National security advisor ben rhodes. And former undersecretary of state jim glassman to begin. Theyll be talking about Public Diplomacy of the past two president ial administrations and what they recommend for the Incoming Trump administration. Good afternoon. Were going to go ahead and get started. N my name is shannon green, senior fellow and director of the human rights director and it is my distinct pleasure to welcome you today for what proves to be a fascinating discussion on Public Diplomacy and National Security. We have a very full program today so i thought i would very briefly walk through the agenda before we invite the speakers on to the stage. First up we have Catherine Brown and jay wong who will present the paper that we just published online today called Public Diplomacy and National Security in 2017. Building alliances, fighting extremism, and dispelling disinformation. Catherine is counsel on Foreign RelationsInternational Affairs fellow and a visiting fellow with my program here at csis. Weve been very fortunate to have her for a couple of months leading this work on Public Diplomacy. She most recently served as the executive director of the u. S. Advisory commission on Public Diplomacy. Jay wong is an associate professor at the Usc Annenberg school for communication and journalism and director of the usc center on Public Diplomacy. Paper that they are going to present to you today emerged from a workshop that we held jointly with jays center back in november. Essentially what it does is conducts an assessment of where weve been with Public Diplomacy what are the main successes under the Obama Administration, and then we suggest some ways that we can strengthen Public Diplomacy going forward. So then following that brief presentation, Michael Crowley from politico will lead a discussion with two central figures in Public Diplomacy, ben rhodes and ambassador jim glassman. We are extremely fortunate to have both of them here today to share their experiences and senior roles in the obama and Bush Administrations respectively. Then during this time youll have an opportunity to ask ben and jim some questions about Public Diplomacy so well open up the floor for a q a. Finally, well hear from acting undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and public affairs, Bruce Wharton, who is poised to very ably lead the Public Diplomacy apparatus at stake through the transition. So after the formal program well invite you all to join us for a Cocktail Reception. The paper really looks more specifically at how to leverage Public Diplomacy to build alliances, counterbalance extremism and also to dispel disinformation from state actors. This paper was an effort by about 40 different stake holders from across government, from academia, Civil Society, and through different Public Diplomacy implementing partners to really try to create a document of record of the progress that weve seen the last eight years with Obama Administration, building on progress from the Bush Administration, and to give our best possible prescriptions moving forward in to the next administration. So im going to welcome jay now up to the stage to go over the top line 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. We are very glad to be back in d. C. And to be a partner with todays discussion and also for this particular study. So as catherine 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, their role in counter violent extremism, defining influence of fake narratives by state actors especially activities directed by the kremlin and building and strengthening networks with foreign publics. When Trump Administration officials enter into the government they will find a pd apparatus consumed by these critical issues. Therefore, workshop participants aim to identify successes, pinpoint enduring challenges, and provide concrete recommendations for reforms and improvements in all of 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. Sta 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 nonelite audiences through various existing Exchange Programs and through the Young Leaders initiatives, developing the Exchange Alumni office of the in the educational and Cultural Affairs bureau to maintain networks of tens of thousands of eca Program Alumni worldwide, advancing the team of entrepreneurship to leverage the soft power of american entrepreneurship and innovation, and continuing to enhance a career path for preprofessional to Better ConnectPublic Diplomacy with policy including increasing advancement of Foreign Service officers to pd roles. Yet enduring challenges remain for pd program fishers in. They include confronting the gap between ideals and reality within the United States, with foreign citizens. As domestic news, as we all know, it is often picked up and relaid overseas by foreign outlets. News stories on violence, Police Brutality and issues of American Society confronts every day such as racism, discrimination, illustrate or enduring value of transparency. But 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 do not connect to a foreign citizen. Moreover, working within a stymied bureaucratic structure continues to be difficult for pd practitioners to effectively engage abroad. There are several road blocks ensuring that there is sufficient strategic planning, budgeting and research to support Public Diplomacy operations which we outline in the report. Thought leaders and experts consulted for this 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. It should also put a premium on recruiting political appointees with Technical Expertise needed to advance effective and impactful pd programs. Continuing to take Audience Research and impact evaluations seriously, paying close attention to Audience Research to help shape and inform 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 that our conversations with members of congress and their staffs emphasize how Public Diplomacy programs and tools Work Together and how they apply to various global and bilateral challenges. And 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 addressed more targeted issues currently relevant to the Foreign Policy landscape and the role of Public Diplomacy. Building and strengthening alliances, countering violent extremism and countering the negative inplufluence of false narratives from state actors, particularly activities directed by the kremlin. So i will share with you just a general some of the general points for one particular area of discussion, how we define state narrative false narratives from state actors through Public Diplomacy. Catherine will come and talk about building alliances ant countering violent extremism in Public Diplomacy. Increasingly we are seeing state actors advancing false narratives. They are meant to influence Public Opinion around the world, to turn it against the United States. While some of the technologies at issue are new, it is crucial to remember that u. S. Public diplomacy has responded successful to similar threats in its history. Many elements of u. S. Public diplomacy in International Broadcasting were created specifically to defy adversary influence during the cold war. This experience continues to hold valuable lessons for us in continuing strategies going forward. In terms of themes we need to articulate in the broadest terms who weals the west stand for. In present conditions, it is important that American Values such as human rights be presented as universal rather than geographically specific. This said, . 