Intended for teachers of public diplomacy and related courses, here is an update on resources that may be of general interest. Suggestions for future updates are welcome.
Bruce Gregory can be reached at BGregory@gwu.edu
Michele Acuto, Anna Kosvac, and Kris Hartley, “City Diplomacy: Another Generational Shift,” Diplomatica, 3 (2021), 137-146. Michele Acuto (Melbourne University) writes often and thoughtfully about concepts and practice in city diplomacy. In this article, he and his colleagues Anna Kosvac (Melbourne University) and Kris Hartley (University of Hong Kong) examine generational shifts in city diplomacy and new ways of understanding a domain in governance and diplomacy that remains an academic niche. They argue the COVID-19 pandemic is opening a new window into city diplomacy, raising interesting questions about its relevance to complex global problems and different diplomatic styles. They point to opportunities for multidisciplinary research and provide a helpful literature survey. Importantly, they address boundaries and gray areas between city diplomacy, city networks, and global urban governance.
“Antony J. Blinken on the Modernization of American Diplomacy,” Foreign Service Institute, US Department of State, October 27, 2021. President Biden’s promise that the US would “lead with diplomacy” meant expectations were high when Secretary Blinken spoke at the Foreign Service Institute about what this would mean for “the future of the State Department.” His plan has five pillars.
(1) Build capacity and expertise in critical areas, “particularly climate, global health, cyber security and emerging technologies, economics, and multilateral diplomacy.” Actions: a new bureau for cyberspace and digital policy, a new special envoy for critical and emerging technology.
(2) “Elevate new voices and encourage more initiative and more innovation.” Actions: a new policy ideas channel, a revitalized dissent channel, heightened engagement with stakeholders in American civil society.
(3) “Build and retain a diverse, dynamic, and entrepreneurial workforce.” Actions: create a demographic baseline, improve transparency in assignment bidding, review assignment restrictions, work to add more positions to a training float, more opportunities for professional development.
(4) Modernize State’s technologies, communications, and analytical capabilities. Actions: a 50% increase in the technology budget request, benefit from what can be learned from the experience in Afghanistan.
(5) “Reinvigorate in-person diplomacy and public engagement.” Actions: accept and manage risk, engage more outside embassy walls, extend reach beyond national capitals, “leave no stone unturned” in investigating anomalous health incidents.
Unobjectionable goals and measures to be sure. But much in the speech is aspirational, and it falls short of the scale of changes called for in recent studies by distinguished former practitioners and analysts. And much depends on Congressional action. Public diplomacy enthusiasts will welcome the Secretary’s strong support for strengthening “public engagement” by all US diplomats. They will note this further confirmation of its centrality in diplomatic practice even as the term “public diplomacy” continues to wane in the rhetoric of presidents and cabinet level officials. See also, Lara Jakes, “‘Zero Risk’ Security Constraints Puts U.S. Diplomats at a Disadvantage, Blinken Says,” October 27, 2021, The New York Times and Dan Spokojny, “fp21 Applauds Blinken’s Modernization Steps But Urges Deeper Reforms,” October 28, 2021, fp21.
Costas M. Constantinou, Jason Dittmer, Merje Kuus, Fiona McConnell, Sam Okoth Opondo, and Vincent Pouliot, “Thinking with Diplomacy: Within and Beyond Practice Theory,” International Political Sociology, Volume 15, Issue 4, December 2021, 559-587. The scholars in this important “Collective Discussion” take the measure of practice theory in diplomacy studies. By practice theory they mean “a broad family of approaches that share a common unit of analysis: practices as socially meaningful patterns of action.” Their central question turns on how empirical, methodological, and values-related disagreements about the meaning of diplomatic practice can be used to develop or revise practice theory. For scholars, their discourse and extensive references illuminate conceptual issues and opportunities for research. Practitioners, especially those focused on transformational change in diplomatic practice and “citizen diplomacy,” will find this worth a close read. International Studies Association members will find the full article on the ISA website.
