Category: Bruce Gregory’s Resource List

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.

Geoffrey Cowan and Nicholas Cull, eds. “Public Diplomacy in a Changing World,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Volume 616, March 2008. Cowan and Cull (Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California) have assembled a collection of essays that “seeks to explain the concept of public diplomacy, to put it into an academic framework, and to examine it as an international phenomenon and an important component of statecraft.” The essays examine public diplomacy theory, tools of public diplomacy, national case studies, and development of scholarship in the field. “The editors and contributors,” Cowan and Cull write, “present the collection . . . as an early attempt to examine the current state of the field; to stimulate research and open debate; and to provide a resource of interested scholars, practitioners, and students.” Includes:

– Geoffrey Cowan (USC, Annenberg School) and Amelia Arsenault (USC, Annenberg School), “Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy,” 10-30.

– Nicholas Cull (USC, Annenberg School), “Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and Histories,” 31-54.

– Eytan Golboa (Bar-Ilan University, Israel), “Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy,” 55-77.

– Manuel Castells (University of Southern California, Los Angeles), “The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance,” 78-93.

– Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (Harvard University), “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power,” 94-109.

– Ernest J. Wilson III (USC, Annenberg School), “Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power,” 110-124.

– Peter van Ham (Netherlands Institute of International Relations, “Clingendael”), “Place Branding: The State of the Art,” 126-149.

– Monroe E. Price (Annenberg School, University of Pennsylvania), Susan Haas (Annenberg School, University of Pennsylvania), and Drew Margolin (USC Annenberg School), “New Technologies and International Broadcasting: Reflections on Adaptations and Transformations,” 150-172.

– Giles Scott-Smith (Roosevelt Academy, the Netherlands), “Mapping the Undefinable: Some Thoughts on the Relevance of Exchange Programs within International Relations Theory,” 173-195.

– Nancy Snow (California State University, Fullerton), “International Exchanges and the U.S Image,” 198-222.

– Michael J. Bustamante (Council on Foreign Relations) and Julia E. Sweig (Council on Foreign Relations), “Buena Vista Solidarity and the Axis of Aid: Cuban and Venezuelan Public Diplomacy,” 223-256.

– Yiwei Wang (Fudan University, China), “Public Diplomacy and the Rise of Chinese Soft Power,” 257-273.

– Bruce Gregory (George Washington University), “Public Diplomacy: Sunrise of an Academic Field,” 274-290.

Kathy R. Fitzpatrick. The Collapse of American Public Diplomacy: What Diplomatic Experts Say About Rebuilding America’s Image in the World — A View From the Trenches, paper presented at the International Studies Association Conference, San Francisco, March 26-29, 2008. Fitzpatrick (Quinnipiac University) summarizes and assesses findings from her 15-page survey completed in 2007 by 213 members of the Public Diplomacy Alumni Association (previously the USIA Alumni Association). Her survey documents the views of 48 percent of the association’s members on what should be done to rebuild public diplomacy, public diplomacy during the Cold War, public diplmacy’s mission and values, and issues relating to structure, leadership, and effective practices. Available on the PDAA’s website.

Alan C. Hansen. Nine Lives: A Foreign Service Odyssey, Vellum Books, Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, 2007. Hansen’s memoir looks at public diplomacy through the lens of his personal experiences in Spain, Pakistan, and seven Latin American assignments as a U.S. Information Agency Foreign Service Officer from 1954 to 1987. His anecdotal account profiles USIA’s work and the strengths and limitations of public diplomacy in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.

Alan L. Heil, Jr., ed. Local Voices / Global Perspectives: Challenges Ahead for U.S. International Media, Public Diplomacy Council, 2008. In this collection of twenty essays and moderated discussions, scholars, broadcasters, and public diplomacy practitioners address challenges facing government international broadcasting. Contributors include: Paul Blackburn, Brian Conniff, Robert Coonrod, Nicholas Cull, Kim Andrew Elliott, Morand Fachot, James Glassman, Mark Helmke, Kevin Klose, Gary Knell, Mark Maybury, Graham Mytton, Salemeh Nematt, Adam Clayton Powell III, Walter Roberts, William Rugh, McKinney Russell, John Trattner, Jeffry Trimble, Sanford Ungar, Myrna Whitworth, and Barry Zorthian. Copies may be ordered through the Public Diplomacy Council at pdi410@gwu.edu mailto:pdi410@gwu.edu> .

