Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 22, 2016
Document Release Date: 
September 1, 2010
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
November 1, 1983
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8.pdf1.36 MB
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Directorate of sen I- w! Intelligence The High-Frequency World Administrative Radio Conference: Issues and Prospects GI 83-10258 November 1983 Copy 2 7 7 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Directorate of Intelligence Radio Conference: Issues and Prospects The High-Frequency World Administrative Issues, OGI This paper was prepared b Office of Global Issues, with a contribution from the Monitoring Operations Division, FBIS. Comments and queries are welcome and may be directed to the Chief, Third World Secret GI 83-10258 November 1983 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 25X1 25X1 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 The High-Frequency World Administrative Radio Conference: Issues and Prospects Secret Key Judgments The High-Frequency World Administrative Radio Conference (HF- Information available WARC) will convene 10 January in Geneva to attempt to agree on a as of 21 October 1983 method of planning the assignment of broadcast frequencies. The Interna- was used in this report. tional Telecommunication Union (ITU) has met six times in 37 years to consider this subject. We believe a planning method that meets the needs of both major and minor broadcasters is technically feasible. However, in our judgment, this first of two planned HF-WARC sessions probably will not agree on a specific planning method. The conference is more likely to refer several alternative planning methods to a working group, which will report to the second session of the conference scheduled to convene in October 1986. We believe that the January HF-WARC will founder on the same central problem as previous conferences: broadcasters' demands on the high- frequency spectrum exceed presently available broadcast hours by almost 50 percent. A one-third increase in the broadcasting spectrum has been scheduled by the ITU for 1989-94, but there are some doubts concerning its actual availability at that time and, meanwhile, requirements continue to increase. Previous conferences have not been able to identify a planning method that meets both the minimum requirements of major broadcasters for flexibility in the use of the high-frequency spectrum and the demands of the less developed countries for improved quality of service. Issues not directly related to the method of planning spectrum use could, also tie up the conference. Resolutions against jamming have already been submitted by Canada and the United Kingdom. The Soviets almost certainly will oppose any type of antijamming resolution. State Department reporting indicates that a majority of ITU members believe that jamming is an East-West political issue they would prefer to avoid at the HF- WARC. Ideological debate over the right of a nation to control informa- tion crossing its borders may also arise as may extraneous political issues such as the question of Israeli participation. With the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty as well as other high-frequency broadcasting, the United States is the second- largest user of the high-frequency broadcast spectrum. US interests could be adversely affected if the conference adopts a rigid spectrum planning method that could not accommodate US requirements. Should the confer- ence agree to place limits on transmitter power or broadcasting of the same program on multiple frequencies, US ability to counter Soviet jamming would be impaired. Secret GI 83-10258 November 1983 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Contents Key Countries and Groups 6 Nonaligned Countries 7 Conference Officials 8 A. Conference Agenda B. Broadcasting Organization of Nonaligned Countries: Draft Guiding Principles for Planning of the Broadcasting Services in the HF Bands 15 C. Broadcasting Organization of Nonaligned Countries: Resolution on the use of Radio as an Instrument of Aggression 17 D. Broadcasting Organization of Nonaligned Countries: Draft Recommendation Concerning the Setting Up of Foreign Broadcasting Stations on the Territories of Nonaligned Countries 19 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Secret The High-Frequency World Administrative Radio Conference: Issues and Prospects The Conference in Brief Members of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will renew their 37-year-old effort to agree on a method of planning the use of the high- frequency (HF) broadcasting spectrum when the High-Frequency World Administrative Radio Con- ference (HF-WARC) convenes its first of two planned sessions on 10 January 1984 in Geneva (appendix A). Five earlier efforts ended in failure. The sixth confer- ence, held in 1959, adopted in desperation the present system under which countries submit seasonal re- quirements to the ITU and then attempt to work out bilaterally any potential conflicts. According to an agreement reached at the 1979 WARC, the main purpose of the meeting is to establish a planning method-that is, a way to assign HF broadcasting frequencies. In addition, the 1984 meeting is intended to establish principles governing the use of the bands and the technical parameters for planning spectrum use. In 1986 a second session of the conference would carry out the planning of the bands according to the method and principles established in 1984. We believe that the HF-WARC will be contentious and that this first session is not likely to reach agreement on a method of planning the HF spectrum. We believe that the key factors affecting the outcome of the January session include: ? Identification of a planning method that meets both the minimum requirements of major broadcasters- such as the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union-as well as LDC demands for an improved quality of service. The essence of the planning problem is that broadcasters' demands exceed pres- ently available broadcast hours in the HF spectrum by almost 50 percent. We believe that a planning method that meets the needs of both major and minor broadcasters is techni- cally feasible. We also believe that the LDCs, particu- larly larger users such as India and Algeria, under- stand this and would derive tangible benefits from a conference agreement on HF spectrum planning. However, we have serious doubt that the conference will achieve the planning objectives established in its mandate. ? The availability by the scheduled dates (1989-94) of the new bands the 1979 WARC allocated to general broadcasting at the expense of fixed services-such as point-to-point transmissions used for domestic or military communications: The availability of the expanded bands depends on the transfer of existing fixed-service users out of them. The one-third in- crease in the spectrum would improve the quality of service for many broadcasters, but it does not include new bands at the lower end of the spectrum where it is most crowded. Moreover, this increase will be at least partly offset by a continued expan- sion of stated requirements. According to US officials involved with the ITU, efforts to transfer the fixed-service users are already a year behind schedule, and countries such as China and Argentina continue to submit requirements for fixed-service assignments in the new bands. The possibility of reaching consensus on a planning meth- od will, in all likelihood, require the availability of the new bands on or close to schedule. ? The possibility of a prolonged East-West ideological debate over the principles governing the use of the broadcasting bands. The principle most likely to affect the conference is the free flow of information. Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 State Department reporting indicates that most devel- oping countries favor setting aside the East-West ideological debate and proceeding with a more techni- cal mandate. If the conference cannot agree on a planning method to replace the existing system, several alternatives are available: ? The conference could call for an intersessional group to examine a number of methods. The ITU could then arrange the agenda of the second session scheduled to begin in October 1986 to allow exami- nation of-the intercessional results. We believe this alternative will be the most likely result of the conference. The delegates could also decide to re- convene the first session and delay the second session. ? The LDCs, if they can agree among themselves, could adopt a planning method unacceptable to the minority, forcing the minority countries to take reservations. We believe major broadcasters, includ- ing the Soviet Union, probably would go along with the plan where it coincided with their interests and broadcast as they please where it did not. This result would be tantamount to broadcast chaos. The indus- trialized nations would use their wealth and techni- cal expertise to overcome interference while the LDCs' broadcasting would continue to suffer signif- icant interference. ? The conference could admit failure. If the confer- ence admits failure the most likely result would be a reversion to the present planning method. The outcome of the conference could directly affect US interests. The United States with its Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe (RFE), and Radio Liberty (RL) is the second-largest user of the HF broadcasting spectrum. (The Soviet Union is by far the largest HF broadcaster.) US broadcasting interests would suffer if the conference adopted a rigid spectrum planning method or if limits were placed on transmitter power or multiple frequencies. The United States could refuse to accede to confer- ence results. If, however, countries serving as hosts for VOA, RFE, or RL relay transmitters accepted them, US broadcasting would be affected because of its dependence on host nations for international broad- casting-a dependency not shared by the Soviet Union. Issues The HF-WARC will be a five-week negotiating ses- sion with the 158 members of the ITU invited to participate. The issues to be addressed are complex and technical in nature, but almost all of them have political overtones. In many cases the interests of the industrial nations, including the Communist nations, will be pitted against those of the LDCs. In other issues, the divisions will be East-West. As a result, there are several issues on which the conference could founder. Planning Methods. According to State Department reporting, the industrial and developing nations are promoting fundamentally different methods of assign- ing the HF broadcasting frequencies. The industrial nations want to maintain the main features of the current flexible system under which countries notify the ITU of proposed broadcast schedules for each season and cooperate voluntarily in resolving potential interference. The system permits introduction of new stations, alteration of frequencies to meet new re- quirements, and reassignments to meet changing propagation conditions. Because of the overcrowding of the bands, however, new broadcasting requirements are difficult to accommodate. The system also encour- ages excessive use of frequencies to overcome broad- casting uncertainties. Apart from deliberate jamming, substantial, inadvertent, mutual interference often makes reception difficult. LDCs complain that the quarterly submission of requirements and subsequent efforts to reconcile apparent incompatibilities place an undue burden on their financial and technical re- sources. For their part, the developing nations are seeking a fixed system in which planning would be in effect for one or several years at a time. It would include agreed schedules for given levels of solar activity and for different seasons. Fixed planning is preferred by countries with fixed reception areas-such as LDCs using HF broadcasting domestically-because their Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Secret requirements are not likely to change radically. A fixed schedule would also free governments from the burden of repetitive frequency selection and notifica- tion. A key disadvantage of the fixed system approach is that it limits countries' flexibility in overcoming jamming or other forms of interference. Moreover, the industrial nations believe that spectrum would be wasted because countries would submit inflated re- quirements to accommodate anticipated future broad- casting needs. Although the two planning methods take very differ- ent approaches, elements common to each would have to be resolved. Each method, for example, requires agreement on the allocation of broadcast frequencies. According to US telecommunication officials, most ITU members agree on the principle of "equitable access" to the HF broadcasting spectrum for all nations. The industrial nations interpret'equitable access as the right of all nations to receive HF assignments according to their broadcasting needs. Experienced ITU.negotiators indicate that the LDCs believe equitable access means that nations should be assured an acceptable quality of service regardless of whether all needs of all nations are satisfied. The LDCs also want to restrict broadcasting of the same program on multiple frequencies, a common antijam- ming technique, except in cases where more than one frequency is required by the size of the service area or changes in ionospheric conditions. (For a complete list of LDC guidelines, see appendix B.) According to US officials involved in HF-WARC bilateral preparatory meetings; most industrial na- tions oppose the proposed LDC guidelines but recog- nize that some improvements in the current proce- dures are warranted. They favor developing a multilateral coordination process and using an un- specified form of computer-aided planning, which would be efficient and would improve the quality of service available. We believe that both industrial and developing nations have reason to compromise on this issue because: ? Many LDCs, including key LDC leaders such as India and Algeria, are relatively heavy users of the spectrum and would have to cut back their broad- casting-if the conference adopts the LDC guidelines. ? The industrial nations recognize that the LDCs are in the majority, that they have been adamant about the need to improve their HF broadcasting'situa- tion, and that they are committed to achieving this goal. Under any planning method adopted by the confer- ence, broadcasters would also have to agree on the role of the ITU International Frequency Registration Board (IFRB) in assigning frequencies. According to State Department reporting, many LDCs and some developed nations, such as Canada, want all nations to submit their program requirements to the IFRB and then accept frequency assignments made by the IFRB. The LDCs believe that giving the IFRB the primary frequency selection responsibility would as- sure them better quality service. Most industrial nations want merely to inform the IFRB of the frequencies and other relevant technical parameters they plan to use. Industrial nations expect the IFRB to do a compatibility analysis, publish a broadcasting schedule, and, perhaps, recommend fre- quency change. In part, the industrial nations object to greater IFRB authority because their present abili- ty to specify a frequency enables them to broadcast on a frequency nominally assigned to another broadcast- er but not actually in use. Further, Western nations select specific frequencies as a tactic to help counter jamming. Because both industrial and developing. nations are generally reluctant to cede authority to an international body and because the IFRB, itself, according to ITU Secretary General Butler, does not want this authority, we believe the delegates probably can resolve this issue Broadcasting Principles. We also believe that discus- sion of, the principles governing how the HF broadcast bands should be used could result in serious problems for the conference. The ITU Convention states that countries should not interfere with each other's broad- casting, but this rule is subject to differing interpreta- tions. We do not yet know what principles will be introduced for debate, but, according to State Depart- ment reporting, a major principle that has been 25X1 I 25X1 25X1 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 discussed by various groups is the free flow of infor- mation. During its 1982 session the UN General Assembly approved principles governing direct broad- casting from satellites including prior consent before broadcasting. Attacks on program content or the right of one nation to broadcast to another would be a new twist to accepted ITU practice and, we believe, could result in a conference breakdown. The ITU has traditionally accepted the stated requirements of nations for the HF-broadcasting spectrum, including worldwide re- ception areas. The issue, however, could arise either as a result of debate on jamming or from the introduc- tion of a resolution. We do not know if the LDCs will push a resolution requiring prior consent since their positions seem contradictory. For example, in Novem- ber 1982 the Broadcasting Organization of Nonaligned Countries (BONAC) passed a resolution sponsored by Cuba and Nicaragua condemning the use of radio "propaganda" directed by one nation against another as an instrument of aggression. (For text of resolution see appendix C.) The BONAC guiding principles, however, implicitly rule out the prior consent issue for HF broadcasting by stating that reception zones are to be defined by only techni- cal criteria. Technical Criteria. The conference is slated to tackle a number of controversial technical parameters for HF broadcasting. The most important are: ? Protection ratios. Currently, the IFRB uses a pro- tection ratio (the minimum value of wanted to unwanted signal) of 17 decibels (db) to define harm- ful interference. According to US telecommunica- tions officials, the "technical purists" in the ITU insist that a relatively high ratio-24 or 27 db-is necessary for satisfactory broadcasting quality. The ITU "pragmatists" recognize that requirements from many nations would have to be withdrawn if even a moderate protection ratio-17 or 21 db- were provided. Recent US studies reveal that in the current broadcasting spectrum only about 16,000 broadcast hours per day would be available if a 17 db ratio is used. If a 27 db ratio is used, the number of hours would decrease to less than 13,000. Yet, the ITU presently receives more than 25,000 hours of daily broadcast requirements from its members. We believe the conference will probably reach agree- ment if it phrases its goal as a specified quality of service where possible and accepts reduced quality where necessary. If the LDCs insist on adopting a specific protection ratio that all broadcasters must follow, the consequent cutback of spectrum availabil- ity in the HF bands would probably be unacceptable to heavy users and result in a failed or continued conference. ? Transmitter power. During past ITU conferences, several LDCs and some industrial nations, including the United States, have sought an upper limit on transmitter power. According to their statements, these countries believe that high-power broadcasters cause undue spectrum congestion and undue inter- ference to other users. Recent US studies show, however, that protecting broadcasters using insuffi- cient power is more spectrum inefficient than ac- commodating high-power broadcasters. The new US position against a limit on transmitter power will probably meet considerable skepticism from the advocates of power limitation. The United States needs high-power broadcasts to counter the effects of jamming and to provide a satisfactory quality of service over long propagation paths. The record of ITU conferences and information from US bilateral discussions suggest that some nations, such as Cana- da and India, will favor adoption of a maximum power limitation. ? Multiple frequencies. The conference will consider the maximum number of frequencies required for broadcasting a program to a single reception zone. If the conference does not attempt to specify a number, but suggests that countries limit their use of frequencies to a minimum, then we believe the conference can reach agreement with little difficul- ty. More likely, the LDCs will attempt to specify the number of frequencies allowed in order to limit large broadcasters and reduce spectrum congestion. Such a limitation on simultaneous broadcasting would adversely affect US attempts to counter jamming. We believe that if the conference can make an exception for broadcasting under condi- tions of harmful interference or unusual circum- stances, then a solution acceptable to international broadcasters affected by jamming can be found. Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Secret Jamming. The final major issue to be addressed at the HF-WARC is jamming itself. Jamming renders por- tions of the available spectrum unusable or less usable well beyond the jammer's borders. A US Government study indicates that the principal targets of Soviet jamming are US, West German, and British broad- casts (table 1). Other broadcasters are jammed by the Communist countries and occasionally by neighboring countries. For example, North Korea jams South Korean broadcasts and Argentina jammed British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) broadcasts during the Falklands/ Malvinas struggle The conference may well consider resolutions both condemning jamming and asserting the right of na- tions to jam. According to State Department report- ing from all posts, the majority of ITU nations: ? Believe that jamming is an East-West political issue about which the HF-WARC can do little or nothing and which they would prefer to avoid. ? Wish to preserve the right to jam, but view jamming as a spectrum pollutant that should be discouraged. ? Are not aware of the impact of jamming on their broadcasts. At the May 1983 ITU Administrative Council meet- ing, the United States circulated a resolution against jamming developed in the Inter-American Telecom- munications Conference (CITEL). US delegates at the meeting said the Soviets were irritated by the resolution and tried to have mention of it stricken from the conference record. US Embassy reporting before the meeting indicated that influential LDC leaders, such as Yugoslavia and Cameroon, supported the principle of the resolution. During trilateral discussions in September 1983, West Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States agreed that jamming should be brought up early at the HF-WARC and handled as a technical problem. The British proposed to use the CITEL resolution, now an ITU document, with added lan- guage stating that jamming renders ineffective large portions of the spectrum and that preparations for the 1986 session of the HF-WARC should be delayed until the consequences of jamming have been fully aired. Table 1 Jammed Broadcasts to the USSR, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, and Iran, January 1983 China Bulgarian, Pushto, Russian Federal Republic of Germany Bulgarian, Czech-Slovak, (Deutsche Welle) Russian Greece (Elliniki Radiophonia Bulgarian Tileorassi) Israel (Israel Broadcasting Georgian, Hebrew, Russian, Authority) Yiddish Italy (Radiotelevisione Italiana) Bulgarian South Korea (Radio Korea) Russian United Kingdom (British Polish, Russian Broadcasting Corporation) United States (Radio Free Armenian, Azeri, Bulgarian, Europe/Radio Liberty) Czech, Estonian, Georgian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, Tartar, Bashkir, Tur- kestani, Ukrainian, Uzbek United States (Voice of Armenian, Bulgarian, Dari, Es- tonian, Georgian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Pushto, Polish, Russian, Uzbek, Yiddish Note: Data from a 1983 United States Information Agency report 25X1 The Soviets probably will not agree to discuss jam- ming in terms of the technical problems it causes but will assert that they have a right to jam. According to State Department reporting, the USSR and Bloc 25X1 countries may charge that certain Western broadcasts are "subversive war propaganda" designed to threaten the internal stability of other nations and hence contrary to the 1936 League of Nations Convention concerning the use of broadcasting in the cause of peace. The USSR ratified this convention in Septem- ber 1982 with a reservation permitting reciprocal measures against improper transmissions Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Secret Political Issues. As in most international conferences, extraneous political issues could crop up at the HF- WARC. The 1982 ITU Plenipotentiary meeting in Nairobi was tied up for four weeks by an Arab resolution condemning Israel for actions in Lebanon and calling for exclusion of Israel from ITU confer- ences and meetings. After three votes, taken by secret ballot, a resolution critical of Israel but not excluding it from the ITU was adopted. Although we do not have reports on specific plans to introduce a resolution condemning or expelling Israel, a number of recent episodes suggest that one might be introduced during the upcoming HF-WARC. The October 1983 Inter- national Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Conference adopted an Iraqi-sponsored resolution that jeopardizes IAEA technical cooperation with Israel. The 1983 United Nations General Assembly refused to accept an Iranian resolution calling for rejection of Israeli credentials. According to US officials, the Secretary General of the ITU does not believe that countries will press for the expulsion of Israel at the WARC. Should the issue arise, the Secretary General believes that he can control the situation Key Countries and Groups We believe that the amount and nature of a nation's HF broadcasting will, for most nations, determine positions at the HF-WARC. the industrialized nations use the HF-broad- casting bands primarily for international broadcasting and the LDCs use them primarily for domestic com- munications. The heavier users of the spectrum want to preserve and perhaps expand their broadcasting time (figure 1). The lighter users of the spectrum will try to assure that they have access to an improved quality of service for their present and future needs. Communist Nations. A recent US Government study and US Embassy reporting from Moscow indicate the Kremlin may take the offensive at the HF-WARC and claim that US broadcasting, particularly the RFE/RL operations, violates international law. The Soviets and their allies have justified jamming on the grounds that: ? Foreign broadcasts in native languages constitute unacceptable interference in internal affairs. ? Any nation has the right to control information crossing its borders. Figure 1 Major HF-Broadcasters Hours of Transmissions' UK- 1,247 Brazil-1,101 China -1,078 Romania-940 FRG-849 Colombia-594 India-583 South Korea-535 Chile-514 Mexico-509 Cuba-449 ? Western broadcasters engage in war propaganda in violation of international conventions. ? Western broadcasts are instruments of psychologi- cal warfare, designed to incite rebellion against Soviet and East European regimes. (c) According to US Embassy reporting from Geneva, an advanced copy of the Soviet HF-WARC proposal, submitted to the ITU, shows that the Soviets propose: ? To retain the current seasonal planning method used by the ITU for HF-spectrum assignments because of its past effectiveness and inherent flexibility. Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Secret As heavy users of the HF broadcasting spectrum, the United States and the Soviet Union share interests in the outcome of several conference issues such as. ? The need for a planning method that allows heavier users of the system a greater number of broadcast- ing hours rather than a system that might infringe on broadcasting requirements Moscow and Wash- ington believe are essential. ? The need for a system that allows flexibility to contend with interference (both natural changes in propagation conditions and the vagaries of man- made interference). Even the Soviets, who do not have to contend with jamming, would want the freedom to avoid interfering transmitters. ? The need to develop technical criteria for broadcast quality that allow Soviet and US broadcasting to continue at least at the status quo. ? The desirability of obtaining some system of man- aging the HF spectrum that meets the real needs of all countries. Although the Soviet Union and the United States (if US host countries continue to cooperate) could maintain HF broadcasting better than the LDCs, an uncontrolled spectrum would be a financial burden and could result in a poorer quality of service and political disfavor for both among LDCs. ? The concern for minimizing the costs of changes to HF broadcasting brought on by the coriference.F- Nonaligned Countries. The 101 members of the Nonaligned Movement take an active role in the ITU through the Broadcasting Organization of Non- aligned Countries, which has developed positions on key conference issues. For example, the 1980 BONAC Conference passed a resolution (appendix D) stating that no facilities may be granted for foreign broadcasting stations in any of the concerned coun- tries and that "energetic action be taken to eliminate the already existing stations." According to a USIA report, officials from Sri Lanka said that the resolu- tion referred only to stations originating and broad- casting programs from foreign soil and not to relay stations or transmitters. The resolution did not appear in the conference documents, but BONAC may pro- pose such language at the HF-WARC. A resolution from a November 1982 Havana meeting of the BONAC Committee for Cooperation indicates how BONAC may react on upholding the principle of free flow of information. The resolution, which was directed against future US broadcasting to Cuba, denounces the use of radio as an instrument of aggression when propaganda is directed by one nation against another. It states that such use of radio is considered to be an act of interference in the internal affairs of other countries and in violation of the basic principles of the Nonaligned, the postulates of the New International Information and Communication Order, and the Charter of the United Nations and International Law. Documents from the Havana meeting indicate that Yugoslavia and India prepared a draft position paper for the HF-WARC and coordinated it with Cuba, Algeria, and Tunisia (appendix B). These draft princi- ples represent the views expressed by the LDCs in ? To relate the initial discussion of broadcasting principles to the merits of the present system and to provide some unspecified means of preferential treatment for developing countries. ? To relate the need for high-power transmitters and multiple frequencies to overall service reliability. (The Soviets must use high-power transmitters to reach distant audiences.) ? To adopt a 27-db protection ratio, which would be augmented by additional allowance for fading past conferences and are likely to be an accurate precursor of their initial positions at the forthcoming HF-WARC. We believe on political issues the Nonaligned will form a united front. However, the influence of region- al groups should not be overstated, because countries may break ranks with regional groups on technical issues to protect their own broadcasting interests. US Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 delegates report that votes taken by secret ballot have in the past differed substantially from open balloting. For example, we believe that on the host-country issue, secret balloting would be more favorable to US interests than open balloting. Industrial Nations. In our judgment, the industrial nations who are major broadcasters will agree gener- ally with US objectives for the conference. According to State Department reporting, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the United States are attempting to coordinate their positions. They have agreed that: ? No planning method should reduce their present level of broadcasting. ? The final frequency assignment authority should remain with the country responsible for the trans- mission of service. ? A technical rather than political approach to jam- ming should be used early in the conference. ? Jamming precludes the application of planning methods that might otherwise permit more efficient use of the spectrum Most other Western nations agree with the US ap- proach toward jamming. State Department reporting indicates that: ? Belgium, Japan, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and Spain will go along with a technical approach to jamming. Australia will sup- port an antijamming resolution, but it will not be an active protagonist. ? Canada and Austria believe, however, that jamming is a strictly political, East-West issue. The Canadi- ans have said they will not support any action on jamming that might preclude agreement on a plan- ning method. Most industrial countries want a flexible planning method that treats the requirements of all nations equitably. Some industrial nations, however, favor less flexibility than others. For example, according to US officials, Japan proposes that every country receive equal treatment until the spectrum is exhausted. We believe that Japan, which currently ranks in the top 15 broadcasting nations, is attempting to win points with the LDCs. In discussions with US officials, Danish representatives maintain that the IFRB should, at least, guarantee each nation a minimum number of hours. Host Countries. Discussions on host-country broad- casting at the HF-WARC could pose substantial risks for US interests because 55 percent of US broadcasts are relayed from transmitters on foreign soil (table 2 and figure 2). If a resolution condemning transmitting from a host country were. introduced and received substantial support-even though we believe it would not pass-it might induce one or more US host countries to terminate their agreements. Furthermore, countries with which the United States is currently exploring transmitting arrangements might well be influenced to decide against a US broadcasting pres- ence. In the unlikely event that the United States were to become virtually isolated on a major confer- ence issue, existing or potential host countries might be similarly influenced to reject a US broadcasting presence. At present we do not know which host countries are most vulnerable to such pressure. Conference Officials The majority of conference work is done by the committees and their subdivisions-working groups, drafting parties, and subcommittees. According to US delegates to past ITU conferences, committee chair- men are selected for their expertise and for political balance among conference officials. In July ITU Secretary General Richard Butler told the US Head of Delegation for the HF-WARC that he believes the two key conference committees will be planning meth- ods and technical criteria. At that time, Butler envisioned: ? A Third World conference chairman, possibly Jose de Jesus Hernandez from Mexico. Hernandez is Chief of the Mexican Department of International Affairs and has been the head of delegation to several international negotiations, according to US Embassy reporting. The Embassy also reports that Hernandez is an experienced technician, largely unaffected by peripheral political issues. Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Secret Table 2 Host Countries for US Broadcasting Facilities Current Host Negotiations Potential or VOA RFE/RL Under Way Botswana X Brazil X Federal Republic of X X A country or broadcaster obtains broadcasting capa- bility from the territory of another in four common ways: ? . The two countries (or broadcasters) can exchange ? One country can lease broadcasting time from the other. Germany ? One country can permit another to construct broad- casting facilities on its soil in exchange for some X financial or political bent. Morocco X X ? A country can provide broadcasting time to a X foreign political organization. For example, Alge- ria, Iraq, and North and South Yemen permit Palestine Liberation Organization broadcasts.F~ 25X1 X leader at the HF-WARC. In late September, tele- ? A Third World delegate to head the planning committee, possibly Ali Babtain from Saudi Arabia. Babtain, according to US Embassy reporting, ad- dressed the Arab League nations during July on HF broadcasting and attended a session of the Asian Broadcasting Union where the HF-WARC was discussed. Babtain has participated in ITU confer- ences for the past 10 years and will probably be the principal technical member of the Saudi delegation to the conference. According to US delegates to past ITU conferences, during the 1979 WARC Babtain was the technical spokesman for the Arab nations. ? A Westerner as chairman of the technical commit- tee. State Department reporting indicates that a number of other candidates are being considered: ? Noureddine Bouhired from Algeria as conference chairman. The Costa Ricans told Secretary General Butler that Algeria is aiming to be the Third World communications officials from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Federal Republic of Germany considered supporting Bouhired for con- 25X1 ference chairman if Secretary General Butler pro- posed an acceptable slate of candidates for the planning and technical committees. Even though Bouhired has advocated positions opposed to those of the United States, most West Europeans believe that he is an acceptable candidate. According to US officials, the Europeans believe that putting him in the chair will neutralize his ability to lead the LDCs. ITU delegates who have worked with Bou- hired report that he is a tough, but honest negotia- tor, willing to seek compromise. Bouhired was vice chairman of the 1983 ITU Administrative Council and in the past has been influential among the Nonaligned on HF issues. During the 1982 ITU plenipotentiary, he led Arab efforts to oust Israel. During bilateral discussions with US officials in late September, Bouhired said it would be an honor to chair the conference but made no commitment. Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 In selecting conference officials the ITU attempts to balance: ? Five regional groups-Western Hemisphere, West- ern Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia (includes Australia and western Pacific Islands). ? Political alliances. ? Developed and developing nations. ? Six official language groups. Before the conference, the secretary general of the ITU plays a key role in determining the slate of officers. Under an informal consultation procedure, included in the new ITU Convention effective in January 1984, the secretary general is required to provide a list of candidates from the five regions and informally coordinate it with the regions. The process of selecting conference officials will probably not conclude until the conference opens. On the first day, the oldest head of delegation chairs a head of delegation session to reach consensus on conference officials ITU practice establishes the nationalities of some of the conference officials and the committee structure. At least one conference vice chairman for each of the five ITU regions serves on the key steering committee, which includes the conference chairman, conference vice chairmen, and the committee chairmen and vice chairmen. The United States always represents the Western Hemisphere, the Soviet Union represents Eastern Europe, and China represents Asia. Some conferences choose two vice chairmen from each region, providing more members and a better balance to the steering committee. ? Carlo Terzani from Italy as chairman of the plan- ning committee. During the September trilateral meeting, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States agreed that Terzani would be a good candidate for this position. Committee one is always the steering committee, committee two, credentials; three, budget; and the highest number is assigned to the editorial commit- tee. ? The Steering Committee. The conference chairman chairs this committee, which schedules the order and number of meetings and determines when is- sues will be treated. The secretariat assures that all major contributors to the ITU budget get a seat and attempts to give half of the seats to developing countries. ? Editorial Committee. By ITU tradition France always chairs the editorial committee and the United Kingdom and Spain are its vice chairmen. This group perfects language in the conference documents and makes sure that the documents say the same thing in all six official languages. ? Functional Committees. The work done in the functional committees, numbered sequentially be- ginning with four, is critical because the conference first discusses and debates the majority of propos- als and develops most compromises and decisions in these committees. According to State Depart- ment reporting, the HF-WARC will have two main functional committees-the planning committee and the technical committee. officials. ? Edward Ducharme from Canada to head the techni- cal committee. At their September meeting, West German, UK, and US officials thought Ducharme was a possible contender for chairman of the techni- cal committee. US Embassy reporting indicates that they decided not to mention their choice publicly at the time; because they felt a candidate from Africa or Asia would add more balance to the slate of 25X1 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Secret According to US delegates, T. V. Srirangan from India has been touting his own case for a key position. Srirangan has been a fervent spokesman for LDC nations in the ITU and is playing an active role in preparatory conferences for the HF-WARC. Sriran- gan, according to US officials, is not seeking the chairmanship of the HF-WARC because he wants the chairmanship of the 1985 Space WARC. According to senior US ITU delegates who have worked with Srirangan, he is an obstinate negotiator, generally. The selection of Bouhired as conference chairman could have adverse implications. Without Bouhired as an LDC spokesman, Srirangan would likely become the LDC leader and his obstinacy and general unwill- ingness to compromise could presage extremely diffi- cult bargaining sessions. State Department reporting indicates that Hernandez is reluctant to accept nomination as conference chair- man and may not even attend. He, as well as other candidates, does not want to risk his reputation on a conference with political overtones that might end in failure. Others' reluctance to take an official position may be related to preconference maneuvering and their desire to avoid becoming identified as Western- backed candidates. 