The CPD Blog is intended to stimulate dialog among scholars, researchers, practitioners and professionals from around the world in the public diplomacy sphere. The opinions represented here are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School.
While the controversy surrounding the proposed Muslim Community Center and Mosque at Ground Zero continues on in the U.S., another site of worship has been restored and opened in the most unlikely place—Beirut, Lebanon. The Magen Avraham Synagogue in Beirut’s Wadi Abu Jmil district reopened this past week after nearly three decades of being closed due to significant damage during the Lebanese civil war.
Ironically, the Synagogue was destroyed by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) as they sought to route the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from Beirut in 1982. The restoration project is the culmination of a project founded in 2006 by the Lebanese Jewish Community Council, and was estimated to cost approximately $1 million USD. Funding for the restoration has come from prominent members of the Lebanese Jewish community, both in Lebanon and abroad, as well as a pledge of $150,000 from Solidere SAL the private company created by former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri to rebuild downtown Beirut following the civil war.
The restoration began last year after receiving the green light from a broad spectrum of political, religious and community leaders in Lebanon. The plan even gained support from Hezbollah, despite the organizations refusal to accept the existence of Israel and its devastating war against it in 2006. Hussein Rahal, a spokesman for Hezbollah, stated “We respect the Jewish religion just like we do Christianity… The Jews have always lived among us. We have an issue with Israel's occupation of land.'' Despite the steady decrease of Lebanon’s Jewish community, with a great number emigrating due to the numerous conflicts in the region, Judaism is one of Lebanon’s 17 officially recognized faiths and benefits from the same laws that protect the other religious communities.
The restoration of the Synagogue and the recognition of Judaism as a protected religious community is both intriguing and positive for a number of factors. Despite the fact that Lebanon has often found itself on the brink of conflict, both within its borders between the different political-religious communities and externally against Israel, the restoration of the Synagogue demonstrates a different side of Lebanon that is not normally portrayed. This news hearkens back to the pre-civil war and conflict-ridden image of Lebanon when the nation stood for tolerance and was an example of the diversity in the Middle East.
Though Lebanese identity is often defined by religious sect, which in turn influences political leanings, the one issue that has been illustrated by the recent developments is that despite perpetual political conflict the nation can come together and find consensus on a single issue, religious diversity. The restoration of the Synagogue will not solve the nation’s domestic or regional issues but it does provide a positive step that can serve as an ideal public diplomacy model by encouraging religious tolerance and diversity. Although the Synagogue restoration took place in an Arab nation in the Middle East, its significance is relevant to the current political climate in the United States and can serve as an example to be emulated.
John Nahas recently graduated from the Master of Public Diplomacy Program at USC. While in the program John served as the President of the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars and was a Senior Editor for Public Diplomacy Magazine. He also interned at the Carnegie Endowment’s Middle East Center in Beirut, Lebanon.
TAMPA --- At the headquarters of U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida, some young civilians are pushing back at extremist messages that permeate Internet forums. This Digital Engagement Team’s members, who are fluent in Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu, comb through online postings in their respective languages looking for incendiary or inaccurate commentary about U.S. military operations or related activity. When these messages are found, the team prepares “engagements” that challenge the writer’s logic or facts.
A recent example: a Farsi-speaking member of the team found a commentary defending the suicide bombing in Baghdad that killed more than 40 Iraqi Army recruits. This engagement specialist responded by challenging the premise that such murderous attacks, which kill mostly Muslims, can be justified.
In their online posts, members of the CENTCOM team identify themselves as working for Central Command, and this sometimes leads to their being kicked out of an online forum. But more often, the CENTCOM engagement is allowed to remain posted and it sometimes elicits online conversation.
Whether these engagements in cyberspace are changing anyone’s outlook about the United States is open to question, but this work must be done. To allow the voices of extremism to go unchallenged would be folly and would amount to surrendering the intellectual battleground. Even if just a relatively few online forum readers are exposed to official U.S. viewpoints, that is a step forward.
During a visit to CENTCOM, I was impressed by the persistence and energy of the digital engagement team and the other people working on public affairs projects. While I was there, activity centered on getting out news about the U.S. military’s role in relief efforts in the flood zones of Pakistan, an effort that will save lives and might also soften the strong anti-American feelings in that country.
Central Command is not the only source of online engagement efforts. The approach of the State Department’s Digital Outreach Team is much the same as the CENTCOM unit, although its purpose does not include advancing a military public affairs agenda. As stated on the State Department’s website, the job of the Digital Outreach Team is “to explain U.S. foreign policy and to counter misinformation.” It is about the same size as the CENTCOM group and presumably has a similar talent pool for its outreach operations.
Cooperation between Defense and State projects exists, such as CENTCOM working with the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan on flood relief matters. Overall, however, CENTCOM’s engagement efforts have specific military intent in that they seek to delegitimize and disrupt the activities of violent extremists. The State Department has found itself sometimes operating on similar ground, using its soft-power efforts to undermine extremist ventures.
Defense and State share the goal of advancing the U.S. national interest through these engagement/outreach projects. It would be nice to think that someone in the government maintains an overview of what all the players in this field are doing and would see to it that much-needed additional resources are provided. For now, at least, that may be wishful thinking.
As a major emerging economy and the host of the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics, Brazil is keen to present the country as more than about soccer, samba, and carnivals. Pavilion Director Pedro Wendler discusses the country’s positioning and communication at Shanghai Expo.
Every so often, with about the same frequency as a combination hailstorm and solar eclipse, I get an op-ed published. In 2002 and 2007, The New York Times published my pieces about the need for autonomy in U.S. international broadcasting. On July 13, they published me again. The op-ed, "Radio Free of Bureaucracy" is about my other recurring theme: the need for consolidation in U.S. international broadcasting.
I pointed out that the audience for U.S. international broadcasting (Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio and TV Marti, Alhurra, and Radio Sawa), at about 180 million, is about the same as for BBC World Service. (This is after subtracting the BBCWS U.S. audience of 6 million – the United States not being a target country for USIB.) On the other hand, the budget for USIB is about $757 million, whereas BBCWS attracts the same sized audience for $420 million per year.
Why the discrepancy? Some think that BBCWS derives all sorts of free services from the parent domestic BBC. BBC, however, tells me it is subject to a fair trading policy, in which World Service pays for or barters anything it receives from the domestic BBC. This is to make sure those who pay the U.K. television license fee are not subsidizing World Service, which is funded by the Foreign Office.
I think the real reason for the discrepancy is in the number of entities, resulting in multiple overheads, lost opportunities for synergy, and much duplication. For the 60 languages of USIB, 22 are transmitted by more than one station. The rationale for that, and the reason I think that rationale is specious, are discussed in the op-ed.
I was expecting some negative reaction to the piece, but what happened instead is that people asked me if I received any negative reaction. The only whiff of discord was from a recently retired VOA broadcaster, who took issue with my calling for a merger of the U.S. international broadcasting entities into a corporation (like RFE/RL) rather than an agency (like VOA). I used the word “corporation” specifically and purposefully.
It seems to me problematic for a U.S. government agency also to be a news organization. And, coincidentally, on July 26, VOA and International Broadcasting Bureau employees were informed that they cannot “download, browse, or e-mail” documents from the recent WikiLeaks dump of documents about Afghanistan and Pakistan. These included documents that were not yet unclassified, and thus cannot be stored on any typical computer in a government agency.
I don’t think VOA was planning any major exposé based on those documents, but VOA reporters did need to verify some of the material mentioned by other news organizations. They were able to do so – from their homes.
The day after my op-ed, the Wall Street Journal published “Journalism Needs Government Help,” by Lee. C. Bollinger. Mr. Bollinger argues for government funding for financially beleaguered American journalism, similar to public broadcasting entities in many other democracies. Specifically, he would combine the resources of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe with those of NPR and PBS to create an “American World Service,” modeled, of course, after BBC World Service.
Now that created negative reaction. Why did the Bollinger piece get much more response than my piece? It might be because he is president of Columbia University, no less, whereas I’m a midlevel bureaucratic functionary.
More likely it had to do with hot buttons. My article, in the New York Times, generally described as liberal, could be construed as conservative, at least fiscally. His article, in the Wall Street Journal, whose opinion page is usually described as conservative, was likely construed as liberal.
Some people thought it was straw-man liberal, a ploy by the WSJ to provoke a spirited response. There were more than 400 comments (e.g., “Thank you Joseph Stalin. Yes who needs a free press when we can have a government propoganda [sic] machine.”) as well as letters to the editor and blog posts, almost all negative. The responders envisioned and objected to another government bailout, to government involvement in the media, to anything modeled after the BBC, which they considered hopelessly anti-American. A few mentioned VOA and RFE, almost always referring to them as propaganda outlets.
Because enough members consider NPR and PBS to be left-wing, I don’t think Congress would approve a merger of these two organizations with VOA and RFE. On the other hand, an exchange of content between USIB and U.S. private broadcast news organizations might be possible and beneficial. I have written about this in a new paper, if it ever manages to get published. Anyone know when the moon will next pass before the sun?
As a venue for public diplomacy, the World Expo is highly valued yet under-analyzed. This is particularly true of the current Expo in Shanghai.
For many countries, Shanghai Expo is the most expensive and arguably the most important one they have ever attended. And, for the millions of Chinese, for whom international travel is still a luxury they cannot afford, visiting the Expo has become a once-in-a-life time chance to get a glimpse of other countries epitomized in the national pavilions. The potential cultural impact can certainly be vast.
The Expo being a “tournament of cultures” – more celebratory than reflective, participant countries are keen to engage and impress their visitors through representations and interactions at their stylized pavilions. The essential question facing these national pavilions is how they define and deliver messages that will stick.
Based on our conversations with representatives of a dozen national pavilions at Shanghai Expo (click here to view some of the videos), I would like to highlight several tradeoffs countries have to deal with in their presentations about their national brand.
To use or not to use stereotypes
This is a fundamental challenge in communicating about a country, especially to the mass audience. Countries often seek to leverage events like the Expo to counter or overcome existing stereotypes, and especially the negative ones. They certainly don’t want to come off as perpetuating clichéd images and associations.
On the other hand, stereotypes can be productively harnessed to entice visitors into your story as it unfolds in the pavilion; hence should not be wholesale rejected. Stereotypes form the basis of our expectations in a communicative context. An adroit use of them can effectively create visitor engagement, whereas simply presenting visitors with the unfamiliar or the unknown may alienate your audience, thus missing even the opportunity to make a connection.
Depth vs. breadth
This brings to my second observation about what to include in the pavilion. We often hear pavilion representatives say “our country has a lot more to offer than …” The options for shaping one’s country message in the pavilion are literally endless, ranging from focusing on a select few issues to providing a panoramic view of the country, from politics and business, to culture and society. The desire to show a broader picture of one’s country is understandable, as there is less risk of being accused of giving short shrift to the multi-faceted society one represents; not to mention the various special interests involved in putting together the displays.
But a singular focus helps to sharpen visitor impression, and especially the distinction of your country and pavilion. This is important in the context of visitors’ limited attention span as they generally move from one pavilion to another to maximize the number of “countries” they can visit in any given day. With more than 200 pavilions at the Expo, it is a decidedly competitive and comparative environment.
Local vs. global
The next issue is to what extent countries should localize their message at the pavilion, and, in the current case, to the Chinese, who make up the vast majority of the visitors.
The choice can be represented on a continuum between highly localized as is the case of the South Korean Pavilion and highly globalized in the example of the Spanish Pavilion. In other words, if the Expo were held in a different country, for Spain the same pavilion could be appreciated with only slight tailoring necessary (e.g., the exterior of the pavilion); while for South Korea a totally different pavilion would need to be built. Many pavilions, of course, consider and attempt a blend of the two approaches.
Domestic vs. international audiences
The growing information transparency also entails the need to effectively handle communication to multiple audiences, including one’s domestic audience. How one aligns communication designed for the consumption of the Chinese with concerns of the domestic constituents becomes a point of contention. The interests and agendas of these two publics can be widely divergent.
For instance, for the home country audience, representations at the pavilion can be a source of national pride. On the other hand, some of the pavilions may not be favorably viewed in the eyes of their domestic audience, but are nonetheless popular with Chinese visitors.
These tradeoffs are certainly not unique to the World Expo, but are common concerns in managing a country’s image and brand in the global arena. There are many other tensions and dilemmas in the process that require negotiation and reconciliation. The mapping and understanding of these options is a critical step to developing a sound nation-brand strategy.
United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently pledged that the U.S. would provide long-term support to Pakistanis affected by historic, devastating floods. Soon after, the United Nations called a special meeting to address how to escalate relief efforts.
All the while, experts in the West ponder the public diplomacy ramifications as the Pakistani government and Western relief agencies jealously race against Islamic extremists for the privilege of being the primary source of support for victims.
My own view, in a nutshell, is that this is not a public diplomacy issue. It’s a humanitarian issue. We in the West should find every way to relieve the immense suffering in that unstable but crucial nation, simply because it’s the right thing to do, not because we can expect to score points or to keep the Pakistani Taliban from scoring points.
Allow me to quote the 20th century philosopher Eric Hoffer. The weak and powerless, Hoffer said, “feel generosity as oppression; they want to retaliate. They say to their benefactors: 'May the day come when you shall be weak and we will send bundles to America.'"
Indeed, condescension does have a downside.
Every person or organization attempting the art of public diplomacy would do well to consider the shrewd, detached, almost Machiavelli-like observations of Hoffer, a self-educated longshoreman and migrant worker. Writing in the wake of World War II’s cataclysmic showcasing of totalitarian power and fascist movements, Hoffer offered profound observations about the effects of power and powerlessness within and among societies.
Some of it is relevant as we consider Pakistan’s sociopolitical dilemmas: "Power corrupts the few,” Hoffer noted, “while weakness corrupts the many. Hatred, malice, rudeness, intolerance and suspicion are the fruits of weakness. The resentment of the weak does not spring from any injustice done to them but from the sense of their inadequacy and impotence.”
I also suspect that many pundits and the press are overstating how much jihadists gain from being the first to offer assistance to victims. I am more skeptical than most about how jihadist assistance will make significant portions of the Pakistani citizenry suddenly more encouraging of the rural tribal culture and pseudo-Wahabist culture represented by the jihadists.
I’ve written here before about the limitations of humanitarian aid as a public-diplomacy tool. No different rules apply now. So forget about using floods to suddenly make friends. Flood aid, as a public diplomacy tactic, would be like scattering seed on dry, rocky soil (to borrow a Biblical parable that has nothing to do with flooding).
There is a low public diplomacy ceiling for the U.S., at a moment when even the majority of blue-state New Yorkers find the notion of a mosque near Ground Zero to be unnerving, a moment when mosques are also being opposed in Tennessee and Wisconsin and even Southern California.
And there is a low public diplomacy ceiling when many in Pakistan consider the U.S. to be the main benefactor, even the Frankenstein-like creator, of the spectacularly unpopular, bumbling Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, who glided along on a Marie-Antoinette-like tour of Europe during the depths of the flood crisis.
Consider a few more words from Eric Hoffer: “You do not win the weak by sharing your wealth with them; it will but infect them with greed and resentment. You can win the weak only by sharing your pride, hope or hatred with them.”
A nation such as Israel, or perhaps India, does not have the resentment of the U.S. that Pakistan does. It often seems as though such populaces do feel some sense of shared pride, shared hope and even shared identity with America. That does not exist in Pakistan. That is the true public diplomacy challenge.
Disaster relief? Again, we offer aid because it’s the right thing to do. Not because it’s a particularly effective public-diplomacy tactic for reaching Pakistanis.
Above:
1. A boy drives a donkey cart carrying sacks of donated flour from an emergency medical centre in Charsadda, located in Pakistan's northwest Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province August 17, 2010. REUTERS/Tim Wimborne
2. An Army crewman drops relief supplies to flood victims, taking refuge on a levy, from a helicopter in Pakistan's Rajanpur district in Punjab province August 15, 2010. The floods, triggered by torrential monsoon downpours just over two weeks ago, engulfed Pakistan's Indus river basin, killing up to 1,600 people. REUTERS/Adrees Latif
As the field of public diplomacy expands, there is a great need to engage with the diverse actors who shape the discipline in theory as well as practice. Like any emerging discipline, public diplomacy can be referenced in a number of different publications, but having a forum entirely dedicated to this one subject is immensely beneficial. From its first issue in January 2009, PD Magazine has created such a setting, where a dynamic and innovative discussion of public diplomacy can take place. The magazine’s audience is as diverse as the topics covered, allowing intellectual exchanges that extend beyond state, political and socio-economic boundaries.
Such creative freedom risks leading to disarray, but with the publication of the fourth issue of PD Magazine, a clear pattern is emerging in the respective themes being addressed. The yearly publication cycle is divided between an edition that focuses on thematic issues in public diplomacy, and an edition that deals with the theoretical side of the field. This pattern allows for both a scholarly debate on the positioning of the field relative to traditional diplomacy and other areas of international communication, and also gives voice to the numerous creative areas in which public diplomacy is incorporated.
PD Magazine’s Summer 2010 issue examines nonstate actors and their efforts to advance the promotion of human rights. When first selected, this theme lent itself to studying the programs presented by large and well-known international human rights organizations. However, inquiring into the world of human rights advocacy quickly uncovered a multitude of small and mid-sized organizations around the world whose work not only covered major topics of human rights violations, but also revealed remarkable innovation and use of public diplomacy tools in an effort to combat such abuses. While there were countless organizations and human rights programs to choose from for this issue, only a small sampling could be represented in the issue. Like many nonstate actors, many of the organizations highlighted do not necessarily consider themselves public diplomacy practitioners, and are therefore not always aware of the public diplomacy power that they wield. Regardless of their self-definition, the initiatives described in this issue offer thought-provoking subjects to further the debate on public diplomacy.
The decision to examine human rights stemmed from the common linkage that the organizations highlight in this issue. Human rights is also a topic which can offer a more nuanced understanding of where public diplomacy is used, as well as those who benefit from its execution. Tackling this issue typically garners nonstate actors the dubious distinction of dealing in low politics, but the importance of the matter demands a space where this view can be explored, challenged and discussed in the hopes of reevaluating what issues are deemed to fall under the distinctions of "high politics" and "low politics." This is an important discussion for practitioners of public diplomacy, and gives shape to the work being done in the future. Assisting the effort to expand this idea is the main article written by Australian diplomat and professor Geoffrey Wiseman, who describes the interaction of state and nonstate entities engaged in diplomacy. Also included in the lead section is an article by Dr. Dieter Fleck, former Director of International Agreements & Policy at the German Ministry of Defense. Dr. Fleck’s piece sheds light on the interconnected nature of conducting public diplomacy and adhering to international legal procedures and principles. These articles establish a broad scholarly framework while the case studies and perspective pieces add additional insights through specific examples.
Among the articles presented is a piece from the International Justice Mission (IJM) in the Perspectives section, which touches on the role of transnational advocacy networks with non-secular mandates. The IJM article raises awareness about the historical importance of human rights organizations sustained on religious principles, and their present role in defending human rights. Programs by burgeoning nonstate organizations targeting support from younger audiences and drawing on new technological tools to disseminate their messages are also highlighted. The organization Invisible Children and the work being done by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in Guatemala utilize such social media and audience targeting to raise awareness about particular human rights issues.
Finally, this edition of PD Magazine concludes with an endnote by Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Jody Williams, who won the illustrious prize for her work with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. She describes her own experiences advocating human rights issues that have often been considered controversial by the same state actors who speak glowingly of human rights rhetoric, only to retreat when human rights issues begin encroaching on politically sensitive issues. She further notes how civil society has turned to public diplomacy when its calls for change have been ignored in traditional diplomatic channels.
The articles in this issue raise many questions and open doors for debate. The challenges for effecting change on human rights issues are great, but finding all available tools and drawing lessons from past efforts is critical. Please visit http://www.publicdiplomacymagazine.org to read the issue in its entirety, and to interact and exchange comments with other public diplomacy enthusiasts sharing their own experiences.
Tala Mohebi recently received her Master of Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California. She is Editor-in-Chief of PD Magazine, a bi-annual publication that brings together works from scholars and practitioners in the field of public diplomacy.
Sometimes effective public diplomacy can be conducted through a simple and unambiguous gesture. Such was the case when President Barack Obama recently commemorated the 50th anniversaries of 17 African nations’ independence at the White House. The gesture – or really a non-gesture – was to not invite a single African head of state to the event.
Given the dismal performance of some African leaders, such as Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Obama chose to celebrate instead with 115 Africans under age 35 who are working to shape the continent’s civil society of the future. By doing so, he underscored a point he made in his speech in Accra, Ghana a year ago: “Africa doesn’t need strongmen; it needs strong institutions.”
The White House event was a very visible slap at the “strongmen” Obama had criticized, and it was noticed in Africa. Adam Nossiter, reporting from Senegal in The New York Times, observed that a Senegalese newspaper remarked on the absence from the White House of that country’s controversial president, Abdoulaye Wade, and said that Obama “unrolls the red carpet for civil society.” A Cameroonian newspaper, wrote Nossiter, featured a headline saying, “Barack Obama Snubs the African Dictators.”
Other African news media echoed these sentiments, and Internet forums buzzed with comments about Obama’s stance. If public diplomacy involves reaching out to people rather than to governments, this was an excellent example. In terms of illustrating America’s commitment to democratic governance, Obama’s choice of guests sent a clear message, which he knew would be conveyed by news and social media to the larger African public.
Obama reinforced this in his discussion with the young visitors. He said: “Sometimes the older leaders get into old habits, and those old habits are hard to break. And so part of what we wanted to do was to communicate directly to people who may not assume that the old ways of doing business are the ways that Africa has to do business.”
Underscoring Obama’s point about “the old ways” of doing business was the assemblage at a Bastille Day celebration in July in Paris. There, 13 African heads of state joined French president Nicolas Sarkozy on a reviewing stand. The contrast was striking: these African leaders, some of whom have been sharply criticized for human rights abuses, stood with the leader of a former colonial power that had subjugated large parts of their continent. Meanwhile, the next generation of what will be, one hopes, more enlightened African leadership was invited to the White House.
It wasn’t so much what Obama or Sarkozy said that delivered their respective messages, it was what they did. Their guest lists were public diplomacy.
One of the most impressive online U.S. public diplomacy venues is Magharebia, a website and news service for North Africans that is published by the United States African Command (AFRICOM).
Offered in Arabic, English, and French, Magharebia illustrates how providing useful information and advancing national self-interest can be successfully combined in a public diplomacy venture. The website (www.magharebia.com) presents diverse news items from the region, everything from weather reports to arts news to sports coverage to harder-edged political stories. The site is supplemented by a daily news monitor. Magharebia’s content does not appear blatantly self-serving, and the site’s continuing anti-terrorism message is forceful but not shrill.
A recent day’s postings on the website included these headlines: “Islamic group theorist: al-Qaeda ideology in a state of decline”; “Al-Qaeda losing supporters in jihadi groups across Arab world”; and in the weekly “Zawaya” discussion forum, this question was posed: “Al-Qaeda’s execution of an elderly French hostage has shaken much of Europe and the Maghreb alike. What repercussions will the murder…have on the security of Maghreb countries and their economies?” This is useful counterprogramming to offset the poisonous nonsense produced by extremist websites that treat al-Qaeda as heroic, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
Magharebia’s principal audience is found in Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia, countries that usually remain unnoticed by U.S. news organizations and their audiences, and that do not receive as much attention from policy makers as do the Arab states farther east. But in long-term efforts against violent extremism, these countries are crucial, and a consistent, non-threatening presence such as Magharebia is invaluable.
AFRICOM itself has been controversial since its creation in 2007. Many Africans view it as a neo-colonialist attempt to establish a Western military foothold in the continent, and U.S. policy makers have done a poor job of explaining the purposes of the new command. Magharebia, however, shows that at least some people in AFRICOM know what they are doing.
Worth noting is that this is a Defense Department, not a State Department, project. Debate continues about the respective roles of these departments in doing public diplomacy, and turf battles will continue until the White House or Congress definitively makes clear who is in charge. In the meantime, the State Department’s public diplomacy officials should take note of the Defense Department’s Magharebia as an example of best practices in this field.
While the global community has been busy parading at the Shanghai Expo 2010, for Taiwan, simply taking part in the world’s fair is meaningful. It has been nearly 40 years since the island has been able to join the global showcase, when the Republic of China last participated at the Osaka Expo in 1970 during a period when Taipei still held official diplomatic relations with Tokyo. In the wake of warming relations between Taiwan and China, both Taiwan and the City of Taipei are hosting pavilions at this year’s global gala.
By a long and tortuous route, I left Taipei for Shanghai, where I spent the better part of the week visiting the colossal Expo. The brunt of my focus at this public diplomacy Mecca was directed at Taiwan’s contributions to the event. My Expo compatriot was one Cesar Corona, a friend and former colleague from the MPD program who is an Expo expert and CPD Researcher at the world’s fair.
On a sweltering Monday afternoon, we made our way over to the giant metal and glass Taiwan Pavilion, organized and constructed by the Taipei World Trade Center and designed by the renowned architect C.Y. Lee- the designer of the world’s once-tallest structure, the Taipei 101 tower. The Taiwan Pavilion’s theme is “Mountain, Water & Lantern of the Heart”, and this is reflected in the pavilion’s dynamic design. Representing the “Mountain” theme, there are 888 pieces of stainless steel, etched in floral patterns some 7 stories tall. The mountain creates a giant backdrop for the “Lantern of the Heart,” a 16 meter, 130 metric ton globe covered in a million LED light bulbs and serving as the world’s largest LED screen.
A recurring notion throughout the Shanghai Expo is a focus on quantity. The Shanghai Expo is on pace to surpass the Expo record of attendance and attract some 70 million visitors; pavilions seem to compete to see who can draw the biggest crowds and hold the longest lines. It is reported that the lines for the Saudi Arabia pavilion lasted up to 9 hours, while other pavilions like Germany’s have queues that can last as long as 6 hours. Meanwhile, the VIP entrances have caused a bit of consternation with reports that the well-heeled have been able to cough up a pocket full of yuan to scalpers to bypass the laborious queue. Unending lines have created some ugly incidents at an event predicated on cultural awareness and understanding.
The Taiwan Pavilion took the opposite approach regarding its expo visitation policy, focusing on quality of the visit over quantity of visitors. In chatting with the Taiwan Pavilion’s president Walter Yeh, he said the pavilion tries to give all visitors a VIP experience. The Taiwan Pavilion conducts a reservation system that lets visitors get reserved spaces for 40-person group tours complete with cheery Taiwanese tour guides to lead the groups through the 7-story pavilion. There are a total of 4,000 reserved spaces allocated on a daily basis. Thus far, the Taiwan Pavilion has recently welcomed its 300,000th visitor, with an expected 750,000 to 800,000 to visit by the expo’s conclusion at the end of October.
The tour began through the “Window of Taiwan” hall that featured small and large screens with the faces of Taiwanese people and images of Taiwan on an etched skyline of Taipei. The tour continued up to the 5th floor for a 4-D presentation in the 720° Sphere Theater. The film offered a 3-D tour of Taiwan’s famous natural landscapes such as Mount Jade, Mount Ali and the Taroko Park, images of unique Taiwanese wildlife, and a flyover of Taipei. Meanwhile, a fourth dimension was added with wind, mist and smell special effects to offer added perspective to the film.
The tour continued outside in the pavilion’s Lantern Lighting Water terrace, where visitors were able to make a wish and launch virtual sky lanterns on the giant LED globe that hangs above a pool of water drawn from Taiwan’s famous Sun Moon Lake with an ornate rose stone in the center of the water. The tour concluded back on the first floor, where the group congregated in a bamboo-woven room, intended to symbolize a connection to the environment. In the final section, a brief presentation of traditional Taiwanese music and a traditional tea-ceremony took place. Visitors were given a gift, a tote-bag with small souvenirs, including a cup from the tea ceremony, to keep as a reminder of Taiwanese hospitality and culture.
After our tour, Cesar and I had the opportunity to speak with the Taiwan Pavilion President Walter Yeh. He spoke of the pavilion’s focus on conveying hospitality as an attempt to communicate the value that Taiwanese place on friendliness. Cesar, a veteran of Expos, commented that the Taiwan Pavilion’s method of hospitality had been one of the best among the many pavilions he had seen in various Expos. Cesar also pointed out that the hosting staff of the Taiwan pavilion was not only cheerful, but the sentiment felt genuine. Cesar further commented that in nation branding terminology, they embraced the brand and did a wonderful work promoting Taiwan through real hospitality.
Taiwan Pavilion President Yeh noted that 90 percent of those visiting the Taiwan Pavilion are from mainland China, and the vast majority have never been to Taiwan. As such, the Taiwan Pavilion serves to provide a different perspective for the Chinese visitors about life in Taiwan. I found these sentiments echoed outside the pavilion when I spoke with visitors emerging from the exhibit. A twentysomething Chinese girl named Jenny commented, “I used to think that the Taiwanese were not friendly, but [the pavilion] made me think they are really friendly.” She also commented that the Taiwan pavilion made her want to visit the island.
Later in the week, I also visited the Taipei Pavilion, which is located in the Urban Best Practices Area of the Shanghai Expo. The Taipei Pavilion, sponsored by the Taiwanese technology corporation Foxconn, is the only city pavilion to focus on two urban best practice areas: Taipei’s innovative waste management system and its wireless broadband network. Visitors were introduced to Taipei with a brief welcome film featuring shots of the city set to an “I love Taipei” rap, as well as greetings from the city’s mayor among the 2,010 other smiling faces. The tour continued with a 3-D film tour of Taipei’s sites, sounds and tastes in a 360° theater. The tour led into a “Taipei of the Future” exhibit with holographs about the municipal city-to-come.
The pavilion tour concluded in an interactive zone that lets visitors learn about Taipei’s extensive wireless network and its innovative plan in waste management that was instituted in 2000 and has reduced household waste by 67 percent, increased recycling by 45 percent and allowed the city to reach its goal of zero additional landfills by the end of the decade. As a current Taipei resident, I have to attest that the recycling program here is rather comprehensive and impressive. Meanwhile, there is a section that has a fascinating pictorial comparison featuring the developments of Shanghai and Taipei from years passed. Municipal bonds between Taipei and Shanghai are further highlighted in the promotion of the Taipei Flora Expo, which Shanghai will take part in. In addition, there was an interactive screen that features 2010 in smiling faces, which Taipei Pavilion Director Ching-an Chen said helps convey the warmth of Taipei to the pavilion’s visitors.
In chatting with the Taipei Pavilion Director, Ching-an Chen, he mentioned that the pavilion has been the most popular in the Urban Best Practices section. He noted that the improved relationship between Taiwan and China has led to an increased curiosity in the Taipei Pavilion. As such, the Taipei pavilion welcomes more than 4,000 visitors a day, and more than 300,000 guests have stopped by.
Expo diplomacy is successful public diplomacy because it helps fill in unknown or misperceived conceptions of the “other”. Both the Taiwan and Taipei Pavilions are positive instruments of public diplomacy because visitors to Taiwan’s respective pavilions, who are overwhelmingly Chinese, are able to gain a more personal, more substantial view of the island just across the Taiwan Strait. Taiwanese friendliness and hospitality as communicated values on display at the respective pavilions indicate a clear desire on Taiwan’s part to take advantage of its thaw with the mainland to reach out directly to the people of China and expose the overwhelmingly Chinese audience to a more positive and personal face of Taiwan.
As global framing contests go, one of the most spectacular is the transnational effort to define proper regulation of the Internet (and in the process characterize China’s information policy). In June, China’s State Information Office issued a White Paper on the Internet. It could be seen as a response to another important text, Hillary Clinton’s much acclaimed January Newseum speech on the same subject, called "Remarks on Internet Freedom."
These papers, especially the China White Paper, have not received the attention that they deserve. A variety of fairly uncritical comments have acclaimed the Clinton speech as a wholesale endorsement of non-regulation (without examining its carefully stated caveats) and, for the China exposition, there’s a brilliant comment by Rebecca MacKinnon. But these documents deserve more.
Clinton’s speech laid down the gauntlet: “Both the American people and nations that censor the Internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote Internet freedom”, and this means fighting for a global policy consistent with these views. The Bush Administration had already established a Global Internet Freedom Task Force (GIFT) in 2006. But the current Department has gone one better and has established a special bureau to make Internet a priority in bilateral and multilateral discussions and to develop programs to further the achievement of the goal. Alec Ross, the technology and free expression guru in the State Department, has vowed to keep this issue on the front burner. On the Hill, Congressional leaders keep finding Internet Freedom a popular issue around which to draft legislative requirements. What’s now added is China’s own effort at international persuasion—an effort that furnishes and advocates—as might well be expected—a differently stated model of national regulation and control.
Each text couched its vision in something that might be called principle (rule or sovereignty for China, international norms of freedom of expression for the United States—though both invoke each principle in part. The differences of course are marked. The American speech is personal and wrapped in the heroism of individual presentation: given by Hillary Clinton, symbolic as a fighter herself. It is delivered in the Newseum, symbol of the First Amendment. For China, the document is more impersonal, a product of a bureaucracy. Yet, for a document issuing from China, it is especially polished, clearly manicured and presentable for a substantial international audience.
Clinton gave the usual introduction marking the glories of the Internet in her January talk: “The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet….Now, in many respects, information has never been so free. There are more ways to spread more ideas to more people than at any moment in history. …And even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.”
Clinton’s speech asserts a potential international “right to connect”: “On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress, but the United States does.” At the heart of the U.S. position is this architectural point: “We stand for a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas.”
Translating the right to connect into political realities means that the Internet should not be splintered into many national Internets, each with its own rules of entry and conduct by national publics. What is desired is “One Internet” with overwhelming access. And this, of course, pits the U.S. position directly in contrast with that of China.
The China Internet White Paper is a response. It, too, is tailored to an international audience. Obviously, it does not trumpet the indivisible Internet as a principle required under international norms, though it makes obeisance to freedom of expression. China’s argument is based rather on the important role of the state, on the significance of sovereignty. Only because of its own management of the Internet in China, the White Paper claims, is the government responsible for bringing the Internet to its present state of extensive technological superiority in China, for its reach and what it details as, in fact, its widespread use.
For China’s White Paper, the country’s record with respect to the Internet is one of pride, not shame. This is a document that heralds Internet accomplishment and denotes the volume of citizen use. The White Paper celebrates industrial policy. It highlights the achievement of goals in successive Five Year Plans.
Here, then, is the essence of China’s international pitch: “ To build, utilize and administer the Internet well is an issue that concerns national economic prosperity and development, state security and social harmony, state sovereignty and dignity, and the basic interests of the people….” Administration and management are the key to making the Internet successful in the society, not autonomous free market growth.
Of course, legal regulation is warranted: “The Chinese government has from the outset abided by law-based administration of the Internet, and endeavored to create a healthy and harmonious Internet environment, and build an Internet that is more reliable, useful and conducive to economic and social development … China advocates the rational use of technology to curb dissemination of illegal information online. Based on the characteristics of the Internet and considering the actual requirements of effective administering of the Internet, it advocates the exertion of technical means, in line with relevant laws and regulations and with reference to common international practices, to prevent and curb the harmful effects of illegal information on state security, public interests and minors.”
This is the formulation—and one written, I would argue, to appeal to other states. It makes a contention with which many leaders might concur for their state: “Within Chinese territory the Internet is under the jurisdiction of Chinese sovereignty. The Internet sovereignty of China should be respected and protected. Citizens of the People's Republic of China and foreign citizens, legal persons and other organizations within Chinese territory have the right and freedom to use the Internet; at the same time, they must obey the laws and regulations of China and conscientiously protect Internet security.” But this is different from the “one Internet” aspiration as articulated by Secretary Clinton.
Finally, the China White Paper makes this pitch to the international community, a call for “the establishment of an authoritative and just international Internet administration organization under the UN framework through democratic procedures on a worldwide scale.” This is presumably antithetical to the U.S. position—but it has its diplomatic advantages.
Over the next years versions of these competing ideas will be marketed by the two powers. Already, the debate has had its innings at the World Summit for Information Society (WSIS). Google is investing to develop a supportive perspective for the U.S. position. The Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program recently launched a year-long forum drawn from public, private and government sectors “to suggest new ways to preserve the values and potential of the global Internet.” The project would address ways “to guarantee the freedom to connect, the need for open, end-to-end networks, and the free flow of data and communications across borders on a unified Internet.” At the OECD, the future of the Internet is being framed in terms of innovation and the capacity to drive economic growth. The ITU may become a theater for engagement.
The players are sharpening their arguments and lining up support—and the stakes are large. The Clinton speech and the China Internet White Paper will be important monuments as the diplomacy and public diplomacy battles unfold.
Once every two years, the world’s leading aerospace, air defense, and commercial aviation corporations converge approximately 30 miles west of London at a small airfield in the bucolic English county of Hampshire. Throughout the course of seven days in mid-July, the little town of Farnborough transforms into more than just a place where aviation enthusiasts can indulge in a daily course of Red Arrows and black pudding. The Farnborough International Airshow, in most regards, is a premier accelerant of international exchange, advocacy, and trade, a place where the most important diplomatic tool may be a business card.
The 2010 show, which I had the privilege of attending, featured 1450 exhibiting companies, over 120,000 visitors per day, 11 UK Government ministers, and 70 delegations from 44 countries. Given the tremendous concentration of international pavilions, corporate chalets, and aircraft on display, it quickly became evident why so many companies are able to accomplish more business in three days than they often can in three months. By the end of the show, orders totaled over $47 billion. Such a robust figure is a good indication that commercial aviation is poised for a new era of growth that will open doors of international trade and cultural exchange among foreign publics.
Operationally, aviation is a multi-sector enterprise that facilitates the very existence of global commerce. As an economic bellwether, many industry analysts suggest that when aviation companies start to thrive, so do many other associated businesses. The results of Farnborough 2010 suggest that there are scores of strategic innovations that customers, passengers, and foreign governments will experience within the next decade.
In many respects, the key to the future sustainability of global aviation is the reduction of carbon emissions. Farnborough provided a bird’s eye view into what tomorrow’s green technology may look like. Perhaps one of the most interesting related developments was an algae-based biodiesel demonstrated by an aircraft operated jointly by EADS Innovation Works and the Austrian-based Diamond Aircraft Corporation. Such partnerships demonstrate why collaboration between the world’s leading aviation organizations is necessary in developing a greener industry that thrives on greater environmental responsibility among corporations as well as passengers.
In addition to introducing more economical, energy-efficient aircraft into their fleets, many airlines are also emphasizing how new equipment will also help enhance the onboard experience. Perhaps one of the airlines at Farnborough that placed the most emphasis on onboard luxury was Qatar Airways, the “World’s 5-Star Airline.” I toured one of their new Boeing 777-300ER aircraft, and was definitely influenced by the charm offensive. With a gracious onboard staff and an economy cabin with supple amenities and legroom, it was hard not to be impressed with such a comfortable display.
Beyond the obvious trappings that Qatar and several others carriers sought to accent at Farnborough, there was an intrinsic sense of national identity and pride on display. In other words, the aircraft were treated not simply as a transportation vehicle for passengers, but as a symbolic embodiment of their originating country. Historically, national airlines have been utilized as branding tools of their respective countries. As such, the Boeing 777 I stepped aboard was more than just an airplane. It was a physical extension of the State of Qatar, with its hopes, ideals, and culture being showcased. However, while Doha may eventually become an aero-transit hub in the Middle East given the expansion of Qatar Airways and construction of the New Doha International Airport, there are other geographic areas with increasing opportunity.
Given such noteworthy events all taking place under virtually the same roof, the ability to interact and engage with the many corporate officials stationed at the air show had tremendous informational value. Naturally, it was also very beneficial to listen to key insights from various government officials at a few of the international stands. As one would imagine, their perspectives tended to be slightly more comparative as they almost always focused on how to attract foreign investment while maintaining domestic growth.
At the end of the week, if you count the numbers, I suppose there were winners and losers However, for a brief moment in July, nations and airlines of the world gathered together and literally shared common ground as partners and competitors.
It will be another two years before the best minds and proud birds gather again at Farnborough. Next time, it will be right before the 2012 London Olympics. We’ll see who wins the day. Still, up at 30,000 feet, there is no gold, but only sunlight and an endless blue sky that extends beyond borders, which must be shared and protected. Aviation is a special frontier of public diplomacy that relies upon international cooperation to influence the delivery of national priorities. Therefore, the impact of aviation is best defined by its inherent ability to transcend the policies that divide our world by connecting people and cultures that otherwise might be kept apart.
Mark Preston is a private pilot seeking a Master's Degree in Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School. He is the Editor-In-Chief of Public Diplomacy Magazine and is currently in London conducting an independent field study on areas of emerging market opportunity for commercial aviation.
Earlier this summer I had the opportunity to teach Corporate Diplomacy and Geopolitics for the MBA School at the University of San Francisco. My students were part of USF’s Executive Program – all working full-time while pursuing their degrees. Unlike my experience teaching this past spring at USC, where I had the luxury of a full semester, here I was given 6 weeks to cover the world.
In preparation for the class I delved deeply into MBA curricula, which have surprisingly few global components, as well as current research and writings on geopolitical trends and their implications for business. I also incorporated many PD resources as part of my own hope that some day we will have a cross-disciplinary approach and public diplomacy element as a core part of every MBA program. Through this process, I distilled out several resources and schools of thought that MPD and MBA students alike (as well as public diplomacy practitioners) can benefit from.
First and foremost, Ian Bremmer’s work should be required reading for anyone seeking to understand the world we live in today. When it comes to recognizing and explaining geopolitical trends, no one does it better than Bremmer. We used his books The Fat Tail and most recently The End of the Free Market as the basis for many of our in class discussions. For anyone seeking to get a quick read on what’s happening in the world and where the world is going, these are the books to begin with. Bremmer is one of the few experts on the subject of geopolitics whom you can read, absorb and understand readily.
