Category: Bruce Gregory’s Resource List

Manan Ahmed, Where the Wild Frontiers Are: Pakistan and the American Imagination, (Just World Publishing, 2011). The author of “Chapati Mystery” blog and a historian of Islam in South Asia (Freie Universitate Berlin) gathers his commentaries on US imaginings about Pakistan and historical and political trends within Pakistan. Sharply critical, humorous, and well written, Ahmed’s short essays portray a failure on the part of American officials and writers in mainstream media to “imagine” the realities of Pakistan’s people and society. Ahmed’s blogs make a case for deeper comprehension of relations between the two societies: “Unless we decide to get local, to pay attention to local narratives, facts, histories, realities, languages, religions, ethnicities, cultures, and so forth, we will remain in this deeply flawed discourse.” Includes a foreword by Amitava Kumar (Vassar College).

Robert M. Beecroft, “Taking Diplomatic Professional Education Seriously,” Foreign Service Journal, July/August 2011, 66-69. Retired US Foreign Service Officer Beecroft argues the “new diplomacy” requires “a systematic regimen of professional diplomatic education at the Department of State.” His article summarizes key findings and recommendations in the 2011 report sponsored by the Stimson Center and the American Academy of Diplomacy on Forging a 21st-Century Diplomatic Service Through Professional Education and Training.

Lee C. Bollinger, “News for the World — A Proposal for a Globalized Era: an American World Service,” Columbia Journalism Review, July/August 2011, 29-33. Bollinger (Columbia University) finds (1) a contradiction between the need for global news and the diminished supply of foreign reporting; (2) a rise in national media intended to have a global presence (BBC World Service, Al Jazeera, Xinhua News Agency and CCTV, and France 24), (3) a continuing need for journalistic institutions to offset laissez-faire “citizen journalism;” and (4) a trend from local to regional to global in civil society institutions such as universities and the media. He discusses America’s dual system of public broadcasting — the journalism of National Public Radio and PBS and international broadcasters such as Voice of America and RFE/RL, which are rooted in the Cold War and barred from broadcasting to US audiences by “constitutionally suspect” provisions of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. Bollinger calls for an “American World Service” to provide a “stronger publicly funded system of international news.”

Rajiv Chandrasekaran, “In Afghanistan’s Garmser District, Praise for a U.S. Official’s Tireless Work,” The Washington Post, August 13, 2011. The Post’s correspondent and author of Imperial Life in the Emerald City (2006) profiles the work of State Department representative Carter Malkasian during his two year stay in Garmser on the Helmand River. Chandrasekaran attributes Malkasian’s success to his Pashto fluency, sensitivity to local cultural norms, willingness to take risks, countless meetings and roadside conversations, residence in a local trailer, two-year stay in one district, a “soft spoken manner” combined with “fierce negotiating skills,” his credibility with US troops, and his willingness as a temporary civilian hire to “to forge his own job description, even if it meant bucking the State Department’s rules.” In a letter to the Post on August 23, 2011, US Ambassador Ryan Crocker comments that “hundreds of foreign service officers and other federal agency workers are doing similar work in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.”

Jacob Comenetz, “Innovating Public Diplomacy for a New Digital World,” The Washington Diplomat, July 27, 2011. Contributing writer Comenetz discusses conceptual issues and operational challenges facing US diplomats in using social media tools. His essay looks at (1) implications of ideas on network power and “Internet Freedom” in the writings of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former State Department official Anne-Marie Slaughter; (2) projects and institutional changes in the Department’s public diplomacy bureaus; and (3) uses of digital technologies to create stealth networks and enable activists challenging regimes in Iran, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere. Comenetz also summarizes contrasting views, drawing particularly on Evgeny Morozov’s critique in The Net Delusion (2010).

Paul Cornish, Julian Lindley-French, and Claire Yorke, Strategic Communications and National Strategy, A Chatham House Report, Royal Institute of International Affairs, September 2011. Cornish (University of Bath), Lindley-French (Netherlands Defense Academy), and Yorke (Chatham House) call for a whole of government approach to strategic communication and increased awareness of its central role in the development and implementation of national strategy. They argue the UK government has a good understanding of strategic communication’s importance, but this understanding is “relatively limited in its sophistication and imagination.” Their recommendations fall into three categories: (1) establish a clearer definition of strategic communication and its place in national strategy, (2) reform how strategic communication is managed within government, and (3) adapt and strengthen strategic communication in response to the challenges of new information technologies and cyber security. (Courtesy of Robin Brown)

Mai’a K. Davis Cross, Security Integration in Europe: How Knowledge-based Networks Are Transforming the European Union, (The University of Michigan Press, 2011). Cross (University of Southern California) argues the European Union has made significant advances in achieving internal and external security through collaboration in and among epistemic communities — i.e., knowledge-based transnational networks of diplomats, soldiers, scientists, civilian crisis professionals, and other areas of shared expertise. Her generally optimistic view of EU integration is grounded in her reading of the capacity of networks to supersede national governments in the diplomacy of “security decision making.” Through their common culture, shared professional norms, frequent meetings, speed, and flexibility, epistemic communities are changing how we think about governance, diplomacy, and approaches to dealing with terrorism, immigration, cross-border crime, drug and human trafficking, and other transnational security threats.

“Diplomacy Post 9/11: Life in the US Foreign Service,” The Kojo Nnamdi Show, National Public Radio, September 22, 2011. Host Kojo Nnamdi interviews American Foreign Service Association President Susan Johnson, US Foreign Service Officer Matthew Asada, and US Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter. Issues discussed include tensions between security and fulfilling mission goals, changes in recruitment and promotion, training requirements, and debates between proponents of “a traditional service and an expeditionary service.” Available in audio and transcript versions. (Courtesy of Michelle Lee)

Ali Fisher and David Montez, Evaluating Online Public Diplomacy Using Digital Media Research Methods, A Case Study of #ObamainBrazil, InterMedia Global Research Network, July 2011 (available online through USC’s Center on Public Diplomacy. In this study, Fisher (Mappa Mundi Consulting) and Montez (InterMedia) (1) discuss research methods needed to develop, implement, and evaluate social media campaigns in public diplomacy; (2) assess the State Department’s use of digital media to support President Obama’s March 2011 visit to Brazil; and (3) offer recommendations for using social media in future public diplomacy campaigns. They conclude that, to be effective, public diplomacy practitioners must adopt new research methods and strategies that take into account opportunities and constraints in using social media.

Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, U.S. Public Diplomacy in a Post-9/11 World: From Messaging to Mutuality, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, Paper 6, 2011. Fitzpatrick (Quinnipiac University) finds a lack of consensus among scholars, practitioners, and informed observers on the methods and goals of public diplomacy in the decade since 9/11. Her paper draws on dialogue theory to assess US public diplomacy during the Bush and Obama administrations and to create a prescriptive relational model that seeks to ground its practice in two-way “symmetric engagement.”

Thomas L. Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, That Used To Be Us, (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011). Using stories, interviews, and analysis, New York Times columnist Friedman and Johns Hopkins (SAIS) professor Mandelbaum assess the causes and implications of four challenges: globalization, the revolution in information technology, America’s chronic deficits, and its excessive energy consumption. Their critique — intended as “both a wake up call and a call to collective action” — offers a change manifesto grounded in more and better education and different habits of saving and consumption. Students and teachers will find useful their chapters on bottom up innovation and “creative creativity” as today’s necessary adjuncts to learning critical skills and mastering knowledge domains.

Amanda Foreman, A World on Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War, (Random House, 2010). Forman (University of London) puts the war in an international context with a focus on Britain’s policy of neutrality, deep opposition to slavery, and dependence on the South for cotton; the South’s need for British-made weapons and ships; and the North’s frequent consideration of war with Britain and efforts to block diplomatic and economic connections with the Confederacy. Her massive (958 pages) and critically acclaimed study reinforces the correlation between US public diplomacy and armed conflict throughout American history. She offers many fresh insights into the practice of traditional and public diplomacy midway between the American Revolution and World War I. Written from the perspective of political leaders, diplomats, soldiers, journalists, writers, and citizen activists, Foreman’s narrative includes a thorough assessment of the diplomatic and public opinion implications of the North’s capture of Confederate agents Mason and Slidell in the Trent affair, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, military successes and failures, and the political and economic interests all concerned.

Public diplomacy practitioners and scholars will find particularly interesting Foreman’s discussion of US Minister Charles Francis Adams’ skills in traditional diplomacy, which contrasted with his pronounced unwillingness to engage journalists and British publics; the methods and tools used by Thurlow Weed, sent by Secretary of State William Seward to influence European public opinion; the methods and tools used by the skilled, multi-lingual journalist Henry Hotze, who was recruited by the Confederacy to engage the press on behalf of the South’s Commission in London; Hotze’s pro -South journal the Index; the uneasy relationship between diplomats and spies; the influence of citizen activists and journalists with pro-South or pro-North sympathies; dissemination of unattributed speeches and editorials; and the roles of the telegraph, photographs, political cartoons, debates in Parliament, and non-governmental organizations in shaping public opinion.

Seward’s controversial release of all US diplomatic correspondence in the first half of 1862, motivated by domestic political considerations, proved deeply embarrassing to Adams who never imagined his letters would become public. Britain’s political leaders and diplomats took this 19th century precursor to WikiLeaks in stride.

Peter W. Galbraith, “How to Write a Cable,” Foreign Policy, March/April 2011, 102-103. The former US Ambassador to Croatia and Special Representative of the UN Secretary General to Afghanistan argues that, contrary to what Julian Assange might say, most diplomats “do not worry that the wrong people will read their cables, but that the right people won’t.” With a twinkle in his eye, Galbraith in this short piece, offers this advice: (1) “be strategically nasty,” (2) “a spoonful of Ukrainian nurse helps the cable go down,” (3) accuracy is at a premium (except about the home team); (4) “pretend you’re a foreign correspondent — back in the glory days;” and (5) “be literate.”

