Category: Bruce Gregory’s Resource List

Intended for teachers of public diplomacy and related courses, here is an update on resources that may be of general interest. Suggestions for future updates are welcome.

Bruce Gregory can be reached at BGregory@gwu.edu

Rebecca Adler-Nissen and Kristin Anabel Eggeling, “Blended Diplomacy: The Entanglement and Contestation of Digital Technologies in Everyday Diplomatic Practice,”  European Journal of International Relations 28, no. 3(2022): 640-666.  In this powerful article, Adler-Nissen and Eggeling (University of Copenhagen) question a hard distinction between “traditional diplomacy” and “digital diplomacy.” Drawing on fieldwork with EU diplomats, they first provide ten vignettes that combine demonstrations of lived experiences and the authors’ interpretations of how diplomats experience digitalization. The remainder of the article structures a theory of blended diplomacy. It stretches a traditional focus on intentional and strategic uses of digital and media technologies to an exploration of how they are “deeply intertwined in everyday diplomatic life.” Blended diplomacy, in their account, first involves entanglement, meaning that analog and digital ways of doing things have become deeply integrated in ordinary diplomatic practice. Second, blended diplomacy manifests contestation, understood as “new tensions in diplomatic identities and relations” that affect diplomatic life. Building on these characteristics, the authors examine two boundary distinctions within diplomacy: horizontal boundaries between what diplomats “see as ‘real’ diplomatic work and other types of activities,” and vertical boundaries “between themselves and other diplomatic actors, ranking people around status and skills.” Adler-Nissen and Eggeling demonstrate the growing value of practice theory and provide a generative roadmap for further research on use patterns of digital technologies, normative disagreements, and external boundaries that circumscribe diplomacy and diplomatic practice. The entire article is available online with useful links to the literature throughout. (Courtesy of Geoffrey Wiseman)

Elif Batuman, “Rereading Russian Classics in the Shadow of the Ukraine War,”  The New Yorker, January 30, 2023, 42-51. PEN Ukraine: “[we need] a total boycott of Russian books from Russia in the world.” PEN Germany: “The enemy is Putin not Pushkin.” New Yorker staff writer Batuman, who in 2019 was a cultural emissary in Ukraine sponsored by PEN America and the State Department, explores the complex literary and political issues at play in this binary. Her article discusses classic Russian novels in historical and geographical contexts. It is written as a “Letter from Tblisi” where she recently gave a lecture on “why we don’t need to stop reading Russian literature” at a Russian-language-study-abroad program relocated from St. Petersburg.

Corneliu Bjola and Ilan Manor, “The Rise of Hybrid Diplomacy: From Digital Adaptation to Digital Adoption,” International Affairs, 98, no. 2(2022): 471-491. Building on a survey of 105 diplomats serving during the first two years of the Covid-19 pandemic, Bjola (Oxford University) and Manor (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev) argue diplomacy is entering a new phase of digital transformation. Hybrid diplomacy, which they describe as a successor to waves of social media and strategic communication, is framed as integration of the physical and the virtual in a “more deliberative, strategic, and systematic manner.” Their article divides into four parts. A review of earlier studies of digital technologies and diplomacy. Discussion of concepts of digital adaptation and adoption—and their evolution in ministries of foreign affairs. Their methodology and survey findings. And analysis of technological and social dimensions of digital adoption that could facilitate or hinder hybrid diplomacy. The authors contend foreign ministries embrace digital technologies unevenly and have yet to “tame” disruption through “adoption” of new routines, skills, and structures. Their scholarship remains a primary source of knowledge on these issues and further evidence of the value of practice-based theory.

Alex Bollfrass, Ellice Huang, and Dan Spokojny, “The Bayes Brief: Designing a Modern Policy Memo Process,” Fp21, January 23, 2022. The folks at the think tank Fp21 continue to generate some of today’s most interesting ideas in diplomacy and State Department reform. In this thought piece, they take aim at State’s well known “clearance hell” with a reimagined policy memo. Traditional policy memos, they argue, are “designed for one-off decisions.” They cannot retrieve past decisions and knowledge, and they lack the capacity to track the impact of decisions over time. The Bayes Brief uses information technology tools to overcome these deficiencies. The template systematically incorporates qualitative and quantitative evidence from multiple sources, stores components of the memo in a knowledge database, displays relationships in the policy process over time and space, and provides a pathway for evaluating policy impacts. The Bayes Brief is a prototype intended to encourage feedback from scholars and practitioners. A 16-minute video is embedded.

Shaun A. Casey, Chasing the Devil at Foggy Bottom: The Future of Religion in American Diplomacy,  (Eerdmans, 2023). Religion and ethics scholar Shaun Casey was asked by Secretary of State John Kerry to create and lead the State Department’s Office of Religion and Global Affairs (2013-2017). This book, part analysis, part history, part memoir, is an account of his experiences—and his well-argued threefold brief for why understanding religion matters in diplomatic practice. Religion is powerful and multivalent globally. Lack of understanding can be costly. Expertise, not amateurism or personal experience, is required, because religion is complex. Overall, he makes a strong case for an office in State designed to (1) advise the Secretary when religion affects policy agendas, (2) increase the capacity of US missions to engage with religious actors, and (3) provide a Department portal for external groups, individuals, and governments on issues of mutual concern. Chapters analyze the role of religion in a broad range of substantive issues ranging from climate to refugees to global conflicts. He presents detailed critiques of how religion has been misused in countering violent extremism, pressures on State to distinguish between approved and nefarious religions, and the religious freedom agendas of conservative Christian groups. He also draws a sharp distinction between the mission of his office and the largely partisan driven, Congressionally mandated State Department Office of International Religious Freedom. Casey’s insights as an outsider on State’s unique folkways and Foreign Service reticence about the role of religion in diplomacy are penetrating. Also useful are his comments on relations between regional bureaus and functional offices and examples of the value of public diplomacy. He concludes by lamenting the demise of his Office in the Trump administration and the “virtually nonexistent” capability “to understand the complex dynamics of religion” in the Biden administration. (Courtesy of Eric Gregory)

Beverli DeWalt, Rachel George, and Dan Spokojny, Lifting the Fog of Foggy Bottom: What NASA Can Teach the State Department About Managing Knowledge,  January 18, 2023, Fp21. The authors, Fp21 researchers, in collaboration with current and former State Department practitioners, offer recommendations to overcome State’s dysfunctional communication, policy clearance, and knowledge sharing processes. State needs to jettison its “reliance on tacit knowledge,” they argue, and develop knowledge management (KM) systems that accumulate “explicit knowledge.” The KM system that NASA built following the Challenger space shuttle disaster is used as a case study. Their brief paper outlines a KM model for state and poses critical questions. Although the model is presented as holding promise for managing knowledge at State, it could also enable State to leverage its comparative advantages (institutional memory, language skills, and cross-cultural communication capabilities) in whole of government and increasingly societized diplomacy.

“Focus on FS Reform: Outlook and Considerations,” The Foreign Service Journal, March, 2023. The latest edition of FSJ features worthwhile articles on Foreign Service and State Department reform. They include:

·      Mark Grossman and Marcie Ries, “Toward a More Modern Foreign Service: Next Steps,” 23-26. Retired US ambassadors Grossman and Ries summarize their report, Blueprints for a More Modern Diplomatic Service(September 2022), which contains detailed plans and draft language for regulations and legislation written by experienced diplomats to implement reform recommendations in A US Diplomatic Service for the 21^stCentury (November 2020).

·      Dan Spokojny, “From Instinct to Evidence in Foreign Policy Decision-Making,” 27-30. Spokojny, a retired US Foreign Service officer (FSO) and CEO of the think tank Fp21, calls for diplomatic practice to be “more science and less art.” His reform proposals focus on knowledge management, analysis and decision-making, tools for learning, and a curriculum for vital skills.

·      Beatrice Camp, “Learning the Ropes Through Rotations,” 31-33. Retired FSO Camp writes about the “proven benefits” of the US Information Agency’s practice of assigning entry level officers to one-year of rotational duties in sections of US missions. She draws on her experience in Beijing, Association of Diplomatic Studies and Training oral interviews with Don Bishop and Brian Carlson, and the views of Martin Quinn, Mary Ellen Gilroy, and Susan Clyde. Much depended on whether support was forthcoming from State’s DCMs and section heads.

·      Marshall Sherrell, “Meritocracy at State: Who Deserves What,” 34-36. First tour FSO Sherrell discusses testing, recruitment, vetting, and diversity issues in response to the question, “How do we know who ‘deserves to be admitted into the U.S. Foreign Service?”

·      John Fer, “Why Senior Leaders Cannot Reform the State Department,” 37-40. FSO Fer, serving in US Embassy Tbilisi, argues that needed changes in State’s culture cannot start at the top, but must come “by empowering a group of leadership change agents,” who will be given S-level cover to “recommend sweeping changes that the Secretary can approve and fast track.”

Shingo Hanada, International Higher Education in Citizen Diplomacy: Examining Student Learning Outcomes From Mobility Programs,  (Palgrave Macmillan, 2022). The aim of this monograph is to examine the impacts of international higher education on “citizen diplomacy” understood by Hanada (Toyo University) as the right and responsibility of citizens to create shared understanding through people-to-people relationships across cultures. Hanada begins with a literature review and arguments that categorize citizen diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, and public diplomacy—and explain international higher education’s contribution to each. Ensuing chapters explore outbound and inbound study abroad programs, international service-learning, international internships, and online study abroad programs. He concludes that all mobility programs cultivate intercultural competence, but student participation does “not necessarily cultivate empathy and goodwill toward the host country.”

