by Bruce Gregory*
J. Samuel Barkin, Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory, (Cambridge University Press, 2010). Barkin (University of Florida) has written a book of primary interest to IR theorists. However, his insights, clear prose, and careful inquiry into distinctions and common ground between realism and constructivism have much to offer diplomacy scholars as they struggle with implications for their integrative and relational models. Barkin is especially useful in his assessment of the strengths and limitations of realism and constructivism. Although he does not discuss diplomacy per se, his views on the meaning of public interest and political agency, the limitations of power, the logic and constraints of “the social,” differences between interest based and socially constructed norms and rules, and historical contingency inform thinking about diplomacy as an instrument used to achieve governance objectives and manage relations between groups.
Rosa Brooks, “Portrait of the Army as a Work in Progress,” Foreign Policy, May/June 2014, 43-51. Drawing on an interview with US Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno and a visit to the US military base in Kuwait, Brooks (Georgetown University) looks at the Army’s planning for “regionally aligned forces” (RAFs) – meaning units with region-specific linguistic and cultural training and long-term relationships with particular geographic regions. The intent is to enable the Army’s general purposes forces (not just special forces) to influence local populations, establish ties with local leaders, and strengthen military-to-military cooperation before, during, and after conflict. Brooks assesses arguments for and against the RAF concept, issues born of conceptual ambiguity and confusing terms, internal resistance to change, training difficulties, challenges abroad (e.g., its problematic application in Kuwait), and challenges in the US (lack of enthusiasm in the Department of State and Congress). Brooks addresses State’s concerns about “the militarization of foreign policy” and Odierno’s outreach plans to convince senior diplomats that “we are not conducting foreign policy” and that the Army offers a broad array of support capabilities. In the end, she concludes, RAF’s value as a strategy is “rife with contradictions;” however, as a “canny effort” to protect the Army from budget cuts, “It’s brilliant.”
Robin Brown, “Systems, Chains, and Spaces: Towards a Framework for Comparative Public Diplomacy Research,” Paper prepared for the International Studies Association Convention, Toronto, March 26-30, 2014. Download paper from bottom of linked blog at ISA 2014 v 6: Building on his earlier paper outlining four paradigms of public diplomacy, Brown (PDNetworks.wordpress.com) turns to organizational and material aspects of foreign public engagement as a way to organize studies of public diplomacy. His paper introduces three concepts. (1) “National public diplomacy systems,” linked to Brian Hocking’s idea of “national diplomacy systems,” emerge “from particular conjunctions of national and international factors.” They demonstrate path dependency characterized by their origins and persistence in their reliance on particular “repertoires of activities.” (2) “Influence chains” are ways in which these repertoires of activities translate policy intent into action and outcomes. (3) “Operational space” is a concept that focuses on how public diplomacy actions are affected by context, e.g., the activities and attitudes of other governments and publics. Brown develops these concepts as a way to make a case for going beyond seeing them “as idiosyncratic features of particular cases to recurring aspects of public diplomacy that need to be systematically investigated.”
For brief summaries of his arguments on influence chains and operational space, see “Introducing the Influence Chain,” April 22, 2014 and “Thinking about Operational Space,” April 25, 2014, Public Diplomacy, Networks and Influence Blog.
Commander’s Communication Synchronization, Joint Doctrine Note 2-13, December 18, 2013. Joint Doctrine Notes are the military’s way of providing bridging solutions to doctrine gaps and guidance on doctrine development — in this case its evolution from “strategic communication” (now out of favor) to the current framing term, “commander’s communication synchronization” (CCS). Notes are officially supported statements, but not authoritative doctrine. This lengthy, well-organized document defines CSS and provides insights at the Joint Staff level on a variety of issues: the central importance of communication; changes in the communication environment; new operational requirements; the high priority of “listening” and “knowing your audience;” the necessity for credibility and aligning words, images, and actions; integration of communication in all planning and operations; best practices; and variety of organizations and capabilities. It includes definitions of such terms as audience, publics, stakeholders, message, narrative, information operations, public affairs, and “defense support for public diplomacy.” Although the CSS definition states it is a joint force commander’s process for supporting “strategic communication-related objectives,” and there are references to strategic communication working groups in some combatant commands, the Note’s intent is to frame the conversation as “commander’s communication synchronization.” (Courtesy of Stephanie Helm)
CPD Annual Review, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, Vol. 5, Issue 1, Spring 2014. In this issue, the USC Center on Public Diplomacy examines global trends that shaped public diplomacy around the world in 2013. The Review analyzes “media coverage of events and activities that have public diplomacy implications and impact.” The issue includes introductory and concluding remarks and sections on PD 2013 at a glance and the 10 biggest public diplomacy stories in 2013.
