Remarks at the National Defense University

But then State has taught me that moving too fast can bring about disastrous results with our allies -- causing misunderstandings that take forever to clear up.  Sometimes, too, I've learned at State, it is best to take no action.

But our work has to result in measurable action. The charter of the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs is to inform and influence. We're better at the "inform" than we are at "influence."  We inform, often the same day, of key speeches and policies in six languages, later in 30 languages to every country in the world. But we're not as comfortable at what it takes to influence another, especially when the audience is hostile.
 
We must master Persuasive Communication. The principles of Persuasive Communication hold true whether you find yourself in the world of marketing or foreign affairs. There is a discipline we learned in marketing every kind of product and service that does apply to the presenting of American values and policies.

People learn more from failure than victory.  If you can tell people what a product is not, they'll hear you more readily than a good description of what it is.

Persuasive Communication is not about being a huckster with a predilection for shading the truth.

We have only the truth.  It's hard enough to find the truth and state it clearly, isn't it?  Even the truth is getting harder to identify. We know that the Internet in the Mideast, although available to few, carries an assumption of truth just because it comes from this new channel.  And the few manipulate the word to the many.

As former senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said:  "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts."

Unfortunately, our enemies are not attached to the truth -- factual or otherwise -- much less any respect for differing opinions. The deliberate distortions and lies may be vivid, even compelling, but I remain convinced that a lie will prove to have has a short shelf life.  Truth does prevail.

Persuasive Communication is not about manipulation.  We can't take advantage to gain advantage.  To leave someone feeling manipulated -- whether by an ad campaign or a foreign policy campaign -- eventually turns them against you even more firmly than before.  This has happened to all of us in books, in the movies. If we feel manipulated, we walk away feeling used.

Persuasive Communication is also not selling.  In the private sector, we usually have a buyer and seller. The buyer is interested, at some level, in purchasing the product or service. However, in the world of public diplomacy today, we have many complex audiences, but more often than not, we don't have any agreement that they will ever listen to our sales proposition.
 
So what is it - what constitutes persuasion?

First you start with the disciplines of good communication.  We start by saying our message clearly and factually and you're likely to get an appropriate response - such as, quite simply, "I heard you."

But researchers learned years ago that to just ask people what they heard and ask them to repeat it back is hard. Moving from "I heard you" to "I understand" requires finding a place of openness or relevance or personal recognition.

We first have to even battle our own culture to get to persuasive communication.  I'll never forget when Neal Walsh -- who is now a member of my staff, I'm happy to report -- told me about a sign over a door in the Berlin Embassy:  "No one has ever been fired for saying nothing to the press."

That's the antithesis of what I'm talking about.  After all, life tells us that sometimes just showing up and taking the heat is the first step in changing attitudes -- as you all know, and you do all the time.

We certainly don't get rewarded for innovating either. Such as when we organized a first-ever, worldwide conference of Public Affairs Officers.  A pretty simple idea, one used by virtually every modern marketing company in the world.  But for Washington critics, it was a dangerous, expensive idea.

As it turned out, the conference was a wonderfully productive meeting.  We discussed what works and overall goals.  We heard from our leaders and we inspired one another.

Here, with the Washington File, is an example of the depth of data our posts use day in, day out. [Graphic not available]

The posts turn this material into many-faceted communication -- through speeches of the ambassador, in op-ed pieces, in content for digital video conferences, in seminars, and in briefings for journalists.

I'm very proud of our performance in both getting the facts out quickly -- and in multiple language versions.  Here is the "home page" for our monthly Electronic Journals, where we handle complex, wide-ranging subjects in depth.

But simply informing is not enough, if only because we can't rely on the openness and neutrality of our audiences. Our job is to inform and influence.

The communications process, unfortunately, is not a simple three-stage process: "Speaker-Message-Listener."

The message is actually two parts.  It's your stimulus and their response.  Audiences and listeners insist on adapting your message to their history, their point of view, their closely held passions, myths, biases.

So three steps become four: "Speaker-Message-Stimulus-Response."

In other words, to influence as well as inform, we're going to have to accept the relative indifference of the intended audience -- or even their hostility.

This means changing the end of the telescope that you've been peering through.  Instead of shouting to get your message out, you focus on the response you wish to evoke.
 
It's not what you say, but the response you desire. Focusing on the desired response brings you to the threshold of persuasion.

