This article is set to distinguish the narrow border
between information and propaganda in today's
american journalism.
Quotes :
"The U.S. Department of Defense plans to add more sites
on the Internet to provide information to a global
audience -- but critics question whether the Pentagon is
violating President Bush's pledge not to pay journalists
to promote his policies.
The Defense Department runs two Web sites overseas, one
aimed at people in the Balkan region in Europe, the
other for the Maghreb area of North Africa.
It is preparing another site, even as the Pentagon
inspector general investigates whether the sites are
appropriate.
The Web sites carry stories on subjects such as
politics, sports and entertainment.
The sites are run by U.S. military troops trained in
"information warfare," a specialty that can include
battlefield deception.
Pentagon officials say the goal is to counter
"misinformation" about the United States in overseas
media.
At first glance, the Web pages appear to be independent
news sites. To find out who is actually behind the
content, a visitor would have to click on a small link
-- at the bottom of the page -- to a disclaimer, which
says, in part, that the site is "sponsored by" the U.S.
Department of Defense.
"There is an element of deception," said Tom Rosenstiel,
director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
"The problem," he said, is that it looks like a news
site unless a visitor looks at the disclaimer, which is
"sort of oblique."
The Pentagon maintains that the information on the sites
is true and accurate. But in a recent memo, Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz insisted that the
Web site contractor should only hire journalists who
"will not reflect discredit on the U.S. government."
The Defense Department has hired more than 50 freelance
writers for the sites.
Some senior military officers have told CNN the Web
sites may clash with President Bush's recent statements.
"We will not be paying commentators to advance our
agenda," Bush told reporters on January 26. "Our agenda
ought to be able to stand on its own two feet." (Full
story)
Bush made those comments after it came to light that the
administration had paid several commentators to support
U.S. policies in the U.S. media.
Many Democrats have called for an end to what they call
administration propaganda within the United States.
But many lawmakers view the rules for handling
information overseas as a separate issue.
On Thursday, Lawrence Di Rita, the principal deputy
assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, asked
the Pentagon inspector general to examine Defense
Department activities, including the Web sites in
question, to see that they fall within the guidelines
Bush laid out.
Di Rita said the department wanted "to make sure that we
are staying well within the lines, and I believe we
are."
Rosenstiel said there is a reason why rules exist to
separate journalism from government information.
"Anytime that the government has to assure you, 'Believe
me, take my word for it, I'm telling you nothing but the
truth,' you know you should be worried"."
Monday, February 07, 2005
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Women in Japan : the long and winding road of discrimination
In the quagmire of Japanese gender discrimination this
article of the JT attempts to justify its habit at home
and office.
Quotes :
"For the first time since such polls have been taken,
the percentage of respondents to a government survey who
say a woman's place is in the home was exceeded by those
who believe the opposite, it was learned Saturday.
According to results of the Cabinet Office's opinion
poll on the roles of the two sexes in society, 48.9
percent of some 3,500 respondents said they do not agree
with the idea that "a husband should work outside the
home while the wife protects the household," as opposed
to 45.2 percent who said they agree.
When the government started the survey in 1979, 72.5
percent of respondents agreed with the concept, compared
to 20.4 percent who disagreed.
When broken down by gender, the percentage of men who
agreed with the idea -- 49.8 percent -- was still higher
than the 43.3 percent who said they did not.
Nevertheless, the figure was 1.5 percentage points lower
than in the last survey conducted in 2002.
Meanwhile, among women, those who disagreed came to 53.8
percent, as compared to 41.3 percent who agreed.
"In addition to changes in views that have come about
with the increased social participation of women,
difficult economic conditions under which both husband
and wife need to work to make ends meet may be another
factor" behind the trend, a Cabinet Office official
said.
When the survey, conducted in November and December,
asked married people who has greater authority in their
household, 48.5 percent replied that it was the husband,
down 7.1 percent from the previous survey and dropping
below 50 percent. There was a 5.8 point rise in the
number of respondents who said it was the wife, reaching
22.7 percent.
When asked who controlled the purse strings, 67.1
percent said it was the wife, while 14.1 percent said it
was the husband.
When asked their views about working women, 40.4 percent
of respondents said it is better for women to continue
working even after having children, the highest figure
on record. This was followed by 34.9 percent who said
they should resume working after the children get older
and 10.2 percent who said they should stop working when
they have children.
