Reinventing Public Diplomacy

2009-03-08T08:22:00.001-05:00

When Uncle Sam called the shots
Boston Globe - United States
Well, it tends then to get called "public diplomacy" rather than "propaganda." But the basic question remains, and it's implicitly raised by the series ...

Solicitation for Media Team in Iraq Hints at Contracting-Overhaul ...
Washington Post - United States
Except for informing division personnel and home station audiences, those tasks are normally handled by the State Department's public diplomacy officials ...

On Mideast Trip, Clinton Turns Up the Caution
New York Times - United States
And the general emphasis of that trip was much more geared toward climate change and public diplomacy. Some Middle East analysts said the Obama ...

Clinton tells how she fell for Bill "long ago"
Reuters - USA
The appearance on the show, with four female interviewers, is part of Clinton's strategy to reach out to ordinary people through public diplomacy efforts. ...

2009-03-04T06:53:00.002-05:00

Michelle Kwan's diplomatic skills
Los Angeles Times - CA,USA
A change in the White House hasn't changed Michelle Kwan's status as a US public diplomacy envoy. Kwan, the five-time world figure skating champion and ...

New Public Diplomacy Magazine Launched
UNC Chapel Hill - USA
In February 2009, the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars at the University of Southern California launched the inaugural issue of PD, ...

Smith-Mundt: Censorship American Style?
UNC Chapel Hill - USA
A provision of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 prohibits the Voice of America and all other organs of public diplomacy from disseminating within the United ...

2009-03-02T06:44:00.000-05:00

Advertising’s lessons for homeland security
TODAYonline - Singapore
... former United States Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, of the US’ attempt at curbing the appeal of extremist ideology. ...

2009-03-01T08:47:00.002-05:00

In failing economy, foreign service attracts many
Pioneer Press - St. Paul, MN,USA
Tun, who has applied for a position in the public diplomacy track, which focuses on defining America's image abroad, first considered the Foreign Service ...

2009-02-28T09:27:00.002-05:00

Public engagement key to better image: Spokesman
China Daily - China
By Wang Zhuoqiong (China Daily) For Zhao Qizheng, 2008 will be remembered as the year when China made a mark in "public diplomacy". ...

Kudos For Senator Lugar's Call To Re-Establish International American Centers
Deutsche Welle - Germany
But I have always felt that for an issue that is as important for the US as public diplomacy (as everyone has come to understood at least after 9/11) ...

Michelle Kwan to visit Ukraine
The FINANCIAL - Tbilisi,Georgia
The FINANCIAL -- American Public Diplomacy Envoy Michelle Kwan will travel to Ukraine on February 28th where she will visit Kyiv, Yalta, Sevastopol, ...

Toronto Star: Obama takes 'smart power' approach

2009-01-24T07:36:00.002-05:00

This article speaks for itself -- a new age has come:

Obama takes 'smart power' approach, by Lynda Hurst of the Toronto Star.

Bruce Hoffman Cites Information Operations as Key Element in Combating Terrorism

2009-01-14T06:28:00.002-05:00

In a 13 Jan 2009 article in The National Interest, terrorism guru Bruce Hoffman cites information operations and public diplomacy as key elements of any anti-terror strategy:

"Information operations that delegitimize the top leaders of terrorist groups and undermine the image of these groups’ omnipotence is an essential adjunct to kinetic approaches. The top leaders of terrorist organizations are more than just policymakers for the group. They occupy an enormously influential and important symbolic position at the head of a terrorist organization that is often inextricably connected to that organization’s very existence. Therefore focused and sufficiently resourced public diplomacy and information-operations campaigns to discredit these leaders and undermine images of their and their groups’ omnipotence are critical elements in effectively countering terrorism."

Find more on Hoffman's "Twelve Step Program" for terrorism HERE

PD Council Posts "Proposals for the Obama Administration"

2008-11-30T20:18:00.005-05:00

The Public Diplomacy Council released in early November a series of "Proposals for the Obama Administration" on how to improve U.S. public diplomacy in both theory and practice.

These recommendations have been shared on both the webpages of both the Council and the Public Diplomacy Alumni Association. The authors provide 12 "Basic Principles on improving U.S. Public Diplomacy," and also offer a thoughtful series of action items on how best to reform U.S. international broadcasting.

The former seems more oriented toward public diplomacy policy formulation and coordinating entities (the White House and State Department), while the latter more narrowly speaks to reforming the Broadcasting Board of Governors and its constituent organizations.

Most interestingly, the piece argues for the abolition of the Broadcasting Board of Governors as its exists, and instead advocates a "new nonpartisan oversight commission that would assume more of an advisory role, leaving daily management in the hands of a commission-appointed professional CEO, the VOA director, and the presidents of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, the Middle East Broadcast Networks (Radio Sawa and Alhurra TV), and Radio-TV Marti to Cuba."

This author is curious as to whether the proposed changes more closely reflect a model of "things as they once were" under USIA, or if they represent a true "step forward" in creating 21st century U.S. Government-sponsored broadcast institutions.

Baltimore Examiner: "Persuasion, Not Popularity, Should be Obama's Goal"

2008-11-30T12:01:00.002-05:00

From the 29 November edition of the Baltimore Examiner:

"As Barack Obama works to shape his new foreign policy team and its guiding principles, he ought to avoid the trap of treating American popularity abroad as an end in itself. Indeed, too slavish a pursuit of popularity for its own sake might actually get in the way of achieving far worthier, broader objectives.

The Ethics and Public Policy Center (a conservative think tank) held a forum last week on the subject of “public diplomacy,” which is how a country’s government communicates not with other governments, but with the citizenry in other nations. Far from mere “propaganda,” public diplomacy is a strategic effort to understand and engage foreign populations and to help them appreciate how U.S. policies would help advance their own interests, too.

More on the the Ethics and Public Policy Center's forum can be found here.

A PDF transcript of the event is available online here.

Brookings Report: Voices of America -- U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century

2008-11-27T17:09:00.002-05:00

Kristin Lord, aforementioned in Reinventing PD's last update, has released a new report entitled "Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century". It's worth a read for both students and practitioners of public diplomacy. Find the full text online at Brooking's website.

