Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : INFORMATION WARFARE (IW) & INFORMATION OPERATIONS (IO) - see also PSYOPS
Public Diplomacy and Information Warfare - FPA interview with Barry Zorthian 
Global Q&A - Public Diplomacy and Information Warfare Source: FPA Author: R. Nolan August 8, 2002 This week, FPA is speaking with Barry Zorthian, President of the Public Diplomacy Foundation. Mr. Zorthian is a retired vice president of Time Inc, and was a senior officer in the U.S. Foreign Service. He has also spent a significant amount of time as a communications consultant and a journalist. Mr. Zorthian was part of a task force organized by the Council on Foreign Relations that issued a report on the current state of U.S. Public Diplomacy. TRANSCRIPT: Maybe we can start with an overview of last week's Council on Foreign Relations report? Did it reveal anything we didn't already know about the way the world views the United States? BZ: I think there is a recognition of America's image or reputation is in difficulty in a number of areas, primarily today in the Middle East, but extending to other countries as well. As a result of both a lack of effective communication and explanation of its policies explanation, and the policies themselves, the Council on Foreign Relations report deals with both of these aspects. It underlines the point that people in the communications area have been sensitive to for a long time, but perhaps not accepted as much by their colleagues in the government in the past. The consideration of the impact of foreign policy on foreign publics must be taken into account in the formulation of policy, not just in the implementation of it. The favorite quotation used to define this is one made by Ed Morrow, the legendary journalist, who was head of the U.S. information agency during the Kennedy administration, saying that the communicators, public diplomacy, must be in on the take-off, as well as the crash landings. The Council on Foreign Relations report placed a great deal of emphasis on that aspect, what I regard as half of the task. The other half - the implementation, the projection - of those policies, in terms that are best understood by foreign audiences, is the other goal of the report. Ways in which that communication can be more effective. Many have said that the U.S. may be physically winning the war on terror, but that it is losing the war of information. Would you agree with that statement? BZ: I'm not sure I would say that it is losing it, but it's not doing near as well as it should. There is criticism and negative reaction to U.S. actions and policies in many parts of the world because of the war on terrorism or the actions that come out of it. Some of it comes from other policies, one of them being our policies in the Middle East, on Israel and Palestine, which brings a great deal of criticism, particularly in Arab countries. Again, I'm not suggesting that the policy has to be changed, the basic policy, but its formulation, its expression, its articulation, its implementation, has got to take into account foreign public thinking, and sensitivities. That is not being done well, so in that sense, you can say we are losing the battle on information. You mentioned before being in on the "take-off." I'd like to talk about some of the false starts or the bad take-offs the U.S. has attempted to engage in over the past 6-8 months. One of them being the alleged initiative by the Department of Defense to publish false news to win hearts and minds around the world, and the other being bringing advertising and marketing people into the administration to promote the U.S. image abroad. What are your thoughts on these two approaches? BZ: The one on the Defense Department disinformation I think was a non-starter, and in a very real sense unfair. The military is currently present in over 60 countries. What it says and does has an impact on foreign opinion and foreign thinking, and in turn on the actions of foreign governments. It is important that the military recognize this role it plays, and take it into account. So the military is in the communication business, and as I understand it, there was a study being made, and recommendations being prepared within the department on how it would fulfill its responsibilities in this regard. That study never got into the form of firm recommendations, but supposedly included in the course of the study, the thought that in combat situations, in battlefield conditions, there could be deceptive information issued to the enemy facing our forces. This was a very small part of a much broader study of communication by the military. It never got off the ground, but that little thing was picked up and was made into an operation that was going to depend on lying to the public and so on. This is not the case. The whole study was killed, and there are new ones going on. I'm sure they are not going to include that aspect of implementation of disinformation. On the other topic of bringing in advertising and marketing people, it's again a bit unfair. The new undersecretary for diplomacy, Charlotte Beers does come out of the advertising world, the head of a very well respected and reportedly effective head of two large and worldwide advertising agencies. One of the terminologies in advertising is branding, to put a label on it. In testimony before Congress, when he appointed her to that position, Secretary Powell used those words -- that she was going to brand the United States. The concept again, the negative consequences that have been attributed to that are unfair. What Charlotte Beers has said, and I am not sure she has used the word branding, is that she does want to emphasize the basic nature of American society, of American principles. If you want to call that branding America, so be it, but American principles, American concepts, have been a part of the American government's approach since World War II. One of the suggestions offered up by the CFR report was to increase the talent and