Kal Raustiala 0:05
Hello, everyone and welcome. I'm Kal Raustiala, director of the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations and I'm happy to welcome you to another one of our webinars. This week, I have the pleasure of having on a really impressive person and good friend of ours, Karen Richardson. Karen is currently working as a consultant, but she was previously Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Public Affairs at the State Department, and previously worked on public engagement issues in the White House, including as a senior adviser to Valerie Jarrett. This is in the Obama administration. And before that worked for then-Senator Obama. So she has a long history with President Obama in issues around public diplomacy, public affairs, public engagement. And those issues, I think, are always important, but especially now, especially timely and interesting. Because the United States, which has long been widely viewed around the world, in positive terms, especially in our allies, increasingly is not. And so the issue of how public diplomacy and our public image work, I think, has never been really more important than today. So I'm really glad to have Karen on. We're gonna do the usual format, where I will hand the screen over to Karen, momentarily. She will speak for a few minutes, she and I will have a joint conversation, and then we will field questions (or she will really field questions) sent in by all of us. So I please urge you to do that, use the q&a feature for your questions. And I'll comb through them as best I can and pose them and we'll be done in about an hour. So with that, Karen, the mic and the screen are yours.
Karen Richardson 1:56
Hi, everyone, and thank you for having me, Kal. And thank you UCLA Burkle Center for organizing this discussion and having me to have a conversation with you all today. So I think that, as Cal mentioned, you know, I work in consulting, independent consulting right now, but I remain very engaged in these issues. I was former Deputy Assistant Secretary at the US Department of State in the Bureau of Public Affairs, so really excited to have a conversation about public diplomacy today and soft power and the relationship between the two. So I think what I'll do is just start by talking about and defining public diplomacy and talking about it in the context that we're seeing happening today, some of the challenges and such. So I'll just.. and then also talking about it in the context of my role when I was over in the State Department. So just to start out by talking about public diplomacy and defining it, it's defined in a number of different ways because in some sense, it's an evolving field. But broadly, it's a term that is used to describe our government's efforts to conduct foreign policy for the purpose of promoting our national interest through sort of direct outreach to foreign publics. So essentially, it's our nation's outreach to the public. And traditionally, it was viewed more in a sort of state-centric way. So to describe state to state diplomacy. So relations and conversations between leaders of nations, for example, diplomats who are representing sovereign states. But over time, it was sort of developed to be defined a little bit more expansively. So more than an activity that strictly refers to just state to state diplomacy. In this view, we find it sort of moving away from this sort of state centric practice to one that is more multifaceted, and that involves multiple networks and actors. So what comes to mind in this area are some national actors such as cities and counties, and NGOs and the private sector, and with the democratization of information and the expansiveness of information through the internet, that list has also grown a little bit more broadly, something we'll get into more detail about. And so I think what we've also seen is that because of the expansive role that we've seen nonstate actors take in this regard, that we've sort of seen them as elevated, as sort of legitimate players in sort of our foreign affairs in some ways. And so while public diplomacy has historically in practice, you know, has, I think in terms of when it was actually defined was in the 1960s by I think the former dean of Tufts School of Foreign Policy...I think that what we can do is also like talk about how we've seen it played out in various contexts before the term was actually coined in the 60s. So, you know, we've seen this happening during World War Two, when the US military used it to conduct most of its information and communications activities. We've seen it during the Cold War, when the US Information Agency led public diplomacy efforts to combat Soviet propaganda, and the spread of communism. So it is something that we've seen, you know, we saw it with America's first diplomat, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, in their communications efforts as well. So we've seen it in practice over time and over history, and it's just sort of evolved, as the role has evolved and geopolitics has changed in many respects. So why do we do it in the first place? It's one of our most powerful tools to conduct foreign policy. You know, it's the way that we communicate what our values are to different countries and the foreign publics because it hadn't... and why does that even matter? I mean, when we think about how we advance our national security interests, and how we make sure that we are forging consensus on issues that affect all of us in the global sphere, all of these things matter, and are facilitated by the tool that is sort of public diplomacy. It's a way of listening to people. I think this has in practice, manifested itself differently through different presidential administrations, but generally it is a tool by which we're also able to listen to foreign publics. It's a way of building coalitions, international coalitions, and forging consensus and trust. And this is especially important as our world becomes more globalized and information more democratized. So, you know, in short, you know, enhances our national security goals and influences how other countries see us, other countries see the United States. It's essential to promoting global understanding. I think there's hardly an international agreement, or maybe a major milestone in diplomatic history where it did not involve some level of public diplomacy. So I am... so just to get to describe a little bit of what my role was over at the State Department, I worked in the Public Affairs Bureau that was headed by at first it was Doug France, and then later by John Kirby. But you know, the State Department is a very broad, very kind of massive bureaucracy, in a good sense, but it's, you know, it was all under the heading of the Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. And so that was headed by Rich Stengel at the time that I was there. And the purpose of the Public Affairs Bureau is to communicate what our foreign policy was to international and domestic publics. And so I ran and led a Department of Public Affairs Specialist that was focused on communicating what our foreign policy is to domestic publics. So it was called the Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Intergovernmental Affairs piece of that office dealt with our relationships with, who I mentioned, some national actors. It is states and counties and mayors, not just in the United States, but also abroad. And sort of, and I think that reflects a little bit of sort of understanding the key role that they play in foreign affairs and how it is important, at least at that time to engage them in our diplomatic efforts. And as they are essentially, in some ways, sort of mini diplomats themselves, ambassadors for the country, so to speak, just recognizing their role in that. So I think that... I think that maybe, Kal, that's a good place to stop, and maybe we can sort of just have a conversation about how it's maybe operated there, whichever way you want to take it: operated in the Obama administration and again, you mentioned I also was working on foreign policy issues when I was over at the White House before joining the State. So I'm so happy to stop there and take it whichever way you'd like to.
