 First of all, I'd like to welcome our today's panelist, Dr. Vivian S. Walker, Executive Director of the United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy and Professor John Torchory, Director of the Wiser Diplomacy Center, General R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. I'd also like to extend a special welcome to the faculty, students and staff of the University of Michigan, in particular those of the Wiser Diplomacy Center and the Ford School. They've so very kindly found time to attend this event. Finally, I'd like to welcome the many distinguished scholars and practitioners of diplomacy in attendance today from all over the world. I'm delighted that you have joined us and look forward to your comments and insights today and going forward as we expand the reach and activities of the Global Forum for Scholars and Practitioners of Diplomacy. We decide like to end over the floor to Professor John Torchory, the Director of the Wiser Diplomacy Center. Thank you so much, Rajal. And congratulations on the launch of the Global Forum for Scholars and Practitioners of Diplomacy. You have an impressive list of university partners and we're glad to be among them. I'm John Torchory. I am the Director of the Wiser Diplomacy Center. And first, I would like to briefly introduce our expert guest, Dr. Vivian Walker, who is the Executive Director of the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. She completed a 26-year career with the State Department retiring with the senior rank of Minister Counselor. She is now, in addition to her role with the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, a faculty fellow at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. She's also been an adjunct professor at Central European University, a professor of national security strategy at the US National War College and the National Defense College in the United Arab Emirates. She's published and lectured widely on the practice of public diplomacy, particularly in complex information environments, very much the theme of today's conversation. And what we'll do today is we have a lot of great questions from all of you that you've submitted online. So I'm going to lead off with a few queries of my own just to set the table with some of the major themes of the conversation. And then we'll draw from your questions to continue the conversation with Dr. Walker and to gather and gain from her insight. So Dr. Walker, first of all, a virtual warm welcome to the Ford School community. Thank you for being here. My apologies. I'm the first rule. Yeah. So again, thank you so much for inviting me to join this conversation. I very much look forward to it and a special thanks to Rizal Laskar for his really extraordinary efforts in putting together this global forum for scholars and practitioners of diplomacy. And I think it's appropriate that this in the first of a series of lectures and presentations the forum would like to do that we have this discussion about public diplomacy, both from a theoretical perspective but also from the practitioner perspective so thank you for that. Wonderful. If I could take a minute to sort of lay out some top lines of some of the issues that I think that we ought to be discussing. I'll do that. First, although I realize that we have a number of very distinguished scholars and practitioners of public diplomacy and diplomacy in the audience today I wanted to take a quick minute to define what we mean by public diplomacy for folks in the audience who may not be as familiar with the term. Basically, it's efforts that governments undertake in order to inform and influence foreign audiences to shape their behaviors and perceptions in such a way that serve national interests and the public aspect of public diplomacy is really important because the focus truly is people in other countries, the people with whom in the long term, we want to build the mutual trust and understanding and respect and credibility that ultimately contribute to our national security everyone security and prosperity. Overall, so it's quite a lofty goal but I think important to remember what what lies behind the impetus of our discussion today. So, in that line I want to highlight three areas where I see a lot of challenges coming up and I know that we will will be discussing them in greater detail in our conversation. The first of these has to do with the impact of COVID. As you might know, the COVID restrictions have either substantially restricted or canceled a great number of our education and educational exchange programs. And these education and exchange programs are very important to public diplomacy, particularly in developing these long term relationships and developing mutual understanding and their closure and is risks the connection of that critical last three feet. For those of us not in the public diplomacy business the last three feet refers to that space between people. What happens when you have a face to face conversation and actual exchange. And it comes actually from one of the great former directors of the US Information Agency which was the standalone agency for public diplomacy, Edward R. Murrow. And we risked the abrogation of the last three feet and one of the things that we need to focus on right away I think is getting or getting that last three feet back and reopening the doors to exchanges and and walking back proposed limits to, for example, student visa status and and the and the status in general of visas associated with these programs. The second big challenge has to do with the very complex global information environment in which we find ourselves, the impact of big data and artificial intelligence on a state's legitimacy in the global information space. We have so much information available to us 24 seven. The transformation of this global information infrastructure has also intensified the destabilizing impact of malign influence or disinformation operations. It's intensified authoritarian control over information access. And we have considerable human rights issues, especially with respect to surveillance and data privacy. And it's really highlighted the need for some international regulatory frameworks how do we deal with this massive information how do we work with the social media platforms. Another set of questions I think we need to consider and finally, the third issue set that that I hope we discuss today. We have some kind of sustained coordinated effort to assure that within the United States and not just within the government. We have more cohesive action with respect to public diplomacy in the short term with respect to messaging and adverse advocacy but also in the longer term with respect to our exchanges and our investments in in relationship building and not just within the government but how