Once again, if i could have your attention please, is the mike working . The mic working. All right. My name is Sherry Mueller and its my privilege to serve as president of the Public Diplomacy council and to welcome each of you in this room to the first monday forum, a monthly event, that the Public Diplomacy council cohosts with the Public Diplomacy alumni association, and the university of southern california, annual anenberg center, for leadership communication and policy. And also just to correct, i saw the president here, its the Public Diplomacy association of america. We got it, joel. I promise. But all three organizations are really pleased to cohost our special guest, dr. Vivian walker, who will be introduced by one of our board members, peter kovach. In a few minutes. I wanted to let you all membersw minutes. George washington university,nr they are renovating the normal room weve got to work with. I appreciate the patience of all of you. nrni grateful to anthony desantis. Were grateful for all the hospitality you provide to us for these first monday forums. The first monday will feature the executive director of the alliance for international exchange. And were pleased to learn more about the kind ofni advocacy th are doing on the hill and their outreach in general and how we can work with them. I would ask every Public Diplomacy county member to raise their hand of the board. Okay. They are undergoing a thank you all Strategic Planning process. Any of you who have advice, please find your nearby board member and were listening. Were in listening mode. I was just reading nicoles latest book and how important listening is to Public Diplomacy. Also want to say a special thank you to cspan for covering this. With that, im going to turn the microphonen over to joan from te Public Diplomacy association of america for an announcement. Following joan, peter will do the honors of introducing our very special guest for today. Joan. Thank you, sherry. Im delighted to be theni new Program Chair and Vice President of pdia, which is my volunteer job. Many of you know for from my day job. As program director,xd id likeo announce we have a Great Program at day corps february 24th ambassador jean mains. Shes Deputy Commander and talking about military and Public Diplomacy and her experiences in that area. Finally we really are looking for ideas and thoughts to merge these two programs, the first mondaysninrnrni and day corps h. Any suggestions, ideas you have, i lookni forward to them. Ill give you my email. With that i look forward to todays program. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, friends. What a privilege for me to introduce a distinguished cldeague, a dear friend, dr. Vivian walker. Vivian started as anr protege o mine in morocco, worked parallel and asp d public intellectual ended up a mentor to communityr of international pd practitioners around the world. We are all indebted. Dr. Walker presides over Public Diplomacy in its 71st year as acpd, the niinitials, years released annual report. Today vivian will share a researchbased presentation, a historical nireflection trackin key issues as reflected in thesr reports. Who better to do this. Vivian is a compulsive researcher. She does everything on a basis of maximum knowledge. What distinguishes her scholarly reflections on our profession in my view as ani Public Diplomacy officer, she proved to be an amazingly wise and respected manager. A rare combination, i think. One that catapulted her rapidly up theco ranks. Her post career as scholar, pd and strategic communications, this latest appointment combines her passions for study with her imminent management skills. A few of her career achievements to embarrass her a bit more, as the regional peo in,c kazakhsta in the late 90se1 shenico advo against i guess some bureaucraticcknn inertia diplomacy sectionsnrsections. As the Public Diplomacy director eurpd in the decade after consolidation, she more skillfully embedded her pd country officers with their desks. And you know,xd she 8 x and i h some different views on that. It was a very dicey question back then. More recently as theni senior officer for afghan state department border issues, she again some resistance of habit refocused our border attention to northernxd border with centr plethora of issues thatco had7mn pretty much xdunaddressed with e obsession on pakistan. The scholarly reflection, the first week of the new year, comes at a symbolic moment, obviously. Vivian, may we all drink from the cup of your Historical Research and wisdom, and i thank you very much. Its been an honor. ni [ applause ]ni thank you very much for that kind introduction, peter. Its such a pleasure to be in a room full of colleagues and friends and mentors. All of you dedicated to the practice of Public Diplomacy. So today in a new year, i think its appropriate that with the look backwards over 70 years of reporting,ni we are essentially going to look at how the history of the commission and the to understand thenr Public Diplomacy problems today and to look to the nvaquin and in fact, with the 2019 report, which should be out in about a week to ten days, look for itoknrxd on our website, it 2019 report, and it is the 70th anniversary of reporting. Because the first report produced by the commission was in 1949. The commission itself, of course, was established in 1948. So what id likeconi to doni to to look at the history of this reporting and spend some time tracing some of the key themesn across these years and then turn our focus to the present with a recommendations that will be appearing in the 2019 reportq . D then finish out on some of the issues that i think are occupying us now and that will very clearly define the practice of Public Diplomacy for the future and leaving us with a set of questions that i hope we can discuss in the questionandanswer session. Because again