Issue #106

Intended for teachers of public diplomacy and related courses, here is an update on resources that may be of general interest.  Suggestions for future updates are welcome.

Bruce Gregory can be reached at BGregory@gwu.edu

Nick Bryant, When America Stopped Being Great: A History of the Present, (Bloomsbury Continuum, 2021). The BBC’s veteran foreign correspondent, now based in New York, provides an outsider’s “tough love” chronicle of the “downward trend lines in almost every aspect of national life” during the four decades from Ronald Reagan’s “morning again in America” to Donald Trump’s “American carnage” and the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. Bryant writes from personal experiences and with an accomplished journalist’s skill. Stories and biting insights populate a narrative that takes an unflinching look at America’s dysfunctional politics, the media, and other institutions in American life where “Virtually every sector is in a reputational ditch.” Bryant recognizes the epic contradictions in American history. He grants that past rebounds followed episodic down turns. He finds this no guarantee for the future. For Bryant, America’s decline is “likely irreversible.”

“Case Studies | What is the Case Method, Anyway?” Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University, April 2021. Helpful ideas and links on teaching diplomacy, IR, and foreign policy decision-making case studies from scholars and practitioners at ISD.

Peter Cozzens, Tecumseh and the Prophet: the Shawnee Brothers Who Defied a Nation, (Alfred A. Knopf: 2020). Retired Foreign Service Officer Peter Cozzens, winner of

AFSA’s William R. Rifkin Award and acclaimed author of multiple books on early US history, has published a compelling narrative of two Native Americans who used savvy diplomacy, military skill, and cultural soft power in a bid to halt the United States’ dispossession of North America’s indigenous peoples. In Cozzens’ deeply researched account, the well-known Tecumseh and his less well-known brother, the “Shawnee Prophet” Tenskwatawa, collaborated to build the “broadest pan-Indian confederation in United States history.” For too long diplomacy scholars have left research on the diplomatic practices of Native Americans to colonial-era historians and native studies scholars. Tecumseh and the Prophet is a welcome addition to an emerging literature that shows how American diplomacy and its public dimension are deeply rooted in historical patterns of practice that emerged in the relations of native tribes with European colonies during the century and a half before independence and continued into the 19th century.

Ingrid d’Hooghe “China’s Public Diplomacy Goes Political,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, published online March 1, 2021. Ingrid d’Hooghe (Clingendael Institute, The Netherlands) examines trends in China’s public diplomacy under President Xi Jinping. She argues that two changes have occurred under his leadership. First, China’s public diplomacy narratives have shifted from promoting China’s culture as a source of soft power to emphasis on the contributions of China’s political system and CCP leadership to global governance. Second, the form and character of its public diplomacy have hardened, reflecting the growing state-centeredness and government control of its implementation. She examines these claims in the context of two case studies: China’s Belt and Road Initiative and its COVID-19 public diplomacy. Under Xi, China has moved to more public diplomacy messaging and an information-oriented approach. Its foreign and domestic dimensions are more integrated. Its policies and political model are prioritized. She provides evidence in the actions and discourse of China’s leaders and messaging in Chinese media. Particularly useful is her discussion of the two faces of China’s COVID-19 public diplomacy – its positive actions as an aid donor and a hardening posture described by the emerging term “wolf warrior” diplomacy. She helpfully explains the latter, a term derived from two patriotic Chinese movies. Wolf warrior diplomats use tough talk and coercive leveraging of China’s economic and political power. The article builds on her analysis of President Hu Jintao’s public diplomacy in China’s Public Diplomacy (2015).

Mathieu R. Faupin and Nicholas J. Cull, “Law, Soft Power and Reputational Security: The Case of English Law,” The Mena Business Law Review, First Quarter, 2021. Soft power, a concept introduced in 1990 by Harvard University’s Joseph Nye still compels widespread attention three decades on. Younger scholars vigorously debate its continued relevance – with reasoned argument and in the time-honored way successor generations challenge conventional wisdom. Senior scholars look for ways to put old wine in new bottles. In this brief article, Faupin (Al Sulaiti Law Firm, Doha) and Cull (University of Southern California) discuss soft power through three prisms: law as a source of soft power, English contract law as a soft power asset for the UK, and the concept of reputational security. The article is useful for its contextualizing of Nye’s ideas that soft power can be gained and lost and that its sources are deeply rooted in governance and society (e.g., law, norms, language, education, science, sport) as well as government exports. It also clearly explains reputational security, Cull’s term for security that is derived from “being known for something positive internationally,” an asset that becomes less efficacious when an actor’s positive image is tarnished.