“Diplomacy in a Digital World,” Clingendael, The Netherlands Institute of International Relations, April 6, 2014. Clingendael Institute scholars Brian Hocking and Jan Melissen announce plans for a “deeper and broader look at diplomacy in the digital age.” Their new project will build on Clingendael’s 2012 report, Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21st Century, and focus on such issues as the growth of social media in diplomacy, e-governance, performance enhancement in key areas of foreign ministry activities such as consular diplomacy, planning, and participation in policy process. Interested partner countries are welcome.
Guy J. Golan and Evhenia “Zhenia” Vitchaninova, “The Advertorial as a Tool of Mediated Public Diplomacy,” International Journal of Communication, 8 (2014), 1268-1288. Golan and Vitchaninova (Syracuse University) analyze Russia’s use of advertorials — defined as “a print advertisement disguised as editorial material” – in 303 advertorial supplements in The Washington Post and The Times of India. The authors found differences between the US and India in Russia’s “attribute promotion strategies” and in the issues promoted. “The Indian advertorials focused predominantly on Russia’s power attribute, whereas U.S. advertorials highlight Russia’s attributes as an innovative, developed, and investor-friendly nation.” Their article includes a literature review, summary of their content analysis research method and its coding variables, discussion of the strengths and limitations of advertorials as a tool of public diplomacy, and reflections on implications for public diplomacy scholarship and practice.
Bruce Gregory, The Paradox of US Public Diplomacy: Its Rise and “Demise,” A Special Report for the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication (IPDGC), George Washington University, February 2014, released by IPDGC in a new format May 2014. U.S. public diplomacy faces a paradox. As diplomacy’s public dimension increasingly dominates study and practice, public diplomacy has less value as a term and conceptual subset of diplomacy. It marginalizes what is now mainstream. This report examines transformational changes in diplomacy’s 21st century context: permeable borders and power diffusion, new diplomatic actors and issues, digital technologies and social media, and whole of government diplomacy. It critically assesses implications for diplomatic roles and risks, foreign ministries and diplomatic missions, and strategic planning. In an attempt to bridge scholarship and practice, the report explores operational and architectural consequences for diplomacy in a world that is more transparent, informal, and complex.
Mark Harris, Five Came Back: A Story of Hollywood and the Second World War, (Penguin Press, 2014). Entertainment historian and columnist Harris tells the stories of Hollywood’s relationship with Washington during World War II through the work of five directors: John Ford, William Wyler, John Huston, Frank Capra, and George Stevens. Harris’s well reviewed and deeply researched narrative looks unsparingly at the lives of these filmmakers and provides critical assessments of their work in the charged political and ideological context of a nation at war. Importantly, he wrestles with questions relating to what it means to film combat and issues driven by conflicts between what is perceived to be truth and instrumental versions of truth used to serve government and military interests. Includes lengthy sections on the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the Office of War Information (OWI).
H.R. 4490, United States International Communications Reform Act of 2014, Committee on Foreign Affairs, US House of Representatives, marked up April 30, 2014. This bill (text as introduced before markup), co-sponsored by Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) and Ranking Member Eliot Engel (D-NY), and passed with unanimous Committee support is intended to improve and restructure the management of US international broadcasting services. According to the Committee, the bill would (1) establish a full-time agency head for US international broadcasting, (2) reduce the authority of the Broadcasting Board of Governors “to a more appropriate advisory capacity,” (3) make “clear that the Voice of America mission is to support U.S. public diplomacy efforts,” and (4) consolidate the “Freedom Broadcasters” — Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), and the Middle East Broadcasting Network (MBN) – into a single, non-federal organization to be called the “Freedom News Network.”