Susan Gigli and Ali Fisher, “Networked Audiences: 10 Rules for Engagement,” The Channel (Association of International Broadcasters), Issue 2, 2011. Gigli (InterMedia) and Fisher (Mappa Mundi Consulting) provide a brief guide for media organizations seeking to embrace new networked media platforms. Their 10 rules show how “users behave and cluster with these networks, and how users are shaping their own news and information environments.”

William Hague, “The Best Diplomatic Service in the World: Strengthening the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as an Institution,” London, September 8, 2011. In a speech at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Foreign Secretary outlines his vision for the future of the Foreign Office and steps needed to improve the skills and capabilities of Britain’s diplomats.

Steven Livingston, Africa’s Evolving Infosystems: A Pathway to Stability and Security, Africa Center for Strategic Studies, National Defense University, Research Paper No. 2, December 2010, March 2011. Livingston (George Washington University) looks at cellular telephony and other emerging information and communication technologies in the context of emerging democratic institutions in Africa. He concludes that although these “technologies can, at times, be used for less positive purposes, including crime and politically motivated violence, on the whole they are enhancing human security and sustainable economic development across the continent.”

Ali Molenaar, Reading Lists, Clingendael Library and Documentation Centre, Netherlands Institute of International Relations. Clingendael’s librarian continues to provide useful literature lists on public diplomacy and a wide range of related topics. Recent updates include:
– Literature on Public Diplomacy, July 1, 2011
– Literature on Celebrity Diplomacy, July 1, 2011
– Literature on Cultural Diplomacy, July 1, 2011
– Literature on Citizen and Track 11 Diplomacy, July 1, 2011
– Literature on Branding, July 1, 2011
– Literature on External Relations of the European Union, July 1, 2011
– Literature on European Level Diplomacy and the EU Diplomatic Service, July 1, 2011
– United States of America: Diplomatic Relations, July 1, 2011

Alex Oliver and Andrew Shearer, Diplomatic Disrepair: Rebuilding Australia’s International Policy Infrastructure, Lowy Institute for International Policy, August 2011.In this in-depth followup to a 2009 blue ribbon panel report on Australia’s Diplomatic Deficit, the Lowy Institute’s Oliver and Shearer conclude that Australia’s international policy infrastructure and overseas diplomatic network “remain seriously under-resourced and lagging behind comparable nations.” Their study looks at overstretched diplomatic posts, critical shortfalls in foreign language training and other critical skills, “lackluster” public diplomacy, “almost nonexistent use of new digital platforms,” and a significant gap between diplomatic capacity and the nation’s interests. An appendix compares Australia’s diplomatic service with those of the US, the UK, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the European Union. The 33-page report and a 2-page Fact Sheet can be downloaded from the Institute’s website.

Alasdair Roberts, “The WikiLeaks Illusion,” The Wilson Quarterly, Summer 2011, 16-21. Roberts (Suffolk University Law School) argues that although new information technologies make it easier to leak and broadcast sensitive government information, barriers remain to what WikiLeaks seeks to achieve. His article discusses implications of the large amount of information released, minimal public outrage, business decisions by commercial companies that hurt WikiLeaks’ functionality, and the lack of surprise at the “open secrets” released. Roberts, quoting former New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, agrees the disclosures did not “expose some deep unsuspected perfidy in high places.” Rather they provided only “texture, nuance, and drama.”

Paul S. Rockower, “Projecting Taiwan: Taiwan’s Public Diplomacy Outreach,” Issues & Studies, 47, No. 1 (March 2011), 107-152, (Available on the USC Center on Public Diplomacy’s Resources website). Rockower (a journalist and former Israeli Foreign Ministry press officer) analyzes Taiwan’s soft power and use of public diplomacy “not only as a means of promotion, but also as a means of ensuring its diplomatic survival and access to the international arena.” His essay discusses Taiwan’s public diplomacy strategies and tactics, narratives, institutions, and methods. Rockower looks particularly at Taiwan as a middle power with unusual limitations and capacities and its emphasis on polylateral connections with non-state actors and multilateral institutions. His paper combines an academic assessment of Taiwan’s public diplomacy with recommendations for practitioners.

Max Schulman, “The State Department’s Shameful Record on Internet Freedom,” The New Republic, August 8, 2011. TNR intern Schulman finds “significant failures, both in overall funding efforts and in the omission of vital tools” in implementation of the State Department’s Internet freedom agenda. He summarizes the arguments of Congressional and public policy critics, views of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, and views of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, “Notes From the Foreign Policy Frontier,” The Atlantic, July 2011. Slaughter (Princeton University and former director of policy planning at the US Department State) has joined The Atlantic as a correspondent and “curator/host’ of an online feature that examines ways of thinking about foreign affairs in a “framework that moves beyond states and addresses both governments and societies.” In her first post, “The New Foreign Policy Frontier” (July 27, 2011) she summarizes her goals and intentions. See also her YouTube video presentation, DIY Foreign Policy, Personal Democracy Forum 2011, June 27, 2011 (19 minutes).

US International Strategy for Cyberspace: Prosperity, Security, and Openness in a Networked World, Washington, DC, May 2011. In his covering letter, President Obama describes his cyberspace strategy as “an approach that unifies our engagement with international partners on the full range of cyber issues.” The document contains elements of a US cyberspace policy, a vision for cyberspace’s future, and a statement of policy priorities. The section on diplomacy focuses on the need to “strengthen international partnerships” and “engage the international community in frank and urgent dialogue” on “principles of responsible behavior in cyberspace” and actions needed to build a system of cyberspace stability. Like White House national security strategies, the cyberspace “strategy” is more a policy and public diplomacy statement than an analysis of tradeoffs among priorities, resources, costs and risks, and specific steps needed to achieve its goals.

US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, “Kerry Introduces Legislation to Authorize and Strengthen the State Department and U.S. Diplomacy,” July 27, 2011. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry’s authorization bill for Fiscal Years 2012-13 contains a number of proposals to modernize the State Department, build the capacity of US diplomacy, strengthen public diplomacy, increase program accountability, exempt US international broadcasting from restrictions on domestic dissemination of “public diplomacy information,” and support global development, cyberspace, and Internet freedom. The full text of the bill, S. 1426, is available on the Library of Congress Thomas website.

Richard Wike, “From Hyperpower to Declining Power: Changing Global Perceptions of the U.S. in the Post-September 11 Era,” Pew Global Attitudes Project, September 7, 2011. Findings in the Pew Research Center’s 2010 and 2011 surveys include: (1) America’s global image improved significantly in Western Europe and many parts of the world after Barack Obama’s election in 2008; (2) the Obama bounce has staying power overall, but with lower marks for his handling of Iran, Afghanistan, and Israeli-Palestinian issues; (3) there has been no Obama bounce in Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan, and Palestine; and (4) the economic downturn since 2008 did not significantly affect positive opinions, but did lead to a reassessment of American economic power overall and relative to China.

R.S. Zaharna, Battles2Bridges blog. American University communication scholar Zaharna blogs on relational approaches in public diplomacy, assertive public diplomacy, Palestinian public diplomacy, digital strategies, and other issues.

Gem from the Past

Robert M. Entman, Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy, (The University of Chicago Press, 2004). In Projections of Power, communications scholar Robert Entman (George Washington University) developed his cascade model of media framing and examined its implications for public opinion, foreign policymaking, and the “framing” of events by political leaders. When it was published to critical acclaim in 2004, Harvard University’s Thomas E. Patterson called it a “stunning achievement” and observed that “scholars and practitioners alike will be relying on this book for years to come.” The reviewers were right. Projections of Power recently earned Professor Entman the American Political Science Association’s Doris Graber Book Award for the best book published in the last ten years in political communication.

Jozef Batora and Monika Mokre, eds., Culture and External Relations: Europe and Beyond, (Ashgate, 2011). The essays compiled by Batora (Comenius University, Brataslava) and Mokre (Austrian Academy of Sciences) examine conceptual issues, historical case studies, and trends in the uses of culture in external relations. The authors assess ways in which political entities use culture to generate goodwill and frame international agendas, culture’s role in creating boundaries, and its role in building connections across boundaries. Includes:

• Jozef Batora and Monika Mokre, “Introduction: What Role for Culture in External Relations?”
• Part I, Universalism Versus Particularism
• Erik Ringmar, “Free Trade by Force: Civilization Against Culture in the Great China Debate of 1857″
• Iver B. Neumann, “Our Culture and All the Others: Intercultural and International Relations”
• Srdjan Vucetic, “The Logics of Culture in the Anglosphere”
  Part II, Boundary Building Versus Boundary Transcendence
• Monika Mokre, “Culture and Collective identifications”
• Jozef Batora, “Exclusion and Transversalism: Culture in the EU’s External Relations”
• Bahar Rumelili and Didem Cakmakli, “‘Culture’ in EU-Turkey Relations”
  Part III, Policy Aspects
• Manfred J. Holler and Barbara Klose-Ullmann, “Abstract Expressionism as a Weapon of the Cold War”
• Milena Dragicevic Sesic, “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Cultural Policies of and Towards Serbia”
• Emil Brix, “European Coordination of External Cultural Policies”
• Monika Mokre and Jozef Batora, “Conclusions”

Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), Board Meeting, Transcript, Washington, DC, June 3, 2011. In its “first ever public meeting,” BBG Chair Walter Isaacson and US international broadcasting’s bipartisan board “outlined initiatives to reform U.S. international broadcasting, provided an update on the BBG’s strategic review, announced the Burke Award winners to recognize courage, integrity and originality of BBG journalists, and took questions from the public on U.S. international broadcasting.” Additional information and related documents are available at the BBG’s website. A subsequent BBG board meeting was held on July 14, 2011.

