So I was at the Confucius Institute at the University of Maryland this week doing some research for my book on comparative public diplomacy. I had a great discussion with the directors of the program. They offered a number of insights and were very welcoming. I’d like to share something that came out of the meeting that adds some perspective to recent US attempts to rehabilitate US public diplomacy strategy. The individuals I spoke with seemed pretty sure what they did was not public diplomacy – and were somewhat ambivalent about the term cultural diplomacy. For the Confucius Institute – their “mission” was primarily defined as education and educational partnership.
Archive for April, 2010
Labels and Credibility
April 15th, 2010 | by Craig Hayden | published in Public Diplomacy & Strategic Communication
A Conversation on Media Technology and Diplomacy
April 2nd, 2010 | by Craig Hayden | published in Media & Technology
I had the good fortune to attend a discussion last week between Alec Ross, the Senior Advisor for Innovation in the office of Secretary of State Clinton and Marc Lynch, professor of political science at George Washington University and a featured blogger on Foreign Policy.com. The focus of the discussion was primarily about the use of media technology for outreach and public diplomacy in the Arab world. Each gave a short presentation that talked about the need for embracing technology, and for sustaining realistic attitudes towards what communication technology can accomplish for the US State Department. For this blog post, I’ll summarize a few of the interesting points they raised:
More on the US Public Diplomacy Framework: Concept and Structure
April 2nd, 2010 | by Craig Hayden | published in Public Diplomacy & Strategic Communication
So I’ve had some time to digest the conversation on McHale’s proposed new framework for US public diplomacy strategy. Upon reflection, as Rhonda Zaharna describes in her insightful and clarifying new book, Battles to Bridges: US Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy after 9/11, the framework is yet another example of how “grand strategy,” “strategy,” and “tactics” get muddled in the conceptualization of public diplomacy objectives and the world-view that it is based upon.
The sticking points in public reactions to this framework take on two distinct dimensions: conceptual and structural.