Issue #114

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

Naazneen H. Barma and James Goldgeier, “How Not to Bridge the Gap in International Relations,” International Affairs, 98, no. 5 (September 2022). Barma (University of Denver) and Goldgeier (American University) develop four “bridging standards” to mitigate problems that occur when academics and practitioners navigate between the dangers of irrelevance and too cozy relevance. Influence: tactical tips and pitfalls to avoid in policy relevant research and too cozy relevance. Interlocutors: finding the right contacts and mix of analysis and prescription needed by government, private sector and civil society stakeholders. Integrity: think in advance about ethical issues in how research can be politically biased by the provider and misinterpreted by the user. Inclusion: consideration of gender and racial diversity, and variations in access and privilege between the Global South and the rest. The authors support their arguments with two case studies: democratic peace theory and peace-building in post-conflict states.

Thomas Carothers and Benjamin Press, Understanding and Responding to Global Democratic Backsliding, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 20, 2022. In this paper, Carnegie’s Carothers and Press focus much of their attention on three drivers of democratic backsliding, which they argue is confined almost entirely to countries in the Global South, former countries in the Soviet Union and Central and Eastern Europe, and the United States. First, political leaders who mobilize grievances against existing political systems. Second, opportunistic authoritarians who come to power by democratic means but who turn against democracy to maintain power. Third, entrenched interest groups, often the military, that use undemocratic means to regain power. More than other explanations, such as disruptive technologies and the roles of Russia and China, these drivers point to the need for democracy supporters to focus more on “identifying ways to create significant disincentives for backsliding leaders and bolstering countervailing institutions.” Their approach emphasizes differentiation of strategies to take into account diverse motivations and methods in responding to democratic backsliding.

Costas Constantinou and Fiona McConnell, “On the Right to Diplomacy: Historicizing and Theorizing Delegation and Exclusion at the United Nations,“ Cambridge University Press Online, September 16, 2022. Constantinou (University of Cyprus) and McConnell (University of Oxford) open this imaginative article with brief descriptions of Iroquois Six Nations Chief Deskaheh seeking to speak formally at the League of Nations in 1923 (and being blocked by the UK and Canada) and indigenous nations protesting exclusion from COP26 in Glasgow in 2021. Do the varieties of observer states, non-sovereign polities, NGOs, and minority groups claiming representation status or special competency at the UN have a “natural right” to be recognized or just a moral right that may be recognized occasionally? Constantinou and McConnell answer by arguing for a right to diplomacy (R2D). They build their case on three related lines of inquiry: (1) the need to broaden application of the right of legation in international law, (2) the rise of polylateral diplomacy and pluralism in diplomatic practice beyond legal sovereignty, and (3) increasing support by the UN for expansion of diplomatic representation. Their carefully reasoned article does not offer R2D as a solution to issues of legitimacy in polylateral diplomacy. But it raises important ideas that have potential to achieve greater inclusivity and equitable representation in a state-centric world order.

Larry Diamond, “All Democracy is Global,” Foreign Affairs, September/October, 2022, 182-197. Diamond (Hoover Institution, Stanford University) argues that democracy faces a “formidable new problem” in addition to the sixteen years of global democratic recession documented by Freedom House. “Over the past dozen years,” he states, “the United States has experienced one of the biggest declines in political rights and civil liberties of any country measured by the Freedom House annual survey.” Diamond challenges critics who argue America can no longer competently promote democracy abroad until it attends to its democracy problems at home. He advocates both the urgent importance of strengthening democracy in the United States and, now more than ever, “a more muscular and imaginative approach to spreading” democracy abroad. Democracy promotion needs a “reset.” Starting over requires (1) military strength to keep democracies secure against authoritarian encroachment, (2) economic strength and technological edge, (3) “a supercharged international public engagement campaign to win over hearts and minds through innovative multilingual media operations,” (4) a campaign to empower and sustain independent media, and (5) bipartisan support for a “global information campaign with the vision, stature, and authority to think boldly.” Diamond calls the demise of USIA “one of the biggest mistakes of American global engagement since the end of the Cold War.” However, like others who lament the loss, he offers little in the way of a 21st century approach beyond calling for “a general” to lead a “global information campaign with the vision, stature, and authority to think boldly.”

