|
 |
Main Page | Month Archive | Email Updates | RSS Feed | Print Version
The Public Diplomacy Blog is intended to stimulate dialog among scholars, researchers, practitioners and professionals from around the world in the public diplomacy sphere. The opinions represented here are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School.
WHAT IF THE PRESIDENT REQUESTED YOUR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ADVICE? RESPONSES FROM USIA PAST MASTERS
AUG 27, 2006 - 12:13PM PDT
Posted by Alvin Snyder
All posts by this author
Author Alvin Snyder provides an insightful look at the world of diplomacy by providing sound advice from some of the field’s most celebrated figures.
Numerous columns have been written as a "Memorandum to Karen Hughes," with advice to the undersecretary of state on how to improve America’s public diplomacy efforts. But what if the president himself telephoned, to ask advice on the same issue? What would one say? (Remember, it’s the president, so no showboating).
Who better to ask than those professionals who contributed to the U.S. Information Agency‘s storied past? I had the privilege to serve with many superior individuals at the Agency, and asked several to provide additional wisdom that may be applied to present-day challenges. Many have responded. Part One is below.
To be honest, the idea of giving public diplomacy advice directly to the president came from veteran foreign service officer Agota Kuperman, who served in more than 10 posts abroad for the USIA and the State Department, including Tehran, Islamabad, Tunis, and Bucharest as spokesperson during the revolution, in Bonn as cultural attache, Sarajevo as spokesperson and at State as senior inspector.
In answer to my inquiry about what advice she would give to Karen Hughes, Ms. Kuperman responded, in effect, by saying let’s go right to the top.
"Karen Hughes knows best what she wants to achieve,” said Ms. Kuperman, "but if the president were to call me, I would advocate pulling together the best minds (some businesspeople, academics, intelligence folks, military and scientists with Nobel prizes) in a DARPA (the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) mode, totally classified, no leaks, no media. Then, based on the results of the findings, I would organize the kind of propaganda blitz that USIA did once during the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) missile crisis. Everyone who could be acceptable, speak foreign languages should be sent all over the globe with the same message... orchestrated to every embassy and articles, interviews, etc. placed in the media. That would be a good beginning."
Foreign Service Officer Allen C. Hansen, who retired from the USIA in 1987 after serving for 32 years in nine countries, believes that while re-inventing another USIA is a good idea, it would take too long, and that a "partial solution" is best. Mr. Hansen believes that the State Department should give to public diplomacy "the same relative independence that the Agency for International Development (AID) enjoyed before its most recent change which moved it further into the State Dept. bureaucracy.
"Two major organizational problems, in my view, contribute to the current weakness of U.S. PD. (1) Having the PD active officers in Washington assigned to the geographically oriented Assistant Secretaries of State, reporting to the Assistant Secretaries, instead of to the office of the Deputy Sec'y of State for PD and Public Affairs. (2) It remains questionable as to the effectiveness of any large organization that has so many varied interests and goals as the State Dept. compared with USIA which had one focus for its varied activities -- PD, with one chain of command.
"(Of course funding and the abolishment of so many of USIA's assets such as libraries, experienced staff, etc. and the reputation of USIS offices which were respected for providing assistance to so many host country citizens are equally important. But if the foundation is weak or not organized to be effective, that, in my view, is the place to start.)"
John F. Kordek served in multiple diplomatic assignments abroad, and as director of USIA’s operations in Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean. He also served as U.S. ambassador to Botswana.
Said Ambassador Kordek: "What is needed in America today and in the foreseeable future is a semi-autonomous organization ( not unlike USIA) responsible for international public diplomacy and cultural and educational activities. The key is to have a dynamic leader of the organization who has a personal relationship with the President as well as his confidence and who reports to the Chief Executive. The attempt to integrate some of the elements of the old USIA into the State Department has not been (and is unlikely to be) successful given the culture of the Department."
Donna Oglesby is Diplomat-in-Residence at Eckerd College. Ms. Oglesby served for some 25 years as a Foreign Service officer in Brazil, Austria, and Thailand among other assignments abroad, and as director of the American Republics at USIA, as well the Agency’s Counselor, its ranking Foreign Service officer.
Ms. Oglesby would want the president to realize that: "…[W]e need a shift in attitude. Given his world view, I would say to President Bush: 'Having fought for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan we have unleashed the politics that freedom means. Our success in toppling tyranny caused greater numbers of people with different histories and
cultures to enter into politics -- at home and abroad. They join large numbers of other democratic or democratizing nations in a shared political space riled by the very use of force we employed to liberate them.
