May 22

"When I was in grad school, I wanted to be the next Christiane Amanpour, but after I did an internship at CNN, I realized I wanted to be on the other side of the camera, in a position to craft the content."

--US Public diplomacy Foreign Service officer Suzanne Philion; image from

PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

Barack Obama Will Not Defeat The Taliban: With A Whimper - Dan McLaughlin (diary) - redstate.com: "[A]t first, was what we did in Afghanistan: help Hamid Karzai form a new government, hold (at the time) reasonably free and fair elections for president in 2004 and the parliament in 2005, engage in combat to defend against threats to the formation of a democratic government, and add in some public works, education and other public-diplomacy endeavors to encourage the Afghans to stick with the new system. ... Winning Afghan hearts and minds always faced some daunting obstacles that are best illustrated with a few facts [including]: the average Afghan in the countryside – constituting most of the population, unlike in Iraq – isn’t old enough to remember

why the United States went to war in their country more than a decade ago, and a largely ignorant and illiterate population is deeply disconnected from any concerns outside their immediate neighborhood. ... [W]here Obama has succeeded, he has mostly done so either by doing nothing or by staying the course of directions set in the Bush years. Asked to actually set a meaningful new direction or expend scarce political capital even on an ongoing shooting war, his instinct is to first procrastinate, then kick the can down the road for a while, and ultimately throw in the towel." Image from article

Public Diplomacy Gem Ambassador Ryan Crocker will leave Afghanistan - Mahtab Farid, U.S. Public Diplomacy in Afghanistan...: "A soft spoken brilliant thinker, listener and all around genuine American diplomat, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan who is a great example of public diplomacy will be leaving his post soon according to the Kabul Embassy Public Affairs Office. I always wished that I could one day serve under his leadership.

Thank you Ambassador for all you have done in all the difficult places around the world. You are truly an example of a real diplomat by going out and facing real challenges and not just lead from your desk or attend diplomatic events. You lead by example and you will be missed.." Image from article, with caption: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker (right) and Deputy Ambassador James Cunningham

Smith-Mundt Modernization: Better Late than Never - Helle Dale, Heritage Foundation:  “The House Armed Services Committee clearly acted in the U.S. interest when it voted to modernize the Smith–Mundt Act last week, as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. Since 1948, Smith–Mundt has prohibited agencies of the U.S. government from informing the U.S. public in print or on the airwaves about their activities. In the age of the information revolution and the global war of ideas, these prohibitions have become obsolete and worse. As noted by Juliana Pilon in the Heritage paper 'Obsolete Restrictions on Public Diplomacy Hurt U.S. Outreach and Strategy': In the war on terrorism, this restriction is worse than an anachronism: It amounts to self-sabotage. Until Congress relegates this piece of legislation to the dustbin of history, the U.S. cannot expect to conduct public diplomacy effectively. For instance, Americans cannot order English-language materials from the State Department. If they try, they will be informed that ‘the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is prohibited from distributing its print materials in the United States by the Smith–Mundt Act.’ This bureau is among many U.S. agencies affected by Smith–Mundt; Americans are by law prevented from learning about taxpayer-funded humanitarian and democracy-assistance programs, including the grantees and contractors of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Or consider this: Today, listeners of National Public Radio (funded in part by the U.S. government) can and do get their international news from the BBC (funded by the British government), but not from Voice of America (funded by the U.S. government and therefore prohibited by Smith–Mundt). So, changes are overdue. Authored by Representatives Mac Thornberry (R–TX) and Adam Smith (D–WA),H.R5736—Smith–Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (Introduced in House, IH) removes the prohibition on public diplomacy materials being available to Americans. This bill, though, specifies that the changes in Smith–Mundt apply only to the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. As these are the primary public diplomacy agencies of the United States, at least this is a good start. The bill has been several years in the works, and while it should have been included in a State Department authorization bill, such a bill has not been passed by Congress in years. Critics have already voiced concerns that this will open the floodgates of propaganda by the U.S. government. This is hardly likely. Indeed, access to programs and materials produced by the State and the BBG will allow Congress and the public a better understanding of what we are funding. Much of it is high-quality journalism, which deserves support, and some programming could have a positive impact on certain immigrant communities in the United States that are vulnerable to radicalization. As for programming and materials that are controversial, questionable, or wasteful, doesn’t the U.S. public deserve to know what is being published or broadcast in its name? Another positive consequence of the changes to Smith–Mundt should be to level the global media playing field. As things have stood for the past half-century, Congress created a situation in which the U.S. public could freely receive news from foreign governments but not legally receive news and information produced by their [sic] own government. The result is that today, China’s CCTV, Russia Today, Al-Jazeera, France 1, BBC America, and even Iran’s IRIB are available on American cable networks, but not Voice of America. This situation is bizarre and contorted. So, kudos to the authors of the Smith–Mundt Modernization Act. They have tackled a thorny issue left unresolved for far too long.”

