"Nothing like looking somebody in the eyes and shaking their hand"

Dominique Lopes

Applied Public Diplomacy

9/27/12

How does Vanc describe the importance of “dialogue” and “dialogic principles” to public diplomacy? What are her conclusions about US efforts?

It has been long acknowledged that public diplomacy needs to utilize the tool of communication. As previously understood, this meant that a public diplomacy officer was to disseminate American policy to a foreign public using “one-way” processes, public speeches or meet-and-greets where one smiles and nods and, without caring what the other has to say, waits for their turn to speak.  This attitude towards “communication” was fine during Cold War public diplomacy, but cannot be sustained in today’s world. As Vance quotes, “people want to have dialogue, people want to have their opinions [heard and] valued.” The importance of dialogue and “dialogic principles” is that they are “two-way” processes, “essential for building mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its public”.

Using interviews with foreign officials, such as, public diplomacy officers on the ground, ambassadors, etc., Vance establishes not only the importance of dialogue but its inherent quality within public diplomacy on the ground. A diplomat in a foreign country who wants to be a meaningful force in his host country must utilize dialogic principles to further his understanding of the country and its people. Furthermore, they do so without noticing that they are doing it. Dialogue, for most people, is a natural instinct. We talk to further relationships, whether as a means to an end or the end in itself.  While these public diplomacy officers used media and technology, typically “one-way” processes, the person to person was a necessary component of the job, the “last three feet” if you will. It is kind of a shame that a report had to be made to prove that we need to talk and listen with foreign publics to further relationships, but at least we are acknowledging a lack of it and a hope for a move in the right direction. 

"New"

Joshua Midgett

SIS 628

Applied Public Diplomacy

Professor Hayden

          Melissen proposes a diplomatic world in a mild state of xenophobia. The division is set down in the conclusion between scholars and practitioners, with one side watching the capacity of public diplomacy move from the few to the many. The increase in communications accessibility and immediacy has stripped some of the power away from the more conventionally accepted diplomats. There is an obvious amount of resistance to this notion, with government actors feeling as though their national message can be muddled when allowed to be disseminated by any person with a blog or facebook page. Another critique, presented more by the author than any one cited source, is that 'new' public diplomacy isn't nearly 'new' enough. Meaning, despite all the revitalized aspects and tools the practitioners haven't learned from past mistakes. Public Diplomacy is still bereft of many listening components, is frequently being used as a platform for nation branding and propaganda, and focuses too strongly on short term outcomes for a practice that inherently has a long-term time table for return.

           The Pamment reading was refreshing as it offered a multi-national perspective on current public diplomacy attempts while giving them historical context. By using three different examples of countries varying in size and issues, one could attempt to ascertain which methods are best based on national ideology, funds, and mission. Pamment, much like Melissen, argues that 'new' public diplomacy isn't that new at all. Instead, the common thread between the retooled efforts of Sweden, the UK, and the United States is not that they've begun communicating in new in a variety  of innovative ways, but rather that they're developing programs that can justify themselves. This means that they are specifically choosing ventures in which they can measure some form of success, or choosing ventures that are more focused on internal rearranging then reflective of any external input from foreign publics. It seems to me that the picture being painted is that of big kids using new toys poorly, but making sure their parents know that they deserved to get them for Christmas.

           In both cases, it was nice to read about current methodology and the critique of it rather than just a discussion of definitions, challenges, and redefinitions. In this way I could accept everything as opinion and digest it accordingly, rather than write and rewrite what I might consider to be fact. The opinion that I've formed, just from this weeks reading, is that listening - rather Listening, is a difficult adaptation for our policy makers and public diplomats. This should come as little surprise if I take the time to think back on my personal relationships, and the difficulty of truly listening to the point where my own opinions and desires weren't still at the forefront. In the classroom I am outraged at the inability of our government to adapt to the needs of publics in such a way that we can better communicate, but as soon as I walk out of the door I understand all too well.

          

2) What does Melissen identify as some critiques of public diplomacy from traditional diplomacy studies. For Pamment, what primarily accounts for how countries adopt the “new” public diplomacy?

Chris Paul Keeps it Simple and Strategic

I suppose I've always been a person partial to - I hate putting it this way but - well, straight-talkers. Not just that but people who are pointed and direct in their manner of speaking.Someone with a practical approach to public diplomacy is not only appealing to my sensibilities but also much needed in the area of foreign relations, where although there are many countries trying to make a honest attempt at sincere relations with the wider global communities, in terms of actual strategies, it can seem as if these organizations often don't see the forest for the trees.