in a room of such distinguished practitioners and experts in the field, i see this preparation as less of a lecture and more of an opportunity to have a dialogue about these very important issues. So the u. S. Advisory commission on publicnr diplomacy. Before i joined the commission as executive director, i had no idea what this Advisory Commission business was. But in fact, there is a very old tradition in the United States dating back to the ni1840s at least of putting together commissions that advise the government, or in this case advise the president using outside expertise to bring together a number ofco differen prospectus on the issue and provide a recommendation. These are formally called federal Advisory Commission. The idea is to provide objective assessment of the issues for the public. The primary consumer of these reports is the american taxpayer, as well as all of the institutions and experts associated with the nitopic. It is independent. Its bipartisan. co president iallyxd nr appointed. Represent both republican and democratic viewpoints. It is the long erunning federal Advisory Commission in Foreign Affairs to date. Again, for this establishment in 1948. In its 70 plus years, its provided reports and recommendations to congress, the white house, the department of i state, and the public. I think one of the best features about these reports is, in fact, they do rely on outside expert assessments to bring a fresh voice, a fresh perspective to the matter at hand. So lets start with a little history. The commission was formed as part of the smith act of 1948, part of the smith act of 1948, u. S. Information n exchange act. This was very interesting time. This was, of course, just after the end of world war ii, the early days of the cold war. There was tremendous debate in congress about thisnr act which meant to give authority to state department to conduct Public Diplomacy activities. There was a lot of debate, and there were certain members in congress who were confirmed the state department was incapable ofnr nonpartisan action, that there were communistsnr embedde within thenr department of stat. And to give state department this authority would be essentially giving up our democracy and thenr sanctity of ournrnico,c governments will. The debate wasni finally conclud in favor ofnico passing this legislation on the argumentni tt truth can be a powerful weapon. Soni to thenr concern that Stat Department would perhaps pander to the communist ideology, thenl response was, no, this is an act that will enable us to put the truth out thereni about democra. Thats what carries the day and thats where the commission was created. So the commission was created out of this very important time in our history postwar where we were very anxious about how we were going to not only project our image but also protect and defend the values that we held most dear. And the commission wasxd put together to serve as both an advocate and in aninr sense a watchdog on these efforts. And just a couple of quick legislative landmarks for the commission, in 1961 the exchange proponent of the commission was activated. Virtually two commissions were created in 1948, one on information and one on exchange. But until 1961, the work was done exclusively by the commission on information. And then in 1963, the Exchange Commission produced the first report on education and Cultural Exchanges. And then the 1977 amendment to the 1948 act merged the information and Exchange Commission and maintained their statutory authority. Shortly thereafter it became the Advisory Commission on public diploma diplomacy. So if we go back across the years beginning with 1949 to look at these reports by the way, they areni all available, Available Online for the website. We are slowly updating our website to make these reports more accessible. {juatz back and look at them, what you realize is they i o interesting cooverview of the evolution of publicxd diplomacys part of our Foreign Policy activity. Over all these reports is come up with about six areasxd where fall. There was certainly across the careers a real interest in resources funding, but also very early on, and ill take you bacr to the 1950s and show you this a concern about research and evaluation. That was there from the very beginning. Not only how do we create these programs and how do we make them effective but how do we assess their value. A secondary of concern that is perennial was the professional status of the practitioners. Became the Public Diplomacy office. Their training, their development. A third area focused the institutional structure, what this beast of Public Diplomacy would be shaped as whether preusia iteration and then usaa. Then after usias creation sustained debate on validity importance and need for reform of usia. Also where diplomacy sits into the interagency. How much power should Public Diplomacy have, how to get leadership to sit at the table where the decisions are made. The fourth area that is consistent across the 70 years is concerns about how to take advantage and adapt advancements in Communication Technologies. I think its easy for us to forget, as we arenr now in this period of dealing with social media and internet and the consequences of these multiple and multiplying platforms and the challenges they provide, i think its easiest for us to forget this is not a new problem and that with every iteration, every introduction, short wave radio, television and satellite, at every stage we wrestled with how to take Communication Technologies and turn them into useful tools forco our purposes. A fifth area is, of course, perennial concern about the nature of education and Cultural Exchanges not only funding but their tenor, their tone and what they should be focusing on andx International Broadcasting services. So there are things, there are that dont fit into these categories. But