http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/ A blog by public diplomacy professionals, theorists and practitioners, published by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy en USC Center on Public Diplomacy Copyright 2010 2010-08-30T16:27:18+00:00 APDS Blogger: John Nahas While the controversy surrounding the proposed Muslim Community Center and Mosque at Ground Zero continues on in the U.S., another site of worship has been restored and opened in the most unlikely place—Beirut, Lebanon. The Magen Avraham Synagogue in Beirut’s Wadi Abu Jmil district reopened this past week after nearly three decades of being closed due to significant damage during the Lebanese civil war. Ironically, the Synagogue was destroyed by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) as they sought to route the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from Beirut in 1982. The restoration project is the culmination of a project founded in 2006 by the Lebanese Jewish Community Council, and was estimated to cost approximately $1 million USD. Funding for the restoration has come from prominent members of the Lebanese Jewish community, both in Lebanon and abroad, as well as a pledge of $150,000 from Solidere SAL the private company created by former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri to rebuild downtown Beirut following the civil war. The restoration began last year after receiving the green light from a broad spectrum of political, religious and community leaders in Lebanon. The plan even gained support from Hezbollah, despite the organizations refusal to accept the existence of Israel and its devastating war against it in 2006. Hussein Rahal, a spokesman for Hezbollah, stated “We respect the Jewish religion just like we do Christianity… The Jews have always lived among us. We have an issue with Israel's occupation of land.'' Despite the steady decrease of Lebanon’s Jewish community, with a great number emigrating due to the numerous conflicts in the region, Judaism is one of Lebanon’s 17 officially recognized faiths and benefits from the same laws that protect the other religious communities. The restoration of the Synagogue and the recognition of Judaism as a protected religious community is both intriguing and positive for a number of factors. Despite the fact that Lebanon has often found itself on the brink of conflict, both within its borders between the different political-religious communities and externally against Israel, the restoration of the Synagogue demonstrates a different side of Lebanon that is not normally portrayed. This news hearkens back to the pre-civil war and conflict-ridden image of Lebanon when the nation stood for tolerance and was an example of the diversity in the Middle East. Though Lebanese identity is often defined by religious sect, which in turn influences political leanings, the one issue that has been illustrated by the recent developments is that despite perpetual political conflict the nation can come together and find consensus on a single issue, religious diversity. The restoration of the Synagogue will not solve the nation’s domestic or regional issues but it does provide a positive step that can serve as an ideal public diplomacy model by encouraging religious tolerance and diversity. Although the Synagogue restoration took place in an Arab nation in the Middle East, its significance is relevant to the current political climate in the United States and can serve as an example to be emulated. John Nahas recently graduated from the Master of Public Diplomacy Program at USC. While in the program John served as the President of the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars and was a Senior Editor for Public Diplomacy Magazine. He also interned at the Carnegie Endowment’s Middle East Center in Beirut, Lebanon. APDS_Bloggers, Middle East 2010-08-30T15:27:18+00:00 TAMPA --- At the headquarters of U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida, some young civilians are pushing back at extremist messages that permeate Internet forums. This Digital Engagement Team’s members, who are fluent in Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu, comb through online postings in their respective languages looking for incendiary or inaccurate commentary about U.S. military operations or related activity. When these messages are found, the team prepares “engagements” that challenge the writer’s logic or facts. A recent example: a Farsi-speaking member of the team found a commentary defending the suicide bombing in Baghdad that killed more than 40 Iraqi Army recruits. This engagement specialist responded by challenging the premise that such murderous attacks, which kill mostly Muslims, can be justified. In their online posts, members of the CENTCOM team identify themselves as working for Central Command, and this sometimes leads to their being kicked out of an online forum. But more often, the CENTCOM engagement is allowed to remain posted and it sometimes elicits online conversation. Whether these engagements in cyberspace are changing anyone’s outlook about the United States