Paul admits that the exact definition of strategic communications can be ambiguous a trait that public diplomacy shares as well, making the ideas even more difficult to put into practice considering the lack of concrete parameters involved in the workings of both. I like his personal definition of strategic communication, because while it may be too simple for some, it gets to the crux of  what it is without being bogged down in too many of the details. It is, "coordinating the things you say and do and say in support of your objectives...coordinated actions, messages, images and other forms of signaling or engagement intended to inform, influence or persuade selected audiences in support of national objectives.

He uses these straight-forward objectives to extol the virtues of a simple explanation of strategic communication that is clear and concise. In Paul's words strategic communication is about harnessing the necessary info and content from all we say and do; that is to mean our actions complement our statements and words - mean what you do and do as you say.

Paul understands that it is not all about trying to make everyone love you - anyone with a rudimentary understanding of human nature realizes that that is a losing battle.The most important thing is striking the right balance in establishing trust between the parties involved. And that a practical manner in achieving that is within an initiative is not only by favoring clear objectives, but making sure they are being followed through in every level of an organization with everyone working toward the same goal. That kind of accountability can cut down on the presence of vague statements and values in a campaign.

These are not revolutionary ideas but they are sensible ones. In a sector where the best methods of communication are still being tested, it would help to at least have a baseline procedure for people to follow. What Paul is espousing is strong enough to engender a working model for others to easily follow while leaving room for what will surely be decision-based changes in the future.

The New "Networked" Public Diplomacy

With the realm of international relations entering into a new era of unprecedented globalization, public diplomacy is undergoing a significant paradigm shift. Traditional PD, with its emphasis on one-way communication spearheaded by governments, is transforming into a “new” PD that incorporates non-government actors to engage in dialogue, engagement, and cultural exchanges. Now, the new PD must contend with a highly “networked” world where the Internet is rapidly accelerating connections between individuals, businesses, opinion-leaders, and international organizations (Melissen 18-19).

Since foreign ministries are losing ground as the “gatekeeper” structures that communicate foreign policy, how are states evolving their organizational structures to keep up with PD efforts? The British government is increasingly incorporating non-government institutions such as the British Council into the fabric of the nation’s PD apparatus. In the United States, there is some disarray between multitudes of actors vying for different PD objectives. The Swedish model, heavily dependent on a strong national brand, pools all of the country’s government and non-government resources to support cultural, trade, and political promotions (Pamment 332-333). For all three nations, the era of new PD has brought forth greater efforts to coordinate government efforts with those nontraditional actors in order to communicate a cohesive message.

In the end, how an international actor defines their audience amid multiple transnational networks dictates how that actor practices PD. For the most part, states have moved away from viewing their audiences as “absorbers” of information toward a more holistic view in which foreign publics are co-communicators who receive input and also provide feedback. The feedback aspect is what is radically new to PD evaluation. As policies have shifted from uni-directional promotion toward behavior-based objectives, evaluation methods have transitioned from solely measuring foreign perceptions to assessing outcomes and behavior change (Pamment 320). In theory, the outcome and results-oriented approach uses research data to inform policy decisions and to improve PD implementation. However, PD is more of an art than a science, and quantitative analysis of its effectiveness is easier said than done.

Is this how countries should measure public perceptions?

Dialogue Diplomacy

Antonetta Vanc describes dialogue as being a two way process that is essential for building mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its public. She argues that government must go beyond a monologue style of communication and instead adopt a process that involves a great deal of listening. Vanc indicated that PD has been perceived to be an information filter that disseminates news for the sole purpose of influencing a desired public.   Influencing the public through this method leaves little room for the public to respond.  In order to truly influence a public in a significant way, there must be a concerted effort to understand culture, behavior, and overall needs. Retrieving this type of information from a specific group only occurs through two- way communication.

Strategic dialogue also encompasses tailoring a message for a specific demographic. Tailoring messages allows for genuine and personal communication. Although the U.S. has general foreign priorities, diplomats must have the ability to not only articulate those objectives, but do so in a way that directly connected to the country that is being served.  Conveying a clear and concise message in this manner will help to foster better relationships and open the door for natural dialogue to occur. The text also notes that listening to an audience can be more beneficial than trying to solve a conflict. Listening opens the door for a long term relationship where shared ideas and beliefs can be openly communicated.

