[Senate Hearing 108-450]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-450
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND INTERNATIONAL
FREE PRESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2004
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
93-694 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BILL NELSON, Florida
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire Virginia
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Staff Director
Antony J. Blinken, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., U.S. Senator from Delaware, opening
statement...................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening
statement...................................................... 1
Mater, Mr. Gene, The Freedom Forum, Arlington, VA................ 28
Powell, Mr. Adam Clayton III, visiting professor, Annenberg
School of Communication, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, CA.................................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Tutwiler, Hon. Margaret DeB., Under Secretary of State for Public
Diplomacy and Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC................................................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Responses to additional questions for the record from Senator
Lugar...................................................... 50
Response to an additional question for the record from
Senator Nelson............................................. 54
Wimmer, Mr. Kurt A., Covington & Burling, Washington, DC......... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
(iii)
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND INTERNATIONAL FREE PRESS
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m. in room
SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard G. Lugar
(chairman of the committee), presiding.
Present: Senators Lugar, Hagel, Alexander, Biden and
Feingold.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, CHAIRMAN
The Chairman. This meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee is called to order.
We are looking forward, this morning, to a discussion of
public diplomacy. As a matter of personal privilege, I want to
mention that we've invited members of the International Center
of Indianapolis to attend this hearing. They are here to hear
you, Ms. Tutwiler and, likewise, the other witnesses. We're
especially pleased that they can join us.
Today, the Foreign Relations Committee will examine
American public diplomacy and the development of free media in
emerging democracies.
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, we have
examined more deeply the standing of our Nation with people
around the world. Americans are troubled by examples of very
anti-American hatred in the Islamic world, and they are
frustrated by public opinion in allied countries that seems
increasingly ready to question American motives or blame
American actions for a host of problems.
In an era when allied cooperation is essential in the war
against terrorism, we cannot afford to shrug off negative
public opinion overseas as uninformed or irrelevant. We must
clearly and honestly explain the views of the United States,
displaying the humanity and generosity of our people,
underscoring issues of commonality, and expanding opportunities
for interaction between Americans and foreign peoples. Even the
most enlightened public diplomacy will require resources and
hard work over a period of decades.
I am pleased to welcome a good friend of the committee,
Margaret Tutwiler, the Under Secretary of State for Public
Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Secretary Tutwiler holds one of
the most difficult jobs in the U.S. Government, in my judgment.
She is in charge of explaining and promoting American interests
and policies around the world, and she oversees the State
Department's efforts to foster greater understanding through
educational and cultural exchanges. We are fortunate to have an
official of her experience and gravity in this difficult role.
Secretary Tutwiler understands that our definition of
diplomacy must clearly be expanded. Diplomacy now includes the
contentious public debate between democracies and
dictatorships, as well as dialog with populations that are
skeptical of American power and the freedom that we represent.
As I stated in a committee hearing 2 weeks ago with Secretary
Colin Powell, boosting the effectiveness and frequency of our
communications with foreign populations will require a sea
change in the orientation of the State Department, particularly
as it relates to training, language expertise, and avenues of
professional advancement.
We are cognizant that Secretary Tutwiler has only occupied
her post for a few months; therefore, we are asking her to
focus much of her discussion on her plans for the near term.
Following Secretary Tutwiler's testimony, the committee
will hear from a distinguished panel of experts on the
development of free media in the world, particularly in
emerging democracies.
Mr. Gene Mater is an advisor to The Freedom Forum. He
served with American units after World War II that helped to
reestablish a free press in Germany. Mr. Mater was a CBS News
executive, and helped run the late International Media Fund.
Mr. Adam Clayton Powell III is a professor of journalism at
the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of
Southern California. He has had a long career in public
television, and has promoted the development of free press in
Africa and elsewhere. Mr. Powell is also an expert in the new
media technologies, including the Internet.
Our final witness is Mr. Kurt Wimmer, a media law
specialist with the firm of Covington & Burling. He has
extensive experience in the newly democratic nations of Central
Europe, including the former Yugoslavia.
A fully successful United States foreign policy requires
that we make progress in building democratic institutions
internationally, especially free and open media. Societies that
are built on the foundation of a free press are far less likely
to abuse human rights or threaten American security.
Democracies, however, may differ with American policies.
That is their right in a free world. The U.S. Government,
through various programs, has long been involved in training
journalists around the world and establishing newspapers,
magazines, and radio and television stations.
These programs, however, are not centralized in one bureau
or agency. Many are orphans to other assistance programs. They
often are effective in training journalists, but they stop
short of ensuring the media in a developing country has the
necessary legal protections, follows basic rules of fairness
and equal access, and can sustain itself financially.
In addition, these existing U.S. media programs are not
established in ways that leverage Federal Government spending
with the assistance of America's vibrant media sector. There is
a strong desire by our finest journalism schools, newspapers,
broadcasters, and advertising enterprises to help build free
press and open media in the world. We also need to engage all
the new media, such as the Internet and wireless companies.
After a review of government programs regarding the
development of a free press in the world, I have concluded that
U.S. Government initiatives do not go far enough to ensure that
developing nations have a free, fair, legally protected and
financially self-sustaining press and media.
In response, earlier this week I introduced the
International Free Press and Open Media Act of 2004. To better
organize and focus these efforts, my legislation directs the
Secretary of State to provide funding to the National Endowment
for Democracy for the work of a free-press institute.
For more than 20 years, the National Endowment for
Democracy [NED] has been leading American efforts to help build
the required democratic institutions of a free society.
President Bush's proposed 2005 budget doubles the funding for
the work of the endowment. Having served on the board of the
endowment for a number of years, as have some of my Senate
colleagues, I can attest that the independence of the NED is
central to the success of its initiatives to help develop a
free press in the world.
This bill seeks to employ the uniquely independent
organization of the NED to accomplish a mission that
complements public diplomacy, but is separate from it. The U.S.
Government maintains important public diplomacy programs where
the goal is to communicate American views to the world. But
developing a free press in emerging democracies goes beyond
advocacy of American views. It requires us to have a tolerance
for criticism, to take into account cultural differences, and
to commit to long-term projects. The National Endowment for
Democracy is well suited to this mission. And by creating a
free-press institute within the NED, we would also provide
private-sector media companies with a means to contribute their
expertise and resources to the construction of an international
free press.
I thank our witnesses for joining this discussion. I look
forward to their insights on public diplomacy and the
development of free and open media.
I look forward now to the opening statement of my
distinguished ranking member, Senator Biden.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., RANKING MEMBER
Senator Biden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I'd like to begin by, not only complimenting you on
calling this hearing, but on your legislation. I think it's
first rate, and I look forward to joining you and trying to
help you pass it.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Biden. Mr. Chairman, today we're going to look at
the State Department public diplomacy programs, and we're not
focusing on international broadcasting. And as I understand it,
we are going to have an extensive hearing on that at a later
time, so--but I think that is, I'd just say at the outset, one
area where I think we've had some recent reason for optimism
and some successes, I think. Not to suggest we haven't, as
well, in the State Department. I don't mean to imply that. But
I'm looking forward to that set of hearings, as well.
The challenge of the Administration and for all of us is--
as American government officials--I think is fairly monumental,
but I kind of look at this as the century of hope. I really
think this is an opportunity that we have, because of the
tragedy of 9/11, to begin to focus on 1.2 billion people in the
world, who, quite frankly, we've, not out of any animus, but
not really understood the Islamic world, the differences within
it. It's a little bit like what--on occasion, in the past, when
I'd travel to other parts of the world, other continents,
people would talk about Europe and its attitude. Well, what do
you mean, Europe? There is no European attitude, per se. The
attitudes in Denmark are markedly different than the attitudes
in Athens, in Greece, and so on. but we have tended to think of
this as, sort of, a homogeneous notion of a group a hundred
and--or 1.2 billion people, and I think this has given us an
opportunity to--out of pure necessity, but we can turn it into
a real positive--beginning to focus on how we better understand
and communicate our values.
I might add, at the outset here, my objective, I say to Ms.
Tutwiler, is a little different than we usually talk about, in
terms of public diplomacy. My objective, I would be very happy
if the Lord came down and stood in the area between you and I,
and said, look, you've got a choice. We'll guarantee you that
over the next 10 years, 1.2 billion Muslims of the world will
understand America's position thoroughly, they'll understand--
not accept it, not agree with it, not embrace it, not become
pro-American, just understand it--understand our motives and
understand our objectives and understand what we're saying, I
would say, I'll take that. I'll take that. But we tend to think
of public diplomacy in terms of we're going to convince people
that they have to, or should, adopt our views, our values, our
system. And I think that may be a bridge too far. But I'll get
back to that in my questions.
The challenge for this administration, and for all of us,
as I said, is monumental. And to state it plainly, of late the
American presidency and American policy are increasingly
unpopular in other parts of the world. The polling data has
been consistent over the past 2 years--actually have been
consistent over the past 4 years; it just has had--as those who
are real baseball fans would say, more pace on the ball the
last 2 years, and it's been consistently bad.
The most recent report by the Pew organization issued in
July 2003 indicates that in ``most countries''--this is not
just the Muslim world--``most countries, opinions of the U.S.
are markedly lower than they were a year ago. The war has
widened the rift between Americans and Western Europeans,'' the
study indicates, ``further inflamed in the Muslim world,
softened support for the war on terrorism,'' in both the Muslim
world, as well as in other parts of the world, ``and
significantly weakened global support for the pillars of the
post-World War Two era--the U.N., and North Atlantic
Alliance.'' The report continues: ``the bottom has fallen out
of support for America in most of the Muslim world. Negative
views of the U.S. among Muslims, which had been largely limited
to the countries in the Middle East, have spread to Muslim
populations in Indonesia and Nigeria, support for the U.S.-led
war on terrorism also has fallen in most Muslim publics.''
This is not a very pretty picture. And I'm not laying this
at the foot of the administration. Let me make it clear to you,
Margaret. I'm not--I mean that sincerely. This is a
circumstance that is, all of a sudden, like a--as we Catholics
might say, a bit of an epiphany here. I mean, it's just, like,
whoa, look at where we are at the moment, based on what we
haven't done in the past--what we haven't understood, what we
haven't done, and what we are doing over the past 30 years. So
this is not, you know, the fault of an administration, in my
view. But it's not a pretty picture.
The image of America overseas is perhaps a natural price of
our status as a global superpower, and I think there's a piece
of that. You know, it's--I think, everybody's--we, who do
foreign policy for a living and have been doing it for decades,
sometimes there are those among us who like to make it sound
mysterious, because the more mysterious and complicated it is,
the more intelligent we must be if we can master it; so we talk
about the first tranche and the second tranche, instead of the
first part and the second part, and we dress it up to make it
sound very important and make us sound very important. But I
think it's pretty simple. I think all foreign policy is, is the
logical extension of human relations with a whole lot less
information to go on. A whole lot less information to go on.
And so the result is that we've been unable to adequately
explain U.S. policy. My dad used to say, before he passed away,
``I don't mind you being mad at me for a reason that is, in
fact, factually accurate. The real problem is when you're angry
with me for something that isn't factually accurate.'' And part
of, I think, the problem we have around the world is, I don't
think the factual rationale for what we've done and not done
has been able to be adequately explained.
But part of it is simple, and that is that, you know,
nobody likes the guy who walks into the junior prom, and every
girl turns and says, God, isn't he handsome? Or no one likes
the girl who walks into the senior prom and says, boy, she is
beautiful. Every other girl doesn't go, oh, don't we love her
for being so beautiful? I mean, and that's kind of the position
we're in, in part, no matter what happened, no matter what we
did. If we did everything absolutely right, we are so dominant
around the world.
I will not mention the high-ranking French official with
whom I had this conversation, but he started with me on
American jeans--meaning pants, you know; we used to call them
dungarees when we were kids--and, you know, ``too many of the
French are buying''--and I said, whoa, whoa, whoa. Where's the
trade agreement that says you must buy our jeans? Don't blame
me for your population wanting to look at our culture. I don't
like my kids listening to rap. Don't complain to me about us
polluting your society. That's your problem, not ours.
And so there's so much dominance on our part, even when we
do everything exactly according to Hoyle, there's going to be
resentment. But this is something more. This is something more
that's happening here.
And as the President likes to say, ``We're a nation at
war.'' But one of my criticisms, some within this
administration at a policy level, is that they seem to think
that this war against terrorist organizations is merely one
that's going to be waged on a military battlefield or in a
military context or a military quasi-police context. But it's
actually, in my view, a battle of ideas. This is ultimately a
battle of ideas. All the major problems we face, none of them
are soluble by a military solution alone. The military may be
necessary, but it is not the only answer to the real problems
that we face.
This is a battle of ideas--a global struggle between the
values, basically, of liberal democracies and ideologies of
intolerance and destruction, and it has been engaged. It
matters now, it seems to me, how we organize ourselves through
this struggle, and whether we're willing to invest in this
struggle.
Now, again, it's understandable, in my view. This is a
process. I often say, you know, if your granddaughters or
grandsons and mine, years from now, are writing their senior
thesis in some great American university, and the topic is, you
know, did they get it right at the beginning of the 21st
century, the kid who's going to get summa cum laude is the one
whose title of his or her essay will be, ``Why were they
surprised that they didn't get it right? Look how much has
changed.''
So this is a process. I can't think of any other time in
history, where so much has changed since the Wall coming down,
to the advent of international terror, to the unification of
Europe and its self-preoccupation with that, a historical
event, why we should be surprised we haven't figured it out
yet; not just here in the Nation, but in the world. It's a
process.
But I'm optimistic about this process. I'm convinced,
Margaret, and I say to my colleagues, that an essential
ingredient in the solution or a new policy prescription as to
how we deal with our place in the world has to be a robust
program of public diplomacy. And we have to make, as the
National Security Advisor said about helping to transform the
Middle East, We have to make a generational commitment to a
serious and sustained effort to engage foreign publics.
Unfortunately and, as I said, in ways, understandably, this
administration's commitment to this issue has been a bit
tentative at the outset. That's understandable, in my view.
This is all new. This is all new, in terms of the scope and the
volume that the chairman and I and others, speaking with
different points of view, are talking about.
The President's budget in fiscal 2005 contains a slight
increase for international exchanges budget of about $25
million. Most of these increases are devoted, quite
understandably, to exchanges in the Middle East and other
regions important to the war on terror. But this increase
contrasts with reductions in exchanges funding, that used to be
provided under the SEED or Freedom Support Act accounts. And it
may be that a decade has passed since the collapse of the
Soviet Union, and we have many new friends in Central Europe,
but, as the Iraq debate has demonstrated, we consistently need
to cultivate those friendships.
I would respectfully suggest the willingness or the ability
to, in a sense, rob Peter to pay Paul, take money out of the
SEED programs and put them in the Middle East is--all you have
to do is understand, Europe doesn't like us. Europe is not
happy about us. And, ironically, Eastern Europe, Central
Europe, is the one place where we have--we have more support
than we do in the rest of Europe. And I would argue that the
need to communicate our point of view is equally as important,
in a strange sense, among our allies and our newfound allies,
as it is among those who we are trying to introduce, in a
sense, to us.
It may be that over the decade, as I said, the focus seems
like it should change, but I would argue, and will argue
throughout the next year this debate goes on, that that would
be a mistake. It's obvious, in central Asia and even Russia,
that democracy is hardly flourishing. And we have to stay
involved, in my view.
After September 11, the President invited ideas, from me
and others, about improving public diplomacy. And he was
generous with his time--I spent--alone, in my case, I spent
over an hour with him. He asked what I thought, he was sincere,
he meant it, and he asked me to put together a document, which
I did, as to what I think we should do. I'm proud of it, but
there's no pride of authorship, in the sense that this is the
only proposal, a proposal on international broadcasting that I
refer to as Initiative 911. And the problem--I think the
President was more than intrigued by it; I think he agreed with
most of it, at least he said he did--but there's a problem, it
has a price tag. It's a half a billion dollars. Half a billion
dollars the first year, and $265 million every year thereafter.
The half a billion related to the infrastructure we'd need to
set up, people you need to hire, foreign nationals, the
transmission stations, et cetera. But I'm going to, at our next
hearing on broadcasting, talk a little bit about that.
Let me try to conclude here, Mr. Chairman. To paraphrase a
statement made by the first President Bush in his inaugural
address, when it comes to public diplomacy, we appear to have
more will than wallet at this point. Money alone is not going
to solve the public diplomacy problem. There is no question
about it. But I'd respectfully suggest the public diplomacy
problem will not be solved without spending a helluva lot more
money. Money alone is not going do it, but I don't care if
you're the Lord Almighty and you come down and reorganize all
we have and limit the same amount of dollars we're spending
totally on public diplomacy now, it will not get the job done
for the immense task that is before us.
We have proven programs in educational and citizens
exchanges, cultural diplomacy, international broadcasting, all
of which are working and important, but, I would argue, all of
which are underfunded. And we only hurt ourselves and our
national interest by our parsimony.
Ambassador Tutwiler, I commend you for taking on this
difficult job, but I think it's exciting. You must be excited.
I mean, it's daunting, and you know you've got 6,000 interest
groups and areas and positions coming down upon you for your
time, attention, and agreement, but, as I've said when people
say to me, why did you ever want to stay in this job for
another term, I can't think of a more exciting time in my
lifetime that I could be sitting on this committee than right
now. It is dangerous, but it is also, I think, just filled with
so much opportunity if we're smart enough and if we can get it
right. And I'm not smart enough alone, by a longshot, but we
can do this. And I think you--taking this job on is an awesome
responsibility. I'm glad you were willing to do it. But I think
it's also exciting, and I think together we may be able to do
something really, really special over the next couple of years
to enhance the interest of our country and the understanding of
our positions around the world.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the time. I
thank you, Margaret, for taking it on, and I look forward to
your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Senator Biden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing today on State
Department public diplomacy programs. I know we are not focusing on
international broadcasting today, but I think that is one area where we
had some significant success stories recently, and I hope we will turn
our attention to it in the near future.