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 audience, not solely focusing on countering narratives of others. People have an inherent right to Accurate Information and acknowledge that this is a battleground of ideas and world views. We can defend post world war ii and multilateralism. This could provide a framework to address such a vision. In terms of tools, pd tactics to counter this information need to be revamped. The white house and state department should work with congress on legislation to support public resource and stable Public Diplomacy platforms and programs in countries and regions most affected by disinformation campaigns. In terms of research, the state Department Needs to do a better job of listening to target audiences to understand their needs and the impact of pd programs and messaging efforts. This means partnering with local ngos who understand these audiences better. Audiences consistently request not only news but also entertainment in local languages, such as russian, so they are not dependent on russian entertainment and absorbing the russian world view in the process. Producing this content will require partnering with local news and entertainment professionals. The state department should try to reopen american spaces in russia beyond the u. S. Embassy in moscow. Finally, it should be remembered that the u. S. Tactics in a cold war included direct negotiations with the ussr on information propaganda issues. If media has become an armament and information a tool of policy influence, the United States needs a negotiating process that puts Public Diplomacy at the center. Finally, in terms of structure, there are two things of coordination within the United States government that need to improve. First, the Intelligence Community needs to do a better job of declassifying and releasing intelligence that demonstrates russian and other states attempts to influence political and social debates and sew doubt and suspicion within the United States and our allies. Second, the u. S. Government should bring together a brain trust of experts on disinformation, including academics and the private sector to inform the u. S. Governments interagency approach to this issue. In addition to local ngos and Civil Society networks overseas. Within the apparatus of u. S. Public diplomacy, the information teams within imp should be tren scentral itzed t more responsive to local governments. And develop a region at strategic with the european and Central Asian countries to rebuild a common agenda for security and development and to offer the kind of vision that will not only inspire our friends but in times transform conditions that lead people to position ourselves as our adversaries. Ill ask catherine to give us an overview of some of the recommendations in the other two areas. Helped with the creation of that part of the report. For the sake of time im going to very quickly just go over the countering violent extremism dimension of this paper. It is online and you will see that we go through building and strengthening alliances, dispelling disinformation from state actors but also focus on themes, tools and structures needed for all three of those areas. For cve, this discussion on countering violent extremism at our workshop was based on the november report turning point which provides the u. S. Administration a strategy to counter violent terrorism. While the u. S. Government has invested much in hard power tactics to fight terrorism, it has overlooked the soft power necessary to blunt the extremist ideologie ideologies. By helping to leverage american soft power and help persuade foreign citizens from being drawn into extremist ideologies and narratives. Under the themes necessary we felt for the the next administration to promote when it comes to Public Diplomacys role in cve. The u. S. Must develop a stronger narrative that focuseses on integrating individuals into the local, regional and Global Economy. And also a more positive narrative would encourage greater tolerance and an emphasis on dig nitd anity and. Generally supporting development in societies in which people, including minorities and the most vulnerable, have plenf fup avenues to find meaning and belonging. For tools to promote these more inclusive themes, the u. S. Government needs to empower local Civil Society actors and ensure they have the operating space and Political Support to do so. Pd officers should also support the creation and summation of books and literature that promote tolerance in schools via mobile libraries. In exchange dimension of Public Diplomacy is key here as well. Professional Development Activity such as International VisitorLeadership Programs can be used more strategically to foster networks between for rirn and american businesses. In foreign academic institutions and Civil Society leaders and religious institutions. Structurally we believe given the people centric nature, it makes all of this work all this work should be led by civilians and government. That leadership should also work to improve intraagency cooperation and know that Public Diplomacys role in cve is to deconflict overlapping activities. Turning point point recommends an assistant to the president on cve to enhance accountability for results. While structure is important it is equally critical that the Incoming Administration demonstrates leadership on cve and puts greater weight on soft power. It is crucial here also that we think that the field needs to have some autonomy. Foreign Service Officers must get out of their Embassy Compounds and engage and develop relationships with local leaders who need the u. S. Governments resources and support to compete with and overtake extremist voices on and offline. You can read more in the report about all of these areas. But in closing, we just believe that Public Diplomacy has been a central pillar for more than 60 years in creating and maintaining our relationships abroad. This requires continued american commitment and the strategic investment of resources over the very long term. It also requires us to live up to our values of inclusiveness and tolerance and pluralism here at home. So the incoming participants involved in the csis workshops hope Incoming Administration will work closely with the Public Diplomacy career professionals who are the linchpins for maintaining these relationships and focus on upholding program that have proven effective and popular in creating greater understanding about american politics, history, culture and society. We believe that this understanding is foundational to facilitating stronger partnerships with state and nonstate actors that will advance u. S. National security objectives moving forward. Many thanks to the roughly 40 different contributors for this paper and to usc. Also to shan non green here. Id like to welcome the panel up to the stage. Jim glassman was under secretary of state for Public Diplomacy from 20082000 the under george w. Bush. He is currently visiting fellow at the American Enterprise institute. Ben rhodes oversees president obamas National Security communications, speech writing and global engagement. Mike crowley is politicos Senior Foreign Affairs correspondent covering Foreign Policy and National Security issues. I could go on about their bios but i believe you all know who they are and you should have an abbreviated versions of their o bios in front of you. Welcome to the stage. Thank you. [ applause ]. Thank you, catherine, for that kind introduction. Thanks, everybody, for coming. Well start with remarks from our esteemed guests to whom i will pose a couple of questions. Then we will have time at the end for your questions. Ben, were going to kick off with you. So, tell uls whats on your mind, then jim, youll have your chance and ill ask you guys a couple questions. Ive got a lot on my mind. Yeah. Let it rip. Please. Look, ill be brief so that we can have a conversation. For eight years, weve wrestled with this question, how do enhance Public Diplomacy and i think would agree with a lot of the recommendations. I would just make a few points about what weve tried to do and where things are now. First, we tried to go beyond the existing infrastructure of Exchange Programs and Public Diplomacy abroad and find new ways to reach more audiences. The principle parts of that effort were i think in line with some recommendations. We asked how do we talk to people about what they want to talk about . One of the challenges for someone in both communications and Public Diplomacy, the u. S. Every day is talking to people around the world about terrorism and Nuclear Weapons and the South China Sea and Global Security issues given our role as a super power. Thats not whats on the mind of people. We did Public Opinion analysis. They want to work with the United States on issues related to education and entrepreneurship and science and technology. So we werent talking to our audience about the audience