The United States is fostering dialogue through the use of technology. Digital conferences play a critical role in bridging the communication gap between those in Washington and foreign publics around the world. These digital technologies are bringing together policy experts, foreign ministries, academics and the general community to discuss and exchange relevant information. While advanced technology is beneficial, Vanc argues that mutuality, commitment, authenticity, respect, risk and collaboration are of equal importance. Nothing can ever replace genuine interpersonal communication.

Chris Paul (who doesn't toss alley-oops to Blake Griffin)

Joshua Midgett

SIS 628

Applied Public Diplomacy

Professor Hayden

       2. Christoper Paul situates PD within the context of a larger notion of “Strategic Communication.” What is the purpose of strategic communication, and is this concept totally compatible with other notions of PD? 

        According to Paul and his mosaic-like definition of Strategic Communication, it's intent is "to inform, influence, or persuade selected audiences in support of national objectives." Using only these words, and not the remainder of his entry, I would think that Strategic Communication is not totally, but about 95% compatible with Public Diplomacy as I know it. 

       What's unarguably similar is the first word of the IIP adjectives. Public Diplomacy is in the business of informing one party or another in order to support the harmonies of nations and their objectives. The other two get a little sticky. One of the ideas that does come up later in that paper that I agree with and I think helps solidify the compatibility of these two terms is the concept that there is no such thing as "value-free information". Therefore, if Public Diplomacy is in the business of informing, it can't help but also influence and persuade. 

       The only 5% variance I could potentially argue would be that all of this has to happen to support national objectives, rather than help create them. Strategic Communication seems to be a way of communication to a public that we've already decided about. We know they are the enemy, or our friends, or our frenemies, and so we're going to communicate with them and their cohorts accordingly. Meanwhile, Public Diplomacy is sort of an equal opportunity communicator in many ways, or perhaps it should be able to be. It's intent is to express the core principles, which indeed might be at the heart of our objectives, but is also meant to glisten as much information as it can. Strategic Communication feels like a monologue, PD a dialogue. Or another analogy: Were they games, StratCom would be RISK, and PD Pictionary. One is about winning something, and the other, though having similar constructs, is more about the exchanges happening.

         Yet, even with that argument, the venn diagram of Paul's seems fairly accurate. Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy share a lot, and therefore their definitions share many of the same words or themes. Both are correspondence methods with foreign publics with specific intent, and both operate primarily with the currency of information. While, were I pressed to speak in a public forum, I would delineate between the two, I would also not hold it against someone not to do so.

Battle Royale: Definitions vs. Typologies

Scholars and practitioners have wrestled long and hard to come up with a precise and unanimous definition of “public diplomacy.” At the heart of the debate is the question of how to define a concept that covers such a wide range of activities – listening, advocacy, cultural relations and exchanges, international broadcasting, etc. (the list can go on and on)? While some people are beating their heads against the wall to create an explicit definition, others are looking to replace PD with other terms, such as “strategic communication” for instance. However, I think that a vague term like “strategic communication” lacks the vital connection to diplomacy and the international dimensions of how countries try to influence relations with foreign publics.   

Rather than persisting in this definitional purgatory, Robin Brown accepts the idea that “public diplomacy” is innately an umbrella term, and she proposes the following four typologies by which to classify different public diplomacy strategies:

• Extension of Diplomacy – PD is integrated with the other diplomacy operations of foreign ministries, especially in the press or news offices that engage with the media.
• National Projection – PD sets out to “compete” in the international system by creating a favorable image of a country through nation branding.
• Cultural Relations – PD, as a long-term process, works to overcome cultural barriers and to cultivate mutual understanding and genuine mutuality.
• Political Warfare – PD is a tool to defeat an ideological opponent or to spread a particular set of political values.

Instead of focusing solely on the means of communication, these typologies are differentiated by the purposes of PD activities. So this framework accounts for exchange programs that may be organized for cultural relations, political warfare, or broadcasting purposes.

Brown’s typologies are valuable because they are conducive for cross-national comparisons. She gives us a language with which to analyze where national positions fall along the public diplomacy spectrum and how these positions manifest themselves in organizational structures or field operations. From reading public diplomacy reports and critiques, most arguments over how to do PD or how to fix it can fall under one of the four categories.