Vincent Pouliot (McGill University), “Beyond the Profession, Into the Everyday? Grasping the Politics of Diplomatic Practices.” Among several compelling overview arguments, Pouliot points to the need for boundaries. He cautions against equating diplomacy with human relationships in everyday life. Diplomacy deals “with public matters of governance,” and it is a form of social intercourse that involves representation of entities larger than the individual.
Merje Kuus (University of British Columbia), “The Know-Where of Diplomatic Sociability: Expanding the Spaces of Practice Theory.” Kuus calls for expansion of diplomacy to include transnational spaces beyond government where diplomatic work can “create local relationships of trust” – “coffee diplomacy, lunch diplomacy, golf diplomacy, sauna diplomacy, and so on.”
Fiona McConnell (University of Oxford) “Diplomacy as Performative Practice from/for the ‘Margins.’” McConnell urges more attention to performative practices and the legitimating dynamics of where diplomacy occurs, particularly in digital space and “in marginalized communities seeking to mimic official diplomacy.”
Jason Dittmer (University College London), “Between Practice and Assemblage: Bodies, Materials, and Space.” Dittmar states current practice theory does not go far enough. Citing cases in digital diplomacy, China’s “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy, and redesign of the 19th century British Foreign Office, he argues for greater attention to how the presence or absence of material objects shape diplomatic practices.
Sam Okoth Opondo (Vassar College), “Pharmakon: Amateur Diplomacies and/as Decolonial Practice.” Opondo faults practice theory for failing to question the values and valuation practices that define what is or is not diplomatic and worthy of scholarly attention. The decolonial approach, he argues, reveals diplomatic and colonial world orders and questions what counts as diplomatic theory and practice.
Costas M. Constantinou (University of Cyprus), “Beyond Strategy: Diplomacy and the Practice of Living.” Constantinou calls for a holistic vision of diplomacy that includes experimental and experiential modes of diplomacy typically left out of foreign policy analysis – the errant “trajectories of everyday life” – an approach, he concedes, that risks “conceptual overstretching and analytical disutility.” His contribution draws on analysis of Mahatma Gandhi’s diplomacy as “an orthodox unified practice and a heterodox amalgamation of practices.”
Alina Dolea, “Transnational Diaspora Diplomacy, Emotions, and COVID-19: The Romanian Diaspora in the UK,” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, October 26, 2021. In this perceptive case study, Dolea (Bournemouth University) adds helpful research and analysis to the growing literature on diaspora diplomacy. The pandemic, she writes, accelerated the digitalization of diaspora communication in the UK. The website and Facebook pages of the Romanian embassy and consulate in London became primary sources of official information. Communication between Romania’s diplomatic institutions and the diaspora changed from a dominant one-way flow to greater engagement and collaboration, which doubled the number of followers. Digital platforms of Romania’s diplomats and online Romanian communities in the UK became arenas of debate regarding both countries’ policies on the pandemic, vaccination, and the diaspora. Dolea examines the diaspora’s diversity, civic engagement, political activities, frustrations, and exposure to British media and political campaigns against immigration. Brexit and COVID-19 increased feelings of alienation and rejection by Romania and the UK, but they also contributed to stronger feelings of community within the diaspora. She concludes that these dynamics warrant a change in public diplomacy scholarship: from its focus on the apparent “‘uniformity’ of diaspora and homeland loyalties,” and from perceptions of diasporas as instruments and partners, to recognition that they are also “disruptors” whose tensions and conflicts deserve greater attention.
