Sandy Amos is a student at the New School.

“I would hire a guerilla marketing unit. They could have fashion shows over there. They could have movies, dances. They can teach our decadent way of living and why it is so much fun. You have to infiltrate their lives and I don’t think commercials are going to do it. You set up events [and] show them movies ‘Boogie Nights,’ I’d show that …The first thing is to get people to like you. You always buy something from someone you like.” -Advertising Executive on how to sell America, Advertising Age, 12/17/2001

The rise of global communication networks has led to the increased importance of media in the process of packaging foreign policy. Images and print media have become central elements in the construction of global perceptions of the United States. In the aftermath of September 11th and in response to the rise of virulent anti- American sentiment throughout the world, a new approach to public diplomacy became a critical element of the Bush regime’s foreign policy efforts. The U.S. Government has adapted many of the same marketing methods used by global brands like Coca-Cola and McDonalds to sell American values and foreign policy to the rest of the world, particularly in the Middle East and among Islamic communities. In testimony before the House Budget Committee on March 15, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell described a new approach to public diplomacy. He stated, "I’m going to be bringing people into the public diplomacy function of the department who are going to change from just selling us in the old…way to really branding foreign policy, branding the department, marketing the department, marketing American values to the world."

Shortly after 9/11, the State Department launched an intensive public relations and advertising campaign to improve America’s image in the Arab and Muslim world. Charlotte Beers, one of the most powerful and respected figures in American advertising, was the director of the ambitious yet ill-fated program, which cost American taxpayers upwards of $35 Million. Secretary of State Colin Powell appointed Beers as Undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs on the tragically ironic grounds that one of her ad campaigns had inspired him to buy Uncle Ben’s Rice. Her solution to counteract America’s negative image was:
"to put forward something (Americans) might have all taken for granted, which is the U.S. values. They're just as important as our policies. Our policies are born of these values. And words like 'freedom' and 'tolerance' and 'diversity of human beings' are precious to us, and I don't think they're very well understood.”
From the outset, there was obvious disconnect between the Beers brand of public diplomacy and the political realities and sensibilities of her target audience. When asked who the symbols or poster people of her campaign would be, Beers responded “ Our poster people are President Bush and Secretary Powell: they’re pretty inspiring symbols of the brand, the United States.” (Transcripts of speeches by Charlotte Beers available at http://state.gov/r/us/15912.htm, http://state.gov/r/us/16269.htm)

On Madison Avenue, Charlotte Beers was known as “The Queen of Branding”. Tana Dineen of The Ottawa Citizen describes the role of branding in Beers’ PR offensive:
“Branding is the hallmark of Western marketing; it’s all about image and packaging. It involves persuading people to associate a product with a specific brand. Effectively done, it builds a special trust in the brand and consumer belief in the product. Ms. Beers’ predominant task is that of turning around the image of the United States and giving it positive brand recognition. That’s a daunting task because for decades, [America’s global image] has been one of a shallow, materialistic society intent on gobbling up the resources of the world…[While the U.S.] stands as a "beacon" of freedom and democracy, the propaganda Ms. Beers is crafting may be just another demonstration of how the U.S. relies on money and power to persuade, indoctrinate and control other nations.”

(Full text available at HYPERLINK "http://tanadineen.com/COLUMNIST/Columns/Propaganda.htm"

The emergence of an international community in which disparate populations are interconnected in a web of shared interests and global communication has led to the rise of “the branded state,” a concept that has radically transformed the nature of public diplomacy. As Peter Van Hamm explained in Foreign Affairs, in the age of globalization:
“having a bad reputation or none at all is a serious handicap for a state seeking to remain competitive in the international arena... Image and reputation [have become] essential parts of the state's strategic equity. Like branded products, branded states depend on trust and customer satisfaction. We talk about a state's personality in the same way we discuss the products we consume… With all this emphasis on brands, old-style political actors worry about being left behind. Globalization and the media revolution have made each state more aware of itself, its image, its reputation, and its attitude -- in short, its brand.”