Another advantage for adopting a typology framework is that it takes into account how geopolitics, cultural heritage, and institutional configurations affect national PD perspectives. In most countries, there is more than one typology represented and any sort of national PD style emerges from the interplay between them. The key takeaway from Brown’s paradigms is that there is just not one model for public diplomacy and that PD implementation varies across countries and even across time.

The Battle for Importance

 

The Battle for Importance

Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy cannot exist alone. These two communication concepts are interdependent and must not be viewed through the lens of hierarchy. Christopher Paul defines strategic communication as coordinating what you do and say in support of your policy objectives.  He further describes strategic communication as coordinated actions, messages, images and other forms of engagement for the purpose of informing, influencing or persuading an audience in support of national objectives. Some schools of thought will argue that one concept is subordinate to the other. However, when we examine the aims of both concepts, we can benefit from understanding their value and importance equally. I do not advocate for using the terms interchangeably, however, I don’t suggest that there should be a battle for importance.

Defining both public diplomacy and strategic communication is a constantly evolving process.  The concepts will always be defined based on who creates the frame and how the term is conceptualized. The Department of Defense and The Department of State will define the term differently based on their resources and assets. Each entity may have similar measureable objectives; however they will define the term differently based on their individual frame.  It would be beneficial for academics, policy leaders, and diplomats to not classify these ideas by level of importance, but rather by their combined significance to the field. If we are to truly improve strategic communication and public diplomacy efforts, we must shift our energy from isolating the two terms, and instead figure out how they can be used simultaneously.  Informing, influencing and persuading are at the very heart of public diplomacy.  Framing a message in support of a foreign policy objective is what drives the work of public diplomacy. Public diplomacy thrives through the process of two- way messaging just like strategic communication.  Some will make the argument that strategic communication should operate in a broadcast like manner, however, listening is just as important to the communication exchange as it is with public diplomacy.  Public diplomacy and strategic communication equally reflect the values of the organization to influence their audience in some capacity. Understanding their combined importance is critical to advancing any communication effort.

Kindergarten Feet

Joshua Midgett

SIS 628

Applied Public Diplomacy

Professor Hayden

            The Last Three Feet Response:

            In reading this book, and most of the other readings in this class, I feel in some ways like a kindergartner. Since I’m coming from such a separate world, I feel as though I’m asking the obvious, silly questions. But, bringing these obvious questions to class, or landing them on these books, gives the opportunity for philosophical debates that center around the simplest truths of a complex profession. And so, what is central to me in The Last Three Feet, as well as what’s beginning to become a trend for me in this class is the ‘small’ challenge of defining what Public Diplomacy actually is.

            Before this book, like a kindergartener, I’ve been told by experts what it was, and I just agreed because they ‘knew’. But here, this time, I am just shown what is. I get to point at the zebra at the zoo and proudly pronounce, “Zebra!” I read a cinematic reel of experiences everywhere from Bahrain to Brazil, from Turkey to Twitter and I get to absorb from these experiences what it is to be a Public Diplomat and what that person and that term is trying to accomplish.

            I suppose now I should tell you what I think it is. My crude assessment is that Public Diplomacy is a simple challenge made complex by an endless array of variables. It’s the challenge of taking a message, any message, and delivering it to people in such a way that by the time you bring it back, they’ve not just signed for the message like a package, but they’ve left their fingerprints on it, and it has done the same to them. The challenges to this are many; and the responses to those challenges are detailed in this book. They show how deaf ears can halt messages, and how education exchange systems can become a sort of hearing aid, or leverage. They discuss how vital it is to ask dangerous questions in order to create real relations. And, in staying with the title, the expand upon the impact of “the last three feet” – the significance of being there, of offering your time, heart, and being.

So: Public Diplomacy is the Pony Express of ideology and culture. To me, at least. To the now proud 1^st grader. But much like that 6 year old unaware of who Christopher Columbus really was beyond sailing the ocean blue in 1492, I am sure to evolve that definition in the coming weeks, months, years and I look forward to doing so.

Stop talking and listen

               What I learned from the "Last Three Feet" is that for some reason listening is still a novelty. The authors want us to remember to get to know our audience and accept them. This means that after pinning down age, race, economic standing, sex, etc. first sit down with them and have a conversation. This in turn means a give and take on both sides. After that, accept them. Accept them, agree that you might disagree, but find a way to come together on a point. The best Public Diplomacy is when both sides have a genuine stake in the outcome of a policy initiative. Also, when you sit back and let your “other”, your public, make the decisions and drive the conversation the best public diplomacy plans work.

