Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: Books, Articles, Websites #103

October 2, 2020

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. 

Bruce Gregory
Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication
George Washington University

Sohaela Amiri and Efe Sevin, eds., City Diplomacy: Current Trends and Future Prospects, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020).  Amiri (Pardee RAND Graduate School) and Sevin (Towson University) have compiled an excellent collection of essays that take the study and practice of city diplomacy to a new level.  Their focus goes beyond megacities and high-profile issues (climate, counterterrorism, trade) to include cities of different sizes, city networks, and varieties of topics and practices (global governance, twinning, summits, museums, representation, negotiation, public diplomacy, branding).  Attention is paid to the mutually advantageous dialogue of scholars and practitioners.  Case studies by a geographically diverse group of authors provide evidence-based analyses of cities in and beyond the US and Europe.  This book plows new ground in multidisciplinary scholarship and imaginative explorations of evolving roles and methods in diplomatic practice.

Michele Acuto (Senior Fellow, Bosch Foundation Global Governance Futures Program), “Prologue: A New Generation of City Diplomacy.”

Sohaela Amiri and Efe Sevin, “Introduction.”

Emma Lecavalier (University of Toronto) and David J. Gordon (University of California Santa Cruz), “Beyond Networking? The Agency of City Network Secretariats in the Realm of City Diplomacy.”

Hannah Abdullah (London School of Economics) and Eva Garcia-Chueca (University of Coimbra, Portugal), “Cacophony or Complementarity? The Expanding Ecosystem of City Networks Under Scrutiny.”

Benjamin Leffel, (University of California Irvine), “Marine Protection as Polycentric Governance: The PEMSEA Network of Local Government.” 

Bruno Asdourian (University of Fribourg) and Diana Ingenhoff, (University of Fribourg), “A Framework of City Diplomacy on Positive Outcomes and Negative Engagement: How to Enhance the International Role of Cities and City/Mayor Branding on Twitter?”

Natalia Grincheva (University of Melbourne), “Museums as Actors of City Diplomacy: From ‘Hard’ Assets to ‘Soft’ Power.”

Rhys Crilley (The Open University) and Ilan Manor (University of Oxford), “Un-nation Branding: The Cities of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in Israeli Soft Power.”

Andrea Insch (University of Otago, New Zealand), “Do Cities Leverage Summits to Enhance Their Image Online? Examining the Twittersphere of the Inaugural U20 Mayoral Summit, Buenos Aires, Argentina.”

Ray Lara (University of Guadalajara), “How Are Cities Inserting Themselves in the International System?”

Tamara Espiñeira-Guirao (Secretary General, Atlantic Cities), “Strategies for Enhancing EU City Diplomacy.”

Sohaela Amiri, “Making US MOIA Sustainable Institutions for Conducting City Diplomacy by Protecting Their Precarious Values.”

Hun Shik Kim (University of Colorado Boulder) and Scow Ting Lee (University of Colorado Boulder), “The Branding of Singapore as City of International Peace Dialogue.”

Eika Auschner (University of Cologne), Liliana Lotero Álvarez, (Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Colombia), and Laura Álvarez Pérez, (Universidad de Medellin), “Paradiplomacy and City Branding: The Case of Medellin Colombia (2004-2019).”

Valentina Burkiene (Klaipeda University), Jaroslav Dvorak (Klaipeda University), and Gabrielė Burbulytė-Tsiskarishvili (Klaipeda University), “City Diplomacy in Young Democracies: The Case of the Baltics.”

Louis Clerc (University of Turku), “Turku (Finland) as a Case Study in the City Diplomacy of Small Urban Centers, 1971-2011.”

C. Robert Beecham, Dire Road to the Untold: A Soldier of Fortune Meets His Match, CreateSpace Publishing, 2017.  Bob Beecham, a retired foreign service officer, served in combat with the Army in World War II and then in a career that began in the Department of State and lasted for decades in overseas and Washington-based assignments with the US Information Agency.  For several years in retirement he published a monthly newsletter, the Chronicle of International Communication.  His book is a work of fiction featuring diplomats, spies, journalists, broadcasters, lawmakers, and bureaucrats.  He tells a good story.  He has a talent for crisp dialogue.  Perhaps most interesting to public diplomacy enthusiasts is his underlying narrative about the personalities, operational issues, and organizational cultures that defined an era when a new breed of diplomats, inventive and professional, challenged traditional diplomatic practices.  Actions, discourse, and names, with the exception of a few senior leaders, are fictional.  Decidedly not fictional is his informed and compelling account, shaped by personal experiences, of how a generation of reformers and builders institutionalized US diplomacy with foreign publics.  Others with different experiences have contrasting versions.  The careers of these pioneering practitioners, and their spirited debates grounded in common pursuits, are critical to understanding US diplomacy’s public dimension. 

