U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

1 

47–261 

" ! COMMITTEE PRINT 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

S. PRT. 

2009

111–6 

U.S. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY—TIME TO GET 

BACK IN THE GAME 

A Report to Members 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

John F. Kerry, Chairman 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 13, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

Available via World Wide Web 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

Republican Leader designee 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

DAVID MCKEAN, Staff Director 

KENNETH A. MYERS, Republican Staff Director 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Letter of Transmittal ............................................................................................... V 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1 

Recommendations .................................................................................................... 2 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 

The American Center .............................................................................................. 4 

From ‘‘American Centers’’ to ‘‘Information Resource Centers’’ ............................ 5 

Chart: IRC Location and Access ...................................................................... 6 

Impact of Security Concerns on Public Diplomacy ............................................... 7 

Graph: Visitors to IRCs On and Off Embassy Compounds ........................... 8 

The Competition ...................................................................................................... 8 

Bi-National Centers ................................................................................................. 10 

Iranian Cultural Centers ........................................................................................ 11 

Chart: Location of Iranian Cultural Centers ................................................. 11 

Other U.S. Government Efforts .............................................................................. 11 

Graph: American Corners By Region ..................................................................... 13 

The American Center in Burma ............................................................................. 14 

Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 14 

Site Visits 

Egypt ................................................................................................................. 16 

Jordan ................................................................................................................ 17 

Mexico ................................................................................................................ 19 

Dominican Republic .......................................................................................... 19 

Appendix 

American Corners ............................................................................................. 23 

Chart: American Corners by Country ...................................................... 23 

Arabic Book Translation Program .................................................................. 30 

English Language Fellows ............................................................................... 32 

Regional English Language Offices ................................................................ 33 

Chart: RELO Countries of Responsibility ............................................. 33 

Access Microscholarships ................................................................................. 34 

Peace Corps Co-location Exemption ................................................................ 36 

Film Series Restrictions ................................................................................... 36 

State Department Cable of Agreement with Motion Picture Licensing 

Corporation ............................................................................................. 38 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
(V)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC, February 13, 2009. 

DEAR COLLEAGUE: Recent polling suggests that support for the 

United States throughout the world is on a slight increase but remains well below the fifty percent mark in many countries, even 

among those nations normally considered strong allies. This lessthan-positive attitude towards our nation has impacts ranging from 

national security threats, to lost trade opportunities, to a significant drop in tourism, to parents overseas refusing to allow their 

children to be educated in U.S. universities. 

The sources of this problem are many. Some of these include 

honest disagreements with our policies and our actions. But many 

are based on misrepresentations of our goals, values and motives 

targeted at those prepared to believe the worst about us. Yet, in 

spite of recent actions to counter these misperceptions, our efforts 

to present our point of view have not been getting through. It is 

time to re-think how we conduct our Public Diplomacy. 

With this in mind, I sent Paul Foldi of my Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff to travel to the Middle East and Latin America in December 2008 to discuss U.S. Public Diplomacy efforts with 

our Embassy and local officials. His report focuses on the need for 

greater direct U.S. engagement with average citizens overseas who 

now have virtually no contact with Americans. In order to overcome years of mistrust, this re-engagement should be on the same 

scope and scale as currently conducted by the British, French and 

German governments, all of which currently offer language instruction and information about their countries in their own government-run facilities throughout the world. Iran is also dramatically 

increasing its outreach efforts through its network of Cultural Centers in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, many of which are located 

in the very locations where we are reducing our public presence. 

The United States used to have a similar worldwide program 

through its ‘‘American Centers,’’ which taught English, housed libraries and hosted U.S. film series, and featured exhibitions and 

lectures by visiting American authors, scientists, human rights 

lawyers, and other speakers. The consolidation of the United States 

Information Agency into the State Department along with security 

concerns resulted in the demise of almost all the Centers (the excellent American Centers in Alexandria, New Delhi and Rangoon 

are among the few exceptions) and led to their rebirth as Information Resource Centers (or ‘‘IRCs’’) most often housed inside our new 

Embassies. These Embassy compounds place a premium on proVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:41 Mar 04, 2009 Jkt 047261 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 7633 E:\HR\OC\A261.XXX A261

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
VI

tecting our diplomats and often convey an atmosphere ill-suited to 

encouraging the casual visitor, with almost half of the 177 IRCs operating on a ‘‘by appointment only’’ basis. Additionally, usage figures demonstrate that our IRCs in the Middle East which are located inside our Embassies receive six times fewer visitors than 

similar facilities in the region located outside our compounds. 

This lack of easily accessible facilities, where foreigners can read 

about United States history and government and access newspapers and the Internet in an environment free from their own 

government’s censorship has hurt us—particularly when over 80% 

of the world’s population is listed by Freedom House as having a 

press that is either ‘‘Not Free’’ or only ‘‘Partly Free.’’ 

Where once we were seen as the world’s leader in intellectual 

discourse and debate, we are now viewed as withdrawn and unconcerned with any views other than our own. While the re-creation 

of the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) is not realistic, a program 

to re-establish the American Centers that uses the teaching of 

English to offset operating costs would go far to demonstrate that 

we are committed to re-engaging in a dialogue with the world. 

Such a program would entail re-locating a small number of Embassy officials outside our diplomatic compounds in those locations 

where the security climate permits and where we are able to provide them with appropriately secure facilities. If we hope to change 

opinions towards us, we must be able to interact with the world. 

We have learned much in recent years about keeping our personnel 

overseas safe; as such, increased accessibility need not come at the 

cost of security. 

Mr. Foldi’s report provides important insights into the current 

state of our Public Diplomacy and offers valuable recommendations 

based on his travels and years of work in the field. As the title of 

his report suggests, we have been too long on the sidelines of Public Diplomacy in recent years, and it is indeed time for the United 

States to ‘‘Get Back In The Game.’’ I hope that you find this report 

helpful as Congress works with the new administration to 

strengthen our Public Diplomacy efforts and look forward to continuing to work with you on these issues. 

Sincerely, 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Ranking Member. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
(1) 

1 A February 6, 2009 BBC World Service Poll of more than 13,000 respondents in 21 countries 

still showed the United States with a 40% positive-43% negative rating. http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 

2/hi/7873050.stm. 

U.S. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY—TIME TO GET BACK 

IN THE GAME 

On behalf of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, minority staff traveled to Egypt, Jordan, Mexico and the Dominican Republic from December 1–12, 2008. The purpose of the trip was to 

examine U.S. Public Diplomacy facilities as platforms for engagement with foreign audiences, including the role of English language 

instruction as a vehicle to facilitate greater access to information 

about the United States and interaction with core American values. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It is no secret that support for the United States has dropped 

precipitously throughout the world in recent years.1 Many experts 

believe this is due not only to various U.S. foreign policy developments but also to the method in which we conduct our Public Diplomacy. Public Diplomacy requires our diplomats to interact not 

only with Foreign Ministry officials but with local journalists, authors, scientists, artists, athletes, experts and academics as well 

the average citizen. 

The entity created within the U.S. government to deal with Public Diplomacy and to communicate with the rest of the world—the 

United States Information Agency (USIA)—was abolished in 1999. 

While the Department of State absorbed USIA’s personnel and 

maintained some of its programs, most agree that U.S. focus on 

Public Diplomacy began to diminish from this point on. (Nonetheless, re-creating USIA, or something similar, is neither feasible nor 

affordable in today’s budgetary environment.) 

This lack of focus was also partly due to the belief that, with the 

collapse of the Soviet Union, we had won the ‘‘War of Ideas’’—a belief that 9/11 quickly shattered. We now find ourselves having to 

focus our Public Diplomacy efforts not only on those who ‘‘hate us,’’ 

but also on many former friends and allies who now mistrust our 

motives and actions. 

In order to improve the situation we must address the difficulties 

we now face in conducting people-to-people interactions and providing access to information about the United States—the core of 

U.S. Public Diplomacy policy. Both aspects of this policy served as 

the foundations of our best Public Diplomacy platforms—the 

‘‘American Center’’—which housed libraries, reading rooms, taught 

English and conducted countless outreach programs, book groups, 

film series, and lectures that enabled foreigners to meet with 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
2 

Americans of all walks of life and vocations and hold conversations 

on issues of mutual interest. 

These free-standing American Centers were drastically downsized and re-cast as ‘‘Information Resource Centers’’ (IRCs), most 

of which were then removed from easily accessible downtown locations due to security concerns following the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Those IRCs that were relocated to our Embassy compounds have seen significant reductions 

in visitors—IRCs in the Middle East that are located off our compounds receive six times fewer visitors per month as those located 

on our compounds. Thus we have created a vicious cycle: frustrated 

by our inability to connect with audiences overseas who no longer 

trust us, we have in fact weakened our efforts at Public Diplomacy 

by denying them access to both American officials as well as uncensored information about us. 

The State Department—working with Congress and host governments—needs to re-create the American Center system in secure 

facilities outside our Embassy compounds from which we can provide foreign audiences with greater access to information about the 

United States through libraries, periodicals and an uncensored 

Internet. At the same time, much as the British, French and Germans all offer classes overseas in their mother tongues, we must 

use the teaching English both as a draw to bring individuals back 

into our Centers and as a source of funding by using tuition fees 

to offset the costs of running them. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Congressional support is needed for the Department of State to 

create more accessible Public Diplomacy platforms by pushing Information Resource Centers (IRCs) out of remote Embassy compounds and allowing them to be re-built as stand-alone American 

Centers in more centrally located areas. In order to accomplish 

this, the so-called ‘‘co-location requirement’’ should be re-visited to 

allow these new Centers to be established as well as to permit 

those few facilities still off-compound to remain as such, as long as 

appropriate security measures are in place. 

• IRCs and American Centers should operate six days a week 

and ensure that hours of operation maximize usage by local 

publics. 

• The Department of State should engage in the teaching of 

English using American or American-trained teachers hired directly by the Embassy, not sub-contractors, and using standardized 

techs appropriate for each region/culture. This will ensure that the 

Department has full control over the content and quality of the 

education, and will go far to advancing our Public Diplomacy efforts. 

• Charging for this English instruction is appropriate and logical 

in these budgetary times. 