Rosa Brooks, “Ten Years On: The Evolution of Strategic Communication and Information Operations since 9/11,” Statement Before the Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, US House of Representatives, July 12, 2011. Brooks (Georgetown University) draws on her past two years as senior advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in these reflections on drawbacks in the term strategic communication, lessons from the past decade, and thoughts about the future. Among many useful observations, Brooks calls for: (1) clear distinctions between strategic communication and related terms; (2) appropriate assumptions about accountability, metrics, methods, and timeframes; (3) the compelling need to understand human terrain (the languages, narratives, memories, and hopes of others); (4) learning from the “major mistake” of validating Osama bin Laden’s “special” status and fixation on terrorism; (5) a willingness to take risks and recognition that mistakes will happen; and (6) recognition that “obsession with who does what” in government-wide communication is a waste of time.

Caitlin Bryne and Rebecca Hall, Australia’s International Education as Public Diplomacy: Soft Power Potential, Clingendael Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, No. 121, July 2011. Bryne (Bond University) and Hall (International Education Resources Group) discuss trends and opportunities in international education as an instrument of public diplomacy. They argue that Australia has not realized its full potential and call for more active public diplomacy leadership, enhanced evaluation, and increased dialogue within Australia’s public diplomacy community and civil society.

Damian Carrington, “Artists Condemn British Council’s Decision to Axe Climate Programme,” The Guardian, July 14, 2011. In an open letter on July 14, a group of well-known British authors and artists “with affectionate connections to the British Council” have written to express “mystification and deep concern” that funding and staffing have been radically cut for work on climate change, one of the Council’s three top priorities. The move was criticized by the UK’s Foreign Minister Jeremy Brown in a letter to British Council Chief Executive Martin Davidson. In his letter, leaked to The Guardian, Brown reportedly admonished Davidson “for his apparent ‘termination’ of one of the council’s ‘success stories.’” In a letter to The Guardian on July 16, Davidson stated the Council’s work on climate change would continue. He noted, however, that “we are not a climate change organization” and that the Council would focus on its “core programmes in the arts, English, education and society around the world.” (Courtesy of Robin Brown’s (Leeds University) Public Diplomacy: Networks and Influence blog.)

Daniel Costa, Guestworker Diplomacy, Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper No. 317, July 11, 2011. In this report critical of the State Department’s exchange visitor program, EPI’s Immigration Policy Analyst Costa finds that the J visa program “gives U.S. employers significant financial incentives to hire foreign workers over U.S. workers, while providing them no labor protections.” He faults the State Department, which oversees the J visa program, for collecting “very little data” on visa holders and for relying on employers and sponsoring organizations to regulate themselves. His report looks at the history of the J visa program, including its large Summer Work Travel program, and at the “severe exploitation of J visa holders” consequent to the outsourcing of State’s oversight responsibilities.

For the State Department’s views on “New Regulations for J-1 Visa, Summer Work Travel,” see “Question Taken at the June 20, 2011 Daily Press Briefing,” Office of the Spokesperson, Department of State, June 21, 2011 and Holbrook Mohr and Mitch Weiss, “Student Visa Program: New Rules, Same Problems,” ABC News, Associated Press, June 20, 2011.

Nicholas Cull and Ali Fisher, eds., The Playbook: Case Studies of Engagement. InThe Playbook, a project commissioned by the British Council, Cull (University of Southern California) and Fisher (Mappa Mundi Consulting) host a coordination point for international practitioners to share experiences on methods of engagement and the practice of public diplomacy. Examples from among dozens of cases in its growing collection include: China’s Panda Diplomacy, Framing Climate Change at the G-8 Summit, Forgotten Voices Listening Project UK, Creative Cities Project East Asia, Japan’s International MANGA Award, The Franklin Book Program, and the New York Philharmonic’s Trip to North Korea. Users are invited to register, comment, and contribute cases.

Shawn Dorman, ed., Inside a U.S. Embassy: Diplomacy at Work, 3rd edition, Foreign Service Books, 2011. Dorman (Associate Editor, Foreign Service Journal) has compiled an entirely new edition of essays on the lives and work of US foreign service officers and other foreign affairs professionals. Its broad spectrum of nearly 100 short chapters by practitioners include profiles of the work of ambassadors (Marie Yovanovitch, Armenia), political officers (Dereck Hogan, Russia), public affairs officers (Christopher Teal, Mexico), and entry level officers (Carolyn Dubrovsky, Nepal); “day in the life of” accounts of a cultural affairs officer (Anne Benjaminson, Tajikistan), a public affairs officer (Michael McClellan, Iraq), and an environment, science, technology, and health officer (Jason McInerney, Honduras); chapters on embassies, employees, and families; chapters on a variety of field activities; and chapters with guidance for those interested in joining the foreign service and foreign affairs agencies.

Daniel W. Drezner, “Does Obama Have a Grand Strategy?” Why We Need Doctrines in Uncertain Times,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2011, 57-68. Drezner (Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy) asserts that grand strategies matter far less than national economic and military power and the actions taken by states. He contends that grand strategies are important, however, as “cognitive beacons” or signals to others in times of “radical uncertainty” — i.e., during wars, revolutions, depression, or power transition. Grand strategies for Drezner are communication strategies far more than planning and decision-making guides. Drezner argues that although the Obama administration was wrong early on to assume that improved standing in the world would give the US greater policy leverage, it was right to pivot to a more assertive grand strategy of “counterpunching.” Yet the administration has failed to clearly explain its grand strategy to Americans and to the rest of the world, which for Drezner defeats the whole purpose of having one.

For a critique of Drezner’s argument, a defense of the Obama administration’s worldview, and an argument that the search for grand strategies is misguided in “today’s multipolar, multilayered world,” see Fareed Zakaria, “Stop Searchng for an Obama Doctrine,” The Washington Post, July 6, 2011. For Drezner’s reply, see “The Virtues of Grand Strategies” on his Foreign Policy blog, July 7, 2011. See also, David Ignatius, “Obama’s Communications Gap,” The Washington Post, July 15, 2011.

Alexandra Dunn, “Unplugging a Nation: State Media Strategy During Egypt’s January 25 Uprising,” The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol.35:2, Summer 2011,15- 24. Dunn (Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies) assesses the Egyptian government’s shifts from a strategy of content suppression to a “shutdown strategy” that sought to close entire media platforms and tools — and then to a strategy of “commandeering the country’s mobile phone networks to conduct a countrywide SMS message campaign directed at quelling protests.” She concludes that Egypt’s strategies “alienated the business community, disproportionately impacted apolitical citizens, and inadvertently increased international focus on the crisis.”

“International Broadcasting,” PD Magazine, Issue 6, Summer 2011. Now in its third year, the online publication edited by graduate students at the University of Southern California’s Center for Public Diplomacy continues to provide useful articles by scholars and practitioners on issues in public diplomacy. Articles in the sixth issue focus on international broadcasting in a transformational media environment and include:
– Simon Mainwaring, “Social Media and Business: Creating New Pathways in Diplomacy”
– Alan Heil, “VOA and BBC at a Crossroads”
– Shawn Powers, “R.I.P., Broadcasting”
– Philip Seib, “Al Jazeera English in Focus”
– Oliver Zollner, “International Broadcasting in the Social Network Era”
– Interviews with former members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors James Glassman and Ted Kaufman and current members Michael Meehan and S. Enders Wimbush
– Philip Wang, “Transformation of Radio Taiwan International”
– Alex Oliver and Annmaree O’Keefe, “Struggling to be Heard: Australia’s International Broadcasters Fight for a Voice in the Region”
– Kim Andrew Elliott, “In International Broadcasting, Even the Static Must be Credible”

Kristin M. Lord and Travis Sharp, eds., America’s Cyber Future: Security and Prosperity in the Information Age, Volumes 1 and 2, Center for a New American Security (CNAS), June 2011. In this detailed examination of cyber security issues, CNAS editors Lord and Sharp have organized the work of some 200 analysts in a project co-chaired by Robert E. Kahn (Corporation for National Research Initiatives), Mike McConnell (Booz Allen Hamilton), Joseph Nye (Harvard University), and Peter Schwartz (Global Business Network). Volume 1 discusses findings and recommendations relating to interests, trends, risk assessments, policies, strategies, and government- private sector partnerships. Volume 2 contains thirteen chapters by subject matter experts. Includes chapters by Joseph Nye on “Power and National Security in Cyberspace,” Martha Finnemore (George Washington University) on “Cultivating International Cyber Norms,” and Richard Fontaine (CNAS) and Will Rogers (CNAS) on “Internet Freedom and Its Discontents.”

Marc Lynch, Upheaval: U.S. Policy Toward Iran in a Changing Middle East, Center for a New American Security (CNAS), June 2011. In this CNAS report, Lynch (George Washington University) argues that the US policy of “strategic patience” toward Iran, which until recently has had some success, can no longer be sustained. In today’s environment, a viable Iran policy means “aligning the United States with the emerging empowered Arab publics and preserving key regional alliances, while denying Iran the ability to exploit the changing environment.” Lynch’s recommendations include engaging with publics in the Arab world and Iran, a significantly increased focus on human rights in Iran, accommodating legitimate demands of Bahrain’s Shi’a population, continuation of lower level diplomacy and confidence building measures rather than a new public negotiating initiative, and a strategic communication campaign that highlights Iran’s failures. He notes this does not mean calling for regime change or supporting subversion in Iran and that it is essential to disaggregate the challenge posed by Iran from local political problems.