William P. Kiehl. “Humpty Dumpty Redux: Saving Public Diplomacy,” American Diplomacy, March 4, 2008. Kiehl, a retired USIA Foreign Service Officer, updates thinking in his November 2003 article, “Can Humpty Dumpty be Saved?” He calls for adequate funding and staffing, creation of an Office of Strategic Communication (OSC) within the Executive Office of the President, and a new independent Agency for Public Diplomacy that would report to the President through the OSC.

Rita J. King and Joshua S. Fouts. Dancing Ink Productions. King (CEO and Creative Director) and Fouts (Chief Global Strategist and former director of USC Annenberg’s Public Diplomacy Center) have created a consulting and strategy firm that works with a mix of clients “to contribute meaningfully to the evolution of global culture in the imagination age.” Their projects explore possibilities for global cultural connections in Second Life, the blogosphere, and other virtual platforms. Check out the Dancing Ink Productions homepage and their posts, “Our Vision for Sustainable Culture in the Imagination Age,” February 25, 2008), “Beyond Borat,” March 9, 2008, and “The Emergence of a New Global Culture” (March 29, 2008).

Greg Mitchell. So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits — and the President — Failed on Iraq, Union Square Press, Sterling Publishing Co., 2008. Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher, adds to the growing shelf of critical assessments of press coverage of the Iraq war by media voices and journalism professors. Includes many of his E&P columns and new material in his critique of media and government culpability during the years between the run-up to the war in 2003 and the “surge” in 2007.

Stuart Murray, “Consolidating the Gains Made in Diplomacy Studies: A Taxonomy,” International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 9, Issue 1, February 2008, 22-39. Murray (Bond University, Australia) examines a broad range of diplomacy studies from the traditional (state-to-state) to the non-traditional (diplomacy practiced by NGOs and corporations). Murray creates three schools of diplomatic study: Traditional (state institutions), Nascent (non-state), and Innovative (state and non-state). Includes references to the work of Andrew Cooper, Jeffery Cooper, Brian Hocking, Christer Jonsson, Jan Melissen, Iver Neumann, David Newsom, and Paul Sharp among others.

National Endowment for Democracy, Center for Media Assistance (CIMA). The Center supports independent media assistance programs and democratic development through building networks and conducting research. Its bibliographic database and lists of working group and research reports are available on its website. Recent publications include: Shanthi Kalathil, Scaling a Changing Curve: Traditional Media Development and the New Media, March 3, 2008, Ann C, Olson, The Role of Media-support Organizations and Public Literacy in Strengthening Independent Media Worldwide February 5, 2008: and Community Development Radio: Its Impact and Challenges to Its Development, Working Group Report, October 9, 2007.

Geoffrey Allen Pigman and Anthony Deos. “Consuls for Hire: Private Actors, Public Diplomacy,” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 4, 1, 85-96. Pigman (Bennington College) and Deos (Jott Communications) assess the expanding roles and methods of global public relations firms, political communication professionals, and other private actors in public diplomacy. The authors examine how states, governments of regions, and political actors are seeking to assert identity and gain recognition by interacting with private firms “to construct diplomatic strategies of representation and image management.” They conclude there is no dominant model of interaction. Rather there is a spectrum ranging from embedded public relations professionals to outsourcing and the independent “privately undertaken public diplomacy” of organizations such as Business for Diplomatic Action.

This and other articles are available online in the journal Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Volume 4, No. 1, February 2008 — “A quarterly review of branding and marketing for national, regional, and civic development.” Simon Anholt is the Managing Editor.

