[Senate Prints 111-6]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress
1st Session COMMITTEE PRINT S. Prt.
111-6
_______________________________________________________________________
U.S. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY--TIME TO GET BACK IN THE GAME
__________
A Report to Members
of the
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
John F. Kerry, Chairman
One Hundred Eleventh Congress
First Session
February 13, 2009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via World Wide Web
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-261 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin Republican Leader designee
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
JIM WEBB, Virginia JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
David McKean, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Letter of Transmittal............................................ V
Executive Summary................................................ 1
Recommendations.................................................. 2
Introduction..................................................... 3
The American Center.............................................. 4
From ``American Centers'' to ``Information Resource Centers''.... 5
Chart: IRC Location and Access............................... 6
Impact of Security Concerns on Public Diplomacy.................. 7
Graph: Visitors to IRCs On and Off Embassy Compounds......... 8
The Competition.................................................. 8
Bi-National Centers.............................................. 10
Iranian Cultural Centers......................................... 11
Chart: Location of Iranian Cultural Centers.................. 11
Other U.S. Government Efforts.................................... 11
Graph: American Corners By Region................................ 13
The American Center in Burma..................................... 14
Conclusion....................................................... 14
Site Visits
Egypt........................................................ 16
Jordan....................................................... 17
Mexico....................................................... 19
Dominican Republic........................................... 19
Appendix
American Corners............................................. 23
Chart: American Corners by Country....................... 23
Arabic Book Translation Program.............................. 30
English Language Fellows..................................... 32
Regional English Language Offices............................ 33
Chart: RELO Countries of Responsibility................. 33
Access Microscholarships..................................... 34
Peace Corps Co-location Exemption............................ 36
Film Series Restrictions..................................... 36
State Department Cable of Agreement with Motion Picture
Licensing Corporation.................................. 38
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC, February 13, 2009.
Dear Colleague: Recent polling suggests that support for
the United States throughout the world is on a slight increase
but remains well below the fifty percent mark in many
countries, even among those nations normally considered strong
allies. This less-than-positive attitude towards our nation has
impacts ranging from national security threats, to lost trade
opportunities, to a significant drop in tourism, to parents
overseas refusing to allow their children to be educated in
U.S. universities.
The sources of this problem are many. Some of these include
honest disagreements with our policies and our actions. But
many are based on misrepresentations of our goals, values and
motives targeted at those prepared to believe the worst about
us. Yet, in spite of recent actions to counter these
misperceptions, our efforts to present our point of view have
not been getting through. It is time to re-think how we conduct
our Public Diplomacy.
With this in mind, I sent Paul Foldi of my Senate Foreign
Relations Committee staff to travel to the Middle East and
Latin America in December 2008 to discuss U.S. Public Diplomacy
efforts with our Embassy and local officials. His report
focuses on the need for greater direct U.S. engagement with
average citizens overseas who now have virtually no contact
with Americans. In order to overcome years of mistrust, this
re-engagement should be on the same scope and scale as
currently conducted by the British, French and German
governments, all of which currently offer language instruction
and information about their countries in their own government-
run facilities throughout the world. Iran is also dramatically
increasing its outreach efforts through its network of Cultural
Centers in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, many of which are
located in the very locations where we are reducing our public
presence.
The United States used to have a similar worldwide program
through its ``American Centers,'' which taught English, housed
libraries and hosted U.S. film series, and featured exhibitions
and lectures by visiting American authors, scientists, human
rights lawyers, and other speakers. The consolidation of the
United States Information Agency into the State Department
along with security concerns resulted in the demise of almost
all the Centers (the excellent American Centers in Alexandria,
New Delhi and Rangoon are among the few exceptions) and led to
their rebirth as Information Resource Centers (or ``IRCs'')
most often housed inside our new Embassies. These Embassy
compounds place a premium on protecting our diplomats and often
convey an atmosphere ill-suited to encouraging the casual
visitor, with almost half of the 177 IRCs operating on a ``by
appointment only'' basis. Additionally, usage figures
demonstrate that our IRCs in the Middle East which are located
inside our Embassies receive six times fewer visitors than
similar facilities in the region located outside our compounds.
This lack of easily accessible facilities, where foreigners
can read about United States history and government and access
newspapers and the Internet in an environment free from their
own government's censorship has hurt us--particularly when over
80% of the world's population is listed by Freedom House as
having a press that is either ``Not Free'' or only ``Partly
Free.''
Where once we were seen as the world's leader in
intellectual discourse and debate, we are now viewed as
withdrawn and unconcerned with any views other than our own.
While the re-creation of the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) is
not realistic, a program to re-establish the American Centers
that uses the teaching of English to offset operating costs
would go far to demonstrate that we are committed to re-
engaging in a dialogue with the world.
Such a program would entail re-locating a small number of
Embassy officials outside our diplomatic compounds in those
locations where the security climate permits and where we are
able to provide them with appropriately secure facilities. If
we hope to change opinions towards us, we must be able to
interact with the world. We have learned much in recent years
about keeping our personnel overseas safe; as such, increased
accessibility need not come at the cost of security.
Mr. Foldi's report provides important insights into the
current state of our Public Diplomacy and offers valuable
recommendations based on his travels and years of work in the
field. As the title of his report suggests, we have been too
long on the sidelines of Public Diplomacy in recent years, and
it is indeed time for the United States to ``Get Back In The
Game.'' I hope that you find this report helpful as Congress
works with the new administration to strengthen our Public
Diplomacy efforts and look forward to continuing to work with
you on these issues.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Lugar,
Ranking Member.
U.S. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY--TIME TO GET BACK IN THE GAME
----------
On behalf of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
minority staff traveled to Egypt, Jordan, Mexico and the
Dominican Republic from December 1-12, 2008. The purpose of the
trip was to examine U.S. Public Diplomacy facilities as
platforms for engagement with foreign audiences, including the
role of English language instruction as a vehicle to facilitate
greater access to information about the United States and
interaction with core American values.
Executive Summary
It is no secret that support for the United States has
dropped precipitously throughout the world in recent years.\1\
Many experts believe this is due not only to various U.S.
foreign policy developments but also to the method in which we
conduct our Public Diplomacy. Public Diplomacy requires our
diplomats to interact not only with Foreign Ministry officials
but with local journalists, authors, scientists, artists,
athletes, experts and academics as well the average citizen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A February 6, 2009 BBC World Service Poll of more than 13,000
respondents in 21 countries still showed the United States with a 40%
positive-43% negative rating. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7873050.stm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The entity created within the U.S. government to deal with
Public Diplomacy and to communicate with the rest of the
world--the United States Information Agency (USIA)--was
abolished in 1999. While the Department of State absorbed
USIA's personnel and maintained some of its programs, most
agree that U.S. focus on Public Diplomacy began to diminish
from this point on. (Nonetheless, re-creating USIA, or
something similar, is neither feasible nor affordable in
today's budgetary environment.)
This lack of focus was also partly due to the belief that,
with the collapse of the Soviet Union, we had won the ``War of
Ideas''--a belief that 9/11 quickly shattered. We now find
ourselves having to focus our Public Diplomacy efforts not only
on those who ``hate us,'' but also on many former friends and
allies who now mistrust our motives and actions.
In order to improve the situation we must address the
difficulties we now face in conducting people-to-people
interactions and providing access to information about the
United States--the core of U.S. Public Diplomacy policy. Both
aspects of this policy served as the foundations of our best
Public Diplomacy platforms--the ``American Center''--which
housed libraries, reading rooms, taught English and conducted
countless outreach programs, book groups, film series, and
lectures that enabled foreigners to meet with Americans of all
walks of life and vocations and hold conversations on issues of
mutual interest.
These free-standing American Centers were drastically down-
sized and re-cast as ``Information Resource Centers'' (IRCs),
most of which were then removed from easily accessible downtown
locations due to security concerns following the attacks on our
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Those IRCs that were
relocated to our Embassy compounds have seen significant
reductions in visitors--IRCs in the Middle East that are
located off our compounds receive six times fewer visitors per
month as those located on our compounds. Thus we have created a
vicious cycle: frustrated by our inability to connect with
audiences overseas who no longer trust us, we have in fact
weakened our efforts at Public Diplomacy by denying them access
to both American officials as well as uncensored information
about us.
The State Department--working with Congress and host
governments--needs to re-create the American Center system in
secure facilities outside our Embassy compounds from which we
can provide foreign audiences with greater access to
information about the United States through libraries,
periodicals and an uncensored Internet. At the same time, much
as the British, French and Germans all offer classes overseas
in their mother tongues, we must use the teaching English both
as a draw to bring individuals back into our Centers and as a
source of funding by using tuition fees to offset the costs of
running them.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Congressional support is needed for the Department
of State to create more accessible Public Diplomacy platforms
by pushing Information Resource Centers (IRCs) out of remote
Embassy compounds and allowing them to be re-built as stand-
alone American Centers in more centrally located areas. In
order to accomplish this, the so-called ``co-location
requirement'' should be re-visited to allow these new Centers
to be established as well as to permit those few facilities
still off-compound to remain as such, as long as appropriate
security measures are in place.
IRCs and American Centers should operate six days
a week and ensure that hours of operation maximize usage by
local publics.
The Department of State should engage in the
teaching of English using American or American-trained teachers
hired directly by the Embassy, not sub-contractors, and using
standardized techs appropriate for each region/culture. This
will ensure that the Department has full control over the
content and quality of the education, and will go far to
advancing our Public Diplomacy efforts.
Charging for this English instruction is
appropriate and logical in these budgetary times.
