U.S. CITIZEN DIPLOMACY1
Ellen Huijgh
This essay seeks to disperse the fog surrounding an increasingly popular phenomenon that
remains vague for scholars and governments alike: citizen diplomacy. It explores the whats,
whys and hows of the field while taking a glimpse at the United States. In response to worldwide
anti-American sentiments the U.S. is searching for an additional mode of winning hearts and
minds abroad by boosting civilian clout in international relations. The November 2010 U.S.
Summit for Citizen diplomacy set the very ambitious goal of doubling the number of so-called
American citizen diplomats to 120 million by 2020.2 The author argues that more is no
guarantee of better, and that the number of foreign hands American citizens shake over the next
decade is of much less importance than the quality of the related interactions. Moreover, the
essay stresses that exposure to and cooperation with foreign cultures and bridging intercultural
discord begins at home. Citizen diplomacy is doomed to failure if it isn't rooted in cooperation
with and between different societal and heterogeneous communities within American society; a
fact relevant to all states interested in traversing this path.
With the slogan "one handshake at a time" the U.S. wishes to double the number of American
volunteers involved in international activities at home and abroad. The U.S. is aiming for 120
million so-called "American citizen diplomats" by 2020. Launched at the Summit
for Citizen Diplomacy (November 2010) this initiative has a very ambitious target. More,
however, is no guarantee of better: the obsession with quantity risks being to the detriment of the
quality of the relationships. It is not important how many hands American citizens have shaken
by 2020, but rather how they have done so. Moreover, it is ineffective to reach out to other
countries before there is more cooperation with and between different population groups in the
U.S. In short, the U.S. provides insight into a phenomenon that for many -governments and
scholars - remains a cipher: "citizen diplomacy".
Citizen diplomacy, citizens shaping international relations, is not new. The term has grown in
popularity, with citizens acting as unofficial diplomats but also with internationally renowned
academics.3 Despite the initial raised eyebrows, the concept of citizen diplomacy can count on
increasing interest and support in the 21st century. It is not surprising that more than a half
century after its launch, the concept is picking up steam. In an increasingly mobile society where
the boundaries between foreign and domestic publics and policy are fading, the share of ordinary
citizens engaged in international relations has skyrocketed. Personal contact between citizens is
1
This PDF file has been adopted from its original version with the permission of the editorial board of the
Internationale Spectator, magazine for International Policy, published by Koninklijke Van Gorcum on behalf of
the Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael in The Hague.
2
The "U.S. Global Summit for Citizen Diplomacy "has been organized by the U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy
(16-19/11/2010) in Washington DC in cooperation with the U.S. State Department and with the support of
over 1000 NGOs. 800 participants from 39 U.S. states and foreigners from 41 countries attended this meeting.
Information and reports on the themes see: http://uscenterforcitizendiplomacy.org
According to the U.S. State Department
22% of the population (68 million) has a travel passport
(http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/testimony/testimony_2922.html).
3
See Nye, J. (04-10-2010) The Pros and Cons of Citizen Diplomacy. International Herald Tribune.
also considered to be more credible and more efficient than the one-way communication of
official governments.
Yet "citizen diplomacy" is a loaded term. The concept defies the boundaries of
"traditional" diplomacy and is a manifestation of broader evolutions in diplomacy and society. It
has supporters and opponents. The attitude of citizen diplomacy is linked to the definition of
faith in diplomacy and changing power structures. Traditional diplomacy is defined as the formal
relations between sovereign states through peaceful cooperation. Adherents of citizen diplomacy,
however, give a figurative meaning to the concept of diplomacy: the meeting and building of
relationships between contemporary groups with a common objective (in this case wealth and
prosperity, thanks to world peace). They are convinced that ongoing globalization and
technological advances in communication erode state sovereignty in favour of new forms of
conducting international relations where the everyday concerns of global citizens (see the debate
on global public goods) are increasingly moving to the forefront.4
While traditional diplomatic thinking has struggled to adapt to the rapidly changing international
landscape, promoters of citizen diplomacy are confusing their desires for reality if they believe
that classical diplomats will pass the torch to the citizenry. As is often the case, practice follows
theory, and the practice shows that the work of traditional diplomats and citizens can be best
developed complementarily to one another. They are neither mutually exclusive nor substitutes
for each other. The ideal model falls somewhere in between. In promoting intercultural bonds
citizen diplomacy provides an additional network that is complementary to the traditional
diplomatic network. Governments however still find it difficult to accept such decentralization
and flexibility.5
Reaction to anti-American sentiments
The U.S. does not seem to have much difficulty reconciling itself with this idea and is aiming to
take the lead, partly because U.S. policy makers are confronted with a fait accompli. Polls and
studies testify to an unprecedented intensification in anti-Americanism worldwide, and this
seems particularly true towards its foreign policy. Nevertheless, the U.S. spends only 0.1% of its
GNP to the State Department, 1% of which goes to citizen diplomacy; a substantial amount in
comparison
with
other countries.6
Nevertheless, Undersecretary of State for
Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Judith McHale has made clear at the 2010 U.S. Citizen
Diplomacy Summit that given the economic recession, no additional resources will be made
available for citizen diplomacy.
