http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newsroom/specialreports_main en USC Center on Public Diplomacy Copyright 2009 2009-07-06T19:24:25+00:00 Media Coverage of the Iranian Election and Opposition Protests The June 12 presidential election in Iran has brought the impact of new media use by foreign publics to communicate with and advocate for one another to the forefront of global news media. Shortly after Ahmadinejad was pronounced the definitive winner of the election, the Iranian opposition, led by Mir Hussein Moussavi, took to the streets of Iran to protest the results. In an effort to suppress the coverage of these protests, the Iranian regime forbade foreign journalists from reporting on events throughout the country, disconnected cellular phone and SMS services, and slowed the internet to an almost unusable speed. These events gave rise to the coverage of the post-election protests through new media such as Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and Flickr. As a result, new media became the primary source for on-the-ground information not only for Iranians communicating with each other, but for traditional media sources and the global public. Within two weeks of the Iranian election, the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) produced an expanded version of their weekly New Media Index. Their research found that the topic of the Iranian elections dominated blogs, Twitter and other new media sites far more than it did in the mainstream media. PEJ also reported that 98% of the links on Twitter were about the Iranian elections and subsequent protests during the week of June 15-19 and that 63% of links posted in blogs and other new media sources focused specifically on the Iranian elections. According to PEJ, traditional media covered the Iranian elections to a much lesser degree, representing only 28% of press coverage for the same time period. Public Diplomacy and New Media: International Broadcasting in the 21st Century Traditional media outlets, unable to report on the opposition protests first-hand, were forced to rely on new media coverageof the post-election situation in Iran. The new “citizen journalist” became the link to the outside for the Iranian opposition. With the entire world relying on these new media sources, Twitter, along with YouTube, Facebook and Flickr, brought two-way communication between foreign publics to a new level. Traditionally, international broadcasting is dominated by broadcasting radio programs to foreign publics through government sponsored radio stations and websites such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. Governments have historically relied on these programs as well as editorials in newspapers and speeches in order to connect with foreign publics. The dominance of new media usage by the Iranian public demonstrates that foreign publics no longer need government intermediaries to listen to and connect with each other. The Iranian opposition not only reached out to foreign publics to hear their voices, but it called on people around the world to spread their message of opposition and relay information about events occurring in Iran. In short, public diplomacy has taken place on a massive global scale between foreign publics through the use of new media thanks to this hotly contested election. And while the global public rallied in support of the Iranian opposition through new media, the new media providers were not far behind that same cause. Google and Facebook quickly incorporated Persian language into their capabilities to further support the Iranian public. Twitter also delayed a scheduled maintenance at the request of the U.S. Department of State so as not to disrupt information coming out of Iran. An outpouring of support for the Iranian opposition was demonstrated on multiple levels through new media. Thousands of people around the world changed Twitter time-zone settings to that of Tehran, joined the Mir Hussein Moussavi Facebook group and created green avatars or profile pictures to demonstrate solidarity with the opposition. However, the newest and most compelling form of cyber activism came in the form of internet proxy servers. In order for many Iranians to evade government censorship they contacted Internet servers that relay connections through a different country. A young American from San Francisco, Austin Heap, continues to run private proxies and post the addresses on Twitter to support internet connections for 750 Iranians at any time. Quoted in The New York Times, Heap stated that “cyber activism can be a way to empower people living under less than democratic governments around the world.” This form of technological exchange has provided access to technology and information where they were unavailable. It also shows active support for the Iranian opposition’s cause, not just rhetorical or virtual support. People across the globe are reaching out to and providing tools for causes they support. This is a new way for diplomatic exchange to be pursued on a citizen level. While it is hard to verify the accuracy of information emanating from new media sources, the volume of online activity corresponding to the Iranian election has clearly demonstrated the power of online activism and the utility of new media in international broadcasting and public diplomacy. 2009-07-06T18:24:25+00:00 Few stories have caught the scope of attention and imagination of both global public and press as President Barack Obama's recent foray into the complicated landscape that is the Middle East. Coverage and commentary was ubiquitous in all corners of the globe in the run-up to the president's visit to Riyadh and Cairo and his speech at Cairo University. This Media Monitor Report examines the full scope of coverage of President Obama's trip to the Middle East, his vaunted Cairo speech and the public diplomacy implementation and implications of the Middle East expedition by the new American president. Setting the Stage As President Obama's visit to the Middle East drew closer, coverage – which was intense from the outset – hit a crescendo and punditry reached a fevered pitch as commentators of all stripes weighed in on what the American president would, should—or shouldn't say, or do, on his trip. A week prior to Obama's Cairo visit, former U.S. Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy James Glassman teamed up with former Deputy National Security Advisor Juan Zarate to pen a prescription in the Boston Globe related to "What Obama Should Tell Muslims," and how Obama could counter the narrative that the "West is at war with Islam" as he was "uniquely placed to recast the way American power and influence are viewed." As an announcement was made on May 28 that President Obama would be adding a stop to meet with Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah prior to his Cairo visit, commentators in the West and Arab world picked through various reasons for the brief Saudi Arabia sojourn. Middle East media authority, Mark Lynch, highlighted the various waves of responses to news of Obama's Saudi stop in his Foreign Policy blog. He noted that responses first focused on the intra-Arab divisions and rivalries, then turned to the greater political significance his Riyadh meeting related to either gaining greater Saudi involvement or concessions in the Saudi/Arab Peace Initiative, or toward support for either engagement or confrontation with Tehran. This sentiment was echoed in the editorial by London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi's Chief Editor Abdel-Beri Atwan, who speculated that "something urgent prompted the changing of the program of the American president to consult with the officials of Riyadh before delivering his promised speech at Cairo University," and pointed to either of the two aforementioned issues of Israel or Iran. [translation courtesy of Mideast Wire] It seemed as if "Middle East experts" poured out of the woodwork to offer prognostications, suggestions and advice for President Obama. Among many others, the Brookings Institution and The New York Times published commentary from Middle East scholars and policy makers in the U.S. and Muslim world on what exactly Obama should say in Cairo, and what the region wanted to hear. Meanwhile a plethora of articles appeared detailing the "great" or "high" expectations that the Muslim world had for his Cairo address, such as a Huffington Post piece by esteemed pollster James Zogby, as well as one by Dan Balz of The Washington Post. Many were interested in discussing the framing of the trip, including FPA/CPD blogger Mark Dillen, who described the scene being constructed by Obama as he embarked on his visit. Obama also engaged in some scene-setting himself, conducting pre-departure interviews with Michele Norris and Steve Inskeep of NPR and Tom Friedman of The New York Times. English language newspapers in the Middle East carried similar sentiments. Al Ahram Weekly chronicled excitement in Cairo, the Saudi Gazette discussed expectations in the region, while Lebanon's Daily Star exhorted Obama to remember his Chicago roots while touring the region. Even Al Qaeda chimed in, as Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al_Zawahiri sent audio message broadcasts denouncing Obama's visit to their old home turf. These messages brought consternation to Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent, who complained about the lack of flexing of U.S. public diplomacy machinery to counter Al Qaeda's statements. However, to its credit, the U.S. public diplomacy apparatus was being harnessed in a different capacity. In the immediate lead-up to the Cairo speech, innumerable stories appeared about the public diplomacy framework that the White House and State Department were employing to gain maximum exposure for President Obama's address through social networks, SMS text messaging and webcast. In The Lede, The New York Times's blog, Jeff Zeleny noted that the Cairo speech would be "texted and tweeted, as well as highlighted on Facebook, Myspace and a host of other social networking sites." He also noted that the speech was being translated by the State Department into at least 13 different languages and posted on a special Web site created in Arabic, Persian, Urdu and English for people to receive the speech through text messages. Peter Maer of CBS News also noted the unprecedented Web outreach by the Obama administration, including the live stream of the Cairo speech on the White House Web site, and the video's post on YouTube. Obama's Arrival in the Middle East The arrival of President Obama was heralded in Saudi and Gulf regional papers, with the Saudi Gazette declaring "Welcome," while the Gulf News noted the ties between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia dating back to Roosevelt and King Abdullah. The Gulf News also noted the cynicism in the region toward American foreign policy, but also indicated the rise of popularity in the region for the American president. While a significant stop, the Saudi visit was really seen as an appetizer ahead of the Cairo call. President Obama arrived in Cairo amid a palpable sense of excitement, as GlobalPost reported the streets were abuzz with excitement for the American leader's visit. Leading into the Cairo visit, President Obama's trip had been dominating the news cycle, getting tremendous coverage in the U.S. and in the Middle East; with the hype, hubbub and aforementioned public diplomacy distribution efforts, the Cairo speech was laden with anticipation. As noted the president's speech was streamed live, and broadcast live by Al Jazeera and other regional Arab news networks. Without delay, the White House made the transcript and video available, as the State Department pushed the social networking distribution as well as its normal channels of what was quickly termed "The New Beginnings" speech. The Speech Click here to see Obama's full speech. In what pundits noted as what "could be the most consequential presidential speech to a foreign audience in history, certainly since John Kennedy spoke to Berliners in 1963," the 55-minute address by President Obama was met by a myriad of reactions across the globe, and in every form of media outlet. The Washington Post editorialized that the "address in Cairo offered an eloquent case for American values and global objectives -- and it looked to be a skillful use of public diplomacy in a region where America's efforts to explain itself have often been weak." USA Today noted that through the speech, the U.S. had gained ground in the war for hearts and minds, and that the first round of the battle of "Obama vs. Osama," appeared to go to Barack. A major focus of the post-speech debate was on how Obama's Cairo address would play throughout the world, and if it could create public diplomacy capital in locations in which America's image had long been waning. For regional reaction across the Middle East, The New York Times interviewed Arab students regarding the address to gauge their response. In a separate article, Michael Slackman of the Times commented, "Again and again, Muslim listeners said they were struck by how skillfully Mr. Obama appropriated religious, cultural and historical references in ways other American presidents had not," as he discussed the various reactions that arose and the Middle East fault lines that speech tried to balance. The Christian Science Monitor noted that a sense of possibility was felt through the region. GlobalPost highlighted the diverse reactions to the speech in Dubai that came from locations as varied as labor camps and posh hotels. Meanwhile, the blogger site GlobalVoices aggregated the Middle East blogosphere reaction. Many sources also noted that the optimism was shaded by a sense of "wait and see" and many discussed the need for action to follow the words offered, especially related to the issue of Palestine. Media sources in the Middle East shared the diversity of opinion, as the Gulf Newsnoted that opinions in the Middle East ranged from inspired to critical to unimpressed. Al Jazeera offered a "Vox Pop" mosaic of opinion from academics and students in the region. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera's senior commentator Abdullah Schliefer discussed the moving emotions the speech and event elicited. Both the Khaleej Times (UAE) and The Peninsula (Qatar) highlighted "the new beginning" aspect of Obama's speech in editorials, while the Daily Star (Lebanon) called it "a significant departure from traditional politics" similar to Obama's own election. The Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram termed the speech and summit "exceptional," and stated, "Without any exaggeration, Obama's address will go down in history as one of the most important documents conveying the desires of the West, led by the United States, for a different dealing with Islam and the Muslims after centuries of aggression and hatred." [Translation courtesy of Mideast Wire] Reactions Around the Globe Media venues such as GlobalPost tracked opinions all over the world. Voice of America reported on how the story was received in West Africa and Kenya, as well as in Pakistan, where the latter two nations were ebullient by the words but awaited specific actions. In India, the speech was seen to strike a chord. The Los Angeles Times rounded up reactions from a skeptical barbershop in Baghdad to a family's varied response in Tehran over the issues of women's rights and comparisons in Istanbul to the president's previous speech in Turkey, which had hosted Obama a few months earlier. The Public Diplomacy Score From a public diplomacy perspective, President Obama's trip to the Middle East can be considered a clear success just for its shear capacity to capture global attention and imagination. For a clear anecdote of the vastness of coverage, as of June 9, a Google News search noted nearly 12,000 stories from various media outlets following the Cairo speech. Meanwhile, YouTube indicates that nearly 1 million viewers have watched the Cairo speech. Moreover, the ability for the White House and State Department to use new technology and new public diplomacy tools to distribute the address and dominate the news cycle and opinion corners was an impressive harbinger of new capabilities and a new dimension of public diplomacy promotion. That President Obama got the world debating and discussing his voyage, and considering whether a new chapter was indeed unfolding between the Middle East and West, is a stunning reminder of the power of "soft power" and speaks volumes to the ability to influence through inspiration. It's hard to imagine that this event did not usher in a new era between America and the Muslim world based on that ever-popular campaign slogan of "change". Read the full transcript at CPD Resources. Media & PD, Media - International, Reports 2009-06-15T10:50:05+00:00 Summary: Secretary Clinton's trip to Asia highlighted the importance of confidence-building measures and symbolism in traditional state-to-state diplomacy, but also reflected the distinctive style of the Obama administration. From the announcement of the trip’s destination to Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and China, local and international coverage examined its global significance, mainly the decision not to head first to Europe or the Middle East, the more traditional route. The Economist noted that Secretary Clinton followed Dean Rusk’s lead from 1961, making her only the second American Secretary of State to choose Asia for their first foreign trip. Each port of call appeared to represent clear U.S. priorities. Media coverage speculated that Japan was chosen to demonstrate U.S. appreciation for the long-existing – though seemingly forgotten, U.S.-Japan alliance. A stop in Indonesia was seen as showing a desire to engage with the Muslim world and to reconnect with ASEAN. Visiting South Korea was seen as a nod to an important trading partner and growing regional power. Finally, the China trip was understood as a reflection of the U.S. belief that cooperating with the Asian giant is the key to easing many world problems, including security challenges from North Korea and Iran. Those Asian countries excluded from Secretary Clinton’s trip, such as Taiwan and the Philippines, noted their disappointment but expressed guarded optimism about prospects of a future visit. The consensus among most, however, was that the trip represented a reorientation and shift away from the Bush administration’s policy towards the region. The Los Angeles Times heralded the maiden voyage, calling Clinton's trip “an appreciation of Asia's diplomatic culture, which values face-time and presence, and will be crucial to fostering a more balanced U.S. foreign policy.” Not surprisingly, coverage of Clinton’s remarks in China emphasized her attention to the global economic crisis and the need to address climate change. Clinton's focus on climate change was depicted as part of a broader administration effort to persuade China to join the United States’ commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. RTÉ noted that despite Clinton’s anti-China rhetoric during the democratic primaries, she managed to reframe U.S.