Part One By Patricia H. Kushlis and Patricia Lee Sharpe

This is the first of a four part series that will, on successive Wednesdays, (1) define some of the special characteristics and powers of public diplomacy as such, (2) examine some of the missteps that have brought American public diplomacy into disrepute and made it ineffectual, (3) look at some demonstrably successful best practices that may form the basis of a rehabilitated public diplomacy capacity and (4) suggest some organizational reforms that would integrate public diplomacy insights into the foreign policy process in ways that would enormously enhance U.S. interactions with the world.

Read more: WhirledView

By Joseph S. Nye, Special to Gulf News

The United States government’s National Intelligence Council projects that American dominance will be “much diminished” by 2025, and that the one key area of continued American superiority – military power – will be less significant in the increasingly competitive world of the future.  The leader of Canada’s opposition Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, suggests that US power has passed its mid-day. How can we know if these predictions are correct?

One should beware of misleading metaphors of organic decline. Countries are not like humans with predictable life spans. Indeed, for all the fashionable predictions of China, India, or Brazil surpassing the US in the coming decades, in an information-based world of cyber-insecurity, power diffusion may be a greater threat than power transition (Gulf News, September 12, 2009).

Read more

The long-awaited “roadmap”  for U.S. public diplomacy has finally emerged fromUndersecretary of State Judith McHale’s office, and it is a stunning disappointment.

It is so lacking in imagination, so narrow in its scope, and so insufficient in its appraisal of the tasks facing U.S. public diplomats that it is impossible to understand why its preparation took so many months.

U.S. public diplomacy has remained in the doldrums even with Barack Obama at the helm. That doesn’t appear to be changing. The “strategic imperatives” laid out in this plan are tired bromides: “shape the narrative; expand and strengthen people-to-people relationships; combat violent extremism; better inform policy-making; deploy resources in line with current priorities.” Wow.

These are all good things, but they hardly represent the “strategic approach for the 21st century” that this document claims to be. Only occasionally in the plan are there ideas that represent any change in direction from the meandering and archaic tactics that have hamstrung America’s recent relationship with much of the rest of the world. For instance, making “American Centers” accessible, rather than burying them within fortified embassies, makes good sense, but it provides a mere glimmer when U.S. public diplomacy needs a huge spotlight.

The document says this framework “is the first phase of a process for developing a detailed strategic plan for Public Diplomacy.” But if the detailed plan is to be based on this framework, why bother? For those of us who had hoped that the Obama administration would bring new vitality and decisiveness to public diplomacy, the approach taken by the State Department is terribly deflating.

In his speech in Cairo last June, President Obama showed that he appreciates the need for the United States to create new relationships with the rest of the world. The State Department should be translating the President’s vision into policy. Nothing in the new plan addresses the need for public diplomacy to worry less about branding and more about service; to step away from Cold War-style monologue and embrace a comprehensive plan for interactive communication; to shift from a Middle East-centric public diplomacy to a more balanced global outlook; to realistically employ public diplomacy as an antiterrorism tool; and to reach out to diasporic populations and virtual states.

In his Cairo speech, President Obama said: “It is easier to blame others than to look inward. It is easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path.”

In those words is more common sense about public diplomacy than can be found in the entire “strategic framework” the State Department has produced. The Secretary of State should tell her department to start over and do better.

Newswire – CPD Blog & Blogroll (March 8, 2010)

Congressional Research Service: U.S. Public Diplomacy: Background and Current Issues

“…A number of challenges and questions currently affect the future of U.S. government communications with foreign publics… Determining public diplomacy roles, responsibilities, and coordination procedures among civilian and military actors has therefore become a central issue. In addition, with the rise and rapid evolution of Internet communications, the U.S. government must determine how to effectively communicate with foreign publics in an increasingly complex, accessible, and democratized global communications environment…”

Approaching the end of his first year as president, Barack Obama has taken a bold step in deciding to increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan to over 100,000. Critics on the left point out that the Korean War crippled Harry Truman’s presidency, just as the Vietnam War defined Lyndon Johnson’s administration. Obama thus risks becoming the third Democratic president whose domestic agenda will be overshadowed by a difficult war.

But critics on the right have complained that Obama’s approach to foreign policy has been weak, too apologetic, and overly reliant on soft power. They worry about Obama’s promise to begin withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan 18 months after the surge.

Obama inherited a fraught foreign policy agenda: a global economic crisis, two difficult wars, erosion of the nuclear non-proliferation regime by North Korea and Iran, and deterioration of the Middle East peace process. Obama’s dilemma was how to manage this difficult legacy while creating a new vision of how Americans should deal with the world (By Joseph Nye, Sunday Times, 13 December 2009)

Read the full article

Σε πρόσφατη εισήγησή του (Enabling Public Diplomacy Field Officers to Do Their Jobs, The Public Diplomacy Council – www.publicdiplomacycouncil.org, 2008) ο William Rugh, πρώην πρέσβης των ΗΠΑ στην Υεμένη και τα Ηνωμένα Αραβικά Εμιράτα, αναφέρεται στο ζήτημα της αποτελεσματικότερης οργάνωσης των μονάδων δημόσιας διπλωματίας στις διπλωματικές αποστολές της χώρας του υπογραμμίζοντας τη σημασία των δεξιοτήτων και της υπηρεσιακής κατάστασης των αρμοδίων στελεχών (Public Diplomacy Officers).