Michael C. Polt. “Toolbox: Strengthening American Diplomacy,” The American Interest, Vol. III, March/April, 2008, 101-103. Ambassador Polt (a career U.S. Foreign Service Officer on loan to the German Marshall Fund) offers six recommendations in an “action memorandum” to the next president of the United States. Polt’s recommendations: (1) “reconceive embassies” around the world, (2) treat U.S. diplomacy as a serious profession, (3) reaffirm the diplomatic corps’ role as the principal agent for achieving a president’s foreign policy agenda, (4) create a single, substantial, and consistent foreign affairs budget for all U.S. efforts abroad, (5) create regional Ambassadors’ Councils, and (6) trust professional diplomats. Available to subscribers. Abstract online.

Project for Excellence in Journalism. The State of the News Media 2008, March 2008. Trends discussed in PEJ’s (Tom Rosenstiel, director) fifth annual report “tracing the revolution of news” include: (1) News is shifting from being a product (newspaper, website, newscast) to becoming a service. (2) News websites are no longer final destinations; sites restricted to their own content become cul de sac’s of limited value. (3) The prospects for user-created content and “citizen news” appear more limited than once thought. Rather than rejecting the gatekeeper role of traditional journalism, citizen journalists and bloggers are “recreating it in other places.” (4) The agenda of American news media “continues to narrow, not broaden.”

Yale Richmond. Practicing Public Diplomacy: A Cold War Odyssey, Berghahn Books, 2008 (ADST-DACOR Diplomats and Diplomacy Book). Richmond, a retired cultural officer in the U.S. Foreign Service and author of Cultural Exchange and the Cold War (2003), looks at the practice of public diplomacy during the Cold War through his assignments in Germany, Laos, Austria, Poland, and the Soviet Union — and his subsequent work with the Helsinki Commission and the National Endowment for Democracy. In a book that is part memoir and part history, Richmond’s perspectives focus on the enduring values of cultural diplomacy, the limitations of “a propaganda approach to public diplomacy,” and numerous examples of “what works and what doesn’t” in public diplomacy.

Janet Steele. “The Voice of East Timor: Journalism, Ideology, and the Struggle for Independence,” Asian Studies Review, September 2007, Vol. 31, 261-232. Steele (a professor of journalism at George Washington University, Fulbright scholar in Indonesia, and author of Wars Within: The Story of Tempo, an Independent Magazine in Soeharto’s Indonesia, 2005), examines relationships between journalists and the development of national identity in East Timor. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, she analyzes ways journalists have defined themselves, examines challenges facing journalism in East Timor, and concludes with perspectives on the future of Timorese journalism.

The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point (CTC). Cracks in the Foundation: Leadership Schisms in al-Qa’ida from 1989-2006. The CTC’s report analyzes the history of al-Qaida’s debates over strategies and goals using documents from the Department of Defense’s Harmony Database. Contains many new documents not previously available to academic and practitioner communities.

Michael Walzer. Thinking Politically: Essays in Political Theory, Yale University Press, 2007. Selected, edited and introduced by David Miller (Oxford University), this collection of Walzer’s (Princeton University) most important essays is of broad general interest. Miller’s introduction is a substantial overview of Walzer’s fifty year career. Includes a recent interview with Walzer and essays containing his critical assessments of civil society, pluralism, toleration, Jurgen Habermas’s communicative action theories, and the morality of terrorism and responses to terrorism that will be of interest to those teaching public diplomacy. Essays include: “A Critique of Philosophical Conversation,” “The Civil Society Argument,” “Deliberation and What Else,” “The Politics of Difference: Statehood and Toleration in a Multicultural World,” and “Terrorism and Just War.” (Courtesy of Donna Oglesby)

Gabriel Weimann. “Online Terrorist Prey on the Vulnerable,” YaleGlobal Online, March 5, 2008. Weimann, professor of communication at Haifa University and author of Terror on the Internet (2006), looks at how a maturing Internet is being used by terrorist organizations for narrowcasting to target and exploit the vulnerabilities of groups such as marginalized women and children.

