This document outlines a US public diplomacy plan for Syria with the following key points: 1) The plan has two main target audiences - Syrian youth suffering under Assad and international audiences concerned about the civil war. 2) The objectives are to influence Syrian youth's views of democracy and perceptions of the US, and gain international recognition of US efforts to promote democracy and counter terrorism. 3) The strategies proposed include providing humanitarian aid through partnerships with UN agencies to help Syrian refugees, and using media framing to shape the narrative around the civil war and US involvement.

1. US Public Diplomacy Plan For Syria
Ruoshi Li
Syracuse University

2. 1
Part 1. Syria Crisis --- A Foreign Policy Issue for the United States
The United States always supports people’s fighting for democracy, freedom and equality. U.S
really appreciated the Syrian people’s call for a democratic and unified Syria, starting with a
group of young people writing graffiti “falling the regime”, as an expressions of piled dissent.
Yet, the Bashar al-Assad’s bloody repression was a brutal violation of human rights, a
humiliation for democracy and a cue to its current civil war. The United States and other ten
partner nations are pressing for a political solution to Syria Crisis via “Geneva Talk” and
“Geneva II” Talk. Based on the Final Communique, It is imperative to advance Syria’s transition
to a democratic nation with a governing body established by mutual consent and restrained by
constitutional orders. However, Assad regime’s rejection to participate in two rounds of
Geneva’s negotiations and the government’s repressive ruling suggested the existed governing
body can not lead the transition. Thus, US diplomatic efforts should be placed on bringing down
the dictatorial ruling of Bashar al-Assad by political isolation and economical sanctions; on
supporting the Syrian people’s pursuit for democracy and ending the nationwide violence and
on laying the legal and political bases for a democratic post-Assad Syria.
Also, anti-terrorism is in everyone’s mind, which is one of the dominant missions undertaking
by U.S. However, Syria has long been on U.S. government’s list of one terrorism-sponsoring
state besides Cuba, Iran, Sudan. Although condemning international terrorism, Assad
financially and politically supported the legitimate armed resistance in Palestinian, Lebanon
and Iraq which are regarded as terrorist attacks in our US definition. Although Syria attempted
to increase border monitoring activities, the already-existent foreign fighter facilitation networks
inside the country continually helps transit extremist foreign fighter into Iraq through Syria.
To make thins worse, Syria’s strategic alliance with Iran, another state sponsor of terrorism a
Syrian-Iranian defense cooperation agreement has already been reached, stating two countries
are defenders for each other’s policies, notably, even Iran’s nuclear plan. This poses a great
threat to US foreign policy objectives in the field of anti-terrorism, thus making Syria a foreign
policy issues for the United States.
Part 2. Target Publics
There are two groups of people as the target audiences in U.S. public diplomacy campaigns
concerning the issue of Syria.

3. 2
First, the young generations inside Syria who are suffering at the hand of Assad regime and
may be displaced outside countries.
Second, International publics outside Syria who show great concern about Syria Civil War and
Syria’s human rights situations.
Part 3. Public Diplomacy Objectives
U.S. public diplomacy campaign shoulder two-fold objectives.
First, it aims at influencing Syria’s young generation’s opinion of democracy and perception of
the United States. These young teenagers may be displaced outside or be given humanitarian
assistance inside the country.
Second, it aims at winning the recognition on U.S. contribution to democracy and regional
peace and stability by demonstrating America’s active role in preventing the spread of
terrorism in the middle east in the media.
Part 4. Public Diplomacy Tools/ Strategies
v Humanitarian Aid
Foreign Humanitarian aid would be one of the most appropriate public diplomacy strategies to
help achieve the objectives. With the intensifying competition among the world’s major powers
in every aspect, wining favorable perceptions of your nation in global public opinion is
increasingly important. It helps to increase economic and social well-being in developing
countries, to leverage over political elites to advance foreign policy goals and finally to curve
positive sentiments among the global publics. Conducting targeted, sustained, and visible
foreign aid is more likely to affect mass opinion, even at the war time (Goldsmith, Horiuchi &
Wood, 2014).
In Syria, Foreign aid is one of the effective tools for U.S.to achieve our public diplomacy goals
and it shoulder two-fold objectives. For one thing, it. For another, by increasing the funding for
displacements for the youth and education for the Syrian children outside their homeland, U.S.

