U.S. Embassy Havana, PAS: Seeking Proposals for Public Diplomacy Grants Program

Reena, www2.fundsforngos.org

image (not from entry) from

Deadline: 15 August 2017

The U.S. Embassy Havana Public Affairs Section (PAS) is seeking proposals for its Public Diplomacy Grants Program.

Priority Program Areas

• Proposals that will encourage the growth of small business in Cuba.
  • Proposals must demonstrate knowledge of Cuba’s economic and entrepreneurial ecosystem and should detail existing partnerships in Cuba. Proposals should also outline activities that prepare small business owners for growth and sustainability of their enterprises through efficiency, creativity, customer service, and innovation, with preference for project models that work in the Cuban small business environment.
  • Applicants may propose project activities in a variety of areas, but applications must describe clearly and succinctly how proposed activities will improve the likelihood of success for existing start-ups.
• Proposals that support agriculture; protect plant and animal health; and advance the understanding of scientific and environmental challenges, including but not limited to:
  • Agriculture / Plant and Animal Health-Programs that address shared agricultural concerns including plant and animal sanitation, agricultural trade, irrigation, soil conservation, and prevent the spread of animal and plant pathogens in the U.S. and Cuba through the exchange of information, best practices, scientific collaboration, research, and monitoring.
  • Environment-Programs that pertain to sustainable fisheries, marine pollution, endangered marine life, coral reef resilience; wildlife conservation and terrestrial protected areas; collection and exchange of information and joint research in the fields of meteorology, oceanography, and air pollution;
  • Health-Programs that increase cooperation in the battle against communicable and non-communicable diseases affecting both U.S. and Cuban populations, including but not limited to Zika, cancer, and diabetes.
• Proposals that promote cultural exchange; enhance mutual understanding; contribute to increased technical expertise in cultural professions and the arts; raise awareness for shared history, traditions, and values; and help build arts management capacity.

Funding Information

Award floor and ceiling: $1,000 – $100,000.

Eligibility Criteria

• The Public Affairs Section encourages applications from United States and Cuban:
  • Not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organizations with programming experience
  • Individuals
• For-profit or commercial entities are not eligible to apply.
• Cost Sharing or Matching: Cost sharing is not required, but may be considered by the review committee.

How to Apply

Applications must be submitted online via given website.

For more information, please visit Grants.gov.

En el ámbito de la diplomacia pública

MANUEL MORALES LAMA [JB -- see]. listindiario.com

• 

En el propósito de lograr mayor efectividad en la realización de los planes y en la consecución de los objetivos de la política exterior, han surgido diversas formas de ejecución de la diplomacia, entre las cuales tiene un lugar especial la diplomacia pública. Hoy en día, hablar de diplomacia pública (“Public Diplomacy”), implica reconocer un fenómeno específico dimanante de la “generalización de la cultura democrática” y, asimismo, de los extraordinarios avances tecnológicos y sociológicos que se evidencian en los medios de información y comunicación. Más aun, de la consecuente incidencia de la opinión pública en las relaciones internacionales.

Procede precisar que todo bien sustentado concepto de diplomacia pública comparte el supuesto de que las opiniones, actitudes y comportamientos de los ciudadanos de otros países importan a los gobiernos, porque tienen un claro impacto en la política económica y exterior y, consecuentemente, en los intereses nacionales. “El objetivo fundamental de la diplomacia pública siempre es infl uir sobre el comportamiento de un gobierno extranjero de forma indirecta, teniendo incidencia sobre las actitudes de sus ciudadanos” (J. Noya).

En tal perspectiva, debe tenerse en cuenta, que en ocasiones, el propósito de la diplomacia pública puede estar dirigido a lograr opiniones favorables hacia una particular causa u orientación, también con respecto a un determinado acto o intervención. Igualmente la ejecución de la diplomacia pública podría proponerse infl uir en la “Comunidad Internacional” para lograr la “aceptación pacífi ca” de una particular intervención o participación del país, o para justifi car una determinada conducta.

En ese marco, debe resaltarse, que las acciones de la diplomacia pública resultan cruciales cuando los Estados se encuentran en momentos de crisis o son objeto de “percepciones de opinión internacional bajas”. Debe tenerse presente, igualmente, que “cómo sea percibido un país en el exterior tiene implicaciones sobre su capacidad para atraer inversiones y turismo”.

Básicamente, como se ha señalado, la diplomacia pública consiste en una serie de bien fundamentadas iniciativas, consagradas por la práctica, destinadas a ejercer influencia de manera estratégica sobre las audiencias extranjeras, “no sólo a elites o líderes de opinión, sino también al público en general”. Para el Estado, el ejercicio de esta modalidad de diplomacia, tiene la finalidad de “agenciarse un capital de simpatía susceptible de dar eficacia” a esenciales acciones en las relaciones exteriores, valiéndose tácticamente de una “conveniente” promoción de su cultura (reforzando la imagen de su identidad nacional), así como de la efi ciente difusión de sus puntos de vista y con ello la consistente promoción y defensa de sus intereses.