If the security situation in an area deteriorates
to the point that a stand-alone American Center must be closed
for a prolonged period of time, the facility should be
preserved, perhaps re-cast for other use, but not permanently
closed. These Centers serve as high-profile symbols of
America's desire for direct engagement with local populations
as well as our commitment to education and access to uncensored
information; abandoning them indicates we have given up on
advancing these ideals.
In Latin America, rather than create competing
institutions that offer English language and cultural
programming, the State Department should examine cost and
policy implications of formally re-establishing U.S. government
links with the network of Bi-National Centers (BNCs) in the
region. BNCs were originally created by the United States but
are now wholly run by independent local boards.
American Corners--smaller versions of IRCs--are
housed in local university or public office buildings. At a
cost of $35,000 each, and with over 400 already established
worldwide, the Department of State should take a careful look
at any requests for additional American Corners to ensure the
need is truly justified. American Corners are appropriate for
remote locations that lack any other U.S. presence but should
not be used as substitutes in capitals for American Centers,
particularly as American Corners are run by local staffs who
are neither employed nor managed by U.S. Embassy officials and
thus represent a literal out-sourcing of American Public
Diplomacy.
In those capitals where an American Corner does
exist, its collection should be combined with the Embassy's IRC
to form the nucleus of the new American Center's resources.
The State Department's Arabic book translation
program is crucial to providing information in local texts and
should be strongly supported until free-market forces step in.
The Department should examine potential cost savings by
consolidating Cairo and Amman operations as long as both are
able to continue to provide input into the translation
selection process.
The term Information Resource Center is cumbersome
and, for most foreigners, confusing. A return to the simpler
``Library'' seems appropriate for those IRCs that must remain
on embassy compounds.
Given the disparity between the 11,000 graduates
of the English language focused Access Microscholarships
targeted mainly at under-served Muslim youth, and the 300 slots
available for the State Department's YES exchange program which
sends Muslim youth to spend a year in American High Schools,
the State Department needs to ensure that adequate funding is
available for follow-on programming to keep the vast majority
Access graduates engaged and using the skills that have been
invested in them, even if this requires a reduction of the
portion of the Access program's budget and fewer annual
graduates.
The State Department should re-engage with the
U.S. Motion Picture Licensing Corporation to allow greater
public awareness of Embassy-run American film series than
permitted under the current, overly restrictive, Licensing
Agreement negotiated between the two.
Introduction
Public Diplomacy is the conduct of diplomacy beyond the
boundaries and venues of traditional foreign ministries and
halls of power of a nation and requires interacting directly
with the citizens, community leaders, journalists and policy
experts who are the future leaders and current opinion shapers
of their country. Public Diplomacy also seeks to create a
better understanding of our nation with a foreign populace as a
whole by providing them access to American culture, history,
law, society, art and music that might not otherwise be
available through standard local media outlets that often
provide biased reporting about the United States and our
involvement in the world.
Visitor exchange programs are an important component of
Public Diplomacy. These State Department exchanges send experts
from the U.S. to countries throughout the world and, equally
important, bring foreigners to the United States to meet with
their counterparts here. The contacts and professional
relationships fostered in these programs are one of the
hallmarks of our people-to-people diplomacy, but they are not
alone. The Peace Corps and Fulbright Scholarships are equally
vital to providing long-term access to Americans and America.
The Voice of America and its affiliates are also a crucial
element in our policy.
In spite of these efforts, the fact that U.S. Public
Diplomacy policy is in disarray is neither a secret nor a
surprise. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, in its
November 6, 2008 list of thirteen urgent issues demanding the
next administration's attention to ensure the nation's
security, placed ``improving the U.S. image abroad'' fifth.\2\
Study after study \3\ points to our difficulties in explaining
our foreign policy to skeptical publics overseas. In short, the
U.S. ``brand'' has not been doing well in the marketplace of
world ideas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.gao.gov/transition_2009/urgent/.
\3\ These include: Arndt, Richard. The First Resort of Kings:
American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century. New York: Potomac
Books, Inc., 2007; Kiesling, John Brady. Diplomacy Lessons: Realism for
an Unloved Superpower. Washington, D.C. Potomac Books, Inc., 2006;
Peterson, Peter G. Finding America's Voice: A Strategy for
Reinvigorating US Public Diplomacy (Report of An Independent Task Force
Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations). New York: Council On
Foreign Relations, Inc., 2003; Rosen, Brian and Charles Wolf, Jr.
Public Diplomacy: How to Think About and Improve It. Santa Monica: RAND
Corporation, 2004; Rugh, William A. American Encounters With Arabs: The
Soft Power of US Public Diplomacy in the Middle East. London: Praeger
Security International, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is partly a result of honest disagreements that some
audiences have with our policies. It is also due to a skewed
vision that many in the world receive about the U.S. either
from biased reporting and/or because they are denied access to
Internet sites that are blocked or heavily filtered.\4\ Denied
this information, even with our excellent exchange programs,
the average citizen also has limited or no contact with
Americans. Offering greater access to our ideas, citizens and
officials will provide an important antidote to these ills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Recent revelations have surfaced that China has again begun to
deny access to various Internet sites it had stopped blocking during
the 2008 Olympic games (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/world/
asia/17china.html?hp). U.S. facilities with filter-free Internet
provide a natural magnet for the public in many locations where
repressive governments try to deny information to their citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE AMERICAN CENTER--PUBLIC DIPLOMACY PLATFORMS PAR EXCELLENCE
For years, our premier overseas Public Diplomacy platforms
were the American Centers, operated by the United States
Information Agency as stand-alone facilities located downtown
in capital cities. The Centers offered reading rooms with the
latest American and foreign newspapers and housed libraries
with collections of American history, economics, legal,
scientific and classic literature.\5\ Center staff coordinated
book discussion groups, lectures by visiting American experts,
and model United Nations and American Congress programs with
local youth. Centers ran American film series programs and
served as venues for visiting American artists and musicians.
English language instruction was also a staple of most Centers.
Importantly, access to these facilities was free of charge and
buildings were situated in the most vibrant part of city
centers. All of these services are critical in countries either
too poor or too repressive to provide any such institutions to
their own publics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As a result of our extensive collections, many foreigners had
their first exposure to serious research and uncensored information in
an American Center's library--one reason why the Centers are most
commonly referred to overseas as the ``American Library,'' in spite of
the entirety of a Center's offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans long accustomed to our daily newspapers, 24-hour
television news cycle and unfettered access to the Internet
sometimes forget that many societies still live with state
control of radio and TV, Internet censorship and no right to
freedom of speech.\6\ At the same time, many of these same
governments use their control of the media to espouse distorted
stories and unbalanced images of the United States. American
Centers offered a neutral \7\ space for foreigners to access
information without interference or oversight from repressive
host governments as well as a welcoming environment more
conducive to engagement with American officials. Yet, despite
the significant Public Diplomacy value of these Centers to
project America's ideas and images, several events occurred
that led to the rapid demise of all but a handful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Freedom House's 2008 Global Press Freedom report counts 66%
(123) of the world's nations as having either a Not Free or only Partly
Free press. These 123 countries represent over 80% of the world's
population. http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop08/
FOTP2008_Charts.pdf.
\7\ ``Neutral'' in the sense of a less formal setting than a U.S.
Embassy, but by no means free from risk as many repressive governments,
to this day, monitor and track all visitors to U.S. facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM ``AMERICAN CENTERS'' TO ``IRCS''
The American Centers program closed as a result of a
confluence of several events, including: the end of the Cold
War, the rise of the Internet, and the absorption of the U.S.
Information Agency (USIA) into the Department of State. The
first created the false impression that the great debate was
over regarding the primacy of democratically elected
governments. The second created the false belief that we could
conduct Public Diplomacy primarily through an electronic
medium. The third resulted in Public Diplomacy officers more
focused on localized issues related to their Embassy and
Ambassador rather than global U.S. Public Diplomacy policy. As
a result, most Centers were significantly downsized in terms of
material and staff and relocated into Embassies in their
truncated forms as Information Resource Center (IRCs), many of
which are now open only by appointment or have hours of
operation that limit public use. (See chart below.)
INFORMATION RESOURCE CENTERS--LOCATIONS AND ACCESS \8\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRCs with
IRCs located on public access IRCs with no access to
Region IRC total embassy by appointment the public
compound only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa................................. 37 21 (57%) 9 (24%) 0
East Asia.............................. 28 18 (64%) 15 (54%) 3 (Sydney, Singapore,
Hong Kong)
Europe................................. 55 43 (78%) 30 (55%) 11 (Brussels, Baku,
Berlin, Copenhagen,
Nicosia, Paris, Tallinn,
The Hague, Moscow,
Yekaterinburg,
Stockholm)
Middle East............................ 16 12 (75%) 6 (50%) 2 (Sana'a, Yemen;
Beirut, Lebanon)
South and Central Asia................. 16 8 (50%) 8 (50%) 2 (Karachi and Lahore,
Pakistan)
Latin America.......................... 25 20 (80%) 19 (76%) 1 (Bogota, Colombia)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................ 177 122 (69%) 87 (49%) 19 (11%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Figures provided by the Department of State for 2008.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold
War suggested to many policy makers that the continued need to
make the case for American democratic values was finally over.
As a result of this ``victory,'' funding cuts in Public
Diplomacy efforts were considered part of a logical ``peace
dividend,'' and Centers began to see their programming budgets
reduced and funding for book programs slashed. The attacks of
9/11 and subsequent events demonstrate that work in this field
is far from over, as even in Europe many ``natural'' allies now
regard the United States with distrust.
