Feb
23

Public Diplomacy for AWESOME People… the Du4 Way!

I am extremely honored that Dr. Craig Hayden has invited me to speak to his public diplomacy class at American University Thursday evening this week. I met Craig through shared colleagues at the MountainRunner Institute, and we have since collaborated on a number of things. He’s a great dude, loves beer, and I thought it would be cool to throw up a landing post for me, him, his class, and anyone else who gets PO’d by the sure-to-incense incendiary fire that will come burbling out of my Macallan-addled lips Thursday night.

I have a love-hate relationship with public diplomacy. Coming from a background in the Department of Defense, I did not understand the peculiar delineation between PD and other forms of government communication and influence until my own graduate work at Johns Hopkins. Upon discovering the very simple definition that PD involves a government’s communications directly to foreign governments’ citizens (and thus bypassing that foreign government), I became instantly enamored of the idea. After all, in DOD, when you “communicate” with a foreign population, you’re usually dropping a bunch of comic strips from the sky written so badly that the recipients think all Americans really are retarded.

My work generally involved finding ways to improve the U.S. government’s communication capability, be it PD, public affairs, IO/PSYOP, or other means. One of my mentors, the late Jeffrey B. Jones, called all of these disciplines strategic communication, a term that has since entered the DOD lexicon and gone on to confuse and infuriate virtually everyone else in government. If DOD does one thing well, it defines its doctrine exhaustively, and an integrated communication and influence doctrine is something our government has needed for a long time. I became a fan of Jeff’s definition from the get-go, and I proceeded to execute my work under such a fashion.

This is how it feels like working in public diplomacy EVERY DAY.

How does this affect public diplomacy? Well, aside from all the other problems in the U.S. national security apparatus, PD practitioners have been almost historically kicked in the ass by said interagency apparatus. Since the U.S. Information Agency – the premier public diplomacy institution of the Cold War – was folded up into the State Department by the Clinton Administration, PD has been regarded as a largely unnecessary, unneeded career field.

However, some of the brightest information warriors I have ever met have come from PD backgrounds. Some still serve the State Department. But they are a dying breed, and State is not adapting fast enough to the 21st century to train, educate, and deploy PD officers of the future. Many communication and diplomacy experts have even called for the dissolution of the public diplomacy career field, arguing that others do it better in today’s day and age.

I come down on this issue very simply: communication is influence. Period. Call it public diplomacy. Call it public affairs. Call it public relations. Call it fuck all, I don’t care. It’s all the same shit and these penny-ante fights government gets into over who owns influence planning and execution are mere dick measuring exercises to protect budgets and retain standing within our own ranks. If any of us PD “professionals” had a whit about us, we would (re)read Unrestricted Warfare by Senior Col Qiao Liang and Senior Col Wang Xiangsui and understand that global communication, global influence, requires the strategic, national integration of ALL government branches and agencies and their communications initiatives. It requires, to borrow an analogy, for America to conduct herself as a composer would an orchestra, creating multitudes of musical movements that all combine into one big, beautiful symphony.

If you’re a student in Craig’s class, drop me a line in the comments. Send questions, concerns, or even challenges, and I promise to answer them to the best of my ability in class on Thursday.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Be Sociable, Share!

  • http://twitoaster.com/du4/ Du4

    Public Diplomacy for AWESOME People… the Du4 Way! now on mustbeawesome.com – via #twitoaster http://www.mustbeawesome.com/2011/02/pub…

  • Not Tellingyou

    Your description of “all national branches” making up a “big, beautiful symphony” is as naive a fantasy as I’ve heard — and one typical of information warfare types. The United States is too big and diverse to act out its propaganda.
    - USIA veteran

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Public Diplomacy for AWESOME People... the Du4 Way! | Must. Be. AWESOME!!! -- Topsy.com

  • http://manic-lm.blogspot.com Laura McG

    Call me a sucker, but I liked the symphony analogy. That said, isn’t there a risk of tainting the message (in the perception of some recipients) if all communication is seen as a coordinated government effort? In cases where there’s a discrepancy between U.S. communication and U.S. action, there’s something to be said for distance. The recent Masrawy.com conversation, for example, might have invited less skepticism has Sec. Clinton not been behind it.

    Looking forward to class tonight.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think it’s naive at all, NotTellingYou, but I -do- think your defeatist interpretation of an integrated national communication apparatus is lame. Strategically, our government should be seeking out ways to CONNECT all disciplines within our influence arsenal, not disambiguate them because of weak-ass excuses like “It’s too hard!” or “The interagency cultures won’t mix!” Bullshit. I demand my taxes be spent BETTER.

  • Anonymous

    Laura, there is DEFINITELY that risk. However, we only mitigate risks in the execution of a particular discipline by GETTING BETTER AT THAT DISCIPLINE. That means training and education. Presently, we do not even offer top-notch training and continuing education within each of the varied silos of PD and SC, to say nothing of an interagency pedigree or standard.

