Issue #125

Intended for teachers of 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  and BGregory1@aol.com

Bruce Gregory, American Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: Practitioners as Change Agents in Foreign Relations, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). 

Get the eBook text and paperback here. 

Get Kindle and paperback here.

Sherwood Demitz, “Memories From a Cold War Summit,” American Diplomacy, August 2024. In this vivid personal recollection, retired US Foreign Service officer Sherwood “Woody” Demitz discusses his memories of the historic 1972 Nixon-Brezhnev presidential summit in Moscow. It led to détente and signings of the SALT I Treaty, the ABM Treaty, and the US-USSR Incidents at Sea Treaty. Surrounding the substance were pressures on diplomats of a possible last-minute cancellation (the US had dropped aerial mines in North Vietnam’s Haiphong harbor trapping Soviet cargo ships), massive international media coverage, and a dinner for Brezhnev and the Politburo at Spaso House, the residence of the US ambassador. Demitz’s public diplomacy career combined foreign service postings, audience and media research, and international broadcasting.

Mervyn Frost, “The Global Diplomatic Practice: Constituting an Ethical World Order,” in J.E. Spence, Claire Yorke, and Alister Masser, eds., A New Theory and Practice of Diplomacy: New Perspectives on Diplomacy, (I.B. Taurus, 2021), 15-36 [see book review below]. Frost (Kings College London) makes interesting and debatable claims pertinent to discourse on practice theory, ethics and diplomacy, and public diplomacy. First, in contrast to many scholars who treat practice theory as what practitioners do instrumentally and situationally, Frost analyzes diplomatic practices as constitutive components of “the global society of sovereign states” and “global civil society.” Second, it follows, he argues, that in a world of diverse ethical codes, ethical standards for diplomats cannot be drawn from beyond diplomacy. Rather, they “can only be understood from within the social practices in which they are constituted as actors.” He divides everyday global diplomatic practices into “administration” (e.g., issuing passports, facilitating trade, and managing exchanges) and “politics” resolving disputes between states “about the rules of association within the global practice of states” (e.g., about claims to territory, reparations after wars, and constitutional issues in international organizations). Third, Frost contends these practices have become more complex due to media and communication forms open to publics and the “extensive strategic communications” of government leaders, which he states is sometimes “misleadingly referred to as ‘public diplomacy.’” A more accurate term, he argues, is simply “international politics” or the struggle for power and material advantage. 

Frost’s chapter is useful because it prompts reflection on salient issues in practice theory and ethics in diplomacy. However, it is problematic in its assumption of a hard binary between the society of sovereign states and a “macro practice” of anarchy in the absence of central government — a category distinction that overlooks a vast domain of governance rules, norms, and institutions in the space between anarchy and government. His offhand dismissal of public diplomacy fails to consider that in essence it is a political instrument central to diplomatic practice and relationships between government and governance actors and their publics. For an insightful review of the book and Frost’s chapter, see Kristin Anabel Eggling, “Review Feature: New Perspectives on Diplomacy,” E-International Relations, July 9, 2022. 

Yuval Noah Harari, Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI, (Random House, 2024). In this sweeping new book, Harari (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind) challenges what he calls the “naive view” of information. By this he means the idea that information’s primary role in history is to represent a preexisting reality, that sufficient information can lead to truth, which in turn can lead to power and wisdom, and that good information will drive out bad information in the marketplace of ideas. For Harari, most information does not represent reality, although sometimes it does. Rather, because information always connects different points in a network, our starting point should be how information connects people and new networks over time. Part one of the book discusses ways humans invented information technologies that improved connectivity — shared stories, clay tablets, print, mass media. Chapters explore how information networks have been used to create myths and bureaucracies, authoritarian and democratic power structures, resurgent populism, fantasies of infallibility, and self-correcting mechanisms.

With part one as an essential historical perspective, part two interrogates AI — a fundamentally different technology that does not rely on human mythmakers and human bureaucracies to function. What happens when computers with autonomous agency run bureaucracies and invent new myths? How should we distinguish between consciousness and independent decision-making capabilities? What are the implications of computer-to-computer information chains without humans, relentless networks that are always “on,” and computer-generated narratives that a computer’s algorithms alone curate and interpret? What do these inorganic information capabilities mean for democracy, economic models, cultural norms, and instruments of governance and political power? Harari is not a technology determinist; we have choices. In part three he explores the implications of unfathomable AI algorithms for democracy, populism, and authoritarianism, possible “digital empires,” and the heavy responsibility of making good choices and building strong self-correcting capabilities. Harari earned his global reputation by making powerful arguments through impressive storytelling, humor, and conceptual clarity. Some reviewers, including technology experts and scholars bent on writing for other specialists, are critical of Harari’s account. But there is broad reader and reviewer enthusiasm for his creative bridging of scholarship and public discussion of one of the most important issues of our time. His book is a compelling read for teachers and students of diplomacy’s public dimension.

Stuart MacDonald and Andrew Murray, Soft Power at a Turning Point: A Comparative Analysis, 2024, British Council. In this 50-page report, commissioned from ICR Research Ltd, London, the authors compare the “cultural diplomacy and public diplomacy” activities of the British Council and counterpart organizations. Key findings include the following. (1) Countries are focusing soft power assets more on national interests and their foreign and economic policies than shared global challenges. (2) More programs are designed for domestic audiences. (3) Soft power is increasingly mobilized to promote national identities “sometimes assertively or controversially.” (4) More control is “exerted by governments over arm’s length bodies like the British Council.” The report, filled with instructive graphics, compares resources, “digital maturity,” and global reach. The authors recognize a variety of challenges in their comparative analysis: dissimilar connections between governments and civil society, differences in definitions of soft power, complexities in operationalizing digital and analog tools and methods, and structural contrasts between foreign affairs ministries and organizations comparable to the British Council. Despite these analytical concerns, the report is an instructive global overview and online resource for teachers and practitioners.

Jessica T. Mathews, “What Was the Biden Doctrine?”  Foreign Affairs, September/October, 2024. The Carnegie Endowment’s Distinguished Fellow Jessica Mathews argues four years is insufficient time to establish a foreign policy doctrine. Nevertheless, Biden’s commitment to diplomacy backed by strength is an approach well-suited to today’s world if it is not overturned by a successor. Her article is a report card on Biden’s achievements and strategic mistakes. High grades: winning the trust of allies, institutionalizing a deep American presence in Asia, restoration of a US presence in multilateral organizations and agreements, ending the longest “forever war” in Afghanistan, and an innovative response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Low grades: undermining an ambiguous “one China” policy and escalating tensions over Taiwan, a stubborn unwillingness to use US leverage with Israel to reduce staggering levels of death and suffering in Gaza, trade protectionism, lack of sustained nuclear arms control and nonproliferation diplomacy, a Manichean division between autocracies and democracies, and an unproductive “Summit for Democracies.” Mathews makes no predictions in the face of historical uncertainties, but overall Biden has used diplomacy to bring about profound changes in foreign policy “not to accommodate American decline but to reflect the country’s inherent strength.”

Ahmed Nabil, “Contact Groups as Diplomatic Intervention Tools in Civil Wars: US Diplomacy,”  The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Online publication July 25, 2024. Nabil (Wayne State University and a former diplomat) examines contact groups as a distinct mode of diplomatic intervention and engagement in conflicts. Contact groups are different from track one and track two negotiations, he argues, and they do not include parties to civil wars. Using qualitative methods, consisting primarily of unstructured and anonymous interviews with mid-career, senior, and former US officials who participated in conflict group meetings, his article examines case studies of contact groups in civil conflicts in Libya’s P3+3, the Syria Small Group, and the Yemen Quartet. His interview questions explored each groups’ formation, meeting dynamics, relations with UN processes, and effectiveness from the US perspective. Nabil concludes the three groups failed to achieve success in achieving a final settlement. Nevertheless, they served US interests. They were a forum for dialogue and advancing US policies. They were a means to build support for UN envoys in these conflicts. And they helped to achieve US interests such as guaranteeing Libyan oil exports and financial support to territories liberated from ISIL in Syria. Nabil also argues this mode of diplomacy can support engagement between stakeholders with different views of conflict and provide a useful supplement to other modes of multilateral diplomacy. His article is a good example of how analysis of practice can illuminate conceptual issues in diplomacy.

Jack Spence, Alastair Masser, and Claire Yorke, eds., New Perspectives on Diplomacy, A New Theory and Practice of Diplomacy, Volume 1, Contemporary Diplomacy in Action, Volume 2, (I.B. Tauris, 2021). Spence (Kings College London), Masser (Legatum Institute), and Yorke (Yale University) argue a seismic shift in world order and complex emerging challenges pose fundamental questions for the nature, practice, and study of diplomacy — fading American hegemony; rising multipolarity; geopolitical, technological, and demographic changes; and diminished distinctions between war and peace, state and non-state actors, formal and informal dialogue, and values and interests. Chapters in two volumes explore what these trends mean for continuity and change in the study and practice of diplomacy. Volume 1 includes chapters on diplomacy and ethics, identity, and empathy; relations between diplomacy and conflict resolution, small state politics, summitry, and intelligence; and the theoretical value of practice theory. Volume 2 includes chapters on diplomacy and social media, the environment, information war, domestic populations, emotions, and social movements. Diplomacy remains indispensable, the editors contend, and its “widening aperture” embraces more actors and more sub-disciplines. Central questions going forward: what skills and experiences will next generation diplomats need; how should we study and teach diplomacy; and how should we bridge the academic / practice divide? (Suggested by Kathy Fitzpatrick, University of South Florida)

Daya Kishan Thussu, Changing Geopolitics of Global Communication,  (Routlege, 2024). Thussu (Hong Kong Baptist University and previously University of Westminster in London) examines issues at the intersection of geopolitics — shaped by decline in a US-led West, the rise of China, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and global communication — shaped by transformative digital technologies and the role of artificial intelligence in weaponizing information. Chapters explore the historical origins of the 21st century’s global information infrastructure, “digital democracy vs. digital imperialism,” how military conflict has been framed by Western media to advance geopolitical interests, weaponization of information in the Russia-Ukraine war, cyberwarfare, and emerging characteristics of a new global information order.

Kate Wright, Martin Scott, and Mel Bunce, Capturing News, Capturing Democracy: Trump and the Voice of America,  (Oxford University Press, 2024). Efforts by government officials to politicize news coverage by the Voice of America (VOA) have been present from its creation. Senior VOA broadcasters were fired for their coverage of Italy’s King Victor Emanuel III in 1943. Senator Joseph McCarthy mounted vile attacks on VOA in the 1950s. The White House and senior USIA officials deleted content in VOA’s coverage of the US evacuation from Vietnam in 1975. The State Department tried to prevent VOA from airing an interview with Taliban leader Mullah Omar in 2001. Examples from a very long list. In this timely book, Wright (University of Edinburgh), Scott (University of East Anglia), and Bunce (University of London) take a deep dive into VOA’s politicization by US Agency for Global Media CEO Michael Pack during the last seven months of the Trump administration. Adopting the theoretical framework of “government capture” — understood as ways governments and civil society allies directly and indirectly politicize journalism in public service media — the authors discuss Pack’s actions in detail, their cumulative effect in undermining democratic checks and balances, and VOA’s vulnerabilities to future politicization. 

The book brings needed scholarship to examination of historical, conceptual, and practitioner issues in government media. It is distinguished by its evidence-based research, much of it derived from Freedom of Information Act requests. It also serves as a needed reform primer for those seeking to strengthen VOA’s journalism firewall and address continuing risks of politicization. There is one significant weakness in their research. The authors did not seek to interview Pack, his appointees, and others on the questionable grounds that doing so risked disrupting the “delicate processes” of investigations that might result in criminal and civil lawsuits.

