CNAS Annual June Conference

Thanks to Matt Armstrong at MountainRunner for flagging the June conference for the Center for a New American Security. I’ll be there for the majority of the conference, and would encourage you to come check it out.

It will be my first time seeing Judith McHale speak. I’m looking forward to reflecting on what she has to say.

McHale Finally Nominated

Just to update from yesterday’s post criticizing the Obama administration and Secretary of State  Hillary Clinton for dragging its feet in making public its selection for Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs: Judith McHale has finally been nominated.

The Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman was the first to note it, and U.S. News and World Report has recently given it a few sentences.

So far, no major print daily has picked it up, though the announcement was made last night.

I’ve noted Marc Lynch’s early crticism of the selection (and, unfortunately for the State Department, his FP.com post has become the fundamental introduction to McHale – just Google “Judith McHale”), but I’m going to reserve judgment. I’m hopeful she’ll shine in her confirmation hearing, especially considering she’ll have had more than three months to prepare for them. I’m eager to see how she intends to incorporate the initiatives of Alec Ross with the an aggressive and sensible Public Diplomacy effort.

More will be posted as it develops.

Still Waiting, Mr. President…

Judith McHale, expected Undersecretary Nominee (Photo from State Department Web Site)

From the highest echelon of professional sports teams to the youngest recreation league, coaching and staff changes take place at an often blinding speed. Nearly every time, an interim coach is named. No professional sports team, despite their collective experience and expertise, is ever asked to call its own plays on the football field, or organize its own line changes on the ice hockey rink. And, in the few times that a firing takes place without a coach waiting in the wings, it is in the slowest stages of the sport’s off-season.

 In public diplomacy, though, as in all aspects of foreign relations and international affairs, there is no off-season, no time for anyone to rest on their laurels and step away from the task at hand. The team of Foreign Service officers and public diplomacy experts representing the United States and its values (while simultaneously discrediting the message of our enemies) has been asked to operate without an undersecretary to report to since the departure of James Glassman on January 19^th. The lack of even a public nominee, much less a scheduled confirmation hearing, says three potential things about the President and Secretary of State:

o       that Public Diplomacy is not actually a priority of the Obama administration, and that Hillary Clinton doesn’t even believe her own rhetoric about “smart power”,

o       that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton naively think that they can somehow handle public diplomacy operations on their own,

o       and/or that the President and Secretary of State cannot multi-task in their current jobs.

While whispers that Judith McHale will be tapped for the position have existed for weeks on end, the lack of a formal nomination is deeply disturbing. Something, therefore, must be done. The health and wellness of the United States’ image, credibility and security depend on a consistent and focused approach to public diplomacy, and if the President and his Secretary of State will not nominate an Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, someone within the federal government must accept that responsibility.

For this reason, it is evident that the country needs legislation that requires the chair of the senate committee relevant to the executive department to select an interim nominee to serve in the position (pending confirmation of the senate committee) for a period of sixty days if the President fails to put forth his or her own. From that point forward, if the president fails to nominate a replacement, that nominee would then be moved forward to the general senate for confirmation as the official undersecretary, deputy, or, heaven forbid, cabinet-level secretary.

Granted, the Obama vetting process has likely become more intense than any in history following a series of embarrassing retractions, and Matt Armstrong has noted that President Obama is not the first President to allow the position to go unattended. However, undersecretary positions at cabinet level positions should not be left for a more politically salient time. We need not look further than the struggles undergone in the treasury department, then wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the remarkable diplomatic pressures placed on the United States every day to know that these appointed positions are crucial to the health and wellness of the country.

If Hillary Clinton is the manager and Barack Obama the General Manager of an American baseball team, the lack of an undersecretary for PD is like not having a third-base coach. Obama can outline the goals, and Clinton can put together whatever strategy she wants, but without someone standing on the base path between third and home, no player will know how and when to execute the strategy so crucial to the success of the team. If the President won’t, then Senator Kerry must.

Contrary to Popular Belief, I Am Not Dead…

I’ve merely been trying really hard to keep up with the job, and subsequently trying to find another one. In the meantime, trying to teach myself enough coding to throw my own domain up and start marketing myself a little bit. Anyway, I’ve been spending the last few days pondering Softer Power, and there are a few posts due in the pipeline. I’ve got some things to share RE: social media, public diplomacy (including the imminent nomination of Judith McHale and the delay in nominating her), and the possible end of newspapers.

There’s a lot to write, and much to share.

In the meantime, check out this video by Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros, the band I’ve declared my new favorite.