Second, I bundled and shared with the students some of the resources I use every day to keep a pulse on what’s happening around the globe. I always begin and end my day with 'Watching America' which has free, daily translations of the world’s news coverage of the US. I am also a Drudge Report junkie, and religiously read my subscriptions of The Week, Economist, Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs. My increasingly favorite resource however is the Harvard Business Review. The HBR has a way of looking at the world that is unique and fresh from a PD point of view and distilling down key facts and figures that provide tools anyone can easily incorporate into their work. One example is this month’s map of social media usage across the globe. Bottom line, HBR is written for a business audience, and is geared towards people with limited time and attention span. For anyone outside of business wanting to understand business, especially as more and more PD practitioners are charged with building public-private partnerships and increasingly being called upon to influence and engage business, this is an essential tool.
Finally, I built on the teachings and themes of Clayton Christensen at the Harvard Business School whose work every MBA student has drilled into their psyche. Christensen is famous for his theory of Disruptive Technology and the author of The Innovator’s Dilemma. I pulled several key insights from this work into my various lectures this summer, and while I don’t have the space here to explore it in depth, there is much there that PD practitioners can borrow and leverage. What I would like to highlight is a recent article Christensen penned for the HBR this month when his MBA students, facing an abysmal job market and economy, asked him to apply his management lessons to life.
The title says it all: "How Will You Measure Your Life: Don't Reserve Your Best Business Thinking for Your Career." I truly appreciate this subject as I think too often many of us forget to take the time to think through the purpose of our lives. It is summer after all, and if there were ever an excellent time for such self reflection, especially given the state of the economy, it is now.
I am reminded of the old Thomas Jefferson axiom, Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today. It is a phrase that strikes fear in the hearts of many life-long procrastinators and A-type personalities, myself included, who despise being thrown off-course with wild philosophical discussions on the meaning and purpose of life. Life has a funny way though of forcing the issue upon each of us, irrespective of schedules and time-tables, and in many cases much sooner than any of us were prepared to expect. Students are notorious for putting off such deep thinking as they invariably say, “I’ll have the rest of my life to think about that or figure that out.” I was heartened to see someone as deeply respected in business as Christensen raise this issue and even he admits that it was only upon a recent diagnosis with cancer – which is now in remission – that he began to fully evaluate his life and focus on sharing those lessons with his students.
My students have often asked me why I am so passionate about my work and life. They think it is some magical combination of Starbucks, Red Bull, Chinese herbal supplements and a natural propensity for being high strung. While those have certainly aided in my enthusiasm for life, my true purpose comes from losing my mother to a brain tumor when she was 46 and I was 21. As anyone who has lost someone close to them at a formative age knows, life is short. It can change in an instant, when you least expect it.
I get many strange looks when I share that there were countless positive outcomes from losing my mother. However, in so many ways, that period in my life taught me key lessons that I continue to use in my professional and personal life to this very day. Many of these I share with my students as part of what I consider a Five Tool Executive, and those skill sets that are essential to success in global business are also essential for success in life. Christensen similarly shares his key life lessons from business and I’ve outlined some of those below which I feel should be of practical interest to anyone engaged in Informing, Inspiring, and Influencing.
Key Life Lessons from Business Strategy for Public Diplomacy
Remember the Importance of Humility -- Humility as defined not by self-deprecating behavior or attitudes but by the esteem with which you regard others. Good behavior flows naturally from that kind of humility.
Create a Strategy for Your Life -- Keep the fundamental purpose of your life front and center as you decided how to spend their time, talents, and energy
Allocate Your Resources -- Your decisions about allocating your personal time, energy, and talent ultimately shape your life’s strategy.
Create a Culture -- Build a culture in your life that promotes the development of self-esteem and confidence in those around you. Like employees, children build self-esteem by doing things that are hard and learning what works
Choose the Right Yardstick -- Don’t worry about the level of individual prominence you have achieved; worry about the individuals you have helped become better people
Let me repeat that last point: Don’t worry about the level of individual prominence you have achieved; worry about the individuals you have helped become better people. If we each think back on those lives we’ve touched, on those we’ve helped become better people in some way, I hope our lists are lengthy, with too many names for us each to count.
There goes my idealism again. But it is summertime, after all. Shouldn’t we all take some time to do some deep thinking, seek to learn from one another in new and different ways and broaden our own perspectives?
Recent years have seen a welcome resurgence in U.S. Cultural Diplomacy, which after honorable service in the Cold War, sailed into the doldrums in the mid-1990s. Today, the State Department is reaching out to foreign publics in partnership with major private sector partners including Jazz at the Lincoln Center and the Brooklyn Academy of Music as well as maintaining its own program of visits, exhibitions and tours. While the new initiatives began under the administration of George W. Bush as a 'soft power' response to the challenges of the Global War on Terror, they seem an ideal fit for the priorities of the Obama administration, with its emphasis on 'engagement' and rebooting the global perception of the United States. At such a moment it is perhaps well to take stock and consider the nature of cultural diplomacy and how best to harness its strengths to advance America's international priorities.
Cultural Diplomacy is a type of Public Diplomacy, which is to say that it is one method by which an international actor may conduct its foreign policy though engaging a foreign public. Unlike other forms of Public Diplomacy, Cultural Diplomacy works best at arm's length from government and its benefits are clearest in the medium to long term. Cultural Diplomacy may be subdivided into four major types, some of which are more suited to contemporary American needs than others.
The first form of Cultural Diplomacy is 'the prestige gift': the international presentation of what one considers finest in one's own society. When a nation facilitates international exposure for its most accomplished artists or cultural products it falls into this category, as when the Egyptian government sponsored the Tutankhamen tour or when German patriotic organizations in the nineteenth century promoted the spread of German orchestral music.
The second form of Cultural Diplomacy is 'cultural information': the selective international presentation of elements of culture which reveals a dimension which is not fully recognized abroad. When a nation showcases an artist from a minority background or a less known region it would fall into this category, as when the British Council sponsors and international tour by a Black British novelist or an emerging Northern Irish dramatist.
The third form of Cultural Diplomacy is 'dialogue and collaboration': the use of a cultural form as an opportunity to bring people together and create new relationships across international lines. This might take the form of an international festival or full-fledged co-creation project as artists from different countries work together as with the State Department's Jazz Futures Bi-Communal Workshop in Cyprus under which American jazz musicians conduct workshops in the UN controlled Buffer Zone which unite performers from Greek and Turkish communities, not to win friends for the United States as much as promote stability in the region.
The fourth form of Cultural Diplomacy is 'capacity building': the strategic development of cultural skills in a target country. Sometimes these skills open the way to deeper contact with the practitioner's country as when a language is being taught. The moot case here is China's massive investment in its network of Confucius Institutes.
The best contributions to cultural diplomacy tick one or more of these boxes and the truly remarkable programs may be considered to operate under all of them. One such excellent program is The Rhythm Road: American Music Abroad program operated by the Department of State in partnership with Jazz at Lincoln Center. This program certainly may be seen as a prestige gift, as Jazz at Lincoln Center carries a special significance and Jazz is acknowledged to be one of America's gifts to the world, but the program is also transmitting cultural information. Besides Jazz it includes the work of Bluegrass, Gospel, Blues and Hip-Hop/Urban musicians whose work would probably not be known in the receiving regions, and thereby counters the image for shallowness or even profanity which might be inferred from commercially available American culture. The Rhythm Road program is collaborative and dialogic: the musicians involved routinely play with local groups creating new cultural forms and fusions. They learn as much from their hosts as they transmit about America (which also says a lot). This program is capacity building: the musicians work to inspire young musicians with master classes and out-reach sessions in schools. It is all done with an annual budget of around $1.5 million, which would pay for 100th of an F-22 fighter or - if are believe Senator Harry Reid's figures of May 5, 2008 - sustain the Iraq War for just five minutes.
The problem is that an administration seeking a quick and public win in the diplomatic field might easily pass over the qualities of The Rhythm Road and pile resources into one or two 'prestige gifts' which mirror commercial culture, and merely send Beyonce to Beijing. Yet more worrying is the suggestion that Cultural Diplomacy should focus only on capacity building and, specifically, prepare the world for arts management in the 21st century. In a much circulated blog post last fall, Michael Kaiser - president of the Kennedy Center in Washington DC - proposed a cultural diplomacy strategy focused on master classes in project planning and eliciting sponsorship from philanthropists. Recent inbound international musicians have found themselves treated to special lectures at management school.
There is a lot wrong with Michael Kaiser's approach, beyond the self-serving nature of the president of the Kennedy Center calling for U.S. cultural diplomacy to focus on work which his institution is uniquely well qualified to deliver. He caricatures cultural diplomacy as "sending a symphony orchestra to play for a thousand of the most powerful people in the capital of another nation" and ignores the true breadth and reach of contemporary cultural diplomacy. More than this, teaching arts administration techniques cannot touch the souls of participants in the same way the experience of hearing musicians born worlds apart coming together to create new cultural forms or seeing the 'transmitting' culture re-shaped by contact with foreign partners. Giving something of one's best remains a powerful dimension in cultural diplomacy. Does the United States really consider "top tips for getting corporate cash" to bankroll culture the best that the U.S. has to offer? It may actually be inadvertently revealing the unhelpful 'cultural information' that the arts have a really hard time in the United States. In fiscally tough times the traditional cultural diplomacy seen in The Rhythm Road and similar programs continues to offer a unique return on a modest investment from the State Department. Long may it continue.
This past weekend, I had the privilege of attending a performance at the California International Theatre Festival in Calabasas. The annual festival offers an array of presentations meant to broaden “cultural understanding by means of community outreach, student training and cultural exchange through the performing arts”. As a whole, the festival is an excellent example of cultural diplomacy towards American audiences as presented by various countries such as China, Ireland, Canada and Mexico, among others.
The play I attended was the most engaging and powerful work of art I have ever experienced. Stones, or Avanim, was created and performed by the Orto-Da Theatre Group from Tel Aviv, Israel. Stones was inspired by the creation of the monument-sculpture “The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising”, sculpted by Nathan Rappaport as a dedication to the Jewish resistance fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto.
During the performance, six mime-artists, serving as living pieces of the sculpture, brought sixty years of Jewish history in Europe and Israel to life. It began with French music from the 1940's playing in the background, as the quiet audience stared at a replica of “The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising”. Suddenly, the sculpture began to move, and the mime-artists came to life. A variety of musical pieces, including a Spanish love song and the Coca-Cola jingle, along with some historical audio clips, such as Hitler speaking in German, added context and sound to an otherwise silent performance.
As the hour-and-a-half play unfolded, the six performers silently drew the audience into a world of fear, love, tragedy, independence, terror and hope for a peaceful future. Touching on themes of human rights, globalization, terrorism and peace, the performance ultimately told a universal story.
One main asset of cultural diplomacy is that it offers the ability to express common values and universal ideas across a diverse set of boundaries. Stones was an extraordinary example of cultural diplomacy, because it did just that through the language of art. Through this unique combination of performance art and history, the shared human experiences of comedy, tragedy, love and life were expressed.
The Orto-Da Theatre Group is an Israeli troupe which pushes the audience to think outside their normative space, to see life through a different lens. After the performance, the artists explained that Orto-Da started as a street-performance protest focused on social and political issues in Israel and Palestine. Associated themes, like human rights, freedom, life behind barbed-wire, terror, fear, hope, and peace, were evident throughout the piece. The performance demonstrated that these Israelis understand the tragedy that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and can have a powerful voice even without speaking aloud.
Not only did Stones represent a wonderful piece of art and culture, it could serve as an excellent tool of public diplomacy for the state of Israel. Israel’s actions are constantly under scrutiny – for better or worse – in the global media. The Israeli government has developed a plethora of public diplomacy campaigns with mixed results. If Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent Stones on a global tour, they might have better success at depicting a more nuanced portrait of Israeli culture.
More importantly, this Israeli troupe, which creates art designed to provoke questions surrounding current Israeli government policies, was brought to the U.S. with the help of the Consulate General of Israel in Los Angeles. This government endorsement of Israeli artists protesting against Israeli government policies is a demonstration of Israel’s soft power and democratic values. The self-reflection within this performance illustrates the multifaceted nature of Israel and the Israeli people, and demonstrates a strong commitment to freedom of expression. Unfortunately, while the Israeli Consulate sponsored the performance, there was only limited publicity surrounding Orto-Da’s appearance, and only about 300 people were in attendance. The Israeli government lost a great opportunity to engage a wider U.S. audience in a public diplomacy initiative.
In Israel, public diplomacy is called hasbara, which translates as “explanation,” often in the form of increased advocacy. However, explaining is not always the most effective way of communicating with foreign publics. As this performance illustrates, sometimes countries can communicate values and explain themselves without saying a word.
I’m finally cleaning out and catching up with my Netflix queue, working on a relationship I’ve neglected for far, far too long. As a foreign and political film junkie, I may be one of the few people my age who has only just watched Empire of the Sun , the 1987 Spielberg film initially set in 1940s Shanghai, where a group of privileged and protected Westerners have built their lives in China since the British first arrived in the early 19th Century.
Based on J. G. Ballard's autobiographical novel, the film follows a British boy, Jim “Jamie” Graham, who, after being separated from his parents, is captured by the Japanese and taken to the Soo Chow confinement camp. Stripped of every comfort and surrounded by sickness, disease, and death, Jim attempts to rebuild his former life, while bringing hope and dignity to those around him. The film is ultimately about survival, the enduring strength of the human spirit, and the idea that even in times of war, we all have more things in common than the ones which separate us.
I was profoundly and deeply moved by this film. In part, I was drawn in by Spielberg’s visual imagery and layering. At every turn I felt as though I were there, witnessing history unfold. The underlying themes and cross-cultural nuances throughout, though, are what truly left an indelible impression.
From the very beginning, I was struck by the excellent manners young Jim possessed. He was composed, observant, sensitive to others needs, incredibly self aware, and treated everyone with dignity and respect. Let me repeat that – he treated everyone with dignity and respect. His most outward displays of sensitivity, deference and respect are shown in several poignant scenes with his Japanese captors. He takes several tense, potentially violent moments and diffuses them with the flair of a seasoned diplomat when he smiles broadly and genuinely, speaks in Japanese, and bows to the ground. He stays bowing until the Japanese give him instruction to rise. At another particularly moving point, while observing the Kamikaze rituals, he salutes and begins singing with the pilots.
The timing of watching Empire of the Sun is rather appropriate, as I am due to deliver remarks at the International Protocol Officers Annual Education Conference in Long Beach, CA at the end of this month. It is always an intimidating thing to be surrounded by an audience of protocol and etiquette professionals, especially for a native Texan. But I never miss a chance to be with them, as I love the energy of this group and their almost evangelical approach to their craft. I wish more were aware of the power of protocol and etiquette – traditional vestiges of diplomacy, and an area many consider to be within the soft power realm. I touched on this in my prior post, ' The Five Tool Corporate Diplomat', but I feel compelled to underscore the importance of protocol and etiquette as essential global skills, which are absolutely critical to building trust and operating effective cross-culturally.
Which brings me back to young Jim in the film. Jim was born into a privileged, global elite, which was well versed and schooled in the ways of the world and how to operate within the echelons of power. Many will look at that film and even at modern practitioners of diplomacy, etiquette and protocol, and say that understanding such cross-cultural nuance and learning how to deftly navigate oneself in a global environment is passé in a world where technology, access and speed are pre-eminent.
If one delves deeper, though, in any environment – whether government, corporate, or societal – where power and influence are concentrated, successful relationships develop slowly over time and are carefully crafted by how one positions and maneuvers within such structures. Access is granted and influence developed by those who are able to operate effectively, with sensitivity, respect, and acute awareness of those around them. This is where etiquette and protocol, or in plain English, good old fashioned manners, make all the difference. Why then are so few young people, especially Americans, educated systematically in the art and craft of protocol and etiquette? In a globalized world where we are all increasingly competing with the world for jobs, positioning and influence, these skills should be part of every child’s basic education.
“Amatus sum, amatus es, amatus est”
Towards the end of the film we hear Jim reciting the Latin phrase “Amatus sum, amatus es, amatus est." Translated, it means: I am loved, you are loved, he/she is loved. The phrase (and more broadly, the film) speaks to the universality of the human condition and how each of us possesses the capacity to bring grace, humility, courage, and hope to those we engage with every day. It’s a lesson we should all embrace.
As if there were any doubt about India’s mounting anxieties concerning its status vis-à-vis China, the July 12th issue of India Today, India’s largest-circulation newsmagazine, includes an article on Indian versus Chinese soft power that depicts a substantial Indian deficit. This correspondent was interviewed online by India Today’s Shafi Rahman for the piece, “Slouching Tiger, Racing Dragon,” a title which accurately sums up its concerned tone.
Indeed, Rahman proves in his fine, thoughtful article to be rather more pessimistic than I am about the soft power India brings to the global table. While Beijing has a number of enviable attributes at its disposal—not least of which is buckets of money and the willingness to dispense it liberally—China has more soft power impediments and India more advantages than “Slouching Tiger, Racing Dragon” acknowledges, my published quotes in the piece notwithstanding.
This isn’t to say that Rahman doesn’t make many valid points—he does—or that India should be complacent—it shouldn’t. But India shouldn’t be excessively bedazzled by China’s high-profile public diplomacy efforts; nor should New Delhi reflexively seek to emulate or counter Beijing’s policies, as opposed to devising policies based on India’s own innate soft power strengths and potentialities.
With that in mind, here is an edited version of my discussion with Shafi Rahman, which took place through the miracle of the Internet on June 10.
…………………
INDIA TODAY: China is using soft power to appeal to its neighbors and to distant countries alike. India is also making its own efforts. How do you compare the charm offensive of these two countries?
Neal Rosendorf: The term “charm offensive” strongly implies a concerted, overt public relations or propaganda effort aimed at changing or enhancing foreign attitudes toward one’s state. My take is that these sorts of official state PR exercises by themselves are, to paraphrase August Babel, the soft power of fools. If they do not accurately reflect the state’s realities, they are merely putting lipstick on a pig.
A current example of this kind of attempt to obscure reality via “messaging” is offered by the official Chinese Tibet and Xinjiang provincial pavilions at the 2010 Shanghai Expo, which bizarrely paint a picture of happy, peaceful, patriotic regions and completely deny their very troubled, restive recent history, as though no one is aware of what’s been going on. This is silly, and a waste of money, at an otherwise impressive international exhibition.
This isn’t to say that there’s no place for public diplomacy efforts or international appearances by attractive leaders. The Beijing Olympics and Shanghai Expo are good examples—with glitches—of the former; Barack Obama is the current nonpareil practitioner of the latter. Manmohan Singh has proven himself effective in the past in this regard, for example with his U.S. trip last year.
IT: How has Beijing’s new diplomacy altered the dynamics of China’s relationships with other countries?
NR: For all of the talk over the past several years about China’s burgeoning soft power (e.g. Joshua Kurlantzick’s 2007 book on the subject ), I am skeptical that China’s public diplomacy efforts have fundamentally altered for the better any other state’s view of the Middle Kingdom. Countries the world over know without being told that China is the current economic marvel of the world, that it has a rising and dynamic middle class, and that it has a venerable and aesthetically beautiful culture.
But no matter what Chinese public diplomacy does, outsiders are also keenly aware, for example, that the country is an autocracy with severe limits on information flows and public speech, and severe penalties for transgressors; that millions of minority group members consider themselves oppressed; that that the law is not universally applied and corruption is rampant, with sometimes catastrophic results like school building collapses in earthquakes; that almost three-quarters of the country still lives in poverty; and that Beijing is propping up the grotesque North Korean dictatorship.
Neighboring countries still worry about China’s economic and potential military power. Japan’s prime minister recently had to resign when he sought to pull his country out of its security alliance with the U.S. and move closer to Beijing—the Japanese public still fears China far more than it resents the U.S. South Korea, like Japan, may feel ambivalence toward the U.S. but still values the American security umbrella as a hedge against Chinese regional hegemony—and of course Seoul is constantly annoyed by China’s coddling of Kim Jong-Il.
Vietnam is eternally wary toward the hovering giant, as demonstrated by Hanoi’s response to China’s purchase of Russian high-tech “Kilo-class” diesel attack submarines, which was intended to counter American Western Pacific naval superiority: the alarmed Vietnamese were spurred to purchase their own “Kilo” subs in turn in order to counter China, a ready illustration of the Law of Unintended Consequences. While Russia sees value in partnering with China to check U.S. global dominance, Moscow is concerned about losing economic, not to mention demographic, standing in Asia. And the worried tenor of the questions in this online interview underlines India’s sense of anxiety as well as competitiveness toward its neighbor.
Concerning developing world states, China’s combination of avoiding expressions of moral opprobrium toward strategically valuable mischief makers and human rights malefactors like Venezuela, Iran and unpleasant African regimes while providing aid, infrastructure and contracts is arguably the polar opposite of soft power, as it reflects the most unadorned realist calculus of strategic necessity. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this sort of Yuan Diplomacy, but it has nothing to do with the power of attraction or persuasion.
In the U.S., Chinese public diplomacy outreach includes such programs as government support for Mandarin-language study in American public schools and universities, in part through its Confucius Institute program; helping sponsor the design and construction of Chinese gardens throughout the U.S., including at the national arboretum in Washington, DC; and a new “people-to-people” exchange program in concert with the U.S. State Department on the rationale, as stated by Beijing, that “[a] broader and more intensive people-to-people exchange is necessary for the building of positive, cooperative and comprehensive Sino-U.S. relations in the 21st century.”
Needless to say, this last sort of program wouldn’t be necessary if Americans were already positively inclined toward China, rather than apprehensive, as recent U.S. polls have indicated. But the other aforementioned public diplomacy efforts are benign at worst and may bear long-term fruit, if they are not overwhelmed by adverse Chinese policies or emergent American Sinophobia (or both).
IT: What are India’s advantages over China in soft power diplomacy?
NR: Take out the word “diplomacy” and stay focused on soft power per se, which at its most effective is the organic product of a society and its culture rather than of a contrived government policy initiative. The answer then, in a word, is ‘democracy.’ Much stems from the international perception that India’s culture and policies spring from the consent of the citizenry, and that relative to China there is a dependable rule of law. And substantively, a fundamentally free society is a more fertile seedbed of culture and innovation, especially concerning popular and consumer culture, than one that is repressive. It isn’t an accident that, as I’ve written elsewhere, Hollywood is generally much more interested in partnering with Indian rather than Chinese producers.
To follow on to this point, there is an attractive “Indian idea”, of stable representative democracy in a poor, then developing country, and of national citizenship and civil rights transcending ethnic, caste and sectarian divisions and hierarchies. There is no comparable “Chinese idea” (prosperity and order are desirable, but they don’t by themselves fire the imagination).
It should be stressed that when India falls short on its ideals and image of stability—e.g. corruption, Hindu chauvinism, getting dragged down into the muck with Pakistan over Kashmir—India’s soft power suffers.
IT: Can you also discuss role of film industries of the two countries in projecting their image?
NR: Like Hollywood, I put my money on India’s film industry over China’s as long as the two countries maintain their current political systems. Bollywood has a deep history and has proven both resilient and adaptive, and it has millions of non-Indian fans around the world. Indian-heritage American actors are becoming increasingly popular in the U.S. (for example Kal Penn of Harold and Kumar fame), which may in turn make Americans and other audiences that much more receptive to Indian films.
As important as any other factor is that the Indian film industry is private-sector and driven more-or-less exclusively by domestic and international market forces, which encourages the production of attractive, crowd-pleasing and potentially quietly persuasive, in soft power terms, motion pictures. And it doesn’t hurt a bit that pushing the boundaries won’t lead to dire professional and personal consequences, and that official censorship is subject to legal appeal by producers who have a good chance of prevailing.
Contrast this with China’s motion picture industry, in which producers have to constantly run a government gauntlet, with Beijing at least as interested in didactic propagandizing and the prestige of gigantism as in fostering a vibrant and entertaining film sector. A telling juxtaposition is China’s booting of the wildly popular Avatar from local cinemas in order to guarantee screen time for a government-sponsored epic about the life of Confucius, which died at the box office. Yet China Daily recently reported that the Beijing Film Academy is going to establish a major study field in 3-D film production, with a spokesperson declaring with a risible absence of irony that “[a]fter Avatar's box office results, the central government and education authorities stressed a need to strengthen China's moviemaking level.” China seems to think it can alchemize popular cultural success and its soft power benefits by fiat. It can’t.
China has many enormously talented and accomplished filmmakers, with the great Zhang Yimou leading the pack. But even Zhang, who once challenged and vexed Beijing with films like Red Sorghum and Raise the Red Lantern, has more recently pulled in his horns to make pro-government propaganda movies like Hero and work for the regime on projects like the 2008 Olympics. If Zhang Yimou has felt compelled to walk at heel, what chance do other Chinese filmmakers have to innovate and entertain without Beijing pushing them about for its own purposes?
IT: What should India be doing to get an edge in the soft diplomacy battle with China?
NR: The first thing I’ll say is, lose the word “battle”—it’s a fool’s errand to approach the global presentation of one’s country as an analogue of warfare. The second thing I’ll say is, the Indian government is welcome to contract my advisory services for a reasonable fee. Feel free to spread the word.
In late June, The Washington Post had an article highlighting efforts by the American Embassy in Islamabad to correct the record when inaccuracies about the United States appear in the Pakistani press. Then, last Friday, the weekly public radio show On the Media had an interview with the lead spokesman for the United States Embassy in Islamabad, Larry Schwartz to discuss the effort reported in The Washington Post’s earlier article.
Both media items offer valuable insight into the challenges official Americans face overseas as they work to present policy accurately while simultaneously acknowledging the range of opinions often held by Americans on those same issues.
Both media items also shed light on the frustrations U.S. officials feel as falsehoods, misrepresentations and malicious interpretations of actual facts about the United States are presented to often already suspicious foreign populations. For American diplomats serving abroad, addressing these challenges is part of the job description.
But the recent appearance of those two items in national media also highlights a few facts about the importance of context, or lack thereof, in reporting of international issues in American media. And this in turn points to the need for expanding our understanding of the practice of public diplomacy – both abroad and at home.
First, the appearance of The Washington Post article on June 27 followed by the On the Media report on July 10 is a neat illustration of the intermedia agenda-setting effect in action. That’s the academic description of a phenomenon recognized in both domestic and international reporting: When one media outlet reports on a subject, other media outlets are likely to follow suit, either by re-reporting the already-known facts or attempting to add to the story with additional reporting or commentary. This phenomenon plays out every day in media outlets from The New York Times and NPR to TMZ and The National Enquirer. It’s the dynamic at the core of our understanding of pack journalism. Where one media outlet leads others inevitably follow.
Second, although any thoughtful coverage of foreign policy issues is always welcome in the American media context, both aforementioned pieces fail to overcome a common problem in American reporting and commentary: episodic versus thematic framing of issues and events. Briefly described, that problem is understood as the media’s tendency to offer blow-by-blow reporting of the newest facts without connecting those facts to a broader context – a context necessary for understanding the significance of the facts at hand. In short, neither of these two articles refers to the Embassy’s efforts as what they are: public diplomacy. Indeed, these two stories can only be seen as missed opportunities to raise awareness about public diplomacy among American journalists, and by extension, the American public.
These omissions raise the question of whether American public diplomacy efforts are overlooking a key audience: American journalists. Blasphemy? Perhaps. But consider it for a moment.
The Department of State spends millions on sponsored exchange programs to bring foreign journalists to the United States for exposure to the American press and political system. Indeed, just this spring the State Department issued a call for proposals to establish a program for bringing Pakistani journalists and public policy experts to the United States. Clearly such an effort is not unrelated to recently reported efforts to improve impressions of the United States in Pakistan.
But is it enough to address just one side of the equation? Should the United States be dedicating some resources to ensuring that American journalists themselves understand the priorities of public diplomacy outreach efforts? To ensure that American journalists can recognize public diplomacy efforts on their face? To help American journalists do a better job of critiquing and praising American public diplomacy efforts around the world? To provide context for discussions about efforts to improve the American image abroad?
The institutions of American public diplomacy, undergirded as they are by the outdated Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and other related legislation are, in practice, kept from undertaking full-fledged public relations efforts in the United States. Indeed, by some interpretations, they are prevented from allowing stateside Americans easy access to the content they produce. But the media and political environment in which those regulations were imposed is long-gone and there is growing awareness of the need for an overhaul of that legislative regime.
While a full-throated argument in support of modernizing the Smith-Mundt Act is well beyond the purview of this piece, politely suggesting that nascent discussions of such reform should include consideration of outreach to American journalists is not. Does it matter if U.S. journalists recognize and understand the priorities of American public diplomacy efforts abroad? It should.
Emily Metzgar is Assistant Professor at Indiana University’s School of Journalism. She is a former U.S. diplomat and policy analyst and was a participant in the 2009 Summer Institute in Public Diplomacy. She can be reached at emetzgar at indiana dot edu.
Cross-Strait relations between China and Taiwan took a dramatic and historic turn with the recent signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). The trade liberalization deal will create closer economic linkage between Taiwan and China, but beyond increasing the flow of goods across the Taiwan Strait, there are serious political and public diplomacy aspects tied up in the trade pact.
Through the trade liberalization deal, Taiwan will be able to export 539 categories of goods tariff-free to China. Such goods are valued at $13.8 billion annually. Meanwhile China will receive elimination of tariffs on some 260 types of their products for export to Taiwan, the value of such goods worth $2.9 billion. In total, the deal will open up 11 service sectors, including the banking sector. Meanwhile, the Economist notes that there is a component in the deal to strengthen intellectual property rights between Taiwan and the PRC, which is especially important for Taiwanese Mandarin-language entertainment. Taiwanese cultural entertainment and programming is popular in the mainland, and this deal should help better protect it from piracy; this is especially important as the Taiwanese government is investing $66.2 million dollars over the next five years to burnish its local pop music industry as vehicle for cultural diplomacy.
However, you can put the abacus away now, because the real balance sheets to be assessed in this deal are in the realms of politics and public diplomacy. Beyond the economic implications, the deal represents China's realization that if it wants to deal with Taiwan in any meaningful way, threats of force are not the ticket. China blustered belligerently towards Taiwan as the island nation moved towards democracy in the 1990s, only to see the tactic backfire as the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) rode the wave of mainland threats to power. Rather this deal is a bit of political and economic public diplomacy from China to Taiwan in the form of a lot of trade concessions to convince Taiwan that closer economic ties are an asset. For Taiwan, the deal offers economic access both to China and with the expectations towards the ability to sign free trade agreements with the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and other regional players like Japan which thus far Taiwan has been blocked from by China.
For Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou, the trade agreement represents the crown jewel in his two-year effort towards fostering a more amiable relationship with China. President Ma came to power promising to create a more constructive relationship with Beijing compared to his pro-independence predecessor Chen Shui-bian. Regarding his efforts, Sheridan Prasso commented on CNN Money:
Since he took office, Taiwan's President Ma has managed to secure 12 economic agreements with the mainland. He allowed Chinese investment into Taiwan, including into the stock market, for the first time. He also opened up direct air and sea links that had been closed since the Communist capture of China in 1949. Instead of a lengthy detour through Hong Kong, the 1 million Taiwanese who invest in and live in mainland China can fly direct on 270 regular weekly flights between Taiwan and 31 mainland cities. The government estimates that 1 million mainland tourists will visit Taiwan this year -- up from 600,000 last year (injecting $986 million in revenue), and up from virtually zero in 2007 before President Ma opened up the Taiwan Strait to cross-Strait trade.
Such economic and cultural exchange linkages foster enhanced public diplomacy via people-to-people exchanges on both sides of the Straits and have been a fundamental aspect of President Ma’s pragmatic diplomacy towards China.
However, also on Ihla Formosa the deal has been met with a good deal of consternation. There has been a considerable amount of fear and loathing here in Taiwan about the implication of a deal that brings Taiwan closer to China’s orbit. Critics of ECFA such as the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) paint the deal as a Chinese Trojan horse meant to hasten the political integration of Taiwan into Chinese clutches. Calling the pact a threat to Taiwanese jobs, the opposition rallied some 30,000 to march through the rain-soaked streets of Taipei against the signing of the deal, albeit considerably less than the 100,000 demonstrators promised. Perhaps encompassing the sentiments of the opposition, one such placard exhibited a doctored image of President Ma smooching the cheek of China’s President Hu Jintao (ala the famous Breshnev-Honecker mural) with the statement emblazoned, “Don’t embrace the enemy.” Rarely does a trade deal cause such existential angst, but rarely also are trade deals concluded between a country whose right to exist as an independent entity is not recognized by the trade partner and vastly larger neighbor.
However, in its piece of witty title, “Know your customer,” The Economist offers some perspective on what the deal does and does not represent. The magazine argues that the impact of the deal on Taiwanese domestic politics will be limited. It states, “Voters there understand China’s intentions very well and are unlikely to be swayed by a few tariff cuts.” Moreover, Sheridan Passo of CNN argues that in order for Taiwan to increase its economic power in the region and continue to expand its economy, it must both conclude this deal and continue in its effort to open up to China. Passo states, “A stronger economy strengthens Taipei’s position in any eventual talks with the mainland. Isolation weakens it.”
While many in Taiwan view this deal with apprehension in that it could squeeze the island too close into China's orbit; I take a contrary view of it and see this more as a possible Trojan horse for Taiwan to help socialize privatization and liberalization in mainland. Like the reversal of fortune tied up for the Soviet Union in the Helsinki Accords, this deal may ultimately do more to undermine China more than Taiwan with the significant socialization repercussions that are rife in the deal that creates linkages between open Taiwanese sectors with their more-closed Chinese counterparts. Don't underestimate Taiwan's private sector actors - the guerrilla capitalists behind the Taiwanese Tiger - or their ability to alter the Chinese business landscape. In addition, the increased people-to-people interactions through business, culture and closer societal contacts between China and Taiwan may prove to have a public diplomacy impact not yet understood or appreciated.
When I entered the US Pavilion at the 2010 World’s Exposition in Shanghai, I anticipated the presentation of the nation’s character to its predominately Chinese audience and hoped to deconstruct its message. I wondered what virtues, ideas, personas, landmarks and struggles would, in the brief experience of Expo, encapsulate the entity I have dedicated my career to studying. After entering the Pavilion I stood among over one hundred mostly Chinese tourists fascinated to know more about the United States. US student ambassadors greeted each cohort of tourists in Mandarin, and to my absolute delight, the first of the Pavilion’s three videos was charming and human. A camera crew highlighted Americans of all stripes struggling to fluently welcome the Chinese audience in their native language with the phrase “Welcome to the US Pavilion.” Their gaffes and errors were real and I respected the racial and ethnic diversity, as well as the regional spread of those selected to participate. From there, I expected the second part to grant depth to a light introduction. Instead, the video discussed corporate innovation all while showcasing the inspiring daydreams of American children. This left me at a loss. American corporations are highly competitive in the area of scientific innovation and in past World’s Expositions, this has stood as a highlight within our presentations to the world. But within the US Pavilion in Shanghai, American corporate sponsors seemed to soften their corporate and scientific strides beneath the Crayola-drawings of local school children.
The third video gave me further pause. This 4-D presentation entitled “The Garden” showcased a young girl living in a rather dreary neighborhood with a dream of renovating an abandoned lot into a community garden. Most of her neighbors peered at her efforts to plant a flower in the lot with suspicion and unfortunately, her poor flower was vandalized many times until the neighborhood pitched in to help. The garden was almost finished when it began to rain and all of her adult neighbors scattered for the cover of their homes. The little girl gave up her dream but the next day, the guilt-ridden neighbors had recovered their efforts and the community garden was a success. As an academic, I could not help but deconstruct the cultural messages within the film. Once again, the US Pavilion communicates to its international audience that our initiative stems from the idealism of our children and that many American adults are suspicious, unhelpful and afraid of the rain. Such presentations of the national character within the US Pavilion force me to ask a difficult question…”Is the vapid nature of the US Pavilion a true reflection of the American character in 2010?”
To answer my own question, I think it would be fair to say that while the presentation within the US Pavilion does not reflect the entire character of the nation, it may be chronicled as one of the more careless efforts made by the US at a World’s Exposition. Future scholars may indeed assert that the US Pavilion does reflect a trend of special effects replacing substance and reality shows replacing serious narrative. As an American Studies scholar, I believe the greatest tragedy is its failure to capture the provocative complexity of the American experience. With the Expo theme of “Better City, Better Life” the US Pavilion had limitless opportunities to construct for its audience the American experience through the lens of its cities. Like all great cities of the world, our cities have been sites of progress and pain, the seats of governance and the backdrops for some of our greatest triumphs and tragedies. Before entering the US Pavilion, I expected the Philadelphia of our Constitution, the New York City of our Ellis Island, and the Los Angeles of our Hollywood. I hoped for the realities of our history of labor strife a la Haymarket Square in Chicago and the pain of our Detroit race riots. I also imagined the glory of thousands of Women Suffragists marching down Pennsylvania Ave in Washington DC and the sweetness of the birth of jazz in our jewel of the South, New Orleans. And as the world seeks to green itself, I assumed it would have also included the modern efforts of both private citizens as well as corporations based in cities across the US to contribute to the creation of a better planet even with the help of our…children.
Dr. Kenya Davis-Hayes is the resident US historian at California Baptist University and is seeking a Masters of Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School. Beyond the walls of academia, Dr. Davis-Hayes sits on a number of organizational boards and in 2007 was appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to the California Council for the Humanities. She is currently summering in Shanghai and enjoys deconstructing the cultural messages of the world's pavilions at the 2010 World Expo.
SINGAPORE – Uneasy about relying on water imported from Malaysia and determined to sustain its booming growth, Singapore devotes much effort to innovative water planning. The Singapore River has become a giant reservoir, rainstorm runoff is carefully collected, used water is treated and recycled, and the island nation’s five million residents are expected to be stingy in their water consumption.
A world leader in maximizing water assets, Singapore willingly shares its expertise. An intellectual hub for these efforts is the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, where the Institute for Water Policy recently celebrated its second anniversary. The institute’s director, Professor Seetharam Kallidaikurichi, has set forth an ambitious agenda, which includes studies of water governance, evaluations of global water quality, and recommendations about best practices in water management.
The vitality and seriousness with which the institute addresses such issues is a reminder that water-related assistance is an underused tool of public diplomacy. Rather than an “advertising” approach to public diplomacy (“We are wonderful! Love us!”), water diplomacy answers a crucial question often asked by recipients of public diplomacy efforts but just as often ignored by public diplomacy planners: “What can you do for us?”
Throughout the world, few things are more precious than a safe and abundant water supply. A country that can help another nation improve the availability and quality of water is likely to win friends, regardless of how the respective governments get along. Water diplomacy is an excellent tool for the United States to use in improving relations with Syria, which is enduring a prolonged drought, and other countries where the public has been indifferent or even hostile toward American interests, but would welcome water-related assistance.
Public diplomacy does not need to be a unilateral enterprise. Engaging in water diplomacy offers the United States an opportunity to develop international partnerships for creating and delivering public diplomacy programs. A U.S.-Singapore joint venture in this field would enhance both countries’ credentials as leaders in improving lives throughout the world, and for the United States it would be an improvement on the go-it-alone approach that characterizes much of its foreign policy. Private sector participation by foundations and corporations should be another facet of such partnerships, and could include funding for research into ways to combat water-borne diseases.
Developing the concept of water diplomacy requires an essential, but often neglected, element of public diplomacy: imagination. Too much public diplomacy today has become a process of simply going through the motions in overblown public relations campaigns that misjudge the needs and underestimate the sophistication of global publics. Actually improving people’s lives is given short shrift, and as a result public diplomacy fails to reach its potential as a means of advancing national interests.
Yesterday– 18 June 2010 – marked the seventieth anniversary of one of the great broadcasts in the history of international broadcasting: the broadcast from London of General Charles de Gaulle to the people of German-occupied France. Speaking at 10 PM from the fourth floor of Broadcasting House in London the general called for free Frenchmen to join him in the UK and fight on against the Nazis. ‘Whatever happens,’ the General pledged, ‘the flame of the French resistance must not be extinguished and will not be extinguished.’ His broadcast and subsequent talks over the BBC rallied many in France to fight on and the ‘appeal of 18 June’ is remembered in France as a moment of national rebirth. The day has been marked by a visit from President Sarkozy to the BBC and press hullabaloo on both sides of the English Channel.
The appeal of 18 June has a number of lessons for contemporary public diplomacy. It is a reminder of the historical impact of the radio, which still has a role to play in today’s world. More than this it is an example of the public diplomacy of empowerment. The British government could (and did) address the people of France themselves, but Churchill for one understood that there was infinitely more to be gained from empowering a credible Frenchman to speak. One can imagine how counterproductive it would have been if Churchill himself had broadcast to France that day, and told the people that he wanted them to fight on. Britain used a similar proxy approach in its broadcasting to the United States: placing special emphasis on facilitating the broadcasts of Edward R. Murrow and other American correspondents rather and appealing directly for American aid.
Finally it should be remembered that working with allies is not necessarily the easiest option. De Gaulle was a difficult customer even in the extreme situation of June 1940. He had pretty much appeared at the BBC that day and demanded to address his people. De Gaulle’s handler at the BBC – Leonard Miall -- became one of the first of many Britons to experience the legendary wrath of the great man. It fell to Miall to explain that because his appearance at Broadcasting House had been unexpected and the BBC had not scheduled a definite repeat transmission of the broadcast, his historic words had not been preserved on one of the only six recording circuits then possessed by the corporation. Suitably upbraided, the BBC was sure to record the General’s second broadcast on 22 June, which became the first of a daily series heard around the evening mealtime in France. The rest is history.
Philip Seib and Shawn Powers have already written about the report. I think the report contained three especially good things:
1) It calls for the much-delayed confirmation of the eight new members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, held up by some of Senator Lugar's fellow Republicans, especially Senator Tom Coburn. "The Board has not had a formal Chairman since June 2008 when the incumbent left to become the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy for the remainder of the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration did not formally submit candidates for a new Board until November 2009, but [Senate] action on them is still pending as this report was going to print. This is especially unfortunate because the changing circumstances that have confronted the BBG since the current Board members were emplaced in 2002, both technical and geopolitical in nature, require immediate attention; attention the current Board is understandably reluctant to address given the nominations waiting in the wings."