Irene Wu, Measuring Soft Power in International Relations, (Lynne Reiner Publishers, 2024). Irene Wu (Georgetown University, US Federal Communications Commission) takes a deep dive into the meaning and measurement of soft power. She argues soft power can be quantified in ways that make possible comparisons across societies and political entities and analyses across time. Her soft power rubric has three people-to-people interactions — emigration, studying abroad, and traveling abroad — and a fourth mediated interaction, watching foreign movies. These indicators are arranged on a spectrum spanning short- and long-term attraction. Part one of the book explores recent conceptual developments in soft power research and how ideas from related fields of study can provide tools to study soft power. Part two applies her conceptual framework to case studies: US movies and popular culture, international education hubs, India’s emigrants, Russia’s and China’s soft power compared, soft power in Southeast Asia, and the strengths and limitations of global soft power rankings.  

Recent Items of Interest

Madison Alder, “State Department Conducting Market Research on an LLM it Could Customize,”  August 5, 2024, FedScoop.

Matt Armstrong, “Two Examples of Disinformation, One of Great Comms, Plus a Still Relevant Observation,”  September 17, 2024; “Functional Discrepancy: Syncing Geographies of Bureaucracies,”  September 13, 2024; “Tactical Solutions Will Not Fix a Strategic Defect,”  September 9, 2024, Arming for the War We’re In substack.

Kadir Jun Ayhan, “Diplomacy Analytics LLC.” Research Consultancy Firm.

Evan Cooper and Lucas Ruiz, “Domestic Engagement is Needed in State Department Modernization,”  September 9, 2024, Stimson.

Michael Crowley, “Senior U.S. Diplomat Will Lead Kamala Harris’s Running Mate’s Team,”  August 2, 2024, The New York Times.

Gordon Duguid, “USIA: Let It Be,”  July 30, 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.

Renee Earl, “Getting NATO Membership to 32: Why We Needed Public Diplomacy,”  August 2024, American Diplomacy.

Francesca Ebel and Mary Ilyushina, “Artists Say Putin’s Push for Patriotism is Killing Russian Culture,”  July 29, 2024, The Washington Post.

Kristin Eggeling, “Field Notes from the Bay: Why are There Diplomatic Offices in Silicon Valley?”  August 30, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Michael Gfoeller and David H. Rundell, “It’s Time to Fix the Foreign Service to Give Diplomacy a Chance,”  August 6, 2024, Newsweek.

Alexey Gorbachev, “Russian Hacker Attacks Target Former US Ambassadors, Reveal Prior Penetration,”  August 28, 2024, Voice of America.

Garrett M. Graff, “Antony Blinken Dragged US Diplomacy Into the 21st Century. Even He is Surprised by the Results,”  September 4, 2024, Wired.

Bruce Gregory, “Remembering Tom Korologos (1933-2024),” August 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.

“Tom Korologos, Former U.S. Ambassador to Belgium, 91,”  July 31, 2024, The National Herald; Brian Murphy, “Tom Korologos, Guru of Senate Confirmation Crossfire, Dies at 91,”  August 1, 2024, The Washington Post; Richard Sandomir, “Tom Korologos, Sherpa of Republican Nominees Dies at 91,” August 7, 2024, The New York Times.

Stuart Holliday, “America’s Mega-decade of Sports Is a Powerhouse of Diplomacy,”  August 17, 2024, The Hill.

Susan R. Johnson, “Project 2025: Department of State,”  July 29, 2024, Fulcrum.

“Kaine and Young Introduce Bill to Empower State Department and USAID to Counter People’s Republic of China, Other Threats,” July 31, 2024, Senator Tim Kaine Press Release; Gabe Murphy, “Senators Want to Infect Other Agencies with ‘Unfunded’ Wish Lists,”  August 6, 2024, Responsible Statecraft.

Kathy Kemper, “Sports Diplomacy Playing on in Paris Sets a Global Example,”  August 6, 2024, The Hill.

“Daniel Kimmage: Countering Disinformation Through Resilient Information Ecosystem, Partnerships,”  September 18, 2024, This Day.

Dana S. LaFon, “How the U.S. Can Counter Disinformation from Russia and China,”  August 14, 2024, Council on Foreign Relations.

Jorge Marinho, Julio Ventura, Lourenco Ribeiro, “Media Diplomacy and the Ongoing Armed Conflict in Ukraine,”  August 2, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Samantha Masunaga, “As Hollywood and Streaming Go Global, U.S. State Department Leans on Power of Film,”  September 19, 2024, Los Angeles Times.

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “Invest in Soft Power,”  September 9, 2024, “Letters to the Next President,” Foreign Policy.

Kathryn Palmer, “Defense Department Cuts 13 of Its Language Flagship Programs,”  May 15, 2024, Inside Higher Ed.

Mitzi Perdue, “A New England Yankee Tells America’s Story,”  September 11, 2024, CEPA.

Rick Ruth and Scott Lingenfelter, “The High Ground of Soft Power,”  August 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.

Cynthia P. Schneider, “Afghanistan: A Window Onto a Potential Harris-Walz Pivot on Foreign Policy,”  and “Breakdancing in Afghanistan: Cultural Resilience Three Years After U.S. Withdrawal,”  August 29, 2024; CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

“A Short-term Work Visa Shows the Benefits of Immigration,”  August 8, 2024, The Economist.

Tara Sonenshine, “Gaza’s Fighting Pauses for Vaccines Show Power of Health Diplomacy,”  September 4, 2024, The Baltimore Sun.

Dan Spokojny, “Advice for the Inaugural Provost of the Foreign Service Institute,”  September 12, 2024; “Ten Principles for Foreign Policy Expertise,”  September 5, 2024; “State Department FFRDC: Public Comment for the Federal Register,”  August 14, 2024, Foreign Policy Expertise Substack.

Dan Spokojny, “How to Embrace Uncertainty in Foreign Policy,”  August 21, 2024, Foreign Policy Expertise Substack.

“Talent is Scarce. Yet Many Countries Spurn It,”  August 15, 2024, The Economist.

Paul Tassi, “‘The Diplomat’ Season 2 Gets An Imminent Release Date on Netflix,”  August 8, 2024, Forbes.

US House Committee on Small Business Interim Staff Report, “Small Business: Instruments and Casualties of the Censorship-Industrial Complex,” September 2024;  Gabe Kaminsky, “Embattled State Department Office [Global Engagement Center] Skirted Mandate in Funding ‘Censorship’ Groups: House GOP,”  September 10, 2024, Washington Examiner.

Tim Walz, “Dear Foreign Service: We’ve Got Your Back,”  January-February 2018, The Foreign Service Journal.

Michael Walzer, “Israel’s Pager Bombs Have No Place in a Just War,”  September 21, 2024, The New York Times; Brian Finucane, “Law of War Questions Raised by Exploding Pagers in Lebanon,”  September 18, 2024, Just Security.

Jian (Jay) Wang and Andrew Dubbins, “What Artificial Intelligence Means for Public Diplomacy,”  August 12, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Bill Wanlund, “Feminists to the Fore,”  September 2023; “Resetting Public Perceptions in Chile,”  August 2024;Remarks by Ambassador Bernadette M. Meehan, recipient of PDCA’s 2024 award for Public Diplomacy Leadership by a Senior Officer, August 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.

Gem from the Past

Marcy E. Gallo, “Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service (CRS), Updated April 3, 2020. The CRS defines FFRDCs as a special class of research and development (R&D) institutions owned by the federal government, but operated by universities, other nonprofits, and industrial firms. They provide federal agencies with R&D that cannot be obtained within government or the private sector alone. The State Department through Federal Register notices is requesting public comment on its first proposed FFRDC for diplomacy. This CRS report provides information on the origins, activity types, characteristics, and federal funding of the 42 FFRDCs sponsored by the 13 federal agencies (currently 15) when the report was written. The report summarizes issues of interest to Congress: agency oversight and management, competition with the private sector, diversification of activities or “mission creep,” competitive FFRDC contracts vs. long-term relationships with sponsoring agencies, and aging infrastructures. The State Department seeks an FFRDC for R&D in three areas: Diplomatic Innovation and Modernization, Global CyberTech Solutions, and Global Operations and Acquisitions.

In 2008, a Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication report called for an R&D center such as RAND with multiple capabilities. They included facilitation of knowledge transfer across government through a help desk staffed by subject experts, assessments of cultural dynamics and societal values, audience segmentation analysis and behavioral trends, up-to-the-minute knowledge of media trends and communication technologies, a knowledge base for public diplomacy implementation and evaluation, a locus for project experimentation, and sustained memory of core data, best practices, and research. The recommendation was dismissed by State at the time. It still has value and deserves a second look today.

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, the Public Diplomacy Council of America, and Len Baldyga’s email listserv.

Issue #124

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

Intended for teachers of 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  

Bruce Gregory, American Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: Practitioners as Change Agents in Foreign Relations, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). 

Get the eBook text and paperback here. 

Get Kindle and paperback here.

Alina Dolea, “Diaspora Diplomacy, Emotions, and Disruption: A Conceptual and Analytical Framework,” June 2024, CPD Perspectives, USC Center on Public Diplomacy. In this perceptive article, Alina Dolea (Bournemouth University and USC CPD Research Fellow) develops a theoretical framework for understanding diaspora diplomacy. She advances important claims. (1) Diaspora diplomacy requires a foundational assessment of emotions understood as enabling and disruptive mediating factors in diplomatic agency, practices, and discourses. (2) The way forward lies in a constructivist approach in which identity, belonging, and transnational ties are central analytical categories. (3) Media, migration, and digital technologies are essential gateway perspectives. (4) Diasporas should be examined, not as bounded entities, but as categories of practice in which actors make claims, initiate projects, project loyalties, make judgments, and mobilize support. (5) The intersubjective and sociocultural nature of emotions as political forces linked to relations of power — and the sense of loss and trauma common to all displaced peoples — are key dynamics. Dolea applies her framework to the Romanian disaspora in the United Kingdom. She employs semi-structured interviews with 21 representatives of their organizations to address two research questions. How do these representatives construct their identity? And how do they situate themselves with roles and identities in the diaspora assemblage as a “field of power?” Her essay provides a capacious review of relevant literature and is filled with research enhancing ideas. 

Matthew Evans, Matt Lipka, Joshua McDaniel, Isa Nambo, Evan Rein, and Gabriel Teitelbaum, “Partnerships, Policy, and Public Diplomacy: A Deep Dive Into Influencer Diplomacy for the Secretary’s Priorities.” Diplomacy Lab Project, School of International Service, American University (AU). In this capstone project, six AU seniors explore the private sector roles of social media influencers and ways State Department partnerships with 24 selected influencers could advance US public diplomacy objectives. Their project drew on interviews with Public Diplomacy Council of America members, analysis of State Department press releases, and a review of scholarly and practitioner literature on public diplomacy and social media influencers. The authors identify best practices in partnerships with influencers, criteria for selecting events and influencers, themes from past events likely to have future value, and recommended State Department events for influencer partnerships. The project was supervised by Ambassador (ret.) Earl Anthony Wayne, AU’s Distinguished Diplomat in Residence.

Alicia Fjällhed and James Pamment, “Disinformation,” in Eytan Gilboa, ed., A Research Agenda for Public Diplomacy, pp. 173-186, (Edward Elgar, 2023). This essay stands out in the enormous literature on disinformation for its clarity and generative ideas. Fjällhed (Lund University) and Pamment (Stockholm University) argue central challenges for public diplomacy research and practice are (1) to connect disinformation’s development to a volatile political, security, and communications environment and (2) to “deliver cutting-edge insights to practitioners of PD before they become outdated.” To achieve this, public diplomacy requires reciprocity between vast transdisciplinary research domains and diplomacy-specific studies that can enhance research and practice. The authors begin with a summary of the evolution of propaganda and disinformation research. Then they identify “windows of opportunity” for theoretical and empirical inquiry. Continuous engagement between scholars and practitioners is critical to developing evidence-based concepts and enhancing the operational value of theory. Examples of how this can work are drawn from collaborative efforts of the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, and Lund University’s work with the Swedish, U.K., and Finish governments and EU institutions.

“Focus on AI for Diplomacy,” The Foreign Service Journal, June 2024. Forward leaning diplomacy practitioners have often shaped change at technological (telegraph, shortwave, internet) and geopolitical (WWI, Cold War, 9/11) turning points. This month’s FSJ offers a rich collection of essays by serving and retired diplomats that focus on artificial intelligence as a technology turning point.