by and large, these are the issues that dominate the reports. So what id like to do now is take you through, decade by decade, how these reports were framed and what kind of issues they focus on with the coidea, to the end of this, a kind of sense of the arc of publicjrhk diplomacy challenges over thenr last ni70 years. Im going to put my glasses on because this is smaller. So 1950nis, early cold war, was period where the recommendations were quiteconi foundationalnr i nature. There was, as ico mentioned, immediately a concern not just about the programs themselves but how they were going to be evaluated andnr assessed. Very interestingly how we could get more field input into the way in which these programs were developed. This was the time in which then legislative basis for Public Diplomacy practitioners was created. Not only did they get official career status, they were also granted diplomatic immunity and diplomatic passports. That was a tremendous development for the time. There was in that period, of course, the creation of usia and getting the usia director a seat in the cabinet. A very, very important development. And even in the 50s, talking about focus on technology, were early discussions in theco reporting about, what arenr we going to do about this interesting phenomenon called television. This was 20 years before world net. So very early on someni prescie thinking about that. There was a lot of interest in where the education and exchango component should sit. And finally, there wasco a lot discussion about how we were going to establishco a viable u. Presence in the Global Information space as it was then. So a lot of thought about how we could push the american story o out wards using our services. In the 1960s characterized by events such as bay of pigs and vietnam, an era of conflict and dissent, you could see a little bit of shift in focus in the reporting. By then, by the 60s, Solid Research components within usia had been developed, but there was a sense these Research Divisions were not adequate to the task, so there was a continuing discussion about how we could make research and evaluation work better. In terms of professional training, now x that professio core had been established, it had to be fully professionalized. There was a concern even then in the 60s about how to elevate the status of the Public Diplomacy officer within the country team context as well as in washington operations. In the 60s already a sense usia was a miss, that wasnt quite the organization that we needed. Again, might come as come of a shock, those of us who thought 1990s was a period where usia came into question. About whether it was the right sort of agency for what we needed and whether the right mix of powers. As you might imagine, more exploration of use of audio visual techniques and a real push in the 60s to Court Congress for support in terms of Cultural Exchange programs, a tradition that has, in fact, and with the broadcast services that need to keep up with the new technologies as they developed. Then we get to the 70s, the era of pingpong, diplomacy, camp david, of course, china and the middle east, and as these issues are swirling about a conversation in the 70s with respect to resources starts a conversation about linking resourcing to Public Diplomacys strategic potential. There wasni really interesting discussion of Public Diplomacy as a strategic tool in the 70s. Again, i think forwardlooking. More of a focus toward relationships in the field. For example, looking at how Public Diplomacy officers related to their ambassadors in the field and what their status might be in the country team. There were concerns about updating short wave transmission capacities. There was a push in the 70s particularly on expanding english languagexteaching programs. Thats a period where they really pushed them out morenrnr broadly as well as exhibit programs. In a sense, with respect to the Broadcasting Services,ni by 190 there was a lotco more competitn in the Global Information space. More needed to be done to remain competitive and viable in that space. co then we getni to the 80s, beru and berlin, catastrophic attack on our embassies, the start talks, the arms race, and,nr ofr course, the foundations for the fall of the wall. And in that period, the first point where you begin to seeni seriousni discutrjju of not onl needing more money for Public Diplomacy activities but lookino at how miniscule the expenditure on Public Diplomacy wasco in comparison to, for example, defense spending or even Foreign Affairs spending. Xdco there was a concern in the 80s, again, we think perhapsnini thi a concern thats limited to our era of filling longstanding vacancies at the most senior levels ofco leadership where th began to be a problem. The 80s sawxd the beginning of we are still workingniconi thro hoacon you maiftinnini the pub access nature of publiccoco psjni in an necessarilyni conrrjckfree. There was a concern that maybe what we couldi]ni do with publio diplomacz of the debate whicha psqb u r more heated later on. The shift,nrco of course, to th satelliteni technology, world i, field remember, imni conisure, jallednico sl all kinds of wars, weoz zz saw renewed focus in terms of researchnini andni evaluation o polling andni audiencecoxdnrnin and a real pushmy forninr more u licni within the interagency coordination process to include qatnr nsc. n. And there was, i think, also in the 90scoco a sense of frustra about the secondco class naturef Public Diplomacy, anni att7aq defend publicninr diplomacyni ax a tom act fpnco . a, aoucylm n, nr the countries of the former soviet union and easterni europe, providedni themnini wit tremendous resourc and and ho over but were in another kind of war. In that in the 2000s and also as a consequence of integration, which happens usia and state department which happens on the cusp of 2000, theres a