Visiting Scholar Welcome Lunch
Global Communication MA Welcome Dinner
IPDGC Community Events
Preventing Election Violence Using Media and Technology Panel Discussion
On November 1st, 2024, the IPDGC hosted a panel where experts shared their international experience on preventing election violence using media, communications, and technology. Panelists were:
- Vasu Mohan, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems’ Senior Advisor for Conflict and Displacement
- Susan Benesch, the Founder and Director of the Dangerous Speech Project
- Theo Dolan, the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Digital Technology and Civic Activism Advisor
Issue #126
November 14, 2024
Intended for teachers of diplomacy and related courses, here is an update on resources that may be of general interest. Suggestions for future updates are welcome.
Bruce Gregory
Affiliate Scholar
Institute for Public Diplomacy
and Global Communication
George Washington University
BGregory@gwu.edu | BGregory1@aol.com
Diplomacy’s Public Dimension Archive, Institute for Public Diplomacy & Global Communication, George Washington University
Bruce Gregory, American Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: Practitioners as Change Agents in Foreign Relations, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024).
eBook text and paperback here. Kindle and paperback here.
Greg Barnhisel, Code Name Puritan: Norman Holmes Pearson at the Nexus of Poetry, Espionage and American Power, (The University of Chicago Press, 2024). In this exceptionally well written and deeply researched biography, Greg Barnhisel (Duquesne University and author of Cold War Modernists: Art, Literature, and American Cultural Diplomacy) tells the story of Norman Holmes Pearson. American studies scholar. Yale professor. Editor of anthologies. Public intellectual. Friend of leading modernist writers. Office of Strategic Services counterintelligence operative in World War II. CIA talent spotter. Cultural diplomat. And broker of “the marriage pact between American universities and the growing national security state.” For literature scholars, the book is filled with Barnhisel’s informed assessments of the works of mid-twentieth century modernist writers and debates on literary criticism through the lens of Pearson’s role as scholar, editor, critic, and friend. For international relations and diplomacy enthusiasts his book contains valuable chapters on the interconnected worlds of higher education, American studies departments, philanthropic foundations, learned societies, and the educational and cultural programs of the State Department and US Information Agency (USIA) during the early decades of the Cold War. Here the optic is Pearson’s career as Yale professor, Fulbright scholar, frequent lecturer abroad for State and USIA, dean of the Kyoto Seminar in American Studies, and master networker of scholars, students, and diplomats. Code Name Puritan is an important contribution to the literature on twentieth-century American culture and cultural diplomacy.
G. R. Berridge, Outposts of Diplomacy: A History of the Embassy, (Reaktion Books, 2024). This detailed history of the origin and evolution of the embassy by renowned diplomacy scholar G.R. Berridge (University of Leicester) covers a variety of topics relating to the structures and functions of resident diplomatic missions. Chapters, filled with stories of diplomats and events, examine terms for ambassadors and embassies, the role of special envoys, debates over rank and rules of precedence, duties of locally engaged staff, limited diplomatic opportunities for women and exploitation of wives as unpaid staff, embassies as locales for espionage, debates on diplomatic cover and norms of “honorable behavior,” pre-telegraphic communication, strengths and limitations of diplomatic telecommunication, diplomacy’s development as a profession, military attaches, commercial attaches, agricultural attaches, labor attaches, cultural attaches, press attaches, the “heroic age of American diplomacy” during the War for Independence and US practice of filling the best diplomatic posts through a “spoils system,” threats to resident missions from conference diplomacy, fortress embassies and walled compounds, twenty-first century advances in telecommunications, and representative offices for cities and provinces. Berridge’s treatment of these and other issues is invaluable.
The book reasonably does not focus on the history of consulates, a large, important and separate topic. Berridge’s examples are drawn primarily from England (later Britain), Venice, France, and the United States, a problematic choice he defends by saying the diplomatic practices of “leading states” are “always likely to be a window onto the practice of all.” Unconvincingly his book devotes scant attention to public diplomacy, which he treats dismissively as a “misnomer of heroic proportions since it had nothing to do with diplomacy; it was simply a more or less gentle form of propaganda” (p. 253) — a view the author has long held in the face of massive empirical evidence to the contrary.
Deborah Cohn, “Breaking Down the ‘Language Curtain’: Language Study in the United States During the Cold War,” ALD Bulletin, Vol. 48, No. 1, 2024, 12-34. In this article, published by the Association of Language Departments, a subsidiary of the Modern Language Association (MLA), Cohn (Indiana University) explores multiple issues relating to language study in the US during the Cold War. First, how did educational reforms undermine language study in the first half of the twentieth century? Second, why was language study included with math and the sciences as vital to national security in the National Defense Education Act of 1958? Third, what was the “outsized” role of the MLA in mobilizing federal and civil society support for language study? Cohn examines the role of leadership in the MLA, the influence of US Army training programs, the importance of language study to UNESCO and its supporters in the US, and the influence of the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Studies Association, and other civil society organizations. She concludes with observations on waning support for language study in the United States in decades since the Cold War — a trajectory that undermines national security, responses to crises, and the broader indispensability of languages in an interconnected world.
Evan Cooper, Dan Spokojny, Vivian Walker, Benjamin Poole, and Dani Nedal, “Can We Fix American Diplomacy,” October 16, 2024, InkStick. Experts associated with Inkstick’s “Adults in a Room” series and The Stimson Center’s “Reimagining US Grand Strategy” project assess pluses and minuses in the State Department’s modernization agenda and discuss what needs to be done. Evan Cooper (Stimson Center) argues Congressional parsimony and an American culture “hostile to the core tenets of diplomacy” are beyond State’s control. Real change will depend on “a bold political agenda that sells diplomacy to the American people.” Dan Spokojny (CEO, fp21) contends State’s decision-making process, “largely unchanged since World War II urgently requires attention, investment, and upgrade.” Reform requires a “culture of diplomacy” centered not just on the “art of diplomacy” but also on expertise, new analytical tools, modern knowledge management structures, investment in monitoring and evaluation, and a doctrine for diplomacy. Vivian Walker (Georgetown University) advocates overcoming obstacles to effective monitoring and evaluation of public diplomacy practices: (1) consolidation of four siloed monitoring and evaluation units whose data and analytics are not readily available across the Department and to interagency, Congressional, foreign policy, and academic stakeholders, and (2) faster data sharing to overcome the time disconnect between data collection and demands of fast-paced operations. Benjamin Poole (Air Force Fellow, Stimson Center) calls for State to redress a significant imbalance between its dominant focus on operations and insufficient attention to evaluation and lessons learned. Dani Nedal (Unversity of Toronto) argues State’s problems derive from decades of neglect by politicians and the militarization of foreign policy. State needs to “pick its battles,” value flexibility and creativity, and take risks.
Larry Diamond, “How to End the Democratic Recession: The Fight Against Autocracy Needs a New Playbook,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2024, 126-140. Veteran democracy activist and theorist Larry Diamond (Hoover Institution, Stanford University) finds a “glimpse of sun behind the clouds” in an era of political extremism and polarization. His examples of autocracies under assault include Bangladesh, Thailand, Turkey, Guatemala, Poland, and Malaysia. Nevertheless, democracy’s 18-year global decline — as measured by Freedom House, Sweden’s V-Dem project, and the Economist Intelligence Unit — continues for reasons he attributes to technological and geopolitical trends and actions by both democracies and illiberal actors. Diamond argues most autocrats gain and maintain power while maintaining a façade of competitive elections. This makes them vulnerable. Democracy advocates must thoroughly understand how authoritarian populism works, expose its duplicity and venality, marshal the full range of countervailing institutions in governments and civil societies, mobilize early and before institutional constraints are destroyed, and “get back in the game.” Elections in autocracies, “even when they are not free and fair, are mobilizing events charged with opportunity for change.
Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, Lori Melton McKinnon, and Jami A. Fullerton, “Ethics in Public Diplomacy: Insights from Practitioners,” Journal of Public Diplomacy, Vol. 4, No. 1, Summer 2024, 1-17. In this article, valuable for its inquiry into views of serving diplomacy practitioners, Fitzpatrick (University of South Florida), McKinnon, and Fullerton (Oklahoma State University) examine the “neglected” topic of ethics in public diplomacy’s study and practice. Their findings are grounded in Fitzpatrick’s 2007 survey of US Information Agency alumni (The Future of U.S. Public Diplomacy: An Uncertain Fate, Brill, 2010) and interviews with US public diplomacy practitioners in one large US embassy in Europe in 2022. The authors discuss practitioners’ views in the context of four categories. (1) Overall, the practitioners interviewed perceive ethical best practices to be morally and pragmatically beneficial. Implied in their responses was a belief “their work is inherently ethical,” because they represent US interests and defend democratic values. (2) The “practitioners struggled to identify specific sources” of ethical guidelines. (3) Ethical principles cited as most important included “honesty, integrity, respect, dialogue, and transparency.” (4) Asked to describe challenges to ethical practices, practitioners cited disinformation, building relationships based on truth, boomerang effects of digital tools, State Department clearance processes, and loss of message control when relying on local partners with different goals. The authors recognize their findings cannot be generalized given the small number of interviews and other limitations in the study. But the issues raised can inform needed further research. The authors conclude a formal code of ethics would clarify what is implicit in diplomatic practice and advance the professional standing of practitioners.
