Category: Bruce Gregory’s Resource List

CB3Blog, “Public Diplomacy as an Academic Discipline,” Posted May 15, 2009. CB3 Communications (a UK consulting firm with ties to Cambridge University) surveys the small number of degree programs and courses on public diplomacy in the United States. The blog entry finds there are even fewer institutions outside the U.S. providing academic courses on public diplomacy. CB3 calls on the UK and other countries to look at academic approaches to preparing “its young people for 21st century diplomacy and communication environments.” Contains a six-minute YouTube video featuring Syracuse University students discussing public diplomacy.

Jared Cohen, “Diverting the Radicalization Track,” Policy Review, April & May, 2009, No. 154, 51-63.Cohen (an appointee to the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff in 2006) begins with the dubious proposition that “The struggle against violent extremism is the most significant national security challenge of the 21st century.” Drawing on the thinking of former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs James Glassman, Cohen argues that “America’s target audience for public diplomacy needs to be disaffected youths and those who influence them.” His strategy focuses on social media, networking with civil society partners, and providing alternatives for population segments vulnerable to extremist influence rather than winning hearts and minds.

Daryl Copeland, Guerilla Diplomacy: Rethinking International Relations,(Lynne Reinner, 2009). Retired diplomat Daryl Copeland draws on academic research, literature, film, interviews, and years as a practitioner in Canada’s foreign service to make an imaginative case for reinventing diplomacy. Calling for stronger linkages between development and security as an alternative to force, he explores the meaning of development, the importance of science and technology to diplomacy, public diplomacy, and needed reforms in foreign ministries and the foreign service. Today’s diplomat, he argues, must be able to manage a wide range of new issues, engage multiple new actors, and be “happier mixing with the population than mingling with colleagues inside embassy walls.” Copeland’s new Guerilla Diplomacy blog can be visited at the link.

Leslie H. Gelb, Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy, (HarperCollins Publishers, 2009). Gelb brings the insights of a former senior official in the State and Defense Departments, journalist for The New York Times, and President of the Council on Foreign Relations to an analysis of how power should be wielded in today’s world and recommendations on what America needs to to relearn the effective use its power. Gelb challenges ideas of leading thinkers: Thomas Friedman (“the world is flat”), Joseph Nye (“soft power”), Richard Haass (the world is “nonpolar”), and Charles Krauthammer (the exercise of will and military power). Contains chapters on the nature of power, strategy, policies, intelligence, domestic politics, military power, economic power, and public diplomacy (aka “stage-setting power”).

Jakub Grygiel, “The Power of Statelessness,” Policy Review, April & May, 2009, 35-50. Grygiel (Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies) looks at political groups who seek their objectives through forms of social cohesion other than control of the state. Grygiel examines four trends underlying the rise of stateless groups: (1) new technologies that foster virtual networks, (2) proliferation of weapons and dual use technologies that challenge the state’s monopoly of violence, (3) the desirability of a low profile as a strategy of survival in the face of traditional state power, and (4) goals grounded in religious or ideological extremism better served by means other than the political compromise required of traditional nation-states. Grygiel argues the appeal of statelessness will continue to increase.

John Maxwell Hamilton, “In the Foothills of Change: Foreign Coverage Seems Doomed, But It’s Only Just Begun,” Columbia Journalism Review, March/April, 2009, 51-57. In this essay, Hamilton (Louisiana State University) briefly outlines changes in the history of foreign reporting from Ben Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette to his forecast of a new era with a “clear, defining feature: many types of foreign correspondents operating at once.” In addition to traditional foreign correspondents, he identifies foreign nationals who work for American news organizations, local foreign correspondents who cover the world from their hometowns, parachute foreign correspondents, premium foreign correspondents who charge fees for specialized in-depth reporting, in-house foreign correspondents who gather news for corporate employers, citizen foreign corespondents, and foreign local correspondents whose reporting for indigenous media are read globally on the Internet. Hamilton assesses the strengths, limitations, and implications of this experimentation with new forms of foreign coverage. Abstract available online.

Gilles Kepel, Beyond Terror and Martyrdom: The Future of the Middle East, (Harvard University Press, 2008). Kepel (Institute of Political Studies, Paris, and author of Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam and The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West) challenges the “exhausted narratives” of George W. Bush’s war on terror and Osama bin Laden’s call for an uprising against apostate regimes. Kepel offers an alternative vision grounded in “the human capital of the Mediterranean, the expertise and economic stability of Europe, and the entrepreneurial ambitions of the energy-producing nations in a concerted move away from violence and toward sustainable prosperity.”

David Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of the Big One, (Oxford University Press, 2009). Kilcullen (anthropologist, former Australian Army officer, and counterinsurgency advisor to the Department of State and to General David Petraeus in Iraq) summarizes insights from his years of experience in Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. He distinguishes between two classes of non-state adversary: deliberate, postmodern neo-Salafi extremists and traditionalist local fighters who are often “accidental guerrillas” and fight “because we are in his space, not because he wishes to invade ours.” He examines four overlapping models of today’s armed conflict environment: a backlash against globalization, globalized insurgency, the Islamic civil war theory, and the asymmetric warfare model. Kilcullen offers many recommendations for “this new era of hybrid warfare.” A national level, whole of government “strategic information” capability, he argues, “is perhaps the most important.”

Rita J. King and Joshua S. Fouts, Understanding Islam Through Virtual Worlds, Dancing Ink Productions, January 29, 2009. King and Fouts, senior fellows at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs and principals of Dancing Ink Productions, released the findings of this Carnegie Council project in three digital formats: (1) “Digital Diplomacy,” an assessment with recommendations on the potential value of virtual worlds for digital diplomacy (PDF print version); (2) “Collaboration, Community and Culture,” a documentary video highlighting some of the findings and available on YouTube and in broadcast quality form; and (3) a project narrative in the form of a graphic novel. Their goal: “to see what we could learn about Islam — not by inviting particular people with particular perspectives into Second Life, but rather to follow the trail of what was already happening culturally in the space that might yield new insight about Islam.”

James R. Locher III, “Forging a New Shield,” The American Interest, January/February 2009, 15-26. The executive director of the Project on National Security Reform (PNSR) summarizes the PNSR’s November 2008 reportcalling for transformation of national security mindsets and structures rooted in the National Security Act of 1947. Recommendations include: creation of a President’s Security Council that would replace the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council, a shift from interagency committees to empowered interagency teams capable of implementing a “whole of government” approach to issues, an integrated national security budget and mandated six-year budget projections by departments and agencies, creation of a National Security Professional Corps trained for interagency assignments, and a quadrennial national security review. Locher’s article (available in full to subscribers) gists PNSR’s massive 702-page report (available by download at the second link).

Judith McHale, “Opening Statement as Nominee for Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee, May 13, 2009. State’s Under Secretary-designate voices her belief that public diplomacy is “integral to our foreign policy and essential for our national security” and outlines six core principles that will guide her approach to U.S. public diplomacy.

Gustavo S. Mesch, “The Internet and Youth Culture,” The Hedgehog Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, Spring 2009, 50-60. In an issue of the Review devoted to youth culture, Mesch (University of Haifa) discusses technology’s influence on values, attitudes, and behavior in the context of perspectives on technological determinism and the social construction of technologies in literature on the Internet and youth culture. He concludes that the Internet plays important roles in adolescence “as a cultural artifact and a culture in itself.” It is important to recognize, however, that “Rather than thinking of the internet in dichotomous terms, either reflecting social values and norms or generating a Net-generation, it is useful to think of constant interrelations that are being created, bridging and mutually affecting online and offline youth lives.”

PD, Public Diplomacy Magazine, Issue 1, Winter 2009, a publication of the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars (APDS) at the University of Southern California. The editors of this new publication — Anoush Rima Tatevossian, Desa Philadelphia, and Lorena M. Sanchez — describe its mission as providing “a common forum for the views of both scholars and practitioners from around the globe.” PD is labeled a magazine “because of the accessibility it suggests” rather than an academic journal. Its goal, however, is to address public diplomacy’s hybrid identity as an area of study and body of practice and to “tackle everything from conceptualizing public diplomacy, debating its relevance, and discussing the roles of various actors, to developing evaluation methods, sharing best practices and even a little proselytizing.”

This issue, “New President. New Public Diplomacy?” contains “Memos to Obama,” “Perspectives” from scholars and practitioners (current and former), and a “Case Study: Beijing Olympics.” Contributors include Nicholas J. Cull, Kristin Lord, Helle Dale, David Hoffman, James Glassman, Edward Djerejian, Walid Maalouf, Stacy Hope, Tom Edwards, Andy Pryce, Qui Huafei, Jian Wang, Meg Young, Noah Chestnut, Paul Rockower, Iskra Kirova, and Nancy Snow.

Public Diplomacy Collaborative, Harvard Kennedy School’s Ash Instituted for Democratic Governance and Innovation. Harvard’s PD Collaborative is an independent, non-government-sponsored program that seeks to “promote discussion, mentoring, training, scholarship, and publication in the field of public diplomacy with the aims of expanding and improving public diplomacy practice and ultimately promoting democratic governance.” The Collaborative draws “experts from the academic, corporate, diplomatic, developmental, cultural, military, religious, and media sectors” and fosters “the exchange of public-opinion analyses, regional expertise, measurement tools, and case studies on the strategy and tactics of public diplomacy.” Current initiatives include conferences, publications and research, an academic journal, and working groups on international education and professional interests. The PD Collaborative is directed by Jed Willard. Its affiliated faculty includes Matthew Baum (Faculty Chair), Joseph Nye, Todd Pittinsky, William Rugh, and Ramus Bertelsen. A Board of Advisors is chaired by Mark McDowell (Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada).

