3/8 Real News: "Public Diplomacy/Propaganda Grand Strategy"

“It’s not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true.”
Henry Kissinger

" Public diplomacy and propaganda are used interchangeably in this paper..."
Public Diplomacy in Grand Strategy Foreign Policy Analysis (2006) 2, 157–176
‘‘Public diplomacy’’ and ‘‘propaganda’’ are used interchangeably in this paper...the influence of the information revolution is not restricted to the developed world, as
is evidenced even in the resistance it meets from some non-democratic governments.11 Furthermore, one should not underestimate the exploitation of new technologies in third-world public diplomacy that is aimed at the developed world, especially at the U.S. (Manheim 1990).
All this should not obscure the continuing relevance of force (or hard power) to many interstate relations and increasingly terrorism which presents governments with a grand-strategic challenge: how to combine effectively soft and hard national means to obtain desired political outcomes.... the realization of desired political outcomes, especially in the current international system, depends on the government’s ability to manage the complicated balances and tradeoffs that inhere in the relationship between hard force and soft diplomacy.... the traditional and time-honored concern of statecraft; however experience can be drawn on with respect to the newer forms of force and of communications, such as fighting terrorism in the age of global, real-time television and the Internet....

For example, President Bashar Assad of Syria recently told his Baath Party Congress of the information revolution creating ‘‘some confusion and suspicion in the minds of Arab youth’’ and threatening the Arab nation with ‘‘the destruction of Arab identity’’ (Assad: Media, tech crushing Arabs 2005). Alterman (2000) and Ghareeb (2000) provide evidence on the impact of changing communication technologies on the Middle East. ...
The nature of the trend, through its impact on the shape and boundaries of such a culture, may prove to be decisive in defining the future scope of soft power and public diplomacy: the broader the common normative basis, the more legitimacy can be gained (or lost) from policies enacted, in particular the use of hard power.

Second, and of greater short-run consequence for public diplomacy, is the 'transparency' generated by the new media. This aspect of the communications environment, which Finel and Lord (2000:3) define as ‘‘a condition in which information about governmental positions, intentions, and capabilities is made available to the public or other outsiders,’’ has implications for both the likelihood and type of conflicts in which states engage; the conduct of diplomacy; the influence of domestic politics on international politics; and the overall power of states (Finel and
Lord (2000:5–6). But in terms of integrating public diplomacy into grand strategy, the most important effect of transparency is the reduction if not collapse of distance that separates the tactical level from the grand-strategic one. We return to this point below.
Defining the parameters of the communications environment does not in itself indicate how media influence is exerted on policy. This issue, in general terms, falls under the purview of the debate on the ‘‘CNN effect,’’ which argues media coverage affects the policy process. Public diplomacy seeks to capitalize on this effect, namely to convey self-interested information through the new(s) media in the assumption such media, in affecting foreign public opinion, are capable of exerting political influence on the respective target government... the CNN effect includes ‘forcing’ policy on leaders, ‘limiting’ their options, ‘disrupting’ their policy considerations, and ‘hindering’ implementation, as well as ‘enabling’ policy makers adopt a policy and ‘helping’ implementation by ‘legitimizing’ actions and ‘manufacturing consent’."...Thus, when news media framing is critical of nonintervention and empathetic to the suffering of individuals and policy is uncertain (i.e., inconsistent, wavering, or nonexistent), then media coverage is influential and the CNN effect operates....
The CNN-effect debate...is also applicable to domestic media effects operating on the propagandist’s foreign policy from within, namely through its own public opinion. Grand strategy should address both types of effects....
The Media and Public Diplomacy in Counterterrorism
For governments confronting terrorism at home, the role of the media as agenda-setter and accelerant should be far more pronounced than in intervention cases. The publication of gory details and graphic pictures that often follows terrorist attacks, in conjunction with (and in amplification of) the acute sense of individual insecurity generated by terrorism’s use of indiscriminate means against highly frequented civilian targets, are likely to increase public pressure for action...the catalytic power of terrorism...may also compel government to act forcefully before it has fully reaped the propaganda dividends that sympathy for the victim yields: once the government applies force, its targets win media attention and the victimization discourse is overtaken by new images of suffering.16 Thus, the accelerant effect can become a policy impediment when grand strategy seeks to profit from a delicate balance between propaganda and timing of military action.
Under different circumstances, these same CNN effects, as in intervention cases, can also be enabling.
Media coverage of terrorist atrocities (the more sensational, the better) may play into the hands of a government desperately seeking a pretext and public legitimation for military action. Domestic propaganda and public diplomacy gain immediately, galvanizing public opinion, and winning popular support for policies that may otherwise be opposed. Immediate retaliation risks the loss of some propaganda dividends, as noted above, but is more acceptable (or less objectionable) when launched in the reactive context of ‘‘defense’’ or ‘‘punishment’’ than in the proactive context of ‘‘preemption’’ or ‘‘initiation.’’
From the ‘manufacturing consent’’side of the government–media relationship, one should not forget "counterterrorism relies on media coverage as much as, if not more than, terrorism itself."..

