What is the salary for the Technician role at U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy?

linkedin.com

image from

Base salary
$57,700 /yr
Range: $39K - $86K
Total compensation How is total compensation calculated

$57,700 /yr
Range: $39K - $86K
Less than 3 responses

Histogram will be displayed after 20 responses

How much do professionals with the title Technician make at U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy [JB emphasis]?

The average salary for the role of Technician at U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy in Washington D.C. Metro Area is $57,700. This salary estimate is based on salaries at similar companies submitted by LinkedIn members who have the title “Technician” in Washington D.C. Metro Area.

Additional Compensations for the role of Technician in Washington D.C. Metro Area at U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

No additional compensation reported

Master of Public Diplomacy Fall 2018 Class Profile

annenberg.usc.edu

image from

[JB -- Regrettably cannot for technical reasons post entire item (with colorful pie charts) on this blog. Allow me to suggest that persons interested in the American education system -- including at its 64% so-called "diversity" (whatever that word/percentage means) at USC -- go to the original item at.]

Number of Applications 60 Enrolling students 11

Diversity ................................................................... 64%
Includes citizens or permanent residents of the United States, who selfidentify
as traditionally underrepresented populations.
International ............................................................. 18%
Includes students from:
China, Mexico

Undergraduate Majors

• Journalism/Comm. includes: Broadcast Journalism, Print
Journalism, Communication, Mass Communication, etc.
• Arts & Humanities includes: English, History, etc.
• Professional Degree includes: Business, Finance, etc.
• Social Sciences includes: International Studies, Political
Science, Sociology, Gender Studies, etc.
• Natural Sciences includes: Biology, Chemistry, Health
Promotion

Undergraduate Institutions Represented (10)

American University
Azusa Pacific University
Duke University
Johnson C. Smith University
Northwestern University
Universidad Anahuac
University of California, Los Angeles
University of California, Santa Barbara (2)
University of Southern California
Xiamen University Tan Kah Kee College

Lawmaker: Norwegian Delegation to Start 6-Day Visit to Russia's Crimea on Sunday

Sputnik International

uncaptioned image from article

SIMFEROPOL (Sputnik) - A delegation from Norway will arrive on Sunday to Russia's Crimea with a six-day visit, during which it will travel around the peninsula and hold meetings with Crimean lawmakers and public figures, Yuri Gempel, the head of the Crimean parliament's committee on international relations, told Sputnik.

The visit of the delegation, which includes public figures, representatives of academia, agriculture and entrepreneurship, will last through October 6.

"The delegation from Norway arrives in Crimea on Sunday morning. We have close business ties with the Norwegians in the framework of the public diplomacy [JB emphasis] project. This visit is important as we are breaking the information blockade in Norway. The delegation includes practically representatives of all parties that exist in Norway. They are not just citizens, they are public figures, including members of various parties," Gempel said.

The delegation is expected to visit Yalta, Sevastopol, Simferopol, Bakhchysarai and a number of local sights as well as to hold a meeting with Crimean parliament chairman Vladimir Konstantinov.

Delegations from a number of countries, including France, Germany, Italy and Bulgaria have also visited the peninsula despite sanctions imposed on Moscow following the 2014 referendum on Crimea rejoining Russia.

Retired U.S. ambassador shares diplomacy, communication advice at SU

dailyorange.com

Corey Henry | Staff Photographer

Harriet Elam-Thomas, a former U.S. ambassador, spoke at SU on Wednesday.

By Colleen FergusonASST. NEWS EDITOR

3 days ago

Before Harriet Elam-Thomas [JB - see] began speaking at Syracuse University on Wednesday, she shook hands with people in attendance.

“Happy to meet you,” the retired U.S. ambassador told attendees while asking about the origins of their names as she learned them.

One of the essential tools that Elam-Thomas said she learned during her more than 30-year career with the country’s foreign service: creating relationships with people that are based on civility, respect and sincerity. She discussed effective communication skills with an audience of about 30 people at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications’ I3 Center.

The event, co-sponsored by Newhouse and the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, was part of Elam-Thomas’ conversation series called “Civility Strategies: Healing Approaches That Unite People and Strengthen Democracy.” The lectures are meant to focus on uniting across lines of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation and political affiliation, according to an SU News release.

Elam-Thomas, who is now the director of the diplomacy program at the University of Central Florida, has worked in Senegal, Belgium, Greece and Turkey. Elam-Thomas said she has had to navigate many customs that weren’t characteristic to Western civilization while working around the world.

She told the audience she learned two languages — Greek and Turkish — in her 40s. Speaking someone’s native language with them in another country makes a huge difference when interacting with others, she said. It’s a way to give honor to someone’s culture and history, she added. It also enables a speaker to communicate in a way that feels more familiar and less threatening to a subject, she said.

Public diplomacy [JB emphasis] officers have a harder job today than they did when she first entered the foreign service in 1963, she said. With a 24-hour news cycle that can be known to cause “information overload,” she said, people already think they know what’s going on both in the U.S. and around the world.

Communicating through social media is only as effective as the people using it, she said, and that involves being extremely sensitive about the way a message is being delivered and how it will be received culturally by its intended audience.

“You have to get in the heads of your audience,” she said.

Elam-Thomas said some kinds of unconscious phrases can be  “put-downs,” such as an American saying British people drive on the “wrong” side of the road or that Arabic is “written backwards.”

Most effective dialogue, she added, requires careful listening. She encourages her students to listen more and speak less.