4. 3
can plant the seed of democracy and freedom in the minds of Syrian’s next generation, thus
helping foster Syria’s democratic transition in the long run.
With the intensified fighting and increased aerial bombardments in multiple areas of Syria, the
situation is deteriorating. 13.5 million people are in need of Humanitarian Assistance in Syria
and 4.8 million Syrian refugees have fleet to neighboring countries, according to the report of
UNHCR by May 2016. However, persistent armed conflict on the ground, accompanied the
aerial attacks from sky, humanitarian access is limited and great difficulties remains in
conducting humanitarian assistance convoys and providing lifesaving assistance.
According to USAID, the United States has already provided $5,130,024,551 for humanitarian
funding for Syria Response till 2016, making U.S. the largest donor in the humanitarian aid. In
partnership with the United Nations, international NGOs and local Syrian organizations, U.S.
humanitarian assistance has reached over 4.2 million Syrians across 14 governorates (U.S.
Department of State, 2014). In the near future, the U.S should continue funding the relief
agencies, and even increasing funding in particular refugee displacement programs, like
Children’s displacement.
Young generation is one of the target groups in U.S public diplomacy for the reason that they
serve as the countries’ change agents and shoulder the responsibilities of leading the nation’s
economics to greater productivity and global understanding(U.S. Department of State,
2014).By engaging the displaced young people beyond Syria’s border and providing
opportunities of exchange and outreach programs to them, U.S. can cultivate a new generation
who are familiar with America’s values and politics and willing to fight against dictatorship and
for democracy back home in Syria. This undoubtedly help with the transition of Syria and
preparation for a new, democratic government.
For the method of foreign aid, there are several governmental and non-governmental
organizations the U.S. can work with.
According to U.S. reports, USAID’s Office of Food for Peace (USAID/FFP) has conducted 22
high-altitude humanitarian airdrops in partnership with the UN World Food Program(WFP)
(USAID,2016). In the future, US can continue this kind of partnership with WFP in airdropping
the blankets, food baskets and medicine. Probably what needs to be considered is that how
could U.S. made US-sponsored assistance more visible to the Syrian publics.
Also, U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration(State/PRM)

5. 4
has worked with the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
(UNRWA) to conduct the refugee displacement within the country or beyond its
border(USAID,2016). As our newest public diplomacy plan focuses on increasing the funding
for the displacement programs exclusively for the young, it is necessary to strengthen U.S.
cooperation with UNRWA and with UN Children’s Fund (UNICF).
Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) and the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) can also be good partners for USAID to conduct its foreign assistance inside Syria.
v Mediated Public diplomacy
• Framing and Agenda Settings
As Nye noted, information is power. Wining the credibility and trust for your story is the part
and parcel of the mediated political competition in an information age (Arquila &
Ronfeldt,1999). The contest to gain access to the news production and to affect media framing
has become the central topic in the international , in modern multi-sided warfare at
particular( Van Ham, 2003).
Entaman (2004) categorized the functions of framing into four types: 1) problem definition, 2)
causes attribution, 3) moral judgment, and 4) treatment recommendations. And all four types
are interlocking and intertwined , serving as the meta-frame.
In Syria’s case, because of the multi-lateral conflicts and military fighting among Syria Armed
Force(SAF), Syria rebellions, ISIS and Combined Joint Task Force, it is urgent to dominate the
message channel and convey the messages not only to the public pursuing for a democratic,
inclusive and unified Syria within the country but also to the responsible global audiences
beyond borders.
With the aim to win the favorable attitudes and support from the global audience, it is wise for
U.S. to employ the methods of framing to identify causes of the civil war, to lead the moral
judgments on the war, and to recommend remedies. Therefore U.S. should spare no effort to
promote a ‘war against terror and for democracy’ frame both for its military activities and for its
media reporting, which is in line with the stated U.S. foreign policy:
“provide non-lethal assistance to moderate factions of the Supreme Military Council (SMC) of
the Free Syrian Army, which is contesting extremist groups as well as struggling against the
Assad regime on behalf of the Syrian people”(U.S. Department of State, 2014)