Johannes Matyassy and Seraina Flury, Challenges for Switzerland’s Public Diplomacy: Referendum on Banning Minarets, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, Paper 4, June 2011. Matyassy (Switzerland’s Ambassador to Argentina) and Flury (Switzerland’s Department of Foreign Affairs) examine Switzerland’s communication strategy in dealing with the anti-minaret initiative. Their paper examines the strategy’s strengths and limitations and provides practical “Do’s” and “Don’ts” for other countries. They argue the strategy was successful in shifting a concentrated international focus on Switzerland to a focus on Europe as a whole in which the Swiss case was seen as part of a larger set of issues involving migration and integration.

James Pamment, The Limits of the New Public Diplomacy, PhD thesis, 2011. In his thesis, available by pdf download, Pamment (Stockholm University) compares ways in which British, Swedish, and American diplomats plan and evaluate media campaigns. He argues that “old” and “new” public diplomacy models are not distinct categories in which the latter has replaced the former. Using comparative empirical data, Pamment explores the extent to which the new public diplomacy is truly new, practical constraints that foreign ministries face in adapting to the new diplomacy, and the value of the “new public diplomacy” as an explanatory concept.

Christopher Paul, “Getting Better at Strategic Communication,” Statement Before the Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, US House of Representatives, July 12, 2011. In his statement, Paul (RAND Corporation) builds on his recent book, Strategic Communication: Origins, Concepts, and Current Debates (2011), and his earlier publications in the field. His testimony examines tensions and conceptual issues in what scholars and practitioners mean by strategic communication as well as his own views on its “unassailable core.” He summarizes common themes in a decade of reports on strategic communication and public diplomacy discussed in his study Whither Strategic Communication? A Survey of Current Proposals and Recommendations (2009). Paul concludes with comments on finding the right balance between civilian and military capacity, the Woodrow Wilson Center’s SAGE effort to create a business plan for a civil society entity that will strengthen public-private partnership, and his seven recommendations for improving strategic communication.

Pew Research Center, China Seen Overtaking U.S. as Global Superpower, Global Attitudes Project, July 13, 2011. Pew’s survey finds that in most regions of the world attitudes toward the United States continue to be more favorable than during the George W. Bush administration, but in 15 of 22 nations majority opinion holds that China has or will replace the US as the world’s leading economic power. This view is particularly prevalent in Western Europe. The survey also finds that global opinion is consistently negative regarding China’s capacity to match the US in military power. Key findings are summarized in the report’s overview.

Lawrence Pintak, “Breathing Room: Toward a New Arab Media,” Columbia Journalism Review, May/June, 2011, 23-28. In CJR’s cover story, Pintak (Washington State University) looks at how journalists in the Arab world are “warily testing boundaries, adjusting to new realities, and daring to dream of the possibilities.” He sees potential for independent, nationally focused television channels to challenge regionally focused channels, the possible the rise of an “Egypt effect” from more open Egyptian media, a redefinition of the role of Arab journalists, and more citizen journalism on the part of young Arabs skeptical of traditional media organizations.

Giles Scott-Smith, “The Heineken Factor? Using Exchanges to Extend the Reach of U.S. Soft Power,” AmericanDiplomacy.org, June 23, 2011. Scott -Smith (Leiden University and author of Networks of Empire, 2008) looks at the “continuing use-value of exchanges for favorably altering the opinions of international visitors coming to the United States.” His article focuses on the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program and the use of exchanges in three case studies: (1) overcoming diplomatic tensions with Iran, 2006-2009; (2) overcoming prejudices through the 1983 “Pluralism in U.S. Society” regional project; and (3) efforts to connect with second and third generation immigrants through the Muslim Incentive Program in Western Europe, 2003-2010. Scott-Smith’s article and previous scholarship on exchanges is useful for its examination of the strengths, limitations, risks, lessons, and situational relevance of exchanges in public diplomacy. Among his conclusions: “Be wary of running exchange programs with an obvious connection to foreign policy goals.”

Mary Beth Sheridan, “Low-key U.S. Diplomat Transforms Syria Policy,” The Washington Post, July 12, 2011. Post reporter Sheridan profiles US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s trip to Hama, his greeting from cheering protestors, his Facebook page comments on Syria’s anti-demonstration policies. and his career-long interest in public outreach.

Geoffrey Wiseman, “Theorizing Diplomacy and Diplomats on Their Own Terms,” Review of Paul Sharp’s Diplomatic Theory of International Relations (Cambridge University Press, 2009) in International Studies Review (2011), 13, 348-350. Wiseman (University of Southern California) provides a brief summary, probing questions, and generous praise for Sharp’s (University of Minnesota, Duluth) wide ranging study of diplomatic theory. Wiseman commends the book to “international relations theorists and their graduate students” and to “reflective diplomats interested in theorizing themselves.”

Sharp’s Diplomatic Theory of International Relations was annotated in “Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #50,” March 2, 2010.

Tim Wu, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, (Alfred A. Knopf, 2010). Wu (Columbia University and the New America Foundation) uses his sweeping history of modern telecommunications to raise central questions about the future of the Internet. His well-written narrative focuses on the progression of the telegraph, the telephone, film, radio, and television from “somebody’s hobby to somebody’s industry” — from a freely accessible medium to control by large corporations and cartels in a process he calls “the Cycle.” Wu’s book raises critical questions. “Is the Internet really different?” Is the “net neutrality” of the Internet, with its indifference to content, destined to replace single medium industries? “Which is mightier: the radicalism of the Internet or the inevitability of the Cycle?”

Gem from the Past

Edward T. Hall, Beyond Culture, (Anchor Books paperback edition, 1981, originally published in 1976). The scholarship of American anthropologist Edward T. Hall (1914-2009) and his insights into intercultural relations and nonverbal communication have long been useful for diplomats, foreign aid professionals, Peace Corps volunteers, and other practitioners. Beyond Culture — which sits on the shelf with The Silent Language The Hidden Dimension, and other works — examines culturally influenced “unconscious” attitudes that shape thoughts, emotions, communication, and actions. In Beyond Culture, Hall developed his views on high context cultures (where many things are left unsaid and are explained by the cultural context) and low context cultures (where words and verbalization are more important to communication). Hall taught at the Department of State’s Foreign Service Institute from 1950-1955.

Gordon Adams and Cindy Williams, Buying National Security: How America Plans and Pays for Its Global Role and Safety at Home, (Routledge, 2010). Adams (American University) and Williams (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) examine the institutions and processes that support national security resource planning. In separate chapters, they discuss planning and resource allocation in the State Department, dispersed foreign assistance programs, the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, the Department of Homeland Security, the White House, and Congress. Concluding chapters focus on the politics of national security budgeting, efforts to reform the process, and their views on the need for integrated planning and coordination. Public diplomacy and international broadcasting are dealt with as aspects of international affairs and State Department budgeting.

Sean Aday, Henry Farrell, Marc Lynch, John Sides, John Kelly, and Ethan Zuckerman, Blogs and Bullets: New Media in Contentious Politics, Peaceworks No. 65, United States Institute of Peace, September 2010. Aday, Farrell, Lynch, and Sides (a team from George Washington University), Kelly (Morningside Analytica), and Zuckerman ( Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard University) assess “cyberutopian” and “cyberskeptic” approaches to the role of new media in political movements. The authors examine “five interlocking levels of analysis: individual transformation, intergroup relations, collective action, regime policies, and external attention.” Their study includes methods for improving analysis of new media in politics and a case study of Iran’s presidential election in 2009. They urge scholars and policymakers to adopt a more nuanced view of the positive and negative effects of new media in democratization and social change.

Sean Aday, Henry Farrell, Marc Lynch, and John Sides, Advancing New Media Research, US Institute of Peace, Special Report 250, September 2010. Four of the authors of Blogs and Bullets: New Media in Contentious Politics update their earlier study drawing on proceedings at a conference on the topic held at USIP on July 8, 2010.

W. Lance Bennett,News: The Politics of Illusion, 8th edition (Pearson Longman, 2009). In the latest edition of his text on politics and the news media, Bennett (University of Washington) provides new material on participatory media, fragmentation of news audiences, uses of strategic communication in shaping political messages, connections between news stories and the polling process, and new case studies on political comedy and global warming. Central themes in Bennett’s scholarship include assessment of strategic communication in politics and governance, the influence of communication professionals in shaping news images, and limits on the extent to which news media influence public opinion.

Tony Blair, A Journey: My Political Life, (Alfred A. Knopf, 2010). Former British PM Blair’s engaging memoir will be read and reviewed for many reasons given his central role in two decades of British and global politics. Elements of particular interest to public diplomacy enthusiasts include an amusing account of his first visit to the United States as an International Visitor in 1985, his views on the media and its changing role in mediated politics, and insights on the instrumental value of communication strategies in politics and diplomacy.

Peter Cary, The Pentagon, Information Operations, and Media Development, A Report to the Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA), National Endowment for Democracy, October 19, 2010. Cary (former managing editor and Pentagon reporter at US News and World Report) examines information and media activities of the Department of Defense (DoD) in Iraq and Afghanistan. His report looks at budget, policy, and structural issues during the past decade, the rise and demise of the Office of Strategic Influence, the work of defense contractors such as the Lincoln Group, relations between the Departments of State and Defense in public diplomacy and strategic communication, and adaptation of US departments and contractors to the challenges of social media. Cary recommends tightened Congressional oversight of DoD’s information operations and media activities, transfer of DoD activities, such as the Trans Regional Web Initiative, to the State Department or the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a scaling back on such DoD activities generally, and creation of a comprehensive national security strategy on information and media strategy.