• If the security situation in an area deteriorates to the point 

that a stand-alone American Center must be closed for a prolonged 

period of time, the facility should be preserved, perhaps re-cast for 

other use, but not permanently closed. These Centers serve as 

high-profile symbols of America’s desire for direct engagement with 

local populations as well as our commitment to education and acVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:41 Mar 04, 2009 Jkt 047261 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A261.XXX A261

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
3 

cess to uncensored information; abandoning them indicates we 

have given up on advancing these ideals. • In Latin America, rather than create competing institutions 

that offer English language and cultural programming, the State 

Department should examine cost and policy implications of formally re-establishing U.S. government links with the network of 

Bi-National Centers (BNCs) in the region. BNCs were originally 

created by the United States but are now wholly run by independent local boards. • American Corners—smaller versions of IRCs—are housed in 

local university or public office buildings. At a cost of $35,000 each, 

and with over 400 already established worldwide, the Department 

of State should take a careful look at any requests for additional 

American Corners to ensure the need is truly justified. American 

Corners are appropriate for remote locations that lack any other 

U.S. presence but should not be used as substitutes in capitals for 

American Centers, particularly as American Corners are run by 

local staffs who are neither employed nor managed by U.S. Embassy officials and thus represent a literal out-sourcing of American Public Diplomacy. • In those capitals where an American Corner does exist, its collection should be combined with the Embassy’s IRC to form the nucleus of the new American Center’s resources. • The State Department’s Arabic book translation program is 

crucial to providing information in local texts and should be strongly supported until free-market forces step in. The Department 

should examine potential cost savings by consolidating Cairo and 

Amman operations as long as both are able to continue to provide 

input into the translation selection process. • The term Information Resource Center is cumbersome and, for 

most foreigners, confusing. A return to the simpler ‘‘Library’’ seems 

appropriate for those IRCs that must remain on embassy compounds. • Given the disparity between the 11,000 graduates of the 

English language focused Access Microscholarships targeted mainly 

at under-served Muslim youth, and the 300 slots available for the 

State Department’s YES exchange program which sends Muslim 

youth to spend a year in American High Schools, the State Department needs to ensure that adequate funding is available for followon programming to keep the vast majority Access graduates engaged and using the skills that have been invested in them, even 

if this requires a reduction of the portion of the Access program’s 

budget and fewer annual graduates. 

• The State Department should re-engage with the U.S. Motion 

Picture Licensing Corporation to allow greater public awareness of 

Embassy-run American film series than permitted under the current, overly restrictive, Licensing Agreement negotiated between 

the two. 

INTRODUCTION

Public Diplomacy is the conduct of diplomacy beyond the boundaries and venues of traditional foreign ministries and halls of 

power of a nation and requires interacting directly with the citizens, community leaders, journalists and policy experts who are the 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
4 

2http://www.gao.gov/transitionl2009/urgent/. 3These include: Arndt, Richard. The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in 

the Twentieth Century. New York: Potomac Books, Inc., 2007; Kiesling, John Brady. Diplomacy 

Lessons: Realism for an Unloved Superpower. Washington, D.C. Potomac Books, Inc., 2006; Peterson, Peter G. Finding America’s Voice: A Strategy for Reinvigorating US Public Diplomacy 

(Report of An Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations). New 

York: Council On Foreign Relations, Inc., 2003; Rosen, Brian and Charles Wolf, Jr. Public Diplomacy: How to Think About and Improve It. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2004; Rugh, William A. American Encounters With Arabs: The Soft Power of US Public Diplomacy in the Middle 

East. London: Praeger Security International, 2006. 4 Recent revelations have surfaced that China has again begun to deny access to various Internet sites it had stopped blocking during the 2008 Olympic games (see: http://www.nytimes.com/ 

2008/12/17/world/asia/17china.html?hp). U.S. facilities with filter-free Internet provide a natural magnet for the public in many locations where repressive governments try to deny information to their citizens. 

future leaders and current opinion shapers of their country. Public 

Diplomacy also seeks to create a better understanding of our nation 

with a foreign populace as a whole by providing them access to 

American culture, history, law, society, art and music that might 

not otherwise be available through standard local media outlets 

that often provide biased reporting about the United States and 

our involvement in the world. 

Visitor exchange programs are an important component of Public 

Diplomacy. These State Department exchanges send experts from 

the U.S. to countries throughout the world and, equally important, 

bring foreigners to the United States to meet with their counterparts here. The contacts and professional relationships fostered in 

these programs are one of the hallmarks of our people-to-people diplomacy, but they are not alone. The Peace Corps and Fulbright 

Scholarships are equally vital to providing long-term access to 

Americans and America. The Voice of America and its affiliates are 

also a crucial element in our policy. 

In spite of these efforts, the fact that U.S. Public Diplomacy policy is in disarray is neither a secret nor a surprise. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, in its November 6, 2008 list of thirteen urgent issues demanding the next administration’s attention 

to ensure the nation’s security, placed ‘‘improving the U.S. image 

abroad’’ fifth.2 Study after study 3 points to our difficulties in explaining our foreign policy to skeptical publics overseas. In short, 

the U.S. ‘‘brand’’ has not been doing well in the marketplace of 

world ideas. 

This is partly a result of honest disagreements that some audiences have with our policies. It is also due to a skewed vision that 

many in the world receive about the U.S. either from biased reporting and/or because they are denied access to Internet sites that are 

blocked or heavily filtered.4 Denied this information, even with our 

excellent exchange programs, the average citizen also has limited 

or no contact with Americans. Offering greater access to our ideas, 

citizens and officials will provide an important antidote to these 

ills. 

THE AMERICAN CENTER—PUBLIC DIPLOMACY PLATFORMS PAR

EXCELLENCE

For years, our premier overseas Public Diplomacy platforms were 

the American Centers, operated by the United States Information 

Agency as stand-alone facilities located downtown in capital cities. 

The Centers offered reading rooms with the latest American and 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
5 

5 As a result of our extensive collections, many foreigners had their first exposure to serious 

research and uncensored information in an American Center’s library—one reason why the Centers are most commonly referred to overseas as the ‘‘American Library,’’ in spite of the entirety 

of a Center’s offerings. 6Freedom House’s 2008 Global Press Freedom report counts 66% (123) of the world’s nations 

as having either a Not Free or only Partly Free press. These 123 countries represent over 80% 

of the world’s population. http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop08/FOTP2008lCharts.pdf. 7 ‘‘Neutral’’ in the sense of a less formal setting than a U.S. Embassy, but by no means free 

from risk as many repressive governments, to this day, monitor and track all visitors to U.S. 

facilities. 

foreign newspapers and housed libraries with collections of American history, economics, legal, scientific and classic literature.5 Center staff coordinated book discussion groups, lectures by visiting 

American experts, and model United Nations and American Congress programs with local youth. Centers ran American film series 

programs and served as venues for visiting American artists and 

musicians. English language instruction was also a staple of most 

Centers. Importantly, access to these facilities was free of charge 

and buildings were situated in the most vibrant part of city centers. All of these services are critical in countries either too poor 

or too repressive to provide any such institutions to their own 

publics. 

Americans long accustomed to our daily newspapers, 24-hour television news cycle and unfettered access to the Internet sometimes 

forget that many societies still live with state control of radio and 

TV, Internet censorship and no right to freedom of speech.6 At the 

same time, many of these same governments use their control of 

the media to espouse distorted stories and unbalanced images of 

the United States. American Centers offered a neutral 7 space for 

foreigners to access information without interference or oversight 

from repressive host governments as well as a welcoming environment more conducive to engagement with American officials. Yet, 

despite the significant Public Diplomacy value of these Centers to 

project America’s ideas and images, several events occurred that 

led to the rapid demise of all but a handful. 

FROM ‘‘AMERICAN CENTERS’’ TO ‘‘IRCS’’ 

The American Centers program closed as a result of a confluence 

of several events, including: the end of the Cold War, the rise of 

the Internet, and the absorption of the U.S. Information Agency 

(USIA) into the Department of State. The first created the false impression that the great debate was over regarding the primacy of 

democratically elected governments. The second created the false 

belief that we could conduct Public Diplomacy primarily through an 

electronic medium. The third resulted in Public Diplomacy officers 

more focused on localized issues related to their Embassy and Ambassador rather than global U.S. Public Diplomacy policy. As a result, most Centers were significantly downsized in terms of material and staff and relocated into Embassies in their truncated forms 

as Information Resource Center (IRCs), many of which are now 

open only by appointment or have hours of operation that limit 

public use. (See chart below.) 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
6 

9See the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 in Division G of the FY2008 

Omnibus Appropriations legislation (PL105–277), which begins on p. 761. http://frwebgate. 

ccess.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105lconglpublicllaws&docid= f:publ277.105.pdf. 10See public diplomacy funding figures in CSIS Appendix to Armitage-Nye April 24, 2008 

Senate testimony; http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts0804024Armitage-Nyel 

Appendix.pdf. 11Foreign Service Officers are career-tracked in one of five ‘‘cones’’—Consular, Economic, 

Management, Political or (since the absorption of USIA into the State Department in 1999)— 

Public Diplomacy. 

INFORMATION RESOURCE CENTERS—LOCATIONS AND ACCESS 8

Region IRC total 

IRCs located on 

embassy compound 

IRCs with public 

access by appointment only IRCs with no access to the public 

Africa ..................................... 37 21 (57%) 9 (24%) 0 

East Asia ............................... 28 18 (64%) 15 (54%) 3 (Sydney, Singapore, Hong Kong) 

Europe .................................... 55 43 (78%) 30 (55%) 11 (Brussels, Baku, Berlin, Copenhagen, 

Nicosia, Paris, Tallinn, The Hague, Moscow, Yekaterinburg, Stockholm) 

Middle East ........................... 16 12 (75%) 6 (50%) 2 (Sana’a, Yemen; Beirut, Lebanon) 

South and Central Asia ......... 16 8 (50%) 8 (50%) 2 (Karachi and Lahore, Pakistan) 

Latin America ........................ 25 20 (80%) 19 (76%) 1 (Bogota, Colombia) 

Total ......................... 177 122 (69%) 87 (49%) 19 (11%) 

8 Figures provided by the Department of State for 2008. 

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War 

suggested to many policy makers that the continued need to make 

the case for American democratic values was finally over. As a result of this ‘‘victory,’’ funding cuts in Public Diplomacy efforts were 

considered part of a logical ‘‘peace dividend,’’ and Centers began to 

see their programming budgets reduced and funding for book programs slashed. The attacks of 9/11 and subsequent events demonstrate that work in this field is far from over, as even in Europe 

many ‘‘natural’’ allies now regard the United States with distrust. 

