Category: Smith-Mundt

Noteworthy

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 2 Comments

Highly abbreviated list due to deadlines, holidays, etc.

Listen to VOA on DC AM radio at WFED (AM 1500) Tuesdays and Thursdays. (h/t VOA, unofficially of course)

Al Jazeera reaches out via new media. (h/t KAE)

Still wondering how this upcoming USIP event can be titled Media as Global Diplomat when the only media (domestic or foreign and MTV doesn’t count) is the moderator and there are no non-US observers on the panel.

There’s a new website to watch: Building Peace. I’d subscribe but I can’t find an RSS for it… update: an RSS is now available

Event: The media and public diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong

The relationship between the media and public diplomacy today is one that is under-discussed. At one time, like foreign aid, U.S. media was integral to the practices that became known as public diplomacy. They were mutually dependent and supporting of each other. The Smith-Mundt Act was a means to extend U.S. media overseas, to broadcast where the American media could not. The Marshall Plan likewise continued this with the Informational Media Guarantee to further assist U.S. media products to reach overseas. Privatizing international broadcasting was to be done wherever and whenever possible according to the Act and public statements by the legislation’s backers.

Is the media a global diplomat? Possibly, but are we talking about their communication of the United States to overseas audiences or how they report global affairs to the U.S. market? It would seem the latter is the focus of the USIP event below. Will they discuss how public education about the U.S. role, if not standing, in the world is incompletely reported? I’m sure Jim Glassman will note how little Americans and Congress actually know what is being done overseas in America’s name. The news, especially foreign coverage, used to be considered a public service but now it is a profit center and there’s very little profit in global affairs, especially when the real cost of maintaining foreign bureaus has increased. Noam Chomsky noted the retreat from international coverage twenty years ago. Today, reporters like Lara Logan and the groups like the Pew Center report this trend only gotten worse.

If it is media as global diplomat, as a means to engage non-US audiences, either within the U.S. or abroad (which itself a separate slate of questions), then is this the right panel to be answer the question?

The United States Institute of Peace is hosting a "leadership summit" titled Media as Global Diplomat. The discussion will be moderated by Ted Koppel and the discussants include

  • Under Secretary of State Jim Glassman
  • Mika Salmi, President of Global Digital Media of MTV Networks
  • Edward Djerejian, Co-Founder of the Baker Institute
  • Marvin Kalb, Edward R. Murrow Professor of Practice
  • Dennis Ross, Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Location: USIP Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Time: 9a – 3p

RSVP for the event here.

I hope the issue of American media’s retreat from covering global affairs comes up as well as the issue that the Government can’t tell the media everything it is doing overseas in America’s name and with America’s money.

I don’t know if I’ll be in town, but I’ll be there if I am.

See also:

Media and Public Diplomacy: a look back at the relationship sixty years ago

~ Matt Armstrong

What is the role of media in public diplomacy? Is it a watch dog? I would say yes, if they only reported on what was being done overseas. Is it an extension of public diplomacy? Yes, if they are actually analyzing and deliberating the facts and shaping knowledge overseas.

America’s international engagement was clearly intended to further the reach of American media, to go where they could not. There were hearings to privatize the entirety of the international broadcasting operation, but the media declined saying they could not afford to do it, but they would be happy to continue to lease their transmitters and sell programming to the government.

A related post is Congressional Intent on Privatization of International Broadcasting, particularly the discussion from Rep. Karl Stefan (R-NE) from March 11, 1948.

The following is from Rethinking Smith-Mundt and focuses on the Congressional and public debates concerning the perceived government competition with American media. The leading voice from the media against government-owned broadcasting was the Associated Press’s Kent Cooper, then executive director. You may be aware of his opposition to government ownership, but I’ll give you a dollar if you know the basis of his opposition, a hypocrisy that his fellow publishers and Assistant Secretary of State Benton pointed out in debates played out in newspapers and radios.

Links to many of the historical articles will soon be placed in the Smith-Mundt Symposium’s library. 

Continue reading “Media and Public Diplomacy: a look back at the relationship sixty years ago
“ →

Quotes from the past: the purpose of Smith-Mundt, the bill

~ Matt Armstrong

Without comment, here are a few paragraphs from Rethinking Smith-Mundt that should resonate given some of the criticism of public diplomacy over the last several days, especially those who ignore the role of Congress in rebuilding our arsenal of persuasion. Especially when you know that R has, in fact, very little of our money. 

