AMERICAN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND ISLAM

PANEL TWO OF A HEARING OF
THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE

February 27, 2003

SEN. LUGAR: It's a privilege to have each of you before the Foreign Relations Committee this morning. I will ask you to testify in the order that you were introduced -- Dr. Kohut, Dr. Keith, Dr. Zaharna. And all of your statements will be made a part of the record in full, and we'll ask that you summarize or make comments about those statements as you choose.

First of all, Mr. Kohut.

TESTIMONY OF

ANDREW KOHUT
Director, The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

MR. KOHUT: Well, I'm happy to be here to help the committee achieve a better understanding of the better image in the Islamic world. I'm not here to make recommendations. I'm here to try to give you as much as I can about the nature of the problem.

I'm going to draw upon the results of our attitude survey in 44 countries around the world in which we interviewed 38,000 people; obviously not only Muslim countries, but we did interview in six Muslim countries in the region of conflict -- that is, in the Mideast and Central Asia. And in total, of the 44 countries, 11 countries have predominantly Muslim populations or large Muslim populations.

Now, the big headline to come out of this survey was America's slipping image, which I'm sure you've all heard a lot about, because it wasn't only Muslim countries. It was among NATO nations. It was in the developing world. It was in Eastern Europe, but certainly also in the Muslim nations. We found in 27 countries, where we had a benchmark, the American image was lower in 19 of those countries.

But we also found a reserve of good will for the United States and for American citizens. Majorities of people in 35 of the 42 countries in which we asked the question said they still had a good opinion of the United States; they still had a good opinion of the American people. And I suspect that even with all of the contention out there about our Iraq policies, that there's still a lot of good will that exists toward the United States and the American people in most countries.

But I think our problem, the real dislike of America, continues to be concentrated in the Muslim nations of the Mideast and conflict area. Unfavorable ratings in those six countries were at the 60 and 70 percent level for five of the countries. And Senator Lugar, as you pointed out, only in Uzbekistan did most people say that they liked America and they liked the American people.

The most disturbing decline, in my view, was the way in which the publics of our NATO ally Turkey have changed. Our unfavorable rating rose from 20-something in the year 2000, obviously before the attacks, to 55 percent in late 2002, when we did this survey. And not only was the absolute number of people who had unfavorable opinions of us great. The Turks held strongly unfavorable opinions. Forty-two percent said they had a very unfavorable opinion of America. And in Pakistan and our new ally in the war on terror, only 10 percent of Pakistanis said they had a good opinion of the United States.

And I think dislike of the United States is principally driven by our Mideast policies. That's what opinion leaders told us. A survey of opinion leaders that we did in the winter or at the end of 2001 with the International Herald-Tribune, they said it's the number one reason why America is disliked.

But there's also clearly backlash in the Muslim world against the war on terrorism. Our 44-nation survey found broad support all around the world, but not in the Muslim nations. In 10 of the 11 Muslim countries or predominantly countries, the Muslim public said, "We don't like this war on terrorism. We don't favor it."

This was even the case in Muslim countries where the United States has a still good image, on balance. For example, in Indonesia, in Senegal, in Mali, they like us, but they don't like our war on terrorism.

I think the Muslims publics also in the survey clearly agreed with the rest of the world in its general criticisms of us. They say the United States ignores their own countries when we decide our international policies. We're unilateralists; that was the view of 74 percent of the Turks, 77 percent of the Lebanese.

The number two global criticism is that our policies contribute to the rich-poor gap, and that was overwhelmingly the view in the Muslim world; and thirdly, that the U.S. doesn't do enough to deal with global problems; also an unquestioned perception in the region of conflict.

The Gallup poll, which conducted nationwide surveys in nine Muslim nations at the beginning of 2002, summed it up this way. I'm going to read a quote from their report. They said that the perception that western nations are not fair in their stance toward Palestine fits with the more generalized view that the West is unfair to Arab and Islamic worlds. It's one of the several examples of western bias in the minds of these people. That might extend to Afghanistan, to Gulf oil, and now, of course, to Iraq and other situations.

I have to say that it's not all bad news. Opinions about the U.S. are complicated and often contradictory, even in the Muslim world. Large majorities all around the world admire the United States for its technological achievement. That continues to be the case in Jordan, for example, where only 25 percent have a favorable view of us; 59 percent admire our technological achievements. Even in Pakistan, where 11 percent have a good opinion of the United States, 42 percent admire what we've done technologically.

And opinions of the United States popular cultural exports -- our movies, our television, our songs -- are a lot better received in the Muslim world than you might expect. Sixty-five percent of the Lebanese say they like these things. In the Muslim countries of Africa, such as Senegal and Nigeria, they are still well-received.

Now, in the region of conflict, the Muslim publics continue to mostly shun our pop culture. I think Senator Biden was right when he said that young people in Jordan and places like that look to rock stars, but not to our rock stars. They look to their own, because our cultural exports in much of the region of conflict are shunned; certainly the case in Pakistan.

But even when America's products are well-received, there's a view in the Muslim world and there's a view all around the world that there's too much America in the lives and cultures of Europe and the entire globe. There's a reaction against globalization and the impact of America.