Journal of Public Diplomacy, Vol. 4, No. 1, Summer 2024. In addition to its lead article, “Ethics in Public Diplomacy: Insights from Practitioners” (reviewed above), open access articles in this special issue, edited by JPD’s inaugural and guest editor Kadir Jun Ayhan (CEO, Diplomacy Analytics), provide a much-needed exploration of the literature on public diplomacy in non-English languages by a broad range of scholars.
Kadir Jun Ayhan, “Public Diplomacy in Other Words: Unpacking the Literature in Non-English Languages.”
Angel M. Villegas Cruz (Pennsylvania State University), Maria Montemayor de Teresa (Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education), Antonio Alejo (University of Granada), and Astrid de la Torre Luderitz, “Diplomacy en Espanol: An Analysis of Spanish Language Public Diplomacy Scholarship.”
Rui Wang (Communication University of China), Zhao Alexandre Huang (University Gustav Eiffel, France), Jing Bi, and Siling Dong (Communication University of China), “From a Global Perspective to a Chinese Perspective: A Comprehensive Analysis of Chinese Research Articles on Public Diplomacy.”
Kyungsun Karen Lee (Zayed University, UAE), Felicia Istad (Korea University), and Seowon Kim (Seoul National University), “Public Diplomacy in Other Words: Mapping Korean-language Research.”
Banu Akdenizli (Northwestern University, Qatar), Senem Cevik (Woodbury University), Gozde Kurt (Beykent University), and Efe Sevin (Towson University), “Public Diplomacy in Other Words: A Meta-Review and Analysis of Turkish Language Literature.”
Zhao Alexandre Huang (University Gustave Eiffel, France) and Rui Wang (Communication University of China), “Public Diplomacy in French Scholarship: Analysis of an Emerging Field.”
Eriks Varpahovskis (Higher School of Economics), “Public Diplomacy in Other Words. . . Russian Words: Systematic Literature Review on Public Diplomacy in the Russian Language.”
Junko Nishikawa (J.F. Oberin University) and Tadashi Ogawa (Atomi University), “Public Diplomacy Research in Japanese Language: A Systematic Review of Patterns and Trends in Academic Literature from 2001-2022.”
Ratih Indraswari (Parahyangan Catholic University), Firstyarinda Indraswari (Brawijaya University), and Ardila Putri (Pertamina University), “Public Diplomacy in Different Languages: Mapping Analysis on Bahasa Indonesia.”
Also, in JPD’s special issue:
Katherine A. Brown (President and CEO, Global Ties U.S.), “A Review of American Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: Practitioners as Change Agents in Foreign Relations by Bruce Gregory, Palgrave Macmillan, 2024, 481 pp., $39.99 (Softcover).”
Gary D. Rawnsley (University of Lincoln, UK), “[A Review of] Taiwan Cinema as Soft Power: Authorship, Transnationality, Historiography, by Song Hwee Lim, Oxford University Press, 2022, 225 pp., $135.00.”
Robert LaGamma, Episodes from a Foreign Service Career: Africa, Democracy, and Public Diplomacy,(Palmetto Publishing, 2024). In this memoir, retired Foreign Service officer Bob LaGamma provides stories, insights, and lessons learned during public diplomacy postings in eight African countries and Italy. Following his government career his international activities included missions for the Carter Center and National Democratic Institute and leadership in the Council for a Community of Democracy. LaGamma’s welcome narrative illuminates issues in Africa during the Nelson Mandela era in South Africa and challenges in public diplomacy’s Foreign Service and democratization practitioner communities.
Mandate for Leadership: Project 2025, Paul Dans and Steven Groves eds, The Heritage Foundation, 2023. The Heritage Foundation’s 920-page presidential transition report is worth a fresh look heading into a second Trump presidency. Key public diplomacy findings and recommendations at page numbers in the easily searched document are listed below. The report does not discuss State’s Global Engagement Center or Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, the National Endowment for Democracy, or military information and public affairs activities.
Chapter 1, White House Office
The Office of Communications should include a director, deputy director, deputy director for strategic communications, and a press secretary. pp. 29-30
Chapter 3, Federal Personnel Agencies
Create exemptions to competitive hiring rules and examinations under a new Schedule F. pp. 80-81
Chapter 6, Department of State
“Large swaths” of State’s workforce “are left-wing and predisposed to disagree with a conservative President’s policy agenda and vision.” p. 171
State’s “failures are not due to a lack of resources.” Its ineffectiveness is due to the “institutional belief” that it “knows what is best for the United States, sets its own foreign policy, and does not need direction from an elected President.” p. 172
Evaluate “the Diversity Visa program, the F (student) visa program, and J (exchange visitor) visa program” to ensure they are “consistent with White House immigration policy . . . national security obligations and resource limitations.” p. 178
Put political appointees “in positions that do not require Senate confirmation, including senor advisors, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretaries, and Deputy Assistant Secretaries.” p. 173
“Make public diplomacy and international broadcasting serve American interests.” p. 194
“Public diplomacy has historically been, and remains, vital to American foreign policy success. Unfortunately, U.S. public diplomacy, which largely relies on taxpayer-funded international broadcasting outlets, has been deeply ineffective in recent years.” p. 194
Chapter 8, US Agency for Global Media
Overview of USAGM’s history, firewall issues, allegations of airing foreign adversaries’ propaganda and partisan messaging in the US, reform efforts of Trump-appointed USAGM CEO Michael Pack, and “operational failures, security failures, and credibility failures of Biden-appointed USAGM CEO Amanda Bennett. pp. 235-240
“Although a firewall should ensure journalistic independence, it has been used without formal regulation for decades in order to shirk legitimate oversight of everything from promoting adversaries’ propaganda to ignoring journalist safety . . . or promoting politically biased viewpoints in opposition to the VOA charter.” p. 239
“[T]he USAGM, by and large, is not fulfilling its mission, which remains . . . ill-defined and ambiguous.” p. 240
“[T]he agency is mismanaged, disorganized, ineffective, and rife with waste and redundancy.” USAGM should consolidate numerous redundant language services in VOA and its grantees. pp. 240 and 242
“Proven and durable” shortwave radio technology has been “grossly deemphasized” in favor of vulnerable web-based technologies. p. 242
Transfer USAGM’s “personnel security programs and suitability determinations” to the Department of Defense and Office of Personnel Management. p. 241
“If VOA is not put in the direct chain of command under the NSC, serious consideration should be given to putting VOA under the direct supervision of the Office of Global Public Affairs at the Department of State.” p. 244
“Reform USAGM “top to bottom” and consolidate its “subparts” to make it an effective tool to “tell America’s story” and “promote freedom and democracy.” p. 245
Jan Melissen, “Strategic Functions of Future Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Online publication, November 6, 2024. HJD’s Editor-in-Chief Jan Melissen introduces this practitioners’ Forum on diplomacy’s strategic functions with reflections on the conceptual and theoretical value of public commentaries by forward-looking diplomacy insiders. His overview examines challenges diplomats face when planning in the context of rapid change; knowledge deficits in ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs); and the impact of domestic politics, multiple bureaucracies, and emotions in polarized publics on whole of government external relations. HJD will continue to publish original academic research, he promises, but practitioners’ Forums can contribute to setting agendas in diplomacy studies and provide research opportunities for scholars. Forum articles by Manuel Lafont Rapnouil and Arjan Uilenreef, policy planning directors in the French and Dutch MFAs, are discussed below.
Manuel Lafont Rapnouil, “The Brutalization of Diplomacy?” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Online publication, October 30, 2024. Rapnouil (Director, Center for Analysis Planning and Strategy, French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs) argues diplomats are not just acting in a “more competitive, transactional, distrustful, fragmented and contested space,” diplomacy itself may be “under deliberate attack.” Diplomacy as “the management of separateness” — Paul Sharp’s consequential idea in Diplomatic Theory of International Relations (2009) — Rapnouil writes, may be under assault from actors seeking radical separation. Diplomacy is becoming a “combat activity.” Diplomatic communication takes place in “a much more competitive terrain.” Foreign policies are becoming more militarized. Distinctions between issues of competition and cooperation are more difficult to maintain. In this context of “brutalization,” he contends, future diplomacy will require “more effective and diverse communication and public diplomacy,” better security for a diplomatic presence in adversarial environments, investment in artificial intelligence tools and open-source intelligence, and attention to frustrations of domestic publics more inclined to support coercive capabilities and less supportive of cooperative tools and methods. Rapnouil’s claims are framed in if/then sentences, and the language of possibility and certainty. If diplomacy is being “brutalized,” then it will need “hardened capabilities.”