    Personally, I don’t have a problem with my government speaking with one voice as long as the MESSAGE is credible. That takes a lot of coordination, a lot of discipline, and a STRATEGY, however, to articulate and manage properly. No one has ever, EVER, published a national U.S. strategy for its integrated communication, influence, and engagement with the world… and that is a problem in this day and age.

  • Laura Lrtig

    Like the double face palm, can identify with it. I also have to say as someone who just left a certain govt. agency and worked for politicos that carried out their public diplomacy efforts day-to-day in a knee-jerk reaction style and on the fly, there was little or no strategic, orchestrated or advance planning in their communications efforts, and the folks who really wanted to understand their leaders’ vision were SOL. I don’t think it’s asking too much to stop simply being reactive but to actually try to be out in front in a disciplined way whenever and wherever possible. Better use of tax dollars AND wouldn’t waste public servants’ time. But then having politicos in many PD positions throughout government is a whole other can o’ worms!

  • Melissa M

    I find the fact that the disregard of PD by the State Department to be irrelevant is one of the biggest problems facing our government that it itself doesn’t seem to realize. Communication is influence, like you said. And someone trying to argue otherwise is ignorant. For our government to work collectively on communication initiatives…it will have to finally put value (and therefore power) in communication.

  • Du4

    That’s a good observation, Laura: political appointees are almost NEVER well-qualified to develop strategy for and coordinate communication initiatives. Our current PD undersecretary of state, for example, was a former CEO for Discovery Communications. What about that experience qualified her for a political appointment in PD?

    I’m not sure what the answer is to creating, instituting, and qualifying on a sole pedigree of training & education for communication professionals, in and OUT of government. But I know we need one. The answer is NOT PR certs either as we found out with Charlotte Beers and Karen Hughes. Such education & experience is certainly part of the overall goal, I think, but ultimately not the sole requirement.

  • Lisa M.

    Given the views discussed here, do you think there is potential awesome-ness to be had through encouraging private actors to coordinate based on shared goals and values in an effort to further US national interests? Or, should we develop a “USA World Trust”? I guess my real struggle is where do www want to be on the scale of government association, in order to create the most effective, credible, and flexible public diplomacy strategy?
    -Lisa M.

  • Geoff B.

    I think the Symphony analogy holds true. the US government is pretty bad at coordinating all of its branches at once, and that stems from the often competitive nature of our political system. With this in mind, is the idea of a revamped “Department of Public Diplomacy,” whether in the State Department or separate, feasible? In another vein, how can the government utilize social media and individual citizens as “ambassadors” for the US? Twitter, Facebook, etc. have been in the media spotlight of numerous revolutions and protests recently, and I’m sure the USG has given their use some consideration.

  • Lena

    Tend to agree. But inevitably, there’s the question: what about all the “networking” talk? Should there be one, or should the good old-and-proven mode of “messaging” rule the day? I’m ambivalent about both: I see where the reasoning behind the former comes from, but then it seems like all the others in the world go with the well-walked path and seem to be expecting the same.
    Yet, you’re so right in terms of credibility. THAT is the issue, and not the medium (since the latter does not automatically guarantee credibility).

  • Meg

    It’s also important to define what is meant by “coordinated” and “one-voice” approaches re government communicatons. The Federal Government and its collective missions are by definition diverse. Too many times communications can be stalled by interpreting the idea of a coordinated effort very narrowly. This can lead to a “message of the day” mentality, which defeats the purpose – funneling communications back to a trickle with even more layers of approval rather than allowing for a flexible enough framework where staff are empowered to proactively reach out and interact with others as SMEs regarding their areas of expertise.

  • Anonymous

    I’m ambivalent on the “World Trust” concept. I like the idea of a funding mechanism for communication innovation, but we have to reform the acquisition system first. It’s just too hard for small and medium sized business (to say nothing of individuals and NGOs) to apply for a government grant or contract. A better idea would be to empower a YCombinator-type organization in the private sector with quasi governmental coordination/makeup, essentially using the best parts of the tech VC/investing community to rapidly start up and scale projects and ideas into sustainable businesses and/or nonprofits. Even achieving this, however, would require a national strategy for communication and/or influence (former NSC folks called it P2, BTW- “Persuasion & Perception”) that detailed U.S. themes, objectives, and goals, all of which would be needed by a private sector funding mechanism of this type for guidance.

    The more I think about it though, the more I prefer the social power of individual citizens and private sector organizations making these things happen on their own. Government goals and themes will change with administrations but look how well a theme like “Don’t be evil” has worked out for Google.

  • Pingback: Is “Public Diplomacy” really Diplomacy or a Form of Marketing to an International Audience? « REFLECTIVE DIPLOMAT

Random Posts