Kal Raustiala 9:02
Okay, great. Thank you, Karen. And maybe what we'll do, I mean, there's so many things you've raised, that I want to make sure we get back to not least you just mentioned in passing issues around mayors and other jurisdictions. And we happen to have the Lieutenant Governor of California doing one of these, I think next week or the week after, it's coming up very soon, exactly on this issue of kind of what is California's foreign policy. That's probably not a phrase she'll use, but it's what I think is appropriate. And so I want to make sure we talk about that. But but just to go back to the big picture of kind of what you did at State and why public diplomacy is actually an important thing for us to have and to have a robust version of. One thing you mentioned in passing and we put in the title but we should talk about a little bit is "What is soft power?" What do we really mean by that? And is that something that governments can actually control? In other words, you know, whatever soft power might be, however we might define it, is it something that's within our power? Or is it like charisma or something where, you know, you can try, but it's sort of like an innate quality? What's your take home?
Karen Richardson 10:15
I mean, I think that's right. I mean, I think that I mean, if we're sticking to the, you know, to the definition, that was sort of coined by Joseph Nye, who we all know, as, you know, soft power is the sort of described by him as the power to sort of achieve, or the ability to achieve our objectives through attraction and persuasion. It's, you know, it is something that is crucial to how we conduct our foreign policy. Public Diplomacy has a very long history, sort of as a vehicle by which we are able to sort of promote our soft power. So the question is to whether it's something that's within our control? I mean, I definitely think through, you know, our public diplomacy efforts, and the way that we interact with other countries, of course, is a way of... it is... if it's done strategically, and in a way as we're communicating our values, I think that's within our control. I think where it gets a little bit to a place where it's beyond our control is more in how to sort of communicate that to other countries. Because, as I mentioned, you know, one of the consequences of having this rapid social media environment with this technological revolution and the explosion of the Internet, and people having access to information much more quickly, and much more expansively, I think that poses, you know, that gets to the your question about whether it's something we control, I think it makes it harder. But again, it's, you know, maybe control isn't necessarily the right word, but it is a narrative challenge, in some ways, because, you know, I think in public diplomacy and anything where you're talking about communications, the importance being of how you define the narrative for the country, how are we communicating what our values are? And are they being co-opted or sort of redefined for us in a way that we wouldn't define it ourselves? So that, to me, I think is a little bit of a challenge. I think it's also a little bit what you're talking about in terms of charisma, you know, of a country and a leader, I think that gets to also communicating who we are as a culture. And I think that also, you know, how people perceive us is based a lot on what they view our culture as. And I think that when we talk about cultural diplomacy, we're talking about the arts, we're talking and you, you know, wrote a great article about this recently as the influence of the arts and media and entertainment and how that's impacted how people see us as well, as an element of our soft power. So there are multiple facets to this. But I think that some of it is driven in terms of talking about whether we can, with the influences of all of these sort of different things come into play about how it impacts whether or how are we projecting the soft power using that. So, hope that makes sense?
Kal Raustiala 13:09
Yeah, no, that that just makes sense. I want to get into some specifics about what you did, and what the Trump administration does differently and so forth. But just on that point, it is interesting that, you know, other countries, I think, aspire to have the kind of soft power that the United States has traditionally had. And we seem particularly good at attracting other countries in that way. And our (indistinguishable) government is something that people are drawn to, and the policies of the government is a different issue, though. Sometimes they are. They're certainly attracted to American culture. And so that always feels like it's been this kind of extra superpower we've had, as a power we've been able to leverage that. So I want to turn to what the Trump administration is doing and then maybe go back to what you did in your time. But you know, given how different the Trump administration is from the Obama administration, I can't imagine there's some that you see there in a positive light. But have they done anything right in the public diplomacy space? Can you point to anything you're happy about?
