GW – Page 2 – The Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication

May 17, 2022July 7, 2022

Issue #112

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

Bruce Gregory can be reached at BGregory@gwu.edu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Items of Interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gem From The Past

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

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

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

May 1, 2022July 7, 2022

Endowment announces two summer internships with grant support

APPLICATIONS NOW OPEN for GW students

The Walter Roberts Endowment and the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication (IPDGC) continues to support current students at the George Washington University for internship opportunities in public diplomacy this summer 2022.

The two internships listed here will come with a grant of $3,000 each student, which covers the duration of the summer internship.

The Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication (IPDGC) is a GW organization supporting excellence in academia and professional development in public diplomacy and global communication. IPDGC is looking for a summer intern to help with digital engagement.

Major Duties and Responsibilities

Website improvements for IPDGC and its student blog site, Smart Power
Produce a few podcasts for the PDx series (research, interview and technical production work)
Develop engagement on IPDGC’s social media platforms (design and promotional)
And other tasks to support the Institute’s online outreach

The applicant should be comfortable using: Adobe Audition, Zoom meeting app, Soundcloud and other podcast hosting sites, social media apps, apps for promotion and design (Canva, Emma) and website design (WordPress).

Flexibility, creativity, and the ability to meet deadlines are desired.

The position will work with the IPDGC Program Coordinator for supervision and guidance.

The IPDGC internship will begin at the end of May and finish in the first week of August.

The American Council of Young Political Leaders (ACYPL) is a nonpartisan non-profit organization internationally recognized as the pre-eminent catalyst for introducing rising political and policy leaders to international affairs and to each other.

ACPYL is seeking an intern for their summer activities. Interns report directly to the intern coordinator but will work closely with all members of the ACYPL staff and may be asked to support program officers and staff in communications, development, and alumni outreach.

Major Duties and Responsibilities

• Assist in coordinating logistics in the planning and implementing of exchange programs

• Prepare biographical summaries of participants

• Provide support while American or international delegations are in Washington, DC

• Maintain office files

• Assist with alumni communications

• Provide support for alumni, fundraising, and programmatic events

• Assist in other departments on an as-needed basis

For more information about ACPYL’s internship, including applicant qualifications, please click here.

Applications for both internships should be sent to ipdgc@gwu.edu

HOW TO APPLY

All application materials would need to have the following:

A resume
A cover letter that should state how the internship can support your goals for pursuing further studies or a career in public diplomacy.
A short email/ letter of support from a GWU professor; separately sent to ipdgc@gwu.edu (Subject: “2022 Summer Internship grant”)

For any questions, please write to IPDGC ipdgc@gwu.edu

Deadline: Friday, May 13, 2022 by COB 5pm

April 30, 2022July 7, 2022

Congratulations to Nikki Hinshaw – recipient of the 2022 Walter Roberts Public Diplomacy Studies award!

The Walter Roberts Endowment and the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication (IPDGC) are proud to announce that Global Communication graduate student Nikki Hinshaw is receiving this year’s award.

Each year, the Walter Roberts Endowment recognizes a GW graduate student who shows exemplary performance in public diplomacy studies and has aspirations for a future career in this field.

*Nikki Hinshaw, MA Global Communication ’22*

Ms. Hinshaw is graduating with a master’s in Global Communication and concentrations in Public Diplomacy and International Education. She developed a love for the field of international education and exchange after studying abroad in Ghana, and interning for exchange programs at the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, the International Center for Journalists, and the Institute of International Education, amongst others.

Ms. Hinshaw fostered her research interests in virtual exchange, domestic dimensions of public diplomacy, disinformation and media capacity-building, and diversity, equity, and inclusion through her capstone, coursework, and research assistantship in GSHED’s Global Education Lab.

Professor Patricia Kabra who teaches Public Diplomacy and the Communication and Modern Diplomacy seminars at the School of Media and Public Affairs, noted: “Nikki Hinshaw is one of those students who has pursued, at every opportunity, an avenue leading to PD. From work and internships at the Department of State, IIE, the International Center for Journalists to Sister Cities, she has packed in more experience than seems possible over the last few years.”

Again, congratulations to Nikki, and all the best to the 2022 graduating cohort of the MA Global Communication program.

Raise High!

