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.
On Thursday, May 17, 2012 I attended the discussion on “Digital Diplomacy: A New Era of Advancing Policy” at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington and on Twitter at #digidiplomacy. Carnegie had already posted video and audio of the event by early afternoon. USC MPD alumnus Matthew Wallin blogged his assessment of the discussion shortly there after.
Being the academic dinosaur that I am at heart, I came home typed up all my notes. Then, as an exercise to help me develop my social media skills, I compared my notes to the Twitter feed. My next step was to construct a theoretical framework around that comparison. Yes, I really am an academic.
And, having had the luxury of further scholarly reflection, I was struck by several ironies. Some of the ironies are captured in the tweets.
Irony #1: Social media -- the antithesis of diplomacy?
Yesterday’s ambivalence about the use of social media was palatable. On the one hand, there was a sense of excitement. Martha Boudreau, of Fleishman-Hillard and co-sponsor of the event, opened by capturing the promise of what the buzz of new media is all about.
Martha Boudreau @FHDC: Social media is a broader way to practice statecraft & create relationships #DigiDiplomacy
Boudreau shared some of the mind-numbing numbers on social media, but said its relevance to diplomacy goes beyond numbers. For Mexico’s Ambassor Arturo Sarukhan, social media was not just about relevancy, social media was a necessity. He shared his adaptation of an old Mexican saying to underscore his point. It used to be, “If you moved, you were not in the picture.” He up-dated that saying for Twitter:
@Arturo Sarukhan:"if you don't tweet, you are not in the photograph." meaning if you aren't using social, you aren't relevant diplomatically #digidiplomacy
On the one hand, there was excitement. Like the new toy on the block, all the kids are asking, what is it? Can I play with it too?
Then, on the other hand, there was the wariness. Alert to the apprehension, or perhaps skepticism, the panelists seemed on the defensive from the get go. Alec Ross, the guru of social media @State and first of the panelist to speak, immediately introduced what became the mantra echoed among the discussants: “social media is a TOOL.” He emphasized that by saying he was a Medieval History major. He wasn’t interested in technology, but in advancing policy interests. Using social media was a tool for advancing policy interests.
All the panelists repeated the mantra at least once or twice each time they spoke: “social media is a TOOL.” Nevertheless, the very first question from the audience was a not so much a question but a statement about the failings of social medial as a substitute for personal contact in diplomacy.
Why the mantra of “social media as a tool” may fail to resonant or have difficulty taking hold with the diplomatic community may be because of the contrasting images of social media as a tool of the fast and furious and the image of diplomacy in unhurried lap of pearls and dark suits. Both images may need updating or refocusing. However, the contrasting images that linger were captured in a statement by panelist Sarah Wynn-Williams and a reflective observation by discussion moderator Tom Carver.
“Another motto at Facebook: ‘Move fast and break things.” -- Sarah Wynn-Williams, former New Zealand diplomat and current manager of public policy at Facebook
To which, Tom Carver of the Carnegie Endowment, who was moderating the discussion observed: “That’s the opposite of what diplomacy is: “Move slow and be careful not to break anything.”
Viewed in this light, the ambivalence of social media makes sense. Social media could be seen as the antithesis of diplomacy.
Irony #2: Social media -- promoting anti-social behavior?
Ross made the comment in the context of speaking about the tension between representative democracy (i.e, Congress) and direct democracy, or citizen using social media to make their voices heard. Ross remarked, “Social media punishes moderation – those who seek compromise – and amplifies extremism on both ends.”
On the surface, that sounds true. In a crowded platform, the extreme voices stand out. They get the visibility or listened to. Moderate voices are easily drowned out. Several researchers have been studying how the media tools/conventions are contributing to a more polarized atmosphere in U.S. politics.
Which, going back to diplomacy, may be another reason to be leery of social media. If diplomacy about building relations, compromise and accommodation to others is at the core. Also, compromise and learning to modify one’s behavior in relation to others is at the core of social behavior. Also, while moderate voices may be easily drowned out, they nevertheless tend to resonate with the widest audience. How ironic it would be if social media is promoting anti-social, uncompromising behavior.
Having pondered these ironies, I am now the more curious about social media’s evolving role/s in public diplomacy. Yes, Phil Seib, your new book on social media and public diplomacy is next on my reading list.
john brown on May 20, 2012 @ 9:07 am Propaganda, as a technique for "controlling attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbols [is] no more moral or immoral than a pump handle."
--Harold Lasswell, as quoted by Brett Gary, The Nervous Liberals: Propaganda Anxieties from World War I to the Cold War (1999), p. 64
Abhay K on May 21, 2012 @ 7:39 pm What a pleasure to read your blog post here...look forward to more such piercing analysis of social media and its role in public diplomacy from you.
In a couple of recentpostings I have tried to elaborate the notion of a nation brand, to identify some of the salient issues surrounding the relationship between public diplomacy and branding, and to illuminate the more subtle distinctions. In this entry, I would like to drill down further into each of these, and several related issues.
Branding guru Simon Anholt has developed a hexagonal model that sets out the principal elements of a nation’s brand, including tourism, exports, policies, investment and immigration, culture and heritage, and people. This has become the industry standard. While Simon and I concur on many points, but we do not agree on everything covered in the continuing debate. As far back as 2006, he wrote me to say “I dispute… your contention that branding is fundamentally a monologue. The best brand theory - and the best brand practice - today sees brand as the common purpose or shared vision that unites businesses with their staff, suppliers and customers, and so is in every sense parallel to (e.g. the British Council's insistence on) the mutuality of public and cultural diplomacy. A brand is also … as much an invitation to complain as it is a promise of quality, so even in that rather literal sense it must always be about two-way communication… Brand is very much more than ‘image’ and the communication, management or promotion of image. Brand strategy is almost synonymous with corporate strategy, and at least in theory, there is a parallel notion in nation branding. Most firms these days would describe their brand as their relationship with their market and their other stakeholders.”
My response? Let one hundred flowers bloom.
But when it comes time to pick the bouquet, it seems worth remembering that if branding is about selling dreams, public diplomacy is about sharing them.
De-mystifying the distinction
A nation’s public diplomacy should support its brand, and vice versa; it is not a matter of which is subsumed by the other. If anything, branding may be a somewhat more expansive concept, in that while all PD, in one way or another, contributes to the brand, not all branding – for instance, uni-directional communications – can be considered part of PD. And although the connection is not continuous, which it should be in the case of PD’s continuous conversation, branding, with its reliance upon market testing, client feedback and customer satisfaction, seems to me rather more responsive to changes in the environment.
At the end of the day, much of the PD vs. branding competition is rather sterile. Suffice it to say that the two concepts are intimately related but distinct. More important is the observation that they converge around the conviction that a country’s international image and reputation requires active, ongoing management if international (and, by extension, domestic) policy are to be developed successfully.
That said, even with best efforts, the experience of using branding efforts to support public diplomacy has been mixed. The “Cool Britannia” campaign launched by the UK in the late 1990s received much attention at the outset, but the novelty melted away as quickly as the ice cream it was named after and the exercise ended in a media circus of scorn and ridicule. Much less attention was received during several attempts to use public diplomacy to burnish the Canadian brand; the Think Canada Festival in Japan (2001) and the Upper North Side campaign in New York (1998-99) achieved little of lasting value.
Nor have attempts to apply private sector approaches to public sector challenges always produced the results desired. Selling foreign policy, after all, is not like selling soap, especially if the policy on offer is wildly unpopular. In the wake of 9/11, marketing executive Charlotte Beers, whose previous job was Chair of the advertising giant J. Walter Thompson, was asked by Colin Powell to sell “Brand America” in the Middle East. Beers’ multi-million dollar budget and Madison Avenue tactics, used in the campaigns “Shared Values” and “Muslim Life in America”, dissolved in fiasco; although there were many complicating factors, she resigned less than a year into her appointment and the ads were pulled. All of this underscores the point that it is not enough to pump out the messages or know how, technically, to connect. You must understand the culture and values of those you are trying to influence. R.S. Zaharna is excellent on these matters.
Mind the gap
I have emphasized that PD is most effective when meaningful exchange is wed to policy development and state behavior. Avoiding the perilous say-do gap requires not only standing up for one’s country abroad, but, when necessary, standing up to one’s country - pushing back – at home, especially when international policy is incongruent with the inputs supplied by public diplomacy. In this sense, public diplomacy has much more in common with dialogue than does branding, which does not typically incorporate the active feedback dimension and is more about diktat and promotion than meaningful exchange.
As instruments and elements of international relations, both public diplomacy and branding are techniques of statecraft, not unlike international PR as practiced by governments. But they are also something more, part of a larger international policy process which works at various levels, time frames and dimensions. An integrated, coherent public diplomacy and branding strategy will adopt the ecosystem approach to help condition attitudes and sustain an environment conducive to influencing behavior and achieving international policy goals.
That said, amidst all the boosterism, a note of caution is warranted before climbing onto the bandwagon; it would be unwise to slip entirely into promotional mode. Public diplomacy and branding are innovative, evolutionary additions to the diplomatic wardrobe, but they are not cure-alls suitable for all circumstances. While very useful, there are real limits to what can be achieved with either. Good public diplomacy can’t compensate for bad policy, and the most sophisticated branding campaign will come up short if unaccompanied by facts and behavior supportive of the brand. As suggested above, any gap between what a country says and what it does can be terminal. Embedded in each are also a number of inherent contradictions, or, to be charitable, paradoxes.
We will return to those matters in the next entry.
If we do not highlight it often enough, cultural diplomacy promotes the creation of transnational social spaces of engagement and interaction. And, even as they are often identified with particular cultures or countries, cultural diplomatic interventions are also unavoidably cosmopolitan in nature, insofar as they move between, confront, and conjoin multiple social worlds. In this way and even when carried away by the worst excesses of national chauvinisms, cultural diplomacy is inherently a transnationalist project of sorts. How does the work of cultural diplomacy account for its perpetual context of “transit”?
But nor do events and expressions of cultural diplomacy occur in an internationalist ether so much as in specific places and informed by particular historical conditions of possibility. This specificity includes the ways that “global” concepts and practice engage “local” ones or the ways “foreign” ideas and values mix (or not, as the case may be) with “national” ones. How these elisions occur is not often enough a focus of attention but it is also a fundamental question for understanding how cultural diplomacy is received and how it resonates with people’s meaningful horizons.
Perhaps it is time for us to think of cultural diplomacy in more “glocal” terms. Here I am not so much referring to the popular mantra, “think globally, act locally,” as pointing to the ways that the expressive content of cultural diplomacy: is not self-evident; circulates among publics in particular ways; is often understood by audiences in terms of already familiar and available concepts, beliefs, or values; and if it resonates, is typically appropriated into local frameworks of meaning and relevance. It is impossible, in other words, to understand the extra-local content of cultural diplomacy apart from its local context.
The British cultural theorist Stuart Hall’s discussion of encoding/decoding is helpful here. Hall helps us to appreciate the extent to which the coding of any given message does not dictate its reception, which is perhaps an unfortunate inconvenience for the advocates of strategic communication. Hall undermines confidence in any notion of communication that mistakenly adopts a straightforward or linear “sender-message-receiver” model. Instead, Hall insists, the two moments of “encoding” and of “decoding” are relatively autonomous from each other, and differently determinate in any process of communication.
In other words, any given public, if an intended audience for the work of cultural diplomacy, is also an important source for the meaning of that same cultural work. And as such, Hall encourages recognition of the “struggle over meaning,” not as zero-sum but as fundamental to all communication. Another way of putting this is that whatever the intention of cultural diplomacy interventions, publics for whom they are intended will always actively make sense of them in terms relating to their own interests.
Here I am not referring to any so-called “realist interests” – the rational calculus of political self-interest or practical advantage – but to the cultural grounding of ideas, concepts, values, or commitments that people everywhere use to evaluate the meanings of statements, and which invest the views people have about the world around them with significance. Interests, in the more encompassing second sense, most often take shape amid regular traffic along frontiers of interaction between the global and the local.
We can consider the significance of cultural diplomacy, then, along a glocal gradient. Take the example of “McDonaldization” as a case of the global circulation of American popular culture. Much attention has been given to whether the ubiquity of McDonalds franchises worldwide represents the triumph of the attractiveness of American fast food (and its associated model of economic efficiency) or is primary evidence for the predatory qualities of American cultural exports that threaten to displace local cultural diversity with a shallower and more monochromatic cultural globalization.
In fact neither story adequately captures another tendency, as colorfully reported in Watson’s Golden Arches East: the burger franchise effectively plies its trade along a global-local frontier that it constantly negotiates, and where the global and the local are brought together in diverse ways. While McDonald’s serves beer in Germany, does not offer beef in India, and offers seasonal “tsukimi” burgers in Japan to celebrate the harvest moon, this is not just an example of catering to local tastes. Franchises are turned into “local” institutions by patrons in a myriad of ways. In this sense, they are not altogether perceived as “American,” but in significant part as different kinds of neighborhood haunts. How a global franchise becomes a local haunt is about what Japanese do with a McDonalds to make it “theirs.”
Another illustration is human rights discourse and practice, which is a regular dimension of U.S. public diplomacy efforts. Typically the U.S. asserts the universal aspirations of human rights, promotes human rights in conjunction with secular and individual freedoms of equality and choice, and disregards cultural frameworks when advancing human rights goals. Nevertheless, international human rights law typically comes to matter to peoples around the world only once it has – in the words of researcher Sally Merry – been effectively “remade in the vernacular,” often in locally contingent and fragmentary ways.
Merry is clear that, to be most effective, human rights advocacy must be appropriated, translated, and framed in local terms. This might include human rights concepts about the nature of the person, the community, or the state, which do not travel easily from one setting to another. Instead of the more prevailing understanding of culture by international human rights activists as a retrogressive and anti-modern “custom” and as a ready excuse for non-compliance, Merry encourages attention to the ways transnational human rights ideas and institutions are made meaningful using cultural images, symbols, and narratives – in places like Fiji and India often couched in religious rather than secular terms – that help to articulate specifically local conceptions of social justice that do not simply echo international human rights covenants. Instead they are articulated, for example, in relationship to prevailing kinship obligations, culturally-defined ideas about the body; or particular historical contexts, such as long-term struggles over land ownership, among others.
As a recent lucid essay by Charles Kupchan argues, the contemporary world is not best met with the expectation of “conformity to Western values,” but instead through recognition of the proliferating hybrid modernities that characterize it. In glocal terms, whether dealing with global popular culture or with the universalizing discourses and practices of human rights, we should be considering how the subjects, recipients or audiences of these culture industries, global discourses and frameworks, are also at the same time agents of them, sources for them, and authors of them. Promotion of a more “glocal diplomacy” – the translation of the global and its often creative elision with the local – remains mostly disregarded, given the constant pressure to “control the message.”
Between January 29 and May 6, 2012, posters of Frida Kahlo’s self-portrait were hung from light posts around Los Angeles. The portraits served as invitations to “In Wonderland: the Surrealist Adventures of Women Artists in Mexico and the United States,” the first co-organized exhibition by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and Mexico’s Museum of Modern Art.
With the intention of recognizing the relatively neglected contributions of female surrealists, “In Wonderland” showcased approximately 175 works by 47 artists. Subsequently, “In Wonderland” became the first large-scale international survey of female surrealist artists in North America.
However, the exhibition can be considered an alternative narrative to the U.S.-Mexico relationship, that is the idea of North America as a hub of talented artists whose work spans across borders, and more significantly, as partners of artistic vanguards nurtured by a creative network that extends throughout the major cities in the region, or to use what the exhibition’s title evokes: “Wonderland.”
Even though the exhibition frequently references North America, it is focused on Mexico and the U.S. because the works of the artists displayed at the exhibit traveled between the two countries. This already meaningful exhibition that is linking the U.S. and Mexico through this creative network becomes more so when considering the context of U.S.-Mexico relations, which unlike the U.S. and Canada, is marked by heightened contrasts.
Besides the long and tumultuous border that marks their territorial contiguity, Mexico and the U.S. distance themselves due to their asymmetrical economies, a different set of cultural values, and thorny events inscribed in their relative short history as independent states. Furthermore, the perceptions they maintain of each other are almost the subject of a thesis-antithesis rationale: corruption-rule of law, underdeveloped-developed, order-instability or even confidence-lack of self-esteem, to mention a few. Thus, this compound of differences has spawned numerous prejudices and stereotypes which have severely undermined mutual understanding between Mexicans and Americans. Although it is a pattern commonly observed in neighboring countries with cultural differences and economic disparities, the differences between the U.S. and Mexico has generated a relation characterized by a well-discussed mistrustfulness.
Confronted with such contrasts, “In Wonderland” comes to play a sort of reconciling role by portraying the buoyant artistic creativity of Mexican, American, and European émigrés who developed surrealism between the 1920’s and the 1960’s. In fact, what the exhibition subtly unveils is the notion of North America as a land of emancipation, where incomers, in this case women, free from devastating wars and social hierarchies, could look for a new start. Certainly, this notion constructed from emancipation aspirations is not completely new if we consider each country’s backgrounds. It is generally accepted that the U.S.’ self-definition is a nation of immigrants pursuing the “American dream.” Mexico in turn, regards itself as a hospitable nation; a country that opens its doors to refugees from different latitudes: Lebanese citizens fleeing from the convulsive Ottoman disintegration, Spaniards or Chileans’ exiles from dictatorships, and many other emigrants. Each country, despite having restrictions on immigration inflows, has a long standing tradition of receiving émigrés.
Additionally, we can trace attempts to tie together not only the two nations, but the entire American continent, under the same idea. The Western Hemisphere idea, as Arthur Whitaker puts it, is founded on the basis that the peoples of the Americas cherish values that set them apart from European social constraints. However, what “In Wonderland” seems to have achieved is to combine the shared experiences of women with similar backgrounds and identities, guided by the same artistic influence, which was at the same time revolutionary and liberating, exclusively under North America.
No less interesting is the common subject that brings both countries together: surrealism. As art historian Whitney Chadwick affirms in the exhibition’s catalog, Mexico and the U.S played a central role in the surrealists’ narrative because of the lasting impact of surrealism in both countries and the relative large number of women who were associated to it. Through this female surrealists’ network, knitted by friendship and familiar relations on both sides of the border, their works were diffused through Galleries in Mexico City, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and, International Expositions, as well as through art journals and magazines. Additionally, their works were nurtured by artistic residences, as those that took place in Erongarícuaro, Michoacán.
Susan Fort and Tere Arcq, the curators of “In Wonderland,” esteem that surrealism enabled women in Mexico and the U.S. to construct new identities that demonstrated their independence and imagination. In this sense, even though female surrealists’ inspiration to reinvent or emancipate themselves may be more associated to their will to transcend paternalistic views, childhood traumas, male-centered standards or social class, than to the influence of North America as a land of the free, it is worth highlighting how “In Wonderland” binds together Mexico and the U.S. by emphasizing the shared experiences between American, Mexican and European female émigrés both as women and artists. This element could pave the way for reinvented narratives between the already very complex and fascinating relationship between the U.S. and Mexico.
After premiering at LACMA, “In Wonderland” will travel to the Musée National des Beaux-Arts du Québec (MNBAQ), from June 7 to September 3 2012. Finally, it will end its journey with the Museo de Arte Moderno in Mexico City, from September 27, 2012 to January 13, 2013. Oscar Castellanos del Collado is a Public Diplomacy student at the University of Southern California. He majored in International Relations at Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City and also studied at Sciences Po Lyon in France. He has previously worked as a Research Assistant in Cultural Diplomacy. He is concentrating his career in migration, civil society, and photography.
Although democracy retains its allure, the Arab uprisings that began last year were about democracy primarily as simply a means to an end.
The real goal of those who took to the streets was to grasp a better future for themselves and their families. Having a job, getting enough to eat, being assured that children could receive decent education and medical care – these constitute the substance of everyday life that so many in the Arab world had long been denied and were determined to claim.
As the political transition within Arab states continues, young people in that region are looking ahead toward an unsettled future. A survey of 18 to 24-year-olds in 12 Arab countries conducted by ASDA’A Burson-Marsteller found that “living in a democratic country,” which was the top aspiration in last year’s survey now ranks third, behind “being paid a fair wage” and “owning my own home.” Respondents cited the high cost of living as their biggest concern, and said that civil unrest and lack of democracy are the biggest obstacles facing the region.
Social unrest and economic challenges are closely related, particularly in terms of the flow of foreign capital into the region. During 2008, foreign direct investment into Arab countries totaled US$92 billion; in 2012, the figure is expected to be US$29 billion. As part of their public diplomacy efforts, the United States and other countries have encouraged entrepreneurship, particularly among young Arabs, but additional incentives need to be offered to private sector investors to help keep Arab economies from slipping into chaos. If greater economic disarray occurs, political turmoil will follow, and the only beneficiaries will be extremist groups skilled in taking advantage of frustration and fear.
Despite the dark clouds that are gathering, the survey found that the “Arab spring” is regarded as a positive development, and that it has stimulated belief among a solid majority of respondents that their countries are now moving in the right direction. Political opinions such as this one are influenced by a surge in news consumption by young Arabs. To the question, “How often do you update yourself on news and current affairs?” the response “Daily” rose from 18 percent in early 2011 to 52 percent this year. Reliance on television news has dropped markedly, while use of online news sources has climbed significantly.
Pulling together these survey results helps define a general portrait of Arab youth. They retain considerable optimism about their countries’ political futures in the aftermath of the dramatic events of 2011. But as they look at their own lives, they perceive – quite rightly – that they will face enormous challenges. Their increased attentiveness to news might exacerbate their impatience as they become better informed about how people live in the rest of the Arab world and beyond.
All this is useful information for the United States and other countries engaged in public diplomacy toward Arab populations. Public diplomacy involves long-term strategies, and the mix of hopes and concerns so clearly reflected in the responses to the Arab youth survey should be integrated into the planning of public diplomacy programs directed at this part of the world.
Ever since the Lumiere brothers gave their first show of projected pictures to an audience in Paris in 1895, there was “a keen awareness of the fundamental and open-ended relationship between the formation and articulation of identity-whether personal, national or European- and the moving image.” European cinema has over the course of the last century gone from having a seminal role in the invention of the new art form and dominating the international markets, to falling into the shadow of the financially incomparably more viable Hollywood films that proved to be more satisfying to the masses. Nonetheless, European cinema with all its strengths and weaknesses plays a major role in integrating and creating our individual understanding of ourselves and the world we live in.
Of all the components of cultural diplomacy, especially when targeted at external audiences, nothing bears a European adjective as strongly as European cinema, which continues to mirror the European identity. Although Europe presents an uneasy and fragile allegiance of diversities, shaped by linguistic, political, and cultural differences, European cinema, demonstrates “key trends and concerns visible across different national and regional cinemas that enable us to identify certain key characteristics.” These include cultural and historical traditions, as well as the new and complex notions of identity, new voices, gender issues, sexuality, immigration, exile, conflict, and change. These themes strongly communicate about Europeans and others in the multicultural context and allow a new insight into an idea of European identity which “openly acknowledges multiplicity, instability and fragmentation.” European films have had a history of tackling very sensitive issues in the global, postmodern world like collaboration with the Nazis (Louis Malle, Au Revoir Les Enfants, 1987), assessment of national guilt in relation to its colonial history (Denis, Chocolat, 1988) as well as challenges to European preconceptions of place and identity (Kassovitz, La Haine, 1995). All these films, however, play a “dynamic role in representing and re-evaluating Europe’s complex past and more importantly in suggesting new routes to future understanding.”
European cinema is often equated with “art cinema and high culture for the cultural and historic traditions it depicts” and it is suggested that in order to be successful, European directors must learn to satisfy the audience. It is precisely this personal/local (parochial if you like) character of European films that distinguishes European films from the uniformity of Hollywood blockbusters, that adds a special flair, sensibility to them and contributes to their “Europeanness.” Films like The Full Monty, Trainspotting, Billy Elliott, East Is East are all low-budget films, dealing with personal, local, regional, or national viewpoints and contain unfamiliar languages, cultural habits, and ideas. They offered something original, quirky and unpredictable to the audiences satiated with Hollywood predictability and uniformity which in turn brought them an extraordinary international success. The directors’ intention was not to satisfy the audience, but to show that films have a role to play which is beyond pure entertainment. They were not afraid to challenge, provoke and inspire which proved to be all the more rewarding.
Nonetheless, the European film production cannot ignore the mainstream U.S. cinema domination of Europe. Very few home-produced films make it to the top 10 anywhere in Europe. The market share of European films in EU cinemas has fallen to a mere 23% in 2000. In the words of Pierre Sorlin, “Europeans create images of the world through Hollywood’s lenses.” In turn, there are many constraints that limit the number of foreign films screened in the U.S. The severely underfunded European film industry cannot compete with mainstream Hollywood. Whereas the Americans consider film a commodity, the Europeans consider films as “cultural good with a symbolic significance that cannot be reduced to a mere commodity.” Unfortunately, in cinema, it is the profits not the richness, diversity, and quality, that ensure the survival of film production.
Also, it seems that the European films don’t travel well due to their linguistic, national, and cultural differences that complicate the circulation of films. Dubbing or subtitles are demanded from European films by different national audiences. That is one of the reasons why European films haven’t been able to exploit the EU market as one of the largest markets in the world. It seems that European films are a more viable component of cultural diplomacy toward external audiences that recognize the originality and sensibility of European films and interpret them as conveying European identity as opposed to internal audiences that often see the films as belonging to their country of origin.
European films should be tirelessly used to promote the European cultural identity by offering a range of important new cultural perspectives and depicting universal concerns through intimate lenses. Europeans need more than ever their own images to tell their stories and to explore their myths and identities, to look afresh at themselves and others. As such, European films are an unalienable source of identity and means of its articulation. Emina Vukic is an Annenberg scholar graduating with a Master's in Public Diplomacy degree from USC in May 2012. Born and raised in Croatia, she has worked for the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Bosnia for several years as a human rights activist after the war, the Hague Tribunal office in Belgrade, and USAID's Local Government Reform Program in Serbia. Her public diplomacy interests lie in nation branding, primarily of post-conflict countries through cultural diplomacy efforts.
Author’s Note: This blog is the edited version of a speech I gave at the recent NATO conference on The Power of Soft Power.
When Joseph Nye first coined the term soft power over 20 years ago, the United States and Europe were in a different place than they are today.
We felt we knew the enemy – Russia - and therefore why NATO was required.
The world had a clear pecking order, with the U.S. at the top followed by its close friend, Europe.
The cultural domination of the U.S. was unchallenged (even in Russia) because of the strength of Hollywood, McDonalds and a powerful English language media which was reinforced by the United Kingdom's BBC.
We lived in a largely unquestioning hard power culture, where guns - if not guns and money - shaped and controlled the world. Globalization was unfolding on hard power terms, giving rise to an anti-globalization movement (very confusing to those of us who believed passionately in growing connectivity and global citizenship).
Within this transatlantic culture, soft power was offered as a complement to hard power – another means to the same end of getting our way in the world, albeit slower. Instead of armies, we actively shipped artists, products, legal systems, video games – anything that might carry the values and templates of the world we wanted – to capture the imaginations of those abroad and give us access to their decision making processes.
America’s soft power was projected upon the black and white backdrop of a world split into good and evil, winners and losers. It painted the picture of a good winner: one you wanted to be friends with. Today is a different world, however. The global culture and broader context for the exercise of soft power has changed significantly in at least 10 ways:
First and foremost, our ways of communicating have changed so radically that any person with a computer and Wi-Fi can project an idea into minds all over the world;
The public sharing of breakthroughs in science, medicine, psychology, economic theory, game theory, and political thinking makes it more difficult to monopolize and manipulate national and global narratives;
The rise of media awareness: we now know we are told stories by people with agendas, because we can do it ourselves;
The rise of emotional intelligence makes us less easy to manipulate;
The change of gender balance in the public space, allowing feminine values and modes of operating to challenge the hegemony of masculine ones;
Increased exposure to different cultures, allowing competing values to parachute into our previously hermetically sealed space;
A loss of confidence, post 9/11, in the idea that someone is in charge. This fosters a culture of fear, but it does not give anyone carte blanche to assuage it: we remain on our guard against expectations of continuity;
A loss of confidence in the institutions, structures and authorities that make promises they cannot keep;
New exposition of network values – relationship, reciprocity, and distributed leadership. This constitutes a revolution in our understanding of agency;
Open source technology has given rise to a generation of activists.
The changes in global communications and soft power have resulted in more people taking turns in leading debates. Different stories about our shared space and its apparatus have arisen over the years and taken hold in the public psyche. Many of these ideas are not simply old debates between warmongers and peaceniks, but show a constant reframing of our common reality, sometimes prompted by scientific developments or social science. Unlike the old stories shared on the margins amongst activists, this is the new common wisdom and can have an impact on stock markets, voting patterns, as well as life trajectories in the private sphere.
In my recent speech to NATO, I explored new stories about war, heroism, masculinity, and violence, and how these stories will make it increasingly difficult for politicians to send their troops into conflict zones in the future. These shifts and turns in our shared global space of ideas and story lines add up to a slowly softening culture. Guns and money still rule the roost, but they are neither trusted, respected, nor loved the way they once were.
Instead we have a world that is increasingly self-mediated and hence self-conscious. Individual – as well as group, national, and business - empowerment is built on the ability to connect: to engage, to make relationships. Leadership has gotten flatter as more of us take our chances in the marketplace of ideas and initiatives.
So where does NATO sit in this new world? If soft power is attraction, how can NATO draw people towards itself – how should it reflect these new values and practices and recommend itself as an institution to trust?
NATO needs to tell a new story about itself that mirrors the global developments we are witnessing. Here are five thoughts for those in charge:
Reframe NATO's history as arising in a time of early globalization. Allow a narrative of diminishing violence and moving away from war. Be interested in the repurposing of the army in a future culture of global interdependence. It's possible to acknowledge the common desire for peace without losing any power.
Tell a new story about the future of growing alliances and relationships: it's all about friends. Consider creating new roles for women in a gender specific way, using their relational skills. Women taking on traditional male roles in the army does not sit comfortably with the majority.
Move away from the closed world of NATO; be wary of the NATO world view arising in messages. Most of the people you want to be friends with are not in your club and can't understand your rationale – you have to understand theirs.
Acknowledge that in a world of growing complexity, networks, and relationships, the ultimate counter-logic is drone warfare. This is NATO's Achilles heel – the ultimate disconnected weapon of death. Like torture – it is on the list of deal breakers.
Create more initiatives like “We-Nato” where Stephanie Babst created a hospitable, welcoming space. People don't want to live in a world of fear, we prefer a world of increasing knowledge through engagement.
There are some that ask why should NATO care? Ultimately, in their view, the only relationship that matters is between military and political leaders. NATO doesn't need to attract the public because only those in power will ultimately understand the reality they face on the global stage and they make the decisions. To them I would say, observe our changing world. It is common knowledge that the biggest constituency in the world is public opinion. Politicians – from small dictators to leaders of the biggest democracies – know they will not be voted in to make their decisions without public approval, something they simply cannot manipulate the way they once could. What used to be a cozy partnership between governments and the military is fast becoming a ménage a trois – the public has moved in and the politician has been seduced. Ignore the public at your peril, but befriend them for a more secure world. To receive a copy of this speech in it’s entirety, send an email to: IA@softpowernetwork.com
One of the defining attributes of being in a center of global commerce and culture is the feeling you get when walking down the sidewalks. In London, I found the experience of strolling a few blocks from where I was staying to the downtown campus of UEA London, in large part along the fabled Brick Lane, to be a source of energy and inspiration.
Now back in Ottawa for a month, I find the contrast especially striking. Almost painful. The narrow, crumbling sidewalks along the anonymous streets in the Canadian capital’s exquisitely excrescent central business district seem to drain any joy or enthusiasm. With each step, you can feel the spirit ebbing. Whereas London is a great place to be in the midst of, Ottawa is a great place to leave.
Fortunately, that is easily done, and its wonderful environs make the prospect irresistible.
Both London and Ottawa have brands. London is a world city and global network node, less an exemplar of things English or British than a vibrant cosmopolitan crossroads that just happens to be the capital of the UK.
Ottawa is a blandly pleasant frontier town and bureaucratic outpost on the fringe of the settled part of the North American continent. All of which is to say that brands, not least because they exist mainly in the minds of the beholders, have personality and complexion. And on that note, I would like to return to, and weave further a few of the analytical threads comparing branding and public diplomacy (PD) first presented in Chapter 10 of Guerrilla Diplomacy.
Public Diplomacy vs. Branding
With the notable exception of Canada, public diplomacy most everywhere is enjoying somewhat of a renaissance, with interest and activity at levels not seen since the end of the Cold War.
Why the resurgence? I have not seen much research on that issue, but the renewed commitment may be associated with the spread of democracy, which means that public opinion, and relations with civil society generally, are more important to governments in their efforts to exert influence in a globalizing world. The accelerated levels of PD programming on the parts of China and India have had a major impact across the board. Meanwhile, a major assault on Western values has been launched by jihadists; al Qaeda’s call cannot go unanswered. Military responses, however, have proven exceptionally costly in every respect. This has heightened interest in an examination of the alternative international policy instruments. Finally, complex interdependence and the transnational nature of many pressing global issues – management of the earth’s commons, genomics, environmental collapse, to name a few – have combined to heighten the general efficacy and appeal of public diplomacy.
At the highest level of analysis, the idea of a nation brand aligns closely with national image or reputation, and attempts at international branding with the practice of public diplomacy. That said, as soon as you begin to drill down, the differences can be seen to outweigh the similarities.
Public diplomacy is rooted in the need to address issues non-violently, and at its best is characterized by dialogue, meaningful exchange and relationship building rather than monologue, information dominance or message dumping. It is associative rather than assertive, to use my colleague R.S. Zaharna’s apt terminology. In this regard, and after Kathy Fitzpatrick, PD has more in common with public relations than it does with lobbying or advocacy. The latter two practices are in my view more akin to branding, which I see as device to narrow the distance between perception and reality and to keep pace with identities in constant evolution.
Branding is a private sector import, and its corporate origins and provenance may explain its tendency towards the use of broadcast means to achieve economic and commercial ends. Like PD, branding relies on ideas, intelligence, cultural knowledge and market or audience research. Yet in my estimation, public diplomacy differs from branding mainly in that it is on “receive” at least as much as it is on “send” mode. Listening is critical. Using meaningful exchange with public constituencies to exert indirect influence on governments and decision makers, public diplomacy is a sophisticated form of triangulation, an approach to the peaceful practice of international relations that has at its centre not compulsion but partnership and persuasion. This is a description that does not fit branding, which in political terms more closely resembles propaganda.
Public diplomacy might be defined as the sum of efforts by government to promote policies and interests abroad by connecting with populations, building coalitions, creating networks and in so doing influencing public opinion. A brand, on the other hand, consists of the shared perception of a place, product or person around which those interested can congregate. Hence the importance of logos in branding campaigns. These are part projection, part reaction, and accordingly are more concerned with matters pertaining to image shaping and reputation management than is PD.
The distinction, though far from absolute, is nonetheless worth pursuing.
No logo?
A brand is what sets you apart, what makes you distinct, what differentiates you from others. Good brands are suffused with attitude. They are positive and convey promise. They have soul and seek to establish or maintain an emotional attachment. Nation branding involves telling a unique story, and expressing that story as an integrated narrative with clear form and direction. The resulting brand, and the “re-brands” which may follow, will represent the distillation, crystallization and projection of that story in a manner supportive of national values, policies and interests.
Brands take years to build but are easily damaged and will erode if not cultivated constantly. When the image, or brand, is positive, it will be immeasurably easier to draw others into the conversation. When countries fail to live up to the brand promise being promoted, they risk losing credibility and running down their soft power.
If public diplomacy is thought of as a nations’ book, then a nation’s brand is something like its cover, designed to appeal viscerally to the consumers of international policy by encouraging potential buyers to open the book (or visit the country, buy the product, or support the international policy objective). But because the market evolves quickly, the cover’s design may need attention even before the book requires revision and a new edition can be released.
Engineering a positive predisposition - that is, when association with a specific nationality evokes in the first instance a smile rather than a scowl - is the end of nation branding; through dialogue, public diplomacy seeks to produce results in support of identified objectives and in service of national interests. By virtue of its origins in marketing and advertising places and products, branding is reliant more upon projection and is less dependent upon genuine two-way communications. If branding means consistency, conformity and staying on message, and the communications content is paramount, then public diplomacy means explaining the message, asking for comments, and reporting the response. It enlarges understanding by creating a shared frame of reference, and weds communication to action - the demonstration effect, diplomacy of the deed.
It might be an oversimplification to suggest that branding has more to do with spin and PD more to do with engagement, but I will pursue that line of argument in the next installment.
I have spent some time as of late picking through the now infamous train wreck that was the American pavilion at Shanghai. Cynthia Schneider offers her opinion on what went wrong here. Here’s my take:
The fellow appointed commissioner general, Jose Villareal, was a former fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. He helped raise the $61 million required for the creation of the American pavilion. We do not know what he did as commissioner general because the whole pavilion had been outsourced. The U.S. government had nothing to do with this. Why? Because they didn’t pay for it. In 2010, somebody in the State Department gave two people the authority to raise the money for the pavilion in Shanghai. But these two could only raise a few million. Hillary enters the picture and raises around $60 million. She says thanks very much to her chief fundraiser Villareal by appointing him Commissioner General of the United States Pavilion at Shanghai. Taking nothing away from him, as I’m sure he’s a very respectable person, he in due course welcomes all these Chinese businessmen into the Commissioner General’s lounge, on behalf of the American government.
But there is no government. It’s all been outsourced, or “Blackwatered” as Bob Jacobson chillingly described it.
So, these two folks I just mentioned go to an outfit on the West Coast called BRC Imagination Arts. They do theme park entertainment. They did the Aichi fair in 2005 which featured an actor dressed as Ben Franklin riding…a Segway. BRC first came into the picture in 1992 when they were hired to design the U.S. pavilion at Seville, the beginning of the handing over of government control of these events to the private sector. Also, for Shanghai the American organizers brought in Clive Grout, a Canadian architect and designer. Hey, I’m no xenophobe, but couldn’t we at least have found an American architect for the job? You know, national pride, American visionary entrepreneurialism at work and that sorta thing?
So what’s going on here? It’s very interesting that BRC is the same group who would tackle the American pavilion project at Shanghai. And of course, they themselves were beholden to over 60 corporations who wanted a piece of the pavilion’s limelight. I am not sure what the exact laws are with Congress forbidding appropriations that would enable the U.S. government from participating in world expos. Why didn’t President Obama pressure Nancy Pelosi for funds for Shanghai? It’s legal, as far as I know.
Fairs, expos, and international exhibitions offer a unique place for connections, individual connections on a scale of great magnitude. But did we reach out at Shanghai? Sure, we had Chinese-speaking guides, but did they engage the Chinese audiences? A guide could say to someone on line, “hello, what province are you from?” We shouldn’t just say, “Look at me, I speak Chinese,” which is tantamount to what was actually on display in the American pavilion: video loops of the President and Kobe and others saying “hi.” Big deal. We should have been saying, “what are your feelings about the United States? What do you like about us? What do you hate about us?” China is the future. Apparently, we do not know what we are.
In past years, the USIA effectively oversaw the design aspect of international exhibitions, starting with the Brussels Expo in ’58, the American National Exhibition in Moscow in ’59, Montreal ’67 and Osaka ’70. But the government was effective for this reason: first, the government paid for these endeavors, which is a small price to pay in my opinion for brilliant cultural diplomacy; second, there is a history here in which these experts (government representatives who had expertise as designers such as Jack Masey,) drove content. Since the Seville 1992 Expo, the story has been the entropy of USIA’s capabilities in this arena. Basically, we always had someone on the inside who understood what they were doing. In Shanghai we did not.
It is obvious the Feds don’t have anyone who is really serious about doing this stuff right. The Office of Public Diplomacy, which has been limping along, really hasn’t distinguished itself. From a recent interview I conducted with Jack Masey, he noted, concerning Shanghai:
If I even remotely had a hand in this, knowing how turned on the Chinese are by basketball, if indeed you wanted to do a video or a movie presentation, I would have gotten the Harlem Globetrotters and let them do a 15-minute segment of what they do best. You would drive their audience over the edge. And you’d really do it right. It’s easy.
If we do a repeat of Shanghai and outsource the American pavilion again for the Milan 2015 Expo, we will have no control over the content. Let’s stop wasting these “last three feet.”
When I hear from people about the relative advantages of cultural diplomacy, they often point to the apparent “neutrality” or “apolitical” basis of, say, cultural exchange. Coming from an anthropological background, this often advanced claim has always puzzled me.
At least historically, when anthropologists have talked about cultures – for example, in the typical mode of cultural relativism – they have referred to the ways that different cultures are either configurations of specific “values” or interpret the world around them in distinct ways. And, if this is not exactly how I would encourage us to think about the culture concept today, it is precisely because the meanings people ascribe to things in the world vary so much across cultures that we seek to take account of cultures in the first place. When we refer to “neutrality” in the context of cultural diplomacy, then, it is often unclear how this reconciles with cultural difference.
I am actually pretty sure that the problem of cultural difference is not intentionally being dismissed by these frequent assertions about the relative neutrality of cultural diplomacy. But, I do think that we might be mixing things up here and that we could more rigorously sort out what in fact we are talking about.
Respondents to a cultural diplomacy survey I conducted described some of its advantages this way: Cultural diplomacy is successful because “it is not there to sell a product.” And there is “no message control.” It is typically “most effective when it is politically neutral, non-confrontational and non-ideological.” It is effective when it is “free of state-to-state interests.” And it tends to be ineffective or it fails when trying to “push a policy position” or “when deeply contested interests limit the impact of cultural diplomacy activities.” In a nutshell, the idea is that when cultural diplomacy efforts are perceived as too obviously entangled with “interests” they run the risk of illegitimacy, and so, ineffectiveness.
Policy recommendations for cultural diplomacy also reflect this equation. A White House conference on cultural diplomacy in 2000 touts its advantages because cultural diplomacy “relates to human creativity beyond the scope of politics.” The Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy’s 2005 report confidently notes the ways cultural diplomacy “creates a neutral platform for people-to-people contact.” A 2007 Demos report likewise asserts, “The value of cultural activity comes precisely from its independence.” As such, culture is a “safe space for unofficial political relationship-building.” And as a 2010 report by the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation on cultural exchange programs recently emphasized, these exchanges can “remain apolitical.”
“Neutral,” as these several reports make clear, is most often contrasted with “political.” As Cynthia Schneider suggests, the advantage of cultural diplomacy – particularly in the form of citizen diplomacy – is that it provides an “alternative to the official presence of America.” And, indeed, critics of government-sponsored U.S. cultural diplomacy have pointed to the ways the involvement of the State Department – or during the Cold War, the CIA – have tended to politicize, and so undermine the credibility of, U.S. cultural diplomacy. Neutral-as-apolitical, then, is set against the perception of the pursuit of so-called “national interests” in the competition among nations.
But if we are not careful, neutral-as-apolitical can invite confusion, as seems to be the case with Joseph Nye’s counterintuitive conclusion in his most recent treatment of the problem of power, where he observes that “the best propaganda is not propaganda.” We think we know what Nye probably means here: cultural diplomacy is effective when the “culture” part of the intervention is understood to be authentic and credible. It cannot be viewed as contrived or as having an ulterior motive – as Frances Stonor Saunders’s story of clandestine CIA sponsorship of American artists and intellectuals during the Cold War makes clear. Indeed, as Richard Arndt and others have reminded us, it is important to try to rescue “the diplomacy of cultures from the embrace of propaganda.”
However, we also need to take account of the fact that at least beginning with the end of the Cold War the “culture” of diplomacy has significantly changed its location as well as its meaning. If the 2000 White House cultural diplomacy conference unproblematically assigns culture to the activities of “human creativity,” a 2008 report by the Curb Center points to a more recent trend of the supplanting of a cosmopolitan notion of “culture” as the output of artistic and intellectual elites by an increasingly pervasive understanding of “cultures” in the anthropological sense. This shift is evident, for example, in the recent multilateral promotion of the concept of “intangible cultural heritage,” as generationally transferrable and community-based, over and above the previous international consensus for tangible heritage represented by such landmarks as the 1954 Hague Convention.
And when culture – as universal creative expression – is folded into an anthropological conception of different cultures, cultural diplomacy becomes more like an ongoing series of transactions across frontiers resembling intercultural communication. On either side of these frontiers, we suppose, are relatively different configurations of cultural values.
Part of what is conveyed in claims about the potential neutrality of cultural diplomacy is that we can sort out expressions of culture from the narrow pursuit of interests or political advantage, in the competition among nations. But, while realist accounts of international affairs often assume that politics are driven by competitive self-interest, it is nevertheless a mistake to assume any such interests are at the same time value-neutral. In his classic discussion, the American anthropologist Marshall Sahlins demonstrated the impossibility of, in his words, separating out the “utilitarian postulates of practical interest” from the “system of symbolic valuations” – i.e. culture – that invest such an interest with meaning.
The politics of our own culture wars in the U.S. should serve as a ready reminder of this. The very notion of a culture war is based upon the premise that so-called “values voters” are motivated to patrol the borders of a particular definition of moral community in ways commensurate with public life in an otherwise diverse society. When controversies over the public appropriateness of cultural expression are touched off in the U.S., as with the case of the Sensation art exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum several years ago or in the more recent decision by the Smithsonian Institution to censor the video artwork “A Fire in My Belly,” the difference between what constitutes public interest and what, cultural values, is nowhere to be found. And, of course, it is also that way everywhere else in the world.
Put another way, rather than understanding “interests” to be value-neutral, and as distinct from more authentically credible expressions of culture in diplomacy, we might do better to give our attention to the ways that values determine interests. We might consider how cultural expressions in international affairs are value-laden. In other words, proceeding as if cultural diplomacy is a relatively neutral and apolitical way to build bridges that enable later and more frank dialogue about national interests is likely to cause us to ignore some of the unexpected cultural value commitments – if not narrow national interests, interests nonetheless – that account for the differences we are seeking to bridge in the first place.
The difference between propaganda and an interested or value-laden cultural diplomacy is that the former seeks to manipulate publics, often through purposeful distortion or by withholding key facts, to the end of control. Perhaps, then, the important distinction is not between neutral or apolitical, on the one hand, and interests or values, on the other, so much as between interests or values and manipulation or control. Cultural diplomacy cannot honestly avoid the former – and why should it? But it should take no part in the latter.
At USC on April 6, the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars held a conference on the Future of Public Diplomacy. Experts, academics, and practitioners gathered to discuss what lies ahead for the field of public diplomacy. There were a couple of major takeaways from the conference.
First, new technology, with its power to create networks, has also enabled individuals to gravitate to others with similar beliefs, creating “silos” of people sheltering themselves from cross-cultural, collaborative dialogue. The creation of these “silos” has made the task of bridging gaps and creating new conversations more difficult. Consequently, public diplomats must work harder to converse. Second, public diplomacy must foster intelligent dialogue, not just engagement, between a multitude of emerging actors. If public diplomacy utilizes listening, then the next step is to take the information and cultivate focused and constructive policy change.
The great benefit and challenge of public diplomacy is its ability to create dialogue between analogous and contradictory groups. Due to the development of new technology and networking, this dialogue is more easily facilitated. However, the multitude of voices present due to this development makes dialogue difficult. Additionally, search engines like Google present people with the most popular information, not necessarily the most accurate.
The keynote speaker for the conference, Ben Hammersley is the United Kingdom Prime Minister’s Ambassador to East London Tech City. The room was abuzz when he remarked, “Your foreign policy is whatever Google says it is.”
Taking Hammersley’s point into account, PD practitioners must work even harder to ensure their messages are crafted precisely through careful listening.
To facilitate the creation of these messages, several techniques have been developed to track and capture authentic voices as demonstrated by Dr. Taha Kass-Hout of the U.S. Center for Disease Control, Beth Haber of Lieberman Research Worldwide, and Anoush Rima Tatevossian of UN Global Pulse.
The dashboards and evaluative processes the panelists utilize daily track everything from correlating symptom searches on Google with the next flu pandemic to market research answering the fundamental question of “so what?” – why should we listen and what do we gain. If public diplomats get better at listening, they can tailor thought provoking messages which encourage informed dialogue about policy issues. Dr. Nicholas Cull's opening address at the conference reinforced the importance of adapting new tools for listening because according to him “public diplomacy of the future is about connecting.”
Connecting is a complicated process that is easier said than done. Elizabeth Linder of Facebook pointed out that every organization varies in who they determine to be their audience and how they connect with them. However, she also emphasized that it is crucial for actors to avoid the pitfall of having an online presence with no purpose. A purposeful online presence includes having a meaningful dialogue or conversation with an audience. Furthermore, Geoff Anisman of the Bureau of International Information Programs at the U.S. State Department agreed and said, “technology must be used as an amplifier” of policy and vital messaging.
Traditionally underrepresented actors are now taking the idea of amplification further through both new technology and traditional public diplomacy campaigns. Ellen Huijgh, researcher at Carleton University, shared her study of how “public diplomacy [today] gives power to those with traditionally little power.” Through purposeful and directed communication sub-state actors, such as Quebec in Canada and Catalonia in Spain, are getting creative by identifying engagement strategies utilizing key partnerships for maximum impact. These sub-state actors are also conducting public diplomacy to ensure their policy positions are being heard.
The final panel, which was exceptionally multicultural, was composed of traditional actors in public diplomacy discussing their activities. Brazilian cultural attaché Sergio Mielniczenko talked about hosting a radio show to connect with listenership interested in Brazil. Chinese cultural attaché Zhaohe Che highlighted finding commonalities to create connections. Finally, Vera Mejojlic, founding Director of the South East European Film Festival, showed the importance of building a strong festival with the buy-in of large sponsors to reach as many people as possible for cross-cultural dialogue.
We may not have prognosticated the prospects of public diplomacy, however, we certainly have an idea. The future of public diplomacy will be about the following:
Being in on the first wave of new technology and communication
Experimenting with multiple communication techniques to grab attention
Messaging more intelligently and tailoring it to niche audiences because the global public is smart and proficient in online communication
Breaking the “silos” to foster cross-group dialogue that can influence policy
There is certainly a vivid future for public diplomacy and as a public diplomat in training, I am excited to be a part of it. Aparajitha Vadlamannati is a Master’s of Public Diplomacy student at USC, graduating in May 2012. She is also the President of the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars and a senior editor on the Public Diplomacy Magazine board. Aparajitha is interested in studying U.S.-India relations and Indian government public diplomacy.
