Nicholas Cull – IPDGC Smart Power

Bruce Gregory’s Public Diplomacy Resources – #65

June 6, 2013public diplomacyLeave a Comment

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

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

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

Michele Acuto, “World Politics by Other Means? London, City Diplomacy and the Olympics,” paper delivered at the International Studies Association, San Francisco, April 2013. Acuto (Program for the Future of Cities, University of Oxford) looks at how global cities participate in world politics as political and “(para)diplomatic” actors. His case study of London’s activities in securing, planning, and managing the 2012 Summer Olympic Games explores the evolving role of cities as diplomatic actors and how sports are used in diplomacy and urban governance. His paper also portrays larger dynamics in multilayered governance, diplomacy, and the complexity of relationships between sub-state, state, and regional actors.

Christina Archetti, “People, Processes & Practices: Agency, Communication and the Construction of International Relations,” paper delivered at the International Studies Association, San Francisco, April 2013. Building on a case study and more than 40 interviews with foreign diplomats and foreign correspondents based in London, Archetti (University of Salford) explores ways in which these official and non-official actors “construct” the United Kingdom, “its images and discourses” in the eyes of foreign publics. She argues an understanding of the micro-processes of diplomats and journalists can illuminate public diplomacy and changes at the macro level in international relations.

Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, (Oxford University Press, 2013). In this comprehensive collection of essays (50 chapters, 941 pages) by leading diplomacy scholars and practitioners from around the world, Cooper (University of Waterloo), Heine (Wilfrid Laurier University), and Thakur (Australian National University) provide a resource that is cutting edge in its focus on theory and practice and relevant to all aspects of 21st century diplomacy. Conceptual frameworks and case studies examine (1) expanding numbers and types of actors, (2) changing diplomacy domains and subjects, (3) levels of diplomatic activity, (4) institutions and mechanisms, and (5) modes, types, and techniques. Chapters of particular relevance to diplomacy’s public dimension include:

— Andrew F. Cooper, “The Changing Nature of Diplomacy.”

— Jorge Heine, “From Club to Network Diplomacy.”

— Jan Melissen (Netherlands Institute of International Relations, ‘Clingendael’), “Public Diplomacy.”

— Patricia M. Goff (Wilfrid Laurier University), “Cultural Diplomacy.”

— Su Changhe (Fudan University), “Soft Power.”

— Joseph S. Nye, Jr., (Harvard University), “Hard, Soft, and Smart Power.”

— Daryl Copeland, (University of Ottawa), “Digital Diplomacy.”

— Shawn Powers (Georgia State University), “Media, Diplomacy, and Geopolitics.”

— David Black and Byron Peacock (Dalhousie University), “Sport and Diplomacy.”

— Geoffrey Pigman (University of Pretoria), “The Diplomacy of Global and Transnational Firms.”

Steven R. Corman, ed., Narrating the Exit from Afghanistan, (Center for Strategic Communication, Arizona State University, 2013). Corman (Arizona State University) and the scholars and practitioners who contributed to this volume address challenges in the identification, construction, communication, and uses of narratives in the ways wars are remembered and storied. Their focus on narrating ISAF’s exit from Afghanistan is complemented by examination of narratives in other wars (Vietnam, the Cold War, and the Soviet departure from Afghanistan) and conceptual issues in narrative structure and validity.

Nicholas J. Cull, “The Long Road to Public Diplomacy 2.0: the Internet in US Public Diplomacy,” International Studies Review, (2013) 15, 123-139. Cull (University of Southern California) provides his version of the adoption of computer and Internet-based technologies in US public diplomacy. He argues the US was “relatively slow to make full use” of Web 2.0 technologies in public diplomacy largely because a risk averse Department of State, which took over the US Information Agency (USIA) in 1999, found it difficult to embrace their advantages and promise. A central theme is the compatibility of digital technologies and networking approaches with USIA’s institutional culture and relational priorities in today’s “new public diplomacy” model. Cull’s account draws on archival research and memories of former practitioners that tend to minimize the resistance to change that also existed in USIA.

El Molinillo, No. 52, March 27, 2013. El Molinillo, the journal of Spain’s Political Communication Association, devotes its March issue to articles on public diplomacy and nation branding. Includes:

— Juan Luis Manfredi (Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha), “Estrategia y diplomacia publica: el tiempo de law politica.”

— Teresa La Porte (Universidad de Navarra), “Contribucion de los actors no estatales a la nueva diplomacia publica.”

— Francisco Javier Hernandez Alonso (Universidad CEU San Pablo y del C. U. Villaneuva), “La importancia de lo publico en la nueva diplomacia.”

— Bruce Gregory (George Washington University / Georgetown University),“Entrevista con Bruce Gregory.” Questions and translation by Teresa La Porte and Joyce Baptista, Universidad de Navarra.

Alisher Faizullaev, “Diplomacy and Symbolism,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 8 (2013), 91-114. Fulbright scholar Faizullaev (University of World Economy and Diplomacy, Uzbekistan) examines diplomacy’s use of symbols, rituals, and ceremonies in (1) constructing and communicating meaning, (2) managing and regulating relationships, and (3) affecting collective feelings and motivating people. His article explores such issues as credibility in diplomatic signaling, uses of interactive symbolism in new media and public diplomacy, the relevance of high and low context cultures, language and image symbolism, and limitations of symbolism. He concludes with a call for more research on normative and affective functions of symbolism in diplomacy.