The challenge for the administration, and for all of us as American
government officials, is monumental. To state it plainly, America and
American policy is increasingly unpopular. The polling data has been
consistent over the past two years--consistently bad.
The most recent report by the Pew organization, issued in June
2003, indicates that in ``most countries, opinions of the U.S. are
markedly lower than they were a year ago. The war [in Iraq] has widened
the rift between Americans and Western Europeans, further inflamed the
Muslim world, softened support for the war on terrorism, and
significantly weakened global public support for the pillars of the
post-World War Two era--the U.N. and the North Atlantic Alliance.''
The report continues: ``the bottom has fallen out of support for
America in most of the Muslim world. Negative views of the U.S. among
Muslims, which had been largely limited to countries in the Middle
East, have spread to Muslim populations in Indonesia and Nigeria,
support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism also has fallen in most
Muslim publics.''
This is not a pretty picture. I want to emphasize that I am not
blaming the Bush administration. The image of America overseas is
perhaps the natural price of our status as a global superpower. It also
stems from disagreements in foreign nations with U.S. policy. But is
also the result of a failure adequately to explain U.S. policy. And we
can certainly do something about that.
As the President likes to say, we are a nation at war. But this war
against terrorist organizations is not merely waged on the military
battlefield; it is a battle of ideas--a global struggle between the
values of liberal democracy and ideologies of intolerance and
destruction.
It matters how we organize ourselves for this struggle--and whether
we are willing to invest in it. We must make, as the National Security
Adviser said about helping transform the Middle East, a ``generational
commitment'' to a serious and sustained effort to engage foreign
publics.
Unfortunately, and in ways that are perhaps understandable, the
administration's commitment to this issue has been relatively modest.
For example, the President's budget for fiscal year 2005 contains a
slight increase for the international exchanges budget of about $25
million.
Most of these increases are devoted, quite understandably, to
exchanges in the Middle East and other regions important in the war on
terrorism. But this increase contrasts with reductions in exchanges
funding that used to be provided under the SEED and Freedom Support Act
accounts. It may be that over a decade has passed since the collapse of
the Soviet Union, and we have many new friends in Central Europe. But
as the Iraq debate demonstrated, we constantly need to cultivate
friendships. And it is obvious that, in central Asia and even in
Russia, democracy is hardly flourishing, and we have to stay involved
there.
After September 11, 2001, the President invited ideas from me and
others about improving public diplomacy. He was very generous with his
time. I gave him a proposal, developed with the assistance of the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, to provide a significant expansion of
U.S. international broadcasting to Muslim countries. It would have cost
about half a billion dollars in the first year, and about $225 million
in additional annual costs thereafter. The idea was dismissed by the
administration as too costly.
To borrow a statement made by the first President Bush in his
inaugural address, when it comes to public diplomacy, we appear to have
more will than wallet.
Money alone will not solve our public diplomacy problems. But I
respectfully suggest that we need to invest a lot more in public
diplomacy. We have proven programs in educational and citizen
exchanges, cultural diplomacy, and international broadcasting--all of
which are underfunded. We only hurt ourselves, and the national
interest, by such parsimony.
I welcome Ambassador Tutwiler. I commend her for taking on this
very difficult job. I look forward to hearing her views.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Biden.
Secretary Tutwiler, we're delighted that you're here. You
have heard some enthusiasm from us already about you. We look
forward to your testimony, if you would proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARGARET DeB. TUTWILER, UNDER SECRETARY OF
STATE FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Ambassador Tutwiler. Thank you very much.
Senator Biden. Madam Secretary, I apologize for continuing
to refer to you as Ambassador. I'm sorry.
Ambassador Tutwiler. Anything.
Senator Biden. Ambassador, Secretary, significant person,
author----
Ambassador Tutwiler. Margaret. It's fine. Margaret is fine.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Biden, thank you very much for the
opportunity to appear here today.
Mr. Chairman, in the 2-years that I served as Ambassador to
Morocco, I experienced firsthand the many public diplomacy
challenges facing our Nation, especially in the Arab and Muslim
world. I have a much better understanding of how our country is
viewed, both the positives and the negatives, because of that
service.
Over the past 2 years, much has been written and debated
about the effectiveness or in-effectiveness of the United
States Government's public diplomacy activities and programs
overseas. Helpful and responsible reports that all of you are
familiar with by Ambassador Djerejian's Advisory Group, Dr.
Abshire's Center for the Study of the Presidency, Council on
Foreign Relations, the Heritage Foundation, have served to help
us examine that which our government is doing well and that
which can be improved. Many of their insights and
recommendations, we can all agree upon.
As we all know, and both of you gentlemen have pointed out,
our country has a problem in far too many parts of the world,
especially in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, a problem we
have, regrettably, developed over many years, as Senator Biden
pointed out, through both Republican and Democrat
administrations, and a problem that does not lend itself to a
quick fix, a single solution, or a simple plan.
Much of what I learned about foreign views of our country
has been from listening, engaging, and interacting with
foreigners from all walks of life, and much of what I learned
was troubling and disturbing. Regrettably, as we all have said
here today, in too many nations, too many of their citizens
have a very different view of the United States than we would
obviously desire.
In the brief time that I have been serving as the Under
Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, I've gained
a greater understanding and appreciation of what the Under
Secretary's office, the three bureaus, the public diplomacy
offices at the six regional bureaus, and our overseas posts do
in the field of public diplomacy. In my opinion, just as it has
taken us many years to get into this situation, it will take
many years of hard, focused work to get out of it.
I believe our strategic goals are clear. We need to
continue to focus and deliver meaningful programs and
activities in those areas of the world where there has been a
deterioration of the view of our Nation. That deterioration, as
we all know, is most stark in the Arab and Muslim world. At the
same time, we must work equally hard in those areas where the
opinion of the United States has not changed, to date.
We should listen more, not only to foreign audiences, but
to our own public diplomacy personnel overseas. Today, all PD
officers are able to communicate and share ideas and
information across all regions through a new interactive Web
site devoted to public diplomacy, a site which was developed
and operational in less than 2 months.
Effective policy advocacy remains a priority, of course,
and I believe that we basically do a good job of advocating our
policies and explaining our actions overseas. Audiences may not
agree or like what we say and do, but we are communicating our
policies to governments and influential elites, including the
foreign media. Our senior officials, Ambassadors, and embassy
staff are out there explaining, every day, U.S. policy goals
and initiatives. We can all, of course, do much better.
We must do a better job of reaching beyond the traditional
elites and government officials we interact with. We have not
placed enough effort and focus on the non-elites, who, today,
much more so than in the past, are a very strong force within
their countries. This must be a priority focus now and in the
future.
We only have to look at the outreach activities of many
U.S. corporations overseas to see the value of being present
and engaged in neighborhoods that we, in government, have, for
too long, neglected.
We need to support those programs and activities that go to
the bottom line of halting and reversing this deterioration. We
need to constantly ask ourselves, as public servants, ``Is this
activity or program still effective in today's world?'' If it
is, we should keep it. If it is judged to no longer contribute,
then we should let it go.
We must develop effective mechanisms for evaluating program
impact and effectiveness of all our programs and activities
overseas. We must continue to pursue new initiatives and
improve older ones, in the hope of reaching younger, broader,
and deeper audiences.
I believe we can all agree that programs that bring
Americans and foreigners together, whether in person or even in
a video or press conference, create greater understanding. We
have numerous activities and programs in which we are doing
this. I have highlighted and given details on many of them in
my written testimony. However we do it, we must engage, listen,
and interact, especially with the young. They obviously are the
key to all of us living in a future peaceful world.
Interagency coordination is essential to the effectiveness
of public diplomacy. The new State USAID Joint Policy Council
and the State USAID Management Council are intended to improve
program coordination and public diplomacy, as in other areas,
and help ensure the most effective use of program resources in
both the Department and USAID.
Regrettably, all too often our important and meaningful
assistance to developing countries is going unnoticed and
unappreciated, while other nations' assistance to these same
countries is widely known and appreciated. This must change.
Government-wide, we have to do a much better job of ensuring
that the United States' efforts are widely known well beyond
the foreign government officials we meet with. We can no longer
afford for recipients overseas to have no idea that people of
the United States provided assistance to their country and to
their citizens.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say, again, that we all
know there is much work to be done. We all know that our public
diplomacy programs, those I have mentioned and others, must
advance our national interest and do a better job of explaining
not only our policies, but also who we are as a people. In the
world of finite funding, we must ensure that our public
diplomacy resources are used as effectively as possible. We
must prioritize every day, and ask ourselves, ``Is this
activity I am doing getting the job done for the United
States?''
We must listen to our field force. Today, the State
Department has approximately 1,200 employees working in the
field of public diplomacy. I would maintain that every
American, regardless of agency or department, has to make an
extra effort to communicate, to listen, and engage with not
only our traditional audiences, but to audiences to whom we
previously have not given as much time or effort. We must move
beyond the walls of our embassies overseas and foreign-
government offices. I am realistically optimistic that we can
achieve, over time, a better, healthier, and much more accurate
impression of our Nation and people. No one, especially myself,
underestimates the challenge and difficult task at hand.
The public diplomacy officials I work with are reaching,
questioning, and searching for more effective ways to enunciate
our policies and have our values understood. We will continue
to make mistakes, but I truly believe we will ultimately all
get there together. We have absolutely no choice, in my
opinion. We must do this.
And I thank you very much for the opportunity to be here
today.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Tutwiler follows:]
Prepared Statement Hon. Margaret DeB. Tutwiler, Under Secretary of
State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
Good morning. Chairman Lugar, Senator Biden and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
In the years that I served as Ambassador to Morocco, I experienced,
firsthand, the many public diplomacy challenges facing our country,
especially in the Arab and Muslim world. In the two months that I have
been serving as the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public
Affairs, I have gained a greater understanding and appreciation of what
the Under Secretary's office, our three bureaus, the public diplomacy
offices of the regional bureaus, and our overseas posts do in the field
of public diplomacy.
Over the past two years, much as been written and debated about the
effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the U.S. Government public
diplomacy activities and programs overseas. Helpful and responsible
reports by Ambassador Ed Djerejian's Advisory Group, Dr. Abshire's
Center for the Study of the Presidency, the Council on Foreign
Relations, and the Heritage Foundation have served to help us examine
that which our government does well and that which can be improved.
Many of their insights and recommendations we can all agree upon.
As we all know, unfortunately, our country has a problem in far too
many parts of the world today, especially in the Middle East and South
East Asia, a problem we have regrettably developed over many years
through both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a problem
that does not lend itself to a quick fix or a single solution or a
simple plan. Just as it has taken us many years to get into this
situation, so too will it take many years of hard focused work to get
out of it.
I believe our strategic goals are clear. We need to continue to
focus on those areas of the world where there has been a deterioration
of the view of our nation. That deterioration is most stark in the Arab
and Muslim world. At the same time, we must work equally as hard in
those areas where the opinion of the United States has not changed to
date.
We should listen more, not only to foreign audiences, but to our
own PD personnel overseas. Shortly, all PD Officers will be able to
communicate and share new ideas amongst ourselves and across all
regions through a new interactive Web site devoted to the concerns of
public diplomacy.
Effective policy advocacy remains a priority, and I believe we
basically do a good job of advocating our policies and explaining our
actions. Audiences may not agree or like what we say and do, but we are
communicating our policies to governments and influential elites,
including in the foreign media. Our senior officials, Ambassadors and
embassy staff are out there explaining U.S. policy, goals and
initiatives. We can all, of course, do better.
We must do a better job of reaching beyond the traditional elites
and government officials. We have not placed enough effort and focus on
the non-elites who, today much more so than in the past, are a very
strong force within their countries. This must be a priority focus now
and in the future. We only have to look at the outreach activities of
many U.S. corporations overseas to see the value of being present and
engaged in neighborhoods that we in government have for too long
neglected.
We need to support those programs and activities that go to the
bottom line of halting and reversing this deterioration. We need to
constantly ask ourselves, ``Is this activity or program still effective
in today's world?'' If it is, we should keep it. If it is judged to no
longer contribute, then we should let it go. Developing effective
mechanisms for evaluating program impact and effectiveness is a
priority. I have pulled together a team from our three bureaus to work
with the regional bureaus and posts abroad to begin a comprehensive
review of all public diplomacy programs. This will be a first step in
establishing a continuing process of performance measurement and
program evaluation.
We must continue to pursue new initiatives and improve older ones
in the hopes of reaching younger, broader and deeper audiences.
I believe we can all agree that programs that bring Americans and
foreigners together, whether in person or even in a video or press
conference, create greater understanding.
As Under Secretary, I would like to see us expand our exchange
programs however we can. Last year, the State Department directly
sponsored over 30,000 academic, professional and other exchanges
worldwide. Exchange programs constitute the single largest part of the
State Department public diplomacy budget, $316,633,000 in FY-2004,
which regrettably is $28,713,000 less than the President's request
including a rescission of $3,367,000. Within this amount, we must set
priorities.
Allocation of exchange resources already reflects the priority of
the Arab and Muslim world. 25% of funding for exchanges will go to
programs in the Middle East and South Asia in FY 2004, compared to 17%
in FY 2002. We have restarted the Fulbright program in Afghanistan
after a twenty-five year hiatus. Twenty Afghan Fulbrighters will arrive
next month. Just a few days ago, 25 Iraqi Fulbright students arrived
here for orientation prior to beginning their regular studies.
Through our School Internet Connectivity Program, 26,000 high
school students from the Middle East, South Asia, South East Europe,
Central Asia and the Caucasus currently collaborate in online projects
on current affairs, entrepreneurship, health, and civic responsibility
with U.S. students.
Expanding the circle of opportunity is the concept behind
Partnerships for Learning (P4L), an initiative of the Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), which seeks to extend our
exchange programs to undergraduate college students and also high
school students. P4L has initiated our first high school exchange
program with the Arab and Muslim world. Today, 170 high school students
from predominantly Islamic countries are living with American families
and studying at local high schools. Another 450 high school students
from the Middle East and South Asia will come here in 2004 for the next
academic year. Small numbers, but a beginning.
In addition, seventy undergraduate students, men and women, from
North Africa and the Middle East will come to the U.S. beginning next
month for intensive English language training prior to their enrollment
in university degree programs.
In other forms of engagement, since 9/11, the Bureau of Public
Affairs has organized over a thousand digital video conferences between
American officials and experts and foreign audiences. In the past year,
we facilitated nearly 500 interviews and press conferences with senior
officials from the Department of State for foreign media outlets. The
Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) has quadrupled its
output of Arabic language translations for distribution.
Public Affairs worked with our Embassy in Jakarta to broadcast this
year's State of the Union Address live, with simultaneous
interpretation in Bahasa Indonesian. Print and broadcast media covered
the address extensively. One national radio station carried the entire
broadcast live, reaching millions in this predominately Muslim nation.
These are exactly the kinds of initiatives I believe we should be
pursuing. A new initiative which I am exploring is the idea of micro-
scholarships for English learning and to attend our American Schools
overseas. The U.S. has been incredibly successful with micro-credits
for entrepreneurs and small businesses. Why not take that same concept
and apply it to education and English language learning?
Another program which holds promise is American Corners. In recent
years we have had good results from our American Corners program which
as you know constitutes partnerships between our embassies and local
institutions like libraries, universities and chambers of commerce.
These corners are a source for information outreach at the grassroots
level.
We currently have more than 100 American Corners around the world.
In FY04, we are planning on opening 194 more in 64 countries. Of these
194, IIP is working with Near Eastern Affairs and South Asia bureaus to
establish 58 more American Corners in those regions, including ten in
Afghanistan and fifteen in Iraq in FY 2005.
Just last month, we opened two new American Corners in Bosnia,
Herzegovina, in Zenica and Tuzla, cities with sizable Muslim
populations and religious teaching centers.
Virtual consulates, could be another tool for reaching wide
audiences. The virtual consulate concept is a commitment by personnel
in a U.S. Mission overseas to periodically travel to a chosen outlying
district in order to make live personal presentations and informally
mix with the people of the visited region. The travel is supported by a
special Web site that celebrates connections between the Americans and
the people and institutions of that region.
English teaching: To strengthen English teaching programs, ECA is
devoting an additional $1,573,000 to these programs. This is not
enough, but it is a start. Whether through direct teaching or training
instructors, English language programs offer great scope for advancing
public diplomacy objectives. For example, over the past five years,
Embassy Damascus estimates that it has trained over 9,000 of Syria's
12,000 English-language teachers, a excellent example of meaningful
outreach.
Book Programs: IIP has developed ``book sets'' about American
history, culture and values for younger audiences around the world.
Embassies donate these ``book sets'' to local libraries and primary/
secondary schools. As of September 2003, embassies worldwide had
distributed over $400,000 worth of book sets. We are examining our
overseas book buys and journal publications as well.
Private Sector Cooperation: We have created a new position in my
office to explore ways to draw on the expertise of the private sector
to advance our public sector objectives. We can expand public-private
partnerships, initially focusing on key industries such as technology,
health care and education.
There is much more we can do in the field of sports. We know from
past experience that an effective outreach to youth is through sports
activities.
Through ECA's new Culture Connect program, America's cultural
leadership directly communicates with elite and non-elite foreign youth
about our country and values. We currently have ten Culture Connect
Ambassadors, and we are going to expand the program this year.
Television offers a powerful tool for public diplomacy and public
affairs. We are using co-operative programming with local broadcasters
and exploiting new distribution channels and technologies to create a
fuller, more accurate picture of the U.S. for general audiences abroad.
Over the past two years, we have funded several hundred foreign
journalists both for broadcast and print media overseas, more than half
of which have been in Muslim majority countries. We intend to increase
these types of journalist tours.
Speaking of television, I cannot neglect to mention the launch of
Alhurra, the new Middle East satellite television network of the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, on which I serve as the Secretary's
representative. Alhurra is on the air in twenty-two countries in the
region; it will go 24/7 in mid-March. Arabic media reaction is
skeptical, as we would expect. But ordinary viewers have been
responding much more positively. To quote just one e-mail received by
Alhurra's Web site:
What you have started is very big step towards real democracy
implementation and education in the Middle East. The mission is
clear, just pray that you are successful in communicating your
message and mission to those who need it.
