Category: Bruce Gregory’s Resource List

Jarret M. Brachman. “High Tech Terror: Al Qaeda’s Use of New Technology,” The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 30 (Summer, 2006), 149-164. Brachman, Director of Research at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center, argues Al Qaeda is no longer best conceived as an “organization, a network, or even a network of networks.” It has become an Internet-based “organic social movement” whose strategic use of web-based technology is a more enduring and lethal threat than its operational objectives. Brachman examines Al Qaeda’s use of video games, discussion forums, and other techniques; the views of Syrian-born Internet strategist Abu Musab al-Suri; and the need for strategic level responses that go beyond monitoring Al Qaeda websites for operational information.

“Focus on Public Diplomacy.” Foreign Service Journal, 83, October 2006, 19-52. The Journal devotes most of its October issue to five articles on the current state of public diplomacy.

— Shawn Zeller (Congressional Quarterly writer),“Damage Control: Karen Hughes Does PD,” 19-26.

— Patricia H. Kushlis and Patricia L. Sharpe (retired USIA Foreign Service Officers and creators of the blog WhirledView ), “Public Diplomacy Matters More Than Ever,” 27-32.

— Robert J. Callahan, (State Department Foreign Service Officer, currently a Public Diplomacy Fellow at George Washington University), “Neither Madison Avenue Nor Hollywood,” 33-38.

— Richard T. Arndt, (retired USIA and State Department Foreign Service Officer and author of The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century ), “Rebuilding America’s Cultural Diplomacy,” 39-43.

— Joe Johnson, (retired USIA and State Department Foreign Service Officer), “How Does Public Diplomacy Measure Up?” 44-52.

John Lewis Gaddis. “The Gardner,” The New Republic, October 16, 2006, 26-32. Yale historian Gaddis provides a thoughtful assessment of Robert L. Beisner’s massive new biography ( Dean Acheson: A Life in the Cold War, Oxford University Press, 2006, 768 pp.). Gaddis argues that George Kennan was most influential in conceptualizing Truman’s grand strategy but, as Beisner argues, “it was Acheson who planted Kennan’s thinking in Truman’s mind, who won domestic support for it, and who persuaded allies of its logic and feasibility.” The recent quest for Truman era models in shaping current strategies should include a fresh look at Acheson’s formidable public diplomacy skills. Beisner’s biography (and James Chace’s Acheson: The Secretary of State Who Created the American World, 1999) are useful for public diplomacy practitioners and scholars interested in doing so.

“The Global Race For Knowledge: Is America Losing” The Wilson Quarterly, 30 (Autumn, 2006), 29-58. The Quarterly’s editors invite five authors to examine the concept of a knowledge economy, strengths and weaknesses in America’s universities, efforts to “close the gap” in China, Germany, and India, distinctions between quantity and quality in “knowledge industries,” and whether “we are impoverished if our neighbor gains in knowledge.” Includes articles by:

— Christopher Clausen, “The New Ivory Tower,” (the American knowledge industry), 31-36.

— Sheila Melvin, “China’s College Revolution,” 37-44.

— Mitchell G. Ash, “The Humboldt Illusion,” (Germany’s state-based universities), 45-48.

— Philip G. Altbach, “Tiny at the Top,” (India’s colleges and universities), 49-51.

— Michael Lind, “Why the Liberal Arts Still Matter,” 52-58.

Jurgen Habermas. The Divided West, (Polity Press, 2006), edited and translated by Ciaron Cronin. In this collection of essays and interviews, one of Europe’s leading intellectuals looks at political events since 9/11. Habermas challenges “hegemonic liberal” concepts driving America’s “aggressive unilateralism” and refines his views on the need for networks of public discourse in transnational and supranational governance. Contains chapters on fundamentalism and terrorism; Habermas’s contrasting views on the Kosovo and Iraq wars; the evolution of international law; and new thinking on global public opinion, democratic legitimacy, and discourse beyond the state level. (Courtesy of Donna Oglesby)

G. John Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter. Forging a World of Liberty Under Law: U.S. National Security in the 21st Century, The Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, September 27, 2006. The final report of the Princeton Project on National Security offers a strategy tailored to a world that lacks single organizing principles such as anti-facism or anti-communism. Findings are driven by six criteria: (1) multidimensional deployment of different tools for different situations on a moment’s notice; (2) integrated hard and soft power; (3) interest-based, rather than threat-based, frameworks of cooperation; (4) policies grounded in hope rather than fear; (5) strengthening the domestic capacity, integrity, and accountability of other governments; and (6) adaptation to a world “where information moves instantly, actors respond to it instantly, and specialized small units come together for only a limited time for a defined purpose.”

Separate reports include those of a Working Group on Foreign Policy Infrastructure and Global Institutions, co-chaired by Joseph Nye and Anne Marie Slaughter, and a Working Group on Anti-Americanism, co-chaired by Tod Lindburg and Suzanne Nossel.
[1]

Michael Isikoff and David Corn. Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, (Crown Publishers, 2006). Isikoff, Newsweek’s investigative correspondent, and Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, chronicle events leading to war in Iraq. Their contribution to the lengthy shelf of books on the subject is useful for its detailed account of the role of the news media and activities of White House communicators Karen Hughes, Dan Bartlett, Ari Fleisher, Scott McClellan, Jim Wilkinson, and Michael Gerson. Useful for those studying the Administration’s use of communication strategies to build political consent for the war.

