Foreign Policy at BROOKINGS
Submitted to the U.S. Department of State and VoicesU.S. House of Representatives of Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs America
U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century
The Foreign Policy Program at Brookings and The Brookings Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20036 brookings.edu
Kristin M. Lord
November 2008 Foreign Policy at BROOKINGS
Voices of America
U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century
Kristin M. Lord
November 2008 The Foreign Policy Program at Brookings and The Brookings Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World
About Brookings
The Brookings Institution is a private nonprofit organization devoted to research, education, and publication on important issues of domestic and foreign policy. Its principal purpose is to bring the highest quality research and analysis to bear on current and emerging policy problems. Interpretations or conclusions in Brookings publications should be understood to be solely those of the authors.
Copyright © 2008
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 www.brookings.edu
ISBN-13:978-0-8157-0302-0 Table of Contents
Board of Advisers ...... v
Acknowledgements ...... ix
Executive Summary ...... 1
Introduction ...... 3
The World America Faces ...... 7
The Role of U.S. Public Diplomacy ...... 13
The USA.World Trust ...... 17
Strengthening U.S. Public Diplomacy ...... 31
Conclusion ...... 43
Appendix A: Contributors and Supporters ...... 45
Appendix B: Summary of Proposals ...... 51
Appendix C: Selected Reports on U.S. Public Diplomacy ...... 55
Appendix D: About the Author ...... 57
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century iii
Board of Advisers
About the Board Burns served as Under Secretary of State for Polit- ical Affairs from 2005-2008. Prior to that assign- This report benefited from the expertise of a dis- ment, Ambassador Burns was the United States tinguished board of advisers. This board contrib- Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic uted time, wisdom, and invaluable insights. The Treaty Organization. From 1997 to 2001, Am- author expresses gratitude for their service and bassador Burns was U.S. Ambassador to Greece. underscores that the report, its recommenda- From 1995 to 1997, he was Spokesman of the De- tions, and any errors it may contain are her sole partment of State and Acting Assistant Secretary responsibility. The views expressed in this report for Public Affairs for Secretary of State Warren are those of the author and may or may not be Christopher and Secretary Madeleine Albright. shared by individual members of the board. Mr. Burns, a career Senior Foreign Service Offi- cer, served for five years (1990-1995) on the Na- Cr a i g R. Ba r r e t t tional Security Council staff at the White House. Craig R. Barrett became Chairman of the Board Mr. Burns spent the early days of his Foreign Ser- of Intel Corporation on May 18, 2005. He became vice career in Africa and the Middle East. He is Intel’s fourth President in May of 1997 and Chief a member of the Council on Foreign Relations Executive Officer in 1998. He was elected to Intel’s and a board member of the Rockefeller Brothers Board of Directors in 1992 and served as Chief Op- Foundation, the Atlantic Council, and the Appeal erating Officer from 1993 to 1997. Barrett began his of Conscience Foundation. tenure at Intel as a Technology Development man- ager in 1974. Prior to joining Intel, Dr. Barrett was Ja m e s L. Jo n e s an Associate Professor at Stanford University in the General James L. Jones, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.), Department of Materials Science and Engineering. is President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber Insti- Dr. Barrett serves as chairman of the United Na- tute for 21st Century Energy. he is responsible tions Global Alliance for Information and Com- for executing the Institute’s strategic mission of munication Technologies and Development, and uniting energy stakeholders behind a common is an appointee to the President’s Advisory Com- strategy to ensure that America’s energy supply mittee for Trade Policy and Negotiations and to is adequate, affordable, and secure while protect- the American Health Information Community. He ing the environment. From July 1999 to January is a member of the Board of Trustees for the U.S. 2003, Jones was the 32nd Commandant of the Council for International Business. Marine Corps. After relinquishing command as Commandant, he assumed the positions of R. Ni c h o l a s Bu r n s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR) Nicholas Burns is Professor of the Practice of Di- and Commander of the United States Euro- plomacy and International Politics at Harvard’s pean Command (COMUSEUCOM), positions Kennedy School of Government. Ambassador he held until December 2006. During this final
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century v assignment, he encouraged the North Atlantic Turnpike Authority. Before that, he served at the Treaty Organization to regard global energy as a chief financial and administrative officer of the security issue and advocated that the alliance con- Commonwealth of Massachusetts as Secretary for sider the defense of critical infrastructures as a 21st Administration and Finance. From 1993 to 1998, century collective security mission. Jones retired Natsios was vice president of World Vision U.S. from active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps on Feb- From 1987 to 1989, he was executive director of ruary 1, 2007, after more than 40 years of service. the Northeast Public Power Association in Mil- ford, Massachusetts. Natsios served in the Mas- Ga r y Kn e l l sachusetts House of Representatives from 1975 Gary Knell is President and CEO of Sesame Work- to 1987 and was chairman of the Massachusetts shop. Mr. Knell leads the nonprofit educational Republican State Committee for seven years. Af- organization in its mission to create innovative, ter serving 23 years in the U.S. Army Reserves as engaging content that maximizes the educational a civil affairs officer, Natsios retired in 1995 with power of all media to help children reach their the rank of lieutenant colonel. He is a veteran of highest potential. He has been instrumental in fo- the Gulf War. Ambassador Natsios also serves as cusing the organization on Sesame Street’s global a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. mission, including groundbreaking co-produc- tions in South Africa, India, Northern Ireland, Co k i e Ro b e r t s and Egypt. Previously, Mr. Knell was Managing Cokie Roberts serves as a senior news analyst Director of Manager Media International, a print for NPR, where she was the congressional cor- and multimedia publishing company based in respondent for more than ten years. In addition Bangkok, Hong Kong, and Singapore. He also has to her work for NPR, Roberts is a political com- served as Senior Vice President and General Coun- mentator for ABC News, serving as an on-air ana- sel at WNET/Channel 13 in New York, was Coun- lyst for the network. Roberts was the co-anchor sel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary and Governmental of the ABC News’ Sunday morning broadcast, Affairs Committees, and worked in the California This Week with Sam Donaldson & Cokie Roberts State Legislature and Governor’s Office. from 1996-2002, while also serving as the chief congressional analyst for ABC News. She covered An d r e w S. Na t s i o s politics, Congress and public policy, reporting for Since January 13, 2006, Andrew S. Natsios has World News Tonight and other ABC News broad- served on the faculty of the Walsh School of For- casts. Roberts has won numerous awards at NPR eign Service at Georgetown University. From and was also the first broadcast journalist to win 2001 to January 2006, he served as Administra- the highly prestigious Everett McKinley Dirksen tor of the U.S. Agency for International Develop- Award for coverage of Congress. Roberts is the ment (USAID). During this period he managed recipient of numerous other broadcasting awards, USAID’s reconstruction programs in Afghani- including a 1991 Emmy for her contribution to stan, Iraq, and Sudan which totaled more than the ABC News special, “Who is Ross Perot?” She $14 billion over four years. President Bush also is the author of the national bestseller We Are Our appointed him Special Coordinator for Interna- Mother’s Daughters as well as Founding Mothers: tional Disaster Assistance and Special Humani- The Women Who Raised Our Nation. tarian Coordinator for the Sudan. Natsios served previously at USAID. From April 2000 to March We n d y R. Sh e r m a n 2001 Natsios served as the CEO of Boston’s Big Wendy R. Sherman is a Principal of The Al- Dig while he was Chairman of the Massachusetts bright Group LLC, a global strategy firm, and of
v i Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century Albright Capital Management LLC, an investment India: Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb; The advisory firm focused on emerging markets. A m- Russia Hand; At the Highest Levels (with Michael bassador Sherman served as Counselor and chief Beschloss); The Master of the Game; Reagan and troubleshooter for the State Department, as well Gorbachev (with Michael Mandelbaum); Deadly as Special Advisor to President Clinton and Policy Gambits; Reagan and the Russians; and Endgame. Coordinator on North Korea. Ambassador Sher- He translated and edited two volumes of Nikita man’s portfolio included Asia, the Middle East, Khrushchev’s memoirs in the early 1970s. Central America, North Korea, Russia and Cuba, as well as transnational issues. She also served Ch a r l e s M. Ve s t as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Af- Charles M. Vest is president of the U.S. National fairs which included responsibility for securing Academy of Engineering and vice chair of the Na- the Department’s more than $23 billion annual tional Research Council, the principal operating budget appropriation. Ambassador Sherman was arm of the National Academies of Sciences and recently appointed by Congressional Leadership Engineering. He is also President Emeritus of the to serve on the Commission on the Prevention of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and was a director of DuPont for 14 years and of IBM Terrorism. She also serves on the Board of Direc- for 13 years; was vice chair of the U.S. Council on tors of Oxfam America, and on the Board of Ad- Competitiveness for eight years; and served on visors for the Center for a New American Security various federal committees and commissions, in- and is a member of the Council on Foreign Rela- cluding the President’s Committee of Advisors on tions and the Aspen Strategy Group. She is also Science and Technology (PCAST) during the Clin- a member of the US-India Strategic Dialogue and ton and Bush administrations, the Commission a regular participant of the Australian American on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Leadership Dialogue. Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, the Sec- retary of Education’s Commission on the Future of St r o b e Ta l b o t t Higher Education, the Secretary of State’s Advisory Strobe Talbott is president of the Brookings Insti- Committee on Transformational Diplomacy and tution. His immediate previous post was found- the Rice-ChertoffS ecure Borders and Open Doors ing director of the Yale Center for the Study of Advisory Committee. He serves on the boards of Globalization. Before that, he served in the State several non-profit organizations and foundations Department from 1993 to 2001, first as Ambas- devoted to education, science, and technology. sador-at-Large and Special Adviser to the Sec- retary of State for the new independent states of Wi l l i a m Wa l t o n the former Soviet Union, then as Deputy Secre- William Walton has been the Chairman, President, tary of State for seven years. Mr. Talbott entered and Chief Executive Officer ofA llied Capital since government after 21 years with Time magazine. 1997 and a director since 1986. Mr. Walton’s pre- As a reporter, he covered Eastern Europe, the vious experience includes serving as a Managing State Department and the White House, then Director of Butler Capital Corporation, a mezza- was Washington bureau chief, editor-at-large and nine/buyout firm; the personal investment adviser foreign affairs columnist. He was twice awarded to William S. Paley, founder of CBS; and a Senior the Edward Weintal Prize for distinguished dip- Vice President in Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb’s lomatic reporting. His books include: The Great Merger and Acquisition Group. He also founded Experiment: The Story of Ancient Empires, Modern two education service companies – Language Od- States, and the Quest for a Global Nation; Engaging yssey and SuccessLab. Mr. Walton currently serves
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century v i i on the boards of directors for the U.S. Chamber member for the Center for Strategic and Interna- of Commerce, the Financial Services Roundtable, tional Studies. After serving in the U.S. Army as Freedom House, and the National Symphony Or- an enlisted Specialist at the Pentagon, Mr. Wal- chestra, where he serves as Board President. He ton completed his B.S. from Indiana University is also a member of the Trustees’ Council of the and his M.B.A. from Indiana University’s Kelley National Gallery of Art and an Advisory Board School of Business.
viii Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century Acknowledgements
ore than 300 people helped to make this re- “listening” sessions that informed this study. Lead- Mport possible. These individuals represent a ers in those organizations, especially Keith Rein- broad range of professions, experience, expertise, hard, Tom Miller, Bob Coonrod, Pamela Smith, and interests. They span generations, political and Nick Cull not only hosted events but also boundaries, and geographic regions. All, however, brainstormed, read ugly early drafts, and chal- expressed a genuine desire to improve America’s lenged my thinking. The Center for the Study of relations with the world and contribute person- the Presidency and Meridian International Center ally to that mission to the best of their abilities. also deserve my thanks, especially David Abshire, Jeff Thomas,S tuart Holliday, and Kenton Keith. A distinguished board of ten advisers contributed time and wisdom, as well as comments on early I must also thank Meaghan Dolan, who pro- drafts. These accomplished individuals, listed ear- vided research assistance throughout this study. lier, deserve my emphatic thanks. Their willing- Meaghan diligently compiled data, dug for histor- ness to volunteer for this effort and make room ical records, participated in interviews, and proof- in extremely busy schedules is testament to the read numerous drafts. She is an aspiring public importance of this report’s topic. diplomacy professional in her own right and will be a credit to any organization lucky enough to Interviews and meetings with individuals from employ her next. She was joined by Chris Krupin- the U.S. government, private companies, non- ski who designed this report and exhibited her profit organizations, universities, and think tanks usual patience and creativity. informed this report and its recommendations. Other individuals read and commented on earlier Most importantly, I owe deep and sincere thanks versions of this report. These individuals, listed by to Brookings, an institution with unparalleled name at the end of this report, shared their time commitment to academic integrity and objective and ideas. Their support is evidence of the deep scholarship in service to the national interest. I wells of generosity, expertise, and talent on which am particularly grateful to our president, Strobe our country can draw. Limited by the short length Talbott, who served on the board of advisers, as of this study, I regret that I could not listen even well as Carlos Pascual, Martin Indyk, Peter Singer, more or follow up on many valuable suggestions Hady Amr, and Steve Grand. Charlotte Baldwin, these people made. There is much more to learn Yinnie Tse, and Ona Dosunmu provided essential and many willing to teach. support. Numerous other colleagues generously shared knowledge and encouragement. Given the large numbers that made this report possible, it is difficult to single out only a few. In 1948, a Brookings scholar named Charles However, the remarkable dedication and com- Thomson authored a major work on public di- mitment of a small group demands recognition. plomacy that informed the U.S. government’s I am indebted to several organizations. Business strategy for many years thereafter. ThoughI could for Diplomatic Action, the Public Diplomacy only hope this report’s conclusions would prove Council, and the University of Southern Califor- that useful, I am proud to carry on this tradition, nia’s Public Diplomacy Center all co-sponsored exactly sixty years later.
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century ix
Executive Summary
or generations, America’s standing in the Americans themselves are talented and compas- Fworld has been a source of strength, security, sionate. America, in short, is well equipped to prosperity, and legitimacy. That standing is now meet the complex challenges of today and the fu- in peril, according to a wide range of studies that ture. But to do so, we must rediscover and mar- span the political spectrum. America’s tarnished shal existing strengths, both inside and outside international reputation carries a price. Whether our government. the United States seeks to draw more allied troops to Afghanistan, win votes in international organi- This report presents concrete steps to strengthen zations, or undermine support for terrorists, anti- America’s efforts to engage, persuade, and attract American attitudes obstruct the achievement of the support of foreign publics. As part of a com- national interests. Winning support is harder; our prehensive plan to enhance our government’s pub- enemies’ missions are easier. lic diplomacy, it urges the creation of a nimble and entrepreneurial new non-profit organization, the Though America increasingly must engage, per- USA.World Trust, to complement and support suade, and attract the cooperation of foreign U.S. government efforts. The USA.World Trust publics in order to achieve national interests, our will draw on the enormous goodwill, creativity, country must do so in a world that has changed knowledge, and talent of the American people and markedly since our public diplomacy institutions likeminded partners overseas to were created. Public opinion holds more sway than any previous time in history. Information • present a more accurate and nuanced vision and communication technologies are cheap and of America to counterbalance the one-sided ubiquitous. A dense network of private compa- views sometimes promulgated by popular nies, non-governmental organizations, and social culture and foreign media movements exert ever more influence relative to • contribute to an environment of mutual trust, governments. Vicious ideologies sustain violence respect, and understanding in which cooper- that puts Americans and our allies in jeopardy ation is more feasible both at home and around the globe. In this en- vironment, our country needs new strategies, • promote shared values and their champions stronger institutions, and innovative methods. • inform and support our government’s pub- There is cause for optimism. Our government is lic diplomacy efforts through the sharing of built on sound and appealing principles that are knowledge regarding communication, public widely admired even when our policies are not. opinion, foreign cultures, and technology. We have risen to challenges before, through adap- tation, ingenuity, and effort.O ur nation has abun- To do this, the USA.World Trust will engage in dant assets. American businesses, universities, five sets of activities. First, it will conduct research media, philanthropy, and technologies touch ev- and analysis, drawing on the knowledge of experts ery part of the world. We lead the world in inno- and conveyed in a form useful to public diploma- vation, communication, education, and research. cy practitioners. Second, it will tap the vast poten- Our civil servants are capable and dedicated. tial of the private sector and engage companies,
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 1 non-governmental organizations, universities, public diplomacy in every regional and most and others to work on innovative new initiatives. functional bureaus of the State Department; Third, it will provide grants and venture capital more and better trained staff, especially for- to endeavors that advance the USA.World Trust’s eign service officers in the field; more training objectives. Fourth, it will identify, cultivate, and and educational opportunities for public di- experiment with new technologies and media plomacy professionals; and programs to draw products that support U.S. public diplomacy and outside experts into government strategic communication. Fifth, it will bring to- streamlined policies to facilitate government gether practitioners from the U.S. government, partnerships with the private sector scholars, and talented visitors from the private and non-profit sectors to address public diploma- a review of international broadcasting strat- cy and strategic communication challenges. In all egy and operations these efforts, the Trust will engage new voices and talent, serve as a resource to government and pri- a frank discussion of how covert informa- vate groups that wish to improve America’s image, tion operations should fit into our govern- strengthen America’s relations with foreign popu- ment’s national security and public diplo- lations, and combat anti-American ideologies. macy strategy Interviews with hundreds of experts emphasized policies and practices that more effectively that this new organization will not fulfill its po- balance security and engagement at our bor- tential if it is not part of a comprehensive effort to ders, in immigration and visa policies, and strengthen our government’s efforts to engage the at our embassies overseas. world. Thus, this report also recommends At this moment in history, America has the oppor- tunity to build the capabilities it needs now and an intensified commitment to public diplo- for the future. This report recommends practical macy and strategic communication, at all steps to achieve that goal. These recommenda- stages of policy making and at all levels of tions will not resolve America’s public diplomacy government challenges once and for all. However, they repre- a major new investment in public diplomacy sent a first and hopefully important step towards and strategic communication building stronger relations with foreign societies in order to serve American interests. strong leadership, clear lines of authority, and stronger mechanisms to ensure coordi- The underlying philosophy of these recommenda- nation between government agencies tions is that Americans themselves are our great- est national asset. Educating, engaging and em- expanded capacity for public diplomacy with- powering our own citizens at home and abroad, in the State Department, including the cre- will do much to underscore the diligent efforts of ation of interagency “hubs” for public diplo- our government, regain a climate of mutual trust macy and strategic communication in major and respect, and rebuild America’s image in the world regions; deputy assistant secretaries for eyes of the world.