Ali Fisher, Collaborative Public Diplomacy, (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013). Fisher (InterMedia) bridges the study of networks and collaboration in 20th and 21st century public diplomacy with this contribution to the literature on the relational approach to public diplomacy. His book combines analysis of multi-hub, multi-directional networks in the age of social media with deeply researched case studies of networks of scholars, foundations, and government actors that were instrumental in developing American Studies in Europe during the Cold War. Public diplomacy for Fisher “is the attempt to change the odds of certain behaviors or events occurring.” He uses his historical case studies to argue the importance of collaborative negotiations in dynamic networks and diplomatic strategies that seek to make desirable outcomes more likely.

Bruce Gregory, “Hidden in Plain Sight: Implications of the 2012 US Presidential Campaign for American (‘Public’) Diplomacy,” paper delivered at the International Studies Association, San Francisco, April 2013. This paper argues that public diplomacy is becoming a legacy term and concept even as the public dimension in diplomacy becomes much more important in its study and practice. It examines three questions. (1) Did the election demonstrate enduring characteristics of American exceptionalism and episodic attention to public diplomacy? (2) What do the deaths of a US Ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya mean for an understanding of expeditionary diplomacy, diplomacy’s security / public access dilemma, and evolving concepts of diplomatic agency. (3) Are whole of government diplomacy, a blurred distinction between foreign and domestic, and concepts of ‘global public engagement’ changing traditional approaches to diplomacy? Although changes in diplomacy were only marginally on display in the campaigns, they are evident in the activities of practitioners and the contrasting “new public diplomacy” and “integrative diplomacy” models of scholars.

Brian Hocking, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan, and Paul Sharp, Whither Foreign Ministries in a Post-Western World, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael Policy Brief, No. 20, April 2013. Clingendael’s diplomacy scholars summarize central ideas in their influential Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21st Century report (October 2012) and a follow-up conference at the Clingendael Institute (March 2013). Rather than lament the loss of traditional roles or cling to roles more appropriate to other actors, the authors call on foreign ministries and their diplomats to manage a “highly heterogeneous international system” and “shape the parameters of foreign policy” through networked tools and activities in which they have a comparative advantage. Foreign ministries, they recommend, should: (1) Drive innovation in delivery and knowledge networks at home and abroad, within and without government. (2) Influence policy by ensuring these networks map the objectives of international strategy. (3) Serve as the GPS for government and society in “a post-Western world of fragmenting rule sets and contested values.” (4) Provide a 4-dimensional vision that ensures coherence over time and across geography.

Harold Koh, “How to End the Forever War?” Speech at the Oxford Union, Oxford, UK, May 7, 2013. In rejecting a perpetual “‘global war on terror,’ without geographic or temporal limits,” the Obama administration’s former Department of State Legal Advisor offers a three-part strategy: disengage from Afghanistan, close Guantanamo, and discipline drones. Instead of treating the current conflict as a legal black hole where anything goes, the task is to “translate” existing laws of war to cover a new type of international armed conflict involving continuing and imminent terrorist threats. He calls for a clearer distinction between imminent threats and counterterrorism situations in which law enforcement and intelligence resources are more appropriate. Koh’s finely argued proposals for dealing with legal and policy issues relating to Guantanamo and armed drones make this a useful reading for those developing public diplomacy case studies on these issues.

Marc Lynch, “The Persistence of Arab Anti-Americanism: In the Middle East, Haters Gonna Hate,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2013, 146-152. In this review essay on Amaney Jamal’s Of Empires and Citizens: Pro-American Democracy or No Democracy at All(Princeton University Press, 2012), Lynch (George Washington University) offers a perceptive critique of Jamal’s thesis that US policies, primarily support for authoritarian rule, are at the heart of an Arab anti-Americanism driven by Islamist parties in the region. Lynch offers contrasting views on how the Arab revolutions are reshaping attitudes toward the United States: (1) There are important opposition movements other than Islamists. (2) Despite their antipathy toward the US, Islamists are becoming regime incumbents who benefit from US support. (3) Ironically, leftist opposition movements, now marginalized in a new US supported status quo, are in the vanguard of anti-Americanism. (4) Autocrats of any stripe and their backers “can no longer assume either perpetual rule or unconditional U.S. support.”

Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President at the National Defense University,”Washington, DC, May 23, 2013. President Obama’s broad framework for a US counterterrorism strategy addresses changes in the threat of terrorism, standards for using drones for targeted lethal strikes, study of proposals for a special court or an independent board for deployment of lethal actions, diplomatic engagement and assistance, domestic radicalization, striking a balance between security and civil liberties, and closing Guantanamo. The White House also distributed a Fact Sheet . For an assessment of the speech — drafted by Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication and Speechwriting Benjamin Rhodes — its origins, and underlying policy debates, see Peter Baker, “In Terror Shift, Obama Took a Long Path,” The New York Times, May 27, 2013.

“The Pacific Century,” Public Diplomacy Magazine, Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars at the University of Southern California, Summer 2013. This issue of PD Magazine includes:

— Jian Wang (University of Southern California), “Shaping China’s Global Imagination.”

