Recent statements by US President George W. Bush and some of his top staff members makes you wonder if they’re getting or ignoring advice from people who understand the principles of public relations. It almost seems like a deliberate attempt to undermine their own PR efforts.

Caveat: This is not a political discussion. It’s an analysis of a PR move that happens to have been made by a government institution, in this case the US Administration. It should not be construed as an indication of my political leanings one way or another!

So here’s the background:

After September 11, 2001, the US had the sympathy of the world. That was goodwill that evaporated over the next 24 months or so. You can argue that the goodwill vanished because of arrogant US policies or as the result of deliberately inaccurate anti-American propoganda. It doesn’t matter. All that matters is that perceptions of the US as a global partner and a citizen of the world were so damaged that President Bush called on his longtime advisor Karen Hughes to assume a post as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. The goal: Rehabilitate the US image around the world, and particularly in Muslim countries.

(In case “public diplomacy” causes you to wince, here’s a definition from PublicDiplomacy.org: ““Public Diplomacy seeks to promote the national interest of the United States through understanding, informing and influencing foreign audiences.” Pay close attention to that “understanding” part. It’s important as we move into the next stage of this saga.

On May 25, Amnesty International issued its “Report 2005,” which included criticism of United States detention policies. Particular focus was aimed at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, which the organization characterized as a “gulag.” The report called for the closing of the camp.

In short order, President Bush dismissed the allegations as “absurd” as part of a speech. Vice President Dick Cheny, in a CNN interview with Larry King, said the charges were offensive. And most recently Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called the charges “reprehensible.” Commentators supportive of the Administration were also dismissive, labeling Amnesty International an extremist activist organization.

All of which may be true. The charges may well be absurd, offensive, and reprehensible. It may make many Americans feel better to hear their leaders shrug off the charges with assurances that we would never treat prisoners in the manner Amnesty International alleges. But the facts don’t matter. In the world of public relations, the one truth we all recognize is that perception is reality. And in much of the rest of the world—remember, that’s the place where Karen Hughes is working under an Administration mandate to show “understanding”—Amnesty International is viewed as a credible and effective advocate for human rights.

The contemptuous dismissal with which the Bush Administration has treated Amnesty International’s assertions can only serve to reinforce anti-American sentiment. Regardless of the words Ms. Hughes is uttering in her fence-mending efforts, the Administration’s actions will carry far more weight. The reaction from those at whom Ms. Hughes’ efforts are targeted can only view the Administration’s reaction to the report with one response: “See? I told you so.”

If a savvy PR counselor were working with the Administration, his or her advice would have been to assert the US’s moral authority and reinforce the country’s commitment to fairness and human rights, while at the same time acknowledging the world’s view of Amnesty International. “The charges are contrary to not only our policies but our most deeply held beliefs about what makes us American,” the president could have said. “But of course, we will study the report carefully and make whatever inquiries emerge from our examination of the charges.” Then, a barrage of materials that document the inaccuracy of the report could be produced for global consumption.

Business, unlike government, gets this need to “walk the talk.” Consider Nutrasweet, which is routinely under attack from activists who believe asparthame presents a significant health hazard. It would be easy enough to dismiss the allegations as the “junk science” that it is. But Nutrasweet knows there are consumers out there who may read these allegations and give them some credence, then visit the Nutrasweet web site to see what the company has to say. Contemputuous dismissal could well leave these consumers muttering, “Gosh, maybe it’s true!” So instead, Nutrasweet presents plenty of documentation to support the safety of its product, including testimonials from credible third-party sources like the American Diabetes Association.

Instead of taking considered, thoughtful steps to reassure the audience that is the target of Ms. Hughes’ PR efforts, her bosses have pulled the rug from under her. And Amnesty International has taken advantage of it, calling attention to the fact that the Administration has simply ignored the charges. In a statement issued yesterday, the organization said, “President Bush again failed to address longstanding concerns regarding US detention policies and practices in the context of the ‘war on terror.’”

Whether the Administration is right or wrong, they’re practicing some god-awful PR.