Finally, I'd like to say that the unpopularity of a potential war with Iraq can only further fuel hostilities in this region toward us among the Islamic world. We did a survey in Turkey in November and we found that, unlike Europeans, the Turks were even divided as to whether the regime in Baghdad is a threat to peace and a threat to the stability of that region, and even uncertain as to whether Saddam Hussein's going would be a good thing or a bad thing for the Turkish country.

I think of particular interest to this committee is that the Turkish respondents told us that the United States wants to take out Saddam Hussein not because he's a threat; because the United States is unfriendly to Muslim countries -- and wants to get rid of unfriendly Muslim countries, rather. And I suspect that this is a common perception all around the world with regard too -- all around the region with regard to Iraq.

In summary, antipathy toward the U.S. is shaped by how its international policies are interpreted. I'll again go back to my old firm, Gallup. Their findings reflected that when they wrote, large majorities said that the West doesn't respect Muslim values, nor show concern for the Islamic and Muslim worlds.

I think improving America's image is a tough charge unless we can prove that our critics in the Muslim world are wrong about the intentions and consequences of our policies. Until that happens, U.S. communications efforts in that region can only be defensive and do the best it can with a bad situation by correcting misinformation, by softening hostility, by playing to the aspects of America that are still well-regarded. And this is not to disparage the efforts of public diplomacy, but in the end will only be affecting opinions on the margins.

However, I think that there are some bigger opportunities down the road. As I look at the second wave of the survey that we're analyzing, we show a very substantial level of democratic aspirations among the Muslim people. People in these countries place a very high value on freedom of expression, multi-party systems, freedom of the press, and equal treatment under the law; in fact, higher than in some of the nations of Eastern Europe, where we conducted our polling.

Our upcoming release this spring will detail these aspirations and show how they can exist side by side with the desire for stronger presence of Islam and governance, which to us seems perhaps -- some of us, at least -- seems contradictory. American policies that are seen as encouraging democratization might help establish or bolster constituencies for the United States in Muslim countries, especially outside of the Mideast, in Africa, where the American Palestinian policies have not so inflamed opinion.

In the Mideast, the establishment of democratic institutions in Iraq after Saddam Hussein, if it comes to that, could prove to be an important first step in that most problematic part of the world for us.

And I'll close my remarks there.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you very much, sir.

MR. KOHUT: You're welcome.

SEN. LUGAR: Dr. Keith.

TESTIMONY OF

KENTON KEITH,
Vice President, Meridian International Center

MR. KEITH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much for the invitation to appear. I'm Kenton Keith, senior vice president of Meridian International Center. I'm chair of the board of directors of the Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange, and I'm a member of the Public Diplomacy Council.

I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge also how happy I am to see Charles Wick in the audience. I worked with him for some years and had one memorable trip to the Middle East accompanying him.

I'd also like to acknowledge the presence of a number of my old colleagues in USIA, some of the nation's finest public servants.

Prior to taking up my current position, I was Foreign Service officer with the United States Information Agency. Much of my career was spent in the Middle East, including my appointment by president Bush in 1992 to be U.S. ambassador to Qatar.

Following that assignment, I headed USIA's area office that supervised all the agency's operations in the Near East and South Asia. More recently, I took on a temporary assignment for the State Department during which I established and directed the Coalition Information Center in Islamabad.

Mr. Chairman, both in my present capacities and based on my past experiences, I welcome the opportunity to provide this statement for the record about the importance of public diplomacy, especially in the aftermath of the horrific events on September 11th and in support of our national campaign to rid the world of terrorism.

To win the war on terrorism, the United States will need more than the might and will of our armed forces. To ultimately defeat terrorism, we must also engage the Muslim world in the realm of ideas, values and beliefs. No previous foreign-affairs crisis has been so deeply rooted in cultural misunderstanding, and we must address this gulf of misunderstanding if we are to succeed.

It would be naive indeed if we failed to acknowledge that American policy in the Middle East, as perceived by the Islamic world, is a persistent and pervasive source of tension and hostility toward the United States. Nevertheless, policy disagreements alone cannot account for the fact that in many Islamic countries, the United States, which we all know to be a great force for good in human history, is regarded as the source of evil.

In some places, the president of the United States is regarded as a bigger threat to peace than is Saddam Hussein. As a nation, we have not done an adequate job of explaining ourselves to the world or building the personal and institutional connections with these countries that support healthy bilateral relationships.

Mr. Chairman, my written statement addresses four areas where our public diplomacy needs to be strengthened. Given the constraints of time this morning, I will touch only briefly on four of these needs: Increased exchange programs with the Muslim world; a visa policy that is effective and predictable; increased media outreach to Islamic audiences overseas; and a State Department bureaucratic structure that enhances rather than inhibits public diplomacy.

On exchanges, a meaningful and effective Islamic exchange initiative will require $100 million above the current appropriation for state exchanges. We recognize that this is a significant amount of money. We believe, however, that this funding level is necessary and appropriate, given the expanse of the Muslim world and the urgency and importance of the tasks at hand.

This amount of money spent on promoting our ideas and our values and on our creative culture is very small when compared to the sums we will expend on military hardware, but it is no less crucial to our success. We commend you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Kennedy for your leadership in introducing last year the Cultural Bridges Act, co- sponsored by 12 other senators, including Senators Brownback, Dodd, Feingold, Hagel and Chafee.

Your bill articulated the necessary vision and authorized adequate resources for this critical task. That vision and those resources are still necessary, despite the very welcome supplemental appropriation of $20 million for these programs in the last session.

