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
Rebecca Adler-Nissen and Kristin Anabel Eggeling, “Blended Diplomacy: The Entanglement and Contestation of Digital Technologies in Everyday Diplomatic Practice,” European Journal of International Relations 28, no. 3(2022): 640-666. In this powerful article, Adler-Nissen and Eggeling (University of Copenhagen) question a hard distinction between “traditional diplomacy” and “digital diplomacy.” Drawing on fieldwork with EU diplomats, they first provide ten vignettes that combine demonstrations of lived experiences and the authors’ interpretations of how diplomats experience digitalization. The remainder of the article structures a theory of blended diplomacy. It stretches a traditional focus on intentional and strategic uses of digital and media technologies to an exploration of how they are “deeply intertwined in everyday diplomatic life.” Blended diplomacy, in their account, first involves entanglement, meaning that analog and digital ways of doing things have become deeply integrated in ordinary diplomatic practice. Second, blended diplomacy manifests contestation, understood as “new tensions in diplomatic identities and relations” that affect diplomatic life. Building on these characteristics, the authors examine two boundary distinctions within diplomacy: horizontal boundaries between what diplomats “see as ‘real’ diplomatic work and other types of activities,” and vertical boundaries “between themselves and other diplomatic actors, ranking people around status and skills.” Adler-Nissen and Eggeling demonstrate the growing value of practice theory and provide a generative roadmap for further research on use patterns of digital technologies, normative disagreements, and external boundaries that circumscribe diplomacy and diplomatic practice. The entire article is available online with useful links to the literature throughout. (Courtesy of Geoffrey Wiseman)
Elif Batuman, “Rereading Russian Classics in the Shadow of the Ukraine War,” The New Yorker, January 30, 2023, 42-51. PEN Ukraine: “[we need] a total boycott of Russian books from Russia in the world.” PEN Germany: “The enemy is Putin not Pushkin.” New Yorker staff writer Batuman, who in 2019 was a cultural emissary in Ukraine sponsored by PEN America and the State Department, explores the complex literary and political issues at play in this binary. Her article discusses classic Russian novels in historical and geographical contexts. It is written as a “Letter from Tblisi” where she recently gave a lecture on “why we don’t need to stop reading Russian literature” at a Russian-language-study-abroad program relocated from St. Petersburg.
Corneliu Bjola and Ilan Manor, “The Rise of Hybrid Diplomacy: From Digital Adaptation to Digital Adoption,” International Affairs, 98, no. 2(2022): 471-491. Building on a survey of 105 diplomats serving during the first two years of the Covid-19 pandemic, Bjola (Oxford University) and Manor (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev) argue diplomacy is entering a new phase of digital transformation. Hybrid diplomacy, which they describe as a successor to waves of social media and strategic communication, is framed as integration of the physical and the virtual in a “more deliberative, strategic, and systematic manner.” Their article divides into four parts. A review of earlier studies of digital technologies and diplomacy. Discussion of concepts of digital adaptation and adoption—and their evolution in ministries of foreign affairs. Their methodology and survey findings. And analysis of technological and social dimensions of digital adoption that could facilitate or hinder hybrid diplomacy. The authors contend foreign ministries embrace digital technologies unevenly and have yet to “tame” disruption through “adoption” of new routines, skills, and structures. Their scholarship remains a primary source of knowledge on these issues and further evidence of the value of practice-based theory.
Alex Bollfrass, Ellice Huang, and Dan Spokojny, “The Bayes Brief: Designing a Modern Policy Memo Process,” Fp21, January 23, 2022. The folks at the think tank Fp21 continue to generate some of today’s most interesting ideas in diplomacy and State Department reform. In this thought piece, they take aim at State’s well known “clearance hell” with a reimagined policy memo. Traditional policy memos, they argue, are “designed for one-off decisions.” They cannot retrieve past decisions and knowledge, and they lack the capacity to track the impact of decisions over time. The Bayes Brief uses information technology tools to overcome these deficiencies. The template systematically incorporates qualitative and quantitative evidence from multiple sources, stores components of the memo in a knowledge database, displays relationships in the policy process over time and space, and provides a pathway for evaluating policy impacts. The Bayes Brief is a prototype intended to encourage feedback from scholars and practitioners. A 16-minute video is embedded.