The rise of the Internet led many to conclude that more and
more Public Diplomacy outreach could be conducted just as
easily through websites and local Internet Cafes as through
more costly U.S. brick and mortar facilities. There is no
question that book purchase and shipping expenses are not
insignificant given the far-flung nature of many of our
Embassies. Definite cost savings can be achieved through
uploading information on the Internet. In fact, many IRCs now
subscribe to vast legal and scientific database services which
can be accessed at users' homes via many IRCs' websites. Such
data is no doubt valuable for foreign researchers and generates
a certain recognition of the U.S. as leader in education and
freedom of information. However, if enhanced people-to-people
interactions are judged to be a key component for improving our
Public Diplomacy efforts, cutting out the interaction with
Americans seems counterintuitive.
The 1999 dissolution \9\ of the United States Information
Agency (USIA), which ran the American Centers, and the
absorption of USIA's personnel and some of its programs into
the State Department, continued to chip away at the Centers and
overall Public Diplomacy funding in light of what State viewed
as Congressional pressures to continue to reduce spending
overseas.\10\ USIA officers were re-cast as Public Diplomacy
(PD) ``coned'' officers in the State Department.\11\ As Foreign
Service Officers, PD officials in the field report not to the
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy in Washington but to their
Ambassador at post. Quite naturally, many PD officers are more
concerned with supporting his or her Ambassador's immediate
press needs rather than worrying if their Ambassador's
initiatives track with overall U.S. Public Diplomacy
priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 in
Division G of the FY2008 Omnibus Appropriations legislation (PL105-
277), which begins on p. 761. http://frwebgate. ccess.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid= f:publ277.105.pdf.
\10\ See public diplomacy funding figures in CSIS Appendix to
Armitage-Nye April 24, 2008 Senate testimony; http://www.csis.org/
media/csis/congress/ts0804024Armitage-Nye_ Appendix.pdf.
\11\ Foreign Service Officers are career-tracked in one of five
``cones''--Consular, Economic, Management, Political or (since the
absorption of USIA into the State Department in 1999)--Public
Diplomacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the ten years since the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act took effect, it is clear that the abolishment
of USIA failed to improve our Public Diplomacy efforts
significantly. In spite of the wishes of many, however, there
is neither the political will nor budgetary outlays available
to recreate USIA, or any other similar stand-alone entity.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See for example the proposed creations of: ``USA-World Trust''
in the Brookings report ``Voices of America'' http://www.brookings.edu/
/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/11_public_ diplomacy_lord/
11_public_diplomacy_lord.pdf; the Defense Science Boards ``Center for
Global Engagement'' http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2008-01-
Strategic_Communication.pdf; Meridian International Center for the
Study of the Presidency's call for a ``Foundation for International
Understanding'' http://www.thepresidency.org/FIU/fiu.html; Business for
Diplomatic Action's ``Corporation for Public Diplomacy'' http://
www.businessfordiplomaticaction.org/ action/
a_business_perspective_on_public_ diplomacy_10_2007_approvedfinal.pdf;
Heritage Foundation's ``Independent Public Opinion Research Center''
http://www.heritage.org/ Research/PublicDiplomacy/bg1875.cfm; Public
Diplomacy Council--``U.S. Agency for Public Diplomacy''
www.pdi.gwu.edu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPACT OF SECURITY CONCERNS ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
At the same time that budgetary and bureaucratic pressures
were impinging on public diplomacy efforts, the Department of
State was reeling from the 1998 bombings of our Embassies in
Kenya and Tanzania. Responding quickly, Congress provided, and
continues to provide, the Department of State hundreds of
millions of dollars annually for Embassy construction to
replace chancery buildings.\13\ In order to build facilities
that can withstand blasts such as those that struck Nairobi and
Dar es Salaam, new embassy buildings must have a one hundred
foot set-back from the perimeter fence in order to dissipate
the shock waves of an explosion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of
1999, found in Title VI of Division A of the FY2000 Omnibus
Appropriations Act (PL106-113), starting on p. 451; http://
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid= f:publ113.106.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sites with sufficient acreage to meet these new set-back
requirements can only be found miles away from the previously
convenient downtown locations of our original Embassies. Such
sites by definition tend to be in remote areas poorly served by
public transportation. These relocations have resulted in
decreases in both the ease and frequency of locals visiting
American officials and vice versa--creating a veritable
diplomatic lethargy in many locations. Equally impacted has
been the foot-traffic in IRCs that are located on Embassy
compounds. At the same time, new security architecture has
created structures that project a Fortress America environment
that seems to say anything but ``Welcome'' \14\ which has led
to a similar inertia in our Public Diplomacy efforts in many of
these locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Visiting an IRC in a new US Embassy was likened to ``going to
jail or getting into Fort Knox'' according to one interviewee in the
State Department's 2003 ``Changing Minds Winning Peace: A Strategic
Direction for U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim World.''
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/24882.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same Act that creates these new Embassy construction
standards also requires that, ``In selecting sites for new
United States diplomatic facilities abroad, all personnel of
United States Government agencies except those under the
command of a United States area military commander shall be
located on the same compound.'' This portion of the Act is
known as the ``co-location'' requirement and is most often
cited as the mandate for the closure of stand-alone American
Centers and their subsequent absorption into Embassy facilities
as truncated IRCs. There is a waiver for this requirement, but
it has rarely been adopted and only on a case-by-case basis.
The only blanket exception is for the Peace Corps, which was
given a Congressional exemption (see Appendix).
According to data provided by the State Department, those
IRCs located off the compound receive significantly more
visitors than those located on the compound. As the chart below
illustrates, in the Middle East--perhaps our area most in need
of outreach--with 12 IRCs on Embassy compounds and 4 located
off, those off the compound received almost six times as many
visitors per month (843) as those on the compound (139). IRCs
in Latin America, East Asia, South Central Asia have even
greater disparities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.001
THE COMPETITION
Where is the best place to learn French?
The Alliance Francaise run by the French
Embassy.
Where is the best place to learn English?
The British Council.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Staff conversations with several interlocutors in both Egypt
and Jordan, all of which produced identical results.
As American Centers began to disappear, our involvement in
the direct teaching of English declined at the same time, and
the British have been more than willing to step into the
breach. Just as American college graduates are often fiercely
loyal to their alma maters, graduates of the Alliance or
British Councils form a bond with those nations that lasts a
lifetime based on their years of exposure to those countries
through the educational advantages they gained through study in
each. Having virtually ceased to offer the same educational
opportunities, the United States is missing out on creating
similarly supportive lifelong linkages.
The British Council has locations in some 110 countries
with over 7,900 staff. A standard British Council facility will
have 15 or more classrooms that teach English from the morning
to night. While some funding comes directly from the British
government, much of their operating budget must come from fees
generated locally through teaching as well as providing space
and proctoring of international testing such as the UK
equivalent of the U.S. ``TOEFL'' (Test of English as a Foreign
Language) exam that is required of all potential immigrants to
Great Britain. Additionally, local multinational firms either
contract with the Council for special training sessions on
site, or bring instructors to their institutions. To date,
tuition for British Council language instruction is considered
prohibitively expensive by most locals, resulting in a
clientele of primarily the economic and social elite.
As with American Centers, British Councils house library
facilities with computers hooked to the Internet. The Councils
are modern, spacious, well-staffed and, importantly, open six
days a week to maximize attendance and outreach opportunities.
Additionally, and uniquely, they provide a well-stocked section
of children's books which starts the ``bonding'' experience
with the UK at an even earlier age. Like France's Alliance
Francaise centers, British Councils routinely contract with a
local caterer to establish a cafeteria which not only adds to
students' convenience, and therefore market share, but in some
countries provides the only common area where members of
different social groups can interact without fear of arousing
the suspicions of local political or religious authorities.
Both French and British facilities maintain sufficient public
space to host their own cultural events or art shows--some even
act as galleries and retain a certain percentage of each sale.
Their facilities also offer sufficient multipurpose rooms/
auditoriums for film showings or lectures. Except for the
oldest and most established of our Centers, American IRCs
rarely have either large conference rooms or dedicated
auditoriums due to the constant pressure within Embassies for
the limited chancery space available.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.014
British Council Cairo, Egypt--complete with Henry Moore sculpture.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.015
Entrance to library portion of the building above, including latest
pop CDs to draw in local youths.
BI-NATIONAL CENTERS
Latin America is the one exception to British Council
dominance in English language instruction. In this region, Bi-
National Centers (BNCs) are considered the premiere institution
in this field. BNCs are, however, a legacy of earlier, closer
bilateral engagement between those nations and the United
States. A typical BNC was very similar in structure to current
British Councils--English Language programs were used to fund
programmatic and library activities and were initially U.S.
government facilities run by USIA officers.
However, as budgetary constraints took hold and later, as
USIA was absorbed into the State Department, the U.S.
government began to disengage from day-to-day operations to the
point that, now, BNCs are completely independent of U.S.
operational and budgetary support, oversight, and programmatic
direction. Few locals, however, seem to realize this and still
consider BNCs to be part of our Embassies. Fortunately, most
BNCs are well-funded because of their tuition base, and many
put the local Department of State IRC to shame.
IRANIAN CULTURAL CENTERS \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Iranian Cultural Center information can be found at http://
culturebase.icro.ir/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only are our allies engaged in expansive Public
Diplomacy efforts. Tellingly, Iran is now conducting an active
outreach program particularly in those predominantly Muslim
African and Asian countries. Iranian Cultural Centers offer
Persian language classes and extensive library resources. These
Centers serve Iran as a mouthpiece to promote anti-American
propaganda and have been alleged in local media to be extremist
recruitment centers and covers for intelligence operatives. In
over half of the locations listed below, the American Embassy's
Information Resource Center is either not open to the public or
open by appointment only, which begs the question, how can we
possibly expect our ideas to compete in these critical
marketplaces if the average citizen cannot easily access them?
