January 26

“Why turn to the person who happens to be in the next cubicle when it's just as easy to turn to an online community member from a global marketplace of talent?"

--Wired's editor-in-chief Chris Anderson; image from

TRANSCRIPT

British Council Parliamentary Lecture 20 January 2010
Soft Power and Public Diplomacy
Professor Joseph Nye
University Distinguished Service Professor Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

VIDEO

Introduction to the Open World Program

IMAGES

Rockwell/Socialist Realism: A Photo Essay - John Brown, Notes and Essays; image, "Russian classroom" by Rockwell, from article

PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

Obama Tells Diane Sawyer I Am Not Moderating. Sawyer Sawyer Keeps Letting POTUS OFF Hook (Full Interview)... – Yid with Lid: From Obama interview with Diane Sawyer: OBAMA: “The concern that we have now is that if you have the lone wolf, or the small network, that can equip itself to try to engage in suicide attacks, those are in some ways folks that are even harder to catch than well-known terrorists like bin Laden. So we have to improve our cooperation, our work with countries like Yemen to make sure that we are catching those individuals ahead of time. In some cases they may not have records.

They may not be known terrorists. And that makes the job harder. This is part of the reason, though, why it is so important that we don't have a knee-jerk reaction that actually inflames the situation in the Muslim world. That we are measured, we are deliberate, we do everything we need for our security, but we also are engaged in the public diplomacy that makes sure that some lonely teenager, in some Muslim country, doesn't think that the way to belong is to engage in attacks against the United States. So, it can't just be a military response. It also has to be a diplomatic response. It also has to be us working in these countries on providing educational opportunity." Image from

Diplomacy – dated, digital, in dispute - shanghaigreengang: “[Secretary of State]Clinton recently met with executives from Web 2.0 social media firms to discuss the roles that their applications can play in US public diplomacy. Said Clinton adviser Alec Ross: ‘Technology leaders are choosing to engage in America’s diplomacy because they care about America and because they know that technology is the platform for engagement in the 21st century.’ But Hall [Ian Hall, in this month’s International Affairs] also sounds a note of caution. ‘Public diplomacy’, ‘digital diplomacy’ and even ‘guerilla diplomacy’ may be all very well, but if they flout basic understandings of what diplomacy is and what it is for, the system itself may be imperiled: ‘diplomacy was designed and is sustained as a means of addressing the problems inherent in the relations between polities with different accounts of the ‘good life’, rather than as an instrument for promoting our own account to others. The claim of diplomats to play this role is, as I have argued, somewhat fragile: the legitimate ‘rights’, as it were, of diplomats are not unlimited and they are often themselves subject to renegotiation. Stronger, better, even transformed diplomacy, and the replacement of ‘hard’ by ‘soft power’ are welcome, but not at the cost of undermining the legitimacy of the very system that allows diplomacy to be practised.’”

How the US Must Expand and Redefine International Cooperation in Fighting Terrorism - Anthony H. Cordesman, Center for Strategic & International Studies: The US must learn and adapt to the new direct threats to its territory, but the United States cannot succeed through any narrow focused on a war on terrorism. It needs a far more comprehensive approach to international cooperation based on developing a broader matrix of political, security, public diplomacy, and aid efforts – led by the US country team in each country — that will allow it to create more effective partnerships with the governments and peoples in the Muslim world. ... [T]he US needs to beware of false economies of scale and of the idea that it can run “normal” embassies, focused on diplomacy, rather than direct efforts to deal with ... threats. Only a country team that mixes counterterrorism, military advisory efforts, aid in governance and rule of law, economic advice and assistance, and educational programs and public diplomacy tailored to a given nation’s needs – and the level of threat in that country – can succeed. Such country teams

must also be operational in the field, rather than tied to large fortress embassies, and often must be staffed more by operators than members of the regular Foreign Service. ... Better US public diplomacy, aid and exchange programs, and other US efforts are critical to improving the image of the United States. The US must act on the principal [sic], however, that it cannot transfer American values to the countries and populations involved." Country team image from