The rise of the Internet led many to conclude that more and 

more Public Diplomacy outreach could be conducted just as easily 

through websites and local Internet Cafes as through more costly 

U.S. brick and mortar facilities. There is no question that book purchase and shipping expenses are not insignificant given the farflung nature of many of our Embassies. Definite cost savings can 

be achieved through uploading information on the Internet. In fact, 

many IRCs now subscribe to vast legal and scientific database services which can be accessed at users’ homes via many IRCs’ 

websites. Such data is no doubt valuable for foreign researchers 

and generates a certain recognition of the U.S. as leader in education and freedom of information. However, if enhanced people-topeople interactions are judged to be a key component for improving 

our Public Diplomacy efforts, cutting out the interaction with 

Americans seems counterintuitive. 

The 1999 dissolution 9 of the United States Information Agency 

(USIA), which ran the American Centers, and the absorption of 

USIA’s personnel and some of its programs into the State Department, continued to chip away at the Centers and overall Public Diplomacy funding in light of what State viewed as Congressional 

pressures to continue to reduce spending overseas.10 USIA officers 

were re-cast as Public Diplomacy (PD) ‘‘coned’’ officers in the State 

Department.11 As Foreign Service Officers, PD officials in the field 

report not to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy in WashVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:41 Mar 04, 2009 Jkt 047261 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A261.XXX A261

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
7 

12See for example the proposed creations of: ‘‘USA-World Trust’’ in the Brookings report 

‘‘Voices of America’’ http://www.brookings.edu//media/Files/rc/reports/2008/11lpublicl diplomacyllord/11lpublicldiplomacyllord.pdf; the Defense Science Boards ‘‘Center for Global Engagement’’ http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2008-01-StrategiclCommunication.pdf; 

Meridian International Center for the Study of the Presidency’s call for a ‘‘Foundation for International Understanding’’ http://www.thepresidency.org/FIU/fiu.html; Business for Diplomatic 

Action’s ‘‘Corporation for Public Diplomacy’’ http://www.businessfordiplomaticaction.org/ 

action/albusinesslperspectivelonlpublicl diplomacyl10l2007lapprovedfinal.pdf; Heritage Foundation’s ‘‘Independent Public Opinion Research Center’’ http://www.heritage.org/ 

Research/PublicDiplomacy/bg1875.cfm; Public Diplomacy Council—‘‘U.S. Agency for Public Diplomacy’’ www.pdi.gwu.edu. 13See Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999, found in Title VI of 

Division A of the FY2000 Omnibus Appropriations Act (PL106–113), starting on p. 451; http:// 

frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106lconglpublicllaws&docid= 

f:publ113.106.pdf. 14 Visiting an IRC in a new US Embassy was likened to ‘‘going to jail or getting into Fort 

Knox’’ according to one interviewee in the State Department’s 2003 ‘‘Changing Minds Winning 

Peace: A Strategic Direction for U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim World.’’ http:// 

www.state.gov/documents/organization/24882.pdf. 

ington but to their Ambassador at post. Quite naturally, many PD 

officers are more concerned with supporting his or her Ambassador’s immediate press needs rather than worrying if their Ambassador’s initiatives track with overall U.S. Public Diplomacy priorities. 

In the ten years since the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act took effect, it is clear that the abolishment of USIA 

failed to improve our Public Diplomacy efforts significantly. In 

spite of the wishes of many, however, there is neither the political 

will nor budgetary outlays available to recreate USIA, or any other 

similar stand-alone entity.12

IMPACT OF SECURITY CONCERNS ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

At the same time that budgetary and bureaucratic pressures 

were impinging on public diplomacy efforts, the Department of 

State was reeling from the 1998 bombings of our Embassies in 

Kenya and Tanzania. Responding quickly, Congress provided, and 

continues to provide, the Department of State hundreds of millions 

of dollars annually for Embassy construction to replace chancery 

buildings.13 In order to build facilities that can withstand blasts 

such as those that struck Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, new embassy 

buildings must have a one hundred foot set-back from the perimeter fence in order to dissipate the shock waves of an explosion. 

Sites with sufficient acreage to meet these new set-back requirements can only be found miles away from the previously convenient 

downtown locations of our original Embassies. Such sites by definition tend to be in remote areas poorly served by public transportation. These relocations have resulted in decreases in both the 

ease and frequency of locals visiting American officials and vice 

versa—creating a veritable diplomatic lethargy in many locations. 

Equally impacted has been the foot-traffic in IRCs that are located 

on Embassy compounds. At the same time, new security architecture has created structures that project a Fortress America environment that seems to say anything but ‘‘Welcome’’ 14 which has 

led to a similar inertia in our Public Diplomacy efforts in many of 

these locations. 

The same Act that creates these new Embassy construction 

standards also requires that, ‘‘In selecting sites for new United 

States diplomatic facilities abroad, all personnel of United States 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
8 

15Staff conversations with several interlocutors in both Egypt and Jordan, all of which produced identical results. 

Government agencies except those under the command of a United 

States area military commander shall be located on the same compound.’’ This portion of the Act is known as the ‘‘co-location’’ requirement and is most often cited as the mandate for the closure 

of stand-alone American Centers and their subsequent absorption 

into Embassy facilities as truncated IRCs. There is a waiver for 

this requirement, but it has rarely been adopted and only on a 

case-by-case basis. The only blanket exception is for the Peace 

Corps, which was given a Congressional exemption (see Appendix). 

According to data provided by the State Department, those IRCs 

located off the compound receive significantly more visitors than 

those located on the compound. As the chart below illustrates, in 

the Middle East—perhaps our area most in need of outreach—with 

12 IRCs on Embassy compounds and 4 located off, those off the 

compound received almost six times as many visitors per month 

(843) as those on the compound (139). IRCs in Latin America, East 

Asia, South Central Asia have even greater disparities. 

THE COMPETITION

Where is the best place to learn French? 

The Alliance Franc ̧aise run by the French Embassy. 

Where is the best place to learn English? 

The British Council.15

As American Centers began to disappear, our involvement in the 

direct teaching of English declined at the same time, and the British have been more than willing to step into the breach. Just as 

American college graduates are often fiercely loyal to their alma 

maters, graduates of the Alliance or British Councils form a bond 

with those nations that lasts a lifetime based on their years of exVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:41 Mar 04, 2009 Jkt 047261 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A261.XXX A261

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 013 47261A.001
9 

posure to those countries through the educational advantages they 

gained through study in each. Having virtually ceased to offer the 

same educational opportunities, the United States is missing out 

on creating similarly supportive lifelong linkages. 

The British Council has locations in some 110 countries with 

over 7,900 staff. A standard British Council facility will have 15 or 

more classrooms that teach English from the morning to night. 

While some funding comes directly from the British government, 

much of their operating budget must come from fees generated locally through teaching as well as providing space and proctoring of 

international testing such as the UK equivalent of the U.S. 

‘‘TOEFL’’ (Test of English as a Foreign Language) exam that is required of all potential immigrants to Great Britain. Additionally, 

local multinational firms either contract with the Council for special training sessions on site, or bring instructors to their institutions. To date, tuition for British Council language instruction is 

considered prohibitively expensive by most locals, resulting in a clientele of primarily the economic and social elite. 

As with American Centers, British Councils house library facilities with computers hooked to the Internet. The Councils are modern, spacious, well-staffed and, importantly, open six days a week 

to maximize attendance and outreach opportunities. Additionally, 

and uniquely, they provide a well-stocked section of children’s 

books which starts the ‘‘bonding’’ experience with the UK at an 

even earlier age. Like France’s Alliance Franc ̧aise centers, British 

Councils routinely contract with a local caterer to establish a cafeteria which not only adds to students’ convenience, and therefore 

market share, but in some countries provides the only common 

area where members of different social groups can interact without 

fear of arousing the suspicions of local political or religious authorities. Both French and British facilities maintain sufficient public 

space to host their own cultural events or art shows—some even 

act as galleries and retain a certain percentage of each sale. Their 

facilities also offer sufficient multipurpose rooms/auditoriums for 

film showings or lectures. Except for the oldest and most established of our Centers, American IRCs rarely have either large conference rooms or dedicated auditoriums due to the constant pressure within Embassies for the limited chancery space available. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
10 

British Council Cairo, Egypt—complete with Henry Moore sculpture. 

Entrance to library portion of the building above, including latest pop CDs to draw in local 

youths. 

BI-NATIONAL CENTERS

Latin America is the one exception to British Council dominance 

in English language instruction. In this region, Bi-National Centers 

(BNCs) are considered the premiere institution in this field. BNCs 

are, however, a legacy of earlier, closer bilateral engagement between those nations and the United States. A typical BNC was 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert photo A 47261A.014 Insert photo B 47261A.015
11 

16 Iranian Cultural Center information can be found at http://culturebase.icro.ir/. 17Further discussions of each of these elements can be found in the Appendix. 

very similar in structure to current British Councils—English Language programs were used to fund programmatic and library activities and were initially U.S. government facilities run by USIA 

officers. 

However, as budgetary constraints took hold and later, as USIA 

was absorbed into the State Department, the U.S. government 

began to disengage from day-to-day operations to the point that, 

now, BNCs are completely independent of U.S. operational and 

budgetary support, oversight, and programmatic direction. Few 

locals, however, seem to realize this and still consider BNCs to be 

part of our Embassies. Fortunately, most BNCs are well-funded because of their tuition base, and many put the local Department of 

State IRC to shame. 

IRANIAN CULTURAL CENTERS 16

Not only are our allies engaged in expansive Public Diplomacy efforts. Tellingly, Iran is now conducting an active outreach program 

particularly in those predominantly Muslim African and Asian 

countries. Iranian Cultural Centers offer Persian language classes 

and extensive library resources. These Centers serve Iran as a 

mouthpiece to promote anti-American propaganda and have been 

alleged in local media to be extremist recruitment centers and covers for intelligence operatives. In over half of the locations listed 

below, the American Embassy’s Information Resource Center is either not open to the public or open by appointment only, which 

begs the question, how can we possibly expect our ideas to compete 

in these critical marketplaces if the average citizen cannot easily 

access them? 