However we do it, we must engage, listen and interact--especially
with the young. They are the key to a future peaceful world.
Interagency coordination is essential to the effectiveness of
public diplomacy. The President's Middle East Partnership Initiative
(MEPI), whose mission is to support economic, political and educational
reform in the Middle East and North Africa, integrates policy, public
diplomacy, development and technical assistance programs throughout the
region. We will continue working with the White House to insure close
coordination of our messages. The White House coordinates a daily
conference call on public diplomacy vis-a-vis Iraq. The new State-USAID
Joint Policy Council and the State-USAID Management Council are
intended to improve program coordination in public diplomacy, as in
other areas, and help ensure the most effective use of program
resources in both the Department and the U.S. Agency for International
Development.
Regrettably, all too often, our important and meaningful assistance
to developing countries is going unnoticed and unappreciated, while
other nations' assistance to these same countries is widely known and
appreciated. This must change. Government-wide, we have to do a much
better job of insuring that the U.S.'s efforts are widely known well
beyond the foreign government officials. We can no longer afford for
recipients overseas to have no idea that the people of the United
States provide assistance to their country.
In closing, Chairman Lugar and Senator Biden, let me say again that
we all know that there is much work to be done. We all know that our
public diplomacy programs, those I have mentioned and others, must
advance our national interests and do a better job of explaining not
only our policies, but also who we are as a people.
In a world of finite funding, we must ensure that our public
diplomacy resources are used as effectively as possible. We must
prioritize and ask ourselves, ``Is the activity I am doing getting the
job done?'' We must listen to our field force.
Today the State Department has approximately 1,200 employees
working in the field of public diplomacy. I maintain that every
American, regardless of Agency or Department, has to make an extra
effort to communicate, listen, and engage with not only our traditional
audiences, but to audiences to whom we previously have not given as
much effort and time. We must move beyond the walls of our embassies
overseas and foreign government offices.
I am realistically optimistic that we can achieve over time a
better, healthier and much more accurate impression of our nation and
people. No one, most especially myself, underestimates the challenge
and the difficult task at hand. The public diplomacy officials I work
with are reaching, questioning and searching for more effective ways to
enunciate our policies and have our values understood.
We will continue to make some mistakes but I truly believe we will
ultimately get there. We have no choice. We must.
Thank you--I will be happy to take your questions.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Secretary
Tutwiler.
Let me just mention, for the benefit of the Senators
assembled, as well as our witnesses, that as we came in this
morning, we found that a very complex unanimous-consent
agreement has been reached by the leadership of the Senate on
progress on legislation on the floor today. It appeared that
the first vote would occur at 10 a.m., which was about 5
minutes ago. But, obviously, it has not occurred. And the Chair
has received word that the vote will occur more likely at 11
a.m. However, the agreement calls for two more votes that were
estimated at 11:30. Hopefully, we will have some respite.
Let me suggest that we will try to have 8-minute limits for
Senators' questions. I hope Senators will be able to confine
their enthusiasm to the 8 minutes, including your answers.
In that way, we will proceed through our questions, and we
will hear testimony from our second panel of witnesses,
hopefully, before we all scatter for the first vote. In any
event, just for the benefit of the witness and the audience, we
will be back and forth in this process. This is a suggestion
for the management of time while we are proceeding with this
hearing.
Let me start the questioning, Ambassador Tutwiler--or
Secretary Tutwiler, by asking what sort of indicators does the
Department now have? What kind of indicators might we
construct, to see how well we are doing? I appreciate it may
not be as precise as the Pew poll, which asks the question, do
you like America, or don't you, or whatever they ask. The Pew
poll finds a very large percentage of people in the negative.
But even if you had that simplistic a situation, and you found,
after a while, that 20 or 30 percent more people found favor
with the United States, that would indicate something. I am
just curious, with regard to messages that we have, quite apart
from overall sentiment, or even disaggregated by age groups, or
by ethnic groups within countries, or, through our Ambassadors
or through others, what kind of polling do you have? Do you
divine anecdotally whether we're making progress?
Ambassador Tutwiler. Correct. Concerning literal polling,
that is not something that falls under public diplomacy at the
State Department; that comes under INR. PD does give them a
small amount of money, to be candid, to do some specific
things, basically on judging attitudes. And so we work very
closely with them. They do excellent work, in my opinion. I
knew that from my previous service in the State Department,
with Secretary Baker. But day in and day out, that has not been
one of my priorities.
But I will tell you, as far as measuring effectiveness, it
is a very legitimate concern, both of the Congress and of this
administration and of the State Department. And since 9/11,
there are some tools that are being applied, and we're actually
learning things, which is a good thing.
Having said that, I would also say, and I believe that,
that you alluded to such, some of this is not measurable. I'm
not positive how we measure an 18-year-old's year experience
in, say, Nashville, Tennessee, or my hometown of Birmingham,
Alabama, the effect that is going to have over that
individual's lifetime for the United States.
So we are trying. As you know, ECA is spending over a
million dollars and doing a second set of interviewing on
exchange students that come here. Public Affairs is doing more
in the area of actually tracking where our product is seen. And
IIP, the third bureau, is doing the same thing. So we are
trying. We recognize it and know it is important, and we're
going to keep pushing ourselves to find new ways to check, for
ourselves and for you, the effectiveness of what we're doing.
The Chairman. Well, one of the enthusiasms that has been
expressed, both at your confirmation hearing and today, and
that we have for you, is that you are, in addition to being a
State Department person, you are a political person. You
understand the trends of popular opinion, and the importance of
moving people, and persuading them.
Now, as you say, this may be segmented technically. You
have INR doing the polling, and other people doing the
scholarships and the exchanges, and so forth, not all under
your purview. I suppose that the committee, maybe unfairly, is
looking to you for some overall guidance, and maybe even some
degree of administration of these affairs.
To take the example that you just utilized, it's very
clear, I think, from the past, that students coming to the
United States, studying in this country, whether they came as
civilians or military students or at various ages, frequently
return to their home countries with leadership modes and
attitudes that are very different and that make an enormous
difference in the quality of life of their countries; but even
more importantly, a quality of life that begins to mesh their
values with ours. In other words, they like human rights; they
believe in the rights of women; they believe in free
expression. They may not fully believe in it, but, on the other
hand, they've come a long way. In some cases, they become very
powerful advocates, armed and articulate with language
abilities and expression. That is difficult.
On the other hand, it's important that we have some method
of gauging how many of these students there are, tracking them,
seeing----
Ambassador Tutwiler. Right.
The Chairman [continuing]. What they do. The reason I'm
onto this accountability thing, is that you mention that there
are 1,200 people in public diplomacy. Now, somebody who doesn't
share the enthusiasm of Senator Biden and Senator Hagel and me,
might very well say, that is a lot of people. What are those
people doing? What kind of an impact are 1,200 people making on
this thing? And here are all these people all over the world
who testify that they don't like us. Who are they? This is why,
even as we push ahead--and we have to--we really have to be
able to make a case to the American public of how we're doing.
I don't ask you for all the answers to that, but, as a person
who is very savvy in both diplomacy and politics, please try to
think through public indicators, public diplomacy with the
American people, even as we are proceeding to do this work
elsewhere.
Ambassador Tutwiler. I understand exactly what you're
saying. And my world, like all of your worlds, is politics plus
foreign policy. And part of what I hope I have brought back is
an approach, when I continue to talk about we must do a better
job of reaching non-elites. That's another word for masses. The
reason I say that, sir, is that for decades we have done, and
still do, and are trained to do, basically a good job of
government-to-government bilateral work, Foreign Ministry to
State Department, Finance Ministry to Treasury, et cetera. We
have also put a great deal of our emphasis on opinion leaders
and elites. Many of the individuals you talk about that we've
brought over here, if we went back and looked--and I'm not
against it--are really from an elite element.
Well, the world has changed, as we all know, and as Senator
Biden talked to and as you have talked to, radically changed.
And it was before 9/11, in my mind. And with the access of
information in many, many parts of the world now, which we
advocated for decades, you have enormous populations--
enormous--in some instances, have never met an American, much
less know about us.
And so one of the things I hope to bring back to this is--
in terminology that my colleagues at the State Department will
not like, is a grassroots effort. What are we doing to reach
these masses that have no opinion of us, have not traveled
here, probably will not get a scholarship to come to the United
States because there are very powerful political forces in
their countries. And we have simply got to find an allocation
of our time, as public servants overseas, to spend more time
engaging, in my opinion, with this political force that is real
and that exists and has, regrettably, very little knowledge
about us.
If I may, one more thing. You're correct, there are 1,200
employees basically working in public diplomacy. I would remind
your audience that that is worldwide, that is in over two
hundred and, what, forty posts. That is not a lot of people.
And when you look at the numbers, which I did since I've gotten
back, in the 1990s there were 2,400. So those are the cuts that
have been taking place in public diplomacy.
The Chairman. I thank you very much for that forthcoming
answer. We had one hearing in our committee in which we tried
to bring together, as I remember, the State Department,
Immigration, Treasury, to discuss the impact of our homeland
security on the problems that you have to face. Now, that's
even a more daunting problem when you have to deal with all
these other Cabinet people. But the fact is, public diplomacy
is affected by the problems that students have trying to get in
the country, or tourists, or business people. Maybe for good
reason. But, at the same time, somebody has to exercise some
overall common sense, some direction, in terms of the public
diplomacy aspect.
I hope your voice will be heard. We will try to make our
voices heard along with you.
Ambassador Tutwiler. I will try. If I may, sir, may I
answer you this way? When I talk about--it's easy to talk about
big picture, here's what we should be doing. One attempt I've
made in the time I've been this is--as you know, on February 4,
I said to the--in the House testimony that I was looking at
micro-scholarships for non-elites. Well, I can tell you today
and report that we're doing them.
The Chairman. Good.
Ambassador Tutwiler. And that is in less than 2 months. We
are starting in five countries, and we have--I'm looking for
money to bring from other parts of the State Department. But
we're doing it. And that's something we've never done before.
We're reaching down into this audience that is so important,
and we're going to, without having to address the visa problem
or the expense of coming here, for basically less than a
thousand dollars a person, we can give someone an opportunity
to learn English for a year. And we are about that business,
and we are doing it, and it has started.
The Chairman. Great.
Senator Biden.
Senator Biden. Madam Secretary, I'm enthusiastic about your
sense of how to proceed here. You know the numbers. The four of
us, five of us, know the numbers. You have, in Iran, if memory
serves me--this is from memory, don't hold me exactly to the
numbers--but I think over 60 percent of the Iranian population
is under the age of 15 or 14; 60 percent of the Arab world is
under the age of 18. And we've got a problem. We've got a
problem. We have a phenomenal opportunity.
I know we're going to do this later, about broadcasting,
but just one example, Radio Sawa. We went and got a guy--we,
all of us, went and got a guy who made hundreds of millions of
dollars here--I think hundreds of millions--coming up with an
idea called Westwood One. You know, when you fly back and forth
across the Nation, and you put on your headsets, and you hear
programming on the phone. This is the guy that put that
together. Then he ended up owning some big companies and has
done very well.
So I took a page from--and I mean this sincerely--from my
Republican colleagues about engaging the private sector. This
guy came and sat down and said, hey, look, I'm confident we can
put together the first-rate, most-listened-to radio station in
the Middle East in a matter of months. And everybody looked and
said, come on, give me a break.
You know who the best-known people in Egypt are? The same
people who are the best-known people in America. Britney Spears
is a helluva lot better known than Joe Biden or Dick Lugar or
the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, whether that's good,
bad, or indifferent. Every rock star--rock stars are the single
best-known people in Egypt, in Iran. And so that's what these
kids listen to.
So, guess what? Through their ingenuity they put together a
station that's now the single most-listened-to station in the
Middle East. And guess what? It has news as part of it. You've
got to get 'em to listen to something. They ain't gonna turn
on, you know, C-SPAN2. They're not going to turn on public-
access television. Seriously. It works.
Now, how we measure the effect of this, that's a different
question, and that's a hard deal, which leads me to my first
question. I'll submit it in writing. I don't expect you to go
into it now. But over the next month or so--I'm not even
looking for an immediate answer--I'd like to know what the
mission statement is, if you will, as to what we mean by public
diplomacy, what it is. What do we mean by it?
I, like many of my colleagues, have made it a habit the
last 2 years of not only hiring staff that has expertise in
Arabic, Islam, and people from the great universities we bring
in here, who have Ph.D.'s in these subjects, but I also have
made it a practice, as my colleagues have, of bringing in some
of the best-known Arabic scholars, Muslim scholars, and
scholars on the Middle East in the country. And I bring them in
regularly, in groups of two to six people. And they are willing
to sit there--one of the great advantages of this job, it's the
ultimate--I mean, it is a intellectual feast, to take a phrase
from former Judge Bork, and being able to get anybody you want
to come and talk to you, from Nobel laureates to whatever.
At any rate, they all say--when I started off talking about
public diplomacy in terms of changing minds, they said, whoa,
whoa, whoa, whoa. That should not be the goal of public
diplomacy, to accept American foreign policy, accept our
values, accept--but to understand, to arm moderates within the
Muslim world, with arguments against the fundamentalists as to
why we aren't the same, whether we agree or not. For example,
I'd be delighted if, tomorrow, Iran turned into a democracy--it
wasn't even pro-U.S., it was a democracy. I'm not looking for
it to be pro-U.S. I'm just looking for it not to be anti-U.S.
and anti-democratic.
So I'd like to know--not now, but in a statement at some
point--what you all think is the objective here. What's the
mission statement of public diplomacy? \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See response of Under Secretary Tutwiler to the request for
mission of public diplomacy in a letter to Chairman Lugar, which
includes U.S. Department of State Public Diplomacy Strategy Report,
March 1, 2004, on page 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the specific question I have, before my time runs out
here, is that--and it goes off what I thought where the
chairman was going. We have, sort of, inherent conflict you're
going to run into, and you already have. We want very much to
increase exchange programs. All of us here, I think. I think
it's bipartisan and universal. But we're running into a problem
now, and that is, let's assume tomorrow there was a consensus
here to increase exchange programs by 100,000, and fund them.
There is a countervailing force here that says, whoa, whoa,
wait a minute. In order to be admitted into this country on an
exchange program, we've got to think of this differently.
There's new hoops--and I'm not being critical; this is
something that has to be worked out--new hoops that people have
to go through.
There is an enthusiasm and the knowledge on the part of the
American public to know we've got to spread the word here about
who we are. I think the average guy in any town in my city, in
a rural community--we're one of the most rural states in
America, in terms of population of our cities--and they
understand we've got to get our message out, but they also are
worried about, you mean you're going to bring in 10,000 Arab
kids, 10,000 Muslim kids to our universities? You're going to
bring 'em in?
So I'd like, also, for the record, for you to have your
staff lay out for us what kind of hurdles we have to overcome,
if there are any, as we increase the exchange programs and meet
this new understandable desire to track anybody who comes into
the country as it relates to an education visa here.
And the last point I'd like, for the record, for you to
take a look at is, I'm of the view, a little bit like what the
Senator and former Senator--the chairman and former Senator
Bradley and I, in different iterations, tried to do back in the
early 1990s, which was not only increase the exchange programs
for college students, but also for high school students. And it
seems to me there needs to be an aggressive new--or an
imaginative new program, either in-place, in-country or here,
exposing that portion of particularly the Islamic world, that
is overwhelmingly young, to American language, American books,
American--Western, if you will, ideas--not to brainwash them
but to give them an opportunity to understand where we are.
So I would very much like you to give me a sense of what
you are thinking about exchange program, in terms of cadres of
people we're looking at, whether it be the traditional emphasis
on college and post-graduate, or there should maybe be a new
emphasis in a way that I'm not quite sure how it would work, in
terms of high-school-age students.
So my time is up. I will stop. If you wish to comment,
fine. I understand if you want to do it all in writing.
Ambassador Tutwiler. I will comment briefly. No. 1, I agree
with you, defining ``public diplomacy,'' those are two big
words, in political terms, we could drive a Mack truck through.
And so it has been done, it's been bureaucratically done. I
know what you're asking. I will take an attempt at what it
means. But within that framework, I think we both agree that it
is wide enough in its meaning, and broad enough, that it's also
left up to how it's implemented.
No. 2, I am more than well aware, having served as
Ambassador through the new visa policies of the United States,
what that has--the difficulties that have been associated with
it. I will tell you, the first year as Ambassador in Morocco,
it was very difficult that summer. As you know, we continue to
get--we continue to massage it, we continue to get it better as
a nation. And it is something that obviously all of us have on
our radar screens when we talk about bringing people here.
On high schools, we are doing that. It started before I
came into this job. I am very focused on it, based on
experience of living in an Arab Muslim nation of 30-plus-
million, the majority of whom are all young. So we are in sync
with you. We are on that. And it's something that we hope to
get more high schoolers and more engaged with high schoolers.
Senator Biden. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Biden.
Senator Hagel.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Madam Secretary, good to see you again. We're glad you're
on the job. We are enthusiastic and supportive, as you have
noted this morning, and we want to help in every way that we
can.
Ambassador Tutwiler. Thank you.
Senator Hagel. I appreciated your testimony, specifically a
couple of points of focus. One, on non-elites and your
analysis. And I think you are exactly right. That non-elite
universe requires specific focus on the younger people. And,
again, I think you have focused exactly on the right elements
here. Now, how you do that, how we accomplish it, that's
another matter, as you have noted.
The first question I have is how does the State Department
currently integrate public diplomacy policy, public affairs
policy, into the policymaking process? For example, do you have
a seat at the table on policy issues regarding Iraq, the Middle
East peace process, Afghanistan? How does that all work within
the fabric of policymaking, your piece of this?
Ambassador Tutwiler. Correct. There is not a formalized
system of that, to be honest with you; nor was it when I served
before in the State Department. As you know, Secretary Powell
100-percent understands the importance of communications and
public diplomacy. So throughout all levels of the State
Department, there are individuals, who have the PD component,
who sit in various meetings that go on all day long at the
State Department on Iraq, on Afghanistan. We coordinate, in an
informal way, or at least it's been my style, an informal way
with the Pentagon, with the NSC, throughout the State
Department. And then there are formalized meetings that go on.
