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
Phillip Arceneaux, “Information Intervention: A Taxonomy & Typology for Government Communication,” Journal of Public Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 1, 5-35. Arceneaux (Miami University) tackles the enormous task of sorting out definitions, terms, and types of core behavior in government communication. He settles on a typology of four methods of “Information Intervention” – public diplomacy (PD), public affairs (PA), psychological operations (PSYOP), and propaganda. They are meant to categorize “who communicates with what audience, in what manner, with what intent, and with what desired outcomes.” He classifies methods in a taxonomy: PD and PA as “information politics,” PSYOP and propaganda as “information operations.” His research is grounded in semi-structured in-depth interviews with 18 leading diplomacy and communication scholars. Their views are summarized in multiple categories: actors, manner of communication, target audience, method for content creation, model of communication flow, end goal intent, and policy outcome. Arceneaux’s paper is a thoughtful and well-organized analysis. He prompts many questions and opens the door to further inquiry – by practitioners and scholars – as actors multiply, transnational issues become more complex, boundaries both blur and remain necessary, and diplomacy becomes more whole of government and whole of society.
Paul C. Avey, et al., “Does Social Science Inform Foreign Policy? Evidence from a Survey of US National Security, Trade, and Development Officials,” International Studies Quarterly, (2021) 0, 1-19. A large gap disconnects academic research from foreign affairs practice. Scholars and practitioners have made great progress in bridging the gap. Both propositions have highly regarded defenders. Avey (Virginia Tech), Michael C. Desch (University of Notre Dame), Eric Parajon (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), Susan Peterson (William & Mary), Ryan Powers (University of Georgia), and Michael J. Tierney (William & Mary) put the issue to practitioners in a large, well-constructed survey of when and how they use academic research in their work and how they view academics. A brief summary cannot do justice to their closely reasoned findings. On the upside, practitioners frequently engage with academic ideas. Academic knowledge can influence their views. Practitioners seek scholarly expertise and are not averse to quantitative methods. Practitioners are more receptive to books and articles than commentary on social media. On the downside, scholars are not providing the kind of policy analysis practitioners want. Much academic work is perceived as too abstract and not timely. Research on policy analysis and prescriptions has steadily declined since 1980. Practitioners value scholarly consensus, but IR is a contentious field. The authors recommend academics make clear and persuasive arguments for why scholarly research matters, more articles and short form pieces for busy practitioners, timely research clearly presented, and greater attention to demonstrating the value of academic research when teaching future (and mid-career) practitioners.
Caitlin Byrne, “Truth, Lies, and Diplomacy,” Griffith Review 67, August 25, 2020. Byrne (scholar, former diplomat, and director of the Griffith Asia Institute) reflects on the meaning of trust in diplomacy’s private and public dimensions. She considers the challenges of diplomacy in the digital era, the “much needed ‘democratization’ of diplomacy,” difficulties faced by Australia as a middle power, and concerns created by authoritarian leaders feeding distrust about diplomacy and its practitioners. A brief, thought-provoking meditation by one of Australia’s best scholar-practitioners.
Nicholas J. Cull and Michael K. Hawes, eds., Canada’s Public Diplomacy, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021). In his memoir thirty years ago, Canada’s prescient former ambassador to the United States Allan Gotlieb wrote that the “new diplomacy . . . is largely public diplomacy and requires different skills, techniques, and attitudes” (I’ll be with you in a minute, Mr. Ambassador: The Education of a Canadian Diplomat in Washington, 1990). In a pioneering speech at the US Institute of Peace in 1997, Canada’s deputy foreign minister Gordon Smith spoke to “The Challenge of Virtual Diplomacy.” In recent years, influential books and articles by Canada’s diplomats and scholars, including notably Daryl Copeland, Evan Potter, Janice Stein, and Andrew Cooper, have done much to shape study and practice in diplomacy’s public dimension. US practitioners and scholars have a lot to learn from their neighbors to the north. In Canada’s Public Diplomacy, Cull (University of Southern California) and Hawes (Fulbright Canada and Queen’s University) have compiled essays by experts on Canada’s public diplomacy past and present, current debates about “revitalizing” its global engagement, and issues in the use of digital tools, cultural diplomacy, international broadcasting, and other domains. Happily, the paperback edition is affordably priced at under $20. In addition to Cull and Hawes, contributors include Andrew Cooper (University of Waterloo), Daryl Copeland (University of Montreal), Bernard Duhaime and Camille Labadie (Université du Québec à Montréal), Mark Kristmanson (formerly National Capital Commission), Evan Potter (University of Ottawa), Sarah K. E. Smith (Carleton University), Stefanie von Hlatky (Queen’s University), and Ira Wagman (Carleton University).
