public diplomacy – Page 19 – IPDGC Smart Power

Tara Sonenshine to give testimony to British Committee on Soft Power

December 16, 2013Europe, in the field, public diplomacy, WomenLeave a Comment

Tara Sonenshine, former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, and currently a Distinguished Fellow at George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs will address the United Kingdom’s House of Lords “Select Committee on Soft Power and the UK’s Influence” via videotape on Monday, December 16 at 5:15 p.m. London time (12:15 p.m. Washington time).

The live testimony will take place at the British Embassy in Washington. The evidence session is public and a verbatim transcript will be posted on the British Parliamentary website shortly after the oral evidence session at this link: http://www.parliament.uk/soft-power-and-uks-influence. The Select Committee was formed May 16, 2013 to examine how soft power reflects national interest.

Ms. Sonenshine will be addressing issues related to the use of “soft power,” “hard power” and “smart power” and how public diplomacy is utilized with respect to international policy. Questions will be posed by the Chairman and other members of the Committee who are all Member of the House of Lords.

Ms. Sonenshine has high level experience in both government and the media, having served in the White House, State Department, and as Executive Vice President at the United States Institute of Peace. In earlier years, she was Editorial Producer of ABC News Nightline and a Contributing Editor at Newsweek. At her current position at George Washington University, she writes on a variety of topics related to public diplomacy and international relations.

Mandela: Soft Power Personified

December 6, 2013public diplomacyLeave a Comment

As the Cold War was ending, Professor Joe Nye at Harvard introduced the concept of soft power, the ability to attract and persuade through shared interests, culture, ideals, legitimacy and credibility. Nelson Mandela was the personification of soft power, a one-man pubic diplomacy force of nature.

Mandela relentlessly pursued peace and reconciliation, had a keen understanding of his personal power of example and was not afraid to use it. As former President Bill Clinton said of Mandela at a peace conference on Burundi in Arusha, Tanzania in August 2000, “He knows there is no guarantee of success, but if you don’t try, there is a guarantee of failure. And failure is not an acceptable option.”

It was there that I had my one up close and personal view of Nelson Mandela in action. After several months of painstaking negotiations among the various Hutu and Tutsi factions waging a civil war in Burundi, Mandela cajoled the leaders of 20 countries – presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers and other emissaries – to assemble in Tanzania and convince Burundi’s warring parties to sign a framework agreement that would establish a ceasefire, political dialogue and eventually an inclusive transitional government.

Months earlier, Mandela asked Clinton to be the “closer” at Arusha, taking advantage of his experience gained through the Dayton Accords in Bosnia, Good Friday Agreement in Ireland, and the Middle East Peace Process. Clinton willingly agreed, and once there, it was easy to see how and why Mandela was so effective.

Immediately upon arrival, Mandela briefed Clinton on the state of play. The conference was deliberately constructed to create a deadline – that day – to exert maximum pressure on the parties to compromise. Most factions were on board, but not all.

While the national security staff huddled to build a game plan to recommend to the president, Mandela grabbed Clinton, bolted out a side door and simply went to work. No script, just two great political players working around the scrum and judging based on experience and instinct how to advance the ball down the pitch.

At the end of the day, an agreement was reached, although tragically, the civil war would drag on for another few years. But the eventual resolution followed the framework that Mandela, with Clinton as his wing, put together in Arusha.

In his formal remarks to the conference, President Clinton called Mandela a “force for peace” but stressed that even Mandela could not impose a solution on the combatants in Burundi. They had to choose peace.

Then he reflected on the historic choice Mandela had made, relating a question he had posed years earlier. “When they let you out of jail the last time and you were walking to freedom, didn’t you have a moment when you were really, really angry at them again?

“You know what he said,” the president continued. “He said, yes, I did – a moment. Then, I realized I had been in prison for 27 years, and if I hated them after I got out, I would still be their prisoner, and I wanted to be free.”

The world is diminished by Mandela’s death, but we still have the power of his example.

Nelson Mandela –The Ultimate Public Diplomat

December 6, 2013Africa, public diplomacyLeave a Comment

Nelson Mandela leaves us in December, a season of holiday hope. His passing inspires us to reflect on his spirit of hopefulness and optimism and his role as a public diplomat.

I first met Nelson Mandela on February 15, 1990—four days after he emerged from 27 years of imprisonment in South Africa. I was there as a producer for ABC News Nightline. Mandela had agreed to give Ted Koppel a one-on-one interview. What I remember most when he arrived for that interview in Soweto was his gracious smile, his warm but firm handshake, and the elegance of the man who towered, physically over Koppel but still managed to look him in the eye as an intellectual peer.

So much has been written about Nelson Mandela, but what is rarely said is that he is the epitome of public diplomacy—one of those rare individuals who understood the power of people to move nations and ideas. Mandela was a connector, bringing people together from all walks of life—rich, poor, skilled, unskilled, men and women, athletes and artists. He had the gift of gab and the kindness that radiated a room.

At a time when his own country could have descended into far greater violence and societal division, Mandela instead steered his nation with words through a transition from apartheid rule that was marked by a commitment to national unity and peace even while boldly confronting the evils and divisions of its past. Mandela inspired people and governments the world over seeking peaceful and just resolution of conflict.