Heritage Can Do Better Than This

On “The Foundry,” Heritage’s blog of anything political and societal, Theodore Bromund denounces many, many things in his brief blog post, oh-so-cleverly titled “dumb power.”

His qualms?

- The Marshall Plan:

Calls for ‘a new Marshall Plan,’ for example, are invariably made by people who know absolutely nothing about the original one.

- The BBC and the British Council:

Both of these are, of course, impeccably liberal-left organizations. The BBC never has a kind word to say about conservatives or Israel, and the Council focuses on programs promoting “English for Peace” and recognizing “Climate Change Champions.”

- Liberals (especially Hillary Clinton)

But this isn’t about relations between countries. It’s about relations between governments – in particular, between dictatorial and democratic ones. The more the ‘smart power’ advocates evade that reality, the more the world’s dictators will make them look dumb.

I find myself more than a little frustrated by this blog post. My response:

Your criticisms seem much more leveled at “soft power,” and the sort of public diplomacy of culture, news, and information advocated by Joseph Nye and others, but few legitimate diplomatic practitioners or scholars are advocating for an exclusive policy of conversation, information, and culture. THAT would be dumb power.

Hillary’s talk of “smart power” conspicuously avoids committing exclusively (or even mostly) to this feel-good type of diplomacy, and, if anything, indications are that she considers the coercive diplomacy of the Bush Administration to be a legitimate strategy (however to a lesser extent). If she was really dedicated to what you call “dumb power,” we’d have a nominee for Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs already. She has other things on her mind.

Criticizing the British Council is valid, as is criticizing liberals and Hillary Clinton. Uniting all of these rants under the argument that we must dismiss the idea of “smart power”?

I’m afraid the pot might be calling the kettle black on this one.

Your thoughts?

GW Basketball: Comment on Karl Hobbs

I had the opportunity to speak to Coach Karl Hobbs last week about the state of the GW Men’s Basketball team. The following is the transcript of my special comment on Box Out! Jordan Teller’s weekly sports talk show on WRGW, GW’s student radio station (who I will continue to work with until the end of this academic year):

                It was only after I turned off my recorder that Karl Hobbs began to truly open up about GW Basketball. While Assistant Coach Greg Collucci fired pass after pass to Noel Wlimore who took dozens, if not a hundred, three point shots, the beleaguered GW Men’s Basketball Coach sat and watched. Arms folded, wearing a pair of sneakers, a pair of GW Basketball shorts, a long sleeved t-shirt, and unshaven stubble revealing a surprising amount of gray, Hobbs watched intently as Wilmore knocked down shot after shot, and lost interest when Wilmore started to go cold. Sitting next to him, I tried to understand what was really going through the mind of the man who these days seems like the most resented man in Foggy Bottom.

                Moments later, he told me.

                Hobbs is a coach straddling two realms – pragmatism and principle. On one hand, reality, in the form of failures of vetting character and basketball potential in recruits and the subpar facilities and budget offered by the university. On the other, an idealistic belief that KarlHobbs the basketball coach should have the commitments of fans in the seats, positive vibes on message boards like gwhoops.com, and the donations of alumni in the bag. Lacking the chartered jets and big arenas enjoyed by Xavier, Dayton, St. Louis and many others both in the Atlantic 10 and around the country, Hobbs believes that GW has no place expecting to beat teams on the court if they are losing so badly off of it. Coaching can only go so far, he says. These frustrations are further complicated, he says, by the fact that many competing schools’ admissions standards are nothing compared to the academic requirements put on recruits at GW. Other schools will take anyone from any junior college or prep school, but GW has much more stringent requirements for who can gain entry.

                His frustrations are real. What five-star recruit wants to play in a still-unrenovated and generally empty Smith Center? Why choose GW over the BCS conferences or the at least half-dozen Atlantic 10 schools? In an interview with him two years ago, he told me that he was the reason that basketball players would come to GWU. They’re not coming here for the Elliott School or for internship opportunities. When he was a freshman, Damian Hollis told me, “All I need are my shoes, my socks, and a basketball, and I’m happy.” As a junior, he hasn’t found many teammates with the same standards, and these days he doesn’t seem so happy either.

                Life in that middle ground between resenting what should be, but isn’t, and accepting what can’t be allows for a multitude of excuses. In the preceding interview, Coach Hobbs said his biggest weakness as a game coach was the lack of a marquee player. If there was a marquee player who you knew you could trust with the last shot in a close game, GW could very well be 3-2 in conference play. The argument is both accurate and mystifying. To say that recruiting needs to be better shrouds questions about the use of time-outs, the reliance on Johnny Lee, and the regressing play of Damian Hollis, Hermann Opoku, and Travis King. Coach Hobbs specifically said in our discussion that the Colonials’ non-BCS record is a testament to the team’s success. Under what circumstances are we allowed to analyze the BCS record as an indicator of success or failure? When the locker room looks better? When the bus to Duquesne is replaced by a chartered flight from National Airport? Or, is it when the team can beat those teams?