But while female participation in the workforce is
growing, the reality is that men have not been taking up
a bigger share of housework and the burden of household
chores still falls on the wives, according to the poll.
When asked about sharing housework, only 4 percent said
the husband is in charge of cleaning the house, 1.2
percent in preparing meals and 3.5 percent in washing
dishes."
article of the JT attempts to justify its habit at home
and office.
Quotes :
"For the first time since such polls have been taken,
the percentage of respondents to a government survey who
say a woman's place is in the home was exceeded by those
who believe the opposite, it was learned Saturday.
According to results of the Cabinet Office's opinion
poll on the roles of the two sexes in society, 48.9
percent of some 3,500 respondents said they do not agree
with the idea that "a husband should work outside the
home while the wife protects the household," as opposed
to 45.2 percent who said they agree.
When the government started the survey in 1979, 72.5
percent of respondents agreed with the concept, compared
to 20.4 percent who disagreed.
When broken down by gender, the percentage of men who
agreed with the idea -- 49.8 percent -- was still higher
than the 43.3 percent who said they did not.
Nevertheless, the figure was 1.5 percentage points lower
than in the last survey conducted in 2002.
Meanwhile, among women, those who disagreed came to 53.8
percent, as compared to 41.3 percent who agreed.
"In addition to changes in views that have come about
with the increased social participation of women,
difficult economic conditions under which both husband
and wife need to work to make ends meet may be another
factor" behind the trend, a Cabinet Office official
said.
When the survey, conducted in November and December,
asked married people who has greater authority in their
household, 48.5 percent replied that it was the husband,
down 7.1 percent from the previous survey and dropping
below 50 percent. There was a 5.8 point rise in the
number of respondents who said it was the wife, reaching
22.7 percent.
When asked who controlled the purse strings, 67.1
percent said it was the wife, while 14.1 percent said it
was the husband.
When asked their views about working women, 40.4 percent
of respondents said it is better for women to continue
working even after having children, the highest figure
on record. This was followed by 34.9 percent who said
they should resume working after the children get older
and 10.2 percent who said they should stop working when
they have children.
But while female participation in the workforce is
growing, the reality is that men have not been taking up
a bigger share of housework and the burden of household
chores still falls on the wives, according to the poll.
When asked about sharing housework, only 4 percent said
the husband is in charge of cleaning the house, 1.2
percent in preparing meals and 3.5 percent in washing
dishes."
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Condoleezza’s choices
There are inherent tensions in Bush’s new foreign
policy team writes Walter Andersen.
Quotes :
"The writer is associate director, South Asia Studies
Programme, School of Advanced International Studies,
Johns Hopkins University
George W. Bush was sworn in as president in 2001 with no
intention of focusing on foreign policy. The second
inauguration of George W. Bush on January 20 was quite
the reverse. In his inaugural speech, he laid out one of
the most expansive manifestos ever offered from an
inaugural platform as he dedicated his presidency to
spreading democracy and freedom. He portrayed the US as
a beacon for the subjugated and promised to
confront despots who enchain them. The catalyst for this
about-face in foreign policy, of course, was 9/11 and
the subsequent Global War on Terrorism.
It was the military activity in Afghanistan and then
Iraq that provided an opportunity for Secretary of
Defence Donald Rumsfeld to assume the dominant role in
the fight against terrorism, America’s major foreign
policy engagement. In this, he was ably assisted by Paul
Wolfowitz, his brilliant deputy secretary who is the
intellectual father of the notion of pre-emptive
military action that was employed against Saddam
Hussein, and by Douglas Feith, the under secretary of
defence policy. Vice President Richard Cheney’s support
for Rumsfeld guaranteed the victory of Rumsfeld and the
Department of Defence against the Department of State
headed by Colin Powell, in the bureaucratic battle for
control of Iraq policy. The Defence Department’s
preeminence was revealed when it asserted control over
the postwar reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
The botched reconstruction efforts, the emergence of
Iraq as a centre of terrorist activity and the
continuous killing of American soldiers in Iraq have not
been held against Rumsfeld and his team. Not only was he
asked to continue in office soon after Bush’s November 2
victory. his chief deputies, Wolfowitz and Feith, appear
to be remaining in place as well. Given the Bush
campaign’s refusal to admit any mistakes in Iraq, it was
inevitable that the Pentagon leadership that managed US
policy in Iraq would remain. Any other course would have
reflected badly on the administration’s policy line.