-Sino relations saying, “Some believe that China on the rise is, by definition, an adversary…On the contrary we believe that the U.S. and China can benefit and contribute to each other’s successes.” It was noted in The Wall Street Journal that Clinton also took a different tack on the question of human rights compared with her stance during the primaries, emphasizing that a discussion about human rights would not derail other important discussions. A San Francisco Chronicle op-ed compared China’s largesse in the region to the U.S.’s less reliable presence, noting in particular that U.S. aid was tied to conditions whereas China’s was not. This so-called “charm offensive” has enabled China to gain political capital among regional allies. Kishore Mahbubani, writing in the Khaleej Times (United Arab Emirates), also addressed this problem, emphasizing the need for a long-term strategic thinking; a recommendation echoed by may public diplomacy advocates in the U.S. Likewise, U.S. domestic coverage recognized the need for substance as well as signals. The Heritage Foundation issued a paper calling for Clinton to “strike a balance between accommodating allied concerns while still advocating strong U.S. objectives. Foreign Policy argued the need to look beyond China to India. Reporting about Clinton’s Asia tour did not vary significantly among different international broadcasters in the region, although many did add a local perspective. The Sidney Morning Herald, for example, noted that Clinton phoned Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd during the trip to discuss the role of the G20 in the financial crisis. The Jakarta Post described Clinton’s visit as tacit support for President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Vice President Jusuf Kalla before the elections, suggesting that the two would profit greatly from international recognition of their role in consolidating and stabilizing Indonesia's democracy over the last five years. Reporting of the tour also emphasized Secretary Clinton’s unique approach to diplomacy with parallels drawn to her campaign persona. She held "town hall" meetings with students in Japan and South Korea, and scheduled a web chat in China. BBC News also described Clinton’s unique stamp on the role, charging that “it seemed to be more about Hillary and less about foreign policy.” Clinton was also frequently compared to the more austere Secretary Condoleezza Rice. One such critic, Nirav Patel wrote that Washington's disregard and strategic neglect of Asia was epitomized by the former Secretary of State's repeated absence from high-level ministerial meetings. On the public diplomacy front, the Times of India commented on President Obama’s instinct for using symbolism in diplomacy, noting the President’s trip to Canada, and emphasizing the appointment of soft power proponent Joseph Nye as U.S. Ambassador to Japan, as well as Clinton’s invitation to Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso to be the first foreign leader to meet with the president. Clinton herself defined her role as not about repairing relations with governments, but about trying to influence people’s view of America. To Clinton, meeting with Japanese students or chatting to Indonesians about the clean water and health care projects funded by the U.S. in their country was a form of public diplomacy. "This, to me, is what diplomacy is about," she said. "It doesn't just operate ... government to government. It operates people to people." Perhaps most important for U.S. public diplomacy was the appearance of listening more than speaking. Glenn Kessler dubbed the trip “The Global Listening Tour,” and quoted Clinton’s address to a group of Japanese students in which she stated: "My trip here today is to hear your views, because I believe strongly that we learn from listening to one another." The diplomatic trip also demonstrated how U.S. diplomats are embracing nontraditional methods, tact and tone, a development exemplified by Clinton’s appearance on Indonesian MTV. This media monitor tracked coverage of the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s first official foreign trip from its announcement in early February through to March 1, 2009, with a focus on stories relevant to the public diplomacy of the U.S. and its relationships in the region, including priorities, symbolism of the trip to the region and the world and Clinton’s own capacity to engage in public diplomacy. The monitor was divided into local coverage originating within the United States, and international coverage by media outlets around the globe. Below are the stories that were collected as part of the Media Monitor. 2009-03-08T06:39:00+00:00 Summary: The Gaza crisis has once again highlighted the growing significance of public diplomacy and information campaigns during global conflicts. In 2006, Israel suffered a significant public diplomacy setback during its summer war with Hezbollah. In spite of a renewed focus and some notable improvements to its communication strategy, Israel has once again sustained a blow to its image, while Hamas’ popularity, among Palestinians in particular, has increased in the aftermath of the war. Like the Russian-Georgian war in 2008, reporting about the Gaza conflict varied widely among different international broadcasters, with Arab and Western observers often witnessing vastly different accounts of the war. The Gaza conflict also saw the unprecedented use of social media by both Israel and Hamas, a development likely to be repeated and expanded in future conflicts. __________________________________________________________________ Having suffered a significant defeat in the battle of public perceptions during the Hezbollah war in 2006, Israel made a concerted attempt to improve its communications effort going into the Gaza campaign. Even before the first bombs of the war were dropped in late December, 2008, the Israeli Foreign Ministry opened a new media center in Sderot, and prepared its media affairs personnel with press releases and talking points to try to help convey its message. Following a reasonably successful public diplomacy effort in the earliest stages of the war, however, Israel began to lose traction as the images of carnage and destruction began to circulate out of Gaza, transmitted with particular intensity around the Arab world. Israel sustained further damage to its credibility following a decision to prohibit foreign journalists from entering Gaza. The policy came in response to reporting during the Hezbollah war which Israel believed had compromised or complicated some of its military operations. Still, the restriction heightened suspicions among some about Israel’s attempts to try to control the flow of information during the conflict. For its part, Hamas sought to portray itself as a victim of Israeli aggression, maintaining a steady flow of images, delivered nearly instantaneously following Israeli attacks through its Al Qassam website and Al-Aksa television network, and subsequently picked up by other broadcasters. Reporting within the Arab world in particular evoked a surge of sympathy for Hamas, particularly on the Arab street. A poll conducted in early February by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center confirms the consolidation of Hamas’ popularity among Palestinians. Strikingly, a majority of Palestinians believe Hamas won the war, and the poll indicates that if new elections were held today, Hamas would narrowly defeat Fatah, with support rising from 19% before the war to over 28% afterwards. If anything, Hamas’ effort may have been tempered somewhat in the Arab world as a result of tepid support or even opposition from a number of Arab governments, including Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. While demonstrations of public support for Hamas materialized even in these nations, unlike past conflicts, certain Arab regimes avoided provoking further outrage among their populations. Following a troubling trend witnessed during the Russian-Georgian war, reporting about the Gaza conflict varied widely as a result of divergent accounts from different international media networks. As Lawrence Pintak has recently described, Arab and Western viewers watched dramatically different wars unfolding before them, as a result of this kind of divergent reporting. This trend has only been accentuated lately by the rise of largely state-funded, international broadcasters reporting with a particular point of view, including Russia Today, France 24, Press TV, and most recently NHK from Japan. Social media was employed by both sides during the Gaza war in unprecedented applications sure to be repeated and expanded in future conflicts. The Israeli government in particular conducted a Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube campaign to try to neutralize or expose some of the negative impressions and criticism which circulated widely on the web during recent conflicts. The Qassam count application on Facebook and the Israeli military’s development of a YouTube channel were particularly effective according to Jaron Gilinsky. Meanwhile, Hamas also set up a YouTube channel called “Palutube” to disseminate its message during the war, including criticism not only of its Israeli enemy but also of Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas. This media monitor tracked coverage of the Gaza crisis from its earliest stages beginning December 28, 2008 through March 1, 2009, with a focus on stories relevant to the public diplomacy of both Israel and Hamas, including public opinion, strategic communications, and the use of new media by both parties during the conflict. The monitor is divided into local coverage originating within the Middle East, and international coverage of the war by media outlets around the globe. 2009-03-01T20:59:00+00:00 The overall narrative for these Olympics seems somewhat ambivalent: “they were a rousing success, but...” But they could only take place in a totalitarian country where the government can direct resources at will towards any national project. But the protest zones were left empty and some of those wanting to protest were arrested after they filed their paperwork. But…But…But… These codas marring an otherwise perfect Olympic performance may trouble a few perfection-seeking souls in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) but the overall public diplomacy impact of China’s Olympics seems to have been positive. International audiences did not learn much more beyond what they already knew about issues most sensitive to the CCP, particularly the Tibet situation: namely, that it is bad, and that China should “Free Tibet,” but quite why or how remained unclear through most of the international press’ reporting. However, these same audiences learned a lot more about the rest of China from a variety of trusted and familiar sources: local news anchors, bloggers, newspaper writers, and national news reporters. They saw snippets on unusual Chinese food and heard about amazing cultural sites. They were bombarded with images of a clean and modern Beijing, and they saw a world-class event pulled off without a hitch. This CPD Media Monitor followed the media coverage surrounding the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing, China from April to September 2008. The Monitor sought to highlight the narrative differences between the English-language Chinese press, particularly the government run news outlet Xinhua, and the international English-language press. By providing a comparison between the official Chinese Olympic narrative and the international media’s Olympic narrative, the Beijing Olympics Media Monitor provided a look at China’s effort at public diplomacy through the Olympics. Sometimes the local coverage and the international coverage converged, as it frequently did on stories about the spectacle of the Olympics and the rich culture of China, and at times the coverage diverged, particularly on issues related to human rights and media openness. The Beijing Olympics Media Monitor focused on five main areas of interest: Human Rights Local News Coverage / International News Coverage; Environmental Issues Local News Coverage / International News Coverage; Culture Local News Coverage / International News Coverage; Chinese Power Local News Coverage / International News Coverage; Media Local News Coverage / International News Coverage. Each of these subjects saw narratives emerge in the international press that were both favorable to and highly critical of China. The official Chinese press, on the other hand, always sought to put the best spin possible on any given issue. Through the course of the coverage it seemed clear that the strict narrative of the Chinese government would not be the story told by the international press regardless of how much the government tried to control press access to locations, the internet, or even at times their equipment. Whether or not the Chinese government’s narrative was the one the world heard seems, ultimately, to have mattered very little because at the end of the 2008 Olympic season the world’s knowledge of China had grown exponentially. For the entire month of August it seemed that every subject imaginable could be tied to the Olympic Games and to China. Energy issues, algae blooms, air pollution, Coca-Cola, Darfur, doping, and pandas all found their way into Olympic coverage and all helped to tell the story of an emerging world power with a lot of problems and a great deal of clout. More than ever before China was on everyone’s mind. The sheer volume and variety of coverage, from long form news pieces on television and radio, to commercials using Chinese images to sell products to Westerners, make it impossible to say one story or one image won the day. In the run up to the Games the people of the world were introduced to China as a complex country. They heard about its human rights abuses, and its modern cities; they read about its environmental problems, and its many different minorities; they saw images of extraordinary wealth and simple rural life. Through the broad ranging media coverage of the 2008 Olympic Games, China became much more than pandas, ping-pong, and the Great Wall. It became a real place, with real problems and real people. The story that emerged in Chinese media of a modern, vibrant, growing, culturally rich nation was echoed by the international media. Western news sources, particularly American broadcaster NBC noted China’s modernity, its development over the past thirty years, and the rich cultural tapestry of an ancient land. However, while the international press rarely missed an opportunity to report on issues of restricted protest rights, limited media access, and anything having to do with Tibet, the official Chinese press unfailingly down-played these difficult issues, vilified the subjects of such articles, or simply ignored the stories. Nevertheless, the positive cultural narrative assiduously fostered by official Chinese media helped soften the truthful but harsh critiques of its Olympic policies and practices and may have created a context to better understand China, its people, and its policies. It is this very notion of improving cultural understanding that successful public diplomacy is all about. If China managed to facilitate a greater appreciation of its complex identity during the Olympics that is independent of any particular domestic or foreign policy practice, then it has arguably laid the foundation for greater public acceptance of Chinese policies in the future. Selection of media coverage appears below in categories. Regions, Asia-Pacific, Topics, Cultural Diplomacy, Sports 2008-10-08T17:26:00+00:00 Alhurra – “The Free One” – is a U.S. government-funded broadcaster available throughout the Middle East. Established in 2004, Alhurra, along with its FM radio counterpart, Radio Sawa (launched in 2002), represent America’s largest commitment to public diplomacy in the region. Over the last six years, the U.S. government has invested just under $500 million dollars in the two broadcasters. Overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an independent agency reporting directly to Congress, Alhurra’s mission is to promote freedom and democracy in the region through the accurate and objective representation of U.S. policies. Broadcasting from Springfield, Virginia, the station’s programming includes a mix of traditional newscasting, cultural programming, political talk shows, documentaries, as well as some American entertainment programming dubbed into Arabic. Since its inception, Alhurra has attracted controversy. In 2006, the United States General Accountability Office issued a report documenting the many challenges facing Alhurra and Radio Sawa, notably poor management and weak performance. In March 2007, Alhurra gained significant media and public attention when Joel Mowbray, a conservative syndicated columnist for Knight-Ridder and a frequent contributor to the National Review, published a series of articles in the Wall Street Journal accusing the channel of providing “platforms to Holocaust deniers and Islamic terrorists.” In these articles, Mowbray revealed that Alhurra had aired the entirety of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s December 7, 2006 speech, an explicit violation of Alhurra’s Journalistic Code of Ethics and its Congressional mandate, and that they provided extensive and deferential coverage of a Holocaust denial conference held in Tehran in December 2006. In May 2007, Congress held hearings to further examine the accusations. In a statement before Congress, Alhurra executive, Joaquin F. Blaya, acknowledged the channel’s mistakes and assured his audience that corrective measures had been taken and that terrorists and Holocaust deniers would never again use the channel as a platform. In addition to this political scrutiny, Alhurra has also faced criticism from media scholars and practitioners. Professor Shibley Telhami argues that Alhurra’s actual influence on public opinion in the region is minute given its relatively small audience share. Moreover, in the face of a growing number of Middle Eastern satellite news channels (e.g., Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya and Al Manar, as well as other broadcasters funded by Western governments such as the UK’s BBC Arabic TV), former deputy director of the Voice of America Alan L. Heil argues that the likelihood of Alhurra gaining any ground against its more respected competitors is highly improbable. Arab media expert, Marc Lynch, suggests that Alhurra’s problems boil down to the impossible balance required to appease its Congressional critics while also providing coverage that resonates with an opinionated Arab audience. Lynch argues that by acquiescing to Congressional pressure and ensuring that its content best represents and promotes the U.S. agenda in the region, Alhurra quickly lost credibility among an Arab audience already critical towards much of America’s current foreign policies. In June of this year, Alhurra was once again embroiled in controversy after two scathing media reports -- one produced by the media watchdog ProPublica that was aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes, the other by the Washington Post’s Craig Whitlock -- echoed many of the previous criticisms and added evidence to several new ones. ProPublica’s critique was that Alhurra was far from pro-U.S. in its broadcasts which, along with key interviews with senior U.S. officials, habitually aired adversarial views from all other sides – ranging from the Sunni Iraqi insurgency, through the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, to pro-Hezbollah and pro-Iranian leaders and radical Shiite Islamists. In addition to the anti-American inflammatory rhetoric, ProPublica decried Alhurra’s managerial inefficiency, favoritism in hiring, and lack of proper editorial and financial oversight as misuse of taxpayers’ money. It further drew attention to a gaping linguistic and cultural disconnect between the network’s senior management on one hand, and its executive producers, reporters and news casts on the other. The criticisms leveled generated a wave of media coverage and an intense exchange between the channel’s critics at ProPublica and its supporters at the BBG. While important points were raised on both fronts -- addressing the station’s failures to project a fair image of the U.S. on the one side, and defending its mission of providing credible programming of high journalistic standards on the other -- little agreement emerged in the way of envisioning what would constitute a truly effective U.S. public diplomacy strategy for engaging the Arab world. More constructive opinions were offered by other sources and writers in the blogosphere. Analysts seemed to converge on the view that the responsibilities of state-sponsored international broadcasting to serve the national interest while providing balanced news and catering to well-informed, skeptical audiences, are by definition mutually exclusive. In a PBS interview, Shibley Telhami further elaborated on the limits of influencing publics through broadcast media by rejecting the notion that there is a relationship between what people watch and the political opinions they form. Communications scholar Craig Hayden similarly argued for a re-conceptualization of the approach to international broadcasting by revamping it as a more interactive, participatory medium that would not only fit better in the current Arab media landscape, but would also help create a more democratic media culture in the Middle East. The unfolding controversy surrounding Alhurra clearly indicates the dilemma faced by the U.S.’s Middle East information effort. This report is an aggregation of recent press – both in the mainstream media, as well as in the blogosphere – of Alhurra’s critics and defenders with the intention of providing a balanced perspective on the issue and stimulating reflection on the broader challenge of U.S. public diplomacy through international broadcasting. Regions, Middle East, North America 2008-07-10T22:27:00+00:00 Ever since his rise to power in 2005 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has enjoyed being in the spotlight of American attention. Not without the help of the news media and the White House's preoccupation with his persona, the Iranian President successfully managed to turn many of his public appearances into public diplomacy triumphs. His musings on the Holocaust and the annihilation of Israel, and his defiance of the West over Iran's nuclear program have been the subject of much debate granting him rock-star-like popularity on a par with Bruce Springsteen. While nothing more than the demagoguery of an unpopular leader, these same narratives were the word of the day once more during Ahmadinejad's recent visit to the U.S. for the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly. Incessant rumblings and great anticipation preceded Ahmadinejad's arrival, reaching a crescendo when Columbia University enlisted him as a speaker at its World Leaders Forum. Intended to meet "bad beliefs" with "better beliefs" and "hateful words" with "wiser words," Columbia provided a prominent public diplomacy platform in the battle of ideas. Yet, neither the soft power advantage nor the publicity opportunity was successfully clinched for American public diplomacy. The centerpiece of Ahmadinejad's visit to New York—his appearance at the UN—was largely overshadowed by Columbia's invitation. Ahmadinejad's speech was sponsored by Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, which is launching a year-long series of lectures and events on the thirty years history of the Islamic Republic of Iran. News outlets were poised eagerly to cover the controversy as some condemned and others applauded the invitation. Fierce debate erupted over whether Ahmadinejad's views deserved to be granted such a high podium and opinions were expounded on free speech, Iran and American democracy. Coverage of the Iranian President was predominantly negative and even those who supported his right to speak in New York expressed their condemnation of the President's views and Iran's human rights violations. However, Ahmadinejad still managed to pull off an extraordinary publicity coup. Despite the fact that Manhattan teemed with world leaders and important gatherings, he remained the media's favorite celebrity. Aside from the Iraq war, Ahmadinejad's visit was the most closely followed news story during the week. According to the Pew Research Center, 23% of the public followed the story very closely, and 14% listed it as the single news story they followed most closely. Ahmadinejad's visit, and U.S.