Stuck Between a Rock and a Hard Layer

It is timely that this week we discussed Geoffrey Cowan and Amelia Arsenault's article Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy, in which they consider the strengths and limitations of each of these three layers. With the movement in Egypt at the forefront of the news, the article is a propos, as it helps contextualize the diplomacy conundrum the US finds itself in with respect to Egypt at the moment. The United States is at a crossroads, where our traditional diplomacy objectives in the Middle East are currently at odds with our public diplomacy interests in Egypt, with likely spillover, since our actions don't take place in a vacuum, and the world is watching.

According to the article, critics frequently take issue with the United States’ reliance on one-way communication to advocate foreign policy strategies. Ironically, right now the Egyptian public (not to mention the American public) are crying out for just that - a decisive MONOLOGUE-type statement from the White House, declaring the United States’ unity with the protesters in support of legitimate democracy in Egypt. To a certain extent many members of the government have publicly stated that they support reform and democracy in Egypt, and condemn violence from any side. Oh, did I forget to mention the people specifically want to hear the words “Mubarak should resign immediately,” preferably from Obama’s himself in a live broadcast? And here we have the point of contention. Watch Press Secretary Robert Gibbs below, as he not-so-gracefully does the dance of ambiguity just a few days ago in a White House press conference on the Egypt protests.



Later, in the same press conference Gibbs notes the importance of engagement on a face to face level between the President and his counterpart in Egypt. In other words he evokes the importance of DIALOGUE. As Cowan and Arsenault state “Transnational monologues, dialogues, and partnerships take place every day, both within and outside of the boundaries of official government-initiated or sponsored public diplomacy,” and in certain circumstances, can undermine the government’s goals. If the US government’s goal is to avoid alienating a long-time ally (you know, just in case he stays), then it is indeed important for President Obama to mitigate the public rhetoric.

If US public diplomacy in Egypt is precarious at the moment, at least there is evidence of some contra-flow of public diplomacy taking place. The American public seems to be identifying now more than ever with the Egyptian people over the shared ideal of democracy and solidarity is growing. I suspect that through social media, Americans feel connected to the movement, by tweeting, joining groups in support of the cause, and mobilizing for local protests (I personally am receiving multiple invites every day). This creates a sense of COLLABORATION through a focus on advancing a shared vision- democracy- with the Egyptian people.

One of the main takeaways of the article is that each layer has value and is applicable in the appropriate time and place, depending on the context of the situation. For those keeping track, in just this short discussion on Egypt, we successfully moved from monologue, to dialogue, to collaboration.