— Caitlin Byrne (Bond University), “The Strategic Century: Australia’s Asian Century in the Context of America’s Pacific Century.”

— Naren Chitty and Li Ji (Macquarie University), “Engaging Chinese Media Project.”

— Nicholas J. Cull (University of Southern California), “Issue Brief: ‘Bulging Ideas:’ Making Korean Public Diplomacy Work.”

— Public Diplomacy Magazine Editors, “An Interview with the USC Master of Public Diplomacy Delegation to China.”

— James Thomas Snyder (Formerly NATO International Staff, Public Diplomacy Division), “Fourteen Articles on Public Diplomacy Practice for the Future American Public Diplomat.”

— Alexander Wooley and Tom Perigoe, “Exporting Democracy.”

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, “Benghazi Investigation Does not Reignite Broad Public Interest: Reactions Split Along Partisan Lines,” May 13, 2013. Pew finds fewer than half of Americans (44%) are following Congressional hearings on the Benghazi attack “very or fairly closely” – virtually unchanged from late January when then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified. A deep split over how the Obama Administration and Congressional Republicans are handling Benghazi divides “cleanly along partisan lines.”

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, “Egyptians Increasingly Glum: Not Optimistic About Economy or Certain They Are Better Off Post-Mabarak,” May 16, 2013. Two years after the revolution of 2011, Pew’s surveys find that “Only 30% or Egyptians think the country is headed in the right direction, down from 53% last year and 65% in 2011 . . . Roughly three-in-four say the economy is in bad shape and optimism about the country’s economic situation has declined sharply.”

Darlene J. Sadlier, Americans All: Good Neighbor Cultural Diplomacy in World War II, (University of Texas Press, 2012). Sadlier (Indiana University, Bloomington) adds to the growing historical literature on the 20th century origins of US public and cultural diplomacy with this carefully researched study of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (CIAA). Her narrative explores conceptual issues in cultural diplomacy, its strengths and limitations, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s motives in creating the CIAA to combat Axis penetration and promote solidarity in the Americas, Nelson Rockefeller’s roles as Assistant Secretary of State and CIAA Coordinator, and chapters on CIAA’s uses of motion pictures, radio, press and publications, museums, and libraries.

Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business, (Alfred A. Knopf, 2013). Part transformational enthusiasm, part Google triumphalism, and part penetrating analysis, Schmidt (Executive Chairman of Google) and Cohen (Director of Google Ideas) offer their vision of “a world where everyone is connected.” Their analysis includes such issues as online identities, implications of WikiLeaks and their interview with Julian Assange, virtual statehood, intellectual property laws, digital provocation and cyber war, armed conflict, and alternative futures of revolution and terrorism, armed conflict, and post-conflict reconstruction.

Jordan Michael Smith, “The U.S. Democracy Project,” The National Interest,May/June, 2013, 26-38. Smith (a contributing writer atSalon and the Christian Science Monitor), surveys the origins and activities of the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, and other democracy promotion organizations funded by US Government grants. He focuses on US democratization activities in Russia, the Middle East, Iran, and Cuba and questions whether it is “smart diplomacy” for the US to fund programs perceived as undermining existing governments, contributing to a double standard in the context of US support for “friendly dictators,” and American meddling in the civil societies of others.

R.S. Zaharna, Amelia Arsenault, and Ali Fisher, eds., Relational, Networked and Collaborative Approaches to Public Diplomacy: The Connective Mindshift, (New York: Routledge, 2013). Zaharna (American University), Arsenault (Georgia State University), and Fisher (InterMedia) bring together 14 essays by scholars and practitioners that explore conceptual frameworks and case studies in the relational approach to public diplomacy – an approach that privileges “genuine cooperation and collaboration” and relational strategies as a “core imperative” of public diplomacy. Chapters assess political, cultural, and ethical issues; network theory; uses of social media; and collaborative strategies of state and non-state actors. Defenders and critics of the relational model will find this an essential collection of views by its leading proponents.

Recent Blogs of Interest

Robert Albro, “Cultural Diplomacy and Heritage Wars,” May 22, 2013, ARTSblog.

Rosa Brooks, “Authorize This: Can Obama Put the War on Terror on a New Legal Footing?” May 23, 2013; “The War Professor: Can Obama Finally Make the Legal Case for His War on Terror?” May 23, 2013, Foreign Policy National Security Blog.

Robin Brown, “Post ISA Thoughts,” April 12, 2013; “Why I’m a Network Realist,” April 16, 2013; “The Warring Tribes of US Cold War Public Diplomacy,” May 8, 2013; “Can Non State Actors Do Public Diplomacy,” May 10, 2013; “The National Endowment for Democracy and US Public Diplomacy: Part 1,” May 15, 2013; “The National Endowment for Democracy: Part 2,” May 17, 2013, Public Diplomacy Networks and Influence Blog.

Lindsey Horan, “India and Africa Building Ties Through Youth Populations,” May 2, 2013, Take Five Blog, Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, George Washington University.

Tim Lowden, “Ain’t No Sonenshine When She’s Gone. . . .” May 6, 2013, Take Five Blog, Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, George Washington University.

Domani Spero (pseudonym), “37 Former Ambassadors Urge Appointment of a Career Diplomat to State Department’s Public Diplomacy Bureau,” May 24, 2013.