-Iranian relations in general, was the most heavily covered news story of the week. Fully 13% of the national newshole was devoted to this story. In an earlier poll, gauging news interest, Ahmadinejad ranked fifth in the list of people most often mentioned by American news outlets, preceded by O. J. Simpson, George Bush, Britney Spears and Hillary Clinton, and followed by General Petraeus. As Americans were watching, so were the Iranians. The entirety of Ahmadinejad's Columbia talk was broadcast on Iranian television the next day providing an unparalleled opportunity for American public diplomacy to communicate its message. Some argued that having Ahmadinejad speak would demonstrate clearly the fundamental pillars of American democracy — free speech and the right to protest. The example of how the United States handles criticism and how it treats even the most opposing views was expected to highlight its moral high ground over the regime in Tehran. The contrasts would hopefully not be lost on the Iranian people. President Bollinger stated that inviting Ahmadinejad to speak showcased America at its best: "to commit oneself to a life—and a civil society—prepared to examine critically all ideas arises from a deep faith in the myriad benefits of a long-term process of meeting bad beliefs with better beliefs and hateful words with wiser words. That faith in freedom has always been and remains today our nation's most potent weapon against repressive regimes everywhere in the world". Dean John Coatsworth added that, "opportunities to hear, challenge, and learn from controversial speakers of different views are central to the education and training of students for citizenship in a shrinking and still dangerous world." Not only was this seen as an excellent occasion for a real world demonstration of American values and democratic practices at work, it could also be perceived as a valuable opportunity to directly confront the Iranian President on his controversial remarks and hold him accountable for the accusations that the U.S. has been leveling against him and his country. Iran has been accused by President Bush of seeking nuclear weapons and was named the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. As opposed to the straight speech which Ahmadinejad was scheduled to deliver at the UN, a "robust" debate could serve to lay bare the bankruptcy of human rights in Iran and challenge the rationale of its policies in Iraq and the wider Middle East. Yet, Columbia was not praised for this laudable public diplomacy endeavor. Democratic Presidential candidates expressed at best a lukewarm support for the University with Senators Clinton and Obama noting that they wouldn't have invited Ahmadinejad if they were Columbia's President. John Edwards cautioned against allowing leaders like Ahmadinejad to score propaganda points. However, it is not so much Columbia's invitation, as the current administration's personalization of Iranian politics through Ahmadinejad's figure and the news media's subsequent focus on the President that continues to enhance his popularity both at home and abroad. Nevertheless, Republican Presidential candidates went even further in criticizing the University. Senator Thompson stated he would not have allowed Ahmadinejad into the country if he were President. California Rep. Duncan Hunter went as far as to threaten that "if President Bollinger follows through with this hosting of the leader of Iran, I will move in Congress to cut off every single type of federal funding to Columbia University." So much for the hope of showcasing American freedom and democracy. As events unfolded on the day of Ahmadinejad's talk, those who looked to Columbia for an exhibition of the country's openness to dialogue and receptivity to criticism, might have been disheartened. In welcoming his guest, President Bollinger called him a "petty and cruel dictator" and "either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated." Whether the result of threats of sanctions, political or media pressure, or simply a miscalculation, Bollinger's "tough line" with the Iranian President caused an uproar in the U.S. and abroad. Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, described Bollinger’s speech as culturally insensitive and counterproductive. "If you invite someone, you have to be polite," he said. "Ahmadinejad scored points, especially in their culture. If you permit an enemy to come into your home, you still treat him with dignity and respect. Therefore, we lost." Most importantly, President Bollinger's disrespectful attitude towards an elected head-of-state alienated and shocked Iranians who perceived it as an offense to their nation. The chancellors of seven Iranian universities issued a letter to Bollinger saying his "insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful." In response, Iranian academics asked ten questions of President Bollinger pointing out America's 1953 overthrow of Iran's national government, U.S. support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war, and U.S. support for undemocratic regimes in the Middle East. As evidenced by this response, the episode at Columbia exacerbated Iranian feelings of humiliation and frustration with the West. It contradicted the very goals of public diplomacy which views academic leadership as a primary stakeholder and gatekeeper in relaying political and cultural texts to the broader public sphere, a strategy President Ahmadinejad is well versed in. While the Iranian President ingeniously complements each of his UN visits with hosting a carefully targeted stylish dinner with American journalists and academics, the Bush administration is quick to dismiss invitations by Iranian Universities such as the one extended on October 1 by Ferdowsi University, one of Iran's oldest academic institutions located in Iran's second largest city of Mashhad. The justifications presented—Iran's undemocratic society, nuclear ambitions and threats against Israel, make such a visit all the more imperative. Before leaving for New York Ahmadinejad stated that "the American people in the past years have been denied correct and clear information about global developments and are eager to hear different opinions." Arguably, Iranians have fared much worse in terms of access to information. However, as Ahmadinejad strives to provide "a different voice" and the "correct and clear information" to Americans, Iranians have not been engaged in a similar exchange of opinions. Rather, President Bush's rejection of Ferdowsi University's invitation compounded the hostile welcome and mistreatment accorded to Ahmadinejad at Columbia, fueling Iranian perceptions of the U.S. as an arrogant superpower. Some commentators drew comparisons between U.S. policies toward the "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union and Iran of the "Axis of Evil." Despite the deep antagonism, American presidents did not ignore or insult their Soviet counterparts. Today, dialogue has been scrapped and to many Iranians it seems that U.S. policies are increasingly advanced through bullying while Americans "act like cowboys and nothing more." As a result, events at Columbia and the developments they triggered helped rather than hurt Ahmadinejad's standing in Iran and the broader Middle East. Just as his failed economic policies and provocative posturing over the nuclear program were drawing intense criticism among Iranians, this hostile reception came to justify his defiance and intransigence and confirmed Iranian officials' claims of an unjust attitude toward Iran in America. It further provided Ahmadinejad with an opportunity to posit himself as the true public diplomat who "created a new room for making direct contacts with the U.S. and international public opinions" only to be snubbed by his uncooperative hosts. For Iranian critics and supporters alike he appeared to have taken the high road. "Our president appeared as a gentleman. He remained polite against those who could not remain polite," said Ahmad Masoudi, a customer at a grocery store who had watched state television's recorded version of the event. The demonizing and mistreatment of the Iranian President enhanced his image of resistance to the U.S. in the eyes of much of the Middle East, an image that he endeavors to encourage among Iran's Arab neighbors. According to Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a professor of politics in Tehran's Allameh University, "the protests by Israel's supporters against Ahmadinejad outside the university also helped him to appear as a hero for people of the Middle East." Ironically, Iran and the broader Middle East rather than Western publics are Ahmadinejad's target public diplomacy audience and many of his statements are framed for domestic and regional consumption, although delivered in an international context. Some have described his strategy as a charm offensive in gearing up for the upcoming presidential elections. Others have pointed to his attempt to garner popular support in the Middle East by using the pan-Arab appeal of the Palestinian question. U.S. demonizing of the Iranian president, however, does more than boost his domestic and regional popularity. It also bolsters his persona which does not enjoy a place of real power in Iran. Often depicted as George Bush's prime antagonist, Ahmadinejad has become the definitive cultural stereotype of a powerful and radical Islamic leader with his finger on the nuclear button. The abundant coverage that he regularly receives is likely to lead publics in the U.S. to form their opinion of Iran and Iranian policy largely based upon their evaluation of the President. However, greater attention to the actual power nexus of Iranian politics might redefine Americans' perceived threat from Tehran, as the President's quirky personality and combative populism are hardly a serious concern for foreign policy. Although a master of inflammatory rhetoric, President Ahmadinejad does not wield much power or influence and does not have decision making authority over the nuclear briefcase or Iran's military. Basing U.S. policy and attitudes toward Iran on the President's rhetoric thus increases the risk of exaggerated threat assessments much to the detriment of conflict resolution with Iran. Ultimately, events around Ahmadinejad's visit served to increase rather than alleviate tension between the U.S. and Iran and multiple public diplomacy opportunities were wasted. Considering the amount of media attention showered on the visit, such a platform could have been used to raise ideas and propositions on an unofficial level that would have undoubtedly reached the mass audiences in the Middle East and generated a certain amount of goodwill. On the contrary, the attempt to deny Ahmadinejad a public diplomacy coup only contributed to his popularity at home and in the broader Middle East, while the disrespectful treatment he received further alienated Iranian public opinion and played into the hands of critics of American policy. Thus, the opportunities provided by Columbia's public diplomacy forum were squandered. The following is an aggregation of articles, commentary and public opinion polls on the public diplomacy implications of Ahmadinejad's visit to the U.S. and their significance in the broader U.S.-Iranian relations. NEWS ARTICLES AND EDITORIALS United States US, Iran Play with Fire (Ramesh Thakur, Boston Globe, October 4, 2007) The recent in-your-face introduction by Columbia University president Lee Bollinger of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have delighted the US audience, but it has compounded America’s image problem in the rest of the world. Iran college asks Bush to speak (BBC News , October 2, 2007) An Iranian university has invited US leader George W Bush to speak following his Iranian counterpart's hostile reception at a US college last week. "We're not taking it too seriously," said a White House spokeswoman. She said Mr Bush might have considered the invitation if Iran allowed freedom of expression, did not have nuclear ambitions, and did not threaten Israel. Blogging Ahmadinejad in Tehran (New York Times , September 30, 2007) Despite official harassment and intimidation, Iranian blogs remain a vibrant source of debate and provide a valuable insight into popular opinion inside the country. Bloggers tend to be young, well educated and not very supportive of President Ahmadinejad, who typically attracts followers from the urban poor. The Bollinger/Ahmadinejad farce (Rosa Brooks, LA Times , September 28, 2007) Ahmadinejad was playing to global public opinion, and though he lost some PR points for incoherence and general bizarreness of message ("In Iran, we don't have homosexuals"), he gained some for coming off as a bit more mature than his prissy, infantile host. Bollinger, meanwhile, was playing to a different audience. After taking a beating for giving Ahmadinejad a forum, he was eager to show the media, alumni, concerned Jewish organizations and a raft of bellicose neoconservative pundits that he was no terrorist-loving appeaser of Holocaust deniers. In a narrow sense, both Ahmadinejad and Bollinger achieved their goals. Ahmadinejad showed that he could be dignified in the face of crass American bullies, which will play well abroad -- and may even buttress his dwindling prestige in Iran. And Bollinger showed that he can be a crass American bully, which, in our current political climate, is what passes for "courage." U.S. response plays right into Ahmadinejad's hand (Mohamad Bazzi, Newsday.com, September 28, 2007) Arabs admire Ahmadinejad because they believe he is brave enough to stand up to the United States and Israel, he is mindful of his people's interests, and he is in touch with the common man. In whispers, Arabs talk of how the Iranian leader is different from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah, who are dependent on American support to stay in power. After his speech this week at Columbia University, Ahmadinejad's stock in the Arab street is sure to rise even higher. Dreaming of a Dictator: The Perils of Personalization in the Iran Crisis (Todd Fine, Center for Defense Information, September 28, 2007) No Hitler, Ahmadinejad is a sagging populist politician using the nuclear crisis to bolster his personal popularity and power within a baroquely complex political system. The Western personalization of Iranian politics through his figure has a deleterious effect on U.S. policy and, via the media, on the actual circumstances in Iran. The Ahmadinejad show (LA Times, September 27, 2007) As the ruckus recedes, the question remains: How much does Ahmadinejad matter? The answer depends on just one thing: To what extent are his views shared by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who really calls the shots in Iran? Ahmadinejad is reported to enjoy the supreme leader's full support. Certainly Khamenei is as rhetorically anti-American and mistrustful of Western intentions as his protege. Yet some see signs -- in Iran's dealings with the International Atomic Energy Agency and in the recent release of four Iranian Americans held in Tehran, among other moves -- that the quiet Khamenei may be less eager than the flamboyant Ahmadinejad to provoke a confrontation with the West. Columbia Still Reeling Over Visit (Karen Arenson, New York Times , September 26, 2007) Before Iran's president took the stage at Columbia University on Monday, the university's president, Lee C. Bollinger, sent out an early-morning e-mail message, calling on students and faculty "to live up to the best of Columbia's traditions." Yesterday, many critics questioned whether Mr. Bollinger had met that test himself. Some said Mr. Bollinger's remarks were just the rebuke that Mr. Ahmadinejad deserved. Others said they were embarrassing and offensive. And there were still questions about whether Mr. Ahmadinejad should have been afforded a public platform at a prestigious university. 'Fruitbat' at Bat (Maureen Dowd, New York Times , September 26, 2007) We just can't stop being nice to Iran. We help build up the self-serving doofus Iranian president, a frontman with a Ph.D. in traffic management, into the sort of larger-than-life demon that the real powers in Iran — the mullahs — can love. New York's hot blast of nastiness, jingoism and xenophobia toward its guest, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, only served to pump him up for his domestic audience. Once you've made the decision to invite a tyrannical leader, you can't undo it by belittling him in public. Wouldn't sticks and carrots — cultural fluency, smart psychology and Reaganesque dialogue — be a better way to bring the Iranians around than sticks and stones? Inflating a Little Man (Joe Klein, TIME , September 26, 2007) Ahmadinejad's appearance was a small but telling moment in the rolling overhyped crisis that is George W. Bush's so-called war on terrorism. The Iranian President's words had no practical, only symbolic, global import. He has very little real power in Iran, none over foreign policy or the nuclear program. And yet this strange little man who brings to mind Peter Sellers more readily than Adolf Hitler — Sellers playing one of his brilliantly befogged simpletons — occasioned a classic, free-range American outrage festival, in which everyone, even Hillary Clinton, happily granted him exactly the opprobrium he desired. My Dinner with Ahmadinejad (Richard Stengel, TIME , September 26, 2007) This is now an annual ritual for the President of Iran. Every year, during the U.N. General Assembly in New York, he plots out a media campaign that — in its shrewdness, relentlessness, and quest for attention — would rival Angelina Jolie on a movie junket. And like any international figure, Mr. Ahmadinejad hones his performance for multiple audiences: in this case, the journalists and academics who can filter his speech and ideas for a wider American audience. The Iran Impasse (Washington Post , September 26, 2007) The furor that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has created in New York this week has served his repugnant purposes in a couple of ways. First, like other anti-American demagogues, he has managed to use a visit to the U.N. General Assembly to convey an image of himself as engaged in mano-a-mano ideological combat with the U.S. enemy. Even more important, the Iranian president, who is not his country's principal leader, has managed to distract attention from a question more urgent than his rhetoric about the Holocaust and Israel. Mr. Ahmadinejad Speaks (Karen Arenson, New York Times, September 26, 2007) There are many reasons we find Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's policies and pronouncements loathsome. High on that list are his denial of the Holocaust, his call to wipe Israel off the map and his country's sponsorship of terrorism. Equally loathsome is Iran's denial of basic civil rights to its citizens, including the right of free speech. So we are dismayed by the behavior of some of New York's democratically elected representatives who denounced and threatened Columbia University for inviting the Iranian leader to speak there yesterday. We can imagine no better way to give hope to opponents of Iran's repressive state than by showcasing America's democracy and commitment to free speech. Iran's Media Assail President's Treatment (Nazila Fathi, New York Times , September 26, 2007) Iranian state television on Tuesday sharply criticized the way President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been treated during his Columbia University talk and asserted that he had triumphed over his adversarial hosts, whom it described as Zionist