Hugh Wilford. The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America, Harvard University Press, 2008. Wilford (California State University, Long Beach) provides a deeply researched examination of the CIA’s covert funding of intellectuals, students, artists, journalists, labor organizations, religious leaders, and emigre organizations to project American political and cultural influence from the 1940s to the 1960s. Drawing on the records of these organizations and secondary sources (most CIA records remain classified), Wilford seeks to portray a comprehensive account of the CIA’s network “by telling both sides of the story” — from the perspectives of intelligence history and the social history of the client organizations. CIA official Frank Wisner’s remark comparing the network of organizations to a “mighty Wurlitzer” organ “capable of playing any propaganda tune he desired” provides the book’s title.

Robin Wright. Dreams and Shadows: The Future of the Middle East, The Penguin Press, 2008. The Washington Post’s veteran foreign correspondent draws on thirty-five years of reporting in the region to provide both historical narrative and thoughts about the future of a Middle East in transition. Useful for its discussion of regional media, satellite television, democratic activism, women’s activism, tensions between reform and reaction, and struggles among autocrats, democrats, and theocrats.

Gem from the Past

Jarol B. Manheim. Strategic Public Diplomacy and American Foreign Policy: The Evolution of Influence, Oxford University Press, 1994. In this early academic study of public diplomacy, Professor Manheim (George Washington University) draws on qualitative and quantitative research methods to provide a systematic analysis of public diplomacy as strategic communication, the use of political communication strategies by other countries in the U.S., the evolution of U.S. public diplomacy, and the role of political communication consultants. Contains case studies on the uses of “strategic public diplomacy” by Kuwait, Pakistan, Mexico, Japan, and South Korea.

Nathan Brown and Amr Hamzawy. “Arab Spring Fever,” The National Interest, September/October, 2007, pp. 33-40. Brown (George Washington University) and Hamzawy (Carnegie Endowment) write that Washington’s “manic debate” on political change in the Middle East misses gradual change “driven to a great extent by an indigenous freedom agenda.” The authors find stunning impatience in Washington’s approach and call for greater realism, a mix of policies, sustainable efforts, and recognition that political realism may be occurring “but not on any U.S. administration’s timetable.”

Tom Miller. “America’s Role in the World: A Business Perspective on Public Diplomacy,” Business for Diplomatic Action (BDA), October 2007, pp. 1-18. Written by Tom Miller (BDA Vice President), this report examines definitions of public diplomacy, discusses problems for the U.S. economy driven by the decline in America’s global public image, and recommends ways the U.S. business community can help in structuring and promoting an effective public diplomacy strategy. BDA’s recommendations: (1) creation of an independent Corporation for Public Diplomacy (CPD) and a cross-agency National Communications Council (NCC) reporting to the President; (2) development of a “public diplomacy and communications strategy” employing the skills, techniques and processes of global businesses; (3) an increase in public diplomacy resources from $1.5B to $3B; and (4) establishment of a “reserve” Foreign Service Officer and “Goodwill Ambassador” corps.

Andrew F. Cooper. Celebrity Diplomacy, Paradigm Publishers, 2008. Cooper (University of Waterloo and Centre of International Governance Innovation) looks at the role of celebrities in diplomacy from Ben Franklin to Shirley Temple Black and Octavio Paz to today’s Bono, Angelina Jolie, and Bill Gates. He examines analytical, normative, and practical issues in the associations of state and non-state actors with celebrities who attract attention and mobilize activists on global issues. His book addresses questions of boundaries, legitimacy, limits, and consequences — and the arguments of critics — in a “mix of public diplomacy and advocacy through both official and unofficial mechanisms.”

Richard L. Armitage and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Co-Chairs. CSIS Commission on Smart Power, A Smarter, More Secure America. Center for Strategic and International Studies, (2007), 1-79. Armitage (former deputy secretary of state), Nye (Harvard), and a bipartisan commission of American scholars and practitioners call for the next U.S. president to implement a smart power strategy that complements military and economic might with greater investments in soft power. Recommendations focus on six areas: reinvigorated alliances, partnerships, and institutions; elevated global development; strengthened public diplomacy; economic integration; technology and innovation; and creative approaches to how the government is organized, coordinated, and budgeted. Public diplomacy recommendations include increased exchanges with a focus on youth, U.S.-China and U.S. India Educational Funds, expanded Middle East language competencies, and creation of an independent, nonprofit “center for international knowledge and communication.”

