Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. HIRSCHBERG. Congressman, I said that in my opening statement, and I still believe it.

Mr. WILSON. I was here for your statements, and both of you could not have been more sincere, and I appreciate so much your service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I do not think there is a person on the committee that wants you either to disappear or to fail. Your failure is our failure, and that is why we are so concerned.

I think we have heard a lot of things today that are promising and encouraging. I, for one, still remain concerned. I am concerned that, in order to make changes for the better, that everybody has to understand the purpose and the mission, anybody that has anything to do with programming, anybody that has anything to do with news, and the people who do the reviews have to understand what the news is, and we do not have a mechanism right now for that to really happen.

I, too, was very concerned, as was Mr. Berman, as he stated, that mistakes were made because you cannot tell mistakes, do you understand now not to make the mistakes? The person who makes the mistakes has to know that he made or she made the mistakes and has to know what the mistakes were and has to figure out a way to correct it.

So "mistakes were made" just glosses over things, and we are now going to unmake the mistakes. There have to be people who understand and the mechanisms in place and a way to monitor and check up on that. I do not know that that exists. I have not heard, at least for me, convincingly that it does exist yet.

The language thing; you know our concern. There are a lot of ways to address it. I think it has to be addressed in a fashion and as quickly as possible.

The independent review that Mr. Hirschberg mentioned that is going to take place at the end of the year or whatever by a school of journalism; schools of journalism may not give you the highest of marks, and they may push you in a different direction, to be more fair to the other side. Real balanced and fair journalism really does that. You can be true to journalism and true to the mission, with the understanding that you know that you are the counterbalance to all of the other media that reaches people.

I do not know that you get the kind of appraisal and approval and measurement by a journalism school. I would rather get a political department of some school to evaluate whether or not you are succeeding in the mission. You are part of the government. You have something to sell, and you have a good product to sell: That is America, and that is the truth. You can do that without distortions and without exposing additional people to the wrong views. The concern I have with the language, and also this is cultural, not to fault anybody on journalism or anything else, but when you have somebody from the region listening to a program in Arabic who has not been exposed to the full truths, who watches that program and hears the Holocaust denial things and giving credence to this minuscule, tiny, tiny, tiny religious zealot of a sect of people who consider themselves Jews but anti-Israel and anti-Zionist and portray that, that may be that person's understanding who put it on, and it might be the understanding of anybody who watches it

and speaks the language, not necessarily tuned into the nuances of what is going on in the real world from a real perspective, and that is a concern.

You, Mr. President, were able to see it because one of the directors asked for specific dates. Obviously, and I am not asking for names or anything, obviously, somebody, not one of the directors who saw it, but somebody else that was showing it to the director, said, This is what it says in Arabic, and you had better take a look at what is going on here. Without that person or source doing that, and I would doubt if it was an internal source, but somebody on the outside, and I think you need real outside people to help you, if you are going to bring in consultants to do this, to know if our message is getting across.

I do not know that you have established yet. I asked this of the previous government panel, the State Department, how they measure, and I do not know that I was fully satisfied with the answer, but, at least, they have methods in place that they think measure the effectiveness of the message. I do not know that we have moved in that direction or have the sophistication yet to develop that or even the resources. Maybe we have to provide some. But there has to be a way of testing, are we getting our message across?

In your case, the message is not America has great music. That is great in getting people's attention, but there has to be a real message once their attention is had.

You are the message; you are the messenger. I would like you to think very, very carefully about some of the things that we have raised, the answers of which were indicative of you want to do the right thing, and we appreciate that, and we do thank you for the great work that you do and for being on this mission and part of the mission with us.

If we are to win over the hearts and minds of the people in that part of the world, it cannot always be done by other government agencies. It is done by the media, and you are that face that we have to put forward. Any final comment briefly? We are done. The committee stands adjourned. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 2:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

APPENDIX

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening today's hearing. Much has been said about winning the "hearts and minds" of the citizens of the Middle East, and today's hearing delves into the heart of these efforts. May I also thank the Ranking Member, and welcome our distinguished witnesses: Jeremy Curtin, Gretchen Welch, Thomas Farrell, and Alina Romanowski, all from the Department of State, and Joaquin F. Blaya and D. Jeffery Hirschberg, members of the board of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. I look forward to hearing each of your testimony.

Mr. Chairman, successful international diplomacy is not limited to interactions between governments. We have a wide range of tools at our disposal. Public diplomacy, which incorporates a range of ways we can communicate with the citizens of another society, is an important one of these. However, public diplomacy is only effective when it takes the form of a dialogue, and though part of any diplomatic effort is persuasion, we must also listen. I believe that public diplomacy provides an opportunity to both influence opinion overseas, and to improve Americans' understanding of other lands.

