Category: Bruce Gregory’s Resource List

Carol Atkinson, “Does Soft Power Matter? A Comparative Analysis of Student Exchange Programs, 1980-2006,” Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 6, Issue 1, January 2010, 1-22. Atkinson (Vanderbilt University) uses empirical methods and data collected for the years 1980-2006 to evaluate the impact of U.S. civilian and military exchanges on political behavior and institutions in the home countries of exchange participants from “nondemocratic” states. She tests three hypotheses relevant to impact: (1) the depth and extent of social interactions during the exchange experience, (2) the sharing of a sense of community or common identity between participants and their hosts, and (3) the attainment of politically influential positions by exchange participants when they return home. Atkinson finds support for the important role of exchanges “in the diffusion of liberal values and practices in authoritarian states.” She discusses possibilities for further research and implications for the design of exchange programs by policymakers. The latter include increasing programs with explicit socialization opportunities, special attention to the under-appreciated value of the International Military Education and Training Program (IMET) and other military exchange programs, and the adverse consequences of using educational exchanges as a negative sanction in countries with poor human rights records.

Robin Brown, “Diplomacy, Public Diplomacy and Social Networks,” Paper Prepared for the International Studies Association Conference, New Orleans, February 17-20, 2010. Brown (University of Leeds) argues social network methodologies and underlying social theory offer a range of propositions about the way networks affect social behavior and “a sense of the limits of diplomatic action.” Current discussions of network diplomacy, he suggests, tend to separate “practice from its social and political context so that relationship building becomes an end in itself.” His paper looks at network concepts in diplomacy and public diplomacy; concepts of agents, actions, and structure; diplomatic practice in networks in a variety of analytical levels; and diplomatic practice as it relates to mapping, building, and exploitation of networks.

Brian M. Burton, Learning from Experience: Lessons from the QDR for the QDDR, Policy Brief, Center for a New American Security (CNAS), January 2010. Burton, a CNAS Research Associate, argues the State Department’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) can learn from” the strengths and limitations of the Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) process. He examines six lessons: (1) “Establish clear priorities;” (2) “Ensure that strategic priorities become budget priorities;” (3) Look to the future but keep an eye on the present;” (4) “Engage at the top;” (5) “Secure buy-in from Congress, interagency partners, and the broader foreign policy community;” and (6) “The process is as important as the product.”

Commander’s Handbook for Strategic Communication and Communication Strategy, Version 2.0, U.S. Joint Forces Command, Joint Warfighting Center, October 27, 2009. In the absence of doctrine and agreement “on the best way to plan and execute strategic communication,” this “pre-doctrinal handbook” is intended “to help joint force commanders and their staffs understand alternative perspectives, techniques, procedures, ‘best practices,’ and organizational options.” Contains references and material on the meaning of strategic communication, its relevance in a “whole of government” approach to foreign affairs and armed conflict, strategic and operational challenges, and established policy and guidance.

Mai’a K. Davis Cross, “A European Foreign Service: Turning Diplomacy Inside-Out,” Paper Prepared for the International Studies Association Conference, New Orleans, February 17-20, 2010. Cross (University of Southern California) examines opportunities and risks in establishing the European External Action Service (EEAS), the integrated diplomatic structure created by the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty in December 2009. She argues that success in the EU’s internal diplomacy contains lessons for its external diplomacy. If these lessons are not effectively implemented, the EEAS risks becoming an experiment that conflicts with the diplomatic services of member states. Cross concludes it is important for the EEAS to maintain a strong public diplomacy function to (1) present a unified image to the world that can help consolidate internal identity and (2) increase awareness of the EU’s “diplomatic, civilian, and soft power” contributions.

“Cultural Diplomacy,” PD Magazine, Winter 2010, Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars, University of Southern California. Includes:
Richard T. Arndt, (Retired USIA officer, author of First Resort of Kings), “The Hush-Hush Debate: The Cultural Foundations of U.S. Public Diplomacy”

Yudhishthir Raj Isar, (The American University of Paris), “Cultural Diplomacy: An Overplayed Hand?”
Cesar Villanueva Rivas, (Universidad Iberoamericana) “Cosmopolitan Constructivism: Mapping a Road to the Future of Cultural and Public Diplomacy”
Sharon Memis, (Director, British Council USA), “Showing the Power of “Cultural Relations: Strategic planning, monitoring and evaluation at the British Council”

Peter Kovach, (Public Diplomacy Officer, U.S. Department of State), “Out from Under the Proscenium: A Paradigm for U.S. Cultural Diplomacy”

Jim Leach, (Chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities), “U.S.A. and UNESCO”

Vicente Gonzalez Loscertales, (Secretary General, International Exhibitions Bureau), ” Advancing Public Diplomacy Through World Expos”

Leena Nandan, (Ministry of Tourism, India), “Incredible India”

Chidiogo Akunyil, (Nigerian Sino-African consultant resident in Beijing), “Nollywood Diplomacy”

Kenjiro Monji, (Director General for Public Diplomacy, Foreign Ministry of Japan),
” Pop Culture Diplomacy”

Etienne F. Auge, (Anglo-American University in Prague), ” Public Diplomacy in Lebanon”
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., (Harvard University), ” Soft Power and Cultural Diplomacy”
Katharine Keith, (PD Magazine), “Interview with Joe Mellot” (Special Assistant to the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs)
Evgeny Morozov, (Foreign Policy magazine), “New Technology and New Public Diplomacy”

Geoffrey Cowan, (University of Southern California), “International Broadcasting”
Nina Federoff, (Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State and Administrator of USAID), “21st Century Science Diplomacy”

Alex Evans, Bruce Jones, and David Steven, Confronting the Long Crisis of Globalization: Risk, Resilience, and International Order, The Brookings Institution and The Center on International Cooperation (CIC), New York University, January 26, 2010. In this study, undertaken with funding by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Evans (CIC), Jones (CIC and Brookings), and Steven (CIC and Riverpath Associates) look at risks and opportunities in a new more turbulent era of globalization. The authors call for a foreign policy paradigm grounded in an understanding of systemic weaknesses, threats from networks of state and non-state actors, the need to manage shared risks, and a strategy of resilience. Foundations for cooperation by governments and other actors include: increased bandwidth, aggregating cohesive subgroups, explicit forecasts, stronger signals in ambiguous environments, transparency in competing visions of fairness, and graduated sanctions that repel free riders.

Adam Federman, “Moscow’s New Rules: Islands of Press Freedom in a Country of Control,” Columbia Journalism Review, January/February 2010, 29-33. Federman, a New York City based journalist and Russia Fulbright scholar (2003-2004), surveys Russia’s media. He finds much to deplore: Izvestia’sreturn to the Soviet model; threats, assaults, and murder; budget cuts; problems in adjusting to web-based journalism; and lack of a deep tradition of long form investigative reporting. He also finds grounds for optimism. Important stories still get covered. Young reporters and independent media pursue stories that matter. And a growing online community of readers makes control of information increasingly difficult.

Aimee R. Fullman, The Art of Engagement: U.S. Public and Cultural Diplomacy Timeline (October 1999-2009), Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, Series on International Cultural Engagement. Fullman (Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, American University) compiles a periodically updated timeline. Her categories: appointment and political events; U.S. Government initiatives; legislation and policy; institutions, investments, and partnerships; and resources, reports and conferences.

Craig Hayden, “Beyond Determinism: Public Diplomacy and New Media Technology in Practice,” Paper Prepared for the International Studies Association Conference, New Orleans, February 17-20, 2010. Hayden (American University) argues that efforts to account conceptually for new information and communication technologies reflect related transformations both in the instruments of public diplomacy and communication in support of strategically significant foreign policy objectives. He examines and compares policy rhetoric and programs in two cases: the U.S. use of “public diplomacy 2.0” and Venezuela’s “traditional” international television broadcasting network Telesur.

Alan L. Heil, Jr., “The Ever-Expanding Global Electronic Town Meeting: Challenges Ahead for U.S. International Broadcasting,” Perspectives, Layalina Productions, Vol. II, Issue 2, February 2010. The author of Voice of America: A History (2003/2006) and former VOA deputy director contends U.S. funded international broadcasters “are poised to play an unprecedented role in amplifying traditional diplomacy by providing accurate, timely, objective and balanced news and ideas to the rapidly expanding blogosphere.” Heil offers an agenda for new leadership in the Broadcasting Board of Governors that includes a review of broadcasting priorities, “exploring the use of social media,” expanded training programs and public private partnerships, and stronger protections for journalistic standards.

Peter J. Katzenstein, ed. Civilizations in World Politics: Plural and Pluralist Perspectives, (Routlege, 2010).Katzenstein and the scholars in this collection of essays argue that civilizations co-exist within “one civilization of modernity” and that civilizations are also internally pluralist. Civilizations are highly differentiated with multiple, loosely integrated identities that change in space and time. The authors differ fundamentally with Samuel Huntington’s view of unitary and clashing civilizations, but they also argue that Huntington “offers important, though partial, insights into civilization politics.” Their essays examine ways in which civilizations can act coherently under certain circumstances and ways in which they exist as discursive practices. Much of the volume deals with diplomacy, commerce, cultural exchanges, and intersubjective understandings. Includes essays by:
Peter J. Katzenstein (Cornell University), “A World of Plural and Pluralist Civilizations: Multiple Actors, Traditions, and Practices”
James Kurth (Swarthmore College), “The United States as a Civilizational Leader”
Emanuel Adler (University of Toronto), “Europe as a Civilizational Community of Practice”
David C. Kang (University of Southern California), “Civilization and State Formation in the Shadow of China”
David Leheny (Princeton University), “The Samurai Ride to Huntington’s Rescue: Japan Ponders its Global and Regional Roles”
Susanne Hoeber Rudolph (University of Chicago), “Four Variants of Indian Civilization”
Bruce B. Lawrence (Duke University), “Islam in Afro-Eurasia: A Bridge Civilization”
Patrick Thaddeus Jackson (American University), “How to Think About Civilizations”
Jaron Lanier, You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto, (Alfred A. Knopf, 2010).Computer scientist and composer Jaron Lanier (Microsoft, University of California Berkeley) brings a contrarian and skeptical perspective to his look at technological and cultural issues in today’s internet. Lanier finds much to deplore in Web 2.0, the hive mind, the cloud, the wisdom of crowds, noosphere, wikis, anonymous blog comments, Wikipedia, open source software, privileging computer algorithms over the judgment of individuals, and more. Lanier is no Luddite, however, and reminds throughout that he is “not turning against the internet.” He calls for a “digital humanism” and alternatives to “totalist” computing grounded in the individual and human imagination.