Dan Spokojny (CEO of the think tank fp21), “New Tools for Better Foreign Policy,” 21-23. His scene setter urges regard for the art of diplomacy and four enduring characteristics shaping change in diplomacy as a human enterprise: defining national interests; intellectual agility, challenging orthodoxy, and anticipating surprise in setting goals; moral clarity; and strong interpersonal and communication skills.

Zed Tarar (Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Department of State), “An AI Primer for Policy Professionals,” 24-27. A superb clearly written survey of AI’s evolution, characteristics, and models; the threat/promise debate; and guidelines for diplomats.

Paul Kruchoski (Director, Office of Planning and Resources for Public Diplomacy, Department of State), “At the Crossroads of Tradition and Innovation With AI,” 28-30. Adopting AI to support diplomacy’s core missions is not a technology problem, it is a State Department culture problem. Resistance to sharing information. A fragmented, stove-piped environment. Technology tools as sources of inefficiency. Cultural change, he argues, requires sharing “dramatically siloed data,” a common data model, leadership and incentives that reward collaboration and innovation. Important ideas, reminiscent of US public diplomacy’s “reinvention” agendas in the 1990s.

Paula Osborn (Chief Data Officer, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State), “Toward Data-Informed Multilateral Diplomacy,” 31-34. A case study of the potential benefits and obstacles encountered in adopting AI and data science in State’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs.

Evanna Hu (CEO of Omelas and non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council), “AI Disruption and Responsible Use in Diplomacy,” 35-37. A summary of the debate between AI accelerationists and decelerationists; AI’s implications for international rules and norms, democratic values, collective action, and global engagement; and the concept of “Responsible AI.”

Bettyjane Hoover, “Strengthening Japanese Public Diplomacy: Steps for the Future,” Substantive Research Paper, School of International Service, American University, Spring 2024. Hoover, a graduating MA student, examines the history of four actors in Japan’s public diplomacy: the Japan Foundation, the Japan House, Nippon Hoso Kyokai (NHK), and the Japan Exchange and Teaching Program (JET). Building on an analysis of their activities, her well-organized and clearly written paper makes recommendations for conceptual and operational changes that would strengthen the nation’s public diplomacy. Leading the list is her call for Japan to rely less heavily on promoting culture and soft power and consider “integrating its strategic communications, currently the domain of the Self Defense Force (SDF) with its PD activities.” Her paper was supervised by Ambassador (ret.) Earl Anthony Wayne, AU’s Distinguished Diplomat in Residence.

Harry W. Kopp, The Voice of the Foreign Service: A History of the American Foreign Service Association, second edition, (American Foreign Service Association, 2024). In this essential second edition, historian and retired FSO Harry Kopp, takes AFSA’s story forward from the Obama administration through the turmoil of the Trump administration to the third year of the Biden administration. New chapters focus on leadership and internal governance issues, professional and labor-management issues, and questions relating to Foreign Service reform and the role of a career service in American diplomacy. Particularly useful is his account of the legal and professional challenges confronting AFSA during the first impeachment of President Trump and the predations of his administration. Earlier chapters — on the nation’s first diplomats and consuls, AFSA’s origins, its evolution into a professional association and then an employee union — are slightly revised. Kopp states accurately that his book “is unashamedly pro-AFSA.” “Failures and scandals are not ignored, but neither are they highlighted.” It is a well written account of people, events, and contested issues based on deep research in AFSA’s records and meeting minutes, the Foreign Service Journal, online interviews in the American Association of Diplomatic Studies and Training’s oral history project, and published primary and secondary sources. Practitioner oriented scholars will find it is more than the history of an organization; it illuminates larger concerns in understanding societal drivers of an American way of diplomacy.  

Carlos Lozada, “Is America a City on a Hill or a Nation on the Precipice?”  July 2, 2024, The New York Times. In this lengthy but easily read essay, opinion columnist Lozada gives us a thoughtful summary of what numerous scholars and political leaders have said about claims of American exceptionalism — from sociologist Daniel Bell, to historian Andrew Bacevich, to historian Ian Tyrrell, from the Puritan John Winthrop to Presidents Ronald Reagan and Joe Biden. American exceptionalism’s reality or falsity is not an unambiguous fact, Lozada argues, but an endless argument over a political or cultural belief. It is a discourse in which America’s leaders praise a shining city that is, or once was, or imagined in the future. Diplomacy is a political instrument of power, and this complex discourse is characteristic of an American way of diplomacy. US diplomats must contend with how it is framed in intensely partisan contests in the moment, with how foreign publics understand their own histories, and with how conflicting versions create differences and misunderstandings in diplomatic practice. There are significant implications for how the State Department creates a learning culture and adopts needed reforms in professional education.

Anna Helene Kvist Møller, Rebecca Adler-Nissen, Yevgeniy Golovchenko, Kristin Anabel Eggeling, “The Social Aesthetics of Digital Diplomacy,”  International Political Sociology, Vol. 18, Issue 3, September 2024. These respected diplomacy scholars at the University of Copenhagen argue that social media images posted by diplomats can be analyzed, not as strategic or representative signifiers, but as “ritual, performative, and symbolic markers” that encode social norms and project authority, power, and privilege. Drawing on explanations of visual social theories and ideas in the sociology of taste — and their analysis of 55,559 images in tweets by more than 1,000 ambassadors worldwide using computer vision techniques — the authors assess recent scholarship in digitalized diplomacy and advance several claims. Using graphics and categories of photographs as evidence in the article, they assert that collectively the images diplomats share display harmony and conceal conflicts. They reveal a global uniformity and “formalized code” that reinforces ideals of mediation and sovereign equality. They convey a “we” orientation that often excludes alternative narratives and largely adheres “to a Western and elite-oriented visual repertoire.” The social aesthetics of these images does not mean there is homogeneity among incredibly diverse diplomats; rather the images are carefully curated to project an illusion of equality. Their projection on social media represents tradition as much as innovation. The article provides further support for blended diplomacy, meaning integration of analog and digital technologies in diplomatic practice, argued persuasively by two of the authors in earlier research. See Adler-Nissen and Eggeling “Blended Diplomacy: The Entanglement and Contestation of Digital Technologies in Everyday Diplomatic Practice,” European Journal of International Relations 28(3), (2022), 640-666. 

Richard Rorty, Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism, (Harvard University Press, 2021, 2024). In 1996 the American philosopher Richard Rorty (1931-2007) delivered ten lectures in which he voiced his mature views on pragmatism as an intellectual and political commitment at the University of Girona in Spain. They were published in Catalan and Spanish, but not as a unified collection in English (with an excellent foreword by Robert B. Brandom) until 2021. This year they were published in paperback. Rorty’s ideas turn on his belief that our practices — grounded in individual autonomy and what emerges from human conversations — should form the basis for knowledge, ethics, and politics, not truth criteria beyond human experience. In the tradition of John Dewey and Jurgen Habermas, Rorty’s “anti-authoritarian” pragmatism animates thinking about ideas, democracy, and discursive social practices. In diplomacy’s public dimension, Rorty and other pragmatists inform a variety of assumptions, tools, and methods: cognitive framing of a mediated world beyond immediate grasp, treating publics as participants not spectators, managing relations between groups through discourse and face-to-face relationships, public opinion research, democracy promotion, and educational and cultural exchanges. These lectures are Rorty at his best — a thinker and provocative public intellectual who wrote clearly and has much to say about our understanding of democratic politics and diplomacy. 

Efe Sevin, “Unpacking Soft Power for Cities: A Theoretical Approach,” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, accessible online June 2024. Sevin (Towson University) continues his excellent work on city diplomacy and city branding with this inquiry into how a soft power framework can be used to theorize and operationalize international activities of cities and relationships with their home countries. He begins with an overview of Joseph S. Nye’s definition of soft power, its evolution and conceptual characteristics, and critical assessments by scholars over time. Sevin then constructs a framework grounded in three “soft power logics:” resources (assets and capabilities), representation (city diplomacy), and reputation (city branding). His goals are to create stronger links between city diplomacy and city branding, examine limitations caused by activities that don’t easily fit within these categories, and point to issues raised by connections between cities and their home countries. His intent is to encourage greater attention to cities as diplomatic and branding actors and the value of soft power for understanding activities of political entities other than nation-states. His open access article provides a comprehensive literature review and raises important questions for debate and research. 

US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, “A Historical Overview of the Global Engagement Center [GEC]: ACPD Official Meeting Minutes,” May 15, 2024. At its quarterly public meeting held at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, the bipartisan Commission presented its special report “The Global Engagement Center: A Historical Overview 2001-2021.” A panel, moderated by Executive Director Vivian Walker, discussed the Commission’s report, the evolution of the GEC, and its value in understanding and countering foreign and non-state disinformation and propaganda. Panelists included James Glassman, former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs and Chair of the Broadcasting Board of Governors; Kitty DiMartino, former Chief of Staff to Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale; and Graham Brookie, former Advisor for Strategic Communication at the National Security Council. As noted in a previous edition of this list, the Commission’s report identifies lessons for the future from the GEC’s history. Importantly, it also provides essential knowledge and advice in the context of partisan attacks on the GEC in Congress and by critics elsewhere. A transcript and video of the meeting (approximately one hour) can be downloaded at the link.

The Commission acknowledged the many contributions of Vivian Walker, who is departing as executive director after five years of extraordinary service during a difficult time for the Commission and US public diplomacy. During her tenure the Commission published comprehensive annual reports and numerous special reports on cutting edge issues; maintained a regular schedule of quarterly public meetings in person and on Zoom; and fully carried out its statutory mandate to advise and report to presidents, secretaries of state, Congress, and the American people. All at a time when it faced the Covid pandemic, contrasting challenges of the Trump and Biden administrations, and a gridlocked Congress that failed to confirm presidential nominations of Commissioners of both parties. Vivian stands out in the Commission’s 75-year history as a talented professional who has performed a difficult job exceptionally well — successfully navigating the often-contested terrain between lawmakers, Congressional staffs, government officials, and diplomacy practitioners. Hats off also to Commission Chair Sim Farar and Vice Chair Bill Hybl who have served long past their expired terms as they await Senate confirmation of their successors.

Hugh Wilford, The CIA: An Imperial History, (Basic Books, 2024). Histories of institutionalized foreign intelligence and public diplomacy in the United States have separate trajectories but also much in common. The fortunes of both have been episodically connected with wars throughout American history. Durable institutions were not established until the late 1940s. Covert operatives and citizen front groups were public diplomacy practitioners during the Cold War. Americans have supported covert funding of information and cultural programs until exposure damaged reputations and their perceptions of the nation’s values. Hugh Wilford (California State University, Long Beach) explored the CIA’s covert Cold War front groups in detail in his excellent earlier book, The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America  (Harvard University Press, 2008). Now, in The CIA, he frames its evolution in the context of America’s “modern imperial history, comparing, contrasting, and connecting it with prior colonial intelligence services.” He uses experiences of key CIA operatives — Sherman Kent, James Angleton, Cord Meyer, Kermit “Kim” Roosevelt, Edward Lansdale, and others — to illuminate patterns of practice and the book’s central themes: the United States as a “covert empire” and the CIA “as an imperial intelligence service.” Diplomacy scholars and practitioners will find of particular interest his chapter on the CIA’s cultural Cold War; Walt Raymond’s activities as director of the Reagan administration’s Office of International Communication and Public Diplomacy at the NSC, his role in creating the National Endowment for Democracy, and his support for Oliver North’s Iran-Contra project; and Otto Reich’s Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean in the State Department. This is a beautifully written book filled with compelling stories and superb scholarship.

Recent Items of Interest

Matthew Asada, “Diplomacy as a Profession: Reflections on a Foreign Service Career,”  May 17, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Max Boot, “As China Ramps Up Disinformation, the U.S. Is Far Too Vulnerable,”  May 20, 2024, The Washington Post.

Julian Borger, “Trump Win Could See Mass Purge of State Department, US Diplomats Fear,”  June 13, 2024, The Guardian.