Jews. Mohsen Rezai, a former head of the Revolutionary Guards, denounced on the state-run news channel the inhospitable treatment of Mr. Ahmadinejad. "He is the president of a country," he said. "It is shocking that a country that claims to be civilized treats him that way." U.S. loses home-field advantage in its jousts with Ahmadinejad (Eric Trager, The Philadelphia Inquirer , September 25, 2007) Give Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad credit: He understands the American public far better than our leaders understand the Islamic publics to which he is appealing. In attempting to reach out to American students, Ahmadinejad has done what American diplomats have failed to do on campuses throughout the Middle East. For American public diplomacy, the results have been disastrous, as these campuses—always catalysts for the political movements shaping the region—have become unchecked hotbeds of anti-American sentiment. With each small victory in public diplomacy, Ahmadinejad's stature grows throughout the Middle East. Ahmadinejad v. Bollinger: Words Were Spoken, But What Was Said? (Ru S. Freeman, CommonDreams, September 25, 2007) An invitation is a communication, expressed both formally and politely, to an individual, asking that they attend a festivity or event of ones own creation. In this case, Columbia University's president, Lee C. Bollinger, chose to ask a visiting foreign dignitary to grace his campus with his presence. A guest who accepts such an invitation does not envision that they will be publicly humiliated and attacked by their host for the amusement of other attendees. How embarrassing then that such a thing could occur, at so prestigious a venue as Columbia University, so publicly and at the center of such media attention. How much worse, however, is that not one newspaper in this country chose to point out that Lee C. Bollinger acted appallingly and disgracefully? Ahmadinejad Does New York (Pierre Tristam, CommonDreams, September 25, 2007) Even assuming that Ahmadinejad was the enemy, that's only more reason to speak with him face to face, not less, or at least to hear him out. The guy had the guts to submit to open questions from a hostile university and New York audience. When's the last time George W. Bush had that courage? Bush never goes within a mile of an audience that hasn't been filtered, interrogated, pre-screened and pre-judged. Iranians decry Columbia leader's harsh speech Bollinger said Ahmadinejad behaves like a 'petty and cruel dictator' (MSNBC, September 25, 2007) Iranians expressed dismay Tuesday at the tough reception given to their president in New York, saying his host was rude and only fueled the image of the United States as a bully. In the eyes of many Iranian critics and supporters alike, Ahmadinejad looked like the victim. He complained about Bollinger's "insults" and "unfriendly treatment" but kept a measured tone throughout the discussion. Some critics of Ahmadinejad in Iran warn that U.S. demonizing of the Iranian president has only strengthened his hand and boosted his falling political fortunes. Ahmadinejad, they say, keeps influence through his image as standing up to the world's superpower. Who's Afraid of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? After all the trembling, the Iranian president got a bruising instead of a boost. (Jesse Walker, Reasononline, September 25, 2007) When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University yesterday, he did not emerge with the "propaganda victory" that neocon pundit Bill Kristol assured us he would receive. Sadly, however, Iran's president did win a propaganda victory throughout much of the world outside the USA. Propaganda Coup (Alan W. Dowd, FrontPageMagazine, September 25, 2007) It has been a very successful trip for Ahmadinejad. And by that measure, it's hard to see how giving him a platform was the right thing to do. Our view on Ahmadinejad in New York: Let Iranian president speak — to showcase U.S. values (USA Today, September 24, 2007) The Columbia invitation represents an opportunity of another, more important sort. The public display of Ahmadinejad getting to taste two fundamental pillars of democracy — free speech and the right to protest — should speak volumes about what the United States stands for, and what he and Iran don't. The contrast with how the United States treats critics hopefully won't be lost on the Iranian people. Ahmadinejad in America (Washington Post, September 24, 2007) It is difficult to see how the United States would benefit from having a "dialogue" with a jihadist despot who denies the Holocaust and is arming to the teeth. N.Y. site transcends boundaries (James Carroll, Boston Globe, September 24, 2007) Today's rebuff to the current president is of a piece with a long history of omni-political denigration aimed at Tehran. After all, it was when the reform-minded Khatami was Iran's leader that George W. Bush, in 2002, hung that nation on the "Axis of Evil." The extremist Ahmadinejad rode to power on Iranian reactions to the steady insult from America. This new insult reinforces him at home, just as moderate, relatively pro-Western opposition forces are jelling there. Candidates Speak Out On Ahmadinejad Visit (CBS News, September 24, 2007) On the day that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Columbia University in New York, U.S. presidential candidates offered reaction ranging from support for academic freedom to harsh criticism of the university for inviting the Iranian president to speak. Candidate (Duncan Hunter) Threatens Federal Money Over Ahmadinejad Columbia Speech (Byron Wolf, ABC News, 24 September, 2007) Duncan Hunter, the Congressman from California, joined other Republican Presidential candidates over the weekend in condemning the upcoming address to Columbia University by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But Hunter went a step further by pledging that if the speech goes forth he will introduce legislation in Congress to cut off federal assistance from the University. Legislatures May Act on Columbia (Jacob Gershman, The Sun, September 24, 2007) As the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, prepares to address Columbia University today amid a storm of student protest, state and city lawmakers say they are considering withholding public funds from the school to protest its decision to invite the leader to campus. "Obviously, there's some degree of capital support that has been provided to Columbia in the past. These are things people might take a different view of … knowing that this is that kind of an institution." U.S. Focus on Ahmadinejad Puzzles Iranians (Michael Slackman, New York Times, September 24, 2007) In demonizing Mr. Ahmadinejad, the West has served him well, elevating his status at home and in the region at a time when he is increasingly isolated politically because of his go-it-alone style and ineffective economic policies, according to Iranian politicians, officials and political experts. Unlike in the United States, in Iran the president is not the head of state nor the commander in chief. That status is held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, whose role combines civil and religious authority. At the moment, this president's power comes from two sources, they say: the unqualified support of the supreme leader, and the international condemnation he manages to generate when he speaks up. Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1 (Juan Cole, Salon, September 24, 2007) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly has become a media circus. But the controversy does not stem from the reasons usually cited. Demonizing the Iranian president and making his visit to New York seem controversial are all part of the neoconservative push for yet another war. Facing Scorn, President of Iran Is Defiant to His Critics (Helene Cooper, New York Times, September 24, 2007) Mr. Ahmadinejad's much talked-about appearance at Columbia came as the opening act of a week of dramatic theater here as the United Nations General Assembly opened its annual session. Online tickets had evaporated in 90 minutes last week, they said, almost on par with a Bruce Sprinsteen concert. "I'm proud of my university today," said Stina Reksten, a 28-year old graduate student from Norway. "I don't want to confuse the very dire human rights situation in Iran with the issue here, which is freedom of speech. This is about academic freedom." Ahmadinejad hailed in Middle East (Jeffrey Fleishman, LA Times September 24, 2007) The president of Iran, who has made a point of defying the West and Israel, has won admiration even among Sunni nations. (Subscription required) Backstage at the Ahmadinejad Show (Michael Hirsh, Newsweek, September 24, 2007) What's really driving the Iranian president's Western charm offensive? A savvy political strategy for Ahmadinejad—and despite what the White House says, Iran is the closest thing to a democracy in the Middle East outside Israel—is to appear just as reasonable with the West as Rafsanjani. Columbia Does the Right Thing with Ahmadinejad (Brian Lehrer, New York Public Radio, September 22, 2007) New Yorkers are choosing up sides over Columbia University's plan to hold a forum on Monday with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. WNYC's Brian Lehrer says in his opinion, Columbia is doing the right thing. The world will see a free society at work, where demagogues get exposed. The United States stands to look strong, not weak, by showing the world our values: seeking truth and accountability based on FREEDOM of speech, not denial of speech. Denial, as we know, is Ahmadinejad's claim to fame. President Bollinger's Statement About President…... Regions, Middle East 2007-10-21T22:15:00+00:00 The diffusion and evolution of new technology has profoundly changed the practice of public diplomacy. Originally considered an activity only practiced by states, private actors have increasingly begun to invest in public diplomacy related initiatives. This is what Jan Melissen calls “the new public diplomacy.” NGOs, companies, and social movements have embarked upon large campaigns via the Internet, satellite TV channels, and radio with the expressed intention of mobilizing foreign public opinion. Importantly, these new actors have forced governments to engage with them; they challenge governmental authority and have been able to impact the political agenda and the decision-making process. On July 7, Live Earth kicked off a three-year campaign to combat global warming by organizing massive pop concerts all around the world. Live Earth represented an attempt to combine both old-fashioned and cutting-edge trends in social mobilization. The concert followed established patterns followed by previous events like Live Aid and Live 8 by bringing celebrities on stage to highlight a cause. The new component in the Live Earth formula was the rationale behind the initiative. The Alliance for Climate Protection wanted to raise awareness about global warming among the international public so that they will in turn pressure their governments to act upon and reform current environmental policies. As Marc and Craig Kilberburn wrote in The Toronto Star, “Al Gore simply bypassed policy-makers and took his message of conservation straight to the people.” In contrast to previous events, Live Earth’s goal was not to pressure governments directly but to mobilize the public. Interestingly, media coverage failed to report that Live Earth represented the launch of a three-year campaign and instead focused only on the event itself. Live Earth events took place in eight cities around the world (i.e. Washington, DC; East Rutherford, NJ; London, Shanghai, Hamburg, Johannesburg, Tokyo, and Sydney.) Each event received the tacit support of their local governments. This was particularly important in the case of China, because Live Earth was the first such event endorsed by the government. Moreover, Live Earth coincided with the Chinese government’s launch of several initiatives to combat climate change. Although the Chinese government has been criticized because it still refuses to release an environmental report. In the West, Live Earth suffered from various criticisms centered on the carbon footprints and the related hypocrisy of some of the performing artists. The strongest opponent of the event turned out to be Bob Geldof, organizer of Live Aid and Live 8. He downplayed the relevance of the initiative. “To make us aware of the greenhouse effect,” he wondered, “everybody’s known about that problem for years. We are all f*****g conscious of global warming.” According to Geldof, “Live Earth doesn’t have a final goal. I would only organize this if I could go on stage and announce concrete environmental measures from the American presidential candidates, Congress or major corporations. So it’s just an enormous pop concert.” Others, particularly those from developing countries, depicted Live Earth as out of priority. Many African commentators considered Live Earth as a slight, considering global warming as secondary to the humanitarian situation in the continent. Others characterized the event as a Western extravaganza designed to promote greater environmental consciousness. In response to the event, representatives from several African governments (Ghana, Mali, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe) publicly acknowledged how seriously global warming could affect the continent. Although the latest Pew Global Attitudes survey found that environmental issues do not rank highly on the overall list of African concerns.. Some Western scientists also spoke out, arguing that global warming should not be the international priority, but rather global attention should be focused on clean water programs, malaria, or AIDs. In Germany, Greenpeace criticized the fact that Daimler-Chrysler was Live Earth’s main partner, because they objected to the car company’s environmental record-. A few days prior to the event, Al Gore introduced a seven-point pledge outlining how individuals could take small steps in their daily-life to better the situation. Even though the Alliance for Climate Protection claims that millions of people have already signed the pledge, very few officials or governments have publicly expressed their commitment. There have been a few exceptions. In the United States, Harry Reid, Democratic Senate majority leader, and Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, announced that they had signed the pledge a few hours after Gore introduced it. While government officials have hesitated to sign the pledge, several governments have capitalized on Live Earth’s momentum by announcing initiatives featuring environmental reforms and international cooperation. The government has boosted its cooperation with the European Union on environmental issues. Australian Prime Minister John Howard addressed the issue on a video posted on YouTube before announcing a new set of environmental reforms. Australia announced new policies just days after Live Earth occurred in Sydney. These movements play to domestic changes in Australia’s domestic public opinion. According to a recent Worldpublicopinion.org survey, 92 percent of Australians now favor measures to combat global warming. Initiatives to fight climate change were not limited to countries that hosted a Live Earth show. India is set to launch a program called “Green India,” which was described as “one of the world’s largest forestation efforts in recent times.” According to a recent HSBC global survey, 60 percent of Indians are really worried about climate change. Several NGOs tried to capitalize on the current mood as well, by actively sponsoring Live Earth and its mission, such as WWF and I Count. International organizations also shared enthusiasm with Live Earth initiative. The United Nations Development Program particularly welcomed the Shanghai concert; because it has been deploying important efforts to assist China to reduce its energy consumption. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also announced that the UN would hold a debate on climate change on September 24 that would “give strong political impact and guidelines” to the December climate change conference in Indonesia. In the aftermath of Live Earth, many commentators openly questioned the relevance of the event, but few of them focused on Live Earth’s public diplomacy successes. As one commentator argued in The Boston Globe, “It seems that the potential to influence nearly a third of the world's population to engage the issue and change their behavior outweighs the negative impact, and given what’s at stake that’s a leap of faith worth taking.” The following is an aggregation of articles and commentaries published on Live Earth. The links are divided into four sections: (1) articles presenting Live Earth and its public diplomacy purposes (2) articles criticizing Live Earth (3) articles emphasizing how governments, international organizations and NGOs capitalize on the momentum (4) and public opinion polls. LIVE EARTH AND PUBLIC DIPLOMACY PURPOSES Al Gore, Kevin Wall, Pharrell, Mana, Cameron Diaz Launch Unprecedented Campaign, Concert To Combat Climate Crisis (Press Release from Live Earth, February 2007) Detailing a historic effort to engage billions of people across the globe, Kevin Wall, Al Gore, Pharrell Williams, Maná, Cameron Diaz, and the MSN Network today launched Save Our Selves (SOS) – The Campaign for a Climate in Crisis. The announcement was made at the California Science Center. “Our climate crisis is the paramount challenge facing humanity. SOS is more than a global distress call. SOS will give the world the tools we need to answer that call with meaningful action. The most important part of SOS is how individuals, corporations, and governments respond,” Wall said. “Our climate crisis affects everyone, everywhere, and that’s who SOS is aimed at. Only a global response can conquer our climate crisis. SOS asks all people to Save Our Selves because only we can.” Taking the first step (Dan Hancock, China Dialogue, June 15, 2007) Can rock concerts change the world? It is a question that was asked repeatedly last summer when “Live 8” asked for a mass movement to fight global poverty. This time around the question being asked is “can rock concerts save the world?” I spoke to Live Earth’s official spokesperson Yusef Robb about reducing the event’s carbon footprint, educating rock stars – and changing the day-to-day behavior of the entire world… Gore urges '7 Point Pledge' ahead of Live Earth (Associated Press, MSNBC, June 29, 2007) Al Gore on Thursday called on people around the world to sign a "7 Point Pledge" promising personal action in curbing global warming. The former vice president unveiled the pledge at a press conference to promote Live Earth, the July 7 event of concerts stretching across the globe. Gore was joined by Live Earth founder Kevin Wall and Cathy Zoi, the CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection. Moving Beyond Kyoto (Al Gore, New York Times, Times Select, July 1, 2007) We - the human species - have arrived at a moment of decision. It is unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge that is before us. Our home - Earth - is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings. Can a global concert change the world? Live Earth hopes so (Jake Coyle for Associated Press, Newsday, July 2, 2007) Live Earth is ambitious by any standard: eight concerts featuring the biggest names in music, playing for a 24-hour period across the globe, all for the cause of global warming. But like its template - 2006's Live 8, the global concert devoted to poverty in Africa - the mission of Live Earth is somewhat amorphous. Its aim is to “trigger a global movement to solve the climate crisis.” Whatever Live Earth's accomplishment on Saturday, it will be difficult to measure. Former Vice President Al Gore, who partnered with Kevin Wall in founding Live Earth, believes the world needs to rise up as one giant vox populi to influence “a new political reality.” Live Earth: How global warming became cool (Terra Daily, July 5, 2007) Once embraced only by tree huggers but now by Madonna, Sting and other stars, global warming had a turbulent ride before being adopted as a celebrity campaign issue in Saturday's Live Earth concerts. For much of its history, climate change has faced indifference or ignorance, thanks mainly to skeptics who challenged the sometimes-sketchy evidence and fossil-fuel lobbyists who dismissed it as nothing more than a greenmongering scare. Live Earth fighting concert fatigue (Geoff Boucher, Los Angeles Times, July 6, 2007) Exactly how often can you stage a once-in-a-lifetime event? That’s the challenge Saturday for the organizers of Live Earth, the latest in a long line of huge concerts-for-a-cause. This time the issue is global warming — which is fitting considering the event isn’t generating quite as much heat as hoped. That’s despite all-star lineups with such A-list rock, pop and hip-hop acts as Madonna, the Police, Justin Timberlake, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Kanye West and more than 100 others on stages in eight cities around