This orientation is considerably less self-focused.  We do adapt our policies and our statements to the sensitivities of our many constituencies.  It happens every day out in the field, and our diplomats are very skilled at doing this one-on-one.

Still, it's not that easy to accomplish a desired response one-on-one or on a broad scale.  Almost every novel, story, debate, and political process deals with how often these interactions go wrong. We are constantly trying to strike that balance between what you think you are communicating and the actual response you get from your audience. If you've ever been married, you know how easy it is to talk past one another.

This lesson is one we keep learning.  In November 2001 we tried to portray the consequences of terrorism, so we experimented with "what we wanted to say." These posters were drafted quickly for use in a Lebanon focus group that was already scheduled.

Text on poster: Over 7,000 lives lost to terrorism. Over 2,000 of them were children.


Text on poster: Terrorism Has No Future:The lifespan of a human being is 68 years. The lifespan of a terrorist is 28 years.

The stimulus looked good to me, but the response was:  "I see pictures like this every day." (No shock value).  "What one person calls terrorists, another person calls freedom fighters."

With this wake-up call, we then moved to encompass a broader view of the toll of terrorism and a clearer definition that a terrorist builds nothing -- and is willing to murder innocents.

When we do research we are looking for common values, shared moments -- bridges we can build so that more open dialogue can begin.

Let me warn you that more data is not better.  Often it's not even actionable.  It may define the problem in a gross way, but if the data do not lead you to possible solutions, they are not helpful.

To define the problem too well is to almost freeze all hope of a solution. Take research on the attitudes of young people in the Middle East.  By the time you've described their lives -- the sense of powerlessness and anger -- the myths they sustain - you can quickly conclude that nothing we do can possibly make a difference.  It can be completely paralyzing.

We approach the task of creating mutual understanding with the recognition that we must know where they are coming from -- myths, biases, closely held beliefs -- and try to engage from that point. Our desired response as we seek to dispel misinformation is pretty modest: "I didn't know that . . . tell me more."

But who is "they?"  Well, we're determined to reach beyond government heads and the elites to the "Street."  This is where the information revolution is happening -- and where our share of these voices is smaller and smaller.  So, America must find ways to reach and engage a wider, younger, more diverse worldwide audience.
 
There are, for example, about 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today, and they are overwhelmingly young.  In Egypt, as in much of the Middle East, 35 percent of the population is under 15 years of age.  As these youth sit down in front of satellite television or log onto the Internet, we better find a way for our country and our interests to be represented in a more effective manner.
 
Elites and opinion-makers always count, but they no longer hold a monopoly on making policy or forming attitudes.  Right now, unfortunately, there are many important conversations going on -- many held in shrill and sometimes inflammatory voices - in which we have no presence.

For example, how can we achieve the ambitious goal of reaching the young?  And who will be the messenger?  Fortunately for us, our own secretary of state is world-renowned and liked and so comfortable and confident that he could be a superior messenger -- in a situation many officials would run from.  So in February of this year, Secretary Powell appeared live on MTV to take on any all questions in two hours.

Secretary Powell tackled everything from AIDS in Africa to the U.S. as a destroyer with a television studio audience of young people -- about 75 in Washington and 190 in studios in six other cities around the world -- Cairo, London, Milan, Moscow, New Delhi, and Sao Paulo -- and a viewing audience of some 375 million globally.  Here is how he answered a question about the U.S. as the "Great Satan":

MR. NORRIS: Mr. Secretary, we're going to check in with our London studios for our first question from there from a young person standing by with Edith. Edith.

MS. BOWMAN: Thanks, John. Yeah, we have Edith here who has our first question from the U.K. She is from Norway. Edith, what's your question?

QUESTION: Hi. Hello, Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY POWELL: Hello, Edith.

QUESTION: I'm wondering, when I talk to my friends about the U.S., we think about how do you feel about representing a country commonly perceived as the Satan of contemporary politics?

SECRETARY POWELL: Seen as what?

QUESTION: As the Satan of contemporary politics.

SECRETARY POWELL: Satan? Oh. Well, I reject the characterization. Quite the contrary. I think the American people, the United States of America, presents a value system to the rest of the world that is based on democracy, based on economic freedom, based on the individual rights of men and women. That is what has fueled this country of ours for the last 225 years.