Noam Lemelshtrich Latar, Gregory Asmolov, and Alex Gekker,“State Cyber Advocacy,” Working Paper for the Tenth Annual Herzliya Conference 2010,Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy, and Strategy. In this paper written for scholars and practitioners, Latar (IDC Herzliya), Asmolov (George Washington University), and Gekker (IDC Herzliya) assess opportunities and challenges in using new media for public diplomacy purposes in the context of integrated hard and soft power (smart power) strategies. Because governments cannot control or manipulate networks, the authors contend that governments must learn to adapt to the new reality of networked collaboration by finding those willing to commit themselves willingly to government strategies and by providing them with the tools to do so. Governments generally, and Israel specifically, can transform most effectively in the Web 2.0 internet environment through creation and distribution of user-generated content, spreading their own content through viral means, and creating lasting relationships with relevant audiences through social media. Their recommendations include creating identity through a constant flow of content on photo, video, and other sharing websites; personalized blogs by government employees (balancing personal and professional information); and creating quasi-autonomous new media operations centers to mediate between the state and networks.

Kristin M. Lord, Engaging the Private Sector for the Public Good: The Power of Network Diplomacy, Policy Brief, Center for a New American Security (CNAS), January 2010. Drawing on the vision of “network diplomacy” advanced by Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department’s Director of Policy Planning and co-chair of State’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), CNAS VP Kristin Lord renews her call for creation of a USA-World Trust, an organization that “would unleash the power of the private sector to further America’s public diplomacy interests.” Her paper restates the recommendations in her 2008 Brookings Institution report, Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century, and builds on similar recommendations by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication, the CSIS Commission on Smart Power, the Center for the Study of the Presidency, and the Heritage Foundation.

Andrew MacKay and Steve Tatham, Behavioural Conflict — From General to Strategic Corporal: Complexity, Adaptation and Influence, The Shrivenham Papers, Number 9, Defence Academy of The United Kingdom, December 2009.Major General MacKay (British Army) and Commander Tatham (Royal Navy) examine changes in strategy, command concepts, and education needed for the British military to operate effectively in today’s armed conflict “amongst the people.” Their paper discusses transparent information environments; integration of hard and soft power, public opinion, networks, “joined up” efforts by soldiers, aid workers, and diplomats; devolution of authority and responsibility; stovepiped structures and doctrines in defense ministry hierarchies; conceptual approaches to framing choices and adaptive thinking; and the value of life-long education for soldiers and diplomats. Includes a case study of British military activities in Afghanistan’s Helmand province.

Ali Molenaar, Library and Documentation Centre, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, ‘Clingendael.’ The Institute’s Reading Lists include recent updates on Branding, Citizen and Track II Diplomacy, United States of America: Diplomatic Relations, Celebrity Diplomacy, and United States of America: Terrorism and Counter-terrorism.

Public Diplomacy in the News (PDiN). The recently launched newswire of University of Southern California’s Public Diplomacy Center aggregates “news articles and opinion pieces on public diplomacy from sources around the world.” Entries are divided into regions and eight categories: cultural diplomacy, government PD, media & PD, new technology & PD, non-state PD, public opinion, soft power, and nation branding. PDiN is available via RSS, Twitter, Facebook, and by subscription.

Joseph Nye, “Soft Power and Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century,” British Council Parliamentary Lecture, January 20, 2010. In this concluding event in the Council’s 75th anniversary lecture series, Nye (Harvard University) restates his views on soft power as an academic concept, responds to his critics, surveys the use of the concept by world leaders and practitioners, discusses ways soft power is wielded through public”diplomacy, comments briefly on new ways of thinking about public diplomacy, and answers questions. See also opening remarks by Martin Davidson, CEO, British Council.

Kenneth A. Osgood and Brian C. Etheridge, eds., The United States and Public Diplomacy: New Directions in Cultural and International History, (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010), Diplomatic Studies Series, Volume 5, Jan Melissen, editor, Netherlands Institute of International Affairs, ‘Clingendael.’ The scholars in this rich collection examine public diplomacy from a broad range of historical perspectives. Many of the essays look at ways governments, non-governmental organizations, and individuals have used public diplomacy to influence the United States. Other essays examine the relevance of psychological, cultural, and ideological dimensions of U.S. diplomacy to an understanding of U.S. foreign relations and American history. The authors seek to connect two intellectual trends: the study of diplomacy as interaction between states and research focused on a “new cultural history” of foreign relations. Includes:

• Kenneth Osgood (University of California, Santa Barbara) and Brian C. Etheridge (Ohio State University), “Introduction. The New International History Meets the New Cultural History: Public Diplomacy and U.S. Foreign Relations”
• Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hect (University of Cologne), “The Anomaly of the Cold War: Cultural Diplomacy and Civil Society Since 1850”
• David Snyder (University of South Carolina), “The Problem of Power in Modern Public Diplomacy: The Netherlands Information Bureau in World War II and the Early Cold War”
• John Day Tully (Central Connecticut State University), “Ethnicity, Security, and Public Diplomacy: Irish-Americans and Ireland’s Neutrality in World War II”
• Neal M. Rosendorf (University of Southern California), “Hollywood, Tourism, and Dictatorship: Samuel Bronston’s Special Relationship with the Franco Regime”
• Seth Center (Historical Office, U.S. Department of State), “Supranational Public Diplomacy: The Evolution of the UN Department of Public Information and the Rise of Third World Advocacy”
  Hector Perla, Jr. (University of California, Santa Cruz), “Transnational Public Diplomacy: Assessing Salvadoran Revolutionary Efforts to Build U.S. Public Opposition to Reagan’s Central America Policy”
• Justin Hart (Texas Tech University), “Foreign Relations as Domestic Affairs: The Role of the ‘Public’ in the Origins of U.S. Public Diplomacy”
• Jason C. Parker (Texas A&M University), “Crisis Management and Missed Opportunities: U.S. Public Diplomacy and the Creation of the Third World”
• Nicholas J. Cull (University of Southern California), “Film as Public Diplomacy: The USIA’s Cold War at Twenty-Four Frames Per Second”
• Helge Danielson (Norwegian Institute for Defense Studies), “Mediating Public Diplomacy: Local Conditions and U.S. Public Diplomacy in Norway in the 1950s”
• Michael L. Krenn (Appalachian State University), “Domestic Politics and Public Diplomacy: Appalachian Cultural Exhibits and the Changing Nature of U.S. Public Diplomacy, 1964-1972”
  Giles Scott-Smith (Leiden University), “Networks of Influence: U.S. Exchange Programs and Western Europe in the 1980s”

Paul Sharp, Diplomatic Theory of International Relations,(Cambridge University Press, 2009). Sharp (University of Minnesota, Duluth) provides a thoughtful examination of ways in which diplomacy and diplomatic theory can contribute to understanding international relations, different kinds of international societies, and critical issues in today’s inter-group relations. His book offers a critique of academic approaches that treat diplomacy as a sub-set of international relations theory, and it makes a case for diplomatic theory “as a coherent and distinctive set of propositions about international relations. Sharp’s analysis is grounded in assumptions about the value people place on living separately in groups, a fundamental difference between intra-group relations and inter-group relations, and diplomacy as management of “relations of separateness.” His final chapter is an inquiry into the meaning of public diplomacy, its difference from citizen diplomacy, and a range of probing questions about its use and improvement.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, “Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-026 – Responsible and Effective Use of Internet-based Capabilities,” February 25, 2010. This memorandum establishes Defense Department policy and assigns responsibilities for use of Internet-based capabilities, including social networking services. (Courtesy of Matt Armstrong)

Mizuki Yamanaka,Change in Human Flows Between the United States and Japan, The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation, March 2010. Yamanaka (Mansfield Foundation Visiting Fellow) looks at trends in exchange visitor flows between the US and Japan from 1980 to 2008. His report analyzes socio-economic and political factors shaping exchanges between the two countries and policy implications for the future. Yamanka recommends “strategically strengthening qualitative exchanges” and identifies ways that US-Japan exchanges can be improved. The report is written in English and Japanese. (Courtesy of Ellen Frost)

Young Professionals in Foreign Policy (YPFP). Based in Washington, DC, with branches in London, Brussels, and New York, YFPF is a nonprofit membership organization, committed “to fostering the next generation of foreign policy leadership . . . [and] to honest, informed, thoughtful discussion of international affairs; the professional advancement, intellectual development, and personal growth of our members; camaraderie within our community; and public service.” Washington activities include a public diplomacy discussion group. (Courtesy of Cathryn Sitterding)

R. S. Zaharna, Battles to Bridges: U.S. Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy after 9/11,(Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). In this study of U.S. public diplomacy, Zaharna (American University) draws on communication research and theory to provide a historical review of the past decade and a framework for preliminary theory building in public diplomacy. Her approach is threefold: (1) an assessment of events, initiatives, and public reports grounded in her argument that challenges to U.S. public diplomacy were broader and more complex than anti-Americanism and image building; (2) an examination of a changing global context in which network communication and cultural forces are shaping U.S. public diplomacy and the perceptions of diverse publics; and (3) a project in theory building at the levels of grand strategy, strategy, and tactics. Zaharna analyzes information and relational frameworks used by societies to understand and solve communication problems. She argues U.S. public diplomacy limits its effectiveness if it relies predominately on one framework. Rather than fight “unwinnable information battles,” U.S. public diplomacy “could be more effective by building communication bridges with culturally diverse publics.”
Gem from the Past

Philip M. Taylor,Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day, (Manchester University Press, 1990, 3rd edition, 2003). University of Leeds Professor Philip Taylor’s classic study looks at propaganda as a process of persuasion unique to human communication regardless of time and place. His book begins with Neolithic cave drawings and concludes in the 3rd edition with a brief discussion of the world after September 11, 2001. Throughout, his sweeping narrative explores concepts, methods, and purposes of persuasion as a central element in politics and armed conflict. Includes a bibliographic essay. Extensive excerpts of the book are available online at Google Books.
Taylor’s website includes lengthy lists of bibliographic resources on public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy and many other topics.

‘“The Apparatgeist Calls,”‘ The Economist, January 2, 2010, 56-58. The Economist looks at cultural differences and global trends in the use of mobile phones now estimated at 4.6 billion subscriptions worldwide: ubiquitous, cheaper, more applications, faster connections, and increasing penetration rates. The authors provide numerous examples of cultural variations in terminology and use. They also review evidence that cultural differences may be fading as technologies converge and tastes become more consistent.