IRANIAN CULTURAL CENTERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Central
Asia Africa Europe Middle East Asia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bangladesh Ethiopia Armenia Egypt Afghanistan
China Ghana Austria Kuwait India (2
Centers)
Indonesia Kenya Azerbaijan Lebanon Kazakhstan
Pakistan (8
Centers)
Japan Nigeria Bosnia & Qatar
Herzegovina
Thailand Sierra Leone Bulgaria Saudi Arabia Sri Lanka
South Africa Croatia Syria Tajikistan
Sudan France Tunis Turkmenistan
Tanzania Germany United Arab Uzbekistan
Emirates
Uganda Greece Yemen
Zambia Italy
Zimbabwe Russia
Serbia
Spain
Turkey (2
Centers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER U.S. GOVERNMENT EFFORTS \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Further discussions of each of these elements can be found in
the Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States has not been completely idle in Public
Diplomacy or in the use of English language instruction to
further those goals:
Some 20 Regional English Language Officers are
sprinkled throughout American Embassies, but travel is
expensive and many RELOs are too constrained by duties
at their home embassies to engage in sufficient
regional visits and thus have limited impact.
There are currently 136 English Language
Fellows in 76 countries. Fellows work with specific
institutions on issues ranging from teacher training
classes for English instructors to teaching English
directly. These initiatives provide unprecedented
pedagogical opportunities for the United States to
impact Education Ministry policies throughout the
world, but they are largely invisible to the general
population of each country.
The Peace Corps is also heavily involved in
this area as almost 20% of Peace Corps Volunteers
(PCVs) have ``Teaching English'' as their primary task
in the field. PCVs are one of the most effective
examples of people-to-people Public Diplomacy, and they
invariably depart after their two years leaving nothing
but a positive impression. PCVs are, however, are only
in some 60 countries throughout the world and generally
located in more remote locations in their countries.
As part of a reaction to the closing of
American Centers, the Bush Administration began a
program of establishing American Corners throughout the
world. To date there are over 400 Corners in municipal
buildings, university libraries or other public
buildings in regions that often have no other U.S.
diplomatic presence. Books related to the United States
and computers are supplied to each location, but the
operation, maintenance and programming offered by each
Corner is in the hands of a foreign national who is
neither paid nor overseen by U.S. Embassy officials and
thus amount to nothing less than an outsourcing of U.S.
Public Diplomacy. The results in terms of U.S. Public
Diplomacy are therefore mixed; some Corners are vital
hubs of information, others dusty relics that offered
little more than a photo-op for an ambassador at their
opening. None offers direct access to Americans. While
appropriate for remote regions where the U.S. has no
diplomatic presence, Corners are too small to take the
place of American Centers in a capital city.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.002
Access Microscholarship grants are awarded
primarily in the Muslim world to lower-income youth to
provide access to U.S.-sponsored English classes. The
classes are run by local contractors and vary according
to local markets. Some offer not only English lessons
but research on the United States in English on
computers at their facilities and emphasize critical
thinking as part of their curriculum. The intent of the
scholarships is not only to reach the best and
brightest of a non-traditional audience, but to provide
them with sufficient language skills so they may
successfully compete in the State Department's Youth
Exchange and Study (YES) program that brings Muslim
high school age students to the U.S. for a year of
study. (Prior to Access scholarships, too many YES
participants were from the elite strata of society,
most of whom already had exposure to the U.S. through
tourist visits.) Some 11,000 Access students graduate
each year, but many are concerned that there is no
further follow-up programming to keep them engaged.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See a recent review of the program in the New York Times which
quotes one 15 year old Egyptian girl: ``We don't want it to be two
years that just passed and then it's over.'' http://www.nytimes.com/
2009/02/06/world/middleeast/06cairo.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq= access&st=cse.
None of these options has the Public Diplomacy impact of a
stand-alone American Center located in the heart of a nation's
capital. Such Centers are true flagships not only of American
outreach but also represent our vital and visible commitment to
the freedom of information, thought and discussion. As such,
occasionally, they can even play a direct role in the
democratic aspirations of a repressed nation.
THE AMERICAN CENTER IN BURMA
A recent article in The New Yorker magazine \19\ provides
ample evidence of the role a U.S.-run facility in fostering
democratic ideas and actions. As discussed in his well-
documented August 25, 2008 piece, journalist George Packer
describes the vital role the U.S. American Center in Rangoon
\20\--with its James Baldwin Library and Ella Fitzgerald
Auditorium--played in the cultural and political lives of the
Burmese people. Mr. Packer discusses how U.S. diplomatic
officials used the facility to meet with average citizens to
discuss everything from literature and performing arts to both
local and U.S. politics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/08/25/
080825fa_fact_packer/.
\20\ http://burma.usembassy.gov/the_american_center.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Embassy Public Diplomacy personnel who ran the Center
purchased thousands of new books for the Library, and now have
over 13,000 titles. As a result of outreach efforts, membership
for the Center tripled. Book clubs sprang up that enabled older
Burmese dissidents to discuss their past activities with
younger activists bent on reform. Operating six days a week
provided additional opportunities for average citizens to use
the Center and take part in the discussions. Twelve Internet
stations offered access to information unavailable to even
those few non-government Burmese who have a computer at home.
The Center became one of the main focal points for dissidents
and organizers of the fall 2007 protests against the Burmese
military dictatorship.
Portraying our Centers as potential instruments for
democratic regime change is perhaps the shortest way to ensure
their closure, but, to date, the Center in Rangoon remains open
and active. With well over 10,000 visitors a month--making it
easily our most visited Public Diplomacy facility in the
world--our Center in Rangoon demonstrates that if people are
given the opportunity to access ideas and information about
democracy, the desire for freedom can thrive in even the most
repressive of regimes.
CONCLUSION
There is no question that our standing in the world is
nowhere near where it should be. This may change in the short
term as the new administration pursues alternative foreign
policy practices, but what may prove more difficult to overcome
in the long term is the lingering suspicion that we no longer
seek to collaborate and cooperate.
Such doubts about our motives and intentions peaked just as
America was seen as closing itself off, which only added to
this climate of mistrust. It mattered little to the world that
much of this was the result of terrorist attacks against the
United States, nor that these attacks produced in our own
country a similar degree of mistrust towards much of the world.
This led to a foreign policy environment which seemed to put
security above all other considerations.
These security concerns, in turn, brought about the closure
of many American Centers with English classes terminated and
truncated remains of their library collections brought inside
our new Embassy compounds as Information Resources Centers. At
the same time foreign audiences, used to convenience and the
freedom of access to American Centers, were loathe to submit to
what they believe are cumbersome appointment schedule
requirements, hostile security environments and reduced
resources. As such, not surprisingly, IRC foot-traffic is
significantly lower for those situated inside our chancery
compounds.
Thus, we have succeeded in sidelining some of the greatest
assets we have in the field of Public Diplomacy by restricting
access to the very information and individuals needed to
educate international audiences about who we really are as a
nation, rather than the images that our detractors continue to
use to portray us. It is, indeed, time for us to get back in
the game.
A new Public Diplomacy approach designed to re-engage with
the rest of the world is crucial to improving our standing in
the world. Care must be taken to ensure that any new programs
are viewed not as mere short-term public relations campaigns
designed to ``sell'' the image of the United States.
Sophisticated foreign publics have become suspicious of recent
attempts to paint the United States in too rosy a picture--what
some would argue is a classic case of confusing ``Public
Relations'' with ``Public Diplomacy.'' True Public Diplomacy
changes will involve long-range efforts to demonstrate a
renewed willingness on our part to discuss rather than to
dictate.
Reinvigorating the American Centers will go far to
providing this by offering a more neutral location for our
diplomats and visiting scholars to begin to repair the breach
that has been created. Ambassadors continue to hear from
foreign leaders and opinion makers who fondly recall learning
about the United States and the world outside in our Centers.
They equally loudly lament the closure of our facilities and
ask how we can be surprised by downturns in public opinion
towards us when their citizens have nowhere to go to obtain
unbiased information. It is now time to turn this argument on
its head and work with these same governments to provide us
with appropriate, secure, and hopefully donated space in order
to re-establish American Centers in centrally located areas,
using the literary and staffing resources of the Embassy's IRC
along with the books and computers from any existing American
Corner in that capital to form the nucleus of the new American
Center's offerings.
In the years that have elapsed since the tragic bombings of
our Embassies, we have developed the security technologies
needed to keep our diplomats safe and must ensure as many
measures as possible are properly in place before moving
forward. To assist in this, Congress needs to provide the State
Department a clear signal of support for such actions modeled
on the legislation (see Appendix) used to allow the Peace Corps
to maintain its offices off U.S. Embassy compounds.
Equally important in these tight budget times, the
Department should immediately begin to explore how to
recommence the teaching of English in order to create the
needed ``pull'' to bring skeptics of the United States into the
Centers as well as use the revenues generated to partially
offset operating costs. English has become the common language
of not only commerce, but science, industry, and most
importantly--the Internet. Teaching English will not only
provide a marketable skill required for advancement in our
international marketplace, but it will also allow us to re-
introduce America and American values to much of a world that
still views us with suspicion.
None of this offers a quick-fix; rather it portends a long-
term reorientation of Public Diplomacy requiring years of
dedication, funding and oversight. But if the United States
hopes to regain the trust of the world as the leader in freedom
of information, education excellence, and democratic values,
such a commitment is essential.
Site Visits
EGYPT
The United States has two major Public Diplomacy resources
in Egypt, the free-standing American Center in Alexandria and
the IRC inside the Embassy in Cairo.