wanted to hear about. So we tried to design programs that are more affirmative. I think this does relate to cve. So much of the focus is on countering other narratives, but if we fall under the trap of only doing that, we arent putting forward any alternative narrative. Were not telling people what we stand for. And sometimes the most powerful message is one that, frankly, doesnt even have to directly take on a terrorist narrative, although we have to do that as well. It is one that lifts up the things that other people care about in other countries. Our entrepreneurship work really struck a chord. We were pushing against an open door in every region of the world, because whether you are in kenya or malaysia, or indonesia, you look at the United States and you cecile se Silicon Valley. You see people your age who are accomplishing enormous things and creating tools that are changing your life. And you want to be like that. So we were able to take american entrepreneurs around the world through a process of summits and then brand that as something thats associated with the u. S. Government so that then embassies can use that as a tool for engagement with entrepreneurs in different countries. Frankly, the entrepreneurs are ultimately the ultimate rebuke to isil because these are people trying to build these in these places and trying to chann ingie energy. Even the sense of grievance they may have towards improving their own lives. I think having that affirmative basis to meet people who, by the way, are also going to be changemakers and reformers in countries, is essential to the u. S. Government. Our traditional Exchange Programs are very good but theyre also very expensive. What we did through our Young Leaders initiatives is use Online Networks that now have several hundred thousand people in africa, Southeast Asia and latin america and use that as a pool of people that includes a Fellowship Program to bring people here, but also was branded in a way that people in africa knew that president obama cared about young people and was interested in what they had to say and talked to them in a way that their own leaders didnt talk to them. Then those people became their own networks. So that if a crisis took place like the ebola crisis, we saw our own participants in this network working together, even without us, to mobilize a Public Health response. It also, frankly, is just an entry point to engaging audiences for our embassies. So the Young Leaders initiatives become a forum for pulling together people for a roundtable or an event. It becomes a branded tool of engagement that, again, has us talking to the audience that is also targeted by extremists. But we dont even have to begin the conversation by saying, we want you all to come down to the embassy to talk about why isil is wrong. Were saying, we want you to come into the embassy to talk to you about how you can start a business, or start a Civil Society organization. It adds quality to their lives and builds out the alternative to every negative narrative, whether it comes from the state or nonstate actor. So we sought to i wont go on because i want to get to a discussion. But i think it is really important that we dont lose sight of this need for affirmative programming, that talks to people where they are, that allows us to build networks of people that can be utilized in any number of ways. Frankly, empowers people in its own right by connecting them with one another. When we talked to these participants in these programs, one of the things that they said they got the most out of was just meeting each other. Because there could be someone in nigeria whos trying to bring mobile medicine to villages. He meets a guy in kenya who is doing something similar and hes developed an app on his phone that then can now be used by the young leader in nigeria. So the u. S. Has this convening power that no other country has given the enormous apparatus of our government and we need to use it. Again, like i said, there is a significant digital component. Very briefly on countering violent extremism and russian propaganda which is at the forefront, i assume you will probably get into this in the q a. On the russia piece, i do think part of this is just raising the awareness around the issue. Part of this is very much what was said about the need to be faster with information, whether its declassified information or just knocking down narratives. Because ill give you an example. When the plane was shot down over ukraine. We did what responsible people do. We waited, gathered evidence, even though we knew what happened from various sources, we, months later the dutch investigation was made public. In that time the russians have propagated ten different narratives about what happened with that plane. And theyve sewn all kinds of confusion about who did it, where it was done. We have to be faster in dealing with people who lie. Because they dont really care about whether their information checks out. Their own story often changes day to day. But thats not the point. Their point is not so much just to put forward an alternative narrative. It is just to sow doubt about facts and about whats real and whats not. We could talk about that a lot more. On extremism, i think what is required is to not this kind of a patronizing tone sometimes in how we talk to audiences about this. I think the central insight that everybody always comes back to is the two most effective things we can do, one just reveal the reality of what isil is. I think we take for granted that people in other countries know how bad these guys are. But people who are traveling to syria and iraq did not know what it was like to actually be there. Part of what we were able to do is just start publicizing what it is like to live under isil. The experiences that people had to went and got disillusions. The nature of governance in isilcontrolled areas. That alone i think contributed to diminishing the foreign fighter flow. Just getting out the real story of what happened and knowing that you arent speaking to people in the United States who already understand this. You have to convey this to audiences in other countries. Frankly, to do that, you have to be willing to work with people that we disagree with about a lot of other things. I used to get speakers programs, the vetting. I was getting an inquiry from a journalist why is this guy being sent abroad when he said this in a mosque 20 years ago. Well, yeah. I mean if you want to reach people, you are going to 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 we are able to reach people where they are. That relates to the last point i was going to make which is that the best thing we can do in this space is lift up other voices. Not our own. So that whether it is Civil Society partners, other non governmental partners from muslim majority countries, religious leaders, we have to understand that the most Successful Program may be the one that doesnt have the u. S. Government as the communicator on it, but rather, the u. S. Is using its resources to lift up other credible voices to encourage other countries to do the same. What we can do is bring to bare unique capabilities. You need technical capabilities. Lessons learned from our experiences around the world. And therefore, were the force multiplier, even if we are not the principal communicator in that effort. Great. Thank you. Jim . Thank you, michael. It is great to be here with ben and mike. I want to especially thank shannon, catherine and jay for the paper, and especially shannon for building this program at csis. I cant find her. Thank you, ambassador wharton, for being here. This is great. So im going to be a little more conceptual and im going to look at my notes. So i got into the Public Diplomacy racket about exactly 13 years ago completely by accident because i was asked to be on a commission that another ambassador headed on Public Diplomacy for the arab and muslim world, as it was called. Though we looked at Public Diplomacy in a much broader way. It was mostly academics and me. And i did most of the writing but i learned a lot. So i just want to read you one of our conclusions. At a critical time in our nations history, the apparatus of Public