Karen Richardson 14:13
Um, so i think that... I think it's a challenge because I think what we've seen with the Trump administration is sort of a departure from how the United States in modern times has approached diplomacy. And particularly from the time when I was working at the State Department, I think, you know, when you look at how public diplomacy and how we've conducted our foreign policy, you know, with all of our post Cold War presidents from both President Bush's and Obama and Clinton, there was like a general, I think, set of principles by which we conducted foreign policy. They weren't all united and their beliefs in terms of unilateralism and multilateralism, but there was kind of a guiding force of principles that they stuck to within those sort of parameters. I think, you know, what we've seen with this administration is definitely a sort of a full scale departure a little bit from that. And, you know, the idea of building relationships with our allies that are based on sort of mutual respect and shared responsibility, and of course, in practice is sort of vary from administration. But I think that goes back to what I was talking about in terms of there being a sort of general understanding, even through different presidential administrations. So I think what we sort of come to with the Trump administration is, is a little bit different from that. I think, you know, not only have we sort of, I think, appeared to not be listening to foreign publics but I think that, you know, people might also see as has been retreated from the world stage. So, I mean, there are a number of things that I think have sort of taken place in this administration, I think it that sort of underscores this. I think that, you know, for... and also, I think that they, you know, as Obama did when he sort of first came on, you know, to this to the you know, when he first assumed that his inaugural address, if you looked at the way that he approached it, I think it signaled how he was going to approach his foreign policy. It's about extending a hand it's about working with, it's about working with our allies and building trust amongst each other. And it's also about talking to foreign publics. And it goes back to public diplomacy. And I think, you know, when he in one signature speech, I always think about his, his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, where was the speech about the new beginning, and I think that really is a reflection of how he viewed how that was going to work under Obama is like, "how do we communicate to Muslim world to them that we are, you know, that we are in this fight, we are not your enemy, we are extending an arm?"I mean, those types of thing. And also talking to the people of that country. So it wasn't just him talking to the leaders, it was talking to the people because, as we've seen over time, as well, in other contexts, and also, you know, when he talks to, you know, he did the Young African Leaders Summit, and he went around the world talking to young people, because he understands, and from his viewpoint, that young people are sort of the future of not just our nation, but the nations of the world. So it was important to talk to them as a next generation of leaders. I think, in contrast with this administration, I think that... and also, you know, when you look at President Trump's speech at the UN General Assembly, and he's, you know, he frames it that the globalists, you know, don't matter the about the leaders and those types of things. I think it is very differently done in this administration, I think that, you know, in terms of alliances, I think there are a number of things that we've seen, you know, sort of him pull out from as well that I think is a signal of where he sort of thinks about soft power and diplomacy and a power of alliances. I mean, I think if we're looking at him pulling out of the Trans Pacific Partnership, or the Paris Climate Agreement, or the Open Skies Treaty, or the Human Rights Council. So there are a number of things that showcase that his approach to multilateralism and the use of that is, it's quite different. And then I just think it's about how you're even talking to some of our allies, our longest allies. I think just, you know, of creating a situation where, you know, Europe is one of our closest allies and [he] has been just referring to them in different terms, as the "foe" or the "enemy". And, you know, so it's, um, so it is challenging, and it's very sort of different, different than how we approached it, for sure. And I think, in sort of, we've seen in other administrations in modern times. So that's sort of my take on on the differences, I think, between President Obama's approach to this as as compared to this President. And then lastly I'll say, just in terms of the things that I was working on specifically, I mean, there were a number of things that I worked on at the State Department. One was just, you know, mentioning, sort of, the new relationship with Cuba and in that relationship in normalizing relations with Cuba and watching that process. Of course, the Paris Climate Agreement as wel,l working on it from the public affairs perspective (unintelligible) there. And also, again, I mentioned that part of what I did was also manage our relationships with our subnational leaders as well, working with, you know, our mayor here in LA Mayor Eric Garcetti, who's been a leader on this and has sort of worked to sort of build coalitions around supporting the Paris Climate Agreement, then and actually now as well. So I'll stop there, if you have any, you know, if you have any other questions specifically about that, but I was really fortunate, I think, to have been involved in some of the key things that we were working on and countering violent extremism is one of them as well. And watching how that sort of manifests itself during that time.
Kal Raustiala 20:09
Great, great. So I do want to come back to some of that. And just to say on your comparison with Obama, and Trump, you know, you were very diplomatic about it it is a stark contrast. You know, I think the important thing to recognize is Trump's approach is that... you said this, but it is a major deviation from what has been traditionally a bipartisan view that alliances are important, that multilateralism is important. And obviously, there's always been a partisan kind of difference about the degree to which we might be interested in making this come through, let's say, the United Nations versus something more unilateral. That's certainly a long-standing difference between Republicans and Democrats. But Trump has taken it to a different level. And you know, even in his own, it's interesting to think about them as people. You know, Trump, when he talks about the way that other nations might look to us, he tends to talk about it in terms of respect, not attraction. I mean, presidents typically don't. But, you know, in his own personal life, as far as most people can tell, Trump doesn't really have friends. That's not a concept that he seems to really gravitate to. There are people he works with, he intimidates people, he attracts people, maybe certain people, but you know, kind of he's very transactional by his sort of own admission. And certainly, that's, you know, that's a cliche about him at this point. Whereas, you know, I think of President Obama, you know him vastly better, somewhat aloof, personally. But certainly someone who does have a lot of friends and really understands basic human nature. Maybe he's not Bill Clinton in his desire to befriend everybody in the room, but he's, you know, he's just very different. And so Trump is just a deviation from what we've traditionally seen in political figures. And that carries over into his whole approach to dealing with foreign leaders. So in any event, there's a lot we could say, I don't want to psychoanalyze.
