U.S. Diplomacy

This week, Defense Secretary Gates and Secretary of State Rice combined efforts on improving the dampening European support for NATO troops in Afghanistan. Gates warned the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I worry a great deal about the alliance evolving into a two-tiered alliance, in which you have some allies willing to fight and die to protect people’s security, and others who are not.” He continued, “it puts a cloud over the future of the alliance if this is to endure and perhaps get even worse.” Following his testimony, Gates traveled to Lithuania, where he’s presently meeting with NATO defense ministers, looking to pressure European allies on the troop support issue.

Perhaps the impetus for the worrisome tone was Germany’s rejection of a U.S. request for more troops. Compounding the problem, Canada issued an ultimatum that it would withdraw troops if they did not receive reinforcement from NATO allies.

While ally support is fading from Germany, France is looked at to pick up the slack. “A reversal of France’s refusal to deploy combat units to the southern front-lines would ease tensions within NATO…France is to meet a Canadian delegation Friday [today] on Ottawa’s appeal for 1,000 extra troops to support its beleaguered force in volatile Kandahar province.”

Secretary Rice made a surprise visit to Afghanistan yesterday. While Gates is meeting with defense ministers in Lithuania, Rice also publicly urged NATO members to increase troop support. Additionally, she met with President Karzai to discuss a special envoy who could represent the numerous countries involved in the effort. “There are a lot of cooks in the kitchen. I can understand why there could be confusion, and we owe it to President Karzai to have an effective international coordinator.”

Analysis on this subject can be tricky. Are alliances with our European friends fracturing for the long-term, or are they simply growing weary of the Afghanistan counterinsurgency? Certainly, we must be mindful of the political context in each country. It may be helpful to remind NATO members that the stabilization of Afghanistan is imperative for each country and cite specific reasons. Maintaining an alliance can be a juggling act. However, the United States should not feel daunted, reminding allies about the nature of the threat and persuading them to stay in the fight is a necessary process in a multilateral war. We should be grateful we have the opportunity to fall back on other resources, unlike in Iraq.

On Wednesday of last week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard the testimony of three of President Bush’s nominees seeking confirmation to hold State Department positions in the bureau of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.  The first to testify was James K. Glassman, whose nomination for Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy was previously discussed in this blog here. A transcript of his prepared testimony can be found here. 

It appears that Glassman has been doing his homework. Toward the end of his testimony he summarizes what he took away from some discussions he had with experts in on global public opinion of the U.S.:  

“1. Animosity toward the United States is real, and it must concern us. 

2. Different countries have different views of the United States. In Africa, Japan, and India, for example, most people favorably disposed toward the United States. In much of Western Europe and nearly all the Arab and Muslim world, they are not.  3. Much of the animosity is not deep. Even people who say they dislike us want to have strong bilateral relations with us, and attitudes are not set in stone. As Secretary Rice said last year, The United States is “still the place where people like to send their kids to school, where people want to start a new life. Sometimes we overstate the degree to which America is not popular, even if sometimes our policies are not.” 

4. The animosity of foreigners has three sources:

a. They understand that we are a powerful nation and will ultimately set policies with our own interests in mind, but they believe we do not listen to them, do not act as a reliable partner, and do not respectfully take their views into account.

b. In the Arab and Muslim world, especially, they have major misconceptions about America, our aims, and our policies. Remember the examples I cited before, such as a belief that we want to supplant Islam with Christianity in the Middle East. c. They disagree with our policies, especially our presence in Iraq and what they see as our bias in the matter of Israel and the Palestinians.

The first two sources of animosity, I believe, we can address effectively through public diplomacy. We can listen better and more respectfully and through exchanges, information programs, and ideological engagement, we can address and rectify the lies and misconceptions. 