Matt Armstrong, ‘”The State of State: A Proposal for Reorganization at Foggy Bottom,” ‘Policy Memo, Progressive Policy Institute, January 2010. The creator of the MountainRunner.us blog calls for reforms in the Department of State’s organizational structure. To strengthen State’s capacity to deal more effectively with global issues, Congress, and the interagency process, Armstrong urges adjustment of the Department’s overseas focus from countries to regions and creation of regional under secretaries with regional bureaus comparable to the U.S. military’s combatant commands.

‘“The Cosmopolitan Predicament,”‘ The Hedgehog Review, Vol. 11, No. 3, (Fall 2009). Essays in the Review’sfall edition look at debates on the revival of cosmopolitan thinking, its contested characteristics, and views on its significance and aspirations. Includes essays by Joshua Yates (University of Virginia), Seyla Benhabib (Yale University), Johann N. Neem (Western Washington University), Anthony D. Smith (London School of Economics), John M. Headley (University of North Carolina), and William H. McNeil (University of Chicago), Contents and a brief introduction to the issue are available online.

Nicholas J. Cull, The Cold War and the United States Information Agency 1945-1989, ‘(Cambridge University Press, Paperback, 2009). Cull’s (University of Southern California) history of USIA, published in hardcover in 2008, is now available in paperback. Based on years of research in archival records, secondary sources, and more than 100 interviews with practitioners, his account examines the strengths and limitations of U.S. information, international broadcasting, and cultural and international activities in the context of major foreign and domestic issues of the Cold War. For recent reviews of Cull’s book, and a response by Cull, see H-Diplo Roundtable Review, Volume XI, No. 6 (2009), November 13, 2009. Contains an introduction by Christopher Endy (California State University, Los Angeles) and reviews by Laura A. Belmonte (Oklahoma State University), Susan L. Carruthers (Rutgers University, Newark), Richard Fried (University of Illinois at Chicago), Michael L. Krenn (Appalachian State University), and Kenneth Osgood (Florida Atlantic University).

Helle C. Dale and Edwin J. Feulner, Jr., Strategic Listening: How to Build Research Capacity Within the U.S. Government,‘ WebMemo #2726, The Heritage Foundation, December 10, 2009. The Heritage Foundation’s Senior Fellow for Public Diplomacy and President call for a substantial increase in the U.S. government’s public opinion research and analysis capabilities and creation of a “Corporation for Foreign Opinion Analysis.” The Corporation would be a public-private partnership, similar to the RAND Corporation, to “engage in long-term cultural research aimed at understanding foreign audiences, their ‘national narratives,’ their cultures, and their ebb and flow of public opinion.” In this WebMemo, Heritage adds its voice to the Defense Science Board, the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and other organizations calling for a public-private institution that would leverage civil society’s knowledge, skills, and creativity in support of public diplomacy.

Ali Fisher, “What Does This Video Have to Do with Public Diplomacy?” and “Gov 2.0, a New Year, and a New Approach to Public Diplomacy? Or What Does ‘Many to Many’ Actually Mean?”””Wandren PD, Blog posted December 28, 2009. Fisher (Mappa Mundi Consulting) uses a short video advertising Volkswagon to make the point that influence turns on “effectively engaging on the terms of the ‘other.'” In a paper linked to his post, Fisher finds some of the optimism of public diplomacy practitioners and scholars at the White Oak Conference Center early in the Obama administration dented by unfilled positions and lack of a “quarterback” able to reach across government and the private sector. Fisher finds undiminished optimism, however, on the potential of new technologies. His paper reflects his own research, aggregates links to recent articles, and assesses their findings. He cautions that PD 2.0 ultimately depends on engaging and interacting with networks, not on telling and messaging. “The greater the understanding of these networks the greater the odds of Public Diplomacy realizing the influence diplomats seek.”

Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, The Future of U.S. Public Diplomacy: An Uncertain Fate,’ (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010). In this book — Volume 4 in the Diplomatic Studies series edited by Jan Melissen, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ — Fitzpatrick (Quinnipiac University) adds to the growing literature by scholars interested in public diplomacy. She combines insights grounded in her academic study of public relations theory with extensive research in secondary sources on public diplomacy and a 15-page survey completed by 213 members of the USIA Alumni Association (recently renamed the Public Diplomacy Alumni Association). Fitzpatrick’s assessment draws heavily on the U.S. public diplomacy experience since 9/11 and the views of past practitioners. At the same time, she looks extensively at a broad range of views of practitioners and scholars in the U.S. and elsewhere on public diplomacy’s future in a global context.

Barry Fulton, “State Gets Smart,“‘AmericanDiplomacy.org, December 14, 2009. Fulton, a retired Foreign Service Officer, former USIA Associate Director, and management consultant at the U.S. Department of State, chronicles the origins, development, and promise of the “State Messaging and Archival Retrieval Toolset” (SMART). The technological challenge: build an internal messaging system that integrates a legacy cable system with email on Outlook, automatically archives messages of value to a searchable data base, connects classified and unclassified networks, and interacts with some 60 government departments and agencies. The human challenge: develop a “user-driven” system that would be adopted in an organization resistant to change. Fulton states the technological challenge has been met and “most of the resistance has vanished.” His assessment concludes with thoughts on the implications for foreign ministries and diplomatic practice. Kristin M. Lord,“Public Engagement 101: What Strategic Communication Is, Isn’t, and Should Be,””” Joint Forces Quarterly, Issue 56, 1st Quarter 2010, 6-9. Lord (Center for a New American Security) responds to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen’s call for a hard look at U.S. Strategic Communication. She urges use of the term “strategic public engagement,” which she defines as “the promotion of national interests through efforts to inform, engage, and influence foreign publics.” Lord examines ways in which strategic public engagement can achieve five national security objectives. Her assessment emphasizes the importance of shaping public support for policies, credible actions, understanding how others perceive intent, building relationships with opinion leaders, understanding foreign cultures, listening to others, creation of a climate of trust, methods and technologies that are situationally appropriate, and strengthening connectivity through dense networks of personal relationships.

Donna Hamilton, “The Transformation of Consular Affairs: the United States Experience,” Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, No. 116 (The Hague: The Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Ciingendael,’ December 2009). Drawing on her U.S. Foreign Service career in consular affairs, Hamilton looks at two major issues transforming consular work in the 21st century: the need for improved border security and “managing a growing public appetite for immediate information available on the internet.” Her paper discusses a range of issues including student visas, the implications of changes in consular work for diplomacy and public diplomacy, and changes in the organizational culture of the Consular Bureau in the Department of State.

James Markley, DIME Blog, U.S. Army War College, December 2009. Col. Markley directs the Science and Technology Division at the U.S. Army War College. He posted four blogs on measuring strategic communication as December’s guest blogger on the College’s DIME Blog.

— Have your SC Efforts Been Successful? December 3, 2009

— Measuring SC Effects – What Can You Learn? December 10, 2009

— Assessing SC. What Skills and Tools Do I Need? December 18, 2009

— Assessing this Blog December 27, 2009

Kennon H. Nakamura and Matthew C. Weed, ‘U.S. Public Diplomacy: Background and Current Issues,Congressional Research Service Report, R40989, December 18, 2009. In this 64-page report, CRS analysts Nakamura and Weed examine issues for Congress on U.S. public diplomacy relating to funding, capabilities, technologies, structures, interagency coordination, and creation of a national public diplomacy strategy. Their assessment includes: (1) a brief history of modern public diplomacy including the former USIA, and its legislative authorities; (2) creation of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the abolition of USIA and transfer of its functions to the Department of State; (3) the budget, personnel levels, and structure of public diplomacy within the Department; (4) an overview of public diplomacy policy issues, challenges to its effectiveness, and proposed reforms; and (5) descriptions of proposed legislation intended to improve U.S. public diplomacy.

“The Neaman Document (Draft Report): A Study on Israeli Public Diplomacy,” A Joint Project of the Samuel Neaman Institute, Technion, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Israel. October, 2008. Drawing on a range of conceptual and empirical studies, the authors of this public-private research project call for significant change in Israel’s public diplomacy — its “contents, channels, methods, and the treatment of audiences.” Framing their study in the context of hard power, soft power, and smart power, they address a “serious dilemma,” the extent to which Israel should focus on Middle East conflict in its public diplomacy. The study concludes that “appropriate combinations of conflict-related and other topics should be dealt with and adapted to different countries, audiences and situations.” (Courtesy of Adam Stern)

Open Doors Report 2009, Institute of International Education (IIE). The IIE’s annual survey reports an 8 percent increase in international students studying in the U.S. in 2008-09 — a record high of 671,616. Top sending countries: India, China, South Korea, Canada, and Japan. IIE reports an 8.5 percent increase in American students studying abroad in 2007-08. Top destination countries: Britain, Italy, Spain, France, and China. IIE’s website includes links to “Fast Facts,” data tables on international students in the U.S, and data tables onU.S. students studying abroad.

Christopher Paul, ‘“‘Strategic Communication is Vague,’ Say What You Mean,”‘ Joint Forces Quarterly, Issue 56, 1st Quarter 2010, 10-13. Paul (RAND Corporation) examines widespread imprecision in uses of the term “strategic communication” (SC) and urges scholars and practitioners to employ greater specificity to enhance shared understanding and make it easier to identify problems and solutions. He discusses the meaning of strategic communication in five analytical categories: (1) enterprise level SC; (2) planning, integration, and synchronized processes; (3) communication strategies and themes; (4) communication, information, and influence capabilities; and (5) knowledge of human dynamics and analysis or assessment capabilities. Paul argues that much of what is called strategic communication is not strategic communication and makes a case for precision and analytical boundaries.

Marc Sageman, “Confronting al-Qaeda: Understanding the Threat in Afghanistan,” Perspectives on Terrorism,Volume III, Issue 4, December 2009. Drawing on an analysis of 60 plots by 46 networks during the past twenty years, Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist and former CIA case officer, concludes that “al-Qaeda terrorism in the West is in decline.” The major threat instead comes from al-Qaeda inspired homegrown networks. Counterinsurgency and nation building in Afghanistan “may be important for regional reasons,” he argues, but the U.S. military surge in Afghanistan “has little to do with global neo-jihadi terrorism and protecting Western homelands.” He attributes the decrease in al-Qaeda terrorism to effective international and domestic intelligence and good police work. See also Sageman’s testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, October 7, 2009. The implications of his research for public diplomacy and counterterrorism strategies are developed in his Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the 21st Century (2008).

Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice,’(Harvard University Press, 2009). Nobel laureate Sen (Harvard University and author of Identity and Violence‘) probes deeply into the role of public reason, choice, and comparative judgments in establishing different ways societies can become more just or less unjust. He challenges theories of justice that identify ideal arrangements such as the social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, Kant, and especially the 20th century thinking of John Rawls. Sen draws on a different enlightenment tradition grounded in comparative judgments on actual behavior and social interaction. He builds on the thinking of Smith, Wollstonecraft, Bentham, Marx and the 20th century social choice theory of Kenneth Arrow — as well as on a wide range of Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim ideas. Scholars and practitioners will find Sen’s clear thinking and sensitivity to diverse views of justice relevant to key issues in public diplomacy: reasoned public dialogue, cross cultural communication, plural identities, global reasoning, toleration, and engagement in shared modes of thinking and acting.

Allison Stanger, One Nation Under Contract: The Outsourcing of American Power and the Future of Foreign Policy, (Yale University Press, 2009). Stanger (Middlebury College) examines extraordinary growth in the role of civil society actors in foreign affairs and the strengths and limitations of privatizing diplomacy, development, defense, and homeland security. She argues that outsourcing “done right” is necessary and indispensable to America’s interests. However, massive changes in the scope of private power and in the number of relevant actors require new ways of thinking about how government and the private sector interact. Stanger calls for a reaffirmation of “government’s irreplaceable role as chief custodian of the public interest.” Includes chapters grounded in extensive research on “the rise and decline of the State Department,” “the privatization of defense,” “the slow death of USAID,” “the hollowing out of government,” and a world where diplomacy and public diplomacy are being transformed by the privatization of power. (Courtesy of Donna Oglesby) See also Oglesby’s comment on Stanger’s book, “Horticultural Tip: Prune Those Suckers,” Winnowing Fan Blog, November 4, 2009.

Bruce Stokes, “U.S. Opinion Turns Against the Globalism of its President,”‘ YaleGlobal Online, December 10, 2009. National Journal columnist Stokes looks at recent opinion polls by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press,which find that “Americans have never been more isolationist and unilateralist than today compared with the last four decades.” He argues this “raises questions about the sustainability of the Obama administration’s international initiatives” on a range of issues including tariffs and trade, Afghanistan/Pakistan, the U.S.-Japan alliance, Iran, climate change, and immigration.

Cass Sunstein, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2009). In this brief book, Sunstein (Harvard University, White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) seeks to answer two questions. Why do people accept false and destructive rumors? Why do some groups and nations accept rumors that other groups and nations view to be false? Looking at how the Internet enables false rumors, Sunstein examines the motives of propagators, social cascades, group polarization, and biased assimilation. Many solutions, he argues, have limitations: self-defeating corrections, publishing balanced information, trusting the marketplace of ideas.

Zhang Zhexin, “China’s Public Diplomacy Institution: Its Development, Challenges, and Prospects of Its Practice,”””IO Journal, December 2009, 12-17. Zhang Zhexin (Shanghai Institutes for International Studies) examines three phases in the development of China’s public diplomacy: phase one (1949 – 1989) “marked by a strong orientation towards ‘foreign propaganda;'” phase two (1989 – 2002), in which there is a shift from “one-way foreign propaganda to two-way international communications;” and phase three (2003 to the present) when “China’s ‘public diplomacy’ suddenly became a hot topic for China’s political leadership and for the academia.” He asserts that China’s public diplomacy faces structural challenges due to the deficient organization of government agencies, a preponderance of government control, and lack of openness in its institutions. He concludes that Beijing is taking measures to deal with these challenges, but still has a ways to go “to catch up with . . . the US, Japan, and other countries with stronger soft power.”

Joseba Zulaika, ”Terrorism: The Self-fulfilling Prophecy”, (The University of Chicago Press, 2009).Zulaika (University of Nevada, Reno) challenges the thinking of many terrorism analysts by arguing that counter-terrorism has become self-fulfilling — “that terrorism discourse shapes and frequently ends up creating its own reality.” Drawing on research in the social sciences, a range of literary sources (Truman Capote, Albert Camus, Antigone), and public policy documents (the 911 Commission report, the Patriot Act), Zulaika probes the mindsets of terrorists, questions the existential nature of the threat, and develops a reasoned argument that U.S. “counter-terrorism has become terrorism’s best ally.”

Gem from the Past

Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, “Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics”, (Cornell University Press, 1998). More than a decade later, the insights of Margaret Keck (Johns Hopkins University) and Kathryn Sikkink (University of Minnesota) hold value for scholars and practitioners interested in advocacy networks, the role of diplomatic entrepreneurs, and cross-border collaboration on human rights, environmental politics, violence against women, and other global issues. Although they focus on stateless actors, their case studies and typology of tactics (information politics, symbolic politics, leverage politics, and accountability politics) remain relevant in an age of social media and networked connections — and to the political strategies of actors above, within, and around the state.

American Political Science Association Task Force on U.S. Standing in World Affairs, U.S. Standing in the World: Causes, Consequences, and the Future, October 2009. Led by Peter J. Katzenstein (Cornell University, APSA President, 2008-09) and Jeffrey W. Legro, (University of Virginia, Task Force Chair) twenty leading American political scientists explored three questions: “1. What is standing and how has it varied? 2. What causes standing to rise and fall? 3.What impact does standing have on U.S. foreign policy?” The report is available for download online in a short version and a long version. Hard copies are available for purchase. The report includes a dissent by two task force members: Stephen Krasner (Stanford University) and Henry R. Nau (George Washington University).

For a critique of the report, see Robert J. Lieber (Georgetown University), “A Contested Analysis of America’s Standing Abroad,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 1, 2009.

Amelia Arsenault, “Public Diplomacy 2.0,” Chapter 7 in Philip Seib, ed., Toward a New Public Diplomacy: Redirecting U.S. Foreign Policy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 135-153. Arsenault (University of Pennsylvania and University of Southern California) adds to a growing literature that is examining and evaluating the implications of social media for public diplomacy practice. Her essay looks at current activities and possible new directions in the context of three trends: “(1) the technological convergence of communication networks, (2) related problems of information delivery and visibility, and (3) an incorporation of participatory and collaborative models of interaction.”

John Brown, “What’s Happened to anti-Americanism, and to the State Department? The Obama Administration and Public Diplomacy: March to mid-June 2009,” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 5, 3, August 2009, 247-252. The author of John Brown’s Press and Public Diplomacy Blog finds that, although President Obama has “won over overseas audiences (at least for now),” public diplomacy at “the State Department is broken and in need of serious fixing.”

Daryl Copeland, “How Obama’s Nobel Can Resurrect Diplomacy,” Embassy Magazine, November 11, 2009, 9. Canadian diplomat Daryl Copeland sees the decision of the Nobel committee as a political signal “of support for diplomacy in general and for American presidential diplomacy in particular.” The author of Guerrilla Diplomacyargues that diplomacy matters more than ever, but its institutions and practices must be “rethought from the ground up” and transformed through “relentless creativity,” “tireless collaboration,” and “engagement of cross cutting networks between government and civil society.”

Nicholas Cull, Public Diplomacy: Lessons from the Past, CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, (Figueroa Press, 2009). Cull, (Center for Public Diplomacy, University of Southern California) has republished with minor edits a report originally prepared for Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2007. Available in hard copy and on line, the CPD’s 61 page publication includes material on definitions of public diplomacy, its evolution as a concept, three taxonomies, cases of successful and unsuccessful public diplomacy, and reflections on “information age” public diplomacy.

Ali Fisher, “An Introduction to Using Network Maps in Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication,” Guest post on Matt Armstrong’s MountainRunner Blog, October, 8, 2009. Fisher (director of Mappa Mundi Consulting and author of the WandrenPD.com blog) provides a brief introduction to social network analysis and the application of mapping methods to public diplomacy. Using several network graphics, he provides a basic introduction to network analysis and suggests these tools “can be used to plan, develop and evaluate engagement” and have significant potential in public diplomacy.

Bruce Gregory, “Mapping Smart Power in Multi-stakeholder Public Diplomacy / Strategic Communication,”Remarks at a forum on U.S. Global Outreach: Smart Power on the Front Lines of Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication, The Institute for the Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, George Washington University, October 5, 2009. Brief comments and questions on concepts, challenges, and implications for scholars and practitioners.

Craig Hayden, “Public Diplomacy Debates Reflect Bigger IR Questions,” Intermap Blog, October 28, 2009. Hayden (American University) reflects on the implications of central issues in international relations for the study and practice of public diplomacy: globalization, today’s ICT infrastructure, erosion of traditional domains of nation-state sovereignty, new kinds of international actors, and the need for more global governance. His blog builds on his earlier assessment (“We Regret to Inform You We Don’t Know What We’re Doing,” October 18, 2009) of issues raised in George Washington University’s forum on “U.S. Global Outreach: The Implications of Smart Power for Public Diplomacy,” Hayden sees a need for a new kind of diplomacy, new venues for communication, greater attention to international opinion, and leadership that “recognizes what kinds of objectives and/or policies are really the domain of public diplomacy.” Includes comments by Oglesby (Eckerd College) and Steven R. Corman (Arizona State University).

Sheldon Himelfarb, Tamara Gould, Eric Martin, and Tara Sonenshine, Media as Global Diplomat, Special Report 226, United States Institute of Peace, June 2009. The USIP team summarizes the views of media professionals, diplomats, scholars, and NGO leaders convened at the Media as Global Diplomat Leadership Summit (February 2009) on how the U.S. can best use media in its public diplomacy. The report calls for a multi-directional media model that “promotes a democratic, global conversation,” a decentralized approach that “builds on local partnerships that go beyond U.S. governmental broadcasting,” and initiatives that “tap the potential of citizen media and citizen networks.”

Ellen Huijgh, The Public Diplomacy of Federated Entities: Excavating the Quebec Model, Clingendael Diplomacy Papers No. 23, October 2009, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael.’ This paper examines theory and practice issues in the public diplomacy of sub-state entities. Using Quebec as a case study in a tidal wave of “calls for reducing the barriers to entry into public diplomacy,” she examines three tracks: (1) promotion of Quebec’s cultural identity, (2) institutionalized public diplomacy through a division in the Ministry of International Relations of Quebec, and (3) domestic public diplomacy. Her essay discusses ways in which the activities of entities such as Quebec, Flanders, Catalonia, Scotland, and California are changing the study and conduct of public diplomacy. Ms. Huijgh is a Ph.D candidate pursuing research on domestic public diplomacy and a co-editor of the Clingendael Discussion Papers in Diplomacy.