Alexander Buhmann and Erich J. Sommerfeldt, Pathways for the Future of Evaluation in Public Diplomacy, CPD Perspectives, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, Paper 1, August 2020.  In this exceptionally useful paper, Buhmann (BI Norwegian Business School) and Sommerfeldt (University of Maryland) summarize and explore the implications of twenty-five in-depth anonymous interviews with public diplomacy practitioners in the US Department of State (2017-2018).  The authors begin with observations on the state of evaluation in US public diplomacy, a conceptual overview of practitioners’ perspectives on evaluation, and a summary of their research methodology.  They turn then to a discussion of practitioner responses organized in thematic categories.  The balance of the paper is devoted to proposals for changes in approaches and procedures for public diplomacy evaluation.  This brief annotation does not do justice to the findings and recommendations in this paper.  It is a thoughtful blend of study and practice, which earned recognition as the 2019 Best Faculty Paper from the International Communication Association’s Public Diplomacy Interest Group.  It deserves a close read by diplomacy scholars and practitioners.  

William J. Burns and Linda Thomas-Greenfield, “The Transformation of Diplomacy: How to Save the State Department,”  Foreign Affairs, September 23, 2020.  Burns (Carnegie Endowment) and Thomas-Greenfield (Albright Stonebridge Group) were members of the Foreign Service class of January 1982.  Now retired, they assess a “badly broken” US diplomacy. Their strategy to reinvent diplomacy for a new era is two-fold: (1) accept the nation’s “diminished, but still pivotal, role in global affairs,” and (2) invest in the people who drive US diplomacy (foreign service, civil service, and foreign national staff).  They offer a rich menu for what is to be done.  A top to bottom diplomatic surge; waiting for a generational replacement won’t do.  Bring back personnel who were forced out.  Expand lateral entry from the civil service and Americans with skills in global health, climate change, cyber, and other domains.  Create a diplomatic reserve corps.  Recruit spouses with professional experience.  Establish a ROTC type program for college students.  Treat lack of diversity in US diplomacy as a national security crisis.  Numerous other recommendations relate to recruitment, training, promotion, assignments, digital technologies, fortress embassies, and a “torpid bureaucratic culture.”  Burns and Thomas-Greenfield provide a compelling diagnosis of today’s wreckage at the State Department and a bevy of ambitious and knowledgeable proposals.  Missing are an imaginative re-thinking of the Department’s role in whole of government diplomacy and pragmatic roadmaps needed to get from problems to solutions. 

“The Dereliction of American Diplomacy: Facing the World, Blindfolded,”  August 13, 2020, The Economist.  Beginning with the symptomatic low-profile response of the American embassy in Lebanon to the Beirut port explosion, The Economist surveys the “widespread malaise” of American diplomacy using data, a wide range of quotes, and three pages of analysis and examples.  Observations on the State Department’s institutional deficiencies pre-Trump sit side-by-side with views on the “blatant hostility” and “hollowing out of expertise” brought by the Trump/Pompeo “carnage.”  Reform proposals are briefly described including suggestions that the “scale of transformation needed in American diplomacy” requires “a new act of Congress.”  

“The Diplomatic Pouch,” Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University.  Georgetown’s ISD has upgraded its website and launched a new blog, The Diplomatic Pouch.  The blog will examine evolving global challenges in diplomacy, highlight diplomatic issues, and provide information on using the ISD’s case studies library.  See also the link to Kelly M. McFarland and Vanessa Lide, “Making the Case: Using Case Studies in the Classroom,” an excellent two-page guide to teaching with case studies.  And a Zoom webinar (1:06), “The New Reality: Teaching International Affairs,” led by ISD Director Barbara Bodine.

