Category: Public Diplomacy

View the Democracy Video Challenge winners

~ Matt Armstrong

Last year the State Department embarked on an ambitious mission of encouraging others to describe what democracy meant to them. This was a smart and creative use of social media to amplify and empower trusted and authentic voices to speak about subjects that matter to them. Let’s hope State continues the concept…

Six winners were selected from the 900 people from nearly 100 countries submitted videos in the Democracy Video Challenge. View all of the winning videos here. All of the winners are superb, but my favorite is below.

Continue reading “View the Democracy Video Challenge winners
“ →

Comment on Judith McHale’s talk at CNAS

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 2 Comments

[The following was originally posted as a comment by a reader – TOX – to my post on McHale’s talk at CNAS. It is ‘promoted’ to an entry to give it the visibility it deserves. –MCA]

I was less impressed with the new Under Secretary McHale’s prepared and unprepared remarks. She seems very competent and understands complex communications and engagement challenges globally from her previous experience, but that did not shine through yesterday. Defining the key themes and messages for the office of Public Diplomacy will be essential to prevent comments such as lack of knowledge stemming from only two weeks on the job. President Obama did not get away with that answer and neither should she. Perhaps an approach similar to General Petreaus would be valuable where 100 leading representatives of government, non-profit, and commercial expertise come together to help shape policy over 100 days. Public health NGO’s in Africa, to international media, .COM leaders, military IO and Public Affairs representatives and more could be a potential pool of interested subject matter experts that can make a difference. President Obama used similar groups of expertise in his digital outreach strategy leading to a powerful grassroots movement. This kind of strategic review is both valuable for future plans and seizing the momentum of being new in the office so people perceive the office to at least have a plan and commitment. The following observations are only highlighted to hopefully improve the effectiveness of this critical office.

Continue reading “Comment on Judith McHale’s talk at CNAS
“ →

Debating the Theory vs Practice of Public Diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 49 Comments

The conversation that appears in the comments of the post was originally an email exchange that began on May 20, 2009. The spark was Craig Hayden’s Public Diplomacy and the Phantom Menace of Theory, which was a response to Pat Kushlis’s Detroit on the Potomac. None of the comments have accurate timestamps as they were manually copied from email and inserted as comments. However, they do appear in correct chronological — and rhetorical — order. All comments appear here with the permission of the respective authors are are posted here to continue the discourse in public.  Add your voice. –MCA

Craig Hayden, Thanks for your recent excellent piece on the academic study of PD. It think it contributes much to the debate of theory vs. practice in PD. I hope it will be widely read. Have you considered submitting it to “American Diplomacy,” which is published by ex-FSOs? My main quarrel with much of the “scholarship” re PD, which Pat Kushlis critiques so well, is that it often misses a key element in PD — what PD officers (or whatever you want to call them) concretely do “in the field” and the day-to-day issues that they face. That is why, in the case of PD, I find memoirs, history and media reporting often more enlightening that abstract treatises. We are not, after all, dealing with rocket science here, but with a down-to-earth, all-too-human activity. As you point out, there’s no PD “theory.” Also, I am concerned that people who want to “do PD” as a career might think that “a degree in PD” is sufficient to be an effective PD practitioner (I realize that is not what academic courses on PD “promise”). Of course, nothing wrong with being a PD “scholar,” but based on my FSO experience what is most helpful in preparing to be an effective “public diplomat,” at least for the US government, is learning foreign languages in depth, familiarity with cultures overseas, and people-to-people skills that are not necessarily acquired in the classroom or by research in libraries/on the Internet.

Guest Post: Congress Takes a Step Forward in Preparing Future Generations of America for the Global Age

~ Matt Armstrong

By Marlene M. Johnson

The passage of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY 2010-2011 (HR 2410) in the U.S. House of Representatives is an important investment in America’s diplomatic capabilities. As Matt observed, “this legislation is necessary and long overdue” and sets the stage for “global persistent engagement rather than persistent conflict.”