Edward Elliott, U.S. Sports Diplomacy, CPD Perspectives, USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Elliott (SportsDiplomacy.org) argues sport is an “underplayed, undervalued, and understudied aspect of public diplomacy” and the US lacks a “sports diplomacy strategy.” His report, based on interviews, detailed analysis, and a literature review, is structured in four sections: the infrastructure of sports including the State Department’s Sports Diplomacy office, values inherent in and transmittable through sports, sports as an economic driver, and links between sports, national security, and geopolitics. His 113-page report concludes with a series of organizational and policy recommendations intended to enhance sports diplomacy leadership in the US government, increase relevant training in the State Department, encourage sports diplomacy as a function in the international affairs offices of US cities, create a sports diplomacy hub, and strengthen partnerships between sports organizations and government departments at the state, city, and federal level.

Alisher Faizullaev, Diplomacy for Professionals and Everyone, (Brill Nijhoff, 2022). This is an ambitious, imaginative, and important book by a writer whose career combines scholarship in psychology and political science with assignments as Uzbekistan’s ambassador to the EU, NATO, Belgium and Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Faizullaev examines diplomacy’s variety of meanings in the context of a core distinction between (1) the traditional “politically” motivated diplomacy of states and other entities and (2) “social diplomacy” by which he means “using the diplomatic spirit and the instruments of diplomacy in social life, including everyday situations.” These are not compartmented binaries; they are treated as predominant tendencies with overlapping characteristics. His book is a deeply researched inquiry into essential concepts; performative means and norms; categories of diplomatic actors; and diplomatic functions, methods, skills, and mindsets. Social diplomacy is a trending area of study. Faizullaev’s contributions lie particularly in his exhaustive examination of the literature and clear exposition of current thinking on social interactions, relationship building, and what he calls “the diplomatic spirit” in social diplomacy. Pages of clear graphics illuminate his ideas. A central theme is that diplomacy is essentially “a peaceful endeavor.” Diplomacy that uses deception, manipulation, and threat of force “is not genuine diplomacy.”

His book raises questions. If the concept of diplomacy is expanded to include most or all human relationships beyond the family, does it lose its particularity and analytical usefulness? Should argument that broadens diplomacy to include “professionals” and “everyone” need to explain more clearly by analysis and example what is not political and social diplomacy? If diplomatic actors are categorized as “primarily” political and “primarily” social actors, what are useful operational criteria for determining relative priorities in contingent circumstances? Faizullaev takes objections to his thinking into account, but he leaves open the door to critique and debate. This too is a contribution. See also Alisher Faizullaev, “On Social Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, September 2022.

Jennifer Homans, “George Balanchine’s Soviet Reckoning,” The New Yorker, September 12, 2022, 20-26. The New Yorker’s dance critic takes us inside the experiences of George Balanchine and the New York City Ballet in the Soviet Union during an exchange arranged by the State Department in October 1962. Balanchine’s perceptions of his native country. Disconnects between the grimness of Soviet security and wildly enthusiastic audiences at performances in Moscow, Leningrad, Kyiv, Tbilisi, and other cities. Contingency evacuation plans after news of the Cuban missile crisis. Balanchine’s reunification with family and personal memories. And his reflections on the meaning of exile after a trip viewed by critics and sponsors as an artistic and political success. Homans’ book, Mr. B: George Balanchine’s 20th Century will be published in November.

Michael Mandelbaum, The Four Ages of American Foreign Policy, (Oxford University Press, 2022). Mandelbaum (Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, SAIS) adds to his impressive body of work with this sweeping history, valuable for its clear prose, provocative analysis, and clearly presented ages and characteristics of American foreign policy. He divides his history into four ages: weak power (1765-1865), great power (1865-1945), super power (1945- 1990), and hyperpower (1990-2015). The US is now embarked on a fifth age, he argues, its features still murky. Three characteristics constitute what he calls “distinctive properties:” an American desire to disseminate a set of political ideas embodied in institutions and practices, repeated recourse to economic power to achieve its goals, and the influence of the nation’s diplomatic character on the making of foreign policy. These themes are perceptively analyzed and well documented. But his history has little to say about diplomatic practice. A few superstar diplomats make brief appearances (Benjamin Franklin, George Kennan, Henry Kissinger). His book does not address colonial foundations during the century and a half before 1765. The roles of public opinion and America’s democratic institutions in the making of foreign policy are a strength of the book. Unfortunately, diplomacy’s public dimension in the implementation of American foreign policy is largely ignored.

