So i think that tension needs to be resolved one way with the other, and i think it needs to be resolved around a more Foreign Policy guidance. The way it works now, lets change, since my day, is we used to sit down with people from the state department usually the deputy secretary, once or twice here and say whats on your mind, what you think of the important countries we should be concentrating on . I hope that when i was undersecretary there was more conversation, but theres no real guidance. And i think that there needs to be. The second thing there needs to be absolutely is a we organization of the bbg. The bbg has now have agency. Theres no ceo eric one of the strangest organizations in all of the federal government. The board itself is the head of agency, and the chair really has no more power than any of the other governors. Its kind of a zion to run the show. And by the way, im not sure, as the chair, the new chair nominated. Nominate, thats all. This is the way that administrations and congress treat this organization, where more money spent on Public Diplomacy as far as we know them in any other program. Doesnt even have a full complement of governors. And, frankly, is in that position. So i think something needs to be done. I also think the bbg gets a really bad rap from people who really are not particularly wellinformed about what it does. It does an amazing job in 60 different languages. Broadcasting more hours than cnn does. And we dont know about it because were not allowed to anybody in the United States or show anybody in the United States whats going on. So here is a very, very valuable Public Diplomacy asset that is not being properly used. And its not the fault of the people at the bbg. Its a lack of understanding at higher levels of government about how important it is. The british have a director general, they may wish of more of a sports team. I agree with jim. When i went on that board, its neither fish nor foul, part of the problem but it has these constant leadership challenges. Frankly, my sympathy goes out to the folks who work there and folks in the field because its very, very difficult to do. And i know that Walter Isaacson has opposed the sort of significant reorg which i thought made a lot of sense. Frankly, im not sure where it is these days. But made it more hopefully would make it a highly functioning organization. It is, we need every tool that we have in our arsenal. We need to be able to deploy them effectively. And i think better coordination i think would make a lot of sense. At the same time you got to be sort of aware of the fact that it does have its journalistic Standards Mission which i think are important. In terms of going back to my previous comment, a whole concept of authenticity, you need to have that. We werent able that schmidt i think there are about 40 on the team now, but what we did was put in place, which again i think you had started do a much better coordinating function between a state and dod and others who are doing the same thing so that frankly we can take advantage of the numbers that they were able to deploy against a similar mission. So its in a much more coordinated function with the state actually helping to provide, or at least that was the plan. I have been there for a year, to help provide the messaging into that group, whether the group was housed at state or at dod on the theory that the civilian side of government was better able to understand some of the messaging and would be able, utilizing the resources and a very coordinated fashion to play a really important conversation and games. I can tell you how often i would be out, secretary would be out and people would say well, you know, if you dont believe what we are saying, why arent you in their saying it . One of the great things of our country is we debate. The more that we can go into these environments which are very, very important places to be, and debate our core value, not just explained them, not just lecture, but actually debate our greatest strengths i think will be stronger. So that was one of the ways we really tried to do that. And also to take the benefit of the folks who were there in the field, give information as to who was the important audiences for the bbg. Can i just clarify one thing . When i said more guidance from Foreign Policy leadership for the bbg, i certainly didnt mean that the bbg should forsake or distort or anyway jeopardize the journalistic values. Very, very important. But for example, the bbgs, the board of governors decide where the assets are allocated. In other words, if the governors decide were going to put all the money into india, its their decision rather than the part of the more strategic decisionmaking process. Congress would get involved if all the money went to one country. Do you think . [laughter] theres certain countrys bbg would like to get rid of that congress wouldnt allow and that sort of thing. But im guessing it really needs to be part of really part of the Foreign Policy apparatus. I want to open up to question. We have time for about 20 minutes. Please keep them brief so we can get as many as possible. Go ahead. First time i ever saw was 1967 in taipei at usia. It was in chinese. But now i work with two groups. One is dhi esper diplomats which serves the Diplomatic Community here in washington, and arranges events to show them what goes on you. Also people to People International who post the foreign officers at the National Defense university. Was happen with this is weak, and we take these our homes and arrange events with them, then go back to the home countries and remember us. When diplomats wife went to thailand, shes japanese and she set up an organization in thailand. Last summer we also did the International