A good public diplomat like Mandela understood that for a nation to truly heal, its people must reckon with the past and with each other. It is why on June 28, 1995, Nelson Mandela announced the creation of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. That act alone turned history into the present and future South Africa and elevated his story of struggle over injustice and adversity. As he said in his inaugural address as president of South Africa on May 10, 1994, “We commit ourselves to the construction of a complete, just and lasting peace.” Personal commitments sometimes mean more than treaties and documents, and Mandela knew that his word was his oath.

President Mandela, your history is our global history and you remain a lodestar shining brightly like your beautiful smile. We all wish you peace in this season of peace.

Public Diplomacy On the Way to the Office

December 2, 2013public diplomacy2 Comments

An online poll administered by the National Zoo chose Bao Bao as the name for its newest panda cub. Credit: Abby Wood, Smithsonian's National Zoo — An online poll administered by the National Zoo chose Bao Bao as the name for its newest panda cub. Credit: Abby Wood, Smithsonian’s National Zoo

On my relatively short commute the office this morning I came across three separate examples of public diplomacy — each of them conducted by a foreign country with target audiences in the United States.

First, I read a charming op-ed by the Chinese Ambassador in the Washington Post that begins with the line, “Many people don’t realize it, but there are actually two Chinese ambassadors in Washington: me and the panda cub at the National Zoo…” The opinion piece comes on the occasion of the naming of the panda cub, Bao Bao, as a result of an Internet poll that invited members of the public to vote on their favorite name. As Ambassador Tiankai describes in his article, China has long used the exchange of pandas not only to symbolize peace and friendship between our countries, but also as the basis for practical scientific collaboration and cooperation.

Next, I listened to an NPR story from over the weekend reporting that the Cuban government has decided to relax restrictions to allow its baseball players to go abroad and accept contracts to play in foreign countries. Although U.S. laws would still make it illegal for Cuban players to bring any earnings in the U.S. back to Cuba, there is already wide speculation that this may still lead to larger numbers of Cuban baseball players in the Major League. Baseball has long been a valuable source of soft power and a tool of public diplomacy between the United States and other countries, particularly Japan and Latin America.

Finally, I was greeted upon my arrival to the Foggy Bottom Metro station (the closest metro station to the U.S. Department of State) by a massive advertising campaign funded by the Canadian government. The campaign emphasizes the strong U.S.-Canada partnership, particularly in the area of energy trade and cooperation, and appears to be directed towards influencing public opinion in advance of the pending decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.

I was struck by how these examples illustrate the range of public diplomacy themes, tools, audiences, and time horizons. Public diplomacy draws on themes ranging from national symbols to sports, employs tools from exchanges to ad campaigns, targets individual locales to entire populations, and operates in a time frame from days and weeks to generations. Although I confess that I am probably more likely to notice examples like these than most people, it was nevertheless no accident that I came across these three distinct examples on one commute.

As we continue to debate the merits of public diplomacy here in the U.S. and appropriate levels of funding, we should take note of the fact that other countries clearly recognize its value and actively use it to advance their national interests. We would do well to do the same!

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the State Department or the U.S. government. The author is a State Department officer specializing in public diplomacy, currently detailed to the IPDGC to teach and work on various Institute projects.

Making Sense of US Commitment to Afghanistan through Public Diplomacy

November 26, 2013Middle East, public diplomacy, WomenLeave a Comment

The recent decision by Afghan President Karzai to postpone signing a security arrangement on the continued presence of U.S. troops is apt to confuse an already confused Afghan and American public about the future bilateral relationship that will define post-2014. It is hard for any casual observer or media consumer to make sense out of the daily conflicting stories on whether or not American engagement in Afghanistan will be sustained next year. One of the key challenges of public diplomacy is to match rhetoric with actions on the ground and make a convincing argument to citizens.

An issue where the U.S. has stepped up its promises and rhetoric as well as its policy is around standing by Afghan women and girls—a promise we should keep. It is in America’s interest to see women-–a large segment of Afghan society–educated, trained, active and engaged in securing peace in a country in which we have invested a dozen years of money and lives. The women of Afghanistan are the loudest champions of peace and reconciliation in that troubled land.

Good public diplomacy and good policy are reflected in the announcement just a few months ago from the U.S. Agency for International Development a new, five-year $200 million assistance program for Afghan women called “Promote,” a sign of U.S. seriousness of purpose. The announcement, made in a speech by USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah at the U.S. Institute of Peace in July underscored the continued American commitment to success in Afghanistan—success that Shah argued is “fundamentally grounded in a society that creates opportunity for women and girls.” The new USAID program will propel the education, training and promotion of young women in Afghan government, business and civil society, building on successes as measured in the rise of girls enrolled in Afghan schools.

Screen capture from a video featuring an expert panel on women's empowerment in Afghanistan at the U.S. Institute for Peace, July 18, 2013. Source: YouTube — Screen capture from a video featuring an expert panel on women’s empowerment in Afghanistan at the U.S. Institute for Peace, July 18, 2013. Source: YouTube

That announcement was echoed recently at Georgetown University by Secretary of State Kerry, standing with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former First Lady Laura Bush—another good example of bipartisan public diplomacy.