WASHINGTON --- America’s image abroad remains strong, retaining its post-Bush worldwide increase in 2009. But in new survey data released here this morning by Gallup, the U.S. has lost significant support in the past year in Africa and Latin America.
Meanwhile, worldwide views of Germany have soared, and that country now leads all other major powers, including the U.S., in global favorability scores. Germany improved its positive rating from 40% to 47% worldwide, while the U.S. remained more or less level, off slightly from 47% to 46%.
China and Russia are far behind Germany and the U.S. China lost ground and, despite being viewed as an economic superpower, its leadership is viewed positively by only 32% worldwide. Approval of Russia is even lower – 28% worldwide.
Major declines in support for the U.S. came from African countries. Survey data from South Africa, for example, show a one-year plunge in positive views of the U.S. from 92% favorable last year to 74% now. And in Liberia, approval of the U.S. dropped even more, from 90% to 65%.
China may have been a beneficiary of America’s decline, scoring major gains in many African countries, up more than 20 percentage points in Ghana, Kenya, and Senegal. In Mali, 94% of the population view China favorably. Ghana and Senegal also saw major increases in support for Russia – up 29 percentage points and 32 percentage points, respectively, in the past year.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, region-wide, U.S. support dropped from a peak of 53% in 2009 to 40% in the new report, with major declines in Chile (down from 62% to 41%) and Panama (down from 60% to 36%). In Mexico, U.S. approval is off by fourteen percentage points.
Major increases in U.S. approval came from Belgium, Britain, and Cambodia.
Approval of U.S. leadership surged in 2009, when positive approval of U.S. leadership soared from 34% to 49%. Since then, worldwide support has remained more or less flat, drifting down to 48% last year and then to 47% now.
Gallup also tested global opinion in another way, asking whether respondents were willing to leave their homes and move to another country – and if so, to which country. The U.S. came out on top by far, with 150 million people worldwide wanting to move to America. Britain was second, with 45 million wanting to move there.
The largest numbers of people wanting to move to the U.S. were from China, Nigeria, and India. But adjusting for population and looking at the percentage of a nation’s population that wants to move to the U.S., the leaders were Liberia (37%), Sierra Leone (30%), the Dominican Republic (26%), and Haiti (24%).
Turning the lens 180 degrees, Gallup also measured America’s view of the world. The countries viewed most positively by Americans are Canada (96% approval), Britain (90%), Germany (86%), Japan (83%), India (75%), France (also 75%), and Israel (71%).
Mexico dropped to 51% approval, a decline from 74% in 2005. At this morning’s briefing, Jim Clifton, Gallup’s Chairman and CEO, said the decline in Americans’ view of Mexico has been devastating.
“Business implications are staggering,” Clifton reported, noting sharp declines in tourism and in willingness by business executives to visit Mexico – and invest there.
Ambassador Stuart Holliday, President and CEO of Meridian International, commented on the survey results at this morning’s briefing. He said the numbers show that people around the world have a “lack of confidence” in leadership of all countries. He noted that worldwide approval of the U.S., at 46%, matches almost perfectly President Obama’s approval rating in the U.S.
The ambassador called for “three P’s” to improve America’s standing in the world: “partnership, private sector investment, and principles.” Holliday and Clifton agreed that job creation is key to more positive approval, especially in Africa and Latin America. Clifton has written a book on the subject, “The Coming Jobs War”, and Holliday presented this today as a challenge and an opportunity.
“We have an opportunity not just to extract resources, but to invest in long-term job creation,” he said.
Ambassador Holiday also said the tone of America’s internal political debate is contributing to perceptions of American weakness.
“We are talking about our own decline more than anyone else,” he said.
On the last day of the Masters of Public Diplomacy delegation’s visit to Washington D.C., some of us had the opportunity to visit the Delegation of the European Union to the United States. The delegation included University of Southern California alumna and Senior Communications Advisor, Stacy Hope; Assistant Press Officer, Ren Althouse; and three Press & Public Diplomacy (PPD) interns.
From our visit, we learned that the PPD’s program is wide-reaching. The initiatives which target audiences of different age groups from all over the U.S., range from cultural programming to information outreach, and from academia to media relations.
The main areas which the EU Delegation’s public diplomacy targets are: programs targeting American youth, collaboration with EU member states’ embassies and consulates, and social media outreach.
One of the main objectives of the public diplomacy strategy of the Delegation is to foster a long-term relationship with young professionals and future leaders. This is conducted through programs such as the EU Visitors Program (EUVP), which invites young professionals from countries outside the EU to visit Europe and learn about its goals and policies, and through annual press visits to Brussels.
Even younger age groups are targeted. The Euro Challenge (modeled after the Fed Challenge) engages high school students in simulations about the European economy. Moreover, the delegation organizes a yearly Kids Euro Fest, one of the largest children’s festivals in the U.S., held in Washington D.C. in collaboration with EU member states embassies.
The coordination between the EU member states embassies and consulates was another major theme in our discussion. The EU Delegation hosts meetings with embassy representation regarding policies and joint events, and with member states’ ambassadors on a monthly basis. The best example of this collaboration in public diplomacy is the preparation for the Europe Day on May 9. On this occasion, ambassadors and consuls travel to different cities around the U.S. to visit schools to raise awareness about the EU, its structures and policies. Additionally, all of the embassies in Washington D.C. organize an open house event with a specific theme for Europe Day. The theme of this year will be ‘Europe and our country,’ in line with the European motto ‘unity in diversity.’
The EU Delegation to the U.S. is on the forefront of using web technologies to conduct outreach. Even though the website is undergoing construction, the delegation’s Facebook page and Twitter feed are extremely active and looked at as a model for other delegations around the world. Moreover, affirming this shift and attention towards social media, the head of the delegation, Ambassador João Vale de Almeida, has recently joined Twitter.
In a Q&A session, which concluded our meeting, we had the opportunity to ask what had become a leitmotif for our visit to Washington D.C.: how does the delegation evaluate its PD outreach strategies? Ms. Hope’s answer highlighted a crucial challenge in the evaluation of PD campaigns. While quantitative evaluation matters, diversifying and getting the public involved in different activities is even more crucial.
The visit to the EU delegation clearly marked a highlight of our D.C. trip. Considering the PPD unit’s diverse initiatives which engage with American audiences of different ages and social groups though various communication outlets, the EU delegation to the U.S. has one of the most impressive and innovative public diplomacy programs I have encountered. Riccardo Ruffolo is a first-year candidate for a Master of Public Diplomacy at USC. Originally from Italy, Riccardo completed his B.A. in International Studies at the University of Florence in 2011. As an undergraduate, he spent three semesters studying abroad in Paris, France as an exchange student at Sciences Po (IEP). While in Paris, Riccardo interned with the UNESCO communication and information sector. His main interests are human rights, transnational organizations, and the role of innovation in international relations, while his regional focus is on Europe (emphasis on the European Union).
One of the most significant factors shaping foreign visitors’ opinions is the way they are received when entering the country. For advocates of U.S. public diplomacy, this is particularly important because of the value of having outsiders come to America to gain an appreciation of the freedoms and lifestyle enjoyed here.
Many of my Arab friends will not travel to the United States because they have had bad experiences in the past, facing overt hostility from officials at entry airports due solely, they allege, to their being Arabs, and therefore being perceived as potential terrorists. This notion may be racist, but it endures.
During a recent trip to Dubai, I talked with an Arab business executive about this. Although he had been educated in the United States, he had not come to the country for the past nine years because he had been harassed during his last visits. But he said that given the time that had passed since the 9/11 attacks, he hoped that the hostility had diminished. Unfortunately, I recently found that this is not the case.
Several weeks ago, I arrived at Los Angeles International Airport on a flight from London. As I went through the customs and immigration entry point, the officer examining my passport, after discovering that I am a university professor, said to me, “Maybe you have friends in high places. Please tell them that Muslims do not have Constitutional rights. Islam is not a religion and so Muslims should not have rights. It is a cult and they want to destroy us.”
In my astonishment, and to my discredit, I argued only feebly with him, particularly because several hundred anxious passengers (the flight had been several hours late) were queued behind me. I said only that American Muslims had the right to practice their religion, and he forcefully disagreed, reiterating that Islam is not a religion.
I have no idea what brought on the officer’s diatribe, and I do not know if he subjected others to it. I should have reported him to a supervisor then and there, but frankly I succumbed to the lateness of the hour and worries about being held up indefinitely if I made a fuss. I regret that decision.
Presumably, the training of the men and women working at U.S. entry points includes instruction in the religions and cultures of the people they will encounter. In this case, at least, the training didn’t work.
The larger issue is the damage done to the United States by behavior such as that of the entry official at LAX. I assume that his inappropriate actions are not widespread, but just one official, interacting with hundreds of visitors, can undermine American efforts to reach out to the rest of the world.
Even top-level policymakers should be concerned about this. Public diplomacy efforts to showcase the United States to the world are doomed if the first American a visitor meets is ignorant and hostile.
RS Zaharna on April 12, 2012 @ 6:54 am Thank you for sharing the story. It underscores the importance of the domestic dimension of public diplomacy campaigns.
Daniel Hall on May 9, 2012 @ 7:44 am Thank you for sharing. Disturbing and highly frustrating to say the least.
CPD Blog Manager’s Note: Here at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, we encourage individuals to write about the effects of public diplomacy around the world. Public diplomacy, traditionally the purview of governments, has grown and branched out and is now being conducted by a variety of actors. In an effort to share with our readers a larger set of public diplomacy-related material, the CPD Blog is producing a periodic column, “Recent Blogs of Note.” This column will feature blogs from a number of institutions and individuals. If you are interested in having your blog featured in Recent Blogs of Note, please email cpd@usc.edu for more information.
An interesting new blog post from the U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy discusses World Learning’s recent partnership with America-Mideast Educational and Training Services, INC. (AMIDEAST). Through this partnership, World Learning, a non-profit organization that provides education, exchange, and development programs, will offer their internationally recognized Professional Certificate in English Language Teaching (PCELT) program to teachers across the Middle East and North Africa. Carlos Sosa, the World Learning education director, highlighted the importance of the project when he stated that “while English is increasingly seen as a necessary skill to get ahead economically, high-quality English teaching was once only available to elite private language schools, World Learning is proud that, through this partnership, we will be able to work with local public school teachers and universities to make quality instruction available to all of the regions youth.” World Learning’s initiative with AMIDEAST demonstrates both the importance of a language teaching and training programs which provide valuable skills to a target audience and directly outreach to the youth populations. This model of a public diplomacy program, developed and conducted by two NGOs, provides a valuable service to a foreign public while at the same time shares and imparts American values to the audience it is reaching. The World Learning and AMIDEAST partnership program is an example of public diplomacy which should be replicated.
Another interesting blog post from the U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy reveals that the Partners of the Americas recent program, “A Ganar Juarez” (Let's win Juarez), a program implemented in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico had the goal of helping young adults, find jobs and develop entrepreneurial skills. Of the 685 teenagers that participated, 75 have internships, 60 have found a job, 109 are continuing academic studies and 335 participants are still a part of the “technical capacitation” component of the program. By many measures, this public diplomacy program is a success. Partners of the Americas, with their headquarters in Washington D.C., mission is to connect individuals, volunteers, institutions, businesses, and communities to serve and to change lives through lasting partnerships. Similar to the World Learning’s initiative with AMIDEAST, this undertaking by Partners of the Americas emphasizes the significance of providing useful skills to a target audience and the importance of incorporating the youth in a public diplomacy campaign whenever possible.
To project the full spectrum of the American musical landscape, any talent representing characteristically American musical genres were invited to apply for the American Music Abroad program. This included, but was not limited to Blues, Bluegrass, Cajun, Country, Folk, Latin, Native American, Gospel, Hip Hop, Indie Rock, Jazz, Punk, R&B and Zydeco. In short, any musical traditions that can claim roots in the diverse American musical canon were welcome to apply.
Working together, American Voices and the U.S. Department of State helped get the message out in a fashion any Master of Public Diplomacy student should recognize from PUBD 504: we focused on potential partners and the best ways to multiply our message. We advertised in music magazines aimed at particular genres, and tapped into networks by contacting music associations, record labels, talent management, music social networks, State and City Arts Councils, artistic foundations and institutes, and civil society organizations, and got them to help spread the word. We reached out the old-fashioned way by making phone calls and sending scores of emails, but also using e-blasts and social media outlets.
When the dust had settled, the American Music Abroad program had received nearly 300 applications, more than double the previous year. Music ensembles applied from over 40 states, as well as Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and represented a tremendous variety of musical styles and world-class experience.
From the first round of applications, 40 groups were selected by a diverse panel of judges to conduct live auditions in mid-February. From these live auditions, 12 ensembles were chosen to represent American music and culture throughout 2012 and 2013 to over 40 countries around the world. The selected groups include:
Act of Congress (Americana/Acoustic Rock, Alabama)
Audiopharmacy (Hip Hop/Dub, California)
Boston Boys (Soul/Country, Massachusetts)
Cathy Fink & Marcy Marxer with Barbara Lamb (Folk/Roots, Maryland)
The Clinton Curtis Band (Rock/Blues, New York)
Della Mae (Bluegrass, Massachusetts)
Keola Beamer & Jeff Peterson, with Moanalani Beamer (Hawaiian Slack Key Guitar/Hula, Hawaii)
Kyle Dillingham and Horseshoe Road (Heartland Acoustic, Oklahoma)
Mahogany Jones (Hip Hop/Soul, Michigan)
Matuto (Americana, New York)
PROJECT Trio (Jazz/Classical/Hip Hop, New York)
Real Vocal String Quartet (Classical/World Strings, California)
As part of the American Music Abroad program, the Department of State and American Voices will create a series of international musical exchange tours. International touring activities will include public concerts, master classes, lecture-demonstrations, workshops, jam sessions with local musicians and media outreach. Ensembles will travel around the globe for approximately one month each between May 2012 and May 2013. During their respective tours, each ensemble will visit four to six countries.
American Music Abroad activities focus on younger and underserved audiences in countries with little or no access to live American performances. As part of the American Music Abroad @Home portion of the program, ensembles will also conduct workshops and performances at local schools, community centers and other venues in the Washington, D.C. area.
Kristina Dei on April 25, 2012 @ 2:04 am I'm so proud we ( the US ) finally approach ethnological diplomacy via such a powerful medium- music, the ultimate expression of universal culture. Sometimes, the only common expression we share in immediate agreed upon form.
I invite you to check out my American Folk Harp music: http://www.Folk-Harp.com
I am a second generation American performer of this harp and started playing at age three annd have performed globally representing the USA!
Kristina Dei
@2kdei
Paul on April 25, 2012 @ 2:49 pm Hi Kristina,
Thanks for your note. I will definitely check out your page and would love to hear more about your performances as a cultural diplomat! Please feel free to email me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
BRUSSELS --- Since its founding in 1949, NATO has been a bastion of hard power, first as an alliance arrayed against the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies, and more recently as a manifestation of Western muscle in conflicts such as Kosovo in 1999 and Libya in 2011. Coming off its decisive performance in helping to end the rule of Muammar Qaddafi, NATO seems to be happily basking in macho glory.
NATO has a public diplomacy department staffed with smart and dedicated people, but it became apparent at a conference on “The Power of Soft Power,” held recently in Brussels, that this contingent is increasingly lonely. As NATO prepares for its summit conference in Chicago in May, the organization needs to do much more to address the strategic realities of soft power in the digital communication era. This involves NATO assembling the tools to allow it to convince as well as coerce.
NATO recognizes the need to keep pace with changes in communications. Its media activity includes a TV channel, presence on Twitter, Flickr, and Facebook, and a video blog for its secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasnussen. But aside from its public diplomacy specialists, NATO does not fully grasp the ramifications of the technology-enabled networks that connect so many people, as could be seen during the Arab Awakening that began last year. If NATO’s use of hard power is to be seen as justified, it must make its case through soft power.
Like many governments, NATO is slow to recognize the empowerment accompanying the public’s unprecedented access to information. Acquiring knowledge about events near and far is no longer seen as a luxury but rather a right, and the interactive connectivity of social media extend the significance of this change. If NATO and other international organizations are to fulfill their missions and retain their legitimacy, they must respect this altered balance of information-based influence.
It is understandably difficult for a hard power organization such as NATO to adapt to the demands of a world in which soft power is becoming more important, but NATO’s future depends on its ability to adapt. Through soft power it must lay the foundation for an answer to the question, “If NATO were to disappear overnight, would the world be changed?” That question may have been unthinkable during the Cold War, but among some it has resonance today.
NATO is like the Tyrannosaurus Rex – a fearsome fighter wielding unmatchable hard power. Of course, for the Tyrannosaurus hard power was not enough. It became extinct. NATO is still with us…for now.
WASHINGTON --- Tara Sonenshine, nominated to serve as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, offered advice this morning to public diplomacy observers: Watch China.
“We are challenged every day by what the Chinese are doing in public diplomacy,” she said.
Speaking at the U.S. Institute of Peace, where she is Executive Vice President, Sonenshine pointed to China’s paid print supplements in the Washington Post and other newspapers, including the New York Times.
“You may not read it,” she said, but readers are “embraced” by the paid supplements, which Sonenshine called “brilliant.”
These supplements have not been without critics, focusing on blurring of editorial and paid propaganda content. And an article on the Nieman website described them as “content-as-advertisement strategy.” That may be good news for China’s public diplomacy -- and confusing to readers who miss the sometimes subtle cues that label these sections as paid advertising.
Second, said Sonenshine, are the Confucius Institutes, China-funded centers that have spread rapidly to U.S. universities from east to west and north to south. She said the buildup of the Institutes’ Chinese language instruction programs across the U.S., followed by Institute-produced programs, was a major long-term investment by Beijing to gain influence here.
Her third illustration was the Chinese government’s international broadcaster, CCTV. Sonenshine, formerly a producer at ABC News, recently visited CCTV’s new Washington studios, which she described as a major broadcast production center.
“This is three floors of a major building on New York Avenue,” she said. “There will be a nightly newscast produced [and anchored] in Washington. This will start just as Al Jazeera did.” Sonenshine said predicted CCTV news will be carried first in just a few markets in the U.S., but that distribution would grow, just as Al Jazeera has grown in the U.S.
Al Jazeera’s English-language programming is now carried over the air on broadcast channels in cities including Washington D.C. and Los Angeles.
So China has “checked the print ‘box’” and has moved into broadcasting and in-person programs at the Confucius Institutes, she said, all adding up to a powerful public diplomacy force – and a huge investment in public diplomacy.
Sonenshine also noted Russia has started to follow China’s PD model in the U.S., with its Russia Now section in The Washington Post and its 24-hour English language Russia Today television channel and website.
“Do you want to lose the public diplomacy battle with China and Russia?” she asked.
There has been much discussion recently about social media and the potential role websites such as Facebook and Twitter can play in bringing about actual change in the real world. Individuals the world over constantly share their experiences, feelings, thoughts, and motivations via these online forums and it hasn’t taken long for groups to try to use these networks to unite people under various banners and causes. In early March 2012 the international non-profit organization, Invisible Children (IC), did just that and began an awareness raising campaign to bring African warlord, Joseph Kony, to justice.
Joseph Kony is one of the most vilified rebel leaders in the world and is accused of kidnapping countless children in northern Uganda and neighboring countries. He then turns girls into sex slaves and boys into killers. His so-called Christian movement, the Lord’s Resistance Army, has terrorized villagers in at least four countries in central Africa for nearly 20 years and killed tens of thousands of people. Kony has been wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court since 2005. However, Joseph Kony was not widely recognized until March 5, 2012 when Invisible Children, released a 29 minute video. This short movie, KONY 2012 became viral with more than 112 million views in just one week. Invisible Children describes itself as a “global community of young people that galvanizes international support to bring a permanent end to LRA violence through mass awareness campaigns and strategic advocacy efforts.” Members are dedicated to making Kony a household name and bringing him to justice. The video was ideal for sharing via social media on Facebook and Twitter and everyday citizens and celebrities shared the video with followers all over the world.
While introducing Kony to many for the first time, the video also spurred a flurry of questions about Invisible Children's intentions, its transparency, and whether the social-media frenzy it created was too little, too late. Beyond criticisms surrounding the organization’s spending and accusations of oversimplification, more serious, pertinent issues were raised by a number of critics.
Ben Affleck, in a thoughtful blog in The Huffington Post, explained that “the next step after awareness is action,” which is exactly where the video, KONY 2012, falls short. Raising awareness is certainly a difficult task but the work cannot stop there. Organizing a “day of action” through cities in the U.S. and Europe and showing Kony’s face is not enough to combat the atrocities committed in Central Africa for decades. While Invisible Children and other NGOs have been conducting on-the-ground activism in Uganda for years, KONY 2012 is not a call to action beyond the act of purchasing an action kit, sharing a video, and clicking “Like” on Facebook. Providing assistance to citizens in Africa to take back control over their own futures is where the real solution lies. Any approach that does not consider this aspect is severely misguided. This public diplomacy mandate touches on another criticism leveled against KONY 2012, that of the “White Savior Industrial Complex” where Africa is merely a backdrop for Western egos to be projected upon. The video can be seen as a fantasy of heroism where a “nobody” from the Western world can be a godlike savior in Africa. This is not to say that Americans and other Westerners don’t have a role in this crisis, but instead of merely raising awareness, Western activists and diplomats must conduct effective public diplomacy which involves partnerships with Africans that gives them agency and the necessary resources and support to solve their own problems. With the right resources and help, it is a much more effective solution to have Ugandans bring Kony to justice than Americans.
The goal of public diplomacy is to communicate and engage in a meaningful and mutual way with foreign publics. Now non-state actors such as Invisible Children have the ability to do just that. However, with the democratization of information sharing, thanks to new media tools, comes great responsibility. Social media is an excellent tool for bringing together different stakeholders, in this case Invisible Children and its supporters, but there also needs to be more than just raising awareness for real change to occur: raising awareness is a noble cause but it is not enough.
Invisible Children’s campaign has proven that social media can be used to spread an idea to all reaches of the world but the danger lies in assuming that social media campaigns alone have the power to bring about concrete changes. Social media present an exciting dynamic in the international arena but it must be coupled with an effective public diplomacy strategy to bridge the say-do gap. Marissa Cruz-Enriquez is a graduate of USC's Master in Public Diplomacy program. Her research interests include digital diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, and international security. She is interested in pursuing a career with the federal government.
Matthew Wallin on March 27, 2012 @ 11:35 am And the fact of the matter is that to get guys like this, you need people with guns to go do it. Pres. Obama sent in U.S. forces to act as advisers to help combat the LRA.
The American public has far too short of an attention span to deal with problems like this. You send people in, they get killed, dragged through the streets, etc, and then next thing you know, all the people who called for action call for us to get out and ask, "Why are we there in the first place?"
Katharine on March 27, 2012 @ 12:04 pm thanks for so brilliantly articulating what many critiques of the campaign have been saying. The campaign has good intenstions, those who have reposted it have good intentions but to allow the public to believe that simply reposting the video will save africa is naive and foolish and even dangerous.
Paul on March 27, 2012 @ 3:25 pm Invisible Children are right to point out the plight of child soldiers, yet I find dubious their sustained focus on one war-lord who is on the run.
Yes, Kony 2012 is asking that the US follow through with its support to "bring Kony to justice." At Matt mentions above, this has meant military advisers assisting the Ugandan government. The Ugandan government has been in power since the '80s and has heavily oppressed the Ugandan people and even peoples in neighboring countries.
It would be a mistake for the US to continue supporting an anti-democratic government like Uganda's, with what? Weapons and money?
Marissa on March 29, 2012 @ 12:55 pm @Matthew, that's an excellent point! The American public is quick to demand action but when it comes to maintaining support over the long term, the attention span has generally already shifted to the next "it" cause. That really has been my major beef with this particular effort, there's no follow through, even mentally.
Thanks, @Katharine! I would definitely agree that both IC and its supporters have the best of intentions in spreading awareness but IC definitely has the responsibility to connect supporters to meaningful action.
@Paul, Exactly! Even the recent Senate resolution (http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/217719-kony-resolution-picks-up-steam-in-senate-) is only mandating continued support of military advisers on the ground. The fact that the oppression extends into neighboring countries, in my opinion, demonstrates that the current support, namely of the Ugandan government, is misplaced and would be better served dedicated to local citizens.
Throughout the last decade, no message was promoted stronger in the European Union than the idea of a new Europe, which has overcome its past of war and totalitarianism, and has emerged as a normative power standing for international cooperation, democracy, and human rights.
And yet when it comes to the recent events in Ukraine, discussed below, European soft power appears rather meager.
This summer the 2012 UEFA European Football Championship will be jointly hosted by Ukraine and Poland: An excellent opportunity for the European community to bond over its favorite sport, and for Ukraine, which for a long time has been aspiring EU membership, to promote its image.
However, while the football community and its fans are happily preparing for the event, Ukraine’s former prime minister and leader of the democratic Orange Revolution of 2004, Yulia Tymoshenko is being imprisoned in a penal colony. Although suffering from spinal hernia and under constant and intense pain, Tymoshenko is denied the necessary medical treatment available outside of the prison.
Her 32-year-old daughter, Eugenia Tymoshenko, has appealed for help to several international authorities, among others the United States Congress, and the European Parliament, claiming that her mother is being held under torturous conditions.
Her appeal was received with sympathy by the international community, particularly the EU and the United States. Tymoshenko was found guilty of overstepping her authority during a tense natural gas pricing dispute with Moscow in January 2009. However, as U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs stated, Tymoshenko’s imprisonment was based “on dubious, politically motivated charges, and is unacceptable and antithetical to a free and open system.”
But what can open condemnation by Western leaders really achieve when the international community has no power to interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state? Western leaders are also well aware of current Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s close ties with Moscow. There are understandable reasons why the impact of hard politics might be somewhat restricted.
In the meantime, there is dead silence where European leaders and the public could truly make a difference, and raise awareness to the corruption in the Ukraine: through the UEFA European Football Championship.
Sports diplomacy has the potential to serve as a tool for advocacy and soft power. On the one hand, effective use of sports diplomacy can enhance the image of a country in the eyes of a foreign public, especially for a country that is hosting a prestigious sports event such as the UEFA Cup. The EUOberserverreported that “President Yanukovych is spending $9 billion on new stadiums, airport terminals and fast trains to help people have a good time.” Yanukovych has taken a personal interest in the event and is using it as an opportunity to impress the world.
On the other hand, sports diplomacy can also become a tool of exerting pressure, and fostering political change. A famous example of this was the ban of South Africa from various international sporting events as a protest against the country’s apartheid policies. For example, could a boycott of the Euro 2012 have an impact on the Ukrainian government?
Meanwhile the European public and media seem ambivalent. Although there is outrage in the media about the Tymoshenko case, little to no connection is drawn to the upcoming UEFA Cup.
Other than German football team Borussia Dortmund manager Hans-Joachim Watzke, who told the press he considers boycotting Euro 2012 because of the Ukrainian government’s persecution of Yulia Tymoshenko, few Europeans have similar ideas. After all, the event is held only once every four years. And there is nothing more enjoyable than sitting with your friends in front of the TV or in front of an open-air screen, drinking beer and grilling bratwurst while rooting for your national team. Who would deny themselves such a pleasure?
Few Europeans realize that those actions too are sending a political message: one of disinterest and ignorance. For those who are convinced that Europe today stands for the promotion of democracy and human rights should take a moment and reconsider.
The upcoming UEFA cup bringing Ukraine to the spotlight in European media provides an excellent opportunity to bring greater attention to the Tymoshenko case and for the public to express condemnation of Ukrainian government’s undemocratic actions. It is an opportunity where public outrage could truly hurt the government’s image and in turn, be a catalyst for change. However, as of now, the European football community and its fans have not recognized the power of sports diplomacy as a tool of advocacy.
In recognition of World Water Day 2012, the USC Center on Public Diplomacy would like to acknowledge not just the organizations, governments and international coalitions that provide aid and solutions to water problems, but more importantly the publics that are experiencing water crises around the world. Our Water Diplomacy Initiative is designed to focus on these publics, and last month we held a conference, “Water Diplomacy: A Foreign Policy Imperative” at the University of Southern California. It was my privilege and pleasure (as well as my job) to facilitate the preliminary research for the conference and to now direct and manage the CPD research project on Water Vulnerability, which I wrote about in my last CPD Blog post. During the conference, CPD brought together practitioners and scholars who discussed listening as a tool for water diplomacy, the challenges of practicing water diplomacy and the future of water diplomacy policy and technology. During the Conference, participants offered valuable points for tackling water issues, which support CPD’s approach to water diplomacy and focus on the people in need.
Focus on the Publics
Address human rights as a key water issue
Build strategic partnerships
Connect with the young people
Facilitate learning by bringing developing countries together
Mutuality in water relationships must exist
Offer technical training and assistance
Talk and work with local, indigenous and traditional communities
Understand cultural dimensions in order to better serve the local populations
In addition, we discussed CPD’s role in developing water diplomacy as an element of public diplomacy. We are committed to the idea that public diplomacy in the twenty-first century must comprise not just listening, exchanges, broadcasting, culture and advocacy, but also service. Service can include development projects. Although traditional development actors do not consider what they do to be public diplomacy, CPD proposes that development work – whether conducted by nongovernmental actors, citizens or governments – done well and making a real difference in the lives of a population constitutes public diplomacy.
Over the coming months, as part of CPD’s Water Diplomacy Initiative, we will embark on at least two project strands. The first will be a collection of case studies and best practices recommendations for water diplomacy. To submit a contribution to this publication, please review our Call for Papers. The second, long-term project will be original research on areas of water vulnerability. I will provide updates on our research as it develops. For World Water Day, I would offer these three tools for conducting effective water diplomacy:
1) Listen to the people you are trying to help; 2) Provide technical training to people in communities
receiving aid from groups like Engineers without Borders and
Water for People; 3) Use public diplomacy to raise global awareness of water
issues through advocacy programs and international
institutions
As we continue to develop our project on Water Vulnerability, we hope you will be in contact with us, post your comments below and visit our Water Diplomacy Research Page for more information.
LONDON --- “Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam,” the exhibition at the British Museum that has drawn more than 80,000 visitors since it opened in late January is a remarkable achievement. First, it is glitz-free, relying on its intellectual content rather than the son et lumiere approach on which so many museums today rely. It explains, in a straightforward way, the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca undertaken each year by about three million Muslims. Participating in the Hajj is one of the five pillars of Islam, required of every Muslim who is able to make the trip.
The exhibition also addresses the controversial topic of what Islam is about. Many people in the non-Muslim world think that “Islam” means terrorism, and they react to mentions of Islam with fear or anger. In doing so, they dismiss the sanctity of one of the world’s great religions, which has roughly 1.6 billion adherents. The Hajj exhibition offers a straightforward explanation of a duty that has nothing to do with politics but rather is an affirmation of religious belief.
For those of us interested in cultural diplomacy, the Hajj exhibition is remarkable because it has been made possible by cooperation from Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Malaysia, Mali, and Qatar. Some of these nations often do not play well with others, so their loaning precious items to the British Museum is an important step toward participating in global cultural exchange.
In the West, cultural diplomacy is sometimes seen as an effort to export Western culture to benighted peoples elsewhere. From Van Cliburn in Moscow to Herbie Hancock in Algiers, the flow is generally one-way – West to East or North to South – with little reciprocal exchange. The condescension inherent in this approach cannot be ignored, but the lopsided nature of cultural diplomacy is partly caused by the reluctance of non-Western countries to share their own cultural assets with the rest of the world.
These assets are often stunning. Iran, for example, lent priceless objects to the exhibition “Shah Abbas: The Remaking of Iran” in 2009, also at the British Museum, and more famously Egypt provided artifacts from the tomb of King Tutankhamun to museums in the United States and elsewhere during the 1970s and later to reinforce Egypt’s standing as the center of the archaeological universe.
These efforts, however, are exceptions. Countries such as Saudi Arabia are often reluctant to reach out, and this allows the “othering” of Islam to proceed in much of the world. One of the great assets of the Hajj exhibition is its ability to undermine myths about Islam, replacing false notions with portraits of devoutness as those on the Hajj open their hearts to God. The contributions from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries to this exhibition are invaluable and underscore the importance of cultural diplomacy being a two-way process, particularly in terms of the global South asserting itself as an independent cultural force.
I have visited the Museum of Islamic Art in Doha, Qatar numerous times, and I am always struck by the gorgeous peacefulness that emanates from this museum’s magnificent collection. That same spirit is to be found in the British Museum’s Hajj exhibition.
The arts can push politics aside and allow the true spirit of a people to emerge and be viewed by the rest of the world. Through culture, the remote becomes proximate, and in this case a religion that is often reviled appears as it really is: a spiritual pilgrimage that manifests itself as a pilgrimage to Mecca – the Hajj.
While Japan struggles to recover from the shocking devastation of the March 11, 2011 (3/11) earthquake and tsunami, Japanese public diplomacy also struggles to recover from the damage. Tourism campaigns, especially those with a focus of rehabilitating the image of the Japanese are critical, benefiting from support of non-Japanese artists. Exchange diplomacy after the disaster led to new exchange programs with several countries.
After 3/11, many people around the world, including celebrities, sent aid and words of encouragement to Japan. One of the biggest supporters, Lady Gaga, contributed both financially and in raising awareness. Within 48 hours of the earthquake, she collected about $250,000 in donations through her Japanese Tsunami Relief Wristband and, eventually raised $1,500,000. Her subsequent visit to Japan in June conveyed the message that post-3/11 Japan was a safe place to visit. The Japan Tourism Agency (JTA) gave a certificate of gratitude to American artists including Lady Gaga, for their help restoring luster to the tarnished image of Japan. The logo of a Japanese flag with the message “Pray for Japan” appeared everywhere on social media sites following the disaster.
Continuous interest and support in humanitarian relief generally helps a nation recover from disasters and crises. To this end, a short film called “The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom,” nominated for the Best Short Documentary at the Academy Awards, plays an important role. As British documentary maker Lucy Walker said in an interview, the film helps “the rest of the world understand a bit better how Japanese people rose to this disaster.” The film depicts dramatic footage of the tsunami and aftermath, and survivors’ interviews juxtaposed with beautiful cherry blossoms, which are a symbol of “death and rebirth” and strengthen the Japanese spirit. As one Japanese man in the movie put it, "The plants are hanging in there, so us humans had better do it, too.” More importantly, the cherry blossoms in addition to the film itself, encourage Japanese people to overcome the hardship.
While soft power is helping Japan recover from this disaster, increased tourism is needed to boost the economy as well. In April 2011, foreign tourism to Japan fell 62.5% compared with visits in April 2010. Even six months after the disaster in August, there was a 31.9% decrease in foreign tourism compared with August 2010. In response to this, the JTA planned to offer 10,000 free flights to foreigners called “Fly to Japan! Project.” A number of media outlets covered the event. However, Japanese Finance of Ministry rejected this request, commenting that it was questionable that the project would increase foreign visitors and would probably serve as a budgetary handout to non-Japanese travelers. Therefore the request was not included in a governmental draft of the budget for FY 2012, which in Japan, begins in April. The Japanese edition of the Wall Street Journal reported the “Dream Over” of free flights to Japan for non-citizens. Although the “Fly to Japan! Project” was shelved; JTA is now attempting to tackle a decrease in tourism in a number of different ways. Predominantly, it has tried to address concerns about traveling to Japan post-3/11 through blogs and social networking services. In September 2011, the Creative Industries Promotion Office in the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) enhanced the “Cool Japan” nation-branding campaign by creating a new logo “Japan Next,” which presents the image of ‘national advancing’ rather than ‘national reverting’. This campaign is part of the government’s initiative to bring tourists back to Japan.
In terms of exchange diplomacy, countries such as Russia, Fiji, Croatia, and Poland have accepted exchange students from areas of devastation. On 3/11, the U.S. military began operation "Tomodachi" (which means friend in Japanese). It quickly became one of the largest, most well-organized, and immediate humanitarian relief efforts for a damaged area. The public-private partnership “Tomodachi Initiative” named after the operation, launched shortly after to “invest in the next generation of Japanese and Americans in ways that strengthen cultural and economic ties, and deepen the friendship between the United States and Japan over the long-term,” and support Japan's recovery from the disaster, providing educational/academic, sports, music, arts, entrepreneurship, and leadership programs.
Japan was indeed devastated by the earthquake and tsunami. However, Japan is gradually recovering thanks to the support of the international community. In parallel, Japanese public diplomacy has also been encouraged through tourism campaigns and exchange diplomacy with foreign aid. In order to convey its appreciation to its supporters from overseas, the JTA and Japan National Tourism Organization (JNTO) initiated a campaign called “Japan. Thank You.,” for its one year anniversary, from late February to April 2012. They commissioned a special logo and poster, which are now displayed in various parts of the world. For example, on March 1, 2012, “Japan week” started in New York, filling many of Times Square's large screens with the "Thank You" logos and the cherry blossom motif. In public diplomacy, communication is the basis for good relationship management. Thanking people from abroad for all of their support is a good start. As a Japanese native, I would like to join Japan by saying to everyone, “Thank You.”
Mieko Araki is a Master of Public Diplomacy candidate at USC. She received a B.A. and M.A. in human sciences studying immigration at Waseda University in Japan. She previously worked for the consulting firm Accenture. She held an internship at USA for UNHCR’s LA office and she will intern for UNICEF in Liberia in summer 2012.
This post continues my preliminary discussion of the results of a survey I recently conducted, designed to invite practitioners of cultural diplomacy to reflect upon their own practice. Additional discussion of this survey can be found in my February 15th post. As I noted in the earlier post, this analysis is less about criticizing or evaluating cultural diplomacy, and more about arriving at a better understanding of the key assumptions underwriting it. How do those regularly engaged in cultural diplomacy define to themselves the meaning of what they do? This includes how practitioners imagine the relation of culture to successful communication and whether this prevailing understanding promotes a more thoroughly dialogic engagement.
In addition to a notable lack of consensus among cultural diplomacy practitioners about the meaning of “culture” itself, as reported in my previous post, respondents’ survey answers tended to promote what I will call diplomacy’s representational conceit. That is, a majority of respondents assumed that in the diplomatic mode cultures – typically, national cultures as self-evident and as the proper subject of diplomacy – are unproblematically expressively available to others for the purpose of representing a people. And this representational conceit assumes the “message” (or the cultural “value” the message is intended to convey) effectively explains a society in question to international publics, a message that is easily expressed and extractable from its “vehicle” (e. g. an art form, musical performance, or poetry slam). This assumption is widespread, as a recent report by the International Cultural Engagement Task Force illustrates, noting, “It is in cultural activities that a nation’s idea of itself is best represented.”
Respondents also appeared convinced of this idea, describing “cultures” as the ways different peoples “express themselves.” Again, culture is the “presentation” of “a society’s thoughts and values.” Or, a culture is a community’s “outlook.” The arts are “expressions of American society.” As was noted, cultural diplomacy is “the efforts nations make to portray their societies and values.” It is a case of the “projection” of culture abroad. Likewise, “The best way to explain our culture is by putting it on display.” It is effective when using “the most visible forms of outreach to large audiences.” Another respondent asserted that cultural diplomacy is a case of “explaining” by “demonstrating.” It is effective when it helps people elsewhere “gain a firsthand view” or a “more accurate picture” of American culture. A majority of respondents described the successful communication of cultural diplomacy as analogous to effective visual representation, as a “show,” and historically this has characterized much such work.
When prompted to offer examples of the activities of cultural diplomacy, respondents favored the performative and visual arts, such as exhibitions, motion pictures, radio programs, T.V. broadcasts, music, dance, theater, the plastic arts, and similar activities. And this should not be surprising, since such activities have been the focus of cultural diplomacy programming for some time. Richard Arndt has offered vivid details about the work of the cultural offices of U.S. embassies during the Cold War, which was “to publicize, present, and stage events.” Arndt characterizes the diplomatic efforts to “internationalize America’s arts” as a case of “the U.S. export of performances,” which, it was hoped, were a “highly visible” means to expose international audiences to, in Arndt’s words, the “sounds and sights of democracy.”
In keeping both with the history and practice of cultural diplomacy, then, respondents equated cultural performance with acts of expression primarily intended for representation (usually of “American society” or desirable American “values” like “freedom of expression”). Respondents directly associated the effectiveness of culture for diplomacy with understanding it as a representational medium. In so doing they took for granted that cultural expression is portable, self-evident, and contextless, and so available for acts of exchange and performance. They also appeared to accept that the representational purpose of such efforts was effective communication. Cultural values – as transparently expressed through diverse cultural vehicles of performance like the arts – were understood to be relatively straightforwardly extractable by international “audiences.” But why do we think this?
The elision by respondents of acts of cultural diplomacy with acts of representation is reminiscent of Suzanne Langer’s discussion of “presentational symbols.” She describes these as presenting otherwise abstract “ideas” because they correspond in form or by analogy to that which is symbolized, as a “projection” of it. Presentational symbols function independently and they work all at once like a “picture.” Langer’s conception reflects a long-standing philosophical commitment, the so-called correspondence theory of truth. But there is a critique of this view. For Richard Rorty, the representational theory, where knowledge is acquired through a process of “mirroring,” mistakenly proceeds as if meaning is like a picture that faithfully “represents.” Rorty has made a strong case that we are better off treating this representational theory as our own folk theory of what’s going on. Such a representational conceit, in other words, might not be shared across communities or internationally in the same ways.
But the work of cultural diplomacy has been consistent in this regard. As with the Department of State’s smART Power program, which sends U.S. artists abroad to create “public art projects” as an example of “people-to-people diplomacy through the visual arts,” we think national “cultural ambassadors” are engaged in comparable sorts of representational spectacle. Historically, this has been the case, whether hip-hop diplomacy, or the USIA’s erstwhile “Arts America” program. Notably, the justification for an “Arts Diplomacy Festival” soon to take place in Berlin is that “cultural diplomacy must show rather than tell.” In each case, whether as part of the formal program or tour, or as part of the more informal interactions on the margins of such programs, individual cultural or arts ambassadors are thought to be showing, expressing, performing, picturing, presenting, mirroring, and in this way creating audiences for the uniquely desirable values of one country or another.
And this is hardly unique to U.S. cultural diplomacy. UNESCO’s “Living Human Treasures” program is a particularly notable example of representation run amok. This program, first proposed in 1993, identifies and confers official recognition upon particular individuals, as culture bearers deemed to possess intangible cultural heritage that is at once scarce (and so, threatened) and particularly representative of a specific group, community or nation. These are, typically, cultural “practices and expressions,” the development and transmission of which UNESCO promotes by providing duly designated “human treasures” with regular opportunities to perform, demonstrate, or exhibit them, and so to build a larger audience for them. That is, “human treasures” are supposed to receive “public recognition.” As living embodiments of a community’s intangible cultural heritage, human treasures are granted the dubious honor of being cultural ambassadors for life. They are reduced to the role of representatively mirroring something assumed to be essential about the life of his or her community.
There is nothing wrong with any of this per se. Artists, musicians, poets, and other performers, should circulate internationally. But why do we also believe that they carry the representational burden of the nation, as a set of shared values? And why do we think they effectively communicate, say, the sights and sounds of democracy in the U.S.?
There is good reason to think that, whatever happens as a part of these expressive or performative opportunities, cultural diplomacy as display and for the creation of an audience is in fact not the best route to intercultural dialogue. The effort to perform, express, and project, might succeed in conjuring an audience among international publics, but in so doing this can also build barriers to conversation. An audience member watches the show but is seldom an active participant in it. Audience members occupy another world than that of the players. The representational conceit of diplomacy might inhibit dialogue, in other words, when publics are recruited as audiences for cultural spectacles.
LONDON --- “Cultural diplomacy” has a nice ring to it; it brings to mind folk singing, dances around the Maypole, children’s finger-painting exhibitions, and other such feel-good exports that can make even global adversaries think kindly of each other, at least momentarily.
But cultural diplomacy can be much more than artsy fluff. It is a potent form of public diplomacy that reaches people in ways that overtly political efforts often cannot. Its exercise, however, raises questions about whether artistic integrity can be maintained while being used for the subtle furtherance of national interest.
This was a central issue at a recent conference organized by the Ditchley Foundation in its grand Oxfordshire premises. Some of Britain’s cultural leaders were in attendance, as were scholars and other arts aficionados from France, Greece, Australia, the Netherlands, Japan, Romania, the United States, and elsewhere.
For foreign policy strategists, cultural diplomacy has great value as a trust-builder, providing groundwork on which broader, non-arts initiatives can be constructed. Among the strengths of cultural diplomacy is its credibility, derived from an assumption that artists are relatively pure of heart and above political chicanery. That is debatable, at least in some instances, but governments around the world take advantage of this belief.
This presumption of political innocence is a valuable asset, and some at the Ditchley conference favored trying to preserve it by keeping culture apolitical. They stressed notions of “engagement” rather than diplomacy. The semantic distinction is significant; it means maintaining separation between culture and government, and using culture for outreach that is devoid of political/diplomatic subtext.
This might not be a bad idea in an ideal world. Reality, however, works against such niceties. Consider China, which funds more than 350 Confucius Institutes that teach Chinese language, showcase Chinese culture, and recently added Chinese traditional medicine to their repertoire at some locations. The Chinese government is spending many millions on these centers and certainly is not doing so without recognizing their value in using culture to soften China’s image as an assertive global political player. This is an integral element of China’s soft power strategy.
The Ditchley conference did not find foolproof ways to bridge the divide between cultural purity and diplomatic pragmatism, but it did underscore the value of cultural diplomacy and the need for governments to recognize that much more is involved than “feel-good” exercises. Even while it advances the national interest, culture can transcend politics, as was seen during the Cold War when American jazz musicians traveled to the Soviet Union and were received rapturously by audiences willing to briefly detach themselves from the superpowers’ hostility toward one another.
There is little doubt that such influence continues today in exchange programs and many other versions of cultural diplomacy. Still needing to be better defined, however, is the state’s role vis-à-vis the cultural community and the individual artist in the course of these diplomatic ventures. The conversations at Ditchley underscored the importance and complexity of doing this, and made it clear that leaders in both culture and diplomacy must keep talking together if this field is to move forward.
Signe Martisune-Schwagrowski-Buyse on March 17, 2012 @ 9:04 pm Thank you for an interesting article full with real concerns to reflect upon. Another not so broadly discussed concept that is linked to "cultural diplomacy" is so called "diplomatie du peuple a peuple" in French and used by Chinese official government diplomacy books to analyse history. I have no idea if today anybody still considers this as part of diplomacy, but with the growing social media development and the whole communities as well as Arab spring experiences there are several positive advantages there. Greetings from Tunisia, Signe
Lucy Miles on March 21, 2012 @ 8:02 am Artists have always been key players in diplomacy since Peter Paul Rubens, the most famous and successful diplomat/artist of all time.Some would also argue Leonardo Da Vinci was a working diplomat for all the corrupt Popes..However, using artists to reach understandings between nations lost its way with the emergence of US as a super power in the 20 Century..Propaganda would have society mistrust artists and their creative expression..as artists emerged as the voice of opposition to much of what traditional diplomacy was doing- occupation, arms building,war and conflict..To say there is now a revival of artistic exchange and cultural diplomacy is just another gimmick to help a superpower and their allies sell a tarnished image..until artists universally are given economic recognition, cultural diplomacy is a shallow attempt at fixing a rotten diplomatic system , losing a lot of relevance with the onset of social media.
César Villanueva on March 28, 2012 @ 2:52 pm I read your article and feel happy that some of the things that I consider cultural diplomacy were addressed by you nicely. Cultural tools that go hand in hand with diplomacy like the capacity to be trust-builder, the credibility aspect, and the engagement part, get your attention. However, I keep sensing that the real important issues related to culture are hardly ever mentioned. Things like the “mechanisms for cooperation”, the ability to “to build bridges to understand others,” and not least important, the implications it has to “open up doors” for a greater dialogue with other nations. Carefully read, Joseph Nye’s soft power concept draws a lot of its strength in its “cultural capacity” to attract others to your values, ideas and lifestyles. The way I see it, this is culture all the way down.
However, I feel many times confused by the way cultural diplomacy is debated, just as a “little nice brother” of the public diplomacy arena, or as an area that has a hard time showing results for foreign policy officers. This is not the way I see countries like France, Italy, Spain, Germany Sweden or Mexico treat cultural diplomacy. This is because of course, there are different traditions of diplomacy in all nations. But I feel frustrated to see how many ask of cultural what it cannot deliver: cultural diplomacy is usually a long term investment for the foreign ministries, one cannot expect a fast rate of return; cultural diplomacy makes areas of interaction and influence easier for diplomats of other camps to operate under, and that cannot be made overnight; cultural diplomacy creates the opportunity to actually understand other points of view beyond a pure political rational calculation, and literally, “to put oneself in the shoes of others”. This is why I believe is hard to build a bridge of communication between the two, and the classical distinction between CAOs and PAOs continues to be a missed opportunity to join forces.
Although I will be going to see colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) next week, I confess that I have not been thinking much about whether the Brits will be able to top, or at least equal the Chinese in skillfully using the occasion of the Summer Olympics as a platform to advance their top line public diplomacy objectives. Instead, I have been busy teaching a graduate seminar on Science, Technology, Diplomacy and International Policy, and helping to organize an International Symposium on the theme of heteropolarity and world order. Today I am preparing to welcome nation branding guru Simon Anholt into my MA class, hot on the heels of a command performance on Wednesday by Parag Khanna.
In order to introduce Simon, I have been reviewing his work, and in that regard came across a fascinating exchange he engaged in a few years earlier with Craig Hayden on the CPD blog. Their repartee got me thinking - again - about the hardy perennial issue of whether or not there exists a real distinction between branding and PD.
Is one a subset of the other? If so, which is the larger construct? Does it really matter?
I’m not sure, especially because these sorts of considerations suggest that the relationship may be asymmetrical, rather than simply differentiated.
* * * * * * * * * *
Last fall during a presentation on the history of PD at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) in Ottawa, Nick Cull (quoting Simon Anholt) made the point that nation brands - he may have used the terms image and reputation - are rather like the stars in the night sky. They twinkle and gleam and seem to be real, even though the actual source of the illumination will have moved light years away, and may even be extinguished. Nick was making this observation for the purpose of illustrating that the widely held perceptions of countries and nations often lag significantly behind the reality of contemporary performance. Canada happens to be an excellent example of this phenomenon. My home and native land had been coasting for at least a decade on the strength of its history as a committed internationalist, generous aid donor, peacekeeper, honest broker, helpful fixer, and disinterested provider of good offices, until it finally slammed head on into the harsh reality of failing to win a seat on the United Nations Security Council in the fall of 2010.