Philip Seib, “Public Diplomacy’s Impact and Prospects,” May 9, 2013; “Beyond Conflicts, The Arab World’s Other Challenges,” The CPD Blog, Center for Public Diplomacy, University of Southern California.

R.S. Zaharna, “Culture Posts: Who is the Public in Public Diplomacy?” May 22, 2013, The CPD Blog, Center for Public Diplomacy, University of Southern California.

Amy Zalman, “Post-Boston: Keep Calm and Think Clearly (Part I),” April 23, 2013;“Post-Boston: A More Effective Battle of Ideas (Part II),” April 24, 2013, theGlobalist.

Gem from the Past

Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics,(Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932; Westminster John Knox Press, 2013). The coincidental release of this new edition of Niebuhr’s classic book on individual morality and group behavior and today’s popular relational and collaborative approaches to diplomacy is fortuitous. Although Niebuhr was open to the possibilities of social intelligence and moral good will in human history, particularly as they might occasionally mitigate social conflict, he was deeply skeptical of the capacity of groups to overcome “the power of self-interest and collective egoism in all inter-group relations.” Groups, he argued, are constrained by the “limitations of the human imagination, the easy subservience of reason to prejudice and passion, and the constant persistence of irrational egoism.” For these reasons Niebuhr insisted, as Langdon B. Gilkey (University of Chicago) observes in his introduction to the 1960 edition, “no group will ever be dislodged from power by persuasion, by arguments, however academically or legally elegant those arguments might be.” Quoting Niebuhr: “Reason is the servant of impulse before it is its master.” Includes a new foreword by Cornel West (Union Theological Seminary).

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

Analyzing “Cultural Diplomacy in Africa” through the IR Positioning Spectrum

March 20, 2013public diplomacy1 Comment

In his piece, “Schools, Hospitals or Cultural Relations?” John Worne outlines the “crude version” of the International Relations Positioning Spectrum (IRPS), a continuum that illustrates international relations as falling somewhere between aid and military power. As he defines it, the IRPS is “giving, helping, sharing, boasting, shouting, fighting.”

However, just as people have different conceptions of what “culture” means to them, a (cultural) spectrum, of sorts, can also vary in meaning. For example, Nick Cull, in his response to John Worne’s spectrum, argues that a more appropriate spectrum might fall: “listening – facilitation – exchange – cultural diplomacy – broadcasting – advocacy.” When using this spectrum in analyzing diplomatic efforts, though, understanding Cull’s classification of cultural diplomacy is crucial. As Cull defines it, cultural diplomacy is “an actor’s attempt to manage the international environment through making its cultural resources and achievements known overseas and/or facilitating cultural transmission abroad.” In this sense, his definition most closely aligns with Worne’s “boasting” in the sense that an actor is promoting, or projecting, its own society to others.

Each spectrum, regardless of their respective labeling, contains similarities that are interesting when applied to a case study, such as “Cultural Diplomacy in Africa: A Forum for Young Leaders.” Cultural Diplomacy in Africa: A Forum for Young Leaders (CDA) is a network of students, young professionals, and cultural practitioners from across the world “who share an interest in the African continent.” Housed and run within the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, the CDA believes in the significance of cultural diplomacy as a tool for policy and uses it to address the challenges currently faced in Africa. Further, the network “conducts ongoing activity aimed at supporting development and strengthening relations between different countries and cultural groups within Africa, and between Africa and external partners…[and] provides an opportunity to network and experience the vibrant city of Berlin.” The Forum’s objectives are defined as follows:

Establish a long-term, interdisciplinary network of young leaders that contributes on both a professional and personal level to exchange within African states;

Educate, enhance, and sustain African relationships through the empowerment of the participants;

Support valuable contributions to civil society in Africa through “Leadership Initiatives” that the young leaders will organize as part of the program;

Provide the participants with fresh insights and new perspectives to deepen their understanding of the economic, political, cultural, religious, and social frameworks of the African Project; and

Strengthen professional, economic, cultural, political, and scientific cooperation through close personal and professional relationships.

As is fairly evident in its description (and in its many objectives), the CDA Forum is composed of a number of cultural diplomacy programs and initiatives. First, the CDA Forum greatly focuses on the role of African leaders within its program. These speakers, involved in lectures and discussions include “leading figures from the fields of politics, diplomacy, academia, civil society and representatives from the private sector.” Each speaker is expected to bring his or her own insights on the theme of the Weeklong Seminar. These activities of the Forum seem to fall nicely under Worne’s “sharing” or “boasting” category of the spectrum, but the nature of program will obviously affect the classifications. For example, lectures might align more closely with “boasting,” while discussion-based programs involve more “sharing.” One note of importance is that Worne astutely observes that some words might be better suited for describing various activities than others. For instance, he states, “‘Exchanging’ is perhaps a more accurate term than ‘sharing’ because it is more actively mutual and more purposeful. ‘Telling’ is perhaps fairer than ‘shouting’ to encapsulate diplomacy and campaigning…The intent behind it and the way it is done make the difference.” Therefore, lectures may be better classified as “telling,” since speakers are sharing their insights and experiences, whereas seminars and workshops are more about the mutual exchange of information. In addition to the speakers, the program provides opportunities for the participants to network with other attendees and explore the cities in a new setting. According to ICD’s website, social and cultural activities range from film nights to debates to group dinners to visiting historical sites. Although these visits provide an outlet for the attendees to meet informally with one another, the ICD website clearly notes that during group visits, participants “are able to see the city from a different perspective. They will be able to experience all that Berlin has to offer, as well as partake in visiting Germany’s top institutions, including foreign offices, the city hall, the German parliament, and various embassies throughout the city.”

