Obsolete Restrictions on Public Diplomacy Hurt U.S. Outreach and Strategy

[Cannoneer No. 4]

More on our embarrassing failures in strategic communications, this time by Juliana G Pilon, Ph.D..

[Smith-Mundt] prohibits domestic dissemination of information designed for foreign consumption, ostensibly so as to ban "domestic propaganda." Yet in this age of instant and global communication, expecting to prevent such public information from reaching Americans is unrealistic and technologically impossible.

In the war on terrorism, this restriction is worse than an anachronism: It amounts to self-sabotage. Until Congress relegates this piece of legislation to the dustbin of history, the U.S. cannot expect to conduct public diplomacy effectively.

*Congress should immediately repeal Section 501.

*The U.S.-funded Alhurra TV should then immediately be permitted to broadcast in the United States. While Al-Jazeera can freely preach hatred and distortion in Arabic to Arab Americans over many U.S. cable systems, it is nothing short of bizarre to forbid a moderate message from reaching the same audience.

*Congress should require all agencies involved in any form of public diplomacy to report these activities to the National Security Adviser for a comprehensive tally.

*Until then, Congress should require the State Department, USAID, and all other agencies conducting public diplomacy to submit or post on the Web an annual report listing all relevant publications and activities so that Americans can be informed of how we are communicating our values and principles as well as our generosity abroad.

*Congress should mandate that all public servants who engage in public diplomacy must receive specific training and should expressly allocate "career enhancement" funds to that purpose.

*Current ambassadors, foreign service officers, USAID employees, and other relevant government personnel engaged in public diplomacy outreach should be required to undergo intensive additional training prior to their next deployment overseas.

*U.S. government grantees and contractors should be required, rather than be forbidden, to inform the public about their activities, contingent on security considerations.

*The U.S. government should expand its efforts to encourage the private sector to engage in public diplomacy activities and to provide citizen ambassadors with relevant information to help them in this task.

Go read it at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...ity/bg2089.cfm

[selil]

I'm left thinking... And?

[Ron Humphrey]

Originally Posted by selil

I'm left thinking... And?

Not quite sure if thats an assault on government spin or an effort to make it more effective??

[selil]

I thought the purpose of smith-mundt was to restrict propoganda from the military and empower the press to cover without coercion.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Originally Posted by selil

I thought the purpose of smith-mundt was to restrict propoganda from the military and empower the press to cover without coercion.

MountainRunner explains Smith-Mundt's declared purpose here.

S-M was less about protecting tender American ears and more about getting the message out to counter what was seen as highly effective Communist propaganda and to fix what was seen (not without substantial merit) crappy U.S. propaganda (when it existed).

It has been misinterpreted. The law was never intended to apply to DoD

[marct]

Originally Posted by Cannoneer No. 4

It has been misinterpreted. The law was never intended to apply to DoD

In some ways, that is moot - common law traditions have a way of reinterpreting themselves over the years, and S-M has come to mean no propaganda, period. It would probably take a Supreme Court decision to reverse that interpretation now.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by marct

In some ways, that is moot - common law traditions have a way of reinterpreting themselves over the years, and S-M has come to mean no propaganda, period. It would probably take a Supreme Court decision to reverse that interpretation now.

that the issue is that well embedded in the national psyche or that it has become common law in any real sense. While there is no doubt that there would be wailing from progressive ranks if this administration tried to change it (and wailing from the right if a Democratic admin tried it), I think all that would be required is just a little testicular fortitude on the part of Congress.

Since that is highly unlikely...

[abduljrus]

Why would you want Propaganda in the United states to be broadcasted. a Channel like al_hurra is certanly not designed for American consumption. I am certanly offended by the fact that the Arab speaking americans like me need propaganda to get our mind straight. its just ludcrious to think that we need propaganda. what are you saying, that we are somehow less americans than you? do we require propaganda to be patriotic?

sorry my english sometimes is not the best and this is my first post.

Cheers,
Abdul

[Ron Humphrey]

Originally Posted by abduljrus

Why would you want Propaganda in the United states to be broadcasted. a Channel like al_hurra is certanly not designed for American consumption. I am certanly offended by the fact that the Arab speaking americans like me need propaganda to get our mind straight. its just ludcrious to think that we need propaganda. what are you saying, that we are somehow less americans than you? do we require propaganda to be patriotic?

sorry my english sometimes is not the best and this is my first post.

Cheers,
Abdul

I think it is understandable that some might think that something like Al-Hurra might be a good answer. It doesn't mean I agree with them but I can see where they would be coming from.