So whether it's me personally or it is other qualified
individuals in the State Department, yes, there is
coordination, and, yes, there is public diplomacy input.
Senator Hagel. And you feel that you are adequately
positioned to implement the things that you are talking about,
as you noted, certainly Secretary Powell wants done and the
President wants to accomplish. And so your sense, that you have
all the integration you need to carry out your mission on all
the policy issues, whether it's Iraq or the Middle East peace
process.
Ambassador Tutwiler. Well, I could never say you have
everything that you need. But I also can say that, in my mind,
in some respects, they are two different entities. On the one
is particularly a meeting of formulation of policy. And what is
the PD component if you do this, if you do that, this will
cause this reaction. On the other is what I like to call the
world of deliverables and, hopefully, tangibles that public
diplomacy should be delivering, whether it is an enunciation in
someone else's language and culturally sensitive of a policy,
or it is a book, or it is building a soccer field, or it is our
Culture Connect Ambassadors we're sending over.
So, in my mind, they're two very distinct tasks, to be
honest, and they are, yes, intertwined, but they're different--
they're different taskings in the way, at least, that I have
always done it.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Next question. There are interpretations as to how engaged
this administration is in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I
am a Senator who believes that we should be more engaged. I
don't think we've been enough engaged. But let's take that for
a moment and put that aside. And my question is this. If we
were more engaged, if we were more proactive on that issue, do
you believe that would be beneficial to our public diplomacy
efforts in the Arab world and in the Muslim world? If that was
the perception, which is not there now, as you know, from every
measurement. In fact, I think it's the core of our entire
problem that we have in the Middle East.
And that's obviously debatable. But if we were more
engaged, from whatever standard or plateau--we are engaged, in
your opinion or Secretary Powell's--I don't think enough, but I
don't expect you to say that--but if it was more engagement,
would that help us accomplish what you are trying to accomplish
in the minds of the Arab Muslim world?
Ambassador Tutwiler. Well, you're absolutely correct,
Senator, that I cannot agree with you. Of course this
administration is engaged with the President, with Secretary
Powell, et cetera, et cetera.
Having said that, I understand what you're asking, and it's
something that I--not whether we were engaged or not, but the
policy--that I had to wrestle with, sitting as an American in
Morocco. And I actually, most sincerely, believe that, to a
degree, sometimes policies, whatever they are--whether they're
liked or not liked--are used as excuses in other countries,
overseas. And I used to say, with all due respect to my Arab
friends, if the situation that is causing you so much concern
was resolved this afternoon, peacefully, at 3 o'clock, it would
not create one job in your country, it would not build one new
hospital, it would not build one new school. And so what I did,
in my mind, was, as Ambassador, part of my job was--and I did
it aggressively--was to articulate and to defend and try to
explain, in a way that was culturally sensitive to the audience
of where I was living, our policies.
And on the other hand, I went out and tried, as
aggressively, to engage and to listen and to participate and to
help countries--someone here this morning mentioned the
moderates and the reformers--to actually make things better in
their country and to let them know that the United States was
participating in those activities, as well as the constant
policy debate, which, you are absolutely right, consumes an
enormous amount of conversation.
Senator Hagel. And it's a perception issue, as well.
Whether you agree with the policy or not----
Ambassador Tutwiler. Correct.
Senator Hagel [continuing]. In the minds of the Arabs in
the Muslim world, either we're engaged, not engaged, and to--
your point is a good one, and you're right--there will always
be other issues. And that is incumbent upon the leadership of
those nations to deal with their own internal problems. So I
understand that.
Let me ask, before I get cutoff here, Madam Secretary, the
new television network----
Ambassador Tutwiler. Right.
Senator Hagel [continuing]. That you've put together, which
has gotten a significant amount of attention--here's my
question. How does Alhurra differ--describe, if you can, the
differences from previous U.S. Government broadcasting efforts.
Is it different?
Ambassador Tutwiler. I can't answer that question for you.
I don't know of another attempt that the United States
Government--and maybe it's from ignorance, and I could find
out--has done to launch a 24/7 television broadcast in another
language. But, again, it could be my ignorance.
[The following follow-up response was subsequently
supplied.]
It is different. Alhurra is the first U.S.-funded 24/7 satellite TV
news and information channel. Its programming and approach are based on
strong market research in the Middle East to determine both audience
preferences and the most effective way of reaching a region which is,
at the moment, highly anti-American. Alhurra has drawn almost
exclusively on private sector expertise both in its staffing and in
companies it hired to help in research, graphics and branding. One of
the channel's main goals is to become accepted as an important,
reliable source of news and information in the very crowded Arab media
market.
Ambassador Tutwiler. I can tell you that I've paid close
attention. I am not responsible--as you know, it's on the BBG,
but I am very interested in this. It is, again, one of the
tools that we are using, as we are Radio Sawa and a multitude
of tools.
We've all read the initial, in the first week, negative
regional Arabic press. Well, I have two thoughts on that. No.
1, they're paying attention, and we are getting a lot of
conversation about something that we are doing. And, No. 2, if
you--I started, yesterday, seeing editorials that people were
sending to me that were actually Arabs questioning Arabs on,
``What's there to be afraid of?'' I can tell you, third, that,
unsolicited--some have been negative, but the vast majority
from individuals living in Iraq and living in countries in the
region, I've read their e-mails into the television
headquarters, and they've been very positive and very
interesting, over, ``Thank you for doing this, America,'' those
types of things.
Now, who knows? The jury is out. I personally, as we know,
believe that it is an effort that we should have probably
started as a Nation 9 years ago, when Arab broadcasting started
and there was access to information. We didn't, so we're
playing catch-up. Not a good position to be in. But I believe
that it is an effort that is well worth the commitment that the
Congress has made and that this administration and President
Bush has made.
Senator Hagel. Madam Secretary, thank you. And we're glad
you are doing what you're doing.
Ambassador Tutwiler. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hagel.
Senator Feingold.
Senator Feingold. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Biden, for holding this important hearing. And I really
do feel this is a very important topic.
I want to thank both Secretary Tutwiler and the private
witnesses for being here today; in particular, Secretary
Tutwiler for her manner and approach, which I think is really
positive and helpful in this area.
And I'd like to take a minute to stress how important it
is, as you have done, to improve our public diplomacy efforts.
I think sometimes it's misunderstood. This isn't about some
kind of an emotional need on the part of Americans to be liked
or to bow to global public opinion; this is about our interest.
It's about the capacity and willingness of others in the world
to cooperate with the United States at a time when we face
threats from a global terrorist network, which obviously
requires, therefore, a global response. This is about American
power, our power to persuade, to inspire, and to lead. And this
is about the power of others, and their capacity to distort our
intentions, to try to paint a picture of an intolerant,
aggressive, rapacious power that most Americans would not
recognize and would surely reject.
So this is, by no means, a marginal issue. It is an
essential one. And as you've been candid enough to say, when it
comes to this essential issue the news is not all good. Study
after study finds that America is losing support and losing
credibility around the world, and we have to do better.
Let me follow on the very thoughtful remarks you made that
just about every member of the committee took note of about
appealing to non-elites. Let me just put this in slightly
different terms. Not only should this apply to non-elites
around the world, but let me suggest that this concern should
apply to non-elites in our country. We will not succeed if the
elites in this country are trying to engage the non-elites in
other countries. In other words, the American people, in
general, need to be urged--we all need to be urged--to reach
out to the rest of the world and to get involved in exchanges
and visitor programs and other opportunities.
Senator Hagel and I are talking about some of these
matters. In a way, it's an obvious thing, but, on the other
hand, when people hear that, they think Peace Corps. Well,
Peace Corps is a great thing, typically associated with younger
people. What I'm talking about here is, you know, police
officers, high school students, farmers, teachers--I mean, how
do we basically convey to the American people that there's a
wonderful and essential role for each and every American to
play in trying to connect with the rest of the world? And I
don't mean, obviously, only by connecting with those who come
over here for exchanges, but to take their skills and abilities
overseas. This is not a call that, as far as I know, Americans
have ever heard, in our history. It hasn't been necessary. This
country has been so blessed with our location and our
resources. But I think things did change in this regard on
September 11, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
Ambassador Tutwiler. You, I think, will be pleased with my
thoughts on this. We actually, right now--there's an existing
structure that was started shortly after 9/11 that are called
Culture Ambassadors that actually are what you would expect
from the arts, the traditional arts. Well, what we're looking
at right now, and have been, and exploring, is having citizen
Ambassadors--just as you say, a fireman, a policeman, a nurse,
a teacher that would be a citizen Ambassador, and ask them to,
yes, in this instance, go overseas to meet with colleagues from
their profession. They are not famous people, but they are
Americans that would enlist that we would enlisted then and
say, would you please come help us?
Just yesterday, I was exposed to, which is very
interesting, a program that started in a college in North
Carolina, in Greenville--and I apologize I can't pull out of my
memory the name--where they, on their own--it's a small
college--have started with four countries--China, Switzerland,
Gambia, and I can't remember what the fourth one was. They have
now, open interactive classes, where the college students in
America get credit, and the stydents in the other country--
Japan was the other one--get credit. And it's very interesting.
It's high-tech. And basically, with the equipment and the
training and everything, it's less than $3,000 a class. And I
just was exposed to this yesterday. I'm going to pursue it.
And so it is exactly the kind of thinking that you're
talking about over how do we not just use government officials
or famous Americans, how do we engage our non-elites, to use
your phraseology, our normal Americans, in this effort to help
us. Because we do need everybody's help. Government officials
cannot do this by themselves.
Senator Feingold. I'd just follow on, I can't tell you the
number of people that I meet, who--maybe they've retired fairly
young----
Ambassador Tutwiler. Right.
Senator Feingold [continuing]. From state government, and
they have a decent pension, and they're certainly not wealthy,
but they're very eager to do something different. And to
facilitate ways to use their skills and their wisdom in this
way seems to be about one of the best things that we could do
for our country. It seems obvious at one level; on the other
hand, it's a massive undertaking to try to really facilitate
people's ability to do these things. And I'm pleased to hear
your agreement that that's something we should do.
In the past, our public diplomacy efforts have, to a
degree, ignored the fact that antagonism toward America is not
always based on misunderstanding or irrationality, but is
sometimes based on actual opposition to U.S. policy. At the
same time, too often our efforts seem to focus on selling or
delivering a message, rather than a two-way exchange. And I
strongly believe that the active listening is a valuable show
of respect for others in and of itself, and we need to do more
of it--holding meetings, taking questions, making official
Americans available for dialog and exchange, and for hearing
people out. I talked with you about this before, and with many
of your colleagues at the State Department, especially in the
African Bureau. But I believe it is worth raising again and
again, because it is not always easy to embrace the really
difficult options. But in this case, I believe that the really
difficult option is the most effective and meaningful one. Can
you tell me what we are doing to listen more today?
Ambassador Tutwiler. Yes; we actually have, today, in
place--and I--there's an Under Secretary of State who just did
this in Brussels for us. He's in the Middle East right now, is
doing it. We're asking every senior administration official,
government official from the administration, who travels
overseas to give us an hour to 2 hours of their time and to do
exactly that, to go show up at a neighborhood that we
traditionally have never been in, to go sit in a classroom
where they're teaching English, and not give a speech, but to
listen and to engage and to just talk about being an American,
answer questions about our policy. In so many examples, they
have never seen an American. And so it is actively something
that we are encouraging our officials to do, our Ambassadors to
do, and our State Department and other agency officials who are
living overseas.
And one of my jobs is to try to get buy-in to this and to
convince people of the value to the United States of taking
time to do exactly what you are suggesting. So we actually are
trying to do that right now, and are having some initial
success.
Senator Feingold. I'm pleased to hear that, and look
forward to learning more about what's happening on that.
One final more specific question. What can you tell me
about the administration's plan to use $1.2 million to support
public diplomacy initiatives in Djbouti, Ethiopia, Kenya,
Tanzania, and Uganda, as a part of the East African counter-
terrorism initiative?
Ambassador Tutwiler. I can't answer that off the top of my
head, but I'll get you an answer.
Senator Feingold. If you can get that for me, I'd
appreciate it Madam Secretary.
Ambassador Tutwiler. Sure.
[The following response was subsequently supplied.]
On January 21, the Department of State notified Congress of its
intent to use $1.2 million to enhance public diplomacy efforts in five
target countries in support of the President's East Africa
Counterterrorism Initiative. The target countries are Djibouti,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Earlier this month, the
notification of our intent to obligate FY 2003 and prior year Economic
Support Funds expired without objection, and these funds are now
available for apportionment and allotment.
In November 2003, the African Bureau Public Affairs Office met in
Addis Ababa with Embassy Public Affairs Officers from the target
countries and military information officers to specify the Public
Diplomacy tools that would best encourage strong public support for the
Global War on Terrorism and counter extremist views, both secular and
religious. Specific components agreed upon and ready for implementation
now include three broad areas:
Increasing media outreach and information dissemination in
East Africa;
Supporting English language and teaching programs in East
Africa and providing target audiences with a better
understanding of core democratic values, including tolerance;
Conducting exchange and speaker programs on core values of
democracy and governance.
Target audiences will include moderate elites, government, civil
society, media and youth. We expect funds to be allotted to post by
midMarch.
Senator Feingold. And I thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Feingold.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, welcome. It's been very helpful to hear
your comments, and I'm glad you're on the job.
Ambassador Tutwiler. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. I wanted to underscore a couple of
things, then ask you a question that's a little bit above my
pay grade, but may not be much above yours. I want to
underscore what's been already said about foreign students.
In my travels around the world, whatever country I'm in,
it's typical to see a Minister of Agriculture who was at Texas
A&M, and a Minister of this who was at the University of
Tennessee. So, in many ways, since World War II our most
effective diplomacy has been students from other parts of the
world who have gone to our colleges and universities for a
whole variety of reasons. So anything we can do to rationalize
this conflict between security and admission of qualified
foreign students to our colleges and our universities is in our
interest.
Second, I want to underscore and congratulate you on your
focus on broadcasting. We all agree with this, but I think
sometimes we even take for granted the importance of
television. In the world we live in, nothing's important unless
it's on television, so they say. We see the effect it has,
disproportionately almost, to Putin's popularity in Russia, on
our own Presidential primaries. We see what it's done to
university budgets with college basketball. We really don't
know how to handle it. And when we get in a region of the world
where we have an imbalance on television, it's particularly
devastating. So we can have all the programs we want, but if
we're not competitive, in terms of what's being seen on
television, we're really not at the starting gate.
So I would hope that we--if it takes more money, more
effort, more television stations, better programming, I would
hope that would be a first priority, and I'm sure that's
already well in your mind.
Here's my question that I was thinking about. I wonder if
we need a new Bush doctrine about our position in the world and
how we conduct ourselves. You know, the most visible American
is our President. We have a Bush doctrine about terrorism,
which is, in rare cases, ``where we think you might hit us, we
may hit you first.'' But I wonder if we need one about how we
act in a world where we have so much power, where our values
are not always welcome and just to let people know how we're
going to handle ourselves in this situation.
For example, I can remember, at the end of the first Bush
administration, we convened a group of education secretaries,
and what they all worried about was our culture. They were
afraid of it and what it might do to their countries. And we
have the ironic situation of the whole world watching our Super
Bowl, which, in a way, exemplifies the best of America--we play
by the rules, everybody competes, anything is possible--and
then they also watch our halftime, which is a sort of a
celebration of public indecency. And that's why they're
throwing television sets out of hotel rooms in countries around
the world. They don't want that part of our freedom. That's one
problem.
Another is, part of our Americanism is to export our
values, but we have a complex set of values, and not all the
world wants all those values. And then third, as was mentioned
here, is, we're the big boy on the block.
So should our President, at a time like this, construct a
doctrine that we all say to the world, to say--that somehow
exercises our strength, but, at the same time, demonstrates our
ability to show humility and restraint and modesty, even, in a
time like this. And then, from that doctrine, we might project
an America in everything we do that is seen as a little bit
different.
Ambassador Tutwiler. I don't know the answer to your
question. I've never given it any thought, to be honest with
you. It's a really, really good question. I also know, from
previous service, I would never want to suggest that a
President or a White House should do something. But I will,
with your permission, give this some thought and think about
it.
I can also totally be in agreement with you over--I think
that we, as Americans--we go around telling everybody about
globalization. We're good at that. But have we really absorbed,
ourselves, globalization? And when you talk about whatever
program it is, we're proud that it's seen, and we advertise,
200 countries, 90 countries. But I think that we also need to
think of what we are beaming to vast populations, who have not
traveled, who are not educated, who are forming opinions of us.
And I mean that with respect to all the people who produce our
product. I'm not in a bashing mode; I'm in a mode--as Senator
Lugar was saying, we all are trying here, we're all trying to
figure out how to navigate through this situation.
But I think that we, as Americans, need, ourselves, to
remember that we are, and our products are, also going global
and how people are using that to form opinions of us, and
sometimes not in the most favorable opinions of us.
Senator Alexander. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, just say one
other thing, when Samuel Huntington did his book in the mid
1990s about the clash of civilizations, what it suggested to me
was that if we're going to have a clash, at least we should
understand what our civilization is. And I've found, as I've
begun to study that, there's quite a bit of disagreement in our
own country about what it means to be an American, what
American identity is. We have dropped the teaching of U.S.
history from many of our courses, we've watered it down in many
cases, we dropped civics. And for us to be effective citizen
Ambassadors of what it means to be an American, we have to know
that ourselves. And so I would think there's an important case
for a good--for reemphasizing at home who we are and what are
the principles that unite us as Americans, so we can speak
about them more accurately to the rest of the world.
Ambassador Tutwiler. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator Alexander.
And we thank you, again, Secretary Tutwiler, for your
testimony, for your responses. We look forward, as is obvious,
to working closely with you and probably to having a return
conversation, in due course, as to how things are proceeding.