Joshua Kurlantzick. “China’s Charm Offensive in Southeast Asia,” Current History, September 2006, 270-276. Kurlantzick, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment, examines China’s image transformation in Southeast Asia as a consequence in part of a rise in China’s soft power and expanded public diplomacy. China’s public diplomacy tools include expanded cultural exchanges, volunteer service projects analogous to the Peace Corps, museum exhibits, upgraded Xinhua news service content in languages other than English and Chinese, expanded and more professional international broadcasting from Chinese state television (CCTV), business and cultural networks, Chinese language study, cultural institutes (Confucius Centers), and a younger generation of trained, language qualified diplomats many of whom serve three or four rotational tours in one country.

Carnes Lord. Losing Hearts and Minds: Public Diplomacy and Strategic Influence in the Age of Terror, (Praeger Security International, 2006). Lord (Naval War College, former director of international information and communications policy on President Reagan’s National Security Council staff) looks comprehensively at historical, definitional, conceptual, political, operational, cultural, and organizational issues in public diplomacy as part of a wider domain that he calls strategic influence. Includes a critique of Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power; arguments for rethinking the organization and direction of White House, State Department, Defense Department, and international broadcasting public diplomacy and influence activities; and Lord’s case for understanding “the pathologies of our subject” and radical reforms comparable to those underway in homeland security and intelligence in a nation that “is at war, and may remain so for years to come.” (Courtesy of John Brown)

Joshua Muravchik. “How to Save the Neocons,” Foreign Policy, November/December, 2006, 64-68. Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, offers advice in a “memo” to his “fellow neoconservatives.” Muravchik calls on neocons to admit past mistakes, “fix the public diplomacy mess,” and begin to make the intellectual and advocacy case for bombing Iran. Muravchik’s idea of effective public diplomacy includes “something akin to the Congress of Cultural Freedom of the Cold War,” a global circle of intellectuals and public figures who will speak out on democracy in today’s ideological wars, and foreign service officers trained to wage ideological warfare in the manner of the anti-Communist “Lovestonites” (labor leader Jay Lovestone) of the early Cold War.

Sherry Ricchiardi. “The Limits of the Parachute,” American Journalism Review, 28 (October/November, 2006), 40-47. AJR’s senior writer looks at the downsides of cuts in foreign bureaus by major news organizations and the rise of “flood the zone, event driven coverage.” Her conclusion: “there’s no substitute for coverage by correspondents based in a region and knowledgeable about its history and culture.”

Cynthia P. Schneider. “Cultural Diplomacy: Hard to Define, But You’d Know It If You Saw It,” The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 13 (Fall/Winter, 2006), 191-201. Schneider (Georgetown University, former U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands) discusses past successes, current challenges, and potential strategies in cultural diplomacy. She offers her own definition of cultural diplomacy as a content provider for public diplomacy through “the use of creative expression and exchanges of ideas, information,. and people to increase mutual understanding.” Cultural diplomacy, she argues, suffers from inattention in all the reports on public diplomacy and from US government lip service and lack of funds.

Shibley Telhami, Brian Katulis, Jon B. Alterman, and Milton Viorst. “Symposium: Middle Eastern Views of the United States: What Do the Trends Indicate?” Middle East Policy, 13, (Fall 2006), 1-28. In a transcript of a conference chaired by retired ambassador Chas Freeman in July 2006, Telhami (University of Maryland), Katulis (Center for American Progress), Alterman (Center for Strategic and International Studies), and Viorst (author of Storm from the East) discuss regional attitudes and political issues drawing on polling data, media analysis, trends in the use of web-based technologies, history, expert opinion, and anecdotal evidence. Includes their views on public diplomacy strategies, US Arabic language international broadcasting, and cross border flows of people and ideas.

U.S. General Accountability Office. [www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-762 U.S. International Broadcasting: Management of Middle East Broadcasting Services Could Be Improved,] Report to Rep. Christopher Shays, Chairman, Subcommittee on International Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, House of Representatives, GAO-06-762, August 4, 2006. GAO’s 69-page report finds that, although U.S. Arabic-language radio and television broadcasting services have taken steps to address challenges from competitors, they fall short in a number of areas: (1) lack of a comprehensive, long-term strategic plan, (2) strengthened systems of internal financial and administrative controls, (3) insufficient editorial training and program reviews, and (4) weaknesses in survey and reporting methods used to measure “audience size and program credibility.”

Eric Umansky. “Failures of Imagination: American Journalists and the Coverage of American Torture,” Columbia Journalism Review, September/October, 2006, 16-31. Umansky, a fellow at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, looks at the pluses, minuses, and ambiguities in the media’s coverage of the abuse and torture of detainees since 9/11. Includes analysis of Congressional reluctance to engage the issue, communication strategies of political leaders, the ambivalence of many Americans, and a timeline of key events. Umansky argues the press on balance has been reluctant to believe that Americans would engage in torture and to expose torture in the context of terrorism.

