Category: Public Diplomacy

Cynthia Schneider on Cultural Diplomacy, including the surprising spread of “Idol” TV

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 2 Comments

Ambassador Cynthia Schneider looks at two international “American Idol”-style shows – one in Afghanistan, and one in the United Arab Emirates – and shows the surprising effect that these reality-TV competitions are creating in their societies.

More required reading on cultural diplomacy from Cynthia:

Cynthia gets it. Public diplomacy is about more than direct engagement and building relationships. The tactical desire to focus on the immediate payback of our policies blinds us to the slow yet enduring benefits of indirect empowerment of others.

See also:

White House nominates a new slate to the Broadcasting Board of Governors

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

The Broadcasting Board of Governors oversees the United States Government’s non-military broadcasting. Its function is to provide managerial guidance from talented private sector leaders. The combined audience of the broadcasting it oversees is over 171 million, an increase of 71% over 2003, according to the BBG. Programming is in 60 languages and is provided though online media, satellite, terrestrial and cable television, as well as shortwave, AM, and FM radio. Like most advisory boards, the Governors, including the Chairman, are part-timers.

The Board is to have eight members, including the Chairman, plus the Secretary of State as an ex officio member. For over a year, however, the Board barely had quorum, and only if the Secretary of State was included. Four seats on the Board have been vacant for between one year to nearly 4 years while the terms of the seated Governors expired between 3.5 and 5.5 years ago. For all the lip service to the urgency to communicate with the world, the Board has been long neglected.

Yesterday, the White House announced a whole new slate for the Broadcasting Board of Governors: Walter Isaacson, as Chairman, Michael Lynton, Susan McCue, Michael Meehan, Victor H. Ashe, Dennis Mulhaupt, Dana Perino, and S. Enders Wimbush. The announcements and bios are here and here. Isaacson has been a candidate for over six months but has rumored to have held out until all the vacancies were filled.

Change is good, but more change is needed: the Chairman must become a full-time position in order to fully support and champion the needs of US Government broadcasting.

Let’s hope the nominees are confirmed quickly.

Will the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy be getting some attention soon?

See also:

Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #48

~ Matt Armstrong

Courtesy of Bruce Gregory, Professor of Media and Public Affairs, George Washington University.

November 16, 2009

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
Adjunct Professor
George Washington University
(202) 994-6350
BGregory@gwu.edu

Continue reading “Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #48
“ →

Where’s the value added here?

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 3 Comments

There’s an interesting event tonight at Johns Hopkins, Communication Roundtable- Winning Hearts and Minds: American Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century:

What are the biggest challenges for American public diplomacy in the coming years? How will we engage with an increasingly younger and technologically savvy, global population as we move into this increasingly challenging century. Are we winning the battle for hearts and minds? And if so, whose hearts and minds are we winning?

Why is this interesting? Excluding the conversation that will take place during the two-hour event, this is interesting because of the framing by the organizers of the discourse. I’d say the biggest challenge for American public diplomacy today and the coming years is getting away from “battle for hearts and minds”, a quaint concept the event’s organizers are breathing life into. This is neither a battle to be “won” or “lost” nor do we care about their hearts and the implication of likability. The enduring struggle of the modern world is centered afar and is less about us than enemy propagandists would have us or their target audiences believe. We do not have the luxury of “winning” or “losing” and walking away to celebrate or mope.

Continue reading “Where’s the value added here?
“ →

Event: iDiplomacy: empowering the private sector and citizen diplomats in the digital age

~ Matt Armstrong

An invitation-only event of interest:

“iDiplomacy: empowering the private sector and citizen diplomats in the digital age” is a two-day symposium that will take place at The Gallup Organization in Washington DC on November 9th & 10th, 2009.  Participants come from gaming, filmed media, social media, music, tech, the Military, State Department, the Hill and the private sector.  This small, invitation-only symposium will help determine the agenda, host(s), plenary speakers, sponsors and invitees to a much larger conference to take place in 2010 that will be open to the public.

Agenda and presenter bios (which I am one) are here. Symposium attendee bios are here.

Quoting history: engaging in the information sphere

~ Matt Armstrong

Years ago, the House Appropriations Committee opened an inquiry into “cultural diplomacy.” The response from the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs at the time was that it was a necessary response to the “enormous sums” our adversary was spending on propaganda, “possibly more than the rest of the world combined.” Below is an excerpt from the newspaper story reporting on State’s defense of its cultural efforts (details on the story are below the fold):

[Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs] said the giving of “ideas” or “propaganda” to other countries had become the “fourth arm” of foreign policy. … Congress and even the State Department did not fully appreciate its value, [the Assistant Secretary] said.

[The House Appropriations Committee Chairman] contended that most of the information [from the State Department] was “slanted” to favor the department’s views and thus constituted a “ministry of propaganda.”

