Author: GW

Posted on

Issue #77

Amelia Arsenault, Center’s of Gravity in Public Diplomacy 2.0: A Case Study of Efforts in South Africa, CPD Perspectives, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, September 2015.  Arsenault (Georgia State University) calls for a “geocentric approach” to public diplomacy that gives priority to information contexts and issue-relevant publics, rather than government public diplomacy actors, as the analytical starting point in scholarship and practice.  Converging trends in the media environment and diplomatic practice require a fundamental shift (“a Copernican approach”) in analytical perspective: look first at mediated and interactive contexts, then at how public diplomacy actors interact in those contexts.  Arsenault frames her ideas in a case study of US public diplomacy conducted during reductions in funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in South Africa.  Her knowledge of social media analytics, public diplomacy literature, and South Africa make this an excellent teaching case for exploring whether media outreach can engage and influence.
Gordon Adams and Shoon Murray, eds., Mission Creep: The Militarization of US Foreign Policy, (Georgetown University Press, 2014).  Adams and Murray (American University) have compiled essays by scholars and former diplomacy practitioners that examine “a growing institutional imbalance at the heart of the foreign policy and national security process.”  The result is manifest excessive reliance on military perspectives, priorities, and instruments that has adverse consequences for America’s global engagement.  Chapters of particular interest include: Charles B. Cushman (Georgetown University), “Congress and the Politics of Defense and Foreign Policymaking;” Brian E. Carlson (Intermedia Research Institute), “Who Tells America’s Story Abroad;” Shoon Murray and Anthony Quainton (American University), “Combatant Commanders, Ambassadorial Authority, and the Conduct of Diplomacy;” Edward Marks (Simons Center for the Study of Interagency Cooperation), “The State Department;” and Gordon Adams, “Conclusion.”
Caitlin Byrne and Jane Johnston, “Wikipedia: Medium and Model of Collaborative Public Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Volume 10, Issue 4, 2015, 396-419.  In this article, Byrne and Johnston (Bond University) first discuss Wikipedia’s philosophy, organization, and format.  Then, using a variety of examples, they explore ways in which Wikipedia can be a medium of public diplomacy through development and dissemination of knowledge and as online space for finding, developing, and sustaining communal identities and narratives.  They conclude by looking at Wikipedia “as a model of intense, deep collaboration,” “collective agency,” and “symbolic advocacy.”  This unconventional arena of discursive public diplomacy practice, they argue, is organic, beyond the direct authority of the state, and a collaborative environment that governments and diplomats should facilitate and empower.
Sarah Ellen Graham, Culture and Propaganda: The Progressive Origins of American Public Diplomacy, 1936-1953, (Ashgate, 2015).  Graham (University of Sydney) provides a deeply researched account of the origins of US cultural diplomacy, international broadcasting, and informational diplomacy activities.  Her book examines ambivalence and fundamental tensions in official and public debates, organizational and policy issues, and the changing domestic and foreign contexts that shaped outcomes in this “founding phase in the development of US public diplomacy.”  Key chapters address Latin American precedents and wartime expansion of cultural diplomacy, early debates on the Voice of America’s mission (“journalist or diplomat”), the founding of UNESCO, and the evolution of these activities between World War II and the establishment of the US Information Agency at the beginning of the Cold War.  Graham combines an excellent understanding of conceptual issues in public diplomacy with informed analysis of US diplomatic practice during an era that deserves greater attention.
Bruce Gregory, “Mapping Boundaries in Diplomacy’s Public Dimension,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Volume 11, Issue 1, 2016, 25 pages.  Gregory (George Washington University) examines changes in diplomacy’s global environment that challenge traditional categories in diplomacy’s study and practice.  The “foreign” and “domestic” divide is blurred beyond easy recognition.  Public diplomacy is no longer a separate instrument of diplomacy.  The term marginalizes a public dimension that is now central in diplomatic practice.  This article examines four boundaries that both separate and connect: (1) a distinction between diplomacy and foreign policy that benefits diplomacy studies and clarifies choices in practice; (2) a framework for diplomacy’s public dimension that connects types of diplomatic actors with process variables; (3) a separation between diplomacy and civil society that distinguishes diplomacy from other relationships between groups; and (4) characteristics of diplomacy and governance that explain how they differ from other political and social categories.  Diplomatic and governance actors are categorized in trans-governmental and polylateral networks.  Civil society and private sector actors are categorized in cosmopolitan and private governance networks.
Jeet Heer, “Pulp Propaganda,” The New Republic, September 30, 2015, 55-59.  Heer (senior editor, TNR) looks at the US government’s narrative collaboration with cartoonist Roy Crane, creator of the popular Navy pilot Buz Sawyer cartoons read by millions of Americans during the Cold War.  Crane’s papers, archived at Syracuse University, document the role of State Department advisors and US military officers in shaping the cartoonist’s storylines.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs. William McCants – contrasting views on Islam, diplomatic strategies, and counterterrorism.  Their succinct arguments make for good side-by-side course readings and class discussion.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “The Problem from Heaven: Why the United States Should Back Islam’s Reformation,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2015, 36-45.  Hirsi Ali (Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School of Government) argues the US should “start helping the right side win” in “the war of ideas” against “radical Islam.”  Her critique: US officials, public diplomacy practitioners, and international broadcasters have opted out of a debate about Islam’s future.  Her solution: a new strategy, modeled on Cold War methods of USIA and the CIA’s Congress of Cultural Freedom, that uses social media, US broadcasting, incentives for reformers, and support for schools “that act as anti-madrasahs.”
William McCants, “Islamic Scripture Is Not the Problem: And Funding Muslim Reformers Is Not the Solution,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2015, 46-52. McCants (Brookings Institution and former State Department advisor on counterterrorism) argues Hirsi Ali’s logic, history, and Cold War analogy are flawed.  Her solution (1) fails to recognize constraints against promoting religious beliefs in US law and political culture, (2) unwisely conflates conservative religious views with using violence, and (3) raises a host of practical problems ranging from funding choices to blowback against US intervention in religious disputes.  There are better ways to achieve more universal freedom and respect for human rights than through religious reform.
Institute for the Study of Diplomacy (ISD), Case Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, September 2015.  Under the leadership of the Institute’s current director, Ambassador (ret.) Barbara Bodine, ISD has updated and launched a new website for its 250 case studies on topics in US diplomatic history.  Developed in cooperation with the Pew Research Center, ISD’s cases are written by senior practitioners and scholars knowledgeable on diplomatic practice.  “They can serve as standalone readings on a specific issue, event or country, a complement to broader theoretical readings, or prompts for simulations and role-plays.”  The new library contains a “Faculty Lounge” with an easily accessed registration process, log-in and password system, a new search engine, revised case summaries, and instructor’s copies provided at no charge.  The cost to students remains $3.50 per case.
Romit Kampf, Ilan Manor, and Elad Segev, “Digital Diplomacy 2.0? A Cross-national Comparison of Public Engagement in Facebook and Twitter,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Volume 10, Issue 4, 2015, 331-362.  In this cross-national comparison of digital diplomacy, Kampf, Manor, and Segev (Tel Aviv University) examine “the extent to which dialogic communication is adopted by foreign ministries in terms of content, media channels and public engagement.”  Based on an analysis of the Twitter and Facebook content of eleven foreign ministries during a period of six weeks, they conclude: (1) “engagement and dialogic communication are rare,” (2) occasional engagement “is quarantined to specific issues,” and (3) most content consists of press releases targeting foreign rather than domestic populations.
John Kerry and Michael Bloomberg, “Remarks with UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change Michael Bloomberg at Our Cities, Our Climate:  A Bloomberg Philanthropies-U.S. Department of State Partnership Working Luncheon,” US Department of State, October 8, 2015.  Kerry and Bloomberg exchange views on the role of cities in addressing climate change at a conference of mayors and city leaders in Washington.  Useful as a short course reading on city diplomacy and the role of foreign ministries in convening and connecting sub-state and civil society actors on a wide range of global issues.
Charles King, “The Decline of International Studies: Why Flying Blind Is Dangerous,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2015, 88-98.  King (Georgetown University) laments the “gotcha politics” and deep cuts in US government support for education and research in fields that give scholars and students “the linguistic skills, historical sensitivity, and sheer intellectual curiosity to peer deeply into foreign societies.”  Broad competence beyond the exigencies of national security is the price of global engagement.  It is not needed to enable policymakers but rather to imagine unintended consequences, temper ambition, and provide realistic insights into what is historically and culturally possible.
Jan Melissen, “Diplomacy in the Age of Digital Disruption,” Global Media Analysis Services (GMAS), September 8, 2015.  Melissen (Netherlands Institute of International Relations, ‘Clingendael’) summarizes key judgments in a 2015 Clingendael Report by Brian Hocking and Jan Melissen, Diplomacy in the Digital Age.  Defining objectives.  New practices and norms.  Networked diplomacy.  “‘Digital diplomacy’ can best be understood as a shorthand term embracing broader changes in diplomacy that are pre-dating digitalization.”
Jan Melissen and Yul Sohn, eds., Understanding Public Diplomacy in East Asia: Middle Powers in a Troubled Region, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).  Scholars in this collection of essays, compiled by Melissen (Netherlands Institute of International Relations, ‘Clingendael’) and Sohn (Yonsei University, South Korea), examine theory and practice in the public diplomacy strategies of East Asian states.  The editors and their collaborators agree on the value of understanding public diplomacy through East Asian cultural and geopolitical perspectives – and on the value of combining Western and Asian insights.
— Jan Melissen, “Strategic Public Diplomacy in Extended East Asia.”
— Yul Sohn, “Regionalization, Regionalism, and Double-Edged Public Diplomacy in East Asia.”
— Andrew F. Cooper (University of Waterloo, Canada), “Soft Power and the Recalibration of Middle Powers: South Korea as an East Asian Leader and Canada as an Exemplar of the Traditional Model.”
— Kejin Zhao (Tsinghua University, China), “Public Diplomacy, Rising Power, and China’s Strategy in East Asia.”
— Yshihide Soeya (Keio University, Japan), “The Evolution of Japan’s Public Diplomacy: Haunted by Its Past.”
— Sook Jong Lee (SungKyunKwan University, South Korea), “South Korea’s Middle Power Activism and the Retooling of Its Public Diplomacy.”
— Azyumardi Azra (Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University, Indonesia), “Indonesia’s Middle Power Public Diplomacy: Asia and Beyond.”
— Jabin T. Jacob (Institute of Chinese Studies, India), “Thinking East Asia, Acting Local: Constraints, Challenges, and Contradictions in Indian Public Diplomacy.”
— Alexandra Oliver (Lowy Institute for International Policy, Australia) and Russell Trood (Griffith University, Australia), “Public Diplomacy and Australia’s Middle Power Strategy in East Asia”
— Craig Hayden (Foreign Service Institute, U.S. Department of State), “U.S. Public Diplomacy: A Model for Public Diplomacy Strategy in East Asia.”
— Jan Melissen, “Conclusions and Key Points about Public Diplomacy in East Asia.”
Shawn Powers and Michael Jablonski, The Real Cyber War: The Political Economy of Internet Freedom, (University of Illinois Press, 2015).  Powers and Jablonski (Georgia State University) explore “the interrelationship between information technology and social, political, and cultural values inherent in governance.”  Their book is written for two broad audiences:  (1) scholars in cyber technology studies and the role of the Internet in society and (2) practitioners and activists in Internet governance, geopolitics, and human rights.  They conceptualize cyber war as the use of digital networks for a wide variety of overt and covert geopolitical purposes.  In contrast to earlier communication technologies, they argue the Internet “has the potential to be truly global, interoperable, and interactive, thus magnifying its significance.”  Diplomacy scholars and practitioners will find particularly useful their in-depth examination of the State Department’s Internet freedom policies, economic and political motivations of the “freedom to connect doctrine,” Internet governance debates, and issues driven by gaps between the rhetoric of Internet freedom and state practice in a “surveillance society.”
Shawn Powers and Ben O’Laughlin, “The Syrian Data Glut: Rethinking the Role of Information in Conflict,” Media, War, and Conflict, SAGE, 2015, 1-9.  Powers (Georgia State University) and O’Laughlin (University of London) challenge the argument that an abundance of information and the free flow of information are “peace inducing” when political actors are at war.  Greater access to information may reduce misunderstanding, increase trust, and mobilize conflict resolution pressures before conflicts occur.  They also may help to end conflicts.  But as the Syrian case shows, they argue, greater access to information during a conflict “is ineffectual at best . . . and potentially dangerous.”
David Shambaugh, “China’s Soft-Power Push: The Search for Respect,” Foreign Affairs, July/August, 2015, 99-107.  Shambaugh (George Washington University) analyzes President Xi Jinping’s efforts with “serious money,” estimated at $10 billion annually, to “increase China’s soft power, give a good Chinese narrative, and better communicate China’s messages to the world.”  His article looks at China’s State Council Information Office, publishing houses, China Daily, Xinhua, China Central Television (CCTV), China Radio International, advertising in foreign newspapers, Confucius Institutes, some 20,000 scholarships annually for foreign students, programs in sports and culture, educational exchanges, and numerous government and non-governmental conferences (“host diplomacy”).  Shambaugh concludes that despite huge investment and cultural advantages, China faces an uphill battle “so long as its political system denies, rather than enables free human development.”
Dina Smeltz, Ivo Daalder, Karl Friedhoff, and Craig Kafura, America Divided: Political Partisanship and US Foreign Policy, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, September 2015.  Smeltz (a public opinion research expert, formerly with USIA and the Department of State) and her colleagues find that Americans across the political spectrum remain committed to engagement in the world, but on policy issues they are deeply divided, often on party lines.  Specific findings include: (1) concern about Islamic fundamentalism has risen by 15% since 2014; (2) more than 60% rate computer attacks and violent extremists in Iraq and Syria as critical threats; (3) deep partisan differences on immigration, climate change, the Iran nuclear agreement, creation of a Palestinian state, and the regional role of Israel; and (4) Democrats are more likely than Republicans to favor diplomacy, a stronger UN, and economic assistance.  Executive summary.
Michael Reinprecht and Henrietta Levin, Democratization through Public Diplomacy: An Analysis of the European Parliament’s Reaction to the Arab Spring,CPD Perspectives, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, October 2015.  Reinprecht (retired EU official and Austrian diplomat) and Levin (Presidential Management Fellow, US Department of Defense) analyze attempts by the European Parliament (EP) to use public diplomacy “to influence and reinforce some dimensions of the Arab Spring.”  They explore the comparative advantages of the EP as a public diplomacy actor relative to traditional diplomatic actors, and they suggest the EP’s efforts may have “sustained these revolutions longer than would otherwise have been possible.”  They also explore “significant weaknesses” in the EP’s approach to the Arab Spring resulting from “its lack of institutional experience with public diplomacy” and “dogmatic commitment to particular cultural principles.”  Going forward, they recommend that the EP (1) give greater attention to “accepting components of others’ worldview,” (2) do more to incorporate the values of others in future public diplomacy initiatives, and (3) “prioritize precise, achievable projects that leverage” the EP’s strengths.
Francisco Javier Rodriguez Jimenez, Lorenzo Delagado Gomez-Escalonilla, and Nicholas J. Cull, eds., US Public Diplomacy and Democratization in Spain,Selling Democracy? (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).  Chapters in this volume, compiled by Rodriguez (University of Salamanca), Delgado (Institute de Historia, Madrid), and Cull (University of Southern California) discuss US public diplomacy strategies in Spain during its transition to democracy.
— Nicholas John Cull & Francisco J. Rodríguez, “Introduction: Soft Power, Public Diplomacy And Democratization.”
— Giles Scott-Smith (University of Leiden), “U.S. Public Diplomacy And Democracy Promotion In The Cold War, 1950s-1980s.”
— Rosa Pardo (Universidad Nacional De Educación A Distancia-Madrid), “Furthering U.S. Geopolitical Priorities And Dealing With The Iberian Dictatorships.”
— Lorenzo Delgado (Instituto De Historia, Cchs-Csic), “Modernizing A Friendly Tyrant: U.S. Public Diplomacy And Sociopolitical Change In Francoist Spain.”
— Pablo León (Centro Universitario De La Defensa, Zaragoza), “U.S. Public Diplomacy And Democracy Promotion In Authoritarian Spain, 1940s-1970s.”
— Francisco J. Rodríguez, “Culture And National Images: American Studies Vs. Anti-Americanism In Spain.”
— Neal Rosendorf (New Mexico State University), “Spain’s First ‘Re-Branding Effort’ In The Postwar Franco Era.”
— Ambassador Mark Asquino, “U.S. Public Diplomacy And Democratization In Spain: A Practitioner’s View.”
— Lorenzo Delgado, “Conclusion. Consistency And Credibility: Why You Cannot
Collaborate With Dictatorships And Sell Democracy.”
US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, 2015 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting: Focus on Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Data, September 2015.  This 337-page report, written by the Commission’s executive director Katherine Brown and her colleagues, is intended primarily as a “consolidation of program description and budget data” for US and overseas public diplomacy activities of the Department of State and the international broadcasting activities of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.  Graphics and an extensive index make this an accessible reference document.  An underlying theme of the report is the need to strengthen the efforts of “reform minded leaders in the State Department, BBG, and in Congress” and encourage career professionals to innovate and take risks in using their limited resources.  The Commission’s recommendations focus on the need for more research and evaluation, expanding State’s Office of Policy Planning and Resources (R/PPR), accessibility of American spaces, professional development of diplomacy and broadcasting professionals, countering violent extremism, countering negative Russian influence, and young leaders initiatives.  Its recommendations are summarized at pp. 24-33 and discussed throughout the report.
For a useful assessment and brief overview of the role of the Commission and its report, see Lynne Weil, “US Soft Power,” The Hill, September 28, 2015.
Recent Blogs and Other Items of Interest
Anonymous Academic, “Academics Are Being Hoodwinked Into Writing Books Nobody Can Buy,” September 4, 2015, The Guardian.
Derek Bolton, “The Case for Embracing Subnational Identities in PD,” October 7, 2015, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.
Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), “RT at 10 – So Much Spent, So Little to Show For It,” October 6, 2015, BBG Strategy.
Robin Brown, “Twenty Years of Digital Diplomacy: Part 2,” October 23, 2015; “Twenty Years of Digital Diplomacy: Part I;” October 10, 2015; “National Public Diplomacy . . . Systems, Machines, Assemblages, Fields . . . .?” September 18, 2015, Public Diplomacy, Networks and Influence Blog.
Daryl Copeland, “Rebuilding Canada: Science & Diplomacy After the Decade of Darkness,” October 23, 2015, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.
Thomas L. Friedman, “Walls, Borders, Domes, and Refugees,” September 9, 2015, The New York Times.
Ilan Manor, “Israel and Palestine: A Dialogue of the Deaf,” October 19, 2015, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.
Thomas Miller, “Balancing Relations Based and Policy Based PD Programming,” October 26, 2015, GWU Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, Take Five Blog.
James Pamment, “Sustainable Development Goals: the PD Opportunity of a Generation,” September 9, 2015, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.
Gary Rawnsley, “The BBC: at a Credibility Crossroads,” with a reply to comments by Kim Andrew Elliott, September 10, 2015, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.
Philip Seib, “Fighting the Information War,” September 29, 2015, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.
Richard Stengel, “Empowering Global Voices Against Extremism,” September 29, 2015, Department of State, Dipnote blog.
David Talbot, “Fighting ISIS Online,” September 30, 2015, MIT Technology Review.
Garry Trudeau, “Doonesbury,” September 6, 2015, gocomics.com.
Matthew Wallin, “Winning the Social Media War Against ISIS,” October 1, 2015, American Security Project website.
Katie Zavadski, “Putin’s Propaganda TV Lies About Its Popularity,” September 17, 2015, The Daily Beast.
Gem From The Past
James H. Merrill, Into the American Woods: Negotiators on the Pennsylvania Frontier, (W. W. Norton & Company, 1999).  This brilliant book by Bancroft Prize winning historian James Merrill (Vasser College) stands out in the large and growing literature on diplomacy between Europeans and indigenous Americans in the 17thand 18th centuries.  Merrill calls them “go-betweens” – his phrase for the many names given to these negotiators – “agent, messenger, ambassador, Mr. Interpreter, Manager, Province Interpreter, mediator, ne horrichwisax n’donasit, friend, a person to do Indian Business, thuwawoenachqata, Anhuktonheet, Guardian of all the Indians, a person to go between Us.”  His case study of the Pennsylvania frontier, emblematic of the broader frontier experience, explores the “eclectic jumble of skills and media” used by English, French, and Native Americans and provides numerous insights into the public dimension that was central to their diplomacy.  Diplomacy scholars and practitioners will find value in Merrill’s account for an understanding of today’s issues: deep comprehension of others, communication in low context and high context cultures, the diplomatic roles of sub-state actors, and relational and messaging models of public diplomacy.
Posted on