La diplomacia pública se ha convertido en un valioso instrumento que les permite a las naciones, teniendo en cuenta el esencial principio de unidad de acción exterior del Estado, poder conducir aspectos importantes de sus relaciones exteriores a través de los medios de comunicación. También en ese propósito pueden establecerse “mesas de diálogo con el sector privado y entidades no gubernamentales”, entre otros medios, con igual finalidad.

Metódicamente, la diplomacia pública, profesionalmente manejada, facilita poder proyectar una imagen digna, atractiva y confiable de la nación, promoviendo tácticamente entre otras virtudes, la de ser un país “progresista, creativo, innovador y seguro”, a fin de potenciar su prestigio exterior, de manera que genere un conveniente nivel de “empatía y adhesiones” a su favor, tal como lo demandan las acciones en el ámbito de los nuevos vínculos económicos (comerciales y financieros) y políticos (seguridad y defensa). Evidentemente, las ejecutorias de la diplomacia pública potencian el ejercicio (y amplían los horizontes) de la “diplomacia convencional”, compartiendo así sus debidas adecuaciones a la realidad actual.

Conviene resaltar, tal como se había tratado ampliamente en ocasiones precedentes, que en el ámbito de su efectividad, la diplomacia pública suele contar con la implementación del proyecto “estrategia marca país”, que consiste prácticamente, en crear una bien sustentada “identidad visual” del país.

En el orden práctico, las iniciativas que deben tener lugar con el fi n de planificar un proyecto de diplomacia pública suelen partir de una bien fundamentada investigación para poder determinar la percepción que se tiene del país internacionalmente y a nivel interno. De manera que en base a los objetivos establecidos se puedan identifi se realizarán. Para la ejecución de la diplomacia pública, conforme a la normativa aplicable, los países crean un órgano central (eminentemente técnico) en su Cancillería, “complementado por un comité de cualificados expertos en la materia”, que debe elaborar periódicamente las nuevas estrategias y establecer los mecanismos para la evaluación de las existentes.

Cabe precisar, finalmente, la diferencia que existe entre la diplomacia pública y la propaganda. Mientras la diplomacia pública busca despertar “el interés en el beneficio mutuo, la cooperación y la transparencia”; la propaganda es coercitiva, “impone los contenidos” y no abre espacio para el diálogo y el cambio. En la diplomacia pública la difusión de las ideas con el objeto de atraer recursos y personas, tiene que basarse en la confianza, la autenticidad y el entendimiento. [JB emphasis; see.]

Romania Ramps up Its Public Diplomacy

By Philip Seib, Huffington Post

image (not from article) from

BUCHAREST —- When public diplomacy issues are discussed, focus tends to be on major powers that are particularly active in this field — the United States, China, Israel, the United Kingdom, Russia, and a few others. But Romania has now announced that it wants to join the big guys’ club [JB emphasis], and it is taking purposeful steps toward doing so.

A new public diplomacy program has been created within the office of Romania’s president, Traian Basescu, who has put his personal clout behind its efforts. At a conference in Bucharest last week marking the beginning of the new public diplomacy venture, Basescu said, “Romania is proud of itself,” and he criticized the common depiction of Romania as the source of other countries’ crime problems. This reputation is at least in part a product of racism directed toward Romania’s Roma, or Gypsy, population, members of which are actively discriminated against throughout much of Europe.

Migration of workers continues to be a contentious issue within Europe, and to some extent Romania’s new emphasis on public diplomacy is responding defensively to this, saying in effect, “We cannot let others define us; we must do so ourselves.” That is merely a stop-gap approach, lacking the breadth of outlook that public diplomacy, like other elements of foreign policy, requires. To be fully beneficial, public diplomacy must be strategic, not tactical, and must convince European publics that Romania is a solid citizen of the community of Europe. Romania’s public diplomats will need to work on this.

Former foreign minister Cristian Diaconescu, along with his colleague Dan Dima, is directing the public diplomacy effort, which he defines as “the management of external perception... that aims to offer to the international realm the necessary arguments for a solid structuring of our credibility and reputation abroad.” For those tempted to think Romania just needs a new “brand” identity, Diaconescu said that perceptions of Romania “cannot be magically created out of imaginative promotion, but must be built on policy.”

All this is encouraging, but Basescu’s team is in the midst of domestic political battling that is far nastier than anything seen these days in Washington. The president and the current foreign minister belong to different political parties and are so at odds that the foreign ministry chose to send no representative to the kick-off conference. This needs to be fixed. In any country, successful public diplomacy requires a long-term commitment that transcends partisanship.