we capitalize on all of the expertise available to us in private sector as well. So those are three broad issue areas that I think I hope that we have a chance to discuss and I look forward to the conversation. Wonderful so do I and then that lays out a really nice agenda for us. So we have three major issue areas that we'll touch on in in the course of the next hour. I want to start with a second of the three issue areas you mentioned about digitization, and go back to a time that now feels like eons ago pre coven, and talk a little bit about how the digital revolution had changed the nature and approach to public diplomacy even before the pandemic. What I want to to remember is that public diplomacy has is in if it's doing its job right. Its tools are in a continuous state of evolution. It's always changing. Why, because the information environment is always changing. So to look at the recent set of changes as as anomalous is is is not helpful. For example, let's go back to innovations in short and medium wave technology which enabled the voice of America and other broadcasting services. The technology was out there and was adopted for the purposes of communicating with audiences that were I might have otherwise be difficult to reach and as you know, voice of America was instrumental in helping to shape the outcome of the cold war. For other examples, the satellite tell technology, enable the creation of the world net system, something that perhaps not everyone is aware of today but actually the US Information Agency had a very elaborate network of satellite dishes allowing the, the broadcast of programming in countries all over the world so continuous state of evolution. What is different, perhaps about the current era where in is the volume of data and the rapidity of transmission that does make it unique. What Joseph and I identified a few years ago, the Joseph and I of the soft power fame, identified as the paradox of plenty, which is that paradoxically plenty of information does not lead to greater understanding or greater knowledge, but rather scarcity of attention. You've got so many audiences, and so much data out there. How can you be assured that your particular message or message sets are going to reach the audiences that you want to reach given that there's so much out there that they have to choose from. Simon and Holt said a few years ago Simon Holt is the nation brand guy. And he talked about the only remaining global superpower, being the power of public opinion. That might be overstating it a little bit but when you think about it, every information consumer in this very complex environment has tremendous power with respect to what sources that that that consumer might go to and then how then the consumer acts on the information that he or she takes in. So, so I think that in particular makes the challenge of public diplomacy so difficult these days. Right and then added to that of course we have the pandemic. And I'd like to ask you first a question about the impediments that the pandemic presents above and beyond some of the challenges that you've just alluded to. In particular, what are the, what are some of the audiences that you most want to reach that become more difficult to reach in this in this environment with all of the travel restrictions and visa restrictions and the like. The number of audiences and the range of audiences that we reach through our exchange programs is truly, truly vast. We can start with, of course, students, university, we talk about journalists we can talk about government officials we can talk about non government officials, and people in a whole range of disciplines from from certainly from government and and but and economics, politics, history, international relations, science, technology. There is such a range of topics and issues covered by our exchange programs that to suspend them to have the suspension of these programs is essentially to create a vacuum to stop conversations to impede the collaborative efforts that grow out of these exchanges, because these exchanges are meant to continue long after you know you the exchange he has returned home, put away his or her suitcase and stuck the passport back in the drawer. The whole point of these exchanges is to start start connections to generate ideas to provide people with tool sets that they then apply in in their own time and in their own context. So there is also this enormous and incalculable really multiplier benefit of exchange programs that the absence of which it would be I think for us catastrophic. I mean that obviously some really big challenges there on the flip side or their silver linings are there are there ways in which despite the obvious drawbacks of the pandemic that this is actually helping the US government better equip itself for public diplomacy going forward. Yes, indeed. And this, the conversation we're having now is is one great example of that it's expanding networks right and and for example today we have folks I think watching and listening and thinking about these issues around the world. And, and the expansion potential to bring in new audiences getting them to participate is huge. And with it, diminished requirements for participation. You know, to normally to pull together an event where you want the best speakers on a topic and you want the most important audience there requires tremendous effort in terms of logistics and travel and administration. And that is that is that's erased. And then there is also the potential for expansion of stakeholder communities and new and non traditional stakeholders. We know traditionally who we want to talk to about for example public diplomacy. In my introductory remarks alluded to the fact that we need to do more and better to reach out to the private sector to bring in more participants in in in this exercise and I think this virtual format enables that. And alongside cove it of course we've got other forces that are occurring that present opportunities and challenges. One of them that is alluded to in some of the questions that the audience is asked and that's on my mind is this surgeon in an inward forms of nationalism that are in various parts of the world. And I'm interested in your thoughts about how that affects public diplomacy strategies, and more specifically, how does one approach audiences that are caught up in inward forms of inward looking forms of nationalism and a public diplomacy outreach. That's a great question. And I don't pretend to have a definitive answer, but I do have some I do have some thoughts you're absolutely right. There are there are increasingly nationalist and along with that somewhat authoritarian tendencies on the rise and I would argue is I suggested in my opening remarks that in some to some degree, this accessibility of information