“Special Issue of Media Psychology and Public Diplomacy,”American Journal of Media Psychology,Volume 1, Nos. 1/2, Winter/Spring 2008. Edited by Michael G. Elasmar (Boston University) the founding issue of this new peer-reviewed journal looks at the role of the media in public diplomacy. The articles examine how “individuals’ perceptions of countries and of international events are influenced by their exposure to related media content.” The following articles in this issue may be downloaded in pdf format and viewed online.

Erik Nisbet (Ohio State University) and James Shanahan (Fairfield University), Anti-Americanism as a Communication Problem? Foreign Media and Public Opinion toward the United States in Europe and the Middle East.

Xiuli Wang (Peking University), Pamela Shoemaker (Syracuse University), Gang (Kevin) Han (State University of New York at Fredonia), and E. Jordan Storm (Syracuse University), Images of Nations in the Eyes of American Educational Elites

Adrienne McFaul (Rutgers University), Paul Boxer (Rutgers University), and Andrew M. Terranova, (Stephen F. Austin State University), Investigating Effects of Identification with Real-World Aggressors and Victims on the Link between Exposure to Political Violence in the News Media and Aggressive Worldviews

Caroline Walters (Foreign Service Officer, U.S. Department of State) and Sheila Murphy (Annenberg School of Communication, University of Southern California), Framing the Olympic Games: The Impact of American Television Coverage on Attitudes toward International Cooperation and Foreign Policy in the United States

Gabriele Melischek (Austrian Academy of Sciences) and Josef Seethaler (Austrian Academy of Sciences), Media and International Relations: An Attributional Analysis of In-group and Out-group Perceptions in European Press Coverage of the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election

Joshua Cooper Ramo, The Age of the Unthinkable: Why the New World Disorder Constantly Surprises Us and What We Can Do About It, (Little, Brown and Company, 2009). Ramo (Managing Director of Kissinger Associates) looks at a world where unpredictability and relentless change have exceeded the capacity of traditional ideas and institutions to provide for security and prosperity. His book is filled with insights from history, literature, the arts, economics, psychology, complexity theory, human immunology, network theory and from actors as diverse as Hizb’allah and Google. In the first part of the book, Ramo seeks “to destroy, politely, the idea that our current thinking about international affairs is of much use.” He then develops an alternative model, which he calls “deep security,” grounded in resilience; institutional experimentation; new ways of seeing, thinking, and acting; and a spirit that “chafes against the classic instinct to hoard power and tightly con trol policy.”

Reviews of Nicholas J. Cull’s The Cold War and the United States Information Agency, (Cambridge University Press, 2008), 533 pages. Martha Bayles, “The Art of Global Public Relations,”The Wall Street Journal / Books, July 24, 2008. Bruce Gregory, Naval War College Review, Spring 2009, Vol. 62, No. 2, 122-123. Walter Roberts,Mediterranean Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 4, Fall 2008, 126-130, Allan M. Winkler, Journal of American History, Vol. 96, No. 1, June 2009 (forthcoming).

David Ronfeldt and Danielle Varda, The Prospects for Cyberocracy (Revisited),Working Paper,Social Science Research Network, Posted January 15, 2009, 70 pages. Ronfeldt (formerly with RAND) and Varda (University of Colorado at Denver), update Ronfeldt’s 1992 paper on cyberocracy, which advanced the view that information and its control is becoming a key organizing principle in governance — (1) “narrowly, as a form of organization that advances traditional forms of bureaucracy and technocracy” and (2) “broadly, as a form of government that may redefine relations between the state and society, and between the public sector and the private sector.” Their paper speculates that information is transforming the nature of the state in ways that will result in new kinds of democratic, totalitarian, and hybrid governments and new kinds of state-society relations. They see reasons for optimism and pessimism and suggest that information age societies will “develop new sensory apparatuses, a network-based social sector, new modes of networked governance, and ultimately the cybercratic nexus-state as a successor to the nation-state.”

For a five-page online summary of Ronfeldt and Varda’s paper that links it to the current writings of Clay Shirky, Yochal Benkler and others, see Patrick Philippe Meier, About ‘The Prospects for Cyberocracy (revisited)’ a paper of David Ronfeldt and Danielle Varda, posted on iRevolution, February 19, 2009.

Teachers and students of public diplomacy will find their work useful in thinking about the changing nature of diplomacy and political communication. For David Ronfeldt’s thinking on public diplomacy, see David Ronfeldt and John Arquilla, “Noopolitik: A New Paradigm for Public Diplomacy,” in Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor, eds,Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, (2009), 352-365. Also available online in FirstMonday, Vol. 12, No. 8, August 6, 2007.

Gyorgy Szondi, Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding:nbsp Conceptual Similarities and Differences,Clingendael Discussion Paper in Diplomacy, No. 112, November 2008, 42 pages. Szondi (Leeds University) examines origins and definitions of public diplomacy and nation branding and five conceptual models of their potential relationships. His models range from no common ground, to varying levels of integration, to a model in which they are synonyms for the same concept. Szondi discusses whether they can be considered “legitimate professions” with “bodies of knowledge, training and education, professional organizations, and professional norms.”

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Higher Education:nbsp Approaches to Attract and Fund International Students in the United States and Abroad, [1]GAO-09-379, April 2009. In a report that contains findings, but no recommendations, GAO collected information from the United States, Australia, China, the European Commission, Germany, and the United Kingdom “to provide insight on how higher education is used to advance public diplomacy and development assistance goals.” GAO’s purpose: to examine “(1) the objectives the United States and selected peer governments seek to advance through higher education for international students and the approaches they employ to attract international students, and (2) the characteristics of major U.S. and peer government programs that fund higher education for international students to support public diplomacy and development goals.”

Gems from the Past

U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), Virtual Diplomacy Conference,Washington DC, 1997. More than a decade ago, USIP launched a pathbreaking Virtual Diplomacy Initiative focused on the transforming impact of information technologies on diplomacy and international conflict management. USIP’s opening conference featured keynote speeches by USIP President Richard Solomon, “The Information Revolution and Conflict Management;” Walter B Wriston (Citicorp), “Bits, Bytes, and Diplomacy;” and former Secretary of State George Shultz, “Diplomacy in the Information Age.” Other significant publications in USIP’s project include: papers by Canadian diplomat Gordon S. Smith, “Reinventing Diplomacy:nbsp A Virtual Necessity” (2000); European diplomat Jean Marie Guehenno, “The Topology of Sovereignty”(2000); and James N. Rosenau (George Washington University,“States, Sovereignty, and Diplomacy in the Information Age”(2000)

Tom Boellstorff, Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human, (Princeton University Press, 2008). In this academic inquiry into online virtual worlds, Boellstorff (Princeton University) uses anthropological methods and extensive fieldwork as the avatar “Tom Bukowski” in Linden Labs’ Second Life to study ideas about identity, society, culture, and the meaning of “virtual.” His study looks at such issues as gender, race, sex, conflict, collaboration, political economy, governance, the construction of place and time, relationships between individuals and groups, and fundamental questions about connections between actual and virtual. Boellstorff writes clearly for scholars and students, for those with extensive experience in online worlds, and for those who are curious.

Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA), The Role of Cell Phones in Carrying News and Information, National Endowment for Democracy, November 12, 2008. CIMA’s report summarizes findings of a conference of 75 representatives of international organizations, media development implementers, journalists and telecommunications companies hosted by the National Endowment for Democracy. Presenting organizations included MobileActive.org, InterMedia, Webbmedia Group LLC, Kiwanja.net, Appropriate IT, J-Lab, the Institute for Interactive Journalism, and Global Voices. Participants reached broad agreement on the following: cell phones have revolutionized global communication systems; rapid penetration makes good statistical evidence of impact difficult to achieve; new cell phone technologies are demand driven and the best ideas come from the bottom up; cell phone technology is two-way; cell phones highlight immediacy, but content still matters.

Johan Erikksson and Giampiero Giacomello, eds., “The Forum: Who Controls the Internet: Beyond the Obstinacy or Obsolescence of the State,” International Studies Review, Vol. 2, Issue 1, March 2009, 205-230. Erikksson (Sodertorn University College) and Giacomello (University of Bologna) reexamine and seek to move beyond both U.S. centered perspectives and a problematic debate on whether the global diffusion of the Internet signifies the demise of the state’s control of society or strengthens the state’s hold on society. The Forum discusses “what actors are controlling what aspects of Internet usage, and under what conditions. Includes contributions from Hamoud Salhi (California State University, Dominguez Hills) Myriam Dunn Cavelty (Center for Security Studies, ETH Zurich), J. P. Singh (Georgetown University), and M. I. Franklin (Goldsmiths, University of London).

Nathaniel C. Flick and John A Nagl, “Counterinsurgency Field Manual: Afghanistan Edition,” and “The FP Interview with Gen. David H. Petraeus,” Foreign Policy, January/February, 2009, 42-50. Flick and Nagle (retired military officers and fellows at the Center for a New American Security) summarize the central elements of the U.S. military’s counterinsurgency doctrine in the context of Afghanistan: “Focus on protecting civilians over killing the enemy. Assume greater risk. Use minimum, not maximum force.” In this doctrine, “some of the best weapons do not shoot,” and actions are the best messages.

Craig Hayden and Shawn Powers, Intermap, Blog on International Media Argument Project: Political Communication, Rhetoric and Public Diplomacy. Hayden (American University, School of International Service) and Powers (University of Southern California, Annenberg School of Communication and Center on Public Diplomacy) describe Intermap as a website and blog that “presents news, opinions, and research on issues related to communication-centric foreign policy, public diplomacy, global media and news flows. More broadly, this site aims to investigate the intersections between communication, media studies and international relations scholarship that deal directly with how global controversies and politics are carried and sustained through media. We call this media argument: where media outlets, technologies, and tactics represent the symbolic and visual space for the contest of ideas between nations, citizens, non-state actors.”

