Category: Bruce Gregory’s Resource List

Broadcasting Board of Governors, Fiscal Year 2014 Performance and Accountability Report, November 17, 2014.  The BBG’s annual report includes information on the organizational structures and missions of US international broadcasting services, strategic and management objectives, program goals and performance metrics, audience levels, and financial statements.  The report provides the BBG’s account of its accomplishments and future challenges.

Steve Coll, “The Unblinking Stare: The Drone War in Pakistan,” The New Yorker, November 24, 2014, pp. 98-109.  Coll (Columbia Journalism School) examines moral, policy, and public perception issues in the US use of armed drones in Pakistan and their implications for the conflict with ISIS.  His account is based in part on interviews with residents in North Waziristan and US and Pakistani officials.  Coll discusses arguments for drones based on their greater precision than piloted aircraft and cruise missiles and concerns raised by lack of transparency and accountability for civilian casualties on the part of the US and Pakistan governments.  In the conflict with ISIS, Coll argues, civilian casualties “constitute a front in a social media contest over justice and credibility.”

“Does Soft Power Really Matter?” A CPD-BBC Forum, CPD Monitor, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, Volume 7, Issue 1, Fall 2014.  Given recent events in Ukraine and the Middle East, rivalries in the South China Sea, and other instances of the uses of hard power, is soft power still relevant?  What is the nature and usefulness of American soft power?  The BBC hosted a panel to discuss these questions at USC’s Center for Public Diplomacy on October 2, 2014.  Panelists: Ritula Shah (BBC presenter), P. J. Crowley (George Washington University), Robert Kaufman (Pepperdine University), Olga Oliker (RAND), and Jay Wang (USC Center on Public Diplomacy).

Robert Ford, “4th Annual Walter Roberts Lecture,” Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, George Washington University, November 12, 2014.  Former US Ambassador to Syria and Algeria Robert Ford talks about his public diplomacy experiences, use of social media, the value of educational exchanges and English teaching, the role of digital diplomacy in the conflict with ISIS, and other issues.  Following his lecture, Ford engaged in a lively Q&A with Frank Sesno (director of GW’s School of Media and Public Affairs).  A transcript and 90-minute Youtube video are available online. Teachers looking for a classroom aid on what it means to be an “entrepreneurial diplomat” in today’s world will find Ford’s stories of five lessons learned during the first half hour of the video an excellent resource.  See also GW Public Diplomacy Fellow Patricia Kabra’s summary in “Five Lessons from a Public Diplomacy-savvy Ambassador,” Take Five Blog, November 19, 2014.

Guy J. Golan, Sung-un Yang, and Dennis F. Kinsey, eds., International Public Relations and Public Diplomacy: Communication and Engagement, (Peter Lang, 2014). The twenty-four essays in this volume, compiled by Golan (Syracuse University), Yang (Indiana University), and Kinsey (Syracuse University), address conceptual and practical issues in global relationship building, stakeholder engagement, mediated public diplomacy, international broadcasting, disapora relationships, nation branding, international exchanges, and other topics. Includes:

• Guy J. Golan/Sung-Un Yang, “Introduction: The Integrated Public Diplomacy Perspective Foundations.”
• Michael D. Schneider, “U.S. Public Diplomacy Since 9/11: The Challenges of Integration.”
• Olga Zatepilina-Monacell, “Public Diplomacy in NGOs.”
• Sarabdeep K. Kochhar/ Juan-Carlos Molleda, “The Evolving Links Between International Public Relations and Corporate Diplomacy.”
• Nancy Snow, “Public Diplomacy and Public Relations: Will the Twain Ever Meet?”
• Eyun-Jung Ki, “Application of Relationship Management to Public Diplomacy.”
• Jangyul Robert Kim, “Application of Issues and Crisis Management to Public Diplomacy.”
• Kelly Vibber/Jeong-Nam Kim, “Diplomacy in a Globalized World: Focusing Internally to Build Relationships Externally.”
• Kristi S. Gilmore/Richard D. Waters, “Stewardship and the Political Process: Improving the Political Party-Constituent Relationship Through Public Relations.”
• Hua Jiang, “Ethical Visions for Public Diplomacy as International Public Relations – Nation Brands and Country Reputation.”
• Simon Anholt, “Public Diplomacy and Competitive Identity: Where’s the Link?”
• Kineta Hung, “Repairing the «Made-in-China» Image in the U.S. and U.K.: Effects of Government-supported Advertising.”
• Colleen Connolly-Ahern/Lian Ma, “Taking It to the Streets: The Evolving Use of VNRs as a Public Diplomacy Tool in the Digital Age.”
• Shawn Powers/Tal Samuel-Azran, “Conceptualizing International Broadcasting as Information Intervention.”
• Bruce W. Dayton/Dennis F. Kinsey, “Contextual Meaning.”
• Vanessa Bravo, “The Importance of Diaspora Communities as Key Publics for National Governments Around the World.”
• Aimei Yang, “Soft Power, NGOs and Virtual Communication Networks: New Strategies and Directions for Public Diplomacy.”
• Juyan Zhang/Shahira Fahm, “Live Tweeting at Work: The Use of Social Media in Public Diplomacy.”
• Jisk a Englebert/Jacob Groshek, “Relations of Populism: An International Perspective of Public Diplomacy Trends.”
• Margaret G. Hermann, “Presidents, Approval Ratings, and Standing: Assessing Leaders’ Reputations.”
• James Pamment, “A Contextualized Interpretation of PD Evaluation.”
• Brenda Wrigley, “Tenets of Diversity: Building a Strategy for Social Justice in Public Diplomacy.”
• Mohan J. Dutta, “Public Diplomacy, Public Relations, and the Middle East: A Culture-Centered Approach to Power in Global Contexts.”
• Guy J. Golan, “Conclusion: An Integrated Approach to Public Diplomacy.”

Linwood Ham, “Risk for Diplomats, AID Workers in Conflict Zones: Setting the Bar,” US Institute of Peace, November 6, 2014.   Ham (USIP’s Director of Intergovernmental Affairs) summarizes key judgments expressed in an event on October 24, 2014 co-hosted by the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, the Truman National Security Project, and the McCain Institute for International Leadership.  (1) Diplomatic “risk is inherent and should be managed before, during, and after civilian deployments.”  (2) Diplomats understand and accept that risk comes with the job.  (3) Leaders must explain to Congress and the American people the reasons for risks and what is done to minimize dangers to civilians in public diplomacy.  The website also links to complete event webcast and a 41-minute video of the keynote address on “Risk, Recruitment, and Retention” byAmbassador Ryan C. Crocker.

Shane Harris, @War: The Rise of the Military-Internet Complex, (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2014).  HarrisForeign Policy Magazine provides an informed and well-written overview of cyberspace as a domain of warfare, espionage, diplomacy, finance, and commerce.  His analysis of political and strategic issues is useful for diplomatic practitioners and course topics on diplomacy and cyberspace.  Among the issues discussed:  the use of cyber campaigns for propaganda purposes; Stuxnet as an act of sabotage; the State Department’s Internet Freedom policy and diplomatic pressures on China; US campaigns to undermine use of anonymity routing software such as Tor while simultaneously encouraging its use by democracy activists; and the implications of Presidential Decision Directive/PPD 20 on “U.S. Cyber Operations Policy.”  Harris makes clear that although US rhetoric emphasizes cyber defense, it has acted aggressively in cyberspace in partnership with US corporations.

Robert Martinage, “Under the Sea: The Vulnerability of the Commons,” Foreign Affairs, January / February 2015, pp. 117-125.  As diplomats and soldiers focus on threats by state and non-state actors in cyberspace, Martinage (Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments) calls attention to the vulnerable and critically important physical infrastructure that enables cyberspace.  Some 95 percent of international communication travels on the seabed in fiber optic cables that make landfall in a relatively small number of locations most of which can be found on the Internet.  Martinage examines a variety of policy, legal, and diplomatic measures that address the vulnerabilities of transoceanic submarine cables as well as rapidly expanding deep-water oil and gas drilling structures.

Ellen Mickiewicz, No Illusions: The Voices of Russia’s Future Leaders, (Oxford University Press, 2014).  Drawing on focus group interviews with 108 students at three top Russian universities, Mickiewicz (Duke University) assesses their thinking on “international relations, neighboring countries, domestic and international media, democratic movements, and their government.”  She argues their mindsets reflect “their total immersion in the world of the internet” and views that are often contradictory, passive, and skeptical of politics — views that separate them from the current generation of Russia’s leaders and much of the country.  Mickiewicz also looks broadly at Russia’s protest and political movements and speculates on how the next generation of Russian leaders may be different from today’s.  For a critical review essay on No Illusions, see Sarah Mendelson,“Generation Putin: What to Expect From Russia’s Future Leaders,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2015, pp. 150-155.

Evan Osnos, “The Land of the Possible: Samantha Power has the President’s ear.  To what End?” The New Yorker, December 22 & 29, 2014, 90-107.  Osnos (New Yorker staff writer) portrays the life, thinking, and influence of the US Ambassador to the United Nations.  Useful for its assessment of the way Power influences policy formulation, frames public argument, and manages her personal beliefs and diplomatic responsibilities.

P. W. Singer and Allan Friedman, Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs to Know, (Oxford University Press, 2014).  Singer and Friedman (Brookings Institution) provide a clear guide to basic conceptual and practitioner issues in “all this cyber stuff.”  Terms, technologies, actors, and key variables grounded in academic research are presented in a lively way for general audiences.  Examples and anecdotes make complex technical issues accessible.  The authors are especially helpful in framing differences between physical and virtual words in governance, politics, diplomacy, and warfare.  A useful primer for teachers and students developing diplomacy case studies that relate to cyber crime, cyber espionage, cyber terrorism and counterterrorism, the lessons of Stuxnet, the limits of the state in cyber security, public-private partnerships, the pros and cons of a cyber treaty, and the future of the Internet Corporation on Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

Anne-Marie Slaughter, “The Twilight of the Statesman,” The New Republic, November 24 & December 6, 2014, 118-123.  In her lengthy review of Henry Kissinger’s recent book, World Order, Slaughter (New America) offers a strong critique of his traditional idealist / realist dichotomy that draws a straight line from Jefferson to Wilson for the former and from Theodore Roosevelt to himself for the latter.  She critically dissects his challenge to key aspects of Obama’s foreign policy.  Slaughter is particularly unhappy with Kissinger’s exclusive and “radically insufficient” devotion to a state-centric model.  In a 400-page book on world order, he manages to avoid any mention of “climate change, pandemics, poverty, illiteracy, global criminal networks, energy, genocide, atrocities, and women.”  On the plus side she bestows high praise on his erudite assessments of leaders, countries, and concepts of world order before the Westphalian system.  (Diplomacy scholars will find Kissinger’s chapter dealing with cyber technology and digital diplomacy useful, although he continues unhelpfully to conflate diplomacy and foreign policy.)