IRANIAN CULTURAL CENTERS 

Asia Africa Europe Middle East South Central Asia 

Bangladesh Ethiopia Armenia Egypt Afghanistan 

China Ghana Austria Kuwait India (2 Centers) 

Indonesia Kenya Azerbaijan Lebanon Kazakhstan Pakistan (8 

Centers) 

Japan Nigeria Bosnia & Herzegovina Qatar 

Thailand Sierra Leone Bulgaria Saudi Arabia Sri Lanka 

South Africa Croatia Syria Tajikistan 

Sudan France Tunis Turkmenistan 

Tanzania Germany United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan 

Uganda Greece Yemen 

Zambia Italy 

Zimbabwe Russia 

Serbia 

Spain 

Turkey (2 Centers) 

OTHER U.S. GOVERNMENT EFFORTS 17

The United States has not been completely idle in Public Diplomacy or in the use of English language instruction to further those 

goals: 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
12 

• Some 20 Regional English Language Officers are sprinkled throughout American Embassies, but travel is expensive and many RELOs are too constrained by duties at 

their home embassies to engage in sufficient regional visits 

and thus have limited impact. 

• There are currently 136 English Language Fellows in 76 

countries. Fellows work with specific institutions on issues 

ranging from teacher training classes for English instructors to teaching English directly. These initiatives provide 

unprecedented pedagogical opportunities for the United 

States to impact Education Ministry policies throughout 

the world, but they are largely invisible to the general population of each country. 

• The Peace Corps is also heavily involved in this area as 

almost 20% of Peace Corps Volunteers (PCVs) have 

‘‘Teaching English’’ as their primary task in the field. 

PCVs are one of the most effective examples of people-topeople Public Diplomacy, and they invariably depart after 

their two years leaving nothing but a positive impression. 

PCVs are, however, are only in some 60 countries throughout the world and generally located in more remote locations in their countries. 

• As part of a reaction to the closing of American Centers, 

the Bush Administration began a program of establishing 

American Corners throughout the world. To date there are 

over 400 Corners in municipal buildings, university libraries or other public buildings in regions that often have no 

other U.S. diplomatic presence. Books related to the 

United States and computers are supplied to each location, 

but the operation, maintenance and programming offered 

by each Corner is in the hands of a foreign national who 

is neither paid nor overseen by U.S. Embassy officials and 

thus amount to nothing less than an outsourcing of U.S. 

Public Diplomacy. The results in terms of U.S. Public Diplomacy are therefore mixed; some Corners are vital hubs 

of information, others dusty relics that offered little more 

than a photo-op for an ambassador at their opening. None 

offers direct access to Americans. While appropriate for remote regions where the U.S. has no diplomatic presence, 

Corners are too small to take the place of American Centers in a capital city. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
13 

18See a recent review of the program in the New York Times which quotes one 15 year old 

Egyptian girl: ‘‘We don’t want it to be two years that just passed and then it’s over.’’ http:// 

www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/middleeast/06cairo.html?lr=1&scp=2&sq= 

access&st=cse. 

• Access Microscholarship grants are awarded primarily in 

the Muslim world to lower-income youth to provide access 

to U.S.-sponsored English classes. The classes are run by 

local contractors and vary according to local markets. 

Some offer not only English lessons but research on the 

United States in English on computers at their facilities 

and emphasize critical thinking as part of their curriculum. The intent of the scholarships is not only to reach 

the best and brightest of a non-traditional audience, but to 

provide them with sufficient language skills so they may 

successfully compete in the State Department’s Youth Exchange and Study (YES) program that brings Muslim high 

school age students to the U.S. for a year of study. (Prior 

to Access scholarships, too many YES participants were 

from the elite strata of society, most of whom already had 

exposure to the U.S. through tourist visits.) Some 11,000 

Access students graduate each year, but many are concerned that there is no further follow-up programming to 

keep them engaged.18

None of these options has the Public Diplomacy impact of a 

stand-alone American Center located in the heart of a nation’s capital. Such Centers are true flagships not only of American outreach 

but also represent our vital and visible commitment to the freedom 

of information, thought and discussion. As such, occasionally, they 

can even play a direct role in the democratic aspirations of a repressed nation. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 018 47261A.002
14 

19http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/08/25/080825falfactlpacker/. 20http://burma.usembassy.gov/thelamericanlcenter.html. 

THE AMERICAN CENTER IN BURMA

A recent article in The New Yorker magazine 19 provides ample 

evidence of the role a U.S.-run facility in fostering democratic ideas 

and actions. As discussed in his well-documented August 25, 2008 

piece, journalist George Packer describes the vital role the U.S. 

American Center in Rangoon 20—with its James Baldwin Library 

and Ella Fitzgerald Auditorium—played in the cultural and political lives of the Burmese people. Mr. Packer discusses how U.S. 

diplomatic officials used the facility to meet with average citizens 

to discuss everything from literature and performing arts to both 

local and U.S. politics. 

Embassy Public Diplomacy personnel who ran the Center purchased thousands of new books for the Library, and now have over 

13,000 titles. As a result of outreach efforts, membership for the 

Center tripled. Book clubs sprang up that enabled older Burmese 

dissidents to discuss their past activities with younger activists 

bent on reform. Operating six days a week provided additional opportunities for average citizens to use the Center and take part in 

the discussions. Twelve Internet stations offered access to information unavailable to even those few non-government Burmese who 

have a computer at home. The Center became one of the main focal 

points for dissidents and organizers of the fall 2007 protests 

against the Burmese military dictatorship. 

Portraying our Centers as potential instruments for democratic 

regime change is perhaps the shortest way to ensure their closure, 

but, to date, the Center in Rangoon remains open and active. With 

well over 10,000 visitors a month—making it easily our most visited Public Diplomacy facility in the world—our Center in Rangoon 

demonstrates that if people are given the opportunity to access 

ideas and information about democracy, the desire for freedom can 

thrive in even the most repressive of regimes. 

CONCLUSION

There is no question that our standing in the world is nowhere 

near where it should be. This may change in the short term as the 

new administration pursues alternative foreign policy practices, but 

what may prove more difficult to overcome in the long term is the 

lingering suspicion that we no longer seek to collaborate and cooperate. 

Such doubts about our motives and intentions peaked just as 

America was seen as closing itself off, which only added to this climate of mistrust. It mattered little to the world that much of this 

was the result of terrorist attacks against the United States, nor 

that these attacks produced in our own country a similar degree of 

mistrust towards much of the world. This led to a foreign policy environment which seemed to put security above all other considerations. 

These security concerns, in turn, brought about the closure of 

many American Centers with English classes terminated and truncated remains of their library collections brought inside our new 

Embassy compounds as Information Resources Centers. At the 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
15 

same time foreign audiences, used to convenience and the freedom 

of access to American Centers, were loathe to submit to what they 

believe are cumbersome appointment schedule requirements, hostile security environments and reduced resources. As such, not surprisingly, IRC foot-traffic is significantly lower for those situated 

inside our chancery compounds. 

Thus, we have succeeded in sidelining some of the greatest assets 

we have in the field of Public Diplomacy by restricting access to the 

very information and individuals needed to educate international 

audiences about who we really are as a nation, rather than the images that our detractors continue to use to portray us. It is, indeed, 

time for us to get back in the game. 

A new Public Diplomacy approach designed to re-engage with the 

rest of the world is crucial to improving our standing in the world. 

Care must be taken to ensure that any new programs are viewed 

not as mere short-term public relations campaigns designed to 

‘‘sell’’ the image of the United States. Sophisticated foreign publics 

have become suspicious of recent attempts to paint the United 

States in too rosy a picture—what some would argue is a classic 

case of confusing ‘‘Public Relations’’ with ‘‘Public Diplomacy.’’ True 

Public Diplomacy changes will involve long-range efforts to demonstrate a renewed willingness on our part to discuss rather than 

to dictate. 

Reinvigorating the American Centers will go far to providing this 

by offering a more neutral location for our diplomats and visiting 

scholars to begin to repair the breach that has been created. Ambassadors continue to hear from foreign leaders and opinion makers who fondly recall learning about the United States and the 

world outside in our Centers. They equally loudly lament the closure of our facilities and ask how we can be surprised by downturns in public opinion towards us when their citizens have nowhere to go to obtain unbiased information. It is now time to turn 

this argument on its head and work with these same governments 

to provide us with appropriate, secure, and hopefully donated space 

in order to re-establish American Centers in centrally located 

areas, using the literary and staffing resources of the Embassy’s 

IRC along with the books and computers from any existing American Corner in that capital to form the nucleus of the new American Center’s offerings. 

In the years that have elapsed since the tragic bombings of our 

Embassies, we have developed the security technologies needed to 

keep our diplomats safe and must ensure as many measures as 

possible are properly in place before moving forward. To assist in 

this, Congress needs to provide the State Department a clear signal 

of support for such actions modeled on the legislation (see Appendix) used to allow the Peace Corps to maintain its offices off U.S. 

Embassy compounds. 

Equally important in these tight budget times, the Department 

should immediately begin to explore how to recommence the teaching of English in order to create the needed ‘‘pull’’ to bring skeptics 

of the United States into the Centers as well as use the revenues 

generated to partially offset operating costs. English has become 

the common language of not only commerce, but science, industry, 

and most importantly—the Internet. Teaching English will not only 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
16 

provide a marketable skill required for advancement in our international marketplace, but it will also allow us to re-introduce 

America and American values to much of a world that still views 

us with suspicion. 

None of this offers a quick-fix; rather it portends a long-term reorientation of Public Diplomacy requiring years of dedication, funding and oversight. But if the United States hopes to regain the 

trust of the world as the leader in freedom of information, education excellence, and democratic values, such a commitment is essential. 

SITE VISITS

EGYPT

The United States has two major Public Diplomacy resources in 

Egypt, the free-standing American Center in Alexandria and the 

IRC inside the Embassy in Cairo. 

Of the two, the American Center is by far the more impressive 

for reasons of access, scale, programming space, and overall facilities. A former American Consulate, the Center in Alexandria is in 

some respects a true jewel, with a library stocked with books in 

English and Arabic as well as a computer center with a dozen stations used for Internet research. English instruction is provided by 

the NGO AmidEast in classrooms situated on third floor. Visitors 

to the Center are screened by local guards first at the gate and 

then through a second metal detector at the door of the Center; 

however, AmidEast students are directed up an exterior staircase 

to the third floor and never enter the Center. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert photo C 47261A.016
17 

21http://www.alc.edu.jo/web/. 

Interior views of the exceptional American Center in Alexandria. 