H.R. 363, A Bill to Amend the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 to Reorganize United States International Broadcasting, and For Other Purposes, U.S. House of Representatives, January 9, 2009. Introduced by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and co-sponsored by Reps. Dan Burton (R-IN), Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), and Edward Royce (R-CA). H.R. 363 would abolish the existing Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and establish an independent United States International Broadcasting Agency. The new agency would be headed by a Presidentially appointed Board of Governors (structured in the same manner as the BBG). Broadcasting activities would be carried out by a Director appointed by majority vote of the Board under authorities delegated by the Board.

Roger L. Janelli and Dawnhee Yim, “Soft Power, Korea, and the Politics of Culture,” In Catching the Wave: Connecting East Asia Through Soft Power, Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, October 5-6, 2007. Janelli (Indiana University) and Yim (Dongkuk University) briefly describe conceptual elements of soft power and assess China’s projection of soft power in South Korea before discussing South Korea’s pursuit of soft power through government and non-government organizations. They find a mixed record and argue that the greatest success in South Korea’s use of soft power is in its relations with North Korea. They conclude that nations can increase their influence by exporting culture primarily in cases where there is also mutual agreement and dependence on the benefits of political, economic, and military relationships.

Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation on Digital Media and Learning, November 2008. This white paper (by researchers associated with the Institute for Multimedia Literacy and the Annenberg Center for Communication at the University of Southern California and The Institute for the Study of Social Change and the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley) summarizes findings of a three-year study of new media ecology. The study was motivated by two questions: “How are new media being integrated into youth practices and agendas? How do these practices change the dynamics of youth-adult negotiations over literacy, learning, and authoritative knowledge?”

The study examines the use of new media in extending friendships and interests, self-directed, peer-based learning, genres of participation (hanging out, messing around, geeking out), and implications for educators, parents, and policymakers. The authors are skeptical of claims that “a digital generation is overthrowing culture and knowledge as we know it.” But they also believe “this generation is at a unique historical moment tied to longer-term and systemic changes in sociability and culture.” Public diplomacy scholars and practitioners will find this study useful in considering the implications of new media for understanding communication, identity, and new forms of civic engagement among youth cultures and networked publics. (Courtesy of Donna Oglesby)

Marc Lynch, “Abu Aardvark’s Middle East Blog,” The New ForeignPolicy.com. In January 2009, Lynch (George Washington University, co-director Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communications) moved his Abu Aardvark blog to Foreign Policy’s new blog team. Lynch’s blogging topics include Arab media and public opinion, Islamist movements, public diplomacy, Iraq, and Arab democratization. Other new bloggers on FP’s Passport website include Daniel Drezner (Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy), Stephen Walt (Harvard University), Tom Ricks (former military correspondent, The Washington Post ), and David Rothkopf (Carnegie Endowment). FP Passport blog will also partner with Small Wars Journal and the Eurasia Group.

Bree Nordenson, “Overload! Journalism’s Battle for Relevance in an Age of Too Much Information,”Columbia Journalism Review, November/December 2008, 30-32, 35-37, 40. Freelance writer Nordenson examines recent literature on information overload and the short supply of “our most precious resource” — attention. Excessive multi-tasking, relentless bits of stimulation that overload “brain labor,” and the negligible costs of distributing and storing information cause it to lose value. The solution, Nordenson argues, is not “more, faster, better,” but “depth, context, and coherence.” Journalists, scholars, and other analysts in the new information environment are needed, not as gatekeepers who control information, but as guides who assimilate useful knowledge and provide credible frameworks for understanding.

Kazuo Ogoura, “The Limits of Soft Power,” Japan Echo, Vol. 33, No. 5 (October, 2006), translated from “Sofuto pawa ron no shikaku,” Wochi Kochi (a quarterly journal of the Japan Foundation), June/July 2006, 60-65. Ogoura (President, Japan Foundation) finds fundamental problems in Joseph Nye’s views on soft power and “conceptual confusion” in its application to the power of Japanese culture overseas (“Japanese cool”) and to public diplomacy more broadly. Ogoura examines sources of soft power, indices for measuring it, and contrasting perspectives of those wielding soft power and those who are its “targets.” He concludes that “soft power as an actual political theory is loaded with ideology and riddled with contradictions and hypocrisy.” In Ogoura’s view, a self-evident link between culture and the state is “fatally flawed.” Accordingly, the term soft power should not be used as an element of state-based power, which “is gradually losing its meaning,” but as “the power of people engaged in cultural, religious, or educational activities to cultivate a common global awareness.” (Courtesy of Craig Hayden)

Mariya Y. Omelicheva, “Global Civil Society and Democratization of World Politics: A Bona Fide Relationship or Illusory Liaison?” International Studies Review, Vol. 2, Issue 1, March 2009 109-132. Omelicheva (University of Kansas) provides a literature review of studies on the role and influence of non-state actors in democratizing global politics. Her article looks at definitional dilemmas, proposes a new analytical framework, and makes recommendations for further research and development of empirical theory, methodologies, and conceptual elaboration.

Christopher Paul, Whither Strategic Communication: A Survey of Current Proposals and Recommendations, Occasional Paper, RAND Corporation, 2009. Paul (RAND’s International Security and Defense Policy Center) provides a useful and brief (19 pages) summary of key recommendations in the large collection of studies and opinion pieces on strategic communication and public diplomacy. Based on a review of 36 documents and more than a dozen structured interviews, Paul’s survey groups core themes and presents the frequency of key recommendations in 22 categories. He discusses consensus recommendations and others that made frequent appearances in the literature. Paul favors the term strategic communication, defined “broadly and inclusively.” He discusses alternative definitions and contrasting perspectives on strategic communication and public diplomacy.

Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ), “The New Washington Press Corps: As Mainstream Media Decline, Niche and Foreign Outlets Grow,” Special Report, Pew Research Center, February 11, 2009. The Pew Center’s PEJ concludes that a significant decline in the reporting power of mainstream media has been nearly matched by a sharp growth in special interest media and a marked jump in foreign media represented in Washington. The report’s section on foreign media discusses the role of the State Department’s Foreign Press Center. The PEJ finds a large increase in foreign journalists has broadened rather than deepened coverage, because they “tend to fare poorly in the fight for access to key federal government decision-makers.” However, their numbers have “changed the way the world gets its news from Washington, and the implications of their presence for America’s image in the world are considerable.” (Courtesy of Belinda Yong)

William A. Rugh, “Repairing American Public Diplomacy,” Arab Media & Society, Issue 7, Winter 2009. Ambassador Rugh (The Fletcher School, Middle East Institute) looks at challenges facing U.S. public diplomacy with an emphasis on broadcasting to the Arab world. He calls for basic reforms in Radio Sawa, the al-Hurra television network, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Other recommendations include adjusting the “military-civilian imbalance” in public diplomacy media programs (giving primary responsibility to the Department of State); strengthening public diplomacy’s leadership and policy advisory role; and State Department reforms to include concentrated assignment of public diplomacy career track officers rather than distributing them throughout the organization.

Thomas Sanderson, David Gordon, and Guy Ben-Ari, International Collaborative Online Networks: Lessons Identified from the Public, Private, and Nonprofit Sectors, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), December 2008. This report summarizes findings of a workshop on international collaborative online networks (ICONs) led by CSIS and the CIA’s Global Futures Partnership in March 2008. Participants concluded that more ICONs fail due to an inability to engage people rather than inferior technology or lack of funds. Key challenges to ICONs include: building and maintaining trust, crafting incentives to attract and sustain members, effectively moderating networks to achieve intended goals, finding “the right partner(s),” and measuring network utility.

David Sanger, The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power, (Harmony Books, 2009). The New York Times’ chief Washington correspondent surveys the range of foreign policy legacies other than Iraq that face the Obama administration. Sanger’s informed and exceedingly well written insider narrative looks at a broad range of missed opportunities, unresolved problems, and future possibilities: Iran, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, China, homeland security, cyber attack, and an opportunity to creatively address the rules and institutions of global finance.

Michael Schudson, Why Democracies Need an Unlovable Press, (Polity Press, 2008). In this collection of his recent essays, Schudson (University of California, San Diego and Columbia University) assesses “journalism’s special place in democracy,” the requirements of specialized knowledge (expertise), and the necessity of concentrated power (politicians and judges). His essays cover such issues as the functions of journalism, whether elements of American journalism are “detachable for export,” the “anarchy of events and the anxiety of story telling,” the meaning of conversation in the public sphere, and a fresh look at the always rewarding exchange between Walter Lippmann and John Dewey. (Courtesy of Donna Oglesby)

Micah L. Sifry, “A See-Through Society,” Columbia Journalism Review, January/February 2009, 43-47. Sifry (Sunlight Foundation and co-founder of the Personal Democracy Forum) looks at how new media are creating greater political transparency and “changing the ecology of how people consume and create political information.”

Roger Silverstone, Media and Morality: On the Rise of the Mediapolis, (Polity Press, 2007). The late Roger Silverstone (London School of Economics) in his last book examines the “role of the media in the formation of social, civic, and moral space.” For Silverstone, global, regional, and local media in all their forms have become environmental, not as a separate sphere, but “as tightly and dialectically intertwined with the everyday” — as a “mediapolis” or space for social and political communication in which relations between neighbors and strangers are constructed or destroyed. This “mediapolis” is also a moral space in which questions of media justice, obligation, and responsibility can be examined. Silverstone’s inquiry looks at moral issues in a broad range of areas in mediated life: war, order, empire, minorities, terrorism, celebrity, and the natural environment.

