[I]nternational relations used to concern essentially relations between governments, largely conducted by ministries of foreign affairs (except for occasionally breaks where ministries of war took over) by a process usually referred to as diplomacy. Increasingly, however, government-to-government relations involve the whole spectrum of government activities —now including inter alia education, environmental questions, human rights, the internet — and ministries of foreign affairs have great difficulty in holding on to even a minimal gatekeeper role.
…National governments may remain the biggest gorillas on the scene, but no longer are they alone. …
[T]he whole Department would be organized as a multi-agency “National Team” where policy and resource integration would take place at three formally designated levels (in addition to informal coordination at all levels): at the Secretarial or Cabinet level, at the Regional Assistant Secretary level, and at the Country Team level plus in special teams or missions for emergencies. It would be an attempt, at a higher level and much more ambitious, to duplicate the success of the DoD’s joint combatant commands by creating a joint “Department of Foreign Affairs”.
Read the whole article here.
See also:
A new Capitol Hill caucus focused on strategic communication and public diplomacy officially launched last week and plans to study the latest government efforts in these domains during its inaugural meeting later this month, according to a congressional source.
A new Pentagon report on strategic communication, a State Department plan on public diplomacy and a National Security Council framework outlining how agencies will collaborate in these areas will be among the discussion topics, the congressional source said on the condition of anonymity. (See related story.)
Reps. Adam Smith (D-WA) and Mac Thornberry (R-TX) are heading the caucus, which is still being rounded out, the source told Inside the Pentagon. Organizers have collected the names of three other Republicans and three additional Democrats interested in joining, said the source. There has also been “a lot of interest at the staff level,” including the House Foreign Affairs Committee, defense authorizers and “other elements of the congressional staff,” the source said.
“Given the interest in this issue,” added Michael Amato, Smith’s spokesman, “we expect a significant number of members to join the caucus.”
The rest of the article follows.
]]>In an era where more and more people have access to a wide variety of digital media, “misinformation about U.S. actions can be quickly disseminated to millions, damaging our country’s reputation when not vigorously countered in a timely fashion,” Smith and Thornberry write in a March 2 letter to colleagues announcing the caucus.
In order for foreign audiences to better understand our objectives and message, the United States must be able to understand and engage these audiences, the congressmen write.
“It is time that America finds creative new approaches to deny internet safe havens, communicate directly to the people of the world, and renew the positive reputation of our country abroad,” the letter continues. “Yet, U.S. strategic communication and public diplomacy lacks a clear strategy, as well as the tools and resources to achieve results.”
The Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Caucus seeks to raise awareness of the challenges facing these issues and offer multiple perspectives on proposed solutions, according to the letter.
The idea was to “create more informed legislators, which hopefully will create more informed legislation,” noted a source familiar with the caucus. Too often, added the source, “members and staff don’t really understand the holistic problem; they only see a sliver.”
These off-the-record briefings will take place roughly every four to six weeks, this source noted.
The American Engagement Caucus, in contrast, focuses on the role the United States can play in strengthening international institutions like the United Nations, which is essential to respond effectively to global challenges. To achieve its security objectives, the United States must project “smart power,” a blend of military strength and creative diplomacy, according to the caucus. Reps. Russ Carnahan (D-MO) and Anh “Joseph” Cao (R-LA) lead this group, which was officially launched in January.
The Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Caucus held a preliminary briefing discussing budget-related issues in November, according to the source familiar with the caucus. Future meetings may examine the difference between public diplomacy and strategic communication and the corresponding roles of stakeholders, as well as adversarial use of new media, including a discussion on how al Qaeda and the Taliban use YouTube and Google, said this source.
Another topic may include the “difference between public affairs and the whitest-of-white” psychological operations, added the source.
The Smith-Mundt Act, which governs U.S. global engagement, will also be a subject of discussion down the line, the source told ITP.
The role of business and technology in strategic communication and public diplomacy may also show up on a future meeting agenda, the congressional source stated. Caucus members may probe previous efforts in this area like the Voice of America and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, in addition to past legislation and reports on how to reform strategic communication, added the congressional source.
U.S. strategic communication and public diplomacy efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan may also be reviewed during caucus meetings, Amato told ITP. -- Fawzia Sheikh
See also:
]]>According to a senior official at RFE/RL, the Iranian government’s policy towards journalists is to “arrest some, execute some, release some.” Fortunately, those journalists RFE/RL was engaging are just in the first category.
See also:
]]>Missing from this line-up are Dana Perino (Repulican) and Michael Meehan (Democrat). According to Alan Heil,
One or another Committee member is reported to have requested a hearing for Dana Perino (R) and Michael Meehan (D), the other two nominees. [T]here is an indication at the conclusion that items may yet be added to the business meeting agenda. No dates have been set for any hearings of BBG nominees or for final confirmation of any of the nominees on the Senate floor.
The terms of the four current members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors have long since expired. (Name, Party, Date term expired)
The board has been without a chairman since Jim Glassman left on June 10, 2008, to become the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Incidentally, Jim’s term expired nearly a year before he left for the State Department: Aug 13, 2007.
See also:
]]>The essence of the second post was captured the closing paragraph:
Putting public diplomacy where it belongs - at the heart of U.S. foreign policy - will require a steep uphill climb. Embracing the Bush administration's approach to public diplomacy is not the way to get there.
This prompted this response by Jim Glassman posted as a comment to the post.
Philip Seib's snooty little note icondemns (sic) Judith McHale for agreeing with her predecsessors and says that public diplomacy was "often in shambles" during the Bush administration, yet he makes no attempt to engage with what Karen Hughes and I actually did as Under Secretaries or what we actually SAID at the hearing -- there's lots of raw material in my 20 pages of written testimony. Is there more required from a post on the Huffington Post than assertion and posturing? One wonders. I would like to hear from Professor Seib -- or anyone else -- on the "lack of imagination" in the strategies, including Public Diplomacy 2.0, that we implemented at State. Let's have an adult discussion.
-- Jim Glassman, former U/S of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
What are your thoughts on the “lack of imagination” in the prior strategies?
Related: Do you agree or disagree with Bill Kiehl’s comments on the testimonies of McHale, Glassman, and Lieberman.
]]>Before becoming Senator, Kaufman served on the Broadcasting Board of Governors from 1995 to 2008. He opening statement to the hearing is below.
]]>Today we meet to examine the future of U.S. public diplomacy, one of the most important facets of foreign policy. As Secretary Clinton has said, we must use all tools in our toolbox - diplomacy, development, and defense - to promote U.S. interest globally, and "soft power" is an absolutely critical element of this strategy.
Public diplomacy often takes the form of broadcasting, exchanges, and outreach with foreign populations, all of which help to promote greater understanding between the U.S. and the international community. By creating direct channels of communication between America and the world, U.S. public diplomacy contributes to global security and stability.
Tools of public diplomacy can be grouped under three larger umbrellas: educational and cultural exchanges that promote cross-cultural dialogue and understanding; informational programming that explains U.S. policy; and international broadcasting that provides accurate and informative news, often to societies that do not have unfettered access to a free press. In these instances, our broadcasting efforts serve two purposes: one, providing news to both open and closed societies; and two, serving as a model for increasing the free flow of news and information globally.
Just like government-to-government diplomacy, public diplomacy efforts are only as effective as the quality of the leadership and personnel that shapes and implements them. This is why we will hear from three extraordinarily qualified individuals who have led these efforts at the State Department about "lessons learned" from their wide experience, and to hear from the current Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy about today's strategy, policy and priorities.
The goal of this hearing is to assess public diplomacy strategy of the past and present with an eye toward the future. There is no question that many achievements have been made since the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy position was first established in 1999, and it is important that the State Department incorporate past successes into its future planning. This is why we must consider which tools have proven most effective and which have proven most challenging.
I hope our first panel of witnesses can shed some light on valuable "lessons learned" based on their firsthand experience shaping public diplomacy strategy. The broader question to be explored today is - how do we communicate our global message most effectively, and how can achievements of the past be used as models for future public diplomacy activities?
Some of the specific issues I hope we can focus on today are staffing, interagency coordination, and the division of labor and responsibilities between the Departments of Defense and State. In times of war, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, how can we ensure that civilian staffing and resource vacuums are not simply filled by DOD? Also, what expertise and resources will be needed for the Public Affairs officers of tomorrow, and how can we increase our overall capacity?
In addition, we must closely consider each tool of public diplomacy, including educational exchanges, American Centers, and international broadcasting efforts under the Broadcasting Board of Governors, or BBG. The witnesses and many who have known me throughout my career know that I am an unequivocal supporter of complete separation between programming in international broadcasting and the rest of government. The firewall that exists is essential, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about their experiences - positive and negative - with this difficult issue, especially in wartime.
Finally, we should consider how new technology changes our strategy and future vision for public diplomacy. I am interested in hearing about the opportunities new technology creates, and the way it forces us to reevaluate our old ways of doing business. For example, how does mobile phone technology change our approach in regions such as Afghanistan and Pakistan? And what is the future of the Smith-Mundt Act, part of which prohibits domestic dissemination of information produced for foreign audiences, when a quick search on the Internet will turn up the information anyway?
To answer these and other questions, we have two very distinguished panels. First, we will hear from three former Under Secretaries for Public Diplomacy, for whom I have great respect and admiration for their honorable service to their country.