Eugene Chow and Richard Weitz, Rebuilding Diplomacy: A Survey of Past Calls for State Department Transformation, Policy Brief, Center for a New American Security (CNAS), August 2010. As the US Department of State prepares to launch its first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), Chow (former CNAS Research Assistant) and Weitz (CNAS Non-Resident Senior Fellow) summarize findings and recommendations in past reports calling for State Department reform. Key Issues: increasing resources, aligning resources with strategic goals, training and recruitment, engaging nonstate actors, and upgrading and integrating technology.

Costas M. Constantinou and James Der Derian, eds., Sustainable Diplomacies, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). Constantinou (University of Nicosia) and Der Derian (Brown University) have compiled a collection of essays that “seeks to synchronize the study and practice of diplomacy with transformations taking place in international politics.” The editors offer two meanings for the term “sustainable diplomacy”: first, the “durability” of diplomacy rather than something to be disposed of as an unnecessary delay before getting to desired results; and second, diplomacy as “the long-term reconciliation and/or coexistence of competing entities and ways of living.” Includes the following chapters:

— Constantinou and Der Derian, “Introduction: Sustaining Global Hope: Sovereignty, Power, and the Transformation of Diplomacy.”

— David Joseph Wellman (DePaul University), “The Promise of Sustainable Diplomacy: Refining the Praxis of Ecological Realism.”

— Hussein Bania (Brown University), “Diplomacy and Public Imagination.”

— Costas M. Constantinou, “Diplomacy, Spirituality, Alterity.”

— Noe Cornago, (University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, Spain), “Perforated Sovereignties, Agonistic Pluralism and the Durability of (Para)diplomacy.”

— Iver B. Neumann, (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs and Oslo University), “Sustainability and Transformation in Diplomatic Culture: The Case of Eurocentrism.”

— Sam Okoth Opondo, (University of Hawaii, Manoa) “Decolonizing Diplomacy: Reflections on African Estrangement and Exclusion.”

— Anthony Deos (University of Otago) and Geoffrey Allen Pigman (Bennington College), “Sustainable Public Diplomacy: Communicating About Identity, Interests and Terrorism.”

— Arne Strand (Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen, Norway), “Sustained Peacebuilding: The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations and Researchers.”

— Mai’a K. Davis Cross (University of Southern California), “Sustainable Diplomacy in the European Union.”

— Geoffrey Wiseman (University of Southern California), “Engaging the Enemy: An Essential Norm for Sustainable US Diplomacy.”

— Roland Bleiker (University of Queensland), “Toward a Sustainable Diplomacy in Divided Korea.”

— Paul Sharp (University of Minnesota, Duluth), “The US-Iranian Conflict in Obama’s New Era of Engagement: Smart Power or Sustainable Diplomacy?” Nicholas J. Cull, “Speeding the Strange Death of American Public Diplomacy: The George H. W. Bush Administration and the U.S. Information Agency,” Diplomatic History, Vol. 34, No. 1 (January 2010), 47-60. Drawing on a wide range of interviews, archival records, and academic and public policy literature, Cull (University of Southern California) examines “the significant decline in the fortunes” of USIA during the years 1989-1993. His assessment focuses on deficiencies in USIA’s management, Voice of America broadcasts in China, USIA’s role in the 1991 war with Iraq, and public diplomacy in Eastern Europe in the years following the political revolutions in 1989. Cull’s article is part of a forthcoming history of U.S. public diplomacy from 1989 to the present.

Timothy Cunningham, “Strategic Communication in the New Media Sphere,” Joint Forces Quarterly, Issue 59, 4th quarter, 2010, 110-114. Cunningham (National Intelligence Open Source Center) urges civilian and military practitioners to adopt distinct communication strategies when dealing with traditional media and new media. Characteristics of the new media environment — feedback, dialogue, decentralized generation of content, time required for effective engagement, etc. — require a distributed work environment. This means, he argues, the practice of strategic communication in new media should be “the responsibility not of professional strategic communicators insulated from the policy execution process, but of those individuals directly charged with executing policy or carrying out a plan.”

Daniel W. Drezner, “Weighing the Scales: The Internet’s Effect on State-Society Relations,”[1]The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Spring/Summer 2010, 31-44. In looking at how the Internet has affected relations between the state and global civil society, Drezner (Tufts University and ForeignPolicy.com blogger) argues that non-state actors are “probably” more empowered than states, but the effects of this empowerment varies according to types of political environment. He examines contrasting views in political science literature, state censorship models, the Internet’s impact on transaction-costs for corporate and government hierarchies, differences in normative choices faced by states in political decisions and economic opportunities, and the fragility of information cascades. Drezner concludes with a brief comment on misperceptions in the State Department’s “Civil Society 2.0 Initiative” intended to build capacity for civil society groups worldwide. He argues the Initiative presumes that new technologies primarily aid “good” groups and underestimates its potential for empowering illiberal forces.

Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy, Inaugural Issue, Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars, Syracuse University, Fall 2010. The mission of Exchange, a publication managed and edited by graduate students at Syracuse University, “is to provide a forum for scholars and practitioners of public diplomacy to share their research, experience, and insights in order to expand and advance the body of public diplomacy literature and analysis.” Exchange “seeks to define a unique intellectual space” that integrates “academic papers” and “featured articles” by public diplomacy practitioners. The inaugural issue includes:

“Featured Articles” — Bruce Gregory, (George Washington University & Georgetown University), “Public Diplomacy Scholars and Practitioners: Thoughts for an Ongoing Conversation,” 6-9.

— William Kiehl, (PD Worldwide), “Where the Rubber Meets the Road: PD as it is Practiced Abroad,” 10-19.

— Michael Schneider (Syracuse University), “Public Diplomacy in the Digital Era: Toward New Partnerships,” 18-20.

— Andrew Kneale, (British Council, USA), “The Public Diplomacy Enlightenment,” 21-24.

“Academic Papers” — Dennis Kinsey (Syracuse University) and Olga Zatepilina (Appalachian State University),“The Impact of Visual Images on Non-U.S. Citizens’ Attitudes about the United States: A-Q Study in Visual Public Diplomacy,” 25-32.

— H. Efe Sevin (American University), “See for Yourself: Rebranding Northern Baja through Public Diplomacy,”33-40.

— Caitlin Byrne (Bond University), “Not Quite the Sum of its Parts: Public Diplomacy from an Australian Perspective,” 41-53.

— Jana Peterkova (University of Economics, Prague), “Contemporary Trends in Czech Public Diplomacy,” 54-65. Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, U.S. Public Diplomacy’s Neglected Domestic Mandate,[2]CPD Perspectives, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, Paper 3, (Figueroa Press, October 2010). In 1977, President Jimmy Carter directed the US Information Agency to pursue “two distinct but related goals” — “to tell the world about our society and policies” and also “to tell ourselves about the world.” Fitzpatrick (Quinnipiac University) examines the origins and implications of this neglected “second mandate.” She explores the evolution of US public diplomacy’s missions and mandates and considerations that influence public diplomacy practices that target Americans. She identifies questions for scholars and practitioners and calls for greater emphasis on activities that increase Americans’ understanding of the policies, ideas, and values of others.

Richard Fontaine and Brian M. Burton, Eye to the Future: Refocusing State Department Policy Planning, Policy Brief, Center for a New American Security (CNAS), August 2010. CNAS Fellows Fontaine and Burton assess challenges facing the State Department’s policy planning staff grounded in the gap between its responsibilities (and expectations) and its lack of formal authority. Issues include: connecting long-range planning to current activities, overcoming State’s lack of a “planning culture,” and interagency coordination. The authors offer recommendations for reform in the context of the Department’s forthcoming Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR).

Malcolm Gladwell, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted,” The New Yorker, October 4, 2010, 42-49. Using examples of high risk activism in the US civil rights movement, the author of The Tipping Point (2000), Blink (2005), and Outliers (2008) explores strengths and limitations of social media platforms built on “weak ties.” Social media are good at innovation, collaboration, matching buyers and sellers, as sources of information and ideas, and at creating resilient networks in low-risk situations requiring minimal commitment. But “weak tie” connections, Gladwell argues, rarely lead to high-risk activism, which depends on authority, hierarchical structures, and formal operating procedures. His article includes a critique of the social media enthusiasms of former State Department Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs James Glassman and the author of Here Comes Everybody (2008) Clay Shirky. (Courtesy of Jeremy Holden)

John Hughes,Islamic Extremism and the War of Ideas: Lessons from Indonesia, (Hoover Institution Press, 2010). Hughes (Brigham Young University) draws on experiences as a journalist (foreign correspondent, editorChristian Science Monitor) and government official (USIA associate director, VOA director, and State Department spokesman) to make his case for a revitalized US public diplomacy and a new independent government agency that replicates “the best features and energy of the now defunct USIA.” His views are framed in a critique of a US public diplomacy now “in disarray,” his memories of the strengths of Cold War public diplomacy, a message of freedom that America must project to the world in fighting “Islamist extremism,” and creation of a cabinet level public diplomacy agency.

Walter Isaacson, “Celebrating 60 Years of RFE,” Remarks at the Newseum, Washington, DC, September 28, 2010. On the occasion of Radio Free Europe’s 60th anniversary,Isaacson (Chair, US Broadcasting Board of Governors; President and CEO of the Aspen Institute) reflects on RFE’s past and outlines his vision for US government international broadcasting in the digital age. Broadcasting’s future, he argues, calls for idea labs and case studies of what works and does not work using social media platforms, building online communities on issues of mutual concern, mastering the tricky mix of shared and disseminated information, facilitating sharing networks of information, creating a virtual global news service, capitalizing on translation technology, supporting Internet freedom, and preserving US broadcasting’s fundamental mission, “fostering freedom through credible journalism.”

