locals convinced us to run a detergent campaign which never mentioned superior cleaning, but which instead supported a drive to raise money for needy children. It was very successful.

Finally, I have most often seen communication efforts succeed when they focus on the positive benefits of our product rather than on the negative aspects of a competitor. Thus, focusing on the evil of Bin Laden may not be as compelling to the average person as a commitment to help improve standards of living, safety and security of the home, food and health care, education and religious freedom.

[Can we succeed with an advertising or PR campaign in the Middle East? Yes, but not without a lot of research, the use of Agency Professionals with proven track records in each country, and actions that are aligned with our commitments.] I would be happy to address questions.

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Harb.

STATEMENT OF MOUAFAC HARB, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, AL HAYAT NEWSPAPER

Mr. HARB. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me today.

First, I would like to say that the views I am going to express are mine and do not reflect the editorial line of my newspaper.

Since the September 11th attack, a recurring question in America has been, why do they hate us? Americans are truly baffled. After all, this is a country made up of kind people who are industrious and proud of their high ideals and sense of fairness. The U.S. Bill of Rights is a standard the rest of the world would do well to adopt.

But as we have seen in the last few weeks, these truths are not self-evident. In street demonstrations outside this hemisphere, images of Osama bin Laden are on t-shirts, while symbols of the United States are set on fire.

The United States has launched what it says will be a long military campaign with bombs from the sky and troops on the ground. President Bush and others in the Administration have repeatedly said, this is a war against evil, not against Islam; that the goal is not to harm innocent civilians but to stop the bad men who rule them. The message does not seem to have gotten much traction.

Again, Americans are baffled. To anyone here, this seems like a no-brainer. Of course bin Laden is a murderer and the Taliban has ruined Afghanistan. How could anybody not agree with that?

What policymakers are missing is a deeper understanding of what the message sounds like when it lands on the ears of Arabs and Muslims. They have heard this one before, and they believed it then. They don't believe it now. They heard it 10 years ago, and the battlefield was Iraq. Then, as now, the conflict was framed as good versus evil and innocent civilians were to be freed from the yoke of an evil man's tyranny.

But to those now in the Arab and Muslim world, that is not how the story turned out. They see it as Americans scoring a military victory and then turning their backs. The bad guy is still in power, and the innocent civilians are much worse off than they used to be. The people you see now wearing bin Laden t-shirts are telling you that they don't want to wind up like the Iraqi peasants.

Example, let's look at a public diplomacy campaign after the Gulf War. The United States wanted to prove that Saddam Hussein was corrupt with no regard for the plight of his people. The hope was that it would help cause an uprising to drive him from power. So

people were shown pictures of the collection of palaces that Saddam Hussein had built, big lavish homes with shiny floors and grand staircases. How did that play in the Arab and Muslim world? Poorly.

There was no uprising, but the public relation campaign did get a reaction. It was from the rulers of the other countries in the region. They were shocked. They lived in big palaces, and their people were poor. This was hitting them where they lived, literally.

The point here is that the message the United States thought it was sending was not the message that was received.

In the meantime, other messages were being sent and received successfully in the Arab and Muslim world. Unfortunately, they were being delivered by bin Laden. He told people that the United States was the source of their problems because of its single-minded affection for Israel and disdain for Muslims; that the United States would use them when it was convenient and sell them out when it was not; and that the United States would buddy up with corrupt regimes.

The United States condemns him as a liar, while he takes maximum advantage of grains of truth. As Shakespeare said, the devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

So what do we do? I would like to highlight a few.

First, stating the obvious, know the audience. America likes to think of itself as a complicated place-50 states and 285 million differences of opinion. Now consider the Muslim world-1.2 billion living in 60 nations. You cannot expect to win the war of ideas and images here with a strategy of "media carpet bombing," but that is exactly what the U.S. Government is getting ready to do.

Last week, the press got a preview of the public relation tools that the United States planned to use to boost its image. They were brochures, newspaper ads and Web sites.

Forget for a moment how many people in Afghanistan have Internet access. But ask yourself how effective these tools would be in this country? Maybe they are okay for a start, but they are certainly not the answer.

Even McDonalds doesn't try to sell the same thing everywhere. The menus are adjusted from one country to another.

At the very least, the United States should tailor its message for each country-not only for the language but also for content. Within countries, the United States should have multiple messages crafted to reach a particular segment of society.

Be mindful of the generators of resentment.