and the ability to manipulate information has contributed in to this to these nationalist tendencies. So I think, well, so what does that mean in practical terms for public diplomacy. Well, public diplomacy programs do in part focus on providing foreign audiences with tools and skills and information and support for Democratic building. We've done that, for example, great example would be the the effort that we put into the countries of the former Soviet Union with the Freedom Support Act funds you know after the breakup of the Soviet Union, I remember being a public affairs officer in Kazakhstan in the 90s and early 2000s and I had these tremendous resources to work with local audiences to focus on various aspects of Democratic institution building, whether that was understanding the electoral process whether that was working on on reporting and you know and improving journalism, whether that was improving access to education. In this increasingly nationalist environment, I think we double down on those democracies democratization programs no question, but with some important changes. And the first is, I think, a mistake that I think I made, and perhaps my colleagues made back in the day in this tendency to project a one size fits all democracy. It's not one size fits all, and the way that a Democrat democracy grows and the way that Democratic institutions unfold in a particular country are unique to that country to its people to their experiences to their histories to their legacies. So I think that, yes, you know promotion of the Democratic model, absolutely, but perhaps more nuanced. I think in a second aspect that public diplomacy is particularly well suited for is promoting transparency and and information sharing. That is the lack of transparency and manipulation of information are probably some of the most dangerous aspects of nationalist movements. So public diplomacy through working with journalists working the social media platforms and working with educators can help to promote this this this this clarity this transparency the need to information to share information to promote literacy media literacy to help people to understand what it is they're reading and hearing to investigate their sources. Finally, and this is something that again, a lesson that I learned over the years as a public affairs officer. More nuanced promotion of our values. We truly there are there are things that we cherish every country track cherishes America trade cherishes, tolerance, freedom of expression, freedom of the press diversity. All of those values are important but I think the way in which we can promote we promote them could be more nuanced, more in tune with the audiences in in the in those in those countries affected how they feel about their values. What what matters to them as well. I think we can do a little more thinking in that area. I'd like to pick up on a few of the themes that you just addressed and dive a little deeper into them because we've got some audience members who have asked questions that that follow on nicely. One of them is that, as you noted, one of the tools used by governments that are fed by this sort of inward looking nationalism is disinformation or misinformation. And so one of our audience members asks, how will public diplomacy change with the move towards disinformation by some actors in recent years, especially an online material. And I'd like to sort of follow up with one of my own to that which is what types of programs concretely exists to train audiences around the world to be more discerning consumers of information. Great question. I would say that I don't know that public diplomacy programs necessarily need to change so much as I think they've been addressing a lot of these issues but to double down as I was saying earlier. I would divide to answer the first part, the question. I would say that public diplomacy activities fall into two broad categories for countering state disinformation in particular. The first is deterrence. And this is short term tactical approaches. And that would be training for journalists media literacy programs that focus, not just on on on journalists, but also on educators and fact, the helping to support develop and support fact checking platforms. Providing countries and regions and institutions with tools to develop or promote objective sources of information. Those are all practical short term deterrence measures that public diplomacy can play an important role in and there are great examples of media literacy programs journalism training programs all over the world that that engage in those activities. The second set of actions is really more on the strategic level. And that's resilience building. And that's longer term. And that is working with host country governments and partner institutions to identify the social and economic and political vulnerabilities that read disinformation narratives because disinformation is most powerful when it identifies the weaknesses the things that aren't working for people, the inequalities that are perceived or actual the anything from an equal income distribution to to issues of discrimination perceptions of disinformation. All of these weaknesses or vulnerabilities are very easily exploited by disinformation narratives because in fact, there can be a kernel of truth in them or there's enough truth in them to to to sustain the narrative so that requires, you know, going back to our conversation about democratic institution building, working with countries to give them the help them develop the tools and the insights they need to address these vulnerabilities. And that actually leads well into the next thing I wanted to ask you referenced earlier, the importance of being nuanced in our communication of our own values and what aspects of our own system might be worth. Considering or even emulating from from other parts of the world. One of our audience members worries that it looks like America is going through its own social crisis and that there's not enough confidence left in public institutions and wonders how this affects public diplomacy efforts looking outward. And that is a global trend, this sort of decline in in trust of government institutions and media institutions. There are a number of great studies out there. And, and Francis, I commend you to Francis Fukuyama's writings on the topic he does. He does a very good job of elucidating that. So to address it. The first thing that that we have to be, we have to be transparent and honest in the United States about our own crises and our own challenges, I think, and so that's so transparency begins at home. But the good news is, is that's a struggle that we are all engaged in. You know, it's not just a US struggle. It's a struggle for the UK is the struggle for for Indonesia is the