(Full Text available at http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/2001/13flo.htm )

While often used as euphemism for propaganda, the objectives of public diplomacy are decidedly less monolithic. As Peter G. Peterson explains in Foreign Affairs:
“In the short term, public diplomacy seeks to influence opinions and mobilize publics in ways that support specific U.S. interests and policies [and] in the long term, public diplomacy promotes dialogue in ways that are politically, culturally, and socially relevant.” [According to Peterson,] “Globalization [is among the] central characteristics of the twenty-first-century foreign policy environment [in which] no foreign policy can succeed without a sustained, coordinated capability to understand, inform, and influence people and private organizations, as well as governments.”

(Full Text available at http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020901faessay9734/peter-g-peterson/public-diplomacy-and-the-war-on-terrorism.html ).

According Ambassador Christopher Ross, modern diplomacy has been transformed by:
“globalization and information technologies that now link nations, cultures, and societies in complex and unprecedented ways. [As a result] the public-diplomacy quotient of virtually every foreign policy issue today has risen dramatically [and cannot] succeed over the long term without the understanding and support of multiple foreign publics and other non-state actors.”

(Full Text Available at http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/index.html?id=1117&page=1)

In the Arab world and in other mostly underdeveloped parts of the world, the effects of globalization, particularly the increase in economic inequality and disparity of resources, have led to a fierce backlash against America. According to Peterson,
“Perceptions of the United States are far from monolithic. But…at the root of these negative attitudes is Americans' perceived lack of empathy toward the pain, hardship, and tragic plight of peoples throughout the developing world. Their pervasive sense of despair and hopelessness…also leads to envy and a sense of victimhood, often accompanied by anger and mistrust.”
As David Hoffman explains in Foreign Affairs:
“Media are also directly embroiled in the Middle East's love-hate relationship with America. Young people in particular are simultaneously seduced and repelled by American culture. The same youths who shout "death to America" go home to read contraband copies of Hollywood magazines… Islam's 'cultural schizophrenia' -- the struggle between tradition and Western secular modernity, between fundamentalism and globalization -- haunts the souls of many Muslims.

(Full Text of “Beyond Public Diplomacy available at http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020301faessay7974/david-hoffman/beyond-public-diplomacy.htm )

In November 2001, the State Department developed a series of print advertisements for use in a Lebanese focus group. The ads used stark imagery and startling statistics to make an emotional appeal regarding the destructive realities of terrorism. The slogan of the campaign was “TERRORISM HAS NO FUTURE.” The captions on the ads featured below read “Terrorism Has No Future: Over 7,000 lives were lost to terrorism last year. Over 2,000 of them were children" and ”Terrorism Has No Future: The lifespan of a human being is 68 years. The lifespan of a terrorist is 28 years” According to Beers, the objective of the ads is to ”encompass a broader view of the toll of terrorism and a clearer definition that a terrorist builds nothing, and is willing to murder innocents. [This is done by appealing to] common values, shared moments, bridges we can build so that more open dialogue can begin.”

The State Department has also produced a wide range of pro-American publications for distribution in Muslim countries. There are pamphlets, like Defeating Terror, Defending Freedom and The Human Toll of Terrorism, that explain America's stance on Terrorism and are filled with harrowing images of various terrorist attacks. According to The Network of Terrorism, an early Beers brochure, 9/11 was not only an attack on the U.S., but “on the heart and soul of the civilized world.” Other brochures, such as Afghanistan: Seeds of Hope, Iraq: A Population Silenced and Iraq: From Fear to Freedom highlight the history of repression and recent progress in the two Muslim targets of U.S. Military campaigns. Some skeptics have dismissed these publications as the byproducts of the Bush regime’s illusions regarding the Muslim world and as exercises in delusional and misleading propaganda.

