Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XXX, Public Diplomacy

72. Testimony of the Deputy Secretary of State (Christopher) Before the Subcommittee on International Operations of the House International Relations Committee¹

Washington, June 21, 1977

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:

I welcome this opportunity to testify in the course of your hearings on “Public Diplomacy and the future.” The Secretary and I are encouraged by the careful attention you are giving to the inquiry, and by your interest in the larger issues of international communications. I would like to pledge our cooperation in working with the Congress in the review of policy in this area.

Let me begin by putting public diplomacy into the context of its purpose and place in the foreign policy structure of the United States.

The purposes of public diplomacy are

(1) To ensure that other nations more accurately understand this country, its values, institutions, and policies;

(2) To ensure that our understanding of other nations and of our interrelationship with them is informed and accurate;

(3) To ensure that this mutual understanding is bolstered by collaborative individual and institutional relationships across cultural lines; and

(4) To ensure that, as the international policies of our government are formed, we take into account the values, interests, and priorities of publics abroad.

The audience for public diplomacy defines its vital place in the conduct of American foreign policy. Public diplomacy compliments and reinforces traditional government-to-government diplomacy by seeking to communicate with the people of other nations. In particular, it seeks to establish a dialogue with those who are importantly involved now or are likely to be involved in the formulation and discussion of attitudes and ideas which affect the United States. I speak here of people in other nations who are active in the academic world, the worlds of art and culture, in communications, or in government—those who are future leaders of their nations.

As you have emphasized, Mr. Chairman, the issues of public diplomacy are far broader than internal government organization. They also concern the wider span of international communications in this age of information. This wider span embraces such issues as satellite television transmissions, COMSAT receiver stations in underdeveloped countries and the free dissemination of news. As you know, we are preparing for international conferences which will consider some of these problems.

We must address these individual issues within the context of a comprehensive view by the United States. This comprehensive view is defined by three governing principles:

—First, we are committed to freedom of information and expression and the fundamental human right of every individual to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any medium, and regardless of frontiers;

—Second, we recognize the vital importance of communications in the development of peoples and nations and of friendly relations between them. All people should have a chance to share in the potential benefits of modern mass communications. Thus, we are determined to help develop and increase the means of communication among peoples. At the same time, we are determined to preserve the multiplicity and independence of sources of information;

—Third, the international flow of information and ideas must be two-way. There is a current imbalance—for example, much more information flows to the so-called Third World than flows from the Third World. One example of our willingness to help correct some of the imbalance is our long-standing offer to share our knowledge and expertise in the use of our ATS–6 communications satellite.

The specific and concrete steps we take on the whole spectrum of international communications will be consistent with these principles.

We reviewed public diplomacy from the perspective of its purposes as well as the principles outlined above. In this connection we have identified five specific functions of public diplomacy:

—“Cultural exchange,” which includes the exchange of people in both directions and the forging of institutional links. The Fulbright program, which sends scholars abroad and brings foreign scholars here to pursue their studies, is a major example of this function. It is managed by the State Department at home and by USIS overseas.

—“General information” consists of activities undertaken to project abroad important aspects of American society. These activities include exhibits, libraries, seminars, lectures and much of VOA’s programming. Most of these activities are managed abroad by USIA. Programs such as tours of performing artists are managed at home by the State Department and overseas by USIA.

—“Policy information” is a combination of background and policy guidance on current and long-term issues for use in explaining our policies abroad. This information is obtained from State Department sources and statements and is disseminated by USIA to our posts overseas and to VOA. VOA draws upon this information for the policy commentary and analyses that it broadcasts. The subjects cover such issues as human rights, SALT and the Middle East. I will note in passing that I have differentiated between “general information” and “policy information” because others have done so, but I regard the dichotomy as somewhat artificial.

—“Public affairs advice” represents an attempt to assess and evaluate foreign public opinion and attitudes and thus to inform the U.S. agencies involved in foreign policy. For example, USIA was able to provide a survey on European attitudes toward the issue of human rights prior to President Carter’s trip to Europe.²

—“News reporting” is performed principally by VOA. Factual and unbiased reporting of all the news is the key to the integrity and credibility of the Voice. We must remain alert to ensure that the news function reflects the highest standards of American journalism.

