Nauert Withdraws, UN Ambassador Post Available Again, Hurry!

Posted: 12:30 am EST

 

We’re late on this but apparently, Heather Nauert who was publicly announced as nominee to be the next U.N. Ambassador has withdrawn herself from consideration citing “the past two months” as “grueling” for her family. Her statement released with the State Department announcement on February 16 says that “it is in the best interest” of her family to withdraw.

Bloomberg News says “Trump’s pick for UN ambassador had employed a nanny who was in US legally but didn’t have a US work permit.”

Wait. When was this nanny hired? The spokesperson job does not require senate confirmation but like almost all jobs at the State Department, it requires a security clearance. So are they saying that the nanny issue, if that was the issue, did not come up during her initial vetting when she first came to State two years ago?

MSM is also reporting that Ms. Nauert is not expected to return to her State Department jobs. Until her announced nomination, she was the department spokesperson, and for a while, she was also the Acting Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, after the Senate-confirmed “R” Steve Goldstein was fired with Rex Tillerson.  In August 2018, the State Department appointed career FSO Robert Palladino as deputy spokesperson. But to-date, no one has been announced to succeed her as spokesperson, and there’s not even an acting spokesperson.

In any case, the post of UN Ambassador is up for grabs again, and some names we’ve heard before, we are hearing once more.  The Apprentice UN Edition is now on, people! So exciting dammit, I nearly micturated!

A side note —

At times, though not always, the State spokesperson is also dual-hatted as the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. The assistant secretary position used to be Senate-confirmed but P.L. 112-116, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 (signed into law August 10, 2012), removed the requirement for Senate confirmation of Assistant Secretaries of State for Public Affairs.

Anyone remember why this was done?

You should know that on February 5, Secretary Pompeo delegated to Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Michelle Giuda the authorities of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R). Her official title is “Senior Official for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs and Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs.

It appears that the State Department is just going with “senior official” now and no longer even make use of the “acting” title for officials.  It also appears that the State Department no longer adhere to the previous practice of only appointing Senate-confirmed officials in “acting” capacity (don’t remember senior officials as responsible for their bureaus prior to this administration). We should note that only one official at the “R” bureau has been confirmed by the Senate, that’s the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs Marie Royce (and spouse of former HFAC chair Ed Royce).

Is this Pompeo’s version of Trump’s “I like acting. It gives me more flexibility.”

 

Related posts:

 

Advertisements

NYC Marketing Executive Steven Goldstein to be Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R)

Posted: 1:02 am ET
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’]

 

On September 15, President Trump announced his intent to nominate Irwin Steven Goldstein to be Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy. The title is actually Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R). The WH released the following brief bio:

Irwin Steven Goldstein of New York to be the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, Department of State. Mr. Goldstein has been a Senior Vice President at BP Global Solutions, a consulting firm in New York City, since 2012. His recent work includes serving as a senior advisor to Winning Algorithms, a data science start-up. In his four-decade career, Mr. Goldstein has led communications, branding, and social media efforts at several large private sector companies, including as senior vice president and chief communications officer at AllianceBernstein; executive vice president and chief communications officer at TIAA-CREF; and vice president, corporate communications at Dow Jones & Company. In the public sector, he was Assistant to the Secretary and Director of Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of the Interior and served five members of the U.S. House of Representatives, primarily as Chief of Staff or Press Secretary. Mr. Goldstein earned a B.A. at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The nominee is also known as I. Steven Goldstein and his BP Global Solutions bio notes his prior service at the Department of Interior:

Steve’s experience includes seven years as Executive Vice President and Chief Communications Officer for TIAA, a Fortune 100 financial services firm providing retirement security to individuals in the not-for-profit sector. As Vice President and Chief Communications Officer for Dow Jones/The Wall Street Journal, Steve helped guide one of the world’s premier newspapers through a major redesign and through the tumultuous period following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the administration of President George H.W. Bush, Steve served as an Assistant Secretary and the Director of Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of the Interior.  He previously was a press secretary and chief of staff on Capitol Hill.

There’s also another potential connection to the current denizens of Foggy Bottom. The nominee was EVP and Chief Communications Officer  for TIAA.  Maliz Beams, the former CEO of Retirement Solutions at Voya Financial recently hired as State Department Counselor was also previously the Chief Executive Officer of TIAA-CREF Individual and Institutional Services, LLC (see Former Voya Financial CEO Maliz Beams Appointed @StateDept Counselor).