the world, including East Rutherford, N.J.; London; Johannesburg, South Africa; and Sydney. ‘This is just opening shot’ (Jonathan Leake, The Sunday Times, UK, July 8, 2007) Once he was the nearly man of American politics, but this weekend Al Gore, Bill Clinton’s former sidekick, made it clear he was back, no longer just a politician but a phenomenon: the first global green celebrity. As the Live Earth concerts rolled out around the globe, each blessed with Gore’s presence, either live or on giant screens, it became clear that the failed presidential candidate has metamorphosed into a prophet. Live Earth takes direct approach (Craig and Marc Kielburger, Toronto Star, Canada, July 9, 2007) The concerts, a mix of music and activism, were an environmental call to action that reached upwards of 2 billion people. Despite the impressive showing, Live Earth has one high-profile critic. Charity concert guru Bob Geldof – the rocker behind Live Aid and Live 8 – called the concerts a "waste of time" because they had no specific goal for politicians or corporations. But that was the point. What made Live Earth unique was that it was geared toward ordinary citizens, not senators and CEOs. Forget hypocrisy, Live Earth brought message to billions (Joan Anderman, Boston Globe, July 9, 2007) It’s hard to imagine a better setting for Live Earth, a.k.a. the Concerts For a Climate in Crisis, than the petrochemical corridor of the New Jersey Turnpike. We’re late to the game and we’ve got to start somewhere. That’s what’s so annoying about the criticism being leveled at Live Earth, ranging from the energy consumed and waste generated by the event itself to the vagueness of its goals. It seems that the potential to influence nearly a third of the world’s population to engage the issue and change their behavior outweighs the negative impact, and given what’s at stake that’s a leap of faith worth taking. CRITICISMS AGAINST LIVE EARTH Live Earth? It's a waste of time, Geldof tells Gore (Cahal Milmo, The Independent, UK, May 16, 2007) He may have made the definitive film on climate change and come within a hanging chad of becoming the most world's most powerful man but Al Gore's status did little to protect him from another force of nature - Bob Geldof. The unloved former US vice-president, turned unlikely hero of the environmental lobby, found himself the target of withering criticism yesterday from the singer-campaigner for copying his "Live Aid" format for a series of concerts to raise awareness of global warming. Geldof, who invented the simultaneous global charity gig with Live Aid in 1985, accused Gore of doing little more than organizing a worldwide musical extravaganza to state the obvious when Live Earth - a series of seven concerts across the world spanning 24 hours - takes place on 7 July. Live Earth: deaf to reality (Bjørn Lomborg, Guardian, UK, July 3, 2007) The organisers of next Saturday's Live Earth concerts hope that the entire world will hear a crystal clear message: climate change is the most critical threat facing the planet. Planned by former US vice-president Al Gore, Live Earth will be the biggest, most mass-marketed show of celebrity activism in history. But making global warming the world's top priority means that we shuffle other major challenges down our “to do” list. Some climate change activists actually acknowledge this: Australian author Tim Flannery recently told an interviewer that climate change is “the only issue we should worry about for the next decade.” Tell that to the four million people starving to death, to the three million victims of HIV/AIDS, or to the billions of people who lack access to clean drinking water. Live Earth criticized for ignoring African issues (Mail & Guardian, South Africa, July 6, 2007) Mitigation, mitigation, mitigation -- the need for action to halt climate change will be hammered home at eight Live Earth concerts on seven continents on Saturday. In Johannesburg, that message has dictated the choice of materials in what is being billed as a carbon-neutral concert, right down to the biodegradable drumsticks and guitar picks. But to focus exclusively on preventing future pollution is to overlook an aspect of climate change that is deemed more critical in Africa, according to experts. White Lies At Live Earth: DaimlerChrysler Kisses Green Goodbye (Sebastian Knauer, Spiegel Online, Germany, July 6, 2007) Carmaker DaimlerChrysler may appear as a green world savior at Live Earth on Saturday, but the PR push comes as the company scraps a number of its much-lauded programs to create eco-friendly cars and biofuel products. Daimler customers, unfortunately, would prefer a fat car than an environmentally friendly one. On Saturday, DaimlerChrysler will sponsor Al Gore's Live Earth series of concerts, where it will promote its Smart "fortwo" line of fuel-efficient automobiles. Daimler's presence at the event has drawn heavy criticism from some environmental groups, including Greenpeace which has refused to affiliate itself with the global event. The world won’t listen (Guardian, UK, July 7, 2007) Occasionally a noble attempt to galvanize action proves so ineffective that it only entrenches hopelessness. There is a risk that today's Live Earth could fall into that trap. It is an extraordinary feat of organization, involving eight concerts on seven continents, and will be seen on television by as many as 2 billion people. Yet instead of inspiring the world to action it may merely highlight how little of substance is being done to avert climate catastrophe. The artists formerly known as huge carbon footprints (Marina Hyde, Guardian, UK, July 7, 2007) The Live Earth concerts taking place across the planet over this 24-hour period will undoubtedly highlight two inconvenient truths about our world. The first will be the ineluctable fact of climate change. The second will be our apparent inability to understand a point unless a celebrity is making it - usually fairly badly. There is no question that awareness will be raised. But it seems worryingly simplistic to think that there is not a trade-off between raising awareness and using people whom many know to be hypocrites to do so. Duped by rock star preachers (Peter McKay, The Daily Mail, UK, July 8, 2007) As the star of the Live Earth concert, Madonna instructed her Wembley audience to jump in the air as she sang. Were they jumping for Madonna - or for Al Gore's environmental campaign? For Madonna, of course. Up and down bobbed a great sea of daft heads as she bounded around the T-shaped stage, a guitar around her neck, driving her fans into ecstasies of devotion. What a performer! Critics: Live Earth Not So Green (ABC News, July 9, 2007) Live Earth's goal was to raise awareness and fight global warming. But with millions of fans attending nine shows across the world and generating more than 1,000 tons of garbage, the green concert has received mixed reviews. This morning, people are wondering if a concert aimed at raising global awareness actually caused more global damage. One estimate said 100,000 trees needed to be planted to offset the carbon emissions released during the 24-hour event. Al Gore, the former vice president and primary force behind the concert, disagreed. How Green Was Live Earth? (Matthew Philips, Newsweek, web exclusive, July 9, 2007) A 24-hour, global concert series featuring 125 artists performing at 11 separate venues across seven continents, Live Earth may well be the largest, most complex one-day entertainment event ever held. Still, this wasn’t just a rock extravaganza; all of the activity was supposed to be in service of building global awareness of climate change and what to do about it. Just how Green was Live Earth, really? Large stadium concerts aren’t exactly eco-friendly, and while efforts were made to reduce energy consumption, waste and transportation, it’s unclear just how successful those efforts were. The Life Earth ‘self-deceit’ show (Roy Spencer, New York Post, July 10, 2007) One obvious irony of this past weekend's Live Earth concerts is that it took an event that increased energy usage to get people around the world to participate in “saving the Earth.” When Al Gore told us that 2 billion people on seven continents might hear the concerts, he didn't mention that nearly 2 billion more lack electricity, let alone the Internet or TV. Where's the concert to campaign for electricity for all? Instead, folks in the developed world who feel guilty about pollution decide it's time to do something drastic - like throw a worldwide-rock concert. Too Late for Fairness (Business Day, South Africa, July 10, 2007) By most accounts, Saturday’s global Live Earth concerts to raise awareness of the consequences of climate change for Africa was great entertainment to millions of rock music fans, including the crowd at Johannesburg’s Coca-Cola Dome, notwithstanding criticism that the performers in SA were somewhat past their sell-by date. It certainly seems unfair to expect Africans, who have not benefited from a dirty industry, to now put their own development on hold to save those who caused the problem in the first place. But it is too late for fairness. And while underdevelopment in itself is an environmental disaster, it would be foolish for Africans to worsen the problem. We’re all in the same boat. Africa: Live Earth Vs Africa (Kofi Bentil, New Times, accessed on allafrica.com, July 10, 2007) Few people in Africa will get to see Al Gore and his troupe of rock-star ecologists strutting their stuff this weekend - because most have neither television nor electricity. That's just as well, because they would be aghast at Live Earth's bizarre message. In Africa, we have much more serious things to worry about than climate change. Indeed, if they achieve their objective the concerts will have done harm to the people of Africa. TAKE ON THE MOMENTUM China Unveils New Plan to Reach Green Goals (China Daily, June 15, 2007) China's top science official yesterday conveyed a positive message about achieving the country's green goals - innovatively. “China is exploring a different way of controlling greenhouse gas (GHS) emissions. We will not follow the Western countries' way of high emissions first and then reduction,” Minister of Science and Technology Wan Gang said. Wan told a news briefing organized by the State Council Information Office that the government is working to turn energy-saving targets into goals for CO2 emissions. Under an ambitious energy-saving blueprint, the country plans to reduce its energy consumption per unit of gross domestic products (GDP) by 20 percent by 2010 from 2006. Howard joins NZ in climate scheme (Dennis Shanahan, The Australian, June 16, 2007) Australia and New Zealand have begun working on a "harmonised" greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme before the APEC meeting in Sydney in September. John Howard and Helen Clark announced a joint working group on an emissions trading scheme at the end of a five-day visit by the New Zealand Prime Minister. Mr Howard said in Sydney yesterday that despite different approaches to greenhouse emissions in the past -- New Zealand ratified the Kyoto Protocol while Australia refused -- the governments would work together. UNDP to support Al Gore's Live Earth concert in Shanghai (UNDP Press Release, June 19, 2007) As part of its efforts to catalyze action in response to climate change, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) will join forces with environmental advocate/former U.S. Vice President Al Gore to support the globe-spanning 24-hour Live Earth concert series on July 7, 2007. In China, UNDP helps increase energy efficiency in industry, promotes use of renewable energy, and fosters local capacities to adapt to impacts of climate change on food and water security, glacial melting and natural disasters. Australia, EU agree to climate talks (AAP, Sydney Morning Herald, June 25, 2007) Australia and the European Union have agreed to hold regular talks on climate change, an issue on which they are often poles apart. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said a forum on energy security and climate change between Australia and the European Commission would be set up. The forum would meet once or twice a year on developing cooperation in those areas, he said. Live Earth and WWF - hotter than we should be (WWF Press Release) WWF and some of the biggest names in music took part in the Live Earth concert series to promote action on climate change. WWF was present at all the concerts. Activities ranged from WWF CEOs and climate witnesses presenting on stage during the concerts (Hamburg) to distribution of WWF organic "hotter than I should be" T-shirt, hand fans and bandanas made from recycled materials (Shanghai, Rio, New York and Johannesburg) to biodegradable balloons (Johannesburg) that educated concert goers on their emissions to WWF staff briefing performers (London and Johannesburg). Africa: Experts Meet to Tackle Climate Change (All Africa, originally published in The Herald, Zimbabwe, July 12, 2007) Leading agricultural research scientists from seven African countries are meeting in Harare to map out strategies to enhance the capacity of smallholder farmers to adapt to pressures of climate change in the region. The experts, who began their three-day workshop on Tuesday, are also set to discuss activities to be pursued during a three-year project to be implemented in the seven participating states, namely Ghana, Mali, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. ‘Green India’ soon, says Manmohan (The Hindu, July 14, 2007) Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday said the Government planned to undertake a major afforestation programme for greening six million hectares of degraded forest land. It would be one of the world’s largest afforestation efforts in recent times. To be called “Green India,” details of the programme were being worked out and would soon be brought before the Cabinet, Dr. Singh said. Howard joins YouTube generation (AAP, The Age, July 17, 2007) Prime Minister John Howard has joined funky independent musicians, jihadists and astronauts by using the hugely popular YouTube website to try to reach young people. Mr Howard used the video to speak about climate change but gave little detail of the major plank in the government's policy, which will be a carbon trading scheme. UN Secretary-General Advances Climate Change Cooperation (Environment News Service, July 17, 2007) President George W. Bush welcomed UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the Oval Office today to discuss climate change, issues concerning Darfur, plans for an upcoming Middle East conference, and also United Nation plans in Afghanistan and Iraq. Speaking with reporters after their meeting Ban said, “On climate change, which is very important issue for all humankind, I appreciate President Bush's initiative during Heiligendamm G8 summit meeting.” Ban said today, “I extended an official invitation to President Bush today to attend, to participate in a high-level UN debate on climate change, which will be held on September 24th. Your participation will be very much appreciated and I'm looking forward to welcoming you to New York.” PUBLIC OPINION POLLS Poll Finds Worldwide Agreement That Climate Change is a Threat (Worldpublicopinion.org, March 13, 2007) An international poll finds widespread agreement that climate change is a pressing problem. This majority, however, divides over whether the problem of global warming is urgent enough to require immediate, costly measures or whether more modest efforts are sufficient. The survey was conducted by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and orldPublicOpinion.org, in cooperation with polling organizations around the world. It includes 17 countries—China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Israel, Armenia—and the Palestinian territories. Global Unease With Major World Powers (Pew Global Attitudes, June 27, 2007) The Pew survey finds a general increase in the percentage of people citing pollution and environmental problems as a top global threat. Worries have risen sharply in Latin America and Europe, as well as in Japan and India. Many people blame the United States – and to a lesser extent China – for these problems and look to Washington to do something about them. HSBC launches international survey of public attitudes towards climate change (HSBC Press Release, July 2007) HSBC's first international survey of public attitudes towards climate change highlights a surprising spectrum of opinions across the world. Climate change may be a global issue, but reactions to it vary strongly. The HSBC Climate Confidence Index shows that people in developing economies exhibit the greatest concern, commitment and optimism towards the problem of climate change and in developed economies the greatest indifference, reluctance and fatalism. Overall, the survey reveals that citizens of China and India are most optimistic that the problem of climate change can be overcome, while those in France, Germany and the UK are least optimistic that a solution will be found. ‘Skepticism’ over climate claims (BBC News, UK, July 3, 2007) The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested. The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change. Climate Change Survey (Ipsos/MORI, UK, July 4, 2007) To feed into our report “Tipping Point or Turning Point?” we commissioned new research on public attitudes to climate change to see how convinced the public are about the issue, its causes and its possible solutions. Here we present some key topline figures with full details and analysis available in the main report. Regions, Africa, Asia-Pacific, Eurasia, North America 2007-08-06T19:01:00+00:00 On March 25, the European Union celebrated the 50th anniversary of its founding Treaty of Rome. This momentous event and the Berlin Declaration drafted by the German presidency to mark the occasion and preset a "road map" for the Union, sparked discussion on the successes and failures of the integration community, its utility today, and its role in the future. The wrangling over the text of the Declaration highlighted current foreign policy disagreement between member-countries and the fresh memory of the 2005 "no" vote on the constitution in the referenda in France and the Netherlands. In the end, the Berlin Declaration avoided tackling controversial issues, and focused on the euro, the common market, social responsibility, human dignity, equal rights, peaceful resolution of global conflicts, fighting poverty, and climate change. Europe's intellectuals offered conflicting visions in explanation of this landmark stage for the Union which now houses 480 million people and extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the Black Sea, from the north-west Russian border to the south-west border of Turkey. Long-time advocates of the European idea, Joschka Fischer and Jacques Delors proclaimed that the E.U. is in stalemate and risks unraveling. According to the likes of Dominique de Villepin, the European Union is suffering a welcome "crisis of growth." Others placed an emphasis upon the Union's soft power appeal and saw Europe advancing in a positive direction with its values spreading across the globe -- far more attractive than those of America. While crediting the E.U. for the reunification of the continent and its transformative influence upon ex-Communist regimes, other experts suggested that further enlargement might not be the only effective policy for stabilization and peace, and argued that the E.U.'s Neighborhood Policy, falling short of full admission for some of the membership aspiring countries, could become an instrument for stimulating development and reform, much as the Marshall plan once was for western Europe. The discussion on the future of the European Union has direct relevance to the study and practice of soft power and public diplomacy. Being the most successful advance in voluntary international cooperation in modern history , the European Union has made soft power by far the most prominent instrument in its foreign policy. The E.U.'s power of attraction is based upon values of peaceful cooperation through dialogue manifested in 50 years of deepening integration; the common market of free movement of people, goods, services and capital; and the European social model of the modern welfare state, which accounts for the prosperity and social stability of the region today. As a result, the prospect for accession has stimulated wide ranging reform and ultimately an irreversible transition to democracy for many of Europe's former Soviet Block countries, making enlargement the Union's greatest public diplomacy achievement. For Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, the E.U. has become an impetus for change as they strive to align their political and economic practices and adopt its democratic values. However, these tenets of the "European dream" have not translated into a shared European identity. The peace and prosperity of Europe today are largely taken for granted by the European people. In the eyes of the average citizen, the European Union has come to be associated at best