is open to question, but this work must be done. To allow the voices of extremism to go unchallenged would be folly and would amount to surrendering the intellectual battleground. Even if just a relatively few online forum readers are exposed to official U.S. viewpoints, that is a step forward. During a visit to CENTCOM, I was impressed by the persistence and energy of the digital engagement team and the other people working on public affairs projects. While I was there, activity centered on getting out news about the U.S. military’s role in relief efforts in the flood zones of Pakistan, an effort that will save lives and might also soften the strong anti-American feelings in that country. Central Command is not the only source of online engagement efforts. The approach of the State Department’s Digital Outreach Team is much the same as the CENTCOM unit, although its purpose does not include advancing a military public affairs agenda. As stated on the State Department’s website, the job of the Digital Outreach Team is “to explain U.S. foreign policy and to counter misinformation.” It is about the same size as the CENTCOM group and presumably has a similar talent pool for its outreach operations. Cooperation between Defense and State projects exists, such as CENTCOM working with the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan on flood relief matters. Overall, however, CENTCOM’s engagement efforts have specific military intent in that they seek to delegitimize and disrupt the activities of violent extremists. The State Department has found itself sometimes operating on similar ground, using its soft-power efforts to undermine extremist ventures. Defense and State share the goal of advancing the U.S. national interest through these engagement/outreach projects. It would be nice to think that someone in the government maintains an overview of what all the players in this field are doing and would see to it that much-needed additional resources are provided. For now, at least, that may be wishful thinking. Philip_Seib 2010-08-26T23:46:37+00:00 As a major emerging economy and the host of the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics, Brazil is keen to present the country as more than about soccer, samba, and carnivals. Pavilion Director Pedro Wendler discusses the country’s positioning and communication at Shanghai Expo. Beyond Soccer … >> For viewers in China, follow this link to watch the video >> More Videos on Nation Branding at Expo 2010 Shanghai Jian_Jay_Wang > For viewers in China, follow this link to watch the video >> More Videos on Nation Branding at Expo 2010 Shanghai]]> 2010-08-25T18:35:39+00:00 Every so often, with about the same frequency as a combination hailstorm and solar eclipse, I get an op-ed published. In 2002 and 2007, The New York Times published my pieces about the need for autonomy in U.S. international broadcasting. On July 13, they published me again. The op-ed, "Radio Free of Bureaucracy" is about my other recurring theme: the need for consolidation in U.S. international broadcasting. I pointed out that the audience for U.S. international broadcasting (Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio and TV Marti, Alhurra, and Radio Sawa), at about 180 million, is about the same as for BBC World Service. (This is after subtracting the BBCWS U.S. audience of 6 million – the United States not being a target country for USIB.) On the other hand, the budget for USIB is about $757 million, whereas BBCWS attracts the same sized audience for $420 million per year. Why the discrepancy? Some think that BBCWS derives all sorts of free services from the parent domestic BBC. BBC, however, tells me it is subject to a fair trading policy, in which World Service pays for or barters anything it receives from the domestic BBC. This is to make sure those who pay the U.K. television license fee are not subsidizing World Service, which is funded by the Foreign Office. I think the real reason for the discrepancy is in the number of entities, resulting in multiple overheads, lost opportunities for synergy, and much duplication. For the 60 languages of USIB, 22 are transmitted by more than one station. The rationale for that, and the reason I think that rationale is specious, are discussed in the op-ed. I was expecting some negative reaction to the piece, but what happened instead is that people asked me if I received any negative reaction. The only whiff of discord was from a recently retired VOA broadcaster, who took issue with my calling for a merger of the U.S. international broadcasting entities into a corporation (like RFE/RL) rather than an agency (like VOA). I used the word “corporation” specifically and purposefully. It seems to me problematic for a U.S. government agency also to be a news organization. And, coincidentally, on July 26, VOA and International Broadcasting Bureau employees were informed that they cannot “download, browse, or e-mail” documents from the recent WikiLeaks dump of documents about Afghanistan and Pakistan. These included documents that were not yet unclassified, and thus cannot be stored on any