Order Code RL33062
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Public Diplomacy: A Review of Past
Recommendations
September 2, 2005
Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Foreign Policy and Trade
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Lisa Mages
Information Research Specialist
Knowledge Services Group
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Public Diplomacy: A Review of Past Recommendations
Summary
Public diplomacy has been officially acknowledged as a tool in the foreign
policy arsenal since World War I. Later, during World War II, it became part of the
U.S. government structure when in 1942 the President issued an executive order to
create the Office of War Information (OWI). OWI aired the first Voice of America
program on February 24, 1942, in Europe. These activities were carried out without
any authority or recognition by Congress.
More recently, during the post-Cold War era of the 1990s, public diplomacy was
viewed as a low priority, and was often seen by lawmakers as a source of funds to tap
for other programs. This culminated in 1999 when Congress abolished the agency
primarily concerned with public diplomacy — the U.S. Information Agency (USIA)
— and merged its public diplomacy functions into the Department of State.
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, U.S. government officials, foreign
policy experts, and academicians began to elevate the status of public diplomacy
through numerous studies, op-ed pieces, and journal articles.
This report looks at 29 articles and studies on public diplomacy that have been
identified by the Department of State as being credible reports with valuable
suggestions. Various recommendations from these studies are similar. This report
organizes the recommendations and provides a brief discussion of them. CRS takes
no position on the recommendations.
This report will not be updated.

---

Contents
Background and Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
General Recommendation Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Define Overall Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Presidential Directive/Reorganize Public Diplomacy at the White House . . 5
Create a New Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Reorganize Public Diplomacy at the Department of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Redefine the Role of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy . . . 7
Increase Embassy Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Increase Financial and Human Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Increase Public Diplomacy and/or Language Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Increase Technology Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Increase Private Sector Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Improve Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Increase Exchanges and Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Increase Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Broadcasting Recommendation Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Define Overall Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Reorganize Broadcasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Develop Rapid Response to Anti-American Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Bring Broadcasting Board of Governors under White House . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Special Attention to Arab/Muslim Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
More Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
New Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Combat Jamming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Key Recommendations for Public Diplomacy Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Key Recommendations for International Broadcasting . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

---

Public Diplomacy: A Review of Past
Recommendations
Background and Matrix
In the past six years, after the abolishment of the United States Information
Agency (USIA) in 1999 and the terrorist attacks two years later, U.S. public
diplomacy has been rigorously examined to determine whether improved methods,
structure, and goals could help the United States win the war on terrorism. This
report reviews 29 articles and studies on public diplomacy that have been identified
by the Department of State as being credible reports with valuable suggestions and
compares the recommendations.
These 29 documents, listed in reverse chronological order from 2005 to 1999
in Appendix A, vary in scope, depth, and purpose. Some are focused on public
diplomacy and include numerous, specific recommendations; others are more general
in nature and deal with public diplomacy in the context of broader foreign policy
issues. Some reports represent the consensus of a group of authors; others state the
views of a series of individuals. For the purposes of this review, each document has
been given an abbreviation, for exampl, “PDC” for the Public Diplomacy Council,
to make it easier to identify. Following in Table 1 is a matrix indicating the major
recommendations of all 29 reports. (Note, however, that the U.S. Institute of Peace
(USIP1) report from 2003 did not have relevant recommendations for this review.)
The matrix lists 14 categories of recommendations that appeared most frequently.
A second matrix in Table 2 lists only those reports that include specific
recommendations concerning international broadcasting. A brief discussion of
recommendation similarities and differences follows each matrix. Note that this
discussion deals only with the content of the documents. An author or organization
listed in the Appendix may have written on public diplomacy at an earlier or a later
date, and the views expressed in a particular document may not represent those of the
organization that published the document. (For more detail on public diplomacy, in
general, please see CRS Report RL32607, U.S. Public Diplomacy: Background and
the 9/11 Commission Recommendations.)

