By PHK
If I’ve got the story straight, Karen Hughes has announced two initiatives as the administration’s new Czarina or Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the State Department. The first is the establishment of rapid response teams to counteract fabrications about the U.S. and American policies spread by America’s enemies in the Muslim world. The second is to increase the budget for international exchanges by as yet an unspecified amount.
Who could oppose international exchanges increases except perhaps an isolationist like Jesse Helms who thought history had ended after August 1991? Exchanges, not the end of history, are a motherhood and apple pie issue. Or at least they should be.
Will an increase for FY ’06 bring the level of exchanges funding to where it was in 1995 (forgetting about inflation)? Or perhaps a little above? Because of the time involved in contracting the work out to the private sector, the increases probably won’t be felt until ’07 – or two years from now. Better late than never, I suppose.
And the new misinformation rapid reaction teams?
According to the State Department spokesman’s office, a misinformation unit came on line on March 9, 2005. This was about five months before Hughes’ State Department debut. Since Hughes was presumably in Texas tending to family matters, she may, or may not have had a say in its founding.
Regardless, “Les Mis” didn’t just open its doors after she arrived at State in early August. The "Identifying Misinformation" website, by the way, is its primary product. The site is run by the International Information Programs (IIP) Bureau of the State Department. IIP is governed by Smith-Mundt restrictions – to keep Americans at home from being “subjected” to administration propaganda aimed at people abroad. But Smith-Mundt preceded the Internet by years and its restrictions became irrelevant once IIP discovered the worldwide web in the 1990s. Currently featured on Les Mis is the “Koran flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo story” that Newsweek was pressured to retract several weeks ago.
I agree. It is important to react rapidly and forcefully to counter lies about the U.S. that circulate in the media and to do so within the ever quickening 24/7 news cycle. But hello, this is nothing new – and far older than the five month life of State’s still teething Identifying Misinformation office.
USIA had a similar sort of unit - when there was a USIA. Its purpose was to counter Soviet disinformation formulated and circulated abroad by the KGB during the Cold War. If an anti-American story became more than a one day stand in the foreign media and Washington could trace its source to the KGB, then USIA’s rapid reaction to disinformation office swung into action – and we had access to its research.
The single time I remember checking with the disinformation folks was over the “baby-parts” story which suddenly showed up in a small, but influential FInnish newspaper. For those of you who may not be familiar with this recycled yarn, it featured the supposed fates of poor-as-rats South American children who were supposedly sold to organ harvesters. The children were – according to the story - killed for their vital organs which were then purportedly shipped to the US and transplanted into wealthy, but ailing Americans in need of new livers or kidneys, for instance.
That tale had floated around Latin America for several years before it reached Helsinki in the late 1980s. With USIA disinformation staff help, we were able to demonstrate to the Finnish editor whose paper had just run the story that it was bogus. The baby parts tale then disappeared from the Finnish press scene just as quickly and mysteriously as it had appeared.
USIA also had rapid response teams posted at Embassies and Consulates abroad. They were called USIS posts and were staffed by Public Affairs Officers, Information Officers and Information Assistants - but their numbers were drastically reduced during the 1990s and their ability to function effectively scaled further back with the consolidation of USIA into the State Department.
Regardless, a rapid State Department response to a newly minted anti-American story – false or not - would in itself be a novelty. Good luck. If information didn’t get included in the State Department Monday-Friday press briefing cable – then the story – as far as the press office was concerned – didn’t exist. State’s clearance process was so tedious – almost nothing made it out of Foggy Bottom in time to be of use in talking to the media abroad. At least that was my experience.
But there’s an even more serious side to the relatively new State Department misinformation story that desperately needs to be aired. And now. This concerns the Bush Administration’s own credibility record. Misinformation is as misinformation does or perhaps the old saying, “it takes one to know one” is applicable here.
I live in a politicized state – one of several where the elections for US President remain cliff-hangers. I still see political bumper stickers on cars out here in New Mexico from a year ago. A few have been replaced with new ones. One had a W with a line drawn through it and a sticker below stating “Bush lies.”
In fairness, an occasional SUV, 4x4 or Lexus with ever larger American flags fluttering also breezes by. My point, however, is that until the administration’s own record of credibility improves dramatically – the State Department's rapid reaction initiative to counter someone else’s falsehoods is ludicrous. This is like the pot calling the kettle black.
I can’t remember hearing more fabrications surrounding serious policy issues come out of the mouths of a US administration than this present one. Let’s, for example, imagine how a U.S. misinformation campaign to counteract misinformation might have looked in March 2003 before the invasion of Iraq.
Administration Press Qs and As:
Reporter: The Iraqis say that they have destroyed all weapons of mass destruction. Can you verify this claim?
Administration Spokesperson: No. Saddam Hussein is lying as usual. The stories you heard from his son-in-law that all WMD was destroyed years ago are patently false. We have it on good authority that caches of WMD are hidden underneath his mattress ready for use against our forces at a moment’s notice.
Reporter: And what about the yellowcake uranium Sadam Hussein attempted to purchase from Niger?
Administration Spokesperson: I’m delighted you asked that question. This story is absolutely correct. This is serious business. Saddam is a dangerous criminal who will go to any length to preserve his treacherous hold over the freedom-loving Iraqi people – even search all of Africa for uranium to turn into atomic bombs to use against Americans.
So who spread disinformation about Saddam Hussein’s WMD capabilities prior to the 2003 invasion? And who disseminated the tale about his supposed quest for yellowcake – and then a few months later “outed” a covert CIA-operative in the process?
One, of course can argue that the Bush Administration believed what it wanted to believe – and that it didn’t knowingly dissemble. But come on. Even if this is the case, the administration did not check facts, and it did not believe the fact-checkers whose facts disagreed with its invasion goals.
And what evidence do we have that the administration - or its surrogates - have become any more truthful – or any more careful with fact-checking - since? What about, for instance, the questionable link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda terrorists that W still preaches to his ever shrinking circle of admirers – like the VFW, for instance?
It seems to me, therefore, that the best thing Under Secretary Hughes can do for the US image both at home and abroad is to begin by cleaning up the administration’s own act. Open mouth and insert soap at the highest levels would be an initial step in the right direction.