The Foreign Service Journal, October 2006

Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes. The Office of Management and Budget is more blunt. Evaluating eight informational, cultural and foreign broadcasting programs, it rates public diplomacy field operations as “not performing — results not demonstrat- ed” (www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore) . OMB stresses that the programs have had difficulty measuring their impact, if they have been evaluated at all; that few of the State Department PD programs link budget to performance; and that there is no broad overarching U.S. government public diplomacy strategy. Cultural exchange programs and foreign broadcasting programs get “effective” or “moderately effective” ratings from OMB, with cautionary notes about the lack of a master strategy. It finds that the exchange and broadcasting pro- grams have measurable indicators of success. Strategy and management get short shrift in some cor- ners of the State Department, but they are fundamental to any communication program. In commercial public relations, practitioners are obsessed with proving “return on investment,” fearful that unless they demonstrate their utility they will lose their jobs. Under Secretary Hughes appears to get the message. The GAO acknowledges the “strategic framework” for public diplomacy that she laid out in a May 10 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (see http://www.state . gov/r/us/66098.htm). There she identified three broad objectives and spoke of “fundamentally changing the way we do business” in six specific areas. In her written response to the GAO study, Hughes promised an “integrated strategic communication plan,” including tools for individual embassies such as model country-level planning formats and a “best practices” Web site to improve tradecraft. But even if the PD community is now heading in the right direction, it will not be easy to build a coherent global program. Technology and changing communica- tion patterns around the world pose both opportunities and challenges. Let’s look at their implications for infor- mation diplomacy, cultural and educational exchanges, international broadcasting and, finally, for embassy field operations themselves — where it all comes together. Information Diplomacy: Technology Makes It Harder On balance, technology is making public affairs and public communication harder, not easier. The Internet spreads rumors faster than authorities can set the record straight. This is a major worry, for example, for those who are planning to respond to an avian influenza pandemic. Media reports of hospital admissions will appear weeks before epidemiological evidence confirms that a virus is spreading. Using information to control rumors will be a major issue. Moreover, individuals are taking over a slice of news and commentary. Bloggers uninhibited by professional news ethics can now frame an issue for the public. The widespread riots and demonstrations earlier this year over Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad spread over the Internet before authorities could react, causing notable damage to East-West dialogue. Under Secretary Hughes’ rapid reaction team and associated public affairs improvements and the Bureau of International Infor- mation Programs’ modest “misinformation” Web page have not reported major success in countering such developments. I recently had occasion to review Washington’s major sources of public information for foreign audiences: the Web sites of the State Department’s Public Affairs and International Information Programs bureaus, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the foreign broadcasting organizations under the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Nearly all use up-to-date Web tech- nology to disseminate information; a few offer promising interactive programs as well. PA and IIP both offer moderated online discussions and Really Simple Syndication feeds. IIP’s Web site (http://usinfo.state.gov ), which is meant for use by for- eign audiences only, contains broader content and is much more easily searchable than the Public Affairs Web site. PA’s site, www.state.gov, has blossomed with photos, features and online discussions in recent years. Both sites offer Web chats with U.S. officials and experts. A list of “Major Public Diplomacy Accomplish- ments,” distributed by Hughes’ office, describes some of the new Web-based information tools as “an en- hanced technology initiative.” But information media habits are the most rapidly changing part of the global dialogue. Few people read Web sites in the same way as a newspaper or magazine. New media —Web broadcasters, social networking sites and computer games — link millions worldwide in dia- logue and collaboration. People are connecting to each F O C U S O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 45