• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Tweeting for Hearts and Minds

    January 2012 is the U.S. Department of State’s “21st Century Statecraft Month.”

    What the State Department has in mind in this case is what former Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy James Glassman dubbed “Public Diplomacy 2.0”: using digital media to maximize outreach to foreign publics. Thus it is not a new concept but dates back to the second Bush term. However, the State Department has run with the idea, and today, believe it or not, State has more than 193 media accounts, and 100 embassies have Facebook or Twitter accounts.

    “Throughout the month, officials in Washington and missions overseas will host digital engagements across multiple platforms on a wide of array of issues to directly engage publics, domestic and foreign, on the foreign policy issues that matter to them,” says the State Department’s press release. And last week, State Department “Spokesperson” Victoria Nuland kicked off the month with a Twitter session, answering questions submitted from State’s 10 official Twitter feeds.

    Never one to miss an opportunity to unravel the mysteries of the Obama foreign policy, The Heritage Foundation submitted two questions:

    1. @StateDept: Given the failure of engagement policy w/ Iran, how can Obama hope that negotiations w/ the Taliban will be positive? #askstate
    2. @StateDept: What do you think of Russia’s missile activity since signing the New START—do we need to reset the reset? #askstate

    Unfortunately, Nuland did not choose answer our questions. Five questions were featured: one on the U.S. refusal to intervene in Syria to stop the massacre of Syrians by their own government, one on the U.S. maintaining diplomatic relations with the Sudanese government despite its brutality, one on the moral or military nature of U.S. global leadership from China, one on Iran’s intentions to shut off the Internet and threatening the Strait of Hormuz, and one on the implications for NATO of the drastic Obama defense cuts. Pretty good questions, actually, all of which received standard bureaucratic answers.

    Getting the U.S. government plugged into social networks is not a bad idea. However, until the State Department learns to tweet as good as it gets, it will not be genuinely participating in this particular discourse. So, please, when the next Twitter Q & A comes up, post the answers on Twitter. The whole point, presumably, is to have a dialogue in a social media context. Also, it would be interesting to see U.S. foreign policy explained in 140 characters. Could bring some much-needed clarity.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    One Response to Tweeting for Hearts and Minds

    1. Matt Armstrong says:

      Helle, good point. It is important to remind your readers though that while the office formerly held by Jim Glassman, Judith McHale, and hopefully soon Tara Sonenshine, is the "Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs", the reality, as you know, is that "and Public Affairs" should really be in parentheses if not just dropped to reflect the true relationship between PA and the Under Secretary. The issue, as you rightly note, is that one cannot limit PA from PD anymore than one can pretend to communicate only with people in the US and not the whole world on social media or other mediums of communication.

      Here are some questions to for a (likely heated) discussion: Does it make sense to keep the Public Affairs operation (represented above by Victoria Nuland) and the Public Diplomacy operation, represented by the Bureau for International Information Programs, the Under Secretary's twitter-capable bureau, separate? If not, then how would the increased integration look? Would the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (Mike Hammer) truly work for the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy (and Public Affairs) or would IIP go to PA or would IIP or some other relationship (such as IIP as a packager of content supporting direction from the A/S or the U/S)?

      Such a discussion would bring the clarity you're looking for.

      -Matt

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×