Continue reading “Quotes from the past: the purpose of Smith-Mundt, the bill
“ →

Persuasive Politics: Revisit the Smith-Mundt Act

~ Matt Armstrong

Persuasive politics: Revisit the Smith-Mundt Act by Matt Armstrong, 19 December 2008, in The Washington Times.

“Repairing America’s image” is a popular mantra these days, but discussions on revamping America’s public diplomacy are futile if the legislative foundation of what we are attempting to fix is ignored. A sixty year old law affects virtually all U.S. engagement with foreign audiences by putting constraints on what we say and how we say it. Perhaps more importantly, it limits the oversight by the American public, Congress, and the whole of government into what is said and done in America’s name abroad. The impact of this law, the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, must not be ignored if policymakers hope to improve how the United States communicates overseas. …

A brand new National Security Council directed the State Department to respond to the “coordinated psychological, political and economic measures designed to undermine non-Communist elements in all countries.” The psychological struggle of the Cold War is lost by those who remember only the military confrontation. The “predominant aspect of the new diplomacy,” wrote a young Henry Kissinger, “is its psychological dimension.” But by the late 1960’s, as the borders of the most important contested spaces were settled, the strategic value of this “new diplomacy” gave way to private, closed door diplomacy.

The result was the transformation of what is now known as public diplomacy from a national security imperative aggressively targeting foreign public opinion to something more resembling a passive “beauty contest.”

Persuasive politics: Revisit the Smith-Mundt Act

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

In the The Washington Times:

Persuasive politics: Revisit the Smith-Mundt Act

Matt Armstrong
Friday, December 19, 2008

"Repairing America’s image" is a popular mantra these days, but discussions on revamping America’s public diplomacy are futile if the legislative foundation of what we are attempting to fix is ignored. A sixty year old law affects virtually all U.S. engagement with foreign audiences by putting constraints on what we say and how we say it. Perhaps more importantly, it limits the oversight by the American public, Congress, and the whole of government into what is said and done in America’s name abroad. The impact of this law, the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, must not be ignored if policymakers hope to improve how the United States communicates overseas.

Read the whole op-ed here.

A Briefing 2.0 for the Smith-Mundt Symposium

~ Matt Armstrong

There will be a ninety minute media roundtable pre-event a week before the Smith-Mundt Symposium. Originally intended as an event for “traditional” media (mostly, but not entirely, print), I’m expanding it to, surprise, include “new media”.

The guests will include one or two panelists from the Smith-Mundt Symposium as well as one or two people not on panels, plus me.

Date: January 6, 2009
Time: 3:00p – 4:30p ET
Location: Alexandria, VA

This event is organized and hosted by a third-party.

While the journalists will be seated at the table, bloggers may call in. As a “new media-ist” myself, feel free to insert a joke here about bloggers being heard (or read) but not seen. (Perhaps you’ll go with some comparative humor that journos are easier on the eyes than bloggers…)

If you are a member of the media or a blogger (“or” not meant as a slight 😉 interested in participating in person or via teleconference or in person, email me ASAP. Space very is limited.

Smith-Mundt Symposium Update

~ Matt Armstrong

Here is a brief update before the January 13, 2009, Smith-Mundt Symposium.

First, over 90 people have registered with seven weeks to go before the event. Many of the “usual suspects” have still not registered and a couple of communities are under-represented. I’m working on both issues.

Second, the day is admittedly long and packed leaving little time for networking or socializing ideas. Because of this, a reception will now immediately follow the Symposium.

Third, a community of interest forum is online to discuss Smith-Mundt issues. Go and participate.

That’s it for now.

Registration is now open plus other announcements

~ Matt Armstrong

Registration for the Smith-Mundt Symposium – A Discourse to Shape America’s Discourse – is now open. Registration is free, open to the public, and required to attend the event on Tuesday, January 13, 2009.

The Symposium will be held at the Reserve Officer’s Association across the street from the Senate and House office buildings in Washington, D.C.

For details on this event, see http://mountainrunner.us/symposium/about.html.

There is also a discussion forum built specifically for this event: http://mountainrunner.us/symposium/. From here you can register to attend the Symposium as well as discuss the Smith-Mundt Act and suggest and discuss questions for the different panels. This site will host the electronic library to be available to registered attendees prior to the Symposium.

