Category: public diplomacy

Fostering connections for a peaceful, prosperous world

Exchanges, IPDGC, public diplomacy

By Adam Esrig

“I am convinced that increased participation by dedicated Americans in international exchanges will help to achieve our common hope for a durable and just peace.”

— President John F. Kennedy, 1961
Robert Ogburn, Director of the Office of Citizen Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, US State Department

In this PDx episode, SMPA undergraduate student Adam Esrig speaks with Robert Ogburn, Director of the Office of Citizen Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State.

Examining the impact of cultural and educational diplomacy, Mr. Ogburn discusses the importance of exchange programs in the context of today’s current events.

Enjoy this PDx podcast: Fostering Connections for a Peaceful, Prosperous World

Adam Esrig is a student in the SMPA 3350 Public Diplomacy class taught by Public Diplomacy Fellow Emilia A. Puma. He is an undergraduate student in Political Science and Political Communication, Class of 2023.

The opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the interviewer. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

A relook: The Public Diplomacy of the Modern Olympic Games and China’s Soft Power Strategy

China, public diplomacy

By Grace Christensen, BA Political Communication

Beijing’s National Stadium (Bird’s Nest) lighted up by fireworks and the Olympic flame during the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008|
International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Richard Juilliart

Despite claims by the Olympic Charter that “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in the Olympic areas,” the Olympic Games have almost never remained apolitical. In fact, for most countries, the Games provide the perfect opportunity to gain influence in the world, amplify their brands on an international stage and make, or remake their reputations. When given the chance to host the Olympic Games, these powers are only magnified. While hosting the Games is a high-risk endeavor, it is one that all major powers will likely tackle at some point in their histories. One country, in particular, has felt this pressure unlike any other in recent history: China. With Beijing set to be the first city to host both the Summer (2008) and Winter Games (2022) and the second capital city to ever host the Winter Games, China is uniquely positioned to promote its power to the rest of the world. While Nicholas Cull provides an in-depth analysis of China’s soft power strategy in his 2008 work “The Public Diplomacy of the Modern Olympic Games and China’s Soft Power Strategy,” the world has changed dramatically in the last decade, and the 2022 Beijing Games will bring with them an entirely new host of issues and image challenges for the emerging superpower.

Despite this, Cull’s analysis of China’s soft power strategy on the eve of the 2008 Summer Games and the subsequent recommendations he provides can still largely be applied to China’s upcoming Winter Games. While China’s image problems may have shifted from lingering concern over protests in Tiananmen Square to recent protests in Hong Kong, Cull’s guidance leading up to the Games can still be just as valuable to China as it was the first time around. Specifically, Beijing would be wise to harness the power of the Olympic Games to form the “ultimate distraction story” to divert attention from the world’s negative media coverage of the country. Most importantly, however, Cull recommends honesty. Whether they accept it or not, China will be known as it is, not as it wishes to be. Since the world will draw its own conclusions regarding the new China regardless of how the country feels about this matter, Cull suggests that they sit back and enjoy the Games.

Ultimately, however, this plan did not serve China quite as well as Cull had predicted it would. Between boycotts from prominent politicians and celebrities, security concerns following civil unrest in Tibet and alarm over the high levels of air pollution the Games produced, China’s “ultimate distraction story” ended up being much less distracting and a lot more revealing. With over a year of protests in Hong Kong now plaguing front pages across the globe and the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic leaving negative stereotypes circulating around the world, China’s 2022 Games could be their last shot to alter their image on such a grand stage for a long time to come. While the country has largely succeeded in the fight against COVID-19, recent boycott threats could ruin any chance China has at improving its public image. Moving forward, the best public diplomacy strategy for China is to be honest about the problems it faces. The power of sports diplomacy should not be understated, and with so much still depending on the unfolding of the competition, China still has a good chance of remaking its reputation this coming winter. While China is facing many new problems this Olympic season, there is also a huge potential for new victories.

Grace Christensen is a student in the SMPA 3350 Public Diplomacy class taught by Public Diplomacy Fellow Emilia A. Puma. She is a senior in the School of Media and Public Affairs majoring in Political Communication.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

Building Enduring Networks: The ECA

Cultural Diplomacy, PDx, public diplomacy

By Brian O’Rourke

Established in 1961, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs works to establish cultural exchanges between the United States and other countries around the world. Through academic, professional, athletic, and artistic exchanges, the ECA allows people from around the world to experience life in the United States and Americans to experience life in a variety of other countries. Through these exchanges the ECA fosters deep, meaningful relations between countries and is able to advance diplomacy through genuine connection between cultures. 

