Category: Public Diplomacy

Aid: The Double-Edged Blade

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 5 Comments

By Simon Anholt

Foreign aid, in many ways, gives with one hand while it takes away with the other.

I have often commented in the past about the unintended damage done to the international standing and, consequently, the long term prospects of poorer countries by well-intentioned charity promotion, and in particular the negative ‘branding’ of Africa by aid celebrities like Geldof and Bono. Over the decades, with the best intentions in the world, their relentless depiction of Africa as one single, hopeless basket-case has harmed the long-term development prospects of the whole continent even as it has boosted donations. After all, while many people would happily donate money to a basket-case, few will think it prudent to invest in a basket-case, buy products or services produced in a basket-case, go on holiday to a basket-case, or hire somebody born and raised in a basket-case.

Continue reading “Aid: The Double-Edged Blade
“ →

Understanding Social Media’s Contribution to Public Diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong

This is part of an ongoing series of journal-style peer-reviewed articles featured at www.MountainRunner.us (and soon at www.MountainRunnerInstitute.org) on subjects and issues related to public diplomacy and strategic communication, U.S. or otherwise. Submit articles to info@mountainrunnerinstitute.org.

Understanding Social Media’s Contribution to Public Diplomacy: How Embassy Jakarta’s Facebook Outreach Illuminates the Limitations and Potential for the State Department’s Use of Social Media

by Melanie Ciolek

View the article or download the article (251kb PDF).

As social media platforms have grown in popularity around the world, calls for the U.S. State Department to utilize them have also increased. The perception that these new technologies “redefine how foreign ministries communicate and collaborate with publics” by enabling interaction has become widely accepted, even though far fewer understand how platforms like Facebook and Twitter actually create opportunities for engagement. While the State Department has embraced the concept of using social media tools as another way to engage with audiences around the world, there is confusion about using social media as a public diplomacy tool and skepticism about whether or not its use can prove effective.

This paper intends to demonstrate that social media tools can contribute to public diplomacy when their use responds to the audience and considers the overall information landscape. While President Obama’s visit has yet to occur, it’s possible to see how the Embassy’s effective use of Facebook helps advance U.S. public diplomacy objectives while producing visible interaction with its audience and building a basis for continued engagement. By recognizing both the limitations and potential of social media within Indonesia’s information environment, Embassy Jakarta’s Facebook outreach provides valuable lessons for developing future State Department outreach efforts. Improving comprehension of social media’s contribution to public diplomacy can help State Department practitioners and policymakers communicate its value to Congressional lawmakers who ultimately determine the financial resources allocated to public diplomacy efforts.

Melanie Ciolek is a second year student in the Master of Public Diplomacy program at the University of Southern California, and interns for the public diplomacy evaluation project at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Before arriving at USC, Melanie worked for the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) in Washington D.C., a global public opinion research think tank which manages the WorldPublicOpinion.org project.

Changes at State Public Diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong

Dan Sreebny has joined the Office of Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale as a Senior Media Advisor. Dan joined the Foreign Service in 1980 and served as a Public Diplomacy officer in Bahrain, Oman, Hong Kong, Israel, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and Washington.  He can be followed on Twitter at PD_Dan. Dan was previously acting coordinator of the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP), a position now filled by Duncan MacInnes, also as “acting”.

Speaking with a senior source, there was some excitement with the soon-to-be-announced permanent Coordinator. While the position should still be an Assistant Secretary, perhaps there’s a reason to be thankful it is not considering the Senate’s failure to confirm virtually every nominee – including the not-controversial Ann Stock to be Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.

Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Caucus briefing

~ Matt Armstrong

The Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Caucus is holding a briefing this Thursday, June 17th at 9:00am in Room 121 of the Cannon House Office Building to discuss the National Framework for Strategic Communication, the Secretary of State’s Strategic Framework for Public Diplomacy, and the Secretary of Defense’s “1055 Report” on Strategic Communication.

Briefers include Mr. Pradeep Ramamurthy from the White House National Security Staff, Ms. Kitty DiMartino from the State Department, and Ms. Rosa Brooks from the Department of Defense. The one-hour briefing will include time for questions and answers.

