The key objectives of U.S. public diplomacy are to engage, inform, and influence overseas audiences. Public diplomacy is carried out through a wide range of programs that employ person-to-person contacts; print, broadcast, and electronic media; and other means. Traditionally, the State Department’s efforts have focused on foreign elites—current and future overseas opinion leaders, agenda setters, and decision makers. However, the dramatic growth in global mass communications and other trends have forced a rethinking of this approach, and State has begun to consider techniques for communicating with broader foreign audiences. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, State has expanded its public diplomacy efforts globally, focusing particularly on countries in the Muslim world considered to be of strategic importance in the war on terror. In May 2006, we reported that this trend continued with funding increases of 25 percent for the Near East and 39 percent for South Asia from 2004 to 2006. The BBG supports U.S. public diplomacy’s key objectives by broadcasting news and information about the United States and world affairs and serving as a model of how a free press should operate. The BBG manages and oversees the Voice of America (VOA), Radio/TV Marti, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Farda, Radio Sawa, and the Alhurra TV Network. As shown in figure 1, State and the BBG spent close to $1.5 billion on public diplomacy programs in fiscal year 2006. As others have previously reported, in recent years anti-American sentiment has spread and intensified around the world. For example, the Pew Global Attitudes Project has found that the decline in favorable opinion of the United States is a worldwide trend. For instance, favorable attitudes toward the United States in Indonesia declined from 75 percent in 2000 to 30 percent in 2006 and from 52 percent to 12 percent over the same time period in Turkey. While individual opinion polls may reflect a snapshot in time, consistently negative polls may reflect the development of more deeply seated sentiments about the United States. Numerous experts, expert groups, policymakers, and business leaders have expressed concerns that anti-Americanism may harm U.S. interests in various ways. In its 2004 report on strategic communication, the Defense Science Board states that “damaging consequences for other elements of U.S. soft power are tactical manifestations of a pervasive atmosphere of hostility.” Similarly, the Council on Foreign Relations has claimed that the loss of goodwill and trust from publics around the world has had a negative impact on U.S. security and foreign policy. Anti-American sentiments may negatively affect American economic interests, U.S. foreign policy and military operations, and the security of Americans. According to Business for Diplomatic Action, anti-Americanism can hurt U.S. businesses by causing boycotts of American products, a backlash against American brands, increased security costs for U.S. companies, higher foreign opposition to U.S. trade policies, and a decrease in the U.S.’s ability to attract the world’s best talent to join the American workforce. Additionally, a report from the Princeton-based Working Group on Anti-Americanism generally echoes the possibility that anti- Americanism may harm U.S. business interests in these same areas. Further, as reported by the Travel Business Roundtable during previous hearings before this subcommittee, the U.S. travel industry has reported significant declines in the U.S. market share of the worldwide travel market and a decline in overseas visitors to the United States since 9/11. Further, the State Department’s 2003 report on Patterns of Global Terrorism recorded 67 attacks on American business facilities and 7 business casualties. In 2006, the Overseas Security Advisory Council noted that more threats against the private sector occurred in 2006 than in 2004 or 2005 in most of the industries it reports on. Finally, the Working Group on Anti-Americanism also indicated that threats to American private property and personnel working overseas have become constant in some regions, especially the Middle East, and have resulted in significantly increased security costs. According to the Defense Science Board, the Brookings Institution, and others, anti-Americanism around the world may reduce the U.S.’s ability to pursue its foreign policy goals, including efforts to foster diplomatic relationships with other foreign leaders and to garner support for the global war on terror. For instance, in October 2003, the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World reported that “hostility toward the U.S. makes achieving our policy goals far more difficult.” Specifically, according to a paper from the Working Group on Anti- Americanism, foreign leaders may seek to leverage anti-American sentiment in pursuit of their own political goals, which may then limit their future support for U.S. foreign policy. As these leaders achieve personal political successes based on their opposition to the United States, they may then be less likely to support U.S. foreign policy going forward. Further, the 9/11 Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and others have reported on the possibility that anti-Americanism may also serve as a barrier to success in the global war on terror and related U.S. military operations. Specifically, the 9/11 Commission report of July 2004 