via email
Gregory image from
January 8, 2019
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
Institute for Public Diplomacy
and Global Communication
George Washington University
BGregory@gwu.edu
Sarah Alaoui, “Tired Narratives, Weary Publics: Public Diplomacy’s Role in
the Struggle for Influence in the Middle East,” October 2,
2018, Center for American Progress. Alaoui (Johns Hopkins
University School of Advanced International Studies, SAIS) examines the public
diplomacy of Iran, selected Arab states, and the United States in the Middle
East with emphasis on the years since the 2003 Iraq War. Her study
discusses the narratives, tactics, and activities of each actor. She also
recommends ways the US can enhance its public diplomacy “to better counter and
effectively compete with Iran in this space.” Alaoui advances three
key arguments. (1) “Iran uses public diplomacy in the Middle East as
a key component of its efforts to shape regional dynamics.” (2)
“Leading Arab governments have not engaged in sustained public diplomacy
efforts in key arenas of competition with Iran.” (3) “U.S. public
diplomacy in the region is hindered by perceptions about U.S. policy and recent
administration efforts that have cut resources for the State Department and
other agencies engaged in soft power.”
Babak Bahador and Daniel Kerchner, Monitoring Hate Speech in the US Media, Media
and Peacebuilding Project, George Washington University, January 2019. GWU’s
research team seeks “to create awareness and accountability regarding hate
speech by identifying the sources, targets, and intensity of hate speech in
leading US media political talk/news shows” (radio, cable news, and
YouTube). The authors define and examine hate speech targeted at groups,
recognizing both lack of agreement on the term’s meaning and its widespread use
in law and society. The study uses an automated extraction method to
identify potential instances of hate speech, which then are validated by human
coders using a 6-level hate speech intensity scale.
Mieczysław P. Boduszyński, Public Diplomacy and the American Fortress Embassy:
Balancing Mission and Security, CPD Perspectives,
University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy, December 2018. Boduszyński
(Pomona College) draws on personal diplomatic experience, interviews with
current and retired diplomats, and a survey of relevant policy and practitioner
literature in this assessment of one of diplomacy’s hard problems: how should
diplomats and foreign ministries responsibly manage risk and simultaneously
engage in effective public diplomacy? His central argument is that
“a culture of extreme risk aversion at ‘fortress embassies’ has hampered the
ability of the State Department to effectively carry out public diplomacy programs”
with consequent harm to US foreign policy objectives. Boduszyński’s
thoughtful paper effectively frames important issues, examines historical
challenges reaching back to the US embassy bombing in Beirut in 1983, provides
views of numerous practitioners, and offers policy recommendations for changing
the imbalance between mission and security in “high threat” diplomatic posts.
Robert Chesney and Danielle Citron, “Deepfakes and the New Disinformation War,” Foreign
Affairs,January/February 2019, 147-155. Chesney (University
of Texas at Austin) and Citron (University of Maryland) discuss the rise of
“highly realistic and difficult-to-detect digital manipulations of audio or
video” in digital technology. They argue that as deepfakes develop
and spread, “the current disinformation wars may soon look like the propaganda
equivalent of the era of swords and shields.” Legal and
technological solutions – forensic technology, authenticating content before it
spreads, “authenticated alibi services,” criminalizing certain acts – may
help. But deepfakes will become better and cheaper, and democracies
will have to learn resilience and how to live with lies.
Larry Diamond and Orville Schell, co-chairs, “Chinese Influence & American Interests: Promoting
Constructive Vigilance,” Report of the Working Group on Chinese
Influence Activities in the United States, Hoover Institution Press, November
29, 2018. Diamond (Stanford University) and Schell (Asia
Society) analyze China’s influence activities in a cross-section of US
governance and civil society sectors: Congress, state and local governments,
Chinese-American communities, universities, think tanks, media, corporations,
and the technology sector. The authors discuss their historical
context and distinctions between “legitimate influence” and “improper
interference” that challenges core American values, norms, and
laws. They argue Russia’s influence activities are more invasive
than China’s, but the latter nevertheless call for “constructive vigilance,” a
variety of policy responses, and a balance between passivity and
overreaction. The report includes a dissenting opinion by Susan
Shirk (University of California, San Diego) and appendices on China’s influence
operations bureaucracy, influence activities in eight countries, and the range
and reach of Chinese-language media in the United States. Diamond’s summary of this 196-page reportis also available
online. See also Ellen Nakashima, “China Specialists Who Long Supported Engagement Are Now
Warning of Beijing’s Efforts to Influence American Society,”November 28,
2018, The Washington Post.