I think that's what makes us such as draw for nations around the world. People come to the United States. They come to be educated. They come to become Americans. We are a country of countries, and we touch every country, and every country in the world touches us.

So, far from being the Great Satan, I would say that we are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women from the armed forces of the United States to other parts of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression. We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism. We saved Europe in World War I and World War II. We were willing to do it, glad to do it. We went to Korea. We went to Vietnam. All in the interest of preserving the rights of people.

And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say" "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are. So, far from being the Satan, I think we are the protector of a universal value system that more and more people are recognizing as the correct value system: democracy, economic freedom, the individual rights of men and women to pursue their own destiny. That's what we stand for, and that's what we try to help other countries achieve as well.

Not many of us could be as believable and therefore as persuasive as Secretary Powell. My job would be a lot easier if I had Secretary Powell standing by all the time to relay that type of message at a moment's notice.

The MTV global program also answered our need to generate large audiences.  We can't be content with a speaker who reaches 200; we need 2 million and all our posts are asked to take on the goal of magnification.
 
Another guideline we set ourselves is to access a more diverse set of communications channels and techniques to reach these larger audiences.

Our Arabic youth magazine, now in development, came about because we surveyed the reading material in the Arab world and found that the U.S. is virtually invisible.  As those books covered the reconstruction of Afghanistan, for instance, not one article mentioned our presence or our clear leadership role in the country's development.

We are also creating virtual-reality pictures of American life - a moment from, say, the show Oklahoma; an actor reading the Gettysburg Address; a walk down a typical American town; and access to library facilities.

We'll see these "American Rooms" installed in schools, universities, libraries - maybe even shopping malls.

It is important to note that we are tapping into the expertise of the private sector on both of these initiatives.  An important part of our job is to activate the powerful and talented private sector of this country. I called Don Logan, the new head of AOL Time Warner, and asked him to help us leverage their knowledge of the magazine business.  Consequently, he named a seasoned senior executive to join our magazine's Editorial Board.
 
The American Rooms concept, on the other hand, will evolve from the incredible creative contributions of our Office of International Information Programs and the Smithsonian. We'll try to add the Walt Disney Company, and Hollywood, at the right time.

Quiet discussions in foreign-ministry antechambers alone no longer cut it.  A foreign policy that cannot be explained or sustained in the court of public opinion is simply not an option.

• More than 4 1/2 million people in the Middle East now use the Internet;
• Sixty percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have access to satellite television;
• Coverage of what is termed the second intifada among the Palestinians has drawn the largest Arab audience ever to see television uncensored by governments.

That is why we have to help to train their journalists.  The TV Co-Op for Pakistan Television, which does not have the resources to maintain a Washington bureau, was a very successful initiative we recently undertook.  We needed to convey some sense of American society beyond the distortions and stereotypes that so often dominate the media in South Asia - and elsewhere for that matter.
 
We ensured that the TV crews had genuine access to senior officials -- meaning interviews with Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Armitage, and USAID director Nastios.  They were able to travel freely and develop features on the Pakistan-American community, Pakistani victims of the World Trade Center attack, and the Islamic Center in Baltimore.  Each feature was uploaded by satellite for immediate broadcast in Pakistan.
 
This is coverage of a live broadcast of a Pakistani journalist interview with the world's most talented diplomat . . . this five-year-old Muslim girl.

[Editor's note: The transcript of the clip is formatted for  DSL/cable or dial-up modem and as an audio-only file.  The text-only version is available at available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/obs/vid/16012.htm  The photo at right is from the video.]

Equally important, I think, the Pakistan television crew themselves were moved by the intensity of their experience and their interactions with Americans in many different venues.
 
This is the kind of personal, face-to-face interaction that no amount of technology can replicate, and which has an unseen but powerful multiplier effect. 
 

Sometimes we need to educate our own powerful constituencies at home.  This [publication -- "Indonesian Journalists Visit USA"] depicts a trip by 12 Indonesians - not just that they came - but a translation of the articles published on their return.

 
If the research tracks the feelings and emotions that underlie the conclusions, we can virtually "walk in their shoes."  You don't speak the same way to someone you that don't know well.  That's why we work hand-in-hand with colleagues who are on the ground in the respective countries and intimately understand all of the nuances of each culture and region.
 