In this PDx interview, GW third-year student Brian O’Rourke talks to Acting Assistant Secretary Lussenhop about the importance of cultural exchange programs in US diplomacy at large and the role of public diplomacy in strengthening relationships between countries.

Matthew Lussenhop serves as the Acting Assistant Secretary of the ECA. He has served as a Foreign Service Officer since 1990. His career in Public Diplomacy has extended from serving as Public Affairs Counselor in the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan to the Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy to Belgium. And he has held positions in various US embassies including Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Kuwait; Muscat, Oman; Rabat, Morocco; Sofia, Bulgaria; and Manila, Philippines.

Lussenhop also discusses the importance of cultural exchange programs in US diplomacy at large and the role of public diplomacy in strengthening relationships between countries. He explains how the ECA’s cultural exchange programs have been impacted by COVID 19 and his own experience as a Foreign Service Officer. 

Enjoy the PDx episode: Building enduring networks: The ECA

Brian O’Rourke is a student in the SMPA 3350 Public Diplomacy class taught by Public Diplomacy Fellow Emilia A. Puma. He is an undergraduate student in International Affairs and Political Communication, Class of 2022.

The opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the interviewer. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

Re-Constructing Democratic Narratives to Foster Pro-Israel Support in the U.S.

Global Communication, public diplomacy18 Comments on Re-Constructing Democratic Narratives to Foster Pro-Israel Support in the U.S.
By Nikki Hinshaw, M.A. Global Communication, ’22

Narrative Challenge: Anti-Israel Sentiment [1] in the United States

Growing anti-Israel sentiment has appeared globally, including in the United States, over the past few years. While the roots of such sentiment span as far back as the beginning of the Jewish state and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, more recent controversial domestic policy decisions in Israel such as settlement operations in the West Bank have further exacerbated the issue.

This escalation of anti-Israel sentiment in the U.S. can be found in political platforms and leaders that advocate for anti-Israel boycotts and sanctions, but also through the changing opinions of everyday Americans.

Pew polling[2] detailed in the graphs on the right reveals the extent to which American publics demonstrate diminishing support for Israel. While Republicans have steadily grown their support following 9/11, Democrats—and especially the more liberal segments of the party—have consistently reported lower rates of sympathy and support.

Also of note is that more than 50 percent of American Jews—who serve as significant targets for Israeli public diplomacy efforts—identify with more liberal segments of U.S. politics. Furthermore, the more progressive side of U.S. Democratic politics comprises nearly 50 percent of the party, with a large portion of that camp being young, white college students. This data showcases the segments of American society with which Israel’s existing narrative framework is ineffective. It is within these same segments of society where domestic U.S. narratives are waning as well.

Narrative Contestation in the U.S. and Israel

The U.S. and Israel are connected not only through shared geopolitical concerns in the Middle East region, but also through shared identity—or master—narratives, which connect citizens of a nation under a set of deep-rooted values and characteristics that have been consistently reiterated over time. Both the Israel and the U.S. view themselves as narrative heroes who overcame exceptional obstacles, persecution and occupation only to create flourishing, liberal democracies that serve as international beacons of democratic values and human rights. These narratives have been crafted through historical examples such as the U.S.’s triumph over British rule in the American Revolution, or the creation of the Jewish state following devastating persecution of the Jewish people through the Holocaust.

However, in the modern day, these narratives have become less salient. In order for narratives to be widely accepted, they must be convincing, appealing, and genuine. When narratives fail to encompass these aspects, they can be contested. At the root of Israeli and U.S. identity narrative contestation is epistemological contestation, meaning that the way in which the world has come to understand the situations underlying their narratives is incongruent with the narratives they provide.

For example, within the U.S., the narrative of American exceptionalism drives a vision of the nation as a global leader that holds unique, aspirational, and liberal values. However, the recent Capitol riots, coupled with a summer of protests for civil rights, were seen as evidence of the failure of American democracy by domestic and foreign audiences alike.

As demonstrated through the aforementioned polling on American support for Israel, the view of Israel as a liberal, democratic leader has also diminished, especially through its treatment of the Palestinians and global image as an occupying power. The declining support for Israeli and U.S. master narratives indicate a need for new or altered narratives in both nations; a shared need that could prove useful in Israel’s mission to combat anti-Israel sentiment.