Richard Ned Lebow, A Cultural Theory of International Relations, (Cambridge University Press, 2009). Lebow (Dartmouth College) in this massive study (762 pp.) offers a new paradigm for the study of politics and international relations. Grounded in classical Greek thought on the fundamental drives of spirit, appetite, and reason, Lebow argues these drives give rise to distinctive “ideal type worlds” and different forms of behavior in cooperation, conflict, and risk taking. His research is broadly multicultural and sweeping in its historical focus. His ideas privilege dialogue, interaction, norms that promote human fulfillment, and power transition within and outside the state system. Public diplomacy scholars and practitioners will find Lebow’s project relevant to current thinking on networks, relational models, cultural diplomacy, and a social psychology that links identity, interest, and behavior.

Simon Mark, “A Greater Role for Cultural Diplomacy,” Clingendael Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, April 2009. Mark (New Zealand Trade and Enterprise) argues that cultural diplomacy, long treated as a subset of public diplomacy “has the potential to become a much more powerful tool for improving a country’s image and its relations with other countries” and for “domestic nation-building.” His paper explores the “semantic muddle” and core elements of cultural diplomacy, its role in presenting a national image and relationship with nation building, and ways to achieve cultural diplomacy’s full potential. Mark defines cultural diplomacy as “the deployment of a state’s culture in support of its foreign policy goals or diplomacy.”

Donna Marie Oglesby, “Statecraft at the Crossroads: A New Diplomacy,” SAIS Review. Summer/Fall, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2009, 93-106. Oglesby (Eckerd College) argues that new realities and shifting power centers in international politics require a dramatic reassessment of U.S. national security strategy. Using examples (Sri Lanka, Sudan, European Union, Mexico, Afghanistan, Pakistan), she examines challenges at the nexus of foreign policy and politics within and between states. Today’s global landscape calls for greater emphasis on politics and a new diplomacy in which public diplomats focus on “the political ground game” and the cultural and political particularities of human plurality.

Constance Philpot, DIME Blog, U.S. Army War College, October 2009. Constance Philpot is a senior U.S. Foreign Service Officer on detail to the Department of Defense at the U.S. Army War College. She posted five blogs on the Dime Blog relating to public diplomacy as DIME’s October guest blogger. — October 1, 2009: “Public Diplomacy vs. Strategic Communication, Pt. 1” — October 7, 2009: “Public Diplomacy Part II” — October 15, 2009: “Public Diplomacy III: New Media” — October 22, 2009: “Public Diplomacy IV: Twitter Diplomacy” — November 2, 2009: “Concluding Thoughts on Public Diplomacy”

Samantha M. Shapiro, “Can the Muppets Make Friends on the West Bank?” The New York Times Magazine, October 4, 2009, pp. 38-43. Shapiro (a contributing writer for the Magazine) describes the challenges facing New York City-based Sesame Street and its Palestinian partners in creating an international co-production for television viewers in the Palestinian territories. Profiles Palestinian writers and contains insights on the political context, Sesame’s struggle to balance its core values with the production and cultural values of Palestinian co-producers, the benefits for building a Palestinian television capability, and the singular difficulties of creating a Palestinian-Israeli joint production.

“The State of Public Diplomacy: A Decade after USIA’s Demise, What Next?” Foreign Service Journal, October 2009. Current and former public diplomacy practitioners look at the past, present, and future. Includes:

— The Public Diplomacy Front Line Working Group, “Speaking Out, Public Diplomacy: A View from the Front Line,” 14-17. (“We hope to start a conversation about the direction of public diplomacy among current State Department practitioners.”)

— Julie Gianelloni Connor, “PD: A View from the Promotion Panel,” 18-21. (“Here are some tips to help public diplomacy officers become truly competitive with other FS cones.”)

— Joe B. Johnson, “The Next Generation,” 22-28. (“Leaders of the old USIA and State have sought to adapt public diplomacy to new public expectations and the revolution in global media.”)

— William A. Rugh, “PD Practitioners: Still Second-Class Citizens,” 29-34. (“Attitudes within the Foreign Service toward public diplomacy work have not warmed much a decade after State absorbed USIA.”)

— Michael McClellan, “A Holistic Approach,” 35-41. (“Instead of bringing back USIA, we should utilize its best practices to restore America’s PD capabilities.”)

— Monica O’Keefe and Elizabeth Corwin, “The Last Three Feet: PD as a Career,” 42-46. (One reason PD officers don’t get their fair share of senior jobs is that they don’t compete for them. But that’s far from the whole story.”)

— William P. Kiehl, “Addressing the Public Diplomacy Challenge,” 47-51. (“A new agency of the Department of State — the U.S. Public Diplomacy Service — could ensure both creativity and accountability in PD operations.”)

— Robert McMahon, “Channeling the Cold War: U.S. Overseas Broadcasting,” 52-58. (“The need for a clear mission is as applicable today in reaching Muslims around the world as it was with Soviet-bloc audiences.”)

Steffen Bay Rasmussen, “Discourse Analysis of EU Public Diplomacy: Messages and Practices,” Clingendael Discussion Paper in Diplomacy, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael,’ July 2009. Rasmussen (University of the Basque Country) examines the relevance of discourse theory to the practice of public diplomacy and to the challenges facing the EU’s public diplomacy and broader diplomatic efforts. He argues that the EU’s delegations in third states are its most important actors in EU public diplomacy. Despite problems of coherence, networks are better suited “to current patterns of diplomatic interaction and more effective in the pursuit of EU strategic objectives than a more hierarchical organization able to speak with one voice and act in a more concerted manner.”

“Revitalizing Public Diplomacy” The Journal of International Security Affairs, Number 17, Fall 2009. The Journal’s fall issue contains six articles by scholars and practitioners.

— Robert R. Reilly (American Foreign Policy Council), “No Substitute for Substance,” 9-17. (“When it comes to how America interacts with the Muslim world, ideas matter.”)

— J. Michael Waller (Institute of World Politics), “Getting Serious About Strategic Influence,” 19-27. (“How to move beyond the State Department’s legacy of failure.”)

— Helle C. Dale (The Heritage Foundation), “An Inauspicious Start,” 29-34. (If early signs are any indication, Mr. Obama is as unserious about public diplomacy as his predecessor.”)

— Ilan Berman (Editor, The Journal of International Security Affairs), “Messaging to the (Muslim) Masses,” 35-46. (The Islamic world is our target audience. Here’s how to reach it.”)

— Colleen Graffy (Pepperdine University), “The Rise of Public Diplomacy 2.0,” 47-53. (The global media environment is changing. Public diplomacy needs to keep up.)

— Mark Dubowitz (Foundation for Defense of Democracies), “Wanted: A War on Terrorist Media”, 55-62. (We should be treating the media outlets of terrorist groups as terrorists themselves.”)

Rudolf Rijgersberg, “The U.S. as Keeper of a ‘Free’ Internet,” Clingendael Diplomatic Studies Program, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael,’ September 10, 2009. Rijgersberg (Clingendael Research Fellow) looks at the advantages and disadvantages of the decision to separate the Internet Corporation on Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) from its relationship with the U.S government. He argues that “the current situation [prior to the September 30, 2009 separation decision] with the US as keeper of a relatively free Internet, is to be preferred to a global monopolist created by intergovernmental supervision.”

Walter R. Roberts, “The Voice of America: Origins and Reflections,” American Diplomacy, October 26, 2009. Roberts (a retired U.S. diplomat and scholar) recalls his experiences at the Voice of America during the early days of U.S. international broadcasting. Part memoir and part historical research, he draws on U.S. archival records, BBC documents, and other sources to assess the origins of the U.S. decision to engage in public international broadcasting. His article includes new information on the date of the first VOA broadcast and analysis of the personalities, technologies, and political issues (domestic and international) that shaped America’s approach to shortwave broadcasting prior to World War II.

Mark Rolfe, “Clashing Taboos: Danish Cartoons, the Life of Brian and Public Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 4, No. 3 2009, 261-281. Rolfe (The University of New South Wales) asserts that the Danish cartoons’ controversy drove reactions similar to those that followed earlier transnational disputes involving satire such as the movie Life of Brian and the Holocaust cartoons. His article looks critically at the war of ideas narrative, a focus by many on an absolute free speech principle that served the purposes of Islamists uninterested in local variations of Islam, and ways in which global media amplify taboos in such disputes and the problematic statements of political elites. Rolfe uses rhetorical analysis to unpack the complexities of the actors, audiences, and strategies in the cartoons’ episode — complexities with a relevance for public diplomacy, he suggests, that go well beyond the “war on terror” model.

Alec Ross, Technology and 21st Century Diplomacy, The Kojo Nnamdi Show, National Public Radio, September 22, 2009. In this 52-minute interview, Ross (Senior Advisor on Innovation, Department of State) discusses diplomatic uses of new media (YouTube, Twitter, Facebook) and traditional media (cell phones, radio). Available for listening online. (Courtesy of Ashley Rainey)

Nancy Snow, “The Death of Public Diplomacy is Greatly Exaggerated,” Layalina Productions, Vol. 1, Issue 7, November 2009. Snow (Syracuse University) finds much to commend in President Obama’s rhetoric and efforts to reshape America’s image. There is a downside, however, in overreliance on the “Public Diplomat in Chief” in the White House. Public diplomacy, she asserts, is “best perceived as a symphony, not a one-man band.”

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Department of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent Language Shortfalls, GAO-09-955, September 2009. GAO found significant and persistent shortfalls in the assignment of language qualified Foreign Service Officers to language designated positions overseas. Worldwide, as of October 2008, 31% of State’s officers did not meet reading and speaking proficiency requirements. In the Near East and South and Central Asia, the number was 40%. In Arabic and Chinese, the shortfall was 39%. GAO calls for a comprehensive strategy to help State guide its efforts and assess progress in meeting its foreign language requirements.

Gems from the Past

Akira Iriye. Cultural Internationalism and World Order, (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997). This book by the former President of the American Historical Association and Charles Warren Professor of American History at Harvard remains one of the best studies of the relationship between culture and power. Iriye examines the rise of cultural internationalism during the 19th and 20th centuries. He distinguishes between government-sponsored cultural diplomacy and cultural internationalism and argues that both can be appreciated only in the context of world politics. “A lasting and stable world order,” he wrote, “cannot rely just on governments and power politics; it also depends upon the open exchange of cultures among peoples in pursuing common intellectual and cultural interests.”

Gordon Adams, “Strategic Planning Comes to the State Department,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July 30, 2009. Adams (American University) looks positively at the implications of State’s decision to undertake aQuadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) analogous to the Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Announced by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources Jacob Lew and Policy Planning Director Anne-Marie Slaughter at briefings on July 10, the QDDR is a strategic planning mechanism intended to link instruments of diplomacy and development with objectives, priorities, values, and resources. A quadrennial diplomacy review was recommended by the Public Diplomacy Council in 2002 and the Council on Foreign Relations Public Diplomacy Task Force in 2003.