Arjan Uilenreef, “Catching Up With the Future: Diplomacy for New Global Landscape,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Online publication, October 30, 2024. Uilenreef (Strategy Director, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs) examines three structural trends that will affect skills, tools, and methods in diplomatic practice. First, is the return of realpolitik in which, he argues, hard power and the ethics of responsibility (compared with the ethics of conviction) is eroding the multilateral system and liberal win-win goals. This heightens demand for diplomatic professionalism, cross-generational learning, and institutional memory. It also requires enhanced strategic capacity, breaking organizational silos, and a whole of government approach in ministries of foreign affairs. Western diplomats will need to change their attitude and tone in relations with rising middle powers. Second, is the existential risk posed by global warming and its exacerbation of other security risks. Third, are transformational challenges presented by artificial intelligence to international governance, security (disinformation proliferation, risk of autonomous weapons systems), sustainable development, and incorporation of AI technology in diplomatic practice. Diplomacy practitioners confronting these frontiers will require new skills, deeper knowledge, and new policies and methods.
Thomas Scherer and Dan Spokojny, “The Marginalization of Career Diplomats,” Foreign Service Journal, November 2024, 56-58. Think tank fp21’s Research Director and founding CEO argue the decades-long practice of filling approximately 30 percent of US chief-of-mission positions with political appointees “obscures a worrying decline” in the influence of career diplomats. A different measure – the total gross domestic product (GDP) of countries with Foreign Service ambassadors – shows that career diplomats are assigned to countries with less than 20 percent of global GDP. Political ambassadors lead embassies in countries with more than 80 percent of global GDP. Host country GDP is an imperfect measure for many reasons, they point out, but nonetheless it is instructive as appointments of political ambassadors are on the rise and as the US transitions to a new administration. Political appointees exceeded 30 percent in the Biden administration. The first Trump administration’s political appointees exceeded 40 percent. Scherer and Spokojny make a strong case for career diplomats. But they also assert career diplomats have been ineffective at proving to presidents their skills are superior and differentiated from political appointees. The US Foreign Service has done little to advance meaningful professional standards and doctrine. Its “muted response to the State Department’s new Core Curriculum for diplomacy is a case in point.”
Vivian S. Walker, “Reimagining Public Diplomacy for the Digital Age,” Foreign Service Journal,October 2024, 38-41. In this FSJ feature article, retired Foreign Service Officer Vivian Walker (Georgetown University) reviews three new books with “practitioner, policy, and academic perspectives” on public diplomacy. My American Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: Change Agents in Foreign Relations (Palgrave Macmillan 2024) examines American public diplomacy’s origins, evolution, and how innovative and rival practitioner communities transformed US diplomacy and foreign relations. In Reputational Security: Refocusing Public Diplomacy for a Dangerous World (Polity, 2024), Nicholas Cull (University of Southern California) reformulates the concept of soft power for a world dominated by geopolitical conflicts and disruptive information technologies. Chapters in A Research Agenda for Public Diplomacy, a compendium edited by Eytan Gilboa (Bar-Ilan University), examine trends and critical questions in public diplomacy scholarship, teaching, and practice. Walker’s informed and generous reviews summarize each book’s central themes. Separately and collectively, she argues, they “make a powerful case for the emergence of a multidisciplinary, innovative, and expansive practice equal to the challenges of a digital age.” Missing in all three, however, are solutions to persistent leadership and resource deficits and advice on how public diplomacy, which she describes as “the most undervalued element of foreign policy,” can be operationalized in bureaucracies.
Recent Items of Interest
Elliott Abrams, “Empty Embassies,” October 11, 2024, Council on Foreign Relations.
Matt Armstrong, “Don’t Use East-West to Describe the Soviet Union and Russia vis-à-vis Others,” October 22, 2024; “The Strategic Plan That Never Was,” October 8, 2024; “Losing Sight of the Forest Because of a Few Trees,” September 30, 2024; “Clarifications are Needed,” September 26, 2024, Arming For the War We’re in.
Anthony J. Blinken, “American Diplomacy for a New Era,” Speech at Foreign Service Institute, October 30, 2024, US Department of State.
Ariel Cohen, “Russia’s War on Ukraine: Moscow’s Pressure Points, and US Strategic Opportunities,” October 1, 2024, Atlantic Council.
Joseph Gedeon, “State Department’s Little-Known Weapon for Countering Foreign Disinformation [Global Engagement Center] Faces Uncertain Future,” October 28, 2025, Politico.
Michael R. Gordon and Dustin Volz, “State Department Division That Battles Foreign Disinformation Faces Closure,” November 10, 2024, The Wall Street Journal.
Jory Heckman, “State Department Modernization Panel Comes Into Focus With White House Appointees,” October 15, 2024, Federal News Network.
“In Their Own Write,” The Foreign Service Journal, November 2024, 26-50, [Reviews of memoirs, history & biography, policy & issues, fiction, books of related interest, books for children & young adults, poetry, guidebooks/self-help, and other books by Foreign Service personnel and family members].
Joe Johnson, “What’s Truth Got To Do With It?” October 23, 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Jovan Kurbalija, “240 Shades of Diplomacy: Inflated Terminology and Deflated Respect for Diplomacy,” October 21, 2024, Diplo.
Anatol Lieven, “A Return to the Classics: Harold Nicolson and a Pattern for Diplomatists,” October 28, 2024, Quincy Institute.
Paul McLane, “Voice of America Will Get a New Headquarters,” September 30, 2024, Radio World.
“Memorandum on Advancing United States’ Leadership in Artificial Intelligence; Harnessing Artificial Intelligence to Fulfill National Security Directives; and Fostering the Safety, Security, and Trustworthiness of Artificial Intelligence,” The White House, October 24, 2024; “Remarks by APNSA Jake Sullivan on AI and National Security,” October 24, 2024; David Sanger, “Biden Administration Outlines Government ‘Guardrails’ for A.I. Tools,” The New York Times, October 24, 2024.
Jason Miller, “State Department Making Sure Change is More Than Just a Name,” October 21, 2024, Federal News Network.
Amanda Morris, “Future-proofing U.S. Embassies and Consulates,” October 10, 2024, Northwestern Now.
David Priess, Mark Pomar, “Chatter: Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Voice of America, and the Cold War, with Mark Pomar,” October 29, 2024, Lawfare Podcast on Pomar’s book Cold War Radio (1 hr. 11 min.)
Naseem Qader, “How Indigenous Names and Languages Are Reshaping Global Diplomacy,” October 28, 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Mark Scott, “The Real Way to Fight Russian Disinformation: Here’s Why the U.S. Is Outpacing European Efforts,” September 25, 2024, Politico.
Dan Spokojny, “The State Department Reform Commission: A Once in a Generation Opportunity to Reform American Diplomacy,” September 30, 2024, Just Security.
Maria J. Stephan, “Lessons From Around the World: Engaging ‘Pillars of Support’ to Uphold and Expand Democracy,” October 9, 2024, Just Security.
Jon Temin and Max Bouchet, “The United States Needs Subnational Diplomacy More Than Ever,” October 25, 2024, Foreign Policy.
Pauline Yang, American Arts Envoy, video clips. ”US Mission to NATO,” 2023; “American Pianist, Pauline Yang Thrills Fans in Lagos,” 2022; “Pauline Yang’s Diplomacy on the Keyboard [Taiwan],” 2022; “Terras sem Sombra em Ferreira do Alentego,” 2018’ Facebook and YouTube.
Gem from the Past
Paul Sharp, Diplomacy in the 21st Century: A Brief Introduction, (Routledge, 2019). Five years ago, pioneering diplomacy scholar Paul Sharp (University of Minnesota, Duluth) wrote this slim, clearly argued introduction to “the diplomacy of states and others,” and why it matters in an age of increasing international uncertainty. Filled with exercises, learning examples, and summary points, his book is an excellent text for students. But Sharp’s book is much more than a text. It frames ideas and problematic practices relevant to today’s political, moral, and technological challenges — and the agendas of scholars and practitioners. Much of the book is devoted to analysis of diplomacy and “bad leaders,” “bad media,” “bad followers,” and “bad diplomats.” Sharp uses the ordinary terms good and bad to address issues of moral content, professional competence, the political consequences of actions for others. Highlights include his assessment of diplomacy and populism, hyphenated diplomacies, differentiated publics, diplomacy and domestic publics, the erosion of boundaries between public diplomacy and ordinary diplomacy, and the erosion of boundaries “between the two of them and everything else.”
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 of America, and Len Baldyga’s email listserv.
Issue #125
Intended for teachers of 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 and BGregory1@aol.com
Bruce Gregory, American Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: Practitioners as Change Agents in Foreign Relations, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024).