Joel Ehrendreich, “State U – A Proposal for Professional Diplomatic Education and Outreach for America,” The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2021. Ehrendreich, a senior Foreign Service Officer, argues the State Department should implement professional diplomatic education (PDE) for the same reasons the US military has long prioritized professional military education (PME). It’s not a new idea. Ambassador (ret.) Ronald Neumann and a team at the Stimson Center made a strong case for PDE a decade ago. (Forging a 21st-Century Diplomatic Service for the the United States through Professional Education and Training,2011). But Ehrendreich helpfully puts the argument in a new context. First, the view that State’s officers need more than entry-level orientation, language training, and area studies is gaining traction. To compete in today’s world, they need a culture of learning. Second, posting hundreds of FSOs around the United States for a year of PDE would help to build a stronger domestic constituency and gain support for policies and resources. Third, PDE at scale would contribute to strengthening collaborative relations with American cities and states that are becoming active participants in global diplomacy. His article addresses the cost and training float issues that have long blocked PDE and suggests the possibility of greater receptivity in the current Congress. As in the past, the goal is compelling, but a viable roadmap remains obscure.
Benjamin Goldsmith, Yusaku Horiuchi, and Kelly Matush, “Does Public Diplomacy Sway Foreign Public Opinion? Identifying the Effect of High-Level Visits,” American Political Science Review, published online by Cambridge University Press, June 7, 2021. Based on empirical analysis of visits from leaders in nine countries and surveys of public opinion in 38 host countries, Goldsmith (Australian National University), Horiuchi (Dartmouth College), and Matush (Florida State University) make several claims. (1) There is a “substantial positive shift in approval of the leadership of a visiting country after a high-level visit, relative to the comparable previsit period.” (2) Public diplomacy activities drive “relatively long lasting” effects in public opinion. These effects disappear in visits without evidence of public diplomacy. (3) In most cases, “military capability differentials between visiting and host countries do not appear to confer an advantage in the influence of public diplomacy.” (4) Their evidence “challenges the perspective that public diplomacy can be easily dismissed as a mere performance. High-level visits have a significant, positive influence on foreign public opinion, and a variety of countries have access to this tool.” Scholars will find this analysis of two extensive data sets of interest for its methodology and research implications. Practitioners should welcome this rare article on diplomatic practice in one of America’s leading political science journals.
Charles King, “The Fulbright Paradox: Race and the Road to a New American Internationalism,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2021, 92-106. King (Georgetown University) sets three goals in this finely crafted essay. First, he portrays two sides of J. William Fulbright. The Rhodes scholar, internationalist, and Democratic Senator who supported the UN, challenged McCarthyism, worked to end the Vietnam war, and founded the eponymous Fulbright scholarships. And Fulbright the “racist” who opposed integration in public schools and voted against 1960s civil rights legislation. Evidence of his years defending racial apartheid is not overcome by his claims later in life, partly true, that these actions were tactical requirements for an Arkansas politician. Second, King argues Fulbright is a clarifying case. He convincingly shows that Fulbright was “representative of a certain species of midcentury internationalist: white, male, patrician in style if not background, and schooled in both the superiority of Anglo-Saxon civilization and the obligations of noblesse.” His combination of open-mindedness abroad and bigotry at home aligns with the broad conviction of many Americans that great power statecraft requires a divide between domestic politics and foreign policy. Fulbright’s vision and myopia are the story of America’s 20th century rise to power. Third, Fulbright remains deeply relevant today. “What price does a racially ordered polity pay for its global role?”