On visas, we need a policy that balances our needs for heightened physical security and for continued openness to those who visit the United States for legitimate purposes. We need to recognize that the presence of foreign visitors through exchange programs and for business, education, scientific research and tourism contributes to our national security.

From my own experience as an advisory board member for international programs at the University of Kansas, I can report that there is growing concern in the heartland that the best foreign students, scholars and researchers are beginning to look elsewhere for higher education. These future elites now regard the U.S. as inhospitable to them. If this situation continues, Mr. Chairman, our nation will be squandering one of its most valuable foreign-policy assets, the opportunity to educate the next generation of world leaders.

Concerning media outreach, Radio Sawa has made encouraging progress. I'm aware of and mindful of the criticisms that Radio Sawa has had to endure, that it does not carry enough substantive programming, but I would argue that Radio Sawa has established something that has not existed before, and that is a direct link with these young people in the Arab world. It's an extremely valuable thing and needs to be built on.

But now we need to move into television broadcasting. Nine out of 10 Middle East adults get their news from either their national television networks or satellite stations such as Al Jazeera. Most of those outlets, including Al Jazeera, are open to us, and we should use them. And definitely the U.S. should move ahead with your support to initiate TV broadcasting, direct satellite TV broadcasting, in the Middle East and throughout the Islamic world. The funds being requested for the BBG in Fiscal Year 2004 aren't enough.

Finally, a word on bureaucratic structure. The structure of the State Department inhibits public diplomacy; it does not enhance it. Senior public diplomacy officials in Washington have no supervisory connection to field operations, where much of the real public- diplomacy work takes place.

And those public-diplomacy officials in Washington who do have a direct relationship with the field are office directors in regional bureaus and are too low-ranking to have meaningful impact on budget, policy and personnel decisions. The results are diminished focus, uncoordinated activities and reduced field resources.

Of many recommendations one can make to remedy this situation, I wish to focus on one -- the creation of deputy assistant secretary positions in the regional bureaus devoted solely to public diplomacy. Establishing a deputy assistant secretary position in each regional bureau would ensure that public diplomacy is actively represented in senior-level meetings and thus an integral component in our approach to every foreign-policy issue.

A senior officer with these responsibilities could effectively coordinate public-diplomacy activities across the region, make the case for additional resources when needed, and play an active role in personnel decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I was happy to represent the United States Information Agency in the negotiations that took place for the reorganization of foreign affairs agencies. We recognized at that time that this was a problem that was going to have to be dealt with at some point. I think that point is now.

Creating and maintaining new DAS positions for public diplomacy would be a critical first step in changing the department's culture and would send an unmistakable message to those who work at State that public diplomacy matters, and matters enough to require senior leadership.

As a long-term solution to the profound problems of cultural misunderstanding, there will be no substitute for public diplomacy. It must be a key component of our long-term effort to eradicate terrorism. We applaud your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and that of the other distinguished members of your committee in focusing attention on what must be a critical element in a successful anti-terrorism strategy.

Thank you.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you very much, Mr. Keith. I call now on Dr. Zaharna.

TESTIMONY OF

DR. R.S. ZAHARNA,
American University

MS. ZAHARNA: Thank you, Senator Lugar, and distinguished members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be here today. Mr. Chairman, your skillful leadership and foresight is reflected in your appreciation of the seriousness of American public diplomacy in the Muslim world, especially given the possibility that the U.S. military may be going into action in the region.

Mr. Chairman, I've submitted my testimony for the record. In addressing the topic today, I wish to focus my observations not in terms of religion but rather in terms of culture. Culture shapes how religion is viewed and practiced, and it's culture that shapes communication as well.

I'd like to highlight some of the issues of concern of American diplomacy, and then also talk to how we can be proactive if going into the region.

First, I'm concerned that American public diplomacy appears to be backfiring, and doing more of the same may hurt us more than help us. Since September 11th, 2001, America has turned up the volume of American public diplomacy with high-profile, aggressive initiatives in the Arab and Muslim world. Undersecretary of State Charlotte Beers outlined some of these initiatives earlier.

With such an intensive and concerned effort, one would expect positive results. Instead, support for America has declined and anti- Americanism has grown. The question is why. I've addressed some of the reasons in my statement. However, the point that I wish to make is that until we know what we're doing wrong, doing more of the same may hurt us more than help us. I'm not advocating American silence, but I am suggesting turning down the volume until we figure out how to achieve more positive results.

Second, American public diplomacy appears to be focusing too much on the message and image-building instead of relationship-building. Most Americans tend to think of communication in terms of sending a message. American public diplomacy, likewise, has focused on getting America's message out, without considering how it's being perceived.

This is the fundamental problem with one-way monologues. America can strengthen its communication with the Muslim world by thinking how it can build relationships instead of relay messages. In the Muslim world, communication is primarily about building relationships, cultivating, solidifying, defining relationships.erican executives often complain that they must spend endless hours, and sometimes days, having coffee or tea before they get down to business. It's not because we like coffee or tea so much, but it's because relationships are the cornerstone of activities in this part of the world. And so, instead of speaking at the people in the Muslim world, we need to speak with them and start looking more at ways of creating a dialogue.