Carnegie Endowment Arabic Language Website. The Carnegie Endowment has launched an Arabic-language web portal “designed to reach new audiences and broaden access to Carnegie’s growing volume of Arabic publications.” It features an Arabic version of Carnegie’s Arab Reform Bulletin. Also included are translations of Carnegie papers and commentaries on the Middle East and related subjects, as well as writings published originally in Arabic.

“Design, Culture, Identity: The Wolfsonian Collection”, The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts, Issue 24, Published by The Wolfsonian – Florida International University, 2002. Edited by Joel Hoffman, vice director for education and program development at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, this extensive catalog (283 pages) examines European decorative arts, design, and architecture in the late 20th century as reflected in holdings collected by Mitchell Wolfson, Jr. Essays (with numerous color images) explore aspects of design, cultural context, the work of individual artists, and “the meaning of objects as agents and reflections of social, political, and technological change.” Includes essays on Soviet Socialist Realism in the decorative arts, Hungarian design in the early 20th century, the development of “propagandistic images” in Italian material culture during World War I, and assessments of the relationship between art and politics in American art in the 1920s and 1930s. Available through Amazon.com. (Courtesy of Ann Grasso)

Kathy Fitzpatrick and Carolyn Bronstein, Eds. “Ethics in Public Relations: Responsible Advocacy, Sage Publications,” 2006. Essays in Fitzpatrick and Bronstein’s new book address ethical issues in public relations and the importance of ethical guidelines in “professional advocacy” — “individual accountability, informed decision-making, multicultural understanding, relationship building, open communication, dialogue, truth and transparency, and integrity.” Public diplomacy scholars and practitioners will find the following especially useful:

– Kathy Fitzpatrick (DePaul University), “Baselines for Ethical Advocacy in the ‘Marketplace of Ideas”

– Linda Hon (University of Florida), “Negotiating Relationships with Activist Publics”

– Kirk Hallahan (Colorado State University), “Responsible Online Communication”

– Philip Seib (Marquette University), “The Ethics of Public Diplomacy”

– Donald K. Wright (University of South Alabama), “Advocacy Across Borders”

Jami Fullerton and Alice Kendrick. Advertising’s War on Terrorism: The Story of the U.S. State Department’s Shared Values Campaign, Marquette Books, 2006. Fullerton (Oklahoma State University) and Kendrick (Southern Methodist University) have written a case study of the controversial Shared Values television ads developed by Charlotte Beers, former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, and the advertising agency McCann-Erickson. The authors base their study on extensive documentary research; interviews with Beers, retired diplomats Chris Ross and Joe Johnson, and others involved with the project; and results of their own research based on showing the ads to Muslim and other international students (they argue the ads could have been successful). They are open to the use of advertising and other marketing tools in public diplomacy and urge more research by scholars and practitioners. The Shared Values ads can be viewed on their website.

Peter W. Galbraith. The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End, Simon & Schuster, 2006. The former U.S. ambassador to Croatia and Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff member draws on his knowledge of Iraq, the aspirations of Iraq’s Kurds, Washington politics, and national security process to analyze strategic miscalculations in America’s war and nation-building policies. Galbraith questions the viability of an Iraqi state and makes his case for a three-state solution. Contains references to the Voice of America, CNN, and other media influences.

Philip Fiske de Gouveia. “European Infopolitik: Developing EU Public Diplomacy”, London, The Foreign Policy Centre, November 2005. De Gouveia, director of the Centre’s Public Diplomacy Programme, contends the EU’s needed and unrealized “enormous public diplomacy potential” is rooted in disjointed strategy and implementation. Overcoming political and administrative obstacles to an integrated EU public diplomacy “has much to offer the Union in its approach to a host of issues including relations with the USA and China, accession negotiations with Turkey, and the effective management of migration into the EU.” Contains strategic, policy, and organizational recommendations. Can be downloaded from the Centre’s website as a pdf file.

Peter A Furia and Russell E. Lucas. “Determinants of Arab Public Opinion on Foreign Relations,” International Studies Quarterly, 50, September 2006, 585-605. Furia (Wake Forest University) and Lucas (Florida International University) analyze Zogby polling data from seven Arab states and determinants of Arab public opinion toward 13 non-Arab states. Their quantitative analysis finds “few statistically significant relationships” based on traditional “realist,” “liberal,” “Marxist,” and “cultural” variables in international relations literature. Instead, “Arab publics evaluate non-Arab countries based in large part on their relatively recent foreign policy actions throughout the Middle East.” Furia and Lucas also examine competing identity frames such as “Arab nationalism, country-centered nationalisms, and Islamist identifications.”

S. E. Graham. “The (Real)politiks of Culture: U.S. Cultural Diplomacy in UNESCO, 1946-1954,” Diplomatic History, 30, April, 2006, 231-251. Graham (Australian National University) examines “the politicization of culture,” ” U.S. efforts to generate an anti-Communist consensus” within UNESCO, and the effect of U.S. policies on Western allies during the organization’s early years. She argues that “political pragmatism and the pursuit of cultural prestige” soon overshadowed the global humanism objectives of UNESCO’s cosmopolitan founders – and that U.S. policies and financial dominance were leading factors in the “politicization of culture” within UNESCO as the Cold War emerged.