                Perhaps we should be more sympathetic to Coach Hobbs. He benefitted from a weak Atlantic 10 in the 2005-2006 season, getting arguably lucky with the mental toughness, composure, and dedication of a core group of players who got better every year and gave the Buff and Blue faithful a 27-3 season. Perhaps we should be more understanding of the fact the success he enjoyed was more luck than skill. Phil Martelli has not gone undefeated since Jameer Nelson and Delonte West went to the NBA, and George Mason is struggling to win in the Colonial Athletic Association conference, much less thinking about the Final Four. Fans thought somehow that the GW men would not only repeat their success, but get better the following year. Though Karl Hobbs warned everyone that his men were overachieving, we all though that HobbsMagic was a long-term spell.

                Departures, underachieving, and injuries have made Hobbs Magic now feel like some kind of curse, and fans, students, and administrators are left wondering what to expect of GW basketball. Should the Colonials be a consistent NCAA tournament team? Should they regularly try to merely have a winning season? Weak schedules, seemingly bi-polar records, and a coach who remains tight-lipped at the sight of a pen or tape recorder leave all of us unsure.

From my conversation, though, I do know that Hobbs is both confident and hopeful about the seasons to come.  I do know that he expects a winning season, and he expects to not lose to Coppin State and Longwood again. He expects his team to be in the top half of the Atlantic 10 consistently. I also know that he’s planning on making himself at least a little more available to students to encourage them to give the team another chance and offer much-needed support for upcoming home games.

                “Coach,” I pleaded with him, “if you even told the media and fans half of what we’re talking about right now, the environment around here would be totally different.”

                That’s just not who Karl Hobbs is, and that’s not how he operates. Only time will tell if his strategy of keeping things close to the vest will pay off, or if his few remaining advocates will give up and walk away. The most resented man in Foggy Bottom may soon become the loneliest, and I think that suits Karl Hobbs just fine.

I will post the link to the audio of the interview this weekend.

An Ideal World (On Screen)

 

James Glassman at the Virtual Newsroom of the American University at Cairo

 

 

Today, I took a look at Digital Diplomacy: Understanding Islam Through Virtual Worlds today, written by Rita J. King and Joshua S. Fouts of Dancing Ink Productions for the Carnegie Council. Their article was the result of a year-long study analyzing the role that Second Life can play in the realm of Public Diplomacy.

Much has been made of James Glassman’s Second Life discussion (at least by him and not so much by the media, I’ve noted) as a way of engaging foreign audiences and presenting a new perspective on the United States. At the time, I neverr bought into it, noting that it was things like Facebook and Myspace that had a larger share of digital audiences. Turns out, that may have been a bit of ethnocentrism on my part. According to Wagner James Au, who maintains the “New World Notes” blog on the Second Life “metaverse,” the number of consistent users could be all over the place this year:

Some think the user growth plateau of 500K will continue, or even decline into outright loss; others see the usage base growing even past a million.  Here’s two data points to consider:Sales of laptop PCs now greatly exceed sales of desktop computers, which are in steep decline.  (And since laptops aren’t usually sold with robust 3D graphics power, which Second Life requires, the potential market will shrink.)  On the other side, tech insiders believe the incoming Obama administration will earmark billions to expand broadband penetration in the US. (Which will also grow the potential market for SL.)  How will that change the user base for the metaverse?

The role that second life plays worldwide is evidently not something that many Americans truly understand. (I should take moment to give Professor Bruce Gregory at George Washington’s School of Media and Public Affairs and former head of the Public Diplomacy Institute a bit of credit here, considering he lectured about Second Life and I thought he was out of his mind.) However, the user base is global, diverse, and open-minded. The use of avatars, alter-egos that allow a person to create their own identity and reality is more than just a method of escapisim. It allows people to have conversations with people they would otherwise not be able to speak to, ask questions that they would otherwise be ashamed of discussing, and to learn directly from the experiences of individual citizens instead of relying upon the words of information gatekeepers of certain motives.