AIA 21st Century Task Force, Design for Diplomacy: New Embassies for the 21st Century, American Institute of Architects, July 2, 2009. Chaired by Barbara A. Nadal, the AIA’s Task Force — a collaborative effort of architects, engineers, diplomats, public art experts, and officials in the State Department’s Bureau of Overseas Building Operations — makes recommendations on the design and construction of new U.S. embassies. As reports on embassy design have done in the past, the Task Force places top priority on the safety and security of embassy employees. The report calls for integrating security and design excellence in “high-performance buildings” that enhance “aesthetics, energy, efficiency, sustainability, flexibility of functions and work spaces, accessibility, historic preservation, and user productivity.” The report does not examine closely tradeoffs between policies that privilege security over access and location, virtual diplomacy alternatives and other public diplomacy issues. The Task Force does recognize “that sites that are considerable distances from downtown areas with limited access to public transportation pose challenges for those seeking visas, diplomatic exchange, and other activities.” For a critique of the AIA’s findings, see Philip Kennicott, “Breaking the Diplomatic Ties That Bind Design,” The Washington Post, July 19, 2009, E3. See also the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy’s 1985 report on these issues in “Gem from the Past” below.

Chris Anderson, Free: The Future of the Radical Price, Hyperion, 2009. The editor of Wired magazine and author of The Long Tail (2006) looks enthusiastically at the economics of digital information and the relentless downward pressure on price of all products “made of ideas.” Although Anderson is primarily concerned with technological, psychological, and commercial implications of free information, his analysis, which includes a chapter on new media models, raises relevant issues for diplomacy and political communication. For a measured critique of Anderson’s logic, see Malcolm Gladwell’s review, “Priced to Sell: Is Free the Future?” in The New Yorker, July 6, 2009.

Coalition for Citizen Diplomacy. The Coalition’s updated website contains information on its mission and broadbased membership, links to publications by CCD members, and information on its community summits and other projects.

“Credible Public Diplomacy: A Lesson for Our Times,” The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Special Edition, Spring 2008, Vol. 32:3. Now online in its entirety, this edition of the Forum contains articles and speeches given at Fletcher School’s 100th Anniversary, Edward R. Murrow Memorial Conference. Includes:

Alan K. Henrikson (The Fletcher School), “‘Credible Public Diplomacy’: Truth and Policy, Persuasion, and People”

Mark McDowell (Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada), “Public Diplomacy at the Crossroads: Definitions and Challenges in an ‘Open Source” Era”

Bernard L. Simonin (The Fletcher School), “Nation Branding and Public Diplomacy: Challenges and Opportunities”

Leonard J. Baldyga (International Research & Exchanges Board, IREX), “The Practice of Public Diplomacy and Its Perpetual Critics”

Roberta Graham (Bernholz & Graham, Inc.), “Globalization’s Reluctant Shepherd”

Lauren Brodsky (The Fletcher School), “Broadcasting Democracy? Matching Foreign Policy Goals and Messages”

Mark J. Davidson (U.S. Department of State), “Elements of Credible Cultural Diplomacy: ‘Landmarks of New York’ in Tokyo”

Harry Radcliffe (CBS News, Sixty Minutes), “Ed Murrow’s Legacy and the Real World of Broadcasting News”

Erik Iverson (The Fletcher School), “A Revolution in Informational Affairs: Winning the War of Ideas”

Sandy Vogelgesang (U.S. Department of State), “Perspectives on Public Diplomacy: Vietnam to Iraq”

Bruce Etling, John Kelly, Rob Faris, and John Palfrey,Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere: Politics, Culture and Dissent. Berkman Center for Internet and Society, June 16, 2009 (pdf file online). This case study, one of several in the Internet & Democracy Project at Harvard’s Berkman Center, looks at “the Arabic language blogosphere using link analysis, term frequency analysis, and human coding of individual blogs.” Using a base of 35,000 active blogs, the research team created a network map of the 6,000 most connected blogs and coded 4,000 blogs. The study provides an assessment of the networked public sphere in the Arab Middle East and its relevance to politics, media, religion, culture, and international affairs. Contains findings on country-based networks, political and gender-based clusters, the Arabic media ecosystem, personal life and local issues, regional and global issues, and Palestine/Gaza. (Courtesy of Jeremy Curtin)

Ali Fisher, “Music for the Jilted Generation: Open Source Public Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 3 (2008), 1-24. Fisher (Mappa Mundi Consultants) advocates an approach to public diplomacy based on central ideas in Eric Raymond’s models of the cathedral (hierarchy, messaging) and the bazaar (peer-to-peer, multiple groups and agendas) and the open source software movement associated with Linus Torvald. Fisher argues the bazaar mindset and open source approach — with its emphasis on transparency, collaboration, low entry barriers, communities of concerned actors, and interconnectedness between civil societies — have distinct advantages for public diplomacy over a hierarchical producer/recipient approach based on power. An open source approach “based on common interest and ability” is more likely to influence collective action in the international environment, which for Fisher is what public diplomacy is about.

Todd Greentree, “A Letter from Bagram,” The American Interest, July/August, 2009, 17-19. In this brief report from Afghanistan, a U.S. State Department officer reports on his experiences as Brigade Political Advisor — a new position between a division level or higher POLAD and a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT). Greentree provides a candid field perspective on counterinsurgency strategy, interagency coordination where the civilian contribution “will be critical — that is if we can actually find them and ship them over here,” and “The Expeditionary Foreign Service.” In his comments on Foreign Service Officers in the provinces, he discusses the surprising number who volunteer for repeat assignments, the importance of finding the right cultural idiom, and whether State Department officers should carry weapons. Greentree is the author of Crossroads of Intervention: Insurgency and Counterinsurgency Lessons from Central America (2008) and a veteran of four previous assignments in “irregular conflict” — El Salvador (1980-83), Papua New Guinea (1987-88), Nepal (1990-93), and Angola (1999-2002). Full text for subscribers only.

Jeffrey B. Jones, Daniel T. Kuehl, Daniel Burgess, and Russell Rochte, “Strategic Communication and the Combatant Commander,” Joint Force Quarterly, Issue 55, 4th Quarter 2009. Jones (former Senior Director, National Security Council), Kuehl (Information Resources Management College, National Defense University), Burgess (former Intelligence Officer for U.S. Forces Korea), and Rochte (National Defense Intelligence College) examine conceptual, planning, organizational, and operational issues in the central role played by U.S. combatant commanders in strategic communication. Drawing on years of experience as teachers and practitioners, they offer 21 recommendations for “improvement of this national security function.”

John Maxwell Hamilton, Journalism’s Roving Eye: A History of American Foreign Reporting, (LSU Press, 2009). In this authoritative 655-page study, the dean of Louisiana State University’s School of Mass Communication, provides a history of American foreign correspondence from Benjamin Franklin’s letters from London to the methods and challenges of today’s foreign news coverage. Hamilton combines scholarship, deep research, biography, rich narratives, and informed judgments on what lies ahead. Hamilton’s focus is on journalism, but his canvass includes relevant insights of scholars in political science and other disciplines. Contains references to U.S. diplomacy and international broadcasting. (Courtesy of John Trattner.

Karin Deutsch Kariekar, Print and Broadcast Freedom: Disparities and Opportunities, A Report to the Center for International Media Assistance, National Endowment for Democracy, September 1, 2009. Kariekar (Freedom House) uses longitudinal Freedom House data to assess contrasting trends in broadcast and print media freedom. She finds broadcast media rank as less free overall than print media, although the latter face higher levels of legal harrasment and attacks on journalists and facilities. Contains case studies on community development radio, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan.

Ali Molenaar, “Diplomacy Literature Lists,” Library and Documentation Center, Clingendael Institute, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, July 16, 2009. Clingendael’s Head Librarian has updated and circulated literature lists in the following subject areas:

Public Diplomacy, 18 pages.

Cultural Diplomacy, 9 pages.

City Diplomacy, 9 pages.

Branding, 5 pages.

European Level Diplomacy and EU Diplomatic Service, 9 pages.

United States Diplomacy, 16 pages.

Clingendael Library’s reading lists.

Michael G. Mullen, “Strategic Communication: Getting Back to Basics,” Joint Force Quarterly, Issue 55, 4th Quarter, 2009. Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, looks at strategic communication as a phrase (“Frankly, I don’t care for the term.”) and as a concept (“To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less abouthow to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate.”). Among his “basics:” credibility, building trust and relationships, right intent up front, knowing the context in which actions are received and understood, delivering on promises, and congruence between words and actions. Admiral Mullen’s themes are consistent with the Defense Science Board’s views on strategic communication as an iterative process that privileges actions, relationships, and deep comprehension of others (Chapter 2, “What is Strategic Communication and Why Does it Matter?” Strategic Communication, 2008, 10-20.)

Dennis M. Murphy, Talking the Talk: Why Warfighters Don’t Understand Information Operations, Issue Paper 4-09, Center for Strategic Leadership, U.S. Army War College, May 2009. Murphy (U.S Army War College) discusses the meaning of information operations and strategic communication and the need to clarify definitions. He calls on the U.S. military to engage in a “clean slate review of the current terminology and definitions,” to consolidate and simplify what is confusing, and provide an “overarching joint doctrinal manual” that is understandable and practical.

Public Diplomacy Front Line Working Group, WHITE PAPER, “Public Diplomacy: A View from the Front Line,” June 8, 2009. In this online statement, ten mid-level U.S. Foreign Service Officers “with no institutional memory of the U.S. Information Agency,” provide recommendations to their senior leadership on ways to empower, integrate, and equip “a new generation of public diplomacy officers.” Their white paper values field cooperation with embassy political and economic officers, networks with partners in other governments and civil society, embedding public diplomacy officers in the State Department’s regional bureaus and policy process, technological and media savvy, restoration of USIA’s Junior Officer training program, mid-level expanded training, and graduate-level education opportunities in public diplomacy and related fields at civilian universities.

