U.S. Public Diplomacy: Interagency Coordination Efforts Hampered 
by the Lack of a National Communication Strategy (04-APR-05,	 
GAO-05-323).							 
                                                                 
The war on terrorism has focused attention on the important role 
U.S. public diplomacy plays in improving the nation's image. The 
United States has undertaken efforts to "win hearts and minds" by
better engaging, informing, and influencing foreign audiences;	 
however, recent polling data show that anti-Americanism is	 
spreading and deepening around the world. GAO was asked to	 
examine (1) to what extent U.S. public diplomacy efforts have	 
been coordinated and (2) whether the private sector has been	 
significantly engaged in such efforts.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-323 					        
    ACCNO:   A20678						        
  TITLE:     U.S. Public Diplomacy: Interagency Coordination Efforts  
Hampered by the Lack of a National Communication Strategy	 
     DATE:   04/04/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Communication					 
	     Foreign governments				 
	     Foreign policies					 
	     Government information dissemination		 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     International relations				 
	     National policies					 
	     Private sector					 
	     Public diplomacy					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Public opinion polls				 
	     Surveys						 
	     Propaganda 					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-323

     

     * Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and
       Commerce, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of
       Representatives
          * April 2005
     * U.S. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
          * Interagency Coordination Efforts Hampered by the Lack of a
            National Communication Strategy
     * Contents
          * Results in Brief
          * Background
               * Foreign Public Opinion of the United States Remains Highly
                 Negative
               * U.S. Public Diplomacy Involves Multiple Entities
                    * The White House
                    * State Department
                    * USAID, DOD, and BBG
          * Government Public Diplomacy Coordination Efforts Lack Strategic
            Direction
               * First Attempt at Interagency Coordination Terminated
               * The Office of Global Communications Has Not Assumed a
                 Strategic Coordination Role
               * Effectiveness of Muslim Outreach Committee Remains to be
                 Determined
               * State Creates a New Office to Tackle Public Diplomacy
                 Coordination and Evaluation Issues
               * USAID and DOD Roles and Responsibilities Are Evolving
                    * USAID is Seeking to Increasingly Tell America's
                      Assistance Story
                    * The Department of Defense is Working to Better Define
                      its Role
               * Broadcasting Board of Governors Coordination Largely Tied to
                 Policy-Level Discussions with State
          * State Department Efforts to Engage the Private Sector Have Met
            with Mixed Results
               * State's Exchange Programs Engage the Private Sector
               * Other State Department Attempts to Engage the Private Sector
                 Have Met with Limited Success
          * Conclusions
          * Recommendations for Executive Action
          * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
     * Related Reports and Testimony
     * Comments from the Department of State
     * Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors
     * Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development
     * GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
          * GAO Contact
          * Staff Acknowledgments

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

  on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies, Committee on
                    Appropriations, House of Representatives

April 2005

                             U.S. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

      Interagency Coordination Efforts Hampered by the Lack of a National
                             Communication Strategy

                                       a

U.S. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

Interagency Coordination Efforts Hampered by the Lack of a National
Communication Strategy

  What GAO Found

The White House has launched several recent initiatives designed to
promote the coordination of U.S. public diplomacy efforts, but the
government does not yet have a public diplomacy communications strategy.
In 2002, a Strategic Communications Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC)
was created to help provide central direction to communication efforts.
The committee drafted a national communication strategy, but the committee
was disbanded in 2003 and no strategy was issued. In 2003, an Office of
Global Communications was created to facilitate White House and
interagency efforts to communicate with foreign audiences. According to a
recent report by the Defense Science Board and comments by agency
officials, the office has not implemented this role. Although a national
communications strategy has not yet been developed, the White House
established the Muslim World Outreach Policy Coordinating Committee in
2004 to coordinate public diplomacy efforts focused on Muslim audiences.
The group is in the early phases of drafting strategic and tactical
communications plans. In addition to White House efforts, the State
Department created an Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources in 2004 to
help coordinate and direct the department's wide-ranging public diplomacy
operations. Further, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the
Department of Defense are redefining their public diplomacy roles and
operations in response to the increased attention given to U.S. outreach
efforts.

The State Department has had some success involving the private sector in
the area of international exchanges. However, other efforts to engage the
private sector have met with limited success. For example, in 2003 State
formed a panel of outside advisors to recommend areas where the department
and the private sector could coordinate their efforts. The panel's July
2003 report suggested a number of possibilities; however, none of these
suggestions was acted upon due to a lack of resources, bureaucratic
resistance, and limited management commitment.

    Key White House and State Initiatives Launched to Improve Public Diplomacy
    Coordination

Strategic Communications PCC

      Sept. 2002 Jan. 2003 Mar. 2003 July 2004 Aug. 2004

Source: GAO, based on White House and State Department data.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

  Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 Background 4 Government Public Diplomacy Coordination

Efforts Lack Strategic Direction 10 State Department Efforts to Engage the
Private Sector Have Met

with Mixed Results 19 Conclusions 23 Recommendations for Executive Action
23 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 24

  Appendixes

              Appendix I: Appendix II: Appendix III: Appendix IV: Appendix V:

    Appendix VI:

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 26 Related Reports and Testimony 27
Comments from the Department of State 30 Comments from the Broadcasting
Board of Governors 33 Comments from the U.S. Agency for International
Development 35 GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 37 GAO Contact 37
Staff Acknowledgments 37

Table 1: Benefits and Challenges of Public-Private Partnerships 20

  Tables

Table 2: GAO Reports on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting 27
Table 3: Related GAO Testimony 27 Table 4: Selected Reports on Public
Diplomacy 28

Figure 1: Foreign Public Opinion of the United States 6

  Figures

Figure 2: State, USAID, and DOD Officials Participate in Tsunami Relief
Efforts in Indonesia 9

Contents

                                 Abbreviations

BBG                Broadcasting Board of Governors                         
DOD                Department of Defense                                   
OGC                White House Office of Global Communications             
USAID              U.S. Agency for International Development               

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

A

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

April 4, 2005

The Honorable Frank R. Wolf Chairman Subcommittee on Science, State,
Justice,

and Commerce, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of
Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The 9/11 Commission highlighted the important role U.S. public diplomacy
plays in improving the image of the United States abroad, particularly in
the fight against terrorism. Despite U.S. efforts to better inform,
engage, and influence foreign audiences, recent polling data show that
anti-Americanism is spreading and deepening around the world. Such
anti-American sentiments can increase foreign public support for terrorism
directed at Americans, impact the cost and effectiveness of military
operations, weaken the United States' ability to align with other nations
in pursuit of common policy objectives, and dampen foreign publics'
enthusiasm for U.S. business services and products. Countering these
downward shifts in foreign public opinion requires the coordinated effort
of both the government and the private sector.1 Government agencies have a
strategic edge with regards to knowledge of foreign policy objectives,
in-depth intelligence on regional and local conditions, and a worldwide
network of broadcast resources and public affairs officers. The private
sector enjoys an advantage when it comes to marketing and public relations
skills, perceived independence and credibility, and resources.