#

POTUS Designates Amb. Bruce Wharton Acting U/S For Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

Posted: 12:28 am ET
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

On December 8, Ambassador Bruce Wharton was designated as acting Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R). Quick bio below:

Ambassador Wharton served as as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of African Affairs from 2015-2016. Prior to that he served as the U.S. Ambassador to Zimbabwe from September 2012 to November 2015. He has also served as the Bureau of African Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy, AF Director of the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, and Deputy Coordinator of the State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs. From 2003 to 2006 he was the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala.

Bruce Wharton entered the Foreign Service in 1985 and has served at U.S. embassies in Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. In Africa, he has also had temporary duty in Tanzania, Nigeria, Kenya, and Ghana. From 1992 to 1995 he worked in Washington, D.C. on Andean Affairs and Western Hemisphere policy issues. He has received Superior and Meritorious Honor Awards from the Department of State and the U.S. Information Agency, and was the 2011 recipient of the Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in Public Diplomacy.

He is a graduate of the University of Texas in Austin and speaks Spanish and German.

#

Wolverine vs. ISIS? Secretary Kerry Chats With Hollywood to ‘Counter’ Islamic State

Posted: 2:42 am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

Via the Daily Press Briefing:

QUESTION: And then – I’m wondering if you can give us any more detail at all about this meeting that the Secretary had out in Hollywood with these film studio executives. He, in his tweet, said that he was there hearing perspectives and ideas on how to counter the Daesh narrative, and I’m just wondering if you can be more specific. I mean, is – was he asking their advice on how to do this, or was he suggesting things? I mean —

MR TONER: Sure. I think —

QUESTION: Does this – is he looking for the next Wolverine movie to be Wolverine vs. ISIS? What’s the —

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, flanked by Universal Filmed Entertainment Group Chairman Jeff Shell, meets with a group of movie industry executives during a visit to Universal Studios in Burbank, California, on February 16, 2016. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, flanked by Universal Filmed Entertainment Group Chairman Jeff Shell, meets with a group of movie industry executives during a visit to Universal Studios in Burbank, California, on February 16, 2016. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]

MR TONER: I mean, kidding aside –

QUESTION: What was it? No, no, I’m not —

MR TONER: No, no, of course. I mean, look, he – it was – he had the chance to meet with a number of senior executives in the entertainment industry. I mean, these are the people, I think, widely recognized who are some of the best communicators out there, and they run a highly profitable industry that is expert at conveying messages to a worldwide audience. So I think he sought their – not I think – he sought their perspectives and input about how the United States and the rest of the coalition – the anti-Daesh coalition – can better counter the propaganda that’s being put forward by ISIL.

I mean, a lot of it was a discussion and a give-and-take on what’s – what they think works and what doesn’t work. And I can’t – I don’t want to get into the details because it was just an introductory meeting, but I think it’s – I think the Secretary felt it was worthwhile to have the opportunity to meet with these folks and get their input on what they think is an effective strategy.

QUESTION: Okay. So he was soliciting them on ideas about how to counter their messaging, not the other way around? He wasn’t saying, “Hey listen, we think it would be a great idea if you guys did X, X, and X to help in the —

MR TONER: No, no. I think – I mean, look, no, no. I think he was seeking their perspectives on our own efforts to counter Daesh and ISIL in terms of messaging.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, but you’re not planning on, like, outsourcing the whole CVE message to Hollywood film studios, are you?

MR TONER: No, no, gosh. But I think – I mean, it’s important that they’re part of this conversation. I mean, they’re – again, they have more so than diplomats and even public diplomacy professionals like myself. I freely admit that folks in Hollywood and Silicon Valley and – who are – who are really experts in conveying messages, whether it’s through film or through entertainment, are worthwhile to listen to and to seek – we should be seeking their advice on how we can do our job better.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can you cite an example where actually Hollywood and the government were able to sort of coordinate together to have a powerful message or film done, I mean, in the past? Is there anything —

QUESTION: World War II.

QUESTION: World War II, okay.

MR TONER: John Huston.

QUESTION: Since World War II, I was going to say.

MR TONER: But no, that’s okay. I mean, it’s —

QUESTION: Since World War II. I mean, during the Vietnam War —

QUESTION: Vietnam, yes.