RSVP with Katy Quinn in Rep. Adam Smith’s office at Katy.Quinn@mail.house.gov or with Michael Clauser in Rep. Mac Thornberry’s office at Michael.Clauser@mail.house.gov.

See also:

CCTV: China’s soft power in the Middle East

~ Renee Lee

On May 27, 2010, The National published an article about China’s engagement strategy, carried out by state broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV), toward Arab television viewers in the Middle East and North Africa.

Many countries broadcast to the Middle East in Arabic, including France, Russia, and the U.S., but China is different: it broadcasts, from Beijing, to the region in Chinese with Arabic subtitles. Instead of focusing on news and current events in the Middle East, CCTV highlights Chinese culture and the arts. Simply, “…CCTV Arabic aims to tell the Arab world about China.“

In his article, Daniel Bardsley further describes China’s strategy, which involves voicing the views of the Chinese government. This approach allows China to “…extend its ‘soft power’ without becoming entangled in the region’s politics,” which reflects China’s non-intervention culture.

Now a world power, China ambitiously aims to be part of the mainstream international media alongside CNN and BBC. This year, China will also reach milestones in its international broadcasting efforts as CCTV Arabic will mark its first anniversary in July and CCTV plans to open news bureaus in the Middle East later this year.

Senate Report on the Broadcasting Board of Governors

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 2 Comments

The most extensive report on the issues facing the Broadcasting Board of Governors and US international broadcasting was released this week. “US International Broadcasting – Is Anybody Listening? – Keeping the US Connected” (1mb PDF) was prepared by the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, under the leadership of senior professional staff member Paul Foldi, and is the best, if not the only, substantial review of its kind.
The report describes the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) as transforming from its intent of a political “firewall” to a modern political “football” that has resulted in an average vacancy on the board of over 470 days. Even now, the new slate of members of the BBG has yet to be confirmed by the Senate.

Beyond staffing difficulties and the resulting repercussions, the report describes the fierce competition and imbalance, particularly with China and Russia, to engage listeners, viewers, and readers around the world. The report also recommends changes to the Smith-Mundt Act, describing the firewall as “anachronistic and potentially harmful.”

Some highlights from the report:

Continue reading “Senate Report on the Broadcasting Board of Governors
“ →

Shanghai’d, or the USA Pavilion as a corporate theme park

~ Matt Armstrong

Below is an excerpt from a must-read post at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy by Cynthia Schneider and Hailey Woldt on America’s “contribution” to the World Expo now underway in China.

Let’s begin with the positive: the United States is present at the World Expo in Shanghai. The Secretary of State deserves praise for making this possible, by launching an eleventh hour fundraising drive, after the previous administration had done virtually nothing (besides rejecting a proposal that included Frank Gehry as architect). The Chinese cared enough about the U.S. presence to have contributed both public and private funds to guarantee that the U.S. showed up for Expo Shanghai 2010.

In this age of globalization and social networking, a World Expo might seem a quaint throwback to a bygone era. But for many countries, including, notably, China, it offers a global platform to present strengths and salient characteristics to the world. For example, Japan, known for its technology, powers its “green” pavilion partly from the footsteps of visitors who are treated to violin-playing robots, a single-person prototype car by Toyota, as well as a historical exhibition on Japan’s envoys to China. In its pavilion, Indonesia highlights cultural diversity; the United Arab Emirates emphasizes sustainability, a key focus of the country, with a recyclable dune shaped pavilion. Almost without exception the pavilions dazzle with innovative architecture, and with unusual shapes, colors, and lighting, as in the case of the United Kingdom’s pavilion— a futuristic display of 60,000 transparent fiberglass rods with different seeds enclosed at the ends, designed by British artist Thomas Heatherwick.

Continue reading “Shanghai’d, or the USA Pavilion as a corporate theme park
“ →

SFRC Report: U.S. International Broadcasting: -Is Anybody Listening?- Keeping the U.S. Connected

~ Matt Armstrong

SFRC Report: U.S. International Broadcasting: -Is Anybody Listening?- Keeping the U.S. Connected, 9 June 2010.