typical computer in a government agency. I don’t think VOA was planning any major exposé based on those documents, but VOA reporters did need to verify some of the material mentioned by other news organizations. They were able to do so – from their homes. Kim_Andrew_Elliott 2010-08-24T14:35:57+00:00 As a venue for public diplomacy, the World Expo is highly valued yet under-analyzed. This is particularly true of the current Expo in Shanghai. For many countries, Shanghai Expo is the most expensive and arguably the most important one they have ever attended. And, for the millions of Chinese, for whom international travel is still a luxury they cannot afford, visiting the Expo has become a once-in-a-life time chance to get a glimpse of other countries epitomized in the national pavilions. The potential cultural impact can certainly be vast. The Expo being a “tournament of cultures” – more celebratory than reflective, participant countries are keen to engage and impress their visitors through representations and interactions at their stylized pavilions. The essential question facing these national pavilions is how they define and deliver messages that will stick. Based on our conversations with representatives of a dozen national pavilions at Shanghai Expo (click here to view some of the videos), I would like to highlight several tradeoffs countries have to deal with in their presentations about their national brand. To use or not to use stereotypes This is a fundamental challenge in communicating about a country, especially to the mass audience. Countries often seek to leverage events like the Expo to counter or overcome existing stereotypes, and especially the negative ones. They certainly don’t want to come off as perpetuating clichéd images and associations. On the other hand, stereotypes can be productively harnessed to entice visitors into your story as it unfolds in the pavilion; hence should not be wholesale rejected. Stereotypes form the basis of our expectations in a communicative context. An adroit use of them can effectively create visitor engagement, whereas simply presenting visitors with the unfamiliar or the unknown may alienate your audience, thus missing even the opportunity to make a connection. Depth vs. breadth This brings to my second observation about what to include in the pavilion. We often hear pavilion representatives say “our country has a lot more to offer than …” The options for shaping one’s country message in the pavilion are literally endless, ranging from focusing on a select few issues to providing a panoramic view of the country, from politics and business, to culture and society. The desire to show a broader picture of one’s country is understandable, as there is less risk of being accused of giving short shrift to the multi-faceted society one represents; not to mention the various special interests involved in putting together the displays. But a singular focus helps to sharpen visitor impression, and especially the distinction of your country and pavilion. This is important in the context of visitors’ limited attention span as they generally move from one pavilion to another to maximize the number of “countries” they can visit in any given day. With more than 200 pavilions at the Expo, it is a decidedly competitive and comparative environment. Local vs. global The next issue is to what extent countries should localize their message at the pavilion, and, in the current case, to the Chinese, who make up the vast majority of the visitors. The choice can be represented on a continuum between highly localized as is the case of the South Korean Pavilion and highly globalized in the example of the Spanish Pavilion. In other words, if the Expo were held in a different country, for Spain the same pavilion could be appreciated with only slight tailoring necessary (e.g., the exterior of the pavilion); while for South Korea a totally different pavilion would need to be built. Many pavilions, of course, consider and attempt a blend of the two approaches. Domestic vs. international audiences The growing information transparency also entails the need to effectively handle communication to multiple audiences, including one’s domestic audience. How one aligns communication designed for the consumption of the Chinese with concerns of the domestic constituents becomes a point of contention. The interests and agendas of these two publics can be widely divergent. For instance, for the home country audience, representations at the pavilion can be a source of national pride. On the other hand, some of the pavilions may not be favorably viewed in the eyes of their domestic audience, but are nonetheless popular with Chinese visitors. These tradeoffs are certainly not unique to the World Expo, but are common concerns in managing a country’s image and brand in the global arena. There are many other tensions and dilemmas in the process that require negotiation and reconciliation. The mapping and understanding of these options is a critical step to developing a sound nation-brand strategy. Jian_Jay_Wang, Asia Pacific 2010-08-22T23:26:46+00:00 