Re-Constructing Democratic Narratives

To garner support across the United States, Israel can capitalize upon recent U.S. reckonings with democratic freedoms and civil rights and lean into shared narratives of the complicated and ongoing process of managing a diverse, democratic state.

As the United States is experiencing similar challenges with leading as an idealistic, Democratic state globally while great injustice occurs at home, Israel should work alongside the U.S. in redefining their democratic identity narratives to reflect the idea of the “great democratic experiment.” This entails the two nations reaffirming their commitments to such values while acknowledging the constant evolution a democratic state must undergo to best uphold those associated values, which is a timely challenge in both countries. In making this change, they will project a narrative that has stronger epistemological congruency than existing identity narratives – such as American exceptionalism – that outright reject any valid criticism of evident anti-Democratic political and social challenges.

Educational Exchange as Narrative Re-Construction

Israel engaging in this narrative re-construction alongside the U.S. serves to illuminate any hypocrisies American publics project when criticizing Israeli actions, as it prompts reflection on the social and political challenges the U.S. experiences itself, especially considering its legacy of racism and slavery. In order to advance this re-construction, I propose further investment into educational exchange programs between Israeli and American youth focused on topics such as democracy, human rights, protest, and more. Such programs can both target the segment of the U.S. population who espouse strong anti-Israel sentiment; young, liberal, college-aged students, and also connect young activists in both nations who are not ignorant to the challenges their nations face, but who are committed to helping their nations reach aspirational democratic goals. 

Encouraging open, honest conversation about Israel, what it means to live in a democracy, and the challenges and benefits to such a system will introduce the U.S. and the rest of the world to a new narrative of Israel that is consistent with the complex conditions of its role in the international system today.   

For a detailed analysis by the author on the subject, Click Here.

[1] Anti-Israel sentiment is defined in accordance with the Anti-Defamation League, referring to both legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Israel, the Israeli government, and its policies: https://www.adl.org/resources/tools-and-strategies/what-is-anti-israel-anti-semitic-anti-zionist

[2] Pew Research Center bears no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations of the data presented here. The opinions expressed herein, including any implications for policy, are those of the author and not of Pew Research Center.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

Review: Academic study on the Fulbright Program and US public diplomacy

Education, public diplomacy

By Colleen Cavanaugh, BA Political Communication, ’22

Molly Bettie’s article “Ambassadors unaware: the Fulbright Program and American public diplomacy” explores a continuous historical tension between the value of the Fulbright Program as an American information activity versus a purely educational-cultural pursuit. The title of the article harkens back to an essay written by a Fulbright grantee who described herself as an “ambassador unaware,” which highlights the complicated role the participants in the government funded academic program play. Grantees are expected to fulfill their own research goals, while also acting as de facto diplomats who are expected to be representatives of their home country. Members of the program are never briefed or trained on how to facilitate the cultural exchange expected of them. Bettie describes it as a form of private international relations, making it hard for research to effectively and holistically measure the impacts of this exchange. 

This is where the central negotiation between information and educational-cultural perspectives arises. The information perspective views the Fulbright Program as part of public diplomacy in which participants become another form of media with a target audience. This approach stems from the belief that a tax funded program should reap a common benefit. The educational-cultural side of the argument views the exchanges that take place as inherently valuable and believes they should remain free of governmental influence. This preservation of academic integrity was favored by the program’s founder Senator J. William Fulbright as well. 

Bettie goes on to provide three examples illustrative of this consistent tension. After World War II and into the Cold War, Senator Fulbright was wary of the Fulbright Program being conflated with propagandistic efforts, vehemently opposing its potential placement under the USIA. Later, in 1975 during the Cold War thaw, the Stanton Report reevaluated the organization of overseas bureaucracies and proposed a combination of the information and cultural aspects, given their apparent overlap in the field. However, this was not established, as the Carter administration reorganized and established the International Communication Agency. Finally, in 1999 the USIA was dismantled, and the Fulbright Program was moved under the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in the Department of State. 