Nicolas Guilhot. The Democracy Makers: Human Rights and the Politics of Global Order, Columbia University Press, 2005. Guilhot, a research associate at the Centre de Sociologie Europeenne, provides a comprehensive analysis of intellectual, political, and institutional developments in U.S. democratization and human rights policies since the 1950s. He examines the tangled relations of scholars, universities, think tanks, international organizations, and activist NGOs that have collaborated with U.S. agencies to export democracy. His book includes lengthy sections on the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Ford Foundation, the US Agency for International Development and the Department of State. Guilot raises central questions at the intersections of democratization policies and scholarship, government and civil society, and power and values.

David Halpern. Social Capital, Polity Press, 2005. Halpern, a senior advisor to British PM Tony Blair and Lecturer at the University of Cambridge, provides an accessible and comprehensive introduction to “everyday networks,” the social customs and bonds that keep them together and facilitate individual and collective action. Influenced by Harvard’s Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone, 2000), Halpern’s study contains insights into a growing academic literature from a range of disciplines, contributing factors in the construction and decline of social networks, governance and policy implications, and the capacity of social capital to harm and exclude.

“The Islamic Imagery Project: Visual Motifs in Jihadi Internet Propaganda”, Combating Terrorism Center, United States Military Academy. West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center has created an open source catalog of graphics, photographs, and symbols used by jihadist groups on the Internet. Includes analysis of imagery used to characterize enemies, communicate strategy and objectives, and recruit adherents. Available for viewing online or in pdf format. (Courtesy of Tom Bayoumi)

Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein. The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track, Oxford University Press, 2006. U.S. public diplomacy no longer lacks attention or advice. Congressional oversight and durable institutional reforms, however, are in short supply. Seasoned Congress watchers Mann (Brookings) and Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute) provide some of the underlying reasons in their sweeping critique of a legislative branch that is “dysfunctional,” “unnecessarily partisan,” and unable “to do meaningful oversight. “The “decline in deliberation” has compromised the system of checks and balances and contributed to “shoddy and questionable” domestic and international policies.

Shushama Rajapakasa and Lauren Dundes. “Can Humanitarianism Instill Good Will? American Tsunami Aid and Sri Lankan Reactions,” International Studies Perspectives, 7, August 2006, 231-238. Rajapakasa (Westat, Inc.) and Dundes (McDaniel College) surveyed 478 English speaking Sri Lankans on attitudes toward the U.S. government, the American people, and U.S. policy initiatives unrelated to Tsunami aid. Acknowledging the survey’s limitations (the small sample was limited to generally well educated Sri Lankans who had not lost friends or family to the Tsunami, convenience sampling, and implementation during the initial euphoria over aid pledged), the authors nevertheless conclude their data suggest humanitarian aid has the potential to increase goodwill toward Americans and may result in broadened support for unrelated policies. Available online from the International Studies Association through Blackwell Publishing.

Sherry Ricchiardi. “The Forgotten War”, American Journalism Review, August/September 2006, 48-55. AJR’s Ricchiardi continues her writing on foreign media coverage with an in-depth look at reasons behind the relative disinterest in reporting the war in Afghanistan. Her article examines contrasting approaches to coverage by American news organizations and calls for a stronger commitment to the story in view of the stakes and potential consequences of underreporting.

Walter R. Roberts. “The Evolution of Diplomacy,” Mediterranean Quarterly, 17, Summer 2006, 55-64. Roberts, a diplomat and scholar who has practiced and thought deeply about diplomacy, examines its evolution during the past 60 years – from what was primarily a government-to-government relationship to today’s broader concept that includes government-to-people diplomacy, or public diplomacy. Contains insights from Roberts’ diplomatic career, his association with Ambassador George Kennan in the former Yugoslavia, and his analysis of public diplomacy in the context of international treaties relating to diplomatic practice. His article is particularly useful for its discussion of the Vienna Convention of 1961 and the less well known 1927 Havana Convention.

Ole Jacob Sending and Iver B. Neuman. “Governance to Governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, States, and Power,” International Studies Quarterly, 50, September 2006, 651-672. In this important article, Sending and Neuman, scholars at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, challenge central claims in global governance literature (e.g., Rosenau, Nye, Sikkink) regarding the devolution of power from states to nonstate actors and consequent transfers of political authority to transnational networks. Drawing on Michel Foucault’s concept of governmentality, Sending and Neuman argue instead that the role of nonstate actors “is an expression of a changing logic or rationality of government” and that “the self-association and political will formation of the civil society and nonstate actors . . . is a most central feature of how power operates in late modern society.” Their article contains a critical review of the literature on governance and focuses on two case studies: the campaign to ban landmines and transnational advocacy in public health and population policies.

