re: "Understanding State's Budget Woes"

Matt Armstrong at Mountain Runner ("Discourse on America's Discourse") shared a detailed critique of State's flawed relations with Congress.

Money quote(s):

"Andrew Exum at CNAS blames - only somewhat tongue in cheek - the absence of federal money creating jobs in Congressional districts for the State Department's budget woes. His point, of course, is that Congress sees little direct benefit from State's activities."

He's not really kidding. Well, even if he was, it's still true.

The State Department has no (or little, which amounts to the same thing) domestic political constituency. We don't create jobs in anybody's district (aside from the various domestic passport centers, which is another subject). And most of the time nobody writes, emails, or calls their congressional representative unless they're seeking help with a problem they're having with the State Department.

Fortunately, most of the legislative staff who deal with State Department on behalf of their constituents quickly learn that we don't capriciously create problems and obstacles for their constituents. Most of the time the problems are actually the creation of the constituent themselves, and State Department folks (usually consular officers) are either simply following the laws that Congress itself passed or are limited in what they can do by either budgetary constraints (also an artifact of Congress) or reality itself (i.e., foreign courts and police forces don't actually work for the United States, so I can't order them to release someone just because they're American).

This is why I take every opportunity I can to help create at least a shadow of a glimmer of a domestic constituency whenever I get the chance. You're a college professor or church leader bringing a gaggle of your students or parishioners to my consular district and you'd like a quick tour of the embassy or consulate while you're in country? If I can spare someone for even an hour, I can make it happen. I've got a relatively brief Powerpoint presentation kept up-to-date, can reserve a meeting room, and if you'll get me everyone's passport information ahead of time then embassy security can pre-clear your group.

And then I get an hour to tell some congressman's constituents what the State Department does for them and for the country.

I've also learned to not be shy about telling people who are thanking me about something I or my staff has done for them that, yes, I appreciate their thanks but if they're really grateful it'd be even better if they dropped their congressman or senator an email or postcard. I generally add that other people are never slow to send complaints about the things they don't like, so it's just good citizenship to ensure their representative is getting the whole picture.

It's constituency building at the micro level, in the field, which is not the aim of Matt's post, but you have to start somewhere.

&

"If Congress is to fund (and stop defunding) State, it requires greater awareness of State's purpose, requirements, and limitations, especially those that must be overcome. State cannot continue to rely on the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other members of the uniformed community to ask Congress for money and authorities to build capacity and capabilities to fulfill current and future requirements.

State has a role in making sure the discourse over its purpose and activities become more public, and thus a higher profile, and more informed. The President and the American people require it. Guns and bombs do not create or sustain peace."

re: "Guest Post: How to win the GWOT - or whatever it's called today"

Mark Pfeifle and Jonathan Thompson guest-posted at Mountain Runner ("A blog by Matt Armstrong on public diplomacy and strategic communication in the 21st century").

Money quote(s):

"America has the finest military and diplomatic leaders in the world. They know how to win on the battlefield and at the negotiating table. Yet, despite those winning ways, there are times when they become victims of circumstances rather than drivers of events. At such times, some may falter with the media and public, and when that happens, they too often lay blame the results on bad press coverage.

Earlier this decade domestic and international audiences wanted to understand what our military leaders and diplomats were doing in Iraq - what was working, what wasn't, and what the future held. We understood that people wanted a constant and understandable dialog then, and we know they now want the same about Afghanistan and Pakistan.

We need people skilled at understanding the motivational factors of societies and communities - domestically and abroad. We have some, such as Generals David Petraeus and Ray Odierno, and Ambassadors Richard Holbrooke and Adam Ereli, who understand the public's increasing need for information. Many are meeting the mark, yet others are still learning."

&

"We have fallen short of the mark in successfully communicating to a skeptical audience - domestically and internationally. We need experienced and knowledgeable communications heads, with staffs to support them.

Winning the battles and wars of tomorrow is not just about bombs and bullets. Winning requires expertise at communication and outreach. We won't win if we don't get this right. "

re: "Isolated Overseas: Diplomatic Security Creates Challenges for American Public Diplomacy"

Mitchell Polman guest posted at Mountain Runner ("on public diplomacy and strategic communication in the 21st century") and did a fine job of it.

Money quote(s):

"When Congress voted to abolish the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) in 1999, America's public image abroad suffered a significant blow. This decision - inspired by the desire to shrink government and the predominant belief that USIA was an ineffective bureaucracy - closed many USIA-run American libraries and cultural centers around the world that were helping to promote better understanding of American culture and society. These gathering places - located in embassy buildings or in libraries and cultural buildings of host countries - were an important tool for U.S. public diplomacy. They organized English language classes, discussions about American society and politics, films, and other cultural events. Local residents had safe and accessible places to read American books and periodicals, find out about educational exchanges, take U.S. college entrance and language exams, and interact with American citizens."

"America's international image and outreach have been hurt by changes in diplomatic security standards following embassy bombings in the 1990s and the tragic events of September 11. New security requirements, designed to keep our diplomats and their families safe, often put American cultural resources out of sight and out of reach for foreign citizens with a healthy interest in American affairs."

"Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) in February submitted a resolution (S. Res. 49) that calls for a reassessment of safety concerns surrounding American Centers in major foreign cities, and urges the State Department to "consider placing United States public diplomacy facilities at locations conducive to maximizing their use.""

&

"A hodgepodge system of "Information Resource Centers," or IRCs, located in U.S. embassies, and "American Corners," created with foreign partner organizations (usually public libraries), has arisen in its place. (The IRCs are often referred to simply as "American Centers.")

A few new venues have proved popular, such as the Information Resource Center in Alexandria, Egypt located in a former consular building, and the American Centers in Japan are quite popular. But the centers tend to suffer from the lack of a central management authority for the programs within the State Department. USIA had a Centers Management Office that coordinated the efforts of USIA libraries, but the Department of State does not have a similar office coordinating the activities of the IRCs and American Corners."

Read the whole thing, please.

re: "Are you a blogger interested in foreign affairs? Want a job?"

Matt at Mountain Runner ("on public diplomacy and strategic communication in the 21st century") evaluates the Department's official social media setup.

Money quote(s):

"State’s DOT, which is more interesting than Defense’s DOTs to discuss, the 8-10 person team engages audiences based beyond America’s borders through Web 2.0 to correct misinformation, clarify policies and perhaps put them into context as officials of the State Department. They are a reactive group, much like the practice of public affairs in general, posting comments and replies on blogs and discussion boards and operating largely if not completely independently of the other Web 2.0 programs at State, like DipNote, America.gov, ExchangesConnect, etc. At only 8-10 people, the team should be much, much larger. Tell me, does any globally engaged organization with the size and mission of the State Department have only eight people to work with newspapers and television? Unlike “true” public affairs officers, the members of State’s Digital Outreach Team remain anonymous as individuals, undermining their effectiveness in a social media regime based on personalized engagement."

(DOT = "Digital Outreach Team." Note: This apparently has nothing to do with "spirit fingers." - CAA)

_____

Hat tip to John Brown's Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review, Version 2.0.