Through this long and winding history, one can see the various internal and institutional complications implicated in how the Fulbright Program should operate. It begs the question: Is there room for both informational and educational-cultural involvement? It is reasonable to suggest a balance between the two. The informational factor gives the program a purpose distinct from that of private education and warrants government funding. The educational-cultural basis lends neutrality and legitimacy. Bettie concludes the two can work in a mutually beneficial way. While I do not find this idea particularly problematic, I contend that the Fulbright Program should be separate from information activities and kept under the educational-cultural umbrella as much as possible. Though I understand this is nearly impossible under the current bureaucratic system, I agree with Senator Fulbright’s initial intentions. Individual grantees are not signing up to be ambassadors, and it is misguided to think that academic work is not valuable enough for its own sake. Yes, grantees will be facilitators of cultural exchange between their host and home countries, but this does not mean they should be required to adhere to the public diplomacy vision or aims of the United States. Attaching strings to educational programs seems like a slippery slope that could border on censorship. Bettie states that our overseas counterparts also support the educational-cultural approach, and their input should be respected. The initial fears of this exchange being seen as propaganda are well-founded, so when possible, the Fulbright Program should consider education and exchange on an interpersonal level, rather than a governmental level, of greatest import.  

References – Bettie, Molly. “Ambassadors unaware: the Fulbright Program and American public diplomacy.” Journal of Transatlantic Studies, vol. 13, no. 4, 2015, pp. 358-372.

Colleen Cavanaugh is a student in the SMPA 3350 Public Diplomacy class taught by Public Diplomacy Fellow Emilia A. Puma. She is a junior in the School of Media and Public Affairs majoring in Political Communications.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

Sharing America’s stories – the Fulbright program

Education, IPDGC, public diplomacyLeave a Comment on Sharing America’s stories – the Fulbright program

Improving US intercultural relations, communications, and understanding through exchange

By Gabriella Armonda, BA Political Communications, May 2021.

On January 27, 2021, the GW Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication presented Senator John Boozman, (R-Ark.) with the 2021 Walter Roberts Award for Congressional Leadership in Public Diplomacy.

At the sme time, the Walter Roberts Endowment awarded a $5,000 grant to Global Ties Arkansas for a micro-project focused on supporting alumni exchanges; the grant supports the continued growth for Public Diplomacy programs. I helped put together the virtual webinar for the award ceremony.

This award was in recognition of Sen. Boozman’s ongoing support of the Fulbright program and other educational exchanges. Historically, educational exchanges have been a strategic tool in public diplomacy, and a prime component of America’s “soft power.” Soft power, first defined by Joseph Nye, is the ability to influence the behaviors of those in other countries to produce desired results. Unlike other forms of international diplomacy, soft power bypasses the use of coercion and force. Much of soft power rests on constructive educational exchanges. In fact, the sponsorship of programs like the Fulbright program has allowed America to improve intercultural relations, communications, and understanding between itself and other countries. The Fulbright program awards highly competitive scholarships to U.S. students, foreign students, teachers, and scholars to study, research, teach, or use their skills abroad. This program is one way that the U.S. can build understanding and partnerships and help us to exercise our soft power. 

For many practitioners of public diplomacy, the Fulbright Program serves as a beacon of hope for America’s future by improving our relationships with our allies and adversaries. History has shown that these educational exchanges, without a doubt, have strengthened national relationships, made lasting connections, and produced a positive impact on U.S. relations with the outside world. In other words, educational exchanges help diplomacy occur more efficiently at all levels of foreign affairs by facilitating understanding and communication.

One of the most important aspects of educational exchanges is the personal relationships that form from a continued dialogue between Americans and foreigners. Without funding from Congress’s annual appropriations bill, the United States would not be able to project and spread its image, ideals, or beliefs. Educational exchanges are one of the most important avenues for ensuring that American culture and society are experienced first-hand, and we hope, are appreciated and more respected. Educational exchanges build allies and leave adversaries with fewer incentives to work against the United States on foreign diplomacy issues. Public diplomacy is not constrained to a singular form. Instead, it has various shapes and fashions from the arts, drama, and sports to science, math, and languages. Ultimately, without support from U.S. senators like Sen. Boozman, who prioritized the expansion of educational exchanges, American diplomacy would struggle and we would waste an excellent source of our soft power. The world is influenced through coercion but also soft power, which is why funding programs that focus on educational exchanges is essential to the continued strength of American democracy. 

Gabriella Armonda is a student in the SMPA 3350 Public Diplomacy class taught by Public Diplomacy Fellow Emilia A. Puma. She is a senior in the School of Media and Public Affairs majoring in Political Communications with a minor in Spanish.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

Lack of Humane Immigration Policy Limits Legitimacy in U.S. Public Diplomacy

Global Communication, public diplomacy

By Benjamin Gutman, MA Global Communication ’22

It’s three weeks after the U.S. presidential election and policy analysts in every field are scrambling to give experts and the general public alike optimism regarding the future under a new administration. This is particularly true when it comes to immigration. Lawyers, judges, and policy advocates pushing for immigration reform find themselves at the culmination of a long fight against a brutally discriminatory U.S. immigration apparatus. Violent human rights abuses against immigrants have not only resulted in death and trauma on U.S. soil, but also lasting damage to U.S. legitimacy abroad. Looking forward, advocates for immigrant justice are struggling to convey hope to an increasingly hopeless community. 