Carter Malkasian, The American War in Afghanistan: A History, (Oxford University Press, 2021). Carter Malkasian is a gifted scholar-practitioner, fluent Pashto speaker, advisor to former Joint Chiefs Chairman Joseph Dunford, former State Department political officer in Afghanistan, and widely acclaimed expert on America’s longest war. His book arrives just in time to provide bedrock for the coming tidal wave of assessments. Malkasian gives us a rich blend of broad themes and granular detail – drawing on a wealth of primary sources, secondary accounts, and personal insights. His story is about war and diplomacy from the perspectives of leaders (tribal and national), warriors (uniformed, paramilitary, and guerrilla) and diplomats (civilian and military). He supports many conventional explanations. Tribal infighting as a constant source of instability. Pakistan’s role in undermining peace. The Afghan government’s corruption and mistreatment of its people. The Iraq war, a US strategic blunder that distracted attention and swallowed resources. US refusal to talk with the Taliban until 2010. Afghans alienated by airstrikes, drones, and night raids. Obama’s surge deadline. But his central theme is the Taliban prevailed because they were “closely tied to what it meant to be Afghan . . . they fought for Islam and resistance to occupation, values enshrined in Afghan identity . . . the very presence of Americans in Afghanistan trod on what it meant to be Afghan.” Malkasian finds much good in the experience: thousands of Afghan men and women trying to build a better country, the valor and heroism of soldiers and civilians. America’s and NATO’s intervention did “noble work” in education, political freedoms, and on behalf of oppressed women. Osama bin Ladin was killed and there were no further terrorist attacks on the homeland. But Islamic rule dominated in rural areas and ultimately prevailed. In the end, the good may not outweigh the violence, death, and injury. “We should stand back and ask: in the name of stopping terrorism for our own sake, did we liberate, or oppress, the Afghan people?”
Ilan Manor & Geraldine Asiwome Adiku, “From ‘traitors’ to ‘saviours’: A longitudinal analysis of Ethiopian, Kenyan and Rwandan embassies’ practice of digital diaspora diplomacy,” South African Journal of International Affairs, published online July 21, 2021. Manor (University of Tel Aviv) and Adiku (University of Ghana) turn much needed attention to the diplomacy of African countries. In this paper they explore how embassies of Ethiopia, Kenya, and Rwanda use social media to engage in relationship building, community strengthening, and relationship leveraging with diasporas. Their digital strategies reflect their evolving view that diasporas are sources of socio-economic benefit rather than communities that abandoned their homeland. The authors analyzed Facebook posts of nine embassies in 2016 and eight embassies in 2020. Their conclusions address how their digital practices changed between 2016 and 2020, the implications of their digital strategies, and strengths and limitations of the paper’s methodology and research.
Yascha Mounk, “Democracy on the Defense: Turning Back the Authoritarian Tide,” Foreign Affairs, March/ April, 2021, 163-173. Mounk (Johns Hopkins University) argues US democratization practitioners need to rethink the idea of “democracy promotion.” Given the likely prospect that the future will be less democratic in many countries, the goal should not be to promote democracy where it does not exist, but “to protect democracy in those countries where it is now seriously at risk” and shift strategies and resources accordingly. Specifics in his change agenda: restart Radio Free Europe’s broadcasts in Poland, launch a new VOA Hindi service, shift NED’s resources to countries that stifle civil society and repress NGOs, implement targeted economic sanctions against autocratic officials, pass legislation to prohibit corporations from punishing employees critical of autocratic regimes, and pursue the hard work of deciding whether non-democracies can continue as members of NATO and the EU.
John Mueller, “Public Opinion on War and Terror: Manipulated or Manipulating?” White Paper, Cato Institute, August 10, 2021. Mueller (Ohio State University) analyzes public opinion trend data on three events related to threats and fear: the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the 2003 Iraq War, and the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq in 2014. He argues that publics in general “are not very manipulable” on such salient issues. When publics clearly embrace a fear or idea, leaders, elites, and the media often find their messages “have struck a responsive chord rather than that the public has been manipulated.” His paper summarizes a broad range of literature on the role of publics, elites, and the media in opinion formation.
