Main Page | Month Archive | Email Updates | RSS Feed | Print Version

PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND THE TSUNAMI-PART I
FEB 22, 2005 - 4:35PM PST
by Millicent R. Jefferson

Compiled by Molly Claflin and Millicent Jefferson A two part summary of press reports on public diplomacy issues and the December 2004 Tsunami Crisis. A supplement to John Brown’s Public Diplomacy Press Review. On December 26, 2004 an earthquake on the Indian Ocean triggered a deadly tsunami that claimed the lives of over 220,000 people. The tsunami ravaged 11 countries, leaving coastal cities and communities utterly devastated and millions of natives homeless. Due to the severity of the disaster, countries around the globe immediately pledged their support to provide much-needed humanitarian aid. Millions of US dollars in monetary assistance, food, supplies, and other necessities poured into the regions affected by the tsunami. This prompt and generous response from the international community was and continues to be a major factor in the recovery of the destroyed areas. Moreover, the significant role of humanitarian efforts has stimulated plenty of debate on the public diplomacy implications for the nations involved in the endeavor to rebuild Southeast Asia. The tsunami has raised questions about how a country’s response affects its image and whether humanitarian efforts should be part of a nation’s public diplomacy at all. The United States is one of the countries that dominated headlines when it came to offering aid and support to tsunami victims. After an initial pledge of $35 million, the U.S. was bombarded with criticism. Jan Egeland, the U.N. emergency relief coordinator, called the American government “stingy.” In response to this criticism and the worsening conditions of the disaster, President George W. Bush increased the U.S.’s commitment to $350 million. Still, international critics cited the fact that the U.S. gave one of the lowest contributions (less than 1% of its gross national income) while countries, such as the Netherlands and Norway, contributed over 2% of theirs. However, journalists and government officials defended the U.S. by discussing the amount of “unofficial” aid that went unaccounted for. This included all of the private donations, volunteering, trade and investment made by ordinary citizens, private companies, and various NGOs throughout the United States. By supporting relief efforts, Americans hoped that their donations would improve the United States’s predominantly negative image abroad. The Christian Science Monitor quoted Chicago donor, Julie Putterman, as saying “I feel like our country has been such a bad citizen of the world in the recent past. […] I just felt like it was important for everyone to rally.” The belief was that by being “compassionate,” especially to Indonesia – the country with the largest Muslim population in the world – other nations would see a more favorable side of the U.S. Furthermore, by having the American military involved in on-site support, the U.S. aspired to present its military forces as an instrument of goodwill, rather than of fear and destruction. Nonetheless, scholars such as political scientist John Mearsheimer claimed that it would take more than helping a few countries to fix the U.S.’s tarnished reputation in the Muslim world. Another topic that received a lot of press was the…... FULL TEXT

Read Comments:

No comments for this entry.

Add a Comment:

Your Name:
Your Email:
Comment:
Please enter the word you see in the image below:

NOTE: Comments are moderated by CPD and will typically be posted if they are relevant and respectful.