---

CRS-2
Table 1. Key Recommendations for Public Diplomacy Reform
Presidential
Redefine
Increase
Increase
Increase
Increase
Increase
Increase
Define
Directive/
Create
Reorganize
Role of
Coor-
Financial
PD
Private
Improve
Increase
Embassy
Tech-
Exchanges
Studya
Overall
Reorganize
New
PD at State
Under
Dinate
and/or
And/or
Sector
Communi
Over-
Involve-
nology
and/or
Strategy
PDb at
Agency
Dept .
Sec. of
Better
Human
Lang.
Involve-
-cation
sight
ment
Use
Libraries
White House
PD
Resources
Training
ment
WP
X
X
X
PDC1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PDC2
X
ADV1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DSB1
X
X
X
X
X
GAO1
X
X
X
911
X
X
X
X
NSFR
X
X
X
X
PDC3
X
X
X
X
X
X
RAND
X
FPA
X
X
X
X
KIE
X
X
DJE1
X
X
X
X
X
DJE2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

---

CRS-3
Presidential
Redefine
Increase
Increase
Increase
Increase
Increase
Increase
Define
Directive/
Create
Reorganize
Role of
Coor-
Financial
PD
Private
Improve
Increase
Embassy
Tech-
Exchanges
Studya
Overall
Reorganize
New
PD at State
Under
Dinate
and/or
And/or
Sector
Communi
Over-
Involve-
nology
and/or
Strategy
PDb at
Agency
Dept .
Sec. of
Better
Human
Lang.
Involve-
-cation
sight
ment
Use
Libraries
White House
PD
Resources
Training
ment
USIP1
GAO2
X
X
X
CFR1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HER1
X
X
X
X
X
HER2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ISD
X
X
X
USIP2
X
X
X
BRO
X
X
CFR2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PBS
X
X
ADV2
X
X
X
X
X
X
DSB2
X
X
X
X
X
NWC
X
X
X
X
X
X
CFR3
HRC
X
X
X
X

---

CRS-4
Note: See Table 2 for recommendations for international broadcasting reform.
a. WP: Washington Post op-ed; PDC1: Public Diplomacy Council 2005; PDC2: Public Diplomacy Council 2004; ADV1: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy;
DSB1: Defense Science Board 2004; GAO1: Government Accountability Office 2004; 911: 9/11 Commission Report; NSFR: National Strategy Forum Review; PDC3: Public
Diplomacy Council 2004; RAND: RAND Corporation; FPA: Foreign Policy Association; KIE: Kiehl, William; DJE1: Djerejian, Edward, October 7, 2003; DJE2: Djerejian,
Edward, October 2003; USIP1: U.S. Institute of Peace 2003; GAO2: Government Accountability Office 2003; CFR1: Council on Foreign Relations 2003; HER1: Heritage
Foundation, May 2003; HER2: Heritage Foundation, April 2003; ISD: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy; USIP2: U.S. Institute of Peace 2002; BRO: Brown, John;
CFR2: Council on Foreign Relations 2002; PBS: Public Broadcasting Service; ADV2: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy 2002; DSB2: Defense Science Board
2001; NWC: National War College; CFR3: Council on Foreign Relations 2001; HRC: Hart/Rudman Commission
b. Public Diplomacy

---

CRS-5
General Recommendation Comparisons
From 1999 through 2005 numerous reports, articles, studies, and op-ed pieces
have been written touting the importance of public diplomacy as a foreign policy tool
and focusing on how the United States government can improve its public diplomacy
operations to help win the war on terrorism. Among the many writings are the 29
considered here. (See Appendix A for a reverse chronological list of the reports
included in this CRS review.)
Define Overall Strategy
Several reports suggest that the Administration has not sufficiently defined or
verbalized an overall strategy for the use of public diplomacy to both improve the
U.S. image around the world, but also counter the threat of terrorism against
Americans. The 9/11 Commission Report states that the United States should
identify what it stands for and communicate that message clearly. Of the ten reports
that recommend defining an overall strategy, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) reports that the United States needs to do a better job of defining its public
diplomacy message, and that while the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) does
have a strategy for its broadcasting activities, the Department of State (DOS) does not
have an integrated strategy for its public diplomacy operations. GAO states that the
“absence of an interagency strategy complicates the task of conveying consistent
messages.” Furthermore, GAO offers that the Administration needs to define public
diplomacy success and determine how it can be measured.
The Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World
report recommends that the White House establish strategic goals and oversee the
implementation of programs that meet those goals. The U.S. Advisory Commission
on Public Diplomacy study claims that the State Department lacks authority to
implement an overall strategy for the various agencies engaged in public diplomacy
and recommends that the DOS Policy, Planning and Resources Office coordinate all
public diplomacy efforts. The Heritage Foundation recommends that the U.S.
government view public diplomacy as a long-term effort, saying that public
diplomacy should be “enshrined in a doctrine that emphasizes consistent efforts.”
The more recent Council on Foreign Relations report recommends rethinking how
the United States formulates, strategizes, and communicates its foreign policy and
should “move public diplomacy from the margins to the center of foreign policy
making.” The National War College report notes a “lack of strategic planning,” and
the earlier Council on Foreign Relations study says there is an absence of an overall
strategy and recommends the Administration develop a coherent strategic and
coordinating framework for public diplomacy activities.
Presidential Directive/Reorganize Public Diplomacy at the
White House
Ten of the studies discuss the White House taking a more proactive role in
promoting public diplomacy, coordinating public diplomacy activities throughout the
executive branch agencies, and reorganizing or initiating public diplomacy task
forces or coordinating committees at the White House. For example, reports by the