Richard Haass, The World: A Brief Introduction, (Penguin Press, 2020).  Instead of insights and advice for policy elites, his standard repertoire, Council on Foreign Relations president and cable news commentator Richard Haass has written a different kind of book.  His objectives are to provide the basics of what people of all ages need to know to become globally literate and filter the fire hose of news headlines – and to fill a deplorable gap in high school and college curricula.  He divides his explanation of “the world” into four parts. Early chapters focus on history from a global perspective.  Short chapters then address six geographic regions.  The third and longest section discusses global challenges: climate change, terrorism, cybersecurity, nuclear proliferation, migration, health, and trade.  Climate is identified as “conceivably the defining issue of this century.”  A concluding section deals with world order, sources of disorder, and principal sources of stability.  Haass writes with exceptional clarity.  This is not a theoretical textbook, although surprisingly he singles out Australian academic Hedley Bull’s The Anarchical Society: A Study of World Order in Politics for a considered look.  Chapters can be read in isolation, or the book flows as whole.  Diplomacy teachers looking for lecture ideas or concise readings to frame varied contexts of diplomatic practice will find this an excellent resource.  Extensive notes, bibliographic resources, and a guide to following current events and global affairs are a plus.

James Pamment, “The EU’s Role in the Fight Against Disinformation: Developing Policy Interventions for the 2020s,”  September 30, 2020; “Crafting a Disinformation Framework,” September 24, 2020; “Taking Back the Initiative,”  July 15, 2020, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  In these three reports, Pamment (Lund University, Carnegie Endowment) examines disinformation threats, definitional and conceptual issues, and EU policy choices in the 2020s.  The reports, commissioned by the European External Action Service and prepared independently by Pamment, are based on interviews and workshops with experts in the field.  They are posted on the Carnegie Endowment’s Partnership for Countering Influence Operations.  See also Steven Bradley, “Securing the United States from Online Disinformation – A Whole of Society Approach”  August 24, 2020.  

Pew Research Center, “U.S. Image Plummets Internationally as Most Say Country Has Handled Coronavirus Badly,”  Pew Research Center, September 2020.  Pew’s Richard Wilke, Janell Fetterolf, and Mara Mordecai, in this new 13-nation study find that America’s reputation has sunk further among key allies and partners.  “In several countries, the share of the public with a favorable view of the U.S. is as low as it has been at any point since the Center began polling on this topic two decades ago.”  In the UK it’s 41%.  In France, 31%.  In Germany, 26%.  Ratings for President Trump, low throughout his presidency are trending lower.  South Korea showed a particularly sharp decline from 46% in 2019 to 17% in 2020.  Trump’s lowest rating is in Belgium at 9%.  His highest is in Japan at 25%.  Germany’s Angela Merkel has the highest rating with a median of 76% across the countries polled.  See also Adam Taylor, “Global Views of U.S. Plunge to New Lows Amid Pandemic, Poll Finds,”  September 15, 2020, The Washington Post.

Ben Rhodes, “The Democratic Renewal: What It Will Take to Fix U.S. Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs, September/October, 2020, 46-56.  Rhodes, former Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and author of The World as It Is: A Memoir of the Obama White House, argues that a Biden administration, if elected, will face deep global concerns not only about the destruction brought by the Trump presidency, but by the fact that Americans elected him in the first place.  Nevertheless, global protests in support of Black Lives Matter, climate strikes, protests in Hong Kong, and demonstrations against structural economic inequality are reasons to hope for democratic renewal.  Rhodes’ advice: (1) Avoid fixating on Trump’s mistakes and returning to the core tenets of post 9/11 US foreign policy (aka “the post 9/11 playbook of the Blob”).  (2) Move quickly on domestic and global responses to COVID-29.  (3) Because climate change is the leading US national security threat, mitigation, adaptation, and energy efficiency must be the centerpiece of US foreign policy.  (4) Undertake badly needed democratic reforms in the United States and rebuild ties with democratic allies.  (5) Initiate coordinated efforts to promote transparent governance and root out corruption.  (6) Speak out against human rights abuses.  (7) Regulate social media companies.  (8) Abandon weaponized immigration policies and pursue legislation on immigration reforms and refugee policies.  Rhodes concludes with a call to remove the artificial separation between foreign and domestic policies.  A Biden administration must “establish itself as the leader of democratic values, strong alliances, and US leadership” and be willing “to make the sustained arguments necessary to reshape public opinion” at home and abroad.