QUESTION: — I mean, there was the Green Berets, for instance.

QUESTION: Top Gun.

QUESTION: Or Top Gun or something.

QUESTION: Top Gun?

QUESTION: But —

QUESTION: This is going – can we move on to something a little bit more —

MR TONER: No, I – no, no. Yeah, I mean —

QUESTION: Is he going to have more meetings with these people?

MR TONER: Again, I don’t want to say that yesterday they were inking deals on movies that will come out. All he was doing was he was taking advantage of the fact that he was there just outside of Hollywood in LA where the movie industry exists. He wanted to seek their input on how we can message better.

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: I mean, these guys, as I said, are professional —

QUESTION: You did say it was an introductory meeting. So are —

MR TONER: It was an introductory meeting, exactly.

QUESTION: So are there – is this going to be —

MR TONER: I have nothing to announce, but I think – it was a first meeting. I think it would we —

QUESTION: So there will be a sequel?

MR TONER: — we would like to see more.

QUESTION: Sequel. (Laughter.)

Variety reported that the meeting was organized by Jeff Shell, who is chair of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). Those in attendance were identified by Variety as Jeff Shell, who is also chairman of Universal Filmed Entertainment Group; MPAA Chairman Chris Dodd; Warner Bros. Entertainment CEO Kevin Tsujihara; DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg; 20th Century Fox Chairman and CEO Jim Gianopulos; 20th Century Fox Co-Chair Stacey Snider; Sean Bailey, president of Walt Disney Motion Picture Production; Universal Pictures Chairman Donna Langley; Tom Rothman, chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment’s Motion Picture Group; Universal Pictures President Jimmy Horowitz; Amblin Partners CEO Michael Wright; and NBCUniversal Vice Chairman Ron Meyer.  Rick Stengel, under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs (the new Charlotte Beers), reportedly suggested that they set up a meeting with Secretary Kerry in Los Angeles after the summit with Asian leaders in Palm Springs.

Just days before this meeting, University of Chicago researchers told ABC News that terrorists are taking pages from a Hollywood playbook to recruit new members in Chicago and across the U.S.  Apparently, the “creators of these propaganda videos are following a famous 12-step Hollywood guide on how to tell the story of a hero — a scripting formula used for decades in blockbuster movies including “Titanic,” “Wizard of Oz” and the first “Star Wars.”

Also last fall, when Hollywood was first talked about:

 

#

 

@StateDept Gears Up For Counterterrorism Messaging in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa

Posted: 12:45 am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

Last year, the State Department told us that the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications (CSCC) remains a stand-alone office reporting to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R), and has expanded to include a new counter-ISIL cell to the Center’s operation.  Following the departure of Ambassador Alberto Fernandez, the State Department appointed Rashad Hussain as United States Special Envoy and Coordinator for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications (CSCC) in February 2015. Mr. Hussain previously served as U.S. Special Envoy to the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Less than a year into his tenure as CSCC coordinator, Mr. Hussain left State to join the Department of Justice (see Another Coordinator Gone, What’s Next For the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications?).

Last week, the State Department announced the revamping of its counter-violent-extremist communications efforts (see @StateDept Announces Michael D. Lumpkin as Head of New Global Engagement Center).

A section of the ‘‘Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016’’ which became Public Law No: 114-113 on December 18, 2015 includes the following items on countering foreign fighters and violent extremist organizations. It provides 1) funding to counter the flow of foreign fighters to countries in which violent extremists or violent extremist organizations operate including partnership with governments and multilateral organizations; and 2) reduction of public support for violent extremists or violent extremist organizations by addressing the specific drivers of radicalization through engagement and public messaging campaigns.