Alison R. Holmes, Multi-Layered Diplomacy in a Global State: The International Relations of California, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021). In this important and needed contribution to the literature of sub-national diplomacy, Holmes (Humboldt State University) sets two related goals: (1) to understand from the perspective of practice how California’s evolving self-identity as a nation-state is reflected in the rhetoric of its leaders and its actions on the global stage, and (2) to explore the theoretical implications for concepts of sovereignty, governance, and diplomacy. She succeeds admirably in both. Her central argument is that California illuminates a profound change in the relationships between states and sub-national units, “a seismic shift in our understanding of sovereignty,” and ways in which sub-national polities are becoming diplomatic actors in an identifiable category of “global diplomacy.” Chapters discuss California’s role as international actor, theoretical concepts of space and place, critiques of the Westphalian idea of sovereignty, the concept of “indigenous sovereignty” as used by Native Americans, the relevance of “paradiplomacy” as a subfield of study, the growing trend of cities and tribes seeking global solutions to identity politics, and the activities of consuls general in California. This book is much more than a California case study. It is rich blend of theory and practice at the cutting edge of IR and diplomacy studies.

Jessie Huaracayo and Alexis Ludwig, “Can Diplomacy Be Done Virtually,” The Foreign Service Journal, April 2021. Two experienced US diplomats take a hard, skeptical look at whether diplomatic work can be conducted virtually. Their thoughtful article, shaped by diplomacy in a year of the COVID pandemic, offers an evidence-based argument that, for multiple reasons, the crucial elements of trust, nuance, and spontaneity cannot be replicated in the virtual environment. “In the end, reliance on virtual diplomacy will lead to the dilution and erosion of the benefits of diplomacy altogether. Unable to ‘tend the garden’ in person, the quality of our relationships suffers. As our relationships suffer, so does the quality of our understanding, information and appreciation of the complicated context, the subterranean dynamic or the thorny issue.”

“Interim National Security Guidance,” The White House, March 2021. In what may be the Biden/Harris administration’s draft of what will become its Congressionally-mandated national security strategy, there are several key takeaways.

  1. Americans will succeed in advancing their interests and upholding their “universal values” only if they meet global challenges by working with allies and renewing sources of strength at home.
  2. The US will “lead with diplomacy” as “our tool of first resort” – rhetoric that sits uneasily with four centuries of American history.
  3. The US, and other democracies under siege, must lead by example and address systemic racism and other problems at home.
  4. “Economic statecraft” is added to diplomacy, development, and military force as a leading instrument of American foreign policy.
  5. In keeping with recent administrations, “public diplomacy,” not mentioned, seems assumed to be integral to diplomacy.
  6. Traditional distinctions “between foreign and domestic – and among national security, economic security, health security, and environmental security – are less meaningful than ever before.”
  7. To reflect this new reality, the US will “reform and rethink our agencies, departments, interagency processes, and White House organization.”

Benjamin G. Martin and Elisabeth Piller, “Cultural Diplomacy and Europe’s Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: Introduction,” Published online by Cambridge University Press, March 26, 2021. In this excellent online overview, Martin (Uppsala University) and Piller (University of Freiburg) survey claims and issues relating to cultural diplomacy in Europe between the First and Second World Wars. They ask a central question. At a time when European states were struggling with economic depression and ideological conflicts, why did foreign ministries choose to invest substantial resources in “the arts, literature, architecture, education and science?” Their essay introduces a collection of articles on nine European countries, case studies that examine the argument that cultural diplomacy developed because of, not despite, the crises of the interwar years. Martin and Piller explore the historiography of cultural diplomacy, definitions of the term, challenges to the narratives of Americanization and a disproportionate Cold War focus, perspectives on “new diplomatic history,” partnerships with non-state actors as a defining feature of cultural diplomacy, and the cultural diplomacy of ideological struggle. The articles can be accessed as they appear online in a special issue of Contemporary European History.

Ken Moskowitz, “Effective Public Diplomacy: Lessons from Tuk-Tam,”The Foreign Service Journal, April 2021. Retired Foreign Service Officer Ken Moskowitz shows how authentic long- term engagement with citizens in other countries can have enduring effects. His article describes his multi-year connection, beginning in 2009, with Tuk-Tam (“Here-There”), a start-up Bulgarian NGO committed to encouraging young Bulgarians to return from the US and Western Europe to build careers at home. Today Tuk-Tam is a thriving organization committed to launching projects and host to a large global online community. Lessons learned: PAOs should welcome the State Department’s thematic guidance, but State should give field officers wide discretion in setting priorities and creating programs. The best field programs combine shared goals and fully committed local partners. Critiques of “American exceptionalism” will not stick, he contends, if diplomats listen first and take programming cues from “promising local leaders, of whatever age, rank or experience.”