The report also states: "In the medium term, Congress must decide whether it is time to consider another management structure if Board staffing difficulties persist." The "staffing difficulties" are caused, at present, by Congress, specifically by Senate delays. In international broadcasting, credibility is the most important commodity. Credibility requires independence. In the Western democracies, public broadcasting entities funded by license fees or by government grants maintain their independence by being governed by a bi- or multi-partisan board with fixed and staggered terms. Return to politically-appointed management of U.S. international broadcasting will change the tone of U.S. international broadcasting, which will be detected by the audience, which will tune elsewhere.
2) The report defends the need for balance in the reporting of US international broadcasting. "[I]n order for the BBG to be credible to its audience and draw in not just those who already agree with U.S. policy, its networks must be permitted to present both sides of an argument." This is in contrast to Senator Coburn, who has said: "The U.S. taxpayers should not subsidize content presenting a balance between the truth and the regime's malicious propaganda. U.S. broadcasts should be the balance to the propaganda being broadcast by the regime and others."
3) The report acknowledges, though briefly, the 800-pound gorilla of U.S. international broadcasting, which is the amount of duplication between entities: "VOA is intended to provide its listeners with news and information about the United States, the world and the particular region to which it is broadcasting. The surrogates are intended to focus their reporting on the news from inside the countries they are broadcasting to. In reality, each does a little of both to the point that some are questioning whether one or the other is necessary."
I have more comments about the Lugar report's specific recommendations at my website.
As a museum curator who has spent most of the last decade dabbling in the collection and display of objects in order to frame rich historical narratives for the civic and educative enrichment of culturally diverse audiences, I can conscientiously admit that there are things an exhibition is capable of doing and things an exhibition cannot accomplish. In fact, it is folly to say one knows exactly just what impact an exhibition with any given theme may have on any audience whatsoever. Whether the artifacts on display are works of art, rare alchemical texts, natural historical wonders, or even an array of symbolic stuff that is intended to “win the hearts and minds” of foreign audiences, an exhibition, to conjure an idea from one of my favorite writers, also has the potential to be experienced as a “house of deceit.”
The title for this entry, at least in part, comes from Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis, the utopian novel published in 1624, which depicts an ideal future where scientific inquiry and self-enlightenment are the order of the day. The sole academic institution of this hypothetical society, known as “Salomon’s House,” belies an accurate depiction of this fabled country as a whole, since it contains (quoted in the original language): ”. . .divers curious Clocks; And other like Motions of Return. . .We haue also Houses of Deceits of the Senses, where we represent all manner of Feats of Juggling, False Apparitions, Impostures, and Illusions.” Exhibitions intended for viewing by the general public began in 1737 at the Paris Salon, a watershed moment where the showcasing of cultural artifacts (in this case, fine art) was meant to educate, influence taste, and ultimately enlighten in a very particular way all who visited. And since then, I contend, all exhibitions, as they are executed by human beings who cannot escape their own prejudices, are biased and tell only half the truth, sometimes half-truths, and at other times falsehoods altogether. Admittedly, in the case of the American pavilion at the Shanghai Expo, one wonders what efforts (or in this case, lack of effort) an exhibition’s organizing team will go to perpetrate a very specific national image on the high-stakes stage of this world’s fair.
America has at times succeeded and at other times failed to juggle effectively its image in juxtaposition with representations of/by other countries at international expos since the Great Exhibition of 1851. Back then, as today, expectations of how a country would “play” to the vast and mostly indigenous audience of the host country were irrationally inflated. There, in the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park, on an enormous parcel of gallery floor-space requested by the American committee that included Levi Woodbury, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Senator Jefferson Davis, who was on the Board of Regents of the fledgling Smithsonian Institution, and oceanographer Matthew Maury, the U.S. exhibition commissioners displayed a curious array of products (for the emphasis of the Great Exhibition was indeed the sharing in one place of “the industries of all nations”).
On view were Cyrus McCormick’s Virginia grain reaper, Matthew Brady’s daguerreotypes, Indian rubber goods by Charles Goodyear, and Samuel Colt revolvers. Lesser items included an “air-exhausted coffin” that could hold off a corpse’s physical decay, transparent soaps meant to resemble stained glass, Cincinnati pickles, and Hiram Power’s Greek Slave, which Punch took as a cue to mock America’s lack of ingenuity (and exhibits, in general) at the Exhibition: “Why not have sent us some choice specimens of slaves? We have the Greek Captive in dead stone—why not the Virginian slave in living ebony?” Even American Horace Greeley, who served as a juror for the Exhibition award-committee, showed embarrassment at the overall pathetic contribution the United States made at this event visited mostly by English subjects. The proverbial jury is still out on whether these pangs of conscience he suffered included the slavery issue which was about to boil over.
And today it seems everyone has weighed in with an argument as to how the American pavilion at Shanghai has been a disappointment, “drab,” and one of many “odd, international museums,” to quote the LA Times, even going so far as to blame the previous U.S. president outright for our current state of cultural diplomacy (does everyone forget that President Clinton effectively shut down the USIA in 1999 amid his own political wheeling and dealing?). To gain a little perspective on the U.S. record for cultural diplomacy, Richard Arndt, former diplomat and director of the Bureau for Educational and Cultural Affairs (who in part had something to do with these exhibitions of American values), states: “The golden years of cultural diplomacy began to fade four decades ago…Meanwhile, the sharp rise in foreign non-understanding has become a national nightmare. Yet few have suggested that a crippled cultural diplomacy might have anything to do with either cause or cure. Cultural diplomacy’s decline has thus passed unnoticed, leaving a nation baffled by its apparent defenselessness against the cultural onslaught of an enraged Islamic fragment.” Certainly, responding directly to the last portion of the above quote, the current U.S. pavilion would look much different if the Expo were staged not in Shanghai but in Riyadh, or Casablanca, or Dubai. This begs the question, what exactly was the American pavilion in Shanghai designed to show the mostly Chinese audience?
Those who derogate the U.S. presence in Shanghai are absolutely right, to a point. Sure the overt presence of corporate marketing is a problem as are the miserably inadequate greetings from famous (and some infamous, in my opinion) Americans on large TV screens. This model of displaying products as “the forbidden fruits of the West” worked during the Cold War when American thematic exhibitions catered strategically to the have-not Soviet masses (see my CPD Perspectives Paper on this topic, here). Bob Jacobson’s comment in his May 31, 2010 commentary in the Huffington Post helps clear the air a bit on who is to blame for an American pavilion whose message (if there ever was one) has fizzled: “Privatizing American public diplomacy was the Bush Administration's policy. Regrettably, the Obama Administration, rather than repealing this policy, has instead accelerated its application.”
But there is a bright spot in this that some have acknowledged but only in passing: the presence of English/Chinese-speaking American students who serve as cultural ambassadors at the U.S. pavilion. This tool of public diplomacy was first instituted in the 1947 Marshall Plan exhibitions, which were small, traveling caravans that crisscrossed Europe in order to explain the U.S. objectives in a creative and up-front fashion to a shell-shocked, post-World War II Western European population. And the presence of these able young Americans has been a constant in U.S. exhibitions abroad since then. Frankly, if I were a Chinese visitor to the American pavilion, I would be much more interested in talking with an American university student about how real Americans live than with a U.S. politician, star athlete, or current celebrity who has recently starred in “Thingy-Thingy-Blah-Blah, Part III.”
And yes, the U.S. could have done much more with the interpretive spectacle of its lackluster pavilion that will be on display for another few months. Does anyone remember the Brussels International Exposition of ’58, the first world’s fair of the post-war period, where the U.S. pavilion featured a curious, separate exhibit called “Unfinished Business?” In this sensitive and creative take on American social problems, mainly segregation, the U.S., amid its flashier discussion of scientific progress, art, music, and other cultural pursuits, gave visitors an intimate glimpse of some of the darker realities of American life.
The idea, taken loosely from Lincoln’s “unfinished work” phrase in the Gettysburg Address, emphasized what the Belgian newspaper Le Peuple praised as America’s greatest perceived strength, at least at Brussels: “Let’s face it: only strong democracies are in a position to talk as well of their qualities as their faults. Our thanks to the United States for having demonstrated this at the Heysel.” Though this exhibit was modified by executive order after a number of Southern congressmen took issue with its racial overtones, the U.S. had made a statement: we’re flawed, deeply enmeshed in some very large problems that we can claim as our own. We know this. Yet one of our shining virtues is that we acknowledge democracy is a work in progress. It is not perfect, but it's the best thing out there.
And to quote Lincoln again (this is the message we should have sent to the millions upon millions of Chinese visitors who visited our pavilion), that despite our problems, we still celebrate our “government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” Let’s stop deceiving ourselves and win points by discussing our unfinished business openly. Everyone knows our problems anyway. So, in the future, let’s discard this “air-exhausted coffin” of an American pavilion concept and spend more time and energy sharing with the world our national treasures as well as our national faults.
The conversation began innocently enough - sitting on a porch in Half Moon Bay, overlooking, ironically, The Mavericks - where only the best come to surf and conquer the monster waves.
“Cari, you’re a Five Tool Wife,” remarked one of my husband’s friends.
At first, I wasn’t sure whether to be offended or complimented. When I asked for an explanation, he offered the analogy of the Five Tool Player, a term used in baseball to describe a player that has it all and succeeds in every critical skill necessary to excel over the long-term. The Five Tool player, he clarified, “hits for Power, hits for Average, has Skills & Speed, exceptional Throwing and Fielding skills.”
As he shared some names of famous Five-Toolers in baseball, outlining each area in detail, I started thinking about the global skill sets that make for a Five Tool Executive and Diplomat. As I am immersed day to day through my Business for Diplomatic Action role in engaging and guiding corporate executives in public diplomacy efforts, it got me thinking about those incredible Five Tool Diplomats and Executives I’ve had the opportunity to work with and learn from over the past decade. And then I wondered, what do they all have in common that has helped guide their success internationally? What are the critical skill sets that comprise a Five Tool Corporate Diplomat?
In my mind, the foundation upon which a Five Tool Corporate Diplomat concept should be based begins with an acknowledgment at the outset that a global mindset is a critical component upon which all other skill sets are formed. Seasoned successful diplomats and global executives have this in spades; however it is hardly a uniform skill set and many acknowledge it is a difficult area to teach, especially in the business world where diplomacy has never been seen until very recently as a critical skill set.
Few MBA schools dare to delve into this area, yet Thunderbird, the #1 ranked international MBA program in the US, is leading the way with their GLOBE research efforts and Global Mindset diagnostic tools. The Global Mindset, as Thunderbird defines it, is encapsulated below and comprises the first three or my five tools: Psychological Capital, Intellectual Capital, and Social Capital. In a nutshell they mean: we must know ourselves and the environment extremely well, be open and constantly learning, and finally, know how to build and leverage trusting relationships.
The Thunderbird approach echoes attributes and traits that other global executive development experts have been espousing for decades. As Camille Lavington, (noted personal executive marketing authority and author of You’ve Only Got Three Seconds) recently shared, “In my work with executives who reach the pinnacle of their careers and then go further and farther in their success, their ability to harness and leverage a combination of powerful global skills to develop their own unique brand of influence and power makes all the difference. How they do what they do and why are the keys to un-locking the mystery of what makes a Five Tool Executive.”
The final tools, Passion and Discretion, round out what I would define as a Five Tool Corporate Diplomat, and are derived from my experience working globally with successful global execs and diplomats. All of the global mindset capital in the world cannot make for success unless it is paired with passion and discretion.
The Five Tool Corporate Diplomat:
Psychological Capital – Enthusiasm for diversity; Self-assurance, self-confidence, and willingness to challenge oneself; Involves leveraging intellectual capital; Toughest to develop, takes a long time, based on experience.
Intellectual Capital – Knowledge of industry, market, competitors, cultures, world events; Easiest to develop
Social Capital – Ability to build trusting relationships with people from different parts of the world; Involves excellence in networking, listening, and negotiating
Passion – Powerful and enduring enthusiasm for working globally, with people from different from parts of the world.
Discretion -- Ability to make decisions and choices with prudence; the quality of being discreet, or careful about what one does and says
When taken as a whole, the Five Tools require an individual to have a high sense of self-awareness and the ability to understand and then implement changes in their behaviors as the environment and situation dictates. As great athletes (and particularly Five Tool players) know, you identify and focus on where you are weak, then work daily to build improvement. To some extent, improvement in any sport is easy to track - you simply follow stats and can readily measure improvement. Similarly, successful diplomats know that they have to, in their own way, constantly practice and hone their craft. With executives this is a difficult area to measure, especially since so much of this work is impacted by cognitive abilities, personalities and experiences. What is important to recognize about the Five Tools outlined above is that they are universal, and can be applied to anyone working anywhere, in any field, in any sector, including governments and non-profits. There is much we can all learn from Five Tool Executives and Diplomats that can help guide anyone who plans to pursue a global career.
In light of venerable journalist Helen Thomas’ outburst and prompt retirement last week, I would be remiss if I didn’t take a moment to emphasize the last tool, Discretion. This day and age of instant and ubiquitous communication, where seemingly every detail of one’s life and every thought is regularly posted, tweeted, and blurted out (and everyone is obsessed with social media as a preferred message platform) has me longing for the days when discretion was seen as a virtue. Discretion, after all is a key component for building and leveraging trust, influence, and power.
Discretion demands wise conduct and management, cautious discernment, and self-control. Thomas Jefferson, when reflecting on the power of society, spoke of a “wholesome discretion” and Scottish novelist Walter Scott eloquently offered, “Discretion is the perfection of reason, and a guide to us in all the duties of life.” Helen Thomas’ blatant disregard for the impact of her words, especially from someone who has built her life’s work on informing the public of current events, is not only irresponsible - it is one more example of how we’ve lost the art and skill of discretion in American society. However, I take comfort in thinking of all the Five Tool Executives and Diplomats I’ve had the pleasure of observing or working with, like Keith Reinhard and Ambassador Marc Grossman, who in their own way epitomize not only a global mindset but a grace, elegance, and quiet thoughtfulness that I wish more Americans sought to emulate.
And on that note, it is time for America to take a candid look inward, assess our global mindset and skills sets, and begin the hard work of preparing us all for engaging effectively with the world. Subsequent generations of Americans will be increasingly interconnected and global and it is incumbent upon all of us to do our part to prepare those generations to compete and lead on a global scale.
As we hurtle closer to the November elections, with crisis after crisis unfolding on a domestic and geopolitical scale, it is important to keep a global, long-term perspective. I don’t know about you, but I could also really go for a “wholesome discretion” movement right about now. The Five Tools can be a guide for success in our daily lives here at home and for those of us pursuing careers abroad.
If you know any five tool corporate diplomats you wish to recognize, please feel free to acknowledge them in the comments below.
On June 9, 2010, Senator Richard Lugar's (R-IN) office, under the leadership and guidance of Senior Professional Staff member Paul Foldi, released a report prepared for the U.S. Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations on the future of U.S. International Broadcasting. The report, titled, "U.S. International Broadcasting--Is Anybody Listening--Keeping the U.S Connected," is by far the most comprehensive, up-to-date and clear writing on the state and future of American international broadcasting. In a field where so much emphasis is placed on the execution day to day tasks, such as finding ways to overcome our radio, television and internet broadcasts from being jammed by the Iranian government, and avoiding potential political controversies, such as finding the appropriate balance between viewpoints in coverage of the Middle East, Lugar's report is an important effort to take a precise tally of the current realties, blemishes and all, of a prominent pillar of America's public diplomacy efforts abroad.
From a quick account of opinion in Washington, D.C., it was clear that the report solicited buy in and consulted almost every possible relevant source of expertise on the topic. At times, the report makes the case for the Alhurra-Iraq broadcast channel even better than the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the group responsible for overseeing and managing U.S. International Broadcasting, publicly has. For example, while some, myself included, have argued that Alhurra Iraq has failed to account for its inability to generate sufficient trust among its Iraqi viewers, Lugar's report includes data from a previously unreleased survey conducted by Intermedia in February 2010 explaining that Iraqis across the board don't trust the news media by much larger margins than anywhere else in the region. Yet, while the report solicited a broad amount of information from the BBG and its research and archives, it is also at times critical of the BBG's structure and management and Alhurra in particular, citing work by Shibley Telhami calling into question the popularity of the broadcaster in the Middle East, a long and ongoing exposé conducted by ProPublica outlining the ongoing management difficulties surrounding Alhurra's operations, and a study commissioned by the BBG and conducted by USC's Center on Public Diplomacy outlining a multi-methodological and systematic critique of the Alhurra's journalistic quality.
A basic but critical contribution coming from Lugar's report is its aggregation of difficult to research and easily discern information, such as the exact budgets allocated for all American broadcasting efforts in Iran, China, and elsewhere, how much of the budgets are broken down between the different responsibilities of each of the broadcasters, as well as how the budget for international broadcasting compares to the overall resources dedicated to public diplomacy by the American government. It is these basic building blocks of information that are actually very helpful, and often overlooked, in pursuing productive, grounded, rational and deliberative conversations about the future of American public diplomacy programs.
The report is level-headed on questions of new communications technologies and platforms, an area of growing controversy (for example, see Evgeny Morozov on the risks of over-reliance on new technologies). On the one hand, the report points to the expanding role for new media platforms in promoting U.S. International Broadcasting journalistic features, laying out the comparative uses of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube among American and popular foreign international broadcasters. Yet, on the other hand, the report also notes the importance of maintaining and perhaps even expanding the technological capacity for radio dissemination in places throughout Asia and Africa where Shortwave radio continues to be heavily relied upon, in autocratic countries, where jamming of satellite and Internet dissemination continues to prove effective, and during crisis and humanitarian situations such as that witnessed earlier this year in Haiti.
Importantly, and unlike so much that is written on the topic, Lugar's report is forward looking. Again, pointing to one of the BBG's biggest successes, Radio Sawa, a radio channel that has attracted significant listenership through its use of popular Arab and Western music to draw in Middle Eastern youth, Lugar's report points to declining audiences, arguing that while Sawa's style--mixing popular music with smaller doses of political news--was innovative at the time, it has failed to continue to adapt as regional radio stations have caught up and improved on the format. In the midst of the current revolution in digital communications technologies, innovation among traditional broadcasters is critical to maintain audience interest and engagement, and Lugar's report points to an important area where second-level innovation is needed, and quickly.
One of the report's recommendations is especially worth noting here, though I would recommend anyone interested in international broadcasting download the treatise in its entirety. The report quite bluntly spotlights a reality that is increasingly noted in academic and popular scholarship on broadcasting, but still unresolved in government circles: that the Smith-Mundt Act, a piece of legislation enacted in 1948 limiting the dissemination of materials generated by U.S. International Broadcasters domestically, is outdated, unenforceable and counter-productive. Pointing to the huge growth in presence and accessibility of foreign news media, both public and private, inside the U.S., Lugar's report states clearly: "It is time to recognize the anachronistic nature of the legislation in light of new technologies and how it hamstrings our own government while foreign governments and broadcasters have no similar impediments," calling on Congress to "revisit the Smith-Mundt legislation." Hear, hear, Senator Lugar.
Lugar's report will serve as a critical text for the future of U.S. International Broadcasting, and the timing could not be any better. Walter Isaacson, current President and CEO of the Aspen Institute and former Chairman and CEO of CNN and the Managing Editor of TIME, was nominated to be the Chairman of the BBG in November 2009 and is reported to be thinking outside the box when it comes to the future of American broadcasting. In 2007, Isaacson wrote about the need for dramatic overhaul to create "an organization for public diplomacy in the digital age. This is a field in which America, with its values and media savvy, should be triumphing, but instead it is failing astonishingly. The outmoded structures of the Broadcast Board of Governors, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and the like -- built for an analog broadcast era -- should be swept away for a coherent agency empowered to create an honest and open information strategy built for the age of blogs, social networks, digital streaming and satellite." Well, Mr. Isaacson, there is no better place to start thinking through the details of such a broad and important shift in structure and organization than with this detailed report on the state and future of U.S. International Broadcasting.
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), the ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has done something remarkable: issued an honest appraisal of America’s public diplomacy broadcasting. That the report has found U.S. efforts flawed is no surprise, but the willingness of Senator Lugar to publicly state this is welcome relief after so many government efforts to paint a ridiculously optimistic picture of U.S. public diplomacy achievements.
For the report, titled “U.S. International Broadcasting – Is Anybody Listening? – Keeping the U.S. Connected,” Senator Lugar asked the committee’s Senior Professional Staff Member Paul Foldi to look principally at the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which oversees Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, the Middle East Broadcasting Network, and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting. Even in the Internet era, radio and television broadcasts still reach huge audiences, and any country that ignores this does so at its peril.
The BBG has not been fully staffed since 2004 or had a chair since 2008. Meanwhile countries such as China and Russia are pouring money into international broadcasting ventures as they try to win friends, particularly in Africa, Latin America, and other places where access to natural resources and political alliances are essential elements in building global influence. The Lugar report urges the United States to catch up.
The first step in doing so is to end reliance on Cold War operating models and recognize the explosion of diversity in international broadcasting. Al Hurra, the U.S. government’s Arabic-language television news channel, was created as if there were audiences eager to hear from America because they had no reliable home-grown news sources. That, however, is no longer true. With Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and many other broadcast news providers in the Middle East, people there no longer need to rely on outsiders’ views of the region’s events. Although hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on Al Hurra, it does not have a significant audience and needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
The Lugar report also shines light on China’s restrictive news environment. While strictly limiting the number of outside correspondents allowed into the country, China is investing the equivalent of US$6 billion in upgrading its broadcasting outreach capacity. China has even purchased a radio station in Galveston, Texas to deliver its brand of information. The station might not have many listeners, but it is evidence of China’s assertive efforts to send its message to a global audience.
Some encouraging news comes from the Voice of America’s Persian News Network, which is encouraging “citizen journalism” among its Iranian constituency. Members of the audience can upload videos from their mobile phones directly to VOA. This recognition of the capabilities of new technologies is unfortunately rare in U.S. broadcasting ventures. More needs to be done to recognize that audience members are no longer passive recipients of news, but rather want to be involved in a dialogue in which they provide as well as receive information. That kind of partnership is a critical element of modern public diplomacy.
Senator Lugar promises that he will address various aspects of public diplomacy. His doing so might push the State Department and White House toward making public diplomacy a more integral part of U.S. foreign policy. That would be quite an accomplishment.
As the host of 2010 FIFA World Cup, South Africa aims to create a more compelling, dynamic brand image of the country. Its Consul General in Shanghai discusses the South African brand and its co-branding with the World Cup at the Expo.
While attending a Wilton Park (UK) conference on the future of public diplomacy, I was pleased to see this facet of foreign policy gaining traction. About 50 diplomats and a handful of academics took part in discussions ranging from the military use of soft power to the roles of religion and sports in public diplomacy.
If there were no epiphanies, there were certainly moments when it became clear that foreign ministries are gradually treating public diplomacy more seriously and that those of us who favor greater emphasis on this approach to international relations have reason to hope.
The conference was well populated by representatives from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office who seemed to appreciate that they have much work to do, as do their American counterparts. During the conference, the BP oil spill crisis became more acute in its effect on the British public, with headlines in the British press such as, “Obama Has His Heel on the Throats of British Pensioners.” This referred to the breadth of investment in BP, by pension funds and individuals, and underscored that in this era of broad and fast information flow, more attention must be paid to the volatility of public opinion or valuable relationships will be put at risk. Chats between an American president and a British prime minister will not suffice.
Other countries, as well as international organizations, were represented at the conference, ranging from Liechtenstein to China, and each faces its own public diplomacy challenges. Israel, which has so long nurtured its “brand” as a democratic haven in the Middle East must deal with worldwide anger about the Gaza flotilla debacle. NATO and the EU are still trying to shape public perceptions of their identities. Pakistan is looking for ways to emphasize its steps toward democracy rather than its suspected affinity with the Taliban. Turkey is crafting its more visible global presence. Afghanistan wants to be seen as more than a place of constant conflict. The list goes on.
At conferences such as this, diplomats and scholars have a chance to retreat from daily work pressures (Wilton Park is located in the beautiful West Sussex countryside) and look beyond “what is” and consider “what might be.” Among those attending, there was growing recognition that public diplomacy is not simply a nice gesture and that it requires more than hucksterism. But some important questions remain to be answered: What skill sets do public diplomats need? Should public diplomacy be an all-of-government venture or be centrally managed? How should Internet and mobile phone technologies be used more effectively as diplomatic tools? What roles do diasporic populations and “virtual states” play in international affairs?
During the three days at Wilton Park, these issues were discussed but certainly not resolved. On departing from the conference, our agenda was longer than the one we entered with.
WASHINGTON -- A recent “pivot” of U.S. sanctions policy toward Iran, Sudan and Cuba was discussed in detail this morning by a senior State Department official.
Alec Ross, Secretary Clinton's Senior Advisor for Innovation, said the new policy is designed to promote access to global education and culture by permitting certain telecommunications equipment and services to flow to those countries. Export of those equipment and services had previously been blocked by U.S. sanctions.
"In authoritarian environments it is important to get access to technology," said Ross, adding the U.S. will promote the distribution of free downloadable software to open access to the uncensored global Internet and thus reduce those countries' political, educational and cultural isolation.
In addition to promoting open access to information, Ross said the U.S. has initiated a campaign to actively support "grassroots organizations" around the world.
Ross singled out bloggers as worthy of support, describing blogs as "the samisdat of the 21st century." And he said the fastest growing primary medium for access is not broadcasting but the mobile telephone, especially in developing countries. When Secretary Clinton took office, he said, there were four billion cell phones in the world, and now, just over a year later, the number is almost five billion.
One handicap faced by the Obama administration, according to Ross, is the lack of "global, timely" information on Internet censorship around the world. A few countries get all of the media attention, he said, but Internet censorship is a problem in "dozens of countries" around the world.
Speaking at a Media Access Project conference , Ross said what is at stake is not just the Internet but civilization itself.
He compared 2010 to the year 215 A.D., when the flourishing scientific and cultural center of the world was located in Alexandria, Egypt. In that year, Roman emperor Caracalla took offense at the robust political satire there and ordered the massacre of all 20,000 of the city's “combat age” men and boys. That led to the decline and eventual destruction of the world’s greatest library and research center, which had been the birthplace of science and technology since the third century B.C. And Islam's golden age ended similarly, when Damascus and Baghdad abruptly ended open access to information.
By contrast, he said, Europe's rise dated to opening access to information and culture through he invention of the Internet of the era - the printing press - which ended the dark ages and enabled the advances of the Enlightenment.
It has now been a year since the historic Iranian presidential election and its volcanic aftermath. Some in Iran, proud of the highest turnout (85%) in Iranian election history, consider the day (June 12) a time for glory, while others, in the defeated Reformist camp, consider it a memorial day for those who lost their lives in the violence. Like so many other issues in Persian politics, the 2009 election has also sparked much discussion and debate. Throughout the whole period, experts and politicians inside and outside Iran, and especially here in the United States, have been grappling with the question, "How should we help democracy in Iran?". In answering that, some have used the opportunity to excoriate Iran and push the U.S. towards yet another war, some have urged United States to be "on the right side of history" by supporting the opposition, and some have argued for a policy of non-interference as the best U.S. can do to help democracy in Iran. The burning question now is: whose lead to follow?
Regarding the first notion, a military option, a quick look at circumstances in the ten-year-old Afghanistan war and the deteriorating sectarianism in Iraq should make everyone well aware of the catastrophic consequences of another military move, let alone one on Iran, the so-far island of stability in the Middle East.
While the war discourse seems to be far from being even close to dominance these days, the second paradigm, supporting internal and external Iranian opposition groups through different public diplomacy programs, seems so captivating that it is really hard for any other alternative thought to be heard. Here I would like to move a bit against the flow by proposing another way to deal with Iran. But before jumping to other alternatives, let's speculate on the possible outcomes of supporting opposition in a country like Iran, weighing the pros and cons.
Based on the historical data, the United States, at its best, might be able to engineer another coup d'état (or color revolution) bringing a friendly government to power in Iran, a scenario very similar to the one in 1953 (a small opposition which toppled Mossadeq and brought back the Shah). But is this a desirable outcome for the United States? While at face value, the Shah was friendly towards the U.S., Iranians saw his dynasty repressive at home and subservient abroad. This built up a huge reservoir of anti-American sentiment among Iranians, swelling day by day until the Iranian revolution erupted in 1979 with its well-known hostility towards the U.S. Since then, for nearly three decades, relations have been sour, leaving missed opportunities of shared interest behind. If the status quo is undesirable and is a result of a coup in Iran 50 years ago, why should the United States make the same mistake again? Such a notion, that toppling governments in other countries will lead to favorable results, is not only against international norms but also naïve and far from being practical these days. Critics might then argue - if not regime change, how about helping the opposition to gain momentum itself?
There are experts who oppose that view too. From their point of view, various congressional legislations and presidential plans for three decades have provided the opposition with millions of dollars, hoping it would strengthen the flow. The results, however, have been nearly insignificant and sometimes even counterproductive. For one thing, such financial aid has a bad reputation in Iran. Iranians are fiercely independent and they are sensitive to internal interference from other countries, especially the United States (even with good intentions), unless they approve. Any word or deed, based on the policy of supporting opposition in Iran, is viewed as interfering in Iran's affairs and those involved, even though themselves Iranians, are viewed as traitors to their home country. Iranian Opposition groups seeking outside financial support will do nothing but separate themselves from Iranian politics and remain incapable of playing constructive roles.
If there is any change it will be from within. In fact, two important anti-government protests in Iran (1999, 2009) have been grassroots, orchestrated by groups inside the country. U.S. support has been nothing but detrimental to their cause, their wishes are quickly interpreted to be those of foreigners and thus de-legitimized not only in the eyes of the leaders but also among people.
Should the United States stay aside and do nothing? Well, here is an alternative perspective. The 2010 U.S. National Security Strategy asserts: "Many years of refusing to engage Iran failed to reverse these trends; on the contrary, Iran’s behavior became more threatening". Let's take President Obama's platform of "change" seriously and apply it to U.S. public diplomacy towards Iran. For once, instead of taking the so-far impotent measures, the United States should make a departure from the old path. It should follow the policy of rapprochement, mutual respect, and non-interference in Iran's affairs. This will not only open the gate for cooperation on common grounds, but also build up trust among Iranians, decrease anti-Americanism, and give some space to those who want to criticize the government without getting associated with a foreign country. Likewise, public diplomacy funds, if not reduced, should be directed at projects of mutual concern such as sports, environment, health, education, and new energy.
As for the democratic movement in Iran, we should not forget that Iranians, on their own, were capable of launching a revolution thirty years ago while the United States and many others were taking the opposite side. Today it is still the same nation, and if there is any strength in the opposition movement for change, it should be derived from a spontaneous and perfectly Iranian grassroots level. The current American strategy of taking sides with particular groups is harmful not only to its national interest but also to the process of democracy in Iran.
Let’s begin with the positive: the United States is present at the World Expo in Shanghai. The Secretary of State deserves praise for making this possible, by launching an eleventh hour fundraising drive, after the previous administration had done virtually nothing (besides rejecting a proposal that included Frank Gehry as architect). The Chinese cared enough about the U.S. presence to have contributed both public and private funds to guarantee that the U.S. showed up for Expo Shanghai 2010.
In this age of globalization and social networking, a World Expo might seem a quaint throwback to a bygone era. But for many countries, including, notably, China, it offers a global platform to present strengths and salient characteristics to the world. For example, Japan, known for its technology, powers its “green” pavilion partly from the footsteps of visitors who are treated to violin-playing robots, a single-person prototype car by Toyota, as well as a historical exhibition on Japan’s envoys to China. In its pavilion, Indonesia highlights cultural diversity; the United Arab Emirates emphasizes sustainability, a key focus of the country, with a recyclable dune shaped pavilion. Almost without exception the pavilions dazzle with innovative architecture, and with unusual shapes, colors, and lighting, as in the case of the United Kingdom’s pavilion-- a futuristic display of 60,000 transparent fiberglass rods with different seeds enclosed at the ends, designed by British artist Thomas Heatherwick.
So far, the Secretary of State’s comment, “It’s fine,” seems to be the highest praise the U.S. Pavilion, with all the design brilliance of a suburban shopping mall, has garnered. In the only positive article we could find, besides the one written by the Secretary General of the Pavilion himself, one of the 160 Chinese speaking “student ambassadors”—a brilliant idea — notes the smiling responses of Chinese visitors to the welcome messages — in Chinese — from famous Americans ranging from Kobe Bryant to President Obama. But the student ambassador Dan Redford also observes that the USA Pavilion lacks anything about “our history, our education system, or our role in global affairs… American democracy, or elements of our past and present that have come to define us as Americans.”
If all that is missing, what on earth could the content of the Pavilion be? The main event appears to be a “4-D” film about a girl working with her neighbors to make a vacant city lot into a garden, a theme evidently considered in keeping with the Expo’s theme, “Better Cities, Better Life.” The ambiguous location has been identified by some as China; at any rate, it is not recognizable as America. But no matter, because the film really is all about the special effects—shaking seats, real mist, — “a sense of immersion for our visitors,” according to the Pavilion’s website. If this sounds eerily like Disney World, you are right. One of the two people responsible for the design and content of the Pavilion is Nick Winslow, a special effects professional and theme park advisor (the other was Ellen Eliasoph, a partner in the Beijing branch of a leading American law firm).
Others have delved into the murky background of how these two private citizens with little relevant background or expertise were given free rein to determine the design and content of the Pavilion. We have a question that has not been asked to date: why did the State Department not apply the tried and true approach to corporate sponsorship that museums and performing arts companies have used for years, namely that the fundraisers fundraise, the corporate sponsors sponsor, and the experts execute? When a corporation sponsors a museum exhibition, they do not curate it. When a private funder underwrites a dance, play, or opera, they do not select and perform the work in question. When a government funds an exhibition at the Venice Biennale, the grants officer does not curate it. In each case, a curator/choreographer/artistic producer is hired to make the artistic and cultural decisions. If corporations act as curators and artistic directors as well as funders, it can hardly come as a surprise that the result is… well, corporate.
“A supply storage shed,” “a temporary NASA administrative building,” a “combination Bose Sound System/Air Purifier,” are some of the choice descriptions of the USA Pavilion, designed by Canadian architect Clive Grout. Canadian architect? Were there no architects in the U.S. up to the task? The only explanation we could find is that Grout is a “long-time associate of Winslow.”
Similarly, how could the U.S., arguably the global leader in film, be represented by a “4-D” extravaganza that would be at home at a theme park? If film was the chosen medium, why was a qualified curator not hired to do the programming? There are plenty of curators and experts who could have assembled moving, thrilling, and thought-provoking film selections. Who knows, films that actually touch upon some of the key characteristics of American society and history might have been included. Instead, at a cost of US $23 million the U.S. offers a film on the greening of an unidentifiable location, plus a short with leading Americans—and corporate representatives—talking about how they have added to the well-being of their communities. How to explain this mystery? Once again, it helps to be a friend of Nick Winslow, as was Bob Rogers, CEO of BRC Imagination Arts, the firm hired to coordinate the Pavilion programming.
The sorry tale of no-bid contracts and cronyism is bad enough, but most regrettable, and baffling of all is the implicit decision made from the outset to relegate the design and content—the medium and the message—of the Pavilion to the private sector. It almost appears that the State Department does not take the power of cultural outreach and “soft power” seriously.
At this time of budget constraints, a public expenditure on a World Expo, even one in China, probably could not be justified (even though, it is the largest Expo ever, and will be seen by an estimated 75 million people, and countries such as Japan and Australia have spent $140 million and $75 million respectively on their pavilions). And while it might be a stretch to match the brilliance of past publicly funded exhibitions, notably Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic dome at the Montreal Expo of 1967, the lamentable form and content of the USA Pavilion could have been avoided if someone had taken this important opportunity for cultural outreach seriously. Creative products number among the U.S.’s top three exports; American architects, filmmakers, writers, artists, dancers, musicians, and actors are global leaders in their fields, yet none were enlisted. The varied dimensions of America’s story are examined in ways entirely consistent with the country that stands for freedom of speech in film, theater, visual arts and other forms of expression, and yet the USA Pavilion says nothing about what makes America unique.
The Pavilion in Shanghai is just the most visible example of the outsourcing of America’s outreach to the world. Northrop Grumman and Boeing no longer vie only for aerospace contracts; they also compete for “smart power” projects in areas from aid to “strategic communication.” To some degree this acknowledges budget realities. But it also reflects the continuing diminution of cultural outreach or “soft power” approaches within the State Department. Whether it was cynicism, other priorities, or an active dismissal of the importance of crafting a message for the Pavilion (beyond its mere existence) does not really matter. The result is $61 million dollars spent, and an opportunity lost.
If the U.S. does not take the power of cultural diplomacy and “soft power” seriously enough to invest time and money, there is one superpower that does: China.
Cynthia P. Schneider is a CPD Research Fellow and Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy, Georgetown University. Her full bio can be found here.
Hailey Woldt is the Research Director of the Global Initiative for Cultural Diplomacy, sponsored by the Abu Dhabi Authority for Culture and Heritage, Georgetown University, and the Brookings Institution. She was formerly an Ibn Khaldun Research Fellow at American University and a research associate at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University for the project "Journey Into America," the most comprehensive study of the Muslim community in America to date. In 2006, she traveled to eight Muslim countries for fieldwork and contributed to the book Journey into Islam: The Crisis of Globalization by Akbar Ahmed. She has published extensively in newspapers and journals and has lectured at several universities and think tanks. She graduated Magna Cum Laude from Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service with a certificate in Muslim-Christian understanding and a degree in culture and politics.
Israel's 2009 war on Gaza has been exhaustively documented: some 1,400 Palestinian deaths (compared to 13 for Israel), a vast, rubble-strewn landscape, international condemnation culminating in the hard-hitting and controversial "Goldstone Report" from the UN, and a blockade, tacitly approved by the U.S. and EU, that led to a humanitarian crisis, and ultimately to the high-seas catastrophe this week on the Free Gaza flotilla.
Less understood, but perhaps no less important, has been the rupture in relations between two of the biggest military powers in the region: Israel and Turkey. This week, in the wake of Israel's commando raid on the flotilla, Turkish President Abdullah Gul declared that relations with Israel would "never be the same again," adding: " Turkey will never forgive this kind of attack in international waters."
This, of course, cannot be good news for Israeli leaders. The political and military alliance between these regional powers was probably more important for the Jewish state, which had looked for a "trusted friend" in the region ever since the 1979 Iranian revolution ended Israel's cozy relationship with the Shah.
Turkey became that "trusted friend," perhaps in part because of a powerful history between the two peoples. In 1492, when the Alhambra Decree ordered the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, Bayezid II, the Ottoman sultan, sent ships to the Spanish port of Cadiz to bring the Jews into his empire, saying: "They say that Ferdinand of Spain is a wise man, but he is a fool. For he takes his treasure and sends it all to me."
Modern Turkey's military found its own treasure from its collaboration with Israel. As Emile Hokayem summed up this week in The National (Abu Dhabi):
The Turkish military is a prime client of Israeli technology and hardware. Israel’s defence industry has upgraded Turkish planes and tanks, sold missiles and communications technology. Israel had plans to provide the Turkish military with satellite access and air defence systems. Israel, in other words, has been key to Turkey’s defence modernisation. In return, Israel received space where its air force, navy and army could train, and a relationship with Nato’s second largest military. Defence co-operation extended to training and joint exercises between Israel and Turkey, many of which were held secretly.
Now that relationship appears all but shattered, owing directly to Israel's military and diplomatic blunders, and the plummeting opinion of the Jewish state, and the Turkish-Israeli alliance, among Turks of all stripes.
The first hard blow was the Gaza war and its aftermath – in particular, a long, condescending speech made by Israeli President Shimon Peres on the stage of the 2009 World Economic Forum in Davos. Also on stage was UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Arab League chief Amr Moussa, and Turkish Prime minister Tayyip Erdogan. When Peres spoke for nearly twice as long as any other speaker, rambling on almost nonsensically at times – “Israel does not want to shoot anybody”; “the people in Gaza are not our enemies” – Erdogan began to respond. The moderator, David Ignatius of the Washington Post, cut Erdogan off, insisting, "We really do need to get people to dinner." (Clearly, Very Important Stomachs were grumbling.) An incensed Erdogan stalked off the stage, vowing never to return to Davos.
At the time some observers declared this as merely stagecraft for a leader playing to his Turkish public. In part, of course, that was true. What these observers underestimated was Erdogan's genuine anger, backed by public protests against Israel and in support of the people of Gaza. Erdogan, who had been brokering back-channel discussions between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights, said those talks were essentially ended by the Gaza war.
"Turkish public opinion could not agree with the fact that Israeli aircraft would be training on Turkish territory, while at the same time there are gross human rights violations being committed in Gaza," Suat Kiniklioglu, a spokesman for the Turkish parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, told Deutsche Welle.
Meanwhile, a Turkish television show depicting Israeli soldiers as murderous raised a fury in Tel Aviv. The result: a stunning and deliberate diplomatic gaffe committed by Bibi Netanyahu's foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, in a January 2010 meeting with Turkey's ambassador to Israel, Ahmet Oguz Celikkol. For the photo op, Ayalon arranged to be sitting above his Turkish counterpart, so that he could literally look down on him, and made sure the television shot omitted the Turkish flag, showing only Israel's Star of David. This orchestrated public humiliation only worsened the two nations' already fragile relationship. The situation was salvaged, somewhat, when Ayalon finally apologized just before Turkish president Gul's deadline to recall the ambassador to Ankara.
Both Ayalon and Turkish leaders, of course, were playing to public opinion, which have each grown increasingly nationalistic as the conflict with the Palestinians hardens feelings.
For Turks, as for the Arab world, the continuing images of Palestinian suffering, especially in Gaza, fuel ever greater public rage and street protests at the Jewish state. Yet for Israelis, virtually any criticism by outsiders tends to confirm a sense of alienation from the rest of the world. This is fueled by centuries of tragedy – most of all, of course, by the Holocaust itself. The sense of ongoing victimization – you could call it the politics of "never again" -- plays on a visceral level among the Israeli public. The ever presence of the Shoah (Hebrew for Holocaust) has penetrated so deeply into culture and politics in Israel that military leaders describe security policy as "Shoah-proof," according to Avraham Burg, the Israeli author of The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From Its Ashes. "This national tragedy became a de facto national strategy," writes Burg.