The first is Evelyn Lieberman, appointed by President Clinton as the first Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy. As the trailblazer who set the path for her successors, Evelyn oversaw the difficult transition of shifting our public diplomacy structure to the State Department from the U.S. Information Agency, or USIA. Evelyn was well-equipped for this enormous challenge, having come from the Clinton White House, where she served as assistant to First Lady Hillary Clinton, Deputy White Press Secretary, and Deputy Chief of staff, and later, as Director of Voice of America, where she acquired valuable experience in international broadcasting. Since 2002, Evelyn has continued her career in federal government, serving as the Director of Communications and Public Affairs for the Smithsonian.Next, we have former Under Secretary Karen Hughes, appointed by President Bush to this position after serving as Counselor in the White House from 2000 to 2002. When she was appointed in 2005, Karen was given the rank of ambassador to underscore the importance of public diplomacy. While at State, Karen implemented important changes, including expanding English language training and exchange programs, developing a strategic plan for public diplomacy, and creating a rapid response unit to respond to inaccurate press reports. Upon leaving State in 2007, Karen told the BBC that her greatest achievement was "transforming public diplomacy and making it a national security priority central to everything we do in government," which is a goal that I believe continues to this day. Since returning to Texas, Karen has been serving as the Global Vice Chair at the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller.
Finally, we have former Under Secretary James Glassman, also appointed in the Bush Administration. Jim brought with him to this position his previous experience as chairman of the BBG. I worked with Jim frequently in this capacity, and saw firsthand his commitment to promoting and developing a robust international broadcasting and public diplomacy strategy. While serving as Under Secretary, Jim focused on developing a strong interagency structure that allowed visibility into the strategy communications work being done in other parts of the government, including DOD. He also created the Global Strategic Engagement Center with staff from State and the intelligence community to promote great coordination day-to-day. Since leaving office, Jim has been working in the non-profit sector, and he has recently selected to lead the public policy institute at the George W. Bush Presidential Library.
We are also joined today by current Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Judith McHale, a veteran of private sector media, who will testify on our second panel. Most recently, Under Secretary McHale served as the President and CEO of Discovery Communications, parent company of the Discovery Channel, TLC, Animal Planet, and a host of other networks. In her eleven years at Discovery, she oversaw its worldwide expansion to 1.4 billion subscribers in 170 territories and countries. Since leaving Discovery for the State Department last year, she has applied her wide experience in business to revamping our public diplomacy strategy. I look forward to her testimony and hearing about future plans and current policy.
Finally, I thank Senator Wicker for his interest and commitment, and Senator Boxer for generously allowing us to hold this hearing in her subcommittee. I would also like to thank the HELP Committee for hosting us in their committee room today.
See also:
]]>At a time when public diplomats to psychological operators are coming to terms with their lack specific cultural capacities to understand and properly engage audiences, this was a timely discussion.
]]>An example of cultural engagement in country with 42 languages plus many derivatives, where 75% of the population is under 35 years old, at least one person is working to prevent violence following the next election. Engaging and educating individuals and groups, George Gachara of Picha Mtaani, is conducing a public diplomacy campaign within his countries borders, across cultural (or national in the non-Weberian, non-Westphalian sense) to “create an army across the country be agents of peace.” Much more to follow.
]]>
]]>InterMedia is a 501c3 organization based in Washington, and the preeminent audience and opinion research organization dedicated to measuring and understanding the global reach and effectiveness of U.S. international broadcasting and other instruments of public diplomacy and strategic communications. Operating in 60 countries, InterMedia continues a six-decade legacy of trusted research in challenging environments for its U.S. and European clients, most of whom are international broadcast organizations.
InterMedia now seeks a Chief Executive Officer to lead a highly qualified staff of 40 dedicated men and women. Applications are invited from individuals with strong, relevant management and representational experience, familiarity with U.S. government contracting policies and procedures, an innovative, entrepreneurial spirit and collaborative leadership style.
The successful candidate will have the gravitas and credibility to present to InterMedia’s board and to engage with high-level officials here and abroad. S/he will provide the vision for InterMedia to broaden its current scope and take the organization to new levels and types of international research. This is an exceptional opportunity for an entrepreneurial, creative leader.
For more information, including a detailed job description and organizational overview, please visit www.intermedia.org.
Topic: Interagency collaboration in public diplomacy, with focus on the State and Defense Departments
Venue: The conference room of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), 1850 K Street NW, fifth floor
Agenda:
9:00 – 9:10 :: Welcome/Introductory Remarks, IFES President William “Bill” Sweeney/Commission Chairman Bill Hybl
9:10 – 9:50 :: Presentation by Matt Armstrong, Public Diplomacy & Strategic Communication Strategist
9:50 – 10:15 :: Presentation by Rosa Brooks, Defense Department
10:15 – 10:40 :: Presentation by Walter Douglas, State Department
10:40 – 11:00 (end time can be extended) :: Combined Q-and-A
Commissioners biographies are here.
]]>(Interesting note: Senators Kaufman and Wicker - plus Senator Jim Webb - are the only Congressman (House or Senate) that are on both an armed services committee and a foreign relations (Senate) or foreign affairs (House) committee. These two Senators chaired the recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing titled The Future of Public Diplomacy.)
The VOICE Act, also known as the Victims of Iranian Censorship Act, was passed by the Senate in S. 1391 on July 23, 2009. It passed the conference between House and Senate armed services committees on October 8, 2009 and with the President's signature on October 28, 2009, it became Public Law 111-84: the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
The VOICE Act is a notable (and rare) example of Defense Department-focused entities - the armed services committees - authorizing substantial funding for the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. However, the $55 million (details are below) authorized is not yet funded. In what could have been a very visible demonstration of putting his money where his mouth is, to the best of my knowledge, the late Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, did not push to fund the VOICE Act despite saying the State Department should be doing more.
The VOICE Act is on the books, but it lacks funding.
So what does the VOICE Act authorize? On his website, Sen McCain touts the VOICE Act as "bipartisan legislation that will help strengthen the ability of the Iranian people get access to news and information and overcome the electronic censorship and monitoring efforts of the Iranian regime."
]]>Here are the details (also available in this 34kb PDF extracted from PL 111-84: the NDAA for FY2010):
The Act also requires a report within 90 days of passage (which has passed) and then every 5 years that provides of US broadcasting and online engagement with Iran, including the activities of the Iranian Electronic Education, Exchange, and Media Fund.
The Act also requires another report within 180 days of passage (which has not passed) "non-Iranian persons", including US corporations, that have assisted Iran to "filter online political content; disrupt cell phone and Internet communications; and monitor the online activities of Iranian citizens."
You may noticed $5 million of the $55 million is not accounted for. I saved the best part of last. Section 1266 of the NDAA for FY2010 states
There are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to the Secretary of State to document, collect, and disseminate information about human rights in Iran, including abuses of human rights that have taken place since the Iranian presidential election conducted on June 12, 2009.
I frequently refer to this $5m authorization in my talks on the organizational dysfunction within the State Department, so no cheating if you've sat in one of those presentations. So, if this gets funded, who do you think will receive this money?
Most assume it would be the Office of the Under Secretary of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, known within State as "R" (all Under Secretary level offices in State have single-letter designations). Some savvy people suggest "G", as in the Office of the Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs because G has the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (or DRL if you're keeping tabs). (G also has claims on private-public partnership, which is why it's the lead on the public diplomacy project the China Expo pavilion). Arguably neither G nor R have the capacity to spend $5 million should it be dropped in their lap.
I've been told the foreign operations appropriators, the committees that fund the State Department, will take up funding these authorizations. My hopes aren't high.
Either way, I'd just like to see the VOICE Act funded just to see who gets the money and how it is spent. Now you know about the VOICE Act.
]]>"Peace Corps and Teach for America represent the best ethic of public service. But at a time when those programs can't meet the demand from young people seeking to give back, we need a new initiative: Teach for the World.In my mind, Teach for the World would be a one-year program placing young Americans in schools in developing countries. The Americans might teach English or computer skills, or coach basketball or debate teams. ...
This would be a government-financed effort to supplement an American public diplomacy outreach that has been eviscerated over the last few decades."
Mr. Kristof, who wants young Americans to teach English the world over, seems unaware that all too many of us here in the homeland (which is how we now identify our cry-the-beloved country in these sad post-9/11 times) are incapable of writing a coherent English sentence free of grammatical and spelling errors. And how many of us called-to-duty language missionaries currently living in said homeland, if volunteering to coach "debate teams" overseas, could actually be capable of crafting a logical argument, given our 24/7 we-can't-stop-loving-it culture of instant mindless gratification a la Tee-Vee & Twitter & uptalk?
]]>"I mean, like you know, whatever" -- such is, increasingly, our American contribution to serious world-wide discourse.
Well, OK, post-modern language/argument, without oh-so-boring grammar or logic, is maybe what we in the New World have to offer to our globalized planet. No problem. (Actually, I'm all for this Americanization, until I read, as I often do, a paper "written" by a computer-savvy US undergraduate that makes absolutely no, I mean absolutely no, sense, not even, dare I say, from a "post-modernist" perspective).
In my Foreign Service career, I found many distinguished foreigners who spoke English better than I did (and pray tell, Mr. Kristof, what is a "developing country"? Detroit, Michigan?). These distinguished foreigners had actually read, very carefully, English-language classics and knew the fundamentals of classical rhetoric, hence their ability to engage in serious debate. I thought they should be teaching me.
As for the Peace Corps, its main drawbacks are twofold.
(A) Giving jobs to too many well-meaning but desperately-seeking-to-be-employed, résumé-driven, undereducated provincial American BA's with, all too often, little or no knowledge of foreign languages/cultures or substantial skills, personal or intellectual, even in teaching (or speaking) their own native language.