2 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century Introduction
The Internet was a brilliant and bold solution to a national security threat. A re- searcher named Paul Baran proposed a defense that would protect America’s com- munication system from a Soviet attack. He recognized the vulnerability inherent in centralization and advocated a distributed network with multiple connections between nodes. If one node in the mesh-like web failed, other links between them would survive, even thrive, unperturbed.
Though Baran was born in Poland, his solution was quintessentially American. It reflected our most fundamental principles of political and economic organization: that decentralized institutions that empower individuals are more efficient, more adaptive, more innovative, less vulnerable to disruption, and ultimately stronger. Individual components may err or falter, but the sum of good connections over- whelms those that fail.
The spirit of Baran’s vision is worth remembering today as we contemplate how America engages the world.
his report examines America’s ability to en- be constructed to advance U.S. interests, taking into Tgage, persuade, and attract the cooperation account the full range of costs and benefits, includ- of foreign publics. It recommends strengthening ing foreign public opinion and its implications. existing capabilities, in ways that recognize the complex global environment we face now and the “Anti-Americanism is endangering our national evolving threats we must face in the future. It also security and compromising the effectiveness presents a vision for the future and concrete steps of our diplomacy. Not only is the United States to achieve it. These recommendations draw on extensive research and analysis as well as conver- at increased risk of direct attack from those sations with hundreds of experts and practitio- who hate it most, but it is also becoming more ners from government, private companies, non- difficult for America to realize its long-term governmental organizations, and academia. aspirations as it loses friends and influence.” —Independent Task Force on Public Diplomacy Sponsored by What our government does—not what our govern- the Council on Foreign Relations, ment says—has the most significant impact on per- Finding America’s Voice: A Strategy for Reinvigorating ceptions of America around the world. That is true U.S. Public Diplomacy, 2003 now and will be so in the future. To protect Amer- ica’s moral authority, as well as the trust and even What we say, and how we say it, matters as well. power that authority conveys, our policies should To speak with influence, our government must be in line with our highest ideals. They must also have a powerful, unified, and persuasive voice,
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 3 based on principle, policies that advance U.S. in- The core mission of this study is to evaluate calls terests, and an understanding of how our voice for a new independent, public-private organiza- will be heard by the world. It is a voice with the tion to strengthen America’s relations with for- authority, conveyed by the people, to speak for eign societies. It does so below and offers a busi- America as a whole. ness plan for a new organization that fills a gap in our national public diplomacy strategy. But our government is not the only voice of Amer- ica—and as a nation we cherish that. We are home However, it is impossible to do this effectively to business people, scientists, artists, professors, without considering how such an organization missionaries, musicians, aid workers, soldiers, stu- would fit into a broader U.S. strategy. A new orga- dents, and diplomats who touch the lives of foreign nization should not be construed as a magic bul- citizens every day. We are home to Hollywood and let that will address all of America’s public diplo- the Gates Foundation, Camp Lejeune and the Peace macy challenges. Thus, this study also advocates Corps, Silicon Valley and McDonalds, NASA and key changes within current government agencies the New York Philharmonic, Wall Street and the to strengthen U.S. public diplomacy. NBA. These are forces that carry influence far be- yond our shores in a multitude of ways. This study does not call for two things. First, it does not endorse calls for a new cabinet-level government agency to conduct public diploma- “Our shared values are essential because cy. Though some now regret the demise of the they link America to the world. The belief that United States Information Agency (USIA) and we American values are universal values—that might be pleased with that organization if it ex- all men and women are created equal, that isted today, we should not simply recreate it now. all are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit Creating a large new bureaucracy would absorb of happiness, regardless of race, creed, or our energy and resources, diverting them from nationality—connects us the crucial mission of engaging foreign publics. It would also create competition and overlapping to other nations.” authorities between agencies, which already exist —Anne-Marie Slaughter, The Idea That Is America: Keeping Faith in sufficient number. Instead, we should view the With Our Values in a Dangerous World, 2007 absence of USIA as an opportunity to ask what capabilities our nation will need for the next fifty Our effort to advance national interests will be most years and what institutions should house them. successful if it embraces this diversity, advancing the whole by empowering the many. This is in line Second, this report calls for relatively little orga- with our history and our culture. Unlike so many nizational change within existing government other nations, America has embraced decentral- structures, choosing instead to focus on bolster- ized approaches to higher education, culture, and ing existing government agencies and giving them economic competitiveness and in the process cre- the chance to work. Our country knows from ated the finest universities, most creative arts and experience how much energy organizational restruc- entertainment, and the most innovative businesses turing can take, how long it takes for organizational in the world. Accordingly, this report recommends cultures to evolve, and how much attention they can investing in the initiative of these institutions, sap. We do not need that now. Not all organization- which will carry America’s values around the globe al restructurings are ill-advised; many are extremely and construct strong relationships with foreign valuable. But benefits must be weighed against costs peoples, built on dignity, respect, and trust. and, at this moment, the costs are too high.
4 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century cultural institutions, and non-profit organiza- “Many of the tools that promote change tions. These voices for reform cut across demo- are not in the hands of government. The graphic groups and party boundaries. dynamic dimensions of life today are largely The changes advocated in this report will aid our in the private sector, not in the government. nation’s fight against terrorists and their vicious Nongovernmental organizations, private ideologies. Yet this fight is not our only challenge. foundations, businesses, universities, and We also must build international coalitions to ad- citizens undertake innovative and exciting dress climate change, confront nuclear prolifera- activities every day that boost the power and tion, encourage the wavering to choose democ- racy and freedom, and condemn the territorial attractiveness of the American model.” invasion of the weak by the strong. Failures of —CSIS Commission on Smart Power: A smarter, more secure America, 2007 imagination have left us unprepared for threats in the past; we should not make that mistake again.
There is remarkable consensus on the need to Tomorrow’s challenges will differ from those strengthen U.S. public diplomacy, from across of the past, but the methods we should use are the political spectrum, across the federal govern- tried: strong and wise government by and for the ment, and across American society. The inter- people, that harnesses the ingenuity and effort of views conducted for this study uncovered calls for Americans, and unleashes the unique vision of reform from conservative and liberal think tanks, opportunity and hope that is America’s gift to the the business community, academia, the Congress, world.
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 5
The World America Faces
merica benefits when the global environment At least in part, these attitudes reflect foreign opin- Ais conducive to advancing U.S. national in- ions regarding recent American policies: the Iraq terests. That is not the environment we face now. War, the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo According to 2008 polls by the BBC and the Uni- Bay, the U.S. position on climate change, and oth- versity of Maryland’s Program for International ers. Some of these policies may change with the Policy Attitudes, entry of a new presidential administration. Other American policies and characteristics are likely to Publics in 23 countries view America’s influ- remain unpopular overseas. ence in the world more negatively than the influence of North Korea.1 “Achieving our interests is far easier if we do Citizens in closely allied countries believe that not have to buck a tide of anti-Americanism in America’s influence in the world is mainly addition to considered policy opposition.” negative (62% in Canada, 72% in Germany, —Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and 2 58% in Australia, and 53% in Great Britain). Muslim World, Changing Minds, Winning Peace: A New Strategic Direction for U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Citizens of a NATO ally (64% of Turks) view Arab and Muslim World, 2003 the United States as the greatest threat to their country in the future.3 America should not change its policies because of Only 9% of Egyptians, 12% of Pakistanis, foreign opinion. We do not elect our leaders to 19% of Moroccans, and 23% of Indonesians win popularity contests overseas. But that does not believe the primary goal of the U.S. war on mean that foreign opinions do not affectA merica. terror is to protect the United States from Understanding, engaging, and shaping foreign terrorist attacks and not to militarily domi- opinion is therefore relevant, regardless of what nate the Middle East or weaken and divide policy choices our country ultimately makes. the Islamic religion and its people.4 There are positive trends as well.I n some parts of “The perfect battle is the one you the world, especially Africa but also in Peru, Po- land, and Japan, support for America is strong. do not have to fight.” Globally, there is growing support for values —Sun Tzu, The Art of War Americans cherish: racial equality and equal
1 See “Global Views of USA Improve” BBC World Service Poll (April 1, 2008), available at
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 7 rights for women, freedom of expression on the that deny their citizens’ human rights, prevent the Internet, and governments that reflect the will of spread of pandemic influenza, place missile sys- their people.5 Elements of American society such tems in Eastern Europe or a military command in as science and innovation, higher education, and Africa, convince allies to send troops to Afghani- business practices remain widely admired even stan, promote the sustainable use of forests and where our policies are not.6 At the same time, fisheries, or undermine support for terrorist net- public support for suicide bombing and Osama works, public backing makes success more likely. bin Laden has dropped.7 The current environment also helps our enemies, by creating larger numbers willing to aid, applaud, “Our national security strategy depends upon or acquiesce in their actions. securing the cooperation of other nations, To advance American interests, defend against which will depend heavily on the extent threats, and build the kind of international sys- to which our efforts abroad are viewed as tem our nation would like to inhabit in the future, legitimate by their publics. The solution is not the United States needs to rebuild its relations not to be found in some slick PR campaign or by just with foreign governments but also with their trying to out-propagandize al-Qaeda, people. Engaging foreign opinion has always been important but it is increasingly important for four but rather through the steady accumulation reasons. of actions and results that build trust and credibility over time.” “Since 1974, more than 90 countries have —Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Remarks to the 2008 U.S. Global Leadership made transitions to democracy, and by the turn Campaign Tribute Dinner, July 15, 2008 of the century approximately 60 percent of the world’s independent states were democratic.” Overall, however, the international environment – Larry Diamond, “Democracy in Retreat,” Foreign Affairs 2008 is currently not conducive to promoting Ameri- can interests. When the United States is not just disliked but also distrusted, when not just our 1) The spread of democracy has changed the policies but our moral authority is questioned, it global political calculus. Though democracy is politically difficult for foreign leaders to sup- is now faltering in some countries, the num- port U.S. policies and potentially popular to block ber of democracies has nonetheless doubled them. The views of foreign populations matter. since 1974. In democracies, leaders suffer Like it or not, the United States needs the sup- domestic political costs—a loss of power or port of its friends and allies, and sometimes even authority—based on how well citizens think its enemies. Whether the United States would leaders have protected the country’s interests. like to build international support for stronger For the United States to attract the support of sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program, revive foreign governments, therefore, foreign pub- international trade negotiations, isolate countries lics must accept or at least acquiesce. If such
5 See recent polls on these topics at World Public Opinion.Org:
8 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century cooperation is politically poisonous for dem- of statecraft. Nonetheless, when threats are ocratically elected leaders, attracting support diffuse and asymmetric, when force actually will be difficult even when interests align. Of mobilizes support for enemies and thereby note, authoritarian regimes are also sensitive strengthens them, states must find additional to public opinion, even as they try to limit its ways to address national security challenges. influence. These regimes know that publics Public diplomacy and strategic communica- have more latent power to mobilize opposi- tion are valuable instruments that expand the tion than ever before due to unprecedented range of options available to leaders. access to information and the ability to dis- seminate it cheaply and widely. To advance our national interests in this envi- ronment, America should redouble its efforts to 2) Today’s most pressing challenges transcend engage, persuade, and lead with the power of an boundaries and cannot be addressed alone. appealing vision. Traditional diplomacy, the en- Climate change, infectious disease, inter- gagement of foreign governments, will always be national terrorist networks, reforming in- critical. But it must be bolstered by a comprehen- ternational institutions, and the trafficking sive effort to engage publics. of goods and people are issues that require the active cooperation of others: allies, inter- “Groups and individuals have been national organizations, private companies, non-governmental organizations, competi- empowered, and hierarchy, centralization, and tors, and even enemies. Progress on these control are being undermined . . . Power is issues requires a climate in which such col- shifting away from nation-states, laboration is possible. up, down and sideways.” —Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World, 2008 3) Ideas and ideologies themselves are central to current security threats. As in the Cold War, the ability to win support for a political The way we engage foreign publics should change ideal, attack competing visions, and under- to reflect a changing world. After all, the world mine the people and networks holding those America faces today is far different that the one our competing visions, is necessary for success. country faced when our major public diplomacy Terrorists and insurgents depend on deep institutions were built. Information and communi- networks of support that may not require any cation technologies are changing not just the way violent or even illegal acts. Success in con- people communicate, but also the way they think fronting these groups requires countering and behave. Power is diffusing to new and newly repugnant ideologies and presenting a more empowered global actors: states, transnational appealing vision of the future. networks, multinational companies, non-govern- mental organizations, and individuals. America “We cannot kill our way to victory.” needs to adapt, and continue adapting. —General David Petraeus, quoted in The information and communications revolution The Washington Post, September 14, 2008 created a world in which images and information fly around the world—regardless of their truth or 4) Many current security threats cannot be con- fairness. These new technologies can spread un- fronted effectively with military force alone. derstanding and mobilize publics for peaceful Force is and will remain an essential element ends. For instance, three individuals used Face-
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 9 book to mobilize 1 million people in Colombia, earlier era, fragmenting audiences and complicat- and activists in several other countries, to march ing efforts to reach them. About one third of the in protest against the tactics of the guerilla group world’s population still does not have telephones, known as the FARC. These same technologies can but the number of Internet users in China recent- spread violence and hatred, as demonstrated by ly surpassed the number of users in the United Al-Qaeda and its disciples. States. Newspapers are struggling in North Amer- ica but thriving in India. In Africa, there are 23 A key characteristic of the new information and radios for every hundred people. In the Middle communication technologies is that they grant East and North Africa, some 175 million people individuals the power to mobilize global support watch satellite television every day.9 for their missions. Individuals can now garner support, recruit fighters, raise money, and build New global powers are rising. These powers in- social movements—from almost anywhere at any clude states like China, India, and Brazil; coali- time and at a very low cost. This power is avail- tions of states like the European Union; and a able to a staggering number: more than one bil- re-emerged and aggressive Russia. They include lion people now use the Internet, YouTube now global media giants like Al Jazeera and CNN, serves over 100 million videos per day, and an which alone reaches 2 billion people in more than estimated 184 million bloggers post their opin- 200 countries. Non-governmental organizations ions. These individuals are not just from theW est. number in the tens of thousands and exert pow- Egypt has more Facebook users than all but two erful influence over governments, international other countries.8 organizations, and global affairs. Multinational companies span the globe, with enormous global In this information-rich environment, discrete impact. More than 5 billion people outside the events can have major strategic implications as United States and Canada paid to see Hollywood they are viewed, circulated, and portrayed as evi- movies last year alone and the global workforce dence that supports narratives espoused by partic- of the Coca-Cola Company is three times that of ular groups. Shocking photos of Iraqis demeaned the U.S. State Department.10 The value of private and tortured by American soldiers in Iraq’s Abu American philanthropy now exceeds official for- Ghraib prison lent support to anti-American per- eign assistance, with annual grants of the Gates spectives and called pro-American voices into Foundation surpassing the gross domestic prod- question. Images both enhance and detract from uct of many developing countries. Loose terror- power. Consequently, states must actively manage ist networks count themselves among the greatest their images and persuade foreign elites and pub- threats to the world’s most powerful states. lics that America’s vision deserves their support. The existence of transnational actors is not new, However, we should not forget that 21st centu- but their influence has reached unprecedented lev- ry technologies coexist with technologies of an els vis-à-vis the power of national governments.