Posted on MountainRunner here: Senate Report on the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

American Public Diplomacy has always addressed two audiences. One audience views the United States positively, as a democracy based on the free flow of information, the freedom of expression, civic discourse and active citizen participation in government. This group will more often than not be supportive of U.S. actions and initiatives, or at least give us the benefit of the doubt. Members of the second group believe that these strengths are, instead, weaknesses and are predisposed to assume the worst about America; they reject–or worse, attack–us as a result. Successful Public Diplomacy (PD) keeps the first group engaged and increases its numbers while reducing the size and impact of the second. Impacting both groups are not only the actions, images and words of our own Nation, but fierce competition from other nations whose own interests may or may not agree with our own. One of our major tools for connecting with these audiences is through people-to-people exchanges; another is international broadcasting.

Cites Matt Armstrong’s MountainRunner blog on page 43 of the report.

Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #51 (Courtesy of Bruce Gregory)

~ Matt Armstrong

Courtesy of Bruce Gregory, 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.
Bruce Gregory
Adjunct Professor
George Washington University/Georgetown University

Continue reading “Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #51 (Courtesy of Bruce Gregory)
“ →

National Security Strategy punts on strategic communication and public diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong

Last month, President Obama released his first National Security Strategy. It is a substantial departure from President George W. Bush’s narrowly focused 2002 strategy that imagined “every tool in our arsenal” as only “military power, better homeland defenses, law enforcement, intelligence, and vigorous efforts to cut off terrorist financing.” In contrast, President Obama’s new National Security Strategy acknowledges that countering violent extremism is “only one element of our strategic environment and cannot define America’s engagement with the world.”

Continue reading “National Security Strategy punts on strategic communication and public diplomacy
“ →

The need for a national strategy for Communication and Engagement

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

It is clear from the general discourse surrounding the terms public diplomacy, strategic communication (and a recommended alternative “Signaling Integration” to be announced), and global engagement that each of these terms face their own inadequacies. None of them can be used to capture the essential elements required to convey the value, importance, and imperative of addressing the failings at the strategic down to the tactical levels, overcoming the institutional friction to adapt to modern requirements that may be simultaneously local, regional, and global. As each of the aforementioned terms are tainted in some way or another, I recommend a new label that is comprehensive, simple, and flexible.

Continue reading “The need for a national strategy for Communication and Engagement
“ →

Now Media: engagement based on information not platforms

~ Matt Armstrong

On July 6, 2010, the MountainRunner Institute will, with support from InterMedia, present a one-day training event titled Now Media: engagement based on information not platforms. Whether you call it strategic communication, public diplomacy, public affairs, signals integration, or global engagement, this event is designed to help you gain a better understanding of the capabilities, capacities, and authorities you need to be effective in today’s global environment. While the emphasis is on actors and audiences relevant to national security, knowledge from the course will be readily applied in other areas. More information can be found here.

Topics include:

  • Convergence of “old media” and “new media” into Now Media;
  • Mobilization and even creation of “diasporas” through increasing access to information, ease of travel, fragmentation of social groups and decreasing demands on assimilation;
  • Adversarial use of online media to engage and influence audiences and media;
  • Identifying and understanding relevant audiences and measuring communication impacts;
  • Frank discussions on the organizational, doctrinal, and legal challenges (real and imagined) facing the US today.

Date: July 6, 2010

Time: 8:30a – 5p (light breakfast at 8a, lunch and refreshments will be provided)

Location: National Press Club in the McClendon Room
529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045 (map)

Cost: $300 before June 27, $400 June 28 and after
Group discounts are available for 3 or more; credit cards accepted.

Speakers: Matt Armstrong, President, MountainRunner Institute
  Adam Pearson, White Canvas Group
  + representative from InterMedia
  + former leader of State Department’s public diplomacy operations

To register, send an email to Matt Armstrong at blog@mountainrunner.us.

Additional sponsorship opportunities are available.

