a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Science, State, Justice, and 

Commerce, and Related Agencies, 

Committee on Appropriations, House of 

Representatives

April 2005 U.S. PUBLIC 

DIPLOMACY

Interagency 

Coordination Efforts 

Hampered by the Lack 

of a National 

Communication 

Strategy

GAO-05-323
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-323.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Jess T. Ford at 

(202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-323, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, 

State, Justice, and Commerce, and 

Related Agencies, House Appropriations 

Committee 

April 2005

U.S. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY 

Interagency Coordination Efforts 

Hampered by the Lack of a National 

Communication Strategy 

The White House has launched several recent initiatives designed to 

promote the coordination of U.S. public diplomacy efforts, but the 

government does not yet have a public diplomacy communications strategy. 

In 2002, a Strategic Communications Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC) 

was created to help provide central direction to communication efforts. The 

committee drafted a national communication strategy, but the committee 

was disbanded in 2003 and no strategy was issued. In 2003, an Office of 

Global Communications was created to facilitate White House and 

interagency efforts to communicate with foreign audiences. According to a 

recent report by the Defense Science Board and comments by agency 

officials, the office has not implemented this role. Although a national 

communications strategy has not yet been developed, the White House 

established the Muslim World Outreach Policy Coordinating Committee in 

2004 to coordinate public diplomacy efforts focused on Muslim audiences. 

The group is in the early phases of drafting strategic and tactical 

communications plans. In addition to White House efforts, the State 

Department created an Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources in 2004 to 

help coordinate and direct the department’s wide-ranging public diplomacy 

operations. Further, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the 

Department of Defense are redefining their public diplomacy roles and 

operations in response to the increased attention given to U.S. outreach 

efforts. 

The State Department has had some success involving the private sector in 

the area of international exchanges. However, other efforts to engage the 

private sector have met with limited success. For example, in 2003 State 

formed a panel of outside advisors to recommend areas where the 

department and the private sector could coordinate their efforts. The 

panel’s July 2003 report suggested a number of possibilities; however, none 

of these suggestions was acted upon due to a lack of resources, bureaucratic 

resistance, and limited management commitment. 

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

Sept. 2002 Jan. 2003 Aug. 2004

Strategic Communications PCC 

Mar. 2003

Muslim World Outreach PCC

Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources

July 2004

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

Office of Global Communications

The war on terrorism has focused 

attention on the important role U.S. 

public diplomacy plays in 

improving the nation’s image. The 

United States has undertaken 

efforts to “win hearts and minds” 

by better engaging, informing, and 

influencing foreign audiences; 

however, recent polling data show 

that anti-Americanism is spreading 

and deepening around the world. 

GAO was asked to examine (1) to 

what extent U.S. public diplomacy 

efforts have been coordinated and 

(2) whether the private sector has 

been significantly engaged in such 

efforts. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that (1) the 

Director of the Office of Global 

Communications fully implement 

the role mandated for the office in 

the President’s executive order, 

including facilitating the 

development of a national 

communications strategy, and (2) 

the Secretary of State develop a 

strategy to guide department 

efforts to engage the private sector 

in pursuit of common public 

diplomacy objectives. The State 

Department, Broadcasting Board of 

Governors, and U.S. Agency for 

International Development 

generally concurred with the 

report’s conclusions and 

recommendations. 
Page i GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

Government Public Diplomacy Coordination 

Efforts Lack Strategic Direction 10

State Department Efforts to Engage the Private Sector Have Met 

with Mixed Results 19

Conclusions 23

Recommendations for Executive Action 23

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 24

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 26

Appendix II: Related Reports and Testimony 27

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State 30

Appendix IV: Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors 33

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

Development 35

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 37

GAO Contact 37

Staff Acknowledgments 37

Tables Table 1: Benefits and Challenges of Public–Private Partnerships 20

Table 2: GAO Reports on Public Diplomacy and International 

Broadcasting 27

Table 3: Related GAO Testimony 27

Table 4: Selected Reports on Public Diplomacy 28

Figures Figure 1: Foreign Public Opinion of the United States 6

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

Relief Efforts in Indonesia 9
Contents

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

Abbreviations

BBG Broadcasting Board of Governors

DOD Department of Defense

OGC White House Office of Global Communications

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

April 4, 2005 Letr

The Honorable Frank R. Wolf

Chairman

Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice,

and Commerce, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The 9/11 Commission highlighted the important role U.S. public diplomacy 

plays in improving the image of the United States abroad, particularly in the 

fight against terrorism. Despite U.S. efforts to better inform, engage, and 

influence foreign audiences, recent polling data show that antiAmericanism is spreading and deepening around the world. Such antiAmerican sentiments can increase foreign public support for terrorism 

directed at Americans, impact the cost and effectiveness of military 

operations, weaken the United States’ ability to align with other nations in 

pursuit of common policy objectives, and dampen foreign publics’ 

enthusiasm for U.S. business services and products. Countering these 

downward shifts in foreign public opinion requires the coordinated effort 

of both the government and the private sector.1

 Government agencies have 

a strategic edge with regards to knowledge of foreign policy objectives, indepth intelligence on regional and local conditions, and a worldwide 

network of broadcast resources and public affairs officers. The private 

sector enjoys an advantage when it comes to marketing and public 

relations skills, perceived independence and credibility, and resources.

Prior reports by GAO and a number of other groups suggest that U.S. public 

diplomacy efforts conducted over the past several years have generally not 

been successful in responding to growing negative sentiments directed

1

The private sector includes nonprofit and for-profit organizations, academia, and the 

American people.
Page 2 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

towards the United States.2 Lack of interagency coordination and limited 

involvement of the private sector have been highlighted as key problems in 

some of these reports.3

 You asked that we update these earlier findings by 

reviewing the status of White House, State Department, Broadcasting 

Board of Governors (BBG), U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID), and Department of Defense (DOD) activities. As agreed with your 

staff, this report examines (1) to what extent U.S. public diplomacy efforts 

have been coordinated and (2) whether the private sector has been 

significantly engaged in such efforts.

To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed key documents and reports and 

met with officials from relevant government agencies, interagency 

coordinating entities, and private sector representatives. White House 

officials declined requests to meet with us to discuss their coordination 

role; however, we were able to gather sufficient information on their 

activities by speaking with agency officials and reviewing published data 

and reports. We did not include psychological operations or covert 

information operations conducted by the Department of Defense or the 

intelligence community in our review. We performed our work from May 

2004 through February 2005 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Detailed information on our scope and 

methodology appears in appendix I.