SEC . 7073.
(a) COUNTERING  FOREIGN  FIGHTERS AND  VIOLENT EXTREMIST  ORGANIZATIONS .—Funds appropriated under titles III and IV of this Act shall be made available for programs to—

(1) counter the flow of foreign fighters to countries in which violent extremists or violent extremist organizations operate, including those entities designated as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Public Law 82–814), including through programs with partner governments and multilateral organizations to—

(A) counter recruitment campaigns by such entities;
(B) detect and disrupt foreign fighter travel, particularly at points of origin;
(C) implement antiterrorism programs;
(D) secure borders, including points of infiltration and exfiltration by such entities;
(E) implement and establish criminal laws and policies to counter foreign fighters; and
(F) arrest, investigate, prosecute, and incarcerate terrorist suspects, facilitators, and financiers; and

(2) reduce public support for violent extremists or violent extremist organizations, including FTOs, by addressing the specific drivers of radicalization, including through such activities as—

(A) public messaging campaigns to damage their appeal;
(B) programs to engage communities and populations at risk of violent extremist radicalization and recruitment;
(C) counter-radicalization and de-radicalization activities for potential and former violent extremists and returning foreign fighters, including in prisons;
(D) law enforcement training programs; and
(E) capacity building for civil society organizations to combat radicalization in local communities.

Below is the State Department’s FY2016 request (PDF) which includes an Overseas Contingency Operations Request for International Information Programs (IIP) for $6 million. Here is part of the request and justification:

The Department faces unprecedented and unanticipated Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program requirements, including countering the threat posed by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The FY 2016 OCO Request for IIP activities supports increased organizational capacity to expand counterterrorism messaging in the key languages of Arabic, Urdu, Somali and English during hours of peak activity in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.

  • Dedicated ISIL Content Group ($700,000): The request includes $700,000 for editorial content to produce and translate content specifically addressing ISIL. Resources will support production and translation of new content for Anti-ISIL efforts without sacrificing production on other enduring priorities.
  • U.S. Speakers Office ($400,000): The request includes $400,000 to dispatch U.S. speakers on short notice to engage key foreign audiences in specific target countries on emergent issues. IIP would partner closely with the relevant regional or functional bureau(s) to identify both the target countries and key audiences for each issue. In addition, IIP would leverage the expertise of these speakers through other types of programs, particularly virtual interactive discussions.
  • Digital “special forces” platform development team ($600,000): The request includes $600,000 to support formation of a team that has the capacity and ability to rapidly execute time-sensitive projects. This team of five, including one designer, two front-end developers, one back-end developer/engineer, and one production manager, would have the capacity to handle three to four concurrent projects.
  • Outreach Program ($750,000): The request includes $750,000 for outreach programs targeting non-governmental international partners in order to extend the reach of the Anti-ISIL campaign with a broader range of messages and messengers. Some of these would reach new audiences; others might have greater credibility with existing audiences. The Department currently lacks the capacity to perform the outreach necessary for such an effort. Funding would also support training to staff at posts in order to boost their capacity to conduct counter-messaging and outreach to foreign partners and contacts.
  • Digital Products ($1 million): The Department has several in-house audiovisual producers, but lacks the technical resources to produce original footage, complex animation, or mobile- phone/tablet applications. Extremist adversaries, including ISIL, exploit all of these techniques to garner recruits and support their operations. The request of $1.0 million supports augmentation of existing in-house production of mash-up videos and stand-alone banners with original films, animated clips and mobile apps. Because each of these genres would require significant up-front investment in production facilities and professional expertise, the funding will support commissioned products from proven leaders in the field.
  • Social Media Analytics ($650,000): Social media analytics can inform and shape content to make it relevant and engaging to target audiences. This new and evolving business practice can make the Department’s public diplomacy materials more effective and improve the Department’s ability to create policy content that is informed by data. The Department currently has access to only the most minimal tools for surveying and analyzing the social media environment. The Request includes $650,000 for a competitive suite of tools that would add value across the various platforms where the Department is active.
  • Liaisons ($600,000): The Department coordinates broadly across the interagency and with international partners. The request includes $600,000 for 3 dedicated positions (FTEs or equivalent), possibly in the form of reimbursable detailees, with the sole purpose of synchronizing and optimizing operations for maximum effect against the adversary.
  • Integrated Analysis ($1.3 million): The Department’s Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications Integrated Analysis section (CSCC/IA) is currently minimally staffed by two Intelligence Community officers and two Department of State civil servants. The request includes $1.3 million to ensure CSCC work is informed by intelligence and coordinated with the work of the rest of the Interagency; measuring effectiveness; and managing research into emerging counter-radicalization and messaging trends and best practices. CSCC’s increased operational tempo related to the President’s 3-year plan against ISIL and the effort against violent extremism in general, necessitates additional personnel and resources. Three reimbursable detailee billets are needed to be filled by intelligence analysts from National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency and Defense of National Intelligence Open Source Center, to ensure the highest-quality all-source intelligence support to CSCC planners and Digital Outreach Team operations. Additional funds are needed to research operations-applicable best practices and emerging technologies in the areas of counter-radicalization and target audience messaging.