Richard Norton Smith, On His Own Terms: A Life of Nelson Rockefeller, (Random House, 2014).  In this monumental 842-page biography, Smith (historian and former director of several presidential libraries) has written a colorful and deeply researched portrayal of a 20th century American who in a lifetime of public service did much to shape the nation’s approach to public diplomacy.  He provides a detailed account of Rockefeller’s role as Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (CIAA) and his influence on US information and cultural activities in Latin America, media relations, pre-VOA shortwave radio broadcasts, educational and citizen exchanges, and foreign assistance programs before and during World War II.  He portrays his relationship with Franklin Roosevelt, his interagency battles with the State Department and Wild Bill Donovan’s Office of Strategic Services, and a Rockefeller who was equally comfortable dealing with the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Disney Studios, Gallup pollsters, and the international activities of the AFL-CIO.  Smith provides detailed insights into Rockefeller’s vaguely defined responsibilities in Eisenhower’s White House — “to tell the story of America” and “to explain its values” — and his leadership in developing one of public diplomacy’s countless advisory reports, “Psychological Aspects of United States Strategy.”  Based on more than 200 interviews and thousands of newly available documents, On His Own Terms is a welcome supplement to Cary Reich’s pathbreaking The Life of Nelson A. Rockefeller: Worlds To Conquer, 1908-1958.

“Teaching Diplomacy Across the Divide,” The Foreign Service Journal, January-February 2015.  As FSJ editor Shawn Dorman puts it in her “Letter from the Editor: Crossing the Divide of Mutual Understanding,” the spark for the Journal’s focus on teaching diplomacy in this issue came from her conversation with Donna Oglesby (Eckerd College) at the 2013 International Studies Association convention in Toronto.  Oglesby’s research on substantial differences in how scholars and practitioners teach diplomacy led Dorman to compile four articles, three by former diplomats with extensive teaching experience and one scholar.  They provide important and informed insights into the divide and whether it can and should be bridged.

— Barbara K. Bodine (Georgetown University), “Teaching Diplomacy as Process (Not Event): A Practitioner’s Song,” 21-26. Bodine writes about her experiences as a diplomat teaching in academe, her understanding of diplomacy’s constitutive elements, the roles of scholars and practitioners, and approaches to bridging the gap through case studies and policy task forces/workshops.

— Donna Oglesby, “Diplomacy Education Unzipped,” 27-32.  Grounded in extensive research on 60 US diplomacy course syllabi and lengthy interviews with teachers, Oglesby’s article goes well beyond assessment of wide variety in course content and in the experiences and disciplines of academics and practitioners teaching diplomacy.  She explores implications of her findings for understanding American diplomatic practice, lack of support for diplomacy in the main institutions of American society, and what the future might hold for diplomacy as a profession and field of study.

— Robert Dry (New York University), “Diplomacy Works: A Practitioner’s Guide to Recent Books,” 34-37.  Dry surveys a “new high water mark” in literature on diplomacy that goes beyond memoirs and diplomatic history to provide rich context for current diplomatic practice as a separate instrument of power.  His selected noteworthy publications include: Cooper, Heine, and Thakur, eds.,  The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy (2013), Roberts, ed., Satow’s Diplomatic Practice (1917, 2011), Berridge, Diplomacy in Theory and Practice (2010), Pigman, Contemporary Diplomacy (2011), Sharp and Wiseman, eds.,American Diplomacy (2012), Copeland, Guerrilla Diplomacy (2009), the website of USC’s Center on Public Diplomacy, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, and his “hands-down favorite” Kerr and Wiseman, eds., Diplomacy in a Globalizing World: Theories and Practices (2012).

— Paul Sharp (University of Minnesota Duluth), “Practitioners, Scholars and The Study of Diplomacy,” 39-41.  Despite pressures to the contrary, Sharp finds that “the study of diplomacy remains on the margins of consciousness for both diplomats and international relations academics.”  Should this be a cause for concern?  No, he argues.  Each side should glance occasionally at the other, but not worry if the relationship between them is not close.

US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting Activities, December 11, 2014.  This 258-page report, written by the Commission’s Executive Director Katherine Brown and her staff, itemizes major public diplomacy and international broadcasting activities conducted by the US Department of State and Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG).  The report describes and provides budget information on overseas missions and Washington-based programs.  Its 13 findings and 35 detailed recommendations focus on the State Department overall; State’s Office of Policy Planning and Resources, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Bureau of International Programs, Bureau of Public Affairs, Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, and Africa Bureau; mission-specific activities in the Czech Republic, Germany, Mexico, Ukraine, and Vietnam; and the BBG.  There is a separate 15-page executive summary.  Commission members include Chairman William J. Hybl, Sim Farar, Lyndon L. Olson, Jr., Penne Korth Peacock, Lezlee Westine, and Anne Terman Wedner.

John W. Young, David Bruce and Diplomatic Practice: An American Ambassador in London, 1961-9, (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014).  During his long diplomatic career as a political appointee, David Bruce served as US Ambassador to France, Germany, and the UK; Chief of the US Liaison Office of the Peoples Republic of China; and US Permanent Representative to NATO.  In this book, Young (University of Nottingham, UK) examines his lengthy service in London.  It is a well written portrayal of the daily activities of a highly accomplished non-career ambassador, the changing roles of ambassadors and resident embassies, and the foreign policy decisions of the US and British governments.  Young’s deeply researched account is particularly useful for its treatment of Bruce’s approach to media relations, summit diplomacy, the Fulbright program and cultural relations, and his varied and often critical views on the effectiveness of US public diplomacy and activities of the US Information Agency.

Recent Blogs and Other Items of Interest

Michael H. Anderson, “Ben Bradlee – The Reluctant Public Diplomacy Officer,” November 16, 2014, Public Diplomacy Council.

Donald M. Bishop, “Why Public Diplomacy,” Remarks at 2014 US-Korea Public Diplomacy Workshop, Busan, ROK,” November 19, 2014, Public Diplomacy Council.

Robin Brown, “Why Isn’t Germany More Unpopular? (Is Angela Merkel the Answer?),” January 7, 2015; “Counter-Propaganda: Do I Detect a Propaganda Panic™?” December 16, 2014; “Counter-Propaganda in the Digital Age: Introduction,” December 8, 2014; “Soft Power: Attractiveness and Influence,” November 25, 2014; “Regulating Foreign Public Diplomacy,” November 4, 2014, Public Diplomacy, Networks and Influence Blog.

Joe Davidson, “Agency Few Americans Use Generates Controversy, This Time With Contractors,” November 24, 2014, The Washington Post.

Vindu Goel and Andrew E. Kramer, “Web Freedom Is Seen As a Growing Global Issue,” January 1, 2015, The New York Times.

Alec Luhn, “Ex-Soviet Countries on Front Line of Russia’s Media War With the West,” January 6, 2015, The Guardian.

Ilan Manor and Elad Segev, “Framing, Tweeting, and Branding: A Study in the Practice of Digital Diplomacy,” January 9, 2015, USC Center on Public Diplomacy Blog.

Amy Minsky, “What is ‘Digital Diplomacy’?” January 11, 2015, Global News.

Lisa Millar, “China’s State Broadcaster Struggles to Silence Criticism It Is a Propaganda Machine,” November 17, 2014, Yahoo News.

Joseph S. Nye, “Putin’s Rules of Attraction,” December 12, 2014, Project Syndicate.

Yelena Osipova, “Russia’s Public Diplomacy: In Search of Recognition (Part 1),” November 3, 2014; “Russia’s Public Diplomacy: In Search of Recognition (Part 2),” November 5, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Gary Rawnsley, “BBC Interview With Xu Lin About Confucius Institutes,” December 22, 2014; “Lipstick on a Pig: America’s Soft Power is Recoverable,” December 16, 2014, Public Diplomacy and International Communications Blog.

Brett Daniel Shehadey, “Does America Need a BBC?” December 19, 2014, In Homeland Security Blog.

Matthew Wallin, “The Year(s) Ahead in Public Diplomacy,” December 16, 2014, American Security Project blog.

Micah Zenko, “The Myth of the Indispensable Nation,” November 6, 2014, Foreign Policy, FP Blog.

Gem from the Past

Jan Melissen, ed., The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005). It has been ten years since publication of this landmark collection of essays on the study and practice of public diplomacy.  Widely cited by scholars, and still required reading in university courses and foreign ministry training programs, The New Public Diplomacy was instrumental in framing the consensus view that public diplomacy has become mainstream in contemporary diplomatic practice.  It took public diplomacy beyond the post-9/11 Anglo-American discourse.  It demonstrated public diplomacy’s value to a wide variety of large and small countries.  And it illuminated conceptual and theoretical possibilities in a young multi-disciplinary field of study.  As current debates look to integrative diplomacy models and what lies “beyond the new public diplomacy,” this volume remains an essential resource for scholars and practitioners.

Daryl Copeland, Humanity’s Best Hope: Increasing Diplomatic Capacity in Ten (Uneasy) Steps, Policy Paper, Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute (CDFAI), September 2014.  Copeland (CDFAI Senior Fellow) argues “diplomacy most everywhere is in trouble.” It faces “a crisis of image and substance” and “relevance and effectiveness” due to an array of technology driven transnational issues.  If diplomacy is to transform, it must address ten critical areas: mandate and mission, organizational structure, representational footprint, corporate management, political leadership, bureaucratic culture, diplomatic practice, science and technology, digital tools, and resource allocation.

James Cuno, “Culture War: The Case Against Repatriating Museum Artifacts,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2014, 119-129. Cuno (J. Paul Getty Trust) opposes the use of cultural objects and powerful memories of cultural heritage by government leaders to promote national identities and support repatriation claims based exclusively on national origin.  He supports UNESCO’s efforts to regulate illegal trade in antiquities and the lawful repatriation of illicitly acquired art.  However, “encyclopedic museums,” such as the Louvre, the British Museum, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, represent cosmopolitan ideals.  By co-locating artifacts of different times and cultures, they encourage knowledge, curiosity, “pluralism, diversity and the idea that culture shouldn’t stop at borders.”  Cultural property, Cuno contends, should be seen as “the legacy of humankind and not of the modern nation-state, subject to the political agenda of its ruling elite.”

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Australian Government, “Public Diplomacy Strategy 2014-2016.”  DFAT’s website profiles the mission, objectives, audiences, approaches, management methods, and key priorities and messages in Australia’s public diplomacy strategy.  Includes brief descriptions of tools and methods that seek to “engage audiences” and “facilitate networks and connections”:  cultural diplomacy and media visits, sports diplomacy, alumni engagement, connecting key civil society and private sector organizations, engaging diaspora communities, “whole of government” diplomacy, and evaluation of “impacts and results.”

