Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The importance of public diplomacy in US foreign affairs, its current structure within the Department of State, and ongoing debates about improving its effectiveness. Key issues include agency leadership, resources, training, and communication with foreign publics.
Typology: Summaries
1 / 70
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service 7- www.crs.gov R
Public diplomacy is defined in different ways, but broadly it is a term used to describe a government’s efforts to conduct foreign policy and promote national interests through direct outreach and communication with the population of a foreign country. Public diplomacy activities include providing information to foreign publics through broadcast and Internet media and at libraries and other outreach facilities in foreign countries; conducting cultural diplomacy, such as art exhibits and music performances; and administering international educational and professional exchange programs. The United States has long sought to influence the peoples of foreign countries through public diplomacy. After World War II, during which the U.S. military conducted most information and communication activities, authority for U.S. public diplomacy was placed in civilian hands. During the Cold War, the United States Information Agency (USIA) led U.S. public diplomacy efforts, with a primary mission of combating Soviet propaganda and the spread of communism. Once the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, USIA’s role was diminished, and its resources were reduced during the 1990s. Finally, USIA was abolished in 1999 as part of a post-Cold War reorganization, with public diplomacy responsibilities folded into the Department of State.
After the 9/11 terror attacks, there was new interest in promoting effective public diplomacy, as a struggle against extremist ideologies became crucial to the overall fight against terrorism. In recent years, many observers have called for increased resources for and improvement of U.S. public diplomacy efforts. A number of challenges and questions, however, currently affect the future of U.S. government communications with foreign publics. Some argue that abolishing USIA was a mistake and that the State Department is ill-suited to conduct long-term public diplomacy. Also, the Department of Defense and the U.S. military have increased significantly their role in communicating with foreign publics. Determining public diplomacy roles, responsibilities, and coordination procedures among civilian and military actors has therefore become a central issue. In addition, with the rise and rapid evolution of Internet communications, the U.S. government must determine how to effectively communicate with foreign publics in an increasingly complex, accessible, and democratized global communications environment.
A number of issues for Congress have arisen concerning U.S. public diplomacy. Determining levels of public diplomacy funding, for programs and personnel, will continue to be of central importance. Establishing capabilities to improve monitoring and assessment of public diplomacy activities, as well as to leverage expertise and best practices outside government, may be important to increasing public diplomacy effectiveness. Questions of possible reorganization of public diplomacy authorities and capabilities, through legislation or otherwise, may be considered. Requirements for effective interagency cooperation and coordination, as well as creation of a national public diplomacy strategy and whole-of-government approaches may be created to improve effective communication with foreign publics. Several pieces of legislation proposed thus far in the 111 th^ Congress concern changes to, improvements in, and funding for public diplomacy. These bills include H.R. 2647 and S. 1707, which have been enacted into law, as well as H.R. 363, H.R. 489, H.R. 490, H.R. 2387, H.R. 2410, S. 230, and S. 894. Congressional consideration of these bills, and continued interest in U.S. public diplomacy, are expected to continue during the 111th^ Congress’s second session.