Yascha Mounk, “Democracy on the Defense: Turning Back the Authoritarian Tide,” Foreign Affairs, March/April, 2021, 163-173. Mounk (Johns Hopkins University) takes the measure of recent authoritarian offensives and the failings of democracies in this essay on what should be done by democratization practitioners. He argues they need to rethink the idea of “democracy promotion” and its premise that the future will be more democratic than the past. Mounk calls for a strategy of “democracy protection” focused largely on maintaining democracies at risk rather than expanding the democratic world. His recommendations include: a corresponding shift of resources by the National Endowment for Democracy and other democracy building organizations, restoration of RFE’s Polish language broadcasts, monitoring changes in India that would merit a Voice of America Hindi language service, targeted sanctions against officials who subvert democratic institutions, greater focus on links between foreign and domestic politics (e.g., stiff punishments for corporate bribes to foreign officials, laws that prohibit corporations and sports teams from punishing employees critical of autocratic regimes), and the hard, perhaps unachievable, work of resolving unsustainable membership for autocratic regimes in NATO.

Jason C. Parker, Hearts, Minds, Voices: US Cold War Public Diplomacy and the Formation of the Third World, (Oxford University Press, 2016). In this history of American public diplomacy in the Global South during the first decade and a half of the Cold War, Parker (Texas A&M University) advances several claims. First, US public diplomacy played an inadvertent role in fostering the entity of the Third World. Second, it provided a “kind of connective tissue” between the US-Soviet confrontation in Europe and a widening Cold War grounded in decolonization in multiple countries. Third, as decolonizing peoples became the center of USIA’s attention, they engaged in their own public diplomacy, which opposed racism and colonization, and promoted nonalignment and economic development over the superpower conflict. Parker’s case studies illuminate the historical arc of geopolitical and diplomatic trends. They also, he observes, validate the strategic importance of public diplomacy. His excellent book is an accomplished scholar’s selective investigation of events, personalities, tools and methods, and strengths and limitations in USIA’s early Cold War public diplomacy from, as he clearly states, a Washington perspective. Further research is needed in the archives of nations in the Global South. Parker’s book regrettably was overlooked in this list when it was published. Catching up now.

Victoria Phillips, Martha Graham’s Cold War: The Dance of American Diplomacy, (Oxford University Press, 2020). The strength of this superbly researched book lies in the voice it gives to the many diplomats, journalists, and cultural figures with first-hand knowledge of Martha Graham’s four decades of cultural diplomacy. Grounded in interviews and primary documents, this is practitioner-oriented diplomatic history at its best. We read about American ambassadors celebrating modern dance as a demonstration of “the universality of freedom,” while also insisting that the “trickle down diplomacy” of her cultural expression will advance pro-US policies. USIS reports early in the Cold War contend “the US should replace European countries as a model civilization” and that Graham’s lecture-demonstrations are “the best propaganda to date.” Cultural diplomats wonder if “emotion in output” can gain credibility and if women can convey “political ideas through psychological revelations.” Cables from US embassies discuss how

Graham’s Appalachian Spring will play in British-colonized Malaya and Singapore and the American-colonized Philippines. Phillips’ insights and analyses range wide and deep, making this a difficult book to summarize. Topics include modern dance as an art form that aged over time; the power of dance and music as non-verbal forms of cultural diplomacy; and her comparison of the Graham who claimed she was not a modernist (rather a self-described “contemporary”), not political, not a feminist, and not a missionary – with Graham the politically astute cultural icon who during four decades “waged a Cold War with modernism in the name of freedom.” Victoria Phillips is a former dancer who studied with Graham before turning to the academic study of cultural history and diplomacy. Her book is an important contribution to Cold War history and the literature on US cultural diplomacy.

