Strategic communication recently made the news because of a column Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chief of Staff wrote for the Joint Forces Quarterly. His basic point was that by making it an organizing item, strategic communication has become a goal in itself, rather than being a process to enable the larger objectives. Lacking credibility and trust, and by having double standards between words and actions, leaves the US in a position where it is not effective. As he states:

The Muslim community is a subtle world we don’t fully—and don’t always attempt to—understand.

In a similar vein, Beth Noveck, the Deputy Chief Technology Officer from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy gave the keynote address at a United States Institute of Peace event “Smart Tools for Smart Power.” She highlighted the Obama administration goal of renewing the US relationship with Muslim communities, and asked the question of how serious gaming or any other technologies can be used for achieving the purpose (and several others).

There seems to be a general and open acknowledgement in the Obama administration that actions speak louder than words, and the US needs new actions (and policy) to engage with Muslim communities. There also seems to be a void that needs to be filled regarding “what should we do about it?”

How can credibility be built without resorting to propaganda and patronizing? How will a culture of respect and dialogue (that includes listening!) be established when the recent harsh memories are those of arrogance and disregard for human life? Abu Ghraib, Haditha and Guantanamo are not just news stories but the reality for many. It will be a long uphill struggle for hearts and minds requiring a commitment that stretches beyond four year presidential terms.

Related posts:

1. Communication
2. Irony in Politics: John Yettaw is Released
3. Saudi Patience: USA and Iran

Saudi Arabia takes national security very seriously. In 2003, after Al-Qaeda affiliates launched three successful attacks on expatriate compounds and several failed ones on Saudi government facilities, the country cracked down very hard on militants, suspected militants, political activists, dissidents, supporters and basically anyone it wanted to.

The Human Rights Watch recently issued a report claiming that 9000 people were detained, of which 2000-4000 are still in jail. Held without trial, sent to rehabilitation camps and in a few cases actually charged and tried in secret, the process has been mostly opaque and violated both Saudi law and also international law. 991 people had been indicted by October 2008 and a further 323 by July 2009. Sentences ranged from a few months to 30 years for those that were tried.

What is known through anecdotes is that soon after the 2003 attacks there were huge crackdowns on faculty at various Islamic universities in the Kingdom. Professors and students disappeared and the curriculum/language has changed to include “moderation”. Officially, “there is no place for extremism in Islamic University.” Additionally, all imams in mosques around the country have to be Saudi and approved by the government; they are monitored to ensure that they are not teaching hatred (some 3200 have been removed over the past 5 years).

Do national security concerns give nations the right to violate human rights? Clearly Saudi Arabia and USA are birds of a feather in this regard (let us not forget Guantanamo Bay). It is interesting that the American founding fathers certainly did not think so:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755

Related posts:

1. Insulting Royalty- Saudi Arabia and Beyond
2. Al-Qaeda Alive and Thriving in Saudi Arabia
3. Rehabilitation, Brainwashing and Terrorism