Bradley Bowman, ed., “Cognitive Combat: China, Russia, and Iran’s War Against Americans,”  June 2024, Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Elizabeth Braw, “When Knowledge Stops at the Water’s Edge.”  May 24, 2024, Foreign Policy.

Thomas Carothers and Brendan Hartnett, “Misunderstanding Democratic Backsliding,”  July 2024, The Journal of Democracy.

John J. Chin and Haleigh Bartos, “Rethinking U.S. Africa Policy Amid Changing Geopolitical Realities,”  Spring 2024, Texas National Security Review.

Lyor Cohen, “YouTube Partners With U.S. State Department to Promote Peace,”  June 24, 2024, YouTube. 

Joe Davidson, “Sen. Kaine Wants More Career, Fewer Political-fundraising Ambassadors,”  June 7, 2024, “The Washington Post; “Kaine Introduces Bill to Strengthen State Department Workforce.”

Justin Doubleday, “With New AI Tools Available, State Department Encourages Experimentation,”  June 28, 2024, Federal News Network.

Sheera Frenkel, “Israel Secretly Targets U.S. Lawmakers With Influence Campaign on Gaza War,”  June 5, 2024, The New York Times.

Cory R. Gill and Emily M. McCabe, “Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations: A Guide to Component Accounts,”  June 18, 2024, Congressional Research Service.

Bruce Gregory, “At Last, State Moves Toward Public-Private Research on Diplomacy,”  June, 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.

Jory Heckman, “State of the State Department: Hiring Above Attrition, Training a New Generation of Diplomats,”  July 22, 2024, Federal News Network.

Jacob Heilbrunn, “The Rise and Fall of America’s Diplomats [Review of] The Voice of the Foreign Service: A History of the American Foreign Service Association at 100 by Harry W. Kopp,”  June 2024, The Jerusalem Strategic Tribune.

Jessica Jerreat, “McCaul Raises Concerns Over USAGM Ability to Vet Staff,”  June 14, 2024, VOA News; “Chairman McCaul Releases Report on Culture of Corruption at USAGM,” and “Report on the Office of Labor and Employment Relations at the U.S. Agency for Global Media,” June 12, 2024, Committee on Foreign Affairs, US House of Representatives; 

Joe B. Johnson, “Who Will Stem Media Attacks From Hostile Powers,”  July 2024; “Public Diplomacy Needs Qualified Professionals,” June 2024; “New Insights From The Public Diplomacy Laboratory,”  May 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.

Tomasz Kamiński, [Book Review], Diplomacy for Professionals and Everyone by Alisher Faizullaev, (Brill | Nijhoff, 2022), Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 20, 253–254 (2024). 

Dan Kimmage, “What Does the Global Engagment Center Do? | July 8, 2024 First Monday Forum Highlights [8 minute video produced by Yuchen Lee],”  Public Diplomacy Council of America  

Paul Kruchoski, Director, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Office of Policy Planning and Resources, “Planning for the Future: PD 2034,” (70-minute video), June 19, 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America, GWU Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, USC Center on Public Diplomacy. 

Lily Kuo, “The United States Used to Have Cachet in China. Not Anymore,”  May 25, 2024, The Washington Post.

Jan-Werner Muller, “The World Still Needs Habermas: The German Philosopher is Starting to Outlive His Liberal Legacy,”  June 30, 2024, Foreign Policy.

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “The End of Soft Power?”  June 12, 2024, The National Interest; “America Still Retains a Soft Power Advantage Over China,”  May 22, 2024, The Hill.

Donna Oglesby, “A Professional Foreign Service Is Vital, and Here’s Why,”  May 16, 2024, Tampa Bay Times.

“A Reckoning at Voice of America,”  July 11, 2024, National Review.

Heather Cox Richardson, “American Conversations: Secretary of State Antony Blinken,”  July 12, 2024; “Letters from an American [George Creel, OWI, and disinformation],” June 12, 2024.

Ian Rosenzweig, “Disinformation: A Threat to Every Level of Diplomacy,” 2024 High School Essay Contest Winning Essay, June 2024, American Foreign Service Association. 

Sam Sabin, “The State Department Wants to Hear From the Tech Sector,”  June 18, 2024, Axios.

Dan Spokojny, “Lessons from Quantum Physics for Foreign Policy,”  July 15, 2024; “Implementing a Curriculum for Foreign Policy Expertise,”  July 9, 2024; “The (in)Definitive Reading List for Foreign Policy Expertise,” June 24, 2024;  “A Curriculum for Foreign Policy Expertise,”  June 12, 2024; “Huge Win for Diplomacy: A Research Center for State,”  May 21, 2024, fp21 substack.

Cristina Stassis, “Senate Democrats’ Bill Would Reaffirm Nonpartisan State Department,”  June 10, 2024, The Federal Times.

Michael G. Stevens and C. Eugene Steuerle, “To Win the Messaging Wars, Restore the US Information Agency,”  May 31, 2024, The Hill.

Tara D. Sonenshine, “Has American Lost Its Moral Compass,”  June 20, 2024, The Hill.

Tom Temin, “Why the State Department Wants to Set Up Federally-Funded Research and Development Centers,”  July 17, 2024.

Eric Tucker, “US Disrupts Russian Government-backed Disinformation Campaign That Relied on AI Technology,”  July 9, 2024, The Washington Post.

Larry Tye, “Satchmo, the Duke, and the Count: Representing America at Its Best Despite Having Experience Its Worst,”  May 2024, American Diplomacy.

Bill Wanlund, “Remembering Charlie Wick — A Few Chime In,”  and “Remembering Charles Z. Wick — A Few More,” June 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.

Eric Weiner, “What We Can Learn From America’s First Diplomat,”  July 4, 2024, Foreign Policy.

Gavin Wilde and Rick Landgraf, “From Panic to Policy: The Limits of Foreign Propaganda and the Foundations of an Effective Response,”  May 28, 2024, War on the Rocks podcast.

Lauren C. Williams, “A US Agency Focused on Foreign Disinformation Could Shut Down After the Election,”  July 8, 2024, Government Executive.

Tom Yazdgerdi, “Citizen Diplomats and the Foreign Service,”  May 20, 2024, Global Ties, U.S.

Karin Zeitvogel, “Breakdancing News: Diplomacy Meets Hip Hop As 22 Artists Visit US,”  June 5, 2024, The Washington Diplomat.

Gem from the Past

Deborah N. Cohn and Hilary E. Kahn, eds., International Education at the Crossroads,  (Indiana University Press, 2020). Title VI of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) has been a funding source for foreign language and area studies programs through the US Department of Education since 1958. Less well known perhaps than other educational and cultural activities in US diplomacy’s public dimension, it nevertheless has long been an important category of practice in the nation’s cultural diplomacy. In this compendium, Cohn and Kahn (Indiana University) bring together 29 scholars, educators, and policymakers to examine diverse approaches to the future of international education. The volume builds on a symposium hosted by Indiana University in 2018 celebrating the 60th anniversary of Title VI. Chapters are organized in separate but interrelated categories. Perspectives on international education in a global context. The current and future roles of area studies, global studies, and language learning. The impact of Title VI in the United States and tensions between area studies and global studies. A deep dive into language learning in the United States. Tensions between practice and scholarship and critical thinking about how internationalization is approach by institutions of higher education. And contrasting approaches to international education of the US Departments of Education, State, and Defense; other federal agencies; and key actors in civil society.

An archive of Diplomacy’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, the Public Diplomacy Council of America, and Len Baldyga’s email listserv.

Issue #123

Intended for teachers of 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  

Bruce Gregory, American Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: Practitioners as Change Agents in Foreign Relations, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). 

Get the eBook text and paperback here.    

Get Kindle and paperback here.

Matthew Asada, “The Department of State’s Reception Centers: Back to the Future,”  The Foreign Service Journal, April 2024, 38-42. State Department Foreign Service Officer Asada is a visiting senior fellow at USC’s Center on Public Diplomacy where he has written a carefully researched history with interesting photos of the Department’s 20th century US-based reception centers (Seattle, San Francisco, Honolulu, New Orleans, Miami, Washington, DC, and New York). All but the New York center were closed decades ago due to budget cuts. Their responsibilities were absorbed by local organizations, many affiliated with the National Council for International Visitors (now Global Ties, U.S.). Asada frames the narrative as a predicate for ways to enhance State’s domestic engagement today. Among his ideas: establish domestic geographic districts (aligned with federal regions and divisions); establish “Diplomatic Engagement Centers” in districts or spanning districts; and bring together existing offices concerned with exchange programs, public outreach, media engagement, public-private partnerships, liaison with city and state officials, and support for foreign embassies and consulates.

Niklas Bremburg and Anna Michalski, “The European Union Climate Diplomacy: Evolving Practices in a Changing Geopolitical Context,”  The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, online publication, April 12, 2024. Bremburg (Stockholm University) and Michalski (Uppsala University) examine the evolution of the EU’s climate diplomacy following the “perceived failure” of COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009 and the consequences of rising geopolitics for the global climate agenda. They use practice theory methods in IR and diplomacy studies to show how the EU’s External Action Service and member states adopted a more “linked-up and universal approach” to its climate mitigation and adaptation diplomacy. Using a combination of elite interviews and systematic analysis of official documents and academic literature they assess the EU’s adoption of four practices. (1) Creation of narratives to persuade other actors to strengthen their global climate agendas. (2) Efforts to co-ordinate the negotiating positions and objectives of EU and member states. (3) Outreach actions tailored to the interests of selected national governments, businesses, and civil society organizations. And (4) the practice of mainstreaming, meaning dealing with climate change in the context of human rights, migration, trade, geopolitics, and other issues. Bremburg and Michalski conclude that, despite these operational practices, deep-seated beliefs by EU diplomats and officials “have remained more or less unchanged,” particularly their reliance on leading in climate negotiations through the power of example. They also call for more context-specific analysis and evidence to support answers to why, how, and with what effects diplomatic practices shape policy outcomes. 

Andrew F. Cooper, The Concertation Impulse in World Politics: Contestation Over Fundamental Institutions and the Constrictions of Institutionalist International Relations, (Oxford University Press, 2024). Cooper’s (University of Waterloo) prodigious body of work ranges from deep dives into IR theory and global governance to studies of diplomatic practice, notably in the BRICs, G-7, and G20. His writings include Celebrity Diplomacy (2008), “Adapting Public Diplomacy to the Populist Challenge,” (The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2019), and other articles on practitioners in diplomacy’s public dimension. Cooper’s new bookcombines a rereading of Hedley Bull’s understudied ideas about the concept and practice of concertation in world politics with a multi-faceted critique of mainstream IR. The latter includes neglect of crises as stimulants of international change, a stereotyped “non-West” as either subordinate to universalistic “rules of the game” or potential disrupters of the system, and inattention to the disruptive effect of domestic forces in the United States (Donald Trump’s personalist-populist challenge). Cooper defines concertation as “an institutional format that places the emphasis on forms of dialogue, mutual exchange of information, knowledge sharing, and the aim of unified proposals, among competing and even fractious actors.” His book explores how the institutional concert format – understood as the construction of patterned practices used to solve problems and facilitate co-existence – is a productive approach to sovereignty and multilateralism. Analytical chapters address Bull’s scholarship and institutional IR as a foil for his book. Other chapters discuss concertation as a foundational and sustained fundamental institution, the G-20 as a modern institutional concertation format, the challenges of personal-populist disruption, and aspirations of the BRICs as a solidarity concert and plurilateral summitry.