Finally, persuasion always has an emotional side.  So we can't be afraid of the emotional side of the issues.  In the private sector, marketing executives know that emotion is the primary leverage when defining  and discriminating about their products.  We can't leave the truth, but many issues today are intensely emotional . . . like religion.

In August, for example, our embassy in Malaysia sponsored a two-day conference, "Religious Pluralism in Democratic Societies."

Instead of [just] talking about the value of religious pluralism, we arranged a live demonstration of pluralism in action. The conference brought together more than 270 scholars, officials, journalists, and religious figures for an open and emotional discussion of democracy, diversity, and mosque-state relations.

According to the embassy, it was first time in anyone's memory that spiritual leaders of Malaysia's five major religions has ever appeared on the same stage together.  There were also representatives and speakers from Indonesia, India, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the U.S. And it was widely covered by the press.

We are always aware that: "It's not what you say . . . it's what they hear."

Many Muslims believe the U.S. is anti-Islam. These deeply held beliefs are, in fact, not true. There are many Muslims living in the U.S. and they are successful and free to practice their religion in this country -- more free to do so than in some Arab countries.

No meaningful dialogue can start without addressing this deeply held belief.  To dislodge such strongly held biases, we need to:

• Attain new information;
• Provide it in a relevant manner; and
• Deliver it through a credible source.

Few things are as emotional as a clutched-to-the-chest belief, so we cannot simply assert we are not anti-Islam. When President Bush visited the mosque several days after 9/11, that message was heard.  It was an act of respect and support.  But we need ways to sustain the attention.  First, we look for a way to build a bridge. What do we have in common? 

At first glance, some of our value ratings are far apart.  For example, Saudi Arabia ranks "modesty" as its 6th most important value in their society; the U.S. ranks "modesty" 40th.  Saudi Arabia ranks "obedience" 36th.  Yet "freedom" is ranked 3rd by the U.S., but only 25th by Saudi Arabia and 37th by Indonesia.

Hence, relaying a message on "freedom" may work in the USA, but it will probably not resonate with the Arab world.  But the good news is that there are very significant values that these two cultures do have in common: faith, family, and learning. Both countries ranked them as third in their top six values, with "family" first for the U.S. and "faith" first for Saudi Arabia.

Can we communicate that we care about faith in our country, that religious tolerance is fundamental to us, in such a way that "they hear us?" Well, we can if we ask Americans who are Muslims to do the speaking.  [View a video clip of Dr. Zerhouni formatted for DSL/cable or dial-up modem.  Also available in text format.]

Posters of other Muslim Americans featured in mini-documentaries.

Front and back covers (above) and article (below)  from an edition of "Muslim Life in America" 

We have also prepared a documentary, "Covering Catastrophes," from the view of the journalists covering the events of 9/11.  This will be sent overseas and to schools in the U.S. as a discussion starter on the consequences of terrorism. There's plenty of emotion -- fear, anger, grief -- surrounding the fact that, a year ago, terrorists slaughtered 3,000 Americans and other citizens in less than two hours.

To physically visit Ground Zero is be transformed. No one can go there and come out the same person. How do you convey such an experience to so many people who cannot visit?  Not with words, but through pictures - notably those of Joel Meyerowitz's 27-photo exhibition, "After September 11: Images from Ground Zero."  By the end of 2002, this exhibit will have been shown in 135 cities in 64 countries.

From the comments they have written after seeing these pictures, we know that when people visit the exhibit, they are not simply seeing photos of heartbreak and heroism, they are bearing witness.  They are participating in the transformation of an act of atrocity and mass murder into a human renewal and rededication to the values that all people cherish.

We have just been through the heart-wrenching experience of reliving the September 11 anniversary.  We have tried to document and honor this event with journals and publications, which our posts have adapted and expanded in many impressive ways.

Let me conclude with a word about the requirement for partnerships.  There are two points here.  We cannot accomplish the tasks before us by ourselves.  Also, messages delivered by independent third parties will often carry an authenticity and credibility that government pronouncements cannot.

So we are partnering with the Council of American Muslims for Understanding in our effort to communicate with Arab and Muslim audiences.

Especially now, in a post-September 11 world, it is vital to complement the facts and policy explanations with the tools of emotion, to provide context, connection, and appeals to the universal values and aspirations that join us all into something we call an international community.
 
Thank you.