Chuck de Caro’s War – Part 2 - Order of the Ephors – Can the Republic be saved?: "In a recent column, titled 'Chuck de Caros’s War,' we discussed the benefits of Information Warfare (SOFTWAR), the subject matter of de Caro’s lectures at the National Defense University, the National Defense Intelligence College, the Naval Post Graduate School, the Air War College, the Army Command and General Staff School, and many other Department of Defense institutions. ... As de Caro points out in his lectures, 'Simply killing or capturing radical Islamic terrorists as a way of winning a globally distributed guerilla war is much like the inept mechanic who reacts to an engine warning light by cutting the wires to the light. The problem still exists and it’s in the ENGINE! The engine in the case under consideration here is the widely dispersed al Qaeda body politic which is hiding like a cancer in the vastly larger Umma, which, in turn, is composed of all the believers of Islam. Thus while there are those among us who would happily don a ski mask and shoulder an MP-5SD3 (silenced submachine gun)

to do some serious counter-terrorism, what is really needed is a major program of anti-terrorism to stem the flow of new al Qaeda recruits from the Umma. To do that we will need a huge, well funded and coordinated campaign of strategic communications, public diplomacy, and information warfare in all its forms.' 'Right now,' says de Caro, 'the United States has five major organizations doing information projection around the globe: the State Department, the Department of Defense, the White House, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and the CIA. But all are grossly under-funded for an operation of the kind needed to confront al Qaeda, and they are grossly undermanned, having few, if any, experts who know how to create a global television and/or Internet campaign over a generation or two. Worst of all, there is no coherent strategy or leadership. Period!'” Image from

State Department's Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy includes "creation of public, private and university radio stations" - Kim Andrew Elliott reporting on International Broadcasting

Time to Stop Ignoring Chávez - James Jay Carafano, Global Security - "The threat posed by Chávez is the subject of a recent study by the Heritage Foundation's senior analyst for Latin America, Ray Walser, titled 'State Sponsors of Terrorism: Time to Add Venezuela to the List' ... Walser concludes, the White House should: ... Launch a Real Public Diplomacy Effort Against Chávez.

The U.S. is losing the battle against massive disinformation spawned by Chavez. If the Obama Administration wishes to preserve the security of the hemisphere, it must move to more proactive rebuttals with skilled public affairs efforts. Take the U.S. embassy's Web site in Caracas, http://caracas.usembassy.gov, which fails to post any information that challenges the outlandish assertions made by Chávez regarding U.S. policy in places like Colombia. In brief, the Obama Administration needs to develop an informational campaign to counter Chavista disinformation." Image from

Joint Statement on the Expansion of Educational Exchanges between the United States and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science of Mongolia- US Department of State: "· The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science announced its intention to contribute $1 million U.S. dollars to support the exchange of students and scholars under the U.S.-Mongolia Fulbright Program. The allocation of these funds will be determined by the Government of Mongolia, in consultation with the U.S. Department of State. · The U.S. Department of State announced its intention to increase its base allocation to the U.S.-Mongolia Fulbright Program to $500,000 in U.S. Fiscal Year 2010. In combination with funding allocated for other educational exchange programs, the total contribution from the U.S. Department of State to educational exchanges with Mongolia will exceed $1 million in 2010.· The U.S. Department of State and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science will form an Advisory Committee comprised of an equal number of Mongolian and U.S. members to provide guidance to the administration of the expanded Fulbright exchange. The Committee will follow the worldwide Fulbright principles in overseeing an open, merit-based, and transparent selection process. In addition, the Department of State applauded and encouraged the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science’s efforts to establish a scholarship program for undergraduates in collaboration with a private sector partner in the United States."

