Confucius Institutes (CIs) are probably China’s most prominent, but also most controversial cultural diplomacy tool. There is a lot of debate going on concerning the political implications of CI’s, especially in the U.S. (the most recent example can be found here) but also elsewhere. While these debates are absolutely necessary and helpful to better understand these institutes, it sometimes seems there is more guessing and speculation rather than a fact based discussion.

While public diplomacy is most often used when tackling international affairs and politics, your Thanksgiving dinner table, Hannukah celebration, or Christmas tree lighting, might feel like an international crisis…

In the aftermath of the interim deal between the Iranian regime and the P5 + 1, the dissonance between the smiles on the faces of Iranian and Western negotiators and the frowns of concern of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and senior Israeli cabinet ministers reflect the magnitude of Israel’s challenge over the next six months.

Numerous governments and citizens throughout the world would like to see an effective counterbalance to China in East Asia. Korea, with its commitment to democracy, sophisticated economy, and long-established ties to the United States and other Western countries, is in a strong position to play this role, if it chooses to do so.

The historically undervalued art of public diplomacy as an effective instrument continues to languish on the margins of the conduct of 21st century foreign policy. But that is old news. To put it mildly, we appear to have lost the ability to employ “soft diplomacy” tools to bridge that all-important last six inches in communication among allies and foes where understanding, support, or—at least—muted opposition to a policy goal can be accomplished. Perhaps this is a harsh judgment, but allies and everyone else are increasingly comfortable “just saying no” to us today.