Kenneth Matwiczak, Public Diplomacy Model for the Assessment of Performance, AReport to the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, September 2010. This 148-page report on a research project directed by Matwiczak (LBJ School of Public Affairs) in collaboration with graduate students at the LBJ School was written pursuant to a contract with the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, a bipartisan, presidentially-appointed advisory panel funded by the US Department of State. The report examines public diplomacy evaluation methods and offers an assessment model for quantifying public diplomacy program results and evaluating their success in meeting strategic goals. The report was presented to the Commission at its meeting on September 28, 2010 (transcript is online).

For summaries and thoughtful critiques of the report, see Matt Armstrong (Mountain Runner Institute), “A Notional Model for Evaluating Public Diplomacy,” MountainRunner US blog, October 7, 2010; and Craig Hayden (American University), “Assessing the Public Diplomacy Assessment Model Report,” Intermap blog, October 15, 2010.

Mark Maybury, “Social Radar for Smart Power,”[3]Smart Power Newsletter, MITRE Corporation, Summer 2010. Maybury (Director of MITRE’s Smart Power Initiative) calls for development of “a social radar capability that will enable near real-time detection and tracking of human dynamics — perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and intentions.” He discusses key characteristics of monitoring systems, the use of computational social science tools, uses of these capabilities in planning and assessment of smart power engagement in diplomacy, development, defense, and intelligence. Robust “social radar” capabilities “will require a collaborative community that brings together diverse experts from government, academia, industry, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).”

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “American and Chinese Power After the Financial Crisis,” The Washington Quarterly, 33:4, October 2010, 143-153. Urging caution in making long-term projections from cyclical events, Nye (Harvard University) looks at alternative futures for the US and China in the aftermath of the great recession of 2008-2009. Issues discussed include soft power in 21st century China, economic interdependence and power, and policy implications of misperceptions about the financial crisis for both countries. The article is drawn in part from Nye’s forthcoming book The Future of Power (Public Affairs, February 2011).

Evan H. Potter, Branding Canada: Projecting Canada’s Soft Power Through Public Diplomacy, (McGill-Queens University Press, Paperback edition, 2010, originally published in 2009). Potter’s study of the “origins, development, and implementation” of Canada’s public diplomacy is now available in paperback. Potter (University of Ottawa) argues that “protecting and nurturing a distinct national identity are essential to Canada’s sovereignty and prosperity.” He offers policy recommendations on Canada’s public diplomacy and examines Canada’s use of the instruments of public diplomacy — cultural programs, international education, international broadcasting, trade, and investment promotion.

Annmaree O’Keefe and Alex Oliver,International Broadcasting and Its Contribution to Public Diplomacy, Working Paper, Lowi Institute for International Policy, September 2010. In this extensive (71 pages) research study commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Lowi Institute’s O’Keefe and Oliver examine trends in government international broadcasting and lessons for Australia. Based on research undertaken from December 2009 to June 2010, the Institute’s report discusses conceptual issues in the relationship between public diplomacy and international broadcasting; characteristics and plans of international broadcasters in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, the United States, and Canada; the relationship between public diplomacy and international broadcasting in Australia; and conclusions for the future of Australia’s international broadcasters. (PDF download available at Lowi Institute’s website)

Edward Schatz and Renan Levine, “Framing, Public Diplomacy, and Anti-Americanism in Central Asia,”International Studies Quarterly, (2010), 54, 855-869. Schatz and Levine (University of Toronto) report on a framing experiment designed to assess US public diplomacy efforts in Kyrgystan and Tajikistan. The authors use focus groups, detailed questions, and methods intended to “isolate the effect of varying sources and frames on attitudes” about the United States. They offer conclusions on message framing and recommendations on the conduct of public diplomacy.

SWJ Editors, “Skelton, Davis Introduce Groundbreaking Interagency Reform Legislation,” Small Wars Journal,posted October 2, 2010. US House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Representative Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) introduce “The Skelton-Davis Interagency National Security Professional Education, Administration, and Development (INSPEAD) System Act” (H.R. 6249). Drawing on lessons from the Goldwater-Nichols reorganization of the Department of Defense, the legislation is intended to “institutionalize interagency culture across the federal government by focusing on the personnel programs used to develop national security professionals. Chairman Skelton’s remarks, the text of the bill, and a section-by-section summary can be found at the Committee’s website. (Courtesy of Jim Dickmeyer)

Trust Me I’m an Expert: Taking Culture from Inside Out, British Council, 2010. This anthology of brief essays explores issues relating to identity, expertise, knowledge needed for informed judgments, the role of the arts in understanding conflict, and how citizens and countries want to be represented and perceived. The collection is inspired by The Tricycle Theatre’s The Great Game in Afghanistan. Includes essays by Nushin Arbabzadah (UCLA Center for the Study of Women), Reza Aslan (President & CEO, Asian Media, Inc.), Steve Clemons (New America Foundation), Christina Lamb (The Sunday Times), Sarah Lewis (Yale University School of Art), Christopher Merrill (International Writing Program, University of Iowa), and a foreword by General Sir David Richards (Chief of the General Staff, British Ministry of Defense).

Steven Weber and Bruce W. Jentleson, The End of Arrogance: America in the Global Competition of Ideas,(Harvard University Press, 2010). Weber (University of California, Berkeley) and Jentleson (Duke University) begin by taking exception to the “war of ideas” metaphor and its underlying reasoning. They argue that ideas are critically important in politics and diplomacy, however, and their book examines an emerging “global competition of ideas” in which the 20th century’s “big ideas” are insufficient in dealing with core questions of social justice and achieving world order. The authors contend that competing successfully is not a matter of tweaking public diplomacy. Future leadership they assert must be grounded in three core truths: (1) we live in a Copernican, not Ptolemaic, world in which the US is no longer at the center militarily, politically, economically and ideologically; (2) it is widely assumed there must be alternatives to US leadership — alternatives which themselves are the subjects of robust debate; and (3) Americans must “unlearn the exceptionalism of settled formulas” and appeal to the needs of others if they are to engage successfully in this global marketplace of ideas. For a summary of Weber and Jentleson’s argument, see theGlobalist,, September 21, 2010. (Courtesy of Donna Oglesby)

Gem from the Past

Edward Hallett Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939, An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, (Originally published by Macmillan and Company, 1939 with an updated edition in 1946). E. H. Carr’s classic study is well known for its analysis of the breakdown of the European peace during the decades prior to World War II, its critique of Wilsonian idealism, its insights into the nature of political power, its central place in the realist school in international politics, and its contributions to the systematic study of international relations. Less remembered is Carr’s analysis of “power over opinion” and the art of persuasion as being no less essential in politics than military and economic power. His book contains insights into the development of propaganda as an instrument of policy in the 20th century, the importance of ideas and rhetoric in power politics, international agreements relating to propaganda, issues of truth and morality, and limitations on the uses of propaganda. In his second edition (1946), Carr devoted a final chapter to a prescient assessment of whether the nation state will survive as “the unit of international society.” Carr began his career in 1916 as a diplomat. In 1936, he resigned from the British Foreign Office to work as a journalist and then to pursue an academic career at the University of Wales, Aberstwyth.

The paperback edition of The Twenty Years Crisis, when first published in the United States by Harper & Row in 1964, contained a “Letter to the Reader” from former US Information Agency Director Edward R. Murrow. “Overseas,” Murrow stated, “there is considerable belief that we are a nation of extreme conservatism and that we cannot accommodate to social change. Books about America in the hands of readers abroad can help change those ideas.” Murrow invited readers to send a check to Harper & Row for $7.00 to support the overseas distribution of packets of books on American history, economics, sociology, literature, and politics. The books were distributed to schools, libraries, and other centers abroad as part of USIA’s “worldwide USA BOOKS campaign.”

Gordon Adams and Cindy Williams, Buying National Security: How America Plans and Pays for Its Global Role and Safety at Home, (Routledge, 2010). Adams (American University) and Williams (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) examine the institutions and processes that support national security resource planning. In separate chapters, they discuss planning and resource allocation in the State Department, dispersed foreign assistance programs, the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, the Department of Homeland Security, the White House, and Congress. Concluding chapters focus on the politics of national security budgeting, efforts to reform the process, and their views on the need for integrated planning and coordination. Public diplomacy and international broadcasting are dealt with as aspects of international affairs and State Department budgeting.

Sean Aday, Henry Farrell, Marc Lynch, John Sides, John Kelly, and Ethan Zuckerman, Blogs and Bullets: New Media in Contentious Politics, Peaceworks No. 65, United States Institute of Peace, September 2010. Aday, Farrell, Lynch, and Sides (a team from George Washington University), Kelly (Morningside Analytica), and Zuckerman ( Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard University) assess “cyberutopian” and “cyberskeptic” approaches to the role of new media in political movements. The authors examine “five interlocking levels of analysis: individual transformation, intergroup relations, collective action, regime policies, and external attention.” Their study includes methods for improving analysis of new media in politics and a case study of Iran’s presidential election in 2009. They urge scholars and policymakers to adopt a more nuanced view of the positive and negative effects of new media in democratization and social change.

Sean Aday, Henry Farrell, Marc Lynch, and John Sides, Advancing New Media Research, US Institute of Peace, Special Report 250, September 2010. Four of the authors of Blogs and Bullets: New Media in Contentious Politics update their earlier study drawing on proceedings at a conference on the topic held at USIP on July 8, 2010.