March 31, 2022July 7, 2022

IPDGC recognizes Connecticut senator for his support of US public diplomacy

2022 Walter Roberts Congressional award given to Sen. Chris Murphy

Sen. Chris Murphy with the award plaque recognizing his outstanding contributions to Public Diplomacy through his active participation, advocacy, and legislative support for telling America’s story to the world.

United States Senator Chris Murphy, Connecticut’s junior senator, on Wednesday received the George Washington University’s Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication’s (IPDGC) annual Walter Roberts Award for Congressional Leadership in Public Diplomacy. William Youmans, director of GW’s Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, also announced a $5000 grant from the Walter Roberts Endowment to the World Affairs Council of Connecticut to support a program that will highlight the benefits of public diplomacy to the local community.

Senior Official for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Jennifer Hall Godfrey, U.S. Agency for Global Media Acting CEO Kelu Chao, and World Affairs Council of Connecticut CEO Megan Torrey also spoke at the event about the importance of American public diplomacy.

“The array of challenges the world faces today are often immune to military hegemony,” Murphy said. “Misinformation campaigns, creeping corruption, pandemic disease, and climate change cannot be combatted by tanks and planes. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, my priority is making sure we invest in smart power and lift up diplomacy to help us tackle the challenges we face in the 21st century. I’m grateful and honored to accept this award from the George Washington University Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication and am pleased the World Affairs Council of Connecticut will receive a $5,000 grant to support their important work.”

“The Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication created this award for congressional leadership in public diplomacy because we want to celebrate support for this country’s efforts to communicate with the rest of world,” Youmans said.

“Sen. Murphy has been a leader in strengthening U.S. public diplomacy’s engagement with foreign audiences through times of challenge and opportunity. He has consistently provided a Congressional vision for the amplification of America’s story overseas.”

Murphy, the junior United States Senator for Connecticut, has dedicated his career to public service as an advocate for Connecticut families. He has been a strong voice in the Senate fighting for job creation, affordable health care, education, sensible gun laws, and a forward-looking foreign policy. First elected to the Senate in 2012, he serves on several committees in the 117th Congress, including Appropriations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Foreign Relations; and Democratic Steering and Outreach.

The grant to the World Affairs Council of Connecticut will be used to highlight the importance of public diplomacy to American communities.

–
Release issued by GW Media Relations on March 30, 2022.
For more information, please contact:
Tim Pierce (GW): tpie@gwu.edu
Rebecca Drago (Murphy): Rebecca_Drago@murphy.senate.gov

March 24, 2022July 7, 2022

Open for submissions: 2022 Student Award for Public Diplomacy Studies

GW graduate students in international affairs encouraged to apply

The Walter Roberts Endowment (WRE) is happy to announce that the submissions period is open for the student award for Public Diplomacy Studies for 2^nd year graduate students at the Elliott School of International Affairs.

Since 2011, the Endowment has awarded the Walter Roberts Public Diplomacy Studies Award to a graduating student from the Master’s programs at the GW Elliott School of International Affairs, for academic excellence and professional aspirations in public diplomacy. The Award is recognized at the Commencement ceremony of the Elliott School and offers a $1000 prize to the successful student.

All applicants must be enrolled as full-time second-year students in graduate programs at the Elliott School of International Affairs.

The deadline for submission for the Student Award is Wednesday, April 6 by 11:59 pm EST

Applicants of this award need to provide:

A resume
A 500-word essay on your goals for pursuing further studies or careers based on your PD courses.
A short email/ letter of support from a GWU professor sent directly to ipdgc@gwu.edu

(Subject: NAME OF STUDENT: “PD Studies Award 2021” or “Summer Internship grant”)

