Practicing Public Diplomacy: A Cold War Odyssey

Yale Richmond’s self-described odyssey as a U.S. diplomat through countries on the frontlines of the Cold War parallels in many ways my own, some 30 years later, as a public diplomacy officer serving in Europe, the USSR, and then Russia.

Seeing the cover photo of Poles eagerly perusing the latest issue of “Ameryka” magazine, USIA’s premier publication for the Soviet bloc, brought back memories of my monthly rounds of kiosks in Moscow back in 1980 to check on the number of copies of “Amerika” (America Illustrated) delivered to each, as this was an important gauge of U.S.-Soviet relations.  Good relations equaled more copies for sale to Soviet citizens; bad relations meant more copies returned to the Embassy as unsold due to “lack of interest.”  Relations were very tense back then, in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. boycott of the Moscow Olympics that summer, so the number of copies of “Amerika” returned to the Embassy reached the tens of thousands.  We eventually got them distributed in subsequent years as relations improved, and they took pride of place in cramped communal apartments across the vast Soviet empire, each well-thumbed copy pored over by multiple readers hungry for information about life in the United States.

Likewise, Richmond’s account of the USIA touring exhibitions program, which over a 32 year period beginning in 1959 brought 23 major exhibitions to the USSR that were visited by 20 million Soviet citizens, sparked personal memories.  It was as a Russian and Ukrainian-speaking guide on one of those exhibits that I, as a recent college graduate, was introduced to public diplomacy.  That experience led me to a career in the Foreign Service.
 

Although Richmond’s personal memoir gets off to a somewhat slow start in the first chapter on Germany, which bogs down in too much detail on his daily comings and goings, the section on nation building in Laos in the mid-50’s piques interest, and things get going once Richmond arrives in Poland.  He really moves into his element with the vivid descriptions of U.S.-Soviet cultural relations as experienced during his assignment to Moscow in the late 60’s.  Richmond’s recollections of the painstaking work that went into hammering out detailed cultural agreements with the Soviets is insightful, and serves to highlight the key role those accords played in our bilateral relations at the time.  In describing the intense negotiations between the two sides, Richmond quips, “It was an eye for an eye, if not always a truth for a truth.”
 

Assessing the long term impact of these efforts, Richmond points out that, “U.S.-Soviet cultural exchange, conducted over a period of 30 years, helped prepare the way for the end of the Cold War, and at a fraction of the cost of our military and intelligence operations over the same years.”  In the words of one Russian musician: “Cultural exchanges were another opening to the West, and additional proof that our media were not telling us the truth.”

Recounting his time in Poland in 1959, Richmond describes a PD officer’s dream scenario: “In those years, we had little or no guidance from Washington on what to do in Poland, and didn’t need any.  Opportunities for Public Diplomacy were everywhere, funding was available, and all we had to do was establish the priorities.”
 

It was another era.  And yet, many of the strategies, approaches and programs used to such great effect at that time served us well in subsequent years, and are still relevant today.
 

According to Richmond, the venerable George F. Kennan, in describing the importance of cultural contact in combating anti-Americanism, observed that if we could only convey the value we attach to our cultural life beyond our borders, he “would willingly trade the entire remaining inventory of political propaganda for the results that could be achieved by such means alone.”
 

The sad reality is that even though many experienced officers spoke up about the value of cultural exchange and the ongoing need for a robust public diplomacy effort in the world even with the end of the Cold War, those recommendations fell on deaf ears.  Cultural and exhibit offices were dismantled, publications abolished, libraries and information centers closed, budgets for public diplomacy drastically reduced.  It was time for a “peace dividend,” many politicians said.
 

And even though there was a substantial infusion of resources into Russia and the other countries of the former Soviet Union in the 90’s under the Freedom Support Act, after barely a decade—half a generation—that funding was severely reduced and redirected to other areas deemed to have a higher priority.  As Minister Counselor for Public Affairs in Moscow from 2001 to 2003, I could see the cumulative impact of our exchanges and information programs on tens of thousands of people across the vast reaches of Russia.  Establishing and nurturing democracy and free markets on the ruins of Communist states requires sustained effort over generations.  Jack Matlock, former Ambassador to the USSR, points out in his forward to this volume that the work done by Yale Richmond and others during the Cold War may not have had an impact that was immediately apparent, but it did lead over time to reform and change, with participants in our exchange programs playing key roles.  So it is today.

Making the case for increased spending on “soft power,” Defense Secretary Gates in a speech last November put the matter in stark terms: “This year’s budget for the Department of Defense—not counting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—is nearly half a trillion dollars.  The total foreign affairs budget request for the State Department is $36 billion—less than what the Pentagon spends on health care alone.”  The portion devoted to public diplomacy is only about $974 million.  In a word: we need more resources to do the job.

Summing up his Cold War odyssey, Richmond poses these questions: “Will similar public diplomacy practices succeed in the twenty-first century?  Can what worked to defeat communism in the Twentieth Century serve as a model for defeating terrorism and anti-Americanism in the much different world we live in today?”

Richmond responds in the affirmative, and I agree, while recognizing the dramatically altered global communications environment.  Given the right number of people and sufficient resources, public diplomacy can continue to play a vital role in serving the national interest, and make friends for the United States around the world.  The most important tools in the public diplomacy officer’s kit have stood the test of time: fostering exchanges of all kinds, from high school to grad students, to young professionals and future leaders across the spectrum; providing credible information about the U.S. via both new and mass media, as well as easy access to resources, through small information centers, that highlight the vibrancy of our democracy; and promoting programs that showcase the best of American culture in the performing and plastic arts, which can serve to break down barriers and create universal human bonds.
   

Richmond’s personal account of how public diplomacy was conducted during the Cold War gives the reader a practitioner’s perspective on this fascinating period in our history, and underscores public diplomacy’s continued importance in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.