Adam B. Ellick and Adam Westbrook, “Operation Infektion: Russian Disinformation from Cold War
to Kanye,” Opinion Video Series, The New York Times,
November 2018. New York Timescorrespondent Ellick and
film actor Westbrook have produced a three part online film series on Russia’s
decades long use of disinformation and fake news against the
West. Episode 1 looks at the Soviet Union’s pre-Internet campaign to
portray AIDS as a US biological weapon in 1984. Episode 2 examines
how “the seven rules of Soviet disinformation” are used in fake news stories
today. Episode 3 explores ways in which governments worldwide are
responding to disinformation. The episodes are approximately 15
minutes each and can be viewed on The New York Timeswebsite. (Courtesy
of Len Baldyga)
Adam Entous and Jon Lee Anderson, “Havana Syndrome,” The New Yorker,
November 19, 2018, 34-47. In this “Letter from Cuba,” New
Yorkerstaff writers Entous and Anderson provide an excellent account of
what is known and not known about the mysterious ailment that has afflicted US
diplomats and CIA agents in Cuba. Their essay is set in the context
of negotiations leading to the Obama administration’s rapprochement with Cuba,
the Trump administration’s Cuba policy, and recent governance changes in
Cuba. Entous and Anderson draw on the public record and a host of
interviews, on the record and on background, with US policymakers and career
diplomats including Benjamin Rhodes, Marco Rubio, H.R. McMaster, Craig Deare,
Jeffrey DeLaurentis, Mari Carmen Aponte, Roberta Jacobson, Audrey Lee, and
Vicki Huddleston. The authors, both seasoned journalists, provide a
current and informed case study in diplomatic risk.
Ali Fisher, Netwar in Cyberia: Decoding the Media Mujahidin, CPD
Perspectives, University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy,
October 2018. Former CPD Research Fellow Ali Fisher draws on his
knowledge of public diplomacy, netwar strategies, and digital technologies in
this analysis of the increasingly effective use of digital platforms and online
audiovisual content by jihadist groups. He argues public diplomacy
“cannot keep pace with the speed, agility, and resilience of the Media
Mujahidin and their communication techniques.” His 113-page paper
explores ways to understand and assess information dissemination systems used
in jihadist strategies. Based on his data analysis, Fisher calls for
a more networked approach in public diplomacy’s interaction with foreign
publics and strategies that effectively navigate the languages, ideas, digital
platforms, knowledge barriers, and credibility gaps in approaches to jihadist
movements.
Foreign Relations of the United States: 1917-1972, Volume
VII, Public Diplomacy, 1964-1968, Charles V. Hawley,
ed., Office of the Historian, US Department of State, 2018. State
Department historians continue their retrospective coverage of US public
diplomacy with this publication of documents from the Lyndon B. Johnson
administration. Papers from the US Information Agency, State
Department, the White House, and Congress focus on public diplomacy in the
context of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, nuclear test ban treaty negotiations,
the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, US intervention in the Dominican
Republic, the Civil Rights Movement, and transition to the Johnson
administration following the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy. The documents, a list of persons, and an appendix with
online videos with transcripts are accessible online in an easily navigated
website.
“Global Trends in Democracy: Background, U.S. Policy, and
Issues for Congress,” [author’s name redacted], Congressional
Reference Service, CRS Report R45344, October 17, 2018. This
comprehensive report contains a great deal of useful information for scholars,
policy analysts, and diplomacy practitioners. Early sections provide
a “brief conceptual background on democracy and on democracy promotion’s
historical role in U.S. policy,” analysis of “trends in the global level of
democracy using data from two major democracy indexes,” and discussion of “key
factors that may be broadly affecting democracy around the world.” It then
summarizes debates on US democracy promotion’s relevance to national interests,
tradeoffs with other policy objectives, and questions of capacity and
effectiveness. The report concludes with discussion of six issues
for Congress to consider.