Sherwood Demitz, “Memories From a Cold War Summit,” American Diplomacy, August 2024. In this vivid personal recollection, retired US Foreign Service officer Sherwood “Woody” Demitz discusses his memories of the historic 1972 Nixon-Brezhnev presidential summit in Moscow. It led to détente and signings of the SALT I Treaty, the ABM Treaty, and the US-USSR Incidents at Sea Treaty. Surrounding the substance were pressures on diplomats of a possible last-minute cancellation (the US had dropped aerial mines in North Vietnam’s Haiphong harbor trapping Soviet cargo ships), massive international media coverage, and a dinner for Brezhnev and the Politburo at Spaso House, the residence of the US ambassador. Demitz’s public diplomacy career combined foreign service postings, audience and media research, and international broadcasting.
Mervyn Frost, “The Global Diplomatic Practice: Constituting an Ethical World Order,” in J.E. Spence, Claire Yorke, and Alister Masser, eds., A New Theory and Practice of Diplomacy: New Perspectives on Diplomacy, (I.B. Taurus, 2021), 15-36 [see book review below]. Frost (Kings College London) makes interesting and debatable claims pertinent to discourse on practice theory, ethics and diplomacy, and public diplomacy. First, in contrast to many scholars who treat practice theory as what practitioners do instrumentally and situationally, Frost analyzes diplomatic practices as constitutive components of “the global society of sovereign states” and “global civil society.” Second, it follows, he argues, that in a world of diverse ethical codes, ethical standards for diplomats cannot be drawn from beyond diplomacy. Rather, they “can only be understood from within the social practices in which they are constituted as actors.” He divides everyday global diplomatic practices into “administration” (e.g., issuing passports, facilitating trade, and managing exchanges) and “politics” resolving disputes between states “about the rules of association within the global practice of states” (e.g., about claims to territory, reparations after wars, and constitutional issues in international organizations). Third, Frost contends these practices have become more complex due to media and communication forms open to publics and the “extensive strategic communications” of government leaders, which he states is sometimes “misleadingly referred to as ‘public diplomacy.’” A more accurate term, he argues, is simply “international politics” or the struggle for power and material advantage.
Frost’s chapter is useful because it prompts reflection on salient issues in practice theory and ethics in diplomacy. However, it is problematic in its assumption of a hard binary between the society of sovereign states and a “macro practice” of anarchy in the absence of central government — a category distinction that overlooks a vast domain of governance rules, norms, and institutions in the space between anarchy and government. His offhand dismissal of public diplomacy fails to consider that in essence it is a political instrument central to diplomatic practice and relationships between government and governance actors and their publics. For an insightful review of the book and Frost’s chapter, see Kristin Anabel Eggling, “Review Feature: New Perspectives on Diplomacy,” E-International Relations, July 9, 2022.
Yuval Noah Harari, Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI, (Random House, 2024). In this sweeping new book, Harari (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind) challenges what he calls the “naive view” of information. By this he means the idea that information’s primary role in history is to represent a preexisting reality, that sufficient information can lead to truth, which in turn can lead to power and wisdom, and that good information will drive out bad information in the marketplace of ideas. For Harari, most information does not represent reality, although sometimes it does. Rather, because information always connects different points in a network, our starting point should be how information connects people and new networks over time. Part one of the book discusses ways humans invented information technologies that improved connectivity — shared stories, clay tablets, print, mass media. Chapters explore how information networks have been used to create myths and bureaucracies, authoritarian and democratic power structures, resurgent populism, fantasies of infallibility, and self-correcting mechanisms.
With part one as an essential historical perspective, part two interrogates AI — a fundamentally different technology that does not rely on human mythmakers and human bureaucracies to function. What happens when computers with autonomous agency run bureaucracies and invent new myths? How should we distinguish between consciousness and independent decision-making capabilities? What are the implications of computer-to-computer information chains without humans, relentless networks that are always “on,” and computer-generated narratives that a computer’s algorithms alone curate and interpret? What do these inorganic information capabilities mean for democracy, economic models, cultural norms, and instruments of governance and political power? Harari is not a technology determinist; we have choices. In part three he explores the implications of unfathomable AI algorithms for democracy, populism, and authoritarianism, possible “digital empires,” and the heavy responsibility of making good choices and building strong self-correcting capabilities. Harari earned his global reputation by making powerful arguments through impressive storytelling, humor, and conceptual clarity. Some reviewers, including technology experts and scholars bent on writing for other specialists, are critical of Harari’s account. But there is broad reader and reviewer enthusiasm for his creative bridging of scholarship and public discussion of one of the most important issues of our time. His book is a compelling read for teachers and students of diplomacy’s public dimension.
Stuart MacDonald and Andrew Murray, Soft Power at a Turning Point: A Comparative Analysis, 2024, British Council. In this 50-page report, commissioned from ICR Research Ltd, London, the authors compare the “cultural diplomacy and public diplomacy” activities of the British Council and counterpart organizations. Key findings include the following. (1) Countries are focusing soft power assets more on national interests and their foreign and economic policies than shared global challenges. (2) More programs are designed for domestic audiences. (3) Soft power is increasingly mobilized to promote national identities “sometimes assertively or controversially.” (4) More control is “exerted by governments over arm’s length bodies like the British Council.” The report, filled with instructive graphics, compares resources, “digital maturity,” and global reach. The authors recognize a variety of challenges in their comparative analysis: dissimilar connections between governments and civil society, differences in definitions of soft power, complexities in operationalizing digital and analog tools and methods, and structural contrasts between foreign affairs ministries and organizations comparable to the British Council. Despite these analytical concerns, the report is an instructive global overview and online resource for teachers and practitioners.
Jessica T. Mathews, “What Was the Biden Doctrine?” Foreign Affairs, September/October, 2024. The Carnegie Endowment’s Distinguished Fellow Jessica Mathews argues four years is insufficient time to establish a foreign policy doctrine. Nevertheless, Biden’s commitment to diplomacy backed by strength is an approach well-suited to today’s world if it is not overturned by a successor. Her article is a report card on Biden’s achievements and strategic mistakes. High grades: winning the trust of allies, institutionalizing a deep American presence in Asia, restoration of a US presence in multilateral organizations and agreements, ending the longest “forever war” in Afghanistan, and an innovative response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Low grades: undermining an ambiguous “one China” policy and escalating tensions over Taiwan, a stubborn unwillingness to use US leverage with Israel to reduce staggering levels of death and suffering in Gaza, trade protectionism, lack of sustained nuclear arms control and nonproliferation diplomacy, a Manichean division between autocracies and democracies, and an unproductive “Summit for Democracies.” Mathews makes no predictions in the face of historical uncertainties, but overall Biden has used diplomacy to bring about profound changes in foreign policy “not to accommodate American decline but to reflect the country’s inherent strength.”
Ahmed Nabil, “Contact Groups as Diplomatic Intervention Tools in Civil Wars: US Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Online publication July 25, 2024. Nabil (Wayne State University and a former diplomat) examines contact groups as a distinct mode of diplomatic intervention and engagement in conflicts. Contact groups are different from track one and track two negotiations, he argues, and they do not include parties to civil wars. Using qualitative methods, consisting primarily of unstructured and anonymous interviews with mid-career, senior, and former US officials who participated in conflict group meetings, his article examines case studies of contact groups in civil conflicts in Libya’s P3+3, the Syria Small Group, and the Yemen Quartet. His interview questions explored each groups’ formation, meeting dynamics, relations with UN processes, and effectiveness from the US perspective. Nabil concludes the three groups failed to achieve success in achieving a final settlement. Nevertheless, they served US interests. They were a forum for dialogue and advancing US policies. They were a means to build support for UN envoys in these conflicts. And they helped to achieve US interests such as guaranteeing Libyan oil exports and financial support to territories liberated from ISIL in Syria. Nabil also argues this mode of diplomacy can support engagement between stakeholders with different views of conflict and provide a useful supplement to other modes of multilateral diplomacy. His article is a good example of how analysis of practice can illuminate conceptual issues in diplomacy.
Jack Spence, Alastair Masser, and Claire Yorke, eds., New Perspectives on Diplomacy, A New Theory and Practice of Diplomacy, Volume 1, Contemporary Diplomacy in Action, Volume 2, (I.B. Tauris, 2021). Spence (Kings College London), Masser (Legatum Institute), and Yorke (Yale University) argue a seismic shift in world order and complex emerging challenges pose fundamental questions for the nature, practice, and study of diplomacy — fading American hegemony; rising multipolarity; geopolitical, technological, and demographic changes; and diminished distinctions between war and peace, state and non-state actors, formal and informal dialogue, and values and interests. Chapters in two volumes explore what these trends mean for continuity and change in the study and practice of diplomacy. Volume 1 includes chapters on diplomacy and ethics, identity, and empathy; relations between diplomacy and conflict resolution, small state politics, summitry, and intelligence; and the theoretical value of practice theory. Volume 2 includes chapters on diplomacy and social media, the environment, information war, domestic populations, emotions, and social movements. Diplomacy remains indispensable, the editors contend, and its “widening aperture” embraces more actors and more sub-disciplines. Central questions going forward: what skills and experiences will next generation diplomats need; how should we study and teach diplomacy; and how should we bridge the academic / practice divide? (Suggested by Kathy Fitzpatrick, University of South Florida)
Daya Kishan Thussu, Changing Geopolitics of Global Communication, (Routlege, 2024). Thussu (Hong Kong Baptist University and previously University of Westminster in London) examines issues at the intersection of geopolitics — shaped by decline in a US-led West, the rise of China, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and global communication — shaped by transformative digital technologies and the role of artificial intelligence in weaponizing information. Chapters explore the historical origins of the 21st century’s global information infrastructure, “digital democracy vs. digital imperialism,” how military conflict has been framed by Western media to advance geopolitical interests, weaponization of information in the Russia-Ukraine war, cyberwarfare, and emerging characteristics of a new global information order.
