Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century.

Jones, David T.

Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century

By James Glassman, Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy

Reviewed by David T. Jones, co-author of Uneasy Neighbo(u)rs, a book on U.S.-Canada relations

Text/video: www.cfr.org/publication/16698/public_diplomacy_in_the_twentyfirst_century_rush_transcript_federal_news_service.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fby_type%2Ftranscript

In his first public speech after becoming Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, James Glassman addressed the Council on Foreign Relations on June 30. The appointment of Glassman, who has an extensive and distinguished career in public diplomacy, prompts a tinge of wonder for someone boarding a "sinking ship." He is the fifth undersecretary in nine years since the position was created; 40 percent of the time it has been vacant. And while Glassman would like to stay longer, he recognizes that with the change of administrations in January, it could easily be a six-month job.

So what can one do--really do--in such a timeframe?

Glassman will concentrate on public diplomacy as a "war of ideas" in which he is the "supreme allied commander" for the conflict. Its focus is counterterrorism, in which we seek to ensure that negative sentiments about the United States do not manifest themselves in violent extremism. We do not ask people to love us (although Glassman argued that the degree of global animosity toward the United States is overstated) or to accept our principles of democracy and freedom, but rather to reject violence in regard to obtaining political, social, or religious objectives. We can create these circumstances by:

* confronting ideologies that justify terrorism and demonstrate through credible Muslim voices the shame of wanton violence;

* offering a full range of alternatives to violent extremism, essentially "diversions" into sports, entertainment, technology, business, etc; and

* creating throughout government, business, and academia a broad awareness of the war of ideas that will prompt people spontaneously to implement or assist comparable projects. Of particular interest is developing a "far more robust alumni network" among the million plus participants in U.S. education and cultural exchange programs.

Glassman also cautioned that the effort must extend beyond the Muslim world, that is, to include countering the Russian and Chinese ideological models that are growing in popularity; they suppress freedom while allowing space for market economics. There are other areas, including Latin America, Africa, and East Asia, that need attention, as well as regions with Muslim populations outside the Middle East (Central Asia) that might be susceptible to extremist messages. And finally, an obvious point, the United States must work with allies--even in areas where some of our policies may be objectionable; they will appreciate that successfully thwarting extremists will make their regimes safer.

Glassman concluded that while there had been strategic successes in countering al-Qaeda in a number of areas, the flow of recruits has not stopped. Our objective is an environment "hostile to violent extremism," and no knowledgeable person believes that the war is won, or even close to it.

An observer can conclude that Glassman made good points with persuasive analysis and still wonder whether the next administration, practicing a "not invented here" critique, will decide that it is a wheel that needs reinventing.