Should public diplomacy officers be permitted to openly comment?

In his chapter on Traditional Information Channels, Ambassador William A. Rugh describes the diametric tension between PDOs speaking both candidly and often to the media and the fallout that may occur if they do so. 

The Public Diplomacy Council also discussed this same issue during its 2013 Fall Forum. In the Future of Public Diplomacy panel discussion, Rajiv Chandrasekaran spoke about the need for the State Department to move away from a risk-averse media culture.  Chandrasekaran emphasized the need for U.S. diplomats to not be seen as slow and defensive and to speak with truth, accuracy, and transparency.  According to Chandasekaran, the U.S. military is much better at empowering officials and soldiers to speak openly and honestly with the media about challenges and limitations. He emphasized that posts lack sufficient delegated authority to make smart decisions. 

Is there a difference, though, between when a diplomat speaks to the press and when a military officer does so?  I think there is.  When a diplomat speaks, they inevitably speak to the U.S. policy position due to their role. When a military official speaks, they are often talking about the implementation of U.S. policy, or day-to-day operations.   These are two very different things. 

U.S. Embassy Cairo’s tweet condemning the film “Innocence of Muslims,” posted on September 11, 2012, highlights this difference well.  The tweet – issued not only as protesters breached the grounds of U.S. Embassy Cairo, but also only a few hours after the fatal attack on U.S. Embassy Benghazi – quickly became fodder for the 2012 Presidential race. The tweet, made by a diplomat, was construed domestically as an Obama administration foreign policy strategy of what Romney called “apology diplomacy.” While this can easily be attributed to a vitriolic domestic presidential race, it very clearly points out the huge difference between a soldier and a public diplomacy officer: the public conflates diplomats’ role representing the United States abroad with the role of formulating foreign policy, whereas the public sees the military’s role as merely implementing a subset of foreign policy.  Although Chandrasekaran has an excellent point, one worthy of careful consideration, lessons learned in the military may not always be appropriate for the diplomatic corps because of the stark differences between the two.  Chandrasekaran provided further evidence of this difference, specifically in risk aversion, between to the two corps, saying “Congress is more likely to criticize civilians who take risks in complex environments and fail than members of the military.”

 Public Diplomacy officers should be enabled to speak timely and transparently, so long as they do so carefully. I tend to agree with Karen Hughes, Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs under the Bush Administration, who strongly encouraged U.S. diplomats to be proactive in approaching the media and to “think advocacy;” however, there is a fine line between being proactive and seeking opportunities to engage with the media on one side and having the authority to speak candidly without clearance from those that make policy on the other. Unfortunately, the clearance process and a culture of risk aversion cause Public Diplomacy officers to often shy away from opportunities.   

Am I wrong? Is it avoidable?  What are your thoughts?  Is there a better agency to which we can look for an example?

– Tiffany Law

Cultural programing to meet audiences where they are at

In thinking about question one this week, that asks ‘which kind of cultural diplomacy do you think is best?’ I reflected back on an article I read in classes on culture and conflict resolution.  The article,  “Towards EthnoRelativeism,” Milton Bennett describes the different ways people react to cultural differences and how someone can progress through those stages.  He set up a model that is separated into two categories, ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism.  The first three stages are ethnocentric.  When an ethnocentric person comes in contact with another culture, they may move towards the stages of denial, separation, and finally minimizing another’s culture as one sees their own culture as central to reality.  As a person has more and more exposure to and experiences with another culture, one may replaces his or her ethnocentric worldview with an ethnorelative position.  The stages of ethnorelativism include accepting another culture, eventually adapting to it, and possibly developing a pluralistic worldview that is identified by internalizing one or more different cultural frames of references.

As Cynthia Schnider points out in her article “It’s the Culture, Stupid,” cultural diplomacy is a very effective way of conveying one’s culture to a foreign public. It utilizes creative expression to evoke an audience’s emotions, thereby influencing their opinion. In reading several chapters fromFront Line Public Diplomacy: How U.S. Embassies Communicate with Foreign Publics, by William Rugh, it is apparent that different forms of cultural diplomacy meets people at different points along the ethnorelative/ethnocentric scale.