Embassy Cairo’s IRC is housed inside our well-guarded Embassy 

which is part of a diplomatic enclave that is blocked off to vehicular 

traffic. Walk-ins are welcome during the Embassy workweek Sunday thru Thursday 10 am–4 pm, with late closing at 7 pm on Mondays and Wednesdays. The IRC is well stocked with books on the 

United States and has an extensive audio and visual library for use 

on site but acknowledges that its location on the compound serves 

as deterrence to attracting more visitors. Data provided by the Department of State notes that the American Center in Alexandria, 

a city of some 4 million, receives on average 1,600 visitors a month 

while Cairo—a city of at least twice that size—receives less than 

an 1,000. Embassy officials who recognize the need to provide a 

more accessible outreach program have begun to look at various 

properties outside the compound but still within the enclave that 

provide both appropriate space and security. 

JORDAN

Our embassy in Amman boasts what could easily be mistaken for 

an American Center. The Embassy’s American Language Center 

(ALC) has been in operation since 1989. It currently teaches some 

2,400 students per year in 14 classrooms, but unlike the American 

Center in Alexandria which out-sources the teaching to a contractor—AmidEast—ALC instructors are contracted directly by the 

Embassy, thus saving on the ‘‘middle man’’ overhead costs implicit 

in all sub-contracting arrangement. 

The ALC 21 is a stand-alone building located off a major street 

in downtown Amman, and students are screened twice before entering. As pictured below, there is no American flag on the front 

nor a great seal of the Department of State; in fact the word 

‘‘American’’ is not even displayed, only the initials ‘‘ALC.’’ Also ilVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:41 Mar 04, 2009 Jkt 047261 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A261.XXX A261

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert photo D 47261A.017
18 

lustrated below is the excellent library located in the basement of 

the building which houses several thousand volumes, computer terminals, serves as a Wi-Fi hot-spot, and boasts a flat screen TV with 

Digital Video Conference capability. This modern, state-of-the-art 

facility, however, is virtually unused as Embassy security officials 

will not allow general public access; only students registered with 

the ALC may use the facility. 

The top photo above shows the very discreet American Language Center (ALC); its completely 

empty and unused library is shown in the photo below it. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert photo E 47261A.018 Insert photo F 47261A.019
19 

22http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/bbf/biblioteca.htm. 23http://www.educationusa.state.gov/. 

MEXICO

The Ben Franklin Library 22 has been in operation in downtown 

Mexico City since 1942 and is a mainstay of our Public Diplomacy 

efforts. In addition to providing an impressive collection of 23,000 

books on America, U.S. law and economics (primarily in English 

but also Spanish), it boasts 130 periodicals and over 600 videos on 

American history and culture. It is one of the better-known landmarks in the city and projects an impressive image of the United 

States. A significant draw to the library is the ‘‘Education USA’’ 23

section that counsels Mexican students on selecting and applying 

to American universities. This service is a function of the Department of State and is contracted out to different NGOs; the Institute 

of International Education runs the program in Mexico while 

AmidEast does so in Egypt. Some contend that this represents another example of ‘‘out-sourcing’’ Public Diplomacy, while others 

argue that such activities are peripheral activities that would distract or dilute PD officers’ attention from more ‘‘core’’ programmatic activities. 

An active conference schedule included discussions of recently 

published books, films about American history and lectures on the 

American political process and the recent election. The library itself 

occupies the ground floor of a building shared with the U.S. Foreign Commercial Service on a busy downtown street. The State Department estimates that some 1,200 users visit the library every 

month. 

View of the landmark Ben Franklin Library in Mexico City before opening hours. 

SANTO DOMINGO

The Dominican Republic presents a more typical situation in the 

Western Hemisphere. The Embassy runs a small IRC known as the 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert photo G 47261A.020
20 

24http://www.usemb.gov.do/IRC/IRCindex.htm. 25http://www.dominicoamericano.edu.do/english/index.asp. 

‘‘Ben Franklin Center,’’ which offers limited resources (some 2,400 

titles) and is housed in a single room in a small, off the beaten 

path, bungalow that serves as the Embassy’s Public Affairs Section. To address their small size, the staff has aggressively compiled an impressive list of on-line databases 24 that members of the 

IRC—which have included Dominican Presidents and Cabinet 

members—use with great frequency. The push to more and more 

on-line services is understandable as overall costs are minimal 

when compared to publications. However, from a Public Diplomacy 

perspective, this trend is troubling. If true Public Diplomacy work 

most effectively involves interactions between Americans and foreign nationals, then relegating ‘‘contact’’ to a mere Internet portal 

to U.S. government documents, however useful, eliminates the 

‘‘public’’ in Public Diplomacy. 

At the same time, the IRC must compete with Santo Domingo’s 

well-established Bi-National Center 25 which offers both a private 

K–12 school as well as separate English classes for ages 5 to adult. 

The BNC’s library offers a collection of 13,000 titles in English and 

Spanish, and boasts a gallery and auditorium that seats 300. The 

BNC is located on a major thoroughfare and a few blocks from a 

major university. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert photo H 47261A.021
21 

In the first photo above, Embassy Santo Domingo IRC’s library of 2,400 titles; in the bottom 

photo, a small portion of Santo Domingo’s Bi-national Center’s 13,000 titles. 

An excellent example of low-cost, high impact Public Diplomacy 

is the Public Affairs Section’s partnership with the National Museum of Natural History. 

The ViewSpace exhibit in Santo Domingo’s Museum of Natural History. The flat-screen TV 

in the darkened room depicts photos and video of outer space courtesy of NASA. Underneath 

the NASA insignia a sign in Spanish reads ‘‘Courtesy of the Franklin Center of the United 

States Embassy.’’ 

Using a service provided by NASA and for less than $200 a year, 

the Embassy provides a ‘‘ViewSpace’’ exhibit which offers museum 

visitors a constant stream of recent and historic images from American space missions and from satellites such as the Hubble Space 

Telescope. This demonstration of U.S. technology, scientific eduVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:41 Mar 04, 2009 Jkt 047261 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A261.XXX A261

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert photo I 47261A.022 Insert photo J 47261A.023
22 

cation and space exploration is one of the most popular exhibits in 

the museum. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
(23) 

APPENDIX 

AMERICAN CORNERS

In part to counter the restricted access of IRCs located on Embassy compounds, the Bush Administration established the ‘‘American Corners’’ program. Corners are created in partnership with 

local municipalities or universities to provide space, sometimes literally a corner in a room, in which the Embassy supplies, at a 

start-up cost of $35,000, half a dozen computers connected to the 

Internet and a collection of some 800 books. Approximately a third 

of the titles are American fiction with the rest distributed between 

reference, How-To-For-Dummies type guidebooks, biographies, and 

English teaching material. 

If viewed not as a substitute for a formal American Center facility but rather as a supplement, the Corners do in fact provide Public Diplomacy platforms for U.S. programming to have a home— 

particularly in the more remote areas of larger countries where the 

U.S. lacks any formal diplomatic facility. For example in Russia, 

outside of our Embassy in Moscow, the U.S. has consulates in only 

St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, and Vladivostok, but there are 33 

Corners throughout the country. Belarus has 12 Corners; Indonesia 

has 11 Corners, the Philippines—14, Afghanistan—7. 

However, because the Corners are not staffed with nor overseen 

by U.S. officials, they lack the same Public Diplomacy impact of a 

dedicated, stand-alone brick and mortar facility in a country’s capital. Some are excellent projections of American Public Diplomacy 

with dedicated and motivated staffs, others, can wither on the vine 

depending on the level of local interest and resources in providing 

staff willing to push the programming boundaries that may be at 

odds with officials in more remote locations. Again, without direct 

Embassy oversight and financial backing, Corners can be too inconsistent in their operations. As of February 2009, American Corners 

can be found in the following 414 locations. 

AMERICAN CORNERS 

Country City 

AFRICA: 83 In Operation 6 Underway 

Angola ............................................ Luanda 

Benin .............................................. Abomey-Calavi 

Benin .............................................. Grand-Popo 

Benin .............................................. Parakou 

Benin .............................................. Porto-Novo 

Botswana ....................................... Gaborone 

Burkina Faso .................................. Bobo-Dioulasso 

Burkina Faso .................................. Fada N’gourma 

Burkina Faso .................................. Zorgho 

Cameroon ....................................... Bertoua 

Cameroon ....................................... Buea 

Cameroon ....................................... Garoua 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
24 

AMERICAN CORNERS—Continued 

Country City 

Cape Verde .................................... Fogo Island 

Comoros ......................................... Moroni 

Congo ............................................. Pointe-Noire 

Democratic Republic Congo .......... Kinshasa 

Democratic Republic Congo .......... Lumbumbashi 

Cote d’lvoire ................................... Abidjan 

Cote d’lvoire ................................... Tiassale 

Cote d’lvoire ................................... Yamoussoukro 

Equatorial Guinea .......................... Bata (Underway) 

Equatorial Guinea .......................... Malabo (Underway) 

Eritrea ............................................ Dekemhare 

Eritrea ............................................ Keren 

Eritrea ............................................ Massawa 

Ethiopia .......................................... Bahir Dar 

Ethiopia .......................................... Dire Dawa 

Ethiopia .......................................... Harar 

Ethiopia .......................................... Jimma 

Gambia, The .................................. Banjul 

Ghana ............................................ Accra 

Ghana ............................................ Tamale 

Guinea ............................................ Kankan 

Kenya ............................................. Lamu 

Kenya ............................................. Mombasa 

Kenya ............................................. Nairobi (Underway) 

Liberia ............................................ Buchanan 

Liberia ............................................ Kakata 

Liberia ............................................ Monrovia 

Liberia ............................................ Virginia Township 

Liberia ............................................ Zwedru 

Madagascar ................................... Antananarivo 

Madagascar ................................... Antsiranana 

Madagascar ................................... Mahajanga (Underway) 

Malawi ........................................... Blantyre 

Malawi ........................................... Mzuzu 

Malawi ........................................... Zomba 

Mali ................................................ Gao 

Mauritania ..................................... Nouakchott 

Mauritania ..................................... Nouakchott (ISERI) 

Mozambique ................................... Maputo 

Mozambique ................................... Nampula 

Namibia ......................................... Keetmanshoop 

Namibia ......................................... Oshakati (MOU not renewed in 

2008) 