[The Assistant Secretary] replied that everything that emerged from his office was “straight information”; that
any “slanted or one-sided information” always gave the source, thus removing it from the “propaganda classification.

[A]sked why [State’s Public Affairs] had more employees – 3,000, – than the entire State Department had [only four years prior], the [Assistant Secretary] explained the State Department rarely received requests for information [before] but now got an average of 34,000 a month.

Continue reading “Quoting history: engaging in the information sphere
“ →

Events: Culture’s Purpose and the Work of Cultural Diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong

Tomorrow, 5 November 2009, from noon to 4p at the SIS Lounge at American University is “Culture’s Purpose and the Work of Cultural Diplomacy”:

During a moment of the apparent recommitment in the United States to soft power, smart power, and the relevance of cultural diplomacy, this conference brings together key stakeholders in the future of cultural diplomacy, including members of the policy community, practitioners in public diplomacy, and academic researchers, to examine the relationship between our understanding of how culture works, the expression of democratic ideals, and how cultural diplomacy functions as part of U.S. public diplomacy.

Former Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Jim Glassman will give the keynote. Discussants include Nancy Snow (Syracuse University), Helle Dale (Heritage Foundation), and David Firestein (EastWest Institute, formerly Senior Advisor to the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy), Frank Hodsoll (Resource Center for Cultural Engagement), John Brown (Georgetown University), Kathleen Brion (Public Diplomacy Alumni Association), and Lawrence Wohlers (Smithsonian Institution). Moderators include Craig Hayden, Amb. Anthony Quainton, and Robert Albro.

The full schedule is below. The event is organized by the International Communication Program at American University’s School of International Service and co-sponsored by the Public Diplomacy Council and www.MountainRunner.us (yes, I/this blog are co-sponsoring the event).

More information can be found at the website.

Continue reading “Events: Culture’s Purpose and the Work of Cultural Diplomacy
“ →

US allocates more funds to anti-Iran broadcasts?

~ Matt Armstrong

From PressTV:

image The United States has incorporated a bill into its annual military budget, which will allocate millions of dollars for Persian-language broadcasts. … US President Barack Obama signed the Victims of Iranian Censorship Act (VOICE) into law earlier this week. … Analysts in Iran say the move comes in response to the arrest of members of a US-based terrorist group — the Kingdom Assembly of Iran.

This take on VOICE by an Iranian government news agency is not surprising. What is surprising is the image in the Google News search (see above) that is a bit confusing. The image links to the same story as the headline, indicating they are the same and not a mash-up. It’s 2a, do you know where your brand is?

On VOICE itself, I wrote on the authorization for up to $55 million for State and BBG activities within the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010. As I noted before, the Senate and House defense appropriations committees – the people who put money into the checking accounts the authorizers open – did not go into their conference with VOICE on either agenda. They are unlikely to come out of conference with it, although if they did it would be significant that they are funding activities – activities they vociferously said should be funded – outside of their sandbox. Word is the defense appropriators won’t fund this but that the State Department appropriators – “foreign operations” – will, at least partially.

Scholar, Student, or Academic: words shape perceptions

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 4 Comments

Words matter. They are the first introduction we have to groups, people, places, and events. Any person in public relations can tell you their importance in conveying an idea. First impressions matter and different words will cause different reactions (emotional) or conclusions (logical). Often we forgot to think about the listening we are creating with our words. Economic as we must be with words, there are some things which are hard, if not impossible, to avoid, especially in a brief label or title.

Take for example the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars. The group is comprised of students pursuing a Masters in Public Diplomacy from the University of Southern California (and I believe other universities but USC’s APDS chapter is the most active). My friend John Brown criticized the use of “scholar” on his blog, describing it use as “pretentious.” John is not an angry old man shaking his cane (he’s neither angry nor with a cane, however he is old…), and yet, with the noted exception of Shawn Powers and Craig Hayden (also friends of mine), the reaction in the comments on his post were confused, aggressive and indicative of two groups not speaking the same language. Ironic considering the public diplomat’s need to understand the listening created by words and actions.

The APDS use of “scholar” denotes not a level of attainment but a condition or status. Here that condition is that of a graduate student. Even “academic” would not fit here.

Is “scholar” the best word? Perhaps not, but then on a broader level beyond the students, “public diplomacy” is a worse choice….

Related:

Ackerman: State Dept Project Signals Foreign Policy Shift

~ Matt Armstrong

Spencer Ackerman has an article at The Washington Independent on the forthcoming Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) based on his interview of Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department’s influential Director of Policy Planning. The QDDR is the State Department’s initial foray into strategic planning. According to State’s website, the QDDR

will provide the short-, medium-, and long-term blueprint for our diplomatic and development efforts. Our goal is to use this process to guide us to agile, responsive, and effective institutions of diplomacy and development, including how to transition from approaches no longer commensurate with current challenges. It will offer guidance on how we develop policies; how we allocate our resources; how we deploy our staff; and how we exercise our authorities.