In the first few months of 2014, President Obama will have opportunities to clear up any fog about American ambitions for Afghanistan, including with the State of the Union in February—the ultimate public diplomacy opportunity. (Twelve years ago in 2002, George W. Bush used his State of the Union speech to signal America’s commitment to Afghan women and to underscore signs of progress: “The last time we met in this chamber, the mothers and daughters of Afghanistan were captives in their own homes, forbidden from working or going to school. Today, women are free and are part of Afghanistan’s new government.”)

Another place to make the case for US-Afghan relations is on social media–a growing platform for public diplomacy around the world. Today, Afghan women and girls are using social media to make their anxiety about the future known. Zahra is a 23-year old Afghan woman, and currently an undergraduate student at the American University of Afghanistan studying business administration. She shared her anxiety on the website WhyDev, which is dedicated to the Voice of Afghanistan’s youth:

“I live in fear more and more as each day passes and it gets closer to 2014.

Everybody is talking about civil war again. Everybody has a plan to leave Afghanistan; they want to have a better life. .. Today, in our office, my colleague said she put her house on the market and wants to go to Australia. “But how?”, I asked. She said –like everybody else that goes… “With an invitation? Do you know somebody there? Will they send you invitation letter?

We are getting crazy thinking about 2014 and civil war. We can’t enjoy our time right now as it passes. We are losing our time as these fears enter our mind…

I fear what will happen. The only image that I have of the Taliban is of men with a huge turbans, big weapons, Afghan clothes and lots of beards and mustaches. They do not like educated women like me. They want to kill those girls who go to universities or schools…. I am confused. What will be Afghanistan’s future?”

Zahra, like many Afghan girls, wants to know that America’s investment in Afghanistan doesn’t end as the troops leave. Education for Afghan girls has improved in Afghanistan from the 1990s when the Taliban pretty much prohibited it. Today, according to the World Bank and USAID, close to a third of Afghan girls attend primary school. Around 120,000 young women have completed secondary school. In total, at least 200,000 Afghan women now have at least a diplomacy from secondary school, some form of a university degree or some equivalent study. But leaves two-thirds of Afghan girls, waiting for a chance.

In the end, time will tell what the Afghan government will do for its own society, what international foundations and funders will provide, and how committed the United States and the international community can afford to remain in the lives of the Afghan people, in particular its women and girls. For now, the challenge is to keep hope alive and prevent backsliding. Promises are important to keep.

Lessons from the Field?

November 25, 2013Middle East, public diplomacyLeave a Comment

Cover of the latest report by the Center for International Studies on Public Diplomacy. Source: CSIS.org

I had the opportunity to attend the public launch of a new report on Public Diplomacy today by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Entitled “Engaging the Muslim World,” the report is well worth reading and includes a few key highlights that are applicable to public diplomacy practiced by the U.S. worldwide.

The author, Foreign Service officer and public diplomacy practitioner Walter Douglas, noted that the report was intended to fill a gap left by many of the other reports and studies produced by think tanks and academia on the subject of public diplomacy over the last several years – namely, the perspective of PD practitioners in the field.

As a fellow PD practitioner (and colleague of Walter’s), I couldn’t agree more. As Walter and his report point out, everything from the messages, audiences, tools, programs, partners, and resources that we deploy in our public diplomacy efforts will vary widely depending on the local context and the country that we operate in. Such variety, moreover, defies easy characterization and generalization by Washington-based observers and policy makers.

Walter also made another important point in his presentation today. No matter how important and worthwhile we think public diplomacy may be, in the current budget environment we should not expect the United States government or the U.S. Congress to dedicate additional resources to public diplomacy. As a result, we need to focus on using our current resources to maximum effect. This speaks to the need for good strategic planning; identifying, replicating, and scaling best practices; and – in my view – enlisting the field perspectives to make sure our efforts are targeted appropriately in each country and not simply scattershot to broad regions or the world writ large.

Other important points in the report that will come as no surprise to those of us who follow or practice public diplomacy include the value of exchanges, alumni, English teaching, and other traditional programs, as well as the importance of face-to-face diplomacy, vernacular language ability, and the need to get out of our secure embassy compounds and into the local societies that we are trying to reach.

I’d be interested in other reactions to the report and any comments on these or other recurring topics in the public diplomacy field.

UNESCO and the US: Politics and Culture at the Water’s Edge

November 20, 2013Cultural Diplomacy, public diplomacyLeave a Comment

UNESCO headquarters in Paris, France. Source: Reuters via ibtimes.com

Earlier this month, the U.S. lost its voting rights in UNESCO, the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, after failing to pay its dues for the past two years following Palestine’s membership to the General Assembly. The move has been widely regarded by diplomats and experts as “undermining America’s ability to exercise its influence in countries around the globe” as well as UNESCO’s ability to pay the bills: the U.S. contributed approximately 22% of the agency’s $70-million-a-year budget.

More than anything, this is a major blow to U.S. public diplomacy. In addition to losing its say in the world’s preeminent cultural body, the image and soft power of the U.S. have also been diminished. Other consequences we can expect:

1. Delays in approving American historical sites to the World Heritage list. Two sites – one in Louisiana, one in Texas – were currently undergoing review when the deadline passed. Given recent events, their admission can expect delays. In the meantime, the thousand or so jobs that were anticipated with the designation of a World Heritage title remain in limbo.