Steven R. Corman and Kevin J. Dooley. Strategic Communication on a Rugged Landscape: Principles for Finding the Right Message, Report #0801, Consortium for Strategic Communication (CSC), Arizona State University, January 7, 2008. The authors build on an earlier CSC paper (A 21st Century Model for Communication in the Global War of Ideas, April 2007), which argued that U.S. strategic communication is based on an outdated “message influence model.” In this new CSC study, they assert that U.S. communication efforts are limited by a fruitless quest to centralize and tightly control its messages. Using the metaphor of a rugged landscape with many peaks, Corman and Dooley call for a new approach with “multiple integral solutions,” greater tolerance for experimentation and random variation in communication, and recognition that “failure is normal part of the path to success.” (Courtesy of Stephanie Helm)

Brent Cunningham. “The Rhetoric Beat,” Columbia Journalism Review, November/December, 36-39. CJR’s managing editor examines the crucial political role of the press in its choices of words, metaphors, and linguistic frames. Cunningham looks briefly and selectively at framing literature and media framing choices in the decision to go to war in Iraq. He proposes that news organizations employ “rhetoric reporters” to research the history and use of words applied to policies and actions “to help keep political discourse as clear and intellectually honest as possible.

Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication, Report on Strategic Communication in the 21st Century, Chair, Vincent Vitto, January, 2008, 1-149. In its third year-long study since 2001, the Defense Science Board’s (DSB) Task Force has substantially refined and updated its views with particular attention to deep comprehension of attitudes and cultures, relationships between government and civil society, adaptive networks within government, new media, and technology transformation. The Task Force, comprised of members from government (diplomacy and military) and the academic and non-profit research communities, urges a national commitment to strategic communication “supported by resources and a strength of purpose that matches the nation’s commitment to defense, intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security.” Key recommendations: amplification of the DSB’s call in 2004 for an independent, non-profit, and non-partisan Center for Global Engagement to leverage knowledge and skills in civil society (beginning with a “deep understanding of cultures and cultural dynamics, core values of other societies, and media and technologiy trends”); a permanent strategic communication structure within the White House; strengthened capacity in the Departments of State and Defense; and a thorough review of the mission, structure, and functions of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Daniel W. Drezner, “Foreign Policy Goes Glam,” The National Interest, No. 92, November/December 2007, pp. 22-28. Drezner (Fletcher School, Tufts University) examines the increasing influence of celebrities in advancing policy agendas in global issues. Although the role of celebrities in world politics is not new (Shirley Temple, Jane Fonda), Drezner argues the influence of today’s celebrities can be attributed to differences in the way citizens consume information, new incentives in the entertainment industry, the impact of soft news, and power shifts to individuals and non-state actors driven by the Internet and an information ecosystem in which attention, not information, is the scarce resource. Drezner examines the pros and cons of celebrity activism, noting that problem awareness differs from problem solutions. (Full online text for subscribers.)

Francis Fukuyama and Michael McFaul, “Should Democracy be Promoted or Demoted?” The Washington Quarterly, Winter 2007-08, 23-43. Fukuyama (Johns Hopkins, SAIS) and McFaul (Stanford) review moves toward greater autocracy in many countries, increasing skepticism toward the democracy agenda in U.S. foreign policy, and deficiencies in the Bush administration’s efforts to promote democracy. The authors systematically engage the central arguments against democracy promotion and call for a more sustainable strategy in achieving it. Key elements: restoring the U.S. example, improved public diplomacy, diplomatic engagement with autocracies, ambitious reorganization of U.S. programs (including a new cabinet level Department of International Development), a firewall between U.S. assistance to states and to NGOs, and enhanced international institutions.