It appears the world has finally noticed that Canada is no longer the country of Lester Pearson - or, for that matter, of Brian Mulroney. Among Foreign Ministers, few Canadians can easily remember the names of any (there have been seven) since PD pioneer Lloyd Axworthy left office just over a decade ago. The main reason is that since his departure and the eclipse of his controversial Human Security Agenda, the Canadian diplomatic initiative has been notable entirely for its absence. The hard reality of declining soft power has finally caught up to the True North (although even our winters no longer seem quite as long or cold...).
In large part, when it comes to nation brands, it is clearly what you do, rather than what you say that counts.
* * * * * * * * * *
Those with an interest in international business and commerce will be familiar with the “country of origin effect,” especially as it pertains to marketing. Certain countries are widely known for their association with particular qualities and attributes, and these may be positive or negative. If you have any doubts about that, perhaps this old saw will persuade you: heaven is a place where the engineers and manufacturers are German, the timekeepers and trains are Swiss, the designers and lovers are Italian, the cooks at hotels are French and the police and judges are British. Hell is a place where the police are German, the cooks are British, the lovers are Swiss, the timekeepers are Italian, and the engineers - who are on strike - are French.
Simply put, this is why Swiss watches, German cars and Italian clothes have cachet, and command premium prices.
In some countries, reputations are uniquely bad. Romania, though a member of the European Union, remains the land of Vlad the Impaler (Dracula), vampires more generally, and Ceaucescu. It will take considerable time for Serbia - never a power brand - to get over its association with Srebrenica, the siege of Sarajevo and Kosovo.
The perceived lot of other nations has improved dramatically - likely none more so than South Africa, which has moved from its pariah status as the home of apartheid, to the Rainbow Nation. Ireland moved from the land of famine, violence, and emigration to the Celtic Tiger, and Spain from Franco’s fascist police state to a vibrant social democracy and vacation destination.
Ironically, the latter two nations now find themselves among the ignominiously labeled PIGS.
A nation’s brand, then, can be a mixed blessing, and is sometimes fickle. That may help explain why branding - the deliberate attempt to project an image and manage a reputation - is notoriously difficult.
Can excellence in international political communications make a difference?
I will return to these issues, in the context of contrasting branding to public diplomacy, in the next entry.
Through the International Security Assistance Forces AFPAK Hands program, detailed in my previous post, we have learned that much of the efforts towards Afghan media, on the part of ISAF and the international community, are directed towards the Afghan media who have the largest audience. Much of this feedback was received from media outlets themselves. However, there are many other media outlets who communicate to specific audiences.
For instance, Aina television, according to a USAID survey, garners only 4% of television ratings. However, Aina has a large Uzbek following in Northern areas such as Balkh and Jowzjan provinces. Another station, Tamadon, communicates specifically to Afghan Shiite audiences that are mostly Hazara. Tamadon, according to the USAID report brings in 7% of television ratings. Because of their funding connection to Iran, however, their reporting often contains pro-Iranian and anti-western undertones. There are other news outlets with Iranian funding that target the Afghan Shia and Hazara communities, such as Negah TV and Noorin TV. Both have relatively low ratings, compared to Tolo, Ariana and Shamshod TV.
To these ethnic groups, which are also part of political parties that represent them, Tamadon and Aina hold credibility that the stations with the largest ratings (Tolo and Arianna) do not have. Tamadon is owned by Shiite cleric Sheikh Mohammad Asif Mohseni. Because of the connection to Mohseni, a respected figure among Afghan Shiites who are mostly Hazara, the station holds credibility among this particular religious, ethnic and political demographic. As Seib suggests, “Many governments dismiss these types of media, especially Al Jazeera, because they are not objective providers of information and therefore presumably have little clout with their audiences.”
Zafar Shah Rouyee, news editor for Hasht-e Sohb newspaper in Kabul, says that Tamadon had sent his staff for a one-month training to Tehran, since many of its television programs are similar in style to their counterparts from across the border. National holidays in Iran, for instance, are extensively covered. When the Iranian-Afghan joint cultural heritage was celebrated in Tehran in the summer, Tamadon TV reported it live. The speaker of the Iranian Parliament Ali Larijani used this opportunity to criticize the presence of Western troops in Afghanistan.
There are several other news outlets that receive Iranian funding, such as Noorin, Rai-e-Fardo, Negah that receive less viewership than Tamadon who also target the Afghan Shia Hazara.
However, as Seib writes, this is largely a viewpoint indicative of Western standards of journalistic objectivity. But in Afghanistan as in the Middle-East, these types of media can be influential because, “they are credible; that’s what matters.”
Aina television is also owned by the son of the former Northern alliance General, Abdul Rashid Dostum, a figure that also holds credibility among the Uzbek ethnic/political party Jumbish-e-Mili. Thus, much of the programming of both stations can often reflect the political platforms of these two demographics and they freely admit it. These are two examples of a specific category of media that can be referred to as the political or ethnic media.
Zafar Shah Rouyee goes on to state that Turkey is also involved in the television market and has supported the establishment of Aina TV and Rah-e Farda TV. Like Dostum, Mohammad Muhaqiq was also a former commander during the Afghan civil war. Both are considered long time allies of Turkey.
Other media outlets, Tolo and Ariana, are largely western funded. Both broadcast about 100 minutes daily of Indian serials, which reach very high viewer levels. Tolo TV has 68% of the ratings, with Arianna in second with 47%. Much of the population that makes up the viewership are in the growing youth demographic. Both stations receive a majority of their funding from the United States. Both stations are seen as liberal in their programming, promoting western values, a reflection of their funding sources.
One can also add Shamshad television to this category, which is believed to receive funding from Pakistan. Nonetheless, Shamshad is an important means to reach Pashtun audiences throughout Afghanistan, many of whom are part of a tribal network that straddles both sides of the Pakistan border. Thus, Shamshad’s programming with a Pakistan flavor resonates with those audiences. Of note, the President of Shamshad, Fazil Karim, is also a member of the High Peace Council, so the station also provides important messages to its audiences about the reintegration programs of former or reintegrating Taliban and insurgent fighters.
The vast permeation of new media outlets within Afghanistan can be a force to counter radicalism or inspire it. As Seib suggests, “The media are no longer just the media. They have a larger popular base than ever before and, as a result, have unprecedented impact on international politics. The media can be tools of conflict and instruments of peace; they can make traditional borders irrelevant and unify peoples scattered across the globe. This phenomenon -the Al Jazeera effect- is reshaping the world.”
Right now Afghanistan serves as a prime example of this phenomenon. According to a USAID report on Afghanistan’s media landscape, the media sector has averaged 20% growth each of the past five years, which corresponds to about 50 new TV stations and over 100 new radio stations since January 2006. Most of these media outlets are Afghan, with minimal international assistance.
“Freedom of the media is one of the best defenses against the Taliban,” said SCR’s Spokesman Dominic Medley, “The media is a defense against extremism and has opened people’s minds in areas of Afghanistan that had little to no access to information 10 years ago.”
One way to help ensure that media in Afghanistan is utilized to support a healthy democracy is through the development of independent voices free from coercion and able to conduct investigative reporting into issues such as corruption and extremism to prevent and counter its spread. The Afghan media, according to Medley, understand the alternative very clearly.
“The media know exactly what the Taliban is about,” said Medley, “Afghan media know because they wouldn’t exist if the Taliban was in power again.”
A free press was also one of Thomas Jefferson’s foundations of a healthy democracy, where the media functions as a watchdog to hold its government and society accountable.
"The only security of all is in a free press,” wrote Thomas Jefferson in a letter to General Marquis de Lafayette in 1823, “The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."
ISAF and the international community can help nurture the development of a free press through a strategic partnering concept. Each Afghan government ministry has a Flag or General officer assigned as a strategic partner for mentoring, information exchange and unity of effort coordination. ISAF Public Affairs, Task Force Shafafiyat, the NATO SCR’s office and international community could utilize a similar approach with the media. Because the Afghan media environment is so large and growing, it is also young. Just as ISAF mentors government officials, a similar approach could be taken with the media to provide timely and accurate information. This is a standard public affairs function, but needs partners to achieve it. Afghanistan, because of its complex language and cultural environment, in addition to security presents a challenge to this. However, AFPAK Hands personnel within these organizations can act as pathfinders to open doors into the Afghan media and set up partnerships with public affairs personnel of all ranks. These public affairs personnel would be responsible for maintaining relationships with their designated media outlets, meeting with them regularly and listening to their feedback to improve ISAF and the international community’s communications efforts. It could be a step to gain trust through transparency, the backbone of any democracy. This concept focuses on building a network that could serve to protect vulnerabilities within the media environment to forces of instability, such as terrorist and insurgent groups. If a repressive regime attempts to take hold, there is less of a chance of them being able to control the media.
“In the past, governments could control much of the information flow and therefore keep a tight rein on political change,” writes Seib, “That is no longer the case. Governments can jail some bloggers and knock some satellite stations off the air, but the flood of information, and the intellectual freedom it fosters, is relentless.”
The Afghanistan Effect is still in its infancy. Soon the country will be connected to a fiber optic ring connecting every province with 3G internet. Afghanistan’s media growth has already entered its next chapter with the emergence of social media. Efforts such as those taken by the Afghan government to sensor Indian soap operas will simply not be able to keep up with the freedom and speed of the internet. Coupled with conventional media, the internet and social media can thus empower young Afghan voices, which are now over 50% of the population, capable of defending their country from extremism with an “Afghan Spring.”
Barbara F Frey on March 14, 2012 @ 3:58 pm Also well written and shows the inability to stop the Internet's influence too. I am impressed that the young Afghan voices range in the 50%
rendering a huge voice in defending against extremism.
In his book, The Al Jazeera Effect, Philip Seib states that “Al Jazeera is a paradigm of new media’s influence,” similar to the way CNN had been the first to influence foreign policy throughout the world. Al Jazeera, Seib writes, goes further by using new media as a tool that ranges from democratization to terrorism, in addition to creating ‘virtual states’. The growth of new media, particularly in the Middle East, has been explosive, according to Seib, going from a handful of stations to 450 satellite channels that are privately owned, bringing an end to the dominance of state media in the region. Afghanistan is no exception to this phenomenon and perhaps growing at an even faster rate, with some 150 television stations that have been created since the fall of the Taliban. While the media still face many problems, as does the country itself, the creation of the media landscapes can be a powerful tool to counter forces of instability from dominating the country. Thus, if protected and utilized properly, the “Afghanistan Effect” can be one of the most powerful counterweights to a pre-2001 Taliban and Al Qaeda once again taking hold.
Since April of 2011, I have been leading a group for the Deputy Chief of Staff of Communications (DCOS COMM) for Headquarters International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) that does outreach to Afghan government spokespersons. We have recently expanded our mission to include outreach to Afghan media – a standard function for Public Affairs in any mission. Nevertheless, in Afghanistan not every public affairs practitioner is able to perform this role due to security and insufficient knowledge of the language and culture. The Afghanistan Pakistan Hands Program (AFPAK HANDS) has enabled me to go out into the populace to help provide better insight into the media landscape, but also to build relationships with the media and receive feedback on how ISAF is performing its communications role. With the unique force protection and grooming standards allowances, such as wearing local civilian clothes and growing beards, AFPAK Hands can move more freely in the populace and blend in easier. We can travel with a low profile in civilian vehicles, rather than up-armored convoys that are easy to pick out of a crowd. Thus, we’re able to move quickly and efficiently to achieve DCOS COMM’s objectives. Combined with the ability to build quick relationships with Afghans because of our language ability, we are able to open doors where others cannot. We then enable access for others, such as our leadership in DCOS COMM, to meet with Afghan media opinion leaders and key government spokesmen.
With the feedback my group gains through our interface with the media and the Afghan spokesmen, we help DCOS COMM, as well as the Afghan government spokespersons, understand what is working and how to improve our communications efforts. We also gain valuable insight into the media’s ability to report certain issues and try to facilitate better access for journalists not just to ISAF forces, but also the Afghan government. Overall these efforts are aimed at helping to empower Afghan journalists and create a free press in Afghanistan.
“I’m quite impressed with the Afghan media,” said Brigadier General Carsten Jacobson, Spokesman for ISAF, “They’re young and energetic. But they do face a lot of challenges by actors who try to influence or control them. Having a free press in this part of the world is something people are not used to.”
At the official commemoration of World Press Freedom Day in 2011, the country’s Minister for Information, Sayed Makhdoon Raheen, remarked upon the growth of Afghanistan’s media as one of the signal achievement of the years since the dismantling of the Taliban regime in November 2001. Within a month of the Taliban collapse, according to Raheen, Afghanistan had sprouted no less than 200 independent media outlets. Ten years later, the figure, as quoted by the Minister in his public address on 3 May 2011, stood at 1,000.
Building relationships with such a rapidly expanding media landscape is a daunting task. Therefore, the only way this can truly be done effectively is by working with other entities within ISAF, as well as the International Community’s embassies. Some of these partners include Task Force Shafafiyat, the NATO Senior Civilian Representative Spokesman’s (SCR) office and the U.S. Embassy. By meeting regularly to share information, we are helping DCOS COMM build a shared picture and understanding of the Afghan media. Task Force Shafafiyat has other AFPAK Hands conducting outreach not just to media, but civil society groups, such as Afghan Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that advocate for the rights of journalists.
“They need guidance, support, mentoring, and ideas,” said Gen. Jacobson, “What they ultimately need to support that process is more interaction with the international media. However, right now there is a language challenge. But that will improve over time.”
Jacobson also explained the reason language is a challenge right now is that when ISAF holds press conferences, the international media heavy-hitters usually dominate the question and answer section. It is difficult for many of the Afghans whose English is not as good as their international, mostly western media counterparts.
An important part of ISAF’s insight into the local media comes from the office of the SCR. The NATO SCR was established in 2004 and the current spokesman has worked in Afghanistan for the last ten years on various projects, providing extremely valuable and helpful insight into the state of the media and who’s who in Afghan media circles.
“Recently the ISAF Spokesman and myself spent two hours at each media outlet in a series of visits we conducted,” said Dominic Medley, the SCR’s Spokesman. “We need to go to them as much as possible. Afghanistan is a society of tea and relationships. The Afghan media are no different.”
Even though Afghanistan has seen such an unprecedented expansion of the media, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “The ability of media actors, civil society groups and other Afghan citizens to freely express their opinions and thoughts came under attack across Afghanistan throughout 2008. National and provincial government officials, anti-government elements and different power-brokers all sought to restrict freedom of expression. Police and prosecutors generally proved ineffective at protecting freedom of expression given their apparent collusion with those in positions of power.”
My outreach group is currently working in this area to help improve the ability of media to report about ISAF operations and the Afghan government. By conducting regular outreach activities with media, government spokespersons and civil society groups, we have been able to start identifying problems and working to correct them. My next CPD Blog post will offer some examples of Afghan media operations and assess their reach and credibility among various ethnic communities and political parties.
Barbara F Frey on March 14, 2012 @ 3:38 pm Thank you for a well written and informative view of the developing media in Afghanlstan. I'm looking forward to seeing examples of just how it works on a local level.
A new study by the Pew Global Attitudes Project poses the question: Does humanitarian relief improve America’s image. The answer is “not much,” or “not as much as one might hope.” While this may seem unfair, given that the United States spends some $4 billion annually on humanitarian relief, it is perhaps not surprising. People in disaster zones are undoubtedly relieved to see the U.S. cavalry coming over the hill (figuratively speaking) when no other agency on earth has the logistical capacity and the resources to come to their help – as in the early response to the Indonesian tsunami, and the Pakistani and Japanese earthquakes, the three disasters examined by Pew. Yet, as we all know, gratitude is but a fleeting emotion, and its effects wear off over time. Furthermore, disaster relief’s greatest positive impact comes in countries where a positive view of the United States already prevailed. “The lesson for disaster relief efforts is that they are more likely to have a significant effect on public attitudes in countries where there is at least a reservoir of goodwill toward the U.S.,” the Pew authors write. “In nations such as Pakistan, where countervailing issues and deeply held suspicions drive intense anti-Americanism, enhancing America’s image through humanitarian aid may prove considerably more difficult.”
Now, the Pew study is interesting from the perspective of demonstrating the volatility of public opinion polls. The volatility same has been demonstrated by the group Terror Free Tomorrow, which did the first polling in Indonesia and Pakistan after disaster struck these countries, and found a significant bounce in views on the Unites States. The Pew Global Attitudes study demonstrates that positive views of the United States in Japan went up from 66 percent in 2010 to 85 percent in the spring of 2011, a few weeks after the earthquake and tsunami hit. By the fall of last year, numbers were still good, with 82 percent holding favorable views. For Indonesia, where opposition to the war in Iraq had caused opinion of the United States to tank severely, positive views of the U.S. went from 15 percent in 2004 to 38 percent in early 2005, soon after the December tsunami. While not great, this was certainly an improvement. The real bounce, though, came in 2009 after the election of President Obama, who grew up in Indonesia. Pakistan is a totally different story. From a low of 10 percent in 2002, positive views of the United States never went any higher than 27 percent in 2006 after extensive U.S. relief efforts after the earthquake. In 2011, those numbers were down to 11 percent, abysmal for a country supposed to be a U.S. ally.
As interesting as all this may be however, Pew’s argument suffers from an implicit fallacy, not unusual in public diplomacy discourse. The primary purpose of humanitarian relief is not public diplomacy. This may be almost too obvious to state. However, we have a tendency to want to measure the international popularity rating of many U.S. government activities that may influence foreign publics, whereas their real purpose is something entirely different. In other words, impact on popular opinion is not the reason for military interventions, military bases, U.S. trade policy, and development aid either. Military interventions are judged by how well they effectively they dealt with the enemy, and trade agreements on how they affected the volume of goods and services traded between two countries. Similarly, humanitarian relief has to be measured by an entirely different set of metric, on the most fundamental level, how many lives did it save? In that context, U.S. humanitarian relief globally is a huge success.
Now, it would not hurt if the U.S. government was more proactive in ensuring that U.S. relief supplies, from food to field hospitals were clearly identifiable as gifts from the American people -- given not as part of a popularity competition, but out of a sense of shared humanity.
Matthew Wallin on March 19, 2012 @ 7:42 am I have been looking at this rather closely myself lately, and have come to many of the same conclusions.
One thing to consider, is that the U.S. is expected to give humanitarian aid quickly and efficiently, precisely because we are capable of providing it, often when the home government cannot. If we were to fail to follow through on those expectations, it would be interesting to see how poll numbers are affected.
Fortunately, humanity is more important than poll numbers.
In a world where attention scarcity has displaced access as the new information problematic, how do you get your issue noticed? This is precisely the question that confronted Invisible Children, the international NGO that produced the viral online video “Kony 2012.” Since its release on March 5, it has been nothing short of a sensation: within two days YouTube tallied over 11 million viewings. That number tripled by the following afternoon and presently – four days after release – the number exceeds 52 million. As viruses go, they don’t move much faster than this. The 30-minute film thrusts much needed attention on the enduring atrocities of Joseph Kony, the megalomaniacal leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a guerilla group originating in Uganda. Kony’s abhorrent record, the focus of the video, includes the kidnapping of thousands of children to be used as soldiers and sex slaves. The stated aim of Invisible Children and filmmaker Jason Russell is to make Kony “famous” for his crimes and stir nations and citizens into action so that he may be brought to justice.
Humanitarianism by stealth is one way of looking at this project, and not surprisingly reactions to the video vary widely. The flood of viewings represents nothing short of a virtual flash mob circulating throughout the leading social media sites. In addition to the wild response on YouTube, the Guardian (U.K.) reported hundreds of thousands of tweets featuring the #stopkony hashtag on Twitter. A Facebook community page “Stop Kony 2012” garnered 172,000 likes in its first day of operation. Even the White House marveled at the campaign’s remarkable ripple effect, offering congratulations to “the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have mobilized to this unique crisis of conscience.” Critics consider the message of Invisible Children to be disingenuous, the product of a marginal and suspect organization exploiting a raw subject. The Ugandan Government rejects the video’s veiled accusation of complicity. Barbara Among, a journalist from the Ugandan Daily Monitor called out Invisible Children for not accurately portraying the root cause of the problem at hand, “which is inequality,” she points out. “So, it's not presenting to people the real issues on the ground.”
Invisible Children may have to answer for its intentions and perhaps its facts. Yet it is correct in the proclamation that “the game has new rules.” “Kony 2012” makes a poignant statement about how things get done in today’s world politics. Invisible Children is not the first organization to seek the demise of Kony – evidently the State Department has been in active pursuit for over two decades. Those in the know seem rankled by the late-comer’s initiative, a thunder-stealing enterprise acting in ignorance of preceding efforts, or worse, communicating a message that nothing is being done to halt the habits of a rapacious madman. But what cannot be denied is the swiftness with which it wrested control of the global agenda and planted this obscure figure firmly into the collective conscience, an accomplishment that not even the original anti-Kony crusade can claim. The “why not us?” ethos that serves as the wellspring for this action, and the mad rush thereafter, exhibits the strength and persuasive power of the agenda setter, one form of the new breed of diplomatic actors today.
The notion of “information power” should not be construed as absolute. As with any other form of power, the power of information lies in how one uses it. Its potential is fulfilled in the realization of gains relative to one’s starting point. The agenda setter, one piece of a four-fold taxonomy of diplomatic action to be presented in my forthcoming book Agency Change, is not chiefly an idea generator. Nor is the agenda setter the sole determining factor in a mass mobilization effort, nor a controller of the floodgates of information. What agenda setters do is set the priorities of global action. They carry the ideas of others to a place of high visibility so that others may learn of them and act. Like the items on a restaurant menu, the agenda for global action contains a strict set of concerns that occupy our attention, and sifts out those that do not. It changes constantly – in 1982 the agenda included nuclear non-proliferation, famine in Ethiopia and the Falklands/Malvinas War. The 2012 version is headlined with global financial upheaval, the Arab Spring and climate change.
There are sure to be disagreements over the precise placement of Joseph Kony on the global agenda during the week before the release of “Kony 2012”, but one cannot dispute his rank in the aftermath. The wonder of it all is that Kony’s ironic rise to stardom today is a direct result of one organization’s skillful attempt to place his haunting story in our minds. Any state-level action that proceeds from here will emerge from the conversation that started here.
When Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi took the stage to accept the Oscar for A Separation, he spoke of his film as a counter narrative to talk of war and offer a view of Iran “through her glorious culture, a rich and ancient culture that has been hidden under the heavy dust of politics.” During times of escalating political rhetoric, films can help shape and, as Farhadi hopes, reshape national images. For public diplomacy, the Oscars offer lessons not only in culture, but in the persuasive power of storytelling.
In past Culture Posts I talked about the inherent features of art that capture the imagination and serve as a bridge between people. Storytelling is another universally shared communication vehicle that can be used in public diplomacy. Narrative devices can be particularly effective with resistive audiences.
Narrative strategies are likely to become increasingly important in public diplomacy as social media tools proliferate and transform the global village. Often overlooked in storytelling are the persuasive elements.
The Narrative Paradigm of Persuasion
Several decades ago Walter Fisher proposed the “narrative paradigm.” The dominant model at the time was based on Aristotle’s strategies of rhetoric. Persuasion is through marshalling facts and evidence into carefully crafted messages and building a strong argument. The more resistant the audience, the stronger the facts, evidence and argument must be. Debate skills were critical to developing counter arguments to defeat an opponent.
Fisher argued that storytelling could be just as persuasive if not more persuasive. The effectiveness of stories lay in their naturalness. While rhetoric relied on experts with formal training to craft messages, people were natural storytellers. Fisher called people “homo narran” because of their affinity for narration.
Indeed, we begin learning about life and society at an early age through “children’s stories.” We keep up with life and our surroundings through “news stories.” We escape from life’s pressures by getting lost in a novel or movie.
Fisher suggested that stories have their own internal logic. People can tell when stories “ring true” and echo with life experiences.
Over the years a growing body of research from different disciplines has helped expose the persuasive elements of storytelling. It seems on many levels Fisher was right.
Overcoming Audience Resistance and Enhancing Memory
One of the major hurdles rhetorical strategies face is “persuasion resistance.” When people sense someone is trying to persuade them, or have a hidden agenda, they often put up their defenses. If the audience dislikes or distrusts the source, overcoming their skepticism can be particularly difficult.
Narration works through another dynamic. The power of narration is in its ability to overcome, or really sneak undetected past people’s persuasion radar. Storytelling can engage people before they realize they are being influenced. Amazingly, even if audiences are forewarned of the intent to persuade – “you are not going to believe this” – they may still be persuaded. Why?
Research on entertainment education (use of storytelling in health and social communication) has highlighted two prime features of storytelling and why audiences can be persuaded.
One is the idea of “transportation.” When there is a great story line or plot, the audience feels transported. Transportation is what happens when you get lost in the movie or carried away by a good book. What a good story teller does is take the audience to an alternate reality, new way of thinking, seeing, or experiencing life. This shift can translate into shifts in attitudes and behaviors.
A second element is “identification.” Identification is when we identify or relate to characters in the story. We understand and even empathize with their struggle. Their pain becomes our pain. We celebrate their joy with a knowing smile. Our heart leaps when they triumph! YES! Through identification their lessons become our lessons. Without realizing we were being taught, we learn new attitudes and behaviors.
Through transportation and identification, storytellers can introduce new information to an audience despite their initial resistance. A ready example to highlight the differences in the two approaches would be a campaign about the dangers of underage drinking and driving. A rhetorical approach would revolve around gathering information on teen driving and drinking habits, and the number of deaths or persons affected and craft persuasive messages. In contrast, the narrative approach might be a series of videos of teens telling their stories of what happened when either they or one of their friends got behind the wheel drunk.
As one might guess, the “inform and influence” model of facts and arguments, no matter how well designed and delivered, is often no match for compelling, vivid stories. What’s more is that people tend to remember stories better than statistics. As Robert McKee argues, if you want people to remember, throw out the Powerpoint slides and tell people a story. “Stories are how we remember,” he says, “we tend to forget lists and bullet points.”
Public Diplomacy Implications and Applications
The above elements are only a few of the persuasive elements of stories or narrative strategies. Stories and storytelling have several implications and applications for public diplomacy.
Cultural Diplomacy
The use of film as a cultural art form has been widely used in cultural diplomacy by governments. Film has also been used as a political tool deliberately designed to create negative images of the enemy and positive, inspirational images of the home front, especially during wartime or during conflict. Hollywood was a player during World War I and II.
National Images
Independent of government cultural diplomacy programs, films and even the film industry of a country can influence perceptions of a country as well as feelings toward the people of that country. The Oscar-nominated “Slum Dog Millionaire,” produced by Western filmmakers, generated interest and goodwill toward India. While India’s “Bollywood” has garnered international attention, other countries such as Nigeria and Egypt are vying for recognition.
Nation Branding
Strategic stories have also been the foundation of nation branding campaigns. Mark Leonard and Andrew Small suggested that Norway could tackle its “invisible” image problem by sharing “unheard” stories about Norway with the world. One of the four stories Norway needed to tell was Norway as a humanitarian superpower: “Norway might be only the 115th in the world in terms of its size, but it is leading the world as a humanitarian power.” Perhaps not coincidental of the success of the former U.S. Information Agency was its motto: “Telling America’s Story.”
Soft Power: “Whose story wins?”
In the battle over hearts and minds, Joseph Nye suggested, it’s about “whose story wins.” The growing prominence of narrative strategies in the U.S. military offense against terrorism is evident in the ever-expanding list of related resources on defense and security websites. Just this past November the RAND Corporation partnered with the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy to hold a day-long conference on “Narratives and Strategic Communication in Foreign Policy.” Narrative strategies are being used to design persuasive winning stories, analyze the stories of others, develop counter narratives, and most importantly -- gauge whose story is winning.
Social Media, the Story Circle and the Global Village
Prior to the advent of mass media entertainment, people entertained each other by sitting around telling stories. With the proliferation of new media technologies that enable people to not just consume but produce media content, people are back to doing what they do best: telling stories. Storytelling is ideally suited for the social media. Stories are spontaneous, authentic, timely, real and yes, very, very social. Al-Jazeera’s new feature “Storify” walks users through a step-by-step process of creating and sharing their stories. Governments are adopting social media tools, such as Facebook and Twitter. However, as Ali Fisher noted, the challenge is not securing a Twitter account, but knowing how to join the conversation, or perhaps more crucially, how to join the storytelling circle.
The persuasive power of storytelling is not just for winning Oscar films. The communication dynamics of the international arena are ripe for a gradual shift for the narrative paradigm to become the dominant persuasive paradigm. Public diplomacy practitioners and scholars will need to be ahead of this shift because it is likely to be very fast and very global. That is, unless, it hasn’t already happened.
Two decades of economic liberalization ushered in significant changes to India’s business landscape. One important change has been the development of competitive capabilities of Indian companies and the increase in business, professional, and personal exchanges with global businesses, workforces, and ideas. This development has significant implications on India’s soft power projection.
A noticeable trend has been the overseas forays of Indian companies and emergence of the ‘Indian Multinational Corporation.’ Among the known companies, the acquisition of Corus and JLR by Tatas, Mahindra’s ambitions to enter the North American SUV market, Vedanta Resources record maiden public offering on the London Stock Exchange (LSE), and Airtel’s foray into Africa. But consider the following examples of ‘Made in India’:
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories becoming first Asia-Pacific pharmaceutical company outside Japan to list on the New York Stock Exchange in 2001.
Asian Paints becoming the tenth largest decorative paint-maker in the world with manufacturing facilities across 24 countries.
Reva, India’s electric car manufacturer, setting up a plant in upstate New York taking advantage of the recession and the rise in gas prices.
Small auto components company Bharat Forge is now the world’s second largest forgings maker. Its clientele is global with only 31 percent of its turnover coming from India.
Aurobindo Pharma has eight subsidiaries globally and earns half of its revenues from exports with a strong presence in emerging markets of Asia, Brazil, and Latin America.
The largest manufacturer of ‘lamitubes’ (tubes that pack your toothpaste) in the world is an Indian company – Essel Propack. It has 17 plants in 11 countries with a one-third share of the 12.8 billion-units global market of lamitubes.
While these developments underline the entrepreneurial potential of India and significantly advance the ‘Made in India’ brand, there are interesting repercussions in the cultural realm as well. The expansion of these companies also means the export of Indian values in terms of attitudes towards the following:
Wealth and business
Work ethics
Professional integrity
Interpersonal relationships
Culture and diversity
Managerial styles
Tata Group chairman Ratan Tata’s statement in May 2011, condemning British managers as lazy is an interesting example. Not only has his comment resulted in reams and reams of coverage, but also led to an explosion of social media conversations on the issue. Contrasting the managerial attitudes of India and UK, Mr. Tata famously said,
In this context, global competency skills are the new requirement for many Indian managers including the ability to collaborate and compete across cultures. This significantly shapes national image and contributes towards telling a story of India. For corporate India, it is important to understand the ‘idea of India’, to tell its story, and for the policy establishment, the onus is to integrate the efforts. It’s no longer India’s economic story, it is the story of the ‘Indian Dream.’
This year's Oscar for the best foreign film went to Iran, a country which is grappling with a tense international environment because of its nuclear program. Despite its small budget, A Separation has come to generate a considerable amount of discussion both inside Iran and abroad. One debate, always important to Iranians, is about the contribution of such movies to the Iranian image.
There is almost a consensus among scholars of culture and politics that cinema is a strong instrument to enhance the image of a nation on the international stage. It is through the instrument of cinema (and visual productions in general) that a nation's cultural heritage (history, values, religion, and society) is easily introduced to the foreign audience. Having a strong and appealing cinema industry means having a strong influence on the formation of global public opinion. We are all familiar with the magical role that Hollywood plays in representing America to the world. The question here is: what is the role of cinematic productions in Iran's public diplomacy?
Unlike many countries in its orbit, Iran has enjoyed a robust cinema industry for more than half a century. The support of the state has always been behind the industry, whether in the form of providing funds for the movies or cinema houses, or organizing festivals. IRIB, the Iranian state television network is in itself a gigantic company which funds or buys cinematic productions for all sorts of tastes, particularly those sympathetic to the cause of the revolution. Interestingly, Iranian cinema has also managed to gain the respect of film critics on a global scale. Today, well-known international film festivals choose to have movies of Iranian origin on their list of screenings because of their almost exclusive aura.
There are three particular major forces which shape the output of Iran's contemporary cinema:
Religion: Reflections on the history and values of Islam: This has led to the production of movies such as Kingdom of Solomon, Imam Ali, Saint Mary, and hundreds of other movies and TV series.
The market: The need for pure entertainment which emanates from ordinary Iranian audience demand for distancing themselves from the reality of their lives.
Social dilemmas, reflections on socio-political dilemmas of Iran's intellectuals. Glass Agency, Taste of Cherry, Children of Heaven, and A Separation are answers for this particular demand.
An ongoing yet fascinating phenomenon at the present is the outpouring of all such productions beyond Iran's borders. While social dilemma movies (like A Separation) receive awards on the Western front by placating the ‘white man's taste,’ religiously-oriented productions capture the thirsty imagination of the Middle Eastern audience. IFILM, a recent IRIB network launched both via satellite and internet, is dubbing and broadcasting hundreds of Iranian movies and TV series for the Arab population in the region with considerable success in countries like Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain, Morocco, and even Saudi Arabia. Such efforts show that redefining Islam and its history is almost as sacred for Shia Iran as the need for explicating Iran's contemporary society and politics to the foreign audience. Add to that the popular uprisings of the region where nations endeavor to find their new identities and you will see the significance of rewriting the history of Islam. As I write this short piece, Majid Majidi, who was once nominated for an Oscar, is finishing off his big-budget movie, Prophet Mohammad.
There has been much debate about the foreign reception of Iranian movies and whether they really help uplift the image of Iran. While some argue that the very recognition of Iranian movie makers in the West is in itself a glorious achievement, others believe that such recognition happens at the cost of painting an Orientalist picture of Iran by the movie maker. The success of Farhadi's, A Separation, for example, is interpreted from similar perspectives by its friends and foes. Calling it a black realist movie, some have denounced its very recognition at Iran's own Fajr Festival let alone an award from a Western academy. On the other hand, fans have come to adore the moment when the Iranian director takes to the stage, seizes the Oscar and the chance to call for peace among nations. As I said, it is an ongoing confusion and is rooted in the fact that Iranians find it very difficult to trust the Western judgment for a real award when their personal lives are touched by the West’s imposed economic sanctions.
Although all this discussion is relevant and one cannot ignore the political overtones of such movies or the surprise reactions of the audience to see Iranians drive Peugeot, for example, I tend to view the phenomenon from a different perspective. The public diplomacy strength of Iranian cinema is not similar to that of Hollywood. It hardly attempts to depict perfect lives with happy endings. Unlike Hollywood, which is mostly about the “American dream,” the best of the Iranian cinema has come to be about all human beings, the universality of their characters and values. In my understanding, what the famous Persian poets like Saadi, Hafez, Khayyam, or Roumi, had said about the universal struggles of humanity in their poetry, the contemporary directors of Iranian cinema are saying in their movies. This is what they are really offering to the world, whether they win an award or not. This particular brand for Iranian cinema and its cosmopolitan tone is something to cherish and nurture rather than despise.
aba sadra on March 6, 2012 @ 6:53 pm as good as always, i think Iranian cinema can be categorized as people to people diplomacy which i think is more efficient than the old type of PD (government to people ) that is why the output is universal.
i also agree with this part
"Iranians find it very difficult to trust the Western judgment for a real award when their personal lives are touched by the West’s imposed economic sanctions"
saeid on March 6, 2012 @ 8:03 pm Interesting one just need a bit more explanation about this part:
"Unlike Hollywood, which is mostly about the “American dream,” the best of the Iranian cinema has come to be about all human beings, the universality of their characters and values".
Will appreciate you if give me some name about those movies about all human beings. Thanks.
Javad on March 6, 2012 @ 9:35 pm Thank you aba sadra for the comment.
@ Saeid, you are probably right that I should have explained this more. What I meant by that statement was that Iranian movies like A separation, Children of Heaven, or even top TV series in Iran, are social movies, which pivot around social dilemmas of their characters. They don't hesitate to show poverty, or guilt, or the death of the hero, or a sad ending... they regard some values (which one could argue they are universal values such as honesty or a sense of sacrifice) higher than the mundane values of economic prosperity or personal satisfaction in life. this is a brand that Iran could benefit from in general, if the movie makers and the critics come to embrace it.
Mohsen on March 7, 2012 @ 3:09 am I totally agree with your conclusion. With respect to the quantity of movies and also TV series produced in Iran, one can find a large body of them which carry deep concepts of humanity. And I think it is a matter of proud for all Iranians.
Alicia on March 8, 2012 @ 9:54 am If I am not wrong, A Seperation was nominated in 11 categories out of the 14 categories in the 2011 Fajr festival and was the winner of the people's choice award. Do not understand "some have denounced its very recognition at Iran's own Fajr Festival let alone an award from a Western academy."
I think it contradicts your perception of the movies reception in the country.
Javad on March 10, 2012 @ 9:01 am @Alicia, what I mean is that there is a disagreement among movie makers and critics. They are not all supportive or all negative about the movie. That's why some even believe that the movie should not have received an award in the Fajr Festival.
Alicia on March 10, 2012 @ 1:08 pm It received 11 nominations, not everybody can be wrong about their judgment on a specific characteristic of a movie. I have not heard anyone criticizing the success of A Separation in Fajr festival
Washington, D.C. is a city of politics, power, and ploy. As the first delegation of Public Diplomacy Masters students representing USC to visit D.C., 18 of us set out to navigate the role of PD and meet its practitioners in this influential city. Our excursion led us to three very significant U.S. bureaucracies: the Department of State, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.
At the moment these governing bodies are controlled by different parties, which makes for an interesting setting in our exploration of PD in Washington, D.C. Clearly one would assume the State Department plays the principal role in U.S. PD, yet we quickly learned the success of State is predominately determined by those in power in Congress.
The priority of PD is set by one’s definition of it. Everyone seems to have his or her own meaning and connotation for PD. While discussing it with the Democratic controlled Senate, we found part of the solution to be in getting U.S. citizens out of the isolationist mentality. Similarly, when discussing it with the Republican controlled House, we found part of the solution to be in the role of the private sector as a forceful voice in bringing relevance to PD and making it more of a priority in Congress.
Whether we decide to advocate for PD within or outside the bureaucracies of the U.S. government, they will undeniably affect us in one way or another throughout our careers in PD. The key will be to understand the interagency relationships and strive to remain nonpartisan in our approach to PD. This nonpartisanship seems rather daunting in the polarized city of Washington, D.C., but it brings new relevance to the role of NGOs in bridging the party divide.
Traditionally, PD tends to be more of a priority for left-leaning politics. Interestingly, at the same time we were examining the role of PD in D.C., there was a rather large gathering of those who identify themselves on the right. On our free day I had the opportunity to be part of this gathering known as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). I made it just in time to hear Governor Sarah Palin ignite the crowd. As expected at a very domestic-themed conference, the only mention of international U.S. PD was as an inferior tool to the armed forces.
So maybe trying to remain nonpartisan in our approach to PD is unrealistic in the rhetoric of polarized Washington, D.C. Even so, I would argue there is a need for PD practitioners on both sides of the divide. By skillfully and cleverly communicating commonly shared goals using the rhetoric of the political ideology we identify most with, we can make a strong case for the necessity of PD.
My brief encounter with CPAC made me realize how conservatives need to be made more aware of the role of PD in their everyday lives so that it is given greater precedence in their voting and policymaking. As a conservative, I was pleased to learn on this D.C. trip how crucial it is for non-governmental organizations and individuals to champion the cause of public diplomacy instead of leaving it entirely in the hands of the government. Lisa Liberatore is a Master of Public Diplomacy candidate and current research intern at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy focusing on the role of the Millennial Generation. While an undergraduate student she had the opportunity to experience the field of PD on the domestic level as an intern on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. where she quickly learned how party politics rule. She hopes to one day return to Washington, D.C. as a PD advocate.
Chris Schumerth on March 5, 2012 @ 11:53 am Enjoyed reading this, Lisa. Good work!
Neal S Van Vynckt on March 5, 2012 @ 3:45 pm Let the record show, I think this is only the second blog I have ever read besides the "Schumerth Shuffle." Let the record further show that I defnitely understood this WAY more than most of the stuff that gets blabbed about in SS. Yeah, diplomacy and relating to others certainly isnt a strong suit of us righties...
Good Work, Gal! Keep Moving,
-vynckt
Tamara Campbell on March 6, 2012 @ 6:46 am Outstanding blog! Glad to see the Millenial Generation engaged in this vital role!
Matthew Wallin on March 12, 2012 @ 11:31 am PD is largely seen to be an inferior tool, and doesn't get a lot of traction because it often doesn't demonstrate immediate results. Talking is a much slower process than dropping bombs. To get more traction, especially on the right, metrics will have to be developed to show the short term benefits of PD, because in Congress, that's all people care about.
What does PD do for them? Right here, right now---not 15 years down the line when that person may not be in office anymore.
It needs to be shown as cost efficient, and it needs to be shown as saving American lives.
About a month ago, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited several Latin American countries in a move that numerous analysts and journalists argued was a desperate attempt to find allies, as Iran is becoming increasingly isolated amid pressures from the U.S. and the European Union to limit its nuclear program. The countries and personalities included in his tour were not unfamiliar to him: Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Ecuador, all members of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), all sharing the same opinion that U.S. foreign policy is imperialistic. It can be argued that Ahmadinejad won the hearts and minds of the Latin American public simply because there was an echo amongst the group of Latin American presidents against an imperial U.S. Although this “anti-U.S.” rhetoric has been the most visible sign of Iran’s rapprochement in Latin America, there are still signs that show how Ahmadinejad’s attempt to win support in this region will take more than overtly antagonizing the U.S. Ultimately, the challenges of Iran in this region could be to prove that offering its partnership is beneficial in spite of its domestic politics, specifically those related to its religious-centered laws; but also, to portray itself as a peace-seeking nation amid the controversy of its nuclear program’s intentions.
It is evident that relationships with Latin America are a priority in Iran’s foreign policy. However, Iran’s interests are primarily focused on two actors: ALBA countries, which have been the most concerned in preserving relations with Iran because they are the main recipients of Iranian economic and development cooperation programs, and Brazil. Brazil is Iran’s main trading partner in the region, and a big supporter during former President Lula’s administration, of Iran’s diplomatic maneuvers to maintain its nuclear program. Nevertheless, the expansion of Iran’s commercial and diplomatic relations has not seemed to produce enough trust and sympathy for the Iranian leader among the Latin American publics. This can be attributed to three factors of Iranian actions and rhetoric:
1) Ahmadinejad’s controversial declarations regarding homosexuality have caused negative reactions in a region where Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender rights are gaining recognition. Additionally, his anti-Zionist rhetoric has caused unrest amongst pro-Israeli groups, particularly in Argentina where the biggest Jewish community in Latin America is located.
2) Iran’s punitive practices such as stoning and other torture related measures revealed by the wide media coverage across several Latin American countries of Sakineh Ashtiani’s case are met with disproval. This example and the measures to “prevent the diffusion of the Western culture” dictated by the Islamic leaders portray Iran as obscure, medieval, and authoritarian to the Latin American publics.
3) Accusations from Israel and the U.S. regarding Iran’s nuclear program intentions and its presence in Latin America have raised questions and concerns surrounding trading, cooperating, and establishing diplomatic relations.
Consequently, Iran’s efforts to convince the publics of its genuine intentions to cooperate have increased and Ahmadinejad is on course to demonstrate how the people of Iran share commonalities with the people of Latin America. Seeking the support of “the revolutionaries” has been one step. The most visible support comes from Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and more recently from Cuba. Two days after meeting with Fidel Castro, the Cuban leader published an article that was widely covered in the media titled, “world peace hangs in the balance,” praising Ahmadinejad’s courage and indifference to U.S. warnings and sanctions to limit Iran’s uranium enrichment and claiming that the U.S. will be solely responsible if there is war with Iran.
Another step for Iran has been to provide assistance to Latin American people. In 2009, Iran opened a hospital in a poor locality of Bolivia. In what can be considered medical diplomacy, Iran began reaching directly to the Latin American population, moving from traditional high-level meetings with diplomats and government officials, to more public strategies. However, the good-will intentions remained unclear. On the first day of the hospital’s opening, Bolivians were surprised by the fact that the feminine staff was wearing veils as part of a requirement by the Iranian sponsored health facility. The assistance project, rather than inspiring solidarity, nurtured suspicion, and the whole issue was framed under a freedom of religion controversy in the media which led government officials to declare that the press was waging a war against Iran’s aid.
The most recent attempt to influence Latin American public opinion is “HispanTv.” The Spanish language television station was officially launched after Ahmadinejad’s latest visit, but has been broadcasting since 2010. With this new element, Iran seeks to counter the media coverage, mostly centered in the regime’s opposition repression, its punishment measures, and the ways to lessen American cultural influence. It may also strengthen cultural ties, transmit Iran’s message of peace and justice, and promote Iran’s health and scientific developments, fields which have been the cornerstone of Iran’s cooperation with ALBA countries.
Although “HispanTv” may expand Iran’s public diplomacy beyond the ALBA countries, it is probable that its credibility will continue to be contested. Iranian ambitions will not be able to gain significant sympathies from the entire region, unless it begins to actively conduct public diplomacy towards Brazil. It will be interesting to see if Iran has a strategy to influence Brazilians, especially now that the current Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff, has chosen to adopt a more critical position towards the Iranian regime. Oscar Castellanos Del Collado is a Public Diplomacy student at the University of Southern California. He majored in International Relations at Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City and also studied at Sciences Po Lyon in France. He has previously worked as a Research Assistant in Cultural Diplomacy. He is concentrating his career in migration, civil society, and photography.
Tabby on March 2, 2012 @ 12:53 pm Thanks for sharing your insights, Oscar. I was not aware of the hospital PR fiasco and an definitely going to look into it. Do you know of any polls that would convey Latin Americans' attitudes towards Iran? How are the Iranians measuring the success of their PD in this regional regard?
Oscar on March 3, 2012 @ 1:10 pm Tabby, I will recommend taking a look to the latest Latinobarómetro report which for the first time includes Latin American attitudes towards Iran and also Israel. Likewise, there is a poll conducted for the BBC in 2005, which interestingly shows that negative perceptions (in Mexico, Brazil and Argentina) have little changed since then. How Iran measures the success, is a question I ask myself too. Thanks for your comment.
Javad on March 4, 2012 @ 8:08 am Very informative, Oscar. It would also be very interesting to see what the U.S. gov. does to keep/push Iran out of its backyard!
zyanya Mariana on March 4, 2012 @ 5:13 pm Muchas felicidades, es el principio de un largo camino.
Te abrazo
Oscar on March 6, 2012 @ 6:21 pm Gracias, Siempre.
I am often told that Syria is not Libya and that any intervention would lead to a disproportionate death of civilians, making such an intervention unacceptable and unjustifiable. I would argue that the morality justifying the need for intervention in Syria is indisputable. First and foremost, innocent life is in danger and in need of protection. The Syrian Government has initiated an operation of large scale and systematic violation of human rights, with the UN stating that what the Syrian Government is doing amounts to crimes against humanity. It has made dignified human life virtually impossible for its civilian population. The Syrian Government’s actions against its own people erodes its legitimacy as the central state authority and hence weakens its status as a sovereign government in a sovereign state.
Clearly, intervention should be sought as a last resort after other means; specifically, after negotiations and dialogue have been exhausted. It is safe to say that the Arab League spearheaded such negotiations and sent observers on the ground to ensure the blood shed would be stopped. This proved to be ineffective at putting an end to the killing of civilians by the Syrian Government. It could be argued that the Syrian Government is buying time and using this time to brutally crush both acts and even sentiments of opposition.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the idea of intervention here has not been initiated or led by Western nations. In fact, the Arab League, especially the GCC, as well as Turkey, have made very strong arguments for the need to condemn the actions of the Syrian Government by appealing to the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution that would open the door for several options of intervention. These countries have also called for humanitarian intervention. There is a diverse consensus for the need to act on the question of Syria, with the notable exceptions of China and Russia, as both have vetoed a resolution that sought to condemn the acts of Syria’s Government. In light of this, if intervention were to take place its foundation would be from a credible authority i.e. the UN and it would therefore have the necessary coalition to sustain it.
Intervention in the case of Syria will have to be multi-pronged covering areas of humanitarian intervention, arming the resistance, and aiding the resistance with military strategy. In addition, it will require supporting the opposition to create a credible and legitimate alternative to the Assad regime. Finally, it must increase the intensity of strategic sanctions to force the Assad regime to make concessions. For this multi-pronged strategy to be successful it must be led by regional players, key GCC countries, and Turkey. The recent failure of the Friends of Syria Conference was perhaps a testament to that fact that the international community is still trying to develop a plan of action with regards to Syria, but the next conference scheduled to take place in Turkey may be more promising.
The intentions of the parties involved in the question of Syria are a complex by-product of geopolitical realities. On one hand, there is the right intention based on the moral obligation and desire to protect human life. However, given the historical evidence as to the negative pattern of behavior of the Assad regime, there is no doubt that Western countries in addition to key Arab countries would welcome a shift from the current Syrian Government to a more moderate regime.
Opposing arguments have been made by Russia that intervention would lead to civil war. I do not find such arguments to hold much weight, as such an argument could have also been argued for a case of zero intervention in Yemen and Libya. Russia and China, which both have their own circumstances of domestic opposition (for example Chechnya, Taiwan, Tibet) are naturally uneasy with the prospect of intervention in Syria. In addition, it is possible that they are suspicious that any change in regime may not be aligned with safeguarding their interests in the Arab region.
Countries like Iran, organizations like Hezbollah, and also Israel (to a lesser extent) have a stake in the continuation of the Assad regime, as it is a familiar regime, which they have an understanding with. It is also a regime that does not wield substantial regional power, as the Assad regime today primarily poses a threat to its own people. Therefore, the notion of an opposition movement taking hold in Syria will be resisted primarily by Iran and Hezbollah who have a strong ties and influence with the Assad regime, and would initiate a major counter intervention.
Ultimately the question is will more evil be caused by intervention or non-intervention? The Assad regime has a historic record proving a pattern of non-restraint towards how it will treat its own people, and by extension other nations; civilians are fair game as far as it is concerned. The possibility to support a more moderate and progressive government in Syria, especially in light of the momentum of the Arab Spring, makes it a historic opportunity. To stop and contemplate on the consequences of non-intervention makes it all too clear that intervention is not only wise, but also in the long run inevitable. Najla Al Awadhi is a Former Member of Parliament of the United Arab Emirates. You can follow her on Twitter @NajlaAlAwadhi
Australia’s international policy portfolio has been left hanging after Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd’s surprise resignation from his post – announced from Mexico in the aftermath of the G20 meeting. Rudd’s resignation, a deliberate retaliation strike against the current Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the ruling Australian Labor Party for the unceremonious leadership coup they pulled off against him some 24 months ago, while fascinating to the political observer, is potentially devastating for Australia’s international image projection.