These deep-trauma politics explain why Israeli candidates for prime minister last year competed with each other to be ever tougher on Gaza. And they are why Netanyahu, in the wake of a high-seas raid outside of Israel's territorial waters, in which at least nine civilians died, was able to state, without a shred of evidence, that the Free Gaza flotilla was "full of terror supporters," rather than of humanitarians attempting to deliver food, toys, and medical supplies to Gaza. (Ayalon chipped in, also without offering evidence, that the flotilla "was an armada of hate and violence," and that its organizers had ties to Hamas and Al Qaeda.) Stretching credibility further, the prime minister added: "There's no humanitarian crisis in Gaza." And then, tapping a deep place in the Israeli psyche, Netanyahu declared, "We will never apologize for defending ourselves."
But the bungled raid in the Mediterranean, combined with Israel's defiant response, likely add up to the final blow to Turkey and Israel's strategic alliance. The flotilla, flying under the Turkish flag, had strong support across Turkey. In the wake of the tragedy, Erdogan called the raid a "bloody massacre," accusing Israel of "state terrorism." Protesters in Istanbul surged toward the Israeli consulate. And amid calls for an international investigation, Turkish lawmakers promised a review of the nation's ties with Israel. The entire incident has even prompted speculation that, despite the flotilla's civilian roots, Erdogan was looking for a reason to cut ties with Israel.
Whatever the case, Turkey had begun moving away from its alliance long before the "Fiasco on the high seas". Over the last 18 months, Erdogan has become the most visible public champion of the Palestinians. And last month, Erdogan and Brazil's Lula brokered a tentative nuclear deal with Iran, much to the irritation of Israel and the Americans, who said it didn't go far enough.
But last Saturday, Erdogan essentially accused Western powers of hypocrisy in their dealings with Iran, saying, "you do not show the same approach here but you stir up the world concerning Iran. I do not see this as a fair, honest and sincere approach." He added: "We do not want nuclear weapons in our region" – a message to both the U.S. and Israel about the perceived double standard in nuclear nonproliferation. It was yet another example of the continuing rift in the Turkish-Israeli alliance.
Then, barely 24 hours later, Israeli commandoes stormed the Free Gaza flotilla, apparently shattering what was left of that alliance.
There has been plenty of bad news concerning the unimaginative U.S. pavilion at the World Expo in Shanghai. But let me for the moment, share a little good news.
Indeed, like many who have visited the pavilion, I couldn’t find any “wow” moments. Still, there are noteworthy highlights, especially when viewed from the vantage point of a Chinese visitor.
It is important to bear in mind that the Expo is not made for everyone ─ just like state fairs are not for everyone. While the Expo is billed as a global gathering, it remains primarily a local event. This is particularly true of this Expo, with more than 90% of the visitors coming from China. Therefore it is all the more meaningful to discuss the Expo from the perspectives and experiences of the locals, rather than from afar.
For many Chinese visitors, the greetings by President Obama and Secretary Clinton, projected on giant movie screens, are considered a highlight. The two American public diplomats, popular celebrities in their own right in China, appear personable, engaging, and respectful. This is poignant, because in the Chinese context people do look up to leaders and authorities, and in terms of communication style, Chinese leaders are, in contrast, often seen as remote and removed.
There is a lot of criticism of the ubiquity of corporate logos in the American pavilion. There is certainly nothing inherently wrong with corporations being involved in such events. In fact, one may argue, as corporate citizens, they should contribute to such global engagement based on their enlightened self-interest. The question is how.
I also think some of the “brand integration” in the pavilion was poorly executed (e.g., the prominent logo featured on the polo shirts worn by spokespersons in one of the movies). Any marketer would find such placement crude and not smart at all.
Fortunately, in China, American brands (including most of the pavilion sponsors) are well liked and even admired. The Chinese people are probably more trusting of the brands from these companies than the policies of the American government. Needless to say, Chinese brands pale in comparison as well.
If there is one shining moment at the U.S. pavilion, it is the “student ambassadors.” These are American college students who come from across the country to volunteer at the pavilion as guides to Chinese visitors. (By the way, my home institution USC is the lead school for this program, but I am not personally involved).
More than any other country at the Expo, America is better represented through the physical presence of these young people (all speak some level of Chinese). They have daily, direct contact, pleasant or otherwise, with Chinese visitors who typically have to wait in line for a couple of hours to get inside the pavilion. This is truly people diplomacy in action.
Most importantly, these young people represent the future of U.S.-China relations and, for that matter, of America’s relations with the world.
To find out more about Jay Wang's CPD research project: Nation Branding at Expo Shanghai 2010, click here.
According to Media Tenor, a Zurich-based research institute, like other recent world expositions, Expo Shanghai only received scant attention in the international media prior to its grand opening on May 1.
This is hardly surprising. The Expo, as it is currently conceived and presented, is simply not a media magnet to start with.
First, there is no compelling storyline for the event. Granted, each Expo is themed (this year’s being “Better City, Better Life”), but that doesn’t necessarily translate into a narrative thread that helps to tell the story of the Expo, especially to media audiences.
In this regard, the broadcast coverage of the Olympics, another global event, is completely different. The telecast of the two-week event is almost like a mini-TV series, replete with dramas and personalities.
Which leads to my second observation as to why the Expo is not gaining the kind of media attention it in fact deserves. Indeed, the Shanghai Expo is spectacular and exhilarating on many fronts. Still, it comes across as being primarily about organizations, with country pavilions front and center. Yet it will take people and personalities to breathe life into these pavilions and their stories.
The Expo represents one of the few globalizing moments when the world comes together to celebrate its cultures and innovations, and when we can grasp a sense of our common destiny. But in today’s clamorous media environment, importance doesn’t always beget media and public attention.
Perhaps the Expo should take a page from one of the U.S. reality shows The Amazing Race, which just concluded its 16th season with part of the final competition taking place in Shanghai.
Although the race to win the million-dollar-award was the focal point of the show, using the city as a backdrop of the competition, it effectively showcased both the trendy and traditional sides of Shanghai; not to mention many entertaining, and at times enlightening, cultural encounters by the contestants.
Incidentally, the Shanghai episode had some 10 million television viewers. I doubt if any state-led promotion of the city would be able to arouse as much audience interest as the show did.
To find out more about Jay Wang's CPD research project: Nation Branding at Expo Shanghai 2010, click here.
With the recent earthquakes that devastated Haiti and Chile, the concept of aid diplomacy has arisen in the global consciousness. Aid diplomacy is predicated on the notion that in times of crisis, nations can do well in public diplomacy terms by doing good works for those in need.
Recently, as I wandered around Stanford University, I was reminded of what might be the first case of American aid diplomacy.. On display at the museums and library of Stanford’s Hoover Institution and Hoover Tower is a moving reminder of the remarkable example of aid diplomacy carried out by Herbert Hoover.
With the outbreak of the Great War, the engineering magnate Herbert Hoover undertook efforts to organize relief and transports for Americans stranded on a European continent descending into strife. As bloodshed and chaos played out in the northern European theater of Belgium, global attention turned to care of the starving women and children in the battlefield that the country had become. Hoover’s previous efforts of organizing logistics for relief efforts for those Americans trapped in Europe led the American Ambassador to Britain to ask him to organize the Commission for the Relief of Belgium (CRB).
Hoover answered the ambassador’s request, and went on to found and direct what was termed: “[a] pioneering effort in global altruism.” Under Hoover’s leadership, the CRB fed and cared for Belgian women and children who were starving under German occupation as well as from the British naval blockade. The CRB provided food, medicine and clothing to millions of Belgians as well as those in Northern France on a daily basis until the war came to a close.
The museum offers moving anecdotes related to the CRB’s efforts, stating that the Belgian children were: “shivering, grasping bowls and pitchers and the precious little cards that would guarantee them a meal. Upon receiving his or her allotment, each would pause, bow and utter a single word: Merci.”
Meanwhile, when America entered the Great War in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson appointed Hoover as head of the U.S. Food Administration. With the war’s conclusion, Hoover served as the director general of the American Relief Administration (ARA), Hoover coordinated humanitarian relief to more than 20 countries. The ARA even conducted a massive famine relief effort in Bolshevik Russia from 1921 to 1923, and fed more than 11 million people a day at its height.
On display at the Hoover museum and libraries are various remembrances of the aid efforts and its public diplomacy value seen in the “Save the Children of Belgium” posters alongside pictures of Belgian appreciation rallies and letters of friendship to honor American fidelity to the people of Belgium. There were other pictures of later orphan efforts carried out by the ARA in Poland, Austria and Lithuania. Alongside the pressed flower gifts sent as thanks by children in Belgium, there were numerous “Thank You” letters featuring the American and Belgian flags together. Meanwhile, there were sacks of grain in bags declaring the contribution’s provenance from Southeast Iowa or stating its nature as a gift contributed by the People of Kentucky to Belgian noncombatants.
“An American epic,” was what Hoover termed his efforts and declared that it demonstrated American responsibility to the people of Europe. The example offered by Herbert Hoover’s aid efforts are a stirring reminder that the existence of a friend in need is the possibility for good public diplomacy of the deed.
Paul Rockower is a graduate student in the Masters in Public Diplomacy program at USC and a PDiN research intern at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. He graduates this week and will miss CPD :(. You can follow his misadventures at: http://levantine18.blogspot.com.
The focus of the week was on Middle Eastern politics, media, and culture, and the students had an opportunity to gain an Arab perspective on critical issues facing the region. The group was initially welcomed by AUD President, Dr. Lance de Masi, who spoke about the mission of AUD and its role as an American educational institution in the UAE.
While in Dubai the group met with leading individuals in the Emirate. One of the first meetings was with the U.S. Consul General in Dubai, Justin Sibarell, who spoke about U.S. efforts in the UAE and the broader region. Observing the varied roles and operations of a U.S. Consulate was an insightful experience, and the group discussed many issues with the Consul General pertaining to U.S. Public Diplomacy and the work of the Consulate.
Later on in the week, UAE Minister of State H.E. Reem Al-Hashimy welcomed the MPD students for a discussion about the UAE and broader Middle East (see above). The Minister spoke about the vision of Dubai and the UAE, its Public Diplomacy efforts, and the successes and setbacks that it has incurred over the past few years. The MPD students’ discussion with Al Hashimy involved ways to improve U.S.-UAE and Middle East relations and the possible public diplomacy efforts that can be undertaken by both parties, who have positive relations, to help facilitate mutual understanding between other parties in the region.
The group had a chance to travel to the Abu Dhabi Media Company and visit the offices of the English-language newspaper The National and meet with its executives. Back in Dubai the group got to tour the MBC Group and its pan-Arab television news station Al-Arabiya where they had a chance to sit with its Executive Editor. In addition to visiting these two Arab media institutions, the group also observed various panels with other media figures and journalists, gaining important insights into how to address Arab publics, as well as the issues that face Arab media and its viewership. Overall, the MPD students got to observe the growing importance of Arab media as an international broadcasting actor and its role in local and international affairs in the region.
In addition to politics and media, the group got an understanding of Middle Eastern culture from leading academic, government and media figures. Talks regarding the history, economy, religion and culture of the region helped give the MPD students a richer understanding of the complexities that make up the Middle East. As a complement to the formal meetings, the American University in Dubai organized trips to the Sheikh Zayed Mosque. The MPD group also joined AUD students on a desert safari. In addition, the final two days gave the USC group an opportunity to explore Dubai and its numerous tourist destinations.
Shortly after the graduate students returned, six undergraduates studying film and communications at AUD visited USC as a reciprocation of the student exchange. The students sat in on classes at Annenberg and the USC School of Cinematic Arts, and toured both schools and their facilities. They also met with numerous USC administrators and faculty, and spent time with the MPD group that participated in the Dubai exchange.
This exchange was a success on many levels. It gave the MPD students an in-depth, behind–the-scenes understanding of Dubai and the region, through their numerous interactions with leading individuals. In addition, a relationship was fostered between both groups of students which will continue to enhance the understanding and the institutional relationship between both USC and AUD.
John Nahas graduated from the University of Southern California with a bachelor's degrees in Political Science and Communication with an emphasis on Middle East politics and American Foreign Policy. He is currently in his second year of the Master of Public Diplomacy program at USC and recently concluded an internship at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Middle East Center in Beirut, Lebanon. John is also the President of the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars and is a Senior Editor for PD Magazine .
MOSCOW---To commemorate the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, Russia staged an impressive Victory Day celebration on May 9, with plenty of troops and military hardware rolling through Red Square and a display of air power in the sky above Moscow. On first glance, it was just like the good old (or bad old) days.
But among those troops on parade were U.S. and British soldiers. Joseph Stalin’s picture was banned from the many posters in the center of the city, and Lenin’s Tomb – the reviewing stand for so many Cold War ceremonies – was covered by a billboard.
So, is this finally the new Russia, reaching out without the defensiveness that has so long characterized its attitude toward the rest of world? Particularly with regard to the United States, the answer is “No.”
The problem is not a Cold War hangover, but rather a series of more recent American actions. The bombing of Belgrade in 1999, NATO’s expansion, and President George W. Bush’s plan to establish an anti-missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic are among the reasons for what Russian foreign policy experts and American diplomats here cite as pervasive anti-Americanism.
President Obama has rolled back the missile-defense plan and shows little interest in adding more former Soviet-bloc states to NATO. But an “Obama bounce” in opinion about the United States is hard to find here. In a survey conducted last August, respondents named the United States as Russia’s principal enemy, followed by Chechen separatists. In a more recent poll, a solid majority of respondents picked the United States as “the biggest threat to Russia’s national security,” with North Korea and Iran trailing far behind.
The United States Embassy in Moscow is well equipped to respond to this. Ambassador John Beyrle is fluent in Russian (he writes a Russian-language blog) and is highly visible. He recently opened an exhibit paying tribute to his father, a U.S. serviceman who was captured by the Germans during the Normandy invasion in 1944, escaped from his POW camp, and joined Russian forces as they fought their way toward Berlin. In addition to the ambassador’s efforts, the embassy staff works hard on exchange programs and other useful projects.
Lacking, however, is support from Washington in the form of a carefully thought-out and articulated U.S. public diplomacy policy toward Russia. With so much emphasis on public diplomacy toward the Arab world, crucial matters such as improving relations with Russia get too little attention. Needed is a coherent, cohesive public diplomacy strategy for Russia, endorsed by the White House and State Department, as the foundation on which American diplomats in Russia can build.
In my conversations with Russian international relations experts, I asked: “Doesn’t Russia consider Iran a threat?” “Yes.” “Isn’t China seen as a serious competitor?” “Yes.” “Well, then, is there not common ground for a new U.S.-Russia détente?” “Yes, but….”
The “but” comes from an unspecific but entrenched feeling that the United States treats Russia today as a second-rate power. The days when the Soviet Union, along with the United States, dominated global politics are not yet so distant that they have lost their resonance. Virtually everyone I spoke with talked about anti-Americanism among older people who remember the Cold War and, more disturbingly, among younger people with limited education – a huge number – whose nationalism flares when ignited by perceived U.S. insults.
Responding to this is not so different from meeting challenges facing U.S. public diplomacy elsewhere in the world. Wherever these challenges arise, they must be met by a sophisticated and comprehensive public diplomacy strategy. Until that is created, U.S.-Russian relations will only get worse.
On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1070 into law, legalizing one of the harshest immigration enforcement laws this country has seen in decades. SB1070, dubbed by some as the “Papers, Please” law, is a hefty piece of legislation whose creators claim that the unprecedented crack down on illegal immigration will lead to safer neighborhoods in Arizona.
In the past few weeks, this law has spurred controversy and outrage across Arizona and the United States. There have been countless protests, rallies, marches and in some cases, vandalism (a swastika made of refried beans was found smeared on the doors to the Arizona Legislature ). Supporters of this law say that it is necessary, that the time for real law enforcement is long overdue. Critics say that it is a violation of basic human rights and will inevitably lead to racial profiling in the state.
Though there has been much debate about this law’s impact on both Arizona and the rest of the U.S., its potential consequences have yet to be explored in a key area: its effect on our public diplomacy with Latin America, and most significantly, Mexico. It is no secret that bad domestic policies can lead to bad public diplomacy, and given the national and international nature of this law, U.S. public diplomacy is in a prime position to suffer as a result of Arizona’s actions. The federal government must take swift action to address the discriminatory elements at the core of this law, lest we further strain our relationship with our southern neighbors.
Amidst other things, this law requires that all documented immigrants in Arizona carry their alien registration paperwork at all times. It also stipulates that any law enforcement official has an obligation to stop people and ask for their documentation should the official have “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally.
Critics have decried this idea of “reasonable suspicion:” what does an “undocumented” person look like, exactly? Is there a particular “undocumented” behavior that law enforcement officials will be able to identify? How can law enforcement officials suspect illegal status on any basis other than race, color or national origin? Immigrant and human rights advocates throughout Arizona and the U.S. have raised these and other questions in opposing this legislation and its predisposition to racial profiling of people of Hispanic descent.
Activists on this side of the border aren’t the only ones outraged - and here’s where public diplomacy comes into play - various foreign countries have expressed their disappointment and indignation. Cognizant of the fact that many of their citizens now reside and work in Arizona, the governments of Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador have issued harsh statements against this law.
Since Mexico’s national image has been dealt the heaviest blow as a result of this law, its response, not surprisingly, has been the most critical. Five days after SB1070 was signed, the Mexican government issued a travel warning to its citizens, stating "there is a negative political environment for migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors" in Arizona.
Upon hearing these statements, SB1070 proponents would probably argue that Mexico’s response is unlikely to go beyond words because of its financial and economic dependence on the U.S. Though the U.S.-Mexico relationship will probably survive this law, it does appear that President Felipe Calderón’s government is more likely than previous administrations to take action in the face of legislation that specifically targets so many of its people.
In fact, Mexico has already begun putting its outrage into action beyond the initial travel warning. For instance, Guillermo Padrés Elías, the governor of Sonora, Mexico, canceled a bi-national trade and tourism meeting of the Arizona-Mexico Commission; no such cancellation has happened in the last 50 years. In addition, at least one Mexican airline, AeroMexico, plans to cancel flights to Phoenix. These items accompany national and international calls for a boycott of Arizona.
For those who are skeptical about how much the U.S.-Mexico relationship depends on the politics of Arizona and other Border States, consider the following numbers and statistics:
• More than 30% of Arizona’s population is of Hispanic descent.i
• “Each day, more than 65,000 Mexican residents are in Arizona to work, visit friends and relatives and shop, according to a University of Arizona study sponsored by the Arizona Office of Tourism.” ii
• “While [in Arizona], Mexican visitors spend more than $7.35 million daily in Arizona's stores, restaurants, hotels and other businesses.” iii
These numbers illustrate two important points:
1) This law is going to harm and discriminate against people of Mexican descent who have a right to be in the U.S. whether through tourist visas, green cards or work visas.
2) Both nations have something to gain economically from an amicable relationship. Therefore, both also have something to lose from the fear-provoking, hostile elements of Arizona’s new law
Yet another point about SB1070 that could severely harm our public diplomacy is the issue of safety for Latin Americans living and working in Arizona. Law enforcement priorities will likely undergo a shift from policing our neighborhoods and communities to enforcing immigration law, which should be a federal responsibility. This shift in policing raises a red flag for both human rights advocates and law enforcement: what will happen in our communities if people are too scared to report crimes for fear of being deported themselves, or for causing the deportation of a neighbor, relative or friend? Though this law is intended to protect Arizona, it may lead to an increase in crime if there is a policing shift from crime to immigration. SB1070 also stipulates that Arizona residents can legally sue law enforcement officials for not doing their jobs. If we don’t protect the people who immigrate to this country from around the world, we certainly won’t be able to “win their hearts and minds” through public diplomacy.
The final nail in the coffin (and a piece of legislation not many have heard about) is the Arizona ban on ethnic studies classes. On April 29, 2010, the Arizona Legislature passed HB2281, a bill that would ban all ethnic studies (read: Chicano studies) classes from the state. Apparently, “schools will lose state funding if they offer any courses that ‘promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.’” If there was any doubt regarding the true political agenda of Arizona’s legislators, HB2281 certainly makes it clear. If requiring every person with brown skin to carry his/her papers won’t make our public diplomacy with Latin America more difficult, surely prohibiting public education about students’ Hispanic heritage and culture will.*
Our future ties with Latin American countries hinge on the consequences of Arizona’s law, and in no country is that more true than Mexico. The rumors that other states, like Oklahoma, may try to implement similar legislation will only hurt our ability to foster beneficial relationships with our southern neighbors. Given the various factors that have plagued the U.S.-Mexico relationship over the years, including drug wars, arms control, and border violence, SB1070 and its inevitable consequences do not seem like a risk we should be willing to take.
Should SB1070 survive its pending legal challenges, the U.S. has much diplomatic work ahead to clean up Arizona’s mess before the law takes effect on July 28. We will be hard-pressed to restore our image with Mexico and other Latin American countries in the wake of such misguided domestic policies. The time for critical words and harsh jabs has passed; the time for real action and reform is now.
Hilary Tone is a 2009 graduate of the Master of Public Diplomacy program at USC. She currently lives in Tucson, AZ and is the Communications Coordinator for Border Action Network, a nonprofit human rights organization that works in immigrant and border communities across Arizona to ensure that their rights are respected and dignity upheld.
It’s hard to tell whether Arizona’s reputation at home and abroad is going to be damaged more by enactment on April 23rd of the state’s draconian new immigration law or by the WE cable network’s new reality program “Sunset Days,” a sort of Geriatrics Gone Wild in a Phoenix-area retirement community. But for purposes of this essay, let’s assume it’s the new law, which has been denounced by no less than the hard-nosed sheriff of Arizona’s Pima County as “unwise, stupid and it's racist.”
SB 1070, the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” has spurred considerable high-profile international criticism of Arizona. José Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the Organization of American States, has declared that “this law would make immigration equivalent with crime and create foundations for racial discrimination which we consider unacceptable.” Human Rights Watch has also weighed in, stating that SB 1070 “violates an international anti-racism treaty that Arizona state officials are obligated to uphold.” The staid—and globally ubiquitous—Economist has excoriated the Arizona statute as “Hysterical Nativism: A Conservative Border State is at Risk of Becoming a Police State.”
But the injury Arizona is inflicting with SB 1070 is not merely upon itself. The law also has the potential to diminish American soft power, the international power of persuasion and attraction. As was the case during the Civil Rights era a half-century ago, the policies of individual states or regions can have significant foreign relations effects.
Here are just three examples.
First, SB 1070 provides adversaries with a handy cudgel to wield against the U.S. As journalist Mort Rosenblum has noted, Al Jazeera made the new law its lead topic when the story broke, and they have continued their coverage since then. China’s official Xinhua news agency has gleefully reported that the “Arizona Immigration Bill Further Divides U.S.” Cuban propaganda media declared that the law “appears to have been written by Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa,” which might seem overblown except that the Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles has described SB 1070 in similar terms. And Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela has added the criticism that the law “is inconsistent with human rights….an ongoing violation against our Latin American compatriots.”
Second, and related to the previous example, the Arizona law will erode American moral authority, especially if other states follow the Grand Canyon State’s example. This, in turn, makes it harder for the U.S. to engage in important foreign policy efforts such as advocating tolerance and civil rights for minorities like the Uighurs and Tibetans in China, Sunnis in Iraq, Arabs in Israel, Baha’is in Iran, and Chechens in Russia. Even before the enactment of SB 1070 the Kremlin swatted away the most recent U.S. State Department Human Rights Report as rank hypocrisy, coming from a country rife with "racism and xenophobia toward migrants.” This kind of dismissive response to U.S. human rights advocacy will only get easier in the wake of the Arizona law.
Third, the Arizona Law will dissuade many foreign students from attending American colleges and universities, which figures like Joseph Nye and Colin Powell identify as a key U.S. soft power vector. Dr. Ángel Cabrera, the president of the Glendale, Arizona-based Thunderbird School of Global Management, one of the world’s top-ranked business schools, which draws more than half of its student body from outside the U.S., is anxious that SB 1070 runs completely counter to his institution’s mission and interests: “The whole message of the school is that we are an open place….You want to give a message as Arizona as an open land of opportunity. This is a big blow to our brand.” Similar concerns are being raised by the state’s public colleges and universities, with the University of Arizona’s President reporting, "We have already begun to feel an impact from SB1070.” For the moment the negative soft power effect is limited to Arizona, but again, the results will be greatly multiplied if SB1070 is emulated elsewhere in the U.S.
It’s unfortunate that Arizona has taken a starkly different path from its eastern neighbor New Mexico, a state that explicitly celebrates its ethnic diversity. The promotional literature for Santa Fe’s current 400th anniversary celebration touts the New Mexican capital’s history as an Indian settlement, Spanish capital, Mexican capital, and U.S. state capital over the past four-plus centuries. New Mexico’s multi-cultural tradition contributes mightily to the U.S. State Department’s use of Santa Fe as a regular stop on its International Visitor Leadership Program—just one example of New Mexico as a U.S. soft power asset. (For other examples see my earlier CPD essay on the subject.) Given New Mexico’s heritage, it’s not surprising that both Governor Bill Richardson and Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish, the presumptive Democratic gubernatorial candidate in the upcoming election, have come out strongly against the Arizona law.
Localities in the U.S. all too often act in what they believe is their parochial interest, without considering the larger ramifications of their internal policies. But the international scrutiny of Arizona SB 1070 is a reminder of how closely the world watches America—not just Washington, but the individual states as well.
The equation is simple. When the world perceives America to be living up to its ideals, it enhances soft power. When the world sees America falling short of its ideals—and that's the effect of the Arizona law—soft power goes down. We can only hope that other states will think twice before going down Arizona’s restrictionist path and causing a full-blown American soft power crisis.
On 1 July 2010 Xinhua, the news agency of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), will launch a global 24-hour English-language television channel called China Network Corp (CNC). Trial broadcasts began on May 1.
Upon announcing this development, Xinhua’s president, Li Congjun stated that ‘CNC will offer an alternative source of information for a global audience and aims to promote peace and development by interpreting the world in a global perspective.’
This sentence loses clarity in translation from the Chinese; not only is it confusing, but it is characteristic of the sentimental official rhetoric that Chinese officials use to mark landmark events. For further evidence, one need only refer to the largely meaningless speeches delivered at the opening of Expo 2010 in Shanghai.
It is difficult to identify what China will gain by investing in yet another international television station: what will CNC do that CCTV9 is not already doing? Does the launch of CNC English reveal internal competition within the state system for control of China’s public diplomacy strategy? Perhaps it indicates that the Chinese have finally acknowledged CCTV9’s shortcomings and have decided it really is not up to the job. But will CNC fare any better?
The launch of this television station confirms that the leadership in Beijing is confident that it is possible to influence international public opinion and media coverage of China. The government has long criticized the way ‘Western’ media report on China, accusing them of bias by focusing on human rights, Tibet and democracy, choosing to ignore differences in news values between Chinese and ‘western’ news organizations.
Li’s announcement comes on the same day that the BBC World Service published its latest poll (pdf) of 30,000 adults in 28 countries which reveals that views of China have declined sharply. In 2005, 49 percent of people surveyed thought that China’s influence was mostly positive (a striking 11 points higher than that of the United States). However, in the most recent survey China’s standing has dropped to just 34 percent, 6 points behind the US. The official Chinese media responded as expected, alleging that public opinion is shaped by western media organizations which ‘are unsuitably seasoned with misunderstanding, misinterpretation or even bias or enmity’. That old chestnut …
China Daily is of course correct to state that the media can affect public opinion, but the downturn of opinion is not just in ‘western’ countries; the surveys reveal that several Asian countries are also responding more negatively to China than in the past. Besides, when China was ‘more popular’ than the US, the western media did not report news from China any differently. This suggests that Chinese policy – for example, the brutal Chinese handling of disturbances in Tibet and Xinjiang – may have helped to turned public opinion against China.
All in all CNC, CCTV9 and Chinese public diplomacy have a hard job ahead; and more information or channels of distribution does not necessarily mean better communication, especially when CNC and CCTV9 are embedded within the state system and are thus viewed with suspicion by international audiences.
As I have stated in previous dispatches, just because you have a message and a means to deliver it, it does not mean anyone is listening. If few people outside China or outside Chinese-speaking communities (besides those who wish to improve their English) are watching CCTV9, what makes Xinhua think they will turn to CNC instead? CCTV9 is accessible via satellite to some 85 million viewers in 100 countries; what proportion of the 85 million possible viewers are actual viewers?
Rebranding CCTV9 as CCTV News is not going to offer much help in converting these potential audiences to regular viewers. Rebranding rarely succeeds without careful market research and, if necessary, modification of the product. Given that China’s international media are government owned and follow an agenda decided by the state, such a radical transformation of content is unlikely. So viewers will no doubt get more of the same under a different name (does it really matter if the chocolate bar is called Snickers or Marathon?).
The most interesting developments are taking place in China’s international print media. The English-language Global Times (a tabloid attached to the Communist party’s mouthpiece, People’s Daily) is attracting attention for its sometimes critical coverage of some sensitive issues that are rarely reported in the official media.
However, the reason Global Times is able to report such stories is precisely because it does so in English (the Chinese version continues to behave, ad nauseum, as a newspaper under state control) and because it enjoys the patronage of the People’s Daily. Journalists are not testing the boundaries of state censorship or creating new norms and routines of Chinese journalistic practice; they are following directives or clearance to report otherwise topics deemed sensitive for domestic consumption. Again, it raises the question: besides the illusion of media pluralism, what public diplomacy value is there in publishing the English-language Global Times and China Daily, both of which are connected to official organizations? More does not necessarily mean better …
At the end of the day the possible influence of China’s international media will be offset by the actions of its government at home and abroad. Issues of democracy, human rights, Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan will continue to mar China’s public diplomacy for as long as Beijing continues to avoid resolving them sensitively and to the satisfaction of the people living in these areas.
Argentines do not make up a particularly large percentage of the Latino population in the US. The results of the 2010 Census will certainly provide more accurate data, but a 2007 Pew Research Center project established that, though it is the third most populous country in Latin America, Argentina does not figure into the top 10 countries of origin for Hispanic residents in America, lagging behind in fourteenth place and making up a mere 0.06% of the US population. Given the average American’s slim chances of crossing paths with an Argentine in the US, coupled with Argentina’s remote location at the far south of South America, it is not surprising that few people in the US are acquainted with Argentine culture.
Argentina’s recent Oscar success has certainly drawn attention to the country. At this year’s Academy Awards ceremony, where most film experts placed their bets on the German film The White Ribbon, people were surprised when Argentina’s The Secret in their Eyes was announced as the winner in the best foreign language film category. Now playing in major theaters across the US, the movie promises to bring a little piece of Argentine culture to American audiences and possibly spark new interest in the Southern country among the American public.
Given this happy coincidence, the recent launch of “Argentina at the Smithsonian 2010” could not have been timed better. Organized by the Smithsonian Latino Center in partnership with the Secretariat of Culture of the Nation of Argentina, the Embassy of Argentina in DC and other institutions, the series of events consists of a variety of free and ticketed programs and exhibits scheduled to take place throughout the year in the different museums that make up the Smithsonian in Washington DC.
Envisioned as a celebration of Argentina’s bicentennial, “Argentina at the Smithsonian 2010” seeks to highlight the country’s historical, artistic and cultural richness. The holistic approach embraced by its organizers, who have strung together various events distributed throughout several months into a comprehensive and unique program, will allow for synergy among the different exhibits and activities, and possibly attract more attention to the program as a whole. Offering free public events in addition to ticketed ones will certainly ensure a higher turnout, as will the fact that shows and exhibitions are not targeted at a single audience, but instead aim to reach out to adults, children and entire families. At the same time, events are not limited to a particular type, but include activities that range from a simple museum exhibit to a hands-on crafting experience with native Argentine designers.
Beyond the characteristics that seem to point at the program’s success, the reason why “Argentina at the Smithsonian 2010” is particularly interesting is that it features elements of traditional Argentine culture alongside more recently developed cultural expressions and trends. In this sense, music shows are not limited to the well-known tango genre, but they also extend to Argentine rock. And while “The Story of Argentine Wine” may not be new to wine-connoisseurs, lectures and films on Afro-Argentines, often ignored in the study of the country, may expose many Americans to this part of Argentina’s history for the first time. The list goes on, including exhibitions of emerging Argentine photographers, a visit by famous contemporary artist Guillermo Kuitca, and a lecture on Argentine poets in the US. The delectable diversity of Argentine cuisine will feature prominently, demonstrating that Argentina has more to offer beyond outstanding beef. If events in Holland are any indication, empanadas and facturas go hand in hand with the effort to win hearts and minds, as the Prince of Holland’s marriage to Argentine Maxima Zorreguieta was accompanied by a sharp uptick in the popularity of Argentine restaurants in Amsterdam.
While this cultural diplomacy initiative is confined to the Washington Beltway, it has the characteristics necessary to generate interest in Argentina among Americans who visit the events. Hopefully, this program marks the beginning of a series of cultural events that will continue beyond the celebration of Argentina’s bicentennial and generate ongoing interest in the country.
Mariana González Insua is a first year student in USC's Masters of Public Diplomacy program. She is originally from Argentina and recently completed a Masters in Latin American Studies at Stanford University.
To characterize the Shanghai Expo as mainly China’s showcasing of its soft power misses an important point.
It is true that China’s hosting of the event, especially on the heels of the spectacular Summer Olympics two years ago, sends an unmistakable signal of the country’s return to global prominence. Nonetheless, the Expo is also a grand stage where, over the next six months, nearly 200 participant countries will be courting and engaging the Chinese public. And this, I believe, will be of far greater significance and consequence for China, and the world, in the long run.
There are very few mega-events that can grab any global attention. One may count the Olympics, the World Cup, The Oscars, and perhaps the World Expo. But unlike the others, the Expo is not a media event. It is best experienced in person, not much different from visiting an amusement park. The half-year-long event doesn’t make for good television; neither does it lend itself well (at least so far) to presentation in any forms of the new, interactive media. So, the Expo’s global reach and influence will be limited in comparison.
But the bigger story will be in China and inside the Expo Park. According to the official estimate, the Expo will attract some 70 million visitors (only 5% of which will be from outside China). That is, 5% of the Chinese population will be visiting the Expo―more than the entire population of France.
I toured the Expo Park earlier this month. The structures and designs of many of the national pavilions are certainly eye-catching. If there is any gravitational pull of China’s soft power, it is that the entire world is represented in the park. What’s more, participant countries seem to take the event seriously; thereby giving a great deal of face to their host.
The prospect of China being a major global power depends as much on how the Chinese will come to view what’s beyond the Middle Kingdom as on the modes of response other countries will choose to deal with its rise. As Martin Jacques, author of When China Rules the World, has pointed out, the Chinese attitude toward difference will be a crucial factor in determining the outcome.
As the Shanghai Expo brings the world to China’s door-step, Chinese visitors will have an opportunity to sample the sights and sounds of varied cultures and innovations.
Granted, what these national pavilions present are idealized, dramatized visions of their respective countries; still, this is a good start for dialogue, and for a rapidly growing China and the world to ponder a fruitful relationship going forward. To find out more about Jay Wang's CPD research project: Nation Branding at Expo Shanghai 2010, click here.
China’s Confucius Institutes have become a public diplomacy phenomenon. Many public diplomacy researchers have been impressed by the rapid spread of Confucius Institutes around the world. In the United States alone, more than 60 Confucius Institutes have been established since 2004. Meanwhile, around the globe, the Chinese government has opened more than 200 Confucius Institutes in over 80 countries.
Some members of the US Congress have concerns over this trend, and have suggested that the Obama administration open at least four US culture centers in China to redress the imbalance and the disparity in cultural and political influence that the Confucius Institute can bring. Confucius Institutes seem to pop up overnight around the world and have become a distinct symbol of “China Rising.”
Ironically, among the few countries left without a Confucius Institute, one nation stands out: China, the homeland of Confucius.
In fact, the Office of Chinese Language Council International (Hanban), the organizer of the Confucius Institute, has established many Chinese language-teaching institutes in Mainland China that are similar to Confucius Institute. Many universities in China also offer courses in Chinese instruction. But none of them use the name "Confucius" to promote their programs. This is not a coincidence. The phenomenon actually reflects the Chinese government’s usual pattern when carrying out practices of cultural diplomacy.
Chinese cultural diplomatic activities pay close attention to the views of foreign public, but rarely consider the views of their own people on the subject. For example, the figure Confucius, the Peking Opera, and the art of Kung Fu, symbols of Chinese culture in the eyes of foreign public, in fact are not popular in China's mainstream culture.
More specifically, although the Chinese government is using Confucius to promote Chinese culture, the Chinese public often makes fun of the notion of Confucianism. Recently, a film describing Confucius's life ended up being a big flop at the box office. Although many big movie stars acted in the film, people were still not attracted to the movie. This was in part because Chinese people tend to feel that the theme of the movie and the thoughts of Confucius are so old-fashioned and pedantic that they do not fit into China's current social needs.
The Peking Opera also faces the same situation. On the one hand, the government regards it as China's national essence, and you can find the silhouettes of Peking Opera actors displayed in many documentaries of China. However, on the other hand, only a small number of Chinese are still listening to the Peking Opera. China's mainstream population has no interest in or even knowledge about the Peking Opera.
Both historically and in the present, all successful cases of cultural diplomacy are powered by the cooperation between the government and its people. For example, Japanese government’s manga diplomacy is strongly supported by Japan’s domestic manga enthusiasts and Japanese cartoon industry. Also, supporting the success of the United States’ basketball diplomacy is the large basketball population and American people’s great enthusiasm for basketball.
In stark contrast, when the Chinese government is vigorously promoting Confucius Institutes around the world, many Chinese rarely bother about the development of Confucius Institute. The negatives are obvious: first, foreign publics often find that the China presented in the context of governmental Cultural Diplomacy is far from the real one, and such difference always leads to doubts about the purpose of cultural diplomacy. Many would also argue that Chinese cultural diplomacy activities are nothing but political propaganda. More importantly, even though the Chinese government is willing to spend money on cultural diplomacy, without its own public’s participation and enthusiasm, such diplomacy activities cannot be kept up for long. After all, the government's power is limited, and the force of cultural diplomacy actually comes from the power of the people.
In fact, the starting point of public diplomacy is the recognition of the public’s influence on the country's foreign policy. I think public diplomacy’s “public” refers not only to foreign publics, but also the domestic population. When public diplomacy’s aim is to influence the other country’s foreign policy by engaging the foreign public, we must also take into account the domestic public’s impact on those public diplomacy activities. In other words, public diplomacy activities would be unsustainable if they cannot receive domestic backing.
Therefore, if the Chinese government wants to find the strength to sustain the Confucius Institutes, it must attract the support of its own people first.
Chen Chen is a master’s candidate in the Public Diplomacy program at the University of Southern California. His studies focus on the public diplomacy in East Asia. He is originally from Northeast China and received his B.A. in Broadcasting Journalism from Tongji University in Shanghai. Prior to being a USC graduate student, he worked for China Central Television as a reporter in Beijing.
Art is an essential part of the culture of every nation. Through it, a nation can demonstrate the best parts of its cultural heritage and share its history and talents with foreign publics on a large scale. The Aztec Pantheon and the Art of the Empire, currently on exhibit at the Getty Villa, is the most recent example of how Mexico’s Aztec antiquities never fail to captivate U.S. audiences.
The exhibition comes at a noteworthy time, as Mexico celebrates the bicentennial of its independence and the centennial of the Mexican revolution. It is the first exhibition on the Aztec Empire to be organized in the city of Los Angeles, as well as the Getty Villa’s first venture with art from outside the ancient Mediterranean. Most significantly, the exhibit reveals a defining moment of cultural encounter by displaying Aztec artworks together with 16th and 17th century illustrations that showcase European interpretations of Aztec culture.
The Aztec monuments on display at the Getty Villa (most of them loans from the Museo Nacional de Antropología and the Museo del Templo Mayor in Mexico City) are masterpieces comparable to the most distinguished sculptural traditions, but the exhibit’s greatest artwork comes in the form of a three-volume pictorial manuscript known as the Florentine Codex. The Codex is an iconic chronicle of Aztec culture and history that reflects European efforts to understand the New World by drawing references from its own classical past. The Spanish conquest of the Americas coincided with the Renaissance rediscovery of classical antiquity, and as Europeans faced a culture that was profoundly unfamiliar, the Codex became a pioneering piece of work that sparked a dialogue between Mesoamerican and European civilizations.
The manuscript was commissioned nearly a half-century after Hernán Cortés’ defeat of the Aztec civilization, under the direction of Bernardino de Sahagún, a Spanish-born Franciscan friar who had traveled to México to evangelize for the Catholic Church. Sahagún, with the help of native Aztec collaborators and bicultural students from the Real Colegio in Tlatelolco (the first European school of higher learning in México), recorded the gods and goddesses of the Aztecs with over 1,500 watercolor illustrations and captions written in Nahuatl, Spanish and Latin. Most importantly, the Codex identified each deity with his or her equivalent god and goddess in the Roman pantheon, providing a clear parallel between the two great empires. The references to Greco-Roman mythology helped Spanish readers interpret the beliefs of their New World subjects and allowed Spanish missionaries to understand Aztec culture through their own history, philosophy and law.
Beneath the European attempt to understand another civilization through artwork lies the effort of the bicultural students working on the Codex to engage with Spain by narrating their Aztec heritage through classical and Christian perspectives. The Codex is therefore not only a unique case of a rare effort to spread the Christian faith through cultural understanding rather than coercion, but also a reflection of a broader cross-cultural approach to the roles of religion and art in empires.
The Florentine Codex is a great example of how art has been historically used as a neutral platform through which people connect and understand something that is foreign.
