Public diplomacy: Karen, we hardly knew ye

Last updated on: November 12, 2007 at 1:10 am by Shahed Amanullah

Public diplomacy: Karen, we hardly knew ye 2007-11-12T01:10:00-04:00 Shahed Amanullah

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

She’s listening

Within the US government, the job of Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs — a position created for the primary purpose of managing the image of the US in the Muslim world — has morphed into the most impossible job in Washington. It chewed up predecessors, such as seasoned PR professional Charlotte Beers, who tried and failed to use Madison Avenue tactics to create a “brand America” strategy. After a personal appeal from President Bush to his longtime confidant Karen Hughes, the presidential aide who was widely credited (along with Karl Rove) with engineering both of George Bush’s election victories, she came out of early retirement in Austin to save the department from irrelevance. Lucky for him, Hughes relished the challenge.

To the surprise of many of those suspicious of her, she brought an immense curiosity about the Muslim world’s perspective and a sense of openness little seen in the Bush State Department. With an energy level matched by few within the Beltway, she engaged Muslims directly and opened herself up to criticism from all sides, notably from many neo-conservatives who thought that, by engaging with groups such as ISNA, she was at best barking up the wrong tree. Instead, she terminated ineffectual programs and created ambitious new ones, helping recruit Muslim Americans to join the effort.

For this new direction, she certainly deserves credit. But as Hughes exits the office, having tendered her resignation effective this December, it is difficult to see how she has been any more successful than her predecessors in halting the decline in negative perceptions of the US among Muslims worldwide, perceptions which have dropped support to single digits even among ostensible US allies such as Turkey.

She began her tenure by reaching out to Muslim Americans in what she called “listening mode,” open to hearing blunt criticism of US policy and leaving no subject off the table. Within a week of starting her new job, she assembled a group of skeptical Muslims, including myself, to get some advice.”You may be in charge of changing perspective on America abroad,” I remember telling her, “but you can’t do anything about US foreign policy itself, which is the root of the problem.” “Don’t think I can’t have impact on foreign policy,” replied an unfazed Hughes. “I talk to the President nearly every day.” It was this kind of can-do attitude that piqued the interest of many of us, in spite of our wariness.

However, a substantive change in US foreign policy is only possible when enough of the administration’s inner circle feel that a shift in current policy is necessary and advise accordingly. In the end, Hughes marched in lock step with the President on the rationale for the Iraq war, keeping “on message” regarding the long-term benefit that might arise from the current destabilization. Still, while Hughes was unwilling or unable to change the grander (and more troublesome) foreign policy initiatives — the Iraq war, stagnant progress on the Israel/Palestine front — she did make important progress beneficial to Muslims in two important areas.

First, she created a space in government where Muslim Americans could freely participate (without a political litmus test) in efforts to bridge the gap between America and the Muslim world. Second, she pried open the door – shut for security reasons for years after 9/11 – for students from the Muslim world to study in America and appreciate its culture firsthand. She killed overtly propagandistic programs such as the youth-oriented Arabic language Hi Magazine and sent US Muslims on tours of the Muslim world to showcase their relative prosperity and freedom (including, in some cases, the freedom to criticize US foreign policy in a civil manner).

Muslim leaders, while uneasy towards US government overtures in the wake of security crackdowns after 9/11, took Hughes at her word and offered advice and counsel. People such as ISNA President Ingrid Mattson (whom Hughes singled out for honor in a State Department iftar dinner in 2006), scholars such as Shaykh Hamza Yusuf of the Zaytuna Institute, and entertainers such as Native Deen, all offered their assistance when asked to do so, regardless of personal differences towards the current administration. Ordinary Muslims from all walks of life volunteered to travel around the world at the department’s request to speak about Muslim life in America.

But while heartfelt critiques were certainly made amidst the dialogue, they made little difference in US policy (with the exception of challenging the government’s use of words like “Islamofascism”, which Hughes proudly claims to have nipped in the bud). And while sending Muslim Americans overseas is a good way to promote America as an emigration destination for Muslims abroad, it does little to mollify critics of the American presence in the Muslim world — a world which, more often than not, only seeks the same freedoms Americans enjoy.

And so, as Hughes leaves office, we find ourselves back where we started. Perhaps expectations should have been managed better from the beginning, by defining the job not in terms of firefighting, but rather in ceasing to add fuel to existing conflicts. Maybe the department’s role should be been less about managing America’s image and more about aggregating information at a “hearts and minds” level that could be used in policymaking, where decisions of consequence are first made.

As it stands now, if someone as energetic, resourceful, and well-intentioned as Karen Hughes couldn’t make a dent in the problem, perhaps nobody can. Yet the office still exists and should continue working on projects that are showing some success in creating an open dialogue between America and Muslims globally. As long as there are opportunities to create bridges of understanding between the two vis-a-vis Muslim Americans – even if seeing eye-to-eye is a distant goal – there are scores of us who will gladly continue to help.

Still, it would have been nice to get some movement on that policy thing.

Shahed Amanullah is editor-in-chief of altmuslim.com

Commentary

Shahed Amanullah

Previous Post

November 9, 2007

Waterboarding: Drowning for justice

Next Post

November 14, 2007 "Axis of Evil" Comedy Troupe: “I hope we inspire more Muslims to get involved in entertainment”

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2012 Elections 30 Dayd 30 Writers (2017) 30 Days 30 Writers 30 Days 30 Writers (2015) 30 Days 30 Writers (2016) 30 Days 30 Writers (2018) 30 Days 30 Writers 2017 Ali Asadullah Ali Eteraz Alper Bilgili Arthur Richards Asides Asma Uddin Black History Month Briefings Charles Turner Commentary Cyrus McGoldrick Eman H Aly Fatimah Popal Hajj Hajj and Dhul Hijjah Hesham Hassaballa Hisham Hellyer Ibrahim Abusharif Inas Younis Irfan Yusuf Jalal Baig Junaid Afeef Laila Alawa Laila Alwala Mas'ood Cajee Muqtedar Khan Nakia Jackson Newsmakers Parvez Ahmed Podcasts Rabia Chaudry Rafia Zakaria Ramadan Reviews Safiyyah Ally Saud Inam Shahed Amanullah Svend White The Opinionated Oncologist Visions Wajahat Ali Zahed Amanullah Zahir Janmohamed Zainab Khan

Select a Month November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: The parable of the Prodigal Son appears only in Luke's Gospel.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE