From monologue to dialogue? : U.S. public diplomacy in the post-9/11 era

• Main Author: Kelley, John Robert
• Published: London School of Economics and Political Science (University of London) 2007
• Subjects: 327.20973
• Online Access: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.645658

In comparing a considerable amount of the reportage, analysis and candor preceding this study, there is one conclusion that virtually all evaluations on United States public diplomacy after September 2001 would agree on: the consolidated efforts of the U.S. government to inform, influence and engage with foreign publics in pursuit of its national interest are deeply flawed. This gloomy outlook is borne out by identified deficiencies in strategy, coordination and organization, which have furthermore attracted intense scrutiny in response to opinion polls showing consistently low favorability towards the United States by foreign populations. A wide range of observers has drawn attention to various aspects of the overall diagnosis, and consequently formed an active segment of the general scholarship on public diplomacy. What enriches the discussion on the U.S. case is when the focus turns to positing solutions, as the ensuing debate invokes historical, theoretical and futuristic perspectives on the processes, roles, and activities considered within public diplomacy's scope. This study isolates two broad explanations for the failure of post-9/11 U.S. public diplomacy. The advocacy model represents the American public diplomacy 'tradition' of campaign style, one-way information flows, while the advisory model represents a two-way, 'dialogic' mode that has been championed by proponents of the 'new' public diplomacy. This study views American public diplomacy as situated at a crossroads as it solves the riddles of its failures - to further embrace tradition or adopt a new path.