P. W. Singer, “Robots at War: The New Battlefield,” Wilson Quarterly, Autumn 2008, 30-48. Singer (Brookings Institution and author of Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century, 2009) discusses how a coming generation of sophisticated “war bots” will change the nature of armed conflict and create new questions. Can they reliably separate friend from foe? What laws and ethical codes apply? What do others perceive when “we send out unmanned machines to fight for us?” Will tomorrow’s weapons with adjustable levels of autonomy be “too fast, too small, too numerous” for humans to direct? Will robot technologies diminish the connection between publics and war? Also available at this LINK.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, “America’s Edge: Power in the Networked Century,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009, 94-113. The Dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and newly appointed director of the State Department’s Office of Policy Planning asserts that we live in a networked world in which “the measure of power is connectedness.” The U.S. “has a clear and sustainable edge,” she contends, in a world where states with the most connections will be central players through their ability to set the global agenda, drive innovation, and leverage sustainable growth. Networked power is based on “the ability to make the maximum number of valuable connections” and on the knowledge and skills needed “to harness that power to achieve a common purpose.” America’s comparative advantage rests on its relatively small population, a multi-cultural mosaic that has replaced the melting pot, insulation from massive migration flows, and a “culture of creation” that is open to global networks that can produce collaborative innovations. Slaughter states that America’s “edge is more potential than actual.” To actualize this potential, she calls for comprehensive immigration reform, increased overseas study, greater economic and social equality, more effort in engaging Latin America, and recognition of the need to orchestrate networks of public, private, and civic actors to address global problems.

Don Tapscott, Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World, (McGraw Hill, 2009). Tapscott (Chairman, nGenera Innovation Network; University of Toronto; and author of Growing Up Digital, 1998) looks at a generation of young people (ages 11-31) that has come of age surrounded by digital media. With $4 million in research funds provided by large corporations, Tapscott’s investigators surveyed thousands of “Net Geners.” They conclude that this generation is engaging politically and “beginning to transform every institution of modern life” with a culture that values freedom of choice, customized things, collaboration, conversation, speed, innovation, and interactive learning. Tapscott also raises concerns: the “grown up digital” generation is giving away personal information that will undermine future privacy, and many hierarchical institutions are facing a generational clash if they refuse to adapt to changes that can topple established orders.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Broadcasting to Cuba: Actions are Needed to Improve Strategy and Operations, GAO-09-127, January 22, 2009. GAO’s latest report on U.S. government international broadcasting finds the best available research shows Radio and TV Marti’s audience is small with less than 2 percent of respondents to telephone surveys since 2003 reporting tuning in to the stations during the week surveyed. GAO recommends the Broadcasting Board of Governors “conduct an analysis of the relative success and return on investment of broadcasting to Cuba,” promote greater sharing of audience research information among U.S. agencies, additional training for program reviews and journalistic standards, and steps to ensure that “political and other inappropriate advertisements are not shown” during broadcasts.

U.S. Public DIplomacy — Time to Get Back in the Game, Report from Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Ranking Member, to Members of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, February 13, 2009. This report urges greater direct U.S. engagement with “average citizens overseas who have virtually no contact with Americans” through a program to re-establish “stand-alone” American Centers in secure facilities outside U.S. embassy compounds that would use English teaching to offset operating costs. The report argues that Information Resource Centers within embassies are “ill suited to encouraging the casual visitor;” that re-creation of USIA “is not realistic;” that the U.S. commitment to cultural centers should be comparable to that of Britain, France, Germany, and Iran; and that “increased accessibility need not come at the cost of security.” The report was written by Paul Foldi, a member of the Committee’s minority staff, and is based on his travel to Egypt, Jordan, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic in December 2008.

Gem From the Past

Glen H. Fisher, Public Diplomacy and the Behavioral Sciences, (Indiana University Press, 1972). Glen Fisher was a career foreign service officer, a sociologist, and a cultural anthropologist. He served also as Dean of the Center for Area and Country Studies at the Department of State’s Foreign Service Institute. In this book, published nearly four decades ago, Fisher used insights from psychology, sociology, and anthropology to shed light on why people in social groups think and act differently. In this pioneering book, Fisher draws on his work as a diplomat and as an academic to discuss the relevance of scholarship to public diplomacy and the importance comprehending publics to effective diplomacy.

Andrew F. Cooper, Brian Hocking, and William Maley, eds., Global Governance and Diplomacy: Worlds Apart? (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). Cooper (The Centre for International Governance Innovation, Canada), Hocking (Loughborough University, UK), and Maley (Australian National University) combine essays by scholars and practitioners in a volume that examines the relationship between global governance and diplomatic practice. The authors look at gaps and evolving connections between the two through theoretical frameworks and case studies. The book is published in the Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations Series edited by Donna Lee (University of Birmingham) and Paul Sharp (University of Minnesota, Duluth).

Cooper, Hocking, and Maley, “Introduction: Diplomacy and Global Governance: Locating Patterns of (Dis)Connection”

Iver B. Neuman (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs), “Globalisation and Diplomacy”

Christer Jonsson (Lund University), “Global Governance: Challenges to Diplomatic Communication, Representation, and Recognition”

Jan Aart Scholte (University of Warwick), “From Government to Governance: Transition to a New Diplomacy”

David Spence (European Commission Delegation to the United Nations), “EU Governance and Global Governance: New Roles for EU Diplomats”

Raymond Saner and Lichia Yiu (Centre for Socio-economic Development, Geneva), “Business – Government – NGO Relations: Their Impact on Global Economic Governance”

Ivan Cook and Martine Letts (Lowy Institute for International Policy, Australia), “A Twilight Zone? Diplomacy and the International Committee of the Red Cross”

Shankari Sundararaman (Jawaharlal Nehru University), “Research Institutes as Diplomatic Actors”

Shaun Riordan (British Diplomatic Service, retired), “The New International Security Agenda and the Practice of Diplomacy”

Franklyn Lisk (University of Warwick), “Toward a New Architecture of Global Governance for Responding to the HIV/AIDS Epidemic”

Rorden Wilkinson (University of Manchester), “Family Dramas: Politics, Diplomacy, and Governance in the WTO”

Jovan Kurbalija (DiploFoundtion), “The World Summit on Information Society and the Development of Internet Diplomacy” Megan Davis (University of New South Wales), “‘At Home at the United Nations’: Indigenous Peoples and International Advocacy”

Samina Yasmeen (University of Western Australia), “Interfaith Dialogue, Diplomacy, and the Cartoon Controversy”

Bruce Gregory (George Washington University), “Public Diplomacy and Governance: Challenges for Scholars and Practitioners” Andrew F. Cooper (The Centre for International Governance Innovation), “Stretching the Model of ‘Coalitions of the Willing'”

Jorge Heine (Former Ambassador of Chile to India and South Africa; Executive Committee, International Political Science Association), “On the Manner of Practising the New Diplomacy”

Ramesh Thakur (University of Waterloo), “Conclusion: National Diplomacy and Global Governance”

Steven R. Corman and Angela Trethewey, “State Dept. Blogging One Year Later (Part 1): Success Despite Challenges,” COMOPS Journal, Posted October 9, 2008; Edward T. Palazzolo and Dawn Gilpin, “State Dept. Blogging One Year Later (Part 2): Themes and Categories”, COMOPS Journal, Posted October 25, 2008. The authors assess posts and reader’s comments on the Department of State’s blog Dipnote during its first year online and discuss their interviews with Heath Kern and Luke Forgerson, Dipnote’s editors. Corman and Trethewey discuss challenges common to all blogging and constraints unique to the Department’s government role. Their conclusion: “Dipnote has had a very good first year.” Palazzolo and Gilpin offer findings and recommendations based on their content analysis of the blog. COMOPS is a journal of the Consortium for Strategic Communication at Arizona State University.

James Fallows, “Their Own Worst Enemy,” The Atlantic, November 2008, 72-77. Drawing on his two years of living in and reporting on China, Atlantic national correspondent Fallows asks “How can official China do such a clumsy and self-defeating job of presenting itself to the world?” China is a “better country than its leaders make it seem,” Fallows argues. Those leaders do a better job of listening at home but have “surprisingly little idea of how the world sees it.” American leaders may be no better at understanding foreign sensitivities and effectively phrasing their arguments to the world effectively, but on balance he concludes the U.S. does no have quite the tin ear that China has and may be in a position to help.

“A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future: Fixing the Crisis in Diplomatic Readiness”, Report of the American Academy of Diplomacy and the Stimson Center, October 2008. This 75-page report, a collaborative effort of 48 retired ambassadors and other foreign affairs experts, concludes that the U.S. faces critical foreign challenges with inadequate staff and resources as well as “authority shortfalls” relating to some economic and security assistance programs. The study reviews four categories of activity: core diplomacy, public diplomacy, economic assistance, and reconstruction/stabilization. It devotes 13 pages to public diplomacy activities, which it limits narrowly to exchanges, international information programs, and field operations carried out by the Department of State. For these activities, the report recommends increasing U.S. direct-hire staff by 487, locally employed staff by 369, and overall staff and program funding increases totaling $610.4 million by Fiscal Year 2014. In an Appendix, the report devotes a page to international broadcasting and two pages to a skeptical look at public diplomacy activities of the Department of Defense. The report is signed by Ambassadors Ronald Neumann, Thomas Pickering, and Thomas Boyatt and by Ellen Laipson, President of the Stimson Center.

James K. Glassman, “The New Age of Public Diplomacy,” Transcript of remarks at Chatham House, United Kingdom, September 11, 2008. The Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs offers his definition of public diplomacy and views on its key goals, which he identifies as diminishing “the threat to Americans and the rest of the world from violent extremism and weapons of mass destruction and to help people around the world achieve freedom.” Glassman outlines four parts of U.S. public diplomacy: education and cultural affairs, international information programs, U.S. international broadcasting, and “ideological engagement.” He devotes most of his remarks to his top priority — public diplomacy as winning an ideological “war of ideas” focused on counter-terrorism.