The State Department has also published a series of non-political magazines. The most well known is 'Muslim Life in America,' a magazine that focused on the lifestyle and experiences of prototypical Arab-Americans. The American government distributed 300,000 copies of the magazine in Muslim countries in conjunction with the “Shared Values” campaign. Other State Department produced periodicals include the Arab-language monthly Hi Magazine, ( HYPERLINK "http://www.hiinternation.com" http://www.hiinternation.com) and Liqaa, an Arab youth magazine. (These publications are available at HYPERLINK "http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs" http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs). In addition to publications, Beers commissioned the creators of SESAME STREET to develop an Arab-language children’s show aimed at teaching Muslim children English and “American Values."

In November 2002, The State Department launched a $15 Million ad campaign that ran on Arab satellite stations and government-controlled television networks. The most well-known and controversial part of the State Department’s public diplomacy effort, the “Shared Values” campaign depicted the everyday lives of American Muslims and emphasized American tolerance and acceptance of Islam. The “mini-documentaries” sparked a firestorm of controversy. Almost every Middle Eastern nation refused to air the ads and the Arab media rejected them as blatant propaganda. Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Kuwait were the only nations to broadcast the “Shared Values” spots. In the regional coverage of the "Shared Values" campaign, many Middle Eastern reporters noted that it "comes in conjunction with beating the drums of war against Iraq" and suggested that its objective is to minimizing Arab/Muslim street reaction to any conflict. During a report on the Egyptian television’s refusal to air “Shared Values” on the grounds that they were political propaganda, Popular Egyptian news anchor Hamdy Qandil concluded: “The U.S. would do better saving its money because it will not achieve any results.” According to a Tunisian commentator:

"Once more, the Americans are tangled up in an absurd strategy. Their TV campaign to ameliorate their image does not help much, since the essential is absent.... Americans are so convinced of their wisdom that they are concentrating their campaign on the life of Muslims in the United States and on the freedom they have in practicing their religion. In reality, Americans need much more than this to improve their image within the Arab-Muslim world.”

The Malaysian publication, Berita Harian expressed a common theme in Arab news coverage of “Shared Values”: "It is the foreign policy of Washington towards Islamic countries that is under scrutiny, not the treatment or the lives of American Muslims… This campaign seems off its mark. The Muslim world never has criticized America for its treatment of its Muslim community. It is the discrimination of the Bush Administration towards Islamic countries and their communities that has been criticized." According to Askiah Adam of the Malay Mail "To even the impartial observer, this is a cynical campaign that insults the intelligence of the average Muslim.” A letter to the editor published in the Pakistan Observer asked, “Does the US Government take us to be so naive that we will be influenced by these advertisements? Why is there such need for these expensive advertisements? It is like telling Palestinians how great life is in the occupied territories. My advice to the US Government would be to quit fooling us and rather take some concrete steps to gain our trust." According to the Moroccan French-language weekly Demain, “Only when America will be just can it win our sympathy, and then it will not need such expensive ads."