Doubling the size of the Peace Corps, enhancing the State Department’s educational and cultural exchange programs, providing scholarships for students from around the world to study in the U.S., and hiring and training more Foreign Service officers are all important elements to bolster the effectiveness of U.S. public diplomacy, foreign policy, and national security efforts. NAFSA strongly supports the enactment of another piece of this important legislation – The Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act.

Continue reading “Guest Post: Congress Takes a Step Forward in Preparing Future Generations of America for the Global Age
“ →

Social Media as Public Diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong

Layalina Productions has a new monthly publication, Perspectives, “to explore key concepts in the study and practice of public diplomacy and Arab media.” The May 2009 inaugural article was Iraqi Media: Freedom or Chaos by His Excellency Samir Shakir Mahmood Sumaida’ie, Ambassador of Iraq to the U.S. The second author was me with Social Media as Public Diplomacy. Check it out and comment here or there.

Now more than ever, the United States needs effective public diplomacy. America’s national security depends on smart policies supported by effective and agile engagement to foster understanding of our government’s policies, countering misinformation, developing partnerships, and most importantly, encouraging and empowering others to realize that the government’s fight is their fight as well. This is where public diplomacy, engaging directly and indirectly with people around the globe, proves necessary.

While America created the Internet, Facebook, and Twitter, the appreciation of the tactical and strategic values of social media lags far behind our adversaries’ practices.
In this age of mass information and precision-guided media, everyone from political candidates to terrorists must instantly and continuously interact with and influence audiences in order to be relevant and competitive. Ignoring the utility of social media is tantamount to surrendering the high ground in the enduring battle to influence minds around the world. …

Go to Layalina to read the whole article (and to check out their programs, like On the Road in America and Ben & Izzy).

Judith McHale at CNAS: Public Diplomacy: A National Security Imperative

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 2 Comments

Below are Under Secretary Judith McHale’s prepared remarks she delivered at CNAS today. I found her speech to be good and full of promise but as several observers note, it was light on specifics. But, considering she’s been in for two weeks and in the bull pen for only a couple of months (most of which were at a distance from State in contrast to Jim Glassman’s extended, unfortunate, and unnecessary six month lead time during which he was far more engaged), she still needs to pick her battles. She’s a good public speaker, far better off the cuff than reading prepared notes (like many of us).

Some quick comments on the Under Secretary’s speech:

  • If I were to pick one key take-away from her speech, it would be this: “This is not a propaganda contest – it is a relationship race. And we have got to get back in the game.” Understanding this and the power and importance of information, trust, hope, credibility, as well as the destructive power of accidental misinformation and intention disinformation can be realized. Realizing this means we can operationalize public diplomacy (which, conveniently, was the title of my chapter in The Handbook of Public Diplomacy). Success depends on building up proxies, this is a struggle for minds and wills to empower others to fight what is often their fight to begin with.
  • In Q&A, McHale’s answer to a question from Mitzi (when did you leave CNA? been a while since we’ve talked) along the lines of “Why is Afghanistan Important?” gets at the problem of the quaint firewall put in place in the 1970’s and 1980’s that prevents America’s from seeing and hearing the What and Why of American foreign policy.
  • She discussed the “turf war” between State and Defense, but that may be easy compared to the “turf war” related to educating Americans.
  • Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication are not synonymous. SC includes Americans and the American media, public diplomacy does not (it should, but it does not, which is one reason “Global Engagement is a better term… and better than “public affairs” which is should have remained). But I accept Dennis Murphy’s observation (in his first Tweet ever), “lexicon gets in the way of definitions. Simpler is better for the uninitiated to convince value of info.”
  • McHale highlighted the importance of Information & Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D) to public diplomacy. (link and PDF).
  • In mentioning the tremendous public diplomacy campaign supporting President Obama’s Cairo speech, she (understandably) failed to mention the text message subscription service was not global, but available only to cell numbers outside of the United States.
  • Some of her speech is a rehash of Jim Glassman’s talking points, but that doesn’t make them any less important. Unlike Jim, McHale has the very visible support of the Secretary, the President, and Congress.
  • The real proof will be what happens next.

