From Monologue to Dialogue?: U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Post-9/11 Era

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

From Monologue to Dialogue?: U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Post-9/11 Era From Monologue to Dialogue?: U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Post-9/11 Era John Robert Kelley Department of International Relations London School of Economics and Political Science Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by the University of London 2007 UMI Number: U615654 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615654 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 STATEMENT OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY I certify that the thesis presented by me in 2007 for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the University of London is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others, and that the extent of any work carried out jointly by myself and any other person is clearly identified in it. Signed ^ (I \Miuy John Robert Kelley 3 August 2007 2 iritish Library of Political ABSTRACT In comparing a considerable amount of the reportage, analysis and candor preceding this study, there is one conclusion that virtually all evaluations on United States public diplomacy after September 2001 would agree on: the consolidated efforts of the U.S. government to inform, influence and engage with foreign publics in pursuit of its national interest are deeply flawed. This gloomy outlook is borne out by identified deficiencies in strategy, coordination and organization, which have furthermore attracted intense scrutiny in response to opinion polls showing consistently low favorability towards the United States by foreign populations. A wide range of observers has drawn attention to various aspects of the overall diagnosis, and consequently formed an active segment of the general scholarship on public diplomacy. What enriches the discussion on the U.S. case is when the focus turns to positing solutions, as the ensuing debate invokes historical, theoretical and futuristic perspectives on the processes, roles, and activities considered within public diplomacy’s scope. This study isolates two broad explanations for the failure of post-9/11 U.S. public diplomacy. The advocacy model represents the American public diplomacy ‘tradition’ of campaign style, one-way information flows, while the advisory model represents a two-way, ‘dialogic’ mode that has been championed by proponents of the ‘new’ public diplomacy. This study views American public diplomacy as situated at a crossroads as it solves the riddles of its failures - to further embrace tradition or adopt a new path. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Statement of Academic Integrity............................................................................................. 2 Abstract 3 Table of Contents ................. 4 List of Tables............................................................................................................. 5 Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................6 Introduction ......................................................................................................................10 Research Structure.............................................. 15 CHAPTER 1: A New Era for U.S. Public Diplomacy.....................................................21 1.1 Foreign Policy and the Public..................................................................... 23 1.2 The Information Catalyst.............................................................................24 1.3 Conversations with the W orld .................................................................... 25 1.4 A New Era for U.S. Public Diplomacy.......................................................27 1.5 Post 9-11 Criticisms of U.S. Public Diplomacy........................................31 1.6 Foreign Policy and Public Opinion .............................................................34 1.7 Theory of Soft Power: Attraction over Coercion .......................................39 1.8 Between the Tradition and the Future of U.S. Public Diplomacy .............43 1.9 Toward a Theory of Public Diplomacy and Foreign Policy.....................47 CHAPTER 2: Understanding Public Diplomacy ............................................................... 50 2.1 Models and Approaches ...............................................................................52 2.2 Public Diplomacy Dimensions................................................................... 61 2.3 U.S. Public Diplomacy Institutions............................................................73 CHAPTER 3: The Decline of U.S. Public Diplomacy, 1991-2001..................................81 3.1 Power Transitions and Changes in the American Foreign Affairs Institutions ....................................................................................................84 3.2 Anatomy of a Decline..................................................................................89 3.3 Fighting for Survival, 1991 to 1995............................................................93 3.4 The Final Years of USIA, 1996-1998 .......................................................102 3.5 Relocation into the State Department, 1999-2001 ...................................110 3.6 To 9/11 and After ....................................................................................... 