Sarah Ellen Graham, “Emotion and Public Diplomacy: Dispositions in International Communications, Dialogue, and Persuasion,” International Studies Review, (2014) 0, 1-18.  In this impressive article, Graham (University of Western Sydney) sets the table for much-needed exploration of the role of emotion in diplomacy studies as well as in IR thinking about language, power, and persuasion.  Systematic accounts of public emotion in diplomacy are vanishingly rare in recent scholarly literature.  Influence approaches typically are framed as reasoned calculations of utility based on tradeoffs in decision-making.  Relationship models emphasize dialogue and collaboration grounded in rational discourse principles.  Graham convincingly argues that emotions as a concept should be reinstated in public diplomacy studies.  Using theories of emotion in constructivism and political theory, she explores how two key functions of public diplomacy engage emotions:  (1) their presence “in argument, reasoning, and persuasion – particularly in the context of discourse about values,” and (2) “how emotional expression reflects cultural difference, thereby influencing cross-cultural dialogue, and how emotion constitutes collective identities.”

Mark Grossman, “A Diplomacy for the 21st Century: Back to the Future,” Foreign Service Journal, September 2014, 22-27.  Imagining diplomacy’s future, retired US Ambassador Grossman (The Cohen Group) writes, requires a realistic assessment of the world as it is and an examination of first principles. These include an optimistic belief in the power of ideas and sustained effort, a commitment to political and economic justice at home and abroad, truth in dealing, and realism tempered by a commitment to pluralism – a realism and pluralism grounded in the thinking of Reinhold Niebuhr and Isaiah Berlin.  Grossman’s synthesis of traditional and future diplomacy assumes the necessity of simultaneous, integrated uses of the tools of power and a “whole of government” approach to future challenges.

Christopher R. Hill, Outpost: Life on the Frontlines of American Diplomacy, (Simon & Schuster, 2014).  This compelling memoir by retired US Ambassador Hill (University of Denver) is filled with practical wisdom on the work of today’s diplomat.  Drawing on assignments in the Balkans, Poland, South Korea, Iraq, Washington, and multilateral negotiations (Dayton, Rambouillet, Six Party Talks on North Korea), Hill uses stories, thoughtful analysis, and ironic wit to capture diplomacy’s enduring principles and 21st century skills and methods.  His book is a modern diplomacy case study that features insights on: multi-stakeholder diplomacy, the breakdown of foreign and domestic, political and bureaucratic risks, hard choices in ambiguous circumstances, personal safety, cell phones, the importance of media and public opinion, and much more.  Hill dismisses “the much-hackneyed phrase ‘public diplomacy,’” because, as he makes clear throughout, communication with publics is now mainstream diplomatic practice.  Those seeking a course reading on what it means to be an “entrepreneurial diplomat” should look closely at Chapters 14 and 15, “Calling an Audible” and “Plastic Tulips.”

John Robert Kelley, Agency Change: Diplomatic Action Beyond the State, (Rowman & Littlefield, 2014).  Kelley (American University) makes two central arguments in this important new book.  First, a “diplomacy of status” grounded in diplomatic action by states is giving way to a “diplomacy of capabilities” understood as a relocation of power to non-state diplomatic actors.  Second, what diplomats can do increasingly matters more than who they are with the result that problem solving becomes more important relative to serving interests.  Kelley explores both in chapters that deal with: (1) disruptions caused by new technologies, epistemic communities, and other external drivers of change; (2) agenda setting and the power of ideas in world politics; (3) the mobilizing capacity of certain change agents to present ideas and gain support for them; and (4) gatekeeping that remains conceptually relevant even as the numbers and roles of diplomatic gatekeepers increase in vastly more numerous channels of networked connectivity.

Jennifer Kesterleyne, Shaun Riordan, and Huub Ruel, “Business Diplomacy,” Special Issue, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 9, No. 4 (2014).  What is business diplomacy?  Does it differ from corporate diplomacy and other forms of diplomacy related to economic and commercial matters?  What does it mean when firms do “diplomat-like things?”  Kesterleyne (Ghent University), Riordan (Clingendael Institute), and Ruel (Windesheim University of Applied Sciences), the guest editors of this HJD special issue, provide an introduction to articles that explore these and other questions.

— Raymond Saner and Lichia Yiu (Diplomacy Dialogue, CSEND, Geneva), “Business Diplomacy Competence: A Requirement for Implementing the OECD’s Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,” 311-333.

— Sarah Myers West (University of Southern California), “Redefining Digital Diplomacy: Modelling Business Diplomacy by Internet Companies in China,” 334-355.

— Mikael Sondergaard (Aarhus University), “’Corporate Business Diplomacy:’ Reflections on the Interdisciplinary Nature of the Field,” 356-371.

— James M. Small (Atlantic Strategy Group), “Business Diplomacy in Practice: Advancing Interests in Crisis Situations,” 374-392.

— George Haynal (University of Toronto), “Corporate Statecraft and Its Diplomacy,” 393-419.

Frank Ninkovich, The Global Republic: America’s Inadvertent Rise to World Power, (The University of Chicago Press, 2014). In his “conceptual history of the relationship between globalization and foreign policy,” Ninkovich (St. Johns University and author of The Diplomacy of Ideas) challenges the conventional understanding that America’s rise was animated throughout its history by a deep sense of mission and exceptionalism.  Rather than belief in its destiny or special character, the forces driving the nation were “an inadvertent consequence of the need to keep up with a fast-changing globalizing world filled with promise and peril.”  Ninkovich’s enduring fascination with culture, cosmopolitanism, and global society are themes throughout the book.  Of particular interest to public and cultural diplomacy enthusiasts will be his discussion in Chapter 8 (and its lengthy endnotes) of ideology and culture during the Cold War.  “Although cultural and ideological changes would play their part in ending the Cold War,” he contends, “government-directed cultural programs deserve only minor credit for the outcome.”  They met with unrelenting skepticism from Congress because their effectiveness could not be justified in instrumental terms.

James Pamment, “The Mediatization of Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 9, No. 3, (2014), 253-280.  Pamment (University of Texas at Austin) argues the impact of new actors, technologies, and norms on the roles and functions of diplomats increasingly can be understood through “mediatization” – a trending body of communication research that studies the integration of media into everyday life.  Radical changes in the representation of identities and relationships are among the consequences.  His article examines three areas in which mediatization is changing diplomacy: (1) the proliferation of mediating communication channels, (2) changes in the language, signs, and symbols required by new interpretive rules and norms governing media channels, and (3) the media as part of a political-economic environment in which diplomacy takes place.  A key finding of his research is that mediatization is changing the work of all diplomatic actors and that “Distinctions between diplomacy and public diplomacy hold little import as the core practices of diplomatic representation depend upon many forms of communication across many channels and codes.”  Pamment’s article is useful both for its conceptual insights and its many examples drawn from the conduct of European and US actors.

Tim Rivera, Distinguishing Cultural Relations from Cultural Diplomacy: The British Council’s Relationship with Her Majesty’s Government, Master’s Thesis, King’s College London, 2014.  What does the British Council do?  “Cultural relations” through international educational and cultural engagement as framed by the Council?  “Cultural diplomacy,” a term preferred by the British Government?  Or perhaps the Council engages in “new public diplomacy,” a frame that appeals to some scholars.  In his case study of the Council from 2010 to the present, Rivera develops a framework that seeks to clarify these concepts and make a normative claim that cultural relations is more effective than cultural diplomacy in advancing a nation’s soft power.  He argues that recent oversight and funding trends threaten the Council’s “’arms length’ relationship with and ‘operational independence’ from the Government.”

“State Department Faces Criticism in Uphill Social Media War Against Islamic State Group,” PBS Newshour, October 22, 2014.  The Newshour’s Margaret Warner interviews US Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Richard Stengel on implications of the State Department’s use of social media to “contest the space” occupied by the Islamic State (IS).  Her piece includes contrasting views of Phillip Smyth (University of Maryland) relating to constraints on what the US government can do, the potential for elevating the stature of IS militants, and problems in evaluating effectiveness.

US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, Data-Driven Public Diplomacy: Progress Towards Measuring the Impact of Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting Activities, September 16, 2014.  Edited by the Commission’s Executive Director Katherine Brown and Senior Advisor Chris Hensman, and written by nine scholars from US universities, this 57-page report provides extensive analysis in support of five key judgments:  (1) increased State Department recognition of the importance of research; (2) organizational changes and movement away from risk averse cultures at State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) that limit how research is understood, carried out, and used; (3) more consistent strategic approaches in developing and evaluating public diplomacy and broadcasting activities; (4) increased training in strategic planning and research; and (5) more funding and personnel to conduct research and evaluation.  Commission Chair William J. Hybl and Commissioners Sim Farar, Lyndon L. Olson, Penne Korth Peacock, Anne Wedner, and Lezlee J. Westine signed the report.  Includes:

— Nicholas J. Cull (University of Southern California), “Preface: Evaluation and the History of U.S. Public Diplomacy,” 7-13.

— Methodology, Introduction, and Executive Summary, 14-22.

— Sean Aday (George Washington University), Kathy Fitzpatrick (Florida International University), and Jay Wang (University of Southern California), “State Department: Public Diplomacy Policy, Planning and Resources Office’s Evaluation Unit,” 23-28.

— Kathy Fitzpatrick and Jay Wang, “State Department: The Evaluation Division in the Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau,” 29-33.

— Amelia Arsenault (Georgia State University) and Craig Hayden (American University), “State Department: Digital Media Evaluation in the International Information Programs Bureau (IIP/ARM) and Public Affairs Bureau (PA/ODE), 34-40.

— Shawn Powers (Georgia State University), Matthew Baum (Harvard University), and Erik Nisbet (Ohio State University), “Broadcasting Board of Governors: Research and Evaluation,” 41-56.

Daniel Whitman, ed., Outsmarting Apartheid: An Oral History of South Africa’s Educational and Cultural Exchange with the United States, 1960-1999, (State University of New York Press, 2014).  Whitman (American University), with assistance from Kari Jaska (Department of State), has compiled 34 oral interviews with US officials, locally hired employees, and grantees in South Africa’s bilateral exchanges with the United States.  As Whitman summarizes in his introduction:  “This volume gives voice to a number of the witnesses: officials, local employees, and South African ‘grantees’ of all races who made it to the United States during turbulent times and later took up the reins of leadership in the new South Africa of the 1990s.”  Their stories are arranged in categories of exchanges – the arts, education, law and parliament, public service, science and research, social engagement and community empowerment.  (Courtesy of Dick Arndt)

R.S. Zaharna, Jennifer Hubbert, and Falk Hartig, Confucius Institutes and the Globalization of Soft Power, CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, Paper 3, September 2014.  In his preface, Jay Wang (University of Southern California) summarizes the rapid global growth of China’s Confucius Institutes.  Although the program has received its share of critical comment, he notes there has been little academic analysis.  Three essays in this Paper provide conceptual assessments.  R.S. Zaharna (American University) discusses the Institutes as a “network-based cultural diplomacy project” in “China’s Confucius Institutes: Understanding the Relational Structure & Relational Dynamics of Network Collaboration.”  Jennifer Hubbert (Lewis & Clark College) provides an anthropologically grounded case study of an Institute-sponsored tour of China by American high school students in “Authenticating the Nation: Confucius Institutes and Soft Power.”  Falk Hartig (Frankfurt University) looks at the Institutes in the context of China’s development aid activities in Africa in “The Globalization of Chinese Soft Power: Confucius Institutes in South Africa.”