Tom Barnett on the next generation of UN peacekeeping

~ Matt Armstrong

Tom Barnett, writing at his blog, described my article on UN peacekeepers as a tool of public diplomacy at World Politics Review as a “smart piece.” My article, titled “UN Peacekeeping as Public Diplomacy“, explores a third generation of peacekeeping that is appearing selectively. The new driver, one in which states contribute forces to further their own agenda, holds the potential of increasing the quality of UN engagement in some missions while at the same time reducing, or maintaining, the quality of engagement in others.

In his brief discussion of the article, Tom relates his personal and supporting experience with the Chinese with regards to Africa.

I myself have been surprised, whenever I met with Chinese military officers, how many of them have done time on the continent. It is really viewed as a prime operational experience.

I recommend both a read of Tom’s review, which quotes my article, and a review of the article itself at World Politics Review (free trial subscriptions are available). Your comments below, here, Tom’s blog, or at WPR are appreciated.

Update on the confirmation of US Broadcasting Board of Governors

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

The US Broadcasting Board of Governors continues to operate with a minimum of members, just enough for a quorum. The Board currently has four members, no chair, each of which continues several years (from over 3 to nearly 6) past their terms expired. Since March 23, 2010, the six of the replacement slate of eight members have been queued up for confirmation. Two of members, Dana Perino and Michael Meehan, were in a holding pattern pending more questions and answers from Senators.

Last week, it appeared the nominees would be confirmed before the Senate recessed for Memorial Day. Alan Heil, noted expert on US government broadcasting explains the current situation:

The U.S. Senate has begun its Memorial Day recess without clearing any of the eight nominees to the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Congress resumes June 7, but a debate Friday over 80 of the more than 100 nominees throughout the US government awaiting confirmation on the Senate floor ended with no action taken. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell objected to a motion by Senator Tom Harkin to pass a unanimous consent approval of these 80 nominees. Among them, the largest block of nominees to a single US government oversight body, the BBG, a number of U.S. ambassadors, appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, the Peace Corps, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and several federal district judges. To further complicate matters, as regards the eight BBG nominees, there was no indication on the Senate Executive Calendar that Senator Coburn of Oklahoma had yet lifted his hold on six of them

The BBG is oversees the civilian (non-military) international broadcasting, including but not limited to the Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and others.

See also:

A Tale from the Field about Religion, Culture, and Perception

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 2 Comments

By Gregory L. Garland

Matt’s blog has become a force to behold in the discussion about strategic communication, public diplomacy, and State/DOD relations. It has shined a light on what largely was a rarified, inside-the-beltway debate symptomatic of the old USIA’s domestic blank spot. What has been lacking are stories from the field outside the U.S. – examples of PD as it actually is conducted by PD professionals. Here’s one from my own experience that in many ways is typical.

I’ve run effective PD programs that didn’t cost Uncle Sam anything except my own time. I’ve run next to useless PD programs so flush that I couldn’t spend all the money Washington showered upon me. And I’ve run just about everything in between those extremes. As every experienced PAO knows, basic human grit, skill, and talent will go far in assembling a program, but a little bit of cash always helps. And it doesn’t have to be much, especially when compared to what other agencies spend.

Continue reading “A Tale from the Field about Religion, Culture, and Perception
“ →

Want a visa? Give €15 and we can talk about it

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 6 Comments

image

A reader comment reminded me of the strange reality of US public diplomacy.  As an effort to offset costs after Congress cut their operating budget (we hope this is the reason), some US embassies charge for the opportunity to setup an appointment to get a visa to enter the US.  At US consulate in The Hague, the charge is €15 (about $18). The consulate does recommend making sure you have all your documentation in order so you need only make one call – which they say you can do from anywhere in the world (which is a curious thing to say unless they are implying you can call collect). 

As the reader noted,

What a strange image this builds of America in a country which has diplomatic relations for hundreds of years.

I checked of four other US posts in Europe and failed to find a similar fee, which either makes Amsterdam unique or quicker to implement a policy. UPDATE: Jonathan writes that our embassy in Brussels requires the same payment. 

If this is the result of budget constraints and not a policy shift, has a demand signal been made to the budget and appropriations committees on the Hill (or to Jack Lew and others in State) on the need to get money to correct such problems?

Do we need a National Strategy on Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication?