Anne-Marie Slaughter and Gordon LaForge, “Opening Up the Order: A More Inclusive International System,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2021, 154-162. Slaughter (CEO of New America) and LaForge (Princeton University) give new life to a compelling idea that Slaughter developed nearly two decades ago in her book, A New World Order (2005). She described it as the “disaggregation of the state” into component executive, legislative, judicial, and sub-national parts. Government regulators, lawmakers, judges, mayors, and civil society organizations were working together in governance networks parallel to formal networks of state-based institutions. These new governance actors inevitably were becoming new diplomacy actors. Both the state-based international order (with formal legitimacy, but often ineffective) and an evolving complex networked order (more participatory, nimble, and innovative, but less accountable) are necessary to confront global threats and challenges. Using responses of both orders to COVID-19 and other global health issues, Slaughter and LaForge explore the dynamics of a new networked liberal order with new actors, new connections, incentivized problem-solving hubs, global networks of mayors and governors, and clear metrics that judge practical results. There are ample research opportunities in this space for diplomacy scholars and practitioners.

Paweł Surowiec and Ilan Manor, eds., Public Diplomacy and the Politics of Uncertainty, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021). Surowiec (University of Sheffield) and Manor (University of Oxford) have compiled a wide-ranging collection of essays that focus on how uncertainties driven by political extremism, pandemic disease, weaponized digital technologies, rejection of globalization, societal tensions, a post-truth culture, and other global trends are changing multiple elements of public diplomacy. Framed in a foreword by James Pamment (Lund University), chapters include:

— Surowiec and Manor, “Introduction: Certainty of Uncertainty and Public Diplomacy.”

— Steven Louis Pike (Syracuse University) “The ‘American Century’ Is Over: The US Global Leadership Narrative, Uncertainty and Public Diplomacy.”

— Yan Wu, Richard Thomas, and Yakun Yu (Swansea University), “From External Propaganda to Mediated Public Diplomacy: The Construction of the Chinese Dream in President Xi Jinping’s New Year Speeches.”

— Juan Luis Manfredi Sánchez (University of Castilla-La Mancha) and Francisco Seoane Pérez (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid), “Climate Change Begins at Home: City Diplomacy in the Age of the Anthropocene.”

— Nicholas J. Cull, (University of Southern California). “‘Rough Winds Do Shake the Darling Buds of May’: Theresa May, British Public Diplomacy and Reputational Security in the Era of Brexit.”

— Ilan Manor and Corneliu Bjola (University of Oxford), “Public Diplomacy in the Age of ‘Post- reality.’”

— Christopher Miles (Bournemouth University), “The Manufacturing of Uncertainty in Public Diplomacy: A Rhetorical Approach.”

— Lucy Birge (University of Manchester) and Precious N. Chatterje-Doody (Open University, UK), “Russian Public Diplomacy: Questioning Certainties in Uncertain Times.”

— Zhao Alexandre Huang (Université Gustave Eiffel), “The Confucius Institute and Relationship Management: Uncertainty Management of Chinese Public Diplomacy in Africa.”

— Alicia Fjällhed (Lund University), “Managing Disinformation Through Public Diplomacy.”

— Sara Kulsoom (Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi), “Economic Determinants of India’s Public Diplomacy Towards South Asia.”

— Laura Mills (University of St. Andrews), “Managing Uncertainty: The Everyday Global Politics of Post-9/11 US Public Diplomacy.”

— Shixin Ivy Zhang (University of Nottingham Ningbo China), “Foreign Correspondence and Digital Public Diplomacy.”

US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, “ACPD Meeting Minutes andTranscript,” February 11, 2021. The Commission’s quarterly meeting, moderated by executive director Vivian Walker and held virtually with 250 observers and participants, focused on the Commission’s recent “2020 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting.” A panel of experts discussed the report, presented views on challenges facing public diplomacy, and took audience questions: Martha Bayles (Boston College), Kathy Fitzpatrick (University of South Florida), and Jay Wang (University of Southern California). The full transcript can be viewed at the link.

Recent Blogs and Other Items of Interest

Matt Armstrong, “Neglected History, Forgotten Lessons: A Presentation and a Discussion,” April 2, 2021, MountainRunner.us.

Evan Cooper, “How Can America Fight Disinformation?” March 17, 2021, Instick Media; Evan Cooper and Robert A. Manning, “How to Fix the US Public Diplomacy Deficit: Restore

USIA,” February 13, 2021, The Hill.

Nicholas J. Cull, “‘What is to Be Done?’ Professor Cull Answers Questions About Rebuilding U.S. Public Diplomacy,” March 9, 2021, CPD Blog, USC Center for Public Diplomacy.

Tim Dahlberg, “Ping Pong Diplomacy Resonates a Half Century Later,” April 5, 2021, AP.