1. “How does the Trump Administration view democracy
promotion?”
2. “How much emphasis should the United States place on
democracy promotion?”
3. “What tools exist for targeted U.S. foreign policy
responses to particular challenges?”
4. “How much funding should be provided for democracy
promotion programs?”
5. “How can democracy programs be meaningfully evaluated
and/or usefully targeted?”
6. “Should the United States work to form new international
initiatives to defend democracy?”
The report is written in CRS’s usual even-handed
way. Breakout boxes focus on particular issues: metrics provided by
Freedom House, the Economist Intelligence Unit, and the Pew Research Center;
authoritarian “soft” and “sharp” power; populism and nationalism; and
limitations and caveats in measuring support for
democracy. Footnotes provide an extensive literature review.
Craig Hayden, “Digital
Diplomacy,” in Gordon Martel, ed., The Encyclopedia of
Diplomacy,(John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2018). Hayden
(Marine Corps University) brings insights and his well-regarded scholarship to
this Encyclopediaentry on the meaning of digital
diplomacy. His essay explores how the term has been used at the
intersection of technology and diplomatic practice. He reflects on
how it enters discussions of diplomacy, public diplomacy, and foreign
policy. Importantly, he builds on existing scholarship to suggest
ways in which digital diplomacy may signify changes in our understanding of
“diplomatic practice, agency, and its enduring role as an integral institution
of the international system.” Not least, Hayden offers thoughts on
how digital diplomacy might illuminate interdisciplinary scholarship and
re-energize academic attention to diplomacy’s practice and
necessity. Numerous references direct the reader to cutting edge thinking
on a term now in widespread use and possible future directions in 21stcentury
diplomacy.
John Kerry, Every Day is Extra, (Simon &
Schuster, 2018). The former Naval officer, anti-Vietnam war
activist, US Senator, presidential candidate, and Secretary of State sums it
all up in this memoir filled with historical insights and practical
advice. Diplomacy scholars and practitioners will find much on
offer. Kerry, as Senator, engaging in high stakes diplomacy in
Pakistan and Afghanistan. His appreciation of diplomacy’s public and
political dimensions. His understanding of “smart
power.” His belief in diplomacy “as a means to an end,” not an
American gift. His respect for the hard work of career diplomats
taking risks, supported by illuminating examples, coupled with views on an
often risk averse State Department bureaucracy. Kerry’s diplomatic
skills reflect his experiences in politics and knowledge of a world “more
crowded, more interdependent, less hierarchical, more influenced by nonstate
actors, and filled with connections between economic issues and social,
political, and security concerns.” Chapters with tick-tocks on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran nuclear agreement, Syrian civil war, and
climate change are essential diplomatic history. An enjoyable read
for general audiences and a must read in foreign ministry training and professional
education courses.
Open Doors 2018, Institute of
International Education (IIE) and Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs
(ECA), US Department of State, released November 13, 2018. The
latest IIE report on flows of international students in the United States and
US students studying abroad presents a mixed picture. International
students in the US have reached a new high of 1.09 million, due primarily to
the lingering effect of high enrollment before 2016 and increased participation
in a special practical training program for up to 12 months (36 months in STEM
fields) following completion of their academic programs. US students
abroad grew by 2.3 percent to 332,727. New international student
enrollments in the US fell by 6.6 percent in 2017/18 “continuing a slowing or
downward trend first observed in the 2015/16 academic year.” See
also, Catherine Rampell, “One of America’s Greatest Exports is in Trouble,”December
13, 2018, The Washington Postand Angel Cabrera, “Make America Welcoming to International Students Again,”November
13, 2018, The Washington Post.
