manIC

In my continued quest of brainless summer fun, I joined some friends to watch X-men: First Class yesterday. Alas, the latest flick from the franchise proved more resistant to my quest for non-academic pursuits than my last foray.

Maybe it was because I watched it with international relations scholars, or maybe because X-men has always been a more thoughtful franchise. Whatever the reason, I couldn't help but observe several IR threads running throughout the movie. I know, I know. I'm a huge nerd.

Before you completely despair, I will say that X-men: First Class has all the hallmarks of a popcorn classic: attractive leads, snappy one-liners, bright explosions and incredibly stupid memes ("Remember: Mutant and proud").

But the film, like many X-men stories, focuses on the contrasting world views of two of its most charismatic and powerful mutants: the idealistic Professor X and the realistic Magneto. (Lest the symbolism of their balanced-in-opposition stances escape us, they are frequently depicted playing chess: Look! The director tells us. They are smart! Balanced! Yet opposed!)

The idea is that Professor X and Magneto are both members of a small but powerful minority, and they disagree about how those powers should be used. Magneto, a strict realist, adopts a traditional approach, arguing that ordinary humans will feel threatened by the growing power of the mutant community. Fear will lead to attack, powered by a desire for self-preservation. In order to protect themselves, the mutants must band together against a common enemy.

Professor X is the idealist, arguing that the strength of mutual interests and cooperation will override traditional balance-of-power politics, particularly if non-mutants can be persuaded to recognize mutant powers as a resource for good.

The resolution of this argument is ambiguous, and Professor X and Magneto fare no better in reaching consensus than their IR colleagues. Ultimately, there is always evidence to support both sides of the coin. That may be what makes X-men such an enduring franchise. The nature of the enemy is unpredictable and changing, giving their villains and heroes greater depth than some other comics. The nature of their struggle is not rooted in a simple good v. evil binary, but in the the response of ordinary humans to revolutionary change.

Dog Days of June

2011-06-01T08:42:00.000-04:00

Mmmmmm. Source

The great thing about living in D.C. is that you never have to choose between sweltering heat and oppressive humidity -- for the bulk of the summer you can have both! I was thinking about that this morning when I received a phone call informing me that my afternoon interview had to be postponed, as the entire block on which the interview was to be held has lost power.

This news reaches us on a day when the D.C. authorities are warning that the weather is so hot and nasty that it's actually unhealthy for people to engage in dangerous activities such as being outside or breathing. It's the kind of heat that makes ~~stupid~~ intrepid people wade into the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in search the kind of relief that only an illegal dip into goose-murky water can provide.

My interview had been scheduled for 1:15, by which point I imagine the high rises on that block will start trembling and shooting out Looney Tunish jets of steam from their top windows. I won't be there to see it, however, as I'll be directing my energies toward temperature-reducing pursuits in the comfort of my own backyard--such as training the dog to fetch ice cubes from the freezer.

Chuck Norris, and Other Perfectly Reasonable Suggestions

2011-05-23T21:09:00.002-04:00

Judith McHale. Source

Judith McHale is stepping down as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs and returning to the private sector, the Washington Post reports. No official announcement yet, but the Post expects one to surface in the coming days, and as for her successor: "No word yet on a replacement."

Finding a replacement to lead U.S. public diplomacy and public affairs is a challenging task--one to which bloggers everywhere will no doubt feel themselves called.

Allow me to start the ball rolling here:

Robert Redford

Redford has experience in government, and we know he thinks outside the box and won't stand for government corruption. Plus, he's already got experience with cultural diplomacy, as evidenced by the Film Forward: Advancing Cultural Dialogue initiative, in which his Sundance Institute partners with the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities and other federal cultural organizations to promote cross-cultural dialogue via independent film.

Oprah Winfrey

She inspires near cultish devotion and encourages people to live their best lives. She's big on dialogue and collaboration, but has no patience for those who stretch the truth to their own advantage. Plus, as I understand it, she'll have more time on her hands soon.

Chuck Norris

He speaks softly and carries a roundhouse kick. And the U.S. recognizes the need to balance public and traditional diplomacy with realist geopolitics, or "diplomacy with a punch." Norris is no stranger to politics, as his 2008 endorsement of presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee demonstrates. And he could rival Oprah for fan devotion. Plus, he's pretty sure he did two tours in Iraq.

Tai Shan

Yes, I realize I have a problem. Source

OK, I know he's Chinese, but ... oh, who am I kidding? I'll use the flimsiest pretext to put a panda picture on this blog.

Ashton Kutcher

If you read this blog regularly, you'll know I'm not a Kutcher fan. But he is adept at the Twitter, and the State Department is making a major effort to embrace new media in its public diplomacy outreach. As he recently tweeted with great sagacity: "A follower a day keeps the haters away." Isn't that just the twenty-first century redux of "telling America's story"?

Betty White

Why not? She seems to be everywhere these days, demonstrating an admirable talent for both innovation and branding.