There are, of course, notable exceptions, including "senior citizens" in the program; but much of the Peace Corps is, I would suggest, an updated, "democratic" version of a vast system of outdoor relief for the upper classes.
In all fairness, these well-meaning, often naive, Peace Corps volunteers (I had the privilege of meeting many of them in my Foreign Service career), may be eager to learn about the outside world. But if they are parachuted to teach/"set an example" in other countries, they should know far more about them (and their own country and language) than Peace Corps "training" provides (and by the time they know something about where they are, they are shipped out).
(B) As suggested by the above remarks, most sadly and importantly, the Peace Corps is not a bilateral program. In essence, "we" (the U.S.) are telling "them" (the "foreigners") what to do (in a gentle way) -- a twentieth-century Cold War one-way-communications propaganda model, granted on an perhaps laudable human level.
But today (I won't say at a time of US "decline") we "altruistic" American taxpayers could certainly use highly-skilled volunteers from other countries, including math teachers from "developing countries," for our poorly performing public secondary schools, in exchange for our own volunteers, who would be far more skilled than many in our well-meaning Peace Corps currently are. In this way we would be honestly serving our own interests, while at the same time asking for the world's cooperation, when and where we need it.
The world should teaching us, Mr. Kristof, in more ways than one. Not just the U.S. teaching the world. Time for a real deal.
John Brown, a former Foreign Service officer currently teaching at Georgetown University, never ceases to wonder about what "public diplomacy" is all about. He compiles the Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review Blog, Version 2.0
Guests posts are the opinions of the respective authors and published here to further the discourse on America's global engagement and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of MountainRunner.
]]>Below is the prepared testimony of Judith McHale, current Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, before the the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10, 2010. Alternatively, download the 274kb PDF. A list of Under Secretaries for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs and their tenures may be found here.
]]>]]>Chairman Kaufman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your invitation to appear before you this morning.
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you the state of America's public diplomacy, the framework that we are developing to more closely align our activities with the nation's foreign policy objectives, and the challenges we continue to face.
Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the legacies of my predecessors, several of whom testified before you this morning. In a span of just a few years, they put our nation's public diplomacy on a trajectory that laid the foundation for a new approach to public diplomacy for the 21st Century.
Throughout the past year we have witnessed the strong, energetic, and consistent commitment of President Obama and Secretary Clinton to public diplomacy. From the President's speeches in Cairo and Accra, to the many events that the Secretary has held directly with international audiences around the world, they have made public diplomacy an integral part of their approach to foreign policy. Both understand that engagement with global publics must be an essential part of our foreign policy apparatus as we pursue our policy objectives, seek to advance our national interests, and strive to ensure our national security.
The World We Face
The communications revolution that has rocketed around the world has had an impact on the attitudes, behaviors, and aspirations of people everywhere. Public opinion is influencing foreign governments and shaping world affairs to an unprecedented degree. In the past 25 years 40 new electoral democracies have emerged. This is a great triumph for our belief in the democratic form of government. As citizens in these countries exercise their rights, their decisions affect not only the future of their own countries but also the future of the United States and that of the rest of the world. In this context, our efforts to engage foreign publics through public diplomacy are more important than ever before.
Today, 45 percent of the world's population is under the age of 25. These young people --many of whom face enormous social and economic challenges-- have come of age during a period of limited direct engagement with the United States.
They communicate in new ways and with tools which are constantly evolving. As we reach out to this new generation we must develop strategies to engage and inspire them. Increasingly our opponents and adversaries are developing sophisticated media strategies to spread disinformation and rumors which ignite hatred and spur acts of terror and destruction. We must be ever vigilant and respond rapidly to their attacks against us.
Women account for over 50% of the world's population and yet in too many parts of the world they lack access to education and fundamental rights. Countless reports and studies demonstrate that increased participation by women in the social, economic, and political lives of their countries results in more stable productive societies. We must continue to develop and deploy new programs to support and empower women as they seek to improve their lives and communities.
The global challenges we face today require a complex, multi-dimensional approach to public diplomacy. Our Government must develop new ways to communicate and engage with foreign publics at all levels of society. In doing so, we must do a better job of listening; learn how people in other countries and cultures listen to us; understand their desires and aspirations; and provide them with information and services of value to them. In essence, we must develop ways to become woven into the fabric of the daily lives of people around the world as we seek to create strong and lasting relationships with them.
A Strategic Approach for the 21st Century
We must act boldly and decisively to develop a clear, consistent, and comprehensive approach to public diplomacy. Over the past eight months we have undertaken a focused and disciplined review of the current state of public diplomacy and public affairs at the Department of State. As part of that review, we have consulted with individuals involved in public diplomacy here on Capitol Hill, at the National Security Council and the Department of Defense, and at all levels within the Department of State. We have also met with representatives of academia, non-governmental organizations and the private sector. I have traveled to embassies and consulates in Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia. And in October we hosted a global conference attended by all our Public Affairs Officers to ensure that we understood the needs of our Posts around the world.
This process showed that in significant ways our public diplomacy was working well to advance America's interests. But it also revealed a great degree of consensus about what needs to be changed to align it to current priorities and guide our efforts going forward. Last month, we began rolling out the results of our review: a new global strategic framework for public diplomacy that I believe will give us the focus and capabilities we need in the complex environment of the 21st Century.
The new framework rests on the core mission of public diplomacy to support the achievement of U.S. foreign policy goals and objectives, advance national interests, and enhance national security by informing and influencing foreign publics and by expanding and strengthening the relationship between the people and government of the United States and citizens of the rest of the world.
As part of our review we identified five strategic imperatives: to pro-actively shape global narratives; expand and strengthen people-to-people relationships; counter violent extremism; better inform policy-making; and, redeploy resources in strategic alignment with shifting priorities. Moving forward, we are taking steps to ensure that all our activities support these requirements.
First, in this information saturated age we must do a better job of framing our national narrative. We must become more pro-active and less reactive. We are bolstering our communications outreach--locally, nationally, regionally, and globally--to inform, inspire, and persuade our target audiences and to counter misinformation. We are working with our posts around the world to develop and implement targeted media engagement plans to both push positive stories and to respond rapidly to negative attacks against us. We will expand the role of our regional Media Hubs, and enhance their capabilities as digital engagement centers to ensure that we are fully represented in dialogues in both traditional and new venues for information and debate.
In December , I sent a cable to our Public Affairs Officers worldwide directing them to be more aggressive and strategic in their communications efforts. As an example of our new forward-leaning stance across the range of issues, our Embassies successfully changed the global narrative about our rescue and relief efforts following the tragic earthquake in Haiti. In support of these efforts, we are creating the new position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Media Support within State's Bureau of Public Affairs to facilitate coordinated and high level attention to foreign media.
Second, we are expanding and strengthening people-to-people relationships--relationships based on mutual trust and respect--through our public diplomacy programs and platforms. In addition to growing our highly successful exchange programs, we are broadening the demographic base of those with whom we engage beyond traditional elites. We are using social networking and connective technologies such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter to expand our reach and ensure that we are represented in new media and conversation spaces. Last year, in connection with the President's speech in Ghana, we used a combination of traditional and new media to actively engage with millions of individuals across Africa. And in January, I participated in a Skype enabled video conference which allowed high school students in Boston to talk to their peers in Jalalabad.
We will continue to support programs that simultaneously advance U.S. national interests and offer desired skills to targeted audiences. These programs include expanded English language teaching and teacher training, collaboration and skill-building in science, technology, and entrepreneurship, programs designed to
provide women with the skills they need to advance within their societies, and, educational advising that promotes the broad array of education opportunities offered by US academic institutions.
We are evaluating opportunities to revitalize and establish American Centers and Corners as spaces for public engagement. And we are working with organizations across the country to expand our cultural programs to showcase the breadth and depth of America's cultural heritage. Recognizing that participants in our programs are among our best ambassadors, we are investing new resources both to enable us to remain better connected to alumni of our exchange programs and to enable them to better connect with each other so that they can build upon their shared experiences.
Third, we are expanding our efforts to respond rapidly to terrorist and violent extremist messages and proactively counter the narrative that has allowed them to disseminate misinformation and recruit new followers. In Washington and at our Embassies and Consulates overseas, we will aggressively harness new and traditional media to communicate U.S. perspectives and counter misinformation and disinformation. We will redouble our efforts to empower credible voices within societies. To do so, we will continue to provide tools and platforms for independent voices to expand their reach, and leverage partnerships to train religious and secular leaders with local influence in issues of development, health, and education.
Fourth, we are taking steps to ensure that our policies and programs are informed upfront by a clear understanding of attitudes and opinions of foreign publics. We are establishing the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy in each of the regional bureaus. These officers will be responsible for ensuring that a public diplomacy perspective is incorporated as part of senior policy deliberations and for coordinating all our public diplomacy initiatives throughout their respective regions. We are also strengthening our research and planning capacity. In doing so we will draw on the resources of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department , the Broadcasting Board of Governors, media reporting from the Open Source Center, and others to provide us with the information and data we need for this critical task.
Finally, we are taking steps to ensure a strategic allocation of resources in support of today's foreign policy priorities. We are strengthening the Policy, Planning and Resource function within my office and we are reestablishing multi-year public diplomacy plans for all Posts. These plans will set forth our public diplomacy mission in the host country, analyze target audiences, inventory continuing and innovative tactics to achieve our goals, identify the resources necessary for success, and integrate realistic measurements of effectiveness. In Washington we will examine each plan to ensure congruence with our global objectives and allocation of public diplomacy resources in line with current priorities.