Keeping that cautionary note in mind, Romania’s new emphasis on reaching out to foreign publics — not just other governments — should be considered a useful step forward in a number of ways. It is likely to benefit Romania’s regional stature and it will widen the circle of public diplomacy practitioners. In Europe, the collective political blood pressure tends to reach dangerous peaks. Public diplomacy may prove a helpful antidote.

MEA to get new spokesperson, Baglay to be shifted as Raveesh Kumar likely to take over

By Saurabh Shukla, newsmobile.in

Image from article, with caption: Current MEA Spokesperson Gopal Baglay

Excerpt:

[T]he foreign office has not been able to handle the media in the changing times of social and digital media and keep in sync with the new realities. Both these forms have become a powerful tool and a spokesperson’s job in the modern day has to be more dynamic and creative. Besides the current Foreign Secretary has a strong focus on keeping officers manning key posts according to their aptitude and he realised that the spokesperson’s job needed a different officer, who could do some out of box thinking.

The other problem, the Ministry’s public diplomacy wing has not been able to get out of the box ideas, especially at a time when they have proactive leaders in the MEA led by External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and S. Jaishankar, who has been regarded as one of the brightest foreign secretaries in the recent past, have been leading the Ministry. ...

How Israel Manages Its Message

Philip Giraldi, freepress.org; see also.

uncaptioned image from article

Those of us who are highly critical of Israel’s ability to manipulate U.S. foreign policy frequently note how sites that permit comments on our articles are almost immediately inundated with hostile postings that are remarkably similar in both tone and substance. Given that it is unlikely that large numbers of visitors to the sites read the offending piece more-or-less simultaneously, react similarly to its content, and then go on to express their disgust in very similar language, many of us have come to the conclusion that the Israeli government or some of the groups dedicated to advancing Israeli interests turn loose supporters who are dedicated to combating and refuting anything and everything that casts Israel in a negative light.

The fact is that Israel is extremely active in an enterprise that falls in the gray area between covert operations and overt governmental activity. Many governments seek to respond to negative commentary in the media, but they normally do it openly with an ambassador or press officer countering criticism by sending in a letter, writing an op-ed, or appearing on a talk show. Such activity is generally described as public diplomacy when it is done openly by a recognized government official and the information itself is both plausible and verifiable, at least within reasonable limits. Israel does indeed do that, but it also engages in other activities that are not so transparent and which are aimed at spreading false information.

When an intelligence organization seeks to influence opinion by creating and deliberately circulating “false news,” it is referred to as a “disinformation operation.” But Israel has refined the art of something that expands upon that, what might be referred to more accurately as “perception management” or “influence operations” in which it only very rarely shows its hand overtly, in many cases paying students as part-time bloggers or exploiting diaspora Jews as volunteers to get its message out. The practice is so systemic, involving recruitment, training, Foreign Ministry-prepared information sheets, and internet alerts to potential targets, that it is frequently described by its Hebrew name, hasbara, which means literally “public explanation.” It is essentially an internet-focused “information war” that parallels and supports the military action whenever Israel enters into conflict with any of its neighbors or seeks to influence public opinion in the United States and Europe.

The hasbara onslaught inevitably cranks up when Israel is being strongly criticized. There were notable surges in activity when Israel attacked Gaza in 2009 and 2012, as well as when it hijacked the Turkish humanitarian relief ship the Mavi Marmara in 2011. The devastating 2014 Gaza fighting inevitably followed suit, producing a perfect storm of pro-Israel commentary contesting any published piece that in any way sympathized with the Palestinians. The comments tend to appear in large numbers on websites where moderation and registration requirements are minimal, including Yahoo! News, or Facebook and Twitter.

The hasbara comments are noticeable as they tend to sound like boilerplate, and run contrary to or even ignore what other contributors to the site are writing. They often include spelling and syntactical hints that the writer is not natively fluent in English. As is the practice at corporate customer support call centers in Asia, the commenters generally go by American-sounding names and use fake email addresses. They never indicate that they are Israelis or working on behalf of the Israeli government and they tend to repeat over and over again sound bites of pseudo-information, as when they falsely insist that Hamas was solely responsible for the recent Gazan wars and that Israel was only defending itself. The commenters operate in the belief that if something is repeated often enough in many different places it will ipso facto gain some credibility and create doubts regarding contrary points of view.

That Israel is engaged in perception management on a large scale has more-or-less been admitted by the Israeli government, and some of its mechanisms have been identified, to include the Strategic Affairs Ministry headed by Gilad Erdan. The most recent wrinkle, focused on countering the nonviolent Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement, is an app called ACT.IL, that was developed by Israel’s Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC) in collaboration with the Israeli American Council, which can be downloaded at iTunes, Apple app store and Google Play. The app enables one to tap into “the collective knowledge of IDC students who together speak 35 languages hail from 86 countries and have connections to the pro-Israel community all over the world.” The Jerusalem Post, in an article praising the new initiative, describes how, “in this virtual situation room of experts, they detect instances where Israel is being assailed online and they program the app to find missions that can be carried out with a push of a button.” What does it do? In a trial run, an Australian business that allegedly refused to serve Israelis was bombarded with negative Facebook comments that reduced its rating from a 4.6 to a 1.4.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry has sent a letter out to a number of pro-Israel organizations emphasizing the “importance of the internet as the new battleground for Israel’s image.” Haaretz reported in 2013 how Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office collaborated with the National Union of Israeli Students to establish “covert units” at the seven national universities to be structured in a “semi-military” fashion and organized in situation rooms. Students are paid as much as $2,000 monthly to work the online targets.