Biometric Exit Programs Show Need for New Strategy to Reduce Visa Overstays - Diem Nguyen, Jena Baker McNeill, Heritage.org:

“[T]he VWP [Visa Waiver Program] is a valuable program and its lack of expansion is a tremendous setback for public diplomacy, national security, and economic growth. Specifically, the VWP: ... Promotes America's Image. The VWP generates important public diplomacy benefits. Member countries see membership in the VWP as a sign of trust by the United States. Imparting trust to allies makes them more likely to work with the U.S. on particular policies or actions." Image from

Raising The Iron Curtain On Twitter: Why The United States Must Revise The Smith-Mundt Act To Improve Public Diplomacy - Jeremy Berkowitz, Commlaw Conspectus: "The United States victory during World War II cemented its status as a world leader. In the aftermath of World War II, the federal government increased its national security apparatus and passed legislation such as the National Security Act of 1947 and the Smith-Mundt Act. This legislation guided our public diplomacy strategies for half a century during the Cold War. However, after the attacks of September 11, 2001 and with the increasing connectedness of the global economy, and the Internet, the U.S. government needs to update the Smith-Mundt Act and our public diplomacy infrastructure to reflect these realities. While Congress passed the Patriot Act to update surveillance laws and created the Department of Homeland Security to better coordinate efforts to protect the United States, the U.S. remains hamstrung by the Smith-Mundt Act to wage modern public diplomacy initiatives. The Obama administration has embraced social media more than its predecessor, but remains hampered by the Smith-Mundt Act. As the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall passes, the U.S. government now needs to break down another wall by revising the Smith-Mundt Act and creating a new national policy on how it can effectively use social media in foreign affairs."

Debatable distinctions of the roles of Amerika, VOA, and Radio Liberty in the Cold War Soviet Union - Kim Andrew Elliott reporting on International Broadcasting: "'Because of its unique reciprocal distribution arrangement, Amerika, a striking USIA-produced Russian-language magazine, obviated tight Soviet censorship on print publications and provided its public with their only unfiltered view of the West. Certainly, broadcasting by the Voice of America and Radio Liberty played a huge role in changing hearts and minds and affecting perceptions about the West. Further, while Amerika stuck to what it did best—highlighting everyday life on the other side of the Iron Curtain—broadcasting presented U.S. foreign policy. However, given Russian reverence for the written word, Amerika arguably affected the public more powerfully than radio ever could.' Elise Crane, AmericanDiplomacy.org, 18 January 2010. [ELLIOTT COMMENT:] Broadcasting did present U.S. foreign policy, VOA in theory more than RL, but they both did. Mostly they presented, and were listened to for, news and current affairs. Magazines are less time-sensitive and thus are not ideal conveyances of news."

Meeting of the US Advisory Commission On Public Diplomacy - US Department of State: "The U.S. Advisory Commission

on Public Diplomacy will hold a public meeting on February 11, 2010, in the conference room of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), 1850 K Street, NW, Fifth Floor, Washington, D.C. 20006. The meeting will be held from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The Commissioners will discuss public diplomacy issues, including interagency collaboration in advancing U.S. government public diplomacy efforts. The Commission is a bipartisan panel created by Congress in 1948 to assess public diplomacy policies and programs of the U.S. government and of publicly funded nongovernmental organizations. The Commission reports its findings and recommendations to the President, the Congress, the Secretary of State, and the American people." Image from

Microsoft's New Public Diplomacy Master Storyteller - Joshua S. Fouts, The Imagination Age: "Congratulations to Mark Drapeau (better known in the Twitterverse as the ubiquitous and prolific Gov 2.0 opiner, @cheeky_geeky) for his new position as Microsoft's Director of Innovative Social Engagement. ....[T]o us at DIP, and near and dear to our professional hearts, Mark's new job description as Director of Innovative Social Engagement is: A combination of 'corporate public diplomacy' and 'master storyteller.' When I launched the USC Center on Public Diplomacy in 2003, the term 'public diplomacy,' while nearly 40 years old at the time, had not yet come into popularity. And even as awareness spread about the term around the world, debates about who owned it began to manifest. If it is on the Internet, is it still public diplomacy? Could it be used by the military? Was there a difference between the military's euphemism 'strategic communication' and the State Department's term 'public diplomacy'? Within months of the Center's launch, new iterations appeared: 'business diplomacy,' 'corporate diplomacy,' 'cultural diplomacy,' 'sports diplomacy' and on. As the term grew, organizations who might have been included under the umbrella term of 'public diplomacy' began to differentiate themselves away from it. ... These days, I prefer the term Cultural Relations. It may not have the heft of 'diplomacy,' but that's OK with me. I'm not interested in the debate about the term, I'm interested in the quality of the work."