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 5 Comments

Here is a question for the community interested in public diplomacy, strategic communication (or signaling integration), and global engagement: Does the U.S. Government need a national strategy on public diplomacy and strategic communication?

My view: yes, the President must issue a strategy that declares the imperative of synchronizing words and deeds across the interagency and within the departments, provides a high-level and flexible definition, and avoids details like specific themes. This document must provide flexible guidance and support to empower organizations to support strategic goals, such as the global information environment, global audiences, telling the truth, bolstering morale and extend hope through actions supported by words (and vice versa) and not words alone, and combating misrepresentation and distortion. 

Building the necessary capacity follows the development of necessary capabilities, which follows developing the appreciation for the need which includes understanding the gap. These all require not only awareness of the modern environment (physical and informational) but also support from the top, hence the need for the President to provide the guidance and imperative necessary to fight the bureaucratic and intellectual inertia that must be overcome for our national (physical and economic) security.

This document would replace the National Strategy for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication by Karen Hughes, which, absent a replacement, continues to come up in conversation.

Your thoughts?

See also:

Event: U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Business Meeting

~ Renee Lee

On May 25, 2010, the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations will hold a business meeting at the Capitol Building in S-116 at 2:15 p.m.

Presided by Senator John Kerry, the meeting will go over the following legislation:

  • S 3317: Haiti Empowerment, Assistance and Rebuilding Act of 2010
  • S 3193: International Cyberspace and Cybersecurity Coordination Act of 2010
  • S 3104: A bill to permanently authorize Radio Free Asia, and for other purposes
  • S Res 469: A resolution recognizing the 60th Anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Thailand
  • S Res 532: A Resolution recognizing Expo 2010 Shanghai China and the USA Pavilion at the Expo

The meeting will also review two nominations for the Broadcasting Board of Governors:

  • Michael P. Meehan to be a Member for a term expiring August 13, 2010
  • Dana M. Perino to be a Member for a term expiring August 13, 2012

If nominations are approved, all eight BBG nominees’ names will be on the Senate floor, subject to the final step in the confirmation process.

Smith-Mundt Alert: USC magazine cites VOA

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 3 Comments

imageFound on page 7 of the Spring/Summer 2010 issue of USC College Magazine is a violation of federal law, specifically the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, as amended.  This magazine contains a quote from the Voice of America, a US Government broadcaster that is not permitted to be disseminated within the territory of the US (see image at right).  Concern over USIA and US Government broadcasters like VOA led the DC Circuit court in 1998 to exempt USIA from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  Think of the damage Wikileaks could have caused if it was around in the 1990s to “expose” Americans to VOA!

Continue reading “Smith-Mundt Alert: USC magazine cites VOA
“ →

UN Peacekeeping as Public Diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 2 Comments

Certain countries, China in particular but also potentially Brazil and India, are increasingly leveraging UN peacekeeping as an opportunity to engage local populations to further national interests.  China, for example, has followed through on its word to increase its UN activities to further its image as a responsible power and to create awareness and connections with individuals and countries alike. 

At World Politics Review (subscription required), I have a short article that explores what may be the third transformation of UN peacekeeping.  From its inception as means to keep an agreed upon peace between two warring parties (hence the name), to peacemaking, some countries are using opportunities facilitated by wearing the Blue Helmet to build relations in troubled places that posses valuable resources and, secondarily, markets. 

A subtle evolution of United Nations peacekeeping operations is underway. …

The global movement of people, information, goods, and services creates new opportunities, but also new threats for peacekeepers. With the immediate and persistent availability of information, peacekeepers and their home countries will be increasingly held accountable for their actions, as well as their failure to act — a situation countries were long able to avoid. …

This public diplomacy component of peacekeeping, which connects with the general public and leaders alike, is potentially transformative and empowering for a country’s agenda, as increased contact creates awareness of culture, language, and narratives. This facilitates greater understanding, as well as personal and institutional connections, potentially opening markets and access to resources through the development of formal or informal relationships.

Read the U.N. Peacekeeping as Public Diplomacy in its entirety. A subscription is required, so subscribe or sign up for a trial subscription.