Tag: public diplomacy

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.

Recommended Reading: Cull on Lugar’s leadership in America’s leaderless Public Diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong

Read Nick Cull’s post on the strategic pause that is today’s American public diplomacy, Lugar To The Rescue: Senate Committee Backs ‘Science Envoy’ Plan:

Ralph Waldo Emerson famously lamented "How much of human life is lost in waiting" and observers of U.S. public diplomacy these last few months could be forgiven for saying the same thing. While other areas of government have something to show for the first one-hundred days of the Obama administration, formal public diplomacy initiatives have been hard to find. The president himself has led the way admirably with his interview on Al Arabiya, a Nowruz message to Iran and public rejection of landmark Bush excesses, but the Department of State has been slow to follow up. This stands in stark contrast to the crescendo of web 2.0 activity that marked the final months of James Glassman’s tenure as Under Secretary. Indeed, a range of initiatives planned, approved and funded during the Glassman period have been held in limbo pending the arrival of the new Under Secretary, Judith McHale. Bureaucrats are always timid during transitions. This being so, it is especially heartening to see the leadership coming from the Senate in the form of initiatives from the ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Dick Lugar.

Continue reading “Recommended Reading: Cull on Lugar’s leadership in America’s leaderless Public Diplomacy
“ →

The White House, Social Media, and Public Diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

Be sure to read the interesting op-ed by Jim Hoagland in The Washington Post titled A President Goes Friending. It’s pretty clear Mr. Hoagland doesn’t quite know what to make of the new-fangled means of communication. To his credit, he admits it:

My reaction no doubt resembles that of a blacksmith at the turn of the last century catching his first thrilling, then horrifying, glimpse of a motorcar.

Mr. Hoagland is not alone. The media, many public affairs officers, and governments in general, tend to view “now media” as a distinct world and not another channel of communication. Of course with any new medium of engagement there’s a fear. The first “fast” media of the 20th Century, television, was not allowed to cover the US Senate in favor of the “slower” and more comfortable print journalists for decades.

Continue reading “The White House, Social Media, and Public Diplomacy
“ →

Guest Post: Let’s Get Susan Boyle to Sing the National Anthem

~ Matt Armstrong

By Sherry Mueller

At a recent Washington, DC symposium on public diplomacy entitled “Public Affairs in a Global Information Environment,” I joked to a Swedish colleague: “Success in public diplomacy will be getting Susan Boyle to sing your national anthem.” That is not as far-fetched as one might think. What are the lessons all of us involved in practicing or studying public diplomacy can learn from the Susan Boyle phenomenon?

Continue reading “Guest Post: Let’s Get Susan Boyle to Sing the National Anthem
“ →

Guest Post: How to win the GWOT – or whatever it’s called today

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 2 Comments

By Mark Pfeifle, Jonathan Thompson

America has the finest military and diplomatic leaders in the world. They know how to win on the battlefield and at the negotiating table. Yet, despite those winning ways, there are times when they become victims of circumstances rather than drivers of events. At such times, some may falter with the media and public, and when that happens, they too often lay blame the results on bad press coverage.

Continue reading “Guest Post: How to win the GWOT – or whatever it’s called today
“ →

Empowering and Engaging the First Three Feet: an upcoming symposium

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

ASIG_Logo

The working title of a symposium I have in development is “Empowering and Engaging the First Three Feet”. The symposium will examine the US Government’s role in assisting and developing foreign media, both here in the United States and locally, notably in post-conflict environments and in repressive regimes. Is the United States doing enough to support the media, both American but primarily (for the purpose of this discussion) foreign, to…

  1. Get the truth out;
  2. Counter accidental misinformation and intentional disinformation; and
  3. Export the American concept of “Fourth Estate” responsibilities abroad?

These are the essential questions of this forthcoming event. Details, such keynote(s) to discussants to sponsors to date, are not set as of yet. 

Continue reading “Empowering and Engaging the First Three Feet: an upcoming symposium
“ →

Guest Post: Three (More) Steps to Better E-Diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 2 Comments

Hillary Clinton’s willingness to embrace the use of technology and bring Alec Ross on as an advisor for innovation is a welcome and critical step for a 21st century State Department operation. Employing social networking tools to share information with foreign publics, collaborating to produce new software to improve services around the world, and working together across borders to improve all facets of State’s work. From a diplomatic perspective, however, installing the critical infrastructure for sharing information is only a first step. There are three crucial next steps that will likely be the difference between a disappointing legacy of good ideas and a lasting legacy of good diplomacy. They are:

  • Closing the global digital divide with open internet access,
  • Engaging, not lecturing, and
  • Expanding and restructuring the Foreign Service’s digital presence at home and abroad.

Continue reading “Guest Post: Three (More) Steps to Better E-Diplomacy
“ →

Advice from the Former Under Secretary to the Incoming Under Secretary

~ Matt Armstrong

Amy Harder at the National Journal asked Jim Glassman, the former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, about his successor.

Glassman has not met with his successor, but he said he would be more than happy to do so if approached. So, what advice does he have for McHale? “I would urge her to not simply talk to the people in the building,” Glassman said. “She needs to understand how the office works within the State Department, but she should also get out and talk to the key players in the interagencies.” He cited the Defense Department as the most crucial agency relationship.

See also:

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
“ →

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.

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: 8th Annual Information Operations Europe

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 3 Comments

An upcoming event of interest: 8th Annual Information Operations Europe: Delivering Effects Through Influence Activity
June 22 – 24, 2009 · Le Meridien Piccadilly, London, UK

Discussions of note:

Cartography Of Strategic Communications

  • The 21st century Info-sphere
  • Strategic Communications, Information Operations, Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
  • Legacy definitions and the search for an improved solution
  • Conclusions and recommendations

Professor Phil Taylor
Director, Institute of Communications Studies
Leeds University

A New Concept For Strategic Communications

  • Coordinating disparate assets and organisations in NATO
  • Suggestions for other bodies

Mark Laity
Chief Strategic Communications and Special Advisor to SACEUR
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, NATO

Using New Media As Part Of An Influence Strategy: Operation Trident

  • Operation background, aims and target audience
  • Coordinating messages across different media
  • Employing new media to reach an audience: Lessons Learned

Detective Chief Superintendent Helen Ball
Head of Trident
London Metropolitan Police

The event website is here.

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.