James J. F. Forest, Digital Influence Warfare In the Age of Social Media, (Praeger / ABC-CLIO, 2021).Forest (University of Massachusetts Lowell) has been writing for two decades on topics related to counterterrorism and information warfare. His edited three volumes, Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the 21st Century (2007) remain a foundational compilation of essays on hard power, soft power, and public diplomacy in the early post 9/11 years. In this book, he defines “digital influence warfare as “online psychological operations, information operations, and political warfare through which a malicious actor (state or non-state) achieves its goals by manipulating the beliefs and behaviors of others.” His chapters seek answers to a series of questions. What are the goals of influence warfare? What are its tactics and tools? What are relevant principles from the literature on the psychology of persuasion, social influence, and strategies of persuasion? What are digital influence silos? And what are differences between “information dominance” in authoritarian countries and “attention dominance” in democracies? He provides a range of case studies and examines ways to think about and counter malicious digital influencers.
César Jiménez‐Martínez, “The Public As a Problem: Protest, Public Diplomacy and the Pandemic,”Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, October 26, 2021. Jiménez‐Martínez (Cardiff University) argues public diplomacy scholars and practitioners should give more attention to protests occasioned by the Covid-19 pandemic; perceived loss of personal freedoms; structural class, gender, and racial inequalities; and other grievances with domestic and transnational impact. Analysis of the “public” in public diplomacy, he contends, is limited in two ways. First, publics are typically viewed through a top-down version of imposed national identity. Second, they are treated as a problem to be dealt with in negotiations and conflict or as a resource to be exploited. He urges rejection of “the fantasy that a perennial national ‘essence’ can be communicated” and acknowledgement that “social actors, beyond the institutions of the state, may be equally valid representatives of the nation.” He asserts that “chaos, conflict, and transformation” are more at the core of nationhood than “homogeneity, stability and authenticity.” Jiménez‐Martínez’s thoughtful article prompts debate and questions. What are meaningful analytical and operational boundaries between governance and civil society? Between chaos and stability in political entitles?
Harry W. Kopp and John K. Naland, Career Diplomacy: Life and Work in the US Foreign Service, (Georgetown University Press, fourth edition, 2021). In this revised edition of Career Diplomacy,completed in the early weeks of the Biden presidency, veteran diplomats Kopp and Naland provide a clear, comprehensive, and knowledgeable practitioners’ guide to the US Foreign Service. They present their narrative as descriptive, not prescriptive, albeit with a point of view on the damage done by the Trump administration. Sections frame the Foreign Service as an institution, a profession, and a career followed by a closing chapter on tomorrow’s diplomats. Experts will find much that is interesting and new. Particularly useful are their insights on how to enter the Foreign Service and advance through the ranks. The book’s dominant focus is on the Department of State, although there are brief sections on USAID and the Foreign Commercial and Agricultural Services. The authors are champions of the Foreign Service as a highly skilled, indispensable, and underappreciated instrument of diplomacy, but their views on its limitations as well as its strengths reflect a welcome degree of analytical distance. Three pages are devoted to public diplomacy as a separate category of diplomatic practice. Yet they also maintain that in the 21th century all US Foreign Service officers engage leaders and groups “throughout societies.” The public dimension of diplomacy warrants closer examination. The book also would benefit from considered assessment of the role of the Foreign Service in whole of government diplomacy where actors in domestic departments and agencies, military services, cities and states, and some NGOs also are diplomacy practitioners. Kopp and Naland conclude by arguing repair of the damage done in the Trump years is an opportunity to look anew at the Foreign Service and attend to long-standing problems. But for the most part they don’t argue for specific reforms. Too bad. They are well suited to offer informed judgments on the many recommendations now in play.