“Heritage Diplomacy: Policy, Praxis, and Power,” International Journal of Cultural Policy, 29, No. 1(2023). The articles in this compilation examine the potential and limitations of heritage diplomacy as an object of theory, policy, and practice. The editors, Viktorija L. A. Čeginskas and Tuuli Lähdesmäki (University of Jyväskylä, Finland), effectively explain two concepts that provide context: culture in the context of diplomacy and cultural heritage in international cultural relations. Their constructivist approach treats heritage as a process that emerges when it is narrated, defined, and treated in a specific context. Incidentally and by design, the articles  contribute to current debates on diplomacy’s societization, relevance to governance, conceptual boundaries. Full texts of the editors’ “Introduction,” and “An Afterword”by Tim Winter (University of Singapore) are available online.

·      Katja Mäkinen, Tuuli Lähdesmäki, Sigrid Kaasik-Krogerus, Viktorija L. A. Čeginskas & Johanna Turunen, “EU Heritage Diplomacy: Entangled External and Internal Cultural Relations.”

·      Stefan Groth, “Mainstreaming Heritages: Abstract Heritage Values as Strategic Resources in EU external relations.”

·      Viktorija L. A. Čeginskas & Tuuli Lähdesmäki, “Dialogic Approach in the EU’s International Cultural relations: Joint EUNIC-EU Delegation Projects as Heritage Diplomacy.”

·      Johanna Turunen & Sigrid Kaasik-Krogerus, “Debating Structural Violence in European Heritage Diplomacy.”

·      Cristina Clopot, “Heritage Diplomacy Through the Lens of the European Capitals of Culture Programme.”

·      Natalia Grincheva, “‘Contact zones’ of Heritage Diplomacy: Transformations of Museums in the (Post)Pandemic Reality.”

·      Giulia Sciorati, “‘Constructing’ Heritage Diplomacy in Central Asia: China’s Sinocentric Historicisation of Transnational World Heritage Sites.”

·      Hanna Schreiber & Bartosz Pieliński, “Inviting All Humanity to an Elite Club? Understanding Tensions in UNESCO’s Global Heritage Regimes Through the Lens of a Typology of Goods.”

·      Tim Winter, “Heritage Diplomacy; An Afterword.”

Michał Marcin Kobierecki, Sports Diplomacy: Sports in the Diplomatic Activities of States and Non-State Actors,  (Rowman & Littlefield, 2020).  Kobierecki (University of Łodz) contributes to the growing literature on sports diplomacy with this inquiry into its study and practice. His book explores definitional gaps in sports diplomacy, conceptual connections between sports diplomacy and public diplomacy, whether sport can be useful in shaping interstate relations, ways in which sport is instrumentalized by varieties of states, uses of sport in image building, and the roles of nongovernmental organizations. Kobierecki devotes considerable attention to sports federations and their interactions with states, including particularly the International Olympic Committee, as he makes a case for their roles as diplomatic actors. The book contains comparative case studies and an excellent survey of the literature on sports diplomacy. (Courtesy of Geoffrey Pigman)

Kevin M. Kruse and Julian E. Zelizer, eds., Myth America: Historians Take on the Biggest Lessons and Lies About Our Past, (Basic Books, 2022). Don’t be put off by this book’s overstated subtitle. The concise, well-written and carefully researched essays in this compilation, edited by Princeton historians Kruse and Zelizer, have considerable value, not least as readings for American diplomats. The authors explore how narratives about the past have evolved and been used to distort, celebrate, inspire, and serve current purposes. Some “myths” are partisan, others are rooted in enduring and widely accepted beliefs. Chapters with particular value for discourse with foreign interlocutors include: David Bell (Princeton University), “American Exceptionalism;” Ari Kelman (University of California, Davis), “Vanishing Indians;” Erika Lee (University of Minnesota), “Immigration;” Daniel Immerwahr, (Northwestern University), “The United States as an Empire;” Geraldo Cadava (Northwestern University), “The Border;” and Kathryn Belew (Northwestern University), “Insurrection.” These essays seek to counter intentional disregard for accuracy in historical narratives and give voice to constructions of the past based on the best available evidence. They also bear witness to the late Richard Rorty’s views on interpretations as degrees of consensus and truth as “made rather than found.” “There is no intrinsic character of reality, no one way the world is . . . Interpretation goes all the way down” (What We Can Hope For? 68).  

Stuart MacDonald and Andrew Murray, “Soft Power and Cultural Relations: A Comparative Analysis,”  British Council, 2022. MacDonald and Murray (ICR Research Ltd, London)argue that key global trends (digitalization, new actors, values in illiberal regimes, audiences in domestic populations, and activities linked to identity politics) are blurring distinctions between soft power and cultural relations. They define soft power as “pursuit of influence through attraction in the national interest” and cultural relations as “creating the conditions for collaboration between like-minded people and countries in pursuit of the common good.” The authors compare activities of multiple counties in three overlapping operational models (public diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, cultural relations, and a unique Chinese model). The 73-page paper also contains a summary of findings (including considerable confusion as to the meaning of soft power and cultural relations), comparative profiles for 13 countries and the EU, a literature review, a statement of methodology, data tables and sources, and a bibliography. (Courtesy of Brian Carlson)

Ilan Manor and Moran Yrachi, “From the Global to the Local and Back Again: MFA’s Digital Communications During Covid-19,”  International Journal of Communication, 17(2023), 860-881. Manor (Ben Gurion University of the Negev) and Yarchi (Reichman University) examine how eight ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) used Facebook to communicate with citizens at home early in the Covid-19 pandemic (March – July 2020). Their “domestic digital diplomacy,” the authors contend, was intended to “demonstrate the MFA’s contribution to national efforts” to slow the spread of the virus, repatriate citizens, provide travel information, and assure citizens that diplomatic efforts to manage crises were ongoing. Their analysis shows that as the pandemic continued the MFA’s returned to more globally oriented Facebook content. One limitation of the study, they state, is an inability to identify national users due to Facebook’s privacy rules. The article also contains more general discussion of relevant scholarly literature, the digitalization of diplomacy, digitalization’s effects on state diasporas, diplomacy’s societization, domestic public diplomacy, MFA’s evolving roles in whole of government diplomacy, and the limits of digitalization. 

Jan Melissen, Shangbie Du, and Abhiraj Goswami, Public Diplomacy,  Oxford Bibliographies, February 2023. The compilers (Leiden University) of this latest edition of Oxford Bibliographies’ online collection of public diplomacy literature concentrate on resources published since 2010. It contains more than 100 works annotated and divided into categories. They include a general overview, soft power, new century/new public diplomacy, beyond the new public diplomacy, diplomacy’s public dimension, science diplomacy, digital diplomacy, consular diplomacy, corporate diplomacy, city diplomacy, celebrity diplomacy, public diplomacy worldwide, sections that focus on North America, China, India, and European Union, and leading book series and journals. Particularly useful is the way the compilers position these resources in the arc of rapidly changing multidisciplinary approaches in diplomatic studies. This indispensable resource can be accessed online at many universities worldwide. The compilers welcome suggestions for additional categories that would make this periodically updated bibliography more comprehensive.

Seong-Hun Yun, “Against the Current: Back to Public Diplomacy as Government Communication,” International Journal of Communication 16(2022): 3047-3064. Yun (Dongguk University, South Korea) takes a thoughtful and carefully researched look at the societization turn in diplomacy studies. Her article begins with a survey of the shift from public diplomacy, viewed in the 20th century as primarily a state-based instrument, to acceptance of transnational non-state actors as diplomacy practitioners. This led to scholarship on boundaries that distinguish non-state diplomatic actors from other non-state actors. Yun then undertakes a critique of two boundaries criteria: (1) “public interests” differentiated from private interests, and (2) “national interests” defined by governments, which change over time and are shaped by a constructivist rather than realist state-centric model. She questions the “public interests” criterion as having a normative bias inclined to “progressive values,” which “by implication” rule out “reactionary values.” She questions “national interests,” because it is indeterminate and creates confusion as to which non-state actors are public diplomacy actors. Yun argues for a return to government as the sole public diplomacy actor responsible for “communicating with foreign publics to achieve foreign policy goals.” She recognizes her “against the current” proposal may be “too absolute.” But it could be a “solution” to the confusion in boundary debates on who is a public diplomacy actor. Her “solution” seems unlikely to persuade many, but she deserves credit for raising important questions, her knowledge of the literature, and her analysis of issues in diplomacy’s boundaries discourse. Her article draws on Kadir Jun Ayhan’s taxonomy of perspectives on boundaries of public diplomacy and nonstate actors (see Gem from the Past below).

Recent Items of Interest

Matt Abbott, “Local and State Diplomacy is Critical to US Foreign Policy,”  January 24, 2023, The Hill.

Matt Armstrong, “No, the Smith-Mundt Act Doesn’t Apply to the Defense Department,” February 22, 2023; “R Changes Coming,”  January 30, 2023; “Sometimes the Commonly Accepted Fact Is Not a Fact,”  January 12, 2023; “Discussing ‘Leadership’ Around ‘Information Warfare’ With Asha Rangappa, Plus Other Stuff,”  January 11, 2023, MountainRunner.

Andrew Bacevich, “The Reckoning That Wasn’t: Why America Remains Trapped by False Dreams of Hegemony,” March/April 2023, Foreign Affairs.

