Public diplomacy matters, but it is no substitute for policy. As First Lady Michelle Obama prepares to travel to China, she should consider weaving some policy into what appears to be almost entirely a week-long public diplomacy push. With her mother and two daughters in tow, the first lady will be visiting educational institutions and historical sites and discussing education in the United States and China.

It’s the smallest and most obvious thing, and yet my life was at stake: I had to learn to look to the right when crossing the street.  That’s my first memory when I think back on the exchange program I attended in the United Kingdom as a junior in college.  Like everyone who takes the big jump into studying abroad, I was immersed in a different culture full of new people, foods, and sounds.

Earlier this month, the Department of Defense released the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, released every four years to “adapt, reshape, and rebalance [the] military to prepare for the strategic challenges and opportunities” to be faced in the coming years.

Crimea, which made its debut in most Americans’ consciousness by way of being recently invaded by Russia, is an extremely picturesque tourist destination. While news media is inundated by images of Russian military forces occupying the Ukrainian peninsula, the businesses that depend on Crimea’s normally-robust $5 billion tourism industry are wringing their hands.

The rise of Web 2.0 tools created a new, easy-to-use channel for diplomats and public diplomacy bureaus to reach far-flung publics. Many foreign ministries adopted the new technology almost immediately, creating a field called public diplomacy 2.0. New problems appeared quickly though.

Say that you work for a private security company (PSC) and most people think one of two things: Either you are a mall cop. Or you work for Blackwater, the infamous private security firm, and you go around shooting people.