with global audiences. Successful cold war structures have been stripped bare and scattered throughout a State Department bureaucracy with other priorities. Since September 11, 2001, the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors have increased the reach and frequency of communications on U.S. policies. New, more aggressive approaches, seek to counter anti-American stereo types and caricatures dominating the news cycles. But the 9/11 Commission found those efforts still inadequate to meet the threat. They called for "short term action on a long range strategy" to compete as vigorously on the ideological battlefield as we do on the military and intelligence fronts. The Commission recommended a clearer message in support of the rule of law, human rights, expanded opportunity and political reform, and they said we needed to expand regional satellite broadcasting and rebuild scholarship, exchange and library programs targeted to young people. The Commission's call for reinvigorated public diplomacy adds urgency to the debate already underway over the appropriate mix of U.S. communication tools. Some say mass audience programming based on popular music and other modern advertising techniques lacks necessary depth. Others say the old, more academic methods targeting societal elites will not reach the larger body politic. The Commission calls for expansion of both approaches. So we meet this afternoon to examine those recommendations more fully, determine which can be done by the executive branch alone and which require legislative implementation, and to assess the strengths and weaknesses of public diplomacy as a tool against future terrorist attacks. We are aided in that discussion today by Governor Thomas Kean, chairman of National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Commission member Jamie Gorelick, and two other panels of extremely qualified and experienced witnesses. We thank them all for participating and we look forward to their testimony. [The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:] TOM DAVIS, VIRGORA, CHAPMAN DAN BURTON, INDIANA CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, CONNECTICUT LEANA ROSLEHTINEN, FLORIDA JOHN M. MCHUGH, NEW YORK JOHNL MICA, FLORIDA MARINE SOUDER, INDIANA STEVEN C LATOURETTE. OHIO DOUG OSE, CALIFORNIA AON LEWIS, KENTUCKY JO ANN DAVIS, VIRGENIA TOOD RUSSELL PLATTS, PENNSYLVANIA CHRIS CANNON, UTAH ADAM H. PUTNAM FLORIDA EDWARD & SCHROCK, VIRGINIA JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR... TENNESSEE NATHAN DEAL GEORGIA CANDICE MALLER, MICHIGAN IM MURPHY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL A TURNER OHIO JOHNR CARTER TEXAS MARSHA BLACKBURN, TENNESSEE PATRICK J. TIDER, OHIO In the war against transnational terrorism, we are losing ground on a crucial front: the battle of ideas. Words, not just weapons, fuel revolutions; and the language of political liberty and economic opportunity can inspire the victory of life over death, faith over fatalism, and progress over stagnation throughout the Muslim world. The next generation of potential terrorists can be stopped with books rather than bombs, if we help empower and mobilize the moderate majority with the vocabulary of hope. Public diplomacy - the cultural exchanges, educational programs and broadcasts used to convey United States interests and ideals to foreign audiences - helped win the Cold War. But, according to the State Department's Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World, "The United States today lacks the capabilities in public diplomacy to meet the national security threat emanating from political instability, economic deprivation and extremism...." In the rhetorical arms race for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world, some ask how the most technologically advanced nation on earth is being outgunned by a movement largely based in caves. Statement of Rep. Christopher Shays August 23, 2004 In our previous hearings on public diplomacy, witnesses described a lack of strategic coherence in U.S. efforts to communicate with global audiences. Successful Cold War structures have been stripped bare and scattered throughout a State Department bureaucracy with other priorities. Since September 11, 2001, the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors have increased the reach and frequency of communications on U.S. policies. New, more aggressive approaches seek to counter antiAmerican stereotypes and caricatures dominating the news cycles. But the 9/11 Commission found those efforts still inadequate to meet the threat. They called for "short term action on a long-range strategy" to compete as vigorously on the ideological battlefield as we do on the military and intelligence fronts. The Commission recommended a clearer message in support of the rule of law, human rights, expanded opportunity and political reform. And they said we needed to expand regional satellite broadcasting and rebuild scholarship, exchange and library programs targeted to young people. The Commission's call for reinvigorated public diplomacy adds urgency to the debate already underway over the appropriate mix of