Category: Public Diplomacy

Guest Post: An Anti-Piracy Mission Transforms From Interdiction to Strategic Communication

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 3 Comments

By Chris Tomlinson

Imagine the scene: a U.S. Navy destroyer shadowing a tiny lifeboat carrying four Somali pirates with a U.S. hostage in an Indian Ocean standoff. Most Americans see the USS Bainbridge as the cavalry riding to the rescue. But not everyone will see it that way. The poor and oppressed living in the developing world might see something akin to the lone Chinese civilian standing in front of a Red Army tank trying to reach Tiananmen Square. Where we see a cop stopping a robber, others will see Robin Hood cornered by the sheriff of Nottingham.

Now that the pirates have gotten the attention of the world, a low-profile mission to interdict criminals in the Indian Ocean now is a major strategic communication. Does the Pentagon and the State Deptartment understand that?

Continue reading “Guest Post: An Anti-Piracy Mission Transforms From Interdiction to Strategic Communication
“ →

Guest Post: Must. Be. AWESOME!

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 3 Comments

By Christopher Dufour

Too often in government, we settle for the most expedient solution. The cheapest option. The quickest way. The path of least resistance.

We justify it by quoting acquisition regulations. By glomming onto existing authorities. By refusing to challenge the status quo.

It’s this attitude that prevents us from accomplishing big goals. Immense objectives. Tremendous challenges. Gi-normous grand strategy. Instead, we choose to do just enough to get our assignments completed to a preexisting or arbitrary standard. This is the culture of Washington.

We shouldn’t make this choice. We shouldn’t be shooting for "just good enough." Instead, we should be shooting for AWESOME.

Continue reading “Guest Post: Must. Be. AWESOME!
“ →

Is this public diplomacy? Close but not quite

~ Matt Armstrong

Read: Obama scores again, but the game is just starting by Marc Lynch at Foreign Policy

The Good: President Obama is changing the narrative and directly engaging Muslim communities. The President said America’s relationship with the Muslim world is greater than and will extend beyond defeating Al Qaeda.

The Bad: Marc says there is “disarray in the public diplomacy bureaucracy” and continues to say “Obama has already succeeded at the initial public diplomacy phase of his effort to transform America’s relations with the Muslim world.” The President’s remarkable speech is at best a small sliver of "public diplomacy" not to be confused with the full spectrum of options of engagement through communication, exchange, development, capacity building, health programs, and even countering adversarial messages.

Continue reading “Is this public diplomacy? Close but not quite
“ →

What Does the New Tech Guru at the State Department Mean for Public Diplomacy?

~ Matt Armstrong

The Washington Post reports Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has a new “senior adviser on innovation.” According to the Washington Post article Diplomatic Efforts Get Tech Support, the adviser, Alec Ross, is “armed with a new set of diplomatic tools including Facebook, text messaging and YouTube.” I’ll get back to the hyperbole below, but the paper’s description of his job is interesting:

Continue reading “What Does the New Tech Guru at the State Department Mean for Public Diplomacy?
“ →

Guest Post: Renewing America’s Global Leadership

~ Matt Armstrong

By Ursula Oaks, NAFSA: Association of International Educators

When President Obama stood before students and service members at the National Defense University in early March and committed the resources of his administration to “renewing diplomacy as a tool of American power” he rightly said that we cannot “leave dormant any aspect of the full arsenal of American capability.” The bold path our president has charted puts the United States on a new footing in its relationships with the world, one that emphasizes listening and mutual respect as cornerstones of responsible and constructive leadership.  This new course requires our country to become much better informed about and engaged in the world. A proven way to accomplish this is to make international education a national priority.

Continue reading “Guest Post: Renewing America’s Global Leadership
“ →

Government reports on public diplomacy you may have missed

~ Matt Armstrong

Several reports on public diplomacy that are worthwhile, even recommended, reading. All but two are US. One is from Sweden and the other is Chinese. All of the below are links on MountainRunner.us. 

Isolated Overseas: Diplomatic Security Creates Challenges for American Public Diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 5 Comments

Guest Post By Mitchell Polman, originally posted at Understanding Government

When Congress voted to abolish the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) in 1999, America’s public image abroad suffered a significant blow. This decision – inspired by the desire to shrink government and the predominant belief that USIA was an ineffective bureaucracy – closed many USIA-run American libraries and cultural centers around the world that were helping to promote better understanding of American culture and society. These gathering places – located in embassy buildings or in libraries and cultural buildings of host countries – were an important tool for U.S. public diplomacy. They organized English language classes, discussions about American society and politics, films, and other cultural events. Local residents had safe and accessible places to read American books and periodicals, find out about educational exchanges, take U.S. college entrance and language exams, and interact with American citizens.

