Transcripts For CSPAN2 CSIS Hosts Discussion On Public Diplomacy 20170118

I i would briefly walked to the agenda before we invite the speakers onto the stage. First up we have Katherine Brown and jay wang will participate on a paper which is published online today called Public Diplomacy and National Security in 2017. Building alliances, fighting extremism and dispelling this information. Katherine is council of Foreign Relations International Affairs fellow and a visiting fellow with my program here at csis and weve been fortunate to have her for a couple of months leading to his work on Public Diplomacy. She most recently served as executive director of the u. S. Advisory commission on Public Diplomacy. Jay wang is an associate professor at the Usc Annenberg school for communication and journalism, and director of the usc center on Public Diplomacy. The paper theyre going to present to you today emerged from the workshop that we held jointly with jason center back in november. Essentially what it does is indexed and assessment of where weve been with Public Diplomacy and what are the main successes under the Obama Administration. And do we suggest some ways we can strengthen Public Diplomacy going forward. So then following that brief presentation, Michael Crowley from political will lead a discussion with two simple figures in Public Diplomacy, ben rhodes and ambassador jim glassman. We are extreme fortunate to have both of them here today to share their experiences and senior roles in the obama and Bush Administration respectively. During this time of an opportunity to ask them some questions about Public Diplomacy so we will open up the floor for q a. Finally well hear from acting undersecretary republican diplomacy and affairs bruce morton was poised to very ably lead Public Diplomacy apparatus in state that the transition. After the formal program will invite you all to join us for a Cocktail Reception and during that time we will have the paper that we are presenting out on a touch screen so you can scroll through it. Its also available at the website. Without further ado i like to welcome katherine and jay to the stage. [applause] i am not jay. I am Katherine Brown. Its great to see so many of you. Thank you so much for coming and im going to quickly go through some top points on this paper we just released a few minutes ago on Public Diplomacy and National Security in 2017, Lessons Learned. But the paper really looks more specific at how to leverage Public Diplomacy to build alliances, counter violent extremism and also to dispel misinformation from state actors. This paper was an effort by about 40 different stakeholders from across governments, from academia, Civil Society and through different partners to really create a document of record of the progress we have seen the last eight years with the Obama Administration, building a progress from the Bush Administration. And to give our best possible prescriptions moving forward into the next administration. So im going to welcome jay now up to the stage to go over the topline findings, and those on how to dispel disinformation from state actors. And i will come back. Good afternoon. I am very glad to be here, and we are very glad to be back in d. C. And to be a partner for todays discussion and also for this particular study. So as katherine mentioned, last november csis and cpd convened three dozen Public Diplomacy thought leaders currently working in and out of government to assess the successes of pd during the Obama Administration and to make recommendations for future course. The session focused on the major challenges confronting Public Diplomacy today. Namely, the role in countering violent extremism, defining influence of fake narratives by state actors especially activities directed by the kremlin and building and strengthening networks with foreign publics which are critical for achieving uniform policy goals. When the Trump Administration officials entered into the government they will find pd apparatus consumed by these critical issues. Therefore, the workshop participants aim to identify successes, pinpoint enduring challenges and provide concrete recommendations for reforms and improvements in all these three areas, looking at the aspects of themes, tools and structures. Im going to provide a very broad overview of some of our findings. Stakeholders agree that the overarching successes of the Obama Administration have included reaching larger global communities through new digital platforms throughout the state department. Expanding educational and professional Development Opportunities to not delete through various existing Exchange Programs and through the Young Leaders initiatives. Developing the exchange of Alumni Office in the educational and Cultural Affairs appear to maintain that work tens of thousands of easy a Program Alumni worldwide, advancing theme of entrepreneurship to leverage a soft power of american entrepreneurship and innovation, and continuing to enhance a career path for preprofessional to Better Connect Public Diplomacy with policy including investment of Foreign Service officers cpd roles. Yet enduring challenges remain for pd practitioners. They include confronting the gap between ideals and realities within the United States, with foreign citizens. As domestic news is often picked up and relate overseas i foreign outlets. News stories on violence, Police Brutality and issues of American Society confronts everyday such as racism, discrimination illustrate our enduring value of transparency. At the same time they can also undermine the messages about american pluralism, inclusiveness and tolerance with nonamerican audiences. Public diplomacy practitioners must be better prepared to address and contextualize domestic events in the field rather than to stick to sanitized talking points that did not connect to a foreign citizen. Working within a stymied bureaucratic