                The public diplomacy example that struck me the most was in Turkey. They took kids that may or may not have had previous knowledge of film work, cameras, or even English and allowed them to participate in voicing their opinions through the art of film while America backed them. Exchanges occurred, and setting them up with a huge web of film festivals allowed students, the youth of Turkey, to be heard. These kids will grow up thinking that the U.S is great because they gave them a voice when they may have not had one otherwise. The brilliance was in how hands off the implementers were; they guided and taught the skill, not the message the kids wanted to deliver. Sometimes that is the best public diplomacy. They listened, not listening to respond, but listening to actually understand.

- Dominique Lopes

Bridging the "Last Three Feet"

After reading The Last Three Feet: Case Studies in Public Diplomacy, it became clear to me that the field of public diplomacy (PD) is ever-evolving. American PD practitioners must come up with creative ways to bring people together, whether it is through government officials mingling with foreign populations at American pavilion at the Shanghai Expo or through exchange programs like the Youth Ambassador Program in Brazil that bring young students to the United States. Many of the cases outlined in the book suggest that human interaction offers the best chance for creating mutual understanding or even likeability.

With the advent of new technologies and communication infrastructures has dramatically changed the way public diplomacy is practiced in the field, can social media now bridge the “last three feet”?

As was seen with the cases of Embassy Baghdad's Facebook page and the @America center in Jakarta, social media is a great way to disseminate ideas and stimulate interactive discussions. It offers a great opportunity to reach tech-savvy, younger audiences who like to communicate creatively through any medium that can be digitized – videos, photos, graphics, words, music, etc. (the list goes on and on).

However, I still think the best way to bridge the “last three feet” in public diplomacy is to engage in face-to-face communication. Making a post on Facebook for someone who may respond to it hours later while sitting alone in a room does not have nearly the same potential for a personal connection as an in-person encounter has. This is not to say that PD officers located in countries where there is very little Internet connectivity or it is dangerous to meet people outside of the embassy should not rely on social media as their main source of public outreach. Yet, for the majority of U.S. missions, social media tools should supplement, not substitute, programs that bring people together in person to interact in real time. PD practitioners who marry face-to-face communication with social media contact will inevitably reach a larger audience and help greater numbers of people better understand America and its values. 

The Next Three Feet

The Next 3 Feet

The Last 3 Feet book discussion proved to be intellectually stimulating and answered many outstanding questions I had about the field of public diplomacy. Although many of my questions were answered, I walked away with more questions about the sustainability of public diplomacy.

There was a great deal of emphasis placed on the term, “The Last 3 Feet". I would like to take the discussion a step further and place more emphasis on “The Next 3 Feet". In our constantly changing Foreign Service, U.S. Diplomats are required to rotate out to a different country every three years. Three years is not a long time considering the amount of work necessary for a public diplomacy officer to establish genuine and credible relationships with the host government and local community. Doing the work of public diplomacy is about building trust with your audience. Trust is not built overnight, and in some cases, not even three years. When some Foreign Service officers finally build a legitimate relationship with the local community, their time at post has reached its date of expiration and the NEXT Foreign Service officer is left with the responsibility of establishing this relationship again. One can only hope that the new officer had a predecessor that was viewed in a good light by the local community. The new officer either has to spend time focusing on damage control or placing emphasis on the “Next 3 Feet".

The Next 3 Feet is about improving training, knowledge shar,e and sustainability from one Foreign Service officer to the next. While rotating FSO's out every three years does merit obvious benefits such as new ideas and perspectives, there must be a greater focus on making sure that after a diplomat leaves post, their relationships with the host country does not sever, but continues to exist. However, this is a growing issue because new officers sometimes never meet their predecessors. In many cases, they are only left with a binder that contains past projects, reports and contact sheets. Unfortunately, these contact sheets with names and numbers cannot come to life. These names are only characters on a paper that only become credible contacts through genuine interpersonal communication. Requiring past PD officers to actually meet in person allows for discussion about best practices and achievements. Instead of the old PD officer introducing the new  officer to the Director of Youth and Sports through email, all three entities could meet simultaneously. This gives the representative of the host government a level of comfort when meeting with the new officer. Coordinating the time for the new and old PD officers to physically meet is a change in process that could result in great benefits. New officers  come from different cones, backgrounds and political ideologies. Sufficient training, knowledge share and sustainability must become significant practices if we are to improve our public diplomacy efforts abroad.