Bennett describes music, food and multicultural exhibits as the best way of moving an Other past the initial phases of ethnocentricism.  Cultural programing such as artistic and creative exhibits, sports diplomacy, and even books introduce foreign publics to U.S. culture.  It addresses those who may have an ethnocentric point of view by introducing them to the positive aspects of another culture and asks them to analyze it through their lens.  Robert Abro in a 2012 blog post warns that a foreign public may not always interpret cultural diplomacy events in the same way that a public diplomacy officer (PDO) may want. Regardless, through exposure to another culture, an individual may begin to move up the ethnocentric scale.

Through more sustained contact, such as through American centers and American Corners that Rugh discusses in chapter 8, individuals may move towards the “minimization” in the ethnocentric phase.  During this phase people are able to see similarities between their culture and that of another.  Individuals who seek out ad attend American Corners are welcomed into a place where they can meet with U.S. citizens, or staff that are very knowledgeable of U.S. culture.  They access materials and engage in a variety of activities, programs, and resources. Speaker series also seem to accomplish this.

Those that can see the positive aspects of U.S. culture, through the above activities may be ready to engage in further activities that will move them past ethnocentrism and towards ethnorelativism.  Educational and professional exchanges bring individuals who are interested in U.S. culture to the United States for a time. As Rugh discussed in chapter 10, upon return to their home country, participants have a deeper, more sophisticated understanding often United States. They can have a pro-American view and often explain aspects of the United States to their others in a more sympathetic way.  This indicates that participants have accepted U.S. culture and perhaps even empathize with it, showing that participants have entered stages of ethnorelativism.

Milton Bennet’s scale makes it apparent that not every public diplomacy activity is well suited to someone at different ends of the scale.  An exchange would not work for someone who is denying American culture (first ethnocentric stage), and an art or cultural exhibition may not help someone at the acceptance stage of ethnorelativism move beyond that.  Because of this, I don’t believe that any one program is more important than another.  Instead, a PDO needs to understand his/her audience very well in order to identify the most effective programs for their audiences and allocate funding accordingly.

– Tiffany Law

Please enjoy the below video.  It is a flash mob that U.S. Embassy Yerevan performed in the center of a busy public shopping area.  This is an example of introducing people to fun and exciting parts of U.S. culture and inviting them to learn more.  While individuals high on Bennett’s scale will enjoy this video, it will likely not help them move higher up Bennett’s scale.  Rather, this kind of activity meets someone low on Bennet’s scale an may invite them to engage in further programming that will help them move up it.

“The Last Three Feet” themes of knowing the language and using it to understand

“The Last Three Feet” emphasized that Public Diplomacy Officers (PDO)s  are fluent in the local language and use it to understand and engage with foreign audiences.  This theme is particularly interesting to me because those skills take time to cultivate, and the Foreign Service rotates on a two-year cycle.

In Chapter 8, Walter Douglas explains the formula that communication specialists use to influence a public.  It is: 1. understand, 2. engage, 3. inform, and 4. influence.  He states that many people focus heavily on engaging and informing in an attempt to influence, but spend much less time and attention to step one.  Aaron D. Snipe, in chapter 7, in different words, discussed how he and his social media team were able to revitalize Baghdad’s Facebook and YouTube feeds by better understanding who their target population was and how to engage with them.  In Chapter 4, Elisabeth McKay discusses how her team made significant progress in changing the Turkish narrative of the US.  One of her key take home messages was: “approach the design of programs with the audience’s needs in mind-rather than merely our own.”