review-2010-06 — source: culturaldiplomacy.org

Looking at the program from this angle shows that the CDA Forum through Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, in addition to supporting efforts aimed at African civil society and its overall development, is also an opportunity to promote the German culture to participants. This element of the Forum’s activities would fall farther to the right of the spectrum—perhaps under boasting or shouting, but what components are necessary before an initiative is classified as ‘shouting’ versus ‘boasting’? Determining whether participants felt like a significant portion of the program was geared toward German society would be interesting to examine within this context. Worne notes in his piece that “at its best, cultural relations means more ‘helping and sharing’, less ‘shouting and fighting’ and maybe one day a less urgent need to ‘give.’

This is a fair point, but it’s difficult to know the relationship between these points within the context of the CDA Forum because there is little knowledge on the CDA Forum’s participants. Although the website classifies them as “students, young professionals and cultural practitioners,” there are great differences between the former category of students and the two latter categories.

Is this Forum primarily composed of students trying to learn and “take it all in,” or is it composed of individuals who can take the knowledge they learn and actually apply it in their home countries? Both classes are extremely important, and relationships need to be built with each group, but there is a difference when considering the short and long-term implications of exchange programs. Ultimately, when looking at the elements of the CDA Forum, each of the tactics could be placed at different points along Worne’s—and along Cull’s—International Relations Positioning Spectrum. The cultural diplomacy elements of the program attempt to build relationships with African leaders, create networks (and lasting relationships) among today’s young leaders, and even promote the German lifestyle and culture through history, tours and dinners.

Although I tend to believe that multidisciplinary initiatives with numerous aims might have a greater chance of success, do multiple aims have the ability to dilute the central, core purpose of an organization or an enterprise? Does the Forum’s focus on multiple areas mean that this particular initiative has a greater or less likelihood of experiencing success, or does the spectrum not matter not matter as much in the grand scheme of things?

Bruce Gregory’s Public Diplomacy Resources – #63

January 4, 2013public diplomacyLeave a Comment

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

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

“Amb. Ryan Crocker in Conversation with NPR’s Steve Inskeep,” 2012 Annual Banquet Keynote Address, Middle East Institute, November 13, 2012. Inskeep, the host of National Public Radio’s Morning Edition, interviews retired US Ambassador Ryan Crocker. In discussing a range of issues relating to Afghanistan and the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Crocker offers considered views on lessons from the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens. “One of the lessons I hope we don’t think we learned is let’s retrench, let’s have fewer engagements, let’s go out less, let’s do less, let’s know less. . . we have to be prepared to go to dangerous places, do difficult things. That’s what Chris Stevens was doing to understand and influence the new ascendancy in Libya. If you don’t deal with them, you’re not going to affect their behavior or even know what their agenda is.” Visit link for a six minute NPR audio feed on diplomacy risk issues.

American Academy of Diplomacy and The Stimson Center, Diplomacy in a Time of Scarcity,October 2012. This report, written from a Foreign Service perspective, evaluates “important, if uneven, progress” in staffing the US State Department (up 17 percent) and USAID (up 30 percent) since 2008. It makes resource and personnel recommendations for the 2014-2018 State and USAID budgets based on four assumptions: a “transition trap” driven by increased requirements and reduced resources, a US that should remain “fully engaged” worldwide, equal support for key elements of military and civilian power, and cuts in programs, not people, if choices are necessary. In a brief section that ambiguously treats public diplomacy separately from “core diplomacy,” but as “a core mission of the State Department,” public diplomacy is seen to have fallen short of its goals in personnel, academic exchanges, and creation of American cultural centers.

Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), “BBG Global Audience Estimate from the FY 2012 Performance and Results Report,”November 14, 2012. Weekly unduplicated worldwide audiences for US government-funded broadcasting services totaled 175 million in 2012 — down from 187 million in 2011 — according to the government agency responsible for both managing and evaluating US international broadcasting. Audiences increased substantially in Iran and declined in Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria, and Burma as their broadcasting markets became more open.

Manuel Castells, Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age, Polity, 2012. Networked society scholar Castells (University of Southern California) uses theories of power relationships developed in his book Communication Power (2009) to analyze new social movements characterized by their self-organization, distrust of political parties and traditional mass media, and reliance on the Internet and local assemblies. His research focuses on the Arab revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, the Indignadasmovement in Spain, and the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States.

Nicholas J. Cull, The Decline and Fall of the United States Information Agency: American Public Diplomacy, 1999-2001, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. In his comprehensive and deeply researched earlier book, The Cold War and the United States Information Agency: American Propaganda and Public Diplomacy, 1945-1989, (2008), Cull (University of Southern California) took the story of USIA from its origins to the end of the Cold War. His new book, a much slimmer volume, continues the narrative characterized as a downhill trajectory to USIA’s consolidation in the Department of State in 1999 and a crisis in public diplomacy in the months leading up to 9/11. He divides his account into three chronological chapters linked to the administrations of Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Throughout, he examines four broad themes: (1) political and structural issues in the road to consolidation, (2) the extent to which USIA continued its core work, (3) the extent to which USIA adapted to new technologies and approaches to public diplomacy, and (4) indications of the neglect of public opinion prior to 9/11.