struggle for South Africa, every country, every government and its media and every media set of media institutions has to deal with this challenge. How does public diplomacy deal with it. Again, going back to what I talked about earlier, strengthening media institutions, helping them to be to be as effective as possible helping them to to be credible. If you can restore credibility in media institutions if you can get people to be confident in the information that they're receiving that goes a long way in helping to build trust other aspects of government. Thank you. Thank you. I want to shift a little bit, not just talking about the United States but putting in the context of other other major powers. We are at either in the middle or at the tail end of a long period in which the United States has had has had primacy in numerous domains and international affairs, certainly in the military domain to a lesser extent perhaps economic, but also ideational power soft power, technological prowess, the appeal of American higher education institutions the list goes on. The question is how, when we look at the public diplomacy landscape how other major actors are ascending in this area. And in what ways do they do they challenge us efforts at public diplomacy. Well, great question I would start by saying that the US is always is subject to continuous shifts in public perceptions of its power and influence. We're in a period perhaps where global perceptions of US power and its trustworthiness and its credibility are in decline, but we've been in periods like this before. And it is very much tied to public perceptions of our policies and, and perhaps the behavior of our leadership. What doesn't change necessarily is public respect for basic values of freedom of the press tolerance diversity. Basic public respect for democratic institutions, all of those remain constant over time. And that said, there are rising powers. China comes to mind, and there are others who are offering a set of economic opportunities, education opportunities that are very attractive to audiences and and we need to be able to take our focus on in the short term, continuing to be transparent and advocate for our policies and our actions, even if we know people are going to disagree with them. And in the long term, maintain the investment in the education and cultural and in exchange programs the profit professionalization programs that that offer the opportunities that other powers are seeking to provide. And in that domain and talking about sponsoring international education. We of course have had a growing number of complaints about the possibility that there would be foreign espionage, especially through stem subjects. We also have all the visa restrictions associated with the pandemic and, and, and even before that with successive waves of national security considerations, coming out of coven it's going to be even harder to justify budgetary expenditures on non us nationals. How do you sell the importance of these efforts to a to a skeptical constituencies whether it's on Capitol Hill or on Main Street USA. I think the I would say that in general, certainly with respect to Capitol Hill and and Congress in particular. I found it certainly my tenure as executive director, actually a tremendous amount of support for education and and and exchange programs and an understanding of the need to continue investment. One of the things that we produce every year at the advisory commission is a comprehensive annual report about all of these programs and how much they cost and what they were what they were meant to do and how we did them. And this comes out of a congressional mandate. Congress wants to know what's happening keeps an eye on these things and in certain sectors of Congress works very hard to promote them so I don't know that we have such a skeptical skeptical audience in Congress. More broadly speaking, they did it's true that your your average person on the street might not appreciate why we should be spending money on, you know, bringing full bright scholars to the United States, for example. I think you can justify exchange programs in the very same terms that you use to justify, you know, the importance of national security and prosperity exchange programs education exchange programs contribute significantly to both. How do they contribute to national security. If exchange and education programs are done right and they're doing their job. They are promoting mutual understanding and tolerance if not wholesale acceptance or embrace of American policies and actions. I think a lot of resistance to to to foreign policies practices has to do with mistaken understanding of what the intent is behind it for example so now ultimately there is there is strength and security in opening up your society opening up your values and and encouraging people to to understand them. The economic prosperity comes from the promotion of a business, the more people you have coming to the US, or the more people you have engaging with in the academic sector in the commercial sector, the more potential there is for growth in in in commerce on the local, regional and national level. So I think you can make the case on both security and economic lines that there is definite interest or definite value in not only continuing but increasing these programs and of course the relative cost of these programs is is quite minimal indeed. I agree with both sides of that and I often wonder to myself who we're going to call in a crisis if we don't have anyone who spent time in the country knows the language understands the people and and the politics here in the United States has a sense of personal association. Certainly those programs that were trimmed right after 911 and some of the areas where we most need that type of cooperation where we're in jeopardy I agree with you entirely, but I have a more mechanical follow up question. And this is something we think a lot about at a policy school we have students studying program evaluation and and trying to assess the efficacy of particular projects and programs. How do you assess the effectiveness of these measures if you are reporting to the Office of Management and Budget or you're reporting back to GAO or somebody, what types of data do you use to to underpin the assertions about the economic and security benefits of these programs. That is probably the single most important question that we can ask about public diplomacy. Yes, how do you it's it's the monitoring and evaluation of programs. How do you do that effectively. Well, let's start with why it's important. It gets to the bottom line. We're talking about government funding for programs, the funding has to be justified the expenditures has to be justified you have to show that that there has been there's