Continue reading “Isolated Overseas: Diplomatic Security Creates Challenges for American Public Diplomacy
“ →

The Kitchen Debate of 1959: more than just two guys talking

~ Matt Armstrong

I recommend listening to NPR’s story this morning on the “Kitchen Debate” between Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Vice President Richard Nixon at the 1959 American exhibition in Moscow. The reporter, Gregory Feifer, notes the “hostility and distrust toward America and Americans among ordinary Russians is much stronger than it was when Nixon debated Khrushchev 50 years ago.” Those that participated in the American exhibitions, Feifer continued, “believe they can be a useful model for President Obama as he seeks to improve ties with Moscow.”

Continue reading “The Kitchen Debate of 1959: more than just two guys talking
“ →

The Future of Public Diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 4 Comments

The world increasingly operates on perceptions created by the “Now Media” environment. Governments must fully take into account these perceptions in the forming and conducting of foreign policy. From the perspective of the United States, the simple and essential fact is that everything we say and do both at home and abroad, as well as everything we fail to say and do, has an impact in other lands. This isn’t a new idea but an observation originally made by a certain general running for president in 1952.

Continue reading “The Future of Public Diplomacy
“ →

Whither Public Diplomacy? Sixty-six days (and counting) without an Under Secretary (Updated)

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

As we approach the 100-day mark for the Obama Administration and despite the accolades bestowed on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her “e-Diplomacy” initiatives, as of March 23, 2009, the office of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs has been vacant for 63 days. Since the office of Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy was created, it has been vacant one-third of the time.

Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Sworn In Resigned Days in Office Days Position Vacant Total Days Percent Vacant
Evelyn Lieberman 10/1/1999 1/20/2001 477      
  1/21/2001 10/2/2001   254    
Charlotte Beers 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     63    
             
Since USIA-State Merger     2309 1084 3393 32%
             
Bush Administration     1832 1084 2916 37%
Obama Administration     0 63 63 100%
Today: 3/24/2009          

If Public Diplomacy were important, wouldn’t it make sense to fill this spot quickly, regardless of the direction it will head? To my knowledge, the #1 candidate two months ago remains the #1 candidate today. Is it that Clinton (and possibly Obama) does not know where to take public diplomacy and whether an empowered (and operationalized) National Security Council is the route to go? Or possibly that she is looking at an invigorated State Department (which would implicitly push the development of the Department of Non-State within) that supports the Secretary’s view of personal, global engagement? Or, and this is the most likely, the priority is low and they’ll get around to dealing with public diplomacy at some point.

This is not a balancing act between “public diplomacy” and “smart power” as “smart power” requires effective communication to support and defend intelligent foreign policies, which is, in fact, the reason public diplomacy was institutionalized over sixty years ago. This is a question of who will lead the government’s global engagement that spans the whole of government, including the Departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Treasury, and Health and Human Services, to the Agency for International Development (USAID), the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and so on.

If the State Department fails to acknowledge their leadership responsibility in engaging global populations, it will continue to cede power and authority to the Defense Department who will be the only vertically integrated element of the Government that can provide the services necessary in a world of state and non-state actors. Defense will, by default, become the hub of activity. We have already seen the Secretary of Defense (and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) making policy statements that arguably should be coming from the Secretary of State. We are looking at a possibility that America’s government broadcasts devote more airtime to the activities of the Secretary of Defense than the Secretary of State.

Sixty-six days and counting…

See also:

Kristin Lord: What not to do in public diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong

From “The Great Debate”, a blog at Reuters, First 100 Days: What not to do in public diplomacy by Kristin Lord:

As Senate confirmation hearings approach, America’s next public diplomacy leaders will get abundant advice about how to improve America’s standing in the world. The Obama administration’s nominees (an under secretary and at least two assistant secretaries in the State Department alone) would be wise to listen.

Yet, in truth, America’s new public diplomacy team can accomplish much by following that age old maxim: first, do no harm.  Seven key “don’ts” are worth bearing in mind.

1) Don’t let the pollsters get you down …

2) Don’t forget the borders …

3) Don’t forget the Pentagon …

4) Don’t go it alone …

5) Don’t forget old standards …

6) Don’t trust your gut …

7)   Don’t forget friends …

Public diplomacy is a tough business. Success usually goes unnoticed, but failures can resound globally. Avoiding missteps is impossible but avoiding these seven mistakes will give America’s next public diplomacy leaders a useful head start.

It’s a short post. Go read the whole thing here.

Public diplomacy, strategic communication, global engagement, “smart power”… each term is a variation on all the others with different kinds of associated activities and focus, but each recognizes the importance that states are not autonomous and that the reactions by individuals and groups of different sizes must be included in the calculus of foreign policy. This is Kristin’s point.

Should a presentation about promoting dialogue include time for dialogue?