Anne-Marie says this exercise is “not an abstract planning exercise” and that the “implications go far beyond the budget.” According to Anne-Marie, the QDDR will result in institutional changes, but what remains unknown except that USAID will not be completely absorbed by State.

Anne-Marie put forward three operating themes for the QDDR. First, “U.S. foreign policy is beset with “collective problems” — from terrorism to climate change to pandemic disease — that require joint international action.” Second, is “how State and USAID work with the military to address “the question of civilian operational capacity to crisis.” And third, is the “space between what AID or DIFD [the U.K.’s foreign-assistance agency] or UNDP [the United Nation Development Program] does and what peacekeepers and international armies do.”

Spencer’s interview unveiled who is working on the QDDR. Anne-Marie is overseeing five working groups of senior officials from both State and USAID.

  • Kurt Campbell, the assistant secretary of State for East Asia, and Karen Turner, director of USAID’s office of development partners, head the group responsible for “Building a Global Architecture of Cooperation.”
  • Maria Otero, the undersecretary of state for democracy and global affairs, and Gloria Steele, USAID’s global-health chief, work on whole-of-government solutions.
  • Johnnie Carson, State’s top African-affairs official, and George Laudato, USAID’s Mideast chief, handle “Investing in the Building Blocks of Stronger Societies.”
  • Conflict prevention and response is under Eric Schwartz, State’s assistant secretary for population, migration and refugees.
  • Susan Reichle, USAID’s senior democracy and humanitarian assistance official.
  • Ruth Whiteside of State’s Foreign Service Institute and JeanMarie Smith, Lew’s special assistant, are in charge of “Building Operational and Resource Platforms for Success.”

It seems to me, as Spencer wrote from our interview, that the QDDR is focusing on interagency processes rather than intra-agency barriers and friction. In this case, it may be safe to say that the interagency process is the “low hanging fruit” that is easier for the picking.

We will see what, if any, real change the QDDR will bring. As I said in the article, the “QDDR will ultimately be just a document. What it spurs will be the real test.”

Related:

State Dept Project Signals Foreign Policy Shift

~ Matt Armstrong

State Dept Project Signals Foreign Policy Shift: Review Could Shift Resources to Civilian Agencies for Foreign Development, by Spencer Ackerman, 22 October 2009, in The Washington Independent.

In July, [State Department’s director of policy planning Anne-Marie] Slaughter’s boss, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, announced a new planning and budgeting document, called the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, or QDDR, created to “effectively design, fund, and implement development and foreign assistance as part of a broader foreign policy” every four years. It is the first such effort for the State Department, which is not known for a culture of planning, and is modeled after a planning document produced by the Defense Department that reassesses and guides strategy on a recurring basis. …

The review comes as at a time when the State Department is facing existential questions about its utility to American foreign policy, and some aren’t so sure that it will be as influential as Slaughter believes. In a provocative article last month for Foreign Policy magazine, public-diplomacy specialist Matt Armstrong called the agency “broken and paralyzed, unable to respond to the new 21st-Century paradigm” where both state and non-state actors influence the global agenda. “The QDDR will ultimately be just a document. What it spurs will be the real test,” Armstrong, whose article urged radical departmental restructuring, said in an interview. “As we know from the struggle for minds and wills around the world today, words only go so far.” …

Only one policy option has been ruled out: dissolving USAID and moving development work to the State Department. “There will be no merger,” Slaughter said. “Secretary Clinton has made clear she wants a strong AID, a well-resourced AID, [and] wants diplomacy and development well-integrated.”

Armstrong has a similar focus, but he wondered how thoroughly the QDDR would adopt the critique. “A focus of the QDDR seems to be State’s ability to play well with others,” he said. “But creating more plugs and sockets to connect with other agencies will be of little value if the internal bureaucratic friction that inhibits agility and creativity are not addressed.” He said that the department would need to abandon its bureaucratic “emphasis on national borders”- the State Department is primarily organized around countries, rather than transnational phenomena — if it wants to become “become an effective alternative and counterweight to DOD.”

Bullets and Blogs: New Media and the Warfighter

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

image From the US Army War College’s Center for Strategic Leadership and The SecDev Group comes “Bullets and Blogs: New Media and the Warfighter” (2.7mb PDF). The report is based on a three-day workshop that took place at Carlisle Barracks in January 2008, one of the best events I have attended. It is required reading for anyone (e.g. more then than the Defense community) involved in the modern information environment.