Namibia ......................................... Walvis Bay 

Niger .............................................. Agadez 

Niger .............................................. Maradi 

Niger .............................................. Zinder 

Nigeria ........................................... Abeokuta 

Nigeria ........................................... Abuja 

Nigeria ........................................... Bauchi 

Nigeria ........................................... Calabar 

Nigeria ........................................... Enugu 

Nigeria ........................................... Ibadan 

Nigeria ........................................... Jos 

Nigeria ........................................... Kaduna 

Nigeria ........................................... Kano 

Nigeria ........................................... Maiduguri 

Nigeria ........................................... Port Harcourt 

Nigeria ........................................... Sokoto 

Rwanda .......................................... Butare 

Rwanda .......................................... Kigali 

Rwanda .......................................... Kigali 

Senegal .......................................... Louga 

Senegal .......................................... Ziguinchor 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
25 

AMERICAN CORNERS—Continued 

Country City 

Somalia .......................................... Mogadishu (Underway) 

Sierra Leone ................................... Bo 

South Africa ................................... Bloemfontain 

South Africa ................................... Pietermaritzburg 

Sudan ............................................. Juba (Underway) 

Swaziland ....................................... Nhlangano 

Tanzania ........................................ Pemba 

Tanzania ........................................ Zanzibar 

Togo ............................................... Lome 

Uganda .......................................... Fort Portal 

Uganda .......................................... Mbale 

Zambia ........................................... Kitwe 

Zimbabwe ...................................... Bulawayo 

Zimbabwe ...................................... Mutare 

EAST ASIA: 59 In Operation 

Burma ............................................ Rangoon 

Cambodia ....................................... Battambang 

Cambodian ..................................... Kampong Cham Town 

Cambodia ....................................... Phnom Penh 

Fiji .................................................. Lautoka 

Hong Kong ..................................... Macau, Hong Kong 

Indonesia ....................................... Bandung 

Indonesia ....................................... Depok 

Indonesia ....................................... Jakarta 

Indonesia ....................................... Makassar 

Indonesia ....................................... Malang 

Indonesia ....................................... Medan (at IAIN) 

Indonesia ....................................... Medan (at USU) 

Indonesia ....................................... Semarang 

Indonesia ....................................... Surabaya 

Indonesia ....................................... Yogyakarta (at UGM) 

Indonesia ....................................... Yogyakarta (at UMY) 

Japan ............................................. Nago, Okinawa 

Japan ............................................. Urasoe, Okinawa 

Laos ............................................... Luang Prabang 

Laos ............................................... Vientiane 

Malaysia ......................................... Alor Setar, Kedah 

Malaysia ......................................... Kota Bahru 

Malaysia ......................................... Kuala Lumpur 

Malaysia ......................................... Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu 

Malaysia ......................................... Melaka 

Malaysia ......................................... Sabah 

Malaysia ......................................... Sarawak 

Mongolia ........................................ Khovd 

Mongolia ........................................ Ulaanbaatar 

Philippines ..................................... Bacolod City 

Philippines ..................................... Baguio 

Philippines ..................................... Batac 

Philippines ..................................... Cagayan De Oro 

Philippines ..................................... Cebu 

Philippines ..................................... Cotabato 

Philippines ..................................... Davao City 

Philippines ..................................... Dumaguete 

Philippines ..................................... Iloilo City 

Philippines ..................................... Jolo 

Philippines ..................................... Manila 

Philippines ..................................... Marawi City 

Philippines ..................................... Tawi-Tawi 

Philippines ..................................... Zamboanga 

Singapore ....................................... Singapore 

Singapore ....................................... Singapore 

Singapore ....................................... Singapore 

South Korea ................................... Busan 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
26 

AMERICAN CORNERS—Continued 

Country City 

South Korea ................................... Daegu 

South Korea ................................... Gwangju 

Taiwan ........................................... Taichung 

Thailand ......................................... Chiang Mai 

Thailand ......................................... Khon Kaen 

Thailand ......................................... Nakhon Si Thammarat 

Thailand ......................................... Pattani 

Thailand ......................................... Yala 

Vietnam .......................................... Can Tho 

Vietnam .......................................... Danang 

Vietnam .......................................... Haiphong 

EUROPE: 166 in Operation: 1 Underway 

Albania ........................................... Kukes 

Albania ........................................... Tirana 

Albania ........................................... Vlora 

Armenia .......................................... Gyumri 

Armenia .......................................... Kapan 

Armenia .......................................... Vanadzor 

Armenia .......................................... Yerevan 

Austria ........................................... Innsbruck 

Azerbaijan ...................................... Baku 

Azerbaijan ...................................... Ganja 

Azerbaijan ...................................... Khachmaz 

Azerbaijan ...................................... Kurdemir 

Azerbaijan ...................................... Lenkoran 

Azerbaijan ...................................... Salyan 

Belarus ........................................... Baranovichi 

Belarus ........................................... Bobruisk 

Belarus ........................................... Brest 

Belarus ........................................... Gomel 

Belarus ........................................... Grodno 

Belarus ........................................... Minsk 

Belarus ........................................... Mogilev 

Belarus ........................................... Molodechno 

Belarus ........................................... Mozyr 

Belarus ........................................... Pinsk 

Belarus ........................................... Polotsk 

Belarus ........................................... Vitebsk 

Bosnia & Herzegovina ................... Banja Luka 

Bosnia & Herzegovina ................... Bihac 

Bosnia & Herzegovina ................... Doboj 

Bosnia & Herzegovina ................... Mostar 

Bosnia & Herzegovina ................... Sarajevo 

Bosnia & Herzegovina ................... Tuzla 

Bosnia & Herzegovina ................... Zenica 

Bulgaria ......................................... Sofia 

Bulgaria ......................................... Varna 

Bulgaria ......................................... Veliko Turnovo 

Croatia ........................................... Osijek 

Croatia ........................................... Rijeka 

Croatia ........................................... Zadar 

Croatia ........................................... Zagreb 

Cyprus ............................................ Famagusta 

Cyprus ............................................ Nicosia 

Czech Republic .............................. Brno 

Czech Republic .............................. Pilzen 

Denmark (Greenland) ..................... Nuuk 

Estonia ........................................... Kuressaaare 

Estonia ........................................... Narva 

Estonia ........................................... Viljandi 

Georgia ........................................... Akhaltsikhe 

Georgia ........................................... Batumi 

Georgia ........................................... Gori 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
27 

AMERICAN CORNERS—Continued 

Country City 

Georgia ........................................... Khashuri 

Georgia ........................................... Rustavi 

Georgia ........................................... Tblisi (at State Univ.) 

Georgia ........................................... Tblisi 

Georgia ........................................... Telavi 

Georgia ........................................... Zugdidi 

Greece ............................................ Athens 

Greece ............................................ Corfu 

Greece ............................................ Nea Philadelphia 

Greece ............................................ Sparta 

Greece ............................................ Veroia 

Greece ............................................ Xanthi 

Hungary .......................................... Debrecen 

Hungary .......................................... Pecs 

Hungary .......................................... Veszprem 

Italy ................................................ Trieste 

Kosovo ............................................ Mitrovica 

Kosovo ............................................ Pristina 

Kosovo ............................................ Prizren 

Latvia ............................................. Daugavpils 

Latvia ............................................. Liepaja 

Lithuania ........................................ Siauliai 

Macedonia ...................................... Bitola 

Macedonia ...................................... Skopje 

Macedonia ...................................... Tetovo 

Moldova .......................................... Balti 

Moldova .......................................... Ceadir Lunga 

Moldova .......................................... Ungheni 

Montenegro .................................... Podgorica 

Norway ........................................... Stavanger 

Poland ............................................ Gdansk (Underway) 

Poland ............................................ Lodz 

Poland ............................................ Wroclaw 

Romania ......................................... Bacau 

Romania ......................................... Baia Mare 

Romania ......................................... Bucharest 

Romania ......................................... Cluj Napoca 

Romania ......................................... Constanta 

Romania ......................................... Craiova 

Romania ......................................... Iasi 

Romania ......................................... Timosoara 

Russia ............................................ Arkhangelsk 

Russia ............................................ Bryansk 

Russia ............................................ Chelyabinsk 

Russia ............................................ Irkutsk 

Russia ............................................ Kaliningrad 

Russia ............................................ Kazan 

Russia ............................................ Khabarovsk 

Russia ............................................ Moscow (Library of Foreign Literature) 

Russia ............................................ Moscow (Parliamentary Library) 

Russia ............................................ Moscow (State Children’s Library) 

Russia ............................................ Murmansk 

Russia ............................................ Nizhniy Novgorod 

Russia ............................................ Novgorod Velikiy 

Russia ............................................ Novosibirsk 

Russia ............................................ Omsk 

Russia ............................................ Perm 

Russia ............................................ Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy 

Russia ............................................ Petrozavodsk 

Russia ............................................ Pskov 

Russia ............................................ Rostov-on-Don 

Russia ............................................ Samara 

Russia ............................................ Saratov 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
28 

AMERICAN CORNERS—Continued 

Country City 

Russia ............................................ St. Petersburg (City Library) 

Russia ............................................ St. Petersburg (Youth Library) 

Russia ............................................ Togliatti 

Russia ............................................ Tomsk 

Russia ............................................ Tyumen 

Russia ............................................ Ufa 

Russia ............................................ Vladivostok 

Russia ............................................ Volgograd 

Russia ............................................ Vologda 

Russia ............................................ Yekaterinburg 

Russia ............................................ Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk 

Serbia ............................................. Belgrade 

Serbia ............................................. Bujanovac 

Serbia ............................................. Kragujevac 

Serbia ............................................. Nis 

Serbia ............................................. Novi Sad 

Serbia ............................................. Subotica 

Serbia ............................................. Vranje 

Slovakia ......................................... Banska Bystrica 

Slovakia ......................................... Bratislava 

Slovakia ......................................... Kosice 

Slovenia ......................................... Koper 

Turkey ............................................. Bursa 

Turkey ............................................. Gaziantep 

Turkey ............................................. Izmir 

Turkey ............................................. Kayseri 

Ukraine ........................................... Chernihiv 

Ukraine ........................................... Chernivtsi 

Ukraine ........................................... Dnipropetrovsk 

Ukraine ........................................... Donetsk 

Ukraine ........................................... Ivano-Frankivsk 

Ukraine ........................................... Kharkiv 

Ukraine ........................................... Kherson (Children’s Library) 

Ukraine ........................................... Kherson (Research Library) 

Ukraine ........................................... Kirovohrad 

Ukraine ........................................... Kyiv (Mohyla Academy) 

Ukraine ........................................... Kyiv (Public Library) 