Of the two, the American Center is by far the more
impressive for reasons of access, scale, programming space, and
overall facilities. A former American Consulate, the Center in
Alexandria is in some respects a true jewel, with a library
stocked with books in English and Arabic as well as a computer
center with a dozen stations used for Internet research.
English instruction is provided by the NGO AmidEast in
classrooms situated on third floor. Visitors to the Center are
screened by local guards first at the gate and then through a
second metal detector at the door of the Center; however,
AmidEast students are directed up an exterior staircase to the
third floor and never enter the Center.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.017
Interior views of the exceptional American Center in Alexandria.
Embassy Cairo's IRC is housed inside our well-guarded
Embassy which is part of a diplomatic enclave that is blocked
off to vehicular traffic. Walk-ins are welcome during the
Embassy workweek Sunday thru Thursday 10 am-4 pm, with late
closing at 7 pm on Mondays and Wednesdays. The IRC is well
stocked with books on the United States and has an extensive
audio and visual library for use on site but acknowledges that
its location on the compound serves as deterrence to attracting
more visitors. Data provided by the Department of State notes
that the American Center in Alexandria, a city of some 4
million, receives on average 1,600 visitors a month while
Cairo--a city of at least twice that size--receives less than
an 1,000. Embassy officials who recognize the need to provide a
more accessible outreach program have begun to look at various
properties outside the compound but still within the enclave
that provide both appropriate space and security.
JORDAN
Our embassy in Amman boasts what could easily be mistaken
for an American Center. The Embassy's American Language Center
(ALC) has been in operation since 1989. It currently teaches
some 2,400 students per year in 14 classrooms, but unlike the
American Center in Alexandria which out-sources the teaching to
a contractor--AmidEast--ALC instructors are contracted directly
by the Embassy, thus saving on the ``middle man'' overhead
costs implicit in all sub-contracting arrangement.
The ALC \21\ is a stand-alone building located off a major
street in downtown Amman, and students are screened twice
before entering. As pictured below, there is no American flag
on the front nor a great seal of the Department of State; in
fact the word ``American'' is not even displayed, only the
initials ``ALC.'' Also illustrated below is the excellent
library located in the basement of the building which houses
several thousand volumes, computer terminals, serves as a Wi-Fi
hot-spot, and boasts a flat screen TV with Digital Video
Conference capability. This modern, state-of-the-art facility,
however, is virtually unused as Embassy security officials will
not allow general public access; only students registered with
the ALC may use the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ http://www.alc.edu.jo/web/.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.019
The top photo above shows the very discreet American Language
Center (ALC); its completely empty and unused library is shown in the
photo below it.
MEXICO
The Ben Franklin Library \22\ has been in operation in
downtown Mexico City since 1942 and is a mainstay of our Public
Diplomacy efforts. In addition to providing an impressive
collection of 23,000 books on America, U.S. law and economics
(primarily in English but also Spanish), it boasts 130
periodicals and over 600 videos on American history and
culture. It is one of the better-known landmarks in the city
and projects an impressive image of the United States. A
significant draw to the library is the ``Education USA'' \23\
section that counsels Mexican students on selecting and
applying to American universities. This service is a function
of the Department of State and is contracted out to different
NGOs; the Institute of International Education runs the program
in Mexico while AmidEast does so in Egypt. Some contend that
this represents another example of ``out-sourcing'' Public
Diplomacy, while others argue that such activities are
peripheral activities that would distract or dilute PD
officers' attention from more ``core'' programmatic activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/bbf/biblioteca.htm.
\23\ http://www.educationusa.state.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An active conference schedule included discussions of
recently published books, films about American history and
lectures on the American political process and the recent
election. The library itself occupies the ground floor of a
building shared with the U.S. Foreign Commercial Service on a
busy downtown street. The State Department estimates that some
1,200 users visit the library every month.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.020
View of the landmark Ben Franklin Library in Mexico City before
opening hours.
SANTO DOMINGO
The Dominican Republic presents a more typical situation in
the Western Hemisphere. The Embassy runs a small IRC known as
the ``Ben Franklin Center,'' which offers limited resources
(some 2,400 titles) and is housed in a single room in a small,
off the beaten path, bungalow that serves as the Embassy's
Public Affairs Section. To address their small size, the staff
has aggressively compiled an impressive list of on-line
databases \24\ that members of the IRC--which have included
Dominican Presidents and Cabinet members--use with great
frequency. The push to more and more on-line services is
understandable as overall costs are minimal when compared to
publications. However, from a Public Diplomacy perspective,
this trend is troubling. If true Public Diplomacy work most
effectively involves interactions between Americans and foreign
nationals, then relegating ``contact'' to a mere Internet
portal to U.S. government documents, however useful, eliminates
the ``public'' in Public Diplomacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ http://www.usemb.gov.do/IRC/IRCindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, the IRC must compete with Santo Domingo's
well-established Bi-National Center \25\ which offers both a
private K-12 school as well as separate English classes for
ages 5 to adult. The BNC's library offers a collection of
13,000 titles in English and Spanish, and boasts a gallery and
auditorium that seats 300. The BNC is located on a major
thoroughfare and a few blocks from a major university.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ http://www.dominicoamericano.edu.do/english/index.asp.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.022
In the first photo above, Embassy Santo Domingo IRC's library of
2,400 titles; in the bottom photo, a small portion of Santo Domingo's
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bi-national Center's 13,000 titles.
An excellent example of low-cost, high impact Public
Diplomacy is the Public Affairs Section's partnership with the
National Museum of Natural History.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.023
The ViewSpace exhibit in Santo Domingo's Museum of Natural History.
The flat-screen TV in the darkened room depicts photos and video of
outer space courtesy of NASA. Underneath the NASA insignia a sign in
Spanish reads ``Courtesy of the Franklin Center of the United States
Embassy.''
Using a service provided by NASA and for less than $200 a
year, the Embassy provides a ``ViewSpace'' exhibit which offers
museum visitors a constant stream of recent and historic images
from American space missions and from satellites such as the
Hubble Space Telescope. This demonstration of U.S. technology,
scientific education and space exploration is one of the most
popular exhibits in the museum.
APPENDIX
American Corners
In part to counter the restricted access of IRCs located on
Embassy compounds, the Bush Administration established the
``American Corners'' program. Corners are created in
partnership with local municipalities or universities to
provide space, sometimes literally a corner in a room, in which
the Embassy supplies, at a start-up cost of $35,000, half a
dozen computers connected to the Internet and a collection of
some 800 books. Approximately a third of the titles are
American fiction with the rest distributed between reference,
How-To-For-Dummies type guidebooks, biographies, and English
teaching material.
If viewed not as a substitute for a formal American Center
facility but rather as a supplement, the Corners do in fact
provide Public Diplomacy platforms for U.S. programming to have
a home--particularly in the more remote areas of larger
countries where the U.S. lacks any formal diplomatic facility.
For example in Russia, outside of our Embassy in Moscow, the
U.S. has consulates in only St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, and
Vladivostok, but there are 33 Corners throughout the country.
Belarus has 12 Corners; Indonesia has 11 Corners, the
Philippines--14, Afghanistan--7.
However, because the Corners are not staffed with nor
overseen by U.S. officials, they lack the same Public Diplomacy
impact of a dedicated, stand-alone brick and mortar facility in
a country's capital. Some are excellent projections of American
Public Diplomacy with dedicated and motivated staffs, others,
can wither on the vine depending on the level of local interest
and resources in providing staff willing to push the
programming boundaries that may be at odds with officials in
more remote locations. Again, without direct Embassy oversight
and financial backing, Corners can be too inconsistent in their
operations. As of February 2009, American Corners can be found
in the following 414 locations.