Philip Seib, ed., Toward a New Public Diplomacy: Redirecting U.S. Foreign Policy, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). Seib (Center on Public Diplomacy, University of Southern California) has compiled 12 essays on U.S. public diplomacy written for policymakers, practitioners, and scholars. The essays are divided into three categories: appraisals of current U.S. public diplomacy and a brief history, views on American practice and motives from voices in Russia, China, and Egypt; and suggestions for making public diplomacy “more imaginative and more effective.” This is the first publication in the new Palgrave Macmillan Series in Global Public Diplomacy co-edited by Seib and Kathy Fitzpatrick (Quinnipiac University). Includes:

William A. Rugh (U.S. Foreign Service Officer, ret.), “The Case for Soft Power”

Nicholas J. Cull (University of Southern California), “How We Got Here”

Shawn Powers (University of Southern California) and Ahmed El Gody (Orebro University), “The Lessons of Al Hurra Television”

Victoria V. Orlova (Channel One Russia), “The View from Russia”

Guolin Shen (Fudan University), “The View from China”

Hussein Amin (American University in Cairo), “The View from Egypt”

Ameila Arsenault (University of Pennsylvania), “Public Diplomacy 2.0”

Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, “Privatized Public Diplomacy”

Neal M. Rosendorf (Long Island University), “A Cultural Diplomacy Strategy”

Jennifer A. Marshall (The Heritage Foundation) and Thomas F. Farr (Georgetown University), “Public Diplomacy in an Age of Faith”

Abiodun Williams (United States Institute of Peace), “The U.S. Military and Public Diplomacy”

Philip Seib, “Conclusion: The Task for Policy Makers”

Robert R. Reilly, Ideas Matter: Restoring the Content of Public Diplomacy, The Heritage Foundation, Special Report 64, July 27, 2009. Reilly argues the “content of ideas” and the principles on which they are based are crucial to effective public diplomacy. He challenges much in recent U.S. practice and contends “the ideas that now animate U.S. public diplomacy lead necessarily to its failure.” Reilly appears to have no doubt as to just which “American principles” and “objective moral order” should form the basis for U.S. public diplomacy. He advances with conviction those political, economic, and theological principles and values that should form the basis for “victory” in a “new war of ideas.” Includes a foreword by U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and a preface by Lt. Gen. John R. Vines (Ret.) A former director of the Voice of America, Reilly has also held positions in the Department of Defense and U.S. Information Agency.

Mark Taplin, Global Publicks. Taplin’s blog, branded with iconic portraits of Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine, offers “views on public diplomacy, foreign affairs, and travel writing — where ideas, history, culture, and statecraft meet.” Mark Taplin is a U.S. Foreign Service Officer detailed to George Washington University as its Public Diplomacy Fellow.

A. Trevor Thrall, “Star Power: Celebrity Advocacy and the Evolution of the Public Sphere,” International Journal of Press/Politics, October 2008, 13: 362-385. Thrall (University of Michigan – Dearborn) and seven graduate students assess the celebrity advocacy tactics of 53 environmental organizations. They conclude that, although celebrities increasingly are part of advocacy strategies, their influence on news making and public opinion has been significantly over-estimated.

U.S. Army War College, DIME:Information as Power. This website provides an electronic library of current and historical articles and documents on information as an element of power and on broad dimensions of today’s information environment. The site’s blog focuses on strategic communication, information operations, cyberspace operations, robotics, knowledge management, and public diplomacy and related topics. A guest blog by Army War College Professor Dennis Murphy, “Obfuscation: Information Related Terminology” posted August 29, 2009, calls for greater clarity in definitions, concepts, and terms. (Courtesy of Kasie Hunt)

Watanabe Yasushi and David L. McConnell, eds., Soft Power Superpowers: Cultural and National Assets of Japan and the United States, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2008. In this collection of essays, Yasushi (Keio University) and McConnell (The College of Wooster) offer a penetrating analysis of Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power and case studies on the uses of cultural and educational engagement in public diplomacy strategies of Japan and the United States. Includes a Foreword by Nye (Harvard University), an Introduction by Yasushi and McConnell and the following essays:

— Watanabe Yasushi, “Anti-Americanism in Japan”

— David L. McConnell, “Japan’s Image Problem and the Soft Power Solution: The JET Program as Cultural Diplomacy”

— Philip G. Altbach (Boston College) and Patti McGill Peterson (Institute for Higher Education Policy), “Higher Education as Projection of America’s Soft Power”

— Yonezawa Akiyoshi (Tohoku University), “Facing Crisis: Soft Power and Japanese Education in a Global Context”

— Ellen Mashiko (Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership) and Horie Miki (Nagoya University), “Nuturing Soft Power: The Impact of Japanese-University Exchanges”

— Anne Allison (Duke University), “The Attractions of the J-Wave for American Youth”

— Nakano Yoshiko (University of Hong Kong), “Shared Memories: Japanese Pop Culture in China”

— Sugiura Tsutomu (Marubeni Research Institute), “Japan’s Creative Industries: Culture as a Source of Soft Power in the Industrial Sector”

— Sayuri Guthrie-Shimizu (Michigan State University), “Baseball in U.S.-Japan Relations: A Vehicle of Soft Power in Historical Perspective”

— Matthew Fraser (INSEAD Business School), “American Pop Culture as Soft Power: Movies and Broadcasting”

— Kondo Seiichi (Ambassador to UNESCO), “Wielding Soft Power: The Key Stages of Transmission and Reception”

— William G. Crowell (U.S. Foreign Service, ret.), “Official Soft Power in Practice: U.S. Public Diplomacy in Japan”

— Agawa Naoyuki (Keio University), “Japan Does Soft Power: Strategy and Effectiveness of Its Public Diplomacy in the United States”

— Lawrence Repeta (Omiya Law School), “Mr. Madison in the Twenty-First Century: Global Diffusion of the People’s Right to Know”

— Imata Katsuji (CSO Network Japan) and Kuroda Kaori (CSO Network Japan) “Soft Power of NGOs: Growing Influence Beyond National Boundaries”

Gem from the Past

U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (ACPD), Terrorism and Security: The Challenge for Public Diplomacy, December 1985. In the early 1980s, car bombings in Beirut and Kuwait and an increase in kidnappings, hijackings, and murders of U.S. citizens abroad led the Secretary of State to establish the Advisory Panel on Overseas Security chaired by Admiral Bobby R. Inman. USN (Ret.). The “Inman report” on enhanced security for U.S. embassies and overseas personnel led the ACPD to issue a separate report on the public diplomacy and legislative implications of Inman’s recommendations. The ACPD advanced ten recommendations grounded in the judgment that diplomatic security policies should take fully into account the U.S. government’s public diplomacy mission, the need for relatively free access to U.S. libraries and cultural centers, and the need for visible evidence of America as a free and open society.

For previous compilations of Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites, visit the wiki kindly maintained by the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy.

The Ambassador William C. Battle Symposium on American Diplomacy: U.S. Standing in the World: Causes, Consequences, and Obama, Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia, March 6, 2009. A ninety-minute video of a panel discussion with leading American scholars on America’s global standing, the meaning of standing, how it is measured, and its causes and consequences. The title of the symposium notwithstanding, the panel’s examination focuses only in passing on the relevance of American diplomacy to U.S. standing in the world. Panelists include Martha Finnemore (George Washington University), Jack Snyder (Columbia University), and Peter Trubowitz (University of Texas at Austin), moderator Jeffrey Legro (University of Virginia), and discussants Melvyn Leffler (University of Virginia) and Moises Naim (Editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy). The panel discusses interim findings of the American Political Science Association’s Task Force on U.S. Standing in World Affairs initiated by APSA President Peter J. Katzenstein (Cornell University). Publication of the Task Force’s report is expected in Summer 2009. (Courtesy of Donna Oglesby)

Alexandr G. Asmolov and Gregory A. Asmolov, “From We-Media to I-Media: Identity Transformations in the Virtual World,” Voprosy Psychologii, Number 3, 2009, 101-123. Alexandr Asmolov (Lomonosov Moscow State University) and Gregory Asmolov (George Washington University), a father and son who combine the insights of a psychologist and a journalist, draw on constructivism, theories of mass communication, motivational analysis, Lev S. Vygotsky’s “internal speech” concept, and Teilhard de Chardin’s idea of Noosphere to examine identity transformations in virtual worlds. The authors look at practices of Internet journalism, motives for creating blogs, the emergence of “diary journalism,” and blogs as platforms for constructing a virtual personality and transforming that personality from self-representation into social interaction. They argue that journalistic practices are an appropriate and effective means of self-representation and that establishment of a stable I-representation on the Internet is a condition for changes in the dynamics of social networks. Copies of the article in English may be obtained from Gregory Asmolov at gregory.asmolov@gmail.com.

Gary J. Bass. Freedom’s Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention, (Alfred A. Knopf, 2008). Bass (Princeton University) explores two hundred years of humanitarian interventionism finding today’s debates deeply rooted in the 19th century: undermining sovereignty vs. supporting human rights, altruism vs. imperial motives, the dangers of taking sides in civil wars, the role of the media and public opinion in shaping democratic foreign policy, multilateral and unilateral uses of force, and the moral responsibilities of political leaders. His book develops three overarching themes: (1) the history of humanitarian intervention is worth understanding for the light it sheds on today’s global politics and mediated diplomacy; (2) the links between freedom at home and freedom abroad and the role of the mass media well before the so-called CNN effect; and (3) the lessons taught by 19th century diplomats on managing humanitarian intervention. Case studies include Greece in the 1820s, Bulgaria in the 1870s, and the American campaign to stop the Armenian genocide in 1915.

James Boyle. The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind, (Yale University Press, 2008). Boyle (Duke University) examines issues relating to intellectual property and the public domain in a book that is accessible to scholars and non-scholars. He discusses intellectual property in the context of digital creativity, communication networks, Internet file sharing, free speech, scientific innovation, and emerging concepts of information and expression in “the commons” beyond property. Boyle writes as a proponent of intellectual property but also with deep concern that current policies reflect a misunderstanding of the public domain’s vital importance to innovation. He calls for a movement similar to the environmental movement to preserve the Internet’s promise in the production of knowledge and culture.

Andrew F. Cooper and Timothy M. Shaw, eds., The Diplomacies of Small States: Between Vulnerability and Resistance, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). Cooper (University of Waterloo and Center for International Governance Innovation) and Shaw (University of the West Indies) have compiled a collection of essays by experts on small state diplomacy. Analytical issues include the vulnerabilities and resilience of small states, asymmetric relations between small states and larger entities, how space limitations affect policies, and the ability of small states to leverage new communication technologies to advantage. Contains case studies on the diplomacy of Singapore, Iceland, Venezuela, Antigua, Caribbean Community states, and Africa’s Cotton 4 states (Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, and Mali).

