Recently, American singers Beyoncé and Jay-Z went to Cuba to celebrate their fifth wedding anniversary.  This tropical nation full of white sand beaches and clear water from

AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa

the Caribbean Sea attracts tourists from all over the world. The trip by the couple made the United States remember that Cuba is important, and used to be extremely important in recent history. It also sparked controversy about a policy implemented over 50 years ago, intended to drive the Castro regime out of power, of which has had many negative unintended consequences, including the continued existence of the communist Castro government.  Hence, the mayhem, as the musicians seemed to be acting as “tourists” in Cuba, which is not one of the 12 legal reasons that Americans are allowed to travel to Cuba. (They actually traveled to Cuba in the name of cultural exchange and education.)

The controversy surrounding the trip has sparked calls for an update to the US foreign policy concerning Cuba. However, as journalist Sandra Guzmán has pointed out, engaging in dialogue is difficult, as “the few but very influential pro-embargo lobby have put a stranglehold on a lucid discussion surrounding Cuba.”

There are strong criticisms of the Cuban-American interest groups that have upheld a failed policy for multiple decades. In order to be successful, in this instance and in US foreign policy in general, politicians need to realize that there are adults who did not live in a time where communism was a serious threat. There are those who have only experienced the Cold War and its tension through the history textbooks. High school graduates in the US this year were born in 1995, four years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. Those that want to continue support the embargo and travel restrictions to Cuba need to change the rhetoric to reflect this change in the realities of many young Americans, Cuban and non-Cuban.

Those that want to support the embargo need to demonstrate a serious effort for change in Cuba. Maintaining the status quo is easy, even if ineffective in this case.  It is hard to support an embargo that restricts travel but hasn’t produced much change and doesn’t generate any new ideas on alternative options for inducing change.  To convince new generations of Americans who were born after the end of the Cold War to support an embargo, it requires a shift in the dialogue, away from the tired, estranged buzzwords of communism, Cold War, and communist. Most importantly, it should include alternative proposals for regime change in Cuba and the accompanying incentive for politicians to react.

As my Twitter and Facebook feed was blowing up with Mother’s Day wishes, I was struck by how all the descriptions my friends were giving of their mothers resembled the top qualities of a great public diplomat. They are respected worldwide, frame and build agendas, practice two-way symmetrical communication, use both hard and soft power, and understand more than the average person. This blog is dedicated to looking at these qualities and what we can learn from our closest role models.

Moms are respected the world over: Almost everyone around the world has a mom. From a small village in Africa, to the streets of New York, moms work tirelessly to raise their children into the best people they can be. They exude love and grace thanklessly for years. Although they come in many different varieties with varying strengths and weaknesses, the one thing they have in common is that they love their children. This purpose to love and guide their children crosses all ethnicities, all religions, all nationalities, and all politics; it is universal. Their tireless efforts unite mothers around the world with an understanding that gives them insight about issues often overlooked by those on the outside. This ability to be respected worldwide, to understand deeper than the average person, to be diverse, and to engender qualities recognized and cherished world round are the starting points of a good public diplomat.

Moms are master agenda-framers: Mothers have figured out the art of making connections among content to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation, or solution. They know how to frame an agenda by choosing the meaning their audience (their child) is going to get out of a story. Mothers, when we are young, decide which morals and skills to instill through the people they trust enough to be in our lives and by sharing their lens on the world with us.

Moms are master agenda-builders: Agenda building deals with how issues are created and why some controversies or issues gain attention and concern from people while others do not. Our mothers are the ones who decide as a child what makes our agenda. They decide the TV shows we watch, the music we listen to, the toys we play with, and activities we do. As we get older, they continue to bring things to our agenda’s whether it’s a global issue they care about being shared during a phone call or the invitation to an annual family reunion.

Moms are masters of two-way symmetrical communication: Although when we are younger it may seem like a one-way communication model, the truth is mothers listen better than anyone else on earth does. They hear what their children are saying and adapt to the needs their children are identifying. Additionally, establishing mutual respect and understanding is a crucial element to a mother-child relationship. Anyone, who has ever had a debate about curfew, knows that mothers are willing to negotiate and compromise on some things but not everything. Mothers, through their adaptive listening, are the best two-way symmetrical communicators who ever lived.