United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently pledged that the U.S. would provide long-term support to Pakistanis affected by historic, devastating floods. Soon after, the United Nations called a special meeting to address how to escalate relief efforts. All the while, experts in the West ponder the public diplomacy ramifications as the Pakistani government and Western relief agencies jealously race against Islamic extremists for the privilege of being the primary source of support for victims. My own view, in a nutshell, is that this is not a public diplomacy issue. It’s a humanitarian issue. We in the West should find every way to relieve the immense suffering in that unstable but crucial nation, simply because it’s the right thing to do, not because we can expect to score points or to keep the Pakistani Taliban from scoring points. Rob_Asghar, South Asia 2010-08-19T21:33:44+00:00 APDS Blogger: Tala Mohebi As the field of public diplomacy expands, there is a great need to engage with the diverse actors who shape the discipline in theory as well as practice. Like any emerging discipline, public diplomacy can be referenced in a number of different publications, but having a forum entirely dedicated to this one subject is immensely beneficial. From its first issue in January 2009, PD Magazine has created such a setting, where a dynamic and innovative discussion of public diplomacy can take place. The magazine’s audience is as diverse as the topics covered, allowing intellectual exchanges that extend beyond state, political and socio-economic boundaries. Such creative freedom risks leading to disarray, but with the publication of the fourth issue of PD Magazine, a clear pattern is emerging in the respective themes being addressed. The yearly publication cycle is divided between an edition that focuses on thematic issues in public diplomacy, and an edition that deals with the theoretical side of the field. This pattern allows for both a scholarly debate on the positioning of the field relative to traditional diplomacy and other areas of international communication, and also gives voice to the numerous creative areas in which public diplomacy is incorporated. PD Magazine’s Summer 2010 issue examines nonstate actors and their efforts to advance the promotion of human rights. When first selected, this theme lent itself to studying the programs presented by large and well-known international human rights organizations. However, inquiring into the world of human rights advocacy quickly uncovered a multitude of small and mid-sized organizations around the world whose work not only covered major topics of human rights violations, but also revealed remarkable innovation and use of public diplomacy tools in an effort to combat such abuses. While there were countless organizations and human rights programs to choose from for this issue, only a small sampling could be represented in the issue. Like many nonstate actors, many of the organizations highlighted do not necessarily consider themselves public diplomacy practitioners, and are therefore not always aware of the public diplomacy power that they wield. Regardless of their self-definition, the initiatives described in this issue offer thought-provoking subjects to further the debate on public diplomacy. The decision to examine human rights stemmed from the common linkage that the organizations highlight in this issue. Human rights is also a topic which can offer a more nuanced understanding of where public diplomacy is used, as well as those who benefit from its execution. Tackling this issue typically garners nonstate actors the dubious distinction of dealing in low politics, but the importance of the matter demands a space where this view can be explored, challenged and discussed in the hopes of reevaluating what issues are deemed to fall under the distinctions of "high politics" and "low politics." This is an important discussion for practitioners of public diplomacy, and gives shape to the work being done in the future. Assisting the effort to expand this idea is the main article written by Australian diplomat and professor Geoffrey Wiseman, who describes the interaction of state and nonstate entities engaged in diplomacy. Also included in the lead section is an article by Dr. Dieter Fleck, former Director of International Agreements & Policy at the German Ministry of Defense. Dr. Fleck’s piece sheds light on the interconnected nature of conducting public diplomacy and adhering to international legal procedures and principles. These articles establish a broad scholarly framework while the case studies and perspective pieces add additional insights through specific examples. Among the articles presented is a piece from the International Justice Mission (IJM) in the Perspectives section, which touches on the role of transnational advocacy networks with non-secular mandates. The IJM article raises awareness about the historical importance of human rights organizations sustained on religious principles, and their present role in defending human rights. Programs by burgeoning nonstate organizations targeting support