8 Kanupriya Tewari “Facebook Faceoff,” OpenNet Initiative (July 21, 2008), see
10 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 2007 Annual Budget Employees Global Presence11 Department of State $10.2 billion 28,000 over 180 countries Coca-Cola $28.9 billion 90,500 over 200 countries Citigroup $81.7 billion 275,000 over 100 countries
As a result, official engagement with foreign so- scarcity. America must compete for attention cieties is now dwarfed by private engagement, es- and credibility. pecially the movement of people, capital, goods, America can adapt and, in fact, the world is services, culture, and images. Barring a major changing in ways that should play to our coun- economic depression or global pandemic, this try’s strengths. We have the most flexible, most trend is likely to continue. competitive, most creative economy in the world “Globalization and the information revolution and are global leaders in communication and in- novation. As a nation, we are skillful, well-educat- are empowering decentralized networks that ed, and entrepreneurial. While we build on our challenge state-centered hierarchies.. . power own strengths, our enemies may weaken. Some comes not only from the ability to field armies, argue, for instance, that Al-Qaeda’s quick adapta- but also from the capacity to coordinate tion to new technologies is not extending to the diffuse actors.” next generation of communications. We should —Jamie Metzl, “Network Diplomacy,” Georgetown prepare for the future regardless. Journal of International Affairs, 2001 To communicate effectively in this new envi- ronment, America needs to reform in ways that These conditions are reshaping the global land- strengthen the voice of government, empower scape in ways that challenge American policies our own people, engage the like-minded around and practices. America must now communicate the world, and use new media and technologies in with an incredible diversity of audiences, in new agile and innovative ways. This report will explain ways, in the midst of an information tempest. how to do this, concretely and specifically. The 21st century is not an age of information
11 All information for the Department of State can be found in its Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2007
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 11
The Role of U.S. Public Diplomacy
merica, and by extension Americans, will ben- Within these boundaries, however, our own his- Aefit from regaining the moral high ground and tory teaches that there is substantial room for pursuing a policy of hard-headed engagement cooperation, even inspiration. Americans can with the world. To do this, we should imagine a move foreign opinion, through what we say and new vision of America and how we want others to do, how we engage the world, and how we rise to perceive it. In this vision, meet circumstance.
• America once again will be seen as a city on a How we engage the world is the function of pub- hill that stands for opportunity and freedom lic diplomacy—defined as the promotion of na- not just for Americans, but for the world. tional interests through efforts to inform, engage, and influence foreign publics—and it has become • This vision of America will be reinvented for increasingly important. The world is evolving in a new generation of young people around the ways that increase the utility of public diplomacy world. as an instrument of statecraft and limit the effec- tiveness of other tools. Yet, public diplomacy is • Our actions will be, and be perceived to be, in also undervalued, underused, and poorly under- line with our highest ideals. stood. • The appeal of our enemies and ideological Using public diplomacy to its full poten- competitors will wither. tial is not an easy task and, indeed, most oth- • Nations will cooperate willingly with the er major nations are now grappling with this United States when they share interests and, challenge. However, the unique nature of the when they disagree, will nonetheless respect United States equips us better than any other na- the legitimacy of policies derived through tion to use public diplomacy well. Embracing that democratic decision-making and based on potential should be among our highest foreign legitimate principles. policy objectives.
“To win the war of ideas, the United States must “Some things that were true before 9/11 are clearly recognize the importance of America’s still true today. Among them are that the United voice and good standing as elements of its States, for all our power, cannot be secure in a power and influence in the world.” world that does not trust us and that resents —Brookings Institution scholars Hady Amr and Peter Singer, “To Win the ‘War on Terror,’ We Must First Win the ‘War of and resists our leadership; that the United Ideas’: Here’s How,” The Annals of the American Academy of States, as any state, needs friends and allies; Political and Social Science, 2008 and that the United States cannot be effective in, much less lead, a world that it neither listens to This vision does not ignore the long history of anti-Americanism or its many forms, which are nor understands.” unlikely to vanish. Nor does it forget that power — NAFSA Association of International Educators, International Education: The Neglected Dimension of Public Diplomacy, 2008 breeds resentment, a fate of all world powers.
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 13 When considering public diplomacy, it is use- effectively address the rest. Accomplishing these ful to appreciate what public diplomacy can and goals requires operating on different time horizons. cannot accomplish. Public diplomacy can be used to Some are short-term goals and some are long-term accomplish five strategic objectives: goals; we need the organizational capacity to pur- sue both simultaneously and the ability to resist 1. informing, engaging, and persuading foreign short-term needs trumping long-term strategies. publics in support of specific policies Accomplishing these goals also requires a broad 2. promoting understanding of America, its range of public diplomacy instruments: media re- institutions, values, and people in all their lations and speeches, town halls and cross-cultural complexity in order to, at a minimum, help dialogues, exchange programs and broadcasting, publics to put information about the United cultural diplomacy and science diplomacy, web States in proper context and—more ambi- pages and leaflets, and countless others. This re- tiously—enhance our nation’s appeal port recommends steps to strengthen the U.S. gov- ernment’s ability to mobilize the private sector and 3. creating a climate of mutual understanding, civil society, in the United States and overseas, to respect, and trust in which cooperation is accomplish the full range of these objectives to the more feasible best of our national abilities.
4. encouraging support for shared values —whether environmental protection, the “National needs require a proactive and rule of law, support for free markets, or the durable means to engage and influence the illegitimacy of suicide bombing—that sup- attitudes and behavior of global publics on a port American interests broad range of consequential issues.” — Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic 5. strengthening the dense network of personal Communication, Strategic Communication, January 2008 relationships between current and future societal leaders, opening channels of com- munication that can reduce conflict and Within our government, there are many actors confusion, creating opportunities for col- in public diplomacy. The President and Vice laboration, and facilitating the achievement President are the most visible individual agents of common goals. of American influence. The State Department, with its many constituent bureaus and network of As a necessary part of achieving these objectives, embassies, is now the lead agency in public diplo- it is essential to understand foreign societies, cul- macy. The Department of Defense engages in ex- tures, economies, institutions, politics, communi- tensive public diplomacy and strategic communi- cation networks, and values. Building, maintain- cation activities. Its vast and increasing resources ing, and accessing this knowledge efficiently is a for public diplomacy and strategic communica- substantial undertaking in itself. tion exceed civilian resources. The Broadcasting Government agencies are well suited to accomplish Board of Governors is an independent agency some of these objectives and ill suited for others. that oversees numerous U.S. government-fund- Policy advocacy, the first objective above, is pri- ed broadcast services. The United States Agency marily the purview of government. Government for International Development has increased its and civil society organizations—each with their public diplomacy and communications activi- own strengths and weaknesses, each holding more ties, especially efforts to promote awareness of appeal with some audiences than with others—can American aid overseas. The U.S. Congress influ-
14 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century ences public diplomacy through its legislation, “International diplomacy in the 21st century oversight, and appropriations but also through its Members’ overseas visits and public statements. will be increasingly nongovernmental in The Department of Homeland Security has enor- character, due in part to the proliferation mous influence on the experience of millions of of non-governmental organizations . . .; the visitors who enter our country. Numerous other rise of charitable giving by foundations and agencies including Health and Human Services, individuals; and the growing role of academia Commerce, Justice, Agriculture, and Labor all and private business. The involvement of these have significant international activities. new actors in what had previously been the The extent of our government’s reach should not domain of the government creates a multitude blind us to the limits of its impact. Our govern- of opportunities for innovative cooperation to ment’s public diplomacy activities are, and in- shape the world’s development.” creasingly will be, only a fraction of the many im- —Advisory Commission on Transformational Diplomacy, ages and bits of information citizens around the A Call to Action, 2007 world receive every day. Moreover, they are only
50 Years Ago Today12 World Population 2.9 billion people 6.7 billion people International Tourists Worldwide 25 million 898 million Foreign Exchange Students in the U.S. 48,486 880,482 American Students Abroad 12,536 223,534 Foreign Direct Investment $905.3 million $2.4 trillion U.S. Official Development Assistance $2.7 billion $23.5 billion U.S. Private Philanthropy to Developing Countries $34.8 billion Telephone Subscribers Worldwide 3% of population 68% of population Mobile Phone Subscribers Worldwide 0 45% of population Internet Users Worldwide 0 1.5 billion Bloggers Worldwide 0 184 million Have Watched an Online Video 0 83% internet users MySpace Social Network Users Worldwide 0 100 million
12 For data on world population, see “Total Midyear Population for the World: 1950-2050,” a database of the U.S. Census Bureau
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 15 Total Private, Official, and Remittance Flows from OECD Donor Countries and Multinational Agencies to Developing Countries in billions of $, 1990-2006
$300
Of f i c i a l Fl o w s 250 Pr i v a t e Fl o w s Re m i t t a nc e Fl o w s
200
150 U.S. $ B ILLI O NS U.S. 100
50
0 1990 ‘91 ‘92 ‘93 ‘94 ‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 2000 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 Source: Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD), Development Co-operation Report 1990-2007; World Bank, “Global Economic Prospects-Economic Implications of Remittances and Migration,” 2006; World Bank, Migration and Remittances, 2007, InterAmerican Development Bank, Remittances from Spain to Latin America in 2006, 2007; InterAmerican Development Bank, Sending Money Home, 2007; Country surveys and Balance of Payments reports, 2002-2006.
Source: The Index of Global Philanthropy, Hudson Institute 2008, p. 19. See
one part of the many ways America—through its tors as much as possible—as advocated by count- culture, products, services, philanthropy, people, less recent reports. This should happen within our and media—reaches foreign publics. That does current official structures, as recommended later in not reduce public diplomacy’s importance; per- this document. Nonetheless, public diplomacy will haps it increases it. But we need to maintain our be even more effective if it finds new ways to engage perspective. private actors and new ways to employ technology, media, and private sector expertise. Toward that To be most influential,A merican public diploma- end, this report recommends a new public-private cy should tap into and mobilize these private ac- organization: the USA.World Trust.
16 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century The USA.World Trust
n the world we now face, America needs the not come from a large number of dedicated staff, Iability to engage foreign publics using a diverse but rather its ability to mobilize, galvanize, and range of methods, a diverse range of voices, and amplify the ideas and efforts of others. more speed and agility than ever before. Our . country needs to understand foreign concerns The USA World Trust should be an independent deeply and appeal to shared interests and values 501(c)(3) organization that serves the national in ways that resonate both locally and globally. interest but is not constrained by the day-to-day Yet, our government need not meet this challenge political and diplomatic operations of the United alone. Americans and other supporters world- States government. It should be an honest broker, wide are ready and eager to help. a credible voice that promotes sustained and pur- poseful global engagement, a nexus for new and As part of a comprehensive strategy to strengthen even unlikely partnerships, and a center of gravity and re-imagine U.S. public diplomacy, a new non- that attracts the goodwill, creativity, and initiative profit organization would stimulate and harness of the American people and foreign societies. It the vast potential of the American people and should be a hub of creativity and experimenta- foreign partners, engage partners perceived as tion; though there are many creative people in trusted messengers among target audiences, fill government, large bureaucracies are not the natu- critical gaps that current government agencies are ral habitat of innovation. not well suited to fill, and strengthen our govern- ment by providing targeted and useful research, “In projecting America’s messages, we must analysis, technologies, and strategies drawn from be especially mindful of something that every a wide range of experts in a wide range of fields. good salesman understands—if you do not More than ten other reports have called for some trust the messenger, you do not trust the sort of independent or semi-independent new message. We strongly believe that we can organization to support public diplomacy, mod- avoid this problem by using private sector eled on the U.S. Institute of Peace, Corporation partnerships and new approaches.” for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for —Independent Task Force on Public Diplomacy Democracy, British Council, and the RAND Cor- Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, Public poration, among others (see Appendix B). This Diplomacy: A Strategy for Reform, 2002 study carefully evaluated these recommendations, as well as whether a new bureaucracy was needed The Trust must be scrupulously nonpartisan at all. It concludes that there is a need for a new and constructive in tone. Every action must be organization, but one that fills gaps rather than in line with the highest American ideals: justice, duplicates efforts, amplifies the work of others tolerance, democracy, community, and freedom. rather than competes with them, and ultimately Its reputation for integrity, objectivity, and com- strengthens government rather than diverts re- mitment to the public interest must be beyond sources from it. The value of this organization will reproach.
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 17 The mission of the USA.World Trust should be to Two key elements should characterize these pro- promote U.S. national interests through efforts to grams. First, the Trust should emphasize partner- ship, including partnerships between American • present a more accurate and nuanced vision and foreign groups. Drawing on the examples of of America to counterbalance the one-sided Sesame Street, the Asia Foundation, and other or- views sometimes promulgated by popular ganizations, partnerships with local organizations culture and foreign media overseas often build trust, increase the likelihood • contribute to an environment of mutual trust, of positive local media coverage, and lead to qual- respect, and understanding in which cooper- ity programs that appeal to local populations. ation is more feasible Second, the Trust should emphasize collaboration among experts with a wide range of perspectives • promote shared values and their champions and talents. A visiting fellows program will draw together practitioners and experts from both in- • inform and support our government’s pub- side and outside of the government to support all lic diplomacy efforts through the sharing of of these initiatives. knowledge regarding communications, pub- lic opinion, foreign cultures, and technology. To focus these efforts, the Trust’s president and board of directors should develop both an annual The Trust should focus on four key areas of en- and a three-year plan to identify priority areas of gagement: research and analysis; grants and ven- activity, in response to national needs and targets ture capital; media and technology; and outreach, of opportunity. government relations, and fund-raising. These areas are described in detail below.
USA.Wo r l d Tr u s t Or g a n i z a t i o n a l St r u c t u r e
President and CEO
Executive Vice President
Communication, Media and Research and Grants and Venture Outreach, Administration and Technology Government Analysis Capital Finance Programs Relations and Fund-raising
18 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century The USA.World Trust: A Focus on Action
s k questions. Where are there Bu i l d a community of A En e r g i z e At t r a c t talented professionals both inside unexploited opportunities? Are high-impact individuals from and outside government with underlying assumptions based programs by government, the military, expertise relevant to public on evidence? What do foreign bringing new private companies, diplomacy and strategic populations think and why? What resources, universities, and communication means of engaging foreign publics attention, and are and are not effective? non-governmental organizations to work expertise o n v e n e American for short or long term C and foreign experts, Ca t a l y z e the discovery assignments and contribute practitioners, funders, of new solutions to problems their expertise and stakeholders to through competitions, grants, create raised awareness, and bringing stakeholders Sh a r e u n d initiatives that new dialogue, deeper together F research and provide a more nuanced understanding, new analysis, best understanding of America, solutions, stronger practices, Ex p a n d a climate of mutual networks, and new In v o l v e new contacts, and successful understanding and trust, partnerships actors in the expertise initiatives to and strong relations United States new geographic between the United States and overseas regions, new and the world n f o r m U.S. government audiences, or I and military officers about new media foreign societies and cultures, platforms In c u b a t e new programs, useful strategies, effective engage stakeholders, methods of communication Le a r n through polling, focus and spin off projects to and engagement, new groups, interviews, research, be run by operational technologies, and and regular consultations with organizations in the United emerging trends experts and officials about States or overseas U.S. national needs, foreign attitudes and interests, foreign In n o v a t e by creating and societies, effective methods of Le v e r a g e resources adapting new media, methods of communication, useful models, (whether financial, creative, communication and engagement, and best practices or intellectual) and networks partnerships, and understanding to create innovative new of current and emerging trends programs and strengthen and how to respond e r v e as a resource S and amplify successful to government agencies programs of government, (including but not limited to civil society, and business the Departments of State, Re s p o n d to Defense, Commerce, the government Se e k areas of opportunity requests for U.S. Agency for International where national interests information, Development, Millennium and the interests of private Solicit funds, expertise, analysis, Challenge Corporation), and companies, organizations, volunteers, and new ideas expertise, and the military and individuals align evaluation Key Activities
Gr a n t -m a k i n g a n d Ve n t u r e Ca p i t a l Grants should support the annual strategy as well as core program areas. Of note, grants have power far beyond the programs they fund. As experience with the National Science Foundation and Corporation for Public Broadcast- ing demonstrates, once grant writers invest effort in developing a proposal, they often seek funding elsewhere if their proposals are rejected. In this way, grant-making spurs action far beyond projects that are funded. Five funds are suggested to advance distinctive objectives.