Diplomacy has proven inadequate, especially in the arab and muslim world. The fault lies not with the dedicated men and women at the state department andless where who practice Public Diplomacy on americas behalf and around the world but with a system thats become outmoded lacking both strategic resourc resources. I would say that those are words you could probably write today. And that was in 2003. Very little has changed despite the best efforts of the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration, which has done a lot of really good work. The paper that catherine and shannon and jay have written says that the Trump Administration will, inherit a sound Public Diplomacy apparatus. And that is of course much like the comments that we conveyed in the other group. The fault is not with the people who are doing the work. Fault is with defining what the work is and how it relates to the rest of government. I think thats a problem that still has not been resolved. So let me try to resolve it. I strongly believe that Public Diplomacy should be strategic and obviously thats a word thats become quite hackneyed. Means lot of different things, but let me be precise. Public diplomacy must use the tools that nof nonviolent pers to reach specific ends. There need to be specific goals. I was on a task force with joseph nye, sort of the father of the concept of soft power at the bipartisan policy center. When i raised this issue, he said, you know, Public Diplomacy does three things. And you can define the categories in a kind of tell poral way. In the short term i never really thought about this. In the short term, it explains u. S. Policy and pushes back 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 us, but also so it makes it easier for us to achieve our policy goals. And in the but in the medium term, it is the medium term that i think is the most important. Thats kind of one to five years. It is a president ial term. And over this period, Public Diplomacy needs to be mobilized to accomplish discrete i mean ete national and Foreign Policy ends with National Initiatives directed at foreign citizens. For instance, 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 through showing them the power of choice and entrepreneurship. But specific ends. This is what Public Diplomacy should do in the medium term. Yes, Public Diplomacy should also do the cultural and the social, and it should explain. Although i am not one of those who believes that countering is very effective. I think weve already heard some of that earlier. That is to say, you need to refute lies, but dont expect that that refutation is going to get you all that far. But the medium term is what has been, i believe, neglected and needs to be the focus. Second, 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 officials are here today. And i love the broadcasting board of governors. Even with the new legislation though, it sits out as an independent entity. As we wrote in the report 13 years ago, broadcasting represents nearly half the spending on public bldiplomacy d it must be part of the Public Diplomacy process, not marching to its own drummer, sources of strategy and funding and board. I think marching to its own drum maybe thats a little extreme and maybe that was true 13 years ago. I think the bbg has done a good job of trying to be more connected with the Foreign Policy apparatus. Certainly during the Obama Administration that was a goal and i think thats good. But, legally, its not. I think thats a big problem. And its a problem that extends throughout Public Diplomacy. The undersecretary, as youll soon learn, bruce i think you already know does not control the vast majority of the people who do the work. They are connected to the regional brregion al bureaus, not to the Public Diplomacy bureau. Public diplomacy must be a part of the Foreign Policy and National Security apparatus of the United States. All of it. It is a tool the same way that diplomacy is a tool, coercive sanctions are a tool, International Organizations are a tool, and military power is a tool. So this brings me to my conclusion. Again, ill go back to the report of 2013. Four years before we wrote the report, the usia, United States information agency, was dismantled and its parts were integrated into the state department. Not particularly well. Ed droygen, heads the Baker Institute today, a smart man, told us when we started our work that we were not going to advocate bringing usia back. That would be political impossible. That would make sense. They just dissolved it four years before in a bipartisan effort. But i think enough time has passed, and on january 5th, james clapper, director of the National Intelligence director of National Intelligence, told the Senate Armed Services committee, we could do with having a usia on steroids, fight this informatio war. Hes referring to russia. A lot more aggressively than we are doing now and i strongly agree with that. Clapper was specifically talking about pro usa messaging through social media to counter the effects of rt and sputnik but i would propose something bigger. Public diplomacy is more effective when it helps launch selfsustaining networks, when it encourages and dissem natures the voices of i. C. E. Isis defectors and when it fights the war of ideas which i was happy to see that that term resurfaced after eight years during Rex Tillersons confirmation hearings. Im not going to dwell on the specific means and well get into the that in the q a but i think we need to get the mission and structure right first. We dont need anything as big as the usia was. In fact, of government is not known as a generator of innovate communications. We have the private sector to do that and this new usia should work with Silicon Valleys and other innovators, i think all of us in government have been trying to do for a long time. This new usia should be small and agile and it will have two advantages that the current structure does not. It can generate a real spree to core and it can generate funding because it will be new and exciting and unfortunately thats what you need for funding. So i see this new usia, the u. S. Information core as a cuss towedion of medium term. It will be housed under the secretary for Public Diplomacy or maybe the acting under secretary for Public Diplomacy who would continue to direct the longer term efforts of the office. In 2006, president bush directed our to be the interagency lead for Strategic Communications and we set up a way to do that with a large interagency monthly will group that included treasury, usid and so forth that drew from state dod and Intelligence Community and was led by r and with a very, very close connection to the nsc and i think that structure can work. Three points, the mission to use the tools of nonviolent persuasion to help achieve specific and let me also say measurable goals in the national interest. Relationship with the rest of government much, much tighter than it has been today for all aspects of Public Diplomacy including u. S. International broadcasting and the means of structure that includes a small information core with a strong connection to the assets of the private sector using the power of persuasion not merely to tell stories and to push back but to develop and disseminate new narratives to get back in the game and when. Thank you. Thank you, jim. That was really interesting. We just have time for a couple questions to make sure theres time for your questions which are always the best part. Ben, let me ask you first, i suspect im not the only person in this room wondering how careful donald trump and his officials are going to read reports like this and how much time theyre going to dedicate making Public Diplomacy a top priority . The general sense one gets from trump still a little foggy is that diplomacy is not something he puts a high value on and one hears talk about streamlining the mission of government particularly the state department and what the United States will do overseas. And i dont have to say that when it comes to countering russian propaganda that is a very confusing topic in this context right now. Is how would you frame the things were talking about today and the report on the table today . How would you pitch it to donald trump or his senior advisors . How would you argue that it is in their selfinterest to understand this and be act on its recommendations in the context of their stated Foreign Policy goals . Is that something that you feel like you could get your arms around . Its a blueprint for winning, michael. Let me think about that. They will pursue obviously their own Foreign Policy. I think that there needs to be the way i would pitch it, and again, i dont know this is how they would accept it is that we have lost sight of what the sources of our influence are in the world in many cases. The scorecard of Foreign Policy here as against the reality lived in countries around the world is very discor dant. And i guess what id say is that the question is how are we one way id guess id pitch it is if this is about a competition for Economic Leadership in the world, then we need to be seen as the country that represents the different elements of opportunity to people around the world. So, for instance, as i was saying, you know, we want somebody who is young and ambitious and doesnt see exactly what the road to opportunity is, whether theyre in vietnam or kenya or malaysia or what have you to be looking to the United States as the model to emulate and as the Gold Standard for learning how to achieve your dreams and that that can be through your pursuit of higher education, that can be tough your understanding of how do you actually take an idea and start a business. That can be through your understanding of how do you utilize technology and social media to build your own network and to communicate, that essentially what we have that china and russia dont have is a pathway to individual opportunity that is recognizable to people everywhere. And what Public Diplomacy programs are going to do if theyre good is, again, give people that sense that not only do they want to have connection to the United States, they want to make contact with our embassy or they want to make contact with americans or they want to reach an American University or they want to learn from american models of business, all contacts that will benefit us because it just expands the pool of people that we know and are working with around the world but frankly they also want to be performers on behalf of certain ways of doing business and accomplishing things in their own countries. Weve seen our Entrepreneurship Program lead to much more concerted ways in which people are seeking to create legal frame works wherein you can start a business and wherein corruption is exposed through transparency mechanisms and the use of social media or mobile technologies. So i guess the point id make is, if we are around the world making the business of the u. S. Government to engage people in the things they care about, to be creative at our embassies and post that is going to benefit our economic interest because its both going to make those countries more dynamic in their own Economic Growth and its also going to build relationships and contacts between those countries and those populations and the United States. Its going to create a pipeline frankly of people who work in multinational corporations and regional offices, the wiring of the Global Economy and how that connects down to opportunity, theres a huge Public Diplomacy component to that because thats the mechanism through we have that conversation not just with executives in other countries but with young people in broader sets of communities. So economics, framing it in trumps language. One of the underappreciated metrics of Public Diplomacy is, we have an Exchange Program thats about promoting study abroad, the reason that that has significant private Sector Support is its selfinterest. They want people in their Corporate Headquarters or they want people in their regional offices in brazil or mexico 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 Leaders program turned into almost vetting employment agencies because they know that weve taken the time to identify the best talent in the country and theyre hiring from that pool. Let me cut you off there with apologizes because we do want to get to the audience tonight. Let me get one in to you, jim. Could you just talk for a minute, something that jumped out at me from your remarks was the world Silicon Valley which people have talked about for years, never quiet seems to take that quantum leap where you can imagine some kind of Government Partnership with facebook and twitter that just incredible force multiplier, theres such a culture gap. I wonder if you can talk more about how there could be more sinner ji there. First of all its hard its not easy even for the companys themselves that work in Silicon Valley so the idea that government is going to tell these people what to do is difficult. In some ways, some of the things that ive seen, my former number two whos now working in california with very Interesting Group is theyre going off on their own and thats not a bad idea. The companies . In what sense . Making their own kinds of connections, making their for example, some things lets say, you know, defector videos are made by the u. S. Government. Well, you can imagine similar kinds of videos being done by the private sector. Theres no reason why not. Em ulating. Thats not doing Foreign Policy. One of the things, i think you want to use Silicon Valley to do specific, difficult technological thing that youre not going to be able to get people in the state department to do. That doesnt mean thats all that the private sector can do. Okay. Who has questions . And we have a micha coming to y and please introduce yourself. Yeah. My name is dameen woods but im a former pd officer from the state department. I was there for about 13 years and so a lot of us in this room have worked in pd and trying to understand the one thing that was always taught to me was policy. If you have good policy its easy to communicate to people. Even if you dont like the policy, if its good policy where you can understand the fundamentals of what the policy is, what do you think is really in Public Diplomacy, what is the relationship to policy in getting out the message . Well, i think in general its not tight enough. So my answer to the donald trump question is, you tell us what your policy is, lets say what do you want to do when it comes to Foreign Policy, like you want to get rid of nato and start something else. And then you have toolbox that you can use to effect that policy, to achieve it and part of its military, part of its economics sanctions, part of its diplomacy. One of the things that you have that you may not even know that you have and that could be enhanced is Public Diplomacy. Thats very effective and so it should be mobilize to achieve that specific end. But i agree with you. I think the default position as ive seen he it in Public Diplomacy often is we want people to like us. Thats our job. Our job my job as a pd officer is to get these people in the country that im working in to like us and theres nothing wrong with that, okay . Fine. But really thats not thats not an end. That is a means to some specific end and i think your questions a very good one, that frequently we dont the policy has not been communicated clearly enough so that we know exactly why were doing this. Just quickly, two ways. I think that theres in terms of what we ask of pd officers, i think its crazy to think that like a pd officer our Foreign Policy is what its going to shape perception of the United States. You have the best pds 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 us it doesnt matter what you do. So i think we have to stop thinking that whatever the policy is, if we just get the wiring diagram right, this is one of the while thats very important, i think theres been too much of a scapegoating the of the Public Diplomacy apparatus. People shape their judgments about america. That can be effected around the margins by really Good Communications and pd work but they shape it by how they look, whats happening inside america and what we do around the world, and we have to recognize that and not see this relates to my second point, i think and weve tried to do this, messaging concerns, Public Diplomacy