As one of the centerpieces in The Aztec Pantheon and the Art of the Empire, the Codex showcases Mexico’s rich heritage and sets the stage for continued cultural encounters. Reflecting on the exhibition as a whole, the Aztec experience at the Getty gives Mexico an enormous cultural presence in a city that is so uniquely tied to Mexico’s history. The exhibit (enhanced by the accompanying lectures and educational programming) engages publics and scholars alike in a dialogue that is needed for cultural appreciation.
For some time now, Mexico has sought greater visibility in world affairs and with its northern neighbor in particular, yet art exhibits remain a largely untapped and underestimated means for making this happen. Mexico could and should use its rich arsenal of art a lot more frequently, increasing its capacity to foster a positive national image abroad and perhaps even setting an example of the value and necessity of cross-cultural art exhibitions.
Regina Guzmán is a first-year graduate student in the Master of Public Diplomacy program. She grew up in Mexico City and has an academic background in Art History and Media Studies. Her regional focus in PD has been Mexico, with particular attention to cultural diplomacy and art-based exchanges.
The Aztec Pantheon and the Art of Empire is on exhibit at the J. Paul Getty Museum at the Getty Villa through July 5, 2010.
This week I’m obsessed with the notion of Hidden Power. Am reading Kati Marton’s most excellent book on the subject, which focuses on Presidential marriages that shaped our nation’s history. And as the wife of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, what Kati has to say about hidden power should have us all taking notice.
In thinking on this notion of hidden power, I’m amazed that with all the talk since 9/11 of soft, then smart power strategies, its incredible that there’s nary a mention of the sources of hidden power in our public diplomacy efforts. And what do I mean by sources of hidden power? I would place them, initially, into two broad categories. First, the spouses of our elected officials, diplomats, military officers and executive serving here and abroad; and secondly, the administrative and executive assistants to these same officials.
During my tenure at the State Department I had the opportunity to brief thousands of our diplomats, military officers, and senior executives posted abroad on cyber security and critical infrastructure issues. On the side and partly out of my own curiosity, I began conducting briefings just for spouses and would then hold sessions just for the kids of those posted abroad. These ad hoc briefings were some of the most interesting and valuable sessions as I learned more from their assessments of life on the ground -- candid, unvarnished, and without pretense -- than I ever did from a Country Team meeting.
Further, I saw just how much informal intelligence they were constantly gathering and bridge-building they were conducting as observers and participants in the societies in which they lived. They were always on the pulse,if you will, of what was going on in a country, what the mood was on any given issue, and were always open to sharing their frustrations and concerns. Additionally, I learned a great deal from the kids who were making friends and engaging their peers in any given country. And as my briefing themes were initially built on discussing cyber-security, I loved how the kids shared with pride some of their coolest hacking and Internet tools.
No discussion of hidden power, however, would be complete without underscoring the importance and role of administrative professionals. They are the gatekeepers for our diplomats, keeping everything running and functioning when no one is looking, rarely getting any of the glory or thanks for all the efforts they undertake each and every day. When I first began work at State, a senior Foreign Service officer pulled me aside and asked me if I could identify the most important person (s) at Foggy Bottom. I immediately, as if on cue, replied “The Secretary of State, of course,” and was promptly told, “No. The first lesson you must learn and never forget is that all the power here and in our embassies rests with and flows through our Admins.” I never forgot that lesson and realize now that it is no different in the private sector. And considering that April 21 is Administrative Professionals Day, I hope we each give thanks to those gatekeepers and remember to thank them again, and again, and yet again for all they do.
Why spouses and administrative assistants aren’t engaged or leveraged in public diplomacy efforts in a strategic way is beyond me. Apart from their reservoirs of hidden power, they are an incredible on the ground resource that should be engaged and listened to on a regular basis. If we listen, we just might learn something.
Cari E. Guittard, MPA, is Executive Director of Business for Diplomatic Action and Adjunct Faculty for the MPD program, teaching Corporate Diplomacy this spring at USC. Guittard resides in San Francisco, CA.
One thing we know: the financial, and potentially political, turmoil stemming from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s recent civil fraud action against Goldman Sachs will be sizeable, not just for its implications on the world’s most influential financial institution – but for the political grease it supplies to the wheels of global financial reform. This reform will likely include both punitive and structural measures, and while the public may find satisfaction in the former, the latter is where real international progress can be made through the creation of global financial standards.
While the Goldman Sachs case appears complex and will undoubtedly grow more so, one shouldn’t be intimidated by financial jargon. At issue is whether it’s legally material that Goldman Sachs failed to explicitly tell investors that the choice of assets backing a deal was influenced by the same person betting those assets would fail. Intuitively, this seems like a material fact. On the other hand, if everyone has the same information, we expect sophisticated investors to do their own research and determine what side of the bet they want to take. When you strip out all the jargon, what we are talking about here is transparency. Goldman is accused of providing too little, and their defense will be that a literal interpretation of fraud says they provided enough. Here’s the rub – assuming no new evidence comes out – they are probably right. Even the deposed Wall Street Crusader himself, Eliot Spitzer, is on record stating that the SEC has a tough road ahead.
The only certain outcome is more aggressive global financial regulatory reform. This reform will not come from taxing bonuses, trader perp-walks or forcing banks to shed certain businesses; it will come from changing the rules that govern how investors trade with one another.
One of the primary changes you’ll hear mentioned will be a push for trading to occur “on exchange”. This is distinguished from the OTC (over the counter) markets. The OTC markets occur directly between counterparties (or through brokers) often over the telephone, while exchanges stand in the middle to coordinate, provide insurance against defaults, gather data and other functions. The financial products that trade OTC are, generally, customized as opposed to the standardization required to be listed on an exchange. Both types of markets create interconnectedness and dependency between counterparties. Exchanges, however, promote transparency around this interconnectedness, while OTC markets (while more customizable and generally faster growing) do not.
This is relevant from an international relations perspective as exchanges are a safer alternative for emerging nations seeking to access the global financial marketplace than the OTC market. Exchanges, themselves founded as gathering points where buyers and seller forgo the advantage of customized products for (relative) safety and oversight, have expanded trans-nationally through consolidation – however cultural and regulatory barriers still prevent real global integration. This push to move trading onto national exchanges should further the creation of global financial standards that, hopefully, will allow people to invest across the world with full disclosure. Call me idealistic, but I still believe that transparent financial interdependency can be a cornerstone of international understanding and cooperation and that 100 billion dollars worth of privately negotiated transactions does not have the same positive geopolitical effect as 50 million of known transactions.
I was initially surprised at the success of Ben Mezrich’s Rigged, a novelization of the story behind the creation of the Dubai Mercantile Exchange, largely because I never envisioned my work in Dubai as being interesting to a wide audience. As complex financial issues become front-page news, however, I’m reminded of how simple and elegant a solution exchanges provide when faced with the choice between growth that leads to productive financial innovation versus reckless financial destruction. Dubai’s decision to enter the global crude oil market via an alliance with a U.S. based exchange, and all the regulatory oversight that comes with it, was an extraordinary decision and one that should be emulated by other emerging markets.
Markets evolve over time, but there are always paradigm shifts that occur during severe disruptions. It is at these points we learn real lessons about how markets function. The charges against Goldman Sachs represent one of those critical points, precisely because they are so legally tenuous. Where one falls on this issue is largely a matter of whether one believes financial dealings should ascribe to basic ideals of fairness, or if all is fair in love, war and finance. Before this is over, far more infuriating facts will be revealed (recently it was announced that Goldman’s general counsel is the romantic partner of ACA’s president – the very firm that supposedly independently picked the assets), and if anyone cares to delve into the details of these deals, it will be obvious that some were very, very bad for certain Goldman Sachs investors. All of this news will be salacious, all of it will feel instinctively wrong – yet little of it will be illegal. As Jack Nicholson remarked in A Few Good Men, we’ll see if we are ready to ‘handle the truth.’
This case is not about fraud. Instead, it concerns a fundamental questioning of how markets should function. Depending on the outcome, global integration of financial markets will either take a massive step back or a giant one forward. The impending circus that will be the Goldman Sachs civil fraud trial may just be the catalyst that allows the latter to happen.
April 10 was a dark and painfully sad day—for the people of Poland, for the worldwide diaspora community known as Polonia, and for citizens everywhere—as the world struggled to grasp Poland’s sudden and stunning loss on both a personal and international level. As Sunday dawned, however, and life and governance continued on without misstep, one could feel the mood shift. Such overwhelming grief, wreckage and death could have easily seemed a hollow echo of a senselessly tragic national history, entrenching an image of Poland as Europe’s doormat, but this has not been the case. Amidst the loss, Poland’s strength rather than its weakness has been the dominant perception, and the prospect of reconciliation between longtime enemies has prevailed over blame or the reopening of old wounds.
As the international media has shone its spotlight on the devastating deaths of Polish President Lech Kaczyński and the First Lady as well as the loss of scores of top political, military and civil leaders, clergy members and everyday citizens, it has also highlighted the dignity and calm with which this great but historically battered nation has handled the incident and ensuing political re-organization. It is, in fact, these unexpected moments of media exposure that often make the best inadvertent public diplomacy opportunities, and Poland’s catastrophe has been no exception. As Poland emerges as a powerful modern nation, Saturday’s devastation has provided one such unexpected occasion, shedding light on many facets of Poland’s story to willing audiences around the world.
The Presidential plane crashed near Russia’s Katyń forest, a geographical irony mentioned in nearly all articles or editorials about the event, and one that adds important historical context to the story. Katyń was the site of a massacre of roughly 20,000 Polish Army officers by the Soviet NKVD during WWII, and the fact that Russia had until recently denied responsibility for this atrocity has been a persistent sore spot in Polish-Russian relations. However it is merely one of many difficult issues in long history of mutual mistrust and repression, including the period of Partitions during which Russia and Poland’s other neighbors divvied up Polish territory until it disappeared from the map of sovereign nations entirely. This antagonistic relationship has been described by Marek Zebrowski, director of USC’s Polish Music Center, as “one neighborhood—in this case Central Europe—[that] cannot accommodate two political powerhouses, and the rise of one will be coupled with the demise of the other.”
Saturday’s disaster has drawn international attention to the fact that this antagonism may have finally started to shift. A few days before the crash, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was the first Russian official to attend a commemoration of the Katyń massacre on its 70th anniversary; although he did not use the opportunity to give an official apology as many Poles had hoped, it was viewed as a positive step in Poland and beyond. Despite ongoing disagreements with Kaczyński and his policies, Putin and his colleague, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, were among the first leaders to extend condolences after the fatal crash and subsequently declared Monday a Russian national day of mourning. Also, Andrzej Wajda’s Academy Award-nominated film Katyń was screened for the first time on Russian state-owned television during Sunday primetime, making many Russians newly aware of violence that had been perpetrated on their own soil. While it is too early to know how these conciliations might affect inter-state relations in the long run, media coverage has burned this newfound cordiality between the nations into the international consciousness; one can only hope that citizens and fellow politicians will pressure Russian and Polish leaders to avoid reverting to their earlier positions of entrenched mistrust.
More important than history for public diplomacy, however, is positive action in the present, and this catastrophe has revealed a thriving nation to the world. It was the only European economy to exhibit growth during 2009, and not even the loss of President Kaczyński or Sławomir Skrzypek, head of the National Bank, could shake the stable Polish stock market this week. The nation’s political institutions have displayed equal solidity, in what has been hailed as “a triumph of Polish democracy… [in which] animosities and political cleavages have been buried… [and] the presidency—at least temporarily—has passed [smoothly] from the Party of Law and Justice to its primary rival, Civic Platform.” In a New York Times op-ed, Roger Cohen applauded Poland’s emergence from its past political tribulations: “Poland should shame every nation that believes peace and reconciliation are impossible, every state that believes the sacrifice of new generations is needed to avenge the grievances of history.”
As heartache abates and normalcy returns, Poland has the chance to practice another great virtue of successful public diplomacy: listening. This moment in the spotlight is a golden opportunity to digest international public opinion, and to capitalize on the emerging image of Poland as a powerful and stable nation with a vibrant economy and balanced politics. The message being transmitted back to Poland is clear and will endure beyond this moment of international empathy. There is no need to dwell on historical conflicts and repression, nor even Poland’s former grandeur or cutting-edge political leadership of the past —Poland has arrived as a great nation of today, and as a respected contributing member of the European Union, it is expected to stay that way.
Krysta Close is a graduate student in the Master of Public Diplomacy Program. With an academic background in music and Chinese-language studies, her P.D. career has focused on the regions of China and Poland and the areas of sustainable peace-building and cultural diplomacy. She is the manager of the Polish Music Center in USC's Thornton School of Music. Her Polish grandfather narrowly escaped the massacre in Katyn through a combination of military instinct and impeccable timing.
In my recent book touring travels down under, I was struck repeatedly by the sense in which New Zealand and Australia seem for a North American at once remote yet accessible, exotic yet familiar.
They are in, but not of the Global South.
And while we might think of the Antipodes as the ends of the earth, it all depends which end of the telescope you are looking through.
In public presentations and in meeting with colleagues at foreign ministries, I was impressed by the extent to which the necessity of adapting to the reality of power shift – notably from the North Atlantic to the Asia Pacific – has registered at both the official level and among the population writ large in both countries.
Kiwis and Aussies didn’t seem to need much convincing that if they are going to prosper in the Pacific Century, then they will have to make the most of their diplomatic assets in an increasingly heteropolar world.
As Anglophone outliers on the fringe of a former empire, this strategic re-orientation is understandable, especially given the stunning rise of China and India, the steady progress of integration in Southeast Asia, and the extant economic accomplishments of Japan and Korea.
Barack Obama likes to refer to himself as the first Pacific President, but from what I could detect, key players in the public and private sectors in New Zealand and Australia are doing much more than the USA, Canada or the countries of the EU to prepare for the inevitable.
In part due to its sheer size and complexity, when it comes to branding and public diplomacy - in the Asia Pacific as elsewhere - the USA faces some obvious challenges. Even the best communications content and practices can never compensate for weaknesses in policy: when pronouncements and behavior, or content and instruments do not align, a perilous say-do gap opens like a yawning chasm.
For smaller and medium sized countries, however, embarking upon a global public diplomacy and branding strategy would play to the advantages of being generally well-regarded internationally, while helping to overcome capacity limitations and the absence of hard power options.
If your posture is not threatening, if you carry little historical baggage, if you are not seeking to dominion over others, and if your name evokes a positive pre-disposition - a smile rather than a scowl - then in PD and branding terms you are positioned for the advantage.
For New Zealand, Australia or Canada, therefore, the logic of forging joint ventures with business and civil society, engaging in partnerships with the like-minded, and using the new and conventional media to maximum effect should be second nature.
That said, developing a strong place brand is one thing. Branding a nation – which consists of a country and its people – is somewhat more complicated and difficult. That kind of brand is formed over time, and comes less from what you say than from how you act and what you do.
For New Zealand and Australia, the use of hard power or coercion is simply not an option. And even if people are not shouting from the rooftops that a grand strategy is urgently required, most of those whom I encountered were far less quiescent about their place in the world than your average North American.
Many of those I spoke with agreed that diplomacy does, or at least should matter.
Nonetheless, in the Antipodes as elsewhere, diplomacy has been marginalized, sidelined, and is in crisis. It is suffering from the same “triple whammy” which has exacted such a devastating toll just about everywhere:
• the continuing militarization of international affairs, through which policy has become an instrument of war, rather than reverse, and as a result of which foreign ministries find themselves severely under-resourced;
• the substantial failure of diplomatic institutions to adapt their practices to exigencies of globalization, resulting in structures that remain far too risk averse, hierarchic and authoritarian, and largely without the capacity to manage the emerging suite of transnational issues which are rooted in science and driven by technology;
• the debilitating image, if I may paraphrase the London cabbies whom I focus tested last fall, of diplomacy as synonymous with weakness and appeasement, and diplomats as dithering dandies, hopelessly lost in a haze of irrelevance somewhere between protocol and alcohol.
Diplomacy is suffering from grave problems of both image and substance universally. It is not delivering the results which it otherwise might for governments or for citizens.
That performance gap is exacerbated by an environment in which the demand for diplomacy vastly outstrips its supply. Evidence of this yawning diplomatic deficit is found not only in the rising tide of suffering, inequality, and unaddressed threats which beset us, but also in the ongoing socialization of globalization’s costs and the privatization of its benefits.
The resulting polarization, coupled with the abject failure of diplomacy to engage remedially, in my view constitutes a peril far greater than than any kind of terrorism, political extremism or religious violence.
So, if you don’t want to live in some variation of a surveillance driven, razor wire encrusted green zone, with security provided by Blackwater/Xe and sanitation by KBR, what to do?
Voyages down under have brought me back to first principles on this.
In the first instance, the art of international political communication through dialogue, negotiation and compromise needs a new, more contemporary narrative which goes well beyond the current discourse on either traditional or public diplomacy.
There are signs that the project to develop a new diplomatic narrative is underway.
Secondly, analysts require a whirled view, a model of global order which extends well beyond the obsolete and territorially distinct notions of first, second and third worlds.
This, too, may be in train.
Finally, a radical and comprehensive reconstruction of mainstream thinking about the essential nature of international relations is long overdue.
Evidence of that enterprise - a basic rethinking of security and development - remains scant.
On this climate change challenged, pandemic disease ridden, chronically resource scarce planet we live on, governments need to find a better way forward, one without the enormous human and financial costs associated with the use of armed force.
I would suggest that they start by investing in the creation of a cadre of diplomatic professionals adept at knowledge-based problem solving, and able to apply complex balancing skills among and between sharply competing values, policies and interests.
Defense departments have the money, but the military is the wrong box. This isn’t a job for soldiers.
And aspiring international policy bureaucrats - those who favor life “in the bubble” to that in the street and prefer chatting with colleagues about what might be going on outside to finding out for themselves – need not apply.
It is time to hold on dispatching the expeditionary battalions and to invest instead both in diplomatic alternatives – and alternative diplomacy.
In a week of tragic accidents, the WikiLeaks story may be the toughest one to bear, horrifying both for what it showed about the current state of war and what it says about the current state of our media environment. As most know, thanks to the whistle blowers at WikiLeaks, U.S. military video footage, purloined or leaked, showed up on the Internet last week, and revealed in chilling detail a U.S. helicopter attack in Baghdad in 2007 that shot at and killed two Reuters journalists. No matter that the video and audio transcript show that the American gunners thought the journalists were combatants carrying AK-47s. A careful view of the footage shows that the “weapons” carried were cameras with wide-angle lenses. The grisly and gruesome bottom line records two more innocent victims in a nearly senseless war.
Some bloggers and commentators have criticized WikiLeaks for editing the 39 minutes of the engagement down into a much shorter 17 minute version that was then entitled “Collateral Murder.” Left out of the shorter version were nearby movements of armed individuals. Others take the Pentagon to task for failing to grant Reuters’ request that the tape be released to them under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the first place. (Reuters itself has been tentative at times in describing the version of events it received from the Pentagon. One wonders why.)
Even given this fog of war and perception, some lessons emerge.
What we are witnessing, besides a lapse in judgment by young servicemen in charge of elaborate and deadly mobile weaponry, is a profound misunderstanding by senior military of the rules of accountability, not engagement. When mistakes occur with deadly weapons, the public and its representatives (in both countries!) have a right to know exactly what happened. That was the purpose of the U.S. FOIA when Congress voted it into law after Watergate. Never again could the government keep information under wraps just because it was convenient to do so. Unless there was a national security or legal reason to keep information secret, the government was supposed to make it available.
As difficult as it is to admit mistakes — and wartime mistakes are the most consequential of all — the effort to cover them up almost always turns out badly. Look at Abu Ghraib, or Pat Tillman. Because such wounds to the military’s reputation can only be healed by exposure to daylight, the way forward is to reveal them. And, since such problems get revealed sooner or later, those in authority almost always find themselves not just defending their original behavior, but their subsequent efforts to cover it up or bury it in the bureaucracy. Just ask the Vatican.
The news for the media is also quite distressing. The victims of this attack, in a country where journalism is the deadliest of professions, were Iraqi citizens. There was nothing virtual about their form of journalism, the kind that is all too rarely practiced by the remaining news gathering organizations here in the U.S. They were on the ground, collecting facts, not opinions.
I had the privilege last week to meet with a visiting group of Iraqi editors and correspondents as the Wikileaks story broke. At least one of them knew the victims of the helicopter attack. For these Iraqis, the discussion of whether this constituted a war crime was slightly academic. It was a scandal, one said. When our discussion turned to what they had observed in the United States, one Iraqi remarked on the lack of international news on most U.S. news channels. Like other groups of media and young professionals I’ve met with who were visiting the U.S. as guests of the State Department, these Iraqi journalists were struck by how scant CNN’s international news coverage was for American viewers compared to the CNN International programming they viewed via satellite back home. I told them, without much enthusiasm, that more people had viewed the activist WikiLeaks footage than had seen the CNN prime time newscast the previous night. I noted the august list of American news organizations that were listed as Wikileaks legal supporters (Associated Press, Hearst, Gannett, Scripps, ASNE, etc.). Ironically, some of these very news groups have cut back on their foreign reporting in recent years.
Journalists, at their best, provide insight through first hand reporting. Until shown otherwise, I will accept that the two Reuters staffers were just doing their job when they became targets of misdirected weaponry. Still, is it not odd and disturbing that this story comes to us not via any news medium, not via any first-hand messengers? Might it be that, here too, we have gotten in media precisely what we have asked for — drama first, dispassionate content a distant second?
Green is not just a color. Culturally, green can have contradictory meanings within its spectrum of usage. It is often associated with slang for money or ‘green with envy’, while the opposite end of its range of meaning is closely related to the Old English verb growan or “to grow” [plant life], or more relevant today, sustainable practices and formation of trust.
Any one of these cultural definitions alone does not adequately encompass all the meanings of green as it pertains to Corporate Diplomacy. Here, just as the color green is created in the Subtractive Color System by mixing yellow and blue, an alternate image of green applicable to businesses can be developed by blending the concepts of ‘Innovation’ and the ‘Golden Rule’.
Variations of the Golden Rule appear world-wide throughout many cultures, tribes, and religions, dating back to ancient times. Its English version is commonly linked to Jesus of Nazareth in the Biblical book of Matthew, “Do unto others as you would have done unto you”.
Trust goes hand in hand with the Golden Rule; typically we trust those individuals we know well and who also treat us well, such as neighbors or family members. When transitioning from the living room of one’s home to the board room and then venturing into the consumer market, one sees trust is equally as important in forming meaningful relationships and consumer confidence.
Edelman, the leading independent global Public Relations Firm, released its 2010 Trust Barometer in January 2010 and was a focal point of discussion recently in a USC seminar course on Corporate Diplomacy. This study documents a major shift in global opinion that should revolutionize the way business is conducted world-wide (see Methodology).
For the first time in the ten-year history of Edelman Annual Trust Barometer Reports, trust and transparency are ranked as being more important to corporate reputation than the quality of the products and services provided. In fact, 54% of people in the United States trust business and an average of 60% in most BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). These factors of trust and transparency far outweigh the importance of financial returns, which is now listed by respondents at the bottom of all criteria.
It should not be a complete surprise that the ranking of financial returns shifted 180 degrees since 2006. Perhaps this is due to the downturn of the global economy, as approximately 70% of respondents believe business and finance companies will revert to their old habits when the financial crisis is over.
However, is it really the economic downturn, as identified by respondents, which changed the way people think about business? Why have respondents identified their ability to trust a company is currently of highest importance? There are many schools of thought that identify catalysts, which range from downward trending economic forces to a return to core family values. They also include an upward trend in global environmental awareness and populations well informed on global issues. Whatever the reasons, executives should recognize this shift as an opportunity to get their foot in the door, gain trust, and increase their social capital so they may draw upon it in the future.
Perhaps it is beneficial to analyze trust at the individual company level in order to understand this future benefit. On March 2, Gallup released results from their poll entitled, “Americans, Toyota Owners Still Confident in Toyota Vehicles”. Amazingly, while a March 4 Reuters article noted that a total of 7.2 million recall notices were issued in the United States with more than 50 United States crash deaths attributed to mechanical problems, 74% of Toyota owners say they have not lost confidence in Toyota, 82% believe their cars are still safe, and 79% would buy another Toyota!
This is a paramount example of brand loyalty and trust. There is no doubt Toyota accumulated consumer trust during the past fifty years of their existence. Toyota demonstrated this in a recently aired apologetic commercial, framed in the beginning and end by black and white scenes reminiscent of car dealers from fifty years ago, and highlighting the perception of safe, reliable, high quality vehicles with a focus on core family values. While Toyota may lose some sales in the coming days, it seems its future as a company has not been completely destroyed and potentially will be saved by this element of family trust.
Well, what if a company does not have a historical reputation with an abundance of social capital? This corporation may be lucky enough to get its foot in the door early enough to take advantage of consumer psychological biases, which mandate a consumer change its behavior when trying a new product. Both the status quo bias and endowment effect must be overcome by the consumer. Such required psychological change is primarily due to the fact people largely overvalue benefits they currently posses relative to those they do not. So, the sooner a company enters the market and positions itself, the better.
In addition, new companies or existing businesses that wish to increase trust should look to innovation, not as a starting baseline, but as the focus for corporate culture. Trust is built among individuals through having innovative corporate diplomats practice cutting edge corporate diplomacy continuously. Such leaders must have an intuitive global mindset and executive skill-set which include a mutual respect and understanding of others, an ability to listen, understand, and adapt to foreign cultures, as well as have knowledge of emerging trends in sustainability and social media.
These qualities are necessary to possess in order to build trusting relationships and meet public expectations. The central strategy of a business should be rooted in these traits ultimately generated from the Golden Rule. Here is thus coined the “Green Rule”, or the business practice of using the Golden Rule to promote green sustainable growth both in society and in the company, while simultaneously generating a green profit.
Microsoft is among the corporations leading the way in this Green Rule movement. In January 2010, Microsoft created a new position entitled ‘Director of Innovative Social Engagement’. Time will tell if these job types are simply a passing trend or if other companies will jump on the Green Rule bandwagon for the long haul after fully recovering from the current recession.
Generation 2.0 of Government and the Web has succeeded in making information sharing and collaboration coexist both online and in public-private partnerships that have also been solidified into mainstream global culture. Business 2.0 features characteristics of Generation 2.0 incorporating social networking into its current campaigns.
Looking to the future, Web 3.0 will unfold with further web personalization ingrained in many aspects of life. It is inevitable this will lead to the creation of Generation 3.0 of business as well where businesses will take a broader approach and fully affect the lives of consumers. This budding age promises to have evidence of Green Rule components such as trust and full spectrum innovation as practiced by proper corporate diplomats.
Corporate desires strictly for a return on an investment will fade as companies begin to listen to and further focus on consumer desires of fulfilling meaningful relationships and promoting the greater good. Companies will find when they meet these consumer demands they are actually likely to see a return on an investment in the long run. Companies must rethink business strategy in order to be successful in the coming days in Business 3.0.
Martha Adams is a first year graduate student in the Master of Public Diplomacy Program. A US Naval officer, she has traveled to 23 countries, and served as an intern at the World Trade Center Association, Los Angeles. Her areas of interest include corporate, design, and US military diplomacy as well as the cross-cultural psychology of communication.
Recent public diplomacy reports and testimonies released by both congress and government policy makers in Washington indicate concerns over Iran's growing cultural influence. It was a year ago when Senate Foreign Relations Committee's report warned about the growing number of Islamic Republic's Cultural Centers. One year later, but apparently based on the same report, Judith McHale, identifying the challenges of US public diplomacy in the 21st century, emphasized the adverse nature of Iran's cultural initiatives.
Considering the current relationship between the countries, it is not odd for the United States to be cautious of Iran's cultural influence, but one should be aware of the fact that Iran's approach to public diplomacy and its infrastructure is much different from a simple image-making or policy advocacy method. It is largely cultural and reflects on the Persian heritage.
Cultural Centers which constitute the backbone of Iran's cultural diplomacy are all sub-branches to the Islamic Cultural Relations Organization (ICRO). A brief look at the activities of the ICRO reveals that Iran is mostly interested in, first, cementing its cultural ties with its immediate neighbors, and second, introducing Persian culture and history to countries in Africa and Europe. ICRO's Cultural Centers indulge in activities which reflect mostly on culture, religion, and philosophy.
Notable categories are:
• Cultural diplomacy: Music, Film, Persian calligraphy, painting, literature.
• Religious philosophy: Quran events and competitions, publication of books about Shiaism, and religious lectures.
• Persian Language Teaching
• Iranian Studies Programs
As mentioned above, except for few special events such as the Revolution Anniversary, political advocacy is hardly an agenda for Iran's Cultural Centers and the task is left to the relevant embassies. If there is one primary task for cultural diplomacy, and that is to enhance understanding among nations, then Iranian cultural centers are definitely fulfilling their duty by introducing Persian culture, religion and political thought to the marketplace of ideas.
Granted, it is a move the US government would not welcome as a competitor; but one should be careful not to mix the paradigms of competition with that of war. This is no cultural war, and if not a joint project, it is a cultural competition in which the more one side digs in and offers, the more common bonds among human being are discovered. US government should justifiably pursue the promotion of American culture aboard, but frowning upon the cultural exchanges by other countries is not elegant or appropriate for the US position in the world.
Even as most of North America was closing out the XXI Winter Olympics by viewing an epic hockey match between Canada and the U.S., America's Southern Hemisphere had already started preparing for their own version of the Summer Olympics. The South American Games, which featured over 5,000 athletes from fifteen different countries, came to a close earlier this week in Medellín, Colombia. The significance? The emergence of Colombian sports diplomacy and its vital role in re-branding the country's image.
Colombia certainly tops the list of countries in need of a brand makeover. To most outsiders, Colombia evokes imagery of dense jungles, impoverished coca farmers, guerrillas, and of course, the drug lord Pablo Escobar.
Despite its reputation, Colombia has undergone an incredible transformation from almost-failed state to one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America. With U.S. assistance, the Uribe Administration's security policies have reduced the capacities and numbers both of guerrillas and paramilitaries while decreasing the level of domestic coca cultivation.
When the Colombian government first approached a marketing consultant about re-branding the country's image in 1996, the consultant's reply was "Don't waste your time." However, when the Colombian government rang him up again in 2004, the result was the establishment of Colombia es Pasión (Colombia is Passion). Since its inception, Colombia es Pasión has typically relied on tourism and cultural diplomacy as its principle Public Diplomacy outlets.
Until recently, the most recognizable cultural exports from Colombia were art, literature and music: Nobel Prize-winning author Gabriel García Márquez is one of the most well-known writers in the world and Fernando Botero's disproportional "fat" sculptures can be found all the way from Mexico City to Armenia. Colombia is also home to international megastars Shakira and Juanes, who will represent Colombia by singing at the opening ceremony of the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. Though the Colombian National Soccer Team did not punch their ticket to South Africa, Colombia will host the 2011 FIFA "Under 20" World Cup and intends to make a serious bid for the FIFA World Cup in 2026.
Colombian sports are on the rise as a useful public diplomacy resource. Five-time All-Star Edgar Rentería opened the door to Major League Baseball for his country and recently established the first professional league in Colombia. Juan Pablo Montoya and Camilo Villegas continue to compete (and win) internationally in NASCAR and PGA respectively. Even the former FARC stronghold of Villavicencio has garnered international praise for hosting the annual Cowgirl World Championships. Colombian athletes competing in other countries' professional leagues and the increasing number of international sporting events hosted in Colombia demonstrate the potential sports diplomacy has for re-branding the country.
Colombia put down some serious pesos in hosting the South American Games. The inauguration ceremony featured world-class pyrotechnics and the choreography of Cirque du Soleil director Franco Dragone. Colombian Public Diplomacy efforts during the games were directed at both athletes and spectators in attendance. Entrance was free to all of the events at the Medellín million-dollar arenas and sports complexes constructed specifically for the Games. Particularly clever was the accommodation of international athletes in the same apartment complexes that Medellín has constructed as part of its urban renewal projects. Consequently, all athletes were issued a Metro pass to utilize Medellín's public transport (which include a MetroRail and Gondolas) to commute between the events and their accommodations. And despite an urban terror offensive by the FARC, not one act of violence managed to disrupt the Games in Medellin.
Though this is not Colombia's first time hosting an international sporting event, the South American Games may have been its most important. Less than twenty years ago, Medellín was known as "the most dangerous city in the world," leading global homicides with 381 per 100,000 inhabitants. Hosting international events in Colombia's most infamous city is perhaps the best way of demonstrating the leaps and bounds Colombia has made in recent years to those who continue to doubt its progress. In any case, Colombian sports diplomacy will hopefully function as another cultural commodity in re-branding the country's image and distancing itself from its tumultuous past.
Miles Knowles is a graduate of the Master of Public Diplomacy program at the University of Southern California. His interests and areas of expertise are Cultural Diplomacy and Sustainable Development in Latin America. He is currently living in South America doing freelance NGO work and blogging about his experience at http://rockstardiplomat.blogspot.com/
Along the gradient of power, there’s a possible mix of “soft” and “hard” varieties. The public diplomacy originating at the U.S. State Department is commonly associated with the “soft” power of peaceful persuasion and cultural appeal; the foreign information efforts at the Pentagon are often in the service of some tangible “hard” power goal. The mixing often takes place in conflict zones, where a variety of forces and actors are in play. So who decides the mix, and how? Walter Pincus’ piece in today’s Washington Post (and last week’s piece in the NYT by Dexter Filkins and Mark Mazzetti) illustrate how haphazard and ill-defined — at times — the mix has been, and how the Pentagon has unilaterally turned to contractors who don’t get much oversight.
The NYT and Post stories mainly deal with the Michael Furlong case now being investigated at the Pentagon. Furlong, a senior civilian Defense Department employee, is alleged to have diverted funds intended for information-type programs in order to gather intelligence in Pakistan for military targeting. Even if Furlong is cleared of any misuse of funds, there is a larger issue of establishing how the Pentagon’s very broadly defined “information” contracts are to be devised, reviewed and overseen.
Pincus cites a Pentagon internal review of these contracts:
Purchases of products and services made through major contracts included “military analysts, development of television commercials and documentaries, focus group and polling services, television air time, posters, banners, and billboards,” the inspector general reported. Smaller individual purchases under information-operations programs included “magazine publishing and printing services, newspaper dissemination, television and radio airtime, text messaging services, internet services and novelty items”…
The central concern here is not that the Pentagon is doing information outreach in certain countries and environments. This may at times be well advised. The problem is when the work is done without appropriate oversight or coordination with the State Department — which has lead responsibility for foreign public diplomacy and public affairs work. Worse still is when the work is consigned to contractors who have no contact or accountability with State, and who have every incentive to add superfluous information activities as extra “billable items.”
Undersecretary of State Judith McHale is putting great emphasis on coordination between State and the Department of Defense, and the “potential rebalancing of the respective roles, responsibilities, and resources of State and Defense in the public diplomacy and strategic communications arenas.” One hopes that this effort will encompass the murky world of Pentagon contracting for foreign “information” activities, where clearly more oversight is needed. To use the popular phase of the moment, there should be no “daylight” between State and Defense on what should be done, and a bit more daylight cast on what is taking place.
We have been on the cusp of the network phase in Public Diplomacy for some time now, but as yet we have not fully crossed the threshold and adopted the operating model of a network based approach.
John Arquilla's recent article in Foreign Policy outlines the impact the changing operational environment is having on US military operations:
Networked organizations like al Qaeda have proven how easy it is to dodge such heavy punches and persist to land sharp counterblows... But the principles of networking don't have to help only the bad guys. If fully embraced, they can lead to a new kind of military -- and even a new kind of war.
Something similar is true for Public Diplomacy, as Hillary Clinton noted in her Remarks on Internet Freedom. “The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet”.
To meet the challenges of today, Judith McHale has proposed a “complex, multi-dimensional approach to public diplomacy”. States can no longer act in military isolation as Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the USA, argued; "we will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone".
Sergei Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister has noted the same trend:
“Today, we should practice multi-vector network diplomacy conducive to flexible cooperation among groups of states for the sake of harmonizing identical interests. Today, we are not engaged — or, at least, should not be engaged — in the struggle against any state or in the containment policy. Time has come to apply collective efforts to promote concrete interests of the international community as a whole or of groups of states.”
However, while many significant voices speak of a need for new means of multi-faceted interaction with the increasing number of actors going beyond government and involving both civil society and citizens of those countries where influence is sought, most state actors find it difficult to make the shift to a new operational model. Government agencies favour a mode of transmitting rather than receiving in relating to both domestic and international audiences and they retain a touching belief that ever more information leads to ever better understanding. More information may create knowledge if anyone is interested and it is communicated effectively; insight is more elusive, but not so hard to find as wisdom.
The command and control structures of state actors in budgeting and decision-making, which are essential for traditional public legitimacy, are ill-suited to an evanescent virtual world requiring quick, flexible responses. Even more fundamentally, the people working in traditional state organisations are, for the most part, at a loss in the network world, not least because they are too old to have grown up in this world. Adaptation to the world of networks – with the professional race three quarters run and the finishing line in sight - is much harder than total immersion from childhood. A few token references to Facebook in a speech delivered face to face simply demonstrates the inadequately masked confusion of most senior government people. After all, most of them scarcely go near a computer. They have other people to do that for them and anyway, they are too busy going to wall-to-wall meetings. The culture change required is extreme and implausible.
In the network phase of Public Diplomacy an organisation seeking diplomatic outcomes (whichever whatever sector they emanated from) would move from holding events, having contacts and organising exchanges to bringing all the people involved in those events and exchanges into a global network. This is not a server-busting and time consuming many-to-many, where all-channel approaches even in relatively small networks become hopelessly inefficient unless each participant has perfect knowledge of the network. Instead this will mean developing an understanding of coordination effects which influence the way they define their interests, the forms of media through which they choose to communicate, and the way they interact within each method of communication.
With an understanding of the numerous available networks comes the potential for someone who works in public diplomacy, or who is in contact with a PD organisation, to know or know how to reach every great young artist in the world, every great scientist, political leader, every great philosopher, religious leader, civil society activist, educator, social or creative entrepreneur and many more besides. It might even be the case that through all their contacts an organisation could reach all the interesting people in the world; not just the powerful people, but all the interesting people.
Imagine the impact if we could bring our knowledge of all those people together in one place as well as bringing all those people together in one virtual space. We could work with those people to make an ever-changing map of how the world thinks, who knows who in the world, what’s on the mind of the brightest and best – and what is their call to action on the great issues of our time – on climate change; on culture and creativity; on the future of cities; on human rights; on global poverty; on understanding between religious believers and the secular-minded; on inter-generational understanding; on the social impact of new technology; on the future of education - on all the issues we care passionately about. Not every problem has a solution, but every concern is susceptible to collaborative action, and that such action must have a greater capacity for doing good when able to across borders and cultures.
This network could be like a vast, transparent net of knowledge and information stretched across the shifting, contemporary world. The people in it could come together in an almost infinite number of different combinations, for an infinite number of reasons – all of them measurable in involvement and impact. The opportunity is to be the facilitator of those meeting points. The participants from all these different backgrounds could be the agents of change, the new network diplomats, on the great issues of our day as they themselves defined them. We would have moved from a diplomatic world where states seek to convince their own people and other governments of their view of the urgent priorities and what should be done about them to a world in which thinking, doing people from all walks of life could define the agenda and act on it collaboratively.
Our operating model will have to be turned upside down – the people outside the organisation would be the agents of change, not the beneficiaries of change. We would no longer have audiences or customers, but collaborators and network members instead. We would not be the suppliers of knowledge and content, but the receivers and distributors. Our staff would become network facilitators and mapmakers, not teachers and managers.
This is the vision for a new network phase in public diplomacy. In parts it is already happening, but the organisational shifts take time and there is still much we need to learn about it.
Gerard leads the research team at Lemos&Crane. His publications include Steadying the Ladder: Social and emotional aspirations of homeless and vulnerable people and The Communities We Have Lost and Can Regain (co-authored with Michael Young). Gerard is also Chairman of the Lending Standards Board, the UK regulator of retail banking products, Vice-President of the British Board of Film Classification, and a non-executive Director of the Crown Prosecution Service. He is also a visiting Professor at Chongqing Technology and Business University. Gerard has formerly been Chair of Akram Khan Dance Company, an Audit Commissioner, Acting Chair of the British Council and a Civil Service Commissioner. He received a CMG in the Queens' Birthday Honours List in 2001 for services to the British Council.
Ali is Director at Mappa Mundi Consulting. He specialises in providing insight to enhance Public Diplomacy strategy and evaluation through network analysis. In addition, he regularly advises governments, charities, companies, and NGO on best practice for online engagement and network building.
It used to be that the U.S. Department of State could simply dispatch Dizzy Gillespie to play overseas, and Cold War divisions would be gently eased. In 1956, such simple offerings allowed foreign publics to find new ways to relate to Americans and their musical ingenuity. Similarly, the Ping Pong diplomats of the 1970’s that took sports culture and broke down hardened barriers of entry into China proved to be a great and often cited success of cultural diplomacy functioning for policy. While these traditional types of exchange continue to supplement state-to-state diplomatic relations, communicating with foreign publics needs to adapt to the ever-changing communications landscape.
The end of the Cold War signaled many changes in the offices charged with conducting public and cultural diplomacy. Significantly, the budgets set aside for cultural programs have tended to decline while the demands of engaging broader (including more age-diverse) publics have continued to increase. This paradox has been especially apparent in light of the haphazard and compulsive cultural programs put forward by the United States. Alternatively, many countries have used the post 9/11 period to pursue innovative programs working with new technologies and communication networks.
As an example, the Nigerian film industry, known as “Nollywood,” has come to play a significant role in representing the country both regionally and internationally. Nollywood came to prominence in the early 1990’s and has since become the second largest movie industry in terms of annual production, overtaking Hollywood in the process. The types of films produced vary in their genres and stories, but one significant advantage of creating over 1,000 movies annually is the ability to represent stories from this African country from the viewpoint of its inhabitants. No longer is the image of Africa solely shown through the lens of Western media. Changing the storyteller’s perspective has broadened and balanced the realities of life in Africa.
