public diplomacy – Page 4 – IPDGC Smart Power

President Donald Trump’s impeachment could ruin U.S. influence in Ukraine—but it won’t. Here’s why.

April 13, 2020April 16, 2020Disinformation, Europe, public diplomacy

By Joli McSherry, MA Global Communication, ’20

On July 25, 2019, President Donald Trump had a good, normal call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The rest—forgive the cliché—is now history. We know that this call led to the President Trump’s eventual impeachment and acquittal, which is both a cause and a symptom of the continued fracturing of the American public and political institutions. We already know the impact on the American public, but what about the impact America’s very important strategic partner in Eastern Europe and our characteristically friendly relationship with its people? Could this be a dangerous blow to the relationship? Fortunately, President Trump does not have to be, nor should he be, the sole diplomatic messenger. And the United States, dealing with its own conflicting national narrative as its public becomes more deeply divided, is at an advantage: Ukrainians understand what it is like to call a country that is fractured by two opposite narratives home.

As a young country sharing a long history with its aggressor, Ukraine deals with dual competing narratives for the same stories and events. One is the pro-Ukrainian, pro-West narrative, which emphasizes a shared Ukrainian fight for freedom, as well as the drive to stand against and overcome oppression. This narrative is woven into prominent figures and events, such as nationalist revolutionaries Stepan Bandera and Ivan Mazepa, and the devastating Holodomor genocide where Ukrainians were starved out by the Soviet Union. However, take those same events and one can see the pro-Russia, anti-West narrative: Ukraine and Russia’s shared history is to be honored through their bond, and those who reject the bond (as Bandera and Mazepa did) are defectors and traitors.

The narrative used by the U.S. diplomatic system focuses, obviously, on reaching those pro-West Ukrainians who favor their own democratic state, free from Russian meddling. Despite Trump’s own words and behaviors, Ukrainians who are sympathetic to European integration will be particularly responsive to the messages that continue to be put forth by a plurality of the U.S. government and population, working to see its own unrelenting desire for freedom, independence, and democracy overcome its internal ills. This resonates with the Ukrainian master narrative of overcoming oppression. All the U.S. diplomatic system must do to avoid endangering relations with the Ukrainians is continue to hold steady and show Ukrainians that nothing in the context of the relationship has changed. As far as public influence goes, the golden rule of successful public diplomacy is that it must be rooted in truth. The United States, casting an inconsistent president aside, undoubtedly has that covered.

While U.S. soft power has been on a steady decline since President Trump’s 2016 election, the United States has long held influence on Ukrainian public opinion, particularly when the choice at hand is America vs. Russia (a 2019 International Republican Institute public opinion survey gives a detailed picture of Ukrainians’ opinions of the two). This is in large part because the United States invested early emphasizing the role it can play in fulfilling the fledgling Eastern European country’s desire for freedom and democracy. The United States has continued to firmly promote a narrative of support and shared objectives with Ukraine even during times of turmoil; the pithy “Crimea is Ukraine” refrain is a great example. It has then backed these messages up by conducting a robust public diplomacy effort connecting with and engaging the Ukrainian people, and targeting some of the most pressing issues Ukrainians face, like an eager civil society and independent media, both desperate for more resources to foster their own fight to maintain freedom and stability.

In short, the United States has long talked the talk and walked the walk. Since Ukraine broke free from the Soviet Union, the United States has stood behind the strongest and most effective narrative that a freshly post-Soviet state with often insurmountable historical ties to Russia can expect to have: the right to an independent, democratic Ukraine. This would take a while to undo. Contemporarily, as America struggles to get its own domestic narratives in order in a Trump world, the use of this narrative to advance foreign policy goals in Ukraine has not waivered. The “partners in freedom and democracy” narrative holds strong, even as both countries deal with the calamities caused by President Trump. As the president’s own drama unfolded, the U.S. State Department faithfully told Ukrainians: Ukraine is so important to us; we share your values of freedom and progress; we have a shared adversary; and we will not let that enemy impinge on your right to a secure, democratic, and prosperous state.