“Disinformation is on the Rise. How Does it Work?”  The Economist, May 4, 2024, 66-71. The Economist devotes its entire Science & Technology section in this issue to a discussion of what disinformation is, how it works, and how it can be mitigated. The feature article explores the role of AI in creating disinformation, detecting it, and using it to overcome problems it creates. Issues discussed include the uses of analytical tools in combination and challenges of distinguishing between disinformation originators and spreaders. The article includes a case study of the disinformation campaign intended to falsely show that Ukraine’s first lady Olena Zalenska spent $1.1m of Ukrainian aid on jewelry. It summarizes the role of the US State Department’s Global Engagement Center in exposing and responding to a Russian campaign to discredit Western health programs in Africa. The article also takes aim at how US efforts to fight disinformation through coordinated activities of tech companies, academics, government agencies, civil society groups, and media organizations have become entangled in polarized politics and the objects of litigation and right-wing conspiracy theories. The experiences of Taiwan, Finland, Sweden, and Brazil are also examined. Separately, in an editorial, “Truth or Lies?” (p. 10), The Economist optimistically states that although disinformation is a serious problem there is little evidence it alone can influence election outcomes, and “it has not yet revealed itself as an unprecedented and unassailable threat.”

David V. Gioe and Michael J. Morell, “Spy and Tell: The Promise and Peril of Disclosing Intelligence for Strategic Advantage,”  Foreign Affairs, May/June 2024. CIA director Bill Burns calls it “intelligence diplomacy.” Gioe (Kings College London) and Morell (Beacon Global Strategies), both former CIA practitioners, call it “strategic disclosures.” It is a strategy with a long history in diplomacy’s public dimension: U-2 spy plane disclosures of Soviet missile bases in Cuba, Colin Powell’s satellite images of alleged weapons sites in Iraq, and recent advance disclosures of Russia’s plans to invade Ukraine. In their measured assessment, Gioe and Morell assess differences between recent vetted disclosures of secrets that serve public interests, seen as resoundingly successful, and leaks that serve private interests. They conclude with a call for caution and guardrails. Disclosures must protect sources and methods. Revelations that are wrong damage reputations and undermine goals. They are especially concerned that using intelligence as a policy and diplomacy tool risks it being used as a partisan political weapon. Gioe and Morell emphasize that in today’s disinformation environment the disclosed information must be true. “Although it may be tempting to embed disinformation in a disclosure, that line should never be crossed.”

Alan K. Henrikson, “What is Public Diplomacy? Fostering Cooperation, Countering Disinformation,”  Baku Dialogues: Policy, Perspectives on the Silk Road Region, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Winter 2023-2024), 98-117. In this article Henrikson (Professor of Diplomatic History Emeritus and founding Director of Diplomatic Studies at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy) has adapted and made more accessible an essay he published as chapter 11 in “The Role of Diplomacy in the Modern World,” in Reimagining the International Legal Order​, ed. Vesselin Popovski and Ankit Malhotra (Routledge, 2024),145-168. These essays address the international legal framework in which public diplomacy is and should be conducted. He frames his analysis in a discussion of five interrelated steps: (1) the origins and “historically evolved” meaning of the term public diplomacy, (2) the range of public diplomacy activities and how they can vary with country size, (3) his central legal-normative question, (4) challenges to public diplomacy in the international political system and global communications space, and (5) a critique of responses to these challenges and suggestions of ways public diplomacy could strengthen the international legal order and contribute to global comity and human enlightenment. Henrikson’s essays stand out in the vast literature on public diplomacy for their assessment of understudied legal and normative issues, and ways in which narrative and power are related. 

Jovan Kurbalija, History of Diplomacy and Technology: From Smoke Signals to Artificial Intelligence, (DiploFoundation, 2023). In this slim, well-resourced, and easy to read volume, DiploFoundation’s executive director examines the ways changing technologies interact with the continuity of diplomacy in human experience. He shapes the narrative in three contexts. The impact of technologies on power distribution, geopolitics, and the relevance of countries, cities, and continents. The topics and issues that diplomats address. And the tools diplomats use to communicate, negotiate, and build relationships. Images, graphics, and affordable pricing make this an excellent book for courses in diplomacy and global communications.

“Letters-Plus,” The Foreign Service Journal, April 2024, 13-15. In FSJ’s April issue, three seasoned career diplomats respond to the Journal’s March 2024 article, “A Look at the New Learning Policy: How, When, and Where Do State Department Employees Learn,” by Sarah Wardwell. In “A Step in the Right Direction,” retired FSO Alexis Ludwig welcomes State’s intentions but rightly contends that success will depend on harnessing the political will to make implementation mandatory and obtaining the resources needed to achieve results at scale. In “Prioritizing Learning,” acting deputy assistant secretary for passport services Don Jacobson applauds this “potentially transformative commitment to professional development.” Much will depend, he observes, on the time commitments and strategic thinking of supervisors at all levels and the need for all employees to take ownership of their professional development. Career Ambassador James Jeffries in “Deeply Disillusioning” objects that with one exception none of the policy’s 16 Core Curriculum courses seem to address State’s central foreign policy mission.

Keith E. Peterson, American Dreams: The Story of the Cyprus Fulbright Commission, (Armida Publications, 2024). Peterson’s career as a US diplomat included information officer, cultural officer, and PAO assignments in Dhaka, Tunis, Nicosia, Bridgetown, London, Valetta, Stockholm, and Washington. American Dreams is his account of the 52-year history of the independent bicommunal Fulbright Commission in Cyprus, its role in bridging different memories and visions of Greek and Turkish Cypriots, the difficulties it encountered in conflict resolution training, and the commitment of its Greek, Turkish, and American board members. His book is both a narrative of strategic issues and the Cold War politics of Cyprus and a useful case study of one Fulbright Commission facing unusually difficult operational challenges.

Peter Pomerantsev, How to Win the Information War: The Propagandist Who Outwitted Hitler,  (PublicAffairs, 2024). In his latest book, Pomerantsev (Johns Hopkins University), author of Nothing Is True But Everything Is Possible (2015) and This Is Not Propaganda (2020), combines analysis of Russian disinformation under Vladimir Putin with a biography of the British print and broadcast journalist Thomas Sefton Delmer. Through his parties for top Nazi officials and flattering articles, Delmer gained access and scoops. When war began in 1939, he was recruited by British intelligence. Pomerantsev’s book is part history, part biography, and part guide to understanding and countering disinformation. It has garnered praise from Timothy Snyder, author of On Tyranny (2017), The Atlantic’s Anne Appelbaum, and The Financial Times’ Gideon Rachman. For a critical review, see Max Fisher, “The Journalist Who Tried to Fight the Nazis With Radio Stories” The New York Times, March 9, 2024. 

David E. Sanger, New Cold Wars: China’s Rise, Russia’s Invasion, and America’s Struggle to Defend the West, (Crown, 2024). Twenty-five years ago, the New York Times’ David Sanger and the Washington Post’s Dana Priest, then rising national security reporters, were quick to accept cold call invites to meet with US and international students in small (14 person) seminars at the National War College. They valued professional education, but they also knew they were connecting with future ambassadors and flag rank military officers. The range and depth of the interviews in Sanger’s latest book demonstrate the wisdom of this reportorial strategy. It is a deeply connected reporter’s easy to read account of “the revival of superpower conflict” and struggles for military, economic, political, and technological supremacy. He examines not only how leaders and key aides assessed strategic choices but also how they sought to frame their choices in the public square. Three cameos are particularly useful. Sanger’s analysis of NSC advisor Jake Sullivan’s reasoning and desire to shape the “information narrative” as to what was happening and who was responsible for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in advance (pp. 210-215). His discussion of how the toxic zero sum domestic debate on US immigration policies damages US soft power and creates many missed opportunities including attracting a younger generation of Russians to emigrate (pp. 447-449). And his Epilogue in which the reporter turns opinion writer on what’s new in the new cold wars and what the future may hold.

Elizabeth N. Saunders, The Insiders’ Game: How Elites Make War and Peace, (Princeton University Press, 2024). Saunders (Columbia University) begins with a paradox. Publics have scarce time for the details of most foreign policies and issues. Yet leaders act as if public opinion matters, even though they rarely change public views and attitudes through persuasion. Why then, she asks, do elites care about public opinion? Her book provides explanations for this paradox and a thoughtful examination of the importance of political elites in democratic governance and decision-making. Elites lead mass opinion in part, she argues, because publics use trusted elite cues as shortcuts. Saunders distinguishes between leaders and three groups of elites with systematic influence: lawmakers, military leaders, and senior government officials. Grounded in survey experiments and case studies, her book is a nuanced assessment of how elites shape choices in war and peace decisions in the United States — with frequent asides for her theory’s implications for other democracies. This is a study of elite politics, decision-making as an “insider’s game,” a “hawkish bias” in a militarily powerful country, elite accountability, and how a democracy initiates, escalates, and ends wars. It combines well written and interesting history with sophisticated theoretical analysis. 

Sarah E. K. Smith and Sascha Priewe, eds., Museum Diplomacy: How Cultural Institutions Shape Global Engagement, (American Alliance of Museums, 2023). Smith (Western University, Ontario) and Priewe (Aga Khan Museum, Toronto) have compiled 18 chapters by practitioners and scholars on the global engagement of museums. Contributors address a range of professional, cultural, political, and academic issues. The editors situate their contributions in a conceptual framework that treats museum diplomacy as a subset of cultural diplomacy now carried out by state actors, cities and other substate actors, and a diverse array of nonstate actors. Museums exist to educate and provide enjoyment. They also serve political agendas as “arbiters of cultural significance, custodians of prized objects, and narrators of histories, communities, and identities.” Chapters address ways museums have advanced hegemony and current efforts to achieve decolonization and social justice. The collection, which includes case studies, contributes helpfully to current debates over cultural diplomacy, network diplomacy, cross cultural globalism, and boundaries between what is and is not diplomacy.

Elise Stephenson and Susan Harris Rimmer, “Bolstering the Boys Club: Security Vetting, Diversity and Diplomatic Gatekeeping,”  The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, online publication, May 8, 2024. Stephenson (Australian National University Canberra) and Rimmer (Griffith University) turn the focus on gender and diplomacy away from serving diplomacy practitioners to the security clearance processes that influence levels of clearance and career progression. They argue that clearance processes include not only criteria use to assess potential national security risks but also values (loyalty, maturity, trustworthiness), which may lead to bias or discriminatory exclusion. Their research is grounded in a larger Australian project that also focuses on cultural and linguistic diversity, First Nations and Indigenous inclusion, generational differences, sexuality, neurodiversity, mental health, and people living with disabilities. The authors discuss a variety of issues related to security vetting processes and methodological challenges for researchers. They conclude that problematic security clearance processes mean the exclusion of women and sexual minorities remains “explicit policy and practice.”

US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, “Celebrating 75 Years of ACPD Reporting: ACPD Official Meeting Minutes,” February 26, 2024, Transcript here and Video hereThe Commission’s meeting, held at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs and moderated by Executive Director Vivian Walker, achieved two goals. First, the Commission presented its Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting: Focus on FY 2022 Budget DataThe report provides detailed budget and program data on the public diplomacy activities of the US Department State and activities of the US Agency for Global Media. Critically important are the Commission’s 25 policy, program, and structural recommendations to the White House, Congress, State Department, and USAGM at pp.13-16. Second, Commissioners and a panel reflected on the presidentially appointed, bipartisan Commission’s essential and durable role in US public diplomacy for 75 years. Panelists included: Tom C. Korologos, ACPD Commissioner and Chairman, 1981-1994, former Ambassador to Belgium, and founding member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors; Katherine Brown, President and CEO of Global Ties U.S. and APCD Executive Director, 2013-2016; and Bruce Gregory, Visiting Scholar, George Washington University and ACPD Executive Director, 1985-1998. 

US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, “The Global Engagement Center: A Historical Overview 2001-2021,” May 2024. In this timely, important, and deeply researched 47-page report, the Commission’s senior advisor Adele E. Ruppe and executive director Vivian S. Walker examine the origins, evolution, mandates, objectives, tools, methods, and activities of the US State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC). The GEC’s mission is to counter foreign state and non-state disinformation threats to US national security. The report is grounded in interviews with 22 former and current political appointees and senior officials, legislative and archival records, and the insights of the Commission’s professional staff. Following a detailed historical overview, illuminated by helpful graphics, the report identifies a series of findings and lessons learned. Findings include the importance of Senate confirmed under secretaries of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, the need for White House validation and strong bipartisan support, and alignment of expectations and activities with budget realities. Other findings point to the disruptive impact of changes in administrations and funding delays due to cumbersome authorization processes and bureaucracies in the State and Defense Departments. 