U.S. Public Diplomacy and the Issue of Race - Ren's Micro Diplomacy: "If it is obvious that racial tensions exist in the U.S., no amount of strategic staffing or communications will convince the world otherwise. It’s been said before - PD can’t save bad policy."

Parliamentary delegation visits Nato headquarters - The News International:

“A 14-member Parliamentary delegation from Pakistan, led by Chairman Senate Farooq Hamid Naek, is in Brussels on the invitation of Nato to attend a number of briefings at the Nato headquarters and the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE). ... The briefings arranged by Nato's Public Diplomacy Division, aims at strengthening political dialogue and upgraded relations with the democratic government in Pakistan.” Image from

Plouffe, He's Back - Mark Dillen, Public Diplomacy: "The Obama Administration is back to practicing public diplomacy — with the American public. Stung by the loss in last week’s election in Massachusetts, the White House is bringing back public outreach specialist David Plouffe, the mild-mannered star of the Obama election campaign. Plouffe had stepped back from politics after the election to write a book on the campaign. Now it appears the White House needs Plouffe’s grassroots/Internet organizing skills more than ever."

January 28, 2010 Conversations in Public Diplomacy: Benjamin Goldsmith and Yusaku Horiuchi – Events Calendar, University of Southern California: "The USC Center on Public Diplomacy is pleased to host Benjamin E. Goldsmith and Yusaku Horiuchi for a discussion on their recent research into U.S. foreign policy and international public opinion. Goldsmith and Horiuchi investigate both whether U.S. public diplomacy, in the form of international visits by high-level leaders, has an impact on opinion about U.S. foreign policy around the world, and whether public opinion in other countries affects those countries’ policies towards the United States. Using a range of data sources and multinational surveys, they argue that 'soft power' is a real force in international relations, but is conditional on the credibility of the state that is communicating public diplomacy message, and the salience of the issue at stake. Their research provides tools to evaluate the effectiveness of public diplomacy along two dimensions: opinion in foreign countries and actual foreign policy outcomes."

RELATED ITEMS

RT (Russia Today) opens its Washington studio, from which six hours daily will originate - Kim Andrew Elliott reporting on International Broadcasting

Polish bishop accuses Jews of using Holocaust as propaganda - Ha'aretz: A leading Polish Catholic bishop caused a stir on Monday when he was quoted as saying that Jews had "expropriated" the Holocaust as a "propaganda weapon". The comments by Bishop Tadeusz Pieronek, a former head of the Polish bishops' conference, prompted concern among Jewish leaders in both Poland and Italy after they were published on the conservative Italian Catholic website www.pontifex.roma.

Pieronek later went on Polish television to say his comments had been manipulated and he denied one phrase in which he was quoted as saying "the Holocaust as such is a Jewish invention". He also said that he did not "authorise" the publication of the interview, which was still on the website on Monday evening. Image from

Venezuelan students protest Chávez's TV censorship - Arthur Bright, Christian Science Monitor

IMAGE


Image from, with the following text: The original Norman Rockwell after the jump... this is what the history of the original piece was...

In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave a speech about the "Four Freedoms" everyone should have: freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom of speech, and freedom of worship. Norman Rockwell painted these Four Freedoms.

These paintings succeeded in raising almost $133 million in war-bond purchases. Norman Rockwell said the Four Freedoms were "serious paintings which sucked the energy right out of me, leaving me dazed and thoroughly weary."

Rockwell uses various techniques to draw your attention to the main character in Freedom of Speech. The speaker is in the center of the scene and he is the only one standing. Other people in the picture are looking up at him. Rockwell creates a strong sense that the speaker is really speaking and that the listeners are really listening. To illustrate listening, he slightly exaggerated the size of their ears.