National Security Strategy, The White House, Washington, DC, October 2022. National Security Strategies, required by law, signal strategic goals, values, interests, and broad policy priorities. They do not provide clear guidance on the means needed to achieve them. The Biden Strategy is no exception. It lists three “key pillars” for instruments – itemized as “diplomacy, development cooperation, industrial strategy, economic statecraft, intelligence, and defense” – the absence of a dividing line between foreign policy and domestic policy, the indispensability of alliances and partnerships, and recognition that China is “America’s most consequential geopolitical challenge.” In a section on sharpening tools of statecraft, a single sentence is devoted to diplomacy: “Strengthening American diplomacy by modernizing the Department of State, including through the recent creation of a new bureau for cyberspace and digital policy and a special envoy for critical and emerging technologies.” The Strategy continues a longstanding White House approach to treating diplomacy’s public dimension as an unmentioned integrated element of diplomacy. Disinformation and people-to-people exchanges are name checked in the context of advancing an international technology ecosystem through the US-EU Trade and Technology Council and the Indo-Pacific Quad. The Strategy states it is “a roadmap” for achieving “the future we seek.” It is a vision document, but it is not a road map to the reforms and cost/benefit tradeoffs needed to make hard operational choices. See also, “Around the Halls: Assessing the 2022 National Security Strategy,” Brookings, October 14, 2022.

R. Eugene Parta, Under the Radar: Tracking Western Radio Listeners in the Soviet Union, (Central European University Press, 2022). When asked about key precepts of practice in diplomacy’s public dimension, many practitioners mention “listening” before placing greater emphasis on advocacy, dialogue, relationships, and other categories. Gene Parta, who retired as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s (RFE/RL) director of Audience Research and Program Evaluation, and who was for many years RL’s director of Soviet Area Research, shows convincingly what can be achieved when a community of practice takes “listening” seriously. His impressive “personalized narrative” is the well written story of how US-funded surrogate home service radios worked to understand Soviet attitudes, media use, behavior, and public opinion when most research tools used in Western societies were unavailable. It is a vivid first-hand account of who these practitioners were and the innovative methods they used: traveler interviews, audience segmentation, émigré interviews, samizdat literature, computer simulation, focus groups, and more. RFE/RL’s immense and admired body of research – indispensable to program choices and evaluation methods of broadcasters, and decisions of lawmakers and oversight boards – is archived at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. It is available to researchers seeking to understand Soviet attitudes and the role of Western broadcasters during the Cold War. Although Under the Radar’s focus is historical, Parta also offers informed views on building broadcaster credibility and trust, how disinformation can be countered, recommendations for a new research center, and a brief afterword on today’s war in Ukraine. An electronic version of the book can be downloaded at no charge.

Mark G. Pomar, Cold War Radio: The Russian Broadcasts of the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, (Potomac Books: 2022). Rarely are the politics more consistently intense in the practitioner communities that comprise American diplomacy’s public dimension than in the foreign language services of US international broadcasters. Pomar (University of Texas, Austin) is a respected Russian studies teacher and scholar, former director of VOA’s Russian Service and USSR Division, and executive director of RFE/RL’s oversight board. In this superb book, he analyzes the understudied policies and program content of US broadcasting’s Russia services in the context of high stakes domestic and international politics during the Cold War. Although attentive to organizational issues and US broadcasting’s origins, the strength of the book is its treatment of personalities, émigré politics, Russian audiences, and program decisions. Topical chapters focus on human rights, culture and the arts, religion, and glasnost. A riveting chapter tells of his interview with Russian novelist and dissident Alexandr Solzhenitsyn and controversies surrounding VOA’s airing of his readings. Cold War Radio explores a broad range of issues: differences between VOA and RFE/RL, broadcasting’s firewalls, surrogate broadcasting’s characteristics, acrimonious editorial meetings, ideological tensions between different generations of Soviet émigrés, and a fundamental divide between “an aggressive stance and a neutral voice” in US broadcasting strategies. Pomar brings the insights of a practitioner and the critical distance of a scholar to a book that is part analysis, part memoir, part advocacy – and overall a rewarding read.