Looking ahead, the Commission identified eight lessons learned: (1) the United States needs a GEC located within State to counter global disinformation threats; (2) the GEC requires appropriate legislative and executive branch legal authorities; (3) adequate support from interagency stakeholders is essential; (4) the Defense Department and intelligence community are crucial partners; (5) direct funding is required rather than highly inefficient indirect funding through other government entities; (6) special authorities and hiring mechanisms are necessary to recruit specialized expertise; (7) flexible capabilities and funding are key to coping with constant change in the threat environment; and (8) mistaken past assumptions that disinformation threats can be “eliminated” means a robust and sustained GEC or similar entity is necessary to counter a radically new global disinformation environment. 

The Commission’s bipartisan report provides essential knowledge and advice in the context of partisan attacks from critics in Congress and elsewhere (e.g., Elon Musk, The Federalist, the Daily Wire, and the state of Texas). See “Don’t Defund the Fight Against Russia and China’s Disinformation,” Editorial, The Washington Post, March 19, 2024 and Steven Lee Meyers, “State Department’s Fight Against Disinformation Comes Under Attack,” The New York Times, December 14, 2023. 

US Department of State, “United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy,”  May 2024. The State Department’s strategy, framed as a policy of “digital solidarity,” sets forth goals for achieving effective uses of technologies in diplomacy by the US and its allies and partners; an open, inclusive, secure, and resilient internet; and responsible behavior by political entities in cyberspace. The document states that a US goal also is to maintain global technology primacy and set global standards and norms. Part one of the document examines threats to national security and internet freedom, protection of physical infrastructures, competing internet norms, challenges to digital economies, the future of AI technologies governance, and working with the private sector and civil society. Part two sets forth priorities and examines four “action domains” to achieve policy goals. The Department’s Ambassador at Large for Cyberspace and Digital Policy Nathaniel Fick summarized its importance in an interview with The New York Times, “Just about everyone is willing to acknowledge that technology is an important element of foreign policy, but I would argue that tech is not just part of the game — it’s increasingly the entire game.” The “entire” game is debatable. Technologies are tools of diplomacy and policies. As with most strategy documents, much will depend on how road maps are implemented, how cost/benefit choices are made, and how bureaucratic wars are fought and won. See also, David Sanger, “A New Diplomatic Strategy Emerges as Artificial Intelligence Grows,”  May 6, 2024, The New York Times;  Rishi Iyengar, “Washington Takes Its Cyber Strategy Global,”  May 8, 2024, Foreign Policy; Office of the National Cyber Director, “2024 Report on the Cybersecurity Posture of the United States,” May 2024; and report Fact Sheet.

Recent Items of Interest

Madison Alder, “State Department to Use New Purdue Tech Diplomacy Platform to Train Officials,”  April 30, 2024, Fedscoop.

Anne Applebaum, “The New Propaganda War,”  May 6, 2024, The Atlantic.

Phillip C. Arceneaux, “‘Nation of Storytellers”: Ireland’s Public Diplomacy Success Centers on Storytelling,”  March 22, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Matt Armstrong, “Main Street on a Flattop aka Operation Flattop,”  May 6, 2024; “Political Warfare: The Obvious Choice Against Our Maginot Line,”  April 19, 2024; “It’s Not New, We’re Just Ignorant,”  April 4, 2024, Arming for the War We’re In.

Michael Birnbaum, “U.S. Diplomat Explains Why She Quit Biden Administration Over Gaza War,”  April 30,2024, The Washington Post.

Antony J. Blinken, “Building a More Resilient Information Environment,”  March 18, 2024, US Department of State.

Doug Cunningham, “State Department Invites 22 Countries for Some Hip-hop Diplomacy,”  April 17, 2024, UPI. 

“Don’t Defund the Fight Against Russia and China’s Disinformation,”  March 19, 2024, Editorial Board, The Washington Post.

Andrew Dubbins, “Public Diplomacy in the News: Michael Douglas as Ben Franklin, Global Health, and Election Misinformation,”  April 22, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy. 

Jorge Heine, “Attacks on Embassies in Ecuador and Syria Set a Dangerous Precedent,”   April 23, 2024, The Washington Diplomat; “Are Embassies Off-limits? Ecuadorian and Israeli Actions Suggest Otherwise — And That Sets a Dangerous Diplomatic Precedent,”  April 9, 2024, The Conversation.

Ellice Huang, “Can You Change Your Mind? Decision-making and the Debate on AI Regulation,”  April 17, 2024, guest post, fp21.

Zhao Alexandre Huang, “China’s Digital Public Diplomacy Towards ASEAN Countries: How Beijing Frames the South China Sea Issue,”  May 6, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Patricia H. Kushlis, “Santa Fe Forum Reviews US Place in the World,”  May 2024,  Public Diplomacy Council of America.  

Don Jacobson, “Speaking Out: It’s Up To Us to Implement the Learning Policy,”  May 2024, The Foreign Service Journal.

Umme Laila, “Chinese Soft Power and Public Diplomacy in the United States,”  May 15, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Joseph I. Lieberman and Gordon J. Humphrey, “How to Start Winning the Information War,”  April 2, 2024, The Washington Post.

Ilan Manor, “From ‘Wolf Warrior Diplomacy’ To ‘Lone Wolf Diplomacy,’ The New Logic of Digital Diplomacy,”  May 15, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

“Meet the Author: Bruce Gregory on ‘American Diplomacy’s Public Dimension,”  April 22, 2024, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Sherry Mueller, “Citizen Diplomacy — The Role of the Individual in Foreign Affairs,”  April 2024;  “International Visitor Leadership Program,”  April 2024; “Senator Fulbright’s Letter To President Reagan On The Importance Of Exchange Programs To U.S. National Security,”  March 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America. Letter available here.

John K. Naland, “AFSA and the Evolution of the Foreign Service Career,”  May 2024, The Foreign Service Journal.

Caroline Nihill, “State Department is Launching an Internal Chatbot,”  April 2, 2024, Fedscoop.

David Pierson, “U.S.-Funded Broadcaster [Radio Free Asia] Leaves Hong Kong, Citing Security Law,”  March 29, The New York Times.

Katie Robertson, “Voice of America Will Get a New Director,”  April 19, 2024, The New York Times.

Jon Schaffer, “Youth Exchanges: ‘The Perfect Fit’ For This Volunteer,”  May 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.

Alexander Smith, “Antony Blinken’s Guitar Diplomacy Draws Criticism in Ukraine,”  May 15, 2024, NBC News.

Tara D. Sonenshine, “How Russia and China are Ridiculing America,”  April 9, 2024; “A Triple Threat in the Middle East: Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis,”  March 21, 2024, The Hill.

Dan Spokojny, “Should Artificial Intelligence Be Used in Foreign Policy?”  May 7, 2024; “Should I Distrust Story Telling?”  May 1, 2024; “A Roadmap to Modernize Foreign Policy,”  April 11, 2024; “Foreign Policy Expertise Requires a Culture of Evidence,”  April 2, 2024; “The World is Hard to Change,”  March 29, 2024; “Foreign Policy Doesn’t Promote Expertise: But It Could,”  March 20, 2024, fp21substack.

Jillian Steinhauer, “For U.S. Pavilion At Venice Biennale, a Bold Rainbow,”  April 14, 2024Julia Halperin, “Indigenous Artists Are the Heart of This Year’s Venice Biennale,”  April 14, 2024, The New York Times.

Bill Wanlund, “Worried About Disinformation? Chill [Thoughtfully],”  April 2024, Public Diplomacy Council of America.  

Gem from the Past

Taylor Owen, Disruptive Power: The Crisis of the State in the Digital Age, (Oxford University Press, 2015). Almost a decade ago, Taylor Owen (McGill University) took the measure of ways in which digital technologies were transforming states and key institutions underpinning world order. Luminaries who endorsed his book included Anne-Marie Slaughter, Michael Ignatieff, Clay Shirkey, and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Although technologies and the global environment have changed greatly in subsequent years, his central arguments in this slim volume are worth another look. Owen rehearses now familiar themes: the decentralization of hierarchical power, the rise of individuals and groups empowered by digital technologies, and the challenges states face in giving up power to achieve success in a networked world. Today, when much of the literature prioritizes technologies over diplomacy and governance, Owen puts power, accountability, stability, and democratic engagement first and technologies second. His final three chapters constitute a prescient examination of public diplomacy’s uses of social media, how the “violence of algorithms” is blurring boundaries in war and international relations, and models for the structural adaptation of traditional institutions.

An archive of Diplomacy’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.

The Digital Double Bind: Change and Stasis in the Middle East

By Yvonne Oh, IPDGC Program Coordinator

In his latest book, IPDGC Visiting Scholar Joe F. Khalil explores the interplay of digital technology and socio-political shifts, providing valuable perspectives on the evolving landscape of the Middle East. His presentation of “The Digital Bind: Change and Stasis in the Middle East,” co-authored with Mohamed Zayan.

Khalil explores how the Middle East’s digital turn intersects with complex political, economic, and socio-cultural dynamics. Drawing on local research and rich case studies, they show how the same forces that brought promises of change through digital transformation have also engendered tensions and contradictions. With this book, Khalil and his co-author contend that the ensuing disjunctures have ensnared the region in a double bind, which represents the salient feature of an unfolding digital turn. The same conditions that drive the state, market, and public immersion in the digital also inhibit the region’s drive to change.

Publishing house Oxford Press describes The Digital Double Bind as a book that reconsiders the question of technology and change, moving beyond binary formulations and familiar trajectories of the network society. It offers a path-breaking analysis of change and stasis in the Middle East and provides a roadmap for a critical engagement with digitality in the Global South.

Listen to the podcast on PDx.

A warm welcome to our Visiting Scholar from New Zealand

By Yvonne Oh, IPDGC Program Coordinator

IPDGC welcomes Professor Natalia Chaban, professor in the Department of Media and Communication at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. Professor Chaban is a leading expert in image and perceptions studies within the EU and IR contexts, and in public diplomacy and political communication.

As a Visiting Scholar with our Institute, she will be researching “Public diplomacy at times of conflict and crises”, which will allow her to apply and extend her expertise in image and perceptions studies, international political communication and media ecology studies, while considering the three cases informed by her original theorization of the perceptual approach to foreign policy studies.

Professor Chaban has led multiple transnational research projects externally supported by the Erasmus+ of the European Commission, Foreign Policy Instrument Division of the European Commission/European External Action Service, EU member states’ embassies and NATO.

She is also widely published in high impact foreign policy journals such as Journal of Common Market Studies, Cooperation and Conflict, Journal of European Integration and Foreign Policy Analysis.

Our Institute and the wider GW scholarly community look forward to collaborating with Professor Chaban on this very topical and timely research.

Issue #122

Intended for teachers of 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  

Bruce Gregory, American Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: Practitioners as Change Agents in Foreign Relations, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). 

Get the eBook text and paperback here.    

Get Kindle and paperback here.

Phillip Arceneaux, “Value Creation Through Organizational Storytelling: Strategic Narratives in Foreign Government Relations,”  Public Relations Review, Vol. 50, Issue 2, June 2024. Arceneaux (Miami University of Ohio) examines ways in which governments use public relations and tell stories to promote their interests and create value in competitive environments. He begins with a brief literature review followed by discussion of conceptual issues in narrative theory, the politics of strategic narratives, and use of value propositions to build brands and convey value through stories. He grounds his analysis in a comparison of Canadian, Irish, and Norwegian campaigns to win a seat on the UN Security Council. Arceneaux argues practitioners need to adopt a storytelling approach that blends identity, system, and issue narratives with a holistic content strategy. His conclusion: “Contextualizing strategic narratives as value propositions expands the interdisciplinarity of government public relations scholarship at the nexus of international relations, public diplomacy, and nation branding.” The article is available for a limited time through open access.

