Simon Anholt. Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities, and Regions, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. The originator of the phrase “nation branding” revises and expands his idea of “brand management.” Categories in his “hexagon of competitive identity” include tourism, brands, policy, investment, culture, and people. Contains Anholt’s assessment of public diplomacy, a “theory of competitive identity,” and “a sketch of the main drivers, challenges and opportunities in the field, interspersed with case notes.”
Thomas Carothers, et al. “A Conversation Continued: Debating Democracy,” National Interest online, July 1, 2007 [Also in The National Interest, Jul./Aug. 2007, 8-13]. The Carnegie Endowment’s democracy expert contends that despite a “gleaming edifice around democracy promotion,” the notion that it “plays a dominant role in Bush [foreign] policy is a myth.” The irony, Carothers suggests, is that the administration has soured many in and outside the U.S. on the value of support for democracy while having “only a limited engagement in democracy promotion.” Needed is a searching debate on how the U.S. can get back on track with bipartisan support for a legitimate democracy agenda. The online edition contains replies and contrasting views from Andrew Bacevich (Boston University), Wayne Merry (American Foreign Policy Council), Robert W. Merry (Congressional Quarterly), and Amitai Etzioni (George Washington University).
Steven R. Corman, Angela Trethewey, and Bud Goodall. A 21st Century Model for Communication in the Global War of Ideas: From Simplistic Influence to Pragmatic Complexity, Report #0701, Consortium for Strategic Communication. The authors argue that US strategic communication efforts rely on an outdated “message influence model” that focuses problematically on “simply delivering the right message.” They offer a new “pragmatic complexity model” based on four principles: “(1) Deemphasize control and embrace complexity, (2) replace repetition with variation, (3) consider disruptive motives, and (4) expect and plan for failure.”
Ingrid d’Hooge. The Rise of China’s Public Diplomacy, Clingendael Diplomacy Paper 12, July 2007, 36 pp, Clingendael Diplomatic Studies Programme (CDSP), The Hague. d’Hooge, a China specialist and senior research associate at CDSP, concludes that China’s leaders are using “more time, money, and effort” to deal with its “problematic image” in many parts of the world. “An increasing number of Chinese individuals and civil society groups are participating in global networks with public and private actors, bringing new dynamics to China’s interaction with the world. China’s government, for its part, seeks to incorporate these new dynamics into its public diplomacy strategy.” A summary is available online. The paper can be ordered by email from Clingendael.
James, J. F. Forest, ed. Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the 21st Century, Vol. 1, Strategic and Tactical Considerations, Vol. 2, Containing the Sources and Facilitators, Vol. 3, Lessons from the Fight Against Terrorism, Praeger Security International, 2007. Edited by the Director of Terrorism Studies at the U.S. Military Academy, this ambitious 3-volume set contains 85 essays and case studies.
The Table of Contents, Editors Note, and Preface to each volume are available online.
– Six chapters in Vol. 1 appear under the heading, “Soft Power.”
– Robert J. Pauly, Jr. (University of Southern Mississippi) and Robert Redding (U.S. Army), “Denying Terrorists Sanctuary Through Civil Military Operations,” Chapter 14.
– James S. Robbins (National Defense University), “Battlefronts in the War of Ideas,” Chapter 15.
– Maha Azzam-Nusseibeh (Chatham House, London), “The Centrality of Ideology in Counterterrorism Strategies in the Middle East,” Chapter 16.
– Bruce Gregory (George Washington University), “Public Diplomacy as Strategic Communication,” Chapter 17.
– Timothy L. Thomas (Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth ), “Cyber Mobilization: The Neglected Aspect of Information Operations and Counterinsurgency Doctrine,” Chapter 18.
– Jerrold M. Post (George Washington University), “The Key Role of Psychological Operations in Countering Terrorism,” Chapter 19.
Michele M. Fugiel. U.S. Public Diplomacy and the American Experience: A Theoretical Evolution from Consent to Engagement, M.A. Thesis, University of London, September 2005. The author examines U.S. public diplomacy in the context of concepts of political power and limitations in the U.S. public diplomacy model. She calls for a model in which the roles of government and civil society “must be reflexive,” and urges “domestic development of critical consciousness and a dialogic understanding of learning.”
