Larry D. Lauer

Diplomacy is generally understood to be governments communicating with governments. It is primarily practiced through embassies and consulates around the world, and involves foreign service officers and ambassadors advancing their governments’ foreign policy objectives while collecting and researching essential political and economic information. Some governments argue they also practice “public” diplomacy. 

Public diplomacy generally takes two forms:  The first form is governments communicating directly with the publics of other nations. It is practiced through cultural and educational exchanges, as well as by providing local libraries, information centers, and educational programming.  It is also managed for the most part through embassies and consulates. Government sponsored international broadcasts (i.e. Voice of America, and BBC World Service) and other forms of mass media can also be seen as public diplomacy. And government sponosred public diplomacy is also usually driven mostly by foreign policy objectives.  

The second form of public diplomacy is direct people-to-people communication. At one time the United States had a government agency called the US Information Agency, or USIA. It was separate from the state department so many people  believe that this “independence” allowed it to practice this more direct form of people-to-people public diplomacy. But the function and funding of the USIA were significantly reduced during the Clinton administration, and then its functions were moved into the Department of State. Today this more direct form of public diplomacy is practiced mostly by nonprofit organizations such at Sister Cities International, and other similar NGO’s. A business plan for a new independent organization was recently developed during a project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, and it will be interesting so see what happens next. Its champions are currently seeking start-up funding.

The practice of these forms of diplomacy and public diplomacy have been influenced by the same media revolution forces as all institutions and governments.  All have, or are developing, sophisticated websites, and have staff managing various forms of electronic newsletters, apps, and social media. For example, the state department has initiated several projects involving mobilizing youth to use social media to connect with youth in other parts of the world. And the  business plan of the proposed new organization referenced above outlines rather ambitious uses of various forms of media, from television programs to mobilizing university groups to help tell America’s story. Many of us in higher education also believe that international education is a very effective form of public diplomacy, bringing people together across cultures to achieve common understanding without a political agenda.

So far our study of media revolutions as a part of a TCU Honors College colloquium is indicating that while all international organizations are utilizing new media, the most compelling international media issue just might be the role and effectiveness of social media across cultures, and most especially across the closed borders of authoritarian regimes.  As we probe this question with visiting experts and guests, and as I interview colleagues, it seems that the real power of social media so far is in its ability to mobilize groups to action, and to set issue agendas.   However, the limitations of social media seem to be that they do not handle deeper substance well, and therefore are not effective in actual problem-solving.  For this, the use of “old’ media such as comprehensive reports, and most especially face-to-face meetings with conflict resolution objectives, are still required!

We will continue to explore this topic as we move forward with  future class sessions and interviews. But once again we are finding that while media roles change when new media appear, the old ones never disappear. Stay tuned for more thoughts and insights as we continue our adventure in media ideas.