Jessica T. Mathews, “Losing No Time,” The New York Review, May 27, 2021, 10-12 and “Present at the Re-creation: U.S. Foreign Policy Must Be Remade, Not Restored,” Foreign Affairs, March/ April, 2021 10-16. From time to time in her brilliant career, Jessica Mathews (Carnegie Endowment) has written summary accounts of transitional moments. Recall her prescience on the rise of non-state actors (“Power Shift,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 1997). In these articles, she challenges what President Biden calls “the power of our example.” The US and the world have changed too much. Others look at America and see the 2003 Iraq war, the 2008 financial crisis, an ineffectual war in Afghanistan, an inequitable health care system, and Trump-era chaos that may not be a one-off. There is more in her bill of particulars. America confronts a strategic choice: either (1) try to restore US leadership across the broad spectrum of issues and frame problem solving around a coalition of democracies, or (2) pursue a more limited definition of interests and recognize that non-democracies are crucial to addressing major issues. Mathews fears the US may overreach by looking too much to the past and trying to do more than what America’s “resources, will, and reputation can currently support.” Given the hand dealt, she finds Biden on many issues at home and abroad has “gotten off to an exceedingly fast start.” However, on immigration, defense spending, rethinking nuclear modernization, ambiguity on Taiwan’s defense, and a global “Summit for Democracy” there has been silence or confusing signals. For Mathews, a sound relationship with China, assertive relations with Russia, a win-win economic growth agenda, strong climate and COVID policies, and recapturing the confidence of allies and friends will be enough. No need to overreach in promoting democracy and a new foreign policy consensus, or putting the US “back at the head of the table.”
James Pamment, “Does Public Diplomacy Need a Theory of Disruption? The Role of Nonstate Actors in Counter-branding the Swedish COVID-19 Response,” Journal of Public Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 1, 80-110. Pamment (Lund University), one of diplomacy’s consistently imaginative theorists, has two aims in this article. First, he offers thoughts on how public diplomacy research can move beyond a dominant two-actor model – where (Actor A) in one country targets groups in another country (Actor B) – to embrace a theory of how third-party actors (trolls, advocacy groups, hostile countries) disrupt communication in the two-actor model. Second, he asks whether it is prudent or possible to distinguish between the “legitimate PD of Actor A and disruptive communications that are similar to PD but differ in intent, modus, and the legitimacy of the techniques used.” Pamment takes due note that models simplify, need to be updated, and have limitations. He theorizes his disruption concept and tests its promise in a closely reasoned case study: the disruptive activities of the interest group, Media Watchdogs of Sweden.
Jonathan Rauch, The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth, (Brookings Institution Press, 2021). In the abundance of recent books about disinformation and truth, Rauch (Brookings, The Atlantic) has written one of the best. He defines the “Constitution of Knowledge” as rules, norms, institutions, and social understandings. They constitute a liberal epistemic operating system adhered to by a reality-based community. The book’s first half is a summary of history and theory: the reasons humans make cognitive mistakes, defend tribal truths, and resort to creed wars. He argues two core rules are essential to organized social persuasion. First, assume all statements are fallible and no one gets the final say. Statements become knowledge only when they stand up to challenge. Second, no one has authority by virtue of personal or tribal privilege. Knowledge is not what “I” know; it is what “we” know. The second half of the book is an agile dive into disinformation technology, troll epistemology, cancel despotism, and the challenge of making the online world truth-friendly. Rauch systematically summarizes an enormous literature. His prose is clear, witty, and laden with telling examples. Best of all, he avoids getting mired in lament. His book is a confident guide to the past, present, and reasons for cautious optimism about what might be. Let’s hope he is right.
