Move 3 urls. Wayback Medic 2.5
|
add see also section, wikilink to cultural diplomacy
|
||
(13 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
⚫ | [[Public diplomacy]] is that "form of international political advocacy in which the civilians of one country use legitimate means to reach out to the civilians of another country in order to gain popular support for negotiations occurring through diplomatic channels."<ref>Smith Jr., Paul A. ''On Political War'' (Washington: National Defense University Press, 1989).</ref> |
||
{{rewrite|date=December 2015}} |
|||
⚫ |
[[Public diplomacy]] is that "form of international |
||
== Examples == |
== Examples == |
||
Line 43: | Line 42: | ||
::Also known as the [[Smith-Mundt Act]], it is a charter addressing America's peacetime overseas information program. |
::Also known as the [[Smith-Mundt Act]], it is a charter addressing America's peacetime overseas information program. |
||
'''1948''' – Congress creates the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy – to advise and make recommendations on the conduct of public diplomacy.<ref name=peopleright>Hybl, William J. , Bagley, Elizabeth F. et |
'''1948''' – Congress creates the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy – to advise and make recommendations on the conduct of public diplomacy.<ref name=peopleright>Hybl, William J. , Bagley, Elizabeth F. et al. [http://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/106297.pdf Getting the People Part Right: a report on the human resources dimension of U.S. public diplomacy]. U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, 2008.</ref> |
||
:: '''June 1948 – May 1949 – [[Berlin Blockade]]''' |
:: '''June 1948 – May 1949 – [[Berlin Blockade]]''' |
||
Line 120: | Line 119: | ||
:::administering cultural and euducational exchange programs in which millions of world citizens participated. According to USIA veteran |
:::administering cultural and euducational exchange programs in which millions of world citizens participated. According to USIA veteran |
||
:::Wilson P. Dizard Jr., "it was the biggest information and cultural effort ever mounted by one society to influence the attitudes and |
:::Wilson P. Dizard Jr., "it was the biggest information and cultural effort ever mounted by one society to influence the attitudes and |
||
:::actions of men and women beyond its borders."<ref>Fitzpatrick, Kathy R. The Collapse of American Public Diplomacy: what diplomatic experts say about rebuilding |
:::actions of men and women beyond its borders."<ref>Fitzpatrick, Kathy R. The Collapse of American Public Diplomacy: what diplomatic experts say about rebuilding America's image in the world - a view from the trenches. (Hameden: Quinnipiac School of Communications, 2008)http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/Fitzpatrick2008.pdf, 4.</ref> |
||
: Therefore, a piece of legislation which had serious ramifications for American Public Diplomacy was the ''Foreign Affairs Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998'' which folded USIA into the State Department and put all International Broadcasting in the hands of the BBG. |
: Therefore, a piece of legislation which had serious ramifications for American Public Diplomacy was the ''Foreign Affairs Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998'' which folded USIA into the State Department and put all International Broadcasting in the hands of the BBG. |
||
Line 139: | Line 138: | ||
====Oversaturation==== |
====Oversaturation==== |
||
:The drawback to modern technology is that there is an oversaturation of information which make it hard to reach and/or move your audience. As Kristin Lord writes,"Despite the extraordinary power of the U.S. government, its public diplomacy activities are, and increasingly will be, only a fraction of the many images and bits of information citizens around the world receive every day. Moreover, they are only one part of the many ways America – through its culture, products, services, philanthropy, people, and media – reaches foreign publics. That does not reduce public |
:The drawback to modern technology is that there is an oversaturation of information which make it hard to reach and/or move your audience. As Kristin Lord writes,"Despite the extraordinary power of the U.S. government, its public diplomacy activities are, and increasingly will be, only a fraction of the many images and bits of information citizens around the world receive every day. Moreover, they are only one part of the many ways America – through its culture, products, services, philanthropy, people, and media – reaches foreign publics. That does not reduce public diplomacy's importance; perhaps it increases it. But we need to maintain our perspective."<ref>Lord, Kristin M. The USA- World Trust: Bringing the Power of Networks to U.S. Public Diplomacy. Public Diplomacy Magazine. (Winter 2009)http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2009/winter_public_diplomacy_lord.aspx</ref> |
||
====U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy==== |
====U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy==== |
||
Established under section 604 of the United States Information and Exchange Act of 1948, the Commission "appraises U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics." The charter is available online.<ref> |
Established under section 604 of the United States Information and Exchange Act of 1948, the Commission "appraises U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics." The charter is available online.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.state.gov/charter-u-s-advisory-commission-on-public-diplomacy/|title=Charter - U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy|publisher=}}</ref> |
||
The 2008 report, entitled ''Getting the People Part Right'', addressed the effect of human resources on public diplomacy. The report concluded: |
