Public diplomacy in the new administration

Is it just me, or does the term “Public Diplomacy” seem to buzzing all over DC these days? Particularly since the election of President Barack Obama, there has been a renewed discussion of how the new administration could/would/should rebuild America’s image abroad. And for those who are only convinced by concrete rankings… the GAO recently listed “improving the United State’s image abroad” as No. 5 on its list of urgent issues for the new administration.

Traditionally, public diplomacy has been seen as “the transparent means by which a sovereign country communicates with publics in other countries aimed at informing and influencing audiences overseas for the purpose of promoting the national interest and advancing its foreign policy goals.” This typically includes activities such as exchange and visitor programs, language training, and cultural events- all activities that tend to be one-way communication. While it is undeniably important for the United States to educate other populations on American interests, culture and policy, I would argue that today public diplomacy serves an even greater purpose: creating a relationship between Americans and people of other nations.

Personally, I like the approach taken at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Professor Nicholas J. Cull describes public diplomacy as being made up of 5 main practices:

1. listening
2. advocacy
3. cultural diplomacy
4. exchanges
5. international broadcasting

Of these, I consider LISTENING to be the missing link in current US public diplomacy efforts. The development world seems to have a similar fault… too much talking and “teaching” and not enough listening and learning. Diplomacy should be, and can be, a two-way interaction. Mr. Michael Doran, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Support to Public Diplomacy, nails it:

It’s our view that excessive focus on us [the United States] is
counterproductive… In the current information environment a lot of strategic
communication is talking to foreign audiences about themselves – giving foreign
audiences information about themselves. That’s different than sending a U.S.
government message.

When interacting with foreign audiences we need to focus less on talking about ourselves, and more on what is most relevant to our audience: themselves. Of course, it is in our interest as a country to fund programs and campaigns around the world that will improve the image of the US- it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise. BUT, as Mr. Doran so astutely pointed out, making this the focus of public diplomacy programs is often counterproductive. Outside of the United States, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone who cares (or, frankly, believes) any message the US government would attempt to disseminate. The credibility of the US government abroad is, as we are all so often reminded, questionable at best, especially in the Middle East.

The best thing we can do for our image abroad at this point, is to stop focusing on articulating the message of the US and spreading specifically American values, and focus instead on giving people the knowledge and tools they need to improve their societies within their own cultural context. In her confirmation hearing Hillary Clinton stressed the importance of collaboration and cooperative engagement in today’s global environment, and highlighted the importance of bringing people together by investing in the bond of humanity (I know, cliché, but still…):

We must find common ground and common purpose with other peoples and nations so that together we can overcome hatred, violence, lawlessness, and despair… The
Obama administration recognizes that, even when we cannot fully agree with some
governments, we share a bond of humanity with their people. By investing in that
common humanity we advance our common security because we pave the way for a
more peaceful, prosperous world.

She went on to emphasize the “importance of a ‘bottom-up’ approach”. Public diplomacy efforts, particularly in the Middle East, have the potential to do a lot of good- but they can also do a lot of harm. While it is logical that the US government would focus on public diplomacy, I would argue that the best public diplomats are American citizens. Just as career diplomats play a critical role in government to government strategic communications, shouldn’t strategic communications with the general public be people to people?

While traditional approaches to public diplomacy are unlikely to change much, perhaps for its next public diplomacy strategy the US government should launch initiatives that encourage American citizens to engage directly with their peers in other countries. Microfinance, especially in the Islamic world (no-interest loans are highly palatable in the Muslim world), is a perfect way to encourage this type of interaction. And the reason I love this idea so much is that it essentially cuts out the government from the process, and allows individuals with resources to create a relationship with individuals with ideas (and no resources). What better way to encourage a “bottom-up” approach to diplomacy?

As Hilary Clinton noted during her hearing, President-elect Obama’s mother (Ann Dunham) was a pioneer in microfinance in Indonesia… just some food for thought.