Recent Blogs and Other Items of Interest

Matt Armstrong, “The BBG Must Be Where the Audience is Listening,” September 9, 2014, Radio World.

Alex Belida, “How to Save the Voice of America and U.S. International Broadcasting,” October 30, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Stuart N. Brotman, “U.S.: Don’t Step on Freedom of the Press Abroad,” September 13, 2014, American Journalism Review.

Joseph Bruns, “The Ebola Outbreak, International Broadcasting, and Social Media,” October 3, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

William J. Burns, “10 Parting Thoughts for America’s Diplomats,” October 23, 2014, Foreign Policy, FP Blog.

P. J. Crowley, “We’re Giving the ISIL Media Campaign Too Much Credit,” September 22, 2014, GWU, Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, Take Five Blog.

Daryl Copeland, “There is a Lot More to Security Than Guns and Surveillance,” October 30, 2014; “Ten Steps to a World-beating Diplomatic Corps,” September 26, 2014; “For the West: War Isn’t Working Any More,” September 24, 2014, iPolitics Blog.

Helle Dale, “Broadcasting Reform: Time to Rearm, and Fight Enemy Propaganda,” September 11, 2014, The Daily Signal.

Karen Fischer, “A Missionary for Liberal Arts,” September 7, 2014, The New York Times.

Ali Fisher, “Incorporating Big Data: One Giant Leap for Diplomacy,” September 30, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Anne Gearan, “U.S. Attempts to Combat Islamic State Propaganda,” September 7, 2014, The Washington Post.

Jane Harman, “Not a War on Terror, a War on Ideology,” September 17, 2014, The Wilson Center.

Patricia Kabra, “5 Things to Remember When Doing Digital Diplomacy,” October 17, 2014; “A Day in the Life of a Public Diplomacy Officer at a US Embassy;” September 24, 2014, GWU, Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, Take Five Blog.

Brian Knowlton, “Digital War Takes Shape on Websites Over ISIS,” September 26, 2014, The New York Times.

Daniel Kochis, “Countering Russian Propaganda Abroad,” October 21, 2014, The Heritage Foundation, Issue Brief No. 4286.

Eric Lipton, Brook Williams, and Nicholas Confessore, “Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks,” September 6, 2014, The New York Times.

Peter Pomerantsev, “Russia and the Menace of Unreality: How Vladimir Putin is Revolutionizing Information Warfare,”September 9, 2014, The Atlantic.

Nancy Scola, “Meet Share America, the U.S. State Department’s Upworthy Clone,” September 30, 2014, The Washington Post.

Philip Seib, “Counterterrorism Messaging Needs to Move from State to CIA,” October 27, 2014, Defense One Today Blog.

Barbara Slavin, “US Public Diplomacy Attempts to Confront Islamic State,” September 16, 2014, Al-Monitor.

“Soft Power: Confucius Says,” September 13, 2014, The Economist.

Tara Sonenshein, “A Fulbright is Not a Political Football,” September 26, 2014, Huffington Post.

Alex Villarreal, “Under Secretary Stengel: US in Information ‘Battle’ With IS, Russia,” September 16, 2014, Voice of America

Dick Virdin, “More Than Military Power Is Needed to Fight ISIS,” October 28, 2014, Minnpost Community Voices.

Matthew Wallin, “The New Digital Divide and Countering Extremist Propaganda,” September 11, 2014, American Security Project.

Jay Wang, “Chinese Cultural Diplomacy: Confucius Institutes,” September 16, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.”

“Xinhua: How Many More Dirty Tricks Does the U.S. Have to Manipulate International Public Opinion?” October 24, 2014, Chinascope.

Gem From The Past

Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order, (Princeton University Press, 2004).   Before turning to the worlds of practice (State Department Policy Planning Director) and think tanks (current President, The New America Foundation), Slaughter was a highly regarded scholar and Dean at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. It has been ten years since A New World Order harnessed her years of research on global networks and global governance.  In her analysis, states are still the most important international actors, but states increasingly are “disaggregated” into component institutions that interact with foreign counterparts through horizontal networks of national government officials.  These “new diplomats,” as she calls them, are officials in banking, law enforcement, global health, civil aviation, migration, the environment, and other domains who provide expertise, negotiate regulations, and monitor compliance, both domestically and internationally.  Slaughter’s book remains relevant in the context of current scholarship on what the UK’s Brian Hocking calls “regulatory diplomacy” and “national diplomatic systems” — and what practitioners refer to as “whole of government” diplomacy.

J. Samuel Barkin, Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory, (Cambridge University Press, 2010).  Barkin (University of Florida) has written a book of primary interest to IR theorists.  However, his insights, clear prose, and careful inquiry into distinctions and common ground between realism and constructivism have much to offer diplomacy scholars as they struggle with implications for their integrative and relational models.  Barkin is especially useful in his assessment of the strengths and limitations of realism and constructivism.  Although he does not discuss diplomacy per se, his views on the meaning of public interest and political agency, the limitations of power, the logic and constraints of “the social,” differences between interest based and socially constructed norms and rules, and historical contingency inform thinking about diplomacy as an instrument used to achieve governance objectives and manage relations between groups.

Rosa Brooks, “Portrait of the Army as a Work in Progress,” Foreign Policy, May/June 2014, 43-51.  Drawing on an interview with US Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno and a visit to the US military base in Kuwait, Brooks (Georgetown University) looks at the Army’s planning for “regionally aligned forces” (RAFs) – meaning units with region-specific linguistic and cultural training and long-term relationships with particular geographic regions.  The intent is to enable the Army’s general purposes forces (not just special forces) to influence local populations, establish ties with local leaders, and strengthen military-to-military cooperation before, during, and after conflict.  Brooks assesses arguments for and against the RAF concept, issues born of conceptual ambiguity and confusing terms, internal resistance to change, training difficulties, challenges abroad (e.g., its problematic application in Kuwait), and challenges in the US (lack of enthusiasm in the Department of State and Congress).  Brooks addresses State’s concerns about “the militarization of foreign policy” and Odierno’s outreach plans to convince senior diplomats that “we are not conducting foreign policy” and that the Army offers a broad array of support capabilities.  In the end, she concludes, RAF’s value as a strategy is “rife with contradictions;” however, as a “canny effort” to protect the Army from budget cuts, “It’s brilliant.”

Robin Brown, “Systems, Chains, and Spaces: Towards a Framework for Comparative Public Diplomacy Research,” Paper prepared for the International Studies Association Convention, Toronto, March 26-30, 2014.  Download paper from bottom of linked blog at ISA 2014 v 6: Building on his earlier paper outlining four paradigms of public diplomacy, Brown (PDNetworks.wordpress.com) turns to organizational and material aspects of foreign public engagement as a way to organize studies of public diplomacy.  His paper introduces three concepts.  (1) “National public diplomacy systems,” linked to Brian Hocking’s idea of “national diplomacy systems,” emerge “from particular conjunctions of national and international factors.”  They demonstrate path dependency characterized by their origins and persistence in their reliance on particular “repertoires of activities.”  (2)  “Influence chains” are ways in which these repertoires of activities translate policy intent into action and outcomes.  (3)  “Operational space” is a concept that focuses on how public diplomacy actions are affected by context, e.g., the activities and attitudes of other governments and publics.  Brown develops these concepts as a way to make a case for going beyond seeing them “as idiosyncratic features of particular cases to recurring aspects of public diplomacy that need to be systematically investigated.”

For brief summaries of his arguments on influence chains and operational space, see “Introducing the Influence Chain,” April 22, 2014 and “Thinking about Operational Space,” April 25, 2014, Public Diplomacy, Networks and Influence Blog.

Commander’s Communication Synchronization, Joint Doctrine Note 2-13, December 18, 2013.  Joint Doctrine Notes are the military’s way of providing bridging solutions to doctrine gaps and guidance on doctrine development — in this case its evolution from “strategic communication” (now out of favor) to the current framing term, “commander’s communication synchronization” (CCS).  Notes are officially supported statements, but not authoritative doctrine.  This lengthy, well-organized document defines CSS and provides insights at the Joint Staff level on a variety of issues: the central importance of communication; changes in the communication environment; new operational requirements; the high priority of “listening” and “knowing your audience;” the necessity for credibility and aligning words, images, and actions; integration of communication in all planning and operations; best practices; and variety of organizations and capabilities.  It includes definitions of such terms as audience, publics, stakeholders, message, narrative, information operations, public affairs, and “defense support for public diplomacy.”  Although the CSS definition states it is a joint force commander’s process for supporting “strategic communication-related objectives,” and there are references to strategic communication working groups in some combatant commands, the Note’s intent is to frame the conversation as “commander’s communication synchronization.”  (Courtesy of Stephanie Helm)

CPD Annual Review, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, Vol. 5, Issue 1, Spring 2014.  In this issue, the USC Center on Public Diplomacy examines global trends that shaped public diplomacy around the world in 2013.  The Review analyzes “media coverage of events and activities that have public diplomacy implications and impact.”  The issue includes introductory and concluding remarks and sections on PD 2013 at a glance and the 10 biggest public diplomacy stories in 2013.

“Diplomacy in a Digital World,” Clingendael, The Netherlands Institute of International Relations, April 6, 2014.  Clingendael Institute scholars Brian Hocking and Jan Melissen announce plans for a “deeper and broader look at diplomacy in the digital age.”  Their new project will build on Clingendael’s 2012 report,Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21st Century, and focus on such issues as the growth of social media in diplomacy, e-governance, performance enhancement in key areas of foreign ministry activities such as consular diplomacy, planning, and participation in policy process.  Interested partner countries are welcome.

Guy J. Golan and Evhenia “Zhenia” Vitchaninova, “The Advertorial as a Tool of Mediated Public Diplomacy,” International Journal of Communication, 8 (2014), 1268-1288.  Golan and Vitchaninova (Syracuse University) analyze Russia’s use of advertorials — defined as “a print advertisement disguised as editorial material” – in 303 advertorial supplements in The Washington Post and The Times of India.  The authors found differences between the US and India in Russia’s “attribute promotion strategies” and in the issues promoted.  “The Indian advertorials focused predominantly on Russia’s power attribute, whereas U.S. advertorials highlight Russia’s attributes as an innovative, developed, and investor-friendly nation.”  Their article includes a literature review, summary of their content analysis research method and its coding variables, discussion of the strengths and limitations of advertorials as a tool of public diplomacy, and reflections on implications for public diplomacy scholarship and practice.

Bruce Gregory, The Paradox of US Public Diplomacy: Its Rise and “Demise,” A Special Report for the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication (IPDGC), George Washington University, February 2014, released by IPDGC in a new format May 2014.  U.S. public diplomacy faces a paradox. As diplomacy’s public dimension increasingly dominates study and practice, public diplomacy has less value as a term and conceptual subset of diplomacy. It marginalizes what is now mainstream.  This report examines transformational changes in diplomacy’s 21st century context: permeable borders and power diffusion, new diplomatic actors and issues, digital technologies and social media, and whole of government diplomacy.  It critically assesses implications for diplomatic roles and risks, foreign ministries and diplomatic missions, and strategic planning. In an attempt to bridge scholarship and practice, the report explores operational and architectural consequences for diplomacy in a world that is more transparent, informal, and complex.