---

CRS-6
Defense Science Board Task Force and the Council on Foreign Relations urge the
President to issue a directive to strengthen the importance of communication and
public diplomacy and coordinate all activities through the White House. The
Heritage Foundation also recommends that inter-agency coordination of public
diplomacy activities be carried out through the White House. The Advisory Group
on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World report recommends the
President appoint a cabinet-level Special Counselor to the President for Public
Diplomacy. This person would, in consultation with the President and other
agencies, establish strategic goals and messages, and oversee the implementation of
programs that meet those stated goals, the report suggests. Similar ideas are offered
by the Public Diplomacy Council which suggests that a cabinet level Interagency
Committee on Public Diplomacy should be established by Presidential Directive,
cochaired by the Deputy National Security Advisor for Communication and the
Director of a new U.S. Agency for Public Diplomacy (USAPD).
Create a New Agency
Several of the studies suggest that the existing public diplomacy structure at the
Department of State is not working. The Washington Post op-ed piece by Marks,
Wick, Gelb, and Catto states that “shutting down the USIA was a major mistake,”
a sentiment that has been expressed by others in recent years.1 The op-ed piece goes
on to say that public diplomacy is not very effective under DOS and “the re-creation
of an effective instrument of public diplomacy has been urged by many.” Other
reports propose establishing an entirely new agency to have primary responsibility
for U.S. public diplomacy activities and coordination with other government entities.
The Council on Foreign Relations recommends establishing a Corporation for Public
Diplomacy to be modeled after the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The Public
Diplomacy Council suggests establishing an agency, the U.S. Agency for Public
Diplomacy (USAPD), within the Department of State and the National Security
process. The Defense Science Board reports that the President should establish a
permanent strategic communications structure within the National Security Council
(NSC). That report goes on to state that “the President should work with Congress
to establish and fund a non-profit, non-partisan Center for Strategic Communication
to support the NSC, departments, and organizations represented on a newly-
recommended Strategic Communication Committee.”
Reorganize Public Diplomacy at the Department of State
Since the 1999 elimination of the USIA, numerous experts and observers have
critiqued how the Department of State has conducted public diplomacy. According
to the GAO, public diplomacy activities at State are fragmented among various
organizational entities within the Department, with insufficient direction from the
top. Many of the studies here agree that public diplomacy in the Department of State
could be working better, but there are differing views as to how DOS should improve
it.
1 For example, Congressman Frank Wolf, Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State
Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee expressed this view at a hearing on
Public Diplomacy February 4, 2004.

---

CRS-7
The 2002 U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy report says there
should be a review of the 1999 consolidation of USIA into State with the Secretary
of State making recommendations on new training, location, and reporting structure
of public diplomacy personnel at the Department. The Defense Science Board’s
2004 report recommends redefining the role of the Under Secretary of State for
Public Diplomacy to be policy advisor and manager. Furthermore, it suggests raising
the public diplomacy office Directors to the level of Deputy Assistant Secretary or
Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary. The report urges DOS to strengthen the
Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) with an Assistant Secretary and
modernize and diversify its products.
The Heritage Foundation suggests restoring the independent reporting and
budget channels that public diplomacy lost during the USIA merger and recreating
a public diplomacy hierarchy within the Department of State as previously existed
at USIA.
Another suggestion by author William Kiehl proposes creating a new public
diplomacy organization within the State Department, including a new Bureau of
Public Diplomacy Operations. Also, he writes, “regional bureaus must include senior
public diplomacy officers at least at the Deputy Assistant Secretary level.”
The Hart/Rudman Commission recommends repealing laws that establish an
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and having some of those functions migrate
to an Assistant Secretary level official reporting directly to the Secretary of State.
Other functions could be folded into the Assistant Secretary for Economic and
Transnational Affairs, according to the Commission. Overhauling the Foreign
Service system, including ending the oral exam’s policy so that applicants could be
better matched to particular cones, like public diplomacy, would be beneficial, the
Commission asserts.
Beyond reorganizing public diplomacy at State, several of the reports refer to
the need for a new “culture” at State: seeking to change the perception that public
diplomacy personnel are second class citizens in the Department; recruiting and
hiring practices that would encourage public diplomacy skills to be highly valued;
and a “much more open approach in which innovation trumps the caution,” according
to the National War College report.
Redefine the Role of the Under Secretary of State
for Public Diplomacy
Six of the studies refer to the need for redefining the role of the Under Secretary
of State for Public Diplomacy. Most call for strengthening the role, the chain of
authority leading to the Under Secretary, and the authority to make decisions
regarding public diplomacy funding, policy, personnel, and direction. In contrast, the
Hart/Rudman Commission recommends repealing the laws establishing an Under
Secretary for Public Diplomacy and having some of those functions migrate to an
Assistant Secretary-level officer reporting directly to the Secretary of State. Other
public diplomacy functions should become the responsibility of the Assistant
Secretary for Economic and Transnational Affairs, the Commission said.

