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 51 other government agencies at the oper- ational level. It is expected that senior State FSOs and representatives of the uniformed military, as well as PD offi- cers, would staff this office. A policy officer would be an integral part of each of the geographic offices in the Bureau of Public Diplomacy Oper- ations. These positions, along with the Public Affairs Bureau offices in the State Department’s ge- ographic bureaus and in the Office of the Spokesman, would be the main opportunities for constant engagement between USPDS officers and State’s non-PD officers. As a matter of agency policy, USPDS officers would be ex- pected to serve at least one tour within State or another na- tional security or foreign affairs agency, at home or abroad, as a junior officer, again as a mid-level officer and, finally, as a Senior Foreign Service officer (that is, for as much as 25 percent of the career). State FSOs would be encouraged to serve in USPDS positions, as well. Administration and management layering are deliber- ately kept to a minimum in this proposal. Rather than ex- ecutive offices in each bureau, there is a central Office of Resources and Management reporting to the director, and a satellite Division for Administration and Manage- ment in the Bureau of International Broadcasting that in- herits the relatively larger staff and budget of the BBG. Completing the director’s front office constellation are a Legal Adviser, a Chief of Staff’s office that also functions as the agency’s executive secretariat, and an office for security liaison with State’s Diplomatic Security Bureau (to ensure smart security and accessibility for overseas USPDS facili- ties and cultural centers). The Office of Personnel and Training would have the responsibility of providing all human resources, whether they are Foreign Service, Civil Service or Locally Engaged Staff. The U.S. Advisory Com- mission on Public Diplomacy, a presidentially appointed board with the duty to report annually to Congress, would also have immediate access to the director. The bulk of the new agency’s Washington, D.C.-based personnel, however, would reside in just four bureaus, two of which already exist in the Department of State (IIP and ECA). These two bureaus remain largely as they are cur- rently constituted, adding only the Foreign Press Centers that are now a part of Public Affairs. The third and largest bureau, International Broadcasting, would be based on the current BBG, streamlined and reconfigured to include in- tegrated radio, TV and new media. The fourth bureau, Public Diplo- macy Operations, would bring together all overseas PD operations and Wash- ington support at a single location, with six regional offices and an office con- centrating on international and multi- lateral organizations. It is this bureau that would connect public diplomacy’s worldwide vision to individual regional and country-spe- cific programs. Overseas PD officers would have a direct link through this bureau with USPDS leadership. These officers would also provide the necessary field perspective to make worldwide public diplomacy programming effec- tive at the local level. If Not This, What? If Not Now, When? Aside from the obvious objections to creating a new entity by those vested interests who may feel that in a zero-sum game of resources, one agency’s gain will result in their loss, some may simply object to how this agency is structured. Some critics may find the inclusion of in- ternational broadcasting an unnecessary complication be- cause of its sheer size or its dysfunctional record. Others will see in any new PD agency the re-creation of USIA in another form. Still others may fear that unless public diplomacy is totally integrated into the Department of State, PD officers will not have a seat at the policy table and will have fewer opportunities for ambassadorships and other senior policy positions. Then there will be those who object to the very idea of creating a new structure, claiming that it’s not organization but policy that is important. Others may believe that an ar- ticulate and charismatic national leader and a foreign pol- icy more in conformity with American ideals are all that is necessary to carry public diplomacy forward. There are, of course, reasonable replies to every one of these objections, though perhaps there is no perfect answer to the PD chal- lenge. Surely, however, the great mistake would be to do noth- ing and allow America’s public diplomacy to continue to drift. It is time for Congress and the Obama administration to put aside all the arguments and build a structure for our public diplomacy mission before this opportunity is lost. While creating a functional organization is not poetry or high policy, it is a necessary precondition for getting the job done. ■ F O C U S The USPDS is not USIA with a new name: it is public diplomacy with a new face.