America’s citizen diplomacy thus derives its legitimacy from primarily moral and not financial
support at the highest-levels of government. To give some examples, half a century ago
President Dwight Eisenhower organized a White House Summit on Citizen Diplomacy on
September 11th, 1956. His statement ‘if only people will get together then so eventually will
states’ was inspired by considerations of war prevention. The underlying idea of providing a
4
Sharp, P. (2001): Making sense of citizen diplomats. International Studies Perspectives, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 131-150.
Nye, J. (04-10-10)
6
See http://uscenterforcitizendiplomacy.org
5
human network in critical periods of national security remains relevant to this day.
Today’s citizen diplomacy does not need to reinvent the wheel but it needs to pull out of Cold
War mindsets and be translated into the complexity of the 21st Century. Also more recently, U.S.
President Barack Obama called for global civil action upon his acceptance of the Nobel Peace
Prize (Oslo - October 9, 2009). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s text "Leading Through
Civilian Power” published in Foreign Affairs (Winter 2010) also describes the strengthening and
expansion of American civil power as a success factor in American ’smart’ power. The
Resolution in support of citizen diplomacy (19 June 2009), signed by a total of 33 Republican
and Democrat members of Congress could also be seen as non-partisan support to
citizen diplomacy.
To turn Obama’s, Clinton’s and Congress’ fine words into deeds American civil society,
particularly the U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy (USCCD) has taken initiative in order to be
embraced in foreigners’ hearts and minds. The USCCD is neither a traditional expat organization
nor an independent government funded institution like the British Council. The USCCD is
unique in its structure as a coalition of hundreds of U.S. organizations active in international
relations. Accordingly, the USCCD is focused around the concept of creating a culture of
responsibility of the ‘American global citizen'. This indirectly implies that citizens can identify
with the national interests of their government. Every individual in America not only has the
right, but the responsibility to shape U.S. international relations. 'Citizen diplomats' can be
students, teachers, athletes, entertainers, business leaders, adventurers and tourists, but they are
first and foremost primarily individuals comfortable with working with foreigners and who do
not fit the stereotype of the "Ugly American”.7 In the current digital ecosystem the intrinsic value
of personal contact can easily be pushed to the background. With the slogan of "one handshake
at a time" the USCCD strives to highlight the importance of personal encounters and exchanges
between foreigners in America and Americans abroad in the following fields: primary, secondary
and higher education and youth; business; community and volunteer work; religion;
development; health; and international and cultural engagement.
Five tendencies
American public diplomacy has traditionally been fairly diverse but the 21st Century version is
characterized by five distinct trends.8 The new face of American citizen diplomacy is youthful.
Sixty percent of the population is younger than 30, so young people especially need to be
sensitized and enlisted. The K-12 (from Kindergarten to grade 12) education system must make
students aware of global issues. Higher and academic education has a role in the
internationalization of education in the U.S. and the attraction of international
students. Citizen initiatives in the sphere of youth are primarily directed towards American
youth, their friends and families and promote awareness of global issues by bringing them into
contact with young people from developing countries on various themes through apprenticeships,
learning packages, interactive websites, training, fundraising and youth delegates.
7
Mueller, S. (2009), The Nexus of Citizen Diplomacy and Public Diplomacy, in: Nancy Snow and Philip Taylor
(eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, Routledge.
8
For Additional information see http://uscenterforcitizendiplomacy.org/summit
Contemporary American citizen diplomacy is also differentiated by its eye for business. "Social
corporate responsibility" evolved from volunteerism to sustainable business strategies. Investing
in stable communities abroad is without a doubt favourable for business. Although the European
conception of the social responsibility of companies is different from the North American,
specific business skills, speed and capital resources have already proven useful in
supporting citizen diplomacy. Some projects are large, others are target- or country-specific and
are developed in a public-private context. Initiatives range from assisting foreign business
students and business people, and investment in the foreign services of top employers to
supporting international internships and training. The Business for Diplomatic Action's
World Citizen Guide and IBM's Corporate Service Corps are pertinent examples of this.