focus in terms of resources how we protect the fire walls around pd funding. And in terms of professional status, especially with Public Diplomacy moved into department of state, a concern about how competitive Public Diplomacy officers were going to be within the department of state and what their promotion rates would look like compared to the other state department officers. And also the degree to which Public Diplomacy officers would have a shot at ambassadorial positions and other leadership positions that were not necessarily available to them while usia was a separate agency. This is a period were taking a hard look at these issues. In terms of the institutional structure, there was there remains quite a bit of concern about the way in which the usia was integrated into the department of state, concern that the stove piping of regional bureaus taking region issues and eca and iip taking program issues, bifurcation and separation of program and resources and geographical area had some impact on the ability of the diplomacy initiatives to be effective. In terms of technology, having embraced and worked to dont the social Media Technologies into our own programming, how we counter malign influence of use of these very same tools and how to cope with that. In terms of Public Access with diversion, of course, with the Embassy Bombings and 9 11 and creation of new harden embassies where were often moved out of town or created in such a way that made access to American Centers almost impossible, a real debate about how we could continue to provide Public Access to our programs and resources. And finally, interesting questions in the 2000s about the Broadcasting Services which multiplied. Were concerned about duplication of effort and overlap and concern that perhaps there had to be a more rational way of organizing these services and what that might look like. So that brings us to where we are today. And so what were some of these actual recommendations of consequence. I talked about a lot of areas in which these recommendations were made. But what did these recommendations actually provide over time . A fair question. Well, in fact, the creation of usia and cabinet level status for usia director, that happened and that was a direct result of the commissions recommendation. The legislation as i mentioned giving status to Public Diplomacy officers, the redesign and upgrade of Binational Centers in american libraries around the world came from the commission. The merger of state Departments Bureau of education and Cultural Affairs with usia, effort to consolidate information in cultural programs, a commission recommendation, the institutionalization of support for datadriven pd Decision Making through Research Analysis and evaluation came from the commission. The suggestion that the center of gravity needed to be created for Public Diplomacy to support initially cve and then later malign influencers, which is now what we call the Global Engagement center. That initial recommendation came from the commission. The development of new Public Accessibility standards for american spaces overseas that met security requirements, and this was worked in collaboration with diplomatic security, a commission recommendation. Commission also recommended a blue sky on the future board of broadcasting governors. I think we can make take case for sort of starting the process toward what is now the u. S. Agm. The recent merger of pa and iap into what is the Global Public Affairs Bureau to better coordinate and focus messaging at its origins in the commission. So sort of a runthrough over the years of what the commission was able to achieve during its recommendations. So here we are today, and i promise you that i take a quick look at what the recommendations are for 2019. But since were also talking about 70 years, i thought it would be interesting to look at them side by side. So what you have are the recommendations from 1949, almost all of them. The reports in those days were blessedly short and concise and have given me much room for thought. Then i put on the other side some of the recommendations, key recommendations you will see in the report in a few weeks. I think the side by side comparison is instructive. So we have in 1949, and this is almost word for word, i modified here and there to make it for clarity, but there was real concern about gaps between department of state policies and the information and outreach function. And the need to address Serious Problems of coordination and possible conflicts between Information Programs carried out by various government departments. And you see our 2019 recommendation, which called for information sharing across the u. S. Government agencies and prioritization and synchronization. So 1949 they called for a better, more balanced budget for military economic and information policies with concern there was perhaps a preponderance of support for military followed by economic and then finally information. And in 2019 we had sustained investments in Public Diplomacy and global media programs as a priority. In 1949 there were some very specific recommendations about programming, about broadcast facilities, about the number of films, about what kind of tools we would need for the field and what would be most useful. And in 2019, we were called to conduct a Strategic Review of all of these structures and programs and consolidate and modernize the mission. So not exactly parallel, but you can see how in the 1949 focus, very specific focus on the set of tools we can get to where we are in 2019 with overall Strategic Review. There was a concern about resourcing more specific to travel and representation and for the field and also the kinds of visual materials and other items that would attractive to far flung places. And in 2019 we have renewed the focus on field driven information outreach. That is to say trusting