A 2002 Report of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

Building America’s public diplomacy

through a reformed structure and additional resources
public diplomacy — THE CULTURAL, EDUCATIONAL, AND INFORMATIONAL PROGRAMS, 

CITIZEN EXCHANGES, OR BROADCASTS USED TO PROMOTE THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES 

THROUGH UNDERSTANDING, INFORMING, AND INFLUENCING FOREIGN AUDIENCES.
introduction

BUILDING AMERICA’S PUBLIC DIPLOMACY 1

The United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy notes with great satisfaction that the power

of public diplomacy is being recognized again by the media, Congress, and America’s think tanks. It is

regrettable that it took the events of September 11, 2001, to make this happen. In the aftermath of the

terrorism onslaught, a number of questions were raised as to why these horrible events occurred. Many

referred to public opinion polls in Islamic countries and some blamed American public diplomacy 

efforts. Thereupon, the Administration undertook an inquiry; Congress held hearings and the House of

Representatives passed legislation; newspapers published articles; and think tanks issued reports.

This Commission, which has studied public diplomacy for the past 54 years, welcomes this new

interest in how the United States informs and influences foreign audiences. The Commission would like

to take this occasion to advance its own views on how public diplomacy should be structured and funded. 

The Commission recommends redeveloping

public diplomacy through two means: 

❙ reforming its structure

❙ building its resources

the state of public diplomacy

In the decade since the Cold War, elected officials 

of both parties — through neglect and misplaced 

priorities — have permitted the nation’s public 

diplomacy instrument to rust. Now, as we face a

complex emergency, we expect this instrument to

be razor sharp. It is not. That is why we need to

invest in people, programs, training, recruitment,

international exchanges, opinion research, 

information technologies, and the right kind 

of broadcasting. There has been much talk about

redirecting U.S. military strategy. It is now time to

rethink and redirect America’s public diplomacy

strategies as well. 

Negative messages broadcast and disseminated by rogue states, terrorist groups, and even

U.S. and international commercial news and entertainment outlets have resulted in a deep misunderstanding of the United States and its policies. These

misperceptions must be countered with the proper

public diplomacy tools. American communication

efforts are of critical importance. Yet these efforts

cannot succeed unless they are organized appropriately and funded adequately.

In the short term, public diplomacy seeks to

influence opinions in ways that support U.S. interests

and policies. The primary focus is generally on issues.

By contrast, over the long term, public diplomacy

promotes dialogue, the sharing of ideas, and personal

and institutional relationships, with the primary

focus on values. Ideally, the two should be linked in a

comprehensive public diplomacy strategy. 

Strengthening America’s long-term public

diplomacy means greater investment in crosscultural initiatives. It also means listening more —

through such tools as polling, focus groups and conversations with U.S. diplomats and senior officials

— to the concerns, fears, needs, and ambitions of

others. Persuasion begins with listening, and listening requires a more creative and resourceful diplomatic community on the ground and new thinking

at all levels in public diplomacy. 

The U.S. government’s share of the global

information flow is far smaller today than in the past.

BUILDING AMERICA’S PUBLIC DIPLOMACY 3
Brands, products, popular entertainment, higher

education, corporations, and Web sites all may 

reinforce or undermine U.S. foreign policy objectives.

Today, U.S. public diplomacy is a multi-issue,

multi-player universe. U.S. leaders have significant

capacity to leverage commercial media channels

when they have something of consequence to say on

high-profile issues. The United States also has significant public diplomacy assets that can work to

the government’s advantage. 

In the information age, diplomatic influence

and military power go to those who can disseminate

credible information in ways that support their

interests and effectively put public pressure on the

leaders of other countries. Today’s public diplomacy

requires new thinking and additional resources.