114 CHAPTER 4: Rediscovery in the Post-9/11 Era.............................................................. 115 4.1 Birth of a ‘Battle’....................................................................................... 116 4.2 An Old Formula for a New Era ................................................................. 119 4.3 Charlotte Beers and ‘Brand America’ ............................ .........................123 4.4 Losing Ground in the ‘Battle for Hearts and Minds’ ...............................133 4.5 Between Beers and Hughes: Instability and Uncertainty ....................... 143 4.6 Karen Hughes’ Rapid Response ............................................................... 147 4.7 Approaching the Present: Whither U.S. Public Diplomacy?..................153 CHAPTER 5: Keeping with Tradition: U.S. Public Diplomacy and the Cold W ar... 160 5.1 Benchmarking the Cold War ............................... 161 5.2 The Making of a Success Story?............................................................... 163 4 5.3 Defining “Success” .................................................................................... 171 5.4 Measuring Success..................................................................................... 181 5.5 Debating the Advocacy Tradition of U.S. Public Diplomacy................187 CHAPTER 6: Moving towards Dialogue? ‘Listening’, Soft Power, and the ‘New’ Public Diplomacy......................................................................................190 6.1 Problems of the New Public Diplomacy...................................................197 6.2 ‘Listening’ and Dialogic Communication ................................................198 6.3 Soft Power Incompatibility....................................................................... 208 6.4 ‘Traditional’ and ‘New’ Public Diplomacy: Moving towards Dialogue?.. 211 CHAPTER 7: Disorder from Order: Organizational Obstacles to Dialogue ............... 217 7.1 The Right Skills?............................................... 222 7.2 Public Diplomacy Organizations and Proximity to Policy.....................230 7.3 Coordination Challenges ........................................................................... 240 7.4 Effects upon Strategy............................. 246 7.5 Catalysts for Change..................................................................................250 CONCLUSION : The Limits and Limitations of Public Diplomacy ................................ 255 8.1 Cultural Constraints ...................................................................................265 8.2 Revisiting Foreign Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy ................. 268 8.3 Future Directions and Future Scholarship ...............................................271 Appendix A: List of Acronyms .......................................................................................276 Appendix B: Summary Recommendations of CRS Reports, 1999-2005 .....................277 Appendix C: U.S. Public Diplomacy Budget 1991-2001 .............................................279 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 280 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Old versus New Forms of Public Diplomacy...................................................... 196 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project is the continuation of research first begun at American University in 2003 under the guidance of Professor Mohammed Abu-Nimer, who first exposed me to public diplomacy as a combination of International Relations and International Communications aspects that most intrigued me. It was at this point that
Recommended publications
  • Introduction
    Notes Introduction 1. M. Wight, Power Politics (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1978), p. 113. 2. R. Cohen, "Putting Diplomatic Studies on the Map," Diplomatic Studies Programme Newsletter, Leicester University, 4 May 1998. 3. ]. DerDerian, "Mediating Estrangement: A Theory for Diplomacy," Review of International Studies, 13 (1987) 91. 4. S. Sofer, "Old and New Diplomacy: A Debate Revisited/' Review ofInternational Studies, 14 (1988) 196. 5. Ibid. 6. A. Eban, The New Diplomacy (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1983), pp. 384-5. 7. B.H. Steiner, "Another Missing Middle: Diplomacy and International Theory," paper delivered to the 41st Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Los Angeles, 15-18 March 2000, p. 1. 8. Sofer, "Old and New Diplomacy," p. 196. 9. Cf. S. Goddard, "Talk Is Not Cheap: The Rhetoric of Strategic Interaction," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 2-5 September 2004. 10. L.B. Poullada, "Diplomacy: The Missing Link in the Study of International Politics," in D.S. McLellan, W.C. Olson and F.A. Sondermann (eds), The Theory and Practice of International Relations, 4th edn (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 197 4); cf. Steiner, "Another Missing Middle." 11. Eban, The New Diplomacy, p. 366. 12. ].W. Burton, Systems, States, Diplomacy and Rules (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), p. 206. 13. E. Satow, Satow's Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 5th edn, ed. Lord Gore-Booth (London and New York: Longman, 1979), p. 3. 14. Quoted in Eban, The New Diplomacy, p. 331. 15. C.W. Hayward, What Is Diplomacy? (London: Grant Richards, 1916), p.
