Category: Bruce Gregory’s Resource List

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.

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.

Simon Anholt. Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities, and Regions, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. The originator of the phrase “nation branding” revises and expands his idea of “brand management.” Categories in his “hexagon of competitive identity” include tourism, brands, policy, investment, culture, and people. Contains Anholt’s assessment of public diplomacy, a “theory of competitive identity,” and “a sketch of the main drivers, challenges and opportunities in the field, interspersed with case notes.”

Thomas Carothers, et al. “A Conversation Continued: Debating Democracy,” National Interest online, July 1, 2007 [Also in The National Interest, Jul./Aug. 2007, 8-13]. The Carnegie Endowment’s democracy expert contends that despite a “gleaming edifice around democracy promotion,” the notion that it “plays a dominant role in Bush [foreign] policy is a myth.” The irony, Carothers suggests, is that the administration has soured many in and outside the U.S. on the value of support for democracy while having “only a limited engagement in democracy promotion.” Needed is a searching debate on how the U.S. can get back on track with bipartisan support for a legitimate democracy agenda. The online edition contains replies and contrasting views from Andrew Bacevich (Boston University), Wayne Merry (American Foreign Policy Council), Robert W. Merry (Congressional Quarterly), and Amitai Etzioni (George Washington University).

Steven R. Corman, Angela Trethewey, and Bud Goodall. A 21st Century Model for Communication in the Global War of Ideas: From Simplistic Influence to Pragmatic Complexity, Report #0701, Consortium for Strategic Communication. The authors argue that US strategic communication efforts rely on an outdated “message influence model” that focuses problematically on “simply delivering the right message.” They offer a new “pragmatic complexity model” based on four principles: “(1) Deemphasize control and embrace complexity, (2) replace repetition with variation, (3) consider disruptive motives, and (4) expect and plan for failure.”

Ingrid d’Hooge. The Rise of China’s Public Diplomacy, Clingendael Diplomacy Paper 12, July 2007, 36 pp, Clingendael Diplomatic Studies Programme (CDSP), The Hague. d’Hooge, a China specialist and senior research associate at CDSP, concludes that China’s leaders are using “more time, money, and effort” to deal with its “problematic image” in many parts of the world. “An increasing number of Chinese individuals and civil society groups are participating in global networks with public and private actors, bringing new dynamics to China’s interaction with the world. China’s government, for its part, seeks to incorporate these new dynamics into its public diplomacy strategy.” A summary is available online. The paper can be ordered by email from Clingendael.

James, J. F. Forest, ed. Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the 21st Century, Vol. 1, Strategic and Tactical Considerations, Vol. 2, Containing the Sources and Facilitators, Vol. 3, Lessons from the Fight Against Terrorism, Praeger Security International, 2007. Edited by the Director of Terrorism Studies at the U.S. Military Academy, this ambitious 3-volume set contains 85 essays and case studies.

The Table of Contents, Editors Note, and Preface to each volume are available online.

– Six chapters in Vol. 1 appear under the heading, “Soft Power.”

– Robert J. Pauly, Jr. (University of Southern Mississippi) and Robert Redding (U.S. Army), “Denying Terrorists Sanctuary Through Civil Military Operations,” Chapter 14.

– James S. Robbins (National Defense University), “Battlefronts in the War of Ideas,” Chapter 15.

– Maha Azzam-Nusseibeh (Chatham House, London), “The Centrality of Ideology in Counterterrorism Strategies in the Middle East,” Chapter 16.

– Bruce Gregory (George Washington University), “Public Diplomacy as Strategic Communication,” Chapter 17.

– Timothy L. Thomas (Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth ), “Cyber Mobilization: The Neglected Aspect of Information Operations and Counterinsurgency Doctrine,” Chapter 18.

– Jerrold M. Post (George Washington University), “The Key Role of Psychological Operations in Countering Terrorism,” Chapter 19.

Michele M. Fugiel. U.S. Public Diplomacy and the American Experience: A Theoretical Evolution from Consent to Engagement, M.A. Thesis, University of London, September 2005. The author examines U.S. public diplomacy in the context of concepts of political power and limitations in the U.S. public diplomacy model. She calls for a model in which the roles of government and civil society “must be reflexive,” and urges “domestic development of critical consciousness and a dialogic understanding of learning.”