---

CRS-8
Increase Embassy Involvement
Several reports speak of a need to increase embassy involvement in public
diplomacy activities. Suggestions include expanding U.S. diplomats’ personal
contacts in the host country, sending the message from the top tiers of the
Administration and the Department of State that public diplomacy is central to U.S.
foreign policy, and requiring at least one tour in a public diplomacy assignment for
Foreign Service Officers to be promoted to Senior Foreign Service Officers or Chief
of Mission. Another suggestion involves embassies maintaining networks of
individuals (such as former Peace Corps volunteers, exchange students, and retired
Foreign Service Officers) who could be tapped to help portray America in the best
light.
Coordination
Several studies suggest a lack of coordination of U.S. government public
diplomacy activities by the White House and within the Department of State. The
U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy notes that there have been attempts
to improve coordination, citing the January 2003 creation of the Office of Global
Communications within the White House, as well as the September 2002 formation
of the Strategic Communication Policy Coordination Committee and the December
2002 interagency Strategic Communications Fusion Team. Nevertheless,
coordination is still inadequate, according to several of the reports.
Recommendations on improving government coordination of public diplomacy
entities and programs include
(1) the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy suggests assigning the State
Department’s Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources with the responsibility for
overseeing the strategic planning of all public diplomacy programming and
resources;
(2) the Heritage Foundation seeks better coordination through the White House,
specifically through the Office of Global Communications;
(3) the Public Diplomacy Council recommends that a new U.S. Agency for Public
Diplomacy be responsible for coordinating all U.S. government public diplomacy
efforts and establish an Interagency Committee on PD at the Cabinet level to
coordinate and direct the national PD strategy;
(4) the Council on Foreign Relations recommends that a coherent strategic and
coordinating framework for public diplomacy be developed, including a presidential
directive on public diplomacy and a Public Diplomacy Coordinating Structure led by
the president’s personal designee;
(5) the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World advises
a strengthening of the role of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy to coordinate
government-wide public diplomacy activities, review country program plans with
respect to public diplomacy, allocate human and financial resources, and play a role

---

CRS-9
in performance evaluations. The Group asserts that strengthening the Under
Secretary’s role is essential.
Increase Financial and Human Resources
About half of the reports state that public diplomacy resources are inadequate
and call for increased monetary and human resources. The Council on Foreign
Relations said that funding should be increased to “significantly higher levels” to be
more in line with public diplomacy’s role as a vital component of U.S. foreign policy
and national security. The Council put forth the idea of establishing a Public
Diplomacy Reserve Corps patterned after FEMA’s disaster-relief model. The Public
Diplomacy Council specifically recommends a 300% increase in public diplomacy
overseas staffing and a four-fold budget increase over five years. Some, such as the
Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World, state that
additional professional staff dedicated only to Arab and Muslim issues would be
valuable.
Increase Public Diplomacy and/or Language Training
Coupled with the view since 9/11 that public diplomacy is an essential tool in
U.S. foreign policy and national security is the belief that all personnel involved with
conducting U.S. foreign policy should be trained about the importance of public
diplomacy and given skills needed to fully utilize public diplomacy effectively. The
Council on Foreign Relations states that there is a deficit of trained professionals
regarding public diplomacy. GAO suggests expanding public diplomacy and foreign
language training of Foreign Service Officers; the Council on Foreign Relations
offers the idea of establishing an independent public diplomacy training institute;
and the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World
recommends that all State Department personnel receive public diplomacy training.
Taking that a step further, the Foreign Policy Association argues that “public affairs
diplomacy officers should be encouraged to develop language fluency and country
and regional expertise and should not be rotated among regions like other FSOs
[Foreign Service Officers].”
Increase Technology Use
Most of the eight reports that speak about increased, more effective, and creative
uses of technology referred to use of the Internet. For example, the National War
College report states that there are “deficiencies in information technologies and the
mindsets needed to integrate new technologies into the conduct of diplomacy.... State
Department needs to learn how to leverage the Internet’s capabilities and potential
in the conduct of diplomacy.” In addition, some reports promote increased satellite
broadcasting and more creative use of all available information technologies.
Increase Private Sector Involvement
Some studies make the observation that the private sector has many advantages
in getting things done quickly, being highly effective, and efficient in influencing
people. By incorporating the best practices of the private sector in U.S. government