Rep. Smith on his controversial bills – Gleen Greenwald, Salon: “The Washington Democrat discusses his bills to ban domestic indefinite detention but allow domestic ‘propaganda’ – Glenn Greenwald, Salon:  “Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) is the co-sponsor of two controversial amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act: one which would ban the use of indefinite detention for any accused Terrorist apprehended on U.S. soil (the House rejected that amendment earlier this week), and the other, as Michael Hastings first reported, which would repeal a long-standing prohibition under the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 on the dissemination inside the U.S. of State Department information campaigns (what the State Department calls ‘public diplomacy’ and what others call ‘state propaganda’). Rep. Smith was my guest today on Salon Radio to discuss both of his proposed amendments, and the 15-minute interview, which heavily focuses on his Smith-Mundt proposal, can be heard on the player below (the Smith-Mundt discussion begins at 5:15). A few of points on the domestic propaganda issue that we discussed: (1) Rep. Smith claimed that legal prohibitions on the domestic dissemination of government propaganda apply only to the State Department, whereas other agencies (such as the Pentagon) are already free of such restrictions; I explained that I believed that was untrue, that there are clear legal frameworks in place barring the use of domestic propaganda by all agencies, and this was what I was referencing; (2) Rep. Smith repeatedly insisted that his bill would not permit the domestic d[i]ssemination of any State Department program ‘intended to’ influence public opinion in[si]de the U.S., but only ones intended for a foreign audience; aside from the impossibility of enforcing that distinction, I pointed out that the Press Release distributed by him and his GOP co-sponsor clearly argues that one reason this repeal was needed was to enable the State Department to influence public opinion among certain population segments within the U.S. The Press Release I referenced is here, and it states: [‘] Contemporary interpretations of the law interfere with a range of communications activities, including public diplomacy, military communication efforts, and emergency and disaster response activities.  It has also led to inaccurate reporting by American media about issues affecting global security. For example, in 2009 the law prohibited a Minneapolis-based radio station with a large Somali-American audience from replaying a Voice of America-produced piece rebutting terrorist propaganda.  Even after the community was targeted for recruitment by al-Shabab and other extremists, government lawyers refused the replay request, noting that Smith-Mundt tied their hands.[']  If one of the problems this bill seeks to solve is the inability of the State Department to ‘rebut terrorist propaganda’ by targeting U.S. citizens with its own information campaign, then, by definition, the bill seeks to allow the State Department to attempt to influence public opinion within the U.S. (3) This morning, Mother Jones published a piece defending this legislation. It was written by Adam Weinstein, a former Navy vet and ex-Iraq contractor who (as he acknowledged) himself wrote propag[an]da for the U.S. military in Iraq (what Weinstein calls 'upbeat, if technically accurate, press releases for the US Army in Iraq'). Rep. Smith unsurprisingly touted this article, and it is here. Everyone can, and should, listen for themselves to Rep. Smith’s defense of the bill and decide if they are persuaded by his assurances that this bill would not legally empower the State Department to propagandize the U.S. citizenry directly.”