concerns should be a part of the policy making process. Ive often found that its a test drive for how this policys going to work. Well be sitting in a situation sometimes discussing some policy and when it gets time to talking about how were going to explain it, thats not going to fly in x country. And, in fact, it becomes a gut check that so i actually think you can turn it inside out and suggest we learn from our pd engagements and we learn from what is happening in ways that should Foreign Policy would. But actually how woul this be received by these different audiences in this country and if the answer is with a resounding thud, to state one obvious example, if our approach to Counter Terrorism is going to alienate people in the very communities that we want to reach, it doesnt matter how good the countering information effort is, you know, and so of you have to see this as integrated into policy making so that those concerns are incorporated because if this really is about ideas and its about winning, which im always i dont like to suggest that were fighting over people in other parts of the world, thats not how they see it, i think that we have to recognize it who were talking to and theyre going to make judgments about us not based on how we choose them to make those judgments but by what the experiences of their lives. Its more a matter of taking the interest of Public Diplomacy into policy making and not just asking more and more pd officers and selling the policy. Interesting. Here in the blue sweater, wait for the mic and introduce yourself, please. My name is frank albert. Im a retired fsl. I if you could talk about the relative merits or different situations where overt and covert messaging has advantages in trying to reach objectives to Counter Terrorism and how those two are coordinated . I believe that traditionally has been role without necessarily getting into classified information. I was thinking about the latter. I think that while there may at times be roles for covert efforts that if we, you know, we should be we should have a biassed towards doing things openly and owning our arguments and what we believe. Thats what makes us different. And so thats the first point. The second point is i think that there has to be, you know theres a danger also that the budgets are bigger in the Intelligence CommunityDefense Department and so therefore sometimes actually stuff ends up happening in places other than the state Department Just because there happens to be money there to do it and thats a bad reason to do something. We tried very hard to these efforts in the state department. So that at least there was a state lead on these issues because again i think there can be a budgetary pull towards why dont we just put this in the ic or dod because theyve got pots of money to do this stuff. Frankly theyre doing other stuff. People carrying out Foreign Policy should also be the people communicating it and building the narratives and giving the guidance to bbg as appropriate. So its another reason to do overt. When there is such an effort without talking about any individual time, there just has to be a regular coordinating mechanism i cant tell you how many times i felt i was actually the only person in the entire u. S. Government who knew not because i wanted to be but just because it does come to the nsc and i thought the state department has to be empowered by being more included the state department should be included in everything that has to do with messaging because, you know, they need to know what were communicating to different countries, what the platforms are, how that interacts with their platforms. My bias in all of these things is towards the state department being in the lead. So let me address that question, which is really important. So i think that the Intelligence Community definitely has a role in the kind of activities were talking about. State department does and the military does and so does treasury and some of the others but those are the three main ones and i agree with ben that the state department should have the lead and thats the way we structured it and that the nsc should be very tightly tied into that entire apparatus and thats also the way we structured it so we set up this thing called Global Strategic Engagement Center which i called it that almost as a joke. This name that doesnt mean anything and but it was for a time headed by peter cobbish whos right over here and it included members of all three of those institutions and we did coordination and deconfliks and to the degree that we could direction and because were tied in to the nsc we got a lot of support from the white house. So its actually working pretty well and then it disappeared and then, gosh, looks like its coming back now without the s in it but its pretty much the same kind of thing and i think thats a good idea and i hope the next administration doesnt dissol dissolve it and start all over again. I think you need all these different elements of government but you need one leader and that leader should come from the state department closely tied to the nsc. In the back there, wait for the mic, please. Im rachel a foreign officer in the pakistan where i oversaw millions of dollars of Public Diplomacy and i would say that one of the things that we as pd practicers in the field is understanding exactly how effective the programs we are implementing are especially with regard to encountering violent extremism. Ultimately our goal is to counter that narrative but also to prevent young men and women from signing up with organizations like [ inaudible ] isis but how do we actually know that our programs are doing that because we cant go out into the field and actually ask people and so and this gets to the point of are we doing what we should be doing . Are we doing what works which is what Katherine Brown is suggesting we do. Id say, first of all, your question was to policy as well. I still cant really basically we would ask things of Public Diplomacy officers in pakistan when the conversation about u. S. Policy in pakistan was something we couldnt really talk about, ill put it from the pakistani perspective not2ac ou pakistani public wanted to know about drones and we werent allowed to discuss certain things and then the expectation is well made pd program can move the needle but so i think one point that broadly our Foreign Policy generally needs to be as transparent as possible and frankly nothing is secret really in this world any way. It all comes out at a certain point. And i would like to see a much one of the things i would recommend a future administration is to have bias not just in the messaging side but in general to greater transparency. I have this, you know not just a sense. The data shows that we lose an audience when we feel like were not being straight with them about what were doing in their country. So thats the first point. On getting out there, you know, in pakistan, the reality is that we have to we have we have to understand the tradeoffs and that as somebody whos been through a lot of these debates the last eight years its just a reality that the message we get from here is to emphasize security of our diplomats and personnel and thats not going to change even if we might think that thats just the political reality, that theres been a decision made that the risk is too great, i think, to take on certain to take on certain risks and how personnel conduct themselves. So therefore thats when you have to get creative and you have to, you know you have to build the relationships with the people who are able to get to places that were not able to get to and i imagine thats frustrating thats why networks are so important because sometimes we cant go to a place but we can talk to some people who can and you just have to find ways to make those links in the chain. The final thing, you know, provocative i think we get a lot more return on our programming money in places that are not so fraught, in other words i used to with my team whos here and did an excellent job, you could think of the world as places that are really actively challenging like pakistan or afghanistan where our policies fundamentally are going to make our relationship