Ferial Ara Saeed, “A State Department for the Digital Age,” War on the Rocks, June 21, 2021. Should State keep cyber security and emerging technology issues in the domain of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security where former Secretary Mike Pompeo put them just before leaving office? Saeed (Telegraph Strategies, LLC and former State Department diplomat) says no. Cyberspace is now as critical a diplomacy arena as the physical world; it embraces issues beyond cyber security. Emerging technologies (e.g., AI, the Internet of Things, 5G) hold vast economic, political, and military potential. State has a “balkanized technology landscape, which stretches across more than a dozen regional and functional bureaus.” Her solution: consolidate all technology issues within a new undersecretary position led by an appointee with broad expertise who would report to the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources – a move likely to command more consistent attention at the top than reporting to the Secretary. Consolidation, she argues, would improve coordination, decision-making, and develop a cadre of tech-savvy cyber diplomats. Cyber and emerging technology issues require bureaus comparable to what regional bureaus and desk officers provide for geopolitical issues. Her solution is debatable. Reorganizations are seldom the answer. But her concern is important – and symptomatic of a larger question. How should foreign ministries manage, communicate, and represent the nation on large complex transnational issues in whole of government diplomacy? Create more expertise within? Or recruit, train, and educate diplomats who will leverage expertise elsewhere in government and society to diplomatic advantage?
Anne-Marie Slaughter and Gordon LaForge, “Opening Up the Order: A More Inclusive International System,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2021. Slaughter (New America) and LaFarge (Princeton University) argue that 21st-century threats and challenges (climate change, pandemic disease, cyber-conflict, and inequality) call for existing institutions of the state-based order and harnessed networks of new actors outside the state: global and regional institutions, cities, firms, universities, movements, and NGOs. They call for a rationalized structure of fewer but bigger “impact hubs” – nodes in global networks with clear metrics and incentives for participation, competition, and investment. Their imagined, but difficult to realize, goal is to marry the formal pedigree and sovereign representation of (often paralyzed and ineffective) states with nimble, innovative, and effective (but often shadowy and unaccountable) actors from every sector of society. Network theory demonstrates the value of strong and weak ties. Small groups of impact hubs to get things done; large groups to maximize the flow of information and innovation.
Gregory M. Tomlin, “The Case for an Information Warfighting Function,” Military Review, September-October, 2021, 90-99. Although former Defense Secretary James Mattis established “information” as the US military’s seventh joint function and codified this decision in Joint Operations doctrine, the US Army continues to treat information as an outlier. Tomlin (Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2, The Pentagon and author of Murrow’s Cold War: Public Diplomacy for the Kennedy Administration) calls for the Army “to fund and integrate information efforts more deliberately into the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war.” His article begins with a critique of US decisions during and following the demise of USIA, Russian disinformation campaigns, and China’s disinformation during the COVID pandemic. It then makes a considered case for deeper development of doctrine, military education, and commitment to “information” as an instrument that can limit the need to deploy soldiers in combat and advance national security goals.
Jake Werner, “Does America Really Support Democracy—Or Just Other Rich Democracies,” July 9, 2021, Foreign Affairs. We are at an inflection point, President Biden declared, between democracy and autocracy as the best way to meet global challenges. Jake Werner (Boston University) argues this binary obscures a deeper divide between rich and poor. The US asserts leadership of the world’s democracies, but it actually fails many democracies and semi-democratic regimes in the global South on the COVID-19 pandemic, global trade rules, climate change and economic development.
Geoffrey Wiseman, “What Do Diplomats Do Between Cocktail Parties.” CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy. In this brief review, Wiseman (Professor and Endowed Chair in Applied Diplomacy at DePaul University’s Grace School of Applied Diplomacy) describes Australian diplomat Sue Boyd’s memoir Not Always Diplomatic: An Australian Woman’s Journey Through International Affairs (2020) as “a little gem.” His assessment makes several excellent points. Boyd’s successful career in the once overwhelmingly male-dominated Australian foreign service illuminates countless ways in which diplomats, especially at the ambassadorial level, are agents of soft power and public diplomacy. She demonstrates how the best diplomatic memoirs contribute to a better understanding of diplomacy, the foreign policy process, and the advisory role of diplomats. Her odyssey shows again the value of inter-cultural competence and networking skills. Scholars and practitioners need more memoirs that bridge conceptual and operational gaps and drive home the reality that public diplomacy is now mainstream.