As for policy: Edward R. Murrow, when he was USIA director, famously said that public diplomacy should be in on the takeoffs, not just the crash landings. In other words, public diplomacy should have a place at the table, to advise policymakers of the potential reaction of foreign publics to policies. But never, in my view, should global public opinion polls determine the foreign policy of the United States. Can we do a better job explaining our policies? Yes. Will those policies be universally embraced? No. In the early 1980s, the U.S. and our allies agreed on the placement of cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe. It was a decision that was aggressively opposed by much of Europe’s public opinion, but it was a policy that helped bring down communism…” 

News reports on his testimony focused on Glassman’s purported plan to counter Islamic extremism’s detrimental effects on the US image abroad with digital media. From the Voice of America:  “Glassman, who has a background in print and electronic media, says he will use the year or so before the end of the Bush administration to focus on leading a war of ideas using new technologies…”  

Glassman says the perception that the US is trying to undermine Islam, which he cites as widespread in the Muslim world, “come[s] directly from what he calls doctrine at the foundation of al-Qaida, and must be fought using the Internet, U.S. government-funded international broadcasting, and educational and cultural exchange programs.”  CNN and others picked up on Glassman’s comment that “our enemies are eating our lunch in terms of getting their messages communicated using ‘digital technology.’” He continued: “It is just plain embarrassing that al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America.” 

Diane Farsetta, Senior Researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy also discussed Glassman’s focus on digital technologies as a public diplomacy tool in a piece for Alternet. 

VOA reports that Glassman fielded some pointed questions from the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) asked Glassman to comment on criticism the bureau of Public Diplomacy has received for “having a weak communications strategy which obviously raises questions about its ability to meet its important mission.” Glassman responded that “U.S. efforts have suffered from a lack of coordination among government agencies. He pledged to help rebuild a public diplomacy structure [the US Information Agency, or USIA] he says was largely dismantled amid what he calls a bipartisan period of neglect in the 1990s.”  

Also testifying was Goli Ameri, President Bush’s nominee to hold the position of Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA). Ameri would replace Dina Habib Powell, who held the position from 2005 until December 2007, when she left the Department to become the Director of Global Corporate Engagement for the Goldman Sachs Group.

   Ameri (seated on the far right), formerly the Department’s Public Delegate to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, spoke of her upbringing in Iran and the impact of her move to the U.S. study at Stanford University. In her testimony she called herself “an American by choice.” 

“[While studying in the US] I learned…the value of freedom and democracy, the fundamentals of critical thinking, the questioning of ideas and a profound sense of empowerment. I learned that in America, there are no constraints to one’s desire to achieve. That it’s ok to be a woman, it’s ok to be an immigrant and most importantly its ok to be a dreamer Where else in the world, would an immigrant, a woman of Iranian heritage be nominated as an Assistant Secretary and have the privilege to sit in front of this distinguished panel?”

In 2004, Ameri ran for Congress in Oregon on the Republican ticket, but lost to Congressman David Wu by a narrow margin.   If confirmed, Ameri pledged to “expand our ‘people to people exchanges’ [diplomatic speak for directly engaging citizens of two different countries in an attempt to build positive relations between the two nations and introduce: (1) More opportunities for engagement with key countries like Iran and North Korea where we seek to better relations between our citizens and (2) Reach out to the more disadvantaged segments of the population around the world. I will encourage more women and girls, to participate in our exchange programs and I would like to make sure that we institutionalize successful and powerful programs like the Middle East Breast Cancer Initiative and the Fortune Women’s Mentorship program.”   Ameri’s nomination caused a negative reaction from some Iran-watchers (see here and here ), but then again so did the nomination of the past Assistant Secretary for ECA, Dina Habib Powell, an Egyptian-American, prompting, among other reactions, this letter to the Washington Post by Arab-American institute President James Zogby. 

The hearing’s final testimony came from David J. Kramer, nominated to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DLR), the bureau that leads U.S. efforts to “promote democracy, protect human rights and international religious freedom, and advance labor rights globally.”  Kramer, currently Deputy Assistant Secretary for Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova, will be replacing Jonathan D. Farrar who held the position since 2005.  If confirmed, Kramer pledged to “continue to concentrate DRL’s diplomacy and programs on the core components of democracy that must be present in countries around the globe if human rights are to be effectively exercised and protected: (1) free and fair electoral processes, with a level playing field to ensure genuine competition; (2) good governance, with representative, transparent and accountable institutions operating under the rule of law, including independent legislatures and judiciaries; and (3) robust civil societies, including independent media and labor unions.”