Brookings Fellow Calls Pentagon Lead on PD "Risky"

2008-11-27T16:59:00.003-05:00

Brookings Fellow Kristin Lord has a recent op-ed in the Christian Times Monitor regarding DoD's leadership on public diplomacy. The bottom line: "Putting our military, not civilians, at the forefront of US global communications undercuts the likelihood of success, distorts priorities, and undermines the effectiveness of US civilian agencies."

Lord is concerned by increased funding and manning for Defense Department public diplomacy efforts. According to the article, "the Department of Defense will pay private contractors $300 million over three years to produce news and entertainment programs for the Iraqi public" alone.

She drives home her point that soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors in uniform might not necessarily project the "right" image of the United States in the world, especially "in areas where the public feels threatened by American power."

The discussion descends into the age-old commentary about how State is undermanned and under-resourced. It references the perspective that the Pentagon is doing what State can't. Pragmatists would say "we shouldn't let the perfect stand in the way of the good."

As Lord so poignantly comments: "Doing public diplomacy well means putting civilians at the forefront and giving them sufficient resources." It will be interesting to see whether a change in administration will revolutionize the way that the Congress and the State Department program for and execute public diplomacy resources.

Reinventing PD wholly supports Kristin's conclusion: "the Congress should give public diplomats the tools they need to do their jobs, and then hold them accountable."

Full text available here.

The War of Ideas

2008-10-29T06:12:00.005-05:00

Today has been a busy day for Public Diplomacy in the press. First things first: In James Glassman's briefing on the War of Ideas, the State Department provided an update on its vision for public diplomacy and its engagement strategy.

I found most interesting his characterization of traditional public diplomacy versus the War of Ideas:

"While official diplomacy is aimed at officials – our Secretary of State talking to their foreign minister – public diplomacy is aimed at publics – our officials and often our publics engaging with their publics. So a simple breakdown of public diplomacy puts our work into three categories: first, telling America’s story, explaining our policies and principles to the world; second, engaging in cultural and educational exchanges in battle-tested programs like the Fulbright fellowships; and third, fighting the war of ideas, which is what I want to talk to you about today.

The first category, telling America’s story, is mainly about us. The second category, exchanges, is about both us and them. And the third, the war of ideas, is mainly about them. Over the past four months, we have shifted our focus and emphasis to the war of ideas, but we are not neglecting the first two categories, traditional public diplomacy. This is where we spend, by far, the majority of our money. Exchanges are our crown jewels and they have increased significantly under this Administration, and they have helped to boost U.S. respect and trust abroad. Just as an example, we just had one hundred – we have now, actually, one hundred international visitors from a hundred countries who are here to observe the U.S. elections and learn about the U.S. system. They’re going out to five states, five battleground states, and they’ll also be spending time at Harvard and talking to academics. They’re here for two weeks.

In 2006, the President designated the Under Secretary to lead the interagency – primarily, State, USAID, Defense and the intelligence community – in the war of ideas, and that has been my focus. In the war of ideas, our core task is not to fix foreigners’ perceptions of the United States, but to isolate and reduce the threat of violent extremism, not with bombs and bullets, of course, but with words, images, and deeds. And as I said, it’s about them, not about us."

Full text available HERE.

While I agree with the premise of Glassman's vision, I find the characterization of a black and white world of "us" and "them" concerning. How can it only be about "them" if it's "their" perception of "us" that we need to change in order to take away "their" motivation and capability to do us harm? How can it only be about "them," if the United States seeks to draw on universal values and norms to bolster the "us" position among international partners? If it's about rooting out the "them," doesn't that reinforce the position that we're out to get "them" -- instead of marginalizing "them" by showing all of the potential "them"s that we are inclusive in our worldview, but that we find violent extremism totally unacceptable? I understand that the U.S. can't be seen as "soft on terrorism," but I fear that a stagnant, unchanging "us" will not be able to win "them" over by telling "them" they have to change. And suddenly this sounds like a bad relationship e-mail exchange...

Glassman: Obama Victory Would Improve U.S. Global Image

2008-10-29T06:06:00.003-05:00

During his briefing on the so-called War of Ideas, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs James Glassman remarked on the significance the Presidential candidates this year play in re-defining the image of the United States:

From Pakistan's "The News":

Obama victory would improve US global image: U.S. official
Updated at: 0745 PST, Wednesday, October 29, 2008

WASHINGTON: The election of Democrat Barack Obama to the presidency would be a "great thing" for the image of the United States, a State Department official said on Tuesday.

James Glassman, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, was careful to emphasize he did not support the presidential nominee of either party, adding that he also thought "it would be a great thing for the United States to have a woman as vice president," in reference to Republican running mate Sarah Palin.

Find the complete story HERE.

New USG Media Hub in Brussels

2008-10-29T06:02:00.003-05:00

From di-ve.com:

The US has opened a media facility in Brussels, offering the 12,000 journalists working there the chance to organise interviews with the many senior officials passing through this busy capital city. The facility is one of the latest initiatives by the Secretary of State, which has given public diplomacy a much higher profile during George Bush’s second term.

The term public diplomacy was used in the 1960s to describe aspects of international diplomacy other than contact between governments. It was originally a polite way of describing propaganda but this is certainly not the case any longer."

Find complete story HERE.

The Herald News: "It's the carrot, not the stick"

2008-10-11T07:48:00.005-05:00

A worthy op-ed appearing in Massachusetts daily The Herald:

"Through vibrant public diplomacy programs and increased dialogue and communication between peoples, we will best be able to build bridges of understanding and support to the Arab and Muslim world. This type of commitment can and will ultimately help lead us to peace and demonstrate that the carrot can be mightier than the stick."

Full text here.

The Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Public Diplomacy Failure or Opportunity?

2008-04-16T21:40:00.007-05:00

Today's online edition of the Washington Times hosts an interesting opinion piece on the failure of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, entitled "Sabotaging Colombia."