Recognizing this opportunity, the Minister of Information and Communication of Nigeria enlisted Nollywood in 2009 to serve as part of its rebranding project. Using film as a central part of this initiative, the Nigerian government hopes to distinguish its country and reveal the cultural assets it can offer. Nollywood films are available in remote areas of Africa and to American viewers through Internet and satellite connections. The opportunities for rebranding Nigeria’s image and opening space for dialogue about the art coming from Africa are precisely what makes Nollywood a prime example of a new wave of cultural diplomacy.
While Nigeria directly reached out to its Nollywood community for assistance with public diplomacy programs, other countries have begun to recognize the power of their cultural assets. Japan has recently begun to harness the vast amount of interest and excitement generated by its manga (comics) and anime (animated film) arts. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) has recently tapped into this wealth of curiosity to incorporate its public diplomacy messages into the dissemination of these art forms. Initiatives have been launched to promote Japanese language studies as well as travel and tourism to Japan through various expos and other pop-culture events.
Additionally MOFA has made direct use of these cultural assets by appointing, for example, an anime Ambassador who has hosted nearly 120 screenings of anime movies in over 60 cities around the world. These programs are not intended to replace other, more traditionally focused elements of public diplomacy, but the openness to engaging with younger generations interested in this aspect of Japanese culture points to the adaptability and potential for furthering Japanese cultural diplomacy programs.
Present day cultural diplomacy bears the characteristic mark of being influenced by ever-greater and more physically distant individuals connecting through new forms of communications technologies. The Internet and tools of social networking create real-time dialogue that relays messages and responses in addition to channeling visual and audio materials that previously would have been filtered through television or radio outlets to determine if they would ever be made available to the public. In the new communication landscape, as the amount of cultural content available broadens its content becomes more diverse.
Cultural diplomats may raise eyebrows about the particular arts and content being used today. But as always, the subjective nature of culture leaves endless room to debate each item a country presents as representative of its nation’s offerings. The value of a cultural diplomacy program can only be gauged by its ability to engage with foreign audiences and adapt to their means of communicating in meaningful ways. Nigeria and Japan, two of many countries that can be selected for their innovative programs, have proven yet again that the role of culture in public dialogue cannot be overvalued. Promoting understanding through the sharing of cultural programs continues to be a vital element in the promotion of a state’s interests no matter how different the content may look over the years.
Tala Mohebi is a graduate student in the Masters of Public Diplomacy program at the University of Southern California. She is Editor-in-Chief of PD Magazine, a bi-annual publication that brings together works from scholars and practitioners in the field of public diplomacy.
“Food is our common ground, a universal experience.”
- James Beard
South Korea has recently launched a serious re-branding effort. The South Korean government has been worried that the country’s brand has been underperforming in years past, and not at the level befitting a country that is the solid middle power that South Korea believes itself to be. There was consternation at the fact that Korean brands had better awareness recognition than the country, or that often, when recognized, Korean brands were mistaken for Japanese models.
Seoul has held public diplomacy commissions and brought in the experts to discuss how to raise awareness of Korea in the international community. The government tried various slogans with the appropriate buzzwords that never exactly connected or meant anything (‘Sparkling'? 'Be Inspired'? Really?).
One area that the Korean government has recently chosen as a target for outreach is the realm of gastrodiplomacy. Gastrodiplomacy, simply put, is the act of winning hearts and minds through stomachs. The technique of gastrodiplomacy was perfected by Thailand as it used its kitchens and restaurants as outposts of cultural diplomacy. Given the growing popularity of Thai restaurants around the globe the government of Thailand implemented the “Global Thai program” in 2002 as a means to increase the number of Thai restaurants worldwide.
The Thai government’s rationale, The Economist noted, was that the boom in restaurants would, “ not only introduce delicious spicy Thai food to thousands of new tummies and persuade more people to visit Thailand, but it could subtly help deepen relations with other countries.”
More recently, the Los Angeles dining scene has been abuzz with Korean-Mexican fusion cuisine. The Kogi Taco Truck, which sends out its location via Twitter and features Korean-Mexican fusion fare, has become a veritable cult phenomenon on the LA dining scene. When it first opened, lines snaked for up to two hours, as hungry diners waited to eat barbecued beef tacos slathered in Korean “salsa roja,” and topped with cilantro, onions, cabbage slaw and soy-sesame chili. The Los Angeles Times commented on the popularity, “perhaps it’s the exquisite cultural co-mingling inherent in the food that draws the crowds; the only-in-LA combination of two of the city’s most beloved ethnic cuisines.”
According to Kogi owner Roy Choi, the idea, “was to bring his ethnic background together with the sensibility and geography of Los Angeles, where Koreatown abuts Latin-dominated neighborhoods in midcity, and where food cultures have long merged. Former Mexican restaurants, now Korean, serve burritos, and Mexican workers populate the kitchens of Korean restaurants.” The popularity of Kogi and Korean-Mexican fusion food has led to a mushrooming of Korean taco trucks getting involved in the act, although Kogi is still the best (in my opinion). Korean taco trucks have now also begun to pop up in New York.
Moreover, other ethnic foods are also pushing fusion cuisine like the delicious Indian-Mexican tikka tacos and chicken masala quesadillas available at 23rd Street Café near USC, Japanese tacos found in Little Tokyo and Chinese tacos from Don Chow’s (the ginger lime-marinated tofu tacos are incredible). Most recently, I found a Mexi-terranean taco truck called Kabob Express that served shwarma tacos.
The point of this blog is not to cause hunger pangs, but to point out one of the most serious and central components of Public Diplomacy: listening. When public diplomacy actors pay attention to local and global public opinion rather than gluttonously engaging in advocacy, they are more adept at taking advantage of unorthodox openings created by authentic cultural innovations to carry out enhanced public diplomacy.
At present, the preponderance of various fusion food trucks led to an LA Street Food Festival. It would have been a wise PD investment for the Korean Consulate of Los Angeles to help sponsor such an event, or try to push something similar. For all that Korea is spending trying to rebrand itself and push Korean gastrodiplomacy, it would be better served listening and looking for examples of organic, authentic and homegrown outlets of cultural gastrodiplomacy like the Korean taco truck. My advice is not free, mind you - the Korean Consulate may kindly pay my consulting fees in the form of bulgogi tacos covered in kimchi.
Paul Rockower, gastronomist, is a candidate for a Master’s of Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California. He is the Communications Chair for the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars (APDS) and a Contributing Researcher at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Is Google bold? It takes some serious courage to stand up to the gatekeepers of the world’s biggest market. By refusing to kowtow to the Chinese censors, the tech company that built its fortunes on the free flow of information stood up for its business model, not to mention the ideals of its home country.
Even the act itself was elegant. Rather than simply shutting down its Chinese website, Google transferred all visitors to the censorship-free Hong Kong website. It is still China, right? This “diplomatic” approach allowed the Silicon Valley giant to cross the cavernous fault line between morality and business.
Or is Google dumb? The Chinese powers that be have already hit back, charging Google with breaking its written promise to the country and acting as a White House pawn. The company’s hopes of protecting its advertising and research divisions within China are fading fast as state media and government officials lash out.
You often hear about how important “face” is in China. Similar to one’s reputation in the West, the concept has a more collectivist tint in the Middle Kingdom. People will go to seemingly absurd lengths to save face - if you have ever seen a street side shouting match in Beijing, then you have some sense of just how important one’s public appearance is to the Chinese.
Perhaps the worst possible way to get the Chinese government to change is by making them lose face. In almost every diplomatic tussle between the two countries, a head-on approach invariably leads to both sides digging in. There is a saying popular among American diplomats in China: 坚 定 不 移 (jianding buyi). It means “steadfast and unwavering,” and is regularly evoked in regards to the U.S.’s One-China policy (there is only one China on either side of the Strait). The same idiom perfectly captures China’s central government: while U.S. foreign policy can be stubborn, Chinese foreign policy is downright immovable.
The best approach is to push China’s leaders from the side, deflecting their energies toward more beneficial ends. Rather than confront the government outright, Google could have better served its own interests through quiet, backdoor negotiation. Perhaps Silicon Valley has a ways to go in its foreign policy.
What is unclear, however, is how Google’s move is influencing the Chinese public. Are ordinary people content without a free flow of information? The flowers left at the company’s front door make me think no. It’s not that Google’s move is an “Oh my god! We are being censored!” moment, but it may serve as the tipping point for an already simmering public, ready to join the modern, technology-open world.
Peter Winter is a second year student in the Master of Public Diplomacy program, and managing editor of US-China Today.
Last week, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee convened a hearing entitled “The Future of U.S. Public Diplomacy”. The stated objective of the hearing was to assess how U.S. public diplomacy initiatives of the past could be used to inform U.S. public diplomacy activities of the future. Three former Under Secretaries for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs appeared before the committee: Evelyn Lieberman, Karen Hughes and James Glassman. They were followed by current Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Judith McHale—speaking to Congress for the first time since her department’s completion of an 8-month review of its public diplomacy efforts.
Clearly, this was a hearing many in the public diplomacy community had long been waiting to watch. But after two hours of testimony, it is one that ultimately left a lingering question: is the U.S. government ready today to take the critical steps needed to address the past and current shortfalls of U.S. public diplomacy?
The answer remains unclear.
From the former Under Secretaries came a necessary but almost painful recapitulation of so many of the most common critiques of U.S. public diplomacy as well as a long list of challenges faced by the State Department’s public diplomacy professionals. Of the three, Glassman’s remarks appeared to be the most candid—as well as the most pessimistic. He stated emphatically in his opening remarks: “This hearing asks us to address the future of public diplomacy. That future, in my view, is in doubt.” He carried this point further by stating simply that, “the tools of persuasion and inspiration are not being considered indispensable.”
This point was consistently reinforced throughout the hearing. All three officials, who served across a time period spanning from 1999 to 2009, made the same arguments about the state of U.S. public diplomacy and their recommendations overlapped on almost every major point.
For example, each of the former Under Secretaries underscored the fact that U.S. public diplomacy needs to include more listening as well as more conversation with foreign audiences. This requires recognition by U.S. policymakers that there will inevitably be less room for control. Each former Under Secretary also reminded Committee members that some of the most powerful tools of U.S. public diplomacy remain exchanges, English language training programs, and other educational and cultural activities. They called, in turn, for greater investment in these types of programs. They also stressed that American public diplomats cannot be walled off from the audiences they are trying to engage and influence. On the contrary, they must have spaces that allow them to be as accessible and open to local communities as possible.
The most compelling argument found throughout the former Under Secretaries’ statements was, perhaps, this: public diplomacy must have an advocate at the White House. All three former officials made this point clear. Only with such an advocate, they contended, will the tools of public diplomacy be fully incorporated into the policy formulation process. Only with the support of the President will public diplomacy professionals be able to convince others in government that public diplomacy can achieve national security goals.
Following the remarks of her predecessors, current Under Secretary of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale had an unenviable task ahead of her. Would her remarks answer that nagging question: can and will the U.S. government address the long-standing shortfalls of U.S. public diplomacy once and for all?
In some ways, her testimony appeared promising.
Portions of Under Secretary McHale’s testimony invoked a needed sense of urgency. On formulating a new public diplomacy imperative, she stated: “We must act boldly and decisively to develop a clear, consistent and comprehensive approach.” In closing, she declared, “I believe this is a moment of great opportunity to redefine our relationship with people around the world and to build bridges of knowledge and understanding with people everywhere.”
She outlined several fresh policy approaches including the creation of new public diplomacy posts at the State Department—a Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Media Support and a Deputy Assistant Security for Public Diplomacy for each regional bureau. McHale also highlighted plans to broaden cultural activities, expand language and teacher training programs and revitalize American Corners.
On the whole, however, her introduction of the State Department’s “New Global Strategic Framework for Public Diplomacy” seemed vague and may do little to answer the most pressing questions about the future of U.S. public diplomacy. Few details were provided on how a more robust listening and dialogue component will be integrated into public diplomacy programming; how American public diplomats will get out from behind their walls; where new resources and funding will ultimately go; and whether public diplomacy really will be taken seriously at the highest interagency levels.
In each of these cases, details are of great significance. And in the words of Senator Roger Wicker, present at the hearing that day, “Believing is simple; translating into action is more difficult.” Those of us interested in the details and in the action will have to wait a little longer to see more emerge from the “New Global Strategic Framework for Public Diplomacy.”
Alexis Haftvani is a second year student in the Masters of Public Diplomacy program at the University of Southern California. Prior to joining USC, she served four years as a U.S. Naval Intelligence Officer with tours in the Middle East and Asia. Her primary interests lie in U.S. foreign policy, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
Keep Calm and Carry On. Keep Calm and Carry On. Keep CALM and CARRY On.
Maybe if I say it enough the phrase will sink deep into my subconscious thereby creating a vast reservoir of perseverance and tranquility. Maybe if I stare deeply into the large lettering and bold red hue my brain will find that elusive unwavering resolve and composure that typifies British culture.
I had this slogan in mind recently as I read through the NSC’s recently released National Framework & Comprehensive Interagency Strategy for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communications. Initially, there wasn’t much to be surprised or excited about, and on the one hand it is great to see the romantic notions of an effective, stream-lined interagency process revived and underscored. The reality, however, (as anyone who has worked in the federal government and been closely involved with the interagency process can attest) is that the interagency channels are where great ideas, innovation, entrepreneurial thinking and creativity go to die. This is due in large measure to the competing natures of the Cabinet agencies for resources and attention as well as a predominant culture in Washington that attempts to control and direct information flows. But hoo-rah - the NSC report did state that it wanted to foster a “culture of communication throughout the government,” so I worry needlessly. Am keeping calm, and carrying on…
The report also had the requisite focus on creating mutual respect and mutual interest as well as frequently mentioning the need to “synchronize words with deeds” all of which should be second nature to any practitioner of public diplomacy but something the authors of the report felt compelled to emphasize. It seems as though the term listening has lost its cachet as it is nowhere to be found in this report. I was heartened by the focus on global engagement, a key pillar of the Administration’s public diplomacy efforts, and discussion of measurement so that resources can be allocated in alignment with what is most efficient and impactful. I also found it fascinating that the Intelligence Community, which as outlined has the important function of conducting and analyzing foreign public opinion research and monitoring violent extremist messaging and modes, didn’t garner more than a sentence or any further elaboration on their role in the interagency process.
The report ended with a strongly voiced recommendation that no new independent not-for-profit organization for public diplomacy be created. How disappointing to see the NSC dismiss this idea which countless experts have been refining and championing from the Corporation for Public Diplomacy concept that the Council on Foreign Relations initially advocated to the USA World-Trust concept advocated by Kristin Lord, then a Fellow at Brookings:
This report presents concrete steps to strengthen America’s efforts to engage, persuade, and attract the support of foreign publics. As part of a comprehensive plan to enhance our government’s public diplomacy, it urges the creation of a nimble and entrepreneurial new non-profit organization, the USA-World Trust, to complement and support U.S. government efforts.
The USA-World Trust will draw on the enormous goodwill, creativity, knowledge, and talent of the American people and like-minded partners overseas to
• present a more accurate and nuanced vision of America to counterbalance the one-sided views sometimes promulgated by popular culture and foreign media
• contribute to an environment of mutual trust, respect, and understanding in which cooperation is more feasible
• promote shared values and their champions
• inform and support our government’s public diplomacy efforts through the sharing of knowledge regarding communication, public opinion, foreign cultures, and technology.
Try as I might, it is hard to remain calm and carry on when one sees the wheel being reinvented over, and over, and over again. And I am, at my core, an optimist. There is much deep, critical thinking that has been captured with regards to public diplomacy and strategic communications since 9/11; my question is: why don’t we just use even some of it and get on with the task at hand? How America leverages its public diplomacy assets and engages with the world is a critical issue for our time and one every American citizen should be concerned with. It has far-reaching implications for our national and economic security. It will take steadfast, courageous leadership from the highest levels to implement changes so desperately needed in the public diplomacy realm.
I am reminded of one of my favorite Churchill quotes (which, ironically, many use to describe our President): “The first quality that is needed is audacity.”
The Keep Calm poster was created for motivational purposes by the British Ministry of Information and ironically never used as it was seen as a “last case scenario" to be used only should the Nazis succeed in invading Britain via Operation Sealion, in order to stiffen resolve. The slogan -- one of three created, were intended as "a rallying war-cry that will bring out the best in every one of us and put us in an offensive mood at once." These particular posters were designed as "a statement of the duty of the individual citizen."
We could use a little more audacity coupled with a stiffened resolve and a rallying cry for public diplomacy here in America.
Cari E. Guittard, MPA, is Executive Director of Business for Diplomatic Action and Adjunct Faculty for the MPD program, teaching Corporate Diplomacy this spring at USC. Guittard resides in San Francisco, CA.
Since the violent aftermath of Iran’s presidential elections, American policymakers have struggled with how best to approach the opposition Green Movement without jeopardizing U.S. efforts to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions. There are signs that an increasingly popular approach might not be more sanctions – but fewer, at least when it comes to Internet technologies.
The current Iranian regime’s jamming of BBC and Voice of America signals and its decision to ban Gmail have deepened the link between censorship issues and U.S. policy toward Iran. Few would argue that improving the Iranian public’s access to online information is an unworthy goal. But at the same time, it may be impossible to predict the effects of such a policy, partly due to uncertainty about the democratic movement’s strength and Iranian attitudes in general.
The perceived role of social media in the protests that rocked Tehran in June 2009 helped spark discussion about the utility of the internet as a tool against oppression and prompted the U.S. Senate to pass the VOICE Act, which allocated funds to assist Iranian victims of censorship. In January 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered remarks on U.S. support for the principles of Internet freedom which, though not focused on Iran, endorsed the importance of the free flow of information and the ability of technologies to empower individuals.
Momentum has been growing behind calls to put the internet freedom agenda into practice in Iran. Headlines have proclaimed “Bombard Iran…with Broadband” and “Supporting Dissent with Technology,” calling for the U.S. to provide satellite internet to Iran and trumpeting U.S. government efforts to support the development of technologies to evade censorship and surveillance. Various op-edcolumns endorse a State Department proposal to waive U.S. Treasury restrictions on the export of technology to Iran, which would make it legal for U.S. companies to provide resources from social networking programs to encryption software that could protect the identities of dissidents.
Adjusting U.S. policy to eliminate barriers to Iranians’ access to online technologies could help empower a broader range of voices in the Iranian public. But are the expectations for the effects of less restricted Internet access in Iran unrealistic?
Though YouTube and Twitter announced the existence of the Green Movement to the world, there has been increasing uncertainty about the actual strength and breadth of the opposition within Iran. Recent reports question whether the protests that drew thousands into the streets of Tehran were inspired by vast numbers of Twitter users based inside the country, or if the voices of very few activists were amplified by sympathizers abroad. The lack of protests around the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution suggests a lack of cohesion within the Green Movement, or at least that its ability to mobilize its supporters through online networks has been exaggerated, if not significantly frustrated by the regime.
To add further confusion, while the controversy persists over the June election results that prompted the protests, a recent analysis of several pre- and post-election polls casts significant doubt on the claim that most Iranians favored regime change. While this is just one gauge of public opinion inside Iran, it only complicates perceptions of the popular mood when compared with the images of thousands who took to the streets.
If the effects of Twitter and other online media have overstated the existence of a technology-driven democratic opposition movement in Iran, what does this mean for policies intended to expand Internet freedom there?
Following the challenges to the online roots of the Iranian protests, critics of “techno-utopianism” have issued warnings about characterizing new technologies as natural allies of democracy and emphasize that while the Internet can facilitate communication in decentralized organizations, “one can’t have a revolution without revolutionaries.” Evgeny Morozov also warns against the danger of associating Google, Facebook, YouTube and other tools with democracy or the State Department at the risk of automatically creating an association between their users and dissidents, which could prohibit their use all together or pose severe risks to users in authoritarian countries.
It’s debatable whether U.S. policymakers need this kind of reality check about the inherent nature of technology. There does not seem to be any illusion within the State Department that the internet can only be used for good. In Clinton’s Internet freedom address, she clearly noted the dual nature of new technologies and stated they are not “an unmitigated blessing.” One only need look to al Qaeda for ways in which online technology has been used to incite violence – and the current Iranian regime provides its own examples of employing technology to limit access to information.
In any scenario where Iranians gain greater access to online technologies, it is safe to assume that a more diverse array of voices would be heard. What cannot be predicted is whether the State Department will like what these voices have to say.
Any expectation that aggressively pursuing internet freedom for Iran will automatically result in a bolstered democratic movement would be overly optimistic – such efforts may not even produce a regime that would abandon Iran’s nationalism-driven nuclear ambitions.
At the same time, if U.S. policymakers can commit to pursuing Internet freedom for Iran in principle, they may succeed in providing Iranians with the tools to help determine their own fate. But they will have to avoid giving the impression that a policy of Internet freedom is intended to enable a U.S.-backed movement to take power. Iranians may be divided on many issues, but they tend to reject the idea of U.S. intervention in their internal affairs.
The Internet freedom agenda may not provide an instant or certain resolution to the U.S. policy dilemma on Iran – but it may be the best option for now.
Melanie Ciolek is a first year student in the Master of Public Diplomacy program at the University of Southern California, and interns for the public diplomacy evaluation project at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Before arriving at USC, Melanie worked for the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) in Washington D.C., a global public opinion research think tank which manages the WorldPublicOpinion.org project. This article stems from a paper written for Matt Armstrong’s “Public Diplomacy 510: Public Diplomacy & Technology” class.
But Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale proudly says she is “on the same page” as her predecessors Karen Hughes and James Glassman in defining a new public diplomacy strategy. She cites “consensus” among members of the undersecretary club.
Is that a good thing? Hughes and Glassman are Republican stalwarts, appointed to their jobs by a conservative Republican president during whose tenure public diplomacy was often in shambles. I don’t question their commitment to serving their country, but if President Obama’s appointee can do no better than achieve consensus with these predecessors, what was the point of the election?
In a March 11 conversation with bloggers, Undersecretary McHale also talked about capitalizing on President Obama’s speeches in Accra and Cairo with various outreach efforts, and she said, “We very aggressively respond” to extremist messages. These are good steps, but as she described them they sounded more reactive than proactive, more tactical than strategic. One of the problems plaguing American public diplomacy, beginning during the Bush years, has been the lack of imagination needed to engage foreign publics consistently, not just in response to events of the moment.
Putting public diplomacy where it belongs – at the heart of U.S. foreign policy – will require a steep uphill climb. Embracing the Bush administration’s approach to public diplomacy is not the way to get there.
Readers of this space know there’s been a recent flurry of public activity by those who set the course of U.S. communications efforts with foreign publics. This week’s unusual Congressional hearing on the State Department’s public diplomacy programs featured not only the current ranking official for public diplomacy, Under Secretary Judith McHale, talking about her new “Strategic Approach for the 21st Century,” but also three of her predecessors. Next week there’s an open session of the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, also taking up how the State Department carries out its public affairs/public diplomacy role.
Judging by what’s been said so far, the news is less about grand strategy for an entire century than how to return public diplomacy to a prominent place in the country’s foreign policy.
What the State Department is trying to do, ten years after swallowing up the U.S. Information Agency, is to put some added impetus and authority behind its efforts to communicate with and influence foreign publics. The job titles of some key public diplomacy positions in Foggy Bottom will be upgraded, and some of the public diplomacy turf that the State Department had ceded to the Pentagon in recent years will be reclaimed.
These changes may seem modest but, if implemented, they will be the first good news in quite a while for State’s public diplomacy officials, who have grown accustomed in recent years to frequent turnover in leadership in Washington and reduced influence and authority at U.S. embassies overseas.
As for field operations, McHale told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that her model for State’s work in public diplomacy would borrow from the sort of full-court approach now underway in Pakistan, called the “Pakistan Plan:”
The Pakistan Plan has four broad goals: expand media outreach, counter extremist propaganda, build communications capacity, and strengthen people-to-people ties. Our plan links elements of traditional public diplomacy with innovative new tools. For instance, recognizing that extremist voices dominate in some of Pakistan’s media markets, we instituted a rapid response unit and a 24-hour multilingual hotline for the Embassy to respond to attacks, threats, and propaganda from the Taliban, al Qaeda, and their sympathizers…
As we strengthen our people-to-people ties with Pakistanis, our aim has been to increase positive American presence on the ground in Pakistan. To do this we are focusing on more exchanges, more presence, more Lincoln Centers, more face-to-face meetings with engaged citizens in Pakistan, and more non-official contacts between Pakistanis and Americans in Pakistan.
Secretary Clinton’s October 2009 visit to Pakistan was planned and executed in coordination with the themes of our strategic plan. Her focus on issues of education, jobs, and reliable electric power responded to what we had identified as central concerns of Pakistanis. Her extensive series of public engagement activities carried out the Plan’s emphasis on rejuvenating our personal, face-to-face diplomacy. Her visits to historical and cultural venues underscored American respect for and desire
for partnership with the people of Pakistan. Perhaps the most telling moment came during a press conference during which Pakistani Foreign Minister Qureshi stated that the Secretary’s visit had been a success precisely because it had manifested “policy shift” toward a focus on “people-centric” relations. This was and is precisely our message.
This kind of analytical and strategic approach has many precedents in the annals of U.S. public diplomacy. It represents the kind of seamless connection between diplomacy and public diplomacy that was supposed to result naturally from the consolidation of USIA into the State Department. However, this synergy and coordination were often missing, hamstrung by a lack of leadership and funding.
An upgraded, integrated and well-funded public diplomacy will not overcome all obstacles or satisfy all critics. In Pakistan, U.S. drone aircraft missions transgress the country’s sovereignty and reportedly kill innocent civilians. Public diplomacy is hard pressed to deal with the consequences of such secret operations. Still, President Obama and Secretary Clinton have done an exceptional job so far of reaching out to world publics overall, and now, at last, there’s a sense that the cadre of professionals charged with supporting the President and Secretary in their public diplomacy efforts may finally get the authority and resources they need to do that job.
YOKOHAMA, March 11 – The photo that spread across the top of page one of this morning’s Yomiuri Daily newspaper was dramatic: a group of people, obviously in distress, probably in mourning.
In a newspaper in the U.S., it could have been a photo of the aftermath of large-scale death in Haiti, Nigeria or Chile. But these individuals were clearly Japanese. What disaster were they commemorating?
Other stories on page one covered the repercussions of yesterday’s disclosure of U.S. nuclear weapons in Japanese waters, the debate over Toyota auto safety and the controversy here over Japan’s treatment of dolphins as depicted in the Oscar-winning documentary “The Cove.” But none of those stories explained were linked to the dramatic picture at the top of the page.
Rather, that page one photo was a line of demarcation, a divide in how the U.S. views itself and the way America is viewed by a key ally. The photo was a picture depicting one of many memorials yesterday, noting the anniversary of the firebombing of Tokyo by U.S. forces on March 10, 1945.
For the U.S., to the extent anyone remembers it at all, it is ancient history. Here in Japan, it is the a widely noted source of the distress over the deaths of relatives 65 years ago. For the U.S., it was a milestone in the campaign to bring the war to an end. Here in Japan, it is a memory of more than 100,000 deaths, still vivid for those who lived through it.
So today’s newspaper featured an article about that night’s sacrifice and remembrance, with earlier articles focusing on memorials and displays. It can be uncomfortable viewing for Americans. And yet Japan today is not just an important partner: it is has in many ways a Pacific Ocean counterpart of the U.S. “special relationship” across the Atlantic with Great Britain.
To be sure, America’s ties to the U.K. have undergone strains: we fought a war of independence, and the British once set fire to Washington. But that was hundreds of years ago. America’s war with Japan was occurred within living memory, and it is replayed almost nightly on the History Channel. Still to come later this year: Japan’s commemoration of the 65th anniversary of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki., Yet today, the U.S. and Japan are allies, just as the U.S. and Vietnam are now increasingly important partners less than four decades after the end of another U.S. Asian war.
And it is worth remembering that World War II was not entirely unique in U.S.-Japan relations: As I write this report, I am looking out the window at the very spot where Perry landed over 150 years ago here in Yokohama harbor. In American history, we were taught this was Japan’s opening to the West. Here, it is still called the American invasion.
In public diplomacy, as in all human relations, it is useful to remember how we are perceived by others.
Is it time to revisit the “theory question” in public diplomacy studies? There is much to be said about how the art of actually doing public diplomacy reflects a complex array of skills, experience, and personality. Understanding what goes into the practice of public diplomacy is an essential question for those preparing for a career in the public diplomacy sections of the State Department or other foreign ministries, as well as institutions that aspire to educate individuals for this kind of career. As others have said, a career in public diplomacy requires skills and characteristics that aren’t always easily distilled into curricula. Public diplomats require media relations skills, speaking skills, cross-cultural communication skills, web-related skills, and very often, “local” expertise that transcends both political and cultural knowledge.
Is there any room for theoretical innovation? From a disciplinary perspective, the practical arts of public diplomacy reflect a convergence of public relations, international relations/political science, and various aspects of communication studies. Each of these fields has their respective theoretical foundations and practical applications – so it’s hard to cobble these together into an aggregate “theory of public diplomacy” that can provide a ready compass for the public diplomacy practitioner. Theory serves practitioners, but realistically most of the theories from these aforementioned fields (from media framing to ethnographic concepts of culture) are just borrowed concepts for the PD practitioner. That doesn’t make them less insightful or applicable – but from an academic perspective, is there even a need for a distinct theory of public diplomacy?
At this moment, I would argue that any theory of public diplomacy would likely be most useful as a strategic orientation, from which can be derived a set of tactical programs and initiatives for a comprehensive public diplomacy repertoire. The moment for theory is fast approaching, because the domain of public diplomacy (the public management of relationships through engagement/influence) is rapidly becoming a shared burden with traditional concepts of diplomacy. As diplomacy itself gets retooled for the 21st century, public diplomacy may very well get woven into newer theories of diplomacy.
In his “Diplomatic Theory of International Relations,” diplomacy studies scholar Paul Sharp has put forth a masterful work on how international relations can be better understood through the lens of diplomacy. When problems and crises involving U.S. foreign policy are often reported as “failures of diplomacy” – Sharp argues that it’s important to turn serious attention to how we use diplomacy to achieve and sustain foreign policy goals. In the bigger picture, diplomacy helps to manage whatever assemblage of state and non-state actors that currently defines the “system” of an international/global politics, so we should derive more meaningful insight from its practical and normative implications.
Diplomacy isn’t a garbage can for scapegoating failed strategic plans; rather, it’s an institutional practice that can guide how we formulate larger conceptions of international relations. Sharp’s book takes the sociological implications of the “English School” of International Relations and puts it to work: by showing us that diplomacy can be more than just the messy space of “practitioners,” but a real site of theoretical understanding for how the global politics get done, that can also serve as a normative template for how we can manage complex interdependencies and relationships.
Secretary of State Clinton spoke recently about using diplomacy to facilitate a new “architecture of cooperation” – a key framework for U.S. foreign policy, and indeed an objective in itself. If this vision is actualized by realignments in US diplomatic institutions - if the U.S. caries out the implications of such an “architecture” - it would signify a serious restatement of diplomacy, as well as an explicit necessity for public diplomacy in the mechanisms of U.S. foreign policy. Diplomatic institutions would become both a functional and normative resource for U.S. foreign policy.
Sharp’s work is likely a needed reference for practitioners and theorists alike. But perhaps even more timely and immediately practical for public diplomacy is Robin Brown’s recent essay presented at the 2010 International Studies Association convention. Brown’s essay “Diplomacy, Public Diplomacy and Social Networks” is a theory-inspired statement about public diplomacy that is long overdue – one which brings together a lot of recommendations that have surfaced over the past few years into a concise argument about the relevance of social networks for PD. Brown suggests we step beyond the easy invocations of “networks” when we talk about public diplomacy and look to social network analysis as a way to understand and theorize about public diplomacy.
For Brown, public diplomacy planning could be better served by a social network approach. We need to pay attention to the structural consequences of relationships that can constrain or enable action: both for planning agencies and their antagonists. The relationships embodied in social networks are a useful resource in that they reveal social knowledge as much as routes to influence. Here’s a list compiled from parts of Brown’s essay:
- Social networks tell us about what people know;
- Such patterns tell us a lot about shared characteristics, values, information, and priorities;
- The structure of relationships reveal opportunities for influence and indeed, vulnerability.
These ideas aren’t new to network scholars, but they are relatively new as a systematic approach to diplomacy. Brown argues that a social network approach, that is, taking seriously core concepts from social network analysis, can provide a good strategic template for diplomatic practice. In particular, the “practice of diplomatic representation” (the work of embassies), the “practice of coalition building,” the “practice of exchanges,” and international broadcasting.”
Taking networks seriously means using ideas and concepts from social network analysis to conceptualize the ways in which international actors relate, influence each other, and how their relational structures reflect characteristics of actors across various and overlapping global networks. It does not mean justification for the latest networking technology – though using such technology may very well be necessary.
Taking social networks seriously also means a more systematic view of the world, and may also provide more concrete objectives: networks provide ways to more clearly conceive of objectives and thus, ways to measure effectiveness in public diplomacy programs. Experts like Ali Fisher have been saying this for some time – we need to clearly articulate what we want to accomplish, rather than carry forward vague notions of engagement without strong sense of the objective. We can start by actually paying attention to the networks we participate in as part of public diplomacy.
I don’t think that diplomatic practitioners are unaware of the insights of network theory – rather I think that such insights are rarely integrated in a systematic way to guide policy and practice. Network theory provides a lens to see the world for diplomatic practitioners. A social network approach provides a ready, tested, and relatively clear set of terms and ideas through which to manage global relationships.
Others have pointed the way for network-centric approaches to public diplomacy (for example, see the work of Steven Corman and his research associates), but I think the implications of Brown’s essay are even more provocative. The public diplomacy “community” of practitioners and commentators is well aware of concepts like “credibility,” attention,” and “connection.” In the case of the United States, these are often frustratingly hard to match with appropriate programs or interventions. Brown’s piece explicitly argues that foreign ministries (the State Department or otherwise) can’t approach such terms separately as particular aspects of diplomacy or public diplomacy. Such terms are more readily understood as functions of the network relationships that define the “audience” for diplomatic intervention. When we define the diplomatic traditions of relationship management as acting upon, through, or with knowledge of social networks, the fundamental nature of diplomacy changes.
This change also signals a gradual convergence of diplomacy with public diplomacy - something that was initially predicted around the time the USIA was folded into the State Department over 10 years ago. The practical difference between diplomacy and public diplomacy in Brown’s view boils down to which social networks are being used or accessed. Brown’s conceptual move also tightly binds public diplomacy into the social fabric of communication – the communication infrastructure of shared stories, outlets, and connections that serve as a context to diplomatic and future public diplomacy programs. We can’t perceive public diplomacy as a wholly separate activity from diplomacy. Just because public diplomacy doesn’t have an office on the seventh floor of the State Department, doesn’t mean it’s somehow operating in its own universe of international relations.
Simply put, diplomatic activity is embedded in multiple layers of social networks. These can be studied, mapped, adapted to and otherwise exploited. A social network approach distills some of the conceptual clutter raised by the many challenges to traditional and public diplomacy in the 21st century (and the breakdown of familiar analogies that we use to make sense of foreign policy) into actionable units for diplomatic strategy. Yet I don’t think this is a simple policy heuristic – nor do I think that a social network approach “solves” all the problems that foreign policy attempts to address.
Social networks reveal structural routes to influence, but the specifics still need to be hammered out – what messages, symbols, actions constitute the appropriate actions for a particular aspect of the network. Diplomats thus need both the social scientific insights of its networked stakeholders, as much as a humanistic understanding of the particular and the local – a rhetoric of networks to fulfill the expected, structural routes of influence. For example, Marc Sageman’s arguments about Al-Qaeda’s new “blob”-like structure means there are limits to networks as an encompassing optic for diplomacy and foreign policy. But a theoretical understanding of public diplomacy needs to start somewhere.
Brown’s call for a social network approach is also a call that has serious real-world implications. It’s a case where theory would drive policy in a transparent way. Obviously, the convergence of PD and diplomacy isn’t going to happen overnight, no matter what kind of theoretical framework is developed to comprehend 21st century diplomacy and public diplomacy. The boundaries are reinforced by considerable inertia in diplomatic institutions, yet the immanent necessity of attention to networks as the site of diplomatic activity may inevitably force transformation, and ideally inspire further conceptual and scholarly labor in the field of public diplomacy.
Maybe it was Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki’s call last week for all of Iran’s Ambassadors to be “innovative and focused on action,” that struck a nerve. Perhaps it was the endless re-hashing of the healthcare debate that I still can’t make any sense of. Perhaps it was the FT reporting recently on the immense loss of confidence publics around the world have in their governments. Or maybe it all began when one of my board members, Alan Siegel (Founder & Chairman of the branding powerhouse Siegel + Gale), shared that he would be delivering a TED talk on the theme of America’s Crisis of Complexity earlier this month. Regardless, I can’t stop wishing, hoping, praying that our political and foreign policy leadership finally get the message (and, ironically, Siegel + Gale’s tagline): Simple is Smart.
Which brings me to this week’s release of Under Secretary Judith McHale’s new Public Diplomacy Strategic Approach for the 21st Century. There have been countless reports, hearings, strategies, and recommendations for public diplomacy efforts since 9/11. I’m afraid to even ask how much all of this introspection has cost the US taxpayer - but I digress. For all of the deep thinking on public diplomacy it is astonishing how, to this day, the goals, priorities and calls to action fail to move beyond sweeping rhetoric and endless org charts. To a certain extent, this is to be expected. After having served in the federal government at the State Department, notably in Diplomatic Security and then in the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy’s Office, I was confounded by the layers of complexity that shroud the halls of Foggy Bottom. While there was no shortage of bright, heavily credentialed foreign policy experts, finding anyone who would be willing, in a simple, clear way to explain what, why and how they engage in diplomatic efforts was next to impossible. And don’t even get me started on public diplomacy. You’d be hard pressed to find two senior officials in the Department who can agree on a clear definition of just what exactly ‘public diplomacy’ is, let alone what it means to the foreign policy making process.
On the surface, the latest strategic review of Public Diplomacy covers the bases. The sweeping rhetoric is all there – engaging, informing and influencing foreign publics while combating extremism, re-shaping the policy-making process, and pressing for new technologies to help our posts better engage and influence narratives in real time. It all seems to make the case for why State’s Public Diplomacy efforts desperately need exponentially expanded resources. The reality, of course, is that with so many priorities and so few current resources, the basic tasks outlined in the report will be next to impossible to deliver on. The strategy, while ambitious, over-reaches - and once again, as with many previous strategies, builds further layers of complexity which only serve to paralyze core public diplomacy efforts.
It is also striking to me that there was no mention of tapping into and leveraging the tremendous diplomatic assets we currently have overseas. We could start, as China does, with our diasporas, by proactively assembling and engaging American ex-pats abroad. Further, we could amass and regularly tap into our global network of Foreign Service Nationals, locals who are employed in our embassies and consulates supporting our diplomats abroad. I would have hoped, amongst all the discussion of people-to-people efforts and emphasis on building trust and support for our foreign policy abroad, there would have been some mention of engaging and informing the American public more deeply on these issues. With the United States engaged in ever more expansive and costly efforts abroad, the American public should have a clear notion of our foreign policy goals and why they matter, as well as a solid understating of what our diplomats are doing about it.
And finally, I agree with Phil Seib’s opinion that State must move beyond a Middle-East and Muslim-Community focused public diplomacy to a more balanced global view. I would only add to this that in order to pursue such a directive, State must also abandon any notion that its public diplomacy efforts should attempt to Combat Violent Extremism. Maybe I am being too naïve and simplistic in my view on the subject, but it would seem to me that undermining violent extremism is a massive effort in and of itself and one best undertaken by experts in our intelligence, security and military apparatus working in concert. Those elements within our federal government are not only trained to understand the extremist mindset but work day to day in some of the most hostile environments and are best equipped and resourced to develop strategies and tactics to respond.
Which brings me back to Alan Siegel’s TED talk. As always, Siegel has a way of brilliantly cutting through all the clutter and chaos, providing a clear directive for our policy makers and political leadership…if they would only listen. The key, of course, to delivering on Siegel’s premise is one of execution and accountability, two words that strike fear into any bureaucracy. Siegel’s call for clarity and simplicity is one that I hope Washington will finally take note of:
Simplicity is not simple-minded or simplistic.
Now is the time to make clarity, transparency, and empathy national priorities. Americans are desperate for communications from government and business that help them make informed decisions. In turn, these will help restore their trust in our public and private institutions. We have only ourselves to blame if we continue tolerating outrageously complex and confusing practices. It’s time to replace this crisis of complexity with a covenant of clarity.
He ended his remarks with a quote from Thomas Jefferson which really says it all: “When the subject is strong, simplicity is the only way to treat it.”
Is Washington listening? Simple really is smart.
Cari E. Guittard, MPA, is Executive Director of Business for Diplomatic Action and Adjunct Faculty for the USC Masters in Public Diplomacy program, teaching Corporate Diplomacy this spring. Guittard resides in San Francisco, CA.
The long-awaited “roadmap” for U.S. public diplomacy has finally emerged from Undersecretary of State Judith McHale’s office, and it is a stunning disappointment.
It is so lacking in imagination, so narrow in its scope, and so insufficient in its appraisal of the tasks facing U.S. public diplomats that it is impossible to understand why its preparation took so many months.
U.S. public diplomacy has remained in the doldrums even with Barack Obama at the helm. That doesn’t appear to be changing. The “strategic imperatives” laid out in this plan are tired bromides: “shape the narrative; expand and strengthen people-to-people relationships; combat violent extremism; better inform policy-making; deploy resources in line with current priorities.” Wow.
These are all good things, but they hardly represent the “strategic approach for the 21st century” that this document claims to be. Only occasionally in the plan are there ideas that represent any change in direction from the meandering and archaic tactics that have hamstrung America’s recent relationship with much of the rest of the world. For instance, making “American Centers” accessible, rather than burying them within fortified embassies, makes good sense, but it provides a mere glimmer when U.S. public diplomacy needs a huge spotlight.