Returning to Glassman and his consistent discussion of “Public Diplomacy 2.0″ (referred to by King and Fouts as “digital diplomacy”), there is a unique opportunity for the democritization of information through Second Life and many other social networking platforms. Glassman’s interviewers did not need a press pass or a security screening, and were able to ask him about the mission and values of the United States. Now, it’s coverage in media worldwide is scant, and it appears to have been organized at least in part by the authors of the paper I’m discussing, so it’s important to be mindful of motives and potential exaggerations.

Anyway, asking Ambassador Glassman questions as a representative of the United States Government can only go so far. What is most important is the opportunity to explore the world as foreign publics see it, and speak to them and create new perspectives. It is nearly impossible to speak to people in the real world like this logistically, and there are people on both American and Middle Eastern sides who would want to serve as a barrier to this kind of direct contact. Second Life serves instead as perhaps the safest, most personal, and most impactful (you can even be asked to take your shoes off in a user’s mosque, King and Fouts note) way of understanding the world that we can only see on paper or on screen. Pixels may in fact be the best view we have.

Please feel absolutely free ot share your own Second Life experiences and avatars. I think I might create mine tomorrow.

Media As Global Diplomat

Today, the Newseum hosted a remarkable day of panels and discussion on the “Media as Global Diplomat.” It was organized by the United States Institute of Peace, and contained some highly qualified men and women representing non-profit charitable organizations, the mainstream media (and Al Jazeera), and government. Major comments were delivered by Ambassador James Glassman, whose “valedictory address” at The George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs I will review later in the week. It’s been some time since he gave his speech, but it still remains important to consider.

I was unable to attend the event, but followed it as closely as I could via the audio from the web cast, and through the Twitter feed. I can’t speak to the keynote address or to the film that was shown, but I will take a few minutes to discuss the media panel, and the general understanding of what media can do as a global diplomat.

I had the opportunity to listen in on a panel that discussed the way in which global media can and does serve as an envoy on behalf of the United States. Keep in mind that to be a diplomat does not necessarily mean that a certain party is engaging in behavior that will improve an audience’s opinion of the people that he/she represents. Instead, they need only shape impressions and serve as a resource for developing an opinion.

Steve Sanford, who attended the conference and wrote a useful recap, notes that moderator Ted Koppel doesn’t necessarily share that opinion of the media’s role as global diplomat:

Ted Koppel, ever the devil’s advocate, prodded the panel into motion by proffering his own definition: that public diplomacy is “an oxymoron.” He said that publics are involved in many things, but “diplomacy” is never one of them. This yielded up a variety of working definitions of PD from the panel.

Koppel regularly noted a “cynic’s” definition of media, citing that the media cared almost exclusively about revenue streams and profits rather than acting on behalf of the United States. However, every time that a foreigner is looking at www.nytimes.com, watching American movies at home, or reading someone else’s magazine, they are acting as a very public diplomat.

With that understood, let us give credit to the representative from Viacom, who noted the importance and impact of MTV around the world. Rather than exporting shows like The Hills abroad, MTV worldwide should be commended  for its cultivation and celebration of artists in the regions that they broadcast. This respect and development of local talent illustrates an American willingness to legitimize global music and culture. Koppel can call it the pursuit of profit, and accountants can call it a good business model, but good business and good diplomacy do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Discussion of the Arab media model, specifically in television, reflect the seemingly impossible challenge of private corporations playing a significant role in the Middle East. Middle Eastern media were described as the “vanity projects” of wealthy businessmen, hemorrhaging money and existing for the sake of existing. In a capitalist media model, there is no clear reason to attempt to make major inroads in the medium of television. 

Public television (in more of BBC and PBS model than perhaps the Al Hurra model) may be the only way to have media serve as a global diplomat on the Arab television. If that’s the case, we’re going to have to get better.

From my observations, little discussion was really made of the “New” media. It seems evident that the digital divide is impacting Americans domestically and abroad, and with the multitude of opportunities to reach audiences, much of private media is scratching its head and wondering how it should move forward, especially in an environment where it is so hard to remain viable at home. Of course, watching Bam Margera fly a kite attached to anal beads on Jackass, it might be better off that American media stays out of the diplomacy game.

If you did attend the event, please be sure to add comments, or post links to your twitter feeds and blogs to give readers a better sense of what happened. I’ll update this post with links as I find them.

Super Bowl and the Snack Bowl

Before we all witnessed the second greatest fourth-quarter in Super Bowl history (or at least the relatively few Super Bowls that I’ve witnessed), Jordan (he’d kill me if I didn’t reference his DJ name DJ0T), my old roommate and good friend, and I constructed what we hoped would be the greatest snack food stadium ever built.