been results for the investment in in time and money and effort. So, there's one huge impediment to measuring results in our business. How do you know when you've changed your mind. How do you know when someone's behaviors or perceptions have shifted. It's something that can happen in two seconds or three seconds, or it's something that can happen in 20 years. And it's something that can take place in a way that's very difficult to measure that is maybe clicking on another website which leads to another website that leads to an aha moment. And it can be that that person you gave the, the, the, the, the flex exchange, high school exchange scholarship to is now Prime Minister of her country. The problem with these kinds of investments is that you have no guarantee that these results are going to happen there's an act of faith, a leap of faith, effectively, and which doesn't sound so good in legislative funding terms. But, and then again and it's, and then you just don't know how it's going to work out so. Okay, that was a great excuse for why it is that we can't monitor and evaluate. So what, we still need to do it. So, then comes the question of identifying the best practices and procedures. And I will say that there has been a lot of great work done in the last 10 years, both in the private and public sector. We've gone on not only not only determining performance measures, you know what to look for, but also linking program development to these measures, assigning cost values to these measures and their outcomes. So there are a number of great ways to do it. That's the good news. The bad news is, okay. But how do you get all of the agencies and institutions that are involved in this process to coordinate their data collection. What happens is that you have, and within the Department of State, you have this within public diplomacy, you have the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs that sort of thinks about its measures and evaluates its programs in one way. And then you have the policy shop and you have the Global Public Affairs Bureau, thinking about evaluating programs in another way. And that's just within the Department of State. Are they wrong? No, they're doing exactly what they said they're supposed to. But when you try to sit down and take it in collectively, you have different and sometimes completely or at least ways of thinking about monitoring and evaluation that don't match up. Well, that kind of specialization and nuance is great for the individual institution. But when it comes to sitting down in front of Congress and saying, okay, we need X amount of dollars and this is what we've achieved. It's much harder to make the case for impact when you have so many competing ways of measuring that impact. That's a very long answer, but I guess the short version of that is very important, hard to do. We have a long way to go in thinking about how we rationalize the very systems that are out there. You just brought up, of course, the coordination challenge and whether it's M&E or whether it's information gathering. And that's also one of the three themes, the third of the major three issue themes that you set out in the outset. So let's talk about that because we have a few questions from the audience. And I'll paraphrase one of them. This audience member asks whether we should think of public diplomacy as a term and as a concept in a new light, given the fact that it's a whole of government function in some regard and it's carried out by state, and some civil society actors. Maybe I'll layer on top of that the question about what type of coordinating apparatus exists and is it adequate for for this new framework that our audience question points to. The audience member is quite right. There are multiple ways of doing public diplomacy at multiple levels. We've, I've been focusing more or less on public diplomacy at the national or federal level. But there is city diplomacy, there are there are institutions, there are businesses that all engage in some kind of public diplomacy. So, and there's never going to be, and that's great, it's good to have all of these different businesses out there, and there is never going to be one way to coordinate or consolidate all of these different ways of approaching the question of public diplomacy nor would you want one, I think, I think one of the, the, the advantages of the specificity of those kinds of programs is that they are unique and tailored and can produce results that are are are very specific to the context and to the needs of participants on both sides. So you want to preserve that diversity specifically and the specificity within those programs that that can be achieved. So at the national level, if I had the answer to that question. I don't know what I, where I would be but that it's clear that we need coordination. It's not clear to me that restoring the US Information Agency, which was the agency that consolidated public diplomacy activities for a number of years. And which was closed down when we had, in theory, one, one the Cold War, and, and, and we're experiencing the triumph of the return of the liberal, the liberal international order. But USIA was an agency that was first of all specific to a particular challenge or conflict the Cold War. Secondly, that was not equipped for what these radical transformations in information technologies. And third could not respond to the breadth and specificity and specificity of challenges. So, but the question is if it's not USIA what is it and I don't think there is one entity that can do all of those things. A number of ideas out there. Many of them I think worth exploring. There's been some talk for example of having the National Security Council. I think it's a sort of umbrella of interagency coordination of the broad lines of messaging advocacy and of identifying priorities for investment in, in longer term efforts. And I think that the State Department needs to certainly play the, the coordinating role with respect to, to diplomatic, to the diplomatic use of public diplomacy. But I'm also interested in ways in which we can incorporate the private sector. I'm also interested in ways in which we could incorporate some of these regional diplomatic, diplomatic initiatives that we've talked about. Is it possible to have a collaborative council. Is it possible to create a sort of a large virtual network that is at least keeps everybody will participate in the process aware of what the other is doing. I don't think we can afford to create a whole new superstructure bureaucracy to organize all of that. I think there's some, there's some avenues to explore within those options. And so far we've been talking about positive potential for collaboration between public and private actors. But we've got a question here from the audience that