Barry Fulton, “Geo-Social Mapping of the International Communications Environment or Why Abdul Isn’t Listening,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2 (2007), 307-315. Fulton (George Washington University) calls for a “radical redefinition of public diplomacy” grounded in stimulating “the imagination of those who make a difference in their own cultures.” Giving others the means and motivation to address global requirements can enhance the security of the sponsoring nation. Fulton’s three-point agenda for reforming the conduct of public diplomacy: (1) “reach beyond short-term parochial interests by providing knowledge to the curious, the innovative, and the restless;” (2) hold public diplomats accountable “for enabling connectivity and serving as cultural interpreters;” and (3) “recruit and train artists, scholars, and scientists as public diplomats to engage actively in indigenous social networks.” (Available by subscription)

Robert M. Gates. “Landon Lecture,” Remarks of the Secretary of Defense, Manhattan, Kansas, November 26, 2007. Secretary Gates makes “the case for strengthening our capacity to use ‘soft’ power and for better integrating it with ‘hard’ power.” His recommendations include: increased national capacity in economic development, institution building, rule of law, good governance, and strategic communication; greater use of expertise in America’s universities; and “a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security — diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development.” The Secretary stated that the “way to institutionalize these capabilities is probably not to recreate or repopulate institutions of the past such as AID or USIA.” The U.S. needs new thinking on how to integrate government capabilities with the private sector, universities, non-governmental organizations, and allies and friends.

Marwan M. Kraidy. Arab Media and US Policy: A Public Diplomacy Reset, The Stanley Foundation, January 2008. Kraidy (Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania) discusses historical and current developments in the Arab media environment to make recommendations on the structure and conduct of U.S. public diplomacy. His public diplomacy reset includes: avoiding the polarizing rhetoric of the “global war on terror;” addressing the socioeconomic impact of globalization on Arab societies; greater reliance on “pull” media; creating a special public diplomacy advisor to the president; triple funding for Fulbright programs focused on communication, journalism, and media studies; and shutting down the U.S. government’s Al Hurra television network. (Courtesy of Ellen Frost)

Art Kleiner, “The Thought Leader Interview: Anne-Marie Slaughter,” Strategy+Business, Booz Allen Hamilton, Issue 48, Autumn 2007, pp. 1-7. Slaughter (Dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School) explains how her thinking about transgovernmental networks and the role of the state has evolved. Included in the interview are Slaughter’s views on the strengths and limitations of networks, the impact on embassy operations of emerging power relationships at the sub-state level, virtual architectures within government, psychological shifts in the roles of diplomats, and models of accountability and openness. (Courtesy of Tom Bayoumi)

Joshua Kurlantzick and Devin Stewart,“Hu’s on First?” The National Interest, No. 92, November/December 2007, pp. 63-67. The authors (both at the Carnegie Endowment) discuss the strengths and successes of China’s diplomacy and soft power, but they argue “Beijing’s may be reaching its limits” due to a lack of transparency in its domestic political system and lack of business ethics. They conclude that China’s shortcomings will delay its projection of power in Asia, but not indefinitely, and that the U.S. is missing opportunities in the region due to its preoccupation with Iraq and the Middle East.

Carnes Lord and Helle Dale, “Public Diplomacy and the Cold War: Lessons Learned,” The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder No. 2070, September 18, 2007, 1-8. Lord (U.S. Naval War College) and Dale (The Heritage Foundation) examine successful public diplomacy campaigns and methods during the Cold War in an analysis of persistent problems in American public diplomacy. Their recommendations focus on Presidential leadership; a unified vision and body of principles and doctrines, and a coherent national strategy.

Jan Melissen and Paul Sharp, eds., “Rethinking the New Public Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 2, No. 3. Melissen (Netherlands Institute of International Relations, “Clingendael”) and Sharp (University of Minnesota) continue their innovative research journal with a special issue on public diplomacy. Includes articles by:

Kathy Fitzpatrick (Quinnipiac University), “Advancing the New Public Diplomacy: A Public Relations Perspective”

R. S. Zaharna (American University), “The Soft Power Differential: Network Communication and Mass Communication in Public Diplomacy”

Craig Hayden (USC Center on Public Diplomacy), “The Role of Argument Formation”

Pierre C. Pahlavi (McGill University), “Evaluating Public Diplomacy Programme”