W. Lance Bennett,News: The Politics of Illusion, 8th edition (Pearson Longman, 2009). In the latest edition of his text on politics and the news media, Bennett (University of Washington) provides new material on participatory media, fragmentation of news audiences, uses of strategic communication in shaping political messages, connections between news stories and the polling process, and new case studies on political comedy and global warming. Central themes in Bennett’s scholarship include assessment of strategic communication in politics and governance, the influence of communication professionals in shaping news images, and limits on the extent to which news media influence public opinion.

Tony Blair, A Journey: My Political Life, (Alfred A. Knopf, 2010). Former British PM Blair’s engaging memoir will be read and reviewed for many reasons given his central role in two decades of British and global politics. Elements of particular interest to public diplomacy enthusiasts include an amusing account of his first visit to the United States as an International Visitor in 1985, his views on the media and its changing role in mediated politics, and insights on the instrumental value of communication strategies in politics and diplomacy.

Peter Cary, The Pentagon, Information Operations, and Media Development, A Report to the Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA), National Endowment for Democracy, October 19, 2010. Cary (former managing editor and Pentagon reporter at US News and World Report) examines information and media activities of the Department of Defense (DoD) in Iraq and Afghanistan. His report looks at budget, policy, and structural issues during the past decade, the rise and demise of the Office of Strategic Influence, the work of defense contractors such as the Lincoln Group, relations between the Departments of State and Defense in public diplomacy and strategic communication, and adaptation of US departments and contractors to the challenges of social media. Cary recommends tightened Congressional oversight of DoD’s information operations and media activities, transfer of DoD activities, such as the Trans Regional Web Initiative, to the State Department or the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a scaling back on such DoD activities generally, and creation of a comprehensive national security strategy on information and media strategy.

Eugene Chow and Richard Weitz, Rebuilding Diplomacy: A Survey of Past Calls for State Department Transformation, Policy Brief, Center for a New American Security (CNAS), August 2010. As the US Department of State prepares to launch its first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), Chow (former CNAS Research Assistant) and Weitz (CNAS Non-Resident Senior Fellow) summarize findings and recommendations in past reports calling for State Department reform. Key Issues: increasing resources, aligning resources with strategic goals, training and recruitment, engaging nonstate actors, and upgrading and integrating technology.

Costas M. Constantinou and James Der Derian, eds., Sustainable Diplomacies, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). Constantinou (University of Nicosia) and Der Derian (Brown University) have compiled a collection of essays that “seeks to synchronize the study and practice of diplomacy with transformations taking place in international politics.” The editors offer two meanings for the term “sustainable diplomacy”: first, the “durability” of diplomacy rather than something to be disposed of as an unnecessary delay before getting to desired results; and second, diplomacy as “the long-term reconciliation and/or coexistence of competing entities and ways of living.” Includes the following chapters:

— Constantinou and Der Derian, “Introduction: Sustaining Global Hope: Sovereignty, Power, and the Transformation of Diplomacy.”

— David Joseph Wellman (DePaul University), “The Promise of Sustainable Diplomacy: Refining the Praxis of Ecological Realism.”

— Hussein Bania (Brown University), “Diplomacy and Public Imagination.”

— Costas M. Constantinou, “Diplomacy, Spirituality, Alterity.”

— Noe Cornago, (University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, Spain), “Perforated Sovereignties, Agonistic Pluralism and the Durability of (Para)diplomacy.”

— Iver B. Neumann, (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs and Oslo University), “Sustainability and Transformation in Diplomatic Culture: The Case of Eurocentrism.”

— Sam Okoth Opondo, (University of Hawaii, Manoa) “Decolonizing Diplomacy: Reflections on African Estrangement and Exclusion.”

— Anthony Deos (University of Otago) and Geoffrey Allen Pigman (Bennington College), “Sustainable Public Diplomacy: Communicating About Identity, Interests and Terrorism.”

— Arne Strand (Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen, Norway), “Sustained Peacebuilding: The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations and Researchers.”

— Mai’a K. Davis Cross (University of Southern California), “Sustainable Diplomacy in the European Union.”

— Geoffrey Wiseman (University of Southern California), “Engaging the Enemy: An Essential Norm for Sustainable US Diplomacy.”

— Roland Bleiker (University of Queensland), “Toward a Sustainable Diplomacy in Divided Korea.”

— Paul Sharp (University of Minnesota, Duluth), “The US-Iranian Conflict in Obama’s New Era of Engagement: Smart Power or Sustainable Diplomacy?” Nicholas J. Cull, “Speeding the Strange Death of American Public Diplomacy: The George H. W. Bush Administration and the U.S. Information Agency,” Diplomatic History, Vol. 34, No. 1 (January 2010), 47-60. Drawing on a wide range of interviews, archival records, and academic and public policy literature, Cull (University of Southern California) examines “the significant decline in the fortunes” of USIA during the years 1989-1993. His assessment focuses on deficiencies in USIA’s management, Voice of America broadcasts in China, USIA’s role in the 1991 war with Iraq, and public diplomacy in Eastern Europe in the years following the political revolutions in 1989. Cull’s article is part of a forthcoming history of U.S. public diplomacy from 1989 to the present.

Timothy Cunningham, “Strategic Communication in the New Media Sphere,” Joint Forces Quarterly, Issue 59, 4th quarter, 2010, 110-114. Cunningham (National Intelligence Open Source Center) urges civilian and military practitioners to adopt distinct communication strategies when dealing with traditional media and new media. Characteristics of the new media environment — feedback, dialogue, decentralized generation of content, time required for effective engagement, etc. — require a distributed work environment. This means, he argues, the practice of strategic communication in new media should be “the responsibility not of professional strategic communicators insulated from the policy execution process, but of those individuals directly charged with executing policy or carrying out a plan.”

Daniel W. Drezner, “Weighing the Scales: The Internet’s Effect on State-Society Relations,”[1]The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Spring/Summer 2010, 31-44. In looking at how the Internet has affected relations between the state and global civil society, Drezner (Tufts University and ForeignPolicy.com blogger) argues that non-state actors are “probably” more empowered than states, but the effects of this empowerment varies according to types of political environment. He examines contrasting views in political science literature, state censorship models, the Internet’s impact on transaction-costs for corporate and government hierarchies, differences in normative choices faced by states in political decisions and economic opportunities, and the fragility of information cascades. Drezner concludes with a brief comment on misperceptions in the State Department’s “Civil Society 2.0 Initiative” intended to build capacity for civil society groups worldwide. He argues the Initiative presumes that new technologies primarily aid “good” groups and underestimates its potential for empowering illiberal forces.

Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy, Inaugural Issue, Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars, Syracuse University, Fall 2010. The mission of Exchange, a publication managed and edited by graduate students at Syracuse University, “is to provide a forum for scholars and practitioners of public diplomacy to share their research, experience, and insights in order to expand and advance the body of public diplomacy literature and analysis.” Exchange “seeks to define a unique intellectual space” that integrates “academic papers” and “featured articles” by public diplomacy practitioners. The inaugural issue includes:

“Featured Articles” — Bruce Gregory, (George Washington University & Georgetown University), “Public Diplomacy Scholars and Practitioners: Thoughts for an Ongoing Conversation,” 6-9.

— William Kiehl, (PD Worldwide), “Where the Rubber Meets the Road: PD as it is Practiced Abroad,” 10-19.

— Michael Schneider (Syracuse University), “Public Diplomacy in the Digital Era: Toward New Partnerships,” 18-20.

— Andrew Kneale, (British Council, USA), “The Public Diplomacy Enlightenment,” 21-24.

“Academic Papers” — Dennis Kinsey (Syracuse University) and Olga Zatepilina (Appalachian State University),“The Impact of Visual Images on Non-U.S. Citizens’ Attitudes about the United States: A-Q Study in Visual Public Diplomacy,” 25-32.

— H. Efe Sevin (American University), “See for Yourself: Rebranding Northern Baja through Public Diplomacy,”33-40.

— Caitlin Byrne (Bond University), “Not Quite the Sum of its Parts: Public Diplomacy from an Australian Perspective,” 41-53.

— Jana Peterkova (University of Economics, Prague), “Contemporary Trends in Czech Public Diplomacy,” 54-65. Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, U.S. Public Diplomacy’s Neglected Domestic Mandate,[2]CPD Perspectives, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, Paper 3, (Figueroa Press, October 2010). In 1977, President Jimmy Carter directed the US Information Agency to pursue “two distinct but related goals” — “to tell the world about our society and policies” and also “to tell ourselves about the world.” Fitzpatrick (Quinnipiac University) examines the origins and implications of this neglected “second mandate.” She explores the evolution of US public diplomacy’s missions and mandates and considerations that influence public diplomacy practices that target Americans. She identifies questions for scholars and practitioners and calls for greater emphasis on activities that increase Americans’ understanding of the policies, ideas, and values of others.

Richard Fontaine and Brian M. Burton, Eye to the Future: Refocusing State Department Policy Planning, Policy Brief, Center for a New American Security (CNAS), August 2010. CNAS Fellows Fontaine and Burton assess challenges facing the State Department’s policy planning staff grounded in the gap between its responsibilities (and expectations) and its lack of formal authority. Issues include: connecting long-range planning to current activities, overcoming State’s lack of a “planning culture,” and interagency coordination. The authors offer recommendations for reform in the context of the Department’s forthcoming Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR).