Ukraine ........................................... Luhansk 

Ukraine ........................................... Lutsk 

Ukraine ........................................... Lviv 

Ukraine ........................................... Mykolaiv (Children’s Library) 

Ukraine ........................................... Mykolaiv (Research Library) 

Ukraine ........................................... Odessa 

Ukraine ........................................... Poltava 

Ukraine ........................................... Rivne 

Ukraine ........................................... Sevastopol 

Ukraine ........................................... Simferopol 

Ukraine ........................................... Sumy 

Ukraine ........................................... Ternopil (Research Library) 

Ukraine ........................................... Ternopil (Youth Library) 

Ukraine ........................................... Uzhgorod 

Ukraine ........................................... Vinnytsya 

Ukraine ........................................... Zhytomyr 

LATIN AMERICA: 22 in Operation; 2 Underway 

Brazil .............................................. Brasilia 

Brazil .............................................. Fortaleza 

Brazil .............................................. Salvador, Bahia 

Chile ............................................... Arica 

Chile ............................................... Punta Arenas 

Chile ............................................... Santiago (at University) 

Chile ............................................... Santiago (University of Talca) 

Chile ............................................... Valdivia 

Costa Rica ..................................... Limon 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
29 

AMERICAN CORNERS—Continued 

Country City 

Ecuador .......................................... Quito 

Haiti ............................................... Port-au-Prince (Underway) 

Honduras ........................................ Puerto Lempira 

Honduras ........................................ Tegucigalpa 

Nicaragua ...................................... Managua 

Panama .......................................... Panama City 

Paraguay ........................................ Asuncion 

Suriname ........................................ Paramaribo 

Trinidad and Tobago ..................... Scarborough 

Venezuela ....................................... Barquisimeto 

Venezuela ....................................... La Asuncion 

Venezuela ....................................... Lecheria 

Venezuela ....................................... Maracay 

Venezuela ....................................... Maturin 

Venezuela ....................................... Valera (Underway) 

MIDDLE EAST: 39 in Operation; 3 Underway 

Algeria ............................................ Algiers 

Algeria ............................................ Constantine (Underway) 

Algeria ............................................ Oran (Underway) 

Iraq ................................................ 6 ACs 

Israel .............................................. Beersheva 

Israel .............................................. Karmiel 

Israel .............................................. Nazareth (Underway) 

Israel .............................................. Yaffo 

Jordan ............................................ Amman 

Jordan ............................................ Zarqa 

Kuwait ............................................ Kuwait City (at University) 

Kuwait ............................................ Kuwait City (Gulf University) 

Kuwait ............................................ Kuwait City (American University) 

Lebanon ......................................... Baakleen 

Lebanon ......................................... Nabatiyeh 

Lebanon ......................................... Rashaya 

Lebanon ......................................... Zahle 

Morocco .......................................... Marrakech 

Morocco .......................................... Oujda 

Oman ............................................. Bureimi 

Oman ............................................. Muscat (College of Bus & Sci) 

Oman ............................................. Muscat (College of Technology) 

Oman ............................................. Rustaq 

Oman ............................................. Salalah 

Oman ............................................. Sohar 

Palestinian Territories .................... Gaza City 

Palestinian Territories .................... Jericho 

Qatar .............................................. Doha 

Saudi Arabia .................................. Jeddah 

Syria ............................................... Damascus 

Syria ............................................... Suweida 

Tunisia ........................................... Tunis 

United Arab Emirates .................... Al Ain 

United Arab Emirates .................... Fujairah 

Yemen ............................................ Dhamar 

Yemen ............................................ Hadhramout 

Yemen ............................................ Sana’a 

SOUTH CENTRAL ASIA: 45 in Operation 4 Underway 

Afghanistan ................................... Bamyan 

Afghanistan ................................... Gandez (Underway) 

Afghanistan ................................... Herat 

Afghanistan ................................... Jalalabad 

Afghanistan ................................... Kabul (at University) 

Afghanistan ................................... Kabul (Institute of Diplomacy) 

Afghanistan ................................... Khost (Underway) 

Afghanistan ................................... Kunduz (Underway) 

Afghanistan ................................... Mazar-E-Sharif 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
30 

26Found on page 78 of http://www.nakbaonline.org/download/UNDP/EnglishVersion/ArHuman-Dev-2002.pdf. 27The so-called ‘‘Djerejian Report’’ after the former U.S. Ambassador who chaired the effort 

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/24882.pdf. 

AMERICAN CORNERS—Continued 

Country City 

Bangladesh .................................... Chittagong 

Bangladesh .................................... Jessore 

Bangladesh .................................... Sylhet 

India ............................................... Ahmedabad 

India ............................................... Bhubaneswar 

India ............................................... Bangalore 

India ............................................... Chandigarh 

India ............................................... Patna, Bihar 

Kazakhstan .................................... Aktobe 

Kazakhstan .................................... Almaty 

Kazakhstan .................................... Atyrau 

Kazakhstan .................................... Karaganda 

Kazakhstan .................................... Kostanai 

Kazakhstan .................................... Petropavlovsk 

Kazakhstan .................................... Shymkent 

Kazakhstan .................................... Uralsk 

Kazakhstan .................................... Ust’-Kamenogorsk 

Kyrgyzstan ...................................... Batken 

Kyrgyzstan ...................................... Jalalabat 

Kyrgyzstan ...................................... Kant 

Kyrgyzstan ...................................... Karakol 

Kyrgyzstan ...................................... Talas 

Maldives ......................................... Male’ 

Nepal .............................................. Bhairahawa 

Nepal .............................................. Biratnagar 

Nepal .............................................. Birgunj 

Nepal .............................................. Pokhara 

Pakistan ......................................... Islamabad 

Pakistan ......................................... Karachi 

Pakistan ......................................... Lahore (Underway) 

Pakistan ......................................... Muzaffarabad 

Pakistan ......................................... Peshawar 

Sri Lanka ....................................... Kandy 

Sri Lanka ....................................... Oluvil 

Tajikistan ....................................... Dushanbe 

Tajikistan ....................................... Khujand 

Tajikistan ....................................... Kulob 

Turkmenistan ................................. Dashoguz 

Turkmenistan ................................. Mary 

Turkmenistan ................................. Turkmenabat 

ARABIC BOOK TRANSLATION PROGRAM

‘‘The figures for translated books are also discouraging. 

The Arab world translates about 330 books annually, one 

fifth of the number that Greece translates. The cumulative 

total of translated books since the Caliph Maa’moun’s time 

(the ninth century) is about 100,000, almost the average 

that Spain translates in one year.’’ (UNDP 2002 Arab 

Human Development Report 26) 

The 2003 Congressionally-mandated report ‘‘Changing Minds and 

Winning Peace—A New Direction for U.S. Public Diplomacy in the 

Arab and Muslim World’’ 27 referenced the UNDP’s translation statistics and called for a massive increase in our translation efforts— 

up to 1,000 titles a year. This effort was viewed as part of an 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
31 

28 A list of books translated by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo: http://cairo.usembassy.gov/pa/ 

rbo.htm. 29 A list of books translated by the U.S. Embassy in Amman: http://jordan.usembassy.gov/ 

abpltitleslinlstock.html. 

‘‘American Knowledge Library Initiative’’ that would locate the 

translations in American Corners and local libraries throughout 

the Muslim world; however, funding constraints have prevented 

any such a large-scale Initiative. Instead, the U.S. government has 

relied on translation programs run out of the U.S. Embassies in 

Cairo, Egypt and Amman, Jordan. 

The Cairo Arabic Book Program 28 has existed at the U.S Embassy in Cairo since the 1950s and currently translates 8–10 books 

a year using a budget of approximately $50,000 from the International Information Programs (IIP) section of the bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. This funding covers the costs of copyrights fees, translation and purchased copies. 

The Program works with local publishers to select American 

books across a broad range of topics that are of mutual interest. 

Some 3,000 copies per title are published, of which the Program 

purchases 1,000–1,500 copies for local and regional distribution 

while the publisher sells the remaining copies in commercial outlets and regional book fairs. The publisher submits a draft of the 

translation which is reviewed by translators contracted by the Embassy. The Program and the Embassy’s IRC send free copies of the 

books to public and university libraries, key contacts, NGOs, and 

other institutions. The Program does not regularly provide copies 

to local school libraries; however, when the Ambassador or other 

high level dignitaries visit a school, they take a quantity of age-appropriate books. Until two years ago the program received an extra 

$7,500 for shipping fees but currently regional posts either fully 

pay or split the shipping fees with the Program. This loss of shipping funds affects some posts’ ability to procure books. 

The program sends an annual e-mail within the mission and to 

regional posts to solicit suggestions for new titles. The e-mail also 

contains a tentative list of titles compiled by the program officers 

asking for further recommendation or comments. Based on these 

recommendations the Public Affairs Officer and Cultural Affairs 

Officer and their staffs meet to decide on the list of titles to be 

translated. After securing necessary copyrights, the program and 

the local publisher agree to go ahead on the translation of the book. 

The process of acquiring the copyrights, translating, editing and 

printing one book takes between 8–18 months. 

The translation program run by the U.S. Embassy in Amman, 

Jordan 29 is very similar in scope and $50,000 budget, but with 

slightly smaller print runs of some six books annually, usually 

printed in Amman or Beirut. The publisher sells 1,750 copies of the 

2,500 printed to the public throughout its retail shops in the region 

and the regional and international book fairs they attend. 750 copies are retained by the embassy for its own distribution to universities, schools, local institutions, American Corners and posts in the 

region. 

Cairo has organized Digital Video Conferences for Joyce Hanson, 

author of the Captive and collaborated with Embassy Amman to 

program Amy Tan, the author of the Joy Luck Club. Cairo also 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
32 

30 According to the State Department, 136 English Language Fellows are currently assigned 

as follows: Africa: 17; East Asia: 28; Europe: 33; Middle East 21; South Central Asia: 13; Latin 

America: 24. 

brought the following authors for speaking events in Egypt: Walter 

Russell Mead, author of Special Providence: How American Foreign 

Policy Has Changed the World, Robert Putnam, author of Making 

Democracy Work, and Geneive Abdo, author of Mecca and Main 

Street whose Arabic version is due shortly. Embassy Amman also 

hosted a DVC with Mohamed Nimer, author of the book Nonviolence and Peace Building in Islam. 

U.S. government translations of Walter Isaacson’s 2003 biography of Benjamin Franklin and 

The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakaria from the American Center library in Alexandria, 

Egypt. 