Public Diplomacy in Grand Strategy
The internal balancing of means in grand strategy is most complex when media are expected to impede policy implementation. In political rhetoric, counterterrorism can and often is portrayed as 'war' but the legitimacy this framing is expected to confer on the wide-scale use of violence (as well as the domestic imposition of emergency measures) does not alter the fact that this type of war, by its very nature, implicates civilians as casualties of counterterrorist strikes. With global, real-time reporting, this means that pictures damaging to the government are instantly beamed to audiences around the world. Many continue to view the Vietnam War as the quintessential case of media influence on politics; however, even the buffers that existed then, when coverage was not live and editorial decisions intervened between events and their broadcasting, have since been all removed by technology. Given the strategic implications of certain graphic images (e.g., the October 1993 dragging of the dead American Ranger through the streets of Mogadishu or the February 1994 bombing of the Sarajevo market), decision makers feel compelled to control such media effects in some way.
Two such means, or strategies, have emerged historically as attempts to manage the interface between the military and the media in terms of its effect on public opinion. The first is media management, by which decision makers have tried to cope with the effects of public information flows on military operations and vice versa. This includes access control (to the military arena itself), provision of official information (through press releases, press conferences, interviews, etc.),17 creation and management of media dependence on the military (for safety,
transport, and communications), the imposition of censorship, and the use of the media for deception. (The Pentagon’s successful use of press pools in the 1991 Gulf War and embedded journalism in the recent Iraq War is often mentioned as exemplary media management.18)

The second strategy... propaganda or public diplomacy, in which the government appeals directly to public opinion, at home or abroad. Live television (especially live press briefings) and the Internet allow the direct dissemination of strategically selected information without the mediation of journalistic processing...
As the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force (2004) put it, ‘‘Transparency creates threats and opportunities and changes in the strategy/tactics dynamic. Tactical events can instantly be-
come strategic problems (digital cameras in Abu Ghraib).’’19 ...When the foreign media embeds such images within a dominant narrative or strategic framing that pits a powerful victimizer against a weak victim, it resonates strongly with foreign audiences and reverberates to their leaderships.20 The projection of tactical events to the grand-strategic level is a force balancer for the weaker party, because the internationalization of the conflict invites diplomatic pressures on the stronger side and thereby produces political outcomes that otherwise evade the militarily inferior side (as Wolfsfeld 1997 claims was the effect of the media in the first Palestinian Intifada; see also Bob 2000).
This suggests a third strategy of coping with the constraints of the media environment, namely integrating, rather than separating, (1) the use of force and (2) its expected propaganda or PR effects. In other words, at the grand-strategic level, coercive counterterrorist strategies are subject to political considerations, and as public opinion is both essential to political outcomes and engaged by transparency, it follows that in grand-strategic thinking the military criteria for force application (‘‘strategy’’ in the classical sense) must be reconciled with, at times even subor-
dinated to the expected propaganda effects (i.e., public diplomacy) of such an operation.21 If the implication of contemporary transparency is that government can no longer control the visibility of (strategically significant) small-scale events, then it is the events themselves that governments will try to shape. In practice, this means incorporating the tactical level of strategy into grand-strategic planning.22
Thus, whereas on a military-strategic basis alone (i.e., to achieve military decision) the application of all-out force could be deemed necessary, on the grand- strategic level where the political objective of the war is the criterion such use of force may be considered detrimental. Such, for example, was the calculation that guided Coalition bombing of Baghdad during the Gulf War (Taylor 1997). Although ‘‘smart’’ bombs constituted only 8% of all bombs dropped on Iraq, they were exclusively the weapons used over the Iraqi capital. In this case, military tactics and propaganda went hand in hand: precision bombing supported the claim that the war was directed against the regime, not against the Iraqi people. The close integration between military means and PR objectives was also evident in the equipping of PGMs with video-cameras, designed to convey an ability to hit military targets accurately yet distinguish them from civilian ones (Taylor 1997:134). Likewise, in the summer of 2002, in the aftermath of Operation Defensive Shield (see next section), then deputy chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), Major
General Moshe Ya’alon, acknowledged that decisions on the deployment of a tank, which might ‘‘photograph badly’’ on CNN, or the use of combat helicopters in daylight, could be affected by the on-site presence of press cameras (Israel Democracy Institute 2002: 58–59). 20 In the second Intifada, the shooting death of the Palestinian boy Muhammad a-Dura on October 1, 2000, is analyzed in these terms by Liebes and First (n.d.).
Yet, hard power and soft power requirements may be difficult to reconcile, and in some contexts, as Nye (2004:9) notes, tradeoffs cannot be avoided. For example, Nevo and Shur(2002:11), argue the IDF is disadvantaged to begin with by the ‘‘David versus Goliath’’ narrative that frames public opinion on the conflict, point to an inherent tension between force and public diplomacy in counterterrorist operations: "to deter, the IDF has to appear and operate like a Goliath... every time it appears and operates like a Goliath, it instantly loses media points.’’23
Media-imposed transparency also has the policy consequence of blurring the distinction between domestic propaganda and public diplomacy. Both are components of grand strategy, but they have contradictory relationships with the military component. Thus, whereas the government, following a terrorist attack, may find it rational for public diplomacy reasons to practice restraint and defer retaliation, or to react mildly while abstaining from harming civilians, domestic morale (ever so important in protracted conflict) and frustration may require that some action possibly forceful retaliation be taken nevertheless.24 Thus, media effects that act as an accelerant at the domestic level may become media effects that act as an agenda-setter at the international level. It is the role of grand strategy to manage these tradeoffs in the service of national goals.25
We now turn to an empirical examination of the issues raised in this section by reviewing the Israeli experience in the second Intifada, where the challenge was to integrate military response to the Palestinian uprising with the propaganda requirements of justifying actions abroad. The ensuing events in particular, the decision to enter the Jenin refugee camp during Operation Defensive Shield revealed some of the complex tradeoffs the new communications environment poses for public diplomacy and grand strategy.26 [...]

