By Patricia H. Kushlis
On December 16 – with barely a whimper – the US Public Diplomacy Advisory Commission disappeared with the flick of the wrist of a single Republican Senator as its funds and staff suddenly evaporated overnight. The Commission closed its doors and shuttered its windows because this legislator, or perhaps two, thought that it, like America’s Tea Tasting Board which had lived on well past its due date served no worthwhile purpose. I agree that tea tasters no longer perform the useful function they did in the 18th century. But defunding the Public Diplomacy Advisory Commission to the annual tune of only $135,000 really needs to be reconsidered.
I might argue differently if the US Information Agency still existed and the US had a coherent, coordinated, adequately funded and professionally staffed civilian federal government entity charged with implementation of America’s image-building efforts abroad. But that organization was eliminated in 1999 when American government officials on both sides of the aisle were still under the illusion that the US was loved throughout the world.
I’m not sure what that disappearing act and the ensuing fragmentation saved the US taxpayer financially but its disappearance certainly did not help address America’s tattered image abroad when just two years later the US needed to cope with the aftermath of the worst terrorist attacks on US soil in its history instigated by a small band of militant foreigners who hated the country and what it stood for.
The US government’s public diplomacy efforts more than a decade later are still more reminiscent of an old pair of jeans with a few new patches sewn over the worst tears in the fabric than anything else.
So why should the US Public Diplomacy Advisory Commission continue to operate? Who needs it?
Well, there are any number of reasons why and the lack of a coherent, coordinated agency dedicated to tending America’s image abroad is among them.
An effective Public Diplomacy Advisory Commission is the single bipartisan governmental entity that reports to both the executive and legislative branches about what the US could and should do to improve the country’s image abroad. Given the fragmentation of US public diplomacy activities since USIA’s demise, this country is more than ever in need of an independent watch-dog body tasked with putting the jig-saw pieces together enough, at least, to see, report on and critique the most critical parts - now flung across a multitude of departments and agencies.
Here’s how the Advisory Commission’s Charter describes its purpose:
The Public Diplomacy Advisory Commission is to appraise US Government activities that intend to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics, and to advocate for those same activities.
Simple, Clear, Concise, and potentially powerful.
As a result the Commission has access to information from inside secretive bureaucracies that those of us on the outside do not. Furthermore, the Commission is tasked with using that information to critique and advise the bureaucrats involved in the design and implementation of public diplomacy programs – political appointees and career officers alike - on the efficacy of their activities.
At the same time, the Commission is charged with advocating for those same activities – which, in my book means 1) maintaining robust Congressional relations and 2) informing the American public about how its public diplomacy dollars are spent – something the bureaucracy because of special legislative restrictions – cannot.
Now whether the Advisory Commission has lived up to its charter in the post-Cold War era is, from my perspective, debatable. To do so, however, it had recently expanded its investigative reach well beyond the State Department. Whether the Commission’s advice has been accepted and implemented by the bureaucracy –in particular at State now supposedly first among equals in promulgating America’s image abroad – is also questionable. The Commission can recommend, cajole and shed light on both the effective and the ineffective but the Commission cannot ensure that those recommendations are implemented.
Nevertheless throwing the baby out with the bathwater in these turbulent times seems as ill-advised to me as was the demise of USIA in 1999. Both have happened for the all the wrong reasons. Instead, the Public Diplomacy Advisory Commission should be greatly strengthened and its activities enhanced so that its bipartisan nongovernmental members and tiny executive staff can actually begin to handle the tasks it was originally assigned to accomplish – not the other way around. This is a tall order in and of itself. It’s really not all that hard: a flick of the pen from the right person on the Hill would be enough to begin the resurrection.