It is quite common here in the states to find that many immigrants from every part of the galaxy prefer and tend to watch a majority, if not all of their TV, news, etc in their own languages.

Thats right I said Galaxy, What do you thnk the SciFi channel is for?

[selil]

Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey

It is quite common here in the states to find that many immigrants from every part of the galaxy prefer and tend to watch a majority, if not all of their TV, news, etc in their own languages.

Thats right I said Galaxy, What do you thnk the SciFi channel is for?

You're one of those men in black aren't you!!! I KNEW SciFi was insurgent television.

[ilots]

Originally Posted by selil

I thought the purpose of smith-mundt was to restrict propoganda from the military and empower the press to cover without coercion.

While this is true, there are some unintended consequences which affect military DoD IO and PSYOP.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Originally Posted by abduljrus

Why would you want Propaganda in the United states to be broadcasted. a Channel like al_hurra is certanly not designed for American consumption. I am certanly offended by the fact that the Arab speaking americans like me need propaganda to get our mind straight. its just ludcrious to think that we need propaganda. what are you saying, that we are somehow less americans than you? do we require propaganda to be patriotic?

It's strategic communications. Propaganda is what the enemy produces.
The enemy is allowed to use any form of communication in support of their objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of Americans.

And there is not enough being done about that.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

We did not call it “propaganda,” for that word in German hands had come to be associated with lies and corruptions. Our work was educational and informative only, for we had such confidence in our case as to feel that only fair presentation of its facts was needed.8 --George Creel

from Propaganda: Can a Word Decide a War? by DENNIS M. MURPHY and JAMES F. WHITE http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/P...umn/murphy.htm

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Except as provided in section 1461 of this title and this section, no funds authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States, and no program material prepared by the United States Information Agency shall be distributed within the United States. This section shall not apply to programs carried out pursuant to the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.). The provisions of this section shall not prohibit the United States Information Agency from responding to inquiries from members of the public about its operations, policies, or programs.

There is no more United States Information Agency.

Lawfare sucks!

The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948:
Comments, Critiques, and the Way Forward by Bryan Hill

[MountainRunner]

Originally Posted by selil

I thought the purpose of smith-mundt was to restrict propoganda from the military and empower the press to cover without coercion.

Your impression is not unique, not rare, and not unsurprising. It is, and don't take this personally, completely false. Smith-Mundt did not cover the military. In fact, JFK, when he re-interpreted USIA et al's mission, as presidents are known to do, explicitly left out Defense information operations.

[USIA] staffs abroad, acting under the supervision of the chiefs of mission, are responsible for the conduct of overt public information, public relations and cultural activities -- i.e., those activities intended to inform or influence foreign public opinion -- for agencies of the U.S. government except for Commands of the Department of Defense

The emphasis is mine. To hammer the point, there has been friction between base commanders overseas when base newspapers get into the local population. From at least one Ambassador's POV, this was an information campaign and thus covered under Smith-Mundt (or at least under its notions) and thus under his responsibility. The base commander exercise "command communication" to circumvent this and the 'leak' of information was to be seen as 'unforeseen' and not preventable. (Of course, allowing others to overhear your conversation to influence them isn't new and is something Churchill practiced in Canada and elsewhere before WWII).

As far as "empower", also wrong but not an unsurprising view. It was to protect the free press. S-M was to protect not only the First Amendment right but also the profits. The fear of coercion wasn't there, just the thought of being overwhelmed or marginalized by expected competition from a government news service (feared follow-on leg to shut down papers was implied but not really discussed).

[marct]

Originally Posted by abduljrus

Why would you want Propaganda in the United states to be broadcasted. a Channel like al_hurra is certanly not designed for American consumption. I am certanly offended by the fact that the Arab speaking americans like me need propaganda to get our mind straight. its just ludcrious to think that we need propaganda. what are you saying, that we are somehow less americans than you? do we require propaganda to be patriotic?

Originally Posted by Cannoneer No. 4

It's strategic communications. Propaganda is what the enemy produces.

From Wikipedia

Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'propagare', literally "extending forth"] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience.

Hi Canoneer,

The key here is the phrase "a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people". Propaganda is regularly unleashed on the American public by politicians and special interest groups, it is not just the property of an amorphous "enemy". Furthermore, calling what the US Government, as a whole, produces Strategic Communications" is somewhat of a misnomer - Brownian Semantics (aka mindlessly wandering all over the semantic map) would be a better term .