Corneliu Bjola, “Exploring the Metaverse and Its Implications for Digital Diplomacy,”  February 27, 2023, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Beatrice Camp, “Reagan in China: Don’t Say Anything About the Turkeys,”  February 2023, American Diplomacy.

Vera Bergengruen, “Inside the Kremlin’s Year of Ukraine Propaganda,”  February 22, 2023, Time.

FP Contributors, “New and Unusual Forms of Diplomacy: From Gastrodiplomacy to Xiplomacy,”  January 8, 2023, Foreign Policy.

Nick Cull and Simon Anholt, “The Verdict? The Nation Brands Index 2022 and Russia’s Fall From Grace,”  Episode 48, January 2023, People, Places, and Power Podcast; “Season 2, Episode 48,” January 8, 2023, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Rod Dreher, “State Department Disinformation?”  February 14, 2023, The American Conservative.

Paul Farhi, “Voice of America Journalists Put on Leave After ‘Russian Propaganda’ Accusations,” February 24, 2023, The Washington Post; “VOA Puts Two Russian Journalists on Leave Following Complaints,” February 25,2023, VOA News; Jason Jay Smart, “Employees Rebel at US News Outlet Voice of America for Hiring Journalists With Pro-Kremlin Records,”  February 21, 2023, Kyiv Post; “Media Movement Calls on ‘Voice of America’ to Fire Russian Propagandist Harry Knyagnitsky—Statement,” February 23, 2023, Media Movement.

Robbie Graemer, “Wanted: U.S. Ambassadors for Countries That Need TLC,”  January 11, 2023, Foreign Policy.

Joe Gould, “Pentagon Launches Management Reform Institute to Address Challenges,”  January 31, 2023, DefenseNews.

Alexandra Kelley, “State Department Creates First Office Devoted to Emerging Technology Diplomacy,”  January 4, 2023, Nextgov; Ellie Sennett, “US State Department Looks to Bolster ‘Tech’ Diplomacy,”  January 2, 2023, The National.

Tani Levitt, “How a Group of Brooklyn Beatboxers Became Ambassadors to the World,”  January 21, 2023, The New York Times.

Kyle Long, “Introducing Global American Higher Education: A New Public Diplomacy Resource,”  January 31, 2023, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Sherry Mueller and Claudia Del Pozo, “The Power of Partnerships,”  February 25, 2023, Public Diplomacy Council of America.

Christian Perez and Anjana Nair, “Information Warfare in Russia’s War in Ukraine,”  February 2023, Foreign Policy.

Mark G. Pomar, “Public Diplomacy Challenges in Reaching Russian Audiences,”  February 2023, American Diplomacy.

Chris Riotta, “U.S. Cyberspace Ambassador Lays Out Technology’s Role in Geopolitical Contests,”  February 2, 2023, FCW; Ines Kagubare, “Russia-Ukraine War Has Improved US Cyber Cooperation, Says Key Official,”  February 2, 2023, The Hill.

Volodymyr Sheiko, “Ukraine’s Culture at War: One Year Later,”  February 20, 2023, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Tara D. Sonenshine, “Disinformation Amid the Rubble in Syria,”  February 13, 2023, The Hill.

Dan Spokojny, “Forecasting in Policymaking: Beyond Cassandra,”  January 26, 2022; “Congress Orders Changes for State Department in New Authorization,”  January 3, 2023,  Fp21.

Matina Stevis-Gridneff, “Russia’s War Breathes New Life Into a Cold War Symbol,”  January 24, 2023, The New York Times.

Zed Tarar, “Analysis | Could AI Change the Business of Diplomacy,”  February 23, 2023, ISD The Diplomatic Pouch.

“USAGM CEO Announces New Senior Advisor on External Affairs,”  February 27. 2023, US Agency for Global Media.

Kerry Velez, “Diplomats, It’s Time to BeReal,”  February 24, 2023, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Bill Whitaker, “Radio Free Europe: Cold War-era Broadcaster’s Mission Still Relevant in 2023,”  (13-minute video), CBS News 60 Minutes. 

R. S. Zaharna, “Public Diplomacy and Wicked Problems,”  February 3, 2023, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Gem From The Past  

Kadir Jun Ayhan. “The Boundaries of Public Diplomacy and Nonstate Actors: A Taxonomy of Perspectives,” International Studies Perspectives 20, no. 1(2018): 63-83. Five years ago, Journal of Public Diplomacy editor Ayhan conducted an extensive survey of the literature on public diplomacy’s definitions, boundaries, and actors. His taxonomy has five categories. (1) State-centric perspectives that restrict diplomacy to state entities only. (2) Neo-statist perspectives that reserve the term public diplomacy for states and use alternative terms (social diplomacy, grassroots diplomacy) for nonstate actors. (3) Nontraditional perspectives that define diplomacy on capabilities rather than status but accept some nonstate actor activities as public diplomacy. (4) Society-centric perspectives that share most nontraditional perspectives but define “public as people in the global public sphere.” (5) Accommodative perspectives that include nonstate actors in public diplomacy if their activities meet explicit criteria such as legitimacy, effectiveness, constituents’ support, and serve governance objectives. Ayhan’s nuanced analysis is a foundational text in the growing debate on these issues.

An archive ofDiplomacy’s  Public Dimension: Books, Articles, Websites  (2002-present) is maintained at George Washington University’s Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.  Current issues are also posted by the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy, and the Public Diplomacy Council of America.

Intended for teachers of public diplomacy and related courses, here is an update on resources that may be of general interest. Suggestions for future updates are welcome.

Bruce Gregory can be reached at BGregory@gwu.edu

Kadir Jun Ayhan, “An English School of International Relations Approach to Public Diplomacy: A Public Diplomacy Framework for Global Governance Issues,” Journal of Public Diplomacy 2, No. 1 (July, 2022): 1-5. In his lead editorial in the Journal’s current issue, JPD’s editor-in-chief calls for public diplomacy scholars to place greater emphasis on “the political side of public diplomacy” and international relations theory. Specifically, Ayhan (Ewha Womans University, Seoul) advances a public diplomacy framework for global governance issues that builds on the English School in IR studies and James Pamment’s ideas on the intersection of international development and public diplomacy. His framework identifies priorities and implications for public diplomacy and global governance in the context of the English School’s core categories: the international system, international society, and world society. His intent is to stimulate discourse among scholars and practitioners on the value of supplementing a vast communications scholarship in public diplomacy with greater attention to IR theory and the interactive practices of national, international, and transnational actors in global governance.

Kudos to JPD as it launches its second year as a highly promising and well-regarded open access publication. The Journal seeks submissions (younger scholars are welcome) and ideas for special issues. It recently issued a call for a special issue on African public diplomacy. Articles in the current issue include:

Tugce Ertem-Eray (NC State University) and Eyun-Jung Ki (University of Alabama), “Foreign-Born Public Relations Faculty Members’ Relationship with their Universities as a Soft Power Resource in U.S. Public Diplomacy.”

Nicolas Albertoni (Catholic University of Uruguay), “Exploratory Insight into the (Un)intended Effects of Trade Policy in Public Diplomacy.”

Joyce Y.M. Nip (University of Sydney) and Chao Sun (Sydney Informatics Hub, University of Sydney), “Public Diplomacy, Propaganda, or What? China’s Communication Practices in the South China Sea Dispute on Twitter.”

Di Wu (Tongji University) and Efe Sevin (Towson University), “Neither External nor Multilateral: States’ Digital Diplomacy During Covid-19.”

Sohaela Amiri (USC Center on Public Diplomacy), “Understanding the Dynamics between U.S. City Diplomacy and Public Diplomacy.”

Rachel Naddeo and Lucas Matsunag (Tohoku University), “Public Diplomacy and Social Capital: Bridging Theory and Activities.”

Carla Cabrera Cuadrado (Universidad de Valencia), book review essay on City Diplomacy: Current Trends and Future Prospects (1st edition), edited by Sohaela Amiri and Efe Sevin, Palgrave Macmillan, 2020; Urban Diplomacy: A Cosmopolitan Outlook, by Juan Luis Manfredi-Sánchez, Brill, 2021; City Diplomacy: From City-States to Global Cities, by Raffaele Marchetti, University of Michigan Press, 2021.  

Joel Day, Building a Citywide Global Engagement Plan, CPD Perspectives, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, February 2022. In this thoughtful and well-organized study,Day (USC CPD and UC San Diego) presents three analytical categories through which to advance knowledge about city diplomacy. First, he argues the central motivation in today’s global engagement of cities is grounded in governance choices broader than traditional drivers of cultural exchange and protocol – (1) diplomacy that advances a city’s competitiveness in the international political economy or (2) diplomacy that seeks global relationships that improve the welfare of a city’s residents. Decisions rest on establishing priorities and the possibility of doing both. Second, he provides a list of five practical steps for local leaders contemplating a decision to engage globally. A “who, what, when, where, and why” guide for planners based on specific issues in modern cities. Third, his study develops a research agenda for scholars that emphasizes the importance of building a longitudinal data set that examines the actors, actions, targets, motivations, and outcomes of city diplomacy over time. Scholars and practitioners will find Day’s study a useful addition to the literature.