Results in Brief The White House has launched several recent initiatives designed to 

promote the coordination of U.S. public diplomacy efforts, and agencies 

are working to improve public diplomacy operations, but the government 

does not yet have a national communication strategy. Two of the White 

House initiatives were designed to broadly facilitate the coordination of all 

U.S. strategic communication efforts, but they have not been fully 

implemented. In September 2002, the National Security Council created a 

Strategic Communications Policy Coordinating Committee to facilitate 

2

Prior GAO reports have examined the public diplomacy activities of the State Department 

and Broadcasting Board of Governors. See U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department 

Expands Efforts but Faces Significant Challenges, GAO-03-951 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 4, 

2003) and U.S. International Broadcasting: New Strategic Approach Focuses on Reaching 

Large Audiences but Lacks Measurable Program Objectives, GAO-03-772 (Washington, 

D.C.: July 15, 2003).

3

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

findings.
Page 3 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

interagency public diplomacy efforts. The committee drafted a national 

communication strategy to help address a range of messaging and program 

issues; however, the committee disbanded in 2003 and did not issue this 

strategy. In January 2003, the President formally established the Office of 

Global Communications (OGC) to facilitate and coordinate the strategic 

direction of White House and individual agency efforts to communicate 

with foreign audiences. This office has not developed a national 

communication strategy. Moreover, according to a recent report by the 

Defense Science Board and senior agency officials, the office has not 

facilitated the development of strategic guidance, which would serve to 

promote the effective coordination of U.S. public diplomacy efforts. The 

White House and other agencies have also made efforts to coordinate 

communications on a smaller scale. In July 2004, the National Security 

Council created a Muslim World Outreach Policy Coordinating Committee 

and tasked this group with developing strategic and tactical plans to help 

guide and coordinate U.S. communications with Muslims around the world. 

According to senior officials at State, the group has drafted a 

communications strategy and is developing a tactical plan to implement 

this strategy. The State Department, USAID, and DOD are seeking to 

improve and evolve their public diplomacy operations in recognition of the 

increased importance attached to U.S. outreach efforts. State has formed 

an office to help the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public 

Affairs guide and coordinate the agency’s diverse public diplomacy efforts. 

USAID and DOD are defining expanded public diplomacy roles for 

themselves. The Broadcasting Board of Governors continues to implement 

the largely independent role mandated by Congress for international 

broadcasting, while focusing its coordination efforts on policy-level 

discussions with the State Department.

State has engaged the private sector in U.S. public diplomacy efforts, 

primarily in the area of international exchange programs. State Department 

data indicate that three of the department’s top exchange programs 

received roughly one-quarter to one-half of their funding from 

nongovernment sources. However, other efforts led by State’s Under 

Secretaries for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs to engage the private 

sector have not yielded significant results. In 2003, the then Under 

Secretary sponsored the formation of a panel of outside advisors to review 

and recommend areas where the department and the private sector could 

coordinate their efforts. The panel issued a report in July 2003 with a 

number of suggested areas of cooperation; however, none of these 

suggestions was acted upon due to a lack of resources, bureaucratic 

resistance, and a lack of management commitment. Current engagement 
Page 4 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

efforts by the Under Secretary’s office are limited to periodic contacts and 

small-scale initiatives with the private sector.

This report recommends that the Director of the Office of Global 

Communications fully implement the role envisioned for the office in the 

President’s executive order, including facilitating the development of a 

national communications strategy to help guide and coordinate the diverse 

public diplomacy efforts of the State Department, USAID, BBG, and DOD. 

We also recommend that the Secretary of State develop a strategy to 

promote the active engagement of the private sector beyond international 

exchanges. In commenting on a draft of this report, State, USAID, and BBG 

generally concurred with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 

We have reprinted their comments in appendixes III through V. We also 

incorporated technical comments from DOD, State, and BBG where 

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

report.

Background According to State Department officials, the goal of public diplomacy is to 

increase understanding of American values, policies, and initiatives and to 

counter anti-American sentiment and misinformation about the United 

States around the world. This includes reaching beyond foreign 

governments to promote better appreciation of the United States abroad, 

greater receptivity to U.S. policies among foreign publics, and sustained 

access and influence in important sectors of foreign societies. Public 

diplomacy is carried out through a wide range of government programs and 

activities that employ person-to-person contacts and attempts to reach 

mass audiences through print, broadcast, and electronic media. 

Coordinating these various efforts is critical to the short- and long-term 

success of U.S. public diplomacy efforts. As noted by the Defense Science 

Board4

 in its 2001 review of U.S. public diplomacy efforts,5 coordinated 

information dissemination is an essential tool in a world where U.S. 

interests and long-term policies are often misunderstood, where issues are 

complex, and where efforts to undermine U.S. positions increasingly 

4

The Defense Science Board, composed of civilian officials, advises DOD on scientific, 

technical, manufacturing, acquisition process, and other matters of special interest to the 

department.

5

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

(Washington, D.C.: October 2001).
Page 5 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

appeal to those who lack the means to challenge American power. 

Effective communications strategies and well-coordinated information 

systems can shape perceptions and promote foreign acceptance of U.S. 

strategic objectives.

Since 2001, GAO and others have issued several reports on public 

diplomacy. These reports have called for a transformation in public 

diplomacy efforts, noting its renewed importance in the post-9/11 world. 

According to these reports, U.S. public diplomacy efforts face several 

challenges, including the lack of a national communication strategy and 

insufficient resources. To overcome these challenges, the reports have 

recommended, among other things, increased presidential leadership, 

structural changes at the White House and other agencies, and closer 

coordination of public diplomacy activities. 

Foreign Public Opinion of 

the United States

Remains Highly Negative

Recent foreign public opinion polling data conducted by such entities as 

the Pew Research Center for People and the Press and Zogby International 

indicate that the United States faces a chronic and widespread image 

problem. Although a host of factors can explain negative attitudes, the data 

document that a problem exists and provide general insights on the success 

or failure of U.S. public diplomacy efforts. As shown in figure 1, antiAmerican sentiments are not limited to the Muslim world; however, the 

relative depth of negative sentiments in this area of the world is 

pronounced and noteworthy.
Page 6 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

Figure 1: Foreign Public Opinion of the United States

Note: Data exclude “don’t know/refused to answer” responses.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Great Britain

Russia

Germany

France

Turkey

Morocco

Pakistan

Jordan

Great Britain

Russia

Germany

France

Turkey

Morocco

Pakistan

Jordan

May 2003 March 2004

Source: Pew Global Attitudes project.

Favorable

Somewhat unfavorable

Very unfavorable
Page 7 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

According to a number of sources, unpopular U.S. foreign policy decisions, 

such as U.S. military actions in Iraq, are a major root cause of antiAmerican sentiments. In addition, research conducted by Business for 

Diplomatic Action6

 suggests additional causes for anti-American 

sentiments, including: (1) a feeling of exclusion from the globalization 

movement led by U.S. business expansion, (2) resentment regarding 

certain elements of popular U.S. culture, and (3) negative views of the 

behavior of individual Americans.