Monday’s State of the Union Address was heavy on the economy and ideological posturing. However, foreign policy issues were addressed, and this blog would like to touch upon what was said.

Stepping back and taking a macro-viewpoint of the speech, Bush did not provide new policy initiatives, which we had wondered about on this blog with regards to North Korea. The President reviewed his administration’s goal of advancing freedom, and he cited elections in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia and Ukraine as well as “demanding independence” in Lebanon. Notably left out was Palestine. While the administration may not have been pleased with the outcome, strong support was pushed onto the Palestinians for having a free and fair election. They did so, but the outcome of Hamas leading the Palestinian Authority soured the administration, thus it should be of no surprise that the administration does not include that election as a success in the advancement of liberty.

Let us now dive into the minutia of his speech.

Iraq

Bush noted our surge and went on to describe the Sunni Awakening as the Iraqi surge. “In the fall of 2006, Sunni tribal leaders grew tired of al Qaeda’s brutality and started a popular uprising called ‘The Anbar Awakening.’ Over the past year, similar movements have spread across the country. And today, the grassroots surge includes more than 80,000 Iraqi citizens who are fighting the terrorists.”

While successes can be drawn on the security front, political reconciliation remains a lofty goal. As an example of progress in reconciliation, President Bush mentioned the recently passed de-Ba’athification law. However, most analysts are unsure whether the law will truly serve its intended purpose. Looking at political reconciliation on the whole, the Center for American Progress concludes we have reached only 3 of the 18 benchmarks.

Israeli-Palestinian relations

President Bush reaffirmed his position that Palestine will have a state by the end of this year: “This month in Ramallah and Jerusalem, I assured leaders from both sides that America will do, and I will do, everything we can to help them achieve a peace agreement that defines a Palestinian state by the end of this year.”

As we have discussed on this blog before, President Bush’s influence can make the most difference on final-status issues. Optimism is crucial when dealing with tough negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, and Bush should remain engaged on this front.

The Americas

Bush urged Congress to approve trade agreements for Columbia and Panama (in addition to South Korea). He noted that failure to pass the bill in Columbia would “embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere.” A clear shot at Hugo Chavez.

Afghanistan

Bush spoke of the 3,200 Marines sent to Afghanistan, in order to provide training for their police and army, along with fighting the Taliban. The U.S. Defense blog first mentioned this increase.

For the sake of keeping this post somewhat concise my partner will tackle Iran.

Over at the Election 2008 blog, Mark Dillen discusses Madeleine Albright’s book “Memo to the Next President Elect: How We Can Restore America’s Reputation and Leadership.” His post also contains a good soundbite from Albright in which she clarifies a common misunderstanding about diplomatic efforts: “Diplomacy is not appeasement. You can deliver tough messages as well as nice messages, but there has to be a dialogue.”

Earlier this month, Albright opined that America has “developed a dangerous lack of self-awareness.” She continues, “we need to do a better job of seeing ourselves as others do… true confidence is shown by a willingness to enter into difficult debates, answer criticism, treat others with respect and do our share or more in tackling global problems. Confidence harnessed to purpose is what America at its best has been all about.”

Her statement about America’s lack of self-awareness reminds one of Sun Tzu’s warning, “know thy enemy but not thyself, wallow in defeat everytime.” Indeed, it would serve the United States well to heed both Albright and Sun Tzu’s advice.

A 2006 assessment of the State Department’s Public Diplomacy (PD) program conducted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB, a Cabinet-level office run out the White House) ranks the program’s overall performance “adequate,” (as opposed to “effective, moderately effective, or ineffective”). The more abbreviated “assessment summary” can be found here.

The State Department describes the key functions of Public Diplomacy and its foreign officers as “indispensable” to the conduct of foreign policy. Accordingly, PD’s key activities, as outlined in the assessment’s “program performance measures,” amount to no small feat for PD officers.