I want to highlight three of them: The perception that, in the eyes of the United States, Israel can do no wrong and, with a few exceptions, Arabs and Muslims can do no right.

The perception that the United States pays heed to governments and is deaf to the cries of their people.

The perception that the United States is not a reliable friend.

The United States is seen as a champion of human rights in China, while it is seen as indifferent to them in the Arab and Muslim world. Showing ourselves as consistent and even-handed would go a long way toward helping us.

Also, the United States often finds it convenient to try to reach people through their national government. This may sometimes be

the wrong approach because in some areas of the Arab and Muslim world people don't like or respect their government. But a better rule of thumb may be to find ways of bypassing governments and speaking directly to people.

Establish a resentment index in each country.

Think of this as an early warning system. The United States should be constantly aware of how it is being perceived around the world, just as any good politician wants to keep track of what is going on back home in his or her district.

The U.S. Embassies place a high priority on gathering information. They could do this more effectively. People assigned to American embassies should be encouraged to get out more, mingle, go to the university, the coffee shops and hear what is being said. Know what the buzz is about and when it changes. Once you know that, you can shape your messages accordingly.

Finally, don't treat bin Laden as an equal. Bin Laden has drawn the United States into a battlefield that he has carefully chosen and prepared-the mountains of Afghanistan and the TV sets of Al-Jazeera. He sent a tape to Al-Jazeera, and after a while we begin to follow him there. He speaks, we react. This is powerful imagery, and people who are watching can see it. Don't follow him. Make him follow us. And when we speak of him, we should not frame him in terms of being a head of state or a leader. Instead, make it clear that he is a law enforcement issue. Arabs and Muslims respect power, and they respect justice.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Harb.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harb follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MOUAFAC HARB, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, AL HAYAT

NEWSPAPER

Since the September 11th attack, a recurring question in America has been, "Why do they hate us?"

Americans are truly baffled. After all, this is a country made up of kind people who are industrious and proud of their high ideals and sense of fairness. The U.S. Bill of Rights is a standard the rest of the world would do well to adopt.

But as we have seen in the last few weeks, these truths are not-to borrow a phrase self-evident. In street demonstrations outside this hemisphere, images of Osama bin Laden are on T-shirts, while symbols of the United States are set on fire.

The United States has launched what it says will be a long military campaign with bombs from the sky and troops on the ground. President Bush and others in the Administration have said repeatedly this is a war against evil, not against Islam; that the goal is not to harm innocent civilians but to stop the bad men who rule them, that message does not seem to have gotten much traction.

Again, Americans are baffled. To anyone here, this seems like a "no-brainer." Of course bin Laden is a murderer and the Taliban have ruined Afghanistan. How could anybody not agree with that?

What policy makers are missing is a deeper understanding of what the message sounds like when it lands on the ears of Arabs and Muslims.

They've heard this one before, and if they believed it then, they don't believe it

now.

They heard it 10 years ago, and the battlefield was Iraq. Then, as now, the conflict was framed as good versus evil, and innocent civilians were to be freed from the yoke of an evil man's tyranny.

But to those now in the Arab and Muslim world, that isn't how the story turned out. They see it as the Americans scoring a military victory and then turning their backs. The bad guy is still in power, and the innocent civilians are much worse off than they used to be. The people you see now wearing bin Laden T-shirts are telling you that they don't want to wind up like the Iraqi peasants did.

As long as we're considering the lesson of history, let's look at a public relations effort after the Gulf War. The United States wanted to prove that Saddam Hussein was corrupt with no regard for the plight of his people. The hope was that it would help cause a popular uprising to drive him from power. So people were shown pictures of the collection of palaces that Saddam built for himself around the countrybig lavish homes with shiny floors and grand staircases.

How did that play in the Arab and Muslim world?

Poorly.

There was no uprising, but the PR campaign did get a reaction. It was from the rulers of other countries in the region. They were shocked. They lived in big palaces, and their people were poor. This was hitting them where they lived-literally.

The point here is that the message the United States thought it was sending was not the message that was received.

In the meantime, other messages were being sent and received successfully in the Arab and Muslim world. Unfortunately, they were being delivered by bin Laden. He told people that the United States was the source of their problems because of its single-minded affection for Israel and disdain for Muslims; that the United States would use them when it was convenient and sell them out when it wasn't; and that the United States would buddy up with corrupt regimes.