Shaun A. Casey, Chasing the Devil at Foggy Bottom: The Future of Religion in American Diplomacy, (Eerdmans, 2023). Religion and ethics scholar Shaun Casey was asked by Secretary of State John Kerry to create and lead the State Department’s Office of Religion and Global Affairs (2013-2017). This book, part analysis, part history, part memoir, is an account of his experiences—and his well-argued threefold brief for why understanding religion matters in diplomatic practice. Religion is powerful and multivalent globally. Lack of understanding can be costly. Expertise, not amateurism or personal experience, is required, because religion is complex. Overall, he makes a strong case for an office in State designed to (1) advise the Secretary when religion affects policy agendas, (2) increase the capacity of US missions to engage with religious actors, and (3) provide a Department portal for external groups, individuals, and governments on issues of mutual concern. Chapters analyze the role of religion in a broad range of substantive issues ranging from climate to refugees to global conflicts. He presents detailed critiques of how religion has been misused in countering violent extremism, pressures on State to distinguish between approved and nefarious religions, and the religious freedom agendas of conservative Christian groups. He also draws a sharp distinction between the mission of his office and the largely partisan driven, Congressionally mandated State Department Office of International Religious Freedom. Casey’s insights as an outsider on State’s unique folkways and Foreign Service reticence about the role of religion in diplomacy are penetrating. Also useful are his comments on relations between regional bureaus and functional offices and examples of the value of public diplomacy. He concludes by lamenting the demise of his Office in the Trump administration and the “virtually nonexistent” capability “to understand the complex dynamics of religion” in the Biden administration. (Courtesy of Eric Gregory)
Beverli DeWalt, Rachel George, and Dan Spokojny, Lifting the Fog of Foggy Bottom: What NASA Can Teach the State Department About Managing Knowledge, January 18, 2023, Fp21. The authors, Fp21 researchers, in collaboration with current and former State Department practitioners, offer recommendations to overcome State’s dysfunctional communication, policy clearance, and knowledge sharing processes. State needs to jettison its “reliance on tacit knowledge,” they argue, and develop knowledge management (KM) systems that accumulate “explicit knowledge.” The KM system that NASA built following the Challenger space shuttle disaster is used as a case study. Their brief paper outlines a KM model for state and poses critical questions. Although the model is presented as holding promise for managing knowledge at State, it could also enable State to leverage its comparative advantages (institutional memory, language skills, and cross-cultural communication capabilities) in whole of government and increasingly societized diplomacy.
“Focus on FS Reform: Outlook and Considerations,” The Foreign Service Journal, March, 2023. The latest edition of FSJ features worthwhile articles on Foreign Service and State Department reform. They include:
· Mark Grossman and Marcie Ries, “Toward a More Modern Foreign Service: Next Steps,” 23-26. Retired US ambassadors Grossman and Ries summarize their report, Blueprints for a More Modern Diplomatic Service(September 2022), which contains detailed plans and draft language for regulations and legislation written by experienced diplomats to implement reform recommendations in A US Diplomatic Service for the 21stCentury (November 2020).
· Dan Spokojny, “From Instinct to Evidence in Foreign Policy Decision-Making,” 27-30. Spokojny, a retired US Foreign Service officer (FSO) and CEO of the think tank Fp21, calls for diplomatic practice to be “more science and less art.” His reform proposals focus on knowledge management, analysis and decision-making, tools for learning, and a curriculum for vital skills.
· Beatrice Camp, “Learning the Ropes Through Rotations,” 31-33. Retired FSO Camp writes about the “proven benefits” of the US Information Agency’s practice of assigning entry level officers to one-year of rotational duties in sections of US missions. She draws on her experience in Beijing, Association of Diplomatic Studies and Training oral interviews with Don Bishop and Brian Carlson, and the views of Martin Quinn, Mary Ellen Gilroy, and Susan Clyde. Much depended on whether support was forthcoming from State’s DCMs and section heads.