---

CRS-10
public diplomacy activities, it is believed that public diplomacy can become a more
valuable foreign policy tool. RAND suggested that “outsourcing” public diplomacy
would put some distance between a “favorable message and an unfavorable
messenger,” and that identifying private sector talents could be motivated through a
competitive bidding process. Another idea comes from the Public Diplomacy
Council to create a public-private partnership “Foundation for the Global Future” to
provide permanent off-budget funding for international exchanges conducted by
civilian and military federal agencies. The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public
Diplomacy agrees with the Council on Foreign Relations about creating an
independent Corporation for Public Diplomacy. Additionally, the Commission
would encourage overseas posts to explore local public-private partnerships, find
ways for visitor exchanges to take advantage of private sector generosity, and
develop Internet and media programming that would utilize public/private
partnerships. The Advisory Commission also proposes that private sector
communication consultants could become more involved in public diplomacy efforts
with advertising, as well as entertainment programs, and that the academic
community could offer public diplomacy majors at American colleges and
universities. GAO adds that the U.S. government could collaborate with the private
sector to develop optimal methods for measuring effectiveness of public diplomacy
efforts.
Improve Communication
Improved and increased communication between the United States and foreign,
particularly Arab and Muslim, populations was cited by a few of the studies. The
Defense Science Board’s 2004 report asserts that “nothing shapes U.S. policies and
global perceptions of U.S. foreign and national security objectives more powerfully
than the President’s statements and actions, and those of senior officials.” The Board
suggests that the President communicate directly with overseas audiences.
The 9/11 Commission Report recommends that the United States should
identify what it stands for and communicate that message clearly. The 9/11
Commission observed that many foreign populations receive large amounts of aid
from U.S. citizens and never know from where it came.
The Council on Foreign Relations proposes a more customized, “two-way”
dialogue, as contrasted to conventional one-way, “push-down” mass communication,
including an “engagement” approach that involves listening, dialogue, and debate
that increases the amount and the effectiveness of public opinion research.
Furthermore, communication should foster increasingly meaningful relationships
between U.S. government, foreign publics, and foreign journalists. The Council says
the U.S. government should: support voices of moderation, especially among the
young; identify and develop indigenous talent; and craft messages highlighting
cultural overlaps between American values and those of the rest of the world.
The RAND study encourages finding different ways of promoting two-way
communication, such as call-in talk shows, live interaction among different elements
of an audience, and broadcasting debates, rather than offering monologues. The
Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World proposes
establishing an Arab and Muslim Countries Public Communications Unit under the

---

CRS-11
direction of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy to work closely with the
Office of Global Communications and coordinate U.S. government media outreach
to Arab and Muslim populations and promote a ‘rapid response’ team to react and
correct inaccuracies and distortions in foreign media.
Increase Exchanges and Libraries
More than half of the 29 reports recommend expanding U.S. exchange programs
and/or U.S. libraries overseas, making it the most common proposal among this
group of reports. Some ideas for exchanges include expanding the U.S. Speaker and
Specialist Program, expanding shorter duration exchange programs, creating
American studies programs in local universities in Arab and Muslim populations,
creating a public-private partnership, “Foundation for the Global Future,” to provide
permanent off-budget funding for international exchanges conducted by civilian and
military federal agencies, significantly broadening Middle East/U.S. exchange
programs, and expanding exchanges to government officials and business
professionals. Several studies echoed recommendations to expand American
overseas libraries as well as the American Corners Program.2 In addition, the
Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World proposes
implementing a new American Knowledge Library to translate the best American
books and make them available to local libraries and universities.
Increase Oversight
A few of the studies recommend greater and continuous oversight of public
diplomacy activities. One suggestion was for Congress to provide legislative
authority for a quadrennial review of public diplomacy. Another would create a new
congressional committee structure with sustained oversight of all U.S. government
public diplomacy programs and activities.
2 The American Corners is a program that was initiated in October 2000 whereby a library
in a host country provides space, staff and overhead expenses for the United States to offer
publically-accessible research facilities and information on U.S. culture.