Third, American public diplomacy appears to be focusing too much on what we say abroad and not on what we do at home. When people talk about American public diplomacy, they're usually focusing on the State Department, the White House or the Pentagon. They tend to forget, in today's CNN world of instantaneous global communication, that we -- and I mean all Americans -- what we do and say right here in America is heard around the globe.

This is both good and bad. For example, the derogatory statements made by prominent American religious leaders quickly spread like wildfire through Asia, Africa and the Middle East. President Bush condemned some of the comments. A few of the leaders apologized. Nevertheless, the damage was already done. America's own religious tolerance became suspect.

On the positive side, Congress has a tremendous role to play. As the face of the American people, all eyes are on you. You do not have to go to the Middle East to have a positive impact on American public diplomacy there. Just by visiting a mosque in your district or holding a town meeting on Iraq or hosting an interfaith dinner or attending a Muslim community event, you'll be sending a powerful message that speaks volumes about American tolerance, diversity and democracy. And it will reach the people back home.

Finally, my final concern is how the American military action and a continued military presence in Iraq may impact American public diplomacy. The American military will likely become the new face of American public diplomacy, overshadowing all other efforts. The interaction between our soldiers and the local people will become the medium as well as the message.

The American military enters with a distinct disadvantage. Already the media have spoken extensively about American, quote, "military occupation" and setting up, quote, "a civil administration." American associations with these terms relate back to Japan and Germany and how American military occupation helped transform these countries into economic superpowers.

In the Arab and Muslim world, both of these terms are associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and they're very highly negative. And I think we need to be aware of this.

The American military can overcome some of this disadvantage through heightened cultural awareness and symbolic cultural gestures that show our respect for the culture and the religion of the local people. The more our soldiers know about these cultural differences, the more they can navigate the cultural land mines and the safer they and the local people will be, and the better they will be able to put a better face on America's new foreign public diplomacy.

Thank you, sir, and I look forward to answering questions.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you very much, Dr. Zaharna. Each of you have raised so many interesting and complex questions that it is difficult to concentrate, at least in direct questions to you, all of this material.

Let me just indicate at the outset that certainly Mr. Kohut, in your polling, you have found or at least (your find gets in the second round ?) freedom of expression is highly valued. And we would hope that that would be so, and the building of democratic institutions.

The dilemma I suppose some of us have is that in many countries in which you have done your polling, there does not appear to be much freedom of expression. That is, the governments don't at this point appear to be honoring that type of idea. Now, it may be that the "people," in quotes, who are not part of the elite, the administration, the governing power, would like to have more expression. And most of us, as human beings, would. We, as a nation, try to appeal to that.

But we're in a cross-current here in which the Israeli- Palestinian issue keeps coming up in one form or another. Sometimes euphemistically we call it Mideast policy. But the intersection that Dr. Zaharna mentioned in many of these relationships, including our own foreign policy, our military and so forth, not only is reflected in potential conflict with Iraq, but the failure to make headway with the Palestine and Israeli issue.

If these two things are almost insuperable, probably you're right, Dr. Kohut; you're simply polling to show that things are not going well. But what we heard in the first panel with regard to public diplomacy only, at least in your judgment, will marginally affect this, or, as you were saying, Mr. Keith -- I mean Dr. Zaharna -- turn the volume down -- one or the other said this -- because essentially you're getting very hyped up and very enthusiastic about all this, but you may, in fact, be exacerbating the problem.

That's the reason we asked the three of you to come, not to be counter-distinct to the first panel, but there are many views in this country, from veterans of the trail like yourselves who have been in this business a long time.

I'm left, after listening to all of this, still with the thought that probably -- (audio break) -- each of our hearings, one the chairman had last year, and this one this year, are more informative each time as to what we are doing or who is doing it.

The exchange problem we've sort of highlighted, but you put a new dimension on that, Dr. Keith, suggesting that $100 million should be spend really, as I understand, on exchanges with regard to the target audiences we're talking about today; that is, the Mideast, Near East. And that may be right.

The construction of these exchange programs, which you know from your own experience as ambassadors, is not an easy task. There are some ongoing propositions that have worked well, and we are inclined I think in this committee to support at least the level we have been doing, as opposed to cutting back on that, and really look forward to experts like yourselves as to how if the money were to be authorized and appropriated. It could be wisely spent -- how select the people, where do they go. As you suggested, Steve, in our universities presently, in one of your four points, the visa issues are very difficult for students. Purdue University in my own home state I cite simply because there are 5,000 international students there. This is a huge problem not just for the students, but the administration of the university, in working with the authorities in Indiana or Chicago or wherever these people intersect. And yet I have encouraged there as well as other universities the administration take a lot of time really to work with the students, to accompany them often to the immigration offices or wherever. I think that kind of relationship, the sensitivity of that, may encourage them to stay in the United States, to stay on the course, because they came here to begin with, as many university students have from around the world, because we have a lot to offer, and we want them -- we want their leadership, and these once again are relationships which are tremendously important. If we are to have this public diplomacy and have some sustaining value.

So I take each of the points you have made without having a firm conviction, as each of you do, as sort of one, two three, four, how we proceed in this. This is an area of sensitization of this committee. But finally we have to make some decisions, as will our administration, as will our colleagues in the rest of the Congress. So let me just ask for sake of argument -- I come down on the side that we probably should increase our exchange efforts, that clearly we ought to try to work out with Immigration ways in which the antagonisms that come from exchange are mitigated, or even if they are not exchange students, people paying this rate, coming here to the United States -- we are helpful to this, that we continue to boost international students coming here.