Ambassador Tutwiler. Thank you very, very much, and it's
good to be with all of you this morning.
The Chairman. At this stage, the Chair would like to call
to the witness table, our second panel, Mr. Gene Mater, of The
Freedom Forum of Arlington, Virginia, Mr. Adam Clayton Powell
III, visiting professor of Annenberg School of Communication,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, and
Mr. Kurt A. Wimmer, of Covington & Burling, in Washington, DC.
Gentlemen, we're very pleased that you are with us this
morning. Let me indicate, as I suggested earlier on, that we
would like to proceed with your testimony. We are checking with
the Senate floor to see what the vote situation may be at the
present time. I'm informed that it is likely that a vote may
occur around 11:10. But then my last prediction was 11, so this
seems to be moving backward. That gives us, hopefully, time for
your testimony. We may pause the hearing before coming back for
questions.
Each of your statements will be made a part of the record
in their entirety. I would ask you to summarize, and hopefully
you could do this in 5, 6, or 7 minutes. That way we will be
able to hear from all three witnesses before we have an
interruption. If we don't have an interruption, we will
continue with our questioning, as we did with the previous
witness.
I would like to call upon you to testify in the order I
introduced you, which would be, first of all, Mr. Mater, then
Mr. Powell, and then Mr. Wimmer.
Mr. Mater, we'd be pleased to have your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GENE P. MATER, THE FREEDOM FORUM
Mr. Mater. My testimony is more of a statement of why I'm
here. And I'd like to note that my professional background
includes a range of print and broadcast experience in the
United States and abroad.
My media work began in 1945, in Germany, when I was
assigned to an Army psychological warfare team that was later
integrated into military government. In that capacity, I
started several German newspapers and helped establish the
post-war German news agency. And 45 years later----
The Chairman. We're trying to amplify your voice a little
bit so that everyone can hear.
Mr. Mater. And I am here as a broadcaster. But not a
technician.
Forty-five years later, after working as a reporter and as
an editor on three U.S. newspapers, working as a newsman in
Europe, and then holding various management positions at CBS--
once again I was helping to start media outlets, this time in
Central and Eastern Europe and various parts of the former
Soviet Union after the fall of communism. Because of this
experience, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and
to share what I have learned.
As one who believes that a democratic society cannot exist
without a free press, I suggest that Senator Lugar's proposed
legislation can go a long way in helping other countries
achieve what we enjoy.
I would like to offer two major comments about the thrust
of the proposal. First, teaching Journalism 101 is necessary,
but what is equally important is teaching how to run any media
outlet as a profitable venture to assure sustainability and the
strength needed to fight efforts at government control.
And, second, I would urge that the efforts to carry out the
assigned task be given to U.S. professionals and professional
organizations, rather than to groups, government agencies, and
individuals having no media experience of their own.
Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, sir. I appreciate
that civic comment about the business side of this, in addition
to the content and the importance of that.
Mr. Powell.
STATEMENT OF ADAM CLAYTON POWELL III, VISITING PROFESSOR,
ANNENBERG SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
Mr. Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Biden, for
this invitation to participate in today's hearing on a topic of
great importance.
I'd like to, first, follow the example of my former
colleague, Mr. Mater, and explain why I am here. I am a
visiting professor and senior fellow at the University of
Southern California's new Center on Public Diplomacy. It's very
much a project under construction, and we feel it's an
important one, for reasons that have been articulated this
morning by you and others.
We are studying cultural diplomacy, educational exchanges,
the full range of soft power as it is practiced, not only by
the United States, but also by other countries. Clearly, the
French have a public diplomacy policy. If you go up
Massachusetts Avenue to the South African Embassy, you'll find
that that embassy has a Counselor for Public Diplomacy, with a
very specific portfolio of how to project South African culture
and education here in the United States. And following the
example of the Djerejian report and others, we are also
attempting to devise measurements of effectiveness, something
which came up earlier this morning, of public diplomacy
efforts. And, finally, we're looking at some aspects of public
diplomacy, which, to us, may be obvious, but, when you travel
to other countries, you find that it becomes something of note.
The Ambassador from Hungary to the United States, Andras
Simonyi, just recently gave a briefing at the State Department,
titled ``How Rock and Roll Helped Lift the Iron Curtain,'' on
the influence of American music. And we've been combing over
the data from Radio Sawa, as many have, but we may
underestimate the influence of Radio Sawa and other American
international broadcasters, that the music itself may be a
message.
The Hungarian Ambassador said that when Marvin Gay sang
``What's Going On,'' it had lines like ``escalation is not the
answer,'' that this was--we viewed that as a protest song. In
Eastern Europe, they thought this was evidence of freedom in
the United States. So what Britney Spears' lyrics may mean in
the Arab world may be somewhat different from what we interpret
them.
We hope for the better.
But to turn specifically to today's hearing and to the
legislation which you have introduced, Mr. Chairman, as the
University of Southern California's new Center on Public
Diplomacy focuses on this issue, we feel this proposal could be
an important contribution to strengthen media, civil society,
and transparency in all emerging democracies.
We all know an independent press is essential for a truly
open and pluralistic democracy. Without independent media,
governments are, at best, only partially transparent; the rule
of law, at best, incomplete; and multiparty elections not truly
open and free. Strengthening independent media remains among
the most effective and enduring tools for multiparty democracy
available to us today.
Independent editors and advocates of free media across the
globe are asking for assistance in many ways, including
training programs, assistance with facilities, and expert
advice on drafting laws and constitutional provisions to
guarantee free press in their country. It's important to
respond to these full range of requests, both to address the
needs identified by leaders of emerging media in different
parts of the world and to ensure that these emerging media
possess the means to survive and flourish in often difficult
and dangerous terrain.
Many organizations in this country have been providing
these forms of assistance, including U.S. Government agencies
such as USAID and Voice of America and other government
broadcasters, educational institutions across the U.S., and
non-governmental organizations, including the International
Center for Foreign Journalists, Committee to Protect
Journalists, Internews, and others, including The Freedom
Forum, which is represented here by Mr. Mater. An even larger
number of organizations based outside the United States, in
governments and education and NGOs, are also active in this
area, often with minimal resources.
In addition to government resources, we've seen support for
independent media from the Knight Foundation and other
independent foundations and nonprofit institutions here in the
United States, from major media organizations, and even from
individuals. These typically modest investments generate
significant returns that sustain this value work throughout the
world.
Scholars, from Joseph Nye, at Harvard, to my colleague,
Manual Castells, at USC, have long noted the importance of the
free flow of information and ideas to a healthy society. And in
recent years, we've seen examples of courageous independent
media that make a difference in their country's struggles for
democracy. Examples from Radio B92, in Serbia, to the Lusaka
Post, in Zambia.
B92 and the Post are also examples of how support from
outside of their countries to promote free media and democratic
values have worked. When B92 was forced off the air by the
Serbian Government, assistance came, not only from the Voice of
America, which stepped in to broadcast its programming, but
also from the European editors groups, and also the Dutch
streamed B92 signal on the Internet from a server in Holland.
And when the Zambian Government closed the Post newspaper and
threw its editor in jail, protest came not only from the U.S.,
but also from NGOs around the world, especially in Africa and
Europe.
These and other cases suggest an approach that can improve
the effectiveness and the cost effectiveness of any coordinated
American effort in this area. U.S. assistance, even through the
National Endowment for Democracy, should be coordinated and
leveraged with assistance from other countries and from NGOs of
different nations, and we feel this would be great
advantageous.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Adam Clayton Powell III, Visiting Professor and
Senior Fellow, USC Center on Public Diplomacy
Thank you for extending this invitation to us to participate in
today's hearing on a topic of great importance.
As the University of Southern California's new Center on Public
Diplomacy focuses on this issue, we feel this proposal could be an
important contribution to strengthen media, civil society and
transparency in emerging democracies.
We all know an independent press is essential for truly open and
pluralistic democracy: Without independent media, governments are at
best only partially transparent, the rule of law is at best incomplete,
and multi-party elections cannot be truly open and free. Strengthening
independent media remains among the most effective and enduring tools
for promoting multiparty democracy available to us today.
Independent editors and advocates of free media across the globe
are asking for assistance in many ways, including training programs,
assistance with facilities and expert advice on drafting laws and
constitutional provisions that guarantee a free press. It is important
to respond to the full range of these requests, both to address the
needs identified by leaders of emerging media in different parts of the
world and to ensure these emerging media possess the means to survive
and flourish in often difficult and dangerous terrain.
Many organizations in this country have been providing these forms
of assistance, including U.S. government agencies such as AID and Voice
of America and other government broadcasters, educational institutions
across the U.S., and non-governmental organizations including the
International Center for Foreign Journalists, the Committee to Protect
Journalists, Internews, and others.
An even larger number of organizations based outside the United
States, in governments, in education and NGOs, are also active in this
area, often with minimal resources.
In addition to government resources, we have seen support for
independent media from the Knight Foundation and other foundations and
non-profit institutions, from major media organizations, and even from
individuals. These typically modest investments generate significant
returns and sustain this valuable work throughout the world.
Scholars from Joseph Nye at Harvard to my colleague Manuel Castells
at USC have long noted the importance of the free flow of information
and ideas to a healthy society. And in recent years, we have seen
examples of courageous independent media that made a difference in
their countries' struggle toward democracy, examples including Radio
B92 in Serbia and The Lusaka Post in Zambia.
B92 and The Post are also two of many examples of how support from
outside their countries helped promote free media and democratic
values:
When B92 was forced off the air by the Serbian government,
assistance came not only from the Voice of America, which stepped in to
broadcast B92 programming: in addition, European editors' groups came
forward to support B92, and the Dutch streamed B92's signal onto the
Internet from a server in Holland. B92 went back on the air, and you
can also still hear it on the Internet, at www.B92.net
And when the Zambian government closed The Post and threw its
editor in jail, protests came not only from the U.S., but also from
NGOs around the world, especially across Africa and Europe, which took
up the cause. After international protests, the editor was freed and
the newspaper was back on the newsstands. And as with B92, you can see
the Lusaka Post on the Internet every day.
(A disclosure: these were among the campaigns that were joined by
the Freedom Forum, where I worked for many years running training
programs for journalists, media managers and educators in Africa, Asia,
Central Europe and Latin America.)
These and other cases suggest an approach that can improve the
effectiveness--and the cost-effectiveness--of any coordinated American
effort in this area:
U.S. assistance, even through the National Endowment for Democracy,
should to the extent possible be coordinated and leveraged with
assistance from other countries and from NGOs of different nations.
This should reap a number of benefits, including:
A plurality of sources of funding and in-kind assistance will
only enhance the credibility of the independent media we seek
to encourage,
Coordination with organizations with similar missions can
reduce rivalries and competition that might be
counterproductive, and
Working with other countries and international NGOs can only
strengthen the ability of the Endowment to marshal resources to
respond fully to the challenges of those who would shutter and
control a media longing to be free.
Thank you once again for this opportunity to participate in today's
proceeding. We look forward to providing you with any further
information that you might find of use.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Powell.
Mr. Wimmer, would you give us your testimony.
STATEMENT OF KURT A. WIMMER, COVINGTON & BURLING
Mr. Wimmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Hagel, members
of the committee. I'm grateful for the honor to appear before
you today. I've been in hearing rooms like this in Bulgaria,
Romania, Slovakia, and Russia, but never at home, so it's a
great day for me. Thank you.
I am speaking to you today on behalf of The Media
Institute, a nonprofit foundation, dedicated to the first
amendment, located here in Washington. I am also privileged to
be chair of the board of governors of IREX, the International
Research and Exchanges Board, an NGO that has worked for free
media in about 15 countries across Europe and Eurasia. I'm also
speaking for the more than 30 lawyers at Covington & Burling,
who have been working in about 20 countries on these sorts of
issues, and from whom I've drawn a lot of the ideas that I'll
mention today.
As this committee knows, truly free and independent press
can really provoke change in new democracies. The press can
galvanize sustained political reform, it can expose corruption,
it can promote transparency, it can ensure effective democracy,
and it can foster an environment in which business can come in
and invest in transitional economies.
But the press can't do its job if it's stifled by unfair
media laws, if it is continued to be subject to unfair libel
litigation, and if its journalists continue to be jailed and
assassinated. There's a tremendous amount of work that needs to
be done to foster true freedom of expression in countries
outside our borders. And, as Professor Powell pointed out,
there are a lot of countries and organizations that are
involved in this.
From our 10 years of work here, it's clear to me that the
U.S. really does have a leadership position to maintain in this
area. No other country holds freedom of expression as a primary
policy goal in the way the United States does. And we also have
a history of accomplishing the fostering of independent media
in a way that's effective and efficient. And I think we can
continue that and build on it.
I do think your legislation is a great step forward, and I
wish it success.
Let me suggest five modest points that I hope that can be
central, going forward.
The first is that current programs really have been
successful and ought to be continued as new structures are
considered. As I mentioned before, we've been working in about
20 countries, and on the ground in 15. In these countries,
we've seen real change attributable to the work of USAID-
sponsored programs, and real vision in how these are
administered. We've worked with hardworking, dedicated media
professionals, in difficult countries, who are committed to
sustaining independent media. In our experience, these
professionals really do appreciate the help and leadership of
the United States.
Just a few examples. As this committee well knows,
independent media in Serbia contributed to the will of the
people in overthrowing the Milosevic regime, which would have
silenced these media without the assistant of USAID, IREX, and
others. In numerous cases, repressive media laws would have
been passed in Central and Eastern Europe had it not been for
the opinions of U.S. experts that put at least a shadow of a
doubt behind these proposals and slowed them down. And in
Bosnia and Kosovo, you now have independent local media for the
first time. These have been real success stories, and they've
been achieved at a cost that really must be considered modest
compared to the more general foreign policy obligations of the
United States. If we make a wholesale change while these
programs are midstream, I think we endanger these successes,
and I hope that they can continue.
My second point is that our commitment really has to be
long-term in scope. There are no quick fixes. Fostering truly
independent media takes time, and reforming a legal system
requires a true long-term commitment. This committee has been
precisely right to insist that funding for programs not be
ended until it can be established that a free, protected, and
independent media exists in each country. Countries that
outwardly seem to graduate to more mature legal systems still
have the need for progressive media laws that fully protect
freedom of expression.
One great example, from the headlines today, is Macedonia.
We've spent a lot of time and effort in Macedonia. We've sent
teams of lawyers there twice to work on a broadcasting law, to
work on an information law. During both visits, there were
hostilities that broke out, which, of course, made me nervous,
as the person who would put these young lawyers on a plane. But
there's still so much more that needs to be done. Libel law
needs to be reformed. Three journalists have been convicted of
criminal defamation, and have been jailed. But even though
there's much more to be done, I've learned, just in the past
couple of days, that the budget has been cut back so
dramatically that there may not be media programs in Macedonia.
I think it's a mistake.
A third goal is public diplomacy and international
broadcasting. I support that 100 percent. But I do think it
needs to be separated from fostering independent media. Our
goal in fostering independent media is to promote a first
amendment environment in which these media can really voice
opinions. And sometimes they voice opinions that are critical
of the U.S. Government. I think that's something that we need
to live with. And Serbia, again, is a great example of media
that we helped to sustain being critical of NATO bombing
efforts, but, nonetheless, accomplishing the goals of the U.S.
Government in regime change. So I think that was positive.
Fourth, we really need to fully engage the power of the
most important media companies in the world--our own. As
Senator Feingold pointed out, this notion of citizen
Ambassadors is really important, and we've had a number of
those. Mr. Mater points out his work. We have teams of
journalists, teams of producers, going over all the time for
IREX, Internews and others. But I think if we follow the ideas
in your legislation, Mr. Chairman, we'll foster an environment
in which you'll get more and more involvement by the U.S.
media, and I think that's a very powerful force that can be
harnessed to make a lot of changes.
And, finally, I think we need a really effective mechanism
to measure our progress. And it's clear that we have to stay
until the job is done, but how on earth can we find that out?
And I think there are some mechanisms, such as the media
sustainability index that IREX does that really are useful and
that can be fostered.
So I thank you for your attention, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wimmer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kurt A. Wimmer, Covington & Burling
Mr. Chairman, Senator Biden and Members of the Committee:
I am grateful for the great honor and opportunity of appearing
before you today. The development of free, fair, legally protected and
self-sustaining media in the developing world is of paramount
importance to the interests of the United States in the current global
environment. Because my colleagues and I have worked so hard to help to
develop free expression in developing democracies, it is both
gratifying and encouraging to me that this Committee is focusing on
this issue.
INTRODUCTION
Before I discuss the importance of this issue to our country, let
me provide the context for my views. I have been a partner in the law
firm of Covington & Burling, in its Washington and London offices, for
the past 12 years and a media lawyer for almost 20. In addition, I am
privileged to chair the First Amendment Advisory Council of the Media
Institute and the board of governors of the International Research &
Exchanges Board (IREX).
In my law practice, I have been able to see firsthand the effect of
varying international standards of free expression on our U.S. and
international media clients. I also have been privileged to see the
dedication and perseverance of journalists in developing democracies
around the world.\1\ Our media law practice at Covington has been
providing legal assistance and on-the-ground legal advice to the media
in developing countries for the past decade in some 20 countries,
including Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Romania,
Bulgaria, Albania, Slovakia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Russia, Ukraine,
Belarus, Georgia, Azerbaijan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Turkey, Indonesia,
Mongolia and, most recently, Iraq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Our clients in this work have included IREX, the ABA Central
and Eastern European Law Initiative, Internews, the International
Center for Journalists, the Global Internet Policy Initiative, the
Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research in London, and the
ABA-United Nations Development Project. Additionally, I was the sole
American member of the United Nations/OSCE Advisory Group on Defamation
and Freedom of Information Legislation for Bosnia and Herzegovina,
which drafted new libel and access laws for Bosnia that now have been
adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEED FOR U.S. SUPPORT FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Our work has given me a useful vantage point to assess the
prospects for change in global free expression. There is no doubt that
more must be done. Our First Amendment does not reach beyond our
borders, and no country has legal protections to rival ours. In most of
the world, the watchdog of the press is muzzled. The media has an
invaluable role to play in galvanizing sustained political reform,
exposing corruption, increasing transparency in government, ensuring
effective democracy and creating an environment in which business will
have the confidence to invest in transitional economies. The structural
importance of the press, moreover, cannot be overstated in states torn
by ethnic factionalism. The press cannot do its job, however, if it is
subjected to unfair media laws, if it is prevented from having access
to information, if it is stifled by unfair defamation litigation, and
if its journalists continue to be jailed and assassinated. Groups and
governments from around the world are focusing on these issues. But I
am more convinced than ever that the United States must continue to
play an essential leadership role for these conditions to improve.