Mark Harris,Five Came Back: A Story of Hollywood and the Second World War, (Penguin Press, 2014).Entertainment historian and columnist Harris tells the stories of Hollywood’s relationship with Washington during World War II through the work of five directors:  John Ford, William Wyler, John Huston, Frank Capra, and George Stevens.  Harris’s well reviewed and deeply researched narrative looks unsparingly at the lives of these filmmakers and provides critical assessments of their work in the charged political and ideological context of a nation at war. Importantly, he wrestles with questions relating to what it means to film combat and issues driven by conflicts between what is perceived to be truth and instrumental versions of truth used to serve government and military interests.  Includes lengthy sections on the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the Office of War Information (OWI).

H.R. 4490, United States International Communications Reform Act of 2014, Committee on Foreign Affairs, US House of Representatives, marked up April 30, 2014.  This bill (text as introduced before markup), co-sponsored by Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) and Ranking Member Eliot Engel (D-NY), and passed with unanimous Committee support is intended to improve and restructure the management of US international broadcasting services.  According to the Committee, the bill would (1) establish a full-time agency head for US international broadcasting, (2) reduce the authority of the Broadcasting Board of Governors “to a more appropriate advisory capacity,” (3) make “clear that the Voice of America mission is to support U.S. public diplomacy efforts,” and (4) consolidate the “Freedom Broadcasters” — Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), and the Middle East Broadcasting Network (MBN) – into a single, non-federal organization to be called the “Freedom News Network.”

For comment on the bill, which is expected to be followed by a counterpart bill in the US Senate, see:  Ron Nixon, “House Measure to Change Voice of America’s Mission is Drawing Intense Debate,” The New York Times, May 20, 2014; “The Pitch of America’s Voice,” The New York Times Editorial, May 25, 2014; Craig Hayden, “Playing for Keeps,” May 21, 2014, Intermap Blog; Alex Brown, “Can Congress Make Journalists Do Propaganda,” National Journal, May 2, 2014; John Hudson, “Exclusive: New Bill Requires Voice of America to Toe U.S. Line,” The Cable, FP Blog, April 29, 2014; Helle C Dale and Brent D. Schaefer, “Time to Reform U.S. International Broadcasting,” Issue Brief #4206, The Heritage Foundation, April 24, 2014;“US Lawmakers Mulling International Broadcasting,” Voice of America, April 30, 2014.

See also Mathew Weed’s Congressional Reference Service report on U.S. International Broadcasting: Background and Issues for Reform, May 2, 2014, annotated and linked below.

John Kerry, Heather Higginbottom, Rajiv Shah, and Tom Perriello, “Remarks at the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) Launch,” US Department of State, April 22, 2014.  Secretary of State Kerry, Deputy Secretary of State Higginbottom, USAID Administrator Shah, and Special Representative (QDDR) Perriello frame their vision and rationale for the Department’s second QDDR.  The stated goal:  “It will guide the Department and USAID in becoming more agile, responsive, and effective in the face of traditional and emerging challenges as well as new opportunities.”

Amy Mitchell, “State of the News Media 2014,” Pew Research Journalism Project, March 26, 2014.  Mitchell (Director of Pew’s Journalism Project) finds new energy and reasons for optimism as well as challenges in the news industry.  Grounded in four original research reports and a searchable database of statistics from previous years, the 2014 report: (1) Digital-only news organizations are increasing global news coverage, “the first real build-up of international reporting in decades.”  (2) New money may be more about new ways of reporting than building a new revenue structure.  (3) Social and mobile trends are changing the dynamics of the news process.  (4) Online video is expanding, but the scale is small.  (5) Local television experienced massive ownership changes with hard to assess impact on consumers.  (6) Demographic changes in the US population are increasing Hispanic news operations and changing news coverage.

Barak Obama, “Remarks by the President at the United States Military Academy Commencement Ceremony,” West Point, New York, May 28, 2014.  In a speech filled with references to American leadership and terrorism “as the most direct threat to America at home and abroad,” President Obama called for broadening US tools to include “diplomacy and development; sanctions and isolation; appeals to international law; and, if just, necessary and effective, multilateral military action.”  Framing US diplomacy’s public dimension as forming “alliances not just with governments, but also with ordinary people,” he argued that America is strengthened by civil society, by a free press, by striving entrepreneurs, and by educational exchange and opportunity for all people, and women and girls.  “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being,” he stated, “But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.”

Wally Olins, Brand New: The Shape of Brands to Come,(Thames & Hudson, 2014).  Olins (Saffron Brand Consultants) examines the future of corporate, NGO, and nation branding in the context of globalization and digital technologies.  If borders are more porous and globalization is occurring on an unprecedented scale, why is nation branding more important?  The answer, Olins argues, is “because now the national brand and, within the nation, the city brand and, sometimes, across nations, the regional brand, have a statistically measurable economic aim, as well as a traditional, emotional, ideological purpose.”  His chapters on “National Prosperity and Nation Branding” and “Branding the Place” update ideas in his chapter on “Making a National Brand” in Jan Melissen, ed., The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, 2007).

James Pamment,“’Putting the GREAT Back Into Britain:’ National Identity, Public-Private Collaboration & Transfers of Brand Equity in 2012’s Global Promotional Campaign,” British Journal of Politics and International Relations, March 27, 2014.  Pamment (University of Texas at Austin) examines Britain’s efforts to promote trade, investment, and tourism during the Summer Olympics year 2012 through the “GREAT campaign” – a campaign that emphasized a unified national identity emphasizing British achievements.  Pamment’s case study addresses four objectives: (1) “GREAT’s promotional style, message and objectives;” (2) “practices surrounding commodification of collective identity;” (3) “coordination, inclusion and exclusion practices,” and (4) “conceptualizations of transfers between symbolic and economic resources.”  Particularly interesting are his thoughts for further research:  how terms such as public diplomacy, promotion, and nation branding can reflect political agendas and practitioner differences over budgets and priorities; the development of metrics that reflect “best practices” rather than the expectations of stakeholders; and the importance of transparency and inclusion in government activities that claim to represent national images and interests.

James Pamment, “Time, Space & German Soft Power: Toward a Spatio-Temporal Turn in Diplomatic Studies?” Perspectives: Review of International Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2013, 5-25.  Pamment (University of Texas at Austin) looks at an array of German soft power strategies beginning with creation of the German state in 1871.  His overview includes a variety of 20th century efforts by Germany to achieve cultural, political, and economic influence and concludes with a brief discussion of recent Land of Ideasand Year of Germany nation branding campaigns.  He analyzes questions raised by Germany’s soft power practices through the theoretical lens of the “spatio-temporal turn,” understood as an approach to “multi-layered dynamics of globalization,” using analysis of “interconnected political, economic, symbolic, and social phenomena in non-deterministic ways.”  Pamment’s goal is to suggest “a theoretical framework for adapting the spatio-temporal turn in Media & Communication Studies to debates within diplomatic studies and soft power research.”  In particular, he seeks to take studies of soft power “beyond inferences about diplomatic influence” to a more “carefully contextualized analyses of how attraction relates to social practices.”

Se Jung Park and Yon Soo Lim, “Information Networks and Social Media Use in Public Diplomacy: A Comparative Analysis of South Korea and Japan,” Asian Journal of Communication, 2014, Vol. 24, No. 1, 79-98.  Park (Georgia State University) and Lim (Hongik University) examine “how South Korean and Japanese public diplomacy organizations employ digital media to embrace the principle of ‘networked public diplomacy’ through analysis of the web and media practices.”  Using a combination of network analysis and content analysis, their case studies (1) map “interorganizational information networks” among these public diplomacy organizations through analysis of URL citations by web users, (2) analyze the web practices of key organizations in communicating with publics, and (3) assess degrees of public engagement and demographic characteristics.  Park and Lim conclude their findings suggest that, although the two countries have similar sociopolitical backgrounds and perspectives on public diplomacy, Korea’s public diplomacy was more successful at engaging with foreign publics than Japan’s.  They attribute this to differences in “forms of internal information networks, communication strategies, and social networking performances” with publics.

Geoffrey Allen Pigman, “International Sport and Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: Governments, Sporting Federations and the Global Audience,” Diplomacy & Statecraft, published online March 7, 2014.  Pigman (University of Pretoria) observes that international sporting competition has had a role in diplomacy since the ancient Olympiad.  Today sports competitors have far reaching capacity to represent governments, people, and sponsoring firms to foreign governments and global publics.  Taking a broad historical and analytical approach, his taxonomy includes (1) international sport as a tool of diplomacy used by governments and (2) “international sport-as-diplomacy,” which encompasses activities of an array of international sporting bodies and other “non-state diplomatic actors.”  The latter category affects public diplomacy, he argues, through both the impact of sports on diplomatic relations between governments and public diplomacy activities of the international sporting bodies themselves.  His article contains numerous references to current public diplomacy scholarship, and he calls for more study of how international sport relates to public diplomacy in light of trends in the number and variety of sporting competitions and growth in international sports exchanges, both virtual and personal.

Geoffrey Allen Pigman and J. Simon Rofe, guest editors, “Sport and Diplomacy,” Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics, 2013.  In their introduction to this collection of articles in Sport in Society, Pigman (University of Pretoria) and Rofe (University of London) frame the need to examine the under-studied relationship between diplomacy and international sport.  Systematic investigation of sport and diplomacy is needed, they argue, for two reasons. “First, nowhere has the diffusion and redistribution of political and economic power in our globalizing world been more visible to the general public and scholars alike than in international sport.”  A second rationale “is the relative rise in the importance of soft power, the power to persuade and attract, as a major development in international relations since the end of the Cold War.”  Includes:

— Geoffrey Allen Pigman and Simon Rofe, “Sport and Diplomacy: an Introduction”

— Caitlin Byrne (Bond University), “Relationship of convenience? The Diplomatic Interplay Between the Commonwealth Games Federation and the Commonwealth Games Host City”

— Anthony Deos (University of Otago)  “Sport and Relational Public Diplomacy: the Case of New Zealand and Rugby World Cup 2011”

— Stuart Murray (Bond University) and Geoffrey Allen Pigman, “Mapping the Relationship Between International Sport and Diplomacy”

— M. R. G. Pope (University of London), “Public diplomacy, International News Media and London 2012: Cosmopolitanism TM” 

— J. Simon Rofe, “It Is a Squad Game: Manchester United as a Diplomatic Non-state Actor in International Affairs”

— Blake Skjellerup (Olympics speed skater), “Playing out – Sport’s Ability to Bring About Change”

— Alan Tomlinson (University of Brighton), “The Supreme Leader Sails On: Leadership, Ethics and Governance in FIFA”

— Antoaneta Vanc, (Quinnipiac University), “The Counter-intuitive Value of Celebrity Athletes as Antidiplomats in Public Diplomacy: Ilie Nastase from Romania and the World of Tennis”

