The Foreign Service Journal, January 2003

S everal months ago, I mounted a major public affairs event here in Tokyo, an afternoon seminar on the Kyoto Protocol, to explain the Bush administration’s policy. The program brought together speakers from the Japanese business community who advise the government on green- house-gas issues, a young and artic- ulate advocate from the environ- mental NGO community, an ecolo- gy writer and journalist, and a high- ranking State Department col- league. The entire session was con- ducted in Japanese. Afterward, I complimented my embassy colleague, noting that it is sometimes difficult to get my State colleagues to speak publicly for the embassy, and said I especially appre- ciated his daring willingness to do so in Japanese. “What can they do, fire me?” he replied. Now, this was an odd rejoinder. Why should a veteran U.S. diplomat, with a long and distinguished career, express even joking concern that his advocacy would be somehow frowned on, even grounds for disci- plinary action, by State manage- ment? How in the world did it come to pass that skilled and experienced FSOs should get the feeling that public speaking on policy issues is not welcome? I ask these questions as a former U.S. Information Agency officer who has experienced first-hand the chilling effect of remarks made by high-level State colleagues. I’ve heard, for example, that our embassies do not need to mount public affairs campaigns at all. Or indeed, since the issues are nuanced and shifting, some officials maintain that it is best to leave public diplo- macy out of the picture altogether. Similarly, some of my colleagues have raised questions about my choice of unofficial speakers (once known as “AmParts” and “American Speakers”) and sought to draw boundaries marking how far I should be permitted to go in engaging acad- emics and other experts whose pub- lic views might not dovetail with State policy, and would therefore run counter to U.S. government goals. I recently posed these concerns to a State Department colleague with many years of experience with speaker programs and public diplo- macy. Regarding State policy on how far “off the reservation” we could go in inviting U.S. speakers, he said, “nothing is written down.” This is what I suspected, and it is why I think this article is necessary. For in the vacuum formed by the unwill- ingness to address the boundaries, there is a pall cast by our more timid colleagues, who would have us offer speaker programs suitable for a Cold War-era people’s republic. But I am not a commissar for a moribund, ideological dictatorship. Rather, I want us to fashion an approach to public diplomacy worthy of a confi- dent, democratic superpower. Handling Dissidents Gaining international support for the war on terrorism is obviously at the top of the list of current U.S. for- eign policy priorities. My State col- leagues in the public diplomacy field would doubtless cite various exam- ples of speakers who would be obvi- ously unacceptable in that endeavor. I think we could all agree that those who hold the U.S. government responsible for most of the ills of the world, including terrorism, or who would admire in any way the perpe- trators of the World Trade Center attacks, should never be engaged by a U.S. embassy to speak officially on any topic. But what about a speaker who supports the current war on ter- rorism but has other ideas about how to pursue it — e.g., someone who advocates that the U.S. distance itself from the current Israeli leader- ship and support more vigorous moves toward Palestinian state- hood? In my view, such an individ- ual could be a U.S.-sponsored speak- er, though I would pair him or her with an articulate advocate of the The Courage Of Our Convictions B Y K EN M OSKOWITZ J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 3 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 15 S PEAKING O UT Where did skilled and experienced FSOs get the feeling that public speaking on policy issues is not welcome?