André Barrinha, “Cyber-diplomacy: The Emergence of a Transient Field,”  The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, online publication, February 26, 2024. Barrinha (University of Bath, UK) draws on 40 interviews with diplomats and experts and scholarship on diplomatic practices to make a case for cyberspace as a “diplomatized” governance and policy domain.By this he means it is becoming a “diplomatic field.”  Its diplomatic actors range from states, multiple government departments, the military, and so-called non-diplomatic groups such as NGOs, corporations and “even journalists.” Barrinha usefully examines a variety of institutional, instrumental, and process dynamics in “cyber-diplomacy.” But it is not clear why this term and a separate form of diplomacy are needed. Diplomacy, a robust and capacious term, is adequate to describe communication and representation of interests and policies by diplomatic actors in a variety of governance and issue domains, including cyberspace.

Jon Bateman and Dean Jackson, Countering Disinformation Effectively: An Evidence-Based Policy Guide, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 2024. In this119-page report, Bateman (Carnegie Endowment) and Jackson (Public Circle Research & Consulting) examine conceptual issues, collate insights from empirical research, and use case studies to provide a guide to major proposals on how democratic governments, platforms, and others can counter disinformation. Among the findings. There are no “best” policy options. Adopt a portfolio approach to managing uncertainty. Give more attention to long-term structural reforms. Countering disinformation is not always apolitical. Generative AI will have complex effects but might not be a game changer. Case studies include: Fact checking. Counter-messaging strategies. Statecraft, deterrence, and disruption. Changing recommendation algorithms. And generative AI.

Corneliu Bjola and Ilan Manor, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Digital Diplomacy, (Oxford University Press, 2024). Thismassive volume is sure to be a dominant resource on digitalized diplomacy in coming years. Bjola (Oxford University) and Manor (Ben Gurion University of the Negev) have compiled 34 essays in a multidisciplinary compendium described as an examination of how digital technologies are used in diplomacy “as a practice, as a process, and as a form of disruption.” It divides into four parts: (1) concepts and theories, (2) diplomatic practices, (3) diplomatic institutions, and (4) diplomatic relations. Chapters include a variety of conceptual approaches and globally diverse case studies. The Handbook is institutionally priced. Readers will want to confirm it is available at their universities and in the libraries and training programs of ministries of foreign affairs. 

Contributors include a stunning array of accomplished diplomacy scholars and practitioners. Rebecca Adler-Nissen (University of Copenhagen), Banu Akdenizli (Northwestern University Qatar), Phillip Arceneaux (Miami University of Ohio), Daniel Aguirre (Arizona State University), Victoria Baines (Gresham College, London), Corneliu Bjola, Emma L. Briant (Monash University), Caroline Bouchard (Université du Québec à Montréal), Jennifer Cassidy (University of Oxford), Andrew F. Cooper (University of Waterloo), Nicholas J. Cull (University of Southern California), Rhys Crilley (University of Glasgow), Matthias Ecker-Ehrhardt (Universität Duisburg-Essen), Kristin Anabel Eggeling (University of Copenhagen), Anne Marie Engtoft Larsen (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark), Alisher Faizullaev (University of World Economy and Diplomacy), Alicia Fjällhed (Lund University), Tom Fletcher (University of Oxford), Luciana Alexandra Ghica (University of Bucharest), Natalia Grincheva (LASALLE College of Art, Singapore), Elsa Hedling (Lund University), Jorge Heine (Boston University), Marcus Holmes (William & Mary), Zhao Alexandre Huang (Université Paris Nanterre), Lucas Kello (University of Oxford), Didzis Kļaviņš (University of Latvia), Juan Pablo Prado Lallande (University of Puebla), Jeff Hai-chi Loo (University of Waterloo), Matthias LÜfkens (Founder of Twiplomacy), Alex Manby (University of Oxford), Ilan Manor, Fiona McConnell (Lund University), Alejandro Ramos (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mexico), Gary D. Rawnsley (University of Lincoln), Andreas Sandre (Embassy of Italy, United States), Efe Sevin (Towson University). Damien Spry (University of South Australia), Pawel Surowiec-Capell (University of Sheffield), Geoffrey Wiseman (DePaul University), Katherine A. M. Wright (Newcastle University), Moran Yarchi (Reichman University), and Ruben Zaiotti (Dalhousie University). 

Chapter titles are available at an open access Table of Contents here.

William J. Burns, “Spycraft and Statecraft: Transforming the CIA for an Age of Competition,”  Foreign Affairs, March/April, 2024, 74-85. Retired career Foreign Service officer and now CIA director William Burns provides evidence that intelligence services are more than compartmented espionage instruments. They are also actors in diplomacy’s public dimension. “Strategic declassification,” the selective public disclosure of secrets through “intelligence diplomacy,” can help allies and undercut false narratives of rivals. Well-crafted arguments by a spy chief in a leading journal can inform and persuade in support of policy agendas. Intelligence officers can engage diplomatically with enemies, and be seen as doing so, in circumstances where normal diplomatic contact might signal formal recognition. Burns has long been regarded as one of America’s top diplomats and change agent in diplomacy reform. This article contains lessons for diplomats and intelligence operatives on ways to transform patterns of practice in the face of geopolitical challenges, new technologies, and complex transnational issues.

Thomas Carothers and Frances Z. Brown, Democracy Policy Under Biden: Confronting a Changed World,  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 2024. Carnegie’s Carothers and Brown assess Biden administration democratization efforts in the context of three challenges: a continuing long-term global democratic recession; the rising assertiveness of China, Russia, and other autocracies; and “the troubled status” of the United States as a democracy model. Their paper examines five main elements of the Biden administration’s democratization policies taken in the absence of a global democracy strategy. Countering autocratic challengers. Engaging multilaterally on democracy. Responding to democratic backsliding. Upgrading democracy aid. Reforming U.S. democracy. Although they find positive potential and a significant change from damage inflicted by Donald Trump, they also find “nagging dilemmas and constraints.” A fuller assessment, they argue, will ultimately depend on answers to three questions. Can thematic democracy initiatives be more fully integrated into bilateral country policies? Can initiatives be integrated to become more than the sum of the parts? Can successful efforts be institutionalized and sustained? 

Yana Gorokhovskaia and Cathryn Grothe, Freedom in the World 2024: The Mounting Damage of Flawed Elections and Armed Conflict,  Freedom House, February 2024. “Freedom declined for the 18th year in 2023.” So begins the current Freedom House report on global trends and country scores on political rights, civil liberties, human rights, and democratic processes and institutions. In the aggregate, 52 countries experienced declines; 21 countries improved. The manipulation of elections and armed conflict were leading causes. The 35-page report contains regional profiles, graphics, and policy recommendations. 

Steven L. Herman, Behind the White House Curtain: A Senior Journalist’s Story of Covering the President—And Why It Matters, (The Kent State University Press, 2024). Veteran Voice of America (VOA) journalist Steve Herman’s memoir is a fascinating account of the daily life of a reporter covering the White House during the Trump and early Biden administrations. It is filled with vivid, short, and well-written chapters about what it takes to report from the White House pressroom and Air Force One, technologies needed for just in time reporting in the age of social media, and personalities at the crossroads of journalism and politics during the administrations of two very different presidents. Chapters on the chaos Trump appointee Michael Pack brought to the US Agency for Global Media and VOA during the administration’s last year in office are compelling and instructive. Readers will find broad-brush strokes from his earlier assignments as a VOA foreign correspondent, brief descriptions of VOA’s history and modus operandi, and his views on journalism in a democracy. But this is not a study of VOA as a government-funded media organization. It is the story of a White House reporter for whom good journalism is central, and VOA’s government sponsorship is largely incidental. It is also a finely crafted 21st century successor to Philomena Jurey’s A Basement Seat to History: Tales of Covering Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan for the Voice of America (1995).

Zhao Alexandre Huang and Phillip Arceneaux,  “Ethical Challenges in the Digitalization of Public Diplomacy,”  Chapter 13 in Corneliu Bjola and Ilan Manor, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Digital Diplomacy, (Oxford University Press, 2024). Huang (Université Paris Nanterre) and Arceneaux (Miami University of Ohio) examine three ethical challenges for diplomats in a digital society through the lens of public diplomacy — principles of openness versus secrecy, inclusivity versus exclusivity, and state interests versus public interests in diplomatic practice. Following overviews of definitions of ethics and professionalization of public diplomats, their chapter provides distinctions and assertions that will provoke thought and energize debate. For example: (1) Diplomacy differs from other types of organized communication because diplomats have authority and agency as representatives of political collectives. (2) Diplomatic allegiance has evolved through stages that correspond to principles of dynastic sovereignty, territorial sovereignty, and international norms. (3) Social media create a “hybrid media system” that is weakening gatekeeping power; reshaping global distributions of power; and weaponizing disinformation, computational propaganda, information operations, and fake news. (4) Diplomacy practitioners face challenges brought by a weakened ability to build trust in chaotic information environments. Huang and Arceneaux are cautious in providing answers to important questions in digitalized diplomacy. The value of their chapter lies in framing them for scholars and practitioners to consider and debate. How should tensions between personal morality, professional ethics, and international norms be reconciled? Do cultural differences influence ethics? How should freedom and order be coordinated? What are the ethics of responsibility in spaces where globalization and digitalization are increasingly pervasive?

Dilara Cansın Keçialan, “Webster University, Visiting Prof. Alisher Faizullaev: ‘Social Diplomacy is a Societal Phenomenon and Has Certain Distinct Features,’” February 22, 2024, Ankara Center for Crisis and Policy Studies. Social diplomacy is an ascending topic in diplomacy studies, and Alisher Faizullaev (scholar, teacher and former Ambassador of Uzbekistan to the United Kingdom) is one of its leading proponents. His superb book, Diplomacy for Professionals and Everyone, (Brill Nijhoff, 2022), is a comprehensive statement of his thinking. The value of this interview is its brevity. It is an excellent summation of his views and a great assigned reading for students. He defines social diplomacy and compares it to traditional diplomacy. He discusses social diplomacy’s role in addressing solutions to problems that elude states and other political entities. And he reflects on future developments and opportunities for scholars and practitioners. Proponents of social diplomacy must reckon with concerns that stretching diplomacy too far risks losing its particularity and analytical utility. Faizullaev welcomes such critiques and debate — and defends his views with skill.

Suzanne Nossel, “The Real Culture Wars: How Art Shapes the Contest Between Democracy and Autocracy,”  Foreign Affairs, February 29, 2024.  Nossel (PEN America Center) briefly surveys how autocracies seek to control artistic expression and cultural institutions — and how democracies competing with autocracies have prioritized military, political, economic, and diplomatic instruments. Nossel argues outcomes also will depend significantly on culture. “How people in democracies and autocracies see the world is shaped by the music they listen to, the books they read, the films and television they watch, the art they admire, the museums they visit, and the textbooks they must study.” Nossel summarizes US government support for cultural and educational activities during and after the Cold War. Going forward, however, the US should not seek to replicate these methods or spread American culture to counter autocracies. Rather, the US government should strengthen activities of independent thinkers and creators in their own countries. Her article identifies bilateral and multilateral ways this might be achieved. “The aim of such efforts,” she concludes, “should be to lift and celebrate authentic creative thinkers and works rather than to shape what those thinkers say or produce.”

