Public Diplomacy Comes of Age

Since the September 11 attacks on the United States, the nature and role of public diplomacy have been debated more vigorously than at any time in recent memory. A foreign affairs specialty that was once the province of a relatively small number of professionals has suddenly--and quite properly--taken its place in the wide-ranging discussion of national security in which the U.S. population is currently engaged. The growing consensus that the time has come for the United States to rethink, reinvigorate, and reinvest in not just traditional diplomacy but also in the public dimension of the government's overseas presence has been encouraging. I am delighted with the burgeoning recognition that how the U.S. government communicates abroad--and with whom--directly affects the nation's security and well-being.

Yet, what is this art that people call public diplomacy? It is not traditional diplomacy, which consists essentially of the interactions that take place between governments. The practitioners of traditional diplomacy engage the representatives of foreign governments in order to advance the national interest articulated in their own government's strategic goals in international affairs. Public diplomacy, by contrast, engages carefully targeted sectors of foreign publics in order to develop support for those same strategic goals.

Global Changes Affecting Public Diplomacy

The practice of public diplomacy by professionals, including U.S. ambassadors, has changed dramatically with the proliferation of communications technology and the equally remarkable increase in global mobility. A full generation ago, for instance, small teams of U.S. Foreign Service officers drove Jeeps to the hinterlands of Latin America and other remote regions of the world to show reel-to-reel movies to isolated audiences, while U.S. diplomats in capital cities scouted out future leaders and sent them on exchange programs to experience life, society, and democratic values in the United States firsthand. That world now seems impossibly quaint, and the contrast with today's global environment could hardly be more pronounced.

First and perhaps foremost, the number and affiliations of players in public diplomacy have mushroomed. The U.S. government is by no means the only actor on the public diplomacy stage abroad. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and, with increasing frequency, individuals now pursue their goals in public venues around the world, often with skill and success. Even among government agencies, the Department of State is in no way the only actor involved in public diplomacy. Many observers have noted the spiraling rise in the number of federal, state, and local agencies that conduct international activities and frequently have an overseas presence. Less widely appreciated, however, is the on-the-ground fact that most of those agencies and organizations play an ever-larger role on the public stage in the countries with which they are involved.

Communications technology has changed as well, proliferating and constantly extending its reach. The players have changed, in greater numbers with more mobility and increasing skill. The media have changed, with multiple channels and segmented audiences. Not surprisingly, then, the challenge facing government practitioners of public diplomacy has also changed. To take advantage of the resources at hand, they must more often effectively galvanize disparate efforts than command their own limited funds and personnel. They must promote collaboration among all the actors involved inside and outside government. They must stimulate and persuade. They must also exploit their one distinct advantage--they are, after all, the U.S. government's authorized voice to audiences abroad. An NGO spokesperson may make an eloquent case for his or her cause, but only U.S. practitioners of public diplomacy can articulate official policy to foreign publics.

Ways to Communicate the Message

A good portion of the current debate about public diplomacy has focused on decisions made in the past--particularly in the wake of the Cold War, but actually retreating even further in time--that reduced the resources for what Edward R. Murrow called "telling America's story." That kind of collective soul-searching is useful to...