 |
Where in the world are the public diplomats? |
 |
I told the DOS I’d give their blog another shot, and today, I might actually have something good to say about a recent post…kind of…
Writing about her recent trip to Budapest, Hungary, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Colleen Graffy answers the question “What is public diplomacy” with the following:
I describe public diplomacy the art of communicating a country’s policies, values and culture to other peoples. It is an attempt to explain why we have decided on certain measures, and beyond that, to explain who we are.
Graffy goes on to discuss some of the many ways in which public diplomacy works in Budapest and in general, but while the work of diplomats like Graffy is integral to developing and maintaining strong (positive) foreign relations, it seldom appears in the (mainstream) media. Instead, the media covers Condoleezza Rice’s trips to the Middle East, Negroponte’s visit to Pakistan, etc. The media gives preference to State Department efforts is troubled or problematic regions, focusing on the negative rather than the positive.
In the past, I have ridiculed the DOS blog for the attention it gives to inane personal details, detailing the trips of certain staffers, but with this post, the State Department may be approaching a niche in information dissemination it can profitably serve. When cultural exchanges like those taking place in Hungary aren’t worthy of the mainstream media’s attention, the Department’s blog can fill the gap by providing the public with coverage of the positive aspects of State Department work.
Having said that, I now must criticize the Department of State for failing to use forms of public diplomacy in other scenarios. Efforts to build ties with the people of Hungary seem long overdue. If the U.S. cared about its relations with Hungary, it would’ve sent a high-level official to see the country’s cultural treasures over a decade ago, when post-Soviet Hungary was just beginning to get up on its feet. Now is not the time for building programs in Hungary, now is the time to be building programs elsewhere in the world, where cultural ties and understanding are on particularly troubled terms (think: the Middle East).
Public diplomacy–for the purposes of explaining current U.S. policy and creating ties to other countries and communities–can be a powerful tool in our foreign policy arsenal, and yet the Department of State and the administration seem all to willing to forego conversation, dialog, and discussion in exchange for silence and sanctions. If public diplomacy can paint a better image of our nation, its leadership, and decision-making, why isn’t the State Department sending an army of diplomats to places like Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere in the world to explain U.S. policy and listen to local concerns?
i cannot really agree. and i don’t think colleen graffy has a very clear grasp of what diplomacy is if she defines it as “the art of communicating a country’s policies, values and culture to other peoples [and to] explain why we have decided on certain measures.” certainly this consitutes an important, indeed a vital, part of diplomacy, but leaving it at that basically negates the entire enterprise. diplomacy is not just the communication of a country’s policies after they have been decided upon, but the development of those policies in relation to and in political dialogue with other countries toward which those policies are purportedly aimed.
should thus be considered something of a scam. diplomacy shouldn’t ‘explain’ u.s. policy, but rather occupy a central role in the policy-making process. in other words, diplomacy is, or should be understood as being, inherently endogenous to politics, especially, of course, foreign policy. it is not something that serves to embellish politics a posteriori. because diplomacy should figure prominently in decision-making, i cannot consider it desirable that
i have a strong suspicion that this view of diplomacy, apparently held by certain diplomats themselves, is fundamentally flawed.
Caspar, I actually think you and I would agree more than you imagine on the basis of this post. My problems with Colleen Graffy’s recent trip to Hungary is that I would rather see her efforts aimed at a more critical country where our military efforts might be currently directed but not our diplomatic efforts. For instance, how much time has the United States actually spent listening to the needs of people in Afghanistan before embarking upon development?
Contrary to the one-way process of explanation you’ve picked up on (language which I borrowed form Graffy), I would like to see more discourse and dialog (i.e., two-way communication) between countries rather than the one-way process that tends to dominate these days. Perhaps I did not articulate that point clearly.