|
Volume CXXXIII, Number 6 |
 |
No rapid solutions
PAT ROCKEFELLER
COLUMNIST
This summer, in response to a number of surveys showing support for the U.S. in the Middle East disappearing faster than a six-pack at a campus wide, Congress commissioned Edward Djerejian, a former ambassador to Syria to put together an Advisory Group to provide some rapid solutions.
An earlier report, by the Council on Foreign Relations had concluded that anti-Americanism was so strong as to "endanger our national security and compromise the effectiveness of our diplomacy." Gone are the halcyon days of dissident French pseudo-intellectuals writing philosophy bemoaning the corrupting influence of McDonalds on the noble French culture. This report concludes that Real-World 2003 involves a radicalized anti-Americanism so vehement, widespread and destructive that it endangers us in such a way that our traditional defenses have become largely inadequate.
This may seem old news to a population reminded daily of our failure to prevent the atrocities of just over two years ago, but what it in fact calls for is a complete reshaping of how we approach the Middle East.
Congress had already frozen the administrations public diplomacy budget. Public diplomacy is the method by which the United States communicates directly with the people of foreign nations to explain U.S. policy, values, intentions, and what it means, in essence, to be American. Public diplomacy included efforts like Radio Free Europe during the Cold War as the United States tried to make its case directly to the people of the Soviet Union, rather than through the normal contacts of ambassadors and political leaders.
One of the many specific recommendations made in the Djerejian report is to increase access to American education for students in the Middle East. The members of the panel that created the report argue that a strong belief in the benefits of education is a value that is shared between Americans and Muslims. Indeed, a poll conducted by Zogby International indicates an 80% approval rating amongst people in Pakistan, Indonesia and Lebanon. Zogby, of Arab descent, was one of the contributors to the report, and his brother heads the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
One has to question, however, the effectiveness of American education as a means of public diplomacy. The report includes the statement that "many people in positions of leadership in the Arab and Muslim world have studied at U.S. universities. For example, 80 percent of the members of the Saudi cabinet have an American master's or doctoral degree." Now, in light of the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, one wonders what providing an education for all those cabinet members bought us.
Admittedly, this isn't a completely fair statement as there are many variables and factors playing into that countries problems. However, the Advisory Group recommended fast tracking the visa procedure for students, which also seems a flawed policy considering the INS was incompetent enough to embarrassingly provide student visas for two of the hijackers months after they flew planes into buildings.
As a long-term goal, bringing more students to study in America from the Middle East may well be a solid policy. Four or more years in the United States, cultivating friendships and developing a sense of our culture and history can only help. But this is not a fast-track policy. The benefits of such a policy will take time to come to fruition, as it won't be for years after the students return to their native land that they will have a great influence on their country. With such a timeline, it makes sense to ensure that those who are educated here are the ones we want to have educated - those with open minds, and a desire for reform.
The stronger part of the education policy set forth in the Djerejian report seems to be about bringing American-style education to the Middle East. There is already a Center for American Studies at Cairo University, which enjoys great credibility as it is a local initiative, and therefore does not suffer from the stigma of being American propaganda. Joint efforts between American universities and local institutions to establish new schools and culture centers in close proximity to the daily lives of local people has the ability to revolutionize education in the Arab world in a way importing privileged students to the United States does not.
There is a question though about the effectiveness and relevance of public diplomacy. There are some that argue that no matter how good it is, how much it educates or enlightens, it will never succeed in changing many opinions. The basis of this belief is that the problem lies not with the sales pitch, but with the product. No matter how we wrap it, there are some policies that will always be unpopular, such as U.S. support of Israel. This is a limit to public diplomacy and highlights the shortcomings of any Middle East policy.
Accepting that there are these limits, public diplomacy does not preclude the use of force as done in Iraq. The Djerejian report makes specific mention of the fact that their duty was not to question policy, but to work around it. At times it is necessary to bite the proverbial bullet if a policy is right or necessary for strategic reasons, even if it damages public diplomacy efforts. Ultimately, there are no rapid solutions.
|
FastCounter by bCentral |