Daniel Kimmage and Kathleen Riodolfo. The War of Images and Ideas: How Sunni Insurgents in Iraq and Their Supporters Worldwide are Using the Media, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Special Report, June 2007. Key findings: (1) Sunni insurgents in Iraq and their supporters worldwide are using the Internet to pursue a media campaign directed at educated, influential segments of the Arab world; (2) media content is a high quality mix of news, religion, and entertainment aimed at the video game generation and a wide variety of traditional and next generation Internet consumers; (3) Iraq’s insurgent media are used by mainstream Arab media and global jihadist media; and (4) the Sunni insurgents’ media network is decentralized, fast-moving, and technologically adaptive. The report contains numerous graphics and can be downloaded in pdf format.
Kristin M. Lord. “U.S. Public Diplomacy: Can Science Help?” Foreign Service Journal, July/August, 2007, 14-15. Lord, Associate Dean of George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, urges enhanced cooperation between the State Department’s science and technology experts and America’s scientific community in programs to engage foreign scientists, engineers, and doctors on global issues: health, water, pollution, conservation, and clean energy. In so doing, the U.S. can leverage expertise in State (and nine other U.S. agencies with extensive foreign programs) in a public diplomacy of deeds on issues which are global and linked by common interests.
Iver B. Neumann. “‘A Speech That the Entire Ministry May Stand for,’ or Why Diplomats Never Produce Anything New,” International Political Sociology (2007) 1, 183-200. Drawing on speech writing practices in the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo University professor Neumann contends that foreign ministry speeches are identity building projects “with the resulting text serving as an instantiation of the Ministry itself.” Speech writing practices are for the most part a closed process, wherein each part of the ministry seeks to demonstrate the importance of its area of responsibility. Attention to audience is limited. He concludes that change will reach the interior of a foreign ministry from its margins, “where the cost of non-adaptibility is most keenly felt.” Change in diplomacy therefore will likely “be initiated by politicians, not by diplomats themselves.”
Robert B.Oakley and Michael Casey, Jr. The Country Team: Restructuring America’s First Line of Engagement, Strategic Forum No. 227, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, forthcoming July 2007. The authors challenge the conventional wisdom that U.S. embassy country teams generally operate well compared with organizations and interagency processes in Washington. Unprecedented transnational threats and weak governance in fragile states “do not fall neatly into diplomacy’s traditional categories:” political, public diplomacy, economic, consular. Interagency collaboration is often “a hit or miss proposition, due to diluted authority, antiquated organizational structures, and insufficient resources.” Experts collaborating on the study: John Agoglia, Gary Anderson, Michael S. Bell, Robert Feidler, Robert Grenier, Donald Hays, Princeton Lyman, John McLaughlin, Robert Pearson, Anthony Quainton, David Rhoad, Michael Welken, Anne Witkowsky, and Casimir Yost..
Project on National Security Reform (PNSR). PNSR is non-partisan initiative established to study and make recommendations to change the National Security Act of 1947 and to implement “comprehensive reform of the regulatory, statutory, and Congressional oversight authorities that govern the interagency system.” Information on the project’s sponsors, working groups, case studies, literature reviews, and events are available on its website.
Al Richman. [www.publicopinionpros.com/features/2007/Jul/richman_printable.asp “Diplomacy Challenges in Denying Iran Nuclear Weapons,”] Public Opinion Pros, July/August, 2007. Former State Department and USIA public opinion research analyst Richman assesses eight recent multi-country surveys on world opinion toward a nuclear-armed Iran and prospects for the U.S. to partner with other nations in handling this issue. The first section includes international survey data on the perceived threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran and the mix of pressures and incentives preferred by different publics to deal with this threat. The second section identifies those publics most likely to work with the United States and the various tracks diplomacy could take to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Dennis Ross. Statecraft and How to Restore America’s Standing in the World, Farrar, Strauss, Giroux, 2007. Veteran diplomat and Middle East negotiator Ross offers an informed primer on statecraft, which he defines as “knowing how best to integrate and use every asset or military, diplomatic, intelligence, public, economic, or psychological tool we possess (or can manipulate) to meet our objectives.” Ross provides a well written analysis of methods and issues, case studies, and judgments on the uses of statecraft in a world were non-state actors and a globalizing world present new challenges. His assessment of negotiating strategies includes an appreciation of the media and public diplomacy. In retrospect, he states candidly that during his negotiations in the Clinton years, “I was far to cautious in using the media to set a tone and convey messages to all sides and their publics.”
