Questions sent to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs for an Interview

1. Would you agree with scholar Marc Lynch’s evaluation of your selection as Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs? Here’s what he said:

Marc Lynch, Foreign Policy: “This [McHale as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs] would be a terrible, terrible selection. I don't know Judith McHale at all, and obviously have nothing against her personally. But the position of Under-Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs should go to someone with experience in and a vision for public diplomacy, and who will be in a position to effectively integrate public diplomacy concerns into the policy-making process. Appointing someone with no experience in public diplomacy but with a resume which 'involves selling a message' has already been tried: the first post-9/11 Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Charlotte Beers, whose tenure lasted only 17 months (October 2001-March 2003), focused on 'branding' America through television advertising showing happy Muslim-Americans, and is generally considered to be an utter failure. …

2. Would you agree with the following statement by the Director of the Center on Public [Diplomacy] at the University of Southern California, Philip Seib, regarding your “Roadmap” for US public diplomacy, which your office kindly sent to me in preparation for this interview:

The long-awaited “roadmap” for U.S. public diplomacy has finally emerged from Undersecretary of State Judith McHale’s office, and it is a stunning disappointment.

It is so lacking in imagination, so narrow in its scope, and so insufficient in its appraisal of the tasks facing U.S. public diplomats that it is impossible to understand why its preparation took so many months.

3. Were you misquoted in the following interview?:

I think that the more we can have people having direct conversations with each other -- and through those conversations and initiatives, through history of cultures we can learn about each other and if we do that, at the people-to-people level, that will provide us with a path to a more peaceful and prosperous future. So it's a key part of what we're trying to do, to really have people engage with each other, to learn about each other. So it's not public diplomacy, it's not messaging, it's not just a marketing campaign. It's really fostering an environment where you can strengthen relationships between people."

--Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale (November 11, 2010).

Follow-up questions: Are you essentially dismissing “public diplomacy” as anachronistic and outmoded? Do you think it’s a Cold war term that has little/no relevance in our new century?

4.  How will history judge you? What difference, if any, have you made?

[5]. Time permitting, what you said about General Marshall:

As I reflected on what I might say to you this evening, I thought, of course, about all the challenges which confront us, from the economy to the environment to extremism. But I also thought about all the opportunities which will be available to us if we pursue our national objectives in a spirit of partnership and mutual understanding.   This is precisely the approach Secretary Marshall followed in formulating the plan which bears his name and which I believe is the greatest example in our nation's history of Public Diplomacy done right. http://www.marshallfoundation.org/JudithMcHale.htm