Current Analysis from the Non-Profit Sector

            There is a clear consensus among progressive immigration policy analysts that the Trump administration has engaged in a brazen, regressive, and often illegal anti-immigrant campaign which has resulted in widespread human rights violations. Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, effectively upheld by a conservative-controlled Supreme Court, infringes on the legal right of asylum-seekers to find refuge in the United States, putting tens of thousands of immigrants at risk of violence in dangerous border encampments. The “Zero-Tolerance” policy implemented in 2018 instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents to separate children from their families to facilitate federal criminal prosecutions, leaving nearly 3,000 children detained without their parents. Even as Trump’s lame duck period unfolds, his administration is moving rapidly to implement harmful regulations designed to eviscerate the asylum system and inch baseline protections months, if not years, away from restoration. 

            However, questions remain as to the extent to which the Biden administration will prioritize immigration policy, especially in the likely event of a divided Congress. Biden has pledged a 100-day moratorium on removal of undocumented immigrants and a change in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrest and detention priorities. According to the campaign website, the Biden-Harris administration will end prolonged detention and invest in an upgraded non-profit case management program to support migrants awaiting court hearings through monitored check-ins rather than forced internment. However, absent from the plan are details regarding whether case management will replace detention for all migrants or only targeted groups like families and unaccompanied minors. Other pledges include the protection of 800,000 DACA holders and an executive order reversing the Muslim travel ban. 

While these commitments promise to move the needle back to the Obama-era status quo, many question whether this will, in fact, bring a sense of humanity to a system built on dehumanizing practices. After all, the Obama administration deported more immigrants than than any other presidential administration, condoned long term detention of migrant families, and housed migrant children in temporary camps on military bases. While the administration eventually replaced many of these practices, voluntarily or under court order, the Biden administration cannot afford a time lag when it comes to correcting the human rights abuses of past administrations .  

Analysts remain concerned that slow progress and a lack of ambitious, comprehensive immigration reform could result in continued racial targeting of the immigrant community. Central to this concern lies the U.S. government’s continuous violation of international human rights agreements, specifically the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Refugee Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. In 1981, Ronald Reagan directed the U.S. Coast Guard to intercept asylum-seeking Haitian migrants found outside U.S. territorial waters and return them to Haiti. In 1992, George H. W. Bush issued an executive order allowing the U.S. Coast Guard to repatriate all Haitian migrants without the possibility of applying for asylum. In July 2014, the United States, facing a surge in child migrants arriving from Central America, pressured the Mexican government to implement “Programa Frontera Sur”. This program violated the principle of non-refoulement or the prohibition of returning a refugee to a territory in which his or her life and/or freedom is threatened. The US, which helped finance Programa Frontera Sur, is responsible for aiding and abetting Mexico’s refoulement violations.

In March 2020, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), shut down the border for all non-essential travelers including asylum-seekers. The Trump Administration has used this as an excuse to expel over 150,000 migrants (9,000 unaccompanied minors), many of whom remain in Mexico under constant threat of kidnapping, assault, and infection in border slums. President-elect Biden seeks to end the “Remain in Mexico” policy and send asylum officers to the border. These asylum officers are more likely to conduct legitimate credible fear assessments than have immigration enforcement officials, thereby allowing more asylum seekers into the U.S. 

However, in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, Biden has yet to firmly commit to allowing all asylum seekers who demonstrate credible fear back into the US to await asylum determination hearings without penalty or forced detention, as mandated by Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention and the Refugee Act of 1980. Failure to do so would give legitimacy to the CDC and DHS’s weaponizing of the coronavirus to shut land borders (not tourists arriving by plane or ship), expel asylum seekers, and in the process, fail to further protect public health. The CDC justifies this order through health risks in “congregate settings” of CBP border detentions, but fails to consider paroling asylum seekers, addressing health crises in hundreds of overcrowded detention facilities, or the damaging chain-affect on public health of deporting infected immigrants back to Central America.   

