Public diplomacy is the promotion of America's interests, culture, and policies by informingand influencing foreign populations. From 1977 to the 1990s, all functions of State's Bureau ofEducational and Cultural Affairs and the USIA's international information and broadcasting activitiesmerged to become the International Communication Agency (ICA). Subsequently, in 1982, Section303(b) of P.L. 97-241 renamed ICA to be the U.S. Information Agency (USIA). In 1994, theinternational broadcasting activities were consolidated by Title III, P.L. 103-236 and administeredby a new entity referred to as the Broadcasting Board of Governors. As of October 1, 1999, USIAwas abolished and its functions were merged back into the Department of State. Currently, public diplomacy primarily consists of three categories of activities: (1)international information programs, (2) educational and cultural exchange programs, and (3)international nonmilitary broadcasting. The Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy andPublic Affairs administers the Bureau for International Information Programs and the Bureau forEducational and Cultural Affairs, while the Broadcasting Board of Governors manages and overseesinternational broadcasting. Other public diplomacy efforts involve the White House, the U.S.Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Department of Defense (DOD). After the abolishment of the United States Information Agency (USIA) in 1999 and theterrorist attacks two years later, the U.S. government expedited implementation of public diplomacyto help win its war on terrorism. Some observers noted as evidence that the Administration was newat conducting public diplomacy when immediately after 9/11 it referred to the U.S. response as"Operation Enduring Crusade," a name that experts pointed out could be viewed by Muslims asinflammatory." (1) Over the past four years, the Bush Administration has taken numerous actions to improve theeffectiveness of its public diplomacy. For example, in November 2001, two months after theterrorist attacks, the Bush Administration created the Coalition Information Center (CIC)headquartered in the Old Executive Office Building. The CIC, which was touted by theAdministration as public diplomacy, coordinated U.S. government agency press conferences andtalking points, dispersing them rapidly and around-the-clock worldwide. Soon thereafter, thePresident created, by Executive Order, the Office of Global Communications (OGC), which replacedthe CIC with a primary mission to "coordinate strategic communications with globalaudiences." (2) Also,then-National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice established a Strategic Communication PolicyCoordinating Committee (PCC) in September 2002. The PCC mission was to coordinateinteragency activities, develop the White House message, and disseminate it abroad. More recently, the President created the Muslim World Outreach Policy CoordinatingCommittee in July 2004 which replaced the Strategic Communications Policy CoordinatingCommittee. The State Department also established an Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources inthe Office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Informally in 2002 and officially in 2003, the Pentagon created the Office of StrategicInfluence (OSI) to oversee military propaganda and other information related to the war on terrorism. The Secretary of Defense dissolved OSI after press coverage claimed the Office was to placedisinformation deliberately in foreign media. In October 2003, the Department of Defense issued Information Operations Roadmap which involves the direction that DOD wants to take in publicdiplomacy and other information operations. DOD has appointed its Under Secretary of Defense forPolicy as the Defense point person for public diplomacy and will be continuing to define DOD's rolein public diplomacy. USAID became more involved in public diplomacy after the 9/11 Commission reported toCongress that some of the largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid had very strong anti-Americansentiment among its population. Since 2004, USAID has acted to more prominently inform U.S.aid recipients that the aid they have received was a gift from American taxpayers. Also, byestablishing a State-USAID Policy Council and a Public Diplomacy Working Group, it hasestablished closer ties with the Department of State and embassies around the world to publicizeAmerica's humanitarian and development aid initiatives. Since 1999, U.S. public diplomacy has been rigorously examined to determine whetherimproved methods, structure, and goals could help the United States win the war on terrorism. Thisreport reviews 29 articles and studies on public diplomacy that have been identified by theDepartment of State as being credible reports with valuable suggestions and compares therecommendations. These 29 documents, listed in reverse chronological order from 2005 to 1999 in AppendixA , vary in scope, depth, and purpose. Some focus on public diplomacy and include numerous,specific recommendations; others are more general in nature and deal with public diplomacy in thecontext of broader foreign policy issues. Some reports represent the consensus of a group of authors;others state the views of a series of individuals. For the purposes of this review, each document hasbeen given an abbreviation, for example, "PDC" for the Public Diplomacy Council, to make it easierto identify. Appendix B provides each report's specific recommendations. Following in Table 1 is a matrix indicating the major recommendations of all 29 reports. (Note, however, that the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP1) report from 2003 did not have relevantrecommendations for this review.) The matrix lists 14 categories of recommendations that appearedmost frequently. A second matrix in Table 2 lists only those reports that include specificrecommendations concerning international broadcasting. A brief discussion of recommendationsimilarities and differences follows each matrix. Note that this discussion deals only with thecontent of the documents. An author or organization listed in the Appendix may have written onpublic diplomacy at an earlier or a later date, and the views expressed in a particular document maynot represent those of the organization that published the document. (For more detail on publicdiplomacy, in general, please see CRS Report RL32607 , U.S. Public Diplomacy: Background andthe 9/11 Commission Recommendations , by [author name scrubbed].) Table 1. Key Recommendations for Public Diplomacy Reform Note: See Table 2 for recommendations for international broadcasting reform. a. WP : Washington Post op-ed; PDC1 : Public Diplomacy Council 2005; PDC2 : Public Diplomacy Council 2004; ADV1 : U.S. AdvisoryCommissionon Public Diplomacy; DSB1 : Defense Science Board 2004; GAO1 : Government Accountability Office 2004; 911 : 9/11 Commission Report; NSFR : National Strategy Forum Review ; PDC3 : Public Diplomacy Council 2004; RAND : RAND Corporation; FPA : Foreign PolicyAssociation; KIE : Kiehl, William; DJE1 : Djerejian, Edward, October 7, 2003; DJE2 : Djerejian, Edward, October 2003; USIP1 : U.S. Institute of Peace 2003; GAO2 : Government Accountability Office 2003; CFR1 : Council on Foreign Relations 2003; HER1 : Heritage Foundation, May 2003; HER2 :Heritage Foundation, April 2003; ISD : Institute for the Study of Diplomacy; USIP2 : U.S. Institute of Peace 2002; BRO : Brown, John; CFR2 :Council on Foreign Relations 2002; PBS : Public Broadcasting Service; ADV2 : U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy 2002; DSB2 :Defense Science Board 2001; NWC : National War College; CFR3 : Council on Foreign Relations 2001; HRC : Hart/Rudman Commission b. Public Diplomacy From 1999 through 2005 numerous reports, articles, studies, and op-ed pieceshave been written touting the importance of public diplomacy as a foreign policy tooland focusing on how the United States government can improve its public diplomacyoperations to help win the war on terrorism. Among the many writings are the 29considered here. (See Appendix A for a reverse chronological list of the reportsincluded in this CRS review.) Several reports suggest that the Administration has not sufficiently definedor verbalized an overall strategy for the use of public diplomacy to both improve theU.S. image around the world, but also counter the threat of terrorism againstAmericans. The 9/11 Commission Report states that the United States shouldidentify what it stands for and communicate that message clearly. Of the ten reportsthat recommend defining an overall strategy, the Government Accountability Office(GAO) reports that the United States needs to do a better job of defining its publicdiplomacy message, and that while the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) doeshave a strategy for its broadcasting activities, the Department of State (DOS) does nothave an integrated strategy for its public diplomacy operations. GAO states that the"absence of an interagency strategy complicates the task of conveying consistentmessages." Furthermore, GAO offers that the Administration needs to define publicdiplomacy success and determine how it can be measured. The Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim Worldreport recommends that the White House establish strategic goals and oversee theimplementation of programs that meet those goals. The U.S. Advisory Commissionon Public Diplomacy study claims that the State Department lacks authority toimplement an overall strategy for the various agencies engaged in public diplomacyand recommends that the DOS Policy, Planning and Resources Office coordinate allpublic diplomacy efforts. The Heritage Foundation recommends that the U.S.government view public diplomacy as a long-term effort, saying that publicdiplomacy should be "enshrined in a doctrine that emphasizes consistent efforts."