2. Increased room for China’s growing soft power. In May, Hao Ping, the former Chinese Vice-Minister of Education, was elected president of UNESCO’s general conference, providing an invaluable opportunity for China to expand its own soft power prowess, especially now without the U.S. in the picture.

3. Decline and/or stall in programming. In addition to cultural programs, UNESCO runs hundreds of initiatives in education, science, and communication through field offices in every region in the world. Even with emergency funding, it is obvious these programs will suffer personnel lay-offs and funding cuts.

It is worth noting that the U.S. has always had a somewhat tenuous relationship with UNESCO. In 2002, it rejoined the UN agency after an 18-year hiatus over “a difference in vision.” And in spite of President Obama’s iteration to commit to UNESCO’s goals, the U.S. essentially has its hands tied due to laws enacted in 1994 by Congress that prevent it from contributing funds to any UN organization that recognizes Palestinian statehood.

Whatever the reason, the cultural legacy of the U.S., particularly as a founding member of UNESCO, now hangs in the balance. The last thing it needs after a year of public image disasters (Syria, Edward Snowden, NSA phone tapping, to name a few) is to have politics get in the way of something that was meant to facilitate diplomacy without it.

Four Lessons Learned from Serving In Government

November 12, 2013public diplomacy, WomenLeave a Comment

Tara Sonenshine, former Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, delivering the Second Annual Walter Roberts Lectures at GWU, Jan. 2013. Credit: Alexei Agaryshev.

Public diplomacy is about communicating—including lessons learned. So here are a few lessons I have learned from serving in high level positions in government:

1. The first is about idealism vs. realism—how to blend them. You come into government very idealistic and you go home very realistic. But the truth is that the first and last lesson I keep learning is about BLENDING BOTH—meaning that you have to blend ideals and aspirations with what is doable.

That’s hard. As an old friend of mine, Max Kampelman once said, there is what we ARE and what we OUGHT TO BE. Both matter. Resources are tight in the world, but the possibilities of what we can and want to do are endless. So the trick is how to balance both.

At as Under Secretary at the State Department, I had to balance the need to THINK BIG and the painful reminder each day that sometimes what we had to work with was SMALL. I had to balance, at times, the creative urge to deliver real value overseas to local citizens, and the restrictions of the State Department, the legal and administrative requirements, and the accountability to Congress.

So the first lesson is: Strive to accommodate creativity and realism and not see them as a trade off. You can do BOTH. But not always simultaneously and not always to the full satisfaction of everyone. But if you are open, accessible, clear, and honest—everyone is better off and better understands that mid point between the sky and the floor and that often we live somewhere in between.

2. The second lesson I learned, not only from State, but from 35 years of working on global issues is that we cannot fix others if we don’t fix ourselves. We can’t tell governments to stay open and then shut our own down. We have to be as open and transparent as we want others to be. We can’t tell other countries, for example, to put women at the top of their governments if we have never done that. We can’t want things for others more than they want them for themselves.

3. The third lesson I learned is that individuals matter; however, the best way to empower individuals is through teams – but TEAM WORK is hard. It is easy to lock yourself into a room and come up with a brilliant idea all on your own; it is harder to execute that idea or test its proposition without others.

Nobody today goes to space alone. We go to the International Space Station even with countries we can’t agree with on Earth. Just as we would not want to be out in the galaxy all alone, we don’t want to save the world all by ourselves. And the world is listening and watching what we do and participating in what we do… so we have to communicate with each other and with those outside our bubble and deal with different fragmented audiences while not losing sight of the big picture.

4. The last lesson I learned is that to LEAD, you also have to FOLLOW, and listen carefully to those journeying with you or behind you. And that how as leaders in an organization we are role models and we need to be as diverse in our skill sets, knowledge and experiences as possible. We have to set good professional and personal standards. In government, I found the near obsession with the crisis of the day, with the flooded inbox, the fires to put out now, and not pay attention to the brief flicker of a coming flame. We get so caught up in the work of the day, that yesterday is so long ago, and tomorrow not even possible to ponder. So I try to be thoughtful about lessons learned from the past, and to be learned in the future.

Annual Roberts Lecture Covers Benghazi, Iran, and Future of U.S. Diplomacy

November 8, 2013June 18, 2019Middle East, public diplomacyLeave a Comment

Amb. Thomas Pickering (right) engages in conversation with Frank Sesno (left), director of the School of Media and Public Affairs, for the 3rd Annual Walter Roberts Lecture. Credit: Alexei Agaryshev.

On Tuesday, distinguished ambassador Thomas Pickering spoke at GWU’s School of Media and Public Affairs (on his birthday, no less!) about his experience on the advisory panel that investigated the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, as well as Russia, Iran, and the future of U.S. public diplomacy.

The talk was part of the Third Annual Walter Roberts Lecture, which brings in prominent figures in public diplomacy practice and academia to speak on relevant issues of the times.

Tara Sonenshine, who spoke at the Second Annual Walter Roberts Lecture, responded in a blog post on her sentiments in introducing the ambassador. Former Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs and current Professor of Practice at GWU, PJ Crowley, was also in attendance, as well as Frank Sesno, director of the School of Media and Public Affairs, who led the conversation with the ambassador.