Karen Richardson 22:00
Yeah, no, I mean, I think that's right, though, Kal. I think, you know, just on a very human level, I think that -- and I think in some ways, you're talking about, like, how our own personalities manifests itself in our leadership, right? So, how you sort of see him acting on an individual basis is how he sort of conducts his affairs with the affairs of the leaders of the world. So it's not, you know, so... 100%, I think it's reflective of their personalities. And I think that's just one of the things that we take in consideration when we elect our leaders is how we see them interacting in different contexts, because it's not that different, as it's sort of, you know, reflects a little bit of their personality. And one thing I will say in terms of also just going back to some of the signals about where I think the Trump administration was going to go, and in their view about soft power and public diplomacy, I think out the gate was their their State Department budget that they that they presented to Congress. I mean, they've, it's a little bit like Groundhog's Day, because every year they submit a budget that is basically, you know, geared toward the hollowing out of the State Department. But I think that it just sort of signals that they had very little interest in soft power and just wanting... I mean, in fact, I think his budget director, Mick Mulvaney, mentioned, you know, "Here's our hard, hard power budget." So I think, just right out the gate, that sets up the what the priorities are for them. It's the militarization, to borrow from a colleague, the militarization of everything, but then, you know, and I think ironically about that, is that even when you had the military... you know, he appointed generals in power, he also didn't really listen to them that much, tooBut I think that just, you know, just itself looking at what they're proposing for the State Department was a real signal about what their value was in terms of how they see the efficacy of soft power and public diplomacy. It's very hard to do either one of those things When state is on a starvation diet of sorts, if that makes sense.
Kal Raustiala 23:59
Yeah, no, I agree, And I think unfortunately, the State Department has been underfunded for a long time. And...
Karen Richardson 24:03
Yes.
Kal Raustiala 24:04
even within the Pentagon, many people within the Pentagon for years have said, "Look, you know, we have this enormous budget, we can only do so much, you know, we kind of have one set of tools, Stage should have a bigger slice," but we traditionally don't do that. And Trump took that to an extreme.
Karen Richardson 24:19
Yeah, I think that, um, you know, the idea, I mean, reorganization of the State Department, you know, some of these things, is that unique, it's gone back and forth. It's like reorganizing the State Department trying to find efficiencies in the system and the budget... I think that's also probably like a healthy thing. I think, just going back to what you said, it is the scale about it's a scale at which and how different that is. It's just... you know, and I think, the defense the defense community will also say and support this is that you can't have a strong national security and a strong Department of Defense with a weak State Department and USAID. So just combining, you know, we are at our best when we are combining our soft and our hard power tools. And many times I feel like that's framed as an either or situation. It's either soft power or hard power in the military, you're either for the military or you're not. But I think that, you know, those in the defense community will be the first ones to say that, you know, "If we don't develop, if we don't invest in our soft power and our diplomacy and our public diplomacy efforts, then we're gonna have to spend more on our military." And I think General Mattis was the one who said, "Well, if you're not going to fund the State Department, I'm going to need more bullets," something like that, or "I'll need to buy more ammunition."
Kal Raustiala 25:39
Absolutely. And it is, you know, it is interesting that even if you take -- and there is a long standing debate over hard power versus soft power, and again, maybe republicans tend to lean more hard power -- but even so, normally, you would say, well, your hard power is magnified when you have a group of allies willing to wield it around you. So in other words, like going it alone is certainly the best approach even if you take a kind of hard power approach to the world. You still would want to have alliances that would multiply your abilities. And what's odd about Trump, and what I don't understand about this strategy, if there is one, is the consistent alienation of so many of our longest allies, as you mentioned in your opening remarks. But I want to make sure before we run out of time, there's two really interesting things that have come up that I want to make sure we get to. So one is the issue of other jurisdictions within the US, cities and states. I want to turn to that right now. And then I'll also ask you about social media, and how technology has changed the way we conduct public diplomacy. Because, you know, you interestingly pointed out talking about the Cairo speech, that the president at the time, President Obama, was very much speaking to the people or trying to reach the people, you know, of the, let's say, the Middle Eastern world, not just the leaders. And if you take the really big sweep of looking at how diplomacy has evolved over, let's say, you know, a century, it wasn't really that easy to speak to the people in any country a hundred years ago. Today, it's incredibly easy. So it's created this totally different dynamic. But let's start with the question about states and cities. So you mentioned our own mayor, Eric Garcetti. I brought up earlier the Lieutenant Governor, certainly California is not the only place where there's a pretty robust set of international engagements outside of Washington. Does that complicate things from the point of view of the State Department? Is it a good thing? How do you see that? Karen?