Prior reports by GAO and a number of other groups suggest that U.S. public
diplomacy efforts conducted over the past several years have generally not
been successful in responding to growing negative sentiments directed

1The private sector includes nonprofit and for-profit organizations,
academia, and the American people.

                                Results in Brief

towards the United States.2 Lack of interagency coordination and limited
involvement of the private sector have been highlighted as key problems in
some of these reports.3 You asked that we update these earlier findings by
reviewing the status of White House, State Department, Broadcasting Board
of Governors (BBG), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and
Department of Defense (DOD) activities. As agreed with your staff, this
report examines (1) to what extent U.S. public diplomacy efforts have been
coordinated and (2) whether the private sector has been significantly
engaged in such efforts.

To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed key documents and reports and
met with officials from relevant government agencies, interagency
coordinating entities, and private sector representatives. White House
officials declined requests to meet with us to discuss their coordination
role; however, we were able to gather sufficient information on their
activities by speaking with agency officials and reviewing published data
and reports. We did not include psychological operations or covert
information operations conducted by the Department of Defense or the
intelligence community in our review. We performed our work from May 2004
through February 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Detailed information on our scope and methodology
appears in appendix I.

The White House has launched several recent initiatives designed to
promote the coordination of U.S. public diplomacy efforts, and agencies
are working to improve public diplomacy operations, but the government
does not yet have a national communication strategy. Two of the White
House initiatives were designed to broadly facilitate the coordination of
all

U.S. strategic communication efforts, but they have not been fully
implemented. In September 2002, the National Security Council created a
Strategic Communications Policy Coordinating Committee to facilitate

2Prior GAO reports have examined the public diplomacy activities of the
State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors. See U.S. Public
Diplomacy: State Department Expands Efforts but Faces Significant
Challenges, GAO-03-951 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 4, 2003) and U.S.
International Broadcasting: New Strategic Approach Focuses on Reaching
Large Audiences but Lacks Measurable Program Objectives, GAO-03-772
(Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003).

3Appendix II provides a listing of major reports issued since 2001 and
their summary findings.

interagency public diplomacy efforts. The committee drafted a national
communication strategy to help address a range of messaging and program
issues; however, the committee disbanded in 2003 and did not issue this
strategy. In January 2003, the President formally established the Office
of Global Communications (OGC) to facilitate and coordinate the strategic
direction of White House and individual agency efforts to communicate with
foreign audiences. This office has not developed a national communication
strategy. Moreover, according to a recent report by the Defense Science
Board and senior agency officials, the office has not facilitated the
development of strategic guidance, which would serve to promote the
effective coordination of U.S. public diplomacy efforts. The White House
and other agencies have also made efforts to coordinate communications on
a smaller scale. In July 2004, the National Security Council created a
Muslim World Outreach Policy Coordinating Committee and tasked this group
with developing strategic and tactical plans to help guide and coordinate
U.S. communications with Muslims around the world. According to senior
officials at State, the group has drafted a communications strategy and is
developing a tactical plan to implement this strategy. The State
Department, USAID, and DOD are seeking to improve and evolve their public
diplomacy operations in recognition of the increased importance attached
to U.S. outreach efforts. State has formed an office to help the Under
Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs guide and coordinate the
agency's diverse public diplomacy efforts. USAID and DOD are defining
expanded public diplomacy roles for themselves. The Broadcasting Board of
Governors continues to implement the largely independent role mandated by
Congress for international broadcasting, while focusing its coordination
efforts on policy-level discussions with the State Department.

State has engaged the private sector in U.S. public diplomacy efforts,
primarily in the area of international exchange programs. State Department
data indicate that three of the department's top exchange programs
received roughly one-quarter to one-half of their funding from
nongovernment sources. However, other efforts led by State's Under
Secretaries for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs to engage the private
sector have not yielded significant results. In 2003, the then Under
Secretary sponsored the formation of a panel of outside advisors to review
and recommend areas where the department and the private sector could
coordinate their efforts. The panel issued a report in July 2003 with a
number of suggested areas of cooperation; however, none of these
suggestions was acted upon due to a lack of resources, bureaucratic
resistance, and a lack of management commitment. Current engagement

                                   Background

efforts by the Under Secretary's office are limited to periodic contacts
and small-scale initiatives with the private sector.

This report recommends that the Director of the Office of Global
Communications fully implement the role envisioned for the office in the
President's executive order, including facilitating the development of a
national communications strategy to help guide and coordinate the diverse
public diplomacy efforts of the State Department, USAID, BBG, and DOD. We
also recommend that the Secretary of State develop a strategy to promote
the active engagement of the private sector beyond international
exchanges. In commenting on a draft of this report, State, USAID, and BBG
generally concurred with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
We have reprinted their comments in appendixes III through V. We also
incorporated technical comments from DOD, State, and BBG where
appropriate. The White House declined to comment on a draft of this
report.

According to State Department officials, the goal of public diplomacy is
to increase understanding of American values, policies, and initiatives
and to counter anti-American sentiment and misinformation about the United
States around the world. This includes reaching beyond foreign governments
to promote better appreciation of the United States abroad, greater
receptivity to U.S. policies among foreign publics, and sustained access
and influence in important sectors of foreign societies. Public diplomacy
is carried out through a wide range of government programs and activities
that employ person-to-person contacts and attempts to reach mass audiences
through print, broadcast, and electronic media. Coordinating these various
efforts is critical to the short- and long-term success of U.S. public
diplomacy efforts. As noted by the Defense Science Board4 in its 2001
review of U.S. public diplomacy efforts,5 coordinated information
dissemination is an essential tool in a world where U.S. interests and
long-term policies are often misunderstood, where issues are complex, and
where efforts to undermine U.S. positions increasingly

4The Defense Science Board, composed of civilian officials, advises DOD on
scientific, technical, manufacturing, acquisition process, and other
matters of special interest to the department.

5Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Managed Information
Dissemination

(Washington, D.C.: October 2001).

Page 4 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

    Foreign Public Opinion of the United States Remains Highly Negative

appeal to those who lack the means to challenge American power. Effective
communications strategies and well-coordinated information systems can
shape perceptions and promote foreign acceptance of U.S. strategic
objectives.

Since 2001, GAO and others have issued several reports on public
diplomacy. These reports have called for a transformation in public
diplomacy efforts, noting its renewed importance in the post-9/11 world.
According to these reports, U.S. public diplomacy efforts face several
challenges, including the lack of a national communication strategy and
insufficient resources. To overcome these challenges, the reports have
recommended, among other things, increased presidential leadership,
structural changes at the White House and other agencies, and closer
coordination of public diplomacy activities.

Recent foreign public opinion polling data conducted by such entities as
the Pew Research Center for People and the Press and Zogby International
indicate that the United States faces a chronic and widespread image
problem. Although a host of factors can explain negative attitudes, the
data document that a problem exists and provide general insights on the
success or failure of U.S. public diplomacy efforts. As shown in figure 1,
anti-American sentiments are not limited to the Muslim world; however, the
relative depth of negative sentiments in this area of the world is
pronounced and noteworthy.