William J. Hybl, “Answers to FAQs about Getting the People Part Right: A Report on the Human Resources Dimension of U.S. Public Diplomacy,” U.S. Department of State Website, Posted September 24, 2008. The Chairman of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy answers questions relating to the recruitment, training, assignments, and evaluation of public diplomacy officers in the Department of State. Includes his discussion of the need for a critical look at the position of public affairs officers in U.S. missions, the role of public diplomacy in policy formation, and the structure of the Department’s regional bureaus.

Roumeen Islam, ed., Information and Public Choice: From Media Markets to Policy Making, (The World Bank, 2008). Roumeen Islam (World Bank Institute) has compiled essays by 17 scholars, journalists, and professional economists that examine the role of media coverage in shaping economic and political choices — and market constraints that influence news content. The essays look at a range of countries and issues such as the effect of media reporting on policy outcomes, objectives of government regulation of the media, sources and impact of bias on reporting, and the effects of market and non market factors on news and policies. Includes essays by Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia University), “Fostering an Independent Media with a Diversity of Views,” which looks at media information as a factor in public policy and the functioning and failure of markets, and by David Stromberg (University of Stockholm) and James M. Snyder, Jr., (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), “The Media’s Influence on Public Policy Decisions.”(Courtesy of Belinda Yong)

Sherry L. Mueller and Mark Overmann, Working World: Careers in International Education, Exchange, and Development, (Georgetown University Press, 2008). In this guide for job seekers in international affairs, Mueller (National Council for International Visitors) and Overmann (Georgetown University) offer informed thoughts on career planning, networking, interviews, the value of mentors, career development, risking taking, job goals, internships, resources, and profiles of accomplished professionals. Includes information on a broad spectrum of nonprofit, corporate, research, government, and multilateral organizations. Written for students and young professionals, Working World contains useful advice for anyone considering career choices.

George Packer, “Drowning: Can the Burmese People Rescue Themselves,” The New Yorker, August 25, 2008. In his “Letter from Rangoon,” journalist George Packer examines life, repression, political activism, and intellectual currents in Burma. Contains several paragraphs on a “gated compound that is known as the American Center–a cultural outpost of the State Department.” Among Packer’s observations: “The James Baldwin Library and the Ella Fitzgerald Auditorium are open to any Burmese citizen willing to brave the police spies who haunt the area.” “When I visited the Baldwin Library, which has twenty-two thousand members and thirteen thousand volumes, young Burmese were sitting on every available piece of furniture. For all their isolation and lack of analytical training, the citizens of Burma are stupendous readers. The bulletin board at the American Center library was covered with notes requesting books: biographies of Churchill, Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale,” Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine.” “Political activists attended seminars on human rights and on strategic communications.” “In a country where the law forbids unauthorized meetings of more than five people, none of this could have happened anywhere outside the gates of the Center. (Courtesy of Dick Virden)

Joseph W. Polisi, “The Arts in Global Society,” Fletcher Forum, Vol. 32:2, Summer 2008, pp. 161-169. Forum editors Catherine Pfaffenroth and Erik Iverson interview Polisi (The Julliard School) on the arts in American society, cultural diplomacy via the arts, and the role of artists in society and international discourse. Polisi discusses the New York Philharmonic’s trip to North Korea, the Julliard Orchestra’s visit to China, limited government support for the arts, the need for a focused program of cultural diplomacy, and greater attention by the Department of State to the arts in citizen diplomacy.

Sherry Ricchiardi, “Offscreen,” American Journalism Review, October/November 2008, 16-23. AJR’s senior contributing writer documents the decline in news coverage of the war in Afghanistan. Ricchiardi discusses challenges in covering the war. She concludes the news media’s interest has lagged far behind the importance of the story and that reports continue to show Afghanistan as a success story when conditions are worsening.

Philip Seib, The Al Jazeera Effect: How the New Global Media Are Reshaping World Politics, (Potomac Books, Inc., 2008). Using “the Al Jazeera effect” as a paradigm for the influence of new media, Seib (University of Southern California), looks at the global impact of satellite television and the Internet on the politics of conflict and collaboration. His book looks at global information flows, the influence and diversity of multiple channels, media and virtual states, terrorism, the “cyber-struggle for democracy,” and the media’s role in transforming the Middle East. Contains a few pages on U.S. Arabic language television and radio broadcasting networks Al Hurra and Radio Sawa.

“A Reliance on Smart Power – Reforming the Public Diplomacy Bureaucracy,” Hearing before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, September 23, 2008.

Opening statement, Chairman Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI)

Opening statement, Senator George V. Voinovich (R-OH)

Testimony of Christopher Midura, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Planning and Resources, U/S for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Department of State

Testimony of Douglas Bereuter, President and CEO, The Asia Foundation

Testimony of Elizabeth F. Bagley, Vice Chairman, U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

Link to the Commission’s 2008 report, “Getting the People Part Right: A Report on the Human Dimension of U.S. Public Diplomacy”

Testimony of Stephen Chaplin, Senior Advisor to the Stimson Center and American Academy of Diplomacy

Testimony of Ronna A. Freiberg, Former Director of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, U.S. Information Agency

Testimony of Jill A. Shuker, Fellow, Center for Public Diplomacy, University of Southern California

Link to Subcommittee’s website and hearing webcast.

“Technorati, State of the Blogosphere 2008”. Technorati, a leading search engine and authority on blogs, has issued its latest annual report on trends and themes in the “Active Blogosphere,” which it defines as “the ecosystem of interconnected communities of bloggers and readers at the convergence of journalism and conversation.” Technorati tracks blogs in 81 languages. The report, based in part on a survey of bloggers in 66 countries, has five parts: “Who Are the Bloggers,” “The What and Why of Blogging,” “The How of Blogging,” “Blogging for Profit,” and “Brands Enter the Blogosphere.” Among the conclusions in a report that contains a wide range of analytical findings and current data: “Bloggers have been at it an average of three years and are collectively creating close to one million posts every day. Blogs have representation in top-10 web site lists across all key categories, and have become integral to the media ecosystem.” (Courtesy of Charles Maher)

Three Views on Web 2.0 and the “Wisdom of Crowds”

— Exuberance

Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams, Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, (Portfolio, Penguin Books, Inc., 2006, 2008). Tapscott and Williams (New Paradigm, an international think tank) explore how “new competitive principles such as openness, peering, sharing, and acting globally” are creating deep changes in the structure and operations of corporations. Although their focus is on the economic implications of Web 2.0 technologies, they argue throughout the compelling virtues of mass collaboration for the arts, culture, science, education, and governance. Tapscott and Williams acknowledge that hierarchies are not vanishing. This study by two “digital natives” is written for “digital immigrants” in a variety of endeavors, including public diplomacy, who are seeking to leverage collaboration and self-organization strategies.

— Pessimism

Andrew Keen, The Cult of the Amateur: How Blogs, MySpace, YouTube, and the Rest of Today’s User-generated Media are Destroying our Economy, Our Culture, and Our Values, (Doubleday, 2007, 2008). Keen, a self-described polemicist and “pioneer in the first Internet gold rush,” makes the skeptics case: user-generated free content is too narcissistic, too uninformed, too unfiltered, and too destructive of economic and political information and values grounded in expertise. He argues a moral responsibility to protect mainstream media — “with its rich ecosystem of writers, editors, agents, talent scouts, journalists, publishers, musicians, reporters, and actors” — against the avalanche of amateur content and the democratized chaos of Web 2.0.

— A measured look

Cass R. Sunstein, Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge, (Oxford University Press, 2006, paperback edition, 2007). Sunstein (Harvard University) provides a sweeping examination of the strengths and limitations of deliberation and Internet-based methods for aggregating information. Grounded in the work of thinkers as diverse as Jurgen Habermas (rational discourse), Friedrich Hayek (price system), and Lawrence Lessig (innovation and openness), Sunstein offers a range of ideas on wikis, blogs, open source software, prediction markets, amplification of errors, cascade effects, hidden profiles, group polarization, information cocoons, echo chambers, mob psychology, group think, and collective wisdom. Although he provides many reasons for pessimism, Sunstein concludes that “it makes sense to bet on optimism” in weighing promise and risk in the information society.

Gem from the Past

Charles Frankel, The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs, American Educational and Cultural Policy Abroad, (The Brookings Institution, 1965). Frankel, a professor of philosophy at Columbia University, wrote this study for Brookings before his appointment as Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs in 1965. Frankel’s study is an inquiry into the controlling principles of American educational and cultural affairs and what those principles mean in practice. The book examines the role of Cultural Affairs Officers, conceptual issues in the conduct of educational and cultural relations, and proposals for reform.

Kurt Amend, “Counterinsurgency Principles for the Diplomat,” Small Wars Journal, Posted July 19, 2008. Amend, (a serving U.S. Foreign Service Officer with assignments in Afghanistan, India, Kosovo, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Tajikistan) looks at the gap between the wealth of military counterinsurgency doctrine and the lack of comparable doctrine for diplomats. Amend reviews the literature and offers guidelines for diplomats in counterinsurgency operations. Written also for development officials, intelligence officers, civilian experts, and civil affairs officers, his article looks at how insurgent groups have become smaller and more dispersed with flattened command structures and goals that often seek to weaken governments rather than replace them. Amend discusses the need for a strategic narrative; political strategies aimed at local populations; deep expertise; methods that require non-traditional roles; maximum contact with local leaders and citizens; and connected activities of participants: military, diplomatic, development, intelligence, NGO, and host-government.

