Pacific Institute of Public Policy (PiPP) a think-tank (some have equated think tanks to universities without students).
PiPP unveiled a discussion paper (PDF) on the inherent benefits of the internet and the extent of mobile penetration in the South Pacific:
Read More
As well as pointing out how social media is changing the level of discourse in the islands:
To get a snap shot on this data, Socialbakers- a private social media and digital analytics company, fills in the apparent gaps in the PiPP discussion paper.
The PiPP paper also highlights the use of blogs in Fiji and alludes to a "war" in the blogosphere:
Another ad hoc perspective of the PiPP paper, is that it does not actively mention those anti-coup Fiji blogs by name; however it is not exactly rocket science to figure what blogs the discussion paper was referring to and the seemingly innocuous Twitter interactions with some Australia media personalities.
Further, the paper also pointed to the Arab spring and held a sliver of hope that one would occur in the Pacific region:
One should also not completely forget that, the Arab Spring did not occur within a vacuum, but the groups had received funding from US sources, according to a New York Times article.
Not much of stretch to presume the same foreign assistance were afforded to some of the same Fiji blogs, mentioned in the PiPP discussion paper. After all even the Samoan Prime Minister has suggested a similar strand of action, in a Radio NZ article.
The excerpt of NY Times:
PiPP unveiled a discussion paper (PDF) on the inherent benefits of the internet and the extent of mobile penetration in the South Pacific:
Over the past few years, attitudes towards telecommunications in the Pacific have
shifted. Complacent monopolies are being replaced by greater policy engagement,
and a more competitive marketplace. Wireless networks are significantly cheaper to
roll out than cable-based ones, especially in areas lacking significant road and power
networks. As wireless capabilities increase, so too do revenue opportunities as we are
now seeing with the delivery of data services via mobile phone networks.
 |
| Map from discussion paper. |
As well as pointing out how social media is changing the level of discourse in the islands:
Internet use is on the rise throughout the Pacific. From Fiji’s warring blogs, to new
online businesses in Vanuatu, to Tonga’s inflows of cash and cultural influences from nationals living abroad. Across the Pacific the internet is ending the tyranny of distance and strengthening social bonds. The region’s leaders are notably absent, but the online conversation goes on without them[...]
We are witnessing the internet giving rise to Pacific voices on the international stage. Increasingly mainstream media outlets are contacting Pacific islanders in relation to news and events—because they can now find them—and their interests—online via Twitter and Facebook.While the discussion paper had pointed out that, the Pacific islanders are using social networks frequently; the paper does not have much raw data quantifying, the level of Facebook or Twitter users.
To get a snap shot on this data, Socialbakers- a private social media and digital analytics company, fills in the apparent gaps in the PiPP discussion paper.
 |
| (Above images) Screenshots from Socialbaker stats on Fiji's Facebook penetration. |
The PiPP paper also highlights the use of blogs in Fiji and alludes to a "war" in the blogosphere:
Internet services have proliferated in Fiji, due largely to its strategic placement as a landing point for the Southern Cross undersea cable, which means Fiji has the cheapest internet fees in the region. Post coup, state censors quickly silenced criticism amongst traditional media outlets, then began a running battle with anti-coup blogs and other online dissidents. Unable to monitor or silence them all, the military government resorted to fighting fire with fire—and a number of more decidedly supportive blogs began to appear, countering the accusations aimed at the regime. Alone among Pacific governments, Fiji has its own official blog.One of the apparent misconceptions stated in the PiPP paper, was that Fiji blogs ultimately arose from the 2006 Fiji coup. The existence of this blog and others existing prior to the 2006 coup, does throw a spanner in the works of that simplistic view.
Another ad hoc perspective of the PiPP paper, is that it does not actively mention those anti-coup Fiji blogs by name; however it is not exactly rocket science to figure what blogs the discussion paper was referring to and the seemingly innocuous Twitter interactions with some Australia media personalities.
Further, the paper also pointed to the Arab spring and held a sliver of hope that one would occur in the Pacific region:
There are, however, few indications yet that the Pacific is about to experience its own version of what happened in the Arab Spring. Social media services like Twitter and Facebook served a largely logistical role in mobilising the Arab protests.
One should also not completely forget that, the Arab Spring did not occur within a vacuum, but the groups had received funding from US sources, according to a New York Times article.
Not much of stretch to presume the same foreign assistance were afforded to some of the same Fiji blogs, mentioned in the PiPP discussion paper. After all even the Samoan Prime Minister has suggested a similar strand of action, in a Radio NZ article.
The excerpt of NY Times:
U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings
By RON NIXON
Published: April 14, 2011
WASHINGTON — Even as the United States poured billions of dollars into foreign military programs and anti-terrorism campaigns, a small core of American government-financed organizations were promoting democracy in authoritarian Arab states.Andrea Bruce for The New York Times
Michael Simon, who worked on targeting for the Barack Obama presidential campaign of 2008, spoke last week to members of the Egyptian Democratic Academy in Cairo.Multimedia
The money spent on these programs was minute compared with efforts led by the Pentagon. But as American officials and others look back at the uprisings of the Arab Spring, they are seeing that the United States’ democracy-building campaigns played a bigger role in fomenting protests than was previously known, with key leaders of the movements having been trained by the Americans in campaigning, organizing through new media tools and monitoring elections.Related
NATO Showing Strain Over Approach to Libya (April 15, 2011)
Libyan Port City Is Filled With Migrants Desperate to Exit (April 15, 2011)
A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks.