The 2008 report, entitled ''Getting the People Part Right'', addressed the effect of human resources on public diplomacy. The report concluded: |
||
:::The Commission believes that we can significantly enhance the quality and effectiveness of our |
:::The Commission believes that we can significantly enhance the quality and effectiveness of our nation's |
||
:::outreach to foreign publics by: recruiting for the public diplomacy career track in a more focused way; |
:::outreach to foreign publics by: recruiting for the public diplomacy career track in a more focused way; |
||
:::testing our recruitees more thoroughly and methodically for their PD instincts, knowledge and skills; |
:::testing our recruitees more thoroughly and methodically for their PD instincts, knowledge and skills; |
||
Line 157: | Line 156: | ||
:::attacks on our nation and the imperative of conducting thoughtful, effective public diplomacy in support |
:::attacks on our nation and the imperative of conducting thoughtful, effective public diplomacy in support |
||
:::of our policy objectives. We have been frustrated at times by limitations related to re-authorization, |
:::of our policy objectives. We have been frustrated at times by limitations related to re-authorization, |
||
:::funding, staffing and access to department officials.”<ref>Hybl, William J. , Olson, Lyndon L. et |
:::funding, staffing and access to department officials.”<ref>Hybl, William J. , Olson, Lyndon L. et al. [http://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/149966.pdf Assessing U.S. Public Diplomacy: a notional model]. United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.</ref> |
||
====V. extremist Islamic propaganda==== |
====V. extremist Islamic propaganda==== |
||
Line 163: | Line 162: | ||
:The [[9/11 Commission]] makes the following assessment:''The enemy is not Islam, the great world faith, but a perversion of Islam. The enemy goes beyond al Qaeda to include the radical ideological movement, inspired in part by al Qaeda, that has spawned other terrorist groups and violence. thus our strategy must match our means to two ends: dismantling the al Qaeda network and, in the long term, prevailing over the ideology that contributes to Islamist terrorism."''<ref>Waller, 377</ref> |
:The [[9/11 Commission]] makes the following assessment:''The enemy is not Islam, the great world faith, but a perversion of Islam. The enemy goes beyond al Qaeda to include the radical ideological movement, inspired in part by al Qaeda, that has spawned other terrorist groups and violence. thus our strategy must match our means to two ends: dismantling the al Qaeda network and, in the long term, prevailing over the ideology that contributes to Islamist terrorism."''<ref>Waller, 377</ref> |
||
:Steven Corman, professor at Arizona State University and director of that |
:Steven Corman, professor at Arizona State University and director of that school's Consortium for Strategic Communication (http://comops.org/) states that the U.S. must “engage the narrative in the new media. … We should be able to do that better than any terrorist group.” <ref>Green, Eric. (staff writer america.gov) U.S. Election Helping America's Image Worldwide. (26 Aug. 2008). http://www.america.gov/st/elections08-english/2008/August/200808261256351xeneerg0.679516.html?CP.rss=true</ref> |
||
:The conflict between the U.S. and Extremist Islamic groups is fundamentally a conflict of ideas. It is a battle for truth. As [[Patricia Harrison]], assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, asserted, "if we do not define ourselves, others will do it for us." |
:The conflict between the U.S. and Extremist Islamic groups is fundamentally a conflict of ideas. It is a battle for truth. As [[Patricia Harrison]], assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, asserted, "if we do not define ourselves, others will do it for us."<ref>Waller, 379</ref> |
||
:The U.S.' approach has been critiqued for focusing too heavily on promoting secularism, capitalism, and democracy rather than on the rejection of violence and terrorism, and for equating "moderation" with "liberalism" in its engagement with the Islamic world.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Etzioni|first1=Amitai|title=Talking to the Muslim world: how, and with whom?|journal=International Affairs|date=2016|volume=92|issue=6|pages=1361-1379|url=https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/ia/INTA92_6_04_Etzioni.pdf}}</ref> |
|||
====U.S. v. China==== |
====U.S. v. China==== |
||
On February 15, 2011, a minority staff report was submitted to the [[United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations]]. In the letter of transmittal, ranking member Richard Lugar stated: |
On February 15, 2011, a minority staff report was submitted to the [[United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations]]. In the letter of transmittal, ranking member [[Richard Lugar]] stated: |
||
''In the same way that our trade with China is out of balance, it is clear to even the casual observer that when it comes to interacting directly with the other nation's public we are in another lop-sided contest. China has a vigorous public diplomacy program, based on a portrayal of an ancient, benign China that is, perhaps, out of touch with modern realities. Nonetheless, we are being overtaken in this area of foreign policy by China, which is able to take advantage of America's open system to spread its message in many different ways, while using its fundamentally closed system to stymie U.S. efforts.'' |
''In the same way that our trade with China is out of balance, it is clear to even the casual observer that when it comes to interacting directly with the other nation's public we are in another lop-sided contest. China has a vigorous public diplomacy program, based on a portrayal of an ancient, benign China that is, perhaps, out of touch with modern realities. Nonetheless, we are being overtaken in this area of foreign policy by China, which is able to take advantage of America's open system to spread its message in many different ways, while using its fundamentally closed system to stymie U.S. efforts.'' |