Constanza Castro Zúñiga, Mojib Ghaznawi, and Caroline Kim, “The Crisis in the State Department: We Are Losing Our Best and Need to Ask Why,” Harvard Kennedy School, July 2021. The authors are graduate students and future foreign service officers studying as Rangel Fellows at Harvard University. Their report was written for the American Foreign Service Association, published by Georgetown University’sInstitute for the Study of Diplomacy, and overseen by Ambassador (ret.) Nicholas Burns. The authors surveyed 2,853 Foreign Service Officers and Foreign Service Specialists. Their key finding: 31.42% (797) “are considering leaving the Foreign Service and actively looking for job.” This is more than double the number who left in 2016. The Department’s biggest problem is retention, not recruitment. Based on their survey, the report makes four recommendations: “1. Make the Foreign Service more family-friendly. 2. Reform the assignments process. 3. Accelerate the pace of promotions. 4. Empower institutional structures to better address bias.” See also Amy Mackinnon, “Study Finds Nearly 1 in 3 U.S. Diplomats Eyeing the Exit Door,”Foreign Policy, July 2, 2021 and “New Research Highlights Retention Issues at the State Department,” Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, July 2, 2021.
Recent Blogs and Other Items of Interest
Matt Armstrong, “The Irony of Misinformation and USIA,” August 3, 2021, MountainRunner.us
Gerry Diaz Bartolome, “The Hybrid Future of Diplomacy,” July 6, 2021, The Washington Diplomat.
Rebecca Beitsch, “Trump Appointee Erred in Firing Voice of America Whistleblowers: Watchdog,” July 8, 2021, The Hill; Ken Bredemeier, “US Government Media Whistleblowers Cleared of Wrongdoing,” July 8, 2021, VOANews.
Hal Brands, “Biden’s Off to a Small Start in Rallying the World’s Democracies,” August 2, 2021, Bloomberg Opinion.
Jessica Brandt, “How Democracies Can Win the Information Contest Without Undercutting Their Values,” August 2, 2021, Carnegie Endowment. Sarah Chayes, “The Ides of August,” August 16, 2021, SarahChayes,org.
Robert Downes, “U.S. Diplomats Preach Ideals Their Country Flouts. Is That Hypocrisy?” August 1, 2021, The Diplomatic Diary.
Ronan Farrow, “Can Biden Reverse Trump’s Damage to the State Department,” June 17, 2021, The New Yorker.“Exit Interview with Carl Gershman, Founding President of the National Endowment for Democracy,” July 21, 2021 (one hour YouTube), Center for Strategic and International Studies.
David Folkenflik, “A Report Clears Federal Officials Who Were Suspended by a Trump Appointee Over VOA,” July 10, 2021, NPR. “Foreign Service Statistics,” Online FS Resources, American Foreign Service Association.
Ronald E. Hawkins, Jr., “Effective U.S. Public Diplomacy Needs State and Defense Working Harder Together,” July 13, 2021, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Jory Heckman, “Former State Department Leaders Urged Congress to Address Chronic Foreign Service Workforce Challenges,” July 21, 2021, Federal News Network.
Elizabeth Shakman Hurd, “It’s Time to De-emphasize Religion in US Foreign Policy,” July 19, 2021, The Hill. Tom Hushek, “He Founded a School in South Sudan at 26, and U.S. Bet on Him,” June 20, 2021, Diplomatic Diary.
Emily Kachinski and Jennifer Soler, “The Decline of U.S. Soft Power: 5 Strategies to Improve It,” August 4, 2021, American Security Project.
Shay Khatiri, “It’s Time to Bring Back USIA,” July 21, 2021, The Bulwark.
Fernando León-García, “‘Borderless Professors’ Are the Future of Global Awareness and Soft Diplomacy,” July 21, 2021, The Hill.
James M. Lindsay and Leila Marhmati, “TWE Remembers: The Fulbright Program,” July 30, 2021, Council on Foreign Relations.
