U.S. shifts 'hearts and minds' fight

Instead of trying to explain America, it promotes alternatives to extremism.

from the August 7, 2008 edition

• Print this
• Republish
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS

Page 2 of 2

Page 1 | 2

Daily podcast | 08.06.08

This feature requires a newer version of Macromedia Flash Player and javascript-enabled browser.

The Monitor's David Cook discusses a new American public-diplomacy effort in the Middle East with reporter Howard LaFranchi.

Subscribe iTunes | More Audio

The US is increasing the number of scholarships for study in the US, he says, and multiplying the forums where democrats, labor leaders, and rights activists have an opportunity to interact with local populations.

In Pakistan, for example, the State Department has supported a radio program that was developed, written, produced, and acted by local students and aimed at a youth audience. Creating the radio dramas teaches skills to program participants, while the dramas address cultural and social issues selected by the students as being of interest to the target audience.

Yet no matter how the US redefines its public-diplomacy effort, the issue of unpopular US policy could continue to be an impediment.

"To simply say, 'We have our differences with you about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and about the occupation of Iraq, so let's just move beyond that,' I don't see where it takes us," says Charles Dunbar, a former ambassador to Yemen who is now a professor in the Department of International Relations at Boston University. "Even if you were able to somehow remove that, you still have the fact that they do not see this 'common enemy' that US policy is focused on."

Another challenge Mr. Dunbar sees for a US effort predicated on an ideological struggle within Islam is that it risks coming off as arrogant and meddlesome. "If you start talking about Islam, saying, 'We know what good Islam is and what bad Islam is,' when you're doing that as Westerners you get into trouble."

Glassman's approach recognizes this risk, as when he acknowledges that "we are not the credible voices here." It is why the new focus is on amplifying the local voices that, based on their vision of national interests, can provide an alternative to violent extremism, he says.

One argument being raised is that US policy is so toxic in the Arab and Muslim worlds that any American effort on behalf of the anti-extremist forces it favors is counterproductive. But Satloff of the Washington Institute dismisses such a "one-dimensional view of Muslims" as "dangerous paternalism."

"The 'conventional wisdom' … is that, because of the alleged unpopularity of the US in Muslim societies, any connection with the US government or even many US quasi-governmental agencies is the 'kiss of death' for local activists," Satloff writes. "The reality is that local activists are smart and mature enough to recognize issues where they welcome US support and issues where they may disagree with US policy, not letting the latter dissuade them from the former."

Recent trends in some key Arab and Muslim countries appear to favor the moderate forces that the US also hopes to encourage in the region. Fresh polls show support slipping for terrorism as a means of protest or political action. Approval of the suicide bombings that have been used against both Israelis and Muslims is down, as is the popularity of Mr. bin Laden.

But the way to build on that, says Gerges of Sarah Lawrence, is to develop policies that deal with regional priorities, especially those of the 65 percent of the population that is young, instead of tinkering with an approach that in his eyes is still based on the US war on terror.

"Let's focus on the social crisis these countries are facing. Let's put the emphasis on developing the rule of law in Arab and Muslim governments," Gerges says. "Then we can talk about something genuinely new in the American public-diplomacy effort."

1 | Page 2