structure continues to be difficult for pd practitioners to effectively engage abroad. There are several roadblocks insuring that theres sufficient strategic planning, budgeting the research to support Public Diplomacy operations which we outlined in the report. Thought leaders and experts consulted for the study made the following additional recommendations for pd going forward. Focus on initiatives that work instead of creating new ones. Empowering Public Diplomacy professionals in the field. It is important to listen to pd practitioners at embassies and empower them to be responsive to their environments. Investing in our Public Diplomacy professionals. The Trump Administration must focus on their professional development and advancement within the state department. They should also put a premium on recruiting political appointees with Technical Expertise needed to advance effective and impactful pd programs. Continue to take Audience Research and Impact Evaluation seriously, paying close attention to Audience Research to help shape and for programming strategies will be essential moving forward. Changing the conversation with congress. Pd requires a toolkit of information, cultural, educational activities. It is not defined by one particular program. It is essential our conversations with members of congress and their staffs emphasize how programs and tools Work Together and how they apply to various global and bilateral challenges. Finally, seeking partnerships with private and Civil Society organizations. These general recommendations emphasize the big picture successes and remaining challenges from the Obama Administration. We also address more targeted issues currently relevant to the foreignpolicy landscape and the role of Public Diplomacy. Building and strengthening alliances, countering violent extremism and countering the negative influence of false narratives from state actors, particularly activities directed by the claimant. So i will share with you just a general, some of the general points for one particular area of discussion, how we define false narrative from state actors to Public Diplomacy and kathy will come and talk about building alliances and counter violence estimates of the role of Public Diplomacy in those activities. Increasingly we are seeing state actors directed, their campaigns to counter u. S. And allied messages. In many cases this false narratives are meant to influence Public Opinion around the world, to target against the United States. While some of the technologies at issue are new, it is crucial to remember you with Public Diplomacy has responded successfully to sober threats in its history. Many elements of years Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting were created to defy adversary influence during the cold war. This experience contains invaluable lessons for us to think of strategies going for. In terms of themes we need to articulate in the broadest terms who we in the west stand for. And present conditions it is important American Values such as human rights be presented as universal rather than geographically specific. This said in terms of narratives we need to tell stories that are not about us as much as about our local audiences. Our programs and narratives must resonate with and be responsive to local audiences. This should not be solely focused on counting the narratives of others. The government should communicate that people have an inherent right to Accurate Information and technology that this is a battleground of ideas and worldviews. We can defend post one or two liberal institutionalism and multilateralism and may find a 21st Century Global Development Agenda could provide a framework to address such addition to entrance of tools, pd tactics to counter this information need to be revamped. The white house will work with congress on legislation to support public resource and stable Public Diplomacy platforms and programs in countries and regions most affected by this campaign. In terms of research, the state Department Needs to do a better job of listening to target audiences to understand the needs and the impact of pd programs and messaging efforts. This means partnering with local ngos who understand these audiences better. The media had become an armament, a tool of policy influence, the united gates needs a negotiating process that put the Public Policy at the center appeared final in terms of structure, theres two forms within the United States government. First the Intelligence Community said it better job of cleve undreamed declassifying that demonstrates russian and attempts to influence political and social debates of the doubt and suspicion within the United States and allies. The u. S. Government should bring together a brain trust of experts on information including academics and private sector to inform the u. S. Government interagency approach to this issue. In addition to local ngos and Civil Society networks overseas. Within the apparatus of u. S. Diplomacy, the Young Commission should be decentralized so the information campaigns can be more responsive to local audiences. Finally, the u. S. Government needs to develop original strategy with the european and Central Asian countries to rebuild a common agenda for security and development and offer the vision that would not only inspire our friends at transfer and conditions that lead people to position themselves as adversaries. I will ask up front to give us an overview of the recommendations. [inaudible] the creation of that type of report. For the sake of time dimension of this paper and so it is online and you will see that we will go through strengthening alliances, despite information of state actors but also focus on themes, tools and structures needed for all three of those areas. So for a cbe, the discussion on extremism matter workshop was based on csi as november report turning point which provides