Karen Hughes: Out of Touch, Out of Luck
|
|
The Vancouver Sun was less than flattering in its coverage of new Under-Secretary for Public Diplomacy, Karen Hughes'visit to the Islamic world. Her headline read, "Arab women set Texan straight: U.S. doesn't understand that women are happy in Saudi Arabia, Bush confidante hears".
Hughes' confirmation and first official trip as Under-Secretary were much-touted by the GOP and, dare I speculate, deliberately diversionary in the wake of Katrina. (Accordingly, the resources allocated her were more appropriate to a congressional delegation.) But they can't rely on Hughes to redeem the party. Hughes took a beating in the international media precipitated by her clumsy attempt to broach the issue of women's rights in the Muslim world.
Back in July, reports regarding her new position clarified that, among other things, Hughes was appointed fight anti-Americanism, promote American culture and above all to do intellectual battle with the ideology of radical Islam". Hughes aims to "engage the Muslim world". Hughes has 'engaged' but also enraged her audiences, by her own under-stated admission: "I expected a lot of people to disagree with our policy and they did."
Maybe folks were too busy with Katrina and corruption to prep Hughes?
Someone could have let the Under-Secretary in on the realities of--and internal debates over--women's rights within Islam, hinted that it might not be appropriate to get carried away suggesting the imposition of Western values and Western norms.
Hughes made a mistake in focusing on issues like driving. There better be a supremely appropriate context or frame--thinking hard and coming up empty--to inform women whose way of life and religion are being threatened by your nation, whose families may be endangered, starving, and sick as the result of the Iraq War, that they should care about driving. Her carefully chosen audiences were unreceptive to her diplomatic overtures, Link [told] her she has no credibility as long as U.S. troops occupy Iraq."
Women's rights have long been neglected by the US in foreign relations. As tempted as I am to uncork the champagne over because a high-ranking government official has integrated gender equality into her foreign policy priorities, my enthusiasm has dimmed in the face of her clear cultural ignorance and unfamiliarity with US foreign relations. She'll make no progress, find no friends, should she continue blundering into a highly-charged issue--especially when many Muslim feminists echo Fatma Nevin Vargun, quoted in Newsday as saying, "War makes the rights of women completely erased, and poverty comes after war - and women pay the price."
From Newsday, New York:
From "Turning a Deaf Ear" in The Daily News, New York:
When interviewed, audience members asserted their anti-war sentiments and concerns about the US as a super-power, their emotions and attitudes ranging from disapproval to hatred in delivering this message.
US image is so severely compromised that Hughes must "engage" in repairs before she can hope to promulgate her agenda. But even in a more welcoming environment, pre- or post-war, Hughes' cultural misconceptions would have hurt her chances for an ovation.
Hughes has an uphill battle in improving the US image in the Middle East. She won't win the battle by lecturing on her "Listening Tour". If she truly wants to improve relations, she has to understand them first--and understand the obstacle presented by continued US presence to opening any dialogue, much less conducting a successful diplomatic mission. Flack and diplomacy differ at crucial junctures; compare the need to push a message about an opponent, or to push a version of the truth, as Communications Director and the imperative to communicate, persuading rather than pushing acceptance of policy and perspective as a diplomat. From her first grave faux-pas in attempting to push drivers' licenses on Saudi women to her seeming disregard for Middle Eastern perspectives on US presence in the Middle East, her trip failed.
Hughes' confirmation and first official trip as Under-Secretary were much-touted by the GOP and, dare I speculate, deliberately diversionary in the wake of Katrina. (Accordingly, the resources allocated her were more appropriate to a congressional delegation.) But they can't rely on Hughes to redeem the party. Hughes took a beating in the international media precipitated by her clumsy attempt to broach the issue of women's rights in the Muslim world.
Back in July, reports regarding her new position clarified that, among other things, Hughes was appointed fight anti-Americanism, promote American culture and above all to do intellectual battle with the ideology of radical Islam". Hughes aims to "engage the Muslim world". Hughes has 'engaged' but also enraged her audiences, by her own under-stated admission: "I expected a lot of people to disagree with our policy and they did."
Maybe folks were too busy with Katrina and corruption to prep Hughes?
Someone could have let the Under-Secretary in on the realities of--and internal debates over--women's rights within Islam, hinted that it might not be appropriate to get carried away suggesting the imposition of Western values and Western norms.
Hughes made a mistake in focusing on issues like driving. There better be a supremely appropriate context or frame--thinking hard and coming up empty--to inform women whose way of life and religion are being threatened by your nation, whose families may be endangered, starving, and sick as the result of the Iraq War, that they should care about driving. Her carefully chosen audiences were unreceptive to her diplomatic overtures, Link [told] her she has no credibility as long as U.S. troops occupy Iraq."
Women's rights have long been neglected by the US in foreign relations. As tempted as I am to uncork the champagne over because a high-ranking government official has integrated gender equality into her foreign policy priorities, my enthusiasm has dimmed in the face of her clear cultural ignorance and unfamiliarity with US foreign relations. She'll make no progress, find no friends, should she continue blundering into a highly-charged issue--especially when many Muslim feminists echo Fatma Nevin Vargun, quoted in Newsday as saying, "War makes the rights of women completely erased, and poverty comes after war - and women pay the price."
From Newsday, New York:
"This war is really, really bringing your positive efforts to the level of zero," said Turkish activist Hidayet Sefkatli Tuksal at the session with Hughes at a museum in Ankara.
From "Turning a Deaf Ear" in The Daily News, New York:
"They want to stop terrorism but they are helping it to spread," said an American University student to the Christian Science Monitor after Hughes' talk in Cairo.
When interviewed, audience members asserted their anti-war sentiments and concerns about the US as a super-power, their emotions and attitudes ranging from disapproval to hatred in delivering this message.
US image is so severely compromised that Hughes must "engage" in repairs before she can hope to promulgate her agenda. But even in a more welcoming environment, pre- or post-war, Hughes' cultural misconceptions would have hurt her chances for an ovation.
Hughes has an uphill battle in improving the US image in the Middle East. She won't win the battle by lecturing on her "Listening Tour". If she truly wants to improve relations, she has to understand them first--and understand the obstacle presented by continued US presence to opening any dialogue, much less conducting a successful diplomatic mission. Flack and diplomacy differ at crucial junctures; compare the need to push a message about an opponent, or to push a version of the truth, as Communications Director and the imperative to communicate, persuading rather than pushing acceptance of policy and perspective as a diplomat. From her first grave faux-pas in attempting to push drivers' licenses on Saudi women to her seeming disregard for Middle Eastern perspectives on US presence in the Middle East, her trip failed.
!