Elizabeth C. Matto, et al., Teaching Civic Engagement Globally, (American Political Science Association, 2021). Matteo (Rutgers University) and five co-editors have compiled a comprehensive book on global and multi-disciplinary approaches to civic engagement education in an era of ascending populist values and authoritarian governance. Forty-five contributors in 21 chapters discuss educational models and experiences intended to promote civic engagement knowledge, skills, and values in democratic, authoritarian, and mixed systems. Section 1 contains case studies on collaboration between local, national, and international organizations. Section 2 examines teaching practices that have and have not worked. Section 3 contains country case studies on teaching civic engagement education. Section 4 explores global issues, research gaps, and challenges going forward. The full collection is available online. A related website provides supplementary syllabi, assessment models and other resources. See also Matto, “Teaching Civic Engagement Globally – Spreading the Word,” December 13, 2021, Political Science Today. (Courtesy of Donna Oglesby)
“Public Diplomacy Modernization Act,” Title LVI, Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, pp. 1970-1980. In what can be read as an indicator of America’s traditional inattention to diplomacy compared to its military, the first comprehensive State Department authorization bill in twenty years is embedded in this year’s huge Defense Authorization bill. It authorizes an estimated $24 billion more than President Biden requested, much of it for planes, ships, and other hard power initiatives. State’s authorization contains a short, but significant section on public diplomacy. Provisions now in law include:
- A requirement to avoid “duplication of programs and efforts.”
- Appointment of a Director of Research and Evaluation in the Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.
- Limited exemptions to the Paperwork Reduction Act and Privacy Act for purposes of audience research, monitoring, and evaluation.
- Creation of a Subcommittee on Research and Evaluation in the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.
- Permanent reauthorization of the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.
- Guidance for closure of public diplomacy facilities.
- Definitions of audience research, digital analytics, and impact evaluation.
- Delineation of State’s public diplomacy bureaus and offices: The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, the Bureau of Global Public Affairs, The Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, The Global Engagement Center, and public diplomacy activities within the regional and functional bureaus.
- A working group tasked with exploring a “shared services model” for HR, travel, purchasing, budget planning, and all other support functions for these designated public diplomacy bureaus and offices.
Strengths of this legislation include practical upgrades for research and evaluation, and restoration of “continuing” authorization for the Advisory Commission – a legal provision that reinforces its independent oversight role. It is consistent with the Commission’s original authority in 1948 and decades of past practice. Sections on the working group to study so-called “streamlining of support functions” in a “shared services model” and definition of public diplomacy’s bureaus and offices raise challenging questions. How should public diplomacy be integrated throughout the Department? And what is State’s role in whole of government diplomacy? For the public diplomacy section in this 2,165-page law, scroll down to pages 1970-1980.
“Open Doors 2021 Report on International Educational Exchange,” US Department of State and Institute of International Education, November 15, 2021. Open Doors’ annual report shows a 15% decrease in international students attending US colleges and universities during the 2020-2021 school year from the previous year. First-time incoming students fell 45 percent. US students studying abroad declined by 53%. The State Department and IIE attributed the changes to effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Fast Facts 2021” and information about the survey can be downloaded from the Open Doors website. The lengthy full report can be purchased online. See also Susan Svrluga, “After Decades of Increases, a Drop in the Number of International Students in the United States,” November 15, 2021, The Washington Post.
“Training the Department of State’s Workforce for the 21st Century,” Subcommittee on State Department and USAID Management, International Operations and Bilateral International Development, United States Senate, November 2, 2021. In this Subcommittee hearing, chaired by Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), three witnesses addressed issues relating to training in US diplomacy. In her statement, Ambassador Joan Polaschik, Deputy Director of State’s Foreign Service Institute cautiously outlined State’s training policies, priorities, and goals. Her focus was entirely on tradecraft, language and area studies training. Missing was any assessment of professional education. In his innovative statement, however, Joshua J. Marcuse, former executive director of the Defense Innovation Board, called for “a significant overhaul” of State’s education, training, and professional development. He urged State to create a learning culture, embrace new paradigms of foreign service, and adopt new delivery mechanisms for digital learning. In his ambitious statement,Ambassador David Miller, President of the Diplomatic Studies Foundation, also called for changes in State’s massive shortcomings in the “education and training” needed for diplomatic excellence. “I have never seen an institution,” he stated, “work so hard to select people and do so little to train them once on board.” See also Natalie Alms, “Training the Diplomats of the Future,” November 3, 2021, FCW Magazine.
