New Beginnings Needed for Engaging the World

By Patricia H. Kushlis

How much do you want to bet that whichever presidential candidate – particularly the two remaining on the Democratic side - wins in November, America’s standing in the world will improve. So much of what we see reflected in opinion poll after opinion poll in country after country reflects the unpopularity of the most unpopular president this country has inflicted on the world at least since the US claimed great power status years ago.

It’s impossible to turn a sow into a silk purse – as every grade school kid should know - and it’s not only W’s policies, but also his persona – the face that appears on the front of those policies – that contributes big time to this country’s huge image problem abroad.

But how long will the international grace period last for the new president? Six weeks? Six months? One year?

Seems to me it all depends on what the incumbent does and how he or she presents himself or herself and his or her policies abroad. The further the new president distances himself or herself from W-send-in-the-bombers-unilateralist and his fellow travelers, the better this country will be received abroad. At least for a little while.

A popular new face at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue might even be enough to send Osama Bin Laden scurrying to the back of his cave to rethink his strategy and Ahmadinejad to Qom to write a new script for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

Now I’m not arguing that the US also doesn’t need to develop effective means of delivering a new president’s message. That’s part of the problem too. It’s just that all the kings’ horses and all the kings’ men cannot begin to repair this country’s image in the world until the king himself is changed.

As I read about the latest round of public diplomacy kurfluffering on Capitol Hill just before the Memorial Day Recess, I couldn’t help but wonder about the point of these legislative activities so late in this administration’s day.

Who cares . . .

whether James Glassman is finally approved by the Senate to replace his pal Karen Hughes as the new Czar of Public Diplomacy at the State Department? Won’t make an iota of difference. Seems to me that the steam is out of this administration. In fact, it’s in the last stages of senility.

There will be no big – or even small – initiatives unless, of course, the bomb-Iran-now-folk finally get their way and are allowed to set off one last large stink in the unstable Middle East. Otherwise new proposals and new policies will have to wait until a new team comes on board – but, a warning; the new president won’t have all day.

So what . . .

if Congressman Smith is pushing a bill on information operations/public diplomacy (take your choice) calling for any number of things most of which have been thought of before – including yet another study of a badly flawed operation – yawn – and shelved. I’ll bet this is foremost another example of way too much money available to a US military that still doesn’t know how to spend it. In this case, the sad thing is that the Pentagon needs to learn when it is time to bow out – and let the civilians take over. Guy Farmer’s recent article in “The Nevada Appeal” describes well his own experiences with this same problem in Granada years ago.

Clearly the information operations types who contributed the DOD jargon to Smith’s bill have no idea what public diplomacy is all about or – for that matter - how it differs from information warfare. There are two different and thought-provoking takes on the contents of this bill by Matt Armstrong at Mountain Runner and Kim Andrew Elliott discussing International Broadcasting and Public Diplomacy

Of course, if the State Department understood how to design, staff and operate public diplomacy programs and did so adequately then DOD might have remained on its real field of battle and left the civilian side of informing and interacting with foreign publics to, well the civilians.

Unfortunately, State has made such a hash of the programs that used to be handled by USIA, the organization that ran the civilian side of public diplomacy rather competently during the Cold War, that it left its own front door wide open to the DOD raiding party. The gung-ho, get the job done, Defense-types barged in and took the keys. You can’t really blame them, they were, after all, rushing in to fill an enormous vacuum.

Closing the barn door after the cow has left

Unfortunately, it’s far more difficult to get the cow back in the barn than if it hadn’t been let out in the first place, but that’s one of the things a new administration will need to do if it wants to engage constructively with the world. Civilians prefer engaging with civilians – not people in uniform. Uniforms have really bad connotations in lots of countries and the new administration needs to take this seriously when embarking on international engagement anew.

Clearly there has been far too little thought on the part of any of the three candidates about dealing with America’s image problem abroad although each of them has touched on a piece of it.

Nevertheless, they all need to realize that Americans do care how this country appears to the rest of the world. So whoever comes out on top in November should have at the ready a multifaceted, well-designed coherent public diplomacy proposal that includes new institutional arrangements as well as competent and trusted people to put them in place and make them work. It’s not just W’s leadership and his disastrous policies that have led to America’s lousy image abroad. The ways in which we communicate with much of the world are disasters too.