Fergus Hanson, “Baked In and Wired: eDiplomacy@State,” Policy Paper Number 30, Brookings, October 2012. Hanson (Brookings nonresident Fellow, formerly Lowy Institute for International Policy, Australia) builds on his earlier paper Revolution@State (March 2012). Using new anecdotes and recent data, Hanson focuses on three of eight categories in the US State Department’s uses of social media: public diplomacy, Internet freedom, and knowledge management. Although brimming with enthusiasm for State’s vanguard role, his paper includes views of critics and assessments of areas for improvement in what is now “a core tool of diplomacy.”

Brian Hocking, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan, and Paul Sharp, “Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy for the 21st Century,”Clingendael, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Report No. 1, October 2012. Four leading diplomacy scholars associated with Clingendael and The Hague Journal of Diplomacy take a fresh and comprehensive look at “the puzzles surrounding, and challenges confronting, contemporary diplomacy.” Their goal is to go beyond familiar arguments regarding the state of diplomacy — e.g., multiple stakeholders, managing networks, and the centrality of public diplomacy — “to consider what kind of overall image of diplomacy in the early 21st century they present and their implications for its future development.” The paper offers a framework of “integrative diplomacy” in which foreign ministries act in national diplomatic systems and diplomats “increasingly function as facilitators and social entrepreneurs.” Scholars and practitioners will find this a useful and provocative conceptual framework for ongoing conversations.

Ellen Huijgh, ed., “The Domestic Dimension of Public Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2012. The authors in this special edition of HJD provide significant reinforcement to the view that a blended domestic and international approach to diplomacy’s public dimension is an essential element in study and practice. Their articles, grounded in analysis of evolving concepts and case studies, look at domestic publics as targets of governments, partners with governments, and independent public diplomacy actors. They usefully frame current debates and provide a platform for further research. Includes:

— Ellen Huijgh (University of Antwerp, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael), “Public Diplomacy in Flux: Introducing the Domestic Dimension”

— Steven Curtis (London Metropolitan University) and Caroline Jaine (The CAST Institute, Cambridge), “Public Diplomacy at Home in the UK: Engaging Diasporas and Preventing Terrorism”

— Ellen Huijgh and Caitlin Byrne (Bond University), “Opening the Windows on Diplomacy: A Comparison of the Domestic Dimension of Public Diplomacy in Canada and Australia”

— Kathy R. Fitzpatrick (Quinnipiac University), “Defining Strategic Publics in a Networked World: Public Diplomacy’s Challenge at Home and Abroad”

— Teresa La Porte (University of Navarra), “The Impact of ‘Intermestic’ Non-State Actors on the Conceptual Framework of Public Diplomacy”

— Yiwei Wang (Tongji University), “Domestic Constraints on the Rise of Chinese Public Diplomacy”

— Shay Attias (Ministry of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, Jerusalem), “Israel’s New Peer-to-Peer Diplomacy”

— Mladen Andrlic (Diplomatic Academy, Croatia), Iva Tarle (Embassy of Croatia, Jakarta), and Suzana Simichen Sopta (Embassy of Croatia, Kuala Lumpur), “Public Diplomacy in Croatia: Sharing NATO and EU Values with the Domestic Public”

“Innovations in Public Diplomacy,” PD Magazine, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, Issue 8, Summer 2012. Essays in this collection focus on a range of cutting edge questions and issues. Who is a diplomatic actor? European Union public diplomacy. Sub-state public diplomacy. Cultural diplomacy. Sports diplomacy. Digital technologies. And more. Includes:

— Paul Levinson (Fordham University), “Everyone is a Diplomat in the Digital Age.”

— Mia’a K. Davis Cross (University of Southern California), “Europe as a Security Actor.”

— Ellen Huijgh (University of Antwerp and Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael), “The Future of Sub-state Public Diplomacy.”

— Steffan Bay Rasmussen (University of the Basque Country), “Current Challenges to European Union Public Diplomacy.”

— Ali Fisher (InterMedia), “Everybody’s Getting Hooked Up: Building Innovative Strategies in the Age of Big Data.”

— Martha Alhassen (University of Southern California), “Remarkable Current: Music as Public Diplomacy.”

— Geoffrey Pigman (University of Pretoria), “‘Crouch, Touch, Pause, Engage,’ Moving Forward in the Scrum of International Sport and Public Diplomacy.”

Institute of International Education, Open Doors Report 2012, November 12, 2012. The lead finding in this year’s Open Doors Report is that international students in the US increased by six percent and US students studying abroad increased by one percent. This comprehensive report is published annually with funding from the US Department of State. In its press release, IIE emphasized that international exchanges contributed $22.7 billion to the US economy and that international education “creates a positive economic and social impact for communities in the United States and around the world.” Open Doors data and “fast facts” are available on IIE’s website.