Heritage Foundation author Helle Dale argues that, because the Congress failed to approve the negotiated agreement, the United States has lost face with a valued security partner. She asserts that the "Democratic party has just inflicted a severe blow on the reputation of the United States as a reliable international partner and on U.S. trade policy as a whole."

As an individual unfamiliar with the particulars of the negotiated agreement, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on its merits/faults. Instead, I will choose to focus on two elements that were not discussed in Dale's piece: 1) how American perceptions of Colombia might have influenced Congressional action; and, 2) the potential public diplomacy opportunities created by the failure of the trade agreement.

Dale's piece comments that Colombia is a vital security and trade partner of the United States. This is indeed true, but I am not sure to what extent this is acknowledged by the American people. Instead, I think most Americans perceive Colombia as a challenging, volatile environment for security and trade. In Dale's words:

"The security issues that could be affected by the failure of a trade agreement are wide-ranging. Proliferation through Iran is a persistent concern throughout the region, as is arms smuggling and trafficking in people. Narcotrafficking remains a constant battle in Colombia. And poverty makes large populations vulnerable to disasters."

I wish I had polling data to back this up -- and would welcome sources/research to either support or reject this hypothesis -- but to broadly generalize, I think that many Americans think "drugs," "thugs," and "coffee" when they hear "Colombia." Whether or not it is misinformed, this perception -- that Colombia is a dangerous country plagued by internal security and narcotrafficking issues -- seems to outshine the vital trade relationship the United States has with the Andean country.

Beyond general perceptions of Colombia, current political and economic atmospherics certainly came into play. The volatile nature of American markets, concern over economic conditions within the United States, and fears that Americans will lose jobs as employment opportunities are outsourced overseas could all be cited as heightening American sensitivity to a free trade agreement with any country -- not just Colombia. Add comments by Presidential candidates about the negative impact of free trade on the average, working American and it is no wonder that the political will required to "seal the deal" was absent.

In this case, I wonder what public diplomacy initiatives Colombia undertook as part of its efforts to rally popular support to conclude the agreement. In short, the failure to approve the trade deal may reflect a broader Colombian public diplomacy and U.S. public affairs failure to convince the Congress and the American people of the virtues of the agreement.

Abroad, this event certainly complicates U.S. bilateral relations with Colombia -- but it may also present a public diplomacy opportunity. It could serve as an opportunity to explain how American checks and balances work. About how American democracy works to protect and defend the interests -- whether founded in fact or perception-- of the American people. About partisan politics in the United States -- and their ability to work contrary to what the President and his Administration thinks is best for America. And, perhaps, about demonstrating to the Colombian government that while the U.S. values its partnership, current conditions (real or perceived) may not have permitted thoughtful consideration of the agreement because the American people are not convinced that any trade agreement is a wise decision at present. Setbacks such as these only reaffirm the need for strong dialogue as a part of meaningful diplomatic relationships. Additional steps should be taken to demonstrate the strength and vitality of the U.S.-Colombian trade relationship -- and public diplomacy serves as one tool to show the commitment of each country to its economic relationship with the other.

At any rate, the failure of the Colombia FTA presents both challenges and opportunities for both the United States and its Southern neighbor. U.S. perceptions and domestic politics certainly came to play -- and I would welcome the opportunity to learn more about how the former influenced the political calculus that led to this outcome.

Emerging AFRICOM

2008-03-29T16:31:00.007-05:00

USC's Center for Public Diplomacy continues to grow -- providing academics and practitioners with products to aid them in thinking about key issues in the realm of public diplomacy. It comes as no surprise that one of its latest products addresses one of the hottest topics at the intersection of defense and diplomacy: the emergence of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

Creating an military organization capable of finding its niche among interagency partners in an area of responsibility as diverse as the African continent -- with its deep and varied political and cultural nuances -- is no easy task. And while input from academia is essential, I would have hoped for a more thoughtful set of recommendations from the scholars at the University of Southern California than those contained in the March 2008 Policy Briefing Pamphlet.

For those who missed them, they boil down to:
1) Define the mission -- and how PD fits in.
2) Establish roles, responsibilities, and chain of command.
3) Talk to others about how to get things done in Africa.
4) Know your audience -- and by the way, listening helps ;-)

Perhaps the comments coming out of the February 8 panel discussion and March 18 discussion in Washington are reflective of the fledgling state of the new combatant command. If this is the case, and the process of establishing an organizational framework for AFRICOM has not moved beyond a point where these recommendations are self-evident to the AFRICOM team, there may be cause for concern.

While USC's recommendations try to focus on "public diplomacy," I find a few pervasive themes unsettling:

1) They raise issues concerning the nature of U.S. engagement on the African continent writ-large;
2) They advocate listening to African concerns but noticably leave Africans out of the list of those who should be consulted as public diplomacy ideas are developed;
3) They seem to confuse traditional defense functions pertaining to strategic communication and information operations (as deliniated by the definitions provided by the military in Joint Pub 3-13) with "military-based public diplomacy."

And while the military conduct of traditional public diplomacy would cause this author concern, as I understand it AFRICOM seeks to place more emphasis on Defense Support to Public Diplomacy (also as defined in DoD Doctrine) because it recognizes that it, too, must contribute to U.S. Government strategic communication efforts as it works with partner nations to help ensure peace, stability, and prosperity across Africa.

That DoD is not responsible for leading these efforts is clear. The language in DoD Joint Pub 3-13, "Information Operations," clearly establishes a supporting role for the U.S. military:

"DOD contributes to PD, which includes those overt international information activities of the USG designed to promote US foreign policy objectives by seeking to understand, inform, and influence foreign audiences and opinion makers and by broadening the dialogue between American citizens and institutions and their counterparts abroad. When approved, PSYOP assets may be employed in support of DSPD [Defense Support for Public Diplomacy] as part of security cooperation initiatives or in support of US embassy PD [public diplomacy] programs. Much of the operational level IO [information operations] activity conducted in any theater will be directly linked to PD objectives. DSPD requires coordination with both the interagency and among DOD components." [Emphasis added.]