Please email the submission materials, or any questions, to IPDGC@gwu.edu

March 10, 2022July 7, 2022

Issue #111

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

Sohaela Amiri, “City Diplomacy: An Introduction to the Forum,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Online Publication Date, February 11, 2022. Amiri (USC Center on Public Diplomacy, RAND Corporation) provides a needed and useful framework for shaping city diplomacy research and an introduction to five articles in the HJD’s March 2022 edition. Key parameters in her well-organized framework are (1) contextual factors (relational, instrumental, and discursive) “that affect the success or failure of a city’s international affairs” and (2) five interdependent functions of city diplomacy understood as an instrument of “non-coercive statecraft.” Cities are an “in-between power in global governance,” she argues. They draw authority from their role in governance. They have legitimacy based on close proximity to the people they serve. Essays in the forum include: Max Bouchet (Brookings Institution), “Strengthening Foreign Policy Through Subnational Diplomacy;” Alexander Buhmann (BI Norwegian Business School), “Unpacking Joint Attributions of Cities and Nation States as Actors in Global Affairs;” Antonio Alejo (Galego Institute for the Analysis of International Documentation, Spain), “Diasporas as Actors in Urban Diplomacy;” Rosa Groen (The Hague University of Applied Sciences), “Understanding the Context for Successful City Diplomacy;” and Peter Kurz (Mayor of Manheim, Germany), “A Governance System That Supports City Diplomacy: The European Perspective.”

Andrew Bacevich, After the Apocalypse: America’s Role in a World Transformed, (Metropolitan Books, 2021). Bacevich (Boston University, founder of the Quincy Institute, and author of many books on US diplomatic and military history) writes with passion and clarity in this challenge to the idea that America’s global military primacy is the basis for a stable and sustainable world order. Readers will find familiar themes – his critiques of American exceptionalism, cumulative policy failures, and ill-advised adventurism abroad. What’s new in this book is his assessment of today’s “apocalyptic calamities” and his call to transform American statecraft “on a scale not seen since the outbreak of the Cold War.” Whether or not one agrees with his overall analysis, his argument that numbers tell the story of the nation’s subordination of diplomacy to military power is compelling. “Leading with diplomacy” and persuasive diplomacy reforms recommended by think tanks and respected senior diplomats cannot escape the headwinds of huge disparities between Pentagon and diplomacy budgets, some eight hundred military bases worldwide, massive military contracts in every state, and America’s long-standing prioritization of hard power instruments over soft power.

Shawn Baxter and Vivian S. Walker, “Putting Policy & Audience First: A Public Diplomacy Paradigm Shift,” US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy Special Report, December 2021. In 2017, the State Department’s Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs expanded a review of position descriptions for overseas locally employed staff to create a “Public Diplomacy Staffing Initiative” (PDSI) intended to restructure public diplomacy operations overseas. Described by the Commission as “one of the most important transformations” in US public diplomacy since the merger of USIA and State, the PDSI is a staffing structure for US embassy public diplomacy sections organized around audiences and policies with updates to content development and resource distribution. It replaces the traditional PAO/Information/Cultural Programs field post model with a PAO and three “clusters” of collaborative work units. A Public Engagement cluster seeks to influence the actions and opinions of established opinion leaders, emerging voices, and press and media. A Strategic Content Coordination cluster focuses on planning, audience analysis, research, digital production, and community management. A Resource Coordination cluster encompasses budget development and aligning resources to policy priorities. The goal is to give field practitioners “universal access to the data, tools, and organizational structures needed to effectively conduct public diplomacy.” By March 2022, 73 overseas missions had fully implemented PDSI.

The Commission’s report includes a statement about its methodology, the Commission’s recommendations, and an overview of the PDSI’s origins and development. Especially helpful are sections summarizing the views and critiques of field officers, locally employed staff, and Washington based public diplomacy practitioners. Key Commission recommendations include: more and improved training, greater access to support materials and resources, precise and targeted guidance to the field, and more information sharing among key State Department stakeholders. Although intended to improve public diplomacy collaboration across the US mission, the project’s dominant focus is on the public diplomacy section, not the public engagement responsibilities of other mission elements. Case studies are needed that show how PDSI enables mission X to respond more effectively to complex problem Y in carrying out policy Z in the context of whole of government diplomacy. Still to be determined is whether the new model can be replicated in Washington. See also “Review of the Public Diplomacy Staffing Initiative,” Office of the Inspector General, US Department of State, April 2021.

Masha Gessen, “The War That Russians Do Not See,” The New Yorker, March 4, 2022, print edition, March 14, 2022.New Yorker staff writer Gessen reports on the “plainly Orwellian” view of the world in Russia’s state-controlled media, the dominance of broadcast television for older Russians, cessation of operations by independent media platforms, and Russia’s block of Facebook, the BBC, and Radio Liberty. Her article briefly assesses the Russian government’s use of framing terms to shape its narrative – and the effects of fines and closure of media outlets for dissemination of “false information.”