Moms are masters of hard power: We all know that our mothers have their own “carrots and sticks” to get their children to do what they want. How many children have lost phone privileges, been grounded, or lost an allowance because of something they did? As we grow older however, this hard power tends to give way to soft power which relies on the admiration and respect between the child and mother.

Moms are masters of soft power: Defined by Joseph Nye as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than through coercion”, it is easy to see this as a top quality of mothers. Our admiration of our mother’s values, culture, and personality, leads us to often do things for them that may not be our choice if it wasn’t them asking. Additionally, as we get older our choices in life may be a reflection of our desire to be like our mothers, or to fulfill their expectations of our lives.

Moms are masters of understanding: Sometimes it can seem as though our mothers know us better than we know ourselves. They know what information we need to know, and what we don’t. They know how to activate us when we appear apathetic and how to persuade us when we seem stubborn to our ways. Moms protect their families, often understanding which actions need to be taken better than anyone else. Mothers know how to get their children to do things without being asked and think it was their idea.

Moms are the best role models for a public diplomat—so anyone looking to go into the field, look to your moms. Learn from them, appreciate them, and hold them close by your side. Recognize like no mom, no public diplomat will be perfect, but what matters is that you are truthful and understanding; that you are multifaceted and adaptable; that you listen instead of always talking; and that you realize you are part of something bigger than yourself.

After much talk of whether North Korea, and Iran before it, had crossed the ambiguous “red line” demanding a military response, the Obama administration faces much deeper tests of resolve and its broader diplomatic commitment in its dealings with Syria. That commitment has come under fire in recent days, on the heels of evidence that Syria has used chemical weapons to quell the ongoing rebellion there. Indeed, Obama faces a delicate balancing act between standing by his tough talk and acquiescing to pressure from a public weary of military engagement.

The Syrian independence flag behind a Free Syrian Army fighter. Photo courtesy Freedom House via Google Images/Creative Commons.

But what brand of diplomacy is appropriate in a situation where the public believes the aggressor can be contained, both sides are prone to rhetoric and pragmatism occasionally goes by the wayside? Obama has already begun to dial back his initial statement that the use of chemical weapons is a “game changer,” calling instead for harder evidence, a move echoed by the U.K. amid pleas by other Middle Eastern nations for the U.S. to assume a more active role in the conflict.

In the short term, the U.S. is finally poised to arm Syrian rebels. Sanctions and no-fly zones around rebel-held areas have also been discussed, but we must not assume that sanctions would be instantly effective: the crippling autonomy of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stands in direct contradiction to the limits of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and comparing the two in advocating for Syrian sanctions could backfire. Instead, Obama has set about using his recent successful trip to Israel to introduce stability in the region and begin private talks with the Syrian military and neighboring nations.

But the elephants in the room remain Israel and Russia. Last weekend’s Israeli attack on a suburban Damascus scientific research center to stop the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah prompted foreign correspondents to wonder if pressure on the U.S. has lifted. But Israel can’t go it alone, nor would we want them to: such Israeli involvement could spark retaliation from either al-Assad or Ahmadinejad and a broader Middle East conflict that Obama in particular is desperately seeking to avoid.

The object of international outcry for its continuing support of the Assad regime, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has dealt with waning influence in the Middle East following the U.S. involvement of the past decade. Domestic troubles also could be necessitating his hard-line tactics both globally and toward the U.S. specifically (witness last year’s expulsion of USAID for “violating Russian sovereignty”).

For the U.S., however, Russian involvement remains critical if we are to have any hope of ending the bloodshed. But as with China’s anger over North Korea’s sudden escalation, our most effective response here might be standing by and subtly encouraging Assad’s self-destruction. The embarrassment factor, even for the increasingly authoritarian Putin, could eventually prove too much to bear, and increased rebel pressure on Assad could hasten that realization. Russia’s respect for nations’ internal affairs in this context, and its disdain for U.S. violations of them, is well known. But if its true concern is stability in the Middle East, one would think it would eventually wish to play a part.

Regardless of Russia’s involvement or Obama’s stepped-up rebel aid, though, decision time is fast approaching for the U.S. on foreign policy in a multitude of areas, a reality the administration has stealthily avoided for the better part of four years. The coming months will reveal whether the red line rhetoric bandied about by politicians and media pundits alike has truly backed the country into a corner at the most inopportune time. At minimum, it’s advanced the likelihood of the “all or nothing” approach and damaged our chance to make public overtures without appearing weak.