“U.S. Agency for Global Media: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Oversight of Broadcasting Networks,” United States Government Accountability Office, GAO-22-1014017, October 2021. GAO summarizes the effects of amendments to the US International Broadcasting Act of 1994 on the structure and authorities of the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), formerly the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). Helpful graphics and careful prose provide a clear summary of changes in law, the dismissal of senior broadcasting appointees by Trump-appointed CEO Michael Pack, their reappointment by the current Acting CEO, and concerns regarding the “firewall” intended to protect editorial independence and the CEO’s authority to select members of USAGM’s grantee boards. GAO identified two matters for Congressional consideration. (1) An amendment to the 1994 Act that gives the USAGM’s Advisory Board a role in the appointment and removal of grantee board members. (2) Legislation that defines the parameters of USAGM’s “firewall” by describing what is and is not permissible regarding network editorial independence.
US Agency for Global Media, “FY 2021, Performance and Accountability Report,” November 15, 2021. USAGM’s annual report describes the Agency’s mission, strategic goals, organizational structure, and programs; presents audience growth claims; highlights the year’s accomplishments; and identifies current and future challenges. Its “measurable performance goals” are divided into two categories: seven impact objectives focus on mission performance; four agility objectives focus on agency management. The 230-page report contains an abundance of empirical data and carefully constructed arguments about government journalism and a media organization adapting to change. It is a valuable document. It should be read, however, in conjunction with independent evaluations and advisory reports: the Office of the Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, Congressional committee and staff reports, the Congressional Research Service, and the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. Missing in USAGM’s report is discussion of the chaotic events that beset the Agency in the waning months of the Trump administration, figured significantly in the Agency’s operations in FY 2021, and raised leadership issues that remain unresolved.
“USAGM and the Future of Public Funded-International Broadcasting,” US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, Minutes and Transcript, Public Meeting, September 17, 2021. Speakers at the Commission’s quarterly meeting, moderated by executive director Vivian Walker, presented informed and diverse views on the US Agency for Global Media’s strategic objectives, challenges facing US global media, and ideas about what needs to change.
Shawn Powers (USAGM’s Chief Strategy Officer) discussed USAGM’s “democratic mission,” what is needed to build trust with audiences, and “purpose driven journalism.”
Michael McFaul (Stanford University) offered two “radical ideas.” (1) Make all US media services, including VOA, independent grantees with non-partisan boards, not bipartisan boards, to achieve stronger “firewalls” and greater distance from the executive branch. (2) Radically restructure all US government strategic communication and invest substantially in the ideological struggle, which the US is losing to the Russians and the Chinese.
Sarah Arkin (Policy Director and Deputy Staff Director, Senate Foreign Relations Committee) stressed “the power of truth,” Congressional unwillingness to support US government deception in combating disinformation, and making sure USAGM’s networks and grantees “are not tied too closely to the State Department and . . . the White House.
Helle Dale (The Heritage Foundation) called for the US to “up its game in public diplomacy and in international broadcasting,” clarify missions, and “maybe” create a new agency “in coordination with” or “within” the State Department for “the part that tells America’s story.
Sophie Vériter, “European Democracy and Counter-Disinformation: Toward a New Paradigm?”Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, December 14, 2021. Vériter (Leiden University) argues European governments are entering a new phase in efforts to counter disinformation. They are reckoning with an increasingly obsolete distinction between domestic and foreign disinformation, and they are focusing more on the democratic character of their countermeasures. Her research findings suggest human agents more than bots are primary amplifiers of propaganda. Domestic sources drive most COVID-19 disinformation. Effective response strategies call for “more transparency from and accountability over online platforms” and “a comprehensive and borderless approach rooted in international collaboration.” (Courtesy of Len Baldyga)
“What People Around the World Like – and Dislike – About American Society and Politics,” Pew Research Center, November 2, 2021. Richard Wike and his colleagues at Pew continue to provide excellent survey data on how the US is viewed abroad. In this report on attitudes in 17 advanced economies, they find high regard for America’s technology, entertainment, military, and universities. Views about American living standards are mixed, and the US health care system gets very low marks. A median of 17% believe American democracy is a good example to follow; 72% say it used to be a good example but has not been in recent years. The full report can be downloaded online. See also Annabelle Timsit, “‘Very Few’ Believe U.S. Democracy Sets a Good Example, Global Survey Finds,” November 2, 2021, The Washington Post.