Paula Dobriansky, Ed Gabriel, and Marisa Lino, “The Soft But Unmatched Power of US Foreign Exchange Programs,” February 2021, The Hill.

Gordon Duguid, “U.S. Public Diplomacy’s Secret Weapons Are Too Few,” March 28, 2021, Diplomatic Diary.

Renee M. Earle, “Can the U.S. Still Be an Example to the World?” February 2021, American Diplomacy.

Kate Ewart-Biggs, “Cultural Relations in a Time of Crisis,” February 2021, British Council.

David Folkenflik, “Trump Appointee At VOA Parent Paid Law Firm Millions To Investigate His Own Staff,” March 4, 2021, NPR; “Trump Official Cited Security To Kill Visas For VOA Staffers, E-mails Say Otherwise,” February 11, 2021, NPR.

Sarah Forland, “Empowering City Diplomacy is Crucial to Building a Resilient Future,” February 22, 2021, American Security Project.

Ryan Heath, “The State Department Has a Systemic Diversity Problem,” March 16, 2021, Politico.

Robert D. Kaplan, “Rebuilding the State Department from the Ground Up,” February 14, 2021, The National Interest.

Patrick Radden Keefe, “Wind of Change: Did the CIA Write a Power Ballad That Ended the Cold War?” Wind of Change Podcast.

Kristin M. Lord and Katya Vogt, “Strengthen Media Literacy to Win the Fight Against Misinformation,” March 18, 2021, Stanford Social Innovation Review.

Alistair MacDonald, “Global Britain in a Competitive Age,” March 2021, British Council.

Ken Moskowitz, “How Do We Talk to Foreign Audiences After Trump’s Subversion?” February 2021, American Diplomacy.

Sherry L. Mueller and Joel A. Fishman, “Eight Steps to Rebuild U.S. Credibility as a World Leader and a Society Worthy of Emulation,” March 2021, The Foreign Service Journal.

Chris Murphy, “Murphy Introduces Legislation to Ensure Diplomats are on the Front Lines in Fragile States and Conflict Zones,” March 11, 2021, Press Release; Senator Murphy’s “Expeditionary Diplomacy Act of 2021,” March 11, 2021; Robbie Gramer, “New Bill Takes Aim at State Department’s ‘Bunker Mentality,’” March 10, 2021, Foreign Policy.

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “How I Got Here,” March 14, 2021, Foreign Affairs Career Center. Dinyar Patel, “Go Abroad, Young American,” March 29, 2021, Foreign Affairs.

“Putin’s Latest Aggression Could Silence U.S. Media Operations in Russia,” February 13, 2021, Editorial Board, The Washington Post.

Kishan S. Rana, “Multilateral Training and Work at Foreign Ministries,” February 2021, American Diplomacy.

Greg Starr and Ronald E. Neumann, “Changing a Risk-Averse Paradigm at High-Threat Posts Abroad,” March 2021, The Foreign Service Journal.

Yasmeen Serhan, “The Ultimate Symbol of America’s Diminished Soft Power,” February 2021, The Atlantic.

Pranshu Verma, “Under Biden, Diplomacy Is An Attractive Career Again,” March 27, 2021, The New York Times.

Matthew Wallin, “10 Reasons Disinformation is Appealing,” February 23, 2021, American Security Project.

Fareed Zakaria, “America is Becoming More Imperial Than Empires Were. That’s a Mistake,” February 25, 2021, The Washington Post.

Gem From The Past

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., The Future of Power, (Public Affairs: 2011). It has been ten years since Nye (Harvard University) published this magisterial synthesis of his decades of scholarship on the nature and types of power. In diplomacy and communication studies, Nye is best known for his concept of soft power, views on the study and practice of public diplomacy, and the paradox derived from an amplitude of information and poverty of attention. His thinking is invoked and critiqued, explored in analytical deep dives, often cited casually, and frequently misunderstood. The Future of Power continues to reward for its academic rigor, its discussion of 21st century power shifts among states and from states to nonstate actors, its examination of hard, soft, and smart power categories in the context of global trends, its insights into public diplomacy “done more by publics,” and its original analysis of cyberpower in “a new and volatile human-made environment.” For those seeking to “move beyond Nye,” here’s the thing. When

revisionist arguments are advanced, one usually finds on close examination that he has anticipated your move in a footnote, in a chapter, in a line of argument advanced decades ago.

An archive of Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: Books, Articles, Websites (2002-present) is maintained at George Washington University’s Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication. Current issues are also posted by the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy, the Public Diplomacy Council, and MountainRunner.us