10 May 2007
Scholar Discusses Why United States Is Perceived Poorly Overseas
USINFO Webchat transcript, May 10
Juliana Pilon, who teaches politics and culture at the Institute of World Politics in Washington and authored The Bloody Flag and Notes From the Other Side of Night, answered questions on why America is such a hard sell in the forum of world opinion during a May 10 webchat.
Following is the transcript:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of International Information Programs
USINFO Webchat Transcript
Why is America Such a Hard Sell?
Guest: Juliana Pilon
Date: May 10, 2007
Time: 3:00 p.m. EDT (1500 GMT)
Juliana Pilon, Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., and the author of The Bloody Flag and Notes From the Other Side of Night.
IIP Moderator: Welcome to our webchat! Please note, there will be no "live" Question and Answer session for this webchat. We will accept your questions up until 1600 GMT on Thursday, May 10.
Answers will be posted within one business day.
IIP Moderator: On May 10, 2007, Juliana Pilon visited the U.S. State Department's Bureau of International Information Programs to discuss public diplomacy challenges and "Why is America Such a Hard Sell?"
Following is a transcript of her remarks followed by her responses to several questions sent to us by webchat participants worldwide.
Juliana Pilon: I am truly honored and most grateful to be here today. [Begin prepared remarks "Why America is Such a Hard Sell: Beyond Pride and Prejudice"]
Obviously, America must expect to have enemies: as long as we are the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth, we will be feared, envied, and resented. And yes, we haven’t always acted wisely. But neither excessive self-flagellation (preferred by liberals) nor self-righteousness (a specialty of conservatives) is a rational response to unpopularity. A plethora of commissions and councils are coming up with various schemes for reorganizing the bureaucracy: they range all the way from reinstating USIA to absorbing USAID into the State Department. Never mind that a great deal of U.S. foreign assistance is handled by other departments and agencies, notably Treasury, Justice, Education, and… oh yes, Defense.
Some experts have recommended the creation of a new cabinet-level department based on the British model, in order to address the current lack of coordination that characterizes U.S. development assistance. While few could object to coordination as such, however, consolidation is not necessarily a panacea. It may even exacerbate problems if it results in overregulation, discontinuing different approaches to problems under the guise of avoiding duplication, and could amount to little more than an expensive, clumsy, over-bureaucratic reorganization. The Council on Foreign Relations’ recommendation is to create a Corporation of Public Diplomacy. In my opinion – and as it happens that of the GAO – it would be better to learn from the private sector, and finding a more effective way of interacting with it. I am fully aware that efforts are currently underway to do exactly that. (Better late than never….)
And a good thing that is, considering that the lion’s share of support for foreign outreach, as demonstrated by a new report produced by Dr. Carol Adelman of the Hudson Institute, entitled Global Philanthropy Index 2006, which offers the first comprehensive estimate in dollar figures of all the aid directed at the developing world. In 2004 alone, writes Adelman, “American private giving through foundations, corporations, voluntary organizations, universities, colleges, religious organizations, and immigrants sending money to families and villages back home, totaled at least $71 billion dollars – over three and a half times U.S. government development aid.” America’s official aid package, little over one half provided through USAID, in the amount of nearly $20 billion, is by far the largest in the world, with Japan ranking a distant second at $8.9 billion. United States government overseas development assistance or ODA constitutes no less than one fourth of the total global aid. (I should note that the 2007 Index is to be released later this month.)
Juliana Pilon: [Remarks continued] But who knows about this? Hardly anyone even within the United States, let alone abroad. By contrast, swimming in the swamp of global communication is a malodorous mixture of low-brow entertainment and disinformation, a tiny sample of which is captured on a remarkable website produced by this very bureau – principally by one man. As I lecture around the country, I make a point of underscoring how much is done on a shoestring. A result of unwarranted and ill-informed pride, we seem to think that we don’t need to protect ourselves against lies. It is nothing short of scandalous how little effort is being devoted by this country to combating disinformation. And if I may say this parenthetically, it is this same noblesse-oblige kind of arrogance that gave us endless anti-American and anti-Western resolutions at the U.N. a condescending indifference to “mere” rhetoric in the international body we graciously hosted in the heart of Manhattan, which gradually formed a political culture whose poisonous fruit we reap today.
But let me return to our assets. Notwithstanding our clumsiness and arrogance, somehow we managed to create what former Singaporean ambassador to the U.N. Kishore Mahbubani called “huge reservoirs of good will” among our six billion fellow earthlings. He finds that we did it “almost absentmindedly, without intending to do so. Indeed, most Americans were probably unaware” of that good will if they thought about it at all. Obviously Ambassador Mahbubani is very much an exception among world leaders to recognize that this reservoir is hardly empty, but he resonates a truth that may have eluded the pollsters of both Pew and the BBC. “The real source of goodwill towards Americans,” he writes, “comes from daily interactions between ordinary people.” He continues: “Most Americans tend to be generous souls. They seem to have a natural instinct to help the underdog.” For this reason, the kind of exchanges that are a staple of this Bureau – and sometimes reaches the media spotlight, as in today’s [May 10, 2007] Washington Post – are what my son would call a no-brainer. I expect no one in this room will disagree when I say that, considering the bang we get for that particular buck, the pittance that is appropriated to these efforts is - I’ll use that word again - scandalous.
Juliana Pilon: [Remarks continued] But I’m still on the good news portion of my presentation. In fact, exchanges go on every moment of the day, carried on by self-styled ambassadors better known as American citizens. It was during my decade and a half in the democratization business, principally through IFES (the International Foundation for Election Systems), where I came to understand the far-reaching potential of well-designed democracy projects and the effect of genuine dialogue with our local partners: we learned as much as we taught. Most importantly, we witnessed the enormous amount of goodwill that such programs can generate – at least among those people who knew about them.