Anne-Marie Slaughter. The Idea That Is America: Keeping Faith with Our Values in a Dangerous World, Basic Books, 2007. The Dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School asks and answers the question: “How should we stand for our values in the world in a way that is consistent with our values?” Her chapters in this slim volume deal with liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility, and faith. “If we are serious that our greatest strength is not in our army, our land, or our wealth,” she argues, “but is instead in our values, then we must rethink a whole set of current strategies and practices to reflect and promote those values.”
David Steven. Evaluation and the New Public Diplomacy, Presentation to the Future of Public Diplomacy Conference, Wilton Park, UK, March 2, 2007. Steven, Managing Director of River Path Associates and a consultant with the UK’s Public Diplomacy Board, discusses “a system for measuring public diplomacy performance” and a research agenda presented to the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office, British Council, and BBC World Service.
U.S. National Strategy for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication, Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC), June 2007. Directed and released by Karen Hughes, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs and chair of the PCC (created by the National Security Council in April, 2006), the strategy provides a statement of “mission and priorities,” “strategic objectives,” “strategic audiences,” and “public diplomacy priorities” (including a “diplomacy of deeds”); descriptions of “the overall mechanism by which we coordinate public diplomacy across the interagency community” and “initial communication activities;” and a call for “significantly increased funding for all public diplomacy and strategic communication programs.”
U.S. General Accountability Office. U.S. Public Diplomacy: Actions Needed to Improve Strategic Use and Coordination of Research, July 18, 2007, GAO-07-904. GAO’s recent addition to its substantial collection of public diplomacy studies reviews research activities conducted by State, USAID, DoD, Fort Bragg, MacDill AFB, BBG, Open Source Center, and the British government. GAO’s key finding: “DoD and USAID use program-specific research to design, implement, and evaluate the impact of thematic communication efforts created to influence the attitudes and behaviors of target audiences. In contrast, we found that State has generally not adopted a research-focused approach to implement its thematic communication efforts.” Deficiencies in all agencies include lack of systematic means to assess user needs and satisfaction and lack of interagency protocols for sharing information. The report was requested by Senator Richard Luger.
Linton Wells. “Strategic Communications and the Battle of Ideas: Winning the Hearts and Minds in the Global War Agains Terrorists,“ Statement before the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, House Armed Services Committee, July 11, 2007. National Defense University professor Wells (until recently Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration) discusses: (1) “The importance of strategic communication and the need to synchronize deeds and words;” (2) “A summary of U.S. Government strategic communication initiatives, limitations, challenges, and successes;” (3) “The importance of non-governmental actions in strategic communication;” and (4) “Some ways ahead.”
Additional statements on strategic communication at the Subcommittee’s July 11 hearing include:
Franklin D. Kramer, Distinguished Research Fellow, Center for Technology and National Security Policy,“Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.”
Amy Zalman, (Policy Analyst, Science Applications International Corporation), “Strategic Communications and the Battle of Ideas.”
Gem From The Past
This list will occasionally include older resources that have continuing value for teachers, students, and practitioners. Some items may be out of print.
Glen Fisher. Mindsets: The Role of Culture and Perception in International Relations, Intercultural Press, 1988. Combining credentials as a scholar and twenty-two years in the Foreign Service, Fisher draws on anthropology, social psychology, and other academic disciplines to argue the importance of understanding cultures and “mindsets” in diplomacy and international engagement. Fisher’s short well-written volume contains chapters on perception and reasoning in psychological process, cultural patterns, and practical advice for “diagnosing mindsets.”