· Marshall Sherrell, “Meritocracy at State: Who Deserves What,” 34-36. First tour FSO Sherrell discusses testing, recruitment, vetting, and diversity issues in response to the question, “How do we know who ‘deserves to be admitted into the U.S. Foreign Service?”
· John Fer, “Why Senior Leaders Cannot Reform the State Department,” 37-40. FSO Fer, serving in US Embassy Tbilisi, argues that needed changes in State’s culture cannot start at the top, but must come “by empowering a group of leadership change agents,” who will be given S-level cover to “recommend sweeping changes that the Secretary can approve and fast track.”
Shingo Hanada, International Higher Education in Citizen Diplomacy: Examining Student Learning Outcomes From Mobility Programs, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2022). The aim of this monograph is to examine the impacts of international higher education on “citizen diplomacy” understood by Hanada (Toyo University) as the right and responsibility of citizens to create shared understanding through people-to-people relationships across cultures. Hanada begins with a literature review and arguments that categorize citizen diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, and public diplomacy—and explain international higher education’s contribution to each. Ensuing chapters explore outbound and inbound study abroad programs, international service-learning, international internships, and online study abroad programs. He concludes that all mobility programs cultivate intercultural competence, but student participation does “not necessarily cultivate empathy and goodwill toward the host country.”
“Heritage Diplomacy: Policy, Praxis, and Power,” International Journal of Cultural Policy, 29, No. 1(2023). The articles in this compilation examine the potential and limitations of heritage diplomacy as an object of theory, policy, and practice. The editors, Viktorija L. A. Čeginskas and Tuuli Lähdesmäki (University of Jyväskylä, Finland), effectively explain two concepts that provide context: culture in the context of diplomacy and cultural heritage in international cultural relations. Their constructivist approach treats heritage as a process that emerges when it is narrated, defined, and treated in a specific context. Incidentally and by design, the articles contribute to current debates on diplomacy’s societization, relevance to governance, conceptual boundaries. Full texts of the editors’ “Introduction,” and “An Afterword”by Tim Winter (University of Singapore) are available online.
· Katja Mäkinen, Tuuli Lähdesmäki, Sigrid Kaasik-Krogerus, Viktorija L. A. Čeginskas & Johanna Turunen, “EU Heritage Diplomacy: Entangled External and Internal Cultural Relations.”
· Stefan Groth, “Mainstreaming Heritages: Abstract Heritage Values as Strategic Resources in EU external relations.”
· Viktorija L. A. Čeginskas & Tuuli Lähdesmäki, “Dialogic Approach in the EU’s International Cultural relations: Joint EUNIC-EU Delegation Projects as Heritage Diplomacy.”
· Johanna Turunen & Sigrid Kaasik-Krogerus, “Debating Structural Violence in European Heritage Diplomacy.”
· Cristina Clopot, “Heritage Diplomacy Through the Lens of the European Capitals of Culture Programme.”
· Natalia Grincheva, “‘Contact zones’ of Heritage Diplomacy: Transformations of Museums in the (Post)Pandemic Reality.”
· Giulia Sciorati, “‘Constructing’ Heritage Diplomacy in Central Asia: China’s Sinocentric Historicisation of Transnational World Heritage Sites.”
· Hanna Schreiber & Bartosz Pieliński, “Inviting All Humanity to an Elite Club? Understanding Tensions in UNESCO’s Global Heritage Regimes Through the Lens of a Typology of Goods.”
· Tim Winter, “Heritage Diplomacy; An Afterword.”