Childrens festival, where 24 embassies got to show the American Public what they do and the American Public got to learn. One of the things, one of my friends is also with, what was a Public Diplomacy in afghanistan, out in the country trying to help women. So the fact that the Public Diplomacy goes a lot of different ways, we can get the diplomats to come here and military officers, they go home and preach our views back there. I think its a good question about whats the role of cultural diplomacy, and particularly what do you guys found as effective . I like what you said about alumni and we in congress over years ago were a bit perplexed when found there was not a very effective alumni outreach as part of Public Diplomacy. That has since changed much to the benefit because the concern was with either brought folks to the United States or we interacted with him and programs overseas, but that wouldnt have an ability to reach out to them. So for example, if we engage with in any scientific field and were sent them a science envoy, could we have that Science Network so we just werent preaching to the same 50 every frickin time there was a Public Diplomacy event. And that was key and continues to be an aspect. But its a budgetary aspects. The other problem, alumni program, particularly and her younger outreach programs where we bring them in, we have an exit program to access is where started under the Bush Administration where we brought children, particularly in the muslim world, to teach them english to english is the hottest commodity of the. We would bring them in. Anywhere from six to eighth grade, teach them for two years, teach them english and a foreign country. And hopeless then we could engage them in the yes program to one of the problems in the yes program was we didnt have levels of English Proficiency so kids come here could survive. They simply couldnt communicate with the problem is the Access Program is so big that not everybody can get to the yes program. How you engage those children and those students so that you dont just throw them back into their schools where perhaps the american methodology of education is frowned upon and instead of being embraced, they are abused and then you get the boomerang effect. Instead of liking the United States they say i went to the program and not back in my school and theyre beating me every time i raise my hand to ask a question to you have to be very careful, but its important get embrace. One thing to add. I agree with paul on that in terms of from a privatesector background, this is an investment we are making in people, and we need to leverage that investment. I would say that there are tools that are going to help us do that and do it better where we can actually now, as we capture the data about the alumni, be sure that we reach out. There was an institutional barrier as well where some folks who have been at usia did not want to actually reach out beyond that because i what if we have an important event, lets reach out to our alumni and provide them with information that they can take into the communities. And they were like knowing no no, no. We dont want to do that. Worst thing is very precious dollars to achieve our forum policy goals and objectives. If we are not doing that, we shouldnt be spend those dollars, and clearly a huge event in her Educational Programs whether its access or yes or any of those programs. Does become very, very hopefully in most cases positive and powerful advocates to reach out into the communities in ways we sent we cant do. So its important to leverage it. One of the investments were making was to create databases that made this easier for our indices so that they could do it because they are under huge, huge pressure. We keep asking more and more of them. We keep pulling the resources out. Is where technology can be really an important and powerful vehicle. I think initially we had to vent said several minutes of these people and we have data at about 50,000. I think theyve done a lot, put up huge effort trying to improve that. We are at a time in the administration, the second term of the administration were question of legacy often comes into play. People Start Talking about what will this administration be remembered for. So i kind of wonder what you, if you have the opportunity, which he did when youre were in office, at least two of the dead and maybe the others had the opportunity, if this president and the secretary of state, a 20 minute conversation about Public Diplomacy and what could be done that was particularly useful to leave something behind for years from now, what would be, what kind of things would you bring up . Just to give you time to think about, let me remind, the Bush Administration under secretary glassman together with microsoft and a bunch of other people put together a conference of dissidents from around the world to talk about how to use social media in fomenting revolution. And our indices in some places were a little nervous about having these people come to the u. S. Its possible you could see the end of the arab spring at that Conference Held at Columbus University in 2008. Theres a matter of the Public Diplomacy people coming into the state department are often shunted off into consular work for eight years or whatever, for a long time before the ever get to any Public Diplomacy were. Its as though youre in the military and call your officers and send them off to, i dont know, do social work and then suddenly brought them back and said now youre in charge of the squadron. Well anyway, but well, thank you, ambassador. And by the way, as far as the arab spring is concerned, i know that i was personally accused by some right wing bloggers having omitted the arab spring but i wish it