Guess what? Hispan TV just got real official. Adam Housley's March 20 article for Fox News Latino, "Iran Moving In on Latin American Television Market" (see http://tinyurl.com/7a47vc3), just announced the details. The Iranian run Spanish-language television station has been officially launched (it will run 24/7 and feature news, movies, and documentaries, all from Iran), with the support of Tio Chavez, and the message of the channel is clear: anti-American, anti-West, and anti-Christian. This is not Iran's first foray into multi-lingual propaganda, but this might be the first time that its message falls on the friendly ears of its allies in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Iran claims that it's not promoting propaganda, but rather shedding light on the practices of "dominance seekers" (re: US). Of course, Iran has found friendly television waves in Venezuela, where Chavez has a knack for censoring stations which don't exactly line up with his ideology, like RCTV, which was seized by Chavez in 2007 in a "so-called license denial." This doesn't exactly scream of open press. The president of RCTV, Marcel Granier, was quoted saying "it's frustrating for all Venezuelans, I think. The same way that is is very frustrating that we are destroying a relationship with the US that has lasted two centuries and favoring China now. They have less technology than the US and they are the ones taking business." Granier isn't the biggest fan of Iranian intervention, indicating that regimes like that are "despicable" because they don't "believe in human rights," which is why he believes that Venezuela can provide money for Iranian activities. Granier isn't alone though. Channel One, an opposition Iranian broadcasting network operating outside Iran has expressed its worry about this new propaganda in Latin America. Hispan TV messages, targeted not at the educated but rather the unsatisfied, not only attack the West and provide a channel for misinformation, but tries to rationalize the controversial nuclear program. The president of Channel One actually suggested that the US scramble Hispan TV or urge Latin American leaders to remove it from the air. Make no mistake, Ahmadinejad has played his hand perfectly in Latin America. The only remaining question is, what happens now?
About a month ago, I posted an article about Iranian president Ahmadinejad's visit to Latin America, and included a link to a BBC article about Hispan TV. I commented on how this network, along with Ahmadinejad's well placed visits to his regional allies displayed exactly the kind of global interconnectedness we are studying in this blog. According to this article, it seems that US fears are true. Iran will be making use of this channel to promote propaganda not only against the West, but even more disturbing, propaganda to solicit support for its controversial nuclear program. Looks like Ahmadinejad is trying to make friends in Latin American so he can win their support for his nukes. I realize that perhaps Fox news is not the best place to look for un-slanted journalism, but what I found interesting was the incorporation of RCTV and Channel One, neither of them American, as well as an Iranian professor from Stanford, to give the article depth. When Chavez shut down RCTV in 2007, most of the international community was in an uproar. It seems that this partnership doesn't exactly scream 'best practice' in journalism. After all, as Professor Milani indicates, this channel will most likely make use of anti-West and anti-Semitic rhetoric. Messages of hate being broadcasted across of Latin America is definitely concerning.
It seems to me that Ahmadinejad is preying on the people, exploiting them for support. I think it is very significant that the Channel One president pointed out that the messages of Hispan TV are targeted to the unsatisfied rather than the educated. Perhaps this is because Iran know that education will be able to understand that they are being manipulated. This supports our point that everything, in some form or another, comes back to education. Look, the US is certainly no angel, but Ahmadinejad's subversive actions in Latin America are downright frightening. He doesn't have Latin American interests in mind at all; he's just trying to prey on the downtrodden and incite anti-West sentiment to gain support for his own country. I think that Latin American leaders would do well to be cautious of the actions of their friends. I want to know what Chavez, Ortega, and other leaders are getting out of the deal, because I don't see the Latin American people really getting anything.
The article points out that this is "24 hour propaganda in our (US) own backyard." Channel One president Homayou wants to know why the West isn't stepping in, halting the money movement and financial relationships between Latin American and Iran. What should the US's role be with regards to Iranian involvement in Latin America? I'm not quite sure, but I do find the entire thing disturbing. Hate only begets hate, and Latin American may be 'stable' now, but it's a very fragile balance. Something has to give, and someone has to do something.
As a side note, Ray Walser from the Heritage Foundation wrote an article about US-Brazil relations with specific details on the presence of Iran in Latin American and what that may mean for the region (see: http://tinyurl.com/7mn9g94). The article indicates how "democracy promotion" is not present in Brazil's foreign policy agenda, but that it's very important for the US interests in the region, with specific regard to the presence of Iran in Latin America. It also addresses Channel One's questions about the "West" stepping in, as this article definitely talks about steps that the US should take regarding its relationship with Brazil in terms of Iran's involvement. The rhetoric of the article focuses on the "united'' relationship that the US and Brazil should have around human rights, anti-nuclear proliferation, and democracy promotion. The article addresses the differences between Brazil and the US in terms of its relationship with the Middle East, specifically Iran and Palestine (recognizing Iran as a developing nation and a 'victimized' trade partner, recognizing Palestine's statehood, voting against stricter anti-proliferation restrictions for Iran, which might promote Iran's nuclear program). The article suggests that Obama needs to address these concerns with Brazil vis-a-vis the 'diplomacy of persuasion.' Obviously, this article expresses the US opinion about the consequences of Iran in Latin America on the US, which I think deals with the issue of conflicting perspectives between Latin America and the US. The US has issues with Iran's involvement in Latin America because it will negatively impact US interests and because Iran is not a friend of the US. However, I still think the general opinion of how Latin America feels about Iran's involvement is lacking. What should the US role be regarding other country's relations with Iran? Should the US have a role, given the rhetoric of its desires and interests. How should Latin American countries deal with Iran? There are so many questions, and so few answers.
As a side note, Ray Walser from the Heritage Foundation wrote an article about US-Brazil relations with specific details on the presence of Iran in Latin American and what that may mean for the region (see: http://tinyurl.com/7mn9g94). The article indicates how "democracy promotion" is not present in Brazil's foreign policy agenda, but that it's very important for the US interests in the region, with specific regard to the presence of Iran in Latin America. It also addresses Channel One's questions about the "West" stepping in, as this article definitely talks about steps that the US should take regarding its relationship with Brazil in terms of Iran's involvement. The rhetoric of the article focuses on the "united'' relationship that the US and Brazil should have around human rights, anti-nuclear proliferation, and democracy promotion. The article addresses the differences between Brazil and the US in terms of its relationship with the Middle East, specifically Iran and Palestine (recognizing Iran as a developing nation and a 'victimized' trade partner, recognizing Palestine's statehood, voting against stricter anti-proliferation restrictions for Iran, which might promote Iran's nuclear program). The article suggests that Obama needs to address these concerns with Brazil vis-a-vis the 'diplomacy of persuasion.' Obviously, this article expresses the US opinion about the consequences of Iran in Latin America on the US, which I think deals with the issue of conflicting perspectives between Latin America and the US. The US has issues with Iran's involvement in Latin America because it will negatively impact US interests and because Iran is not a friend of the US. However, I still think the general opinion of how Latin America feels about Iran's involvement is lacking. What should the US role be regarding other country's relations with Iran? Should the US have a role, given the rhetoric of its desires and interests. How should Latin American countries deal with Iran? There are so many questions, and so few answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment