The Case for Cultural Diplomacy: Engaging Foreign Audiences
To fight foreign extremism, Washington must remember that winning hearts and minds is just as important as battlefield victories. Military force will not do it alone: the United States must offer desperate youth abroad a compelling ideological alternative.
Helena K. Finn is a senior American diplomat who recently served as Cyrus Vance Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. The views expressed in this article are her own and do not reflect U.S. government policy.
Early in the Cold War, American efforts at cultural diplomacy were funded by the CIA as well as the State Department's Division of Cultural Relations. Although CIA sponsorship would be inappropriate and counterproductive today, that history is a useful reminder of how seriously Washington once took the promotion of mutual understanding through cultural exchange. Policymakers understood the link between engagement with foreign audiences and victory over ideological enemies and considered cultural diplomacy vital to U.S. national security.
Such a perspective is sorely lacking today, when many policymakers appear to believe that military force has become a sufficient response to radical Islamist terrorism. They would do well to keep in mind what their predecessors knew: that dialogue is essential to winning the hearts and minds of moderate elements in societies vulnerable to radicalism.
Throughout the postwar era, desperate and disenfranchised young people in developing countries sought solace in communism. Rather than allowing this trend to continue unchecked, American officials mounted a determined, and ultimately successful, ideological campaign in response. As the scholar Rajan Menon notes, "Few Americans appreciate the degree to which knowledge about American culture, whether acquired by participating in our exchange programs, attending our cultural presentations, or simply listening to the Voice of America, contributed to the death of communism." Today, the youth of the Muslim world, deeply confused about their identity and critical of their own corrupt and autocratic rulers, seek refuge in another extreme ideology that promises a better and more dignified life. The United States, heeding its past successes, must offer a more compelling alternative.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
The United States has put legions of spokespersons on the airwaves at home and abroad in a campaign to "win the hearts and minds" of the Muslim world. So far, however, the world's superpower is losing the propaganda war to a terrorist in hiding. This is not surprising, given the virulent anti-Western messages that repressive Middle Eastern regimes spread through state-run media. Washington should focus instead on bringing freedom of the press to those countries where oppression breeds terrorism.
Dramatic growth has occurred over the past five years in live news coverage of crises and other significant events around the globe. Enhanced media power due to technological advances is a potent new tool of diplomacy. It is also a disruptive and unpredictable force. Its immediacy and pervasiveness raise major challenges for political leaders intent on shaping the conduct of foreign policy.
The Voice of America -- the United States' best tool of public diplomacy -- is being subjected to systematic cutbacks, even as the country's international image is suffering. Washington must reverse the trend or face even greater hostility abroad.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.