YPFP: Media & Foreign Policy-A Discussion with Price Floyd

By Debie Waggoner

“Julian Assange should be arrested for espionage, but there’s no turning back to a time before websites likes Wikileaks.” ~ Price Floyd

Floyd gave a brief overview of his career path; he began working at the Department of State in 1989 and eventually became Director of Media Affairs. He recounted his first experience working with the media and how it made him realize how someone like him could work behind the scenes to craft a message. It all began with his involvement in Secretary Albright’s first trip to Israel; Floyd was responsible for ensuring the media and the Secretary were in the proper places for her to be photographed paying respects at the grave of revered former Prime Minister, Itzak Rabin. The next day, Israeli newspapers had her photo on every front page in the country; and Floyd was hooked.

During the G.W. Bush years, Floyd said his department did everything in its power to communicate with Americans about the Administrations' policies. He granted 1,000 interviews a year (3 a day) for mid and top level officials, but the polls kept dropping. Finally, someone told him that if you are trying television, radio, newspaper, and internet to sell a product and no one buys it, then you need to take a look at your product. Floyd says this concept was life changing; he went back to his superiors and acknowledged that the Bush Administration may need to change some of its policies. Naturally, that did not go over very well and Floyd resigned. “No matter where you are, you have a voice. Don’t be afraid to stand up for what you believe.”

Five Communication Questions to Ask:

1. What is the message?

2. Who is the audience?

3. How can I reach them?

4. Who is going to do the speaking?

5. How am I going to measure the result or impact of the message?

If there is bad news about to be leaked about your organization, your communications team should put it out into the media first and acknowledge its mistakes and note improvements. Pretending bad news is not a big deal to consumers and constituents only makes the matter worse.

His analysis of Republicans: Historically very disciplined about staying on message and during the GWB years, “the Administration stayed on message regardless of reality.”

Democrats: “Historically horrible at discipline and staying on message, but good at communicating in general. The Obama Administration has done a pretty good job of balancing staying on message and adapting to realities.”

In light of WikiLeaks:

Floyd stated that the way the government communicates will need to change, but he is not sure how. He said, “Most likely, the government will not do a lot to change the policies and just hope it does not happen again.”

Best Point of the Night: The State Department documents revealed on WikiLeaks only proves the strength of our public diplomacy efforts. Instead of damaging the relationship of the United States, most of our friends and allies were understanding and even commented that they said even worse things about the U.S. and its representatives. True-and I would add that if it happened to the U.S., it could happen to any government-it could be China or Germany’s turn next to have documents leaked, so don’t be too harsh.

Strategic Culture: YPFP Hosts Dr. Kerry Kartchner with the Defense Reduction Agency

Summary by Debie Waggoner
How Well Do We Understand and Utilize our Knowledge of Cultures?

Although the topic was “Challenges of International Security and Non-proliferation”, Kartchner focused primarily on the notion of “strategic culture.” To most of those in the room, the term strategic culture was new, but it is basically what it sounds like: utilizing understanding of a culture for strategic purposes. Sounds simple, but we Americans tend to be clueless about other cultures; this lack of understanding seriously hampered the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but could help us better understand the actions of the Iranian leadership.

First, one must understand a state or region’s culture—its common historical narrative pulled from its religion, historical defeats and victories, traditional beliefs and practices that separate it from other states or regions. Those in the diplomatic sphere will use their understanding of a culture strategically in order to facilitate successful diplomatic interaction. The military experts will use their understanding of a culture strategically to ensure their troops are able to use this information for bettering relations with locals and perhaps even use this information to outfox their enemies. As Kartchner stated, “Strategic culture does not predict, but it helps provide context and understanding of identity, values, perceptions that can serve those making decisions.”

Kartchner touched on non-proliferation primarily as it relates to Iran. He said that deterrence will not work with Iran, but that their capabilities must be limited, its enemies should build an alliance, and pre-emptive strikes should be considered. (What?!)

Why the extreme viewpoint? According to Kartchner, Iranian Shia Muslims believe that the end of the world is nigh and that Iran is likely going to be the “one” to get it all started. An Armaggedon-like war will engulf the world; Iran (Persia) will emerge victorious and the Twelfth Caliph and Jesus Christ will come back to earth. Kartchner asked, “How does anyone deter a nation whose leaders believe this and are basically touting their desire to start an Armageddon because it was foretold?” Kartchner referred to a letter sent by Ahmadinejad to President G.W. Bush in 2006 telling him that all the world should convert to Islam and its problems will be resolved. If not, then the wrath of God will be upon those who do not. Of course, his letter was ignored—but it clearly indicates that Ahmadinejad is going to be a very difficult leader to reason with and all evidence points to him becoming increasingly radical. I had never heard this narrative on Shia Islam before and naturally find it shocking and alarming.