Got more suggestions for celebrity PD leaders? Throw 'em down in the comments section.

From the xkcd files

2011-05-20T13:38:00.000-04:00

The Anti-Academic

2011-05-19T23:09:00.000-04:00

Did I mention the jaw-clenching? Source

In addition to the many benefits of pursuing a Master's degree, there are a few down sides. Among these: you're less fun at parties, your pants don't fit as well as they used to, and you start using words like "monistic/emancipatory" in casual conversation.

For me, one of the great tragedies of higher education was never having time to go to the cinema. But this was addressed last night when my friends and I, in celebration of the completion of our studies, went to see the most non-academic movie we could think of.

If I had to describe Fast Five in one word, I think it would be "smashy." Yes, this was a great movie for smashing: people, cars, metaphors, the English language -- nothing escaped the director's penchant for pulverization. For two hours, things flew about and crashed together and emerged in a glorious, technicolor mess with a pulsing soundtrack. The movie was every bit as fast as the franchise title had promised. Also, furious.

Lest you think I have nothing positive to say about this movie, let me clarify: I found it highly entertaining. I thought the actors showed great range, drawing from an emotional spectrum that included everything from eye narrowing to jaw clenching. And the women proved to be adept at leaning forward whilst wearing tight clothing. Eric Rohmer it was not. But it was a fabulous vehicle for selling popcorn, and I enjoyed myself immensely.

I should turn this into a reflection on diplomacy somehow, or on the projection of American values via cinematic blockbusters. But it was recently brought to my attention by a concerned reader that my blog is far too academic and does not contain enough me-ness in it. So I'll leave it there for tonight, in the hopes of increasing my blogger bona fides by stepping away from academic navel gazing for a bit.

Not that You Asked, But ...

2011-05-17T13:35:00.000-04:00

People are just about tripping over themselves to advise Obama on How to Address the Arab World in the Wake of Osama bin Laden's Death / The Arab Spring / The Exposure of the Colonel's Secret Sauce on Wikileaks, etc.

Helle Dale enters the fray with a piece in which she argues that the U.S. government should capitalize on the death of bin Laden to reassert its global leadership. With Randian confidence, Dale recommends that Obama "[reassert] U.S. leadership on the world stage rather than, as is his wont, bowing to global sentiments about American decline."

She offers four suggestions for the White House's public diplomacy outreach to the Arab World:

"Declare unequivocal support for the democratic evolution in the Arab countries as well as for the economic freedom that will advance critically needed growth and opportunity."
Advocate for oppressed dissidents.
Assert U.S. leadership without apology.
Use VOA as the message medium.

Dale is definitely focusing on a message-centric form of public diplomacy, in contrast with Seib's advice that the U.S. should move away from monologic messaging towards service activities. I've got a feeling Dale wouldn't be a huge fan of that proposal, but I'll save my conjectures for another day and focus on the actual text of her message.

The first two points seem like givens. In fact, they're so likely to feature in Obama's upcoming message that I'm surprised she thought them worth mentioning. Support for democracy, economic openness and human rights have long been pillars of the nation's identity as well as its foreign policy and it would be highly unlikely for the government to step away from them now.

The third bullet point gives me pause. As regular readers of this blog (also known as my parents) know, I prefer public and traditional diplomacy that promotes multilateralism, partnership, cooperation and mutual respect. While I recognize that the United States is clearly a global leader in some things, I am equally confident that the United States is not a global leader in all things, so I balk at any attempt to assert U.S. leadership without qualification.By all means, let us celebrate the nation's strengths -- but let's do so in a manner that is nuanced and accurate.

Finally, I like Dale's support for VOA. As I noted earlier this week, the BBG has impressed me with its attention to audience reach and effectiveness, although I'm not sure it should be the exclusive medium for message promotion. Actually -- hold that thought. I take it back. Let's make the VOA The Exclusive Medium for Obama's message, then stand back and watch the fun as all the major U.S. networks discover that Smith-Mundt prevents them from disseminating VOA content produced for foreign audiences.

That ought to jump start some serious dialogue on Smith-Mundt's effect (and effectiveness) in the modern media environment.

Wonk This Way

2011-05-16T21:32:00.000-04:00


Wonk if you love torsos.

I'd like to add my name to the American University students and alumni who are less than enthusiastic about the school's WONK branding campaign. This is not a reflection of my attitude toward the school--which I love--or toward any of the wonkish torsos that posed for the ads (you know who you are), but rather my skepticism regarding the wisdom of associating the university with a word that sounds like an enraged goose receiving the Heimlich maneuvre.

At its best, the word is jargon--incomprehensible to all but the wonkiest. At its worst, it sounds like the noise a dog makes before it gets sick on the carpet. But much as I hate the word, I have to respect its accuracy in describing the AU community and its enthusiasm for policy and education.

