May 19-20

"Israel has managed to contribute more to the world, on a per capita basis, than any country in history."

--Felix Frankfurter Professor at Harvard Law School Alan M. Dershowitz; image from

PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban: Propaganda that was supposed to target foreigners could now be aimed at Americans, reversing a longstanding policy. “Disconcerting and dangerous,” says Shank - Michael Hastings, BuzzFeed: An amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences is being inserted into the latest defense authorization bill, BuzzFeed has learned. The amendment would ‘strike the current ban on domestic dissemination’ of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the Pentagon, according to the summary of the law at the House Rules Committee's official website.

The tweak to the bill would essentially neutralize two previous acts—the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987—that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from our own government’s misinformation campaigns. The bi-partisan amendment is sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington State. In a little noticed press release earlier in the week — buried beneath the other high-profile issues in the $642 billion defense bill, including indefinite detention and a prohibition on gay marriage at military installations — Thornberry warned that in the Internet age, the current law ‘ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way.’ The bill's supporters say the informational material used overseas to influence foreign audiences is too good to not use at home, and that new techniques are needed to help fight Al-Qaeda, a borderless enemy whose own propaganda reaches Americans online. Critics of the bill say there are ways to keep America safe without turning the massive information operations apparatus within the federal government against American citizens. ‘Clearly there are ways to modernize for the information age without wiping out the distinction between domestic and foreign audiences,’ says Michael Shank, Vice President at the Institute for Economics and Peace in Washington D.C. ‘That Reps Adam Smith and Mac Thornberry want to roll back protections put in place by previously-serving Senators – who, in their wisdom, ensured limits to taxpayer–funded propaganda promulgated by the US government – is disconcerting and dangerous.’ ‘I just don’t want to see something this significant – whatever the pros and cons – go through without anyone noticing,’ says one source on the Hill, who is disturbed by the law. According to this source, the law would allow ‘U.S. propaganda intended to influence foreign audiences to be used on the domestic population.’" Image from article

Critics Fret About Smith-Mundt Modernization Act - Steven R. Corman, comops.org: "The House of Representatives has been working to amend the laws that govern the dissemination of ' propaganda' materials in the U.S.  What seemed like a good idea to me and others–one long overdue–is being spun by some observers as a dark effort by the DoD and State Department who want authorization to brainwash Americans. Last night Buzzfeed posted an article claiming that the changes were being quietly inserted into a defense authorization bill. However, as Matt Armstrong reported, the changes were also part of a stand-alone bill (H.R. 5736) introduced last week.  ... People in the strategic communication and public diplomacy arena (including me) have agreed for some time that changes to Smith-Mundt are needed. Nobody I know wants changes so they can–MWAHAAHAAHAA!–run propaganda ops on Americans. It’s more of an effort to recognize the reality of the modern situation. ... Maintaining a firewall between foreign and domestic audiences was perhaps more feasible when the Internet hadn’t even been conceived. Today it is impossible. Any communication by the U.S. government or military anywhere can make it back to the United States in a matter of seconds. Changes in law are needed to recognize reality and prevent our strategic communication agencies from spending time/resources trying to stop the inevitable. Not only is this a waste of resources but it inhibits our ability to respond to events in a timely manner when communication plans have to be reviewed by teams of lawyers in an effort to comply with an archaic law (I have been told this is something that happens regularly). Unintentional domestic dissemination is one thing, but what about more intentional efforts critics are claiming this legislation would enable? The language in the House bill seems clear enough that it only applies to 'materials prepared for dissemination abroad' and does not in any way authorize expenditures for targeted influence of domestic audiences."

Congress Wants the Department of Defense to Propagandize Americans - Juan Cole, Informed Comment: Two congressmen are attempting to insert a provision in the National Defense Authorization act that would allow the Department of Defense to subject the US domestic public to propaganda. The bipartisan amendment was introduced by Rep. Mac Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington State. Nothing speaks more urgently to the creeping fascism of American politics than the assertion by our representatives, who apparently have never read a book on Germany in the

1930s-1940s or on the Soviet Union in the Stalin period, that forbidding DoD and the State Department from subjecting us to government propaganda 'ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way.' And mind you, they want to use our own money to wash our brains! ... Doing propaganda abroad has the difficulty that it doesn’t stay abroad. False articles placed in the Arabic press in Iraq were translated into English by wire services, who got stung. Then, another problem is that the Defense Intelligence Agency analysts *also* read the false articles placed in the Arabic press by *another* Pentagon office, which they did not know about. So the analysts were passing up to the White House false information provided by their own colleagues!" Image from