There is no lack of will, vision or courage on the part
ofjournalists living under repressive regimes. Members of this
Committee may recall Slavko Curuvija, the publisher of the Dnevni
Telegraf in Belgrade, with whom I had the privilege of working in the
course of our efforts in Serbia. Mr. Curuvija's media outlets had been
subjected to ruinous fines by the Milosevich regime for expressing
opinion, on a pretext and without hope of legal challenge. By 1998, it
was no longer safe for him to publish. But he had found a printer in
Montenegro and a sympathetic trucking firm that would hide bundles of
his newsmagazine, Evuropijanin, under shipments of produce. But the
ultimate act of censorship finally ended this publisher's crusade. On
April 11, 1999, as he walked home with his wife from Orthodox Easter
Mass, Slavko Curuvija was assassinated.
Mr. Curuvija's assassination was not an isolated incident. Just a
few months before, Zeljko Kopanja, editor of the independent newspaper
Nezavisne Novine in Bosnia, was the victim of a car bomb--and even
after losing both legs, he edited his newspaper from his hospital room.
The Committee to Protect Journalists has reported that at least 263
journalists have been assassinated in the past decade. And it has been
going on for as long as there have been conflicts between those in
authority and those who would criticize authority. My own grandfather,
a printer in Luxembourg. criticized the Nazi invasion until his presses
were destroyed by the SS.
Freedom of speech is far from free. It is purchased by the
sacrifices of those who risk their all, from John Peter Zenger to
Katherine Graham. Those who are making these sacrifices in the
developing world need our help in building effective, independent media
and media laws that can preserve their freedom and protect their
speech.
The question, of course, is how we can best use the scarce
resources available to accomplish this goal. I applaud the Chairman's
leadership in this area and suggest that this Committee bear in mind
the following principles that the more than 30 lawyers involved in our
team at Covington & Burling have drawn from our work overseas:
Current programs are effective, economical and must be
continued even as new structures are considered.
We have worked in 20 developing countries, with Covington lawyers
on the ground in 15. Our team has seen real change attributable to the
work of USAID-supported programs. We have worked with dedicated, hard-
working media professionals who are committed to provoking positive
change and who truly appreciate the help and leadership of the United
States.
The results of the work supported by USAID have been tangible and
real. Independent media in Serbia contributed to the will of the people
overcoming the Milosevich regime, and this regime would have silenced
these media without the brilliant technical assistance of the United
States. Repressive media laws would have been passed in multiple
Central and Eastern European states had it not been for the opinions of
American legal experts that raised significant doubts about the
consistency of these schemes with European and international legal
norms. Our opinion on the draconian Serbian ``Law on Public
Information'' was translated into several languages and distributed
broadly to those attempting to oppose it. Independent media in Bosnia
and Kosovo are truly local and becoming self-sustaining. New access to
information laws have been passed throughout the region, particularly
in Georgia and Bosnia, because of the help of United States experts.
The evidence in the region is staggering. And it has been achieved at a
cost that must be considered modest in comparison to the more general
foreign policy obligations of the United States.
If a wholesale change in these sustaining programs is made while
they are in mid-stream, their ability to continue to make progress will
be jeopardized. Current methods and levels of funding must continue as
we consider how to improve the overall scope of our efforts.
Consistency is of paramount importance in this field, and we cannot
afford to endanger the momentum that these programs have attained over
years of hard work.
Our commitment must be long-term in scope
Our experience has shown that there really are no quick fixes,
particularly in the area of free expression and independent media. We
must make it clear to the world community that our commitment to these
goals is long-term and sustaining, that our attention will be focused
closely on the countries in which we are working, and that will stay
until our goals are attained. This commitment is essential from the
moment we begin working--an investment in serious media change, and the
credibility necessary to have a place at the table for legislative and
legal developments, requires a long view.
This Committee was precisely right to insist that funding for
programs in countries in process not be ended until it can be
established that a free, protected and independent media exists in each
of these countries. We have seen, over and over, the need for sustained
legal intervention and assistance. Countries that outwardly seem to
``graduate'' to more mature legal systems nonetheless continue to have
needs for progressive media laws that are in accordance with
international legal norms. In one country, for example, we opposed
unjust laws until the government changed, and then were privileged to
work on the ground with local experts to create new media laws. But
regressive elements, including prior restraints, crept back into those
laws, and we now have been asked once again to work with local
journalists on strategies for dealing with harsh laws. Although the
harsh regime is gone, the need for real legal help remains. We must
continue our vigilance to ensure against backsliding, which has been
all too commonplace in our experience.
The typical trajectory of legal structures necessary for a free
press demonstrates the need for long-term involvement. First, there is
the basic and obvious need for free expression, equitable distribution
of broadcast licenses and allocation of spectrum. Second, it is
essential that defamation reform be accomplished, and this is an area
where much remains to be done in virtually all of the countries in
which we have worked--libel suits by public officials, often criminal
in scope, remain a danger across Europe, and independence of courts is
an essential but challenging element in reform. Third, freedom of
access to information must be assured. This is a long-term project--it
cannot be accomplished by mere passage of a Freedom of Information law,
but by changing the hearts and minds of judges and bureaucrats who
control information flow. Fourth, press freedoms must be assured in all
media, particularly the Internet. Damaging new media laws continue to
be proposed in countries across Europe that must be opposed.
If we assume we have done our job after the first, most
preliminary, step, we have done little to truly establish independent
media. We must sustain our efforts and assist in the creation of a
truly workable legal system. The amount of work is formidable--for
example, the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe published in
January 2004 a summary of proposed media legislation in 10 countries
that runs to 22 single-spaced pages. Without U.S. assistance, many of
these laws will be passed in forms that will not protect free
expression and foster independent media. Given the amount of work that
has gone into the region, this would be a tragedy.
Our work must be clearly separated from short-term policy
goals and political influence
Public diplomacy and international broadcasting are important
complements to fostering freedom of expression and independent media,
but they should maintain their separate character. I take second chair
to no one in my support and admiration for Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty, and have been privileged to do some work for it. Its work is
essential in providing an independent voice in parts of the world that
have little access to independence in their local media. And it is of
course important for public diplomacy efforts to ensure that the views
of the United States are heard in the developing world.
But this is not identical to the goal of fostering independent
media. Our efforts to build a truly free press must be separate from
any appearance of content or political influence. We must have the
courage to build a press that is so independent that it can criticize
us. Again, Serbia provides an apt example. The same independent media
that gave voice to opposition to the Milosevich government were also
harsh critics of the NATO bombing campaign and, in some cases, U.S.
policy. Yet, the voicing of opinions with which we would not agree is
not a failure--it is a measure of our success. A commitment to
fostering true independence requires respect for the value of the First
Amendment, and acceptance of criticism is at the heart of this value.
I am not an expert on government mechanisms in all three of these
areas. But I do worry that a single office overseeing all three will be
seen as muddling the firewalls that must exist between them and
undermine our credibility in attempting to establish a free and
independent press.
In this effort, we must fully engage the power of the most
important media in the world--our own
The United States media is, to be sure, involved in current efforts
overseas. IREX, for example, has sent consultants and trainers from
CNN, The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, ABC and other media
companies into the region. But we have not tapped the full potential of
our world-leading media in fostering free speech and independent media
in the developing world.
Our timing is right in involving the media more comprehensively,
because U.S. media is cognizant of the need for freedom of expression
internationally more comprehensively today than ever. The Internet, as
well as increasing international newsgathering efforts, have
illustrated the decreasing size of the journalistic world in graphic
terms. Consider:
Barrons Magazine has a handful of Web subscriptions in
Australia. The Australian High Court has forced its owner,
American publisher Dow Jones, to defend a libel case under
strict liability that would never be permissible under the
First Amendment simply because Barrons is available on the
Internet.
Andrew Meldrum, an American journalist working for the
Guardian, a London newspaper, was prosecuted in Zimbabwe for
publishing statement claimed to be inaccurate under an
``information law'' that clearly violates international legal
standards. He was prosecuted in Zimbabwe even though the
Guardian does not publish there simply because a prosecutor
managed to access it via the Internet.
Until a federal court in California applied the First
Amendment to stop it, Yahoo.com was under orders from a French
court to stop publishing information relating to Nazi speech to
any country, even though that speech was clearly protected by
the U.S. Constitution--despite Yahoo's full compliance with
restrictive French hate-speech laws on its Yahoo.fr site.
In November, the Council of Europe approved an addition
protocol to the Cybercrime Convention, under which signatories
will be required to outlaw ``any written material, any image or
any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates,
promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence against
any individual or group of individuals, based on race.'' So
far, 20 countries have ratified it.
A new battle is being waged. It is no longer a battle in which our
federal courts can be a dependable refuge for our media companies, no
longer a battle where Congress can be relied upon to pass laws such as
those that protect U.S. newsrooms from searches. The media of the
United States are engaged in this battle. Given proper involvement, I
believe they will engage directly in our efforts to foster free
expression overseas.
The key, of course, will be to find an effective mechanism to
engage the media fully. Existing avenues, such as drawing on the media
to provide training and support, will of course continue. But
considering new mechanisms to engage the media is certainly
appropriate.
U.S. media can be tapped for substantive assistance. Our media has
long been involved internationally--for example, the Washington Post
helped to establish precedent for a reporter's privilege not to be
forced to testify about war crimes in the International Court in the
Hague, and the Associated Press and others have filed amicus briefs in
cases in Croatia and elsewhere. Our media also are focusing
increasingly on international standards as they struggle with Internet
jurisdiction over libel cases and difficult privacy issues arising from
Europe and elsewhere. But if existing media organizations can be tapped
to be fully engaged strategically and across the board, significant
resources could be brought to bear on problems in developing countries
with an energy and focus that we have not yet seen. This could truly
move the project forward, and I applaud the Chairman's efforts to
explore initiatives that could accomplish this goal.
In this effort, it may be worthwhile to consider tax incentives for
U.S. media companies, entertainment companies and sports leagues to
contribute highly demanded American content to broadcasters in emerging
democracies.\2\ Among the most important elements of ensuring
independence in media is sustainability, and compelling programming is
an essential element of building a brand and maintaining an advertising
base. If U.S. companies can be provided incentives for distributing
highly demanded programming, it could make a real difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For full disclosure, I should point out that Covington &
Burling represents numerous media companies and sports leagues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our work, and its ultimate success, should be judged by a
RIGOROUS ASSESSMENT OF MEDIA INDEPENDENCE AND FREEDOM
There is a need for a system to measure, to the extent possible,
our success in fostering independent media and a free press. The Media
Sustainability Index (www.irex.org/msi), which provides a rigorous
assessment of media development in 20 countries in Europe and Eurasia,
strikes me as having established the right analysis. The MSI measures
progress along a five-point scale, using evidence drawn from extensive
field work in each country--free speech protected by laws, regulations
and cultural norms; professional journalism that is balanced, fair and
ethical; a plurality of news sources available to citizens; ethical and
profitable management and independent media; and institutions
supporting media professionalism and independence. These indices
provide a valuable analysis of where we are in each country, and they
provide a system of measurement that could be straightforwardly
extended to additional countries and regions.
Any serious effort to establish a goal demands a concomitant
commitment to measuring whether that goal has been met. Analyses such
as the MSI will be an essential component going forward to ensure that
we do not end our involvement prematurely.
Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to share these ideas with
you. I would be pleased to address any questions you might have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Wimmer.
Let me state the situation. The rollcall vote has
commenced, and I think that we will have a recess of 10
minutes, wherein Senators can vote, and you will not have your
questions and answers interrupted. So if you can be patient for
that period, we'll return. I'm advised we'll not have a second
vote; there will be just the single vote. That is good news and
may give us, then, opportunities for extensive questioning and
dialog.
Is that acceptable to Senator Biden?
Senator Biden. Oh, absolutely.
The Chairman. Very well. The committee will recess for 10
minutes, or whatever time that Senator Biden and I require to
get our votes cast, and we'll be back.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The hearing is called to order again.
Let me ask--Mr. Wimmer, you have mentioned IREX. Would you,
for the benefit of both the committee as well as those watching
this hearing, describe more about that organization? Because it
has, as you mentioned, been active in 15 countries. But what
happens? Who are the people in IREX, and what do they do?
Mr. Wimmer. Thank you very much, I'd be pleased to.
IREX has a number of different functions. Of course, as the
name implies, it does a lot of educational exchanges, and
that's a part of the organization about which I'm learning
more.
The Chairman. What do the four letters stand for?
Mr. Wimmer. International Research and Exchanges Board.
The Chairman. Great.
Mr. Wimmer. So, historically, it was set up many, many
years ago, during the Soviet Union days, and did a number of
exchanges with the Soviet Union, mostly university age and
professors. It has expanded dramatically into Central and
Eastern Europe and Eurasia, and is now expanding into the
Middle East and doing exchanges, as well. But they also operate
the Pro-Media Program, which works in about 15 countries to
foster independent media. And what that program does--it's a
USAID-supported program--it goes in, sets up centers that are
in the country, and works with journalists and media companies
there to just provide assistance. And they will help train
camera people, advertising sales, promotion, production,
everything so that the media can become self-sustaining. So it
really isn't public diplomacy or international broadcasting, in
terms of getting our viewpoint across, but it is helping to
sustain media. And we get involved when there are media laws
proposed, and we hear about that through the field offices.
The Chairman. Well, as you've correctly identified, one of
the purposes of the legislation that I've offered and that has
been supported by Senator Biden and Senator Hagel, my
colleagues here this morning, is to build the institution of
the media, recognizing that there may be people writing in
papers or on broadcasts who are averse to many of our points of
view. We are trying to think ahead, through the vehicle of the
National Endowment for Democracy. We've chosen that because it
has 20 years of a good track record, election observations, and
institution-building. Sometimes you can't transfer these
skills, in terms of political organization or governance, to
the media. This is going to require some thoughtfulness by
veterans of the trail, such as the three of you, as to how this
proceeds. As you've suggested, that if American media are to
become more active, as organizations in the area, this
intersects with this attempt to bring about the training or the
building of indigenous forces in each of the countries.
I wanted to outline, for the moment, the IREX experience,
because people have been doing some of this already. This is
not rediscovery today. The question is how to augment those
efforts in a much more comprehensive way as a part of a global
program.
Mr. Powell, I'm encouraged by your description of the
program that you head. How many people are involved in this?
How popular is the subject? Do you have folks coming to your
university for the purpose, really, of engaging in public
diplomacy?
Mr. Powell. This is a very new center. The planning began
in September, with both the USC School of International
Relations and the Annenberg School for Communication, We're
drawing on, as you can imagine, many other resources----
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Powell [continuing]. On campus. Word is spreading
quickly among the grad students that this is a field that they
should be getting into. Our first courses will be offered in
the fall, and we're finding we have to cap them because the
interest is that great. So there is a recognition among--not
only among the faculty and among visiting scholars who will be
joining us, but, perhaps most gratifyingly, among the students,
that this is a field of great importance, and a field where
they will want to build not only the scholarship, but their
life's work. And so this is a growing area, and, for that and
many other reasons, your initiative is most timely.
The Chairman. This may be a reach, because you say it's a
new school, but over half of the students at engineering
universities around our country, we hear, at least in frequent
testimony, come from abroad. There is a yearning by American
industry that more Americans might take engineering, that this
would be helpful, maybe, in terms of building jobs here.
Nevertheless, huge numbers of students, and a majority in many
of the engineering schools, I'm just curious, down the trail,
is it likely that students from abroad will come to study
public diplomacy? Maybe they come now to study journalism. This
would be an interesting inquiry. In other words, how well are
we doing in that field already, given the exchange programs you
talked about generally, specifically? Do you have any view on
that?
Mr. Powell. Well, the University of Southern California
already has, we believe, more international students--students
from outside the U.S. than any other university, and the Center
of Public Diplomacy is actually already receiving applications
from students outside the United States who want to come and
study, not only public diplomacy as practiced--history and
practice here in the United States, but also how it's practiced
across the world to try to improve their own countries' efforts
in this area.
The Chairman. Mr. Mater, earlier on you made the comment--
and I commended the comment--about the business aspects of
this. What, ideally, should the National Endowment for
Democracy or the universities, as you've been listening to
this, or IREX, for example, do on the business side? Obviously,
sustaining these enterprises is of the essence. Because a lot
of people are going back and forth to Iraq now, to Baghdad,
there has been flourishing of new papers, new communications.
It is not really clear how these all sustain themselves, but
probably it is clear that some will not sustain themselves very
long. As a practical point of advice, how do you gain this
other part of the picture, after you have your message, to
finance how you do it, to hire other people to help you sustain
the circulation and distribution of what you're going to do?
Mr. Mater. I think that really there are two ways. One is
actually to do workshops abroad in which the business side of
the newspapers----
The Chairman. To hold seminars frankly devoted to that
subject.
Mr. Mater. This is how we do it. However, perhaps even
better than that are exchange programs. You were talking
earlier about American media. In the case of Indiana--I do know
some of the media people, the Schurz family, for example.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Mater. But as perhaps a typical and good example,
there's a woman I know, who runs a television station in
Evansville, Indiana, and I paired her and her station with a
station in Ukraine. And there were exchanges where the top
three or four or five people from the station in Ukraine came
to Indiana, spent time at the station and actually learned, How
do you sell advertising? How do you price advertising? How do
you get involved with the community? It's more than just
business. Community service is a big thing in broadcasting in
this country, and it was imparted to those people, as well.