6. 5
• Media outlets and professionals
According to homophily thesis, similarity raise attractions, and attractions breeds
understanding. Value proximity and political proximity of a country promoting frames (Country
A) to another country (Country B) are two key determinants in the success of international
frame-building campaigns (Sheafer, Shenhav,Takens & Van Atteveldt, 2014). The logic behind
this measurement is simple: the proximity indicates the degree of similarity between two actors
and we understand, accept, tolerate and prefer actors who share identical or similar values and
politics with us. (Sheafer & Shenhav, 2009)
Yet, in a proxy war with international intervention, these proximity that indicate the likeability of
success of a frame-building campaigns should be measured relatively, or in other others,
should be compared with the proximity between rival country c and the target country B.
In Syria’s civil war, Islamic State of Iraq and the Syria(ISIS), enjoy a naturally higher value and
political proximity given their shared religion and language, which is unfavorable for U.S. to
project our frames and agendas. The low level of cultural and political congruency between
U.S. and Syria may undermine U.S. mediate public diplomacy efforts and account for the
perceptual gap. Therefore, it is necessary to rely on local media professionals as mediators
between our government and Syrian publics. Considering the contribution of media
professionals to message delivery, the mediated public diplomacy efforts should also focus on
cultivating an army of media communicators. (Arif ,Golan & Moritz, 2014)
According to the annually Press Freedom Index proposed by Reporters Without Borders
(2016), Syria was ranked 177th out of 180 countries in the world only followed by
Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea. The strict control over media made it difficult to. So
funding and partnering with some pro-rebel media outlets, like the Turkey-based Free Syria
Weekly, can be most feasible and effective approach in the short term.
• Social Media like Facebook and Twitter
Social Media has played a significant role in Syria’s civil War, making Syria the first battlefield
of social media around the clock. Although , the internet users are 28.1 per 100 people( World
bank, 2015). With the military operations intensifying on the ground, the censorship over media
report tightening by Assad government, and the journalist casualties increasing, international

7. 6
news media had little access to the war zone in Syria, which resulted in an increased
dependence on social media as a real time news source(United States Institute of Peace,
2013). Because of this dependence, all the parties concerned (Assad’s government, rebel
groups, ISIS as well as western countries) have their dedicated social media directors to
manage and monitor accounts. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Flickr and WordPress
have all been used as the news channels and media market. Opposition activist groups like
Kafranbel Syrian Revolutions set up their Facebook page to call for action to overthrow the
current Assad regime While the Bashar al-Assad employs similar methods to get his messages
out. Surprisingly, rebel groups turn to social media for help when soliciting donations (the Wall
Street Journal, 2013).
Also, when having a close look at the demographics of Syria’s social media users, it is clear
that Facebook is one of the most prevalent social media platforms and simultaneously one of
the fiercest battle fields of information and news routines. According to the statistics collected
in the Arab Social Media Report (2014), around 87 percent of interviewees are subscribed to
Facebook and receive news from Facebook. 83 percent of current Syria’s Facebook
subscribers access Facebook page every day.
In this highly social-mediated environment, the United States can never overlook the power of
social media in the news updating. Given the younger population of Facebook users and other
social media, Facebook is also where ISIS would like to reach their potential hands, it will be a
disaster if this young generation are exposed to ISIS’s brainwash and are recruited into the
terrorist groups. U.S. are supposed to construct a counter-narratives on the same social media
platforms as ISIS do.
U.S. has already earned 11,000 followers on Facebook and obtained 15,000 visitors a month to
our embassy websites(U.S. Department of States, 2013). By increasing and deepening the
engagement with foreign publics in Syria and its neighboring countries via social media, on one
hand, we can ensure our message was disseminated quickly and widely to the external
audiences, on the other, we can respond to any distorted news coverage on U.S and confront
angers with head on.

8. 7
Part 5 Evaluation of US Public Diplomacy Campaign
The outcomes of US public Diplomacy Campaign should be analyzed and evaluated both in
quality and in quantity, both in a short term and in a long run.
In terms of funding or sponsoring for foreign aid and relief actives,
• Analyze the increased percentage in the budget of Syria’s humanitarian aid under
USAID comparing to the fiscal year of 2015;
• Conduct a census by the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees,
and Migration(State/PRM) on the number of Syrian people who has received US-
sponsored humanitarian aid.
• Conduct a survey by State/ PRM in partnership with UN Children’s Fund(UNICF) to
figure out the number of Syrian children who were displaced in U.S.A or other
partnership nations.
In terms of media exposure (social media at particular),
For traditional media,
• Count the number of news releases, special reports, Op-Editorials, governmental
speeches generated covering the Syria Civil War and its refugee crisis.
• Count the number of videos and documentaries on humanitarian assistance and anti-
terrorist militaries operations in Syria post on established media outlets as well as
• Count the increased number of new recruited local, independent media professionals.
For social media,
• Count the number of secured blog stories post on US government official websites and
affiliated websites;
• Count the number of Facebook followers and the likes and comments on U.S. Facebook
page;
• Analyzed the increased percentage of Facebook followers
• Count the hit on the internet, the visit to Facebook page and U.S. embassy websites.
• With the help of Social media analytics (e.g. Google Analytics and Hootsuite), study the
online Facebook sentiments towards the United States and bounce rate on U.S home
pages.
In terms of sentiment change

