THE HIGH-FREQUENCY WORLD ADMINISTRATIVE RADIO CONFERENCE: ISSUES AND PROSPECTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85T00283R000200110006-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 23
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 1, 2010
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: November 1, 1983
• Content Type: REPORT

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