with that government are going to overwhelmingly determine views of people. Thats not to say we shouldnt do pd programming. It can risked being overwhelmed by the policy thats taking place. Then there are places in the world that we feel reasonably good about, then there are the swing places, South East Asia, subis a har reason africa, 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 we spent in iraq and afghanistan on pd programming the last 15 years and were spreading that around South East Asia and africa i think youd have enormous return on that investment. Thats not meant in any way to diminish the incredible work that people have done in those places, its just a reality from a budgetary perspective. Youre going to get more return in an environment that is more open, where theyre not the constraints and not the policy context that risks having a situation where all the pd work that might have been done is suddenly clouded by an air strike that kills Pakistani Soldiers on the border or so i think we have to look for places where we know theres a risk that it could go either way and our resourcing there is what can make a big difference. Do you want to take a stab . Nope. Lets get another question. And there i think we might have time for one or two more. Lets see. Im Chris Wheeler from the International Center and weve a lot of the things youve been talking about amplifying local voices reaching the people the state department cant reach and this is because the state Department Logo becomes tainted for people who are very much at risk of being radicalized. So in terms of amplifying local voices, how do you balance keeping them credible local people and not making sure as soon as they become state department back they use their credibility with their very vulnerable audience . Weve tried to multilateralize some of our efforts in this regard. One of the things weve turned to in the second term is Civil Society. There has been a concerted effort to closed space for Civil Society around the world, governments learn from each other, and if you get a grant from the u. S. Government from state department youre in trouble. And therefore i think creating more multilateral pools of funding, creating, you know, more regional approaches where were building an architecture wherein Civil Society can contact with each other and find sources of funding is important. In other words, not making Civil Society support look like an extension of u. S. Government Foreign Policy but rather the u. S. Investing in the value of Civil Society by contributing to a multilateral effort that does provide resources and network organizations. I think thats going to become increasingly important. Weve done some initiatives. Theres sources like lifeline that provide resources for Civil Society but i think we have to figure out a way to not theyre willing to take the risk but i think we can be better at making this have less of the appearance of us seeking to fund our own Foreign Policy interest directly but rather us as a universal matter supporting a set of values. I think that in terms of credible voices, you know, part of what we also have to recognize is if youre doing a really if youre doing this right, people might have no idea that the u. S. Government ever initiated anything to begin with. Michael asked about Silicon Valley, we have conversations with them but, you know, as i said, they go off and do their own thing. It may have been sparked by a conversation we had with them but we may have nothing to do with it, but theyre going to be a platform for a lot of credible voices. So we have to recognize that we can talk to third parties in the private sector in academia share what we know, share what weve learned through our analysis, what do we have as u. S. Government that they dont have. And we he can share that with folks and frankly they will do with it what they will. And thats a definition of credible voice because, frankly, they benefited from interacting with us. We informed them but then theyre designing their own efforts and programs. I was just going to say, i agree with that and i think that there has to be space for Civil Society but its a role of government to help create that space or certainly to defend it when its under attack like it was has been in egypt. Were not going to be able to have those Civil Society voices if Civil Society gets closed down. I think it needs to be a high priority of government to keep those, to keep that space open. We have time for one more as long as its pretty quick and concise. I think im afraid the guy behind you got there first. I apologize. Introduce yourself. Please make it concise and gentlemen, were over time so lets have short answers. I work on Public Diplomacy. Truth is the best propaganda and lies are the worst. In a world where were not sure the truth actually matters across a variety of landscapes any more how do we combat that and how do we deal with it in the present situation . Not completely sure thats true. I wish it were. The russians are proving every day that that is not true. Edward mer roe also said what ben was talking about pd being part of the Decision Making policy Decision Making process that he wanted to be in on the takeoffs and not just the crash landings. I think its great to have a pd voice at the table. I think americans are uncomfortable with lies and i hope well always be uncomfortable with lies but i dont think that we should be so naive as to believe that the truth always wins and so wouldnt it be very conscious that our adversaries are consistently telling lie and often not only getting away with it but influencing other countries and maybe even this country in profound ways. So i think its pretty serious and i think thats the reason that what that what were doing today is so critical, you know. Public diplomacy very very large is has got to be part of the solution to the challenge that were facing. The russians understood this a few years ago. They figured it out. They understood it was cost effective. They understood that they could do it really well and theyre out doing it, so we need to get on with it. Look, i think your question goes to the core of what were dealing with today and ill just say that, you know, we also just have to have confidence in what we believe in and who we are. That may seem like a Pretty Simple point but, in fact, to the extent that we appear to be knocked off balance or we appear to be questioning some of our most deeply held assumptions about how the world should operate, that creates he openings and like i said, the purpose of the lie is often sew information doubt about the liberal International Order and the fact of the matter is, there has not been enough work done globally to put in basic terms things we believe in and we saw this the president over the last several years hed give a speech about the European Union that european leaders werent giving. Theres this as this movement has emerged globally of some agree of entrenchment. Its knocked people off balance and there hasnt been the kind of confident president obama certainly sought to project it and but when we look around the globe we have to find other partners who will do that as well. It cant just be it cant all rest on the shoulders of one u. S. President. There has to be from the Political Leadership to the Young Leaders that were engaging and to everybody in between, a concerted effort to say no, this is what we believe and this is what we believe to be true and right. Its going to take a sustained commitment to pushback against retrenchment and the only way in which truth can appear to be losing in the particular moment, but if you are consistent and youre moving forward with conviction and youre building relationships and networks on behalf of what you know to be true, ultimately in the long run it is going to win out and we cant just say in the media environment, i dont mean the journalism, it can appear that on any given day the truth is not winning out but that cant cause you to give up and say this is a hopeless situation. If anything you have to learn how to reacclimate your self to that environment and im going to use everything i can and build every relationship i can to make sure that in the long