This study begins work on the question: What are the resources out of which to fashion an effective public diplomacy for the 21st century? To the extent diplomacy itself is an art of persuasion, its practices must be woven from a discourse formation that characterize the many perspectives, motivations, topics, concerns, justifications and so forth that characterize the public discourses of an era. In a democracy, there are always multiple points of view. In the United States, the theoretical dialectic of idealism and realism finds its permutations in the numerous political alignments of parties, social movements and interest groups. To discover the prevailing idiom within which prevailing discourses find their interconnections requires empirical study. How do national leaders framing positions, establish national goals, articulate national purpose, evaluate and compare prudent options, justify risks, allay fears, and give meaning to sacrifice? From the Afghanistan war through Iraq reconstruction there has been a rich public discourse where the parameters of a new American view of itself and the world have been articulated and debated. The question remains what kind of discourses are emergent from the contingencies generated by the new way of war, the unprecedented "global war on terror"?

Data to be Analyzed

The study examines contemporary debate through a comparative study of Presidential and Congressional discourses. Three sets of artifacts are being critically examined. First, the speeches of George W. Bush from the State of the Union in 2002 to the reconstruction speeches of the fall of 2003 will be analyzed in context. Particular notice will be given to the run-up to the state of the Union in his post 9-ll talks. Analysis will focus on the articulation of the "axis-of-evil," the West Point Address on preventive war, the address to the United Nations, the ultimatum given to Hussein, and post-war victory addresses. Second, some 147 relevant talk news shows between June 2, 2002 and March 16, 2003 are being analyzed for content. The talk shows include, but are not limited to, CNN Late Edition, Meet the Press-NBC, Face the Nation-CBS, Fox News Sunday. Interviews by representatives from the current presidential administration, the Clinton era, Congressional Representatives, and military authorities will be analyzed to determine what topics are of concern, how events are interpreted and analyzed, the language within which the political is formulated-in framing both national and international implications of events. Finally, the study will analyze Congressional debate in authorizing support for the war with Iraq and in conducting inquiry during the post-conflict reconstruction phase of the events. Attention is accorded to the debates of September 24-26, 2002 and October 8-10, 2002 as well as March 6-19, 2003. Transcripts of all the speeches, news interviews, and debates have already been collected.

Questions of Inquiry

1. What is the idiom of war and peace within which decision-makers frame the justifications for American military action?
2. What are the concerns of decision-makers with the perceptions of American purpose, international standing, and policy? Are these topics well-defined or vague, widely shared as important indices of policy success or afterthoughts?
3. How do decision-makers articulate the "battle for hearts and minds", what do they perceive to be problems, solutions or policy directions?
4. What are the routine narratives that appear on the mediascapes of policy discourse? How are stories framed that are typical of lead-up to war, fighting, and resolving the peace?
5. How is "evidence" of public effectiveness, popular support, and legitimization assessed, especially in relationship to the intentions of terrorists, rogue states, allied nations, and international organizations?
6. How are problems in public diplomacy framed among allies or concerned others. To what extent and how do policy issues "interact," such as proliferation concerns with terrorism?

Aims of Analysis

The questions permit analysis of a current discourse formation, a language that informs the contemporary horizons of public diplomacy discussions. Of course, not all parties agree on issues addressed above. Opinions are diverse. Discussion is controversial. Analysis, however, should yield the range of commonalities that characterize the landscapes upon which a future public diplomacy is and can grow.

The end of the project involves a comparison and contrast between the foreign policy conditions that governed public diplomacy in the Cold War and those that constrain public diplomacy in the post 9-ll environment. What conditions, concerns, goals, and constraints upon communication remain the same as during the Cold War-such that successes can be extrapolated. What novel conditions, concerns, goals and constraints exist that require public diplomacy be rethought and reinvented? Investigation into the extensive foreign policy debate of 2002-2003 should lend substantial insight into how the needs for and potential of a new public diplomacy is being defined. Comparison with the discursive parameters of Cold War rhetoric should yield the unique topics, issues, persuasion concerns, and instrumentalities within which the actors, debates, and communications of a post 9-ll world are generated.

Principal Investigator

G. Thomas Goodnight
Professor
USC Annenberg School for Communication