“The Power of Non-State Actors,” Public Diplomacy Magazine, Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars at the University of Southern California, Summer 2014.  This issue of PD Magazine includes:

Features and Perspectives

— Mary Finley Brook (University of Richmond), “Climate Justice Advocacy”

— Rook Campbell (University of Southern California), “Conflicting Interests in Non-State Actor Diplomacy: A Case Study of Corporate Diplomacy in Art and Sport,”

— Horacio Trujillo (Aegis Trust) and David Elam (Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, SAIS), “Operationalizing the Responsibility to Protect: The Potential for Transnational Public Diplomacy to Advance Effective, Domestic Responsibility”

— Joaquin Jay Gonzalez, (Golden Gate University), “Diaspora Diplomacy: Influences from Philippine Migrants”

Interviews with Guillain Koko (People Against Suffering, Oppression, and Poverty (PASSOP), Cape Town, South Africa); USC’s Master of Public Diplomacy delegation to Brazil; and Mike Medavoy, (CEO, Phoenix Pictures)

Case Studies

— Richard Wike (Pew Research), “Survey Research and International Affairs”

— Ira Wagman (Carleton University), “Celebrity Diplomacy Without Effects: Danny Kaye and UNICEF”

— Matthew Wallin (American Security Project), “For the Luiz: Anonymous’ Influence on the World”

— Linda Reinstein, (Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization), “Non-State Actors: 21st Century Activism for Influencing Public Policy”

— Kevin E. Grisham, (California State University, San Bernardino), “Surviving the Struggle: Engagement and the Transformation of Violent Non-state Actors”

— Laura Rubio Diaz-Leal, (Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México), “Displaced Religious Minorities in Chiapas: Communication Strategies for Agency”

“Re-Balancing the Rebalance: Resourcing U.S. Diplomatic Strategy in the Asia-Pacific Region,” A Majority Staff Report for the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, April 17, 2014.  In this report for the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee’s staff calls for taking advantage of “our people and our values” through such interpersonal connections as Fulbright Scholarships, the Peace Corps, and “other pillars of American public diplomacy.”  Public diplomacy recommendations include: (1) redouble Obama administration efforts to encourage more Americans to study in China and other countries in East Asia, (2) take steps to arrest the slide in Japanese studying in the US, (3) fund a new Young South-East Asian Leaders Initiative and a Fulbright University in Vietnam to “rebalance within the rebalance,” (4) reduce travel restrictions and increase visa issuance, (5) better integrate the State Department’s East Asia public diplomacy efforts with other Department bureaus and civilian agencies, and (6) improve the US Government’s “messaging of the rebalance to the American public and the world at large.”  (Courtesy of Ellen Frost)

Daya Thussu, De-Americanizing Soft Power Discourse, CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School, April 2014.  Thussu (University of Westminster, London) examines “growing appreciation of the importance of soft power in a digitally connected and globalized media and communication environment.”  Arguing “media remain central to soft power initiatives,” he focuses his essay on global media, especially its televisual dimension.  Although fully recognizing that the US continues to dominate global media by a variety of measures, Thussu discusses powerful media and communication trends in the Global South, new forms of “globalization from below,” the growth of Chinese television news in English for a global audience, the soft power of “Bollywood,” and the rise of what he calls “Chindian” soft power.  These trends, he concludes, have loosened Western dominance of global media and led to a deepening “of the soft power discourse beyond its American remit.”  This suggests the importance of “serious engagement” between the two.

Mathew C. Weed, U.S. International Broadcasting: Background and Issues for Reform, Congressional Research Service (CRS), R43521, May 2, 2014.  With the evenhandedness for which CRS is known, Weed (CRS Foreign Policy Legislation analyst) provides an assessment of current issues facing the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and US international broadcasting.  His study looks briefly at the history of US broadcasting activities and legislative milestones, the BBG’s current structure, the structures and roles of federal and grantee US broadcasting services, key policy issues facing the BBG and international broadcasting, and the provisions of H.R. 4490, the United States International Communications Reform Act of 2014,

Amy Zalman, “Getting the Information Albatross off our Back: Notes Toward an Information-Savvy National Security Community,” Perspectives, Layalina Productions, Volume VI, Issue 2, April 2014.  Zalman (National War College) argues the US “organizes information activities on the basis of an outdated worldview set in the Cold War, ideologically, and the Industrial Age, technologically” and neglects “informational power as a strategic instrument.”  She calls for a “dramatic, systemic change of mindset;” installing “a new framework of information power” exemplified by the recent  J. Christopher Stevens Virtual Exchange Initiative; changes in the education of senior military and civilian leaders; and reorganization of US government informational activities on a whole of government basis.

Recent Blogs and Other Items of Interest

Patrick Blum, “Costs Drive Both Sides of Study Abroad,” The New York Times, May 4, 2014.

Robin Brown, “J. G. Herder, Nationalism and Cultural Relations,” May 31, 2014; “When China was Cool: Mao’s Little Red Book,” May 23, 2014; “Recent Report on the French Cultural Network,” May 21, 2014;“Reading China’s Aid and Soft Power in Africa,” May 1, 2014; “If It’s Not PD and It’s Not Aid What Is It?”April 16, 2014; Public Diplomacy, Networks and Influence Blog.

Christian Carlyle, “How to Win the Information War against Vladimir Putin,” May 2, 2014, Democracy Lab, FP Blog.

P.J. Crowley, “The US Public Diplomacy Deficit,” Remarks to the American Foreign Service Association and Public Diplomacy Alumni Association, April 16, 2014, C-SPAN2 (approximately 1 hour video).

“The Diplomatic Academy of the Caribbean Holds First Graduation,” Trinidad and Tobago Newsday, May 7, 2014. (Courtesy of Jorge Heine and Andrew Cooper).

Craig Hayden, “US Public Diplomacy in a Digital Context,” 30 minute podcast interview by Michael Ardaiolo, May 1, 2014, thePublicDiplomat, Syracuse University.

Rosalind S. Helderman, “For Hillary Clinton and Boeing, a Beneficial Relationship,” The Washington Post,April 13, 2014.

David Jackson, “What is the Mission of U.S. International Broadcasting?” April 26, 2014, Public Diplomacy Council.

Joe Johnson, “Putin’s Russian Propaganda on Ukraine: Is the West Losing?” June 3, 2014, Public Diplomacy Council.

Robert E. Hunter, “What Did Obama Really Say at West Point,” May 28, 2014, LobeLog Foreign Policy Blog.

Emily T. Metzgar, “Public Diplomacy as a Corrective Lens?” May 23, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Juan Luis Manfredi, “Hacking Diplomacy,” April 2, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Tara Ornstein, “Public Diplomacy in Action: MSF’s Access Campaign,” May 7, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Adam Powell, “Is the US Losing the Propaganda War with Russia?” June 2, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Spiegel staff, “The Opinion-Makers: How Russia is Winning the Propaganda War,” May 30, 2014, SpiegelOnline.

Rhonda Zaharna, “Culture Posts: Propaganda by Default in Ukraine,” April 9, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Gem From the Past

Wilson Dizard, Digital Diplomacy: U.S. Foreign Policy in the Information Age, (Praeger, 2001).  The late Wilson Dizard, a long-serving US Information Agency Foreign Service Officer, found time to write six books on international communication issues during his career.  His early work focused on communication satellites, spectrum issues, and radio/television broadcasting.  He then turned with considerable acuity and prescience to assessing the impact of computers and the Internet on diplomatic practice.  Although he did not live to assess the meaning of today’s social media challenges for diplomacy, his book addressed transformative issues he knew Internet-related technologies would bring in “an information intensive postindustrial environment.”  Whether or not he was the first to use the term “digital diplomacy,” he cautiously suggested it raised a new set of profound and strategic issues in relations between nations.  As he put it, “I have had occasional qualms about suggesting a new name . . . digital diplomacy.  For the present it may be a useful, if temporary, addition to a long tradition that has seen such predecessors as gunboat diplomacy, dollar diplomacy, quiet diplomacy, shuttle diplomacy, ping-pong diplomacy and, more recently, public diplomacy.”

Hisham Aidi, “America’s Hip-Hop Foreign Policy,” The Atlantic, March 20, 2014.  Aidi (Columbia University) examines changes in the musical genre hip-hop, its political and cultural dynamics, and its use by US and European governments as an instrument of public diplomacy.  He compares the State Department’s hip-hop initiatives to the Cold War’s jazz diplomacy and discusses their perceived value over hard rock and heavy metal for deradicalization purposes.  Aidi explores hip-hop’s strengths and limitations in the context of US foreign policy debates on countering extremism and suggests they may be more effective with marginalized Muslim populations in Europe than in North Africa and the Middle East.  The article is drawn from Aidi’s recently published book, Rebel Music: Race, Empire, and the New Muslim Youth Culture, (Pantheon, 2014).

Janna Anderson, Lee Rainie, and Maeve Duggan, Digital Life in 2025: 15 Theses About the Digital Future. Pew Research Internet Project, March 11, 2015.  In this collaborative report, Anderson (Elon University), Rainie, and Duggan (Pew Research) collate and assess the views and predictions of hundreds of experts on the digital future in 2025.  Their findings are grouped in 15 categories; eight are described as hopeful, six as concerned, and one as neutral.  The report finds considerable common ground on an “ambient information environment” with ubiquitous connectivity and further change in “how and where people associate, gather and share information, and consume media.”  At the same time, wide variation exists among the experts on the ramifications of digital change.

Martha Bayles, “The Struggle for Hearts and Minds: America’s Culture War and the Decline of US Public Diplomacy,”The Hedgehog Review: Critical Reflections on Contemporary Culture, Spring 2014, 59-72.  Bayles (Boston College) argues that in the decades since the 1960s, “America seems to have squandered its natural advantage in the art of winning hearts and minds around the world.”  Although partially attributable, in her view, to the demise of the US Information Agency and lack of a strong domestic constituency, she contends “America’s domestic culture war played an even more decisive role in the decline of US public diplomacy.”  Bayles cites numerous historical examples to support her argument and conclusion that America’s “rich artistic and literary heritage is now all but unknown.”  Her article is drawn from her recent book, Through a Screen Darkly: Popular Culture, Public Diplomacy, and America’s Image Abroad (2014).

Michael A. Cohen, “The Game Has Not Changed;” Henry Farrell and Martha Finnemore “Reply,” “Hypocrisy Hype: Can Washington Still Walk and Talk Differently?” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2014, 161-165. Cohen (Century Foundation) challenges Farrell and Finnemore’s (George Washington University) argument (“The End of Hypocrisy,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2013) that leaks of classified information by Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden “undermine Washington’s ability to act critically and get away with it.”  The leaks are embarrassing and may damage diplomacy in the short term, Cohen argues, but they are unlikely to have lasting effects because countries act on interests and US allies “continue to rely heavily on American diplomatic, military, and economic power.  Farrell and Finnemore respond that Cohen is wrong.  Hypocrisy is pervasive in US foreign policy, and if the US wants to convince through legitimacy, rather than just threats or bribes, it “must acknowledge the past importance of hypocrisy as well as its new limits.”