The United States condemns him as a liar, while he takes maximum advantage of grains of truth. As Shakespeare said, "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."

So what do you do?

I would like to highlight a few.

1. Know your audience.

America likes to think of itself as a complicated place-50 states and 285 million differences of opinion.

Now consider the Muslim world-1.2 billion people living in 60 nations. You cannot expect to win the war of ideas and images here with a strategy of "media carpet bombing."

But that is exactly what the U.S. government is getting ready to do. Last week the press got a preview of the PR tools that the United States plans to use to boost its image. They were brochures, newspaper ads and Web sites.

Forget for a moment how many people in Afghanistan have Internet access, but ask yourself how effective these tools would be in this country. Maybe they're OK for a start, but they're certainly not the answer.

Even McDonalds doesn't try to sell the same thing everywhere. The menu is adjusted from one country to another.

At the very least, the United States should tailor its messages for each country— not only for language but also for content. Within countries, the United States should have multiple messages crafted to reach particular segments of society

2. Be mindful of the generators of resentment.

There are three:

• The perception that in the eyes of the United States, Israel can do no wrong and that with a few exceptions Arabs and Muslims can do no right;

• The perception that the United States pays heed to governments and is deaf to the cries of their people;

• The perception that the United States is not a reliable friend.

The United States is seen as a champion of human rights in China, while it is seen as indifferent to them in the Arab and Muslim world. Showing yourselves as consistent and even-handed would go a long way toward helping you.

Also, the United States often finds it convenient to try to reach people through their national governments. This may sometimes be the wrong approach because in some areas of the Arab and Muslim world, people don't like or respect their government. A better rule of thumb may be to find ways of bypassing governments and speaking directly to people.

3. Establish a "resentment index" in each country.

Think of this as an early warning system. The United States should be constantly aware of how it is being perceived around the world, just as any good politician wants to keep track of what's going on back home in his or her district.

The U.S. embassies place a high priority on gathering information. They could do this more effectively.

Let me take a moment more with each of these three programming areas. As for what we can draw from existing shows or movies, there are many that will and do show America in an inspiring light. By this, I don't mean that they praise America, but rather they give the world a look at us. The truth is on our side. If we only accomplish in the public diplomacy goals that you are talking about the drawing aside of the veil of willful misconstruction or of honest misunderstanding that stands in the way of people seeing what our life is like, if we only let them look at how we really are, we will have done a great deal.

I agree with Mr. Leslie that the crafting of messages is very difficult, or selling our philosophy or freedom can be very difficult, but giving them an honest and true look ought not to be difficult. We do that with our cameras every week with varying degrees of success. So we could cull the best of it-I have already mentioned The Practice, for instance, with its diverse cast, its appetite for controversial themes, its astute portrayal of our system of freedom under law. Think also of how useful it would be, for instance, for the world to see a movie like Steven Spielberg's Amistad, about the slaveship rebellion of 1836 and its legal aftermath.

In showing Amistad, we'd be saying that we are a Nation of people who, like you, like so many abroad have had to struggle to establish a way of life that is just and fair, and that we have fallen on our face a few times, but that underneath there is a system of government and of justice that enables us to right our course.

No image could be more attractive or effective than ones that admit our struggles, even our failings. That would be the case for showing old movies like The Grapes of Wrath or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Admittedly, and this seems to be terribly important, we should show programs that portray America's immigrant and ethnic experience, such as Gary Goldberg's Brooklyn Bridge. Not enough people in America saw that show. But the image of Americans in their transition, I think, is an important way of creating understanding and breaking beyond the Baywatch image of sunny homogeneous beach bunnies.

I think that is an important-that would be a step forward. I think a show like Third Watch, which is about New York policemen and firemen and really a picture of America's working class, would be great to send out there. They are not buying these shows? Give it to them for free. Let them have access to them, even if they are not on their own shopping list. It is, after all, our interest we'd be serving.

In the second category of original programming, consider a series on the Bill of Rights, 10 shows dramatizing each of the first ten amendments. As long as you don't ask writers to present canned views for content, not to dictate content, writers and producers and directors will come forward. The chance to make films that are truthful and telling and say something will be irresistible.

About the most important third way of providing content is that of working with TV makers abroad to create the shows about America that interest them. I think it is here that we will all be most positive. Imagine a broad-based program that invited them here, introducing them not only to the technical tools of our industry, but especially to its free and creative environment.