Coordination at All Levels
As we implement the new global strategic framework for public diplomacy, we have placed renewed emphasis on coordination both in Washington and overseas to ensure that our efforts complement and, where possible, reinforce the activities of other departments and agencies.
We participate in the National Security Council (NSC)-led Interagency Policy Coordination (IPC) process. The NSC brings together senior working-level stakeholders from across the interagency for a Strategic Communications IPC meeting on a weekly basis. These meetings address a wide range of issues including global, regional, and country-specific matters. They are designed to coordinate, develop, and de-conflict communications programs and activities across U.S. government agencies. My staff also takes part in a variety of other staff-level coordination bodies, including the bi-weekly Small Table Group at the National Counterterrorism Center.
The Global Strategic Engagement Center (GSEC), which is part of my office, is specifically chartered to support the NSC's Global Engagement Directorate. We are expanding and upgrading GSEC to strengthen its ability to contribute across a broad range of U.S. government strategic communications and global engagement activities. To head the new GSEC, I have recruited Ambassador Richard LeBaron, formerly our Ambassador to Kuwait and one of our senior-most Foreign Service officers. He will arrive on the job this summer.
We also enjoy a close and productive working relationship with our partners at the Department of Defense. I talk and meet regularly with my counterparts there on both specific programs and on broader strategic issues, such as potential rebalancing of the respective roles, responsibilities, and resources of State and Defense in the public diplomacy and strategic communications arenas. I recently visited General Petraeus in Tampa to discuss challenges and opportunities in his region of responsibility and how we can work more effectively with CENTCOM. I have also met several times with Admiral Olson of the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to put our heads together on ways to improve current cooperation between State and SOCOM.
The New Approach: a case study --- Pakistan
Last summer, my office worked closely with our Embassy in Islamabad, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, USAID, and DoD to draft the Pakistan Communications Plan, a copy of which has been provided to the Committee.
The Pakistan Plan has four broad goals: expand media outreach, counter extremist propaganda, build communications capacity, and strengthen people-to-people ties. Our plan links elements of traditional public diplomacy with innovative new tools.
For instance, recognizing that extremist voices dominate in some of Pakistan's media markets, we instituted a rapid response unit and a 24-hour multilingual hotline for the Embassy to respond to attacks, threats, and propaganda from the Taliban, al Qaeda, and their sympathizers. This approach reversed a previous approach of not actively countering such propaganda. It has been an uphill battle but, as our voice gets more frequent play, the impact on the discourse in Pakistan's media has been noticeable.
As we strengthen our people-to-people ties with Pakistanis, our aim has been to increase positive American presence on the ground in Pakistan. To do this we are focusing on more exchanges, more presence, more Lincoln Centers, more face-to-face meetings with engaged citizens in Pakistan, and more non-official contacts between Pakistanis and Americans in Pakistan.
Secretary Clinton's October 2009 visit to Pakistan was planned and executed in coordination with the themes of our strategic plan. Her focus on issues of education, jobs, and reliable electric power responded to what we had identified as central concerns of Pakistanis. Her extensive series of public engagement activities carried out the Plan's emphasis on rejuvenating our personal, face-to-face diplomacy. Her visits to historical and cultural venues underscored American respect for and desire for partnership with the people of Pakistan. Perhaps the most telling moment came during a press conference during which Pakistani Foreign Minister Qureshi stated that the Secretary's visit had been a success precisely because it had manifested a "policy shift" toward a focus on "people-centric" relations. This was and is precisely our message.
While very few countries will require plans on the order of Pakistan, henceforth we will ensure that our public diplomacy strategic plans for each Mission incorporate rigorous strategic analysis to drive focus and coordination at the post level.
Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that I believe this is a moment of great opportunity to redefine our relationship with people around the world and to build bridges of knowledge and understanding with people everywhere. In doing so, I believe we will improve lives and support our national interests. I look forward to working with you as we seek to achieve these goals.
]]>Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:
Senator Kaufmann, you and Vice President Biden, more than any other individuals in recent years, have advanced the cause of public diplomacy as champions of international broadcasting. Thank you for your long service to your country.
I had the unique honor myself of serving, far more briefly, in two public diplomacy positions: First as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, where I was a colleague of the future Senator Kaufmann. The BBG oversees all non-military taxpayer-funded U.S. international broadcasting, including radio, television, and Internet in 60 languages across more than 100 countries. Then, as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, in charge of engagement with foreign publics.
This hearing asks four of us who have served or are serving in the latter post to address the future of public diplomacy. That future, in my view, is in doubt.
While the men and women who practice public diplomacy are working diligently and courageously, they lack what the Djerejian Group, a 2003 commission, called the proper "strategic direction"[1] to contribute effectively toward the achievement of the American interest.
In short, here is the problem with public diplomacy: It is not today being taken seriously as a tool of national security by policymakers. Will it be in the future? Perhaps only in a desperate response to a terrible crisis. Such delay is unacceptable.
In my testimony today, I will describe what a serious public diplomacy - what I call "Strategic Public Diplomacy" - looks like. In the second half of the last administration, President Bush and the leadership of the State Department, the Pentagon, the National Security Council, the BBG, and the intelligence community - with support from a handful of members of Congress and staffers - were succeeding in developing this new vision of public diplomacy and putting it into practice, especially to counter violent extremism.
Today, that effort needs to be sustained, renewed, and invigorated. There are areas in the world where Strategic Public Diplomacy is not merely one tool, but, in fact, the best tool, for achieving America's interests. One of those areas is Iran, which I will address today.
Public diplomacy needs to be sharp, not flaccid. It needs to focus on key foreign policy problems, not merely on vague, feel-good improvements in the far-off future. It needs to be primarily an activity of national security, not of public relations. It needs to be mobilized and sent into battle to win the ideological conflicts of our time.
During the Cold War, with institutions like Radio Free Europe, the Congress of Cultural Freedom, the publication Problems of Communism, educational and cultural exchanges, and the U.S. Information Agency, the United States became very effective at public diplomacy. Public diplomacy played an essential role in defeating communism.[2] But after the Berlin Wall came down, our arsenal of persuasion was dismantled.
"At a critical time in our nation's history," said the report of the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World, "the apparatus of public diplomacy has proven inadequate... First and foremost, public diplomacy requires a new strategic direction, informed by a seriousness and commitment that matches the gravity of our approach to national defense and traditional state-to-state diplomacy."[3] True in 2003; still true today.
'We Cannot Kill or Capture Our Way to Victory'
Here is the best definition of public diplomacy: understanding, engaging, informing and influencing foreign publics with the goal of achieving the national interest of the United States of America. Of the four activities, the most important is "influencing." Public diplomacy is a means, not an end. It is a particular set of tools and approaches that help us influence foreigners in order to achieve goals that the United States desires.
During the Bush Administration, the relevant ends were keeping the United States safe and promoting freedom - ends that are linked.
Today, the greatest threats to safety and freedom come from violent extremists and their supporters, mainly using terrorism to try to achieve their aims.
As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said, "Over the long term, we cannot kill or capture our way to victory. Non-military efforts - ...tools of persuasion and inspiration - were indispensable to the outcome of the defining struggle of the 20th century. They are just as indispensable in the 21st century - and perhaps even more so."[4]
In keeping with that belief, President Bush in 2006 designated the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy as the lead official across government in strategic communications - which is a rubric that includes public diplomacy as well as other activities, including covert and kinetc ones, that attempt to communicate a specific, intentional message to the rest of the world. The Secretary of State and I believed that, given my own background and the nature of the threats, this role should be my primary one. Our focus was countering violent extremism by engaging in a "war of ideas," or what we also termed "global strategic engagement."
Drawing on the work of my predecessor, Karen Hughes, I built an inter-agency structure that allowed visibility into the strategic communications work being done in other parts of government, including the military, the intelligence community, the foreign assistance apparatus, Treasury, and elsewhere.
Beyond visibility, we were able, working with the National Security Council, to assign specific agencies to perform specific duties in pursuit of clear strategic goals. I also created a small inter-agency group called the Global Strategic Engagement Center, or GSEC, with a State Department director and members from the Department of State and the intelligence community, to handle day-to-day operations.
By the time I left government, this structure was working well, with State at the top of it, as it should be. We received superb cooperation, both from the military and from the intelligence community. Yes, the Department of Defense had more resources for strategic communications activities, but DoD worked in concert with us and looked to us for leadership.
We tried to achieve our war-of-ideas goals in two ways: first, by pushing back and undermining the ideology behind the violent extremism while at the same time explaining and advocating free alternatives and, second, by diverting young people from following a path that leads to violent extremism. What all terrorist groups have in common, in fact, is the exploitation of vulnerable young people, who are isolated and indoctrinated and become the shock troops.
In both of these endeavors - undermining and diverting - Americans themselves are rarely the most credible actors and voices. Much of what we did was encourage others. For example, we supported a global organization of female family members of victims of violent extremism and supported another network, based in Europe, of Muslim entrepreneurs.
In Afghanistan, with the most meager resources, we helped stand up an Afghan-led media center in Kabul. In October 2008, the Taliban stopped a bus at Maiwand, pulled off 50 passengers and beheaded 30 of them.[5] The media center's leaders immediately brought together 300 Afghan religious leaders who issued a statement condemning the action and calling it anti-Islamic. The effort led to widespread anti-Taliban protests.[6]
(I am happy to note that the new Afghanistan and Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy calls for an expansion of the Afghan Government Media and Information Center and the establishment of 16 provincial satellite offices.[7])
We often worked in partnership with private-sector organizations, deploying small amounts of money, in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars. A good example was providing funds to the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, a group that has been working for years to enhance education (to include academic subjects, plus the teaching of universal values such as tolerance and critical thinking) in Pakistan's madrassas, often breeding grounds of terrorists.[8] The ICRD has so far trained over 2,000 madrassa leaders.