                               reat Britain ia y

                                    France y

                                      occo

                                   istan dan

                               reat Britain ia y

                                    France y

                                      occo

                                   istan dan

                                    ermanke

                                    ermanke

                                      Russ

                                      Russ

                                      Tur

                                      Jor

                                      Tur

                                      Jor

                                       or

                                      ork

                                       k

                                       Pa

                                       Pa

                                       M

                                       M

                                       G

                                       G

                                       G

                                       G

According to a number of sources, unpopular U.S. foreign policy decisions,
such as U.S. military actions in Iraq, are a major root cause of
anti-American sentiments. In addition, research conducted by Business for
Diplomatic Action6 suggests additional causes for anti-American
sentiments, including: (1) a feeling of exclusion from the globalization
movement led by U.S. business expansion, (2) resentment regarding certain
elements of popular U.S. culture, and (3) negative views of the behavior
of individual Americans.

U.S. Public Diplomacy U.S. public diplomacy efforts are distributed across
several entities, including the White House, State, USAID, BBG, and DOD.
U.S. public

    Involves Multiple Entities

diplomacy program funding is concentrated in the State Department and BBG,
which shared a combined annual budget of almost $1.2 billion in fiscal
year 2004. USAID and DOD have relatively small budgets explicitly devoted
to public diplomacy activities.

The White House The President created the Office of Global Communications
in January 2003 to facilitate the strategic direction and coordination of
diverse outreach efforts by multiple government entities. The National
Security Council oversees the creation and management of policy
coordinating committees that provide a key means for coordinating and
directing interagency efforts.7 The Muslim World Outreach Policy
Coordinating Committee, established in July 2004, was formed to address
the administration's most pressing strategic communications challenge and
is cochaired by the National Security Council and the Under Secretary of
State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. The committee replaced the
Strategic Communications Policy Coordinating Committee, which was active
between September 2002 and March 2003.

State Department With a budget of over $620 million in fiscal year 2004,
the State Department has lead responsibility for implementing U.S. public
diplomacy efforts, including international exchange programs, which
account for more than

6Incorporated in January 2004 by interested private sector leaders,
Business for Diplomatic Action seeks to counter anti-American sentiments
that can harm U.S. business interests by helping to coordinate the
outreach efforts of U.S. multinational companies.

7Established by the current administration to replace coordination
mechanisms established by earlier Presidents, National Security Council
policy coordinating committees are responsible for the management of
national security policies and are the main day-to-day forums for
interagency coordination of national security policy.

                              USAID, DOD, and BBG

half of the department's public diplomacy spending. State's efforts are
directed by the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs,
who oversees the operations of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural
Affairs, the Bureau of International Information Programs, and the Bureau
of Public Affairs. The Under Secretary's efforts are supplemented by
public diplomacy resources located in the regional and functional bureaus
and by a worldwide network of public affairs officers. State also plays a
leading role in two interagency coordination bodies: the Interagency
Strategic Communication Fusion Team and the Interagency Working Group on
U.S. Government-Sponsored International Exchanges and Training. The fusion
team, which was established to support the Strategic Communications Policy
Coordinating Committee and later the Muslim World Outreach Policy
Coordinating Committee, continues to meet weekly and brings together
program-level officers to discuss ongoing and proposed public diplomacy
initiatives across the federal government. The interagency working group
meets quarterly to coordinate the exchange and training activities of 12
federal departments and 15 independent agencies.8

Each supporting agency has a distinct role to play in promoting U.S.
public diplomacy objectives. USAID's role in public diplomacy is focused
on telling America's assistance story to the world. To the degree that
U.S. assistance plays a role in fostering a positive view of the United
States, the efforts of other assistance agencies, such as the Middle East
Partnership Initiative, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the
Peace Corps are also part of U.S. public diplomacy efforts. Historically,
DOD has been reluctant to define any of its activities in public diplomacy
terms, though the department has begun to develop a "defense support for
public diplomacy" strategy, which acknowledges that the department has a
role to play in this arena. For example, DOD, State, and USAID
humanitarian and relief efforts in response to the recent tsunami disaster
in Asia have significant public diplomacy implications for the United
States (see fig. 2).9 Overall, the BBG's stated mission is to promote the
development of

8The Interagency Working Group on U.S. Government-Sponsored International
Exchanges and Training was established by an executive order of the
President in 1997 and legislated by Congress in 1999. Among other
activities, the interagency working group has been tasked with developing
a database on U.S. exchange and training programs, promoting greater
understanding and cooperation among government agencies, identifying areas
of program overlap and duplication, and developing a coordinated and
cost-effective program strategy for government agencies to follow.

9In March 2005, a report by State's Office of Research concluded that
Indonesian views of the United States had improved following tsunami
relief efforts.

freedom and democracy around the world by providing foreign audiences with
accurate and objective news about the United States and the world. The BBG
pursues this mission through the collective efforts of the Voice of
America, Radio/TV Marti, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia,
Radio Sawa, and the Alhurra satellite television network. BBG broadcast
efforts are required by law to present a balanced and comprehensive
projection of American thought and institutions, as well as to present the
policies of the United States clearly and effectively.

Figure 2: State, USAID, and DOD Officials Participate in Tsunami Relief Efforts
                                  in Indonesia

                   Source: Departments of State and Defense.

  Government Public Diplomacy Coordination Efforts Lack Strategic Direction

The White House has launched several recent initiatives designed to
promote the coordination of U.S. public diplomacy efforts, while other
agencies are also working to improve public diplomacy operations. The
Strategic Communications Policy Coordinating Committee was established in
2002 and drafted a national communication strategy; however, the committee
disbanded in 2003 and did not issue this strategy. In 2003, the White
House established the Office of Global Communications to facilitate
coordination of the United States' global public diplomacy efforts, but
the office has not fulfilled the strategic role envisioned by the
President. The Muslim World Outreach Policy Coordinating Committee was
formed in July 2004 to facilitate U.S. outreach efforts to the Muslim
world, but this effort is still in the early stages of development. The
State Department recently created an Office of Policy, Planning, and
Resources in the Office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and
Public Affairs to help direct and coordinate its diverse public diplomacy
operations. While it is still too early to determine the effectiveness of
this office, it is designed to play a major role in coordinating the
delivery of U.S. public diplomacy efforts. USAID is evolving its
operations to respond to the new prominence the administration has given
to development assistance. DOD has begun to work on a defense support for
public diplomacy strategy, which is being actively debated by various
offices in the department. Finally, mechanisms have been established to
coordinate policy-level discussions between the BBG and State; however,
some agency officials said that the BBG is not effectively coordinating
with other agencies with regard to program content.

    First Attempt at Interagency Coordination Terminated

In September 2002, the National Security Council announced the
establishment of the Strategic Communications Policy Coordinating
Committee. This group was charged with coordinating interagency activities
to ensure that all agencies work together and with the White House to
develop and disseminate the President's message to foreign audiences. As
part of this effort, the group drafted a national communication strategy.
However, the strategy was never released because the group's activities
terminated with the departure of the then Under Secretary for Public
Diplomacy and Public Affairs, who cochaired the group, and the onset of
the war in Iraq.