with a cumbersome bureaucratic system setting the maximum curvature of bananas , and at worst with all negative forces of globalization threatening identity and independence. Ironically, this crisis of legitimacy is most pronounced in the countries which have most benefited from a united Europe. This ambiguity in European public opinion is reflected in recent polls according to which while criticizing Brussels for being unable to deliver, E.U. citizens simultaneously expect that Europe will not reduce itself to being a single market and a mere free trade area and progress toward greater integration and collective action on the world stage. In addition, the lack of a uniform identity is coupled with an imbalance between the E.U.'s soft and hard power which has had important implications for Europe's foreign policy relations with the world's main centers of power. While the European Union successfully asserted itself as a values-based community and a catalyst for peace and prosperity, its attempts to act in unison in its geo-strategic foreign policy were stifled. Thus, just before the E.U.'s 50th birthday, Brussels managed to achieve consensus on a ground-breaking climate change deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, as well as to generate 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources. At the same time, it failed to reach common ground on issues such as Iraq or current U.S. plans to install missile interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic, or a joint approach towards energy rich Russia. The following is an aggregation of recent key articles and commentary about the 50th anniversary of the European Union. The links are divided into four sections: (1) articles looking at the integration community as a source of soft power, (2) articles on the disconnect between the E.U. ideals and institutions and the mass of European citizens explaining why the EU remains still an elitist project, (3) articles about the constitutional impasse and what is at stake for the E.U. in the future, and (4) public opinion polls. The integration community as a source of soft power The Golden Moment As the EU celebrates its 50th birthday, critics say it has one foot in the grave. But many countries now look there, not to America, as a model. (Andrew Moravcsik, Newsweek International, March 26, 2007) Far from being a product of the past, the EU has emerged as Europe's most innovative and significant contribution to modernity. With its multilateral scope, the EU is the source of around 20 percent of all laws passed in Europe. It has extended the reach of democracy and free markets within and beyond its borders -- in a way that American neocons can only dream about -- and is becoming a model to the developing world. Futurologist Jeremy Rifkin advances a compelling case for the ascendancy of European ideals. "While the American Spirit is tiring and languishing in the past," he writes, "a new European Dream is being born" -- one that emphasizes community relationships over individual autonomy, cultural diversity over assimilation, quality of life over the accumulation of wealth, sustainable development over unlimited material growth, deep play over unrelenting toil, and universal human rights." The global financier George Soros is putting money behind a similar idea, seeking to create a new European Council on Foreign Relations premised on the notion that U.S. foreign policy "has left the world leaderless and in disarray." To be sure, the United States remains unrivaled in "hard" military power. Yet one need look no further than the quagmire in Iraq to see its limits. When it comes to the instruments needed to engineer peace, the softer tools of civilian power, Europe far exceeds America. It is the "quiet superpower." For Europe, A Moment To Ponder (Roger Cohen, The New York Times,, March 25, 2007) The European Union, which celebrates the 50th anniversary of its founding treaty this weekend, is more often associated with Brussels bureaucrats setting the maximum curvature of cucumbers than with transformational power. But step by step, stipulation by stipulation, Europe has been remade. What began in limited fashion in 1957 as a drive to remove tariff barriers and promote commercial exchange has ended by banishing war from Europe, enriching it beyond measure, and producing "the first revolution that has been absolutely positive." This achievement will be symbolized as leaders from the 27 member states gather in Berlin -- the city that stood at the crux of violent 20th-century European division. They will sign a "Berlin Declaration" celebrating the peace, freedom, wealth and democracy that the Treaty of Rome has now helped spread among almost half a billion Europeans. "The E.U. slashes political risk," said Chris Huhne, a Liberal Democrat member of the British Parliament. "It also exercises a soft power on its periphery that has far more transformational impact than the American neocon agenda in the Middle East. Countries in the Balkans wanting to come into the European democratic family have to adapt." That adaptation is economic as well as political. Hot Topic: Europe, Old and New (The Wall Street Journal, 24 March 2007) Though it won't be widely noted in Berlin this weekend, the Union would not exist without the U.S., which gave its strong backing from day one. The Marshall Plan assisted the Continent's postwar economic recovery, and an American military umbrella has since kept it safe. Whatever the trade or foreign policy disagreements, Washington hasn't wavered in its support for a stable, rich Europe. This success has sometimes gone to European heads. Some in Brussels truly believe they have created a soft-power utopia that can talk its way out of any trouble, such as a nuclear Iran or Islamic terrorism. To become a more mature player, Europeans will have to pull their weight in the likes of NATO. (Subscription required) Europe" Turns 50 (Jean-Claude Trichet, The Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2007) On Sunday, Europe's leaders will celebrate the EU's 50th birthday in Berlin. For several decades, Berlin -- more than any other city -- exemplified the artificial division of the European continent. In 50 years, Europe has journeyed from political disarray and economic disorder to a high degree of economic and monetary integration and has become the world's brand-leader in peaceful political cooperation. The people of Europe can be proud of this metamorphosis. Surmounting all difficulties, leaders with vision, setting up solid institutions, have moved Europe ever forward. (Subscription required) Survey: The ins and outs (The Economist, March 17, 2007) It is sometimes said that the European Union is an economic giant but a political pygmy, with no foreign policy to speak of. Certainly foreign and defence policies, above all others, remain largely in the hands of national governments; and foreign-policymaking with 27 countries, every one of them with a veto, is inherently difficult. Last year, for example, Poland alone blocked the start of negotiations on a new partnership agreement with Russia. Yet to conclude that the EU has no foreign policy at all would be wrong. By far the most successful EU foreign policy has been its own expansion. In the 1980s the prospect of joining played a critical part in ensuring a smooth transition from dictatorship to democracy in Greece, Spain and Portugal. More recently it has transformed the east European countries as they moved from communist central planning to liberal democracy. The countries of the western Balkans have been pacified and stabilised after the bloody 1990s thanks mainly to their hopes of EU membership. And Turkey has made wholesale changes in its politics, economics and society largely to boost its chances of joining. Indeed, judged in terms of success in exporting its values to its backyard, the EU has done much better with its neighbours than the United States has with central and south America, largely because of the carrot of enlargement. (Subscription required) EU Public Diplomacy (Emma Basker, The 2006 Madrid Conference on Public Diplomacy -- The Present and Future of Public Diplomacy: A European Perspective, November 30, 2006) Given that the EU's power is primarily soft rather than hard, we perhaps have even more at stake in ensuring world public opinion is on our side. But whilst the EU may have a generally positive image in the world, we have to admit that knowledge of our concrete policies and activities is often limited. And we have not yet fully mastered the art of transforming that general level of good-will towards Europe, our 'soft power,' into equivalent political influence on the world stage. The foreign policy provisions of the EU's constitutional treaty would have helped by resolving some of the structural obstacles. It would certainly have made it easier for people around the world to identify Europe as a cohesive force. But the treaty is not a prerequisite for improving our performance. All that's really essential is political will. (Scroll down for article) The Future of Public Diplomacy (Philip Fiske de Gouveia, The 2006 Madrid Conference on Public Diplomacy -- The Present and Future of Public Diplomacy: A European Perspective, November 30, 2006) The European Union has the makings of a co-operative public diplomacy superpower; the combined 'soft power' might of the 25 member states and the Commission is formidable. The EU also has the important advantage of being perceived as a largely benign, if indistinct, force in the world. No degree of public diplomacy skill or effort can compensate for actions which antagonise third-country publics as the US government is learning to its cost. When it comes to the perceptions of people around the world, actions speak louder than words. To date the EU's actions -- the pursuit of multilateralism, the establishment of the International Criminal Court, the championing of the rule of law and human rights in its neighbourhood -- have been of great benefit to its reputation globally. At the same time the EU is already, in some cases inadvertently, conducting public diplomacy through initiatives like the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, the Intercultural Dialogue programme, and, of course, the work done by the representations and delegations. This kind of 'co-operative public diplomacy' -- co-ordinated and conducted by the likes of the European Union, the African Union, or ASEAN -- will grow because it will work and it will save money. (Scroll down for article) The EU remains an elitist project European Press Review: Skepticism Among the Fireworks (Deutsche Welle, March 26, 2007) The European Union celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the document that effectively brought it into being, on Sunday. As part of the celebrations, EU leaders signed off on the so-called "Berlin Declaration" which reiterated the bloc's aims and ideals, acknowledged its achievements and challenges, and looked to the future. It also set a date for 2009 for the ratification of an EU constitution. European papers on Monday took a mostly skeptical view of both the landmark anniversary and the document signed as part of the commemoration. Europe: Existential dreaming (The Economist, March 24, 2007) Pro-Europeans have two broad and incompatible views about the future of the European Union. The first, existential view goes back to the EU's roots. The founders thought European co-operation was good for its own sake, since it would prevent war. The high point of this thinking came in the 1980s and early 1990s when Helmut Kohl, Germany's chancellor, talked in unabashed terms about a United States of Europe, and the ex-communist countries applied to join the EU because it embodied their identity as Europeans. Such talk is heard less often now but its ideals are still in the treaty, which commits its members to the goal of "ever closer union". It is the second, instrumentalist view that has recently been the dominant one. In response to declining public support, the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, has started talking of "a Europe of results" -- meaning a series of policies designed to win back popularity on issues people care about: climate change, energy security, cross-border crime, immigration. All these are global in character. Small countries cannot deal with them alone. The EU justifies itself as the organisation that gives Europeans a voice on the world stage. At a time when everybody worries about the EU's lack of popular support, the two groups are looking for legitimacy in different places. How Paris became estranged from EU's creation (George Parker, Financial Times, March 23, 2007) The last surviving signatory of the Treaty of Rome, Maurice Faure, was one of a dozen ministers and officials gathered in Rome's Capitol to sign the EU's founding texts. However, he says the momentous nature of the occasion passed many Europeans by. Crucial to the deal was to get France's farmers -- one-quarter of the workforce -- on board. "The Treaty of Rome was very favourable to farmers," he says. So why did French farmers reject the EU constitution in a referendum in 2005? "Perhaps they don't understand what Europe has done for them," he says. The founding of a new Europe was, he admits, an "elite" project. Golden Years: Europe’s child may look sickly at 50 but it lives and prospers (George Parker, Financial Times, March 22 2007) The gap between the official festivities in the German capital and the lack of popular celebrations elsewhere in Europe is a symptom of the fact that the EU remains at heart an elitist project, just as it was when Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman and the other founding fathers conceived it in the 1950s. For many European leaders, that will no longer do: they talk of a crisis of legitimacy. People enjoy the benefits of a whole series of concrete EU "results" -- whether peace, cash, national self-esteem, border-free travel or cheap air fares -- but seem resolutely unwilling to give the credit to the project that made these possible. The EU remains a remote and vast bureaucratic blank screen on to which people and their political leaders can project everything they hate most about the modern world. The task of Europe's leaders gathered in Berlin on Sunday is to remind their citizens what has been achieved in the past 50 years and why the European project is as relevant today as it was in Rome on March 25 1957. With new "citizen-friendly" policy challenges in areas such as the environment, immigration, terrorism, organised crime, development aid and international peacekeeping, there is plenty for them to be getting on with. L'Europe tragique et magnifique - at 50 A weird hybrid of an organisation but a great success (Financial Times, March 19, 2007) The EU has proved a formidable soft power machine for inducing (generally) positive reform. No comparable organisation has been such a success -- there is still a big queue of countries rattling the gates to get in -- but it is also hard to think of any particular reason why Europeans should be suffused with joy as they contemplate another half century of union. The EU is a maddeningly difficult thing to admire and sell. As the FT-Harris poll published in today's Financial Times indicates, the attitudes of its citizens (and outsiders such as the Americans) are often ambivalent. They clearly do not love the EU -- as Jacques Delors, the visionary architect of the last great wave of European integration, laments in L'Europe tragique et magnifique, his recent cri de coeur. But with the exception of the semi-detached British, they feel things would be a lot worse without it. Paradoxically, moreover, amid the backlash against excessive regulation and the competition brought by globalisation, lots of Europeans want the Union to do more. They are crying out for leadership in areas such as foreign policy and fighting crime, the environment and energy, and, of course, in raising economic performance as well as security of livelihood. If Europe had more convincing leaders to champion the Union, these issues would look a lot clearer. It needs to find such leaders soon: to withstand the populist nationalism that globalisation is bringing in its train. The European Union's 50th anniversary (The Economist, March 17, 2007) Anybody reaching 50 naturally likes to reflect a bit on their achievements and failures. So it is with the European Union, which later this month marks the 50th anniversary of the signing in Rome of its founding treaty in 1957. Europe's leaders plan a jamboree in Berlin that will issue a portentous declaration. Their voters may not be impressed. Does this sombre mood mean that the European project has failed? Not at all. As our special report this week notes, its early decades were spectacularly successful. The 50 years before the Treaty of Rome included two world wars and a great depression. The 50 years since have brought peace and prosperity on a scale unimaginable in Europe's history. But peace is now largely taken for granted. There is little enthusiasm for more enlargement, even though this has proved a brilliant way of entrenching liberal democracy in Europe's neighbourhood (more so than anything America has managed in its backyard). And, as for prosperity, young Europeans find it far less assured than it was for their parents. The two big tasks for Europe's political leaders in Berlin ought thus to be clear. The first is to reinvigorate their economies. The second job for the politicians is to make a lot more effort to persuade their voters that they have benefited from the enlargement of the club. (Subscription required) Survey: Four Ds for Europe (The Economist, March 17, 2007) The biggest failing of the EU has long been the yawning gulf between the union, as both a project of integration and a set of institutions, and the mass of its citizens. Nobody could pretend that, when French and Dutch voters voted against the constitution in 2005, they were objecting merely to specific provisions in the text; nor that they were just using the opportunity to give their governments a good kicking. It seems much more likely that they were expressing a general feeling of resentment towards the European project and its remoteness. That feeling is more emphatic in some countries than in others, but it seems to be strong everywhere. The traditional response by governments has been to ignore such resentment. Europe was always an elite project, went the argument, and so it should remain. As long as political leaders understood and pursued the case for European integration, that should be enough. (Subscription required) Beckham leads EU team against United (David Charter, The Times, February 12, 2007) Question: How do you excite the British public about the 50th anniversary of the founding of the European Union? Answer: Grab their attention through something far more popular than Brussels -- a football match. In one of its most populist gestures since the Common Market was created by the Treaty of Rome in 1957, the EU will commemorate its birthday in Britain by fielding a Europe XI against Manchester United. EU officials confirmed to The Times that while other EU countries will hold youth summits, music concerts and art exhibitions, football was deemed the best way to reach a Euro-sceptic British public, especially as European stars in the Premiership are so popular. The constitutional impasse and the future of the Union The 50th Anniversary of the EU: Re-launch Immediately To Counter the Risk of Disaggregation (Charles A. Kupchan, Corriere della Sera, March 26, 2007) The European project may be on the cusp of faltering. A re–nationalization of political life is taking place across the EU. The failure of the constitution was as much a symptom as a cause of this dramatic swing in attitudes. It is been accompanied by a host of other worrying developments: mounting economic protectionism, growing discomfort with Muslim immigration, rising anxiety over the threats posed to the comforts of the welfare state by global competition and aging populations, and diminishing enthusiasm for enlargement. This historical digression is not meant to suggest that the EU is headed for dissolution and war. It is certainly a safe bet that geopolitical rivalry among EU member states is gone for good. Nonetheless, satisfaction about Europe's last fifty years does not justify complacency about it next fifty. The EU has indeed accomplished a great deal in five decades, but its integrity and durability cannot be taken for granted, especially in light of the challenges that lie ahead. At some point soon, European integration may become irreversible. But after only 50 years, the EU is not there yet. Waiting for Freedom, Messing It Up (Adam Michnik, The New York Times, March 25, 2007) For those of us who, during our years of democratic opposition to Communist rule, passed through the trial of underground activity and prisons, this joyous day arrived four years ago, when, in a national referendum, Poles decided by a decisive majority to join the European Union. A dream kept alive for years became a reality. What was the content of this dream? Democracy