AMERICAN CORNERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country City
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFRICA: 83 In Operation 6 Underway
Angola................................... Luanda
Benin.................................... Abomey-Calavi
Benin.................................... Grand-Popo
Benin.................................... Parakou
Benin.................................... Porto-Novo
Botswana................................. Gaborone
Burkina Faso............................. Bobo-Dioulasso
Burkina Faso............................. Fada N'gourma
Burkina Faso............................. Zorgho
Cameroon................................. Bertoua
Cameroon................................. Buea
Cameroon................................. Garoua
Cape Verde............................... Fogo Island
Comoros.................................. Moroni
Congo.................................... Pointe-Noire
Democratic Republic Congo................ Kinshasa
Democratic Republic Congo................ Lumbumbashi
Cote d'lvoire............................ Abidjan
Cote d'lvoire............................ Tiassale
Cote d'lvoire............................ Yamoussoukro
Equatorial Guinea........................ Bata (Underway)
Equatorial Guinea........................ Malabo (Underway)
Eritrea.................................. Dekemhare
Eritrea.................................. Keren
Eritrea.................................. Massawa
Ethiopia................................. Bahir Dar
Ethiopia................................. Dire Dawa
Ethiopia................................. Harar
Ethiopia................................. Jimma
Gambia, The.............................. Banjul
Ghana.................................... Accra
Ghana.................................... Tamale
Guinea................................... Kankan
Kenya.................................... Lamu
Kenya.................................... Mombasa
Kenya.................................... Nairobi (Underway)
Liberia.................................. Buchanan
Liberia.................................. Kakata
Liberia.................................. Monrovia
Liberia.................................. Virginia Township
Liberia.................................. Zwedru
Madagascar............................... Antananarivo
Madagascar............................... Antsiranana
Madagascar............................... Mahajanga (Underway)
Malawi................................... Blantyre
Malawi................................... Mzuzu
Malawi................................... Zomba
Mali..................................... Gao
Mauritania............................... Nouakchott
Mauritania............................... Nouakchott (ISERI)
Mozambique............................... Maputo
Mozambique............................... Nampula
Namibia.................................. Keetmanshoop
Namibia.................................. Oshakati (MOU not renewed in
2008)
Namibia.................................. Walvis Bay
Niger.................................... Agadez
Niger.................................... Maradi
Niger.................................... Zinder
Nigeria.................................. Abeokuta
Nigeria.................................. Abuja
Nigeria.................................. Bauchi
Nigeria.................................. Calabar
Nigeria.................................. Enugu
Nigeria.................................. Ibadan
Nigeria.................................. Jos
Nigeria.................................. Kaduna
Nigeria.................................. Kano
Nigeria.................................. Maiduguri
Nigeria.................................. Port Harcourt
Nigeria.................................. Sokoto
Rwanda................................... Butare
Rwanda................................... Kigali
Rwanda................................... Kigali
Senegal.................................. Louga
Senegal.................................. Ziguinchor
Somalia.................................. Mogadishu (Underway)
Sierra Leone............................. Bo
South Africa............................. Bloemfontain
South Africa............................. Pietermaritzburg
Sudan.................................... Juba (Underway)
Swaziland................................ Nhlangano
Tanzania................................. Pemba
Tanzania................................. Zanzibar
Togo..................................... Lome
Uganda................................... Fort Portal
Uganda................................... Mbale
Zambia................................... Kitwe
Zimbabwe................................. Bulawayo
Zimbabwe................................. Mutare
EAST ASIA: 59 In Operation
Burma.................................... Rangoon
Cambodia................................. Battambang
Cambodian................................ Kampong Cham Town
Cambodia................................. Phnom Penh
Fiji..................................... Lautoka
Hong Kong................................ Macau, Hong Kong
Indonesia................................ Bandung
Indonesia................................ Depok
Indonesia................................ Jakarta
Indonesia................................ Makassar
Indonesia................................ Malang
Indonesia................................ Medan (at IAIN)
Indonesia................................ Medan (at USU)
Indonesia................................ Semarang
Indonesia................................ Surabaya
Indonesia................................ Yogyakarta (at UGM)
Indonesia................................ Yogyakarta (at UMY)
Japan.................................... Nago, Okinawa
Japan.................................... Urasoe, Okinawa
Laos..................................... Luang Prabang
Laos..................................... Vientiane
Malaysia................................. Alor Setar, Kedah
Malaysia................................. Kota Bahru
Malaysia................................. Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia................................. Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu
Malaysia................................. Melaka
Malaysia................................. Sabah
Malaysia................................. Sarawak
Mongolia................................. Khovd
Mongolia................................. Ulaanbaatar
Philippines.............................. Bacolod City
Philippines.............................. Baguio
Philippines.............................. Batac
Philippines.............................. Cagayan De Oro
Philippines.............................. Cebu
Philippines.............................. Cotabato
Philippines.............................. Davao City
Philippines.............................. Dumaguete
Philippines.............................. Iloilo City
Philippines.............................. Jolo
Philippines.............................. Manila
Philippines.............................. Marawi City
Philippines.............................. Tawi-Tawi
Philippines.............................. Zamboanga
Singapore................................ Singapore
Singapore................................ Singapore
Singapore................................ Singapore
South Korea.............................. Busan
South Korea.............................. Daegu
South Korea.............................. Gwangju
Taiwan................................... Taichung
Thailand................................. Chiang Mai
Thailand................................. Khon Kaen
Thailand................................. Nakhon Si Thammarat
Thailand................................. Pattani
Thailand................................. Yala
Vietnam.................................. Can Tho
Vietnam.................................. Danang
Vietnam.................................. Haiphong
EUROPE: 166 in Operation: 1 Underway
Albania.................................. Kukes
Albania.................................. Tirana
Albania.................................. Vlora
Armenia.................................. Gyumri
Armenia.................................. Kapan
Armenia.................................. Vanadzor
Armenia.................................. Yerevan
Austria.................................. Innsbruck
Azerbaijan............................... Baku
Azerbaijan............................... Ganja
Azerbaijan............................... Khachmaz
Azerbaijan............................... Kurdemir
Azerbaijan............................... Lenkoran
Azerbaijan............................... Salyan
Belarus.................................. Baranovichi
Belarus.................................. Bobruisk
Belarus.................................. Brest
Belarus.................................. Gomel
Belarus.................................. Grodno
Belarus.................................. Minsk
Belarus.................................. Mogilev
Belarus.................................. Molodechno
Belarus.................................. Mozyr
Belarus.................................. Pinsk
Belarus.................................. Polotsk
Belarus.................................. Vitebsk
Bosnia & Herzegovina..................... Banja Luka
Bosnia & Herzegovina..................... Bihac
Bosnia & Herzegovina..................... Doboj
Bosnia & Herzegovina..................... Mostar
Bosnia & Herzegovina..................... Sarajevo
Bosnia & Herzegovina..................... Tuzla
Bosnia & Herzegovina..................... Zenica
Bulgaria................................. Sofia
Bulgaria................................. Varna
Bulgaria................................. Veliko Turnovo
Croatia.................................. Osijek
Croatia.................................. Rijeka
Croatia.................................. Zadar
Croatia.................................. Zagreb
Cyprus................................... Famagusta
Cyprus................................... Nicosia
Czech Republic........................... Brno
Czech Republic........................... Pilzen
Denmark (Greenland)...................... Nuuk
Estonia.................................. Kuressaaare
Estonia.................................. Narva
Estonia.................................. Viljandi
Georgia.................................. Akhaltsikhe
Georgia.................................. Batumi
Georgia.................................. Gori
Georgia.................................. Khashuri
Georgia.................................. Rustavi
Georgia.................................. Tblisi (at State Univ.)
Georgia.................................. Tblisi
Georgia.................................. Telavi
Georgia.................................. Zugdidi
Greece................................... Athens
Greece................................... Corfu
Greece................................... Nea Philadelphia
Greece................................... Sparta
Greece................................... Veroia
Greece................................... Xanthi
Hungary.................................. Debrecen
Hungary.................................. Pecs
Hungary.................................. Veszprem
Italy.................................... Trieste
Kosovo................................... Mitrovica
Kosovo................................... Pristina
Kosovo................................... Prizren
Latvia................................... Daugavpils
Latvia................................... Liepaja
Lithuania................................ Siauliai
Macedonia................................ Bitola
Macedonia................................ Skopje
Macedonia................................ Tetovo
Moldova.................................. Balti
Moldova.................................. Ceadir Lunga
Moldova.................................. Ungheni
Montenegro............................... Podgorica
Norway................................... Stavanger
Poland................................... Gdansk (Underway)
Poland................................... Lodz
Poland................................... Wroclaw
Romania.................................. Bacau
Romania.................................. Baia Mare
Romania.................................. Bucharest
Romania.................................. Cluj Napoca
Romania.................................. Constanta
Romania.................................. Craiova
Romania.................................. Iasi
Romania.................................. Timosoara
Russia................................... Arkhangelsk
Russia................................... Bryansk
Russia................................... Chelyabinsk
Russia................................... Irkutsk
Russia................................... Kaliningrad
Russia................................... Kazan
Russia................................... Khabarovsk
Russia................................... Moscow (Library of Foreign
Literature)
Russia................................... Moscow (Parliamentary
Library)
Russia................................... Moscow (State Children's
Library)
Russia................................... Murmansk
Russia................................... Nizhniy Novgorod
Russia................................... Novgorod Velikiy
Russia................................... Novosibirsk
Russia................................... Omsk
Russia................................... Perm
Russia................................... Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy
Russia................................... Petrozavodsk
Russia................................... Pskov
Russia................................... Rostov-on-Don
Russia................................... Samara
Russia................................... Saratov
Russia................................... St. Petersburg (City
Library)
Russia................................... St. Petersburg (Youth
Library)
Russia................................... Togliatti
Russia................................... Tomsk
Russia................................... Tyumen
Russia................................... Ufa
Russia................................... Vladivostok
Russia................................... Volgograd
Russia................................... Vologda
Russia................................... Yekaterinburg
Russia................................... Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk
Serbia................................... Belgrade
Serbia................................... Bujanovac
Serbia................................... Kragujevac
Serbia................................... Nis