The document says this framework “is the first phase of a process for developing a detailed strategic plan for Public Diplomacy.” But if the detailed plan is to be based on this framework, why bother? For those of us who had hoped that the Obama administration would bring new vitality and decisiveness to public diplomacy, the approach taken by the State Department is terribly deflating.
In his speech in Cairo last June, President Obama showed that he appreciates the need for the United States to create new relationships with the rest of the world. The State Department should be translating the President’s vision into policy. Nothing in the new plan addresses the need for public diplomacy to worry less about branding and more about service; to step away from Cold War-style monologue and embrace a comprehensive plan for interactive communication; to shift from a Middle East-centric public diplomacy to a more balanced global outlook; to realistically employ public diplomacy as an antiterrorism tool; and to reach out to diasporic populations and virtual states.
In his Cairo speech, President Obama said: “It is easier to blame others than to look inward. It is easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path.”
In those words is more common sense about public diplomacy than can be found in the entire “strategic framework” the State Department has produced. The Secretary of State should tell her department to start over and do better.
Last Thursday (March 4, 2010), some of the top thinkers currently engaging the issue of America’s image in the world testified on Capitol Hill in hearings before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs under the title ‘Restoring America’s Reputation in the World: Why it Matters.’ Joseph Nye of Harvard stressed the value of smart power. Andrew Kohut of Pew pointed to the fragility of the recent promising trends in world opinion and J. Michael Waller of the Center for Security Policy provocatively challenged the assembled legislators to stop and think: ‘Would I run my political campaign the way the United States government runs its strategic communication?’ Meanwhile a story broke which has the potential to put yet another hole in America’s already leaky boat. TV, radio and web-based news services of the BBC carried an alarming report from the Iraqi city of Fallujah by the distinguished correspondent John Simpson.
In the report Simpson noted that the level of birth defects in this city had reached such a scale that officials were now warning women not to have children at all. Simpson visited hospitals and clinics, met doctors, parents and children and viewed photographs of horrible deformities including a baby born with three heads. The hospital saw three new cases each day. The significance for the United States was the explanation given by all those he spoke to: the cluster of birth defects must be the result of the high tech munitions used by the Americans during the battle of Fallujah in 2004. Simpson noted that the defects were worst where the fighting was most intense. In some versions the BBC explained that rubble from the battle had simply been bulldozed into the river Euphrates and that the river was the sole source of drinking water for all the mothers of disabled children that they had met. The report mentioned depleted uranium munitions and the use of white phosphorus in the 2004 attack and left no doubt that at the very least there were grounds for a major investigation. In some versions of the story, the Iraqi claims were balanced with an interview with a Leeds University professor, Alistair Hay, who pointed out that no link had been proven, and a rather limp written statement from the Pentagon which disputed a connection and ended rather fatuously by noting that improvised explosive devices were also a hazard to public health. Of course, Fallujah was a center of the Iraqi chemical industry and the rubble would be a health hazard whatever else happened to the city, but the problem here is that this story is not really about scientific casualty, it is about images of mutilated children and America’s public diplomats stand to lose big if they don’t respond appropriately.
Think about the most powerful images of warfare generated by the twentieth century: the broken child in Picasso’s Guernica; the terrified Jewish boy with his hands raised on the streets of Warsaw; the burned girl running in Nick Ut’s photograph from Vietnam; the dead Palestinian child on the streets of Gaza. Images of suffering children penetrate like no other. The deformed children of Fallujah will haunt the United States unless it acts now not merely to intone ‘not my bad,’ but to show that it cares about the children whatever the cause of their illness. Could not the United States work with the Iraqi government to identify the cause of the epidemic? Should not the United States move to facilitate access to safe water for the next generation of mothers in Fallujah? Can we not all be part of a 'stepping up' of the existing international conversation about how best to build a future for people born with physical and learning difficulties for whatever reason? If the US does nothing, the images will merge with the familiar claims about the poisonous nature of depleted uranium. They will become further grist to the anti-American mill and a sap on American global power and influence regardless of whether Congress heeds Drs. Nye, Kohut and Waller and takes America’s ailing public diplomacy machine in hand.
On February 1, President Barack Obama released his $3.8 trillion Federal Budget, which has been criticized for driving record deficits even higher. One agency not receiving extra spending from Obama’s plan, though, is America’s space agency, as NASA’s budget has been cut; (in theory, it’s increased from the previous year, but in practice it’s lower). Huh?
Much has already been reported about the operational effect of Obama’s plan, notably the cancellation of NASA’s Constellation Program, but very little has been written to date about the political consequences.
On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush’s administration articulated a new vision for space exploration which appeared to be the practical follow-up to an uncharacteristically poetic quote from 2003: “This cause for exploration and discovery is not an option we choose; it is a desire written in the human heart.” The manifestation of this vision was NASA’s Constellation Program – a human spaceflight program to replace the imminently retiring Space Shuttle with ambitions to return to the Moon and to send humans to Mars.
In brief, the Constellation Program involves the development of Orion – the next-generation crew exploration vehicle – that would be launched into low Earth orbit (LEO) by the new Ares I rocket. Once in LEO, Orion would rendezvous with the Ares V rocket and Altair (the new lunar lander module) in the Earth Departure Stage (EDS). The EDS will take Orion into lunar orbit and the crew will descend from there to the surface of the Moon in Altair. And then return at some point, presumably. The Mars vision is obviously built into the program given that ‘Ares’ was the Greek God of War whose Roman equivalent was, of course, Mars.
Instead of this visionary exploration, however, NASA is now charged with facilitating the growth of the commercial space industry and pursuing the development of technologies that would make space travel more affordable. Members of Congress, on both sides, have criticized Obama’s plan, with Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) saying, for example, that, “NASA will no longer be an agency of innovation and hard science. It will be the agency of pipe dreams and fairy tales.” But no-one has yet asked the question, “What are the consequences of that image of NASA?”
NASA was created in 1958 in response to the Sputnik Crisis, which was the perceived threat to America’s security and technological leadership resulting from the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik 1, the world’s first man-made satellite. So began the Space Race – the ultimate Cold War battle for technological supremacy. The United States eventually won the Space Race in 1969 by landing Apollo 11’s Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on the Moon. This unprecedented feat of human achievement consolidated America’s technological superiority which it retained through to the end of the Cold War, and arguably ever since.
There is no doubt that this technological leadership, with its associations of enterprise and innovation, has been a positive aspect – perhaps the most consistent positive aspect – of America’s image to the world. America’s image suffered during the latest Bush years, 2001-2009, mainly as a result of its foreign policy. But it regained ground with the election of Barack Obama. It is ironic, therefore, that Obama appears to be dealing a lethal blow to that positive aspect (even more ironic that Bush was the most recent space visionary). One defence of Obama’s position could be that, by supporting the private space industry, he is encouraging enterprise and innovation in a ‘truly American’ egalitarian way.
Obama is missing the point, though. A nation’s image is built more on what the state itself achieves than what its private individuals do (a state is not just the sum of its individuals). Most of the nation’s citizens , who may never make it into space themselves, would prefer the administration that they elected to lead the way to the stars rather than the businessman next door who happens to have a spare billion dollars.
So, in effect, not only is Obama disabling NASA, he is undermining a cornerstone of his country’s soft power. Furthermore, he is handing the initiative to other states that are quietly (or not) developing their own space programs apace. China is shooting for the Moon. India has made breakthrough discoveries in lunar exploration. Even North Korea and Iran are launching rockets regularly.
On his November 2009 visit to Beijing, Obama talked about co-operation rather than competition with China in space . The new budget now makes co-operation the only option for the U.S., besides ceding the frontier of space to China altogether. But we all know that it is competition that facilitates creativity (in spite of those who would argue the opposite). In any case, America has lost the initiative.
What the U.S. needs is another Cold War Space Race – some focus, some drive, some competitive spirit – but instead it has relegated itself to the sidelines. The only way that the U.S. government can demonstrate technological superiority now is through its military; (computing, Internet, and other technology-based fields are already outsourced to private industry).
The military, of course, is the very opposite of soft power, so Obama has effectively robbed himself of attractive diplomatic currency. But even on the hard power front, the U.S. may also lose out if China chooses to militarize space in spite of the U.N.’s Outer Space Treaty. The U.S. could only militate against that scenario if it had its own independent presence in space. But that presence, for the time being, will have to remain a pipe dream.
Justin Rashid is a graduate student in the USC Master of Public Diplomacy program. His background includes psychology, diplomacy & operational analysis. This article stems from a paper written for Matt Armstrong’s “Public Diplomacy 510: Public Diplomacy & Technology” class.
A month ago I participated in a conference at the University of Leeds in the UK entitled Journeys and Justice: Forced Migration, Seeking Asylum and Human Rights. The conference, which was sponsored by the School of Geography at Leeds in partnership with Amnesty International, focused on the experiences of refugees in the UK and throughout the world. Additional conference organizers included members of the Leeds Asylum Seekers Support Network and Leeds Met University.
At the conference I presented a paper about the trafficking of ethnic minority women and girls in Thailand entitled National Identity, The Shan and Child Trafficking in Northern Thailand: The Case of DEPDC. I wrote this paper after spending part of the summer teaching music and English in Northern Thailand at an NGO dedicated to child trafficking prevention. While there, I discovered that a large majority of the women and girls who I was teaching were ethnic Shan (one of Northern Thailand’s many ethnic minorities), and I wanted to better understand their experiences and circumstances.
Understudied academically, but possessing a large presence throughout Northern Thailand and Northeastern Burma, the Shan, or “Tai” people inhabit what is presently known as Shan State (an “imagined community” in the sense that it does not have autonomy, sovereignty or recognition by the Burmese and Thai governments). Lacking political autonomy in a nation riddled with ethnic warfare, the Shan have populated this large area of Burma since the 12th century, and have migrated into the mountainous regions of northern Thailand, Yunnan China and Laos. While their presence in each of these nations is strong, the Shan are nevertheless known as a “people without country,” for their status as citizens remains unrecognized by many Southeast Asian governments, including Thailand’s.
I discussed the NGO’s activities, the circumstances of the Shan, and how my work at the school was a type of cultural diplomacy initiative. Cultural diplomacy deals with the values, attitudes and beliefs of a society, and how they are manifested and externalized in the cultural aspects of language, the arts, and people’s day-to-day behavior. Education itself can be a powerful form of cultural diplomacy. Through teaching music and English (and by speaking Thai myself—the language used by the girls at the NGO), I was able to create connections, build relationships and make discoveries that might otherwise have been difficult to achieve. Cultural diplomacy, in addition to being a profound vehicle for communication, can also be a mechanism for building trust.
The Leeds conference itself was another opportunity to practice cultural diplomacy. While most of the papers presented at the conference maintained a UK focus, I was happy (and relieved!) when, in the discussion following my presentation, several Thai and Southeast Asian scholars spoke up, contributing interesting and insightful observations. Among these was Usamard Siampukde, a Ph.D. candidate at Leeds who is conducting her research on Thai women who migrate to Japan, as well as the head of a UK-based NGO working with Karen refugees from Burma. I had a great time getting to know these women and learning about the incredible work they’re doing in the UK, Thailand and beyond. I left the conference reminded that cultivating these types of friendships and associations is an amazing aspect of academia and a powerful tool for public diplomacy in its own right.
Erin Kamler is a master’s degree candidate in Public Diplomacy at USC's Annenberg School for Communication/ School of International Relations. An award-winning playwright, composer and speaker of the Thai language, she is focusing her studies on public diplomacy in Southeast Asia.
Salman Ahmad, founder of South Asia’s most successful rock band Junoon, has been on a rock and roll jihad (struggle) ever since his first concert at 18 – a medical school talent show in Lahore, Pakistan. Eyes closed, emotions pumped, he was ripping through Van Halen’s ‘Eruption’ on his guitar, mesmerized by the crowd’s screams, only to discover that the yelling was coming from a group of bearded students from a religious group outraged by music they considered un-Islamic. One student tore Salman’s guitar from his hands and smashed it on the floor.
From that moment, Salman vowed to fight extremist forces and preserve Pakistan’s rich cultural heritage. For the last 25 years, Salman has been a guitar-wielding ambassador for peace, using his music to dispel misperceptions and promote understanding. His newly released memoir “Rock and Roll Jihad” chronicles his journey, and provides important lessons on how to tap the potential of cultural personalities to help heal wounds, humanize the “other”, and foster respect between the US and the Muslim world.
Salman and I went to Islamic Sunday School together as teenagers. We would gather around a ping pong table in Uncle Sultan’s basement to read the Quran and learn about Islam. Salman always had his guitar nearby, using breaks to strum a tune or scribble lyrics. It was no accident that even then his guitar and his faith were in close proximity.
After seeing his first rock concert at 14 -- Led Zeppelin at Madison Square Garden -- Salman found his junoon (passion): he wanted to be a rock star. He spent his teenage years in New York joining garage bands, going to rock clubs and Beatles-fests, and playing his guitar until his fingers bled. His parents had other ideas.
His family moved back to Pakistan, so Salman could become a respectable doctor and not, in his parent’s view, a low class musician. Pakistan had turned into a fundamentalist dictatorship under General Zia ul Haq: gender segregation was state policy, music, song and dance were considered corrupting influences, and family-oriented TV shows were banned. Salman began his mission: to shine light onto this cultural darkness with his music. He started a traveling guitar club and joined his first rock band, Vital Signs, whose hit song “Dil Dil Pakistan” became the national anthem of a new Pakistan. He founded Junoon and developed a style of music, “Sufi rock”, that merged conventional rock with Sufi poetry, the guitar with the tabla – a fusion of East and West that mirrored his own blended identity as a Pakistani-American-Muslim.
With more than 30 million record sales, Salman went on to become an international rock star – often called the “Bono of South Asia”. More importantly, he used the power of music to challenge the status quo, bring attention to sensitive issues, and galvanize millions to believe in new ways of thinking.
I experienced it first hand. Almost thirty years after our Sunday School days, Salman and I met half way around the world, in a place that Led Zeppelin had sung about at the New York concert: Kashmir.
Madanjeet Singh, founder of the South Asia Foundation, had sought out Salman to perform the first ever rock concert in war-torn Kashmir. It was a bold move, but Ambassador Singh understands the power of culture to promote peace. The symbolism of a Pakistani band performing in Indian controlled Kashmir was not lost on any of us. Especially not the detractors. Days before the concert an umbrella group of Kashmiri militant organizations had passed a resolution to stop the show. There were death threats against Salman and his band and anyone who tried to attend.
But on a hot May afternoon in 2008, music blasted through political divisions and guitar riffs silenced the guns. With the Zabarwan mountains as a backdrop, and the majestic Himalayas and Dal Lake in full view, Salman and his band performed for more than two hours. Music gave voice to silenced sentiments and breathed hope to new possibilities, as Salman sang “meri awaz suno, mujhe azad karo” (“hear my voice, give me freedom”). More than ten thousand young Kashmiris – some in headscarves, others in school uniforms – sang, danced, waved their arms, and yelled for more. For a moment, a war zone felt more like Woodstock. When Salman started singing “Sayonee” (soul mates), Junoon’s most popular song and a huge hit in India, things reached a feverish pitch. Once wasn’t enough. The crowd joined in, drowning out the band: "Chain ek pal nahin, aur koi hal nahin," ("Life is hard, there is not a moment’s respite; but we have to go through it, there are no shortcuts").
“This has been a ten year tryst with destiny,” Salman told the crowd. Junoon had first played in India in 1998, but his dream had always been to perform in Kashmir. His promoter had said, “It’s not the right time,” “Not yet”, and finally, “Not in your lifetime.”
Just after the concert, I asked Salman how he felt. “I have performed all over the world, but I’ve never felt like this,” he said. “And I don’t think I ever will. I hope this junoon spreads the message of love and friendship throughout South Asia, throughout the world.”
Last weekend marked the Chinese Lunar New Year as we begin celebrating the Year of the Tiger. Chinese people have a tradition of watching the China Central Television (CCTV) New Year Gala on television on New Year’s Eve. Some compare the New Year Gala to the Super Bowl game in terms of how much each event attracts peoples’ attention. It is true that almost every family has their New Year’s dinner with the TV Gala on, and it has become a must-do activity of that night. The Gala can also be viewed as a microcosm of Chinese society — provided you watch it closely enough, given that it serves as another channel for the government to deliver messages. Internal propaganda? Definitely. But I see it as a way of paving the road for public diplomacy.
CCTV is one of the official mouthpieces of the Chinese government, reporting directly to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Needless to say, most of CCTV’s programs, if not all, are politically deliberated. The Chinese New Year Gala is a perfect platform for internal propaganda because of its high viewership and influential nature.
This year, at the very beginning of the Gala, Uyghur dancers appeared before other dancers. Such a display is unusual because no such arrangements have ever occurred previously. Next, there was a show in which two Uyghur singers sang a song praising the Party’s policy in Xinjiang. Only Uyghur singers and dancers performed in it, which is also very rare. This was followed by a stock show featuring Chinese minorities dancing altogether which was supposed to symbolize the harmony of the ethnic groups, living with the majority Han community. These programs reminded me of the riots in Xinjiang last July.
While I was not attracted to this particular program, I was able to appreciate it as a Chinese government effort to educate the public. When it comes to public diplomacy, the role public diplomacy can play domestically is often ignored. But when internal propaganda works, the diplomacy efforts gain public support in a variety of ways, and especially with activities involving citizen diplomacy.
Another phenomenon that caught my eye was that the United States was mentioned several times in comic talk shows and sketches when comparisons were made between the U.S. and China. The actors read lines such as: “Chinese should not lose face in front of Americans” and “See the U.S. even comes to us for money,” followed by the sound of applause. Chinese people like to hear such patriotic language which reinforces the “China Rising” era. These sketches demonstrate where China positions itself in the world and how the Chinese see the U.S. in this period of economic downturn.
This year’s Gala theme may reflect the fact that many Chinese welcome nationalistic sentiments right now, especially among the post-80s generation. The targets of this nationalistic sentiment are Japan, India, South Korea and the U.S. Recently, many issues, such as the sale of weapons to Taiwan by the U.S., the Google-China quarrel, and the Dalai Lama’s White House meeting, have complicated the relationship between the U.S. and China. Regardless of the message offered by the Chinese government and the international community’s human rights agenda, the Chinese people themselves may have different viewpoints on such issues. Good public diplomacy is about trying to listen to the voices of the Chinese people and trying to understand what shapes these sentiments.
Di Wu is a second year graduate student in USC Masters of Public Diplomacy program. She is a native of China and holds a bachelor degree of International Politics and a master’s degree of International Relations. Di focuses her study and research on China and East Asia. She is a contributing researcher for PDiN at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, and is a staff editor for Public Diplomacy Magazine.
Veteran Canadian diplomat Daryl Copeland has been on the ramparts of diplomatic studies for several years now, advocating a kind of diplomacy he calls Guerrilla Diplomacy. Last week, at the International Studies Association convention in New Orleans, a panel of expert academics reviewed Copeland’s thesis and generally applauded his ideas.
I also had a chance to sit down with Daryl and you can download and listen to our interview here.
Essentially, Copeland in his book and writings is advocating a kind of public diplomacy — less formal, less bureaucratic, more flexible. In Copeland’s view, a public diplomat may be a government official, but doesn’t necessarily come from a foreign ministry. He or she clearly represents a state, but is dispatched to communicate with non-diplomats. Copeland, for instance, feels that Canada’s diplomacy should have taken more advantage of Canada’s large Haitian community in Montreal as a resource for understanding how to deliver aid following the recent earthquake. He also likes the way that a Canadian fisheries minister in the mid-Nineties staged a Greenpeace-like demonstration for media on the East River of New York City, showing how a Spanish fishing trawler that the Canadians had seized on the high seas had been netting internationally protected fish.
Whether such activity is really guerrilla-like can be questioned. Copeland is mainly looking for a way toward “radical reform” of diplomacy that will resolve its “crisis of relevance and effectiveness.” Perhaps, he muses, the sorts of skills that one develops in “independent world travel — survival skills, resilience, cross cultural communication skills, problem solving skills” — are the ones that foreign ministries of our flat world should encourage. Such skills should, in any event, help diplomats keep their bearings, regardless of how they view and pursue their work.
Copeland’s message is a timely one for the United States. Not only are U.S. diplomats increasingly asked to take on non-traditional roles in conflict zones, the State Department is in the final stages of its in-depth review of its practices and strategy, known as the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. If traditional definitions of diplomacy are ever to be amended, now would seem to be a good time to make the effort.
Many journalists and commentators have examined and illuminated the role of new media and technology in the on-going protests in Iran. Exposing the electoral fraud perpetrated by Ahmedinejad last year and the violent repression of resultant protests certainly called for the skill of traditional journalists and the new media capabilities of Iranian citizen witnesses and participants. Since there were few foreign correspondents able to report first-hand from Tehran last summer, the “I Reports” sent to the world by ordinary Iranians were critically important in getting the truth out.
But what of the protests and conflict in Gaza and the West Bank? A few months earlier, during a two-week long Israeli military operation in Gaza, more than a thousand Palestinians were killed. By all accounts, most of these casualties were civilians.
Just as traditional journalism was restricted by Iranian authorities in the aftermath of the June Iranian elections, Israeli authorities placed severe restrictions on Western journalists trying to cover the Israeli incursion in Gaza in 2008-2009.
In fact, just as non-traditional media were and are critical to getting the word out on what was happening in Tehran, the same kinds of media are essential to bearing witness as to what has transpired — and continues to transpire — in Gaza and the West Bank.
One of the few scholars doing real research on the role of new media and technology in the occupied West Bank and Gaza is Charmaine Stanley, a graduate student at the University of Toronto. She spoke last week at the International Studies Association convention in New Orleans. You can listen to my interview with her here.
One of the striking aspects to Stanley’s findings is the way that smart phone technology not only communicates “actuality” about events — video recordings and “tweets” — but also serves to organize political protest. This technology has been instrumental in linking Palestinians and Israeli Jews who advocate peaceful change. During the Gaza incursion by the Israeli military, Stanley reports, the Israeli peace movement managed to give Palestinians cell phones they could use to record and transmit video images of the violence. Eventually some of these images found their way into mainstream media.
In response, Stanley notes, the Israeli military gave their own forces smart phones so that they could themselves record incidents that implicated Palestinians. Since Israeli authorities had clamped down on foreign media access, they couldn’t hope that foreign correspondents would get that story.
Iranian authorities have shown a capacity and a willingness to shut down access to the Internet, but eventually citizen journalists find a work-around. Israeli authorities also have the capacity to control Internet access and monitor, trace and track the many Palestinians they suspect of disloyalty. But here too peaceful protesters have shown enough courage and commitment to get their message out.
We can’t yet foresee how these new media measures and counter-measures will end, only hope that they may lead those contemplating large scale violence to think again.
It would be great if the proliferation of digital recording devices and access to Internet served to deter violence. Better still if the only weapons drawn in Gaza and the West Bank were smart phones.
If Pakistan were a person, who would it be? Would it be Odysseus, undergoing a series of grueling tests in order to claim its true heroic identity? Would it be a hapless Sancho Panza, looking on with alarm as it’s dragged into ruin by the misadventures of those around it?
As a Pakistani-American, I hope Pakistan someday turns out to be Odysseus. But for my money, Pakistan could best be characterized in 2010 as Uncle Leo of “Seinfeld” fame. Can you recall the “Shower Head” episode in which Jerry, on The Tonight Show, pokes fun of Uncle Leo’s paranoid tendency to ascribe all sins against him as being fueled by anti-Semitism?
If you can’t recall, I believe you need to spend less time worrying about global issues and more time watching TBS. Regardless, Leo fumes as his girlfriend laughs at Seinfeld’s candor – and Leo in short order dumps her for this gross act of bigotry (never mind that Jerry, as a Jew, is the instigator of this supposed anti-Semitism).
There are countless Pakistani websites that offer the sort of ‘consipiratizing’ perfected by Leo, the conspiratizing you hear in a few too many dinner conversations around that nation. Here’s just one from Kashmir Watch (bold emphasis is mine):
Since the U.S.-led NATO forces occupied Afghanistan after 9/11, stiff resistance of the Taliban militants against the occupying forces created unending lawlessness in the country which has become a most conducive place for India so as to prepare conspiracy in order to fulfill its secret strategic designs against Iran, China and especially Pakistan….
In the past, emboldened by the tactical support of the US and Israel, Indian RAW, based in Afghanistan has been sending well-trained agents in Pakistan, who have joined the ranks and files of the Taliban. Posing themselves as the Pakistan Taliban, they not only attack the check posts of Pakistan's security forces, but also target schools and mosques. They are continuously conducting suicide attacks in our country. In this context, India has also arranged some Madrassas in Afghanistan where highly motivated and RAW-paid militants are being trained with the help of Indian so-called Muslim scholars. Now, Indian support to insurgency in the Frontier Province and the Baloch separatism has become a common matter.
Hmm, maybe the original Uncle Leo did have reasons to be paranoid, given how Israel is implicated above and in so much international intrigue by frustrated nationalists in the greater Middle East and South Asia.
Pakistani journalist Ahmad Quraishi, symbolizing much of the Pakistani nationalist journalism in vogue, assails the U.S. ambassador in Islamabad for believing that Pakistanis are overly and strategically negative toward the U.S.—a peculiar condemnation, given how his own site regularly accuses the U.S. of invading and destroying Pakistan.
But the West should recognize that the U.S. and Israel are in a sense secondary and tertiary in the minds of Pakistani nationalists, who currently dominate the debates on television and in living rooms across Pakistan. The U.S. is the most convenient devil, but much of Pakistani anxiety relates to real or perceived Indian machinations.
Many ordinary Pakistanis, not just nationalists, seethe about how India and the West accuse Pakistan of facilitating attacks such as the Mumbai catastrophe, while India is never questioned by the West for what may be similar behavior in Afghanistan or in Baluchistan or other Pakistani regions. Let me shift the metaphor from a wacky uncle to that of a sibling rivalry between a 7-year-old and a 17-year-old. Pakistan and India are caught in a game of “But, Mom, HE started it!” Pakistanis feel like the younger sibling, being sent fuming to his room, because Mom believes he’s the sole problem. India, for its part, seems to avoid criticism—and as it nears adulthood, it now has power that rivals that of the adult authority anyway.
In fact, in a notorious Foreign Affairs article last year, RAND expert Christine Fair and other experts speculated that Pak criticisms of Indian meddling weren’t merely paranoia, even if the criticisms were overinflated.
Fair at the same time has openly rebuked the Pakistani military for taking US money and handing it off to the Taliban, and for being the leading cause of instability in the region. That sort of criticism, while never welcomed by the accused, is only tolerable if it is balanced with the regarding the rivals of the accused.
Fair’s example should be emulated by Washington. Typical Pakistanis have yet to see the issue of Indian influence in Af-Pak “go public” in a visible way. Uncle Sam can’t calm Uncle Leo’s oversensitive nerves unless this happens.
It’s difficult to say who’s “more to blame” or “who started it” in the Pak-Indian mess. But that’s not the point, at the purely public-diplomacy level. At the PD level, a genuine interest in fairness—expressed both publicly and privately—is essential on the part of Washington and the greater West.
In 2004, when the Indian Ocean tsunami hit a number of countries, the coastal regions of Indonesia and Sri Lanka were devastated. Before the tsunami, the public opinion of the United States in these and surrounding Muslim countries was predictably low; however the huge efforts of US humanitarian aid immediately following as well as long after the crisis swayed public opinions that remained high even a year later in a follow-up poll. US AID currently reports successful efforts to re-build the hardest hit cities and enable an early-warning system for future potential catastrophic events. The aid was not given to boost public opinion, nor have the long-term assistance programs received the international media coverage that the initial efforts attained. Yet the impact on the public perception of the U.S. in those countries has been positive and significant.
At present, the United States is involved in another massive relief effort for those affected by the devastating 7.0 earthquake in Haiti. The initial reports from Haiti were grim and became bleaker in the following weeks as aftershocks hit and terror swept the capital city of Port-au-Prince. Relief agencies struggled to provide supplies due to severe limitations due to a collapsed infrastructure.
Despite the best efforts of the United States to respond quickly and in a way that would be beneficial, initial aid efforts were criticized as being slow, disorganized, and lacking in leadership. Due to the fact that US military forces were controlling the airport, the United States became the focus for many of these critiques.
In an effort to stem these criticisms, and re-cast American efforts in a positive light, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton recently said, “I deeply resent those who attack our country, the generosity of our people and the leadership of our president in trying to respond to historically disastrous conditions after the earthquake.” While media attention is still focused on Haiti, the United States hopes to be remembered in the media for the outpouring of compassion and help, and not as incompetent or political. Especially because the hardest work is yet to come and will likely receive little attention, just as with the rebuilding efforts for the 2004 Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina.
Now that the initial panic has resided, Haitians must focus on the task of surviving hurricane season while re-building their lives. The International Organization for Migration estimates that 900,000 to 1.1 million people are in acute need of emergency shelter. Aid workers are now focusing on providing shelter in the form of temporary tent villages with latrines and access to water and food. Once basic needs are met, there are plans to re-build the fallen city and surrounding areas using lessons learned from both Tsunami aid in 2004 and Hurricane Katrina efforts in 2005. One thing is certain; it will not be a quick or easy process to re-build an already impoverished country.
Nevertheless the United States has committed itself to long-term rebuilding efforts. Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Florida and reassured Miami’s Little Haiti that, "On behalf of the administration, our hearts ache for you. The president does not view this as a humanitarian mission with a life cycle of a month...This will still be on our radar screen long after it's off the crawler at CNN. This is going to be a long slog.”
According to the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, in the first week following the earthquake, “18 percent of Americans said they or someone in their household had made a donation to help those affected by the catastrophe and 30% say they are planning to make a donation.” In addition to US AID, a number of U.S. based humanitarian agencies have solicited and received donations.[1] Each of these American based organizations will work on behalf of Americans to provide relief, and have likewise expressed plans to rebuild over a long period of time.
Humanitarian aid is a powerful tool for significant and positive goodwill; however, the shift in public diplomacy must be the aftereffect of such aid. Both governments and humanitarian aid programs must vigilantly protect themselves from slandering or false motives that can accompany and dim even the best of efforts. To be successful, humanitarian aid must save lives in the emergency hours after a crisis when the media is watching, as well as build stability in the years to follow. In terms of public diplomacy, the situation in Haiti represents another opportunity for the United States to remind the world of its tremendous capacity for good, and of the generous and concerned global citizens that reside within its borders. Hopefully this crisis will spark engagement that lasts for at least a generation and dramatically changes the standard of living for Haitians in the future.
Last Thursday, Japan’s Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada apologized for Japan’s colonial occupation of Korea during World War II. Okada described the time as “tragic” and stated, “I can fully understand the feelings of (Koreans) who were deprived of their identity and nation. I believe we must never forget the victims.” While the words “sorry” or “comfort women” were never uttered, news of another official Japanese apology spread quickly throughout East Asia. Many South Korean news sites lauded the apology and viewed Okada’s statement as a genuine attempt to better the relations between the two nations. While apologies for heinous behavior have rarely hurt relations, Japan is treading thin ice with the South Korean people because of its inability to turn its apologetic rhetoric into action.
At the heart of Japan-Korean relations is Japan’s use of comfort women in WWII. Comfort women were those women who were forced into sexual slavery and prostitution by the occupying Japanese military. While the victims originated from all occupied Japanese territories, the majority was Korean. Until 1993, the Japanese government failed to acknowledge or apologize for their use of sexual slavery despite mounting physical evidence and official documentation. The most substantial apology was delivered by the Japanese Socialist party Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama in 1995 when he stated, “I offer my profound apology to all those who, as wartime comfort women, suffered emotional and physical wounds that can never be closed…” Unlike the prior vague apologies for inhumane WWII behavior by Japanese officials, Murayama’s was direct, specific, and genuine. While Murayama’s apology was overwhelmingly popular amongst Japan’s foreign neighbors, conservative political leaders from the country’s long ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) despised it.
The conservative and nationalist LDP Prime Ministers following Murayama (ie: Junichro Koizumi) refuted Murayama’s famous apology and continued to stoke the flames of foreign outrage by visiting the controversial Yatsukuni Shrine for domestic political gain. In fact, shortly before I studied in Japan in 2007, former Prime Minster Shinzo Abe found himself in hot water after insisting there was little evidence supporting the use of coercion against the comfort women. Although Abe apologized soon after, the inability of the Japanese government to consistently claim accountability for their WWII actions have turned an opportunity to “come clean” and create good will (or soft power) amongst its neighbors into a public diplomacy nightmare. Fast forward to 2010, and Katsuya Okada’s apology.
Unfortunately for Japan, Okada’s apology, genuine or not, will do little in the long run to repair relations between the two nations. While Murayama did establish the Asian Women’s Fund to assist and pay reparations to comfort women, few victims and their families are willing to collect the benefits because the organization is private and not directly affiliated to the Japanese government. Meanwhile, lawsuits against the Japanese government and large Japanese companies who helped facilitate the abuses have been repeatedly thrown out of Japanese courts. Until the Japanese government and court system take this issue seriously, the legacy of comfort women will remain a constant and painful thorn in Japan’s side as they attempt to increase their soft power in Asia. Japan should learn that empty apologies without action will burn bridges instead of build them.
Mike Hallquist is a second year student in the Master of Public Diplomacy program at the University of Southern California. He began studying Japanese politics and foreign language throughout his undergraduate program at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee. During his final semester, he studied abroad at Nanzan University in Nagoya, Japan. In 2010 he was awarded a Foreign Language Area Studies Fellowship and continues to study Japan's public diplomacy, foreign policy, and the Japanese language.
DOHA, QATAR --- In the beginning, there was The Speech.
After that, there was the letdown.
The Speech was Barack Obama’s address at Cairo University in June 2009 that seemed to promise a new era in relations between the United States and the Muslim world. People in the Arab states and other Islamic nations took heart from the words of an American president who seemed to truly understand Islam and appreciate the aspirations of Muslims. Those Americans involved in the practice of public diplomacy became hopeful that they could do their jobs free from the suspicion and ridicule that they had endured during the Bush years.
But at the U.S. Islamic World Forum here in Doha (organized by the Brookings Institution and the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs), it has been clear that the Obama magic has lost its pizzazz. The rhetoric about the United States might not be as angry as it was during George W. Bush’s presidency, but there is ample bitterness derived from hope turned sour. Among the comments from forum participants were these: “America is biased against the Arabs”; “If America were fighting oppression, there would be no dispute”; “It is foggy vision through which the United States looks at the Arab world.”
At the heart of this are two issues. First, of course, is Palestine-Israel. Arabs simply do not believe that the United States is doing all it can to push Israel toward an acceptable deal that would establish a Palestinian state and settle related problems. During her appearance at the forum, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lamented Israel’s refusal to respond to U.S. calls for stepped-up relief efforts for Palestinians in Gaza. To a Western audience, she may have sounded convincing. The Arabs here were not buying it.
The second issue is Iran. U.S. complaints about Iran’s nuclear program meet resistance here. People in this region need to live with Iran, which looms just across the Persian Gulf from these states. So when Secretary Clinton called on Gulf leaders to pressure Iran, Qatar’s prime minister said America should talk directly to the Iranians, stating that “holding a dialogue with Iran through messengers is not advisable.”
This forum was premised on good will, but considerable tension surfaced throughout the three days of meetings. That tension – not the exuberance immediately after The Speech – shapes the context in which American public diplomacy in the Muslim world must now proceed.
DOHA, QATAR --- When Hillary Clinton addressed the U.S.-Islamic World Forum here on Sunday night, she found the going smooth…until she hit the bump of Gaza. A group of religious leaders, whose spokesman was Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., asked why the Obama administration could not do more to help the beleaguered residents of Gaza, whose supplies of food, water, and medicine are barely at survival level. Secretary Clinton replied that the United States was doing all it could to get Israel to let “the trickle of supplies become a steady flow,” and then allow America and Arab states to rebuild Gaza’s schools and hospitals. Her message: U.S. influence has its limits.
Even at a conference featuring much constructive talk about improving the institutions of civil society and enhancing dialogue between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds, the gravitational pull of Palestine was always present. The rhetoric of reconciliation dominated, but there were also comments about “the foggy vision through which the United States looks at the Arab world,” and insistence that U.S.-Arab relations cannot substantively improve until Israeli-Palestinian disputes are resolved.
Pradeep Ramamurthy, Senior Director for Global Engagement at the White House, insisted that the administration is committed to a healthy Palestinian state, saying, “No day is soon enough.” But he admitted that the effort to get from here to there is constantly frustrating. Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institution added, “We have been let down by both sides.”
As they went about their business, the more than 300 attendees at this conference were mostly hopeful, but they could not shake off the specter of Palestine.
Philip Seib is a professor and director of the Center on Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California.
As soon as the Fall semester ended, I was on the road. Within days of my last finals, I hopped a bus south from Los Angeles and worked my way to Panama on public transit on a public health/public diplomacy road show. On a trip sponsored by the USC Institute for Global Health as a means to produce a photography exhibition on the world of public health and its intersection with public diplomacy, I went through Mexico and Central America, including Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. I have been backpacking for many years, but this time there was a serious difference: President Obama.
I first noticed a change in attitudes while traveling around Japan last summer, but this current trip gave me a real opportunity to check the zeitgeist, the global pulse of attitudes towards Americans traveling abroad. My evidence is anecdotal but reflects a ground-level perspective spent in a multitude of hostels, squalid hotels, chicken buses and vans packed to the hilt. I always travel solo and I am often the only gringo on the local transit.
Being an American traveling during the Bush years was never easy. When I would say I was an American, people would roll their eyes and say "oh…Bush." I would have to put the public diplomacy charm on overload to explain why some had voted for him and why not everyone supported W.
Now, when I say that I am American, I get an "ah…Obama," with a smile and thumbs-up. Everyone I encountered knew of the American president; from the street kids in Managua to the seniors in San Salvador, the American president was held in high regard, and it reflected on his flock.
That dark cloud hovering over Americans traveling abroad has essentially dissipated because the elephant is no longer in the room. The European backpackers have lost that slightly hostile edge towards Americans. The eye-rolling “American” glance that was commonplace just doesn’t happen anymore. Meanwhile, the locals didn’t sneer when it was apparent that a gringo from the north was in their midst. More importantly, on this recent trip I saw a relative dearth of Canadian flags on backpacks, suggesting that those camouflaged Americans finally removed the maple leaf “security” patches from their bags.
Just before my trip, I saw a magnet with a picture of the president and the words, “Obama… it’s okay to be American again,” a sentiment that really proved to be accurate while traveling in the age of Obama. I found it so much more refreshing traveling without having to always explain American foreign policy missteps. Conservative pundits complained that Obama’s foreign policy essentially amounted to apologizing -- but, simply put, because Obama apologized, I don’t have to anymore. No one bothers me anymore about why America is doing what America is doing. Obama's public diplomacy makes my public diplomacy efforts and travel endeavors far easier.
Paul Rockower is a graduate student in the Masters in Public Diplomacy program at USC and a PDiN research intern at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. He has traveled to almost 55 countries around the globe. You can follow his misadventures at: http://levantine18.blogspot.com
As recording artists gather today to re-create ‘We Are the World,’ to benefit Haiti, one cannot help but be moved by America’s continued commitment to sending relief and embracing the world in a time of crisis. Americans from every walk of life, and every level of the economic spectrum, are finding ways to contribute to the relief efforts in Haiti.
The current attitude towards global engagement and oneness here locally, however, was a theme strikingly absent from the President’s State of the Union speech last week. The lack of emphasis on America’s role and ongoing efforts globally did not go unnoticed, Secretary Clinton’s absence notwithstanding. In reading through foreign media reaction to the speech this weekend, the disappointment in America from every region was palpable. Many media outlets cautioned the U.S. from becoming too inward-looking at a time when globally we are all feeling fragile, uncertain, insecure, and evermore intertwined. The President’s Cairo speech, the U.S. role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the closing of Guantanamo were mentioned in several Arab media outlets as examples where American deeds failed to live up to the rhetoric. The American government being admonished for its hypocrisy is hardly a new concept, and as a result we’ve all become immune to global criticisms to the point where few Americans choose to tune in and really listen to what the world is saying about us.
However, if there were ever a time for self-reflection and assessment it is now. Part of this self-reflection must include listening to the world and taking stock of what’s actually happening on the ground in the various countries around the world where we are engaged. We cannot know ourselves fully and act appropriately on the world stage until we listen and understand the views of others. Listening to the world has also never been easier with resources like WatchingAmerica.com where daily translations of global press coverage of the U.S. is available 24/7, organized by region and for free. If we really are to live up to the promise and premise of ‘We Are the World,’ we should all make a commitment to becoming global citizens: learning, listening and working to understand the world.
For an Administration that came to power with such hope and promise, resolutely focused on global engagement as a key pillar of our foreign policy, it is concerning that such themes would not be addressed and underscored in a speech as important as the State of the Union. The global coverage of the State of the Union was in many cases paired with U.S. relief efforts in Haiti. As the Venezuelan media outlet, Ultimas Noticias, noted:
“If we were not speaking about the president of a country that has just sent 30,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan and has Haiti kidnapped with a passive invasion of more than 10,000 Marines, I would say that Obama is putting himself in the list of revolutionary leaders of the continent.”
Haiti is the current prism through which the entire world is closely watching American efforts. Some heralded our President’s quick response and decisive action; others deride him for going in “too fast” and accused the U.S. of seeking another occupation there. Whether we are doing too little or too much in Haiti remains to be seen. It saddens me as an American to see all the goodwill here at home for finding ways to help in Haiti and then to hear the global press say we are only doing what is in our immediate self-interest. One thing, though, is for certain -- the global collective memory of U.S.-Haitian relations runs deep and their greatest concern on the ground is that we won’t be there for the long haul. Americans are known for being great in a crisis. Where the world sees us falling short is when it comes to providing long-term aid and support, and people’s memories run deep. History matters. Listening to the global street matters. As the Lebanon Daily Starnoted in an editorial last week in response to the State of the Union speech,
“Until the US formulates a vision for its role in the region based on an objective assessment of realities on the ground, rather than the ideological ramblings of “experts” from the left and the right, and until it develops a real multi-track strategy that seeks to simultaneously address each of the challenges highlighted earlier, American involvement in the region will continue to be disastrous, no matter who is in charge in the White House.”