Michał Marcin Kobierecki, Sports Diplomacy: Sports in the Diplomatic Activities of States and Non-State Actors, (Rowman & Littlefield, 2020). Kobierecki (University of Łodz) contributes to the growing literature on sports diplomacy with this inquiry into its study and practice. His book explores definitional gaps in sports diplomacy, conceptual connections between sports diplomacy and public diplomacy, whether sport can be useful in shaping interstate relations, ways in which sport is instrumentalized by varieties of states, uses of sport in image building, and the roles of nongovernmental organizations. Kobierecki devotes considerable attention to sports federations and their interactions with states, including particularly the International Olympic Committee, as he makes a case for their roles as diplomatic actors. The book contains comparative case studies and an excellent survey of the literature on sports diplomacy. (Courtesy of Geoffrey Pigman)
Kevin M. Kruse and Julian E. Zelizer, eds., Myth America: Historians Take on the Biggest Lessons and Lies About Our Past, (Basic Books, 2022). Don’t be put off by this book’s overstated subtitle. The concise, well-written and carefully researched essays in this compilation, edited by Princeton historians Kruse and Zelizer, have considerable value, not least as readings for American diplomats. The authors explore how narratives about the past have evolved and been used to distort, celebrate, inspire, and serve current purposes. Some “myths” are partisan, others are rooted in enduring and widely accepted beliefs. Chapters with particular value for discourse with foreign interlocutors include: David Bell (Princeton University), “American Exceptionalism;” Ari Kelman (University of California, Davis), “Vanishing Indians;” Erika Lee (University of Minnesota), “Immigration;” Daniel Immerwahr, (Northwestern University), “The United States as an Empire;” Geraldo Cadava (Northwestern University), “The Border;” and Kathryn Belew (Northwestern University), “Insurrection.” These essays seek to counter intentional disregard for accuracy in historical narratives and give voice to constructions of the past based on the best available evidence. They also bear witness to the late Richard Rorty’s views on interpretations as degrees of consensus and truth as “made rather than found.” “There is no intrinsic character of reality, no one way the world is . . . Interpretation goes all the way down” (What We Can Hope For? 68).
Stuart MacDonald and Andrew Murray, “Soft Power and Cultural Relations: A Comparative Analysis,” British Council, 2022. MacDonald and Murray (ICR Research Ltd, London)argue that key global trends (digitalization, new actors, values in illiberal regimes, audiences in domestic populations, and activities linked to identity politics) are blurring distinctions between soft power and cultural relations. They define soft power as “pursuit of influence through attraction in the national interest” and cultural relations as “creating the conditions for collaboration between like-minded people and countries in pursuit of the common good.” The authors compare activities of multiple counties in three overlapping operational models (public diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, cultural relations, and a unique Chinese model). The 73-page paper also contains a summary of findings (including considerable confusion as to the meaning of soft power and cultural relations), comparative profiles for 13 countries and the EU, a literature review, a statement of methodology, data tables and sources, and a bibliography. (Courtesy of Brian Carlson)
Ilan Manor and Moran Yrachi, “From the Global to the Local and Back Again: MFA’s Digital Communications During Covid-19,” International Journal of Communication, 17(2023), 860-881. Manor (Ben Gurion University of the Negev) and Yarchi (Reichman University) examine how eight ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) used Facebook to communicate with citizens at home early in the Covid-19 pandemic (March – July 2020). Their “domestic digital diplomacy,” the authors contend, was intended to “demonstrate the MFA’s contribution to national efforts” to slow the spread of the virus, repatriate citizens, provide travel information, and assure citizens that diplomatic efforts to manage crises were ongoing. Their analysis shows that as the pandemic continued the MFA’s returned to more globally oriented Facebook content. One limitation of the study, they state, is an inability to identify national users due to Facebook’s privacy rules. The article also contains more general discussion of relevant scholarly literature, the digitalization of diplomacy, digitalization’s effects on state diasporas, diplomacy’s societization, domestic public diplomacy, MFA’s evolving roles in whole of government diplomacy, and the limits of digitalization.