Daniel Kimmage and Kathleen Riodolfo. The War of Images and Ideas: How Sunni Insurgents in Iraq and Their Supporters Worldwide are Using the Media, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Special Report, June 2007. Key findings: (1) Sunni insurgents in Iraq and their supporters worldwide are using the Internet to pursue a media campaign directed at educated, influential segments of the Arab world; (2) media content is a high quality mix of news, religion, and entertainment aimed at the video game generation and a wide variety of traditional and next generation Internet consumers; (3) Iraq’s insurgent media are used by mainstream Arab media and global jihadist media; and (4) the Sunni insurgents’ media network is decentralized, fast-moving, and technologically adaptive. The report contains numerous graphics and can be downloaded in pdf format.

Kristin M. Lord. “U.S. Public Diplomacy: Can Science Help?” Foreign Service Journal, July/August, 2007, 14-15. Lord, Associate Dean of George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, urges enhanced cooperation between the State Department’s science and technology experts and America’s scientific community in programs to engage foreign scientists, engineers, and doctors on global issues: health, water, pollution, conservation, and clean energy. In so doing, the U.S. can leverage expertise in State (and nine other U.S. agencies with extensive foreign programs) in a public diplomacy of deeds on issues which are global and linked by common interests.

Iver B. Neumann. “‘A Speech That the Entire Ministry May Stand for,’ or Why Diplomats Never Produce Anything New,” International Political Sociology (2007) 1, 183-200. Drawing on speech writing practices in the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo University professor Neumann contends that foreign ministry speeches are identity building projects “with the resulting text serving as an instantiation of the Ministry itself.” Speech writing practices are for the most part a closed process, wherein each part of the ministry seeks to demonstrate the importance of its area of responsibility. Attention to audience is limited. He concludes that change will reach the interior of a foreign ministry from its margins, “where the cost of non-adaptibility is most keenly felt.” Change in diplomacy therefore will likely “be initiated by politicians, not by diplomats themselves.”

Robert B.Oakley and Michael Casey, Jr. The Country Team: Restructuring America’s First Line of Engagement, Strategic Forum No. 227, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, forthcoming July 2007. The authors challenge the conventional wisdom that U.S. embassy country teams generally operate well compared with organizations and interagency processes in Washington. Unprecedented transnational threats and weak governance in fragile states “do not fall neatly into diplomacy’s traditional categories:” political, public diplomacy, economic, consular. Interagency collaboration is often “a hit or miss proposition, due to diluted authority, antiquated organizational structures, and insufficient resources.” Experts collaborating on the study: John Agoglia, Gary Anderson, Michael S. Bell, Robert Feidler, Robert Grenier, Donald Hays, Princeton Lyman, John McLaughlin, Robert Pearson, Anthony Quainton, David Rhoad, Michael Welken, Anne Witkowsky, and Casimir Yost..

Project on National Security Reform (PNSR). PNSR is non-partisan initiative established to study and make recommendations to change the National Security Act of 1947 and to implement “comprehensive reform of the regulatory, statutory, and Congressional oversight authorities that govern the interagency system.” Information on the project’s sponsors, working groups, case studies, literature reviews, and events are available on its website.

Al Richman. [www.publicopinionpros.com/features/2007/Jul/richman_printable.asp “Diplomacy Challenges in Denying Iran Nuclear Weapons,”] Public Opinion Pros, July/August, 2007. Former State Department and USIA public opinion research analyst Richman assesses eight recent multi-country surveys on world opinion toward a nuclear-armed Iran and prospects for the U.S. to partner with other nations in handling this issue. The first section includes international survey data on the perceived threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran and the mix of pressures and incentives preferred by different publics to deal with this threat. The second section identifies those publics most likely to work with the United States and the various tracks diplomacy could take to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Dennis Ross. Statecraft and How to Restore America’s Standing in the World, Farrar, Strauss, Giroux, 2007. Veteran diplomat and Middle East negotiator Ross offers an informed primer on statecraft, which he defines as “knowing how best to integrate and use every asset or military, diplomatic, intelligence, public, economic, or psychological tool we possess (or can manipulate) to meet our objectives.” Ross provides a well written analysis of methods and issues, case studies, and judgments on the uses of statecraft in a world were non-state actors and a globalizing world present new challenges. His assessment of negotiating strategies includes an appreciation of the media and public diplomacy. In retrospect, he states candidly that during his negotiations in the Clinton years, “I was far to cautious in using the media to set a tone and convey messages to all sides and their publics.”