    The Office of Global Communications Has Not Assumed a Strategic Coordination
    Role

The absence of a national strategy complicates the task of conveying
consistent messages and thus achieving mutually reinforcing benefits. The
absence of a strategy also increases the risk of making communication
mistakes and diminishing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of
governmentwide public diplomacy efforts. As suggested in the Defense
Science Board's latest report on strategic communications,10 this strategy
should originate at the White House level. The report notes that a
unifying vision of strategic communications starts with presidential
direction and that only White House leadership, with support from cabinet
secretaries and Congress, can bring about needed changes. The report
suggests that transforming U.S. government communications efforts is
critical to protecting U.S. national security interests and must match the
strength of commitment made to traditional diplomacy, defense,
intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security.

The OGC has not assumed its intended role in facilitating the strategic
direction and coordination of U.S. public diplomacy efforts as provided in
the President's executive order, which established the office in January
2003.11 The OGC's mission is to advise the President, offices within the
Executive Office of the President, and the heads of executive departments
and agencies on the most effective means for the U.S. government to
promote the interests of the United States abroad, prevent
misunderstanding, and build support for and among coalition partners of
the United States. To carry out this mission, the President tasked the OGC
with several responsibilities, including

     o facilitating the development of a communications strategy among
       appropriate agencies for disseminating messages about the United
       State;
     o assessing the methods and strategies used by the U.S. government to
       deliver information to audiences abroad and coordinating with

10Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic
Communication

(Washington, D.C.: September 2004).

11The Office of Global Communications is the successor to the Coalition
Information Centers established in Washington, London, and Islamabad
during the early stages of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan in
2001. These centers were created to provide a rapid response capability to
counter inaccurate portrayals of U.S. actions and optimize reporting of
news favorable to the United States.

appropriate agencies messages that reflect the strategic

communications framework and priorities of the United States;

     o ensuring message consistency to promote the interests of the United
       States abroad, prevent misunderstanding, build support for and among
       coalition partners, and inform international audiences; and
     o coordinating the creation of temporary teams of communicators for
       short-term placement in areas of high global interest and media
       attention.

According to a recent report by the Defense Science Board and officials
from the key agencies responsible for implementing U.S. public diplomacy
efforts, the OGC has not facilitated the development of strategic guidance
to direct and coordinate interagency activities. The Defense Science Board
met with officials from the OGC and concluded in its September 2004 report
that the office has "evolved into a second-tier organization devoted
principally to tactical public affairs coordination." The board added that
the OGC has been ineffectual in carrying out its intended responsibilities
relating to strategic communication planning, coordination, and
evaluation. We were also told by DOD officials that the board's 2001 and
2004 reports on strategic communications represented an attempt by the
department to fill the planning void left by the lack of strategic
direction from the White House.

State and USAID officials we spoke with supported the report's
conclusions. According to senior State Department officials, the Office of
Global Communications has not facilitated the development of a strategic
communications plan for the United States, provided guidance on the need
for regional or country-specific action plans tailored to local
conditions, pushed for an analysis of the root causes for anti-American
sentiments and the best means to address such root causes, or encouraged
the development of mechanisms to increase private sector involvement in
U.S. outreach efforts. According to these officials, the OGC has focused
on tactical level activities, such as preparing message briefs and holding
a daily conference call with relevant agency staff.12 A senior State
official told us the OGC is primarily an information provider and does not
provide

12According to State officials, one of the office's main efforts is the
development of the daily "Global Messenger," a one-page fact sheet sent
worldwide to disseminate key points and daily activities on global issues.

Page 12 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

    Effectiveness of Muslim Outreach Committee Remains to be Determined

any long-term strategic planning for public diplomacy. According to
another official at State, the OGC's planning horizon generally extends
only a couple of days in advance, and its services are purely tactical.
The Executive Director of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy
said that the OGC has tremendous potential, but this potential remains
unfulfilled.13 According to a senior official at USAID, the office has not
adopted the role of coordinator, despite its responsibility to coordinate
the formulation of messages that reflect the strategic communications
priorities of the United States. In contrast to the other comments we
heard, the Chairman of the BBG noted that the BBG has had an excellent
relationship with the Office of Global Communications and was satisfied
with both the strategic and tactical guidance it provided.

This lack of leadership has led agencies to define and coordinate public
diplomacy programs on their own. For example, several senior State
Department officials told us that the department has had to coordinate its
public diplomacy activities with other agencies on an ad hoc basis. This
ad hoc coordination increases the risk of program overlap and duplication
and diminished program impact because limited resources may be dispersed
over too many or even conflicting program objectives.

In July 2004, the National Security Council created the Muslim World
Outreach Policy Coordinating Committee to replace the Strategic
Communications Policy Coordinating Committee. This initiative is still in
its formative stage but, according to officials at State, it has already
developed a communication strategy to direct and coordinate agency
outreach efforts to the Muslim world. According to a senior State
official, the group is working on three specific activities. To date, the
committee has collected ideas from embassies in Muslim-majority countries,
developed a strategic plan for communicating with the Muslim world, and is
drafting a tactical paper to operationalize the strategy. In its poll of
embassies, the committee collected information on outreach activities to
Muslim audiences. According to an official at State familiar with the
committee's activities, the committee then developed a strategy to address
the problems

13The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy is a bipartisan panel
created by Congress and appointed by the President to provide oversight of
U.S. government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence
foreign publics. It is responsible for assessing public diplomacy policies
and programs of the U.S. State Department, Broadcasting Board of
Governors, other government agencies, and the private sector.

Page 13 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

    State Creates a New Office to Tackle Public Diplomacy Coordination and
    Evaluation Issues

faced by the public diplomacy community and outlined two broad goals:
working with moderate Muslims and countering extremism. The committee is
finalizing this strategy, which emphasizes the role of regional
partnerships and the need to tailor programs to specific countries, and
plans to present it to the National Security Council in early 2005.
Following approval, the strategy and tactics papers will be sent to
embassies around the world. State expects the implementation of this
strategy to begin in early 2005.

State's Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources was created in August
2004 in response to earlier recommendations by the Advisory Group on
Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World and a call by the Deputy
Secretary of State to fix the department's public diplomacy apparatus. The
advisory group's October 2003 report14 identified the need for such an
Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources to set a new strategic direction
for public diplomacy efforts in the region. The report recommended that
such an office should coordinate the development of a strategy, oversee
the process of producing country-specific implementation plans, monitor
the execution of these plans, and assist in the allocation and management
of both financial and human resources. With the exception of overseeing
the development and implementation of country-specific plans, the report's
recommendations appear to have been addressed. However, it remains to be
seen whether the department devotes sufficient resources to this new
office, whether the office successfully implements its various mandates,
whether future Under Secretaries continue to support the office's
operations, and whether bureaus outside of the Under Secretary's direct
control support the office's efforts to coordinate across bureau lines.