People from Indiana went over to the town in Ukraine,
roughly the same size as Evansville, talking about the same
size audience. It would be wrong, for example, to take people
from a small town in Ukraine, and ship them to New York or to
Washington. Washington, being even the eighth largest market,
is far bigger than some of the places that I've dealt with. So
bringing them to a comparable-sized market worked out very
well.
I haven't heard from the Ukrainians, but Lucy Himstedt, who
runs WFIE-TV in Evansville, has been in touch with me, and Lucy
tells me how successful the exchange has been. So it works
even, the pairing of stations in Indiana and Ukraine, but it
worked. So that's another way of doing it.
The Chairman. I would say you would, with Hoosiers,
probably enjoy an appropriate pairing. But, nevertheless, I
think, you know, the point you make is an excellent one. The
size and the scope has to be thought of----
Mr. Mater. That's right.
The Chairman [continuing]. As opposed to throwing somebody
into another milieu just for general knowledge, because by the
time you get to the nitty-gritty of how to make a living at
this, why, the scope is a very important aspect of that.
Mr. Mater. Yes, that's true. In the case of radio, they
have to understand the concepts that we have developed in this
country, such as audience flow and so on, and knowing who
you're dealing with. This is a major aspect of what we do in
this country, the research and the like of that, so we know who
we're serving. People over there generally don't, and it's a
matter of teaching them.
The Chairman. I've waited for the expertise of this panel
to pose this question. In August, I was privileged to visit
Uzbekistan. It was my first visit to that country. And
President Karimov heard that I was coming, essentially, really
to take a look at what had been the Soviet Union's either
biological or chemical warfare laboratories that, under the
Nunn-Lugar Act, we were trying to convert, and that ostensibly
had been converted. We were going to inspect whether there were
now scientists doing good things in these places. In any event,
before we ever got to the laboratories, President Karimov
appropriated my trip, and insisted that I accompany him in his
aircraft, the Samarkand, which was a wonderful experience,
historically. Yet his purpose was to have 6 hours of
conversation, and much of it was the President's side of the
conversation, attempting to talk about human rights, talk about
criticism by the United States of his regime and of him
personally, and so forth.
I did not make a brief for the President in response to
whatever he had to say. One interesting thing that he did have
to say was that the American message was not being heard; the
Russian message is being heard. So I said, Well, how is this
happening?' And he said, Well, through radio stations,
essentially. Many people in Uzbekistan listen to the radio.
They're beyond the purview of television at this point,
although maybe not forever. He was suggesting that I ought to
go back, if I were serious about getting the United States
message there, and insist that maybe 300 large towers be
constructed, that, at least in his vision, would transmit
signals all the way from the United States. If necessary, we
could have them tune into our programming. In any event, if we
wanted to do something out at the capital city of Tashkent,
why, it could be picked up at least universally within the
country. It was an interesting suggestion, and I've tried it on
for size with people in our television electronic markets. They
all find it intriguing, but don't really know what to make of
this.
Let me just ask you--just thinking of Uzbekistan as a case
in point, a country in which the President says--unlike most of
the countries polled by the Pew Foundation, or others--at least
anecdotally, there appears to be a majority of people who have
a pro feeling toward the United States. So you start with that
basis. On the other hand, there is not much to sustain that,
maybe aside from the pronouncements of the President, himself.
Of course, there's some criticism of suppression of other
points of view or the media. How do you open this up? Are there
technical means to skip over some of the transition stages? Are
300 towers needed? What about the idea of these relay towers or
towers that are big enough to pick up signals even from the
United States? Is this a practical suggestion? If not, how
should we begin on the ground in Uzbekistan?
Any of you have a thought?
Mr. Powell. Well, if I can take a stab at this.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Powell. What we're moving toward--and this may be a bit
in the future--what we're moving toward, in Uzbekistan and
everywhere else, is leapfrogging much of the technology that we
grew up with. Radio is still important in much of the world, as
in Uzbekistan, and certainly VOA and other international
broadcasters are active on the radio front. What we've found to
be extremely cost effective, for very limited resources, in
much of the world, including Asia and Africa and Central
Europe, is to take America's message, stated indirectly,
through the coverage by free media in the United States and by
NGOs in the United States, and place the audio on the Internet.
You find that this attracts an audience in places that we had
not anticipated.
When I was Gene Mater's colleague at The Freedom Forum, we
began something called ``free radio,'' which as an Internet
radio service, audio files and streaming services placed on the
Internet. Anyone could download it. And the only way we found
out that--well, the first way that we found out that people
were using is, we'd start to get e-mail from Serbia or from
South Africa, saying, oh, we're hearing your programs on
independent radio station, or on a station in Sarajevo that
suddenly started using a 1-hour weekly magazine that we were
producing issues about free press. So there is a technology
which costs very little, very cost effective, and could be
picked up by anyone who was interested.
Now, that doesn't address the language issue, and it
doesn't address the issue of actually getting it onto a dial
that someone on a small radio can tune to. But there are these
kinds of technologies that are out there which don't require a
huge investment.
Also, in much of the world, as you know, satellite-
delivered radio and television are becoming important.
Satellite radio is something which is fairly new here, with XM
and serious radio offering commercial services. But in some of
the world, that's an important way of reaching at least elites,
and through elites sometimes you can get the word out in a very
timely fashion.
Mr. Mater. I might just add to that. Technology is what
does it all, in the sense that--when we started RIAS, my
colleagues then in Berlin started RIAS in February 1946 to
counter what was then the Soviet control of all radio in
Berlin--we started it as what was then called wired radio,
which went over telephone lines. And then to reach a broader
audience, we went over the air. And then we went beyond that,
because we wanted to serve more than Berlin. We used repeater
stations that could carry the signal into the Soviet zone of
Germany. It can be done as you say, but--and RFE has tried to
have their broadcast carried locally. It doesn't always work
but it is important.
Mr. Wimmer. Mr. Chairman, if I could add, I agree with
everything that's been said. There have been a couple of times
when the, sort of, analog to the 300-foot tower has been tried.
The most successful, of course, was Serbia--Project Pebble, I
believe it was called by USAID, which sent B92 back in. And
we've seen that sometimes in Croatia, Bosnia, where it's not
necessarily a government attempt, but a private broadcaster in
one country puts up a big tower to try to reach populations in
another.
I really like Professor Powell's idea of using technology
rather than building these cross-border broadcasting
facilities, which do raise international law issues. But the
Internet's a great example, if it can be a sort of a business-
to-business approach where the end result is something that's
available to a broadcaster in Uzbekistan by the Internet that
can be broadcast. Because really the Internet connectivity in
Uzbekistan and most of the countries there is so poor that
having something streamed in hopes that consumers will pick it
up is pretty futile at this point. But if it can be available
to broadcasters, who would then put it on the air--I mean,
radio is such an important medium of communications in Eurasia,
that I think that's clearly workable. And I'm always amazed,
when I travel to the region, how many satellite dishes you see,
so I think that's also something else that can be explored.
It's even better than a 300-foot tower; it's quite a large one.
The Chairman. Just listening to your testimony, it occurs
to me that perhaps the students--maybe students from
Uzbekistan, to use this case in point--would come to the United
States. You try to work with them on the content, on the
principles, on the values, but also on technical aspects. My
guess is, while there are students at Southern California in
the next year or so, in this country, the way in which
television is delivered to many homes in our country can really
change very markedly. This is a large debate going on, this
bundling of services or consolidation, the discussions of how
all that happens. Perhaps the students would be better able to
interpret, on the ground in their home countries, what is
doable, if they have the capital and the backing to do this.
this reinforces again that the longevity of the project depends
upon finance there, as well as assistance we can give.
This goes well beyond the budgetary debates that we're
having now. As you said, Mr. Wimmer, in one of your four
points, we have to be very thoughtful about cutting back
successful things we are doing now, even as we become
innovative and reach out, with the NED or with others, for that
matter.
Let me ask this question, because it poses a difficult
problem for our diplomats, quite apart from the issues of
journalism. With the fall of the former Soviet Union and the
coming of a new Russia, President Bush, the first President
Bush, introduced the Freedom Support Act. Robert Strauss was
named as our Ambassador to Russia with a whole portfolio of
potential reforms that we thought would be helpful for a new
Russia. They included much more of an emphasis on contracts,
property rights, rule of law, court systems that handle these
sorts of things. His priorities were pretty heavy on freedom of
expression and the need for free media and all that accompanies
that. A lot occurred in Russia. From time to time, a lot was
wound up and didn't work. At the same time, in the current
situation, one of the major criticisms of President Putin is
that one by one the television media have either gone out of
business or have been appropriated by the President or by his
followers so that something less than free expression seems to
be the case. That is true of some other elements of the media.
Here we have a situation in which a lot of Russians have come
to study in the United States, or have engaged with some of
you, as professionals, as to ``how do we do it,'' and some were
doing it very well.
I can remember, before one television station was closed,
they asked me to make an appearance, which I did, just as a
show of what I felt was important about what they were doing.
As I was being interviewed, it was interminable because they
had no other programming, I think, that evening.
They were rushing around anticipating somebody might come
after them that evening in, sort of, a touch-and-go situation,
which is too bad. This occurs not just in Russia, but also with
other regimes as they come and go.
How do we handle this, in terms of our public diplomacy?
Here, you're beyond just a rudimentary training of people. Some
of the financing, allegedly, of the television stations came
from the so-called oligarchies, or people who had become very
wealthy. That's a long debate itself, as to how they gained
their wealth, and the legitimacy of that, and their status.
Nevertheless, it is pretty well financed. It was one reason
that they made a lot of headway rather rapidly.
Now, do any of you have any comment as we get really into
public diplomacy and its longevity, its sustainability? How do
we handle those situations? Do we offer a refugee haven for
better days? Do we, through our own diplomacy at the highest
levels, make known how important we believe this is as a major
point of foreign policy? Do any of you have any comment on this
scene?
Mr. Powell. All of the above, Mr. Chairman. And it was
interesting to see President Bush making some remarks about
Tunisia in this respect, which was quite important. But among
the many tools at our disposal, if I could cite an example of
something which we did at The Freedom Forum for years, was to
go to a country--Peru, Russia, Zambia, Ghana, a country which
is going to have elections maybe 6 months or 3 months down the
road--and hold seminars and training sessions on the ground in
the country with experts from the United States--some of our
former colleagues from CBS News, from other U.S. news
organizations--to reinforce, among the editors and others--
educators, regional indigenous NGOs and others--what they have
at their disposal within the scope of their resources to fight
for their independence. And that's everything from--in Peru,
where Fujimori, at the time, controlled almost all the
newspapers and almost all of television and radio. We showed
them various ways of--whether through e-mailing of files,
through regular monitoring of the things we take for granted,
the New York Times Web site or the Washington Post Web site,
that they could--and you don't have to--even just have to say
it in these terms, because they understand immediately, Ah,
this is something the government can't stop. This is something
that is not subject to the censorship in Lima or Moscow or
Lusaka, wherever. You see a hunger for these kinds of
resources, and a willingness on the part of many courageous
people to use them at a time which is most critical, when
they're either at the beginning of or at the height of an
election campaign. We've found that to be a very, very well-
received set of programs, and a set of programs where--which
were requested by journalists in many countries. And within our
resources, we could do--in my department, I could do about one
a month. So--still, it's 12 countries a year, so you go all
around the world. And we saw, from anecdotal evidence, a great
positive benefit from that.
Mr. Mater. I would just add a point or two. I meet with
many foreign journalists who come to this country--are brought
in by our tax dollars, as a matter of fact. I think it's next
week that I meet with a number of Arab journalists, for
example. I know there are some Africans the week after that.
And in spite of all their problems, I do tell them that
democracy is not easy, and how we fight for it in this country.
I think it's going to take time, but I do think it is
important to meet with these people to show the difference
between what they're seeing in their own countries and how we
practice journalism in this country. For better or for worse,
we practice it one way, but in many of the other countries,
there isn't journalism as we know it; certainly not in China,
for example.
But we do meet with them. I meet with them on a regular
basis. They're inquisitive about how to do things. And maybe,
little by little, it'll take another generation, but something
more will happen. It will happen in Russia, as well, I think,
in spite of what's happened to the broadcast structure.
But it's a time-taking problem that will take awhile before
it is licked. I don't think we can pressure Russia into
suddenly creating independent television. There are some
independent radio stations. And the newspapers are not doing
all that badly, although there is pressure. The former Soviet
Union--in fact, all the countries in the former Soviet bloc,
have a concept of what they call ``paid advertising'' which is
really buying stories. You can get into the newspaper anytime
you want to. It's a different atmosphere. But, little by
little, we're working on it.
Mr. Wimmer. I really agree completely with that, Mr.
Chairman. The time that it takes to make these changes is huge.
Russia's a great example of a very mature country that still
has great needs, I think, both for journalism training, because
of the tradition of advocacy journalism and the lack of balance
in many news outlets, but also real need for media law support.
And I know the media lawyers that are active in Russia, and
there are perhaps a half dozen that are really active, and it's
an enormous country. And they definitely need help. And there
are, you know, any number of proposals that could do
significant damage if they were adopted that one reads about,
and a few of them that we've worked on. So I think that
continues to be important.
But I think you're exactly right to say that we also need
to look at this as a political matter and as part of our
bilateral negotiations with countries such as Russia. For many
of the countries that we go to, all we can do is use moral
suasion and say, free expression is good. You should change
this in your law because of the following reasons. There are
many more tools in the briefcase of a diplomat who goes over to
negotiate. And I think it would be important.
Mr. Mater. I might just correct something I said. I
referred to ``paid advertising.'' It's called ``hidden
advertising'' or ``paid editorial.''
The Chairman. Hidden.
Mr. Mater [continuing]. Which is more direct. Every time I
meet with Russian or Georgian journalists, or whatever country
they happen to be from, and I bring it up, they say, ``Oh, yes,
it's still going on.'' Hidden advertising. Indeed, a public
relations organization in Moscow, about 3 years ago, actually
did a survey and went to the various newspapers and said, ``How
much does it cost for 500 words?'' They all have a price list.
It's easy. You can get into the newspapers anytime you want to
if you pay for it, which is a very unfortunate aspect of the
business. They say they have to do it because they need the
money.
The Chairman. There's one other scene that I wanted to
bring before you, just for your comment today. Just during the
period of time I've served on this committee in the Senate,
there has been a sea change in terms of governments that want
to interact with our government. And so, as a result, maybe the
chief executive, the president, or the king, or whoever, comes
to the United States and seeks, usually through our Ambassador
in that country, an audience with the President of the United
States. And the President's time is not unlimited. And so, as a
result, the competition for these audiences and meetings is
substantial. But, in any event, many succeed because it's in
our interest, their interest, for these meetings to occur.
Now, in the past, sometimes that was it. Occasionally, the
itinerary of the chief executive might be extended to find the
Secretary of State, if he was available, and visit the State
Department; and then, in more recent times, maybe even to find
the Secretary of Defense or the National Security Council
Director.
But, in due course, many Ambassadors here on the ground in
Washington have advised the chief executive that he ought to
have a go at the Congress. It is a much more murky subject as
to how you do that, how you actually come from the executive
area over here to Capitol Hill. Many have adapted to that
situation, and we've tried to adapt our institutions to that.
In the Senate, for example, we had a coffee in the morning,
on Monday, with the new President of Georgia and members of his
cabinet. Now, he is a former American student, very savvy about
all of these things. As is increasingly the case, a large press
contingent accompanied him over to the Foreign Relations
Committee room in S-116, where these ceremonial occasions
occur, including a fairly large cadre of people in the written
press. And this is long before he gets to the White House. I
saw him on television with the President yesterday, quite an
itinerary.
More and more, these intersections occur. They have some
risks for the chief executive or the foreign minister or what
have you, particularly when they bring along all of their own
press with them, and their own press intersects with our press.
After all, it's not an exclusive situation outside of S-116.
Everybody was there, all asking questions back and forth.
More and more, I've noticed, the chief executives have
messages that they utilize our room to make, statements about
how they are received, how gracious we are, how much we agree
with them, how fine we feel they are.
Now, sometimes it doesn't work. The other instance of this
that's historical was President Marcos, for example, using an
American talk show on a Sunday to declare a snap election in
the Philippines. Now, you'd ask, well, why would President
Marcos use American television to announce an election in his
own country? Well, because really the relationship between the
United States and the Philippines was at stake. He felt, in
essence, that we doubted whether he had the backing of the
people, and he wanted to indicate to us that he did, so he was
going to have a snap election and challenge the United States
to come over and watch it. This was, if not the beginning of
observations, certainly a leap forward, and it was substantial.
I mention all this because I saw the Philippine Ambassador
yesterday. We had a meeting, in this same S-116, with the ten
ASEAN Ambassadors. They're about to have another election. Now,
this is a different situation, although observers, as I
understand, will once again be going--from NED, from the
International Republican Institute from the National Democratic
Institute, and so forth--over there. But in this particular
case, not only did Marcos invite the group--which President
Reagan asked me to chair, so I was involved in this--but after
we made a finding and announced in the Philippines that the
election was filled with fraud and abuse, in essence, Marcos
then went onto the Sunday shows. I can remember appearing on a
split screen with him on three different shows, in which he was
still debating, in the United States, the efficacy of his
election and all of this, which is interesting. It finally
didn't work, and, as you know. We advised him to wait, which he
did, and Corazon Aquino became the President.
I mention this because public diplomacy works both ways. It
appears to me that, from the start that Marcos made, it was
relatively unsuccessful for his purposes. Others are doing
better at it. This may bode well, then, for journalism abroad.
As we think about this new program envisioned by my
legislation, or however it's amended and modified, we may have
an audience there of chief executives, foreign ministers,
others, who understand this better, who understand the value to
them, of having these contacts.
I would like to ask you how should we approach this from
that standpoint. We have to pass the bill here, so I will be
seeking the votes of fellow Senators, as well as support in the
House and so forth. The initiative comes, after all, after the
strong support of the President in the State of the Union
Message to double the NED budget and to go after this, so it's
not entirely an initiative of my own. There's a pretty good
force coming behind us there.