To register for the Symposium, go to http://mountainrunner.us/symposium/ and click on Registration in the menu bar near the top. Even if you cannot attend the Symposium, because you are reading this you will probably find the discourse at the website interesting and your contribution will increase the value for everyone.

Send any questions, comments, or issues, including registration problems, to Matt Armstrong at blog@mountainrunner.us.

More on the Al-Qaeda slur

~ Matt Armstrong

From Evan Kohlman at the Counterterrorism blog:

Global reactions to Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri’s controversial condemnation of U.S. President-Elect Barack Obama as a "House Slave" (or, alternatively, "House Negro") have begun to pour in — including via the top jihad web forums used by Al-Qaida to disseminate its propaganda. Though hardcore Al-Qaida supporters have predictably dismissed any criticism of Dr. al-Zawahiri and are fiercely backing his choice of words, there is a rather ironic (if not entirely unfamiliar) twist to this issue. After observing international press reporting on the incident, these same supporters are now bitterly attacking the media for its "unfair" pro-Obama bias and for deliberately "confusing" the meaning of al-Zawahiri’s message.

In related news, Zawahiri’s audio statement also appears to have created a palpable, tense confrontation between Al-Qaida and a significant cross-section of African-American Muslims. Several U.S.-based Muslim organizations immediately held press conferences or issued statements to strongly criticize al-Zawahiri and his manipulation of the words of the late Malcolm X. Conversely, these conferences and statements of response have not gone over well within the jihadi community, with some Arabic-speaking commentators issuing angry rants about the apparent treachery of American Muslims, including specifically the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). One Al-Qaida supporter cautioned his quarrelsome online colleagues, "Brothers, this does not apply to all American Muslims. Do not forget our brother [Adam] Yehiye Gadahn, a naturalized Muslim and U.S. citizen."

See also:

Public Diplomacy and Smith-Mundt in the Asian Tribune

~ Matt Armstrong

From the Asian Tribune yesterday:

Sixty years ago, the elements of America’s national power – diplomacy, information, military, and economics – were retooled to meet an emerging threat. The National Security Act of 1947 and the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 were a direct response to a global ideological and military challenge posed by Communism.

Sound familiar? It should. The whole article was copied verbatim from this blog. Flattering, but give credit where credit’s due as requested under the Creative Commons License. I’ve asked they update their article with appropriate credit.

The Report of the 1967 United States Advisory Commission on Information

~ Matt Armstrong

The U.S. Advisory Commission on Information was one of two oversight commissions established by the Public Law 402, otherwise known as the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. The other commission focused on cultural and educational exchange. Today, there is one commission, the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, that does not have a legal obligation to produce annual reports and, according to Title 22, it “shall have no authority with respect to the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board or the United States National Commission for UNESCO.”
Continue reading “The Report of the 1967 United States Advisory Commission on Information
“ →

Kristin Lord on DOD’s $300m “Public Diplomacy” push

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 2 Comments

The Brookings’ Kristin Lord asks why the DOD is getting resources for public diplomacy in the Christian Science Monitor:

Today’s public diplomats wear boots, not wingtips. Increasingly, the Defense Department is at the forefront of US efforts to engage public opinion overseas. While the State Department formally leads the effort, the Pentagon has more money and personnel to carry out the public diplomacy mission.

This trend is risky. The message foreign publics receive – not the message the US sends – changes when the Pentagon is the messenger. Putting our military, not civilians, at the forefront of US global communications undercuts the likelihood of success, distorts priorities, and undermines the effectiveness of US civilian agencies.

…

The Pentagon should play an important role in public diplomacy, but as a partner – not the principal. For its part, the Congress should give public diplomats the tools they need to do their jobs, and then hold them accountable.

Read the whole article here. The first line should sound familiar…

Mark your Calendar for the Smith-Mundt Symposium: Jan 13, 2009

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 2 Comments

Mark your calendar for January 13, 2009.

That is the confirmed date for “The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948: Past, Present, and Future”, a symposium to discuss the sixty-year old law that continues to set the parameters of America’s international engagement.

The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was passed as we were beginning a “war of ideology…  a war unto death,” as our Ambassador to Russia at the time described it. But, beginning in the 1970’s, instead of promoting international engagement through information, cultural and educational exchanges, the law has been distorted into a barrier of engagement. From propaganda and counter-propaganda intentions, it became an anti-propaganda law for reasons that had little to nothing to do with concerns over domestic influence. 