According to the assessment, the program’s main goal is generating an “audience with an improved or increased understanding of U.S. policies, society and values.” Some of the ‘softer’ goals listed in the assessment include reaching key foreign audiences through State Department-sponsored exchange programs and increasing the user satisfaction scores of the US Embassy Web sites.

The more public relations-type functions (to give a less cynical depiction) include generating “accurate/favorable portrayals” of U.S. policies in key foreign media outlets and engineering editorial and opinion commentary support by foreign audiences for U.S. policies and positions.

Then there’s the granddaddy of them all: reducing the level of anti-American sentiment among key foreign audiences. This goal is commonly referred to as “winning hearts and minds,” a campaign the US first launched during the Vietnam war, and now commonly refers to US efforts at improving relations with the “Muslim” world. Given the rise in anti-American sentiment across the Middle East and beyond, this particular performance measurement may drag down PD’s overall ranking for a good time to come.

With such far-reaching and invasive goals set out, it is no wonder PD’s lowest-scoring is the “Program Results” assessment section: “Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals? Answer: No” (the assessment sites as evidence polling from Pew Global Attitudes Project, Pew’s 2007 polling on global views of the US is shown below).

Relative to other US government programs assessed by OMB, PD’s “adequate” ranking puts it on the lower end of the performance spectrum. The State Department as a whole performs about as well as other government agencies (27 “effective” programs, 12 “moderately effective,” 13 “adequate,” 0 “inadequate”), such as Defense, (19, 19, 10, 0), Homeland Security (9, 18, 6, 0). Based on OMB’s most recent assessments, 22% of Federal programs are “not performing,” or are considered ineffective. To view an explanation of the ranking criteria, click here.

Though the ExpectMore.gov site has been criticized for the “shallowness of its content,” the 2006 assessment does a good job of conveying exactly what State’s PD program attempts to achieve (or, as the case may be, not achieve).

Three cheers for transparency… But by tasking this relatively small bureau with challenging goals such as “changing the hearts and minds” of vast, increasingly antagonistic foreign audiences—especially without necessarily pairing that goal with the implementation of effective and agreeable foreign policies—we will continue to “ExpectMore” out of State’s PD program.

Soft balancing against the United States is on the rise and the next President will face a myriad of challenges in asserting American influence, so argues Parag Khanna. His article in the New York Time Magazine this week encapsulates a vast swath of recent history and developments in geopolitics, particularly across the second world.

In the future he sees a security and soft power competition among three major powers, the United States, China, and the European Union. His prescription for the coming battle over influence, create a diplomatic industrial complex.

“Pentagonize the State Department…Diplomacy, too, requires the equivalent of geographic commands — with top-notch assistant secretaries of state to manage relations in each key region without worrying about getting on the daily agenda of the secretary of state for menial approvals. Then we’ll be ready to coordinate within distant areas.”

“Regional institutions are thriving in the second world — think Mercosur(the South American common market), the Association of Southeast Asian Naitons (Asean), the Gulf Cooperation Council in the Persian Gulf. We need high-level ambassadors at those organizations too.”

“Condoleezza Rice’s ‘transformational diplomacy’ is a myth: we don’t have enough diplomats for core assignments, let alone solo hardship missions. We need a Peace Corps 10 times its present size, plus student exchanges, English-teaching programs and hands-on job training overseas — with corporate sponsorship.”

In tackling public diplomacy, Khanna unleashes his “secret weapon,” the American citizenry. “American foundations and charities, not least the Gates and Ford Foundations, dwarf European counterparts in their humanitarian giving; if such private groups independently send more and more American volunteers armed with cash, good will and local knowledge to perform ‘diplomacy of the deed,’ then the public diplomacy will take care of itself.”

While his plan is fresh and bold, it ignores the current state of affairs among the diplomatic corps. As my fellow blogger eloquently pointed out the State Department is facing cuts across the board, the opposite direction Khanna suggests we should be headed. That said, the ills at the State Department can be remedied by assurances from the next President. Until State receives word of the next President’s priorities, I would advise a degree of caution in Khanna’s comparison to that of the military-industrial complex. It did not happen overnight; likewise it would truly be a diplomatic revolution were it to be realized in the coming decade(s).