The same could be said for our efforts in Haiti and really anywhere else we are engaged in the world. My hope is that at every level America is listening to the world, really listening this time, and then we can start singing a new tune.
The other day The Wall Street Journal ran a good summary of China’s conflict with Google. It looks like we’re in for another international war of words but, this time, it won’t be a classic Cold War confrontation over political-military issues, but rather a war of words over words — censorship, to be precise. China’s government mouthpiece, The People’s Daily, fired the latest salvo yesterday:
…U.S. media have gone all out to “promote” the “Google issue” and American politicians repeated great “noises” in accusation of China’s internet management policies and insinuate the nation’s restriction on “internet freedom”…These words and deeds, which have taken no heed of reality, are definitely aimed to impair or tarnish China’s image
It is not difficult, however, to see the shadow of the US government behind the highly politicized “Google” case. Shortly after Google threatened to quit [China], Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton issued a statement and chastised China on its censorship …
Some U.S. political figures would defend in a high-profile manner the “internet freedom” as the “diplomatic strategy,” whose goal is to meddle in other nations’ affairs on the one hand and to consolidate American hegemony in cyberspace on the other hand….
Around the “Google” incident, the United States has not only focused on the commercial interest of domestic companies and safeguard its own national security and interests rights, but also is trying hard to limit China’s cyberspace. This is something totally unacceptable…To date, Google executives have expressed the hope to go on negotiating with the Chinese government and continue to stay in China, and Google has perhaps come to realize that China could do without it, whereas Google will definitely have no future without China [emphasis added].
Among the fascinating and disturbing aspects to this commentary is the way it resembles the rhetoric of the Cold War era, in which a nefarious and “hegemonistic” Washington is depicted as acting in lock step with American corporate interests. The State Department and Google team up to “meddle” in Chinese affairs and monopolize China’s “cyberspace.” The Chinese people are told to be indignant.
But the larger point at issue appears to be the unfettered access to the Internet in China. Several years ago, Google agreed to allow some censorship in exchange for the right to run its search engines in China. As a result, more people use Google in China than in any other country except the United States. Google made a profit and many Chinese have more access to information.
But this was also a bad deal because it established the precedent of the Chinese government having the right to censor the Internet. Clinton put it this way in her own remarks:
In the last year, we’ve seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the internet. In Vietnam, access to popular social networking sites has suddenly disappeared. And last Friday in Egypt, 30 bloggers and activists were detained.
As the NYT reported (as also noted by FPA blogger Chris Dolen), the most effective way for the Internet to be censored is through cyber attacks against the computers that support Google’s search engines. This is precisely what happened earlier this month and resulted in what the Times called “[this] ugly exchange of accusations between Washington and Beijing.”
No one outside of China knows exactly what happened in the cyberattack against Google’s Chinese computers — only that the “footprint” for the attack was inside China. Perhaps the Chinese authorities had nothing to do with it, but regardless we are faced with the fragility of the the world of Internet-based access to information. If governments may overtly censor topics they consider sensitive, they may also covertly attack the very institutions that make that information available to millions of people.
The Obama Administration is back to practicing public diplomacy — with the American public. Stung by the loss in last week’s election in Massachusetts, the White House is bringing back public outreach specialist David Plouffe, the mild-mannered star of the Obama election campaign. Plouffe had stepped back from politics after the election to write a book on the campaign. Now it appears the White House needs Plouffe’s grassroots/Internet organizing skills more than ever.
As Plouffe put it today in his first email to Obama’s net-roots followers since the end of the campaign, “We’ve hit some serious bumps in the road recently in our march toward change. We always knew it would be difficult, but this past week has definitely been a hard one, for all of us.”
Besides the Massachusetts debacle, Plouffe must have in mind the Supreme Court’s sweeping decision last week on corporations and campaign finance. That decision appears to allow unlimited corporate contributions to individual election campaigns — beginning immediately. McCain-Feingold limitations are out the window, and the grassroots, small-donations-by-individuals-via-the-Internet approach to campaigning could be made irrelevant.
Suddenly, the United States is faced with speculation about a new political dynamic in Washington — especially on Capitol Hill — as well as new ground rules for how one gets elected. If Plouffe can improve White House communication with the American public, he may not only rescue the White House’s political agenda, but also help restore faith that it is citizens, not corporations, that decide elections.
Plouffe’s first task comes Wednesday with President Obama’s State of the Union address, which Plouffe will introduce via conference call to thousands of groups of Obama’s erstwhile campaign volunteers across the country. It is, as Plouffe says, a “pivotal moment.” It’s hard to quarrel with that assessment.
The global response to the catastrophe in Haiti is reassuring in the sense that it shows governments and people do care about a nation in which they have no strategic interest. If there is still some altruism alive in the world, it can be seen in this relief effort.
A year from now, while Haiti continues its long rebuilding process, what will Haitians think of the United States and other countries that have contributed so much so quickly to the impoverished nation? Will the United States follow up on emergency assistance with lasting outreach to the Haitian people, helping Haiti redevelop its institutions and improve its daily life? Will the commitment last ten weeks or ten years?
The institutionalization of compassion has always proved difficult. As a political matter, public enthusiasms are usually short-lived; “compassion fatigue” will undoubtedly set in concerning Haiti as has happened after responses to past catastrophes.
But if a comprehensive, long-term aid program for Haiti is developed, the United States would be helping itself as well as the people of Haiti. It may seem self-serving to consider these issues, but it’s a tough world out there and winning friends is important. And, as a practical matter, the United States could deliver aid that would seem massive in Haiti for what amounts to pocket change when compared to the costs of fighting wars elsewhere in the world.
Public diplomacy involves a country reaching out directly to people, not to their government. This makes sense for a number of reasons in Haiti, and if it is done well in this case, there is no reason that this approach should not be tried more frequently elsewhere, without waiting for humanitarian emergencies. The United States can afford mini-Marshall Plans where need is greatest throughout the world.
Although USAID and other agencies do fine work, it is often overshadowed in the midst of the broad array of U.S. policy initiatives. That could be changed, and making such public diplomacy the true centerpiece of American foreign policy would change the way the United States looks at the world and, more important, would change how the world looks at America.
MUMBAI – Earlier this month, attempted murder charges were filed against a man who allegedly broke into the home of the Danish cartoonist whose depictions of the Prophet Muhammad have caused an uproar in the Islamic world.
But while the attention of much of the world was focused on the three-year-old Danish cartoon, the work of another editorial cartoonist here in India caused tensions this week between this country and Australia. And that newspaper cartoon is contributing to worries in Australia about that country’s second largest industry, higher education, which is now troubled by a plunge in the number of Indian students who want to study at Australian universities (Disclosure: India sends more than 1,600 students to USC, more than any other country, according to the latest data .)
The cartoon was commenting a series of attacks on young Indian men in Melbourne, Australia. In the latest attack last week, the third in ten days, a 29-year-old Indian was doused with flammable liquid and set on fire, and it became the lead story on India’s television news channels and on India’s newspaper front pages.
When Australian police officials over the past weekend denied the attacks were specifically targeting Indian men, this too became major news.
At one newspaper, India’s Mail Today, the police statement was ridiculed in an editorial cartoon depicting a figure wearing an Australian police badge and unmistakably dressed in the white robes of the U.S. Ku Klux Klan, saying “We have yet to ascertain the nature of the crime.” The cartoon was immediately picked up by Indian television and achieved rapid notoriety.
By Friday, the Australian government had condemned the cartoon and its suggestion of racism.
"Any suggestion of the kind is deeply offensive,” said Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who added, according to the BBC, that she had not seen the cartoon.
Her statement, in turn, caused a reaction here in India, starting with an editorial yesterday [Sunday] in the newspaper that published the cartoon.
“This paper has received a torrent of angry mail from Australians because of a cartoon depicting an Australian police officer as a member of the Ku Klux Klan, the white supremacist organisation that did so much to terrorise African Americans in the southern part of the United States,” began the editorial. “Like all cartoons, the depiction was a caricature, an exaggeration if you will. But that is what political cartooning is all about.”
“As Mail Today reported,” the editorial concluded, “Indian students comprise some one per cent of the population of Victoria State (whose capital is Melbourne), but they have faced 17 per cent of the total robberies and assaults that have taken place there in the period July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that race is a factor in their being targeted.”
And fears that race is indeed a factor in the attacks has “caused diplomatic relations to sour” between India and Australia, according to the BBC. The newspaper cartoon has only increased the tensions between the two nations.
But this is not just a journalistic, or diplomatic, debate: this is about big money. Australian government officials are worried the widely reported crimes are discouraging Indian students from applying to universities in Melbourne and other Australian cities, according to reports. And indeed, the Indian government has issued a travel warning to Australia-bound Indian students, and Australian government officials have published data showing the number of Indians who want to pursue their studies in Australia have dropped by almost half.
After a visit to Australian university campuses last year, I reported on this blog that leaders at universities from Melbourne to Auckland were quite candid about their goals for attracting large numbers of students from Asia – and they were equally candid about the financial contributions those students make to their economies. Australia in 2008 received more than Au$15 billion (US$13 billion) from international students, according to a government report which describes education as the second largest export industry in the country, behind only coal and iron ore.
With the rising tide of violence in Pakistan, the controversial surge into Afghanistan, the multilateral meltdown on climate change at COP 15, and tales of possible terrorist plots, it is easy to overlook what has been going on in Europe, where I spent considerable time this fall on a book tour. On November 9th I found myself with friends at the Brandenburg Gate, attending the commemorative ceremony organized to mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, the re-unification of Germany and Europe, and the end of the Cold War.
That is a lot to celebrate, but to call the event historic does not quite convey the emotion, the excitement, and the sheer exhilaration that was palpable in the streets. If the rain dampened the numbers, it could not douse the spirit of the evening.
Not even close.
Gorbachev and Genscher. Medvedev and Merkel. Sarkozy. Brown. Walesa. Secretary Clinton introducing a videogram from President Obama - which elicited the loudest applause of the evening.
Imagine. As a symbol of the new Europe, this was a breathtaking sight to behold.
Amidst the speeches, music, fireworks and mulled wine, I found myself thinking, what does all of this mean, and where might it be going?
Most of the European officials, journalists and students I spoke to were leery, if not jaded about the emergence of the New Europe. Most seemed to have forgotten, amidst the tangle of treaties and the boggle of the Brussels bureaucracy, just how much has already been achieved. Yet these are early days yet for the integration project, which in the space of a scant half century has so tightly bound the destinies of former adversaries that armed conflict is now unthinkable. The latest legal and institutional developments bring the level of integration in the ever-expanding Union to a higher, more political level. The entry into force in late 2009 of the Treaty of Lisbon heralds passage into a new, more advanced phase in the continuing European experiment. The Treaty creates the post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, to which a much expanded European diplomatic corps, the European External Action Service will report.
Over the coming months, officials from the European Commission will undoubtedly be meeting frequently with the newly appointed High Representative in order first to design, and then to build the new diplomatic institutions.
This, in my estimation, is a linchpin moment, but the broader ramifications of these changes are little understood, either within the EU or, especially, outside it. Indeed, much of the commentary -- provided so far mainly by the Euro-skeptics -- has been dismissive, if not derisive.
This is unfortunate, because if properly managed, much good can come of these achievements, both for EU, and for the world beyond.
How might Europeans make the most of this historic opportunity to construct a common European foreign and security policy and to maximize their global influence in the 21st century?
For the past few hundred years, European statecraft has been concerned mainly with balancing power, first on a multi-polar continent, then in a bipolar world. The vectors of national power - armies, navies, economies, populations, territories - were carefully calculated and then balanced. Alliances were made and treaties entered into for purposes of expressing and extending that balance, and so was world order maintained.
From the Congress of Vienna until the end of the Cold War, armed force was the ultimate arbiter.
All of this might finally have changed with the advent of American uni-polarity in the early 1990s, but, in large part as a result of disastrous policy choices, this brief period of hegemony flamed out quickly in the wake of a violent starburst of shock and awe over Baghdad in 2004.
The mainstream view today is that world politics are now returning to some kind of a multipolar dispensation. But I have real doubts. Why? Because in the era of globalization, the principal sources of power and influence are now both highly dispersed geographically, and, among and between themselves, are fundamentally different in kind.
Unlike in the previous eras, the heterogeneous nature of the competing poles renders comparison difficult, and measurement even more so.
The USA, for instance, will for the foreseeable future be the world’s leading military, or hard power.
Yet its economic and industrial position is in relative terms fading fast, a trend accelerated by the continuing financial crisis and costly foreign wars. Within a decade or two the mantle of leadership, and pride of place as the epicenter of the world economy, will have passed to the Asia-Pacific region generally, and to China in particular - with India not that far behind.
Russia seems intent on becoming an energy and resource pole, a status complicated by its residual capacities as a former superpower.
Brazil may also emerge as a pole, perhaps of cultural diversity or as the leader of the global south.
So, too, with other countries -- Turkey? Iran? -- and regions.
The emergence of a hetero-polar world order will call for a new emphasis on diplomacy involving a nuanced, and highly complex balancing between dynamic poles, and knowledge-driven problem solving to address common threats and challenges.
If history is a reliable indicator, then it is entirely likely that the integration of the European economy will one day be matched by the consolidation of the European polity. With an increasingly interwoven economic union will inevitably come a higher degree of political influence, and that enlarged political influence will sooner or later translate into increased international sway.
To what end? And, just as importantly, how might this be exercised?
With its peace, prosperity, safe and livable cities, social safety net, excellent public infrastructure, rich historical heritage and thriving artistic and cultural life, in the era of heteropolarity, Europa seems destined to lead the world in soft power, the power of attraction. The source of Europe’s strength and the basis of its comparative advantage will reside in the demonstration effect, in the ability to project its success by example internationally.
And if soft power is the fuel of influence, then innovative public diplomacy - based on meaningful exchange, reputation management and relationship building - will inevitably find application as the primary delivery vehicle.
In Guerrilla Diplomacy, I argue that because development has in large part become the new security in the age of globalization, diplomacy must displace defense at the center of international policy. In this regard, Europeans would be well advised to stop fretting over their serial inability to fashion a common defense policy. Bombs and guns, generals and admirals will have a place, but they will not determine the way forward for Europe in a heteropolar world. That enterprise will instead turn on dialogue, on cross-cultural communication, on negotiation and compromise in the management of the Union’s bi- and multilateral relations.
Defense departments, although they have been allocated the lion’s share of resources, are, as instruments of international policy, both too sharp, and too dull to provide these kinds of services.
You can’t garrison against infectious disease, call in an air strike on global warming, or send in an expeditionary force to occupy alternatives to the carbon economy.
Diplomats, on the other hand, with their specialized cross-cultural, linguistic and political communications skills can, and indeed must address these issues.
The translation of Europe’s considerable appeal into tangible, progressive influence vis-à-vis the other poles will largely depend, therefore, on the quality, agility and acuity of its public diplomacy.
If that idea catches on at the level of decision-makers and opinion-leaders within the European Union, it just might help to re-capture the public imagination which lately appears to have been flagging as regards the integration project - and in so doing assist in taking the entire process to a higher level.
In the face of such an outcome in 2010, we would all be more secure.
On November 18, President Obama announced his nomination of former CNN chairman Walter Isaacson as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. He will also submit nominations for the full complement of seven members of the bipartisan board, including Bush Administration spokesperson Dana Perino as one of the Republicans.
The BBG oversees all of U.S. government funded international broadcasting. This includes Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, inc., Radio Free Asia, Inc., Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc., which consists of Arabic-language broadcasters Radio Sawa and Alhurra, and the International Broadcasting Bureau, under which is the Voice of America and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, whose elements are Radio and TV Martí. The new BBG members will need a good diagram.
With the present Board, through attrition, down to four members (plus the ex officio Secretary of State), many employees at VOA were hoping the Obama Administration would dissolve the BBG. They are annoyed at the BBG because it has eliminated several VOA language services, mostly to East European countries, and has cut back on shortwave radio in favor of television and the internet.
The new members of the Board will not only have unhappiness from the ranks to look forward to. As part of their firewall function, they will also have to fend off, and thus incur the animosity of, members of Congress and administration officials, who might want the elements of US international broadcasting to emphasize this, or to downplay that, or not to interview some insalubrious character. Furthermore, assorted dictators will be irked by the news coverage of the BBG’s entities. All told, given the likelihood of antipathy from above, below, and abroad, membership in the BBG is not for those who crave affection.
There is, nevertheless, no substitute for a bipartisan board, with fixed and staggered terms, to protect the independence and thus the credibility of the entities as news organizations. Public broadcasters abroad, including the BBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, etc., are statutory independent corporations, with similar boards, and news output that is respected.
The staggered terms of BBG members mean that no one president, at one instance, can change the entire board, which could in turn change the managements of the entities, thus creating a credibility-jarring change of tone with each new administration. That, however, is what just happened, with President Obama nominating all eight members in one fell swoop. This was due to deferred action at the end of the previous administration and the beginning of the present, as well as Senate politics involved with nominations to a bipartisan board.
Why go to such lengths to provide this protection for a news operation that will, from time to time, have to transmit news unfavorable to the United States, or not in sync with US policy objectives? Three main reasons. First, it’s necessary to attract an audience, which is seeking reliable news as an antidote to state controlled news in their own countries. Second, comprehensive news is the antidote to disinformation spread by dictators, terrorists, and other global miscreants. Third, providing such a useful news service speaks well for the United States. Inflicting propaganda would do the opposite.
There certainly is a place for advocacy on behalf of U.S. foreign policy. It’s the job of the public diplomacy offices of the State Department, including the America.gov website, now in seven languages. International broadcasting and public diplomacy are necessarily conducted by separate agencies, in separate buildings, in different parts of town. The BBG should maintain that distance.
The year 2009 in public diplomacy was a year for re-branding America in the world. The first African-American in the White House, who also happened to be the most eloquent U.S. President since John Kennedy, would have made for an auspicious year for the international image of the U.S. in any event. In fact, however, it was even more significant, since Barack Obama followed George W. Bush, whose tenure had coincided with a marked drop in U.S. prestige in much of the world. By year’s end, as Obama’s popularity fell at home, his – and America’s – popularity overseas recovered from the “Bush effect.” At home, Obama’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize was controversial; overseas, for many, it was an expression of hope. Obama and Hillary Clinton were an unlikely couple, perhaps, but they “re-set” relations and engaged the world. To achieve this much was a public relations success, one that must now be followed by real political results. Unfortunately, 2009 did not see much progress in more traditional forms of public diplomacy, whether government run, or people-to-people. This should be a focus in 2010.
Person of the Year:
Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
When I was growing up in India, the U.S. Information Services used to serve as ambassadors of American culture, ideas, and ideals. That entire approach to diplomacy was shuttered after the Cold War and even after 9/11 remains moribund.
– Fareed Zakaria, “The Post-American World”
Since 9/11, the U.S. military for the first time has dramatically expanded its effort to communicate with foreign audiences. But this has created new problems…[and] this “mission creep” has gotten way out of hand.
– Amb. William Rugh, “Repairing American Public Diplomacy”
I have been looking for a succinct description of where U.S. public diplomacy stands. These two quotes, I think, do the job rather well. The first comes about midway in Fareed Zakaria’s bestseller, the second is from a publication of the American University in Cairo, a lucid analysis by a former U.S. diplomat.
It is ten years since the U.S. government reorganized its public diplomacy effort, but we have yet, it seems to me, to arrive at a version of U.S. public diplomacy that is truly effective in both long-term relationship building and rapid transmission of political ideas. Instead, our relationship-building effort relies heavily on academic exchanges while our most noteworthy efforts at getting political information out quickly are taken up by the Pentagon, rather than the State Department.
Academic exchanges — better put, foreign study programs — are important. Every year, the Open Door analysis put out by the Institute of International Education makes the case in statistical terms. Millions of foreign students studying in the United States, and millions of American students studying abroad, have created long-term bonds of understanding and influence that go well beyond academic and economic benefit.
But the U.S. government has nearly abandoned any effort to project the cultural values of the American people through cultural presentations or full-fledged libraries, relying almost exclusively on provision of informational material via the Internet. Even the laudable “American Corners” — for all their value — are but small parts of larger institutions, such as local libraries, that have their own missions. They can never present American culture the way that USIS libraries and centers once did.
Meanwhile, when policy-related outreach is called for, especially to foreign media and government officials, the response is usually too slow and now increasingly directed by the Pentagon, rather than the State Department. Last summer, the House Appropriations Committee took the DoD to task for expanding the budget of its “Information Operations” programs — though that was partly a mistake in Pentagon accounting. As Politico reported in October:
[Rep. Jack] Murtha’s preference is that the State Department take more of the lead, although he admits State can’t ramp up fast enough to handle the task this coming year.
“They’re going to have to depend on the Defense Department,” he said. “The problem with the Defense Department is they’re not only willing to take care of it; they will push you right aside in order to take care of it.”
This is not what Congress intended when it decided to allow the integration of the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) into the State Department ten years ago. The consolidation of foreign information and cultural work into the State Department was supposed to result in more rapid and politically savvy responses by U.S. embassies overseas. Instead, field budgets were slashed, staffs cut relentlessly, and political direction left to a revolving-door succession of Clinton Administration and Bush Administration placeholders. The best known among them, Karen Hughes, took months to assume her duties, then left after barely two years in the job.
Similarly, the establishment of a Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) in 1994 was supposed to result in a more professional, more effective approach to international broadcasting. Instead, the BBG began its ill-conceived TV broadcasts to the Middle East via its Alhurra program and canceled broadcasts by radio to countries were it was (falsely) assumed that a free media environment had been safely established.
Although hard to measure due to the institutional change, in the past ten years the budget for foreign public diplomacy conducted by USIA and (now) the State Department has essentially remained static at something less than $1b per year. (Given the decline of the US dollar over this period, this amounts to a serious decline in overseas resources.) Defense may spend as much for its Information Operations programs alone, without considering related spending categorized as “public affairs.”
The outlook is not entirely bleak. The Obama Administration has recently nominated a first-class public intellectual, Walter Isaacson, to run the BBG. President Obama himself has made an enormous difference in how the world perceives the United States. The U.S. military “gets it” — but that’s not enough. America still lacks a non-military institution that articulates her ideas and ideals overseas and provides timely tactical advice to advance foreign policy goals. Ten years after the end of the U.S. Information Agency, it is fair to ask how so many people could have allowed this to happen.
The schadenfreude surrounding Dubai World’s request for a partial debt standstill is understandable, however lamentable. Dubai has the unfortunate timing of having experienced its tremendous evolution, and subsequent stumble, at the peak of populist displeasure with leveraged driven growth. The lack of specifics surrounding the crisis is partially Dubai’s fault. Seemingly advised by the same PR team as Tiger Woods, the crisis management strategy of ‘say nothing’ is resulting in Dubai finding itself tried and convicted in the court of public opinion without so much as offering a defense.
This strategy becomes somewhat understandable if one considers the difficult job Dubai has in balancing modernity with Arab tradition, Islamic law, tribal/family politics and inter-emirate competition. Those of us who did business in Dubai learned early not to confuse the progress there with regards to property rights and the rule of law with a Western government or society. Dubai is not Western and never claimed to be Western. What it truthfully claimed to be was a modern Middle East state that emulated (certain) progressive Western cultural and economic policies – something we as Americans might seek to encourage rather than dismiss.
In 2004, I helped create the first Middle East based energy commodities exchange in Dubai. This project received little fanfare. Yet it highlighted Dubai’s willingness to embrace transparency and international regulatory oversight in the spirit of true partnership with the West – a step towards integrating the region into the global financial marketplace.
A few experiential observations may be useful as the world tries to understand the situation:
1. Dubai World is not the Dubai government, but a quasi-government entity. This distinction is important. Dubai World is one of several holding companies that make up “Dubai, Inc.”, the collection of competing entities established by the government but operated independently. Dubai World restructuring the debt of its underlying companies does not constitute a sovereign default any more than a failure of the U.S. Postal Service (while very troubling) would constitute a default of U.S. sovereign debt.
2. As of now one specific company, Nakheel, is distressed. This makes sense, given Dubai was not immune to the global property market meltdown and Nakheel, as one of the regions’ largest real estate developers, consequently suffered. Dubai World’s involvement is a result of contractual cross-collateralizations with Nakheel.
3. The decision to have Dubai World lead these negotiations has greatly exacerbated concerns. A construction company requesting a debt standstill is far less troubling and salacious than a quasi-governmental institution seeking the same. It’s unclear as to why this decision was made and, more importantly, why it was announced so suddenly, though simple inexperience might have played a significant role.
4. The presumed backstop to Dubai’s investments, Abu Dhabi, seems to be taking a reasonable approach given the circumstances. Rather than writing a blank-check bailout, all evidence is that Abu Dhabi will carefully screen distressed investments for opportunities and extract far stronger terms/control for their money than our own government did recently.
5. When all is said and done, regional investors and banks, not foreign, will likely be the hardest hit. While foreign investment was a major part of Dubai’s growth, Gulf State (GCC) investment accounted for the lion’s share (GCC banks lent over 60B to Dubai) and will undoubtedly be the ongoing source of short term funding. Dubai’s actions alone are unlikely to cause a global systemic shock (the numbers simply aren’t big enough), but neighboring GCC states will undoubtedly see a higher cost of borrowing.
6. Dubai is not all ski slopes and shopping malls. The boom period led to build-outs of world class technology, industrial and financial infrastructure. Truly progressive deals were done in a legal and regulatory environment that, while not perfect, was extraordinary given Dubai’s adolescence. Dubai leapfrogged the region in terms of promoting financial market transparency and integration.
So while the media (and admittedly Dubai itself) reveled in the extravagance of false islands, indoor ski slopes and the tallest/biggest/most expensive ______, there is a more important story, particularly for the United States. Dubai represented an example of what can happen when a Middle East nation willingly embraces U.S. style capitalist and democratic principles. Contrary to the disastrous scenario of our attempts to force democratic capitalism down the throats of a people, Dubai is proof that America's primary export can still be economic and legal innovation, as well as hope. This phenomenon perhaps deserves to be celebrated, if we can spare a moment from dancing among what we believe to be Dubai’s ashes.
The writer is employed in the financial sector, and has traveled and worked in Dubai for 8 years (although he no longer has business interests in the region).
Amid the debates about American aid to Pakistan, and all the ongoing public diplomacy attempts to gain Pakistani “hearts and minds,” there is one simple measure which would really gain Pakistani support: Cricket Diplomacy.
Cricket is possibly the second most popular sport in the world, after soccer. Basketball fans might disagree but the population density of the subcontinent plus Australia, the UK, West Indies and South Africa might surpass hoops as the number two most popular sport in the world.
I am an American who happens to play cricket. I grew interested in the sport while on a journalist endeavor in India and Pakistan a few years back. Currently, I play cricket in the Cromwell Premier League at the University of Southern California; I am the only gora, non-South Asian in the league. While I am not very good quite yet, as it is hard to catch without a glove, and hard to hit the ball off the bounce, I do realize the inherent value of the sport in public diplomacy terms to the whole of South Asia.
Pakistanis absolutely love cricket. The sport is universally played and is practically a secular national religion. The country is littered with make-shift fields all over. Cricket transcends all geographic and ethnic boundaries in Pakistan, it is the one thing that truly unites the country. It is said that even the Taliban play cricket.
Cricket has a history of being a diplomatic medium, and has been used previously in diplomatic pursuits. In 1987, during a period of heightened tensions over the disputed region of Kashmir, Pakistani President Zia ul Haq traveled to India to watch a cricket match between the two nations. His presence at the cricket match helped cool off hostility between the two sides and added the word “cricket diplomacy” to the diplomatic lexicon.
Cricket diplomacy returned in 2004 and 2005 with the “Friendship series” as India and Pakistan sent their respective teams on a bilateral tour exchange to play a series of test matches as a means to help pave the way for peace talks between the South Asian neighbors. Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf used the cricket exchange as an opportunity to travel to India to meet with his counterpart Indian Manmohan Singh and as a vehicle for peace talks on Kashmir.
The New York Police Department has already learned the value of cricket public diplomacy by using the sport to engage South Asian communities in New York City. The NYPD currently supports cricket leagues in Coney Island and other locations as part of an ongoing effort to conduct outreach and forge ties with these communities.
Public diplomacy is ultimately about knowing your audience. America’s public diplomacy efforts in Pakistan would benefit mightily by successfully engaging with Pakistan through cricket diplomacy. Use a tiny portion of the tremendous aid budget to buy wickets and bats for Pakistani youth. Set up fields upon fields of cricket and engage. Send over cricket bats emblazoned with the stars-and-stripes. Learn to bowl for public diplomacy. Promote cultural exchange, sports exchange and smart public diplomacy. Throw a googlie (curveball) to those who claim Americans aren’t paying attention to what Pakistanis really want. Simply put, America can win Pakistani “hearts and minds” through wickets and stumps.
Paul Rockower is candidate for a Master’s of Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California. He is the Communications Chair for the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars (APDS) and a Contributing Researcher at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Numerous initiatives, programs and events seek to foster democracy and democratic reforms in the Middle East. Some hit, most miss.
Recently, I had the pleasure of attending a conference in Beirut sponsored by the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED). The “Emerging Leaders for Democracy” conference series joined fifteen American and European representatives with fifteen Lebanese representatives ages 23- 35 to discuss political reform in Lebanon and U.S foreign policy in the region[1]. Both delegations were equally impressive. The American/European delegation ranged from graduate and doctoral students and young professionals from the public and private sector. The Lebanese delegation included an active and engaged array of civil society advocates, public policy professionals and academics as well. Our goal was to draft policy recommendations for U.S. policymakers on how to improve U.S. policy towards the region and encourage democratic reform. The four topics we covered were: elections and political processes, human security and development, women’s rights and empowerment, and religious freedom and inclusion. Each panel included notable speakers from various local and international civil society and public policy organizations, along with international and intergovernmental institutions. As delegates, it was our task to formulate a set of constructive and beneficial policy recommendations based on these panels and our group discussions.
Looking back, I can say that this conference hit its mark. I say that not only for the things that it accomplished, but also in part for the things that it did not. It did not set out to solve the problems of Lebanon, but to provide suggestions on how to improve it and U.S. policy from the perspective of young adults. More importantly though, citizen exchanges, such as this one, are created to build relations and foster dialogue between individuals. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we do not. At the end of the day, the goal is to understand one another, not necessarily to agree. Often, exchanges and citizen diplomacy efforts are required to provide tangible and visible results immediately. In a changing and diverse world this is nearly impossible, particularly when dealing with the Middle East. As Americans, we like to look at the Middle East and sometimes think of it as a singular region. That means we may sometimes listen to and address it as such, advocate for it as such, and ultimately expect it to act as such.
What was evident during this conference was that within a country of approximately four million people, represented by a delegation of fifteen, there were numerous divisions. They were divided not by their nationality or identity as Lebanese, but by differing views on issues associated with the direction of their nation and how to address its growing issues. What was promising was how often people amongst the American and Lebanese groups were in agreement on many issues. I would make the argument that, on some issues, there was more consensus between the two delegations than within each delegation.
What does this mean for us: American policy, public diplomacy to the region, and Lebanon specifically? It means we need to listen. Just sit back and listen, nothing more. As a student of Public Diplomacy, I know that listening is the first, and sometimes the most important, tenet. What I saw and heard in Lebanon was an engaged and dedicated group who wanted only to be heard, they wanted to speak their mind, tell us what is wrong with Lebanon, and how they think we can help them fix it.
What was not absent in Beirut was a lack of opinions and motivation from both delegations, the same motivation and drive that fosters dialogue and creates reform. In a nation where political leaders sometimes outnumber their followers, this new breed of Lebanese, who have grown up amidst political strife that can at any moment erupt into violence, want to move forward. Innovative and engaged, this example of civil society and their work with, and in, non-state institutions provides a possible model for a nation that lacks the presence of a strong government (or one at all).
Although our stated goal was to draft policy recommendations, what we got was a better understanding of each other. What is now required is U.S. policy that follows this understanding. Current American aid and development programs, outlined by American Ambassador Michele Sison, were well received by members of the delegation, even by some who disagree with American policies[2] . The course of this conference was a clear illustration that it is possible for us to accept each other and our views, but at the same time disagree. What is important is how we continue the progress.
What this conference did not do is solve the problems of the Middle East, or even of Lebanon, nor did it provide immediate tangible results. It did not greatly assist us in knowing what it is like to be Lebanese, or for the Lebanese to know what it is like to be American. However, what it did do was help us understand each other, our goals, and the different methods in which we attempt to tackle issues. In the short term, the policy recommendations we drafted should help matters[3]. But to see the true value of this conference and others like it, it might be best to check back in a decade. Hopefully, by then, some of us will no longer be “emerging leaders,” but influential individuals and policy makers in our respective countries who understand each other and can bring about reform through this mutual understanding and relationship.
[1] In addition to Lebanon, POMED also sponsored similar conferences in Jordan and Egypt.
[2] For details on American aid and development programs in Lebanon, visit the U.S. Embassy’s website at: http://lebanon.usembassy.gov/
[3] Recommendations will be available at POMEDs website this January.
John Nahas graduated from the University of Southern California with a bachelor's degrees in Political Science and Communication with an emphasis on Middle East politics and American Foreign Policy. He is currently in his second year of the Master of Public Diplomacy program at USC and recently concluded an internship at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Middle East Center in Beirut, Lebanon. John is also the President of the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars and is a Senior Editor for Public Diplomacy Magazine .
According to various public opinion polls, most of the world now has a vastly improved opinion of our president and our country. In early July, 2009, the Pew Research Center for People and the Press reported that "The image of the United States has improved markedly in most parts of the world, reflecting global confidence in Barack Obama." The improvement is most dramatic in Western Europe, where Pew reported that "favorable ratings for both the nation and the American people have soared." That finding was underlined by the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to award the Peace Prize to President Obama.
The country is also viewed far more favorably in most of Latin America, Africa and Asia. When President Obama left for Asia in mid-November, 2009, Pew reported that more than 80 percent of the people in Japan and South Korea "have at least some confidence" in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs, a dramatic jump from a year earlier when only a quarter of the Japanese and 30 percent of the South Koreans had any confidence in President Bush.
President Obama's personal story, oratorical skill and political talents are undeniable American assets. He is the face of the nation and he has a remarkably international background. In Asia, he correctly announced that he is "America's first Pacific President," having spent his formative years in Indonesia and Hawaii; in Africa, he is understandably seen as America's first African President, the son of a
Kenyan father; and he connected with many people of the Middle East when he told the crowd at Cairo University that "I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims."
But no president, no matter how popular or unpopular, can or should be the sole embodiment of a nation's public diplomacy. A key goal of public diplomacy must be to communicate a nation's values to the people of the world, qualities and beliefs that transcend any particular leader or administration. It may take decades for the experience of an exchange program to bear fruit, for example, but exchanges are a central tool of public diplomacy. Effective public diplomacy requires a very long view of the country's interests and in that sense must be larger and more enduring than the popularity or unpopularity of any individual leader.
Indeed, effective public diplomacy can, at times, include programs that might seem to undermine the marketing of the person in power.
For example, for international broadcasting to be effective, people around the world must find it credible and reliable; they must be convinced that it will describe the facts even when those facts are unpleasant, even when they place the current government in a bad light. As the Voice of America announced in its first broadcast: "The news may be good. The news may be bad. We shall tell you the truth." During the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, there were those in the White House who wanted VOA to play down some of the most damning stories. But VOA's director, Kenneth Giddens, held firm. Though he had been selected by
President Nixon, Giddens knew that the VOA's long-term responsibility was to be a credible source of news for the world - and to communicate the nation's commitment to a free and independent press and an independent judiciary. While I headed the VOA in the middle 1990s, there was no question about the need to report details of the Whitewater probe of President Clinton, nor could my successors ignore the Monica Lewinsky story, no matter how much it might sully the President's reputation around the world.
It has been tempting, at times, for government officials charged with sending speakers and performers around the world to try to exclude those who disagree with the administration in power. During the 1980s, officials in the USIA speaker's bureau decided to "blacklist" almost 100 people - including Walter Cronkite, Madeline Albright and Coretta Scott King. When the story became public, the list was denounced by USIA director Charles Z. Wick who probably had not been told that such a directive existed.
Public diplomacy practitioners don't only use speakers and artists to celebrate and reinforce the image and policy of the administration in power; sometimes they send out representatives who are outspoken critics of the administration and its policies. The goal is often to combat unfair stereotypes, to show the rich talent and ideological diversity of our debate and our culture. In 1956, to combat the Soviet Union's use of southern racism for anti-American propaganda, President Eisenhower's USIA wisely sent Dizzy Gillespie around the world as a "jazz ambassador." In 2007, while she was the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Karen Hughes sent Ozomatli, a popular Los Angeles-based anti-war and anti-Bush band, to the Middle East. Their goal was to reach out to people who did not like the President but could still find much to like in the United States.
A decade ago, when congress folded the United States Information Agency into the State Department, it created the office of Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs to perform many of the duties previously performed by the Director of the USIA. The words in the title and the functions of the office can be inherently contradictory - or at least confusing. According to its website,
"The Bureau of Public Affairs (PA) carries out the Secretary's mandate to help Americans understand the importance of foreign affairs." Its role includes advocacy, both at home and abroad. By contrast, the function of public diplomacy is to build mutually respectful, credible, long term relationships with international audiences. There are times when those charged with advocacy can have a very different mission than those charged with credibility.
At a time when we have a popular president, it remains essential to put renewed energy into the vital and sometimes very different mission of public diplomats. Though the nation is blessed by some very talented career officers who keep operations humming, as of a year after the election of 2008 there was no new leadership in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, where both the Assistant Secretary and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary remained vacant, Nor had any new leader been named to head the Bureau of International Information Programs. Just last week, the White House nominated a roster of distinguished people to serve on the board of the Broadcasting Board of Governors which oversees Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and America's other International Broadcasting entities.
The Obama administration came into office promising to increase the country's commitment to public diplomacy. During the first year, thanks to the President's popularity, it has begun to improve America's image in the world. It has also initiated some important programs that may have long term benefits, including those featuring scientists and women. Hopefully in the second year it will find new ways to put fresh leadership and vitality into the other tools of public diplomacy.
This piece was originally commissioned by the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars (APDS) for inclusion in PD Magazine and is reproduced here in its entirety, courtesy of APDS. An adapted version of this text will appear in the forthcoming Winter 2010 issue of PD in the section entitled "New Developments in Public Diplomacy".
Now that the big Asia trip is history, it’s natural to judge it on the basis of known results from its biggest portion — Obama’s three days in China. For the American president, there were no obvious breakthroughs on exchange rates or trade, climate or human rights, so maybe this visit was not the most successful. On the other hand, viewed in the context of America’s recent history with East Asia, there was a certain welcome absence of drama. Expectations were managed, there was no brinkmanship. Maybe that could be considered an achievement.
What is disturbing, though, on the face of it, was the lack of open transmission of the President’s own message to the Chinese people while he was in their country. You can say that the Chinese leaders are determined to control their media environment, but to essentially shut down broadcasts of a U.S. President’s communication with students shows a real gap in understanding. Even Gorbachev understood that an advanced society could not control communication if it wanted to make the most of its potential. During the U.S. President’s visit at least, China stood to gain internationally by showing openness rather than its opposite. What they did instead was unnecessary.
By the same token, Obama’s exaggerated bow to Japanese Emperor Akihito in Tokyo was also a misstep.
In our digital age, images stay around, and this one will. If Americans were feeling self-confident about their role in the world at this point in time, the bow would have been seen as an act of protocol, courtesy and even magnanimity. In our current times of American insecurity, it will seen back home as weak. Moreover, even Japanese found it inappropriate.
Yesterday, the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) made a public statement accepting the call of the French president Nicolas Sarkozy for a Middle East peace conference and his offer to host this conference. In his statement, Abbas emphasized that a condition for holding the conference must be a total freeze of settlement expansion in the Palestinian territories. This reflects clarity in the political rhetoric and an attempt to set the negotiations and the conflict agenda that is rare in the history of the Palestinian public diplomacy. The Palestinian Authority (PA) is considered by many writers and commentators to be the worst campaigner for the best cause, and is frequently criticized for this in the Arab press.
Last week, the Palestinian Authority announced their willingness to pursue a Palestinian state even through a unilateral move. To date, they have not been successful in their public diplomacy, often poorly reacting to the Israeli allegations in international news. The PA lost much of what was left of international and local popularity as a result of their ineffective communication regarding their position on Goldstone’s report on the 2009 Israeli War in Gaza and due to their poor performance during the war itself, earlier this year.
Last Thursday, the Palestinian Authority received from the Arab League renewed support for the recognition of the pre-1967 borders as the borders of the future Palestinian state. Latin America and Europe are Abu Mazen’s next focus. The PA will have to work hard to get the European Union on board and harder still to prevent the U.S. from using their veto against it if it is taken to the UN Security Council. This initiative, if well handled by the Palestinian leadership can place all their international efforts into a new context. Based on the early news and emphasis placed on the international re-recognition of pre-1967 borders, the situation looks promising if not reminiscent of Israel’s tactics at many occasions but particularly those used during Camp David II July 2000. This move can be interpreted as Abbas’ recognition of the legitimacy problem faced by the PA since Hamas took control over Gaza in 2006 and appeared as the “defender of the Palestinians” during the 2009 war.
The Palestinian Authority can use the argument that Israel has been changing unilaterally the facts on the ground in a way that will soon make the declaration of the Palestinian state even as a negotiation product impossible. Hopefully, the PA will successfully continue their efforts to convince more countries to recognize and if not recognize to internally discuss their position on the recognition of the borders previously endorsed by the UN Resolution 242. Such a move could strengthen the PA internally after its poor performance with regard to Hamas and given the resultant frustration of the Palestinian people, many of whom perceive their actions as a conspiracy against those in Gaza. Moreover, it would effectively contribute to setting the agenda of the main issues in any future American led or Quartet led negotiations with Israel.