Constance G. Anthony, “American Democratic Interventionism: Romancing the Iconic Woodrow Wilson,”International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 9, Issue 3, August 2008, pp. 239-253. Working back from a history of unsuccessful efforts to transfer democracy through military intervention, Anthony (Seattle University) critically examines the content of Woodrow Wilson’s democratic theory and its use in ideals of national mission and destiny. Her assessment of the history of democratic interventionism from a variety of realist and idealist perspectives leads her to question the interventionist project on moral and pragmatic grounds.

Matt Armstrong, “Rethinking Smith-Mundt,” Small Wars Journal, Posted July 28, 2008. Armstrong’s public diplomacy and strategic communication blog looks at the history and purposes of the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 as amended (aka the Smith-Mundt Act) and its prohibition on dissemination of program materials and public diplomacy advocacy activities in the United States. Armstrong concludes that the Act has been misinterpreted, is unnecessarily limiting, and should be “revisited.”

Jules Boykoff, “The Dialectic of Resistance and Restriction: Dissident Citizenship and the Global Media,”Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Summer/Fall, 2008, pp. 23-31. Boykoff (Pacific University) examines the continuing power of traditional media (notwithstanding the rise of new media) to suppress dissent intentionally and as a byproduct of norms of professional journalism. His essay offers a definition of dissent, a brief discussion of the media’s role in the development and demobilization of social movements, and an empirical typology. Boykoff argues that media suppression occurs through censorship, “bi-level demonization” (media framing of government portrayals of individuals as dislikable or dangerous), media support for those “who operate within the system,” underestimation of crowds, false balance of opposing sides, and disregard of social movements. Journalists, he concludes, also must “be more critical and courageous when government officials flash the national security trump card.”

John Brown’s Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review, Version 2.0. John Brown, teacher, retired U.S. diplomat, and long-time compiler of news items and other useful information on public diplomacy and related subjects, has launched a new blog.

Steven R. Corman, Angela Trethewey, and H.L. Goodall, Jr., Weapons of Mass Persuasion: Strategic Communication to Combat Violent Extremism, (Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2008). The editors of this volume (also authors of many of its essays) are founders of Arizona State University’s Consortium for Strategic Communication. Their essays, grounded in modern communication theory and case studies, challenge heavy reliance by U.S. political leaders on an “antiquated, linear, and simplistic model of communication” and failure to plan, coordinate, and execute successful strategic communication. The volume’s eight essays include: “Strategery (sic): Missed Opportunities and the Consequences of Obsolete Strategic Communication Theory” (Goodall, Trethewey, and Corman); “Strategic Ambiguity, Communication, and Public Diplomacy in an Uncertain World: Principles and Practices” (Goodall, Trethewey, and Kelly McDonald); and “A New Communication Model for the 21st Century: From Simplistic Influence to Pragmatic Complexity” (Corman, Trethewey, and Goodall). The final essay, “Creating a New Communication Policy: How Changing Assumptions Leads to New Strategic Objectives” (Corman, Trethewey, and Goodall) rewrites the State Department’s “U.S. National Strategy for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication” (2007) using the author’s alternative assumptions and principles.

Graham Cormode and Balachander Krishnamurthy, “Key Differences Between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0,”FirstMonday, Vol. 13, No. 6, June 2, 2008. The authors, researchers at AT&T Labs, describe the social networking world of Web 2.0 in terms accessible to the non-specialist. They identify its primary technological, structural, and sociological characteristics. The essential difference, they suggest, is that “content creators were few in Web 1.0 with the vast majority of users simply acting as consumers of content, while any participant can be a content creator in Web 2.0.” Includes a critical examination of analytical issues, methods of user interaction, Web 2.0’s “fundamentally different philosophy,” and challenges beyond Web 2.0.

Stephen Franklin, “The Hunger:Egypt’s Bloggers Want to be Journalists,” Columbia Journalism Review, July/August 2008, 37-40. Franklin, a journalist for the Chicago Tribune on leave in Cairo on a Knight fellowship, writes about Egyptians in the media space between the government’s press and the opposition press “for which facts are often considered fungible.” He finds a robust arena characterized by an appetite for investigative articles, fact driven reporting, and creative use of the Internet and blogging to test the limits of media freedom.

“Global Visions for America,” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 4, Autumn 2008, pp. 115-173. The editors invited six authors to address the question: “In an ideal world, what role would you want the next U.S. administration to perform with your country, region, and/or the world?” The essays are preceded with data from the Pew Global Attitudes Project on perceptions of global threats and high expectations “that the next president will take America’s foreign policy in a new direction.” Includes articles on Russia, Europe, the Middle East, India, East Asia, and Japan.

Dimitri Trenin (Carnegie Moscow Center), “A Less Ideological America”

Robin Niblett (Chatham House, London), “Europe’s Call for a Leader by Example”

Glenn Kessler (The Washington Post). “Fix This Middle Eastern Mess”

C. Raja Mohan (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore), “India’s Quest for Continuity in the Face of Change”

Wu Xinbo (Fudan University, Shanghai), “A Forward-Looking Partner in a Changing East Asia”

Yoichi Kato (Asahi Shimbun), “Return from 9/11 to Global Leader”

Abstracts available online Link.

Bruce Gregory, “Public Diplomacy and National Security: Lessons from the U.S. Experience,” Small Wars Journal, Posted August 14, 2008. This article agrees with calls to build greater civilian capacity in national security and stronger public diplomacy capabilities. It argues, however, that U.S. public diplomacy’s principles and methods are rooted in 20th century models of communication, governance, and armed conflict, which contribute to an inability to learn from recent experience and foster real change. The article defines public diplomacy, describes forces shaping the context of 21st century public diplomacy, and identifies five lessons from recent experience that point the way to change: abandon message influence dominance; drop the “war on terror” narrative; leverage knowledge, skills, and creativity in civil society; emphasize net-centric actors and actions; rethink government broadcasting and adapt to new media. Additional Link.

Eric Gregory, Politics & the Order of Love: An Augustinian Ethic of Democratic Citizenship, (University of Chicago Press, 2008). Gregory (Princeton University) frames a liberal ethics of citizenship informed by the Augustinian tradition, theology, feminist theory, and political philosophy. He examines Augustine’s classic themes of love and sin in the context of contemporary secular political theory: related notions of care, solidarity, and sympathy on the one hand and cruelty, evil, and narrow self-interest on the other. His book looks at the role of religion in liberal society and the political implications of Augustine’s thinking for three strands of modern liberalism manifest in the legacies of Reinhold Niebuhr’s realism, John Rawls’ proceduralism, and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s civic liberalism.

Thomas L. Friedman, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution and How it Can Renew America, (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008). New York Times columnist Tom Friedman (author of The Lexis and the Olive Tree, 1999, and The World is Flat, 2005) turns his attention to two issues: “America’s loss of focus and national purpose since 9/11” and a planet challenged by global warming, growing populations, and “the astonishing expansion of the world’s middle class through globalizaton.” He calls for a green revolution that will be the biggest innovation in American history.

International Crisis Group, Taliban Propaganda: Winning the War of Words? Asia Report No. 158, July 24, 2008. In this 34-page report, the International Crisis Group concludes the Taliban, despite lack of widespread active support, “has created a sophisticated communications apparatus” to tap into strains of Afghan nationalism, to exploit sources of alienation and policy failures of the Kabul government and its allies, and to weaken support for nation-building. The report examines the strengths and limitations of the Taliban’s communication strategy and its use of a full range of media: a website named for the former regime, magazines, DVDs, audio cassettes, pamphlets, mobile phones, and traditional nationalist songs and poems.

Hafsa Kanjwal, “American Muslims and the Use of Cultural Diplomacy,” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Summer/Fall, 2008, pp. 133-139. Kanjwal (2008 graduate of Georgetown University) looks at the role a “younger generation of American Muslims plays in using cultural expression to bridge the gap between Western and Muslim societies.” Calling on American Muslims to adopt “a non-traditional diplomatic role” in representing Islam to Americans, she identifies two methods: “public relations diplomacy” (a “more direct, and often reactionary engagement”) and “cultural diplomacy (“nuanced involvement with culture and society that does not always stem from a need to serve as an ‘Ambassador of Islam'”). Drawing on analytical frameworks and cases, she concludes that “cultural diplomacy should take precedence over public relations diplomacy.”

Luminita Kohalmi.“Postmodern Theoretical Models of Strategic Communication: Communication Through Attractors,” Romanian Military Thinking, 2, April-June, 2008. Kohalmi (Information and Public Relations Directorate, Romanian Ministry of Defense) discusses strategic communication in the context of chaos theory and nonlinear systems. Her article examines the importance of “initial conditions sensitivity” in complex systems, John Boyd’s OODA loop, and four principles of strategic communication through attractors: perception attractors built on symbols and values, understanding changes in key parameters in the external environment, segmentation of publics, and creative use of third parties. Her article is published in English and Romanian.

Kristin Lord, “Public Diplomacy and the New Transatlantic Agenda,” The Brookings Institution, August 15, 2008. Lord (Brookings Institution) summarizes views expressed in a Brookings workshop held in cooperation with the British embassy in Washington on the importance of public attitudes in achieving transatlantic goals. Her paper looks at the relevance of public opinion to the transatlantic partnership overall; attitudes on terrorism, climate change, and international trade; and how public diplomacy can help governments achieve five strategic objectives in the short- and long-term transatlantic agenda.