“Does the Academy Matter? Do Policy Makers Listen? Should You Get a PhD? And Where are All the Women?” Foreign Policy, March / April, 2014, 60-69, posted March 14, 2014.  In this panel discussion moderated by J. Peter Scoblic (FP’s Executive Editor, print), nine scholars look at the role of academia in the making of foreign policy:  Peter Cowhey (University of California, San Diego), Stephen Walt (Harvard University), James Goldgeier (American University), Bruce Jentleson (Duke University), James Reardon-Anderson (Georgetown University), Robert Gallucci (MacArthur Foundation), Ian Johnston (Tufts University), Cecilia Rouse (Princeton University), and James Levinsohn (Yale University).  Questions and issues include:  How do scholars and policymakers see their roles?  What are the pressures on junior faculty to write for academic disciplines rather than general audiences?  What is the impact of scholarship on policymaking?  What are the merits of master’s degrees and PhDs?  The article includes numerous graphics based on research conducted by Paul C. Avey and Michael C. Desch.

“Gastrodiplomacy,” Public Diplomacy Magazine (PD), Center on Public Diplomacy, University of Southern California, Winter 2014.  In this issue, the Magazine looks at “gastrodiplomacy” defined by the editors as “a form of cultural diplomacy,” “a form of edible nation branding,” “a growing trend in public diplomacy,” and “the practice of sharing a country’s cultural heritage through food.”  Interviews and case studies include discussions of “gastrodiplomacy” in India, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and Greece.  Featured articles include:

• Paul Rockhower (Levantine Public Diplomacy), “The State of Gastrodiplomacy”
• Yelena Osipova (American University), “From Gastronationalism to Gastrodiplomacy: Reversing the Securitization of the Dolma in the South Caucasus”
• Johanna Mendelsohn Forman (Stimson Center), “Conflict Cuisine: Teaching War Through Washington’s Ethnic Restaurant Scene”
• Braden Ruddy (The New School University), “Hearts, Minds, and Stomachs: Gastrodiplomacy and the Potential of National Cuisine in Changing Public Perceptions of National Image”

PD Magazine, now in its 6th year, is published by the USC Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars (APDS).  Its editorial board is comprised of graduate students in USC’s Master of Public Diplomacy program.

Robert M. Gates, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, (Alfred A. Knopf, 2014).  These reflections of former Secretary of Defense Gates have much to offer diplomacy scholars and practitioners at both macro and micro levels.  His views on relations with Congress, the White House, the press, and Defense Department subordinates, with discounts for organizational differences, contain an abundance of “best practices” for the Department of State.  More narrowly, we discover his Kansas State University speech urging more resources for diplomacy and development was not a fight he intended to take on, but mood music to smooth relations with leaders in the interagency process.  We also learn about his views on Bush’s freedom agenda (“too simplistic”), Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech (“one of his best” but “it raised expectations very high”), the President’s National Security Strategy documents (“of little practical use”), the State Department’s security contractors (they “caused most of our headaches” with civilians), our lack of understanding of Afghanistan (“very profound”), the term “Global War on Terror” (not worth a fight to eliminate), civilian advisors in Afghanistan (“deep doubt” that enough could be found), State’s unwillingness to accept a loan of Defense civilians, efforts by US diplomats Karl Eikenberry and Richard Holbrooke to unseat President Karzai in 2009 (“our clumsy and failed putsch”), Wikileaks (unfortunate but not a “melt-down” and “game changer”), and the micro-management of an oversized National Security Council staff (“an operational body with its own policy agenda, as opposed to a coordination mechanism”).

Nils Petter Gleditsch, ed., “The Forum: The Decline of War,” International Studies Review, (2013) 15, 396-419.  In this forum, based on a panel at the 2013 International Studies Association conference in San Diego, five scholars offer thoughtful and contrasting views on the decline of war debate.  Gleditsch (Peace Research Institute Oslo) provides an overview of the literature and summarizes some of the main issues.  Steven Pinker (Harvard University) makes a “war appears to be in decline” claim based, not on a romantic view of human nature, but on a massive array of statistical indicators and arguments from cognitive psychology.  Bradley A. Thayer (Utah State University) challenges Pinker, arguing he and others focus disproportionately on the West and neglect systemic in-group/out-group distinctions, threat of predation, resource scarcity, and international relations as an anarchic and hostile environment that tends to trigger egoism, dominance, and group bias.  Jack S. Levy (Rutgers University) and William R. Thompson (Indiana University) argue Pinker gives too much causal weight to ideational and cultural factors and too little weight to material and institutional factors.

Bruce Gregory, “The Paradox of US Public Diplomacy: Its Rise and ‘Demise,'” Report for the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, George Washington University, February 2014.  US public diplomacy faces a paradox.  As diplomacy’s public dimension increasingly dominates study and practice, public diplomacy has less value as a term and conceptual subset of diplomacy.  It marginalizes what is now mainstream.  This report examines transformational changes in diplomacy’s 21st century context:  permeable borders and power diffusion, new diplomatic actors and issues, digital technologies and social media, and whole of government diplomacy.  It critically assesses implications for diplomatic roles and risks, foreign ministries and diplomatic missions, and strategic planning.  In an attempt to bridge scholarship and practice, the report explores operational and architectural consequences for diplomacy in a world that is more transparent, informal, and complex.

Christopher Hill and Sarah Beadle, The Art of Attraction: Soft Power and the UK’s Role in the World, The British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences,March 2014.  Cambridge University scholars Hill and Beadle ground their report in the concept of soft power as developed by Joseph Nye (Harvard University and a British Academy Fellow).  After briefly summarizing the well-plowed ground of Nye’s central concepts, they examine the UK’s abundant tangible and intangible soft power assets as a “cultural superpower.”  Much of the report focuses on the UK’s higher education systems, the BBC’s global reach, and the work of the British Council.  Hill and Beadle argue that soft power is likely to become more important, that the UK government’s ability to mobilize soft power assets is limited, that serious questions exist regarding the extent to which it should do so, and that the soft power assets that really matter are “the deeper, slow-moving qualities of a society and not the surface glitter of a successful Olympics or a royal wedding.”  Their observations conclude with separate categories of thoughtful recommendations for governments, citizens and voters, and those engaged in private socio-cultural activities.  For a critique, see Robin Brown, “Do You Really Want Another Report on British Soft Power?” March 12, 2014, Public Diplomacy, Networks and Influence Blog.

Iver Neumann, Diplomatic Sites: A Critical Enquiry, (Columbia University Press, 2013).  Neumann (London School of Economics) states his book is “about possible changes in diplomacy as a result of general incremental changes in the global social environment within which diplomacy functions.”  Although how we arrived at where we are is of interest, his primary focus is on the concept of sites, physical and virtual, where diplomacy takes place and on “how globalization reconfigures space so that old sites take on new characteristics and new sites emerge.”  His chapters examine five sites:  Europe as an “originary site of diplomacy,” the diplomatic meal as a sustaining site, third-party mediation in interstitial sites (increasingly within states and involving non-state actors), the virtual site in popular culture as exemplified by television and Star Trek, and “sublime diplomacy” understood as finding ways to use the effects of events and aesthetic resources on others to advantage.  To the extent contemporary diplomacy is new, Neumann argues, it is not due to its internal dynamics or new core tasks, rather its newness derives “from change in the general political and social fields that surround diplomacy.”

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Presidential Leadership and the Creation of the American Era, (Princeton University Press, 2013).  In this book, based on his 2012 Richard Ullman Lectures at Princeton University, Nye (Harvard University) examines the effectiveness and ethics of eight US presidents in the 20th century.  He challenges scholarship that gives easy priority to “transformational” leaders (e.g., Wilson, Reagan) and makes a case for the under-appreciated effectiveness of “transactional” leaders (e.g., Eisenhower, the elder Bush).  Nye draws on his thinking about power, leadership, and contextual intelligence, and there are references throughout to American exceptionalism, public diplomacy, and smart power.  A closing chapter offers early speculation on the Obama presidency.  His chapter on ethics and foreign policy leadership nicely focus his thinking from his numerous other writings. Graceful writing makes the book accessible to students and general audiences.

Donna Marie Oglesby, “The Political Promise of Public Diplomacy,” Perspectives, Layalina Productions, Volume VI, Issue 1, March 2014.  In framing public diplomacy as political argument, Oglesby (Eckerd College) challenges the idealism of those who “imagine they are responding to a transformed global space in which a vastly increased number of people everywhere are empowered by globalization and technology to rise above domestic politics, national boundaries, and bickering leaders to engage each other individually in seeking solutions to common problems of humanity.”  Her brief article draws on popular culture, tweeting ambassadors, political activism, and concepts of power and persuasive rhetoric in making her case for a public diplomacy that gives “primacy to politics” and “the pluralism inherent in the international public realm today.”

James Pamment, “Articulating Influence: Toward a Research Agenda for Interpreting the Evaluation of Soft Power, Public Diplomacy, and Nation Brands,” Public Relations Review, 40 (2014) 50-59.  Pamment (University of Texas, Austin) urges scholars to pay more attention to empirical investigation of results in public diplomacy than to goals or outputs.  Public diplomacy rarely turns on rational choices between communication options, he argues.  Outcomes are rarely contingent on conformity with an ideal model, and good evaluation seldom results from applying best practice methodologies.  Rather public diplomacy practices and their evaluation “are bound together in complex organizational and power structures that generate pragmatic responses both to the ‘problem of influence’ and the reporting of results.”  Pamment’s closely reasoned article develops a concept of “articulation” in which ideal forms and methods “bend to the overall articulation of the toolset within foreign policy goals and oversight structures.”  Public diplomacy evaluation needs to take into account how institutional pressures discipline and “rearticulate ideal categories of PD and evaluation to suit pragmatic goals.”

James Pamment, “Strategic Narratives in US Public Diplomacy: A Critical Geopolitics,” Popular Communication: The International Journal of Media and Culture, 12:1, 48-64, published online, February 11, 2014.  Pamment has three objectives in this article.  First, he outlines a conceptual framework for understanding geopolitical space and strategic narratives.  Second, in a broad overview of geopolitical discourse from the Monroe Doctrine to the end of the Cold War, he examines ways in which policy declarations became accepted frames for interpreting shifts in international power relations.  Third, he concludes with a discussion of US geopolitical discourse and public diplomacy in the 21st century — the inability of the US to create a compelling post-9/11 narrative and the potential for public diplomacy to create consensus on defining problems and finding common solutions.  Strategic narratives can be important tools for achieving consensus, Pamment argues, and successful narratives seek shared responsibilities over geopolitical space rather than control.