The memorandum establishing the office outlines a broad agenda, including

o  assisting the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
with developing a long-term, wide-ranging strategic vision for public
diplomacy for the department and communicating this vision to department
principals, affected staff overseas and in relevant bureaus, the
interagency community at large, and the private sector;

14Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World,
Changing Minds Winning Peace (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2003). The group
was formed in June 2003 at the request of Congress and submitted its
findings to the House Appropriations Committee.

Page 14 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

    USAID and DOD Roles and Responsibilities Are Evolving

     o coordinating with all affected bureaus within the department and
       developing resource allocation recommendations to support the Under
       Secretary's strategic vision and priorities;
     o providing a focal point for public diplomacy and public affairs
       personnel issues;
     o serving as the Under Secretary's clearinghouse for all public
       diplomacy and public affairs issues that cut across bureau lines;
     o developing performance evaluation indicators that can be applied to
       the department's public diplomacy and public affairs activities; and
     o analyzing the results of such evaluation efforts to determine the
       impact of public diplomacy and public affairs programs and identify
       what program adjustments or changes might be indicated.

The Director of the Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources noted that
her office is currently drafting a strategic plan to guide and coordinate
State's public diplomacy efforts-although a specific release date for the
strategy has not yet been established. The plan will include guidance on
how to develop realistic measures of the effectiveness of the department's
public diplomacy and public affairs activities. Toward that end, the
office has created a public diplomacy evaluation council, which brings
together evaluation staff from across affected bureaus to develop a
unified and rigorous approach to collectively assessing the department's
activities. State is considering broadening the membership of the council
to include other agencies, providing the possibility that the
effectiveness of public diplomacy efforts may ultimately be assessed
across agency lines.

Historically, USAID and DOD have had limited roles in U.S. public
diplomacy efforts, but recently both agencies have made efforts to
coordinate their activities with the broader interagency community. USAID
has begun to work closely with State and has established a new position to
publicize U.S. assistance efforts at each of its posts. DOD has designated
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy as its lead on public diplomacy
and is defining a role for defense support for public diplomacy.

USAID is Seeking to Increasingly In the past, USAID's role in U.S. public  
                                    diplomacy activities has been             
Tell America's Assistance Story  limited, according to agency officials,   
                                    to discrete efforts to publicize          
                                    specific development projects. These past 
                                    promotion efforts have not met            

The Department of Defense is Working to Better Define its Role

with great success. For example, we noted in our last report on U.S.
public diplomacy efforts that according to U.S. embassy officers in Egypt
only a small percentage of Egyptians were aware of the magnitude of U.S.
assistance-despite the fact that Egypt is the second largest recipient of

U.S. assistance in the world.15 This idea is echoed by the Advisory Group
on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World, which notes that much
of USAID's work is "public diplomacy at its best;" yet, according to USAID
officials, development work has little public diplomacy value to the
American people unless the agency communicates it.

The President's National Security Strategy, which elevated the role of
development in foreign policy, led USAID to develop a joint strategic plan
with State to better tell America's humanitarian and development
assistance story. One of the plan's strategic goals is public diplomacy,
which emphasizes communicating with younger audiences, countering
propaganda, and listening to foreign audiences. The State-USAID Policy
Council was created to support the joint strategic plan by helping both
agencies coordinate more closely on foreign policy and assistance issues.
A Public Diplomacy Working Group was created under the joint policy
council to improve coordination between State and USAID in areas such as
information outreach, exchanges and training, interagency communication,
and funding for public diplomacy programs.

In September 2004, USAID established a position to help embassies, USAID
missions, and implementing partners publicize U.S. assistance activities.
These newly established Development Outreach and Communications Officers
are expected to act as a one-stop resource for information regarding
USAID's work and will collaborate with the public affairs officer at post
to maximize exposure and understanding of U.S. assistance efforts.16 USAID
plans to have one of these officers in each of its 84 missions around the
world by September 2005.

The Department of Defense recognizes that it plays a supporting role in
public diplomacy and has made recent efforts to define its role in the
U.S. public diplomacy apparatus. According to an October 2001 report by
the

15GAO-03-951.

16According to a senior USAID official, Development Outreach and
Communication Officers will handle information related to USAID projects
as well as other agencies' projects that are being implemented by USAID.
USAID does not plan to handle assistance projects emanating from other
sources, such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

Page 16 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

Defense Science Board, DOD's public diplomacy efforts consist of actions
such as combined troop training and exercises, official visits, and
defense contacts with foreign officials.17 During crises, DOD communicates
to foreign audiences through military spokespersons, news releases, and
media briefings. For example, the U.S. military supported relief efforts
for the Asian tsunami, deploying approximately 13,000 personnel to deliver
food and medical supplies. These activities provide U.S. public diplomacy
and public affairs channels with the content and context to foster
goodwill toward the United States.

In October 2003, DOD issued an Information Operations Roadmap, which
discusses the roles and responsibilities of DOD's public affairs, public
diplomacy, and information operations and how these elements should work
together and with other government agencies to communicate strategically
with foreign audiences. This document refers to a strategy for defense
support for public diplomacy, but it does not outline such a strategy.
According to DOD officials, the strategy is still being actively debated
by various groups within the department and remains to be formally issued.

DOD has also made structural changes to better define its role in U.S.
public diplomacy activities. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy has
been designated as DOD's lead for public diplomacy activities. DOD
officials told us that the department drafted a directive in September
2004 directing the Under Secretary to develop and oversee DOD strategic
communications efforts and to serve as DOD's focal point for strategic
communications efforts. Additionally, within the Under Secretary's office,
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs has
assumed responsibility for coordinating and overseeing defense support for
public diplomacy. In September 2004, the Defense Science Board recommended
the creation of a new Deputy Assistant Secretary for International
Security Affairs to coordinate all activities associated with defense
support for public diplomacy.

17DOD also uses public affairs activities and military psychological
operations to communicate with foreign audiences.

Page 17 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

    Broadcasting Board of Governors Coordination Largely Tied to Policy-Level
    Discussions with State

Congress has defined a role for the Broadcasting Board of Governors that
is designed to maintain the independence and credibility of U.S. broadcast
efforts while ensuring that such efforts are consistent with the broad
foreign policy objectives of the United States. We found that BBG, as
required by Congress, is coordinating with the State Department at the
policy level through a variety of means. BBG officials stated that they
work cooperatively with other agencies to develop and broadcast suggested
program ideas and content that BBG deems appropriate to its mission.
However, some USAID and DOD officials commented that BBG has not been
receptive to considering suggestions on programming content.

Under BBG's statutory authority, a so-called "firewall" was established
between policy makers and broadcasters to ensure that U.S. broadcast
efforts are perceived as credible and unbiased. Separating the State
Department and BBG provides deniability for the department when other
governments voice complaints about specific broadcasts. However, BBG is
also subject to an explicit requirement for policy-level coordination
between BBG and the State Department. Several mechanisms exist to help
ensure such coordination. First, the Secretary of State or his/her
designee serves as a member of the BBG and provides it broad policy
advice. Second, BBG's Office of Policy works closely with State to produce
the government-labeled editorials that the Voice of America is required to
carry. Third, BBG seeks input from State officials for its annual language
service review process, which determines where and how many broadcast
services are pursued.