Laos, Secretary Clinton and the Glitter Ball - Diplomatic Mom: My Journey as a FSO, Wife and Mom: This Blog Describes My Journey as a Foreign Service Officer, Wife of Another FS Officer and a Mom to a Boisterous, Loving Little Boy. In August 2010, My Husband Began His Career with the State Department, and I Started Mine In March 2011. We Left for Our First Post in Dhaka, Bangladesh in July 2011. We Will Move Abroad to Work in Different American Embassies Every Two Years. We Are Thrilled with Our New Adventure and Cannot Wait for It To Begin: "I all of a sudden read in the news that my boss, Secretary Clinton, is coming to town. As Elmo would say - Oh boy!! This was my first time experiencing a major Washington visit at an embassy and let me tell you – it was an eye opener on some many different levels! At the State Department, we have funny abbreviations like POTUS (President of the United States), FLOTUS (???) (First Lady), S for Secretary, CODEL for a congressional delegation, and so on. Oh yeah, we have a great sense of humor in DOS! So, S’s visit to Bangladesh was for only 22 hours and she wanted to meet the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the opposition leader, the civil society leaders, the youth and the embassy community. In 22 hours, people - the lady is amazing! Phew! And we had to make it happen with less than a week to prep. You have no idea what this entails until you become part of the circus. First, an advance team comes from Washington – apart from the security detail, the sniffing dogs, a bunch of other guys whose function still remains a mystery to me, there are also several foreign service officers who come in advance and help plan the dance with the embassy. Apart from serving overseas, our career also brings us back to serve in the U.S. There are generally 2 types of jobs – analytical (say, desk officer for a country or some other functional position, like human rights for Africa) and the action – packed '7th' floor job. The 7th floor in the Department of State is where S office and her immediate staff preside. To work there is, to say the least, rather prestigious. Among some of the support roles for the 7th floor are the Operations Center (provides 24 hours communications and crisis management support to all of us) and the so-called 'Line' (S’s travel team, of which the advance team is a part). I have never seen such an efficient, fast and furious machine unfold itself within such a short period of time. Every day we had countdown meetings, where Secretary Clinton’s every step was planned literally in 1-minute increments. Roles were being assigned, more and more people roped in every hour or so and by the end, most warm bodies in the Embassy had some function in the visit, even if they were to supervise luggage or sell candy in the hotel operations room. I got to babysit the local press for some of the meetings. Which was cool because it meant that I will get to see S at least 2 times if not more, while some of the worker bees on the visit never even got to see her. After all was said and done, the Secretary left swiftly and somehow magically all the staff and equipment disappeared within the next 24 hours like they have never even set foot in Dhaka. One day, when I grow up, I want to work 'on the line'! The visit required both me and the Diplomat to work all weekend. One of my meetings was at the American Club, which meant that on a hot Friday afternoon I had to go there, fully clad in a suit while the poolside was filled with happy screaming kids and parents, gleefully jumping in and out of the cool water. Son was at home with his babysitter. All weekend long. I came home at 11 pm that night and had to leave at 6 am the next morning. I didn’t see him most of the weekend, which made me feel incredibly guilty – it is so easy to feel like you are a bad mom. But the truth is, this happens. It happens in almost every job - there are late nights, overnight trips, moments and hours when you just want to be alone and not be engaged 100% with your child. And so it is ok. It happens much less for those working in consular positions, but if you are a public diplomacy, political, econ or even management officer, late nights and weekends are par for the course – whether it is a gallery opening for Cultural Affairs, or a pesky late night cable for Political after a long and possibly fruitless meeting with some governmental official, or preparing for yet another CODEL (congressional delegation) for Management. Being a Foreign Service officer is a fabulous job but it comes with its own baggage. I still want to work on the line. And be a FSO. I LOVE my job! ... DIPLOMATIC MAMA [:] I am a corporate lawyer turned mommy and, at times, stay at home wife.

Until recently, I lived in NYC with the Diplomat and Son (born in September 2008), and we have recently moved to Washington, DC so that my husband can begin his career with the State Department. In March 2011, I will also join the Foreign Service myself and serve along with the Diplomat. I love martinis, single-malt scotch, white Burgundy, high-heeled shoes, little black dresses, exotic travel and the general good life. Being a mommy, while awesome, is tough but I fight the good fight to preserve my 'cool NYer' every day, one martini at a time. Am I a good mom? Abso-freaking-lutely!" Image from

Mrs. Clinton, you have a problem - Peter Van Buren, wemeantwell.com: "The State Department has pressured numerous employees to quit blogging at the risk of their career. When I refused to cave in, they began termination proceedings."

Analog vs. Digital in the Diplomatic World - Matthew Wallin, americansecurityproject.org: “The analog vs. digital debate has turned from watches, to cameras, and now to diplomacy. Today I attended an event on Digital Diplomacy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Given my skepticism of many digital diplomacy efforts, I was pleased to come out of the event with impression that there is a general understanding of the limits of digital efforts. It seems that even amongst digital’s proponents, there is an appreciation of the importance of ‘analog,’ old-fashioned diplomacy. ... Ambassador Harold Forsyth, the Peruvian Ambassador to the U.S., highlighted the importance of people to the diplomatic process. He explained that diplomacy of the future will be dependent on the people, stressing the increasingly important role of public diplomacy in state-to-state relations.

Despite the many surnames of diplomacy [whether cultural, e-, sports, or public], they all serve to benefit the greater concept of diplomacy as a whole. ... While I was pleasantly satisfied with the panel’s overall emphasis on the importance of people-to-people diplomacy and traditional forms of diplomatic procedure, one topic that didn’t arise was that of censorship. In countries like Iran and China, the internet is heavily censored, monitored and restricted. The use of online tools to reach the people of these countries is extremely limited, and in some cases, the internet is used by the government to stifle opposition. The State Department made a big deal about the creation of a Virtual Embassy in Tehran, despite the fact that it was almost immediately blocked by the Iranian government. Yes, digital diplomacy is a tool that can and should be used. But the fact is it is just another step in the progression of communication mediums. The telegraph, the television, and now the internet. It can and should be heavily used, but can never suffice for the implementation of good messaging, good listening and good policies. The difference now is that the public uses these tools better than the governments that are so excited about them.” Image from entry

The Ironies of Social Media in Public Diplomacy – R.S. Zaharna, PD News – CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy: “On Thursday, May 17, 2012 I attended the discussion on “Digital Diplomacy: A New Era of Advancing Policy” at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington and on Twitter at #digidiplomacy. ...  All the panelists repeated the mantra at least once or twice each time they spoke: “social media is a TOOL.” Nevertheless,