the u. S. Administration a comprehensive strategy based on 15 years of experimentation and learning in the assessment is while the u. S. Government has invested hard power tactics to fight terrorism, its overlook soft power necessary to extremist ideology. Public diplomacy plays a role by helping to leverage american soft power and hoping to inoculate and dissuade citizens from being drawn into extremist ideologies emeritus. Under the things necessary for the next administration to promote when it comes to Public Diplomacy role, without the u. S. Must develop a stronger narrative that focuses on integrating individuals into the local, regional and Global Economy. A more positive narrative putting could tolerance an emphasis on dignity and justice are generally supporting development and society from which people including minorities and the most honorable of plentiful avenues to find meaning and belonging. For the tools to promote inclusive games, without the u. S. Government is to empower local Society Actors to spread positive messages organically and ensure the operating space and Political Support to do so. Officer should also support the creation of books and literature that promote tolerance via mobile libraries. The exchange dimension of Public Diplomacy is key as well wait for a professional Development Committee such as Leadership Programs can foster networks between foreign and american businesses. An academic institutions, religious institutions and Civil Society leaders to challenge extremist narratives and agendas. Structurally, given the people centric nature of the sufferers, and makes all of us work it should at least be led by civilians and government. The leadership should also improve interagency cooperation in other Public Diplomacys role is to deconflict overlapping committees. The turning point recommends the president is on the white house to lead these efforts and enhance accountability for results and wall structures important, its equally critical of the Incoming Administration demonstrates leadership and puts greater weight on soft power these are hard power. Its crucial that we think that the field needs to have autonomy. Foreign Service Officers must get out of their compounds and engage and develop relationships with local leaders who need the u. S. Government resources and support to compete with extremist voices on and off line. You can read more in the report about all of these areas but in closing we believe the central pillar to more than 60 years in creating and maintaining relationships abroad with leaders, innovators and change makers to influence conduct of International Affairs requires american commitment in strategic investment of resources over the very long term. It also requires us to live up to values of inclusiveness and tolerance here at home. The incoming the participants involved in csi as workshops hope the Incoming Administration worked with the Public Diplomacy career professionals who are the linchpin for maintaining relationships and focus on upholding programs that have proven effect even popular in creating greater understanding about american politics, history, culture and society. The misunderstanding of foundational facilitating stronger partnerships with state and nonstate actors to let fans u. S. National security object is moving forward. The roughly 40 different contributors into usc and also csis. Id now like to introduce the panel and welcome jim glassman, ben rose and mike crowley to this stage. Jim glassman was under secretary of state for Public Diplomacy from 2008 to 2009 under george w. Bush and currently a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise institute. Then rose as assistant City Strategic Communications and speechwriting, overseeing president of him as National Security communication in a speech writing the Global Engagement. Mike crowley is the Senior Foreign Affairs correspondent Foreign Policy and National Security issues. I go on about their biased but i believe you all know who they are new should have an reviewed version and a bias in front of you. Then, jim and mike, welcome to this stage. [applause] thank you, catherine for the fine introduction. We are going to start with remarks from our esteemed gas to home ill post a couple of questions and then we will time out again for your questions. Then, we are going to kick off with you. Tell us whats on your mind and jamil have a chance and ill ask you guys a couple questions. Ive got a lot on my mind. Look, ill be brief so economic conversation. For eight years, weve wrestled with this question on how to enhance Public Diplomacy and agree with a lot of recommendations. Just make a few points about what we try to do, where things are now. First, we tried to go beyond the visiting infrastructure of Exchange Programs and Public Diplomacy abroad and find new ways to reach more audiences. The principle parts of that effort were a lot in the recommendations. We asked, how do we talk to people about what they want to talk about. One of the challenges his communications and Public Diplomacy is the u. S. Every day talking to people all around the world about terrorism and Nuclear Weapons in the South China Sea and Global Security issues. Thats not whats on the minds of people. They want to work with the United States cannot leadership in science and technology. We werent talking to her audience about what the audience wanted to hear about. This does relate to cbe. So much of the focus is on countering other narratives. But if we fall in a trap of doing not. We are not telling people what we stand for. Sometimes the most powerful message is one that frankly doesnt even have to directly take on terrorist narrative although we have to do that as well. Its one that less one that lists up to things other people care about in other countries. Our entrepreneurship work really struck a chord. In every region of the world because