Andreas Pacher, “The Ritual Creation of Political Symbols: International
Exchanges in Public Diplomacy,” British Journal of Politics
& International Relations,July 2018. In this article,
Pacher (independent researcher, Austria) connects practitioner concepts of
international exchanges, particularly opinion leader and relational models,
with scholarship based on a theory of interaction ritual
chains. Rituals in this sense are mechanisms of mutually focused
emotion and cognitive attention with political relevance and
effects. Exchanges, he argues, can be understood as “exercises of
political socialization” in which situations under a public diplomat’s control
are linked to other situations during the exchange. Power is
utilized but its obvious exercise is minimized. Pacher’s purpose is
to move beyond numerous studies that emphasize situational processes and goals
of international exchanges (mutual understanding, soft power, relationship
management) to provide a theory of how goals can be achieved. His
article contains an excellent literature review on exchange programs, a brief
illustrative case that links his claims to a 2017 Polish government public
diplomacy exchange program, and a conclusion that points to strengths and
limitations of his argument and directions for further research.
Wendy R. Sherman, Not For the Faint of Heart, (Public
Affairs, 2018). Sherman (Albright Stonebridge Group) tells her
story of a life devoted to diplomacy (when Democrats are in power), political
activism, social work, and the worlds of think tanks, Harvard’s Belfer Center,
the Aspen Strategy Group, and MSNBC contributor. Much of the book is
a close and candid look at diplomatic methods in chapters built on concepts:
courage, common ground, power, letting go, building your team, persistence, and
success. Sherman provides an abundance of detail on tactics,
personalities (career and non-career), and challenges facing women in politics
and diplomacy. Her narrative provides a deep dive into her roles in
senior State Department positions (Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations, Counselor to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Under Secretary
for Political Affairs) and her negotiations with Russia, North Korea, and
Iran. Not surprisingly, she gives detailed emphasis to the P5 +1
negotiations leading to the Iran Nuclear Deal. Dominant
characteristics of 21stcentury diplomacy – media relations,
political risk, and whole of government diplomacy – are themes throughout.
Volker Stanzel, ed., New Realities in Foreign Affairs: Diplomacy in the 21stCentury, SWP
Berlin, German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Research Paper
11, November 2018. In this excellent compilation, leading
thinkers in diplomacy studies and practice examine changes in the character of
modern diplomacy. Their papers focus on four changes likely to have long-term
impact and governments’ responses to them: (1) changes in the personality of
individual diplomats and their recruitment and training, (2) fundamental
changes deriving from technologies, with emphasis on digitization, (3)
increases in “diplomatically active” actors, and (4) dealing with new and
emotionalized publics seeking to participate in governance. The
papers, available online, are the product of a working group on Diplomacy
in the 21stCenturysupported by the German Federal Foreign Office
and ZEIT-Stiftung.
Volker Stanzel (SWP Berlin, German Council of Foreign
Relations), “Introduction: Following the Wrong Track or Walking on Stepping
Stones – Which Way for Diplomacy?”
Sascha Lohmann (SWP Berlin), “Diplomats and the Use of
Economic Sanctions.”
Andrew Cooper (University of Waterloo), “Populism and the
Domestic Challenge to Diplomacy.”
Christer Jönsson (Lund University), “Diplomatic
Representation: States and Beyond.”
Corneliu Bjola (University of Oxford), “Trends and
Counter-Trends in Digital Diplomacy.”
Emillie V. de Keulenaar (University of Amsterdam) and Jan
Melissen (Leiden University, Netherlands Institute of International Relations
‘Clingendael’), “Critical Digital Diplomacy and How Theory Can Inform
Practice.”
Karsten Voight (German Council on Foreign Policy),
“Perpetual Change: Remarks on Diplomacy Today in the European Union.”
Kim B. Olsen (University of Antwerp), “The Domestic
Challenges of European Geoeconomic Diplomacy”
Hanns W. Maull (SWP Berlin, Bologna Center of Johns Hopkins
University), “Autism in Foreign Policy.”
Rhonda Zaharna (American University), “Digital Diplomacy as
Diplomatic Sites: Emotion, Identity & Do-it-Yourself Politics.”
US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, “2018
Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy & International
Broadcasting,” November 20, 2018. The 2018
report (214 pages) of this bipartisan presidential Commission divides into
three parts. First, the summary contains an overview of public diplomacy
spending and the Commission’s 27 recommendations to the White House, Congress,
State Department and US Agency for International Broadcasting (pp.