instead of dictatorship, pluralism instead of monopoly, law instead of lawlessness, freedom of the press instead of censorship, diversity instead of conformity, open borders instead of barbed wire, tolerance instead of a reigning ideology, creativity instead of blind obedience, the possibility of welfare and development instead of poverty and backwardness. Finally and most important, we dreamed of a human right to dignity, an end to the subjection of every person as property of the state. During the Polish accession referendum of four years ago, this dream turned out to be most convincing to Poles. But now that the dream is within grasp, Poland and other Eastern European countries have begun to turn their backs on it. The case for an adult, outward-looking EU (Financial Times, March 23 2007) Over the past 50 years the European Union's focus has been mostly inwards. Its leaders have expended their time and energy creating independent institutions, a single market and a common currency. But if the EU is to remain relevant over the next 50 years its imperative must be to start shifting its collective focus outwards. The biggest long-term challenges of our age -- globalisation, climate change, energy dependence, immigration, terrorism, stability in the Middle East and development in Africa -- cannot be solved within the EU's borders, still less within individual nation states. The EU has been in the standards-setting and values-exporting business for 50 years. Such "soft power" is enormously important. But to be fully effective the EU must complement its soft power by developing more "hard power" to help deal with common security threats and humanitarian crises be they in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, the Middle East or Darfur. Looking Back, Looking Forward (Jeffrey Iverson, Time, March 22, 2007) Jacques Delors was President of the European Commission from 1985-95, helping to make this a period of extraordinary transformation in Europe. During his tenure the European Community became the European Union: a single market on its way to a common currency. More recently, the pace of change has slowed, even stalled. Delors, 81, hopes the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome will give member states new impetus in building the E.U. He spoke with Time about Europe's future, its tumultuous past and why it's still "the Continent of doubt." The time has come for Britain to join the European Union (Philip Stephens, Financial Times, March 22 2007) True, not long after the treaty's signature, the chill winds of change were felt in Whitehall. Harold Macmillan's government relearned the familiar lesson of history that Britain cannot escape the consequences of decisions made by Europe's other big powers. Within five years, Macmillan felt obliged to apply for membership; within 15, Britain had overcome a French veto to win admission to the club. But, as the Conservative politician, Chris Patten, has put it, for all that it has long held a membership card, Britain has never really joined the European Union. One of the lessons of recent years is that Britain needs Europe in order to have a close but balanced relationship with Washington. But pro-Europeans in Britain have never properly made the case that sovereignty must be shared in order to advance Britain's strategic interests. They have tacitly conceded the eurosceptic canard that the EU is a zero-sum game. Yet to imagine "independent" national approaches to, say, trade and capital flows, security and terrorism, immigration and cross-border crime, climate change and development, is to appreciate the emptiness of the classical conception of sovereignty. Europe diary: Big birthday (Mark Mardell, BBC, March 22, 2007) BBC Europe editor Mark Mardell on the contents of the Berlin Declaration to be signed at a summit this weekend, comparisons between the EU and the Roman empire, and two very different visions of the EU's future. Constitutional conundrum (The Economist, March 17, 2007) It is clear that economic reform ought to be at the top of the EU's agenda, especially for euro members. Yet Germany, currently in the EU president's chair, is mostly ignoring it. Angela Merkel has lit on another priority altogether: to revive the EU constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters. Merkel plans to present the June EU summit with a "road map" for taking the constitution forward. Each country has nominated two officials to meet in secret to prepare this -- a bizarre decision, since one purpose of the constitution was to increase transparency. Whatever the political permutations in different countries, it is clear that there are only four broad options: 1. treaty plus, 2. treaty minus, with a promise of more to come, 3. treaty minus, with a promise of no more to come, and 4. nothing at all. Into this combustible mix is about to drop another issue that has been largely neglected recently: the EU budget. (Subscription required) State of the European Union 2007 (EurActive, February 21, 2007) 2007 will be a year of radical reform for the European Union. The context seems favourable, considering the German EU presidency, the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome and the upcoming French presidential elections, which are likely to reshape France's stance towards Europe. The Observatoire français des conjonctures économiques examines the concept of "public property" within the EU or "biens publics européens" such as employment, education, environmental protection and others which are considered as more significant for the well-being of European citizens than monetary stability or strict compliance with budgetary rules. Europe ripe for a 'small revolution' (John Thornhill, Martin Arnold and Peggy Hollinger, Financial Times, February 6, 2007) Europe, says Dominique de Villepin, is a continent founded on doubts and ideals. Yet in spite of having only three months left in office, the exuberant French prime minister displays little of the former and a lot of the latter when it comes to discussing Europe's future. In Mr de Villepin's view, Europe's problems stem from its successes. He acknowledges there is a triple "crisis of growth." First, there is an institutional crisis that follows French and Dutch voters' rejection of Europe's constitutional treaty, which aimed to establish new rules for the expanded 27-member organisation. Second, there is a crisis of results as citizens question what the EU has recently done for them. Third, there is a crisis about the meaning of Europe. "Is the European project just about the opening up of a big single market, or does Europe still have a real political vocation and ambition?" Europe's next move (Bronislaw Geremek, The Guardian, February 2, 2007) The rejection of the EU constitution must not stop efforts to forge a new political framework. The alternative is paralysis. To be sure, French and Dutch citizens did not respond to the question that they were supposed to answer. Their vote was a protest against globalisation, a rejection of the contemporary world, with its distant and incomprehensible governing mechanisms. Like the anti-globalisation movement, the new anti-Europeanism can be regarded as a demand for a "different world" -- in this case, an "alter-Europeanism." In the past, when politicians debated the EU's future, they spoke of a definitive formula for European integration, as defined in a famous lecture in 2000 by Germany's then foreign minister Joschka Fischer. The accompanying intellectual debate, inaugurated by the philosophers Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, defined the nature of European identity, above all against the foil of the United States, but also in terms of the challenges posed by globalisation. A similar debate addressing key questions concerning the EU's future should be launched now. Public Opinion Polls Poll paints picture of future EU. Larger image envisioned as it turns 50 (Meg Bortin, International Herald Tribune, March 23, 2007) This vision of Europe's future emerges from a new trans-Atlantic poll timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the European Union. The results are not uniform across the six countries polled -- Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United States -- but, as through a hazy crystal ball, images of the world to come take shape. These images contain good news for supporters of Europe's historic endeavor begun on March 25, 1957, with the signing of the Treaty of Rome: Fifty years from now, more than 5,300 European respondents strongly agreed, the European Union will still exist. In overwhelming numbers, European respondents also believe that the euro is here to stay and will be the standard currency for Europe in 2057. Poll finds 44% think life worse in EU (George Parker, FT/Harris Poll, March 18 2007) The poll illustrates a pervasive pessimism in Europe, but it also highlights the ambivalence of citizens towards the EU, 50 years after the bloc's founding Treaty of Rome. In spite of many complaints about the EU, including a widespread view that it is too bureaucratic, only a minority think their country would be better off if it seceded from the union. Only 22 per cent of respondents in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain thought their country would be better off if it left the EU, against 40 per cent who believed it would be worse off. The FT/Harris poll, conducted between February 28 and March 12, found that 35 per cent of respondents thought the constitution would have a positive impact on their country, compared with 27 per cent who thought the opposite. By far the most negative response (48 per cent) came from Britain. European Social Reality (Eurobarometer, February 2007) Overall, European Union citizens are happy with their personal life and relatively satisfied with their everyday life environment, notably with regards to the quality of life in the area where they live (86%), their standard of living (83%), travel facilities (78%), medical services (77%) and schools in their local area (71%). Тhe majority of people in work is confident that they are able to keep their job (85%) and a third considers it highly likely that they would find a similar job within six months if laidoff (33%). Overall, European Union citizens appear fairly critical about collective life. The tendency of EU citizens to distrust public institutions may help explain why around a third of EU citizens expect the next twelve months to be worse when it comes to the economic situation and the employment situation in their country (34% and 33%, respectively). The same critical stance towards collective life is apparent from the contradiction that while people in work are confident that they will keep their job, EU citizens are most concerned about unemployment (36%). The European Citizens and the Future of Europe (Eurobarometer, May 2006) There are quite widespread expectations and hopes that Europe will not reduce itself to being a single market and a mere free trade area. On the contrary, the citizens expect progress in European integration in many fields and wish to see Europe assert itself collectively on the world stage. One may think that the reluctances, the criticisms and the disillusionments that can be observed currently vis-à-vis the European Union stem less from a weakness of "demand" of Europe than from a perceived lack of visible political "offer," involving an overall goal and a comprehensive political project that citizens would find attractive and stimulating. See also 50 Years of Dialogue and Cooperation: Lessons and Future Challenges for E.U. Public Diplomacy, an event of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy and the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars with representatives of the European Union Consulate Corps in Los Angeles. 2007-03-30T20:17:00+00:00 Andy Sternberg provided invaluable research support for this report. The 33-day military confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel and the subsequent cease-fire and aid operation has important public diplomacy implications not only for the two warring parties but for many other state and non-state actors. The conflict commanded the world's attention. Much more than a land dispute or run-of-the-mill cross-border antagonism, the conflict encapsulated, highlighted, and exacerbated many other strains in the region and in world politics at large, including the struggle of Lebanon's newly elected government to control its territory, the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Syrian and Iranian influence in Southern Lebanon through their support for Hezbollah, U.S. support for Israel, and associations with the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The actions of each party associated with the Israel-Hezbollah conflict have been noticed around the world and linked to much larger trends. The implications from this conflict for each actor are manifold. Almost every nation in the world has a registered response to the Hezbollah – Israeli conflict. Many nations criticized both Hezbollah's and Israel's actions, and called for a cease-fire. However, many of these countries expressed their sympathies through emphasizing one criticism over the other. The U.S. was at the forefront of those nations emphasizing Israel's right to self-defense against Hezbollah. Joining in on the pro-Israel side were allies in the "war on terror" such as the U.K., as well as some nations that were against the war in Iraq, such as Germany and Canada. Most nations, save Syria and, to some extent, Iran, did not come out directly in support of Hezbollah, an extra-national organization regarded by some in part or in whole as a terrorist group. Countries typically associated with anti-Americanism, such as Venezuela and many Muslim nations such as Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt , Yemen, Kuwait, Tajikistan, and, perhaps of particular interest, Iraq, and Afghanistan, came out against Israel in this conflict by denouncing the IDF military campaign as overkill. Many countries that were against the Iraq war, such as Spain, Russia, France and Italy have also heavily criticized Israeli conduct. Following the mid-August cease-fire, Israel emerged enmeshed in negative international opinion from much of the world, but particularly in Muslim nations as a result of the conflict. While many acknowledged Israel's right to react in a militant fashion to Hezbollah's initial hostilities, Israel's response, particularly in regards to civilian casualties, was deemed by many as excessive, and the product of a joint American-Israeli policy of hostility towards Muslim nations. Support and sympathy for Israel has been particularly strong in the U.S., however, where 81% of Americans reported believing that Israel's offensive in Lebanon were justified and 37% believing that all Israeli military action was justified. While not directly involved in the military operations in Southern Lebanon, the U.S. is undoubtedly considered one of the major players in the conflict and has much at stake here. Across the world, the actions of Israel are closely linked with the image of the U.S., as a result of the U.S.'s actions regarding this situation, general U.S. policy towards Israel, and a perception that the two countries are closely allied in world politics, sharing the same goals and techniques. Many have accused the U.S. of purposefully dragging its feet in interceding in this conflict, in order to allow Israel more time to bombard Hezbollah. Condemnation of Israel's actions in this conflict has rarely been unaccompanied by condemnation of U.S. policy; the two have been conflated in the eyes of many bystanders. The idea that Israel's actions are made possible because of the tacit approval of the U.S. means that any actions taken by the Israeli government could hardly be more associated with the U.S. than if the U.S. had performed them itself. Lebanese civilian deaths, widely documented in the Arab world, have reflected negatively not only on Israel, but on the U.S. as well. Both the Bush administration's slowness to respond to the military operations underway in southern Lebanon and its position in Iraq have led some onlookers to declare that the U.S. does not place high value on the deaths of Arab civilians. The policies of the U.S. in the Middle East and the actions of the U.S. in Iraq have been very closely attached in public discourse to the actions of Israel in southern Lebanon. Syria, on the other hand, emerged in many ways a winner in the public diplomacy war, as its power and dominance in the region has been highlighted by many. The conflict has led many to suggest that the U.S. resume direct diplomatic relations with Syria, while commentators around the world (including President Bush in an accidental open-mike remark to Tony Blair) have suggested Syria as key to solving problems in the region. Iran has been the focus of similar suggestions in the world press, yet the biggest public diplomacy winner in this conflict is surely Hezbollah. Among private citizens across the world with anti-American or anti-Israeli sentiments (either as a result of this or other geopolitical conflicts), Hezbollah has emerged as an embodiment of resistance. Traditionally a Shiite movement, even Sunnis across the region have expressed feelings of admiration for and even support for Hezbollah's actions. Reports from southern Lebanon indicate that support for Hezbollah has increased, particularly among those living in towns hit by the fighting . Hezbollah has used its time on the forefront of the world stage to practice public diplomacy itself, raising its image among foreign publics while it remains an extra-national organization itself. Most recently, Hezbollah has been seen at the forefront of aid dispersal in affected Lebanese areas The following is an aggregation of media reports regarding the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict, focusing on issues important for public diplomacy. If you would like to post your reactions and ideas about this issue, you can add your comments at the bottom of this page. Opinion polls and reactions from around the world Russian, Iranian, and Syrian Reactions to the War in Lebanon (Middle East Media Research Institute, August 11, 2006) The following are Russian, Iranian, and Syrian reactions to the crisis in the Middle East - From MEMRI Poll Finds Overwhelming Majorities in Lebanon Support Hezbollah, Distrust U.S. (World Public Opinion, August 2, 2006) Most Lebanese -- including majorities across all major religious groups -- support Hezbollah in its conflict with Israel and distrust the United States as a mediator, according to a recent Lebanese poll. Americans Believe Israeli Actions Are Justified but Share International Reservations about Extent of Military Offensive (World Public Opinion, August 2, 2006) A strong majority of Americans believe Israel is justified in taking action against the Hezbollah militia. But recent polls also show that U.S. support for Israel's offensive is not absolute. Most Americans blame both sides for the violence in Lebanon and a plurality favors the negotiation of a cease-fire as soon as possible. Like other publics abroad, a majority in the United States believes Israel's military campaign has gone too far. Americans Not Pressing for More U.S. Involvement in Middle East (The Gallup Poll, August 1, 2006) A new USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted Friday, July 28, through Sunday, July 30, continues to show mixed sentiments about what the U.S. government should do regarding the most recent violent conflict in the Middle East. A majority of Americans overall are not pressing for the United States to be doing more in the crisis, nor do most Americans believe that the United States should call for an immediate ceasefire. (Subscription Needed). US Ahmadinejad, Putin discuss ME developments by phone (Islamic Republic News Agency, August 12, 2006) "We are seriously concerned that the ongoing situation (in Lebanon) would create a backlash in regional nations, inciting extreme anger among Muslim youth, in particular, over the Zionists' brutal aggression against Lebanon," said the Iranian president. US 'losing credibility' in Mideast (The Age (Australia), August 11, 2006) President Hosni Mubarak said the United States and the West were losing credibility in the Middle East because they were dragging their feet on a ceasefire in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas. Iran says West dragging feet on Mideast truce (Swiss Info, August 10, 2006) Western nations are dragging their feet over halting hostilities between Israel and Lebanon because war helps their goals in the region, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in remarks published on Thursday. U.S. shows signs of compromise over Lebanon deal (Sue Pleming, Reuters, August 5, 2006) The Bush administration has been slammed by critics who accuse it of siding with ally Israel by not calling for an immediate cease-fire to end the fighting in southern Lebanon, which has killed 720 people in Lebanon and 73 Israelis. Israel's Dependency on the Drug of Militarism (Robert Scheer, TruthDig.com, August 1, 2006) Bush’s