This in-depth study analyses the US Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy efforts since 9/11. From the “why do they hate us?” brand-based approaches to the more nuanced approaches of 2004 to 2008, this book provides a measured analysis of the campaigns and the underlying communications dynamics. The study demonstrates that unless US strategy changes significantly, “increasing the budget and intensifying communication efforts may only further alienate publics and magnify problems rather than ameliorate them” (5). Looking to the future, Zaharna proposes that “rather than trying to fight unwinnable information battles, US Public Diplomacy could be more effective by building communication bridges with culturally diverse publics” (8).
Through the combination of rich theoretical discussion and detailed empirical evidence, the negative impacts of many assertive strategies deployed after 9/11 are contrasted with the potential of initiatives that are focussed on building relationships, or “communication bridges.” One of the greatest strengths of this book is that it is neither a polemic nor an attempt to promote the next buzz-phrase. Instead the research is rooted in detailed intercultural and strategic communication theory and provides a balanced view highlighting the innovative initiatives alongside the more misguided projects.
Through this analysis, R. S. Zaharna highlights the fundamental challenge of reconciling the positive sentiment of public diplomacy with the negative impact of US policy: “U.S. officials appeared to focus on improving the presentation of their messages – but not the underlying relationships – between America and the people in the Arab and Islamic countries” (52). This, Zaharna argues, was a major failing of US public diplomacy as the assertive approach employed during the Bush era ran counter to the prevailing communication dynamics of the period.
Developing this argument, the study emphasizes that public diplomacy needs to be “strategically aligned to the political and communication dynamics of the international arena in order to be effective” (4). It also requires communication to be aligned with policy at the levels of tactics, strategy and grand strategy. Communication bridges cannot be built when the message does not match the actions of a nation.
The various aspects of the study are drawn together through the concept of network communication, finding ways to strengthen the relationship between communities rather than focussing on projecting messages at passive audiences. The section dedicated to examining the connection between networked communication and public diplomacy demonstrates the benefit available in shifting from assertion to a relational approach of exchanging and cocreating messages. Zaharna graphically contrasts how a network-based initiative could facilitate communication across cultural barriers through the example of Al-Hurra television. While I have reservations about “all-channel” communication as the end state of any networked communication process, this section provides one of the strongest challenges to the assertive school of thought. In doing so it provides a much-needed methodology to align public diplomacy with contemporary communication dynamics that favour horizontal relationships and exchange through networks.
This study draws on a rich array of theoretical perspectives to develop a much-needed and robust alternative to further increasing assertive strategies in US Public Diplomacy. “During the Cold War, U.S. public diplomacy waged a battle for information dominance. The one with the most information won. America had the competitive edge” (173). This era is now over, and future strategies need to be based on contemporary network-based communication dynamics. “Tomorrow, U.S. public diplomacy needs to gain the cooperative advantage. Those with the most extensive and strongest communication bridges will command power in the global communication era” (173).