America Program – funds American and for- Partnership program – funds partnerships eign initiatives that present a more nuanced, com- between American and foreign organizations that plex, or appealing image of American society, in- promote mutual understanding as well as shared stitutions, and values than is normally portrayed in interests or values. Most programs should include popular culture. Examples include: media outreach. Examples include:
a short Hollywood-style film so compelling that co-produced news broadcasts for foreign dis- airlines would agree to show it before landing tribution on American soil co-developed social networking sites that link foreign distribution of American news or docu- American and foreign communities to promote mentary programs, such as the FX series Thirty understanding Days or the documentary Spellbound co-produced fundraisers, e.g. American and extra tour stops and community outreach pro- foreign musicians hosting a major televised grams by major cultural shows such as the Al- concert to raise funds for an issue of common vin Ailey dance theater concern, such as AIDS or polio
speaking tours and media engagements by co-developed initiatives to advance women’s American authors, technology leaders, or No- role in the global scientific community bel prize winning scientists exchange programs that link local elected lead- translation projects that bring unfamiliar ers, especially those with future leadership po- American perspectives to foreign audiences tential
tours of multi-media museum exhibits about programs that link Americans and foreign so- American history or political philosophy cieties where relations are poor through com- monalities that transcend politics, religion, or translation and dissemination of core docu- ethnicity, e.g. lawyers, journalists, historians, ments such as the Constitution and Declara- and scientists all have strong professional codes tion of Independence or interests that bind them globally a short program on U.S. foreign policy for the co-produced films and television programs nearly 3,000 foreign researchers who already visit the National Institutes of Health on ex- co-written textbooks that present information changes each year in an objective manner
20 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century Voices for Common Values Fund – sup- Venture Capital Fund – invests in the launch ports foreign voices that advocate shared values, as of new organizations or projects with sufficient identified by the Board of Trustees. Examples in- promise to be self-sustaining and long-lasting. The clude: returns on this investment would be social and po- litical rather than financial. Examples include: grants to foreign filmmakers who wish to docu- ment the atrocities of radical Islamist extremists, investment in expanding the operations of prof- in local languages for local audiences overseas it-generating enterprises into desired markets, where interests coincide with national interests funds to disseminate books or other media by e.g. the expansion of social networking sites that foreign authors whose values and interests align engage desired audiences with broad American values investment in new business associations that en- support for platforms for foreign opinion lead- gage American businesses in emerging econo- ers, who may not agree with U.S. foreign policy, mies but support core values and interests investment in new educational NGOs with a foreign photography competitions that dissemi- promising business plan for fee-for-service nate compelling or inspiring images English instruction
projects incubated at the Trust then spun off to partner organizations that can sustain them
Micro-Grants Program – quickly funds ex- matching funds that encourage new corporate penses of $10K or less to support initiatives that pro- or foundation support for educational or pro- mote USA.World Trust objectives. Examples include: fessional exchanges
travel grants to support new university ex- prizes for the best new technological application change programs, cross-cultural dialogues, or to accomplish a particular government agency’s international initiatives by professional soci- public diplomacy challenge eties the translation and sale of relevant children’s matching funds for small conferences or book in new markets workshops
translation expenses to extend the reach of Re s e a r c h a n d An a l y s i s valuable publications, websites, or radio or The USA.World Trust should conduct independent television programs research and analysis, distribute relevant knowledge video recordings of inter-faith dialogues that in a form useful to public diplomacy and strategic allow mosque or church members to see pro- communication professionals, lead external evalu- grams in which their faith leaders participated ation teams by request, and collect and disseminate best practices. It should not simply be a passive reposi- funds to allow a foreign journalist to report on tory for information. Rather, it should set a research a valuable initiative that supports the Trust’s agenda and then actively commission, collect, and dis- mission seminate useful analyses to its constituents in govern- ment. To set that agenda, it should consult regularly support that allows documentary crews al- with practitioners and policy leaders to diagnose their ready filming overseas to bring in local film- needs. Research and analysis may be performed on makers and film students for consultation or a contract basis for government agencies, but all re- training search should be unclassified and public.
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 21 polling and focus groups “Advanced public opinion and market research skills are critically underdeveloped in the detailed case studies intended to teach prac- titioners as well as case studies designed to U.S. government agencies responsible for our capture lessons learned after major crises international relations . . . The State Department (for instance, the public affairs activities spends only about $5 million each year on global surrounding the provision of disaster assis- opinion research to understand what foreign tance); this knowledge is often lost publics think about our country, our people, useful training materials developed in consul- and our policies. The Microsoft Corporation tation with the State Department’s National alone spends more than five times that much to Foreign Affairs Training Center, National research its global customer base.” Defense University, and the war colleges —Business for Diplomatic Action, America’s Role in the World: A Business Perspective on Public Diplomacy, 2007 papers that analyze trends and suggest prac- tical responses, such as how to tap into the A central problem is not that useful information power of diaspora or expatriate communi- and insights do not exist, but rather that they are ties, how to leverage respect for American not in a form useful to practitioners. Thus, a key science and technology, how to effectively function of the Trust will be not only to collect and engage foreign tourists, and how to develop analyze information but also to work with practi- media campaigns that cross platforms (e.g. tioners to translate that information into action- printed books, television, media outreach, able programs. As one government official put it, and online fora) “I know how many people ages 18-25 use the In- on-line collections of resources contributed ternet in the Middle East. That is different from by stakeholders. In interviews for this study, knowing the best way for public diplomacy offi- companies and non-governmental organi- cers to use that information.” Examples include: zations both volunteered to grant access to weekly electronic publication that summariz- non-proprietary research if they had an easy es new research on communications, public way to share it. opinion, foreign societies and cultures, best Monitoring and Evaluation practices, and successful programs or initia- tives and distills it into a form useful to prac- The USA.World Trust must be at the cutting edge titioners in the military or government of efforts to evaluate the impact of public diplo- macy and strategic communication. Drawing on in-depth studies of particular issues or regions experts in the private sector, NGOs, universities, analysis papers that examine key issues such and government, the Trust should create toolkits to as the relationship between development as- develop and evaluate metrics of success. The Trust sistance and public opinion, whether those should set an example by applying these metrics who speak English as a second language get to its own programs, requiring grantees to adopt news from a more diverse range of sources, these measures of performance, and also aggres- how to evaluate the impact of public diplo- sively disseminating best practices to its constitu- macy programs, where citizens of particular encies. All too frequently, funds for monitoring countries get their news and information, and evaluation are unavailable or the first to be cut. and new trends among the youth of particu- The Trust should eschew this practice, supporting lar countries or regions monitoring and evaluation for all initiatives.
22 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century Co n v e n i n g a n d Ne t w o r k i n g the British Council and Germany’s Goethe Institute) and identify areas of possible col- The Trust should support activities that bring laboration in pursuit of shared interests. together people, resources, and ideas. These ac- tivities could include conferences, workshops, Visiting Fe l l o w s Pr o g r a m on-line discussions, and conference calls. Again and again, study contributors argued that simply The Trust should host visitors from private com- introducing the right partners to each other was panies, universities, non-governmental organiza- an under-supplied public good and a powerful tions, the armed services, and government agen- contribution to their success. The Trust should cies for short- or long-term assignments. Whether be especially mindful to support new initiatives detailed for three months or two years, visitors that promote the mission, for instance helping would contribute new ideas, expertise, and con- successful diaspora groups in Silicon Valley that tacts to the task of improving America’s relations wish to reach out to compatriots worldwide, or with the world. Visitors could work on research introducing content developers to content dis- projects, address technology challenges, develop tributors. It should also seek to bring groups with new media products, or assist with public opinion valuable knowledge together with those who polling. These positions should be competitive would benefit, for instance commercial market and at the discretion of the Trust. This program research experts with government political ana- should require active outreach to find talented lysts, or experts on foreign cultures together with individuals and liaise with existing programs like government experts on post-conflict reconstruc- the IBM Corporate Service Corps. tion. As appropriate, it should also support dia- Bringing together subject experts and public di- logues with civil society leaders in societies where plomacy practitioners will allow the Trust to ex- formal diplomatic relations are poor but where greater understanding would benefit American tend its network, craft programs that are useful interests: Syria, Iran, Cuba, or Venezuela. Finally, to policy makers and practitioners in the U.S. it should bring together those with ideas and con- government and military, and ensure access to tacts, those with staff and experience, and those cutting-edge knowledge, communication tech- with resources. Examples include: niques, and technology.
convene government agencies, market- The visitor program will also provide needed pro- ing experts, pollsters, and NGOs to draft a fessional development opportunities for talented multi-dimensional strategy for engaging employees in the U.S. government and build a Arab youth network of public servants in this field.
network with public diplomacy profession- Me d i a a n d Te c h n o l o g y Pr o g r a m als in the field to learn what information or The media and technology program should seek tools they would need to be more successful effective communication tools, compelling media convene members of the tourist and travel content, and appealing new applications in sup- . industry to identify collaborative initiatives port of the USA WORLD Trust mission. In some to attract more visitors to the United States, circumstances, the program should commission for longer periods of time products for radio, television, mobile phones, podcasts, on-line games, DVDs, print publica- network with the independent public diplo- tions, web pages, or other vehicles of engagement. macy institutions of allied countries (e.g. More commonly, the program should search for
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 23 existing products, test them with overseas audi- mass publics or highly targeted opinion leaders. ences, and adapt them for wider use by the Trust In all organizations, but especially this one, public itself, government agencies, or appropriate third diplomacy programs should pass the “drop in the parties in the United States or overseas. The Trust bucket” test. No matter how good the program’s should also monitor new and emerging technolo- quality or how much the participants or organizers gies, what technologies are employed in different like it, its worth should be measured against how world regions, and where new technologies could much impact it is likely to have in an absolute sense, be deployed effectively. This effort will require a and how much it advances the mission at hand. deep knowledge of foreign cultures and prefer- Success should also be measured in terms of how ences and how they differ. What appeals in Mos- much impact can be bought with a given invest- cow may not appeal in Muscat. ment of time, energy, and funds. Taking a lesson Co m m u n i c a t i o n s , Ou t r e a c h , Go v e r n m e n t from social entrepreneurs and new approaches to philanthropy, it should seek out opportunities to Re l a t i o n s , a n d Fu n d r a i s i n g invest small amounts for big returns. For instance, To be effective, the Trust must reach out to, ener- instead of commissioning expensive documenta- gize, and engage new constituencies in the United ries, the Trust would identify appropriate docu- States and overseas, understand and support na- mentaries that already exist, test them in target tional strategic communication needs, and bring audiences, and ask what incentives would be new people and resources to the mission. This will sufficient to encourage private companies to dis- require an effective communications office, able tribute them in key countries overseas—a more to attract broad attention and participation, and efficient, market-based approach than traditional disseminate useful information electronically, in public diplomacy. print, and through person-to-person exchanges. It will also require a concerted and proactive gov- Go v e r n a n c e a n d Acc ountability ernment relations effort to ensure that the needs The USA.World Trust should be governed by a and interests of Congress, the full range of execu- non-partisan board of directors, held in high re- tive branch agencies (including overseas embas- gard for their integrity and knowledge. Modeled sies and USAID field offices), and the military (in- on the National Endowment for Democracy, the cluding the combatant commanders) are served. Board should include members of Congress from Finally, it should have a professional fundraising both major political parties and representatives of office able to marshal private funds from corpora- relevant sectors of American society. This study tions, foundations, and major individual donors. recommends that the initial board of directors Funds need not be raised for the Trust itself. For be appointed by an esteemed bipartisan group instance, in response to foreign university requests representing a variety of stakeholders. This ap- for professorships in American Studies (reportedly pointment committee should include senior rep- a common request from foreign universities), the resentation from the State Department, Defense Trust could raise funds for that initiative, perhaps Department, and USAID as well as representa- using its own funds as leverage. tives from higher education, the media, business, the entertainment industry, science and technol- As s e s s i n g a n d Ac h i e v i n g Im p a c t ogy, and other relevant sectors. Once a board is Faced with an important task and limited resourc- selected and establishes its legitimacy, future va- es, the USA.World Trust must focus, relentlessly cancies should be filled by a majority vote of the and unequivocally, on impact. This impact will directors then in office and each director chosen be earned through initiatives that influence either should be of the same distinction and represent a
24 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century similar constituency as the departing director (for USAID, and other government agencies. More- instance, a university president should be replaced over, as part of its annual report, it must solicit by another university president, a CEO should be letters of evaluation from the Under Secretary of replaced by another CEO, and so on). State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, and the equivalent representatives of USAID and The Trust should be led by a senior individual se- DoD. These letters should comment on the extent lected by a majority vote of the board of direc- to which the Trust is providing the services for tors plus the Under Secretary of State for Public which it was intended. These letters should not Diplomacy and Public Affairs. The President of bind the funding decisions of the Congress but . the USA World Trust should be an individual of they would present a useful metric. distinction, respected across party lines, with a deep knowledge of American foreign policy and Careful oversight of the Trust should be para- national security interests, and of sufficient stat- mount. The Trust should be evaluated annually ure to engage key stakeholders. Ideally, the presi- through an external audit in its first several years, dent should have worked both inside and outside and then regularly thereafter. This study recom- of government in senior positions. mends a mandatory U.S. Government Account- ability Office review for at least the first three The Trust should have a clear mandate, charter, years of the Trust’s existence. The Trust should and by-laws to guide its operations. This mandate also be subject to oversight from one or possibly should make clear that the Trust should not en- two Congressional committees (unlike the De- gage in policy advocacy. The Trust’s mandate, rela- partment of Homeland Security which reports to tively small size, governance structure, and lack of 86).13 posts overseas should ensure there is no confusion about which organizations are vested with the au- To ensure the Trust commits time and energy to thority to represent official SU. . foreign policy to current public diplomacy needs as defined by a foreign governments and societies. Government given Administration, the Congress should cre- agencies, not the Trust, bear that responsibility. ate a $10 million annual fund (equivalent to 20% of the Trust’s budget) for the U.S. government’s The Trust should be easy to monitor due to its dili- leading official in charge of public diplomacy and gent commitment to transparency. It should pub- strategic communication. That fund, controlled lish a detailed annual report, submitted to Con- by the Under Secretary, should ensure that ex- gress and made public on the Trust’s website. It ecutive branch agencies are able to contract with should be subject to Freedom of Information Act the Trust to conduct research and analysis, pilot requests, guaranteeing access to its inner work- programs, acquire or test new technologies, and ings and decisions. The Trust should not engage attract experts to work on particular problems. in covert activities or handle classified material for any reason. Together, these measures are designed to ensure that government has sufficient levers of “soft To ensure responsiveness to national needs, the power” to ensure the Trust remains responsive to Trust should be required to convene a semi-an- national needs while retaining the independence nual meeting of senior government leaders from it needs to provide substantial added value to our the State Department, Department of Defense, nation’s public diplomacy efforts.
13 See Jena Baker McNeill, Congressional Oversight of Homeland Security in Dire Need of Overhaul, Backgrounder #2161 (Washington DC: Heritage Foundation, July 14, 2008).