William Rugh, “U.S.-China Relations and the Need for Continued Public Diplomacy,” American Diplomacy, August 2020.  Ambassador (ret.) Rugh makes a thoughtful case for US public diplomacy in the context of three controversial issues: China’s Confucius Institutes, President Trump’s attacks on VOA, and Chinese restrictions on US embassy public diplomacy programs in China.  In framing America’s response, he argues that fears of Confucius Institutes are exaggerated and that borders open to Chinese students and students from other authoritarian states, with appropriate safeguards, are beneficial to sending and receiving countries.  Lies and election interference should be exposed and countered.  “Building walls and closing institutions,” however, works against US national interests.  

Anne-Marie Slaughter, “Reinventing the State Department,” Democracy Journal of Ideas, September 15, 2020.  Princeton’s Anne-Marie Slaughter (CEO of New America, former Clinton era State Department policy planning director) calls for “revolutionizing the entire field of diplomacy” and radical reinvention of the Department and Foreign Service.  Key recommendations relate to recruitment, assignments, and structure.  (1) Recruit talented Americans with global expertise for 5-year tours of duty renewable once or perhaps twice.  (2) Transform the Foreign Service into a Global Service with very different rules.  (3) Assemble multi-sector teams drawn from government, business, and civil society.  (4) Open up and “de-professionalize” the traditional Foreign Service by bringing in experienced individuals from multiple professions to work on global problems.  (5) Break down walls between Foreign Service and Civil Service and draw on talent from across national, state, and local governments.  (6) Do more to project to the world Indigenous Americans, African Americans, and many second-generation immigrant Americans with linguistic skills and cultural competence.  (7) Get it done through Congress (either through an independent commission or bipartisan review by Committee staff) and tie changes to State Department funding.  (8) Transform USAID into a new Cabinet Department of Global Development with a new Global Development Service.  Slaughter’s informed and innovative ideas deserve a close look and much discussion.  She recognizes strong resistance is likely from the American Foreign Service Association.  In keeping with more than a decade of discourse among national Democrats, she does not mention “public diplomacy” or frame it as a concept.  Her views channel Secretary Clinton’s “diplomacy, development, and defense.”  It is unclear whether she is speaking for Vice President Biden and Senator Harris.  She clearly is speaking to them.    

Dina Smeltz, Ivo Daalder, Karl Friedhoff, Craig Kafura, and Brendan Helm. Divided We Stand: Democrats and Republicans Diverge on US Foreign Policy, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, September 2020.  The Chicago Council’s latest polling shows continuing overall support by Americans for an active US role in the world.  A majority (68%) support security alliances, free trade, and cooperation on global issues.  Sharp divides exist between the parties on which issues are most important and how the US should deal with them.  Democrats favor an internationalist approach, foreign assistance, and participation in international organizations.  Republicans favor a nationalist approach, creating self-sufficiency, and unilateral methods in diplomacy and global engagement.  The top three threats in rank order for Democrats: COVID-19, climate change, and racial inequality.  For Republicans: China as a world power, international terrorism, immigrants and refugees.  For Independents: COVID-19, political polarization in the US, and domestic violent extremism.  See also Susan Rice, “A Divided America Is a National Security Threat,”  September 22, 2020, The New York Times.

US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, “Minutes and Transcript From the Quarterly Public Meeting on ‘Data Driven Public Diplomacy, Six Years Later,’” June 23, 2020.  At its virtual meeting on June 23, the Commission’s members and staff and a panel of State Department experts discussed developments in using research and evaluation tools to formulate and evaluate public diplomacy programs since publication of the Commission’s influential report, Data Driven Public Diplomacy: Progress Towards Measuring the Impact of Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting Activities in 2014.  Moderated by the Commission’s Executive Director, Vivian S. Walker, the meeting included presentations and responses to questions by Amelia Arsenault, Senior Advisor and Evaluation Team Lead, Office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs; Luke Peterson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Global Public Affairs; and Natalie Donohue, Chief of Evaluation in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.  Commission Senior Advisor Shawn Baxter moderated the online Q&A.