    [Show full text]
  • International Relations in a Changing World: a New Diplomacy? Edward Finn
    INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN A CHANGING WORLD: A NEW DIPLOMACY? EDWARD FINN Edward Finn is studying Comparative Literature in Latin and French at Princeton University. INTRODUCTION The revolutionary power of technology to change reality forces us to re-examine our understanding of the international political system. On a fundamental level, we must begin with the classic international relations debate between realism and liberalism, well summarised by Stephen Walt.1 The third paradigm of constructivism provides the key for combining aspects of both liberalism and realism into a cohesive prediction for the political future. The erosion of sovereignty goes hand in hand with the burgeoning Information Age’s seemingly unstoppable mechanism for breaking down physical boundaries and the conceptual systems grounded upon them. Classical realism fails because of its fundamental assumption of the traditional sovereignty of the actors in its system. Liberalism cannot adequately quantify the nebulous connection between prosperity and freedom, which it assumes as an inherent truth, in a world with lucrative autocracies like Singapore and China. Instead, we have to accept the transformative power of ideas or, more directly, the technological, social, economic and political changes they bring about. From an American perspective, it is crucial to examine these changes, not only to understand their relevance as they transform the US, but also their effects in our evolving global relationships.Every development in international relations can be linked to some event that happened in the past, but never before has so much changed so quickly at such an expansive global level. In the first section of this article, I will examine the nature of recent technological changes in diplomacy and the larger derivative effects in society, which relate to the future of international politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Diplomacy for the 21St Century: Transformational Diplomacy
    Order Code RL34141 Diplomacy for the 21st Century: Transformational Diplomacy August 23, 2007 Kennon H. Nakamura and Susan B. Epstein Foreign Policy Analysts Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Diplomacy for the 21st Century: Transformational Diplomacy Summary Many foreign affairs experts believe that the international system is undergoing a momentous transition affecting its very nature. Some, such as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, compare the changes in the international system to those of a century ago. Secretary of State Rice relates the changes to the period following the Second World War and the start of the Cold War. At the same time, concerns are being raised about the need for major reform of the institutions and tools of American diplomacy to meet the coming challenges. At issue is how the United States adjusts its diplomacy to address foreign policy demands in the 21st Century. On January 18, 2006, in a speech at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., Secretary Rice outlined her vision for diplomacy changes that she referred to as “transformational diplomacy” to meet this 21st Century world. The new diplomacy elevates democracy-promotion activities inside countries. According to Secretary Rice in her February 14, 2006 testimony before Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the objective of transformational diplomacy is: “to work with our many partners around the world to build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system.” Secretary Rice’s announcement included moving people and positions from Washington, D.C., and Europe to “strategic” countries; it also created a new position of Director of Foreign Assistance, modified the tools of diplomacy, and changed U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chinese Public Diplomacy: the Rise of the Confucius Institute / Falk Hartig
    Chinese Public Diplomacy This book presents the first comprehensive analysis of Confucius Institutes (CIs), situating them as a tool of public diplomacy in the broader context of China’s foreign affairs. The study establishes the concept of public diplomacy as the theoretical framework for analysing CIs. By applying this frame to in- depth case studies of CIs in Europe and Oceania, it provides in-depth knowledge of the structure and organisation of CIs, their activities and audiences, as well as problems, chal- lenges and potentials. In addition to examining CIs as the most prominent and most controversial tool of China’s charm offensive, this book also explains what the structural configuration of these Institutes can tell us about China’s under- standing of and approaches towards public diplomacy. The study demonstrates that, in contrast to their international counterparts, CIs are normally organised as joint ventures between international and Chinese partners in the field of educa- tion or cultural exchange. From this unique setting a more fundamental observa- tion can be made, namely China’s willingness to engage and cooperate with foreigners in the context of public diplomacy. Overall, the author argues that by utilising the current global fascination with Chinese language and culture, the Chinese government has found interested and willing international partners to co- finance the CIs and thus partially fund China’s international charm offensive. This book will be of much interest to students of public diplomacy, Chinese politics, foreign policy and international relations in general. Falk Hartig is a post-doctoral researcher at Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, and has a PhD in Media & Communication from Queensland Univer- sity of Technology, Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • New Diplomacy and Development