Ilan Manor, Alicia Fjällhed, and Tania Gomez Zapata, “Has the Advent of Stratcomms Removed the ‘Public’ From Public Diplomacy,” July 15, 2021, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Deborah McCarthy, “The General and the Ambassador Podcast Series,” American Academy of Diplomacy and UNC Global, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Sherry Lee Mueller, “Uncle Sam Wants You – To Understand Your Role in the World,” July 4, 2021, Public Diplomacy Council.
Paul Musgrave, “Olympic Medals No Longer Show Off Nations’ Cultural Power. That’s Good,” July 30, 2021, The Washington Post;“You Shouldn’t Have to Pay for That IR Master’s,” July 29, 2021 and “Political Science Has Its Own Lab Leaks,” July 3, 2021, Foreign Policy.
Lynne O’Donnell, “The Taliban Are Winning the War of Words in Afghanistan,” June 21, 2021, Foreign Policy.
Doyinsola Oladipo, “Classes Starting, But International Students Failing To Get U.S. Visas,” August 23, 2021, Reuters. “Our View – Public Diplomacy and Afghanistan,” August 19, 2021, Public Diplomacy Council & Public Diplomacy Association of America.
Daniel F. Runde, “The World Is a Freer Place Thanks to Carl Gershman,” July 7, 2021, The Hill. “Sharing Wisdom (And Curricula!) About Teaching Diplomacy, International Affairs, and Other Associated Topics,” July 2021, American Foreign Service Association.
Louis Savoia, “Foreign Policy Reporters See Return to Normal Under Biden,” August 8, 2021, Diplomatic Diary, Washington International Diplomatic Academy.
Ben Smith, “Afghans Working for U.S. Government Broadcasters Fear Taliban Backlash,” August 15, 2021, The New York Times.
Nahal Toosi, “Blnken to Diplomats: It’s OK To Admit U.S. Flaws When Promoting Rights,” July 17, 2021, Politico.
James Traub, “The World’s Oldest Democracy Is One of Its Worst,” July 6, 2021, Foreign Policy. US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, “Innovative Public Diplomacy Responses to China’s Influence Strategies,” Meeting Minutes and Transcript, June 17, 2021. “VOA’s Bangla Service Ends Radio Broadcasts [after 63 years], Expands TV and Social Media Coverage,” July 2021, Voice of America.
Stephen M. Walt, “The Geopolitics of Empathy: How Our Understanding – or Misunderstanding – of Other Countries’ Perspectives Shapes Global Order,” June 27, 2021, Foreign Policy.
Gem From The Past
Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr, and Paul Sharp, eds., The Sage Handbook of Diplomacy, (Sage Publications, 2016). Five years ago, Constantinou (University of Cyprus), Kerr (Australian National University) and Sharp (University of Minnesota Duluth) compiled 53 essays that aimed to provide ‘sustained reflections on what it means to practice diplomacy.’ They had three audiences in mind: (1) national diplomatic services, government organizations, and NGOs; (2) students and researchers; and (3) interested readers who know or suspect that diplomacy matters. With the advantage of hindsight, they clearly met their goals. Accelerating trends since 2016 have changed diplomacy’s context, but these chapters by leading scholars with a practitioner orientation continue to illuminate. To list just a few. Brian Hocking on boundaries in diplomacy and foreign policy. Iver B. Neumann on diplomacy and the arts. Paul Sharp and Geoffrey Wiseman on the diplomatic corps. Donna Marie Oglesby on diplomatic language. Sam Okoth Opondo on diplomacy and the colonial encounter. Yolanda Kemp Spies on middle power diplomacy. Michele Acuto on city diplomacy. Saleem H. Ali and Helena Voinov Vladich on environmental diplomacy. Stuart Murray on sports diplomacy. Daryl Copeland on science diplomacy. With apologies to those not listed due to space limitations. A full list is online. Each chapter contains references, blocks of summary key points, and thought-provoking content. The Handbook remains an important resource for teachers, students, practitioners – and the current wave of change agents looking to transform foreign ministries and diplomatic practice.
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, the Public Diplomacy Council, and MountainRunner.us.