With regard to, however, the issue of how we got across freedom, this probably is a basic thing that we could have a hearing about all by itself. In other words, today I think in the way we have been talking about tactics. But the overall strategy probably is a world that shares some common values of freedom -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion. And with many of the countries we're talking about we are not witnessing a whole lot of this. Why? And what should be our foreign policy with regard to these countries that appear to inhibit their citizens. And if in fact we have an opportunity in Iraq -- if the aftermath of Iraq is United States' involvement, plus hopefully many, many other countries, most people that have testified before this committee have said that will be a daunting task. The numbers of institutions in Iraq specifically that are there to build upon for democracy are pretty thin. And as a long- time quest, even in a situation that has some resources that could ultimately be fairly prosperous on behalf of the people, the old idea that we had earlier on with Chairman Biden's hearings, people dancing in the streets and going off in freedom was clearly very naive -- maybe a short amount of dancing, but then not very much democracy. And how you get the structure there so that people build this is still not clear to many of us, although we may be involved in that very soon, which is why we have been trying to stress to our own administration planning that is as thorough as the military planning, because it probably will have to come in an immediate transition from our government. General Franks we have heard will not be ruling Iraq, in the event we come into that situation -- nor anybody else of his stature. But there will be thousands of Iraqi bureaucrats -- or public servants, or however you wish to characterize them -- who will have to be enlisted to feed, to police, to do these things. And will they be democratic? Will they be able to get across the boundaries of Sunnis and Shi'ite Muslims and Kurds of the past, quite apart from Iranian tribes and others that are in the country? You know, all of us are going to school very rapidly and trying to really help each other.

But let me just ask generally if you have any comment about what should be the strategy of our committee or our government, at least in the foreseeable future, next 90 days, in which very fateful decisions may be made. Does anyone want to have a try at that?

MR. KOHUT: I just want to correct one -- or not correct one thing -- I want to emphasize one thing. I am -- I want to emphasize one thing. I am not trying to be pessimistic or discourage public diplomacy. It's certainly the right thing to do. It's the only thing we can do. But our committees' policies are the 800-pound gorilla in terms of these people's attitudes. And one things that's not -- a point I haven't made is as bad as it is -- as bad as it's been in the Mideast area, in the region of conflict, it isn't that bad in Africa, but it's getting bad in Africa, because the African Muslims are beginning to look at the Mideast issue and the Palestinian issue and say, America really doesn't care about people like us.

So barring dealing with that 800-pound gorilla, one of the things that we have to offer as the oldest democracy is some way of addressing the aspirations of these people where, you're right, they don't have democracy, but they want it. And I was surprised -- and I can't wait until I can report to you how clearly they want it and how much they understand what it has to offer them. And it's been -- we do Iraq, in the aftermath of Iraq, we can make the case to them -- well, it won't obviate the problems with the 800-pound gorilla, but it's something we can do that's really concrete and important.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you. Well, that data on the aspirations for freedom will be very important, because this is -- there is some skepticism. But if that is true, that really offers something to build on, even as we try to contrive how you do the building.

Yes, sir?

MR. KEITH: Mr. Chairman, if could speak for a moment to the 800- pound gorilla, as you have been around it as long as I have in the Middle East, working on this issue -- and that is the issue that I have been dealing with since my first post in Baghdad in 1966 -- I was in the Middle East for the '67 War, for the '73 war, for the '91 peace conference in Madrid. I can tell you that opposition to American policy, and particularly opposition to the unquestioned support of the United States and its people for Israel and Israel's interests is not new. It has been a consistent thing.

Nevertheless, our unfavorable rating at the present moment is much lower than it has been in many periods during this -- at many points during this period. I think Mr. Kohut's baseline study is extremely important. But for those of us who have gone through this process, we understand that when the United States has been perceived as taking an active role in trying to pursue its stated policies in the Middle East -- a just solution to the Palestinian issue and security for both sides, security for the state of Israel -- there has never been any confusion about where we stand on that. But when it appears that we are actively pursuing those goals, our stock goes up. It is easier for us to work, it is easier for us to deal with our interlocutors, it is easier for us to pursue other public diplomacy goals and other foreign policy issues.

When it is perceived as it is today that the Middle East problem has taken a back seat, is being put off to the side while the United States pursues the anti-terrorism issue, then our popularity/approval ratings go straight to the bottom, and it makes it very difficult for us to do anything.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you. Dr. Zaharna?

MS. ZAHARNA: Thank you. I would say, yes, the policy addressing that has definitely been a factor. I also want to go to the training that there's been a lack of cultural sensitivity in the area, and the more culturally sensitive we are I think the better we will be on that -- and so training. And when I talk about turning down the volume, I am not talking about no public diplomacy. But there are many things that we can do in the meantime -- the training, the exchanges, the working with the American public on that -- also the USIS, the loss of that was a tremendous loss. It lost the agility, it lost the field driven initiatives. And my only concern with the television is what's the buy-in for the audience. For radio, American music is wildly popular. To have a television program on the CNN format that focuses on our policies that are not wildly popular is almost like shining the spotlight on the 800-pound gorilla, and that's my concern there. So.