It is through these five functions of public diplomacy that we are able, as a nation, to seek respect for our opinions and to pay respect to the opinions of others. We recognize that, in a world of information, it is no longer sufficient to reach only existing power structures of other nations. Their own policies are affected by the knowledge and attitudes of their citizens. It is especially important to recognize that younger generations in other countries will soon occupy positions of influence not only in government, but in the media, the academic community, the cultural world and other important segments of a society.

We are conducting a comprehensive review of our organization for public diplomacy. In this review, we have taken into account other studies, including, Mr. Chairman, your 1968 report on “The Future of United States Diplomacy.”³ Through this process, we identified important shortcomings in the present organizations.

We have found that the components of public diplomacy have been fragmented. The responsibility for cultural exchanges and some of the general information activities are split between USIA overseas and the State Department at home.

We have also concluded that our international relations in the years ahead require more serious attention to public diplomacy than has been given in the past. Public diplomacy has been too distant from the processes by which our foreign policy is conducted—both for the contribution it should make when policies are decided and the support it can provide when those policies are in operation.

Specifically, the dissemination of accurate, ample, and timely policy guidance to our missions overseas and to VOA has been hampered by the lack of full communication between the State Department and USIA, despite the good intentions of all concerned. Similarly, the use of public affairs advice has been impaired by the lack of a close relationship between those who prepare this analysis and those who rely on it in the State Department.

Our review of the issues and questions involved has caused us to conclude that reorganization is required. The form of the reorganization has been under intensive study, but no final decision has been made by the President. The Administration is following your hearings with interest and care, as we proceed to shape our final recommendations and decisions.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, organizations are only as good as the people who staff and run them. In this respect we are indeed fortunate. At USIA, Director John Reinhardt and Deputy Director Charles Bray are already providing the kind of leadership that bodes well for public diplomacy. At State, Assistant Secretary Joseph Duffy’s deep commitment to educational and cultural exchange is already making itself felt. Equally important, USIA, VOA, and CU are staffed by competent professionals. The fact that present organizational arrangements work as well as they do is a tribute to their skill and dedication.

In undertaking a reorganization of our public diplomacy program in the contemporary world, we will test all present activities for their relevance to current and future needs, and their effectiveness. We will identify new activities that need to be undertaken and establish principles for the management of these activities, to assure their efficiency and effectiveness in furthering our long-term national interest.

This is an important opportunity for the Congress, the Administration, and the American people. Therefore, I will be pleased to answer your questions, but I also wish to hear your advice and comments.⁴

1. Source: National Archives, RG 306, USIA Historical Collection, Subject Files, 1953–2000, Entry A–1 1066, Box 43, USICA, Reorganization, 1974–1978. No classification marking. Duffey sent a copy of the testimony to CU office and staff directors under a June 21 memorandum. (Ibid.) For the full text of the Subcommittee’s hearings, see Public Diplomacy and the Future: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on International Operations of the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, Ninety-Fifth Congress, First Session, June 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 24, U.S. House Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on International Operations (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977)
2. See Document 48. The President departed Washington on May 5 in order to attend the G–7 Economic Summit in London May 7–8. He then attended a four-nation May 9 meeting on Berlin before departing for Geneva to meet with Syrian President Asad. He then returned to London for the May 10 North Atlantic Council meeting. The President’s remarks in Washington and London, the transcript of a news conference following the summit, and texts of the joint declaration of the international summit meeting, the declaration on Berlin, and the NAC communiqué are printed in Department of State Bulletin, June 6, 1977, pp. 581–607.
3. On July 22, 1968, the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements convened a hearing on “The Future of United States Public Diplomacy.” Bernays, Gallup, Free, Guillion, Sutton, Smith, Marks, Stanton, and Barrett all testified before the Subcommittee. (“Activities in Congress,” The Washington Post, July 22, 1968, p. B3) For the report, see The Future of United States Public Diplomacy: Report No. 6 together with Part XI of the Hearings on Winning the Cold War: the U.S. Ideological Offensive, U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1968).
4. In his June 21 Evening Report to the President, Vance highlighted that day’s Subcommittee hearings: “The session was harmonious. Fascell and John Buchanan stressed that the Administration should act as quickly as possible on the reorganization question. Fascell expressed disagreement with the idea that exchange programs would be tainted by closer association with USIA; supported involving the USIA Director more closely in the foreign policy-making process; and plugged for more money for VOA modernization and cultural presentations abroad.” In the left-hand margin next to this paragraph, the President noted: “We should expedite.” (Carter Library, Plains File, Subject File, Box 37, State Department Evening Reports, 6/77)