This report is rich with soundbites and recommendations supported by examples, including operations where the insurgents were the first to write the first draft of history, the draft that usually sticks especially when a factual challenge is not made within days or weeks. It will be required reading for my upcoming class as well as a class I’ll likely be teaching in the spring (details to be announced).

This report deserves a better write up, but for now, download and read it yourself and comment below. More information can be found here: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/dime/.

State Department’s structure hinders public diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong

The below structural and operational recommendations by retired public diplomacy officers and diplomats originally appeared at AmericanDiplomacy.org. Long in development by the authors, it appeared at AD as a response to Amb. Bill Rugh’s “Enabling Public Diplomacy Field Officer’s to do their Jobs.” The goal of both the below and Rugh’s recommendations is to make the State Department effective – not simply more effective – in today’s global information environment by addressing internal issues that the many studies on public diplomacy from various government groups, think tanks, and academia have failed to really get at. Related reading is Hitting Bottom at Foggy Bottom and How to win the GWOT – or whatever it’s called today.

The merger – abolishment really – of USIA in 1999 was never complete. The recommendations below seek to create an “internal” USIA within the Department. They are not comprehensive or end-all changes, but they are a starting point to centralize the resourcing, planning, and execution of engagement activities.

On the specific recommendations, recommendation #1 – creating a bureau for field operations headed by an assistant secretary (essential) – would put field ops on par with IIP (which is still waiting its Assistant Secretary) and ECA (which is also still waiting for its Assistant Secretary). It is not clear what relationship of the field PD officers would have with this new bureau within Judith McHale’s office – perhaps they’ll comment below – but presumably the field officers would report first and foremost to the new bureau instead of the Ambassador.

Both Recommendation #1 and #2 – transferring regional bureau PD desks to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs – are ultimately partial steps without top-down pressure to better integrate post or regional bureau PD into Department operations (see the report on the Africa Bureau).

Other – many other – recommendations could be added, I appreciate the brevity the authors sought (most of whom I’ve met). However, I would add at least two more on the short list. First, the functional integration of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, both of which Judith McHale is ostensibly in charge of. We operate in a global information environment and weekly “coordination” meetings are inadequate. Second, elevate the prestige and importance of the public diplomacy “cone”. The Department of State must become also the Department of Non-State. This requires empowering, resourcing, and integrating public diplomacy officers that advise, inform, and engage leadership and publics. 

The commentary is important enough to post it in its entirety. Bold within the text are mine.

Continue reading “State Department’s structure hinders public diplomacy
“ →

Bruce Gregory: Mapping Smart Power in Multi-stakeholder Public Diplomacy / Strategic Communication

~ Matt Armstrong

The following was delivered at “New Approaches to U.S. Global Outreach” hosted by The Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication at George Washington University on October 5, 2009. It is available here by permission of Bruce.

Continue reading “Bruce Gregory: Mapping Smart Power in Multi-stakeholder Public Diplomacy / Strategic Communication
“ →

Getting to know America: supporting foreign journalists in the US

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

Mitch Polman wrote an interesting article last month on the challenges foreign (non-US) journalists face coming to the United States and reporting here. Borat vs. Murat highlights a critical gap in our global engagement: the failure to facilitate foreign media to get to know America and share this knowledge – as authentic communicators – back to their own countries.

Continue reading “Getting to know America: supporting foreign journalists in the US
“ →

What is propaganda?

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 22 Comments

What is “propaganda”? Is it bad, good, or neutral? Who does it? Is it what “the other guy” does but you don’t?
Is something “propaganda” because of its content, delivery, audience, intent, effect, all the above or none of the above?

I’m interested in your thoughts. Next week I’ll post one – possibly two – proposed revisions to the definition of propaganda to continue this discussion.

Related:

Guest Post: “Brand America” back on top

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 10 Comments

By Simon Anholt

America has just become, according to my research, the world’s most admired country.

Since 2005, I’ve been running a survey called the Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands Index (NBI), which measures international perceptions of 50 countries. Each year, around 20,000 people in 20 countries are asked to record their perceptions of each country’s government and its domestic and foreign policies on human rights, the environment, and international peace and security; of the people of each country, their talents, education, skills and their kindess to strangers; of each country’s cultural heritage and popular culture; about the quality and attractiveness of the products and services it produces; of the landscape and climate and tourist appeal of each country; of the economic and educational opportunities each country offers its own population and to immigrants. The NBI has been conducted fourteen times, and now consists of over a billion data points recording “how the world sees the world”. A parallel study, the Anholt-GfK Roper City Brands Index, performs a similar analysis of 50 cities (the 2008 topline results of both surveys can be queried interactively at www.simonanholt.com/research).

Continue reading “Guest Post: “Brand America” back on top
“ →