stated that perceptions of the United States’ foreign policies as anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and pro-Israel have contributed to the rise in extremist rhetoric against the United States. Further, the Council on Foreign Relations has argued that increasing hostility toward America in Muslim countries facilitates recruitment and support for extremism and terror. The Council on Foreign Relations also has identified potential consequences of anti-Americanism on the security of individual Americans, noting that Americans now face an increased risk of direct attack from individuals and small groups that wield increasingly more destructive power. According to State’s Country Reports on Terrorism for 2005, 56 private U.S. citizens were killed as a result of terrorism incidents in 2005. The Working Group on Anti-Americanism suggests that there is some correlation between anti-Americanism and violence against Americans in the greater Middle East but notes that the relationship is complex. For example, they note that while increased anti-Americanism in Europe or Jordan has not led to violence against Americans or U.S. interests in those areas, it does seem to play a role in fueling such violence in Iraq. Other factors, such as the visibility of Americans overseas, particularly in Iraq; the role of the media in supporting anti-Americanism; and the absence of economic security may also contribute to this violence. While all of the topics discussed here represent areas in which anti- Americanism may have negative consequences, the empirical evidence to support direct relationships is limited. As such, we cannot confirm any causal relationships between negative foreign public opinion and specific negative outcomes regarding U.S. interests. Despite the fact that we cannot draw a direct causal link between anti-Americanism and specific outcomes in these areas, it is clear that growing negative foreign public opinion does not help the United States achieve its economic, foreign policy, and security goals, and therefore U.S. public diplomacy efforts, which seek to counter anti-Americanism sentiment, have a critical role to play in supporting U.S. interests throughout the world. Over the past 4 years, we have identified and made recommendations to State and the BBG on a number of issues related to a general lack of strategic planning, inadequate coordination of agency efforts, and problems with measuring performance and results. Among other things, we have recommended that (1) communication strategies be developed to coordinate and focus the efforts of key government agencies and the private sector, (2) the State Department develop a strategic plan to integrate its diverse efforts, (3) posts adopt strategic communication best practices, and (4) meaningful performance goals and indicators be established by both State and the BBG. Currently, the U.S. government lacks an interagency public diplomacy strategy; however, such a plan has been drafted and will be released shortly. While the department has articulated a strategic framework to direct its efforts, comprehensive guidance on how to implement this strategic framework has not yet been developed. In addition, posts generally do not pursue a campaign-style approach to communications that incorporates best practices endorsed by GAO and others. State has begun to take credible steps towards instituting more systematic performance measurement practices, consistent with recommendations GAO and others have made. Finally, although the BBG has added audience size as a key performance measure within its strategic plan, our latest review of MBN’s operations call into question the potential value of this measure due to various methodological concerns. In 2003, we reported that the United States lacked a governmentwide, interagency public diplomacy strategy, defining the messages and means for communication efforts abroad. We reported since then that the administration has made a number of unsuccessful attempts to develop such a strategy. The lack of such a strategy complicates the task of conveying consistent messages and therefore increases the risk of making damaging communication mistakes. State officials have said that it also diminishes the efficiency and effectiveness of governmentwide public diplomacy efforts, while several reports have concluded that a strategy is needed to synchronize agencies’ target audience assessments, messages, and capabilities. On April 8, 2006, the President established a new Policy Coordination Committee on Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communications. This committee, led by the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, intends to better coordinate interagency activities, including the development of an interagency public diplomacy strategy. We have been told this strategy is still under development and will be issued soon. The U.S. government also lacks a governmentwide strategy and meaningful methods to ensure that recipients of U.S. foreign assistance are consistently aware that the aid comes from the United States. In March 2007, we reported that most agencies involved in foreign assistance activities had established some marking and publicity requirements in their policies, regulations, and guidelines, and used various methods to mark and publicize their activities. However, we identified some challenges to marking and publicizing U.S. foreign assistance, including the lack of a strategy