Some tweets from the event:

Happy birthday, Amb. Thomas Pickering! #PickeringPD The room is singing!

— IPDGC (@IPDGC) November 5, 2013

TP: We did everything we could to see that the mistakes (from Benghazi) were not repeated #PickeringPD

— IPDGC (@IPDGC) November 5, 2013

Ambassador Tom Pickering @IPDGC: Domestic politics turned #Benghazi from a diplomatic tragedy into a catastrophe. #PickeringPD — Philip J. Crowley (@PJCrowley) November 5, 2013

TP: Washington is out of touch with what’s going on in the field of #diplomacy. #PickeringPD — IPDGC (@IPDGC) November 5, 2013

Q: “You speak of making international promises we [USA] can’t keep, what is an example of this?” TP: “The Cairo Speech.” #PickeringPD @IPDGC — Miles Hayward (@miles_hayward) November 6, 2013

Ambassador Tom Pickering @IPDGC: By relying too heavily on military action, we have lost sight of the value of diplomacy. #PickeringPD

— Philip J. Crowley (@PJCrowley) November 6, 2013

Thank you to all who attended. Please visit our website for a video and transcript of the event here.

Bruce Gregory’s Public Diplomacy Resources – #67

November 7, 2013public diplomacyLeave a Comment

GW School of Media and Public Affairs and Georgetown Adjunct Assistant Professor Bruce Gregory compiles an annotated bibliography of Public Diplomacy-related readings and other resources. Intended for teachers of public diplomacy and related courses, here is an update on resources that may be of general interest. Suggestions for future updates are welcome and should be directed to Bruce Gregory at BGregory@gwu.edu.

Read the full archive for Bruce Gregory’s Public Diplomacy Resources.

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

Christopher Anzalone, “The Nairobi Attack and Al-Shabab’s Media Strategy,” CTC Sentinel, October 2013, Vol. 6, Issue 10. Anzalone (McGill University) looks at al-Shabab’s media strategy using micro-blogging on Twitter and audio statements by the group’s leaders during and after the Westgate Mall attack in Nairobi, Kenya. His article compares al-Shabab’s recent campaign with past campaigns, evaluates technologies and message content, and discusses both in the context of ongoing conflict in Somalia.

Daryl Copeland, Diplomacy, Globalization and Heteropolarity: The Challenge of Adaptation, Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute (CDFAI), August 2013. Copeland (CDFAI Senior Fellow and author of Guerrilla Diplomacy) continues his call for radical reform in “key elements of the diplomatic ecosystem” – foreign ministries, the Foreign Service, and the “diplomatic business model.” His paper, a case study with findings and recommendations for Canada’s diplomacy, is grounded in his views on globalization as “the defining historical process of our times” and an emerging “heteropolar world” (by which he means “more differences than similarities among competing sources of power”). Copeland’s conclusion: “Canada’s diplomatic ecosystem is in a perilous state and Canadian interests are suffering.”

Henry Farrell and Martha Finnemore, “The End of Hypocrisy: American Foreign Policy in the Age of Leaks,” Foreign Affairs,November/December 2013, 22-26. In this concise, sharply argued article, Farrell and Finnemore (George Washington University) defend their claim that hypocrisy has been “central to Washington’s soft power” but getting much harder to ignore in the context of WikiLeaks and disclosures of Edward Snowden. Greater transparency means it’s harder for allies to overlook US double standards when its deeds clash with the government’s public rhetoric — and easier for adversaries to justify their own double standards. Cases include: US cyberattacks against China, monitored global Internet communications, bugged European institutions and leaders, tacit acceptance of Israel’s nuclearization, acceptance of India’s non-participation in the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, refusing to call Egypt’s coup a coup, sweeping exceptions to human rights standards when US safety is threatened. “The collapse of hypocrisy,” they argue, presents the US with hard choices. “The era of easy hypocrisy is over.”

Jessica C. E. Gienow-Hecht and Mark C. Donfried, eds., Searching for a Cultural Diplomacy (Berghahn Books, 2010, 2013). These historical case studies, compiled by Gienow-Hecht (University of Cologne) and Donfried (Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, a non-profit organization based in New York City) examine approaches to cultural diplomacy in regions other than the United States and “western” countries. The editors conceptual framework is grounded in three assumptions: (1) The more distance between the agent of cultural diplomacy and a government’s political and economic agendas, the more likely it is to succeed. (2) The more interactive the cultural diplomacy program, the more likely it is to succeed. (3) States should employ diverse means for short and long-term strategic goals and a variety of bilateral and multilateral relations. Chapters offer a wide range of cultural diplomacy definitions and a variety of structural and conceptual approaches. Includes:

— Jessica C. E. Gienow-Hecht, “What Are We Searching For? Culture, Diplomacy, Agents and the State”

— Jessica C. E. Gienow-Hecht and Mark C. Donfried, “The Model of Cultural Diplomacy: Power, Distance, and the Promise of Civil Society”

— Jean-Francois Fayet (University of Geneva), “VOKS: The Third Dimension of Soviet Foreign Policy”

— Rosa Magnusdottir (University of Aarhus), “Mission Impossible? Selling Soviet Socialism to Americans, 1955-1958”

— Aniko Macher (Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris), “Hungarian Cultural Diplomacy 1957-1963: Echoes of Western Cultural Activity in a Communist Country”