Both as Prime Minister, and subsequently as Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd (or @KRudd as he is known in the Twittersphere), has been highly influential in projecting Australia’s ambitious international policy agenda and image. Well known, well liked, and well respected amongst many of his international counterparts, Rudd has pro-actively engaged Australia in international dialogue from the G20 to global sustainability, to campaigning for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). His prodigious (some might say relentless) ability to take on issues and build policy outcomes has seen him travel the globe extensively. Since January 2010, he has delivered over 40 speeches in nearly as many countries to international audiences ranging from foreign policy elites and global media to students and Australian diaspora. He has also pushed the same agenda at home, and through the same period made some 60 speeches to Australian audiences from Parliament to the outback. Add to this the ability to continuously satiate the appetite of a twitter following that now exceeds one million. Rudd has personified the message that Australia is a hardworking, practical, and creative global player. As such he has been a driving force for Australia’s ambitious international policy profile, and a critical feature of Australia’s public diplomacy profile.
So, where does Rudd’s resignation leave the Australia’s international policy machine and public diplomacy? Under Rudd’s leadership, the traditional diplomatic footprint has continued to shrink to bare bones capacity, while the public diplomacy unit operates on a shoestring budget – even less than it did when public diplomacy was so neglected that a Senate Inquiry was launched to investigate. Without Rudd there to continually and personally reinforce the international policy message, Australians will be left wondering why we are so engaged on matters beyond our horizons and sphere of influence (such as Libya and Syria – and ignoring relationships with some of our closest regional neighbors in the process), and why it is so important for Australia to continue to campaign far from home for temporary place on the UNSC.
Perhaps given Rudd’s departure, a time of international policy reflection is in order, along with some rebuilding of institutional capacity, particularly within the Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The blistering pace set by Rudd appears to taken its toll on Australia’s strategic international policy development and delivery. In terms of managing Australia’s international image, certainly the latest political shift highlights the risks associated with a public diplomacy profile that is heavily influenced by the cult of leadership personality. It draws attention to the gaping hole in the institutional leadership of Australia’s public diplomacy. There are decent threads of substance to Australia’s public diplomacy profile: the frontline work of Australian diplomats in building local relationships from the post, on-shore and off-shore modes of international education, the expansion of many Australian Studies Centers within international universities, international broadcasting activities and English language study offerings via the Australia network, the activities of nine bilateral foundations, councils and institutes utilizing small grants programs to build mutual understanding, the vast expanse of Australia’s arts presence, cultural and science exchanges, as well as sports outreach programs, to mention a few. However, this expanse of public diplomacy activity is highly fragmented. Interagency coherence is absent, and Australia’s public diplomacy remains disconnected from strategic policy – moving at a fits-and-starts pace, often following the latest crisis or politically motivated initiative.
If we consider, as Philip Fiske De Gouviea has suggested, that public diplomacy is like the sapper, paving the way for traditional diplomacy, then it is important that all of these activities and initiatives are pulled together to pave the way towards a common direction.
Last year at the Australian Institute for International Affairs (AIIA) Forum on Public and Citizen Diplomacy in Canberra, some suggested the establishment of a single entity that might move Australia’s public diplomacy forward, in concert with existing diplomatic networks, but away from the unpredictable influences of political profiles and processes. That suggestion needs to be (re)considered. A formalized partnership model (such as the British Council), that operates independently from the political machinery, but collaboratively with policy agencies, and with more clout than a government funded committee or council could provide the overarching strategic direction and coherence that is currently missing from Australia’s image projection and public diplomacy activities. Such an initiative would move Australian public diplomacy beyond the mesmerizing, but ultimately flawed reliance on the cult of political leaders like KRudd.
TAIPEI --- While the latest aircraft carrier movements and military maneuvers here are chronicled closely in U.S. media, significant public diplomacy initiatives go largely unreported. This past week provided a prime example:
Beijing Mayor Guo Jinlong’s week-long visit to Taipei has been front-page news in this region, in newspapers from Korea to Singapore. For his first-ever visit, the mayor led a 500-person delegation – yes, five hundred people – including party officials, business leaders and Chinese celebrities.
Guo ended his visit on Wednesday by announcing a major cultural exchange between China and Taiwan, signaling a major advance in cross-Straits relations, building on the increases in trade and tourism between China and Taiwan.
If you haven’t heard about the visit, it is because it went unnoticed in U.S. media.
Search nytimes.com for the name of Bejing’s mayor, Guo Jinlong, and here is what you find: “Your search - guo jinlong - did not match any documents under Past 30 Days.”
Just to make certain, reverse the first and last names to place the family name last, as is Western custom, in case that is how the Times writes his name. Here is the result:
“Your search - jinlong guo - did not match any documents under Past 30 Days.”
Try “Beijing mayor.” Nope.
How about the Los Angeles Times? “No Results Found.”
Try those searches in Google News, and you are directed only to news organizations in Asia.
And yet, search the South China Morning Post and there is an immediate hit: Under the headline “'Cultural journey' boosts Taiwan ties” you will find the lead sentence, “Beijing Mayor Guo Jinlong wrapped up a six-day visit to Taiwan yesterday that analysts said marked a new phase in cross-strait relations.” The online article is behind a pay wall, but the ink-on-paper SCMP articles here were under three- and four-column top-of-the-page headlines and ran to twelve paragraphs.
Sounds pretty important, right?
Go to Seoul’s English-language Korea Herald and a search produces several links, going back to Xinhua’s scene-setter before the delegation’s departure from Beijing.
Seems to have attracted a great deal of attention, no?
And so it is not a surprise that Taipei news media offered extensive daily news stories as well as follow-up analysis. Today’s Taipei Times features a story detailing “new policy guidelines” and describing behind-the-scenes meetings that took place during the delegation’s visit.
That story was the second most emailed item on the Times web site, surpassed only by the latest on Taiwan’s new national hero, Jeremy Lin.
Just in case anyone still doubts how seriously Guo’s visit is taken here, consider the Taipei Times editorial after the delegation left. The editorial described the visit and the new cultural diplomacy initiatives in its headline as “more nails in the annexation coffin.”
Washington, D.C. -- We are just so excited to be in a place where others understand the term “public diplomacy.”
The “we” I am talking about is the delegation of 18 public diplomacy graduate students from the University of Southern California, on an inaugural trip to Washington, D.C. to meet with professionals working in our field at various organizations. The goal was to broaden our awareness of careers in public diplomacy, and to build connections and opportunities between the East and West coasts.
Here in D.C., everyone seems to speak our language. We are accustomed to blank stares and confused family members whenever the term “public diplomacy” is thrown around, and offering long explanations that involve words like “communications", “foreign audiences”, and “global actors". But at happy hour after a long day of meetings, one of my classmates excitedly noted that nobody at the bar has brought up the entertainment industry. “Even better,” she continues, “is that when I say I’m studying public diplomacy, nobody asks what the difference is from private diplomacy!”
We were far from the gridlock traffic and golden beaches of Los Angeles and here in D.C., public diplomacy is a term people understand. It is also where we had the opportunity and privilege to meet with one of public diplomacy’s biggest stars: Tara Sonenshine.
Ms. Sonenshine is currently the Executive Vice-President of the United States Institute for Peace (USIP), but was nominated by President Obama for the position of Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in November 2011. Once confirmed, she will lead the country’s public diplomacy efforts abroad, so having the chance to speak with her at USIP proved to be the highlight of our trip.
Her experience in the fields of communications and public diplomacy is evident when she tells the group that she doesn’t like the term “winning over the hearts and minds”. It implies a battle, she explains, and that isn’t what PD is about.
Instead, she compares public diplomacy to filmmaking – being in your own head and also in other people’s heads – the director, the viewer, the choreographer. Similar to making a film, it’s a group effort that requires understanding different perspectives.
Sonenshine's definition of public diplomacy is “a shared means to a shared goal,” with the goal being to extend America’s reach and security by influencing how others come to know and understand us. It is a broad definition, but it encapsulates a lot.
As Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, Sonenshine plans to spend her first few months engaging in the cornerstone of diplomacy: listening. She finds it important to listen to what those in the field are saying, and then use what she hears to form a narrative to guide her. She also intends to look at individual areas of the bureaus she will oversee, particularly the “American spaces,” areas outside of embassies that showcase the United States.
Before meeting with Ms. Sonenshine, I read a handful of articles she wrote for The Huffington Post, including a small piece from 2009 that was intended to advise then-incoming Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Judith McHale. The three-year-old piece showed a deep understanding of global communications, cooperation, and the importance of alliances and relationships. I think Ms. Sonenshine’s work in peace-building and conflict resolution has prepared her well for this role, as her ability to look at the bigger picture was clear when she wrapped up her discussion with us.
“Don’t always focus on direct cause and effect,” she said. “Think in medical terms, in disease prevention. Because it’s sometimes what you won’t see that’s successful.”
*Editor's Note: You can read USIP's announcement about the MPD program's visit as a follow up to the blog. Jennifer Green is a Master of Public Diplomacy candidate and an intern with Shine on Sierra Leone. She currently teaches a life-skills class for youth in foster care in Watts, and has previously worked and volunteered in South Africa, Argentina, and South Korea. She will travel to Cuba with the Annenberg School in May 2012.
On February 3rd, 2012, the USC School of Cinematic Arts held a screening for “Education Under Fire,” a film that provides a provocative insight into the lives of Bahá'ís in Iran who lack access to the country’s education system.
According to the United Nations, education is a human right. Unfortunately, not every government agrees with this principle. In countries such as Iran, education is denied to individuals solely because they are Bahá'í, a faith that is based on spiritual unity of all humankind.
While watching the film, I was deeply moved by the struggles Bahá'ís would endure to access an education – while their non-Bahai’ counterparts (Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Mandeans, Yarsanis, and Zoroastrians) were able to take advantage of Iran’s educational institutions.
Some Bahá’ís secretly meet at undisclosed locations to learn – oftentimes with large groups of individuals in a small room. They travel to these locations with the ongoing fear of being caught, incarcerated and possibly even executed, all for an education.
The film reminded me of my mother in many ways. Growing up, my mother told me stories of being denied an education by her father due to economic reasons in Guatemala. She instilled in me a thirst for education, a passion for intellectual growth, and an appreciation for life’s opportunities.
In some ways, I connected with the Bahá’í students in the film through their personal narratives. I cannot claim to have faced the struggles they have, but I relate and am inspired by their efforts in seeking a higher education.
Post screening discussion
This film presents an open door for the global audience to become involved in the Bahá'ís education advocacy movement in Iran. Awareness of the persecution these students face is a critical first step. The Education Under Fire campaign skillfully utilizes documentary filmmaking as a public diplomacy tool to address the needs of the Bahá'í in Iran. Additionally, the film persuades Iranian officials to acknowledge the unethical treatment towards the Bahá'í. The Bahá'í testimonies provide a window of understanding to audiences and builds cultural awareness. As a soft power medium, the film is working towards expanding global partnerships with Amnesty International and American educational institutions. For more information, visit the Education Under Fire website at www.educationunderfire.com where you can sign their petition to create change for the Baha’i students.
Sean on February 23, 2012 @ 10:40 am It's a sad truth but this kind of stuff happens all over the world. Take India for example. Although I'm not completely familiar with their politics, they have strict caste system where people are born into social class that dictates how they'll be treated for the rest of their life. Politicians have no infiltration into these lifestyles, even when peoples lives are threatened. How come there hasn't been an U.N. occupation in North Korea? Or a U.N. intervention of Tibet with China? Politics are too complicated to get involved from the outside.I think that the only way for change in Iran (or any country) to happen is by their citizens sacrificing their lives for social justice. sad but history's truth
Juan on February 23, 2012 @ 7:09 pm Persecution of those who seek education is blasphemy and blatant self-destruction. I stand in solidarity with those who risk their lives for education.
With so many global challenges, where can the biggest impact be made on global publics? How can the case for public diplomacy be made more effectively to governments, corporations, NGOs and individuals? We can start by tackling the most pressing global issue—water. Water is essential for human life and although we are a blue planet, water is a scarce resource. More than one billion people do not have access to safe water. If a core concept for public diplomacy is to increase understanding between nations by addressing issues that affect publics, then water should be at the forefront of foreign policy.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of actors tackling global water challenges—from governments to NGOs, from multinational institutions to foundations, and from charities to corporations. Many regions are suffering from crises and conflicts over water. In many areas water rights are being disputed. In even more areas, programs and projects are being developed and implemented to give communities access to safe water. With so many players and issues, how and where can public diplomats play a role? How can public diplomacy become the go-to tool for water diplomacy practitioners from all sectors of society?
The USC Center on Public Diplomacy, through our Water Diplomacy Initiative, seeks to answer these questions. Since water is such an enormous and important issue, we have chosen to focus on a specific aspect of water diplomacy that is often overlooked—vulnerability. In this context, vulnerability can be defined as “the interface between exposure to the physical threats to human well-being and the capacity of people and communities to cope with those threats” (UNEP 2002). Vulnerable populations—those not yet in crisis or conflict—are often overlooked because of more pressing issues such as violent conflict, water rights disputes between governments or starvation due to drought. Public diplomacy must, however, be conducted in vulnerable areas in order to protect the people there from even greater water-related problems.
CPD’s Water Diplomacy Initiative has identified four regional areas, which we will introduce in upcoming posts, to study and suggest best practices for water diplomacy practitioners. Each area has its own set of water challenges: poor water management, water scarcity, water rights and shortages, damming and limited access to clean drinking water. Each of the water issues in these regions negatively impacts cross-border populations and contributes to rising tensions between publics. And if these issues in these vulnerable areas are not confronted in a timely manner, then the consequences can be dire.
The USC Center on Public Diplomacy’s goal is to address various pressing issues such as these through the Water Diplomacy Initiative. Our research will raise awareness about water issues in vulnerable populations. CPD’s February 27, 2012 conference, Water Diplomacy: A Foreign Policy Imperative will provide a platform for discussion between various actors tackling water issues and gather best practices for water diplomacy. Here at USC, we hope to make the case for public diplomacy as a key tool to solving problems that affect every person around the globe.
sonny fox on February 22, 2012 @ 8:49 am You are tackling a vital issue. However, you seem to have avoided the consequences of a project 9-10 billion population by mid century. Isn't the grwoing numbers a considerable factor, and should you not include that in your considerations?
Naomi Leight on February 22, 2012 @ 10:20 am Sonny, thank you for your comment. Our growing population is indeed a concern, especially for water. The more populations grow, the more they need to be reached through public diplomacy. Which is exactly why we're focusing on water issues which affect people everywhere. We can make a contribution to tackling water issues by providing public diplomacy tools and best practices to people and organizations on the ground doing this vital work.
Max Campos on April 9, 2012 @ 12:22 pm There is one important additional aspect in this problem, this is the underground water, in particular transboundary aquifers. Most of them are not even mentioned in national legislations or bilateral agreeements. UN resolution GA 63/124 is an good test for water diplomacy.
Several years ago I organized a conference designed to encourage those involved in the work of cultural diplomacy – policy makers, practitioners and cultural producers, public diplomacy officers, and academics; who too seldom talk to one another – to generate a shared conversation about what in fact composes this enterprise. The conversation was framed to promote discussion of “the specific role of culture in cultural diplomacy.” That is, participants were asked to address what they took “culture” to mean in this context in the first place and to characterize its efficacy: what did they imagine “culture” does as part of the work of diplomacy?
At the same time I launched a cultural diplomacy survey, together with my then research assistant Yelena Osipova. This short survey was open-ended, and designed to provide opportunity for respondents – primarily active and retired U.S. public diplomacy officers – to articulate their own understandings of the work of cultural diplomacy. Put another way, the survey encouraged elaboration of their emic instead of my etic understanding of this effort. How do those regularly engaged in cultural diplomacy define to themselves the meaning of what they do?
The survey vexed some practitioner colleagues, who nevertheless graciously completed it. One esteemed but exasperated doyen of public diplomacy was moved to comment, “I am delighted to help but disappointed that I am asked such obvious questions.” But this was exactly the point. Over the previous decade numerous reports have been produced, with the purpose of assessing the state of U.S. public and cultural diplomacy. But these reports rarely subject “cultural diplomacy” to sustained explication or justification. They assume its virtues and typically offer perfunctory definitions before hurrying on to their primarily purpose: defending budgets or exploring new institutional reforms.
An uncharitable commentator might call that just so much moving around of chairs in a way that fails regularly to revisit the fundamental meaning of what we think we are up to with line items like “cultural diplomacy.” That “person-to-person exchange” using the arts foregrounds “commonalities in human experience” instead of “exploiting political and cultural differences” – thus advancing diplomacy – might hold promise. The work of cultural diplomacy might indeed foster “mutual understanding.” But it is not a certainty. In fact exactly the reverse often happens.
And as the survey itself made clear, in fact there exists very little consensus among those involved about what cultural diplomacy is, except in the most general of terms. In what follows, and in subsequent posts, I offer a preliminary analysis of survey results in order to sketch out some key questions relating to the semiotics of diplomacy that deserve more sustained consideration. With “semiotics,” I continue to focus attention on the specific relationship of culture to communication, as the crux of the matter and in keeping with my previous writing about how to pursue a thoroughly dialogic cultural diplomacy. The goal here is not to establish “best practices” but to ascertain practitioners’ own working models for what they do as a way to encourage further attention to where U.S. cultural diplomacy practitioners are speaking from, when they engage in their work.
There were a total of 151 respondents of whom 51 completed the survey, administered online between late 2009 and late 2011. The survey was composed of seven questions, and respondents’ answers took narrative form, and were often quite elaborated. Here I address only question 2, “What is the meaning of ‘culture’ for cultural diplomacy?”
Among the 51 respondents who completed the survey, one immediately apparent result is that there was tremendous variability in defining “culture” in this context. Breaking this out, respondents offered 21 different potential synonyms (e. g. “world view,” “ideology,” or “structure of meaning”), 22 candidates corresponding to the basic units of culture (e. g. “values,” “beliefs,” or “symbols,”), and 31 possible expressions of culture (e.g. “music,” “art,” or “film”). It was also notable that multiple respondents answered the question with a tautology, using “culture” or “cultural” in the definition. Perhaps out of frustration, one respondent succinctly answered, “It means what it means.”
For someone trained in sociocultural anthropology, this is familiar data. And it is not surprising. As the Welsh critic Raymond Williams noted in Keywords, “Culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language.” Policy reports on the state of cultural diplomacy point to different things, sometimes emphasizing a concern for “creative products” and at other times for “ideas and ideals.” Among commentators on cultural diplomacy, Cynthia Schneider is among the few to consider implications of the fact that, as she noted, “The word ‘culture’ conveys multiple meanings.” She goes on to explore the diplomatic consequences of the anthropologically-inspired conception of culture as “customs and behavior” and as “creative expression” respectively.
Notably, the discipline of anthropology has given up the effort to produce a consensus definition of what has been, arguably, its master concept. Since its professionalization as a social science, anthropology has moved from a “kitchen sink” variety of definition, simply listing out an ever lengthening set of cultural “traits” – which reached its height with the Human Relations Area File project – to varieties of increasingly incompatible schools, each with a definition fit to a narrower purpose (e. g. “the study of behavior” or “the symbols and meaning” approach). By the 1950s, a pair of eminent anthropologists recorded no less than 164 different definitions of culture then in use by their colleagues. By the end of the twentieth century, the discipline, as a whole, had thoroughly qualified its use of the term – culture – to refer not to any “complex whole” or total “way of life,” as one survey respondent defined it. Most recently, it has emphasized the ways cultures are sites of struggle over contested meanings, including over culture itself.
In the context of diplomacy, by assuming we mean the same thing by “culture,” we are less apt to consider or to apprehend the sources of cultural difference. We think: their art and our art might not be exactly the same, but it is still “art.” But this thinking amounts to a kind of mirror imaging. These differences also can be sources of conflict. They include notable differences among countries about the relationship of culture to diplomacy and about the location of culture in international affairs. To ignore these differences is to risk ignoring what matters, from the point of view of the publics for whom cultural diplomacy programs are intended.
By way of conclusion, I offer three examples from recent history: The so-called “Asian values debate” of the 1990s over the global application of human rights standards was a case of East Asian nations characterizing human rights not as universal but as a cultural project. This, the U.S. rejected, and along with it any sustained consideration of culture as a rights-based concept. In the mid-2000s U.S. negotiators surprisingly found themselves at cross-purposes with their European and Canadian allies over a proposed UNESCO cultural diversity treaty, in no small part because the U.S. resisted an understanding of cultural goods and services as in any way “exceptional.” In this case, the fault line was between a U.S. framing of the issue as about “freedom of expression,” as compared to a European concern for the cultural goods and services associated with national “identity.”
Finally, a strong case can be made that the influence of “clash of civilizations” thinking upon U.S. policy for confronting post-9/11 global challenges was counterproductively distorted and narrow, shaping how urgent problems were framed for understanding. As such, the Department of Defense’s Minerva Initiative, its new social scientific research program, assumed a causal relation between religious conviction and political violence, as part of its invitation to study the significance of religious change in the Islamic world. But as one commentator of the program has suggested, this appeared to be an example of an “American solipsism that is driving this definition of threats.” In other words, “clash of civilizations” might less describe what is happening in the world and more reflect a peculiar U.S. suspicion about the cultural sources of conflict.
The common thread here is the problem of a lack of attention to where other people are coming from, with respect to culture. One important part of this is that to engage with the question of culture is less an appreciation of different “ways of life” and more a case of appreciating culture as a site of meaningful struggle. International affairs are informed by multiple definitions and locations for culture, together with variable understandings of rights, of identity, and of the sources of violence. Cultural diplomacy takes place within this field of often competing conceptions, as much a potential source of shared goodwill as of misunderstanding or conflict.
Helle Dale on February 17, 2012 @ 7:05 am Thank you, Robert. Interesting reflections indeed. I totally agree that the "clash of civilizations" is an unhelpful conceptual framework in most cases. Yet, when it comes to radical extremes, there is no doubt the clash is there, and common ground extremely hard to find if not impossible.
In my view, cultural diplomacy can only be properly understood by actual exposure to other cultures, which is why person to person contact is so compelling. Getting to know another person, forming a friendship, can be a mind changing experience. The good news for Americans is that foreign cultures thrive in such abundance here in the US, which can increase exposure. Maybe we shuld think of ustilizing contact with our immigrant communities more. We used to live in Fairfax County, which was the most international environment I have ever encountered!)
Best, Helle
Rob Albro on February 17, 2012 @ 3:01 pm Thanks for your comment, Helle. Much appreciated. I certainly agree that regular circulation of people across national boundaries in more than superficial ways is absolutely critical. The US public benefits in a myriad of hard-to-define ways when a significant proportion of it has experience with multiple cultural environments (including with our own diversity of diasporas). And I've taken advantage of US public diplomacy programs myself, as a former Fulbright scholar in Bolivia.
So, my discussion is less meant to question whether that should happen at all -- it should -- and to encourage more systematic attention to how this works in practice, how formal cultural diplomacy programming is consumed by other publics and what it means to them, and perhaps most importantly, how other people articulate their own cultural commitments.
Nagda Mansour on March 5, 2012 @ 3:20 am This is a great effort, that you have done in a field that, despite its importance, is less tackled. I think cultural diplomacy is the way out for the world, for answering questions of peace, conflict resolution, alienation, and even economic crisis. The world need to assemble together in a sound manner, a thing which cultural diplomacy would secure. The efforts started by WOMP, need to be further carried out by concerned individuals and institutions. Again I appreciate your contribution to this field.
“If you are going to tell people the truth, you better make them laugh; otherwise, they’ll kill you.”
-George Bernard Shaw
I used to think that humor was one thing that didn’t translate in cross-cultural communication. In my travels, I had watched numerous attempts at jokes fail miserably as they got lost in translation or cultural nuances. Things often ended awkwardly amid the seemingly untranslatable nature of humor.
Looking For Comedy in the Muslim World
Yet when I was visiting Pakistan a number of years ago, I first saw the transmutable nature of humor while attending a concert in Lahore during Basant, a huge kite flying festival. Before the concert descended into riotous fun, there was a troupe of performers who took the stage for a little comedic interlude. I was surprised by the uncanny resemblance of a comedian to the Seinfield character “Kramer,” complete with tall curly hair and similar “herky-jerky” mannerisms. Watching the “Pakistani Kramer” and some more recent comedic observations made me realize that, if done correctly, humor can be a potent force for public diplomacy.
Public diplomacy is predicated on the communication of culture, values and ideas; humor represents a more oblique manner of communicating ideas, and therefore can be a powerful medium to conduct public diplomacy. The beauty of using humor as a means to transmit ideas is that the jovial nature of comedy can indirectly communicate weightier subjects in a lighthearted manner that can diffuse weighty realities.
In some regards, the influential nature of American humor can delve into notions of “soft power” related to Joseph Nye’s theories on attraction through culture. If imitation is indeed the highest form of flattery, then one such example of American soft power can be seen through Egypt’s El Koshary Today, a satirical media endeavor akin to The Onion (“America’s Finest News Source”). While I have blogged a few times, semi-seriously, that Jon Stewart is the closest thing we have today to an Edward R. Murrow, and that he should be named chief of a reconstituted United States Information Agency, perhaps even Stewart’s style of satire constitutes a bit of soft power. With Parazit, considered the “Daily Show of Iran,” the Voice of America has found considerable audiences in Iran that tune in to the satirical programming casting fun at the Iranian regime and its idiosyncrasies — including many who wouldn’t usually tune in to VOA. I would also highlight the popularity of the VOA program OMG Meiyu, the teenybop language class production designed to teach American slang to China, as a point to burnish the case for a less serious side of public diplomacy.
In the realm of people-to-people connections made through comedic interplay, perhaps nothing compares with live stand-up comedy. There have been iterations of comedy tours, such as the Axis of Evil Comedy Tour, which helped challenge stereotypes and misconceptions of the Muslim world while walking an edgy politico-comedic line of satire. The program proved so popular that the comedy tour ended up with its own Comedy Central special.
More recently, a comedy tour called The Muslims are Coming barnstormed through the southern heartland America to help iconoclastically break stereotypes and perceptions about what it means to be a Muslim as well as satirize the Muslim-American experience. The troupe had Dixie in stitches, as they traveled through Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi to give free comedic performance in cafes, community centers, and theaters that light-heartedly dealt with issues of identity.
Finally, one of the more original public diplomacy ventures enacted by the U.S. State Department, has been to send an Indian-American comedy troupe to India for some comedic public diplomacy. Comprising three comedians of Indian origin- Rajiv Satyal, Hari Kondabolu, and Azhar Usman- the comedians poke fun at religious intolerance as a means to broach difficult discussions and bridge religious gaps. The “Make Chai Not War” tour kicked off on January 4th and visited seven Indian cities including Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore, and Kolkata to carry out comedy shows and workshops. Regarding the tour, U.S. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland stated:
The reason we decided to support this tour is because, among the things that they are known for is their talk about religious tolerance, about the importance of breaking down prejudices and about the positive experiences they had growing up as Indian-Americans in the United States.
Speaking to NPR’s All Things Considered, Michael Macy, the cultural affairs officer at the U.S. Embassy who helped arrange the tour, drew links to stand-up as a unique part of American culture. He stated, “This commitment to free speech, this commitment to free discussion of what can be difficult or sensitive topics, it's very American." Rajiv Satyal, one of the comedians on the tour, elucidated the public diplomacy promise of the endeavor: "It's a measure of diplomacy and a message of religious harmony. We're not even really religious on stage. We might do some religious jokes, but it's more just bringing people together."
The Make Chai Not War program is ultimately a brilliant public and cultural diplomacy move to communicate ideas of life in America and notions of American religious tolerance through a comedic voice—that the transmitters of that comedic voice also resemble the audience is doubly effective. Using comedy to communicate American cultures and values is both novel and effective. That the program was met with acclaim in India, and covered extensively and positively in both the Indian and American press underscores the importance of a bit of irreverence in public diplomacy.
john brown on February 14, 2012 @ 1:14 pm Paul -- Thank you for this important ad lively piece! I hope it will be widely read. John
Fred Anderson on February 14, 2012 @ 1:25 pm If there was more killing with laughter, there would be less killing with guns.
Paul on February 14, 2012 @ 1:44 pm Thanks John and Fred, amen to both your comments.
Sebastian on February 14, 2012 @ 2:17 pm I think these kinds of comedy shows do have the potential to change attitudes, without propaganda. It's hard to dislike someone, when you are laughing with them, not at them.
Paul on February 14, 2012 @ 2:57 pm Thanks Sebastian, you are absolutely correct.
Stephen on February 15, 2012 @ 2:33 pm It seems so many comedians just want to offend. It's nice to know that there are some who want to use their talent for good.
Muscatine, Iowa, is to play host to a special guest on Wednesday, when China’s Vice President Xi Jinping, the nation’s presumed next leader, returns to the small town he first visited as part of a sister-state program more than two decades ago. Mr. Xi’s journey to America’s heartland underscores the importance of the public dimension of U.S-China diplomacy.
Despite growing and deeper ties, U.S. and China relations seem more volatile and fragile than ever. While the two governments have proclaimed to pursue a “positive, cooperative and comprehensive” relationship, there is, in the recent words of a senior Chinese official, a “trust deficit” between Beijing and Washington.
Trust is invariably a function of risk, and risk perception is heightened in times of great uncertainty. The China in 1985, when Mr. Xi was last in Iowa, certainly feels like a lifetime ago. Although what China has since accomplished is truly remarkable, the speed and velocity of development has also exacted immense social and environmental costs that the country is beginning to grapple with. Similarly, contemporary America is confronted with the daunting challenges of wrestling with the redistribution of work and wealth, unleashed by global capitalism, and of re-adjusting its evolving international role in light of the “rise of the rest.”
Indeed, competing and conflicting interests abound between the two countries; and there are genuine differences in policy pursuits and the values they embody. These shifting realities are likely to be further complicated and tested by this year’s political transitions.
Nevertheless, the bottom line is clear: the U.S.-China relationship is simply too consequential to let it falter and fail. The cost of mishandling it will be enormous, possibly disastrous, for the two peoples and beyond.
While the two governments continue to negotiate differences and to adjust and accommodate each other’s priorities, public diplomacy, invaluable for laying the broad and solid foundation of trust, must come to the fore.
At times the differences concerning the two countries may be overdrawn. In fact, mutual public opinion has been relatively stable over the last two decades. National polls (e.g., Gallup, Pew Research Center) indicate that, barring a few isolated time periods, Americans’ positive and negative views of China have respectively hovered around 40-50 percent, trending slightly towards the negative. Meanwhile, Americans have consistently shown admiration of Chinese culture. As for America’s image in China, anti-U.S. sentiments by some vocal Chinese netizens aside, the mere fact that Chinese parents have been clamoring to send their sons and daughters to American universities at “full freight” speaks volume of the attraction and prestige of what this country has to offer.
High-level official visits, such as this one, are by design symbolic, media-oriented events. Since China’s “soft power” efforts have largely been bi-coastal, Mr. Xi’s trip to the fly-over country is particularly noteworthy.
Iowa occupies a special place in the American national imagination, from the vigorous presidential caucuses every four years, to the still yet timeless landscape mythologized in Grand Wood’s paintings. While not a microcosm or the “MagicState” representative of the entire country in the social scientific sense, Iowa and, for that matter, the Midwest, exude a certain “middleness” that, as author Colin Woodard wrote, serves as an “enormously influential moderating force in continental politics.”
Sarah Lande of Muscatine, who hosted a dinner for Mr. Xi’s delegation back in 1985, will be welcoming him to her house this time. “I do feel a little bit the weight of helping shape the future,” she recently told the local paper The Muscatine Journal. “I hope this can be an example of learning about each other’s culture, working together and listening to each other.”
Let’s also hope that Mr. Xi’s Iowa visit will help broaden and enrich the Chinese imagination of America.
Dan Redford on February 14, 2012 @ 2:24 am Good synopsis Jay. The U.S. and China are currently in the middle of a necessary acceleration of closer ties. Though for the near future there are certainly large barriers between the U.S. and China that continued to keep them estranged, the fact is that we are inextricably linked. As you astutely say, the fact that Chinese parents are sending their kids to America in "full freight," as well as the increase in young Americans in China is evidence that we are entering a new generation of U.S. - China political economy.
Thanks Jay!
Wancheng on February 14, 2012 @ 10:45 am It's really cool to see this article on the day of his meeting with Obama. There is a saying that he is coming to get the recognition of the US before the new term election in March. Of course there are a lot of other thoughts regarding his visit.
About the Chinese kids in America, I am even thinking Xi would be the last generation in the Chinese government without oversea education background. Their successors might be younger ones like the newly elected in Taiwan, or someone like Xi's daughter and Bo's son in Harvard, who might endorse the dictatorship but also might bring bigger changes to the country.
Alice Wang on February 14, 2012 @ 3:13 pm Just on writing, I particularly love this sentence,
Trust is invariably a function of risk, and risk perception is heightened in times of great uncertainty.
and this paragraph,
Iowa occupies a special place in the American national imagination, from the vigorous presidential caucuses every four years, to the still yet timeless landscape mythologized in Grand Wood’s paintings. While not a microcosm or the “MagicState” representative of the entire country in the social scientific sense, Iowa and, for that matter, the Midwest, exude a certain “middleness” that, as author Colin Woodard wrote, serves as an “enormously influential moderating force in continental politics.”
Seriously eloquent, Jay!
With little knowledge of US-China affairs, this article has given me, in a short article, the intricacies and complexities between the two countries. I'm surprised to see that American's positive-negative view of China hovers at 40% and 50%, respectively. It seems that Americans aren't exactly sure what to think of China's economic development and subsequent impact on the Western world.
Fabulous writing, Jay. I want to read more!
Tina on February 14, 2012 @ 4:08 pm No matter what kind of diplomatic approach that China takes for improving the affinity with American public, Sino-U.S. relation will always be fragile and volatile. We hope Xi could bring something new on the table when he becomes China's next leader.
Shan on February 14, 2012 @ 9:02 pm There is never uniformity in either country on any topic. Frictions and differences are hardly avoidable in US-China economic and trade interactions. Though the two countries are highly complementary economically, their core values differ vastly. This difference is the biggest obstacle in the further development of their bilateral ties.
Xi’s U.S. visit will not be a relaxing one, and I'm eager to see how the media will portray the China's leader-in-waiting after the LA Lakers basketball game on Friday night!
Shuze Chen on February 15, 2012 @ 12:07 pm It's quite interesting for Xi to visit the US now as a heir-apparent. And I've heard that hundreds of Chinese associations in LA are competing for Xi's dinner tickets.
Min on February 15, 2012 @ 2:29 pm Thanks for the wonderful piece, Jay. I tweeted about it and it occurred to me you'd make a really good diplomat:) It's ironic how deeply tied the two countries are and yet we know so very little about each other!
Craig Hayden on February 17, 2012 @ 3:45 pm I think this visit is, as Jay put it, a "symbolic, media oriented event." And that's smart public diplomacy - and stands in marked contrast to some of China's international broadcasting efforts. It's yet another example of the convergence of public diplomacy and diplomacy in the pursuit of contemporary statecraft, where "trust" reflects a crucial enabling resource in its own right for other "hard" policy goals.
In reading through various reports from Davos last week, I couldn’t help but wonder with all that power amassed – over 4500 attendees to include hundreds of heads of state and CEOs – and all the current crises compounding on the world’s stage, might something different result. Would there be any fresh thinking or radical action to come of such a gathering at such an auspicious time in world history. Though official remarks gave courtesy to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Index which lists some 50 threats each with greater and graver consequences than the next, it was apparent that the gathering was as it has always been a place to see and be seen, but do nothing. As 2012 lurches forward and the global economic system continues its dismal spiral most of us around the world are focused inward on issues affecting our daily lives and those of each of our respective nations. If the protests occurring in every region are any indication, people have given up hope that those in power – regardless of which sector they operate in – will find a way to come together to solve global challenges. Additionally, trust in global institutions and governments continues to deteriorate as each are crippled to varying degrees by their bureaucracies, protocols, and old ways of thinking and responding to crisis. If there were ever a time for new leadership on the world stage, and a radical new approach to global engagement, it is now.
I would also argue that the sector most poised to step up and take on such a leadership position – especially in light of the numerous political transitions that will occur in 2012 -- is the private sector. Wall Street aside, the private sector knows how to bring people together and develop solutions. Business has experience managing risk, responding to crisis, and working across multiple cultures effectively irrespective of political differences. Business sees opportunity when paralysis sets in. Bottom line, business has the resources and reach to take action – who else or what else is better positioned?
Global Risk Redux
Reading through the WEF Global Risk Index in its entirety is an exercise in extreme patience and fortitude. Though beautifully organized with video links and additional resources, one is tempted at multiple points – particularly when the risks start clustering and spreading into pandemic proportions -- to surrender. With each risk detailed in the nearly 100 page report, each more harrowing than the next, one can easily surmise that there isn’t much any one of us or our governments can do about it. And here is a classic example where the approach has defeated the purpose. Conversely, look at Ian Bremmer’s outline of Top Risks for 2012. Bremmer, noted geopolitical risk guru who also attended Davos, gets right to the point in 11 pages with one of the most succinct, easily digestible analyses of the global risk environment. He doesn’t attempt to boil the ocean or drown you in every possible disaster scenario; rather he provides a roadmap of Red Herrings paired with easily digestible content and context. If you follow Bremmer’s blogs, listen to any of his video clips, or read his books – which should be required reading for any global leader – you learn quickly that while others pride themselves in over complicating issues of global import, he is all about distilling down the essential elements and making them easily understood so decision makers can use the information and move forward. A mindset and approach I dearly wish more global event planners would adopt.
Bremmer’s Top Risks for 2012
The End of the 9/11 Era -- we have a new model where politics and economics overlap almost entirely.
G-Zero and the Middle East –- The inability/unwillingness of major powers to take on new risks and burdens to help manage the various hotspots will mean greater turbulence in this region as it grapples with unresolved religious, sectarian, and ethnic tensions.
Eurozone: muddle through -- The biggest risk for Europe in 2012 is not Eurozone fragmentation (Greece plus peripheral exit) or disintegration (Italian plus Spanish exit); but continued "reactive incrementalism.”
United States: right after elections -- $5 trillion worth of tax and savings decisions must be made a handful of weeks after what is shaping up to be a very tight election. Firms and investors will need to deal with uncertainty both about their own taxes and government contracts as well as about impacts of these policies on economic growth.
North Korea -- More than ever, uncertainty abounds with this nuclear power that is undergoing a leadership transition to an heir with little preparation, while outsiders have almost no ability to evaluate what's really happening inside the country.
Pakistan -- Domestic extremism, faltering relations with the U.S., concerns about India's intentions in the region all against the backdrop of a struggling economy mean Pakistan will face severe challenges in 2012.
China -- The recently increased U.S. security presence in Asia may embolden China's neighbors to take on more assertive policy positions with China. There is already high risk that Beijing will produce unpleasant foreign policy surprises this year, given rising nationalism in the country, its ongoing political transition, and the leadership's unwillingness, and perhaps inability, to resolve internal debates about China's role in the world. Beijing will therefore be more apt to meet provocation with provocation in months to come, using both its naval and its economic power.
Egypt: a transition in trouble -- Egypt faces the possibility of political disintegration this year, as anger builds between military and civilian political forces, both Islamist and secular. That outcome would be bad for Egypt's base-line stability, its economic recovery, and its broader regional role.
South Africa: populism ascendant -- A bitter struggle for leadership of the ruling African National Congress will stand in the way of economic growth-at a time when the eurozone crisis already weighs heavily on South Africa's trade and its currency.
Venezuela: a no-win election -- The big political story this year is the 7 October presidential election, which incumbent Hugo Chavez is likely to narrowly win. The outlook for economic policy and political stability is bad no matter who wins, and in fact worse if the opposition prevails, and most severe should Chavez die or abandon the race.
The Need for Tri-Sector Engagement & Tri-Sector Skillsets
Many of the risks detailed above and in the WEF Global Risk Index overlap and blur public-private boundaries and tidy geopolitical demarcations. It is clear that with rising uncertainty and power shifting to non-state and regional actors, a coordinated, strategic tri-sector approach is needed. The private sector in partnership with governments and NGOs must come together to develop a strategic response tailored to their area of engagement and expertise. To do this however requires all involved to hone new skillsets – a tri-sector skillset where one can move seamlessly and effectively among the public and private sectors. In speaking with corporate diplomats who are on the front lines of many of these risks on a daily basis, reacting and responding to each of these risks in turn is something many do on a daily basis. To be effective, they must develop strong relationships with influential government and NGO leadership – learn to speak their language – and find creative ways to come together to develop solutions. Further, more and more corporate diplomats are seeking public diplomacy expertise to build off of and better leverage their soft and smart power arsenals. Much of this activity is never reported in the press nor is it something companies seek recognition for as it is seen as an essential part of doing business globally. Recognizing the need for these skillsets and placing a premium on their value to any organization, public or private is one step in developing a new strategy for global engagement and risk response.
I am hopeful that next year Davos might see a radical new kind of leadership emerge, one that clearly outlines a path for collective action and driving change rather than just responding. Leadership that champions a new strategy for tri-sector engagement to manage and mitigate the multitude of compounding global risks– one that builds off of the strengths of governments, global institutions, and NGOs. And then just get on with it.
Gil on February 8, 2012 @ 1:11 pm Cari
It is always a pleasure to read your commentary. Thanks for being such a fantastic writer.
Alex on February 9, 2012 @ 7:30 am Excellent commentary, well worth reading. Swtor
Christa Dowling on February 9, 2012 @ 8:51 am Cari, thank you for your most insightful remarks. We live in time of great expectations, and also in a time of great disappointments. The dignity of leadership is indeed missing, the lack of it shows in all sectors, in politics, in business. Clearly defining goals, and then live with the consequences, seem to be a lost art of state-craft.
WASHINGTON --- If you think China and Iran are where the fight for Internet freedom are centered, you may want to reconsider.
According to Bob Boorstin, Google’s Director of Corporate and Policy Communications, the crucial battles today are elsewhere.
“India is number one,” he said, when I asked which country was at the top of his list. Another is Russia, where he said the problem is the corrupt private individuals who may soon hold the Internet for ransom.
"You may soon be paying large fees to mysterious figures,” he predicted, for Internet access there.
Those countries, along with Indonesia, the Philippines and others described as worrisome, are issuing new laws and regulations that may limit free expression online and free access to information. Boorstin singled out two large, industrialized democracies for special attention.
“It has gone past the critical point in Korea; it gives me nightmares,” he said. “Brazil always worries me because there are a lot of prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves, and foreign companies are an easy target."
Boorstin described all of these as the countries “in the middle.” He explained those are the countries between the very free – he named the U.S. and the Netherlands – and those at the other extreme, such as China and Iran.
"Which way are they going to go?" he asked. “That's the question I’m focused on for the moment."
Ben Scott, Policy Advisor for Innovation in Secretary of State Clinton’s office, was another participant at this morning’s forum sponsored by the Media Access Project. Scott agreed with Boorstin, mostly, but articulated a different set of criteria for the front lines of Internet freedom.
"Countries with rapid growth rates in Internet connectivity will deal with these questions more rapidly," he said.
According to Scott, some of the most senior, educated people in foreign governments still do not understand the Internet.
"They see it as a problem that needs to be controlled," said Scott, "not a net benefit to humanity."
Asked what would drive the major developments on the Internet over the next 12-18 months, Boorstin and Scott both pointed to 3G- and 4G-equipped mobile telephones.
"The key development is smart phones,” said Scott. “More people are connecting to the Internet for the first time, and that will up the stakes. There will be a whole lot more money on the table." And that money, he predicted, would be “pushing for business opportunities.”
“Whatever we see in the next 12-18 months will be in the mobile sphere,” agreed Boorstin. “Anybody who is looking at what's next on the Internet will have to look toward the hand-held device and what it will allow people to do in everyday commerce, in organizing for political change, and free expression.”
Boorstin said he had good news, too, pointing to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris, which “got the essence of the open Internet right."
"Anyone interested in where the Internet should go," he said, should look at the OECD, which last month issued a call to “promote and protect the global free flow of information.”
“After a long process,” he said, “they decided government should not be in charge. When was the last time 35 governments came together on anything and decided they should not be in charge?"
But what about China?
"The Chinese definition of innovation,” said Boorstin, “might be interpreted as stealing from other countries."
Brand USA, a non-profit, public-private partnership, is to launch a global advertising campaign next month, as part of the country’s concerted effort in marketing tourism to the world. As its core mission, the organization, created in 2010, is to “encourage and inspire travelers to explore America’s boundless possibilities.”
While America’s image in the global political imagination has experienced ups and downs over the last decade, the U.S. has remained as a leading destination for international investment, education and, yes, tourism. In 2010, with nearly 60 million international visitors, the U.S. ranked second (only to France) in international tourist arrivals, and first in international tourism receipts. In-bound tourism has seen steady improvement since it hit a low in the aftermath of 9-11 and the ensuing war in Iraq.
Nevertheless, this campaign is important and timely. Symbolic as it may be, it sends an unmistakable signal reaffirming America’s openness and optimism, the very foundation of the country’s soft power.
Tourism, being the consumption of place, is essentially an “experiential good.” And cultural encounters, as facilitated by international tourism, are venues for building ground-up awareness and understanding between peoples and societies.
This is particularly poignant for the U.S., as the sole superpower in an increasingly multi-polar world and with growing visitors from emerging economies of Brazil, China, and India. As a form of public good, the Brand USA campaign transcends tourism marketing at hand.
Yet, managing such a nation-branding effort is fraught with challenges.
First, sorting out the relationship among the sub-brands of cities and states and their structural arrangements with the overall national brand is crucial to defining a productive role of Brand USA. For a big, complex country such as the U.S., is it better to let a city or a region drive the national brand, or vice versa? This is akin to brand portfolio management in general marketing.
Moreover, branding in the commercial sector is a relatively easier process, for there is greater control over managing consumer contact points and messaging and delivery strategies. In a nation-branding program, multiple parties, from government agencies to civic organizations to businesses, often with divergent and sometimes competing interests, are involved and affected.
Although there has never been a shortage of fascination with America, the tourist needs among the source countries are varied, and will thus require localization in engagement approaches and tactics. At issue is how to broaden the scope of tourism offerings while maintaining focus and how to sharpen the distinction of a specific destination against a panoramic view of the country.
It will be interesting to see how the Brand USA initiative unfolds and how the upcoming campaign will be received by its overseas audiences.
One of the most intriguing aspects of public diplomacy involves efforts by various emerging nations to portray themselves as the "next" world power. Just as intriguing is the willingness of American influencers to reinforce the notion that the United States will inevitably be passed by others as a global power.
The usually understated Foreign Affairs magazine blared out the question “Is America Over?” on a recent cover. Writer Thomas Friedman hawks a book detailing “How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented.” Additionally, scores of others are chiming in on the end of the American era and the "rise of the rest."
This makes for gripping theater, but the reality is murkier. Consider China and India, two rising powers that politicians and think-tank analysts most often suggest as successors to American economic, geopolitical, and cultural preeminence.
China is indeed a major creditor nation to overspending Westerners, and it will be home to the world’s largest economy by the end of this decade. But this hardly constitutes supremacy. Per capita, China’s gross domestic product ranks 94th globally, according to the International Monetary Fund. Botswana and Bosnia rank higher.
India has been growing even more rapidly than China in some recent years. But it ranks no higher than 120th in most rankings of GDP per capita, placing it below Honduras.
Experts are fooled by the laws of large numbers. For instance, China and India have more paved roads than any other nation except the U.S.; but when ranked for the percentage of roads they have paved, they both sit around the 80th spot, in the company of Malawi and Djibouti. That puts them in a poor position to address the difficult lives of many hundreds of millions of their citizens.
China and India look better in the World Economic Forum’s 2011 global competitiveness index, ranking 27th and 51st overall, respectively, and 31st and 42nd in innovation. But even here, they are more in the company of Tunisia than America.
Beyond the stories and lies that statistics tell, the larger issue of culture arises. America is ideally suited to the process of globalization, which is why it essentially invented it. It has a head-start of generations, perhaps even centuries in its ability to perform the demographic, cultural, and intellectual blending that globalization requires and which globalization further nourishes.
Any Westerner knows about France’s ambivalence toward being Americanized; yet the difference between France and the U.S. are relatively minimal. Meanwhile, many Asian and South Asian societies are only beginning to fight battles relating to whether American concepts of materialism, individualism, social mobility, and anti-traditionalism should be embraced, tolerated, or shunned.
Winston Churchill described war as “a catalog of blunders,” and all too often a nation focuses on only on its own. It is true that the U.S. has suffered failures. However, the rising powers suffer their dilemmas as well: experts have increasingly spotlighted China’s commodity bubbles, health problems, aging population, political uncertainty and corruption. India has made astonishing strides since it liberalized its economy in 1991, but today its citizens have more cell phones than sanitary toilets, a jarring reminder of the unevenness of the process of globalization. Both nations face looming environmental crises due to the nature of their urbanization. Moreover, several challenges that face China and India are also facing Russia and Brazil, the other two members of the esteemed BRIC contingent.
Is America "over" on the world stage? Not in the short term, and quite possibly not in the long term. Meanwhile, the rising and falling of its competitors will be more unpredictable than many would guess.
During the past several years, Chinese audiences have flocked to see American movies such as Kung-Fu Panda, much to the alarm of China’s political leadership, which has recently made clear that it is not inclined to surrender any terrain on the global cultural battleground.
In an essay published in the magazine Seeking Truth (which was founded by Mao Zedong), China’s president Hu Jintao wrote, “We must clearly see that international hostile forces are intensifying the strategic plot of Westernizing and dividing China, and that ideological and cultural fields are the focal areas of their long-term infiltration.” Hu added, “We should deeply understand the seriousness and complexity of the ideological struggle…and take forceful measures to be on guard and respond.”
How China will respond to Hu’s call for action is uncertain, but in light of China’s assertiveness the United States should develop its own soft power strategy for what promises to be a long-term cultural contest. For those attentive to the ongoing intellectual Cold War between the United States and China, Hu’s words suggest the need for an American equivalent of George Kennan’s “X” article of 1947 that underscored the importance of containing the Soviet Union’s ambitions during the aftermath of the Second World War.