For comment on the bill, which is expected to be followed by a counterpart bill in the US Senate, see: Ron Nixon, “House Measure to Change Voice of America’s Mission is Drawing Intense Debate,” The New York Times, May 20, 2014; “The Pitch of America’s Voice,” The New York Times Editorial, May 25, 2014; Craig Hayden, “Playing for Keeps,” May 21, 2014, Intermap Blog; Alex Brown, “Can Congress Make Journalists Do Propaganda,” National Journal, May 2, 2014; John Hudson, “Exclusive: New Bill Requires Voice of America to Toe U.S. Line,” The Cable, FP Blog, April 29, 2014; Helle C Dale and Brent D. Schaefer, “Time to Reform U.S. International Broadcasting,” Issue Brief #4206, The Heritage Foundation, April 24, 2014; “US Lawmakers Mulling International Broadcasting,” Voice of America, April 30, 2014.
See also Mathew Weed’s Congressional Reference Service report on U.S. International Broadcasting: Background and Issues for Reform, May 2, 2014, annotated and linked below.
John Kerry, Heather Higginbottom, Rajiv Shah, and Tom Perriello, “Remarks at the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) Launch,” US Department of State, April 22, 2014. Secretary of State Kerry, Deputy Secretary of State Higginbottom, USAID Administrator Shah, and Special Representative (QDDR) Perriello frame their vision and rationale for the Department’s second QDDR. The stated goal: “It will guide the Department and USAID in becoming more agile, responsive, and effective in the face of traditional and emerging challenges as well as new opportunities.”
Amy Mitchell, “State of the News Media 2014,” Pew Research Journalism Project, March 26, 2014. Mitchell (Director of Pew’s Journalism Project) finds new energy and reasons for optimism as well as challenges in the news industry. Grounded in four original research reports and a searchable database of statistics from previous years, the 2014 report: (1) Digital-only news organizations are increasing global news coverage, “the first real build-up of international reporting in decades.” (2) New money may be more about new ways of reporting than building a new revenue structure. (3) Social and mobile trends are changing the dynamics of the news process. (4) Online video is expanding, but the scale is small. (5) Local television experienced massive ownership changes with hard to assess impact on consumers. (6) Demographic changes in the US population are increasing Hispanic news operations and changing news coverage.
Barak Obama, “Remarks by the President at the United States Military Academy Commencement Ceremony,” West Point, New York, May 28, 2014. In a speech filled with references to American leadership and terrorism “as the most direct threat to America at home and abroad,” President Obama called for broadening US tools to include “diplomacy and development; sanctions and isolation; appeals to international law; and, if just, necessary and effective, multilateral military action.” Framing US diplomacy’s public dimension as forming “alliances not just with governments, but also with ordinary people,” he argued that America is strengthened by civil society, by a free press, by striving entrepreneurs, and by educational exchange and opportunity for all people, and women and girls. “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being,” he stated, “But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.”
Wally Olins, Brand New: The Shape of Brands to Come,(Thames & Hudson, 2014). Olins (Saffron Brand Consultants) examines the future of corporate, NGO, and nation branding in the context of globalization and digital technologies. If borders are more porous and globalization is occurring on an unprecedented scale, why is nation branding more important? The answer, Olins argues, is “because now the national brand and, within the nation, the city brand and, sometimes, across nations, the regional brand, have a statistically measurable economic aim, as well as a traditional, emotional, ideological purpose.” His chapters on “National Prosperity and Nation Branding” and “Branding the Place” update ideas in his chapter on “Making a National Brand” in Jan Melissen, ed., The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, 2007).
James Pamment, “’Putting the GREAT Back Into Britain:’ National Identity, Public-Private Collaboration & Transfers of Brand Equity in 2012’s Global Promotional Campaign,” British Journal of Politics and International Relations, March 27, 2014. Pamment (University of Texas at Austin) examines Britain’s efforts to promote trade, investment, and tourism during the Summer Olympics year 2012 through the “GREAT campaign” – a campaign that emphasized a unified national identity emphasizing British achievements. Pamment’s case study addresses four objectives: (1) “GREAT’s promotional style, message and objectives;” (2) “practices surrounding commodification of collective identity;” (3) “coordination, inclusion and exclusion practices,” and (4) “conceptualizations of transfers between symbolic and economic resources.” Particularly interesting are his thoughts for further research: how terms such as public diplomacy, promotion, and nation branding can reflect political agendas and practitioner differences over budgets and priorities; the development of metrics that reflect “best practices” rather than the expectations of stakeholders; and the importance of transparency and inclusion in government activities that claim to represent national images and interests.