Kate Wright, Martin Scott, and Mel Bunce, Capturing News, Capturing Democracy: Trump and the Voice of America, (Oxford University Press, 2024). Efforts by government officials to politicize news coverage by the Voice of America (VOA) have been present from its creation. Senior VOA broadcasters were fired for their coverage of Italy’s King Victor Emanuel III in 1943. Senator Joseph McCarthy mounted vile attacks on VOA in the 1950s. The White House and senior USIA officials deleted content in VOA’s coverage of the US evacuation from Vietnam in 1975. The State Department tried to prevent VOA from airing an interview with Taliban leader Mullah Omar in 2001. Examples from a very long list. In this timely book, Wright (University of Edinburgh), Scott (University of East Anglia), and Bunce (University of London) take a deep dive into VOA’s politicization by US Agency for Global Media CEO Michael Pack during the last seven months of the Trump administration. Adopting the theoretical framework of “government capture” — understood as ways governments and civil society allies directly and indirectly politicize journalism in public service media — the authors discuss Pack’s actions in detail, their cumulative effect in undermining democratic checks and balances, and VOA’s vulnerabilities to future politicization.
The book brings needed scholarship to examination of historical, conceptual, and practitioner issues in government media. It is distinguished by its evidence-based research, much of it derived from Freedom of Information Act requests. It also serves as a needed reform primer for those seeking to strengthen VOA’s journalism firewall and address continuing risks of politicization. There is one significant weakness in their research. The authors did not seek to interview Pack, his appointees, and others on the questionable grounds that doing so risked disrupting the “delicate processes” of investigations that might result in criminal and civil lawsuits.
Irene Wu, Measuring Soft Power in International Relations, (Lynne Reiner Publishers, 2024). Irene Wu (Georgetown University, US Federal Communications Commission) takes a deep dive into the meaning and measurement of soft power. She argues soft power can be quantified in ways that make possible comparisons across societies and political entities and analyses across time. Her soft power rubric has three people-to-people interactions — emigration, studying abroad, and traveling abroad — and a fourth mediated interaction, watching foreign movies. These indicators are arranged on a spectrum spanning short- and long-term attraction. Part one of the book explores recent conceptual developments in soft power research and how ideas from related fields of study can provide tools to study soft power. Part two applies her conceptual framework to case studies: US movies and popular culture, international education hubs, India’s emigrants, Russia’s and China’s soft power compared, soft power in Southeast Asia, and the strengths and limitations of global soft power rankings.
Recent Items of Interest
Madison Alder, “State Department Conducting Market Research on an LLM it Could Customize,” August 5, 2024, FedScoop.
Matt Armstrong, “Two Examples of Disinformation, One of Great Comms, Plus a Still Relevant Observation,” September 17, 2024; “Functional Discrepancy: Syncing Geographies of Bureaucracies,” September 13, 2024; “Tactical Solutions Will Not Fix a Strategic Defect,” September 9, 2024, Arming for the War We’re In substack.
Kadir Jun Ayhan, “Diplomacy Analytics LLC.” Research Consultancy Firm.
Evan Cooper and Lucas Ruiz, “Domestic Engagement is Needed in State Department Modernization,” September 9, 2024, Stimson.
Michael Crowley, “Senior U.S. Diplomat Will Lead Kamala Harris’s Running Mate’s Team,” August 2, 2024, The New York Times.
Gordon Duguid, “USIA: Let It Be,” July 30, 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Renee Earl, “Getting NATO Membership to 32: Why We Needed Public Diplomacy,” August 2024, American Diplomacy.
Francesca Ebel and Mary Ilyushina, “Artists Say Putin’s Push for Patriotism is Killing Russian Culture,” July 29, 2024, The Washington Post.
Kristin Eggeling, “Field Notes from the Bay: Why are There Diplomatic Offices in Silicon Valley?” August 30, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Michael Gfoeller and David H. Rundell, “It’s Time to Fix the Foreign Service to Give Diplomacy a Chance,” August 6, 2024, Newsweek.
Alexey Gorbachev, “Russian Hacker Attacks Target Former US Ambassadors, Reveal Prior Penetration,” August 28, 2024, Voice of America.
Garrett M. Graff, “Antony Blinken Dragged US Diplomacy Into the 21st Century. Even He is Surprised by the Results,” September 4, 2024, Wired.
Bruce Gregory, “Remembering Tom Korologos (1933-2024),” August 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
“Tom Korologos, Former U.S. Ambassador to Belgium, 91,” July 31, 2024, The National Herald; Brian Murphy, “Tom Korologos, Guru of Senate Confirmation Crossfire, Dies at 91,” August 1, 2024, The Washington Post; Richard Sandomir, “Tom Korologos, Sherpa of Republican Nominees Dies at 91,” August 7, 2024, The New York Times.
Stuart Holliday, “America’s Mega-decade of Sports Is a Powerhouse of Diplomacy,” August 17, 2024, The Hill.
Susan R. Johnson, “Project 2025: Department of State,” July 29, 2024, Fulcrum.
“Kaine and Young Introduce Bill to Empower State Department and USAID to Counter People’s Republic of China, Other Threats,” July 31, 2024, Senator Tim Kaine Press Release; Gabe Murphy, “Senators Want to Infect Other Agencies with ‘Unfunded’ Wish Lists,” August 6, 2024, Responsible Statecraft.
Kathy Kemper, “Sports Diplomacy Playing on in Paris Sets a Global Example,” August 6, 2024, The Hill.
“Daniel Kimmage: Countering Disinformation Through Resilient Information Ecosystem, Partnerships,” September 18, 2024, This Day.
Dana S. LaFon, “How the U.S. Can Counter Disinformation from Russia and China,” August 14, 2024, Council on Foreign Relations.
Jorge Marinho, Julio Ventura, Lourenco Ribeiro, “Media Diplomacy and the Ongoing Armed Conflict in Ukraine,” August 2, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Samantha Masunaga, “As Hollywood and Streaming Go Global, U.S. State Department Leans on Power of Film,” September 19, 2024, Los Angeles Times.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “Invest in Soft Power,” September 9, 2024, “Letters to the Next President,” Foreign Policy.
Kathryn Palmer, “Defense Department Cuts 13 of Its Language Flagship Programs,” May 15, 2024, Inside Higher Ed.
Mitzi Perdue, “A New England Yankee Tells America’s Story,” September 11, 2024, CEPA.
Rick Ruth and Scott Lingenfelter, “The High Ground of Soft Power,” August 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Cynthia P. Schneider, “Afghanistan: A Window Onto a Potential Harris-Walz Pivot on Foreign Policy,” and “Breakdancing in Afghanistan: Cultural Resilience Three Years After U.S. Withdrawal,” August 29, 2024; CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
“A Short-term Work Visa Shows the Benefits of Immigration,” August 8, 2024, The Economist.
Tara Sonenshine, “Gaza’s Fighting Pauses for Vaccines Show Power of Health Diplomacy,” September 4, 2024, The Baltimore Sun.
Dan Spokojny, “Advice for the Inaugural Provost of the Foreign Service Institute,” September 12, 2024; “Ten Principles for Foreign Policy Expertise,” September 5, 2024; “State Department FFRDC: Public Comment for the Federal Register,” August 14, 2024, Foreign Policy Expertise Substack.
Dan Spokojny, “How to Embrace Uncertainty in Foreign Policy,” August 21, 2024, Foreign Policy Expertise Substack.
“Talent is Scarce. Yet Many Countries Spurn It,” August 15, 2024, The Economist.
Paul Tassi, “‘The Diplomat’ Season 2 Gets An Imminent Release Date on Netflix,” August 8, 2024, Forbes.
US House Committee on Small Business Interim Staff Report, “Small Business: Instruments and Casualties of the Censorship-Industrial Complex,” September 2024; Gabe Kaminsky, “Embattled State Department Office [Global Engagement Center] Skirted Mandate in Funding ‘Censorship’ Groups: House GOP,” September 10, 2024, Washington Examiner.
Tim Walz, “Dear Foreign Service: We’ve Got Your Back,” January-February 2018, The Foreign Service Journal.
