By Patricia H. Kushlis
I’ve been struck by the portion of Condoleezza Rice’s Congressional testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 18 that suggests even the Bush Administration realizes it has lost on the international “winning hearts and minds” front and needs to put far more effort into this soft side of U.S. foreign policy.
Does, I wonder, this administration really have the ability, the stick-to-itiveness, the financial commitment and the resourcefulness to get it right the second time around? I'm skeptical, but as we all know - time will be the ultimate judge.
There are, of course, at least two opposing views as to why international public opinion polls place the U.S. in the cellar – and consign the Bush Administration – to the subbasement. One side argues that “it’s the policy, stupid” and is convinced that the administration’s foreign policies are so flawed, it won’t matter how effectively they are sold abroad.
The other side states that the U.S. has been so remise in selling its policies abroad that all we need to do is to improve the process of “winning hearts and minds” through a variety of mechanical changes in how we do business abroad.
In my view, the problem is both and.
For the moment, let’s put the foreign policy competency question aside and focus on process.
Winning “hearts and minds” doesn’t happen over night. It’s a series of slow, mutually reinforcing activities and programs that the U.S. government let atrophy during the Go-Go years of the 1990s following Francis Fukuyama’s declaration of the “end of history.”
Over less than five years, the U.S. government smashed to smithereens the physical infrastructure that had been carefully erected during 50 years of the Cold War while chasing away much of the accumulated know-how that resided in its professional staff - many of whom have now moved on to other – and sometimes better - things to do with their lives.
Since the public diplomacy wrecking ball happened under the Clinton Administration’s second term in collaboration with then Republican isolationist Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Jesse Helms, the Bush Administration could have pointed to the error of both their ways and emphasized the need to restore communications with the world – or at least preach to the world – in the after-shocks of 9/11. The Administration claims to have done just that – but, in truth, its rhetoric far exceeds the reality.
Some funds and staff were restored, but if you look carefully not even to the 1995 level, the year before the wreckers’ ball took place. And that’s about all one can say on the Administration’s behalf to date.
As a consequence, the U.S. still operates abroad through a smashed, troubled and under-funded infrastructure that in my view grows less competent, less cohesive and more fragmented as the years pass.
One of the most effective – least heralded, low profile - parts of the “winning hearts and minds” game was, and remains that of people-to-people exchanges. These exchanges bring foreigners to the U.S. and send Americans abroad for varying lengths of time ranging from a month to two years.
People-to-people exchanges penetrated the Iron Curtain – albeit in a small way – by bringing Soviets to study at American universities and Americans to Soviet universities. Some of these experiences are chronicled in Yale Richmond’s “Cultural Exchange and the Cold War: Raising the Iron Curtain” published by Penn State University Press in 2003 – and they did indeed help “change the world.”
Had it not been for concerted lobbying efforts of various U.S. international exchange organizations during the latter 1990s and thereafter, most U.S. government related exchanges would have gone the way of the Do-Do Bird. As it is, the ones which remain focus too much on bringing foreigners to the U.S. – providing they can get visas - and not enough on the reciprocal side of things. It’s no wonder then that more and more Americans know less and less about the world beyond our shores.
International exchange programs are, in my opinion, still grossly under-funded. And some function better than others. So after having worked on such programs in Europe, Eurasia and Asia at various stages of my Foreign Service career, let me offer a few suggestions on how – if the money is ever restored to a reasonable level - I think it should best be spent.
First and foremost, exchanges should be two-way streets. Americans need to study abroad as much as foreigners need to do so in the U.S. Why? Maybe, just maybe, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in Iraq, for instance, if more Americans had had firsthand experience in and knowledge of the Muslim Middle East. Our lack of world geography and foreign language and cultural competency is appalling. Americans need to experience the world firsthand, too – and not just through the turret of a tank.
Second, the best exchanges are longer rather than shorter in duration. A three week tourist-type visit anywhere, for example, is just not as meaningful as an academic year or even semester. It takes time to understand a foreign culture, make friends, learn the language and how to operate in it. Then, and only then, is it possible to return for shorter periods and accomplish something meaningful.
Finally, I favor high school and college exchange programs. The most effective ones last an academic year and include home stays. Besides, these two way exchanges can also be the most cost-effective international exchange programs around. I also support shorter-term summer language immersion courses for students that include home stays, cultural components and intensive language training with native speakers. Such first time experiences in themselves can also make the world come alive to America’s youth.
I disagree with many of this administration’s unilateralist foreign forays.
But I wonder if our collective ignorance of foreign cultures, languages and peoples has helped enable them.
Yet regardless of an administration’s short term foreign policies, the U.S. needs desperately to refurbish its international people-to-people exchange programs. These exchanges of individuals helped dispel anger, misunderstanding and hatred in the past by forming thousands of two-way channels of personal communications. I think such exchanges can again be used to provide the foundation for building more cooperative and intelligent international relationships that involve Americans and the U.S. in the future.