Are Government's 'Strategic Communications' Coming to American Airwaves? - Rachel Marsden, townhall.com: "Did you hear about the new bill that would allow the U.S. government's official overseas information agency to rebroadcast its content onto American TV and radio? The bipartisan Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 was introduced in Congress last week by Reps. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.), both of whom are presumably dissatisfied with their satellite TV package and think more government-produced content would go down better with an after-work beer. Not really. As Thornberry explains on his website: 'While the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was developed to counter communism during the

Cold War, it is outdated for the conflicts of today. Effective strategic communication and public diplomacy should be front-and-center as we work to roll back al-Qaeda's and other violent extremists' influence among disaffected populations. ... To do this, Smith-Mundt must be updated to bolster our strategic communications and public diplomacy capacity on all fronts and mediums -- especially online.' I see. So the Smith-Mundt Act was strictly limited to countering communist propaganda overseas, because the idea of conducting government propaganda operations within a country at a time when Joseph Goebbels was a household name would have triggered post-traumatic stress. Thornberry says the legislation is uselessly dated because terrorism is now our main security threat, and it's not just based overseas. So, he says, the federal government's foreign-information services have to be able to reach terrorists where they live -- and that means inside America. All right, and while we're at it, why don't I just submit verbatim copies of press releases I receive from various federal government departments so you can read them in this space each week? Government or otherwise, I don't reflexively trust anything that anyone tells me. If someone said the sky was blue, I'd look out the window and ask two more people if it looked blue to them as well. It's the very least of the media's responsibilities. And I'm especially skeptical when I know that the source of any given information has an agenda. In the case of the U.S. government's Broadcasting Board of Governors and Voice of America information services, Thornberry describes the proposed domestic objective as 'remov(ing) a barrier to more effective and efficient public diplomacy programs.' There's certainly no barrier to anything online. The firewall is effectively limited to traditional media. Anything delivered as a pre-packaged item to the conventional media from the government or any other source should be vetted, tested, evaluated and packaged appropriately before being presented to a larger audience. Even when an event occurs overseas, as in the case Thornberry cites, whereby Sirius Satellite Radio couldn't get the green light under the Smith-Mundt Act to carry live Voice of America broadcasts in the Creole language from the 2010 Haiti earthquake zone, I'm sure there are foreign correspondents, credible freelance journalists and other reliable independent analysts who would provide an adequate, objective take on events. If any of them prove inept or biased, then the free market will weed them out. Americans who are interested in such coverage will find the best alternative available to them. It's not only unnecessary for the government to create legislation in order to insert itself into this domain, but also a slippery slope. Moreover, a peacetime natural disaster is a horrible example, since it represents the sole instance in which it's already legally acceptable for the government or military to conduct an information operation on a domestic audience to support noncombat activities such as evacuations, per a Clinton-era executive order. If that's still insufficient, then how about amending just that part? I don't doubt that Voice of America journalists are as credible and objective as their counterparts elsewhere, and this isn't about Americans having access to journalism. It's about the possibility of opening a Pandora's box whereby the federal government would be able to produce content for an American audience via an entity over which it has full control, and which has historically served as an official government communications instrument. Worse, it won't be operating domestically as a stand-alone station. Instead, content would be seamlessly rebroadcast through private media outlets, possibly without the viewer being fully aware of its provenance. The U.S. Army's psychological operations manual qualifies psychological warfare (PSYOP) and information operations (IO) as 'influencing the behavior of foreign target audiences to support U.S. national objectives.' A 'white' official PSYOP product with a clear source risks turning into a 'gray' PSYOP product as the source becomes murkier, non-official, and dissolves into the domestic mass media." Image from