points to some of the complications and the question goes, how damaging is the national media's portrayal of other countries or their citizens for public diplomacy. Imagine a scenario in which the presentation on major media channels of a given society is negative and they see that as what Americans are learning about their society. To what extent is that a challenge and how do you, how do you respond to it. It's a perennial challenge. And we respond to it by providing, you know, other projections of, you know, other ways of, of looking at that country or looking at the set of issues associated with the country. What we remember and the thing to stress with our, with our audiences is that's just one way of looking at the problem that in the United States and in every country, there are, there should be multiple ways of looking at a problem talking about about a problem representing a problem. And in fact, the danger would be to insist that there be a single way of representing these attitudes that is far more dangerous than anything else. So to the country that's on the receiving end of this is negative set of impressions it's important for them to understand that's just one attitude or outlet outlet emanating from the United States and public diplomacy can help in, you know, providing access to these multiple viewpoints. I think that that's the best way to get around it. Another parallel channel to talking about the news media and answer information that may have a political content to it is to think about cultural diplomacy programming and we have a, we have a question here from the audience from someone who says, I've been thinking about trying to reevaluate the variety of cultural programs to see if certain approaches might be more effective and others dated in this media age. And this questionnaire would appreciate your reflections on on how cultural diplomacy needs to adapt. That is a wonderful question. And that goes back to a recommendation that the advisory commission has made for several years running with respect to the 90 plus programs that are administered by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. These programs are extraordinary and wonderful and you can read all about them in our in our annual report which goes into some detail on all 90 of them. But I think it is not. It's not inconsistent with our desire to be as responsive and flexible and cost effective as possible to reassess those 90 programs and to decide which of these programs continue to meet our current national security and prosperity needs, and which programs, perhaps legacy programs perhaps programs developed in response to particular set of challenges that might have since disappeared, whether they're you know whether there might be some reconsideration of those programs. Now that's that's a really tough question I understand that because each of those 90 programs has done amazing things there's no doubt about it, but the reality is is that we have we are we we are continually looking at questions of funding, and we're continually looking at questions of priorities security and priorities and prosperity priorities, and we have to, I think think about our cultural programming in that regard as well. Alongside cultural programming we have sports diplomacy and and one of our teams at the Ford school including our first of our diplomacy center fellows who graduated last year are doing some work with the State Department now on a sports diplomacy strategy. And that team is very interested in hearing your views on some ways in which sports can be most impactful in in the broader umbrella of US public diplomacy, what types of connections can be the most fruitful. I have seen sports diplomacy work in in multiple contexts and and and address multiple issues it's one of my was one of my favorite tools. When I was a public diplomacy officer. Sports diplomacy helps to promote the obvious right the notion of of working together of teamwork of coordination, but you can use sports diplomacy to drive home so many important points about and aspects of American society to include tolerance to include diversity to include, you know, gender equality. I have seen programs go on in all parts of the world that open doors and open eyes and open up attitudes. It's based by virtue of the presence of the players of the qualities that they exhibit on the floor in the pool or wherever it is that they're, they're engaging in their diplomacy. I think it's an extremely effective tool, and it's a tool that doesn't necessarily require language, you know, it's the language of performance. It's grit and hard will and it's the language of winning and the language of losing with grace. All of these are values and ideas and concepts that are tremendously important to communicate particularly to younger audiences. And I think sports diplomacy is ideal for that. And as you, as you mentioned, it includes values that include we're not limited to things like women's empowerment diversity and tolerance. And we have a few questions on that topic I'll read one of them that I think captures the thrust of the bunch. Many of our most entrenched political leaders are old white male what's the value of diversity and diplomats including in public diplomacy. We can ensure that more women people of color, LGBTQ plus individuals and other marginalized groups can enter this important sphere. I can't stress enough, the importance of being able to put the people behind our principles, and nothing makes our pronouncements on and our requirements for acceptance of diversity and tolerance. Diversity and tolerance worldwide, nothing makes them more powerful than when we demonstrate those principles ourselves, and nothing makes it more difficult to promote those principles when we ourselves are seen as not doing them for our own country or for ourselves. So, yes, the more the more representative we can be in the way in which we promote these ideas and concepts and principles the better. The, there has been in the last year or so, a really tough conversation going on in the Department of State about questions of diversity. I commend you to a couple of recent issues of the Foreign Service Journal, which is available online, in which you'll find a number of Frank reflections on on ways in which the state the State Department has fallen short, in terms of diversity. There is, there is no other word for it. That's what we've done. What I would also point to is that there have been a couple of very high level reports recently on how to update and change the Foreign Service, including one I think they came out of the Belfour Center in Harvard, I can send you the link for that if I can't remember but it has some prominent former very senior American diplomats and dealing with diversities at the top of their list. And they