Issue #76

B. Senem Çevik and Philip Seib, eds., Turkey’s Public Diplomacy, (Palgrave Macmillan, Series in Global Public Diplomacy, 2015).   Çevik (University of Ankara) and Seib (University of Southern California) have compiled the first English language study of Turkey’s public diplomacy.  Their introductory essay analyzes public diplomacy in the context of Turkey’s rise as a major power in the broader Middle East and in its global reach as a middle power.  They examine its contributions to Turkey’s political, economic, military, and cultural initiatives – as well as its limitations and the political and institutional challenges it faces.  Effective public diplomacy, they argue, is linked to Turkey’s “soft power attributes and capacity” and is “contingent upon the consolidation of a liberal democracy by Western standards.”  Chapters by 11 contributors look at historical issues, tools and methods, and how Turkey tailors its public diplomacy in a variety of regional and global relationships.
— Gaye Ash Sancar (Galatasaray University), “ Turkey’s Public Diplomacy: Its Actors, Stakeholders, and Tools”
— Vedat Demir (Istanbul University), “Two Historical Perspectives: Ottomans and the
Republican Era”
— Özlem Tür, (Middle East Technical University, Ankara), “Engaging with the Middle East: The Rise and Fall of Turkish Leadership in the 2000s”
— Melody Mohebi (Jeff Skoll Group, London School of Economics), “Dominance in the Neighborhood: Turkey and Iran”
— Marija Mitrović Bošković ́ (Middle East Technical University, Ankara & Humboldt University), Dušan Reljić́, (German Institute for International and Security Affairs), and Alida Vracić (Populari, a Sarajevo based think tank), “Elsewhere in the Neighborhood: Reaching Out to the Western Balkans”
— B. Senem Çevik, “The Benefactor: NGOs and Humanitarian Aid”
— Kıvanç Ulusoy (Istanbul University), “Turkish Foreign Policy in a Transatlantic Context: A Case for Soft Power and Public Diplomacy”
— Burcu Gultekin Punsmann (scholar, NGO practitioner, civil society activist)   “Addressing Controversy I: Public Diplomacy between Turkey and Armenia”
— Galip Dalay (SETA Foundation, Ankara), “Addressing Controversy II: Turkey and the Kurds”
— Çağdaş Üngör (Marmara University, Istanbul), “Expanding Perspective: Reaching Out to China and the East”
— M. Selcan Kaynak (Bogazici University, Istanbul), “Noor and Friends: Turkish Culture in the World”
Andrew F. Cooper,  Diplomatic Afterlives ,  (Polity, 2015).   The role of individuals as leaders and diplomats in the state system is well-plowed ground in foreign policy studies.  In recent years, research has emerged on NGOs and “hyper-empowered” private individuals (e.g., Bill Gates, George Soros) as actors in global governance and polylateral diplomacy.  In Diplomatic Afterlives, Cooper (University of Waterloo) focuses on an under-studied category of private individuals as governance and diplomatic actors – former world leaders who leverage celebrity and authority derived from their government service to become “policy and norm entrepreneurs” in global networks.  Using Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Nelson Mandela as case studies, Cooper examines their solutions to global problems and how they seek “to fill gaps and failures” in the state system.  He explores the benefits of their innovative model of “extended hybridity,” a combination of insider and outsider roles that connects “not only the closed world of the diplomatic club culture but the diverse worlds of non-state actors.”  He also considers the model’s potential deficiencies: lack of accountability, fatigue and shelf life factors, and temptations when public social purpose is blended with a private “dash for cash.”
Karen DeYoung,  “How the Obama White House Runs Foreign Policy,”  The Washington Post, August 4, 2015.   The Post’s senior national security correspondent looks at the pros and cons of a National Security Council staff that numbers 400 people.  Some evergreen issues are familiar: long repetitious meetings, micromanagement of departments and agencies, inexperienced and risk averse staff, delays and lengthy options papers.  But DeYoung also conveys what centralization means for “national diplomatic systems” in a world where many more issues are characterized by surprise, complexity, transparency, and rapid change.  “It used to be that State ran foreign policy,” said a former White House official.  “Now, everyone’s got a hand in it.  Go around the table, and they’ve all got equities, they’ve all got personnel out in the field, and all that needs to be managed.”
Alberto M. Fernandez,  “Surviving Al-Jazeera and Other Public Calamities,”  The Foreign Service Journal, July/August, 2015, 61-64 .  Recently retired US Ambassador Fernandez reflects on his famously controversial Al-Jazeera interview, re-structuring public diplomacy in the State Department’s Middle East regional bureau, the importance of leadership support for diplomats engaged in high pressure media outreach situations, and lessons learned from his 32 years as a public diplomat.  For teachers and students, it is a brief, well-written read that illuminates the importance of superb foreign language and media skills and what it means to be an entrepreneurial diplomat.
Calvert W. Jones, “Exploring the Microfoundations of International Community: Toward a Theory of Enlightened Nationalism,” International Studies Quarterly, Volume 58, Issue 4, December 2014.   Does cross border contact break down artificial barriers and encourage a shared sense of community?  Jones (University of Maryland) examines this research question using survey data from a sample (n = 571) of American study abroad students from 11 colleges (returning from a semester abroad) and a control group (students about to begin a semester abroad).  He offers three findings.  (1) Cross border contacts do not foster a shared sense of community characterized by warmth, trust, and shared understandings.  (2) To his surprise, however, cross border contacts lowered threat perceptions.  (3) Returning students also had a heightened sense of nationalism (Samuel Huntington’s hypothesis) and considerably greater pride in America’s literature, armed forces, political influence, and achievements in the arts and sports.  See also Calvert Jones, “The Surprising Effects of Study Abroad,” The Washington Post, August 20, 2015.
Brian Hocking and Jan Melissen,  Diplomacy in the Digital Age,  Clingendael Report, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, July 2015.  In this 58-page report, Hocking (Loughborough University) and Melissen (University of Antwerp), two Clingendael scholars with a deep understanding of the study and practice of diplomacy, provide “initial reflections” on what digitalization means for diplomacy’s forms, processes, and structures.  Key questions include:  What are the main characteristics of the debate on digital diplomacy?  What do we mean by the digital age?  How does the broader digitalized environment affect diplomacy?  Through a variety of “offline and online perspectives,” they look at changing foreign policy agendas; cyber agendas; knowledge management; digitalization of diplomatic processes and structures in consular work, public diplomacy and international negotiations; and the implications of digitalization for national diplomatic systems and ministries of foreign affairs.  Practitioners will find their report essential reading.  Scholars will discover ideas for research and writing in practically every paragraph.
“I Am the Ambassador from America,”  DR TV, May 21, 2015.   DR TV followed US Ambassador to Denmark Rufus Gifford for three months.  This 30-minute collection of sequenced videos captures different aspects of his work in Denmark.  The videos are in spoken English with Danish titles and sub-titles.  See also  “Video: US Ambassador Shows Off Danish ‘Skills,’”  The Local, December 4, 2014.  (Courtesy of Alexa Stroh)
Harry W. Kopp,  The Voice of the Foreign Service: A History of the American Foreign Service Association,  (Foreign Service Books, 2015).  Retired Foreign Service Officer and author Harry Kopp’s book has been rightly described as an “institutional history of America’s diplomatic service from its earliest days to the present” combined “with the twinned story of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA).”  Chapters cover the nation’s first diplomats and consuls, AFSA’s founding as a benevolent and social organization, its evolution into a professional association, and its subsequent transformation into an employee union.  Organizational issues are placed in social and political contexts, e.g., the McCarthy years, Wristonization, diversity in the Foreign Service, and numerous foreign affairs agency reorganizations. His account is deeply researched and well written.  He is even handed in his treatment of contested issues.  Kopp is a former practitioner who brings unusual analytical distance to his assessment of people, institutions, and events.
Zhikica Zach Pagovski,  Public Diplomacy of Multilateral Organizations: The Cases of NATO, EU, and ASEAN,   CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, Paper 4, 2015 . Pagovski (German Marshall Fund of the United States) builds on scholarly research and uses case studies of NATO, the EU, and ASEAN to explore the motives, methods, audiences, and goals of multilateral organizations in conducting public diplomacy.  He argues they are “established actors in the field of public diplomacy” that “envision unique goals, standardize appropriate means, and influence both internal (i.e., within the organization) and external audiences.”
Barry Pavel and Peter Engelke, with Alex Ward,  Dynamic Stability: US Strategy for a World in Transition,  Atlantic Council Strategy Paper, No. 1, April 2015.   In this 56-page paper, the authors, policy analysts with the Atlantic Council, examine global trends in a “Westphalian-Plus world.”  They analyze an approach to national strategy, which they call “dynamic stability,” and assess the prospects for American leadership and ways to harness global changes to US national advantage.  Half of the paper examines unfolding megatrends, and half argues a case for a novel approach to strategy.  Whether or not readers are drawn to its strategy prescriptions, its concise and informed discussion of diplomacy’s current context make these pages good background reading for students in diplomacy and IR courses.  They also fit nicely with the National Intelligence Council’s global trends reports.
Maria Claver Ruiz,  “Explaining Spain’s Casas: An Instrument of Networked Diplomacy,”  The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 10 (2015), 215-224.  Maria Claver Ruiz, Director General for Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy in Spain’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, profiles the goals and activities of Spain’s innovative networks of public diplomacy Casas: Casa America, Casa Asia, Casa Arabe, Casa Africa, Casa Mediterraneo, and Centro Sefarad-Israel.  Located in major Spanish cities, these Casas seek to communicate Spain’s “foreign policy priorities among civil society representatives from third countries” and “create and forge alliances among civil society representatives.”  The Casas are consortiums with different identities and management structures that link the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation with regional and municipal authorities, foundations, and private firms.  They connect Spanish politicians, diplomats, thinkers, creators, artists, entrepreneurs, and immigrant communities living in Spain with public and private stakeholders in other countries.  Priorities include long-term relationship building, cultural activities, economic diplomacy, Spain’s national branding initiative, and a presence in social media.
Marwa Fikry Abdel Samei,  “The European Union’s Public Diplomacy Towards The Arab Spring: The Case of Egypt,”  The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 10 (2015) 111-138.   Following a brief overview of her conceptual understanding of public diplomacy, Samei (Cairo University) develops arguments relating to the EU’s public diplomacy overall and in the Arab world.  She devotes most of her article to a case study that analyzes differences in the content of the Facebook pages of the EU’s delegation to Egypt and the European External Action Service between October 14, 2012 and August 16, 2013.  She concludes the “EU’s response to the Arab Spring was a missed opportunity to establish Europe’s normative power.”  Comparison of the public diplomacy messages and images on the Facebook pages, she argues, illuminates a gap between the EU’s policies and its public diplomacy messages – a gap based on “the discrepancy between Europe’s perception of the region, which results in certain policies, and its internal identity-building considerations.”