Defining Public Diplomacy - Paul Mutter, souciant.com: “Propaganda may soon be returning to America’s airwaves. No, not the mainstream media liberals often deride as ‘Fox News’ coverage. Nor the mainstream media Fox watchers deride as ‘liberal.’ I mean honest-to-goodness propaganda, the kind that’s been legislatively limited in the United States since the end of World War Two. Writing at Buzzfeed, Michael Hastings explains how a bipartisan House bill, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, has been attached to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA.) If it becomes law, it would eliminate the barrier between government-funded media produced for overseas consumption – most notably right now for Afghanistan – and domestic consumption by federal agencies. ... Technically, the materials that the authors of this legislation want to see disseminated domestically are ‘public diplomacy’ materials, a phrase coined in the 1960s. Many countries have state agencies doing public diplomacy these days, with special emphasis on social media, Israel being the best known of the bunch. But state-produced media remains state-produced media, now matter how right and pure people think the government behind it is. It cannot be impartial. America remains technically at war, even if the US government is no longer referring to its military efforts as being part of the ‘War on Terror.’ For example, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act’s sponsors (and proponents) say that we’re still fighting al-Qaeda. There is logic to this: The US still occupies Afghanistan. American military advisors remain in various historic roles, such as ‘advising’ the Yemeni army in a civil war. I could go on. The point is that these are all wars in the classic sense of the word W-A-R. Therefore, any media addressing events in these places is covering a war, plain and simple, waged by the people who provide the ‘public diplomats’ with everything from patriotic talking points to office space, bandwidth, even press credentials. Since all wars have a home front – not just logistics and counterintelligence, but also the battlefield of public opinion – where does a government properly draw the line? One of the key federal agencies affected by the bill – the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) – has oversight for foreign broadcasters such as Radio Free Europe/Liberty (RFE/L) and the Voice of America (VOA). Despite the bill ostensibly barring funding for anything that would ‘influence public opinion’ domestically, precedent suggests it can’t. How can Americans who lived through Vietnam era forget how, following the New York Times’ publication of the Pentagon Papers, they learned that Congress and the public were lied to repeatedly by the federal government and the US military? Does the word ‘disinformation,’ from the Reagan era, ring any bells to Generation Xers? What about the Bush Administration’s claptrap about WMDs in the lead up to its 2003 invasion of Iraq? ... Public diplomacy is not just about providing translations of foreign media to US consumers – a free service largely discontinued by budget cuts after the Cold War. It is about shaping how Americans see the outside world. Are we comfortable with giving that mandate to outlets like the BBG overseas?  ... Smith-Mundt has never officially applied to materials produced by the US Department of Defense. Yet the Pentagon could benefit from this legislation since, by making clear that Smith-Mundt only applies to State Department and BGG materials and employees, it leaves no ambiguity over whether there should be strict disclosure or oversight of similar Pentagon activities such as social media monitoring. ... One of most stated reasons for enacting Smith-Mundt, when it was being debated after WWII, was that Congress could not trust the State Department to not abuse its new mandate, to not ape the agitprop of our new Soviet foe, or the defeated Nazis.

This was, in large part, a debate stoked by the Red Scare, when Communists were wrongly through to be secretly controlling the State Department. But for some of the wrong reasons, the authors of the legislation clearly had reasonable concerns: should government, specifically, one agency whose top people could change every four years, be practicing journalism and calling it ‘public diplomacy’? How would we ensure that we didn’t cross the lines dictatorships did every day with their 'public information services'?  In 2009, the Media and Outreach Coordinator for the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs warned readers of the UNC American Diplomacy blog that if we ‘tear down that firewall,’ ‘it will be a matter of time before resources and personnel … are diverted in favor of domestic ‘public affairs,’ the short-term political imperative of any administration.’ And this week, the nonprofit Committee for US International Broadcasting released a letter arguing that ‘the Smith-Mundt Act modifications lack protections against abuse.’ The directors of the group, including a former VOA director, Ted Lipien, fear that the bill poses ‘a real danger that they [the BBG] will take advantage of this law, if it passes, to divert public money from critical news and information projects in countries lacking free and balanced media to use for their own domestic PR projects and on themselves.’ In other words, the primary purpose of the State Department’s ‘public diplomacy’ arm – to influence audiences abroad – could be diluted by partisanship at home. ... [W]hat ‘public diplomacy’ aims to achieve in Afghanistan: prolonging our presence in that country by insulating the global public from the situation on the ground. It not so simple as countering anti-American al-Qaeda propaganda on the Internet.” Via TL on Facebook. Image from article, with caption: Operation Enduring Freedom advert, Washington DC.