Malcolm Gladwell, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted,” The New Yorker, October 4, 2010, 42-49. Using examples of high risk activism in the US civil rights movement, the author of The Tipping Point (2000), Blink (2005), and Outliers (2008) explores strengths and limitations of social media platforms built on “weak ties.” Social media are good at innovation, collaboration, matching buyers and sellers, as sources of information and ideas, and at creating resilient networks in low-risk situations requiring minimal commitment. But “weak tie” connections, Gladwell argues, rarely lead to high-risk activism, which depends on authority, hierarchical structures, and formal operating procedures. His article includes a critique of the social media enthusiasms of former State Department Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs James Glassman and the author of Here Comes Everybody (2008) Clay Shirky. (Courtesy of Jeremy Holden)

John Hughes,Islamic Extremism and the War of Ideas: Lessons from Indonesia, (Hoover Institution Press, 2010). Hughes (Brigham Young University) draws on experiences as a journalist (foreign correspondent, editorChristian Science Monitor) and government official (USIA associate director, VOA director, and State Department spokesman) to make his case for a revitalized US public diplomacy and a new independent government agency that replicates “the best features and energy of the now defunct USIA.” His views are framed in a critique of a US public diplomacy now “in disarray,” his memories of the strengths of Cold War public diplomacy, a message of freedom that America must project to the world in fighting “Islamist extremism,” and creation of a cabinet level public diplomacy agency.

Walter Isaacson, “Celebrating 60 Years of RFE,” Remarks at the Newseum, Washington, DC, September 28, 2010. On the occasion of Radio Free Europe’s 60th anniversary,Isaacson (Chair, US Broadcasting Board of Governors; President and CEO of the Aspen Institute) reflects on RFE’s past and outlines his vision for US government international broadcasting in the digital age. Broadcasting’s future, he argues, calls for idea labs and case studies of what works and does not work using social media platforms, building online communities on issues of mutual concern, mastering the tricky mix of shared and disseminated information, facilitating sharing networks of information, creating a virtual global news service, capitalizing on translation technology, supporting Internet freedom, and preserving US broadcasting’s fundamental mission, “fostering freedom through credible journalism.”

Kenneth Matwiczak, Public Diplomacy Model for the Assessment of Performance, AReport to the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, September 2010. This 148-page report on a research project directed by Matwiczak (LBJ School of Public Affairs) in collaboration with graduate students at the LBJ School was written pursuant to a contract with the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, a bipartisan, presidentially-appointed advisory panel funded by the US Department of State. The report examines public diplomacy evaluation methods and offers an assessment model for quantifying public diplomacy program results and evaluating their success in meeting strategic goals. The report was presented to the Commission at its meeting on September 28, 2010 (transcript is online).

For summaries and thoughtful critiques of the report, see Matt Armstrong (Mountain Runner Institute), “A Notional Model for Evaluating Public Diplomacy,” MountainRunner US blog, October 7, 2010; and Craig Hayden (American University), “Assessing the Public Diplomacy Assessment Model Report,” Intermap blog, October 15, 2010.

Mark Maybury, “Social Radar for Smart Power,”[3]Smart Power Newsletter, MITRE Corporation, Summer 2010. Maybury (Director of MITRE’s Smart Power Initiative) calls for development of “a social radar capability that will enable near real-time detection and tracking of human dynamics — perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and intentions.” He discusses key characteristics of monitoring systems, the use of computational social science tools, uses of these capabilities in planning and assessment of smart power engagement in diplomacy, development, defense, and intelligence. Robust “social radar” capabilities “will require a collaborative community that brings together diverse experts from government, academia, industry, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).”

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “American and Chinese Power After the Financial Crisis,” The Washington Quarterly, 33:4, October 2010, 143-153. Urging caution in making long-term projections from cyclical events, Nye (Harvard University) looks at alternative futures for the US and China in the aftermath of the great recession of 2008-2009. Issues discussed include soft power in 21st century China, economic interdependence and power, and policy implications of misperceptions about the financial crisis for both countries. The article is drawn in part from Nye’s forthcoming book The Future of Power (Public Affairs, February 2011).

Evan H. Potter, Branding Canada: Projecting Canada’s Soft Power Through Public Diplomacy, (McGill-Queens University Press, Paperback edition, 2010, originally published in 2009). Potter’s study of the “origins, development, and implementation” of Canada’s public diplomacy is now available in paperback. Potter (University of Ottawa) argues that “protecting and nurturing a distinct national identity are essential to Canada’s sovereignty and prosperity.” He offers policy recommendations on Canada’s public diplomacy and examines Canada’s use of the instruments of public diplomacy — cultural programs, international education, international broadcasting, trade, and investment promotion.

Annmaree O’Keefe and Alex Oliver,International Broadcasting and Its Contribution to Public Diplomacy, Working Paper, Lowi Institute for International Policy, September 2010. In this extensive (71 pages) research study commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Lowi Institute’s O’Keefe and Oliver examine trends in government international broadcasting and lessons for Australia. Based on research undertaken from December 2009 to June 2010, the Institute’s report discusses conceptual issues in the relationship between public diplomacy and international broadcasting; characteristics and plans of international broadcasters in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, the United States, and Canada; the relationship between public diplomacy and international broadcasting in Australia; and conclusions for the future of Australia’s international broadcasters. (PDF download available at Lowi Institute’s website)

Edward Schatz and Renan Levine, “Framing, Public Diplomacy, and Anti-Americanism in Central Asia,”International Studies Quarterly, (2010), 54, 855-869. Schatz and Levine (University of Toronto) report on a framing experiment designed to assess US public diplomacy efforts in Kyrgystan and Tajikistan. The authors use focus groups, detailed questions, and methods intended to “isolate the effect of varying sources and frames on attitudes” about the United States. They offer conclusions on message framing and recommendations on the conduct of public diplomacy.

SWJ Editors, “Skelton, Davis Introduce Groundbreaking Interagency Reform Legislation,” Small Wars Journal,posted October 2, 2010. US House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Representative Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) introduce “The Skelton-Davis Interagency National Security Professional Education, Administration, and Development (INSPEAD) System Act” (H.R. 6249). Drawing on lessons from the Goldwater-Nichols reorganization of the Department of Defense, the legislation is intended to “institutionalize interagency culture across the federal government by focusing on the personnel programs used to develop national security professionals. Chairman Skelton’s remarks, the text of the bill, and a section-by-section summary can be found at the Committee’s website. (Courtesy of Jim Dickmeyer)

Trust Me I’m an Expert: Taking Culture from Inside Out, British Council, 2010. This anthology of brief essays explores issues relating to identity, expertise, knowledge needed for informed judgments, the role of the arts in understanding conflict, and how citizens and countries want to be represented and perceived. The collection is inspired by The Tricycle Theatre’s The Great Game in Afghanistan. Includes essays by Nushin Arbabzadah (UCLA Center for the Study of Women), Reza Aslan (President & CEO, Asian Media, Inc.), Steve Clemons (New America Foundation), Christina Lamb (The Sunday Times), Sarah Lewis (Yale University School of Art), Christopher Merrill (International Writing Program, University of Iowa), and a foreword by General Sir David Richards (Chief of the General Staff, British Ministry of Defense).

Steven Weber and Bruce W. Jentleson, The End of Arrogance: America in the Global Competition of Ideas,(Harvard University Press, 2010). Weber (University of California, Berkeley) and Jentleson (Duke University) begin by taking exception to the “war of ideas” metaphor and its underlying reasoning. They argue that ideas are critically important in politics and diplomacy, however, and their book examines an emerging “global competition of ideas” in which the 20th century’s “big ideas” are insufficient in dealing with core questions of social justice and achieving world order. The authors contend that competing successfully is not a matter of tweaking public diplomacy. Future leadership they assert must be grounded in three core truths: (1) we live in a Copernican, not Ptolemaic, world in which the US is no longer at the center militarily, politically, economically and ideologically; (2) it is widely assumed there must be alternatives to US leadership — alternatives which themselves are the subjects of robust debate; and (3) Americans must “unlearn the exceptionalism of settled formulas” and appeal to the needs of others if they are to engage successfully in this global marketplace of ideas. For a summary of Weber and Jentleson’s argument, see theGlobalist,, September 21, 2010. (Courtesy of Donna Oglesby)

Gem from the Past

Edward Hallett Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939, An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, (Originally published by Macmillan and Company, 1939 with an updated edition in 1946). E. H. Carr’s classic study is well known for its analysis of the breakdown of the European peace during the decades prior to World War II, its critique of Wilsonian idealism, its insights into the nature of political power, its central place in the realist school in international politics, and its contributions to the systematic study of international relations. Less remembered is Carr’s analysis of “power over opinion” and the art of persuasion as being no less essential in politics than military and economic power. His book contains insights into the development of propaganda as an instrument of policy in the 20th century, the importance of ideas and rhetoric in power politics, international agreements relating to propaganda, issues of truth and morality, and limitations on the uses of propaganda. In his second edition (1946), Carr devoted a final chapter to a prescient assessment of whether the nation state will survive as “the unit of international society.” Carr began his career in 1916 as a diplomat. In 1936, he resigned from the British Foreign Office to work as a journalist and then to pursue an academic career at the University of Wales, Aberstwyth.

The paperback edition of The Twenty Years Crisis, when first published in the United States by Harper & Row in 1964, contained a “Letter to the Reader” from former US Information Agency Director Edward R. Murrow. “Overseas,” Murrow stated, “there is considerable belief that we are a nation of extreme conservatism and that we cannot accommodate to social change. Books about America in the hands of readers abroad can help change those ideas.” Murrow invited readers to send a check to Harper & Row for $7.00 to support the overseas distribution of packets of books on American history, economics, sociology, literature, and politics. The books were distributed to schools, libraries, and other centers abroad as part of USIA’s “worldwide USA BOOKS campaign.”