The Foreign Service Journal, October 2009

tional Development and other agencies play an important role in America’s engagement with the world, there have been attempts in the past decade to empower the under secretary for public diplomacy, or some entity within the White House or Defense, to take the lead in public diplo- macy. The National Security Council has been proposed for this role, as well. The White House announcement in May of the creation of a Global Engagement Directorate is just the most recent example. None of these solutions has worked because R was too under-resourced and powerless, even within the State De- partment. The White House Office of Global Communi- cation (created in 2002 and allowed to die unheralded in 2005), the Defense Department’s Office of Strategic In- formation (created after 9/11 and closed under fire in 2002) and the Pentagon’s Office of Support for Public Diplomacy (shut down in 2009) were seen variously as ineffective, too propagandistic or sinister. The NSC has had no operational responsibility (at least since the Iran-Contra affair), and thus would be out of its lane, as well. A United States Public Diplomacy Agency An agency with a unity of command and clear lines of authority in public diplomacy does not now exist. Should one be created, however, it would be the natural lead agency for PD and could function effectively in that role. In the narrative that follows, such a new specialized agency of the Department of State — which for conven- ience we may call the United States Public Diplomacy Service — comes to life (see Figure 1, p. 48). Modeled in part on USAID’s relationship with the Department of State and in part on the best of the structure of public diplomacy that worked so well from 1953 to 1999, the organization outlined here also incorporates new technological elements such as new media and the Internet, engagement with the private and NGO sectors, clear interagency coordination, and a culture of creativity and constant evaluation of pro- grams and outcomes. Implicit, of course, is the fact that PD input into the policy process at home and abroad from the beginning is an absolute necessity. In the proposed new setup, the Bureau of Public Affairs, headed by the department spokesman, is removed from the public diplomacy configuration and placed directly with the Secretary of State, whom it traditionally serves and where it rightly belongs. This change also eliminates potential con- flicts on domestic dissemination of public diplomacy mate- rials, prohibited by the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act that con- stitutes one of the legislative foundations for official U.S. in- ternational information and cultural exchanges. The new agency’s own structure makes clear its open- ness to the private sector and raises research, evaluation andmeasurement to a central position (see Figure 2, p. 50). The miracle, however, is not that the USPDS can come to life, but that it can do so in a budget-neutral way. In these perilous times, with growing budget deficits as far as the eye can see, it is essential that even something as im- portant as America’s engagement with the rest of the world be measured according to the strictest fiduciary standards. That is why this institutional framework is both lean and horizontal. The $1.7 billion a year currently expended for public diplomacy within the Department of State and the BBG is essentially identical to the budget carried over to the newly proposed structure. In time, this figure should grow to be commensurate with the importance of Ameri- can global engagement; but initially, no additional funds would be needed. Because the structure superficially resembles the old USIA, critics may claim this is nothing more than an old agency’s recreation, even as they acknowledge that it may have been a mistake to merge it into State. But the USPDS is not USIA with a new name: it is public diplomacy with a new face . The new agency within the State Department will be “plugged into” State not only at the top and in the field, but at every level within the department to ensure seamless policy access and guidance. At the same time, it will have the cohesiveness and chain of command now missing from public diplomacy and, as a more agile and flexible entity, the ability to bring more creativity to our global engagement. A Closer Look In such a new agency, eight offices would report to the director, including the Office for Research, Program Eval- uation and Measurement (including Media Reaction). Based on the successful approach ECA has undertaken in the past, all U. S. Public Diplomacy Service programs and activities will have ongoing evaluation and measurement of their effectiveness. The Office of Private Sector Coopera- tion and Public Liaison, as the name implies, would be the central point of contact for engagement with the private sector and the NGO community. The Office of Policy & Coordination would serve as a direct link between State’s Policy Planning, senior leadership and the new agency, as well as being a point of contact for Defense, USAID and 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 49 F O C U S