"Engaging them now requires recognition that in the face of our differences, we must work towards political understanding to keep whole the single world we share. Public diplomacy accompanies political action abroad. It manifests the essential attitude toward others that allows us to live in the world and speak to one another about it. This conversation with people -- not simply governments -- conditions global political engagement. Without robust public diplomacy we say to the world's people, we fight for your freedom but we don't respect you enough to sit down with you and converse about the free world we together share. Without conversation now, the war would have been pointless, the promise of politics dashed. Let's live our freedom. Let the conversation roll."
A former U.S. Information Agency Deputy Director and Counselor, Ambassador John William "Jock" Shirley, who also held several senior USIA postings abroad, responded to my inquiry by writing a proposed letter to "the president -- any president":
"The image of the United States in the world is largely determined by what you say and how you say it," Ambassador Shirley would advise the president. He continued: "If you, and those who speak for you, do not consider the likely impact of your words before they are uttered, no amount of money, no institution of government, no individual or group of individuals, no matter how skilled or dedicated, can significantly alter the way we are seen by friend and foe alike.
"Something, but not very much, is gained by being liked, but for so long as we remain the superpower being liked is not an attainable objective. Popularity in any case is not the issue; indeed, it has no place in relations between states. The objective is the achievement of our national political, economic, military and other goals. These goals can be more easily met if you and your senior associates sensitize yourselves to the fears and prejudices, to the likes and dislikes, of the audience for whom your words are intended. If what you say to the world, or some part of it, is weighed in terms of how it is likely to be received, you and our country will be listened to with greater respect and perhaps even a measure of understanding.
"What is called public diplomacy, Mr. President, is no more than the civilized art of the persuasion of others of the merits of one’s own point of view. It is not advertising, it is not public relations. It is merely an aspect of the traditional craft of diplomacy and requires the exercise of tact, courtesy, moderation in speech and action, and a thorough understanding of the mindset of those you seek to persuade of the merits of our point of view."
Ambassador Shirley put a post-script on his note to me: "Of course, if the policy is unpalatable, there is no magic bullet to cause peoples and governments to embrace it. Still and all, we could do a lot better if we weren't such clumsy advocates, such poor spokesmen, for our points of view."
Stay tuned.
Read Comments (8) | Add Your Own
 Read Comments:
Jon Beard on August 28, 2006 @ 12:04 pm:
Greetings, Al, and kudos for "Ask the Experts". As you well remember, these folks were some of the best. Regards, Jon
Gil Callaway on August 28, 2006 @ 12:31 pm:
A comment on Jock's letter: Public diplomacy encompases efforts to demonstrate that the USA is more than the USG. While foreigners (and US citizens) may not like USG policies, there is much to like about the USA. In this sense, while achieving national political -- and other goals is the USG objective in dealing with other countries, public diplomacy can play a key role by projecting the US as considrably more than the current government/administration. While serving as Public Affairs Counselor in Nicaragua during the Sandinista regime, one of the more effective arguments I used to persuade critics (both Nicaraguan and foreign) to at least listen (if not agree with) to "our" point of view was that US citizens had the privilege (even the duty) to change their leaders -- which later the Sandinistas allowed and were voted out of power!
Don Mathes on August 29, 2006 @ 3:19 pm:
Jock has it right. The "civilized art of persuasion" seems to be missing in our current efforts. And to get that back we need more people on the ground overseas who know the language, understand the culture, study the mindset of the host country leaders, and get out of the Embassy to engage with them. Nothing new in that suggestion; it's just that we don't seem to be doing it much anymore. Ed Murrow's dictum to my JOT class decades ago still holds: "Gentlemen, in communications, it's the last three feet that matters..."
mort smith on August 30, 2006 @ 7:08 pm:
Al; Bravco. Very good material. Suggest, in addition to the many excellent points raised by our former colleagues the following: Need to build for the future. Not only should a USIA-like organization with its own lines into the White House be created but there should be a recognition on the Hill and everywhere else that a PD-type capability is an imp0rtant element in our national security capability. As we all know, it is the long term work influencing people and generating regard for our policies that makes a crisis more rather than less managemable, that can dampen the opposition, and can generate respectable support. But this doesn't happen overnight. It has to be the product of the daily grind we used to engage in.