30-42). Key recommendations: (1) White House priority for management
and public diplomacy expertise in recruiting a new Under Secretary of State for
Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs; (2) Congressional support for exploring a
merger of State’s Bureaus of Public Affairs and International Programs; (3)
adequate funding appropriated directly to the State Department for its Global
Engagement Center rather than through the Defense Department; (4) new
legislative authority for State’s public diplomacy mission; (5) clear guidance
for the Voice of America’s editorial process; (6) greater coordination of US
broadcasting’s services and grantees to achieve less duplication and greater
efficiencies; (7) an external audit of research and evaluation procedures in
State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and a strategic review of
the Bureau’s structure and more than 75 programs; and (8) identification of
digital metrics with relevance to State’s programs and
outreach. Second, the bulk of the report (pp. 43-214) consists of
descriptions, graphics, and budget information provided by the State Department
and US broadcasters on their programs and activities in the US and
abroad. Third, in a welcome addition, the Commission has reprinted recent
speeches on public diplomacy (pp. 8-29) by senior practitioners: Ryan E. Walsh,
Elisabeth Fitzsimmons, Jonathan Henick, Shawn Powers, Will Stephens, and
Ambassador (ret.) Bruce Wharton.
Joby Warrick and Anton Troianovski, “Agents of Doubt: How a Powerful Russian Propaganda Machine
Chips Away at Western Notions of Truth,” The Washington
Post,December 10, 2018.In this lengthy article, Postcorrespondents
Warrick and Troianovski document – with detailed reporting, video, web links,
and a timeline graphic – how Russia has used false narratives and conspiracy
theories to sew confusion following the attempted assassination of Russian spy
defector Sergei Skripal and his daughter in London.
Audra J. Wolfe, Freedom’s Laboratory: The Cold War Struggle for the Soul
of Science, (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018). In
this book on science in US psychological operations strategies and cultural
diplomacy during the Cold War, Wolfe (writer, historian, author of Competing with the Soviets: Technology and the State in Cold
War America, 2013) advances several propositions. First, the
growing literature on overt and covert Cold War cultural diplomacy operations,
dominated by attention to education and cultural products in the arts and
literature, is largely silent on the role of science. Her book seeks
to remedy this. Second, the shared view of the US foreign policy
establishment and American scientists that science transcends politics, a
belief central to US ideological offensives against Soviet authoritarianism,
belied a historical record in which the loudest voices for scientific freedom
and internationalism were at least as interested in advancing US policies and
“a system of privilege from which they stood to benefit.” Third,
historians who have written extensively about USIA, the State Department, and
the CIA’s Congress of Cultural Freedom have neglected the Asia Foundation and
its relationship to the CIA. Her research on the Asia Foundation
breaks new ground. Readers will find much on offer in (1) her
discussion of the CIA’s cultural operations funding, the National Science
Foundation, Pugwash Conferences, USIA’s planning papers and science textbook
programs, and State Department science attaches; (2) an epilogue devoted to
President Obama’s science envoys in Muslim majority countries and science
diplomacy in the Iran nuclear negotiations; and (3) her excellent notes and
bibliography.
Recent Blogs and Other Items of Interest
Matt Armstrong, “S.3654
and Accountability for the US Agency for Global Media,” December 6,
2018, MountainRunner.us
Martha Bayles, “Journalism Dies in Darkness,” December 11, 2018,
Hudson Institute.
Amanda Bennett, “Trump’s ‘Worldwide Network’ Is a Great Idea. But It
Already Exists,” November 27, 2018, The Washington Post.
Donald M. Bishop, “Years of Lightening, Day of Drums,” January 1,
2019, Public Diplomacy Council.
Michael Chertoff and Anders Fogh Rasmussen, “The Unhackable Election: What It Takes to Defend Democracy,” January/February
2019, Foreign Affairs.
Sarah Cook, “Amid U.S.-China Tension, Beijing’s Propaganda Machine Kicks
Into Overdrive,” October 24, 2918, The Diplomat.