Anne-Marie Slaughter. The Idea That Is America: Keeping Faith with Our Values in a Dangerous World, Basic Books, 2007. The Dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School asks and answers the question: “How should we stand for our values in the world in a way that is consistent with our values?” Her chapters in this slim volume deal with liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility, and faith. “If we are serious that our greatest strength is not in our army, our land, or our wealth,” she argues, “but is instead in our values, then we must rethink a whole set of current strategies and practices to reflect and promote those values.”

David Steven. Evaluation and the New Public Diplomacy, Presentation to the Future of Public Diplomacy Conference, Wilton Park, UK, March 2, 2007. Steven, Managing Director of River Path Associates and a consultant with the UK’s Public Diplomacy Board, discusses “a system for measuring public diplomacy performance” and a research agenda presented to the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office, British Council, and BBC World Service.

U.S. National Strategy for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication, Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC), June 2007. Directed and released by Karen Hughes, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs and chair of the PCC (created by the National Security Council in April, 2006), the strategy provides a statement of “mission and priorities,” “strategic objectives,” “strategic audiences,” and “public diplomacy priorities” (including a “diplomacy of deeds”); descriptions of “the overall mechanism by which we coordinate public diplomacy across the interagency community” and “initial communication activities;” and a call for “significantly increased funding for all public diplomacy and strategic communication programs.”

U.S. General Accountability Office. U.S. Public Diplomacy: Actions Needed to Improve Strategic Use and Coordination of Research, July 18, 2007, GAO-07-904. GAO’s recent addition to its substantial collection of public diplomacy studies reviews research activities conducted by State, USAID, DoD, Fort Bragg, MacDill AFB, BBG, Open Source Center, and the British government. GAO’s key finding: “DoD and USAID use program-specific research to design, implement, and evaluate the impact of thematic communication efforts created to influence the attitudes and behaviors of target audiences. In contrast, we found that State has generally not adopted a research-focused approach to implement its thematic communication efforts.” Deficiencies in all agencies include lack of systematic means to assess user needs and satisfaction and lack of interagency protocols for sharing information. The report was requested by Senator Richard Luger.

Linton Wells. “Strategic Communications and the Battle of Ideas: Winning the Hearts and Minds in the Global War Agains Terrorists,“ Statement before the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, House Armed Services Committee, July 11, 2007. National Defense University professor Wells (until recently Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration) discusses: (1) “The importance of strategic communication and the need to synchronize deeds and words;” (2) “A summary of U.S. Government strategic communication initiatives, limitations, challenges, and successes;” (3) “The importance of non-governmental actions in strategic communication;” and (4) “Some ways ahead.”

Additional statements on strategic communication at the Subcommittee’s July 11 hearing include:

Franklin D. Kramer, Distinguished Research Fellow, Center for Technology and National Security Policy,“Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.”

Amy Zalman, (Policy Analyst, Science Applications International Corporation), “Strategic Communications and the Battle of Ideas.”

Gem From The Past

This list will occasionally include older resources that have continuing value for teachers, students, and practitioners. Some items may be out of print.

Glen Fisher. Mindsets: The Role of Culture and Perception in International Relations, Intercultural Press, 1988. Combining credentials as a scholar and twenty-two years in the Foreign Service, Fisher draws on anthropology, social psychology, and other academic disciplines to argue the importance of understanding cultures and “mindsets” in diplomacy and international engagement. Fisher’s short well-written volume contains chapters on perception and reasoning in psychological process, cultural patterns, and practical advice for “diagnosing mindsets.”