Iskra Kirova, Public Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution: Russia, Georgia and the EU in Abkazia and South Ossetia, CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, Paper No. 7, Fall 2012. Kirova (CPD Research Fellow) analyzes public diplomacy and soft power strategies used by key actors in Russia’s “near abroad.” Her study provides a descriptive overview of Russia’s hard and soft power influence in the region and offers a prescriptive analysis of the EU’s and Georgia’s public diplomacy strategies for conflict resolution. Kirova focuses on the relevance of social, cultural, linguistic affiliations and draws conclusions from her cases for a broader understanding of public diplomacy.

Frank Lavin, “Enemies at the Gates: Security Lessons from a Foiled Embassy Attack,” Foreign Affairs, November 29, 2012. In the context of the attack on the US mission in Benghazi, Libya, former US Ambassador to Singapore Lavin draws lessons from a foiled terrorist attack on the US embassy in Singapore in 2001.

George E. Little, “Communication Synchronization — A Local Coordination Process,” Memorandum for Commanders of the Combatant Commands from the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, November 28, 2012. In this one-page memorandum, the Assistant Secretary explains his decision to replace the term “strategic communication” with “communication synchronization.” For comments on the memo see P.J. Crowley, “The Pentagon Drops Strategic Communication: Behind the Name Change,” Take Five, The IPDGC Blog on Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, December 4, 2012; Rosa Brooks, “Confessions of a Strategic Communicator,”Foreign Policy National Security Blog, December 6, 2012; and Tom Vanden Brook, “Pentagon Drops ‘Strategic Communication,'” USA Today, December 3, 2012.

Michael J. Mazarr, “The Risks of Ignoring Strategic Insolvency,” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 4, Fall 2012, 7-17. Mazarr (US National War College) argues the US strategic posture is becoming unsustainable due to a fundamental disconnect between means and ends – and “because it presumes an American relationship with friends, allies, and rivals that is the hallmark of a bygone era.” Mazarr urges a dramatic strategic shift guided by three principles: (1) strengthened economic, educational, and energy sectors at home, (2) a substantially reduced military establishment with less forward deployment and a combination of cyber and other emerging capabilities, and (3) increased investment in knowledge of complex issues and trends coupled with diplomatic efforts to share leadership burdens with others.

National Intelligence Council (NIC), Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds, December 2012. In its latest quadrennial report, the NIC uses a variety of analytical tools to identify “relative certainties” and “potential game changers” in its long-term projection of global trends. The report includes studies of potential scenarios. Its attractive design and online presentation make it an effective teaching tool. Public diplomacy scholars and practitioners will find useful its discussion of individual empowerment, increased power of non-state actors, new technologies, demographic trends, governance deficits, problems created by rapid urbanization and climate change, and nuanced discussion of the potential for US leadership. In addition to its full report, the NIC provides a useful online summary.

Lynne Olson, Citizens of London: The Americans Who Stood with Britain in its Darkest, Finest Hour,Random House, 2010. In this well-researched book, historian Lynne Olson chronicles the World War II relationship between Britain and the US through the eyes of CBS News London Bureau Chief Edward R. Murrow and two American diplomats, US Ambassador to Britain John Gilbert Winant and Lend Lease Administrator Averell Harriman. Part personal relationships, part public diplomacy, part biography, Olson’s story is about a fractious and ultimately successful alliance with contrasting needs and perceptions on both sides. Particularly useful is her account of Americans assuming a larger role in the world but who, in the words of one British worker, “needed to know more about the world before they could lead it.” (Courtesy of Jim Whittemore)

James Pamment, New Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century: A Comparative Study of Policy and Practice, Routledge, 2012. Pamment (Karlstad University / Uppsala University) explores the meaning of “new public diplomacy” viewed as a paradigm shift in which globalization, new media, and multiple new international actors challenge traditional foreign ministry structures and diplomacy strategies. His book combines in-depth conceptual analysis with empirical data from three country case studies (United States, United Kingdom, and Sweden). Pamment draws extensively on interviews with practitioners in each country and a growing research consensus that distinguishes between old and new public diplomacy. His goals: (1) “to explore and challenge some of the accepted boundaries of PD theory as it has developed over the past decade,” and (2) “to introduce both the scholarly debate and foreign ministry practices surrounding the new public diplomacy.”

Inderjeet Parmar, Foundations of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie & Rockefeller Foundations in the Rise of American Power,Columbia University Press, 2012. Parmar (University of Manchester) provides a deeply researched account of ways in which philanthropic foundations created cultural and intellectual networks that supported the projection of American power from the 1920s to the 21st century. The principal achievement of American foundations, Parmar argues, has been the construction of global networks linking universities, think tanks, corporate actors and policymakers. His book contains a thorough discussion of its conceptual grounding in a Gramscian analysis of power and a number of detailed case studies. These include the Salzburg Seminar and the Cold War’s American studies network, Nigeria and the African studies network, Indonesia and the Asian studies network, and Chile and the Latin American studies network.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, In Changing News Landscape, Even Television is Vulnerable: Trends in News Consumption: 1991-2012, September 27, 2012. Pew’s survey finds television may be losing its hold on a successor generation now getting more of its news on social networking sites, cell phones, tablets, and other mobile platforms. The report shows also digital news surpassing radio, newspapers, and magazines. Book readers show no decrease, but a growing number use electronic and audio devices.