— Annika Frieberg (Colorado State University), “Catholics in Ostpolitik: Networking and Nonstate Diplomacy in the Bensberger Memorandum, 1966-1970”

— Jennifer Dueck (University of Oxford), “International Rivalry and Culture in Syria and Lebanon Under the French Mandate”

— James R. Vaughn (Aberystwyth University), “The United States and the Limits of Cultural Diplomacy in the Arab Middle East, 1945-1957”

— Yuzo Ota (McGill University), “Difficulties Faced by Native Japan Interpreters: Nitobe Inazo (1962-1933) and His Generation”

— Maki Aoki-Okabi (Japan External Trade Organization), Yoko Kawamura (Seikei University), and Toichi Makita (Oberlin University),

“’Germany in Europe,’ ‘Japan and Asia’: National Commitments to Cultural Relations Within Regional Frameworks”

Alan K. Henrikson, “Sovereignty, Diplomacy, and Democracy: The Changing Character of ‘International’ Representation – From State to Self?” The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol. 37:3, Special Edition 2013, 111-140. In this article, based on a lecture honoring Fletcher’s former Dean, Stephen W. Bosworth, Henrikson (Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy) explores central questions in diplomacy’s study and practice. What does representation mean in a digital world of “mass self-communication?” How should we think about diplomatic authority and agency when empowered individuals significantly change the meaning of sovereignty and democracy? Can diplomacy be carried out by all government agencies other than foreign ministries and by citizens outside government? Can public diplomacy be understood to mean “the diplomacy of the public” – not government diplomacy? Henrikson looks at these questions in an imaginative tour d’horizon that includes the thinking of Niccolo Machiavelli, Cardinal Richelieu, Harold Nicolson, Henry Kissinger, Jorge Heine, Paul Sharp, and Manual Castells.

Sue Jansen, “Review – Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century,” e-International Relations, August 26, 2013. Jansen (Muhlenberg College) provides a measured summary and critique of James Pamment’s book New Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century: A Comparative Study of Policy and Practice (Routledge, 2013). Jansen, a skeptic on new public diplomacy theory, concludes Pamment “is a meticulous scholar who provides a methodically rigorous assessment of current PD practices.” Her review combines an assessment of strengths and limitations in his analysis of new public diplomacy with her own reservations about “non-instrumental ‘listening’ campaigns,” which are “agenda driven undertakings” by definition. “Occasionally instrumental listening may produce improvements in the lives of individuals,” she concludes, “but under the discipline of neoliberalism, listening is deployed within a hegemonic framework of discourse surveillance and management.

Sue Curry Jansen, Walter Lippmann: A Critical Introduction to Media and Communication Theory, (Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2012). Diplomacy scholars and practitioners who value Walter Lippmann’s many contributions to understanding publics, cognitive framing, media, communication theory, and much more – and who use his indispensable Public Opinion (1922) in public diplomacy courses – will welcome this informed re-assessment of one of the 20th century’s most important thinkers. In her well-written and closely reasoned book, Jansen (Muhlenberg College) urges a full-scale reconsideration of Lippmann’s contributions to media and communication studies. Issues discussed include: why Lippmann matters today, the legacy of problematic assessments of Lippmann by Wilbur Schramm and James Carey, Lippmann’s involvement in World War I propaganda and subsequent turn from Wilsonian idealism to realism, the continued relevance of Lippmann’s views on reason, emotion, identity, news, knowledge as social construct, and “the world outside and pictures in our heads.” Especially useful is her argument that Lippmann and John Dewey were much closer in their ideas about publics, expertise, and dialogue than suggested by conventional thinking about their “debate.”

Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011). In this highly readable book, filled with instructive examples, Kahneman (Nobel laureate, Princeton University) summarizes his groundbreaking work on two systems that shape the way we think and make decisions. “System 1 is fast, intuitive, and emotional. System 2 is slower, more deliberative, and more logical.” Kahneman’s lifelong work on the pervasive influence our emotions and intuitive impressions have on thought and behavior – their strengths and limitations – constitutes a major challenge to the rational models of strategy and decision-making that have long been dominant in many fields including diplomacy. Scholars and practitioners will find his ideas relevant to understanding the roles of emotion and reason in all phases of diplomatic practice: the effects of cognitive biases, opinion and media research, framing costs and risks, advising policymakers on communication strategies, planning and implementing advocacy campaigns, and evaluating methods of collaboration and deliberative engagement.

Steven Livingston, Africa’s Information Revolution: Implications for Crime, Policing, and Citizen Security, Research Paper No. 5, Africa Center for Strategic Studies, November 2013. Livingston (George Washington University) looks at ways in which rapid expansion of information and communication technologies (e.g., Twitter, SMS, event mapping, and crowd sourcing capabilities) are creating opportunities to combat Africa’s disproportionately high rates of violent crime. His study examines implications for improved security through more accessible information and empowered civil society organizations – as well as nefarious uses of information technologies by criminal organizations and unaccountable police forces – in Africa’s rural and rapidly urbanizing societies.

