reflectivepundit

Using and Misusing Communication Technology: The Case of Iran

By Brigitte L. Nacos
The propaganda war between the power-holders and the reformers in Iran has not been a one-sided triumph for citizen journalism that overcame the silencing of the mainstream media by Iranian authorities. Instead, the same Internet and global satellite phone systems that have transmitted compelling images from the streets of Tehran and elsewhere are also effective venues for the government to spy and crack down on electronic voices of dissent. As Farhad Manjoo writes in an excellent post at Slate (“The Revolution will not be Digitized”),“The crackdown in Iran shows that, for regimes bent on survival, squashing electronic dissent isn't impossible. In many ways, modern communication tools are easier to suppress than organizing methods of the past.”

Ironically, as Christopher Rhoads and Loretta Chao of the Wall Street Journal revealed, European telecommunication companies were instrumental in helping the Iranian authorities to establish “one of the world's most sophisticated mechanisms for controlling and censoring the Internet, allowing it to examine the content of individual online communications on a massive scale.” Rhoads and Chao identified Germany’s multinational Siemens AG and Finland’s Nokia Corporation as jointly providing the Iranian government with the technological monitoring means. 

The idea of the global village, brought together by advanced communication technology, in which different peoples would learn about and understand and respect each other, was a utopian pipedream all along. Even in Francis Fukuyama’s optimistic picture about the triumph of democracy in “The End of History and the Last Man,” the communication revolution did not figure at all because he recognized that “communication technology itself is value-neutral.” It can be used by those who fight for freedom and human rights but also by those who deny basic liberties.  

Like the well-known practices of the Chinese government, the case of Iran points to the uncomfortable reality: The most advanced communication technologies tend to be more advantageous for oppressive regimes than for dissenters and citizen journalists among them—not the least because of corporations in the West whose profit imperatives trump what one former president called the “value thing.” Siemens and Nokia may have had a particular role in the case of Iran but these two corporations are no exceptions, when it comes to censor the Internet. Just think of Internet providers, such as Google, Yahoo, and  Microsoft and their compliance with the People Republic of China’s censorship policies.   

Virtual Hate Speech and the Terrorist Next Door

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Even before the publicity surrounding two lethal terrorist strikes within less than two weeks it was obvious that the virtual hate speech on right extremist web sites had increased significantly and become more offensive and threatening. The conservative attacks on a Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) report on the increased radicalization and recruitment resurgence of right-wing extremism were totally unfounded as was DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano’s apology for what is sound assessment by the law enforcement community. But the relentless attacks from Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and the likes were quite successful: One of the earliest reports about Wednesday’s Washington shooting mentioned that the Department of Homeland Security did not deem it to be terrorism.

Terrorism means violence—and the threat of violence—against civilians for political ends. As anyone with merely cursory knowledge of the virtual and real right extremist scene would know, both shootings were acts of terrorism, not criminal acts.

White supremacists, neo-Nazi, Christian Identity, and anti-immigration fanatics have clearly defined political ideologies and distinct political goals. Their extremist Internet postings as well as their books are the stuff for inspirational radicalization and contagion of individuals susceptible to such extremist propaganda. It is well known that the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVaigh was inspired by and used as a blue print for his attack a book (The Turner Diaries) written by right-wing extremist William Pierce.

James van Brunn, the perpetrator of the terrorist act in the Holocaust Museum, distributed his own propaganda of hate via his own web sites and books. It seems that his was the deed of a lone wolf. But there cannot be any doubt that his white supremacy fabrications are very much in tune with the right extremist ideology.

The following is an excerpt from the posting “The Coming Civil War” on the Aryan Nation’s web site that is strikingly similar to von Brunn’s writings:

“WHITEY is waking up to the Jew conspiracy bullshit that has been thrown into the face of all Whites for quite some time. 

WHITEY is sick and tired of being the scapegoat for all the crimes of racial violence in the United States.

WHITEY is buying guns and ammunition at a record pace .... no-stop since the Marxist Communist Obama entered illegally (not a U.S. confirmed citizen) into the White House, and WHITEY is awakening to the Jews and their` financial rip-off of the U.S. Treasury (U.S. taxpayers) and the giving of such, to the JEW banks, lending financial houses, and to the Jews themselves without having to disclose where and how much money went where!!”

Lebanon Election Outcome and Obama’s Public Diplomacy

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Last weekend, contrary to what experts inside and outside of Lebanon expected, an American- and Western-backed coalition scored a clear victory over a bloc led by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, a terrorist organization and a political party. Some analysts point to President Obama’s and his administration’s outreach to the Muslim world, especially his recent trip to the Middle East and his widely publicized speech in Cairo, as  contributing factors to the surprising election results.

Others speak of an “Obama effect” in the sense that he managed to improve America’s image in that part of the world. While nobody knows for sure whether and how the Obama administration’s direct diplomacy and public diplomacy affected voters in Lebanon and people elsewhere in the region, it is telling that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, have repeatedly attacked President Barack Obama and likened him to his predecessor President George W. Bush. Bin Laden and Zawahiri used their still intact propaganda machine before Obama’s speech in Cairo to release audiotapes that claimed that fellow-Muslims and –Arabs would not be fooled by the president’s well chosen words. As al-Zawahiri put it, "His [President Obama’s] bloody messages were received and they are still coming and they will not be obstructed either by the public relations campaigns, the shenanigan visits, or the articulate words.” Obviously, the al-Qaeda leaders do not believe their own arguments; if they are convinced that Obama’s public diplomacy was, is, and will not be well received by Arabs and Muslim, why did they accelerate their message output of late?

To be sure, most Muslims’ and Arabs’ negative America image has not fundamentally changed and will not fundamentally change because of Obama’s recent trip with the memorable Cairo speech as highpoint. But according to the Gallup organization’s surveys, in most Arab countries approval of U.S. leaders was markedly up in March of this year and thus well before Obama’s appearances in the Middle East and his Cairo speech compared to the last poll during the Bush presidency in June 2008.

Public relations, public diplomacy, propaganda. These are different terms with the same meaning, namely, efforts to persuade others to embrace a particular message, opinion, ideology, religion, etc. After 9/11, the war against terrorism was also fought on the public relations front in that Al Qaeda leader bin Laden and his team on the one hand and U.S. President George W. Bush and his administration on the other hand were engaged in bellicose mass-mediated, rhetorical exchanges that emphasized differences between the two sides and those they spoke for or claimed to speak for. 

Obama’s inauguration remarks, subsequence speeches by the president and others in the administration, and most of all the Cairo speech ended the rhetorical feud between the U.S. president and terrorist-in-chief bin Laden. Obama has shown that he is not interested in a propaganda war with Al Qaeda leaders. As a consequence, there is a stark contrast between the two sides in that bin Laden and al-Zawahiri continue to send hate messages that magnify what divides the Judeo-Christian West and the Arab-Muslim East, whereas Obama’s conciliatory messages emphasize what unites without minimizing the existential threats posed by a relative small number of Arab and Muslim extremists. Commentators, who complain that Obama bends over backwards to appease Muslims and Arabs but does not condemn jihadi violence, should read or reread the transcript of his Cairo speech.