A soft power approach does not mean ignoring hard power realities. China’s military growth should not be taken lightly, and recent statements by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton have made clear that the United States will contest China’s efforts to expand its influence within the greater Pacific region. But the world has hopefully moved beyond the time when such duels were based on major powers’ amassing nuclear arsenals and otherwise flexing military muscle. In an era dominated by the tools of mass communication – ranging from cinema to Twitter – less dangerous, but nevertheless intense, competition will determine global political influence.
The United States must become more adept at diplomacy grounded in strategic intellectual competitiveness, particularly in the relationship with China. The Chinese government’s assertive public diplomacy includes committing the equivalent of US$6 billion to expanding its international broadcasting and spending many additional millions on its more than 300 Confucius Institutes (including nearly 100 in the United States), that are designed to reshape perceptions of China by teaching the Chinese language and showcasing Chinese culture. In addition, China is trying to buy hearts and minds by bankrolling projects in the developing world, such as the newly opened US$200 million headquarters for the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
The U.S. State Department is certainly aware of all this, and its cultural diplomacy projects are admirable. But given China’s intensity in its own efforts, U.S. programs must be upgraded to a level that allows the United States to contain the impact of China’s outreach. If such a blocking strategy is successfully employed, the freedom embodied in American culture will certainly overshadow China’s efforts. To some degree, this is just a matter of time. As long as the Chinese government remains intolerant of cultural freedom, just as the Soviet Union was intolerant of political freedom, the seeds of self-destruction will take root and grow.
For the United States, this is not a matter of a single policy initiative or of simply spotlighting America’s almost limitless array of cultural riches and the freedom they nurture. As Kennan wrote, this is “a question of the degree to which the United States can create among the peoples of the world generally the impression of a country which…has a spiritual vitality capable of holding its own among the major ideological currents of the time.”
American intellectual diplomacy can do this. Its cultural efforts have been mostly tactical, rather than strategic, featuring commendable singular projects, such as the Jazz Ambassadors who traveled to the Communist bloc during the 1950s and today’s hip-hop emissaries to the Muslim world. To a certain extent, American culture can connect with publics that otherwise would be untouched by U.S. foreign policy initiatives.
Intellectual containment also has the advantage of being low-risk in the sense that if it doesn’t work it is unlikely to provoke a hard-power response. It also has the even greater advantage of being able to use the growing array of media tools that can reach global publics – including the Chinese public – in ways that were impossible during earlier contests such as the Cold War.
As China expands its soft power activity in Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere, the mandate for U.S. policymakers seems clear. Lacking, however, is recognition that intellectual containment, just like military pushback, requires comprehensive, thoughtful strategic planning. Undertaking this would be an important next step for U.S. foreign policy.
One year after the Arab Spring, American public diplomacy is still facing the now-established conundrum of linking words and actions. The rise of Islamist political parties as the new leaders in the Arab world is the latest challenge for U.S. public diplomacy, but it is also an opportunity.
Since the attacks of September 11, the United States has been matching its military activity in the Middle East with outreach to Muslim and Arab communities. By and large, this outreach has not been successful. As several public diplomacy experts have been arguing for a number of years now, the limited impact of this outreach is due to the negative perception of U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East by citizens in the region. When actions and words do not match, words are perceived with a hefty dose of suspicion.
When the Egyptian revolution began on January 25, 2011, U.S. foreign policy took some time to catch up with sentiment on the Egyptian street. To make matters worse, the “Made in USA” tear gas canisters that protesters in Tahrir Square angrily displayed to the cameras of the international media were a further reminder of the United States’ cozy relationship with the Mubarak regime.
Since then, the U.S. has improved its words and actions by declaring both rhetorical and policy support for the Arab world’s revolutionaries (albeit in varying degrees), and as a result, public opinion about the U.S. in the region has improved. The 2011 Arab Public Opinion Poll shows a significant increase in favorability towards the U.S., compared with the 2010 poll, from 10% to 26%. The U.S. must continue to enhance this record.
Back in 2006, after much hype by the U.S. about the importance of free and fair elections in Palestine, the U.S. backtracked when Hamas swept the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in Gaza, withdrawing aid and boycotting the elected Gaza government. As Islamist parties sweep free and fair elections in one country after another in the region—starting with Tunisia, then Egypt—it is fairly safe to declare that in the immediate aftermath of the Arab Spring, the Arab world will be led by Islamists. So far, the U.S. has not repeated the mistake of 2006 with Hamas’ election in Gaza, accepting the results of the elections as democratic and as representing the will of the people.
But this is not enough. Of course, the United States currently has an easier task, since none of the groups that have been elected to-date in the Arab region are on the U.S.’s “terrorist” list. However, merely accepting election results will not cause a significant change in the perception of the U.S. on the Arab street.
The U.S. recognizes the current period as one of opportunity: it is the time to reinvigorate U.S. assistance with civil society, economic aid, and cultural outreach in the Arab world. But the most important “action” of all remains how foreign policy will play out. The Islamist groups that have assumed leadership positions in Tunisia and Egypt, namely Ennahda and the Muslim Brotherhood, have one very old dream: to be recognized as statesmen nationally and internationally. If U.S. foreign policy in this new era is going to be successful, it must be based on treating those leaders as such.
This is not just important on the traditional diplomatic level; it is also important for the success of U.S. public diplomacy. The Islamist leaders now assuming positions as Prime Ministers or House Speakers (and who knows, perhaps also presidents in the near future) reached power through having been elected by their constituents. The U.S. cannot reach out to those constituents while treating their leaders differently. In the past, U.S. public diplomacy towards Egypt appeared insincere because the U.S. attempted to engage the Egyptian people while taking a soft stance towards the Mubarak regime, which had been jailing, harassing, and—as in the case of Khaled Said—killing those same people.
For the first time in the Arab world’s history, there is a real opportunity for the U.S. to match its words and actions towards the region, and to have foreign policy become the basis upon which to formulate a truly engaging public diplomacy.
As mentioned in the recent article by fellow India: Inside Out teammate Aparajitha V., one of the main problems with India’s government public diplomacy efforts is the lack of manpower. Citizen efforts can have the ability and potential to meet the government’s needs. One area in particular where citizen diplomacy can have a huge impact is in India-Pakistan relations.
While in India, our team had the opportunity to meet with many groups conducting citizen diplomacy to help improve India-Pakistan relations. These groups varied in their scope of approaches from being deeply involved in conflict transformation, to not directly taking a stance on the issue at all. The following are some of the organizations we met with and their efforts in citizen diplomacy:
Women in Security, Conflict Management and Peace (WISCOMP) is an outstanding Delhi-based organization working on multi-track diplomacy in the India-Pakistani conflict. Their efforts include annual conflict transformation workshops that get women involved to redefine masculinity and the role of women in conflict transformation. The group targets future leaders of both countries and seeks to build trust between Indian and Pakistani peers. After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, WISCOMP helped create an agreement with Pakistanis and Indians during a time of mistrust and unease. The range of projects and programs in which WISCOMP participates in helps transform Pakistani-Indian relations from a wide range of perspectives and angles.
The India Future of Change project is a project that aims to determine perceptions of India from abroad by holding design, art, essay, and business plan contests, and touts the success of having submissions come from Pakistan. The project seeks to generate interest in India around non-political topics, and having submissions from Pakistan shows that perspectives from Indian and Pakistani citizens about India do not reflect the tensions and mistrust held by the governments of both nations.
Sesame Workshop is the nonprofit arm of the American Sesame Street franchise, and chooses not to deal with the Pakistan-Indian issues directly because they are so sensitive. Instead, the programming focuses on organic integration of different religious groups and coexistence as a whole, generating a new generation of citizen diplomats. The programming teaches children to have respect and understanding for people unlike themselves. While this type of programming does not specifically tackle India-Pakistan tensions, it has the goal of making this young generation of Indian children more tolerant of people unlike themselves, and to grow up embracing differences.
Meeting with Sesame Workshop in New Delhi
These organizations are just a fraction of the breadth of work being done in India with citizen diplomacy.
While there are many approaches to dealing with Indian-Pakistani relations, one thing remains clear: the potential for citizen-led efforts to make a difference is huge and can help change attitudes between communities. The work that these groups and others like them have done and will continue to do can make up for the lack of people-power in the Indian government that hinders their public diplomacy efforts.
Are you part of an organization that participates in citizen diplomacy in India-Pakistan relations? Weigh in with your thoughts in the comment section below. Anna Dawson is a Master of Public Diplomacy candidate and a Senior Editor for USC’s Public Diplomacy Magazine. She is also participating in the India:Inside Out Project. This past summer, she interned at the Center for International Private Enterprise in Washington, DC.
Rampaul on January 13, 2012 @ 5:25 am You should check out the work of Aman ki Asha, a peace initiative by the two media houses The Times of India and the Jang Group (PK) http://amankiasha.com/
Mumbai --- In a country that is home to 55 of the world’s billionaires, it is hard to imagine that India, like many other developing countries, faces great challenges when it comes to poverty, homelessness, and development-related issues. In a nation with an estimated population of 1.21 billion, how does one go about solving these problems? Many are tempted to point the finger at the government, and while they have a responsibility to provide basic necessities to their people, I am interested in the role of civil society in addressing development challenges.
As one official at the United States Embassy in Mumbai put it: “young Indians are acutely aware that India has become a world power, and they are also aware of its shortcomings.”
Previously, I had examined India through the United Nations lens, reading reports of UN data and looking at various UN-sponsored projects. However, through the India: Inside Out trip, I was able to see the impact ordinary people are making on international development issues on-the-ground. The government has caught on to this idea, too. Navdeep Suri, Head of the Public Diplomacy Division of the Ministry of External Affairs in India, expressed that: “one way of addressing India’s development is through creating smart partnerships between the government and civil society.”
During our visit to Visakhapatnam, our group had the chance to meet and speak with graduate level students at Gitam University. Most of them were pursuing a Master’s degree in Business Administration or Management. All of them were involved in causes related to India’s development. Students spoke to us about topics ranging from reducing child beggars, to environmental conservation and working with the disabled. As one student put it: “every person is required to give back to India, in any way they can.”
Their latest project--working with a local orphanage, providing essential goods and financial support through fundraising campaigns. As they spoke, I noticed a genuine commitment to working in underserved communities. These students are firm believers that every Indian citizen has a role and responsibility to give back to India. All their extracurricular activities are part of a personal initiative taken by the students, who are invested in tackling certain development related issues and promoting volunteerism as an essential role of civil society.
After speaking with this extraordinary group of individuals, I wondered about the rest of Indian civil society and how they felt about India’s development. As our group continued to meet with government officials, professionals, and NGOs, it became clear that India’s development issues was on everyone’s mind, and they were all taking a proactive approach to being part of the solution.
One of my favorite meetings was with Harsh Mander, an Indian writer, social worker, and activist. He is the Director of the Centre for Equity Studies in New Delhi, and while he is involved in various causes, the one closest to his heart is working with homeless families, many of which lack access to food and basic nutrition. During our meeting, he stated that: “No child should have to sleep hungry...whatever the costs, we’ll have to find resources to do it.” Mr. Mander works with these kids to build trust and help them regain control of their lives, while at the same time collaborating with government officials to create laws that protect their rights.
Mr. Mander’s work is a perfect example of my core learning about development in India: Indians are hands-on when it comes to their own development. They are not waiting for the United Nations, or anyone else for that matter, to come in and solve their problems.
Indians are proud of their heritage, history, and democracy. As Mr. Mander put it: “In India, we don’t have to make references that are international, because they are included in our constitution.” Considering that human capital is a great asset in India, it makes sense to create partnerships between government agencies and civil society. Building these partnerships increases opportunity for the exchange of information, capacity building, and sustainable development between organizations, groups, individuals, and government officials. In that process, everyone is a winner.. Perhaps the most powerful statement made throughout this trip was by Mr. Harsh Mander, when he said that ordinary people have “exiled the poor from their conscious” and only when we are able to see them as people, can we start to solve the problem of poverty.
India is unique in its problems, from its large population, colonial history, poverty levels, and ideological divisions. Therefore, the solutions must be as varied, and perhaps, must come from Indian people themselves. Strengthening partnerships between the government and civil society is essential because it creates a population that is engaged in its development and generates policies that promote democracy and equality. As the world’s largest democracy, India has the power to set the standard for its own development through using its greatest asset: human capital. Through engaging civil society and governments in smart partnerships, great strides can be made in education, agriculture, technology, and industrial development that advance both the social and political divisions in the country. India can provide leadership and guidance to other developing countries by effectively addressing and managing its own development issues and creating a model for sharing information and its best practices. Ultimately, that has the potential to positively strengthen India’s image and influence abroad, thereby, enhancing its nation brand and public diplomacy efforts. Hend Alhinnawi is a graduate student working on her professional Master's of Public Diplomacy at USC. In the past, she worked with the United Nations and AMIDEAST in the Middle East and Africa on international development and resource mobilization related issues. She is also participating in the India:Inside Out Project.
For years, Hosni Mubarak and other Arab leaders relied on a straightforward mantra: “It’s me or the Islamists.” American presidents and other Western leaders shuddered at the word “Islamists” and embraced their thuggish allies. What could be worse than Islamists?
U.S. public diplomacy followed that pattern. Over the years, there was some splendid rhetoric from Condoleezza Rice, Barack Obama, and a few others, but the “public” at which public diplomacy was aimed was always carefully limited to exclude the Islamist community.
Now that the events of 2011 have turned Arab politics upside down, U.S. policymakers are facing what they hate most: irrelevance. Those who were so long ignored by American public diplomacy are finally gaining power, as evidenced by the successes of the Ennhada Party in Tunisia, which won 40 percent of the vote in that country’s first free elections, and the Freedom and Justice Party, organized by the Muslim Brotherhood, in Egypt which will be the dominant force in Egypt’s new parliament. In Morocco, Libya, and elsewhere, once marginalized Islamists also find themselves in the mainstream.
Those designing U.S. public diplomacy must quickly recalibrate their work to better reach the newly empowered and assertive mass publics. Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair John Kerry got it right when he recently met with leaders of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and said, “You’re certainly going to have to figure out how to deal with democratic governments that don’t espouse every policy or value you have.” He added, “The United States needs to deal with the new reality.”
Finally, some common sense. For the United States to refuse to work with Islamists would mean having no clout within the transformed Arab world. The diplomatic imperative is clear: accept the results of democratic elections and build new relationships.
Those in the policy community who continue to flirt with the Egyptian military and other remnants of the ancien regime cling to the idea that money will prevail over all else – that U.S. aid will prove so alluring that Arab states will conform to American interests as they have done in the past. That outlook fails to account for Qatar and some other Gulf states, which are displacing Saudi Arabia as the region’s go-to sources for economic support. Qatar proved it was ready to step up when it provided substantial financial and technical assistance to Libya’s rebels, and with its vast resources it could replace funding from Western sources not sympathetic to the new political trends in the Middle East.
U.S. public diplomacy has come a long way since the months after the 2001 attacks. The earliest public diplomacy efforts depicted Muslims in America as being blissfully happy, which was irrelevant to Muslims elsewhere in the world. Focus gradually shifted to more useful projects, such as helping Arab entrepreneurs reshape their countries’ antiquated economies. The next step, given the rise of Islamist political power, will be to better incorporate a respectful understanding of Islam in the design of public diplomacy programs.
This can be a difficult business, particularly because the “Islamists” finding political success in Egypt and elsewhere range from younger members of the Muslim Brotherhood who see the value of developing a broad popular base, including women, to the hard-core Salafis whose literalist approach to the Quran would lead to a restrictive political sphere in which women and those not in line with their standards would be excluded.
A key element of U.S. public diplomacy is the reflection of American political values in outreach efforts. These values are not antithetical to the tenets of Islam, and so that is where public diplomacy programs should focus. Those designing cultural, educational, and business-related ventures should themselves be familiar with the Quran and other elements of Islam and should involve clerical and lay Muslims in the project creation process. This will help avoid the accidental cultural clashes that can be interpreted as purposeful assertion of anti-Islamic policy.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has suggested that U.S. embassies include a religion diplomacy officer whose expertise would include the ability to navigate these difficult routes toward policy development. Embassies in the Arab world would be the perfect places to try out this idea.
The Islamists who were once viewed as adversaries by American policymakers are now in the mainstream of Arab politics. In Egypt and other Arab states, their efforts are helping to stabilize emerging democracies. U.S. public diplomacy needs to catch up with this new reality.
In previous Culture Posts, I talked about the goal of developing an “in-awareness” approach to culture in public diplomacy. In the comments section, as well as other CPD posts, important observations have been raised about the challenges of cultural diplomacy. Developing a stronger “in-awareness” approach may be the key to designing and implementing rewarding cultural diplomacy initiatives.
In this post I discuss the idea of thinking about culture as a concrete noun as one way to develop awareness.
Culture as a Concrete Noun
When I talk about culture, some may immediately ask, what is culture?
That question may be easier asked than answered. Back in 1952, anthropologists had counted more than 162 definitions with more than 300 variations. More recently, anthropologists have been debating whether culture is a noun, adjective or verb.*
As a noun, culture is viewed primarily as a static thing or object. As an adjective, culture can be viewed as dominant traits and cultural practices. Culture as a verb highlights the dynamic, evolutionary view of culture. Each of these are different ways of thinking about culture and have multiple implications for public diplomacy.
Culture as a noun or object is interesting in public diplomacy when one considers the nature of English-language nouns as concrete or abstract.
Culture as a concrete or tangible noun may immediately bring to mind cultural artifacts and artworks – paintings, sculpture, music, dance, or other types of artistic expression. Art is often the vehicle of choice in building bridges in cultural diplomacy.
Recognizing Ahh and Aha! Moment
Many speak about the power of culture in creating mutual understanding. But why is that? And why do some initiatives succeed and not others?
If one thinks about it, artwork by nature should be a powerful tool for connecting with other humans – regardless of culture. Art is designed to communicate. It is a form of human expression, usually of emotion. Art is also by nature designed to be aesthetically appealing to the senses. By arousing emotions and senses, the ultimate goal of art is to engage and then capture the human imagination.
Most art work is capable of producing an “Ahh” moment. The “Ahh” moment is one of appreciation, or that instance when our imagination has been captured.
Cultural diplomacy can take the inherent power of art and transform it from an “Ahh” moment of appreciation found in one cultural setting to an “Aha!” moment of delight and wonder in other cultural settings. “Aha!” moments occur when we reconcile seemingly incongruent items.
What at first seems strange suddenly becomes familiar. What we were convinced was impossible, suddenly happens. Similar to the punch line in a joke, we get it. We understand.
While I have used art as the focus to illustrate the “Ahh-Aha!” connection, I suspect other cultural nouns such as sports or technology may share this phenomenon.
Diplomats play a critical role as cultural boundary spanners by identifying potential opportunities for creating an “Ahh-Aha!” connection. They are able to unpack the significance on each side and repackage it so that the other understands. Perhaps cultural diplomacy is as much about process as product.
In future posts I would like to talk more about how diplomats serve as boundary spanners between the “Ahh” and “Aha!” cultural experience. I also need to discuss the challenges of culture as an abstract noun in public diplomacy. In the meantime, it would be good to hear from professionals about their experiences with one or more specific initiatives. Perhaps you could contribute a 500-word Culture Post on your observations and experience? (You can submit your posts to along with a brief biosketch and photo to the Blog Manager, lemar@usc.edu).
* That anthropologists are discussing the global phenomenon of culture in English-language grammatical terms is somewhat revealing.
Madhur on February 10, 2012 @ 1:24 am Thank you for an interesting post!
As a communications professional interacting with clients from across the globe, what I have seen is that in today's highly globalized environment, corporate world, especially senior management within companies too have emerged as 'boundary spanners.' Appreciation of local cultures is an important part of inductions in the corporate world, while at the same time local management also try to be sensitive to their international guests/visitors. What this has contributed to within many organizations is an interest in other cultures (not necessarily appreciation) and the acceptance of diversity in habits, work styles, attitudes etc. Can we harness this in any way and gain a perspective on the transition from the'Ahh' to 'Aha'?
On your definition of culture, I personally also like Marc Bloch's - 'Culture is a way of life.'
Cultural diplomacy encompasses everything from training in modern dance to training in modern politics. At first glance, it seems a relatively non-threatening way to project identity and influence, but its impact can be profound. China’s President Hu Jintao recently warned that “international hostile forces are intensifying the strategic plot of Westernizing and dividing China,” and added that “the international culture of the West is strong while we are weak.”
Hu’s speech was part of an intensifying Chinese focus on “cultural security,” which the government hopes to achieve by restricting cultural imports and expanding China’s own production of films and other “soft power” tools.
China’s assertiveness points to the significance of culture in diplomacy, which is something the United States has long recognized. In her year-end report for 2011, published in the State Department’s online DipNote, Ann Stock, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), cited the department’s wide range of activities – everything from historical preservation work in Herat, Afghanistan, to an entrepreneurship program for African women.
Without doubt, ECA’s contributions to U.S. public diplomacy are exceptionally important. As Stock stated in her report, “When formal relationships between governments are tense, public diplomacy can often forge a way forward.” As this implies, America employs cultural diplomacy not because it is a “nice” thing to do, but rather because it serves the strategic interests of the United States.
For that reason, cultural diplomacy efforts should be carefully targeted, and not solely to the countries that are dominating the headlines of the moment. The American relationship with Russia, for instance, is not in good shape. During visits there during the past few years, I was struck by the increase in anti-Americanism among much of the Russian public, and it should be remembered that Russia remains a nuclear superpower. Many young, well-educated Russians, however, are receptive to American cultural outreach, and so cultural diplomacy might remove some of the chill from U.S.-Russia relations.
Cultural diplomacy can also be used as part of an intellectual containment strategy, blocking the influence of troublesome states such as Iran and Venezuela that try to win friends among their neighbors through anti-American ploys. They can be blocked, at least partially, through non-military means.
Like so much else in today’s world, culture is increasingly globalized, which means that nations are less able to claim ownership or hegemony in cultural realms. Nevertheless, culture remains at the heart of soft power, and this underscores the need for a carefully thought-through U.S. approach to strategic cultural diplomacy.
Nick Cull on January 10, 2012 @ 10:35 am This is all well said Phil. There is a big danger at the moment that CD will be the first thing to be cut to save money as it was in the 1990s.
Gregory Garland on February 10, 2012 @ 3:02 am As a professional in the field, I appreciate your and USC's efforts to keep the notion of American cultural diplomacy alive, if not well. Your creative thinking on the West Coast operates a bit like a government-in-exile, waving the flag of cultural diplomacy while maintaining its intellectual foundation.
India is often celebrated as a contradiction in terms, so it may not be surprising to learn that even though the country has only about 10% Internet penetration, it is very actively moving into e-governance while at the same time struggling with the issues of Internet freedom that are confronting most democracies. Spearheading the effort to achieve a more transparent and digital mode of government is Abhishek Singh, the Director of E-Governance at the Department of Information Technology in the Ministry of Communications & Information Technology for the Government of India, who met with our group on December 13. The National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) is designed to expedite such tasks as applying for a passport, registering a business, and processing land records. To quote the promotional brochure, “No queues. No multiple windows. No delays. The beginning of the NeGP marks the end of all that.” That’s quite a goal for a nation renowned for an often opaque and confusing bureaucracy.
In that sense it is perhaps no surprise that India has been struggling with issues of Internet freedom even as it uses online technology to ease the lives of its hundreds of millions of citizens. Case in point: sections of an information technology law, passed in 2008, requiring intermediaries, such as Internet service providers and social networking sites, to police the Web for objectionable content. In April, the Indian government released a draft amendment to the Information Technology Act requiring search engines and web hosting services to block inflammatory content, defined as content that “threatens the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order.” As Vikas Bajaj noted in The New York Times, “The rules highlight the ambivalence with which Indian officials have long treated freedom of expression. The country’s constitution allows ‘reasonable restrictions’ on free speech, but lawmakers have periodically stretched that definition to ban books, movies and other material about sensitive subjects like sex, politics and religion.”
During our meeting, officials of the Department of Information Technology noted that freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed in India and said no one had been arrested under the amendment. They also argued that the U.S. has also been wrestling with issues of Internet monitoring. Indeed, such laughable schemes as requiring libraries to release the checkout lists of patrons to authorities have been at least floated as trial balloons in the U.S. before failing to pass constitutional muster.
The issue of Internet freedom is a surprisingly delicate topic in U.S. – Indian relations. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has staunchly defended Internet freedom, most recently in her remarks at the Conference on Internet Freedom, held at The Hague. While she and other officials readily condemn heavy-handed Internet censorship in nations such as China and Syria, they are more circumspect in their criticism of democracies such as India, with which the U.S. is carefully trying to nurture warmer relations. When asked about India and the Internet during our visit to the U.S. Consulate, Mumbai, for example, one official, while reiterating the Secretary of State’s position on Internet freedom, characterized India as a “vibrant democracy” that is wrestling with Internet issues openly. Similarly, after India said it planned to find ways to ban offensive content before it is posted, AFP reported that Department of State spokesman Mark Toner said, “We are concerned about any effort to curtail freedom of expression on the Internet… while carefully avoiding direct criticism of any proposals in India.”
Word came during our visit that the country had decided to scrap at least some of its effort to require intermediaries to monitor the Internet and delete objectionable content. Nevertheless, serious challenges remain as India wrestles with these issues. In an analysis (“Freedom on the Net 2011”), Freedom House listed India as “partly free” and said that following the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, “the need, desire and ability of the Indian government to monitor, censor, and control the communication has grown” and that, “[g]iven the range of security threats facing the country… many Indians feel that the government should be allowed to monitor personal communications…” India ranks 77th (along with Bulgaria and East Timor) in Freedom House’s 2011 Freedom of the Press ranking and is listed as “partly free." (Finland is #1, and the U.S. is 17th.) Reporters Sans Frontieres ranks India at number 122 on its press freedom index for 2010. (Finland is #1, and the U.S. is 20th.)
I see India as a conservative society with a democratic tradition. It will be interesting to see how such a complex nation develops a modus vivendi in cyberspace. When Indian Communications Minister Kapil Sibal insists that the world’s largest democracy supports free speech, but adds that Websites such as Facebook, Google, and Yahoo has “had images which could be an insult to Indians,” it dilutes the claim that India is the world’s largest democracy and hurts its public diplomacy, especially in comparison to China.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr. suggests that soft power is about narratives. It will be fascinating to see whether the next chapter in the Indian Internet narrative consists of many voices speaking freely or regulations clamping down on it. Jerry Edling is a second year Master of Public Diplomacy student at the University of Southern California. He is also the Editor in Chief of “PD Magazine” and an editor at KNX, the CBS Radio all-news station in Los Angeles. He will be participating in India: Inside Out, a student-led research project in India this December. For more on the project, please visit www.indiapublicdiplomacy.com.
“India is a complex nation.” I heard these words many times during my short two-week visit to India. After much reflection, I believe I may have finally gained a speck of clarity about what this statement means, and why it became a recurring quote in conversations regarding where India is today and where its future lies. I set out to examine India’s urban issues to determine whether the strength of the nation stems from its mega-cities, urban populations, and/or local innovations. What I found is that identifying India’s strengths and weaknesses is a complex task, and they are often, one and the same.
In New Delhi, our team met with Harsh Mander, a founding member of the Center for Equity Studies (CES). CES conducts research and advocacy for social and economic justice. Under their umbrella, the Dil Se campaign was established in efforts to provide services to street children in Delhi.
After visiting a school for boys that was created as a result of the Dil Se campaign, and hearing about the vast needs of urban children in Delhi and throughout India, it was obvious that great measures were being taken to correct a growing problem that has left many children without proper education, health, and other basic needs and opportunities.
Our conversation with Mr. Mander revealed several things: collaboration with government on urban social issues is a necessity; societies must reclaim responsibility for their citizens; and populations must understand the issues that are common to us all in order to find solutions to the problems that unite us.
In the case of India, small NGOs seem to be taking on two monstrous tasks. First, they must address the needs of the poor. Second, they must stress to local, national, and international communities that social issues, such as lack of education or health services, poor nutrition, and homelessness are not solely problems within India, but are rather issues that concern much of the developing and even developed world alike.
Creating this common understanding amongst communities across the world could be the key to developing more unified and effective strategies to tackle poverty. As Mr. Mander suggested, many developed nations are steering away from socialized states and abandoning responsibility of their citizens. Perhaps recognizing this approach as a problem for sustainable development will allow India to become a step ahead of the rest of the world. It is also possible that India will be able to establish itself as a nation with a sense of responsibility to its citizens and set an example for other nations.
The paradox of this concept as both an opportunity and weakness became apparent to me when one day in Mumbai, our group drove down a street and saw the 27-floor home of a billionaire, and the next day drove down a street and saw the overcrowded slum dwellings constructed of plastic sheeting and scrap wood. It’s true that a long road lies ahead to create a socially inclusive and fiscally balanced. Addressing the diverse needs of the growing urban population has put strains on the government, non-profit organizations and citizens who inhabit these areas. However, starting out with a proper foundation is a step in the right direction and a step that India may be able to embrace with the help of its ambitious NGOs and citizens. The work of CES and other organizations such as Sesame Workshop, which works to improve educational opportunities for children and helps ensure that they develop into adults who respect diversity and the needs of other, may provide the first step toward harnessing the immense power of a mega-city in an international arena. Building strong communities within a country strengthens the nation and raising globally aware citizens in the process helps ensure that the commonality of many social issues is recognized from city to city, across the world.
The undertakings in urban India to improve equality are similar to that of cities I have worked; they continue working to educate the marginalized, address the needs of the homeless and impoverished, empower women and, improve quality of life. It is an ongoing and common effort. In some ways, I felt that the cities we visited were not so different from my own home and not so ‘complex’ at all. The real complexity, perhaps, is communicating to those abroad that India is its own nation, and determined to resolve any problems in its own way. In New Delhi and Mumbai, what little I saw of an expansive country, it was obvious that strategic action by the government and non-profit organizations was underway to improve the lives of many. What remains to be seen is whether the world will recognize India’s accomplishments so far, despite its complexities. Jessica Castillo is a longtime municipal civil servant in the Los Angeles area and second year Master of Public Diplomacy student. Her research interests include urban issues, tourism, public diplomacy of non-state actors, and the Latin American region. She will be participating in India: Inside Out, a student-led research project in India this December. For more on the project, please visit www.indiapublicdiplomacy.com.
NEW DELHI --- Walking through the streets of New Delhi, it is hard to resist the city’s unique combination of old charm and modern features. Whether you’re looking for cultural, social, or religious diversity, you're sure to find it in New Delhi. On December 12, 2011, New Delhi celebrated its 100th year as India’s “spanking new capital.” On that same day in 1931, King George V announced the shifting of the India’s capital from Calcutta to Delhi. So, what makes New Delhi so special? For one, there are many religions represented including Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, the Baha’i faith, and Christianity. One day, our group visited Askhardham, Jama Masjid, and the Lotus Temple-- all sites with magnificent structural appeal and a story to tell.
Our first stop, Akshardham, is located in the heart of New Delhi and represents 10,000 years of Indian culture that is showcased through breathtaking gardens, structures, and artwork. The Swaminarayan Akshardham embodies Indian culture, art, wisdom, heritage, and values, and serves as a tribute to Bhagwan Swaminarayan (1781-1830). It is an enlightening journey through India’s values and contributions for the progress, happiness, and harmony of humanity.. The temple was built in five years, and was inaugurated on November 6, 2005, with the blessings of His Divine Holiness, Pramukh Swami Maharaj of the Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS). The term Akshardham refers to the eternal, divine abode of the supreme God, eternal values, and the virtues of Akshar as defined in the Vedas and Upanishads where divine bhakti, purity, and peace forever pervades. However, Akshardham is much more than a place of worship. It provides a space where Indian and non-Indian visitors can learn more about India’s history, cultural heritage, achievements, inventions, and scientific contributions. It is a powerful public diplomacy tool because it tells a story that people from different faiths and backgrounds can relate to and understand.. As an individual learning about this particular Hindu sect for the first time, I left Akshardham with a greater understanding and appreciation for the religion, and was able to relate many of the core concepts to my own faith.
Next, we visited Jama Masjid in Old Delhi, the largest mosque in India. It was built between 1644 and 1658, and is one of the last architectural works done by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan. The mosque has a grand entrance and was built using red sandstones and marble. It has the potential to hold thousands at one time. Originally, it was called the Masjid-i-Jahan-Numa, which means mosque commanding view of the world. Our group, covered with shawls, walked around Jama Masjid admiring the views, magnificent arches and prayer halls. The Masjid stands at the center of the capital city of the Mughals, Shahjahanbad, now Delhi. Jama Masjid has three gateways with verses from the holy Quran inscribed in its walls. For Muslims, the second largest religious population in India, this mosque is particularly significant because it houses a cabinet which contains a collection of the Prophet Mohammad’s (PBUH) relics, including a red beard-hair of the prophet, the Quran written on deerskin, and his sandals and footprints, implanted in a marble block. For individuals wanting to learn more about Islam, or for Muslims looking for a place to worship, Jama Masjid provides a welcoming environment for both. Although it is located in the middle of a busy Old Delhi market place, once you enter the mosque, there is a certain serenity that overcomes the insanity outside. Individuals from all faiths can pray or meditate in the mosque’s spacious courtyard overlooking Old Delhi.
Finally, our group made the journey to the Lotus Temple. Symbolizing peace, and surrounded by gardens, this temple represents the Bahai faith and was completed in 1986. It stands at more than 40 Meters in height, and its distinct features are 27 giant white petals of white marble in a lotus shape. The central theme of the Bahai faith is unity through diversity, and a great emphasis is placed on prayer and meditation. Once our group entered the temple, we sat in a large prayer hall where we meditated and reflected for a few minutes before exploring the temple. Bahai’s believe that prayer and meditation is important to the progress of the human soul, both in this world and the next. There are more than two million Bahai’s living in India and representing the diverse regions all over the country.
In my opinion, the spiritual diversity is what unites New Delhi and is one of its main attractions. Combined with its vast history, rich culture and people representing many faiths, New Delhi gives new meaning to faith diplomacy. The presence of these different religions and their ability to exist harmoniously in the same space speaks volumes about the people of India, and their tolerance and acceptance for diversity. From a public diplomacy perspective, religious institutions, such as Akshardham, Jama Masjid, and the Lotus Temple, are great tools that help build mutual understanding and mediate conflicts because they provide a space where individuals can learn about the respective religion, and interact with its followers, hence breaking the cycle of fear and ignorance. Hend Alhinnawi is a graduate student working on her professional Master's of Public Diplomacy at USC. In the past, she worked with the United Nations and AMIDEAST in the Middle East and Africa on international development and resource mobilization related issues. She is also participating in the India:Inside Out Project.
We Americans tend to take our presidential campaigns lightly. We see them as fodder for Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show, and we become so enamored with the incessant polling that we watch the candidates as if they were race horses approaching the finish line.
But for people in many other parts of the world, the American presidential campaign is a thing of wonder. No troops are in the streets; voting irregularities occur but are nowhere near the scope of those in numerous other countries; and when the balloting is completed an orderly succession takes place (rarely marred as it was in 2000).
As a public diplomacy tool, this process is invaluable, but how should it be presented? I once attended a U.S. election-night reception in a Middle Eastern country at which an earnest U.S. diplomat led a panel discussing the role of the American vice president. I thought the snoring would drown out the panelists.
That is not the way to go. People throughout the world are interested in the American experience, but principally in terms of how it might affect their own lives. That is one reason it was so discouraging to see the Egyptian police raid the offices of American and other NGOs that are in the country to help Egypt build its own electoral process.
This resort to strong-arm tactics certainly does not help Egypt’s efforts to become a leader in a region where democratic aspirations are high, and the United States has correctly protested strongly. In overcoming such obstructions, America should lead by example in the following ways:
Encourage international news media to thoroughly cover the U.S. elections. Some news organizations, such as Al Jazeera, already do this well, but new emphasis should be placed on providing access to politicians, academics, and others who will explain the process. Global news media are getting better journalistically and more influential politically. Public diplomacy must keep pace.
Use websites and social media to reach reformers around the world. Although the Arab Awakening of this past year has drawn the most attention, activists in Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and elsewhere are hard at work to change their own political systems. The U.S. electoral process is one of their models, and they need information about everything from finding candidates to getting out the vote. Interactive and innovative online communication about American politics would be especially important for the rising generation that will shape their countries’ futures, and reaching out to them would be a useful way to expand student-to-student and other connections.
Throughout any such efforts, the theme should not be “Look at how great America is,” but rather, “Look for ways you might adapt the U.S. political process to your own country’s needs.” This would underscore an emphasis in U.S. public diplomacy on service, not self-advertising.
The 2012 U.S. presidential campaign, as well as races for other offices, may well inspire people elsewhere in the world more than Americans themselves. Although it is unfortunate that Americans take their political system for granted, it remains a showcase that can enhance America’s standing throughout the world. The U.S. State Department, which has shown itself willing to work hard on such matters, should take full advantage of the public diplomacy opportunities available during this election year.
One of the goals of this blog series is to develop greater awareness and knowledge of how culture intervenes in public diplomacy. In public diplomacy, culture’s web of influence spans across policy, practice, and research, and encompasses both sponsor and intended public.
The problem is that much of culture’s influence lays “out-of-awareness” for both the sponsor and the intended public in public diplomacy. As further irony, the sponsor and the public may have some awareness of the other’s cultural features, but are often unable to see culture’s influence on themselves. These hidden aspects tend to be the source of cultural misunderstandings and tensions.
One of the keys to effective public diplomacy is developing an “in-awareness” cultural approach to public diplomacy.
Origins of Intercultural Communication in Traditional Diplomacy
The idea of “in-awareness” comes from American anthropologist, Edward T. Hall. Some may recognize Hall as one of the founders of the field of intercultural communication. However, Hall’s work began not in communication, but in diplomacy at the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) of the U.S. State Department.
Following World War II, the State Department found that the effectiveness of its diplomats was hampered by lack of language and cultural knowledge. In 1949, the U.S. FSI was established to better train diplomats. Hall was one of several anthropologists and linguists who joined the FSI.
Originally, Hall and the other anthropologists lectured on the broad, macro-level aspects of culture such as politics, economy, or religion. The diplomats, however, were concerned about what happens when two people from different cultures interact.
Hall shifted his focus to applied culture. He developed experiential techniques such as role-playing and situational exercises for the diplomats.
After writing a few popular pieces, Hall published The Silent Language (1959). The book was the first in a series that shared his ideas about culture and communication. His book enjoyed wide popularity selling over 500,000 copies in the early 1960s.
The Silent Language
In The Silent Language, Hall showed how we can communicate volumes without saying a word. The problem is that most of what and how we communicate escapes our awareness, or is “out-of-awareness.”
Not only do we learn most of our behaviors “out-of-awareness,” but we tend to perform them “out-of-awareness” as well.
One of the great “out-of-awareness” examples is the subtle “dance” between two diplomats conversing at a reception.
One diplomat is comfortable standing and conversing with others at a distance of about three feet. Her conversation partner, however, prefers a closer distance of about two feet. So as one diplomat steps closer to narrow the space between them, the other diplomat steps back to increase the distance. He steps forward, she steps back. And, thus they dance as they converse. In the end, she walks away thinking of her counterpart as 'pushy and somewhat aggressive.' Little does she realize that he thinks she is 'distant and aloof.'
Bringing communication and culture “in-awareness” does not only apply to how one views others from different cultures. Gaining self-awareness about culture’s influence on one’s own behavior can often be as insightful and constructive as learning about others.
Without a conscious awareness of how another culture differs from one's own, there is a tendency to see the differences of another through the prism of one's culture. Ethnocentricity occurs when one uses their own cultural standards as a yardstick for measuring other cultures; inevitably the other culture comes up lacking.
Often, awareness and knowledge go hand-in-hand. Greater cultural awareness is key to building and refining one’s trove of cultural knowledge. And, with greater knowledge comes an awareness of the nuances that expose cultural variations.
Awareness is also critical when one considers the dynamic nature of culture. Culture is a human-created and human-perpetuated organic phenomenon. In future “Culture Posts”, I hope to talk about the provocative idea of “culture as a verb.”
Public Diplomacy Cultural In-Awareness
Hall’s work on cultural in-awareness for traditional diplomacy helps provide inspiration for the work that lies ahead for public diplomacy. Traditional diplomacy may often enjoy the luxury of private settings. Public diplomacy often does not.
Hall focused primarily on nonverbal behaviors and communication between individuals. In public diplomacy, practitioners are challenged to consider how their actions and communication may be perceived. Their actions may be magnified under public scrutiny and then amplified by media exposure.
The example of the dance of misunderstanding between two diplomats involved behavioral differences in perceptions of space. The list of potential cultural variations between a public diplomat and the publics she seeks to communication is long.
As we begin this trek of cultural in-awareness, we may begin by looking our environment and actions anew, and asking: What areas and aspects might we be taking for granted or holding out-of-awareness in how we practice and assess public diplomacy? What can we shine a spotlight on and bring it in-awareness for public diplomacy?
Mary Jeffers on January 3, 2012 @ 5:26 pm Have been reading Glen Fisher's 1997 book, "Mindsets: The Role of Culture and Perception in International Relations." Fisher, an anthropologist and former foreign service officer, begins with a summary of basic psychology and what it says about cross-cultural interaction.
For example, he points out that it is adaptive for humans to filter what we see and hear through an established cognitive framework, so that we don't have to pay attention to, and mull over the meaning of, literally everything. And that it's very difficult for us not to filter input, even when we try; instead, we consistently project our own framework onto others. Fisher notes that a key element of such projection is "attribution of motive" - that is, applying a rationale to someone else's speech or behavior. Furthermore, he says, cognitive frameworks share fewer universal commonalities - i.e. across cultures - than we think, and false attributions of motive are very common.
On top of all this, he introduces the problem of language, where simple misperceptions arising from the choice of words or phrases in translation are compounded by the fact that "the basic grammar and fundamental structure of a language presents a model or master framework for channeling cognitive processes, for conceptualizing the environment and the manner in which its elements interrelate, and for choosing the way that one idea leads to the next."
These challenges are a reminder that international experience is vitally necessary in public diplomacy, not just media and messaging skills (and that the study of social sciences may also yield important insights).
Fisher's points raise other key questions. For example, is it even possible for a president or other top official to sway both a domestic and a foreign audience with the same speech - and if not, what are the implications in this era of instant global communication? What happens when different statements are crafted for different audiences, but everyone hears all of them?
Through exchanges, cultural diplomacy offers the opportunity for people to learn about each other's cognitive frameworks, and interpret cross-culturally with more accuracy. And arts performances and workshops encourage exceptionally creative individuals to explore the cognitive space between two groups, and even bridge it. At a more basic level, cultural diplomacy can simply serve as a reminder that any culture is multidimensional, and its people and their ideas merit consideration.
The big question, though, is how such "retail" approaches can influence the general public, who continue to receive most of their information "wholesale" from global news networks and mass popular culture. Can social media help, and if so, how?
As a career PD practitioner, I've seen cultural diplomacy have a powerful impact, and I've also seen it backfire. Most often, however, what happens is that it is effective but just too localized. We joke about needing 35 million exchange visitor grants in a country of 35 million people in order to be effective, but we're half serious.
I would love to see a wide-open discussion of such questions!
RS Zaharna on January 8, 2012 @ 1:26 pm Thank you, Mary Jeffers. Your comments really highlight the importance of “perception” and the pictures in our heads. Hall spoke about being “culture bound,” and the difficulty of moving “beyond culture,” in perceptions. Attribution theory is also about perceptions; we tend to attribute the actions of others to personality traits while our own behaviors are based on the particular circumstance. Finally, one of the reasons why exchange programs may be so effective is that they offer the opportunity for “perception checking.” People feel comfortable to ask questions and check their perceptions about others. PD initiative that are tightly structured may reduce the opportunity for such “perception checking.”
Recently, a series of scandals have ravaged the country: a telecommunications scandal, a housing loan scam, and the disastrous Commonwealth Games. Amplified by a feisty media, the result was India’s reputation abroad being tarnished and Indians at home being disheartened.Not surprisingly, then, in February 2011, a public opinion poll carried out by the Hindu Times found that 41% of Indians thought corruption was the biggest problem facing the country.
Corruption in India is entrenched to the point that corrupt action is often looked upon with nonchalance. For example, in his book, India: A Portrait, Patrick French interviews a “facilitator” or semi-professional person hired to dole out a “Montblanc pen here, a bottle of Blue Label there,” as situations—and voters—may require. According to one senior election facilitator in Mumbai, “a ‘big’ candidate would have trouble spending less than $2-3m to win a constituency in the 2009 election (officially, each candidate was allowed to spend $55,000).” Yet it is more than power-hungry politicians that engage in bribery. From a student slipping a 1000 Rupee note to the registrar in order to get his transcripts expedited, to a mother paying off a police officer when caught for a traffic violation, these sometimes-small and oft-bigger acts have become the norm in India. (For some intriguing stories on bribery, check out www.ipaidabribe.com, a citizen-powered initiative.)
If India is perceived as corrupt on international indices as well as amongst its own people, then her credibility is damaged, and her ability to conduct public diplomacyis diminished, if not demolished. And without that ability, India’s capacity to assert herself as a major global power is compromised. Preliminary evidence already shows this: according to a Goldman Sachs report published in 2007, India’s Rising Growth Potential, corruption was rated as one of the top ten restraints on investor confidence, scoring just higher than the developing country mean. Before coming to India, it was my opinion that if the country wants to continue to enjoy its high rate of economic growth, or assert world leadership, then it must face up to its problem of corruption. Yet in the past few weeks, I am seeing this challenge in a more nuanced light.
Corruption is a problem that has not gone unacknowledged by government leadership. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said of corruption in February, “it dents our international image and it demeans us before our own people.” After our conversation with Abhishek Singh, Director of E-Governance programs in the Ministry of Communications & Information Technology (Department of Information), and Vineeta Dixit, Principal Consultant for the National e-Governance Plan, it seems India has positioned itself to actually export tools of anti-corruption. The Department is working to leverage information communication technologies to increase transparency, accountability, fairness, and citizen trust in government as an individual bureaucrat’s level of discretion decreases.
Examples include the Bhoomi Project, which makes proof of land ownership available in kiosks throughout rural areas, and the eSeva initiative, which provides government to citizen services and is a project of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. A total of 27 Mission Mode Projects provide a myriad of services to citizens, and initiatives like the network of 100,000 Internet enabled Common Services Centers (kiosks) makes the National e Governance Plan the “largest program of its kind in the world,” according to Abhishek Singh.
What’s also promising about these programs in terms of public diplomacy is that the Department of Information Technology is doing tremendous international knowledge-sharing around ICTs, such as the Pan-African e-Network Project, which creates linkages in tele-medicine and tele-education between India and Africa, or partnerships like the Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT, which supports research and practical application of ICT4D. In these ways, India is demonstrating leadership in the field, and frankly, playing to its strengths. Continuing to build international partnerships in this way is smart public diplomacy. If these techniques are also applied to address India’s problem of corruption, I would be optimistic for its future. Maya Babla is leading the India: Inside Out project. She is a candidate for a Master's in Public Diplomacy, graduating in December.
Rarely has the Indian government discussed matters of foreign relations with its citizens. Foreign policy, for a long time in India, has remained a preserve of the elites. The only foreign policy issue that might have sparked an interest in the average Indian, is its nation’s relations with Pakistan. Furthermore, this interest might only be true for an Indian living in the North. An Indian living nearly 3,000 kilometers away from Pakistan in India’s northeast, with no historical experience, would have little interest in its country’s relationship with Pakistan. Developments in international politics in recent times point towards a possible change in how India conducts its foreign policy.
Recent significant issues like the formalization of The Group of Twenty (G-20), climate change debates, global terrorism emanating from South Asia, peace building in Afghanistan, the democratization of Myanmar, and the steady rise of China has seen India to be an important player in international politics that cannot be ignored. For the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) of the Government of India, this newfound prominence has meant increasing responsibilities and accountability. Many of these issues will have significant domestic repercussions and the MEA may find itself answerable to domestic audiences. The democratization of Myanmar, for example, will have significant implications on India’s “Look East” policy, insurgencies in North East India, narcotics trafficking, and people to people contact between Nagaland, Manipur, and Myanmar. Domestic outreach is crucial for the MEA to partner with the people in the conduct of foreign policy, and soon will be a significant component of India’s public diplomacy activities. At least this is what I have understood based on my attendance of some recent PD conferences in New Delhi.
Domestic outreach as a component of PD can be contextualized in what Jan Melissen, Director of the Clingendael Diplomatic Studies Programme at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations, calls one of the most salient transformational developments in diplomacy - “societization of diplomacy.” With the emergence of various actors and non-state players in international politics, the boundaries between international and domestic publics and policy spheres have become increasingly blurred. In addition, the democratization of information through new communication technologies has greatly empowered these non-state actors, elevating their role and legitimacy in international politics. A significant example of domestic outreach in Asia has been set by Thailand through the “Roving Buakeaw Project” which allows the government to take account of public opinion when formulating foreign policy.
Coming back to India, the MEA on its part has initiated “The MEA Distinguished Lecture Series on India’s foreign policy.” The lecture series is organized by the Public Diplomacy Division to facilitate discussion regarding foreign policy outside New Delhi’s power corridors. Through this program, Indian diplomats’ travel throughout the country, participating in discussions across leading academic institutions within India. Though Indian diplomats consistently speak at foreign university campuses and to think tanks around the world, this is the first time that MEA has undertaken such an exercise internally. Since its inception in 2010, nearly 40 lectures have been organized across different regions of India. The PD division has also made the lecture series available online to facilitate greater citizen participation. This is a significant new element in the conduct of Indian foreign policy and is an important initiative towards facilitating an internal foreign policy dialogue in India.
Elizabeth Hanson on January 1, 2012 @ 5:11 pm This is truly an important initiative in Indian foreign policy. But "facilitating an internal foreign policy dialogue" seems to me a very different kind of public diplomacy, as tradionally public diplomacy has been aimed at foreign, not domestic publics. The MEA mission statements do refer to to outreach abroad and creating a positive image of India, but I have not seen much evidence of this. I can'f find much in the much publicized social media initiative.
After meeting today with Navdeep Suri, Joint Secretary & Head of the Public Diplomacy Division in India, we learned that in the context of the Arab Spring, India is promoting Islam as an important aspect of Indian history and culture. One way to look at how well this is being done in India is to look at the way Indian mass media portrays Islam. It appears that Islam is often under- and mis-represented in the Indian media in both the Hindi and Urdu languages. This is important for public diplomacy because what India projects to the rest of the world has to accurately reflect what is happening internally to gain credibility. Because of the disconnect between a democracy that supports all people and a media that doesn't reflect this, India should reexamine the way that people in-country see themselves and their own identities before projecting an image abroad.