increase in available sources of information, through the proliferation of global and regional broadcasters using satellite technologies, as well as the global reach of news and information websites on the Internet, has diversified and complicated the shaping of attitudes of foreign populations. Individual communicators now have the ability to influence large numbers of people on a global scale through social networking, providing a direct challenge to the importance of traditional information media and actors. Traditional media, such as newspapers, have created online interactive exchanges between providers and consumers of information by allowing readers to comment on news reporting. New online social media networks such as weblogs, Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook allow individuals to connect with one another on a global scale, providing opportunities for “many-to-many” exchanges of information that bypass the “one-to- many” sources that formerly dominated the information landscape. In addition, the method of information delivery and receipt has been fundamentally changed, with cell phones and other handheld mobile devices capable of sending and receiving large amounts of written, visual, and audio information. Communication of information through these new media, regardless of how they depict the United States, contribute to the impressions about the United States and its society. It is in this ever expanding and accelerating global communications environment that U.S. public diplomacy and international broadcasting must operate, “competing for attention and for credibility in a time when rumors can spark riots, and information, whether it’s true or false, quickly spreads across the world, across the internet, in literally instants.”^2
The attitudes and perceptions of foreign publics created in this new environment are often as important as reality, and sometimes can even trump reality. These attitudes affect the ability of the United States to form and maintain alliances in pursuit of common policy objectives; impact the cost and the effectiveness of military operations; influence local populations to either cooperate, support or be hostile as the United States pursues foreign policy and/or military objectives in that country; affect the ability to secure support on issues of particular concern in multilateral fora; and dampen foreign publics’ enthusiasm for U.S. business services and products. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale, in discussing the implications of foreign perceptions and attitudes on U.S. foreign policy and national security, said,
Governments inclined to support U.S. policies will back away if their populations do not trust us. But if we do this right, if we develop relationships with people around the world, if they trust us as a partner, this dynamic will be reversed. Less cooperative regimes will be forced to moderate their positions under popular pressure. To the extent that we succeed, threats we face today will diminish and new partnerships will be possible. 3
Today, 14 Cabinet-level departments and over 48 independent agencies and commissions participate in at least one form of official public diplomacy, mostly regarding exchanges or training programs. 4 Yet because of the increasing recognition of public diplomacy’s key role in the conduct of U.S. foreign affairs, many in the executive branch, Congress, think tanks, non- governmental organizations, and news media debate different approaches to improving U.S public diplomacy to respond to new challenges, determining public diplomacy authorities and
(^2) Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes, Remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York City, May 10, 2006. (^3) Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Judith A. McHale, “Public Diplomacy: A National
Security Imperative,” Address at the Center for a New American Security, Washington, June 11, 2009. (^4) Interagency Working Group on U.S. Government-Sponsored International Exchanges and Training, FY2008 Annual Report , Washington, D.C., 2008, p. 14, http://www.iawg.gov/reports/inventory/.
responsibilities, defining and executing public diplomacy strategy, and adequately resourcing public diplomacy.
The body of this report is divided into five sections. 5 The first section provides background information on U.S. public diplomacy, its legislative foundations, and the history of modern U.S. public diplomacy including the former USIA. The second section discusses the abolishment of USIA and the transfer of its functions to the Department of State. The third section discusses the current structure of public diplomacy within the Department of State as well as its budget and personnel levels. The fourth section gives a detailed overview of some of the major related policy issues and perceived challenges to the effectiveness of U.S. public diplomacy, and proposed reforms and solutions. Finally, the fifth section describes proposed legislation intended to reform and improve U.S. public diplomacy.
This section provides an overview of the legislative authorities for the conduct of public diplomacy activities within the U.S. government. It continues with a discussion of the historical context of U.S. civilian-led public diplomacy as it developed since World War I, the creation of USIA in 1953, and its activities and organization. It also provides budget and personnel information for the former USIA.
Four acts provide the current foundational authority of the U.S. government to engage in public diplomacy in its many venues, and establish the parameters and restrictions regarding those authorities: the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956; the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948; the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961; and the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994.
The State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as amended (P.L. 84-885; 22 U.S.C. §§ 2651a, 2669 et seq.), authorizes six Under Secretaries of State for the Department of State, specifically requiring that there be an Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy. Section 1(b)(3) of the Act (22 U.S.C. § 2651a(b)(3)), in describing the position of the Under Secretary for Public
(^5) This report focuses primarily on the public diplomacy authorities, organization, resources, and activities of the Department of State and the issues concerning reforming and improving the public diplomacy capabilities of the Department. Although the Department of Defense (DOD), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and several other U.S. government agencies communicate with populations abroad, the primary legal authorities and governmental organization for such engagement rest within the State Department, and the State Department remains the central focus and starting point of most calls for reform of the United States’ approach to communicating with foreign publics. Individual public diplomacy and strategic communication issues, such as countering violent extremism and radical ideologies in the Islamic world, are referenced when integral to overarching public diplomacy issues but would require dedicated reports to be treated comprehensively.
dissemination if it is found to be adequate, and ensured that the government would not have a monopoly in the production and sponsorship of short wave or any other medium of information. 6 Further, in protecting the private sector and helping it, Section 1005 (22 U.S.C. § 1437) states that a duty of the Secretary of State shall be to utilize, to the maximum extent practicable, “the services and facilities of private agencies, including existing American press, publishing, radio, motion picture, and other agencies through contractual arrangements or otherwise.” Further, the government was to utilize the private agencies in each field “consistent with the present and potential market for their services in each country.”