While there is concern over a growing distance between Ukrainians and the United States in light of recent events, thanks to the decision to not stray from the strong U.S. narrative promoting friendship and cooperation among a shared goal between the two states and their people, the Ukrainian peoples’ disillusionment with America will likely not last. Despite some political decisions that left Ukrainians questioning America’s commitment, Ukraine holds an identity narrative that leaves it feeling something of an underdog truly in need of support in its fight to maintain their right to exist in the manner it feels it deserve. The country needs support, and the U.S. has positioned itself to still spread the idea its strong and unwavering support despite any of its own internal ills. In fact, those ills may help the cause—Ukrainians know well what it is like to be fractured by an internal divide. The fact that the U.S. continues to maintain its commitment despite this can only mean positive things for the relationship going forward.

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.

Challenges and Vulnerabilities for Public Diplomacy in Guatemala

April 13, 2020May 18, 2020Latin America, public diplomacy, Women

By Halea Kerr-Layton, MA Global Communication ’21

Guatemala, the Central American country home to roughly 17 million people has unique vulnerabilities and challenges for public diplomacy presented by the competing narratives, identities, and experiences of its population. Specifically, between the indigenous and the non-indigenous, or Ladino, population. The inequality, repression and lack of political representation for the indigenous population presents a particularly unique environment that fans unrest and lends itself to disinformation. Through a brief examination of some of these narratives and realities, these vulnerabilities and challenges will be examined.

An indigenous woman rests along a street. Antigua, Guatemala, 2006, d’Layne Kerr-Layton.

Two Competing Narratives

Whenever there are competing narratives or realities, there exists a vulnerability that can lead to intense polarization, susceptibility to misinformation and challenges for public diplomacy. Narratives are important socio-political forces in the world that make sense of transhistorical patterns and are deeply rooted and embedded in a particular culture. Competing narratives represent a formidable cleavage in a society. The cultural narratives in Guatemala reveal extreme inequality and divergent realities for different portions of the population. The World Bank describes the inequalities and divergent experiences of life in Guatemala saying, “in essence, there are “two Guatemalas, one with well-off, and one poor, one urban and one rural, one Ladino and one Indigenous with large gaps in both social and economic outcomes.” This history of inequality, racism, and discrimination against indigenous peoples in Guatemala constitutes a master narrative that presents a stark vulnerability for public diplomacy in Guatemala.

A Mayan man sells his artwork on the street. Antigua, Guatemala, 2006, d’Layne Kerr-Layton.

The Maya

The indigenous population in Guatemala, most of whom are Maya, is estimated to comprise roughly 60% of the country’s total population. Despite making up the majority of the population, the Mayan population faces extreme discrimination, repression, lack of political representation and access to resources such as housing and education. Even statistics about the Mayan population are contested as inaccurate due to the inability for many indigenous peoples to participate in data collection. Experts continually criticize the official census as underreporting indigenous inhabitants. The fact that many of the Maya are disadvantaged and are not officially counted, and therefore remain unrecognized by the government, demonstrates a rift between identity narratives in Guatemala.

Child with mother at marketplace. Guatemala, 2006, d’Layne Kerr-Layton.

War and Repression

The lasting trauma left by domestic wars, indigenous suppression and the history of colonization in Guatemala and much of Central and South America, has implications for successful public diplomacy. Wars create enduring cultural memories and privilege the victors for future governance decisions. Most recently, the Civil War (1960-1996) left legacies of pain, exclusion, and division in Guatemala between the Ladino and the indigenous populations. The ruling military junta at the time committed acts of terror and genocide against the Maya communities in part “to destroy the cultural values that ensured cohesion and collective action in Mayan communities.” This narrative of Mayan oppression and slaughter goes back to colonization and remains strong to this day. In 2018, 26 members of mostly indigenous campesino organizations were killed with almost no acknowledgement or atonement from the government. Guatemala is considered by human rights activists to be on the verge of a human-rights catastrophe and as desperation for justice mounts, disinformation campaigns are more likely to be successful.

