BureausDepartment Of StateOrganizational ChartUnited States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID)United States PermanentRepresentative to the UnitedNationsSecretary ofStateCounselor <strong>and</strong> Chief of StaffDeputy Secretary of StateDeputy Secretary of StateUnder Secretary Political AffairsUnder Secretary for Economic AffairsOversees 1 BureauUndersecretary for Arms control <strong>and</strong>International Security Affairs Oversees3 BureausUnder Secretary for <strong>Public</strong> Diplomacy<strong>and</strong> <strong>Public</strong> Affairs Oversees 3 BureausUnder Secretary forManagement Oversees 9BureausUnder Secretary for Democracy<strong>and</strong> Global Affairs Oversees 4BureausAfrican Affairs AssistantSecretarySouth & Central AsianAffairs Assistant SecretaryEducational <strong>and</strong> <strong>Cultural</strong> AffairsEuropean & Eurasian AssistantSecretaryWestern HemisphereAffairs Assistant SecretaryInternational Information ProgramsEast Asian & Pacific AffairsAssistant SecretaryInternational Narcotics &Law EnforcementAssistant Secretary<strong>Public</strong> AffairsNear Eastern Affairs AssistantSecretaryInternationalOrganizations AssistantSecretaryThere is no direct report<strong>in</strong>g relationship between U.S.Embassies abroad <strong>and</strong> the Under Secretary for <strong>Public</strong>Diplomacy <strong>and</strong> <strong>Public</strong> Affairs26 26
Models of <strong>Cultural</strong> DiplomacyForeign ModelsIn 2003, a study was undertaken that exam<strong>in</strong>ed the cultural diplomacy practices of n<strong>in</strong>e foreigncountries. 75 In general, these countries 76 had similar objectives: they wanted to tell their ownstories <strong>and</strong> promote recognition of <strong>and</strong> appreciation for their respective cultural roots. Further,their diplomatic activities tended to support one or more of the follow<strong>in</strong>g: foreign policy, economicpolicy <strong>and</strong> trade relationships; <strong>and</strong>/or cultural policy, which sometimes <strong>in</strong>cluded ―nation br<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g‖to market their cultural product or promote mutual underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g. The study shows that thesecountries varied widely with regard to the degree of collaboration that existed between theirforeign affairs <strong>and</strong> cultural affairs offices. The adm<strong>in</strong>istrative structures used to carry out eachcountry‘s cultural diplomacy objectives also varied widely. 77 For example, <strong>in</strong> Austria <strong>and</strong> France,the foreign affairs offices controlled <strong>in</strong>ternational cultural relations, while <strong>in</strong> Canada <strong>and</strong>S<strong>in</strong>gapore, the foreign affairs offices worked through the cultural m<strong>in</strong>istries. 78 In the U.K. <strong>and</strong>Sweden, <strong>in</strong>ternational cultural relations were delegated to quasi-governmental organizations thatwork with their foreign embassies, while Australia exhibited a comb<strong>in</strong>ation of thesecharacteristics. 79 It is unclear whether these same patterns exist today.Countries also differed with regard to their f<strong>in</strong>ancial <strong>in</strong>vestments <strong>in</strong> cultural diplomacy <strong>and</strong>exchange. 80 For example, the British Council <strong>and</strong> the Goethe Institute are semi-autonomousagencies that are subsidized by the British <strong>and</strong> German governments. Both spend tens of millions ofdollars more each year than the United States <strong>in</strong> an effort to deepen underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g between theirnations <strong>and</strong> others. In contrast, U.S. programs have traditionally focused on regions of crisis <strong>and</strong> areused for mitigat<strong>in</strong>g conflict as opposed to promot<strong>in</strong>g long-term underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g.It should be added that U.S. <strong>in</strong>vestment <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternational arts <strong>and</strong> cultural exchange is m<strong>in</strong>isculecompared to that of foreign governments. The total expenditure for these purposes from 2003through 2007 totaled less than $23 million as reported by the IAWG. 81 In contrast, other nationsexam<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> this study spend large sums of money to export their art to the United States as well asto other countries. Examples <strong>in</strong>clude Canada, S<strong>in</strong>gapore, Australia <strong>and</strong> Great Brita<strong>in</strong> as well as theFrench, who allocate hundreds of millions a year for such purposes globally, plac<strong>in</strong>g France first <strong>in</strong>the world <strong>in</strong> cultural diplomacy expenditures. 82Current U.S. policy represents a missed opportunity to capture ―cultural exchange benefits‖ suchas <strong>in</strong>ternational goodwill that accrue to countries that actively participate <strong>in</strong> cultural engagement.75 Wyszomirski, Margaret J., International <strong>Cultural</strong> Relations: A Multi-Country Comparison, Arts International <strong>and</strong>Center for Arts <strong>and</strong> Culture, 2003, pp. 9-18.76 Australia, Austria, France, Canada, Japan, Netherl<strong>and</strong>s, S<strong>in</strong>gapore, Sweden <strong>and</strong> the United K<strong>in</strong>gdom.77 Some nations use a broader term, ―<strong>in</strong>ternational cultural relations,‖ to describe these <strong>and</strong> complementary activities.78 Wyszomirski, Op.Cit.79 Ibid.80 Ibid.81 See chart on p. 14.82 Wyszomirski, Op.Cit.27
Change language