Jing Guo, “Crossing the ‘Great Fire Wall’: A Study With Grounded Theory Examining How China Uses Twitter as a New Battlefield for Public Diplomacy,” Journal of Public Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 2, 49-74.Jing Guo (The Chinese University of Hong Kong) examines China’s digital and public diplomacy strategies in the 2020s through analysis of Chinese Foreign Spokesperson Zhao Lijiang’s Twitter posts and global responses to them. Her article includes an explanation of “grounded theory” and its utility in the data collection and analysis of Zhao’s tweets. Jing Guo acknowledges the study’s limitations and that more research is needed. But she concludes her study provides new insights into China’s digital diplomacy as a hybrid of state propaganda and self-performance.

“Putting Subnational Diplomacy on the Map,” The Foreign Service Journal, January-February, 2022, 9 and 20-34. The FSJ under editor Shawn Dorman’s leadership continues to look at trending issues in diplomatic practice. Articles in this issue focus on the subnational diplomacy of cities and states.

— FSJ Editorial Board, “On a New Approach to City and State Diplomacy.” The FSJ welcomes the ideas and enthusiasm of proponents of subnational diplomacy and raises legal and policy-related questions that call for discussion.

— Maryum Saifee (career FSO), “Subnational Diplomacy: A National Security Imperative.” Saifee makes a case for the State Department to mainstream sub-state actors into policies, programs, and processes.

— William Peduto (former mayor of Pittsburgh), “The Benefits of International Partnerships.” Peduto shows how Pittsburgh has benefited from partnerships and mutual learning from international cities on climate change, food systems, social equity, and economic diversification.

— Frank Cownie (mayor of Des Moines, Iowa), “Using Subnational Diplomacy to Combat Climate Change.”Cownie, who serves as president of Local Governments for Sustainability, discusses how US diplomats and subnational actors can collaborate in transitioning to clean energy in line with global agreements.

— Emerita Torres (former FSO, Democratic state committee member for the Bronx), “The Future of Diplomacy is Local.” Torres argues substate diplomacy can promote US values and influence abroad and build local community trust in diplomacy and foreign policy priorities at home.

— Nina Hachigian (deputy mayor of Los Angeles), “Local Governments are Foreign Policy Actors.” Hachigian calls for an Office of City and State Diplomacy in the State Department and argues breaking down barriers between foreign and domestic policies will make international affairs more relevant for Americans.

J. Simon Rofe, “Sport Diplomacy and Sport for Development SfD: A Discourse of Challenges and Opportunity,” Journal of Global Sport Management, December 9, 2021; J. Simon Rofe and Verity Postlethwaite, “Scholarship and Sports Diplomacy: the Cases of Japan and the United Kingdom,” Diplomatica, 3 (2021), 363-385. In two recent articles, Rofe (SOAS University of London) continues his excellent scholarship on sports diplomacy. In the Journal of Global Sport Management, he examines complementary and conflictual interests and practices in relations between sport diplomacy and sport for development. He focuses his analysis on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Importantly, he argues practitioners, not only scholars, are vital to the study of sport diplomacy’s evolution. In Diplomatica,Rofe and Postlethwaite examine scholarship and practice in ways sport and hosting international sport events constitute a key dimension in diplomatic relations between nation-states, non-state actors, and individuals. His Japan and UK case studies focus on three issues: Olympic dominant discourse, Western-dominant discourse in “East” and “West” sport diplomacy, State-dominant discourse and the role of knowledge exchange and elite networks that transcend the state.

Philip Seib, Information at War: Journalism, Disinformation, and Modern Warfare, (Polity, 2021). Books by the University of Southern California’s longtime journalism and public diplomacy professor Philip Seib can be counted on to be timely and well-written. They are filled with illuminating stories, insightful information, and grist for debate. His latest is no exception. Seib surveys the importance of mediated information in warfare from the Trojan War to today’s armed conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine. Along the way, he discusses a huge variety of technologies and media forms, and the roles in different contexts of journalists, leaders, soldiers, diplomats, and citizens. His dominant focus is on modern warfare. Themes include uses of social media in conflict, Russia’s weaponization of information and diverse national responses to it, the evolution of media manipulation and media literacy, and a brief closing look at China’s “Three Warfares” strategy grounded in psychological, public opinion, and legal forms of conflict. Current relevance and vivid examples are strengths of this book. But its broad canvass comes at a price. Time and again analytical judgments are conveyed in a sentence or two that prompt interest in a deeper dive, something Seib is well able to provide. Perhaps in his next book.