for assessing the impact of marking and publicity efforts on public awareness and the lack of governmentwide guidance for marking and publicizing U.S. foreign aid. To better ensure that recipients of U.S. foreign assistance are aware that the aid is provided by the United States and its taxpayers, we recommended that State, in consultation with other U.S. government agencies, (1) develop a strategy to better assess the impact of marking and publicity programs on public awareness and (2) establish interagency agreements for marking and publicizing all U.S. foreign assistance. State indicated that the interagency public diplomacy strategy will address assessment of marking and publicity programs and will include governmentwide marking and publicity guidance. In 2005, we noted that State’s efforts to engage the private sector in pursuit of common public diplomacy objectives had met with mixed success and recommended that the Secretary develop a strategy to guide these efforts. Since then, State has established an Office of Private Sector Outreach, is partnering with individuals and the private sector on various projects, and hosted a Private Sector Summit on Public Diplomacy in January 2007. However, State has not yet developed a comprehensive strategy to guide the Department’s efforts to engage the private sector. In 2005, the Under Secretary established a strategic framework for U.S. public diplomacy efforts, which includes three priority goals: (1) offer foreign publics a vision of hope and opportunity rooted in the U.S.’s most basic values; (2) isolate and marginalize extremists; and (3) promote understanding regarding shared values and common interests between Americans and peoples of different countries, cultures, and faiths. The Under Secretary noted that she intends to achieve these goals using five tactics—engagement, exchanges, education, empowerment, and evaluation—and by using various public diplomacy programs and other means, including coordinating outreach efforts with the private sector. This framework partially responds to our 2003 recommendation that State should develop and disseminate a strategy to integrate its public diplomacy efforts and direct them toward achieving common objectives. State has not yet developed written guidance that provides details on how these five tactics will be used to implement the Under Secretary’s priority goals. However, it should be noted that the Under Secretary has issued limited guidance regarding the goal of countering extremism to 18 posts selected to participate in a pilot initiative focusing on this objective. We have recommended that State, where appropriate, adopt strategic communication best practices (which we refer to as the “campaign-style approach”) and develop country-specific communication plans that incorporate the key steps embodied in this approach. As shown in figure 2, these steps include defining the core message, identifying and segmenting target audiences, developing detailed communication strategies and tactics, and using research and evaluation to inform and re-direct efforts as needed. As noted in our May 2006 report, our review of public diplomacy operations in Nigeria, Pakistan, and Egypt in 2006 found that this approach and corresponding communication plans were absent. Rather, post public diplomacy efforts constituted an ad hoc collection of activities designed to support such broad goals as promoting mutual understanding. In a recent development, 18 posts participating in the department’s pilot countries initiative have developed country-level plans focusing on the countering extremism goal. These plans were developed on the basis of a template issued by the Under Secretary that requires each post to provide a list of supporting objectives, a description of the media environment, identification of key target audiences, and a list of supporting programs and activities. We reviewed most of the plans submitted in response to this guidance. Although useful as a high-level planning exercise, these plans do not adhere to the campaign-style approach, which requires a level of rigor and detail that normally exceeds the three- to four-page plans produced by posts in pilot countries. The plans omit basic elements, such as specific core messages and themes or any substantive evidence that proposed communication programs were driven by detailed audience research—one of the key principles embodied in the campaign-style approach. In the absence of such research, programs may lack important information about appropriate target audiences and credible messages and messengers. Based on prior reports by GAO and others, the department has begun to institute a more concerted effort to measure the impact of its programs and activities. The department created (1) the Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources within the office of the Under Secretary; (2) the Public Diplomacy Evaluation Council to share best practices; and (3) a unified Public Diplomacy Evaluation Office. The Department established an expanded evaluation schedule that is designed to cover all major public diplomacy programs. The department also has called on program managers to analyze and define their key inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact to help identify meaningful performance goals and indicators. Finally, the department recently launched a pilot public diplomacy performance measurement data collection project that is designed to