The Indian sub-continent is known for its ethnic, cultural, and linguistic diversity. With this diversity comes the conflict of competing ideologies, and the debate plays out in the mass media.
Islam is the second-most practiced religion in India after Hinduism, with over 13% practicing Muslims—or more than 138 million people. However, oftentimes the mainstream Indian media misrepresents and underrepresents the Muslim Indian population and does not always accurately reflect the reality of the millions of Muslims in India. A combination of factors influence the way that Islam is portrayed in Indian mass media, which include:
Political party affiliation to news sources
Funding issues
Western media infiltration
Lack of a coherent self-view among Indian Muslims
Hindi is the most commonly spoken language in India, and Hindi newspapers therefore have a multi-million readership
in the country. These papers are run by elites and higher castes that have the education and ability to pursue a career in journalism. It is important to remember that these papers are a business and ‘saleability’ means a lot, especially in terms of dealing with minorities. Therefore, looking for the extreme voices and areas of conflict brings in more profit rather than, say, a Hindu and a Muslim sitting down and having a reasoned debate. Hindi-language media concentrates on the sensational aspects of Islam, having a tendency to extend these generalizations to the Indian Muslim population as a whole.
Most Muslim representations in Indian media are limited to the Urdu-language media. This fact comes with a lot of challenges and pitfalls to portraying a more moderate view of Islam within India. First of all, Urdu is considered to be a language of the madrasah-educated north Indian poor, so it is difficult for newspapers to sell ad space to generate revenue. Without the necessary revenue, the quality and professionalism of these papers decreases. Many of these papers therefore have poor working conditions, low salaries, and outdated equipment. These monetary conditions are not conducive to good, solid journalism.
There seems to be a huge potential for an Urdu-language media group to come in and rectify the situation currently facing the Urdu press. There is a vacuum for solid, professional Urdu journalism, and someone with the monetary means could help the Urdu press change their view of self to help promote positive and objective overall news coverage of Islam in India. By changing the narrative of self, the portrayal to the rest of the country can be improved.
While both Hindi and Urdu newspapers deal with the topic of Islam and Muslims differently, there are some similarities in the way that Muslims are portrayed. Ironically, neither Urdu nor Hindi give much attention to positive achievements of the Muslim community. Because of the business nature of the industry, sensational stories and negative events are given more time and space. This makes for more ‘marketable’ news that ignores many problems that Muslims face within India, including educational problems, economic stratification, and social injustices.
Often, there is a lack of a ‘moderate’ or average Muslim voice being heard in either Hindi or Urdu news. The main spokespeople for Islam and Muslims that are most easily accessible tend to be the authoritative, conservative community leaders, or ulemas-- thus offering only one view of a situation. In order for the portrayal of Indian Muslims to change, more voices need to be heard. The views of the ulemas do not speak for an entire community, much as the views of congress do not speak for the entire U.S. population. These usual suspects tend to use Islam as self-promotion and publicity and do not have the interests of the Indian Muslim masses in mind.
Should the journalists be responsible for seeking out alternate views, or should more Indian Muslims seek out media to share their views? The answer seems unclear, and I argue that a combination of better journalism and an active interest in self-portrayal from Indian Muslims will be the optimal output to change Indian media’s portrayal of Muslims—both Hindi and Urdu speaking. Anna Dawson is a Master of Public Diplomacy candidate and a Senior Editor for USC’s Public Diplomacy Magazine. She is also participating in the India:Inside Out Project. This past summer, she interned at the Center for International Private Enterprise in Washington, DC.
Madhur on December 24, 2011 @ 1:59 am I am not too comfortable about the creation of a narrative representing Muslim identity in Indian media. Simply because it reinforces religion in the discourse.
The reality of India is a 'composite culture' best represented in a language like 'Urdu' or Hindustani. The history of Urdu language will tell you that it is not a 'Muslim tongue' but rather a language that represents best the unity and diversity of India. 'Arabic' is the language of the madrasahs.
Indian media took on the high and mighty really well during the Gujarat riots in defence of the minorities.
I dont know of any 'Ulema voice' in Indian media apart from the Shahi Imam who is representative of the Ummah in India.
Market economics will not support a Urdu press. Besides, Urdu is not a 'mother tongue' unlike other regional languages in India, so there is simply no market. The reason for this again is the historical development of Urdu language.
Lack of a 'coherent self-view among Indian Muslims' is a strong statement to make. It resembles the narrative of the colonial British who thrived on divide and rule. I don't think many Indian Muslims will agree with it. Hindus and Muslims have lived together in this country for more than 1000 years. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world and the entire Muslim population is bigger than the whole of Middle East. The biggest and most loved stars of Bollywood are Muslims, the last President was Muslim, one of our most successful cricket captain was a Muslim, some of India's greatest academics are Muslims, father of India's missile program was a Muslim, India's greatest poet ever was a Muslim, Ghazals remain popular among Indians and Sufi music is one of the most popular genres among young Indians.
However, this is not to say that there are some problems peculiar to Muslim community. The reason for that is primarily historical and political development of Muslims in India and not solely because of their religious affiliation. Casteism is also prevalent among Indian Muslims. Islam practiced in Kashmir is different from Islam practiced in North East and each gives rise to unique problems that are regional.
Nonetheless I do agree its an endless debate. However, I would caution against trying to create a new narrative focused on religious identity. It's an Indian identity. Any discussion on the community has to happen within the larger Indian identity - that of a composite culture. Otherwise, it will be going back to the cunning and brutalities of the British rule.
WASHINGTON --- Voice of America rolled out a series of new programs at a briefing here this morning, highlighting “OMG!”, a new youth-oriented program aimed at China, where, according to its host, it is sometimes called “OMG: Oh My Lady Gaga.”
“OMG!” is designed to teach American slang to young viewers in China, and host Jessica Beinecke said it launched as a travel series, originally titled “Baijle Speaks English,” because Baijle is her Chinese name. Then, she said, they learned “Baijle” is the title of a well-known pornographic novel in China, hence the name change. Of course the association with the novel may have added to the buzz about the show.
VOA research shows the series became a hit with the episode titled “Yucky Gunk,” about “all of the gunk that comes out of your face.” That episode triggered 1.5 million hits, according to the network, and the series was off and running, in a very different direction. Rather than attempt to describe “Yucky Gunk” in detail, we direct curious readers to watch the episode on YouTube, where the series has an entire channel. Suffice it to say this is not your grandfather’s VOA.
The "Yucky Gunk" Episode
Beinecke said viewers now submit questions by emailing homemade videos – some shown this morning were quite funny – and the program is generating a significant response. During a visit to the Ohio State University, she said she sent out word over the Internet that she was at the student center, and within fifteen minutes ten Chinese students had joined her, tipped by emails from friends.
“OMG!” was shown as part of a VOA briefing today on “New Outreach Tools and Technologies,” covering the Internet, social networks and direct programming to mobile telephones.
New programs and platforms have increased the network’s audience to 80 million on radio and 70 million on television, according to Steve Redisch, VOA’s Executive Editor. That is most of the 187 million unduplicated weekly audience claimed for all of U.S. international broadcasting. Researchers note that some of the data are less then entirely precise – try surveying a war zone – but they said the trend is toward a larger audience.
Some of that was driven by news: Redisch said recent developments have driven much larger audiences to VOA Burmese programming, and the VOA Burma web site traffic has quadrupled. Joan Mower, VOA’s Director of Development, pointed to Somalia, where VOA broadcasts reach close to 80% of all adults in the country.
Some was also driven by improved distribution: VOA now claims 38 million viewers in Indonesia, where Norman Goodman of VOA’s Indonesian Service said its broadcasts are now carried on eight of Indonesia’s eleven national television networks and on more than 250 local radio stations. And VOA’s audience is up sharply in Kenya, according to William Bell, VOA’s Director of Research, following the decision by that country’s leading FM station to start carrying VOA programs.
Jeff Rosenberg on December 9, 2011 @ 7:21 am Thanks for this very informative article. First I learned that the Chinese have famous pornographic novels. Hope the French are jealous. More importantly I think we have to remember that audience measurement for US international broadcasting, websites, social media, etc. has a rather significant margin of error. For decades the bosses of VOA, etc. have had to march up to The Hill and tell them audiences are growing, favorable views of USA increasing, etc. Usually they do this right up until the moment they shutdown the language service or whatever it is that no longer justifies the costs. US government run international media need a serious top-to-bottom review, including "outside" experts, before we can seriously believe taxpayers are getting value for money spent.
liu discount ugg boots on December 14, 2011 @ 3:40 pm orable views of USA increasing, etc. Usually they do this right up until the moment they shutdown the language service or whatever it is that no longer justifies the costs. US government run international media need a serious top-to-bottom review, including "outside" experts, before we can seriously believe taxpayers are getting value for money spent.
LOS ANGELES --- What is the best form of United States public diplomacy? The type that promotes American values, such as the right to peace and prosperity, through building strong ties directly with people. U.S. Under Secretary of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Ann Stock, expressed that, “The mission of American public diplomacy is to support the achievement of U.S. foreign policy goals and objectives, advance national interests, and enhance national security by informing and influencing foreign publics and by expanding and strengthening the relationship between the people and government of the United States and citizens of the rest of the world.”
For the past 50 years, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been the face of the American people overseas, carrying out its humanitarian mission through “saving lives, building partnerships, and promoting peace and prosperity for the developing world and the American people.” These definitions suggest that the U.S. uses foreign aid as part of its public diplomacy strategy. USAID funds infrastructure, cultural preservation projects, public works, and economic investment initiatives in many developing countries, including India.
Aid diplomacy is an important part of the overall U.S. public diplomacy strategy. As a global power, the U.S. is part of international efforts, contributing about 1% of the U.S. federal budget, to alleviate poverty, provide humanitarian relief, support economic and social policies, and address global problems. In the case of U.S. aid dollars to India, funds are are largely used to assist with counterterrorism efforts in the region. The Congressional Research Services’ report to Congress states that the current USAID program aims to further Indian economic development in order to enhance the country’s rise as an influential U.S. partner in the international system. This program serves the poorest segments of the population, in order to mitigate economic and social conditions that may give rise to political extremism. The threat of terrorism is reduced when aid is invested in strengthening and empowering communities in India through education, gender equality, and the ability for farmers and others to generate income to support themselves and their families. Providing aid to this otherwise marginalized community serves U.S. foreign interests and positions India as its key ally by enabling a more productive, powerful population.
In October, 2011 the U.S. Chargé d'Affaires, Ambassador Peter Burleigh, announced that USAID will be providing $81 million towards its total commitment of $479 million over five years in bilateral assistance to India. These funds will be used to strengthen the U.S.-India strategic partnership, working in the health sector and serving India’s most vulnerable populations. In 2011, USAID celebrated its 50th anniversary of its humanitarian work in India. Through assistance provided by USAID, since 1961, eight agricultural universities have been established, 20 thermal and hydroelectric power plants have been constructed, and the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur and Kharagpur has been created.
Another important milestone in Indo-American relations came on December 24, 2009, when the Senate confirmed Rajiv Shah as the new Administrator of the USAID. This is important because Mr. Shah now represents the highest ranking Indian-American official in any presidential administration.
Rajiv Shah addressing the U.S.-India People to People Conference
As India looks to establish itself as a regional and global power, it will be interesting to examine how the foreign aid it receives could inhibit those ambitions. In 2011, India announced the creation of a central foreign aid agency with the hope of reducing corruption and preventing delays in the delivery of aid. According to the Secretary General of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Rajiv Sharma, “The creation of an aid agency is a recognition by the Indian establishment that India has arrived as a global player with strategic interests. In the past we have ducked this issue because we were one of the largest recipients of aid." However, not much has changed. India is still a large recipient of foreign aid, and as long as they continue to receive it, may never be an equal partner to the United States. Looking at Indo-American relations and each country’s public diplomacy objectives in the coming years, it will be interesting to examine how the central foreign aid agency will impact India’s position in the world.
Through the India: Inside Out trip, I am looking forward to meeting with USAID officials to discuss U.S. aid diplomacy initiatives in India, and what they consider to be the best practices. Hend Alhinnawi is a graduate student working on her professional Master's of Public Diplomacy at USC. In the past, she worked with the United Nations and AMIDEAST in the Middle East and Africa on international development and resource mobilization related issues. She is also participating in the India:Inside Out Project.
Throughout history, many nations have relied on historical phenomena, narratives, and myths to define their identities and their relation to the outside reality. When narratives survive the test of time and space, they become meta-narratives which shape the worldview and the conduct of the societies they encompass. In addition to having profound effects on the socio-cultural process, meta-narratives sometimes influence and explicate the international behavior of a nation. Almost all of us are familiar with the Christian concept of Manifest Destiny and how it is has always been relevant to U.S. foreign policy. For the majority of Iranians, as Muslim Shias, Ashura has clearly been the meta-narrative. It has particularly been important since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in Iran and one could surely see the footprint of this narrative in Iran's foreign policy. In order to comprehend and develop expectations about the Islamic Republic of Iran's international behavior, one should first understand the narrative of Ashura.
Ashura is a day in the month of Muhharram in the lunar calendar (December 6th in 2011) which refers to several historical events in Islam including the significant Battle of Karbala (Iraq, 680 CE), where Imam Hossein, the grandson of the Prophet Mohammad, was killed along his family and companions in an uprising against the oppressive rule of Yazid. In the eyes of Shia Muslims, Hossein's martyrdom is not a story of meaningless defeat, but a grand narrative of victory for humanity, a sign to other believers that they should stand against the tyrant, even at the cost of death,and celebrate the ones who sacrifice their life in the fight of the oppressed against the oppressor. It is about celebrating, exalting, and glorifying the victim. That is why Shia Muslims (est. 200 million) in what is now Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Syria have mournfully commemorated Ashura for the last 1,300 years.
Human history is ripe with such rituals, but what is significant about Ashura and Iran is that it has managed to project itself so powerful that even Islamic Republic's international conduct is affected by this meta-narrative. For one thing, Ashura gatherings and processions were effectively used by the Clergy in Iran to overthrow Mohammad Reza Shah during the Islamic revolution In Iran.
Morteza Aviny, an Iranian journalist covering the Iran-Iraq war once wrote: "Whoever who wants to understand us should study the battle of Karbala." That is how the Iranian nation defined its relation to Saddam after he invaded Iran. They saw themselves as the victims and oppressed, and as followers of Hossein when they lined against Saddam's army (projected as the army of Yazid). War literature produced in Iran was drenched in the story of Ashura and its symbols could be found everywhere among the Iranian fighters. That's why army casualties were glorified as those who had proved to be true followers of Imam Hossein. And most interestingly, when Iran accepted UN Resolution 598 for the ceasefire with Iraq, its substantial demand was not war reparations, but to be recognized as the victim of invasion (which it achieved finally).
Ashura did not stop during the Iran-Iraq war. In fact, as Shias famously say among themselves, for them "all the days are Ashura and all the earth is Karbala." It is based on such a point of view that the Iranian leadership after the revolution defined its relations with western powers, particularly Britain and the United States. The contemporary Iran sees itself as the victim of years of British colonialism in the Middle East. It had a brief moment of hope for prosperity and freedom during Mossadegh, but it was dashed by the joint Anglo-American coup in 1953 which reinstalled the Shah. Iranians led by the Clergy came to interpret it along the lines of Ashura where they became the victims again, and the U.S. and UK became the Yazids of the time. That is how the Islamic Republic came to view itself as the one who should play its Ashura role not only in the Muslim world, but also elsewhere in the world, especially when they rise against the United States. Take, for example, the recent British embassy take over in Tehran. If one looks closely at the images of the event, she/he could see that the biggest flags and signs were those over which the name of Imam Hossein and symbols of Ashura were written.
If one deems the British embassy crisis to be a small event in today's virulent international politics, it could hardly be true about the nuclear standoff between Iran and the United States. One suspects that the same meta-narrative has projected itself upon the nuclear issue. Iranians not only see the issue as a matter of their national pride, but also see it as their right which if taken away, would have catastrophic consequences for both sides. But that is not a problem for Iranians who believe in Imam Hossein and his path. In fact, the Supreme Leader of Iran has clearly mentioned this connection when he said "if the adversary pushes too far, another Battle of Karbala will happen." A reference to a gloomy event like Ashura, when there are many other victorious battles throughout Islam's history, is indicative of the extent to which the current Iranian leadership and its followers could go in their standoff with the United States.
Ashura seems to be a simple religious ritual like many others, but it has turned out to have significant implications for the world. This meta-narrative has shaped the world view of a very important nation in the Middle East and whoever wants to comprehend Iran's conduct should certainly understand the story of Ashura first.
Tabby on December 7, 2011 @ 7:54 pm Very perceptive insights. What are your thoughts on the concept of the Iman Zaman/Mahdi, in terms of the IRI's meta-narrative? President Ahmadinejad and the IRGC seem to be deeply and personally invested in it, to the point of having elevated it as a major force behind foreign AND domestic policy (often to the dismay of Khamenei).
Mohsen on December 8, 2011 @ 5:43 am Although your view about the influence of Ashura's culture on Shias Muslims is a part of the truth, but one can not interpret the whole Shias behaviors solely based on that especially when it comes to the foreign policy issue. For those Islamic clergies who want to draw the lines for foreign policy there are many other elements that Shia has used throughout his long history.
The war between Iran and Saddam was a good example. During the battle Iran used Ashura’s culture to get the support of his people, but for accepting the peace Iran used, Imam Hassan’s behavior. I believe this is why, in Ayatollah Khomeini’s view of Islamic government, a person who knows Islam as a whole (not only basec on Ashura) leads the country.
Javad on December 8, 2011 @ 6:26 am @Tabby and Mohsen, You are both right about the other religious sources of Iran's foreign policy. I agree with this idea that other Imams are also important. However, I argue, if you like, for the most important Imam! And I believe the most important and the most resonant is the third Imam.
Kim on December 8, 2011 @ 6:37 am Point well said! To support your idea, watch the documentary BBC has produced about Iran. It is called "once upon a time in Iran".
Reza on December 8, 2011 @ 9:53 am During the past 32 years . 1979-2011 , USA always acted sa an enemy with Iran an its people.USA imposed alot of Unilateral and UN Sanctions against Iran that all of them were against Human Right Law . During the war ( Iraq - Iran ) USA suported Saddam"s government in all the fields. Also USA army attacked Iran's ships and airplane and killed children and women in Persian Gulf .In summery USA govt had a very unfriendly behaiver with Iranian people and it is too late for USA to make a friendly relation with Iran.
Mohsen on December 8, 2011 @ 11:28 am It has had deep influence on the Shias culture, but not on the Iran' foreign policy.
TD on December 12, 2011 @ 11:01 am Reza jan, the extent of Iran-U.S. relations is very complicated, as I'm sure you know. And it's a two-way street. Perhaps Iran's creation and funding of terrorist organizations, human rights abuses committed against its own people, virulent anti-American rhetoric that could justify and promote more attacks against Americans, support of violent Shiite factions in Iraq that have attacked American forces, and of course, precarious pursuit of a nuclear weapons program...have also damaged its relationship with the U.S. I would urge for balance and accountability when discussing this deteriorating relationship. At the very least, the U.S. government is taking important steps at public diplomacy towards the Iranian people, repeatedly emphasizing that it supports THEM, while disagreeing with their government. I don't, however, see the regime in Iran displaying any friendly behavior towards the American people. Not now, and not when I was growing up in Iran. Mutuality is key!
Reza on December 13, 2011 @ 12:28 pm TD jan , as you know USA only tries for its benefits all over the world. And in this way they had a lot of wars, that the latest example is the war in Iraq. As you know USA entred to Iraq to find and destroy dangerous weapons , like Nuclear - biologic and chemichal ( WDP ).but they didn't find any thing but by doing this their copanies came to Iraq an began to earn lots of money.During this so -called war aginst terrorism and ... about one milion of Iraq people ( children - women- old men and women ) died because of Antyhumanitarian sanctions and war.All of these things happened to improve USA benefits and its HEJMONY
to be a first power all over the world.
Finally , if you study about Dr. Mosaddeg and USA & Britain sanctions and activities Like 28 Mordad &....
you will know and understand alot about USA and its Foriegn Policy .
بل و سباستین on February 20, 2012 @ 12:01 am این جان گفتن رضا و تی دی اونم به زبان اجنبی ایز بدجوری مارولس اونم توپول!
It is a fact that India’s booming economy and population will result in a substantial increase in need of energy resources and global partners. Many countries around the globe are recognizing India’s rising power and are working to strengthen their economic, political, and social ties with her. Partnering with India has been increasingly present on the agendas of many Arab states, particularly those in the Gulf, but not as a priority. Despite the awareness of the importance of India as a strong potential ally and trade partner, Arab states are still not fully engaging with India, especially on the public diplomacy front. The current efforts primarily revolve around trying to agree on bilateral trade and energy agreements. Diplomacy between the Gulf nations and India have not involved their respective publics and have remained at the government level.
A few cooperation agreements have been signed between Arab states and India, while many others are slowly being negotiated. In 2004, the GCC countries (Gulf Cooperation Council) signed an initial framework agreement with India in efforts to advance multilateral relations. This framework led the two parties to enter negotiations and sign a FTA (Free Trade Agreement) that would open the door to more significant cooperation opportunities. FTA negotiations have not been going well because of disagreements between India and the GCC countries around petroleum products in the negative list of the FTA. This agreement opportunity has been met by lots of pessimism and predictions of failure, as the disagreement between the FTA parties has been described to be irreconcilable. However, this disagreement does not mean the end of the negotiations. Nevertheless, it will impact public diplomacy efforts, pushing them aside until the differences are resolved.
On another front of cooperation, in a rare move in 2006, King Abdullah Ben Abdul-Aziz of Saudi Arabia conducted a four-day visit to India to strengthen bilateral ties. The Saudi King and the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed two major agreements. The first agreement provided India with a “stable and increased” supply of crude oil; the second agreement improved cooperation between the two nations to combat terrorism. Both nations described the visit as "heralding a new era in India-Saudi Arabia relations and constitutes a landmark in the development of increased understanding and cooperation between the two." This visit has benefited the economy of both countries and increased their export and import rates. However, it was not significant to the average citizen in India or Saudi Arabia. It remained just one of many official visits they heard about in the media, without feeling its real impact in their daily lives.
The follow up to the Saudi Kings’ visit was a bit late. It was not until 2010 that the Indian Prime Minister visited Saudi Arabia. The three-day visit was described as historic since it was the first of this magnitude since the visit of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1982. The main goal of this tour was to boost India-Saudi cooperation efforts to a higher level, particularly in the field of energy. Eight agreements were signed during this visit in the fields of energy, science and technology, and extradition. Manmohan Singh stated that "I am conscious of the fact that this will be only the third visit by an Indian prime minister to Saudi Arabia. My visit reflects the strong mutual desire of both countries to reinvigorate our relations, as manifested in King Abdullah's historic visit to India in 2006 as the chief guest at the Indian Republic Day (…) India and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have enjoyed special relations based on several millennia of civilizational and cultural linkages and people-to-people exchanges." Religion is a major area of connection between India and Saudi Arabia, as every year, around 140,000 Indians visit Saudi Arabia for pilgrimage.
Developing strong and sustainable relations with India should not be considered by Arab states as an option, but as a must. India’s regional and global role is changing, growing very rapidly, and its say in global matters is becoming more significant. For instance, India is one of the world’s major nuclear powers and has the third largest armed forces in the world. It has the ninth largest world economy and it is a member of the G20 and the BRICS. Therefore, Arab states should seize the opportunity and engage India more aggressively to boost and build relations based on cooperation, mutual respect, and friendship. There are many fields that can be explored by both Arab states and India to improve their current relations. In addition to trade agreements, the two parties should consider other public diplomacy venues to develop substantial social and cultural exchanges, and boost larger people-to-people relations. Cultural public diplomacy is one of the promising venues through which the Arab states and India can develop more relations. Activities can be organized around religious dialogue, student exchanges, and other cultural and educational issues that would bring both states and publics closer together. Mona El Hamdani is currently pursuing a Master's degree in Public Diplomacy at The Annenberg School for Communication at USC and is part of the India: Inside Out Project. She is a Fulbright Scholar from Morocco. Mona previously worked as a Country Program Manager for The Media Diversity Institute (MDI) in Morocco. Mona was also a Program Coordinator at the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and was in charge of program evaluation and monitoring. Through her work with NDI, she encouraged youth and women to participate in Moroccan politics.
Indian Govt Jobs on December 6, 2011 @ 1:30 am The above article is showing the India supermarkets and all the countries want to investment in Indian market but some of gulf countries is not giving priority to India. Most of super power countries knows India is growing power is increasing and they are helping us.
Please check Indian Govt Jobs here
Amid the cacophony of new technologies that seem to proliferate with each passing year, radio remains a beacon to the disenfranchised. It is arguably the most affordable medium, and its reach makes it a viable way of reaching rural and isolated areas in which residents typically feel marginalized. As Colin Fraser and Sonia Restrepo Estrada note in UNESCO’s Community Radio Handbook,
Any notion that TV and other sophisticated communication technology will replace radio is unfounded, for radio is in constant expansion. Its waves reach almost every corner of our planet. It is the prime electronic medium of the poor because it leaps the barriers of isolation and illiteracy, and it is the most affordable electronic medium to broadcast and receive in.
Community radio in particular is meant to be a tool of empowerment. By definition, community radio is a third model of broadcasting, separate and distinct from commercial and public radio. It is low-power radio, by and large, and caters to specific, frequently underserved, communities in limited geographic areas.
It is no accident that in India it has been burgeoning for years. Per a UNESCO publication entitled “A Report on National Consultation on Community Radio Policy IIMC New Delhi,” the struggle for community radio followed a decision by the Supreme Court of India that declared the airwaves public property, to be used for the public good. The judgment further stated that broadcasting media should promote freedom of expression and should be free of “Government monopoly or control, subject to regulation by a public body.” For years advocates of community radio in India fought for the establishment of
a new tier of not-for-profit radio stations, owned and run by local people, typically in rural areas, which would enable marginalized communities to use the medium to create opportunities for social change, cohesion and inclusion as well as for creative and cultural expression.
Initially, only educational stations were licensed, but a number of civil society groups have since gotten involved. They produce programs in partnership with the local population. Hundreds of languages are spoken in India, so community radio can have a real impact on peoples who are isolated by the vernacular.
One question, though, is how to finance those tools of empowerment. A report on community radio for the InterMedia Knowledge Center, published in 2010, stated that there were at least 70 community radio stations in India, run by universities, NGOs, and agricultural agencies. According to the same report, “visits to seven CRs as part of a study sponsored by the Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia (CEMCA) showed that they face common challenges to sustainability and growth: time-consuming licensing processes, weak transmission power, the need for more human resource training, and the perennial search for a viable CR business model.” It is the perennial dilemma of community radio: their weak transmission power makes them feasible to establish (because they do not clash with other signals) but difficult to sustain (because they do not have the reach of other stations).
A number of funding ideas have been proposed for community radio stations in India. One recommendation in the UNESCO publication calls for the establishment of a CR support fund that would take a percentage of the earnings of private FM radio “to subsidize the infrastructure and capacity building costs of CR stations.” What about revenue at the local level? Dr. R. Sreedher, a director at CEMCA, suggests selling micro-ads by, for example, having local residents pay to have birthday greetings mentioned on the air. He also recommends broadcasting classified advertising. While the revenue generated by such mechanisms is admittedly small, they are still valuable because they give listeners a stake in the stations that serve their communities. They also help to foster a greater sense of community.
Conspicuously absent from community radio is news, but there is evidence that it may be migrating to the digital realm. Currently, only All-India radio, which is run by the government, is authorized to broadcast news on FM. Joel Simon, Executive Director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, wrote in a CPJ Blog, “Circumventing India’s Radio News Ban,” that he heard two explanations for the prohibition: the sense that the government is concerned that irresponsible programming could fuel religious tensions and the belief that authorities have been slow to dissolve the government’s radio monopoly.
Former BBC Producer and Knight International Journalism Fellow, Shrubhranshu Shuddery, works in a region of India where most people are poor and illiterate and the language is Gondi. Per Simon, Choudary has gotten around the ban on radio news by working with Microsoft and MIT to develop a system that allows tribal villagers to call a phone number on their mobile phones and record a message with news on it. Once the information is verified, it is disseminated by mobile phone, SMS message and a website, CGNet.
A similar venture could be launched in India involving journalism students. As Sundeep R. Muppidi noted in a paper extracted from a study for AMIC-UNESCO, journalism education has traditionally been a postgraduate offering in India, although it has been increasingly offered as an undergraduate elective as well. The growth in private television stations in India has fueled a demand for journalism education; but are students getting enough practical experience in contemporary journalism? Apurv Pandit, writing in Medianama, a website offering news and analysis of digital media in India, thinks not. He wrote that many journalism students end up getting content writing jobs, writing advertorials for b2b publications and working in public relations.
Suppose there were a way to put the same students to work in underserved communities and galvanize their energy for the public good instead of advertorials. One way to accomplish that would be to create a corps of journalism students who would work on stories commissioned by local residents. Instead of recording the news themselves, as in Choudary’s model, the residents would use mobile phones to propose the stories and the journalism students would do the actual reporting. Given that so much of journalism education in India is postgraduate, this program could serve as a practicum that would complete a student’s journalism training. Students enrolling in such a corps of community journalists could then be given tuition credits and other incentives in exchange for what would amount to a form of national service.
Democracy has never been a quiet pursuit. It is robust, raucous, and sometimes fractious. A service corps of budding journalists would arguably make the racket even louder, give a voice to the voiceless, and provide hope to the isolated and impoverished. Jerry Edling is a second year Master of Public Diplomacy student at the University of Southern California. He is also the Editor in Chief of “PD Magazine” and an editor at KNX, the CBS Radio all-news station in Los Angeles. He will be participating in India: Inside Out, a student-led research project in India this December. For more on the project, please visit www.indiapublicdiplomacy.com.
Recently, I argued that Pakistan is not in a position to be either a friend or foe of the United States, due to the de facto civil war among Pakistani's pro-Western and anti-Western citizens.
I stand by this statement, but more nervously in the wake of the NATO bombardment of 24 Pakistani soldiers. There is much that we don't know about the nature and details of the incident—but it seems fair to say the reaction of Pakistani officials is not one of a "friend" of the U.S. and NATO forces.
As a Pakistani-American who longs for better ties between the two nations, and has attempted to advance this these efforts in small ways, I find this situation discouraging. If Pakistani leaders were intent on having a strong relationship with Washington, they would have taken their grievances quietly to American officials. They may have been able to push Washington to make certain changes or to further open the aid spigot. Instead, Pakistani officials appeared to use the incident as an excuse for a public temper tantrum, inciting street protests that involved the usual nasty warnings and nastier spelling mistakes.
The Pakistani reaction, coupled with a cutoff of key forms of cooperation, may be an act of emotional retaliation by the Pakistani military in the wake of the bin Laden raid — an attempt to show that it has the upper hand and higher moral ground.
Pakistan could be in danger of becoming a failed state, or an isolated nation like North Korea. But the coming years will most likely involve cautious courtship of this geopolitical chess piece by Washington, Beijing and Moscow. Given Pakistan's tensions with India, coupled with Washington's strategic preference for India, Washington faces long odds in turning Pakistanis more favorably toward America.
The drone-obsessed Obama administration has been surprisingly tone deaf in its willingness to stomp on Pakistan's sovereignty in pursuit of its own objectives. The administration will learn that as a consequence, Pakistan is now more close to positioning itself as an American enemy than it was during the era of George Bush. This would be bad not only for Pakistan, but also for global security.
As a part of the mandate for public diplomacy in the Ministry of External Affairs, the Division is required to conduct activities engaging and educating Indians about government policies and Indian culture – a form of internal public diplomacy. By investing in the education of citizens, especially about national and foreign cultures, the government helps create effective citizen diplomats. For example, in the U.S., track II diplomacy has worked to stave off conflicts and encourage peace talks with other countries. However, these citizens would not have been useful without the knowledge of American interests and history, as well as knowledge of the world around them.
Video From Public Diplomacy Division on Indian History
Globally-aware citizens make for better ambassadors and for a more active democracy. Internal public diplomacy is a tool for producing more informed citizens prepared for the challenges of globalization such as multicultural workplaces and the homogenization of cultures. Additionally, citizens that understand their own history are better able to participate in policy decisions, and by becoming more civically engaged, ensure that the external image of their nation reflects their beliefs. Creating opportunities for the Indian populace to become actively interested in their country is a critical prerequisite for them to function as citizen diplomats for India.
One of the first forms of Indian public diplomacy was through Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR). The ICCR invited guests in the arts to demonstrate Indian heritage to teach foreigners about India. Live dance and music programs were vehicles for engaging foreign audiences and far more memorable than only seeing pictures in a book
With similar logic, Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS), a Hindu organization that advocates for practical spirituality through social service, built Akshardham. Akshardham is a temple complex complete with exhibits, gardens, boats, and a cinema theater with information on thousands of years of Indian heritage. Visitors are encouraged to explore the grounds on boat rides and by walking through gardens filled with statues of Indian luminaries such as Mahatma Gandhi and Ashoka the Great. The cinema theater plays educational movies on Indian culture and Hindu heritage. Akshardham is an all-in-one type destination dedicated to teaching visitors about the origins of India and its culture. Visitors get to experience India’s culture and learn more about Hinduism, which allows them to create a personal, lasting connection to history.
Citizens are authentic communicators for the realities of India, and if they are knowledgeable about cultural heritage, they can accurately communicate the story of India. By supporting such activities and leveraging the many historical sites that speak to the country’s rich heritage, the PD Division can more easily fulfill its mandate to engage Indians in communicating who and what India is all about. The burden of shaping the image of India and expressing it to foreign publics is taken off of the shoulders of one government department if every citizen can function as a cultural ambassador.
The India: Inside Out team looks forward to visiting Akshardham and other incredible landmarks of India! Aparajitha Vadlamannati is a Master’s of Public Diplomacy student at USC, graduating in May 2012. She is also the President of the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars and a senior editor on the Public Diplomacy Magazine board. Aparajitha is interested in studying U.S.-India relations and Indian government public diplomacy. She hopes that participating in the India: Inside Out Project will contribute to her knowledge through primary research on both topics.
Before public diplomacy, there was propaganda, a term coined by Pope Gregory XV in 1622 when he founded a new college to train missionaries to be sent to Protestant Northern Europe, Asia, and the New World. In this context, it is often noted that the Pope’s intention in making his new congregation responsible for ‘propaganda fide’-literally, propagating the faith-was not to endorse a shared information policy based on deceitful practices. Rather, the connotation of this first use of the term ‘propaganda,’ and its meaning until the twentieth century, was a value-neutral one. Propaganda was not about mind-control or robbing the masses of their ability to rationally respond to facts by denying them full and unbiased information. Propaganda was simply an acceptable process of exhortation on behalf of a cause; the term did not acquire its nefarious connotations until sometime between the First and Second World Wars. So say the conventional, one-line references to the etymology of the term ‘propaganda,’ generally appearing in contemporary accounts of the history of public diplomacy.
There is no question that popular consciousness of the power of propaganda did emerge in force after World War One. But one wonders whether Pope Gregory’s intention to propagate the faith not was quite as innocent (to borrow the moniker adopted by his successor’s successor) as such brief allusions to the coining of the term propaganda might suggest. I have been prompted to ask this question as a consequence of some recent reading into the historical context of Gregory’s announcement. Though it may be rather pernickety to observe that one-line etymologies of ‘propaganda’ are simplistic, the history of statecraft and public opinion in the seventeenth century is nonetheless fascinating and worth thinking about more deeply. Gregory’s initiative in establishing this new congregation occurred four years into one of Europe’s most pivotal conflicts. The Thirty Years War began a dispute between the Hapsburg dynasty and the Protestant monarchs of Northern and Central Europe over the succession in the kingdom of Bohemia that rapidly spiraled into a generalized struggle for geopolitical influence made rancorous by schisms over religious dogma. By the end of the conflict, almost every European kingdom had been represented on the field of battle. It is estimated that around a quarter of Europe’s population died as a result of fighting, starvation and disease. The war’s settlement, the Peace of Westphalia, is well known to International Relations scholars because it was at this conference that the modern doctrine of state sovereignty was first endorsed.
The Thirty Years War was, to borrow the language of the historian Peter H. Wilson, also a ‘media event’ (2009: 824). The world’s first regular newspapers had been established between 1605 and 1609, and the war itself massively and irrevocably increased Europe’s newspaper consumption. Mass production of newspapers and pamphlets had been aided by the introduction of copperplate printing. Newly established regular postal services also enabled their distribution. These publications also had a large effect, via word of mouth transmission of new stories and by the vividness copperplate images, on the opinions of the illiterate masses of Europe. Some of Europe’s earliest censorship laws, instituted in response to religious controversies almost a century earlier, were revised or extended to address the subversive potential within these new media formats. But it is also clear that many of Europe’s monarchs welcomed these new publications as vehicles for the circulation of their official decrees and pronouncements.
The Defenestration of Prague
In 1620, for example, Archduke Albert of Austria issued a license to the Antwerp newspaper publisher Abraham Verhoeven to ensure the publication of war news favorable to the Habsburgs (Wilson 2009: 826). In the summer of that year, the Habsburg cause was damaged by the seizure and publication of compromising letters from its chief military adversary, the Elector of Palatine. The Habsburg side took revenge the following year by publishing a set of confidential letters seized on the battlefield, which were circulated in both German and Latin, and damagingly outlined the Elector’s plans to encourage an Ottoman invasion of Habsburg territories. Such campaigns continued for the duration of the war, with each side attempting to undermine the alliances built by the others through the circulation of embarrassing or compromising documentation.
Increasingly, leaders on both sides “took great care to engage the most able of the intellectuals in their service to edit these works, write authoritative responses to the other side’s revelations, and go onto the offensive with their own propaganda pamphlets” (Malcolm 2007: 32). The articles of propaganda that were circulated over the course of this struggle for the allegiance of Europe’s elites ranged from faithful reproductions of official correspondence to outright fabrications. Perhaps the most famous of these fictions, again dating from 1620, consisted of forged minutes from a meeting of the Spanish Council of State spelling out Spanish intentions to ferment instability in England that was widely believed to be true. The conflict also fostered a genre of writing that blended fact and fiction to achieve the effect of a subtle satire: explications of the enemy’s objectives were contrived as records of the “most secret deliberations of princes and their counselors” (Malcolm 2007: 35). Polemical pamphlets were often lavishly illustrated and written in verse.
A key observation to make regarding the Pope’s call for the propagation of the faith in 1622 is that the advent of the printing press, the rise in literacy brought about by an emerging entrepreneurial middle class, and the religious controversies that had exploded in response to the doctrines of Luther and Calvin had already created a European sphere of public comment and opinion by the turn of the seventeenth century. Furthermore, the entrepreneurs who ran the printing presses, the newspaper- and pamphlet-reading middle class, and, in particular, the political leadership in cities such as Strasburg, Frankfurt, Vienna and Antwerp were increasingly aware of the connection between information, ideas, and military/diplomatic influence. All of this appears to have occurred before the Pope’s announcement of his intention to found a college for the training of Catholic missionaries.
Most interesting is the point made by Noel Malcolm in his introduction to a reprinting of Thomas Hobbes’ translation of a Habsburg propaganda tract produced during the 1620s: the type of information circulated by both sides during the Thirty Years War, in particular the leaking or fabrication of official documents, exposed the ‘arcana’ of diplomatic pragmatism to the European public in a dramatic and unprecedented way. “As the Thirty Years War progressed, much of Europe became, as it were, a huge public laboratory in which the theories of reason of state- where high politics, diplomacy, and the use of armed force were concerned- could be tested and demonstrated’ (Malcolm 2007: 31). The vehicle for such public awareness of the pragmatics of statecraft was this emerging system of print propaganda and official information/disinformation.
Pope Gregory’s establishment of a college to train Catholic propagandists occurred at a time when sophisticated war propaganda formats had already been adopted by the European powers. The mobilization in a range of propaganda formats of the emerging principles of ‘reason of state’—the doctrine the interests of government must be executed with utmost pragmatism and transcend the confines of morality—and their extensive use by other actors during the Thirty Years War show the rich history of propaganda in the period. References:
Noel Malcolm. 2007. Reason of State, Propaganda, and the Thirty Years’ War: An Unknown Translation by Thomas Hobbes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peter H. Wilson. 2009. The Thirty Years War: Europe’s Tragedy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
See Also:
Elmer A. Beller. 1940. Propaganda in Germany during the Thirty Years War. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
C. V. Wedgwood. 1938. The Thirty Years War. New York: New York Review Books.
MEXICO CITY --- While attending a meeting here recently, I referred to Mexico as a “major power.” A government official said he was surprised. “We are a major power,” he said, “but nobody knows that.”
Mexico is the 11th largest nation in the world, with 114 million people. Its GDP of $1.6 trillion is 12th largest in the world. It has a labor force of 47 million. But it is still dismissed by many as an inconsequential player in world affairs.
A principal reason that few recognize Mexico’s current and potential strengths is that the nation has done a poor job in defining itself through public diplomacy. Its outreach centers primarily on two topics: promoting tourism and defensively responding to the narco-wars that have killed tens of thousands of Mexicans. These two issues are important and linked. Tourism is an essential part of Mexico’s economic foundation and the drug wars deter visitors, investors, and others from wanting to have anything to do with Mexico. These matters must be dealt with forcefully, but not to the exclusion of other issues.
Mexico is one of the few large countries to have realistically addressed climate change, adopting an aggressive policy on reducing greenhouse effect gas emissions. As such, it has an enormous global constituency it can tap into should it decide to make advocacy on this issue a centerpiece of Mexican public diplomacy. If the government builds an identity along these lines, it may be able to reach a primary goal of public diplomacy: to win support of foreign publics through attraction rather than coercion.
As Mexico’s economy grows (its growth rate in 2010 was 5.5 percent), so too will its role in the world, and if it wants to be a leader in the global community it will need to assert itself on global issues such as climate change.
Mexican officials told me that they consider improving the country’s public diplomacy to be a matter of national security. In the era of globalization, any country that withdraws into itself is certain to be left far behind. It will be economically anemic and, as such, vulnerable to domestic instability.
Mexico has excellent academic institutions, think tanks, and other organizations that could help the government craft an ambitious, comprehensive public diplomacy strategy. If this happens, Mexico’s status as a major power is certain to be more widely recognized.
CARLOS CASTAÑEDA G. on November 22, 2011 @ 4:41 pm I attended Dr. Seib´s presentation in Mexico City and his comments were very concise and accurate about Mexico´s position in public diplomacy. Congratulations and we hopoe that we can have more visits from USC´s academics.
LOS ANGELES --- Food has always been the epicenter of celebrations in my family. In Arabic, iftar is much more than a proverbial breaking of bread, it’s a chance to connect with the community, an opportunity to bury the hatchet, and an excuse to eat until you sweat, my personal favorite. Growing up in a diverse community in California, I enjoyed home-cooked Indian dishes, courtesy of my mother’s friends. I remember learning about India’s history and subsequently falling in love with its diverse culture and folklore, all during dinner. In retrospect, that was gastrodiplomacy at work.
Blogger Paul Rockower describes gastrodiplomacy as a way to use “culinary delights to appeal to global appetites, and thus helps raise a nation's brand awareness and reputation.” The Indian dishes served all around Los Angeles are a large part of India’s public diplomacy because they are closely related to India’s rich history, diverse regions, and religions. A single bite, robust with the different spices and flavors, captivates the essence of India’s spirit and culture.
Food is a catalyst, not only for families to come together, but sharing a meal often creates an environment for business partners, co-workers, community leaders, and educators to exchange ideas for a purpose far greater than basic nutrition. It is an important tool in building cultural understanding, and in turn, breaking down traditional barriers by providing insight into a culture that might otherwise be unknown to a person. While many Americans may never experience the joys, sights and sounds of Incredible India, they can taste the culture through a culinary sampling at their local Indian market or restaurant. By bringing the food to their local communities, these outlets are great for engaging audiences through gastrodiplomacy, one palate at a time.
The India Times reported a story in March 2011 on how Indian students living in Melbourne, Australia began to use gastrodiplomacy to build “amicable relations and cultural understanding between Indians and Australians.”
After numerous incidents were reported of violence against Indian students in Australia, the civil society in Australia decided to take their fight to the kitchen, and tried breaking cultural and social barriers, armed with delicious traditional Indian cuisine. In this instance, members of the Uniting Church in Australia used food as part of a larger public diplomacy campaign aimed at creating an environment for dialogue of cross-cultural issues.
‘Vindaloo Against Violence’ was another initiative launched by a local Australian named Mia Northrop. The Facebook page she created became viral, with more than 17 thousand people signing on to be part of the campaign where Australians are invited to have dinner at Indian restaurants on particular days. The campaign was designed to curb hostility against Indians by exposing people to Indian cuisine.
The Indian students, in cooperation with local government, religious organizations, and citizens in Australia, used traditional Indian dishes to communicate a powerful message of friendship, understanding, and diplomacy. The overwhelmingly positive response by Australian officials and local citizens to the ‘Vindaloo Against Violence’ campaign was a good sign that there was an environment ready to welcome the Indian students into the Australian communities in which they lived.
Through the India: Inside Out trip, I am looking forward to speaking with Indian government officials in the Public Diplomacy Division on how food diplomacy will ease Indo-Australian relations. Has gastrodiplomacy been tried in other countries by Indian students, and if so, what were the results? Finally, I am looking forward to exploring India’s street food, as part of my own immersion in Indian culture. Hend Alhinnawi is a graduate student working on her professional Master's of Public Diplomacy at USC. In the past, she worked with the United Nations and AMIDEAST in the Middle East and Africa on international development and resource mobilization related issues. She is also participating in the India:Inside Out Project.
Sherine Badawi Walton on November 18, 2011 @ 1:20 pm I'm happy to report that inspired by your blog, I went out in search of Indian food only to stumble on "India Jones" a food truck parked a few hundred feet from campus! Gastrodiplomacy makes so much sense - especially around lunchtime!
Hend Alhinnawi on November 18, 2011 @ 10:25 pm Sherine! Thank you for sharing your experience with gastrodiplomacy around lunch time I'm excited to visit "India Jones" next time I'm on campus!
Paul on November 20, 2011 @ 11:36 am Be sure to try the Dosa Truck too!
WASHINGTON --- Voice of America and other American international broadcasters now reach 187 million people every week, an increase of 22 million from 2010 and an all-time record number of listeners and viewers, according to data released yesterday. That increase was a complete surprise, according to Bruce Sherman, Director of the Office of Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement of the United States Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG).
Just last month, BBG released a new Strategic Plan that had as its “performance goal,” an increase of 50 million people in worldwide audience by 2016. Now, just a few weeks after announcing that goal, BBG is already almost half-way there. Sherman said they did not have access to the 2011 audience data when the goal was set.
Sherman also came under repeated questions at a forum today in Washington about the impact of BBG broadcasts, and one question asked repeatedly was whether the BBG’s metrics on impact - "moving the needle" - go beyond total numbers of listeners and viewers.
"Impact cannot be reduced to audience,” Sherman replied, “but you cannot have impact without audience." He added that you need to look at specific audiences – not just traditional elites, but young people and women.
“The biggest success on the planet” is how Sherman described U.S. broadcasting in Afghanistan, where 2011 data show three-quarters of the entire country watches or listens to American broadcasts. Additionally, 400,000 Afghans subscribe to BBG text messaging services.
Beyond audience growth, another goal of the Strategic Plan is for VOA and other U.S. broadcasters to embrace user content and use material created by listeners and viewers. The “value added” by U.S. international broadcasting, according to Sherman, would be checking and verifying the accuracy of material submitted by the audience.
One questioner at today’s forum, held by the Public Diplomacy Council, said he could not find the phrase “public diplomacy” anywhere in the Strategic Plan. Sherman acknowledged that was correct, and he said that was for a reason: Objective journalists by and large, he said, don't subscribe to the idea that they are changing people’s attitudes.
"Attitudinal and behavioral change" is the hope, but not a direct goal, explained Sherman. “We don't do the advocacy piece. Good things will come from good journalism."
"Our media outlets – Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa, Radio Free Asia, and Radio and TV Marti – are vital, cost-effective national security asset," said Isaacson, "whose impact is felt by some 166 million people weekly across the globe where critical U.S. interests are at stake."
For decades, the relationship between the governments of India and Pakistan has been characterized by mutual distrust-- pursuing a devastating arms race and fomenting one crisis after another, leaving little room for strong bilateral relations. Official diplomacy between the two governments has resulted in vague resolutions with no concrete statements. While the governments have been unable to find common ground, unofficial people-to-people dialogue has emerged between Pakistanis and Indians working to promote peace and mutual understanding where the government has not. Subsequently, citizen diplomacy has gained prominence as more citizens from both countries seem more inclined to build a peaceful future than their respective governments.
Citizen Diplomacy is the practice of an individual acting as an informal representative of his/her home country. Anyone can be a citizen diplomat-- students, teachers, businessmen and women, humanitarians, and even tourists. Often, the most lasting impressions of a country come from the personal encounters with individuals from that country. Face-to-face interactions like these facilitate mutual understanding, allowing people of different backgrounds to find common values and interests, and perhaps mitigate wrong impressions of a certain group. Citizen diplomacy can complement or be completely removed from traditional diplomacy efforts. Citizen diplomats are often ordinary people, young and old, taking part in educational exchanges, cultural exchanges, or engaging in humanitarian efforts abroad.
In the case of a decades-long conflict between India and Pakistan, citizen diplomacy has the potential to counter a negative way of thinking about each other through people to people interaction.
Different groups of citizen diplomats in India and Pakistan are reaching across the border to find mutual grounds and means for a more peaceful future. The South Asian Free Media Association is composed of progressive journalists from both countries that work to provide a balanced news source and counter ultra-nationalist media and media portrayals that demonize the other. The South Asians for Human Rights works to create regional instruments to support human rights, gender equality, justice, and strengthening regional interaction. The Pakistan-India Peoples’ Forum for Peace and Democracy is prominent among citizen groups, tackling issues such as reduction in military spending, and promoting education that is not based on hostility towards each other. The group began in 1994 with 25 people from both countries meeting in Lahore, Pakistan. Today, their conventions, held alternatively in both countries, attract hundreds of people who have a common interest in mutual understanding and progressing towards peace. This year, the joint convention will be held from December 29-31 in Allahabad, India.