whether youre in kenya are malaysia or indonesia, you look at the United States nec Silicon Valley. You see people who are your age who are publishing anonymous things and creating the tools and you want to be like that. Were able to take american entrepreneurs around the world through a process of the summit and brin that his son then put the u. S. Government. The embassies use that as a tool for entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs and channel the energy msn poker events and improving their own lives. Having not affirmative basis to meet people and reformers is essential to the u. S. Government. Our programs are very good, but theyre also very expensive. What we did to our Young Leaders initiative is use on my networks that now have several hundred thousand people in africa and Southeast Asia in modern america to use that as a pool of people that include the Fellowship Program to bring people here but also branded the way people in africa due. And talk to them in a way their own leaders didnt talk to them. Most people became their own network so if the crisis took place like the ebola crisis, we saw a room participants in the network working together even without a to mobilize a Public Health response. It also frankly is an entry point to engaging audiences. The Young Leaders initiatives become a forum for pulling together people for a roundtable on events. A brandnew tool of engagement that again has us talking to extremists. We dont have to begin the conversation. We want you to talk about why it is wrong. We want you to come into the embassies and talk about a business for Civil Society organization. The conversation relevant to their lives and build out the alternatives to every negative narrative weather comes from from the state or nonstate actor. So i wont go on because its really important that we dont lose sight of this need for affirmative programming that allows us to build the networks of people that can be utilized in any number of ways. And frankly empowers people and it done right by connecting with one another when we talked to participate in. One of the things that got the most out of bushs meeting each other because there could be someone in nigeria who is trying to bring mobile menace into villages and he made a guy in kenya has done something similar and has developed a nap on his own they cannot be used by the young leader in nigeria. The u. S. Has is convening power that no other country has given the enormous apparatus of our government and we use it to its a significant component. Ruthanne countering violent extremism and propaganda, which is at the forefront, i assume youll get into this in the q a. Im a rush of peace, i do think part of this is just raising awareness around the issue. Part of this is very much what was said about the need to be faster with information where there is declassified information or just knocking down narratives. When the plane was shot down over ukraine, we did what responsible people do. We would, gathered evidence even though we knew what happened with various sources. Months later the dutch investigation made public in that time the russians have propagated 10 different narratives about what happened with that plane and they shall in all sense of confusion about who did it, where it was done. We have to be faster in dealing with people who live because they dont really care about whether their information checks out. Their own story changes daytoday. Their point is not so much just an alternative narrative. Its about facts and about whats real and whats not. We can talk about that more. On extremism, and i think what is required is to not, you know, kind of patronizing tone sometimes and how we talk to audiences about this. Everybody comes back to the two most things we can do is reveal what the reality is. I think we take for granted that people in other countries know how bad these guys are. People who are traveling to syria and iraq did not know what it was like to be there and part of what we were able to do is start publicizing what is like to live under. The people who had went and got the solution. The nature of governance, that alone contributes to diminishing the foreign fighter flow, getting out the real story of what happened in knowing youre not speaking to people in the United States. You have to convey this to other countries. Frankly to do that, you have to be willing to work with people we disagree with about a lot of those things. I used to get speakers programs into that vein. An inquiry from a journalist, why is this guy being sent abroad. He said this in a mosque on years ago. If you want to reach people come you have to work with partners who disagree with u. S. Foreign policy. We have to be able to take some risks in building a big enough network of partners that were able to reach people where they are. The last one is going to make is the best thing we can do in this space is put together voice, not around so Civil Society markers and nongovernmental partners of majority countries, religious leaders, we have to understand the most excessive program may be the one that doesnt have the u. S. U. S. Government as a communicator, but rather the u. S. Is using it to lift up other credible voice is to encourage other countries to do the same. And what we can do is bring to bear unique capabilities, unique technical capabilities, Lessons Learned from our experiences around the world and therefore we are the forceful supplier even if we are not the principal communicator. Thank you, jim. Thank you, michael. I want to especially thank shannon, kathryn and jay for the paper especially shannon for building this program at csi asked. I cant find her wherever she went. Thank you on ambassador wharton for being here. So im going to be a little more conceptual and look at my notes. I got into the Public Diplomacy exactly 13 years ago completely by accident because i