James Pamment, “Time, Space & German Soft Power: Toward a Spatio-Temporal Turn in Diplomatic Studies?” Perspectives: Review of International Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2013, 5-25. Pamment (University of Texas at Austin) looks at an array of German soft power strategies beginning with creation of the German state in 1871. His overview includes a variety of 20th century efforts by Germany to achieve cultural, political, and economic influence and concludes with a brief discussion of recent Land of Ideas and Year of Germany nation branding campaigns. He analyzes questions raised by Germany’s soft power practices through the theoretical lens of the “spatio-temporal turn,” understood as an approach to “multi-layered dynamics of globalization,” using analysis of “interconnected political, economic, symbolic, and social phenomena in non-deterministic ways.” Pamment’s goal is to suggest “a theoretical framework for adapting the spatio-temporal turn in Media & Communication Studies to debates within diplomatic studies and soft power research.” In particular, he seeks to take studies of soft power “beyond inferences about diplomatic influence” to a more “carefully contextualized analyses of how attraction relates to social practices.”
Se Jung Park and Yon Soo Lim, “Information Networks and Social Media Use in Public Diplomacy: A Comparative Analysis of South Korea and Japan,” Asian Journal of Communication, 2014, Vol. 24, No. 1, 79-98. Park (Georgia State University) and Lim (Hongik University) examine “how South Korean and Japanese public diplomacy organizations employ digital media to embrace the principle of ‘networked public diplomacy’ through analysis of the web and media practices.” Using a combination of network analysis and content analysis, their case studies (1) map “interorganizational information networks” among these public diplomacy organizations through analysis of URL citations by web users, (2) analyze the web practices of key organizations in communicating with publics, and (3) assess degrees of public engagement and demographic characteristics. Park and Lim conclude their findings suggest that, although the two countries have similar sociopolitical backgrounds and perspectives on public diplomacy, Korea’s public diplomacy was more successful at engaging with foreign publics than Japan’s. They attribute this to differences in “forms of internal information networks, communication strategies, and social networking performances” with publics.
Geoffrey Allen Pigman, “International Sport and Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: Governments, Sporting Federations and the Global Audience,” Diplomacy & Statecraft, published online March 7, 2014. Pigman (University of Pretoria) observes that international sporting competition has had a role in diplomacy since the ancient Olympiad. Today sports competitors have far reaching capacity to represent governments, people, and sponsoring firms to foreign governments and global publics. Taking a broad historical and analytical approach, his taxonomy includes (1) international sport as a tool of diplomacy used by governments and (2) “international sport-as-diplomacy,” which encompasses activities of an array of international sporting bodies and other “non-state diplomatic actors.” The latter category affects public diplomacy, he argues, through both the impact of sports on diplomatic relations between governments and public diplomacy activities of the international sporting bodies themselves. His article contains numerous references to current public diplomacy scholarship, and he calls for more study of how international sport relates to public diplomacy in light of trends in the number and variety of sporting competitions and growth in international sports exchanges, both virtual and personal.
Geoffrey Allen Pigman and J. Simon Rofe, guest editors, “Sport and Diplomacy,” Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics, 2013. In their introduction to this collection of articles in Sport in Society, Pigman (University of Pretoria) and Rofe (University of London) frame the need to examine the under-studied relationship between diplomacy and international sport. Systematic investigation of sport and diplomacy is needed, they argue, for two reasons. “First, nowhere has the diffusion and redistribution of political and economic power in our globalizing world been more visible to the general public and scholars alike than in international sport.” A second rationale “is the relative rise in the importance of soft power, the power to persuade and attract, as a major development in international relations since the end of the Cold War.” Includes:
— Geoffrey Allen Pigman and Simon Rofe, “Sport and Diplomacy: an Introduction”
— Caitlin Byrne (Bond University), “Relationship of convenience? The Diplomatic Interplay Between the Commonwealth Games Federation and the Commonwealth Games Host City”
