Intermap

by Craig Hayden

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:
continue reading…

by Craig Hayden

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.
continue reading…

by Craig Hayden

I finally got around to reading the new strategic template for US public diplomacy as put together by the State Department – ostensibly the agency tasked with managing and directing US public diplomacy. The strategy is in a handy powerpoint presented by US Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Judith McHale. She spoke of it again on March 10, 2010 before the Senate Foreign Relations committee. A few things from the document and the speech stand out in my mind.

I admit I came to the document a bit skeptical. Supposedly, it took many months to prepare – and feedback was kept to a minimum (bloggers were invited to talk about the plan AFTER it was released). And indeed my initial reading was somewhat disappointing. It read like McHale’s crack team of strategic planners had planned to step out of the TARDIS time machine in 2001 rather than, say, 2010. Simply put, the document reads too much as a dated conception of message management designed to counter or compete with the actions of other actors like China, Russia, and extremists groups (nevermind that their respective programs are for decidedly different objectives and have questionable effectiveness – they are doing stuff, so should we!). Aren’t US public diplomacy planners done with the “there’s a media war going on” kind of talk?

continue reading…