Why Judith McHale would be a bad public diplomacy choice

“Terrible choice” is a bit harsh. After all, the “selling the message” characterization of the job is Kamen’s not McHale’s.

I don’t know McHale either but from what I’ve learned this this morning, there is nothing to suggest she would look at Uncle Sam as a box of Uncle Ben’s to be flogged in the marketplace of ideas. Perhaps it would be more clarifying to look at her potential selection to head public diplomacy in the context of her roots in the democratic party and her advocacy of women, economic development and human rights. As co-chair of the Democratic party platform, she spoke of moving "forward to rebuild an America where our people will prosper and we as a nation will take up our role again to do good in the world."

This is, as we discussed last March, the emancipation model of liberal internationalism. The concern is with powerless and vulnerable people as individuals. It was voiced passionately by HRC in her confirmation hearing when she spoke against violence against women overseas. Beyond her opening statement she said the following: “I mean, it is heartbreaking beyond words that, you know, young girls are attacked on their way to school by Taliban sympathizers and members who do not want young women to be educated. It’s not complicated! They want to maintain an attitude that keeps women — as I said in my testimony — unhealthy, unfed, uneducated and this is something that results all too often in violence against these young women, both within their families and from the outside.This is not culture. This is not custom. This is criminal.”

Anybody who paid attention to PD in the Clinton administration will not be surprised by this focus, this passion and this potential undersecretary choice in a Clinton State Department. Some Obama supporters might have hoped for a Fareed Zakaria type who could put flesh on the bones of Obama’s inaugural line: “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” They might have hoped an Obama administration would look to PD to launch a serious global dialogue based on the recognition that cultures do differ both in values they have in common and in values they recognize. But, that isn’t the liberalism we’re going to get. Fortunately, it does not appear we are going to get a “war of ideas” either.

Ms. McHale isn't being selected to "sell a message". She's being selected to create and manage public diplomacy programs. She made the Discovery Channel into an international media powerhouse. My guess is we are going to see some serious changes in the public diplomacy area, especially with respects to broadcasting. Ms. McHale has also been involved in creating exchanges involving businesspeople and sits on the board of Vital Voices. Her father was a diplomat and she grew-up overseas, mostly in Africa. She obviously has good management skills.

Ghurab has it spot on. What influence and resources does R have at his/her disposal? The turnover in this post either suggests an impatience for change that has not been forthcoming or significant frustration on the part of the incumbents at not having the leavers to make the changes. What does the US want from R? The press comment in Dec and Jan seemed to suggest a level, if begrudging, of support for Glassman. He was building the relationships with the likes of Gates, gaining support for State rather than DoD led PD and was driving delivery of PD 2.0 into the mindset of his people, which sought to make better use of the new media technology that Obama's campaign so ably demonstrated. However, he had much further to go, but lacked the support/senior clout to make things happen. Whoever fills the role (shame we could not have had some continuity and left Glassman in place - time to break in another new face and start building relationshsips all over again!! How much time lost!) needs to be in on the policy development at the NSC, not as a glorified PA official but someone that truly develops the PD strategy and can articulate the impact of policy decision making on the World's perception of the US and its influence.

Rich

Completely agree with your values argument but not with your views on modernity. The strongest message that could come from the US is that it believes in its own values and applies them in both its actions and messages. However, although US intrusion into something that must be home grown will be resisted (and probably serve merely to provide those hostile to the US with further ammunition) my experience in both the ME and Afghanistan is that communities desire most of what modernity brings with it - just in a way that fits with their culture. The tradition of the Hadith allows constant interpretation and reinterpretation of the Quran whilst one could hardly argue there has not been a home grown war or two across this vast region in the last 1000 years.
Take a look at some of the very active blogging that goes on as well as some of the posts to You Tube by people from the region (see some of the Iranian stuff). Take a look at the programming being produced and how some of that (some Syrian TV is a good example)challenges and deals with the issues facing parents of teenagers (don't we all have that problem!). Yes, global media has not yet reached much of Afghanistan and Central Asia but that will come. As for the Arabian Penisula and Levant, the rapid expansion of Satelitte TV and mobile technology means that few teenagers do not have an understanding of what is going on throughout the world. Of course, from a US PD perspective, it is who is shaping that view that must concern us. If the US does not engage (see http://www.arabmediasociety.com/?article=698) then it faces being portrayed as the agressor/colonial power.