The serious collaboration between government and volunteers actually began with Operation Cast Lead in early 2009, an incursion into Gaza that killed more than 1,800 Palestinians, when the Foreign Ministry pulled together a group of mostly young computer savvy soldiers supplemented by students both overseas and within Israel to post a number of government-crafted responses to international criticism.

Many of the initial volunteers worked through a website giyus.org (an acronym for Give Israel Your United Support). The website included a desktop tool called Megaphone that provided daily updates on articles appearing on the internet that had to be challenged or attacked. There were once believed to be 50,000 activists receiving the now-inactive Megaphone’s alerts.

There have also been reports about a pro-Israel American group called Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) preparing to enter its own version of developments in the Middle East on the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia. E-mails from CAMERA reveal that the group sought volunteers in 2008 to edit material on Wikipedia “to help us keep Israel-related entries … from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors,” while also recommending that articles on the Middle East be avoided initially by supporters so as not to arouse suspicions about their motives. Volunteers were also advised to use false names that did not hint at any Israeli or Jewish connection and to avoid any references to being organized by CAMERA. Fifty volunteers reportedly were actively engaged in the program when it was exposed in the media and the program was put on hold.

CAMERA is an Internal Revenue Service-approved 501(c)(3) organization, which means that contributions to it are tax exempt. Such exemptions are granted to organizations that are either charitable or educational in nature and they normally preclude any involvement in partisan political activity. As CAMERA would not appear to qualify as a charity, it is to be presumed that its application for special tax status stressed that it is educational. Whether its involvement in “un-tainting” Wikipedia truly falls within that definition might well be debated, particularly as it appears to have been carried out in semi-clandestine fashion. CAMERA might well also be considered to be a good candidate for registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), as its activity is uniquely focused on promoting the perceived interests of a foreign government.

The use of Israel’s universities as propaganda mills by the government also raises other significant issues. The growing BDS movement has included some Israeli universities as targets because of their alleged involvement with the government in the occupation of the West Bank. That the universities are also involved in possible government-sponsored information operations might be an additional convincing argument that BDS supporters might use to justify blacklisting at least some Israeli academic institutions.

Every government is engaged in selling a product, which is its own self-justifying view of what it does and how it does it. But the largely clandestine Israeli effort to influence American opinion is unique in that it comes from a country which receives more than $3 billion annually from the U.S. taxpayer. We Americans are therefore paying to be propagandized by people working for a foreign government who often pretend to be our fellow citizens but are not. What is occurring is essentially an intelligence operation directed against the United States, something that the CIA would have run back in the 1970s and 1980s. That Israel can continue to reap huge amounts of aid and political cover from Washington while it is actively working to make sure that Americans are poorly informed about the Middle East reveals more than anything the corruption of our political class and media, both of which appear to be ready to sell out for thirty shekels to anyone with the cash in hand. Time to drain the swamp, indeed.

Public Diplomacy Grants

vn.usembassy.gov

image (not from entry) from

The public diplomacy grants program funds projects that further the U.S. Mission’s public diplomacy goals: enhancing prosperity for Vietnam through market orientation, governance, education and the environment; improving security cooperation; enhancing education ties, strengthening media engagement, and/or building capacity of local partners.

The U.S. Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City is now accepting proposals for projects in the provinces south of and including Thua Thien Hue. All applicants must submit proposals via email.

Please click here (PDF-306KB) for our Annual Program Statement, here (PDF-79KB) for our Notice of Funding Opportunity for English Language training for specific programming and guidelines, here (PDF-85KB) for Notice of Funding Opportunity for Support for the Lower Mekong Initiative Young Scientist Exchange Program.

All first-time grantees requesting under $25,000 must include the following:

1. Grant Proposal (Word-176KB) Form (suggested) including Budget Detail using our template.
2. Standard Forms  SF424 (for Organizations, PDF-265KB) OR SF424I (for Individuals, PDF-770KB) and SF424A (PDF-216KB) and SF424B (PDF-115KB).
3. A DUNS number

All grantees who have previously received a U.S. Government grant OR are requesting more than $25,000 must additionally submit:

1. Proof of SAM and NCAGE registration.

The Public Diplomacy Office

image from entry

The Public Diplomacy Office was established in 2014 as an affiliate office to the Ministry of Cabinet Affairs, with the aim of proposing and implementing strategic national and regional initiatives reinforcing the standing of the United Arab Emirates and its leadership through partnerships with media and the public and private sectors. The Public Diplomacy Office undertakes the mission of documenting and highlighting the outstanding success story of the UAE and its leadership and representing the UAE’s regional and global model of progress. It also aims at strengthening the intellectual, cultural, humanitarian and developmental legacy of the UAE and implementing strategic initiatives promoting this legacy. The Public Diplomacy Office seeks to develop direct communication tools between the federal government, local community and broader communities in order to strengthen ties through implementing community-based initiatives and celebrating national and cultural occasions.