Restoring U.S. Legitimacy in Public Diplomacy

Critical to the United States’ restoration of its legitimacy as a defender of democracy, rule of law, and human rights is its response to four years of continuous racism and violence against the people that make America unique — immigrants. A gradual roll-back of Trump-era immigration policies may not be enough to restore the United State’s coveted reputation as the global defender against tyranny and authoritarianism. Egregious violations of human rights including the “Remain in Mexico” policy, the mass detention of immigrants in COVID-infested prisons, and non-refoulement violations all breach international law. This has only added to the growing global view of the U.S. as hypocritical. Why should Greece feel the need to stop violent abuse against interned Middle Eastern migrants if the U.S. continues to imprison Hispanic and African immigrants on a massive scale? 

The Biden administration’s immigration policy decisions during its first months are not only critical to the well-being of the immigrant community, but determinative of the ability of the U.S. to overcome its reputation of hypocrisy and effectively advocate for human rights protection around the world. Commentators in the U.S. and abroad are skeptical and question the ability of Congress to enact an aggressive overhaul of the current immigration system. However, despite a contentious partisan divide in Congress, the Biden Administration must make strides towards reparative justice and transformational systemic change. Progressive proposals offer a path. 

This agenda includes a push to defund institutions that have criminalized migration on a massive scale. The incoming administration must cut ICE’s $8.8 billion budget and the CBP’s massive $18.2 billion budget. Biden must clean out DHS officials loyal to a politically-charged offensive against immigrant rights. This includes a push to pass the “New Way Forward Act”, that protects individuals in DHS custody. Similarly, the “Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act” would reduce the number of private detention facility contracts and drastically decrease reliance on detention in general. Furthermore, the Biden Administration must allow all previously expelled asylum-seekers back into the U.S. under a paroled shelter-in-place with relatives or in a humane alternative to government-run detention facilities, while they quarantine and await asylum determination hearings. 

Ending the mass incarceration and criminalization of Black and Brown immigrants in the United States is of vital importance to the protection of domestic and international human rights. The U.S. has the potential to significantly influence international migration and human rights policies by working with international institutions like the U.N. to hold nations accountable for abuses. Endorsing common-sense international agreements like the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Child and the U.N. Global Compact on Migration is obvious. However, defying international law, ignoring systemic problems, and failing to address the intensity of this crisis with an equally intense response, will further tarnish the United States’ international reputation as a safe haven for refugees worldwide.  

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

The New Globetrotter: looking for an international career

Global Communication, in the field, PDx, public diplomacy

In the second part of our interview with Dr. Sherry Mueller, PDx interviewer and SMPA graduate student Victoria Makanjuola learns what college students and young professionals can do to develop a global career.

In Dr. Mueller’s book titled, Working World: Careers in International Education, Exchange, and Development , she and her coauthor Mark Overmann have put together pointers, resources and useful anecdotes for college students and young professionals to use. They both push job seekers to challenge assumptions about what it means to pursue a career in international relations and to recognize that the path to career success is rarely straight.


To the university student or young professional listening to this PDx podcast, Dr. Mueller gives more insight into how they can better prepare for such a future. Go to the podcast HERE.

Public Diplomacy Council and U.S. global engagement

Cultural Diplomacy, Exchanges, Global Communication, IPDGC, PDx, public diplomacy

Dr. Sherry Mueller heads the Public Diplomacy Council, a non-profit organization that supports the practice, academic study and advocacy for public diplomacy. The Council looks at the engagement by U.S. Government, especially the State Department and U.S. international broadcasting, but it also observes and learn from the experience of other nations.

Dr. Mueller talks about the Council, its activities and membership.

She promotes the role of PDC as a champion for better US engagement: “I’m a real believer that for any organization, it’s not enough to deliver good programs and services, you’ve got to try to impact the policy environment within which you function.”

At the same time, PDC is looking to encourage and support a new generation of professionals in the field: “If we’re not drawing new young people into the field and into professional associations that serve that field, we’re missing what I would call an opportunity for multi-generational leadership.

“In my view, it’s, it’s so important that any vibrant organization have active members of every generation, and the real art of leadership is bringing those generations together, getting them to work well together, and to tap into their complementary talents and skills.”

Please enjoy the conversation between PDx interviewer and SMPA graduate Victoria Makanjuola and Dr. Sherry Mueller HERE.

Viewing Message: 1 of 1.
 Notice

This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. Visit GW’s Website Privacy Notice to learn more about how GW uses cookies.