“It costs very little to understand people and treat them as individuals,” she said. “However, it takes time, patience and sensitivity to listen.”

1957: Eisenhower, Dulles and merging USIA back into State, or Not

mountainrunner.us

September 27, 2018

On Friday morning, January 18, 1957, Arthur Larson gave a lengthy and wide-ranging presentation on the United States Information Agency to President Eisenhower’s cabinet. After 22 months as under secretary at the Labor Department, and now one month as USIA Director, Larson used charts, maps, and film clips to describe the barely four-year-old agency. The nearly three dozen attendees included the President, Vice President Richard Nixon, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, and Attorney General Herbert Brownell. Larson’s objective was positioning the agency at the center of a whole of government engagement program. Larson stressed “the need for the help of all Cabinet members, since the program for telling the United States’ story can succeed only if everyone in public and private life is alert to the impact of our actions on world opinion.”

Larson’s presentation focused on the agency’s importance to the entire government. At the end of his nearly ninety-minutes briefing, he made three specific requests to the cabinet. First, every department and agency designate a liaison–a “watchdog” as he called it–to stay on top of USIA’s activities and maintain conversations between their agency and both State and USIA. Second, that these liaisons meet regularly as a group. And third, that the briefing presented to the cabinet be repeated for the “top officials of each agency.”

The minutes reflect that the cabinet concurred with each request. The cabinet also “decided to ensure that the foreign opinion factor would be weighed in deciding upon actions and statements and that the Department of State and USIA would be informed in advance when such actions or statements would have an impact abroad.”

And then the question was asked. Attorney General Brownell inquired about “the foundation for charges by the press that USIA was engaged in undue competition with the regularly established press.” The context was recent threats from Congress to limit or reduce USIA’s budget because of these concerns. 

The Members of Congress were channeling a few wire services, some newspapers, and the National Broadcasting Corporation. The Associated Press, along with the United Press, had pressed the competition argument since the government’s peacetime broadcasting plan started to form in October 1945. Such was the climate when Ike appointed Larson, a former Rhodes scholar and law professor, as Director of the agency.

In 1946, the American Society of Newspaper Editors dismissed the bulk of the AP’s concerns, concluding that “the present uncertainties in international relations justify an effort by the United States Government to make its activities and its policies clear to the people of the world through the agency set up in the State Department.” ASNE agreed with the State Department’s position that the government was intended only to fill in “the gaps where private agencies don’t do the job.”

The AP frequently raised the point that the Kremlin’s media used the news service. This point, however, was countered by others who noted the AP’s client in Moscow was highly selective in the stories it used. As for other nations, the AP’s chief, Kent Cooper, would later say that “all countries of any importance actually avail themselves” of news of the American wire services. The fact was, as the State Department pointed out, many of the countries the department intended to engage, such as Russia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Iran, “either do not get these reports or process them beyond recognition.” An analysis requested by the State Department in 1946 found real gaps where private agencies cannot do their job because of structural problems in critical markets prevented adequate private enterprise, whether American or otherwise, from operating effectively or at all.

As the war of ideologies proceeds, people in Europe are being super-saturated with statized propaganda. This is dramatically shown by the poor response to Russian movies even in countries like Czechoslovakia and Hungary, where the full power of the regime is thrown behind them. In contrast, there is a refreshing quality of interest and believability in America’s free and uncensored movies, books, magazines, and newspapers — where they can get through. [Emphasis in the original]

But, in too many places they are not getting through. It is naive to say “Let private enterprise carry the ball,” and at the same time ignore the fact that there are widening areas in which private enterprise can no longer operate in a normal manner.

Memo from William Nichols to Howland Sargeant, “Private Enterprise and the U.S. Information Program — Preliminary Report.” October 18, 1947.

The structural problems limiting private agencies from effectively operating in these markets ranged from currency issues to infrastructure to local censorship. The report described three categories of countries. In “Free Zone” countries–including Canada, Cuba, and Mexico–commercial media had each access and there was commercial potential. “Iron Curtain” countries–Russia, Yugoslavia, for example–was where a private operation was virtually impossible, commercial opportunities non-existent, and threats to consumers. The third category, “Mixed,” were “shaky” countries–including France and Italy–where a combined effort by private and government was necessary, in part, because a distinguishing feature of these markets was the non-convertibility of currency.

The May 1947 version of a bill that would become known as the Smith-Mundt Act contained language to directly address concerns of competition like those of the  AP’s.

[T]he Secretary shall encourage and facilitate by appropriate means the dissemination abroad of information about the United States by private American individuals and agencies, shall supplement such private information dissemination where necessary, and shall reduce such Government information activities whenever corresponding private information dissemination is found to be adequate.

Section 502 of HR 3342 “United States Information and Exchange Act of 1947,” as of May 13, 1947.

Through various markups, this language evolved until the final Smith-Mundt Act was signed into law by Harry S. Truman on January 27, 1948. The original Section 502 was split into two: Section 502 (“Policies Governing Information Activities”) and Section 1005 (“Utilization of Private Agencies”).

In authorizing international information activities under this Act, it is the sense of the Congress (1) that the Secretary shall reduce such Government information activities whenever corresponding private information dissemination is found to be adequate; (2) that nothing in this Act shall be construed to give the Department a monopoly in the production or sponsorship on the air of short-wave broadcasting programs, or a monopoly on any other medium of information.