— Anthony Deos (University of Otago) “Sport and Relational Public Diplomacy: the Case of New Zealand and Rugby World Cup 2011”
— Stuart Murray (Bond University) and Geoffrey Allen Pigman, “Mapping the Relationship Between International Sport and Diplomacy”
— M. R. G. Pope (University of London), “Public diplomacy, International News Media and London 2012: Cosmopolitanism TM”
— J. Simon Rofe, “It Is a Squad Game: Manchester United as a Diplomatic Non-state Actor in International Affairs”
— Blake Skjellerup (Olympics speed skater), “Playing out – Sport’s Ability to Bring About Change”
— Alan Tomlinson (University of Brighton), “The Supreme Leader Sails On: Leadership, Ethics and Governance in FIFA”
— Antoaneta Vanc, (Quinnipiac University), “The Counter-intuitive Value of Celebrity Athletes as Antidiplomats in Public Diplomacy: Ilie Nastase from Romania and the World of Tennis”
“The Power of Non-State Actors,” Public Diplomacy Magazine, Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars at the University of Southern California, Summer 2014. This issue of PD Magazine includes:
Features and Perspectives
— Mary Finley Brook (University of Richmond), “Climate Justice Advocacy”
— Rook Campbell (University of Southern California), “Conflicting Interests in Non-State Actor Diplomacy: A Case Study of Corporate Diplomacy in Art and Sport,”
— Horacio Trujillo (Aegis Trust) and David Elam (Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, SAIS), “Operationalizing the Responsibility to Protect: The Potential for Transnational Public Diplomacy to Advance Effective, Domestic Responsibility”
— Joaquin Jay Gonzalez, (Golden Gate University), “Diaspora Diplomacy: Influences from Philippine Migrants”
Interviews with Guillain Koko (People Against Suffering, Oppression, and Poverty (PASSOP), Cape Town, South Africa); USC’s Master of Public Diplomacy delegation to Brazil; and Mike Medavoy, (CEO, Phoenix Pictures)
Case Studies
— Richard Wike (Pew Research), “Survey Research and International Affairs”
— Ira Wagman (Carleton University), “Celebrity Diplomacy Without Effects: Danny Kaye and UNICEF”
— Matthew Wallin (American Security Project), “For the Luiz: Anonymous’ Influence on the World”
— Linda Reinstein, (Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization), “Non-State Actors: 21st Century Activism for Influencing Public Policy”
— Kevin E. Grisham, (California State University, San Bernardino), “Surviving the Struggle: Engagement and the Transformation of Violent Non-state Actors”
— Laura Rubio Diaz-Leal, (Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México), “Displaced Religious Minorities in Chiapas: Communication Strategies for Agency”
“Re-Balancing the Rebalance: Resourcing U.S. Diplomatic Strategy in the Asia-Pacific Region,” A Majority Staff Report for the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, April 17, 2014. In this report for the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee’s staff calls for taking advantage of “our people and our values” through such interpersonal connections as Fulbright Scholarships, the Peace Corps, and “other pillars of American public diplomacy.” Public diplomacy recommendations include: (1) redouble Obama administration efforts to encourage more Americans to study in China and other countries in East Asia, (2) take steps to arrest the slide in Japanese studying in the US, (3) fund a new Young South-East Asian Leaders Initiative and a Fulbright University in Vietnam to “rebalance within the rebalance,” (4) reduce travel restrictions and increase visa issuance, (5) better integrate the State Department’s East Asia public diplomacy efforts with other Department bureaus and civilian agencies, and (6) improve the US Government’s “messaging of the rebalance to the American public and the world at large.” (Courtesy of Ellen Frost)
Daya Thussu, De-Americanizing Soft Power Discourse, CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School, April 2014. Thussu (University of Westminster, London) examines “growing appreciation of the importance of soft power in a digitally connected and globalized media and communication environment.” Arguing “media remain central to soft power initiatives,” he focuses his essay on global media, especially its televisual dimension. Although fully recognizing that the US continues to dominate global media by a variety of measures, Thussu discusses powerful media and communication trends in the Global South, new forms of “globalization from below,” the growth of Chinese television news in English for a global audience, the soft power of “Bollywood,” and the rise of what he calls “Chindian” soft power. These trends, he concludes, have loosened Western dominance of global media and led to a deepening “of the soft power discourse beyond its American remit.” This suggests the importance of “serious engagement” between the two.