Serbia................................... Novi Sad
Serbia................................... Subotica
Serbia................................... Vranje
Slovakia................................. Banska Bystrica
Slovakia................................. Bratislava
Slovakia................................. Kosice
Slovenia................................. Koper
Turkey................................... Bursa
Turkey................................... Gaziantep
Turkey................................... Izmir
Turkey................................... Kayseri
Ukraine.................................. Chernihiv
Ukraine.................................. Chernivtsi
Ukraine.................................. Dnipropetrovsk
Ukraine.................................. Donetsk
Ukraine.................................. Ivano-Frankivsk
Ukraine.................................. Kharkiv
Ukraine.................................. Kherson (Children's Library)
Ukraine.................................. Kherson (Research Library)
Ukraine.................................. Kirovohrad
Ukraine.................................. Kyiv (Mohyla Academy)
Ukraine.................................. Kyiv (Public Library)
Ukraine.................................. Luhansk
Ukraine.................................. Lutsk
Ukraine.................................. Lviv
Ukraine.................................. Mykolaiv (Children's Library)
Ukraine.................................. Mykolaiv (Research Library)
Ukraine.................................. Odessa
Ukraine.................................. Poltava
Ukraine.................................. Rivne
Ukraine.................................. Sevastopol
Ukraine.................................. Simferopol
Ukraine.................................. Sumy
Ukraine.................................. Ternopil (Research Library)
Ukraine.................................. Ternopil (Youth Library)
Ukraine.................................. Uzhgorod
Ukraine.................................. Vinnytsya
Ukraine.................................. Zhytomyr
LATIN AMERICA: 22 in Operation; 2 Underway
Brazil................................... Brasilia
Brazil................................... Fortaleza
Brazil................................... Salvador, Bahia
Chile.................................... Arica
Chile.................................... Punta Arenas
Chile.................................... Santiago (at University)
Chile.................................... Santiago (University of
Talca)
Chile.................................... Valdivia
Costa Rica............................... Limon
Ecuador.................................. Quito
Haiti.................................... Port-au-Prince (Underway)
Honduras................................. Puerto Lempira
Honduras................................. Tegucigalpa
Nicaragua................................ Managua
Panama................................... Panama City
Paraguay................................. Asuncion
Suriname................................. Paramaribo
Trinidad and Tobago...................... Scarborough
Venezuela................................ Barquisimeto
Venezuela................................ La Asuncion
Venezuela................................ Lecheria
Venezuela................................ Maracay
Venezuela................................ Maturin
Venezuela................................ Valera (Underway)
MIDDLE EAST: 39 in Operation; 3 Underway
Algeria.................................. Algiers
Algeria.................................. Constantine (Underway)
Algeria.................................. Oran (Underway)
Iraq..................................... 6 ACs
Israel................................... Beersheva
Israel................................... Karmiel
Israel................................... Nazareth (Underway)
Israel................................... Yaffo
Jordan................................... Amman
Jordan................................... Zarqa
Kuwait................................... Kuwait City (at University)
Kuwait................................... Kuwait City (Gulf
University)
Kuwait................................... Kuwait City (American
University)
Lebanon.................................. Baakleen
Lebanon.................................. Nabatiyeh
Lebanon.................................. Rashaya
Lebanon.................................. Zahle
Morocco.................................. Marrakech
Morocco.................................. Oujda
Oman..................................... Bureimi
Oman..................................... Muscat (College of Bus &
Sci)
Oman..................................... Muscat (College of
Technology)
Oman..................................... Rustaq
Oman..................................... Salalah
Oman..................................... Sohar
Palestinian Territories.................. Gaza City
Palestinian Territories.................. Jericho
Qatar.................................... Doha
Saudi Arabia............................. Jeddah
Syria.................................... Damascus
Syria.................................... Suweida
Tunisia.................................. Tunis
United Arab Emirates..................... Al Ain
United Arab Emirates..................... Fujairah
Yemen.................................... Dhamar
Yemen.................................... Hadhramout
Yemen.................................... Sana'a
4SOUTH CENTRAL ASIA: 45 in Operation 4 Underway
Afghanistan.............................. Bamyan
Afghanistan.............................. Gandez (Underway)
Afghanistan.............................. Herat
Afghanistan.............................. Jalalabad
Afghanistan.............................. Kabul (at University)
Afghanistan.............................. Kabul (Institute of
Diplomacy)
Afghanistan.............................. Khost (Underway)
Afghanistan.............................. Kunduz (Underway)
Afghanistan.............................. Mazar-E-Sharif
Bangladesh............................... Chittagong
Bangladesh............................... Jessore
Bangladesh............................... Sylhet
India.................................... Ahmedabad
India.................................... Bhubaneswar
India.................................... Bangalore
India.................................... Chandigarh
India.................................... Patna, Bihar
Kazakhstan............................... Aktobe
Kazakhstan............................... Almaty
Kazakhstan............................... Atyrau
Kazakhstan............................... Karaganda
Kazakhstan............................... Kostanai
Kazakhstan............................... Petropavlovsk
Kazakhstan............................... Shymkent
Kazakhstan............................... Uralsk
Kazakhstan............................... Ust'-Kamenogorsk
Kyrgyzstan............................... Batken
Kyrgyzstan............................... Jalalabat
Kyrgyzstan............................... Kant
Kyrgyzstan............................... Karakol
Kyrgyzstan............................... Talas
Maldives................................. Male'
Nepal.................................... Bhairahawa
Nepal.................................... Biratnagar
Nepal.................................... Birgunj
Nepal.................................... Pokhara
Pakistan................................. Islamabad
Pakistan................................. Karachi
Pakistan................................. Lahore (Underway)
Pakistan................................. Muzaffarabad
Pakistan................................. Peshawar
Sri Lanka................................ Kandy
Sri Lanka................................ Oluvil
Tajikistan............................... Dushanbe
Tajikistan............................... Khujand
Tajikistan............................... Kulob
Turkmenistan............................. Dashoguz
Turkmenistan............................. Mary
Turkmenistan............................. Turkmenabat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arabic Book Translation Program
``The figures for translated books are also
discouraging. The Arab world translates about 330 books
annually, one fifth of the number that Greece
translates. The cumulative total of translated books
since the Caliph Maa'moun's time (the ninth century) is
about 100,000, almost the average that Spain translates
in one year.'' (UNDP 2002 Arab Human Development Report
\26\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Found on page 78 of http://www.nakbaonline.org/download/UNDP/
EnglishVersion/Ar-Human-Dev-2002.pdf.
The 2003 Congressionally-mandated report ``Changing Minds
and Winning Peace--A New Direction for U.S. Public Diplomacy in
the Arab and Muslim World'' \27\ referenced the UNDP's
translation statistics and called for a massive increase in our
translation efforts--up to 1,000 titles a year. This effort was
viewed as part of an ``American Knowledge Library Initiative''
that would locate the translations in American Corners and
local libraries throughout the Muslim world; however, funding
constraints have prevented any such a large-scale Initiative.
Instead, the U.S. government has relied on translation programs
run out of the U.S. Embassies in Cairo, Egypt and Amman,
Jordan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The so-called ``Djerejian Report'' after the former U.S.
Ambassador who chaired the effort http://www.state.gov/documents/
organization/24882.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cairo Arabic Book Program \28\ has existed at the U.S
Embassy in Cairo since the 1950s and currently translates 8-10
books a year using a budget of approximately $50,000 from the
International Information Programs (IIP) section of the bureau
of Educational and Cultural Affairs. This funding covers the
costs of copyrights fees, translation and purchased copies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ A list of books translated by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo:
http://cairo.usembassy.gov/pa/rbo.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Program works with local publishers to select American
books across a broad range of topics that are of mutual
interest. Some 3,000 copies per title are published, of which
the Program purchases 1,000-1,500 copies for local and regional
distribution while the publisher sells the remaining copies in
commercial outlets and regional book fairs. The publisher
submits a draft of the translation which is reviewed by
translators contracted by the Embassy. The Program and the
Embassy's IRC send free copies of the books to public and
university libraries, key contacts, NGOs, and other
institutions. The Program does not regularly provide copies to
local school libraries; however, when the Ambassador or other
high level dignitaries visit a school, they take a quantity of
age-appropriate books. Until two years ago the program received
an extra $7,500 for shipping fees but currently regional posts
either fully pay or split the shipping fees with the Program.
This loss of shipping funds affects some posts' ability to
procure books.
The program sends an annual e-mail within the mission and
to regional posts to solicit suggestions for new titles. The e-
mail also contains a tentative list of titles compiled by the
program officers asking for further recommendation or comments.
Based on these recommendations the Public Affairs Officer and
Cultural Affairs Officer and their staffs meet to decide on the
list of titles to be translated. After securing necessary
copyrights, the program and the local publisher agree to go
ahead on the translation of the book. The process of acquiring
the copyrights, translating, editing and printing one book
takes between 8-18 months.
The translation program run by the U.S. Embassy in Amman,
Jordan \29\ is very similar in scope and $50,000 budget, but
with slightly smaller print runs of some six books annually,
usually printed in Amman or Beirut. The publisher sells 1,750
copies of the 2,500 printed to the public throughout its retail
shops in the region and the regional and international book
fairs they attend. 750 copies are retained by the embassy for
its own distribution to universities, schools, local
institutions, American Corners and posts in the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ A list of books translated by the U.S. Embassy in Amman:
http://jordan.usembassy.gov/abp_titles_in_stock.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cairo has organized Digital Video Conferences for Joyce
Hanson, author of the Captive and collaborated with Embassy
Amman to program Amy Tan, the author of the Joy Luck Club.
Cairo also brought the following authors for speaking events in
Egypt: Walter Russell Mead, author of Special Providence: How
American Foreign Policy Has Changed the World, Robert Putnam,
author of Making Democracy Work, and Geneive Abdo, author of
Mecca and Main Street whose Arabic version is due shortly.
Embassy Amman also hosted a DVC with Mohamed Nimer, author of
the book Nonviolence and Peace Building in Islam.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.024
here 47261A.024U.S. government translations of Walter Isaacson's
2003 biography of Benjamin Franklin and The Future of Freedom by Fareed
Zakaria from the American Center library in Alexandria, Egypt.
English Language Fellow Program \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ According to the State Department, 136 English Language
Fellows are currently assigned as follows: Africa: 17; East Asia: 28;
Europe: 33; Middle East 21; South Central Asia: 13; Latin America: 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State Department's bureau of Educational and Cultural
Affairs (ECA) English Language Fellow Program currently
supports 136 U.S. fellows on exchanges in 76 counties
worldwide. The EL Fellow Program provides foreign academic
institutions with American professional expertise in Teaching
English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) by sending highly trained
American educators abroad on ten-month fellowships. The program
also affords American TEFL professionals a unique professional
development opportunity that contributes to their knowledge as
educators upon their return to the U.S. Fellows work on
projects and provide training in areas such as the English
Access Microscholarship Program, TEFL classroom teaching,
teacher training, in-service and pre-service training,
curriculum development, workshop and seminar design, testing,
program evaluation, needs assessment, and English for Specific
Purposes.
