[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) 512ï¿½091800  
Fax: (202) 512ï¿½092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402ï¿½090001

                     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