Critics of this type of informal citizen diplomacy argue that the outcomes of these meetings, summits, and recommendations never find their way into actual policy-making processes in India and Pakistan. While the political decisions will ultimately be made by the two countries’ governments, the use of citizen diplomacy develops an environment conducive to positive outcomes. By having people to people interactions, some of the biases and prejudices against the other can be alleviated. When mutual distrust is prevalent between two countries, this channel of communication brings a human aspect that the government lacks.
While citizen diplomacy is an informal means of diplomacy, there are ways that both governments can support its people-to-people interaction. Easing visa restrictions, increasing public transportation between India and Pakistan, and encouraging media, musical, sports, and art exchanges are just a few ideas to help promote an environment conducive to mutual understanding. The Indian and Pakistani governments can help create a better environment for future official relations by supporting the unofficial citizen diplomacy already occurring.
While in India, I would like to research the impact that citizen diplomacy has on achieving greater mutual understanding between Indian and Pakistani people. I want to discover the direction that citizen diplomacy is heading. The questions I would like to answer are as follows: will citizen diplomacy between the countries grow on the online platforms? Will the governments recognize citizen diplomacy as a viable complement to official diplomacy? To CPD Blog readers who have experience in India-Pakistan relations, I would love to learn more about your experiences with citizen diplomacy between the countries. Anna Dawson is a Master of Public Diplomacy candidate and a Senior Editor for USC’s Public Diplomacy Magazine. She is also participating in the India:Inside Out Project. This past summer, she interned at the Center for International Private Enterprise in Washington, DC.
Welcome to the opening entry of Culture Posts, an interactive blog for exploring the cultural underbelly of public diplomacy. Over the next two years, I hope that you will join me, collecting and discussing your insights on the hidden, and often times not so hidden, aspects of culture in public diplomacy.
The Multiples faces of Culture
Culture, as an underlying force that shapes global public diplomacy, remains curiously unexplored. Most focus on the positive, visible side of culture. As a soft power resource, culture is often viewed as a product for export that can help improve a country’s image. In cultural diplomacy, culture is a vehicle for bringing people together. Culture helps build mutual understanding.
Yet, culture is like the well-known optical illusion that can appear to be a single vase or two, depending on one’s perspective. The image and the vase (The Queen’s Speech) reflect culture’s multiple meanings and hidden symbolism – there are 4 faces, including the profiles of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip.
The implicit, unspoken side of cultural assumptions and expectations tend to generate mutual misunderstanding. These hidden aspects are the ones most likely to contribute to costly, ineffective public diplomacy initiatives that can do more harm than good.
Multiple Perspectives of Public Diplomacy
In public diplomacy, discussions of culture can be controversial, and spark debates between universalism and cultural variation. Controversy provides even more reason to explore culture.
Culture touches nearly every aspect of public diplomacy – from the ideas that actors select and try to communicate, to how that communication is perceived by global publics.
Originally, scholars of diplomacy maintained that principles of negotiations were “universal.” Raymond Cohen’s (U.S. Institute of Peace, 1991) landmark study demonstrated what seasoned diplomats instinctively knew, namely that Arab, Japanese and U.S. diplomats do not “negotiate” the same way or necessarily from the same premise. Cohen traced the distinctive styles and underlying philosophies to the differing cultural heritages.
The predominance of U.S. scholarship as a cultural force in public diplomacy cannot be underestimated. The screenshot of Wikipedia about U.S. dominance in public diplomacy was taken just this week.
While the U.S. may be a leader in the field, the U.S. perspective represents a mono-cultural perspective in what is undeniably a multicultural world. The dominance of the U.S. model may overshadow the rich contributions of other intellectual heritages to the vision of public diplomacy. In a world of global communication, what insights could be gained if we could view public diplomacy from multiple perspectives?
Future Trends: Culture’s Blessing or Curse
The need for cultural knowledge for public diplomats is likely to grow more urgent given the strengthening of two trends.
The first trend is the growing salience of cultural identity by publics. Public diplomacy inherently includes messages about how a party sees itself (identity) and the other (image). Albeit a two-sided equation, public diplomacy focuses primarily on how a nation or sponsor can protect or promote its own image.
However, publics tend to have similar identity needs. Violations of a public’s cultural identity can elicit strong reactions. The 2005 Danish ‘cartoon’ incident is a powerful example. The strategies that public diplomats use to navigate the dynamics of cultural identities and media representations rest on cultural awareness and knowledge.
A second trend is the move toward collaborative public diplomacy to tackle complex “wicked” problems. The recent mantra of relationship-building, networking, partnerships, and engagement are part of the vocabulary of collaboration. Collaboration in public diplomacy may well become the strategic equivalent of negotiation in traditional diplomacy.
At the heart of collaborative public diplomacy is the ability to get people of diverse backgrounds to work productively together. Researchers are finding that cultural diversity is the greatest source of friction – and synergy – in collaboration. A public diplomat’s cultural awareness and knowledge will determine whether she is able to invoke culture’s curse or blessing.
Cultural similarities, differences, paradoxes … your ideas for a Culture Post?
In the months ahead, I hope that you will join me on a journey to explore the cultural underbelly of public diplomacy in Culture Posts. Each month Culture Posts will highlight themes that range from listening to multicultural perspective-taking, to power and proverbs, to cognitive styles and website design.
With the addition of your insights and perspectives to Culture Posts, we can help create a forum for collecting, sharing and discussing the many cultural similarities, differences, and even cultural paradoxes found in global public diplomacy. In fact, we are looking for an image to represent “Culture Posts” or “the cultural underbelly of public diplomacy,” please share your idea!
Madhur on November 14, 2011 @ 9:28 pm I find this thought of yours interesting:
"The implicit, unspoken side of cultural assumptions and expectations tend to generate mutual misunderstanding. These hidden aspects are the ones most likely to contribute to costly, ineffective public diplomacy initiatives that can do more harm than good."
There are some inherent dangers in communicating culture - it is subject to interpretation and is difficult to map the possible reactions to it. I always wonder how do nations map the impact of cultural exchanges? Also can culture be communicated between two groups of people with a sense of pride in their own cultural identity - for eg. France & India - with some genuine positive implications. That is the external aspect of it. Internally, does chest thumping about one's culture overseas lead to jingoism in the discourses of national identity politics or divisiveness for that matter. For example most of what is 'popularly' represented as Indian culture overseas is primarily representative of only two Indian states - Punjab & Gujarat. Most Indians do not identify with it. Punjabis & Gujaratis happen to ndia's largest diaspora communities overseas.
Thanks,
Madhur
John Brown on November 15, 2011 @ 4:24 am Rhonda, Thank you for this important posting and for initiating a project that should enlighten all of us. Best, John
Sherine Badawi Walton on November 15, 2011 @ 11:18 am This is going to be fun, Rhonda! And better yet as John said, it should prove illuminating. I don't envy you the task of finding a suitable graphic for your Culture Posts...
RS Zaharna on November 15, 2011 @ 2:13 pm thank you John and Sherine -- and special thanks to Amy Yu Zheng for her work in tracking down the visuals for this post.
RS Zaharna on November 15, 2011 @ 2:24 pm Thank you, Madhur. Your observations help bring "in awareness" the other side of culture that we sometimes overlook -- including the difficult questions you suggest:
- How do nations map the impact of cultural exchange?
- What about the potential for cultural competition?
- Can cultural programs inadvertently trigger cultural identity challenges?
- What about the discrepancy between cultural representations abroad versus at home?
Thank you for starting the ball rolling with your questions!
Delilah Liu Huiquan on November 21, 2011 @ 5:09 am Thank you Ms. Zaharna for your post and comments! I feel like I'm attending a distant course - a lot of interesting concepts and points!
I agree that misunderstanding of the other nation's culture - identity, way of thinking - makes negotiations difficult. This aspect of diplomacy has been overlooked by negotiators. The case from my perspective would be the climate talks, where negotiators would end up sometimes with criticizing the others in the media...
Besides, the questions in your comment is very thought-provoking. I find resonance in my mind with the last one- discrepancy abroad and at home. Or, can we put it like discrepancy between what is presented to foreign publics and what is experienced at home? I guess I would cite China as an example for this.
As to cultural competition, is it like the notion of cultural imperialism?
-Delilah
Mary Jeffers on January 3, 2012 @ 8:13 am Dr. Zaharna -- this is a really important discussion, and I look forward to being a part of it in the new year. Your idea that "collaboration in public diplomacy may well become the strategic equivalent of negotiation in traditional diplomacy" is alone a banquet for thought. And as someone moving from practitioner to teacher in the public diplomacy / cultural diplomacy field, I'm wrestling with how to convey such ideas clearly, and with how to "de-internalize" my own knowledge and experience.
On the question of collaboration, I would posit that U.S. cultural diplomacy, with its strong focus on professional as well as academic exchanges, has always promoted mutual understanding as a basis for collaboration even more than it has sought to project something defined as American culture. I'd even argue that our Cold War music and fine arts programming, often cited as a high-water mark of U.S. public diplomacy practice, were tailored to a pretty specific context - and I think many practitioners have long recognized that they are not universally effective tools.
But perhaps collaboration and the creative melding of cultural traditions may, in fact, be a projection of American culture. Putting everything into the melting pot and seeing what new thing comes out is what we do every day in the U.S., and we can't help but think it's normal and universal.
In some places, though, it can seem very ... well ... American. And to many it just feels wrong to be "trying something new" with a performance style that has been honed and refined through the ages, or "putting ideas out there" for debate and dissection if those ideas have been carefully taught and learned, as truths, over generations.
In other words, to some people, "collaboration" may simply look like more of the opportunistic culture-blending that has historically fed into the creation of a globally dominant American pop culture.
Meanwhile, the Thomas Friedman school of thought says it's Americans' flexibility, creativity, and comfort-level with innovation that will keep us a world leader economically. Whether we agree or not, I believe Americans do think of innovation and creativity and independent thinking as being inherently good. I think U.S. foreign service officers, and many others engaged in citizen diplomacy exchanges, feel even a bit evangelical about promoting appreciation for these traits, encouraging the idea that success in a globalized world depends on them. We feel that it is a good thing to share this element of American culture.
So an interesting question becomes: when is collaboration really collaboration, vs. projection of the valued cultural trait of one side? How do cultural diplomats ensure real collaboration if that is what they really seek?
Again, thanks so much for creating Culture Posts!
RS Zaharna on January 8, 2012 @ 1:34 pm Thanks, Delilah! You raise an important flag about “cultural competition” and “cultural imperialism.” In an age of globalization where cultural boundaries are becoming less defined, these concerns may become more and more pronounced. Public diplomacy initiatives will need to factor in these concerns. No matter how unfounded or “irrational” they may seem, they may erode goodwill over the long term with strategic publics.
RS Zaharna on January 8, 2012 @ 1:40 pm Thank you, Mary Jeffers, for your questions on collaboration! I was thinking about collaboration in terms of wicked, complex problems in the global realm that require working with others. I hadn’t really thought about collaboration in CD. Thinking maybe the difference could be framed as other-participation vs self-promotion. Participation entails active involvement with others. Promotion is primarily passive observation by others. Both forms are acceptable, it just depends on what the strategic goal is of the PD initiative.
Each year, Google hosts a conference called “Zeitgeist,” organizing presentations and discussions surrounding the most popular search queries of the past year. Much is learned about the zeitgeist through Google searches.
Try this one. You'll see that, "with friends like this, who needs enemies" is a particularly popular phrase regarding Americans' view of Pakistan.
The latest issue of the Atlantic Monthly devotes a major cover story to Pakistan. Neither the article nor the cover (a photo of a grubby jihadist) capture Pakistan's most flattering side, and the title, "The Ally From Hell" does not appear to do so either.
These are fascinating discussions, yet foreign policy circles kid themselves when they ask whether Pakistan is a friend or an enemy of the United States.
It is neither.
It is a nation that has descended into a de facto civil war. Figuring out whether Pakistan is an enemy of the United States, at this moment, would be akin to asking the U.S. in 1862 if it was pro-slavery.
The best answer, of course, is, "Can we get back to you on that?"
The Atlantic article, by Jeffrey Goldberg and Marc Ambinder, is thorough and disturbing, yet it says nothing new. Yes, we know that elements of the Pakistan military and intelligence units are secretly funding America's enemies even while receiving American funding. (In a related vein, google "Pakistan" and "double game" to catch another example of the Western foreign policy zeitgeist.)
Goldberg and Ambinder spend thousands upon thousands of words burying Pakistan before concluding that they need to dig it back up, thanks in part to the balanced perspective of a regional scholar such as Stephen Cohen:
To Stephen P. Cohen, the Pakistan analyst at Brookings, the administration’s singular focus on al-Qaeda means that American policy makers are not focused on larger issues. The rationale for continued, even heightened, engagement with Pakistan, he said, is that the country is 'too nuclear to fail.' The arguments made by the administration about the importance of focusing on al-Qaeda at the expense of focusing on Pakistan per se remind Cohen of arguments from the Cold War. 'It’s the same line I heard 20 years ago in the State Department,' he says. 'The program was to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan. We privileged one goal over another. In Pakistan we have several goals, but we are ignoring the Pakistani nuclear-weapons program, ignoring India-Pakistan relations, ignoring the country’s growing societal degradation. We have to have a better policy than keeping our fingers crossed.'
Cohen is right. But ideally, the U.S. needs to go past an obsession with narrow strategic interests and seek to build a genuine relationship with the people of Pakistan. Those people are convinced—with good reason—that U.S. policy-makers see India as a valuable long-term strategic partner and Pakistan as a nuisance to be managed. In a shame-and-honor-based society such as Pakistan, that turns an America-envying country quickly into a jilted lover.
Being friends with Pakistanis would involve more than granting military and even civilian aid. It would also require convincing Pakistanis that the U.S. would be as protective of it as it would be of other allies in case that jumpy nation's security were genuinely threatened by its arch-nemesis India. Pakistan may be a bit paranoid about India, but the contempt is mutual on both sides; and if the U.S. cannot offer Pakistan that kind of balanced support, we might as well plan on being Pakistan's enemy, because that is how they will see us.
Pakistan is afflicted with dysfunction and a toxic culture of victimization, and if we choose to make them a friend rather than an enemy, we will need to patiently incentivize them to move beyond their lengthy list of real and imagined grievances against the outside world.
While Pakistanis haven’t taken adequate responsibility for their plight, Americans could do well to take more responsibility for creating the Pakistan that we’ve got.
Is Pakistan a nation run by incompetent civilian leaders? Bear in mind that the bumbling and corrupt exile (and now president) Asif Ali Zardari was visited upon Pakistan by the Bush Administration. He is the gift that keeps on taking.
Is Pakistan foolish to believe that jihadists can advance their national interests? Remember, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia collaborated to import jihadists during the 1980s to fight a proxy Afghan war that served their own interests. Pakistan’s mistake isn’t that it has irredeemable principles, but that it has been slower than the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to choose new interests.
Is Pakistan naïve for worrying too much about India? Perhaps, but U.S. policymakers have done much to portray the coming century as a battle between the U.S. and India on one side and China (who Pakistan considers to be its only “all-weather friend”) on the other.
Are Pakistanis lax about fighting the jihadists in their northern frontiers? Yes, but many Washington liberals who scolded the Bush administration for ignoring the "hydra effect" when chasing terrorists have now infuriated even the most pro-American Pakistanis who have grown weary of hearing about American drones blowing up wedding parties.
Ultimately, Goldberg and Ambinder's shock-jock approach to this delicate and deadly relationship is likely to only breed greater antagonism between Pakistan and the U.S., even though that is ironically the opposite of their goal.
“I destroy my enemies,” Lincoln said, “when I make them my friends.” As of yet, Washington has yet to buy into Lincoln’s principle in South Asia.
Americans learn in high school that one of the greatest acts in our history happened when George Washington said no when offered the opportunity to stay in power. He actually said it twice. The first time came at the end of the long war for independence. Instead of accepting a title of nobility and possible kingship, Washington famously took off his uniform and returned to Mt. Vernon a civilian, an American Cincinnatus. Called back into service as president, Washington again said no when pressured to run for a third term, setting a precedent that endured for a century and a half, and which now is set into the Constitution. We celebrate Washington because he, more than anyone, assured us a legacy in which the Constitution, not a personality, remains central to who we are. Thus, there have been no American Cromwells, Napoleons, Porfirios, Mussolinis, Francos, Mobutus, Mubaraks, or Maos. In our heart of hearts as a nation, we remain skeptical of those who would concentrate power in one office and one person.
DEPERSONALIZING POLITICS
Self-made Sudanese billionaire Mo Ibrahim learned Washington’s lesson well. Seeking a way to nurture the same tradition of democratic rule of law and abnegation of personality on his continent, Ibrahim decided to use his vast fortune to celebrate the George Washingtons of Africa. He established the Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership. The “leadership” here means having said no to unending power, to having set the example of depersonalized politics and alternation of office so desperately needed in societies struggling to build institutions that are greater than the sum of individuals.
SO FAR ONLY THREE WINNERS
Only three men have received the prize of 5 million dollars: first were Festus Mogae of Botswana and Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique. Last week, Cape Verde’s former President, Prime Minister and veteran political figure Pedro Pires, 77, won the award for his contribution to Cape Verde as a “model of democracy, stability, and increased prosperity.” Specifically, the award cited his influence in assuring Cape Verde’s successful transition in the early 1990s from one-party to multi-party governance. In his typically modest fashion, Pires heard the news during his daily workout at a gym. Sweating, short of breath, and a bit startled, Pires spoke to reporters emphasizing the Cape Verdean nation, not his own individual role. Then he politely begged the reporters to let him finish his exercise routine. Asked later in the day how he planned to use the money, the now showered and refreshed Pires answered that he would use some of it to write his memoirs. And what memoirs they should be! Pires was a major figure not just in Cape Verdean, but in African history. Under his leadership as General Secretary, the then-dominant liberation party, the African Party for the Independence of Cape Verde (PAICV) lost the 1991 parliamentary and presidential elections. It gracefully ceded power to the opposition, setting a timely and important example not only for the country, but for the continent.
DON’T FORGET THE AFRICA OF 20 YEARS AGO
Consider for a moment the state of Africa two decades ago. In the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall, strongmen dominated much of the continent. Despite tentative olive branches, the white-minority apartheid apparatus still clung to power in South Africa with the barrel of a gun. Chissano’s Mozambique had suffered a gruesome civil war and seemed set for a generation of violent retribution. It was at this moment that the wind of democratic change in Cape Verde began to blow across Africa. The Cape Verdean model of the strongman and his party stepping down after electoral defeat set the standard for such countries as South Africa and Mozambique. The vitality of the Cape Verdean democracy, so recently demonstrated in a hotly contested presidential contest to succeed Pires, remains a refreshing tonic for Africans struggling to find a lasting democratic way forward.
ARISTIDES PEREIRA: GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN
No praise of Pires, however, should go without mention of his long-time comrade in arms, colleague in peace, and mentor in politics, Aristides Pereira, who passed away this September 22 at the age of 86. Pereira and Pires fought under the Cape Verde/Guinea-Bissau liberation movement’s founder and leader, Amilcar Cabral in Guinea-Bissau. Eventually, they succeeded to his leadership. They knew much of the liberation-era leadership of Mozambique and Angola as well, including Chissano, who watched closely what the Cape Verdeans were achieving. For most of Pereira’s tenure as president (1975-1991), Pires was prime minister. Together, they directed Cape Verde out of five centuries of suffocating colonialism and into policies that have achieved a high rate of literacy, strong, consistent market-based economic growth, judicious regional leadership, as well as a democratic rule of law at home. Together, they said yes to democracy and bowed to then choice of the voters to leave office. In Cape Verde itself, the four-day mourning for Pereira has in many ways set the stage for Pires’s award.
AMERICANS NOT ALWAYS FONDLY REMEMBERED
This award should also help Americans to remember a bit of our more recent and less pleasant history that Africans don’t forget. Our legacy of official support for African decolonization started strong in the 1950s, but got mired in the currents of the Cold War in the 1960s. When independence movements in the parts of Africa still under Portuguese and white-minority rule sought help from Washington, Uncle Sam went missing in action. Leaders such as Pires and Chissano, however, tended to understand Americans better than Americans understood them. They sought and won help from non-official America – churches, NGOs, African Americans, individual volunteers, and countless community groups that demonstrated by their actions that the United States of America was much more than a government in Washington, DC, that it was indeed a small “d” democracy in which millions free persons could make their own political choices to support justice in Africa. The example of these private Americans in action cast a bright light on our own nation’s grassroots democratic ideals that helps explain the enduring generosity of these African leaders toward the U.S., despite the lack of support from Washington, DC during the hard years.
CITIZEN PIRES
George Washington himself would have understood Pires. He fought against the French before fighting with them. He fought with the British before fighting against them. He swore fealty to the king before rejecting all royalty. And when all was said and done, he said no to being King George, American-style, no to being President-for-Life, and chose again to be Citizen Washington. Congratulations, Citizen Pires! The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of State or the U.S. Government.
Sesame Workshop has 30 international co-productions with 120 other localized versions of the program. Episodes of the local Sesame Street are broadcast around the world, addressing issues ranging from religious tolerance in Pakistan to health and hygiene in Bangladesh. Sesame Workshop provides a top-notch creative model for addressing the Millennium Development Goals, and for conducting public diplomacy. But the real significance of this program is that it appropriates the power of citizen diplomacy to the youngest of the youth population.
In a country like India, with 160 million children under the age of six, this is no small feat, and it’s a unique means of empowering a new generation of citizen diplomats.
In India, Galli Galli Sim Sim, the Hindi Sesame Street launched in 2005, a co-production with Turner Entertainment Networks Asia. Today it is broadcast on Cartoon Network and Pogo throughout the country. The show features Muppets, music, and stories that are uniquely Indian, though an initial feasibility study for the show was funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). According to Shari Rosenfeld, International Vice President for Sesame Workshop, the process of localizing content begins with “curriculum seminars” in which educators and those from the creative community are brought together to decide what areas of focus the show will have.
Hallmarks of Galli Galli Sim Sim are its catchy theme song, which is distinctly Indian as music is woven into nearly every aspect of the culture, as well as the show’s emphasis on diversity. According to Patricia Harrison of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the content seeks to “build bridges among different geographical regions, religions, and castes,” as well as fill a gap in teaching “the basic life skills needed to succeed in India today.” For children living in the slums with little access to media, their understanding of the tremendous diversity within their own country may be limited. Sesame Workshop shows function in much the same way that exchange programs do, humanizing a once-foreign people and making the idea of hating someone different from them a lot tougher to do. Significantly, these shows are reaching preschoolers and kindergarteners, not typically the target of exchange programs—but whose hearts and minds are equally worth winning with messages of mutual respect and tolerance.
The star of Galli Galli Sim Sim, Chamki, who wears her school uniform to send a message of the importance of education for girls
What I find fascinating about Sesame Workshop in India is that the initiative is multi-platform, and engages in a “three-hundred and sixty degree strategy to reach children between the ages of zero to eight, especially those that are disenfranchised and under resourced.” According to a press release by a new corporate partner, Qualcomm, “Independent third party research commissioned by Galli Galli Sim Sim indicated that children who are exposed to the initiative’s interventions demonstrate greater gains in educational and developmental outcomes than those who are not.”
I think the secret to its success is its comprehensive approach. Mobile community viewings create an opportunity to reach kids who otherwise lack access to media, and whose mothers might otherwise be wary of attending public forums. Both problems are solved when the TV comes to one’s doorstep, and with interactive features to boot. And it doesn’t stop there. Qualcomm’s new partnership with Sesame Workshop India takes community engagement a step further by combining community radio with mobile phone technology to increase access even further.
“Only by leveraging technology and brains can India deliver a truly better life for its masses,” said Tom Friedman in a recent New York Times op-ed. My addendum: the fulcrum must be education for all. The masses of India themselves have the capacity to be a tremendous force sustaining India’s growth. If offered the opportunity at education, they represent the future of an engaged and empowered Indian citizenry, and one that is certain of its strength in the world. It’s this Indian public that will speak for their country’s leadership and innovation, representing India as a new force of citizen diplomats.
The India: Inside Out team is looking forward to talking with Sashwati Banerjee, Executive Director of Sesame Workshop India. Stay tuned to www.indiapublicdiplomacy.com for our reports from that meeting. Maya Babla is leading the India: Inside Out project. She is a candidate for a Master's in Public Diplomacy, graduating in December.
Gary Rawnsley on November 8, 2011 @ 1:39 am What a wonderful blog, Maya. I hope you will keep in touch with me about your research on Sesame Street and Galli Galli Sim Sim. I really do think it is time for some serious academic reflection on the international dynamics of this wonderful programme. Thanks for getting the ball rolling.
Maya Babla on November 8, 2011 @ 10:04 pm Gary, thanks for your feedback. We will certainly keep you posted on our discussion with the team at Sesame in Delhi-- looking forward to continuing the conversation about the role the program can play in diplomacy.
WASHINGTON – U.S. embassies in Africa have created new models for public diplomacy, models which are already producing significant advances. That was the word at a conference here last week from Bruce Wharton, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy for the Bureau of African Affairs. Wharton, who was appointed last year, described the “Kampala model” of public diplomacy, named for the perhaps unique structure in the American embassy in Uganda. “In this model all agencies are entitled to PD support,” said Wharton, “and all agencies are expected to follow and support the PAO’s lead.” Yes, you read that correctly: at the U.S. Embassy in Uganda, according to the Secretary, PD is in the lead. “Strong PD leadership ensures that foreign publics receive consistent information about the U.S.,” he continued, “and that programs such as Embassy Kampala’s game show-based, national HIV/AIDS education campaign are stronger and more successful.”
Another example cited by Wharton was to apply technology to longstanding agriculture challenges. The U.S. invested $50,000 in a local contest, and the result was the creation of “iCow.” “The resulting contest boosted tech development in East Africa, brought disparate groups together for the first time, and led to a number of useful applications,” said Wharton. “The winner was ‘iCow,’ a cellphone-based app to track the gestation period of cattle.” The success of iCow has led to U.S.-sponsored contests elsewhere on the continent. “This effort is now being replicated in other parts of Africa to explore practical responses and adaptations to climate change,” he said. “In both contests, the USG imprint is light, and most of the organizational and promotional work is done by our partners. But the results -- stronger institutions, economic opportunities, development, and support for African solutions to African challenges -- are all right in line with US policy in the region.”
One of the more striking PD efforts combined mobile phone technology and a Presidential visit. “Liz Trudeau, our press officer in Pretoria, used the South African MX.it platform (the text message-based social media platform most popular among South African youth) to invite people to ‘Ask President Obama a Question’ just before his 2009 travel to Ghana,” said Wharton. “Over 300,000 responses in three days drew enormous attention to the President’s travel and speech, gave us insight into young Africans’ opinions, and created new connections between the U.S. and the next generation of African leaders.” Yet another benefit, according to the Secretary: MXit is partially owned by Naspers, a major African media group, which gave “Ask President Obama” prominent play in its print publications.
Another mobile-based PD initiative “combined text messaging with the Ushahidi on-line mapping platform and Miss Guinea’s star power to create a successful citizen-driven election observation effort for Guinea’s first elections,” said the Secretary. “While not up to Carter Center standards for observing elections, this program let Guineans know that the U.S was paying attention, and gave them a sense of confidence in and ownership of this first real elections in the country’s 52 years of independence.”
Finally, Wharton noted that these and other PD efforts have attracted praise in high places, quoting from an article in Foreign Policy magazine: “Interested in Africa? Probably the best ‘follow’ is the U.S. Embassy in South Africa (@USEmbPretoria), whose wide-ranging feed is a model of good Twitter etiquette and "21st-century diplomacy.” Secretary Wharton made his remarks at “The Last Three Feet,” a conference at George Washington University, co-sponsored by the Public Diplomacy Council and the Walter Roberts Endowment. This report is based on Secretary Wharton's remarks at a private meeting last month. He has verified that the quotes in this report are as they were delivered at George Washington on November 3rd.
DOHA --- When the Islamist Ennahda Party won 40 percent of the vote in Tunisia’s first free election since the overthrow of Zine Abidine Ben Ali, the party’s leader, Rachid Ghannouchi said, “We will continue this revolution to realize its aims of a free Tunisia, independent, developing, and prosperous in which the rights of God, the Prophet, women, men, the religious, and the non-religious are assured because Tunisia is for everyone.”
Although most political observers in this region take Ghannouchi at his word, any political party or individual with the label “Islamist” attached is viewed with great suspicion in the West. Part of this stems from the lack of knowledge about Muslims’ faith and culture, and from the assumption that “Islamism” is synonymous with “extremism.” Overcoming ignorance and prejudice will take time, but parties such as Ennahda and its counterparts elsewhere in the region could do much to advance their cause by forthrightly addressing the issues that create suspicion about how they will use power. Among the most important of these is the role of women in Muslim societies.
Ennahda has promised that women will play a prominent role in Tunisia’s government. Elsewhere in the region, Yemen’s Tawakkol Karman, a winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, is among that country’s energized women who are leading the struggle for democracy, and women have played prominent roles in bringing about change in other Arab nations. They don’t want tokenism, such as a quota of seats in legislatures, but rather seek to freely make decisions about how to lead their lives and to participate in the lives of their countries.
But there are plenty of conservative interpreters of Islam who insist that women should wear the veil, should be excluded from public life, and should generally be subservient to men. If this outlook takes hold as Arab countries reshape their politics, the term “Islamist” will deserve its pejorative meaning.
Muslims must decide if faith and freedom are to coexist. As they decide, a primary task for the states emerging from the “Arab spring” is to make democracy more than a matter of electoral politics, and instead embrace the notion of a democratic culture. The openness endorsed by Ghannouchi is at the heart of such culture. The people – all of them – must have the opportunity to shape their countries’ futures.
rebb on November 12, 2011 @ 9:00 am Sounds like it is a great thing to have a non-conservative leader in Tunisia. Women have been held down for far to long and the country needs to get up to speed with the use of women in their government. The extremists who want women to be their slaves should shhhhhh and go back into their man holes. Extremists need to be dealt with. There needs to be an educational system put into place to teach tolerance.
On 1 December 2010, the European Union (EU) inconspicuously launched the new European External Action Service (EEAS). Much of the world was unaware that anything had changed. But despite its quiet beginnings, the EEAS is actually a major innovation in the field of diplomacy as the first supranational diplomatic service of its kind. To be sure, it was not created from scratch. It builds upon the infrastructure of the 136 Commission delegations around the world that were already in place. But the powers of the new EU delegations are significantly broader and more ambitious than the old Commission delegations. Rather than being responsible for enacting the policies of just one institution, the EEAS is charged with coordinating, shaping, and enacting the entire body of EU foreign policy, under the command of the EU’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton. In this sense, rather than being an offshoot of just one EU institution, the EEAS is set to become the embodiment of common EU foreign policy, and is in the process of cultivating a distinctive institutional identity.
Of all the Lisbon Treaty’s innovations, the EEAS most demonstrates the EU’s commitment to smart power. I define smart power as the strategic and simultaneous use of both hard and soft power. The EEAS is still in its first year and it is too soon to know what role it will ultimately have, but its very existence is an important indication of the EU’s evolving approach to foreign policy. From the 2003 Iraq war to the current Libya crisis, it is easy to point out the recent, high-profile episodes in which member states were not readily able to coordinate their foreign policies, but it would be a mistake to draw any conclusions from these events alone. As discussed below, from a longer-term perspective, the fact that Europeans were willing to launch an ambitious, new multinational diplomatic institution shows that they are taking smart power seriously. This bodes well for the EU’s ability to be better prepared in the face of crises, and to become a more consistent foreign policy actor.
What is smart power and how does the EEAS contribute to it? Joseph Nye has written extensively about different forms of power. He defines hard power as coercive. It is the ability of A to force B do something it would not otherwise do. By contrast, soft power inspires attraction, the ability to make B want what A wants. In order to recognize smart power, it is important to note that the tools of power do not necessarily correlate with either hard or soft power specifically. That is, it would be wrong to assume that hard power is equated with military might and soft power with diplomacy. Rather, military, diplomatic, economic, and cultural tools can all be used either to coerce or to attract. For example, militaries used for humanitarian aid and disaster relief can be a source of attractive power, as can militaries that are efficient and well-run. Similarly, diplomacy can be coercive, using the tools of sanctions, hard bargaining, or shaming. But diplomacy is also the key instrument of engagement, persuasion, and mutual understanding. Thus, a variety of different tools could be at work in crafting the strategic combination of hard and soft power.
The launch of the EEAS reflects a European commitment to smart power in a number of ways. First, the EEAS is designed to bind the foreign policies of member states and EU institutions more closely together, facilitating better coordination of hard and soft power. This is of course key to achieving effective smart power. Member states have been the main purveyors of hard power, while the EU has been more of a source of soft power. This is true both in response to unanticipated crises as well as in terms of policy emphases. The EU has been reluctant to coerce (or to appear to coerce) because it is a multinational actor that is committed to institutional and legal processes that are transparent and voluntary. Hard power tactics would go against its normative character. Indeed, the EU resorts to hard power only to support its most important norms and values, such as to stop human rights violations or discourage authoritarian practices. Typically, the EU draws upon its wealth of soft power. Depending on the audience, the EU is attractive because of its democratic norms, model of regional integration, commitment to enlarging its membership, history of overcoming a violent past, and so on.
By contrast, member states have tended to control the hard power side of foreign policy, to the extent that this is necessary, because it is much easier for them to act decisively and legitimately in ways that involve coercion. When it comes down to it, statesmen still have the distinct authority to make difficult foreign policy decisions unilaterally and to implement them as quickly as they deem necessary. Of course, member states also have a wealth of soft power resources at the same time, such as programs of educational exchange, cultural promotion, and public diplomacy. The creation of the EEAS shows the political will to bring these various tools of power together, and to set the stage for better coordination of both hard and soft foreign policy strategies.
Second, the creation of the EEAS is “smart” because the EU is fundamentally a diplomatic actor. This is where its real strength lies. The primary way in which member states and EU institutions articulate their interests in the international arena is through diplomacy. The common market, Schengen zone, justice and home affairs issues, enlargement, and so on, were all built on a strong process of internal diplomacy among member states. High-level, professional diplomats based in Brussels push integration forward and translate new treaties into tangible policy. By strengthening this hallmark of Europe – diplomacy – the EU capitalizes on what it does best. Without exception, member states have put forward their best and most qualified ambassadors to lead the new EU delegations, and at lower levels in the diplomatic hierarchy competition for EEAS postings has been fierce. Given that the success of the EU delegations will rest in part on the people who populate them, there is reason to believe that all parties involved want to equip the EEAS to be a smart power actor. Diplomats are well-positioned and professionally trained to use soft power consistently, and hard power when necessary. By focusing on diplomacy as the tool for future EU foreign policy, and then endowing the new institution with the best and the brightest, Europeans have clearly shown a commitment to smart power.
Third, the EEAS enables the member states to articulate their common voice more strongly. In doing so, it amplifies both hard and soft power. Indeed, the oft-repeated goal of member states to speak with one voice comes from an understanding that by acting together, Europe is stronger. Collectively, the 27 member states have much at their disposal – over half a billion people, the largest economy in the world, the second-highest level of military spending globally, the largest contribution of foreign aid, transnational collaboration in research and development, and so on. For several decades now, member states have renewed and strengthened their goal to speak with one voice in foreign policy matters: from the 1970 European Political Cooperation to the 1992 Common Foreign and Security Policy to the 1998 European Security and Defense Policy. Now in 2011, with the EEAS, Europeans have one of the largest diplomatic services in the world. This new diplomatic body is distinctive in that it actually puts thousands of high-level foreign policy experts on the ground who will be able to judge first-hand how events impact EU interests and goals. They will also be able to shape responses to these events, and to build strong relationships that they can draw upon when unexpected crises strike in the future. This will serve to make both Europe’s hard and soft power more visible.
In sum, the EEAS facilitates better coordination of hard and soft power, capitalizes on a successful tradition of professional diplomacy, and amplifies hard and soft power. The potential for effective smart power clearly exists. Of course, it is still up to the member states to decide what they will allow the EEAS to do, and how far it will go in its development. Ashton has already faced the challenge of coordinating diverse member-state positions in the wake of several crises. The EEAS is ideally suited to exercise smart power, but it must still have a mandate to act. Stronger leadership going forward is necessary so that member states are encouraged to see their diplomatic creation reach its potential.
Naturally, the EEAS does not mean that member states will be able to speak with one voice all the time, but there are reasons to be optimistic. The EU’s development of its own internal diplomacy has shown that professional diplomats often find ways of proving their abilities on the job. The Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper), comprised of member states’ ambassadors to the EU, is an excellent example of this. Coreper started out with a limited mandate to prepare Council meetings. By many accounts, it has now grown into the central engine of EU integration. This occurred in large part because of the initiative of these highly experienced ambassadors. Could the EEAS also achieve this kind of authority and influence on the global stage? This may be a more challenging proposition, but as already noted, it is off to a good start. Moreover, the fact that European leaders launched this new entity in the first place shows a commitment to smart power. These leaders now have a stake in the outcome, and the right ingredients are in place for success. Dr. Mai'a K. Davis Cross will have a full-length and more comprehensive article on the question of European smart power titled, "Europe, A Smart Power?" to be published later this year in International Politics, Volume 48, Issue 6.
Morocco’s geographic position is at a major crossroad where different and rich cultures meet and thrive. Throughout the ages, Morocco has been open to influence by African, Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, and European civilizations and cultures. However, this post is not about the diversity of Morocco or how it has been influenced by different cultures. This post will reflect on my personal experiences as a Moroccan, and how I got to know, interact with, and learn to appreciate cultures that are foreign from my own, specifically Indian culture.
Growing up as a young woman in Morocco, I was exposed directly and indirectly to a number of foreign cultures. Movies, television shows, music, pop culture items, and languages were among the major cultural elements that built my perception about countries and peoples beyond my country’s border. These elements conveyed a tremendous amount of information about other cultures and have helped shape, in a major fashion, the way I imagine and think about people I have never met and things I have never experienced. These experiences have presented both facts about foreign places and peoples, but unfortunately built a block of stereotypes and prejudices as well.
In Morocco, I have come to experience India through two main elements: Bollywood movies and sari fabrics. Looking back at college, I remember borrowing an Indian DVD titled, Kuch Kuch Hota Hai from one of my friends. Back then, as it is now, watching Indian movies was a popular entertainment pastime among many Moroccans. The beautiful actors, the dynamic dances, the bright-colored dresses, and the classic love stories made Indian movies a popular and amusing commodity for Moroccans to buy, rent, and exchange.
Another tradition that brought me closer to Indian culture are the beautiful bright sari fabrics. Moroccan women love their Caftan (traditional Moroccan dress worn during special occasions and celebrations) and are willing to spend generously to acquire one. These Caftans are handmade and their fabrics are carefully chosen. Among Moroccan women, the Indian silk saris are believed to be one of the best fabrics that a Caftan can be made from. Many fabric shops in Morocco praise themselves on importing and selling the best Indian silk saris in what amounts to a modern reincarnation of the old Silk Road trade.
International trips have been incredibly effective in opening my eyes and mind, and adjusting my perceptions about the world. Under the Fulbright program, I had the opportunity to come to the United States to pursue a Masters in Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California. At the academic and professional level, this journey has allowed me to better understand the different aspects of public diplomacy through culture, educational exchanges, sports, etc. At the personal level, I had the chance to meet and interact with many ethnic groups, including Indians, and forge friendships that are very close to my heart.
This journey continues, as I am embarking with seven students from my program in a public diplomacy trip to India called “India: Inside Out”. Our goal is to research how public diplomacy is communicated by or towards India, with each one of us focusing on a specific aspect. Given my background and research interests, I am exploring public diplomacy initiatives between India and Arab countries.
The Indian Diaspora in Arab countries is heavily concentrated in the Gulf oil rich countries, especially in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait. The majority of the Indians who immigrated to these countries came as a working force. They work in different domains ranging from engineering and medicine to construction and services. According to statistics from 2007, the Indians living and working in the Gulf were estimated to be around 6 million, 1.5 million of whom are staying in the UAE. This concentration of Indians in the Gulf countries raises many questions about the opportunities, challenges and initiatives that can be created between these nations within the public diplomacy realm.
Through the “India: Inside Out” trip, I am hoping to meet with practitioners of Indian public diplomacy, as well as representatives from the Arab diplomatic corps in India, specifically the Gulf countries, to answer the following questions: What kind of diplomatic relations exist between India and the Arab World? Are there any public diplomacy initiatives and if not how can they be created? What is the role played or that can be played by the Indian Diaspora, living in Arab states, in this field? And most importantly, what are the challenges and problems facing the process of public diplomacy between India and Arab states? Mona El Hamdani is currently pursuing a Master's degree in Public Diplomacy at The Annenberg School for Communication at USC. She is a Fulbright Scholar from Morocco. Mona previously worked as a Country Program Manager for The Media Diversity Institute (MDI) in Morocco. Mona was also a Program Coordinator at the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and was in charge of program evaluation and monitoring. Through her work with NDI, she encouraged youth and women to participate in Moroccan politics.
DOHA --- On November 1, the Al Jazeera Network celebrated its 15th birthday with splendor – a party for about a thousand people attended by the Emir of Qatar, the young Yemeni woman who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize, and the mothers of Arab Spring martyrs Khaled Said and Mohammed Bouazizi. The celebration was well deserved; the channel that began broadcasting six hours a day in 1996 has become one of the world’s most important media companies.
Prior to the celebration, Al Jazeera’s Center for Studies – the network’s in-house think tank – organized a two-day conference to discuss Al Jazeera’s past, present, and future. This was not the lovefest some might have anticipated. Many Al Jazeera employees participated and made clear that as the network moves forward it must become much more proficient in removing bias and errors from its news content. Those raising these issues included several of Al Jazeera’s most prominent on-air figures, and the proceedings were being televised live, which underscored the staff members’ determination to make their concerns heard.
Among other topics addressed were the coverage of this year’s Arab revolutions, the influence of the network on Arab and global public opinion, how Al Jazeera relates to social media networks, and a wide range of other subjects. Public diplomacy received considerable attention, given that Al Jazeera’s creation was a public diplomacy effort by Qatar’s rulers to increase international recognition of the country’s aspirations in the Arab world and beyond. With great wealth but limited “hard power,” Qatar envisioned the Al Jazeera enterprise as a soft power equalizer, enhancing the nation’s clout without resorting to the traditional process of building up military strength and then acting in menacing ways.
From its beginning, Al Jazeera reshaped the Arab public sphere by discussing government corruption, the role of women in Arab society, and other matters long ignored by the staid government-run news organizations in the region. The network’s effect on it audience was so profound that Al Jazeera’s reporting has frequently been met by screams of protest from governments within and outside the region. That is a sign of effective journalism.
Despite its now-established reputation as a media powerhouse, Al Jazeera will face tests during the next few years. One result of the Arab revolutions is the emergence of strong local news organizations in several countries. They are likely to cut into Al Jazeera’s viewership, forcing the Qatar station to decide how much it wants to continue to rely on its regional approach to news. In addition to its increasingly popular Al Jazeera English, the network will soon offer new channels in Turkish, Swahili, and Serbo-Croatian – all costly projects with uncertain benefits.
The network has a new leadership team that must face up to these challenges while continuing to define the role and responsibilities of transnational journalism. During the past 15 years, much of the Arab world has come to rely on Al Jazeera to spark political change. As the network expands its global reach, it will be interesting to see whether it can replicate that influence on a larger stage.
CPD Blog Manager’s Note: Here at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, we encourage individuals to write about the effects of public diplomacy around the world. Public diplomacy, traditionally the purview of governments, has grown and branched out and is now being conducted by a variety of actors. In an effort to share with our readers a larger set of public diplomacy-related material, the CPD Blog is producing a periodic column, “Recent Blogs of Note.” This column will feature blogs from a number of institutions and individuals. If you are interested in having your blog featured in Recent Blogs of Note, please email cpd@usc.edu for more information.
An interesting blog post from the U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy discusses Creative Learning, an organization that encourages Americans to become “unofficial Ambassadors” to different Islamic nations. In the 2012 project titled “Building Peace by Building Homes,” American citizens traveled to the “Muslim World” and built homes, shared meals with families, and broadened their worldview. Creative Learning’s program demonstrates that some of the most effective forms of public diplomacy do not have to be conducted by a state, and that anyone can act as a public diplomacy practitioner and enhance the relationship between a country and a foreign public.
A sample of what goes on while an “unofficial Ambassador”
Another blog from the U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy discusses how China's economic boom since the late 1990’s has given its younger generation something to look forward to—economic security. As China has risen and attained the status of a key player on the world stage, the Chinese youth have risen as well. The youth utilize social media to express their opinions and beliefs. Using the internet to reach out to peers overseas can facilitate the growth of a generation of citizen diplomats who can contribute greatly to the world. This blog demonstrates the impact social media can have on public diplomacy and how the use of the internet makes public diplomacy very effective in its distribution.
The “Oprah of China” on the use of social media for youth engagement in China
Good public diplomats (like good teachers and students) impart knowledge, listen, create dialogue, engage others by helping to tackle tough issues, and are open to learning from the multitude of perspectives others present. They are imbued with an inclination to advance the education of everyone, as well as their own. So what better way is there to exemplify the reach of public diplomacy than through educational exchanges?
Students can function as citizen diplomats, exchange valuable skills, share perspectives, and collectively contribute to strengthen shared values between cultures. This year, nearly 100,000 Indian students are enrolled in American colleges (a number that continues to grow), but only 3,000 American students are studying abroad in India. The U.S. and India clearly have much to gain by encouraging exchanges. Though if the two governments desire to have this exchange system reach its full potential, there are some hurdles to overcome. But first, let’s take a look at the bright side.
From the educational perspective, exchanges give students the opportunity to learn about international perceptions of domestic problems. When I studied abroad in India in 2009, Indian students were curious about President Obama’s stance on how to stave off recession and the international ramifications of a potentially insular economic policy. Undoubtedly, studying abroad can promote critical and creative thinking for tackling current issues. Exchanges in a university setting can also provide open forums for unbiased debate removed from external, possibly shortsighted influences.
A picture taken during "Holi" (a religious spring festival celebrated by Hindus)
Looking beyond the educational benefits, exchanges also expose students to different cultures. They can investigate the subtleties and complexities of native cultures that need to be explored and experienced in order to be fully understood. As exciting as the prospects are for the results of these programs, they are still facing some problems.
India and the U.S. have had their share of troubles in the past over educational exchanges. The U.S. has been criticized for poor regulation of fraudulent colleges and improper treatment of international students by immigration authorities. In addition, Indian students who were duped into attending fraudulent American universities, were criticized by many for ignoring the red flags. India is also dealing with overcrowding in their top universities due to limited seats and overqualified students. Many of these students either go abroad or, if they can’t afford international travel, attend local colleges that are not able to foster their talents. Fortunately, both countries are steadfast in their commitment to change these scenarios.
American authorities are working to investigate sham colleges and provide more advisory support to Indian students seeking to study in the U.S.; though it is a slow process. India is committed to investing in an Ivy League type system to attract more U.S. students and invite more U.S. universities to set up campuses in India. The new system will benefit beleaguered Indian students unable to garner a seat in the ultra-competitive Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs). It will also better the reputation of Indian higher education and encourage students abroad to study in India.
Secretary Clinton Speaks at the U.S.-India Higher Education Conference
New partnerships with universities around the world are promoting further exchanges. In mid-October 2011, the U.S. and India held an educational summit to encourage American students to study abroad in India and highlight the importance of cooperative research. The unique aspect of the India-U.S. educational relationship is that it’s not just about creating an exchange or study abroad programs, but also about working together to innovate. The best and brightest are coming together to reduce the costs of lifesaving devices, making healthcare more accessible, and sharing stories and creative visions which can bridge the cultural gaps. Possibilities for future collaborations are endless.
Students contribute to the public diplomacy efforts of both nations by building stronger alliances through open dialogue. Though problems exist, if both India and the U.S. work to mitigate them, then both they and the world at large stand to greatly benefit from this form of public diplomacy. Aparajitha Vadlamannati is a Master’s of Public Diplomacy student at USC, graduating in May 2012. She is also the President of the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars and a senior editor on the Public Diplomacy Magazine board. Aparajitha is interested in studying U.S.-India relations and Indian government public diplomacy. She hopes that participating in the India: Inside Out Project will contribute to her knowledge through primary research on both topics.
In a clear act of public diplomacy, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared on BBC Persian this week to engage the network's Iranian audience on a range of issues regarding the state of relations between Iran and America. In an interview-format program, she tried to address some important issues raised by Iranians living either in Iran or outside the country. Throughout her remarks, she brought up one eye-catching idea, an American virtual embassy in Tehran, which could be regarded as the most recent initiative of the Obama administration to communicate with Iranians. Such a concept appears to be noble at first glance, especially when one acknowledges the fact that the United States has had no official embassy in Iran for more than three decades now. But there are some serious questions about the possibility and responsibility of such an embassy which, if not clarified, would downgrade the initiative into simply yet another international information program of the State Department.
The most burning question here is whether it would truly act as an embassy? It is the answer to this question which will show the potency of the U.S. virtual embassy in Iran. We should be aware that embassies are traditionally responsible for the three significant tasks of official representation, information gathering, and bilateral negotiations. That is, embassies are usually occupied by an ambassador officially representing his/her country; embassies are committed to information gathering and this happens mostly through direct/physical contacts with the host society in order to diminish chances of misperception; and that embassies are places where behind the door negotiations happen between officials of both nations during mostly face-to-face (i.e. physical) meetings in order to resolve problems of mutual concern. Now, the problem for the virtual embassy in Tehran is that the prospect of performing such duties is hardly foreseeable. There are a couple of reasons for that.
First, the fact that the U.S. virtual embassy in Iran is a virtual space, automatically hampers its capacity to engage in traditional/physical forms of information gathering thus making it almost impossible to capture the "local taste" of the host society. Sure, it could establish contact with some Iranians, but it would be similar to establishing contact with Iranians anywhere else on the internet (e.g., Facebook) which the U.S. government already does, and even in that case, the problem of physical presence still persists.
Second, the U.S. government could appoint a virtual ambassador to Tehran to represent the United States, but his abilities to engage in ambassadorial service will hardly go beyond lecturing as a public affairs officer. Engaging in behind-the-doors negotiations, the most important duty of an ambassador, will hardly be possible for the Tehran ambassador for two particular reasons; first, due to the currently hostile status of relations between Iran and America, no Iranian official will risk his political career by engaging an American official online, and even if an individual does so on their own, any negotiation will clearly be devoid of any legitimacy and executive guarantee; second, considering the highly sensitive nature of any negotiations with the United States, Iranian officials will be the most unwilling to use virtual networks, instead of physical face-to-face meetings, to discuss their grievances and issues with their American counterparts.