Anthony C. E. Quainton, Eye on the World: A Life in International Service, (Potomac Books, 2022). Ambassador (ret.) Tony Quainton tells the story of his 38-year career as a US Foreign Service officer followed by sixteen years as a professor at American University. Memoirs of career diplomats typically offer insights based on their experiences, the people they encountered, and the policies that provided context for their service. Quainton’s book is no exception. But his book also rewards for other reasons. The variety of his assignments. Field postings in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America. Four ambassadorships (Central African Republic, Nicaragua, Kuwait, Peru). Senior State Department positions: Office for Combating Terrorism, Deputy Inspector General, Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, and Director General of the Foreign Service. His candor about mistakes as well as achievements. His clear writing. His recognition that the Foreign Service, mired in hierarchy and tradition, needed to adapt to new technologies, greater diversity, and 21st century globalization. Practice theory scholars, Foreign Service aspirants, and all interested in diplomacy reforms will find Quainton’s Eye on the World useful, because its insights remain relevant to what is changing and needs to change.

Targeted Inspection of the U.S. Agency for Global Media: Editorial Independence and Journalistic Standards and Principles, Office of Inspector General, US Department of State, October 2022. State’s OIG report is useful for its (1) background information on USAGM’s mission, functions, and five broadcasting networks; (2) timeline of legislative, regulatory, and leadership changes; (3) summary of whistleblower complaints, alleged violations of editorial independence, litigation, and court decisions based on managerial actions during the tenure of Trump-appointed USAGM CEO Michael Pack; and (4) OIG’s findings and recommendations regarding policies, actions, procedures, and training relating to editorial independence and firewall requirements for the brief period April 30 to June 5, 2020 just prior to Pack’s tenure. OIG’s key judgments focus on unclear and inconsistent definitions of editorial independence and the firewall in “legislation, regulations, grant agreements, and guidance governing network editorial independence;” the need to update firewall guidance and procedures; and increased training and staff guidance. Four recommendations relate to issues in the Office of Cuba Broadcasting. Two address needed reforms in VOA’s annual language service program reviews. The OIG’s “targeted inspection” leaves many questions unanswered. It did not reach conclusions regarding the Pack era events, stating they are still subject to ongoing review by “independent experts” hired by USAGM’s leadership. It did not speak to the substance of what definitional clarity might entail with regard to editorial independence and the firewall. Nor did it address what organizational and regulatory changes might be required to avoid repetition of abuses. See also Courtney Ruble, “A Watchdog Says the Global Media Agency Lacks Clear and Consistent Policies to Ensure Editorial Independence,” Government Executive, October 17, 2022.

Recent Items of Interest

Goli Ameri and Jay Wang, “How US Leaders Can Best Support Protesters in Iran,” October 1, 2022, The Hill.

Sohaela Amiri, “Reimagining Cross-Border Ties Through Feminism,” October 13, 2022, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Jonathan V. Ahlstrom, “Higher Education and the New Scramble for Africa,” September, 2022, The Foreign Service Journal.

Matt Armstrong, “You’ve Told Us Why the Voice, But You Haven’t Told Us What It Is,” October 21, 2022; “Followup,” October 23, 2022; “We Don’t Have an Organizational Problem, We Have a Leadership Problem,” September 21, 2022; “Into the Gray Zone,” September 12, 2022, MountainRunner.us; “Issues Related to Responding to Foreign Language Influence Activities in the U.S.,” August 30, 2022, Mountainrunner.substack.com.

Kadir Jun Ayhan, Efe Sevin, Christina Florensya Mandagi, “Conversation on Methodological Approaches to Public Diplomacy,” October 10, 2022, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Nicolas Bouchet, Ken Godfrey, and Richard Youngs, “Rising Hostility to Democracy Support: Can It Be Countered?” September 1, 2022, Carnegie Europe.

“Bruno Latour, French Philosopher and Anthropologist, Dies Aged 75,” October 9, 2022, The Guardian.

“Chairman Meeks Issues Statement on Introduction of the State Department Authorization Act,” September 9, 2022, House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Courtney Bublé, “VOA’s Leader Talks About Navigating Employee Morale, International Crises, and More,” August 23, 2022, Government Executive.