was asked to be on the commission that the ambassador had on Public Diplomacy tours the arab and muslim world as it was called. Although we looked at Public Diplomacy and a much broader way. It was mostly academic. And i did most of the writing that i learned a lot. So i just want to review one of our conclusions. At a critical time in our nations history, it has proven inadequate, especially in the arab and muslim world. The fault lies not with the dedicated men and women at the state department and elsewhere to practice Public Diplomacy on americas behalf around the world, but a system that is lacking both Strategic Direction and resources. So i would say that those are words you can probably write today. That was in 2003. Very little has changed despite the best after of the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration which has done a lot of really good work. The paper the kathryn and shannon and jay have written since the Trump Administration will inherit a sound Public Diplomacy apparatus. That is of course much like the common that we conveyed in the group defaults not with the people who are doing the work. The fault is with defining what the work is and how it relates to the rest of government. Thats a problem that still has not been resolved. So let me try to resolve the period i strongly believe Public Diplomacy should be strategic and obviously thats a word is quite happy, means lots of different things. You must use the tools of nonviolent persuasion to reach specific ends. They need to be specific goals. I was on a task force with joseph nye, whos the father of the concept of soft power that the bipartisan policy center. When i raised this issue, is that Public Diplomacy does three things. You can define the categories in a temporal way. In the short term, and never really thought about this. In the short term, it explains u. S. Policy and pushes against lies and distortions, for example. In the long term it gets people to like us better, not just because we like it when people like it, but also makes it easier for us to achieve our policy goals. But in the medium term that i think is the most important. That is kind of one to five years. If a president ial term. Over this period, Public Diplomacy needs to be mobilized to accomplish discrete National Security and Foreign Policy ends with the efforts of persuasion that are directed at foreign citizens. For example, helping baltic countries mount a defense against russian aggression potential russian aggression. Encouraging the iranian public to oppose the building of Nuclear Weapons. Helping to bring cubans to democracy and free markets showing them the power of choice and not premiership. This is the Public Diplomacy should do in the medium term. Yet Public Diplomacy should also do the cultural and social initiative explain. Although im not one of those who believes that countering this very fact did anything but a very heard some of that earlier. Youve made to refute lies, but dont expect that reputation is going to get you all that far. The medium term is medium term as much as then i believe that lack data needs to be the focus. How does Public Diplomacy relate to the rest of government . Right now, not very well. Take the largest civilian Public Diplomacy program, the broadcasting board of governors which i formerly chaired and several whose officials are here today and i love. The broadcasting board of governors, even with the new legislation, it sits out as an independent entity. As we wrote 13 years ago, broadcasting represents nearly half the spending on Public Diplomacy and it must be part of the Public Diplomacy process, not marching to his own drummer with its own goals and strategy sources of funding. The board situation changed a little bit and i think that marching to its drummer, maybe thats a little extreme and maybe that was true 13 years ago. I think the bbc has done a good job of trying to be more connect ed with the foreign apparatus and during the Obama Administration. Thats good. Legally its not. Thats a big problem. It is the undersecretary, i think you are due no that do not control the people who do the work and they are connected to the regional bureaus, not to the functional Public Diplomacy. Public diplomacy must be a part of the Foreign Policy and National Security apparatus to the United States. It is a tool the same way diplomacy as a tool chorus that sanctions are a tool and International Organizations are a tool and military power as a tool. This brings me to my conclusion and again ill go back to the reporter. So for years four years before we wrote the report come in the usia, United States Information Agency was dismantled and purse were integrated into the state department not particularly well. When we started our work that we were not going to advocate bringing usia back. That would be politically impossible and it made sense. I think enough time has passed and on january 5th, James Clapper and director of National Intelligence told the Senate Armed Services committee, we can do with having a usia on steroids fight this information war. He is referring to russia a lot more aggressively than we are doing now. I strongly agree with that. Clapper was specifically talking about prou. S. Messaging through social media to counter the effects of sputnik. But i would propose something bigger. Public diplomacy is more effective when it helps launch selfsustaining networks, when it encourages and disseminates the voices of isis defectors as benjy said her prodemocracy russian. That is when it enables trusted voices that arent american. And the war of ideas which i was happy to see that term resurfaced after eight years during Rex Tillersons confirmation hearings. We will get into that in the q a. But i think we need to get the mission and the structure of rate first we dont need anything as big as they was. Government is not known as a generator of