the field to be able to tell us what their needs are and empowering and enabling the field to do the job that they need to do to further our interests. Finally, the concern that the information about the United States is not really penetrating in the way that it should, and by this recommendation for Global Public Affairs Agency to increase the frequency of briefings in order to keep audiences up to date about our strategies, our values, and our interests. So by laying these two reports outside by side, i think theres some interesting conclusions that we can come to, and ill be interested in hearing what you have to say about that as well. The first thing i want to say is that just because were reporting on them in 2019 and that some of the issues are very, very similar is not suggesting the commission isnt doing its job. That is to say, if they had fixed it, why are we still talking about it seven years later, but rather an indication of the enduring nature of these problems and a reminder that we continually need to be asking ourselves these questions and need the commission or Something Like the commission to keep us engaged on these issues because they are enduring and they are not going to go away and they are part of the fabric of Public Diplomacy. The second thing i think we can take away from this is, yes, some things never change. All right. So weve been through the past, ive given you kind of a taste of what it is that were looking at today in terms of recommendations. But here and this is where i really welcome your input and your thoughts on this as Public Diplomacy practitioners, what next. I said looking backwards to look forwards. Well, here is looking forward. Here is the emerging issues and trends that weve seen before but are taking on new import in this day and age. The perennial identity crisis for Public Diplomacy. Is Public Diplomacy a legitimate tool of state craft . Where does it belong in the interagency process . What defines Public Diplomacy and how it should be orchestrated, this is a question that comes up continually. I think actually it is its understandable that the nature of Public Diplomacy and how it should be structured and who should be doing it and what the priorities are continually under review in a way other aspects of the state department are not, that is because the purpose of Public Diplomacy is to inform and influence target audiences in such a way as to affect behaviors and perceptions to get them to at least tolerate if not accept and support our policies, it is a very human endeavor. Its trying to change minds and affect the way people think. I think that very fluid, very difficult to define nature of Public Diplomacy and the challenge of its mission is part of the reason why we do have this perpetual identity crisis about the profession. The second thing we need to really be looking at is 21st century Public Diplomacy in terms of the modernization of staff of position descriptions essentially. In fact, our ppr is engaged in a Modernization Program of local engaged staff description positions getting rid of the designations of press and culture and making it all audience focused. I think there was a lot of merit to it. This was not a comment that necessarily was arguing the merits or demerits of the approach but the information environment has changed and we do have to think very hard about how we change something as basic as position descriptions. Not only for locally engaged staff but also for our officers and changes in the way we think about Public Diplomacy then have to be, i think, holistic. This is something thats coming and something that we need to look at very carefully. The metrics challenge. We have outdone ourselves in creating metrics and Performance Measures year after year recommendations in the commission probably contributed to this metrics. The problem i see arising is that each division, each bureau seems to be developing a unique set of metrics and Performance Measures which are great. They can make a case for them that being completely appropriate to the issues. But when you want to step back and get a Bigger Picture sense of how to measure all the activity, its often very difficult to reconcile these competing ways of thinking about performance and evaluations. Thats something that we need to Pay Attention to. Data privacy. We are always looking for more and better ways to do audience research, right . The more we know our audiences, the more effectively we can design our programs and assess their impact. But the reason that were not competitive, frankly, in the area of research is because we cant access certain kinds of information about audiences that can be accessed in the private sector. I think we have to have a real conversation about how we want to handle this. You know, we want to be able to get the best information possible, but we also have to think about what kind of restrictions we want to place on the kinds of information we can obtain. I think we need to look at that as well. Or we have to revise our expectations about the kind of research we can do and leave it at that. The virtual and the actual. We have to find the right balance between cutting edge social media and traditional outreach tools. That, i think, is something we continually have to Pay Attention. There is here and there a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water, look at traditional tools, and not used for our purposes. This balancing act is important. How to maintain competitive in the Educational Exchange Program Environment in the case of chinas tremendous push to provide education as one geographical specific area we need to look at. Made in russia, do we need new containment strategy . What is the best response to russian disinformation . Finally, the perennial interagency coordination. I initially wanted to call this interagency coordination myth and madness. My