Karen Richardson 27:49
Um, okay, I hope you can hear me, can you? Yeah. Can you hear me? Okay, here I am. Yeah, so I got most of the questions. You're saying I got most of it. And the question was are these sub national actors...does it complicate things for us as we're trying to sort of conduct more policy? I don't, from my perspective, and I think from--and as we've seen, actually, the increased involvement of them in foreign affairs in some ways--I never found it complicated. I never found...I only found it enhancing, actually. And there is a great deal of work that went into making sure that things are coordinated in some senses, because it's really just about building relationships. You know, it's about the State Department building relationships with the different mayors, and also county officials who are also very active on that front. And I think that when we're seeing mayors and state legislators... I mean, you have... what is pretty amazing is that when you look at it, you know, over time, is that because they're issues of trade, for example, there are some things that impact these cities directly that is not always seen or known. You know, how does this trade agreement impact us here in LA? How are we... how are we creating jobs here in Los Angeles, for example? So I found it as an opportunity to continue to promote and project sort of who we are on the world stage, but also, you know, if, for example, if Mayor Garcetti is going to be going to China on a trade delegation and sort of promoting these principles that we would otherwise being be promoting and helping to sort of do that, I only found that something that was complimentary to our efforts, not to something that was sort of antagonistic or something that complicated them. And I think that regardless, I mean, to your point about social media, you know, whichever way we want to look at it, like... because you can communicate to a foreign public anywhere by virtue of a tweet, you know, tweet by foreign policy, those messages are already getting to those publics. So there's no real way around it in terms of making sure that, yes, we can either look at it and work together, or we can look at it as something that we're just not going to. And in our project from the Obama administration was that, you know, our mayors, you know, who are on the front line of some of the very issues that we would be promoting on the world stage (and that's climate change and its trade) you know, are our biggest assets. And so it's part of... so to me... And also, I think, you know, we had in the administration a very robust department that was specifically dedicated to those relationships on the subnational level. So, you know, when we, when we're seeing the mayors of cities, in the major cities in the United States, you know, between here and in New York, and you know, in Washington, just sort of seeing what they're doing, and coordinating with them and seeing what they sort of bring to bear and our public diplomacy efforts, to me is more complimentary and helpful, and to me was one of our greatest assets, I think, and help in that sense.
Kal Raustiala 31:10
I mean, it is interesting how rich and powerful cities have become. So if you think about, let's say, LA, even just LA County, or New York, for that matter, even bigger, you know, where roughly 10 million in the county bigger in the metro area and New York's, you know, probably at least 50%, or even double that, depending on how you count... These are huge places. And compared to a lot of nations, you know, the median size, the median population of a UN member state is something like 6, 7, 8 million. So, you know, this is a nation state in its size, and technically evenbigger than because we're very wealthy.
Karen Richardson 31:46
100%. And I think the biggest, like indication or sort of like illustration of how helpful it is, I think, to have to have it is, you know, what, we're, what we're now sort of calling city diplomacy, right, is seeing how it's played out during COVID-19. I think by many accounts, you know, as we're talking about how the world sees us, they have seen us sort of retreat from the world stage on this regard. And we're not, you know, the America that people sort of look to as the the first to act that people come to in a crisis, those types of things have not sort of happened in this case, because, you know, we, you know, we've sort of withdrawn from the World Health Organization. So what what we've seen happen is that the city's you know, the diplomats of the city have all banded together, not just here in the United States, but from around the world, around the globe, to step in, just, you know, in a task force, for example, through C40, a mayor's task force to sort of help create a national coalition to combat like, you know, the greatest sort of public health emergency in like a century. So I think that is just an example of the currency, so to speak, that has been gained over the years by the evolution of how cities displays, so to speak, have played on the international stage and how we're seeing how that's actually been, I think, helpful at a time where we may not see leadership at the federal level.
Kal Raustiala 33:22
Yeah, terrific. So let's turn to questions from the audience. There's quite a few. And I've just been looking through them a little bit. Let me start with one that's really a kind of variation on what we were just discussing about cities and states and other other non, you know, non-Washington kind of approaches. And the question is really about what about when there's a direct conflict? So the questioner asks "An example from the current administration is California's engagement with Canada over climate change regulation, which is contrary to President Trump's climate change policy?" In fact, there's a lawsuit currently by the Trump administration against California on that. So, you know, you spoke very positively about this development. What happens when states and cities do something totally contrary to what the State Department or the President wants?
Karen Richardson 34:11
I mean, I definitely think like, and I don't want to sort of over romanticize it and the idea that, but I do think that in that case, there are challenges there. It's not always going to sort of work out in the way that I sort of explained it and experienced it. But I just think that you're just pointing out one of the challenges. And I think the hope is that, you know, that people, sort of people, that there was more sort of coordination on that end, because I do think it's a challenge. I mean, I think it works if, if everybody is united in their message and their goals and their aims that you can't always assume... you know, especially now where you know, even when we're just talking about COVID, how it's handled very differently from different sort of Republican governors and Democratic governors, and even just sort of seeing how that plays on that level. So I think that, you know, the idea of how useful can it be is predicated on the assumption that the goals are the same, and they're not always the same. So I think with all of these things, it's a little bit of a double edged sword. And you know, in some areas, I think it's helpful in some areas I think it's, it's a little bit more challenging. But you know, and thank you for pointing that out, because it's exactly right. But when it does work that way, and you know, it could sort of be one of our greatest assets.