neoconservative foreign-policy cabal argued that troublesome regimes, such as that of Saddam Hussein, could be easily transformed into pliable, West-leaning democracies. Instead, the opposite has happened. Throughout the region, elections hyped by Bush have turned out to be a vehicle for the expression of religion-fueled rage against Israel and its U.S. sponsor. Stop the Band-Aid Treatment (Jimmy Carter, Washington Post, August 1, 2006) A major impediment to progress is Washington's strange policy that dialogue on controversial issues will be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and will be withheld from those who reject U.S. assertions. Analysis: Bush Mideast Stance may Flop (Tom Raum, AP, July 31, 2006) The U.N. debate may end up as a reprise of the battle that the Bush administration had on "Iraq" in the Security Council in early 2003 when only it and Britain, among the council's five veto-wielding permanent members, argued in favor of an invasion. America Transforms the Middle East, but Not As Imagined (James Carroll, Boston Globe, July 31, 2006) The prewar naïveté of US planners, enshrined in the much-noted Bernard Lewis/Samuel Huntington alarms, assumed that the defining ``other" of the civilizational clash was a univocal enemy --` `Islam." Washington had no idea that Islam, in its Middle East manifestation, was an atom waiting to be split. A sectarian argument had divided followers of Mohammed not long after his death, and that conflict defined the Muslim tradition. Doomed Diplomacy (Patrick Seale, Gulf News, July 28, 2006) So long as the US concerns itself only with Israel's security and ignores the interests of the Arab parties to the conflict, Rice's efforts will be doomed to failure. Rice on the Defensive After Rome Summit (Helene Cooper, The New York Times, July 28, 2006) But in the space of one hour in Rome on Wednesday, the public rewards of that hard work — the view around the world that the United States may now be more willing to play nice with others — may have been undone. Once again, it seemed, the United States had reverted to its my-way-or-the-highway approach, and Ms. Rice was on the defensive. Washington Risks a Wider Conflict (Jim Muir, BBC, July 28, 2006) One major difference this time is that Israel enjoys an indulgence from Washington far beyond anything previous, essentially giving it a free hand. At the Heart of the Lebanon Crisis Lie the Lethal Mistakes of President George W. Bush (Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian, July 26, 2006) It’s fashionable to blame the US for all the world’s ills, but in this case the sins, both of omission and commission, of the Bush administration genuinely belong at the heart of the trouble. Diplomacy has had a difficult task from the start, in part because the US is not seen as an honest broker, but as too closely aligned with Israel. U.S. wants peacekeepers (Sandro Cotenta, The Star (Toronto), July 25, 2006) The U.S. has been sharply criticized in Lebanon for dragging its feet on a ceasefire while Israel bombs the country's infrastructure — and a growing number of civilians — to pieces. Time For Real Diplomacy (Zbigniew Brzezinski, TIME, July 23, 2006) The present crisis, however, clearly stands in the way and imposes a particularly important challenge for the U.S. If that crisis continues to percolate and take a higher toll in human life, and continues to demonstrate that terrorism on one side is matched by brutal repression by the other, then the chances for peace in the Middle East will be set back, the region will be progressively radicalized and increasingly dominated by extremist forces. America's position in the region will be placed in jeopardy, and if America's position in the Middle East are undermined, America's global leadership will ultimately be at stake. Back Off Buddy, Beirut's My Sister (Joel Klein, L.A. Times, July 23, 2006) It is time for Angelenos to take up arms. No, we are not the most likely Hezbollah recruits -- so many of us being either Jews or Western imperialists or both -- but sometimes history presents no choice. Last month, Los Angeles decided to make Beirut its sister city. In retrospect, this may have been poorly thought out. U.S. Blunders Roil the Mideast (Robert Kuttner, Boston Globe, July 22, 2006) The latest violence in the Middle East demonstrates the bankruptcy of the Bush administration's grand design for the region. We Have to Talk to Bad Guys (John McLaughlin, Washington Post, July 22, 2006) We will have to get over the notion that talking to bad guys somehow rewards them or is a sign of weakness. As a superpower, we ought to be able to communicate in a way that signals our strength and self-confidence. Israel is on the way to defeating its aims (Financial Times, July 22, 2006) Israel is therefore well on the way to defeating its aims, as well as dragging the sullied reputation of its American ally through the Lebanese mud. U.S. Threatened With More Isolation (Tom Raum, AP, July 21, 2006) President Bush's uncompromising support for Israel in its battle with Hezbollah, now backed by Congress, is threatening to isolate the United States even further from the international community. US Affairs: Seal of approval (Nathan Guttman, Jerusalem Post, July 20, 2006) The outbreak of war between Israel and Hizbullah turned out to be an easy sell in America, with the administration giving Ehud Olmert's government a free hand to go ahead and take care of Hizbullah. Leviathan Run Amock (Pepe Escobar, Asia Times, July 18, 2006) The perception in the Arab street -- as well as for most of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims -- has been reinforced: the US/Israel axis seems to hold a license to kill Arabs with impunity. Why U.S. Looks to Others in Mideast Crisis (Howard LaFranchi, Christian Science Monitor, July 17, 2006) The problem, as Hughes sees it, is that the means of pressuring the two countries are limited, especially when the US has only a "relationship of hostility" with either [Iran or Syria]. "The only people who can call [Hizbullah] back are the Iranians and Syrians," he says. "But what quids are there?" Clawson says he was "amazed" to see Israel turn to Russia to make contact with Syria - a measure of the US's fallen standing in the region. Arabs Watching Helplessly (Marc Lynch, Abu Aardvark, July 15, 2006) American public diplomacy has been virtually invisible on [Israel's actions in Gaza and Lebanon] at a time when it is more urgently needed than ever. I can understand this -- you have to have a policy if you want to try to explain or defend it, and right now the Bush administration doesn't seem to have any policy at all beyond supporting Israel and issuing calls for 'restraint' which Israel promptly and publicly rejects. And what administration official wants to subject him or herself to tough Arab questioning on live TV right now?" Syria and Iran The U.S. may have to resume talks with Syria (Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz, July 31, 2006) But the most decisive argument in favor of talking with Damascus could be a public-relations argument: The U.S. administration is finding it increasingly harder to explain its refusal to talk to Syria. According to one U.S. official, the government has few tools left for dealing with Syrian President Bashar Assad, and in the absence of an attractive plan for waging war against it, the only thing left is jaw-jaw rather than war-war. Israeli strikes may boost Hizbullah base (Nicholas Blanford, Christian Science Monitor, July 28, 2006) Lebanese no longer blame Hizbullah for sparking the war by kidnapping the Israeli soldiers, but Israel and the US instead. The latest poll by the Beirut Center found that 8 percent of Lebanese feel the US supports Lebanon, down from 38 percent in January. "This support for Hizbullah is by default. It's due to US and Israeli actions," says Saad-Ghorayeb, whose father, Abdo, conducted the poll. Syria is Part of the Solution (Faisal al Yafai, The Guardian, July 26, 2006) Damascus has repeatedly signalled its willingness to enter the fray diplomatically: this week deputy foreign minister Faisal al-Meqdad said Syria was ready to talk to the US. The US has refused to invite Syrian officials to the meeting of Arab and European leaders in Rome today. It is, say the Americans, part of the problem. The US may hope that friendly Arab countries like Egypt and Jordan can pressure Syria; but, eventually, it may have to talk to Damascus, as the only Arab country that can plausibly rein in Hizbollah. Talking Turkey With Syria (Thomas Friedman, The New York Times, July 26, 2006) Can we get the Syrians on board? Can we split Damascus from Tehran? My conversations here suggest it would be very hard, but worth a shot. It is the most important strategic play we could make, because Syria is the bridge between Iran and Hezbollah. But it would take a high-level, rational dialogue. (Purchase Required). Syria at the center of diplomatic efforts to end war in Lebanon (Shashank Bengali, Mercury News, July 24, 2006) Long shunned by the Bush administration for its patronage of Hezbollah, its support of terrorism and its hostility to Israel, Syria is suddenly at the center of diplomatic efforts to end the two-week-old war in Lebanon. Israel Our World: As Ahmadinejad Watches (Carole Glick, Jerusalem Post, July 31, 2006) Somehow, between the US's early and misguided decision to ignore the Lebanese government's support and responsibility for Hizbullah and the Olmert government's clearly halfhearted prosecution of the war, both governments have gotten lost. The goals that now form the basis of their diplomatic agendas serve only to advance the interests of their enemies. Rome Conference Fails (Marc Lynch, Abu Aardvark, July 21, 2006) While there's disagreement as to whether Israel acted on behalf of an American project, there is near-consensus about American responsibility for not stopping what al-Jazeera is now calling "the sixth [Arab-Israeli] war". For instance, al-Jazeera's prime time Behind the News on July 25 was devoted to "the American project for a new Middle East" (with no American officials accepting their invitation to participate). Back to Beirut, Ready to Defy Israel (Rami Khouri, Daily Star, July 18, 2006) Protecting Israel has long been the primary focus of Western diplomacy, which is why it has not succeeded. Hezbollah Tide of Arab Opinion Turns to Support for Hezbollah (Neil MacFarquhar, The New York Times, July 28, 2006) Now, with hundreds of Lebanese dead and Hezbollah holding out against the vaunted Israeli military for more than two weeks, the tide of public opinion across the Arab world is surging behind the organization, transforming the Shiite group's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, into a folk hero and forcing a change in official statements. (Purchase Required). Support for Hezbollah Increasing Among South Lebanon Residents (Challiss McDonough, Voice of America, July 28, 2006) Many residents of south Lebanon say the military campaign is strengthening support for Hezbollah, not weakening it. Bitterness grows in Lebanese resort city (Chris Allbritton, San Francisco Chronicle, July 28, 2006) Groups that previously have opposed the Islamic group. According to a survey by the Beirut Center for Research and Information conducted this week, 87 percent said they support Hezbollah in its fight against Israel.... "I was not with Hezbollah, but now I am," he said. "I will fight for Hezbollah. I will fight (Bush)! I will fight him every time, every day." The innocent pay as war returns to Beirut (Brian Brady, Scotsman, July 23, 2006) The scale of the Israeli bombing so far is thought to have radicalised large sections of the Lebanese people - most of whom previously hated Hezbollah. Now, with Israel expected to launch a ground invasion of southern Lebanon - seeking to rid itself of an organisation on its northern border committed to its destruction - the Lebanese troops are likely to be forced into an uneasy alliance with Hezbollah in an attempt to repel the invaders. Arabs Rally Behind Hezbollah (Salah Nasrawi, AP, July 21, 2006) Key Arab allies of the United States, predominantly Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, fear the rising power of Shiites in the region: Hezbollah militants who virtually control southern Lebanon, Iraq's majority Shiite government, and -- most worrisome -- the Shiite theocracy that has run for decades. Yet many ordinary people, Sunnis as well as Shiites, are cheering the Lebanese guerrillas because of their willingness to stand up to Israel. The Region: The Arab Mind-Set (Barry Rubin, Jerusalem Post, July 17, 2006) Hamas and Hizbullah are now in the drivers' seat of the Arab world. It is worth underlining the fact that these two groups were supposedly going to be moderated by winning elections and participating in governments... Arab World Fed Up With Hizbollah (Jerusalem Post, July 17, 2006) Until last week, Arab political analysts and government officials were reluctant to criticize Hizbullah in public. But now that Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and his top aides are in hiding, an anti-Hizbullah coalition is emerging not only in Lebanon, but in several other Arab countries as well. UK Stand Up to U.S., Voters Tell Blair (Julian Glover and Ewan MacAskill, The Guardian, July 25, 2006) Just 30% think the prime minister has got the relationship about right, against 63% saying he has tied Britain too closely to the US. The wide-ranging survey of British attitudes to international affairs - the first since the conflict between Lebanon and Israel started - shows that a large majority of voters think Mr. Blair has made the special relationship too special. Lebanon A Way Forward (David Ignatius, Washington Post, July 21, 2006) The best strategy for containing a militia such as Hezbollah is to build a strong Lebanese state; any lasting solution for this conflict will be political, not just military; continued Israeli bombardment of Lebanon to destroy terrorists might backfire by creating another failed state from which terrorists can operate more freely. U.S. State Department: "Lebanon is not responsible for Hezbollah" (Omri Ceren, Israpundit, July 18, 2006) Alberto Fernandez, Director of Public Diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department, took a conference call with Jim Zogby's Arab American Institute in order to clarify the US's official policy regarding the war: that the Lebanese government is not responsible for Hezbollah's actions. Blogging about the conflict Blogging From the Belly of Beirut (Cyrus Farivar, Wired, July 21, 2006) Mana is in her mid-20s and lives with her parents in an apartment near the city center of Beirut. She's been "blogging" about the Israel-Lebanon conflict since it began more than a week ago, and her posts, such as the one above, have turned her LiveJournal account into a gathering point for vibrant and surprisingly conciliatory discussions by both Lebanese and Israelis. Bloggers on the Mideast Violence (Newsweek, July 19, 2006) Amid the blaring sirens, young, tech-savvy bloggers are taking the Middle East debate to the Web. Live From an Israeli Bunker A live blog from an Israeli bunker via laptop and wifi. Provides a unique and unprecedented insight into the rapidly escalating situation in the middle east. Experience the events thru the eyes of the people who live them, and perhaps get an idea of how it's really like over here. This is much more human and accurate then the major news channels. Bloggers in the Middle East Visual map with content links. al-Jazeera's prime time Behind the News on July 25 was devoted to "the American project for a new Middle East" (with no American officials accepting their invitation to participate). Back to Beirut, Ready to Defy Israel (Rami Khouri, Daily Star, July 18, 2006) Protecting Israel has long been the primary focus of Western diplomacy, which is why it has not succeeded. Hezbollah Tide of Arab Opinion Turns to Support for Hezbollah (Neil MacFarquhar, The New York Times, July 28, 2006) Now, with hundreds of Lebanese dead and Hezbollah holding out against the vaunted Israeli military for more than two weeks, the tide of public opinion across the Arab world is surging behind the organization, transforming the Shiite group's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, into a folk hero and forcing a change in official statements. (Purchase Required). Support for Hezbollah Increasing Among South Lebanon Residents (Challiss McDonough, Voice of America, July 28, 2006) Many residents of south Lebanon say the military campaign is strengthening support for Hezbollah, not weakening it. Bitterness grows in Lebanese resort city (Chris Allbritton, San Francisco Chronicle, July 28, 2006) Groups that previously have opposed the Islamic group. According to a survey by the Beirut Center for Research and Information conducted this week, 87 percent said they support Hezbollah in its fight against Israel.... "I was not with Hezbollah, but now I am," he said. "I will fight for Hezbollah. I will fight (Bush)! I will fight him every time, every day." The innocent pay as war returns to Beirut (Brian Brady, Scotsman, July 23, 2006) The scale of the Israeli bombing so far is thought to have radicalised large sections of the Lebanese people - most of whom previously hated Hezbollah. Now, with Israel expected to launch a ground invasion of southern Lebanon - seeking to rid itself of an organisation on its northern border committed to its destruction - the Lebanese troops are likely to be forced into an uneasy alliance with Hezbollah in an attempt to repel the invaders. Arabs Rally Behind Hezbollah (Salah Nasrawi, AP, July 21, 2006) Key Arab allies of the United States, predominantly Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, fear the rising power of Shiites in the region: Hezbollah militants who virtually control southern Lebanon, Iraq's majority Shiite government, and -- most worrisome -- the Shiite theocracy that has run for decades. Yet many ordinary people, Sunnis as well as Shiites, are cheering the Lebanese guerrillas because of their willingness to stand up to Israel. The Region: The Arab Mind-Set (Barry Rubin, Jerusalem Post, July 17, 2006) Hamas and Hizbullah are now in the drivers' seat of the Arab world. It is worth underlining the fact that these two groups were supposedly going to be moderated by winning elections and participating in governments... Arab World Fed Up With Hizbollah (Jerusalem Post, July 17, 2006) Until last week, Arab political analysts and government officials were reluctant to criticize Hizbullah in public. But now that Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and his top aides are in hiding, an anti-Hizbullah coalition is emerging not only in Lebanon, but in several other Arab countries as well. UK Stand Up to U.S., Voters Tell Blair (Julian Glover and Ewan MacAskill, The Guardian, July 25, 2006) Just 30% think the prime minister has got the relationship about right, against 63% saying he has tied Britain too closely to the US. The wide-ranging survey of British attitudes to international affairs - the first since the conflict between Lebanon and Israel started - shows that a large majority of voters think Mr. Blair has made the special relationship too special. Lebanon A Way Forward (David Ignatius, Washington Post, July 21, 2006) The best strategy for containing a militia such as Hezbollah is to build a strong Lebanese state; any lasting solution for this conflict will be political, not just military; continued Israeli bombardment of Lebanon to destroy terrorists might backfire by creating another failed state from which terrorists can operate more freely. U.S. State Department: "Lebanon is not responsible for Hezbollah" (Omri Ceren, Israpundit, July 18, 2006) Alberto Fernandez, Director of Public Diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department, took a conference call with Jim Zogby's Arab American Institute in order to clarify the US's official policy regarding the war: that the Lebanese government is not responsible for Hezbollah's actions. Blogging about the conflict Blogging From the Belly of Beirut (Cyrus Farivar, Wired, July 21, 2006) Mana is in her mid-20s and lives with her parents in an apartment near the city center of Beirut. She's been "blogging" about the Israel-Lebanon conflict since it began more than a week ago, and her posts, such as the one above, have turned her LiveJournal account into a gathering point for vibrant and surprisingly conciliatory discussions by both Lebanese and Israelis. Bloggers on the Mideast Violence (Newsweek, July 19, 2006) Amid the blaring sirens, young, tech-savvy bloggers are taking the Middle East debate to the Web. Live From an Israeli Bunker A live blog from an Israeli bunker via laptop and wifi. Provides a unique and unprecedented insight into the rapidly escalating situation in the middle east. Experience the events thru the eyes of the people who live them, and perhaps get an idea of how it's really like over here. This is much more human and accurate then the major news channels. Bloggers in the Middle East Visual map with content links.]]> 2006-08-23T08:38:00+00:00