Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May/June 1998, Pages 54, 96

Point of View

A U.S. Government-Run “Radio Free Iraq” Won’t Help Bring Down Saddam Hussain

By Hans Johnson

There are growing calls in the Clinton administration and Congress for a new radio station, a “Radio Free Iraq.” Born out of frustration with Iraqi President Saddam Hussain, such agitation breeds desperate measures. Supporters can only vaguely articulate the objectives of the station, but they seem to fall into two broad categories. One group desires a propaganda station that will play a part in ridding the United States of Saddam. Others see a station which will serve as a news source for information-starved Iraqis. In either case, Radio Free Iraq would be redundant and ineffective.

The United States wants Saddam Hussain out of power, but not at the cost of American lives. So, unwilling to take such decisive action as putting U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq, the Clinton administration considers Radio Free Iraq along with other steps. In fact Radio Free Iraq would serve the appearance of doing something,without making any serious commitment that could backfire if it failed. “If you can’t shoot them, you shout at them,” explains John Nichols, associate professor of communications at The Pennsylvania State University and co-author of Clandestine Radio Broadcasting.

The model for a propaganda station goes back to the 1950s. The CIA’s Voz de Liberacion played a key role in overthrowing the Arbenz government of Guatemala in 1954. Its very success made the CIA overconfident that “psychological warfare could achieve the same goals as real warfare at a substantially lower human and monetary cost” according to Clandestine Radio Broadcasting.

Some proponents of the proposed Radio Free Iraq apparently harbor this same idea. In this dream, Radio Free Iraq inspires an uprising that sets the stage for Saddam Hussain’s downfall. This fantasy also has a history.

Voice of Free Iraq, established on the eve of the Gulf war with the backing of the coalition being assembled to liberate Kuwait, repeatedly urged Iraqis to overthrow Saddam Hussain in its broadcasts. When Saddam’s forces were suddenly forced out of Kuwait in the 100-hour ground war, many Iraqis, principally Shi’i Arabs in the south and Kurds in the north, took up the challenge, only to be slaughtered.

The Voice of Free Iraq therefore failed to overthrow Saddam, but its broadcasts resulted in real warfare at real warfare costs for real Iraqis. At least one high Clinton administration official is warning American backers of a new Radio Free Iraq not to continue to harbor such desires.

“If you encourage and almost incite people to rise up against their government, you incur a moral obligation to come to their defense at a moment of peril,” Sandy Berger, national security adviser, recently told Associated Press correspondent Walter Mears. Berger added that the 1991 Iraqi uprising was a case “where perhaps our rhetoric has gone ahead of what we are prepared to do.”

American-backed stations have transmitted to Iraq for years.

Radio Free Iraq supporters speak of the station as though it is a new idea, something that the United States has not tried before. The reality is that American-backed stations have transmitted to Iraq for years. The CIA built radio and television facilities in northern Iraq for the Iraqi National Congress (INC), headed by Ahmed Chalabi.

In total, the agency gave the INC $12 million between 1992 and 1996, according to ABC News. The Washington Post reported that the Clinton administration gave another $6 million to the Iraqi National Accord (INA) in 1996. Apparently, some of this money financed the radio and television broadcasts.

Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA) stated in early March that the INA continues to broadcast from a U.S.-owned transmitter facility in Kuwait. The INC, which also used this facility at one time, would like to resume its usage as well.

Using radio and television, these groups beamed messages into Iraq for years, but this effort failed in its objective of overthrowing Saddam. Nor were the INC and INA alone in broadcasting into Iraq, as Iran sponsors at least two clandestine propaganda stations doing the same thing. Syria also sponsored a propaganda station for years.

All have failed, and a Radio Free Iraq would also fail. “Radio propaganda really doesn’t change much,” according to John Nichols. “These stations are preaching to the choir.”

If the objective of the station is not to incite, but to educate Iraqis, the problem of redundancy arises. The Voice of America (VOA), the official Voice of the United States government, already broadcasts to Iraq (and the entire Arabic-speaking world) several hours a day.

VOA an Important Source

Former head of VOA’s Audience Research Department Kim Andrew Elliott, stressing that he is speaking independently and not as a VOA official, argues that VOA is an important source for Iraqis of news about Iraq. “VOA doesn’t get credit for this and some decision makers embrace the incorrect theory that VOA broadcasts only U.S. and general news,” explains Elliott.

Supporters of Radio Free Iraq define the problem as Saddam, so why create a whole new station just to deal with him? Some backers of Radio Free Iraq cite Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s success in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, believing that Radio Free Iraq should follow this model.

Elliott argues that it would be far more effective for VOA’s Arabic branch to start a special program for Iraq. VOA’s Spanish service had a similar program for Cuba in the pre-Radio Marti days.

When the Iraq crisis ends, it would be much easier to eliminate the VOA program then it would be to dismantle a Radio Free Iraq station. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) spends much less money on broadcasting than the United States, yet it has a larger audience in Iraq than any other station, including VOA. The reason is that BBC concentrates all its efforts on one station, according to Elliott.

He believes that Radio Free Iraq would result in a duplication of effort that would hurt the overall quality of U.S. broadcasting. “No matter how much money Congress may provide to U.S. international broadcasting, radio frequencies, transmitting sites, and talent remain scarce commodities,” explains Elliott.

Then there is the problem of who controls the programming. Representative Cox appears to favor giving the INC use of American facilities in Kuwait, even though the INC’s competitor, the INA, uses the same facilities. This has already been tried elsewhere and resulted in failure.

The CIA established Radio Swan in 1960. Hoping to repeat its success in Guatemala, this station was directed at Castro’s Cuba. Competing Cuban exile groups used and misused the station, rendering it ineffective. The exile groups vied with one another over the air, destroying the station’s credibility. The expectation that the INA and INC will use the same facilities cooperatively is probably not realistic.

Instead, the Iraqi opposition should establish its own Radio Free Iraq with no U.S. government ties. Exile groups from Nigeria, Ethiopia, Tibet, and Burma all have radio programs. It is possible to purchase time on transmitters in Europe, Africa, the former Soviet Union, and other locations at quite reasonable rates. Since these groups have done it, why not let the Iraqis do the same?

If the U.S. government deems that Iraqis need more news, then an expansion of VOA is in order. A propaganda station isn’t going to work, but if they desire it, then let the Iraqis fund it and run it themselves.