Kal Raustiala 35:23
Right. I, you know, I'm a Democrat, and I think a lot of Democrats.... I don't... Certainly for myself, in the past, federalism wasn't an issue I got very interested in, and I didn't think the states necessarily have a lot of autonomy. And over time, of course, like a lot of people on kind of our side of things, we've rediscovered the virtues of federalism, and realizing actually it's kind of good sometimes. But it does create some conflicts, and our, you know, our constitutional system is set up to sort of not really answer those questions very well about exactly where the line is between what California can do and what Washington can do when there's a true conflict. We have answers, but they're not always great answers.
Karen Richardson 36:04
No, and you're right. I mean, it is reflective of our system and how it kind of functions and in some ways, it's, it is healthy, and it's really pretty, you know, it's it reflects, like, why a lot of people around the world, sort of like that about us. But on the other hand, you know, it's totally, like I said, reflective of the challenge of it. It's like, it's, there's a good aspect to it. And there's the challenging aspect by people having, you know, some of those conflicts on that level.
Kal Raustiala 36:34
Right. Okay. So switching gears, a question is, "How does the Peace Corps fit into this topic?" In other words, the topic of public diplomacy, was it a success? So what about the Peace Corps or similar initiatives that have sometimes been proposed?
Karen Richardson 36:52
As for the Peace Corps in general?
Kal Raustiala 36:55
Yeah, the question is just how does the Peace Corps fit into this topic? So is the Peace Corps, speaking about soft power and public diplomacy in general, sending Americans out in this way? Has that been a success or us?
Karen Richardson 37:06
Yes. And I mean, that was either created under Kennedy. And so I think that was exactly... and his approach, I think, mirrored sort of what we've seen in modern public diplomacy and diplomacy efforts is that. I mean, you know, that is also a great example of how we've been able to showcase what our values are around the world. And that's what public diplomacy is about, is communication. And, and so, you know, when we think about, for example, and it's not just the Peace Corps, it's also like our foreign service officers who are on the ground, it's the families, it's, you know, our civil servants, it's all of these people who sort of make up our diplomatic efforts, because it's not just over at the State Department. And to your point, I mean, we have people on the ground through the Peace Corps, we have people who are on the ground, through USAID. So it is a multi sort of, you know, sort of government effort in that respect, I think that we sort of... That really, I think, you know, contributes to our public diplomacy efforts, to our soft power and helps generate the soft power. And so yeah, I mean, you're exactly right, I think. I'm such a fan of the Peace Corps, and we, you know, I had, you know, a good opportunity to work directly with them and sort of showcase also what they're doing and their contributions and I just have the highest respect for those who are sort of on the ground who are in particularly very challenging environments. And that I think, has sort of, you know, been a lot of what we've seen with the Peace Corps and where many are also stationed, so hats off to them.
Kal Raustiala 38:42
So next question, "wWat are some opportunities to work in foreign policy/public diplomacy in LA? And this maybe will give you an opportunity to talk a little bit about some of the interesting things, you know, which, you know, really run the gamut from traditional foreign policy to?
Karen Richardson 39:01
Yeah. Okay. Are you good? Can you hear me?
Kal Raustiala 39:11
Now we can. Karen, your connection seems a little unstable. I think you're back.
Karen Richardson 39:20
yet. Am I back now?
Kal Raustiala 39:22
Yeah, okay.
Karen Richardson 39:24
Apologies. I have no idea why this particular moment I'm having problems. So the question was, what are some public diplomacy things that we can be doing out here? I think that so, you know, we're in one of the largest cities, I think that there are opportunities to work in various aspects. There's the tech sector, I mean, you know, there are so many facets of, of international work that's going on here. And Kal, obviously, this is your panel, but you also can speak to this as well, as you're sort of plugged into a lot of different things, but there's a Pacific Council on Foreign Policy. There's also Truman. So there are a number of different organizations that are based out here in Los Angeles that I have been able to sort of work directly with. And that has been really an exciting time for me to work in in terms of the work that's going on here. I just think that there are different industries as well that are also doing sort of... that also work on issues that intersect in this area. And I mentioned sort of the technological field, I think there's a lot of opportunities there. And, you know, and academically as well, and was that... I can't see who the question was from but was it a student, Kal?
Kal Raustiala 40:36
Honestly, we don't know. They just come in.
Karen Richardson 40:39
Yeah, exactly, I just assumed. I mean, USC obviously has its Public Diplomacy Center. So I think even on the academic front, and I'll just make a plug for, you know, for UCLA as well and USC but... and Kal, I mean, I think... And so for me, those are the types of ways that I've been able to sort of work and stay abreast of the issues on many fronts over here. And was there another part of the question that I missed when I was frozen?
Kal Raustiala 41:07
I was just encouraging you to maybe take a moment to talk about some of the things that you're doing personally now. So I know you're up to interesting things.