The Administration has gotten off to a good

start on translating American principles and compassion into the vernacular of Muslim countries. A

Middle East radio network, Arabic language Web

sites and print publications, and citizen and journalist exchanges have all been established to help set

the record straight on the United States. But more

must be done to ensure that America maintains an

effective public diplomacy machine to continue

communicating with the entire world over the long

term, not just the hot spots of today. Therefore, the

Commission recommends strengthening public

diplomacy by reforming its structure and building 

its resources.

public diplomacy promotes dialogue, 

the sharing of ideas, and personal and institutional relationships.
structural reform

As a starting point, it is essential to recognize that

U.S. foreign policy has been precariously weakened

by a failure to systematically include public diplomacy in the formulation and implementation of

policy. Public diplomacy must be included in the

“takeoff” of policies, not only as the legendary journalist and former U.S. Information Agency (USIA)

Director Edward R. Murrow put it, “in the crash

landings.” That does not mean that expected foreign public reactions should determine American

foreign policy. It does mean, however, that expected

foreign reaction should be taken into consideration

when deciding how a foreign policy is to be formulated, and how it will be communicated.

To reform the structure of public diplomacy,

the Commission recommends that the following

five steps be taken: 

Issue a Presidential mandate

The President should, on an urgent basis, issue 

a Presidential Directive on public diplomacy, 

making clear that public diplomacy is a strategic

component of American foreign policy and that 

significant reform is needed. The directive should

provide a vision to harness the U.S. government’s

public diplomacy assets in support of our broader

national interests.

Fully implement the White House 

Office of Global Communications

A critical element of public diplomacy reform is a

sustained and flexible coordinating structure that

links Presidential leadership with the departments

and agencies that carry out public diplomacy, along

with our coalition allies and private sector partners.

This office must work closely with the Department

of State, particularly the office of the Under

Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. 

The Commission hopes that the recently

announced White House Office of Global

Communications will be such a structure. The

director of this office should be an individual in

whom the President has full confidence and who

will have direct access to him. This office will

require interagency representation, adequate tasking

authority, and a competent staff. Importantly, an

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Issue a Presidential mandate

2. Fully implement the White House 

Office of Global Communications

3. Review the consolidation of 

USIA into the State Department

4. Integrate Congress into 

public diplomacy efforts

5. Involve the private sector

BUILDING AMERICA’S PUBLIC DIPLOMACY 5
office having such a coordinating structure can

identify broad public diplomacy goals and coordinate communications strategies. 

The Office of Global Communications should

provide strategic direction and themes to the U.S.

agencies that reach foreign audiences, while relying

on the Secretary of State to provide tactical and

strategic coordination of the diplomats overseas. The

office must draw on many agencies and Americans to

convey a few simple but powerful messages.

The White House already coordinates communications across agency lines to reach a number

of large domestic audiences. The same attention

should now be given to international audiences.

Having the office located within the White House

will ensure that the President’s priorities receive

maximum attention in areas of the world deemed to

be of the highest priority. 

It is important that the White House is sending a clear signal to Congress, government agencies,

and the American people that a new public diplomacy paradigm is in place. In response, the principal

task now should be to develop and sustain planning

to link U.S. interests, publics, and channels. 

Based on policy objectives, the Office of

Global Communications should help identify influential and mass audiences, correlate media and other

communications channels used, and outline priorities for U.S. government communications. The goal

should be to develop, with the State Department,

credible and effective public diplomacy themes, 

priorities, and means of communication. 

The challenges for the office will be to ensure: 

❙ Adequate resources for audience research and

influence structure analysis 

❙ Sufficient capability to provide timely and coherent strategic planning on multiple issues 

❙ Appropriate decisions on the use of government

channels and credible third-party communications capabilities 

❙ A strategy to overcome apathy and resistance to

public diplomacy strategies in U.S. departments

and embassies 

Review the consolidation of USIA 

into the State Department

In 1998, the Commission endorsed the consolidation of the United States Information Agency into

the State Department, believing integration of

public diplomacy and policy making was essential.

As noted in the Commission’s October 2000 report

marking the first anniversary of consolidation,

progress on integration was initially slow and difficult, due in large measure to the State

Department’s multi-layered and complex bureaucracy and a culture that did not traditionally value

public diplomacy. 