Go check out his thought-provoking article and anyone interested might want to purchase his forthcoming book, due out in March.

Jay Lefkowitz, the US Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights, spoke at AEI last week of a renewed debate within the administration over its restrained diplomacy track with North Korea. Indeed, he offered three concrete steps for future engagement:

“1. We should now shift our focus from a short to a longer time frame. It is increasingly likely that North Korea will have the same nuclear status one year from now that it has today.

2. Policy should rest on assumptions that correlate with recent facts and events. It is evident that South Korea and China will not exert significant pressure on North Korea if they think it might lead to its collapse.

3. All negotiations with North Korea should firmly link human rights, economic support, and security issues.”

State Dept. spokesman Sean McCormack was quick to distance the administration from Lefkowitz’s comments. “He [Lefkowitz] is not, however, somebody who speaks authoritatively about the six-party talks. His comments certainly don’t represent the views of the administration.” However, North Korea policy likely falls along the usual fault lines within the Administration. The Vice President’s office arguing for a tougher stance, whereas the State Department maintains diplomatic tenets, working with the most recent agreement made during six-party talks.

Another possibility is at play here, and seems to be consistent with our policy and rhetoric towards Iran. Sending out ripples of a tougher stance towards North Korea might be a useful diplomatic tool. Articulating stronger costs for not acting, could push North Korea to meet future deadlines, which they have already shown a penchant to delay or miss.

Perhaps sensing the debate brewing at the White House, John Bolton penned an op-ed arguing for the United States to abandon the agreement reached last year. Bolton has long held animosity towards any deal with North Korea lacking tough measures for failure to comply.

Bolton sees a window of opportunity for President Bush. “Given the recent South Korean presidential election results, Mr. Bush will soon have a willing ally in Lee Myung-bak, who will be inaugurated on Feb. 25. After 10 years, a realist will once again occupy Seoul’s Blue House, one who will support a tougher American line rather than oppose it.”

As Timothy Savage of North Korea zone notes, a shift in the diplomatic track with North Korea could be announced during the upcoming state of the union address. We will certainly be listening here and report back any significant changes, if they’re mentioned.

Here’s the bad news. The Washington Post reports that the State Department will be cutting 10 percent of diplomatic posts next year.

Veteran diplomatic correspondent Karen DeYoung reports:   “Nearly one-quarter of all diplomatic posts are vacant after hundreds of Foreign Service officers were sent to embassies in Baghdad and Kabul, and Congress has not provided funding for new hires… The size of the foreign service, about 6,500 diplomats, increased by approximately 300 positions a year between 2001 and 2004, but since then Congress has rejected requests for additional hiring for all but consular and security positions.” 

This is bad news on many levels:  

–First the cuts make painfully apparent the reality that the State Department is starved of resources. At a time when global opinion of theUnited States is at an all time low, the overseas presence of our diplomatic corps is shrinking. The cuts seem especially drastic when one considers that throughout its history the State Department, relative to its mandate, has been chronically under funded.

A rigorous 2003 Task Force report published by an umbrella organization of US diplomatic groups recommends that Congress appropriate a full 30% increase in the State Department budget. That’s not a plea for more office supplies. It reminds me of Oliver Twist’s weary cry “please sir may I have some more…”  

Let’s think about how the effects of these budget cuts might play out. Next year the US Foreign Service will be 10 percent less able to negotiate hot-button issues with other leaders, report on developments from afar, promote US values to unfamiliar audiences, maintain constructive relationships with our allies, monitor and respond to the actions of our enemies, and protect our embassies and traveling countrymen, among many other essential activities. It’s a difficult picture to paint because the State Department’s activities are embedded in so many foreign interactions essential to our domestic livelihood.   