communications. This new u. S. A. I should were in something and the rate structure. Shes it will have two advantages that the current structure does not. It can generate a real core and it can generate funding because there will be no end it will be exciting and unfortunately that is what you need for funding. So i see this new u. S. Information or as a custodian of mediumterm Public Policy projects. It will be housed under Public Diplomacy or maybe acting undersecretary for Public Diplomacy. It would continue to direct the longerterm efforts of the office such as Exchange Programs. In 2006, president bush directed to be the interagency lead for strategic communications. We set up a way to do that with a large interagency month a group that included treasury, usaid and so forth and a smaller fulltime group that drew from state dod and intelligence the Intelligence Community. And with a very, very close connection to the nsc. I think the structure could work. Permission to use the tools of nonviolent persuasion to help achieve specific and that may assess a measurable goals in the national interest. The relationship with the rest of government much tighter than it has been today for all aspects of public including u. S. International broadcasting in an infrastructure that includes that includes a small Information Court with a strong connection to the private sector using the power of persuasion not merely to tell stories and push back, but to develop and disseminate new narratives to get back in the game and win. Thank you. Thank you. That was really interesting. Time for a couple questions which are the best part. Then, let me ask you first. I suspect im not the only person in this room wondering how carefully donald trump and his senior officials are going to read reports like this and how much time they are going to dedicate to making Public Diplomacy atop priority. Still a little foggy. Diplomacy is not sent him he put a high value on and one hears talk about streamlining the state department will do overseas. When it comes to countering russian propaganda, that is a very confusing topic in the context right now. My question to you is how do you frame what we are talking about today in the report on the table today. How would you pitch it to donald trump or senior advisers . How would you argue it is in their selfinterest to wonders in this and act on its recommendation in the context of their stated foreignpolicy goals. Is that sent a new feel like you could get your arms around . The blueprint for winning. When they think about that. They will pursue obviously their own e. I think that there needs to be be. We need to be seen as the country that represents the different elements of opportunity to people around the world. For instance, as i was saying, we want somebody who is young and ambitious and doesnt see exactly what the road to opportunity is, whether they are in vietnam or kenya or malaysia or what have you, to be looking to the United States as the model to emulate and the Gold Standard for learning how to achieve your dreams. That can be three or pursuit of higher education, that can be through your understanding of how do you actually take an idea and start up business. That can be your understanding of how you utilize technology and social media to build your own network and communicate. That essentially, but we have that china and russia dont have is a pathway to individual opportunities that is recognizable to people everywhere. What Public Diplomacy programs can do, if theyre good, again, give people the sense that not only do they want to have connection to the United States, they want to make contact with our embassy, but they want to make contact with americans where they want to reach an American University or they want to learn from the american models of business. All contact will benefit us, but frankly they also want to be reformers on behalf of certain ways of doing business and accomplishing things in their own country. We have seen our Entrepreneurship Program lead to much more concerted ways in which people are seeking to create legal frameworks where you can start a business and corruption is exposed through transparency mechanisms, and use of social media or mobile technologies. I guess the point i would make is if we are around the world making it the business of the u. S. Government to engage on things people care about, that is going to benefit our economic interest because will make those countries more dynamic in their own economic trip growth, and it will build relationships between those countries and populations in the United States. It will create a pipeline of people who work in multinational corporations and regional offices. The wiring of the Global Economy and how that connects with opportunity, theres a huge Public Diplomacy component to that. Thats the mechanism of which we have that conversation, not just with executives, but with young people in a broader sense of the community. Framing it in economics. I think its overlooked. Theres an Enormous Economic return on politics. One of the underappreciated metrics of diplomacy is, we have an Exchange Program with two way study abroad. The reason that has significant support is enlightened self interest. They want people in their Corporate Headquarters or they want people in their regional offices who have studied in the United States or they want americans who know the region better and can therefore, its creating a pipeline of people that will help them do business around the world. Frankly our Young Leader Program turned into a vetting Employment Agency because they know weve taken the time to identify the best talent in the country and they are hiring from that pool. Let me put you up there with apologies because we do want to get to the audience. Could you just talk, something that jumped out about your remark about Silicon Valley which people talked about for