John Brown. “Three Schools of Thought on Culture and Foreign Policy During the Cold War,” Place Branding: A Quarterly Review of Branding, Marketing and Public Diplomacy for National, Regional and Civic Development, Issue 4 (November 2005). Brown’s essay on recent books about the role of culture in international relations during the Cold War is now available in the journal Place Branding. His three schools: (1) U.S. cultural programs effectively contributed to opening repressive societies; (2) narratives that reflect leftist suspicion of U.S. power: and (3) a category in between that acknowledges doubts and raises concerns. Brown is a retired U.S. diplomat and compiler of USC Annenberg’s Public Diplomacy Press Review.

Place Branding is a journal devoted to “the practice of applying brand strategy and other marketing techniques and disciplines to the economic, social, political and cultural development of cities, regions and countries.”

Download Brown’s essay at no cost from his USC PD website (scroll down to item C).

Steven R. Corman and Jill S. Schiefelbein. Communication and Media in the Jihadi War of Ideas, Consortium for Strategic Communication, Arizona State University, April 20, 2006. The authors of this paper look at goals and means in communication strategies used by groups promoting jihad. Relying on open source documents, many of which have been released by the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center, the paper looks at a variety of strategies with particular emphasis on jihadist use of the Internet. Includes recommendations based on the analysis. (Courtesy of Tom Bayoumi)

Thomas Carothers. “Responding to the Democracy Promotion Backlash,” Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, June 8, 2006. The director of the Carnegie Endowment’s Democracy and Rule of Law Project analyzes difficulties in U.S. government and NGO democracy assistance programs prompted by U.S. policies (the Iraq war as the leading edge of U.S. democratization); the “color revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan; strengthened non-democratic regimes due to high oil and gas prices; and other factors. Carothers offers recommendations to NGOs (strategy adjustments) and the U.S. Government (policy adjustments including not confusing regime change with democracy promotion, changes in prisoner detention and interrogation policies, not taking sides in foreign elections, reducing the double standard in differentiating between countries helpful and not helpful to U.S. interests, and increased partnership with European governments and international organizations).

Philip Evans. “Perspectives: From Reciprocity to Reputation,” The Boston Consulting Group, April 6, 2006. In this brief essay in a series on networks and transaction costs, a senior vice president for the Boston Consulting Group looks at how technology is “driving the substitution of one form of trust for another: reputation for reciprocity.” Evans contends that cheap, multiple, and redundant information channels can create trust relationships based not on thin, mutually dependent reciprocal signals, but on reputations that emerge from network “trust technologies.” For example, in a blogosphere where millions “vote” with hyperlink clicks, top bloggers gain “authority” in their content domain through navigation services that analyze citations and traffic patterns.

Josef Joffe. Uberpower: The Imperial Temptation of America, (W.W. Norton & Company, 2006). Die Zeit’s editor and longtime observer of U.S. foreign policy examines the gap between American power and legitimacy and complexities in the world’s anti-Americanism and non-military forms of “balancing.” Joffe cautions both sides: the U.S. must “match self-interest with obligation,” power with responsibility; the world should reevaluate the roots and consequences of its anti-Americanism. Useful for its detailed analysis of forms of hard and soft power, deficiencies in American grand strategy, varieties of anti-Americanism, and the range of balancing options available to opponents of American power.

Andrew Kohut and Bruce Stokes. America Against the World: How We Are Different, Why We are Disliked, (Henry Holt and Company, 2006). Based extensively on survey data collected by the Pew Global Attitudes Project (and others), the authors examine how American attitudes and values differ from other publics — and how those differences are manifest in attitudes toward the United States. One stop shopping for those interested in what surveys show about anti-Americanism and views of global publics on democracy, globalization, unilateralism, business, religion, social attitudes, use of military force, the role of government, and the role of individuals in society.

Mark Leonard, Andrew Small, and Martin Rose. [www.fpc.org.uk/fsblob/407.pdf British Public Diplomacy in the Age of Schisms], Foreign Policy Centre and Counterpoint, 2005. In this collaborative project, two UK think tanks call for reexamination of the way Britain is perceived in the world consequent to its role in the Iraq war. The paper looks broadly at six political, religious, and economic “cultural divides” and calls for “a new public diplomacy” focused on mapping these schisms and bridging them through long-term efforts focused on mutuality and trust rather than message delivery. The Foreign Policy Centre was launched by PM Tony Blair. Counterpoint is the British Council’s think tank on “Cultural Relations and Public Diplomacy.”

Douglas McGray. “Lost in America,” Foreign Policy, May/June 2006, pp. 40-48. McGray, a fellow at the New America Foundation, looks at challenges of globalization and deficiencies in the study of global languages, politics, culture, and history in U.S. schools. Includes a brief discussion of the U.S. government’s National Security Language Initiative and efforts in America’s business and education communities to foster foreign language study. A sidebar by journalist Michael Erard discusses ways China is making it easier for foreigners to learn Mandarin.