In late 2002, the State Department conducted an extremely revealing analysis of the news coverage of public diplomacy efforts in seven Muslim nations (full text available at HYPERLINK "http://usinfo.state.gov/admin/005/wwwh21126.html" http://usinfo.state.gov/admin/005/wwwh21126.html). They emphasized that America’s negative image in the Islamic world is a strict product of "U.S. foreign policy and Washington's stance on Arab issues." According to several Arab news outlets, America’s "media campaign to improve its image...has been a complete failure.” According a Pakistani newspaper, the campaign "appears to be another Zionist propaganda tool.” Others criticized America’s belief in the "right to interfere to reform misconceptions in Arab societies.” Dawn, a newspaper in Karachi, published this brutal description of Charlotte Beers’ objectives: “Beers has been told to inject Botox-like properties on the wrinkled face of America's ugly unilateralism." Mohammed Al Hammadi, a journalist in Abu Dhabi, commented, "Before starting a publicity campaign to improve its image, the U.S. must know what requires improvement... Those in the U.S. who believe the negative U.S. image among Arabs is due to Arab ignorance of the U.S. are certainly mistaken. We understand the U.S. But the U.S. must understand us… Any media or diplomatic initiative must be accompanied by a real and clear change in U.S. foreign policies prior to improving the image.” Dawood Al-Shiryan, Riyadh bureau chief of London-based Al-Hayat, observed that the American effort "is not only a failure. [It is] a means for incitement against U.S. policy in several Islamic countries… the campaign has insulted the community and has done nothing to improve the image of the US government. The campaign has failed because it depends on political propaganda, which is connected in the minds of the people as a means to protect lies and twist the facts.” Describing U.S. public diplomacy as a “hoax”, Arab journalist Rami Khouri issued the following diatribe: “[Not since Rome] in mid-century AD has a world power so flagrant engaged in misguided policies that scapegoat others… the U.S. government perpetrates a fatal combination of political blindness and cultural misperception that is only going to exacerbate the gap between Americans and Arabs, rather than close it. [U.S. public diplomacy] suffers from occasional technical incompetence that is then magnified grievously by the distortions of extreme political ideology, woefully inadequate cultural understanding of Middle Eastern Societies and a rigid refusal to examine how American foreign policy impacts Middle Eastern perceptions of the U.S. “ (Full Text Available at http://www.elmandjra.org/US-pub.htm)

Many American observers have also criticized post- September 11 public diplomacy as inadequate, one sided and close-minded. Mark Leonard argued in Foreign Policy that, “Many of the communication initiatives that Western governments developed after the terrorist attacks last autumn fall into what can best be described as a "conveyor belt" model for transmitting information [and have] failed to deliver information convincingly. The tone of many messages is declamatory, without any apparent intent to engage in dialogue or listen.”

(Full Text available at http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2002/09/01/6367?extID=10026 )

In December 2003, Nancy Snow of the Center for Public Diplomacy told the World Affairs Council that “Marketing public diplomacy in commercials, slick packaging, fancy language, or status reports won't improve America's image in the world and will probably just reinforce negative perceptions.” According to Michael Holtzman, “U.S. public diplomacy is neither public or diplomatic. First, the government not the American public has been the main messenger to a world that seems mighty suspicious of it. Further, the State Department…seems to view public diplomacy not as a dialogue but as a one-sided exercise. The result is America speaking at the world, usually with simplistic and often offensive propaganda… It’s shocking that America, the country that invented modern advertising, has put together such a bewilderingly uncreative and counterproductive sales pitch.” (Full Text available at http://www.geocities.com/munichseptember1972/washingtons_sour_sales.htm ); Naomi Klein contends that “America's problem is not with its brand -- which could scarcely be stronger -- but with its product… Having conflicting views about the US - admiring its creativity, for instance, but resenting its double standards - doesn't mean you are "mixed up"; it means you have been paying attention." (Full Text available at www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,666821,00.html )

By the measure of international public opinion, the success of the U.S, Public Diplomacy efforts has been nearly non-existent. In a Guardian poll, a majority of Britons no longer believed that America was a model for democracy and that 51% America is threatening their culture, a fear shared by Canadians, Mexicans and South Koreans.

(Full results available at www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/viewsofamerica)

A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that between 1999/2000 and 2002, favorable opinions of America declined from 58% to 53% in South Korea, 77% to 72% in Japan and 75% to 61% in Indonesia. (Full results available at http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165). Pew polls have also revealed the widespread global reach of anti-American sentiment. A mere 21% of French respondents wanted to be as close an ally to the United States as in the past. Only 41% of Britons have more confidence that the U.S. wants to promote democracy around the world. 33% of Britons felt that America was overreacting to the threat of global terror, an increase of 13% in two years. 82% of Jordanians, 40% of Moroccans, 41% of Pakistanis and 15% of Turks considered suicide bombing and forms of violence against Americans as justified. Only 8% of Moroccans, 6% of Turks, 4% of Pakistanis, and 2% of Jordanians had a favorable opinion of the United States while 55% of Jordanians, 65% of Pakistanis and 45% of Moroccans had a favorable opinion of Osama Bin Laden. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206;

In the realm of public diplomacy, Charlotte Beers branding skills accomplished very little and backfired in many ways. She resigned in March 2003, after only 17 months on the job. A high-ranking administration official told CNN that Beers “was failing. She didn’t do anything that worked. The administration waited until the fallout from the Shared Values campaign ended. But we have been looking for an honorable exit for her for some time."

