Comments on: A Proposed Strategy for Public Diplomacy

By: nike shox

nike shox — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:44:17 +0000

Thans for you share the article.

By: mbt sandals

mbt sandals — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 06:31:26 +0000

so cool

By: mbt sandals

mbt sandals — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 20:42:44 +0000

Thank you for your sharing.I'm very interested in it.

By: mbt shoes

mbt shoes — Mon, 10 May 2010 05:52:20 +0000

DO you like it?

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:33:11 +0000

I'm disappointed not to see a representative from the development community at the White Oaks meeting. With both the 2002 and 2006 US National Security Strategies discussing the importance of the the three “D's” — defense, diplomacy, and development — in protecting US interests, surely there is a large place for development in the US public diplomacy agenda.

The US doesn't do a good enough job of communicating our development assistance (either to Americans or to people in countries receiving that assistance). This should be an integral component of any US public diplomacy strategy or dialogue.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:33:11 +0000

By: COL (ret) Randall Stagner, USA

COL (ret) Randall Stagner, USA — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:14:26 +0000

Don't confuse US Public Diplomacy and US Government Strategic Communication (no “s”). USG Strategic Communication is an interdisciplinary, interagency process comprised of Public Diplomacy (PD), Public Affairs and Military Information Activities. It is the way that we use the informational tenet of national power in support of US goals and objectives. The failed application of the information component necessitates an over reliance on the other components (diplomatic, economic and military) often resulting in a corresponding loss in blood, treasure and prestige to compensate for this deficiency. Should the D/NSA for SC have the agencies represented in the GESC in his office, he can then be the USG's single point of contact for SC strategy and coordination. However, the Under Secretary for PD (and understand that PD is the lead agency for USG SC) must provide the lead for execution. The NSC is not an operational organization and should not become so.

COL (ret) Randall K. Stagner, USA
Raleigh, NC

By: Rob Michael

Rob Michael — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:54:58 +0000

One of the biggest mistakes the Clinton Administration made in the area of Foreign Affairs was the dis-mantling of the U.S. Information Agency, USIA, and forcing what was left of it into the U.S. Department of State. While there are those who continue to blame the late Senator Jesse Helms for the demise of USIA, the actual death sentence was issued and executed during the early years of Clinton's first term. It is interesting to note that USIA was also high on former President Jimmy Carter's list as a potential target for elimination. While one might want to examine the motives of the Carter and Clinton people for wanting to get rid of USIA it doesn't serve any useful purpose in light of the enormous, almost unprecedented challenges confronting American foreign policy in which public diplomacy professonals can play a useful if not decisive role.

I know several of the White Oak participants. I have enormous respect for their experience, knowledge, professionalism and dedication to serving the U.S. national interest. It is astounding to me, given the demonstrated need for public diplomacy professionals working at the highest levels of the foreign polciy establisment, that parochial interests, moldering prejudices and sheer inertia have managed to forestall the creation of an effective public diplomacy effort for the U.S. Government. From my perspective, the time for talk is over. The talk has gone on since the mid-90's with no useful result. We must move now to restore and re-invigorate America's ability to communicate effectively with diverse publics around the globe. The White Oak group has given us direction if not a road map that can take us there.

As for Mr. John Brown's Letterman-like list of ten reasons to oppose an effective USG public diplomacy initiative, there is nothing in his mean-spirited and snarky commentary to commend serious attention. The old canards about "useless," as a moniker for the overseas identity of USIA offices and the incredibly poor taste shown in the lame joke about dropping the "i" from "public," only underscore Mr. Brown's limitations and inability to truly understand the continuiing need for an effective public diplomacy initiative to strengthen all aspects of American foreign policy.

Robert L. Michael, FSO, USIA, retired
Williamsburg, VA 23185

By: John Brown

John Brown — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:38:12 +0000

You might be interested in my recent piece, "Ten Reasons Why We Don't Need an Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs"
http://johnbrownnotesandessays.blogspot.com/200...