Michael Walzer, “Israel’s Pager Bombs Have No Place in a Just War,” September 21, 2024, The New York Times; Brian Finucane, “Law of War Questions Raised by Exploding Pagers in Lebanon,” September 18, 2024, Just Security.
Jian (Jay) Wang and Andrew Dubbins, “What Artificial Intelligence Means for Public Diplomacy,” August 12, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Bill Wanlund, “Feminists to the Fore,” September 2023; “Resetting Public Perceptions in Chile,” August 2024;Remarks by Ambassador Bernadette M. Meehan, recipient of PDCA’s 2024 award for Public Diplomacy Leadership by a Senior Officer, August 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Gem from the Past
Marcy E. Gallo, “Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service (CRS), Updated April 3, 2020. The CRS defines FFRDCs as a special class of research and development (R&D) institutions owned by the federal government, but operated by universities, other nonprofits, and industrial firms. They provide federal agencies with R&D that cannot be obtained within government or the private sector alone. The State Department through Federal Register notices is requesting public comment on its first proposed FFRDC for diplomacy. This CRS report provides information on the origins, activity types, characteristics, and federal funding of the 42 FFRDCs sponsored by the 13 federal agencies (currently 15) when the report was written. The report summarizes issues of interest to Congress: agency oversight and management, competition with the private sector, diversification of activities or “mission creep,” competitive FFRDC contracts vs. long-term relationships with sponsoring agencies, and aging infrastructures. The State Department seeks an FFRDC for R&D in three areas: Diplomatic Innovation and Modernization, Global CyberTech Solutions, and Global Operations and Acquisitions.
In 2008, a Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication report called for an R&D center such as RAND with multiple capabilities. They included facilitation of knowledge transfer across government through a help desk staffed by subject experts, assessments of cultural dynamics and societal values, audience segmentation analysis and behavioral trends, up-to-the-minute knowledge of media trends and communication technologies, a knowledge base for public diplomacy implementation and evaluation, a locus for project experimentation, and sustained memory of core data, best practices, and research. The recommendation was dismissed by State at the time. It still has value and deserves a second look today.
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 of America, and Len Baldyga’s email listserv.
Chris Teal
Public Diplomacy Fellow, 2022-2024
Our 2022-24 fellow was Chris Teal. Previously, he was the director of the State Department’s Career Development and Assignments Mid-Level Division, heading up a 35-member team in charge of global diplomatic assignments for Mid-Level Foreign Service Officers, some 9,000 officials in total.
He also served a faculty assignment at the Inter-American Defense College at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. There he taught graduate classes to senior-level Latin American officials on diplomacy, civil/military relations, human rights, peace keeping, and media/security policy.
Prior to that, Chris was awarded the Una Chapman Cox Fellowship, where he directed, wrote, and produced a documentary on the first African American diplomat, Ebenezer D. Bassett. The film, A Diplomat of Consequence, tells the story of this groundbreaking diplomat 150 years after his appointment.
Overseas assignments include Consul General at the U.S. Consulate in Nogales, Mexico, and public affairs positions in Sri Lanka; Mexico; Peru; and the Dominican Republic. At the State Department, he also held public affairs positions in the European Bureau and at the Foreign Press Center.
Before joining the Foreign Service, Chris worked with award-winning journalist Juan Williams on their biography Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary about the former U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Published In 1998, The New York Times listed it among its most notable nonfiction works of the year. Chris also wrote a biography about Ebenezer Bassett, entitled Hero of Hispaniola, published in 2008.
Chris has a B.A. from the University of Arkansas and an M.A. from George Washington University’s Columbian College, where he graduated in 1997.
Issue #124
Intended for teachers of diplomacy and related courses, here is an update on resources that may be of general interest. Suggestions for future updates are welcome.
Intended for teachers of 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
Bruce Gregory, American Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: Practitioners as Change Agents in Foreign Relations, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024).
Alina Dolea, “Diaspora Diplomacy, Emotions, and Disruption: A Conceptual and Analytical Framework,” June 2024, CPD Perspectives, USC Center on Public Diplomacy. In this perceptive article, Alina Dolea (Bournemouth University and USC CPD Research Fellow) develops a theoretical framework for understanding diaspora diplomacy. She advances important claims. (1) Diaspora diplomacy requires a foundational assessment of emotions understood as enabling and disruptive mediating factors in diplomatic agency, practices, and discourses. (2) The way forward lies in a constructivist approach in which identity, belonging, and transnational ties are central analytical categories. (3) Media, migration, and digital technologies are essential gateway perspectives. (4) Diasporas should be examined, not as bounded entities, but as categories of practice in which actors make claims, initiate projects, project loyalties, make judgments, and mobilize support. (5) The intersubjective and sociocultural nature of emotions as political forces linked to relations of power — and the sense of loss and trauma common to all displaced peoples — are key dynamics. Dolea applies her framework to the Romanian disaspora in the United Kingdom. She employs semi-structured interviews with 21 representatives of their organizations to address two research questions. How do these representatives construct their identity? And how do they situate themselves with roles and identities in the diaspora assemblage as a “field of power?” Her essay provides a capacious review of relevant literature and is filled with research enhancing ideas.
Matthew Evans, Matt Lipka, Joshua McDaniel, Isa Nambo, Evan Rein, and Gabriel Teitelbaum, “Partnerships, Policy, and Public Diplomacy: A Deep Dive Into Influencer Diplomacy for the Secretary’s Priorities.” Diplomacy Lab Project, School of International Service, American University (AU). In this capstone project, six AU seniors explore the private sector roles of social media influencers and ways State Department partnerships with 24 selected influencers could advance US public diplomacy objectives. Their project drew on interviews with Public Diplomacy Council of America members, analysis of State Department press releases, and a review of scholarly and practitioner literature on public diplomacy and social media influencers. The authors identify best practices in partnerships with influencers, criteria for selecting events and influencers, themes from past events likely to have future value, and recommended State Department events for influencer partnerships. The project was supervised by Ambassador (ret.) Earl Anthony Wayne, AU’s Distinguished Diplomat in Residence.
Alicia Fjällhed and James Pamment, “Disinformation,” in Eytan Gilboa, ed., A Research Agenda for Public Diplomacy, pp. 173-186, (Edward Elgar, 2023). This essay stands out in the enormous literature on disinformation for its clarity and generative ideas. Fjällhed (Lund University) and Pamment (Stockholm University) argue central challenges for public diplomacy research and practice are (1) to connect disinformation’s development to a volatile political, security, and communications environment and (2) to “deliver cutting-edge insights to practitioners of PD before they become outdated.” To achieve this, public diplomacy requires reciprocity between vast transdisciplinary research domains and diplomacy-specific studies that can enhance research and practice. The authors begin with a summary of the evolution of propaganda and disinformation research. Then they identify “windows of opportunity” for theoretical and empirical inquiry. Continuous engagement between scholars and practitioners is critical to developing evidence-based concepts and enhancing the operational value of theory. Examples of how this can work are drawn from collaborative efforts of the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, and Lund University’s work with the Swedish, U.K., and Finish governments and EU institutions.
“Focus on AI for Diplomacy,” The Foreign Service Journal, June 2024. Forward leaning diplomacy practitioners have often shaped change at technological (telegraph, shortwave, internet) and geopolitical (WWI, Cold War, 9/11) turning points. This month’s FSJ offers a rich collection of essays by serving and retired diplomats that focus on artificial intelligence as a technology turning point.
Dan Spokojny (CEO of the think tank fp21), “New Tools for Better Foreign Policy,” 21-23. His scene setter urges regard for the art of diplomacy and four enduring characteristics shaping change in diplomacy as a human enterprise: defining national interests; intellectual agility, challenging orthodoxy, and anticipating surprise in setting goals; moral clarity; and strong interpersonal and communication skills.
Zed Tarar (Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Department of State), “An AI Primer for Policy Professionals,” 24-27. A superb clearly written survey of AI’s evolution, characteristics, and models; the threat/promise debate; and guidelines for diplomats.
Paul Kruchoski (Director, Office of Planning and Resources for Public Diplomacy, Department of State), “At the Crossroads of Tradition and Innovation With AI,” 28-30. Adopting AI to support diplomacy’s core missions is not a technology problem, it is a State Department culture problem. Resistance to sharing information. A fragmented, stove-piped environment. Technology tools as sources of inefficiency. Cultural change, he argues, requires sharing “dramatically siloed data,” a common data model, leadership and incentives that reward collaboration and innovation. Important ideas, reminiscent of US public diplomacy’s “reinvention” agendas in the 1990s.
Paula Osborn (Chief Data Officer, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State), “Toward Data-Informed Multilateral Diplomacy,” 31-34. A case study of the potential benefits and obstacles encountered in adopting AI and data science in State’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs.