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 25 Th e Ca s e f o r In d e p e n d e n c e • A current gap in our nation’s capabilities is the ability to take risks, a task that is understand- In hundreds of conversations with experts and ably difficult in executive agencies charged practitioners inside and outside government, the with the responsibility of representing our only significant area of disagreement was how nation to the world. The Trust must be free to close or far away from government the Trust make mistakes and experiment, without the should be. After careful consideration and analy- risk of embarrassing senior officials or the sis, this study concludes that the Trust should be U.S. government. Like a good venture capital independent but there should be many mecha- fund, if the Trust does not make mistakes, it nisms in place to ensure the Trust remains ac- is being too cautious to generate the desired countable and in service to the national inter- return on investment. est. Through a formula of formal independence, extreme transparency of operation, and potent • Some formal distance from government al- instruments of “soft power” provided to govern- lows the Trust to engage new or controversial ment agencies and leaders, the Trust attempts to groups (such as former terrorists now will- strike the balance that would serve our nation’s ing to speak out against terrorism), reach out needs in the area of public diplomacy and strate- to politically sensitive audiences (the Syrian gic communication. public), experiment with new methods (how to best use tools like YouTube and social net- “It often behooves governments to keep in the working sites), or work with ”edgy” media background and work through private actors.” like MTV that can engage young people but provide awkward fora for dignified officials. —Joseph S. Nye, “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Any of these projects might have the strong Social Science, 2008 support of our government, but they may be delicate or ungainly for senior diplomats to embrace publicly. The Trust can provide a Formal independence is recommended for the “heat shield” for such projects, where there following reasons: is a high potential return but also the risk of • Government needs an honest broker that can embarrassment. provide objective analysis and research, ask tough questions, and provide unpopular an- • The ability to be nimble and circumvent bu- swers when necessary. reaucratic hurdles would be a valuable addi- tion to our nation’s capabilities. For instance, • Independence will free the Trust from day- this study learned of an innovative and seem- to-day policy concerns and crises. Staff in ingly uncontroversial public-private part- Washington and overseas report that they nership led by the State Department that have little time for deep reflection and are required clearances from 30 different offices often pulled from long-term projects to meet before it could even get started. This is not pressing short-term needs. The freedom to be atypical and the requirements for such clear- ahead of the curve or move counter to current ances exist for extremely valid reasons. How- trends, e.g. developing programs in Russia or ever, this process is also cumbersome and Latin America when most funding in govern- impedes action. ment is directed at the Middle East, would be a valuable contribution to our nation’s com- • Independence allows the Trust to accept and prehensive public diplomacy effort. pool funds from multiple sources, including
26 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century government agencies, and create multi-stake- challenge is longstanding in American public holder partnerships with greater ease. Even diplomacy. Our country has struck this bal- where there are common interests, it is illegal ance most comfortably when the functions to simply move money from one agency to of advocating policy and presenting a wide another as needed. Moreover, according to range of American voices have been separate. some government officials, there is a need The USA.World Trust will not resolve this for a “central bank” for some public-private tension entirely, but it will offer government partnerships. an alternate venue to accomplish these dual and sometimes competing objectives when it • Independence will enable the Trust to work deems appropriate. with groups that are reluctant to work with any particular administration or govern- • An independent organization provides a neu- ment agency due to political or policy dis- tral forum to convene short and long-term agreements, a desire to appear independent visitors from U.S. government agencies, the of government, or a desire to appear “multi- military, the non-profit sector, universities, national” rather than tied to a particular na- and the private sector to work as equals, re- tional government. Again and again, corpo- gardless of their rank or status in home orga- rations and nongovernmental organizations nizations. reported that they would be happy to help the • government if they could avoid association Finally, the Trust would be free of the many with core government agencies. For instance, restrictions that (in many cases, correctly) im- one major technology company volunteered pede the work of government: Federal Advi- 14 to send staff to help the government make sory Commission Act (FACA) restrictions, better use of the Internet and social network- restrictions on accepting and moving funds, ing technologies, but did not feel comfortable restrictions on sole source contracts, ethical sending them to the State Department, De- restrictions on requesting assistance directly fense Department, or intelligence commu- from companies and other organizations, re- nity. Scholars too sometimes shy from pub- quirements to gain clearances from multiple lic association with government agencies for government agencies and offices, restric- fear that they will lose their credibility in the tions on hiring employees to meet short- region they study. term needs, the need to engage lawyers about any potential partnership, a lack of expertise • Showcasing America’s vibrant marketplace of about key issues, and a general culture of cau- ideas, one of the greatest and most effective tion. To be clear, the Trust must adopt ethi- symbols of our democracy overseas, presents cal practices, comply with its by-laws, and public diplomacy practitioners with the chal- be subject to rigorous oversight. However, a lenge of striking a delicate balance between small non-governmental organization should appearing not to contradict American policy not need the same level of bureaucratic con- and showcasing American diversity. This straints as major U.S. government agencies
14 The 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act stipulates that “No advisory committee shall be established unless such establishment is (1) specifically authorized by statute or by the President; or (2) determined as a matter of formal record, by the head of the agency involved after consultation with the Administrator, with timely notice published in the Federal Register, to be in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on that agency by law.” Advisory committee meeting schedules must be published in the Federal Register and officials are also responsible to make other efforts “to insure that all interested persons are notified of such meeting prior thereto.” Meetings must be open to the public, with opportunities for public comment at the meeting or in writing, and detailed minutes must be published.
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 27 tasked with using lethal force or presenting government, the private sector, academia, and the official position of the United States gov- non-profit organizations. The Congress and ex- ernment overseas. ecutive branch may wish to re-evaluate this size over time, but should be wary of under-cutting Or g anizational Cu l t u r e the Trust’s ability to be nimble. The culture of this organization will influence its The Trust should be allowed to evolve.A s it grows success. The USA.WORLD Trust will prove its and develops, it may require representatives in worth if it can several U.S. cities and perhaps in regional hub • focus on making others successful instead of offices overseas. It should be allowed to shift re- claiming credit sources, close programs and start new ones, and fire and acquire expertise as needed. • leverage its own resources to multiply the im- pact of its investments A No t e o n t h e Na m e
• claim “not invented here” as a badge of honor Like all of the new organization’s efforts, the name of this organization should be subject to rigorous • take pride in being proactive, agile, and for- scrutiny and testing both in the United States and ward-looking overseas. The USA.World Trust is suggested as a starting point, but it has not been tested suffi- • become a hub of innovation and excellence ciently. • meld the talents and insights of those in gov- ernment and the private sector in service to Co s t a n d Ju s t i f i c a t i o n government and the national interest This report recommends that the Congress pro- vide the USA.World Trust with a $50 million an- • be sensitive to changing technologies and nual budget, guaranteed for two years at a time trends to facilitate planning and good use of funds. This • maintain a balance between asking hard but budget is expected to be supplemented by govern- constructive questions and being of service ment contracts, foundation grants, private gifts, to government, and or other fee-for-service projects. As a 501c(3) organization, the Trust should be able to accept • emerge as a resource for leaders and public charitable donations, as does the British Council. diplomacy professionals in all agencies of To ensure these funds are spent effectively, the government. budget should build to this level over a three year period. The Trust should give away at least half of To create the appropriate organizational culture, its annual budget through grants and spend the staff should be drawn from a wide variety of back- rest on staff, operations, and in-house research grounds and welcome into their ranks a regular and projects. The Trust should establish a brand- cadre of visitors from sectors across our society. ing policy, ensuring that the American taxpayers’ Like the Defense Advanced Research Projects investment is recognized appropriately. Agency (DARPA), program staff should be re- quired to leave after a determined period of time If the Trust is successful, additional sources of to ensure the constant injection of fresh ideas. To revenue are likely to exceed this core operating remain nimble, the organization should build a budget many times over. Federal contracts, espe- staff of approximately 150 full-time professionals cially from the Departments of State and Defense, in the short-term, with a large pool of visitors from may be substantial if the Trust earns a reputation
28 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century for good work. Private donors may also provide Some have argued for the Trust to be entirely funding. As just one example, the Woodrow Wil- funded by private money. While desirable in the son International Center for Scholars now re- abstract, that funding model generates three con- ceives only 30% of its budget from the Congress. cerns: Other federally funded organizations like the Asia Foundation, East-West Center, and U.S. Civil- This organization must serve the national ian Research and Development Foundation also interest in order to justify its very existence. combine federal funding with non-governmental Private funders have their own interests, sources of funds. which may or may not align with national public diplomacy or strategic communica- Taxpayers benefit when the target of their invest- tion priorities. If this organization followed, ment is ready to absorb that investment fully. Over by necessity, the interests of funders instead time, our government may choose to invest more, of the national interest, a great opportunity perhaps even substantially more, in the USA.World would be lost. Trust if the organization proves its worth. That path has been followed before with the National Science The history of U.S public diplomacy is Foundation, DARPA, the National Endowment for marked by large swings in funding, tactics, Democracy, and many other federally funded or- and geographic focus. A goal of the Trust is ganizations. This approach holds merit. Good or- to reduce these swings, focusing a significant ganizations learn, developing the capacity to spend portion of its activities on long-term inter- more money well over time. ests in addition to short-term needs. This investment is important because the Trust Private funders experience their own evolving will serve the national interest and contribute to fashions. As many non-governmental organi- a climate in which the success of specific foreign zations and universities will attest, donors of- policy or national security objectives is more like- ten wish to fund exciting new initiatives, not core operations or boring but effective old ly now and in the future. A tiny fraction of the standards. Moreover, even dedicated donors defense budget, it would do much to support the wish to move on to other projects over time, national security interests of the United States by leaving good projects without support. engaging a different range of audiences, voices, and tools. With the Iraq War costing an estimated Sustained funding with a course dictated by the $434 million a day and the annual U.S. Informa- national interest would be a more desirable out- tion Agency budget in the 1990s reaching well come. This sustainability is critical. To have the over $1 billion, this investment seems—if any- desired long-term impact, the USA.World Trust thing—too modest in comparison.15 The next sec- should have a dependable and non-earmarked tion of this report recommends additional expen- revenue stream to avoid the large swings in re- ditures on public diplomacy functions in existing sources and focus that have plagued U.S. public government agencies, but even these investments diplomacy for the last fifty years. Government are unlikely to approach the sums spent on other funds should not be the only source of revenue, instruments of policy. but they are an essential foundation. Private funds
15 David M. Herszenhorn and Eric Lipton, “As War’s Costs Rise, Congress Demands That Iraq Pay Larger Share,” New York Times (April 19, 2008). For the USIA budget, see Congressional Research Service Report to Congress, “State Department and Related Agencies FY1998 Appropriations” (December 10, 1997) available at
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 29 fluctuate with current fashions and interests; pub- Investing in the creation of the USA.World Trust, lic diplomacy should not. Indeed, a key purpose while worthy, should only be undertaken if it does of this organization shall be to fill gaps—what not draw already limited resources away from ci- should be done but is not happening—and move vilian international affairs agencies or other pub- ahead of the curve. lic diplomacy efforts. Though reforms and reallo- cation are needed, resources are already in short Total Grants supply, especially within the State Department. Awarded Moreover, a new organization should be created 200716 only if it is given enough resources to truly make United States Institute of Peace $3 million an impact. A shell organization, with resources National Endowment for $90 million only sufficient to sustain itself, will not dent the Democracy substantial challenges America faces and would Rockefeller Foundation $123 million waste taxpayer dollars. Carnegie Corporation $132 million Ford Foundation $632 million Gates Foundation $2 billion National Science Foundation $4 billion
16 Figures for the U.S. Institute of Peace and National Science Foundation were obtained through correspondence. Remaining information is available publicly in 2007 Annual Reports of the National Endowment for Democracy
30 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century Strengthening U.S. Public Diplomacy
nterviews and extensive research underscored Recommendations for Reform Ithat any new organization could not be success- ful unless it is couched in a broader set of reforms Sy m b o l i s m and a new vision for U.S. public diplomacy. Con- sequently, this report recommends numerous The next president should take bold and imme- reforms to our government’s strategy, leadership, diate acts to redefine the image of the United organization, and methods of public diplomacy States in the eyes of the world. Long-term strate- and strategic communication. gies, carefully constructed policies, and effective day-to-day management are important, but a few This report denies neither progress nor short- bold strokes by a new president would do much comings in U.S. public diplomacy since the ter- to symbolize that a page in history has turned and rorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The vast create a welcoming environment for a new presi- majority of public diplomacy professionals, at dent’s foreign policy. every level, are hard-working and dedicated. They deserve credit for what has gone right. A new president should select actions that will Many programs—the Fulbright program, the reflect his deep personal convictions and sym- International Visitor Program—have withstood bolize the aspirations of his presidency. Though the tests of time while many new initiatives—the this decision should be made personally by a new digital outreach team, which seeks to engage for- president, a few illustrative examples follow. First, eigners in dialogue on blogs, as well as expanded a new president should take steps to symbolize use of public-private partnerships—show inge- that America will live up to its own principles. For nuity and an ability to adapt. Other reports have instance, he should announce a specific date for chronicled both longstanding successes and new the closure of the U.S. prison at Guantanamo and reforms, distributing praise where praise is due. sign an executive order to that effect in a public More have criticized past efforts with gusto and event. Second, he could travel to the Middle East had ample examples from which to draw. There and address a gathering of young people, speak- is no need to duplicate those efforts here. In- ing not about politics directly, but rather to learn stead, this report looks forward, drawing on the about their hopes and to discuss what America excellent work of others, particularly reports by hopes for them. He should be honest about what the Defense Science Board, CSIS Smart Power America can and cannot do, and what they must Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Ad- ultimately do for themselves. Third, he should en- visory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab gage in symbolic acts that reflect what America and Muslim World, Government Accountability stands for and reflect our hope for a better future Office, and more than thirty other groups (see for all, not just ourselves. Research for this study Appendix C for examples). led to the following suggestions.
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 31 Show commitment to education and interna- “A real effort at developing a grand strategy tional understanding by tripling the number requires thinking about the kind of world that of Fulbright awards granted every year, from 3,200 new and continuing student fellows to is most conducive to American interests and 10,000 per year. how to set a course that, over several decades and multiple administrations, stands a good Lay the groundwork for future communi- chance of helping to bring such a world about.” cation and prosperity by investing in a dra- —Shawn Brimley and Michèle Flornoy, Finding our Way: matic new effort to increase the number of Debating American Grand Strategy, Center for world citizens with access to the Internet. New American Security, 2008
Maximize the potential of the Internet and To implement this strategy, our government’s most World Wide Web by senior leaders must be able to assess the nation’s many interests, including an assessment of foreign • creating a Global Virtual Science Library public opinion and its implications, and make choic- that gives nations access to the knowl- es accordingly. America’s foreign policy needs are edge they need to engineer earthquake complex and no one interest, even security, should safe buildings, perform modern dentist- trump all others. The United States must have bor- ry, research worm-resistant crops, and ders that both welcome and deny entry, export con- treat life-threatening diseases trols that both share and deny access to technology, embassies that both engage and protect, and a for- • supporting the Library of Congress’s eign policy that advances our goals while also pro- World Digital Library initiative to digi- tecting the legitimate interests of others. Addressing tally preserve the world’s cultural heritage these needs requires structures that can cope with and make manuscripts, maps, rare books, complexity and manage risks accordingly. photographs, and other significant cultur- al materials available to all In addition to considering foreign public opin- ion in policy-making, our government should • creating on-line open-source portals to consider how to use communication and public teach English, reading, and other essential diplomacy strategically in order to implement skills. policy. We must have the capacity to look ahead, shape the public debate, and lay the groundwork St r a t e g y for future success. Public diplomacy should not To be effective, the U.S. government needs a be conceived as something done only after deci- comprehensive interagency strategy for public sions are made. diplomacy and strategic communication. Per the Smith-Thornberry Amendment in the 2009 De- To advance these objectives, the President should fense Authorization Bill (H.R. 5658), this strategy require a public diplomacy and strategic com- should include overall objectives, goals, actions to munication plan, updated annually, to illus- be performed, and benchmarks and timetables trate how public diplomacy will be used to for the achievement of these goals and objectives. support the national security strategy The strategy should also be closely aligned with the National Security Strategy. It should include, conduct a comprehensive review of what each but not be limited to, countering terrorism and agency is doing in the realm of public diploma- the extremist ideologies that nourish and sustain cy and strategic communication and set clear terrorist networks. guidelines for each agency’s role
32 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century require each agency to submit a plan for im- that resources, programs, and activities are plementing the strategy. proactively and effectively coordinated to support the government’s foreign policy ob- e a d e r s h i p L jectives and that every agency and depart- Leadership comes from the top. The new presi- ment places high priority on public diplo- dent should make public diplomacy a priority and macy and strategic communication. To lead maintain a personal awareness of global public effectively, the Under Secretary should have opinion and how it will affect the success of policy. access to knowledge regarding all covert and This leadership must be reinforced by the Secre- overt operations related to strategic commu- tary of State and National Security Adviser. The nication and public diplomacy in all agen- President should also set an example for all senior cies; greater policy, budgetary, and personnel officials, recalling that statements made for do- authority within the U.S. State Department; mestic consumption will echo around the globe. and additional resources as outlined below.