Internet Engagement Online public diplomacy
... the term “public diplomacy” was coined in 1965...the history of public diplomacy however goes back to the establishment of the US Information Agency (USIA) in 1953 to manage the world’s perception of the United States as a force for good...Modern public diplomacy has taken a new twist...recruiting members of the public, segments of civil society, to share your message indirectly...the battle ground today is online... social media is interactive...the audience is also the content producer, people do their own filtering, find their own sources, share with online friends and wider networks... larger expert online public diplomacy projects actively shape public opinion.

Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power
Chair in Communication and dean of the Annenberg ... Joseph Nye and Richard Armitage at the Center for Strategic and International Studies [CSIS] ... budgets for USAID...
beyond hard power and soft power insists on smart power...actor's capacity to combine hard power and soft power mutually reinforcing elements... advancing smart power has become a national security imperative, driven both by long-term structural changes in international conditions and by short-term failures... current debates over public diplomacy and soft power suffer from failures to address conceptual, institutional, and political dimensions of the challenge addressed in this article. http://ann.sagepub.com/content/616/1/110.abstract

MAY 13, 2011, http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/obama_tr...
DUBAI...Barack Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo was beautifully written, radiating good intentions. The U.S. relied heavily on new media tools to disseminate it throughout the Arab world and beyond. Arab opinion of Obama improved significantly, then it dropped like a rock... most Arabs see Israel as a U.S. client-state... Obama must make clear, publicly and privately, that Israel must move forward now. With the Israel-Egypt peace treaty in jeopardy, with Syria in disarray, and with much other turmoil and transition in the region, Israel must move promptly or find itself at the mercy of events it cannot control. Given Israel’s dependence on the United States as the ultimate guarantor of its security, Obama must use his leverage to insist Israel recognize the legitimacy of a Palestinian state, renew its treaty commitments with Egypt, and offer economic and other assistance to the new Arab regimes. He must also press Arab leaders to be realistic and accept Israel as a neighbor. An important goal would be the opening of diplomatic relations between Israel and all Arab states within the next three years....