Continue reading “Judith McHale at CNAS: Public Diplomacy: A National Security Imperative
“ →

HR 2410: Public Diplomacy requires Leadership, Training, Access, and Oversight

~ Matt Armstrong

Yesterday, the House passed HR 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY 2010-2011, on a vote of 235-187. This bill is potentially the most important Foreign Relations Authorization bill in decades. Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, gets it:

The State Department and our other civilian foreign affairs agencies have a critical role to play in protecting U.S. national security. Diplomacy, development and defense are the three key pillars of our national security. By wisely investing resources to strengthen our diplomatic capabilities, we can help prevent conflicts before they start, and head off the conditions that lead to failed states. This approach is much more cost-effective than providing massive amounts of humanitarian aid, funding peacekeeping operations, or — in the most extreme circumstances — putting U.S. boots on the ground.

This prepares the Government toward the present reality of “global persistent engagement” rather than “persistent conflict”. As it should, public diplomacy figures prominently in this bill. The bill would would: 

Continue reading “HR 2410: Public Diplomacy requires Leadership, Training, Access, and Oversight
“ →

Questioning the Difference between Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy (Updated)

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 8 Comments

imageWe live in a world in which everyone who must manage and marshal public opinion, which ranges from democratically elected politicians to terrorists, rely on new and old media to stay relevant. Organizing for this information environment requires requires forethought and planning. The resulting functional structures and audience segments shapes the purpose, nature, and outcome of the engagement, regardless of whether it is one-way or two-way or one-to-one or one-to-many.

With getting further, here is an open question:

In your opinion, what is the difference between Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy?

Please respond in the comments. Also, feel free to extend your response to include the difference between Defense Public Affairs and Information Operations or Psychological Operations.

I asked this same question on Twitter. Here are the answers received so far:

AFPADude: some would say audience, I would argue there is no difference anymore due to several factors

FantomPlanet: What are the differences btwn civil affairs and civil diplomacy?

Steve_Schippert:Affairs is about image, releases, projection while PubDip is about engagement, discussion, 2 way comm on issues. Methinks…

T M Russo: interesting question! my thoughts: public affairs= the workings of gov’t, public diplomacy communicates those workings

The following responses came through Facebook:

PA/PR: Channel based information outflow with the goal of message transfer. PD: Information outflow with the goal of message engagement (discourse,discussion, processing and retransmitting in new forms). Dependent on social media.

Well, the state department says PA is working with U.S. media and PD is programs overseas! Go figure.

Same as the difference between "Tactics" and "Strategy". PA = short term engagement, PD = long view.

No wonder nobody understands, unless we’re all talking tongue in cheek.
Logically, diplomacy applies to non-Americans. President Obama doesn’t conduct diplomacy when he meets with the governor of California. That’s politics. It is diplomacy when he meets with Mubarak. The "public" part refers to anyone outside a government. Thus, anyone outside a government outside the U.S.
Then, logic doesn’t often work and Smith-Mundt was originally written with domestic constituencies in mind and before "PD" became a working term.
Maybe, Matt, it’s time for a new conference!

Already in the works…

See also: see Nick Cull’s Engagement Is The New Public Diplomacy Or The Adventures Of A Euphemism Of A Euphemism

No blogging while traveling but a few links before I go

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

Despite wanting to, I haven’t been able to blog today as I’m crashing on two reports. Plus, I’m on the red-eye to DC tonight, back to back meetings on the Hill, at the State Department for afternoon meetings, and then a 10p flight home. Fun. Still working on dinner plans before the flight home…

Below are some links that are more interesting than my schedule that you should find interesting. Each deserve their own post, which they may get on my return to temperate Los Angeles. For your reading pleasure:

OMB Watch: GAO Report on Public Diplomacy Creates Opportunity for Nonprofits

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

From OMB Watch:

The General Accountability Office released U.S. Public Diplomacy: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight on May 27, 2009. It finds weaknesses in U.S. international communications efforts and notes that the President must issue a new comprehensive communications and public diplomacy strategy by December 2009. Recommendations call for a “clear definition of the problem, desired results, and a delineation of agency roles and responsibilities.” Development of a new strategy creates an opportunity for the U.S. nonprofit sector to urge greater recognition of the role of philanthropy and aid and development programs in countering violent extremism, and development of policies that encourage and facilitate that work.

Senator Edward Zorinsky and Banning Domestic Access to USIA in 1985

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 2 Comments
Senator Edward Zorinsky, D-NE
Senator Edward Zorinsky, D-NE 

If you’ve looked into public diplomacy or the Smith-Mundt Act, you have likely come across this quote by Senator Edward Zorinsky (D-NE), or some paraphrased reference to it:

The American taxpayer certainly does not need or want his tax dollars used to support U.S. Government propaganda directed at him or her.

Most likely, the text was standing alone and without any context of when and why the Senator said it, or perhaps even without a reference to who said it. In my experience, I have seen the quote in perhaps a dozen books, and some scholarly articles, and yet most of the time Zorinsky’s name is not given and never, not once, was a source given. The reader was left hanging.

The logical — and only — implication to be drawn from the quote when devoid of the original context was that the Government should not propagandize its people, then or today. Americans are comfortable with this idea, but the context here, like many other instances, really matters. The whole statement may cause you to reconsider what this line means.

Continue reading “Senator Edward Zorinsky and Banning Domestic Access to USIA in 1985 “ →

Company’s ‘ATM For Books’ Prints On Demand

~ Matt Armstrong

On National Public Radio this morning, Company’s ‘ATM For Books’ Prints On Demand by Rob Gifford:

"Our technology now makes it possible for the printed page to move as rapidly as the electronic page," he says. "The printed book still remains overwhelmingly the dominant way books are read. I mean, I think the last statistic I saw worldwide, the electronic book is still less than a half percent. I think it will grow, but I still think the printed book will be the dominant way people consume literature."

I can think of another application.

Guest Post: Engaging Opinion Leaders for Social Change

~ Matt Armstrong

By Nina Keim

Word of mouth has always been central to documentary films. Whether in the 19th century where the Lumière brothers needed publicity for their innovative films or in 2004 when Michael Moore got people talking about his controversial documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. And yet, documentary films advocating for social issues often struggle to mobilize a public around an issue. One major problem is that documentary films attract audiences that are already highly interested in the issue while failing to attract non-engaged audiences. This is specifically true in today’s media environment where the number of news outlets rises every day and people can tailor their media exposure to their individual interests. Moreover, there is an increased need for specialized promotion tactics for social-issue documentaries to actively engage the audience and ultimately impact social change. Documentary filmmakers are challenged to find an adequate strategy to communicate their issue to those who are not active, engaged and interested.

Continue reading “Guest Post: Engaging Opinion Leaders for Social Change
“ →

New GAO Report on Public Diplomacy is out (Updated)

~ Matt Armstrong

U.S. Public Diplomacy: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight, GAO-09-679SP, May 27, 2009. Download here (PDF, 566kb) or read online here.

Highlights:

The United States’ current national communication strategy lacks a number of desirable characteristics identified by GAO, such as a clear definition of the problem, desired results, and a delineation of agency roles and responsibilities. …

The United States’ current national communication strategy lacks a number of desirable characteristics identified by GAO, such as a clear definition of the problem, desired results, and a delineation of agency roles and responsibilities. …

State faces a number of human capital challenges that influence the effectiveness of its public diplomacy operations. …

Security concerns around the world have led to building practices and personnel policies that have limited the ability of local populations to interact with Americans inside and outside the embassy. …

[GAO] provided a draft of this report for review and comment to State, BBG, USAID, and DOD. Each agency declined to provide formal comments. State, BBG, and USAID provided technical comments, which we incorporated in the report, as appropriate.