energy of public diplomacy efforts. Would you say that, in addition to some of these people that are already playing a prominent role in public diplomacy, that we need to be looking also to educators and other peddlers of information, such as journalists? The U.S. shut down the United States Information Services a few years back. Do we need to bring back some of those people and that talent into the effort? BZ: Either that talent, or the equivalent of that talent. Certainly the Council report endorses, proposes and urges the allocation of more resources to the whole effort, including the exchange efforts that have been reduced over the past few years significantly. Including an examination of the elimination of U.S. libraries. The Council report suggests putting in "America rooms" in existing libraries that would be sponsored and equipped by the U.S. as part of a larger institution within that country. All of this requires obviously people, implementers, people who are effective in communication. Certainly educators, others in the cultural field, are prime candidates for that kind of a role and should be mobilized. The House of Representatives recently passed the Freedom Promotion Act, which plans to provide more than $255 million over two years to help clean up America's image abroad. The legislation would secure funds for the improvement of State Department communication strategies, international broadcasting services and a number of academic exchange programs. Is this a step in the right direction, or will we have to wait and see what kind of approach this new funding takes towards public diplomacy? BZ: Remember the bill that was passed is simply the authorization you just mentioned. I don't know if the appropriations committees are going to go ahead with that or not. They should. It's necessary. The amount we are spending in this area of communicating America and its policies, in rough figures, is about $1 billion a year. That includes all the expenses for broadcasting, exchanges, etc. Compare that to our defense effort, $355 billion, just for the basic plus some supplemental funding. Our overall foreign policy, foreign affairs budget, is in the $22-$22 billion ballpark. The amount being spent on this very critical aspect of our projection and implementation of foreign policy is much too small. It should be increased. The problems are not going to be solved by money, but additional resources are needed to become effective. What kind of response did the CFR report get from the White House? Do you think their ears are open? BZ: The press conference held by the chairman of the task force, Peter Peterson, who is also Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, reported on a meeting he and two or three others from the task force had with White House officials, including Karen Houghs and Charlotte Beers from the State Department, and two or three other from the White House staff in communications, he reported that the response was very positive, and that the council was encouraged to promote and disseminate those recommendations both within the executive department, and within the Congress. Writers like Tom Friedman have suggested in the past that the Arab youth are at a turning point - using the analogy of the youngster who holds the Osama sign, but wears the Yankees ball cap. Have we gone beyond that in the past six months? Is it too late to win the Arab youth? BZ: It's certainly not a lost cause. When you say have we gone beyond that, I am not sure if that is measurable at this point. The studies that have been done in the Middle East, including among the youth, show a large percentage of the Arab street if you will, have been very critical of our policies, particularly in the Middle East, but even in regards to the war on terror. They are skeptical about the way it has been carried out in Afghanistan. Now, whether our explanation of our reasons for such action have been adequate in this past year, I think the jury is still out. There certainly has not been any measurable, at this point, turnaround in the opinion expressed in those surveys to date. Efforts are being made. The State Department broadcasting operations are trying to explain the basis for our actions, and the thinking behind it much more aggressively and much more intensely. But as I say, as of today, I am not sure we are in a position to measure the effect or impact of those efforts. The last thing I would like to ask you about is the relationship between the policies and the explanation of the policies. There seems to be a huge, huge disconnect right now between the two. European critics continue to address issues like the ICC, which the U.S. has said it will not undermine, yet it is attempting to do so by beginning bi-lateral immunity negotiations. We can go down the list : the policy on the Middle East, the looming war with Iraq. It almost seems like the U.S. has gone out of its way not to provide the explanation that the rest of the world would like. What kind of impact do these seemingly autonomous events contribute to when it comes to America's image abroad? BZ: They have a negative impact. They lead to the criticism and skepticism of the United States. They lead to many of our foreign allies, let along the critics, saying 'you are not living up to your own ideas, your own principles.' What we have to do, the CFR report recommends, is, one, have our communicators and those who have some sensitivity and feel for the opinions of foreign publics, be in on the formulation of policy to point out the potential impact of proposed policy positions. And then whatever policy is adopted, do a much more effective job of rationalization and explanation of those policies. We get back to the Morrow quote again, and the principle reflected in that. We are not doing that well up until recently, and I won't say we are doing it well yet. Efforts are being made in that direction. How soon they will be apparent, and how effective they will be, I don't know. The jury is still out. |