have a number of suggestions with respect to recruitment, both entry level and mid level. And also, with respect to the regular rules and regulations surrounding other aspects of promotions and assignments way so there is definitely a real move within the Department of State to try to address those problems. Of course, in the US we have this tremendous advantage of having a very diverse population among across many different axes. And one of our audience members asks, Diaspora groups can be strong promoters of public diplomacy. I know because I'm one of them. My question would be how do you see the increased role in public diplomacy of diaspora groups, whether it's in Washington DC whether it's in Brussels or elsewhere. What types of roles can they play. They can play. They can play all the roles, frankly, that we've that we've been talking about and but largely assigned to, you know, government public diplomacy efforts. In terms of culture, the diaspora groups have an enormous advantage in being able to talk credibly and knowledgeably, and in a very engaging way about the cultures about the history about the language about the arts of their, their native country in their new countries or new homes. In terms of building that mutual understanding, you were talking about a little bit earlier about the advantage of being able to reach out to people who would studied in the United States, states who are living, you know, who then had that knowledge and could apply it to to issues and the diaspora is a tremendous resource and font of knowledge should be for for governments when looking to, you know, to come up with new ideas about how to approach issues. Depending on their, their link with their home countries now, and I realize that not every diaspora group or maybe not every member of a diaspora group necessarily has a strong or positive link of their home country. People have different reasons for emigrating but for those that do have maintained strong ties, whether they're familiar ties or academic ties or business ties. And that's another way to to engage in the kind of informal diplomacy that benefits both the United States and also home country. So I think there, there's a tremendous potential. And there's actually quite a few great studies out there of diaspora diplomacy and in particular diaspora public diplomacy. Again, I can send you a few links, and you can pass that on if that would be a value I think it's, it's a field of worship that is extremely important and one that should be pursued. Thank you. And diaspora communities are one good example of a possible force multiplier for public diplomacy efforts and other of courses is the robust civil society sector we have in the in the United States and, and one of the audience participants. I think aspires to a career in that sector and asks what insights and advice can you provide to practitioners in the nonprofit sector, working in alliance with the State Department on a variety of academic professional and youth programs, particularly when face to face programs can resume. You know the, the, the great thing about the nonprofit sector and about the programs that they run in a variety of fields. Is that they are truly a force multiplier for that people to people contact that that that last three feet that we were we were talking about at the outset. So I think going to work for a nonprofit organization is a great way to to be able to promote some of these these these values some of these principles that we talked about. And it's a great way to do good, not only for for for our own country for this country, but for the many countries and institutions and populations that are touched by the activities of the of the of the not for not for profit sector. I think they in when I have worked with nonprofits in the field as partners in programs. I truly felt that they were in some ways the best ambassadors of what what of the best of what is in in America the generosity the willingness to help the, and the commitment to to very basic but very important principles. So I think it's a high calling and I encourage people to engage in. I can't resist sharing from my own experience having worked in the civil society sector that very often no number of news media stories no number of written products, could replace the role of face to face contact with US citizens in shaping views of others around this country and those who think favorably about the United States very often do so in large part because of their interactions with with people who have worked in their area very often through civil society channels. So I certainly agree. And if I could just throw in a bit of a tip for for those who are interested in the nonprofit sector. The skills that I've seen that that could use more of in the nonprofit sector we know that they're that nonprofits are looking for in people coming in is people who've got the, the marketing and statistical and economic and business skills because an important part of the business model the nonprofit I know that sounds a little, you know, a little inconsistent right a business model or nonprofit but nonprofits not only have to survive as an organization, but the, the better they are at, at not only managing their own finances but but representing how they are going to make the best possible use of the resources that the government is investing in them to carry out these programs is going to strengthen their their ability to work work effectively great little tip that I wish I'd had when I, when I started. Thank you. We have time for at least a few more questions and our theme of course is public diplomacy and 2021 and beyond but I've, I'm going to slip in a few questions here that are relevant even in the remains of 2020. And one of them is a theme a few audience members brought up in their submitted questions about public health and the covert response we have a team working right now at the University of Michigan and the Ford school with diplomacy lab which some of the audience members will know as a program that the State Department runs farming out questions from people who are serving for and service officers or civil service officers to university partners and the university teams then conduct research and, and there are some reports that help inform policy discussions and one of our teams is working on on information and disinformation in Africa specifically with an eye toward public health. I know we've talked about this in general terms, with regard to disinformation earlier in the presentation, but I wonder if you could share some thoughts on what a an effective public health public public health focused public diplomacy effort looks like in this context with specific reference to coven. You know, I, to be honest, I feel like I would need to go beyond the very