"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?