~ Matt Armstrong

Recently, I was briefed on the global engagement efforts of a three-letter government organization that has neither a "C" nor an "A" in its acronym. Unknown to me, and not mentioned at the beginning of the briefing, was that the back to back presentations would last about four hours. My expectation was for two hours at most so I scheduled one casual meeting (over cocktails) afterwards, which, fortunately, was easy enough to push (and, as it turned out, ultimately cancel).

I learned a fair amount and I was impressed by the breadth of the programs. Presentations were made by the principal actors, some of whom I knew, some I knew of, but many I didn’t know. This group is dynamic and trying hard to move up the metaphorical knife toward the pointy part.

Overall, I was impressed with their efforts and saw great potential. A question I frequently asked when they mentioned how they are tracking their success was to the effect of "So what are you doing with this knowledge? Does Congress or anybody else in USG know about your success?" Invariably, the answer was "no" which was sometimes coupled with a stare as if I had a third eye.

Besides not anticipating a 2p to nearly 6p meeting, the briefing very clearly was not a discussion. Granted they had a ton of information they wanted to present to me and there was not a moment when we dived into minutia, but answers to my questions were frequently followed by comments by the briefing chair that there was a tight schedule to keep.

There’s a certain irony that a presentation about dialogue itself stifles dialogue. I wonder if they saw that? I know they do now.

Guest Post: NATO and New Media: new landscapes and new challenges

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 2 Comments

Guest Post By Tom Brouns

The media landscape is quietly undergoing a revolution. NATO’s ability to remain relevant in this new media landscape as it evolves will significantly contribute to its success or failure in Afghanistan. Many observers characterize the internet as “underexploited terrain in the war of ideas” being waged – and according to some observers, being lost – over Afghanistan. Focusing only on the technology, however, overlooks a more fundamental change in the media landscape: the power to produce and disseminate information has irreversibly shifted from large organizations and corporations to the public. Technology has empowered the consumer as an increasingly equal partner in the production of information. The vital role of public perception in Afghanistan makes recognizing and adapting to this change critical to success in what is arguably the biggest test of NATO’s relevance in the 21st century.

Continue reading “Guest Post: NATO and New Media: new landscapes and new challenges
“ →

Event update: InfoWarCon 2009

~ Matt Armstrong

Check out the updated agenda for InfoWarCon 2009, April 22-24 just south of Washington, DC.

The whole conference looks interesting, but some highlights:

Recommended reading: Smith-Mundt: Censorship American Style?

~ Matt Armstrong

Read Greg Garland’s editorial at AmericanDiplomacy.org, Smith-Mundt: Censorship American Style?

A provision of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 prohibits the Voice of America and all other organs of public diplomacy from disseminating within the United States material intended for foreign publics.  What motivated Congress was distrust of the loyalty of the State Department; by banning domestic dissemination, Congress could block State from “propagandizing” the American people. … Despite this glaring flaw, Smith-Mundt as a whole is the vital legal foundation for all U.S. public diplomacy.  Questioning the law inevitably means questioning the nature of American public diplomacy. Understanding this, blogger Matt Armstrong (www.mountainrunner.us) organized a conference on January 13 to debate the merits of Smith-Mundt. [http://mountainrunner.us/symposium/]… As I sat through the conference, I kept thinking back to my boyhood clandestine listening.  Why on earth would Uncle Sam want to keep something from his own citizens but share it with the rest of the world? … don’t repeal Smith-Mundt.  It creates a statutory firewall between resources intended for foreign audiences and those used domestically. … tweak Smith-Mundt by getting rid of the one provision banning domestic dissemination. In this age of communication without borders, the existence of such statutory language only subverts America’s most powerful tool of soft power: our ideals.

Read the whole editorial here.

For your information: The Public Diplomacy Collaborative

~ Matt Armstrong

A “new” kid on the block: The Public Diplomacy Collaborative at Harvard.

Effective communication is the most promising avenue we have for cultivating respectful international discourse and for revitalizing trust in the democratic tradition.

The Public Diplomacy (PD) Collaborative is a forum for enhancing purposeful international communication. Our goal is to connect key nodes of public diplomacy practice and put public opinion and public diplomacy research into the hands of practitioners, regardless of location or sector.

The PD Collaborative emphasizes discussion, training, scholarship, and publication in the field of public diplomacy as well as the exchange of regional information across sectors, disciplines, and national boundaries. We seek to support, improve, and expand public diplomacy efforts in a manner that most successfully promotes democratic governance.

Learn more about the Public Diplomacy Collaborative at their website.

Noteworthy

~ Matt Armstrong

Posts and articles worth your attention.

Smith-Mundt and Domestic Dissemination by Darren Krape (3 March 2009)

This post grew out of the recent Smith-Mundt Symposium… First my general read-out of the event is that the issue remains quite contentious and with little overall agreement. Many argue the law should be kept, or even strengthened (and its remit expanded to the entire U.S. government) while others argue it should be completely repealed. A third group feel the argument is pointless since the law is out-dated and should be ignored, which can be done since, in the end, there are no “Smith-Mundt police” to arrest anyone for violating the law.