Anthony J. Blinken, “Naming Ambassador Nina Hachigian as Special Representative for Subnational Diplomacy,” October 3, 2022, US Department of State.

Sarah Cook, Agneli Datt, Ellie Young, and BC Han, “Beijing’s Global Media Influence 2022: Authoritarian Expansion and the Power of Democratic Resilience,” September 2022, Freedom House; Liam Scott, “China’s Global Media Influence Campaign Growing, Says Freedom House,” September 8, 2022, VOA.

Deidi Delahanty, “FSO Selection: Changing the Path to the Oral Assessment,” October 2022, Foreign Service Journal.

David Ellwood, “From Elizabeth II to Charles III: A Triumph of British Ceremonial and Soft Power,” September 26, 2022, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Christine Emba, “The World Is Taking America’s Decline Seriously. We Should Too,” August 29, 2022, The Washington Post.

David Folkenflik, “Trump’s VOA Chief Paid ‘Extravagantly’ to Investigate Critics: Watchdog,” August 19, 2022, NPR.

Robert Groves, “When Does A[n] Academic Field Become a Field?” August 28, 2019, The Provost’s Blog, Georgetown University.

Jory Heckman, “State Dept’s Top HR Official Outlines Vision to Rebuild Diplomatic Workforce,” August 18, 2022, Federal News Network.

“HJD Diplomacy Reading Lists,” September 2022, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy.

Robin Holzhauer, “More Americans Seem to Appreciate Diplomacy. Is That Enough?” September 11, 2022, Diplomatic Diary.

Steve Kelman, “A U.S. Diplomatic Organization That Works,” September 19, 2022, FCW.

David Klepper, “Russia Finding New Ways to Spread Propaganda Videos,” October 5, 2022, Associated Press.

David Montgomery, “Can Antony Blinken Update Liberal Foreign Policy for a World Gone Mad,” August 22, 2022, The Washington Post Magazine.

Ellen Nakashima, “Pentagon Opens Sweeping Review of Clandestine Psychological Operations,” September 19, 2022, The Washington Post.

Raymond Powell, “DOD’s Diplomats Don’t Need More Rank, Just Less Disdain,” August 18, 2022, Defense One.

Lee Satterfield, “Last Word,” September/October 2022, Library of Congress Magazine (p. 28).

Christine Shiau, “A Decade After His Death, Ambassador Stevens’ Legacy is More Urgent Than Ever,” September 8, 2022, The Hill.

Pete Shmigel, “From the UN to The Late Show, Ukraine’s Diplomats Are Winning,” September 26, 2022, Atlantic Council.

Craig Simon, “Sinclair Lewis and City Diplomacy,” September 20, 2022, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Matt Stevens, “The New ‘Monuments Officers’ Prepare to Protect Art Amid War,” August 11, 2022, The New York Times.

Bruce Stokes, “The Decline of the City Upon a Hill,” October 17, 2022, Foreign Affairs.

Zed Tarar, “Did Email Kill the Diplomat?” August 16, 2022, ISD, The Diplomatic Pouch.

Tom Temin, “How To Improve the Foreign Service,” September 26, 2022, Federal News Network.

“US Senate Approves Former VOA Chief to Head US Global Broadcasting,” September 22, 2022, VOA News; “USAGM Applauds Bipartisan Confirmation of Amanda Bennett to be CEO,” September 22, 2022, USAGM.

Gem From The Past

Vincent Pouliot and Jérémie Cornut, “Special Issue: Diplomacy in Theory and in Practice,” Cooperation and Conflict, 50, no. 3 (September 2015), 297-315. The articles in this seven-year-old compendium continue to provide relevant and interesting ideas as practice theory attracts greater attention in diplomacy studies. In their introductory article, “Practice Theory and the Study of Diplomacy: A Research Agenda,” Pouliot (McGill University) and Cornut (Simon Fraser University) frame two central questions. How can practice theory contribute to an understanding of diplomatic practice? How can what diplomatic practitioners do and say advance research and analysis? They go on to discuss how the dialogue stimulated by these questions contributes to research agendas in a wide variety of contexts. Although they define diplomacy in the vocabulary of authoritative representation of polities, relations between polities, and a political process linked to governing, their approach has plenty to offer trending research agendas in the societization of diplomacy.