 

#

 

 

CSCC: Think Again. Or #StepAwayFromTheTweets Sez El Snarkistani (Updated)

Posted: 1:44 am EDT
Updated: Dec 16, 1:31 am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

Update:

#

 

Related post: 

 

 

 

Another Coordinator Gone, What’s Next For the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications?

Posted: 2:11 am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

This past August,  the State Department told us that the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications (CSCC) remains a stand-alone office reporting to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R), and has expanded to include a new counter-ISIL cell to the Center’s operation.  Following the departure of Ambassador Alberto Fernandez, the State Department appointed Rashad Hussain as United States Special Envoy and Coordinator for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications in February 2015. Mr. Hussain previously served as U.S. Special Envoy to the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Less than a year into his tenure as CSCC coordinator, Mr. Hussain had joined the Department of Justice reportedly as “a senior official in the department’s national security branch, where he is in charge of an expanding effort to combat violent extremism as well as the Islamic State’s recruiting efforts in the United States.”  The move, according to WaPo had reportedly been “planned for months.”

Excerpt:

The State Department is considering scaling back its direct involvement in online campaigns to discredit the Islamic State after a review by outside experts cast new doubt on the U.S. government’s ability to serve as a credible voice against the terrorist group’s propaganda, current and former U.S. officials said.

The findings by the six-member panel, which included marketing experts from Silicon Valley and New York, have added to the uncertainty surrounding a State Department program that also faces another management shake-up with the departure of its second director in less than a year.
[…]
State Department officials declined to release the review group’s findings, which were laid out in a 100-page collection of slides shortly before Thanksgiving. Officials also declined to identify participants in the study but said the panel included marketing experts and data scientists from California, Texas and New York.

The “sprint team” spent three weeks reviewing U.S. messaging operations, including the work of the CSCC. The project was commissioned by the White House, but the panel’s credentials were questioned by some at State. None of the participants spoke Arabic, were knowledgeable about terrorist groups or had security clearances that would enable them to evaluate classified work.

“They were largely on the marketing and branding side — looking at ISIL and the U.S. governments as brands,” said a U.S. official familiar with the review. One of their main conclusions was that “it’s not the U.S. government that’s going to break the [Islamic State] brand,” the official said. “It’s going to be third parties.”

Read in full here.

Meanwhile DOD just got a go-ahead to counter Islamic State messaging. Below via Secrecy News: The FY2016 defense authorization bill was signed into law by President Obama on November 25. It includes the following:

“The Secretary of Defense should develop creative and agile concepts, technologies, and strategies across all available media to most effectively reach target audiences, to counter and degrade the ability of adversaries and potential adversaries to persuade, inspire, and recruit inside areas of hostilities or in other areas in direct support of the objectives of commanders.”

That statement was incorporated in Section 1056 of the 2016 Defense Authorization Act, which also directed DOD to perform a series of technology demonstrations to advance its ability “to shape the informational environment.”

 #

 

Related post: 

Matt Armstrong: No, we do not need to revive the U.S. Information Agency

Posted: 3:55 am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

Matt Armstrong (@mountainrunner) is a lecturer on public diplomacy and international media. He is writing a book on how the White House, State Department, Congress, and the media fought, struggled, and ultimately collaborated in 1917-1948 to establish U.S. “public diplomacy.” In 2011, he served as executive director of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. He was nominated and confirmed as a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) on August 1, 2013.  He blogs sometimes at mountainrunner.us. He recently wrote, No, we do not need to revive the U.S. Information Agency for War on The Rocks.  Below is an excerpt. He says that the views expressed in this piece are his own, so don’t blame anyone else.

.

.