Evanna Hu (CEO of Omelas and non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council), “AI Disruption and Responsible Use in Diplomacy,” 35-37. A summary of the debate between AI accelerationists and decelerationists; AI’s implications for international rules and norms, democratic values, collective action, and global engagement; and the concept of “Responsible AI.”
Bettyjane Hoover, “Strengthening Japanese Public Diplomacy: Steps for the Future,” Substantive Research Paper, School of International Service, American University, Spring 2024. Hoover, a graduating MA student, examines the history of four actors in Japan’s public diplomacy: the Japan Foundation, the Japan House, Nippon Hoso Kyokai (NHK), and the Japan Exchange and Teaching Program (JET). Building on an analysis of their activities, her well-organized and clearly written paper makes recommendations for conceptual and operational changes that would strengthen the nation’s public diplomacy. Leading the list is her call for Japan to rely less heavily on promoting culture and soft power and consider “integrating its strategic communications, currently the domain of the Self Defense Force (SDF) with its PD activities.” Her paper was supervised by Ambassador (ret.) Earl Anthony Wayne, AU’s Distinguished Diplomat in Residence.
Harry W. Kopp, The Voice of the Foreign Service: A History of the American Foreign Service Association, second edition, (American Foreign Service Association, 2024). In this essential second edition, historian and retired FSO Harry Kopp, takes AFSA’s story forward from the Obama administration through the turmoil of the Trump administration to the third year of the Biden administration. New chapters focus on leadership and internal governance issues, professional and labor-management issues, and questions relating to Foreign Service reform and the role of a career service in American diplomacy. Particularly useful is his account of the legal and professional challenges confronting AFSA during the first impeachment of President Trump and the predations of his administration. Earlier chapters — on the nation’s first diplomats and consuls, AFSA’s origins, its evolution into a professional association and then an employee union — are slightly revised. Kopp states accurately that his book “is unashamedly pro-AFSA.” “Failures and scandals are not ignored, but neither are they highlighted.” It is a well written account of people, events, and contested issues based on deep research in AFSA’s records and meeting minutes, the Foreign Service Journal, online interviews in the American Association of Diplomatic Studies and Training’s oral history project, and published primary and secondary sources. Practitioner oriented scholars will find it is more than the history of an organization; it illuminates larger concerns in understanding societal drivers of an American way of diplomacy.
Carlos Lozada, “Is America a City on a Hill or a Nation on the Precipice?” July 2, 2024, The New York Times. In this lengthy but easily read essay, opinion columnist Lozada gives us a thoughtful summary of what numerous scholars and political leaders have said about claims of American exceptionalism — from sociologist Daniel Bell, to historian Andrew Bacevich, to historian Ian Tyrrell, from the Puritan John Winthrop to Presidents Ronald Reagan and Joe Biden. American exceptionalism’s reality or falsity is not an unambiguous fact, Lozada argues, but an endless argument over a political or cultural belief. It is a discourse in which America’s leaders praise a shining city that is, or once was, or imagined in the future. Diplomacy is a political instrument of power, and this complex discourse is characteristic of an American way of diplomacy. US diplomats must contend with how it is framed in intensely partisan contests in the moment, with how foreign publics understand their own histories, and with how conflicting versions create differences and misunderstandings in diplomatic practice. There are significant implications for how the State Department creates a learning culture and adopts needed reforms in professional education.
Anna Helene Kvist Møller, Rebecca Adler-Nissen, Yevgeniy Golovchenko, Kristin Anabel Eggeling, “The Social Aesthetics of Digital Diplomacy,” International Political Sociology, Vol. 18, Issue 3, September 2024. These respected diplomacy scholars at the University of Copenhagen argue that social media images posted by diplomats can be analyzed, not as strategic or representative signifiers, but as “ritual, performative, and symbolic markers” that encode social norms and project authority, power, and privilege. Drawing on explanations of visual social theories and ideas in the sociology of taste — and their analysis of 55,559 images in tweets by more than 1,000 ambassadors worldwide using computer vision techniques — the authors assess recent scholarship in digitalized diplomacy and advance several claims. Using graphics and categories of photographs as evidence in the article, they assert that collectively the images diplomats share display harmony and conceal conflicts. They reveal a global uniformity and “formalized code” that reinforces ideals of mediation and sovereign equality. They convey a “we” orientation that often excludes alternative narratives and largely adheres “to a Western and elite-oriented visual repertoire.” The social aesthetics of these images does not mean there is homogeneity among incredibly diverse diplomats; rather the images are carefully curated to project an illusion of equality. Their projection on social media represents tradition as much as innovation. The article provides further support for blended diplomacy, meaning integration of analog and digital technologies in diplomatic practice, argued persuasively by two of the authors in earlier research. See Adler-Nissen and Eggeling “Blended Diplomacy: The Entanglement and Contestation of Digital Technologies in Everyday Diplomatic Practice,” European Journal of International Relations 28(3), (2022), 640-666.
Richard Rorty, Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism, (Harvard University Press, 2021, 2024). In 1996 the American philosopher Richard Rorty (1931-2007) delivered ten lectures in which he voiced his mature views on pragmatism as an intellectual and political commitment at the University of Girona in Spain. They were published in Catalan and Spanish, but not as a unified collection in English (with an excellent foreword by Robert B. Brandom) until 2021. This year they were published in paperback. Rorty’s ideas turn on his belief that our practices — grounded in individual autonomy and what emerges from human conversations — should form the basis for knowledge, ethics, and politics, not truth criteria beyond human experience. In the tradition of John Dewey and Jurgen Habermas, Rorty’s “anti-authoritarian” pragmatism animates thinking about ideas, democracy, and discursive social practices. In diplomacy’s public dimension, Rorty and other pragmatists inform a variety of assumptions, tools, and methods: cognitive framing of a mediated world beyond immediate grasp, treating publics as participants not spectators, managing relations between groups through discourse and face-to-face relationships, public opinion research, democracy promotion, and educational and cultural exchanges. These lectures are Rorty at his best — a thinker and provocative public intellectual who wrote clearly and has much to say about our understanding of democratic politics and diplomacy.
Efe Sevin, “Unpacking Soft Power for Cities: A Theoretical Approach,” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, accessible online June 2024. Sevin (Towson University) continues his excellent work on city diplomacy and city branding with this inquiry into how a soft power framework can be used to theorize and operationalize international activities of cities and relationships with their home countries. He begins with an overview of Joseph S. Nye’s definition of soft power, its evolution and conceptual characteristics, and critical assessments by scholars over time. Sevin then constructs a framework grounded in three “soft power logics:” resources (assets and capabilities), representation (city diplomacy), and reputation (city branding). His goals are to create stronger links between city diplomacy and city branding, examine limitations caused by activities that don’t easily fit within these categories, and point to issues raised by connections between cities and their home countries. His intent is to encourage greater attention to cities as diplomatic and branding actors and the value of soft power for understanding activities of political entities other than nation-states. His open access article provides a comprehensive literature review and raises important questions for debate and research.
US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, “A Historical Overview of the Global Engagement Center [GEC]: ACPD Official Meeting Minutes,” May 15, 2024. At its quarterly public meeting held at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, the bipartisan Commission presented its special report “The Global Engagement Center: A Historical Overview 2001-2021.” A panel, moderated by Executive Director Vivian Walker, discussed the Commission’s report, the evolution of the GEC, and its value in understanding and countering foreign and non-state disinformation and propaganda. Panelists included James Glassman, former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs and Chair of the Broadcasting Board of Governors; Kitty DiMartino, former Chief of Staff to Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale; and Graham Brookie, former Advisor for Strategic Communication at the National Security Council. As noted in a previous edition of this list, the Commission’s report identifies lessons for the future from the GEC’s history. Importantly, it also provides essential knowledge and advice in the context of partisan attacks on the GEC in Congress and by critics elsewhere. A transcript and video of the meeting (approximately one hour) can be downloaded at the link.
The Commission acknowledged the many contributions of Vivian Walker, who is departing as executive director after five years of extraordinary service during a difficult time for the Commission and US public diplomacy. During her tenure the Commission published comprehensive annual reports and numerous special reports on cutting edge issues; maintained a regular schedule of quarterly public meetings in person and on Zoom; and fully carried out its statutory mandate to advise and report to presidents, secretaries of state, Congress, and the American people. All at a time when it faced the Covid pandemic, contrasting challenges of the Trump and Biden administrations, and a gridlocked Congress that failed to confirm presidential nominations of Commissioners of both parties. Vivian stands out in the Commission’s 75-year history as a talented professional who has performed a difficult job exceptionally well — successfully navigating the often-contested terrain between lawmakers, Congressional staffs, government officials, and diplomacy practitioners. Hats off also to Commission Chair Sim Farar and Vice Chair Bill Hybl who have served long past their expired terms as they await Senate confirmation of their successors.