It is time to put the law into its proper context, especially in today’s information environment, is essential. We’ve seen the Defense Department step up to fight the information fight. The State Department has begun to do the same under the leadership of Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Jim Glassman. The keynotes given by both Under Secretary Glassman and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Mike Doran demonstrate the interest in and the importance of this event.  

The symposium is set for January 13, 2009. It will be in DC and open to the public. There will be no registration fee, but registration will be required. The details on registration and the location will be forthcoming.

There will be four panels plus two keynotes. The panels will be 90-minutes each and structured to encourage discourse and audience Q&A rather than monologue and PowerPoint.

The first panel examines the history of Smith-Mundt. The second panel, tentatively named “America’s Bifurcated Engagement,” looks at the present-day impact of the law. The third, “Limiting the Arsenal of Persuasion,” looks at a future with Smith-Mundt. The fourth panel, “What to do and How,” focuses on legislative issues.

To receive event updates via RSS or email click here.

The organizer and point of contact for this event is Matt Armstrong.

See also:

An example of Smith-Mundt protecting the people from the State Department

~ Matt Armstrong

In 1947, as Congress weighed the fate of the Voice of America, then described as America’s “fast” engagement with the world, Secretary of State George C. Marshall said it was essential to make known what our motives are. It is, he continued, hard for us to understand how much we are misrepresented and not comprehended. It was well understood that policy was linked to perception and that everything we did reflected on who and what we were. Everything we do and say, and everything we fail to do or say, reflects upon as, as Eisenhower later said.
Continue reading “An example of Smith-Mundt protecting the people from the State Department
“ →

American Public Diplomacy Wears Combat Boots: the Pentagon’s $300 million to “engage and inspire”

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 4 Comments

American public diplomacy wears combat boots. Not only is the Pentagon in the critical last three feet of engagement virtually and in person with audiences around the globe, especially in contested areas, but it is the Defense Department that is putting up the money to expand public diplomacy. The Pentagon’s 3-year, $300 million contract for private companies to “engage and inspire” Iraqis to support U.S. objectives and the Iraqi government, described by Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus in the Washington Post, is more than an effort five years too late. It is one more shining example of the significant failure of the U.S. Government to come to grips with the present need and commit the resources necessary to engage in the Second Great War of Ideas that began in earnest nearly a decade ago.

Continue reading “American Public Diplomacy Wears Combat Boots: the Pentagon’s $300 million to “engage and inspire”
“ →

Understanding Public Diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 6 Comments

When talking about Public Diplomacy, what definition do you use? What’s your understanding of the concept of Public Diplomacy, or Strategic Communication while we’re thinking about this? While I’m still working on a concise phrase, here are some thoughts from others on Public Diplomacy.

The purpose of public diplomacy is to “promote the better understanding of the United States among the peoples of the world and to strengthen cooperative international relations.”

How you do this is by making “known what our motives are, what our actions have been and what we have done to assist peoples outside our borders.” It is important to do this because “it is very hard for us here at home to comprehend the degree with which we are not comprehended and the degree with which we are misrepresented.”

Why you do this is because “real security, in contrast to the relative security of armaments, could develop only from understanding and mutual comprehension.”

Perhaps a tactic is Under Secretary Jim Glassman’s concept of a “convener of discussions,” for example, because “truth can be a powerful weapon on behalf of peace.”

The goals for public diplomacy efforts could be

  • Tell the truth.
  • Explain the motives of the United States.
  • Bolster morale and extend hope.
  • Give a true and convincing picture of American life, methods and ideals.
  • Combat misrepresentation and distortion.
  • Aggressively interpret and support American foreign policy. 

Do these sound good? I think the quotes and list are spot on. We’re trying to rediscover how to interact with non-state actors, and to influence or even undermine state or non-state actors through people-centric engagement, when we’ve gone through this before. As the discussions heat up around undoing the “unilateral disarmament” of our “arsenal of persuasion,” it is important to know that at one time we had a Department of Non-State: it was called the United States Information Agency, which, incidentally, was created five years after the above were written or spoken and nearly two decades before ‘public diplomacy’ was coined.

The sources for the above, in order of appearance, are below the fold.

Continue reading “Understanding Public Diplomacy
“ →