By Cliff Montgomery – May 2nd, 2009
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 13th released a study discussing how the U.S. mayrepair its badly damaged diplomatic relations with the rest of the world.
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the ranking Republican member of the panel, produced a thoughtful introductionfor the study. The American Spark reproduces that introduction below:
“Recent polling suggests that support for the United States throughout the world is on a slight increase butremains well below the fifty percent mark in many countries, even among those nations normally consideredstrong allies. This less-than positive attitude towards our nation has impacts ranging from national securitythreats, to lost trade opportunities, to a significant drop in tourism, to parents overseas refusing to allow theirchildren to be educated in U.S. universities.”
The sources of this problem are many. Some of these include honest disagreements with our policies and ouractions. But many are based on misrepresentations of our goals, values and motives targeted at thoseprepared to believe the worst about us. Yet, in spite of recent actions to counter these mis-perceptions, ourefforts to present our point of view have not been getting through. It is time to re-think how we conduct ourPublic Diplomacy.
“With this in mind, I sent Paul Foldi of my Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff to travel to the MiddleEast and Latin America in December 2008 to discuss U.S. Public Diplomacy efforts with our Embassy andlocal officials. His report focuses on the need for greater direct U.S. engagement with average citizensoverseas who now have virtually no contact with Americans.
“In order to overcome years of mistrust, this re-engagement should be on the same scope and scale ascurrently conducted by the British, French and German governments, all of which currently offer languageinstruction and information about their countries in their own government-run facilities throughout the world.
“Iran is also dramatically increasing its outreach efforts through its network of Cultural Centers in Africa, Asiaand the Middle East, many of which are located in the very locations where we are reducing our publicpresence.
“The United States used to have a similar worldwide program through its ‘American Centers,’ which taughtEnglish, housed libraries and hosted U.S. film series, and featured exhibitions and lectures by visiting Americanauthors, scientists, human rights lawyers, and other speakers.
“[But] The consolidation of the United States Information Agency into the State Department–along withsecurity concerns–resulted in the demise of almost all the Centers (the excellent American Centers inAlexandria, New Delhi and Rangoon are among the few exceptions) and led to their rebirth as InformationResource Centers (or ‘IRCs’) most often housed inside our new Embassies.
“These Embassy compounds place a premium on protecting our diplomats and often convey an atmosphere ill-suited to encouraging the casual visitor, with almost half of the 177 IRCs operating on a ‘by appointment only’basis.
“Additionally, usage figures demonstrate that our IRCs in the Middle East which are located inside ourEmbassies receive six times fewer visitors than similar facilities in the region located outside our compounds.
“This lack of easily accessible facilities, where foreigners can read about United States history and governmentand access newspapers and the Internet in an environment free from their own government’s censorship hashurt us—particularly when over 80% of the world’s population is listed by Freedom House [a neo-conservativeresearch and publishing organization] as having a press that is either ‘Not Free’ or only ‘Partly Free.’
“Where once we were seen as the world’s leader in intellectual discourse and debate, we are now viewed aswithdrawn and unconcerned with any views other than our own. While the re-creation of the U.S. InformationAgency (USIA) is not realistic, a program to re-establish the American Centers that uses the teaching ofEnglish to offset operating costs would go far to demonstrate that we are committed to re-engaging in adialogue with the world.
“Such a program would entail re-locating a small number of Embassy officials outside our diplomaticcompounds in those locations where the security climate permits and where we are able to provide them withappropriately secure facilities. If we hope to change opinions towards us, we must be able to interact with theworld.
“We have learned much in recent years about keeping our personnel overseas safe. As such, increasedaccessibility need not come at the cost of security.
“Mr. Foldi’s report provides important insights into the current state of our Public Diplomacy and offers valuablerecommendations based on his travels and years of work in the field. As the title of his report suggests, wehave been too long on the sidelines of Public Diplomacy in recent years, and it is indeed time for the UnitedStates to ‘Get Back In The Game.’
“I hope that you find this report helpful as Congress works with the new administration to strengthen our PublicDiplomacy efforts and look forward to continuing to work with you on these issues.
Sincerely,
RICHARD G. LUGAR,
Ranking Member.