And third, while the virtual embassy could potentially make a breakthrough in the realm of handling consulate duties such as issuing visas for the Iranians, something that traditionally needs face-to-face interviews, it seems far from reality that consulate services will be provided online due to the security implications it might have for the U.S. government.
Such inevitable challenges and shortcomings threaten the initiative to be downgraded to a simple information operation. It certainly has its roots in the U.S. government's strong tendency to enhance its public diplomacy programs towards Iran by exploiting the potentials of the internet. The Obama administration has, in fact, used Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and other networking devices to win the hearts and minds of Iranians. Secretary Clinton's American virtual embassy in Tehran, despite its glamorous name, appears to be yet another public diplomacy enterprise. If it fails to perform the traditional duties of an embassy, it would be very much like America.gov, a State Department project launched during the Bush administration but which soon failed to achieve its goals. It remains to be seen whether the American virtual embassy in Tehran will face the same music.
Tabby D. on October 27, 2011 @ 1:08 pm Excellent points, Javad. In fact, if Iran succeeds in buildings its 'hahal internet' in 2012, a planned national internet that would effectively cut off Iranians living in the IRI from global cyberspace, the virtual embassy initiative would have even more roadblocks than those that you acutely observe above. It's interesting to note that in the past decade,the regime's intense paranoia over Western "attacks" against Iran has shifted from concerns over hard power displays (brute force) to soft power initiatives, and foremost, the Western "attacks" via the internet. This explains why the regime has allocated $1 billion towards building such "protective" internet infrastructures.
Mohsen on October 28, 2011 @ 11:07 am What would be the final fate of this virtual embassy or its real functionality is not so important, since it cost nothing. The fact is that they are trying different ways to reach Iranians inside the country. If a sort of revolution happens in Iran (like Arab countries) they need to have a better reputation. They are preparing themselves for that moment.
MaryJ on October 28, 2011 @ 2:23 pm Javed, I won't address your main point / discussion, which is very interesting and thoughtful although I believe other viewpoints could also be supported.
Instead, I just would like to make a minor correction regarding your reference to America.gov as a failed initiative of the Bush administration.
Ever since the Internet came into being, the former USIA (via usia.gov) and subsequently State Department / IIP (via usinfo.state.gov followed by america.gov) has maintained a publicly accessible electronic library of documents, ranging from up-to-the-moment official statements to glossy photo magazines about sports in the U.S., with a great wealth of info in between. Earlier this year, responding to a changing media environment impacted heavily by social media, IIP modified the site into a kind of document warehouse that Embassies and Consulates use in posting links on their own public websites and Facebook pages.
Yes, some public diplomacy initiatives were launched in recent years to achieve specific goals, and not all of them succeeded as planned -- but I did want to point out that America.gov does not belong in this category. The documents made available through IIP's series of websites have been and continue to be a core resource of U.S. public diplomacy and public affairs efforts world wide.
India is one the most linguistically diverse countries in the world. The Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India recognizes 18 official regional languages in India with a developed script and literary tradition. In addition, there are nearly ‘1576 rationalized mother tongues’ or dialects as per the 1991 census of the Government of India. Linguistic diversity adds to the richness of Indian culture and every region of India has a highly developed literary tradition with excellent writers of national, and a few of international fame. The government of India has committed itself to the preservation and promotion of every regional language and literature in India through institutions such as the Sahitya Akademi.
Regional literature in India – novels, poetry, short stories, folk tales, regional adaptations of the great epics – Mahabharata and Ramayana etc represent one of humanity’s richest creation. However, when it comes to ‘popular consciousness,’ these stories, characters, poetry have limited recall. There is a huge soft power potential waiting to be tapped in these creations that can appeal to people’s imagination overseas and also communicate the ‘idea of India’ – its values, its people and its richness. Growing up during the Cold War year’s with India’s Soviet ‘tilt,’ I remember the Russian book fairs that were held in almost every region of India. I was encouraged to go to these fairs, pick up books – and I did – with a message resonating that Russian literature is among the greatest, there are great story books for kids – children’s literature - and that ‘Russia is a great friend’. I treasure some of those books I picked up as a kid, now neatly stacked and on display in my bookshelf. Through Russian children’s literature, I grew up with an idea of Russia, about the life there, the people and, by the time I was in college naturally graduated to Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Gorky. Looking back, now I realize the systemic state intervention that facilitated the telling of Soviet Russia’s story through such book fairs to cultivate a cold war ally.
India’s regional literature offers plenty of potential to appeal to a world audience in a big way through appealing stories, poetries, novels, folk tales and also by its children’s literature. Indian folk tales for children, like for example the Burhi Aair Xadhu in Assamese have a universal appeal no lesser than Aesop’s Fables or Grimm’s Fairy Tales that the world grows up with. For India to harness its complete soft power potential, it has to get entrenched in popular consciousness of the world. India’s rich regional literature can facilitate that. While Bollywood does offer the opportunity to expand India’s soft power, it would do well to draw inspiration from Indian literature for great stories and not fall into the trap of ‘exoticizing’ India and reinforcing a perception that the world already has of India.
Recently, there have been a few initiatives by Indian corporate houses to promote the study of Indian literature and classics in reputed institutions worldwide apart from regular committed efforts by the Indian government. For example, in 2010, N R Narayana Murthy, Chief Mentor of Infosys Technologies donated $5.2 million to Harvard University and Harvard University Press to establish a new publication series called The Murthy Classical Library of India. The endowment is supposed to facilitate English translations of works originally composed in classical languages such as Sanskrit, Persian and Urdu, as well as literature from Tamil, Bengali, Kannada, Punjabi and other Indian languages.
When it comes to literature, spreading awareness is just not enough. It is important for stories from India to become a part of popular culture to generate influence. For example, while Ramayana and Mahabharata are known worldwide as the great Indian epics, if one does a quick survey which tragic hero is more popular or familiar worldwide – Achilles of Illiad or Karna of Mahabharata – Achilles would have more recall than Karna. Achieving this recall should be the eventual aim for any projection of Indian soft power.
For anyone who is Indian-born, as I am, the chance to see Ravi Shankar perform is akin to an audience with the Pope for Catholics – and perhaps even harder to accomplish. This one-off show at the Disney Hall had been scheduled for October last year and postponed twice - due, the press release said, to “illness and visa complications” (a public diplomacy blunder for U.S. immigration?).
Now, at 91, India’s most revered classical musician has been part of that country’s cultural bedrock almost beyond living memory. I have grown up knowing that face with those intense smiling eyes, that wiry hair and frame and the general air of saintliness. So it was a great shock when a frail, stooped man with a stick walked slowly onto the stage and was helped up the single step to the dais where his accompanists awaited. Gone was the thick dark hair, replaced with wisps of white; the eyes were dimmer, the thinning face framed with a thick white beard.
‘Hello my Angelenos,’ he said in greeting to the multicultural, multi-generational audience: the diversity is evidence that Shankar is arguably India’s greatest cultural diplomat. Over sixty years, he and his sitar have not only given the complicated rhythms of Indian classical music an international audience, but have also influenced successive waves of Western musicians from The Beatles to Yehudi Menuhin to Phillip Glass. And many from that Summer of Love generation sat, enrapt, around me (some, it seemed, still lost in flower power). Others chatted before the performance of how they had encountered Shankar’s music while on holiday in India. Some (non-Indians) paid homage by dressing in Indian clothes. Their image was not of grinding poverty or filthy children tugging at your clothes for a few tourist rupees; nor was it of computer geniuses or efficient rows of outsourced telemarketers whose name really can’t be Brian; it wasn’t of glitzy, infectious Bollywood dancers, nor of platefuls of fragrant chicken tikka masala. All these images are found in that vast land (although chicken tikka masala was created for the British Raj); but Ravi Shankar’s exquisite artistry is cultural diplomacy of a different order.
Those boney, supple fingers channel 5,000 years of history. The background drone of accompanying sitars invoke the epic movement of the universe; dualling tablas are the deep bass note of the solid earth; a reedy flute floats in and out like divine intervention and woven through it all Shankar’s urgent sitar conjures up the frenetic Cycle of Life: thus, the sounds of Ancient Earth well up in 21st Century Los Angeles.
It may be an image of India few modern Indians recognize, and drowned-out by the roar of a fast-emerging global power, but it is an India that speaks to me on the level of DNA and it is a heady form of cultural diplomacy. The audience in Los Angeles was transported to a country of mythic history, great wisdom and oneness with nature, of Himalayan peaks, trundling oxcarts and the love story of the Taj Mahal. It made me want to go back, maybe even live there at some point in the future, certainly to understand better my origins and (re-)connect with those far away. If it did that to me, imagine then, what effect it had on those around me. And isn’t that what cultural diplomacy is all about?
Ravi Shankar may have little inkling of how his fingers generate soft power. But, India’s ambitious government certainly knows. His diplomacy exists outside New Delhi’s hierarchy of power and at odds with the raucous, clashing images of India that prevail in popular culture. It isn’t for everyone, but it certainly finds its home in that land of astonishing contrasts and is no less potent for being so rare. Rajesh Mirchandani is a Masters in Public Diplomacy student at USC and BBC journalist. He is also an alumnus of CPD's Summer Institute 2011. Rajesh recently went to see the legendary Indian classical musician Ravi Shankar perform at LA’s Disney Hall.
Sherine Badawi Walton on October 26, 2011 @ 2:33 pm Thank you, Rajesh, for transporting us to this magical evening and for treating us to an equally evocative literary rendering of India.
Tabby D. on October 27, 2011 @ 2:22 pm Fantastic insights, Rajesh. You precisely identify the intense power of such cultural PD in emotionally transporting both Indian Diaspora communities, and non-Indians themselves, to a land and people thousands of miles away. And the simple fact that such musical expressions literally inspire a listener to think, "I should visit India" CANNOT be understated. And for such a person, the question is whether the moving experience that filled his/her senses at a concert like this, let's say, would be duplicated at least, run contrary to high expectations at worse, or be amplified positively at best, upon arrival to the country itself during a future visit. Of course, seeing the "real thing" (India) would be the ultimate (and for the government, the most optimal) take-away for such a concert attendee.
It’s been over 30 years since the horrors of Pol Pot’s terrorizing reign and while there are many remnants of the aftermath of the Khmer Rouge regime remaining, the country is rebuilding. Since the influx of NGOs and IGOs in the mid 1990s, Cambodia has seen all types of organizations enter and leave, providing much needed assistance in health care, educational and cultural programs.
Among them is Kenro Izu, a world-renowned photographer who founded the NGO, Friends Without A Border in 1995 after encountering maimed and malnourished children dying from preventable diseases during his 1993 visit to Cambodia. Returning to the States with a mission, Kenro raised the very first seed dollars that built the Angkor Hospital for Children via a photo auction, where he invited his friends and colleagues to partake. Since its humble beginning in 1997, the photo auction has grown annually and has raised almost $2 million, including over $175,000 in 2010 alone. In nearly 15 years, more than 1,500 artworks by 682 artists have been auctioned, including donations made by 33 galleries.
Today, Tuesday, October 25th, FWAB is presenting A Passage to Angkor, its 2nd annual gala at the historic Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, featuring performances by the Khmer Arts Ensemble as well as a photography auction, a unique catalog which serves as the vehicle in providing seed money to support the healthcare infrastructure and various programs at the Angkor Hospital for Children. Notable participating artists include Richard Avedon, Adam Fuss, Eikoh Hosoe, André Kertész, Daido Moriyama, Irving Penn, Herb Ritts, Sebastião Salgado, and Hiroshi Sugimoto. An exclusive print by Alfred Wertheimer, The Kiss, recently featured in Vanity Fair’s August issue, will also be on display. In addition to its fundraising endeavors, the auction catalog happens to also contribute seamlessly and rather picturesquely in promoting cultural diplomacy, and effectively killing two birds with one stone.
Intriguingly, in developing a cultural diplomacy program, a debate among scholars arises from the question of who the true target audience shall be: the foreign masses or the locals? Successfully engaging the people is key to any public diplomacy initiative and convincing the locals of participating and furthering their own culture can be more challenging than persuading foreign audiences.
In his speech, The Limits of Cultural Diplomacy, and a Way Forward, former Under Secretary of State James Glassman stated that a successful initiative for cultural diplomacy “promotes, enhances, and enriches the culture of critical nations.” An alternative view to the way forward is to rather to promote the understanding of foreigners to their own culture, which was either “denied them by their rulers or is difficult, because of limitations imposed by poverty or geography, to access.” Sophiline Cheam Shapiro, the Artistic Director of the Khmer Arts Ensemble agrees. In a candid conversation, over Cambodian noodle soup (ka-theew) at the Phnom Penh Noodle restaurant in Long Beach, Shapiro expressed concerns over the challenges that dance as an art form faces today in Cambodia. “[The Khmer people] don’t take it seriously. They view us as being silly, parading our fancy costumes on stage, showing off how far our fingers can bend backwards.”
In the 1970s, under Pol Pol’s rule, performing arts was completely banned, including artists, writers, dancers, craftsmen, and musicians; as it was deemed a tool of the elite in corrupting a society. Artifacts, books, instruments were burned and destroyed. The fear that Khmer culture was lost forever was imminent, possibly explaining the apathy of the Cambodian populace towards its culture. Nevertheless, hope was renewed with the revival of traditional arts in the late 1980s to 1990s, bringing back home some artists who luckily escaped the country, and inspiring a new generation of musicians, dancers and artisans.
Globally, cultural diplomacy was also experiencing a resurgence in the early to mid 2000s; most notably since the Cold War. In 2003, following the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. State Department sent choreographers to densely Muslim-populated nations in response to polls that reported global displeasure with American attitudes toward Muslims in the U.S. and abroad.
Art and dance are reflections and representations of the complexities of humanity, which is designed to captivate us visually and audibly, invoking a deep emotional connection that transcends through time and boundaries, proving their importance as the essential tools of cultural diplomacy.
Today, Sophiline Shapiro reinterprets the horrors of the Cambodian genocide by channeling it through her aesthetically captivating adaptation of culture performed by her professional dance troupe, touring internationally and exposing the world to classical Khmer dance. Shapiro and her dancers are on the front line of a cultural diplomatic swell, representing the country as cultural ambassadors.
This evening, they will be performing two 10-minute excerpts, one called Neang Neak, which is the second act of a four-part dance from “Seasons of Migration.” In this dance, Neang Neak is a female serpent wrestling with her own tail, expressing the perplexing and onerous process of how immigrants wrestle with their transforming identity. The other performance is taken from the piece, Shir Ha-Shirim, a display of eloquent eroticism and entrancing spirituality, infusing the vocals of Jewish folk music and classical Cambodian dance. It will an incredible experience to witness these artistic displays of Sophiline’s courage in not only smashing down but also transforming the creative boundaries and elevating it to new levels of originality and imagination concurrently interweaving Cambodia’s heritage.
The gala comes with a celebrity filled audience, who will no doubt enjoy the evening,intoxicated with the aroma of Khmer-inspired cuisine, and mesmerized by the plethora of visually stimulating exhibits of art and dance. They will soak up the distinctive richness of Cambodian culture, whilst emptying their pockets for a good cause. Helen Tol Dosta is a graduate from the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism with a Masters of Public Diplomacy. Prior to that, she received her Bachelors of Science in Business Administration with a focus in Marketing from California State University Long Beach. As an undergraduate student, Helen was a marketing intern at Rhino Records and a Dean’s Assistant at CSULB. Her particular area of interest is in cultural affairs and corporate diplomacy.
LONDON --- For much of the past decade, “soft power” has been touted as a means for making foreign policy more effective by emphasizing enticement rather than coercion, conversation rather than conflict. The concept has won applause, but putting it into practice has often been half-hearted, especially by nations that possess significant military muscle. They prefer macho diplomacy and remain wary of the public diplomacy that puts soft power into practice.
The United Kingdom is a notable exception to this. Its policymakers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) are sophisticated and articulate in their discussions of how to weave public diplomacy into the fabric of British foreign policy. They clearly see that Britain can make public diplomacy work for it, and this is reflected in their promotion of next year’s Olympic Games, Queen Elizabeth’s 60-year jubilee, and other events to which Britain can lay claim. They will use these events to enhance the notion that Britain is a country to be admired. We will still see the bagpipers, the red-coated guards, the crown jewels, and other reminders of past glories, but Britain has recognized that today it is a middle power and is searching for ways to take full advantage of that.
A meeting last week at FCO’s conference center, Wilton Park, underscored this commitment to modern foreign policy realities. About 50 policymakers, academics, and other public diplomacy aficionados from around the world gathered to discuss how public diplomacy – which involves reaching out to publics rather than governments – might make soft power a more dominant factor in international relations.
In addition to the UK, countries represented included Norway, China, Israel, The Netherlands, Jordan, France, Uruguay, and others. Other participants included spokespersons for NATO, OECD, and the virtual states Al Jazeera and Facebook. The breadth of this roster illustrates the wide interest in soft power. It should be noted, however, that while other nations are eager to participate in such conferences, the FCO and Wilton Park are probably the most pro-active governmental bodies in the world in terms of persistent efforts to refine the scholarly and practical consideration of public diplomacy.
That the UK should take the lead on this makes sense. During the past 60 years, Britain has shed, sometimes painfully, its imperial hubris while retaining its desire to play a significant role in world affairs. During my meetings in London with officials from FCO, the British Council (probably the world’s best cultural diplomacy agency), and others, I found a level of interest in and commitment to the wielding of soft power that other nations, including the United States, might study carefully and perhaps emulate.
A lesson emerging from this is that those at the summit of power ought to contemplate the value of public diplomacy before they feel forced to do so. The UK is a good example of a country that is supplanting muscle with wisdom. If its officials at the FCO, Wilton Park, the British Council, and elsewhere within its foreign policy community retain their commitment to soft power, British leadership might become even more important in global affairs.
Events in the Arab world earlier this year showed that fundamental change can take place without resort to old-style, bloody conflict. In an era in which revolutions rely more on social media than on machine guns, soft power will be ascendant. Governments throughout the world should take note.
Mousa S. Burayzat on October 27, 2011 @ 2:55 am Comments
Please discard the first version of this comment.
Mousa S. Burayzat on October 27, 2011 @ 1:21 am
As a participant in the said meeting at Wilton Park I must confess of two things. Firstly, admiration for the effort to establish `soft power` as a new paradigm in inter-state relations. Secondly, a long distance that has to be travelled before a sound intellectual and moral basis for this initiative can be convincingly reached .People who combine a decent background both in the theory and practical experience in the field of international relations - who, by the way, are not an insignificant flock, nowadays -will not find this exercise very attractive for more than one reason.
For these people, and I am sure others as well, power -soft or hard-is power. In any design or form it is intended to achieve a privileged position for one side at the expense of another, if not always at least some times. Otherwise, it would have been considered reciprocity, or, in a more mundane, manner, bargaining. Moreover, many who are not necessarily idealists still believe that for the future well-being of the human race on this planet, men and women of goodwill should strive for the upholding of principles, harmony, and co-operation among nations , peoples and groups alike. Power in whatever form or manner practiced should be either abandoned or relegated to a secondary place in nation`s and peoples` relations in this globalized world. The fact that a softer technique can be more palatable or even less painful in human dealings cannot hide the possibility that it can be also more harmful and injurious. During the meeting at Wilton Park , the group was exposed to one concrete example of how the notion of soft power can be employed for dubious, if not devious purposes.
________________________________________
India has been described as a land of contradictions, a place that assaults the senses with all the colorful vehemence of a Bollywood dance. The world’s largest democracy is a collage of brilliant hues and stark contrast, which makes it all the more ironic that India’s image as a world player is somewhat hazy and its public diplomacy is still a bit unformed. Professor Philip Seib of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, in a blog published in December of 2010, wrote,
“In many respects, this exotic, chaotic country remains geopolitically undefined. … More and more, India is a significant player in world affairs, and yet it lacks a consistent profile that it can present to the rest of the world.”
Perhaps the problem is that while India has made great strides in defining its character and image, it has yet to define its role as a player in the world. That’s a subtle but important distinction. The central question is not what India is but what it can become.
Take Norway. Its national character and image are defined, to a large extent, by its adjacency to the sea; but its public diplomacy is centered on peacemaking. Its capital is the namesake of the Oslo peace process, and it is the home of the annual Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. While it is true that, as Alan K. Henrikson notes, some of Norway’s peace activities originated with missionary work by the Lutheran Church years ago, there is nothing that geographically singles out Norway for peacemaking. “Now, more than ever,” wrote New York Times correspondent Frank Bruni, “Norway seems to be the international capital of peace.” As Mark Leonard and Andrew Small note in their commissioned study “Norwegian Public Diplomacy,” “Norway might be only 115th in the world in terms of its size, but it is leading the world as a humanitarian power.” In other words, Norway has added a global role that draws from its culture and is designed to enhance its soft power, rather than simply drawing attention to its heritage. India can do the same.
Consider China’s efforts at public diplomacy. While it is true that its Confucius Institutes are designed to draw attention to Chinese language and culture and are somewhat inward looking, the growing ubiquity of the Xinhua News Agency is not. It aspires to become a world class news service rather than just a vehicle for China’s positions on issues of national and global importance. It has covered the mining accident in Chile, the shootings in Seal Beach, California, the Global Green Growth Forum in Copenhagen, the Conrad Murray trial and the wedding of Paul McCartney as well as developments in China. The implicit message is that China’s perspective on the world matters, but it’s a soft sell that does not attempt to put everything in the context of Chinese culture or politics. India, which is at least as media-rich and media-savvy as China, should be a major player in the same realm.
As a burgeoning, boisterous democracy and a growing economic power with a tradition of nonalignment, India has tremendous assets that can be put to work in its public diplomacy; but it should re-orient its strategy to reach out to the world in a way that leverages its strengths and national values rather than simply inviting other nations to sample its rich culture and diversity. As Professor Seib notes, it has been doing some work in that direction by, for example, helping Senegal and Ghana with projects including rice production and information technology development; but it needs to do more. Some suggestions:
India should establish a Gandhi Academy of Peacemaking that would function as a global think tank for conflict resolution and that would convene an annual general assembly at which delegations from nations and non-state actors around the world could brainstorm new modalities for peace. India’s leadership in technology would position it well to come up with innovative solutions involving new media as well as traditional paradigms of peace.
India should start a Peace Corps – type program that would enlist recent university and technical institute graduates in service projects around the world. Tuition waivers and forgiveness could be used to create a burgeoning corps of highly skilled volunteers.
India should establish a global news service that not only provides an Indian perspective on world affairs, but also establishes the nation as a player in an increasingly competitive field.
India’s public diplomacy has already established the nation’s image as incredible. The challenge in the next phase is to make its imprint on the world indelible. Jerry Edling is a second year Master of Public Diplomacy student at the University of Southern California. He is also the Editor in Chief of “PD Magazine” and an editor at KNX, the CBS Radio all-news station in Los Angeles. He will be participating in India: Inside Out, a student-led research project in India this December. For more on the project, please visit www.indiapublicdiplomacy.com.
Abhay K on October 17, 2011 @ 8:35 pm Interesting suggestions Jerry! Thanks for coming up with these. May like to read my article at Nation-Branding.info http://nation-branding.info/2011/07/06/india-country-brand-values-help-world/ for Indian ideas, institutions and values that could make the world a better place. Best
Jerry Edling on October 18, 2011 @ 7:31 pm Thank you for your very kind words. I enjoyed your article at Nation-Branding.info very much, particularly the concept of developing an espirit de planet. I commend your article to other readers and appreciate your generous and thoughtful comments about my post.
rajesh mirchandani on October 21, 2011 @ 10:08 am Really interesting blog Jerry - especially the idea of the Gandhi Peacekeeping Institute. But I wonder how this idea - were it ever enacted - might be received given India's reputation in Kashmir and other internal conflicts? Human rights organisations berate India for alleged abuses while India defends its actions as necessary for its national security - and in line with its own laws. Perhaps this is another example of the 'mystery' of India's global self-definition?
Some are calling it, ‘the great migration,’ a ‘rural exodus,’ or simply… ‘urbanization.’ It is the movement of people around the world into urban centers that has both pros and cons and sparks a flurry of debate in favor and opposition of such movement. For many, this transition is a necessity. Rapid development and industrialization have forced the movement of populations into cities to replace the loss of rural occupations. For others, the transition offers new opportunities for business, education and eventual quality of life improvements. In India, this transformation is increasingly apparent as 2011 census data indicate that urban population has increased by 91 million. A BBC story in late September offered a critique of this finding, pointing to the detrimental effects on India’s cities and the inability to cope with urban population demands. But what do these transitions really mean for India?
When I think of India, I think, ‘vibrant.’ I think, ‘cultural.’ I think, ‘diverse.’ While I am certain that I am not alone in my perceptions, there persists another set of assumptions about the nation. At last week’s Zocalo Public Square talk “Is India Rich or Poor?”, author Patrick French discussed these assumptions that often dominate the spectrum of foreign audiences’ knowledge of India: India is poor, spiritual, and continually associated with Pakistan. Other common negative ideas of India that emerged from the discussion are that it lacks infrastructure, and perpetuates class inequities. Where are these perceptions coming from? And why do they dominate the conversations surrounding an emerging market where the economy has seen such significant gains in the last decade?
Patrick French says India is Rich and Poor
Following reforms in the 90s, economic growth skyrocketed. But poverty, crime, education and gender inequities are likely to come with the territory where economic growth outpaces the social and urban planning necessary to address these issues. Many industrializing nations experience these challenges as the source of their prosperity shifts and migration from rural areas to urban cities and towns begins. The source of many negative perceptions of the nation’s growth seems to lie in the belief or assumption that it is unprepared to deal with these urban issues that its economic reforms and growth bring about. It is confusing for outside audiences to see monetary growth, but social weaknesses. It is here that we see one of India’s greatest public diplomacy challenges. If the plight of urbanization is apt to soil the reputation and overshadow the progress made by a developing nation, then India must be increasingly concerned with the perceptions that arise from the issues in its urban centers.
So, I am left wondering if a strong positive image of India can be painted through the actions of its municipal planners and local programs; a public diplomacy strategy that capitalizes on the soft power derived from urban innovation and problem solving. If economic growth is most apparent in urban centers, perhaps India could demonstrate its progress by highlighting the efforts it is making to address these urban issues. The potential to improve India’s soft power may rest on its actions at the city level. Increasing the visibility of local actions and development programs could counter existing negative assumptions and moderate the conversation of extremes that currently challenge India’s self-identity: rich vs. poor, old vs. modern, etc.
I have experienced India only vicariously through the music, food, dance, movies and novels available in Los Angeles. These have helped shape my understanding of a country that I have not yet stepped foot in. Yet, however romanticized my perceptions may be, my vision of India is still tainted by literature and media coverage with poor projections of India and its transition. India’s national rise has become synonymous with ‘rural exodus’ and extremes in income distribution. The challenge will be for India to project itself as capable and successful in managing these extremes and urban problems to enable the transition in people’s minds and impressions that has lagged behind India’s progress. Jessica Castillo is a longtime municipal civil servant in the Los Angeles area and second year Master of Public Diplomacy student. Her research interests include urban issues, tourism, public diplomacy of non-state actors, and the Latin American region. She will be participating in India: Inside Out, a student-led research project in India this December. For more on the project, please visit www.indiapublicdiplomacy.com.
This December, a group of seven graduate students from the Master of Public Diplomacy program at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism will embark on a journey to India. We will visit New Delhi and Mumbai, meeting with a range of stakeholders interested in how this global player is positioning itself to foreign and domestic audiences.
Our research will assess the role of each of these actors: public, private, and nonprofit, as well as media and academia—and seeks to understand how they create the public diplomacy ecosystem in India. We will survey a wide range of ‘diplomacies’—from cultural to economic to citizen-powered initiatives—to understand how each of these is contributing to communicating the idea of India. Along the way, we'll be reporting on our findings through the project’s website, India: Inside Out. The objective of the website is to spark a larger dialogue on the relevance and value of public diplomacy within the international affairs and communications communities, and we invite you to participate.
As part of the team, I started the conversation last week by offering my own definition of public diplomacy. In the coming weeks, each of the members of the India: Inside Out team will be writing about our particular research areas before our trip, our impressions of India upon our arrival, and once we’ve delved in, our analysis of what that public diplomacy ecosystem looks like. See team member Jessica Castillo’s recent post, A Migration of People and Perceptions. Maya Babla is leading the India: Inside Out project. She is a candidate for a Master's in Public Diplomacy, graduating in December.
Several MPD students and I had the opportunity to attend a panel hosted by UPS and UNICEF last week on the topic of humanitarian relief efforts. While the subject matter of relief efforts was fascinating, it was the unique, symbiotic relationship between UPS and UNICEF that held my attention during the course of the panel. The two organizations have developed a true private-public partnership, in a way that holds many lessons for us as diplomacy practitioners.
One of the key takeaways from the discussion was that Corporate Social Responsibility in its truest form has to go far beyond writing a check. Corporations often develop areas of expertise that are truly helpful for charities too in their work, and lending knowledge is almost more valuable than funds. In this example, UPS facilitates UNICEF by helping them to ensure the transportation of goods they have collected runs in the most efficient and stable way possible. Caryl Stern, President and CEO of the U.S. Fund for UNICEF cited UPS' help during the earthquake in Haiti as essential to providing effective aid during the disaster. UNICEF was tasked with providing hundreds of kits including essential supplies to Haiti - but they would have to deliver them to an area with no functional airport - and no roads. Together, UPS and UNICEF mobilized in 48 hours to deliver thousands of goods by plane, truck, and finally foot. This was only possible with UPS' knowledge of logistics, and UNICEF's capacity to mobilize quickly during a disaster, and provided a massive amount of relief to those affected.
Finding and building this type of partnership isn't easy, however, and in this case it blossomed out of the initiative of the corporation rather than the non-profit. Dan Brutto, President of UPS International, talked about how after writing years of checks it became important to UPS that they find an NGO to work with in a partnership, rather than in sponsorship. Here's a video where he details the company's concept of Humanitarian Relief Logistics. Connecting with UNICEF required research into a wide variety of organizations, before settling on one they felt they could make a deep investment into. Brutto's advice to corporations looking to foster stronger charitable programs was to find an NGO where they can make a difference - and also to make sure that they are well-managed and have a way to work together.
Stern highlighted in kind that NGOs should not ignore the business imperative of their partners - she said one of the first things she does with potential partners is to discuss what they can put on the table to make the partnership attractive. NGOs can make strong business propositions for companies by helping them to trumpet their contributions, and must be conscientious of their bottom-line needs and goals.
The approach taken by the two organizations holds important lessons for conducting corporate diplomacy. Through UNICEF's reach as a charitable organization that does valuable work around the world, UPS is able to reach out to people in places they may not otherwise, and make a difference in their lives. Importantly, they are able to do so in a tangible way that demonstrates what they know best - logistics. Private-public partnerships are an area of increasing importance as corporations are beginning to recognize the value of engaging with international groups. By partnering together they are able to extend their reach and influence farther than they could on their own. In a recent Economist Intelligence Unit study, 42% of global corporate executives said that interaction with NGOs and charitable organizations was important to their business. Taking the UPS-UNICEF example of a symbiotic partnership, rather than sponsorship, will enable these organizations to reach out in more impactful ways to a wider public, with mutual benefits. While nobody would deny that non-profit organization cannot function without the charitable contributions of sponsors, the complimentary relationship detailed by UPS and UNICEF provides a model to learn from, where partners benefit more from working together - as does the rest of the world. Sarah Myers is a first year Master's Candidate in the Public Diplomacy program. A Washington, DC native, she spent the last three years working for a media research company based in Singapore and traveling around Asia. Her studies are focused on corporate diplomacy, private-public partnerships and digital diplomacy.
October in India means many things. The start of a busy festival season, the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, and this year, the advent of the F1 races in Delhi.
At our Public Diplomacy Division, we have started October with an important new initiative. After several months of preparation, our “India Is.…” global video contest is operational. Let me first start with a disclaimer. It wasn't a “eureka” moment that produced the idea. It draws inspiration from the “Democracy Is…” contest that was run by the U.S. State Department. In our case, we have opted to focus the contest on India by inviting participants to submit three minute videos on our website. By way of guidance, we have suggested three distinct themes:
India Is... Colorful
India Is... Creative, and
India Is... Wherever you are
As a public diplomacy exercise, we hope that the “India Is…” contest will encourage people to think of India in creative, interesting and hopefully positive ways. We are looking at it as a three year program where our funding can be supplemented by corporate resources as the campaign gathers steam.
With an eye on drawing participation of young people into the contest, we have planned a marketing campaign across social media including Facebook and Twitter in particular. I am thrilled that both Dr. Shashi Tharoor and eminent film maker, Shekhar Kapur have come on board as brand ambassadors for the program. They have already been generous with their time and the short videos recorded by them are motivating and inspirational. I am keeping my fingers crossed that at least some of Dr. Tharoor's million plus followers on Twitter and a bunch of Shekhar's many ardent fans will be inspired to pitch in.
Shekar Kapur on New Age Filmmaking
To run the contest, we have partnered with Skarma, a relatively new Mumbai-based firm who knows a lot more about social media than me. And since we have a clear youth-centric focus, it should come as no surprise that the average age of the Skarma team running our campaign is...hold your breath...24.
Looking beyond social media and operating within some fairly tight financial constraints, we are trying to see if our visa offices, cultural centers, and tourism offices can become important channels for promoting the contest. So we've created bookmarks that have been given to our visa offices around the world. I hope that anyone applying for an Indian visa between now and December 31st will find a bookmark in their passport, inviting them to enter the “India Is…” contest.
And if there is a contest, there must be a jury to pick winners. I am happy that we have a pretty good 6-member jury in place, ready to plunge into the action once the contest ends on December 31. The entries short-listed by them will be put to an online vote to pick the winners.
Of course the winners will get prizes. From our own modest kitty, we have provided for cash prizes of up to 7,500 USD. And our friends from the Department of Tourism have come on board to offer some of the lucky winners with fully funded trips to Incredible India.
So what are we waiting for? Lights.... Camera....let the action begin! The India Is...global video contest is an excellent case to follow to track and demonstrate a real-time public diplomacy campaign. We hope that our readers will benefit from tracking the campaign through the CPD Blog and the India Is website.
Public diplomacy mourns yet another practitioner who helped tear down the Berlin Wall during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Mo Rothman, a former top Hollywood film executive, died at the age of 92 in Los Angeles on September 15. Mo was a member of our volunteer Film Acquisitions Committee at the U.S. Information Agency in the 1980's.
As administrator of the rights to the classic Charlie Chaplin silent films, Mo obtained access to them for us, and they became instant hits and needed no translation for audiences abroad, who loved Chaplin's "City Lights," "Limelight," "The Goldrush!," and others. The Chaplin collection fed into more than 500 Hollywood films collected by the head of our volunteer Film Acquisition Committee, Leo Jaffee, former Chairman of Columbia Pictures, who is also gone. As is Charlie Wick, also from Hollywood, who headed the USIA throughout President Reagan's two terms, when I headed the TV and Film Service.
Part 1 of Charlie Chaplin's "Limelight"
Mo lived in London, but joined other members of the Film Acquisition Committee to meet in the Oval Office with President Reagan, who expressed gratitude for the free gift to America of films, which had a book value of several millions of dollars, the biggest patriotic Hollywood joint effort to help its government since World War II. The President already knew Mo and others from his Hollywood days. Credit goes to Charlie Wick who spirited that Film Acquisition Committee, which fed into our successful international video tape rental club, that operated out of U.S. embassies and cultural centers abroad.
There were lots of folks who played a role in bringing down that wall, and memories fade. There ought to be a U.S. Public Diplomacy Hall of Fame that could be sprung from someone’s budget, to honor the unsung heroes of that era. I’ve got several nominations, as I’m sure you all do.
Before travelling to Beijing, United States Ambassador Gary Locke bought coffee at a Seattle airport Starbucks while carrying his backpack. Several days later, United States Vice President Joe Biden had lunch at a small Beijing eatery after talks with high-level Chinese leaders. The two scenes seemed ordinary to Americans, but they were so unusual for the Chinese people that stories about the two American officials went viral. The mainstream media grouped the two stories together as they both represented informality and down-to-earth behaviors of the U.S. officials. Some Chinese netizens even compared them with Chinese officials’ lavish behaviors. The most quoted article was Chen Weihua’s writing in China Daily that “in China even a township chief, which is not really that high up in the hierarchy, will have a chauffeur and a secretary to carry his bag.” However, close scrutiny of the two stories reveals that it caused different reactions among Chinese netizens, as Ambassador Locke received overwhelmingly positive comments, while public opinion of Mr. Biden’s lunch was negative.
Both political figures were “advertising” America since the two stories caused online buzz, but Ambassador Locke definitely brought a more desirable outcome with his “backpack diplomacy”. Prior to the “backpack” incident, the discussion surrounding the appointment of Ambassador Locke was the advantage his Chinese heritage would provide him in reaching out to the Chinese public. In fact, the first ethnically Chinese U.S. ambassador to China had already enjoyed an advantage of attracting Chinese public attention, even before he stepped onto this country. This was a perfect starting point for U.S. public diplomacy in China because the hard work of introducing the new ambassador to the public has already been accomplished. So when the photo of him buying a coffee at Starbucks was posted online, the spotlight immediately focused on him. Media coverage followed and the online community gossiped about his family and Chinese background. The fact that he is the first Chinese-American Ambassador to China and orders coffee himself while carrying his backpack amazed Chinese people.
Five days after Gary Locke’s arrival to Beijing, U.S. Vice President Biden paid a visit to China. Biden’s visit to China received large public attention because of his high political position and the economic agenda he was going to address. After high-level talks with Chinese leaders, he ate noodles and dumplings at a family owned restaurant. China's state media captured his low-key visit to the small restaurant, and it subsequently aroused wide online discussion. Chinese netizens called it “noodle diplomacy”. However, instead of praising him as another practical and informal American politician, Chinese netizens focused more on how much he paid for the meal. Biden and his entourage ordered a hearty meal, but it cost them just over $12 or79 Renminbi. Frequent customers pointed out that such a large meal would have cost more if it was not Biden. Suspicion developed toward Biden's “Noodle Diplomacy”, which may exemplify an under-valued RMB, a common American criticism. Hence, a newly created image: “Biden eats noodle”-- meaning “using less money to gain things worth much more” became popular in China’s blogosphere overnight. Many netizens used it to mock unrealistic efforts, such as winning Chinese minds and hearts through a single lunch. An article on China.org.cn claimed that Biden's 'Noodle Diplomacy' is “a tiny example of America's sheer brilliance when it comes to public relations” , but it was not as “brilliant” as it seemed. Many Chinese could tell it was a contrived political show, deliberately designed to feed the press and create a positive image.
The contrast of two distinct reactions to the American politicians sets an excellent model for public diplomacy analysis. Public diplomacy practitioners, students and scholars are aware that one of the critical obstacles for public diplomacy is resource deficiency, which includes the lack of funding and personnel. In other words, the scope of influence is a problem. We have seen U.S. cultural events and dialogues targeting Chinese audiences, such as the U.S. Embassy in Beijing organizing a meeting with Chinese bloggers to discuss current issues. The meeting was broadcast online, but not many viewed the conversation. Many similar examples could prove that the most critical issue every country should tackle in public diplomacy is getting the attention of the foreign audience. Celebrities, especially political celebrities can produce cost-effective public diplomacy by taking advantage of their fame. The beauty of celebrity diplomacy is that celebrities are able to attract public attention effortlessly. Both Biden and Locke successfully attracted Chinese attention, with which any diplomatic approaches can be magnified.
However, the final goal of public diplomacy is not attraction. It is winning the hearts and minds of the foreign public, changing foreign negative perceptions to positive ones, and pressing a foreign government by influencing their public. Therefore, getting everyone to listen is just step one. Ultimately, the content of your speech determines its effectiveness. But, do not hasten into designing your message just yet. Let us go back to Gary Locke’s “backpack diplomacy” and Joe Biden’s “noodle diplomacy”. As pointed out earlier, Locke enjoyed mostly positive comments, while Biden’s were controversial. One of the obvious reasons behind the different feedbacks is that while Locke’s visit to Starbucks was authentic, Biden’s visit to the small restaurant was intentional. Genuine behaviors have better effects because audiences are not favorable to contrived plots. More specifically, the Chinese public is familiar and even tired with political shows conducted by Chinese leaders. It is not rare to see Chinese leaders going to small villages and having simple lunches with villagers. Biden’s lunch only added one more example to that list. On the contrary, seeing a high-level official with his family at an airport is unusual, let alone seeing him order coffee by himself. Furthermore, as Locke later said to the press, buying himself coffee and carrying his own bags is common for him. This genuineness earned him praise. Now the challenge for Locke and his team would be how to sustain his down-to-earth image.
Lastly, social networking sites as media channels are critical to successful public diplomacy. Biden’s “noodle diplomacy” was first picked up by Chinese state media, but Locke’s backpack photo was taken and posted onto Weibo (China’s version of Twitter) by a Chinese entrepreneur. His intention was not to show the down-to-earth side of Locke. His original microblog post says he saw the Ambassador at the Seattle airport and wished him good luck. People tend to trust their friends more than traditional media, especially in a country with information censorship. In such countries, projecting information through traditional media may weaken the effectiveness of the message, while people-to-people communication can be more powerful. Moreover, the twitter-like microblogging sites are perfect tools to create buzz and make the message viral, so public diplomacy should make full use of social networking sites and design campaigns and activities tailored to online platforms. Di Wu is a 2010 graduate of the 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 focused her study and research on China and East Asia. She would like to advance her career through the pursuit of her Ph.D.
There has been a flurry of activity on the public diplomacy front in India recently. With bigger economic clout in the international stage, India now feels the need to be seen, heard and engaged. From international conferences to social media campaigns, the Public Diplomacy Division of the Government of India is in overdrive to shape a desired perception of India across the world.
In this context it is worth noting that Professor Philip Seib, from the University of Southern California, observed at the international conference “Public Diplomacy in the Information Age” organized by India’s Public Diplomacy Division in December 2010, that India lacked “a consistent profile that it could present to the world.” This was highlighted earlier by India’s former Minister of State for External Affairs, Mr Shashi Tharoor in his speech -“Why Foreign Policy Matters - An Indian Perspective,” – who talked about the need for developing a coherent public diplomacy strategy by India. Incidentally, the Government of India’s Public Diplomacy Division of the Ministry of External Affairs, set up in 2006, has the following mandate:
Projecting power in its sphere of influence & across the world with the immediate aim to secure a permanent seat in UN security council
Build a more "nuanced understanding of the government's stance on tricky issues"
Maintain the current "perception momentum" of a rising power
Build a favorable opinion of India as a "rising power"
India has consistently projected itself as a land of rich culture, history, art, “Bollywood,” and a must visit tourist destination. It’s debatable as to how much influence it has garnered for India internationally. On the other hand, international media never loses an opportunity to portray India’s widespread poverty, corruption, and stories of underdevelopment. With the recent economic growth, such stories tend to become all the more attractive because of the element of conflict it represents. Interestingly, Joseph Nye had once stated that India adopted a foreign policy that made it more attractive in the eyes of others, but have not been able to leverage its soft power resources like the U.S., or Europe. Historically, India sought the moral high ground in international relations through non-aligned movement, the Panchasheel principles, Bandung Conference, membership of the Commonwealth and generated considerable goodwill towards itself, projecting the image of a pacifist nation. However, as a resurgent India becomes more conscious of its image & influence, it is important for the country to ask itself what it stands for, define its basic attributes, and assert the values it represents at various international forums.
To overcome mixed perceptions, India can and should move towards communicating values and build a consistent profile. What does India stand for? What do India’s culture, people, polity and economy represent? More importantly, what is the idea of India?
From my point of view as a communications consultant view, it is worth noting that a country which has managed to do it very well is the United States. The United States projects itself as the land of freedom, choice, and opportunity. All of which are values that connect across class, geographies, and ideologies. Its political and business rhetoric including elements of culture consistently resonate with these values. It establishes what communicators call the ‘emotional connect’ – so very important in generating influence. As India works towards a coherent public diplomacy strategy, MEA’s policy wonks would do well to think of the larger theme that India represents on which to project India’s image, idea and influence.
With the media and information revolution in the 21st century, communications and conversations will play a bigger role in international relations and the battle for "mindshare" will decide many issues. A thematic value based strategy will give structure and direction to the Indian government in integrating all elements of promotion, perception, projection and building influence.
From Pristina to Dhaka: My hope for two countries to join hands
The one month I have been in this country, I was invited almost each night to a home for dinner, a family gathering, or even weddings. The hospitality and generosity reminds me of my grandparents, uncles and aunts. I have met young conscientious people showing great enthusiasm to learn about the life and fate of Kosovars, though my country is thousands of kilometers away. I even met a Bengali soldier who served in Kosovo as a peacekeeper. He has fond memories and heartfelt sympathy for the struggles of Kosovars. Now, as we have embarked on the month of Ramadan, I receive good wishes from friends from both sides across the continents. Each part of my visit in Dhaka has proved a sense of natural bonding and commonalities between the people of Bangladesh and Kosovo.
Despite the brotherly connections, official relationships between the two countries unfortunately do not exist. This is primarily because Bangladesh has not, yet, recognized Kosovo as an independent country. Kosovo declared its independence in February 2008. Since then, 77 countries around the world have acknowledged the small Balkan state, including most European countries and neighbors, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Australia and Malaysia. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled last year that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was in accordance with international law. Most recently, on July 5, 2011, the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) adopted a resolution calling on its members to recognize Kosovo as an independent state.
Bangladesh does not have a firm stance on the issue of Kosovo. It has previously sent supportive signals for the recognition of the new Republic. In May 2010, the country’s Foreign Minister, Dr. Dipu Moni, said that Bangladesh will come to a decision after the ICJ ruling. Later, the Foreign Secretary, Mohamed Mijarul Quayes, had stated that the country does not feel the necessity to recognize Kosovo. This was interpreted as a way for Bangladesh to maintain its ties with other countries that oppose Kosovo’s independence such as Russia.
Bangladesh’s connection to Kosovo dates back to 1999, when it joined the row of democratic countries to support the people of Kosovo in the aftermath of the war waged by the then-Yugoslav dictator, Slobodan Milosevic in 1990s. Bangladesh sent hundreds of soldiers and policemen as part of the United Nations Peacekeeping mission in order to preserve peace and security in the region and develop capable self-governing institutions of Kosovo.
Thanks to the support of the international community, Kosovo’s statehood is on its way to be fully established. The independence of Kosovo is irreversible. The United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) has significantly downsized since its declaration of independence in 2008. Since 2009, the EU has deployed a mission to strengthen justice and the rule of law. The future of both, Serbia and Kosovo lies in the European Union, whereby the latter has been mediating the dialogue on technical issues between Belgrade and Pristina.
Bangladesh shares a great degree of commonalities with Kosovo. Besides similarities in culture and religion, the two countries share a history of struggles for self-determination. Bangladesh has gone through the same process of statehood building forty years ago, when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman declared the independence of Bangladesh on 26 March, 1971. The citizens of Bangladesh know what it means to experience the birth of a nation and celebrate the right to self-determination. Such experience has helped shape an open and welcoming foreign policy towards emerging states, which was recently expressed through Bangladesh’s recognition of the world’s newest country, the Republic of South Sudan.
Moreover, Bangladesh’s economy has become more viable in the recent years. Its industry together with leather products, pharmaceuticals and human resources are constantly growing. Bangladesh has been seeking to increase its exports and initiate economic exchange with all countries throughout the world. Country-to-country relationships with Kosovo could further facilitate its goal of expanding to new markets and building economic links across continents, reaching Europe.
The EU is the largest exports partner of Bangladesh. It is also one of the main development donors of the country. As a geo-strategically important ally, the EU will continue to be of significance to Bangladesh. Good relationships with its members will be key. Kosovo has a European future; recognizing it today, would mean growing together as strong partners.
Passive stances of some of the Asian countries in recognizing Kosovo have cut out the young Republic from this part of the world. Kosovo’s development is immensely hampered by non-recognitions: business people cannot access two thirds of the world and explore new markets; local products cannot be exported with official stamps; sportsman cannot participate in international sports competitions. The people of Kosovo need the recognition by Bangladesh to contribute the solidarity among states for peace, security and economic wealth.
The recognition of Kosovo by the People's Republic of Bangladesh would be an honorable gesture in expanding Bangladesh’s friendship with the people of Kosovo, creating bridges for cooperation and programs of mutual interest. I believe that our shared bonds deserve stronger ties and closer friendship. I had the pleasure to have been one month in your beautiful and kind country, and I am hoping for a future where both our states and people can grow with each other. I am thankful for the help Bangladesh gave to us Kosovars during the times of war. Facing peace in my country, it would be wonderful to extend this close relation between us. Together, Bangladesh and Kosovo can join hands across borders. Let’s start today.
This article was sent to us by Behar Xharra. It was originally printed and circulated in local newspapers in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It is an example of the type of public diplomacy Kosovo is conducting toward foreign publics.
shamsuddoza on October 16, 2011 @ 1:53 am AS a Bangladeshi I really support your plead. I would post your urge in our website http://www.fairbd.net which is a studnet platform dedicated to the study of the foreign affairs of Bangladesh.
Behar Xharra on October 25, 2011 @ 5:05 am Dear Shamsood,
Thank you for the kind response to my plead as a Kosovar. Although this is written by me, the call for friendship is universal among Kosovar people. Bangladesh is indeed a country that shares much in common with Kosovo, and our countries should indeed strengthen their existing bonding.
Having said that, please feel free to share my article with your audiences at the fairbd.net. If you would like to organize a video conference session among students from Kosovo and Bangladesh to discuss about this topic, please email me directly at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). It would be a great opportunity to start engaging one another as students, ahead of government-to-government discussions.
Thank you,
Behar
Akash on December 7, 2011 @ 5:20 pm I am a Bangladeshi and I personally support Kosovo from deep inside my heart but I think our current government will not recognize Kosovo until India, Russia, and other East European countries support it. Because these countries were one of the first few countries that recognized an independent Bangladesh back in 1971.
Hasan on May 3, 2012 @ 7:16 am Hi, This is Hasan From Bangladesh.As a muslim citizen of Bangladesh I support to Kosovo from my heart & soul. I hope whole of the world will recognize to Kosovo within short time InshahAllah.
The Defenestration of Prague
I'm excited to visit "India Jones" next time I'm on campus!
The star of Galli Galli Sim Sim, Chamki, who wears her school uniform to send a message of the importance of education for girls
A picture taken during "Holi" (a religious spring festival celebrated by Hindus)