U.S. Public Diplomacy 

Involves Multiple Entities

U.S. public diplomacy efforts are distributed across several entities, 

including the White House, State, USAID, BBG, and DOD. U.S. public 

diplomacy program funding is concentrated in the State Department and 

BBG, which shared a combined annual budget of almost $1.2 billion in 

fiscal year 2004. USAID and DOD have relatively small budgets explicitly 

devoted to public diplomacy activities.

The White House The President created the Office of Global Communications in January 

2003 to facilitate the strategic direction and coordination of diverse 

outreach efforts by multiple government entities. The National Security 

Council oversees the creation and management of policy coordinating 

committees that provide a key means for coordinating and directing 

interagency efforts.7

 The Muslim World Outreach Policy Coordinating 

Committee, established in July 2004, was formed to address the 

administration’s most pressing strategic communications challenge and is 

cochaired by the National Security Council and the Under Secretary of 

State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. The committee replaced the 

Strategic Communications Policy Coordinating Committee, which was 

active between September 2002 and March 2003.

State Department With a budget of over $620 million in fiscal year 2004, the State Department 

has lead responsibility for implementing U.S. public diplomacy efforts, 

including international exchange programs, which account for more than 

6

Incorporated in January 2004 by interested private sector leaders, Business for Diplomatic 

Action seeks to counter anti-American sentiments that can harm U.S. business interests by 

helping to coordinate the outreach efforts of U.S. multinational companies.

7

Established by the current administration to replace coordination mechanisms established 

by earlier Presidents, National Security Council policy coordinating committees are 

responsible for the management of national security policies and are the main day-to-day 

forums for interagency coordination of national security policy.
Page 8 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

half of the department’s public diplomacy spending. State’s efforts are 

directed by the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, 

who oversees the operations of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs, the Bureau of International Information Programs, and the Bureau 

of Public Affairs. The Under Secretary’s efforts are supplemented by public 

diplomacy resources located in the regional and functional bureaus and by 

a worldwide network of public affairs officers. State also plays a leading 

role in two interagency coordination bodies: the Interagency Strategic 

Communication Fusion Team and the Interagency Working Group on U.S. 

Government-Sponsored International Exchanges and Training. The fusion 

team, which was established to support the Strategic Communications 

Policy Coordinating Committee and later the Muslim World Outreach 

Policy Coordinating Committee, continues to meet weekly and brings 

together program-level officers to discuss ongoing and proposed public 

diplomacy initiatives across the federal government. The interagency 

working group meets quarterly to coordinate the exchange and training 

activities of 12 federal departments and 15 independent agencies.8

USAID, DOD, and BBG Each supporting agency has a distinct role to play in promoting U.S. public 

diplomacy objectives. USAID’s role in public diplomacy is focused on 

telling America’s assistance story to the world. To the degree that U.S. 

assistance plays a role in fostering a positive view of the United States, the 

efforts of other assistance agencies, such as the Middle East Partnership 

Initiative, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Peace Corps are 

also part of U.S. public diplomacy efforts. Historically, DOD has been 

reluctant to define any of its activities in public diplomacy terms, though 

the department has begun to develop a “defense support for public 

diplomacy” strategy, which acknowledges that the department has a role to 

play in this arena. For example, DOD, State, and USAID humanitarian and 

relief efforts in response to the recent tsunami disaster in Asia have 

significant public diplomacy implications for the United States (see fig. 2).9

 

Overall, the BBG’s stated mission is to promote the development of 

8

The Interagency Working Group on U.S. Government-Sponsored International Exchanges 

and Training was established by an executive order of the President in 1997 and legislated 

by Congress in 1999. Among other activities, the interagency working group has been tasked 

with developing a database on U.S. exchange and training programs, promoting greater 

understanding and cooperation among government agencies, identifying areas of program 

overlap and duplication, and developing a coordinated and cost-effective program strategy 

for government agencies to follow.

9

In March 2005, a report by State’s Office of Research concluded that Indonesian views of 

the United States had improved following tsunami relief efforts.
Page 9 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

freedom and democracy around the world by providing foreign audiences 

with accurate and objective news about the United States and the world. 

The BBG pursues this mission through the collective efforts of the Voice of 

America, Radio/TV Marti, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free 

Asia, Radio Sawa, and the Alhurra satellite television network. BBG 

broadcast efforts are required by law to present a balanced and 

comprehensive projection of American thought and institutions, as well as 

to present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively.

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

Source: Departments of State and Defense.
Page 10 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

Government Public 

Diplomacy 

Coordination 

Efforts Lack Strategic 

Direction

The White House has launched several recent initiatives designed to 

promote the coordination of U.S. public diplomacy efforts, while other 

agencies are also working to improve public diplomacy operations. The 

Strategic Communications Policy Coordinating Committee was established 

in 2002 and drafted a national communication strategy; however, the 

committee disbanded in 2003 and did not issue this strategy. In 2003, the 

White House established the Office of Global Communications to facilitate 

coordination of the United States’ global public diplomacy efforts, but the 

office has not fulfilled the strategic role envisioned by the President. The 

Muslim World Outreach Policy Coordinating Committee was formed in July 

2004 to facilitate U.S. outreach efforts to the Muslim world, but this effort is 

still in the early stages of development. The State Department recently 

created an Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources in the Office of the 

Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs to help direct and 

coordinate its diverse public diplomacy operations. While it is still too early 

to determine the effectiveness of this office, it is designed to play a major 

role in coordinating the delivery of U.S. public diplomacy efforts. USAID is 

evolving its operations to respond to the new prominence the 

administration has given to development assistance. DOD has begun to 

work on a defense support for public diplomacy strategy, which is being 

actively debated by various offices in the department. Finally, mechanisms 

have been established to coordinate policy-level discussions between the 

BBG and State; however, some agency officials said that the BBG is not 

effectively coordinating with other agencies with regard to program 

content.

First Attempt at Interagency 

Coordination Terminated

In September 2002, the National Security Council announced the 

establishment of the Strategic Communications Policy Coordinating 

Committee. This group was charged with coordinating interagency 

activities to ensure that all agencies work together and with the White 

House to develop and disseminate the President’s message to foreign 

audiences. As part of this effort, the group drafted a national 

communication strategy. However, the strategy was never released because 

the group’s activities terminated with the departure of the then Under 

Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, who cochaired the 

group, and the onset of the war in Iraq. 
Page 11 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

The absence of a national strategy complicates the task of conveying 

consistent messages and thus achieving mutually reinforcing benefits. The 

absence of a strategy also increases the risk of making communication 

mistakes and diminishing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of 

governmentwide public diplomacy efforts. As suggested in the Defense 

Science Board’s latest report on strategic communications,10 this strategy 

should originate at the White House level. The report notes that a unifying 

vision of strategic communications starts with presidential direction and 

that only White House leadership, with support from cabinet secretaries 

and Congress, can bring about needed changes. The report suggests that 

transforming U.S. government communications efforts is critical to 

protecting U.S. national security interests and must match the strength of 

commitment made to traditional diplomacy, defense, intelligence, law 

enforcement, and homeland security.

