News International 10/31/2007
By Michael Shank

Brand America has taken some knocks of late. Apparently, the not-so-burnished brand is hurting business sales abroad (so much so that ad execs met in New York last month to troubleshoot) and eroding our reputation as a positive force in world affairs. The tide is tilting towards the perception that the United States is in fact a bad influence. Although these trends do not appear to result from a lack of effort on behalf of the Bush Administration, which spends roughly $800 million annually to promote America, something is getting lost in translation. Where this is perhaps most abundantly clear is in US-Muslim world relations. Views of the US, according to the Pew Research Centre, are particularly low in Muslim majority countries like Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey, and Indonesia.

Why worry, because ill repute will undermine every good intention and put at risk US personnel and initiatives throughout the Muslim world. Not only that, it will also add fuel to the fire of any Al Qaeda recruitment strategy. Thus a turnaround is needed and fast. Refashioning the “brand” with a robust communications strategy, along the lines of the three points mentioned below, could offer quick remedy. A note on consistency, culture and courage is needed.

Modeling consistent messaging is critical for effective foreign policymaking. Otherwise how does the recipient of the message make sense of contradictory communication? For example, if elections remain a criterion for the evolution of a democratic state then it makes good marketing sense for the US to urge all states to pursue free and fair elections. Elections were of great import to the US in Iraq, trumpeted as one of the key landmarks in the emergence of a democratic Iraq. Yet, concurrently we allowed allied governments, Pakistan and Egypt, to pursue a political platform that now leaves a populace doubtful of elections free or fair. Lest US action be perceived as motivated by financial or political expediency, consistency is critical.

The potential for cultural diplomacy between the US and Muslim world is vast yet hardly exploited. If we understand language to be a key component of cultural communication, an impediment to cultural diplomacy then is the lack of linguists at the US Department of State who are versed in Arabic, Farsi, Pushto, Urdu, Bahasa or other. Arabic-speaking officers are particularly hard to find; only a handful are on staff maintaining level-five proficiency. This must change if America wants an effective voice within the Muslim world.

Cultural diplomacy could also tap into the wealth of traditions — music, dance, art, literature, theatre — using these communication mechanisms to build trust among countries. What the Kennedy Center in Washington DC has planned for 2009 is an excellent example of this by bringing together artists from over twenty Arab nations, for America’s first major Arab arts festival.

For the US to communicate directly with an adversary within the Muslim world or without is no easy task. It should recognize that such an act is now perceived as inherent complicity in the affairs of the enemy. This was not always US foreign policy protocol, however. President Nixon pursued direct talks with China at the height of Sino-US conflict and the meeting sparked a critical positive turning point. However, this was not without risk. Great confidence and ultimate courage was required to shift the conflict by meeting in person. And it is this very courage that is needed today.

The writer is an analyst with the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University.