US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, “Public Diplomacy and the ‘New’ Old War: Countering State-Sponsored Disinformation,” Special Report, September 20, 2020.  This detailed 59-page report, co-authored by the Commission’s Executive Director Vivian S. Walker, Ryan E. Walsh, Senior Advisor, Bureau of Global Public Affairs, and the Commission’s Senior Advisor Shawn Baxter, looks at technology-enabled information-based threats to US public diplomacy and a variety of issues related to countering state-sponsored disinformation.  Siloed initiatives that mitigate against coordinated effort and understanding of how public diplomacy treats the problem.  Assessments of programs, coordination, and resource distribution.  Profiles of selected US embassy and host country perspectives.  Recommendations call for a State Department wide lexicon of terms and definitions, resource investment in digital capabilities, restructuring overseas public diplomacy sections, creating a job series for mid-career specialists with digital expertise, experimenting with seed programs, and impact monitoring and evaluation.  The report was released at a Commission webinar on September 30 featuring panelists James Pamment (Lund University and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Graham Brookie (Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab) and US Ambassador (ret.) Bruce Wharton, former acting Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.  An online transcript of the webinar will be forthcoming. 

Vivian S. Walker and Sonya Finley, eds., “Teaching Public Diplomacy and the Instruments of Power in a Complex Media Environment: Maintaining a Competitive Edge,” U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, August 2020.  The Commission’s Executive Director Vivian Walker and National War College Professor Sonya Finley have compiled papers presented at a symposium the Commission convened at the National War College in January 2020.  Its purpose was to “build a body of expertise around the teaching of public diplomacy, information, and influence activities.”  The papers, written by scholars and practitioners, divide into three parts: concepts in the information space, influence strategies, and approaches to teaching public diplomacy, information, and intelligence operations in the classroom.  Several stand out.  

— Richard Wilke (Pew Research Center) provides compelling, evidence-based, documentation of declining trust in the United States and the importance of understanding public opinion in “Attitudes and the Information Environment for Public Diplomacy.”  

— Howard Gambrill Clark (College of Information and Cyberspace, National Defense University) offers provocative ideas about the meaning of influence in “How to Teach Influence: Thoughts on a New Scholarly Discipline.”  In “Tuning the Information Instrument of Power: Training Public Diplomacy Practitioners at the Department of State’s Foreign Service Institute,” 

— Jeff Anderson (Department of State) observes that the PD training curriculum has changed because “the State Department has placed policy promotion at the heart of its activities.”  In a paper likely to prompt debate among practitioners, he argues that “Broadly speaking, all PD training courses at FSI aim to provide students with the skills to identify policy objectives and develop and implement strategic campaigns to achieve those goals.”  

The report includes a useful collection of curriculum overviews in eleven military service colleges and schools.  Unstated, but abundantly clear in this compilation, is the stark contrast between the US military’s deep commitment to mid-career professional education (as a necessary complement to training) and the State Department’s marginal attention to education as it continues to focus on skills training.

Joshua Yaffa, “Is Russian Meddling As Dangerous As We Think?”  The New Yorker, September 7, 2020.  The New Yorker’s Moscow correspondent asks if by focusing on Russia’s disinformation we overlook our weaknesses as victims.  He makes several arguments.  One challenge in understanding disinformation operations is separating intent, which may be significant, from impact, which may be less so.  There is nothing inherently foreign about the rise and spread of disinformation.  Russian disinformation exists, but “compared with, say, Fox News pundits like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, let alone Trump himself, the perceived menace of Russian trolls far outweighs their actual reach.”  Often media reaction to Russia’s efforts inflates their danger and magnifies their reach.  Yaffa concludes by questioning solutions that focus on “winning the information wars” or “better messaging.”  Rather, “The real solution lies in crafting a society and a politics that are more responsive, credible, and just.”  His analysis provides evidence and summarizes the thinking of experts such as Thomas Rid,  Peter Pomerantsev,  and Timothy Wu.  (Courtesy of Larry Schwartz) 

