R's Take on Collaborative Diplomacy

On Wednesday, I was fortunate enough to hear Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Tara Sonenshine speak at the inaugural event of the Public and Cultural Diplomacy Forum at American University.

A major theme throughout her remarks was the notion of collaborative diplomacy. Using the analogy of Hollywood, she elaborated that, just as a movie needs writers, agents, producers, a director, and a crew in order to be made, public diplomacy also requires the same amount of teamwork through public-private partnerships or social networks. In the words of Secretary Clinton, “it takes a village” to implement public diplomacy well.

Collaborative diplomacy is critical today because, in a world of growing complexity and connectivity, no one person or entity possesses all the capabilities and resources to solve crosscutting issues like terrorism, climate change, or energy security. This is especially true for the Department of State, whose overseas spending accounts for only one percent of the federal government’s operating budget. With such limited funding, the State Department must come up with “creative, innovative, and efficient” ways to identify, attract, and collaborate with partners who can help plan and fund projects.

Under Secretary Sonenshine discussed at length how partnerships impact State Department operations (moving from one-way dialogue to two-way dialogue and eventually to multidirectional dialogue). In particular, she highlighted the SelectUSA Initiative and GIST (Global Innovation through Science and Technology) as two public-private partnerships that exemplify this mindset. However, while she made a case for the value of collaborative power, I am left wondering how collaborative partnerships impact the actual implementation of public diplomacy. Do these partnerships make U.S. public diplomacy more effective?

Then, there is also the issue of evaluation – how do evaluate what works and what does not work in public diplomacy when there are multiple actors involved? Should you attribute success to an actor’s contribution or to the end result? Moreover, how do you quantify something that may be unquantifiable (such as feelings, values, or norms)? Although the Under Secretary addressed many of the concrete questions surrounding what the State Department is doing for public diplomacy, I feel that many conceptual questions still remain up in the air.

To read the entire transcript of the Under Secretary’s remarks, click here.