Reading the Fine Print

Recent news reports that the Obama administration had announced the establishment of a new "Global Engagement Directorate" caused something of a stir among public diplomacy bloggers.

Here's what The Wall Street Journal, in an article by Cam Simpson, stated:

“Among the other shifts at the NSC, a new entity, dubbed the Global Engagement Directive [sic], will aim to coordinate public diplomacy, foreign assistance and international communications at a single White House desk.”

The well-known and respected PD commenters Matt Armstrong, James K. Glassman, and Marc Lynch, citing the WSJ article, all speculated what the establishment of this new Directorate meant for public diplomacy:

Lynch: "This is a good move, which could potentially overcome a number of persistent problems in American public diplomacy and strategic communications. The announcement doesn't surprise me -- I've been saying for months that the NSC would, and should, have the lead in the inter-agency process on public diplomacy -- but some of the details and the scope of the new portfolio are intriguing."

Glassman: "As Lynch put it: The move 'signals that President Obama and his core team take global engagement, public diplomacy and strategic communications very seriously.' That’s a good thing."

Armstrong: "This shift is about more than the trajectory of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. This is about the future relevance of the State Department and about a civilian counterbalance to the Defense Department. This is about transforming the Department of State into also being the Department of Non-State."

One small detail, however, which the above commenters seem to have overlooked. The White House announcement, in fact, says nothing about public diplomacy as such.

Here's the pertinent text from the announcement:

“Creating a new Global Engagement Directorate to drive comprehensive engagement policies that leverage diplomacy, communications, international development and assistance, and domestic engagement and outreach in pursuit of a host of national security objectives, including those related to homeland security.”

To me, this omission of the adjective "public" before "diplomacy" is yet another indication that "public diplomacy" is indeed not on the new administration's front-burner, at least as of now.