Liesl Schillinger, “The Rise of Bulgakov Diplomacy,” Foreign Policy Blog, August 31, 2015.   Schillinger, a critic and translator who writes for The New York Review of Books and other publications, looks at recent Russian efforts to use the “soft diplomacy” of its literature to “shore up the nation’s reputation overseas.”  Her essay examines challenging political and literary implications of the “Books of Russia” festival held in Moscow’s Red Square in June 2015.  Attended by President Putin and co-sponsored by Moscow’s Institute for Literary Translation, “Read Russia” (an American NGO), and Rospechat, Russia’s Federal Agency on Press and Mass Communications, the festival launched an effort to publish the “Russian Library,” a collection of 100 volumes intended to cover three centuries of Russian literature in English translation.  The collection will include world renowned authors such as Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Turgenev, Bulgakov, and others as well as less well known modern writers such as Lyudmila Petrushevskaya, Mikhail Shishkin, Olga Slavnikova, and Vladimir Sorokin.  Selections of books and scholars to provide introductions will be made by Peter Kaufman (Columbia University) and an editorial advisory board of scholars from Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, St. Petersburg’s Pushkin House, and Moscow’s State Museum of Literature.
Sinikukka Saari,  “Russia’s Post-Orange Revolution Strategies to Increase Its Influence in Former Soviet Republics: Public Diplomacy po russkii,”  Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 66, No. 1, January 2014, 50-66.   Saari (Finnish Institute of International Affairs) asserts that public diplomacy has become a more important instrument of Russian foreign policy and that it has two distinctive strands.  One, which is directed at Western states, seeks to attract and persuade.  A second strand, directed at post-Soviet and Baltic states, is a strategy of manipulation rooted in the Soviet practice of “active measures.”   Her article includes a background discussion of public diplomacy concepts and Cold War public diplomacy and then focuses on the implementation of the two strands after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004.  (Courtesy of Yelena Osipova)
Lene Bech Sillesen,  “How Screens Make Us Feel,”  Columbia Journalism Review, Special Report, July/August 2015, 16-19.   A CJR study, conducted with the George T. Delacorte Center for Magazine Journalism, finds “surprisingly similar results” in the emotional responses of print and digital readers of magazine features.  They remember the same level of detail.  They are equally engaged in sections of the narrative and the story overall, and they are similarly likely to act on their emotional responses.  For CJR, the “results seem to contradict a consensus among scholars who say there are fundamental differences between reading experiences on paper and on screens.”  The study concludes that “the real differences between paper and screens likely lie in the cultures we have built around them.”
“Smart Power,”  Public Diplomacy Magazine, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, Summer 2015.   PD Magazine takes a fresh look at “smart power,” a term developed by Joseph Nye in 2004 and adopted by former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  For Nye, “smart power” is the ability of state and non-state actors to combine “the hard power of coercion and payment with the soft power of persuasion and attraction” in contextually relevant strategies (The Future of Power ).  Articles and case studies include”
— PD Magazine interview with Joseph Nye, “On ‘the American Century’ and the Future of Smart Power.”
— Philip Seib (University of Southern California), a book review of Joseph Nye’s  Is the American Century Over?
— Tara Sonenshine (George Washington University), “Is ‘Smart Power’ Smart and Does it Work?”
— Sheldon Himelfarb (US Institute of Peace), “Mobile Technology and the Peacebuilding Reboot.”
— Robert Morgus (New America), “Security in a Power Diffuse Space? A Cyber Case Study.”
— Kristian Coates Ulrichsen (Rice University), “Global Universities and Public Diplomacy.”
— Michael K. Park (Syracuse University), “Wielding Smart Power Through Sport: A North Korean Case Study.”
— PD Magazine interview with David Manning (Global Arms Series), “Military Smart Power.”
— Muzaffar S. Abduazimov (University of World Economy and Diplomacy, Tashkent), “A Dutch ‘3D’ Approach in Uruzgan.”
— PD Magazine interview with Beverly Kirk (Center for Strategic and International Studies), “Smart Women, Smart Power.”
— PD Magazine interview with Naomi Fellows (US Department of State), “The United States Public Diplomacy Strategy in Africa.”
Bruce Stokes,  “Russia, Putin Held in Low Regard around the World: Russia’s Image Trails U.S. across All Regions,”  Pew Research Center, August 5, 2015.   Stokes (Pew’s Director of Global Economic Attitudes) summarizes findings in a Pew survey conducted in 40 countries from March 25 to May 27, 2015.  Outside its borders, a median of only 30% see Russia favorably.  A median of 27% in the countries surveyed have “confidence in Putin to do the right thing in world affairs.”  In only three countries does more than half of the population view Russia favorably: Vietnam, Ghana, and China.  Lowest favorable views are in Poland and Jordan.  For an assessment of the survey that argues US and other Western counter broadcasting efforts directed at Russians don’t work, see Leonid Bershidsky,  “The World Hates Russia. Russia Hates it Back,”  Bloomberg View, August 5, 2015.
US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy,  Getting the People Part Right II: The Human Resources Dimension of U.S. Public Diplomacy in 2015,  June 17, 2015.   This 41-page report looks at ways to enhance the recruitment and selection of public diplomats, improve their training and advancement, and strengthen their influence on policymaking.  Written by Ambassador Laurence Wohlers, with support from Meridian International Center and funding from the Smith-Richardson Foundation, the report is based on interviews with State Department professionals, focus group findings, analysis of reports on public diplomacy, and assessment of human resources data provided by the Department.  Its findings and recommendations portray a mixed picture of the Department’s understanding and use of public diplomacy.  A central conclusion: State is better at managing short-term field post and bureau specific activities than at “thinking long-term and across bureau lines” and about “how public diplomacy tradecraft should evolve to meet new global challenges.”  In addition to its focus on human resources, the report conveys Wohlers’ views on historical, structural, and strategic issues in US public diplomacy.
Geoffrey Wiseman, “Diplomatic Practices at the United Nations,” Cooperation and Conflict, Vol. 50(3), 316-333.   Wiseman (University of Southern California) makes two key contributions in this article.  First, it is a case study of the importance of “informal, practice-based change” at the UN.  Changes in routine practices, rather than major reforms of the UN Charter, better explain such developments as the evolving role of the Secretary-General, the appointment process for a new Secretary-General, and the UN’s emerging diplomatic practices in a wider community of diplomats and non-state actors.  Second, his article provides a useful summary of the meaning and methods of practice theory, views of its adherents and critics, and its utility for conducting research in diplomatic studies.  In his conceptual argument, Wiseman makes three claims.  (1) Diplomatic studies scholars and practice theorists “would benefit from more flexible research methods and mutual engagement on methods.”  (2) Both fields can learn from each other about the role of leading individuals and “competent performances” of individuals at all levels of diplomatic practice.  (3) The work of leading diplomacy scholars (e.g., Andrew Cooper, Jorge Heine, Alan Henrikson, and Brian Hocking) demonstrates a clear convergence between the fields and the value of blending “practice theory’s theoretical strengths with diplomatic studies’ empirical strengths.”
Geoffrey Wiseman, ed.,  Isolate or Engage: Adversarial States, US Foreign Policy, and Public Diplomacy,  (Stanford University Press, 2015).  This is an original and important book.  Wiseman (University of Southern California) and the authors of nine case studies examine a central question.  What are the challenges and opportunities of US strategies that abstain from or limit formal diplomatic relations with adversarial states, while simultaneously seeking to influence their governments by engaging with their publics?   Each case looks at how the US has implemented its isolation and engagement strategies and assesses whether its public diplomacy has been effective.  The book rewards for reasons that go beyond research on a significant and under-studied issue.  It is grounded in a carefully constructed methodology and comparative cross-regional framework.  Collaborative focus by international relations and foreign policy scholars on diplomacy’s public dimension, unusual in the literature, helps to correct an imbalance in this multi-disciplinary field of study.  Wiseman’s thoughtful discussion in the introduction and conclusion addresses cutting edge theoretical issues in public diplomacy.  The cases illuminate both conceptual frameworks and current policy issues.  See Wiseman, “Engaging Cuba and Iran,” Stanford University Press Blog, August 2015.  Cases include:
— Robert English (University of Southern California), “USSR/Russia: US Diplomacy with the Russian ‘Adversary’”
— Robert Ross (Boston College), “China: American Public Diplomacy and US-China Relations, 1949–2012”
— Scott Snyder (Council on Foreign Relations), “North Korea: Engaging a Hermit Adversarial State”
— Mark P. Bradley (University of Chicago) and Viet Thanh Nguyen (University of Southern California), “Vietnam: American and Vietnamese Public Diplomacy, 1945–2010”
— Dirk J. Vandewalle (Dartmouth), “Libya:   The United States and the Libyan Jamahiriyya: From Isolation to Regional Ally, 1969–2011”
— Suzanne Maloney (Brookings Institution), “Iran: Public Diplomacy in a Vacuum”
— William Rugh (Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy), “American Public Diplomacy in Syria: Overcoming Obstacles”
— William LeoGrande (American University), “Cuba: Public Diplomacy as a Battle of Ideas”
— Michael Shifter (Georgetown University), “Venezuela: The United States and Venezuela: Managing a Schizophrenic Relationship”
Recent Blogs and Other Items of Interest
Sohaela Amiri,  “A Toolbox for Successful Digital Diplomacy,”  July 27, 2015, USC Center on Public Diplomacy Blog.
Peter Baker and Steven Erlanger,  “Russia Wields Aid and Ideology Against West to Fight Sanctions,”  June 7, 2015, The New York Times.
Jeffrey Brown and Adrian Chen,  “Why are Russian Trolls Spreading Online Hoaxes in the US?”  June 8, 2015, PBS NewsHour.
Robin Brown, “Nation-Branding Lite? The GREAT Campaign,” September 1, 2012; “Why Do Government Agencies Have Strategic Reviews?” August 24, 2015;  “What’s More Limited? Chinese Influence or the Concept of Soft Power,”  July 14, 2015;  “The Elcano Global Presence Index,”  June 17, 2015, Public Diplomacy, Networks and Influence Blog.
Joseph Cassidy,  “10 Ways to Fix America’s Ailing State Department,”  July 20, 2015, FP Blog.
Daryl Copeland, “Will Canada Be the Country That Dumbed Itself to Death,” August 31, 2015, iPOLITICS.
Guy Golan,  “Can the U.S. Counter ISIS on Social Media,”  July 31, 2015, The Huffington Post.
Jane Harmon,  “America is Losing the Digital War Against the Islamic State,”  July 17, 2015, The Washington Post.
David S. Jackson, “Panda-plomacy: How Americans Are Paying a Fortune for China’s Public Diplomacy,” September 1, 2015, USC Center on Public Diplomacy Blog.
Philip Kennicott,  “A New Front Door Opens Up an Insular Enclave at the State Department,”  June 12, 2015, The Washington Post.
Mark Mazzetti and Michael R. Gordon,  “ISIS is Winning the Social Media War, U.S. Concludes,”  June 12, 2015, The New York Times.
Rod Nixon,  “John Lansing Named as new Chief of Broadcasting Board of Governors,”  August 17, 2015, The New York Times.
“Philosophers Habermas and Taylor to Share $1.5 Million Kluge Prize,”  August 11, 2015, Library of Congress News Release.
“Q&A With CPD: Kristen Lord,”  July 8, 2015, USC Center on Public Diplomacy Blog.
Philip Seib,  “Israel, Public Diplomacy, and the Iran Agreement,”  August 8, 2015, USC Center on Public Diplomacy Blog.
Richard Stengel,  “Note to the Secretary”  [on US, coalition, and ISIS ‘messaging’], June 9, 2015; reprinted by  The New York Times,  June 12, 2015.
Richard Stengel and Anwar Gargash,  “The Right Path to Counter Daesh,”  July 9, 2015, USA Today.
Gem From The Past
Glen Fisher, International Negotiation: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, (International Cultural Press, Inc., 1980).   Glen Fisher was an important and unusual figure in diplomacy – a career Foreign Service Officer, an educator, and an accomplished scholar in the social sciences.  His book, Mindsets: The Role of Culture and Perception in International Relations (1988,1997) is often cited and assigned in the classroom.  Perhaps less well known is his earlier work on cross-cultural issues in negotiation.  This slim 69-page volume, written 35 years ago, is a revised version of a discussion paper Fisher wrote for his training courses at the US State Department’s Foreign Service Institute.  Fisher addressed five issues that are applicable today: (1) a cultural dimension in the way negotiators address the negotiation encounter itself; (2) how local cultures and institutional cultures affect a diplomat’s decision-making style; (3) the extent to which “national character” affects negotiations; (4) coping with cross-cultural noise; and (5) limits in translating ideas, concepts, meaning, and nuance.
Posted on