Powell, however, was expendable and he was not invited
to stay on. His loyal deputy, Richard Armitage, too has
left. Armitage had played a major role in the US
formulation of policy toward South Asia that witnessed
the effective end of nuclear related sanctions on India
and Pakistan, the revival of military ties with the two
countries that was shaped by larger counter-terrorism
objectives, and US efforts to reduce tensions between
them.
Taking Powell’s place will be Condoleezza Rice, the
president’s national security advisor during his first
term. Looming foreign policy challenges such as nuclear
weapons programmes in Iran and North Korea, the
Palestinian issue, and a post-election Iraq will test
her bureaucratic skills against rivals, especially in
the Department of Defence, and will determine how
effectively she can rebuild international alliances to
address these issues. At least on the bureaucratic
politics, Rice has several advantages over her
predecessor: she is personally close to the president;
she goes into her job with a wealth of knowledge about
the issues and the complicated bureaucratic policy
formulation process; her loyal deputy at the National
Security Council, Stephen Hadley, has been appointed her
successor.
At her January 18-19 confirmation hearings, Rice said
the State Department would be the “primary instrument�
of foreign relations. She stressed the importance of
alliances in fighting the war on terror and encouraging
the spread of democracy and asserted that the “time for
diplomacy is now.� She made specific reference to the
creation of an office at the Department to handle
reconstruction in crisis situations, a not-so-subtle
reminder that State will not abdicate this traditional
diplomatic responsibility to the Department of Defence,
as it was forced to do two years earlier. Her initial
appointments suggest the continuation of a
non-ideological approach to issues at the State
Department. Her first personnel action was the choice of
a deputy and she selected Robert Zoellick, the US trade
representative and a moderate, an appointment that also
points to a more focused approach to economic issues.
Bush gave his personal blessing to this team, stating in
their presence that the two “will form one of the really
strong, capable foreign policy teams our country has
ever had.� Rice bypassed John Bolton, the under
secretary of state for arms control and international
security, a hardline ideologue who is widely believed to
have lobbied for the position. Bolton’s likely
replacement is Robert G. Joseph, who worked closely with
Rice on non- proliferation issues at the NSC. These
appointments would represent a victory for foreign
policy realists in the Republican Party over
neo-conservatives who dominated foreign policy in Bush’s
first term. The pragmatic thrust will be further
strengthened by the likely appointment of NATO
Ambassador Nicholas Burns, a skilled negotiator and
career diplomat, in the number three position at State,
the under secretary for political affairs. Informed
opinion in Washington predicts that most assistant
secretaries in charge of the regional and functional
bureaus at the State Department will be her appointees
and not ideologues thrust on the Department to curb
dissent, as was once widely rumoured would be the case.
Regarding South Asia, Rice has an opportunity to build a
strategic relationship with India, a stated US goal that
has lacked momentum, in part due to the focus on Iraq. A
tentative start was taken in the decision to work
closely with key Asian powers of India, Japan and
Australia on tsunami relief. While this coordinating
function was turned over to the UN, it is a sound model.
These are democracies with no expansionist ambitions and
share the fundamental security views of the US. The
president in his inaugural address dedicated his second
term to the spread of democracy and the curbing of
tyranny. A good place to begin is to seek the
cooperation of the world’s largest democracy, India. Key
to this happening will be the appointment of a forceful
and politically well-connected assistant secretary for
South Asia."
policy team writes Walter Andersen.
Quotes :
"The writer is associate director, South Asia Studies
Programme, School of Advanced International Studies,
Johns Hopkins University
George W. Bush was sworn in as president in 2001 with no
intention of focusing on foreign policy. The second
inauguration of George W. Bush on January 20 was quite
the reverse. In his inaugural speech, he laid out one of
the most expansive manifestos ever offered from an
inaugural platform as he dedicated his presidency to
spreading democracy and freedom. He portrayed the US as
a beacon for the subjugated and promised to
confront despots who enchain them. The catalyst for this
about-face in foreign policy, of course, was 9/11 and
the subsequent Global War on Terrorism.