---

CRS-12
Table 2. Key Recommendations for International Broadcasting
Special
Bring BBGb
Reorganize
Develop Rapid
Attention to
New
Combat
Studya
Define Overall
Under
More Resources
Objectives
Broadcasting
Response
Arab/Muslim
Technologies
Jamming
White House
Populations
PDC1
X
X
X
ADV1
X
X
X
X
GAO1
X
NSFR
X
X
PDC3
X
DJE2
X
X
X
HER1
X
HER2
X
USIP2
X
CFR2
X
PBS
X
X
X
a. PDC1: Public Diplomacy Council 2005; ADV1: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy 2004; GAO1: Government Accountability Office 2004; NSFR: National Strategy
Forum Review; PDC3: Public Diplomacy Council 2004; DJE2: Djerejian, Edward, October 2003; HER1: Heritage Foundation, May 2003; HER2: Heritage Foundation, April
2003; USIP2: U.S. Institute of Peace 2002; CFR2: Council on Foreign Relations 2002; PBS: Public Broadcasting Service
b. Broadcasting Board of Governors

---

CRS-13
Broadcasting Recommendation Comparisons
Of the 29 reports and articles, 11 offer recommendations specifically for U.S.
government international broadcasting. Recommendations range from having
strategic objectives to reorganizing the broadcasting entities to increasing resources
and using more technologies to focusing on combating jamming. (See Table 2.)
Define Overall Objectives
GAO, the Public Diplomacy Council (PDC), and the PBS News Hour broadcast
suggest the need for the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to better define its
overall objectives and strategy of obtaining the objectives. The 2002 PBS broadcast
states that there is no grand strategy or coordinated approach of U.S. broadcasting
with other public diplomacy activities. GAO’s 2004 report states that while the
BBG does have a strategic plan and has made progress in some measuring of its
progress, the BBG has not defined a plan to adequately measure audience size or its
programming credibility overseas. The PDC’s January 2005 report urges the
“Administration and Congress to take a hard look at how international broadcasting
is managed to serve broad U.S. public diplomacy goals and the American taxpayer
and integrate broadcasting more closely with other public diplomacy tools.” The
PDC believes that international broadcasting should be more closely integrated with
other elements of strategic communication.
Reorganize Broadcasting
Although the U.S. government international broadcasting structure was
reorganized in 1994, some reports recommend reorganizing U.S. international
broadcasting again. The U.S. Institute of Peace states that, “the current array of US
government broadcasting services is duplicative, expensive, and even
counterproductive.”
The Heritage Foundation’s May 2003 report asserts that international
broadcasting has “lapsed into a jumble of duplicative efforts, led by a part time Board
of Governors.” Reorganizing broadcasting would make it more streamlined and
more efficient, the report claims. Furthermore, according to Heritage, revitalizing the
Voice of America’s resources and program content is in order as VOA has been
neglected while Middle East programing has “proliferated in a confusing array.”
The Council on Foreign Relations (July 30, 2002) “supports an independent and
well-qualified broadcasting board with a full-time, top-caliber Chief Executive
Officer who would report to the current BBG and be empowered to direct and
supervise all U.S. nonmilitary international broadcasting activities. Furthermore, the
Department of State and the BBG should strengthen the Secretary of State’s role in
providing information and guidance on foreign policy to the BBG by clarifying and
specifying the Secretary’s role in making decisions on broadcast languages and other
foreign policy matters.”

