Category: Bruce Gregory’s Resource List

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.”

Gal Beckerman. “The New Arab Conversation,” Columbia Journalism Review, January/February 2007, 17-23. Beckerman, a writer for [www.cjrdaily.org CJR Daily], looks at the small but growing Arab blogosphere. Young bloggers in the Middle East, writing mostly in Arabic but also in English, talk about their lives and a broad range of political and cultural issues. While it is easy to find bloggers who promote hatred and violence, Beckerman sees hope in the “young insiders-outsiders of the Middle East blogging openly about their frustrations with the Arab world . . . as a way of liberalizing their societies.”

W. Lance Bennett, Regina G. Lawrence, and Steven Livingston. When the Press Fails: Political Power and the News Media from Iraq to Katrina, (The University of Chicago Press, 2007), 263 pages. Professors Bennett (University of Washington), Lawrence (Portland State University), and Livingston (George Washington University) take a critical look at the press as “a silent and uncomfortable partner” with Bush administration narratives on the response to 9/11, the buildup to war in Iraq, and the Abu Ghraib scandal. The authors examine a variety of reasons for the “tendency of the press to record rather than critically examine” the actions and statements of government. They conclude with an assessment of the consequences of “press-government dependence” and suggestions of ways for the press to change its practices and carry out its responsibilities in a democracy.

James Dobbins, Seth G. Jones, Keith Crane, Beth Cole DeGrasse. The Beginner’s Guide to Nation-Building, (RAND Corporation, 2007). Ambassador Dobbins and his colleagues provide a doctrine for nation-building based on their analysis of “best practices” in 24 case studies of nation-building operations conducted by the US, Europe, and the United Nations. Public diplomacy students and teachers will find especially useful chapters on rule of law, governance, and democratization.

Peter J. Katzenstein and Robert O. Keohane., eds. Anti-Americanism in World Politics, (Cornell University Press, 2007). Katzenstein (Cornell) and Keohane (Princeton), two of America’s leading international relations scholars, have brought together a remarkable collection of theoretical essays and case studies that focus on anti-Americanism as a range of phenomena that vary greatly in behavior and geographical context. Especially useful are three overview essays by Katzenstein and Keohane and an essay by Marc Lynch (Williams College) on anti-Americanism in the Arab world. The editors’ central theme is the “persistence of varied anti-Americanisms. . . that wax and wane with political events in different rhythms, in different parts of the world, in countries with very different politics.” Why? “America is polyvalent.” Its diversity of values and ways of living serve as objects of approval and disapproval over time.

Joshua Kurlantzick. Charm Offensive: How China’s Soft Power is Transforming the World, (Yale University Press, 2007). Veteran Asia correspondent and Carnegie Endowment scholar Kurlantzick looks at China’s increasing use of public diplomacy, trade incentives, cultural and educational exchanges, a younger generation of language-qualified diplomats, Confucius Centers, language schools, and media outreach “to project a benign national image, position itself as a model of social and economic success, and develop stronger national alliances.” His book looks also at China’s efforts to take advantage of US policy mistakes and the implications for US strategies and public diplomacy.

Jan Melissen, ed. The New Public Diplomacy, (Palgrave Macmillan, Paperback Edition, September 2007. Palgrave Macmillan’s decision to issue Melissen’s important book in an affordable paperback edition is good news for students, teachers, and all who are interested in public diplomacy as a developing field of study. This strong collection, edited by the Director of the Clingendael Diplomatic Studies Programme in The Hague, includes Melissen’s lead essay and contributions from Brian Hocking, Peter van Ham, Alan K. Henrikson, Ingrid d’Hooghe, Paul Sharp, Anna Michalski, Cynthia Schneider, Wally Olins, Shaun Riordan, and John Hemry. Their essays support 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.”

Mathew Moneyhon. Reinvigorating US Public Diplomacy: A Review of Recent Studies, Draft Working Paper for the Princeton Project on National Security, May 13, 2005. This summary and analysis of key recommendations in most of the government and private sector reports on public diplomacy issued between 2001 and 2005 was prepared as a research paper for the Princeton National Security project. Available online, it is a useful companion to Public Diplomacy: A Review of Past Recommendations, prepared subsequently by Susan B. Epstein and Lisa Mages for the Congressional Reference Service, October 31, 2005.

Joseph S. Nye and Anne-Marie Slaughter, Co-chairs, Report of the Working Group on Foreign Policy Infrastructure and Global Institutions. Princeton Project on National Security, September 27, 2006. Nye (Harvard) and Slaughter (Princeton) provide an imaginative analysis of 21st century threats and opportunities, governance, soft power, public diplomacy, information technologies, and the implications of information abundance. They call for an infrastructure that enables “national security officials to play chess on two boards at once, with state and non-state actors, in the face of a very fast time-clock and rapidly changing rules.”

“Instead of creating new bureaucracies, the United States must link existing ones. Instead of creating vertical command structures, it must build horizontal networks and direct them from the center outward rather than from the top down or the bottom up. Instead of building all new capacity within government, America must learn to use government to harness the capacities of domestic and foreign private and nonprofit actors.”

Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History, (Longman Classics in Political Science, 2007). The 6th edition of Professor Nye’s valuable text has been updated with new material on constructivist theory and soft power, globalization, information technologies, terrorism and other transnational threats, conflicts on energy, intervention, and American power. Nye’s gift for linking theory and history illuminates recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rise of China, and the growing importance of non-state actors.