Mayan woman in traditional dress in marketplace. Guatemala, 2006, d’Layne Kerr-Layton.

Poverty and Inequality

Guatemala suffers from persistently high poverty and inequality with the indigenous peoples continuously more disadvantaged. In 2016, Guatemala ranked as the number 1 most unequal country in Central America and was included in the world’s top ten most unequal countries. While poverty in the country is growing as a whole, the indigenous Mayan population is disproportionately poor in comparison with non-indigeous populations with over 75% of the ingidengous population living in poverty. Geographically, poverty is predominant in rural areas, primarily inhabited by indigenous peoples with 81% of those living in poverty and 91% of those living in extreme poverty living in the countryside. This physical divide between populations presents a vulnerability to disinformation as narratives about different socio-economic realities will be more distant and less verifiable.

A set of homes in rural Guatemala. Guatemala, 2006, d’Layne Kerr-Layton.

Representation and Identity

Social and political exclusion of the indigenous population is a challenge to public diplomacy efforts. Traditional diplomacy often happens at the top level of governments between elected officials and representatives. Political representation for indigenous Guatemalans remains extremely low, which makes diplomacy efforts to include indigenous voices difficult, but vital. The indigenous population has never gained more than 13% of the total seats in Congress. Political participation of indigenous peoples is lower than among non-indigenous populations due to challenges “including language barriers in the election process, lack of information on where the votes should be cast, political clientelism, and even violence.” The increasingly popular theory of identitarian epistemology claims that a specific identity group cannot acquire the knowledge of another, and argues that each identity group has unique rights that pertain to their exclusive body of knowledge. Furthermore, this theory argues that legitimate representation is an act on behalf of a group that the representative is themselves a part of. Therefore, without political participation and representation of indigenous Guatemalans, the government may be deemed illegitimate by some. Therefore, in order to combat disinformation, diplomatic efforts must work to engage with the indigenous population.

Funeral procession in a rural village. Guatemala, 2006, d’Layne Kerr-Layton.

Implications:

These vulnerabilities and challenges to diplomacy are not unique to Guatemala and in fact have implications for larger narratives of shared histories of colonization, racism and inequality that disadvantage indigenous populations. Therefore similar vulnerabilities are applicable by extension to much of South and Central America. These sociological vulnerabilities can be exploited and used for disinformation campaigns. In countries such as Guatemala, with a history of colonization, competing identity narratives and extreme sociological differences, disinformation campaigns will be able to tap into existing narratives about oppressors, victims, inequality and representation.

Antigua, Guatemala, 2006, d’Layne Kerr-Layton

> The author has also written Master Narratives and Their Divergent Interpretations: Challenges and Vulnerabilities for Public Diplomacy in Guatemala.

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 Battle for Georgia: How Strategic Narratives Inform and Impact a Geopolitical Struggle

April 13, 2020May 11, 2020Disinformation, Europe, public diplomacy

By Jenna Presta, BA in Political Communication ’19, MA in Media & Strategic Communication ‘21

In the 1990s, the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia declared their independence and intentions to secede from Georgia. Neither of these territories is widely internationally recognized as an independent state. However, in 2008 Russia moved troops into the regions, declaring them to be independent. Georgia, backed by most Western nations, declared Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be occupied territories. Russia’s destabilizing moves point to more than a display of dominance. They have consequences for Georgia’s larger place in the international system and its identity as a nation. These are shaped by and build upon strategic narratives.