Section 502, Public Law 80-402

In carrying out the provisions of this Act it shall be the duty of the Secretary to utilize, to the maximum extent practicable, the services and facilities of private agencies, including existing American press, publishing, radio, motion picture, and other agencies, through contractual arrangements or otherwise. It is the intent of Congress that the Secretary shall encourage participation in carrying out the purposes of this Act by the maximum number of different private agencies in each field consistent with the present or potential market for their services in each country.

Section 1005, Public Law 80-402

Both of these protections remain today. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 specifically called out both in Section 208, the passage addressing concerns of domestic dissemination of information by the agencies covered by the Act, where were the then-Broadcasting Board of Governors and the public diplomacy elements of the State Department. The concern about domestic access to these programs, including the radio broadcasting, did not exist for the first two decades of Smith-Mundt. It was not the mid-1960s when Senator J. William Fulbright was trying to abolish USIA, VOA, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty, which he described in 1972 as “Cold War relics.” Fulbright’s attack included requiring USIA be reauthorized annually and amending Smith-Mundt in a way that began the process of falsely casting the law as an “anti-propaganda” law, a narrative that would be cemented in 1985 by Senator Edward Zorinsky.

But in late 1956, when Larson took over USIA, the repeating cycle of charges of unfair competition with private agencies did have some truth. Foreign papers were using USIA’s news services delivered over the air and in print instead of paying for American wire services or entering into contracts with American newspapers. The Congress and State Department intended that the information service use, to the “maximum extent practicable, the services and facilities of private agencies, including existing American press, publishing, radio, motion picture, and other agencies, through contractual arrangements or otherwise. This did happen at first, but it was curtailed quickly in 1946 due to a lack of oversight over programs written and produced by contractors (one of the examples is, separated by time, humorous). Through a separate amendment to the Smith-Mundt Act, the Informational Media Guarantee, passed as part of the European Recovery Program, provided an additional channel to support the distribution of domestic media (often books and films) abroad. But the specter of competition, real or perceived, remained.

The Attorney General’s question sparked discussion beyond the cabinet meeting. An Editorial Note posted on the State Department Historian’s website was written about 1987, based on the publication date of the volume of the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955-1957  (Volume IX, “Foreign Economic Policy; Foreign Information Program”), this note appears in. This Editorial Note came to my attention because of what it suggests: that the Eisenhower Administration considered abolishing USIA in 1957, barely four years after creating it.

The Historian’s over three-decade-old Editorial Note requires context. The following four points, three of which begins with a passage from the Editorial Note, provide the background I believe is necessary to understand the commentary better.

First point:

“In an April 26 request to C.D. Jackson, USIA Deputy Director Washburn cited the anti-USIA campaign by Roy Howard [of Scripps-Howard News Service] and criticism by the Information Chief of NBC as contributing to the USIA Congressional problems. In a memorandum of May 14 [1957], USIA Director Larson asked David G. Briggs, IPS, to investigate complaints from the United Press and Associated Press about USIA press file competition. Larson was especially concerned over the charges made by Frank J. Starsel, General Manager of the Associated Press, to Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, Senate Democratic leader and Appropriations Committee Chairman, that USIA was carrying on unfair competition against private United States press agencies.”

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v09/d203

Opposition to the State Department’s news division focused on, but not limited to, the broadcasting entity inherited from the abolishment of OWI on Aug 31, 1945, and known as the Voice of America, came from a minority of the American news media. As described above, the AP led the opposition, but the UP soon joined with them. The AP’s resistance began after Reuters, its partner in a global news cartel, felt attacked by how it was portrayed in two brief footnotes in a report about the postwar information environment commissioned by the State Department in early 1945.

The dust-up between the AP and State was so intense by January 1946 that Congress stopped working on the legislation that would later become the Smith-Mundt Act, the bill that gave permanent authorization for information and exchanges programs of all kinds. The majority of the US media, including the International News Service (INS), William Randolph Hearst’s service and later the “I” in UPI when the two merged later, supported the foreign intervention by State. This collective bunch, including those who opposed government radio before the war. Included among the supportive journalists and editors was Mark Ethridge, who had been hired by the National Association of Broadcasters in 1938 to oppose Congressional attempts to launch a government radio service aimed at Latin America. But in 1946, Ethridge described the AP and UP as “exceedingly smug in their assumption they are the sole possessors of purity.” He criticized the wire services for imagining they could penetrate countries “where they cannot go” at a time “when we are trying to win the peace—now, while we are in an ideological war.”

The AP, however, argued it had demonstrable reach abroad, citing its contracts abroad, including behind the Iron Curtain, such as TASS, the Russian news agency. Most in the media and government found this unconvincing owing to the Kremlin’s penchant for being highly selective and often re-editing stories. Many in the American press also highlighted the inconsistency of the AP refusing to sell its service to the State Department on the grounds the AP would be tainted by association with a government broadcaster while having no such qualm selling to Moscow. (As an aside, the AP successfully campaigned to keep VOA out of the Senate press gallery for decades until the 1980s, long after Moscow’s news services were allowed in.)

Second Point: 

After hearing opposition to the proposal by his staff, Secretary Dulles on May 17 expressed his objections to the President of any absorption by the Department of State of USIA. The President, who initially voiced some support for the measure, authorized Dulles to maintain his stand against a merger of USIA with the Department of State. 

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v09/d203

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was against State having a non-traditional role in diplomacy. He supported the creation of USIA in 1953, which was the natural result of State’s rejection of the public diplomacy programs it was charged with beginning in late 1945 by Executive Order and through early 1948 through appropriations, and finally from early 1948 on by legislative authority (the Smith-Mundt Act) onward. About that time, incidentally, Dulles argued for the need of a separate government agency “dedicated to the task of nonmilitary defense” with “adequate personnel and ample funds.”