Since its establishment, the Public Diplomacy Office has undertaken the proposal, planning and launch of several major projects, in partnership with relevant authorities and institutions, such as launching the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Global Initiatives, the Arab Reading Challenge (ARC), the Mohammed bin Rashid Library, the Emirates Mars Mission, the 100-Retreat within the Year of Reading 2016, and the strategic communication management of the World Government Summit 2016. The office also has undertaken the proposal, launch and management of several major national campaigns in the UAE, including Thank you Khalifa in 2014, Thank you UAE Army in 2015, and Thank you Mohammed bin Rashid in 2016, in addition to the full media coverage of UAE the humanitarian campaigns including Dress 1 Million Needy Children, UAE Water Aid and UAE Compassion Campaign.

In March 2016, His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, ordered the establishment of the Public Diplomacy Office as an independent entity under the Ministry of Cabinet Affairs and the Future, and appointed His Excellency Saeed Mohammad Al Eter Al Dhanhani as the Director General of the office.

The World is Not Abandoning Taiwan

J Michael Cole, sentinel.tw

Despite the challenges and diplomatic reversals, Taiwan is in many ways more connected to the international community today than it was during the ‘diplomatic truce’ with China, and its existence as a sovereign state remains secure.

Image (not from article) from

Excerpt:

Misreading the tea leaves

[T]he idea itself that the international community is “deserting” Taiwan relies on a misreading of Taiwan’s role within the international community and of the actions it has taken behind the scenes to counteract Beijing’s efforts. While China has successfully won over a handful of small states, Taiwan has been actively engaging democratic allies — several of them in the G20 category — unofficially, expanding trade, government-to-government exchanges, security cooperation and interactions at various levels. The New Southbound Policy, launched by the Tsai administration last year, has been part of that process, and could eventually secure closer ties with major economies (and China competitors) such as India. Meanwhile, relations with Japan, the U.S., Singapore, Australia, the U.K., Canada and several other countries have also expanded in recent years and will continue to do so as leading democracies (or agencies in those countries) re-evaluate their relationship with authoritarian China. Exchanges at the non-governmental, foundation and municipal levels, as well as reciprocal parliamentary visits, have been growing steadily, and Taiwan recorded its largest-ever number of foreign tourist arrivals last year despite a marked drop in Chinese arrivals. As a natural ideological ally, a responsible stakeholder and a major trade partner to many countries, Taiwan is a natural partner for a fledging democratic counteroffensive, and after eight years of sagged global public diplomacy under President Ma (largely due to his focus on China), its outreach efforts have grown and should continue to grow (issues such as the legalization of same-sex marriage are the kind of “soft power” items that have boosted Taiwan’s international visibility). ...

Public Diplomacy Workshops - IDIA

mofa.gov.tw

IDIA image from

Data Source: Institute of Diplomacy and International Affairs

In a fast-changing world, it is important for every country to increase the awareness of its citizens to face the ever-increasing challenges and opportunities. To promote public diplomacy, the Institute of Diplomacy and International Affairs (IDIA) has conducted the Public Diplomacy Workshops since 2005 and has developed a series of training programs throughout different regions in Taiwan annually. The workshops involve training programs for high school and college students, key NGO and business leaders, as well as civil servants of local governments. The courses of the workshops include introduction to foreign policies, international etiquette, international affairs, economic and trade diplomacy, consular services, foreign services experience-sharing from diplomats, etc. The program has been highly appreciated by the participants, and helped boost citizen’s interest in international affairs and harness support for Taiwan’s diplomatic effort.

Public Diplomacy — Embassy of Peru in the USA

embassyofperu.org

The Public Diplomacy Department of the Embassy of Peru in Washington, D.C., is responsible for the cultural promotion of Peru in the United States and the protection of the cultural heritage of the country.

This department conducts activities in accordance with the Foreign Cultural Policy Plan prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Culture, which is part of the Cultural Policy of the State.

The main areas are:

• Cultural and academic relations;
• Tourism promotion;
• Heritage protection;
• Scientific promotion;
• Cultural communication policy ...

The Public Diplomacy Department supports and coordinates cultural activities from Peruvian artists who come to Washington, D.C., for presentations and exhibitions in all artistic fields. It organizes cultural and artistic performances at the Embassy’s Art Gallery. It also assists and provides American citizens with information about Peru’s culture.