9. 8
• Using the methods of focus group and random sampling, conduct a benchmark study on
the Syrian perceptions of America’s images and US anti-terrorist activities during the
Assad’s regime and post-Assad regimes.
In terms of long –term behavioral changes
• Analyze the increased percentage of Syria’s teenagers who apply for the US-based
universities and US-sponsored exchange programs and other outreach programs.
Part 6 the relationships between public diplomacy and foreign policies
Nowadays, public diplomacy is a MUST for achieving the foreign policy objectives.
Public diplomacy, by integrating the theories from public relations and mass communications,
attaches greater importance to studying and understanding foreign publics’ attitudes and
perceptions of the nation’s foreign policies. Currently, public diplomacy commits to creating and
promoting two-way dialogues between the nations and its external, target publics. Unlike the
conventional push-down model of communication, public diplomacy pays more attention to
listening, conversation and long-term relationship building, which empowers foreign publics to
learn about the nation’s policies and values, thus paving way for a favorable external
environment.
In Syria’s cases, the lack of “cultural congruency” (Entman, 2008) results in little understanding
of America’s values and politics, which hinder Syria’s process of democratization. Because of
the distorted media coverage about US’s motivations in the middle East by Assad and ISIS, the
general sentiments towards the United States are relatively negative and U.S. leadership was
more disapproved than approved; two out of five Syria’s residents hold disapproval attitudes,
according to the U.S.-Global Leadership Project(2013). Therefore, U.S.-headed activities at the
government level may receive more resistance without rational reasons. Instead, public
diplomacy, focus on the person-to-person relations, may work.
2) Public diplomacy is expanding the scope of private-sector involvement. Foreign policy was
often planned out at the top of country, Yet, the progress in communication technology helps
democratize the process of decision-making by providing more access to information and more
chances to voice individuals’ opinions on certain public affairs.

10. 9
First, a government-initiated or a government- sponsored campaign is often suspected to be a
propaganda or an information filtering and news distortion. However, public diplomacy
campaigns conducted by non-state players, like foreign aid, corporate social responsibility
campaigns or exchange programs usually receive less resistance even in an adversarial state.
Independent messengers (private sectors) are more trustworthy in the eyes of foreign publics,
thus more capable of projecting the images and engaging target groups.
In Syria Civil War, too many US-administered or US-sponsored campaigns or events can be
regarded as US interference in Syria's internal affairs. Therefore, USAID’s action under the
supervision of UN are more likely to be accepted by the publics in Syria.
Second, at times, it is embarrassing for a governmental institution to deal with some
controversial and risky issues, which may bring about some negative impacts if tackled with
inappropriately. The participation of private sectors in public diplomacy can serve as a heat
shield for the government or Department of foreign policies.
Part 7 Changes In Your Definition of Public Diplomacy
At the very beginning of the class, as a non-public diplomacy major student, I regarded public
diplomacy as interchangeable with “foreign policy” because I naively believe both fall under the
umbrella categories “diplomacy” and both have something to do with the “relationship building”.
However, after one-semester learning, I found myself wrong.
Although like foreign policy, the ultimate goal is to win the favorable external environment for
your country to implement your policy at a globe stage, the target audience and the approach
may be different.
First, foreign policy focuses more on government-to-government interactions, which are
dominated by official or high-level opinion-exchanges carried out between diplomats. Public
diplomacy, instead, seeks to directly engage and influence the foreign publics, namely, citizens,
civil leaders, media professionals and opinion leaders.
Second, public diplomacy may be a comparatively long-term relationship-building and requires
the expertise of public communications. Achieving two-way symmetrical communication is part
and parcel of any successful public diplomacy campaign. This is where public relations theory
can contribute to the theorization of public diplomacy. This is also synonymous with what