Creating USIA and removing the information and cultural programs from the State Department reduced the department’s workforce by 40%. In addition to the broadcasting service, there were the extensive information programs involving posters, books, movies, libraries, training, and exchanges of all types–technical, governmental, cultural, educational–that requires “front line” staff (i.e., public affairs officers) and “back office.” By reducing the headcount and simplifying the mission of the department, the Secretary could focus on the traditional role of a foreign ministry. Such was the claim at the time. Dulles supported the split and did not want USIA’s operations to return four years later when USIA’s staff numbered around 7,000.

The argument to create USIA in the first place was because State was again rejecting and refusing to acknowledge a role in direct engagement abroad (the department similarly refused to engage in 1916 and 1938, and both times resulted in the creation of agencies designed to bypass the department: the foreign section of the Committee on Public Information and later the Coordinator for Inter-American Affairs). The people who were in place in 1945-1947 that brought about the passage of the Smith-Mundt Act that made these programs permanent were gone by 1949. People like C.D. Jackson and Nelson Rockefeller who supported State being the key now realized that State couldn’t do it and helped create USIA.

Remember that when Eisenhower created USIA, the Information piece was the lesser of a two-part reorganization of government along the DIME (Diplomacy, Information, Military, Economics) model. In 1953, the new Eisenhower Administration decided to consolidate foreign policymaking and execution by streamlining leadership, authorities, and appropriations. While some argued against this separation, there were those, especially at the State Department, who supported it. The administration tried to move “separate and self-contained pieces” of the foreign policy process under a single leadership through two plans. A single roof would increase efficiency and efficacy through synchronization, reduce costs, and simplify interaction with Congress. The first, Plan No. 7, established the Foreign Operations Administration (FOA) by consolidating several foreign affairs and aid activities under one roof. FOA was a hybrid agency bringing together Treasury, Defense, and State, with State the greater of among equals. The second, Plan No. 8, created USIA, which State supported so it could return to what it viewed as its “traditional” role in diplomacy.

Also, it is important to remember Senator Fulbright’s tepid support in 1953 Plan No. 8. He expected USIA would be shuttered within 3 years, or “maybe 10.” Whether intentional or not, ten years later he began attacking the agency with vigor, as briefly mentioned above. 

Third Point: 

On May 29, Congress sent to the President a bill providing $96.2 million for the USIA 1958 budget. Part of the bill included a provision barring USIA from competing with or duplicating the services of private agencies in news or pictures. 

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v09/d203

There was already a non-compete clause in the Smith-Mundt Act, as noted above. This language also doubled as a sunset-clause to shutter the activities. In short, the government was to defer to private media whenever possible and to reduce activities when the private press was deemed to be adequate. The redundancy of this text highlights reflects the agency’s failure to support the existing law (i.e., the language appears as a stern reminder), a breakdown of the Hill to exercise oversight over the authorities granted in legislation or lip service to the news media.  

Fourth and final Point:

Not found in the Historian’s note is the overall opposition and confusion over what USIA was and was not. By the mid-1950s, discussions about the ongoing political warfare of the “cold war” (which would not be a capitalized proper noun for another decade) were happening in Congress, in newspapers and magazines and on radio news programs. While some in Congress were interested in vigorously defending against and fighting Russian subversion (aka “political warfare,” sometimes today referred to as “hybrid warfare” or “information warfare“) and USIA was simply not a part of that conversation as it was not charged with, resourced, or trained to counter Russian political warfare. There were also concerns about USIA being “un-American” because, in part, of certain books available in USIA’s libraries abroad.

Also not in the Editorial Note was the cause of the repurposing of the term “public diplomacy.” In the 1950s, public diplomacy was a diplomat leaving a closed-door negotiation and speaking to the press because the other side, often the Americans, did so (if they did at all). By the 1960s, “public diplomacy” emerged as a term to stake out important turf that was not “diplomacy.” This was part of an effort to place USIA and its FSIOs (Foreign Service Information Officers) intentionally on equal footing with State and FSOs.

In the end, after Dulles asked his staff whether USIA should be reincorporated into State, he reversed his earlier apparent willingness to entertain the merger. The Congress would continue to apply pressure on USIA with some seeking to end the agency’s “semi-autonomous” status while also eliminating redundancies by merging USIA into State. The House proposed reducing the $144 million budget by nearly 10% while the Senate discussed cutting more than 30% of the budget. In the end, the budget was cut by 33%. And there was Arthur Larson, who was seen as a “propagandist” for Eisenhower more than the country. Larson would remain at USIA for less than a year, leaving in October 1957 to become a special assistant to the president. Larson was succeeded by Ambassador George V. Allen, a career diplomat who previously served as the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, 1948-1950. In that role, he managed the international information programs, exchange programs, and radio broadcasting operations then in the State Department before they were removed in 1953 to form USIA. When Allen took over, his “minor” problems were described as “slumping moral, administrative laxness, and a dearth of first-class information experts.” The major problem were three fundamental questions voiced by an increasing number in Congress: why does the agency exist? what job should it do? and what status should it hold in the hierarchy of the Executive? 