Jan Melissen, ed., The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, Macmillan, 2005). Melissen, Director of the Clingendael Diplomatic Studies Programme at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations, has edited a strong collection of essays supporting the proposition that public diplomacy is “more than a technical instrument of foreign policy: it has become part of the changing fabric of international relations.” Essays include:
— Jan Melissen, “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice”
— Brian Hocking (Loughborough University), “Rethinking the ‘New’ Public Diplomacy”
— Peter van Ham (Netherlands Institute of International Relations), “Power, Public Diplomacy, and the Pax Americana”
— Alan K. Henrikson (Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy), “Niche Diplomacy in the World Public Arena: the Global ‘Corners’ of Canada and Norway”
— Ingrid d’Hooghe (Netherlands Institute of International Relations), “Public Diplomacy in the People’s Republic of China”
— Paul Sharp (University of Minnesota), “Revolutionary States, Outlaw Regimes and the Techniques of Public Diplomacy”
— Anna Michalski (Netherlands Institute of International Relations), “The EU as a Soft Power: the Force of Persuasion”
— Cynthia Schneider (Georgetown University), “Culture Communicates: US Diplomacy That Works”
— Wally Olins (Saffron Brand Consultants), “Making a National Brand”
— Shaun Riordan (ZEIA SL) “Dialogue-based Public Diplomacy: a New Foreign Policy Paradigm”
— John Hemery (Centre for Political and Diplomatic Studies) “Training for Public Diplomacy: an Evolutionary Perspective”

Hugh Miles. “Al Jazeera,” Foreign Policy, July/August, 2006, pp. 20-24. In FP’s “Think Again” feature, the author of Al Jazeera: The Inside Story of the Arab News Channel that is Challenging the West (2005), takes a measured look at attitudes toward Al Jazeera in the U.S. and the Arab world. Miles examines conventional arguments: AJ supports terrorism (“False”), AJ is anti-Semitic (“Wrong”), AJ is spreading political freedom (“Wishful Thinking”), AJ is biased (“True”), AJ is censored (“Not Yet”), AJ wants to compete with CNN and BBC (“Yes, and it plans to”), only Arabs will watch AJ International (“Not so Fast”).

The Pew Global Attitudes Project. America’s Image Slips, But Allies Share U.S. Concerns Over Iran, Hamas, June 13, 2006. The Pew Research Center’s latest annual survey finds “America’s global image has again slipped and support for the war on terrorism has declined even among close allies like Japan.” Favorable opinions of the U.S. have fallen in most of the 15 countries surveyed, despite some positive feelings in 2005 due in part to US aid for tsunami victims. The U.S. and major allies share concerns over Iran and Hamas in contrast to opinions in predominantly Muslim countries.

Steven Poole. Unspeak : How Words Become Weapons, How Weapons Become a Message, and How That Message Becomes Reality, (New York: Grove Press, 2006). Poole, an author and writer for The Guardian, discusses the uses of language and the construction of meaning through political speech. Drawing on numerous anecdotes, Poole looks at language choices by politicians, governments, interest groups, and the media. Contains extensive references to the Bush administration’s word choices in connection with terrorism, freedom and democracy, and the war in Iraq — plus two pages on public diplomacy as a euphemism for propaganda.

Daniel Shulman. “Mind Games,” Columbia Journalism Review, May/June 2006, pp. 39-49. CJR’s associate editor examines theory and practice in the U.S. military’s information operations after the attacks of 9/11. Issues discussed include: concepts and blurred lines between public affairs and psychological operations, the rise and demise of the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Influence, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s Information Operations Roadmap and transformation of military information operations, concerns by journalists and retired military officers about the military’s information policies, and a recent call for a review of those policies by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Julia E. Sweig. Friendly Fire: Losing Friends and Making Enemies in the Anti-American Century, (Public Affairs, 2006). Sweig, a senior fellow for Latin American studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, analyzes roots of anti-Americanism during the Cold War and the domestic politics and identities of countries in Europe, Asia, and Latin America that have moved away from traditions of close relations with the United States. Her book concludes with suggestions for change that include government funded public diplomacy programs if they complement changes in policy, manners, and respect for international institutions.

U.S. General Accountability Office, U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Efforts to Engage Muslim Audiences Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face Significant Challenges, GAO-06-535, Washington, DC, May 2006. GAO’s 60-page examination of State’s public diplomacy finds increases in overseas operations budgets and some promise in State’s announced transformational diplomacy initiative. GAO develops at length, however, its findings that State and overseas missions lack “important strategic communication elements found in the private sector” which GAO and others have recommended. Includes discussion of challenges created by the need to balance security with outreach, staff shortages, insufficient language capabilities, and the need for more systematic sharing of best practices in public diplomacy.

U.S. General Accountability Office, U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Efforts Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face Significant Challenges, Testimony before the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC, May 3, 2006. A shorter statement of findings in the May 2006 report on State Department Efforts to Engage Muslim Audiences. Includes additional comments drawing on GAO’s reports in 2003 and 2005 that the U.S. lacks an interagency communication strategy to guide government-wide public diplomacy activities. Both documents provide information on public diplomacy activities of USAID, the Defense Department, and other agencies.

U.S. Department of State. Jazz Ambassadors Program Evaluation, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, May 15, 2005. Conducted by AMS Planning and Research Corp. and Philliber Research Associates, the evaluation assesses the program’s “effectiveness in fostering mutual understanding, serving as a mechanism of public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy, targeting and reaching key audiences, extending awareness of American cultural heritage, and offering unique opportunities for musical education and training.” The evaluation is described as “the first of a major Cultural Exchange program at the U.S. Department of State.” For a copy of the report, call (202) 453-8808 or email pdevaluations@state.gov.