2015: Iris Froeba

Iris Froeba, 2015.

Iris Froeba is the 2015 recipient of the Walter Roberts Award for Public Diplomacy Studies. She is currently pursuing her Master’s degree in Global Communication with a focus on Public Diplomacy at George Washington’s Elliott School of International Affairs. Taking classes at night allows her to work as Program Manager for the Transatlantic Dialogue Program of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom during the day.

Originally from Germany, Iris moved to Washington, DC in 2011. She discovered her love for the United States, intercultural exchange and transatlantic relations during her year as an au pair in Washington. Based on her experiences abroad, she decided to obtain a Bachelor’s degree in International Business and Intercultural Management at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany. In addition, she spent a semester abroad in Spain on the Erasmus Mundus scholarship program and gained substantial work experience in the field of public diplomacy with her internships at the U.S. Consulate General in Frankfurt am Main, the American Institute of Contemporary German Studies, and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom.

Upon her graduation, Iris plans on taking the Foreign Service Office test in her native Germany.

The other recipients of this award are:

Posted on

Thomas Miller

Thomas Miller

Public Diplomacy Fellow, 2015-2016

Thomas Miller is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service. Until recently, he served as Minister-Counselor for Public Affairs at the U.S. Embassy Berlin, a position he has held since November 2012. Previously, he was the Mission Director for Strategic Communications at the American Embassy Islamabad. Before that, Mr. Miller served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Athens as well as Chairman of the Fulbright Board.

Mr. Miller served as Counselor for Public Affairs in Athens, Greece, as well as in Nicosia, Cyprus (2005-2008), Assistant Cultural Affairs Officer in Ankara, Turkey (2001-2005), Office Director for English Language Programs (1999-2000), Chief of the English Language Programs Division (1997-1998), Chief of Materials Division (1996-1997), Assistant Cultural Affairs Officer Paris, France (1992-1996) and in Islamabad, Pakistan (1995-1998) and was Regional English Language Officer in Rabat, Morocco (1998-1992).

He received an M.A. in English as a Second Language and a B.A. in German and Anthropology from the University of Minnesota. Mr. Miller was a Fulbright Scholar in Karachi, Pakistan, where he launched a Master’s Degree in English as a Second Language. His foreign languages are German, Hindi, Urdu, Greek, French, and Turkish.

 

Other PD Fellows have been:

2018-2019 Karl Stoltz

2017-2018 Robert Ogburn

2014-2015 Patricia Kabra

2013-2014 Jonathan Henick

Posted on

Issue #75

American Diplomacy at Risk, Report of the American Academy of Diplomacy, April 2015.  This report, issued by a group of retired State Department career diplomats co-chaired by Ambassadors Marc Grossman and Thomas Pickering, makes five central claims:  (1) American diplomacy (viewed primarily as the work of a “strong State Department” complemented by USAID) is being undermined by politicization of policies and appointments and State management’s efforts to “nullify” the Foreign Service Act of 1980; (2) the State Department is seeking to “break down all institutional, cultural and legal barriers between the Foreign Service and Civil Service;” (3) the Foreign Service lacks sufficient professional education and training; (4) the Civil Service is “mired in an outdated system;” and (5) substantial changes in policy and practice are needed to restore “American diplomacy” to its critical role in national security.  Abridged and complete online versions of the report contain large quantities of helpful data.  The report, self-described as “not a consensus product,” reflects legacy views of Foreign Service Officers seeking to preserve and strengthen traditional roles.

