The New Age of Public Diplomacy

The title of the talk was catchy and I decided to attend this lunch hour (1-2 pm) Chatham House event (please see http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/). The venue was at the Geological Society, Burlington House at Piccadilly. The speaker, James K Glassman is the US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. It's the first time I heard of 'public diplomacy' and sure enough, as Mr. Glassman completed a few introductory sentences, he explained what this meant. Public diplomacy is diplomacy directed towards the public he said. From what I could understand, it is the engagement (in a variety of 'non-militarised' ways) to achieve US policy goals of national security. The ultimate goal of his work he says, is to ensure a world in which violent extremism is no longer possible.

Drawing on the sad events of 9/11 seven years ago, he pointed out that Al Qaeda was responsible. This statement follows the next one where he says that the views held by some that the US masterminded 9/11 so it could invade Afghanistan was sad, because it is untrue. 'These (views) are trends that we need to combat', he said, and stated that his job is to win the 'War of ideas'. Suddenly 'public diplomacy' became clearer. It was made more vivid when he listed the ways in which public diplomacy would counter terrorism so that the US and the world could attain security and freedom. One way, he said, was through the exchange programmes (eg. Fullbright programme) by which international students can study in the US. He spoke about the Access Micro-scholarships, especially targeted for the Muslim society. Secondly, there are international information programmes (broadcasting of programmes in 60 different languages) in which the US would act as a facilitator of a 'grand conversation'. Thirdly, it is ideological education which translates to the 'War of ideas'. He said, 'winninig the war on terror means winning the war of ideas'. So the war of ideas is aimed to win hearts and minds which is the new age of public diplomacy.

The room was packed and was almost getting stuffy. Most people came well dressed in formal attire. I was the only one in short sleeves shirt and jeans. The question and answer round was bound to be interesting, and it was. A south asian man stood up and asked why is the US killing innocent children in Pakistan with its bombs recently, while denouncing Al Qaeda's terror tactics and killings. Mr. Glassman of course explained that the US does not intentionally kill innocent people but that Al Qaeda does, and that such collateral damages are regrettable. The chairperson also asked how the US will deal with the 'views' that many people now hold (like the 23% of Germans) that the US government was behind 9/11, to which no clear answer was given except that public diplomacy would have to counter that. I asked a simple question, 'If the aim is to rid the world of violence, then why is the word 'War' used to get to that?'. To me, it does not sound convincing that there is a true intention toward peace when the words used to explain this intention denotes violence and just the opposite of peace. Is the word deliberately put so that the public's mind think in terms of 'war', accepts that 'war' is the way to peace? Mr. Glassman listened to the last question of the final series of queries of the day (mine was number 3) and to my surprise, said that he will answer my question first (he even got close to pronouncing my name correctly). He says, he has been in the administration for just 3 months (he used to be a journalist before he became a diplomat) and that he does not like the 'War of ideas' phrase either, and though he tried to frame a different phrase, none was appropriate enough. Hence it stuck to that, but he reiterated that its the war of words not bullets that was implied. The truth however is that words and bullets have almost become merged such that we don't know the difference anymore.