We also funded "Life After Death," a documentary by Layalina Productions, a U.S.-based non-profit, on the journey of families of 9/11 victims as they commiserate with families of terrorism victims in Spain, Jordan, and Egypt.[9] The documentary was first aired last fall on Al Arabiya News Channel throughout Arab-speaking nations.
All of these efforts were aimed at specific goals. We wanted, for example, to show the widespread and senseless suffering caused by violent extremists, especially in their attacks against fellow Muslims. We also wanted to find ways - such as through encouraging entrepreneurship, improving madrassas, or expanding an excellent English-teaching program that teaches values as well - to divert young people from a path to terrorism.
'Mutual Interest and Mutual Respect'
We took our direction from the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism of 2006, which stated: "In the long run, winning the War on Terror means winning the battle of ideas."[10] So our mission then and, it is my hope, today is to use the tools of ideological engagement - words, deeds, and images - to create an environment hostile to violent extremism.
What do these efforts in strategic public diplomacy have to do with improving America's image abroad? Very little, in an immediate sense. The United States itself is not at the center of the war of ideas. Rather, as I will explain a bit later, the United States is being affected by conflicts within Muslim societies, which themselves are ground zero for this enormous struggle, which involves both ideology and violence.
In his inaugural address, President Obama stated, "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."[11] He repeated this powerful phrase in speeches in Istanbul and Cairo last year. We do indeed have mutual interest, even with people who may disagree with us on such policy matters as Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
On the threat of violent extremism, we are absolutely on the same page as Muslim societies. As a result, even in countries where vast majorities say, even today, that they view the U.S. unfavorably - Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, to name a few - our mutual interest in defeating the terrorist threat (and, I should add, in constraining the Iranian threat) - the United States can work cooperatively, using public diplomacy methods, to reach mutual strategic goals.
Americans, for example, have a clear mutual interest with the Pakistanis, who, according to recent Pew Research surveys, view us more unfavorably than practically any other people (in fact, favorability dropped, to just 16 percent, between 2008 and 2009).[12] We both want to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda for the sake of a stable, free Pakistan and a safer America. That interest can be achieved even if Pakistanis harbor animus toward Americans.
The latest Pew data reinforce this notion. By a margin of 63 percent to 12 percent, Pakistanis support America's "providing intelligence and logistical support to Pakistani troops fighting extremist groups. By 47 percent to 24 percent, Pakistanis even support U.S. "missile strikes against leaders of extremist groups." What can public diplomacy do in Pakistan? Working quietly, it can help the Pakistani government reinforce the notion that the violent extremist threat is real and that "this is Pakistan's war."[13]
Still, the default position in U.S. public diplomacy - getting people to like us better - has irresistible inertia. When in doubt, policymakers and practitioners turn to brand-burnishing. But the unresolved question is whether a better-liked America is one that can more easily achieve its national security goals. Certainly, some public diplomacy activities can, over the long run, improve foreigners' understanding of the United States, our people, our values, and our policies - and we should vigorously pursue those activities. But, in addition to such activities, the tools of Strategic Public Diplomacy must be applied toward urgent goals for which likeability means little.
Much of the public diplomacy effort in the past has focused on our own image, on how we are seen by others. But today, in the war of ideas, our core task is not how to fix foreigners' perceptions of the United States but how to isolate and reduce the threat of violent extremism. In other words, it's not about us.
'An Observable but Intangible Attraction'
In all aspects of public diplomacy - both traditional and strategic -- we require a new approach to communications, to the engaging and informing that lead to the influencing. We began to develop such an approach during my brief tenure, calling it Public Diplomacy 2.0. It is an approach that Secretary Clinton has embraced.[14]
The approach begins with research on America's image. We found three reasons for low favorability - differences with our policies, a lack of understanding of those policies and beliefs, and a perception that the United States does not respect the views of others, does not listen to them, or take them seriously. These last two subjects - lack of understanding by foreigners and lack of respect by us - cannot be addressed by preaching or by telling the world how wonderful we are. In fact, the technique of standing in one place and spraying a message widely to others is not very effective in today's world.
A better way to communicate is through the generation of a wide and deep conversation. Our role in that conversation is as facilitator and convener. We generate this conversation in the belief that our views will be heard - even if U.S. government actors are not always the authors of those views.
This new approach takes advantage of new social networking technologies like Facebook and YouTube and Second Life, whose essence is multiple, simultaneous conversations, in words and pictures. And, in fact, the method of communication is itself a reflection of American values. The medium, as Marshall McLuhan said, is the message. We, as Americans, do not dictate. Rather, we believe that, in a free and open discussion, the best ideas will prevail, and we want to encourage the free expression of views, rather than drowning out words that disturb us.
Joseph Nye, former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, has written: "If I am persuaded to go along with your purposes without any explicit threat or exchange taking place - in short, if my behavior is determined by an observable but intangible attraction - soft power is at work. Soft power uses a different type of currency (not force, not money) to engender cooperation - an attraction to shared values and the justness and duty of contributing to the achievement of those values."[15]
Public Diplomacy 2.0, endorsed at the highest levels of government during my tenure at the State Department, embodies Nye's description of soft power. Specifically, in 2008, our Education and Cultural Affairs Bureau, under the direction of Goli Ameri, an Iranian-American with experience as a technology executive, launched the first U.S. government social-networking website. The site, ExchangesConnect,[16] on the Ning platform, provides a forum around the topic of international exchanges.
The U.S. government cannot control everything that goes on within this forum (indeed, during the fighting in Gaza, much of the comment on the site was in opposition to U.S. policy), and the lack of control naturally produces some anxiety. But we live in a world in which we have two choices: preach and be ignored, or convene a conversation and be heard - and, if our views are persuasive, have influence. ExchangesConnect is now running its second annual video contest, this one with the theme, "Change Your Climate, Change Our World." Among the top 40 entries are videos from Egypt, Turmenistan, Cuba, and Vietnam. [17]
In 2008, the Bureau of International Information Programs - with such private sector partners as YouTube, the Tisch School at New York University, and NBC Universal -- initiated a video contest called the Democracy Video Challenge, with the theme "Democracy Is..." We wanted contestants, most of them young Internet users, to define democracy for themselves in three-minute films. There were 900 entries from around the world, with the winner chosen by a vote on the Web - which, again, we did not control.
Perhaps the best example of PD 2.0 in action is the Alliance of Youth Movements. In the fall of 2008, a young State Department official named Jared Cohen suggested that I travel to Colombia to see what that government, with U.S. help, had done to encourage young fighters to leave the FARC, the terrorist group (which started in the 1960s as the military wing of Colombia's communist party) that had been killing and kidnapping innocents. Were there lessons here for the demobilization and reintegration of violent extremists in the Middle East?
Also at Cohen's suggestion, I met with the leaders of a spontaneous civilian movement that used Facebook to bring 12 million people into the streets of cities around the world in early 2008 to oppose the FARC. That movement, One Million Voices Against the FARC, had real-life effects, demoralizing FARC fighters and causing them to demobilize. As a result of this and other efforts, the size of the FARC was cut in half and its effectiveness significantly reduced.
The dynamic young founder of the anti-FARC group, Oscar Morales,[18] worked without the support - or, even, at first, the knowledge - of the Colombian government. Morales, a young computer technician, was simply a citizen, angry at what terrorists were doing in his country. This was a model we wanted to replicate. So we decided to bring Morales together with young representatives of similar anti-violence and pro-social-change organizations using the Internet from countries like Egypt, Mexico, and the UK, as well as officials of technology companies such as Facebook, Google, Howcast, and AT&T.
The State Department provided only a small amount of seed money. We were conveners and facilitators. At a New York conference in late 2008, the young people decided to create their own network - which is now called the Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM), with a social networking site, including how-to hub, and a professional executive director.[19] With backing from Secretary Clinton, the group held a conference in Mexico in October, in part with the purpose of pushing back against narco-terrorism, and will hold another meeting next month in London.
Unfortunately, not all PD 2.0 ideas have become reality. We were on the brink of launching the contemporary analogue of "Problems of Communism," the USIA journal that confronted the Soviet ideology for 40 years during the Cold War. Our version, tentatively called "Problems of Extremism" (POE), was planned as a journal, a website, and a platform for conferences. We wanted it to become the locus of liberal thought, promoting freedom, tolerance, and women's rights, with emphasis on the conflicts (which I will explain below) that are occurring in Muslim societies. The POE venture, like AYM, would be a non-profit foundation, with a small amount of seed money provided by the U.S. government and other funding from foreign governments and private institutions.
Finally, a good example of PD 2.0 even before such a rubric existed is the Digital Outreach Team, begun under Ambassador Hughes. Team members go into chat rooms and on interactive websites, in Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu (and, we had planned, Russian), to explain U.S. policy and refute lies and distortions. They identify themselves as working for the U.S. government and provide links to easily accessible facts on the Internet.
Public Diplomacy 2.0 would be an unfulfilled idea if it were not for Web 2.0, the interactive tools now available on the Internet. Yes, Al Qaeda and other violent extremist organizations have exploited the Internet to their advantage, but that edge has diminished - and not just because the jihadist message has worn thin with Al Qaeda's penchant for slaughtering fellow Muslims.