The Department keeps close ties with authorities of the Department of State and other U.S. government and private entities, high authorities from prestigious universities, museums, galleries and all institutions involved in encouraging artistic life to promote Peruvian culture. It also monitors closely the cultural activities in which Peruvian cultural expressions and artifacts are involved.

The Embassy of Peru promotes the most significant values and expressions of the Peruvian Culture, whose diversity has a very long history. Culture is a factor of comprehensive development that has a multiplying effect on all aspects of the country’s foreign policy, including trade, investment, international cooperation and the reduction of poverty. It also allows the Embassy to be in close contact with the Peruvian community living in the United States. ...

Definition of public diplomacy in English: public diplomacy

en.oxforddictionaries.com

Definition of public diplomacy in English:

public diplomacy

NOUN

• Diplomacy conducted openly; (in later use) specifically official efforts to influence foreign public opinion in service of diplomatic goals.

Origin

Mid 19th century; earliest use found in The Times.

Public Diplomacy. What It Is and How to Do It

unitar.org

Content

Government endeavours to influence foreign publics have long pre-dated the concept of public diplomacy, coined in the 1960s. The communication and technology revolution that is shaping the 21st Century has given a powerful impetus to this particular way of conducting international relations. Governments have lost their quasi monopoly on the control of information to the benefit of public opinion and non-state actors. Who, then, does public diplomacy belong to? How is the task divided? What are the responsibilities of government officials? What is the role of non-state actors? How can one measure the power of the media? 

Alan Hunt’s Public diplomacy. What it is and how to do it, represents a major tool for diplomats around the world to perform effectively in their working environment, as well as being a must-have for anyone willing to explore this area in depth.

Objectives

Public diplomacy. What it is and how to do it pursues the general objective of providing its readers with a historical, conceptual and pragmatic overview of the use and practice of public diplomacy. This publication

• Examines the different spectrums and dimensions of the term;
• Develops the related fields of nation branding, propaganda and cultural relations;
• Identifies the specific roles played by an increasing number of actors involved in public diplomacy;
• Provides useful methods, tools and techniques to improve public diplomacy practices;
• Offers a substantial overview of performance measurement and evaluation tools.

Target audience

Public diplomacy. What it is and how to do it is a tool for all actors interested in deepening their understanding or improving their mastery of public diplomacy.

Alan Hunt, Public diplomacy. What it is and how to do it, Geneva, UNITAR, 2015. ISBN: 978-2-8399-1722-3.

For sale at UN bookshop in Geneva (Palais des Nations, Switzerland), or through the online UN Bookshop.

Public Diplomacy - A Brief History of US Diplomacy

usdiplomacy.org [JB note: This entry regrettably fails to mention the seminal works of scholar Nicholas Cull on American public diplomacy]

Although practiced for centuries, the term “public diplomacy” has only been in use since the 1960’s.  In the United States it is usually defined with language such as the following:

“Public diplomacy is the means by which governments seek to advance their nations’ interests through understanding, informing and influencing broader publics in foreign countries.”

For many countries, such as the United States, the practice of public diplomacy includes not only one-way communications but also promotion of cultural, educational and citizen interchange

Public diplomacy differs from traditional government-to-government diplomacy in that it deals not only with foreign officials but also with nongovernmental individuals and institutions, as well as mass audiences.  Depending for its long-term success on candor, credibility and open interchange, public diplomacy does not include black propaganda, psychological warfare or other forms of covert action, which by their nature seek tactical and short-term gain.  Nor, by most definitions, does it refer to activities of private citizens and organizations (such as media and educational institutions) that take place without government financial support.  In short, much of public diplomacy can be viewed as the purposeful exploitation of what Joseph Nye calls a nation’s nonmilitary “soft power.”

Referring to the relationship between truth and propaganda, Edward R. Murrow, U.S. Information Agency Director in 1961-63 said:

“American traditions and the American ethic require us to be truthful, but the most important reason is that truth is the best propaganda and lies are the worst. To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as simple as that.”

Within the U. S. State Department public diplomacy is considered a separate function from public affairs. The latter focuses on reaching domestic audiences, while public diplomacy deals with overseas audiences.  The two terms, however, are used interchangeably at U.S. missions abroad, where the public diplomacy unit is known as the Public Affairs Section (PAS) and is led by the embassy or consulate’s Public Affairs Officer (PAO).

Although this portion of the website focuses primarily on the United States, it should be noted that virtually every country in the world uses public diplomacy to advance its interests, employing such tools of the trade as international broadcasting, publications, press conferences, Internet websites and cultural events.