Greg Barnhisel, Cold War Modernists: Art, Literature, and American Cultural Diplomacy,(Columbia University Press, 2015).  Barnhisel (Duquesne University) contributes to the historical literature on US cultural diplomacy with this inquiry into the way diplomats, the CIA, artists, and writers during the 1950s “offered American modernism in painting, literature, architecture, and music as evidence of the high cultural achievement of the United States.”  His book frames their efforts as a strategic response to Soviet criticism of US bourgeois decadence and European perceptions of American culture as middlebrow and materialistic.  Chapters focus on public-private partnerships that advanced modernist painting, Encounter magazine, Perspectives USA, American modernism in Voice of America broadcasting, and the cultural diplomacy roles of William Faulkner, T.S. Eliot, and others in the modernist tradition.
James L. Bullock, “Keeping Embassy Security in Perspective,” The Foreign Service Journal, May 2015.  Bullock (George Washington University) reflects on today’s over-emphasis on minimizing diplomatic risk, “creeping militarization” in US diplomacy, and the use of the attacks on the US facility in Benghazi, Libya for partisan political purposes.  His article draws on lessons learned during his three-decade Foreign Service career.
Daryl Copeland and Colin Robertson, “Rebuilding Canada’s International Capacity: Diplomatic Reform in the Age of Globalization,” Canadian Government Executive, 21:4, April 15, 2015.  Former diplomats Copeland and Robertson (Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute) reflect on ways in which globalization, networks, and technologies are changing diplomatic practice.  “Public diplomacy has in important respects become the new diplomacy.”  Fixing a conservative, risk averse Canadian Foreign Service, they argue, requires new ideas, new skills, new tools, talent from all levels of government and private sectors, and political leadership.
Michael Dodman, “Effective Diplomacy After Benghazi,” The Foreign Service Journal, May 2015.  Dodman (US Consul General Karachi, Pakistan, 2012-2014, and winner of the Ryan C. Crocker Award for Outstanding Leadership in Expeditionary Diplomacy) discusses approaches to diplomatic outreach in a high threat environment.  His advice: “mitigate risk with the right resources,” “set clear and consistent procedures,” “build resilience and common purpose,” “form a seamless partnership with the RSO,” “coordinate closely with Washington,” and “success is possible.”
Don H. Doyle, The Cause of All Nations: An International History of the American Civil War,(Basic Books, 2015).  Doyle (University of South Carolina) provides a welcome addition to the growing literature on the public dimensions of Civil War diplomacy.  “America’s Civil War,” he writes, “witnessed what were arguably the first deliberate, sustained, state-sponsored programs aimed at influencing the public mind abroad.”  Although the US did not establish government public diplomacy agencies until the 20th century, Doyle provides a comprehensive account of how diplomats for the North and South understood the need to influence public opinion and the key roles played by journalists, intellectuals, reformers, and other opinion leaders in shaping public sentiment in Europe and Latin America.  His book examines in detail how the Union and the Confederacy hired special agents, journalists, and political operators to, in the words of one, “give a right direction to public sentiment” and correct “erroneous” reports that favored the other side.  Other recent books, notably Amanda Foreman’s A World on Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War, have contributed to an understanding of these actors and issues.  Doyle’s contribution is to go beyond the policies, diplomatic negotiations, and military battles.  His focus is entirely on contested ideas and values and efforts to shape global public opinion.
Bree Hocking, The Great Reimagining: Public Art, Urban Space, and the Symbolic Landscapes of a “New” Northern Ireland, (Berghahn Books, 2015).  Hocking, (anthropologist, journalist, and Georgetown graduate) provides a well-written and deeply researched ethnographic interpretation of Northern Ireland’s post-conflict visual transformation.  Based on extensive fieldwork in Belfast and Derry, her book examines efforts to use new civic images to create public spaces that are attractive to residents, tourists, and investors in a society where deep divisions remain following the Good FridayAgreement of 1998.  Hocking draws on interviews with politicians, community leaders, cultural workers, and citizens to show the possibilities and limits of using public art in the politics of societies undergoing radical change.  (Courtesy of Mary Gawronski)
Philip N. Howard, Pax Technica: How the Internet of Things May Set us Free or Lock Us Up,(Yale University Press, 2015).  Howard (University of Washington) argues the invisible and increasingly pervasive networks of wireless censors embedded in everyday objects are becoming “the most powerful political tool we have ever created.”  His provocative book maintains the Internet of Things will fundamentally change norms and public-private power relations in global governance and international relations.  Howard looks broadly at negative and positive consequences for the management of conflict and competition – the perils of technologies designed for censorship and surveillance, and the promise for democracy promotion and civic engagement.  More narrowly, he sees the end of an era of close collaboration between the State Department and Silicon Valley grounded in a shared belief “that technology diffusion and democratic values reinforce each other and spread together.”  The US has “lost control of this digital project in important ways.”  It is no longer the primary source of innovation and leading builder of information infrastructure.  “The internet no longer just ‘speaks English.’”
“H.R. 2323, the United States International Communications Reform Act of 2015,” Committee on Foreign Affairs, US House of Representatives, May 21, 2015.  The Committee’s bill “to improve the missions, objectives, and effectiveness of U.S. international broadcasters,” co-sponsored by Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), was unanimously approved by the Committee on May 21, 2015. Includes the full text of H.R. 2323 as introduced and a section-by-section summary.
News and blog comments: “House Passes Bill to Reform US-Funded Broadcasts,” Associated Press, May 21, 2015; Charles Hoskinson, “House Plans Counteroffensive in Global Information War,” The Washington Examiner, May 21, 2015; David S. Jackson, “How to Save the Voice of America,” CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, May 18, 2015; Donald Bishop, “How to Challenge Propaganda and Disinformation,” The Hill, May 15, 2015; “Council Writes to Congress: Don’t Divide U.S. Broadcasters, Leverage Their Synergies,” April 21, 2015, Public Diplomacy Council; Al Kamen,“VOA Chief Threatens to ‘Kill’ Other U.S. Broadcast Stations if . . .” The Washington Post, June 4, 2015.
Joe B. Johnson, “A Strategic Approach to Public Diplomacy,” The Foreign Service Journal,May 2015.  Johnson (Public Diplomacy Council) welcomes the “compelling” recommendations in the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy’s 2014 report on Data-Driven Public Diplomacy, but he argues the “commission’s viewpoint is Washington-centric.”  His article focuses on ways to (1) generate deeper field buy-in to annual Public Diplomacy Implementation Plans that connect the work of embassy public affairs sections to US mission objectives and priorities, (2) make effective use of web-based data systems, and (3) reward strategic thinking and iterative evaluation.
Richard Kessler, Rapporteur, Reforming American Public Diplomacy: A Report of the 2014 Annual Aspen Institute Dialogue on Diplomacy and Technology, The Aspen Institute, 2015. This 19-page report tries to answer three questions:  Why is the US “seemingly ineffective in winning the hearts and minds of key audiences?”  How can the US better employ social and mobile media?  What should the “public diplomacy apparatus” of the US look like going forward?  Kessler summarizes the views of 24 participants, most with experience as senior-level political appointees in the Department of State and Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), as private sector technology and consulting entrepreneurs, and as members and staff of the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs.  The report recommends enactment of pending legislation to restructure US international broadcasting, “financial and technical support for American designed open communications platforms,” public-private partnerships to ensure privacy of communications in denied areas, reform of “the US Department of State R Bureau,” a centralized research and evaluation section and an operations center for counter-messaging in the State Department, and increased funding for State Department and BBG programs.  Former BBG Chairman Marc Nathanson funded the report.
Mark Lagon and Sarah Grebowski, “Power to the People: Taking Diplomacy to the Streets,”The National Interest, February 26, 2015.  Lagon (Freedom House) and Grebowski (Georgetown University) adopt the phrase “societal diplomacy” to frame the idea that the US government must “carve out space for civil society worldwide,” especially in countries with illiberal governments, and further US interests and legitimacy as a global leader by betting on relationships with democratic activists and community leaders who are likely to win power.  The authors call for US diplomats to shed post 9/11 “fortress diplomacy,” provide more “gritty, candid reporting” on civil society, build civil society interaction into benchmarks for career advancement, and make societal diplomacy a cornerstone of US practice including in countries where circumstances are not propitious.  As examples they discuss China and Saudi Arabia.  For a critique of this argument, see Robin Brown,“(Not) The Freedom House Guide to Policy Advocacy,” Public Diplomacy, Networks and Influence Blog, March 2, 2015.
Greg Miller and Scott Higham, “In a Propaganda War Against ISIS, the US Tried to Play by the Enemy’s Rules,” The Washington Post, May 8, 2015.  In this wide-ranging analysis, part of an occasional series about the rise of the Islamic State, Post reporters Miller and Higham profile contested strategies, social media initiatives, and views of key players in the evolution of the Department of State’s Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications.  Drawing on multiple sources, including the Center’s former director Alberto Fernandez, their article focuses on the State Department’s video “Run, do not walk to ISIS Land,” its “Think Again, Turn Away” Campaign, and Under Secretary of State Richard Stengel’s “curate more, and create less” approach.  Contains useful links and graphics.
Amy Mitchell, “State of the News Media 2015,” Pew Research Center, April 29, 2015.  In this12thannual survey of American journalism Pew finds a “mobile majority.”  In 2015, “39 of the top 50 digital news websites have more traffic to their sites and associated applications coming from mobile devices than from desktop computers.”
Taylor Owen, Disruptive Power: The Crisis of the State in the Digital Age, (Oxford University Press, 2015).  In this book on the rise of digitally empowered actors and corresponding decline in the ability of states to govern, Owen (University of British Columbia) combines reflective insights, provocative assertions, and important questions.  Two especially useful chapters, “Diplomacy Unbound” and “The Violence of Algorithms,” assess the State Department’s digital diplomacy initiatives and ways in which exponential changes in computer power are blurring boundaries in armed conflict and lines that separate foreign and domestic.  His conclusion: state-based institutions increasingly face a gap between their capabilities and objectives and a choice between seeking absolute control and giving up power.  Recommended by Anne-Marie Slaughter, Clay Shirky, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., and Michael Ignatieff.  (Courtesy of Donna Oglesby)
Karen M. Paget, Patriotic Betrayal: The Inside Story of the CIA’s Secret Campaign to Enroll American Students in the Crusade Against Communism, (Yale University Press, 2015).  Paget’s 562-page book is based on extensive archival research, FOIA requests, numerous interviews, and her own experiences as a student.  She tells in rich new detail the story of the CIA’s covert use of the National Student Association and other groups from 1947 to 1967, when Michael Wood exposed the program in Ramparts Magazine.  Paget weaves personalities, organizations, and historical events into an informed and valuable narrative.  In a lengthy review essay, Louis Menand (Harvard University andNew Yorker critic at large) summarizes her account and provides his own insightful analysis of this episode in America’s government funded cultural relations during the Cold War.  See his “A Friend of the Devil: Inside a Famous Cold War Deception,” The New Yorker, March 23, 2015, 85-90.
