Commentary | Breathing New Life into U.S. Public Diplomacy

In study after study in recent years, the United States fares relatively poorly in public opinion polls across the world. And we all know that our military actions overseas and our policies at home contribute to this erosion of the U.S. image abroad. In an age where anyone can log into an online chatroom and talk with people in Afghanistan, opponents of public diplomacy claim that cross-cultural communication programs are no longer needed. I argue that now, more than ever, the U.S. needs to invest more time and funding into a coordinated, robust public diplomacy effort using educational exchanges, television and radio programming, and more. The recently released CSIS Commission on Smart Power report, “A Smarter, More Secure America,” touts a similar line. Check out Part II, Section 3 for some tangible policy recommendations regarding public diplomacy.

A brief history of U.S. public diplomacy…

It all began in August of 1953, when President Eisenhower saw the need for promoting the U.S. image abroad. He established the United States Information Agency (USIA), an independent foreign affairs agency within the Executive Branch to explain U.S. foreign policy to populations abroad. In its heyday, USIA grew to include the Fulbright Program, overseas teaching exchanges, academic exchanges with Russia, and even an international media training center. USIA broadcast Voice of America, WORLDNET Television and Film Service and Radio, and TV Marti (in Cuba), while also supporting Radio Liberty (USSR) and Radio Free Europe. The agency was also responsible for U.S. involvement in the World’s Fairs abroad.

However, with the end of the Cold War, the United States lacked both an identity and a single message to promote throughout the world. Some decisionmakers began to view public diplomacy as a mere tool for purposeless propaganda. A number of programs slowly fizzled out until the ultimate closure of USIA in 1999 with the Foreign Affairs and Restructuring Act. Educational exchanges are now housed in the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and the Foreign Press Centers are now a part of the Bureau for Public Affairs. And finally the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), including Voice of America, is now an independent federal agency.

The situation today…

This leaves us with a fragmented approach that lacks any kind of coordinated strategy for bolstering relations with civil societies outside our borders. We consistently run up against programs like the Hamas-backed Al-Aqsa TV children’s show “The Pioneers of Tomorrow,” which used a Mickey Mouse look-alike to teach children to “be the soldiers of the Lord of the Worlds… destroy the chair of the despots, so they will taste the flame of death.” Although the show was finally pulled off the air last summer (see the chilling final episode on FP’s blog), surely countless other programs across the world continue to blast one-sided, anti-American propaganda. As we find ourselves in a new post-Cold War environment, we need to recalibrate our public diplomacy priorities. If we leave television communications to the free market, shows like “Baywatch” and “Jerry Springer” will dominate overseas syndication. It is the responsibility of the U.S. to offer a reliable alternative information source to counter these messages.

Moving beyond the media-driven approach…

The U.S. needs to strengthen a critical element of its public diplomacy efforts—educational exchange programs. According to the Open Doors 2006 report from the Institute of International Education (IIE), the number of international students enrolled in U.S. universities peaked at 586,323 in 2002 and then declined by 2.4 percent and 1.3 percent in the following years, remaining virtually flat in 2005-2006. This can be attributed, at least in part, to the post-9/11 environment and restrictive visa policies for foreign students.

The U.S. would greatly benefit from expanding the base of international students in American universities. Not only would this strengthen ties with communities overseas, but international students also contribute to the U.S. economy (currently $13.5 billion dollars) through tuition and living expenses. Similarly, we need to increase the number of American students studying abroad in regions outside Western Europe.

Although it’s possible that the world would respond favorably to a new U.S. President or new policies, without an organized and coordinated international public message, foreign perceptions of America will lack the sustained positive levels we need to achieve our long-term objectives.