Hugh Wilford, The CIA: An Imperial History, (Basic Books, 2024). Histories of institutionalized foreign intelligence and public diplomacy in the United States have separate trajectories but also much in common. The fortunes of both have been episodically connected with wars throughout American history. Durable institutions were not established until the late 1940s. Covert operatives and citizen front groups were public diplomacy practitioners during the Cold War. Americans have supported covert funding of information and cultural programs until exposure damaged reputations and their perceptions of the nation’s values. Hugh Wilford (California State University, Long Beach) explored the CIA’s covert Cold War front groups in detail in his excellent earlier book, The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America (Harvard University Press, 2008). Now, in The CIA, he frames its evolution in the context of America’s “modern imperial history, comparing, contrasting, and connecting it with prior colonial intelligence services.” He uses experiences of key CIA operatives — Sherman Kent, James Angleton, Cord Meyer, Kermit “Kim” Roosevelt, Edward Lansdale, and others — to illuminate patterns of practice and the book’s central themes: the United States as a “covert empire” and the CIA “as an imperial intelligence service.” Diplomacy scholars and practitioners will find of particular interest his chapter on the CIA’s cultural Cold War; Walt Raymond’s activities as director of the Reagan administration’s Office of International Communication and Public Diplomacy at the NSC, his role in creating the National Endowment for Democracy, and his support for Oliver North’s Iran-Contra project; and Otto Reich’s Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean in the State Department. This is a beautifully written book filled with compelling stories and superb scholarship.
Recent Items of Interest
Matthew Asada, “Diplomacy as a Profession: Reflections on a Foreign Service Career,” May 17, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Max Boot, “As China Ramps Up Disinformation, the U.S. Is Far Too Vulnerable,” May 20, 2024, The Washington Post.
Julian Borger, “Trump Win Could See Mass Purge of State Department, US Diplomats Fear,” June 13, 2024, The Guardian.
Bradley Bowman, ed., “Cognitive Combat: China, Russia, and Iran’s War Against Americans,” June 2024, Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Elizabeth Braw, “When Knowledge Stops at the Water’s Edge.” May 24, 2024, Foreign Policy.
Thomas Carothers and Brendan Hartnett, “Misunderstanding Democratic Backsliding,” July 2024, The Journal of Democracy.
John J. Chin and Haleigh Bartos, “Rethinking U.S. Africa Policy Amid Changing Geopolitical Realities,” Spring 2024, Texas National Security Review.
Lyor Cohen, “YouTube Partners With U.S. State Department to Promote Peace,” June 24, 2024, YouTube.
Joe Davidson, “Sen. Kaine Wants More Career, Fewer Political-fundraising Ambassadors,” June 7, 2024, “The Washington Post; “Kaine Introduces Bill to Strengthen State Department Workforce.”
Justin Doubleday, “With New AI Tools Available, State Department Encourages Experimentation,” June 28, 2024, Federal News Network.
Sheera Frenkel, “Israel Secretly Targets U.S. Lawmakers With Influence Campaign on Gaza War,” June 5, 2024, The New York Times.
Cory R. Gill and Emily M. McCabe, “Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations: A Guide to Component Accounts,” June 18, 2024, Congressional Research Service.
Bruce Gregory, “At Last, State Moves Toward Public-Private Research on Diplomacy,” June, 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Jory Heckman, “State of the State Department: Hiring Above Attrition, Training a New Generation of Diplomats,” July 22, 2024, Federal News Network.
Jacob Heilbrunn, “The Rise and Fall of America’s Diplomats [Review of] The Voice of the Foreign Service: A History of the American Foreign Service Association at 100 by Harry W. Kopp,” June 2024, The Jerusalem Strategic Tribune.
Jessica Jerreat, “McCaul Raises Concerns Over USAGM Ability to Vet Staff,” June 14, 2024, VOA News; “Chairman McCaul Releases Report on Culture of Corruption at USAGM,” and “Report on the Office of Labor and Employment Relations at the U.S. Agency for Global Media,” June 12, 2024, Committee on Foreign Affairs, US House of Representatives;
Joe B. Johnson, “Who Will Stem Media Attacks From Hostile Powers,” July 2024; “Public Diplomacy Needs Qualified Professionals,” June 2024; “New Insights From The Public Diplomacy Laboratory,” May 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Tomasz Kamiński, [Book Review], Diplomacy for Professionals and Everyone by Alisher Faizullaev, (Brill | Nijhoff, 2022), Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 20, 253–254 (2024).
Dan Kimmage, “What Does the Global Engagment Center Do? | July 8, 2024 First Monday Forum Highlights [8 minute video produced by Yuchen Lee],” Public Diplomacy Council of America
Paul Kruchoski, Director, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Office of Policy Planning and Resources, “Planning for the Future: PD 2034,” (70-minute video), June 19, 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America, GWU Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Lily Kuo, “The United States Used to Have Cachet in China. Not Anymore,” May 25, 2024, The Washington Post.
Jan-Werner Muller, “The World Still Needs Habermas: The German Philosopher is Starting to Outlive His Liberal Legacy,” June 30, 2024, Foreign Policy.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “The End of Soft Power?” June 12, 2024, The National Interest; “America Still Retains a Soft Power Advantage Over China,” May 22, 2024, The Hill.
Donna Oglesby, “A Professional Foreign Service Is Vital, and Here’s Why,” May 16, 2024, Tampa Bay Times.
“A Reckoning at Voice of America,” July 11, 2024, National Review.
Heather Cox Richardson, “American Conversations: Secretary of State Antony Blinken,” July 12, 2024; “Letters from an American [George Creel, OWI, and disinformation],” June 12, 2024.
Ian Rosenzweig, “Disinformation: A Threat to Every Level of Diplomacy,” 2024 High School Essay Contest Winning Essay, June 2024, American Foreign Service Association.
Sam Sabin, “The State Department Wants to Hear From the Tech Sector,” June 18, 2024, Axios.
Dan Spokojny, “Lessons from Quantum Physics for Foreign Policy,” July 15, 2024; “Implementing a Curriculum for Foreign Policy Expertise,” July 9, 2024; “The (in)Definitive Reading List for Foreign Policy Expertise,” June 24, 2024; “A Curriculum for Foreign Policy Expertise,” June 12, 2024; “Huge Win for Diplomacy: A Research Center for State,” May 21, 2024, fp21 substack.
Cristina Stassis, “Senate Democrats’ Bill Would Reaffirm Nonpartisan State Department,” June 10, 2024, The Federal Times.
Michael G. Stevens and C. Eugene Steuerle, “To Win the Messaging Wars, Restore the US Information Agency,” May 31, 2024, The Hill.
Tara D. Sonenshine, “Has American Lost Its Moral Compass,” June 20, 2024, The Hill.
Tom Temin, “Why the State Department Wants to Set Up Federally-Funded Research and Development Centers,” July 17, 2024.
Eric Tucker, “US Disrupts Russian Government-backed Disinformation Campaign That Relied on AI Technology,” July 9, 2024, The Washington Post.
Larry Tye, “Satchmo, the Duke, and the Count: Representing America at Its Best Despite Having Experience Its Worst,” May 2024, American Diplomacy.
Bill Wanlund, “Remembering Charlie Wick — A Few Chime In,” and “Remembering Charles Z. Wick — A Few More,” June 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Eric Weiner, “What We Can Learn From America’s First Diplomat,” July 4, 2024, Foreign Policy.
Gavin Wilde and Rick Landgraf, “From Panic to Policy: The Limits of Foreign Propaganda and the Foundations of an Effective Response,” May 28, 2024, War on the Rocks podcast.
Lauren C. Williams, “A US Agency Focused on Foreign Disinformation Could Shut Down After the Election,” July 8, 2024, Government Executive.
Tom Yazdgerdi, “Citizen Diplomats and the Foreign Service,” May 20, 2024, Global Ties, U.S.
Karin Zeitvogel, “Breakdancing News: Diplomacy Meets Hip Hop As 22 Artists Visit US,” June 5, 2024, The Washington Diplomat.
Gem from the Past
Deborah N. Cohn and Hilary E. Kahn, eds., International Education at the Crossroads, (Indiana University Press, 2020). Title VI of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) has been a funding source for foreign language and area studies programs through the US Department of Education since 1958. Less well known perhaps than other educational and cultural activities in US diplomacy’s public dimension, it nevertheless has long been an important category of practice in the nation’s cultural diplomacy. In this compendium, Cohn and Kahn (Indiana University) bring together 29 scholars, educators, and policymakers to examine diverse approaches to the future of international education. The volume builds on a symposium hosted by Indiana University in 2018 celebrating the 60th anniversary of Title VI. Chapters are organized in separate but interrelated categories. Perspectives on international education in a global context. The current and future roles of area studies, global studies, and language learning. The impact of Title VI in the United States and tensions between area studies and global studies. A deep dive into language learning in the United States. Tensions between practice and scholarship and critical thinking about how internationalization is approach by institutions of higher education. And contrasting approaches to international education of the US Departments of Education, State, and Defense; other federal agencies; and key actors in civil society.
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 of America, and Len Baldyga’s email listserv.