Concerns exist regarding BBG's coordination with other agencies on program
content. BBG officials indicated that they are open to receiving other
agencies' programming suggestions that support BBG's news and information
function. One BBG official noted that such requests do not represent a
violation of the firewall, although he added that care must be exercised
in deciding whether and how to incorporate such content to avoid the
appearance of becoming a government mouthpiece bent only on promoting U.S.
interests. While State officials said that their daily, ad hoc
coordination with BBG includes content and delivery issues, officials at
USAID and DOD indicated that BBG has not been receptive to content
suggestions. For example, USAID officials told us that they have
approached BBG officials with stories to promote their attempts to "tell
America's assistance story," but BBG did not respond positively to these
suggestions. In addition, a senior DOD official noted that combatant
commanders have asked BBG to carry public service announcements
illustrating DOD's assistance to foreign publics but met with a similar
lack

  State Department Efforts to Engage the Private Sector Have Met with Mixed
  Results

of success. In commenting on a draft of this report, BBG officials
indicated a willingness to consider establishing a more formal channel of
communication for programming suggestions.

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, State has attempted to increase
its engagement with the private sector to improve the image of the United
States overseas. These efforts have focused on student and visitor
exchanges, where some success has been achieved in leveraging private
sector resources. More recent attempts by the department to form public-
private partnerships have met with limited success.

              State's Exchange Programs Engage the Private Sector

The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is the primary focus for
public-private sector partnerships within State and has, according to
State officials, demonstrated an ability to engage the private sector.
These partnerships involve nongovernmental organizations, volunteer
communities, and influential individuals in the United States and
overseas. For example, Sister Cities International receives funding from
State, USAID, and private corporations to support and strengthen the
sister cities network between U.S. and international communities.
According to the Interagency Working Group on U.S. Government-Sponsored
International Exchanges and Training, three of the Bureau's top exchange
programs received roughly one-quarter to one-half of their funding from
nongovernment sources.

Analysis prepared by the Interagency Working Group on U.S.
Government-Sponsored International Exchanges and Training suggests that a
number of benefits and challenges are associated with the use of such
public-private partnerships. Table 1 summarizes the group's analysis.

        Table 1: Benefits and Challenges of Public-Private Partnerships

                              Benefits Challenges

     o Leveraging of government funds  o  Tensions over jurisdiction and
       program ownership
     o Sharing of technical and professional expertise  o  Problems relating
       to diverse goals, values, and perspectives
     o Cross-pollination of ideas and approaches  o  Burden on program staff
       who must implement partnership arrangements
     o Dialogue, cooperation, and synergy leading to more effective combined
       programs

    Other State Department Attempts to Engage the Private Sector Have Met with
    Limited Success

  Source: Interagency Working Group on U.S. Government-Sponsored International
                            Exchanges and Training.

Aside from the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, State has been
unable to leverage the private sector to any significant degree.18 In
2003, the then Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
sought to identify specific suggestions on how the private sector could be
significantly engaged to better support U.S. public diplomacy efforts. She
helped form a Subcommittee on Public-Private Partnerships and Public
Diplomacy under the auspices of State's Advisory Committee on
International Economic Policy.19 The subcommittee concluded in its June
2003 report that the U.S. private sector can and should play an important
role in supporting ongoing U.S. government outreach to foreign audiences
in a manner that can help build long-term friendships and advance U.S.
interests abroad. The report made a number of recommendations, several of
which address the root causes for anti-American sentiments, including the
need to

18Some private sector groups may be reluctant to coordinate with the U.S.
government due to concerns over a loss of credibility. For example, a
representative of Business for Diplomatic Action told us that any direct
collaboration between her group and the U.S. government was unlikely given
the government's lack of credibility with target audiences.

19The advisory committee consists of representatives of American
organizations and institutions, including business, labor, environment,
academia, legal consultancies, and other public interest groups. It
reports to the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. Within this
bureau, the Office of Commercial and Business Affairs serves as State's
primary point of contact for all issues dealing with the private sector.

     o create an inventory of current government programs specifically
       designed to promote the image of the United States abroad;
     o encourage public and private support for multilingualism and
       cross-cultural education starting at the corporate level and working
       down to the foundation of our educational system;
     o increase funding for English language training abroad and provide
       incentives for the private sector to carry out this activity;
     o encourage private sector support for American studies programs abroad
       by developing curriculum, texts, and internet support materials;
     o encourage U.S. media outlets to dub their programming into Arabic and
       make it available for distribution throughout the Middle East; and
     o encourage the private sector to expand social investment programs
       abroad through such models as USAID's Global Development Alliance.

The head of State's Office of Commercial and Business Affairs noted that
the subcommittee was disbanded after its report was issued and that none
of its recommendations was ever implemented.

In January 2004, the Under Secretary's successor promoted greater private
sector involvement by designating a member of her immediate staff as a
special advisor to help facilitate interactions between her office and
outside parties. This individual continues to serve this role for the
current Under Secretary, facilitating outreach efforts by serving as a
point of contact with the private sector and coordinating the Under
Secretary's attendance at key outside meetings. Examples of actions taken
by the advisor include State's efforts to assist the Wheelchair Foundation
by publicizing its activities through posts overseas and its role in
persuading Steinway and Sons to donate a piano to the Iraqi National
Symphony in Baghdad. While these efforts have some merit, their impact may
be limited if not backed by a more robust action plan or senior-level
commitment to further engage the private sector. A commitment of
additional resources would also be necessary to engage the private sector
in more meaningful ways.

Finally, in October 2004, State's Policy Planning Staff submitted a
proposal to the White House calling for the creation of a clearinghouse
titled the Center for Partnership and Human Dignity.20 This proposal
defines a new model for conducting public diplomacy and calls for a
dramatic expansion of the private sector's role. The proposal suggests
that the government should concentrate on explaining U.S. foreign policy
while the clearinghouse focuses on coordinating private sector-led
outreach efforts (in such areas as sports, cultural activities, and
medical assistance) with the strategic input and advice of State and other
relevant agencies. According to one official, the new Secretary of State
has been briefed on this proposal and its potential.21

USAID has engaged the private sector through its Global Development
Alliance. USAID reports that the alliance leveraged over $2 billion in
private sector contributions in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, using about
$500 million in USAID funding. The Global Development Alliance represents
the agency's commitment to changing the way it implements assistance and
currently represents one of the four pillars of U.S. economic
assistance.22 The Global Development Alliance mobilizes the ideas,
efforts, and resources of governments, businesses, and civil society by
forging public- private alliances to stimulate economic growth, develop
businesses and workforces, address health and environmental issues, and
expand access to education and technology. The Global Development Alliance
business model is designed to leverage unique private sector assets, such
as foreign direct investment, experience with leading business practices,
and technological innovations. According to USAID, the agency has
established

20This proposal was submitted without the prior review or approval of the
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. The Under
Secretary explained that she saw potential merit in the idea; however, she
was worried that creating a new entity would take scarce resources away
from existing programs.