The USC Center on Public Diplomacy (CPD) was established in 2003 as a partnership between the Annenberg School for Communication and the School of International Relations at the University of Southern California. It is a research, analysis and professional training organization dedicated to furthering the study and practice of global public diplomacy.
....the concept of soft power coined by international relations scholar Joseph Nye has become a core concept in public diplomacy. Nye defines soft power as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments.” In other words, soft power is the degree to which a political actor’s cultural assets, political ideals and policies inspire respect or affinity on the part of others. Thus, soft power has come to be seen as a resource, with public diplomacy a mechanism that seeks to leverage soft power resources....
CPD sees public diplomacy emerging as a multi-disciplinary field with theoretical, conceptual and methodological links to several academic disciplines – communication, history, international relations, media studies, public relations, and regional studies, to name but a few.

CPD Media Monitors follow the development of critical public diplomacy stories in world media and feature news coverage on topical issues from a variety of international sources. The aggregated news stories are then analyzed in a Media Monitor Report examining their implications for public diplomacy.

The primary purpose of USAID Democracy Governance Office [DG] is to “promote transition to and consolidation of democratic regimes throughout the world.”
USAID Launches New Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance
2/27/12 http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2012/pr120227_1.html
The launch occurs just over a year after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah released the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review... In cooperation with the Agency's Policy, Planning, and Learning Bureau, the Center will represent democracy, rights and governance issues in interagency arenas, ensuring USAID's investments are coordinated with U.S. diplomatic and defense efforts. The Center will also manage a focused portfolio of grants, contracts and funds.

USAID Democracy & Governance - DG ... the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown ... of Government Urban Institute PublicAdministration International ...
www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/ug.pdf - 2006-05-24

USAID Launches New Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance
February 27, 2012, http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2012/pr120227_1.html
The launch occurs just over a year after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah released the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review... In cooperation with the Agency's Policy, Planning, and Learning Bureau, the Center will represent democracy, rights and governance issues in interagency arenas, ensuring USAID's investments are coordinated with U.S. diplomatic and defense efforts. The Center will also manage a focused portfolio of grants, contracts and funds.

Quarterly Progress and Oversight Report on Civilian Public diplomacy
(USAID), Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Agriculture and the Embassy, by agencies working in Pakistan
www.usaid.gov/pk/downloads/quarterly/pakistan_ig_quarterly_report101231.... - 2011-02-11

June 24, 2007 - Present
This CPD Media Monitor tracks the public diplomacy mandate of newest US military command AFRICOM. Updated regularly, the Monitor provides a window into the African as well as the global perspective on the subject.

January 14, 2011 - Present
The Arab Spring Media Monitor tracks public diplomacy news coverage of ongoing uprisings, protests, developments and crises in the Middle East and North Africa since the fall of the Tunisian and Egyptian governments in early 2011.

Distribution authorized to USG agencies and ... intent of US UW to exploit hostile powers' political, military...US National Endowment for Democracy, Open Society, USAID- funded

National Security Structure Set: Under Obama, Council Will Grow
1/27/09 by Karen DeYoung http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR200902...
President Obama's first presidential directive, outlining the organization of his national security structure, adds the Attorney General, Energy and Homeland Security Secretaries, and U.S. ambassador to the UN to the National Security Council. The four-page directive sketches wide input to NSC meetings, providing for "regular" inclusion of senior trade, international economic, counterterrorism, science and technology advisers will become "regular members" when their issues are "on the NSC agenda"....
The document puts national security adviser James L. Jones firmly in charge of setting the NSC agenda and communicating Obama's decisions to the others. Jones will determine when to call White House meetings of policymaking "principals" and will police implementation of assigned tasks....

Kissinger: Obama primed to create ‘New World Order’
Conflicts across the globe and an international respect for Barack Obama have created the perfect setting for establishment of “a New World Order” ...

“It’s not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true.”
Henry Kissinger

National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones: "I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger "
Gen. Jones's Remarks to the Munich Security Conference By James Jones, Obama Administration National Security Adviser
Hotel Bayerischer Hof Munich, Germany February 9, 2009

NEWS Public Diplomacy in the Age of Social Media 
Public Diplomacy in the Age of Social Media at the New America Foundation, February 16, 2012
USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School, L.A.
CPD collects and curates multimedia resources for public diplomacy on our website. The video below presents full footage of the New America Foundation's conference during Social Media Week in February. Watch as representatives from the U.S. Department of State and others discuss the ways social media are changing the practice of public diplomacy and 21st century statecraft and share case studies and experiences culled from the virtual trenches.