husband talked me out of it. So coordination is essential. But how to do it and how to do it effectively, i dont think weve arrived at it. Maybe we never will. Maybe we need to rethink our expectations about interagency coordination. But if we do that, what would it look like . And some final questions, Bigger Picture, the issues i just ran through were pretty tactical in nature. In this day and age, how do we maintain the sanctity of the last three feet . What happens to the essential people that people contact in the world that is increasingly privilege virtual encounters. How do we manage the impact of this rapidly evolving information acquisition processing and distribution trends on our information and influence strategies . We live in an age with the paradox of plenty. I dont know if youve heard the formation of this information age. He says paradox of plenty, with all of this information available, the plenty of information leads to scarcity of attention. Its very, very difficult to get audience attention in this day and age. Then when you have manipulation influencers out there who use this tremendous wash of information to their own purposes, it raises serious questions about how we remain effective and strategic in an environment like this. Finally how do we promote unique Cultural Information products in a world where anything and everything is now accessible. In terms of image and sound. Those of us full timers in the room remember sending out great performers, jazz artists to regions of the world that may not otherwise have access to that kind of opportunity. That is no longer the case. Everything is available everywhere at all times. How do we remain how do we continue to produce programming and events and opportunities and information that can remain meaningful given this challenge. With that, i will look forward to your questions and your response to this look at 70 years of Public Diplomacy reporting. Thank you very much for your attention. [ applause ] while youre thinking of your questions, i want to remind you, please speak up, because okay. Because of the cspan coverage. Just in consideration of your colleagues to make sure we all hear what youre asking. With that i want to say a special thank you to dr. Walker. You gave us a lot of food for thought. Anyone who is worrying about the sanctity of the last three feet is dear to our heart by definition. So questions, please, or comments. Comments as well. Identify yourself, please, michael then katherine. Mike anderson. If you look at the history of the commission over 70 years, it seems like in the early days it had very prestigious members, Frank Stanton of cbs and many other leading scholars and academics and media figures. Over the years, the quality or prestige of the Board Commission members seemed to decline. Would you comment on that . How can that be restored . I think you could argue that the quality of the Commission Members output gets attention. The white house, state department and importantly in the wider public. If you dont have that prestige, you dont get the attention of congress, policymakers, white house, and the public. Thank you. In answering that, im going to borrow heavily from Bruce Gregory there he is. In fact, bruce, jump in at any point. I hope you will. Bruce defines as a former executive director as well, im sure you all know, he talks about three eras of the commission. The first era as you point out is an era where we have household names, literary and cultural icons, james mitchner, many of them. Then the second era is an era of commissioner who might not necessarily be household names or nationally or internationally known but certainly movers and shakers in the Washington Community and beyond in the Business Community and the media world and have the ability to pick up the phone or write the letter and have the conversation that could perhaps influence events. Then were in the third era of the commission, which is the era of the executive director. Im walking in the shoes of truly extraordinary executive directors, katherine brown, for example, who launched the report as we know it today, the compendium. That was really her baby. And then shawn powers who followed her and now at usagm with some groundbreaking work on can pd survive the internet, for example, which is one of the most highly cited works on these issues out there today. And i take your point about your concern about the effectiveness of the commission, but i find the findings that were actually adopted that i pointed out to you occurred during the area of executive directors. And i think as long as we have a set of commissioners and executive director who are attuned to the problem, who are open to asking the hard questions and doing the research to get the answers, as long as we continue to produce reports that people read and take action on, then i am not so worried about the future and the value of the commission. The commissioners certainly add luster and the commissioners we have today are dedicated and very interested in what we do, but the work of the Commission Goes on. Im katherine. A very basic question, how is the commission funded . And how has that changed over 70 years . I dont know the history of the 70 years. We have an allocation administered through the department of state. We are run administratively out of the department of state. First we were in an te ra of Information Programs now we are. Other questions, comments, please . Hi, my name is jeffrey. Yes, maam. My question was about how the commission keeps its finger on the pulse of pd despite the changes happening and how do its recommendations remain relevant. And if there have been incorrect recommendations in the past, how those have been corrected . Okay. So your first question was how are we how do recommendations provided by acpd remain relevant. Really good question. So a number of