By PHK
Karen Hughes recently went on a “good news” media offensive here at home to tout her public diplomacy achievements to date. Glenn Kessler at the WaPo bought in hook, line and sinker. Although on balance positive, Pablo Bachelet at the Miami Herald is a little more realistic. The New York Times ignored the interview entirely – as far as I can tell.
To summarize Ms. Hughes’ achievements – according to Hughes as mostly reported by Kessler:
1. Setting up a rapid response team that monitors Arabic newscasts and then distributes early morning summaries in contrast to 14 disjointed reports that came out 24-48 hours after the news appeared overseas;
2. Eliminating the clearance process so the U.S. Ambassadors overseas can give interviews without prior Washington clearance;
3. Establishing a regional spokesperson’s office in Dubai to handle inquiries from Arab media and lifting the informal ban on U.S. officials appearing on Al Jazeera;
4. Developing a new program “to research messages and themes that resonate in certain countries and then coordinate with other agencies . . . to make sure the messages are delivered consistently;
5. Adding public diplomacy skills to criteria for evaluating Ambassadors for promotions;
6. Creating new senior level posts – placing a deputy assistant secretary responsible in every regional bureau in the State Department; and
7. “Seeking more funds for exchange programs while tapping the support of U.S. businesses;” Funds for exchange programs, according to Bachelet will include an increase of $6 million more dollars for student and youth exchanges for Latin America.
Oh, yes, and we’re also assured that Hughes meets with W regularly over lunch or dinner to update him on her progress so – I guess - she’s supposedly “in on the take offs as well as the landings.” Wonder if she’s ever discussed the likely public opinion blowback in the Muslim world and elsewhere abroad towards W’s insistence on keeping a nuclear option open in dealing with his latest nemesis - Ahmadinejad in Iran?
I guess I’d be far more enthusiastic about Hughes self-congratulatory public diplomacy achievements if I didn’t know that several of these “innovations” simply reinvent the wheel – but far less effectively – than when public diplomacy was run by USIA, not splintered and the remains mostly scattered throughout the U.S. State Department.
A few examples:
• during my years with USIA, the media rapid response team (Hughes achievement #1) was a highly efficient, well targeted and coordinated effort between embassy press offices and a tiny group of USIA officers in Washington. We sent in media reaction – that then was folded into coordinated reports – first thing and almost every day. Ann Driscoll pointed out two days ago in Eccentric Star “The suggestion that US diplomats need a DC-based rapid response unit to tell them what local publics ‘are waking up and hearing and reading about’ bewilders me. Reviewing local media -- and just plain talking to people about what's going on -- were primary activities at every embassy I served at (well, in the USIS [United States Information Service] section, anyway).” Right on.
• Hughes achievement #4 – researching and coordinating of foreign policy messages - used to happen through what was once known as a USIS country plan – an annual document written at overseas USIS posts, signed off on by the Ambassadors and reviewed and approved in Washington by the various USIA offices involved. I was told that this planning document was eliminated when USIA was merged into State so since 1999 there has been no coordinated public diplomacy document that combines content, message, programs and funds into a coherent whole. How Ms. Hughes plans to reinvent this wheel when she has no control over public diplomacy funds overseas will be interesting to see. It’s also unclear to me how much of a say she has in overseas public diplomacy staff either. I don’t think much – but I could be wrong. So if she doesn’t control a good portion of the budget and doesn’t control personnel – how effective can this effort be?
• Finally, Hughes future achievement #5 rating Ambassadors on their public diplomacy skills. Excuse me? Is this part of Condi’s “all embassy officers do public diplomacy” edict? Since most Ambassadors don’t get more than one assignment at the chief of mission level – what kind of stick or carrot is this? Far better to include media training at various stages of officers’ careers so that the skills are there – rather than expecting someone to pick them up- as it were – on the fly. Also, there are Ambassadors – namely most of the 33 plus percent who are political appointees – who rarely know U.S. policies well enough to explain them to experienced foreign affairs reporters and respond coherently to their questions. If an Ambassador doesn’t have the public diplomacy skills and doesn’t know the policies – does it make sense to have him or her “speak for the U.S. government?” Of course, one could also ask does it make sense to give him or her one of these political plums to begin with.
Sorry, Mr. Kessler. You didn’t do your homework well enough. There are any number of retired USIA officers in the Washington area – and elsewhere – who could have told you that Ms. Hughes’ claims are far less than as extraordinary as you made them out to be – and why.
Maybe next time you should ask them – instead of relying on Ms. Hughes’s word supposedly balanced by two former - or current - State Department officers who never served in public diplomacy and one of whom – Ed Djerejian - has been mentoring her since the get-go. This is balance? Sorry, it’s taking this administration at its over-inflated word – and you should know by now the ramifications of that.
Where Ambassador Djerejian is right is his observation on the importance of policies in shaping the U.S. image abroad: as you quote him as saying, public diplomacy cannot “carry the whole burden.” I agree: it cannot be expected to do it alone. But I also think this administration is trying to do public diplomacy on the cheap with equipment less effective than the military’s broken tanks often mired in the Iraqi sand. It won’t work that way.