Robert B. Zoellick, America and the World: A History of U.S. Diplomacy and Foreign Policy, (Twelve, Hachette Press Group, 2020).  This book is an interpretation of the scholarship of historians and biographers by a practitioner with decades of experience.  Zoellick served in the Treasury Department, World Bank, and White House, as Ambassador and US Trade Representative, and as Counselor, Under Secretary, and Deputy Secretary in the Department of State.  Histories of US diplomacy are not that abundant, and Zoellick’s has much to offer.  Personalities and events come alive in well-written chapters that feature stories of presidents from Thomas Jefferson to Theodore Roosevelt to George H.W. Bush and diplomats from Ben Franklin to William Seward to Henry Kissinger.  This is a hefty volume (548 pages).  It is more his choice of interesting actors and events than a comprehensive history.  His account frames five diplomatic traditions: (1) US concentration on North America, (2) transnationalism, trade, and technology, (3) changing views of alliances, (4) understanding domestic public attitudes, and (5) the US as “an exceptional, ongoing experiment.”  Zoellick is a pragmatist and a realist.  In Walter Russell Mead’s categories, he is no Jeffersonian, Wilsonian, or Jacksonian, he is a Hamiltonian.  Zoellick’s diplomacy is about governments, geopolitics, trade, territorial expansion, alliances, international law, and arms control.  The Treasury Department comes in for its full share of attention; foreign assistance gets barely a passing glance.  Conspicuously missing is public diplomacy, other than brief mention in a few pages on Lincoln’s response to British outrage over the HMS Trent affair in the Civil War.  It takes considerable effort to completely overlook the role of foreign public opinion and US public diplomacy in the century since World War I.  Its absence is a major flaw in a worthwhile book.

Recent Blogs and Other Items of Interest

Stuart Anderson, “New Immigration Rules Will Have Big Impact on International Students,”  September 28, 2020, Forbes.

Leonard J. Baldyga, “Hans N. ‘Tom’ Tuch,”  September 9, 2020, Public Diplomacy Association of America; “Remembering Hans ‘Tom’ Tuch,”  September 9, 2020, Public Diplomacy Council.

William J. Burns, “A New U.S. Foreign Policy for the Post-Pandemic Landscape,” September 2020, Carnegie Endowment; “‘America First’ Enters Its Most Combustible Moment,”  August 29, 2020, The Atlantic.

Helene Cooper, “Trump Has Changed the Face America Presents to the World,”  September 12, 2020, The New York Times.

Renee M. Earle, “International Opinion of the U.S. Slides from Respect to Pity,”  August 2020, American Diplomacy.

Anthony Galloway, “‘They Can Be Cancelled’: Commonwealth to Review Overseas Agreements,”  Sydney Morning Herald, August 26, 2020; “Australia to Tighten Rules on States’ and Universities’ Foreign Deals,”  BBC News, August 26, 2020. 

Alan Heil, “Tom Tuch’s Trial of Fire at the VOA,”  September 12, 2020; “The Magic of Jazz: Willis Conover,”  August 5, 2020, Public Diplomacy Council.

Aaron Huang, “Chinese Disinformation Is Ascendant. Taiwan Shows How to Defeat It,”  August 10, 2020, The Washington Post.

Joe B. Johnson, “Learn By Doing Via Zoom – A State Department Workshop,”  August 21, 2020, Public Diplomacy Council.

“Join the British Council’s Public Panel Series ‘Cultural Relations and Global Britain,’”  August/September 2020, British Council.

Carol Morello, “Senators Propose Enlisting Governors and Mayors in International Diplomacy,”  August 4, 2020, The Washington Post.

Sherry Lee Mueller and Olivia Chavez, “Wanted: Young Professionals With A Passion for Public Diplomacy,”  September 14, 2020, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

June Carter Perry, “Broadening the Foreign Service: The Role of Diplomats in Residence,”  August 2020, American Diplomacy.

Anthony F. Pipa and Max Bouchet, “How To Make the Most of City Diplomacy in the COVID-19 Era,”  August 6, 2020, Brookings.

William Rugh and Zachary Shapiro, “Restoring U.S. Public Diplomacy,”  July 29, 2020.  CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

“Save J1Visa,”  August 2020, Alliance for International Exchange.

Cynthia Schneider, “Trump’s Politically-appointed Ambassadors Are Wrecking America’s Global Image,”  August 27, 2020, Business Insider.

Margaret Seymour, “The Problem With Soft Power,”  September 14, 2020, Foreign Policy Research Institute.

Joan Wadelton, “It Is the 21st Century; Organize State Department Administrative Functions to Reflect That,” September 14, 2020, Whirled View.

Vivian Walker, “Teaching PD & Information Instruments of Power in a Complex Media Environment,”  August 19, 2020, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

“‘What’s Going On At Pompeo’s State Department?’ With Nahal Toosi and Scott Anderson,”  August 28, 2020, Lawfare Podcast.

Edward Wong, “U.S. Labels Chinese Language Education Group a Diplomatic Mission,”  August 13, 2020, The New York Times.