Supporting tables appearing later in the coordination portion of the document further bolster this notion of a supporting role for DoD. And while DoD a) will always favor action over inaction, and b) is better equipped to accomplish its "supporting role" than those tasked with the all of other elements of strategic communication combined, these are issues for another discussion...

Indeed, the Department of Defense needs to decide how it will support public diplomacy, and how this support fits into broader U.S. Government strategic communication efforts. Strategic communication planning should be incorporated into the initial phases of crafting a campaign plan for AFRICOM. Overarching guidance would empower those working within each region/country to forge operational strategic communications plans, incorporating elements of defense support to public diplomacy and refining strategic guidance to best fit conditions on the ground. That DoD recognizes the impact of its operations on how America is perceived abroad and wants to ensure that its efforts align properly with those of its interagency partners is an encouraging first step.

So, while those guiding the coordination of interagency strategic communication efforts for Africa -- if there is such a body -- must take into account how to leverage interagency assets writ-large, AFRICOM has a remarkable niche opportunity. It can work to properly align its information operations and defense support to public diplomacy, thereby achieving synergy in interagency planning and operations at the nexus of strategic communication and security assistance.

How can it accomplish this? By crafting its message in meaningful, credible terms that will resonate with the local populace. This message must be consistent from the strategic to the tactical levels -- and cater to foreign audiences, not the more familiar military and domestic audiences frequently targeted by military Public Affairs Officers. Moreover, interagency partners must assist in shaping and disseminating the message. True coordination is required, not just deconfliction.

I would have hoped that USC would gone deeper than the surface issues and offered ideas on how the military should define its role, and what constitutes a "sophisticated plan for engaging in [defense support to] public diplomacy." Drawing on its knowledge of the art of public diplomacy, what lessons learned would help the command effectively cater its message to African audiences? What will it take to win the buy-in of the local populace? What are the unique tools the military brings to U.S. engagement in Africa -- and how can it best leverage its assets and capabilities?

While I do not pretend to have the answers (and I think I may have just proposed a Master's thesis project), I hope that future academic efforts will seek to empower policymakers by shedding light on these questions.

Secretary of Defense Advocates for Boosting Civilian Agencies, Enhancing Soft Power

2007-11-27T19:54:00.001-05:00

An unlikely hero has stepped up in support of soft power: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The comments he made yesterday at the Kansas State University are tremendous (a far cry from the message and tone of the Rumsfeld era) -- and I hope that they will lead to subsequent action by the Congress in support of his recommendations.

During his remarks in Manhattan, Kansas,as part of the "Landon Lecture Series," Gates delivered the following remarks:

"But, my message today is not about the defense budget or military power. My message is that if we are to meet the myriad challenges around the world in the coming decades, this country must strengthen other important elements of national power both institutionally and financially, and create the capability to integrate and apply all of the elements of national power to problems and challenges abroad. In short, based on my experience serving seven presidents, as a former Director of CIA and now as Secretary of Defense, I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use “soft” power and for better integrating it with “hard” power."

Not only does the Secretary convey the need to strengthen the U.S. Government's capacity to wield "soft" power, but he paints our nation's current capacity to conduct public diplomacy and convey our message in meaningful, credible terms as dismal:

"...public relations was invented in the United States, yet we are miserable at communicating to the rest of the world what we are about as a society and a culture, about freedom and democracy, about our policies and our goals. It is just plain embarrassing that al-Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the internet than America. As one foreign diplomat asked a couple of years ago, “How has one man in a cave managed to out-communicate the world’s greatest communication society?” Speed, agility, and cultural relevance are not terms that come readily to mind when discussing U.S. strategic communications."

He goes on to support providing civilian agencies with the manpower and resources required to accomplish their missions:

"Despite the improvements of recent years, despite the potential innovative ideas hold for the future, sometimes there is no substitute for resources – for money."

"Funding for non-military foreign-affairs programs has increased since 2001, but it remains disproportionately small relative to what we spend on the military and to the importance of such capabilities. Consider that this year’s budget for the Department of Defense – not counting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – is nearly half a trillion dollars. The total foreign affairs budget request for the State Department is $36 billion – less than what the Pentagon spends on health care alone. Secretary Rice has asked for a budget increase for the State Department and an expansion of the Foreign Service. The need is real."

"Despite new hires, there are only about 6,600 professional Foreign Service officers – less than the manning for one aircraft carrier strike group. And personnel challenges loom on the horizon. By one estimate, 30 percent of USAID’s Foreign Service officers are eligible for retirement this year – valuable experience that cannot be contracted out."

"Overall, our current military spending amounts to about 4 percent of GDP, below the historic norm and well below previous wartime periods. Nonetheless, we use this benchmark as a rough floor of how much we should spend on defense. We lack a similar benchmark for other departments and institutions."

"What is clear to me is that there is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security – diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development. Secretary Rice addressed this need in a speech at Georgetown University nearly two years ago. We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military, beyond just our brave soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen. We must also focus our energies on the other elements of national power that will be so crucial in the coming years."

"Now, I am well aware that having a sitting Secretary of Defense travel halfway across the country to make a pitch to increase the budget of other agencies might fit into the category of “man bites dog” – or for some back in the Pentagon, “blasphemy.” It is certainly not an easy sell politically. And don’t get me wrong, I’ll be asking for yet more money for Defense next year."

"Still, I hear all the time from the senior leadership of our Armed Forces about how important these civilian capabilities are. In fact, when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen was Chief of Naval Operations, he once said he’d hand a part of his budget to the State Department “in a heartbeat,” assuming it was spent in the right place."

To all of this, I say "bravo!", Mr. Secretary. Now I hope that the Department of Defense can establish a unified front with its civilian agency partners to approach the Congress to ensure that the non-military arms of the Executive branch obtain the resources needed to ensure America's long-term security, stability, and prosperity.

For a full transcript of the Secretary's speech, click here.