James Pamment, “Digital Diplomacy as Transmedia Engagement: Aligning Theories of Participatory Culture with International Advocacy Campaigns,” New Media and Society, March 23, 2015, 1-17.  Pamment (University of Texas, Austin) uses concepts of “transmedia storytelling” and “transmedia engagement” to examine “ways in which contemporary diplomatic advocacy campaigns cope with fundamental problems such as media repertoires, co-created content, collective intelligence, digital convergence and stakeholder management.”  Transmedia storytelling seeks to explain how added content makes distinctive and valuable contributions to stories as knowledge expands on multiple media platforms.  Pamment applies this concept to goal oriented diplomatic campaigns.  He uses transmedia engagement – concepts of collaboration and co-created content that interpret the collective intelligence of fan communities – to assess the role of stakeholder and epistemic communities in diplomatic initiatives.  His article uses the British diplomatic campaign to end sexual violence in conflict between 2012-2014 as a case study.
Christopher Paul, Jessica Yeats, Colin P. Clarke, Miriam Matthews, and Lauren Skrabala,Assessing and Evaluating Department of Defense Efforts to Inform, Influence, and Persuade: Handbook for Practitioners, RAND Corporation, April 2015.  In this 129-page report, sponsored by the US Department of Defense (DoD), we learn that DoD spends more than $250 million annually to “communicate effectively and credibly with a broad range of foreign audiences.”  The RAND project team evaluates and makes recommendations relating to the planning, implementation, and assessment of these activities, which it categorizes as information operations (IO) and information related capabilities (IRC).  Together they are described as “efforts to inform, influence, and persuade (IIP).”  The handbook contains best practices drawn from defense, marketing, public relations, public diplomacy, and academic research.  “Strategic communication,” no longer a military term of art, does not appear in the text.  Intended for practitioners and stakeholders, the detailed report is easy to navigate and can be downloaded in pdf and e-book formats.  Print versions can be ordered from RAND.  A separate desk reference and annotated reading list are also available.
Anthony C. E. Quainton, “Diplomatic Security Triage in a Dangerous World,” The Foreign Service Journal, May 2015.  Quainton (American University) asks two questions:  How can security professionals do their jobs in a dangerous world when there is so much second-guessing of their work?  Does modern security make diplomacy too difficult, if not impossible?  His triage solution calls for “balancing risks and threats against the requirements of programmatic and diplomatic activity in dangerous foreign environments.”  His informed assessment draws on a diplomatic career that included ambassadorial assignments, Director General of the Foreign Service, and Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security.
Josh Stearns, “Tools for Verifying and Assessing the Validity of Social Media and User-generated Content,” Journalist’s Resource, Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy, Harvard University, April 2, 2015.  Stearns (Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation) profiles a variety of tools to help journalists assess “the validity of social-media and user generated content.”  His annotated list of research studies and tools contains links and briefly explains the purposes of each.  Useful also for diplomats, broadcasters, teachers, and students.
Jessica Stern and J. M. Berger, ISIS: The State of Terror, (William Collins, 2015).  Stern (Harvard University) and Berger (Brookings Institution) stand out in the emerging literature on the Islamic State for their expertise on its origins and evolution, and their emphasis on its innovative uses of social media.  Their work has the virtues and drawbacks of speed in the context of a recent and rapidly changing story.  Chapter titles include: “From Vanguard to Smart Mob,” “The Foreign Fighters,” “The Message,” “Jihad Goes Social,” “The Electronic Brigades,” “The AQ-ISIS War,” and “ISIS’s Psychological Warfare.”  The authors also provide a timeline, a glossary of terms, and an appendix that explores the early history and core components of Islam and the development of jihadi Salafism in the 20th century.  For a review of their “smart, granular analysis,” see Rosa Brooks, “It’s had some military success, but the Islamic State is no existential threat,” The Washington Post, April 16, 2015.
US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, Public Diplomacy at Risk: Protecting Open Access for American Centers, May 5, 2015.  In this 16-page “white paper,” the Commission and its Executive Director Katherine Brown take a needed fresh look at issues in the cost/risk/benefit tradeoffs between security and public access in US diplomacy.  The Commission is concerned about the pending and accelerated pace of shuttering of 21 American Centers due to legal and regulatory requirements of the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act.  The detailed findings and recommendations build on a 1985 Commission report, Terrorism and Security: The Challenge for Public Diplomacy, written in response to the Inman standards for setbacks and hardened embassy construction following the Beirut bombings in 1983.
US Department of Defense, DoD Cyber Strategy, April 17, 2015.  The purpose of this 33-page cyber strategy “is to guide the development of DoD’s cyber forces and strengthen our cyber defense and cyber deterrence posture.”  The strategy places greater emphasis than in the past on offensive capabilities and partnership with commercial, civil, and government actors.  Strategic goals include:  building forces and capabilities to conduct cyberspace operations, cyber defense for DoD networks and the US homeland, building viable cyber options to control conflict escalation and shape conflict environments, and maintaining robust alliances and partnerships.  See also Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s Drell Lecture: “Rewriting the Pentagon: Charting a New Path on Innovation and Cybersecurity,” Stanford University, April 23, 2015.
US Department of State, 2015 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR),Washington, DC, April 28, 2015.  Building on its inaugural 2010 QDDR, State’s 2015 QDDR examines the work of the Department and US Agency for International Development in the context of challenges, strategic priorities, and internal reforms.  Challenges are framed in four cross-cutting areas: (1) increasing partnerships and engaging beyond the nation-state; (2) improving governance in corrupt and poorly governed countries; (3) managing and mitigating physical risk; and (4) enhancing use of data, diagnostics, and technology.  Strategic priorities include: (1) “preventing and mitigating conflict and violent extremism;” (2) “promoting open, resilient, and democratic societies;” (3) “advancing inclusive economic growth,” and (4) “mitigating and adapting to climate change.”  Needed internal reforms include: (1) harnessing knowledge, data, and technology in a “data-driven, evidence based approach” to diplomacy and development; (2) promoting innovation; (3) managing and mitigating physical risk; (4) advancing strategic planning and performance management; (5) engaging Americans as partners in foreign affairs; and (6) investing in a more agile, skilled, and diverse workforce.  Throughout the QDDR, “public diplomacy” is treated as an integral element of diplomacy, not as a separately named or discussed category of diplomatic practice.
See also a message from Secretary of State Kerry, the Executive Summary, and a briefing on the 2015 QDDR by Heather Higginbottom, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, Acting Administrator Alfonso Lenhardt, and Special Representative Tom Perriello.
Vivian Walker, Benghazi: Managing the Message, CPD Perspectives, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, April 2015.  In this excellent case study, written especially for students at military and civilian universities, Walker (National Defense University and a retired US Foreign Service Officer) focuses on two broad issues: (1) the US government’s public responses to “Innocence of Muslims,” the anti-Islam video that led to widespread anti-American protests, and attacks on US installations in Benghazi, Libya in 2012; and (2) challenges to the effective practice of public diplomacy due to globalization and rapid innovations in information technologies.  Her informed and well-written case is divided into functional and chronological segments, each with questions for classroom discussion.  An appendix containing a checklist on “managing short-term advocacy outreach efforts” and extensive endnotes add to the value of this teachable case.
S. Enders Wimbush and Eizabeth M. Portale, Reassessing U.S. International Broadcasting,March 2015.  In the words of Wimbush (former director of Radio Liberty) and Portale (former vice president of RFE/RL), “Shuttering or radically overhauling today’s U.S. international broadcasting in favor of a more modern and attuned communications paradigm stands as this report’s preeminent insight.”  The authors call for comprehensive changes in US broadcasting that strengthen its capacity to tell “America’s story” in “a war of ideas” and its relocation in structures closely linked to US foreign policy objectives and planning processes.  The 56-page report was released at a forum sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington DC think tank, and is posted on its website.  Responding to the report in a Voice of America interview, the Broadcasting Board of Governor’s Interim CEO Andre Mendes said “we see a disconnect between the external perceptions of the BBG and the actual measures and demonstrable impact of our networks.”  For Robin Brown’s comment on the report, see“The War Over the Reform of US International Broadcasting,” Public Diplomacy, Networks and Influence Blog, June 3, 2015.
Recent Blogs and Other Items of Interest
Lizette Alvarez, “Radio and TV Marti, U.S. Broadcasters to Cuba Facing Uneasy Future,” March 24, 2015, The New York Times.
Matt Armstrong, “False Rivals: How RT Is Larger & Targets Different Audiences Than the BBG,” May 19, 2015; “Sputnik: ‘RT as a Foreign Agent’ Is About BBG Scaremongering for More Money,” May 15, 2015; “Reboot” [MountainRunner is back], April 24, 2015, MountainRunner.us Blog.
Andy Carvin, “US Ambassador to Libya Reportedly Pulls Out of Twitter,” March 23, 2025, Medium, thereported.ly team.
“China’s Great Cannon,” April 10, 2015, Citizen Lab; Alex Hern, “’Great Cannon of Chine’ Turns Internet Users Into Weapon of Cyberwar,” April 13, 2015, The Guardian.
Lydia DePillis, “Au Pairs Provide Cheap Childcare.  Maybe Illegally Cheap,” March 20, 2015, The Washington Post.
Kim Andrew Elliott, “A Market-Based Strategy of International Broadcasting,” April 24, 2015, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Ali Fisher, “The Last Three Tweets: Social Media and Election Campaigns,” May 4, 2015, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Joe Johnson, “Public Diplomacy – What’s In a Name?” May 14, 2015, Public Diplomacy Council.
Ilan Manor, “Lessons from the Evolution of Digital Diplomacy,” April 14, 2015, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Emily Metzgar, “The JET Program and the US-Japan Relationship,” April 14, 2015, The Diplomat; “No Joke: This is How PD Works,” April 9, 2015, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy; “Fixing America’s Voice To Enhance Foreign Policy,” April 2, 2015, The Conversation.
Carol Morello, “Alan Eyre: State Department’s Farsi-speaking Man at Iran Nuclear Talks,” March 20, 2015, The Washington Post.
Andrea Peterson, “China Has Weaponized the Great Firewall, Says a Free-speech Group,” March 30, 2015, The Washington Post; Paul Mozur, “China Appears to Attack GitHub by Diverting Web Traffic,”March 30, 2015, The New York Times.
Paul Sharp, “Magnificent! But is It Diplomacy?” March 2015, H-Net Reviews for the Humanities & Social Sciences.
Jessica Stern and J. M. Berger, “A 6-Point Plan to Defeat ISIS in the Propaganda War,” March 30, 2015, Time Magazine.
Heather Timmons, “How the New York Times is Eluding Censors in China,” April 6, 2015, Quartz.
Jay Wang, “Expo Milan 2015: Dialogue Through Food,” April 27, 2015, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
R. S. Zaharna, “Culture Posts: What About the Public Diplomacy Context?” June 1, 2015, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Gem from the past
Kristin M. Lord, The Perils and Promise of Global Transparency: Why the Information Revolution May Not Lead to Security, Democracy, or Peace, (State University of New York Press, 2006).  It’s been nearly a decade since Lord (IREX) published her account of the double-edged nature of global transparency and the increased availability of information.  Since then, powerful technologies and sweeping changes in how people think, organize, and connect have altered diplomacy’s context.  Her study remains relevant, however, for its enduring insights into negative and positive consequences of increased transparency – the potential for conflict and harmony, for hatred and tolerance, for destructive and constructive effects of pervasive information and knowledge.  Lord uses reasoned argument, empirical evidence, and case studies to support and challenge optimistic assumptions about the implications of transparency. Her chapter on “Transparency and Intergroup Violence” — the benefits and the dark side of cross-cultural communication – remains especially useful to teachers of cultural diplomacy and managers of people-to-people exchanges.
Posted on