The Office of Global 

Communications Has Not 

Assumed a Strategic 

Coordination Role 

The OGC has not assumed its intended role in facilitating the strategic 

direction and coordination of U.S. public diplomacy efforts as provided in 

the President’s executive order, which established the office in January 

2003.11 The OGC’s mission is to advise the President, offices within the 

Executive Office of the President, and the heads of executive departments 

and agencies on the most effective means for the U.S. government to 

promote the interests of the United States abroad, prevent 

misunderstanding, and build support for and among coalition partners of 

the United States. To carry out this mission, the President tasked the OGC 

with several responsibilities, including 

• facilitating the development of a communications strategy among 

appropriate agencies for disseminating messages about the United 

State; 

• assessing the methods and strategies used by the U.S. government to 

deliver information to audiences abroad and coordinating with 

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

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

11The Office of Global Communications is the successor to the Coalition Information 

Centers established in Washington, London, and Islamabad during the early stages of U.S. 

military operations in Afghanistan in 2001. These centers were created to provide a rapid 

response capability to counter inaccurate portrayals of U.S. actions and optimize reporting 

of news favorable to the United States.
Page 12 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

appropriate agencies messages that reflect the strategic 

communications framework and priorities of the United States;

• ensuring message consistency to promote the interests of the United 

States abroad, prevent misunderstanding, build support for and among 

coalition partners, and inform international audiences; and

• coordinating the creation of temporary teams of communicators for 

short-term placement in areas of high global interest and media 

attention.

According to a recent report by the Defense Science Board and officials 

from the key agencies responsible for implementing U.S. public diplomacy 

efforts, the OGC has not facilitated the development of strategic guidance 

to direct and coordinate interagency activities. The Defense Science Board 

met with officials from the OGC and concluded in its September 2004 

report that the office has “evolved into a second-tier organization devoted 

principally to tactical public affairs coordination.” The board added that 

the OGC has been ineffectual in carrying out its intended responsibilities 

relating to strategic communication planning, coordination, and evaluation. 

We were also told by DOD officials that the board’s 2001 and 2004 reports 

on strategic communications represented an attempt by the department to 

fill the planning void left by the lack of strategic direction from the White 

House.

State and USAID officials we spoke with supported the report’s 

conclusions. According to senior State Department officials, the Office of 

Global Communications has not facilitated the development of a strategic 

communications plan for the United States, provided guidance on the need 

for regional or country-specific action plans tailored to local conditions, 

pushed for an analysis of the root causes for anti-American sentiments and 

the best means to address such root causes, or encouraged the 

development of mechanisms to increase private sector involvement in U.S. 

outreach efforts. According to these officials, the OGC has focused on 

tactical level activities, such as preparing message briefs and holding a 

daily conference call with relevant agency staff.12 A senior State official 

told us the OGC is primarily an information provider and does not provide 

12According to State officials, one of the office’s main efforts is the development of the daily 

“Global Messenger,” a one-page fact sheet sent worldwide to disseminate key points and 

daily activities on global issues.
Page 13 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

any long-term strategic planning for public diplomacy. According to 

another official at State, the OGC’s planning horizon generally extends only 

a couple of days in advance, and its services are purely tactical. The 

Executive Director of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy 

said that the OGC has tremendous potential, but this potential remains 

unfulfilled.13 According to a senior official at USAID, the office has not 

adopted the role of coordinator, despite its responsibility to coordinate the 

formulation of messages that reflect the strategic communications 

priorities of the United States. In contrast to the other comments we heard, 

the Chairman of the BBG noted that the BBG has had an excellent 

relationship with the Office of Global Communications and was satisfied 

with both the strategic and tactical guidance it provided.

This lack of leadership has led agencies to define and coordinate public 

diplomacy programs on their own. For example, several senior State 

Department officials told us that the department has had to coordinate its 

public diplomacy activities with other agencies on an ad hoc basis. This ad 

hoc coordination increases the risk of program overlap and duplication and 

diminished program impact because limited resources may be dispersed 

over too many or even conflicting program objectives. 

Effectiveness of Muslim 

Outreach Committee 

Remains to be Determined

In July 2004, the National Security Council created the Muslim World 

Outreach Policy Coordinating Committee to replace the Strategic 

Communications Policy Coordinating Committee. This initiative is still in 

its formative stage but, according to officials at State, it has already 

developed a communication strategy to direct and coordinate agency 

outreach efforts to the Muslim world. According to a senior State official, 

the group is working on three specific activities. To date, the committee has 

collected ideas from embassies in Muslim-majority countries, developed a 

strategic plan for communicating with the Muslim world, and is drafting a 

tactical paper to operationalize the strategy. In its poll of embassies, the 

committee collected information on outreach activities to Muslim 

audiences. According to an official at State familiar with the committee’s 

activities, the committee then developed a strategy to address the problems 

13The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy is a bipartisan panel created by 

Congress and appointed by the President to provide oversight of U.S. government activities 

intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics. It is responsible for assessing 

public diplomacy policies and programs of the U.S. State Department, Broadcasting Board 

of Governors, other government agencies, and the private sector.
Page 14 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

faced by the public diplomacy community and outlined two broad goals: 

working with moderate Muslims and countering extremism. The 

committee is finalizing this strategy, which emphasizes the role of regional 

partnerships and the need to tailor programs to specific countries, and 

plans to present it to the National Security Council in early 2005. Following 

approval, the strategy and tactics papers will be sent to embassies around 

the world. State expects the implementation of this strategy to begin in 

early 2005.

State Creates a New Office 

to Tackle Public Diplomacy 

Coordination and 

Evaluation Issues 

State’s Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources was created in August 

2004 in response to earlier recommendations by the Advisory Group on 

Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World and a call by the Deputy 

Secretary of State to fix the department’s public diplomacy apparatus. The 

advisory group’s October 2003 report14 identified the need for such an 

Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources to set a new strategic direction 

for public diplomacy efforts in the region. The report recommended that 

such an office should coordinate the development of a strategy, oversee the 

process of producing country-specific implementation plans, monitor the 

execution of these plans, and assist in the allocation and management of 

both financial and human resources. With the exception of overseeing the 

development and implementation of country-specific plans, the report’s 

recommendations appear to have been addressed. However, it remains to 

be seen whether the department devotes sufficient resources to this new 

office, whether the office successfully implements its various mandates, 

whether future Under Secretaries continue to support the office’s 

operations, and whether bureaus outside of the Under Secretary’s direct 

control support the office’s efforts to coordinate across bureau lines.