R.S. Zaharna, “The Pandemic’s Wake-up Call for Humanity-Centered Public Diplomacy,” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, October 27, 2021. Zaharna (American University), makes several claims in this essay. The pandemic reveals a growing gap between “state-centric” and “humanity-centric” public diplomacy, a concept which she develops in her new book, Boundary Spanners of Humanity (Oxford, forthcoming). State-centric public diplomacy fails, she contends, because its “individual-level, power-focused, and competitive perspective” is unable to meet the collaborative requirements of the concerns of global publics about the “growing frequency and severity of crises affecting humanity.” Public diplomacy actors need to move beyond listening as gathering information to a “perspective-taking” that processes information from a humanity-level perspective.
Recent Items of Interest
Matt Abbott, “Our Cities and States Can Be Relentless Diplomats,” November 10, 2021, Inkstick Media.
Marcos Aleman, “US Diplomat in El Salvador [Jean Manes] Critical of Government Leaves Job,” November 22, 2021, AP; Erin Brady, “U.S. Diplomat in El Salvador Leaves, Says Country Has No Interest in Improving Relations,” November 22, 2021, Newsweek.
Anca Anton and Raluca Moise, “Going Back to the Public in Diplomacy: Citizen Diplomats and the Nature of Their Soft Power,” December 2, 2021, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
John Bader, “At 75, the Fulbright Deserves More Respect and More Funding,” November 11, 2021, The Hill.
Laura Bate and Matthew Cordova, “Technology Diplomacy Changes Are the Right Start,” November 29, 2021, Lawfare.
Corneliu Bjola, “Digital Diplomacy as World Disclosure: The Case of the COVID-19 Pandemic,” September 9, 2021, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy.
Enrico Ciappi, “Transatlantic Relations and Public Diplomacy: The Council on Foreign Relations, Jean Monnet, and Post-WWII France and Europe,” December 3, 2021, History of European Ideas.
Nick Erickson, “Retired Vietnam Ambassador Ted Osius: Diplomacy is About Building Trust and Taking Risks,” October 27, 2021, Walter Roberts Endowment Lecture, GWToday.
Paul Farhi, “Biden Favorite to Run Voice of America Parent Agency Could Face Trouble with Senate GOP,” October 28, 2021, The Washington Post. Robbie Gramer, “Donors for Ambassador Posts,” December 20, 2021, Foreign Policy; Dennis Jett, “Are Ambassadors Rarely Useful Relics? Discuss!” December 19, 2021, Diplomatic Diary.
Robbie Gramer and Anna Weber, “Washington Runs on Interns: So Why Are Most of Them Not Paid Enough—and Some Not Paid At All?” December 16, 2021, Foreign Policy.
Natalia Grincheva, “Cultural Diplomacy Under the “Digital Lockdown”: Pandemic Challenges and Opportunities in Museum Diplomacy,” October 26, 2021, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy.
Stuart Holliday, “Lee Satterfield to Serve as Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs,” November 2021, Meridian International Center.
“How Politicians Project Their Status in Virtual Meetings,” December 20, 2021, Lund University.
David Ignatius, “The State Department Gets Serious About the Global Technology Race,” October 27, 2021, The Washington Post; Maggie Miller, “Lawmakers Praise Upcoming Establishment of Cyber Bureau at State,” October 26, 2021, The Hill.
“Independent Auditor’s Report [of the US Agency for Global Media],” November 15, 2021, Kearney & Company.
Joe B. Johnson, “Lessons From Afghanistan – Two Ambassadors Speak,” December 14, 2021, Public Diplomacy Council.