There are several layers of narratives that grant this territorial standoff a greater meaning. Narratives are the frameworks by which we understand the world around us. When it comes to international affairs, narratives can describe and shape a particular issue, the identity of a nation, or even the international system itself. These all help to shape and explain Georgia’s resistance to Russia’s occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Also relevant to this issue are master narratives, which are those embedded within the historical memory of a nation or people. Master narratives do not have to be taught; they are passed down through a culture. Two of Georgia’s most salient master narratives are (1) the struggle for sovereignty against an imperial power and (2) the rebirth of Georgia as an independent, self-governing state. These narratives often operate in tandem; rebirth following struggle. These master narratives explain why Georgians perceive Russia’s presence within its internationally recognized borders as a continuation of the historical aggression the Georgian state has experienced from Russia and the Soviet Union. Georgia’s historical memory catalogues the occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as an affront to its sovereignty, rendering Russian narratives ineffectual.

This perspective feeds into Georgian identity narratives, which are those that describe Georgia’s identity as a country. These identity narratives depict Georgia as a strong, independent, and unified state which governs itself. Identity narratives can also constrain a nation’s behavior. Georgia, for example, values self-governance and is a nascent democracy, and thus is expected to behave as such. Additionally, Georgian nationalism has become increasingly important since it seceded from the Soviet Union in the 1991 referendum. This helps to explain why Georgia views the Abkhazia and South Ossetia controversy as an occupation of their territories, rather than accepting Russia’s narrative of support for independent states.

Narratives related to the international system are especially important in this situation as they demonstrate the aforementioned line between “occupation” and “independent states.” Georgia and most of the West have invested in narratives which demonstrate the importance of international institutions. They argue that the international community should be the forum for recognizing nations, and that, therefore, Russia’s occupation of Georgian territory violates international norms. This further influences the perspective of Georgians by characterizing Russia’s moves as an infringement, thereby decreasing the power of their narratives. These separate narratives all come together to emphasize the sovereignty and independence of Georgia as a self-governing state, in turn shaping Georgia’s – and most of the West’s – response to Russian troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

This situation further impacts Georgia’s larger place in the international system. As a relatively young democracy, Georgia is seen by many as torn between allying itself with the West and with Russia/Eurasia. Where Georgia chooses to align itself has real consequences, as narratives do shape and constrain behavior. A Georgia in a Western alliance may behave quite differently than a Georgia in a Russian alliance. In the fight for Georgia’s allegiance and national identity, Russia attempts to cast a shadow on partnership with the West in order to bring Georgia into the sunlight of a Eurasian bloc. Its presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is supported by propaganda campaigns asserting that aligning with the EU, US, or NATO will corrupt the traditions and identity of Georgia as a state. This taps into narratives related to Georgian nationalism, sovereignty and independence to create an overwhelmingly negative picture of a Western Georgia.

Despite these efforts, polling data collected by NDI shows that the overwhelming majority of Georgians do support EU and NATO membership. This could point to the salience of the Georgian narratives I’ve described here. Russian propaganda efforts do not seem to be enough to override Georgia’s historical memory, or its vision of itself as a sovereign nation that is part of a greater system. It is clear how the various narratives surrounding Russia’s presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia feed into a larger picture of Georgia’s place in international affairs – and vice versa.

> The author has also written a case study of the battle of narratives over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

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.

4 Reasons Why COVID-19 Won’t Change Italy’s Stance on Migration

April 13, 2020April 16, 2020Africa, Europe, public diplomacy

By Rachel Pastor, M.A. International Affairs ‘20

The destabilization of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region since the 2011 Arab Spring spurred a mass exodus of people fleeing civil war, instability, and authoritarian regimes. As a Mediterranean neighbor with a lengthy coastline, Italy is an attractive destination for North African migrants. Its geographic positioning has led to its outsized role as a receiving and transit country in the current European migration crisis. Due to cultural, security, and economic concerns, Italy has adopted a harsh policy restricting the flow of refugees into the country. The European Union campaign to influence a more relaxed Italian migration policy has been routinely ineffective due to a lack of understanding on the EU’s part. The fragility of the country coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic will harden the line between Italians and migrants. There are four perceived security threats that migration poses to Italian stability and the narratives shaping each perceived threat are likely to solidify after the current health crisis.