Why? One reason, says analyst Daniel Kimmage in the New York Times, is that "the Qaeda media nexus...is old hat. If Web 1.0 was about creating the snazziest official Web resources and Web 2.0 is about letting users run wild with self-created content and interactivity, Al Qaeda and its affiliates are stuck in 1.0."[20]
The Internet world of Al Qaeda is one of direction: believe this, do that. The Internet world of today is one of interactivity and conversation: I think this, your ideas are unconvincing, I need more information to make up my mind, let's meet at 3 p.m. Thursday for a peaceful protest. In fact, the Internet itself is becoming the locus of Civil Society 2.0.
This new virtual world is democratic. It is an agora. It is not a place for a death cult that counts on keeping its ideology sealed off from criticism. The new world is a marketplace of ideas, and it is no coincidence that Al Qaeda blows up marketplaces.
U.S. International Broadcasting
While taxpayer-funded, non-military U.S. international broadcasting is almost 70 years old, the fundamental principle that underlies it is the same as that of Public Diplomacy 2.0: rather than preaching, the BBG's entities seek to inform and to generate a conversation, also with the ultimate objective of securing American interests. The BBG's broadcasters embody President Obama's notion of mutual interest and mutual respect.
Along with the Fulbright educational exchanges, U.S. international broadcasting is almost certainly the most successful public diplomacy program. It is also the largest. The BBG budget rose from $440 million in 2001 to $758 million in fiscal 2010.
The BBG's success may be attributed in part to its clear mandate. It does one thing and does it well: as a reliable source of news, it presents an accurate, objective and comprehensive view of America and its policies and, through surrogate broadcasters like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), the BBG serves as a free, mature communications medium in nations lacking in such institutions.
Between 2001 and 2009, the weekly audience of the BBG increased by approximately three-fourths, to 171 million, and nearly the entire increase occurred in languages of strategic importance, such as Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu. Particularly remarkable is the Arabic service, Middle East Broadcasting Network.
Before MBN's launch, just seven years ago, the Arabic audience for BBG - through Voice of America (VOA) radio, was only two to three million. Today, the total audience - that is, listeners and viewers who tune in at least once a week on radio or TV - is 35 million. In the 14 countries where the BBG has done research (Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, and UAE), 92 million adults have access to satellite TV. Alhurra's weekly audience in these 14 countries, as measured consistent with international broadcasting standard, is 27.5 million -- almost a third of the potential audience. [21]
While Alhurra's weekly audience is less than the weekly audiences for Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, it is greater than all other non-Arab broadcasters combined (including BBC Arabic). Alhurra and the BBG's Arabic radio network, Radio Sawa, have a weekly audience of 71 percent of Iraqis and 61 percent of Syrians. Together, Sawa and Alhurra reach an upduplicated audience of more than 35 million. In each of the 14 researched markets, Alhurra figures among the top 20 TV channels of all kinds (entertainment as well as news), except in Saudi Arabia, where it is 21st. Surveys find that Alhurra is considered "trustworthy" by at least 90 percent of its viewers in such countries as Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait. In the past few weeks, Alhurra, with a larger audience in Iraq than Al Jazeera, has provided vigorous, objective coverage of that country's elections.
Meanwhile, two other BBG entities, RFE/RL and VOA are together broadcasting a stream in Pashto and Dari 24/7 into Afghanistan, where RFE/RL is the number-one news station in the country. Separately, last December, RFE/RL began broadcasting in local Pashto dialects to Pakistan and the border regions with Afghanistan over a new station called Radio Mashaal, offering an alternative to extremist stations in the region. Radio Deewa, a product of VOA, is now broadcasting nine hours a day in Pashto to federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan, reaching 14% of Pashtuns in this critical area.
VOA has the largest combined radio and television audience in Iran of all international broadcasters, with one in four adult Iranians tuning in to a VOA program once a week. PNN broadcasts seven hours of television daily, repeated in a 24 hour format, and five hours of radio. Programming is also available around the clock on the Internet.
At the end of December, VOA launched a new Web application that allows users in Iran to download and send content to VOA's Persian News Network with their iPhones. The application enables users of Apple iPhones and Android phones to get the latest news from PNN and, with a single click, to send links to VOA stories via Facebook and Twitter pages and email accounts. The application will be available shortly in Apple's online store, PNN's Web site (http://www1.voanews.com/persian/news/) and on PNN's Facebook and Twitter accounts.
The application also gives Iran's "citizen journalists" the opportunity to use their iPhones and Android phones to send video and still pictures taken on their devices to a secure Web site where VOA's PNN editors can download the images and review them for possible broadcast use and Web posting.
RFE/RL's Radio Farda continues to provide hard-hitting news and information in a 24/7 format that gets stories to the Iranian people that their government denies them on domestic media outlets. Radio Farda has reported the harsh crackdown in the aftermath of the flawed June election.
The BBG is focused not only on areas of conflict. It has a major presence in Africa, where it has gained a reputation for broadcasting useful information about health; in Cuba; Russia; and in parts of Asia where freedom of the press is constrained, such as China and Burma. BBG budgets rose significantly in the seven years following the 9/11 attacks.
Because of evolving audience tastes, as well as legal, political, and technical obstacles to radio and TV in countries such as Russia, the BBG has moved more and more toward reaching audiences through the Internet.
But all is not well. The BBG's purpose and achievements need to gain greater understanding and support among policymakers.
The BBG is an independent agency of the federal government, with eight governors, four from each party, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, plus the Secretary of State, who typically appoints as representative the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.
Unfortunately, in recent years, the confirmation process has become fraught with difficulty. As a result, although it occurred in June 2007 - more than two and a half years ago -- my confirmation was the last voted by the Senate for a BBG governor. Natural attrition has left the BBG with only four governors plus the Secretary of State - a total of five, which is the minimum for a quorum.
The BBG is no ordinary board; its governors serve as a collective chief executive officer for this critical organization. Imagine a CEO who serves with barely half of his or her intellectual and physical strength, and you'll get an idea of the status of the BBG today. I urge the Senate to confirm a full slate of governors immediately. The lack of action over the past few years on confirmations of governors is a sad manifestation of the overall standing of public diplomacy among too many policymakers. We can't wait.
Traditional Public Diplomacy
My predecessor, Ambassador Hughes, gave me two excellent pieces of advice, and I passed them on to my successor: First, the best thing we can do for the long run in traditional public diplomacy is put Americans face to face with foreigners, and, second, we can't do enough English teaching.
We put people face to face mainly through exchanges. Ambassador Hughes's great accomplishment was expanding these programs that had been languishing. The U.S. now brings about 50,000 people from other countries to the U.S. on programs like Fulbright and YES (for high school students, mainly from Muslim-majority nations) and International Visitor Programs, whose graduates have included such figures as Hamid Karzai and Margaret Thatchter, when they were rising stars.
Education is America's greatest brand, and we have bounced back dramatically from 9/11. Today, despite tougher visa requirements, more than 600,000 foreign students are matriculating in the US - an all-time record.
Fulbright is the largest single public diplomacy program of the State Department, with federal support that has been increasing consistently for the past six years,[22] thanks to the efforts of President Bush and the U.S. Congress. In fiscal 2004, federal spending on Fulbright was $150 million; in 2010, it will be $254 million. Fulbright too has become more strategic. Exchanges for university students and scholars in both directions have increased substantially in Muslim-majority countries, including Afghanistan, Indonesia, Turkey, and Iraq. The Fulbright program in Pakistan is the largest in the world. Globally, applications are at their highest level in history.
While the U.S. government is the top funder of Fulbright scholarships, there are substantial contributions coming now from 100 countries, including major investments from India, China, Turkey, Chile, and Indonesia. And as an example of the public-private partnerships that are so critical to the success of public diplomacy, U.S. universities contribute $30 million a year in cost-sharing.
The problem with exchanges, however, is that they are expensive. To succeed in the future, public diplomacy will need to find ways to use technology to reach a wider audience with each individual exchange - through video, for example, or sophisticated use of social networking media - and to find ways to engage more private-sector partners.
As for English, the United States teaches it because the world wants to learn it - because governments and people in practically every country in the world see English as a way to move up economically. Everywhere, including difficult neighborhoods like Yemen, the West Bank and Gaza. In teaching English, we teach a language and tell America's story. Spending on English-teaching programs by the State Department has risen from $6.8 million in fiscal 2004 to $46.6 million this year.
Educational and cultural (including sports) exchanges, plus the outreach activities (such as sending speakers aboard and operating America.gov websites in seven different languages) of the Bureau of International Information Programs, comprise what I term "traditional public diplomacy." These programs are important. They work, as recent assessments and evaluations have shown. The challenge is to improve efficiency and flexibility.
Two Urgent Tasks
But, to return to Strategic Public Diplomacy and the war of ideas: What are the urgent tasks today? Here are two....
A New Narrative: The most pernicious idea in Muslim societies is that the United States wants to destroy Islam and replace it with Christianity. Vast majorities in many countries believe this narrative, and it is the prism through which they view almost all U.S. activities.[23]
But to try to refute this narrative head-on is not easy. A better approach is to promote a different narrative - one that reflects the truth. The State Department's new strategic plan for public diplomacy lists "Shape the narrative" as one of five strategic objectives. That's encouraging, but the narrative that the plan has in mind appears, from the document, to be U.S.-centric and difficult to convey and sustain. The objective appears to be to explain American policies better and to "counter misinformation and disinformation."[24] Certainly, those activities must be part of any public diplomacy strategy, but the more valuable narrative to spread is not about the U.S. at all.