Brendan Luyt, “The One Laptop Per Child Project and the Negotiation of Technological Meaning,”FirstMonday, Vol. 13, No. 6, June 2, 2008. Luyt (Nanyang Technological University) applies insights from Actor-Network Theory — the importance of social forces and multitudes of actors, perceived or not perceived, to the successful adoption of new technologies — in a case study of the One Laptop project let by MIT’s Nicholas Negroponte. Forces favoring One Laptop: the changing nature of global capitalism, requirements for new kinds of workers, enthusiasm for open source content, and social desires for technological solutions to global problems. Forces challenging One Laptop: competition from for-profit firms and teachers, education bureaucracies, and development experts who have different strategies and are invested in the status quo. Luyt argues One Laptop’s future will depend on the extent to which it can stay true to its vision while pragmatically negotiating “the meaning of the new technology” with social forces that will affect the outcome.

NAFSA, Association of International Educators, International Education: The Neglected Dimension of Public Diplomacy, Policy Brief, Vol. 3, Issue 5, August 12, 2008. NAFSA’s agenda puts “building, conducting, and sustaining long-term relationships” at the heart of public diplomacy and calls for restoration of “American international legitimacy” through a major Presidentially led international education initiative. NAFSA’s key recommendations: enact a comprehensive national program to establish study abroad as an integral component of U.S. undergraduate education; restore America’s status as a magnet for students and scholars, future leaders, and innovators; coordinate federal agencies responsible for access, visa reform, and immigration reform; strengthen exchange and volunteer service programs. Available online and in pdf format for download.

Martha C. Nussbaum, “Toward a Globally Sensitive Patriotism,” Daedalus, Summer 2008, pp. 78-93. The University of Chicago’s Nussbaum reexamines her views that duties to all humanity take precedence over other duties and that particular obligations are derivative from universal obligations. Drawing on the writings of John Rawls, Jurgen Habermas, and others in the classically liberal tradition, and on the political activism of Abraham Lincoln, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, she concludes that “national sentiment can play a valuable role in creating a decent world culture.” Nussbaum finds much to criticize in exclusionary forms of patriotism that demonize others and play to fear and anxiety. But if nations are to pursue goals of global justice “that require sacrifice of self-interest,” then they need to appeal to “patriotism, in ways that draw on symbol and rhetoric, emotional memory and history.”

“Politics and the Media,” The Hedgehog Review: Critical Reflections on Contemporary Culture, Summer 2008. The University of Virginia’s Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture devotes this issue to an examination of the role and current health of the media in society — and to how political process is changing in the context of new media forms. Contains the following essays:

— Michael Schudson (Columbia University), “News and Democratic Society: Past, Present, and Future”

— Kiku Adatto (Harvard University), “Photo-op Politics”

— Doris A. Graber (University of Illinois), “Do the News Media Starve the Civic IQ: Squaring Impressions and Facts”

— Paul Freedman (University of Virginia), “Thirty-Second Democracy:Campaign Advertising and American Elections”

— Thomas E. Patterson (Harvard University), “The Negative Effect: News, Politics, and the Public”

— Robert W. McChesney (University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign), “Journalism: Looking Backward, Going Forward”

— Kristine Ronan (University of Virginia), “Review Essay: The Public Presence of American Political Cartoons”

— Charles T. Mathewes (University of Virginia), “An Interview with [Washington Post columnist] E. J. Dionne, Jr.”

— Christopher McKnight Nichols (University of Virginia), “Democracy, Politics, and the Media: A Bibliographic Essay”

Gem from the Past

David Pearce, Wary Partners: Diplomats and the Media, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University, (Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1995). Drawing on his skills as a foreign correspondent (Associated Press, The Washington Post) and as a U.S. Foreign Service Officer (assignments in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and United Arab Emirates), Pearce examined relationships between diplomats and the media, the changing nature of diplomacy, and “terms of engagement” for practitioners in both professions. Regrettably no longer in print, Pearce’s study continues to be relevant and instructive.

An appendix contains graphics showing U.S. spending on categories of international affairs. Includes a chart on public diplomacy spending (as defined by the CSIS study), 1994-2008.

Jozef Batora. Foreign Ministries and the Information Revolution: Going Virtual? (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008). Batora (Austrian Academy of Sciences) looks at how the information revolution is changing diplomacy as an institution of the modern state and the organization of foreign ministries. Includes case studies analyzing the effects of information technologies on the foreign ministries of Canada, Norway, and Slovakia. He concludes with an assessment of the impact of technologies on the organizing principles of diplomacy and communication with publics.

Maurits Berger, Els van der Plas, Charlotte Huygens, Neila Akrimi, and Cynthia Schneider. Bridge the Gap or Mind the Gap? Culture in Western-Arab Relations, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael Diplomacy Paper, No. 15, January 2008. In his introduction to the four essays in this collection, Berger (Senior Fellow on Islam and the Arab World, Clingendael) discusses contrasting definitions of cultural diplomacy and its value in bridging the gap between Arab and Western worlds. The essays address issues relating to the meaning and functions of culture, its policy relevance, cultural relativism, distinctions between cultural diplomacy and public diplomacy, and reasons for engaging in cultural diplomacy.

— Els van der Plas (Director, Prince Claus Fund for Culture and Development, The Hague), “Culture and Its Relationship to Society.”

— Charlotte Huygens (Curator of Arts in the Islamic World, National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden), “The Art of Diplomacy, the Diplomacy of Art.”

— Neila Akrimi (Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches sur le Partenariat Euro-Mediterraneen), “Beyond Building Bridges: A New Direction for Culture and Development.”

— Cynthia Schneider (Georgetown University), “Cultural Diplomacy: Hard to Define, But You’d Know It If You Saw It,” (Reprinted from Brown Journal of World Affairs, Vol. 13.1, Fall/Winter, 2006).

Tony Blankley and Oliver Horn. “Strategizing Strategic Communication,” WebMemo No. 1939, The Heritage Foundation, May 29, 2008. Heritage’s Visiting Senior Fellow in National Security Studies and Research Assistant in Foreign Policy Studies offer a definition of strategic communication and proposals to improve its use. They focus on the Smith-Thornberry amendment to the 2009 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 5658), creation of an interagency strategy for strategic communication and public diplomacy, description of the roles of the State and Defense Departments, and recommendations for an independent, non-profit research organization to act as a magnet for private sector “techniques and technologies” and to exchange “common concerns” and “best practices.”

David Boren. A Letter to America, (University of Oklahoma Press, 2008). Boren (President of the University of Oklahoma, former Democratic Senator and chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee) takes a measured look at the world, at an America growing cynical about its political system, and at reforms needed in domestic and foreign policies. Among Boren’s priorities: a greater understanding by Americans of the culture and history of others, increasing the flow of students and scholars to and from the U.S. with countries important to America’s future, easing restrictions on student visas, an International Peace Corps modeled on the American Peace Corps, and creating an “independent government think tank” to enable scholars, business leaders, and journalists with global experience to share their expertise and independent thinking without having their independence compromised.

Nicholas J. Cull. The Cold War and the United States Information Agency: American Propaganda and Public Diplomacy, 1945-1989, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Studies in the History of Mass Communication. 2008). Historian and public diplomacy scholar Nick Cull (University of Southern California) has written an extensive (600 pages) study based on years of research in archival records, secondary sources, and more than 100 interviews with practitioners. Cull’s well written and well organized account examines the strengths and limitations of U.S. information activities, international broadcasting, and cultural and educational exchange activities in the context of the major foreign and domestic issues of the Cold War. A work of scholarship and a much needed supplement to the many good accounts of former practitioners.

Robert Entman, “Theorizing Mediated Public Diplomacy: The U.S. Case,” The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(2) April 2008, 87-102. Entman (George Washington University, author of Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy, 2004) adapts his cascading network activation model of media framing and how frames spread in the U.S. political process to international communication. He offers a theoretical framework to guide research and practice in mediated public diplomacy, which depends on political cultural congruency between the U.S. and other nations and on the strategy, power, and motivations of elites. Although he focuses on the U.S. experience, Entman states his model is generalizable to the mediated public diplomacy of other countries. Abstract available online.

Ali Fisher and Aurelie Brockerhoff. Options for Influence: Global Campaigns of Persuasion in the New Worlds of Public Diplomacy, Counterpoint, British Council, 2008. Fisher (a consultant and former director of the British Council’s thinktank Counterpoint), and Brockerhoff (a postgraduate student at Humboldt University) discuss definitions and practical approaches to the conduct of public diplomacy in this extensively footnoted, 62-page report. The authors examine strategies on a continuum from “solely listening to purely messaging” — with facilitation, network-building, cultural exchange, cultural diplomacy, broadcasting, and direct messaging as alternatives on the spectrum. They also discuss their views on “strategic targeting” and “online engagement.” The report is useful for its emphasis on European perspectives on public diplomacy.

James Glassman. “Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century,” Remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations, June 30, 2008. In his first speech as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Glassman (formerly Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors) comments on traditional public diplomacy instruments and outlines his “new approach to public diplomacy” framed as a “war of ideas” focused on “winning the war on terror.” U.S. broadcasting: “exceptionally effective.” State Department educational and cultural exchanges: “the crown jewels of public diplomacy.” His role as Under Secretary: “to run the part of public diplomacy . . . that resides at State” and to “run the government wide effort on the war of ideas.” U.S. public diplomacy’s mission: “to tell the world of a good and compassionate nation and . . . to engage in the most important ideological contest of our time — a contest that we will win.” How? ” . . . use the tools of ideological engagement — words, deeds, and images — to create an environment hostile to violent extremism.”

A similar presentation by U/S Glassman at the Washington Institute for Near East Affaris on July 8, 2008.

Dafna Linzer. “Lost in Translation: Alhurra — America’s Troubled Effort to Win Middle East Hearts and Minds,”ProPublica, June 22, 2008. In her lengthy investigative report, Linzer (formerly with The Washington Post and the Associated Press) examines Alhurra’s mission, funding, programming, management, audience share, and outside observers’ views on its value as a U.S. government funded Arabic-language television station. Her conclusion: “Alhurra’s four years of operation have been marked by a string of broadcast disasters.”