Jon Meacham, Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power, (Random House, 2013). Pulitzer prize winning biographer Meacham adds to the exhaustive shelf on Jefferson with this compelling profile of his genius in wielding political and diplomatic power. Meacham provides numerous insights into Jefferson’s mastery of “emotional and political manipulation” and skills in reaching “the hearts as well as the minds” of publics at home and abroad: listening as a political art, his understanding of public opinion in the context of multiple audiences, use of political “disinformation” against the British when US envoy in France, the politics of personal relationships, his deft projection of power, and his profound grasp of the drivers of reason and persuasion on the one hand and emotion and fear on the other. Particularly useful is Meacham’s discussion of the correlation of perceived threats during a “Fifty Years War” war against the British (from the Stamp Act in 1764 to the Treaty of Ghent in 1815) and America’s development of persuasive and coercive instruments of statecraft.

Stuart Murray, guest editor, “Sports Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 8, Nos. 3-4, 2013. Articles in this special issue of HJD explore recent interest in theoretical and practical issues in sports diplomacy. As framed by Murray (Bond University), the articles “aim to add theoretical and empirical muscle to the term” and foster discussion between theorists and practitioners. Contributions focus on sports diplomacy as (1) a means governments employ to achieve foreign policy objectives and (2) the diplomacy that occurs when governments and non-state actors engage in international sport. Includes:

— Stuart Murray, “Introduction”

— Andreia Soares e Castro (School of Social and Political Sciences, Lisbon), “South Africa’s Engagement in Sports Diplomacy: The Successful Hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup”

— Zang Qingmin (Peking University), “Sports Diplomacy: The Chinese Experience and Perspective”

— Julie M. Bunck (University of Louisville), “Cuban Sports Diplomacy in the Cold War Period: International Identity versus Domestic Realities”

— Prashant Kidambi (University of Leicester), “Sport and the Imperial Bond: The 1911 ‘All India’ Cricket Tour of Great Britain”

— Michele Acuto (University of Oxford), “World Politics by Other Means? London, City Diplomacy, and the Olympics”

— Christopher McMichael (University of the Witwatersrand), “Sporting Mega Events and South-to-South Security: A Comparative Study of South Africa and Brazil”

— William Gaillard (Union of European Football Associations), “Football, Politics and Europe”

Philip Seib, Public Diplomacy and the Media in the Middle East, Paper 6, 2013, CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Seib (University of Southern California) looks at the region’s increasingly sophisticated media environment and “changes in how the Arab world receives and dispenses public diplomacy” since the uprisings in 2011. Informed by recent data on traditional and social media trends and judgments of regional experts, his paper assesses implications for public diplomacy’s principles and methods and US policies and public diplomacy strategies.

James Thomas Snyder, The United States and the Challenge of Public Diplomacy, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). Snyder, formerly with the staff of NATO’s Public Diplomacy Division, provides an assessment of US public diplomacy in the 21st century. Self-described as a “book about how the United States can communicate better with the world,” his chapters focus on the work of public diplomats, Presidential rhetoric, US international broadcasting, new information technologies, language education, organizational issues, and the role of the military and public affairs and information operations in adversarial environments.

“Soft Power and the UK’s Influence,” Transcripts of Evidence Sessions, The Select Committee on Soft Power and the UK’s Influence, House of Lords, UK Parliament. The Select Committee’s “Call for Evidence,” issued July 23, 2013, invited representatives of the UK Government, (British Council, BBC World Service,) companies, individuals, and non-state actors to consider how the UK might “develop and employ better the country’s soft power resources to strengthen the UK’s influence abroad” and also how the UK’s soft power is “used by organizations in the private and civil society spheres, as well as the public sector, and how it inter-relates with the role of the armed forces.” Transcripts of seven evidence sessions (with more scheduled for fall 2013) are available online. (Courtesy of Robin Brown)

For comments, see Robin Brown, “What Even (sic) Happened to UK Public Diplomacy Strategy?” July 12, 2013, and “More From the House of Lords on UK Soft Power,” September 5, 2013, Public Diplomacy, Networks and Influence Blog.

“Strategic Public Diplomacy and Communications” and “Broadcasting Board of Governors,” US Senate Subcommittee on State/Foreign Operations, Senate Report 113-081, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2014. The Subcommittee’s report states concern “with the absence of a coherent and unified strategic public diplomacy and communications effort by the Department of State, USAID, and the BBG.” Because US interests abroad are “adversely impacted,” the Committee calls for the Secretary of State to ensure that the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs reviews activities and programs, and makes recommendations in a number of identified areas of concern. The Committee also states its concern “with the dysfunction and poor management of the BBG” and provides legislative authority to the BBG to hire a CEO with “management and oversight responsibilities for all BBG entities.”

Daya Kishan Thussu, Communicating India’s Soft Power: Buddha to Bollywood, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). Academic studies of soft power (and public diplomacy) have paid relatively little attention to India. Thussu (University of Westminster, London) does much to remedy this with his informed analysis of India’s rising soft power – its historical context, strengths and limitations, and growing potential. Chapters include: “De-Americanizing Soft Power,” “Historical Context of India’s Soft Power,” “India Abroad: the Diasporic Dividend,” “Software for Soft Power,” “Culture as Soft Power – Bollywood and Beyond,” and “Branding India – a Public-Private Partnership.”