The memorandum establishing the office outlines a broad agenda, 

including 

• assisting the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs 

with developing a long-term, wide-ranging strategic vision for public 

diplomacy for the department and communicating this vision to 

department principals, affected staff overseas and in relevant bureaus, 

the interagency community at large, and the private sector;

14Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World, Changing Minds 

Winning Peace (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2003). The group was formed in June 2003 at the 

request of Congress and submitted its findings to the House Appropriations Committee.
Page 15 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

• coordinating with all affected bureaus within the department and 

developing resource allocation recommendations to support the Under 

Secretary’s strategic vision and priorities;

• providing a focal point for public diplomacy and public affairs personnel 

issues;

• serving as the Under Secretary’s clearinghouse for all public diplomacy 

and public affairs issues that cut across bureau lines;

• developing performance evaluation indicators that can be applied to the 

department’s public diplomacy and public affairs activities; and

• analyzing the results of such evaluation efforts to determine the impact 

of public diplomacy and public affairs programs and identify what 

program adjustments or changes might be indicated.

The Director of the Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources noted that her 

office is currently drafting a strategic plan to guide and coordinate State’s 

public diplomacy efforts—although a specific release date for the strategy 

has not yet been established. The plan will include guidance on how to 

develop realistic measures of the effectiveness of the department’s public 

diplomacy and public affairs activities. Toward that end, the office has 

created a public diplomacy evaluation council, which brings together 

evaluation staff from across affected bureaus to develop a unified and 

rigorous approach to collectively assessing the department’s activities. 

State is considering broadening the membership of the council to include 

other agencies, providing the possibility that the effectiveness of public 

diplomacy efforts may ultimately be assessed across agency lines. 

USAID and DOD Roles and 

Responsibilities Are 

Evolving 

Historically, USAID and DOD have had limited roles in U.S. public 

diplomacy efforts, but recently both agencies have made efforts to 

coordinate their activities with the broader interagency community. USAID 

has begun to work closely with State and has established a new position to 

publicize U.S. assistance efforts at each of its posts. DOD has designated 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy as its lead on public diplomacy 

and is defining a role for defense support for public diplomacy.

USAID is Seeking to Increasingly 

Tell America’s Assistance Story

In the past, USAID’s role in U.S. public diplomacy activities has been 

limited, according to agency officials, to discrete efforts to publicize 

specific development projects. These past promotion efforts have not met 
Page 16 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

with great success. For example, we noted in our last report on U.S. public 

diplomacy efforts that according to U.S. embassy officers in Egypt only a 

small percentage of Egyptians were aware of the magnitude of U.S. 

assistance—despite the fact that Egypt is the second largest recipient of 

U.S. assistance in the world.15 This idea is echoed by the Advisory Group on 

Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World, which notes that much 

of USAID’s work is “public diplomacy at its best;” yet, according to USAID 

officials, development work has little public diplomacy value to the 

American people unless the agency communicates it.

The President’s National Security Strategy, which elevated the role of 

development in foreign policy, led USAID to develop a joint strategic plan 

with State to better tell America’s humanitarian and development 

assistance story. One of the plan’s strategic goals is public diplomacy, 

which emphasizes communicating with younger audiences, countering 

propaganda, and listening to foreign audiences. The State–USAID Policy 

Council was created to support the joint strategic plan by helping both 

agencies coordinate more closely on foreign policy and assistance issues. A 

Public Diplomacy Working Group was created under the joint policy 

council to improve coordination between State and USAID in areas such as 

information outreach, exchanges and training, interagency communication, 

and funding for public diplomacy programs.

In September 2004, USAID established a position to help embassies, USAID 

missions, and implementing partners publicize U.S. assistance activities. 

These newly established Development Outreach and Communications 

Officers are expected to act as a one-stop resource for information 

regarding USAID’s work and will collaborate with the public affairs officer 

at post to maximize exposure and understanding of U.S. assistance 

efforts.16 USAID plans to have one of these officers in each of its 84 

missions around the world by September 2005.

The Department of Defense is 

Working to Better Define its Role

The Department of Defense recognizes that it plays a supporting role in 

public diplomacy and has made recent efforts to define its role in the U.S. 

public diplomacy apparatus. According to an October 2001 report by the 

15GAO-03-951.

16According to a senior USAID official, Development Outreach and Communication Officers 

will handle information related to USAID projects as well as other agencies’ projects that 

are being implemented by USAID. USAID does not plan to handle assistance projects 

emanating from other sources, such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Page 17 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

Defense Science Board, DOD’s public diplomacy efforts consist of actions 

such as combined troop training and exercises, official visits, and defense 

contacts with foreign officials.17 During crises, DOD communicates to 

foreign audiences through military spokespersons, news releases, and 

media briefings. For example, the U.S. military supported relief efforts for 

the Asian tsunami, deploying approximately 13,000 personnel to deliver 

food and medical supplies. These activities provide U.S. public diplomacy 

and public affairs channels with the content and context to foster goodwill 

toward the United States. 

In October 2003, DOD issued an Information Operations Roadmap, which 

discusses the roles and responsibilities of DOD’s public affairs, public 

diplomacy, and information operations and how these elements should 

work together and with other government agencies to communicate 

strategically with foreign audiences. This document refers to a strategy for 

defense support for public diplomacy, but it does not outline such a 

strategy. According to DOD officials, the strategy is still being actively 

debated by various groups within the department and remains to be 

formally issued.

DOD has also made structural changes to better define its role in U.S. 

public diplomacy activities. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy has 

been designated as DOD’s lead for public diplomacy activities. DOD 

officials told us that the department drafted a directive in September 2004 

directing the Under Secretary to develop and oversee DOD strategic 

communications efforts and to serve as DOD’s focal point for strategic 

communications efforts. Additionally, within the Under Secretary’s office, 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs has 

assumed responsibility for coordinating and overseeing defense support 

for public diplomacy. In September 2004, the Defense Science Board 

recommended the creation of a new Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

International Security Affairs to coordinate all activities associated with 

defense support for public diplomacy. 

17DOD also uses public affairs activities and military psychological operations to 

communicate with foreign audiences.
Page 18 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

Broadcasting Board of 

Governors Coordination 

Largely Tied to Policy-Level 

Discussions with State

Congress has defined a role for the Broadcasting Board of Governors that 

is designed to maintain the independence and credibility of U.S. broadcast 

efforts while ensuring that such efforts are consistent with the broad 

foreign policy objectives of the United States. We found that BBG, as 

required by Congress, is coordinating with the State Department at the 

policy level through a variety of means. BBG officials stated that they work 

cooperatively with other agencies to develop and broadcast suggested 

program ideas and content that BBG deems appropriate to its mission. 