different ways. Every year in preparation for the annual report, we send out a set of questions to all of the regional and functional bureaus, eca, to gpa and to usatm. We ask the folks to update their sections of the report. So any new information, any new data, work from the template from the previous year. So we touch every bureau, every Major Division and every office within the department of state and also usagm to solicit this information. We also travel to posts overseas and use that as an opportunity to learn more about programs and to refresh our experiences of Public Diplomacy in the field. And then we either write ourselves or Commission Special reports focusing on particular topics of interest. I mention can pd survive the internet, data driven Public Diplomacy. Weve done studies on security for american spaces and american corners. So we do special reports on issue sets that seem to be of value and relevance. I think we do a reasonably good job on keeping our finger on the pulse but we can always do better. One of my goals in my own time as executive director is to try to broaden the reach of the commission as a platform for discussion, into the academic communities as well as policy communities. Another way ive been approaching this is to take the whole of government mandate that the commission has. The initial language for the commission did not ask it to focus specifically on the department of state. The commission is supposed to look at the Public Diplomacy activities across the u. S. Government. Now, admittedly the bulk of Public Diplomacy activities do occur in department of state but we can think of a few agencies, institutions out there that do a few of their own that include department of defense. And as a preview at the end of january, im sponsoring with the National War College and National Defense university the first look at how we define Information Space in order to teach it. So that will be an attempt to sort of get our finger on the pulse of what the folks in the Dod Community are thinking about Information Space, Public Diplomacy and to and then how the people that study at professional military education institutions in this area are not just military but civilians from across interagency. So really how are we educating the next generation of leadership to think about issues like the Information Space and Public Diplomacy and how to use it strategically in pursuit of our interest. Thats another example where we try to broaden our reach. Ive talked so much ive forgotten the second and third part of your question so if you will indulge me. The second part, recommendations provided by acpd have been wrong and if so wrong or right. I dont know about wrong or right. Recommendations not accepted, absolutely. Or ignored. But thats okay, too. In some sense i dont think of the commission so much as the answer people. I think of the commission as the question people. I think its important to realize what the tough issues are and to get a number of people to provide their input and advice about whats the best way forward. Sometimes the recommendations that we come up as a result of these conversations are not recommendations that are necessarily approved. But i wouldnt put them in the question of wrong or right. This isnt the business of wrong or right. This is the business of collecting ideas, sharing them in the public sphere and then coming to some kind of consensus about how best to move forward. Introduce yourself again. Hi, im pdra. I would be interested in two questions. Number one, what is the number one challenge in your safety pd officers today. Second question somewhat related, do you think the datadriven, we need all this information has driven pd officers off the rail. I go to embassies where literally they are spending their whole days in front of computers trying to measure something and not getting out. So two questions. I think they are combined. I do have a concern when you talk about the world of Public Diplomacy officers about the way in which the range of their responsibilities in the field right now. Part of it is datadriven. Part is the attention to metrics. But its also as a consequence of the use of social media tools which require constant maintenance and media response. So Public Diplomacy officers and john baxter, my Senior Adviser over here, who is working with me on these issues, we can attest to the fact that in our conversations with Public Diplomacy officers in the field, they find that the time that they have to do sort of the longterm Strategic Planning, the time that they would need normally to go out and talk to contacts and engage is increasingly limited by the demands placed by the continuous shortterm advocacy response on issues and also this business of measuring and evaluating and assessing programs and continually. It seems like no sooner that youve completed one set of requirements or fulfilled one set of assessments, then another one comes along. Then this commission is reaching out for more information. I think that is a very big challenge that the Public Diplomacy officers in the field are dealing with and one that washington perhaps doesnt appreciate. Not that washington is not interested in the problem, but you have to be in the field to understand just how overwhelming some of these requests can be. Thank you very much, vivian. Im just wondering, i know sometimes you do go up to the hill to talk with members and staff of congress, im wondering how you find members and staff in Public Diplomacy, are they responsive to your views and particularly to the need for more resources . I would have to caveat this by saying since ive been on board, i havent had contact with members. I have talked to staffers on both sides. My sense is that among the core of staffers interested in Public Diplomacy issues, there is a genuine support for and interest in Public Diplomacy. Theres