Mathew C. Weed, U.S. International Broadcasting: Background and Issues for Reform, Congressional Research Service (CRS), R43521, May 2, 2014. With the evenhandedness for which CRS is known, Weed (CRS Foreign Policy Legislation analyst) provides an assessment of current issues facing the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and US international broadcasting. His study looks briefly at the history of US broadcasting activities and legislative milestones, the BBG’s current structure, the structures and roles of federal and grantee US broadcasting services, key policy issues facing the BBG and international broadcasting, and the provisions of H.R. 4490, the United States International Communications Reform Act of 2014,
Amy Zalman, “Getting the Information Albatross off our Back: Notes Toward an Information-Savvy National Security Community,” Perspectives, Layalina Productions, Volume VI, Issue 2, April 2014. Zalman (National War College) argues the US “organizes information activities on the basis of an outdated worldview set in the Cold War, ideologically, and the Industrial Age, technologically” and neglects “informational power as a strategic instrument.” She calls for a “dramatic, systemic change of mindset;” installing “a new framework of information power” exemplified by the recent J. Christopher Stevens Virtual Exchange Initiative; changes in the education of senior military and civilian leaders; and reorganization of US government informational activities on a whole of government basis.
Recent Blogs and Other Items of Interest
Patrick Blum, “Costs Drive Both Sides of Study Abroad,” The New York Times, May 4, 2014.
Robin Brown, “J. G. Herder, Nationalism and Cultural Relations,” May 31, 2014; “When China was Cool: Mao’s Little Red Book,” May 23, 2014; “Recent Report on the French Cultural Network,” May 21, 2014; “Reading China’s Aid and Soft Power in Africa,” May 1, 2014; “If It’s Not PD and It’s Not Aid What Is It?” April 16, 2014; Public Diplomacy, Networks and Influence Blog.
Christian Carlyle, “How to Win the Information War against Vladimir Putin,” May 2, 2014, Democracy Lab, FP Blog.
P.J. Crowley, “The US Public Diplomacy Deficit,” Remarks to the American Foreign Service Association and Public Diplomacy Alumni Association, April 16, 2014, C-SPAN2 (approximately 1 hour video).
“The Diplomatic Academy of the Caribbean Holds First Graduation,” Trinidad and Tobago Newsday, May 7, 2014. (Courtesy of Jorge Heine and Andrew Cooper).
Craig Hayden, “US Public Diplomacy in a Digital Context,” 30 minute podcast interview by Michael Ardaiolo, May 1, 2014, thePublicDiplomat, Syracuse University.
Rosalind S. Helderman, “For Hillary Clinton and Boeing, a Beneficial Relationship,” The Washington Post, April 13, 2014.
David Jackson, “What is the Mission of U.S. International Broadcasting?” April 26, 2014, Public Diplomacy Council.
Joe Johnson, “Putin’s Russian Propaganda on Ukraine: Is the West Losing?” June 3, 2014, Public Diplomacy Council.
Robert E. Hunter, “What Did Obama Really Say at West Point,” May 28, 2014, LobeLog Foreign Policy Blog.
Emily T. Metzgar, “Public Diplomacy as a Corrective Lens?” May 23, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Juan Luis Manfredi, “Hacking Diplomacy,” April 2, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Tara Ornstein, “Public Diplomacy in Action: MSF’s Access Campaign,” May 7, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Adam Powell, “Is the US Losing the Propaganda War with Russia?” June 2, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Spiegel staff, “The Opinion-Makers: How Russia is Winning the Propaganda War,” May 30, 2014, SpiegelOnline.
Rhonda Zaharna, “Culture Posts: Propaganda by Default in Ukraine,” April 9, 2014, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Gem From the Past
Wilson Dizard, Digital Diplomacy: U.S. Foreign Policy in the Information Age, (Praeger, 2001). The late Wilson Dizard, a long-serving US Information Agency Foreign Service Officer, found time to write six books on international communication issues during his career. His early work focused on communication satellites, spectrum issues, and radio/television broadcasting. He then turned with considerable acuity and prescience to assessing the impact of computers and the Internet on diplomatic practice. Although he did not live to assess the meaning of today’s social media challenges for diplomacy, his book addressed transformative issues he knew Internet related technologies would bring in “an information intensive postindustrial environment.” Whether or not he was the first to use the term “digital diplomacy,” he cautiously suggested it raised a new set of profound and strategic issues in relations between nations. As he put it, “I have had occasional qualms about suggesting a new name . . . digital diplomacy. For the present it may be a useful, if temporary, addition to a long tradition that has seen such predecessors as gunboat diplomacy, dollar diplomacy, quiet diplomacy, shuttle diplomacy, ping-pong diplomacy and, more recently, public diplomacy.”
______________________________
*Bruce Gregory is an Adjunct Professor at George Washington University and Georgetown University, and publishes this list periodically via mailing list. We reprint it here as a service to our readers. Bruce can be reached by email via bgregory at gwu dot edu