Uptal Vyas, Soft Power in Japan-China Relations: State, Sub-state and Non-state Relations, (Routledge, 2013). Vyas (Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Japan) offers empirical support for soft power as a theoretical concept in three case studies that focus on Japan’s soft power in China. One case looks at activities of the Japan Foundation (a state actor). A second case examines the sister cities relationship between Kobe and Tianjin (sub-state actors). His third case assesses the work of the Japan-China Friendship Association (a non-state actor).

Recent Blogs And Other Short Items of Interest

Don Bishop, “U.S. Public Diplomacy: Three ‘Challenges,’” September 30, 2013, Public Diplomacy Council. “Tara Sonenshine Responds to the ‘Three Challenges’ of U.S. Public Diplomacy,” October 21, 2013, Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, Take Five Blog. Response also from P.J. Crowley, “The U.S. Public Diplomacy Deficit: Look at What We Do,” October 22, 2013, Take Five Blog.

Rosa Brooks, “Wounded Giant,” August 30, 2013, Foreign Policy Blog.

Robin Brown, “From Bruno Latour to British Foreign Policy via Tony Blair, Part1,” October 8, 2013; Part 2, October 8, 2013, Part 3,October 11, 2013, Part 4, October 15, 2013, Part 5, October 28, 2013; “German Democracy Support in Middle East,” October 2, 2013;“Japan, China and Soft Power,” October 1, 2013; “Reading the 2013 Survey on UK Attitudes to International Priorities,” September 30, 2013; “UK International Education Strategy,” September 26, 2013; “UK Govts Head of Communications Doesn’t Like Press Releases or Strategic Communication,” September 24, 2013; “Nadia von Maltzan on Syrian-Iranian Cultural Diplomacy,” September 23, 2013;“American Hypernationalism and Foreign Influence: A Last Word on Putin,” September 19, 2013; “Five Points on Putin and His New York Times Piece,” September 13, 2013; “Digital Diplomacy: Forget the Hype and Just Get on With It,” September 10, 2013, Public Diplomacy, Networks and Influence Blog.

Frank Bruni, “College’s Identity Crisis,” October 12, 2013, The New York Times.

Damien Cave, “Viewing the US in Fear and Dismay,” October 15, 2013, The New York Times.

Ingrid d’Hooge, “China’s Public Diplomacy Shifts Focus: From Building Hardware to Improving Software,” October 24, 2013, University of Nottingham, China Policy Institute Blog.

Nicholas Dynan, “Chinese Public Diplomacy: Winning Hearts And Minds Abroad Or At Home,” October 16, 2013, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.

Craig Hayden, “Does Technology Persuade? Questioning Assumptions in US Public Diplomacy (Part I),” October 9, 2012; “Does Technology Persuade? (Part II): Looking to Media Practices for Insight,” October 14, 2013, Intermap Blog.

Jonathan Henick, “Public Diplomacy on the Front Lines of U.S. Foreign Policy,” October 27, 2013, Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, Take Five Blog.

Christopher R. Hill, “The Limits of Twitter Diplomacy,” August 20, 2013, Project Syndicate Blog.

Parag Khanna, “The End of the Nation-State?” October 12, 2013, The New York Times.

Naomi Leight, “Can an Ancient Artifact Promote Contemporary Dialogue?” October 31, 2013, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.

James Pamment, “Public Diplomacy and the Third Metric,” August 28, 2013, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.

Cynthia Schneider, “Missing in Action: What Happened to Washington’s Policy in Egypt?” August 15, 2013, Foreign Policy Blog.

Michael Schneider, Guy Golan, and Michael Ardaiolo, Interview with Michael Schneider on Challenges Facing Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs-designate Richard Stengel, September 23, 2013, Podcast, The Public Diplomat, Syracuse University.

Philip Seib, “The Case for Blowing Things Up,” August 26, 2013, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.

Jay Wang, “Branding the Cyrus Cylinder,” October 28, 2013, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.

Gem From the Past

John W. Henderson, The United States Information Agency, (Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1969). Before Nick Cull’s (University of Southern California) path breaking academic studies of USIA (The Cold War and the United States Information Agency, 2008; The Decline and Fall of the United States Information Agency, 2012), most histories of USIA were written by former public diplomacy practitioners. Good accounts, written not as memoirs but with varying degrees of analytical distance, include: Wilson P. Dizard, Jr.,Inventing Public Diplomacy: The Story of the U.S. Information Agency, 2004; Gifford D. Malone, Organizing the Nation’s Public Diplomacy, 1988; Hans N. Tuch, Communicating with the World: U.S. Public Diplomacy Overseas,1990; and Thomas C. Sorensen, The Word War: The Story of American Propaganda, 1968.

John Henderson’s The United States Information Agency is one of the best. An AP reporter who joined the Foreign Service, Henderson served as a public affairs officer in China, Hong Kong, Thailand, Japan and the Philippines. His book, available in used copies, provides a still useful history of USIA’s goals, methods, issues, challenges, organizational changes, and field operations during the Agency’s first twenty-five years. As public diplomacy practitioners commemorate USIA’s 60th anniversary in 2013, honoring the past as they look ahead, this literature is worth remembering.

Current compilations of Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: Books, Articles, Websites are posted at Arizona State University’s COMOPS Journal, George Washington University’s Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy, and the Public Diplomacy Council. For previous compilations, visit Matt Armstrong’sMountainRunner.us website.