Abdul, you raise a good point, but let me toss one back at you. Part of becoming an American involves adopting certain attitudes and perceptions (it's one of the reasons why I won't take out US citizenship - I'm an inveterate monarchist ). These perceptions and attitudes fit in with that idea of "a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people" or propaganda.

Now, I'm not saying that that means that you, or anyone else, has to adopt specific attitudes towards specific events (like believing that the Iraq war is a "just war"). Those types of specifics aren't required by the oath of citizenship, and propaganda aimed at establishing them is certainly subject to question. At the same time, the de facto restrictions imposed by current understandings of S-M have a tendency to muzzle one source of "facts" in an ongoing discussion in US society - something that actually is against the attitudes implicit in the oath of citizenship.

This is even worse when you get into the problem of language (something Canadians know all about !). The founding fathers of the US assumed that all public discourse would always be in a common language and that citizens would learn that common language. For a whole slew of historical reasons, there are now large parts of US society who do not speak English (the assumed common language) well enough to fulfill their obligations as citizens so there is a real problem. In Canada, we solved this partly by adopting a policy of official bilingualism (read "illiterate in both official languages" ). In the US, language is still a hot button issue and I doubt that we will see an official bilingual (or multi-lingual) policy at the federal level. So, how are citizens going to fulfill their obligations if they can't access large parts of the debate?

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Originally Posted by marct

Hi Canoneer,

The key here is the phrase "a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people". Propaganda is regularly unleashed on the American public by politicians and special interest groups, it is not just the property of an amorphous "enemy". Furthermore, calling what the US Government, as a whole, produces Strategic Communications" is somewhat of a misnomer - Brownian Semantics (aka mindlessly wandering all over the semantic map) would be a better term .

Use of the word, propaganda, is counterproductive when describing one's own side's use of it because of the perjorative connotations of the word among English-speaking peoples in the first decade of the 21st Century. In Spanish, so I am told, the word just means advertising.

I am making do with the term strategic communications while waiting for somebody to coin a better euphemism.

Many terms and concepts held over from the Industrial Age prevent us from thinking and communicating clearly about new threats we face in the Cognetic Age. For example,

propaganda does not fit today’s decentralized information-communication environment because we associate it with the centralized control and management of information and communications that reflected the concentration of power during the Industrial Age. With the advent of the Internet and globalization, this concentration of power no longer exists in the hands of the few; indeed, many people now have access to it. This shift in power is the defining feature of the Cognetic Age. Moreover, considerable negative baggage has attached itself to propaganda, a word continually used to describe almost any activity having to do with influencing perceptions, whether for good or ill. This intellectual burden stifles our ability to fight ideological war by tying our minds and tongues to the dogmas of the past. -- Lt Col Bruce K. Johnson, USAF, Dawn of the Cognetic Age

[MountainRunner]

I finally had a chance to read through Juliana Pilon's Smith-Mundt article and it really has very little to do with Smith-Mundt. Very little. I agree completely with Kim Andrew Elliott's assesment.

Most of the problems she describes as caused by Smith-Mundt simply aren't. The example she draws from the Djerejian Report (available here) on USAID has nothing to do with USAID. Oddly, the testimony she pasted into her report hints at USAID not being covered. "Almost none" was the answer given when the USAID administrator was asked about how much of his budget was for public diplomacy. The prohibition, if you read the report, is not about Smith-Mundt, but about the administration of funds, earmarking, etc. The point that USAID does not to public diplomacy is at the heart of this lynchpin example: it does not communicate what it does, within the US or outside.

Pilon unfairly blames Joe Duffy for the dissolution of USIA and gives the master horsetrader involved, Madeline Albright, a pass. There's more here than she acknowledges and I'm not even sure why she mentions this.

Perhaps her biggest leap is not separating what is said and what is done. There is no prohibition against telling America what is being done. Smith-Mundt narrowly, and more broadly by incorrect interpretation as I'll get into in a later post, prohibits telling what is being said. She quotes from BBG chair James Glassman who also gets it wrong.

"Most Americans know little about what we do today--in part because a law called the Smith-Mundt Act limits our communications at home."

Like most of Pilon's arguments, Glassman also makes a substantial leap and as I noted in my post on the subject, there are effective propaganda organs operating in the U.S. today, such as the President's press secretary.

Her one reference, made mostly in passing and not drawn out by her, was in the quote from Andrew Garfield, whom some of you may know:

U.S. authorities handicap themselves. U.S. military lawyers fear "blowback" to U.S. domestic audiences, which they interpret as a violation of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948...