Jan Melissen, Shangbie Du, and Abhiraj Goswami, Public Diplomacy, Oxford Bibliographies, February 2023. The compilers (Leiden University) of this latest edition of Oxford Bibliographies’ online collection of public diplomacy literature concentrate on resources published since 2010. It contains more than 100 works annotated and divided into categories. They include a general overview, soft power, new century/new public diplomacy, beyond the new public diplomacy, diplomacy’s public dimension, science diplomacy, digital diplomacy, consular diplomacy, corporate diplomacy, city diplomacy, celebrity diplomacy, public diplomacy worldwide, sections that focus on North America, China, India, and European Union, and leading book series and journals. Particularly useful is the way the compilers position these resources in the arc of rapidly changing multidisciplinary approaches in diplomatic studies. This indispensable resource can be accessed online at many universities worldwide. The compilers welcome suggestions for additional categories that would make this periodically updated bibliography more comprehensive.
Seong-Hun Yun, “Against the Current: Back to Public Diplomacy as Government Communication,” International Journal of Communication 16(2022): 3047-3064. Yun (Dongguk University, South Korea) takes a thoughtful and carefully researched look at the societization turn in diplomacy studies. Her article begins with a survey of the shift from public diplomacy, viewed in the 20th century as primarily a state-based instrument, to acceptance of transnational non-state actors as diplomacy practitioners. This led to scholarship on boundaries that distinguish non-state diplomatic actors from other non-state actors. Yun then undertakes a critique of two boundaries criteria: (1) “public interests” differentiated from private interests, and (2) “national interests” defined by governments, which change over time and are shaped by a constructivist rather than realist state-centric model. She questions the “public interests” criterion as having a normative bias inclined to “progressive values,” which “by implication” rule out “reactionary values.” She questions “national interests,” because it is indeterminate and creates confusion as to which non-state actors are public diplomacy actors. Yun argues for a return to government as the sole public diplomacy actor responsible for “communicating with foreign publics to achieve foreign policy goals.” She recognizes her “against the current” proposal may be “too absolute.” But it could be a “solution” to the confusion in boundary debates on who is a public diplomacy actor. Her “solution” seems unlikely to persuade many, but she deserves credit for raising important questions, her knowledge of the literature, and her analysis of issues in diplomacy’s boundaries discourse. Her article draws on Kadir Jun Ayhan’s taxonomy of perspectives on boundaries of public diplomacy and nonstate actors (see Gem from the Past below).
Recent Items of Interest
Matt Abbott, “Local and State Diplomacy is Critical to US Foreign Policy,” January 24, 2023, The Hill.
Matt Armstrong, “No, the Smith-Mundt Act Doesn’t Apply to the Defense Department,” February 22, 2023; “R Changes Coming,” January 30, 2023; “Sometimes the Commonly Accepted Fact Is Not a Fact,” January 12, 2023; “Discussing ‘Leadership’ Around ‘Information Warfare’ With Asha Rangappa, Plus Other Stuff,” January 11, 2023, MountainRunner.
Andrew Bacevich, “The Reckoning That Wasn’t: Why America Remains Trapped by False Dreams of Hegemony,” March/April 2023, Foreign Affairs.
Corneliu Bjola, “Exploring the Metaverse and Its Implications for Digital Diplomacy,” February 27, 2023, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Beatrice Camp, “Reagan in China: Don’t Say Anything About the Turkeys,” February 2023, American Diplomacy.
Vera Bergengruen, “Inside the Kremlin’s Year of Ukraine Propaganda,” February 22, 2023, Time.
FP Contributors, “New and Unusual Forms of Diplomacy: From Gastrodiplomacy to Xiplomacy,” January 8, 2023, Foreign Policy.
Nick Cull and Simon Anholt, “The Verdict? The Nation Brands Index 2022 and Russia’s Fall From Grace,” Episode 48, January 2023, People, Places, and Power Podcast; “Season 2, Episode 48,” January 8, 2023, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Rod Dreher, “State Department Disinformation?” February 14, 2023, The American Conservative.
Paul Farhi, “Voice of America Journalists Put on Leave After ‘Russian Propaganda’ Accusations,” February 24, 2023, The Washington Post; “VOA Puts Two Russian Journalists on Leave Following Complaints,” February 25,2023, VOA News; Jason Jay Smart, “Employees Rebel at US News Outlet Voice of America for Hiring Journalists With Pro-Kremlin Records,” February 21, 2023, Kyiv Post; “Media Movement Calls on ‘Voice of America’ to Fire Russian Propagandist Harry Knyagnitsky—Statement,” February 23, 2023, Media Movement.