James Der Derian and Alexander Wendt, eds., Quantum International Relations: A Human Science for World Politics, (Oxford University Press, 2022). Science and technology not only shape diplomacy’s tools, they provide historically contingent metaphors for understanding diplomacy. Newton’s mechanistic physics gave meaning to government-to-government relations, balance of power, correspondence to an intrinsic reality “out there,” and rational choice diplomacy. When science becomes outdated, theorists adopt alternative vocabularies. Notably it was former Secretary of State George Shultz who introduced the term “quantum diplomacy” in 1997 (see Gem from the Past below). A quarter century later, quantum theory has emerged in international relations and diplomacy in the speculative insights of diplomacy scholar and filmmaker James Der Derian (University of Sidney), IR theorist Alexander Wendt (Ohio State University), and similarly inclined scholars in these essays. As the editors and former diplomat Stephen J. Del Rosso in his Foreword contend, their aim is to examine questions drawn from the application of quantum physics to world politics and diplomacy. What ideas are generated? How might quantum technologies interact with other technologies? How do they illuminate computing, communications, control, and artificial intelligence in ways of value to practitioners?  Are social media and data mining creating quantum effects in politics, war, and diplomacy? What are ethical consequences? Their multidisciplinary compendium looks cautiously and non-polemically at these issues. See also James Der Derian and Alexander Wendt, “‘Quantizing International Relations’: The Case for Quantum Approaches to International Theory and Security Practice,” Security Dialogue, 2020, Vol. 51(5), 399-413; and Stephen J. Del Rosso, “Making the Case for Quantum International Relations,” Carnegie Corporation of New York, June 2, 2022.

As scholars and diplomats lean into the quantum approach beyond metaphor, several practical concerns arise. What kinds and levels of subjectivity are embedded in data? How does big data create knowledge that can be incorporated effectively into diplomatic discourse and behavior? Hannah Arendt argued perceptively in The Human Condition (1958) that even if powerful technologies create potentially useful knowledge and thought, they can diminish agency and speech. Can we act on these technologies in politically meaningful ways? Consider also the qualities of good political judgment raised in Isaiah Berlin’s essay “On Political Judgment.” Politics and diplomacy require “practical wisdom, practical reason, perhaps, a sense of what will ‘work,’ and what will not.” A “great deal in practice,” Berlin argued, “cannot be grasped by the sciences.”

Peter Finn and John Maxwell Hamilton, “U.S. Was Targeted with Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation in WWI,” The Washington Post, June 4, 2022. Finn (the Post’s national security editor) and Hamilton (Louisiana State University and author of Manipulating the Masses: Woodrow Wilson and the Birth of American Propaganda) report on their discovery of American journalist Herbert Corey’s memoir in the Library of Congress, which they edited, annotated, and published as Herbert Corey’s Great War: A Memoir of World War I by the American Reporter Who Saw It All (LSU Press, 2022). Corey, considered “the dean of the correspondents with the American Army,” is interesting for his coverage of ordinary soldiers and civilians; his frustrations with the military’s press controls; and his insights into British influence directed at American officials and opinion leaders, particularly planted stories in the press and censorship achieved by “rewriting correspondents’ stories, a practice Corey exposed.” 

Zach Hirsh, “Elise Stefanik’s Defense of Trump Around Jan. 6 Clouds Her Pro- Democracy Work Abroad,” Morning Edition, National Public Radio (NPR), June 20, 2020. America’s democratizers have long been challenged by double standards: when the US simultaneously soft pedals democracy in some countries and vigorously supports it in others, or interferes in election outcomes for geopolitical or economic reasons. Now they face double standards at home. NPR’s case in point – US House Republican leader Elise Stefanik’s assault on the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election and continued membership on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). See also Daniel Lippman, “Elise Stefanik’s post on democracy group board sparked a staff uproar,” Politico, June 17, 2021. Many on NED’s staff voiced strong written dissent. However, NED’s leadership and leading democracy scholars such as Larry Diamond argue removing Stefanik would threaten NED’s funding and work abroad. She remains on NED’s board (her membership renewed for a second term in January 2022) espousing its core values abroad while undermining them at home. See also Larry Garber and Edward McMahon, “US Election Deniers Promoting Democracy Abroad Defies Reason,” The Hill, July 16, 2022.

Learning Agenda 2022-2026, US Department of State, June 2022. The Department’s report was issued in response to Congress’s “Evidence Act” (2018) requiring federal agencies to answer questions relevant to achieving strategic objectives. It also seeks to bolster Secretary of State Blinken’s modernization goals. The report lists eight broad questions relating to diplomatic interventions, foreign assistance, climate, global pandemics, global disinformation, customer service for US citizens, risk management, and performance management and evaluation. Public diplomacy appears as a sub-question within the framework of diplomacy intervention. Tools identified for attention are “1) digital communication campaigns; 2) short-term and long-term cultural exchanges; 3) media literacy and journalism programs; and 4) methodological approaches to evaluating public diplomacy performance.” The report is interesting for its framing of US diplomacy, its generalizations and goals, and its structural implications. Missing is discussion of the leadership, hard choices, and cost-benefit tradeoffs required for an operational roadmap. The Learning Agenda was launched at Harvard’s Kennedy School by Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland.  See also the Learning Agenda of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’ Evaluation Division. 

W. P. Malecki and Chris Voparil, eds., What Can We Hope For? Essays on Politics / Richard Rorty (Princeton University Press, 2022). Richard Rorty, an influential voice of American pragmatism, left a powerful legacy when he died in 2007. Teacher. Public intellectual. Cultural critic drawn to narratives and conversations. Skeptic of universal truths. Progressive democrat wary of identity politics but deeply committed to democracy, reduction of cruelty, and concrete political agendas. Author of Achieving Our Country (1998), Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (1989), and many other books. In this collection Malecki (University of Wroclaw, Poland) and Voparil (Union Institute & University, Cincinnati) compile 19 of Rorty’s essays on American and global politics, four previously unpublished, others hard to find. Four stand out. In “Rethinking our Democracy” (1996), suspicious of alternatives, he argues the case for democracy in addressing global crises despite its current dysfunctions. In “The Unpredictable American Empire” (2003), he despairs of the “iron triangle that links corporations, the Pentagon, and the House and Senate Armed Services Committees,” but calls for an activist reform agenda around which leftist intellectuals and the American people might rally. His essay, “Looking Backward from the Year 2096” (1996) warns of “automatic weapons freely and cheaply available,” vulnerability to “dictatorial takeover,” and the breakdown of citizenship and democratic institutions. In “Does Being an American Give One a Moral Identity?” (1998), he connects a country that “has been racist, sexist, homophobic, imperialist” with a country capable of reform “over and over again.” Rorty’s essays are prescient and valuable in thinking about the problems of democracy, populism, climate, inequality, American exceptionalism, and other contemporary challenges.

Ilan Manor, Exploring the Semiotics of Public Diplomacy, CPD Perspectives, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, April 2022. Manor (University of Oxford) looks at how diplomats use visuals on social media platforms to influence views of digital publics. His article opens with comments on how diplomats practice visual narration in online public diplomacy campaigns. Then, borrowing semiotics ideas of Roland Barthes, he investigates how diplomats use visuals “as ideological devices” to advance norms, values, and offline policy goals. Manor’s objective is to explore diplomats’ intent through interviews with practitioners associated with social media campaigns in foreign ministries in Israel, the UK, and Lithuania. The article contains a literature review and his account of how diplomats’ use of social media platforms “has advanced from reactive to proactive digitalization.” It also points to research opportunities: application of his methodology to other cases, assessment of links between online and offline outcomes in digital campaigns, and ways ministries of foreign affairs institutionalize visual narration practices. Researchers might also compare diplomacy’s use of digitalized visual narratives with earlier visual narratives used in analog technology platforms, the strengths and limitations of the Barthes semiotics ideas, and the wealth of empirical evidence generated by war in Ukraine.

Joyce Y.M. Nip and Chao Sun “Public Diplomacy, Propaganda, or What? China’s Communication Practices in the South China Sea Dispute on Twitter,” Journal of Public Diplomacy 2, no. 1, (July, 2022): 43-68. Nip and Sun (University of Sydney) explore how modes of communication on social media contribute to public diplomacy in the context of China’s #SouthChinaSea conversations on Twitter. Their article seeks to answer a primary research question: What model of public diplomacy best describes China’s communication? Sub-research questions include: “(1) Who are China’s key actors in the issue, and to what extent are non-state actors involved? (2) To what extent do China’s actors conduct monologic, dialogic, and network communication with other users? (3) How sustained is Chinese actors’ dialogic and network communication with the same users over time?” Their article blends a theoretical discussion of public diplomacy models – identified as “PD white propaganda,” “relational PD,” and “network/collaborative PD” – with empirical research on China’s use of Twitter in the South China Sea dispute.  

Michael S. Pollard, Charles P. Ries, and Sohaela Amiri, The Foreign Service and American Public Opinion: Dynamics and Prospects, (RAND, 2022). This report by RAND researchers, with support from the Una Chapman Cox Foundation, examines American public opinion relating to diplomacy and the Foreign Service. Methods included opinion surveys and moderated on-line focus groups. The report produced evidence that Americans overall had generally favorable attitudes toward US diplomats but also a “limited understanding of what diplomats actually do, how they are selected, and how diplomacy interacts with other elements of America’s national security establishment.” Among other findings: 

·      Greater awareness of “helping citizens abroad” than other diplomatic functions; 

·      High priority given to “understanding of global affairs” and “negotiating” as important diplomatic skills; 

·      Low priority given to “public speaking,” “bravery,” “discipline in following instructions,” and “empathy;”

·      Over 65% believe diplomacy contributes to national security;

·      More than 40% think it is “better for diplomats to lead efforts abroad” (compared with 20% favoring the military and the rest no opinion);

·      A preference for keeping spending on foreign affairs “about the same” with “relatively more support for cutting than adding to funding in 2020.” 

The report addressed implications for creating better understanding of diplomats and diplomacy.