    Volume 3 ecdpm’s Issue 3 March 2014 - GRA TRADE REGIONAL INTE AGRICULTURE ECONOMICS GOVERNANCE New Diplomacy and Development Featuring: Nana Bema Kumi, Former Ambassador of Ghana to the EU Gaspar Frontini and Helge Arends, DEVCO, EC In this issue: Economic Diplomacy and South-South Trade, Peter van Bergeijk How African Countries Need to Get on with the Business of Diplomacy, Huub Ruël New Diplomacy: Showing the Way in a Complex World, Paul Engel WWW.ECDPM.ORG/GREAT Thematic Focus: New Diplomacy and Development Monthly highlights from ECDPM’s In this issue: Weekly Compass Update Features www.ecdpm.org/weeklycompass 4 Ghana’s Challenges in a New 24 Linking TICAD with the EU-Africa Diplomatic Environment Summit to Make Africa a Continent Nana Kumi, Institute of Diplomatic Practice of Real Success and Development Policies (I-2DP) Aiichiro Yamamoto, Friends of Europe. 7 New Diplomacy: Showing the Way in a Complex World? 26 The Catalytic Role of the EU on Paul Engel, ECDPM Private Sector Investments: The Case of Climate Financing 10 Post-2015: New Diplomacy, Ambition Hanne Knaepen, ECDPM and Compromise Dr Gaspar Frontini and Helge Arends, 29 Culture and Diplomacy: Europe’s Directorate General Development & Enabling Power in an Open World Cooperation, EC Damien Helly, ECDPM 14 Economic Diplomacy and South-South Trade: A New Issue in Development Regulars Peter van Bergeijk, Erasmus University 3 Editorial 18 How African Countries Need to Get on with the Business of Diplomacy 32 EPA Update Huub Ruël, Windesheim University 34 Monthly Highlights from the 21 Beyond Development Diplomacy: Talking Points Blog Ministerial Diversity and International Cooperation 35 Weekly Compass Highlights Erik Lundsgaarde, German Development Institute (DIE) 36 Latest ECDPM Publications 2 Editorial Colophon Governance, Regional integra- Contrary to its traditional image, international diplomacy is a dynamic field.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Reform Beyond the Project on National Security Reform
    United States Army War College Class of 2013 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT: A Approved for Public Release Distribution is Unlimited This manuscript is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the U.S. Army War College Fellowship. The views expressed in this student academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Security Reform beyond the Project on National Security Reform by Author Appears Here when Entered on SF 298 Army COL Brian Mennes The U.S. Army War College is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, (215) 662-5606. The Commission on Higher Education is an institutional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter I Introduction
    CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background Malaysia is a country which consists of various ethnic groups or multiethnic populations. From the various ethnic groups there are three ethnicities which have the biggest population in Malaysia; there are Melayu, Chinese, and Indian. Melayu is the biggest ethnic population, because this ethnic is the original ethnic which is the oldest inhabittant in Malaysia state territory compared to the other two ethnic groups. Malay ethnic and indigenous tribes of Malaysia are known as Bumiputera which refers to the indigenous population who has lived in this land since a long time ago. While the other two ethnic groups are the immigrants who come from China and India. Indian population is the descendant of Indian immigrant who come to Tanah Melayu (Malaysia) in the 11th century and during the British occupation. Meanwhile The Chinese population is the descendant of Chinese immigrants who came to Tanah Melayu (Malaysia) in the 15th and early 20th centuries as traders.1 Chinese and Indian come to Malaysia generally for trade or work in British colonial's company and plantation, then the descendants of Chinese and Indian immigrants become the Malaysian citizens today. According to the population census in 2012, Melayu is the first placed population with the percentage of 50.4%, while Chinese the second place population with the percentage 23.7% and 1 J. Cambria (2010, April). Overseas Chinese in Malaysia Chinatownology, Retrieved September 02, 2017, from http://www.chinatownology.com/overseas_chinese_malaysia.html i followed by Indians in third place with 7.1% from 29.17 million Malaysian total population.