The idea was stolen from Holy Taco, and the decision was made to compete against Marc Abanto and his roommate in the ultimate competition.

This is what we came up with:

You can see Marc and Endrit’s stadium and vote (for “The Snack Bowl”) at his blog, Marc’s GChat Status Explained.

We’ve gotten props from Holy Taco, and rumor is that a free t-shirt is on the way. Voting will continue until Sunday. Help us out!

Judith McHale – New Undersecretary for PD?

Little has been made of the potential naming of Judith McHale to the role of Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy at the State Department in the last week. Perhaps it’s because only Al Kamen has heard inklings of it, and no nominee has been sent to the Senate. Whatever it is, media coverage has been scant in the wake of issues with Tom Daschle, Timothy Geitner, and other things that have dominated the media’s attention.

Matt Armstrong, a noted public diplomacy analyst and writer of the Mountain Runner blog, has written an impressive job description of what it means to be Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs:

The Under Secretary, the equivalent to a four-star general, must be the leader of the Government’s “influence enterprise” and must work closely with the Secretary of State to restructure and refocus the State Department to educate, empower, equip, and encourage the abilities of what amounts to a “Department of Non-State” within the Department of State. Organized and focused on bilateral relationships between countries, the State Department’s operational paradigm is out of step with today’s global requirements. We can neither afford the time to recreate a separate agency nor should we try. The State Department must adapt to the modern era and be capable of interfacing with everyone from heads of state to stateless persons lest the State Department become completely irrelevant.

It’s difficult to align Armstrong’s job description with McHale’s past efforts. Her ability to market the Discovery Channel is unquestioned, and her work with an African non-profit organization is respectable, but the nature of her employment history concerns me a great deal about what we’re to expect from Ms. McHale. That’s not to say that she’s done anything wrong, but it is to say that the position of Undersecretary for PD needs to be of a certain high quality and pedigree.

The work of past Undersecretaries and chairs of the BBG have been underwhelming. While I respect the work of Karen Hughes to make the role of Undersecretary for PD relevant (by nature of her relationship with the President instead of her PD prowess), and the work of Jim Glassman is probably impossible to audit given his limited time in the position, the overall public diplomacy strategy of the United States since 9/11 has lacked the focus, commitment, and approach needed to develop a world environment that promotes both communication and understanding.

Why resent McHale when I know relatively little about her? Marc Lynch of George Washington’s Elliott School of International Affairs and of Foreign Policy magazine offers an excellent starting point for why Secretary Clinton would do well to find someone else:

I don’t know Judith McHale at all, and obviously have nothing against her personally. But the position of Under-Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs should go to someone with experience in and a vision for public diplomacy, and who will be in a position to effectively integrate public diplomacy concerns into the policy-making process. Appointing someone with no experience in public diplomacy but with a resume which “involves selling a message” has already been tried: the first post-9/11 Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Charlotte Beers, whose tenure lasted only 17 months (October 2001-March 2003), focused on “branding” America through television advertising showing happy Muslim-Americans, and is generally considered to be an utter failure.

Lynch is probably a little too strong in his rhetoric concerning McHale. Calling her a “terrible, terrible” selection does not give her enough credit for her work with GEF/Africa and the respect she has been given for promoting democracy, but I completely agree iwth the gist of the argument.

Al Kamen’s reference to McHale as “mega-donor” is cause for hesitation enough. It’s unrealistic to ask for nepotism to be removed from politics, and it’s also hard to prioritize what political appointments should be reserved for donors and political friends (see: FEMA), but the stakes in public diplomacy are simply too high.

According to Kamen, “Her résumé doesn’t reflect an excess of diplomatic experience, but we’re reminded that this is a job that involves selling a message.” One of the keys to public diplomacy is understanding that this is not all a sales game, and we as Americans would do well to stop the reliance on audience ratings as a measure of success in International Broadcasting, and to stop using marketing strategies to make foreign audiences buy into the intellectual commodity of United States values, culture, and behavior.

We’re not selling soap here, tweaking our message to people just waiting to be convinced that we can make them the cleanest and sweetest-smelling. We’re supposed to be sharing the soaps, synthesizing them, and trying to show that while our soap might not be for your regular bath, it’s a good kind, and worth using from time to time.

A strategy of collaboration and exchange will not give the short-term results that we crave. This is a long term effort, and our Undersecretary for PD needs to display both the patience and conviction to serve as the face and inter-agency advocate for this crucial effort. Judith McHale will have a hard time convincing me that she can do a better job than any foreign service officer, PD scholar, or individual whose career success was not dictated by ratings shares and revenues, but by learning and compromise.