The USC Center on Public Diplomacy (CPD) is a research, analysis and professional training organization dedicated to furthering the study and practice of global public diplomacy.
Related Links: CPD Research Fellow Project; Public Diplomacy and Social Media tags
* PDiN Monitor (Public Diplomacy in the News):
*Government PD *Media PD *New Technology&PD *Public Opinion *Soft Power *Nation Branding *CPD Media Monitors *Arab Spring Media Monitor *Cultural Diplomacy *PD worldwide *Africa *Americas & Asia Pacific *Europe *Middle East *Asia

Democracy, Governance and Social Transition
New Media and International Media Development: Resource Guide for Europe and Eurasia
USAID supports independent media development to ensure that citizens have access to a variety of important sources of news and that information. Digital technologies are fundamentally altering the way individuals access news. Increasing levels of internet penetration in developing countries, the growing use of mobile devices for news and information messaging, and the proliferation of
blogs and social networking sites have all created new ways to get and share information. Collectively, these technologies refer to emerging “new media”—a term used here to refer to digital technologies that are both collaborative and dynamic, allowing users to access and direct information to others over the internet or through mobile devices. New media technologies and trends are changing so rapidly that many media assistance professionals—even those with years of experience—have a limited understanding of these new developments or their possible utility and importance. This paper offers a “taking stock” evaluation of current trends, provides a comprehensive glossary of new media terminology, and identifies key issues and additional resources useful for media assistance projects. Read the Resource Guide (Adobe Acrobat PDF, 516kb) ...

Media Sustainability Index 2010 Media Sustainability Index
The Media Sustainability Index (MSI) is a joint project of USAID and the International Research & Exchanges Board (IREX). Funded by USAID since 2001 and developed by IREX, MSI measures five key indicators of media systems in twenty different countries and provinces in the E&E region...with media indicators generally paralleling other democracy indicators in the region, showing substantial progress in eastern Europe; incremental progress in the Caucasus and Ukraine; for the most part, considerable backsliding in Russia, Belarus and Central Asia. MSI is used by government officials, scholars, NGO's and private enterprises to monitor one key features of democratic society, the existence or non-existence of an independent, objective media system.

some USAID/CPD/CSI links
The American Academy of Diplomacy annually grants prestigious Annenberg Award at the US Department of State for ... USAID to accomplish their missions in classic and public diplomacy...
> democracy panel discussion, The Real World of NGOs and Diplomats >New Directions for Democracy Promotion, in Washington, DC...
Academy-RAND report Integrating Instruments of Power and Diplomacy
The Academy and the RAND Corporation jointly sponsored study on improving coordination among military, diplomatic, business, and NGO actors to enhance US and international security... draws from 67 U.S. and European senior practitioners civilian and military posts. Report recommendations based on lessons learned from Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan argue for more funding for diplomacy and the U.S. State Department, and better military and civilian integration....
Public Diplomacy and Rising Powers: June 2007 the Academy collaborated with the World Affairs Councils to launch a series of lectures and presentations on “World’s Rising Powers Series” to educate public beyond domestic borders on foreign policy issues.

Diplomacy and Terrorism
Academy activities on diplomacy and terrorism 10/13/11 www.academyofdiplomacy.org/Programs.htm

Staff drawn from all branches of the military, as well as USAID and the departments ... Annenberg School of Communication, Center for Public Diplomacy ...

2007 EPIIC Archive
Center for Public Diplomacy [CPD], Annenberg School of Communications ..Arms Trade Research Center and President's ...USAID Military Liaison Officer, Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance..

To Win the “War on Terror,” We Must First Win the “War of Ideas”: addresses the critical role of public diplomacy in improving the deteriorating image of the US in the Muslim world...authors argue that both public diplomacy and policies, including on civil liberties, are vital to U.S. success in the war and the next U.S. president must designate this as a matter of highest national security importance. http://ann.sagepub.com/content/618/1/212.abstract

Related Links include
American Diplomacy, online journal
American Foreign Service Association (AFSA)
Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training (ADST)
Associates of the American Foreign Service Worldwide
Council of American Ambassadors
Foreign Service Youth Foundation
Institute for the Study of Diplomacy
The Public Diplomacy Council
US Department of State
US Diplomacy Center
US Diplomacy.org
World Affairs Council, DC, World Affairs Councils of America