21This proposal incorporates elements of similar suggestions regarding the
establishment of quasi-independent entities to promote public-private
partnerships by the Defense Science Board and the Council on Foreign
Relations. In its September 2004 report, the Defense Science Board
recommended the establishment of a Center for Strategic Communications
modeled on federally funded research and development centers such as the
Rand Corporation or National Endowment for Democracy. In its report
entitled "Finding America's Voice: A Strategy for Reinvigorating U.S.
Public Diplomacy" (New York, N.Y.: June 2003), the Council on Foreign
Relations recommended that an independent, not-for-profit Corporation for
Public Diplomacy be established to facilitate public and private sector
interchange.

22The four pillars are: (1) Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian
Assistance; (2) Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade; (3) Global Health;
and (4) the Global Development Alliance.

                                  Conclusions

alliances in over 45 countries in the developing world, involving over 150
private sector partners.

Coordination of public diplomacy activities is hampered by the lack of a
national communication strategy. An initial effort, the creation of the
Strategic Communications Policy Coordinating Committee in 2002, did not
result in an overall strategy. The Office of Global Communications has
been charged by the President with facilitating White House and
interagency strategic planning and coordination efforts; however, a recent
study and several officials at affected agencies indicated that the Office
of Global Communications has not facilitated the coordination of agency
efforts by providing needed strategic direction. In addition, the office
has not developed a national communication strategy. As a consequence,
agencies have developed their own roles and missions and coordinated their
activities on an ad hoc basis.

The White House and other agencies have initiated efforts to improve
coordination on a smaller scale. The National Security Council created the
Muslim World Outreach Policy Coordinating Committee, which, according to
senior State officials, has developed a strategic communications plan for
Muslim audiences and is drafting a tactical plan to implement this
strategy. BBG has coordinated its efforts at the policy level, while
State, USAID, and DOD continue to evolve and improve their public
diplomacy operations and strategic planning efforts.

State recognizes the importance and significance of engaging the private
sector in U.S. outreach efforts wherever feasible; however, the department
has never developed a strategy to make this goal a reality. Past efforts
by the department have focused on exchange programs, while other attempts
have met with only limited success. More successful engagement of the
private sector will require, among other things, seeking venues to
actively solicit private sector support and removing potential obstacles
to partnerships.

  Recommendations for Executive Action

To better ensure that the United States' public diplomacy efforts are
adequately coordinated, we recommend the Director of the Office of Global
Communications fully implement the role defined for it by the President's
executive order, including facilitating the development of a
communications strategy, assessing the methods and strategies used by the

Page 23 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

  Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

U.S. government to communicate with overseas audiences, and coordinating
the delivery of messages that reflect the strategic communications
framework and priorities of the United States.

To help ensure that private sector resources, talents, and ideas are
effectively leveraged and utilized, we recommend that the Secretary of
State develop a strategy to guide department efforts to engage the private
sector in pursuit of common public diplomacy objectives.

We provided State, BBG, USAID, DOD, and the White House with a draft of
this report for comment. State, BBG, and USAID provided us with written
comments that are included in appendixes III through V. They generally
concurred with the report's findings and conclusions. State strongly
endorsed our recommendation that the department develop a detailed
strategy for engaging the private sector more effectively and indicated
that working with the private sector will be a priority for the
department's new leadership. BBG and State said that our report did not
accurately reflect the nature of their coordination on suggested
programming content and provided further evidence to support their
positions. We modified our findings regarding BBG coordination with State.
BBG said it would explore the establishment of a more formal, transparent
channel of communication for programming ideas. In addition, BBG, along
with State and DOD, provided technical comments, which have been
incorporated throughout the report where appropriate. DOD and USAID said
that developing a public diplomacy strategy is insufficient without
addressing the content of

U.S. public diplomacy activities.

The White House declined to comment on a draft of this report.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of
Congress. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors,
the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, and
the Director of the White House Office of Global Communications. We will
also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report
will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at h ttp://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-4128 or [email protected].

Staff contacts and other key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix VI.

Sincerely yours,

Jess T. Ford Director, International Affairs and Trade Appendix I

                       Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State,
Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies asked us to examine

(1)
           towhat extent U.S. public diplomacy efforts have been coordinated
           and

(2)
           whether the private sector has been significantly engaged in such
           efforts. Our review focused on the efforts of the Department of
           State, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the U.S. Agency
           for International Development (USAID), and the Department of
           Defense (DOD). We did not include psychological operations or
           covert information operations conducted by DOD or the intelligence
           community in our review.

To determine how U.S. public diplomacy efforts have been coordinated
across agency lines, we met with senior officials in State's Office of the
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, the Bureau of
International Information Programs, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural
Affairs, and a regional bureau. We also interviewed officials at BBG,
USAID, and DOD, as well as representatives from the private sector. We
reviewed planning, program, and other documentation from the relevant
agencies and examined recent studies from the Defense Science Board, the
U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, the Council on Foreign
Relations, and others. Officials at the White House Office of Global
Communications declined to meet with us to discuss their role in
interagency coordination activities; however, we were able to develop a
basic understanding of the office's operations by reviewing published data
and by speaking with government officials familiar with White House
coordination efforts.

To assess the extent to which the private sector has been effectively
engaged in U.S. public diplomacy efforts, we discussed outreach efforts
with officials at State and USAID, including State's Bureau of Commercial
and Business Affairs and USAID's Global Development Alliance. We also met
with representatives from the private sector, including Business for
Diplomatic Action, as well as nonprofit organizations, academia, and the
media. We reviewed State documents detailing the department's private
sector outreach efforts, as well as a proposal that State's Policy
Planning Staff submitted to the White House calling for expanded
public-private partnerships. We also examined recent data from polling
organizations and reviewed a Business for Diplomatic Action analysis of
root causes of anti-Americanism.

We performed our work from May 2004 through February 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II

                         Related Reports and Testimony

    Table 2: GAO Reports on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting

Report title                 Date           Selected conclusions           
U.S. Public Diplomacy: State September 2003 State has expanded its public  
Department Expands Efforts                  diplomacy efforts in           
but Faces Significant                       Muslim-majority countries      
Challenges (GAO-03-951)                     since September 11, 2001.      
                                               State needs a comprehensive    
                                               strategy that integrates all   
                                               of its public diplomacy        
                                               activities. State is not       
                                               comprehensively measuring      
                                               progress toward its public     
                                               diplomacy goals.               
U.S. International           July 2003      The Broadcasting Board of      
Broadcasting: New Strategic                 Governors (BBG) has initiated  
Approach Focuses on Reaching                several projects designed to   
Large Audiences but Lacks                   attract larger audiences in    
Measurable Program                          priority markets. BBG's plan   
Objectives (GAO-03-772)                     lacks program objectives       
                                               designed to measure the        
                                               success of its new approach to 
                                               broadcasting. BBG has not      
                                               established a strategic vision 
                                               for how many languages should  
                                               be pursued.                    