Η εισήγηση αναφέρεται εκτενώς στις κύριες διαφορές του επαγγελματικού πεδίου των Public Diplomacy Officers από αυτό των υπολοίπων διπλωματικών υπαλλήλων:

• Οι διπλωματικοί υπάλληλοι εν γένει έχουν ως κύρια αποστολή τους χειρισμούς που αφορούν στην εξωτερική πολιτική ενώ οι Public Diplomacy Officers οφείλουν να δίνουν μεγαλύτερη έμφαση στην παρουσίαση όλων των πλευρών της αμερικανικής κοινωνίας, πολιτικής και πολιτισμού.
• Οι διπλωματικοί υπάλληλοι εν γένει συνομιλούν κυρίως με τους επίσημους εκπροσώπους των χωρών διαπίστευσής τους, ενώ οι Public Diplomacy Officers είναι σε διαρκή επαφή με παράγοντες από τους χώρους των ΜΜΕ, του πολιτισμού, και της ακαδημαϊκής κοινότητας.
• Οι διπλωματικοί υπάλληλοι εν γένει χειρίζονται κυρίως υποθέσεις που απαιτούν έναν ορισμένο βαθμό εμπιστευτικότητας (αναπτύσσουν δεξιότητες διαπραγματευτή και είναι συνήθως πολύ επιφυλακτικοί στον ανοικτό διάλογο και την επικοινωνία με ξένα κοινά), ενώ οι Public Diplomacy Officers διαχειρίζονται ανοικτές πληροφορίες και δεν κινούνται στο πλαίσιο μιας κουλτούρας του απορρήτου.
• Οι Public Diplomacy Officers σε αντίθεση με τους διπλωματικούς υπαλλήλους εν γένει, αποκτούν μια κουλτούρα διαλόγου με τα ξένα κοινά μέσα από τις ρουτίνες εργασίας τους: οργάνωση επαφών, συνεντεύξεων, διαλέξεων, προγραμμάτων εκπαιδευτικών ανταλλαγών, διαμόρφωση περιεχομένου ιστοτόπων, εκπροσώπηση στα ΜΜΕ κλπ.
• Σε ό,τι αφορά το ευρύτερο κοινό της χώρας αποστολής, οι Public Diplomacy Officers προτιμούν να χτίζουν στέρεες σχέσεις εμπιστοσύνης, ενώ οι διπλωματικοί υπάλληλοι εν γένει ενδιαφέρονται κυρίως να ανακοινώνουν πλευρές της πολιτικής που διαχειρίζονται.

Ο Rugh τονίζει ότι οι διακριτές επαγγελματικές ικανότητες των Public Diplomacy Officers δεν υποστηρίζονται επαρκώς στο υπάρχον οργανωτικό πλαίσιο των διπλωματικών αποστολών της χώρας του. Αποδέχεται την ορθολογικότητα της υπαγωγής της United States Information Agency (αυτόνομης έως το 1999 υπηρεσίας διεθνούς πληροφόρησης των ΗΠΑ) στο Στειτ Ντιπάρτμεντ εφόσον αυτή όντως εγγυάται μεγαλύτερη συνοχή της άσκησης της δημόσιας διπλωματίας με την εξωτερική πολιτική, πλην όμως υπογραμμίζει ότι υπάρχουν πολλά περιθώρια ενίσχυσης των ιδιαίτερων δεξιοτήτων και της θέσης των Public Affairs Officers εντός των διπλωματικών αποστολών.

Η εισήγηση καταλήγει σε προτάσεις για (α) τη σύσταση νέας διοικητικά αυτοτελούς υπηρεσίας δημόσιας διπλωματίας εντός του Στειτ Ντιπάρτμεντ με αυξημένες αρμοδιότητες, (β) την ενίσχυση της εκπαίδευσης των Public Diplomacy Officers σε θέματα αμερικανικού πολιτισμού, κοινωνίας και πολιτικής, αλλά και ξένων γλωσσών και νέων τεχνολογιών επικοινωνίας, και (γ) την ενίσχυση των αρμοδιοτήτων και της σχετικής αυτονομίας δράσης των μονάδων δημόσιας διπλωματίας στις διπλωματικές αποστολές των ΗΠΑ.

Δείτε επίσης: H Κατάρτιση Στελεχών Δημόσιας Διπλωματίας στις ΗΠΑ, Εκπαίδευση στη Δημόσια Διπλωματία – Πρόταση για Νέο Πρόγραμμα Σπουδών στην Εθνική Σχολή Δημόσιας Διοίκησης, H Δημόσια Διπλωματία της Ελλάδας – Εισηγήσεις της Ένωσης Ακολούθων Τύπου

The American Studies Seminar in Athens promote the study of the United States through a multidisciplinary approach, and provide opportunities for university students and young professionals to discuss political, social, economic and cultural issues of concern to the U.S. and the world. The Seminars are open to graduate and undergraduate students, and young professionals.  Upon completion of the Seminar and successful completion of the exam, participants will be awarded a certificate.

The American Studies Seminar in Athens (“Remembering the 1960s”) will take place from March 30-April 10, 2009 at the downtown campus of the American College in Greece (6-8 Xenias Street in Plateia Mavili).  It is organized by the Institute of International Relations of Panteion University, the American College in Greece – Deree, and the U.S. Embassy. If you would like to participate in this Seminar, please contact Ms. Maria Deca at the Institute of International Relations (210-331-2325 or deca@idis.gr.)  Applications are due by March 13, 2009.