SEN. LUGAR: Well, perhaps the television, to pick up one of your points earlier on, can indicate to Senator Biden going to a mosque in his strict or likewise are doing that, or maybe even hearings like this in which people I suspect in some of the areas that we are discussing today would like to know that sensitive Americans are trying to talk about this intelligently, and trying to bring forward from experts like yourselves ideas that could affect public policy. And I -- that remains for others to decide. I just thank each one of you, and I want to recognize my colleague Senator Biden.

SEN. BIDEN: Thank you very much, and thank you all for being here. It's an important contribution you are making. In the previous hearing we had on this subject we had witnesses from the public sector, like all of you who gave similar perspective. And I have been, as the chairman and others I am sure have been doing, is gathering in my office for the past nine, ten months experts on the Middle East, particularly -- actually quite frankly more broadly experts -- academics from around the nation and around the world, quite frankly, on Islam. As a matter of fact, three years ago, realizing how little I knew about Islam, I hired a PhD anthropologist from Harvard whose expertise is Islam, to begin to try and educate me. And I have come up with a few tentative conclusions of my own which I would like to just put out there, not for pride of authorship, but for your constructive criticism to maybe help me further fashion what role I think we should be playing in trying to affect policy as it relates to public diplomacy. But, quite frankly, I think you all have made a similar point. The Middle East, the quote, "Palestinian issue," is of gigantic consequence. And I would agree with you, Mr. Ambassador, that there is a direct correlation between our neglect, our benign neglect, and that translates into opposition. And I have been a -- clearly not a lone voice, but an unheeded voice for this administration from Day One that this would be the result of their failure. It's better to act and make a mistake in my view, than to have the posture which this administration took when they came in, which was literally and almost formally announced we're not getting involved -- we are not getting involved in the Middle East, period. Remember the first eight months that's what the policy was, including things like messages being sent that we are going to draw down forces in the Sinai. We were talking about relatively new forces, but that reverberated. I remember I was meeting with Mubarak in his office in Egypt, and looking at me like, What in the hell are you doing? -- not my phrase, not his. The message sent around the world was we are getting out of this deal. We'll, you know, we'll let the parties take care of this, which translates everywhere else in the world as much as we are disliked by many, including the Palestinians, doctor, as you know having worked for the Authority, there is this notion that they know the ultimate answer rests with us as well as them. I don't know a single Palestinian leader who thinks there can be any prospect of a solution in the Middle East without the United States being a player.

And so I start off where I think most of you start -- that is an 800-pound gorilla sitting in the middle of the room. I would argue further it's aggravated by the fact that if we claim our shift in priorities relates to terrorism, everyone in the Middle East knows Saddam is not the worst actor. The bulk of the terrorism affecting the Middle East coming out of Iraq, compared to Iran or Syria, is minuscule. I don't know anybody in the Middle East who thinks that the hotbed of support for liberators from the Palestinian perspective, terrorists from the Israelis' perspective, is the locus is Baghdad. Nobody believes that. I don't know anybody who believes that. Do you all -- let me ask you a question: Do you think anyone in the Middle East believes the locus of terror is Baghdad? I'm not being facetious now. I'm being serious.s

The reason I raise this -- it seems to me it matters. It matters about policy. So one of the problems i have on the one hand is all the experts with whom I have spoken to over the last year basically say, Joe, you can get all the public diplomacy in the world right -- if you don't get the policy adjusted, and it is not just Israeli- Palestinian issues, but policy relative to oligarchic regimes. I mean, everybody forgets how did bin Laden get his start -- was his focus on the United States? No. Does he give a damn about a single Palestinian you've tried to help, doctor? No. Did he ever evidence any interest in the Palestinian people? No, never. It was all about a regime he thought had gone bad.

So but here's my dilemma. My dilemma is that I'm not going to get to change the policy of this administration, which I think is wrong-headed in terms of its priorities. I agree with a number of specific things it's doing, but prioritizing how to approach it I disagree with. But here's what bothers me, and the reason why I think public diplomacy done well may very well mitigate -- mitigate -- as a group of Arab specialists, several of whom are Arabs who -- academics who spent time with me, as they said we are not going to win the hearts and minds of the Arab world, unless there's a fundamental shift in policy, which I'm not proposing a fundamental shift, because I don't agree with -- I happen -- anyway, that's another issue. But what we have to do is give the moderates in the Arab world something that they can fall back on -- something, someplace to push off of. And that's what public diplomacy might be able to do.

Now, let me get right to a specific point. I recently was in Davos at the World Economic Forum. And I got so tired of being lectured by the world about the United States that I found it interesting when I had an opportunity to be on a panel with one of my French colleagues -- and this goes to your point, doctor -- that when religious leaders who are wrong-headed and ignorant, like those who spoke about Islam being a religion of terror -- I'm paraphrasing what was said -- that wasn't a quote -- that gets immediate coverage throughout the world, particularly in the Muslim world. I for one have visited our mosques. I go to -- I literally -- not figuratively -- I may have been to as many mosques as you have lately. I go. I engage the Islamic community in my state. And many others do. I would argue that the record in the face of the terrorist acts that occur here, which were the product of those who happen to be Muslim, and the deafening silence of religious leaders in the Muslim world, deafening silence in the Muslim world, I would argue the United States has acted better than any other country in the world in terms of how it treats the minority of Muslim American citizens -- remarkable.