Issue #74

Gordon Adams and Shoon Murray, eds., Mission Creep: The Militarization of US Foreign Policy? (Georgetown University Press, 2014). There is an “institutional imbalance at the heart of the foreign policy and national security process,” Adams and Murray (American University) argue, driven by growing militarization of civilian instruments of power.  The military has become the primary actor and face of US policy abroad – with adverse consequences for diplomacy and the missions, programs, roles, and budgets of civilian agencies.  Thirteen essays provide contrasting views on this argument.  Several are particularly useful for diplomacy scholars and practitioners.  James Dobbins (RAND), “Civil-Military Roles in Postconflict Stabilization and Reconstruction.”  Brian Carlson (Intermedia Research Institute), “Who Tells America’s Story Abroad.”  Shoon Murray and Anthony Quainton (American University), “Combatant Commanders, Ambassadorial Authority, and the Conduct of Diplomacy.”  Edward Marks (Simons Center for the Study of Interagency Cooperation), “The State Department: No Longer the Gatekeeper.”

Christina Archetti, “Terrorism, Communication and New Media: Explaining Radicalization in the Digital Age,” Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol. 9, Issue 1, February 2015, 49-59.  Archetti (University of Salford, UK) challenges misunderstandings about the role of technologies and concepts of strategic communication and narratives in countering violent extremism.  Her article examines the social construction of individual and collective narratives and the role played by mediated technologies in extending them through “indirect relationships” and “imagined communities.”  Archetti concludes with a brief discussion of a communication-based framework for understanding radicalism and lessons for counter-terrorism.

Gregory Asmolov, “Welcoming the Dragon: The Role of Public Opinion in Russian Internet Regulation,” Center for Global Communication Studies, 2015.  Asmolov (London School of Economics) argues that protecting Internet freedom in Russia requires a shift in public opinion that is centered not only on opposition to state-sponsored framing of the Internet as a threat but also on an understanding of the “Internet’s role in the everyday life of its users.”  Asmolov’s paper discusses recent regulatory initiatives in Russia and opinion surveys on the role of the Internet in Russian life and attitudes toward the role of the state in Internet governance.  He concludes that challenges to the frame of the “Internet as a Threat” requires an “alternative imaginary that allows for the realization that the Internet may have substantial life-changing value for individuals.”

Maria Luisa Azpíroz, “Soft Power and Public Diplomacy: The Case of the European Union in Brazil,” CPD Perspectives, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, March 2015.  Azpíroz (University of Liege, Belgium) identifies and analyzes the EU’s public diplomacy activities in Brazil.  She examines their challenges and potential in a conceptual framework that emphasizes creation of collaborative networks and “normative power” used in combination with economic instruments in what she calls “civil power.”  Her paper focuses on activities of the European External Action Service in the EU’s relations with Latin America, Mercosur, and Brazil during the years 2011-2013.  Azpíroz concludes that “cultural, educational, and scientific components constitute the best assets of EU public diplomacy in Brazil.”  CPD has published her paper in English and Spanish.

Vanessa Bravo and Maria De Moya, “Communicating the Homeland’s Relationship with its Diaspora Community: the Cases of El Salvador and Colombia,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Volume 10, Number 1, 2015, 70-104.  In this needed contribution to the public diplomacy of Latin American governments, Bravo (Elon University) and De Moya (DePaul University) examine ways in which El Salvador and Colombia conceptualize and communicate with their diaspora communities in the United States.  The authors use qualitative content analysis of official publications and other public information to analyze types of relationships (communal vs. exchange), issues the two governments identify as important to these communities, and means by which they seek to engage and strengthen relationships with them.  The article provides a typology of government-to-diaspora communication and frames a new category of “hybrid relationships.”  A literature review on diasporas and diaspora diplomacy adds to the value of their work.

Craig Hayden, “Research Trends in Public Diplomacy,” Talking Points from a Presentation to the International Studies Association Annual Conference, February 20, 2015, Posted on Intermap Blog, February 23, 2015.  In this handy “snap shot” of public diplomacy research – described not as a road map of where to go, but “a complicated subway map around the hub of public diplomacy studies” – Hayden (American University) profiles areas that define current scholarship.  His list: (1) the new public diplomacy, (2) continuing refinement and critique of the soft power concept, (3) public relations, (4) mediated public diplomacy, (5) content analytic approaches, (6) digital diplomacy, (7) comparative studies, and (8) cognate concepts.  His overview also includes some notable absences and quick takes on where public diplomacy research can go.  

Ingrid d’Hooghe, China’s Public Diplomacy, (Brill/Nijhoff, 2015).  In her comprehensive and deeply researched book, d’Hooghe (Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael”) builds on years of scholarship to provide an indispensable account of China’s approach to public diplomacy – the cultural and political factors that shape its characteristics, its strengths and limitations, and its role in China’s domestic and foreign policies.  Her book combines thoughtful assessments of China’s conceptualization of public diplomacy and soft power with up-to-date examinations of organizations, tools, and methods.  Case studies include: China’s public diplomacy strategies in Africa and Asia, the Beijing Olympics, the Shanghai World Expo, the SARS epidemic, product scandals, and the Wenchuan earthquake.  d’Hooghe usefully places her inquiry in the context of a thoughtful examination of Western concepts of public diplomacy and provides an extensive English and Chinese language bibliography.  Her book is Volume 10 in Clingendael’s Diplomatic Studies series edited by Jan Melissen.

Anup Kaphle, “The Foreign Desk in Transition,” Columbia Journalism Review, March/April 2015, 37-40.  Kaphle (digital foreign editor, The Washington Post) explores changes in the mainstream media’s foreign reporting in the digital era.  His article looks at international blogs reported from home bureaus, new readers who seek more analysis and faster dispatches, and the current “hybrid blend of traditional correspondents and in-house bloggers.”  Kaphle expects changes as mainstream news organizations share agenda setting space with digital natives who are developing new models of foreign reporting.  

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Is the American Century Over? (Polity Press, 2015).  In this slim volume, Nye (Harvard University) summarizes years of thinking on the varieties of contested issues in debates about America’s role in the world.  His bottom line:  the American century is not over if it is understood as “pre-eminence in military, economic, and soft power resources that have made the United States central to the workings of the global balance of power, and to the provision of public goods.”  However, given power diffusion and increased complexity, America’s role is “definitely changing in important ways.”  Nye’s tapestry is woven from threads in his thinking on diplomacy, power, history, and international relations.  

“On the Right Side of History: Public Diplomacy & LGBT Rights Today,” Public Diplomacy Magazine, USC Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars, Issue 13, Winter 2015.  This edition of PD Magazine contains 18 short essays by scholars and practitioners on LGBT issues in the study and practice of diplomacy. 

Yelena Osipova, “’Russification’ of ‘Soft Power’: Transformation of a Concept,” Exchange: Journal of Public Diplomacy,Syracuse University, December 2014.  Osipova (American University) examines Russia’s re-conceptualization and indigenization of soft power as manifest in official and academic discourse.  Her paper explores creation of a distinct Russian approach to soft power grounded in its political culture and its framing of American soft power as a mask for projecting hegemony and interference in Russia’s internal and external affairs.  Selecting from a range of cultural diplomacy, international broadcasting, and other Russian soft power tools, Osipova focuses on Russia’s use of development and humanitarian assistance and cultivation of civil society networks abroad.  She concludes with a brief look at Russia’s use of soft power in Ukraine.