collect, document, and quantify reliable annual and long-term outcome performance measures to support government reporting requirements. In 2001, the BBG introduced a market-based approach to international broadcasting that sought to “marry the mission to the market.” This approach was designed to generate large listening audiences in priority markets that the BBG believes it must reach to effectively meet its mission. Implementing this strategy has focused on markets relevant to the war on terrorism, in particular in the Middle East through such key initiatives as Radio Sawa and the Alhurra TV network. The Board’s vision is to create a flexible, multimedia, research-driven U.S. international broadcasting system. We found that the BBG’s strategic plan to implement its new approach did not include a single goal or related program objective designed to gauge progress toward increasing audience size, even though its strategy focuses on the need to reach large audiences in priority markets. The BBG subsequently created a single strategic goal to focus on the key objective of maximizing impact in priority areas of interest to the United States and made audience size a key performance measure. However, in our August 2006 review of the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, we found that methodological concerns call into question the potential accuracy of this key performance measure with regard to Radio Sawa’s listening rates and Alhurra’s viewing rates. Specifically, we found that weaknesses in the BBG’s audience surveys create uncertainty over whether some of Radio Sawa’s or Alhurra’s performance targets for audience size have been met. We recommended that the BBG improve its audience research methods, including identifying significant methodological limitations. The BBG accepted our recommendation and has informed us that it is currently considering how it will do so. Public diplomacy efforts in the field face several other challenges. Beginning with our September 2003 report on State’s public diplomacy efforts, post officials have consistently cited several key challenges, including a general lack of staff, insufficient administrative support, and inadequate language training. Furthermore, public diplomacy officers struggle to balance security with public access and outreach to local populations. Finally, the BBG’s disparate organizational structure has been viewed as a key management challenge that significantly complicates its efforts to focus and direct U.S. international broadcasting efforts. Although several recent reports on public diplomacy have recommended an increase in U.S. public diplomacy program spending, several embassy officials stated that, with current staffing levels, they do not have the capacity to effectively utilize increased funds. According to State, the Department had 887 established public diplomacy positions (overseas and domestic) as of March 31, 2007, but 199, or roughly 22 percent, were vacant. Compounding this challenge is the loss of public diplomacy officers to temporary duty in Iraq, which, according to one State official, has drawn down field officers even further. Staffing shortages may also limit the amount of training public diplomacy officers receive. State is repositioning several public diplomacy officers as part of its transformational diplomacy initiative. However, this effort represents shifting existing public diplomacy officers and does not increase the overall number of officers, which we have noted were generally the same in fiscal years 2004 and 2006. In addition, public diplomacy officers at posts are burdened with administrative tasks, and thus have less time to conduct public diplomacy outreach activities than they did previously. One senior State official said that administrative duties, such as budget, personnel, and internal reporting, compete with officers’ public diplomacy responsibilities. Another official in Egypt stated that she rarely had enough time to strategize, plan, or evaluate her programs. These statements echo comments we heard during overseas fieldwork and in a survey for our 2003 report. In that survey, officers stated that, although they manage to attend public outreach and other functions within their host country capitals, it was particularly difficult to find time to travel outside the capitals to interact with other communities. This challenge is compounded at posts with short tours of duty, including many tours in the Muslim world, as officials stated that it is difficult to establish the type of close working relationships essential to effective public diplomacy work when they are in country for only a short time. In our May 2006 report, we reported that the average length of tour at posts in the Muslim world is about 22 percent shorter than tour lengths elsewhere. Noting the prevalence of 1-year tours in the Muslim world, a senior official at State said that public affairs officers who have shorter tours tend to produce less effective work than officers with longer tours. To address these challenges, we recommended in 2003 that the Secretary of State designate more administrative positions to overseas public affairs sections to reduce the administrative burden. Officials at State said that the Management bureau is currently considering options for reducing the administrative burden on posts, including the development of centralized administrative capabilities offshore. In August 2006, GAO reported that the State Department