Karen Richardson 41:15
Yes. So I do, you know, a little bit of consulting on some of these issues that we're sort of talking about. And also I consult on sort of social impact issues with communications and strategic communications issues, some with the entertainment community. Speaking of, you know... and then, you know, and one of the things, and Kal, you and I talked a little bit about this, was that one of the things that we're doing is like, how do we view, you know, how does what we're doing here, communicate to world who we are, and, you know... So in some ways, I think that there's this one project that I'm working on, that is called The Zoom Where it Happens. And it really is about how you catalyze the American electorate ahead of the elections, and really just in a very, sort of creative way to sort of engage. And I think that, you know, when you and I talked a little bit about it, Kal, it was like, this is also sort of a way where, you know, and we've had some international inquiries as well. So it's like people seeing us using art and entertainment to sort of project who we are and also talk about civic engagement issues, and what that looks like, from international communities. And so that's just basically the short of it. But it's just very sort of interesting to sort of see and to continue a lot of this work here. And also working with our mayor, through the international organization that he is chair of called C40. And they are an international sort of organization that is working to create a national coalition around combating climate change and, and inspiring meaningful climate action. So that's just another area where I'm also doing work from from from where I sit.
Kal Raustiala 43:04
Great, great. There's a few more, actually many more questions, but a few more, I think we'll be able to get to So you mentioned USC's program and nicely mentioned UCLA. This question kind of follows suit. So the question is, "How will President Trump's attacks on higher education and international education impact American higher education's role in American soft power?" And just to kind of make that concrete, one of the things that's really unusual about American higher education is that we have enormous numbers of foreign students, especially Chinese students, coming into American University, certainly true for UCLA, even more true for USC. And those numbers have kind of fallen off a cliff for a number of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with Trump directly. But some of them are definitely directly related to Trump administration policy. So either way, we're going to see many fewer foreign students coming here. So is this a problem for soft power?
Karen Richardson 44:07
Well, I definitely think it's a problem for soft power. I think historically, we've seen the contributions of having international students come to study on our campuses. I mean, it's been, you know, is one of the greatest sort of instruments of our soft power, I think. And I think that there are, you know, efforts to sort of limit that and prevent that as if, you know, international students do not sort of provide because, you know... In some ways they come here to learn, but also the things that we also learn from the students in the exchange of the ideas only makes us stronger, I think as a country. I think that's something that we have understood throughout history, and I think, yeah, I mean, you're pointing out something that is very sort of concerning and that I'm hoping that you know, I think with you know, the Biden administration could sort of, you know, reverse course on it. And of course, we've got the the challenges COVID and things of that nature that may challenges things. But as a general matter and as a general principle, ,ou know, it has affected our soft power. And it's something historically that I think as a country that we have been very supportive of and have found veryl instrumental to our efforts in generating soft power for sure.
Kal Raustiala 45:20
Yeah, I certainly agree. And I think a lot of foreign leaders have spent time in the United States. I think even Xi Jinping spend time in America.
Karen Richardson 45:29
Mhm, yeah, yep.
Kal Raustiala 45:31
And I think that's a really, really underappreciated factor in getting American political life and American culture to be understood abroad in a way that I think ultimately is beneficial for us. Obviously, sometimes it's not. You know, I've heard reports increasingly of Chinese students, for example, who, you know, I think, by and large, tend to be fairly nationalist, come into United States, and in some cases, coming back feeling like, "Oh, this place is a disaster," or whatever. But I think in general, historically, it's ran the other direction. And it's worked... it's a good thing for all the reasons you gave, but it's also an important piece of our larger kind of public diplomacy puzzle.
Karen Richardson 46:10
No, it is. I mean, if you want to sort of, you know, broaden that and also sort of look at it in the context similarly to our sort of sports exchanges, or cultural exchanges, or, you know, if you are talking about music and our musicians that have studied abroad.... And so, I would sort of liken that to a lot of those kind of cultural efforts as well, that really sort of communicate a lot about our culture and who we are, I think, for sure.
Kal Raustiala 46:40
Yeah. Yeah. So hopefully, that will turn around. Obviously, at UCLA, we, I think, we really value those students, and hopefully they keep coming. And right now with COVID, who knows? Okay, so next question. This one's also pretty timely. "How does the US's race issues in general, and especially right now, impact our soft power perceptions, etc?" And I'll just note, this is... the questioner is asking about this maybe the situation right now, but American race relations as a foreign policy issue actually goes way back and something that was really an issue. The Soviets, you know, immediately after World War Two, were beating up on the United States, in many cases appropriately, for the persistence of Jim Crow, and the State Department was concerned about it back then. How would this hurt us in the effort to attract, let's say, newly independent countries in Africa, when their ambassadors would come to the US and DC was still, you know, a segregated city? And so, this is not a new issue. But it's obviously one that's, you know, that's also timely. So what's your take on that?
Karen Richardson 47:51
So I think that, um, you know, the world is watching us very... uh-oh. (A prompt on the screen appears.)
Kal Raustiala 47:58
I'm not sure what that means, but let's just keep going.
Karen Richardson 48:01
Okay, all right. Okay, can you hear me?
Kal Raustiala 48:06
Yeah.
