Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : PROPAGANDA AND THE GWOT Year 4 - 2005
Humility should be part of Hughes' brief by Rami G. Khouri 
Humility should be part of Hughes' brief The Daily Star Middle East | Rami G. Khouri Beirut I was both heartened and disappointed last weekend, on the fourth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, to see the United States mark the moment with a combination of continued military attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, persistent threats against Iran and Syria, and the swearing in of Karen Hughes as the new undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. Has the American-led "global war on terror" been a success, or even a suitable policy response, since 2001? Have the governments and societies of the Middle East, Asia and Western Europe - the three main incubators of Osama bin Laden-type terrorism - done enough to contain and end this terror scourge? The balance sheet on global security and stability seems erratic these days, as terrorism has expanded into one of the world's fastest growing and increasingly outsourced and franchised industries. So will Hughes and her new public diplomacy department do better at reducing terror than the other American policies of the last four years? One hopes so, but the initial signs are mixed. Hughes and her department are a potentially very important development in the strained relations between the U.S. and much of the rest of the world, especially Arab and Islamic societies. This is a mature and welcomed sign that the Bush administration grasps more clearly that its armed forces and threatening diplomacy cannot be the primary instruments of its interactions with societies with whom it has quarrels. But I fear that if some early distortions, gaps and misguided operating principles are not quickly amended, she and her efforts could turn out to be another howling waste of time and money. It is important therefore for Arabs and Muslims to engage Hughes in the same constructive spirit with which she now approaches our societies, but without the flaws that may hobble her horse before it gets out of the barn. She has said in her spin-smooth manner that the U.S. approach to public diplomacy towards the Arab and Islamic world will comprise four E's: Education, Empowerment, Engagement and Exchanges. This sensible and useful approach will reinforce the mostly positive views of basic American values that a majority of Arabs and Muslims already hold. But it is unlikely on its own to make any significant dents in the widely critical views of American foreign policy held by most people in the Arab and Islamic world. I would humbly suggest that she expand her four E's with two P's: Policy and Perception, reflecting the two serious flaws that she should quickly fix in Washington's public diplomacy approach, if she expects her department to have any impact beyond her president's speeches on American military bases. The "perception" flaw is simply that U.S. public diplomacy efforts seem to rest heavily on the assumption that if Arabs and Muslims had a better knowledge of American values and foreign or domestic policies, they would have a more positive image of the U.S. If she has not done so already she should read the dozens of surveys and analyses of Arab and Islamic public opinion that repeatedly confirm how we Arabs and Muslims admire and even emulate most American values, including freedom, democracy, the rule of law and entrepreneurship. (If her staff do not have the Web sites for her to check out, I recommend she start by googling the work of Shibli Telhami, John Zogby, the Global Values Survey, and the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan, among many others.) She would quickly discover that the idea that the problem is mainly in how Arabs and Muslims perceive America is both wrong and insultingly racist. If this deep flaw is not corrected quickly, someone should hand Hughes a gun with which to shoot her horse and put it out if its imminent misery. The second problematic issue in the U.S. public diplomacy approach, "policy," is actually the apparent total absence of understanding as to how American foreign policy in the world impacts the minds and attitudes of Arabs and Muslims. The criticisms of the U.S. that dominate this region and most of the rest of the world reflect policy resentments, not perception problems. Dozens of good scholarly studies confirming this are also available. At her swearing in ceremony last week, Hughes said, "I believe there is no more urgent challenge for America's national security and for a more peaceful future for all the world's children than the need to foster greater respect, understanding and a sense of common interest and common values between Americans and people of different countries, cultures and faiths." Well, actually, there is a more urgent challenge, and it falls into one of those slightly awkward P's, because most of the world's children and adults already relate to American society and people with "respect, understanding and a sense of common interest and common values." The more urgent challenge she should grasp is for the U.S., as the world's dominant power, to pursue foreign policies that respect a single standard of law and morality applicable to all people and countries, rather than pursuing policies that tend often to be erratic, expedient, inconsistent, and sometimes hypocritical and against the grain of the global consensus. Hughes and her public diplomacy department represent a potentially historic new wrinkle in U.S. foreign policy, which is badly in need of new ideas and directions. If Washington really wants to engage the world on policy, values and our children's common future, we should all respond enthusiastically and help nudge the U.S. out of its unilateral military approach to promoting global peace and security. If Washington wants only to elucidate to us why we misunderstand American values and intentions, it should cancel the whole spectacle before it wastes time and money and generates more resentment. This horse can run, if it is powered by honesty and humility. Rami G. Khouri writes a regular commentary for The Daily Star
© 2005 The Daily Star |