The indispensable narrative is the real story of what is happening in Muslim societies. It is a narrative of three conflicts that are within Muslim societies. Yes, the U.S. is deeply affected by them, but they are intra-Muslim conflicts and need to be understood that way. They are:
* Religion and terror. A small group of violent reactionaries -- led by Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and allied groups -- is trying, through horrifying brutality, to bring more than one billion Muslims into line with a sweeping totalitarian doctrine, inconsistent with the tenets of Islam.
Growing numbers of Muslims are waking up to threat and are opposing and ostracizing the violent extremists in their midst -- even in Pakistan, where a terrible threat had been widely ignored. Even as U.S. favorability has slipped, support for Al Qaeda and the Taliban has plummeted. In spring 2008, some 25 percent of Pakistanis had a favorable opinion of al Qaeda, with 34 percent unfavorable -- a disturbingly close split. Today, just 9 percent have a favorable opinion, with 61 percent unfavorable. So too with the Taliban: The ratings shifted from 27 percent favorable and 33 percent unfavorable in 2008 to 10 percent favorable and 70 percent unfavorable today.[25] Our job in public diplomacy should be to help spread information about these reactionary groups trying to destroy Islam.
* Iran and proxies. Along with its proxies Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, Iran is confronting the vast majority of Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt. This Iran-vs.-Arab conflict is also part of the Sunni-Shia conflict that is playing out elsewhere, including Iraq, but Iran's threat transcends religion. Regardless of sectarian bent, Muslim communities are rising to oppose the attempts by Iran and its intelligence services -- in particular the Qods Force -- to extend Shia extremism and influence throughout the world. Here, public diplomacy can support those who are struggling to change the policies of the Iranian regime.
* Democracy and human rights, especially the rights of women. Many Arab governments have denied their citizens what Egyptian activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim has called "the infrastructure of democracy": rule of law, independent judiciary, free media, gender equality, and autonomous civil society. These necessities of liberty are more important than ballots dropped in a box, as we have seen by the actions of the terrorist Hamas regime in Gaza.
A widespread criticism among Muslims is that the United States has not pressed authoritarian allies to democratize. For both moral and strategic reasons, we have a stake in supporting free societies with accountable governments. The reality of democracies thriving in Muslim societies -- like Turkey and Indonesia -- is a powerful counterweight to the canard that Islam and political freedom can't coexist. Here, public diplomacy can remind those advancing freedom and democracy that they aren't alone and that history, including our own, is replete with examples of brave advocates.
For the immediate future, our job in public diplomacy is to promote this accurate narrative in everything we do. We can do it while at the same time emphasizing America's values -- concepts of pluralism, freedom, and opportunity that run counter to the extremists' ideology. We should emphasize that the United States won't be a passive bystander in these struggles. We will advance our own ideals and interests -- which include promoting a comprehensive two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.
But it is challenging and empowering Muslim communities to take on the three great struggles themselves, with the United States as a constructive partner, that is an approach that will overturn the extremists' narrative and help shape a new, honest, and positive storyline -- in which Muslims see themselves not as victims but as central protagonists in global struggles for justice.[26]
Strategic Public Diplomacy in Iran: The second example is one I laid out in a recent article with Mike Doran, a former colleague who now teaches at NYU. It concerns Iran.
Here we are squandering a great opportunity. Our objective is an Iran free of nuclear weapons. Two routes to achieving the objective appear highly unlikely: armed conflict or successful official diplomacy. But public diplomacy can work - mainly because of the brave opposition movement that developed after the June elections. What are we doing to help? It's hard to see. Doran and I urge:
* Providing moral and educational support for the Green Movement in Iran by publicizing what worked in Ukraine or Georgia, dubbing into Farsi documentaries on the fall of Ceausescu, Milosevic and Pinochet; the transitions in South Africa and Poland; and the achievements of the U.S. civil-rights movement. The great fear of the Iranian regime is that a non-violent civil resistance in the form of a color movement, like those in states of the former Soviet Union, will gain authority and legitimacy and, ultimately, power through democratic means. The regime is right to be afraid.
* Tightening sanctions on the Iranian economy and publicizing the connection between regime belligerence and economic malaise. The slogans of the protesters demonstrate that they are connecting the dots between the regime's foreign policy and economic privation.
* Doing all we can to increase communications within Iran, as well as between Iran and the outside world, including boosting broadcasting by Radio Farda and Voice of America satellite TV and spreading tools to facilitate mobile-phone messaging and social networking -- and helping Iranians get the technology to overcome regime attempts to block and censor. In testimony in February in the House, Mehdi Khalaji and J. Scott Carpenter urged this approach as well. They state that Ayatollah "Khamenei often expresses his belief that he is in a soft war with the West. For him, all new telecommunication, Internet and satellite technology are Western tools to defeat him in this war."[27] We should be furnishing that technology. We should also be vigorously opposing Iranian interference with satellite transmissions, in violation of international agreements.[28]
* Finally, aggressively refuting, in campaign style, the key propositions of Iranian propaganda, such as that the Green Movement is marginal and lacks support and that the West wants Iran to be a technological backwater.
A serious strategic communications program for Iran could have dozens, even hundreds, of programs. They might range from a campaign, including posters and TV commercials featuring Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, to encourage Iranians to come to California to be trained as high-tech experts; to an aggressive effort to expose the Iranian agents who beat and seize demonstrators; to support for an interactive satellite TV station that appeals to young people and urges them to express free choice in cultural and social, as well as political matters; to financial aid to the families of victims of the crackdown on demonstrators.
Recommendations and Conclusion
Here, then are seven recommendations for a more effective public diplomacy:
1. Make public diplomacy a top priority. The entire government should know that the President sees public diplomacy as a critical part of America's overall national security strategy.
2. Make a distinction between what I call Strategic Public Diplomacy - that is, PD with clear objectives that can be achieved in a definable period, such as war-of-ideas goals - and long-term ongoing public diplomacy, which may be shaped strategically (with emphasis on exchanges with Muslim-majority nations, for example) but which is more general in its effects.
3. Institute a strong interagency structure and process led by an official with a close connection to the President. During the Bush Administration, that official was the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, but other structures are possible.
4. Launch an inter-agency program quickly to show that public diplomacy can achieve national security goals. Iran should be the immediate focus.
5. Promote the successes and enhance the understanding of the function and purpose of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Confirm the new slate of governors. The BBG is a precious asset that must not be ignored or denigrated.
6. Expand Public Diplomacy 2.0, using technology to facilitate and convene a broad and deep global conversation in which we can more effectively influence and inform. At the same time, put teeth into Secretary Clinton's affirmation that the U.S. supports open global communications. One step would be to challenge Iranian jamming of satellite broadcasts.
7. Establish a culture of measurable results. All public diplomacy programs must be assessed and evaluated to see how well they "move the needle." Measuring can be difficult and expensive, but, without it, we can't tell whether work is succeeding or failing.
Finally, remember that public diplomacy performs its mission of achieving the national interest in a particular way: by understanding, informing, engaging, and influencing foreign publics. While the "influencing" part may be the most important, the "understanding" part comes first. You can't persuade if you don't truly understand the people you are trying to persuade.
Senator J. William Fulbright, who created the Fulbright exchanges in 1946, put it well: The "essence of intercultural education," he said, referring to what would become one of our most effective public diplomacy programs, is "empathy, the ability to see the world as others see it, and to allow for the possibility that others may see something we have failed to see...."[29]
Another key word in public diplomacy is compassion. At the Bush Institute, we base our programs on four key principles of the former president: freedom, responsibility, opportunity, and compassion. Americans are compassionate people, and that trait needs to be reflected in all that we do in public diplomacy. It is the foundation of Public Diplomacy 2.0, and, in the goals we seek, it is the driving force behind Strategic Public Diplomacy.
I ended my testimony before this committee in January 2008 with the following sentence, which I believe bears repeating:
The task ahead is to tell the world the story of a good and compassionate nation and, at the same time, to engage in the most important ideological contest of our time - a contest that we will win.
Thank you.
[1] "Changing Minds, Winning Peace," report of the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World, submitted to the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Oct. 1, 2003, p. 8.
[2] See many examples, including this speech last year by Yale Richmond, a retired foreign service officer: http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2009/12/cultural-exchange-and-the-cold-war-how-the-west-won.html
[3] "Changing Minds, Winning Peace," pp. 8 and 13. I served on this panel, created by Congress and chaired by Ambassador Edward Djerejian.
[4] http://www.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1262
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/world/asia/19iht-19afghan.17083733.html
[6] http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2892.htm
[7] "Afghanistan and Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy," as updated Feb. 2010, Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, U.S. Department of State.
[8] http://www.icrd.org/
[9] http://www.layalina.tv/productions/lifeafterdeath.html
[10] http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/
[11] www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address
[12] For a more complete exposition of this subject, see my article, "It's Not About Us," on ForeignPolicy.com: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/01/its_not_about_us?page=0,0
[13] President Zardari of Pakistan has made this statement many times, for example: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2892.htm
[14] Secretary Clinton immediately supported the Alliance of Youth Movements and in January gave a speech on Internet freedom and met with high-tech executives on improving the use of social media in public diplomacy: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/01/sec_clinton_dines_high-tech_ti.html?wprss=posttech
[15] Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, PublicAffairs, 2004, p. 7.
