations like
the Czech Republic where democracy and a free press are
beginning to take root, the Roundtable clearly
showed that the imminent elimination of the Czech service
and the subsequent termination of all remaining U.S.
government support for RFE/RL should be promptly
reconsidered.