JUDITH!!! JUDITH!!! JUDITH!!! - Who is Judith McHale?

Judith McHale shall sit atop the not so vast R Empire at the U.S. Department of State. I must link back to an earlier posting by our dear friend Mathias with some comments building upon the criticism launched by Marc Lynch, who quotes Al Kamen and the like.

First point here, PD is not entirely PR, but we've seen that there is some overlap here...and McHale did preside over Discovery Communications - I see some wildlife features connecting the U.S. to conservation in the making - and she is not in the same position as a Charlotte Beers in "selling a message." Shall we do a brief rundown between the two? Sure, Charlotte Beers comes into an administration with far different perspectives on the U.S. position in the world on top of starting work a little under a month after 9/11...with great contradictions in U.S. action in the world to overcome by the time she leaves office in March 2003, the 28th to be precise...can you think of anything particularly important that happened around this time that may have a huge impact on plan she may have had for U.S. PD? It's slipping my mind at the moment...must not have been too big an issue because Lynch and company cite her tenure as though it were gospel truth on how PR-types turn out in PD. Our German colleague from last night might beg to differ on this generalization of PR and PD.

Back to McHale, she comes into the position under a new administration that is abuzz with new energy. I shall let the pictures speak to the world that McHale has an opportunity to engage (yes, Beers' window is noticeably more narrow an opening than McHale's):

The View From Charlotte Beers' 7th Floor Office Window

The View from Judith McHale's 7th Floor Office Window

Sources: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/uk/features/article_1411370.php/In_photos_Britain_-_Protestors_Demonstrate_Against_President_Bush and http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_political/2465793.html

No doubt, this is still not an easy time to be in this position, but there is an opportunity for change that McHale could very well pull off. I'll cover that more in the second point to follow.

Second, she does serve in a number of capacities that would lead one to believe that she's not completely new to the practice of foreign policy/diplomatic endeavors. She was instrumental in developing Discovery Communication since the mid- to late-1980s and played a major role in launching their network to over 100 channels in 170 countries in 35 languages with over 1 billion subscribers as of 2006. Notably, she also initiated the Discovery Channel Global Education Partnership (the Ambassador of which is Dennis Haysbert from "The Unit" - and according to this clip, you don't want to mess with him or the other guys he so calmly discusses how to conduct an assassination with - who happen to work for him...so LEARN...but he's not quite Mr. T as you can clearly trust him to give you good advice on car insurance) that supplies free educational programming to more than half a million students in Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. The GEF/Africa Growth Fund focuses on supplying capital to small- and medium-sized businesses that provide consumer goods and services in emerging Afrian markets. She also serves on the boards of Vital Voices, the Africa Society of the National Summit on Africa, the National Democratic Institute, and she obviously knows how to reach out to the youth - only being halfway fecetious on this point - since she was in early on MTV Networks' international efforts as General Counsel. The cherry on top here is that she is a Foreign Service brat - a child of a Foreign Service Officer and lived abroad in apartheid South Africa and Britain growing up. More details come to you courtesy of the Paley Center for Media. She also partner with the BBC in launching BBC America while at Discovery Communication.

Comparatively, and we will cover these things in reverse, Charlotte Beers was not a Foreign Service brat, worked 100-hour weeks at strings of advertising and marketing firms where she focused on profit margins, market research, and employee morale. Nothing against her success in a tough industry, but a few things against the way she proceeded at the State Department. She could have better served the position by focusing her organizational skills on integration of PD into the Building and building on it institutional capacity, since she was seemingly successful doing things like this in the private sector. Rather, she focused on a campaign and linked herself inextricably to it...and went out the door with. Check out this PBS interview text and I invite your comments on the pros and cons of the Beers approach.

An interesting dynamic will stand upon reviewing the interaction between McHale and proposed A/S (Assistant Secretary) in R. Philip J. "P.J." Crowley. Most recently of the Center for American Progress, but having 28 years of experience as a spokesman for the U.S. government (3 while Special Assistant to the POTUS for National Security Affairs - as Senior Directo for Public Affairs at the NSC and 11 at the DOD, notably PDAS (Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary - one notch below Assistant Secretary and one notch above Deputy Assistant Secretary) of Defense for Public Affairs. He is retired from the Air Force, served in Operation Desert Storm and Operation Provide Comfort (gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, doesn't it? I bet he had a hand in the name on this one). He worked with NATO in Kosovo briefly in 1999. Before joining the Center for American Progress, though, he was a national spokesman for the property/casualty insurance industry - now, I'm from about 1,300 miles outside the Beltway, but that seems like an awefully nice way of saying lobbyist. In any case, I think there will be an interest dynamic between the new media mogul superstar and her public affairs sidekick.

Two Point Summation:

First, we should be hesitant to heed any word from the likes of Marc Lynch when he launches a criticism that the words "war of ideas" were absent from a speech McHale espousing her spin on PD.

Second, these two women have proven themselves capable in professional capacities related to different portions of PD that we've discussed during this course. So, I say give love a chance and laissez les bontemps retournez et puis roulez encore, hopefully, because it is now even more likely that McHale will be there - let's just see if she has her taxes in order.