Other Legislative Restrictions on Domestic Dissemination of Public Diplomacy Information
In addition to restrictions contained in the Smith-Mundt Act, there are a number of other provisions that restrict the use of funds for public diplomacy activities intended for domestic audiences.
1985 Zorinsky Amendment
Section 208 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 (P.L. 99-93; 99 Stat. 431; 22 U.S.C. § 1461-1a), popularly known as the Zorinsky Amendment,^7 limits the use of USIA funds for domestic purposes:
S EC. 208. BAN ON DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES BY THE USIA. Except as provided in section 501 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1461) and this section, no funds authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States, and no program material prepared by the United States Information Agency shall be distributed within the United States. This section shall not apply to programs carried out pursuant to the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.).^8
Section 1331 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (Division G of P.L. 105-277; 22 U.S.C. §
State Department/Foreign Operations Prohibition
Yearly appropriations language for State Department and foreign operations funding includes a related restriction on using funds for “publicity or propaganda.” For example, Section 7080 of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (Division H of P.L. 111–8, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009; 123 Stat. 831) prohibits using funds for publicity or propaganda purposes “within the United States”:
SEC. 7080. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not authorized before the date of the enactment of this Act by the Congress: Provided, That not to exceed $25,000 may be made available to carry out the provisions of section 316 of Public Law 96–533.^9
Section 316 of the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96–533; 94 Stat. 3149) authorizes U.S. government assistance for private organizations to promote public discussion of world hunger.
(^6) Ibid., Sec. 502. (^7) Senator Edward Zorinsky proposed S.Amdt. 296 to S. 1003 (99 th (^) Cong.), the Senate version of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987. The amendment, with the addition of the introductory clause of the first sentence, was included in the House version of the bill that became P.L. 99-93. (^8) Sec. 232 of Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (P.L. 103-236; 108 Stat. 424) added a new sentence to the end of this section, which states, “The provisions of this section shall not prohibit the United States Information Agency from responding to inquiries from members of the public about its operations, policies, or programs.” (^9) 123 Stat. 910.
The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as amended (P.L. 87-256; 22 U.S.C. § 2451 et seq.), also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act, authorizes U.S. exchange programs as a public diplomacy tool. Section 101 of the Act (22 U.S.C. § 2451) states the Act’s four-fold purpose:
Under Section 102 (22 U.S.C. § 2452), the President is authorized to take action when he considers that certain steps would strengthen international cooperation. Among the activities authorized by this Act are the following:
Section 103 (22 U.S.C. § 2453) authorizes the President to enter into international agreements with foreign governments and international organizations to advance the purposes of this Act, and to provide for equitable participation and support for the implementation of these agreements. Section 104 (22 U.S.C. § 2454) authorizes the President to delegate his authorities to other officers of the government as he determines to be appropriate. The Department of State and USAID are responsible for the vast majority of U.S. sponsored exchanges. However, several
CRS-
Figure 1. Public Diplomacy Timeline
(1917 to present)
Source:
CRS.
U.S. government efforts to communicate with foreign publics have historically increased as perceived threats to national security grow, particularly during times of war. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson established the Committee on Public Information (Creel Committee), which represented the U.S. government’s first large-scale efforts at information dissemination to both domestic and foreign audiences. President Wilson established the Committee initially to counter German propaganda, but it began disseminating its own distortions of the truth and propaganda to both U.S. and foreign audiences. At the end of the First World War, the Creel Committee was disbanded.
During the Second World War, President Franklin Roosevelt established the Office of War Information (OWI) to provide American and foreign audiences with news of the war, U.S. war policies, and the activities and aims of the U.S. government. Voice of America (VOA), which is the oldest of the U.S. government radio broadcasting services, was an integral part of OWI’s programs. In 1948, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9608, terminating the OWI and transferring its international information functions to the Department of State. VOA, which also was transferred to the State Department, then became the official overseas broadcast arm of the United States.
As the United States became more deeply involved in the Cold War with the Soviet Bloc nations, the United States and the Congress began creating programs to counter Soviet influence and once again compete in a war of hearts and minds. The original Fulbright Act of 1946 was enacted to mandate peacetime international exchange programs. In 1948, Congress passed the Smith-Mundt Act, described previously. While serving as the charter for peacetime overseas information programs, some contend that this act was intended from the outset to provide the authority for the U.S. government to engage vigorously in a non-military battle with the Soviet Union, which then U.S. diplomat and Soviet specialist George Kennan described as having declared psychological war on the United States, a war of ideology requiring a fight to the death. 11 This was a significant departure in U.S. public information policy in that it provided for a permanent peacetime information effort.