25X6 25X6 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Secret Appendix A Conference Agenda ' The First Session shall: Establish the technical parameters to be used for planning and the principles governing the use of HF bands allocated to the broadcasting service, ... , including but not limited to the following nonexhaus- tive list: ? Methods for the prediction of field strength; opti- mum frequencies; atmospheric and manmade radio noise data; other factors concerning HF propaga- tion, which are relevant to the planning of broad- casting services. ? Values of the appropriate solar index and the sea- sonal periods based on which planning should be carried out. ? Double side-band (DSB) system specifications, transmission characteristics, including modulation and audio processing standards. ? Radiofrequency protection ratios and channel spacing. ? Minimum usable and nominal values of field strengths required for satisfactory service. ? Transmitter power, antenna characteristics, and ef- fective radiated power appropriate for satisfactory service taking into consideration the above technical factors. ? Maximum number of frequencies required for broadcasting of the same program to the same zone. ' Agenda from Document No. 1-E, 1983 issued by the International Telecommunication Union, WARC for HF Broadcasting. The ITU Administrative Council adopted this agenda during its 38th session ? Use of synchronized transmitters. ? Determination of reception zone. ? Single side-band (SSB) system specifications. Establish for use by the second session of the HF broadcasting conference: ? Planning principles. ? Methods of planning. ? Approaches to implementation. ? A program for progressive introduction of SSB transmissions. ? The action necessary to eliminate harmful interference. ? Theoretical capacity of any given high-frequency broadcasting band. Identify, and lay down specific guidelines for, the preparatory tasks to be carried out before commence- ment of the second session of the conference including consideration of the methods to be used to assist the work of the second session (such as the establishment of an intersessional working group) and fix a timetable for the completion of these tasks. Specify the form in which requirements for use in planning should be submitted to the ITU and the preferred time limits. Propose a tentative agenda for, and changes in dura- tion,' if any, of the second session, for consideration by the administrative council. 2 While the agenda allows for changes in duration, the ITU Convention written during the 1982 Plenipotentiary in Nairobi limits the first session to five weeks and the second session to seven Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Secret Appendix B Broadcasting Organization of Nonaligned Countries: Draft Guiding Principles for Planning of the Broadcasting Services in the HF Bands 3 1. The establishment of assignment plans will be the only satisfactory approach for achieving equitable use of the HF bands allocated to broadcasting service. 2. The plans must be based on the current as well as the future requirements, which may be projected by the various administrations for a specified period (in years). 3. Although there is evidence that the HF bands allocated to broadcasting service can accommodate a reasonably large number of requirements, it is neces- sary, nevertheless, to point out that settled require- ments are never finally limited. 4. Administrations must accordingly be encouraged to restrict their requirements. 5. If initial planning exercises reveal that even mini- mally projected requirements cannot be fully satis- fied, administrations must be encouraged to agree on appropriate adjustments that may include redistribu- tion of requirements in time, of assignments in fre- quency bands, and of the available technical facilities so as to achieve optimum compatibility. 6. A "requirement" should include only the statement of the desired service area, the period of time, and the location of the transmitting station. The frequency band should not be prespecified as it is to be deter- mined only by the application of the planning method agreed at the conference. 7. The definition of a reception zone must result only from technical considerations. ' These principles are taken from the Documents of the Ninth Meeting of the Committee for Cooperation of the Broadcasting Organization of the Nonaligned Countries, Havana, November 1982. The list was adopted by the Second Meeting of the BONAC Group of Technical Experts at Algiers, 15-17 March 1983. 8. All processes, which make it possible to avoid that frequency assignments remain unnecessarily blocked, should be encouraged after the mutual agreements between the respective administrations. However, this should not prevent the access of the administration entitled to that assignment in case it wishes to use it, with full protection. 9. Agreement on the plans must allow the possibility of subsequent modifications, including the introduc- tion of new requirements, in accordance with the agreed procedure. 10. The planning method must be so chosen as to lead to the treatment of all requirements with equal objectivity. 11. If it facilitates planning, the projected services may be classified as (1) regional (2,000 km). 12. The imposition of disciplinary measures such as the limitation of transmitting power, field strength, or both must be supported. 13. Ordinarily one frequency should be employed for transmitting one program. However, more than one frequency may be permitted only when this is justified by the size of the service area or changes in ionospher- ic conditions. The use of synchronized transmissions to achieve greater area coverage must be supported. 14. In order to cover a whole solar cycle, assignment plans may be formulated for five values of sunspot number (R12) and for three or four seasons. Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 15. The technical criteria and standards of protection against impairment applicable to planning must be consistent with the second-grade quality of HF serv- ices. The values of the planning parameters (RF bandwidth, degree of dynamic compression, protec- tion ratios, service reliability) must therefore be con- siderably moderated. 