USIA would, of course, continue to be a separate agency until it was abolished in 1999 following an April 1997 agreement between the Clinton Administration and Senator Richard Helms. Today, there are calls to recreate USIA, most of which are ill-informed on what USIA was and was not, and none consider substantial organization questions. Today, like 1997 and 1957 when Allen took over, the three fundamental questions remain unanswered.

But there are lessons we can learn from Arthur Larson’s briefing and the subsequent discussion. First, we need the president and the cabinet to accept the necessity of coordination and collaboration on policies, particularly as it relates to the information environment. Eisenhower’s statement “Everything we say and do, and everything we fail to say and do, will have an impact in other lands” was valid then and more so today. Second, there are political risks when the president installs a political actor as the central head of information. Republicans and Democrats alike did not like Larson, which contributed to the former Dean of the Pittsburgh law school to move on with less than a year as Director. Lastly, there was progress here, even if bumpy, because the president recognized a problem and helped drive a solution. Without that, little of substance and lasting effect will get done. 

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Foster_Dulles

U.S. spends $1 billion in countering spread of disinformation – Department of State

Nicholas Ibekwe, premiumtimesng.com

image (but not word)  from ; see below "vulnerable," "venerable" typo

The United States has earmarked more than $1 billion to combat disinformation, propaganda and countering the spread of terrorism ideologies online, the Department of State has said.

Jonathan Henick, the acting deputy coordinator of the Global Engagement Centre (GEC), told a group of international journalists on Wednesday at the Foreign Press Centre in Washington DC that the US government has decided to redouble its efforts towards thwarting the spread of disinformation.

The GEC is the arm of the Department of State primarily responsible for coordinating America’s response to the spread of disinformation.

“Counter-disinformation efforts, programmes, grants, financial support to fact-checking organisations, other civil society organisations, if we adopt that definition, the United States spend(s) probably over a billion dollar a year to counter disinformation,” he said.

“The Global Engagement Centre itself this year has only a budget of $85- 90 million to counter state and non-state disinformation but that doesn’t include our normal development programmes.

“It doesn’t include investments by US military, normal exchange programme that we do, public diplomacy [JB emphasis] and a lot of other things that we do that are used to counter disinformation,” he added.

Mr Henick, who defined disinformation as the deliberate spread of “information that is knowingly false with the intent to deceive the audience,” said those he described as “malign actors” have taken advantage of the rapid change in technology, communication and how news is consumed to spread their nefarious interest.

He, therefore, said the GEC has to come up with a robust approach to countering the spread of this toxic mix of disinformation. He admitted that the United States may have been complacent for a while, especially after the Cold War, but has now realised that it has to do more in the area of counter-disinformation.

According to him part of this robust approach includes working with the media, civil society organisations, governments, and the public to “increase resiliency to make people understand that they are venerable [sic] to misinformation and disinformation.

“To do what we can to make it difficult for our adversaries to take advantage of the situation,” he said.

Mr Henick added that the United State is adopting an all-encompassing approach to battling the spread of disinformation and not just limiting it to the work his organisation is doing.

According to him, the GEC is not the only part of the US government doing this work.

“This is work that is done every day domestically in the United State by state governments, local governments, by agencies here and certainly done on behalf of the US government overseas in all of our embassies, our ambassadors, our press attaches, development partners who are working on programmes to strengthen the media, even our military colleges who are trying to develop relationships with the media and communicate accurately what our military policies as well.

“This is a collective effort. What the GEC was empowered to do was to try to coordinate those effort to better understand disinformation, who our adversaries are, what their tactics are, to do a better job of supporting like-minded government and civil society and media partner all around the world to help expose and counter disinformation.

“We are also investing very heavily in science and technology and data analytics, we are working with private sector technology companies to identify new tools, new software that will help us to better grapple with this challenge,” he said.

Countering spread of extremism

Mr Henick said the US government is adopting a similar approach to countering the spread of terrorism ideologies by groups such as ISIS and Boko Haram. He, however, acknowledged that there are no quick fixes to the problem.

According to him, a robust and continuous countering to the spread of violent extremism ideologies seem to be the best way to tackling the problem.

“There (are) some similarities between the tactics they have been adopted by terrorist groups and the tactics that have used by foreign state actors. There are no quick easy solutions to these problems. It is not like we can flip a switch and deny them access to the TV or radio or internet access.

“We can shut down individual accounts and we see them pop up as quickly as we shut them down,” he said.

“One of the things we are doing is to work with the big social media platforms to try to automate their ability to detect these types of terrorist disinformation and be able to take down some of these contents as soon as possible.

“But in the long run, it’s going to require more traditional means of working with responsible media organisations, working with civil society organisations.

“Just because somebody is consuming radical ideological information online, that is not a crime in itself, but in a lot of countries there is no social support system such as religious figures, counselors at school.

“Parents are faced with the choice of reporting their own children to law enforcement authorities,” he said.

Despite the expression of doubt by the president Donald Trump, US intelligence agencies have said that Russia disrupted the 2016 presidential election and is still trying to disrupt the mid-term elections in the country through the spread of disinformation and certain propaganda.

EU holds education fair for Filipinos in October

ptvnews.ph

image (not from entry) from

MANILA — The European Union (EU) will hold the 2018 European Higher Education Fair (EHEF) at the Shangri-La Plaza on Oct. 10 for Filipinos who want to pursue studies in any of the bloc’s member states.

Organized by the delegation of the European Union to the Philippines, together with EU Member States’ Embassies and Cultural Groups, and in partnership with the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), EHEF 2018 will feature universities and higher education institutions (HEIs) from EU member states.