Dian Zhang and Mike Stucka, “COVID-19, Visas, Trump: International Students Turning Away From US Colleges For Lots of Reasons,”  August 19, 2020, USA Today.

Selected Items (in chronological order): Trump / Voice of America / USAGM

Robert Reilly, “The Globalist Borg Invents Another ‘Fascist’ To Hunt: Michael Pack, At Voice of America,”  July 23, 2020, The Stream.

Daniel Lippman, “Deleted Biden Video Sets Off a Crisis at Voice of America,”  July 30, 2020, Politico.

Paul Farhi, “With Their Visas In Limbo, Journalists At Voice of America Worry That They’ll Be Thrown Out Of America,”  August 2, 2020, The Washington Post.

Spencer Hsu, “Congressional Leaders Urge Trump Administration to Release Funds to Internet Freedom Organization,”  August 3, 2020, The Washington Post.

“US Internet Freedom Group Says Work Limited By Funding Dispute,”  August 3, 2020, VOA News.

“CEO Pack Releases OPM Report Detailing Long-Standing USAGM Security Failures,”  August 4, 2020, USAGM;  “Follow-Up Review of the U.S. Agency for Global Media Suitability Program,”  July 2020, US Office of Personnel Management.

Madeleine Albright and Marc Nathanson, “Trump Has Pulled Out of the Battle for Hearts and Minds,”  August 4, 2020, Los Angeles Times.

“Bipartisan Group of Lawmakers Press USAGM to Release $20M for Censorship-Evading Tech,”  August 4, 2020, VOA News.

Marc Hemingway and Susan Crabtree, “U.S. Broadcasting Agency Didn’t Thoroughly Vet Foreign Workers,”  August 4, 2020, RealClearPolitics.

“US Media Agency Report Years-long Problems With Vetting Employees,”  August 5, 2020, VOA News.

Helle C. Dale, “The Voice of America’s One-Sided Coverage of Black Lives Matter,”  August 7, 2020, The Heritage Foundation.

Ben Weingarten, “Security Failures at USG Media Agency Prove Need to Hire Americans First / Opinion,”  August 10, 1010, Newsweek.

Dan De Luce, “Trump Pick To Run Voice of America, Other U.S. Global Media Accused of Carrying Out ‘Purge,’”  August 13, 2020, NBC News; “Engle Statement on Purge of USAGM Officials,”  August 12, 2020, Committee on Foreign Affairs Press Release.

Daniel Lippman, “U.S. Global Media Agency Hires Shock Jock Who Called Obama ‘Kenyan,’”  August 13, 2020, Politico.

 “Pack Expands Purge At US Global News Agency,”  August 14, 2020, VOA News.

Spencer S. Hsu, “Lawmakers Warn New Purge At U.S. Agency For Global Media Undermines Anti-censorship Efforts,”  August 14, 2020, The Washington Post.

Aman Azhar, “Congress, Trump-appointed CEO Battle It Out Over Latest Purge of Federally-funded Network,”  August 14, 2020, The Real News Network.

David Welna, “Purge of Senior Officials At Foreign Broadcast Agency Stirs Fear and Outrage,”  August 15, 2020, NPR.

Sara Fischer, “Scoop: Open Technology Fund Sues Administration for $20M in Missing Funds,”  August 20, 2020; Sara Fischer and Alayana Treene, “Accusations of Hobbling Internet Freedom Fund Roil U.S. Media Agency,”  August 20, 2020, Axios.

Jessica Jerreat, “Members of Congress Call on USAGM to Explain J-1 Visa Denials,”  September 16, 2020; “VOA Journalists Fly Home After USAGM Fails to Renew J-1 Visas,”  August 25, 2020, VOA News.

 David Folkenflik, “Voice of America Journalists: New CEO Endangers Reporters, Harms U.S. Aims,”  August 31, 2020, NPR.

Sara Fischer, “VOA Journalists Say New USAGM CEO is Endangering Reporters,”  August 31, 2020, Axios.

Matthew Ingram, “Voice of America Staff Rebel Over New CEO’s Comments,”  September 1, 2020, Columbia Journalism Review.

 Sarah Ellison and Paul Farhi, “New Voice of America Overseer Called Foreign Journalists a Security Risk. Now the Staff is Revolting,”  September 2, 2020, The Washington Post.