And I would point out -- look how the Muslim community is treated in France. It is outrageous. If we treated the Muslim minority, which in that country is significant, like the French do, we would be justifiably vilified in the whole world. So why is it that France gets no criticism in the Muslim world? It is outrageous. Their visa policy, their policy toward allowing participation in their democracy, within their country by Arab citizens of France is despicable. I don't hear any of you all talking about that. I don't hear anybody talking about that in the Middle East, which takes me to the point that I think what you had to say, doctor, is meaningless.

This notion of cultural sensitivity, which is real, obviously doesn't get us much, because name me a European country, doctor, that is remotely -- remotely -- as sensitive to Muslim culture as American is in its insensitivity. Name me one. That's a question -- can you name me one? One European country where the treatment of Arab Muslims, citizens or those on visas in those countries, are treated as well by the laws that are on the books, by the actions of their citizens, and by the general media in that country as well as Muslims in the United States. Can you name me one country in Europe?

MS. ZAHARNA: Senator Biden, I didn't mean to bow and start --

SEN. BIDEN: That's a question. But can you name me one? Because it's a larger point I'm trying to make.

MS. ZAHARNA: -- perspective.

SEN. BIDEN: No, I understand that. But I am looking for perspective. Can you name me one country?

MS. ZAHARNA: I didn't mean to row and ruffle.

SEN. BIDEN: No, I'm not ruffled. This is -- look, this is an important academic point, doctor, because if your point is right that if we are more sensitive --

MS. ZAHARNA: Yes.

SEN. BIDEN: -- we would not be facing this dilemma in the Middle East among Arab Muslims, which I don't discount. If that's correct, then you would be able to say, if this is a debate, which it's not -- let me give you evidence. If countries in Europe are less sensitive to Muslim interests in their country, and yet are viewed better than we are, then obviously cultural sensitivity is not a defining element of how we are viewed. It goes back to policy, because the French policy toward how -- unless -- I stand to be corrected by any of you.

MS. ZAHARNA: I'm not saying that it's the only thing, or that one discounts the other, but greater cultural sensitivity --

SEN. BIDEN: Is always good.

MS. ZAHARNA: And that was my point.

SEN. BIDEN: But it's marginal. The thing that frustrates me is I find it to be so marginally different. I find myself caught between two poles here. In an administration whose general insensitivity is boundless in my view, by the way it treats our friends and allies and, on the other hand, the generic criticism of American society in a way that I find not sustainable in fact. So I would like to know for the record: Is there any European countries that any of you are aware of that are more sensitive -- culturally, politically, judicially or in any fashion to Arab Muslim interests than we are? That's just a question. Yes?

MR. KOHUT: I'd like to both give you some fodder for your argument, and perhaps give you an explanation. I have some comparisons I am going to send along to you about the way the American public reacted to the Japanese in 1941 after Pearl Harbor had happened.

SEN. BIDEN: It's remarkable how they acted.

MR. KOHUT: Not behavior polls. The differences between reaction to the Japanese then and attitudes towards the Muslims now are extraordinary, just extraordinary. The American public has become more civil, more tolerant, and both Gallup and our survey showed after 9-1-1 favorability ratings of Muslim Americans actually rising. This is not well known.

Now I ant to go to your second point. How can the French get away with what they do, and our rather civil reaction to Muslim Americans and the larger Muslim world exists? And the difference is we are not France. We are the most powerful nation in the world -- clearly the most powerful nation of the world. And that power breeds two things: It breeds suspicion and it breeds resentment.

I was struck when we did a survey with the Herald International Herald Tribune after the 9-1-1 attacks, there was great outpouring of sympathy. But the number one thing -- not the number one thing, but a very prevalent view in every part of the world, even Europe, was it's good that the Americans know what it's like to be vulnerable. And that reflects -- that reflects the resentment of our power.

This business in our survey about thinking that we want to do that for oil, even when the Europeans share -- they don't share our strategies of tactics, but they share our concerns with Saddam Hussein, is a measure of suspiciousness about our power. And so how do you deal with that? You deal with that when you are the most powerful nation in the world by acting humbly -- more humbly than you might act in a rational way. And --

SEN. BIDEN: The example I give to people in my home state, to reinforce that point, is your very good friend and next-door neighbor working for the Dupont Company just came home to his wife and said, By the way, I just lost my job downsizing, and you just purchased a brand-new Lexus for your wife, and you drive up the driveway, and your wife comes out and says, By the way, Charlie just lost his job. If you're a good neighbor, you'd park the Lexus in the garage. You don't go next door and knock on the door and say, Charlie, guess what I just got Jill? A new Lexus. People, average people, understand that. We don't do that very well at all.

But the reason I pursue this -- and I realize I am keeping you, Mr. Chairman -- the reason I pursue this is, you know, we tend to have an instinct for the capillary instead of the jugular around here. And what I mean by that is -- it's not a criticism of any witness -- I sincerely mean this, my word, because I think your testimony is vitally important. But for us to figure out what really is at stake here, I would argue the point you just made, and that is that it seems self-evident to me as a plain old politician that our ascendancy, beyond all proportion to any other nation in the last several centuries in terms of cultural superiority -- by superiority I mean not really superiority -- you can't get -- if you're a Frenchman and you want to get on the Internet, you better speak in English. It's highly resented. We didn't say you've got to use English. There's no trade agreement saying it has to be in English. And what I say to Americans, imagine if in order to log onto the Internet you had to be able to speak French. You'd be angry as hell about the French! Period.