This year’s theme, “Sustaining Innovation and Excellence”, continues to promote EU as an outstanding center of quality in higher education.

During EHEF 2018’s press launch on Thursday, EU Ambassador Franz Jessen stressed that education is one of the priority areas of cooperation between the EU and the Philippines in the bilateral Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.

“Higher education however needs to take into account changing technology and internationalization to provide students with the right skills and qualifications,” he pointed out.

“We hope that the European Higher Education Fair 2018 will pave the way for Filipino youth to have better access to information about the EU higher educational systems,” he added.

This year’s EHEF will feature 32 HEIs from Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

Since 2012, the EHEF has become a regular feature of the European Union Delegation’s public diplomacy [JB emphasis] outreach. The following are the participating universities/HEIs for EHEF 2018:

Belgium
• Ghent University
• University of Antwerp
• University of Hasselt

Czech Republic
• Masaryk University
• Mendel University in Brno
• Study in Prague Consortium, made up of the following institutions: Czech University of Life Sciences; Czech Technical University; Academy of Arts, Architecture and Design; Academy of Performing Arts; Charles University; University of Economics; and University of Chemistry and Technology
• Technical University of Liberec

Denmark
• Aarhus University
• International Business Academy

France
• Audencia Business School
• IESEG School of Management
• INSEEC Business School
• Universite Catholique de l’Ouest
• Vatel Hotel & Tourism Business School – Bordeaux

Germany
• TU Dortmund
• Rheinland Institute
• University of Regensberg
• WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management

Hungary
• Central European University

Italy
• Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
• Istituto Marangoni

Netherlands
• IHE Delft Institute for Water Education
• Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS) Erasmus University Rotterdam
• International Institute of Social Studies
• Maastricht School of Management
• TIAS School for Business and Society

Spain
• IE Business School
• Universidad Catolica San Antonio de Murcia

Sweden
• Lund University
• Stockholm University

UK
• Joint Development of Niche Programmes through Philippines-United Kingdom Linkages (TNE 10)

Admission to the fair is free. Interested parties can pre–register online via www.ehef–philippines.com. (Joyce Ann L. Rocamora/PNA)

China disagrees with the “blackmail” on the trade, but denies wanting to dethrone the United States

Dave Zakarian, The Koz Post

China has strongly rejected on Friday the united nations as “blackmail” on the trade and taken out of the United States of Donald Trump on most of the major folders, while denying they want to dethrone on the world stage.

“China will not accept the blackmail and will not be the object of pressure,” warned foreign Affairs minister Wang Yi at the forum of the annual general Meeting, without directly appoint his opponent.

In the midst of war commercial with shots of customs duty with Washington, the head of china’s public diplomacy  [JB emphasis] has delivered what looked like a lesson of free trade is intended, so as to barely veiled, to the Americans.

“Protectionism will only bring harm to all”, has he hammered.

He also asked Beijing as a “champion of multilateralism” at the time the administration Trump is criticized for its approach of unilateralism of the affairs of the world.

At this same rostrum, the president of the United States had defended Tuesday its vision of international relations based on the “sovereignty” of nations, in denouncing “the ideology of globalism” and targeting several multilateral organizations.

“China has always advocated the international order” and “respected” the decisions that are made, replied Wang Yi.

According to him, “no country can address alone,” the major global challenges facing the world currently, “or be immune against their effects.”

The head of china’s public diplomacy has once again defended the agreement for 2015 on iran’s nuclear ambitions, which the United States withdrew in may to the chagrin of the other great powers.

On North Korea, he once again pleaded for the UN to “create favourable conditions”, to encourage denuclearization. The day before, he had called on the security Council to ease sanctions, dismissing the appeal in the u.s. to their application to “strict” until the nuclear disarmament of the regime recluse is completed.

– “New suspicions” –

His plea seemed to oppose frontally the first two economic powers of the planet.

It resonates in a special way at the time when Donald Trump, who had wagered since his arrival at the White House in early 2017 on its relationship with the chinese president, ruled this week that Xi Jinping was “perhaps more” his “friend”.

On a backdrop of trade tensions, the billionaire republican and his administration have multiplied the fronts, in what looks like an all-out offensive to falter Beijing: denunciation of the internment of muslim uighurs, sanctions against the purchase of Russian weapons, suspicion of violation of the sanctions north Korean.

And even a surprising attack of Donald Trump himself, at the security Council, against presumed interference by the chinese in the next parliamentary elections the u.s., the objective of which would be his own defeat.

Despite this climate, explosive, Wang Yi assured, at a conference in New York, as fears of a China that would seek to dethrone the United States on the world stage were “unfounded”.

Referring to the idea in force after him in some western intellectuals, according to which Beijing would multiply the efforts to achieve a “hegemonic position, or even challenge the United States leadership”, he said: “I want to tell you very clearly that it is a strategic error of judgement serious”.

“It is a prediction wrong, which may be extremely detrimental to american interests and to the future of the United States,” has also warned the chinese minister, anxious of seeing a vicious circle fed by “new suspicions”.

In recent years, China has significantly expanded its influence in Africa in particular. Has the UN, it also takes more and more place, engaging in still more military in peace operations – 2.500 today deployed, including Mali, the democratic Republic of the Congo, in South Sudan or the Lebanon – and also increasing its contributions regularly financial.

At the Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank in New York, Wang Yi has also denied any looting chinese of technologies developed by foreign companies, as is regularly accused China. “I want to emphasize that China has not copied the foreign patents” and “will not copy foreign patents”, he assured.