On August 1, 1953, following the recommendations of several commissions, President Dwight Eisenhower created the independent United States Information Agency (USIA) to organize and implement U.S. government international information and exchange programs in support of U.S. foreign policy. 12
With its establishment in 1953, USIA became the agency responsible for executing U.S. public diplomacy efforts to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics in promotion of the U.S.
(^11) Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs James K. Glassman, Keynote Address at the 2009
Smith-Mundt Symposium, Washington, January 13, 2009. (^12) On May 1, 1953, President Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10476, Administration of Foreign Aid and Foreign Information Functions, and Executive Order 10477, Authorizing the Director of the United States Information Agency.
In addition, the bureau’s Speakers Program sent several hundred recognized U.S. speakers to foreign countries each year. U.S. embassies could organize speaking engagements on college campuses, with the press, or with the general public. While their trips were sponsored by the U.S. government, these speakers expressed their own views, which proved attractive to audiences, according to many public diplomacy officers:
When the United States Information Agency existed, there were on-going debates between public diplomacy officers and political officers as to whether official speakers and official events should stick to the party line or incorporate opposing ideas as well.... When USIA- sponsored academics respectfully differed with current policy, the result from the audiences was unalloyed admiration for the courage of the U.S. in showcasing free and open discussion.^15
The Information Bureau also made speakers available through video and telephone conferences to ensure a more timely discussion of current issues. A link for a video conference using satellites could be established through several embassies at one time.
The Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs was responsible for the administration of relationships with a variety of educational and cultural exchanges. The bureau administered both the academic exchanges and the professional and cultural exchanges. Examples of academic exchanges are the Fulbright Program, which provides for the exchange of students, scholars, and teachers between the United States and other countries, and the Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program, which facilitates academic study and internships in the United States for mid-career professionals from developing nations. The professional and cultural exchanges included the International Visitors Program, which brought current and promising leaders of other countries to the United States to travel around the country, meet their counterparts, and learn about and experience U.S. society and culture. The bureau also ran programs for cultural ambassadors, such as musicians, artists, sports figures, and writers to share American culture with foreign publics.
As the name suggests, the Bureau of Management provided agency-wide management support and administrative services. USIA had control of its own human resources program with its own recruiting, employment, assignments and career tracks that were separate from the Department of State. It also controlled its own budget and support of its own operations.
(^15) Patricia H. Kushlis and Patricia Lee Sharpe, “Public Diplomacy Matters More than Ever,” Foreign Service Journal , vol. 83, no. 10 (Oct. 2006), p. 32.
Figure 2. Organization Chart for the United States Information Agency in 1999
Source: United States Information Agency, USIA Program and Budget in Brief, Fiscal Year 1999 , p. 3.
During the life of USIA, the relationships between USIA and U.S. international broadcasting varied. For many years, all broadcasting services were housed within USIA. Later, surrogate broadcasting was under an independent Board of International Broadcasting (BIB), which had an indirect relationship with USIA leadership. With the enactment of the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994, as discussed previously, all U.S. international broadcasting services were consolidated under a new Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) within USIA.
The BBG had responsibility for supervising, directing, and overseeing the operations of the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB). The IBB included the worldwide broadcasting services of the Voice of America (VOA) and television’s Worldnet, Cuba Broadcasting, an Engineering and Technical Operations Office, and various support services. The BBG also had funding and oversight authority over surrogate radio grantees: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and Radio Free Asia (RFA). Among BBG’s responsibilities was to review and evaluate the operations of the radios, and assess their quality, effectiveness, and professional integrity. It also was responsible for determining the addition or deletion of the language services under the IBB. 16 In 1999, the U.S. government and surrogate services broadcast hours included
(^16) United States Information Agency, USIA Congressional Budget Justification, Fiscal Year 1999 , “Broadcasting,” p. 1.
