In an area where conspiracy theories are a growth industry, the Obama administration is trying to overhaul its message machine in Afghanistan and Pakistan while using new tools to fight extremism.
The Taliban, al Qaeda and others have for years sought to dominate the air waves and Internet by getting anti-American propaganda out quickly while the US government's public relations efforts lagged behind as messages were cleared back in Washington.
Controlling that "narrative" is now a focus rather than an afterthought, say senior US officials, from quicker responses to counter what is seen as misinformation to using technology such as a mobile phone-based message system, social networking and other new media.
"We want the United States to be out there in the face of inaccurate stories that come up," said Vikram Singh, a senior advisor on communications to Richard Holbrooke, the special US representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Singh said the US communications staff was being substantially increased in both Kabul and Islamabad, although final numbers are not yet publicly available.
The State Department budget this year for Afghanistan and Pakistan communications projects is about $250 million, according to a department document from January, although there are pots of money in the Defence Department and other US agencies, too. Media specialists in the US government bristle at the term "pro-American propaganda," saying the goal is more subtle, with US funds used to empower Afghans and Pakistanis to be at the forefront of challenging extremist messages.
"We have been telling very clearly to Pakistanis that we are not here to build American radio stations, but local radio stations - for the local people and run by the local people - that's what the populace wants and we have been supporting," said Ashley Bommer, a senior advisor to Holbrooke.
'CORRECT MISPERCEPTIONS'Said another senior US official, who asked not to be named: "It is not about propaganda, but to articulate what we are for and to correct misperceptions or inaccuracies."
Part of the new approach is to ensure US information is more accessible, with greater efforts to get press releases out in local languages. Instead of targeting only international media to explain the US story, there is a focus on local news outlets, from radio and television stations to talk show hosts and small newspapers.
When Karl Eikenberry, the US ambassador to Afghanistan, takes reporters with him to see projects outside of Kabul, helicopters are more often loaded up with local journalists than international reporters. The US government has provided funds for community radio for agricultural programming in Afghanistan, offering advice to farmers on when crops should be planted - except for opium, whose proceeds military commanders say has fuelled the insurgency.
US funding for exchange programs has also been hiked to try to improve people-to-people ties. A group of Pakistani journalists was in the United States this week as part of that program. Another experiment has been US support for a mobile banking project in which Afghan police are paid via cell phones - a tactic that has also helped reduce corruption.
"The police realised they were paid something like 30 percent more than they had previously known since cash was no longer being skimmed off the top," Singh said. The State Department has also helped fund a social networking system in Pakistan, paying for the first 24 million messages last year. Now more than 120 million message have been sent and at least 8,000 new people sign up daily, Bommer said.
"We want to provide communication tools to the people so they can not only express their views and counter the militants' propaganda but they can be empowered in their local communities," Bommer said.
LONG SLOG TO CHANGE PERCEPTIONS Some media experts are sceptical that the revamped US media approach will be enough to turn around public opinion in countries where US motives are seen with suspicion, and previous campaigns have not been sustained.
"This is a war of perceptions. The US is losing that war through inaction and poor actions. You are not winning when the people don't know it," said Matt Armstrong, a public diplomacy consultant who blogs on the issue at www.mountainrunner.us.
Vanda Felbab-Brown, a fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank, said it would be hard to cut through the vast web of conspiracy theories in both countries. She cited a publicity misfire last year when the US Congress agreed to $1.5 billion in civilian aid for Pakistan each year for the next five years. Instead of boosting support for the United States, the aid was viewed with deep suspicion.
"It was a disaster," she said. Holbrooke's advisor Singh said it would be a challenge. "We have to have the stomach to keep this up and cannot go back to a few years ago when we threw up our hands and said, 'No matter what we do, all these sorts of lies will keep being spread.'"
Comments
Comments are closed.