In the past two years, the Commission has

observed positive changes. Public diplomacy is

becoming an accepted concentration in the

Department and is recognized for the value it

brings to the U.S. Foreign Service. Under Secretary

of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

Charlotte Beers, with the leadership of the

Secretary of State, is taking steps to strengthen the
Department’s information, educational, and cultural programs, and to upgrade the rank and status

of those responsible for public diplomacy. The

Commission thinks this should continue.

While significant progress has occurred,

much remains to be done to ensure that public

diplomacy is brought into all aspects of foreign 

policy decision making. 

In addition to a comprehensive quadrennial

report on public diplomacy, we recommend that 

the Secretary of State, in concert with the U.S.

Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, conduct a review of all consolidation initiatives and

make any necessary recommendations in such areas

as training and the location and reporting structure

of public diplomacy units.

Integrate Congress into public 

diplomacy efforts

Members of Congress communicate directly and

indirectly to foreign audiences in ways that can

reinforce or undermine public diplomacy messages.

Public support for policies by informed lawmakers

can shape perceptions by foreign publics in ways

that further U.S. interests. Lawmakers should be

included in public diplomacy planning and implementation at all stages.

Increased Congressional support for public

diplomacy is needed, not just with necessary

resource enhancements, but with oversight that

links public diplomacy budgets more closely to foreign policy and program requirements and efforts to

actively communicate with foreign audiences. 

Congress should provide legislative authority for a quadrennial review, conducted by the

Secretary of State in consultation with the U.S.

Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. Such

a review would cost very little, but could have farreaching effects and could serve as a catalyst for

public diplomacy reform. 

Involve the private sector

Support, insight, and critical judgment from the

private sector are all essential to U.S. public diplomacy. Important contributions can be made in the

following ways:

❙ Communications consultants, pollsters, and media

specialists should be encouraged to provide relevant

expertise on media trends, market analysis, production techniques, and emerging technologies. 

❙ The academic community can also support public

diplomacy through teaching, scholarship, and

research. The creation of the Public Diplomacy

Institute at The George Washington University is a

step in the right direction. Unfortunately, only a few

U.S. colleges and universities currently offer courses

in public diplomacy and closely related fields.

❙ The advertising and entertainment sectors

should be engaged to provide insight on audience

penetration and ideas that encourage foreign audiences to stand up and take notice.

BUILDING AMERICA’S PUBLIC DIPLOMACY 7

The case for significantly increasing resources for

public diplomacy is based on its value as a strategic

element of power in the information age.

To increase public diplomacy spending 

intelligently, the Commission recommends the 

following actions: 

Recognize that money alone will 

not fix the problems

The organizational recommendations in this report

do not require increased budgets. Moreover, any

increase in public diplomacy resources must be tied

directly to short- and long-term objectives and

strategies, and should be phased in over an appropriate time frame.

Assess the state of America’s 

readiness worldwide 

Government officials and informed private sector

professionals should conduct a structured evaluation at regular intervals to address priorities and

optimal spending on core elements of public diplomacy — including personnel, training, infrastructure

requirements, and the appropriate level and mix of

programs in different countries and regions. The

Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of

Governors (BBG), the two organizations that share

almost equally in the $1 billion allotted to public

diplomacy, should establish public diplomacy standards to include country-specific program and

staffing requirements. 

Examine the nation’s public diplomacy

investment relative to other areas

The $1 billion spent annually on the State

Department’s information and exchange programs

and U.S. international broadcasting represents just

1/25 of the nation’s international affairs budget. But

information is a strategic asset — as important to

national security as political, military, and economic

power. New thinking and additional resources are

required, not just for military and intelligence functions, but for the propagation of information as well. 

The United States substantially under-invests

in public diplomacy compared with many other

countries that spend proportionately larger

allocating resources

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Recognize that money alone will not

fix the problems

2. Assess the state of America’s 

readiness worldwide 

3. Examine the nation’s public diplomacy

investment relative to other areas 

BUILDING AMERICA’S PUBLIC DIPLOMACY 9
amounts of their foreign affairs budgets on public

diplomacy activities. As a result of long-term

declines in U.S. spending, critical public diplomacy

needs are not being met. For example, from 1993 to

2001, overall funding for the State Department’s

educational and cultural exchange programs fell

more than 33 percent, from $349 million to 

$232 million (adjusted for inflation). From 1995 to

2001, the number of exchange participants dropped

from approximately 45,000 to 29,000. 

