I was proud to be an American last night and honored to say a few words about Ambassador Thomas Pickering on the occasion of his delivering the Third Annual Walter Roberts Lecture at GW’s School of Media and Public Affairs which houses the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication. It was Ambassador Pickering’s birthday and he was in fine form as he answered tough questions from Frank Sesno director of the School of Media and Public Affairs.

The deteriorating security situation throughout much of the Arab world underscores the need to urgently search for nonviolent methods of achieving stability. At the heart of the current unrest are not only political issues but also economic failures that are wiping out the vestiges of hope that remain after the region’s recent revolutions. In conflict situations, public diplomacy must be employed carefully. Sometimes the swirl of violence becomes so pervasive that it sucks up the oxygen needed for peaceful enterprise to survive.

Advocates of official U.S. public diplomacy have long defended the value of its programs and argued for resources to do even more. But what exactly could be accomplished with such resources if they were, indeed, available? In fact, we may already have an answer to that question, albeit in the context of a single country at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy—Afghanistan.

It hasn't been the best of times — this week, this month, indeed, this year — for American foreign policy. The US looks imbecilic abroad when a few dozen members of Congress can bring the government to a standstill — later striking a compromise that only offers the same hotheads another shot in the new year. Nor, of course, did the amateurish roll-out of Obamacare enhance the reputation of the leader of the free world.

I join my GWU and IPDGC colleague Tara Sonenshine in saluting Donald M. Bishop for a thoughtful speech on the state of U.S. public diplomacy and the challenges it faces. Let me add my two cents to the discussion. I agree with the bottom line: public diplomacy is not a sufficiently vital dimension of diplomacy, foreign policy and national security. In an increasingly interconnected world of the Internet, global media, personal media and billions of smartphones, it should be, but isn’t.

Recently, I read a fascinating speech by Donald M. Bishop, President of the Public Diplomacy Council. He led U.S. public diplomacy in Bangladesh, Nigeria, China, and Afghanistan. He is a trainer, speaker, and mentor in public diplomacy and communication. He also speaks on history and leadership. His remarks are bold and insightful. I found myself agreeing with many of his individual points – but I take issue with the overall, rather dire view and negative view, that America’s public diplomacy is weak, lacks direction, and increasingly focuses on feel good issues.

Last week, Rodrigo Tavares wrote in Foreign Affairs about Brazil’s recent involvement in paradiplomacy, or subnational foreign relations, by establishing formal bilateral relations between São Paulo and the UK. According to the article, the U.S. established a similar agreement with the world’s ninth largest city this past March - the first time that the State Department has forged direct relations with a subnational government in the southern hemisphere.

Iran and the United States should establish public and non-official diplomacy, first deputy Speaker of Iranian Parliament, Mohammad Reza Bahonar said, Iranian Bahar newspaper reported. He went on to note that, official diplomacy has limitations while public diplomacy does not have.