U.S. communication tools. Some say mass audience programming based on popular music and other modern advertising techniques lack necessary depth. Others say the old, more academic methods targeting societal elites will not reach the larger body politic. The Commission calls for expansion of both approaches. So we meet this afternoon to examine those recommendations more fully, determine which can be done by the executive branch alone and which require legislative implementation, and to assess the strengths and weaknesses of public diplomacy as a tool against future terrorist attacks. We are aided in that discussion today by Governor Thomas Kean, Chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Commission member Jamie Gorelick, and two other panels of extremely qualified and experienced witnesses. We thank them all for participating and we look forward to their testimony. Mr. SHAYS. At this time, the Chair would recognize the ranking member, Mr. Kucinich. Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to Governor Kean and also to Ms. Gorelick. Today's hearing is the third hearing this subcommittee has held on public diplomacy in the Middle East. We've heard from numerous State Department officials, media experts, academics, and representatives from various advisory commissions. We've heard repeatedly that the hatred of the Muslim world toward the United States is growing. However, the truth is that no matter how many hearings we hold on this topic, our public diplomacy in the Middle East is a failure and will continue to fail without changes in our foreign policy. The problem is not that there are cultural differences or different value systems. It is not a failure of the quantity or quality of our message. Our public diplomacy fails because it is derived from failed foreign policy. We must change our foreign policy if we're going to have credibility in talking about changing hearts and minds. In its final report, the 9/11 Commission made the following recommendation, "when Muslim governments, even those who are friends, do not respect these principles, the United States must stand for a better future. One of the lessons of the long cold war was that short term gains in cooperating with the most repressive and brutal governments were too often outweighed by long-term setbacks by America's stature and interests." The Commission is correct in that our foreign policy strategy continues to reflect cold war mentalities. During the cold war, the United States supported brutal dictatorial governments throughout the world because they were strategic allies. Democratic and Republican administrations both supported with military aid regimes in Iraq and Iran where those regimes were torturing citizens and suppressing democratic aspirations. Our policy of arming Mujahedin before and during Soviet invasion in Afghanistan led to the Taliban having the ability to flourish that afterwards. The people of the Muslim world remember that the United States chose to support these brutal regimes against them. Recent polls such as those conducted by Zogby international show that Arab respondents do understand and do respect American values. But they do not see American policy reflecting those values. They saw the horrible picture of pictures at Abu Ghraib prison. They read about the treatment of detained prisons at Guantanamo Bay, so why are we surprised that there's harsh feelings toward the United States? Perhaps we have a credibility problem in the Muslim world because people there believe that we have treated them poorly. If we say there's a gathering threat of weapons of mass destruction and we launch an unprovoked attack on another country to capture those weapons and it turns out that no vast stockpiles were found, our actions look highly questionable at best and our credibility as a Nation is undermined. Who's going to believe America the next time a U.S. Secretary of State makes a presentation at the United Nations calling for the world community to participate in a plan for war? No amount of American pop music Fulbright scholars or athlete exchange programs is going to conceal the false pretences of a war. Today we'll hear again how much more money and attention should be spent to influence public opinion in the Arab world and to carry a message of hope to Muslims. Mr. Chairman, I think that our national policymakers have to match words and deeds or pretty soon the United States will lose all credibility, not just in the Middle East but throughout the entire world. Let's figure out what the message is before we discuss how best to beam it across satellites to the Middle East. Let's have the makers of our foreign policy come testify and be held accountable for their decisions. I want the thank the witnesses here today and I want the thank Governor Kean and Ms. Gorelick for the honest assessment they've made of our Nation's vulnerabilities in the 9/11 Commission Report, and I hope that your testimony today and continued advocacy will help to spearhead serious deliberation and reform by this and future generations and Congresses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich follows:] |