Physical Security: Italy vs. Outsiders

A major issue narrative surrounding Italian migration policy is the physical threat refugees pose to the domestic population. The typical Italian identity is founded in the belief of the “benevolent” Italian, a person with Italian heritage raised on the principles of family and hard work, and migrants have thus been identified as the antithesis. The way in which Italy has been impacted by the Coronavirus will affect the population’s ability to separate negative identity narratives from minority populations. The virus is seen to have been inflicted upon the Italian population by “outsiders.” This is already evidenced by the stark decline in Italian patronage at minority-operated stores and restaurants before the lockdown. Any counter narratives aimed at reframing Italian views on migrant populations will find it difficult to penetrate the COVID-19 story informing a larger narrative: if Italy opens its border to migrants, they will bring violence and disease.

Cultural Security: Migrants Threaten the Rebuilding Process

The Italian identity is heavily shaped by its cultural history and blood relations with a view of “Italian” and “other” group divisions. Italian society rewards hard work and bases the foundation of business and political decisions on relationship-building. Italy doesn’t believe it owes migrants anything because, in their view, they have not worked hard to deserve it. More specifically, they have not contributed to Italian society and thus don’t get to reap the benefits. The EU often misunderstands this narrative and frames public diplomacy campaigns around the message that Italy “should” open its borders to migrants, which backfires due to Italy’s view of system roles.

Migrants are also viewed as threats to Italian communities. Families are the foundation of Italian society and the maintenance of Italian family units is often considered the chief concern of all political policies. COVID-19 deaths are severely impacting Italians as they have a large elderly population, many of whom are matriarchs and patriarchs. The social aftermath of the coronavirus will be focused on rebuilding communities and strengthening family systems. Migration is viewed as the biggest risk to Italian communities as refugees are believed to dilute the cultural identity.

Economic Security: Italy Cannot Afford More Financial Stress

Italy’s economy is struggling, and domestic and foreign policies are geared towards strengthening its economic power. The richness of the Italian identity informs the belief that cultural and financial prosperity go hand-in-hand. Fortifying the economy and reducing the national debt will protect the prosperity of the Italian identity, making it a stronger European leader. Prior to COVID-19, the economic migration narrative focused on the financial burden migrants put on the Italian economy. The fact that the virus has brutally impacted Italy’s tourism industry, the main source of its GDP, will not entice Italian lawmakers to consider migration reform.

Political Security: EU Interference

Italy identifies as a prominent country, and any perceived threats to sovereignty will fuel intolerant migration policy. The German NGO rescue ship that illegally docked in an Italian port in June 2019, was perceived as an act of force interfering with Italy’s right to determine and enforce its own laws. Italy views itself as a global leader in culture, arts, fashion, and more and thus it should be respected and many EU migration narratives are interpreted as acts of disrespect. Italy promotes the story that the country is at capacity because it was not aided during the influx of maritime migrants. This narrative of abandonment supports feelings of disrespect in the EU sphere.

The inevitable weakness of the Italian state following the pandemic will be a sore spot, and the primary political focus will be to bolster state institutions to maintain respect in the global arena.

Often dubbed a “war of words,” EU public diplomacy campaigns fall short of accounting for the underlying narratives shaping Italian perspectives. The continued EU messaging approach only further antagonizes Italians and engrains their stance on migration. Any EU reframing of its current public diplomacy efforts to counter Italian narratives is a difficult feat in and of itself. The added layer of a global pandemic further complicates the situation and makes narrative alignment even more crucial following the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 Do’s and Don’ts of Doing Public Diplomacy on Twitter

April 13, 2020July 9, 2020public diplomacy, Social Media

By Kaitlyn Angrove, M.A in Media and Strategic Communication ’20

Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have become many people’s main sources of information, connection and entertainment. Their vast user bases and the ability to post almost anything without it being censored or fact checked, gives pundits, politicians and average citizens, the feeling of invincibility. Anyone can post their opinions and “insights” about politics and governance with the chance of it being picked up and reposted by journalists, influential figures or people with large follower counts.