Maria Repnikova, “The Balance of Soft Power: The American and Chinese Quest to Win Hearts and Minds,”  Foreign Affairs, July/August 2022, 44-51. After a brief overview of the soft power ideas of Joseph Nye, Repnikova (Georgia State University) profiles the different ways in which the US and China interpret and operationalize the concept. For example, the US prioritizes democratic values and institutions. China focuses on integrating cultural and commercial agendas. Although many view the two soft power agendas as competitive, Repnikova argues people in many parts of the world view them as complementary. “They are perfectly happy to have both the Americans and the Chinese seduce them with their respective visions and values.” Both soft power agendas face problems she concludes. For China, concerns are raised about the effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccines and the pedagogy of its education programs. The US suffers from inconsistency between its emphasis on democratic values and democratic erosion, racial discrimination, and attacks on reproductive rights at home.

Dan Spokojny, “Doctrine for Diplomacy: To Remain Relevant, the U.S. State Department Needs a New Statecraft,”  August 10, 2022, War on the Rocks.  Spokojny (founder and CEO of fp21) argues “It is time to start treating the conduct of diplomacy as a profession with its own standards, methodologies, and skills.” Building on US military ideas about doctrine, he observes that its power comes not from a single definition but “from its ability to help an organization achieve results.” Diplomats should feed experiences into a systematic body of knowledge that bridges divides between policymaking and research, and between thought and action. Spokojny’s persuasive article takes on the skepticism of diplomats who resist generalized learning, codified knowledge, and evaluation. “Creating a doctrine for diplomacy,” he maintains, “will improve the quality, accountability, and effectiveness of American foreign policy.

Dan Spokojny and Alexandra Blum, “Let’s Get Serious About Research for Diplomacy: A Proposal for a Foreign Policy-focused FFRDC,”  fp21, July 18, 2022. Spokojny (fp21 CEO) and Blum (UC Berkeley) argue that although the State Department is committed to responding to important research questions framed in its Learning Agenda, 2022-2026, it lacks capacity to do so. Most diplomats lack the time and training. No State office is equipped to support research of this scale. Their proposal: create a State sponsored Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) for US foreign policy. FFRDCs – public-private research organizations funded by but located outside government – currently support the research needs of 15 departments, including ten sponsored by the Defense Department. Their proposal discusses structural issues, research needed for diplomacy and foreign policy, and a key separation between research and policymaking. 

Excellent idea. It has been recommended before in the context of diplomacy’s public dimension. Two year-long Defense Science Board Task Force studies in the 2000s – the work of career public diplomacy practitioners, military officers, and scholars – recommended an FFRDC for State, a Center for Global Engagement. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication (2008), pp. xiv-xv, 89-93 and Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication (2004), pp. 6-8, 69-70. Kristin Lord’s Brookings report, Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century (2010),pp. 17-30, called for a 501(c)(3) organization. 

In 2010, the Wilson Center convened a broad coalition of leading advocates in Washington to create a business plan leading to a Center for Strengthening America’s Global Engagement (SAGE). Former Secretaries of Defense and State, William Perry and Condoleezza Rice, were honorary co-chairs. These were serious voices. But their efforts did not prosper. The State Department and most career diplomats were not interested. The Wilson Center’s Sage project also provided a list of reports with similar recommendations prepared by the Council on Foreign Relations, Public Diplomacy Council, RAND Corporation, Heritage Foundation, and other organizations.

George Stevens, Jr., My Place in the Sun: Life in the Golden Age of Hollywood and Washington, (University Press of Kentucky, 2022). Diplomacy enthusiasts will find Stevens’ entire narrative of interest, especially the account of his years as head of the Motion Picture Service in Edward R. Murrow’s US Information Agency. There he oversaw the production of award winning documentaries that included Charles Guggenheim’s “Nine From Little Rock” (1964) and Bruce Hershensohn’s “Years of Lightening, Day of Drums”(1964). Stevens spoke about his years at USIA in an hour-long discussion with historian Nick Cull in an event co-sponsored by the Public Diplomacy Council of America and USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Zed Tarar, “The State Department Needs True Generalists to Succeed,” May 12, 2022; “The State Department’s Generalists are Withering on the Vine,” May 19, 2022; “For the State Department’s Generalists, When Is Quitting the Answer,” May 26, 2022, The Diplomatic Pouch Blog, ISD, Georgetown University. Career US diplomat Tarar continues his assessment of the State Department. His blogs in this miniseries make a case for three propositions. First, building on ideas in David Epstein’s book Range, generalists are good fits for domains without rigid rules. In 21st century international affairs, they often outcompete narrowly specialized colleagues. Second, diplomats in volatile and ambiguous settings, diplomacy’s normal context, require cognitive frames achieved through interdisciplinary professional development and diverse experiences outside government. A requirement unmet by the Department’s long-standing and continuing lip service to mid-career professional education. Third, for those who choose to leave diplomacy after 10-12 years, “Saying goodbye is hard,” but often “the best course of action for long term growth.” Experienced diplomats underestimate the considerable skills they bring to civil society and the private sector.

US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, “ACPD Official Meeting Minutes: June 1, 2022,” Transcript. The Commission’s meeting focused on business and cultural dynamics in city diplomacy. A panel, moderated by executive director Vivian S. Walker, included Tony Pipa, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute, Center for Sustainable Development; Christopher Olson, Director of Trade & International Affairs, City of Houston; Vanessa Ibarra, Director of International Affairs, City of Atlanta; and Sherry Dowlatshahi, Chief Diplomacy & Chief Protocol Officer, City of San Antonio. The panel’s discussion expanded on issues developed in the Commission’s report, Exploring U.S. Public Diplomacy’s Domestic Dimensions: Purviews, Publics, and Policies, April 25, 2022.

Recent Items of Interest

Advance Articles, 2022, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy.

Sohaela Amiri, “Dynamics Between City Diplomacy and Public Diplomacy,”  August 8, 2022,CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Andy Blatchford, “Behind Joly’s Plan to Modernize Canadian Diplomacy,” May 31, 2022, Politico.

Broadening Diplomatic Engagement Across America,  Report of the Truman Center City & State Diplomacy Task Force, June 2022.

James Careless, “Hot Debate on Shortwave Revival Continues,”  May 12, 2022, RadioWorld.

Nicholas J. Cull, “Why the Office of War Information Still Matters,”  June 2022, The Foreign Service Journal.

Renee Earle, “A Salute to Cultural Diplomacy and Those Who Make It Possible,”  August 2022, American Diplomacy

Anastasia Edel, “The Door Between Russia and America Is Slamming Shut,”  June 9, 2022, The New York Times.

David Ellwood, “Narratives, Propaganda & “Smart” Power in the Ukraine Conflict, Part I: Narrative Clash,” July 19, 2022; “Narratives, Propaganda & “Smart” Power in the Ukraine Conflict, Part 2: Inventing a Global Presence,” July 21, 2022, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Willow Fortunoff, “Mayors Are Quickly Becoming International Diplomats. The US Can Help Them Thrive,”  July 6, 2022, Atlantic Council.

Jory Heckman, “State Department Rethinks How It Vets Foreign Service Candidates To Diversify Ranks,”  June 10, 2022, Federal News Network.

Jessica Jerreat, “Nomination Hearing Set for Biden’s Pick to Lead USAGM,”  June 7, 2022, VOA. 

Sam Knight, “Can the BBC Survive the British Government,”  April 18, 2022, The New Yorker.

Joseph Lieberman and Gordon Humphrey, “It’s Time to Open a New Front Against Putin Inside Russia,”  July 9, 2022, The Hill.

Michael Lipin, “Biden’s USAGM Nominee Bennett Wins Senate Committee Approval,”  June 23, 2022, VOANews

Larry Luxner, “Ambassador Oversight Act Aims For More Qualified US Diplomats Abroad,”  June 22, 2022, The Washington Diplomat; Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), “S.4205 –  Ambassador Oversight and Transparency Act.”

Williams S. Martins and Daria Gasparini, “OWI and the ‘Battle of Sweden,’”  June 2022, The Foreign Service Journal.

Michael T. McFaul (R-TX), Letter to Senator James Risch (R-ID) regarding Amanda Bennett’s nomination to be CEO, US Agency on Global Media, June 9, 2022. 

Lia Miller, “Why Exchange Programs Can ‘Make Dreams Come True,”  July 10, 2022, Diplomatic Diary.

Stephen Lee Myers and Eileen Sullivan, “Disinformation Has Become Another Untouchable Problem in Washington,”  July 6, 2022, The New York Times.

Christopher Paul and Matt Armstrong, “The Irony of Misinformation: USIA Myths Block Enduring Solutions,”  July , 2022, 1945 blog; Matt Armstrong, “False Myths About USIA Blind Us to Our Problems…And to Possible Solutions,” July 7, 2022, MountainRunner.us.

Michael Pollard and Charles P. Ries, “Do Americans Know Who Their Diplomats Are? Or What They Do?” June 18, 2022, The Hill.

Jimmy Quinn, “Senate Advances Biden’s Global-Media Nominee Amid Mounting Conservative Criticism,”  June 27, 2022; “Why is Biden’s Global-Media Nominee Getting the Kid-Glove Treatment?”  June 15, 2022; “The Campaign Against Biden’s Nominee to Head U.S. Agency for Gobal Media,”  June 6, 2022, National Review.

“Review of the Recruitment and Selection Process for Public Members of Foreign Service Selection Boards,” May 2022, Office of Inspector General, Department of State; Nahal Toosi, “Watchdog Raises Flags About Nepotism, Incompetence on State Department Promotion Panels,”  May 25, 2022, Politico.