The U.S. spends $5 million in public opinion

research overseas — less than the polling costs of

some U.S. Senate campaigns. 

The U.S. spends $25 billion on traditional

diplomacy and more than $30 billion for intelligence

and counterintelligence initiatives. In comparison,

the government spends only $1 billion to inform and

persuade international audiences. There are public

diplomacy operations in more than 200 missions

around the globe, many in critical areas where negative and incorrect perceptions of U.S. foreign policy

prevail. The funding levels are clearly insufficient.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors spends

approximately 94 percent of its overall budget on

radio and only 6 percent on television. (The BBG’s

$517 million request for U.S. international broadcasting services in FY 03 includes $47 million for

television, $23 million for VOA TV, $14 million for

satellite leases, and $10 million for TV Marti for

Cuba alone — a radio/TV-spending ratio of 16 to

1.) While radio continues to be an important instrument of public diplomacy — particularly in countries

such as Afghanistan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and China

where listening rates are high — we must invest

much more in television where this medium is a 

primary source of news and information.

During the 1990s, Congressional cuts in

public diplomacy budgets were driven by fiscal

deficits and a general desire of many in Congress to

reduce the size of government. In recent years, officials of both parties have continually failed to make

public diplomacy a high priority. Reductions in

public diplomacy are part of a long-term militarization of foreign affairs in which the share of the

national budget devoted to military spending has

increased, while the amount committed to international affairs has decreased.

This Commission recommends that all categories of public diplomacy be looked at coherently

in terms of foreign policy priorities, situational relevance, and comparative assessments of program

value, and then be funded accordingly. 
public diplomacy [has] value 

as a strategic element of power in the information age.
New thinking and new structures call for new mind-sets, not new millions of dollars. Nevertheless, we

cannot do more to address the significant resentment and misunderstanding of the United States 

without the necessary resources and structural modifications. Nothing short of immediate and sustained

action is required. If we are serious about repairing the world’s perception of our motives and values, as we

must be, it is essential that we revitalize America’s public diplomacy with the intelligent allocation of

resources, and a framework designed to maximize its effectiveness as an instrument of national policy. 

conclusion
The 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. 

The Commission, now in its 54th year, was reauthorized in October 2000 pursuant to 

Public Law 106-113 (H.R. 3194, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000). It is responsible for assessing public diplomacy policies and programs of the U.S. State Department, American missions abroad,

and other agencies. Advisory Commission responsibilities extend to international exchanges, U.S. government international information programs, and publicly funded non-governmental organizations. 

By law, the Commission’s members are appointed by the President with the advice and

consent of the Senate. They are selected from a cross-section of professional backgrounds and

serve three-year terms with the possibility for reappointment. 

The Commission reports its findings and recommendations to the President, the Congress,

the Secretary of State, and to the American people.

The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

Harold C. Pachios of Maine, Chairman

Charles H. Dolan, Jr. of Virginia, Vice Chairman

Lewis Manilow of Illinois

Maria Elena Torano of Florida

Ambassador Penne Percy Korth of Texas

Senior Advisor Walter R. Roberts 

(Commissioner 1991 to 1997)

Executive Director Matt J. Lauer

301 4th St., S.W., Rm. 600

Washington, DC 20547

phone: (202) 619-4457

fax: (202) 619-5489

www.state.gov/r/adcompd

Harold C. Pachios

Chairman

Maine

Charles H. Dolan, Jr.

Vice Chairman

Virginia

Lewis Manilow 

Illinois

Maria Elena Torano

Florida

Ambassador Penne 

Percy Korth 

Texas
THE U.S. ADVISORY COMMISSION ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

301 4th St., S.W., Rm. 600 ❙ Washington, DC 20547 ❙ phone: (202) 619-4457 ❙ fax: (202) 619-5489

www.state.gov/r/adcompd