Ironically, it was an Iranian teacher of Anglo-American comparative literature, the rightfully acclaimed Azar Nafisi, who noted that the essence of the American democratic spirit is captured most exquisitely by none other than the witty novelist Jane Austen. Writes Nafisi: “One of the most wonderful things about Pride and Prejudice is the variety of voices it embodies.… All tensions are created and resolved through dialogue…. In Austen’s novels, there are spaces for oppositions that do not need to eliminate each other in order to exist. There is also space – not just space but a necessity – for self-reflection and self-criticism. Such reflection is the cause of change… All we needed was to read and appreciate the cacophony of voices to understand the democratic imperative.” Jane Austen also understood that pride is the proper term for what she called “the appearance of humility,” which applies equally to that arrogant noblesse oblige I mentioned earlier and an insufficient knowledge of ourselves and others, all of which imperceptibly blends into pride’s seeming opposite, prejudice. The solution is – you guessed it - a sober form of sensibility that defines a life worth living: in dignity, with empathy tempered by sense, which requires knowledge, and indicates respect for one another and ourselves.
Juliana Pilon: [Remarks continued] In conclusion, America is hardly perfect, and patriotism does not oblige anyone to pretend otherwise. “My country right or wrong,” wrote C.K. Chesterton, is like saying “my mother, drunk or sober.” Far from proving us demonic, our fallibility merely reminds us and the rest of the world that we are human. Yes, we are now perched up on a shining hill, higher than ever. The world’s most powerful nation is expected by too many to save humanity from itself. The fact is that we now have a golden opportunity to let the world know who we are. We can at last try to get the message out that the United States was founded on the promise of self-reliance and freedom. Its dream would extend that possibility to everyone, no matter how humble. But to communicate that message is enormously difficult. Not to appreciate that fact is self-defeating pride; and not doing the hard work to figure out how to deal with the challenge is inexcusable prejudice. Do I believe we can rise to the occasion? You bettcha.
By way of final word, I cannot resist citing John Steinbeck’s splendid book America and Americans, written little over three decades ago: “We have failed sometimes, taken wrong paths, paused for renewal, filled our bellies and licked our wounds; but we have never slipped back – never.” This is no ordinary pride; it is the flame that lives inside the torch we are currently carrying, whether we like it or not. The magnitude of the responsibility and the challenges should be enough to humble us for the task.
Question [Abraham_Lincoln]: I think that the U.S. would better make enormous efforts to advise her own history to the world to make her understood. I would say it is her obligation to mankind as well because US history contains broad and rich information as to what is democracy and how to advance democracy and human rights. In foreign countries, it is almost appalling that US history is totally unknown to the common people. Ask questions to an ordinary person on a foreign street. Then, you will find he barely knows about the principle of the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War and emancipation, advancing of civil rights and so on. The U.S. can reorganize her history as a history of advancing democracy and human rights and present it to the world. The U.S. has such an inspiring history that no other country has. Why don’t you use it? I would appreciate it if you would kindly provide your advice.
Answer [Juliana Pilon]: Absolutely! US history is fascinating for it demonstrates the ongoing development of a democratic experiment - the longest in history - with many obstacles, mistakes made along the way, and amazing successes, that should inspire people throughout the world. Alas, even within the United States the ignorance of our history is appalling. Education is without doubt our biggest challenge, but also a thrilling one.
Comment [silvik]: I am from Ecuador, South America. I have to say that the low opinion rating is over the government itself and its policies. We see everyday in the newspapers and the News, that Americans are not that happy and proud of their president and his actions. It seems to be very difficult for the people from other countries to trust and sympathise with USA when its own citizens seem to be very dissatisfied.
A [Juliana Pilon]: Unfortunately, the context of this criticism - which in many ways is what makes America a strong, resilient, confident nation - is often lost to outsiders. They don't realize that such give and take is just what pluralism exercised in a free atmosphere is all about. We will never stop the criticism; at the same time, there is no question that home grown anti-Americanism, especially prevalent in the media and academic establishment, is harmful and, often unwittingly, plays into the hands of our enemies.
Q [Roger69]: Why do Americans give so much importance to first impressions? Don´t interpersonal relationships also count?
A [Juliana Pilon]: Whether or not Americans overemphasize the importance of first impressions more than any other group of people - and research indicates that most human beings do, for better or for worse, whether they realize it or not - there is no question that interpersonal relations do count, indeed. Perhaps a different way of phrasing the question would be to inquire why it is that more Americans do not put a higher premium on long-term relationships that may not "lead to" any obvious end, but simply for the pleasure of the exchange. Again I should point out that I don't have evidence that this is true; nevertheless in so far as this perception persists, one may address it in two ways:
(a) a great number of Americans actually do have remarkably extensive, productive, and quite disinterested personal relations through an extraordinary array of channels, although this fact is hardly publicized; and
(b) there is an element of pragmatism in our interactions in general, and not only with foreigners. A short-sighted incapacity to appreciate the value of nurturing interpersonal relations harms us not only as a nation but, above all, as individuals.
IIP Moderator: We wish to thank Juliana Pilon for joining us today. The webchat is now closed. Please visit USINFO's Webchat Station homepage for more information on upcoming events and a transcript of today’s discussion (posted within one business day).
(Guests are chosen for their expertise. The views expressed by guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of State.)
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