And the obvious: the "take off" and "landings" bit. Just what the public affairs implcations of major policies might be has to be a factor in their determination. Ergo, we need directors of the new entity who have the respect of the other policy makers, and the wisdom to use the knowledge and resources of their people effectively
(FYI Al: Before my sentence at the VOA,
I had been Area Director for East Asia and had served USIA and State for 38 years, mostly abroad.)
REegards, mort
Fred Coffey on September 4, 2006 @ 5:28 pm:
Al, Your focus is refreshing. Comments by our PD professionals are on target. The president should "retool" PD operations. The current organization now fragmented in the regional bureaus with dotted line relationships to field posts, karen Hughes and ECA/IIP, give the Under Secretary limited control over total resources, personnel and field programs. Her decision to appoint a DAS in each regional bureau (political appointees) to wear a PD hat along with other portfolios has just compounded the control factor.
Bottom line - Field operations are hobbled by lack of coherent support from Washington and a clear chain of command. Dotted line relationships avoid responsiblity and flexible. Field program initiatives tend to lose traction in the reactive, rigid, passive culture of State.
Mr. President, either overhaul the organization within State to create a top to bottom, fast moving and clear chain of command or follow the example set by Secretary Dulles and President Eisenhower by creating a semi-independent information agency devoted to PD and answering to you and to the Secretary of State.
A major problem for PD is that frequently the activities of DoD in the field are at cross purposes with public diplomacy. You should give your PD director veto power over amateurish efforts by DoD to spin and fabricate the news.
Finally, Mr. President, your PAOs in the field, while under direction of the ambassador, should be extended greater freedom of operation to exercise the dynamic and impressive entrepreneurial powers that each have. Today they are greatly restricted. And it is at the crucial field posts where the real PD rubber meets the road.
Fred Coffey, PAO in several countries in SEAsia and Latin America. Professor at the National War College. Retired after 37 years in 1989.
J P Marks on September 6, 2006 @ 4:40 am:
Yes, the US government public diplomacy needs focus. I'm not sure it needs a single propaganda blitz as Ms Kuperman implies. Global networks will quickly spot what's going on and work out a counter strategy. In fact, since distance is dead, an approach whereby you share Voices of Americans, rather than a single Voice of America would show that the US can be culturally sensitive. Oh, and revise the policy of making all foreign journalists get a visa to visit the US - the US consulate in Amsterdam demands 20 dollars to get a question answered or an appointment...what a change from the days of USIA libraries.
J. Q. Gonzalez on September 6, 2006 @ 6:30 pm:
Wise People from the Past: How important is PAO independent room for maneuver? The current system -- with complete State and Front Office control of EERs and budget -- makes the PAO as much the Ambassador's figure as the Poloff. The result? You can guess.
Sherry Mueller on September 19, 2006 @ 12:15 pm:
At its best, public diplomacy – whether conducted by PAOs and other official diplomats or by the citizen diplomats in the United States who host exchange program participants – is a long term investment in building relationships. These relationships constitute a web of human connections that provide a more receptive context for other interactions – negotiating a trade agreement, crafting a security arrangement, or tackling a global problem.
America’s tattered image abroad was captured in a devastatingly stunning graphic on the cover of the May 29 _New Yorker_ that depicted Uncle Sam without a face. The extent to which the United States has “lost face” is profoundly disturbing. No wonder we yearn for a silver bullet solution. However, we would use our sadly limited resources for public diplomacy more effectively if we candidly acknowledged that there is no quick fix. There is only gradual, cross-generational reclaiming of our ideals and communicating them to others around the world on a person-to-person basis.
A key dimension of public diplomacy advice to the president must be to champion and support citizen diplomacy. Citizen diplomacy is the concept that the individual citizen has the right – even the responsibility – to help shape U.S. foreign relations, “on handshake at a time.”
Some Americans are already active citizen diplomats. Many are volunteers who belong to nationwide networks of nonprofit organizations such as the National Council for International Visitors, People-to-People International, Sister Cities International, and Friendship Force International.
Citizen diplomats give their time, leadership skills, and dollars to support international exchange programs of all types. They are among our greatest assets in the battle for “hearts and minds” of people around the world. As noted long ago by the authors of _The Ugly American_, a novel still relevant, “American citizens are the best ambassadors a country can have.”
Add a Comment:
 |
|
|
SEND TO FRIENDS