Overcoming Disinformation and Misinformation - Joel Harding, cyberwarzone.com: "Recently H.R.5736.IH, the Smith Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, was introduced as a bi-partisan bill in the US House of Representatives.  Please see MountainRunner.us for a great explanation and clarification of the bill itself. Last week I read an article by Michael Hastings, which I have written about before, which totally misrepresented what the bill is about. Hastings contends that the bill is about making it easier for the US government to use propaganda on its own people, research on the bill via the MountainRunner.us site will show just how wrong he is. Matt Armstrong has written about the Smith-Mundt Act for years, held public forums and assisted the Broadcast Board of Governors to undo this antiquated bill. Hastings made his reputation by ruining General Stanley A. McChrystal’s career and many have said that Hastings is attempting to continue this line of yellow journalism. ... My cause for alarm is seeing widespread disinformation (purposeful spreading of false information), which in many cases is misinformation (not knowing the information being spread is wrong) on multiple websites.  Here is a short representative list of many of the websites spreading false information to the unknowing masses. Here, here,here,here, here here, here  here. Granted, most of these websites or blogs are of the type that conspiracy theorists love to read. ... If the US government were to weigh into the subject, that would immediately be labeled as propaganda – even though it is the truth.  If a contract were made and a civilian corporation were to weigh in on the issue, that would be immediately labeled as propaganda – rightfully so.  But even though I sent a note to thousands and thousands of professionals on a personal basis, making a concerted effort not to send it to seniors within the administration, there have been ZERO attempts on a personal basis to right this wrong. Many have said Information Operations are only effective on those predisposed to support your way of thinking, that it is a waste of time to try to change the opinions of those opposed to your way of thinking.  I respectfully disagree.  Before we allow such falsehoods to spread freely throughout our nation, poisoning the minds of our malleable citizens, we need to make sure more logical, reasoned, mature and truthful sources of information promulgate information to those most needing the truth. Why is there no gnashing of teeth, no outcry, no attempt to spread the truth?  Are we a nation with no guts, do we just roll over and play dead, is this a world that just doesn’t care about the truth?"

Washington’s Smith wants to ease limits on propaganda - Jeff Rhodes, theolympiareport.com: "A little-noticed amendment to the $642 billion defense appropriation bill approved on Friday in Congress would make it easier the federal government to use propaganda and, if necessary, misinformation against foreign enemies — and U.S. citizens, too. Co-sponsored by Washington State

Rep. Adam Smith, a Democrat, and Texas Republican Rep. Mac Thornberry, the measure would 'amend the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the domestic dissemination of information and material about the United States intended primarily for foreign audiences, and for other purposes.' According to a story Monday on the Buzzfeed website, backers of the amendment 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, however, say turning the massive information operations apparatus within the federal government against American citizens is an ironic way to ensure 'freedom.' The new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public. 'It removes the protection for Americans,' says a Pentagon official quoted in the Buzzfeed story. 'It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances.

No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate or entirely false.' According to the same spokesman, 'senior public affairs' officers within the Department of Defense want to 'get rid' of Smith-Mundt and other restrictions because it prevents information activities designed to prop up unpopular policies — like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 'Smith-Mundt must be updated,' Smith said, 'to bolster our strategic communications and public diplomacy capacity on all fronts and mediums — especially online.'” Images from article: top, with caption: Adam Smith; bottom, with caption:  An amendment to the defense bill co-sponsored by Washington Rep. Adam Smith would make it easier for the government to lie about things it believes are in the public interest.

The PD Dr. Moriarty - Paul Rockower, Levantine: "If I break the Smith-Mundt Act, will the PD police come after me???