||
:In the arena of public diplomacy, the report cites China's continued [[Censorship in China|suppression]] of freedom of speech and freedom of information within their country esp. [[Internet censorship in China|via the internet]]. The key means of communication which remains open to the U.S., i.e. individual interaction, is an opportunity which the U.S. has failed to promote. The report cites two significant failures on the part of U.S. public diplomacy: |
:In the arena of public diplomacy, the report cites China's continued [[Censorship in China|suppression]] of freedom of speech and freedom of information within their country esp. [[Internet censorship in China|via the internet]]. The key means of communication which remains open to the U.S., i.e. individual interaction, is an opportunity which the U.S. has failed to promote. The report cites two significant failures on the part of U.S. public diplomacy: |
||
# The U.S. has '''five''' American centers in all of China. This compared to the '''seventy''' some Confucius Institutes throughout the United States. |
# The U.S. has '''five''' American centers in all of China. This compared to the '''seventy''' some Confucius Institutes throughout the United States. |
||
# The [[Shanghai World Expo]] was a brilliant opportunity for the U.S., however, while "more than 7,000,000" Chinese visited the U.S. Pavilion, the U.S. was criticized for its "hastily organized presentations and lack of a cogent message." |
# The [[Shanghai World Expo]] was a brilliant opportunity for the U.S., however, while "more than 7,000,000" Chinese visited the U.S. Pavilion, the U.S. was criticized for its "hastily organized presentations and lack of a cogent message."<ref>''Another U.S. Deficit - China and America - Public Diplomacy in the Age of the Internet.'' A minority staff report. Committee on Foreign Relations. 112th Congress. first session. (February 15, 2011)https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Sk_HfqQMXxEJ:foreign.senate.gov/download/%3Fid%3D208AEC06-D0CF-4EBD-9FCB-BB3CF4AA9181+another+u.s.+deficit+china+and+america+public+diplomacy+in+the+age+of+the+internet&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShRIPfYcaGL-FVKm-d_mwrhrEFWEwgXWonzcwHm2E1BFRbnWzXVDckhtkCzlAHt7zA0iusQR7pDBBn6KpU_N6aY3gEnfdCI5Nh6UD32AkY4wV2WV6DtHZ9mw_g_nQDcBEUX--O_&sig=AHIEtbQ2k472yV3z3xsfu8tF9aud8Zd0fg</ref> |
||
In a survey of Arab youth conducted by a Dubai-based public relations firm in 2023, 80 percent of respondents considered China an ally of their country, while 72 percent considered the United States an ally.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Abdelbary |first1=Mohammed |title=China surpasses US in popularity among Arab youth as Beijing expands Middle East footprint |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/21/middleeast/china-surpasses-us-mideast-survey-mime-intl/index.html |agency=CNN |date=2023}}</ref> |
|||
== Other government agencies exercising public diplomacy == |
== Other government agencies exercising public diplomacy == |
||
Line 210: | Line 209: | ||
:In the end, America must communicate a sense of herself. As Harvard professor [[Joseph Nye]] states, the strength of American [[soft power]] comes from its ability to ''"inspire the dreams and desires of others."''<ref name="auto1"/> |
:In the end, America must communicate a sense of herself. As Harvard professor [[Joseph Nye]] states, the strength of American [[soft power]] comes from its ability to ''"inspire the dreams and desires of others."''<ref name="auto1"/> |
||
== See also == |
|||
* [[Cultural diplomacy]] |
|||
== References == |
== References == |
||
Line 216: | Line 219: | ||
== External links == |
== External links == |
||
*[http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/Fitzpatrick2008.pdf] [http://publicdiplomacy.org publicdiplomacy.org] Fitzpatrick, Kathy R. ''The Collapse of American Public Diplomacy'' |
*[http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/Fitzpatrick2008.pdf] [http://publicdiplomacy.org publicdiplomacy.org] Fitzpatrick, Kathy R. ''The Collapse of American Public Diplomacy'' |
||
*[http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/usia/] - USIA's website in 1999 |
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20101012105029/http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/usia/] - USIA's website in 1999 |
||
*[https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40989.pdf] - CRS report |
*[https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40989.pdf] - CRS report |
||
*[http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2009/winter_public_diplomacy_lord.aspx]- Brookings article by Kristin M. Lord |
*[http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2009/winter_public_diplomacy_lord.aspx]- Brookings article by Kristin M. Lord |
||
Line 231: | Line 234: | ||
[[Category:Propaganda in the United States]] |
[[Category:Propaganda in the United States]] |
||
[[Category:Types of diplomacy]] |
[[Category:Types of diplomacy]] |
||
[[Category:Public diplomacy]] |
Public diplomacy is that "form of international political advocacy in which the civilians of one country use legitimate means to reach out to the civilians of another country in order to gain popular support for negotiations occurring through diplomatic channels."[1]
1917–1919 – President Wilson created the Committee on Public Information led by advertiser George Creel
1936 – Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy
1938 – The Division of Cultural Relations (State Dept.) – Interdeparmental Committee for Scientific Cooperation (USIA pamphlet) – response to Nazi German and Fascist Italian propaganda aimed at Latin America.