RELATED MATERIALS

• Fitzhugh Green, “Our First Public Diplomats,” Foreign Service Journal, February 1988

BRIEF HISTORY

Efforts to use the arts of persuasion to gain political or military advantage have existed since the dawn of recorded history.  In more modern times the French revolution and its Napoleonic aftermath made sophisticated use of the tools of public diplomacy, as did England’s pre-World War II campaign to persuade Americans to support the British struggle against Hitler.  Through much of the 20th century the Soviet Union, with its ideological emphasis on “the masses,” gave high priority not only to the covert instruments of agitation and propaganda but also to overt public diplomacy.  

Since its earliest days the United States has benefited from many able practitioners of public diplomacy.  America’s first diplomats, including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, imaginatively used their access to both elite circles and the media of France and England to promote the revolutionary cause.   

During World War I, the Committee on Public Information (known as the Creel Committee) was established as a propaganda arm of the U.S. war effort.  Although considered effective, it received considerable criticism for its aggressive attempts to influence American public opinion, and was abolished after the termination of hostilities. 

In subsequent years, major landmarks in the evolution of America’s public diplomacy included: the inauguration of a vigorous cultural exchanges program with Latin America in the late 1930s, the launching of the Voice of America (VOA) on February 24, 1942, the establishment of the Office of War Information (OWI) during World War II (with its overseas component called the United States Information Service, or USIS)  and the beginning of the Fulbright Exchange Program in 1946.  Overseas information programs were removed from the State Department with the establishment of an independent U.S. Information Agency (USIA) in 1953, and the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (CU) was merged with USIA in 1977 to form what was for the next four years known as the U.S. International Communications Agency (USICA).

With the exception of VOA, all of USIA was reintegrated back into the State Department on October 1, 1999, and most of its operational elements were put under a newly-created Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R) (see http://www.state.gov/r).  At that time the Voice of America was placed under the Bureau of International Broadcasting (IBB) within the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) structure.  (www.voanews.com and www.bbg.gov).  Although beyond the immediate responsibility of personnel in the field, all of the BBG’s broadcasting elements are important components of U.S. public diplomacy.

top

RELATED MATERIALS

PRACTICE

With the 1999 consolidation, the overseas USIS offices were renamed Public Affairs Sections (PAS).  However, through all the organizational changes in Washington, the structure and functions of public diplomacy offices at embassies abroad have not changed appreciably over recent decades as they continue to promote objectives that are either informational or devoted to cultural and educational exchanges.  To serve these ends, Public Afffairs Sections are typically divided into an Information Section and a Cultural Section.

Information Section

The information section (known in the embassies of many countries simply as the press office) is the base of operations for the embassy’s press attaché (or mission spokesman/spokesperson).  In carrying out its media relations functions a U.S. embassy’s information section is supported by press guidances, official texts and other materials provided by Washington.  Up-to-date information on U.S. foreign policy positions is also readily accessible on http://www.america.gov/. Information sections maintain close contact with local media, provide information on current U.S. policies (and the background for such policies), and arrange interviews, briefings and press conferences for U.S., third-country and host-country journalists. 

In addition to assisting resident or visiting U.S. correspondents of private print, broadcast and web-based media, information sections also support U.S. Government-sponsored broadcasting services such as the worldwide VOA, Radio Free Asia (RFA), Cuba-focused Radio and TV Marti, and the Arabic-language Radio SAWA and Alhurra TV. 

In addition to assisting resident or visiting U.S. correspondents of private print, broadcast and web-based media, Information Sections also support U.S. Government-sponsored broadcasting services such as the worldwide VOA, Radio Free Asia (RFA), Cuba-focused Radio and TV Marti, and the Arabic-language Radio SAWA and Alhurra TV. 

Educational and Cultural Programs

While countries of diverse size and character all tend to handle the information side of public diplomacy in similar fashion, their cultural activities (or “cultural diplomacy”) may vary considerably.  For example, some seek to avoid any appearance that their cultural programs promote short-term political (or propagandistic) objectives.  The United Kingdom’s British Council, France’s Alliance Francaise and Centres Culturels, and the German Goethe Institute function as such non-political institutions. 

In contrast, U.S. libraries and similar institutions – whether called Cultural Centers, American Centers or (more recently) Information Resource Centers – have consistently identified themselves with the official American presence and have not shied away from fostering dialogue on sometimes contentious foreign policy issues as well as sponsoring “softer” cultural events.  Although the United States established or strongly supported many jointly managed Binational Centers (BNCs) in the 1940s and 50s that were mainly engaged in apolitical English teaching activities, most of those institutions have since either closed their doors or now operate without official U.S. involvement.. 

A distinctive feature of U.S. educational and cultural exchange activity has been its emphasis on the American learning experience (i.e., exposing Americans to foreign countries) component of promoting mutual understanding.  Since the 1930s this goal has been strongly supported by foundations and educational institutions, as well as key members of Congress.  For this reason, a substantial proportion of the exchanges account is devoted to providing opportunities for U.S. citizens to travel abroad for study and other educational purposes, including establishing institutional linkages for ongoing interchange.