In keeping with this study’s recommendation Foreign public opinion and its repercus- to strengthen existing government agencies sions should be factored into American instead of creating new ones, the president foreign policy making at its earliest stages. should reiterate that the Under Secretary of Ultimately American policy must serve the State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs U.S. national interest regardless of what for- leads the U.S. government’s efforts in public eigners think. However, foreign opinion has diplomacy and international strategic com- an impact on the costs and benefits, success munication and hold the Under Secretary or failure, of foreign policies. Analyzing the personally accountable for developing and repercussions of policy choices in advance is implementing a government-wide strategy. simply good statecraft. He should issue a formal and public order that the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs is authorized “If they want me in on the crash landings, and expected to lead the U.S. government’s I better damn well be in on the take-offs.” public diplomacy and strategic communica- —Former U.S. Information Agency Director Edward R. Murrow, tasked with communications after the Bay of Pigs Invasion, 1961 tion efforts on behalf of himself and the Sec- retary of State.
A new Under Secretary should be selected Some will argue that there must be an even higher based on his or her ability to lead this inter- level position in the White House to ensure the agency mission and guide its complex and prominence of public diplomacy and strategic multifaceted elements. That person should communication in foreign policy making. These then be held accountable for accomplishing recommendations are understandable given the this mission. importance of public diplomacy and its history of undervaluation as a policy instrument. How- The Under Secretary of State for Public Di- ever, the creation of such positions carries its own plomacy and Public Affairs should be re- complications. That position would also draw sponsible for convening the interagency responsibility and accountability away from the Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC) on State Department, complicate lines of authority Public Diplomacy and Strategic Commu- in the National Security Council and U.S. govern- nication regularly. This PCC should ensure ment generally, and create potential competition
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 33 and another layer of bureaucracy. The solution most visible face of the United States in many presented here is also imperfect, but its imper- parts of the world, especially where publics feel fections are manageable through good personnel threatened by American power. appointments, clear mandates from the highest The National Security Council should main- authorities, and a president and cabinet secretar- tain a senior position at the level of Deputy ies who place due value on public diplomacy and National Security Adviser to coordinate U.S. strategic communication. government efforts in public diplomacy and Or g a n i z a t i o n strategic communication. That person should Our government has not fully adjusted to many continue to serve as Vice Chair of the Policy recent organizational changes: the absorption of Coordinating Committee on Strategic Com- the U.S. Information Agency into the State De- munication within the National Security partment and creation of an Under Secretary of Council and ensure that committee meets at State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, the least monthly. This person should also ensure creation of the Office of Support for Public Di- that public diplomacy and strategic commu- plomacy within the Department of Defense, the nication are considered seriously in the for- marriage of the State Department and U.S. Agen- eign policy making process and across issues. cy for International Development, the creation of The next administration should embrace the a Department of Homeland Security, and the cre- concept of a Global Strategic Engagement ation of a new Directorate of National Intelligence Center (GSEC), the renamed and repur- and National Counterterrorism Center. posed Counterterrorism Communication Given pressing current needs and the fact that Center. This newly created center, which many organizational reforms are still in process, reports to the Under Secretary of State for the next administration should focus on making Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, is de- what exists work better, not creating major new or- signed to be the secretariat of the interagen- ganizations. cy PCC, with staff appointed from relevant agencies. The GSEC should facilitate inter- The most pressing changes are to ensure stronger agency activities below the level of the PCC interagency coordination, substantially enhance members and generally support the PCC. the State Department’s capacity to carry out its In addition, the U.S. government needs a mission, and to ensure that public diplomacy gets web of networks connecting relevant actors due consideration at every level and in every part across agencies at every level in Washington of foreign policy making and implementation. and overseas. Interviews and research conducted for this study exposed again and again the lack of resources in The State Department should also create public diplomacy, particularly in the State De- interagency regional hub offices for public partment. This lack of resources creates a vicious diplomacy, with a special coordinator (hold- cycle. The Department has insufficient resources ing the rank of Ambassador) that reports to to do its job, so it does not always perform the the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy range of duties some would expect. This creates and Public Affairs. These regional hubs will dissatisfaction with the Department, leading the provide a home for the existing but skeletal Congress to invest more resources in other agen- media relations hubs, a nexus for coordi- cies that are equipped to carry out the mission, nating relevant interagency activity, and a most notably the Department of Defense. DoD, direct and regular point of contact for the however, is not always the ideal agency to be the Combatant Commanders. They should have
34 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century a dedicated staff to promote long-term rela- officers and calls by the American Academy tionships, manage educational and cultural of Diplomacy and Stimson Center to increase exchanges, and house the existing State De- public diplomacy staff by over 800A merican partment regional officers focused on Envi- and locally employed professionals by 2014. ronment, Science, Technology and Health (ESTH). Finally, the hubs should have the TheS tate Department, Defense Department, staff and resources necessary to understand and other relevant agencies should create an and analyze public opinion in each region. interagency program to bring outside ex- They should conduct polling, focus groups, perts into government for one-to-two year and other activities to inform the govern- periods. Modeled on the American Asso- ment’s interagency public diplomacy and ciation for the Advancement of Science Fel- strategic communication efforts. lowships, Jefferson Science Fellowships, and Council on Foreign Relations International The State Department should appoint a full- Affairs Fellowships, this program would time Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public bring new perspectives and expertise to the Diplomacy in every regional bureau of the task of public diplomacy. State Department as well as functional bu- reaus focused on oceans, environment and The U.S. government should embark on science; democracy, human rights and labor; reforms to make itself more nimble. Red economic, energy, and business affairs; and tape is thick, the bureaucracy is slow, other bureaus as appropriate and resources and good initiatives are frustrated. Every allow. Routine public affairs duties such as agency should have clearer and streamlined scheduling and preparing talking points processes for engaging in public-private part- for media interviews should be handled by nerships, speaking with the media, conven- more junior staff, freeing time for strategic ing outside experts, and sharing information. planning, advising the Assistant Secretary in Unclear or overly complex regulations lead charge of the regional bureau, liasing between to undue caution and lost opportunities. the bureau and the regional hub, and engag- TheS tate Department should train its people ing with groups outside the Department. more effectively and give them more oppor- Embassies should receive a significant -in tunities for professional advancement. In crease in the number of foreign service offi- contrast to Defense Department personnel, cers that staff them generally, and particularly State Department officers receive far less in public diplomacy. There should be separate training and education. Whereas the De- officers to deal with long-term relationship partment of Defense has a 10% “float” and building on the one hand and short-term funds to send staff out for training, the State public affairs work for the ambassador on the Department faces a personnel shortfall of other. The latter is important, but it should 2,400 staff.17 Foreign Service officers need not eclipse the former. This recommenda- a wide variety of skills and knowledge to be tion echoes Secretary of State Rice’s request effective public diplomacy officers including to the Congress for 1,100 new foreign service better foreign language skills, knowledge of
17 A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future: Fixing the Crisis in Diplomatic Readiness (Washington DC: American Academy of Diplomacy and Stimson Center, October 2008).
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 35 foreign societies and cultures, and better un- sources, though limited, should reflect that prior- derstanding of the techniques necessary to ity. That is not happening. To give just one bench- engage foreign publics effectively. In addi- mark for comparison, the British Council —the tion to formal education, promising officers independent arm of the British government tasked should be encouraged to spend a year at a with education and cultural relations—has a bud- relevant business, NGO, or university. get that is roughly double the State Department’s Educational and Cultural Affairs bureau. Within The State Department should reconsider its our own country, there are currently more musi- staffing policies in the field. Public diploma- cians in military bands than diplomats.18 Though cy officers in particular need the ability to comparisons of this variety are imperfect, they are build in-depth knowledge of and long-term illustrative. The importance of public diplomacy relationships with local opinion leaders. is not reflected in the resources devoted to it. A This is extremely difficult when diplomats reallocation is in order. rotate frequently, especially in unaccompa- nied posts where assignments last only one A shortage of resources should not be used as an year. Though changing these policies will be excuse. Indeed, many valuable reforms could oc- challenging, the outcome will be more effec- cur with little or no new resources. However, to tive public diplomacy, especially in countries achieve substantial impact, more funds are a nec- of critical importance like Pakistan. essary foundation for better public diplomacy.
TheN ational Security Council should create a “Our leader in the war of ideas has no troops.” strategic planning council, as recommended —Defense Department official, by other studies, to ensure that efforts to ad- personal communication with the author, 2008 dress short-term demands do not overshadow the pursuit of important long-term interests. A strategic planning process that engages all TheC ongress should substantially increase the the tools of national power, including pub- State Department’s budget for public diplo- lic diplomacy and strategic communication, macy. One component of these funds should would be a positive step forward. support a 100% increase in foreign service of- ficers over the next ten years, as recommend- ed by the Secretary of State’s Advisory Com- “America’s diplomats are also struggling to mission on Transformational Diplomacy. A break free from the bureaucratic practices that significant proportion of these officers should keep them inside U.S. embassy buildings and be focused on public diplomacy. that emphasize the processing of information The Congress should ensure funding for over the personal, active, direct engagement dedicated Deputy Assistant Secretaries in that wins friends and supporters for America.” each regional bureau, staff in regional hub —CSIS, The Embassy of the Future, 2007 offices, an enhanced staff for the Global Strategic Engagement Center, and senior advisers in the Under Secretary of Public Re s o u r c e s Diplomacy and Public Affairs front office to Public diplomacy is vital to achieving American help manage the expanded role of the Under national security and foreign policy interests. Re- Secretary effectively.
18 Nicholas Kristof, “Make Diplomacy Not War,” New York Times (August 9, 2008).
36 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century Public Diplomacy Budgets Over Time in Millions of Dollars (excludes broadcasting expenditures) 1800 Total Total Constant Dollars 1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600 Millions of Dollars
400
200
0 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 Year Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget
The State Department should have funds to achieve results. Large budgetary fluctuations commission independent polls, research, have characterized U.S. public diplomacy for and analyses that support its public diplo- the last fifty years or more. These fluctuations macy work. The Defense Department has limit the impact of public diplomacy. vastly more resources devoted to these pur- Understandin g poses. To engage the world effectively, we must under- Resources, and the strategies and tactics they stand it. We need to understand foreign cultures support, should be more consistent in order to and societies, how people communicate, which leaders they trust, how they prioritize competing values, where they get their information, and why. “All too often, programming has seemed to With an intelligence budget in the tens of billions reflect a ballistic concept of communication—a of dollars, we could be expected to know this. We one-way shooting of a message at a target. do not, at least not sufficiently. Today, however, Americans understand that they Our government needs to spend more time, have much to learn as well as to teach and that energy, and resources on listening. We should cooperative leadership requires good listening listen more and more publicly. Letting others as well as persuasive talking.” know that we care what they think is a sign of —Stanton Commission, International Information, Education respect and would alone lay the groundwork and Cultural Relations: Recommendations for the Future, 1975 for better relations.
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 37 2007 U.S. Defense and Public Diplomacy Budgets This understanding needs to inform (in billions of dollars) both policies and projects, especially in public diplomacy. We cannot re- 717.6 mind ourselves enough that others do 700 not see the world as we see it and may interpret our statements or actions in 650 ways we never intended. Information, especially unclassified or 600 open source intelligence, is too com- partmentalized and does not always reach the public diplomacy profes- 550 sionals who need it. Better sharing of relevant information with employees 500 who work in public diplomacy and strategic communication, and rewards for those employees who share infor- 450 mation widely and effectively, would extract more value from existing intel- 400 ligence expenditures.
Within government, there is poor in- 350 formation about what other depart- ments or agencies are doing. This will 300 always be a problem in large organi- B illions of Dollars zations but our government could improve. The lack of knowledge leads 250 to duplication, insufficient learning from experience, insufficient impact, 200 and the waste of taxpayer dollars. American citizens, as well as our gov- 150 ernment, need to understand the world better. This is a mission that extends far beyond public diplomacy, but it affects 100 our ability to engage effectively with the world, whether in government, 50 business, or the non-profit sector.E du- cation, formal and informal, and espe- 1.5 cially language instruction needs more 0 attention. Americans also need an Department of Defense (includes Global War on Terror) understanding of what their govern- ment is doing internationally and why Public Diplomacy (includes State Dept and BBG) it is important. In addition to better do- Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget; U.S. Government Accountability mestic outreach, the Congress should Office, “U.S. Public Diplomacy: Strategic Planning EffortsH ave Improved, but Agencies Face Significant Implementation Challenges,” April 2007. revise the Smith-Mundt Act (the
38 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century United States Information and Educational The best public diplomacy is tailored to the Exchange Act of 1948, Public Law 402) which task and in line with an overall strategy. In makes it difficult for citizens to see how their many cases, this will entail two-way dia- tax dollars are spent. The law, interpreted as logue. But a powerful presidential speech, a an early Cold War effort to restrict propagan- one-way message, in front of a grand back- da from blowing back into American media, drop should not be underestimated. has become an anachronism in the age of the Internet. The best, most creative initiatives may un- dercut their own effectiveness if they are not Me t h o d s sustained. By raising expectations, they may To conduct public diplomacy well, America should ultimately harm more than help. have a range of instruments at its disposal and un- derstand how best to use them to reach different Public diplomacy will be most effective if it audiences, in different places, for different - pur recognizes that audiences are not monolithic. poses, at different times. As noted earlier in this Though our government agencies and mili- study, the world is changing in ways that require tary commands are often organized ac- new approaches, greater speed and flexibility, en- cording to world regions, we must remind gagement of new technologies, the savvy use of ourselves often that those regions contain networks, more collaboration, and a tone that res- populations marked by vast differences. onates with the audiences we are trying to reach. American interests are well served by under- standing these differences and adjusting our There are many instruments of public diplo- communications accordingly. macy, which should not be confused with pub- lic diplomacy’s objectives. All too frequently, Listening, done publicly and genuinely, is it- conversations about public diplomacy devolve self an act of public diplomacy. into a discussion of means not ends, focused on Branding, especially efforts to make clear that educational exchanges or broadcasting, cultural foreign assistance such as food and humani- diplomacy or science diplomacy, one-way pro- tarian assistance are funded by the American nouncements or dialogues, messaging or various people, has an appropriate place in our strat- other methods of strategic communication (the egy. In these circumstances, the U.S. govern- process of selecting, framing, and sharing infor- ment needs clear guidance for when and how mation and images to create a favorable climate contractors (who increasingly implement in which to advance government objectives— American foreign assistance programs over- though the term is often used interchangeably seas) publicize that the American taxpayer is with public diplomacy). Each one of these instruments, and many others, has a place in a supporting their work. These guidelines ex- comprehensive public diplomacy strategy. Every ist in some parts of the U.S. government, e.g. one of them will be appropriate in some places USAID, but are less clear in other agencies. and not others, at some times and not others, Government-wide consideration of this issue and with some audiences but not others. We would be valuable. But we need to understand need the ability to weigh our options and select when such efforts are effective and when they the right tool for the job at hand. undercut the goals of assistance programs by appearing arrogant or self-serving. We need A few points, drawn from extensive interviews to understand when letting others take credit and research, are worth keeping in mind. best serves American interests.
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 39 Private companies invest tremendous re- America’s broadcasting strategy and organi- sources in evaluating their products before zation needs a serious review and rethinking they are public. This is not always practical to adapt to the age we live in. The Broad- in government, which must respond quickly casting Board of Governors is a confusing to world events. When it is, agencies should jumble of broadcasting agencies that are have the resources to do this. Even seasoned currently disengaged from the broader U.S. officers should not assume they know how public diplomacy strategy. A newly released their efforts will be received. The Defense BBG strategic plan for 2008-2013 calls for Department, which does have resources for closer collaboration with U.S. public diplo- testing, reports occasional surprise at how macy but that effort has not yet begun and others react to its products and has revised its would represent a break from past prin- method in response. The State Department ciples. While the various BBG services have has had few resources to test new initiatives introduced laudable new initiatives such as and, as a result, has neither expertise in nor websites and call-in shows to facilitate dia- a culture of testing. Evaluation of programs logue as well as one-way messages, its meth- after the fact is also essential to future suc- ods are nonetheless in need of review. This cess, but there is little money budgeted for review should include an analysis of U.S. this purpose. Program managers should be government outreach to foreign media out- given funds for evaluation and be held ac- lets in information-saturated markets as well countable for using them wisely. as a review of media outlets funded by the American taxpayer. Educational and professional exchanges are among the most effective methods we have Partnership should be a core organizational to engage foreign publics. These programs, principle. Government agencies increasing- as well as specialized scholarships to ad- ly will need to cooperate with organizations vance military, public health, economic, and in the public, private, and non-profit sector development goals, deserve larger budgets. both in the United State and overseas.