 David Folkenflik, “At Voice of America, Trump Appointee Sought Political Influence Over Coverage,”  September 2, 2020, NPR.

Kim Andrew Elliott, “Much Ado About News,”  September 2, 2020, The Hill.

Tom Rogan, “Michael Pack Can Address Voice of America Espionage Concerns Without Mass Firings,” September 3, 2020, Washington Examiner.

Alan Heil, “U.S. International Broadcasting: A Crisis in Leadership,”  September 26, 2020; “America’s Imperiled Voices,”  September 8, 2020, Public Diplomacy Council.

Alex Woodward, “‘Bulldozing the firewall’: How Journalists at Voice of America Are Rebelling Against Trump’s War on the Media,”  September 11, 2020, The Independent.

 Joel Simon, “Ten Questions For The Trump Ally Who Runs US Funded Media,”  September 17, 2020, Columbia Journalism Review.

Kyle Cheney, “Engel Subpoenas Head of Government’s Foreign Broadcast Media Agencies,”  September 18, 2020, Politico; J. Edward Moreno, “Engel Subpoenas US Global Media Chief Pack,”  September 18, 2020, The Hill.

David Folkenflik, “Voice of America CEO in the Hot Seat: Democratic Lawmakers Bear Down On Pack,” September 21, 2020; “Attorney Hired to Probe VOA’s Coverage Has Active Protective Order Against Him,”  September 8, 2020, NPR.

Katherine Gypson, “Lawmakers Criticize Trump Administration Changes at US-funded Media Networks,”  September 24, 2020, VOA News, “Engel Remarks at Hearing on the United States Agency for Global Media and U.S. International Broadcasting Efforts,”  September 24, 2020, US House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Karoun Demirjian, “Head of Government Media Agency Flouts Subpoena, Angering Democrats and Republicans,”  September 24, 2020, The Washington Post; Pranshu Verma, “Trump Appointee of U.S. Funded News Outlets Draws Bipartisan Fire,”  September 24, 2020, The New York Times.

“CEO of Voice of America’s Parent Agency Defies Subpoena Despite Bipartisan Concerns,”  September 24, 2020, PBS Newshour.

“Oversight of the United States Agency for Global Media and U.S. International Broadcasting Efforts,”  September 24, 2020, Webcast of Hearing (3-1/2 hours), US House Foreign Affairs Committee.

 “Whistleblower Reprisal Complaints,”  September 29, 2020, Department of State Office of Inspector General & U.S. Office of Special Council.

 Daniel Lippman, “6 Whistleblowers Allege Misconduct By Government Media Boss,”  September 30, 2020, Politico; Rebecca Klar, “Six Senior Trump Admin Officials File Whistleblower Complaint Over Voice of America CEO,”  September 30, 2020, The Hill.

Gem From The Past 

Tara Ornstein, Public Diplomacy in Global Health: An Annotated Bibliography, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, Paper 7, 2015.  With COVID-19 dominating the world’s attention, public diplomacy scholars and practitioners look for relevant literature on public diplomacy and global health.  There is a sizeable literature on PD and other global transnational issues (cyber, terrorism, disinformation, migration).  But on PD and pandemics and other global health issues, there is remarkably little on offer. Ornstein, a global health professional and currently a Senior TB Multilateral Advisor at USAID, wrote this literature review five years ago as a CPD Research Fellow.  It was a different era.  And some of her sources deal only with PD concepts.  But her central focus relates to diplomatic practice, global health governance, multi-national case studies and issues relating to health diplomacy in the context of a variety of diseases.  Her bibliography is a useful starting point for public diplomacy researchers turning to this timely and understudied global issue.

Looking back, see also Ingrid d’Hooghe, “Reactive Public Diplomacy: Crises, The Sars Epidemic, Product Scandals, and the Wenchuan Earthquake,” Chapter 7 in China’s Public Diplomacy, (Brill, 2014) pp. 285-331.  For a current perspective, see Victoria Smith and Alicia Wanless, “Unmasking the Truth: Public Health Experts, the Coronavirus, and the Raucous Marketplace of Ideas,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, July 16, 2020.

An archive of Diplomacy’s  Public Dimension: Books, Articles, Websites  (2002-present) is maintained at George Washington University’s Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.  Current issues are also posted by the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy,  the Public Diplomacy Council,  and MountainRunner.us.