Civil Society International
Electronic Resources: Civil Society

NGOs http://www.state.gov/es
Results1 - 10 of about 9940
* europe and eurasia (437)
* africa (211)
* pakistan (162)
* afghanistan (156)
* iran (115)
* south and central asia (114)
* russia (106)
* western hemisphere (100)
* north korea (97)
* syria (95)
* india (94)
* east asia and the pacific (91)
* haiti (87)
* egypt (86)
* china (81)
* sudan (81)
* israel (80)
* libya (70)
* iraq (69)
* near east (60)
* somalia (56)
* burma (55)
* congo (54)
* turkey (50)
* democratic republic of the congo(45)
* kenya (45)
* kyrgyzstan (44)
* yemen (43)
* uzbekistan (41)
* mexico (39)
* kazakhstan (37)
* sri lanka (37)
* indonesia (35)
* ethiopia (34)
* tunisia (34)
* colombia (32)
* japan (31)
* thailand (31)
* cuba (30)
* rwanda (30)
* zimbabwe (30)
* bosnia and herzegovina (29)
* bangladesh (28)
* liberia (28)
* tajikistan (28)
* tanzania (28)
* cambodia (27)
* cameroon (27)
* kosovo (27)
* mozambique (27)
* uganda (27)
* ukraine (27)
* angola (26)
* bahrain (26)
* brazil (26)
* lithuania (26)
* south korea (26)
* armenia (25)
* belarus (25)
* georgia (25)
* nigeria (25)
* turkmenistan (25)
* vietnam (25)
* cote d'ivoire (24)
* guinea-bissau (24)
* south africa (24)
* albania (23)
* saudi arabia (23)
* central african republic (22)
* chad (22)
* montenegro (22)
* serbia (22)
* eritrea (21)
* ghana (21)
* morocco (21)
* united kingdom (21)
* burundi (20)
* honduras (20)
* lebanon (20)
* nepal (20)
* venezuela (20)
* azerbaijan (19)
* ecuador (19)
* guinea (19)
* macedonia (19)
* qatar (19)
* spain (19)
* switzerland (19)
* united arab emirates (19)
* canada (18)
* moldova (18)
* niger (18)
* poland (18)
* chile (17)
* malaysia (17)
* maldives (17)
* sierra leone (17)
* djibouti (16)
* greece (16)
* italy (16)

Soros Foundation. Search Results 1 - 10 of about 271 for Soros Foundation.
USAID: Azerbaijan.. funding sought and received from NGO Open Society Institute (OSI/Soros Foundation), World Bank ...www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/cbj2005/ee/pdf/112-0420.pdf
USAID: Kazakhstan.. (Soros/OSI), German Government, UN Development Program (UNDP) and Israeli government...www.usaid.gov/pubs/cbj2003/ee/kz/ - 22k
USAID: NGO Sustainability Index - July 2010 The Soros Foundation Moldovawww.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/dem_gov/ngoindex/2009/moldova.pdf - 2010-07-30
USAID: Global Development...Foundation/Philanthropists list... Soros Foundation; Aga Khan Foundation; All Armenia Fund; ...www.usaid.gov/policy/par05/app_02.html - 48k

About Civil Society International [CSI]
Civil Society International (CSI) assists independent organizations working for democracy and civil society in countries closed, or inhospitable, to these principles. We bring together in one place information about projects worldwide committed to these keystones of civil society (including)... market-oriented economies, popular elections, the rule of law; free association and expression...We assist projects overseas by helping them recruit staff, interns, and overseas partners, identify funding and leadership development opportunities and publicizing their work;
Within the U.S., we support in similar ways American organizations active on the international front, as well as those working to defend and deepen civil society in our own democratic culture.

CSI provides assistance mainly in the form of publicity, networking, and production of educational resources. Through our listserv CivilSoc, for example, we inform subscribing organizations about potential sources of funding; we assist them in the recruitment of staff or interns; and we put them in touch with potential partners abroad. By publishing on this website and in our books the work of organizations that meet one or more of the criteria above, we help these organizations become recognized internationally. By encouraging philanthropic entities to view their special concerns in a global context, we have contributed to a more international perspective on humanitarian activity. CSI is not a foundation, however, and does not make grants on our own behalf to organizations or individuals.
Regardless of where one's interests or concerns lie--whether with human rights in China, environmental education in Ukraine, juvenile justice in Brazil, or public health in Zimbabwe--CSI can furnish examples of sound organizations addressing such issues responsibly and deserving more support, whether from domestic sources or from abroad. In special cases, we can help transfer financial assistance to projects overseas.