[16] http://connect.state.gov/
[17] http://connectcontest.state.gov/contests/change-your-climate-change-our-world/entries/top_entries
[18] Oscar Morales in February became a Visiting Fellow of the George W. Bush Institute in Dallas.
[19] http://youthmovements.howcast.com/
[20] www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/opinion/26kimmage.html
[21] The source of these data is the BBG itself, which contracts with a firm which independently engages such respected survey organizations. Most of the Middle East research was done by ACNielsen. The BBG uses the standard audience measurement for international broadcasters, asking whether the respondent watched or listened in the past week.
[22] www.fulbright.org/conference/2009/.../Marianne%20Craven_Remarks.doc. Marianne Craven is Managing Director for Academic Programs at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State.
23 See sources that I cited in my confirmation testimony in January 2008: WorldPublicOpinion.org, Program on International Policy Attitudes, University of Maryland, "Muslim Opinion on US Policy, Attacks on Civilians and al Qaeda," April 24, 2007. A press release summarizing the study began, "An in-depth poll of four major Muslim countries has found that in all of them large majorities believe that undermining Islam is a key goal of US foreign policy." See http://worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/346.php?lb=brme&pnt=346&nid=&id=. Also, "America's Image in the World: Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes Project, Testimony of Andrew Kohut, Pew Research Center, before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, March 14, 2007.
[24] "Public Diplomacy: Strengthening U.S. Engagement With the World," Office of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, 2010, pp. 8-11.
[25] http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1148/pakistan-little-support-for-terrorists-most-favor-education-for-girls
[26] See "What Obama Should Tell Muslims," my op-ed from the Boston Globe, with Juan Zarate: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/05/27/what_obama_should_tell_muslims/
[27] http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC14.php?CID=512. Testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. Both Khalaji, who was trained in the seminars of Qom before moving to the United States, and Carpenter, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, are fellows of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
[28] http://www.bbg.gov/pressroom/printerfr.cfm?articleID=443. VOA and BBC transmissions were both jammed, leading a European satellite operator to take down Persian TV (PTV), the BBC Farsi network. VOA's Persian News Network is also sporadically removed. "Iranians keep asking me why the west is so powerless," Sadeq Saba, head of PTV, wrote on his blog. "They say: 'This is a rogue government jamming international signals. How will the west stop Iran getting nuclear weapons if they can't deal with this?'" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/14/bbc-joins-iran-tv-protest)
[29] www.fulbright.org/ifad/manual/quotes.pdf
]]>Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Senator Kaufman--with whom I had the great pleasure of working on the Broadcasting Board of Governors and who is a great champion of public diplomacy and particularly international broadcasting--thank you for inviting me here today.
Let me start by saying the two and a half years I spent as Under Secretary were among the most challenging and difficult, yet in the end some of the most rewarding, of my entire career.
Working with an outstanding team of career foreign and civil service officers and public diplomats around the world, we were able to make a number of significant changes. Much more needs to be done and I want to outline some thoughts about that today.
People often talk about public diplomacy in the context of the most recent opinion poll but to view public diplomacy as an international popularity contest is a fundamental misunderstanding.
America's engagement with foreign publics is actually a vital foreign policy and national security priority that seeks to promote our national ideals and interests and to undermine our enemies.
When I took office, a strategic plan for US public diplomacy did not exist. We worked in an interagency process to develop one and put in place three strategic imperative, which I believe remain vital today.
First, that America must offer a positive vision of hope and opportunity rooted in our most basic values, values which are not merely American, but universal human rights -liberty, justice, the rule of law, rights for women and other minorities, a fundamental belief in the dignity of every individual.
Second, to isolate and discredit Al Qaeda, and other violent extremists, and undermine their attempt to appropriate religion to their cause.
Third, to nurture common interests between Americans and people of different countries across the world.
You can put most US public diplomacy activities into four broad categories:
1) Communications
2) Education and exchange programs (the heart of public diplomacy)
3) The Deeds of Diplomacy (concrete things we do in areas such as education, health and economic development that make such an impact on people's lives)
4) International broadcasting (which now reaches 171 million people across the world)
Communications
With the explosion of media channels across the world, today's ambassadors and public diplomats have to be trained and effective communicators and empowered to speak on behalf of our country.
I found the bilateral set-up of the State Department is often counterproductive, particularly when dealing with regional networks like Al Jazeera that reach broad audiences across an entire region. I remember meeting with an Ambassador; Al Jazeera was by far the number one source of news and information in his county yet they weren't headquartered in his country so he had no strategy or personnel to deal with them. We set up hubs and put language qualified communicators there. The daily job of those communicators was to get out and explain and advocate our policies.
We need better language training of our personnel. Most of State's training teaches officers to be able to engage in conversations, but not television interviews. We need effective spokespeople who are able to communicate on television in key languages.
Public diplomacy has to be more involved in assigning State Department personnel and have the flexibility to move people to respond to urgent needs or world events.
Communications have to be two-way. It's imperative to put in place a unit to monitor international media, listen to what they are saying about US policies, provide US government's position in response, etc. Secretary Clinton's team has kept up with that practice and I believe it's vitally important.
And I'd like to mention two other areas. One, we were more engaged on Internet and put in place a program blogging in Arabic, Farsi, Urdu to correct misrepresentations and undermine the work of extremists. Two, there was a concerted effort to communicate that Al Qaeda's attacks often killed fellow Muslims. These are vitally important communications strategies that undermine extensive communications of extremists.
Education and exchange
Education and exchange programs are the heart of public diplomacy. During my tenure we dramatically expanded English language training; it's a skill young people across the world want because it gives them opportunities, and also gives them access to a wider body of knowledge and brings them in contact with an American. We are also allowed to reach much younger demographics (8-14 year olds) with in-country programs to learn English.
Doubled participation in exchange programs worked to make more strategic and focused on those who have a wide circle of audience and influence such as clerics and journalists, and also women who have a rippling impact on societies.
We worked with university leaders and reversed the trend of decline in student visas, that had occurred after 9/11, and the number of students has been growing and setting new records ever since.
We began using technology to expand the impact of exchanges, encouraging them to blog about their experience, giving them a camera and asking to make YouTube videos. However, much more needs to be done in this area to maximize the impact of exchanges.
Also, the act of citizen dialogue: We sent Muslim Americans overseas to engage with Muslim communities through sports diplomacy, music and culture. These are spaces where Americans can come in contact with foreign publics.
Most of these programs that build relationships and understanding over the long term are hard to fund, but they are vital and must be expanded in a world that is increasingly inter-connected.
Deeds of Diplomacy
Collaborative programs such as a breast cancer initiative with women in Middle East does more than share expertise in a way that improves women's health - it also teaches them to learn to network, to stand up for themselves, to more fully participate in their societies.
I believe there are many such ways to partner on issues of mutual interest in ways that improves people's lives and shows the heart and compassion of our country.
The USNS Comfort and the AIDS initiative in Africa are examples of things that are not just development, they are also public diplomacy that communicate who we are and we must view them that way.
International broadcasting
Improved television offerings: Members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors had had the foresight to start new Arabic television and radio stations before I arrived. We worked to get additional funding and provide relevant programming such as a new midday show, women's programs and others that build value. They now have a weekly audience of 35 million.
I just returned from Dubai where I announced the results of the most comprehensive survey every done with Arab youth. The survey compiled 2,000 in person interviews and was conducted by my company Burson-Marsteller. Findings from the survey showed Arab youth are increasingly connected: 3 out of 4 have mobile phones, 3 in 5 use the Internet at least once a day. The survey also highlighted the crucial importance of television in the lives of Arab youth.
78 percent said they get their news and information from television. Overwhelmingly 66 percent said their favorite leisure pastime is watching television.
Let me tell you why I worry about that for our national interests; if you see something on television, you tend to give it more credibility because you've seen it with your own eyes. Yet the view is often quite misleading. I'll close with a story from a young man I met in China, who had just returned from his first trip to America. I asked him what surprised him. He said he was surprised by how friendly Americans were, how much they cared about their families and how many of them went to church or synagogue or mosque.
I told him that if you take a survey of Americans and ask what's most important to them, not all of them, but most will say family and faith - yet he just told me that surprised him, so I asked: What's the disconnect. His reply has haunted me ever since: America, he said, is NOT the way it looks on television.
There should be calls for continued investment in international broadcasting, and additionally a lot more private sector partnerships (documentaries, etc.)
Some recommendations:
We need changes in personnel training and deployment at State, more in-depth language training of spokesmen in key languages and maybe we need to keep those people in one region of the world, rather than transferring them around. This will strengthen public diplomacy within the regional bureaus, which is the power structure at State, and give the Under Secretary greater authority to assign personnel and allocate resources.
We need more accessible spaces and expanded American corners. We need Americans staffing them; we cannot conduct public diplomacy while walled off in embassies
We have to encourage more conversations and recognize that's going to mean less control. Internet chat means someone may not like what is said, a call-in show means someone may not agree with all the opinions expressed. Al Qaeda is a one way communicator; we have to be a two-way facilitator.
We need to confirm board members at the Broadcasting Board of Governors and continue to improve international broadcasting.
Public diplomacy needs an advocate at the White House. I regularly met with, and saw, President Bush and he put me in the lead of inter-agency. I was in all of Secretary Rice's highest level policy meetings and all that was important but it was still very hard to get it done. We need someone at White House who cares and comes to work every day thinking about this and coordinating with the Under Secretary and that's hard because the White House tends to focus on the domestic audience - after all, that's who elects the President. But for our national interests we have to do a lot more thinking and planning about our conversations and interactions with publics across the world.