– One Page Summary

– Executive Summary

Wilton Park Conference, Public Diplomacy: Key Challenges and Priorities, Report of a conference co-sponsored by the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Foreign Affairs Canada, and the US Embassy in London, WPS06/21, March 10-12. In this 12-page conference summary, Dr. Ann Lane, summarizes the main points discussed by participants: definitions of public diplomacy, partnerships within and outside government, public diplomacy and “the war on terror,” two way public diplomacy, branding, measurement and evaluation, bridging public diplomacy and policy, the blogosphere, and harnessing non-governmental actors. (Courtesy of Barry Zorthian)

Peter Bergen and Swati Pandy. ” The Madrassa Scapegoat,” The Washington Quarterly, Spring 2006, pp. 117-125. The New America Foundation’s Bergen and Los Angeles Times researcher Pandy argue that “madrassas generally cannot produce the skilled terrorists capable of committing or organizing attacks” and should not be a national security concern. Thinking of madrassas as threats and cracking down on them does more harm than good. The authors suggest madrassas do pose a problem because they undermine educational development and spawn sectarian violence, especially in Pakistan. They call for nuanced understanding of religious schools and differences in curricula in different countries and regions.

Robert J. Callahan. “A View From the Embassy,” American Journalism Review, April/May, 2006. Callahan, a career foreign service officer on assignment as a public diplomacy fellow at George Washington University, provides insights into challenges facing journalists and diplomats in Iraq during his year as press attache in Baghdad (June 2004 -May 2005).

Leon Fuerth. “Strategic Myopia: The Case for Forward Engagement,” The National Interest, Spring 2006, pp. 57-62. Vice President Gore’s national security advisor, now a research professor at George Washington University, argues that America’s ability to “foresee and respond to increasingly complex and networked threats is handicapped by an archaic and compartmentalized interagency system that dates from the Cold War.” Government processes in all elements of statecraft (including public diplomacy) reflect mindsets that divide rather than link and that too heavily discount forward planning in favor of the near-term. Fuerth calls for ambitious reforms that focus on flexible, task-oriented networks designed to be retrofitted to the current system of organizational “stove-pipes.”

Francis Fukuyama. America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power and the NeoConservative Legacy, (Yale University Press, 2006). This new book by the author of The End of History and the Last Man — which is drawing attention for its critique of the Iraq War and fissures among neoconservatives — is useful to public diplomacy teachers and students for other reasons. Fukuyama calls for rethinking the design of “U.S. soft-power institutions,” casts a critical eye on overheated global war on terrorism rhetoric, and urges a foreign policy that focuses “primarily on good governance, political accountability, democracy, and strong institutions.”

Dana Gioia. “Cool Jazz and Cold War: Dana Gioia Interviews Dave Brubeck,” The American Interest, Spring 2006, pp. 82-86. National Endowment for the Arts Chairman Gioia talks with jazz legend Brubeck about cultural diplomacy, the Jazz Ambassadors program, his experiences touring under U.S. State Department auspices, and the power of jazz as a medium of cultural exchange.

Stephen Hess. Through Their Eyes: Foreign Correspondents in the United States, (Brookings Institution Press, 2005). Hess, professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University and senior fellow emeritus at Brookings, examines mindsets of foreign journalists, how they work and report, and their influence in shaping how the world views the United States. Based on interviews and survey results, Hess’s book contains chapters on the State Department’s foreign press centers and the impact of the Internet on how foreign correspondents gather and report news and information. (Courtesy of Marta Vartanova)

Irving Louis Horowitz. “The Struggle for Democracy,” The National Interest, Spring 2006, pp. 114-120. Rutgers University’s Hannah Arendt Professor Emeritus examines three democracy models: Robert Dahl’s political institutions model, James Gibson’s and Aaron Wildavsky’s cultural habits model, and John Rawls’ distributive justice model. Horowitz argues the Bush democratization strategy contains elements of all three models. It lacks a sense of history and a coherent definition of democracy, however, that “creates ambiguity rather than clarity” in the execution of its strategy.

“Jihad, McWorld, Modernity: Public Intellectuals Debate ‘The Clash of Civilizations.'”, Spring-Summer, 2006, pp. 85-260. Skidmore College’s Quarterly of the Humanities and Social Sciences publishes an edited transcript of a 2004 symposium with participants Benjamin Barber (University of Maryland), Martha Nussbaum (University of Chicago), Peter Singer (Princeton University), Breyten Breytenbach (New York University), Orlando Patterson (Harvard University), Guity Nashat (University of Illinois, Chicago), Akeel Bilgrami (Columbia University), James Miller (Editor in Chief of Daedalus), Vlaidimir Tismaneanu (University of Maryland), Carolyn Forche (Skidmore College), and Robert Boyers (author of The Dictator’s Dictation). Also included: interviews with author Tzvetan Todorv and Fred Halliday (London School of Economics) and an essay by Regina Janes (Skidmore College), “Heads or Tails: the Clash of Civilizations.”