The cultural section of a U.S. embassy, headed by the mission’s cultural affairs officer (CAO), who also has the title of cultural attaché, fosters a vast range of cultural and educational exchanges, working in close cooperation with host country institutions as well as U.S. academic and other nongovernmental organizations committed to academic, cultural and citizen interchange.

The Cultural Section of a U.S. embassy, headed by the mission’s Cultural Affairs Officer (CAO), who also has the title of Cultural Attache, fosters a vast range of cultural and educational exchanges, working in close cooperation with host country institutions as well as U.S. academic and other non-governmental organizations committed to academic, cultural and citizen interchange.

Two exchange programs of particular note in the cultural diplomacy efforts of the United States are the International Visitors (IV) Program and the Fulbright Exchange Program, both of which come under the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.

International Visitors Program

The IV Program, whose origins trace back to before World War II, annually brings about 5,000 current or potential leaders from other countries to the United States for periods ranging from a few days to weeks.  The IVs meet with experts and counterparts in their own areas of specialization and explore areas of particular personal interest.  In addition to regular IVs, individuals already planning to visit the United States under other auspices may be considered Voluntary Visitors (VVs) and given special treatment during days added to their original schedules.  Many distinguished foreign nationals have participated in this program over the years, including more than 200 current and former chiefs of state.  Nominations for this program are typically made by an embassy’s IV Committee, which is chaired by the deputy chief of mission (DCM).  The program relies heavily on volunteers throughout the United States who are part of a remarkable network of some 95 Councils for International Visitors (CIVs).

Fulbright Exchanges

The Fulbright Exchange Program, long considered the flagship international educational program of the U.S. Government, was started in 1946 as part of legislation introduced by Senator J. William Fulbright at the end of World War II, using funds generated by the sale of surplus war materials.  Its purpose is to “increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries.”  Since the first grantees traveled in 1947, the Fulbright Program has assisted the exchange of some 250,000 students, scholars, researchers and other participants.  About 6,000 grants are awarded annually.  Management of the program in the field is typically handled by the cultural section at small embassies, or by a binational Fulbright Commission in countries with large programs.  Most Fulbright programs receive some funding or in-kind contributions from the host country and local private citizens, as well as the monies appropriated by Congress.

Supporting all of the U.S. exchange operations is a vast network of cooperating private institutionsthat typically sponsor their own activities and also carry out programs funded by the U.S. Government.   Some 73 such organizations are part of an umbrella lobbying and information-sharing body called the Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange.

top

RELATED MATERIALS

ISSUES

U.S. public diplomacy has been the focus of considerable attention by Congress, scholars, media commentators and others interested in determining how it could be made more effective in building stronger international support for American policies in the post-9/11 era. President George W. Bush placed a great deal of emphasis on public outreach efforts, particularly to the Muslim world, appointing Karen Hughes, a powerful member of his inner circle, as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. This effort has intensified under the Obama administration, as public diplomacy is at the heart of what Secretary of State Clinton calls “smart power.” Both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have delivered several major addresses to foreign audiences and used new technologies, including text messaging and podcasting, to maximize the impact of their message. Another subject of continuing concern and comment is the way that public diplomacy is – or should be – lodged within the Department of State.  Since 2003, numerous outside studies have addressed this issue, but as of 2009 no major changes had been made to the consolidation arrangements put in place in 1999.  The website of the Public Diplomaty Alumni Association (http://www.publicdiplomacy.org) has links to studies on the subject and other public diplomacy issues of current interest.

top

RELATED WEBSITES

• Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
• Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs
• Bureau of Public Affairs
• State Department International Information Programs
• Broadcasting Board of Governors
• Voice of America
• U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy
• George Washington University Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication
• Public Diplomacy (formerly USIA) Alumni Association  

Arndt, Richard T.  The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century.  Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, 2005.

Dizard, Wilson. Inventing Public Diplomacy: The Story of the U.S. Information Agency. Bolder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004.

Heil, Alan Jr. Voice of America: A History. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003.

Ninkovich, Frank A.  The Diplomacy of Ideas: U.S. Foreign Policy and Cultural Relations.  New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Nye, Joseph S., Jr.  Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics.  New York: Public Affairs, 2004.

Tuch, Hans. Communicating with the World: U.S. Public Diplomacy Overseas. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990.  

The Foreign Service Journal of October 2006 (http://www.afsa.org/FSJ/1006/index.html) contains five informative articles on contemporary public diplomacy:

• Richard T. Arndt, “Rebuilding America's Cultural Diplomacy.”
• Robert J. Callahan, “Neither Madison Avenue nor Hollywood.”
• Joe Johnson, “How Does Public Diplomacy Measure Up?”
• Patricia H. Kushlis and Patricia L. Sharpe, “Public Diplomacy Matters More Than Ever.”
• Shawn Zeller, “Damage Control: Karen Hughes Does PD.”