    [Show full text]
  • Summit Diplomacy: Some Lessons from History for 21St Century Leaders Transcript
    Summit Diplomacy: Some Lessons from History for 21st Century Leaders Transcript Date: Tuesday, 4 June 2013 - 6:00PM Location: Barnard's Inn Hall 4 June 2013 Summit Diplomacy: Some Lessons From History For 21st Century Leaders David Reynolds This is the first of a series of three lectures about history and policy, about the ways in which historians might be able to contribute to current policy debates. Tonight, I am talking about diplomacy; next week, there will be something about environmental policy; and then, thirdly, about development policy, and that is an example of what history and policy is trying to do: link up academic research with issues of current concern in the political arena. Some lessons from history, “lessons” in quotation marks because, as you will see, I am wary about the use of the term “lessons” or I think at least we have to be clear what history can teach and what it cannot teach… Here we are, statesmen on the world stage. There is Winston Churchill in Washington in 1941, and there is David Cameron and Barack Obama at the G20 Summit in Toronto, a year or so ago I think – example, the G20, of how summitry has become institutionalised in the last 60 years, and that is something I will get onto in a moment. The idea of a summit meeting is now very much very familiar to us. There is Time magazine from the 1980s, from 1985, “Let’s Talk”, Reagan and Gorbachev. This summitry is about top level meetings for high stakes. What I want to suggest to you is that, despite all that media attention about something special to do with summitry, it is rooted in daily life.
    [Show full text]
  • PARLIAMENTARY DIPLOMACY and the NORTH-SOUTH DIALOGUE Noel Lateef*
    GEORGIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW VOLUME 11 1981 ISSUE 1 PARLIAMENTARY DIPLOMACY AND THE NORTH-SOUTH DIALOGUE Noel Lateef* I. INTRODUCTION: DELIMITATION OF THE PROBLEM The search for a right answer to a question of law is rarely relegated to theory in a mature legal system. Legal reasoning should and usually does eventuate in practice. Diplomacy, as a kind of problem-solving, enjoys no such assurance. Revisionist ac- tors in the North-South dialogue avoid the fact that world order is achieved without the intervention of an omniscient global- ordering device (GOD), ie., a monolithic body or hodgepodge of in- ternational organizations with a "roving jurisdiction to do good." In a world replete with diverse passions and interests, which can- not be exorcised by even the most interventionist GOD,' the cogwheels of the international system catch as states pursue primarily national objectives. What order is achieved is the pro- duct of interaction among states. Hence, the rational conduct of in- ternational relations requires procedural sophistication: revi- sionist actors must not overtax diplomatic infrastructure and ex- pect fruitful outcomes; status quo actors would do well to ap- preciate the importance of flexibility without overlooking the observation of Justice Holmes that "the substance of the law is secreted in the interstices of procedures."' *The author served in the State Department (1977-78) on the staff of Ambassador Jean Wilkowski, United States Coordinator for the U.N. Conference on Science and Technology for Development. He is presently at the Yale Law School researching the interaction of law and development. The assistance of Myres S.
    [Show full text]
  • Summitry: the Ancient and Modern of Diplomatic Dialogue
    International Journal of Innovative Legal & Political Studies 9(2):39-50, April-June, 2021 © SEAHI PUBLICATIONS, 2021 www.seahipaj.org ISSN: 2467-8503 Summitry: The Ancient And Modern Of Diplomatic Dialogue Desmond O. N. Agwor, Esq1 ABSTRACT The piece defines the concept of summitry under diplomatic and consular law, and also x-rays the historical background and evolution of summitry, dynamics of the concept from antiquities to the modern-day diplomacy, and projects the future roles of summitry in international, regional and national diplomacy. This author argues that the practice of summitry is a critical and indispensable concept in modern diplomacy. The author also juxtaposes and evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of summit-diplomacy. Considering the present prevalence of the adoption of summitry in global, regional and national policy setting, the paper further discusses the forms, benefits and adverse effect(s) of the method, alongside proposed remedial steps. The author finally recommends a firm stand on the viability of summitry. Keywords: Summitry, Diplomacy, Ancient, Modern and Dialogue 1.0 INTRODUCTION Over the years, the literature on summitry has focused on a fairly limited number of subjects. One of the top questions confronting scholars has been the definition of the term itself. Summits have generally been defined as meetings of heads of state, but early approaches insisted on power as a central criterion for participation. Although it is difficult to measure the success of summitry, it is easy to see that this form of dialogue has distinct diplomatic functions. The flexibility of the summit is beyond any doubt. For leaders without international experience, it is of educational value.