Senator Lugar Warns of Military Mission Creep, Suggests Strengthening Civilian Agencies

2007-02-18T21:40:00.000-05:00

Today's Washington Times features an op-ed by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), who argues the need for a more robust civilian presence overseas and suggests clamping down on the military's ever-growing role in non-combat areas (where their numbers have soared post-9/11). The piece, entitled "Strengthen civilian forces, too," follows the completion of a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee report that indicates heightened concern by several Ambassadors and foreign officials over the impact of the growing U.S. military presence overseas.

"[The military has] won new authority outside the traditional foreign aid framework to provide military training to foreign countries. Increasingly, the military is taking on roles once reserved for civilian agencies, such as building schools and clinics, drilling wells and conducting public information campaigns," Lugar states.

Lugar also highlights the great disparity between military and diplomatic / foreign aid spending, citing that the former outshadows the latter by a ratio of 14:1. As a further example of how military assistance has grown to exceed traditional diplomatic spending, the op-ed notes that the Pentagon receives $7.5 million to offer the Dominican Republic (a non-combat zone) in the form of military education and training, while the Lilliputian public diplomacy budget for that country weighs in at 10.66% of that amount -- a mere $800,000. Lugar observes that this growing disparity may only serve to "skew the balance between civilian and military programs."

Lugar's three well-reasoned proposals would serve to re-establish the primacy of the Secretary of State in coordinating the planning and execution of America's foreign policy, in addition to offering a mechanism stronger than State concurrence to ensure proper coordination and appropriate use of military aid to achieve U.S. goals.

These include:
--Recognizing (and respecting) Chief of Mission authority, which requires the informed consent of an Ambassador prior to conducting activities in the field and providing him/her with the political weight to overrule the Pentagon as necessary.

--"One voice in foreign policy," which would require coordination among defense and diplomatic agencies to ensure that all U.S. assistance provided to foreign countries aligns properly with U.S. foreign policy goals.

--Appropriating funds in a responsible way that will allow the proper U.S. Government agency to address current challenges, instead of passing the buck to the "best-resourced" agencies.

Despite the straight-forward, thoughtful proposals that Lugar has advanced, the real question remains whether he and his Congressional colleagues will take action and adopt them. Passing a foreign affairs appropriations bill for FY2007 would be a good start; ensuring that such a bill takes into consideration the growing demand for a more robust diplomatic effort overseas and a reduction in our reliance on military elements of national power to implement U.S. foreign policy would be even better.

Australian Legislature Concerned over Sparse Public Diplomacy Spending

2007-02-17T20:37:00.000-05:00

A February 18, 2007, Canberra Times article by Brad Watts entitled "How we 'buy' hearts and minds" relays the findings of a recent Australian Senate inquiry: that country spends only approximately 17 cents per citizen on cultural diplomacy. The United Kingdom is reported as spending $19 per person.

I was surprised to learn that Australia is concerned that it is "at the bottom" in public diplomacy spending. While I have not seen any recent polls on global public opinion toward Australia, I would assume that foreign publics perceive Australia more positively than the United Kingdom or France, and it most certainly does not suffer from the same image problems as the United States.

The article also reports that the Australia Council spent $7.4 million and Radio Australia expended $14.8 million last financial year. While I had heard of the former, I must admit this article was the first I had heard about the latter.

Despite my lacking familiarity with Australia's public diplomacy efforts, I am reassured to see that its legislature is taking this issue seriously and that a standing committee exists to review the use of cultural diplomacy with an eye to encouraging its government, private enterprise, universities, and cultural institutions to promote Australia globally. Further, these government officials recognize the benefits of public diplomacy, especially when it serves as a tool to attract new opportunities for trade and investment.

Additional information pertaining to the Senate inquiry, including the full-text of many submissions, is available here.

Pen Pals and Grass-Roots Public Diplomacy

2006-07-10T19:30:00.000-05:00

Richard Mosk, an associate justice of the California Court of Appeal, placed an op-ed in the L.A. Times on 10 July entitled "Americans could use a Muslim pen pal".

The short piece is yet another reminder that much of what public diplomacy aims to do can be best accomplished through unofficial channels. Person-to-person contact among individuals of different nationalities, cultural, educational, socio-economic, and political backgrounds forge valuable relationships built on a foundation of trust and understanding that allows them to cross the barriers erected by stereotypes, prejudices, and ignorance of other peoples in ways that are more meaningful and credible than government-sponsored broadcasts like VOA, Radio Sawa, and Al-Hurra.

The pen pal experience establishes a means of relationship-building that could prove valuable in American attempts to reach out and engage the Muslim world. Naturally, the conversation begins with introductions and trivial details about one's life, but as Mosk describes, the nature of the dialogue grows in scope to include reflections of customs, values, and way of life. Opportunities arise to clarify misperceptions. As Mosk states, "this type of program can bring people closer together no matter what their religions, philosophical differences, past difficulties or perceptions." It also offers individuals of all ages the opportunity to correspond and dialogue with their peers and spurs interest in areas of the world with which they might be otherwise unfamiliar.

In today's information age, communications technology has eliminated the need for paper, pen, and a postage stamps to reach one another. Social networking programs would make it easier to find potential matches. E-mail correspondence would bolster the penpal relationship by offering rapid responses and reducing the likelihood that someone would stop writing their pen pal because of the lag time of traditional mail.

A parallel experience to that of Mosk's with his Japanese counterpart Shinzo would be ideal to aid in engaging American and Muslim youth, whether on the Arabian peninsula, in Northern Africa, or throughout Southeast Asia. The relationships and informal exchanges that serving as pen pals offers would encourage more robust opportunities for traditional student exchange programs; help clarify American culture, values, and intentions; and create an interest in the United States that could lead to the rise of an audience of an 18-35 year old demographic throughout the world that recognizes the many faces of America beyond the false icons (on the right with Jerry Falwell and Bill O'Reilly, or the left with Howard Stern and Michael Moore) that frequent the news.

A Premature Death for 'Hi' Magazine?

2005-12-24T13:15:00.000-05:00

I was quite disappointed to read today of the suspension of 'Hi' magazine, a publication prepared by The Magazine Group that is funded and overseen by the U.S. Department of State. 'Hi' is distributed to 18 countries in the Arab world including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia, Bahrain, Iraq, Oman, Israel, Qatar, Sudan, and Yemen. Its goal: to spotlight American popular culture. Before its suspension, the publication served as an innovative attempt to reach Arab young people between the ages of 18 and 35, a critical target audience for information programs supporting the War on Terror.

Providing justification for already limited public diplomacy funding is always difficult. Unlike political or economic programs with specific benchmarks indicating success, it is much more difficult to measure the impact of information programs. While public polling data is a helpful indicator, sinking money into initiatives aimed at improving America's image must be treated as a long-term investment. Unfortunately, current "market conditions" reflect that American credibility and favorability are not fairing well.

'Hi' magazine costs the State Department approximately $4.5 million per year with a combined distribution of approximately 55,000 copies per month. According to the December 22 State Department Briefing, the project has been suspended pending review by Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes with no proposed restart date.

While Undersecretary Hughes evaluates the performance of the magazine and considers whether it is a sound investment, it's too bad that the publication will not be allowed continue in its current form pending a final decision to either rework or terminate the magazine.

The State Department reports that in addition to the print version of 'Hi', the magazine's website receives approximately 3 million hits per day. At present, that website will remain untouched. (Perhaps the creation of an e-zine would be worth investigating.)

Critics of the publication allege that it serves to use American pop culture to brainwash Arab youth. Articles focused on topics including snowboarding, yoga, Internet dating, HIV/AIDS, cooking and rock climbing, Middle East Online reports. They add that 'Hi' did not directly address U.S. foreign policy and focuses on fluff instead of responding to serious questions about the United States. However, I would argue that the publication has shown potential to start dialogue (however meaningful) between the United States and a young Arab audience. This is a step in the right direction.

Perhaps pieces could be reworked to serve as a forum that caters specifically to questions and contemporary issues of concern in the Middle East. Emphasis on common ground and clarification of U.S. policy would prove interesting and could be incorporated into the publication. Scope of the magazine could be broadened to include current events, common misperceptions, or even profiles of American and Arab rising government and industry leaders.

I would encourage both critics and policymakers alike to seriously consider continuing the publication based on its potential for success, growing audience, and name recognition. 'Hi' is a conversation starter, and should be treated as such. Could 'Hi' be reworked to make it more effective? Yes. Reviewing the publication will provide the opportunity to justify its budget and generate creative approaches to engage the target demographic and craft relevant and appropriate performance measures. However, to go so far as to abandon the publication would cut off a viable method of communicating with the Arab world.

The bottom line: Review 'Hi', but don't cut off the conversation.

See also: "Quantitative Data" by Public Diplomacy Watch (12/24/2005).

More than Information Warfare

2005-12-22T22:43:00.000-05:00

It's a sad day when the United States has lost its credibility such that the Secretary of State is forced to convince our European allies that we do not condone torture. The Bush administration faces a formidable dilemma in raising support, and its current approach can be characterized as nothing better than "poor."

After losing its credibility abroad, the Administration is now suffering terribly at home. The dark cloud over our country continues to thicken with news of alleged secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe, continued efforts by the Vice President that indicate he condones torture, and legally questionable Presidential authorization of domestic wiretaps. Each of these has added fury to the storm. U.S. citizens do not condone these acts, and it is no wonder that convincing foreign publics that our actions are right and just through effective public diplomacy efforts is a true blunder.

Despite crafting a "strategy" for Victory in Iraq and addressing the nation in prime time from the Oval Office, Bush has much to do before U.S. citizens or foreign publics will agree to "trust him." President Bush, has a terrible problem. His plea isn't convincing because his policy doesn't hold water. He lacks the most important element that backs America's ability to protect its interests abroad: credibility.

Most irritatingly, we can't blame this problem on ignorance. As Patricia Lee Sharpe cites in her December 20, 2005 article "So That's Where the Public Diplomacy Money Went," over a dozen high-level articles have been written on Public Diplomacy since 9/11/2001.

The problem seems to be that no one is listening. On her trip to the Middle East, Undersecretary for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy Hughes should have been listening. While traveling to Europe, Secretary Rice should have taken notes on the position of our closest allies instead of crafting an argument emphasizing vulnerability to attempt to convince them to agree with the U.S. If there were ever a time for either of these officials to conduct a domestic or foreign listening tour, it would be now.

Besides being perceived as a brusque, unconvincing monologue, U.S. public diplomacy isn't working because the United States uses it as one of many tools of information warfare. Yes, public diplomacy is a tool to achieve our national security objectives, but it is a subtle tool, a tool of finesse that can persuade others to share our goals and beliefs. One must remember that it is not a military tool, but a diplomatic one. This requires it to be an attractive option to others, which certainly is not the case at present. Not even Americans support a government that authorizes unchecked wiretaps and condones human rights abuses. These are contradictory to the values that Americans believe in and that our country is supposed to embody. Our government is supposed to protect these rights and freedoms, not limit, or worse, trample them.

The emphasis on achieving military goals using public diplomacy is misguided. Instead, public diplomacy should emphasize supporting credible channels of news and information to foreign publics, aiding the development of free and independent media outlets in foreign countries, creating opportunities for cultural and educational exchange that encourage long-term relationship building, and demonstrating to the rest of the world that our values are not so different from their own. Unfortunately, it may be too late for this set of principals to earn the trust of both domestic and foreign publics, in which case we have one hell of a ride ahead for the next three years.

Training Soldier Diplomats

2005-12-12T20:39:00.000-05:00

The State Department's public diplomacy apparatus has a number of
challenges to face. One particular issue of concern of late has
been the negative press received as a result of the situation in the
Philippines with the alleged rape of a woman in Manila by U.S.
Marines.

On the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in communities
around the world, U.S. servicemen/women play a vital diplomatic
function. They interact daily with the public at large in
communities that are not always reached by embassy programs and
personnel. They have an amazing opportunity to build relationships
with families, children, and local leaders and proudly represent our
country abroad.