years, they never seem to take that quantum leap where you can imagine some kind of Government Partnership with facebook and twitter that was an incredible force multiplier. I just wondered if you could talk more about how there could be more synergy there. First well, its hard because its not easy for the companies to manage the people who work in silicone valley. The thought that the government is going to tell these people what to do, its difficult. In some ways, some of the things ive seen, in some cases there going off on their own and i think thats not a bad idea. They are making their own kinds of connections. For example, some defector videos are made by the u. S. Government. You can imagine similar kinds of videos that are being done by the private sector. There emulating. Right, thats not doing foreignpolicy. I think you want to use Silicon Valley to do specific, difficult technological things that youre not going to be able to get people in the state department to do, assignments of that nature. That doesnt mean thats all the private sector can do. Okay, who has questions . We have a microphone coming around. We will start with you, wearing wearing glasses spread we can come to you after that. Please introduce yourself. My name is damon woods. I am a former pd officer at the state department. I was there for 13 years. A lot of us in this room have worked in pd and trying to understand the one thing that was always talk to me was policy. If you have good policy its easy to communicate people, even if you dont like the policy, if its good policy where you can understand the fundamental of what the policy is. What do you think is, in Public Diplomacy, what is is the relationship to policy in getting out the message. I think in general its not tight enough. My answer to the donald trump question is, you tell us what your policy is, what do you want to do when it comes to Foreign Policy. Do you want to get rid of nato . Do you want to stop the russians from invading another country . Whatever it is, you decide what the policy is, and then you have a toolbox that you can use to affect that policy, to achieve it. Part of it is military, part of it as economic sanctions, part of it is diplomacy. All of these things are important. One of the things you have that you might not even know you have, and can be enhanced, is Public Diplomacy. That is very effective. It should be mobilized to achieve that specific and i agree with you, i think the default position, as ive seen it in Public Diplomacy often is, we want people to like us. That is our job. My job as a pd officer is to get these people in the country that im working in two like us. There is nothing wrong with that fine, but really that is not an end, that is a means to a specific ends. I think your question is a good one. The policy has not been communicated clearly enough so we know exactly why we are doing it. Just quickly, its a twoway street. I think, in terms of what we ask of pd officers, i think its crazy to think that a pd officer officer our Foreign Policy is what is going to shape perception of the United States. You can have the best pd officer in the world and if what they see back here is unappealing to them, or what they see happening in their country that they associate with, it doesnt matter what you do. I think we have to stop thinking that whatever the policy is, if we just get though wire and diagram right while that is very important, i think there has been too much of a scapegoating of the diplomacy apparatus. People shape their judgments about america, that can be affected around the margins by really Good Communications and pd work, but they ship it by how we look, whats happening inside america, and what we do around the world. We have to recognize that. This is my second point. We tried to do this, messaging concerns in Public Diplomacy concern should be part of the policymaking process. Ive often found at the test drive for how this policy will work. We will be discussing policies, and when it gets time to talk about how were going to deploy it, were like thats not going to fly in that country. In fact, it becomes a gut check. I actually think you can turn it inside out and suggest that we learn from our pd engagements, and we learn from how we are engaging the public in ways that should inform policy. Not to say we cooked up this policy and you go sell it. But rather, how would this be received by these different audiences in the country. If the answer is with a resounding thud, for example, if our approach to counterterrorism is going to alienate people in the very communities that we want to reach, it doesnt matter how good the countering information is. You have to see that its integrated into policymaking so those concerns are incorporated. If this really is about ideas and winning, i dont like to suggest were fighting over people in other parts of the world, thats not how they see it, but i think we have to recognize it, who we are talking to. They are going to make judgments not based on how we choose them to make those judgments, but what they experience in their lives. I think its taking the matter of Public Diplomacy into policymaking and not just selling the policy. My name is frank albert. I wondered if one of you, perhaps been, could talk about the merits or different situations where overt and covert messaging has advantages in trying to reach counterterrorism, and how those two are coordinated. I believe that traditionally has been part of the role but i wonder if you could talk about that in more detail without getting into classified information. I think while there may be times for covert effort, we should be owning our arguments so thats the first one. The second point is, i think there has to be, there is a danger also that budgets are bigger in the intelligence defense department, and therefore, sometimes stuff happens in other places because there happens