Jeffrey Kopstein. “The Transatlantic Divide Over Democracy Promotion,” The Washington Quarterly, Spring 2006, pp. 85-98. University of Toronto professor Kopstein assesses a European approach to democratization that emphasizes a top-down appreciation for institution building and the role of the state and an American approach that focuses on civil society, political parties, and elections. He discusses European wariness of the U.S. zeal and use of regime change and American concerns about the EU’s preoccupation with strengthening existing democracies in post-Communist Europe. Kopstein concludes that a division of labor is discernible and achievable.

Marc Lynch. “Al-Qaeda’s Media Strategies,” The National Interest, Spring 2006, pp. 50-56. Lynch examines Al-Qaeda’s relationship with Arab media, Bin Laden and Zawarhiri’s media strategies, the migration of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other jihadists from satellite TV to the Internet, and Arab media coverage of Bin Laden’s videos and the Iraqi insurgency. He finds that U.S. public diplomacy has improved under Karen Hughes, but the USG’s Al-Hurra satellite television station, “a costly white elephant with few viewers is disappearing with hardly a trace in the Arab media environment.” Overall, the U.S. needs a better understanding of “real arguments Arabs are having among themselves.” Lynch, a professor of political science at Williams College, is the author of Voices of the New Arab Public (2006).

Brian Angus McKenzie. Remaking France: Americanization, Public Diplomacy, and the Marshall Plan, (New York: Berghahn Books, 2006). McKenzie, a visiting professor of history at Dickinson College, has written a case study of U.S. public diplomacy in France after World War II. Drawing on State Department and U.S. Information Agency records at the National Archives, the Archives Nationales in Paris, oral histories at the George C. Marshall Foundation, and extensive secondary materials, he offers an account of debates on Americanization, the cultural impact of the Marshall Plan, and the impact and limitations of U.S. public diplomacy, a term he applies retrospectively. The study is useful also for its inquiry into concepts of Americanization, globalization, cultural transformation, and subsequent uses of the “myth of the Marshall Plan.”

Jan Melissen. “Reflections on Public Diplomacy Today,” Speech delivered at the Conference on “Public Diplomacy,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ankara, Turkey, February 6, 2006. Melissen, (Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael) draws on themes in his book The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations (2005). He examines the differing reasons countries engage in public diplomacy and approaches of small and middle powers that contrast with US public diplomacy. Melissen’s account is useful too for its thoughtful insights on “the new public diplomacy” and ways it is becoming “an expression of broader patterns of change in diplomacy” — a more “collaborative model of diplomacy . . . operating in increasingly diverse networks.”

Ben D. Mor. “Public Diplomacy in Grand Strategy.” Foreign Policy Analysis, A Journal of the International Studies Association, Vol. 2, Issue 2, April 2006, pp. 157-176. Mor (University of Haifa) examines the relationship between public diplomacy and strategic theory in the context of Israel’s experience in the second Intifada. Mor links traditional concepts of grand strategy to new communications and normative environments. He argues the proximity of tactical level events and their capacity to rise quickly to the “surface” of grand strategy makes proactive public diplomacy a key to strategic success.

Joseph S. Nye, Jr. “Think Again: Soft Power,” Foreign Policy, March 1, 2006, Reprinted in YaleGlobal Online. Harvard scholar and soft power theorist Nye responds to his critics, clarifies elements of his soft power concepts that have been misunderstood, and discusses the increasing value of soft power in the context of current high profile policy issues. Clear writing. Clear thinking. A short and useful supplement for teachers and students to his books: Soft Power (2005) and The Paradox of American Power (2004).

John M. Owen IV. “Democracy, Realistically,” The National Interest, Spring 2006, pp. 35-42. University of Virginia Professor Owen examines the debate between realist critics of democratization and those “principled realists” (or “pragmatic idealists”) who argue a connection between values and interests — and see “efficiency gains” in the expansion of the zone of democracies. Owen pursues a middle course and provides a nuanced analysis of the gains and problems with democracy promotion.

U.S. Central Command, Statement of General John P. Abizaid before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the 2006 Posture of the United States Central Command, (Washington, DC, March 14, 2006). Contains brief sections on strategic communication, Centcom’s role in “winning the war of ideas,” integration of all instruments of national power, the need for more non-military personnel (State Department, USAID) in regional military commands, and contesting al Qaida and associated movements in the virtual world. General Abizaid calls for government answers to questions about how to deal with extremists activities on the Internet.

The White House. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Washington, DC, March 16, 2006). Presented as a “wartime national security strategy,” the Bush Administration expands and updates its 2002 strategy. The new 48-page document — more policy statement than strategy — contains lengthy sections on promoting freedom, justice, and human dignity; “the battle of ideas,” leading a growing community of democracies, and what it calls “winning the war on terror.” The statement identifies a range of national security threats and opportunities other than terrorism for which multi-national efforts are required. Public diplomacy per se is framed in a single paragraph on page 45 in a concluding section on transforming national security institutions. Transformation roadmaps are not included.