Africa: Russian Culture Finds a New Home in Africa

Kester Kenn Klomegah, allafrica.com

Image (not from article) under the caption: The true size of Africa observed by overlapping Russia.

Russkiy Mir Foundation, [...] a non-government and non-profit organization, has created a number of initiatives aimed at strengthening the Russian language and promoting the country’s culture could possibly be one way to improve overall image abroad including Africa.

Russian authorities are really struggling to find effective ways of marketing the country's language abroad by establishing regional language centers exactly similar to those that were closed in African, Asian and Latin American countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Professor Georgy Toloraya, the regional director for Asia and Africa Department at Russkiy Mir Foundation, said in an interview with The Exchange that "both Asian and African countries are strong priority regions, much attention is devoted to these regions so that they can benefit from some of the cultural programs and as a way of strengthening Russia's cultural influence abroad."

"In our country, the president and the government pay attention to the development of the Russian language. This work involves the media, as a matter of fact, and in a broad sense, the cultural and scientific institutions that are potentially useful as conduits for promoting the Russian language and culture are under serious consideration," he said.

Toloraya said: "conducive to strengthening the position of the language generally and the influence of Russian culture is the practice of holding the Year of Russian Culture in foreign countries, which with our partners, we organize on regular basis. We expect that interested African educational and cultural experts will share their valuable assessments and suggestions that will help us outline further comprehensive actions."

In the next few years, Russia plans the opening of Russkiy Cabinets in selected African countries where they are currently unavailable and strive to activate the existing centers. There are about 10 Russkiy Cabinets, (for instance in Morocco, Egypt and South Africa) currently operating in Africa.

Modelled as Confucius Institute, British Council or Alliance Française, Russkiy Mir primarily promotes the teaching of the Russian language within Russia and abroad - both to new learners of the language and to those who already know and love the Russian language, and further wish to recapture or maintain its fluency.

The means of the language studies include funding scholarship on its linguistic origins, creating new standards for language instruction, producing educational materials, and sponsoring language courses, competitions, and other educational programs.

Currently, one of the most widespread forms of Russian studies in Africa, for example, is the creation and functioning of what is popularly referred to as Russkiy Cabinet. The Russkiy Mir Foundation supports the creation of Russkiy Cabinets via the provision of a contract-based donation to the hosting organization. This process begins with an official request from the potential host organization or institution about the creation of the Russkiy Cabinet.

If the Foundation approves the organization's request, the two parties then sign a donation agreement that specifies, in necessary details, the materials to be provided, mostly free of charge, by the Foundation. In turn, the host organization is obliged to use the materials for educational purposes with the aim of popularizing the Russian language and supporting intercultural dialogue.

But, experts have suggested that other aspects of the soft power and public diplomacy [JB emphasis] have been missing on the policy agenda and needed to be pursued with African countries.

Naftali Mwaura Muigai, an expert on Social Communication and Cultural Policy in Nairobi, has explained: "Russia appears quite removed from cultural policy issues. We don't have vibrant Russian cultural centers in many African cities hence the low uptake of the language."

Likewise, there are limited scholarship opportunities for African youth to study in Russia. Nowadays, China is being viewed as a strong strategic partner in Africa given its (China's) strong footprint in diverse areas such as commerce, culture, and technology transfer, Naftali Muigai pointed out further in an emailed interview with The Exchange.

In a similar argument, Ojijo Pascal, an experienced corporate lawyer and guest lecturer based in Kampala, observes that "the Russian government does not carry out Russian cultural events, there are no visible Russian cultural centers as compared with the French cultural and German cultural centers.

"There is a huge cultural gap of new thinking, working with young professionals and associations to promote people-to-people diplomacy through business links, cultural exchanges, and competitions," Ojijo told The Exchange.

On his part, Albert Khamatshin, a researcher from the African Studies Institute under the Russian Academy of Sciences, thinks that Africans are showing less interest in learning the language as compared to other foreign languages because the Russian government does little to arouse Africans' interest in the language.

"And what makes the situation worse," he says, "is largely due to the fact many African leaders have turned away from Russia to Asian countries especially to China."

In a media briefing, Artyom Kozhin, the deputy director of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry (MFA), said "the Russian Federation is successfully implementing programs of cultural and humanitarian cooperation with various African countries, which include contacts in education, science, culture, art, the media, and sport."

According to him, these efforts are aimed not only at consolidating cooperation with the African countries but also at resolving key African problems such as overcoming social inequality and the involvement of young Africans in sustainable economic development.

"Education is a major priority in relations with Africa. Russian universities are open to African students. Apart from the main subjects they have programs oriented towards key areas of the region's public and economic life," he said further.

According to his interpretation, "the importance of specialized knowledge is growing in conditions of globalization and increasing use of information technology. Modern education projects are being created and will be carried out in this context."

In June 2001, Russkiy Mir Foundation was created by a decree of Russian President Vladimir Putin to restore Russian cultural image, promote the Russian language and literature abroad, and its activities (operations) are financed under a special state budget allocation approved by the State Duma (lower house of parliament) and the Federation Council.

*Kester Kenn Klomegah writes frequently about Russia, Africa, and BRICS.

Read the original article on The Exchange.