Elena Bonner, Andrei Sakharov Foundation, Moscow
Gulnara Dzhamanova, Central Asia Development Information Network (CASDIN), Almaty, Kazakhstan
Herbert Ellison, Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Catherine Fitzpatrick, UN Representative of the International League for Human Rights
Francis Fukuyama, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC
Dennis McConnell, Maine Business School, Orono, ME
Michael McFaul, Associate Professor of Political Science, Stanford University, Peter and Helen Bing Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
S. Frederick Starr, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC
Sharon Tennison, Center for Citizen Initiatives, San Francisco, CA
Andrei and Elena Topoleva, Agentsvo Sotsialnoi Informatsii, Moscow

Board of Directors
Executive Director Holt Ruffin
Ronald S. Bemis, Seattle, WA
Richard Greene, Seattle, WA
Bob and Maryann Ness, Seattle, WA
Vladimir Raskin, Seattle, WA
Daniel Waugh, Seattle, WA

Executive Director Holt Ruffin founded Civil Society International in 1992. He is a graduate of Stanford University (BA, 1966) and the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University (MPA, 1975). Mr. Ruffin’s work experience includes six years in the Economics/Policy Research Department of Bank of America and in the International Division of Wells Fargo Bank in San Francisco. Articles by Mr. Ruffin have appeared many publications.. most recently he was lead editor or author of: The Post-Soviet Handbook: A Guide to Grassroots Organizations (revised edition, 1999), Civil Society in Central Asia (1999, co-edited with Daniel Waugh), and Internet Resources for Eurasia (2001). The Post-Soviet Handbook and Civil Society in Central Asia, co-published with the University of Washington Press. Mr. Ruffin was a research fellow at the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC, in 2000; he participated in a six-week seminar on civil society, at Boston University under the leadership of Dr. Peter Berger in 1994.

The information about NIS NGOs accessible from this page come from a variety of sources, including: the organizations themselves, U.S. organizations and individuals who have worked with these groups, and CCSI's 1996 publication The Post-Soviet Handbook, which includes brief descriptions and contact information for over 1,000 NIS NGOs.

NIS Third Sector Organizations section information can be found in the The Post-Soviet Handbook (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1999). The Third Sector Organizations in Central Asia section is based on information collected for the print edition of Civil Society in Central Asia, (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1999) a joint publication of CCSI and the Central Asia - Caucasus Institute of Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC.

Who Supports Civil Society International [CSI]
Funding for the work of Civil Society International comes primarily from donations by individuals or institutional (foundation or corporate) grants. Below we list institutions that have provided support to CSI in the past ten years

Anonymous member of the Rockefeller family
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Center for International Networking Initiatives
Central Asia Institute
Earhart Foundation
Eurasia Foundation
Foundation for Russian-American Economic Cooperation
Henry M. Jackson Foundation
Partners International
Seattle Foundation
University of Washington

Soros Foundation: uscpublicdiplomacy.org has a few openly Soros connected links, CSI U.S. based orgs. (sample below) includes many USAID/Soros - connected

Council on Foreign Relations [CFR]
New York, NY, Washington, D.C.
An independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens. Within CFR's U.S. Strategy and Politics Program it maintains a Public Diplomacy section

CSIS Commission on Smart Power
Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington D.C.
A high-level, bipartisan commission chaired by Richard Armitage and Joseph Nye that includes national leaders in government, elective office, the military, NGOs, media, academia and the private sector. The Commission met three times in 2007 to develop a blueprint for revitalizing America's inspirational leadership and made recommendations for developing an integrated policy to strengthen U.S. influence, image and effectiveness in the world. CSIS also organizes a Smart Power Speaker Series.

Eurasia Foundation
Washington, D.C.
The Eurasia Foundation supports economic development, youth engagement, cross border cooperation, independent media, public diplomacy, public policy and institution building across the region as a a network of locally registered foundations in Russia, Central Asia, the South Caucasus, Ukraine and Moldova and community development programs in China.

Fundación Amistad
New York, NY
An NGO dedicated to fostering better mutual understanding and appreciation between the peoples of the U.S and Cuba. Fundación Amistad is linked to a wide collaborative network of academic, cultural, non-governmental and humanitarian institutions based in Cuba, the U.S. and internationally. Specific public diplomacy initiatives focus on culture and humanitarian relief.

The German Marshall Fund of the United States
Washington D.C., Berlin, Bratislava, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, and Bucharest
A nonpartisan American public policy and grantmaking institution dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding between the United States and Europe. Of particular public diplomacy relevance are GMF's Transatlantic Trends Public Opinion Surveys, and the Transatlantic Academy, a scholarly forum to discuss future challenges in transatlantic relations.

Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
Arlington, VA
A nonprofit organization that aims to promote a systems-based approach to peacebuilding and to facilitate the transformation of deep-rooted social conflict through education, conflict resolution training and communication. The Institute pursues a diverse publications and projects program, including, among others, a focus on track-two diplomacy and sports diplomacy.

Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication [IDPGC]
Washington, DC
The Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication at George Washington University is an outgrowth of what was known from 2000-2008 as the Public Diplomacy Institute. IPDGC, supported by both the Columbian College of Arts and Sciences and the Elliott School of International Affairs at GW, is a leader in research, practice, training, and innovative thinking in the areas of global communication and public diplomacy..

The Institute of World Politics [IWP]
Washington, D.C.
An independent, nonprofit, accredited graduate school of national security and international affairs, dedicated to developing leaders with a sound understanding of the international use of the various instruments of power in service of national interests and purposes.IWP has produced books and papers, and lectures as well as academic courses on public diplomacy.

Washington, D.C.
A research and consulting organization specializing in audience research and message targeting in developing and transitional countries. InterMedia's areas of expertise are Public Diplomacy, International Development, New Communication & Media Technologies, and Word-of-Mouth. It produces AudienceScapes, a quantitative and qualitative survey of communication habits in developing and transitional countries worldwide.

James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy
Houston, Texas
The Baker Institute at Rice University plays an active role in public diplomacy, and at the request of past and current U.S. administration, directly consults with senior officials in both Democratic and Republican administrations to provide them with a strategic game plan on public diplomacy in the broader Middle East.

The Middle East Media Research Institute [MEMRI]
Washington, D.C.
The Middle East Media Research Institute is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that seeks to inform debate over US policy in the Middle East. MEMRI studies the Middle East through the region's media, websites, religious sermons and school books and provides translations of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Pashtu, Dari, Hindi, and Turkish media. MEMRI produces original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East. Current projects include Democratization in the Arab and Muslim World and the Cartoon Initiative, which examines political messaging through cartoons.

Public Diplomacy Alumni Association
Bethesda, MD
A non-profit, voluntary organization, formerly the USIA Alumni Association, of more than 400 members who have worked in or with the information, education, and cultural programs which the U.S. Government incorporates into the conduct of its diplomacy abroad. PDAA sponsors a speakers program for members and their guests three times a year, has completed more than 125 oral histories of distinguished USIA Officers, and publishes a newsletter and directory.

Public Diplomacy Council
Washington, DC
A non-profit organization committed to the academic study, professional practice, and responsible advocacy of public diplomacy. Its members believe that understanding and influencing foreign publics, dialogue between Americans and citizens of other countries, are vital to the national interest and the conduct of 21st century diplomacy. Since 2001, the Council has been affiliated with the George Washington University, Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.

Sesame Workshop
New York, NY
Sesame Workshop is a nonprofit educational organization locally producing media content for children. Its programs are global, including Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Indonesia, Bangladesh, South Africa, Kosovo and Russia, with the educational content delivered through television, radio, books, magazines, interactive media and community outreach programs.

U.S. Global Leadership Coalition
Washington, D.C.
A coalition of 400 businesses, non-governmental organizations and community leaders from across the country that support a smart power approach elevating diplomacy and development alongside defense to build a better, safer world. The organization's advocacy arm the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign, engages U.S. policy-makers to build support for U.S. International Affairs, while its educational arm, the Center for U.S. Global Leadership, develops national programs to educate the American public about the importance of America’s smart power tools.

U.S. Institute of Peace [USIP]
Washington, DC
An independent, nonpartisan, national institution established and funded by the United States Congress. USIP's Media, Conflict and Peacebuilding Center of Innovation conducts research and analysis of media power for peacebuilding. Recent projects include the development of innovative media strategies for public diplomacy and a Virtual Diplomacy Series on the role of information and communications technologies in the conduct of foreign affairs.

World Affairs Councils of America
Washington, DC
A commonwealth of 87 World Affairs Councils that seeks to engage grassroots America in international issues, to stimulate communities to interact effectively in the global economy, and help people relate local concerns to global issues. The national association organizes an annual conference, leadership missions abroad, international speaker exchanges, people-to-people diplomacy missions, educational workshops, book tours, operations workshops, research papers, and national publications.

World Learning
Brattleboro, VT
World Learning seeks to inspire citizen ambassadors, prepare global leaders to ensure sustainable development. It provides education, exchange, and development programs for students worldwide. Initiatives include SIT Study Abroad undergraduates opportunities for field research abroad; and the International Honors Program, which provides comparative study on social justice issues on multiple continents. WL offers a master's degree and certificates in international development theory and management for graduate students through the SIT Graduate Institute.