In most circumstances, we are and should be proud of the work that
our military does abroad and support the activities of our troops.
However, the good work done on the ground by the overwhelming
majority of those serving in our military is frequently overlooked
and outshadowed in the press by situations like the photographs
taken at Abu Ghraib and the current allegations of sexual misconduct
in Manila. Such behavior tarnishes America's image and makes
foreign publics uneasy about the presence of our troops.

After reviewing and reflecting on recent media coverage, I believe
that it is important for Ms. Hughes to take a serious look at
creating interagency dialogue -- possibly with the White House
Office of Global Communications and DoD -- to help develop a
strategy for working with the military and craft relevant training
to ensure that our servicemen and women deployed globally understand
that their mission includes more than military objectives. These
individuals also serve a diplomatic function as representatives of
our country and should aid in demonstrating U.S. commitment to
treating foreigners with dignity and respect by exercising cultural
understanding while executing their mission.

I understand that those who commit acts contrary to the standards of
conduct expected of our military are dealt with in a serious manner,
but America's image suffers tremendously when any such act occurs.
In those few cases where misconduct takes place, principals should
speak out against such acts immediately, as is typically the case,
and offenders should be dealt with appropriately. Unfortunately, in
the court of public opinion, this reactionary stance is unable to do
much to mitigate the damage done.

In the eyes of foreign publics, a proactive/preventive stance would
likely better serve the United States than a reactionary approach
and would be worth the investment. While many argue that a division
exists between the combat mission of DoD and diplomatic mission of
the State Department, the line has become increasingly blurred and
new standards must emerge to guarantee that all who wear an American
flag (whether as a patch sewn on the their sleeve of their uniform,
or a pin on the lapel of their suit jacket) promote the ideals and
standards that our country represents in both word and deed.

I would be very interested in hearing how others think that this
challenge could best be confronted.

Beyond Doha: Georgetown University Establishes Branch Campus in Qatar

2005-09-12T17:10:00.000-05:00

In the most recent edition of Georgetown University's collegiate newspaper of record, The Hoya, Jesuit priest Ryan Maher discusses the latest in his institution's efforts to create a cultural and educational exchange program that could certainly serve as a model to bolster U.S. public diplomacy efforts.

The latest update to his column "As This Jesuit Sees It," Maher's article "From Hilltop to Sand Dune" describes the university's latest venture: founding a School of Foreign Service campus abroad in Doha, Qatar.

After reflecting on adjustments to living abroad, Fr. Maher turns to describing the unique living, learning community that Georgetown has founded. In its first year, the Doha class of the School of Foreign Service boasts 25 students:

"For the record, our fellow Hoyas in the SFS-Q Class of 2009 include 25 students: 12 Qataris (seven men, nine women) and a mix (seven men, six women) representing 11 nations — Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Jordan, Syria, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines and the United States. There are 22 Muslims, two Catholics and a Mormon. They range in age from 16 to 26."

Maher also marvels at the community's ability to reproduce U.S. style higher education in the Middle East, which he calls a miracle:

"Think about it. It’s been less than five years since Sept. 11, and less than two years since the American invasion of Iraq. Political tensions between the Arab world and the West have seldom been higher. Relations between Islam and Christianity are strained in a way they have not been since the Middle Ages.

And in this very complicated moment, a Muslim state invites an American Catholic university to open its doors not far from the shores of the Arabian Gulf and provide students there the same education it offers in the capital of the United States. The university accepts, students show up, and in a flash Americans and Arabs, Christians and Muslims of many nationalities begin to build a community of learning and love in the heart of the Middle East. Breathtaking, I tell you. And quintessentially Georgetown."

Georgetown's venture is nestled in the large Education City campus, a Qatari project located outside of Doha aimed at partnering with U.S. higher education firms to bring diverse, Western pre-professional training to the Middle East. Other American universities present on the campus include Cornell, Texas A&M, Carnegie Mellon, and Virginia Commonwealth Universities.

Activities such as this certainly help to promote America's image abroad by cultivating a shared sense of values and understanding through education. Qatar's Education City, while still in its fledgling stage, should be watched closely as a possible model for similar projects around the globe.

Jamming Our Own Signal?

2005-08-17T12:23:00.000-05:00

Watch for the September 10, 2005 edition of the American Prospect. In it, author Art Levine describes the controversy over Kenneth Tomlinson's impact on the United States' chief overseas broadcasting machine: Voice of America.

The article details how Tomlinson, who serves as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, has allowed editorial bias in the form of story selection/provision of resources to reporters to force VOA to carry stories with pro-White House spin, despite its tradition of providing "fair and balanced" coverage of international news to areas of the world where a free, independent media does not exist.

One take-home message for readers is to remember the history of VOA. Levine states, "Contrary to the mistaken assumption of some in Congress and the media, the purpose of the VOA is not to spread propaganda for the U.S. government (that remains the province of FOX News). The 63-year-old agency is supposed to win respect for American values and appeal to its overseas audience -- numbering around 100 million -- by offering a model of honest and credible journalism."

What has helped to win over foreign audiences in the past is that VOA has built a foundation of trust with its audience by providing honest and credible journalism. Its stories have shown the U.S. "warts and all" and provide a context for world news unincumbered by the political interests and sensationalism that tend to dominate our country's "mainstream" media.

This article reports that under Tomlinson, VOA has "cut back 24-hour English-language broadcasting by nearly half to save money," "wasted nearly $70 million on new Arabic language services deemed an embarassment by Middle East experts"(paraphrase), and is "being stripped of influence, reach, and credibility."

It is sad to see that a public diplomacy institution as reputable and influential as VOA is under decline. The legacy of success achieved through international broadcasting, including Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe and Radio Marti provides us with examples of how this type of tool can be applied to a target audience overseas. While we reassess our current shortfalls (particularly in Arabic language programming), perhaps these models of the past and a careful examination of U.S. international broadcasts during the Cold War and beyond could help us to redirect and re-engineer programming that would be respected, or at least accepted abroad.

VOA has and should be used as a subtle, credible tool for garnering the support of foreign publics in a way that avoids political spin and overwhelming bias. Only then will the organization's programs be able to allow an audience to connect to the information services that the United States is providing and maintain a sympathetic listenership.