Meanwhile: The world’s clock will start ticking come January 2009: international good will will only last so long

Comments

[Courtenay Barnett]

You have a point in relating the personality of GWB to the negatives that the US is presently experiencing globally. However, don’t you think that there are some core policy considerations that in the post-World War 11 era will show consistency, regardless of which personality occupies the White House? Consider:-

1. US reliance on ‘oil’ as its energy source and the related foreign policy implications in protecting, what is euphemistically called “America’s vital interests” in the Middle East (ME).I can’t see a new President not being militarily committed in Iraq to dominate and control those oil supplies ( Obama, Clinton or McCain) – it seems to me that it is not an issue of whether policies of US hegemony in the ME will continue to be pursued after 1st January, 2009, but rather the manner in which the hard sell choices are projected on to the world stage by a new President.
2. Global trade policies are unlikely to be changed in any significant way by a new President. America’s terms of trade with the Third World or with Europe, or facing the reality of manufacturing capital moving out of the US to areas of cheaper labor ( e.g. China) is not a fact that is going to be changed by reason of a new personality in the White House.
3. Nuclear disarmament and US militarism across the globe are not going to witness significant changes. What Eisenhower called the “military industrial complex” will not permit any radical departure from the standard US policies of the previous post- World War 11 years.

I have singled out three (3) important areas for the future development of the US – 1. “energy supplies” – 2. “trade” – 3. “arms”. My observation is that all one can realistically hope for – post January, 2009 - is that a shift will take place from the failed unilateralist policies to a pragmatic set of polices based on strong diplomacy and multilateralism. The difficulty here is that a new administration would in actuality have to accept a certain reality that there are middle range powers ( e.g. Venezuela or Iran) that have both regional influence which the US can try to deal with brutal and blunt confrontation or through policies that accept that the US is unable to exercise full spectrum dominance. This would actually constitute a 360 degree change in US foreign policy if the latter course of action were to become the new US foreign policy. The point I fully agree with you on is that GWB has been a public relations disaster as a world leader, and indeed, a new President with a modicum more sense than GWB will be a welcomed, if only just marginal, improvement in leadership for the American people and the wider world.

[patricia kushlis]

Cortenay: Of course I think that some core policies need to change and many are in the areas you suggest. But sometimes different attitudes in how one approaches others can also influence the policy decisions themselves. E.g. In negotiations one has to exchange views to see if it is possible to find common ground. I've seen it happen: and that's what we're doing with the North Koreans right now - to the neocons ire. Just read the nasty personal jabs in the right wing media directed at Chris Hill.

My point here is that whoever becomes the next president the person will be given a grace period - but that it's not going to last forever - and he or she better have real policies and real people capable of implementing those policies ready to go.

I'm not looking for a 360 degree change as perhaps you are, but there are basic changes (like engaging in multinational negotiations as you suggest and cutting out the name calling crap) that can be made that will help - even just signing on to the Global Warming Treaty and beginning to put our own house in order in terms of energy efficiency. I think it can be done: should have been done years ago. That will help with the Europeans, for instance, and ironically make the US less dependent on oil producing states (with good and bad ramifications.) I'd take a second look at the Anti-Cluster Bombs Treaty too.

[Courtenay Barnett]

Pat:Actually we are not that far apart on what you have said.To be clear, my 360 degree reference is what should happen in an ideal world. I do not live in that world and don't believe in utopianism.Therefore full circle back to your very constructive ideas. I am definitely a proponent of a ban on certain weapons ( e.g. cluster bombs) and concerted efforts at global arms reduction. So, yes, we are not that far apart.

[Courtenay Barnett]

Pat: Let me put it this way instead " This would actually constitute a 360 degree change in US foreign policy if the latter course of action were to become the new US foreign policy." ( and add - 360 degree change in US foreign policy if the change were to be from the aggression, isolationist(e.g. policy towards North Korea), provocative 'diplomacy'( e.g. relations with Iran and Cuba) of the George W. Bush era). So, to get to where you suggest, " ...there are basic changes (like engaging in multinational negotiations as you suggest and cutting out the name calling crap) that can be made that will help - even just signing on to the Global Warming Treaty" will bring US foreign policy 360 degrees from the George W. Bush era.

[patricia kushlis]

Courtnay: Interestingly, the Bush administration has quietly changed its approach towards North Korea - oh, my gosh - Chris Hill and others have been talking to the North Koreans for some time.

I would argue this is, in fact, defusing a tense situation but it has also made Hill the target of the right wing where he has become the bete noir personified, NK appeaser for the Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal not to mention the never silent media enabled John Bolton.

Now Hill is not playing lone ranger - he must have Condi and Gates' support to continue what he is doing. So at least in this one no-win situation, the Bush administration is doing something right.

Too bad it didn't understand this seven years ago (it certainly was told by the Clinton administration) and too bad that it is still far too influenced by the shoot'em up Eliot Abrams side of the administration in certain other parts of the world.

[Courtenay Barnett]

Pat: The North Koreans submitted an 18,000 word document in which the North Koreans declared how much plutonium they produced. Let’s be honest - there is a work in progress for disarming the Korean peninsula, and this process that Hill is involved in needs to be orchestrated ( as in “being played harmoniously”). So, Pat, let’s hope and pray – not all bad – not all good – and the US needs to get down on its knees some times!!!! – pray for peace, while this process is in train. Some of us out here actually do perceive and understand – hey! – let me hear from you further.