from younger audiences and drawing on new technological tools to disseminate their messages are also highlighted. The organization Invisible Children and the work being done by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in Guatemala utilize such social media and audience targeting to raise awareness about particular human rights issues. Finally, this edition of PD Magazine concludes with an endnote by Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Jody Williams, who won the illustrious prize for her work with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. She describes her own experiences advocating human rights issues that have often been considered controversial by the same state actors who speak glowingly of human rights rhetoric, only to retreat when human rights issues begin encroaching on politically sensitive issues. She further notes how civil society has turned to public diplomacy when its calls for change have been ignored in traditional diplomatic channels. The articles in this issue raise many questions and open doors for debate. The challenges for effecting change on human rights issues are great, but finding all available tools and drawing lessons from past efforts is critical. Please visit http://www.publicdiplomacymagazine.org to read the issue in its entirety, and to interact and exchange comments with other public diplomacy enthusiasts sharing their own experiences. Tala Mohebi recently received her Master of Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California. She is Editor-in-Chief of PD Magazine, a bi-annual publication that brings together works from scholars and practitioners in the field of public diplomacy. APDS_Bloggers 2010-08-17T16:59:19+00:00 Sometimes effective public diplomacy can be conducted through a simple and unambiguous gesture. Such was the case when President Barack Obama recently commemorated the 50th anniversaries of 17 African nations’ independence at the White House. The gesture – or really a non-gesture – was to not invite a single African head of state to the event. Given the dismal performance of some African leaders, such as Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Obama chose to celebrate instead with 115 Africans under age 35 who are working to shape the continent’s civil society of the future. By doing so, he underscored a point he made in his speech in Accra, Ghana a year ago: “Africa doesn’t need strongmen; it needs strong institutions.” The White House event was a very visible slap at the “strongmen” Obama had criticized, and it was noticed in Africa. Adam Nossiter, reporting from Senegal in The New York Times, observed that a Senegalese newspaper remarked on the absence from the White House of that country’s controversial president, Abdoulaye Wade, and said that Obama “unrolls the red carpet for civil society.” A Cameroonian newspaper, wrote Nossiter, featured a headline saying, “Barack Obama Snubs the African Dictators.” Other African news media echoed these sentiments, and Internet forums buzzed with comments about Obama’s stance. If public diplomacy involves reaching out to people rather than to governments, this was an excellent example. In terms of illustrating America’s commitment to democratic governance, Obama’s choice of guests sent a clear message, which he knew would be conveyed by news and social media to the larger African public. Obama reinforced this in his discussion with the young visitors. He said: “Sometimes the older leaders get into old habits, and those old habits are hard to break. And so part of what we wanted to do was to communicate directly to people who may not assume that the old ways of doing business are the ways that Africa has to do business.” Underscoring Obama’s point about “the old ways” of doing business was the assemblage at a Bastille Day celebration in July in Paris. There, 13 African heads of state joined French president Nicolas Sarkozy on a reviewing stand. The contrast was striking: these African leaders, some of whom have been sharply criticized for human rights abuses, stood with the leader of a former colonial power that had subjugated large parts of their continent. Meanwhile, the next generation of what will be, one hopes, more enlightened African leadership was invited to the White House. It wasn’t so much what Obama or Sarkozy said that delivered their respective messages, it was what they did. Their guest lists were public diplomacy. Philip_Seib, Africa, Americas 2010-08-16T02:16:10+00:00 These videos are part of the series CPD Video Conversations: National Branding at Expo 2010 Shanghai. >> For viewers in China, follow this link to watch the video Jian_Jay_Wang, Asia Pacific > For viewers in China, follow this link to watch the video]]> 2010-08-13T05:18:48+00:00 These videos are part of the series CPD Video Conversations: National Branding at Expo 2010 Shanghai. A view of various illuminated pavilions after dark at the 2010 Shanghai Expo: >> For viewers in China, follow this link to watch the video Jian_Jay_Wang, Asia Pacific > For viewers in China, follow this link to watch the video]]> 2010-08-10T18:12:57+00:00