to be money there to do it. Thats a really bad reon to do something. We try very hard to nest these efforts of the state department. Thats why we set up a Global Engagement center so at least there was a state lead on these issues, because again i think there can be a budgetary poll toward why dont we just put this in i see or dod because they have lots of money to do this stuff. Frankly theyre doing a lot of other things and this gets to the policy question. It should be the people communicating it and giving the guidance. Lastly, there just has to be a regular coordinating mechanism. I cant tell you how many times i felt like i was the only person in the government who knew, not that i wanted to to be, but just because it does come to the department and i think the state department has to be empowered by being more included in everything that has to do with messaging. They need to know whats been communicated in a country and what the platforms are in that country and how that interacts with their country. My bias in all of these things is towards the state department being in the loop. Let me address that question. This is really important. I think the Intelligence Community definitely has a role in the kind of activities we are talking about. The state department does and the military does and so does treasury and some of the others. I agree with ben that the state department should have the lead and thats the way we structured it. The nsc should be very tightly tied into that entire apparatus. Thats also the way we structure it. We set up a global Strategic Engagement center, which i call that that almost as a joke because its sort of a name that doesnt mean anything, and it included members of all three of those institutions. We did coordination and deep confliction to the degree that we could with direction. Because we were tied into the nsc, we got a lot of support from the white house. It was actually working pretty well. Then it disappeared and gosh, i look looked like its coming back without the s, but its pretty much the same kind of thing. I think thats a good thing and i hope the next administration doesnt scrap it and start all over again. I think you need all these different elements of government but you need one leader and that should come to the state department closely tied to the nsc. In the back there. Im rachel, a foreign officer who recently returned from pakistan. Where i over saw millions of dollars of diplomacy programs. I would say one of the things that we as pds struggle with his understanding how effective the program we are implementing are. Especially when countering violent extremism. Ultimately our goal is to counter that narrative but also prevent young men and women from signing up with those organizations. How do we actually know that our programs are doing that, because we cant go out into the field and actually ask people. This gets to the point of are we doing what we should be doing. Are we doing what works which is what Catherine Brown and the report is suggesting that we do. First of all, your question about the policy as well, basically we would ask the Public Diplomacy officers in pakistan when the conversation about u. S. Policy was something that we couldnt even really talk about. From the pakistani perspective, they wanted to know about drones and we werent allowed to discuss certain things and then the expectation is is that the pd program can move the needle so i think one point in covert messaging, our Foreign Policy generally needs to be as transparent as possible. Frankly nothing is secret in this world anyway. It all comes out at a certain point anyway. I would like to see, one of of the things i would recommend to the future administration is to have bias not just in the messaging side but to have greater transparency. In pakistan, the reality is we have to understand the tradeoffs and someone whos been through a lot of these debates the last two years, its its just a reality that the message we get from here. [inaudible] of our diplomats and personnel and thats not going to change even if thats the political reality. Theres been a decision made that the risk is too great to take on certain. Thats where he had to get creative and build relationships of people are able to get to places were not able to get to. Thats why networks are so important. You just have to find ways to create that link in the chain. The final thing i would say that might be a little provocative, but i think we get a lot more return on our programming money in places that are not so. [inaudible] you could kind of think of the places that are really actively challenging like pakistan or afghanistan where our policy will fundamentally make our relationship with that government and the decisions they make will overwhelmingly determine views. Im nothing we shouldnt do pd programming, back and risk being overwhelmed by the policy context that its taking place. Then theres places in the world that i think we feel reasonably good about but then theres swing places like subsaharan africa, Southeast Asia, regions that have a mix of challenge and opportunity. A little bit of resources in those places. If we took a fraction of the money that we spent in iraq and afghanistan and put it into pd programming, i think you have enormous return on that investment. Thats not meant in any way to diminish the incredible work that people have done in those places, i think its just a reality from a budgetary perspective. Youre going to get more return in an environment that is more open where there are not the constraints in the policy context that risks and all the work that is done is undone by an air airstrike i think we need to look for places where we know there is a risk that it could go either way and are we resourcing their. We go live now to the Dirksen Senate Office Building on capitol hill for the confirmation hearing for them nominee tod