However, some USAID and DOD officials commented that BBG has not 

been receptive to considering suggestions on programming content.

Under BBG’s statutory authority, a so-called “firewall” was established 

between policy makers and broadcasters to ensure that U.S. broadcast 

efforts are perceived as credible and unbiased. Separating the State 

Department and BBG provides deniability for the department when other 

governments voice complaints about specific broadcasts. However, BBG is 

also subject to an explicit requirement for policy-level coordination 

between BBG and the State Department. Several mechanisms exist to help 

ensure such coordination. First, the Secretary of State or his/her designee 

serves as a member of the BBG and provides it broad policy advice. 

Second, BBG’s Office of Policy works closely with State to produce the 

government-labeled editorials that the Voice of America is required to 

carry. Third, BBG seeks input from State officials for its annual language 

service review process, which determines where and how many broadcast 

services are pursued. 

Concerns exist regarding BBG’s coordination with other agencies on 

program content. BBG officials indicated that they are open to receiving 

other agencies’ programming suggestions that support BBG’s news and 

information function. One BBG official noted that such requests do not 

represent a violation of the firewall, although he added that care must be 

exercised in deciding whether and how to incorporate such content to 

avoid the appearance of becoming a government mouthpiece bent only on 

promoting U.S. interests. While State officials said that their daily, ad hoc 

coordination with BBG includes content and delivery issues, officials at 

USAID and DOD indicated that BBG has not been receptive to content 

suggestions. For example, USAID officials told us that they have 

approached BBG officials with stories to promote their attempts to “tell 

America’s assistance story,” but BBG did not respond positively to these 

suggestions. In addition, a senior DOD official noted that combatant 

commanders have asked BBG to carry public service announcements 

illustrating DOD’s assistance to foreign publics but met with a similar lack 
Page 19 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

of success. In commenting on a draft of this report, BBG officials indicated 

a willingness to consider establishing a more formal channel of 

communication for programming suggestions.

State Department 

Efforts to Engage the 

Private Sector Have 

Met with Mixed Results

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, State has attempted to increase its 

engagement with the private sector to improve the image of the United 

States overseas. These efforts have focused on student and visitor 

exchanges, where some success has been achieved in leveraging private 

sector resources. More recent attempts by the department to form public–

private partnerships have met with limited success. 

State’s Exchange Programs 

Engage the Private Sector 

The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is the primary focus for 

public–private sector partnerships within State and has, according to State 

officials, demonstrated an ability to engage the private sector. These 

partnerships involve nongovernmental organizations, volunteer 

communities, and influential individuals in the United States and overseas. 

For example, Sister Cities International receives funding from State, 

USAID, and private corporations to support and strengthen the sister cities 

network between U.S. and international communities. According to the 

Interagency Working Group on U.S. Government-Sponsored International 

Exchanges and Training, three of the Bureau’s top exchange programs 

received roughly one-quarter to one-half of their funding from 

nongovernment sources. 

Analysis prepared by the Interagency Working Group on U.S. GovernmentSponsored International Exchanges and Training suggests that a number of 

benefits and challenges are associated with the use of such public–private 

partnerships. Table 1 summarizes the group’s analysis.
Page 20 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

Table 1: Benefits and Challenges of Public–Private Partnerships

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

Other State Department 

Attempts to Engage the 

Private Sector Have Met 

with Limited Success

Aside from the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, State has been 

unable to leverage the private sector to any significant degree.18 In 2003, the 

then Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs sought to 

identify specific suggestions on how the private sector could be 

significantly engaged to better support U.S. public diplomacy efforts. She 

helped form a Subcommittee on Public–Private Partnerships and Public 

Diplomacy under the auspices of State’s Advisory Committee on 

International Economic Policy.19 The subcommittee concluded in its June 

2003 report that the U.S. private sector can and should play an important 

role in supporting ongoing U.S. government outreach to foreign audiences 

in a manner that can help build long-term friendships and advance U.S. 

interests abroad. The report made a number of recommendations, several 

of which address the root causes for anti-American sentiments, including 

the need to

Benefits Challenges

• Leveraging of government funds

• Sharing of technical and professional expertise

• Cross-pollination of ideas and approaches

• Dialogue, cooperation, and synergy leading to more effective 

combined programs 

• Tensions over jurisdiction and program ownership

• Problems relating to diverse goals, values, and perspectives

• Burden on program staff who must implement partnership 

arrangements 

18Some private sector groups may be reluctant to coordinate with the U.S. government due 

to concerns over a loss of credibility. For example, a representative of Business for 

Diplomatic Action told us that any direct collaboration between her group and the U.S. 

government was unlikely given the government’s lack of credibility with target audiences.

19The advisory committee consists of representatives of American organizations and 

institutions, including business, labor, environment, academia, legal consultancies, and 

other public interest groups. It reports to the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. 

Within this bureau, the Office of Commercial and Business Affairs serves as State’s primary 

point of contact for all issues dealing with the private sector.
Page 21 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

• create an inventory of current government programs specifically 

designed to promote the image of the United States abroad;

• encourage public and private support for multilingualism and crosscultural education starting at the corporate level and working down to 

the foundation of our educational system;

• increase funding for English language training abroad and provide 

incentives for the private sector to carry out this activity;

• encourage private sector support for American studies programs abroad 

by developing curriculum, texts, and internet support materials;

• encourage U.S. media outlets to dub their programming into Arabic and 

make it available for distribution throughout the Middle East; and

• encourage the private sector to expand social investment programs 

abroad through such models as USAID’s Global Development Alliance.

The head of State’s Office of Commercial and Business Affairs noted that 

the subcommittee was disbanded after its report was issued and that none 

of its recommendations was ever implemented.

In January 2004, the Under Secretary’s successor promoted greater private 

sector involvement by designating a member of her immediate staff as a 

special advisor to help facilitate interactions between her office and 

outside parties. This individual continues to serve this role for the current 

Under Secretary, facilitating outreach efforts by serving as a point of 

contact with the private sector and coordinating the Under Secretary’s 

attendance at key outside meetings. Examples of actions taken by the 

advisor include State’s efforts to assist the Wheelchair Foundation by 

publicizing its activities through posts overseas and its role in persuading 

Steinway and Sons to donate a piano to the Iraqi National Symphony in 

Baghdad. While these efforts have some merit, their impact may be limited 

if not backed by a more robust action plan or senior-level commitment to 

further engage the private sector. A commitment of additional resources 

would also be necessary to engage the private sector in more meaningful 

ways. 
Page 22 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

Finally, in October 2004, State’s Policy Planning Staff submitted a proposal 

to the White House calling for the creation of a clearinghouse titled the 

Center for Partnership and Human Dignity.20 This proposal defines a new 

model for conducting public diplomacy and calls for a dramatic expansion 

of the private sector’s role. The proposal suggests that the government 

should concentrate on explaining U.S. foreign policy while the 

clearinghouse focuses on coordinating private sector-led outreach efforts 

(in such areas as sports, cultural activities, and medical assistance) with 

the strategic input and advice of State and other relevant agencies. 