Sherry Ricchiardi. “Iron Curtain Redux,” American Journalism Review, February/March, 2007, 50-57. AJR’s Ricchiardi brings her long experience in covering global news to an examination of today’s media climate in Russia. Includes an in-depth look at government pressures on indigenous and foreign news organizations, including VOA and RFE/RL, and circumstances surrounding the death of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya.

Sherry Ricchiardi. “Obstructed View,” American Journalism Review, April/May, 26-33. Drawing on interviews with a range of journalists reporting from Iraq, Ricchiardi concludes that extraordinary danger and high security costs have “seriously compromised” coverage of the war.

Louise Richardson. What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat, (Random House, 2006). Richardson (Radcliffe/Harvard) provides a welcome addition to the long shelf of books on terrorism. She provides a rigorous definition; a historically based examination of terrorist psychology, motives, and political strategies; and a reasoned critique of US strategic and political responses to the attacks of 9/11,including her judgments on deficiencies in the so-called “war of ideas.” Richardson argues US actions were based on a fundamental misconception of why terrorists act. She notes that she has moderated her views on “preserving the distance between government policy and academic research.” Had US policies been informed by the views of the terrorism studies community, she argues, those policies would have been very different.

Richard J. Schmierer. Iraq: Policy and Perceptions, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University, 2007. Schmierer, a senior US public diplomacy professional on a teaching and research assignment at Georgetown, examines the background to the “Iraq issue” during the 1990s, events leading to war in 2003, and factors in play in the years since. Drawing on interviews with scholars, practitioners, and journalists — and on his 27 years in the Foreign Service — he offers thoughts and insights on challenges facing the Arab world and democratic societies.

Rupert Smith. The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World, (Alfred A. Knopf, 2007). With insights from a forty-year career with the British army and service in the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, and NATO, General Smith offers a tightly reasoned argument for understanding war as a paradigm shift from interstate industrial war to — “war amongst the people.” He calls for radically new thinking about war as political and military struggles where combatants do not wear uniforms and where “engagements can take place anywhere: in the presence of civilians, against civilians, in defence of civilians.” In Smith’s new paradigm, the ends of war “are changing from the hard objectives that decide a political outcome to those of establishing conditions in which the outcome may be decided.” Useful for his analysis of post-Cold War cases, basic trends, communication and media, and strategies based on “information being the primary currency of war amongst the people rather than firepower.”

“Symposium, Exporting Democracy: Learning from Iraq?” Dissent, Spring 2007, 40-58. The editors of Dissent posed the following question to eight respondents: “Whatever you think about the Bush administration’s motives, what is to be learned from the Iraq experience about the export — and import — of democracy?”

— Daniele Archibugi (Italian National Research Council and University of London). Exporting democracy through military means “is ethically contradictory and politically ineffective.”

— Ofra Bengio (Tel Aviv University). Germany and Japan after World War II are “completely irrelevant models for Iraq.” Iraqi Kurdistan and enfranchised Shias suggest “a more representative government might be possible.”

— Seyla Benhabib (Yale University). Thought experiment I — the war never started. Thought experiment II — the war takes place (but differently). “One cannot hope to promote democracy abroad if it has supreme contempt for democracy and the rule of law at home.”

— Paul Berman (New York University). “Our role should be to offer solidarity to the authentic liberals of the Arab and Muslim world, who have been horribly betrayed by American and other Western governments and even by the left wing and liberal intellectuals of the West . . . speaking about ideas and ideologies and championing the liberal thinkers . . . [is] far more important in the long run than anything achievable by military or even diplomatic means.”

— Mitchell Cohen (Baruch College and CUNY). “Democracy has preconditions.” Can it be imported and exported successfully? “It depends on where, when, how, and by whom.”

— Thomas Cushman (Wellesley College). The “use of force should not be ruled out a priori because the Iraq war has been so problematic.”

— John Lister (Retired diplomat). “Instead of starting at the top with national elections . . . we could try the opposite approach of working locally . . . It will not be pure democracy in the way we understand it, for years to come. But it does offer hope.”

— Shibley Telhami (University of Maryland and Brookings Institution). “The very American policy that was said to be aimed at spreading democracy increased the conditions that terrify the public and reduced the attraction of democracy itself.”

US General Accountability Office. “US Public Diplomacy: Strategic Planning Efforts Have Improved, But Agencies Face Significant Implementation Challenges,”Statement of Jess T. Ford before the House Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight, GAO-07-795T, April 26, 2007. In a summary of past reports, GAO addresses (1) negative consequences that groups have associated with anti-Americanism, (2) strategic planning, coordination, and measurement issues, and (3) challenges in implementing public diplomacy and international broadcasting. The GAO findings highlight lack of a government-wide communication strategy, the need for an integrated State Department strategy, lack of enhanced performance indicators for State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), and needed improvements in the BBG’s audience research methodology.

Amy Zalman. “Waging the First Postmodern War: Inside the G.I. Cultural Awareness Program,” World Policy Journal, Vol. XXIII, No. 4,Winter 2006/7, 35-42. Zalman, a writer for The New York Times online and part time professor of modern Middle Eastern history at The New School, examines the Pentagon’s 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and changes in the U.S. military’s thinking about cultural awareness, language skills, and public diplomacy. She calls on the U.S. to “self-reflectively assess the actions it takes to engage foreign cultures” and argues that a “culturally aware military can promote conflict resolution.” Her article focuses on troop training and State Department public diplomacy programs.

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.