Letter to Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer [expressing concerns about increased visa fees in the House passed version of the Build Back Better Act], December 3, 2021, Alliance for International Exchange.
Darren Linvill and Patrick Warren, “Understanding the Pro-China Propaganda and Disnformation Toolset in Xinjiang,” December 1, 2021, Lawfare.
Larry Luxner, “Global ‘Changemakers’ Mark 75th Anniversary of Fulbright Program,” December 6, 2021, The Washington Diplomat.
Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer, “Foggy Bottom Bristles at Proliferation of Special Envoys,” December 6, 2021, Foreign Policy.
Tania Mahmoud and Anna Duenbier, “UK Cities: A Global Network in Support of an Outward Looking Nation,” November 2021, British Council.
Ilan Manor, César Jiménez-Martínez, and Alina Dolea, “An Asset or a Hassle? The Public as a Problem for Public Diplomats,” November 16, 2021, Blog Post, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy.
Ilan Manor and James Pamment, “From Gagarin to Sputnik: The Role of Nostalgia in Russian Public Diplomacy,” October 26, 2021, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy.
Ilan Manor, “The Metaverse and Its Impact on International Relations,” November 3, 2021; “Effective Government Communication During Covid19: What Governments Can Learn from Diplomats,” October 26, 2021; “What Are the Future Challenges for Digital Diplomacy?” September, 9, 2021, Diplo.
Joseph Nye, “American Democracy and Soft Power,” November 2, 2021, Project Syndicate.
Michael Pack, “The Death of Democracy,” November 15, 2021, The Washington Examiner.
Charles Ray, “Why Are Soldiers Treated Better Than Diplomats?” November 5, 2021, Washington International Diplomatic Diary.
Dan Spokojny, “We Are Not Capable of Learning the Lessons of Afghanistan,” October 19, 2021, The Duck of Minerva.
Zed Tarar, “Analysis | How New Ideas Can Reboot the State Department,” November 10, 2021, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy’s “A Better Diplomacy” Blog Series.
US Department of State and US Department of Education, “A Renewed U.S. Commitment to International Education,” Joint Statement of Principles, October 21, 2021.
Alexander Ward and Quint Forgey, “State to Have New ‘Policy Ideas’ Channel,” October 26, 2021, Politico.
Jim Wyss, “Barbados is Opening a Diplomatic Embassy in the Metaverse,” December 14, 2021, Bloomberg.
Gem From The Past
Gordon Adams and Shoon Murray, eds., Mission Creep: The Militarization of US Foreign Policy, (Georgetown University Press, 2014). Eight years ago, Adams and Murray (American University) compiled essays by scholars and former diplomacy practitioners that examined “a growing institutional imbalance at the heart of the foreign policy and national security process.” Earlier this year Adams updated the argument in his excellent and granular “Responsible Statecraft Requires Remaking America’s Foreign Relations Tool Kit,” Quincy Institute Brief No. 9, February 2021. As numerous practitioners and analysts frame proposals for diplomacy reforms, his central claim is worth revisiting. Americans place overwhelming emphasis on military perspectives, priorities, and instruments even though solutions to today’s biggest challenges do not lie in the use of military force. Chapters of particular interest in Mission Creep include: Charles B. Cushman (Georgetown University), “Congress and the Politics of Defense and Foreign Policymaking;” Brian E. Carlson (Public Diplomacy Council), “Who Tells America’s Story Abroad;” Shoon Murray and Anthony Quainton, (American University), “Combatant Commanders, Ambassadorial Authority, and the Conduct of Diplomacy;” Edward Marks (American Diplomacy), “The State Department;” and Gordon Adams, “Conclusion.” Attention to diplomacy’s modernization will remain in the shadow of the nation’s overwhelming commitment to military power. Compare the 2022 Defense budget, recently authorized at nearly $770 billion, with the $72 billion appropriation for the State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs enacted in July 2021.
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, and MountainRunner.us.