a general recognition of the values of the programs. They reached out to me and and certainly reached out to my predecessors on support drafting resolution or bill that would are support increased resources for Public Diplomacy. So my impression so far is theres a genuine desire to be helpful and to at least maintain, if not increase level will funding. But the reality is that there are many, many competing priorities on the hill, and it is often difficult for Public Diplomacy to take front and center when theres so many other issues under consideration. We just have time for a few more questions and im going to call on this lady in one moment. I want to put Bruce Gregory, if you pinpoint before you are one of the distinguished featured speakers today. But first, well take a couple more questions. Mary. Introduce yourself and speak loudry. Mary krueger, retired fso. Question, you mentioned the Advisory Commission talks about questions, not just the answers. Has there been discussion about how to communicate in an era when the concept of truth is, what, a question itself . And related to that, one of the processes that i have observed is i remember in usia during my career, we very much emphasized reason, facts, and things that were generally agreed upon as truths. Thats what we communicated about. In todays communication environment, the role of the emotion is much more important than it used to be. And the question of how you approach your audience seems to me as if much of social media is based on playing on emotions rather than presenting facts. Well, with response to your question about the truth or the posttruth environment or postfact environment, yes, that is a perennial question, and it was, i think, the one of the ones i put up here. Anyway, the question of, when im talking about joseph nye and how we remain oh, here it was. That one the second one. Yes, in this environment where there are so many competitors for truth, and there is, because of this absolute explosion of information, the audiences who are so overwhelmed that their default is to go with things they already know or conform to their previously held beliefs, or, you know, that dont necessarily challenge their views, its very difficult to compete effectively in that environment. The report that i mentioned a couple times already, can pd survive the internet, something that we put out about a year and a half ago, talks about ways to address that. And i think its a perennial problem. As to the emotional nature of social media, yeah. It is. It is very emotional. And were not going to walk back the use of these media tools, social media tools, but then the challenge becomes, as i mentioned in the look ahead is how do we balance that with the use of the traditional tools that allow us to be able to provide that context and that opportunity for reflection and engagement . I think thats still possible. But i think we have to be very conscious of the need to provide those opportunities for broader reflection and engagement. Even as we have to work in the short term responding to these questions. Anything you would like to add . I have had a habit of not going to the back pages, but that said, three quick points. I think this is a splendid presentation, and i have been a big fan of the executive directors beginning with david kramer, catherine brown, shaun powers, and now vivian, for the work theyre doing at a very different era for the commission. I value and respect the past, but the most interesting part of what shes talked about today are the final questions and where we go from here. So i think ill leave it there. Bruce, thank you so much. I am going to just thank vivian and ask you all to join me in applause. Many of you know the Public Diplomacy association of america and the Public Diplomacy council has a working group to decide whether we should continue to hold hands or get married and that working group is working very hard on that, and we will ultimately develop more of a signature gift. But in the interim, i wanted to share with vivian the very first pbc signature cookie, made in door county, wisconsin. And it must be eaten right away because it has no preservatives whatsoever. And its a tiny thank you for an enormous job you just did as our first speaker in 2020. Please join me in thanking dr. Vivian walker. I will say its very sweet of you. Okay. Thank you all. Up next here on cspan3, a house hearing on the impact of Agriculture Technology on farming and whether federal fallacy needs to change to adapt to emerging technology. Then, politicos state Solutions Conference and conversations with a number of governors about issues theyre dealing with in their states. It begins with illinois governor j. B. Pritzker, faroed by larry hogan and asa hutchinson. Museum week continues this evening with a visit to the National Museum of American History. To learn about the centennial of the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote. Each night this week, were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan3. And be sure to watch museum week all this week, starting at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv. Here on cspan3. Tonight on cspan, President Trump holds a Campaign Rally in phoenix, arizona. Live coverage starts at 9 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan, but you can also watch online at cspan. Org or listen live with the free cspan radio app. Campaign 2020 is in nevada friday. Live at 3 00 p. M. Eastern. As President Trump speaks in las vegas ahead of the states caucus. Live coverage on cspan. Watch on demand at cspan. Org and listen on the go with the free cspan radio app. A house Small Business subcommittee is looking into whether federal policy is helping Agriculture Technology such as Rural Broadband access. Heres the hour and 40 minute hearing. Good
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.