The Foreign Service Journal, October 2009

O C T O B E R 2 0 0 9 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 41 taxpayer via programs ably adminis- tered by USAID, the Peace Corps and other institutions. But the pub- lic diplomacy impact of that assis- tance has, I would argue, noticeably declined over the past several decades as our focus has shifted from monuments to programs, and fromdirect assistance to contract ad- ministration. Moreover, “helping people” can- not be the sole objective of our as- sistance. In the final analysis, aid — like PD—must serve the objectives of U.S. foreign policy. Restoring America’s public diplomacy capabilities will not be easy, but it can be done if we look hard at existing programs and redesign them for the challenges that lie ahead. Fortunately, changing our approach does not have to cost any more than we are already spending. We do, however, have to spend that money more effectively in each country where we have a presence in order to effect real change in for- eign perceptions of America and the American people. We must also put more faith in our own peo- ple by decentralizing decision-mak- ing to the embassy level, putting more “people on the gound” in di- rect contact with local populations. Finally, we should allocate a por- tion of our assistance dollars for “monuments” that will have long- term, lasting impact in each country. By taking these steps, we may once again begin to see public diplomacy successes across the full range of over- seas programs, both military and diplomatic — thereby making it easier for foreign leaders to support America’s foreign policy objectives. ■ F O C U S Restoring America’s PD capabilities will not be easy, but it can be done if we look hard at existing programs and redesign them for the challenges that lie ahead.