Conor Skelding and Mary Kay Linge, “State Department Dumbing Down Its Diplomat Applications,”  May 28, 2022, New York Post.

“Special Issue: Moving Public Diplomacy Research Forward: Methodological Approaches,” 18, no. 2, September 2022, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy.

Tara Sonenshine, “America Could Use a Little Jazz Diplomacy,”  August 6, 2022, The Hill. 

Roger Stahl, “Why Does the Pentagon Give a Helping Hand to Films Like ‘Top Gun’?”  May 30, 2022, Los Angeles Times.

Jon Temin, “City and State Diplomacy Are Key To Saving U.S. Foreign Policy,”  July 2, 2022, The Hill.

John C. Thomson, “Restarting Educational Exchanges with China After the Cultural Revolution,”  August 2022, American Diplomacy.

Nahal Toosi, “A Netflix Show Starring Keri Russel Stirs Buzz Among U.S. Diplomats,”  July 31, 2022, Politico.

Tom Wadlow, “U.S. Dept of State: Keeping Diplomacy Connected,” August 4, 2022, B2eMedia.   

Walker, Vivian T., “‘The Wine-Dark Sea’ of the Information Age,”  July 7, 2022, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Samuel Werberg, “How to Communicate Official Policy to a Globalized World,”  May 29, 2022, Diplomatic Diary, Washington International Diplomatic Academy.

Lauren C. Williams, “Cyber Ambassador Pick Wants to Bring ‘Coherence’ to Tech Diplomacy Efforts,”  August 3, 2022, Defense One; Tim Starks, “Cyber Ambassador Could Soon Take on a World of Challenges,”  August 2, 2022, The Washington Post.

Gem From The Past  

George P. Shultz, “Diplomacy in the Information Age,” Keynote Addresses from the Virtual Diplomacy Conference, US Institute of Peace, Washington, DC, April 1, 1997. Precisely a quarter century ago the United States Institute for Peace (USIP) convened its Virtual Diplomacy conference in Washington on challenges posed by communication and information technologies. Former Secretary of State George Shultz spoke about what remained unchanged in diplomacy (a fundamental human activity conducted between people and governing entities by diplomats speaking with authority), what was new (pervasive, fast, and cheap mediated information), and an imagined future (diplomacy increasingly in the public domain). Influenced by Stanford University physicist Sidney Dell, Shultz coined the term “quantum diplomacy.” He pointed to the quantum theory axiom that “when you observe and measure some part of a system, you inevitably disturb the whole system.” The process of observation and selectivity (such as a TV camera in some chaotic event), he asserted, causes distortions in systems (such as diplomacy) in which information and knowledge are raw materials. Other still valuable keynote speeches were delivered by USIP president Richard Solomon, “The Information Revolution and International Conflict Management,” and former Citicorp / Citibank CEO Walter Wriston, “Bits, Bytes, and Diplomacy.”

An archive ofDiplomacy’s  Public Dimension: Books, Articles, Websites  (2002-present) is maintained at George Washington University’s Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.  Current issues are also posted by the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy, and the Public Diplomacy Council of America.

Intended for teachers of public diplomacy and related courses, here is an update on resources that may be of general interest. Suggestions for future updates are welcome.

Bruce Gregory can be reached at BGregory@gwu.edu

Anne Applebaum, “There Is No Liberal World Order,” The Atlantic, May 2022, 9-12. Atlantic staff writer Applebaum makes five claims in the context of lessons from Ukraine. Four concern the necessity of enforcing liberal world order rules, downsides of trading with autocrats, dramatically shifting sources of energy, and serious attention to teaching, debating, improving, and defending democracy. A fifth is the “need to pull together the disparate parts of the U.S. government that think about communication, not to do propaganda but to reach more people around the world with better information and to stop autocracies from distorting that knowledge.” Her toolkit: a Russian language television station to compete with Putin’s propaganda; more programming in Mandarin and Uyghur; increased programming and research spending for RFE/RL, Radio Free Asia, and Radio Marti; rethinking education and culture (“So much of what passes for cultural diplomacy runs on autopilot.”); a Russian language university in Vilnius or Warsaw for thinkers and intellectuals leaving Moscow; and more spending on education in Arabic, Hindi, and Persian. Her organizational model is the way Americans “assembled the Department of Homeland Security out of disparate agencies after 9/11.”

Eliot A. Cohen, “The Return of Statecraft: Back to Basics in the Post-American World,”  Foreign Affairs, May/June 2022. Cohen (Johns Hopkins University) makes two arguments in this article. First, grand strategy and general principles are little help in devising policies and making decisions in a world shaped by contingencies, personalities, and events that surprise. Second, priority attention to US statecraft and an audit of its architecture are required for the quick pragmatic decisions needed in today’s chaotic reality. Cohen gives the US Marine Corps high marks as the only national security actor to engage in “harsh self-scrutiny.” His agenda for better diplomacy includes the following. The US “might revive the US Information Agency.” (As with most recent head fakes in this direction he offers no ideas as to its merits or feasibility.) More persuasively, he argues it is long past time to invest heavily in professional education and development – including “creating a state-run academy for foreign policy professionals from across government.” Cohen also calls for restoring procedural competence by repairing the “broken” system for appointing professionals to top posts in the State Department and Pentagon, and fewer political appointees to ambassadorships and the upper echelons of government.

Luiza Duarte, Robert Albro, and Eric Hershberg, “Communicating Influence: China’s Messaging in Latin America and the Caribbean,” Center for Latin American and Latino Studies (CLALS), American University, February 2022. The authors, researchers at American University’s CLALS, examine ways China has used soft power to expand its influence in the region. Their report focuses on four topics. (1) China’s public diplomacy “with Chinese characteristics” and the role of Confucius Institutes. (2) Technology and the “Digital Silk Road.” (3) China’s Covid-19 diplomacy in the region. (4) The growing presence of China’s state media. The authors conclude China’s government, state media, and corporations are promoting narratives in the region that are gaining sophistication in format and content – and point to the need for further research on their impact. The report was supported with funding from the Institute for War & Peace Reporting and the Department of State. CLALS researchers and outside collaborators have written separate case studies on China’s engagement with Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador. Links can be downloaded here.

Natalia Grincheva, “Beyond the Scorecard Diplomacy: From Soft Power Rankings to Critical Inductive Geography,” Convergence: The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies, 2022,Vol. 28(1), 70-91. Grincheva (University of Melbourne) begins this article with a definition of data visualization: “a use of computation techniques to display data in order to illustrate relationships, phenomena, or causations.” She then offers a critique of Portland Soft Power 30, a ranking index that compares countries’ soft power resources based on metrics in six domains: political institutions, cultural appeal, diplomatic networks, higher education, economic models, and digital global engagement. Global ranking systems, she argues, suffer from “simplistic quantifications,” “inaccurate causality . . . from resources to outcomes,” and reduction of “complex reality to a preferred interpretation” that projects Western values and neoliberal policy reforms. To overcome problems of data visualization and pitfalls of ranking soft power through “whole country” measuring, she explores two alternatives. An inductive geo-visualization framework attentive to variables overlooked in soft power rankings. And a “Deep mapping” method used to integrate different types of data through cartographic display of multiple layers for each country, geographical spread and reach, and how actors’ soft power changes across different countries.

Marcus Holmes, Face-to-Face Diplomacy: Social Neuroscience and International Relations,(Cambridge University Press, Paperback, 2019). At a glance, this book seems a perfect fit for public diplomacy’s “last three feet” devotees. Then on first inspection, perhaps not, since its focus is on the summit diplomacy of leaders. But on a close read there is much that is relevant to concepts and practice in diplomacy’s public dimension even though this is not the book’s purpose. Holmes (College of William and Mary) is concerned to show how psychology and neuroscience can be used to challenge the “problem of intentions” in face-to-face diplomacy – meaning “it is difficult, if not impossible to look inside the minds of other people in order to experience what they are thinking.” His book offers a theory of how face-to-face interaction can overcome the problem by allowing participants to simulate the specific intentions of others using a “mirroring system” – a brain structure that “is able to pick up on microchanges in facial expressions and realize subtle shifts in the emotional states of others that conveys their levels of sincerity.” Holmes argues his theory is applicable in a wide range of diplomacy contexts. He explains his theory in the introduction and opening chapter. The rest of the book is devoted to discussing four case studies of summit diplomacy: interactions between Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan at the end of the Cold War, George H. W. Bush’s and James Baker’s interactions with Gorbachev on the reunification of Germany, the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt mediated by Jimmy Carter, and the problem of deception in Neville Chamberlain’s face-to-face meeting with Adolph Hitler in Munich. These chapters reward both as evidence for his theory and as well-researched inquiries into summit diplomacy.

Dimitra Kizlari and Domenico Valenza, “A Balancing Act? Inter-Ministerial Co-operation in the Work of Cultural Attachés,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 16 (2021), 493-518. Although Kizlari (University College London) and Valenza (Ghent University) place their research in three European cases – Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden – their excellent article has broad global relevance to the study of cultural diplomacy. The authors analyze practices and discourses in the interactions of Ministries of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and Ministries of Culture (MoC) in five areas: appointments, hierarchy, funding, agenda-setting, and evaluation. In Italy, cultural attachés, exclusively linked to the MFA, cooperate with other ministries ad hoc. In Sweden and the Netherlands, the MFA and MoC create common conditions for cultural attachés in budgeting and planning. The MoC leads coordination in Sweden and the MFA in the Netherlands. Strengths of this article lie in how it frames enduring issues in cultural diplomacy and its use of practitioner interviews to support conceptual claims. Worthy of further study are its observations on how structural arrangements impact utilitarian perceptions of the role of culture in diplomacy and the critical importance of practitioners “on the ground.”