“PD Hub, CPD’s Virtual Classroom,” USC Center on Public Diplomacy, 2015.   CPD’s new searchable online library includes active links to books, articles, speeches, essays, PD News items, and CPD Blogs.  PD Hub also includes a list of PD organizations, a database of multimedia resources, links to annotated bibliographies, and other resources.  A “go to” research site for students, scholars, and practitioners.  

Rufus Philips, “Breathing Life Into Expeditionary Diplomacy: A Missing Dimension of US Security Capabilities,” Working Paper, National Security Information Center, Fall 2014.  In this 86-page paper, Philips (Senior Fellow, NSIC) examines the reasons for creating an “expeditionary diplomatic capability” and the thinking, training, and resources needed to bring it into being as a separate personnel category working directly for US Chiefs of Mission.  Drawing on the thinking of retired Ambassador Marc Grossman, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, and others, Philips analyzes a range of issues:  missions and roles of an expeditionary capability, recruitment, skill sets, risk management, the elements of a basic education and training course, management and administration, and an orientation course for ambassadors and deputy chiefs of mission.

Katarzyna Pisarska, “The Role of Domestic Public Engagement in the Formulation and Implementation of US Government-sponsored Educational Exchanges: An Insider’s Account,” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2015) 11, 5-17.  Pisarska (Warsaw School of Economics and Center for European Policy Analysis) argues that domestic civil society organizations, long essential in implementing US exchange programs, over time become partners in program design and policy formulation.  Her article draws on interviews with diplomats and practitioners and a research literature grounded in relational models often characterized by the term “new public diplomacy.”  Pisarska argues international exchanges can serve as an example for other instruments of public diplomacy as states “adjust to the ongoing internal democratization of foreign policy.”

Peter Pomerantsev and Michael Weiss, “The Menace of Unreality: How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money,” The Interpreter, Institute of Modern Russia, November 22, 2014.  In this 43-page paper, Pomerantsev (journalist and author of Nothing is True and Everything is Possible) and Weiss (editor-in-chief of The Interpreter and columnist for Foreign Policy) argue that Russia systematically uses “information not in the familiar terms of ‘persuasion,’ ‘public diplomacy’ or even ‘propaganda,’ but in weaponized terms, as a tool to confuse, blackmail, demoralize, subvert and paralyze.” Information, cultural organizations, and money, they contend, are central elements in Putin’s “concept of ‘non-linear war.’”  Their paper offers a variety of recommendations on ideas and tools needed to understand and respond to a strategy that uses culture and money to enable aggression and “freedom of speech as a way to subvert the very possibility of debate.”

Monroe E. Price, Free Expression, Globalism and the New Strategic Communication, (Cambridge University Press, 2015).

This is a brilliant and original book.

In what he calls an invitation to a conversation about the “architecture” of speech in society, information flows, and strategic communication, Price (University of Pennsylvania) presents “a series of inquiries into global actors and the relationship between their information strategies and geopolitical impacts.”  The first half of the book offers an array of sophisticated empirically grounded concepts: definitions of “strategic communication” and “strategic communicators,” organized advocacy of “narratives of legitimacy,” the concept of “analytical diagnostic” in media assistance and public diplomacy, information and strategic asymmetries, and “strategic architectures of media and information systems.”  The second half contains case studies: perceptions of “soft war” in Iran in the pre-Rouhani era, religions and strategic communication, NGOs in democracy promotion, “platforms” as bases for advancing ideas or national identity focusing on the Beijing Olympics, and the implications of regulating satellite transponders for Internet governance.  His book offers numerous insights into new ways of thinking about power, communication, and the theory and politics of free expression.

“Public Diplomacy: Inside the Issues 5.10,” CIGI Podcast, Center for International Governance Innovation, January 8, 2015.  CIGI Senior Fellow Andrew Thompson interviews US Consulate Toronto Public Affairs Officer Hillary Fuller Renner.  Topics discussed in this 27-minute video include the role of cultural diplomacy, how public diplomacy is changing, the impact of digital technologies, and US public diplomacy activities in Canada.

“Public Diplomacy and the Role of the Public Affairs Officer,” USC Center on Public Diplomacy, January 8, 2015.  In this approximately 6-minute video, senior State Department officials discuss the meaning of public diplomacy and roles, tools and methods of Public Affairs Officers. 

Tim Rivera, “Distinguishing Cultural Relations from Cultural Diplomacy: The British Council’s Relations With Her Majesty’s Government,” CPD Perspectives, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, January 2015.   Rivera (Delegation of the European Union to the United States) has adapted his MA thesis written at Kings College London for publication by CPD.  His project (annotated previously in this reading list) examines a basic question: What does the British Council do? “Cultural relations” through international educational and cultural engagement as framed by the Council?  “Cultural diplomacy,” a term preferred by the British Government?  Or perhaps the Council engages in “new public diplomacy,” a frame that appeals to some scholars.  In his study of the Council from 2010 to the present, Rivera develops a framework that seeks to clarify these concepts and make a normative claim that cultural relations is more effective than cultural diplomacy in advancing a nation’s soft power.  He argues that recent oversight and funding trends threaten the Council’s “’arms length’ relationship with and ‘operational independence’ from the Government.”  Contains updated financial data from Council reports.

Andreas Sandre, Digital Diplomacy, (Rowman & Littlefield, 2015).  Sandre (Embassy of Italy to the United States) has compiled twenty-six conversations with diplomats, journalists, scholars, technology executives and other experts that probe issues at the crossroads of digital technologies and diplomatic practice.  Based on the Embassy’s popular Digital Diplomacy Series in Washington, DC, they provide insights, advice, and numerous references that open doors to further inquiry.  Sandre’s work with practitioners who are coming to terms with dgital technologies usefully complements the growing scholarly literature in diplomacy and communication studies. 

Matthew Wallin, Military Public Diplomacy: How the Military Influences Foreign Audiences, White Paper, Atlantic Security Project (ASP), February 2015.  In this well organized and clearly argued 42-page report, ASP fellow Matt Wallin looks at definitional, structural, and operational issues in “military public diplomacy” – a term he defines as “military communication and relationship building with foreign publics and military audiences for the purpose of achieving a foreign policy objective.” His report includes case studies, best practices, and evaluation of strengths and limitations in the following categories:  inform and influence activities, information operations, civil affairs, strategic communication, leaflets in Afghanistan, trans-regional web initiatives, commander’s emergency response program, military exchange programs, female engagement teams, human terrain system, and military information support teams (MIST).

R.S. Zaharna, “From Pinstripes to Tweets,” The Cairo Review of Global Affairs, January 25, 2015.  Zaharna (American University) provides a sweeping portrayal of diplomacy’s use of communication tools from the Amarna Tablets of ancient Egypt to todays’s digital media.  Her article focuses on social media’s strengths and limitations, networking and the “relational paradigm” in public diplomacy, contentious publics enabled by digital technologies, the overlooked potential of diaspora populations, and the need for governments to shift from analyzing messages to studying relational dynamics on and offline. 

Recent Blogs and Other Items of Interest

Michael Birnbaum, “Russia’s anti-American Fever Goes Beyond the Soviet Era’s,” March 8, 2015, The Washington Post.

Donald M. Bishop, “Public Diplomacy: Time to Debate, Change, Continuity, and Doctrine,” February 2015, American Diplomacy.

Broadcasting Board of Governors, “Statement from BBG on CEO and Director Andrew Lack,” March 4, 2015, BBG website.

Robin Brown, “Lobbyists and the Outsourcing of Public Diplomacy,” March 12, 2015; “French Cultural Diplomacy in Eastern Europe, 1936-51,” March 4, 2015; “(Not) The Freedom House Guide to Policy Advocacy,” March 2, 2015; “Cuts and Capabilities at the FCO,” February 27, 2015; “What’s Different About Confucius Institutes?” January 22, 2015; “Counter Propaganda: The Case of ISIS,” January 13, 2015, Public Diplomacy, Networks and Influence Blog.

Daryl Copeland, “How Can We Do Diplomacy Better,” February 18, 2015, Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute.

Karen DeYoung, “U.S. Seeks to Capitalize on Defeat of Islamic State in Kobane,” January 27, 2015, The Washington Post.

Anna Fifeld, Missy Ryan, and David Nakamura, “Before Attack, U.S. Diplomat Sought to Charm, Engage with South Koreans,”March 5, 2015, The Washington Post.

Frans-Stefan Gady, “How the Pentagon Manipulates People Overseas,” February 11, 2015, The Diplomat. 

Craig Hayden, “The 2014 US Advisory Commission Comprehensive Annual Report,” January 6, 2015, Intermap Blog.

John Hudson, “Top American Diplomat Decries ‘Lies’ of Russian Media,” January 27, 2015, Foreign Policy Blog.

David Ignatius, “The Internet Isn’t to Blame for Radicalization,” January 15, 2015, The Washington Post.

“Kerry Tells Royce He’s 100 Percent With Him on BBG Reform, Asks for More Money,” February 25, 2015, BBG Watch.

Joseph Lichterman, “Here’s How the BBC, Disrupted by Technology and New Habits is Thinking About its Future,” January 28, 2015, NiemanLab.

Kristin Lord and Marie Harding, “The Challenges of People-to-People Programs – and How to Surmount Them,” February 27, 2015, USC Center on Public Diplomacy Blog.

Ron Nixon, “U.S. Seeking a Stronger World Media Voice: Broadcasting Board of Governors Names Chief Executive,” The New York Times, January 21, 2015.

Ed Royce, “Chairman Royce Statement on Resignation of U.S. International Broadcasting Executive Andy Lack,” March 5, 2015, US House of Representaves.

Eric Schmidt, “U.S. Intensifies Effort to Blunt ISIS’ Message,” February 16, 2015. The New York Times. 

Simon Shuster, “Inside Putin’s On-Air Machine,” March 5, 2015, Time Magazine; Margarita Simonyan, “Once Upon a TIME,”March 9, 2015, RT.com.

Gem from the past

Monroe E. Price, Media and Sovereignty: The Global Information Revolution and Its Challenge to State Power, (The MIT Press, 2002).  Recent publication of Price’s Free Expression, Globalism and the New Strategic Communication (annotated above) is just the occasion for this gem from the past.  In Media and Sovereignty, Price developed his idea of “market for loyalties” and thinking about ways in which states use media to maintain sovereignty within borders and to influence populations and disrupt loyalties in other states.  Successful management of the “market” yields what he calls “narratives of legitimacy” through which groups or coalitions maintain power.  His conceptual framework also explains anxieties and the instrumental and systemic consequences when narratives and loyalties break down.  Taken together, these books frame Price’s understanding of “strategic communication and strategic architectures for altering flows of information” within states and in regional and global settings. 

Viewing Message: 1 of 1.
 Notice

This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. Visit GW’s Website Privacy Notice to learn more about how GW uses cookies.