US Public Diplomacy: No Longer Engaged?

As I've pointed out elsewhere, "engagement"/"engaging" is -- has been? -- a buzzword for the Obama administration's public diplomacy (See also Nick Cull's great piece on the subject.)

"Engaging," granted, was also used to define the PD function by the State Department under previous administrations, as its homepage pointed out in recent years; but "engaging," under Bush II, in real life played second fiddle to "influencing" first, and "informing" second, two of the three key words still used by the State Department to define PD ("engaging, informing, and influencing key international audiences").

But now lo and behold, another current State Department PD definition, also on its homepage, doesn't mention "engagement." Here it is, under the heading "Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs – U.S. Department of State":

The mission of American public diplomacy is to support the achievement of U.S. foreign policy goals and objectives, advance national interests, and enhance national security by informing and influencing foreign publics and by expanding and strengthening the relationship between the people and government of the United States and citizens of the rest of the world. The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs leads America's public diplomacy outreach, which includes communications with international audiences, cultural programming, academic grants, educational exchanges, international visitor programs, and U.S. Government efforts to confront ideological support for terrorism. The Under Secretary oversees the bureaus of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Public Affairs and International Information Programs, and participates in foreign policy development. Ann Stock, Assistant Secretary of State (R), assumed the authorities of the Under Secretary of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs on July 8, 2011, following the departure of Under Secretary Judith McHale.

Perhaps this definition -- which may have been on the Department's homepage during the tenure of Ms. McHale and her predecessors; I am unable to check this, regrettably -- makes the notion of "engagement" understood without using the word directly by stating: "expanding and strengthening the relationship between the people and government of the United States and citizens of the rest of the world."

Or perhaps whoever wrote this homepage entry is not particularly concerned with language or words.

Or perhaps some editorial sweet soul, no matter of what sex and probably buried in one of the countless cubicles at the Department, deeply in love and looking forward to wedding bells, feels "engagement," in its most accurate meaning, should properly refer to what people engage in before they get married.

So, undaunted by fears of being discovered for being out-of-line, this lover of love decided furtively to keep the "E" word out Foggy Bottom realpolitik Gobbledygook -- seeing it as a deeply private commitment that has little to do with international "affairs."

Or perhaps -- most likely -- the above linguistic observations have no meaning/importance at all in our Kafkaesque world.

--Image from