1940 – Nelson Rockefeller's Office of Inter-American Affairs
1941 – U.S. broadcasting 24/7
1941 – Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor, U.S. enters into WWII → U.S. broadcasting goes global
1942
1946 – The Fulbright Act of 1946 – "Mandated a peacetime international exchange program"
1947 – Fulbright Program founded.
1948 – U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act signed by President Harry Truman
1948 – Congress creates the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy – to advise and make recommendations on the conduct of public diplomacy.[6]
1949 – the Hoover Commission advised the creation of an independent information agency
1950 – Campaign of Truth (Truman)
Aug. 1, 1953 – Eisenhower founded the Independent United States Information Agency (USIA)
1961 – Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act (Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961) – "consolidated various U.S. international educational and cultural exchange activities. It expanded other cultural and athletic exchanges, translation of books and periodicals, and U.S. representation in international fairs and expositions. The Act also established government operation of cultural and education centers abroad."[9]
1961–1964 – Edward R. Murrow appointed USIA director. He states, "Truth is the best propaganda."
1977–1978 – the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is combined with USIA to create the United States International Communication Agency (USICA) Carter issues second mandate for USIA/USICA: "to reduce the degree to which misperceptions and misunderstandings complicate relations between the United States and other nations. It is also in our interest—and in the interest of other nations—that Americans have the opportunity to understand the histories, cultures, and problems of others, so that we can come to understand their hopes, perceptions, and aspirations."[10]
1978 – VOA folded into USIA/USICA
1982 – Reagan restored the name to USIA[11]
1987 – Reagan's tear down this wall! speech at the Brandenburg GateinBerlin, Germany.
1989 – Year of Miracles:
1990 – amendment to U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act – authorized USIA director to "make certain products available to the Archivist of the United States for domestic distribution". But only 12 years after the fact.
1994 – United States International Broadcasting Act
1998 – Foreign Affairs Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998
1999 – USIA abolished and full authority given to the State Department's Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
2002 – Strategic communication Policy coordinating Committee established.
2007–2008 – Counter-Terrorism Communication Center established – replaced by Global Strategic Engagement Center.[4]
First: The State Department's basic authorities Act of 1956[4]
Second: The United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (Smith-Mundt Act)
Third: The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961)
Fourth: The United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 [4]
Established under section 604 of the United States Information and Exchange Act of 1948, the Commission "appraises U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics." The charter is available online.[17]
The 2008 report, entitled Getting the People Part Right, addressed the effect of human resources on public diplomacy. The report concluded:
The 2010 report, entitled Assessing U.S. Public Diplomacy: A Notional Model, was a report based on work done at the direction of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy by the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin. The report addressed the method of measuring the effectiveness of U.S. Public Diplomacy. Its contents may be summed up as follows: the thermometer is broken, it doesn't work. Moreover, the concluding remarks of the introductory letter from the Commission members offers more insight as to the state of public diplomacy than the actual contents of the report:
On February 15, 2011, a minority staff report was submitted to the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. In the letter of transmittal, ranking member Richard Lugar stated: In the same way that our trade with China is out of balance, it is clear to even the casual observer that when it comes to interacting directly with the other nation's public we are in another lop-sided contest. China has a vigorous public diplomacy program, based on a portrayal of an ancient, benign China that is, perhaps, out of touch with modern realities. Nonetheless, we are being overtaken in this area of foreign policy by China, which is able to take advantage of America's open system to spread its message in many different ways, while using its fundamentally closed system to stymie U.S. efforts.
In a survey of Arab youth conducted by a Dubai-based public relations firm in 2023, 80 percent of respondents considered China an ally of their country, while 72 percent considered the United States an ally.[23]