Of related interest:

CBS’s 60 Minutes, “U.S.-Funded Arab TV’s Credibility Crisis,” June 22, 2008. In program produced in collaboration with ProPublica, CBS correspondent Scott Pelley interviews former Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) Chairman James Glassman (now Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs), former Alhurra news director Larry Register, Middle East Broadcasting Network President Brian Coniff, and University of Maryland Professor Shibley Telhami.

BBG Press Release, “Broadcasting Board of Governors Corrects the CBS 60 Minutes Story About Alhurra Television,” June 22, 2008. The BBG counters that “the CBS program 60 Minutes distorted facts about the station’s audience research, its coverage of Israel, and its editorial practices.”

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, “U.S. Funded Language TV Network Under Scrutiny,” June 23, 2008. NewsHour correspondent Jeffrey Brown summarizes the 60 Minutes broadcast and interviews James Glassman and Shibley Telhami.

Craig Whitlock, “U.S. Network Falters in Mideast Mission,” The Washington Post, June 23, 2008. In a lengthy separate investigative report on Al Hurra, Whitlock concludes that “more than four years after it began broadcasting, the station is widely regarded as a flop in the Arab world, where it has struggled to attract viewers and overcome skepticism about its mission.”

The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, “Non-profit Groups Financing Independent Journalism,” June 24, 2008. The NewsHour’s Jeffrey Brown discusses the rise in non-profit organizations funding journalism projects in foreign and investigative reporting with Paul Steiger, editor-in-chief of ProPublica, and Alex Jones, director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy.

Dafna Linzer, “Alhurra’s Baghdad Bureau Mired in Controversy, ProPublica, July 8, 2009. In a followup report, Linzer writes, “a close look at both the content and personnel suggests the problems in the Baghdad bureau and the effort to broadcast programming for Iraqis are as profound as those that afflict the rest of the network.

Kristin M. Lord. “Public Diplomacy and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Francisco, March 26, 2008. Lord (Brookings Institution, formerly George Washington University) explores what public diplomacy is for, its role in foreign policy, goals it can and cannot achieve, and strategies and tactics that enable it to succeed.

Joseph S. Nye, Jr. The Powers to Lead, (Oxford University Press, 2008). In his latest book, Nye (Harvard University) brings his scholarship on international affairs, hard and soft (and smart) power, and political theory to a study of leadership. In a style that will attract scholars and general readers, he argues that leaders in postindustrial societies are most effective when they combine hard and soft power skills in ways that vary with different situations. Nye uses analysis and numerous examples to assess evolving characteristics of leadership, ways in which leadership can be learned, uses of power to achieve transformational and transactional objectives, shaping roles of empowered followers, the need for contextual intelligence, the impact of the information revolution and democratization on postmodern organizations, the requirements of a consultative style in networks, emotional intelligence, practical knowledge, and ethical considerations.

Jana Peterkova. “Czech Strategy in Public Diplomacy,” Paper presented at the International Studies Association Annual Conference, San Francisco, March 26-28, 2008. Peterkova (University of Economics, Prague) offers a public diplomacy model from the perspective of small and medium-sized states. Her paper looks at distinctions between the public diplomacy of large and small states in the context of mission, activities, themes, resources, and legitimacy. Includes an examination of the Czech Republic’s approach to public diplomacy during the past decade and recommendations for a new Czech public diplomacy strategy.

David Pollock. “Slippery Polls: Uses and Abuses of Opinion Surveys from Arab States,” Policy Focus #82, The Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs, April 2008. Pollock (Visiting Fellow at The Washington Institute and long-time advisor on foreign public opinion to the Department of State and USIA) finds significant problems with “the pervasive overreliance on Arab public opinion polls.” He argues that “many ‘Arab world” surveys suffer from severe and mutually reinforcing problems of sample design and execution, social controls, government surveillance, dearth of credibility checks, and most of all, absence of any clear links to events on the ground.” He concludes his 59-page study with informed and provocative comments on the “so what” questions for U.S. policymaking and public diplomacy. Download as a pdf file at link below.

Sherry Ricchiardi. “Whatever Happened to Iraq? How the Media Lost Interest in a War With No End in Sight,”American Journalism Review, June/July 2008, 20-27. In this cover story, AJR’s frequent observer of international reporting assesses the decline in coverage of Iraq during 2007-2008. Drawing on research by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, daily tracking surveys by the Associated Press, and interviews with news organizations, Ricchiardi attributes the “dramatic drop-off” in media coverage to danger for journalists on the ground, plunging news budgets, shrinking news space, competing megastories (presidential primaries, sagging economy), and the cost of keeping journalists in Iraq. She also discusses concepts of “war fatigue” and “habituation” as consequences of repetitive news stories.

Marc Sageman (“The Reality of Grass-Roots Terrorism”) vs. Bruce Hoffman (“Hoffman Replies”). “Does Osama Still Call the Shots? Debating the Containment of al Qaeda’s Leadership.” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 87, No. 4, July/August, 2008, 163-166. Sageman (author of Leaderless Jihad, 2008, and Understanding Terror Networks, 2004) and Hoffmann (author of Inside Terrorism, 1998) offer competing views on the nature and evolution of al Qaeda. Sageman defends his effort to achieve a paradigm shift in terrorism research based on scientific evidence of the radicalization of disconnected Internet savvy groups. Hoffman challenges Sageman’s understanding of an al Qaeda central, which in Hoffman’s view is “on the march, not on the run.” The exchange follows Hoffman’s critical assessment of Sageman’s Leaderless Jihad. See Hoffman’s Review Essay, “The Myth of Grass-Roots Terrorism: Why Osama bin Laden Still Matters,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 87, No. 3, May/June 2008, 133-138. For an analysis of the unusually bitter exchange, see Elaine Sciolino and Eric Schmitt, “A Not Very Private Feud Over Terrorism,” The New York Times, June 8, 2008.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faresponse87415/marc-sageman-bruce-hoffman/does-osama-still-call-the-shots.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501fareviewessay87310/bruce-hoffman/the-myth-of-grass-roots-terrorism.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/weekinreview/08sciolino.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=marc+sageman&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Giles Scott-Smith. The U.S. State Department’s Foreign Leader Program in the Netherlands, France, and Britain 1950-70, (Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers, 2008). Scott-Smith (Roosevelt Academy, the Netherlands) looks at the background, organization, and goals of State Department programs designed to bring influential “opinion leaders” to the United States to meet professional counterparts and gain an understanding of American attitudes and institutions. His case studies examine how the programs changed over time in the context of Cold War issues and their importance in maintaining the transatlantic alliance and America’s “informal empire.”

Clay Shirky. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, (The Penguin Press, 2008). Shirky (New York University) uses compelling stories and page after page of thoughtful analysis to show how the Internet is changing the formation and influence of groups in society. Includes his assessments of “mass amateurization,” “plausible promise” in open source software, “more is different,” “publish then filter,” wikis, the long tail power law distribution, network enabled social tools, the wisdom of crowds, grass roots journalism, and governance implications of collective action and new social media. (Courtesy of Donna Oglesby)

U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, Getting the People Part Right: A Report on the Human Resources Dimension of U.S. Public Diplomacy, June 25, 2008. In this 41-page report, the bipartisan Presidentially appointed Commission looks critically and in detail at the recruitment, training, evaluation, staffing structures, and integration of public diplomacy officers in the Department of State nine years after consolidation with the U.S. Information Agency. Among its key judgments: (1) State makes no special effort to recruit public diplomacy officers with relevant experience or skills; (2) the foreign service examination process does not test for “public diplomacy instincts and communication skills;” (3) public diplomacy training is stronger, but many serious blind-spots persist; (4) State’s Foreign Service Institute should develop courses comparable to graduate-level university courses and establish a nine-month in-depth public diplomacy course for mid- to senior-level officers; (5) State’s evaluation process overwhelmingly rewards public diplomacy management rather than outreach; (6) State should undertake zero-based reviews of public diplomacy staffing structures in its geographic bureaus and overseas missions; and (7) persistent under-representation of public diplomacy officers at senior ranks is emblematic of continued lack of progress in integrating public diplomacy into the core work of the Department.

Anne Washburn. The Internationalist: A Foreign Comedy, (Oberon Modern Plays, 2008). Playwright Anne Washburn looks with humor and insight into issues of language, identity, and cross-cultural communication. The play’s central character, Lowell, is an American seeking success with foreign business colleagues and possibly romance in an unnamed East European country. Instead of anti-Americanism, he finds confusion, misunderstandings, and indifference to his status as “the American.” Washburn uses the device of a made-up language for parts of the play. According to notes from dramaturge Daniell Mages Amato written for the Studio Theatre’s production in Washington, DC (spring 2008), Lowell and the audience must “pay attention to body language and intonation, listen for fragments of English, and tune into the social structures and cultural rules that are communicated without words . . . Real honesty, emotional connection, and communication . . . depend on tools beyond words.”

Gem from the Past

Frank A. Ninkovich. The Diplomacy of Ideas: U.S. Foreign Policy and Cultural Relations, 1938-1950, (Cambridge University Press, 1981). Ninkovich (St. Johns University) begins his study with an assessment of private initiatives and public policies in America’s cultural diplomacy in the early 20th century. Much of the book focuses on the period from 1938 (with the creation of the State Department’s Division of Cultural relations) to 1950. Ninkovich’s study discusses critical issues in cultural diplomacy that are still relevant: the meaning of cultural relations, the use of cultural programs as means of preventing conflict and fostering common interests, and as instruments of national policies. He concludes that cultural diplomacy was shaped more by institutional forces and political power than by the idealism of cultural diplomacy enthusiasts.