Stephen F. Hayes’s “Uncle Sam’s Makeover” (June 3) correctly identifies the vital importance of communicating America’s values and policies to the Muslim world, but Hayes describes the public diplomacy programs that I direct at the State Department only partially. The important readership of The Weekly Standard deserves a broader view. First, the matter of CAIR–the Council on American-Islamic Relations on which Hayes dwells at great length. Given the importance Hayes ascribes to this link on our website, readers might be surprised to learn that it has been only one of 11 links to non-governmental organizations on the State Department’s “Muslim Life in America” website. These links have been provided only as information resources, and there is no endorsement by the State Department of their content. Hayes’s larger point seems to be that our public diplomacy campaign in the war against terrorism fails to distinguish between “good Muslims and bad.” This oversimplifies the task at hand. A spectrum of attitudes exists within the Muslim world. A small minority actively supports a resort to acts of terrorism. A somewhat larger group actively rejects such acts. But the majority is somewhere in the middle. Attitudes do matter. Polls and surveys demonstrate conclusively that negative stereotypes, disinformation, and outright demonization of the United States and the West are widespread in the Arab and Muslim worlds and can provide an environment in which large numbers of people–in effect, enablers–ignore, excuse, or justify acts of terrorism. Images have consequences; words can kill; and we would be derelict if we did not engage those who hold such negative views, however antithetical to our own. Recognizing this challenge, why would we devote our limited public diplomacy resources to engaging exclusively with those already in basic agreement with our values and views? At the other extreme, terrorists and their hosts are properly the purview of military, intelligence, and law enforcement action. We, as practitioners of public diplomacy, must engage those between these extremes–the wider community of individuals and organizations who aspire to a better life but are ambivalent regarding acts of terrorism. We need to do this to establish a common foundation of values–not only to remove sympathy and support for such acts, but to articulate a shared vision of a future built on opportunity and freedom, not on grievance and death. Hayes concludes his article by citing a recent speech by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in which he called on us to speak to the millions of Muslims who aspire to “freedom and democracy and free enterprise.” I couldn’t agree more, and we at the State Department are developing programs that will engage such individuals and groups as partners and interlocutors to help explain the power and purpose of the United States in the world today. These programs will include arrangements at Middle East universities and other institutions to provide multimedia access to information on the United States, our society and values, as well as an expansion of exchange programs to enrich and deepen the dialogue among Americans and Muslims abroad. And, when appropriate, we’ll use posters, pamphlets, and public-service advertising. Where America is defined as godless, militaristic, anti-Islamic, and uncaring about families and foreign cultures, then, yes, I would say that a re-presentation, or reintroduction, of America and American values is in order. If we don’t do this, make no mistake: There are plenty of others around the world–indifferent or hostile to us and what we stand for–who are ready to step in and “define”America to Muslim audiences. Charlotte Beers Under Secretary of State Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Washington, DC