Susan Crabtree, “Corker, Menendez Push Effort to ‘Neuter’ Trump’s Broadcasting
Chief,” November 30, 2018, The Washington Free Beacon.
Nicholas J. Cull, “Professor Cull Answers 10 Questions on Propaganda,” December
10, 2018, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.
Aaron C. Davis, “Probe of U.S. Funded News Network That Called George Soros a
‘Jew of Flexible Morals’ Finds Additional Offensive Content,” December
12, 2018, The Washington Post.
Renée DiResta, “What We Now Know About Russia’s Disinformation,” December
17, 2018, The New York Times.
Ali Fisher, “Mapping Russian & Iranian Cyber Networks,” December
3, 2018, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.
Lisa Gibson, “Can the U.S. Embassy in Libya Bridge the Divide with
Facebook,” January 3, 2019, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.
Charlotte Greenfield, “Fifty Years On, China Ramps Up ‘Ping-Pong Diplomacy’ in South
Pacific,” December 3, 2018, Reuters.
The Hague Journal of Diplomacy/
RG Impact Ratings (Article Reads, Citations),
ResearchGate.
Olga Krasnyak, “National Styles in Science Diplomacy: the US,”December 20,
2018, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.
Louisa Lim and Julia Bergin,“Inside China’s Audacious Global Propaganda Campaign,” December
7, 2018, The Guardian.
Xin Liu, “What Sharp Power? It’s Nothing But ‘Unsmart’ Power,” USC
Center for Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.
Ilan Manor, “Can Digital Skills Serve as PD Resources: The Case of Brexit,” November
5, 2018, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog.
Doyle McManus, “Almost Half the Top Jobs in Trump’s State Department Still
Empty,” November 4, 2018, The Atlantic.
Brian Naylor, “Voice of America Vows Independence, As Trump Calls for
‘Worldwide Network’” December 4, 2918, Morning Edition, NPR.
Felicia Sonmez, “US Agency Apologizes to George Soros After Broadcast Called
Him a ‘Multimillionaire Jew,’” November 29, 2018, The
Washington Post.
Warren Stanislaus, “Japan Is Using Cultural Diplomacy To Reassert Its Place In the
World – But Is The Message Too Exclusive?” November 12, 2018, The
Conversation.
“U.S. Losing Its Luster for Foreign Students,” November
13, 2018, VOANews.com.
Dick Virden, “A Media Journey: From Edward R. Murrow to Fake News,” November
2018, American Diplomacy.
Elizabeth Williamson, “Troubled By Lapses, Government’s Voice to the World Braces for
New Trump Management,” December 12, 2018, The New York Times.
Gems From The Past
The growing literature on “fake news” and 21stcentury
“truth decay” recalls reports on Soviet active measures prepared by USIA and
the CIA during and immediately after the Cold War. The following are
available online. “Soviet Active Measures in the Era of Glasnost,”A Report to
Congress by the United States Information Agency, March 1988. This 91-page
report details examples, media sources, and chronologies of disinformation on
AIDs, “ethnic weapons,” the 1978 Jonestown mass suicide, forgeries, and
trafficking in body parts. The report includes an account of US measures
to counter Soviet active measures and an Appendix: “Soviet Disinformation
During Periods of Relaxed East-West Tension,” a report prepared by Stephen
Schwartz for USIA’s Office of Research, January 1988. Other sources
include a statement by former CIA Deputy Director for Intelligence Robert M.
Gates, “Soviet Active Measures,”Hearings Before the Senate
Subcommittee on European Affairs, September 12, 1985 and “Soviet Active Measures in the ‘Post-Cold War’ Era 1988-1991,”A
Report Prepared at the Request of the US House of Representatives Committee on
Appropriations by the United States Information Agency, 1992.
An archive ofDiplomacy'sPublic Dimension: Books, Articles, Websites(2002-present)
is maintained at George Washington University's Institute for Public Diplomacy
and Global Communication. Current issues are also posted by the
University of Southern California's Center on Public Diplomacy,the Public Diplomacy Council, and MountainRunner.us.
No comments:
Post a Comment