were true, because of this event. Although the event enabled me to do. The thing that was most fun of all of all the things that it did when i was undersecretary, which was that i got to call on the egyptian ambassador. I dont know if you really does, and made them come to my office and dressing gown which is sort of a great thing you can do traditionally as a diplomat. Because i warned him that if he stopped the last of the egyptians that we want to come to this conference of doing this, the United States government would take a very, very dim view of that. Anyway, so that was fun. But, you know, i really think, i think the answer that is sort of the broad answer is, in fact, building networks. Whether thats something, is that the current legacy that a president would say hey, we dont all these networks, probably not. But i do think thats what you leave come and networks can be built through alumni. I think thats a great idea. And just identifying the alumni becomes very difficult. Very happy to see that the network that was started with the alliance for youth movements, alliance of youth movements has been picked up by secretary clinton and by judith, and its still around. And thats only one example, but many others that you do, you know, not secret but i dont think i really want to talk about. I think that ultimately thats the most them important kind of legacy. I do think that as far as president obama is concerned that he really has an opportunity Going Forward to do more Public Diplomacy. But for reasons that i said, number one, is cost effective, and number two, it is, it fits the technology of the time, much better, frankly, and any of the other assets that can be deployed to reach, to reach the National Interest. So i think, i think if he were to elevate the importance of Public Diplomacy, and you can do that dramatically three organizations are in a different way, say were going to take a billion dollars out of military budget, give it to Public Diplomacy, well, that would create a kind of change that would produce i think an important legacy. I think, you know, if i were to look at it, probably along the lines that jim has described it, you sort of have an understanding and acceptance that the world has changed. That we will not be able, we will not be able to move our Foreign Policy goals and objectives forward without having a better relationship, better understanding, engagement with people all over the world. We simply cant do it. The world has changed so dramatically and so fundamentally with technology and with information and power now being widely dispersed, that weve got to find better ways of influencing foreign populations. We simply cant go forward. And i think that that is something that this administration understands and has taken to heart, and thats what all the things that we put in place was to do that. We dont have an alternative the we simply cannot go forward to do the things that we needed to in our own National Interest and less we understand that, how do we facilitate those dialogues, how do we build the networks in a very meaningful way. P. J. Talked about what we found we look out egypt adhere to everything that was going on. People, you know, all over governments here were likely to we talk to . Whose important . Heres the scoop. Right now industry theres nobody who can raise their hand and so i can identify who was the leader of egyptian revolution, because there wasnt one. It was coalitions everchanging coalitions of interest moving. As you look at the social media map you see that there was no one leader. So we have got, we as a government and, frankly, governments everywhere have got to figure out to do that, how did he get into that marketplace of ideas. One of the things that we did, not surprising with my background, i was very focused on consumer research, understand what was going on. One of the things i found it in government, we spent a lot of time, hundreds of millions of dollars, looking at economic elites, political elites in others, looking through different lenses. If you just look at it that way, you dont look at it to a more classic consumer lens, then if you are a young 20 year old person in pakistan who is never had a job or doesnt want to a political party, we have missed you so now, in understanding which were thinking about. Potential to are very serious detriment. So getting out into the marketplace, understand building those critically important networks, engage with people, not preaching to them, i think would be a great legacy. I think the legacy i dont think the legacy has been written yet. I tend to look at publicly diplomacy primer through a ultimately the best Public Diplomacy is our policies that reflect your interests and your values, and as i said before, the gap between what we say in what we do is as narrow as it can be. And then challenge for Public Diplomacy is that we make policy on a local basis, country by country, but we communicate global your answers always going to be changed between what you do, visavis a particular country, and then how it relates to your broader pronouncements. So i think in terms of legacy, i think probably the challenge for the administration, second term, is can you connect cairo and oslo, you know, to incredible speeches in 2009, to decisions that will have to be made about bahrain and iran. And if you can connect cairo to bahrain, then how do we feel about democracy, we understand theres a concept but how does it apply to a monarchy that is under siege, thats one. And then, how do we connect oslo as the president talked about just war to a decision that has to be made about the prospect of using military force to solve a difficult and consequential matter of Irans Nuclear mission. If you can eventually