16. If the field strength expected in the service area does not equal the required minimum, due to the lack of adequate technical facilities, it would be necessary to level the requirement by a correspondingly reduced S:I (signal-to-interference ratio) value. 17. In cases of particularly congested coverage areas or time blocks, the concerned administrations may be encouraged to accept lower than the normally agreed level of protection against interference, if this is identified as a positive solution. 18. A uniform value of channel spacing must be adopted; carrier frequencies must be integral multi- ples of this value. 19. Planning should be based on an agreed set of standard aerials, that is-the majority of the aerials used in practice. Administrations may have the right to use an aerial of a type other than the standard aerial associated with the assignment, if it would not lead to the increased interferences in other assignments. 20. It must be reiterated that assignment and the applied technical criteria must be based exclusively on double side-band (DSB) emissions, in the sense of the resolution adopted by WARC 1979. 21. However, due thought should be given and guide- lines provided for the eventual introduction of single side-band (SSB) emissions after an adequate transi- tion period. 22. SSB emission during the transition period must be receivable with conventional DSB envelope detection receivers with only a minimum impairment of quality. 23. In the final stage, the degree of carrier reduction in SSB emissions must be so chosen as to lead to simplification of receiver design and, hence, to the reduction of its cost. 24. After the conclusion of the first session, the preparatory work for the second session may be guided by a representative international group of experts, duly assisted by IFRB and Internationl Ra- diocommunications Consultative Committee (CCIR). 25. The ITU should be persuaded to organize semi- nars, preferably on regional basis, before the Planning Conference. Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Secret Appendix C Broadcasting Organization of Nonaligned Countries: Resolution on the Use of Radio as an Instrument of Aggression The Ninth Meeting of the Committee for Cooperation of Broadcasting Organizations of the Nonaligned Countries, held in Havana, 9-11 November 1982. Keeping in mind the principles that gave rise to the Movement, the international norms on communica- tions and the postulates of the New International Information Order. Considering further that, ever since the founding of the Movement of Nonaligned Countries, its members have upheld the principles of the struggle for peace, international cooperation and equality among nations, and against' imperialism, colonialism, neocolonialism, apartheid, Zionism and all other forms of aggression, foreign occupation, domination, interference in inter- nal affairs and hegemony. Keeping in mind that the struggle for a New Interna- tional Information and Communication Order has been and is one of the postulates and principles of the Movement of Nonaligned Countries that extends the right of all countries to the use of radio and television for peaceful purposes so these media will serve the ends of peace and international cooperation and strengthen the ties of friendship among all peoples, with absolute respect to their national information policies, which preserve their national sovereignty and independence. Considering that the use of radio as an instrument of aggression through propaganda vitiates the interna- tional atmosphere and threatens to turn the broad- casting bands into a new field of dangerous confronta- tions and unforseeable consequences for world peace. Considering the agreements and resolutions adopted in the Conferences of Heads of State or Government, based on principles that gave life to the Movement of Nonaligned Countries. 1. Denounces the use of radio as an instrument of aggression through propaganda by one nation against another, since this goes counter to the essential principles of the Movement of Non- aligned Countries, counter to the New Internation- al Information and Communication Order which we seek and counter to the Charter of the United Nations and International Law. 2. Considers the use of radio for aggressive purposes of provocation that upset peace with the aim of imposing domination and hegemonies to be an act of interference in the internal affairs of the other countries. 3. States that the project now being approved of creating a broadcasting station directed against Cuba and financed, organized, and legalized by the US Government is an interference in the affairs of that country and an affront to the Cuban people. 4. Demands an end to this project against Cuba or any other Nonaligned country and calls on all the countries in the world, the United Nations, UNESCO and other governmental and nongovern- mental agencies-to denounce such projects as being in violation of the basic principles of international law and of the norms established by the Interna- tional Telecommunications Union. Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Secret Appendix D Broadcasting Organization of Nonaligned Countries: Draft Recommendation Concerning the Setting Up of Foreign Broadcasting Stations on the Territories of Nonaligned Countries ? Considering the basic objectives of the Nonaligned Movement, particularly in the field of information and communication. ? Recalling these objectives aimed at eliminating dependence of Nonaligned countries in the above mentioned field. ? Recalling the Resolution of the Group of Experts for the WARC held in May 1978 in Algiers related to the setting up of foreign radio stations within the developing countries in general and the Nonaligned countries in particular. ? Taking into consideration the fact that these sta- tions constitute permanent aggression and an obsta- cle to the development of cultural and political identity of Nonaligned countries. ? Considering that these, often very powerful stations, cause harmful interference to programs of the Non- aligned countries' broadcasting organizations. ? Supporting the recommendation of the Intergovern- mental Conference on Communication Policies in Africa held in Yaounde in July 1980, requesting the Director General of the UNESCO to undertake studies on the existence of non-African radio serv- ices on the continent in anticipation of a Special Conference on this matter to be convened. ' This text, which was formulated at the second Conference of Broadcasting Organization of Nonaligned Countries in Freetown, Sierra Leone in September 1980, was thoroughly discussed and to general belief passed but never appeared in the Final Act of the The second conference of BONAC recommends to the Nonaligned countries: ? That no facility aimed at the setting up of foreign broadcasting stations be allowed on their territories. ? That an energetic action be taken in order to eliminate the already existing stations. Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8 Secret Secret Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/05/23: CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8