public diplomacy – Page 19 – IPDGC Smart Power

2014: The Year of Public Diplomacy

January 6, 2014public diplomacyLeave a Comment

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat (L-R), U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Israel's Justice Minister Tzipi Livni shake hands at a news conference at the end of talks at the State Department in Washington, July 30, 2013. (Credit: Reuters via ChristianPost.com) — Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat (L-R), U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Israel’s Justice Minister Tzipi Livni shake hands at a news conference at the end of talks at the State Department in Washington, July 30, 2013. (Credit: Reuters via ChristianPost.com)

2014 could be the year of public diplomacy, particularly throughout the Middle East where citizens continue to exercise enormous influence over the direction of events on the ground, from Iraq to Syria, and from Israel to the West Bank. Public opinion in the U.S. matters, as does public opinion “of” the United States around the world in an interdependent world.

As Secretary of State John Kerry makes his tenth peacemaking trip to the region to broker a “framework” between the Israelis and Palestinians, the looming question is the degree to which ordinary citizens throughout the Middle East will pressure their own leaders to resolve conflicts in ways that avoid violence or maintain the status quo. The region is a giant puzzle with interlocking pieces and interdependent variables from economic stability to physical security. For the United States, shaping a positive outcome in this region is a tall order at a time of decentralized decision-making in much of the region where the U.S. is trying to contribute to stability. It is a tall order, but a vital one.

Official government-to-government relations will need to work in tandem with government-to-citizen relations in 2014 to take into account all the actors and voices in the Middle East drama of today. A critical pillar of 2014 foreign policymaking rests in trying to achieve some equilibrium and public calm to lower the levels of violence which, left unchecked, threaten all of us, everywhere.

American citizens should be supportive of American leadership as it tackles the thorny issues of countering violent extremism overseas and bringing about peaceful settlements of frozen conflicts—be they conflicts with Iran over nuclear weapons, or between Israelis and Palestinians over land and security. American political will is best exercised with American public sentiment behind it.

What we know from past few years is how volatile public opinion in the region is, and how quickly the public mood can swing, making traditional diplomacy all the more difficult given 24-hour news cycles, the transfer of money and weapons, and the shifting political winds that make predictions difficult. The rise of extremist groups seeking to take advantage of all the uncertainty adds another layer of complexity to al already complex situation everywhere from Cairo to Teheran, from Baghdad to Beirut.

Shaping public opinion requires paying close attention to national mood swings. For ordinary citizens, the direction of the economy, local unemployment, political representation, access to education and information, and day-to-day security top the list of concerns that impact how people behave. Those are shared concerns around the world best realized without violence.

Let’s hope for bipartisanship and public support for peacemaking in the year ahead.

What Can Public Diplomacy Learn from Netflix?

December 19, 2013in the field, public diplomacyLeave a Comment

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has always envisioned the video watching service to be on a streaming platform, not in mailing DVDs. Credit: Microsoft

I had the pleasure and privilege to attend yesterday’s meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors as a member of the public. The session featured two fascinating presentations and discussions. First, Voice of America Director David Ensor gave an inspirational presentation on the mission, goals, accomplishments, and challenges facing the Voice of America. Later, we listened to an insightful panel on Technology and Innovation that featured Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Coordinator for International Information Programs at the U.S. Department of State Macon Phillips, and Chief Technology Officer for the Atlantic Media Group Tom Cochran.

Among the many important issues raised in these discussions are a few key themes facing all of us who are engaged in the practice of public diplomacy. The dominant issue – as is often the case – is how to use our scarce resources most effectively. For the VOA, an organization with a multiplicity of missions (providing independent news, explaining U.S. policy, teaching English, training journalists, etc.) operating all around the world, this requires difficult choices on which audiences to target and which missions to prioritize. David Ensor pointed out, for example, that VOA recently cut the Croatian service after assessing that we have higher priorities elsewhere and that the audience there has ready access to other sources of independent news. Another way to make the most of limited resources would be for VOA to explore partnerships with like-minded media outlets and other organizations engaged in English teaching and journalism training (including the U.S. Department of State and USAID). Asked about the value of particular programs and broadcasts on American music, David Ensor gave a passionate and largely persuasive (in my view) defense of how these programs help Americans connect with foreign audiences around the world.

The VOA discussion featured a number of comparisons with broadcasting organizations of other countries like CCTV, Russia Today, and the BBC (usually to illustrate that VOA is relatively underfunded). BBG Governor Matt Armstrong highlighted a key point, however, when he remarked that unlike those organizations the VOA is not seeking to secure a permanent market share in each of its overseas areas of activity. Instead, the VOA is ultimately seeking to put itself out of business in each of these areas by encouraging the development of local, independent media sources (i.e., by “exporting the First Amendment”).

Unspoken but implied was the suggestion that we should be careful when we compare VOA and its sister broadcasting agencies with official foreign broadcasters. VOA Director David Ensor agreed, in part, but countered that we may ultimately decide that we should maintain at least some presence in order to explain U.S. policies. Personally speaking, I agree with Matt Armstrong and am inclined to believe that the U.S. Department of State can fulfill that function in said markets, while perhaps relying in part on VOA’s English-language resources available at the Washington headquarters and its online platforms.

The Innovation panel also proved exceptionally interesting, highlighting the significant challenges that technology poses for the BBG (and the State Department). Netflix CEO Reed Hastings emphasized the need to always keep the big picture of the future in mind if we hope to develop tools and programs that will be effective in the future. He noted, for example, that Netflix always believed that streaming video was the future of the company and that snail mail DVDs were always considered an interim measure. Likewise, we in public diplomacy should all keep in mind that in another 20 or 30 years the internet will be everywhere, even overseas (a remark that caused many in the audience to ponder a future when television and radio will simply be obsolete).

Another interesting theme was the benefits and dangers of “personalization” (using technology to deliver customized content to individuals as Netflix does) and “balkanization” (the development of virtual “gated communities” in which there are no longer public squares and water coolers where people are forced to debate issues of general interest).

Finally, IIP’s Macon Phillips, who recently joined the State Department after heading up the White House’s digital outreach efforts, described the challenges that he faces of leveraging technology and our public diplomacy personnel and platforms overseas to engage foreign publics in a meaningful way that not only communicates, but also helps advance our policies. He mentioned an initiative that he helped launch at the White House – “We The People” – that allows people to submit petitions and, if they gather enough signatures, receive a response from the White House. A possible model for a similar State Department initiative?

A couple of great discussions and a lot of food for thought!

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.

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!

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.