|
 hat
is an embassy for? Surely one purpose is to represent its country's
point of view abroad. There are at least two aspects to this. Embassy
officials ought to represent that viewpoint privately, to local
politicians, and other leading figures in the host country. A second
aspect is representing that viewpoint in public.
Both of these
tasks have rarely been more important for U.S. embassy officials
than now.
I cannot comment
on what the U.S. embassy in Dublin is doing behind the scenes in
meetings with local politicians, but would someone explain to me
why it is, that in the propaganda battle being waged ever since
September 11, it is doing absolutely nothing?
Let me explain
what I mean by that. With one major exception, all media outlets
in Ireland are either openly anti-American, or else do not have
a coherent, worked out position on the current international situation.
The exception is The Sunday Independent, Ireland's biggest
selling Sunday paper. That is only one paper among many.
The national
broadcaster, RTE, is probably the worst offender. Since the bombing
began, its news coverage has been dominated by footage of desperate
Afghan refugees, rioting Pakistani protesters, and Taliban casualty
reports.
Its current-affairs
discussion programs are all about how the U.S.-built coalition is
bound to collapse soon, how almost anything the U.S. does will be
in breach of international law, and how whatever else is left to
it is bound to fail. American foreign policy has been dissected
piece by piece and almost every aspect of it blamed for the ills
of the world.
When RTE, or
one of the main newspapers here, carries an anti-Israeli item, the
Israeli embassy is quick off the mark. The Israeli ambassador will
go on air or into print himself. If not him, then someone based
in Israel will be lined up.
From the U.S.
embassy, there has been a deafening silence.
I'll offer
a partial explanation for this state of affairs. There has recently
been an almost complete turnover of senior personnel at the embassy
in Dublin. The public-affairs officer, the deputy chief of mission,
and the ambassador himself have all arrived in Ireland only within
the last few weeks.
But it is only
a partial explanation, because even before the change of staff and
ambassador, the embassy did not respond to the routine anti-Americanism
found in the Irish media. Under Jean Kennedy Smith, for example,
no matter what the level of provocation, there was no response.
Back in the
1970s, when a Soviet embassy was established here, it launched a
charm offensive by wining and dining everyone of influence. The
May Day bash was eagerly looked forward to by politicians, journalists,
etc. The U.S. embassy launched no counteroffensive. Its social events
remained fairly low-key.
Only briefly,
at the time of the Gulf War, had we a public-affairs Officer willing
to take on the Irish media. Back then, RTE, etc were preaching the
doctrine of moral equivalence between the U.S. and Iraq. John Tracey,
the PAO, challenged the Irish media at every turn. The result was
that they could no longer preach their anti-American message with
total impunity.
Once Kennedy-Smith
took over, she put a halt to Tracey's activities. Keeping the peace
at any price became the order of the day. To be fair, those were
the years when the Northern Ireland Peace Process was only just
getting off the ground, and it was the top priority.
This led the
embassy to seek strange alliances however. Journalists with good
Sinn Fein/IRA contacts were cultivated. It didn't matter that they
were almost invariably anti-American. One of them all but justified
the September 11 massacres on one of our most-watched shows just
three days after the attacks.
In all those
years, no attempt whatever was made to cultivate pro-American journalists.
It wouldn't be hard, there are only three or four of us, but it
is a fact that none of us has ever been contacted by an embassy
official.
Is this happening
only in Ireland? Are embassies in other countries similarly complacent?
Are they also letting anti-Americanism go unchallenged?
If so, then
it is a serious matter because it means that America is allowing
its enemies a clear field in the battle for hearts and minds. The
United States may be a mighty country, but it does need friends,
and if public opinion in friendly countries starts to turn against
it post-September 11, then there will be a very high price to be
paid.
Is anyone at
the State Department monitoring properly what is going on? If not
there, then is someone at the Bush administration doing it? These
are important questions, and they need to be answered.
|