visa issuance policies. In order to communicate convincingly across a broader segment of contacts, USIS officers had to “study and absorb the political and cultural climate of the host country, the better to craft messages and offer insights about America which can be coherently read in the local context.”^20
Prior to the dissolution of USIA and the consolidation of its functions into the Department of State, the FY1999 appropriations request for USIA was approximately $1.12 billion. Table 1 provides USIA budget and appropriations information sorted by major account. 21
Table 1. FY1997-FY1999 Appropriations for USIA and Related Programs ($ in thousands)
Base year for Constant $ Comparison is FY
FY Actual
FY Actual in Constant $
FY Estimate
FY Estimate in Constant $
FY Request
FY Request in Constant $
International Information Programs (includes salaries and expenses for management and support of agency)
442,183 576,253 453,146 584,694 461,728 586,
Educational and Cultural Exchanges
218,870 285,231 197,731 255,132 199,024 252,
Technology Center 5,050 6,581 5,050 6,516 5,050 6,
Broadcasting 355,640 463,470 384,884 496,616 388,690 494,
Associated NGOs and Funds
42,249 55,057 44,470 57,380 48,500 61,
Buying Power Maintenance Fund
5,500 7,168 — — — —
TOTAL 1,099,492 1,432,858 1,125,281 1,451,950 1,119,300 1,422,
Source: United states Information Agency Summary of Positions and Appropriations, 1997-1999, USIA Program & Budget in Brief, Fiscal Year 1999 , Washington, D.C, p. 13., and CRS calculations.
The authorized personnel strength reported by USIA for FY1999 is illustrated in Table 2. 22
(^20) Mike Canning, The Overseas Post: The Forgotten Element of Our Public Diplomacy , The Public Diplomacy Council, Washington, D.C., December 1, 2008, p.4, http://www.publicdiplomacycouncil.org/ uploads/canningoverseasposts.pdf. (^21) USIA Budget in Brief for 1999, op cit. pp. 13-14. (^22) Ibid., p. 14.
Table 2. USIA Authorized Personnel Strength 1997-
1997 1998
1999 Request Domestic 3,350 3,336 3, Overseas American 736 739 748 Foreign Nationals 2,849 2,753 2, TOTAL USIA POSITIONS 6,935 6,826 6,
The Foreign Affairs Agencies Consolidation Act of 1998 (Subdivision A of Division G of P.L. 105-277) (Consolidation Act) abolished USIA. 23 The Act transferred USIA’s functions to the Secretary of State. It also created the position of Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy in the Department of State. A number of factors have been identified as important to this transfer of public diplomacy responsibilities, not all of which bore directly on the improvement or importance of having a robust U.S. public diplomacy capability. First, the end of the Cold War meant that the central justification for a strong public diplomacy mechanism, namely, the ideological fight against the Soviet Union, no longer existed. After more than four decades of engaging the Soviet Union and its allies in ideological warfare, the Cold War came to an end with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The United States was the sole superpower, and the spread of democracy seemed to be on the march around the world. Many believed that the United States and the rest of the free world had won the war of ideas, and terms such as the “end of history” became popular. Some considered USIA an expendable “Cold War relic.” USIA had a difficult time defining its mission in this new context, attempting to focus on new issues such as trade and economic liberalization. 24
Second, while some saw a greatly diminished need for public diplomacy resources in general, others perceived a specific weakness in the public diplomacy apparatus represented by an independent USIA that operated separately from the State Department. As one commentator argued, U.S. public diplomacy is characterized by two types of activities: advocating for U.S. foreign policy, and building mutual understanding between Americans and foreign peoples. 25 Arguments for keeping public diplomacy in an organization separate from the State Department often focus on the importance of developing long-term relationships with the people of foreign countries, in order to create a foundation of mutual understanding, values, and interests that prepares the ground for acceptance of specific U.S. policies and actions. Placing those duties too close to the short-term policy activities of traditional diplomats within the State Department might diminish the importance of long-term efforts to achieve mutual understanding. On the other
(^23) The Consolidation Act also abolished the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and folded its functions into a new Bureau of Arms Control and Disarmament within the State Department. (^24) Nancy E. Snow, United States Information Agency , Foreign Policy in Focus, a Project of the Institute for Policy Studies, Volume 2, Number 40, Washington, D.C., August 1997, p. 2, http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol2/ v2n40usia_body.html. (^25) Neil R. Klopfenstein, USIA’s Integration into the State Department: Advocating Policy Trumps Promoting Mutual Understanding , National Defense University, National War College, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 4-8.