Giles Scott-Smith, (University of Lancaster), “The Ties That BInd: Dutch-American Relations, U.S. Public Diplomacy and the Promotion of American Studies Since the Second World War”

Barry Fulton (George Washington University), “Practitioners’ Perspectives: Geo-Social Mapping of the International Communications Environment or Why Abdul Isn’t Listening”

(Available by subscription)

Andras Szanto, ed. “What Orwell Didn’t Know: Propaganda and the New Face of American Politics,” Public Affairs, 2007. Twenty prominent scholars and journalists use the 60th anniversary of George Orwell’s classic essay, “Politics and the English Language,” to assess the role of the media and political communication today — and “to chart the complex topography of propaganda withn the new landscape of American politics.” Includes an indtroduction by Orville Schelle and essays by Geoffrey Cowan, Mark Danner, Farnaz Fassihi, Francis Fitzgerald, Konstanty Gebert, Susan Harding, Martin Kaplan, George Lakoff, Nicholas Lemann, Michael Massing, Victor Navasky, Aryeh Neier, Alice O’Connor, Francine Prose, David Rieff, George Soros, Drew Westen, and Patricia J. Williams. The essays by David Rieff, Nicholas Lemann, and Geoffrey Cowan can also be found in The Columbia Journalism Review (November/December 2007).

Sherry Ricchiardi. “Covering the World,” American Journalism Review, December 2007/January 2008, 32-39. AJR’s Ricchardi continues her long-time interest in global news coverage with an in-depth look at the overseas operations of the Associated Press. Her article profiles personalities and looks at AP’s evolving approaches to priorities, training, news analysis, and the safety of reporters.

Walter R. Roberts, “What is Public Diplomacy? Past Practices, Present Conduct, Possible Future,” Mediterranean Quarterly, Fall 2007, Vol. 18, No. 4. Roberts (public diplomat, teacher, and co-founder of GW’s Public Diplomacy Institute) continues his inquiry into the history and meaning of public diplomacy as practiced by the United States during the 20th century. His article develops judgments on the relevance of this history to the future of diplomacy and the policy process. Available by subscription.

Marc Sageman. Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-First Century, (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008). The author of Understanding Terror Networks (2004) analyzes the evolution of terror networks into more fluid and scattered global leaderless networks connected by the Internet — “a multitude of informal local groups trying to emulate their predecessors by conceiving and executing operations from the bottom up.” Sagemen challenges many of the central tenets of a militarized and excessively ideological U.S. strategy against terrorist networks. His strategic proposals assume that global Islamist terrorism is a self-limiting threat and draw on lessons from George Kennan’s containment logic. Central to his recommendations are demilitarization of the conflict, steps that “take the glory out of terrorism,” policy actions that reduce moral outrage, less emphasis on ideology and religion, and elimination of social and economic discrimination against Muslims, particularly in Western Europe.

“Smart Power: John J. Hamre Talks with Joseph Nye and Richard Armitage,” The American Interest, Vol. III, No. 2, November/December 2007, pp. 34-41. Nye (Harvard) and Armitage (former Deputy Secretary of State) respond to questions from Hamre (President and CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies) on the report of the Center’s Commission on Smart Power. Contains their definitions of smart power and public diplomacy, their views on threats and opportunities in national security strategy, and a summary of key judgments in the report co-chaired by Nye and Armitage. Available by subscription.

J. Michael Waller, The Public Diplomacy Reader, (Washington, DC: The Institute of World Politics Press, 2007). Professor Waller (Institute of World Politics) has compiled a collection of approximately 150 short readings — “slices of public diplomacy” from thinkers, practitioners, presidents, advisory panels, and legislation — with a primary focus on the American public diplomacy tradition (from the Continental Congress to the present). Categories include definitions and uses of public diplomacy, the power of ideas and values, truth and trust, cultural diplomacy, humanitarian public diplomacy, religion and public diplomacy, broadcasting, words and language, psychological planning and strategy, public diplomacy and propaganda, counterpropaganda, public diplomacy after 9/11, technology, citizens as public diplomats, and legal texts.