The report includes a Strategic Communication (not “public diplomacy”) budget breakdown:

image

Continue reading “New GAO Report on Public Diplomacy is out (Updated)
“ →

Updating the Under Secretary Incumbency Chart

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 2 Comments

Judith McHale was sworn in as Under Secretary of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs this morning of May 26, 2009. This means it’s finally time to update the Under Secretary tracking spreadsheet.

Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Sworn In Resigned Days in Office Days Position Vacant Total Days %
Vacant
Evelyn Lieberman (Clinton) 10/1/1999 1/20/2001 477      
  1/21/2001 10/2/2001   254    
Charlotte Beers (Bush) 10/2/2001 3/28/2003 542      
  3/29/2003 12/16/2003   262    
Margaret Tutwiler 12/16/2003 6/30/2004 197      
  7/1/2004 7/29/2005   393    
Karen P. Hughes 7/29/2005 12/14/2007 868      
  12/15/2007 6/4/2008   172    
James K. Glassman 6/5/2008 1/16/2009 225      
  1/17/2009 1/20/2009   3    
  1/21/2009 5/25/2009   124    
Judith McHale (Obama) 5/26/2009   1      
             
Since USIA-State Merger     2310 1208 3518 34%
             
Bush Administration     1832 1084 2916 37%
Obama Administration     1 124 125 99%
Today: 5/26/2009          

Now can we set a timer on when the deeply problematic bureaucratic and functional division between public affairs and public diplomacy within the Under Secretary’s office will be eliminated? Will Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J. Crowley work for the Under Secretary who does have the “and Public Affairs” in her title? I suppose it depends on the direction and empowerment of “R”, which remains unclear but there are signs it could change sooner than later…

Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #45

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 4 Comments

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

May 20, 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 Assistant Professor of Media and Public Affairs
George Washington University

Continue reading “Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #45
“ →

Turning a missed opportunity into a negative (Updated)

~ Matt Armstrong

Read U.S. Running Out of Time to Join Shanghai Expo by Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post. This story is a window in the Bush Administration’s view of public diplomacy and, unfortunately, the failure to aggressively prioritize and repair public diplomacy since January 20th.

Also read Adam Minter’s post at Shanghai Scrap about the debacle (h/t Jim Fallows):

Late yesterday afternoon Expo 2010 organizers announced that all national pavilion construction work must begin by June 30. Those who miss the deadline will not be allowed to build their own pavilions, and must instead seek space in a “standardized” pavilion or use a common pavilion. The statement didn’t single out any particular country, but the target of this ultimatum is unmistakably the United States which, along with Andorra and Columbia, is the only country with Chinese diplomatic relations that has not confirmed for the Expo – and perhaps the only nation to have missed multiple fundraising and construction deadlines (set by itself, no less). …

… the authorized US pavilion group has only raised $1.5 million of their $61 million budget. The poor fundraising record only hints at the recent disarray and disagreements that have plagued the inexperienced US effort.

And it’s not the only point of disagreement on fundraising that exists within the authorized group, either. Late last month, in two telephone calls for a story that I published in the Atlantic, co-chair Nick Winslow claimed that the “authorized” group had borrowed money from the Chinese government to pay for the pavilion design and site preparation work after it had run out of money (a story that Winslow has told to others). Then, today, in the same Washington Post story, the authorized group claims, instead, that a “Chinese construction company provided the funds for engineering work.” It’s worth noting that the Expo 2010 organizing committee is a branch of the Chinese government, and it maintains a list of “preferred” service providers, including a large number of state-owned construction firms. Presumably, a private firm isn’t going to extend credit to a US non-profit that’s shown itself incapable of raising money – unless somebody is guaranteeing the loan.