run it is a truth that wins out. Thanks. Its a great note to end on. Thank you so much for those interesting remarks. Thank you to the audience. [ applause ] just stay with us for a couple more minutes, acting secretary for Public DiplomacyBruce Wharton who assumed the role on principled deputy at Africa Bureau of the state department. He will give short remarks before we end the program. Bruce, welcome to the stage. [ applause ] i owe many thanks to many people in this room but let me start off by thankinghanking cs cdp to ben and jim and mike. Im delighted to say that of the ideas presented by the cdp cpb and csis and the ideas weve just heard from jim and ben, we are in nonviolent agreement. All of these ideas sit very comfortably with me and, in fact, were by and large things that i anticipated hoping to do. Let me start with the policy question. I actually do believe now that policy Public Diplomacy is a key element of Foreign Policy. I think that recognition has been a Long Time Coming and i think we owe it to some of the people in this room as well as to people like jim glassman, secretary kerry and my pred sesers as under secretary for bringing Public Diplomacy to the positive will si table. I sit in senior meetings every morning with the secretary, with the deputy secretaries and always seek to elevate the profile of Public Diplomacy and to ask the question that ben suggested, how are we going to sell this to an audience abroad . Look, ive inherited an extraordinary apparatus at the department of state from education and education and cultural exchanges to Information Programs from our press operations to the new global Engagement Center which may be Something Like the u. S. Information core that jim glassman referred to and my charge is to support and strengthen the people and the institutions of Public Diplomacy for as long as i have the privilege as serving as acting under secretary. I may be new to this role but i am a long time student and hoped practicer of good Public Diplomacy. Its been my honor to serve five different u. S. President s, each with different styles and political philosophies but one thing that struck me throughout this is that all of them have understood the importance of Public Diplomacy and i think that that president will hold in the coming months and its part of my job to make sure that the new administration understands who we are, what we can do and why we deserve to be supported, why Public Diplomacy deserves to be supported well into the future. Youve heard this afternoon about some of the Public Diplomacy programs accesses including youth programs, social media engagement, and better use of technology and education exchanges. All of these programs have had bipartisan support and i think that will continue and i look forward to seeing these programs and others grow in the coming years. I know that critical challenges remain including the rise of disinformation from both state and nonstate actors. Let me share one simple message with you here today. The future of Public Diplomacy is bright. It is very bright. Our citizens, american citizens remain very best public diplomats. Whether they are teachers, career Foreign Service officers, mission nairries. These folks lead the way. As they travel and invent and teach they represent our country with a simple understated goodness. They show the world what it means to be american. The state Department Works to amplify their work and support their connections, their outreach and their service. Meanwhile the more formal institutions of Public Diplomacy are growing stronger. Public, private partnerships now underwrite youth exchanges and trade shows. Social Media Companies do share our concern with hate speech and fake news and help us push back against those phenom na. Amc abroad and host families here in the United States both leave lasting positive impressions with the foreign instances they encounter. We are pushing for a more strategic campaigned base that middle term work that jim was speaking about and were making much expanded use pushing really hard to do a better job of measurement evaluation and analyst ticks. Public diplomacy officers and their hosts around the world, create and lead smart and locally nuanced programs that are engaging and influencing host communities. Both inperson and virtually. Im tremendously proud of the work and the sacrifices that they make every day and they give me enormous confidence in the future of Public Diplomacy. So for as long as i serve as the acting under secretary whether its six days, six weeks or six months, i will work to strengthen Public Diplomacy as an instrument of american Foreign Policy and work to focus it on improving National Security, growing National Prosperity and promoting americas image and our values abroad. I think i can do that best simply by supporting the pd core, the people who do this work, the institutions that we have that put this all together and the way those people and institutions communicate across platforms and across time. It will also be my job to help the new administration understand the as well as the professionalism and the steadfast dedication of our pd practicers worldwide. I look forward to those conversations and i think that the programs that are currently being conducted are the best evidence and the most compelling reason for continued support. I intend to highlight how Public Diplomacy diverse and flexible tools make unique contribution to our National Security and our prosperity and to peace in this world. Well need your support in the coming days and let me thank you now for your constitutering in the past and your partnership in the future. Thanks very much. [ applause ] we have now reached the end of our multifaceted program. I want to thank all of you for your participation and for being such an engaged audience and thanks again to all of our speakers for sharing their wisdom on Public Diplomacy and now for hanging with us for so long, we have a Cocktail Reception for you outside. Please join us and meet some other folks from the pd community. Thank you. [ simultaneously talking and cross talk ] announcer cspan3 washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up this morning. James ca pret ta and tofer spirro from the center for American Progress will join us to discuss the legacy of the Affordable Care act including its successes and failures. Be sure to watch cspan3 washington journal. Join the discussion. This weekend on American History tv on cspan3 saturday night at 9 00 a. M. Professor nancy unger looks at the role of guy bars in American History. Many clos etted guys go to their first guy bar for example, san franciscos black cat and in these bars they find out that theyre not the only will ones. That there are lots of people who are atypical sexually and when the war is over, they dont want to return to their smalls and their small town closets. Many settle will instead in the cities where they first experienced some selfacceptance. And at 10 30 government policy makers and officials talk about the 1991 nunn live luger act of storing, dismantling and destroying chemical weapons. What we found is that to the russians the nuclear complex was not an inheritance from hell. To them it was the means for the revival of a great russia. Sunday evening at 6 on american artifacts, fdr president ial library Matthew Hanson and cristina covac on their efforts to preserve ten of fdrs most important speeches. We selected the films based on historical significance and how often their requested and quality of the footage as well. I see [ inaudible ] and at 8 00 p. M. On the presidency, gill troy looks at u. S. Israeli relations from president s harry truman to barack obama. I told the house of representatives i would commit political suicide if i didnt support the state of israel. Is the audience participation part of program . Jimmy carter fooled you. Go to cspan. Org. President obama spoke briefly today at the White House Press briefing it was secretary josh ernst last briefing with reporters. The president was asked about a pardon for chelsea manen who was sentenced to serve military conviction. Later in the day Barack Obama Chelsea Manning who will now be released in five months aerj