US: Debating Domestic Propaganda, Part III

[Harold Schiffman]

Debating Domestic Propaganda, Part III
By Sharon Weinberger August 13, 2008 |

 Some day, when it's more funny than disturbing, I will write about my
brief stint as a Foreign Service Officer, where I was assigned to the
public diplomacy section of the U.S. Embassy in Doha in the run up to
the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Today, I'll just mention this experience in
passing as the third part in a three-part series explaining why I
respect -- but disagree -- with a good portion of Matt Armstrong's
essay, where he argues that the U.S. government should take the
"strategic communication" campaign to its own people.

In part one, I argue this is abhorrent to democracy; in part two, I
explain why it would undermine the legitimate and valuable role of
government public affairs; finally, as I note today, it ultimately
wouldn't work. Now, back to Doha, where as the Arabic world (in fact,
the whole world) was trying to understand why the United States was
about to invade Iraq, I, as the assistant public affairs officer at
the U.S. Embassy in a country that is home to Al Jazeera, was being
spammed with daily cables asking whether our embassy would be
interested in having "jazz ambassadors" visit Qatar. Option two was a
twenty year old "paper show" talking about NASA that could be
displayed at local schools. It went downhill from there.

To the point: the U.S. government's current approach to "public
diplomacy" is removed from reality, and I don't buy, as former Defense
Secretary Rumsfeld argues, that establishing an entire agency is the
way to solve the problem.  The United States can't get anyone to
listen to Radio Sawa, and no one has come up with a plan for how they
would make it any better. The U.S. can throw as much money as it wants
at public diplomacy, but unless there is an idea of how to spend the
money, the U.S. government can't compete with CNN, let alone Al
Jazeera.

Why won't it work? Because a U.S. sponsored television or radio
program with political or social content that would actually interest
an audience in the Middle East would have to include frank and even
critical discussions of U.S. policy that interests the target
audience, such as U.S. support for Israel, the invasion of Iraq, and
our relations with regimes in the region with less than democratic
leanings. I don't see that lasting more than one session in Congress.
Matt writes "Al-Qaeda increased their influence and reach with words,
images, and actions," but Al Qaeda doesn't have a legislative branch.
It doesn't have a judiciary, or even a public with voting rights.

Back at home, Matt also thinks the American public could use some
government news programming. "Relying on the private media to engage
and inform the American public is increasingly wishful thinking," he
writes, raising the question of whether he thinks the government can
do a better job. Matt's argument in the essay largely rests on the
notion that Smith-Mundt evolved away from its post-World War II
origins; but there's good reason for that. The world has evolved, and
he never explains why or how a combined domestic/foreign public
diplomacy/strategic communication campaign would accomplish its
objectives.

Finally, convincing foreign audiences of the righteousness of our
policies is a noble goal, but there is the reality that sometimes our
policies are not righteous. In a democratic society we accept that
sometimes we fail, and the solution should be to change those
policies, not "sell" them to foreign audiences that don't want to buy
them. How, though, can we communicate our policies to foreign
audiences, when indeed we are in the right? Communicating with foreign
audiences is a worthy goal, but it's one that requires a different
sort of investment: increasing the number of government officials
proficient in Arabic (and other foreign languages), and making those
officials available to Arabic-language media. It may also mean,
eventually, reexamining the policies themselves.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/debating-dome-2.html

--
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************