[Insert sinister PD laugh]" Image from

US State Department to host 100 diversity leaders - Web Desk: "The Office off the Special Representative to Muslim Communities together with the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour and the Office of Civil Rights, will host the first ever strategy session on Diversity, Inclusion and US Foreign Policy. The US Department of State will convene 100 top diversity leaders from the public and private sectors to focus on the impact of diverse professional environments and the way in

which the diversity and inclusion agenda informs US foreign policy. The programme opens promptly at 8.30 am on June 7 in the Marshall Center with opening remarks from Senator Ben Cardin (D/MD), Special Representative to Muslim Communities, Farah Pandith, and Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State. Presentations and working groups continue throughout the day until 4.30 pm Dr. Ernest Wilson III, Dean of the Annenberg School of Public Diplomacy, will offer the keynote address at 8.45 am on 'Why Diversity is ‘Mission Critical’ for the US”, a US Department of State press release said." Image from article

Dude, This Diplomat's No Stiff" From Bogota to Tunisia, “bad diplomat” Suzanne Philion has spent a decade shaking up old-school notions of a career in Foreign Service - Adam Bluestein, Fast Company: You know the picture of Hillary Clinton

on the plane, texting with shades on? The behind-the-scenes image became an Internet meme in part because it was so unexpected, speaking volumes about a new era of American power abroad: cool, technologically cutting-edge, and female. Suzanne Philion, a 34-year-old who works under Clinton as Senior Advisor for Innovation in the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs at the U.S. State Department, embodies that new era. Foreign Service in the 21st century is far cooler than many people realize, she says, and thanks to ever-changing job assignments--not to mention an ever-changing global political landscape--it’s the perfect career for a Generation Fluxer who wants to serve her country and see the world, too.  ...  What does a Senior Advisor for Innovation in the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs at the State Department actually do? It’s a newly created position that I’ve had for the last year and a half, part of the public diplomacy machine at the State Department. It’s fun--I’m inventing as we go, working on ways to connect with foreign publics around the world, in person-to-person exchanges. The idea of my position, as Senior Advisor for Innovation, is finding ways to leverage technology to scale the impact of person-to-person diplomacy. An important way that we get in the door in other countries--especially with youth and lower-income people--is by providing quality English -language learning. So in Tunisia, for example, we partnered with the largest mobile provider there to launch a mobile-based English-language learning program following the Arab Spring. Tunisia has a lot of mobile penetration--and we wanted to reach beyond the urban populations. We developed content for SMS--largely fill-in-the-blinks, multiple-choice questions--and the idea is to do it in modern American English, including slang, and working with local content. In a country with 10 million people, in less than 90 days we had more than 535,000 unique users. That’s exciting. We don’t have endless resources for classroom learning; this showed the scalability of English learning via mobile.

We’re developing pilots in other countries now, too. Finding ways like this to maintain a connection with people around the world is what's going to keep us competitive in the world and relevant as a population. .... Early on when you join the Foreign Service, you’re asked to choose what career path you want to pursue. There are five tracks--I chose public diplomacy. I was always interested in journalism. When I was in grad school, I wanted to be the next Christiane Amanpour, but after I did an internship at CNN, I realized I wanted to be on the other side of the camera, in a position to craft the content. The public-diplomacy 'cone' allows us the unique opportunity to connect with a huge variety of people in any given country, including youth, journalists, civil society, the private sector, and academics." Via KS on Facebook. Images from article 

Pakistan’s artist Arieb Azhar and rock band noori to perform in US - Katrina Jones, thenewstribe.com: "The US Department of State announced today it will raise the curtain June 19 on its groundbreaking cultural diplomacy initiative, Center StageSM, which brings performing artists from Haiti, Indonesia, and Pakistan to the United States to engage American audiences in 60 medium- and small-sized towns and cities. On June 19, Center StageSM artists will launch their month-long international exchange at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts’ Millennium Stage, which brings the performing arts from around the world to Main Street America, a US Department of State press release said.

