Eagle
American Diplomacy
Letters from Readers

October 2009

Highlight map


 

Support American Diplomacy RSS Mailing-list Subscription Email American Diplomacy Facebook


Comment on:
Ambassador (ret.) William Rugh’s commentary “Enabling Public Diplomacy Field Officers to do Their Jobs”

From:
Thomas K. Pickering, former Ambassador to the United Nations, Russia, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria and Jordan; former Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Department of State

Henry E. Catto, former Director of the United States Information Agency (USIA), former Ambassador to the United Kingdom

David I. Hitchcock, 35 years with USIA, Senior FSO, Senior Associate with Center for Strategic and International Studies

Stanley M. Silverman, 47 years with USIA, former Comptroller of the Agency and State-USIA Merger Advisor

Fred A. Coffey Jr., 37 years with USIA, Senior Public Affairs Officer, Professor at the National War College  

Public Diplomacy Is Trying To Reach
And Influence The World But State Department Structure Has Problems

Ten years ago on October 1, the US Information Agency was folded into the Department of State.  Everyone hoped that our public diplomacy outreach would benefit from integration of efforts to inform and relate to the rest of the world, with our often more sensitive, traditional diplomacy.  There is a consensus, however, that the present arrangement has not worked well.

With President Obama, there is a new opportunity to change this situation.   He spoke of launching “a program of public diplomacy” … that would “… open America Houses in cities across the Islamic world, with internet, hi-tech libraries, English lessons.” Numerous study commissions propose expanding the Department of State’s educational exchange programs, person-to-person outreach overseas, private sector cooperation and cultural centers and libraries; and finding funds and personnel to make this happen.  Secretary of State Clinton seeks change along similar lines.  Her predecessors signed a June 25 Politico letter expressing concern over “troubled” American efforts to communicate with other countries, and noting that “staff resources … have shrunk … our exchange programs have declined.” 

We strongly endorse these calls for significant increase in resources and personnel, especially for public diplomacy.  It not only needs more of both, but a more integrated operation, greater emphasis on overseas programs and contacts with future leaders we must know better.  Every advanced communication technique should be employed; but, as broadcast pioneer and USIA Director Edward R. Murrow said, what counts is not so much moving information 10,000 miles but moving it “the last three feet in face-to-face conversation.” 
           
The numbers of public diplomacy officers and centers they operate from have indeed shrunk; yet their mission has hardly ever been more urgent. Furthermore, the Washington organization that supports them lacks cohesiveness and direction. It suffers from a merger that did not recognize how public diplomacy involves managing budgets, exchanges of persons, cultural activities, private sector agreements; and also editing magazines, directing TV programs and producing policy information via the Internet – skills that do not grow naturally in the State Department.

Under (terms of) the 1999 merger, lines of authority for public diplomacy were scattered, PD offices overseas had no “home base” in Washington, and no set of State offices supervised them from Washington.  Two bureaus, Educational and Cultural Affairs and International Information Programs, operate under the Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, but mostly on their own and not closely to the field.  Critically, all Undersecretaries of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the past decade have lacked authority over most public diplomacy personnel, resources and field programs. 

Indeed, clusters of public diplomacy officers with country expertise operate within six regional bureaus headed by State’s already busy Assistant Secretaries.  They report not to the Public Diplomacy Undersecretary but to the Political Affairs Undersecretary.  Public diplomacy field posts have only an informal relationship with these bureaus, and no easy channel to get Washington programs tailored to their specific situation. 
  
Public diplomacy professionals in the Foreign Service once expected to spend most of their careers in this arm of diplomacy.  Now, to get ahead, some find they may need to spend half their Foreign Service careers in non-public diplomacy assignments.  The “élan” of this corps of professionals was largely lost when USIA was fragmented in the State Department.

Recognizing the importance of reaching out persuasively, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have raised the art of communicating overseas to new levels in their visits abroad, showing the way for public diplomatists who, if Senator Lugar has his way, should be operating from forty additional centers and libraries.  

Appointment of Discovery Channel pioneer, Judith McHale, as Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, bodes well for a credible information outreach. Her appeal that we “listen more” and, as the 1962 Kennedy/Murrow mission stated, “… advise the President on the implications of foreign opinion for … US policies and programs” may finally be institutionalized.

After the merger, public diplomacy administrative staffs overseas were downsized; now, “administrative burdens and staffing policies … limit the time public diplomacy officers can devote to outreach efforts…,” stated a May 2009 GAO report.   Personal contact is the heart of public diplomacy; its officers would get out of embassies more, if their administrative requirements were lessened. 

What is needed most is an integrated public diplomacy structure, with clear authority and supervision from the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, who should be the “director” of all public diplomacy budgets, personnel and operations, and should participate in assignments, training and officer evaluations.  We should:

1.    Create a Public Diplomacy Bureau for Field Operations, headed by a senior Foreign Service Public Diplomacy professional (perhaps, Assistant Secretary), who would advise and answer to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and oversee all activities in each country.

2.  Transfer public diplomacy “desks” and budgets from the six geographic bureaus to this new Bureau, to coordinate field programs and provide country-specific expertise to the new Assistant Secretary and Under Secretary, but retain several experienced hands as senior advisors.

3.   Recognize that public diplomacy professionals manage programs, unlike their political and economic colleagues, and require special training (including advanced language skills). They should be able to maintain careers largely in public diplomacy, but compete for senior Foreign Service assignments equally well across all specialties.

These steps will improve public diplomacy support for overseas programs, provide a clear chain of authority overseas from the Under Secretary and give field officers a stronger voice in Washington direction.  The old “élan” can be restored.

To achieve foreign policy objectives, Secretary Clinton will need not only more funds and officers, but also a sharper, better-arranged organization — fully poised to persuasively reach and relate to the rest of the world. bluestar

 



white starAmerican Diplomacy white star
Copyright © 2012 American Diplomacy Publishers Chapel Hill NC
www.americandiplomacy.org