Christian Lequesne, ed., Ministries of Foreign Affairs in the World: Actors of State Diplomacy, (Koninklijke Brill, 2022). In this rich collection, Lequesne (Sciences Po, CERI, Paris) has compiled essays by leading scholars on the comparative roles of ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) in today’s diplomacy. His goal is to fill a literature gap created by preferences of researchers to study new diplomatic institutions, the rise of new actors and demise of the monopoly MFAs held previously, research challenges in non-democratic states, and MFAs’ characteristic low transparency. Some chapters were published in a special issue of The Hague Journalof Diplomacy in 2020. Others are original. 

— Christian Lequesne, “Ministries of Foreign Affairs: Crucial Institution to be Revisited.”

— Karla Gobo (Higher School of Advertising and Marketing, Rio de Janeiro) and Claudia Santos (Federal University of Paraná), “The Social Origin of Career Diplomats in Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Still an Upper Class Elite.”

— Birgitta Niklasson (University of Gothenburg), “The Gendered Networking of Diplomats.”

— Christian Lequesne, Gabriel Castillo (Sciences Po, CERI Paris), et.al, “Ethnic Diversity in the Recruitment of Diplomats: Why Ministries of Foreign Affairs Take the Issue Seriously.”

— Guillaume Beaud (Sciences Po, CERI Paris), “The Making of a Diplomatic Elite in a Revolutionary State: Loyalty, Expertise and Representatives in Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”

— Geoffrey Wiseman (DePaul University), “Expertise and Politics in Ministries of Foreign Affairs: The Politician-Diplomat Nexus.” 

— Andrew F. Cooper (University of Waterloo), “The Impact of Leader-Centric Populism on Career Diplomats: Tests of Loyalty, Voice, and Exit in Ministries of Foreign Affairs.” 

— Jorge A. Schiavon (Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, Mexico) and Bruno Figueroa (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mexico), “The Impact of Globalization and Neoliberal Structural Reforms on the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” 

— Kim B. Olsen (Danish-Arab Partnership Program, Tunis), “Implementing the EU’s Russia Sanctions: A Geoeconomic Test Case for French and German Ministries of Foreign Affairs.” 

— Pierre-Bruno Ruffini (University of Le Havre), “Ministries of Foreign Affairs and the Challenge of Science Diplomacy.” 

— Jan Melissen (University of Leiden), “Consular Diplomacy in the Era of Growing Mobility.” — Casper Klynge (Microsoft, Brussels), Mikael Ekman, and Nikolaj Juncher Waedegaard (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark), “Diplomacy in the Digital Age: Lessons from Denmark’s TechPlomacy Initiative.” 

— Ilan Manor (University of Oxford) and Rhys Crilley (University of Glasgow), “The Mediatisation of Ministries of Foreign Affairs: Diplomacy in the New Media Ecology.” (full text) 

— Damien Spry (University of South Australia), “From Delhi to Dili: Facebook Diplomacy by Ministries of Foreign Affairs in the Asia-Pacific.” 

— Iver B. Neumann (Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Oslo), “Approaching Ministries of Foreign Affairs Through Ethnographic Work.” 

— Marcus Holmes (The College of William and Mary), “Diplomacy in the Rearview Mirror: Implications of Face-to-Face Diplomacy Ritual Disruptions for Ministries of Foreign Affairs.” 

— Jason Dittmer (University College London), “Distributed Agency: Foreign Policy sans MFA.” (full text) 

— Thierry Balzacq (Sciences Po, CERI Paris), “The Site of Foreign Policy: A Field Theory Account of Ministries of Foreign Affairs.”

“Public Diplomacy for the 2020s and Beyond: Investment in Social Media and Artificial Intelligence Show the Way Ahead,” US State Department Diplomacy Lab, May 2022. This report was written by six American University School of International Service seniors (Nicholas Dohemann, Dexter Hawes, Jenny Jecrois, William Manogue, Bailey Shuster, and Jane Tilles) at the request of State’s Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources for the Under Secretary of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. The students’ recommendations include humor in digital diplomacy, short form looping videos, influencer marketing, giveaway marketing, artificial intelligence, and general suggestions for State’s social media and AI strategies. (Courtesy of Sherry Mueller and Tony Wayne)

US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, “ACPD Official Meeting Minutes: February 24, 2022,”  The Commission’s virtual public meeting focused on public diplomacy practice from a field perspective and release of its “2021 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting.”  A panel introduced by the Commission’s Executive Director Vivian Walker featured three career diplomats: Ginny Elliott, PAO, US Embassy, Ghana; Shayna Cram, PAO, US Embassy, Kyrgyz Republic; and Tuck Evans, PAO, US Embassy, Guatemala. The Commission’s Senior Advisor Deneyse Kirkpatrick moderated a Q&A. The document is a transcript of their remarks. 

Vivian S. Walker, Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, and Jay Wang, “Exploring U.S. Public Diplomacy’s Domestic Dimensions: Purviews, Publics, and Policies,” US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, April 2022. This Commission report summarizes ideas and challenges in the US government’s increasing use of public diplomacy programs and resources to engage domestic audiences. It is based on a virtual workshop with 45 practitioners, scholars, policy analysts, and journalists in October 2021. The report includes three scene setter remarks: Jennifer Hall Godfrey (former State Department senior official for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs), “Engaging Americans through Public Diplomacy;” Nicholas J. Cull, (University of Southern California), “Public Diplomacy’s Domestic Dimension: Some Historical Notes;” and Richard Wike (Pew Research Center), “American Public Opinion and International Engagement.” Following are three working group reports. Vivian S. Walker (the Commission’s Executive Director) summarizes views on the scope, authorities, and strategic outcomes of domestic engagement. Kathy R. Fitzpatrick (University of South Florida) discusses the meaning of domestic publics and ways public diplomacy goals could be addressed through outreach to them. Jay Wang (Center on Public Diplomacy, USC Annenberg) summarizes policy and resource questions. The report floats good ideas and raises important unanswered questions. Particularly useful are Nick Cull’s cautions that connect needed rethinking of a hard binary between foreign and domestic with awareness of potential risks grounded partisan politics and historical concerns over domestic engagement.

“U.S. Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development, Fact Sheet,” U.S Department of State, March 28, 2022.  Numbers tell a story. The combined White House request for State and USAID spending in FY 2023 is $60.4 billion, a 3% increase from FY 2022. The request for national defense spending is $813 billion (including $773 billion for the Pentagon), a 4% increase from FY 2022 and $30 billion more than approved by Congress for this year. State’s budget Fact Sheet itemizes a range of diplomacy and development priorities, including $7.6 billion to “recruit, train, and develop” a workforce that is more reflective of the diversity of the United States. Missing, as fp21 points out, is any mention of Secretary Blinken’s modernization agenda. The absence of any specific mention of public diplomacy is perhaps further evidence that State’s global public affairs and exchanges are mainstreamed in national discourse on diplomacy.

Zed Tarar, “Analysis | Is It Time to Delete Parts of the State Department,”  The Diplomatic Pouch, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University, March 29, 2022. Tarar, a US Foreign Service officer serving in London, continues to publish imaginative blog posts with this argument for organizational subtraction. He borrows UVA professor Leidy Klotz’s idea that removing elements and frictions from systems can unlock latent productivity gains to make a case for subtraction’s advantage over additive solutions in the Department of State. His examples include reducing the number of Senate-confirmed positions, removing deputy assistant secretary positions, and State’s outsourcing of the task of cost-of-living adjustments. He points to the merger of USIA and State as one possible example of an addition that failed to create efficiencies. Tarar concludes by arguing that the goal is not subtraction per se or reducing complexity; “rather it is to unlock otherwise latent potential.” 

“Truth Over Disinformation: Supporting Freedom and Democracy,”  USAGM Strategic Plan 2022-2066, February 2022. The US Agency for Global Media’s new strategic plan is comparable in substance and format to its predecessor 2018-2022 plan. USAGM’s mission (supporting freedom and democracy) and long-term strategic goals (expanding freedom of information and expression, sharing America’s democratic experience and values), and lists of “impact” and “agility” objectives are similar with nuanced differences in language and context. There is a new impact objective: “Reach and engage underserved audiences, including women, youth, and marginalized populations.” USAGM’s strategic plans, written from a public relations perspective, are informative summaries of what US government media services are doing and what they hope to achieve. They are useful for the general reader, and they provide a long-term outlook that can assist in dealing with the unexpected. But the longer the time horizon, the more unlikely it is that broad strategies can help with practitioner choices on issues shaped by chance, unexpected contingencies, multiple issues, and what others do. Missing in this document is discussion of a strategy to address a repeat of the chaos that occurred when USAGM’s world turned upside down during the eight months of Michael Pack’s tenure as CEO in the Trump administration.