If the goal is to maximize the number of English speakers
throughout the world, then this is an excellent program as the
multiplier effect of American education specialists assisting
in the preparation of another country's English curriculum
should result in vastly more students learning English, at much
less cost, than our Access scholarships. The long-term public
diplomacy value for such efforts, however, is debatable. Some
say that the teachers who receive the attention, skills,
materials and respect from their American counterparts will
result in these same teachers acting as good-will ambassadors
for the United States for years to come, with the number of
students they are able to influence and reach vastly outpacing
direct, U.S.-sponsored classes.
Others note that the Program amounts to almost
``invisible'' Public Diplomacy as few in the public ever hear
of these efforts due to the fact that the fellows work from
within foreign educational systems. If a core component of
public diplomacy is for a nation to ``get the credit'' for its
efforts, this may not be the most effective program, but as a
low-cost pedagogical tool, it is invaluable.
Regional English Language Offices
In addition to English Language Fellows, the Department of
State also supports a network of 18 Regional English Language
Offices (RELOs) located in Embassies around the world that
operate under the supervision of ECA's Office of English
Language Programs in Washington. Each RELO is a specialist
Foreign Service Officer with an advanced degree in Teaching
English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)--many, in fact are former
English Language Fellows.
In collaboration with U.S. Embassies, RELOs oversee the
English Access Microscholarship Program, organize teacher
training seminars and workshops; consult with host-country
ministry, university, and teacher-training officials. They also
oversee ECA's other English language activities, such as the
English Language Specialists, English Language Fellow, and E-
Teacher Scholarship Programs. As the attached table of Regional
English Language Offices and the countries they cover suggests,
RELOs are over-burdened in the extreme.
REGIONAL ENGLISH LANGUAGE OFFICES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region Post Countries Covered
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa........................ Dakar............ Benin, Burkina-Faso,
Cameroon, Republic
of Cape Verde,
Central African
Republic, Chad, Cote
D'Ivoire, Equatorial
Guinea, Gabon,
Gambia, Ghana,
Guinea, Guinea-
Bissau, Liberia,
Mali, Mauritania,
Niger, Nigeria, Sao
Tome and Principe,
Senegal, Sierra
Leone, Togo
Pretoria......... Angola, Botswana,
Burundi, Comoros,
Democratic Republic
of Congo, Republic
of Congo, Republic
of Djibouti,
Eritrea, Ethiopia,
Kenya, Lesotho,
Madagascar, Malawi,
Mauritius,
Mozambique, Namibia,
Rwanda, Seychelles,
Somalia, Republic of
South Africa,
Swaziland, Tanzania,
Uganda, Zambia,
Zimbabwe
-----------------------------------------
East Asia..................... Beijing.......... People's Republic of
China, Hong Kong,
Mongolia
Bangkok.......... Burma, Cambodia,
Laos, Taiwan,
Thailand, Vietnam
-----------------------------------------
Jakarta.......... Brunei, Fiji,
Indonesia, Japan,
Korea, Malaysia,
Papua New Guinea,
Philippines,
Singapore, Timor-
Leste
-----------------------------------------
Europe........................ Ankara........... Turkey
Budapest......... Albania, Bosnia and
Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Croatia,
Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary,
Kosovo, Latvia,
Lithuania,
Macedonia,
Montenegro, Poland,
Romania, Serbia,
Slovakia, Slovenia
Kyiv............. Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Republic of Belarus,
Georgia, Moldova,
Ukraine
Moscow........... Russia
-----------------------------------------
Middle East................... Amman............ Iraq, Israel, Jordan,
Lebanon, Syria, West
Bank/Gaza
Cairo............ Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Sudan, Yemen
Manama........... Bahrain, State of
Kuwait, State of
Oman, Qatar, United
Arab Emirates
Rabat............ Algeria, Libya,
Morocco, Tunisia
-----------------------------------------
South Central Asia............ New Delhi........ Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, Bhutan,
India, Maldives,
Nepal, Sri Lanka,
Pakistan
Astana........... Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz
Republic,
Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan
-----------------------------------------
Latin America................. Mexico City...... Belize, Costa Rica,
El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras,
Mexico, Nicaragua,
Panama
Lima............. Bolivia, Colombia,
Ecuador, Peru,
Venezuela
Santiago......... Argentina, Brazil,
Chile, Paraguay,
Uruguay
Branch Chief DC.. Bahamas, Barbados,
Cuba, Denmark/
Greenland, Dominican
Republic, French
Guiana, Grenada,
Guyana, Haiti,
Italy, Jamaica,
Netherlands
Antilles, Suriname,
Trinidad and Tobago
Branch Chief DC.. Materials Development
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access Microscholarships
The Department of State has developed a two-year
scholarship intended to provide English language skills
primarily to Muslim youths aged 14 to 18 who would otherwise
have little access to such classes. These so-called Access
Microscholarships grew out of the difficulty the Department had
in finding non-elite Muslim youths with sufficient English
language proficiency to participate successfully in its Youth
Exchange and Study (YES) Program. (YES students spend a full
high school year in the United States living with a host
family.)
According to the Department, since 2004, some 44,000
students have participated in the Access program in 55
countries. Funding for Access comes from both the State
Department's bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA)
and Middle East Peace Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and has
consistently risen:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY2006 $8.75 million
FY2007 $13.5 million
FY2008 $17.4 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the State Department, more than 22,000 English
Access Micro-scholarship students in over 55 countries are
currently studying under the Program. Approximately half of the
students are in their first year. Access students can be found
in the following:
Africa (1,841 students): Benin, Burkina
Faso, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia,
Kenya, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal,
South Africa, Tanzania, Togo
East Asia (2,077 students): Burma, Cambodia,
China, East Timor, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia,
Philippines, Thailand
Europe (1,606 students): Albania,
Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cyprus, Kosovo, Russia,
Turkey, Ukraine
Middle East (11,070 students): Algeria,
Bahrain, Egypt, Gaza, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait,
Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria
(suspended in FY06), Tunisia, United Arab Emirates,
West Bank, Yemen
South Central Asia (4,813 students):
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan
Latin America (749 students): Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay
Public Diplomacy officials offer high praise for the Access
program as it gives the United States inroads into communities
that have often been traditionally hostile towards the United
States. However, comments from Access parents such as ``our own
government doesn't care about educating our children, but the
United States does'' are not unusual as children with normally
very little hope of advancement in their societies are suddenly
offered a language which will greatly enhance their future
employment opportunities. In addition, many receive computer
training, intellectual discipline, and research skills that
their other schoolmates will likely never receive.
In Alexandria, Egypt Access classes are co-educational and
students are encouraged to question and challenge far beyond
the boundaries for normal Egyptian students. In spite of
concerns of parental backlash against traditional teaching
methods, only one student has been withdrawn by her parents to
date. Rather, parents are clamoring for their children to be
enrolled in the program because they appreciate the benefits
offered.
Valid concerns about the program abound, however. In
Alexandria, the NGO AmidEast (which runs Access in Egypt) runs
the program for approximately $2,000 per student for the full
two years. Classrooms are modern, computers are plentiful, and
English instruction is conducted by American expatriates living
in the city. However, this is not always the case as in other
locations, locally hired instructors lack sufficient English
skills and are not always sufficiently familiar with American
culture and teaching methodologies to impart effectively these
crucial aspects of the program.
Of equal concern is the lack of follow-on programming for
Access graduates. With only 300 YES slots available each year
and some 11,000 Access graduates, failure to keep the majority
of Access graduates engaged with programs related to the their
studies risks losing the ground gained, particularly as many
will return to educational systems likely hostile to these new-
found ideas of academic freedom. Failure to keep Access
graduates engaged through low-cost, follow-on local U.S.
programs risks seeing our investments in the education of so
many wither on the vine and could even create a backlash as
students once selected for their intellectual abilities and
achievements feel abandoned by our government.
Peace Corps Exemption to Co-location Requirement \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Section 691 (page 1415) of Public Law 107-228 http://
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ228.107.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 691. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE LOCATION OF PEACE CORPS
OFFICES ABROAD.
It is the sense of the Congress that, to the degree
permitted by security considerations, the Secretary should give
favorable consideration to requests by the Director of the
Peace Corps that the Secretary exercise his authority under
section 606(a)(2)(B) of the Secure Embassy Construction and
Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (22 U.S.C. 4865(a)(2)(B)) to waive
certain requirements of that Act in order to permit the Peace
Corps to maintain offices in foreign countries at locations
separate from the United States Embassy.
Film Series Restrictions
One of the strongest assets in U.S. Public Diplomacy is the
use of films to tell America's story to the rest of the world.
Particularly, films with historical and political themes and
plots are often the best demonstrations of America's values of
freedom of expression. They also demonstrate a willingness to
debate sensitive topics through such a public medium. As such
American Centers and IRCs typically run film series with
follow-on discussions.
However, rather than encourage the widest possible
broadcast of such showings to the largest audience possible,
the Licensing Agreement recently negotiated between the State
Department and the Motion Picture Licensing Corporation
suggests otherwise. Paragraph 20 of the State Department's
message regarding the MOU to Embassies worldwide expressly
notes the following were agreed to:
``The films may be screened for audiences of up to
100 people per screening. They may not be screened for
larger audiences.
``No advertising is permitted. No specific titles or
characters from such titles or producers' names may be
advertised or publicized to the general public.''
Embassy officials report they have been contacted by the
MPLC when films are announced on the Internet. To avoid this,
many now simply post the movie showing on a bulletin board in
their facilities--a perfectly painful example of how, in the
age of text messaging, our government is forced to operate in
methods no different from the 19th century.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.025
In keeping with the MOU that prohibits advertising, the American
Center in Alexandria, Egypt is forced to restrict the announcement of
upcoming film viewings and discussions to its outdoor bulletin board--
in this case the 1994 film ``Little Women'' in the upper right.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7261A.013