According to one official, the new Secretary of State has been briefed on 

this proposal and its potential.21

USAID has engaged the private sector through its Global Development 

Alliance. USAID reports that the alliance leveraged over $2 billion in 

private sector contributions in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, using about $500 

million in USAID funding. The Global Development Alliance represents the 

agency’s commitment to changing the way it implements assistance and 

currently represents one of the four pillars of U.S. economic assistance.22

The Global Development Alliance mobilizes the ideas, efforts, and 

resources of governments, businesses, and civil society by forging public–

private alliances to stimulate economic growth, develop businesses and 

workforces, address health and environmental issues, and expand access 

to education and technology. The Global Development Alliance business 

model is designed to leverage unique private sector assets, such as foreign 

direct investment, experience with leading business practices, and 

technological innovations. According to USAID, the agency has established 

20This proposal was submitted without the prior review or approval of the Under Secretary 

for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. The Under Secretary explained that she saw 

potential merit in the idea; however, she was worried that creating a new entity would take 

scarce resources away from existing programs.

21This proposal incorporates elements of similar suggestions regarding the establishment of 

quasi-independent entities to promote public–private partnerships by the Defense Science 

Board and the Council on Foreign Relations. In its September 2004 report, the Defense 

Science Board recommended the establishment of a Center for Strategic Communications 

modeled on federally funded research and development centers such as the Rand 

Corporation or National Endowment for Democracy. In its report entitled “Finding 

America’s Voice: A Strategy for Reinvigorating U.S. Public Diplomacy” (New York, N.Y.: June 

2003), the Council on Foreign Relations recommended that an independent, not-for-profit 

Corporation for Public Diplomacy be established to facilitate public and private sector 

interchange.

22The four pillars are: (1) Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance; (2) Economic 

Growth, Agriculture and Trade; (3) Global Health; and (4) the Global Development Alliance.
Page 23 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

alliances in over 45 countries in the developing world, involving over 150 

private sector partners.

Conclusions Coordination of public diplomacy activities is hampered by the lack of a 

national communication strategy. An initial effort, the creation of the 

Strategic Communications Policy Coordinating Committee in 2002, did not 

result in an overall strategy. The Office of Global Communications has been 

charged by the President with facilitating White House and interagency 

strategic planning and coordination efforts; however, a recent study and 

several officials at affected agencies indicated that the Office of Global 

Communications has not facilitated the coordination of agency efforts by 

providing needed strategic direction. In addition, the office has not 

developed a national communication strategy. As a consequence, agencies 

have developed their own roles and missions and coordinated their 

activities on an ad hoc basis.

The White House and other agencies have initiated efforts to improve 

coordination on a smaller scale. The National Security Council created the 

Muslim World Outreach Policy Coordinating Committee, which, according 

to senior State officials, has developed a strategic communications plan for 

Muslim audiences and is drafting a tactical plan to implement this strategy. 

BBG has coordinated its efforts at the policy level, while State, USAID, and 

DOD continue to evolve and improve their public diplomacy operations 

and strategic planning efforts. 

State recognizes the importance and significance of engaging the private 

sector in U.S. outreach efforts wherever feasible; however, the department 

has never developed a strategy to make this goal a reality. Past efforts by 

the department have focused on exchange programs, while other attempts 

have met with only limited success. More successful engagement of the 

private sector will require, among other things, seeking venues to actively 

solicit private sector support and removing potential obstacles to 

partnerships. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To better ensure that the United States’ public diplomacy efforts are 

adequately coordinated, we recommend the Director of the Office of 

Global Communications fully implement the role defined for it by the 

President’s executive order, including facilitating the development of a 

communications strategy, assessing the methods and strategies used by the 
Page 24 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

U.S. government to communicate with overseas audiences, and 

coordinating the delivery of messages that reflect the strategic 

communications framework and priorities of the United States.

To help ensure that private sector resources, talents, and ideas are 

effectively leveraged and utilized, we recommend that the Secretary of 

State develop a strategy to guide department efforts to engage the private 

sector in pursuit of common public diplomacy objectives.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided State, BBG, USAID, DOD, and the White House with a draft of 

this report for comment. State, BBG, and USAID provided us with written 

comments that are included in appendixes III through V. They generally 

concurred with the report’s findings and conclusions. State strongly 

endorsed our recommendation that the department develop a detailed 

strategy for engaging the private sector more effectively and indicated that 

working with the private sector will be a priority for the department’s new 

leadership. BBG and State said that our report did not accurately reflect the 

nature of their coordination on suggested programming content and 

provided further evidence to support their positions. We modified our 

findings regarding BBG coordination with State. BBG said it would explore 

the establishment of a more formal, transparent channel of communication 

for programming ideas. In addition, BBG, along with State and DOD, 

provided technical comments, which have been incorporated throughout 

the report where appropriate. DOD and USAID said that developing a 

public diplomacy strategy is insufficient without addressing the content of 

U.S. public diplomacy activities.

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

We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of 

Congress. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of State, the 

Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors, the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International 

Development, and the Director of the White House Office of Global 

Communications. We will also make copies available to others upon 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions 

about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. 
Page 25 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

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

appendix VI.

Sincerely yours,

Jess T. Ford

Director, International Affairs and Trade
Page 26 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

The Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, 

State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies asked us to examine 

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

(2) whether the private sector has been significantly engaged in such 

efforts. Our review focused on the efforts of the Department of State, the 

Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID), and the Department of Defense (DOD). We did not 

include psychological operations or covert information operations 

conducted by DOD or the intelligence community in our review.

To determine how U.S. public diplomacy efforts have been coordinated 

across agency lines, we met with senior officials in State’s Office of the 

Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, the Bureau of 

International Information Programs, the Bureau of Educational and 

Cultural Affairs, and a regional bureau. We also interviewed officials at 

BBG, USAID, and DOD, as well as representatives from the private sector. 

We reviewed planning, program, and other documentation from the 

relevant agencies and examined recent studies from the Defense Science 

Board, the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, the Council on 

Foreign Relations, and others. Officials at the White House Office of Global 

Communications declined to meet with us to discuss their role in 

interagency coordination activities; however, we were able to develop a 

basic understanding of the office’s operations by reviewing published data 

and by speaking with government officials familiar with White House 

coordination efforts.