    [Show full text]
  • Sovereignty, Diplomacy and Democracy: the Changing Character of “International Representation” — from State to Self*
    SOVEREIGNTY, DIPLOMACY AND DEMOCRACY: THE CHANGING CHARACTER OF “INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION” — FROM STATE TO SELF* Alan K. Henrikson A “nation,” as distinct from a state, “Representing the sending State in the re- is a composite entity. It has unity, but al- ceiving State.”2 In the past, it was the sov- so multiplicity. Can diplomacy, tradition- ereign who was represented by diplomat- ally understood as the process by which ic mission. Although Louis XIV of France, sovereign states deal with each other, ac- the Sun King, probably never actually said, commodate the participation of masses— “L’État, c’estmoi,” French ambassadors in a nation’s people themselves? An essential his time were very much his personal emis- element and characteristic of diploma- saries. Today, kingdoms are rare, and “roy- cy is its representativeness, which philo- al” embassies, too, are few: the Royal Nor- sophically is a very complicated problem. wegian Embassy, the Royal Embassy of It is not easy to explain how a person, or Saudi Arabia, and the Royal Embassy of thing, can “stand for” someone, or some- Cambodia being among them. Sovereign thing, else—or to know what, exactly, the representation today encompasses all kinds entity being re-presented (made “pres- of states. In a republic, such as the United ent again”) is. In diplomacy, representa- States of America, diplomacy is assumed tion, though a concept rarely analyzed, is to be “democratic,” in substance as well as fundamental. As Paul Sharp, an especially in style. The American innovation, “pub- thoughtful academic student of the subject lic diplomacy,” a concept that The Fletch- has stated, diplomacy “is built upon the no- er School of Law and Diplomacy helped to tion of representation.”1 originate, might even be understood to de- The very first “function” of a diplo- rive from the theory of popular sovereignty.3 matic mission, as listed in the Vienna Con- In public diplomacy, even ordinary citizens vention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), is believe they can legitimately participate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Foreign Service Journal, October 2014
    PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION OCTOBER 2014 THE NEW SPECIALISTS FLYING MONKEYS IN THE EMBASSY WORKING WITH WOMEN IN AFGHANISTAN FOREIGN October 2014 SERVICE Volume 91, No. 10 FOCUS FOREIGN SERVICE SPECIALISTS AFSA NEWS Celebrating the Life of Career Ambassador Terence A. Todman / 49 The New Specialists / 21 State VP Voice: Conversions and Here is a look at the wide world of Foreign Service Specialists. the Foreign Service / 50 We explore who they are, the many critical things they do, and how their work FAS VP Voice: Member Survey Identifies Needed Changes / 51 has evolved with our changing times. Deputy Secretary Burns Meets AFSA BY FRANCESCA KELLY Board, Committee Members / 51 USAID VP Voice: The Cost of Longer CPC Tours / 52 Specialists Reflect on Their Work / 33 A USAID History Lesson / 53 A compilation. AFSA Holds Town Hall for State Constituency / 53 CFC: Support AFSA’s Fund for Best. Job. Ever. American Diplomacy / 54 BY WILLIAM MIDDLETON Adair Lecture Explores Diplomacy- Development Relationship / 55 King for a Day Active After Active Duty: BY W. PAUL MARGULIES JR. FSO Bikes Across the U.S. / 56 Congressman Seeks Insight A To-Do List from a Financial Management Ocer on FS Life / 57 BY AN FMO AT AN ASIA POST AFSA Program for Interns: Amb. John Limbert on Life in the FS / 58 Despite Challenges and Change, We Make a Dierence Book Notes: Writing as Therapy BY HENRY MENDELSOHN for PTSD / 59 AFSA Welcomes First HECFAA Intern / 59 DACOR Keeps Foreign Service FEATURES Community Connected / 60 A Conversation with FSO Author Learning from Women’s Successes in Afghanistan / 38 Matthew Palmer / 61 Family Member Matters: Sensitivity and technical know-how are at a premium when working Letter to My Global Nomads / 62 in these fragile and insecure environments.
    [Show full text]