Still, Obama’s uncertain foreign policy legacy will be decided at least in part by his tentative approach in Syria. It’s time for America to abandon its self-imposed isolationism and take a stand on something, anything, once again. Whether we’ll like it is another story.

This weekend I attended the Conference on Diversity in International Affairs in Washington, DC. The conference was organized by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Global Access Pipeline and the International Career Advancement Program. The conference brought together practitioners from a variety of different international affairs careers, at a variety of different levels with a variety of different backgrounds.

Charles F. Bolden Jr., the Administrator at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), was invited to speak about international cooperation at NASA. In addition to giving some insight about the wonders of space, Administrator Bolden discussed the workings of public diplomacy in space. He compared the international space station to a microcosm of the United Nations, and emphasized the importance of partnerships in guaranteeing the greatest potential for success in space explorations. Despite national allegiances, conflicting interests and other issues that may arise, every country represented at the international space station must collaborate and work together to obtain, disseminate and archive data and materials.

Sourced from: http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-110210a.html

NASA’s Open Data project provides an avenue for the public to have access to the research and data that comes from the international space station. Since everyone benefits from the scientific and technological advances that come from space exploration, it is in every country’s best interests to work together to collect as much research data as possible, to share observations, and to build research on top of one another’s research. This ensures the best information is procured for the public.

This same idea can be applied to diplomacy here on earth. We are all affected by the actions and reactions that come from countries’ diplomatic efforts (or lack thereof). It is in all of our best interests to cooperate and collaborate with one another. The result could be a world that is better for all.

As near-space exploration wanes and deep-space explorations burgeons, there are even more opportunities for international cooperation and diplomacy. New space explorations reveal further opportunities for cooperation– In a speech given at NASA, President Obama promised and committed resources to the advancement of the mission to land on and move an asteroid by year 2025. After a meteor entered Earth’s atmosphere and hit Chelyabinsk, Russia, injuring thousands, this mission became even more important and critical.

A mission of this magnitude requires the participation and cooperation of many different countries, including Russia, Japan, Canada and the European Space Agency. Administrator Bolden was confident that agreements could be reached and perhaps even a coalition could be formed.

Since the first successful mission to outer space in 1942, we have been consumed with by the enigma that is space, not only its mysteries, but also its resources and the answers it can reveal. Technology from space and space exploration is being used to produce improved firefighting equipment, environmental monitoring systems, for expedited medical research data and more. With NASA’s Open Data project, all have been able to benefit from the results of this research and technology. The information is free and open to all. If we are able to fulfill the mission of landing on an asteroid, yet another opportunity to explore unchartered territory will arise. There are still more chances for countries to come together and utilize diplomacy skills in space. If only those same lessons could be applied here on Earth.

As a firm embracer of two-way symmetrical communication theory, I discovered, with sadness, that China’s public diplomacy efforts have long been following a one-way communication model.

There are five events you will never miss in the case study box, if you open a Chinese Public Diplomacy textbook: 1) the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, 2) the 2010 Shanghai World Exposition, 3) the 2011 “Experience China” video in New York Times Square, 4) the establishment of Confucius Institutes overseas, and 5) the establishment of China Central Television international branches. All these efforts fit right into the Chinese definition of public diplomacy, which is “a way of building positive national image and increasing transfers of information through non-governmental channels” (though all of the above are government funded).

Excessive resources have been used on increasing Western media attention on modern China, yet inadequate energies have been put into changing the policies causing the negative perception of China that foreign publics hold. A giant 60-second video of smiling Chinese celebrities can hardly reverse a preconceived impression, nor can it present the modern Chinese civil society, given some scholars argue that the image of a nation does not equal to the image of its government. The majestic Olympic opening ceremony succeeded in bringing cultural symbols to international audiences. But does it mean the negative political associations, such as the bloodshed in Tiananmen Square and the strict media censorship, are wiped off foreign publics’ minds? As Gady Epstein in Forbes says, a “larger philosophical question” is raised from the campaign, “especially in the case of human rights, of whether China has an image problem with the West, or a reality problem.”

It’s not that Chinese Public Diplomacy practitioners do not see the issue. Shen Xin, secretary general of the China Friendship Foundation for Peace and Development, think that the achievements of Public Diplomacy tend to be overshadowed by political events, such as territorial disputes. However, they do not seem to have an influence in policy-making.