To assess the extent to which the private sector has been effectively 

engaged in U.S. public diplomacy efforts, we discussed outreach efforts 

with officials at State and USAID, including State’s Bureau of Commercial 

and Business Affairs and USAID’s Global Development Alliance. We also 

met with representatives from the private sector, including Business for 

Diplomatic Action, as well as nonprofit organizations, academia, and the 

media. We reviewed State documents detailing the department’s private 

sector outreach efforts, as well as a proposal that State’s Policy Planning 

Staff submitted to the White House calling for expanded public–private 

partnerships. We also examined recent data from polling organizations and 

reviewed a Business for Diplomatic Action analysis of root causes of antiAmericanism.

We performed our work from May 2004 through February 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 27 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

Appendix II

Related Reports and Testimony ApendxiI

Table 2: GAO Reports on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting

Source: GAO.

Table 3: Related GAO Testimony

Source: GAO.

Report title Date Selected conclusions

U.S. Public Diplomacy: State 

Department Expands Efforts but Faces 

Significant Challenges (GAO-03-951)

September 2003 State has expanded its public diplomacy efforts in Muslim-majority 

countries since September 11, 2001.

State needs a comprehensive strategy that integrates all of its public 

diplomacy activities.

State is not comprehensively measuring progress toward its public 

diplomacy goals.

U.S. International Broadcasting: New 

Strategic Approach Focuses on 

Reaching Large Audiences but Lacks 

Measurable Program Objectives

(GAO-03-772)

July 2003 The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) has initiated several 

projects designed to attract larger audiences in priority markets.

BBG’s plan lacks program objectives designed to measure the success 

of its new approach to broadcasting.

BBG has not established a strategic vision for how many languages 

should be pursued.

Testimony title Date Comments

U.S. Public Diplomacy: State 

Department and Broadcasting Board 

of Governors Expand Post-9/11 Efforts 

but Challenges Remain (GAO-04-

1061T)

August 23, 2004 Based on GAO-03-951, U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department 

Expands Efforts but Faces Significant Challenges, and GAO-03-772, 

U.S. International Broadcasting: New Strategic Approach Focuses on 

Reaching Large Audiences but Lacks Measurable Program Objectives

U.S. International Broadcasting: 

Challenges Facing the Broadcasting 

Board of Governors (GAO-04-711T)

April 29, 2004 Based on GAO-04-374, U.S. International Broadcasting: Enhanced 

Measure of Local Media Conditions Would Facilitate Decisions to 

Terminate Language Services; GAO-03-772; and GAO/NSIAD-00-222, 

U.S. International Broadcasting: Strategic Planning and Performance 

Management System Could Be Improved

U.S. International Broadcasting: 

Challenges Facing the Broadcasting 

Board of Governors (GAO-04-627T)

April 1, 2004 Based on GAO-04-374, GAO-03-772, and GAO/NSIAD-00-222

U.S. Public Diplomacy: State 

Department and the Broadcasting 

Board of Governors Expand Efforts in 

the Middle East but Face Significant 

Challenges (GAO-04-435T)

February 10, 2004 Based on GAO-03-951 and GAO-03-772
Appendix II

Related Reports and Testimony

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

Table 4: Selected Reports on Public Diplomacy

Author Report title Date Selected conclusions

U.S. Advisory 

Commission on Public 

Diplomacy

2004 Report September 2004 The agents and structures of public diplomacy need 

coordination.

Public diplomacy messaging must become more strategic 

and responsive.

Public diplomacy should be a national security priority, 

requiring an aggressive strategy and increased resources.

The public and private sectors need to work together to face 

public diplomacy challenges.

Defense Science Board Strategic Communication September 2004 Strengthening and coordinating strategic communications 

requires presidential leadership.

Structural changes are necessary within the National 

Security Council, State, and DOD to transform strategic 

communications.

A quasi-governmental entity should be created to provide 

information and analysis and facilitate private sector 

involvement in public diplomacy.

National Commission on 

Terrorist Attacks upon 

the United States

The 9/11 Commission 

Report

July 2004 The U.S. government must define its message and what it 

stands for.

The United States needs to defend its ideals abroad through 

increased broadcasting efforts and rebuilt scholarship, 

exchange, and library programs.

Advisory Group on 

Public Diplomacy for the 

Arab and Muslim World

Changing Minds Winning 

Peace: A New Strategic 

Direction for U.S. Public 

Diplomacy in the Arab 

and Muslim World

October 2003 Public diplomacy requires a new strategic direction, led by 

the President and Congress and adequately funded and 

staffed.

Structural changes at the White House, the National Security 

Council, and State are necessary.

USAID and DOD must be incorporated in the new strategic 

direction.

Public diplomacy should engage the full range of American 

civil society, including the private sector and 

nongovernmental organizations.

Council on Foreign 

Relations

Finding America’s Voice: 

A Strategy for 

Reinvigorating U.S. 

Public Diplomacy

June 2003 Lack of political will and the absence of an overall strategy 

have hindered public diplomacy programs.

Public diplomacy should be considered in the formulation of 

foreign policy.

The U.S. public diplomacy coordinating structure needs 

strengthening, leadership, and increased resources.

An expanded private sector role would help public diplomacy 

deliver more bang for the government buck.

U.S. Advisory 

Commission on Public 

Diplomacy

Building America’s Public 

Diplomacy Through a 

Reformed Structure and 

Additional Resources

September 2002 Public diplomacy requires structural reform, including 

presidential leadership, the integration of Congress in public 

diplomacy efforts, and the involvement of the private sector.

Public diplomacy should be redeveloped by building its 

resources.
Appendix II

Related Reports and Testimony

Page 29 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

Source: GAO.

Defense Science Board Managed Information 

Dissemination

October 2001 The U.S. government requires a coordinated means to speak 

with a single voice abroad.

Presidential leadership is required to strengthen the United 

States’ ability to communicate with foreign audiences and 

coordinate public diplomacy, public affairs, and information 

operations.

Structural changes at the National Security Council, State, 

and DOD are required to coordinate public diplomacy 

activities.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Author Report title Date Selected conclusions
Page 30 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

Appendix III

Comments from the Department of State ApendxiI
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of State

Page 31 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of State

Page 32 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy
Page 33 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

Appendix IV

Comments from the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors ApendxiIV
Appendix IV

Comments from the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors

Page 34 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy
Page 35 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

Appendix V

Comments from the U.S. Agency for 

International Development ApendxiV
Appendix V

Comments from the U.S. Agency for 

International Development

Page 36 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy
Page 37 GAO-05-323 U.S. Public Diplomacy

Appendix VI

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contact Diana Glod, (202) 512-8945

Staff 

Acknowledgments

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

Loren DeJonge, and Joe Carney made key contributions to this report. 

Martin de Alteriis, Ernie Jackson, and Mark Speight provided technical 

assistance.

(320283)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548