The influence of S-M on the information apparatus of the U.S. is far more important than anything else in her paper and yet virtually ignored.

There's more, but I'll jump to her eight conclusions. Only one of her eight conclusions actually involves Smith-Mundt.

Congress should immediately repeal Section 501

Um, ok, but she has never told us why or how it impacts anything.

...Alhurra TV should then immediately be permitted to broadcast in the United States...

Ok, why? Is the battleground for the minds and wills of Arabic speakers really in the U.S.? Does Al-Jazeera really have such a dominating market share?

Congress should require all agencies involved in any form of public diplomacy to report these activities to the National Security Adviser...

I agree this is an extremely important recommendation, but it isn't prohibited by Smith-Mundt. Centralizing this information would, as I argue elsewhere, "operationalize" public diplomacy. Since everything we do is PD, this will overwhelm the NSA. It makes sense somebody else, say Karen Hughes, be the central person, which was the intent. Pilon is therefore really recommending the USoS for PD/PA be effective and perhaps, as some of the reports on PD have called for, which is a return to the old days.

...Congress should require the State Department, USAAID, and all other agencies conducting public diplomacy to submit or post on the Web an annual report listing all relevant publications and activities...

First, everything element of the government that interacts with foreign audiences, home or abroad, practices public diplomacy. DHS is a big public diplomat, as is the military. The only Smith-Mundt related issue here is the publications of "traditional" public diplomacy agencies and their activities are not secret by law.

Congress should mandate that all public servants who engage in public diplomacy must receive specific training and should expressly allocate "career enhancement" funds to that purpose

This is not prevented by Smith-Mundt and it is an issue of bureaucracy. When and if State moves into the 21st Century (or late 20th), they'll budget training and floater positions like DoD.

Current ambassadors [etc]...engaged in public diplomacy outreach should be required to undergo intensive additional training prior to their next deployment overseas.

Same as above. Neither of these fit with her arguments. They are good and necessary recommendations, but have nothing to do with Smith-Mundt.

U.S. government grantees and contractors should be required, rather than be forbidden, to inform the public about their activities, contingent on security considerations.

This is the only Smith-Mundt-related issue she raises in her conclusion, but even this is so broad as to include much that isn't covered by the Act.

The U.S. government should expand its efforts to encourage the private sector to engage in public diplomacy activities and to provide citizen ambassadors with relevant information to help them in this task

Again, nothing to do with Smith-Mundt and already happens (or is encouraged). Apparently she wants "propaganda" of certain agencies to be shared.

The media is "half the battle" but the examples Pilon cites have nothing to do with Smith-Mundt. From her arguments and her concluduing recommendations, she seems to want transperancy more than increasing the effectiveness of American informational capabilities.

[MountainRunner]

If we're talking about propaganda, reading Galula is useful, from page 14 (also on my blog):

Propaganda -- A One Sided-Weapon
The asymmetrical situation has important effects on propaganda. The insurgent, having no responsibility, is free to use every trick; if necessary, he can lie, cheat, exaggerate. He is not obliged to prove; he is judged by what he promises, not by what he does. Consequently, propaganda is a powerful weapon for him. With no positive policy but with good propaganda, the insurgent may still win.
The counterinsurgent is tied to his responsibilities and to his past, and for him, facts speak louder than words. He is judged on what he does, not on what he says. if he lies, cheats, exaggerates, and does not prove, he may achieve some temporary successes, but at the price of being discredited for good. And he cannot cheat much unless his political structures are monolithic, for the legitimate opposition in his own camp would soon disclose his every psychological maneuver. For him, propaganda can be no more than a secondary weapon, valuable only if intended to inform and not to fool. A counterinsurgent can seldom cover bad or nonexistent policy with propaganda.

[marct]

Hi Canoneer,

Originally Posted by Cannoneer No. 4

Use of the word, propaganda, is counterproductive when describing one's own side's use of it because of the perjorative connotations of the word among English-speaking peoples in the first decade of the 21st Century. In Spanish, so I am told, the word just means advertising.

I am making do with the term strategic communications while waiting for somebody to coin a better euphemism.

Somewhat unusually for an academic, I prefer to use real words with their real meanings rather than rely on euphemisms . All a euphemism does is substitute one term for another while hoping and praying that the negative emotional connotations of the real term don't shift over to the new one. This is, in many ways, a silly exercise as can be witnessed through the vast variety of euphemisms developed over the past 50 years that seem to change every week.

Let's agree to disagree on this one.