This was Kartchner’s main point—if we do not understand all the aspects that motivate those in power, we cannot hope to find solutions or have any idea what move the other might make next.

McCain on the Future of the U.S. India-Relationship: “India should be given Permanent Membership on the U.N. Security Council.”

Summary by Debie Waggoner
Carnegie Endowment, November 5, 2010

As President Obama departs for New Delhi tomorrow, McCain discusses India’s increasingly important relationship with the United States. The question is, does Obama second his thoughts?

McCain began by emphasizing the “bipartisan success that began with Clinton and continues to this day” in solidifying the strategic and common-values relationship between the U.S. and India. He gave special credit to current Indian Prime Minister Singh for working through the tough political environment in India to secure the Nuclear Civilian Agreement. He praised India for its peaceful rise and commitment to security and democracy.

Security: McCain addressed the enormous tensions between Indian and Pakistan and touched on the Mumbai attacks. McCain touted Singh for his “restraint that exemplified statesmanship” after the Mumbai attacks when the world knew that Pakistani terrorists were behind the bloodbath. (Would the U.S. have exercised the same restraint?) McCain discussed the importance of the U.S. finishing the mission to help build an Afghanistan that is no longer a terrorist safe-haven, but instead able to govern itself enough to be a respected member of the international community. India fears that the U.S. will withdraw too soon, leaving its border with Afghanistan even more perilous than it was before. Pakistan also expects the U.S. to withdraw too soon, McCain stated, explaining that it is the main reason Pakistani military officials continue to secretly provide support to extremists who are anti-India. “If the U.S. quits Afghanistan, the consequences will be terrible for the U.S., but even worse for India.” He also mentioned that the U.S. and India share a goal of “shaping China’s rise.”
Democracy (vs. China): “Are my remarks [for a more secure India] also directed at China?” McCain emphasized that he was not trying to provoke China by tooting India’s horn, but rather recognized that both the U.S. and India seek a peaceful relationship with China. However, he did point out that “China’s recent actions have been concerning.” Such as: undermining multi-lateral agreements on sanctions with Iran, refusing to allow a “realistic” currency valuation change, contesting borders with India (this has been going on for decades), and its new assertiveness in the region (why not? It has the economy to do so). He claimed that China has resolved all of its land border disputes with every other nation except India. (I highly doubt that this is an accurate statement, as China has had border disputes with nearly all of its neighbors for years.) There were representatives from China’s state-run Xinhua news agency in attendance, so I’ll be curious to see what they write about this speech. Undoubtedly, it will make the U.S. appear anti-China, as it often does, and this speech certainly did nothing to dissuade that-although it was not a direct attack on the Chinese.

After 45 minutes of making points on our common interests: security and democracy, McCain got to the main point: India should be granted permanent membership on the U.N. Security Council. Without dwelling on this statement, he moved on to talk about the importance of strengthening democratic institutions within India and around South Asia. He concluded by cautioning against “demonizing India-outsourcing is part of the global economy; India is not out to ‘steal’ American jobs. And India’s political leaders should do more to support its relationship with the U.S. by not using it as a ‘political club’ and instead, promoting it. It’s this simple my friends, if the 21st Century is going to be defined more by peace than war…it will be because of a strong U.S. –India alliance. There’s nothing [the U.S. and India] cannot accomplish together.”

Concluding Thoughts: China, don’t take this personally, but the U.S. clearly sees India as a way to balance your rising power and its going to milk that relationship for all its worth in the coming decades. And-China, you haven’t exactly been the most cooperative nation—not nearly as cooperative as India. But, we still need you to hold our billions in debt, so we’ll find a way to reach out to you later. India-we do like you, but you are not as supportive of individual liberty and human rights as McCain claimed. You are working on it though. Pakistan-the U.S. is supporting you economically, but the security threats of extremists seem to win you over more than our billions of dollars in aid. I hope we can figure out how to truly get you onboard.

Oh and that bit about India joining the Security Council…China? What do you say? Not a big deal, right?