Robbie Graemer, “Wanted: U.S. Ambassadors for Countries That Need TLC,” January 11, 2023, Foreign Policy.
Joe Gould, “Pentagon Launches Management Reform Institute to Address Challenges,” January 31, 2023, DefenseNews.
Alexandra Kelley, “State Department Creates First Office Devoted to Emerging Technology Diplomacy,” January 4, 2023, Nextgov; Ellie Sennett, “US State Department Looks to Bolster ‘Tech’ Diplomacy,” January 2, 2023, The National.
Tani Levitt, “How a Group of Brooklyn Beatboxers Became Ambassadors to the World,” January 21, 2023, The New York Times.
Kyle Long, “Introducing Global American Higher Education: A New Public Diplomacy Resource,” January 31, 2023, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Sherry Mueller and Claudia Del Pozo, “The Power of Partnerships,” February 25, 2023, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Christian Perez and Anjana Nair, “Information Warfare in Russia’s War in Ukraine,” February 2023, Foreign Policy.
Mark G. Pomar, “Public Diplomacy Challenges in Reaching Russian Audiences,” February 2023, American Diplomacy.
Chris Riotta, “U.S. Cyberspace Ambassador Lays Out Technology’s Role in Geopolitical Contests,” February 2, 2023, FCW; Ines Kagubare, “Russia-Ukraine War Has Improved US Cyber Cooperation, Says Key Official,” February 2, 2023, The Hill.
Volodymyr Sheiko, “Ukraine’s Culture at War: One Year Later,” February 20, 2023, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Tara D. Sonenshine, “Disinformation Amid the Rubble in Syria,” February 13, 2023, The Hill.
Dan Spokojny, “Forecasting in Policymaking: Beyond Cassandra,” January 26, 2022; “Congress Orders Changes for State Department in New Authorization,” January 3, 2023, Fp21.
Matina Stevis-Gridneff, “Russia’s War Breathes New Life Into a Cold War Symbol,” January 24, 2023, The New York Times.
Zed Tarar, “Analysis | Could AI Change the Business of Diplomacy,” February 23, 2023, ISD The Diplomatic Pouch.
“USAGM CEO Announces New Senior Advisor on External Affairs,” February 27. 2023, US Agency for Global Media.
Kerry Velez, “Diplomats, It’s Time to BeReal,” February 24, 2023, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Bill Whitaker, “Radio Free Europe: Cold War-era Broadcaster’s Mission Still Relevant in 2023,” (13-minute video), CBS News 60 Minutes.
R. S. Zaharna, “Public Diplomacy and Wicked Problems,” February 3, 2023, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Gem From The Past
Kadir Jun Ayhan. “The Boundaries of Public Diplomacy and Nonstate Actors: A Taxonomy of Perspectives,” International Studies Perspectives 20, no. 1(2018): 63-83. Five years ago, Journal of Public Diplomacy editor Ayhan conducted an extensive survey of the literature on public diplomacy’s definitions, boundaries, and actors. His taxonomy has five categories. (1) State-centric perspectives that restrict diplomacy to state entities only. (2) Neo-statist perspectives that reserve the term public diplomacy for states and use alternative terms (social diplomacy, grassroots diplomacy) for nonstate actors. (3) Nontraditional perspectives that define diplomacy on capabilities rather than status but accept some nonstate actor activities as public diplomacy. (4) Society-centric perspectives that share most nontraditional perspectives but define “public as people in the global public sphere.” (5) Accommodative perspectives that include nonstate actors in public diplomacy if their activities meet explicit criteria such as legitimacy, effectiveness, constituents’ support, and serve governance objectives. Ayhan’s nuanced analysis is a foundational text in the growing debate on these issues.
An archive ofDiplomacy’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, and the Public Diplomacy Council of America.