Comments on: Brookings Institution Report, Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century http://www.darrenkrape.com/journal/voices-of-america-us-public-diplomacy-for-the-21st-century/ - web design and life stuff Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:12:01 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Darren http://www.darrenkrape.com/journal/voices-of-america-us-public-diplomacy-for-the-21st-century/comment-page-1/#comment-351 Darren Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:36:40 +0000 http://www.darrenkrape.com/?p=84#comment-351 Donna, thank you for your comment. First off, I should note that none of the opinions expressed above are mine (unless otherwise noted). As a staff member at the Department of State, I sincerely hope that this sort of innovation is possible within the U.S. government! I also agree with you that Obama really needs to bring the lessons he learned on the campaign trail into government, particularly in regards to more open forms of engagement. On the Brookings proposal, I’m not certain that a completely new entity is necessarily warranted. A more prominent position for public diplomacy is necessary, and I can see the point that an independent group could be leaner and more agile. At the same time, there is the risk that out-sourcing core government functions will even further starve public diplomacy programs or, at least, further carve up the responsibilities. With the current structure, strong leadership on this can help significantly, but institutionalizing the greater importance of public diplomacy may be the only way to ensure proper attention and resources for the long term. There is definitely a consensus that change is needed, but it seems there isn’t much agreement on what that change should look like. Donna, thank you for your comment. First off, I should note that none of the opinions expressed above are mine (unless otherwise noted). As a staff member at the Department of State, I sincerely hope that this sort of innovation is possible within the U.S. government! I also agree with you that Obama really needs to bring the lessons he learned on the campaign trail into government, particularly in regards to more open forms of engagement.

On the Brookings proposal, I’m not certain that a completely new entity is necessarily warranted. A more prominent position for public diplomacy is necessary, and I can see the point that an independent group could be leaner and more agile. At the same time, there is the risk that out-sourcing core government functions will even further starve public diplomacy programs or, at least, further carve up the responsibilities. With the current structure, strong leadership on this can help significantly, but institutionalizing the greater importance of public diplomacy may be the only way to ensure proper attention and resources for the long term. There is definitely a consensus that change is needed, but it seems there isn’t much agreement on what that change should look like.

]]> By: Donna Oglesby http://www.darrenkrape.com/journal/voices-of-america-us-public-diplomacy-for-the-21st-century/comment-page-1/#comment-330 Donna Oglesby Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:50:56 +0000 http://www.darrenkrape.com/?p=84#comment-330 Thank-you for taking the time to post this summary of yesterday's report presentation. For those of us who live beyond Washington it is very helpful to have the flavor of observers as well as the report and eventually the transcript. Your comment that "the proposed USA-World Trust, and its direct conduits with the private sector and the USG, was offered as a way to increase information flows and to help facilitate innovation" makes sense. But I'm troubled by your observation that one of the reasons for the report's recommended "independent and impartial" institution is that "engaging on social networks requires a willingness to cede control over the conversation to a degree that the USG may be unwilling to accept." You may well be right. If so, Public Diplomacy in the Obama administration will not have learned the lessons of his own campaign. It was not simply the use of new media but also the attention paid to grassroots (local) organizing that made the new politics work. The campaign had a message to be sure, but it also invited local organizers to innovate in accord with their cultural and political conditions. It also calmly suffered blowback -- on the Senator's FISA vote, for example -- on its own website. It did not "control" the conversation. But, it certainly knew what it wanted to achieve in the conversation. It is sad to read that the panelists did not consider this kind of innovation within the government to be possible. If we ever need an innovative government, it is now. Thanks again for the post & the rough notes. Thank-you for taking the time to post this summary of yesterday’s report presentation. For those of us who live beyond Washington it is very helpful to have the flavor of observers as well as the report and eventually the transcript. Your comment that “the proposed USA-World Trust, and its direct conduits with the private sector and the USG, was offered as a way to increase information flows and to help facilitate innovation” makes sense. But I’m troubled by your observation that one of the reasons for the report’s recommended “independent and impartial” institution is that “engaging on social networks requires a willingness to cede control over the conversation to a degree that the USG may be unwilling to accept.” You may well be right. If so, Public Diplomacy in the Obama administration will not have learned the lessons of his own campaign. It was not simply the use of new media but also the attention paid to grassroots (local) organizing that made the new politics work. The campaign had a message to be sure, but it also invited local organizers to innovate in accord with their cultural and political conditions. It also calmly suffered blowback — on the Senator’s FISA vote, for example — on its own website. It did not “control” the conversation. But, it certainly knew what it wanted to achieve in the conversation. It is sad to read that the panelists did not consider this kind of innovation within the government to be possible. If we ever need an innovative government, it is now. Thanks again for the post & the rough notes.

]]>