Defense Science Board Task Force Report on Understanding Human Dynamics, March 2009, 126 pages. This report’s central finding is that the Department of Defense and military services must improve their understanding of human dynamics and develop institutions, tools, and programs to enhance this capability across the full spectrum of military operations. Recommendations are made in the following areas: coordination and leadership; interagency and civil interactions; communication, education, training, and career development; human dynamics advisors; science and technology investments; and data, tools, and products. The report calls on the Defense Department to increase its “cultural bench” and “fund and launch the Center for Global Engagement” recommended in the 2008 Defense Science Board report on Strategic Communication. (Courtesy of Mark Maybury)

Edward P. Djerejian, Danger and Opportunity: An American Ambassador’s Journey Through the Middle East, (Threshold Editions, Simon & Schuster, Inc., 2008). In this narrative of his diplomatic career, the director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy looks at the evolution of U.S. policies in the Middle East and challenges facing the U.S. in the region. Chapter 10, “Public Diplomacy – The Voice of America,” summarizes and updates Changing Minds, Winning Peace, the 2003 Congressionally mandated advisory panel report he chaired on public diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Djerejian states his reasons why it “was an error to dismantle the USIA in 1999,” discusses his strategy for strengthening the instruments of public diplomacy and the role of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, and continues his support for bringing U.S. international broadcasting (other than the news function) “under the strategic direction of the public diplomacy policies and goals of the United States government as defined by the president, the secretary of state and the under secretary for public diplomacy.”

Brian Hocking and Jozef Batora, “Diplomacy and the European Union,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Volume 4, Number 2, 2009, 113-120. In their lead article, Hocking (Loughborough University) and Batora (Austrian Academy for Sciences) — editors of this special issue of HJD — discuss the changing nature of diplomacy in the context of the processes and structures of EU diplomacy. The articles address three interrelated sets of issues: (1) how diplomacy is responding to 21st century challenges, (2) transformational change in the traditional diplomatic structures of EU member states, and (3) the future of the EU as a diplomatic actor. Includes articles by:

Rebecca Adler-Nissen (University of Copenhagen), “Late Sovereign Diplomacy,” 121-141.

Stephan Keukeleire, Robin Thiers and Arnout Justaert (Catholic University of Leuven), “Reappraising Diplomacy: Structural Diplomacy and the Case of the European Union,” 143-165.

Alan Hardacre (European Institute of Public Administration, the Netherlands) and Michael Smith (Loughborough University), “The EU and the Diplomacy of Complex Interregionalism,” 167-188.

Knud Erik Jorgensen (Aarhus University), “The European Union in Multilateral Diplomacy,” 189-209.

Simon Duke (European Institute of Public Administration, the Netherlands), “Providing for European Level Diplomacy after Lisbon: The Case of the European External Action Service,” 189-209.

David Spence (European Commission Delegation to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva), “Taking Stock: 50 Years of European Diplomacy,” 235-259.

Evgeny Morozov, The Future of “Public Diplomacy 2.0,” Foreign Policy, Net Effect Blog, Posted June 9, 2009. FP’s Net Effect blogger looks at the debate on the future of internet-based public diplomacy initiatives. He questions the overemphasis on using new media “for growing the supply side without giving almost any consideration to its possible impact on the demand side.” Morozov is skeptical of the value of the State Department’s Digital Outreach Team and calls for greater imagination in public diplomacy’s use of technology and putting web-based educational and cultural resources at the forefront of American strategy.

Craig Nelson, Thomas Paine: Enlightenment, Revolution, and the Birth of Modern Nations, (Penguin Books, 2006). Historian Craig Nelson brings new research and a compelling narrative style to this biography of the activist and Enlightenment intellectual whose Common Sense and other writings shaped the politics and armed conflict of the American Revolution. Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams have their storied place in the history of American public diplomacy. Nelson gives Paine his due with this account of his influence on American diplomacy and the 18th century public sphere. (Courtesy of Mark Taplin)

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “Get Smart: Combining Hard and Soft Power,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2009, 160-163. In his response to Leslie Gelb’s “otherwise estimable new book,” Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy, Harvard’s Joseph Nye argues that Gelb “defines power too narrowly” and confuses the actions of states seeking desired outcomes with the resources used to achieve those outcomes. In defending his views against Gelb’s critique of soft power, Nye rehearses his central arguments on the nature of hard power, soft power, and smart power. Gelb, he contends, “ignores a long literature on the other facets of power that are used to persuade others to do what is in fact in their own interests.” The now fashionable term “smart power” — referring to strategies that combine the tools of hard and soft power — is a term Nye “developed in 2003 to counter the misperception that soft power alone can produce effective foreign policy.”

PD magazine, Issue 2, Summer 2009. The second issue of PD, an online publication of the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars at the University of Southern California, examines the theme “Middle Powers: Who They Are What They Want.” Includes perspectives on public diplomacy in Australia, Chile, Finland, Mexico, South Korea, and Sweden; views of practitioners Jeremy Curtin (U.S. Department of State), Richard Lugar (U.S. Senate), and James Snyder (NATO Information Officer); and articles by:

Etyan Gilboa (University of Southern California), “The Public Diplomacy of Middle Powers”

Andrew Cooper (University of Waterloo), “Middle Powers: Squeezed Out or Adaptive”

Evan Potter (University of Ottawa) “A New Architecture for Canadian Public Diplomacy”

Jorge Heine (Balsillie School of International Affairs) “Middle Powers and Conceptual Leadership”

Joseph J. Popiolkowski and Nicholas J. Cull, eds., Public Diplomacy, Cultural Interventions & the Peace Process in Northern Ireland: Track Two to Peace? (USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School, Figueroa Press, 2009). Popiolkowski and Cull (USC Center on Public Diplomacy) have collected presentations by scholars, practitioners, and witnesses to the peace process at a conference hosted by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy in 2007. The essays fall in one or more of three categories: public diplomacy, Track Two diplomacy, and conflict resolution. Contributors include: Neil Jarman (Institute for Conflict Research, Belfast), Paul Arthur (University of Ulster), Bob Peirce (British Consul General, Los Angeles), Greg McLaughlin (University of Ulster Coleraine), Niall O Dochartaigh (National University of Ireland), Timothy Lynch (University of London), Sharon Harroun (Children’s Friendship Project for Northern Ireland), and Mike Fealty (Slugger O’Toole blog).

David G. Post, In Search of Jefferson’s Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace, (Oxford University Press, 2009). In this innovative, imaginative, and very well written book, Post (Temple University) uses Thomas Jefferson’s ideas about governing and the American frontier as a lens for examining Internet governance. Drawing extensively on Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia and his differences with Alexander Hamilton, Post examines central technological, legal, and social issues in cyberspace. For Post, the Jeffersonian model holds promise for thinking about law, free speech, intellectual property, online dissemination of information, and exploration of what we don’t know about the Internet’s vast frontier. (Courtesy of Paula Causey)

Evan H. Potter, Branding Canada: Projecting Canada’s Soft Power Through Public Diplomacy, (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2009). Potter (University of Ottawa) provides an overview of the “origins, development, and implementation” of Canada’s public diplomacy. He argues that “protecting and nurturing a distinct national identity are essential to Canada’s sovereignty and prosperity,” 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.

Shaun Riordan, “Reforming Foreign Services for the Twenty-First Century,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Volume 2, Number 2, 2007, 161-173. Riordan, a retired British diplomat, calls for radical reform of foreign services to meet the challenges of new technologies, new actors, new issues, and the breakdown of distinctions between foreign and domestic policy. An effective foreign service remains essential to a country’s security and economic and social welfare, he argues, but today’s global environment requires radical overhaul of diplomatic structures, culture, recruitment, and training. Riordan’s reforms include: engaging foreign civil societies with non-governmental agents rather than diplomats, overseas analysis and strategy departments above departmental ministries, semi-autonomous cultural relations organizations, thorough integration of foreign services in global information and communication networks, expectation that “life-long diplomatic careers may be a thing of the past,” employment of more experts on a contract basis in ministries and embassies to fill specialized knowledge gaps, and effective public diplomacy at home “as an essential precursor to successful public diplomacy abroad.”

Clay Shirky, How Cell Phones, Twitter, Facebook Can Make History, TEDTalks Video Recorded at the U.S. Department of State, June 16 2009. In this 17-minute video, the author of Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations (2008) discusses the development of social media and ways it is changing news and politics. A useful classroom supplement to Shirky’s book. (Cour tesy of Ian Cunningham)

U.S. Government Accountability Office. U.S. Public Diplomacy: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight, GAO-09-679SP, May 2009. GAO draws on its ten studies of U.S. public diplomacy since 2003 to frame issues for Congress’s oversight agenda and the requirement that the President issue a new national communication strategy by December 2009. GAO provides its assessment of the extent to which the June 2007 National Strategy for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication addresses GAO’s 27 desirable characteristics of such a strategy. GAO’s six key issues include strategic and operational planning, performance measurement, coordination of U.S. communication, State’s public diplomacy workforce, outreach efforts in high threat posts, and interagency efforts to use social networks and technologies referred to by some as Public Diplomacy 2.0.

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Report on Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011, (H.R. 2410), June 4, 2009. The Committee’s Report summarizes legislation, passed by the House on June 11, 2009, to authorize State Department and Peace Corps appropriations. Title 2, Subtitle B includes the following public diplomacy provisions: (1) gives “the Secretary of State the lead role in coordinating the inter-agency process in public diplomacy (PD)/strategic communications” and establishes a coordination mechanism, (2) establishes a PD reserve corps, (3) enhances PD outreach outside embassies, (4) authorizes grants for international documentary films to promote better understanding of the U.S. abroad “and to improve Americans’ understanding of other countries’ perspectives,” (5) reauthorizes the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy and requires that at least four members “have substantial experience in public diplomacy or comparable activities in the private sector,” and (6) authorizes earmarked funding for a variety of exchange and scholarship programs. Title III, Subtitle A provides for a quadrennial review of diplomacy and development and the establishment of a “Lessons Learned Center.” Title V authorizes funding for U.S. international broadcasting and establishes permanent authority for Radio Free Asia. Title VII provides for the establishment, management, and funding of the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation.

Gems from the Past

Ithiel de Sola Pool. Technologies Without Boundaries: On Telecommunications in a Global Age, (Harvard University Press, 1990). At his death in 1984, a decade before web browsers and well before YouTube became ordinary, MIT political science Professor Ithiel de Sola Pool had nearly completed a manuscript synthesizing his views on the social and political implications of communication technologies. Eli Noam (Columbia University) edited the manuscript for publication in 1990. In the book, Pool considers and forecasts complex changes in spatial patterns of human connections, the consequences of low-cost individual and group communication, convergence of print and electronic media, implications for politics and national sovereignty, and government policies on the restriction, dissemination, and free flow of information.