The work of these groups often provoked tensions between the United States and many Middle Eastern leaders, who frequently complained that their leadership was being undermined, according to the cables.
The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department.
No one doubts that the Arab uprisings are home grown, rather than resulting from “foreign influence,” as alleged by some Middle Eastern leaders.
“We didn’t fund them to start protests, but we did help support their development of skills and networking,” said Stephen McInerney, executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy, a Washington-based advocacy and research group. “That training did play a role in what ultimately happened, but it was their revolution. We didn’t start it.”
Some Egyptian youth leaders attended a 2008 technology meeting in New York, where they were taught to use social networking and mobile technologies to promote democracy. Among those sponsoring the meeting were Facebook, Google, MTV, Columbia Law School and the State Department.
“We learned how to organize and build coalitions,” said Bashem Fathy, a founder of the youth movement that ultimately drove the Egyptian uprisings. Mr. Fathy, who attended training with Freedom House, said, “This certainly helped during the revolution.”
Ms. Qadhi, the Yemeni youth activist, attended American training sessions in Yemen.
“It helped me very much because I used to think that change only takes place by force and by weapons,” she said. But now, she said, it is clear that results can be achieved with peaceful protests and other nonviolent means.
But some members of the activist groups complained in interviews that the United States was hypocritical for helping them at the same time that it was supporting the governments they sought to change.
“While we appreciated the training we received through the NGOs sponsored by the U.S. government, and it did help us in our struggles, we are also aware that the same government also trained the state security investigative service, which was responsible for the harassment and jailing of many of us,” said Mr. Fathy, the Egyptian activist. Interviews with officials of the nongovernmental groups and a review of diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks show that the democracy programs were constant sources of tension between the United States and many Arab governments.
The cables, in particular, show how leaders in the Middle East and North Africa viewed these groups with deep suspicion, and tried to weaken them. Today the work of these groups is among the reasons that governments in turmoil claim that Western meddling was behind the uprisings, with some officials noting that leaders like Ms. Qadhi were trained and financed by the United States.
Diplomatic cables report how American officials frequently assured skeptical governments that the training was aimed at reform, not promoting revolutions.
Last year, for example, a few months before national elections in Bahrain, officials there barred a representative of the National Democratic Institute from entering the country.
In Bahrain, officials worried that the group’s political training “disproportionately benefited the opposition,” according to a January 2010 cable.
In Yemen, where the United States has been spending millions on an anti-terrorism program, officials complained that American efforts to promote democracy amounted to “interference in internal Yemeni affairs.
But nowhere was the opposition to the American groups stronger than in Egypt.
Egypt, whose government receives $1.5 billion annually in military and economic aid from the United States, viewed efforts to promote political change with deep suspicion, even outrage.
Hosni Mubarak, then Egypt’s president, was “deeply skeptical of the U.S. role in democracy promotion,” said a diplomatic cable from the United States Embassy in Cairo dated Oct. 9, 2007.
At one time the United States financed political reform groups by channeling money through the Egyptian government. But in 2005, under a Bush administration initiative, local groups were given direct grants, much to the chagrin of Egyptian officials.
According to a September 2006 cable, Mahmoud Nayel, an official with the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, complained to American Embassy officials about the United States government’s “arrogant tactics in promoting reform in Egypt.”
The main targets of the Egyptian complaints were the Republican and Democratic institutes. Diplomatic cables show that Egyptian officials complained that the United States was providing support for “illegal organizations.”
Gamal Mubarak, the former president’s son, is described in an Oct. 20, 2008, cable as “irritable about direct U.S. democracy and governance funding of Egyptian NGOs.”
The Egyptian government even appealed to groups like Freedom House to stop working with local political activists and human rights groups.
“They were constantly saying: ‘Why are you working with those groups, they are nothing. All they have are slogans,’ ” said Sherif Mansour, an Egyptian activist and a senior program officer for the Middle East and North Africa at Freedom House.
When their appeals to the United States government failed, the Egyptian authorities reacted by restricting the activities of the American nonprofit organizations. Hotels that were to host training sessions were closed for renovations. Staff members of the groups were followed, and local activists were intimidated and jailed. State-owned newspapers accused activists of receiving money from American intelligence agencies.
Affiliating themselves with the American organizations may have tainted leaders within their own groups. According to one diplomatic cable, leaders of the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt told the American Embassy in 2009 that some members of the group had accused Ahmed Maher, a leader of the January uprising, and other leaders of “treason” in a mock trial related to their association with Freedom House, which more militant members of the movement described as a “Zionist organization.”
A prominent blogger, according to a cable, threatened to post the information about the movement leaders’ links to Freedom House on his blog. There is no evidence that this ever happened, and a later cable shows that the group ousted the members who were complaining about Mr. Maher and other leaders.
In the face of government opposition, some groups moved their training sessions to friendlier countries like Jordan or Morocco. They also sent activists to the United States for training.
No comments:
Post a Comment