Karen Richardson 48:08
No, I mean, so you're right, Kal, this issue is not new. And I think that what has, you know, what has come to light is the long time and long sort of the underpinnings of the systemic racism that have given rise and manifested into ways that we've seen played out over the last like five or six months. Or at least visibly, you know, I think. And the way that it impacts us abroad is I, you know, I think the world is watching us very closely our handling it. On the one hand, we talk about, you know, democracy, and freedom and human rights, and people are looking at us, well, you know, why are you preaching this to us and on the world stage, when, you know, you have things to work on in your own yard? So it does, I think, complicate things. But I also think this is, you know, and just turning a little bit to Joe Biden, is that, you know, if you look at some of the things that he would plan to do if he's elected is really talking about, you know, his foreign policy is really about renewing democracy on the home front, and that is to making sure that we are combating all the issues that led to the systemic racism and the systemic inequities that have been generated for hundreds of years and are still finding their place in different areas here at home. So it does make, you know... it forces us to be a little bit better. And I think, you know, and I think it's actually in the way that I also look at it is... it is a way of holding us accountable as well. We don't have a perfect system. I don't know if we've ever claimed to. I think that the unique thing about it is that it does force us to: A. hold a mirror to what we're doing and it forces us to be accountable and to make us better as a country so that we can then go to other countries and continue to promote what we sort of feel our mutual shared interests are. So on the one hand it is challenging, but I also think it presents an opportunity for us to really live up to the promise of America, the ideals that we've stood for, so that we can then sort of talk about them and promote them authentically and in a way on the world stage.
Kal Raustiala 50:23
I agree with that, and I think one of the things that's given America a certain amount of strength and appeal around the world is the fact that we're willing to show our dissent, to tolerate dissent, and to engage with it. We do that and are kind of open about our imperfections and our attempt to improve upon them. I think, ultimately, that works to our benefit. You know, obviously, there are many things that we need to work on. But that's true of all countries. And so that's something that I think is not uniquely American, but I think we've tended to be pretty good at that. So we'll see how that continues to play out. Trump and his particular approach adds another dimension, but since we only have a couple of minutes left, let me close with one kind of personal question. So this was: what was a highlight of your time with the State Department? And what was an aspect of the job that you enjoyed the least?
Karen Richardson 51:19
Hmm. Okay. Well, I have to say that, um, you know, looking back at my time at the State Department I just, you know, as we're sitting here and talking about these things kind of in an intellectual way, which is, you know, just like, okay, here's what's happening at the State Department, here are the cuts, and here's how to fix it, it's just... But really just getting to the human element of really who the State Department is made up, of the Foreign Service officers, I just have so much respect for the work that they do. You know, as political appointees, they're, you know, we could have... they kept us from a lot of blunders, and you have people who had the institutional knowledge and the understanding of everything, whether it was on an issue or just on the institution itself. So just a highlight of being around people, especially if you do international work. And this is, you know, what I do and have done, so it's just really an ideal environment to be there. So that's kind of like broadly about that. And then also, you know, I was fortunate also to work for very good bosses, so to speak, who, you know, demanded a lot but we're also through their example about discussing and showcasing and just leading by example of how important diplomacy is and how, in some ways, we were all ambassadors in some way or form. And just looking at that, I think, was inspiring. On an issue standpoint, I think that climate change, I think -- you know, and this is sort of what I see as general thread through all the work that I've done -- is that if I'm working on something that I believe has some sort of impact on people on the ground, no matter if its... and I believe all of us do in some way or respect, it's that, that is sort of what I feel very sort of good about. So just from an issue standpoint, I feel like climate change is one of them, you know, just watching this sort of, you know, working sort of intricately on, you know, the communications and also outreach aspects for the normalization of Cuba policy. That was, you know, something that I was just really, really, really fortunate, I think, to sort of see up close and personal. I think that, you know, in terms of communicating what the State Department does, to domestic publics, there was a campaign called Engage America, where we really sort of coordinated and tried to get the message about, you know, why foreign policy matters. And Secretary Kerry, you know, we had, you know, he used to say all the time that, you know, "foreign policy is not so foreign," you know, "what happens on our foreign shores has impact back here in the United States," and really working on Engage America, where we're plugging and trying to explain to people how the State Department's work and efforts, you know, what we're doing abroad impacts you right here at home in terms of your security, in terms of your jobs. I mean, so, you know, and then there's the, you know, the there's things that are on the multilateral front, as well, as, you know, the work that I was able to do every year around the UN General Assembly, every single year, you know, with the Secretaries of State, and also when I was at the White House, to principals at the White House, and just to sort of see all the world, you know... to see and prepare, you know, as the world leaders convene at the same time every year at the UN General Assembly is just something so something that as an experience is unmatched. I just, you know... I'm a big nerd, what can I say? You know, a big international nerd. That's what gets me going.
Kal Raustiala 54:51
Well, that is an amazing time. It's actually happening now except nobody, of course...
Karen Richardson 54:55
Right? Right.
Kal Raustiala 54:59
Well, Karen, thank you so much for taking the time to do this, for talking with us. We will post... now the recording, something happened. We're not really sure what happened normally we put these up on YouTube. I think we still will, but it may be truncated. But in any event, thank you everyone for tuning in. And I hope to see you at our next session with Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis. And Karen, thank you so much.
Karen Richardson 55:25
Thank you all. Appreciate it.