ENGLISH LANGUAGE FELLOW PROGRAM 30

The State Department’s bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) English Language Fellow Program currently supports 

136 U.S. fellows on exchanges in 76 counties worldwide. The EL 

Fellow Program provides foreign academic institutions with American professional expertise in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) by sending highly trained American educators 

abroad on ten-month fellowships. The program also affords American TEFL professionals a unique professional development opportunity that contributes to their knowledge as educators upon their 

return to the U.S. Fellows work on projects and provide training 

in areas such as the English Access Microscholarship Program, 

TEFL classroom teaching, teacher training, in-service and pre-service training, curriculum development, workshop and seminar design, testing, program evaluation, needs assessment, and English 

for Specific Purposes. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert photo K 47261A.024 here 47261A.024
33 

If the goal is to maximize the number of English speakers 

throughout the world, then this is an excellent program as the multiplier effect of American education specialists assisting in the 

preparation of another country’s English curriculum should result 

in vastly more students learning English, at much less cost, than 

our Access scholarships. The long-term public diplomacy value for 

such efforts, however, is debatable. Some say that the teachers who 

receive the attention, skills, materials and respect from their American counterparts will result in these same teachers acting as goodwill ambassadors for the United States for years to come, with the 

number of students they are able to influence and reach vastly outpacing direct, U.S.-sponsored classes. 

Others note that the Program amounts to almost ‘‘invisible’’ Public Diplomacy as few in the public ever hear of these efforts due 

to the fact that the fellows work from within foreign educational 

systems. If a core component of public diplomacy is for a nation to 

‘‘get the credit’’ for its efforts, this may not be the most effective 

program, but as a low-cost pedagogical tool, it is invaluable. 

REGIONAL ENGLISH LANGUAGE OFFICES

In addition to English Language Fellows, the Department of 

State also supports a network of 18 Regional English Language Offices (RELOs) located in Embassies around the world that operate 

under the supervision of ECA’s Office of English Language Programs in Washington. Each RELO is a specialist Foreign Service 

Officer with an advanced degree in Teaching English as a Foreign 

Language (TEFL)—many, in fact are former English Language Fellows. 

In collaboration with U.S. Embassies, RELOs oversee the 

English Access Microscholarship Program, organize teacher training seminars and workshops; consult with host-country ministry, 

university, and teacher-training officials. They also oversee ECA’s 

other English language activities, such as the English Language 

Specialists, English Language Fellow, and E-Teacher Scholarship 

Programs. As the attached table of Regional English Language Offices and the countries they cover suggests, RELOs are over-burdened in the extreme. 

REGIONAL ENGLISH LANGUAGE OFFICES 

Region Post Countries Covered 

Africa ...................................... Dakar ..................................... Benin, Burkina-Faso, Cameroon, Republic of Cape Verde, 

Central African Republic, Chad, Cote D’Ivoire, Equatorial 

Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, 

Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Sao Tome and 

Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo 

Pretoria .................................. Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Comoros, Democratic Republic 

of Congo, Republic of Congo, Republic of Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, 

Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, 

Somalia, Republic of South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, 

Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe 

East Asia ................................ Beijing .................................... People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Mongolia 

Bangkok ................................. Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
34 

REGIONAL ENGLISH LANGUAGE OFFICES—Continued 

Region Post Countries Covered 

Jakarta ................................... Brunei, Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Papua New 

Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Timor-Leste 

Europe .................................... Ankara .................................... Turkey 

Budapest ................................ Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech 

Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, 

Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia 

Kyiv ........................................ Armenia, Azerbaijan, Republic of Belarus, Georgia, 

Moldova, Ukraine 

Moscow .................................. Russia 

Middle East ............................ Amman ................................... Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, West Bank/Gaza 

Cairo ...................................... Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen 

Manama ................................. Bahrain, State of Kuwait, State of Oman, Qatar, United 

Arab Emirates 

Rabat ..................................... Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia 

South Central Asia ................. New Delhi ............................... Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, 

Sri Lanka, Pakistan 

Astana .................................... Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, 

Uzbekistan 

Latin America ......................... Mexico City ............................. Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 

Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama 

Lima ....................................... Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela 

Santiago ................................. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay 

Branch Chief DC .................... Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Denmark/Greenland, Dominican 

Republic, French Guiana, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Italy, 

Jamaica, Netherlands Antilles, Suriname, Trinidad and 

Tobago 

Branch Chief DC .................... Materials Development 

ACCESS MICROSCHOLARSHIPS

The Department of State has developed a two-year scholarship 

intended to provide English language skills primarily to Muslim 

youths aged 14 to 18 who would otherwise have little access to 

such classes. These so-called Access Microscholarships grew out of 

the difficulty the Department had in finding non-elite Muslim 

youths with sufficient English language proficiency to participate 

successfully in its Youth Exchange and Study (YES) Program. (YES 

students spend a full high school year in the United States living 

with a host family.) 

According to the Department, since 2004, some 44,000 students 

have participated in the Access program in 55 countries. Funding 

for Access comes from both the State Department’s bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) and Middle East Peace Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and has consistently risen: 

FY2006 $8.75 million 

FY2007 $13.5 million 

FY2008 $17.4 million 

According to the State Department, more than 22,000 English 

Access Micro-scholarship students in over 55 countries are curVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:41 Mar 04, 2009 Jkt 047261 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A261.XXX A261

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
35 

rently studying under the Program. Approximately half of the students are in their first year. Access students can be found in the 

following: 

• Africa (1,841 students): Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, 

Togo 

• East Asia (2,077 students): Burma, Cambodia, China, East 

Timor, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Philippines, Thailand 

• Europe (1,606 students): Albania, Azerbaijan, BosniaHerzegovina, Cyprus, Kosovo, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine 

• Middle East (11,070 students): Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, 

Gaza, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, 

Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria (suspended in FY06), Tunisia, 

United Arab Emirates, West Bank, Yemen 

• South Central Asia (4,813 students): Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, 

Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan 

• Latin America (749 students): Argentina, Brazil, Chile, 

Mexico, Peru, Uruguay 

Public Diplomacy officials offer high praise for the Access program as it gives the United States inroads into communities that 

have often been traditionally hostile towards the United States. 

However, comments from Access parents such as ‘‘our own government doesn’t care about educating our children, but the United 

States does’’ are not unusual as children with normally very little 

hope of advancement in their societies are suddenly offered a language which will greatly enhance their future employment opportunities. In addition, many receive computer training, intellectual 

discipline, and research skills that their other schoolmates will 

likely never receive. 

In Alexandria, Egypt Access classes are co-educational and students are encouraged to question and challenge far beyond the 

boundaries for normal Egyptian students. In spite of concerns of 

parental backlash against traditional teaching methods, only one 

student has been withdrawn by her parents to date. Rather, parents are clamoring for their children to be enrolled in the program 

because they appreciate the benefits offered. 

Valid concerns about the program abound, however. In Alexandria, the NGO AmidEast (which runs Access in Egypt) runs the 

program for approximately $2,000 per student for the full two 

years. Classrooms are modern, computers are plentiful, and 

English instruction is conducted by American expatriates living in 

the city. However, this is not always the case as in other locations, 

locally hired instructors lack sufficient English skills and are not 

always sufficiently familiar with American culture and teaching 

methodologies to impart effectively these crucial aspects of the program. 

Of equal concern is the lack of follow-on programming for Access 

graduates. With only 300 YES slots available each year and some 

11,000 Access graduates, failure to keep the majority of Access 

graduates engaged with programs related to the their studies risks 

losing the ground gained, particularly as many will return to eduVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:41 Mar 04, 2009 Jkt 047261 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A261.XXX A261

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
36 

31See Section 691 (page 1415) of Public Law 107–228 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ 

getdoc.cgi?dbname=107lconglpublicllaws&docid=f:publ228.107.pdf. 

cational systems likely hostile to these new-found ideas of academic 

freedom. Failure to keep Access graduates engaged through lowcost, follow-on local U.S. programs risks seeing our investments in 

the education of so many wither on the vine and could even create 

a backlash as students once selected for their intellectual abilities 

and achievements feel abandoned by our government. 

PEACE CORPS EXEMPTION TO CO-LOCATION REQUIREMENT 31

SEC. 691. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE LOCATION OF PEACE 

CORPS OFFICES ABROAD. 

It is the sense of the Congress that, to the degree permitted by 

security considerations, the Secretary should give favorable consideration to requests by the Director of the Peace Corps that the Secretary exercise his authority under section 606(a)(2)(B) of the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (22 

U.S.C. 4865(a)(2)(B)) to waive certain requirements of that Act in 

order to permit the Peace Corps to maintain offices in foreign countries at locations separate from the United States Embassy. 

FILM SERIES RESTRICTIONS

One of the strongest assets in U.S. Public Diplomacy is the use 

of films to tell America’s story to the rest of the world. Particularly, 

films with historical and political themes and plots are often the 

best demonstrations of America’s values of freedom of expression. 

They also demonstrate a willingness to debate sensitive topics 

through such a public medium. As such American Centers and 

IRCs typically run film series with follow-on discussions. 

However, rather than encourage the widest possible broadcast of 

such showings to the largest audience possible, the Licensing 

Agreement recently negotiated between the State Department and 

the Motion Picture Licensing Corporation suggests otherwise. Paragraph 20 of the State Department’s message regarding the MOU 

to Embassies worldwide expressly notes the following were agreed 

to: 

‘‘The films may be screened for audiences of up to 100 

people per screening. They may not be screened for larger 

audiences. 

‘‘No advertising is permitted. No specific titles or characters from such titles or producers’ names may be advertised or publicized to the general public.’’ 

Embassy officials report they have been contacted by the MPLC 

when films are announced on the Internet. To avoid this, many 

now simply post the movie showing on a bulletin board in their facilities—a perfectly painful example of how, in the age of text messaging, our government is forced to operate in methods no different 

from the 19th century. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
37 

In keeping with the MOU that prohibits advertising, the American Center in Alexandria, 

Egypt is forced to restrict the announcement of upcoming film viewings and discussions to its 

outdoor bulletin board—in this case the 1994 film ‘‘Little Women’’ in the upper right. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert photo L 47261A.025
38 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 043 47261A.003
39 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 044 47261A.004
40 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 045 47261A.005
41 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 046 47261A.006
42 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 047 47261A.007
43 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 048 47261A.008
44 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 049 47261A.009
45 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 050 47261A.010
46 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 051 47261A.011
47 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 052 47261A.012
48 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 053 47261A.013