---

CRS-14
Develop Rapid Response to Anti-American Messages
The Advisory Group for the Arab and Muslim World proposes that U.S.
government media should reach out to Arab and Muslim populations and promote
a ‘rapid response’ team to react and correct inaccuracies and distortions in foreign
media.
Bring Broadcasting Board of Governors under White House
The Advisory Group for the Arab and Muslim World states that about half of
the fund for public diplomacy goes for international broadcasting. The Group
believes that U.S. government international broadcasting should be brought under the
strategic direction of their proposed new Special Counselor to the President, saying
“[broadcasting] must be part of the public diplomacy process, not marching to its
own drummer with its own goals and strategy, sources of funding and board.”
Special Attention to Arab/Muslim Populations
Five reports provide various proposals regarding additional broadcasting to Arab
and Muslim populations. As previously mentioned, the Heritage Foundation argues
that the various Middle East surrogate broadcasting entities such as Radio Sawa and
Al Hurra TV have distracted the BBG from properly maintaining VOA resources and
programming. The Advisory Group for the Arab and Muslim World recommends a
thorough independent review of the Middle East Television Network, saying that
there is a high level of skepticism in the Middle East region about state-owned
television of any sort. The Group suggests that paring up with private sector
programming might be more effective. The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public
Diplomacy recommends expanding communication with Arab press by creating a
network of 24-hour message dissemination and monitoring centers. The Public
Diplomacy Forum (February 2004) held a panel discussion on Middle East
broadcasting. One panelist referred to Radio and Al Hurra TV as being state-run, and
therefore, less successful with Middle East audiences. The panelist said that, “the
Arab public is interested in American programming, but they are not necessarily
interested in programming that is under tight U.S. government direction.” Another
panelist said that “there is no market waiting for Al Hurra’s message.” The third
panelist strongly disagreed and said that “the United States should have started Radio
Sawa and Al Hurra a long time ago.”
Other reports generally support ongoing Middle East broadcasting or think more
resources and expanded programming to Muslim and Arab populations should be
forthcoming.
More Resources
As with public diplomacy, most reports that addressed resources urged a greater
long-term monetary commitment for international broadcasting. Reaching larger
audiences and improving the ability to measure impact are two primary needs for
additional broadcast funding.

---

CRS-15
New Technologies
International broadcasting is one area of foreign policy that can make use of new
technologies to become more effective. The Advisory Commission on Public
Diplomacy encourages the BBG to look for better software to improve broadcasting’s
reach to foreign audiences over the Internet. The Commission suggests the
educational programs teaching the English language or American culture might be
useful. Also, the Commission recommends that satellite television programs can be
further developed to increase local language programming available via satellite TV.
The Public Diplomacy Council recommends more innovative broadcasting, Internet
programs for youth, and interactive radio programming.
Combat Jamming
The Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy notes that there are some areas
of the world such as North Korea, China and Cuba where the United States has
difficulty reaching audiences because of local government jamming. The
Commission notes that technologies such as the Internet and direct broadcast satellite
have made it more difficult, but not impossible, for governments to block American
programming from their citizens. The Commission urges the BBG to continue to
develop new methods to combat jamming.

---

CRS-16
Appendix A
(WP) Leonard H. Marks, Charles Z. Wick, Bruce Gelb and Henry E. Catto.
“America Needs a Voice Abroad,” Washington Post, February 26, 2005.
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54764-2005Feb25.html]
(PDC1) Public Diplomacy Council. Call for Action on Public Diplomacy.
January 2005.
[http://pdi.gwu.edu/merlin-cgi/p/downloadFile/d/7536/n/off/other/1/name/ACAL
LFORACTIONONPUBLICDIPLOMACY01-2005prin/]
(PDC2) Public Diplomacy Council. “Transformation Not Restoration.”
Statement of Dissent to Call for Action on Public Diplomacy. January 2005.
[http://pdi.gwu.edu/merlin-cgi/p/downloadFile/d/7537/n/off/other/1/name/Dissent
_12-21-04pdf/]
(ADV1) United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. 2004 Report
of the United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. September 28,
2004.
[http://www.state.gov/r/adcompd/rls/36275.htm]
(DSB1) Defense Science Board. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force
on Strategic Communication. September 2004.
[http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf]
(GAO1) U.S. Government Accountability Office. U.S. Public Diplomacy: State
Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors Expand Post-9/11 Efforts but
Challenges Remain. GAO-04-1061T. August 23, 2004.
[http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d041061t.pdf]
(911) National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. The
9/11 Commission Report. July 22, 2004.
[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html]
(NSFR) Walter R. Roberts and Barry Fulton. “Rebuilding Public Diplomacy.”
National Strategy Forum Review. Spring 2004.
[http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&requesttimeout=500&folder=
7&paper=1611]
(PDC3) Public Diplomacy Council. “Engaging the Arab/Islamic World - Next
Steps for U.S. Public Diplomacy.” Summary of Public Diplomacy Forum.
February 27, 2004.
[http://pdi.gwu.edu/merlin-cgi/p/downloadFile/d/6504/n/off/other/1/name/Summa
ryoftheFeb27Forumdoc/]
(RAND) Charles Wolf, Jr. and Brian Rosen. Public Diplomacy - How To Think
About and Improve It. RAND Corporation. 2004.
[http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2004/RAND_OP134.pdf]