More than once in the past decade or more, I guarantee that you have heard — or read — someone declare the United States would be better off today if the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) were still around and how without it, the United States was robbed of the ability to properly engage in information warfare today. Some of these discussions have been in Congress and at least one bill was introduced in recent years to try to recreate a limited USIA. However, laments about USIA are really a coded way of saying that we lack a strategy, an organizing principle, and empowered individuals to execute information warfare today.
[…]
In 1999, the “peace dividend” needed more money, and either USAID or USIA was going to help fund it. While USAID’s chief fought for his agency, USIA’s did not. But why was USIA even on the chopping block? Partly because of the incomplete, or tainted, knowledge of its role (primary credit goes to Fulbright), but also partly because USIA’s narrative, its raison d’être, had failed to adapt to the new normal, which would have been a lot like its early years.

Abolishing USIA was messy. Parts went to State, mostly under the purpose-built office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, but not all. And the broadcasting portion was spun off into a separate federal agency, the Broadcasting Board of Governors. A 2000 report on the status of the so-called merger captured part of the culture clash. While accounting at USIA served the mission and the field, at State, former USIA employees saw “accounting is an end itself.”
[…]
If we truly want to recreate USIA, the public affairs officers and their sections at our Embassies and Consulates would go to the new agency. The libraries and America’s Corners and all the similar programs would be moved, and likely moved out from behind fortress walls where some are invite-only, if they are accessible at all. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs would also leave State. The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs would be abolished, though the Bureau of Public Affairs would remain in the department. The Broadcasting Board of Governors would be merged with this new entity as well. Perhaps most important of all, the Defense Department would defer to this new agency in its public communications, as would USAID and other agencies. Obviously such a reorganization is not going to happen.

We must remember that USIA operated in a simpler time of limited information flows and limited government communications. It virtually owned access to many foreign media markets, markets where the only “competition” was local government propaganda or silence.

Perhaps State could revamp itself. It is worth noting here that the title “public affairs officer” used by State and the United States Information Service were created in 1917 by the foreign section of the Committee for Public Information because State refused to do “public diplomacy” abroad. Nelson Rockefeller’s Coordinator for Inter-American Affairs was established prior to Pearl Harbor as a USIA-like organization focused on Latin America because State refused to respond to FDR’s requests and engage the public. In 1953, State was all too eager to dump the responsibilities of engaging foreign publics directly in the interest of “streamlining.” And in 1999 through today, we see how poorly State integrates, funds, and prioritizes “public diplomacy” into its operations. Even the title of the public diplomacy chief is discordant: “Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.”

The lesson here is that each successful change followed a clearly defined and articulated requirement to fulfill a strategic purpose. Consolidation, or dis-aggregation, is not a strategy and it will not conjure up a strategy. In today’s noisy communications environment, we need coordination that comes not from a supremely empowered individual or central organization, but comes from a clear mission and purpose. USIA is held out as a symbol of our success to organize for information warfare, but it really was part of a larger effort. And ultimately, it came to reflect the segregation of “public diplomacy” from “diplomacy” that remains today. Today is not yesterday, so let’s stop looking at a mid-twentieth century solution for a 21st century problem.

Read in full here via War on The Rocks.

Click here for the end notes.

#

Obama Admin Official Leaks Dismal Stengel-Kerry Memo on ISIS Counter Messaging

Posted: 2:08 am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

An internal State Department memo paints a dreary view of the Obama administration’s efforts to counter messaging by the Islamic State. And somebody leaked it to the New York Times.

.

.

.

.

.

Why, indeed?

The internal memo, dated June 9 is marked SBU or “sensitive but unclassified.” It was drafted and approved by Richard A. Stengel, the State Department’s under secretary for public diplomacy and public affairs (State/R) and a former managing editor of Time magazine.  The memo addressed to Secretary Kerry is cleared only by one person, Susan Stevenson, from Stengel’s own Front Office; there are no other addressee.  It’s hard to say how far this memo traveled in 4-5 days before it was leaked but the source could not be too far away from Stengel and Kerry’s offices.

The question now is motive. Who leaked that memo and why? Is it to garner support from higher ups like those in the WH or is it to torpedo Stengel’s “big proposal and immediate improvement” before it get legs. Who gains, who losses from this leak?

The memo is made available online by the NYT.

Pardon me, you’re waiting for the SBU leaker to get caught? We’ll, we’re also waiting for the trap doors for the leakers of the 2010 secret cables sent by then Ambassador Eikenberry on the Afghanistan strategy, and the 2012 top secret cable by then Ambassador Crocker on Pakistani havens.  To-date, none of those leakers have been caught. So, catch the SBU leaker? Good luck!

#