“Soft Power, Smart Power and Public Diplomacy in Asia,” Global Asia, A Journal of the East Asia Foundation, Volume 7, Number 3, Fall 2012. Articles in this edition of Global Asia examine ways in which Asian countries and Asia as a region are “deeply engaged in the projection of soft power” — and how they are adopting and adapting soft power and public diplomacy concepts and terms. (Courtesy of Ellen Frost)

Includes:

— Nicholas J. Cull (University of Southern California), “Listening for the Hoof Beats: Implications of the Rise of Soft Power and Public Diplomacy”

— Keith Dinnie (NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands), “More Than Tourism: The Challenges of Nation Branding in Asia”

— Zhou Qingan and Mo Jinwei (Tsinghua University), “How 21st Century China Sees Public Diplomacy as a Path to Soft Power”

— Kazuo Ogoura, (Head of Tokyo’s Olympic Bid Committee, former President of the Japan Foundation), “From Ikebana to Manga and Beyond: Japan’s Cultural and Public Diplomacy is Evolving”

— Yul Sohn (Yonsei University), “‘Middle Powers’ Like South Korea Can’t Do Without Soft Power and Network Power”

— Wu-suk Cho, “Riding the Korean Wave From ‘Gangnam Style’ to Global Recognition”

— Alison Broinowski (Australian National University), “Soft Power, Smart Power or Public Diplomacy? Australia Fumbles”

Tara Sonenshine, “Measuring the Public Diplomacy of the Future,” Remarks at the Heritage Foundation, December 3, 2012. The Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs talks about the underlying purposes of public diplomacy and the Department’s policy guidelines on planning, managing, and conducting evaluations.

US Department of Education, Succeeding Globally Through International Education and Engagement, US Department of Education International Strategy 2012-16, November 2012. In its “first-ever fully articulated international strategy,” the Department advances two strategic goals: strengthen US education and advance US international priorities. The strategy assumes traditional reading, writing, mathematics and science skills are no longer sufficient. Rather, “an effective domestic education agenda must address global needs and trends and aim to develop a globally competent citizenry.” The strategy discusses integrated and coordinated activities and programs intended to achieve three objectives: (1) increase global competencies, (2) learn from others, and (3) engage in education diplomacy.

Peter van Ham, “Two Cheers for Public Diplomacy and Place Branding,” e-International Relations,September 2, 2012. In this brief online article, posted by the e-International website for students of international politics, Peter van Ham (Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael) compares overlapping concepts, methods, and goals of public diplomacy and place branding. They “are putting traditional diplomacy to the test,” he argues. However, “these newer forms of diplomacy should not be considered harbingers of a mediatized global democracy.” Hence, only two cheers.

Stephen Walt, “Music hath charms . . . but we don’t use it (updated),” Foreign Policy Blog, December 6, 2012. FP blogger Walt laments the death of jazz legend Dave Brubeck, reflects on his impact as an American cultural ambassador, and observes the US is not using “A-list musicians” in today’s cultural diplomacy. His blog includes a response from Hishaam Aidi (Columbia University and the Open Society Institute), “Leveraging Hip Hop in US Foreign Policy,” critical of current State Department efforts to progam hip-hop and rap artists.

Matthew C. Weed, U.S. Public Diplomacy: Legislative Proposals to Amend Prohibitions on Disseminating Materials to Domestic Audiences, CRS Report for Congress R42754, Congressional Research Service, September 21, 2012. CRS analyst Weed succinctly and usefully analyzes legislation that prohibits the US government from influencing domestic public opinion through “unauthorized publicity or propaganda” and US public diplomacy. Weed’s report examines long-standing provisions of the “Smith-Mundt Act” and issues relating to pending bills that would remove the prohibition on domestic dissemination of “public diplomacy information” by the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, “while maintaining the prohibition on using public diplomacy funds to influence U.S. public opinion.”

Robert F. Worth, “Can American Diplomacy Ever Come Out of Its Bunker,” New York Times Magazine, November 18, 2012. 32-35, 44. The magazine’s staff writer profiles the career and death in Benghazi, Libya of US diplomat Chris Steven and explores issues relating to fortress embassies and contrasting levels of tolerance for risk between Washington and diplomats. Includes views of former US ambassadors Ryan Crocker, Ronald Neumann, Prudence Bushnell, Richard Murphy, and Barbara Bodine. In Neumann’s view, “There’s less willingness among our political leaders to accept risks, and all that has driven us into the bunker.” For Bushnell, “The model has become, we will go to dangerous places and transform them, and we will do it from secure fortresses. And it doesn’t work.”

Gem from the Past

Mark Leonard, Catherine Stead, and Conrad Smewing, Public Diplomacy, London, The Foreign Policy Center, 2002. It has been a decade since the former director of “Tony Blair’s think tank” and his colleagues published this influential volume on the meaning and practice of public diplomacy. Drawing on research on public diplomacy practices in six countries, Leonard calls for “a new type of multilateral public diplomacy,” retooling embassy and foreign ministry structures, and infrastructures that link government and non-state actors across borders. Includes analysis of public diplomacy’s time dimensions, competitive and cooperative public diplomacy, “NGO diplomacy,” “diaspora diplomacy,” “political party diplomacy,” “brand diplomacy,” and “business diplomacy.”

Recent compilations of Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites are posted at Arizona State University’s COMOPS Journal, Matt Armstrong’s MountainRunner.us website, and George Washington University’s Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication. For previous compilations of Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites, visit an archive created by the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy.