Immediately after the September 11 th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush Administration found itself in, not only a military, but also a public diplomacy war on terrorism. Public diplomacy was viewed as having a lower priority than political and military functions, and received less funding, while more money went to other activities deemed more important or more popular with constituents. After the 2001 attacks, people around the world expressed shock and support for the U.S. government. The 108 th Congress weighed in on the importance of public diplomacy by including public diplomacy measures in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 ( P.L. Favorable opinions of the United States have fallen in most of the 15 countries surveyed." On October 1, 1999, as a result of legislation initiated by Senator Helms, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to reorganize the foreign policy agencies (largely for streamlining and budget saving purposes), USIA was abolished and its remaining functions (information programs and the educational and cultural exchanges) were transferred back to the State Department, as exchanges had been prior to 1977. Supplemental funding has become a standard practice for funding public diplomacy activities. In times of crisis, such as in Kosovo in the 1990s, after the 2001 terrorist attacks, or during the war in Iraq, U.S. international broadcasting goes into "surge broadcasting" mode which may include Expanded coverage of events as they unfold and in the languages of the populations being affected; creating a new broadcast medium, such as satellite TV, in an area where the U.S. previously did not operate one; increasing interviews with U.S. government officials, Congress and experts from think-tanks giving the American perspective of the situation; and cooperating with other countries' broadcast operations to achieve a 24 hour-a-day broadcasting operation into a region being affected. The 9/11 Commission Report stated that the U.S. government must use all its tools to win the war on terrorism. Both are equally important." Among the specific recommendations, the 9/11 Commission suggested giving the Broadcasting Board of Governors increased funding to do more broadcasting to Arab and Muslim populations. The 9/11 Report recommended that, just as the United States did during the Cold War, this country should identify what it stands for and communicate that message clearly. Other Options

Prior to establishment of the 9/11 Commission, several organizations studied public diplomacy in order to improve international goodwill and America's image, as well as to combat terrorism. The Council on Foreign Relations, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, in addition to some Members of Congress and congressional committees, offered suggestions intended to elevate public diplomacy and make it more effective. Some options follow:
Create a Corporation for Public Diplomacy with tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code, that would receive private sector grants and coordinate private and public sector involvement in public diplomacy; Reconstitute USIA or some other entity that would have U.S. public diplomacy as its sole mission; Increase the emphasis on public diplomacy throughout all U.S. government agencies, with organizational changes in the White House, National Security Council, and the State Department; Require all foreign policy agencies to train key staff in public diplomacy and languages; and Measure the success of public diplomacy efforts by blending the best practices used in the public and private sectors, and improve public diplomacy program effectiveness with the knowledge attained. Furthermore, they say, if U.S. foreign policy is the primary cause of negative foreign opinion, then public diplomacy may be less effective than lawmakers would like. 108-458 ( S. 2845 )
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
While the 9/11 terrorist attacks rallied unprecedented support abroad for the United States initially, they also heightened the awareness among government officials and terrorism experts that a significant number of people, especially within Muslim populations, harbor enough hatred for America so as to become a pool for terrorists. Over time it became clear that for the global war on terrorism to succeed, sustained cooperation from around the world would be required.
In the years prior to September 11th, both Congress and the various administrations downplayed the importance of funding public diplomacy activities, and in 1999 abolished the primary public diplomacy agency—the U.S. Information Agency (USIA). Public diplomacy often was viewed as less important than political and military functions and, therefore, was seen by some legislators as a pot of money that could be tapped for funding other government activities.
Even prior to the 2001 attacks, a number of decisions by the Bush Administration, including refusing to sign onto the Kyoto Treaty, the International Criminal Court, the Chemical Weapons Ban, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, damaged foreign opinion of the United States. After the decision to go to war with Iraq, foreign opinion of the United States fell sharply, not only in the Arab and Muslim world, but even among some of America's closest allies. Some foreign policy and public diplomacy experts believe that using public diplomacy to provide clear and honest explanations of why those decisions were made could have prevented some of the loss of support in the war on terrorism.
Many U.S. policymakers now recognize the importance of how America and its policies are perceived abroad. A former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and both chairmen of the 9/11 Commission expressed the view that public diplomacy tools are at least as important in the war on terrorism as military tools and should be given equal status and increased funding. As a result of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (S. 2845, P.L. 108-458) which included provisions expanding public diplomacy activities in Muslim populations.
At the same time, some believe that there are limits to what public diplomacy can do when the problem is not foreign misperception of America, but rather disagreements with specific U.S. foreign policies. A major expansion of U.S. public diplomacy activities and funding cannot change that, they say.
This report presents the challenges that have focused renewed attention on public diplomacy, provides background on public diplomacy, actions the Administration and Congress have taken since 9/11 to make public diplomacy more effective, as well as recommendations offered by others, particularly the 9/11 Commission. It will be updated if events warrant.