Ever notice who is talking about soft power? No, who really talks about it in a real, reasonable, and strategic sense. This means we're excluding talk about how we share values, all love Big Macs, can drive cross country, anything like that. I'm talking about how to really use soft power, the power of communication to persuade when it counts: in this Long War.
I find it interesting that Max Boot writes about recreating USIA and rebuilding USAID. Former SecDef Rumsfeld used to regularly (it seemed) field questions on USIA. A book titled Losing Hearts and Minds comes not from State, USIA, or other soft power groupie, but a professor at the Naval War College. Further, IISS's 2007 Military Balance looks seriously at soft power, as does the new Army doctrine on counterinsurgency.
Where's State in this? Seemingly lead by someone not on the same page, perhaps someone who is doing a heck of a job, and uncomfortable operating outside of his or her comfort zone.
While USIA alum would be quick to agree with the need to recreate the agency, splitting it out from State, are they in positions to facilitate this? No, not really.
Public diplomacy is dead until 2008 is correct in the proper sense. It is (officially) State that conducts public diplomacy and, yes that horse has been flogged and flogged again. Thankfully, I suppose, public diplomacy as practiced by DoD (called IO, PsyWar, public affairs) is alive and well. At least somebody's working listening and communicating.
(sidenote: wouldn't it be nice if State's countering misinformation desk had more than one person? Right, it's a budget thing and not a priority because who are really is self-evident, right?)
Comments (3)
I think it is understandable, though highly disadvantageous to the U.S., that neither DoD nor State is very good at public diplomacy. I mean, each of these depts was set up to address a particular "audience" with a particular set of tools.
DoD is designed to destroy enemy combatants and intimidate governments. State is designed to frame issues and discussion for policy-makers and governments, what we might call "official diplomats." Neither really has any tools or strategy for dealing with foreign (whether enemy or not) civilians.
This is, of course, the role of public diplomacy -- to address foreign civilians, as opposed to foreign officials (be the govt. policymakers or military actors/soldiers). When we talk about Big Macs and what not, this does fit into PD, but it still misses a key point. Big Macs and Hollywood address the right audience for PD -- foreign civilians -- but they come from a different speaker -- U.S. civilians. There appears to be NO organization which addresses foreign civilians from an official U.S. govt. capacity.
Yet, in this modern age of media access and delicate balances of political accountability negotiated via heterogeneuous networks of government and non-government actors, this is obviously something the U.S. needs to do. I think either DoD or State could administer it at some level, but neither will be effective unless they understand this fundamental difference between what they "normally" do and what PD really does.
Posted by Drew Margolin | February 3, 2007 1:16 PM
Posted on February 3, 2007 13:16
MA & DM-
Who talks about 'soft power'? Not enough people talk about soft power. And the few that do don't usually get it right. The State Department has it's 'discourse' on public diplomacy and soft power; the ex-USIA people talk about it in their own way, the military posseses its own language and conceptions.
Alas, they are like blind men and the elephant, each with a partial touch of the whole animal. And very few talk about 'Smart Power", the point of this blog.
A modest proposal -it should be everybody's resposnsibility to learn (i.e. to be taught)a common understanding of soft power/smart power.
At the service academies, at the NDU, at the Foreign Service Institute, etc.
"Smart Power Is Everybody's Responsibility"
Anonymous
Maybe its like the reverse of the maxim about the weather -
Posted by ernest | February 4, 2007 8:09 AM
Posted on February 4, 2007 08:09
The first problem with the current US Administration is that the key players in Public Diplomacy, Rice and Hughes, are from the inner circle of the Bush Neo-Fascists who conned the US public in invading Iraq, weapons of Mass Destruction, and every other lie used to extend the Military-Industrial Complex President Eisenhower warned us against. It’s like having a convicted Pedophile talking about promoting a Kindergarten project.
The skill of President Reagan in developing global public diplomacy to fight the Soviet Union was that he used neutral players who could be seen as “Honest Brokers” and accepted around the world. Find me anyone who trusts either Rice, or Hughes, and then there are Beers and Tutwiller.
But as long as we allow the decision makers in the Administration to have a highly lucrative personal stake in their decisions, Cheney and Haliburton is a good example, then short term profit and greed will trump long term gains for the country, it’s businesses and the prosperity of the people.
Corporate Diplomacy is the way ahead for developing the perceptions of the public, leaving Public Diplomacy between Nation States and Terrorist organizations. Hard, or military diplomacy will end when they miscalculate a potential adversary and repeat Korea and Vietnam. That may happen sooner than later with Iran. Then “Soft” diplomacy is all we have. http://www.ComLinks.com
Posted by Alan J Simpson | February 12, 2007 8:52 AM
Posted on February 12, 2007 08:52