The State Department and Public Diplomacy Actors must now deal with a constant stream of misinformation, disinformation and the highlighting of content that is harmful to one’s agenda. Twitter appears to be a platform in which many PD people and institutions have trouble managing.

As a Media Manager, I often see people struggling with how to navigate Twitter while supporting one’s agency, reinforcing helpful narratives and dispelling harmful rhetoric. These do’s and don’ts aim to alleviate any guesswork that you may have.

DO engage with content posted by people outside of the PD Sphere.

A retweet by the Embassy of Ireland in America.

Tasked with posting on behalf of an Embassy, Government Department or appointed official is no easy task. For many it is natural to spend time retweeting and posting “safe content,” that is posts from other verified embassy accounts, elected and appointment officials from your own government, and posts that have been preapproved by one’s communications team. This pattern makes official accounts look impersonal, cold and out of touch with how Twitter is used by the general public. By searching for specific key words or favorable hashtags, official accounts can highlight tweets that are both favorable to their communications strategies and read as authentic.

DON’T retweet content without investigating the individual’s profile and past tweets.

Just as it is important to post and repost content that comes off as personal and is mission driven, it is imperative that you examine the account that you are reposting from and are highlight to your followers. A Twitter user could post a wonderful comment about a speech that your ambassador gave at a recent event, the impulse would be to retweet that positive account, as is. The problem with doing so is that you must be 100% confident that the all the other public tweets from this user are appropriate and would not bring damage or embarrassment if found. A solution is to take a screenshot of the tweet, blur out the username and then repost the image with your comment. This can protect the privacy of the tweeter who might not have expected the additional attention that an official account retweeting you can bring and protects you from being connected with inappropriate or off brand tweets.

Pixelate usernames using free online tools or photoshop.

DO strategically subtweet

The subtweet is a post that refers to a specific user, topic or tweet by another user without directly mentioning them or tagging them in the tweet. While it is most used as way to be passive aggressive or sly on twitter, the subtweet can have another function for those in public diplomacy. There are times when an embassy, ambassador or government official wants to reply to a tweet directly to correct information or retort the narrative that another user is giving for a series of events. The problem with replying or reposting the tweet with the user information blocked out, is that you then give credence to a narrative or idea that you are trying to disprove! Instead of drawing attention to it, craft a tweet that supports your narrative and incorporates news values i.e. topics that lead to more digital impressions.

DON’T use official accounts to promote political messages that harm the work of PD actors in the field.

This tweet produced by the official Department of State twitter might play well to an American base, specifically conservatives, but does not take into account preexisting narratives that Muslim Americans and Muslims around the globe may hold. By using the phrase “Islamic Revolution” the state department is suggesting that Islam is the reason behind Iran’s human rights abuses, instead of acknowledging that terror is done around the world in the name of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. An interpretation of Islam that is counter to what millions of Muslims practice around the globe is the reality in Iran. This tweet reinforces the narrative that western governments see Islam as an inherent problem, one that needs to be solved and that its followers need to be freed from.

Here’s what the State Department could have tweeted:

41 years ago, saw a regime change in Iran that has resulted in great harm to many of its people. We will continue to support Iranian Americans and Iranians as a whole as they work towards a government that is more reflective of its people and of democratic values.

While there are dozens more tips that I could share, I will leave you with one last thought.

When tweeting, focus on amplifying messages which support your goals without giving undue credence to those that don’t.

> The author has also written on Strategic Narratives involving Canada and Saudi Arabia. .

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.

100th Issue of Bruce Gregory’s Resources on Diplomacy’s Public Dimensions

March 5, 2020April 15, 2020Education, Global Communication, public diplomacy

IPDGC is proud to announce the 100th Issue of Bruce Gregory‘s collection of resources on public diplomacy (PD) and related subjects. First published in June 2002, Gregory’s list is an
annotated bibliography of readings and other materials intended for teachers, students, and PD practitioners.

