The big problem with the ‘Cuban Twitter’ plan

The big problem with the 'Cuban Twitter' plan
BY ADAM TAYLOR
April 3 at 1:20 pm

Today's big Associated Press story about the United States apparently
creating a "Cuban Twitter" to help foment dissent in the country has
caused a big stir. It's easy to see why — on one level, the plan looked
like an especially absurd version of the Silicon Valley dream: The U.S.
government creates a start-up ("ZunZuneo"), gets some traction, tries
and fails to get Jack Dorsey involved, and finally has to give up as
they couldn't find a revenue stream. Now all that's left is a moribund
Facebook page.
However, it's worth noting the most remarkable thing about this
operation: The U.S. involvement in this project, clearly designed to go
unnoticed, was not conducted by an intelligence agency. Instead,
the U.S. Agency for International Development, the federal agency
primarily responsible for administering civilian foreign aid, was
calling the shots.
USAID oversees billions of dollars in foreign aid. That sounds innocent
enough, but the agency's work has often been viewed with suspicion.
Russia kicked the agency out in 2012, accusing it of supporting
opposition groups. "The decision was taken mainly because the work of
the agency's officials far from always responded to the stated goals of
development and humanitarian cooperation," a statement from the Russian
Foreign Office said at the time. "We are talking about attempts to
influence political processes through its grants."
Bolivia followed suit in 2013. "The United States does not lack
institutions that continue to conspire," President Evo Morales said at
the time, "and that's why I am using this gathering to announce that we
have decided to expel USAID from Bolivia." In Ecuador, USAID pulled out
late last year, not long after President Rafael Correa threatened to
expel them.
The idea that USAID is used to covertly conspire against foreign
governments doesn't just exist overseas. When Pando Daily recently
reported on Pierre Omidyar's donations to Ukrainian opposition groups –
donations made with USAID – it said the eBay billionaire had
"co-invested with the US government to help fund regime change in Ukraine."
It doesn't necessarily matter whether this image of USAID is true
(though perhaps it is). What matters is the perception. USAID can't be
perceived to be both delivering foreign aid and covertly trying to
influence regime change at the same time. Political scientist Jay
Ulfelder put it well in a blog post:
Programs like this "Cuban Twitter" fiasco erode USAID's credibility as
an agent of development assistance everywhere. "If the U.S. government
used USAID as a Trojan horse in Cuba," politicians around the world
might ask themselves, "why not in my country, too?"
Actions like this make Russia look smart for expelling USAID. And Cuba
has an especially complicated place in the USAID world – for example, in
the past the money it's funded to democracy organizations and Cuban
American groups reportedly ended up being spent on Godiva chocolates and
cashmere sweaters, plus the "Cuban Twitter" plan came remarkably soon
after Cuba arrested American contractor Alan Gross for installing
Internet networks. Gross was a USAID subcontractor, and he was later
sentenced to 15 years in prison – his release is regarded as one of the
key steps needed for increased dialogue between the U.S. and Cuba.
So, "Cuban Twitter" isn't just a strange story of a start-up: It's a
sign of a flawed strategy. And as Alberto Arce, Desmond Butler and Jack
Gillum of the AP note, it's not clear whether it was legal: "Covert
action" by a federal agency must have a presidential authorization, and
USAID wouldn't say whether they had received that.

Source: The big problem with the 'Cuban Twitter' plan -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/04/03/the-big-problem-with-the-cuban-twitter-plan/