Welcome to Layalina Productions

The Layalina Review

VOL. V NO. 5, February 13-February 26, 2009

National Security or PR Job?

As President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are deciding on who will be the next Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, veterans in the field are wondering if the administration views the position in terms of a national security task or a public relations one, comments reporter Spencer Ackerman for the Washington Independent.

Although many expect the former Chief Executive at the Discovery Channel, Judith McHale, to be appointed, many fear that she may not be qualified and will commit the same mistakes as her predecessors who regarded US public diplomacy as a sort of marketing tool for US policies. While James K. Glassman redefined the role of public diplomacy and acted as a "convener," stresses Ackerman, the next appointee will also determine the future route of US public diplomacy.

Glassman stated that the job of Under Secretary is a "national securities job," not a PR one. "Some people might say that someone coming into this job with a media background might bode ill." He paused in a phone interview and remembered, "Though I came in with that background, as well."

"Beers, Tutweiler and Hughes took the view that America was merely misunderstood, and making the case for the worthiness of American values would provide a path back to global esteem," says Ackerman.

Ackerman further notes the fact that no one has yet been confirmed for the position a month into Clinton's tenure may signify the diminishing importance that public diplomacy will play in this administration. He comments, "What comes after Glassman isn't clear. White House officials did not return inquiries for comment about public diplomacy and the new Under Secretary, but most public diplomacy experts inside and outside the government believe the position is McHale's to lose."

Ackerman suggests that no one has been appointed so far because it is still unclear whether the current structure for public diplomacy will remain the same or if an independent agency will be created. While some argue that the structure is important, others emphasize that a clear vision for public diplomacy is actually what matters.

Laura Rozen explains for Foreign Policy that Glassman's main concern is that the position of Under Secretary will revert to being relegated to an advertising job for US policies "rather than being a non-military way for the US to combat violent extremism."

Unlike his predecessor, Glassman focused on integrating all elements of US public diplomacy and strategic communication across agency lines, continues Rozen. "Before Glassman's arrival, DoD-sponsored covert information operations had opened up a can of worms."

Referring to the Department of Defense Lincoln Group debacle, Rozen notes that these "strategic operations" have highlighted that they should require an inter-agency effort. Public diplomacy and strategic communication call for everyone "to be on the same page and trying to achieve the same ends," says Glassman. Such a responsibility could exist at the National Security Council, with the director of strategic communications and deputy assistant to the president on foreign policy Dennis McDonough meeting the requirements.

Glassman said that while the NSC staff coordinates, they have not run operations out of the White House since the Iran-Contra scandal. An Obama NSC official concurred, "I believe that the NSC is not operational but that it should coordinate the interagency." "It's very hard to get the Departments of Defense and State and the intelligence community together," Glassman said.

Mark Lynch agrees on his blog for Foreign Policy that Dennis McDonough is a good choice for taking on the strategic communication portfolio at the NSC. He affirms, "McDonough isn't just close to the president, he really understands the value and logic of global engagement - not just public diplomacy or strategic communications, as traditionally defined."

Because balancing the influence of the Pentagon and the State Department while maintaining effective interagency communication is a challenge, he would also be able to "effectively balance the perspectives of State and Defense and coordinate the vast and diverse communications efforts of the government."

Lawrence Pintak, director of the Kamal Adham Center for Journalism Training and Research at the American University in Cairo, and William Rugh, Edward R. Murrow Professor of Public Diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Tufts University, argue in The Daily Star that public diplomacy requires a very sophisticated approach and knowledge of foreign audiences.

They venture, "At the end of the day, the public diplomacy czar is an advocate, but one who is always truthful." Emphasizing the importance of transparency and truth, while explaining American policies and values, Pintak and Rugh assert that journalistic and political advocacy are compatible values for the position of Under Secretary.

Joshua Fouts, senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs concurs in an article for Policy Innovation. However, he notes that the overall discussion is missing something critical: "the ethics of public diplomacy." He further comments that although it is important to focus on the lack of an appointment and on the structural issues of getting public diplomacy working again, we must not lose sight of the heart of the public diplomacy mission.

Fouts disagrees with Glassman that the position is a "national security job, not a PR job." "From my perspective, it's neither strictly national security nor strictly PR. Strong national security and solid public relations depend upon good relations between cultures," argues Fouts.

Referring to the disproportionate amount of funding that warfare information receives in comparison to public diplomacy, Fouts emphasizes the importance of the reconstruction phase where the quality of the narrative from the US government is to be contemplated in the long-term in postwar planning. Back to articles.