Gregory taught classes on public diplomacy, media and global affairs as an adjunct professor in the Global Communication MA program, at the Elliott School of International Affairs and School of Media and Public Affairs at the George Washington University (2002-2017). He is also the former director of IPDGC (2005-2008) and a former member of the Walter Roberts Endowment committee (2006-2018).

Read the issue #100 here.

Joseph S. Nye and Tara Sonenshine at the Walter Roberts Lecture. Photo by Sydney Elle Gray/GW Photos

Soft Power scholar Joseph Nye speaks at Walter Roberts Annual Lecture

January 31, 2020April 16, 2020Education, IPDGC, public diplomacy

On Thursday, January 30, eminent scholar of international relations and political scientist Dr. Joseph S. Nye delivered the keynote address for the 2020 Walter Roberts Annual Lecture at the George Washington University Elliott School of International Relations. Dr. Nye spoke on the topic of his latest book, “Do Morals Matter: Presidents and Foreign Policy.”

The Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication (IPDGC) Director Janet Steele had noted in her introduction, “It is highly fitting that Professor Nye be the speaker at an annual lecture series that honors the memory of Walter R. Roberts… (who) throughout his 42-year career, was dedicated to the advancement of public diplomacy.”

In addressing the audience at the Walter Roberts Lecture, Nye suggested that they consider evaluating presidential decision-making along three ethical dimensions: intentions, means, and consequences. Nye spoke on how presidents, from World War II to the current day, were not fully constrained by the structure of the system and were able to consider choices for action – or non-action.

Hard power works pretty quickly. Soft power takes a long time – Joseph S. Nye

Later in a discussion moderated by Tara Sonenshine, former Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Nye fielded a variety of questions from the audience; ranging from the current U.S. global role to Russian soft diplomacy – “there’s not much of it.”

The Walter R. Roberts Endowment, which supports the Annual Lecture, was created by the Roberts family and housed at the George Washington University, has hosted annual lectures with prominent foreign policy figures since 2011.

The video and photos of the 2020 Walter Roberts Annual Lecture is shared on the IPDGC website.

Katherine Brown, CEO & Pres Global Ties US

Latest PDx interview: Katherine Brown, Global Ties US

January 6, 2020February 4, 2020Exchanges, PDx, public diplomacy

To welcome the new year, IPDGC had a conversation with CEO and President of Global Ties U.S. Dr. Katherine Brown. We asked her about the importance of citizen exchanges and how these programs contribute to the greater U.S. public diplomacy efforts globally. Citizen exchanges are win-win experiences – with the U.S. gaining as much from these exchanges through sharing in scientific research and development, technology transfers, economic growth through trade and business, and cultural enrichment.

Brown also shares how her past experiences have led her to this role in leading the largest and oldest citizen diplomacy network in the U.S.

Global Ties US will be holding its 2020 National Meeting in Washington, DC from January 22-25, 2020. Learn more about the event and how to register here: https://www.globaltiesus.org/events/national-meeting

(Registration is open until January 10, 2020)

Latest PDx interview: PD Fellow Emilia Puma

December 4, 2019February 4, 2020IPDGC, public diplomacy

Public Diplomacy Fellow Emilia A. Puma had a great conversation with SMPA Undergraduates Jason Katz and Sarah Schornstein about her career in the U.S. Foreign Service. As a 28-year veteran, Prof Puma talked about her work – most recently as Acting DAS for Public Diplomacy and Central Asian Affairs in the South and Central Asian Affairs Bureau and also Foreign Policy Advisor to the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force (CSAF) among others.

Jason and Sarah also asked Prof Puma about her thoughts about a career in diplomatic service and getting the diversity of experiences that she has enjoyed.

Enjoy the conversation here.