It was the military activity in Afghanistan and then
Iraq that provided an opportunity for Secretary of
Defence Donald Rumsfeld to assume the dominant role in
the fight against terrorism, America’s major foreign
policy engagement. In this, he was ably assisted by Paul
Wolfowitz, his brilliant deputy secretary who is the
intellectual father of the notion of pre-emptive
military action that was employed against Saddam
Hussein, and by Douglas Feith, the under secretary of
defence policy. Vice President Richard Cheney’s support
for Rumsfeld guaranteed the victory of Rumsfeld and the
Department of Defence against the Department of State
headed by Colin Powell, in the bureaucratic battle for
control of Iraq policy. The Defence Department’s
preeminence was revealed when it asserted control over
the postwar reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
The botched reconstruction efforts, the emergence of
Iraq as a centre of terrorist activity and the
continuous killing of American soldiers in Iraq have not
been held against Rumsfeld and his team. Not only was he
asked to continue in office soon after Bush’s November 2
victory. his chief deputies, Wolfowitz and Feith, appear
to be remaining in place as well. Given the Bush
campaign’s refusal to admit any mistakes in Iraq, it was
inevitable that the Pentagon leadership that managed US
policy in Iraq would remain. Any other course would have
reflected badly on the administration’s policy line.
Powell, however, was expendable and he was not invited
to stay on. His loyal deputy, Richard Armitage, too has
left. Armitage had played a major role in the US
formulation of policy toward South Asia that witnessed
the effective end of nuclear related sanctions on India
and Pakistan, the revival of military ties with the two
countries that was shaped by larger counter-terrorism
objectives, and US efforts to reduce tensions between
them.
Taking Powell’s place will be Condoleezza Rice, the
president’s national security advisor during his first
term. Looming foreign policy challenges such as nuclear
weapons programmes in Iran and North Korea, the
Palestinian issue, and a post-election Iraq will test
her bureaucratic skills against rivals, especially in
the Department of Defence, and will determine how
effectively she can rebuild international alliances to
address these issues. At least on the bureaucratic
politics, Rice has several advantages over her
predecessor: she is personally close to the president;
she goes into her job with a wealth of knowledge about
the issues and the complicated bureaucratic policy
formulation process; her loyal deputy at the National
Security Council, Stephen Hadley, has been appointed her
successor.
At her January 18-19 confirmation hearings, Rice said
the State Department would be the “primary instrument�
of foreign relations. She stressed the importance of
alliances in fighting the war on terror and encouraging
the spread of democracy and asserted that the “time for
diplomacy is now.� She made specific reference to the
creation of an office at the Department to handle
reconstruction in crisis situations, a not-so-subtle
reminder that State will not abdicate this traditional
diplomatic responsibility to the Department of Defence,
as it was forced to do two years earlier. Her initial
appointments suggest the continuation of a
non-ideological approach to issues at the State
Department. Her first personnel action was the choice of
a deputy and she selected Robert Zoellick, the US trade
representative and a moderate, an appointment that also
points to a more focused approach to economic issues.
Bush gave his personal blessing to this team, stating in
their presence that the two “will form one of the really
strong, capable foreign policy teams our country has
ever had.� Rice bypassed John Bolton, the under
secretary of state for arms control and international
security, a hardline ideologue who is widely believed to
have lobbied for the position. Bolton’s likely
replacement is Robert G. Joseph, who worked closely with
Rice on non- proliferation issues at the NSC. These
appointments would represent a victory for foreign
policy realists in the Republican Party over
neo-conservatives who dominated foreign policy in Bush’s
first term. The pragmatic thrust will be further
strengthened by the likely appointment of NATO
Ambassador Nicholas Burns, a skilled negotiator and
career diplomat, in the number three position at State,
the under secretary for political affairs. Informed
opinion in Washington predicts that most assistant
secretaries in charge of the regional and functional
bureaus at the State Department will be her appointees
and not ideologues thrust on the Department to curb
dissent, as was once widely rumoured would be the case.
Regarding South Asia, Rice has an opportunity to build a
strategic relationship with India, a stated US goal that
has lacked momentum, in part due to the focus on Iraq. A
tentative start was taken in the decision to work
closely with key Asian powers of India, Japan and
Australia on tsunami relief. While this coordinating
function was turned over to the UN, it is a sound model.
These are democracies with no expansionist ambitions and
share the fundamental security views of the US. The
president in his inaugural address dedicated his second
term to the spread of democracy and the curbing of
tyranny. A good place to begin is to seek the
cooperation of the world’s largest democracy, India. Key
to this happening will be the appointment of a forceful
and politically well-connected assistant secretary for
South Asia."
