President Barack Obama stated several times during the presidential campaign that he would reboot America's image abroad. Regrettably, that image has been very low in recent years, almost everywhere around the world, a setback for the conduct of American foreign policy. Rebooting America's image abroad would reverse that situation.

The reason why America's image abroad is so negative is that the majority of foreign peoples have opposed American policies. Public opinion polls demonstrate that the publics abroad do not dislike America – its people, its institutions, or its way of life. Many still would love to come to America not only to study or visit, but to live here.

The main government program that addresses the problem of America's image abroad is public diplomacy, often also called strategic communication. Its objective is to inform and influence foreign publics - beyond foreign governments - of American policies, values and institutions.

The general view is that American public diplomacy has failed and that the government must revamp that activity and, if properly done, America's image would improve. More than thirty reports have been issued since 9/11 by reputable foreign affairs organizations and think tanks recommending actions and reorganizations to strengthen American public diplomacy. The U.S.Government Accountability Office has listed improving America's image abroad as one of the most important issues facing the new administration.

While there is a general consensus that the integration of the U.S.Information Agency into the Department of State in 1999 and the establishment of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (which supervises America's international broadcasts) have diminished the efficacy of American public diplomacy, it is also true that the best public diplomacy effort cannot succeed if American policy is anathema to foreign publics.

Policy is made in the White House. It is articulated from there. Therefore, it would be logical if a senior public diplomacy position were established in the White House. Indeed, several of the recent aforementioned studies on the future of public diplomacy, including the report of an independent task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, recommended anchoring American public diplomacy in the White House.

Direct Oval Office access

The public diplomacy official selected by the President should be a person who would have direct access to the Oval Office and would advise the President on the public diplomacy aspect of a forthcoming policy decision and on the most effective way of articulating that policy. The names of Tom Brokaw, Tom Friedman, David Gergen and Ted Koppel come to mind. In other words, persons who are not only foreign policy experts but also accomplished communicators would make excellent candidates.

There is a precedent. In the Eisenhower administration such a position was filled by C.D. Jackson, former publisher of Fortune magazine. Indeed, there is another more recent development that can serve as a guidepost: the creation by the White House of the position of director of national intelligence. For American public diplomacy to be successful, a director of public diplomacy - his title should be director of global communication - should be established in the White House.

Like the director of national intelligence who coordinates the work of several intelligence agencies, the global communications director would have the same responsibility regarding the public diplomacy and strategic communication activities of different agencies – foremost of the State Department's information, educational and cultural (e.g. Fulbright) programs, but also of the Broadcasting Board's international radio transmissions (e.g. the Voice of America). There are several other agencies engaged in public diplomacy and strategic communication activities, principally the Defense Department, that, according to recent articles, appears to have more public diplomacy money at its disposal than the State Department.

President Obama's decision to close Guantanamo Bay has resulted in a change of American policy. According to public opinion overseas, this policy change will have an immediate positive impact upon America's image abroad. If a position of White House director of global communication were already in existence, the incumbent would have the task of advising the President on how this change of policy might be articulated to have the most positive effect abroad. Indeed, he would discuss with the President possible other policy decisions that could reverse present anti-American attitudes.

Reorganizations are obviously necessary to improve the conduct of public diplomacy by the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, but these will take time. However, the appointment of a director of global communication in the White House can be carried out immediately. And it would help the President accomplish his plan to reboot America's image abroad.