–But more importantly the budget cuts reflect a continuing emphasis on military capabilities rather than diplomatic capabilities in US federal budgeting priorities. In 2007 the defense budget totaled $439.3 billion for regular department spending, not including money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In 2008 its budget will increase 44 billion to $483 billion. Ironically enough that’s a 9% increase in the Defense Department budget…  

Defense’s bountiful budget allows it to even take on some activities traditionally left to State. The State Department’s office of Public Diplomacy attempts to win the “battle of ideas” by improving the US’ image abroad. That office enjoys an annual budget of $900 million. On the other side of the river, Secretary Gates last year created a new position called the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Support to Public Diplomacy, to spearhead the military’s strategic communications and run their “countering ideological support to terrorism” program.

According to the US National Defense Strategy, part of this program entails: “helping change Muslim misperceptions of the United States and the West; and reinforcing the message that the Global War on Terrorism is not a war against Islam, but rather is an outgrowth of a civil war within Islam between extremists and those who oppose them.” 

 The State Department has a large Public Diplomacy bureau that handles those very tasks, along with strategic communications in general. Of course we are all better off for having the largest number of and most effective strategists assigned to this daunting and vital task. Still, “Defense department” and “soft power” don’t logically go hand in hand. Furthermore, it would be understandable that a global public weary of American unilateralism might not trust the “spin” coming out of the military establishment. 

In short, when diplomatic activities start being transferred to the military branch, everyone suffers—not just the starving State Department.

President Bush recently nominated a new Undersecretary of State for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy, to replace the outgoing Karen Hughes. His pick, James Glassman, is currently chairman of the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, the government agency that oversees U.S. international broadcasters, and a a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank. His background, however, lies in US economic and technology policy. You can read more about him here. The AP reports that given the brevity of his term (13 months until the newly elected administration takes office in January 2009), Glassman was chosen “in part because he has already won Senate confirmation for his current job, which he began in June, and the administration was looking for someone who could avoid a bruising confirmation fight in an election year.” Mr. Glassman will be in charge of improving America’s image abroad and leading US efforts to “counter violence and extremism and further the principles of democracy and liberty.” After Bush’s term expires in 13 months he’ll go back to thinking about the American economy. This appointment has drawn the usual snide remarks from the public diplomacy-watchers. Many pundits joked about the book Glassman co-authored, Dow 36,000, published in 1999 before the dot-com bubble burst. (The book now sells used for $0.01 on Amazon.com). Andrew Leonard commented on Salon.com: “Few people encapsulated the madness of the 1990s stock market bubble better than Glassman, and the appropriateness of such a blithe purveyor of happy talk as the Bush administration’s chief spinmeister for foreign policy seems both absurd and utterly unsurprising… The best thing that can be said about “Dow 36,000″ is that while wrong-headed, it is not pernicious.”

James Fallows, Altantic Monthly national correspondent and former Carter speechwriter, originally questioned Glassman’s appointment, and after sleeping on it, (or after a late-night phone call from…?) took it back the next day.

Michael Currie Schaffer of The New Republic sarcastically wrote: “Luckily, the America-hating masses of Pakistan probably never had the chance to follow Glassman’s cheerleading into the stock market back before the bubble burst in 2000.” Undersecretary Glassman shouldn’t fret too much, though. In the eyes of the pundits it would be difficult to do a worse job than his predecessor Karen Hughes. Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post wrote: “Hughes wasn’t hired to create cultural change inside the State Department; she was hired to improve America’s image abroad. And she failed miserably at that task, at least in part because she failed to use her close relationship with Bush to get him to stop doing the things that made her job so impossible.” Another blogger opined: “Departing is the shockingly ineffectual Karen Hughes. All right, I take that back. Predictably ineffectual, given that she was nothing more than a beneficiary of the spoils system.” Despite what the bloggers say it’s hard for the polling numbers to make Hughes’ performance look much better. Many global polls show that attitudes toward the US are at an all-time low. At the an impromptu appearance President Bush made at a State Department event bidding farewell to Karen Hughes, he joked: “I wouldn’t be standing here without Karen Hughes,” he said of his long-time advisor. “One of her jobs was to teach me how to speak English.”
       

If the President is looking to learn from the incoming Undersecretary I would warn him against taking Glassman’s advice on the stock market.