Why we need to reestablish the USIA

Military Review, Nov-Dec, 2006 by Michael J. Zwiebel

"Who has anything against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ?" (1)

--attributed to an Iranian citizen

FAVORABLE PERCEPTIONS of the United States were on the decline in the Muslim world prior to the attacks of September 11th. Operations Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Iraqi Freedom in Iraq have not helped change those perceptions, particularly with religious extremists. Accordingly, the U.S. Congress directed the Department of State (DOS) to reassess its public diplomacy efforts in the Muslim regions. DOS then established an advisory group, which produced a report in September 2003 with recommendations calling for a "transformation of public diplomacy" through increased funding. The aim was to establish a new strategic direction for public diplomacy, and the report recommended that the president and Congress lead this new initiative.

This article reviews public diplomacy as a form of "soft power," shows how it can be used to promote U.S. interests in the Arab-Muslim world, and assesses DOS's public diplomacy efforts since the advisory group published its report. It concludes by calling for a more effective organization, one similar to the old U.S. Information Agency (USIA), so that public diplomacy can once again be employed as an effective instrument of national power.

Soft Power

When one thinks of sovereign state power, the first thought is likely that of military capabilities. But the sovereign state has many instruments of power available to it, including diplomatic, informational, military, and economic (DIME) instruments. In Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, Joseph Nye, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and a recognized expert on international affairs and the effects of soft power, provides some useful observations on power and its relationship to the sovereign state. Power, Nye says, is "the ability to influence the behavior of others to get the outcomes you want." (2) Influence can be accomplished through forceful means, or hard power, such as military action or economic restrictions. Nye then describes an alternate source of power: soft power. He explains that soft power uses attraction to "get the outcomes you want without the tangible threats or payoffs." (3)

According to Nye, a state derives its soft power from three sources: culture, political values, and foreign policy) The strength of the state's soft power depends on the attraction or repulsion its culture, political values, and foreign policy generate in the citizens of the targeted country. To make soft power work effectively, a state must carefully select the methods that will attract others to its interests. Soft power, it must be said, is not an exclusive replacement for hard power; rather, it can strengthen applications of hard power, and it may be less expensive. Soft power can be directed at either an opposing state or at its individual citizens. Public diplomacy is one form of soft power employed by the United States. The Nation used it during the cold war to communicate American values to the populations of Communist countries (and to neutral countries and allied populations as well).

Public Diplomacy

The United States Information Agency Alumni Association (USIAAA), formed by members of the old USIA, provides information on public diplomacy. According to the group, the term "public diplomacy" was first used in 1965 by Edmund Gullion, Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. The USIAAA cites a brochure from the Edward R. Murrow Center for Public Diplomacy at Fletcher that offers this definition: "Public Diplomacy ... deals with the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies. It encompasses dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy; the cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries; the interaction of private groups and interests in one country with those of another; the reporting of foreign affairs and its impact on policy; communication between those whose job is communication, as between diplomats and foreign correspondents; and the processes of inter-cultural communications." (5)

By distinguishing public diplomacy from other common terms used for information exchange, the U SIAAA has contributed to a better understanding of the term. The group compares public diplomacy with public affairs by suggesting that public affairs focuses primarily on domestic audiences, whereas public diplomacy focuses on foreign audiences. It then distinguished public diplomacy from diplomacy. The latter focuses on government-to-government relations, while public diplomacy focuses on influencing foreign publics. USIAAA does not attempt to distinguish public diplomacy from propaganda. Instead, it candidly admits that public diplomacy is a form of propaganda based on facts. (6)

In June 1997, the Planning Group for Integration of the United States Information Agency into the State Department provided its own definition of public diplomacy: "[It] seeks to promote the national interest of the United States through understanding, informing and influencing foreign audiences." (7)