Glassman in the UK

James Glassman has been in the UK for the last couple of days, and along with marking 9/11 he has been celebrating the 60^th Anniversary of the Fulbright Programme at Downing Street, speaking at Chatham House and appearing on the Today Programme.

Whilst his view of the rhetoric in the years immediately after 9/11 is interesting, and acknowledges the early failures in language, what is of greater concern is the approach which he has to facing violent extremism.

As in his first speech on Public Diplomacy at CFR he confuses the national interest with the Global. On the Today Programme, Glassman reiterated this position and made it clear that defeating violent extremist groups was in the national interest (and there’s no problem with a country wishing to mount an effective defence.)

The issue here is that the thrust of Glassman’s argument is;

“The standing of the United States in the world is important because it makes it easier for us to achieve our national interest which in the case of violent extremism is really a global interest. However, improving our image in the world is not an end in itself…we are working very quietly to help build networks to give young people alternatives so they do not pursue a path to violent extremism“.

By claiming a national interest as global, rather than national policy being part of a collective, this evokes the same reaction as to his speech at CFR;

While it is useful to claim that everyone works for you, there are times when “they” will only work for you if you can subsume the national into the collective, rather than branding the collective as ‘American’.

Emphasising the need for a collective narrative rather than a focus on national interest, and subsequently claiming that ‘national’ as a ‘global’ interest, Channel 4 News yesterday ran story about the UK’s domestic programme of combating violent extremism. Whilst much of the piece is about whether some of the projects were value for money, some of the interviews also highlight that being seen as working for America may actually hamper progress – a situation made worse when American Public Diplomacy claims to be a self appointed leader – or worse ‘supreme allied commander in the war of ideas‘.

The coming 60^th Anniversary of 22^nd September highlights the issue at heart of Public Diplomacy.

“The Fulbright Commission aims to bring a little more knowledge, a little more reason, and a little more compassion into world affairs and thereby increase the chance that nations will learn at last to live in peace and friendship.”

Is Fulbright, and US PD more broadly, only about bringing a little more ‘America’ into the world affairs? Or is it about exchanging knowledge and understanding?

In 1936 William Tyrrell (quoted by Philip Taylor) recognised “Modern defence consists not only in arms but in removing misunderstanding and promoting understanding”. In many instances this is still true, but is not solely a process of telling others they have misunderstood. If only they understood then they wouldn’t oppose us cannot become a common refrain for US Public Diplomacy.

Misunderstanding is also a problem for the construction of US Public Diplomacy. The failure to nuance rhetoric so that it supports and is part of a collective effort, rather than constructing a national narrative and claiming it as a global public good, demonstrates a misunderstanding what is useful to local communities that go toe to toe with groups seeking to target civilians.

Empowering dispersed networks is about taking the action most likely support the desired outcome. It is about taking a back seat when that is most helpful. It is, as Nick Cull put it, “(s)ometimes the most credible voice in public diplomacy is not one’s own“.

Empowering and engaging with dispersed networks are a powerful option worth careful consideration in Public Diplomacy practise. Indeed both in the UK and in the CFR speech Glassman has highlighted the need to work with networks. However, both times he has undermined the power of those networks by using a narrative which rhetorically claims ownership over the end goal or over the network itself for the US.

While advocating a particular national policy is a role for Public Diplomacy, James Glassman, and practitioners more broadly, should keep a keen eye on the end goal. If the end goal is communities empowered to face a common challenge, using rhetoric which damages that goal should be avoided, however tempting it is to promote the ‘national’.

Glassman is right that information operations are not enough and his emphasis on persuasion and inspiration has some merit. Yet if the US is to truly engage with the power of networks and dispersed networks specifically, he will have to add empowerment to the tools of ‘persuasion and inspiration‘ as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates described them. Doing so has the power to deliver results, but only if ‘persuasion and inspiration‘ are done in a way that maintains the space (and credibility) for members of the network to act unimpeded by centralised US narratives about leadership in a war of ideas.

(Posted before the speech at Chatham House, if anything significant changes an update will follow)