Each of these examples brings two common themes.  First, they emphasize time and again that understanding an audience is crucial if a PDO wants to correctly diagnose their position and use that to influence how they interacts with their audience.  While this seems like a simplistic idea, it can be overlooked.  Creating and promoting interesting and creative programs that solve key engagement problems can create a fervor that, on occasion, may overlook the needs of the consumers of that project.  Elisabeth McKay described a failed project, “The Wiki” that facilitated an online connection between Turkish and American youth.  She says the reason for this lack of success was that they approached the project as a solution to one of their challenges and not as a solution to Turkish youth’s challenges.

A second theme apparent is an emphasis on being fluent in the native language and using it.  As Walter Douglas encourages, Public Diplomacy Officers must recognize the limitations of using English as most in their target audiences do not speak it.  His chapter drove home the message that if one wants to really understand their audience, they must know the language in order to consume media and engage in conversations.  Also, he encouraged PDOs to critically engage with their very capable Foreign Service National (FSN) staff to really dive into the cultural ramifications of current events.

The strengths of knowing and using the language, as well as understanding the audience is that it allows a PDO to be strategic thinkers and planners that can fully engage in policy.  Bruce Wharton, in Chapter 9, cited this as one of the key attributes that successful PDOs of the future would have.

The downside to this is that with the normal rotation cycle for PDOs two years at post, with the possibility for tenured FSOs to extend to three years.  This is an incredibly tight timetable for a PDO.  While PDOs come to post with intensive cultural and language training, the nuance in culture and language are achieved through critical engagement, long conversations, and trial and error.  In two years time, a PDO may have had the time to engage and become proficient in the culture and language.  And then they leave.  Many other foreign ministries cycle their officers on a four-year rotation.   Were the U.S. Foreign Service to adopt this rotation for their PDOs, perhaps we would see more officers with the language skills necessary to fully understand and engage with their audience and the time to make that fruitful.

– Tiffany Law

Should new media challenge public diplomacy strategy and practice?

The proliferation of new medias allows for media consumers to select and engage with content faster and respond in kind.  This provides a way to reach and listen to a much larger audience of people much faster than ever before.  This can allow for a different and deeper form of engagement and understanding that can better inform planning and advocacy.  This affects strategy and practice because consumers are much smarter media consumers and actors.  They are accustomed to media that is targeted directly at them as individuals.  In this world, a linear communication strategy that originates in Washington and broadcasted en mass to a global audience quickly become passé and out-of-touch.  To echo Bruce Gregory, the changing diplomatic landscape and new technologies urge a transformation rather than adaptation of public diplomacy strategy and practice.

Strategies, being an action plan to achieve a long-term goal, should embrace the autonomy of local actors to achieve mission goals.  This means that a strategy should enable a local PAO/IO to engage in a variety of new media as both a listener and participant.  New media tend to be hyper-relevant to current events and thoughts and change quickly.  Local public diplomacy actors need to be given autonomy to engage in those conversations without the fear of retribution. As news cycles and conversations are often on different times than Washington, it may require a local PD actor to wait up to 24 hours for a response, their comment, when cleared, may no longer be relevant.  A strategy of effectively training personnel on the ground to listen, respond in accordance with mission goals and the confidence to allow them to so is crucial to achieve a long-term goal of being relevant.

Keeping the above strategy suggestions in mind, PD actors can use different platforms to engage with different audiences in ways that are pertinent to them. For example, they can update Facebook with soft news that can compete with family photos for attention.  They can tweet hard news info bites with hashtags and handles used by their local audience.  They can blog or comment on blogs to enter a conversation or to listen.

As William Rugh explains, much of the initial practices used by public diplomacy actors under USIA have remained in place today even if their practice has adapted.  Educational exchanges, and embracing of citizen diplomacy as well as publications, magazines (electronic or hardcopy), and information were important in the mid-20^th century and remain important today. They work.

In practice, different platforms allow for different forms of engagement, but people-to-people engagement can never be completely supplanted by new medias.  Showing up, talking with people, and forming relationships can be facilitated through new medias, but are cemented face-to-face.