continued to experience significant foreign language proficiency shortfalls in countries around the world. Our May 2006 report noted this problem was particularly acute at posts in the Muslim world where Arabic—classified as a “superhard” language by State—predominates. In countries with significant Muslim populations, we reported that 30 percent of language- designated public diplomacy positions were filled by officers without the requisite proficiency in those languages, compared with 24 percent elsewhere. In Arabic language posts, about 36 percent of language- designated public diplomacy positions were filled by staff unable to speak Arabic at the designated level. In addition, State officials said that there are even fewer officers who are willing or able to speak on television or engage in public debate in Arabic. The information officer in Cairo stated that his office does not have enough Arabic speakers to engage the Egyptian media effectively. Figure 3 shows the percentage of public diplomacy positions in the Muslim world staffed by officers meeting language requirements. State has begun to address these language deficiencies by increasing its overall amount of language training and providing supplemental training for more difficult languages at overseas locations. State has also made efforts to ensure that its public diplomacy staff receive appropriate language training. For example, State’s Foreign Service Institute recently offered a week of intensive media training for language-qualified officers that provided guidance on how to communicate with Arabic-speaking audiences. Security concerns have limited embassy outreach efforts and public access, forcing public diplomacy officers to strike a balance between safety and mission. Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell stated, “Safety is one of our top priorities…but it can’t be at the expense of the mission.” In our May 2006 reported we noted that security concerns are particularly elevated in countries with significant Muslim populations, where the threat level for terrorism is rated as “critical” or “high” in 80 percent of posts. Security and budgetary concerns have led to the closure of publicly accessible facilities around the world, such as American Centers and Libraries. In Pakistan, for example, all American Centers have closed for security reasons; the last facility, in Islamabad, closed in February 2005. These same concerns have prevented establishing a U.S. presence elsewhere. As a result, embassies have had to find other venues for public diplomacy programs, and some activities have been moved onto embassy compounds, where precautions designed to improve security have had the ancillary effect of sending the message that the United States is unapproachable and distrustful, according to State officials. Concrete barriers and armed escorts contribute to this perception, as do requirements restricting visitors’ use of cell phones and pagers within the embassy. According to one official in Pakistan, visitors to the embassy’s reference library have declined to as few as one per day because many visitors feel humiliated by the embassy’s rigorous security procedures. Other public diplomacy programs have had to limit their publicity to reduce the risk of becoming a target. A recent joint USAID-State report concluded that “security concerns often require a ‘low profile’ approach during events, programs or other situations, which, in happier times, would have been able to generate considerable good will for the United States.” This constraint is particularly acute in Pakistan, where the embassy has had to reduce certain speaker and exchange programs. State has responded to security concerns and the loss of publicly accessible facilities through a variety of initiatives, including American Corners, which are centers that provide information about the United States, hosted in local institutions and staffed by local employees. According to State data, there are currently 365 American Corners throughout the world, including more than 200 in the Muslim world, with another 31 planned (more than 20 of which will be in the Muslim world). However, two of the posts we visited in October 2005 were having difficulty finding hosts for American Corners, as local institutions fear becoming terrorist targets. The Broadcasting Board of Governors has its own set of public diplomacy challenges, including trying to gain large audiences in priority markets while dealing with a disparate organizational structure that contains multiple discrete broadcasters (see fig. 4). As noted in the BBG’s strategic plan, “the diversity of the BBG—diverse organizations with different missions, different frameworks, and different constituencies—makes it a challenge to bring all the separate parts together in a more effective whole.” As we reported in July 2003, the Board hoped to address this key challenge through two primary means. First, it planned to treat the component parts of U.S. international broadcasting as a single system with the Board in the position of actively managing resources across broadcast entities to achieve common broadcast goals. Second, it intended to realign the BBG’s organizational structure to reinforce the Board’s role as CEO with a host of responsibilities, including taking the lead role in shaping the BBG’s overall strategic direction, setting expectations and standards, and creating the context for innovation and change. In addition, in 2006, we found that MBN, which received $79 million in funding in fiscal year 2006, faces several managerial and editorial challenges that may hinder the organization’s efforts to expand in their highly competitive market. While MBN has taken steps to improve its process of program review and evaluation, it has not yet implemented our recommendations to improve its system of internal control or develop a comprehensive staff training plan. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have at this time. For questions regarding this testimony, please contact Jess T. Ford at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to this statement include Audrey Solis, Assistant Director; Michael ten Kate; Eve Weisberg; Kate France Smiles; and Joe Carney. Foreign Assistance: Actions Needed to Better Assess the Impact of Agencies’ Marking and Publicizing Efforts. GAO-07-277. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 2007. U.S. International Broadcasting: Management of Middle East Broadcasting Services Could Be Improved. GAO-06-762. Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 2006. Department of State: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps. GAO-06-894. Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 2006. U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Efforts to Engage Muslim Audiences Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face Significant Challenges. GAO-06-535. Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2006. U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Efforts Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face Persistent Challenges. GAO-06-707T. Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2006. International Affairs: Information on U.S. Agencies’ Efforts to Address Islamic Extremism. GAO-05-852. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 16, 2005. U.S. Public Diplomacy: Interagency Coordination Efforts Hampered by the Lack of a National Communication Strategy. GAO-05-323. Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2005. U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors Expand Post- 9/11 Efforts but Challenges Remain. GAO-04- 1061T. Washington, D.C.: Aug. 23, 2004. U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors Expand Efforts in the Middle East but Face Significant Challenges. GAO-04-435T. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10, 2004. U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Expands Efforts but Faces Significant Challenges. GAO-03-951. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 4, 2003. U.S. International Broadcasting: New Strategic Approach Focuses on Reaching Large Audiences but Lacks Measurable Program Objectives. GAO-03-772. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Summary: Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, polling data have generally shown that anti-Americanism has spread and deepened around the world, and several groups have concluded that this trend may have harmed U.S. interests in significant ways. U.S. public diplomacy activities undertaken by the State Department (State) and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which totaled almost $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2006, are designed to counter such sentiments. Based on our prior reports, this testimony addresses (1) the negative consequences various groups have associated with rising anti-American sentiments; (2) strategic planning, coordination, and performance measurement issues affecting U.S. public diplomacy efforts; and (3) key challenges that hamper agency activities. Numerous experts, policymakers, and business leaders have identified various potential negative consequences of growing anti-Americanism. According to these sources, anti-Americanism may have a negative impact on American economic interests, the ability of the United States to pursue its foreign policy and military goals, and the security of Americans worldwide. Our reports and testimonies have highlighted the lack of a governmentwide communication strategy, as well as the need for an integrated State Department strategy, enhanced performance indicators for State and the BBG, and improvements in the BBG's audience research methodology. We also reported in March 2007 that U.S. foreign assistance activities were not being consistently publicized and branded, and we recommended that State help develop governmentwide guidance for marking and publicizing these efforts. State has responded to our recommendations and has taken actions to develop a more strategic approach and measure the effectiveness of its programs. Likewise, the BBG has adapted its strategic plan to include additional performance indicators and is beginning to address our recommendations to adopt management improvements at its Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN). Nevertheless, State and the BBG continue to face challenges in implementing public diplomacy and international broadcasting. State has shortages in staffing and language capabilities, and security issues continue to hamper overseas public diplomacy efforts. For example, in 2006 we reported that State continued to experience significant foreign language proficiency shortfalls, particularly at posts in the Muslim world. The BBG faces challenges in managing a disparate collection of broadcasters. Also, MBN faces several managerial challenges involving program review, internal control, and training.