The first wave of performing artists will include two music groups from Pakistan. Singer-songwriter Arieb Azhar and the rock band noori will travel to the United States and participate in a range of activities, such as performances, workshops, discussions, artist-to-artist exchanges, and community gatherings. For a full list of artists and performance dates, click here. Center StageSM builds on Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s vision of 'smart power,' which embraces the use of a full range of diplomatic tools, in this case the performing arts, to bring people together and foster greater understanding. Center StageSM is a public diplomacy initiative of the US Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs." Image from article, with caption: Washington: Pakistan’s singer-songwriter Arieb Azhar and the rock band noori will be seen in action in a free and open-to-the-public concert in the US.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors – Truth Matters: “The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) provides news to millions of listeners around the world. The BBG is funded by Congress and this year the Obama administration requested $720 million for the agency. The BBG’s mission is “to inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.” According to the BBG’s website, its programming is heard by 187 million people a week. BBG’s work is often described as 'international civilian broadcasting;' this means that its programming is spoken, geared towards a foreign audience, and isn’t produced by the military. Their work is also referred to as 'public diplomacy.' Public diplomacy refers to the interaction with the citizens of a country instead of working exclusively with a country’s leaders. Another common kind of public diplomacy is university study abroad programs . ...  I]nternational civilian broadcasting serves two primary functions.  1)  To spread goodwill toward the country that is funding the news by producing content that the listeners enjoy. I have witnessed this myself by seeing the reactions of my friends who enjoy RT and Al Jazeera English. 2)   To bring a perspective on the news that is missing from the broadcast area. The perspective could be missing due to censorship or because the view is not discussed by the domestic broadcasters. ...  I support the BBG because the agency brings valuable information to people around the world who often do not have the ability to access it any other way. BBG’s work also produces goodwill toward the US by listeners who enjoy its programming. I believe that providing news to people in closed societies is an appropriate use of taxpayer money. The BBG is a valuable resource to those in the US who read their English-language websites as well.”

With $94m deal, RFE/RL gets a new landlord for its headquarters building in Prague - Kim Andrew Elliott reporting on International Broadcasting

Viva La Revolutionary Guards – Daily Beast, Spanish News Network: "Iran’s diplomatic presence in Bolivia has also deepened, with signs that its embassy in La Paz is being expanded under the watchful

eye of Bolivia’s federal police. Bolivia has also become a prominent destination for Iran’s latest public diplomacy effort, HispanTV."

RELATED ITEMS

Agent Deedy: State Department Says I Can Kill People - Peter Van Buren, We Meant Well: (For those unfamiliar with the case of

State Department Diplomatic Security “Special” Agent Chris Deedy, who appears to have shot and killed an unarmed man in Hawaii while there for the APEC Conference, see some previous postings.) Deedy image from entry

No Model for Muslim Democracy - Andreas Harsono, New York Times: It is fashionable these days for Western leaders to praise Indonesia as a model Muslim democracy. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has declared, “If you want to know whether Islam, democracy, modernity and women’s rights can coexist, go to Indonesia.” Tell that to Asia Lumbantoruan, a Christian elder whose congregation outside Jakarta has recently had two of its partially built churches burned down by Islamist militants. He was stabbed by these extremists while defending a third site from attack in September 2010.

AMERICANA

Air Force One airfare: $179,750 per hour - Bart Jansen, USA tODAY: the next time airfare seems too expensive, consider the cost of Air Force One. The plane that is used to carry the president, which is typically a Boeing 747, costs the Air Force $179,750 per hour to operate, according to a new Congressional Research Service report.

Military planes are used for security and because of special equipment on board. Image from article

Is college too easy? As study time falls, debate rises - Daniel de Vise, Washington Post: Over the past half-century, the amount of time college students actually study — read, write and otherwise prepare for class — has dwindled from 24 hours a week to about 15, survey data show. Architecture students studied the most, at 24 hours a week. Further down the list, in descending order: physics (20 hours), music and biology (17), history (15), psychology (14), communications (13) and, at 11 hours, parks, recreation and leisure studies.

IMAGE

--Star on top of Moscow State University Building in Moscow; via AS on facebook