Zed Tarar, “Analysis | When a Crisis Ensues, Embrace Dynamic Teams: Why the U.S. State Department Needs to Rethink Bureaucracy,” The Diplomatic Pouch, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University, February 15, 2022. In this short, compelling blog, Tarar (a career US diplomat serving in London) draws on two sources to argue the State Department needs agile, dedicated teams to handle problems and tame bureaucracy in the context of constant change: former Ebola “Czar” and now Biden chief of staff Ron Klain’s oversight of government efforts to contain the virus and views of business professor Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez, author of The Harvard Business Review Project Management Handbook. Tarar’s advice is to create temporary “project focused” teams and strategies for hard problems, not the deconstruction of State’s hierarchy. To critics of special envoys and ambassadors-at-large, he argues project teams with capable leaders should not be new parallel bureaucracies. To those who say State already does “task forces” in emergencies, he responds that they are “limited in scope and reactive in nature.” Ad hoc dynamic teams are proactive. They can respond to crises and unexpected contingencies. They should disband when objectives are met.

Ian Tyrrell, American Exceptionalism: A New History of an Old Idea, (The University of Chicago Press, 2021). The accomplished Australian historian Ian Tyrell (University of New South Wales) has written a carefully argued and perhaps the best account thus far of the meanings and evolution of American exceptionalism from the era of settler colonialism to the present. His book examines differences in the interpretations of historians (from rejection of the theory to qualified acceptance) and a range of opinions in public discourse (from minority opposition to a contested idea to majority belief and conflation with patriotism). Tyrell discusses American exceptionalism’s manifold meanings: political, religious, material plenty, the “American way,” the “American dream,” and its recent manifestations as a bipartisan “indispensable nation” rationale for foreign policy, a right-wing nationalist ideology, and a left-wing critique of the Trump presidency. Exceptionalism cannot be proved by logical reasoning or empirical evidence, he concludes, its existence “can be understood only as a cumulative set of beliefs.” It is a deep and entrenched “set of sedimentary deposits on American memory,” which have long informed personal and community beliefs about America’s role in the world. An idea that “is not about to die.”

US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, “2021 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy & International Broadcasting,” February 20, 2022. The Commission’s 361-page report presents data collected by the State Department and US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) on activities, funds spent, and budget requests for public diplomacy and international broadcasting in FY 2020. Organized by Washington bureaus and offices, US embassy Public Affairs Sections, and USAGM entities, the report’s granular detail and superb graphics make it an excellent resource for scholars, practitioners, public policy analysts, and Congressional staff. Although the report’s overwhelmingly dominant focus is on budgets and programs, the Commission’s “COVID spotlight” and 28 recommendations at pp.19-34 deserve a close look. The following are of particular interest and worthy of further explanation and debate: (1) Establish an NSC Information Statecraft Policy Coordination Committee to share best practices on information management and outreach strategies. (2) Update laws to allow public diplomacy funding “to be used for programs directed at both domestic and foreign audiences.” (3) Designate the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs as “the government-wide coordinating authority for public engagement with foreign publics.” (4) Integrate the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs leadership more fully into senior level strategic planning processes. (5) Provide an impact assessment of the merger of the Public Affairs and International Programs Bureaus into the Bureau of Global Public Affairs.

Mario Vargas Llosa, Harsh Times, (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2019, translated by Adrian Nathan West, 2021). This novel by Vargas Llosa, Peru’s Nobel Prize winner for literature, recently translated into English, is about the US-backed military coup that overthrew Guatemala’s democratically elected government in 1954. Filled with historically accurate and fictional characters, it is a story of political intrigue, diplomacy, and covert action. What brings the novel to this list is the underlying theme that blends commercial interests of the United Fruit Company, the heavy-handed complicity of US ambassador John E. Purifoy, and the media strategy developed for United Fruit by Edward Bernays, often portrayed as the “father of public relations.” His books: Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923), Propaganda, (1928), Public Relations (1945).The first chapter sets the stage. Bernays quickly discovered the danger of communism wasn’t real, but he argued it would be convenient if people thought it was. The democratic and agrarian reforms of Juan José Arévalo and Jacobo Árbenz were the real threats to United Fruit. Bernays organized a public relations strategy. Scholarships, first aid centers, and travel grants for Guatemalans. A media campaign to convince North Americans that Guatemala was about to become the first Soviet satellite in the new world. Vargas Llosa’s novel demonstrates how events long past matter in modern diplomacy’s public dimension and that much depends on how stories get told.