(Full Text available at http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/03/state.resignation/index.html)

In the end, Charlotte Beers was destined to fail. Her job was the equivalent of branding pork products for Muslim consumption. No one was buying it because it went against his or her most basic beliefs. While the world's leading brands are American, the concept of masking the realities of U.S. foreign policy by marketing them is inherently alienating to foreign audiences. Packaging U.S. policies as a brand is something that is insulting and repugnant to the rest of the world. The world will never buy America the way they buy its soft drinks and fast foods because the realm of its hegemonic international influence transcends the matrix of materialistic consumption.

CITATIONS, SOURCES, LINKS, NOTES:
Public Diplomacy Websites
> U.S. Information Agency Alumni Association= HYPERLINK "http://www.publicdiplomacy.org" www.publicdiplomacy.org
> U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy= HYPERLINK "http://www.state.gov/r/acompd" www.state.gov/r/acompd
> Diplo Foundation= HYPERLINK "http://www.diplomacy.edu/Projects/public.htm" www.diplomacy.edu/Projects/public.htm
> Public Diplomacy Institute= HYPERLINK "http://pdi.gwu.edu" http://pdi.gwu.edu
> State Department International Information Programs= HYPERLINK "http://usinfo.state.gov" http://usinfo.state.gov
> Public Diplomacy Web Resources= HYPERLINK "http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stables/pdbookmarks.htm" http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stables/pdbookmarks.htm

International Public Opinion Polls
> Transatlantic Trends 2004 Survey= HYPERLINK "http://www.transatlantictrends.org" www.transatlantictrends.org
> "Advertising as Public Diplomacy: Attitude Change among International Audiences" (2003 survey)= HYPERLINK "http://www.smu.edu/smunews/adamerica/" www.smu.edu/smunews/adamerica/
> "A View from the Arab World" (March 2003 Brookings Institute Survey)= HYPERLINK "http://www.brookings.org/fp/saban/survey20030313.pdf" www.brookings.org/fp/saban/survey20030313.pdf

Public Diplomacy reports and papers
> "Public Diplomacy: How to Think About and Improve It" (2004 Rand Corporation report)= HYPERLINK "http://www.rand.org/publications/OP/OP134" www.rand.org/publications/OP/OP134
> "The Need to Communicate: How to Improve U.S. Public Diplomacy in The Islamic World" (2004 Brookings Institute paper)= HYPERLINK "http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/amr20040101.pdf" www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/amr20040101.pdf
> "Changing Minds, Winning Peace" (2003 U.S. Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy report)= HYPERLINK "http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/24882.pdf" www.state.gov/documents/organization/24882.pdf
> 2003 U.S. General Accounting Office report on Public Diplomacy= HYPERLINK "http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-95" www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-95
> "How to Reinvigorate U.S. Public Diplomacy" (Heritage Foundation paper)= HYPERLINK "http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg1645.cfm" www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg1645.cfm
> 2004 U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy Report= HYPERLINK "http://www.state.gov/r/adcompd/rls/36522.htm" www.state.gov/r/adcompd/rls/36522.htm

Congressional Testimony and Hearings on Public Diplomacy
> American Public Diplomacy and Islam Hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, February 27, 2003= HYPERLINK "http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2003/hrg0302227a.html" http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2003/hrg0302227a.html
> American Public Diplomacy and Free Press Hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, February 2004= HYPERLINK "http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2004/hrg040226a.html" http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2004/hrg040226a.html