Kevin Peraino, Lincoln in the World: The Making of an American Statesman, (Crown Publishers, 2013). Peraino (former Newsweek Middle East Bureau Chief) argues the case for Lincoln as a strong foreign policy president in chapters that focus on his relations with Secretary of State William Seward, his avoidance of war with Great Britain following the US Navy’s removal of two Confederate diplomats from the British mail ship Trent, the complex diplomacy that averted European intervention in the Civil War, and his handling of Napoleon III’s intervention in Mexico.  For public diplomacy scholars, Peraino’s narrative offers detailed accounts of Lincoln’s views on public opinion; his uses of the penny press and the daguerreotype; the new era of the telegraph, steamships, undersea cables, and other 19th century globalization technologies; Lincoln’s public letters to mill workers in Manchester, England in the competing contexts of their anti-slavery rallies and cotton shortages; and the Emancipation Proclamation’s influence on European public opinion and the policies of Britain’s Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston.

Simon Reich and Richard Ned Lebow, Good-bye Hegemony! Power and Influence in the Global System, (Princeton University Press, 2014). Reich (Rutgers University) and Lebow (Kings College London, Dartmouth) challenge realist and liberal theories of international relations grounded in a disproportionate focus on material power and hegemony as an organizing concept.  Their critique rests on a considered distinction between power and influence, and the proposition that effective influence involves persuasion.  Persuasion in turn depends on “shared values and acceptable practices,” on “considerable political skills,” and on “sophisticated leaders and diplomats, shared discourses with target states, advocacy of policies that build on precedent, and a willingness to let others help and shape initiatives.”  Reich and Lebow advance their theoretical claims though case studies on Europe, China, and the United States.

Mark Rolfe, “Rhetorical Traditions of Public Diplomacy and the Internet,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 9 (2014), 76-101.  Rolfe (University of New South Wales) examines thematic recurrences in the rhetoric of public diplomacy (and democracy) grounded in complex tensions between political classes and diplomats on the one hand and public opinion, on the other, which is seen to confer legitimacy and must be taken into account.  Recurring language patterns, from the 1790s to the present, reflect popular distrust of political elites, repeated calls for new diplomacy, and claims of credibility.  Rolfe argues that calls for a “‘new’ public diplomacy” that privileges the Internet as a tool to reach public opinion are recent manifestations of periodic attempts to reinvent diplomacy and democracy for each generation of public opinion.

Evan Ryan, Douglas Frantz, and Macon Philips, “Digital Diplomacy: Making Foreign Policy Less Foreign,” New York Foreign Press Center, US Department of State, February 18, 2014.  Ryan (Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs), Frantz (Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs), and Philips (Coordinator for International Information Programs) respond to questions from Emily Parker (New America Foundation) on ways social media are changing diplomacy.  Issues addressed include: the pace and volume of information; the continuing value of journalism’s mediating role; virtual exchanges; the Philippines typhoon; Ukraine; Zimbabwe; South Sudan; downsides and challenges facing social media; taking “responsible risks” and tolerance for “small mistakes” in a risk averse State Department; putting humor and “a more human tone in content;” tensions between speed, informality and serious purpose; and “public diplomacy as a central part of our overall diplomatic strategy.”

Clay Shirky, “The Key to Successful Tech Management: Learning to Metabolize Failure,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2014, 51-59.  Shirky (New York University) uses the Obama administration’s HealthCare.gov website to make broader points about government’s ability to handle people and planning in complex technological management issues.  His bottom line: “The hardest challenge in creating new technology is not eliminating uncertainty in advance, but adapting to it as the work uncovers it.”  Shirky argues for breaking projects into small, testable chunks, adopting “agile development” methods, changing managers’ incentives structures by “embracing failure,” and penalizing “opacity and information hoarding.”

“Should Leaders Tweet Personally?” Twidiplomacy, Google+ Hangout, March 24, 2014. This 44-minute video addresses the following questions.  “Should ambassadors and political leaders tweet personally?  And if they do, how do they find the time?  Can their staff tweet for them?  What are the tips and tricks for successful personal tweets?”  The panel discussion, moderated by Matthias Lüfkens, Digital Practice Leader EMEA, Burson-Marsteller, includes: Nicola Clase, Swedish Ambassador to the UK; Tom Fletcher, UK Ambassador to Lebanon; Andreas Sandre, Press and Public Affairs Officer at Embassy of Italy, Washington, DC; Charlotta Ozaki Macias, Head of Communication, Swedish Foreign Ministry; Martha McLean, Deputy Director, Online communications, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, Canada; Andrew Stroehlein, European Media Director, Human Rights Watch; and Róisín Traynor, Online Editor, International Crisis Group.

Phil Taylor’s Web Site, British Library.  In 1995, University of Leeds Professor of International Communication Philip Taylor created a website intended to be a “One Stop Shop” for publications relating to strategic communication, public diplomacy, military-media relations, propaganda, and a host of related topics.  Following Taylor’s untimely death in 2010, the University discontinued its link to this valuable and widely used archive.  Fortunately, through the efforts of Professor Gary Rawnsley (Aberystwyth University), Phil Taylor’s Website is now hosted by the British Library.  Many thanks to Gary who maintains his own very useful blog on Public Diplomacy and International Communications.

Jian Wang, Shaping China’s Global Imagination: Branding Nations at the World Expo, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).  Wang (University of Southern California) uses a comparative analysis of national pavilions at the 2010 Shanghai World Expo to examine the concept of nation branding.  He focuses on ways in which Brazil, India, Israel, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, the United Arab Emirates and the United States used their pavilions to portray their cultures to Chinese audiences.  Chapters explore definitional issues, communicating nation-brands, the uses of brands in enhancing a nation’s image and soft power, nation-branding as strategic narrative, and opportunities for future research.  Wang’s book builds on his Center for Public Diplomacy Perspectives Paper, written with Shaojing Sun (Fudan University),Experiencing Nation Brands (2012).

Recent Blogs and Other Items of Interest

Robert Albro, “Cultural Diplomacy Of And By The Book,” March 28, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center for Public Diplomacy.

Danielle Allen, “Professors Are Working To Understand and Solve Policy Problems,” February 21, 2014, The Washington Post.

“BBG to Become More Nimble and Streamlined Under the FY 15 Budget Request,” March 25, 2015; “BBG Budget Request Tied to Global Priorities and Evolving Media Environments,” March 4, 2014, Broadcasting Board of Governors; Charles S. Clark, “Broadcasting Board of Governors Reshuffles Management Team,” January 22, 2014,Government Executive.

Donald Bishop, “Operational Public Diplomacy: Brought to You by the Number 4,'” April 3, 2014, Public Diplomacy Council.

Rosa Brooks, “Winthrop’s Warning: How Politicians and Pundits Misread ‘City on a Hill’ and Butcher the Real Meaning of American Exceptionalism,” March 17, 2014, FP Blog.

Katherine Brown (moderator), Peggy Blumenthal, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Macon Phillips (panelists), “2013 Forum: The Future of Public Diplomacy,” November 12, 2013, posted online February 13, 2014, The Public Diplomacy Council.

Robin Brown, “House of Lords Report on UK Soft Power,” April 4, 2014; “Interpreting Nation Branding,” April 3, 2014; “EU and Cultural Relations: New Reports,” March 5, 2014; “More on French Cultural Relations,” February 28, 2014;”The Closing Space Problem and Democracy Support,” February 26, 2014; “Is the BBC World Service Being Held Hostage by the BBC?” February 5, 2014, Public Diplomacy, Networks and Influence Blog.

“Crafting Public Diplomacy for an Urbanized World,” Atlantic Council, March 20, 2014.

Nicholas J. Cull, “Editorial, Africa’s Breakthrough: Art, Place Branding and Angola’s Win at the Venice Biennale, 2013,” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 10, 1, 1-5.

Ambassadors Cynthia Efird, Linda Jewell, and Greta Morris, “Three Public Diplomacy Officers Reflect: Part 1, Part 2,and Part 3,” March 16, 2014, Public Diplomacy Council.

Peter Engelke, “Foreign Policy for an Urban World: Global Governance and the Rise of Cities,” August 2, 2013, Atlantic Council, Strategic Foresight Initiative.

Ellen Huijgh, “Indonesia: ‘A Thousand Friends,’ But No BFF,” February 28, 2014, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.

“We Need to Elevate the Environment in Everything We Do,” Personal Message from Secretary Kerry, US Department of State, Dipnote Blog.

Jason L. Knoll, “U.S. Ambassadors to Europe on Twitter,” March 31, 2014, US and European Politics blog.

Kristin Lord and Stephen J. Hadley, “America the Gentle Giant,” April 2, 2014, FP Blog.

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “The Myth of Isolationist America,” February 10, 2014, Project Syndicate.

James Pamment, “Reflections from the International Studies Association Conference, 2014,” April 3, 2014, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.

David Remnick, “Patriot Games: Vladimir Putin Lives His Olympic Dream,” Letter from Sochi, The New Yorker, March 3, 2014, 30-35.

Walter R. Roberts, “Tito: Personal Reflections,” February 2014, American Diplomacy.

Eric C. Schmidt and Jared Cohen, “The Future of Internet Freedom,” The New York Times, March 11, 2014.

Cynthia Schneider, “Challenging the Pakistani Taliban Through Culture,” March 7, 2014, Brookings.

Mike Schneider, Mary Della Vecchia, and Sarah Batiuck, “2013 Forum: USIA and the Foundations of Public Diplomacy – Valuable Reflections for Today’s Practice,” November 2013, posted March 21, 2014, Public Diplomacy Council.

Philip Seib, “Economic Development as Public Diplomacy,” February 27, 2014; “Public Diplomacy and Press Freedom,” February 24, 2014; “Putting a Hard Edge on Soft Power,” February 7, 2014, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, “Foreign Policy in Stereo: Power and Leadership in a World of States and People,” February 5, 2014, Embassy of Italy in the United States.

“Twittersphere Lets Us In On Diplomats ‘Normal’ Banter,” February 11, 2014, Renee Montaigne interviews Alec Ross, National Public Radio, Morning Edition.

Patrick Tutwiler, “State Department Steals Atlantic Media CEO,” March 31, 2014, FishbowlDC; Zeke J. Miller, “The Obama Campaign Goes Global,” March 31, 2014, Time.com.

Jay Wang, “China’s First Lady,” March 19, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center for Public Diplomacy.

Rhonda Zaharna, “CULTURE POST: Basketball Diplomacy in CNN’s Court,” CPD Blog, USC Center for Public Diplomacy.

Vera Zakern, “Effective Persistent Engagement Must Be Whole-of-Government,” March 13, 2014, War on the Rocksweb magazine.

Gem From the Past

Charles Tilly, Stories, Identities, and Political Change, (Roman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002).  In this book, renowned sociologist Charles Tilly (Columbia University) examined central issues in the role stories play in political explanations and the construction of personal and national identities.  His chapter, “The Trouble with Stories,” argued that stories – understood as narratives, not as the artful use of political rhetoric – have limited explanatory power because they place undue emphasis on actors making reasoned choices among well-defined alternatives.  The logical structure of story telling, he wrote, misses causal connections in most socially significant processes in which at least some crucial causes are “indirect, incremental, unintended, collective, and/or mediated by the nonhuman environment.”  Tilly fully appreciates the value and centrality of storytelling in human life.  Tilly’s cautionary views on “the incompatibility in causal structure between most standard stories and most social processes” can be helpful to diplomacy scholars who rely on constructivist theories and engagement models.