Week 2: What we can learn from PD Case Studies

Related to the point about “listening” that I discussed in my blog entry last week, I found that one of the central lessons that PD practitioners discovered was that their efforts were most successful when actually thinking about what the local population wants, or how they think about and interpret different ideas, instead of focusing only on what the U.S. policymakers are dictating.  Having a better understanding of the local culture and the local population is invaluable, as it gives these officers insight into better handling their work and what will be the most successful way to interact with the public.  Walter Douglas’ explained his experience in Pakistan, and he noted how many communications specialists’ lack of understanding or listening, and instead, their jump to engaging and informing, hoping that those steps will automatically lead to influence.  His discussion of the embassy realizing the need to delve into Urdu instead of relying on only English sources (to get a real sense of what was going on in Pakistan) was a perfect example of how a lack of understanding can lead to misguided policies.

Another lesson I discovered from reading the various studies involves that of using one’s resources wisely and to their utmost capabilities.  The lack of money or funding for PD efforts in certain countries is absolutely limiting, but I thought there were some very creative alternative projects undertaken that didn’t necessarily involve the more typical exchange programs to the U.S. 

One of my favorite case studies in Kiehl’s book was the chapter by Elizabeth McKay on her work in Turkey.  She gives very clear, specific and incredibly creative examples of actual public diplomacy projects that were started in-country and how their initiatives really tried to cater to what their audiences wanted from them.  She described the Youth Innovation and Entrepreneurship Program (YIEP), that involved working with local public schools and specifically communities “where students would otherwise have little to no opportunity to participate in a USG program or would have little direct exposure to Americans and not know America beyond conventional stereotypes.”  They trained teachers, organized hands-on experience for students, provided technological opportunities to learn, and held a regional business fair for the high school teams to compete in and share products and ideas.  Another project was the Youth Filmmakers, that gave young people an opportunity to convey their views on an international stage on issues they cared about, a program incredibly well-organized and with a widespread and continued impact post film screenings.

In terms of making public diplomacy efforts more successful, I think the new law requiring information released by embassies to be closely monitored by Washington is somewhat dangerous to the goals.  As the U.S. Embassy in Iraq experienced, the ability to speak freely and have conversations through immediate forums like social media sites is important, and although there should certainly be a balance to ensure security, rigid monitors can provide a particular handicap to PD effectiveness.  I also felt that working “across lines” was necessary to make PD more successful.  It is okay to have different “lanes” for the various roles performed by information officers, cultural officers, political officers, etc., but working cohesively as a unit to promote public diplomacy (which touches all of those fields) is also incredibly important.  This cohesive attitude, however, goes beyond the inner dynamics of the embassies and the government agencies involved in that country, and should reach beyond, partnering with non-profits, academia, foundations, the private sector, etc.  The Brazil case study explained this well.  This can also address my earlier point about financial restrictions, because partnering with other organization can present new funding opportunities, but also support in other resources that could allow more creative ideas for PD outreach.