After Meridian International wins zoning exceptions, residents look to rezone lot

Lilah Burke, thedcline.org

Adams Morgan ANC backs latest effort against eight-story project on 16th Street NW

The Meridian International Center's development partner, Westbrook Partners, is seeking to build an eight-story building that would include 111 apartments as well as office space and a new conference center for the nonprofit diplomacy organization. (Rendering by Perkins Eastman DC from the developer's Board of Zoning Adjustment submission)

The Meridian International Center has been planning for redevelopment of a plot of land on its 16th Street NW campus for the past seven years. But despite the forward momentum gained this summer, a newly organized group of residents is gearing up with zoning maneuvers in the hope of limiting the project’s size.

The advocacy group, called Keep Meridian Hill Green, filed papers in August in an attempt to scale down the zoning for the land, which could present a potential hitch for plans to add a new eight-story, mixed-use building to the parcel directly across from historic Meridian Hill Park.

This is just the latest battle in the ongoing saga to redevelop 2300 16th St., an area that’s now a walled-off parking lot with some trees. Meridian has a contract to sell the land to its development partner, Westbrook Partners, which has revised its designs several times over the years in response to neighborhood objections and city input.

The proposed building, shown from the perspective of 16th and Belmont streets NW, won DC Board of Zoning Adjustment approval in July, but a neighborhood group is asking the Zoning Commission to change the site’s zoning based on a designation in the DC Comprehensive Plan. (Rendering by Perkins Eastman DC from the developer’s Board of Zoning Adjustment submission)

The latest proposal calls for 111 apartment units, as well as office space and a new conference center for Meridian, a nonprofit public diplomacy [JB emphasis] organization. Meridian says the developer’s building would help fund upkeep of its two campus mansions — both of which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places — while the conference center would fill a need for modern space to accommodate meetings and other events.

Meridian made zoning progress with its plans in July despite organized opposition, winning a special exception from the DC Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) that allows for some flexibility. But now Keep Meridian Hill Green has filed a petition with the DC Zoning Commission to rezone Meridian’s entire lot area into an “R-2” designation, which would only allow for buildings up to four floors. The case is awaiting input from the DC Office of Planning.

The residents’ argument hinges on a discrepancy between two maps that control DC land use — the zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM). While the zoning map allows a nine-story building on part of the lot, the FLUM envisions only a low-rise development. “According to D.C. law, when a discrepancy like this exists, the FLUM controls and the Zoning Map must be amended,” the petition says.

“Our concerns are around lawful development,” said Gary Youngblood, chair of Keep Meridian Hill Green. “What we want to do is make sure that all the laws are followed in any development that’s going to happen.”

Ward 1 Council member Brianne Nadeau has disputed claims that the project violates the Comprehensive Plan, based on her consultations with Eric Shaw, the director of the Office of Planning. In a letter to an ANC 1C commissioner, Shaw said that his agency and others had verified compliance with the Comprehensive Plan prior to the review by the BZA, even though proceedings there do not address consistency between the zoning map and the Future Land Use Map.

The proposed project would occupy the eastern edge of the Meridian International Center campus, which is currently the site of a parking lot surrounded by trees on three sides. (Site plan by Perkins Eastman DC from the developer’s Board of Zoning Adjustment submission)

As to the project’s impact, Youngblood said that the concerns of his group’s individual members are varied. “Some people are very concerned with tree law and the trees in the area that will be killed or moved. And there are some people concerned with congestion,” he said. The group’s change.org petition had 284 electronic signatures as of Sept. 25.

Some in the neighborhood, including Greater Greater Washington contributing writer Jeb Stenhouse, have countered that housing people in a dense, centrally located neighborhood like Adams Morgan is more environmentally friendly than pushing growth out to an auto-centric suburb.

The downzoning proposal has backing from the Adams Morgan advisory neighborhood commission, which has sought to block this development many times before. At its Sept. 5 meeting, ANC 1C passed a resolution supporting Keep Meridian Hill Green’s petition and asking the Zoning Commission to proceed with the case by scheduling a public hearing.

Over the years, opposition to the project from residents and the ANC has been wide in scope. In the past the commission has submitted a number of resolutions to the BZA, arguing that the development would negatively impact the noise level, traffic, character and parking in the community.

The resolutions adopted by the ANC have also argued that the Office of Planning did not look deeply enough into the impacts of the project during earlier reviews.

“We became concerned … that the Office of Planning really didn’t do any sort of impact studies,” said ANC member Amanda Fox Perry. “They were really mostly just depending on what the developer was telling them. And in terms of traffic they really just relied on what the developer’s traffic expert was saying.”

Ambassador Stuart Holliday, president and CEO of Meridian International Center, emphasized that the project has the support of some community members, noting that agreements are in place between six neighborhood residential groups and both Meridian and the land developer. In June, project planners signed an agreement with the Beekman Place Condominium Association, which represents the gated community next to the land in question. Planners committed to routing cars away from Belmont Street, which serves both properties.

“Obviously any kind of development or construction is disruptive, and we totally understand that,” Holliday said. “There have been concerns about obviously the traffic and volume of activity that may take place. [But] the traffic studies have been done and don’t bear out the concerns that have been raised.” And some concerns, he said, are based on inaccurate assumptions about Meridian and its plans.

While Holliday and others at Meridian were aware of the Keep Meridian Hill Green petition, they could not speak to how a rezoning might affect building plans.

Meridian has already won sign-off from the Historic Preservation Review Board on its architectural designs by Perkins Eastman, which are intended to complement the style of the Meridian Hill Historic District.

The Zoning Commission will not decide whether to proceed with a public hearing on the Keep Meridian Hill Green petition until the Office of Planning has weighed in with a recommendation.