Tokyo MP's role to be ignored under missile attack?
This article speculates on the current government
discussions trends regarding the chain of command and
the political control of the SDF in case of an attack on
the archipelago.
Quotes :
"The government plans to diminish the roles of
lawmakers-including the prime minister-in decisions to
counter surprise missile attacks from foreign nations.
A draft bill on amending the Self-Defense Forces Law
includes a plan that does not require the prime
minister's prior approval for the SDF to intercept an
incoming missile in a surprise attack. In addition, the
government would not be obliged to report to the Diet
any countermeasures taken in such emergencies.
Instead, the counterattack would follow procedures
established in advance by the director-general of the
Defense Agency. The final decision to launch interceptor
missiles would be left to the SDF commander-even without
an order from the defense chief.
The plan is intended to accelerate the process in the
limited time available to protect the populace from a
missile attack. A North Korean Nodong missile, for
example, could reach Japan within 10 minutes after its
launch.
But the proposed revisions will likely raise serious
concerns about the loss of civilian control over the
SDF.
The government plans to gain Cabinet approval of the
revision bill on Feb. 10 and submit it to the current
Diet session. Pacifist lawmakers are certain to oppose
the legislation.
The plan in countering a ballistic missile attack has
two sets of procedures.
One is for cases when there are ``risks of a missile
directed toward Japan.'' The other concerns a missile
attack without any warning sign.
If there are prior signs, the defense chief is to report
the threat to the prime minister. The prime minister
would then approve the carrying out of countermeasures
and give the defense chief the authority to give the
orders.
If an attack occurs, the SDF commander would act
according to rules of engagement compiled beforehand.
If an attack comes without any warning sign, the SDF
commander would decide whether to take countermeasures
based on an emergency manual, which will be compiled by
the defense chief.
The contents of the manual, which must be approved by
the prime minister, will fall under a government
ordinance and not be included in the main part of the
amended law, according to the government plan.
Under the current SDF law, approval from Japan's
Security Council, the Cabinet and the Diet must be
obtained before the prime minister can order the SDF to
engage in activities involving the use of force. Diet
approval is required after the fact, even for
emergencies."
discussions trends regarding the chain of command and
the political control of the SDF in case of an attack on
the archipelago.
Quotes :
"The government plans to diminish the roles of
lawmakers-including the prime minister-in decisions to
counter surprise missile attacks from foreign nations.
A draft bill on amending the Self-Defense Forces Law
includes a plan that does not require the prime
minister's prior approval for the SDF to intercept an
incoming missile in a surprise attack. In addition, the
government would not be obliged to report to the Diet
any countermeasures taken in such emergencies.
Instead, the counterattack would follow procedures
established in advance by the director-general of the
Defense Agency. The final decision to launch interceptor
missiles would be left to the SDF commander-even without
an order from the defense chief.
The plan is intended to accelerate the process in the
limited time available to protect the populace from a
missile attack. A North Korean Nodong missile, for
example, could reach Japan within 10 minutes after its
launch.
But the proposed revisions will likely raise serious
concerns about the loss of civilian control over the
SDF.
The government plans to gain Cabinet approval of the
revision bill on Feb. 10 and submit it to the current
Diet session. Pacifist lawmakers are certain to oppose
the legislation.
The plan in countering a ballistic missile attack has
two sets of procedures.
One is for cases when there are ``risks of a missile
directed toward Japan.'' The other concerns a missile
attack without any warning sign.
If there are prior signs, the defense chief is to report
the threat to the prime minister. The prime minister
would then approve the carrying out of countermeasures
and give the defense chief the authority to give the
orders.
If an attack occurs, the SDF commander would act
according to rules of engagement compiled beforehand.
If an attack comes without any warning sign, the SDF
commander would decide whether to take countermeasures
based on an emergency manual, which will be compiled by
the defense chief.
The contents of the manual, which must be approved by
the prime minister, will fall under a government
ordinance and not be included in the main part of the
amended law, according to the government plan.
Under the current SDF law, approval from Japan's
Security Council, the Cabinet and the Diet must be
obtained before the prime minister can order the SDF to
engage in activities involving the use of force. Diet
approval is required after the fact, even for
emergencies."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)