Many use “strategic communication” (the singular form is most common) and “public diplomacy” as synonyms. While I have done the same, they are actually different. In the enduring debate over the definitions of “strategic communication” and “public diplomacy”, one thing is certain: strategic communication is global and public diplomacy is non-US (or external the geographic territory of the 50 United States but possibly not the territories and possessions).
It is then ironic and mildly amusing to find a job opening for a “Strategic Communications Officer” at State in USAJobs:
This position is located in the Office of Policy, Programs, and Resources supporting the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs and serves as Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications. The incumbent plays an important leadership role in proposing and developing programmatic public diplomacy initiatives within the Department and throughout the federal government.
The irony is that the Under Secretary does not to global engagement, specifically the Under Secretary does not do US engagement. That is the job of Public Affairs which she “owns” in title only. US (public affairs) and non-US (public diplomacy) engagement operations by the Under Secretary’s office is so bifurcated that the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs is operationally equal to rather than a subordinate under the Under Secretary. Unless the “Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications” is going to bridge the PA/PD gap in State, specifically within “R”, the title serves little purpose but to dilute and confuse the definition of “public diplomacy.” Is OPPR a step behind and adopting “strategic communication” at a time when the chief user of the title – DOD – backing away? Why is this position not the “Senior Advisor for Public Diplomacy”?
Send an Email
The title of this position may be awkward, as you note, and risks some confusion, but your post misses something rather important. The major duties of this position involve advising Under Secretary McHale on congressional issues, US international broadcasting, inter-actions with GAO and OIG and other organizations. The incumbent will serve as the Under Secretary's liaison to the Hill, to BBG and other "key influencers" in the foreign policy establishment. The good news is that by strengthening her link to BBG, U/S McHale is trying to remedy the harm caused by the Administration's failure to provide leadership at the BBG -- which you have repeatedly remarked here and elsewhere -- and to improve relations between State and US international broadcasting, which are currently in tatters. The right person in this job could also help improve public diplomacy's profile in the Congress, which could lead to additional resources. Glass half full, in my view!