11. 10
Geoffrey Cowan (2008) means “moving from monologue to dialogue to collaboration”.
Third, the tools of public diplomacy may be different from that of foreign diplomacy. Traditional
diplomacy involves one-way, strong representation of the policies of foreign affairs to foreign
governments and administrations.
Yet, public diplomacy not only focus on the government-to-people activities, like nation
branding, international broadcasting, government-initiated and – sponsored outreach programs,
but also includes people-to-people contact;
Forth, unlike traditional diplomacy where the official-appointed and professional-trained
diplomats are the main practitioners, in public diplomacy, the scope of “messengers” or
“diplomats” expands to “non-state actors”, including the multinational corporations, non-
governmental organizations(NGOs), the foreign aid teams as well as exchange students and
scholars.
With the progression of this semester, I gradually realized the significance and irreplaceability of
public diplomacy. After the dissolution of Soviet Union in 1991, there was an increasing anti-
propaganda sentiment around the globe. Chances were high that any government-initiated
diplomatic activity can be naturally considered as propaganda and turned out to be
counterproductive. Therefore, public diplomacy, which cultivated a government’s opinion in a
foreign country through the engagement with and communication between diverse publics and
private sectors, came to the spotlight. Also, with the accelerating globalization, the contest for
“hard power” descended while the competition for “soft power” increased (Nye,2008), Public
diplomacy is an effective tool to demonstrate a nation’s soft power and cultural capital.
The governmental opinions, together with various private views, can be conveyed via
international broadcasting and mediated communications “Doing well by doing good”, the
foreign aid and corporate social responsibility campaigns can help win the minds and hearts of
foreign publics and gradually change publics’ perception of your foreign policies( Goldsmith,
Horiuchi& Wood, 2014).
In short, public diplomacy is a process of achieving two-way symmetric communication and
understandings between a government and its overseas publics by employment of both
governmental and non-governmental actors.

12. 11
Reference:
Arquila, John, and D. Ronfeldt. 1999. The emergence of neopolitik: Toward an American information
strat egy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Arif, R., Golan, G. J., & Moritz, B. (2014). Mediated public diplomacy: US and Taliban relations with
Pakistani media. Media, War & Conflict, 1750635214538619.
Congress Research Service (2009). U.S. Public Diplomacy: Background and Current Issues. Retrieved
May 03, 2016, from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40989.pdf
Cowan, G., & Arsenault, A. (2008). Moving from monologue to dialogue to collaboration: The three
layers of public diplomacy. The annals of the American academy of political and social science, 616(1),
10-30.
Department of the State (2013). US. Public Diplomacy in a Changing Middle East.
Retrieved May 03, 2016, from http://www.state.gov/r/remarks/2013/202945.htm
Department of the State (2014). The Syrian Crisis: U.S. Assistance and Support for the Transition
Retrieved May 03, 2016, from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/03/223955.htm
Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion and U.S. foreign policy.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Entman, R. M. (2008). Theorizing mediated public diplomacy: The U.S. case. Press/Politics, 13, 87–
102.
Goldsmith, B. E., Horiuchi, Y., & Wood, T. (2014). Doing Well by Doing Good: The Impact of Foreign
Nye, J. S.. (2008). Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. The Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 616, 94–109. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25097996
Reporters Without Borders (2016). Press Freedom Index. Retrieved May 03, 2016, from
https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2016
Sheafer, T., & Shenhav, S. R. (2009). Mediated public diplomacy in a new era of warfare. The
Communication Review, 12(3), 272-283.
Sheafer, T., Shenhav, S. R., Takens, J., & van Atteveldt, W. (2014). Relative Political and Value
Proximity in Mediated Public Diplomacy: The Effect of State-Level Homophily on International Frame
Building .Political Communication, 31(1), 149-167.
USAID (2016) Syria: Complex Emergency-Fact Sheet. Retrieved May 03, 2016, from
http://www.cidi.org/wp-content/uploads/05.05.16-USG-Syria-Complex-Emergency-Fact-Sheet-3.pdf
United States Institute of Peace(2013). Social Media Reporting and the Syrian Civil War. Retrieved May

13. 12
03, 2016, from http://www.alnap.org/resource/21355
Van Ham, P. (2003). War, lies and videotape: Pubic diplomacy and the USA’s war on terrorism. Security
Dialogue, 34, 427–444.
World Bank. (2014) Internet users per 100 people. Retrieved May 03, from
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.P2