Since September 11, 2001, efforts at public diplomacy have been recognized as an integral part of our country's work to foster better relations with the people of other nations. Among other resources, we have a wide range of broadcast mediums at our disposal, and I am pleased to see that two representatives of the Broadcasting Board of Governors will be presenting on our second panel today. Through broadcast media, we have the opportunity to provide a direct insight into our American values, and to share a positive view of our nation with citizens of other countries.

Mr. Chairman, we share many common interests with members of other societies. I understand that the State Department, and in particular the office of Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes, is developing policies designed to emphasize these shared values. I look forward to learning more about the specific programs designed and implemented by the State Department, particularly those designed to target crucial sectors of society, including women and children. I would also be particularly interested in any work that has been done to reach disadvantaged or otherwise vulnerable groups, who I believe should be actively engaged and made part of any diplomatic conversations.

Additionally, public diplomacy can serve to counteract the ideologies presented by extremist groups. The Report of the 9/11 Commission cited the importance of public diplomacy, and recommended both increased funding for scholarships and exchanges, and emphasis on a clearly defined underlying message of what America stands for. Broadcast programs, together with Internet material and other programs such as educational exchanges, can provide an alternative image of America to any that might be espoused by extremists. To go a step further, these programs can make real partners and allies out of the groups that they target; groups that might otherwise only see America through the eyes of extremist ideologies. Public diplomacy provides the opportunity to build mutual respect based on true understanding between the citizens of the United States and other nations in the international community.

This is particularly crucial in the Middle East. I would again refer to the report the 9/11 Commission, which stated "Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world.' I commend the State Department for stepping up programming targeting this region of the world, but I think we are all aware that a great deal remains to be done.

In particular, the program has been hampered by a lack of qualified personnel fluent in key languages.

As co-chair of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus, I would also hope that some attention today will be focused on South Asia. America's image in the region was bolstered by the outpouring of American aid following the October 2005 earthquake, but it has since taken some hits due to missile attacks along the border with Afghanistan. As a result, public diplomacy programs in the region remain as crucial as ever, and I am extremely pleased to see that the USAID-Fulbright scholarship program in Pakistan is the world's largest, and is expected to benefit 750 graduate students over a five year period.

Finally, I would very much like to emphasize that public diplomacy must be a dialogue. We are not looking to indoctrinate communities around the world; we are seeking to engage with them, and to listen as well as to speak. We have recognized the immense importance of public opinion and have made positive steps towards making it an integral part of U.S. foreign policy; now it is time to ensure that our efforts in this direction are beginning to reap rewards. I hope we will have the opportunity to reflect on what we have done that has been successful, and which of our public diplomacy programs have fallen short of their goals, and to adjust our overall approach accordingly.

I very much look forward to the testimony of our two panels of witnesses today, and to working with my colleagues on this committee to ensure that this vital tool is fully utilized as a part of our international diplomatic efforts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY JEFFREY GRIECO, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR LEGISLATIVE AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to provide this statement on the U.S. Agency for International Development programs to counter violent Islamist extremism and our efforts to coordinate our public diplomacy activities with the Department of State.

The National Security Strategy of the United States (2006 edition) provides the foreign policy and national security guidance to the U.S. Government and the American public. It is especially succinct with regard to the measures needed to meet this nation's national security challenges in the age of global terrorism. The President has reiterated that our national security strategy is founded upon two pillars: "The first pillar is promoting freedom, justice and human dignity-working to end tyranny, to promote effective democracies and to extend prosperity through free and fair trade and wise development policies. . . The second pillar. . . is confronting the challenges of our time by leading a growing community of democracies . . .” in the fight against pandemic diseases, terrorism, human trafficking and natural disasters around the world.

The President's National Security Strategy is emphatic in calling for a more robust role for development in our national security architecture. Development "reinforces diplomacy and defense.” It reduces “the long-term threats to our national security by helping to build stable, prosperous, and peaceful societies." It is essential to bring hope and opportunity to societies subject to terrorist subversion and vulnerable to terrorist messaging. By helping "expand the circle of development" and "building the infrastructure of democracy" in these societies, we work to reduce the areas in which terrorists thrive as we marginalize their operations.

To support the strategic policy positions set forth by President Bush in both the 2002 and 2006 National Security Strategies, the Department of State and Agency for International Development have collaborated on publication of two Joint Strategic Plans (2004 and 2007 editions) which set forth the Secretary of State's direction and policy priorities for both organizations in the coming years. And to better align foreign assistance with the national security objectives of the United States, Secretary Rice has initiated the most sweeping reform of foreign assistance since the origins of USAID and the Marshall Plan. Over the last year, she has helped put in place a new framework or structure for foreign assistance and given it strategic direction under her Transformational Diplomacy agenda.

In line with these reforms, public diplomacy is undergoing equally dramatic changes designed to reverse the retrenchment in our public outreach efforts that followed victory in the Cold War

« PreviousContinue »