UNDP Roundtable: Iraq’s Development Challenges

Summary by Debie Waggoner

Panelists---
Christine McNab:
Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General & UN Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq

John Desrocher:
Director, Office of Iraq Affairs, US Department of State

Leslie Campbell,
Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa, National Democratic Institute (NDI)

www.ndi.org

Quote of the Discussion: “You’ve all heard the saying, ‘If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.’ Well, the same can be said for Iraq, ‘If you think reconstruction is expensive, try a failed state.” ~ Christine McNab

McNab: UNDP, needless to say, has a lot of work to do in Iraq; things look bad on the news, and they are in some places. However, reconstruction is progressing. Biggest concerns: Jobs, Water supply, Security, Banking system, Healthcare, Education, Legal Development. For example, there are 30,000 jobs in the oil fields in southern Iraq; however 3 million jobs are needed and it’s one of the most dangerous regions of Iraq, not to mention most Iraqis do not have the needed skills. She manages the multi-donor trust fund of $1.3 billion dollars from donors in the international community-all of which has been allocated over the years for reconstruction. The majority of U.S. funds have gone to humanitarian needs for Internally Displaced People (IDPs) and refugees seeking to return. As for security (a church attacked yesterday, 8 bombs went off in Baghdad this afternoon, etc.) it clearly remains a huge worry. UN officials try to blend into the civil service as much as possible, but they cannot conduct reconstruction work behind walls-the risks are real. The south is not safe for foreigners, but the north is (Kurdistan). McNab, from Sweden, stated, “It is heartwarming to go out traveling around with the American soldiers; many of whom are on their third or fourth tour. They tell me they were there when the fighting was intense back in 2003/2004 and now they want to be there to see the reconstruction happening. A soldier told me this right after he had been shot, but had been saved by his flak jacket.”
Her two prong approach to increasing safety for UN folks:
1. Printed and Online social media communication-many Iraqis do not understand the work the UN is doing and the help they are there to provide
2. Provide solutions to specific issues-one of which is safer transport for UN staff

Desrocher: The USG is working in almost every sector of Iraq to help bring it up to speed. One of the biggest concerns is building the capacity of the courts through a US project called Commercial Law Development which aims to train judges and court administrators on the best practices for legal and regulatory affairs-without a proper legal system, contracts and titles of ownership become worthless and businesses do not want to invest in a country/region where the laws are not upheld, particularly when it comes to enforcing contracts. Iraq has also passed its own laws internally to support contract laws. We have to remember that Iraq has been economically isolated since before the sanctions in the 90s-most large enterprises were state-owned, so private businesses are just beginning to take off and develop. Obviously, infrastructure has taken a major hit-not only roads and bridges, but basic healthcare and education. Many of the more educated Iraqis fled during the worst parts of the conflict. Agriculture is a huge part of the economy, or could be, but the approach is out-dated. The banking system is also just beginning to develop and link in to the international network.

Campbell: On Politics in Iraq- “The invasion was a bad idea, but it would be extremely irresponsible to have left Iraq until it is functioning like a “normal” country.” He stated that he was one of the first people into Iraq in 2003 and remembers the naiveté of foreigners--including himself-- that things would progress more quickly in the development arena.
Good news today: women and youth are participants in the political process-even if Iraqi men do not take it seriously; there are the required 25% female members of Parliament. Speaking of Parliament-oh yeah-it has been at an impasse for the past 7 months, much to the frustration of the Iraqi people. When the Parliament was working, it worked well-legislation was passed and decisions were made “unlike any other Arab Parliament where nothing gets done.” There are hundreds of political parties (maybe a good thing, maybe not) but people feel free to express themselves and vote for whomever they wish.

Bad news: The frustration is that those that are in office are perceived as self-centered politicians who do not have the Iraqi public’s best interests in mind (according to interviews by NDI). Parliamentarians tend to travel to neighboring countries to gain publicity and to prove their legitimacy-this creates a problem because there is no true head of state (the President is not perceived as such), so Parliamentarians feel they can speak for the Iraqi government. He mentioned twice that Nouri al-Malaki should have stepped aside when he was voted out, but has thrown off the democratic process by refusing to step down when the election was declared fair by all monitors.

Final Note: Concern for the Youth-ONLY 20% are able to study or work-the other 80% are a major concern. These young people are the future of Iraq, but they are uneducated and lack opportunities for experience. The UN is knocking on the doors of every major corporation planting itself in Iraq and asking them to create internships for young Iraqis. A great idea, but not enough.
And, so the work continues-