State’s Wrong Turn on the Information Highway by Scott Rauland (560kb PDF) (Sept 2008)

Many of us who have been involved in the State Department’s information outreach efforts since the very first days that the Internet became available as a tool for U.S. missions overseas are concerned that the department is falling steadily behind the
technology curve and that our ability to reach foreign audiences is actually shrinking.

Social Networks Now More Popular than Email; Facebook Surpasses MySpace by Brian Solis (9 March 2009)

Two-thirds of the world’s Internet population visit social networking or blogging sites, accounting for almost 10% of all internet time.

Time spent on social network sites is also expanding: Across the globe in 2008 activity in ‘Member Communities’ accounted for one in every 15 online minutes – now it accounts for one in every 11.

[Important Note: “Global” for the Nielsen Online report Brian Solis quotes from is really only Australia, Switzerland, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, UK, and US.]

Why Social Media is Scary by Steve Radick (11 January 2009) and Part 3 Social Media is Scary – How to Address Middle Managers by Steve Radick (2 March 2009)

Businesses and our government are structured in a very hierarchical way – everyone is part of an org chart, everyone has a boss, and everyone is working to get to the next level.  Why?  Because inevitably, the next level brings more pay, more power, more respect, and more influence.  In the current organizational structure, everyone’s role is nicely identified on the org chart and with that, there is a structured way to act.  Raise your hand if you’ve ever said or have been told something like, “you can’t contact him directly – get in touch with your manager first,” or “draft an email for me to send to him,” or even better, “talk to “Public Affairs and Legal to get that approved before sending it out.”

The problem with this structure is that social media renders these traditional roles and responsibilities obsolete.  It introduces unpredictability and opportunity, unauthorized emails and tremendous insights, inappropriate language and humor.  Social media gives everyone a voice, whether they want it or not.

Can The US Air Force Save Darfur? by Chris Albon (9 March 2009)

Last week, the Washington Post published an op-ed by General Merill A. McPeak and Kurt Bassuener arguing that President Obama should establish a no-fly zone over Darfur. The idea has been proposed before, but was repeatedly shot down (pardon the pun) by humanitarian groups who (rightly) feared reprisals from the Sudanese government. However, the objections will be less vocal now that Bashir has booted 13 aid groups from Sudan after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant against him. Bashir also reportedly launched more air attacks.

Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #44

~ Matt Armstrong

Below the fold is the latest list of books, articles, and websites on public diplomacy from Bruce Gregory, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Media and Public Affairs, George Washington University.

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. 

Continue reading “Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #44
“ →

Motion Picture Licensing Corporation comes around?

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

To many people interested in public diplomacy, Hollywood movies are generally seen as an important element in global engagement. Movies can inform others about our culture, for good or bad, and they can tell stories of local relevance based on shared beliefs and morals or retelling history. An generally, if not nearly completely, unknown reality was the restrictions the Motion Picture Licensing Corporation placed on the State Department’s ability to show Hollywood movies abroad. The absurd restrictions were highlighted in last week’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s report titled “U.S. Public Diplomacy–Time to Get Back in the Game” (see this post).

The report recommended the State Department re-engage the Motion Picture Licensing Corporation to change overly restrictive licensing that severely inhibits public awareness of showings of American films by America’s public diplomats. Below are the comments from the Committee report on the terms of “negotiated” by the State Department:

Paragraph 20 of the State Department’s message regarding the [Memorandum of Understanding] to Embassies worldwide expressly notes the following were agreed to:

“The films many be screened for audiences of up to 100 people per screening.

They may not be screened for larger audiences.”

“No advertising is permitted. No specific titles or characters from such titles or producers’ names may be advertised or publicized to the general public.”

Embassy officials report they have been contacted by the MPLC when films are announced on the Internet. To avoid this, many now simply post movie showings on a bulletin board in their facilities – a perfectly painful example of how, in the age of text messaging, our government is forced to operate in methods no different from the 19th century.

Continue reading “Motion Picture Licensing Corporation comes around? “ →

Defense Department contracts for public affairs AND public diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 2 Comments

At what point will the Government, not just the Defense Department, understand that engaging global audiences, within the U.S. and outside, requires staff, understanding of and competency in the modern “now media” information environment? Walter Pincus writes in The Washington Post:

The Army wants a private firm to provide a seven-member media team to support the public affairs officer of the 25th Infantry Division, now serving as Multi-National Division-North in Iraq — at least three media specialists, two Arab speakers, a Web manager in Iraq and a media specialist stateside.

Continue reading “Defense Department contracts for public affairs AND public diplomacy
“ →