Geoffrey Wiseman, “Expertise and Politics in Ministries of Foreign Affairs: The Politician-Diplomat Nexus,” in Christian Lequesne, ed., Ministries of Foreign Affairs in the World: Actors of State Diplomacy, (Koninklijke Brill, 2022), 119-149. Wiseman (DePaul University) carries forward his contributions to practitioner-oriented diplomatic studies in this compelling examination of interactions of diplomats and political leaders in ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs). In the context of concerns about faltering democracies and politicization of MFAs, he makes three claims. (1) MFAs (and their embassy networks) are important complicated actors constituted by individuals with mixed backgrounds and complex motives and emotions. (2) Diplomats’ interactions with political leaders are consequential for policy formulation and shaping national identities. (3) MFAs and diplomats have an underappreciated capacity for agency and innovation. He develops these claims in exploration of roles MFAs play as policy messengers, shapers, producers, and resisters. The strengths of this well-written chapter are its clear definitions and concepts, evidence from a broad range of cases in pluralistic and authoritarian countries, an extensive bibliography, and numerous pointers to hard questions and agendas for further research. 

Marie Yovanovitch, Lessons from the Edge: A Memoir, (Mariner Books, 2022). Ambassador Yovanovitch’s memoir has value well beyond her celebrity role in Donald Trump’s first impeachment. It is her absorbing account of navigating the State Department’s bureaucracy, overcoming gender discrimination, and lessons learned, first in management and consular assignments in Somalia and London, and then as a political officer in Russia and Canada, DCM in Ukraine, and ambassador in Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, and Ukraine. The first eight chapters fascinate for her blend of the high politics of bilateral relations and challenges of building a Foreign Service career. We gain insights into the nuts and bolts of embassy life, her tribute to Alison Palmer’s pioneering sex discrimination class action lawsuit, the benefits of student and faculty assignments at the National Defense University, Russian disinformation, the importance of mentoring, her own and by others, and how a “rules follower to the core” coped with corruption and political demands. She is generous with praise for those she admires, discreet in comments on peers, and ready to settle a score or two in egregious cases of gender discrimination. The final ten chapters are devoted to her experiences during the Trump administration. Here her patriotism, courage, and grace under extreme pressure shine through. 

Yovanovitch’s interest in diplomacy’s public dimension turns largely on democratization, rule of law, and free market projects in the civil societies of authoritarian countries. As a self-described introvert, speeches and media contacts are not her comfort zone, but she rose to the occasion repeatedly when required. A single reference to cultural diplomacy (her speech celebrating the Kharkiv-Cincinnati Sister City connection) is included, because it was during her remarks that she first learned of the 9/11 attacks. This is not a book to learn about her views on exchanges, broadcasting, and the roles of PAOs. But it is an extraordinarily useful resource for understanding political risks and patterns of practice of career diplomats in modern diplomacy. 

R. S. Zaharna, “A Humanity-Centered Vision of Soft Power for Public Diplomacy’s Global Mandate,”Journal of Public Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 2, 27-48. Zaharna (American University) continues her research on a public diplomacy that goes beyond a competitive state-centric perspective and a “traditional diplomacy of imperialism.” Her goal is to expand a vision of soft power grounded in “humankind’s global heritages and evolutionary capacity for cooperation.” The article combines her argument that public diplomacy has failed the Covid-19 test with a comparative analysis of the soft power ideas of Alexander Vuving and Joseph S. Nye, Jr.  

Recent Items of Interest

“AFSA Foreign Service Reform Priorities,”  April 2022, American Foreign Service Association.  

Sohaela Amiri, “Can Los Angeles Help Kyiv?”  April 11, 2022; Mark Kristmanson, “Can City Diplomacy Help Ukraine? Continuing the Conversation,”  April 22, 2022, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Simon Anholt, “The Good Country Index: The End of the Selfish State,” and “The Good Country Index: Edition 1.5,” March 29, 2022, Diplomatic Courier. 

Denise Campbell Bauer, “Fostering Franco-American Exchange for Our Shared Future,”  April 5, 2022, Smithsonian Magazine.

“Franklin and Diplomacy,” Conversation moderated by Judy Woodruff with Ken Burns, Condoleezza Rice, and Nicholas Burns, PBS one-hour video; “Benjamin Franklin: A Film by Ken Burns,” May 2022, PBS four-hour documentary. 

“Bill Burns and the Bear,”  April 9, 2022, The Economist.

Morgan Chalfant and Rebecca Beitsch, “Biden’s CIA Head Leads the Charge Against Putin’s Information War,”  March 13, 2022, The Hill.

Geoffrey Cowan, “Our Secret Weapon Against Putin Isn’t So Secret,”  March 28, 2022, Politico.

M. J. Crawford and Keome Rowe, “Invest in the Next Generation: Ideas From the Entry-Level Group at Mission Pakistan,”  March 2022, The Foreign Service Journal.

Renee Earle, “Don’t Leave the Russian People Behind,”  May 2022, American Diplomacy.

“Exploring the Secretary’s Modernization Agenda: A Q&A with Policy Planning Director Salman Ahmed,” March 2022, The Foreign Service Journal.

Marci Falck-Bados, “SIS Global Leadership Dinner, Student Speech,”  May 2022, American University

Nicholas Cull, “Looking for God at the Dubai Expo,”  May 5, 2022, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Mark Hannah, “Why Is the Wartime Press Corps So Hawkish,”  March 30, 2022, Foreign Policy.

Drew Harwell, “Computer Programmers Are Taking Aim at Russia’s Propaganda Wall,”  March 17, 2022, The Washington Post.

Nikki Hinshaw – Recipient of the 2022 Walter Roberts Public Diplomacy Studies Award,  April 30, 2022, Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, GWU.

Joe B. Johnson, “New Nonprofit Promotes U.S. Global Engagement: Two Washington-based Organizations Merge,”  April 16, 2022; “PDCA: Strengthening America’s Dialogue With the World,” Public Diplomacy Council of America.

Steve Johnson, “How a Magazine Called ‘Amerika’ Helped Win the Cold War,”  May 15, 2022, Politico. 

Peter Isackson, “Finding a Way to Diss Information,” March 16, 2022; “Try This Game to Evaluate Levels of Disinformation in Times of War,”  March 14, 2022, Fair Observer. 

Thomas Kent, “How to Reach Russian Ears,” March 8, 2022, Center for European Policy Analysis; Evelyn Kent, Quinata Jurecic, and Thomas Kent, “Getting Information Into Russia,” March 24, 2022, The Lawfare Podcast. 

Mark MacCarthy, “Why a Push to Exclude Russian State Media Would Be Problematic for Free Speech and Democracy,”  April 14, 2022, Brookings.

Jan Melissen: Recipient of 2022 ISA Distinguished Scholar Award in Diplomacy Studies, March 28, 2022, University of Leiden. 

Simon Morrison, “Canceling Russian Artists Plays Into Putin’s Hands,”  March 11, 2022, The Washington Post. 

Kiki Skagen Munshi, “Time to Reorient,”  (Letter, p. 11), May 2022, The Foreign Service Journal. 

“President Biden Announces Key Nominees [to the International Broadcasting Advisory Board and US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy],”  March 11, 2022, The White House.

Thomas Rid, “Why You Haven’t Heard About the Secret Cyberwar in Ukraine,” March 18, 2022, The New York Times;“Thomas Rid on Ukraine and Cyberwar,” March 23, 2022, The Lawfare Podcast.  

Philip Seib, “Why Russia is Losing the Information War,”  May 9, 2022, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

 “Seven-in-Ten Americans Now See Russia as an Enemy: Attitudes Toward NATO Increasingly Positive,”  April 6, 2022, Pew Research Center.

Elizabeth Shackelford, “How to Lead With Diplomacy, and Not Just in Ukraine,”  March 24, 2022, Chicago Tribune. 

Aaron Shaffer, “It’s a Big Day at the State Department for U.S. Cyberdiplomacy,”  April 4, 2022, The Washington Post. 

Dan Spokojny, “It’s Official: All Foreign Service Officers Must Learn Data,”  March 21, 2022, fp21. 

Ian Thomas, “The Value of Soft Power & Cultural Approaches to International Heritage Protection,”  April 26, 2022, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Vivian S. Walker, “Analysis | ‘Glory to the Heroes’: Ukraine’s War for Narrative Credibility,”  March 17, 2022, The Diplomatic Pouch, Georgetown University. 

“2022 Walter Roberts Congressional Award Given to Sen. Chris Murphy,” March 31, 2022, Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, GWU. 

Gem From The Past  

Ole Jacob Sending, Vincent Pouliot, and Iver Neumann, “The Future of Diplomacy: Changing Practices, Evolving Relationships,”  International Journal, Vol. 66, No. 3, June 2011, 527-542. About a decade ago, Sending (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs), Pouliot (McGill University), and Neumann (Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Oslo) published a pathbreaking article. Their goal was to locate traditional and nontraditional diplomacy actors in an evolving pattern of social relations. They identified two areas of change: (1) compatibilities and tensions in diplomacy’s evolving relationship between representation and governance, and (2) the territorial-nonterritorial character of relations between diplomatic actors and the constituencies they represent. 

Their article surveys the literature of the day and pays close attention to ways the practice of diplomacy informs theory. They also discuss how nontraditional diplomats make nonterritorial authority claims and how representation is increasingly shaped by governance. As today’s scholars and practitioners turn increasingly to the “societization of diplomacy,” this article continues to resonate. “When all is said and done,” they argue, “we can be certain of one trait that the future of diplomacy will inevitably share with its past: it will remain a key practical grounding of ever-changing configurations of social relations beyond the state.” In assessing the evolution of diplomacy practices, we should keep in mind that “diplomacy is a social form deeply embedded in historically and culturally contingent contexts that produce meanings and politics. 

An archive ofDiplomacy’s  Public Dimension: Books, Articles, Websites  (2002-present) is maintained at George Washington University’s Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.  Current issues are also posted by the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy, and the Public Diplomacy Council of America.