American public diplomacy in the 21st Century is also going digital. Here some caution is
needed. After all, the challenges of digital access (dysfunctional market and inadequate Internet
access), skills (digital illiteracy, self-training) and rights (national security and protection of
privacy) should not be underestimated. The revision of successful programs (such as Peace
Corps, Fulbright, International Visitors Program) is also often limited to the inclusion of blogs,
and several interactive modules as the established civil society organizations seem reluctant to
embrace social media. The organizations experimenting with social media are more often than
not less than 5 years old and their enthusiasm sometimes exceeds their capacity. Current test
cases focus on virtual exchanges, networks and work practices, dialogue facilitation, public
action groups for recruitment and conflict transformation.
Contemporary American citizen diplomacy also looks towards the Muslim world. The U.S.
exchange programs have remarkably little going on in Muslim countries. Relationships between
the U.S. and Muslim countries have become increasingly strained over the years, despite their
strategic importance. Due to limited budgets the undertaken initiatives in this area reach out to
specific target groups (youth, teachers and scientists, emerging political, religious and business
leaders, artists, media personalities and American Muslims) and they build upon established
formulas from the government (Peace Corps, Fulbright and International Visitor Program),
companies and NGOs, but with the difference that they try to target Muslim communities. Due to
strategic considerations (to combat radicalization and home-grown terrorism), the majority of
initiatives take place at home. In addition, in countries where the U.S. has traditionally had
exchange programs, including EU member states, it has increasingly focused on local Muslim
communities. Yet nearly 10 years after 9/ 11 many citizen diplomacy efforts towards Muslim
societies remain in their infancy.
Finally, the increasing role of U.S. states is also of particular note here. While they have no
official competences in the field of foreign affairs (Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution), they
have a role to play in shaping international relations. The increasing importance of free trade
arrangements, the importance of foreign markets and today's security concerns have provided
opportunities for sub-national governments to participate in the international arena. Most of their
initiatives take place in the areas of education, cultural exchange, enhancing national security
and economic activities, and the National Guard State Partnership Program and its Sister City
program are especially well-known.
Five types of citizen diplomat
According to the USCCD American volunteers active in international relations fit the following
characteristics: the desire to get in contact with foreigners at home and abroad, respect for
cultural differences, open mindedness, empathy and a positive attitude with knowledge of other
cultures and languages, international relations and the global economy. Contributing to a positive
U.S. image is thus not enough. Knowledge of global issues and familiarity - not the same as
conformity- with the contents of the current government’s foreign policy, typifies the
contemporary citizen diplomat. We thereby touch on concerns of the scarce international
relations literature on citizen diplomacy: the question of the representative function
of diplomacy, namely who and what represents the citizens' active participation in international
relations? Do they identify themselves with the national interests of the public and do they
contribute and mirror the diversity of U.S. society? According to Paul Sharp9 the answer to the
question of representation results in five types of "citizen diplomats."
The first category concerns the most conventional form, the one of tracktwo diplomacy.10 Citizens with special expertise, negotiating skills and high-level connections
can function as mediators between governments and counsellors that find it difficult to do so
directly and openly with each other. These citizens (often former diplomats) are usually not
included in the popular definition of citizen diplomacy. Defenders of today’s citizen
diplomacy believe that citizen diplomats can help their governments sporadically, but also have
to keep a certain (geographical, institutional, cultural) distance regard their governments’
interests.
Second, there are representatives of sectoral, regional and local economic interests such as
investment consultants and participants in trade missions. One can or can’t label such activity
as citizen diplomacy depending on to what extent local salesmen represent their companies’
specific interests and whether they are seen as representative of a wider group. Lobbyists and
activist acting for specific (good) purposes make up a third group in line with the popular
interpretation of public diplomacy. Such civil action is initially directed at the domestic
government, but thanks to social media, global advocacy has become easier (e.g. human
activities, environmental and consumer campaigns).
If these activist groups are sceptical of government policy, they are considered to be part of a
fourth group: the alter-globalists who distrust the government and search for alternative
transnational networks to defend the 'public' interest. Their certainty in the power of ordinary
people can than have a perverse effect: the denial of the value of the classic diplomat and thus
centuries of networking and relationship building experience. Finally, Sharp mentions the group
of influential figures who, because of their (wealth or moral) authority cannot be ignored and are
taken into account by governments in the conduct of their foreign relations.
9
See Sharp, P. (2001): 137-142.
See Davies, J. (2002) Second track/citizens' diplomacy: concepts and techniques for conflict transformation.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield
10
Contrast with public diplomacy
There are thus gradations in the identification of the citizen to the foreign policy of the
government. Advocates of today’s citizen diplomacy may appear guarded towards government
intervention or influence. They are of the opinion that a direct link with a government’s message
will undermine the legitimacy of activities when the intended audience or foreign partners make
such an association. Nevertheless, the U.S. State Department considers citizen diplomacy to be
one of the most effective tools for its public diplomacy.
The degree of government intervention, the role of government and the relationship with the
foreign policy determines the difference between citizen diplomacy and another popular notion:
public diplomacy. While public diplomacy is about involving (informing, sensitizing, mobilising,
engaging) the public in foreign policy, citizen diplomacy essentially revolves around
intercultural relations. The role of the government (initiator, coordinator, facilitator, etc.) and the
connection to the content of government policy and foreign policy goals is more clearly present
in public diplomacy. Programs developed in the sphere of both ideally contribute to the creation
and strengthening of international relations. Citizen diplomacy is closely related to long term
people-to-people initiatives in public diplomacy (including exchanges) and differs from shortand medium-term advocacy-driven public diplomacy projects. Public diplomacy also usually
assumes the additional condition of more directly contributing to achievement of foreign policy
objectives. Citizen initiatives are mainly not developed by the government but sprout from
below. They can be developed in parallel to similar government programs, but assume less direct
government intervention.
Despite the differences, the boundaries between citizen and public diplomacy are fading. There
appears to be growing societal (citizens and organizations) involvement in
public diplomacy used as a tool to support national policy decisions and strengthen international
relations. Foreign ministries’ taking public diplomacy seriously cannot ignore the growing
importance of citizen diplomacy and its implications for their public diplomacy strategy. Since
the academic literature11 increasingly focuses on the fusion of diplomacy and public diplomacy,
one wonders to what extent citizen diplomacy will coincide with diplomacy in the future.
Developments in citizen and public diplomacy should not be interpreted independently of
broader developments such as the democratization of foreign-policy making and diplomacy and
other fundamental changes making society more heterogeneous.
The recognition of the heterogeneity of American society can also prove very useful for
successful citizen diplomacy. The U.S. is trying desperately to reach out to the world, but citizen
diplomacy must depart from its source. Citizen diplomacy starts with the recognition of the
"global citizen" and this implies the valorization of diversity. Greater cooperation between and
among different populations in the U.S. itself (such as diaspora, transnational ethnic
communities and American Muslims) is fundamental to the creation of a positive future
for its citizen diplomacy. Former U.S. Congressman James Leach touched a sensitive chord at
the 2010 U.S. Citizen Diplomacy Summit when he said that "to double the success of the efforts
11
See Melissen, J. (forthcoming), ‘Public Diplomacy’, in: Pauline Kerr and Geoff Wiseman (eds.), Diplomacy in a
Globalizing World: Theories and Practices, Oxford University Press.
abroad, we have to quadruple the efforts at home'. In order to feel involved, one should not
immediately go abroad. Effective citizen diplomacy is not primarily about winning hearts and
minds, but looking through another's eyes. This requires moving away from a ‘we/they’
dichotomy. In the words of the renowned psychoanalyst Howard Stein12 on citizen diplomacy,
empathy is a state of mind, not a place. Exposure to other cultures within one’s own country is
the best preparation for a mission abroad. If you can’t make it at home, forget abroad.
Ellen Huijgh is pursuing doctoral research on public diplomacy in Canada's capital. As a Ph.D
candidate and co-editor of the Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, she is associated with the
Diplomatic Studies Programme of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations
“Clingendael” in The Hague and the Political Science Department of the University of Antwerp
in Belgium. She's currently a visiting scholar at Carleton University in Ottawa and is a member
of several research organizations in the US and Canada. She has also worked as a research
fellow for the Flemish Centre for International Policy, as well as for the Communication
Department of the Free University, Brussels.
12
Stein, H. (1987) Encompassing systems: Implications for citizen diplomacy. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,
vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 364-384