R. S. Zaharna, Boundary Spanners of Humanity: Three Logics of Communication and Public Diplomacy for Global Collaboration, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2022). Zaharna (American University) is renowned in public diplomacy and communication studies for her scholarship, attention to professional practice, and willingness to mentor and chair panels for younger scholars. This book, the product of years of research, represents her considered break from a state-centric public diplomacy perspective, Battles to Bridges: US Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy After 9/11 (2010). Her intellectual journey has taken her to a humanity-centered diplomacy driven by the shared needs and goals of human societies. In the company of diplomacy scholars Costas Constantinou, James Der Derian, and Iver Neumann, she stretches diplomacy’s meaning beyond mindsets of separateness and interests to a humanistic mindset of connectivity and diversity that exists in a dialectic with statecraft. Her book focuses on “boundary spanners” who are driven by an “ability to identify commonalities,” not bridging or negotiating the interests of separate entities. Much of the book centers on examination of three foundational “communication logics” that, she argues, have been present since pre-history and offer insights for the digital era: “Individual Logic” (the public square of Aristotle’s Athens), “Relational Logic” (the reciprocal exchanges of the ancient Near East), and a “Holistic Logic” (cosmologies used to explain a relational universe). Her claims are supported by images, graphics, and evidence-based arguments. Zaharna’s book will prompt debate. Does diplomacy lose meaning if it is stretched to include relations between almost any individual or group in almost any setting? Diplomacy’s boundaries are expanding, but we still need them if diplomacy is to have meaning. Diplomacy’s particularity is that it is an instrument of political intercourse in the context of governance defined by representation of collectives that increasingly are configured above, below, and beyond states.

Amy B. Zegart, Spies, Lies, and Algorithms: The History and Future of American Intelligence, (Princeton University Press, 2022). Including a book on intelligence in a diplomacy resource list may seem odd. But there are good reasons. Zegart (Stanford University) has studied the history, organizations, and practice of the US intelligence community in ways that are instructive for understanding American diplomacy’s public dimension. Her landmark book, Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC (2000), remains a compelling account of the modus operandi of rival practitioner communities and the enduring influence of the National Security Act of 1947. Zegart’s body of research and clear prose help us understand the reorganizations, reform impulses, adaptations to new technologies, cognitive biases, evolving patterns of practice, and ways of intelligence that are deeply rooted in America’s past. Intelligence is a distinct instrument of statecraft that often overlaps with diplomacy. Understanding its past, present, and future sheds light on cultural and institutional forces in diplomatic practice.

Recent Items of Interest

Matt Armstrong, “The Rhyming of History & Russian Aggression,” February 26, 2022; “Gross Misinformation: We Have No Idea What We’re Doing or What We Did,” February 2, 2022; “It is Time To Do Away With the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy,” January 14, 2022, MountainRunner.us.

Julian E. Barnes and Helene Cooper, “U.S. Battles Putin By Disclosing His Next Possible Moves,” February 12, 2022, The New York Times.

Peter Beinart, “When Will the U.S. Stop Lying to Itself About Global Politics?” January 13, 2022, The New York Times.

Donald M. Bishop, “Seven Modern Wonders,” January 26, 2022, American Purpose.

Corneliu Bjola, “Public Diplomacy and the Next Wave of Digital Disruption: The Case of Non-fungible Tokens (NFTS),” March 1, 2022, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Beatrice Camp, “Captive Nations Once, NATO Allies Now,” Februrary 2022, American Diplomacy.

Brian Carlson, “The Ukrainian Porcupine Needs More Public Diplomacy,” January 10, 2022, Public Diplomacy Council.

John Dickson, “History Shock: Too Many Diplomats Are Ignorant of the Past,” January 23, 2022, Diplomatic Diary.

Renee M. Earle, “Public Diplomacy in Newly Independent Kazakhstan,” February 2022, American Diplomacy.

Jane Harmon, “To Defend Ukraine, Fortify Our Public Diplomacy,” March 1, 2022, The Hill.

Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine Minister of Foreign Affairs, 2020-present, Government of Ukraine website.

Luigi Di Martino, Lisa Tam, Eriks Varpahovskis, “As Trust in Social Media Crumbles, Are These Platforms Still Adequate for Public Diplomacy?” January 20, 2022, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy; Link to video (about 1 hour).

Daniel W. Drezner, “Why Bridging the Gap is Hard,” January 27, 2022, The Washington Post.

Alberto M. Fernandez, “The American Public Diplomacy Vacuum,” February 9, 2022, MEMRI Daily Brief.

Senators Bill Hagerty (R-TN) and Ben Cardin (D-MD), “Hagerty, Cardin Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Create Commission on State Department Modernization and Reform,” January 18, 2022.

Shane Harris and Olga Lautman, “The Information War in Ukraine,” (58 minutes), February 24, 2022,

The Lawfare Podcast. Patricia H. Kushlis, “From Soviet State to Independent Estonia,” February 2022, American Diplomacy.

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “Has Putin’s Invasion Changed the World Order,” March 1, 2022, The Spectator.

Bryan Pietsch, “Radio Free Europe Says It Was ‘Forced’ To Shutter Russia Operations Amid Putin Crackdown on Media,” March 6, 2022, The Washington Post.

Sudarsan Raghavan, “Suspension of Afghan Fulbright Program Shatters Dreams for 140 Semifinalists Now Stuck Under Taliban Rule,” February 15, 2021, The Washington Post.

John Sipher, “Evacuating U.S. Embassies in a Crisis Just Leaves Us Uninformed,” February 19, 2022, The Washington Post.

Ryan Scoville, “An Important Development in the Law of Diplomatic Appointments,” January 31, 2022, Lawfare.

Robert Silverman, “Is Diplomacy a Profession?” January 2022, The Jerusalem Strategic Tribune.

Larry Schwartz, “A New Season for Public Diplomacy,” January 13, 2022, Public Diplomacy Council.

Volodymyr Sheiko, “The Cultural Voice of Ukraine,” February 24, 2022, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Zed Tarar, “Analysis | Optimizing Foreign Service Assignment Rotations,” ISD, The Diplomatic Pouch.

Yoav J. Tenembaum, “International Society and Uncertainty in International Relations,” January 12, 2022, Blog Post, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy.

Vivian S. Walker, “A Public Diplomacy Paradigm Shift,” January 24, 2022, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Vivian S. Walker, “Case 331 – State Narratives in Complex Media Environments: The Case of Ukraine,” 2015, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy Case Study, Georgetown University.

“VOA, BBC Vow to Keep News Flowing Despite Russian Ban,” March 4, 2022, VOA News.

R. S. Zaharna, “Envisioning Public Diplomacy’s Global Mandate” January 26, 2022, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Gem From The Past

Barry Fulton, “Leveraging Technology in the Service of Diplomacy: Innovation in the Department of State,” The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government, March 2002. Change agents in the State Department and foreign policy-oriented think tanks are devoting increasing attention to harnessing the power of data, analytics, emerging technologies, and evidence-based diplomacy practices. (fp21, “Less Art, More Science: Transforming U.S. Foreign Policy Through Evidence, Integrity, and Innovation;” Atlantic Council and fp21, “Upgrading US Public Diplomacy: A New Approach for the Age of Memes and Disinformation;” US Department of State, “Enterprise Data Strategy: Empowering Data Informed Diplomacy.”)

Two decades ago, Barry Fulton, a retired and IT savvy Foreign Service officer who had risen to the top ranks in USIA, wrote a pioneering report on using technology more effectively in the service of diplomacy. He argued technology and diplomacy intersect at three levels: administrative practices, support for core diplomatic practices, and in the context of environmental forces that drive the substance of diplomacy. He summarized twelve case studies that focused on the second level. Five key judgments stand out. Almost all technology innovations were initiated and developed by individuals in State’s user communities. Most innovations occurred in areas of State thought to be out of the mainstream (e.g., consular affairs, public diplomacy, office of the geographer). State should decentralize development and support of IT applications, encourage a cadre of IT-literate diplomats whose specialty is foreign affairs with IT competence, and promote innovation by funding pilot projects and recognizing excellence. Fulton wisely put the diplomacy horse before the technology cart. His report is worth re-reading today.