Our government, including the Congress, Government agencies should develop clear needs to have a serious discussion about the rules and processes to engage partners. proper role and scope of covert information These should be efficient and streamlined. operations. Public diplomacy professionals Some suggest doing away with certain rules often pretend the intelligence community that restrict fundraising, impede the forma- does not exist, for fear of tainting their work. tion of advisory groups, and prevent work But it does exist—and covert action has a with organizations where there are real or proper, if limited, role in promoting Ameri- perceived conflicts of interest. This should can interests outside of war zones. Ignor- be done only with great caution. Despite ing the role of covert actions damages the good intentions, there is the potential for mission not only by failing to engage useful abuse. Efficiency is an important goal of gov- tools but—as significantly—creating space ernment, but fairness and accountability are for unwise uses of covert activities. In an age also important values. where we must assume that anything can be- come public, unwise covert acts, even small Government agencies also must develop a ones, can undermine larger overt efforts and culture of partnership and overcome sus- the overall strategy. picion of the private sector. This will come
40 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century with experience, but it will also entail train- visibly signal this commitment with higher ing. Government employees need to know caps on temporary and permanent employ- how to work effectively with private sector ment-based visa categories (H-1B visas and organizations and what those organizations green cards). hope to get out of partnerships.
Agencies must understand that partnership “Since the 9/11 attacks, America has struggled entails more than finding a company to write to make our borders—both physical and a check. This scenario is not only rare, it also virtual—more secure while maintaining the reflects poor understanding of all the private freedom and openness for which our country sector has to offer. is celebrated. It is no indictment of the effort or thoughtfulness of government employees to Se c u r i t y suggest that we can and must do better.” Security should not trump engagement. The Unit- —Secure Borders and Open Doors Advisory Board, Preserving ed States should strike the proper balance between our Welcome to the World in an Age of Terrorism, 2008 security and openness, recognizing that less of the latter does not necessarily increase the former. m p a c t Openness enhances American security in many I ways—by increasing U.S. economic power, pros- Public diplomacy must show results. Not all of perity, and influence; bringing skills and talent to these results will be quantifiable or observable in our country; and building networks of people who the short term, but all public diplomacy initiatives understand and perhaps support our values and must be developed with impact in mind. interests—even as it poses risks. As a nation, we To maximize impact, programs should ei- have not yet found the right balance, at our bor- ther reach mass publics or target opinion ders, in our visa and immigration policies, and at leaders for a specific purpose. our embassies overseas. Our government should Programs must be evaluated diligently. To reaffirm support from the President, Sec- do this, employees must be allowed to fail retary of State, and Secretary of Homeland and discouraged from reporting that every Security for a new philosophy towards bor- project is a brilliant success. Uninterrupted der controls and visas, which emphasizes the perfection is not a realistic or useful standard need to be open and welcoming and employees should not be held to it. treat visitors and visa applicants with respect, The U.S. government should invest in the dignity, and a welcoming attitude, even as we development of better tools to evaluate the maintain or strengthen security procedures. success and impact of public diplomacy This will require high level guidance, train- programs. Such evaluation is extremely ing for border and customs officials, incen- difficult, especially if one wishes to mea- tives that reward civility, and streamlined sure long-term rather than short-term and effective procedures impact and changes in behavior as well as reiterate globally that America welcomes attitudes. However, such tools do exist in students, tourists, business people, research- the private sector and could be adapted for ers, and other well-intentioned visitors public diplomacy purposes.
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 41
Conclusion
merica faces a rapidly evolving world, charac- a domestic policy that invests in Americans Aterized by new centers of power, new ways of and their collective future communicating, new opportunities, and new per- ils. Achieving national interests in this environ- a comprehensive, forward-looking, and hard- ment will require legitimacy and public support, headed strategy for how to engage and com- domestically and around the world. Our country municate with the world is well endowed to rise to this challenge. However, strong but adaptable institutions, staffed by we will continue to need new thinking, new ca- professionals who collectively possess the for- pacities, and new approaches that recognize the eign language abilities, deep knowledge of for- complex global environment we face now and the eign cultures, and wide range of skills neces- evolving threats we must brave in the future. sary to conduct public diplomacy
This report presents a means to accomplish this foreign policies that promote American in- end, based on extensive analysis and consultations terests, based on careful evaluation of the full with individuals in U.S. government agencies and costs and benefits, including the support or hundreds of private citizens. It recommends a nim- opposition of foreign stakeholders ble new organization to support our government’s efforts and engage companies, universities, and a comprehensive understanding of the global non-governmental organizations in that endeav- environment, including the beliefs and values or. It also calls for a comprehensive approach to of foreign societies strengthen U.S. government capabilities in public effective, creative, and evolving means to con- diplomacy and strategic communication, bolstered vey and build support for specific policies by a clear strategy, new resources, stronger inter- agency coordination, the more welcoming treat- a carefully maintained balance between re- ment of visitors, and new methods. sponding quickly to new opportunities and challenges, without overreacting and neglect- Public diplomacy is an important part of Amer- ing regions that fall out of the headlines ica’s endeavor to engage the support of foreign publics in pursuit of common interests and val- the ability to project a nuanced and complex ues. But, of course, it is not the only—or even the vision of America, our ideals, institutions, and most important—means of shaping our global society, in order to challenge simplistic as- future. To confront current and future challenges sumptions that obstruct understanding and lay the groundwork for policy success, Amer- ica needs and will always need deep networks of personal relationships be- tween Americans and foreign counterparts a foreign policy in line with our highest ideals
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 43 growing support for universal values such as tional effort at public diplomacy—one that draws liberty, equality, justice, and tolerance fully on the energy and talents of the Ameri- can people, supports likeminded champions an international environment of understand- around the world, and is grounded in a stronger ing, respect, and trust in which the pursuit of government-wide strategy—will help America common interests is more feasible. to achieve this vision. Our nation, and also the ThoughA merica has not yet achieved this vision, world, will be safer, more prosperous, and more it is realistic and attainable. A re-energized na- honorable for it.
44 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century Ap p e n d i x A
Contributors and Supporters
This report benefitted from the expertise, experience, and opinions of a wide variety of individuals. Some contributors requested anonymity, and those requests were respected. The author regrets any omissions and offers deep thanks to all those who contributed, whether listed here or not. The views expressed in this report are the author’s alone and do not necessarily represent the views of any of these individuals or the organizations that employ them. David Abshire Michael Banaszewski Mike Caming Center for the Study of the U.S. Department of Defense Public Diplomacy Council Presidency Cathy Campbell Daniel Benjamin Gordon Adams Civilian Research and Brookings Institution American University Development Foundation Steve Bennett Sean Aday Josh Carter Brookings Institution TheG eorge Washington University U.S. Senate, Office ofS en. Sam Charlie Bergman Brownback Khalil Al-Anani Pollack-Krasner Foundation Brookings Institution Motria Chaban Jim Bigart International Republican Institute Paige Alexander U.S. Department of State IREX Carl Chan James Billington U.S. Advisory Commission on Michael Allen Library of Congress Public Diplomacy National Endowment for Democracy Harry Blaney Steve Chaplin Public Diplomacy Council Goli Ameri Center for International Policy U.S. Department of State Peggy Blumenthal Todd Chappell U.S. Department of Defense Hady Amr Institute for International Education Brookings Institution Craig Charney Pierre Bollinger Charney Research Max Angerholzer Embassy of France Lounsbery Foundation Elizabeth Chazottes Carolyn Brehm Association for International Matt Armstrong Procter & Gamble Practical Training Armstrong Strategic Insights Waldo Brookings Joni Cherbo Miriam Assefa U.S. Department of State Cultural Diplomacy Alliance World Education Services Michael Brown Noah Chestnut Elizabeth Bagley TheG eorge Washington University University of Southern California U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy Lori Brutten Anne Chermak Len Baldyga U.S. Department of State Aysha Chowdry Public Diplomacy Council Daniel Burgess Brookings Institution Booz Allen Hamilton
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 45 Krysta Close Edward Djerejian Price Floyd University of Southern California Rice University Center for New American Security Craig Cohen Paula Dobriansky Paul Foldi CSIS U.S. Department of State Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Charlotte Cole Meaghan Dolan Sesame Workshop Abbtech Inc. Daniella Foster U.S. Department of State Robert Coonrod Thomas Donohue Meridian International U.S. Chamber of Commerce Ronna Freiberg Legislative Strategies, Inc. Susan Corke Chris Dufour U.S. Department of State U.S. Department of Defense Kate Friedrich U.S. Department of State Miller Crouch Nicole Durden U.S. Department of State University of California, Los Leon Fuerth Angeles Former National Security Adviser Nicholas Cull to Vice President Gore University of Southern California Tom Edwards Englobe Barry Fulton Jeremy Curtin Former Director, iBureau, U.S. U.S. Department of State Janet Elliott Department of State International Visitors Council of Helle Dale Los Angeles Jonathan Gat The Heritage Foundation Mohamed Elmenshawy Nathan Gardels Tom Daschle Taqrir Washington U.S. Senate Mary Gawronski Kate Eltrich Public Diplomacy Council Chetan Dave Committee on Appropriations, University of Southern California U.S. Senate Carl Gershman National Endowment for Mark Davidson Robert Entman Democracy U.S. Department of State TheG eorge Washington University Eytan Gilboa Mark de la Iglesia Vijitha Eyango Bar-Ilan University U.S. Congress, Office of Rep. U.S. Agency for International Adam Smith Development Joanne Giordano Accenture, formerly of USAID Judith Deane Harvey Feigenbaum American Councils for TheG eorge Washington University Tom Gittins International Education U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy Sarita Felder Pascal Delisle Sarita Felder and Associates, LLC James Glassman Embassy of France U.S. Department of State Bernard Finel Lanie Denslow American Security Project Jennifer Golden World Wise TheG eorge Washington University David Firestein Sandy Dhuyvetter U.S. Advisory Commission on James Goldgeier Travel Talk Media Public Diplomacy TheG eorge Washington University Tom Dine Jim Fitzpatrick Allan Goodman Former President Radio Free Arnold and Porter Institute for International Europe/Radio Liberty Education
46 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century Nick Gosling Isabel Hill Joe Johnson Travel Talk Media U.S. Department of Commerce Public Diplomacy Council Colleen Graffy Jason Hines Loch Johnson U.S. Department of State SOCOMM University of Georgia Steve Grand John Hishmeh Marlene Johnson Brookings Institution Council on Standards for NAFSA International Educational Travel Bruce Gregory Vic Johnson TheG eorge Washington University Frank Hodsoll NAFSA Cultural Diplomacy Alliance David Gross Gregory Julian U.S. Department of State Claudia Hoehne Office of theS ecretary of Defense Business for Diplomatic Action Cari Eggspuehler Guittard Laurie Kassman Business for Diplomatic Action Rachel Hoff Middle East Institute U.S. Congress, Office of Rep. Mac Mary Habeck Thornberry Theodore Kattouf National Security Council AMIDEAST Stuart Holliday Chuck Hagel Meridian International Brian Katulis U.S. Senate Center for American Progress Karen Hopkins Barry Hager Brooklyn Academy of Music Lisa Keathley Hager Associates Georgetown University Oliver Horn Lee Hamilton The Heritage Foundation Kenton Keith Woodrow Wilson Center Meridian International Lucian Hudson Allen Hansen UK Foreign and Commonwealth Timothy Kernan Former USIA officer Office U.S. Global Leadership Campaign Harry Harding Melinda Baskin Hudson Sana Khan TheG eorge Washington University America’s Promise Alliance University of Southern California Chip Hauss William Hybl Rami Khouri Alliance for Peacebuilding U.S. Advisory Commission on American University of Beirut Bob Heath Public Diplomacy Kay King Public Diplomacy Council Martin Indyk Council on Foreign Relations Alan Heil Brookings Institution Christopher Kojm Former Voice of America Walter Isaacson TheG eorge Washington University executive Aspen Institute Agota Kuperman Mark Helmke Mike Jackson Booz Allen Hamilton Senate Committee on Foreign University of Southern California Relations Patricia Kushlis Bud Jacobs MSN Bobby Herman Pro-telligent Freedom House Robert Tice Lalka Susan Jacobs U.S. Department of State Richard Higgins U.S. Department of State U.S. Department of Defense Richard Lanier Trust for Mutual Understanding
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 47 Katherine Leland Sharon Memis Jana Panarites U.S. Department of State British Council University of Southern California Evelyn Lieberman Charles Merin Carlos Pascual Smithsonian Institution Travel Business Roundtable Brookings Institution Pei-Zei Lin Thomas Miller Helen Paul U.S. Department of State Business for Diplomatic Action International Visitors Council of Los Angeles Steven Livingston Tijana Milosevic TheG eorge Washington University TheG eorge Washington University Penne Korth Peacock U.S. Advisory Commission on Aaron Lobel Jeff Miotke Public Diplomacy American Abroad Media U.S. Department of State Dell Pendergrast Carnes Lord R. Garrett Mitchell Public Diplomacy Council Naval Post-Graduate School The Mitchell Report Mark Peterson Jeff Lord Steven Monblatt University of Wyoming Georgetown University Law Organization of American States Center Desa Philadelphia George Moose University of Southern California David Lowe Search for Common Ground National Endowment for Theodore Piccone Democracy Mark Morris Brookings Institution Bates Worldwide Jim Ludes Juliana Pilon American Security Project Joan Mower Institute for World Politics Voice of America Marc Lynch Adam Clayton Powell III TheG eorge Washington University Sherry Mueller University of Southern California National Council for International Sandra MacDonald Visitors Barbara Propes Academy for Educational World Affairs Council of America Development Norm Neuriter American Academy for the Andrew Pryce Patrick Madden Advancement of Science British Embassy, Washington, D.C. Sister Cities International Lorie Nierenberg Katy Quinn Michael McCarry U.S. Department of State U.S. Congress, Office of Rep. Alliance for International Adam Smith Educational and Cultural Joseph Nye Exchange Harvard University Celina Realuyo National Defense University Kevin McCarty John Osborn National Security Council U.S. Advisory Commission on Keith Reinhard Public Diplomacy Business for Diplomatic Action Andrea McDaniel U.S. Department of State Harold Pachios Gary Rhodes U.S. Advisory Commission on Brian McKeon Public Diplomacy Mike Ringler Senate Committee on Foreign Committee on Appropriations, Relations Michael Pack U.S. House of Representatives Manifold Productions Walter Roberts U.S. Information Agency (retired)
48 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century Anthony Rock Marianne Scott Richard Solomon Arizona State University Our Voices Together U.S. Institute of Peace Alina Romanowsky Phillip Seib Joel Spangenberg U.S. Department of State University of Southern California U.S. Senate, Office of Senator Akaka Lynn Rosansky Lana Shamma The Levin Institute University of Southern California Alisa Stack-O’Connor U.S. Department of Defense Caleb Rossiter Koren Shelton U.S. House of Representatives , University of California, Los Damon Stevens Office of Rep. Delahunt Angeles National Counterterrorism Center Linda Rotunno Aaron Sherinian Michael Stopford American Council of Young Millennium Challenge The Coca-Cola Company Political Leaders Corporation Jennifer Strauss Rexon Ryu Bruce Sherman Phelps Stokes Fund U.S. Senate, Office of Senator Hagel Broadcasting Board of Governors Allyson Stroschein Tracy Saalfrank Daniel Silverberg Center for U.S. Global Engagement SilverCarrot Inc. House Committee on Foreign Affairs John Sullivan Juliet Sablosky Center for International Private Georgetown University Nicole Silverman Enterprise Waggener Edstrom Worldwide Kenneth Sale Yael Swerdlow U.S. Department of State Stan Silverman Public Diplomacy Council Jeff Thomas Adam Salerno Center for the Study of the Department of Homeland Security Peter Singer Presidency Brookings Institution Barry Sanders Jim Thompson Thomas Skipper U.S. Department of State Paul Saunders U.S. Department of State Nixon Center Jonathan Tourtellot Linda Sloan National Geographic Society Eric Savitsky U.S. Department of State University of California, Los Hans Tuch Angeles Pamela Smith Public Diplomacy Council Former U.S. Ambassador to Chris Scalzo Moldova Vaughan Turekian U.S. Department of State American Association for the Crocker Snow Advancement of Science Cynthia Schneider Tufts University Georgetown University Darius Udrys Jay Snyder Anne Schodde U.S. Advisory Commission on Garrick Utley U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy Public Diplomacy The Levin Institute Liz Schrayer Dahlia Sokolov Vincent Vitto Schrayer & Associates, Inc. Committee on Science Defense Science Board Jill Schuker U.S. House of Representatives Andrew Walworth JAS International Grace Creek Media
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 49 Cynthia Warshaw Heath Wickline Michele Wymer U.S. Department of Commerce Underground U. S. Senate Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, Lynne Weil Jed Willard Committee on Appropriations Committee on Foreign Affairs, Harvard University U.S. House of Representatives Meg Young Geoffrey Wiseman USC Center for Public Diplomacy Jeff Weintraub University of Southern California Fleischman-Hillard, Inc. Nancy Yuan Tamara Cofman Wittes Asia Foundation Gretchen Welch Brookings Institution U.S. Department of State Matthew Zweig Frank Wolf Committee on Foreign Affairs, Christian Whiton U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Department of State James Wolfensohn Myrna Whitworth Wolfensohn and Company Public Diplomacy Council
50 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century Ap p e n d i x B
Summary of Proposals
Recent legislation and numerous reports have recommended the creation of new organizations to support U.S. public diplomacy objectives. The chart below summarizes these recommendations.