                                  Source: GAO.

                         Table 3: Related GAO Testimony

Testimony title            Date              Comments                      
U.S. Public Diplomacy:     August 23, 2004   Based on GAO-03-951, U.S.     
State Department and                         Public Diplomacy: State       
Broadcasting Board of                        Department Expands Efforts    
Governors Expand Post-9/11                   but Faces Significant         
Efforts but Challenges                       Challenges, and GAO-03-772,   
Remain (GAO-04-1061T)                        U.S. International            
                                                Broadcasting: New Strategic   
                                                Approach Focuses on Reaching  
                                                Large Audiences but Lacks     
                                                Measurable Program Objectives 
U.S. International         April 29, 2004    Based on GAO-04-374, U.S.     
Broadcasting: Challenges                     International Broadcasting:   
Facing the Broadcasting                      Enhanced Measure of Local     
Board of Governors                           Media Conditions Would        
(GAO-04-711T)                                Facilitate Decisions to       
                                                Terminate Language Services;  
                                                GAO-03-772; and               
                                                GAO/NSIAD-00-222, U.S.        
                                                International Broadcasting:   
                                                Strategic Planning and        
                                                Performance Management System 
                                                Could Be Improved             
U.S. International         April 1, 2004     Based on GAO-04-374,          
Broadcasting: Challenges                     GAO-03-772, and               
Facing the Broadcasting                      GAO/NSIAD-00-222              
Board of Governors                           
(GAO-04-627T)                                
U.S. Public Diplomacy:     February 10, 2004 Based on GAO-03-951 and       
State Department and the                     GAO-03-772                    
Broadcasting Board of                        
Governors Expand Efforts                     
in the Middle East but                       
Face Significant                             
Challenges (GAO-04-435T)                     

                                  Source: GAO.

Appendix II Related Reports and Testimony

                 Table 4: Selected Reports on Public Diplomacy

                    Page 28 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

Author          Report title        Date           Selected conclusions    
U.S. Advisory   2004 Report         September 2004 The agents and          
Commission on                                      structures of public    
Public                                             diplomacy need          
Diplomacy                                          coordination. Public    
                                                      diplomacy messaging     
                                                      must become more        
                                                      strategic and           
                                                      responsive. Public      
                                                      diplomacy should be a   
                                                      national security       
                                                      priority, requiring an  
                                                      aggressive strategy and 
                                                      increased resources.    
                                                      The public and private  
                                                      sectors need to work    
                                                      together to face public 
                                                      diplomacy challenges.   
Defense Science Strategic           September 2004 Strengthening and       
Board           Communication                      coordinating strategic  
                                                      communications requires 
                                                      presidential            
                                                      leadership. Structural  
                                                      changes are necessary   
                                                      within the National     
                                                      Security Council,       
                                                      State, and DOD to       
                                                      transform strategic     
                                                      communications. A       
                                                      quasi-governmental      
                                                      entity should be        
                                                      created to provide      
                                                      information and         
                                                      analysis and facilitate 
                                                      private sector          
                                                      involvement in public   
                                                      diplomacy.              
National        The 9/11 Commission July 2004      The U.S. government     
Commission on   Report                             must define its message 
Terrorist                                          and what it stands for. 
Attacks upon                                       The United States needs 
the United                                         to defend its ideals    
States                                             abroad through          
                                                      increased broadcasting  
                                                      efforts and rebuilt     
                                                      scholarship, exchange,  
                                                      and library programs.   
Advisory Group  Changing Minds      October 2003   Public diplomacy        
on Public       Winning Peace: A                   requires a new          
Diplomacy for   New Strategic                      strategic direction,    
the Arab and    Direction for U.S.                 led by the President    
Muslim World    Public Diplomacy in                and Congress and        
                   the Arab and Muslim                adequately funded and   
                   World                              staffed. Structural     
                                                      changes at the White    
                                                      House, the National     
                                                      Security Council, and   
                                                      State are necessary.    
                                                      USAID and DOD must be   
                                                      incorporated in the new 
                                                      strategic direction.    
                                                      Public diplomacy should 
                                                      engage the full range   
                                                      of American civil       
                                                      society, including the  
                                                      private sector and      
                                                      nongovernmental         
                                                      organizations.          
Council on      Finding America's   June 2003      Lack of political will  
Foreign         Voice: A Strategy                  and the absence of an   
Relations       for Reinvigorating                 overall strategy have   
                   U.S. Public                        hindered public         
                   Diplomacy                          diplomacy programs.     
                                                      Public diplomacy should 
                                                      be considered in the    
                                                      formulation of foreign  
                                                      policy. The U.S. public 
                                                      diplomacy coordinating  
                                                      structure needs         
                                                      strengthening,          
                                                      leadership, and         
                                                      increased resources. An 
                                                      expanded private sector 
                                                      role would help public  
                                                      diplomacy deliver more  
                                                      bang for the government 
                                                      buck.                   
U.S. Advisory   Building America's  September 2002 Public diplomacy        
Commission on   Public Diplomacy                   requires structural     
Public          Through a Reformed                 reform, including       
Diplomacy       Structure and                      presidential            
                   Additional                         leadership, the         
                   Resources                          integration of Congress 
                                                      in public diplomacy     
                                                      efforts, and the        
                                                      involvement of the      
                                                      private sector. Public  
                                                      diplomacy should be     
                                                      redeveloped by building 
                                                      its resources.          

Appendix II Related Reports and Testimony

(Continued From Previous Page)
Author          Report title        Date         Selected conclusions      
Defense Science Managed Information October 2001 The U.S. government       
Board           Dissemination                    requires a coordinated    
                                                    means to speak with a     
                                                    single voice abroad.      
                                                    Presidential leadership   
                                                    is required to strengthen 
                                                    the United States'        
                                                    ability to communicate    
                                                    with foreign audiences    
                                                    and coordinate public     
                                                    diplomacy, public         
                                                    affairs, and information  
                                                    operations. Structural    
                                                    changes at the National   
                                                    Security Council, State,  
                                                    and DOD are required to   
                                                    coordinate public         
                                                    diplomacy activities.     

                                  Source: GAO.

                                  Appendix III

                     Comments from the Department of State

Appendix III Comments from the Department of State

Appendix III Comments from the Department of State

Appendix IV

Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors

Appendix IV Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors

Appendix V

Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development

Appendix V Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development

Appendix VI

                     GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Diana Glod, (202) 512-8945

  GAO Contact

In addition to the person named above, Michael ten Kate, Robert Ball,

  Staff

Loren DeJonge, and Joe Carney made key contributions to this report.
Martin de Alteriis, Ernie Jackson, and Mark Speight provided technical
assistance.

  GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

                             Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

Contact:

To Report Fraud, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

  E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
Washington, D.C. 20548

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

  Public Affairs

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***