general, which is to say, getting out, getting out ahead of the story. Anticipating and addressing the disinformation that comes out about these stories, promoting transparency, being as a flexible and as accommodating about providing information. All of them hallmarks of effective public diplomacy, I would say apply to doing particularly public health outreach in these times but I can't really speak more specifically than that without, you know, the knowledge or the background. But I would say some of the top line issues that we've identified apply as well. We talked about credibility certainly credibility is is one key aspect of it because when you're talking about public health you're talking about people's well being and sometimes you have to get them to, to do things or change behaviors or take actions that require a tremendous amount of trust and credibility in order to get people to to take those actions. So I think that would be a really critical aspect of it. Thank you. And I'll ask one more, and that is on everyone's mind, we're in the midst of a transition with, you know, some, some uncertainties that have existed around that, but be interested in your thoughts on what are the special challenges and opportunities for practitioners of public diplomacy during a period of presidential transition in the United States. So the question, the first thing I would say is that there are, I think the same set of challenges that any new administration faces. I'll talk about some now that could be applied to to the previous administration when when they came in and it will probably apply to administrations down the road. So there are unique there are a set of challenges I think unique to this period. So let's go back to the politics. And the first thing that I think we need to remind ourselves, although perhaps, maybe, maybe not so much anymore is that there's tremendous public global public expectation about the new administration. It's been bad. There are are, there are people who countries and institutions out there who were not happy with the previous administration, and are looking have great expectations of change in a direction that suits their There are going to be people and countries and institutions who were happy with the previous administration and are going to now view the incoming administration with a little trepidation and what's going to happen so different kinds of expectations and rule number one, you're never going to make everybody happy right because everybody is coming in with a different set of expectations. So you've got to, I think that the priority of public diplomacy in this period is understanding what these expectations are and they are varied, and then responding to them and you can do this, I think in three ways. Transparency is first get out there quickly with the basic elements of the policy agenda and make it accessible and make it understandable. Absolutely important. Secondly, credibility, you've got to assure a steady stream of consistent credible information. And because credibility is really your calling card in the global competition for for for influence right. If you are credible if if you are believable if you put things out that are fact based consistent and in that can be can be proven. Then you will more likely to build trust in your audiences now trust in your word is not the same thing as necessarily accepting your policies. Trust goes a long way toward eventual acceptance or at least tolerance of policy so you need to start there and finally the consistency and coordination of this messaging of this advocacy. Going back to our conversation about disinformation. Nothing is more valuable to disinformation operator or malign influence actor, then apparent discord or inconsistencies that's the easiest thing to exploit. Incase so lack of coordination lack of unity and cohesiveness of messaging and ends up being I think a national security weakness. At the same time, if there's lack of a consistency or coordination that worries your partners and your allies the good actors as well. In order to strengthen your security and prevent the exploitation of narratives that coming from the blind actors. And in order to reinforce your partners and allies confidence in you, you have to be able to assure that coordination. So I'd say those are the three areas that I would, I would encourage any new administration to focus on. They're very sensible and and as we wrap up I'll end with something that I that I like to ask to all of our experienced practitioners and that is just a quick set of closing thoughts on what competencies are students audience members should be focused on as they prepare to embark on careers in this and related spaces. It's interesting to look at the intake for the Foreign Service. I might think that the majority of folks who get into the Foreign Service, come at it with backgrounds and international relations or political theory, not so. The Foreign Service is strong the US Foreign Service is particularly strong because of the diversity of backgrounds, interests, skill sets that people bring to the service. So, so I would say that there is not one particular topic that you can, you can study, or a particular set of languages or no it's rather habits of mind that I think that are important to cultivate and you can do that. You know, studying just about anything. Political thinking ability to write and speak effectively open mind and essential curiosity about the world. But also a fair streak of pragmatism is essential as well. Now, yes, the Foreign Service exam. If you're going the government route will require some general knowledge of history of political theory of geography of economics, but nothing that someone who is interested in the world who keeps up with developments. Who thinks hard and rigorously about things nothing that that that individual can handle. So I would say it's more as a flannery O'Connor would have called it a habit of mind. And I have to confess, my academic preparation for this was a PhD in literature. So, and again the qualities that that certainly helped me in the Foreign Service are all ones that I've just described now. You have, you have proven it with a flannery O'Connor reference which is unique among our contributors in this this semester's series of diplomacy seminars and so Dr. Ian Walker thank you so much for these wonderful insights on public diplomacy and related issues. Thank you so much for your course to Rizal Lascar and to the global forum for scholars and practitioners of diplomacy. We hope that this has been as enjoyable and informative and event for all of you as it has been for me. We're grateful for the opportunity to collaborate with the global forum and certainly look forward to doing so again in the future. So thank you everybody. Thank you so much.