De f e n s e Authorization Bi l l 19 The Smith-Thornberry amendment to this Bill recommends a Center for Strategic Communication. This non-profit organization will be responsible for providing independent assessment and strategic guidance on strategic communication and public diplomacy to the government. Om n i b u s Appropriations Bi l l 20 This bill recommends a public-private organization that will serve as a knowledge bank and a program integration and coordination hub. It will improve interagency coordination, and draw upon private sector knowledge and expertise to inform program strategies, improve program results, and utilize resources in smarter, more innovative, and more effective ways. De f e n s e Sc i e n c e Bo a r d 200821 This task force recommends a Center for Global Engagement. This independent organization would attract civil society expertise. It would be a hub for innovation and ideas, a repository of expertise, a means to institutionalize continuity and long-term memory, and a focus for experimentation and proj- ect development. It would be a non-profit, non-partisan, and tax-exempt 501(c)(3). Its board of direc- tors would provide direction for programs and projects. Activities would be widely varied, including: research and analysis, cross-cultural exchanges of ideas, and creation and dissemination of products and programs. Se c u r e Bo r d e r s a n d Op e n Do o r s Ad v i s o r y Co m m i t t e e 22 A Corporation for Public Diplomacy is recommended. As a quasi-governmental organization, it would engage all sectors of American society in improving world opinion of the U.S. It would take a long- term approach and would be insulated from partisan politics. Most public diplomacy programs would be removed from the State Department and housed in this new organization, which would have the responsibility of creating, conducting, and evaluating public diplomacy.
19 U.S. Congress, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2008). 20 U.S. Congress, Omnibus Appropriations Bill FY 2008, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2007). 21 Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2008). This recommendation was also included in earlier Defense Science Board reports. 22 Report of the Secure Borders and Open Doors Advisory Committee: Preserving our Welcome to the World in an Age of Terrorism, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of State, 2008).
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 51 Meridian International Ce n t e r & Ce n t e r f o r t h e St u d y o f t h e Pr e s i d e n c y 23 The proposed independent 501(c)(3) organization, named the Foundation for International Under- standing, would work to improve international understanding by supporting the U.S. government’s public diplomacy. It would conduct grant-making, polling and analysis of foreign public opinion, and use “new media” to support private advocates with common goals. It would convene practitioners, leverage resources, promote innovation, and use new technologies to improve exchange programs and connections with program alumni. Bu s i n e s s f o r Diplomatic Ac t i o n 24 The recommendedC orporation for Public Diplomacy will be an independent and nonpartisan organi- zation. The governing board will include representatives of political parties, the business community, media, and the nonprofit sector.L ike a business, the CEO and management team will be held account- able for achieving goals. These goals will be established with a set of metrics that measure the improve- ment of America‘s reputation and image in the world. Ce n t e r f o r St r a t e g i c a n d International St u d i e s Sm a r t Po w e r Co m m i s s i o n 25 A New Institution for International Knowledge and Communication is recommended by CSIS. This semi-independent non-profit organization will tap into public and non-profit sector expertise. It will receive federal appropriations and report to the Secretary of State. An independent board will provide a “heat shield” from current political pressures. It will fill gaps in four main operational areas: improved understanding, dialogue of ideas, advice to public officials, and shaping foreign attitudes about the United States to fit with reality. Ad v i s o r y Co m m i t t e e o n Cu l t u r a l Di p l o m a c y 26 The suggested organization, aC ultural Diplomacy Clearinghouse, will support efforts to bring the best artists, writers, and other cultural figures to foreign audiences. It will develop public-private partner- ships and raise funds. As an independent clearinghouse, in the manner of the British Council, this orga- nization will have separate housing from the embassies so cultural events can attract wider audiences. He r i t a g e Fo u n d a t i o n 27 The Smith-Mundt Act restricts the State Department from disseminating information about foreign public opinion to other agencies. Meanwhile, the BBG, DoD and CIA all engage commercial polling firms. To avoid waste and disseminate information, the recommended independent agency, an Inde- pendent Public Opinion Research Center, will collect information. It will not disseminate products or services publicly.
23 Foundation for International Understanding, (Washington, DC: Meridian International Center and Center for the Presidency, 2008). 24 America’s Role in the World: A Business Perspective on Public Diplomacy. (New York: Business for Diplomatic Action, 2007). 25 Richard L. Armitage and Joseph S. Nye, Jr, eds, CSIS Commission on Smart Power: A smarter, more secure America, (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2007). 26 2005 Report of the Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy: Cultural Diplomacy: The Linchpin of Public Diplomacy, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State, 2005). 27 Patrick Cronin, Helle C. Dale, Stephen Johnson, “Strengthening U.S. Public Diplomacy Requires Organization, Coordination, and Strategy,” The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder #1875 (2005),
52 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century Pu b l i c Di p l o m a c y Co u n c i l 28 The recommended government agency—U.S. Agency for Public Diplomacy and Foundation for the Future—will coordinate all public diplomacy efforts. The Foundation for the Future will create a per- manent trust fund to support international exchanges, and will be managed by a nonpartisan board of directors. The Agency director will hold the rank of deputy secretary and report to the Deputy Secre- tary of State. It will include education and cultural affairs, information programs, all public diplomacy aspects of regional and functional bureaus, the office of research, and aspects of the public affairs bu- reau of the State Department. De f e n s e Sc i e n c e Bo a r d 200429 A recommended Center for Strategic Communication would be an independent nonpartisan 501(c) (3), that takes direction from the NSC Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication and members of the Strategic Communication Committee. The center would be governed by a board of directors and would: provide information and analysis to civilian and military decision-makers; develop plans, products and programs for U.S. strategic communication; support government strategic communications through non-governmental initiatives; and support cross-cultural exchanges. Br o o k i n g s In s t i t u t i o n 30 A Corporation for Public Diplomacy is recommended by Brookings fellow Hady Amr. This non-profit independent organization will bridge the gap between public and private sectors. It will facilitate pri- vate donations for public diplomacy. It will be nimble, and will be a credible messenger that engages in dialogue and does not shy away from issues of political sensitivity. It will cooperate with, and be on the same page as, government public diplomacy efforts. Ce n t e r f o r t h e St u d y o f t h e Pr e s i d e n c y 31 A recommended independent organization, the Center for Public Diplomacy would support non-gov- ernmental programs that communicate messages compatible with American interests and ideals. It would promote projects that facilitate dialogue and cooperation between Americans and foreigners. Modeled on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the organization would allow government, foun- dations, corporations, and individuals to contribute to specific programs and provide general support. Grants for private and non-profit activities would encourage use of advanced media and information technology. Ad v i s o r y Gr o u p o n Pu b l i c Di p l o m a c y f o r t h e Ar a b a n d Mu s l i m Wo r l d 32 This group recommends aC orporation for Public Diplomacy. This independent organization will make grants to individual producers and independent, indigenous media channels to create and disseminate high quality programming in the Arab and Muslim world. It will develop programming in partnership with private firms, nonprofit institutions, and government agencies in the U.S. and abroad, and distrib- ute that programming through existing channels.
28 A Call for Action on Public Diplomacy, (Washington, DC: Public Diplomacy Council, 2005). 29 Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2004). 30 Hady Amr, The Need to Communicate: How to Improve U.S. Public Diplomacy with the Islamic World, (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2004). 31 Phyllis D’Hoop, ed, An Initiative: Strengthening U.S.-Muslim Initiatives, (Washington, DC: Center for the Study of the Presidency, 2003). 32 Edward Djerejian, ed, Changing Minds, Winning Peace: A New Strategic Direction for U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim World, (Washington, DC: Department of State, 2003).
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 53 Co u n c i l o n Fo r e i g n Re l a t i o n s 200333 An Independent Public Diplomacy Training Institute is recommended. This independent organization will coordinate with and supplement the State Department’s National Foreign Affairs Training Center. It will offer training and services in public opinion research, cultural and attitudinal analysis, segmen- tation, database management, strategic formulation, political campaign management, marketing and branding, technology and tactics, communications and organizational planning, program evaluations, and conduct studies on media trends. Also recommended is a Public Diplomacy Reserve Corps. Mod- eled on the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Corps will augment domestic and overseas operations by developing action plans, providing training, and engaging the private sector. Co u n c i l o n Fo r e i g n Re l a t i o n s 200234 Modeled on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the recommended Corporation for Public Di- plomacy will be a tax-exempt 501(c)3 able to receive private grants. The organization will be led by a bipartisan board of directors and will be Congressionally funded. The activities of the organization will include: cultivating public-private messengers in order to build bridges and improve cross-cultural relations, supporting independent indigenous new media channels, and creating joint think tanks with foreign countries.
33 Peter G. Peterson, ed, Finding America’s Voice: A Strategy for Reinvigorating Public Diplomacy, Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, (Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations, 2003). 34 Peter G. Peterson, ed, Public Diplomacy: A Strategy for Reform, Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, (Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations, 2002).
54 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century Ap p e n d i x C
Selected Reports on U.S. Public Diplomacy
Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy. 2005 Report - Cultural Diplomacy: The Linchpin of Public Diplomacy. Washington, DC: Department of State, 2005.
Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World. Changing Minds, Winning Peace: A New Strategic Direction for U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim World. Washington, DC: Department of State, 2003.
American Academy of Diplomacy and Stimson Center, A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future: Fixing the Crisis in Diplomatic Readiness. Washington DC: October 2008.
Amr, Hady. The Need to Communicate: How to Improve U.S. Public Diplomacy with the Islamic World. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2004.
Argyros, George L.; Marc Grossman; and Felix G. Rohatyn, The Embassy of the Future. Washington, DC: CSIS 2007.
Armitage, Richard L. and Joseph S. Nye, Jr, eds. CSIS Commission on Smart Power: A smarter, more secure America. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2007.
Bollier, David. The Rise of Netpolitik: How the Internet is Changing International Politics and Diplomacy, A Report of the Eleventh Annual Aspen Institute Round Table on Information Technology. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 2003.
Business for Diplomatic Action. America’s Role in the World: A Business Perspective on Public Diplomacy. New York: Business for Diplomatic Action, 2007.
Dale, Helle and Stephen Johnson. “How to Reinvigorate U.S. Public Diplomacy.” The Heritage Foundation, Back- grounder #1645 (2003). http://www.heritage.org/Research/PublicDiplomacy/bg1645.cfm.
Dale, Helle and Stephen Johnson. “Reclaiming America?s Voice Overseas.” The Heritage Foundation, WebMemo #273 (2003). http://www.heritage.org/Research/nationalsecurity/wm273.cfm.
Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication. Strategic Communication. Washington, DC: De- partment of Defense, 2004.
Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication. Strategic Communication. Washington, DC: De- partment of Defense, 2008.
Defense Science Board Task Force Sponsored by the Department of Defense and Department of State. Managed Information Dissemination. Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 2001.
D’Hoop, Phyllis, ed. An Initiative: Strengthening U.S.-Muslim Communications. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of the Presidency, 2003.
Epstein, Susan B. and Lisa Mages, eds. Public Diplomacy: A Review of Past Recommendations. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2005.
Helmus, Todd; Christopher Paul, and Russell W. Glenn, Enlisting Madison Avenue: The Marketing Approach to Earn- ing Popular Support in Theaters of Operation, Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2007.
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 55 Independent Task Force Cosponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and Inter- national Studies. State Department Reform. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2001.
Independent Task Force on America’s Response to Terrorism Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. Im- proving the U.S. Public Diplomacy Campaign in the War Against Terrorism. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2001.
Independent Task Force on Public Diplomacy Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. Public Diplomacy: A Strategy for Reform. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2002.
Independent Task Force on Public Diplomacy Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. Finding America’s Voice: A Strategy for Reinvigorating Public Diplomacy. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2003.
Public Diplomacy Council. A Call for Action on Public Diplomacy. Washington, DC: Public Diplomacy Council, 2005.
Public Diplomacy Council. A Call for Action on Public Diplomacy, Statement of Dissent: Transformation Not Restora- tion. Washington, DC: Public Diplomacy Council, 2005.
Rosen, Brian and Charles Wolf, Jr. Public Diplomacy: How to Think About and Improve It. Washington, DC: RAND Corporation, 2004.
Secure Borders and Open Doors Advisory Board Sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security and Depart- ment of State. Preserving our Welcome to the World in an Age of Terrorism. Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2008.
Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Policy Coordinating Committee. U.S. National Strategy for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication. Washington, DC: Department of State, 2007.
United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. Building Public Diplomacy Through a Reformed Structure and Additional Resources. Washington, DC: Department of State, 2002.
United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. The New Diplomacy: Utilizing Innovative Communica- tion Concepts that Recognize Resource Constraints. Washington, DC: Department of State, 2003.
United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. 2004 Report of the United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. Washington, DC: Department of State, 2004.
United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. 2005 Report of the United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. Washington, DC: Department of State, 2005.
United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. Getting the People Part Right: A Report on the Human Resources Dimension of U.S. Public Diplomacy. Washington, DC: Department of State, 2008.
U.S. General Accountability Office. U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Expands Efforts but Faces Significant Challenges. Washington, DC: GAO, 2003.
U.S. General Accountability Office. U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors Expand Post-9/11 Efforts but Challenges Remain. Washington, DC: GAO, 2004.
U.S. General Accountability Office. U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors Expand Efforts in the Middle East but Face Significant Challenges. Washington, DC: GAO, 2004.
U.S. General Accountability Office.U.S. Public Diplomacy: Interagency Coordination Efforts Hampered by the Lack of a National Communication Strategy. Washington, DC: GAO, 2005.
56 Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century Ap p e n d i x D
About the Author
Kristin Lord is a Fellow in the Foreign Pol- democracy and the rule of law, communication, icy Studies Program and Saban Center’s Proj- and public diplomacy. Dr. Lord is the author of ect on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World at Perils and Promise of Global Transparency: Why the the Brookings Institution, where she directs the Information Revolution May Not Lead to Security science and technology initiative. Prior to join- Democracy or Peace, (SUNY Press, 2006), Power ing Brookings, Dr. Lord was Associate Dean for and Conflict in an Age of Transparency, edited with Strategy, Research, and External Relations at The Bernard I. Finel (Palgrave Macmillan, 2000), and George Washington University’s Elliott School of numerous book chapters and articles. In 2008, she International Affairs.A member of the faculty, she published the Brookings report A New Millenni- also taught courses on U.S. public diplomacy, U.S. um of Knowledge? The Arab Human Development foreign policy and the causes of war. In 2005-2006, Report on Building a Knowledge Society, Five Years Dr. Lord served as a Council on Foreign Relations On. Dr. Lord is a non-resident fellow at the Uni- International Affairs Fellow andS pecial Adviser to versity of Southern California’s Center for Public the Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Diplomacy. She received her M.A. and Ph.D. in Global Affairs. In that role, she worked on a wide Government from Georgetown University and range of issues including international science her B.A., magna cum laude, in international stud- and technology cooperation, international health, ies from American University.
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century 57
Foreign Policy at BROOKINGS
Submitted to the U.S. Department of State and VoicesU.S. House of Representatives of Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs America
U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century
The Foreign Policy Program at Brookings and The Brookings Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20036 brookings.edu
Kristin M. Lord
November 2008