Public Diplomacy: Reinvigorating America's Strategic Communications Policy
By Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D., Helle C. Dale, Colleen Graffy, Michael Doran, Ph.D., Joseph Duffey, Ph.D., and Tony Blankley
Heritage Foundation
March 14, 2008
EDWIN J. FEULNER: I welcome you to this very important discussion on public diplomacy. First, a little bit of ancient history.
In the first Reagan Administration, I was invited by the President to serve as a Member, and then as the Chairman, of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. I had the honor of being a Member and the Chair on that panel for almost 10 years, under both Reagan Administrations, the Bush Administration, and well into the Clinton Administration. I had the opportunity to see public diplomacy up close and to see the incredible importance it had in terms of conveying America's message internationally and in terms of going beyond the customary notion of U.S. State Department talking to a foreign ministry or government talking to government. In effect, it was a people-to-people kind of communication.
The Nature of Public Diplomacy
Public diplomacy for me is more than one more area of study; it is a central part, not only of our foreign and defense policy infrastructure, but something that I've been very, very much involved in. I also commend our colleagues at our sister institutions, my own alma mater, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which is going to be holding a seminar on a similar subject within the next few days with the new head of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty from Prague, and others. Public diplomacy, in fact, has come back center stage even as experts admit that we have some real challenges in terms of getting caught up again, if you will, in terms of public diplomacy.
Shortly after the American Revolution, John Adams was asked how many supported the war and how many were opposed. Adams said about one-third of the population had supported it, one-third had opposed it, and about one-third was waiting to see who won. In many ways that's the situation America faces today in the court of world opinion. There are still those around the world who wish to work with us, there are those who attempt to do us harm, and there are those who are simply waiting to see which side will prevail. Today, as has been the case throughout our history, America has a peaceful message, yet we are doing some harm to the nation and to our credibility by not effectively advocating for ourselves.
This manifests itself in many ways, but especially concerning the War on Terrorism. As that distinguished group of Americans said in the 9/11 Commission Report, "If the United States does not act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic world, the extremists will gladly do the job for us." Unfortunately, that reality is part of why the opinion of America and our intentions remains abysmal in most Muslim countries. A recent lack of effective public diplomacy abroad continues to affect world opinion in a negative fashion—even among many of our allies.
According to the Pew Center, only 9 percent of the Turkish people and just 15 percent of Pakistanis have a favorable view of the United States. Thirty percent of Germans have a positive view of America, down from 42 percent as recently as two years ago. Our favorable ratings continue to drop even in our allies, Great Britain and Canada.
Studies like this have repeatedly found that U.S. government agencies and departments are hampered in their efforts to improve public diplomacy by a combination of poor leadership, inadequate coordination, and insufficient resources. Complicating the problem is the fact that we have to become more targeted, more deliberate and coordinated than ever before when reaching out to foreign audiences.
In short, the U.S. must develop a strategy that reflects our current position in the world that utilizes dynamic new ways to deliver information to individuals and to articulate the ways we want to be perceived. What should that strategy look like? What are our priorities? Do we need new tools to get the job done? Have we learned from our public diplomacy successes and failures during the Cold War? Answering these questions, while immensely challenging, is critical to America's future. It is, however, a challenge I'm sure our panelists today will not shy away from.
It's now my very great pleasure to introduce our colleague, Helle Dale, who will moderate this discussion. She is the Deputy Director of our Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and the Director of our Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies.
Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D., is President of The Heritage Foundation.
HELLE C. DALE: Washington has come to realize that there is a problem with our public diplomacy efforts. As Dr. Feulner mentioned in his introduction, public diplomacy is an issue that The Heritage Foundation has been engaged in for several years. Speaking as a former journalist, it is also an issue that I care a great deal about, covering the way the world looks at the United States.
If there's one thing that the many, many studies on public diplomacy have taught us—going back to the studies done since September 11, 2001—it is that U.S. government agencies have been hampered in their efforts by lack of coordination and by lack of a vision and leadership from the highest levels. It's unfortunate that we have spent so much of our efforts on the high power/soft power debate while neglecting the impact that soft power, communication, and strategic thinking have on how to communicate and influence audiences abroad.
As part of the campaign on Leadership for America, which The Heritage Foundation has undertaken over the next five to 10 years, public diplomacy is a really important part of our foreign policy agenda, reinvigorating American foreign policy and its public diplomacy functions. I am very privileged to be part of that effort, and the meeting we're having today with a set of excellent speakers is a kickoff event for a yearlong effort that will look at how to assemble a public diplomacy strategy, looking forward to the next administration.
Obviously, we have to give credit where credit is due. I would say to some of our speakers here today that the efforts for the last two years of the Bush Administration at least have intensified greatly, and we have seen improvements in the public diplomacy arena. I'm delighted to be able to welcome one of the key people on Ambassador Karen Hughes' team, which has been very instrumental in formulating something closer to the kind of strategy we need, creating more interagency interaction, and rapid reaction teams to deal with news reports all over the world that are detrimental to the reputation of the United States.
Colleen Graffy assumed her duties as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs of the State Department in September 2005. In this capacity, she oversees public diplomacy and public affairs programs for the Bureau and coordinates efforts with the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy.
She has been very well prepared for dealing with matters European. Before her current position, she was Academic Director and Associate Professor of Law at the London Law Program for Pepperdine University. She is originally from Santa Barbara, where she earned her Bachelor of Arts at Pepperdine and her Master of Arts from Boston University. She also spent a year in Heidelberg at the university, so she clearly has a deep understanding of Europe. She resided in London for 20 years, where she was on the front line of communicating U.S. positions on international issues to a very tough audience. But we know that our audience today will be a little friendlier, and we are looking forward to your presentation.