A Modest Proposal to Reshape American Public Diplomacy

2005-08-15T00:10:00.000-05:00

I found this op-ed, "Diplomats for Tough Duty," in today's Washington Post to contain an interesting proposal courtesy NBC newsman Tom Brokaw.

In it, Brokaw suggests we revolutionize the way that the United States uses its diplomats abroad. Instead of Ambassadors and Public Diplomacy personnel being stuck in the embassy facilitating interviews and planning cultural events aimed at the wealthy, educated foreign elite, he defines a role for a new class of "ambassadors."

Brokaw envisions an innovative, fresh division of the U.S. diplomatic corps comprised of talented young people able to better facilitate interaction between U.S. institutions and foreign publics. These individuals would aid in facilitating day to day interaction, establishing meaningful dialogue, clarifying U.S. interests and activities in the local language, all while acting in a manner that respects local/regional cultural sensitivities.

This type of "on the ground" public diplomacy would certainly strengthen America's ability to forge long-term relationships abroad, would revolutionize the Foreign Service, and could help to reinvigorate an otherwise aging diplomatic corps.

This is not to say Brokaw's proposal is flawless or should be immediately implemented. Nonetheless, the basis of his message contains a few gems of the "P.D." mantra that stand out but have yet to be addressed in a meaningful way: the need for face-to-face interaction between Americans and people of other cultures/backgrounds, the absolute necessity of providing some kind of buffer between military personnel deployed overseas and foreign publics, and a shift in focus to reach out to those who are not members of the political/economic power wielding classes abroad.

One of Brokaw's statements really hits home: "There is a critical need for a more energetic, imaginative and effective campaign to promote the American ideals of democracy, tolerance, compassion and economic opportunity in the Islamic world." This is particularly true not only because of strained relations with the Middle East resulting from the War in Iraq, but also because public diplomacy efforts in the region require that America not only continue to bombard Middle Eastern and Islamic countries with such outreach efforts as Radio Sawa, Alhurrah television, and Hi magazine, but also start listening to the legitimate concerns of its peoples, and establish a real dialogue.

It is also obvious from Brokaw's article that the U.S. military is a key actor in U.S. public diplomacy (whether intended or unintended) in the Middle East (particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan), but struggles to interact with foreign publics because of its attempt to pull double duty: accomplishing military goals while attempting to win the "hearts and minds" of those foreign persons with whom they interact daily. Brokaw cites Afghanistan as a primary example, "outfits were stationed in hostile territory doing double duty: fighting the Taliban and trying to hold the hearts and minds of Afghan locals by building schools, medical clinics and roads in their isolated villages."

While our men and women in uniform serve our country well overseas, putting them in the position to conduct a war, establish security, and train foreign military units while also "providing the local school with supplies, staffing a clinic with their own medic, teaching Afghan farmers rudimentary construction skills and supporting the local economy" creates a double-image of American troops that makes it difficult to form a genuine trust with foreign individuals.

There must be a way to establish all of our nation's goals and implement programs that do not leave foreigners from having to decide whether our troops are "good cops" or "bad cops." Some argue that public diplomacy, outreach, and training for awareness of cultural sensitivities fall outside of the scope of DoD operations, even though our soldiers are often the individuals with the greatest interaction with foreign publics, especially during significant military ops abroad. It would certainly be much easier for the military, with its large budget, to absorb program costs than the State Department's disappointing resources earmarked for public diplomacy.

While on the right track, one must consider the possible drawbacks of Brokaw's proposal. Are young people fresh out of college without significant training the best individuals to put on the ground? Certainly their ability to do the kind of work he proposes would require careful consideration of issues including the personal safety of participants, the extent to which they would act as liaison among various government entities (State, DoD, USAID, etc.), how long they would be stationed, whether integrating them into the local culture will make them better representatives of foreigners to the U.S. or the U.S. government to foreigners, etc. While Brokaw suggests fitting a diplomat with a military outfit, this seems in many ways like mixing oil and water.

America's youth have many opportunities to serve overseas. Throwing individuals fresh out of school into dynamic political, economic, and cultural situations even with significant training would require careful oversight and a significant investment on the part of the State Department.

While a novel idea of a "Diplomatic Special Forces" is an interesting concept to move away from "Kevlar helmet and wraparound sunglasses" ambassadors serving on the front lines of U.S. interaction with foreign publics, this author is skeptical as to whether the resources, expertise, and capacity to work out the logistics of such a program would be too much for the U.S. to chew.

Defining Public Diplomacy

2005-08-14T20:39:00.000-05:00

It has been argued by foreign policy experts that one of America's most under-utilized tools for advancing its interests abroad and ensuring its own national security is through the use of public diplomacy.

Unfortunately, to many this term does not have a clear definition and is frequently confused with Public Relations or Public Affairs.

While each of these three areas utilizes many of the same communications tools to cater its message to desired audiences, public diplomacy is specific to foreign publics and extends beyond a public relations or marketing campaign. It also strives to further a country's political and economic interests abroad by establishing meaningful dialogue and building long-term relationships with an international audience of policymakers, industry leaders, and average citizens alike.

Ambassador Pamela H. Smith, whose article "Public Diplomacy" provides a thorough overview of the subject, offers the mission statement of the former United States Information Agency (merged with the Department of State in 1999 under Secretary of State Madeleine Albright) as perhaps the most complete definition available. I feel it is warranted to share below as well:

To understand, inform, and influence foreign publics in promotion of the national interest and to broaden the dialogue between Americans and U.S. institutions and their counterparts abroad. To accomplish this, we

• explain and advocate U.S. policies in terms that are credible and meaningful in foreign cultures;

• provide information about the U.S., its people, values, and institutions;

• build lasting relationships and mutual understanding through the exchange of people and ideas; and

• advise U.S. decision-makers on foreign attitudes and their implications for U.S. policies.

Disclaimer

2005-08-10T02:00:00.000-05:00

The ideas expressed herein are personal in nature and neither represent nor are representative of the United States Government, the United States Department of State, or any of its policies.