Brian C. Rathbun and Caleb Pomeroy, “See No Evil, Speak No Evil? Morality, Evolutionary Psychology, and the Nature of International Relations,” International Organization 76, Summer 2022, pp. 656–89. Rathbun (University of Southern California) and Pomeroy (Ohio State University) contest the notion that anarchy in international relations (IR) requires states to set ethical concerns aside to achieve security. Rather, evolutionary and moral psychology demonstrate that morality emerged to succeed in anarchy. “It is not despite anarchy but because of anarchy that humans have an ethical sense.” They advance three arguments. (1) It is “almost impossible” to talk about threats and harm without moral discourse. (2) Leaders and publics routinely use moral judgments in assessing threats. (3) Foreign policies shaped by conceptions of international relations as an amoral domain are rare. The authors provide empirical support for these claims with word embedding surveys of large data sets. Rathbun’s and Pomeroy’s ideas have value for diplomacy scholars debating ethical and engagement practices. Their assessment of literature that distinguishes between individual morality (an ethics of caring and providing) and group morality (an ethics of retaliation and protection) is particularly helpful. Also, their discussion of the evolutionary origins of the human tendency to favor insiders over outsiders. Less persuasive, however, is their claim that a central theme in IR studies holds that anarchy “requires” states to set ethics aside, which makes IR an “autonomous sphere devoid of ethical considerations.” Much of the literature on power and morality in IR (e.g., Hans Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr, Kenneth Waltz, Michael Walzer, and many others) is not grounded in a dismissal of ethics in international society. It is based on implications of a category distinction between morality in the behavior of individuals and morality in the behavior of social groups. (Article suggested by Eric Gregory)

Joseph Siegle, Winning the Battle of Ideas: Exposing Global Authoritative Narratives and Revitalizing Democratic Principles,  International Forum for Democratic Studies / National Endowment for Democracy, February 2024. ForSiegle (National Defense University), autocracies use narratives as asymmetric instruments of power to shift relations between society and states and between states and coalitions. His report examines four authoritarian narratives. (1) Non-interference, choice, and threats to sovereignty. (2) Exploiting grievances in the Global South. (3) Democracies failing to deliver. (4) Need for a new world order. Autocracies advance these narratives, he argues, through social media, state broadcasters, partnerships with local media, and foreign media cooptation. Siegle calls on democracies to “play the winning hand they have” with a strategy that elevates democracy as an organizing principle in international relations, articulates a positive vision of a democratic world order, challenges authoritarian claims of “performance legitimacy,” fosters cultures of democratic self-correction, and builds strong information ecosystems to counter manipulation.

US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, “Public Diplomacy and DEIA Promotion: ACPD Official Meeting Minutes,”  December 12, 2023. Minutes and a transcript of the Commission’s meeting at the USC Annenberg Center in Washington, DC focus on the Commission’s special report Public Diplomacy and DEIA Promotion: Telling America’s Story to the World. Executive director Vivian Walker moderated a panel that discussed DEIA challenges and opportunities from a field perspective. Panelists included Nicholas J. Cull (USC Annenberg), Krista Johnson (Howard University), C. Brian Williams (Step Afrika Dance Company), and Yolonda Kerney (US Department of State). The event is accessible also on video (80 minutes).

Sarah Wardwell, “A Look at the New Learning Policy: How, When, and Where Do State Department Employees Learn,”  Foreign Service Journal, March 2024, 47-51. In the 1920s the State Department paid for two years of tuition, textbooks, and living expenses in Germany for George Kennan and other Foreign Service officers (FSOs) to study Russian language, literature, and history before assignment to Moscow. A similar investment a century later is hard to imagine. Unlike the US military, State until recently paid scant attention to a culture of professional education. In this article, Sarah Wardwell, a State FSO assigned as an innovation advisor, examines the department’s “Learning Policy” launched in September 2023 in response to recent reports and recommendations by senior US diplomats (e.g., Nicholas Burns, Marc Grossman, and Marcie Ries, A U.S. Diplomatic Service for the 21st Century, Harvard Kennedy School, 2020.) The new policy, Wardwell writes, “prioritizes learning as a part of the department’s culture by dedicating more time for learning, empowering employee-manager learning partnerships, and expanding learning opportunities.” The policy anticipates a core curriculum for mid-career professionals, expanded Individual Development Plans, and additional professional development and training options. Wardwell defends a policy that is strongly encouraged, but she recognizes “valid” concerns of critics who argue that unless it is mandated, other priorities will “win out.” The policy is a welcome first step, but as the US military recognized long ago, for policies such as professional education and joint force integration to work, they must be well funded and built into the incentives, rewards, and penalties of career advancement systems.

Geoffrey Wiseman, “Digital Diplomatic Cultures,” Chapter 17, 311-329, in Corneliu Bjola and Ilan Manor, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Digital Diplomacy, (Oxford University Press, 2024). In this chapter, typically thoughtful and well-written, Wiseman (DePaul University) achieves several objectives. He correctly suggests the term “digital diplomacy” is problematic in that it does not convey a form of diplomacy (e.g., cultural diplomacy, sports diplomacy). It also implies diplomacy is conducted only through digital means. Terms such as “digitalization of diplomacy” or “diplomacy by digital means” are more apt. Other terms, such as “hybrid diplomacy” and “blended diplomacy,” signify qualitative differences made by digital technologies. He provides useful assessments of definitional challenges presented by the words “digital,” “diplomatic,” and “culture.” The central thrust of the chapter is devoted to assessment of research challenges and ways in which digital practices are changing four diplomatic cultures: bilateral, multilateral, polylateral, and omnilateral. Each culture exhibits blended degrees of analog and digital characteristics on a spectrum that ranges from in-person interactions to online norms and practices. His omnilateral culture, characterized as far from “fully conceptualized,” prompts questions as to whether diplomacy can “begin with the individual” and how far it can be stretched into the domain of cross-cultural internationalism. The chapter’s examination of differing degrees of digitalization in diplomatic cultures is evidence-based, deeply grounded in the literature, and an ideal platform for ongoing debate and research.

Recent Items of Interest

“100 Years of Radio in Africa: From Propaganda to People’s Power,”  February 12, 2024, The Conversation.

Matt Armstrong, “Our Dysfunctional Relationship with Information Warfare Starts With Leadership,”  March 5, 2024, Arming for the War We’re In.

Katie Azelby, “The Diplomatic Reserve Corps: A Bold Vision for American Diplomacy.”  March 12, 2024, RealClear Defense.

Andrea Bodine, “Same Number, Different Story: Takeaways from the President’s FY25 Budget Request,”  March 15, 2024, Alliance for International Exchange.

Hal Brands, “The Age of Amorality: Can America Save the Liberal Order Through Illiberal Means,”  March/April 2024, Foreign Affairs.

Katherine A. Brown, “Global Engagement Matters for U.S. Communities,”  February 16, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Michael Crowley, “Blinken Warns of Disinformation Threat to Democracies,”  March 18, 2024, The New York Times.

Andrew Dubbins, “The Future of AI in Africa: Designing an Ethical Rollout of AI-powered Tech on the Continent,”  March 4, 2024.

Kristin Eggeling, “Fieldnotes From Brussels: When Diplomacy Meets (Big) Tech,”  February 22, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Ian Garner, “The West Is Still Oblivious to Russia’s Information War,”  March 9, 2024, Foreign Policy.

Michael Green and Daniel Twining, “The Strategic Case for Democracy Promotion in Asia,”  January 23, 2024, Foreign Affairs.  

Natalia Grincheva, “K11 Alternative Diplomacies: Penetrating the Global Arts Markets,” Journal of Contemporary Chinese Art, Vol. 10, Issue 3, November 2023.

Jonathan Guyer, “The State Department Is Still Pale, Male, and Yale,”  February 12, 2023, The New Republic.

Edouard Harris, Jeremie Harris, and Mark Beall, “Defense in Depth: An Action Plan to Increase the Safety and Security of Advanced AI,” [Report commissioned by the US Department of State], February 26, 2024, Gladstone AI.

Jory Heckman, “State Dept Seeks Mid-career Experts to join Foreign Service in ‘Lateral Entry’ Pilot,”  February 5, 2024, Federal News Network; Molly Weisner, “State Dept. Seeks Mid-career Applicants for Foreign Service,”  February 1, 2024, Federal Times; “State Department Announces New Lateral Entry Pilot Program,”  January 24, 2023, US Department of State; “State Department Eyes More Mid-Career Hiring to Address Skills Gaps,”  January 28, 2024, Fedweek.

Jory Heckman, “AI & Data Exchange 2024: State’s Matthew Graviss, NIH’s Susan Gregurick on AI as Force Multiplier,”  February 28, 2024, Federal News Network.

Michael Hirsh, “Did a Young Democratic Activist in 1968 Pave the Way for Donald Trump,” January 13, 2024, Politico Magazine. [Profile of Geoffrey Cowan, former VOA director, founder of USC’s Center on Public Diplomacy, and director of USC’s Annenberg Center on Leadership & Policy.]

Nina Jankowicz, “The Coming Flood of Disinformation: How Washington Gave Up On the Fight Against Falsehoods,”  February 7, 2024, Foreign Affairs.

John Katzka, “Russian Propaganda Efforts: Historical Continuities Accompany Technological Changes,”  February 2024, American Diplomacy.

Todd Leventhal, “Soviet vs. Post-Soviet Russian Disinformation,”  February 2024, American Diplomacy.

“Management Letter Related to the Audit of the U.S. Agency for Global Media,” and ”Audit Report,”   February 2024, Kearney & Company, P.C.

“Management Letter Related to the Audit of the U.S. Department of State” and “Audit Report,” February 2024, Kearney & Company, P.C.

Ilan Manor, “Public Diplomacy in the Era of Post-Reality,”  February 13, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Steven Lee Meyers, “Spate of Mock News Sites With Russian Ties Pop Up in U.S.,”  March 7, 2024, The New York Times.

Alan Philips, The Red Hotel: Moscow 1941, the Metropol Hotel, and the Untold Story of Stalin’s Propaganda War, (Pegasus, 2024); Reviewed by Jonathan Steele, “The Party Line,” The New York Review, March 21, 2024, 46-48.

Peter Pomerantsev, How to Win an Information War: The Propagandist Who Outwitted Hitler, (Public Affairs/2024). Reviewed by Martha Bayles, “‘How to Win an Information War,’ Review: Deception on the Airwaves,” The Wall Street Journal, March 8, 2024.

Charles Ray, “From Mars to Venus: My Journey from Soldier to Diplomat,”  February 18, 2024, Washington International Diplomatic Academy.

Brianna Rosen, “Disclosing Secrets: Deterrence, Diplomacy, and Debate — Reflections on Remarks by DNI Avril Haines,”  March 1, 2024, Just Security.

Tom Selinger, “A Century of Service: Firsthand Accounts From U.S. Diplomats,”  March 2024, Foreign Service Journal.     

Dan Spokojny,  “What is Expertise? Let’s Ask the Experts,”  March 13, 2023 “Introducing: Foreign Policy Expertise,”  March 7, 2024, Foreign Policy Expertise Substack. 

Julie Tremaine, “Everything To Know About The Diplomat, Season 2,” February 10, 2024, People.

Eriks Varpahovskis and Anri Chedia, “Türkiye’s Hizmet Schools: Once a Point of Pride, Now a Government-Labelled Threat,”  March 5, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Vivian Walker, “DEIA and Public Diplomacy: Telling the Real Story,”  January 31, 2024, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Gem from the Past

Deborah Cohn, The Latin American Literary Boom and U.S. Nationalism During the Cold War,(Vanderbilt University Press, 2012). Twelve years ago, Deborah Cohn (Indiana University Bloomington) wrote a perceptive and deeply researched book on literature in the Cold War’s cultural politics and diplomacy in the Americas. It warrants reading today for its enduring insights and conceptual frameworks. Cohn’s study is contrapuntal, a word she uses to describe an approach that moves back and forth between perspectives of Latin American and US-based writers, publishers, and promoters of Spanish American literature during the 1960s and 1970s known as “the boom.” She points to Gabriel Garcia Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude as a primary and pivotal example. 

Her book is contrapuntal in other important ways. It frames the Boom as a transnational and cosmopolitan movement that bridged a hegemonic and anti-hegemonic divide in the America’s following the Cuban revolution. It examines “skewed lines of cause and effect” that allowed writers who participated in operations of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, other CIA front groups, the State Department, and the US Information Agency to pursue their own political and literary agendas apart from US government policies. Her book also addresses their literature in the context of modernism, Marxism, and the fierce literary criticism debates in the second half of the 20th century. A long introduction surveys the book’s multiple agendas. Four chapters cover (1) the impact of the McCarthy era blacklist on Spanish American writers, (2) Latin American writers and the 1966 PEN Congress, (3) Latin America and its literature in US universities after the Cuban Revolution, and (4) the Center for Inter-American Relations. This is an essential book in the literature on cultural diplomacy, cross-cultural internationalism, and complex dynamics at the intersections of art, thought, and the state.

An archive of Diplomacy’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.