---

CRS-17
(FPA) Jerrold Keilson. “Public Diplomacy and U.S. Foreign Policy.” Great
Decisions 2004. Foreign Policy Association.
[http://www.fpa.org/topics_info2414/topics_info_show.htm?doc_id=200548]
(KIE) William Kiehl. “Can Humpty Dumpty be Saved?” American Diplomacy.
November 13, 2003.
[http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2003_10-12/kiehl_humpty/kieh
l_humpty.html]
(DJE1) Peter G. Peterson and Edward Djerejian. A New Strategic Direction for
U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Arab & Muslim World. Transcript. Council on
Foreign Relations. October 7, 2003.
[http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6417]
(DJE2) Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World.
Changing Minds, Winning Peace: A New Strategic Direction for U.S. Public
diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim World. October 1,2003.
[http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/24882.pdf]
(USIP1) Richard Solomon and Sheryl J. Brown. Creating a Common
Communications Culture: Interoperability in Crisis Management. United States
Institute of Peace. September 12, 2003.
[http://www.usip.org/virtualdiplomacy/publications/reports/17.html]
(GAO2) U.S. General Accounting Office. U.S. Public Diplomacy: State
Department Expands Efforts but Faces Significant Challenges.GAO-03-951.
September 2003.
[http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03951.pdf]
(CFR1) Council on Foreign Relations. Finding America’s Voice: A Strategy for
Reinvigorating Public Diplomacy. September 2003.
[http://www.cfr.org/pdf/public_diplomacy.pdf]
(HER1) Stephen Johnson and Helle Dale. Reclaiming America’s Voice
Overseas. Web Memo #273. The Heritage Foundation. May 4, 2003.
[http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm273.cfm]
(HER2) Stephen Johnson and Helle Dale. How to Reinvigorate U.S. Public
Diplomacy. Backgrounder #1654. The Heritage Foundation. April 23, 2003.
[http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg1645.cfm]
(ISD) Talking with the Islamic World: Is the Message Getting Through? Institute
for the Study of Diplomacy. Working Paper. October 2002.
[http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/sites/isd.html]
(USIP2) Barry Fulton, ed. Net Diplomacy I, II, and III. Virtual Diplomacy
Report. United States Institute of Peace. October 2002.
[http://www.usip.org/virtualdiplomacy/publications/pubs.html#vdr]

---

CRS-18
(BRO) John Brown. “The Purposes and Cross Purposes of Public Diplomacy.”
American Diplomacy. August 15, 2002.
[http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_07-09/brown_pubdipl/br
own_pubdipl.html]
(CFR2) Council on Foreign Relations. Public Diplomacy: A Strategy for Reform.
Report of a Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force. July 2002.
(PBS) “Public Diplomacy, U.S. Outreach to Arab World.” OnlineNewsHour,
the website of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. February 18, 2002.
[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/public_diplomacy/]
(ADV2) United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. Building
Public Diplomacy Through a Reformed Structure and Additional Resources.
2002.
[http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/13622.pdf]
(DSB2) Defense Science Board. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force
on Managed Information Dissemination. September 2001.
[http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/mid.pdf]
(NWC) Information Age Diplomacy. National War College/Northwestern
University Symposium. April 5-6, 2001.
[http://www.ndu.edu/nwc/activities/public/SymposiumWebsite/symposium_main.
htm]
(CFR3) Council on Foreign Relations and Center for Strategic and International
Studies Task Force. State Department Reform. 2001.
(HRC) U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century (Hart/Rudman
Commission). Phase I report: New World Coming: American Security in the 21st
Century (1999); Phase II report: Seeking a National Strategy: A Concert for
Preserving Security and Promoting Freedom (2000); Phase III report: Road Map
for National Security: Imperative for Change (2001).
[http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/nssg/Reports/reports.htm]

---