While we're at work here, what sort of diplomacy ought we
to be having with others abroad so that we inform them of our
debate and so that this is not a covert activity in which the
United States is trying to somehow change their minds, but
rather a cooperative affair to build their institutions and a
capacity for all of us to understand each other better? We have
veterans at the trail in this. How would you approach the other
governments? What sort of public diplomacy should we be doing,
maybe as a committee, as we go about our work?
Mr. Powell. One suggestion would be to begin with our
friends. And I think that it's interesting to find how many
governments have public diplomacy entities, some of them called
departments of public diplomacy.
There are also--with whom we clearly should establish----
The Chairman. Yes, good idea.
Mr. Powell [continuing]. A dialog. Then there are the NGOs.
The GAO has identified some of them. Freedom House report is
committed to protect journalists--many are represented here in
this room--who also carry the same message in many of the same
places.
Trying to build these kinds of relationships and support
from more than one organization can have a number of benefits.
I mean, the more sources of funding a courageous editor has,
the higher his credibility. The French discovered trying to
support a newspaper in Gabon, they just gave French Government
money to the newspaper, and it was immediately discredited.
Whereas, if they had worked with others, including some French
NGOs, they might have had a better result.
Another is just through these dialogs, we find out what
we're doing, and we can reduce rivalries and overlapping
comparative efforts that might be counterproductive. And,
finally, through the National Endowment for Democracy and the
support that you're proposing. This could really be the
beginning of a real knitting together of a community of
interest in this area. And it embraces not only a number of
organizations here in the United States, but an even larger
number of organizations around the world, some in places you
might not expect, like Uzbekistan. And that certainly helps
promote exactly what the goals are that we're all trying to
achieve that you've articulated so well.
Mr. Mater. One of the first workshops I did after the
collapse of communism in Eastern Europe was in Bratislava--now
the capital of Slovakia--then it was still in Czechoslovakia.
But I had dinner, the first night, with the Minister of
Culture, who asked me, ``Why are you doing this?'' It was a
question, quite frankly, I hadn't expected. And I said, ``What
do you mean?'' And he said, ``You know, you and your colleagues
are here, and you're teaching people how to run independent
newspapers. Why?'' And I launched into what I told him was a
selfish argument, that I had been through one war in Europe,
and I didn't want to go through another one, that stability and
democracy required a free and independent press. We discussed
it on that level. And, at the end, I convinced him, but I don't
know I can convince everybody. But that was part of the
argument. And I have run into that. He was the first, but he
wasn't the last to ask me, ``Why are you here?'' And
particularly since we were private citizens--we were using
government money at the time, but we were not working for the
government.
The Chairman. Well, that's a very good point, that when
you're doing the Lord's work, there's no need to be bashful
about it. Indicate that you're there really to build
institutions.
Mr. Mater. Well, the Minister of Culture, was quite
suspicious of our purpose and understandably so, ``Why are you
here? Why are you doing this?''
The Chairman. I think that that suspicion probably would be
shared by many governments around the world.
Mr. Mater. Well it came up later, too. But, by that time, I
was prepared for it.
Mr. Wimmer. I had the same experience on my very first
attempt to persuade another government to change its laws. We
were beginning a 3-hour meeting with the parliamentarian who
had drafted it and headed up the committee, and he said to me,
through the interpreter, ``Well, I drafted the constitution in
1992, so I know this is constitutional. What do we have to talk
about?'' It was humbling for me, in that it informed how we did
this from that point on, that there are treaties, there are
reasons why they should do it legally. But, most importantly,
as Gene said, there are reasons to foster independent media
that are central to our national security interests.
So I tend to think that in the types of meetings that you
discussed, you started the process by introducing this
legislation, by centralizing NED, possibly, and by showing that
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is concerned about
independent media, which is a great indicator of its
importance. To the extent that the President or the Secretary
of State or the Secretary of Defense says, in one of these
meetings, ``Well, Mr. President, we're very concerned with the
state of independent media in Slovakia,'' then that carries a
really important message.
The Chairman. I appreciate your testimony very much, and we
look forward to hearing from all three of you, both formally
and informally, in the future as we progress along this way.
Sometimes Senators make comments about foreign media, about
these issues, and these are heard, they are picked up by the
public. At the same time, to the extent that our committee, a
bipartisan committee, weighs in from time to time, conceivably
this may have more effect. To do so, it has to take some
responsibility, thoughtfully and effectively, without reacting
to the headline of the morning to examine more institutionally.
Each of you have spent a lot of time thinking about this,
philosophically and on the ground, and that's why we appreciate
your expertise today. You've been very helpful, I think, in
raising questions, for the committee record, that others will
read and refer to so that they will have this advice and
counsel.
I also thank you for your patience, in waiting through our
vote and interruptions. We appreciate the quality of this
hearing, which we think has been very helpful and productive.
Thank you, and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the committee adjourned, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
----------
Responses to Additional Questions Submitted for the Record
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC, February 27, 2004.
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar, Chairman,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senate.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee this
week. This letter provides further information on two requests raised
by committee members during the hearing.
The first request was for the mission of public diplomacy. Broadly,
the mission of American public diplomacy is to engage, inform and
influence foreign audiences in order to increase understanding for
American values, policies and initiatives and, thereby, to create an
international environment receptive to American interests. Building on
this, my four public diplomacy strategic priorities are: the Arab and
Muslim world; non-elite, non-traditional audiences, especially the
young; new initiatives, thinking outside the box; and strategic
direction and performance measurement.
For the committee's information and use, I have attached our 2004
public diplomacy strategy report that was requested by the House and
Senate Appropriatations Committees in the conference report
accompanying the FY 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. This report gives
greater detail about our mission and our strategic priorities.
The second request was for more information on Economic Support
Funding for counter terrorism activities in East Africa. On January 21,
the Department of State notified Congress of its intent to use $1.2
million to enhance public diplomacy efforts in five target countries in
support of the President's East Africa Counterterronsm Initiative. The
target countries are Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.
Earlier this month, the notification of our intent to obligate FY 2003
and prior year Economic Support Funds expired without objection, and
these funds are now available for apportionment and allotment.
In November 2003, the African Bureau Public Affairs Office met in
Addis Ababa with Embassy Public Affairs Officers from the target
countries and military information officers to specify the Public
Diplomacy tools that would best encourage strong public support for the
Global War on Terrorism and counter extremist views, both secular and
religious. Specific components agreed upon and ready for implementation
now include three broad areas:
Increasing media outreach and information dissemination in
East Africa;
Supporting English language and teaching programs in East
Africa and providing target audiences with a better
understanding of core democratic values, including tolerance;
Conducting exchange and speaker programs on core values of
democracy and governance.
Target audiences will include moderate elites, government, civil
society, media and youth. We expect funds to be allotted to post by
mid-March.
I hope this provides the information requested by the committee.
Please let me know if there is other information you need.
Sincerely
Margaret DeB. Tutwiler.
Enclosure: As stated.
United States Department of State
Public Diplomacy Strategy \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Drafted by: Office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy
and Public Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Revised)
MARCH 1, 2004
This document updates the public diplomacy strategy report
submitted to the Appropriation Committees June 1, 2003. The mission of
American public diplomacy remains to engage, inform and influence
foreign audiences in order to increase understanding for American
values, policies and initiatives and, thereby, to create an
international environment receptive to American interests. Similarly,
the six strategic guidelines described in the report remain valid: to
maintain aggressive policy advocacy; to communicate the principles and
values which underpin our policies and define us as a nation; to engage
wider and younger audiences; to form partnerships with local
institutions, media, NGOs and others to extend our reach, increase our
credibility and expand our own understanding of others' concerns; to
use new and more powerful channels of communication, in particular
television and the Internet; to exploit research and analysis to
improve our own understanding of the political, economic and
information conditions that affect our ability to communicate with
foreign audiences.
Building on these guidelines, the new Under Secretary of State for
Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, in office a little over three
months, is sharpening the focus on four public diplomacy strategic
priorities:
The Arab and Muslim world;
Non-elite, non-traditional audiences, especially the young;
New initiatives, thinking outside the box;
Strategic direction and performance measurement.
THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD
The primary problem confronting U.S. public diplomacy today is the
deterioration of America's image abroad. The deterioration is most
stark in the Arab and Muslim world, and it is there that we will, first
and foremost, focus our public diplomacy energies and resources.
Reflecting this priority, 25% of Department exchange funding will
be dedicated to the Middle East and South Asia in FY-2004, compared
with 17% in FY-2002. We have restarted the Fulbright program in
Afghanistan, after a twenty-five year hiatus, and in Iraq. We continue
to rebuild our public diplomacy program in Afghanistan. Public
diplomacy offices are heavily committed in Iraq, and public diplomacy
will be a significant part of our Embassy program in Iraq later this
year. We will establish fifty-eight American Corners in the Middle East
and South Asia in FY-2004, including ten in Afghanistan and fifteen in
Iraq. The Department's Bureau of International Information Programs
(IIP) has quadrupled its output of Arabic language translations for
distribution in the Middle East. In addition, public diplomacy is a
crucial element in the President's Middle East Partnership Initiative
(MEPI), which is coordinating reform policy and programs in the region.
Our public diplomacy focus on the Muslim world extends beyond the
Middle East and South Asia to countries with significant Muslim
populations in Southeast Asia, Central Eurasia and Africa, as well.
Although the public diplomacy challenge may be different in various
countries, the need exists to reach out to Muslim populations in all
these regions with effective public diplomacy programs. Similarly, as
we focus on areas where deterioration of America's image is most
severe, we must not neglect those countries where our image is
positive; we must ensure that a problem does not develop tomorrow where
one does not exist today.
NON-ELITE, NON-TRADITIONAL AUDIENCES, ESPECIALLY THE YOUNG
The second strategic priority is to increase the focus of our
public diplomacy programs on a new audience, the non-elites, especially
among the younger generation. Traditionally, U.S. public diplomacy has
focused on educated audiences, those with influence or access to
influence and opportunity. We will continue to engage these important
audiences, advocating our policies and explaining our actions. We will
continue academic and professional exchanges at more senior levels.
At the same time, we must do a better job reaching young non-elites
and those who traditionally lack access not only to information about
the United States but also to those tools--specifically the tools of
education--which will help them participate in the kind of world the
United States seeks to advance, a world of political and economic
freedom and opportunity. It is in the interest of the United States
that these young people see their futures lying with a constructive
international system of cooperation and common values rather than with
a destructive ideology of anti-Americanism.
Expanding the circle of opportunity is the concept behind
Partnerships for Learning (P4L), an initiative of the Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), which seeks to extend our
exchange programs to undergraduate college students and to high school
students. P4L has initiated our first high school exchange program with
the Arab and Muslim world. Today, 170 high school students from
predominantly Islamic countries are living with American families and
studying at local high schools. Another 450 high school students from
the Middle East and South Asia will come here in 2004 for the next
academic year. P4L youth programs extend beyond the Middle East and
South Asia, for example, to Malaysia and Indonesia.
In addition, seventy undergraduate students, men and women, from
North Africa and the Middle East will come to the U.S. in FY-2004 for
intensive English language training prior to their enrollment in
university degree programs.
Through our School Internet Connectivity Program, 26,000 high
school students from the Middle East, South Asia, South East Europe,
Central Asia and the Caucasus have collaborated since 2000 with U.S.
students in online projects focused on building mutual understanding
across the topics of current affairs, entrepreneurship, health, and
civic responsibility. The Under Secretary is also initiating a program
of micro-scholarships for English learning and to allow foreign
students who otherwise would lack access to attend American Schools in
their own countries. Micro-scholarships will follow the model of the
successful micro-credit programs through which the U.S. has helped
numerous entrepreneurs and small businesses in developing countries.
English teaching is a priority program for reaching out to non-
elite audiences. ECA is devoting an additional $1,573,000 to English
teaching and creating five new Regional English Language Officer
positions in FY 2005, bringing the total to twenty. This is not enough,
but it is a start. Whether through direct teaching or training
instructors, English language programs offer great scope for advancing
public diplomacy objectives. For example, over the past five years,
Embassy Damascus estimates that it has trained over 9,000 of Syria's
12,000 English-language teachers, a terrific example of outreach to the
successor generation in Syria.
Public diplomacy also reached beyond traditional elite audiences
when ambassadors and embassy staff visit local schools and other often
neglected venues simply to talk about America. We are encouraging all
our diplomats and visiting officials to dedicate a little time to this
valuable though low-key outreach.
The report by the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab
and Muslim World, chaired by Ambassador Edward Djerejian, underlined
the lost opportunity which exists because the people in countries which
receive substantial U.S. assistance do not know that the help is coming
from America. Most Egyptians know that the Japanese helped to build the
Cairo opera house; few know that billions of dollars in American aid
has helped to build water, power, sanitary and other infrastructure
systems which contribute to their well-being every day. The State
Department and USAID are jointly committed to ensuring that recipients
of assistance recognize America's role in helping them. A joint Public
Diplomacy Policy Group works to that end as part of the overall State-
USAID strategic plan.
NEW INITIATIVES, THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
Even as we continue to rely on powerful traditional exchange,
information and advocacy programs, we need also to search for new ways
to reach our audiences, audiences previously outside our focus and also
long-standing audiences now subject to new media and other influences
with which our public diplomacy must compete. To this end, the Under
Secretary has created new positions and hired staff with responsibility
for specific functions, including private sector cooperation, sports
programming and ``book programs.'' The responsibilities of these
positions are open-ended in that, though focused on specific areas,
they are intended to explore all possibilities for creative and
effective public diplomacy within their purview. For example, ``book
programs'' should encompass not only traditional books in paper but
also distribution through CDs and other contemporary media.
The possibilities for private sector cooperation are nearly
boundless, from Sister Cities and humanitarian efforts such as the
Wheelchair Foundation project in Afghanistan to Steinway & Sons and
Motorola in Iraq. Current interagency coordination tactics play an
important role in identifying expanded opportunities for the private
sector. Public-private partnerships, corporate social responsibility
and strategic philanthropy all have the unique ability to help advance
the public diplomacy goals of the State Department. In addition,
building alliances with key industries including technology, healthcare
and education can work to complement current Administration
initiatives.
Public Affairs Officers and public diplomacy staff in the field are
a rich source of creative ideas. In order to foster this creativity and
spread its reach, the Under Secretary has created the PD Global Forum,
a web-based discussion site intended to allow unrestricted horizontal
communication between PD professionals around the world, sparking
ideas, discussion and debate to help us all do a better job. PD Global
Forum will also be a rich source of support for the young PD officers
who now staff many of our posts, often the embassy's only PD officer.
The PD Global Forum is indicative of the Department's commitment to
creativity in public diplomacy.
STRATEGIC DIRECTION AND PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
In order to ensure that public diplomacy resources are directed
towards strategic priorities and that programs are effective in
advancing those priorities, the Under Secretary and the Department are
undertaking a broad review of all public diplomacy programs as the
starting point for developing a continuing process of program
evaluation. Under the direction of the Under Secretary's office, and
drawing on outside expertise, ECA, IIP and PA will work with the
regional bureaus and posts overseas with the goal of completing an
initial survey of programs by the summer of 2004. The survey should
tell us how public diplomacy professionals in the field judge current
programs. From this beginning, we plan to develop further mechanisms to
evaluate the impact of specific programs in advancing public diplomacy
objectives. The ultimate objective is to develop a basis for resource
allocation decisions.
Although we expect useful feedback from the survey right away,
evaluation will be a long-term process. Foreign attitudes and public
opinion are affected by a myriad of factors, many beyond our influence
or control. Impact for some programs may not be open to quantifiable
measurement. We are, however, committed to developing a culture of
measurement for public diplomacy to ensure that limited resources are
allocated in the most effective way possible.
We consider an effective program evaluation process to be a
necessary component for strategic planning and direction of public
diplomacy. The Under Secretary is taking other steps, including the PD
Global Forum, to strengthen communication and a sense of common purpose
in the public diplomacy community of the State Department. Further
steps, including the issue of a formal strategic planning office within
the Office of the Under Secretary are also under consideration.
CONCLUSION
This revised report is not intended to be a comprehensive
recapitulation of State Department public diplomacy programs and issues
covered in the June, 2003, report. Key programs highlighted in that
report, such as Culture Connect, television co-operatives and IIP's
websites, remain priorities though they are not featured in this
update. The current report is a status report of where we stand about
three months into the tenure of a new Under Secretary for Public
Diplomacy and Public Affairs.
This report does not address issues of the Broadcasting Board of
Governors (BBG). While the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and
Public Affairs serves as the Secretary's representative on the board,
the BBG is an independent agency. Department coordination with the BBG
is continuous, but any strategy report on international broadcasting
should come directly from the BBG.
______
Response of Hon. Margaret DeB. Tutwiler to an Additional Question for
the Record Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
Background:
Ms. Tutwiler: The Dante B. Fascell North-South Center, named after
our esteemed former colleague from the House, Dante B. Fascell,
provides timely research, policy seminars and training activities that
seek solutions to specific problems in the Western Hemisphere that
prove time and again their importance.
The Department of State included funding for the Center in its FY
2004 budget request. The Senate included $2 million in its FY 2004
Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Report (S. Rept. 108-144), but no
funding was provided this fiscal year. However, in order to carry out
important projects, it needs to continue to receive Federal funding in
FY 2004.
Question. Would you look closely at the need for such a facility
and comment on the value the North-South Center provides? Would you
look seriously at the possibility of reprogramming funds for the Center
in FY 2004?
Answer. The Department of State values our long partnership with
the North-South Center and the positive impact it has had in the
Western Hemisphere over the years.
The Conference Report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2004 (as enacted in P.L. 108-199) does not include funding for the
Center. The Center is currently operating on funds remaining in two
open cooperative agreements from the Department of State.
Because of the redirection of resources towards the Islamic world
and plans for the rebuilding of Iraq, there is little flexibility for
the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs to fund any expanded
activities for the North-South Center. We are therefore unable to
commit to reprogramming funds for the Center in FY 2004.