And so what I am trying to get at here is, what are the things we can actually do, because the root of this, even if we could sit down and agree on what the absolute best policy in the world is, the most just, the most clear -- if we had Plato's philosopher-king sitting here making these judgments, I'd respectfully resent we'd still have a problem -- still have a problem.

Now, that doesn't mean we ignore things we can do, but it does mean we should have a sense of proportions about what we are likely to be able to do. And what we need to do, I think in America, is not only make the case for more sensitivity, but acknowledge what the American public has done, what they have done. They have been incredibly tolerant. Look what happened -- I am so sick of the Europeans -- I've had it up to here. Look at what happened when in fact there were population shifts. What caused Le Pen's rise to power? A virtual Nazi in France. Anti-Arab sentiment. Where do we see that in this country? We have some idiot preacher mischaracterizing the Islamic religion, and is treated in the Middle East as if he were a presidential candidate. And Le Pen and his xenophobia got virtually no attention in the Middle East among Palestinians or anyone else.

As you can tell, it frustrates me. And so, as much as my criticism of this administration -- and it's real, it's deep; I disagree in fundamental ways with the way they're going about their policies and diplomacy -- I find this difficult to draft, in effect, or come up within my own head what it is that our policy should be relative to public diplomacy.

It should be more exchanges. It should be, it seems to me, to focus on our tolerance in this country. But, by the way, I can picture this television station working extremely well. All I'd like to do is they could put on a morning show just going to one of the several thousand mosques in the United States.

These folks aren't dumb, if they do it like the radio station. They're pretty smart, the people putting this together. They could focus on pointing out that there are more Muslims in America than there are Episcopalians. There are more Muslims in America than most of the mainstream Protestant religions.

But the point is that we don't -- it's very, very difficult to get that message through in any way, shape or form. And so I just hold out, not for the panel, the rhetorical challenge: Find me a single country in the world, a single, solitary country in the world, that is as open, that is as tolerant, and that you would argue would have reacted -- possibly one of the Scandinavian countries, I would argue -- find me any beyond that, that would have acted as nobly as I think the American people have acted in the face of what has happened to them.

And I apologize for my frustration, but I hope you understand it's borne out of a failure in my own mind to figure out where the jugular is. All I know is we've been fooling around the capillaries an awful lot here. And it's not to suggest we need not be more sensitive; we should. It's not to suggest we shouldn't be educating in our schools children on Islam and the background and the universities. It's not to suggest any of that.

But it is to suggest that that's not going to solve the problem. The problem is a lot deeper than that, and it goes to the fact that we're the big guy on the block, and we don't handle it very well. I think history is going to go back and show that it's not surprising that after the walls come down, it's taken us a decade or more to try to figure out our place in the world.

I'll conclude with this. You know, most people, when I go abroad, think Americans love us being a superpower. I don't know about what's happening out in your state, Mr. Chairman, but my folks think if there's got to be one superpower, it might as well be us, but they'd rather not be the superpower, because guess what: We didn't get one single word of credit for the tens of thousands of Muslim women we kept out of rape camps in Bosnia. We didn't get one single, solitary piece of credit in the Middle East for risking the lives of young women and men for one reason: To save Muslims -- Bosniaks, Kosovars, Muslims. And it frustrates me.

And so if big nations -- if Middle Eastern countries want to be treated like mature nations, they have to start acting like mature nations. And you can't have the front page of the Saudi-run newspaper talking about how, for Purim, the blood of Arab children is needed in order to make the pastries. You can't have the ambassador from Saudi Arabia in London writing poetry that is hailing suicide bombers as martyrs for Islam and keep his job and pretend to me you're a responsible country.

Enough of my editorializing. I thank you for your testimony. I apologize for the time.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you, Senator Biden. Dr. Zaharna, you have a thought.

MS. ZAHARNA: Yes. I want to say, yes, that I am Palestinian, Palestinian-Texan and Muslim. And this exchange has been enlightening for me. It's the first time for me. And I do sense your frustration very strongly and clearly. And it's been an educational point that I will take with me with the later writing. But it's been educational, just as I've been involved with the Jewish-American dialogue, and one of my colleagues is here with me as well today. So I will take that back and absorb it.

SEN. BIDEN: Let me -- sorry, but this has nothing to do with you, Doctor. I'm just trying to figure out what it is we've got to do. What do we have to focus on to change this?

SEN. LUGAR: We'll all struggle with that. And I appreciate very much your comments, Dr. Zaharna; likewise Mr. Keith and Mr. Kohut. I appreciate the publications you all have given us, but I want to commend the Global Project Attitudes publication.

There are so many interesting tables here that are grist for the mill maybe for further hearings of our committee as we come to understanding, for example, the charts that you have; why some countries believe HIV-AIDS is the greatest problem in the world, some believe misunderstanding among races and cultures, some think nuclear weapons; the United States, that's a major problem.

And these are very diverse, major problems. And the orientation of these countries, and sometimes unpredictably, is astonishing, but certainly worthy of all of our sensitivity and our thorough study.

We thank you very much for contributing so much to our hearing.

SEN. BIDEN: Thank you. It was very helpful.

SEN. LUGAR: And the hearing is adjourned.