Cricket: Pakistan's Soft Power

The image or word that many have when Pakistan is mentioned is “terrorism.” That is due to the past and recent terrorist attacks that have been associated with the country ranging from the Mumbai attacks last year to the recent attacks on the Sri Lankan cricket players on Tuesday, March 3. The Guardian’s "Pakistan needs to take responsibility" raised cricket as a form of “soft power” in the South Asian region.

In a region where terror has tainted virtually everything, cricket has retained an enviable immunity, making the stadium an unlikely but reliable venue for what became known as "cricket diplomacy" between India and Pakistan.

Even in a region where discord is prevalent, cricket has allowed for cooperation among countries through the medium of sport competition.

Matches can turn ugly, but very often seemingly insurmountable tensions melt away by the time trophies are handed out, and touring spectators marvel at the hospitality of their hosts.

Due to other internal and external factors, cricket diplomacy is failing in Pakistan. The attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team will have a negative effect for future cricket matches.

This is a huge blow to Pakistan, because cricket was the one area where Pakistan engaged with the world on equal terms; it was the strongest weapon in Pakistan's soft power arsenal.

While this statement may be somewhat exaggerated, in the case of Pakistan, it demonstrates that external and internal factors can influence their soft power. This makes me wonder, what can a country turn to if its core soft power turns on itself? This case will likely depend on the government’s effort to find alternative forms of soft power, but some countries do not have that option. And if they do find alternatives, they might not produce the desired results. What, therefore, can Pakistan now turn to in its arsenal of soft power to engage meaningfully with its neighbors?

Image repair through medical diplomacy

In her recent contribution to the Diplomatic Courier “Medical Relief: An Effective Diplomacy Tool,” Rebecca Wexler looks at how supporting other countries with medical products and service can assist the US to improve its image.

She says that “medical diplomacy presents the United States with the chance to reaffirm its commitment to humanitarianism and reawaken the spirit that once spawned the Peace Corps and USAID.”

Wexler outlines some of the advantages of medical diplomacy:

• it can be applied both as a short-term or long-term strategy
• it can help both to prevent conflict and assist in post-conflict reconstruction

"Healthy populations are able to work, cultivate food, and earn wages—all of which contribute to economic productivity and a functioning society. Conversely, disease is often born in conditions of poverty, festering in unsanitary sewage systems, overcrowded living quarters, and dilapidated housing structures."

But what exactly is medical diplomacy? Former health and human services secretary and chairman of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, Tommy G. Thompson defines it in his 2005 Op-Ed for the Boston Globe:

Medical diplomacy is "the winning of hearts and minds of people in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and elsewhere by exporting medical care, expertise, and personnel to help those who need it most."

Arguing that in the fight to end tyranny and the effort to spread democracy, Thompson states it is important that States such as the US apply all “weapons of freedom” to win. Medical diplomacy is one of those weapons.

The Web of Aid in Relation to U.S. Diplomacy

Speaking about the role that foreign aid and development plays in U.S. diplomacy and how the U.S. is viewed around the world, I would like to highlight an article I recently co-wrote for OneWorld.net's online magazine, Perspectives. Here are some excerpts:

 “Governments are one of the primary sources of foreign assistance. Developed countries such as the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and members of the European Union employ thousands of people in their efforts to plan, coordinate, and sometimes even deliver assistance to communities where it is needed. The United States is the largest provider of aid, spreading some $22 billion around the world in 2007, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

But when measured as a percentage of a country's total income, or GNI, every other developed country except Greece provides more foreign assistance than the United States. Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Denmark all commit close to 1 percent of their GNI to foreign assistance. The United States only committed 0.18 percent of its national income in 2007, according to Oxfam, a privately funded, international relief and development organization.”

“Foreign aid has never been a top priority for U.S. budget negotiators, when compared with funding for domestic programs. The foreign assistance budget was approximately $35 billion in 2007, or a little more than 1 percent of the total federal budget, according to the U.S. State Department, which administers foreign aid programs through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In comparison, the United States military budget for 2008 was more than $700 billion, according to nonprofit advocacy group Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.”

“Traditionally, U.S. foreign assistance is aimed at supporting national security and promoting economic growth, poverty reduction, and humanitarian relief abroad. Foreign assistance is generally considered an aspect of U.S. foreign policy, so resources often target those nations where policymakers believe the resources will be used to strengthen U.S. security. This may not always include the world's neediest nations. (See "Foreign Assistance: Why Countries Help Others" for more on the motivations behind assistance programs.)”

Thinking about this information, one most truly wonder, as Rebecca touched on in her post, why isn’t aid for development provided for development’s sake? Could this not be used as a diplomacy tool to improve the U.S.’s image abroad? Why does development have to be tied solely to U.S. national security?

It is encouraging that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is promising to strengthen USAID and U.S. foreign aid and development programs, as reported in this Reuters report, yet national security still seems to be the only reason for doing so. This is what Secretary Clinton said on her first visit to USAID:

“I wanted to come here today with a very simple message: I believe in development and I believe with all my heart that it truly is an equal partner, along with defense and diplomacy, in the furtherance of America's national security.”