What other word describes the sort of geek who spends her morning at an open government meeting ... for fun? Nothing else could account for my nerdish glee when I learned the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy was holding an open meeting today. Nor for the fact that two AU students and a professor were already seated when I walked in. I'd registered early, certain that the seats would get snapped up like Radiohead tickets, and was pleased to see that the room was full of people I knew--some personally, some by reputation. So clearly I embrace the spirit of wonkishness, if not the word itself.

One of the highlights of the meeting (for me, at least) was Jeff Trimble's presentation on the BBG. Granted, I've questioned the efficacy of some of the BBG's work in the past, but Trimble made a straightforward and persuasive case for the effectiveness of Radio Sawa, al Hurra, RFE/RL and other BBG broadcasting sources. In addition, he neatly anticipated my question about the decision to switch VOA Mandarin to a web-only platform, providing statistics about Chinese audiences and the BBG's "robust" anti-censorship mechanisms. Well played, sir. Even Kristin Lord was impressed.

Executive Director Matt Armstrong kept his comments brief, but I left with the impression that U.S. public diplomacy practitioners are making an effort to coordinate, evaluate effectiveness and streamline their efforts for maximum effectiveness. Of course, that's just one blogger's opinion. There were quite a few PD bloggers in attendance, and I'm looking forward to hearing their take on the proceedings.

Summertime, and the Living is ... Harder

2011-05-14T11:32:00.001-04:00

Philip Seib, Director of USC's Center on Public Diplomacy, has some advice for U.S. public diplomacy in the Arab world:

Encourage Israel to recognize Palestine's legitimacy, renew the Israel-Egypt peace treaty and offer assistance to new Arab regimes. Encourage Arab leaders to accept Israel's legitimacy.
Propose a Marshall-esque Plan to promote civil society and infrastructure building in underdeveloped Arab nations.
Redirect U.S. public diplomacy away from messaging toward service. ("In the Arab world, people simply don't care about such self-serving pronouncements. Anything that does not relate directly to their own lives is wasted effort.")

While his suggestions won't meet with universal support (Shadi Hamid, for example, recently posted on Twitter: "Maybe the US should just hit 'pause' on Israel/Palestine & just focus on supporting what ultimately matters most: Arab democracy") his strategy emphasizes the importance of relationship-building and collaborative action. It's a strategy that recognizes the limitations of monologic public diplomacy. As Seib notes, Obama's famous 2009 Cairo speech "was beautifully written and radiated good intentions." After the speech, "Arab opinion of Obama improved significantly, and then it dropped like a rock. The reason? The beautiful words were seen to have been built on air, not on a foundation of policy. Arabs are a tough audience. They've heard it all before."

More significantly, it's a strategy that acknowledges the importance of promoting individual agency. Seib's suggestions aren't about the U.S. projecting a message or exporting policy. They focus on working with people in the Arab world to achieve their own society-building goals in a way that promotes peace and prosperity. Public diplomacy becomes the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness via the public sphere. It's a Music for the Jilted Generation approach that steps beyond open-source media to embrace open-source action.

Is it tenable? That remains to be seen. As The Washington Post reports, the hope of the Arab Spring is rapidly giving way to a harsh and challenging Summer. And the outcome for the region will depend on whether the Spring's rebels are able to direct their enthusiasm for overthrowing the old regimes into the difficult task of building new ones.

Best Face Forward?

2011-05-11T13:15:00.001-04:00

And the award for Understated Segue of the Day goes to FP for this little gem:

"Towns around Daraa, [Syria] the southern city at the center of the protests, have reportedly been raided. A western suburb of Damascus has been cut off completely by government forces. Thousands of demonstrators have reportedly been arrested. Despite the crackdown, reports indicate that some demonstrations are continuing throughout the country. Syrian opposition groups say between 600 and 800 people have been killed since demonstrations began in March. Syria is now expected to drop its bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council." Emphasis mine.

Syria is reportedly considering a 2013 bid, and the optimist within me would like to believe that they'll take advantage of the delay to bring their own human rights record up to snuff--although there's not a lot of evidence to support that hope.

Granted, Syria wouldn't be the first country to sit on the UN Human Rights Council with a questionable human rights record, but its decision to drop its bid is telling. The move demonstrates a disconnect between domestic and international goals--as well as a disconnect between stated and demonstrated values. This sense of disconnect isn't unique to Syria. The Washington Post today reports on two nations in similar straits: Libya and Bahrain.

Simon Denyer says that "Libya is simultaneously trying to play the roles of touch guy and victim in its dealings with the outside world as it unleashes venom and shellfire on its opponents but pleads for a cease-fire and dialogue." And Philip Kennicott states that "As international human rights groups and Western governments condemned Bahrain's reprisals against participants in the Arab Spring uprisings, one particularly cherished part of the country's image took a hard hit -- its reputation for promoting arts and culture."

Both articles underscore a divide between image projection and perception, between future goals and present realities--demonstrating the difficulty of controlling an international image in the face of domestic turmoil. Ordinarily I like to keep an open mind toward the workings of foreign cultures and societies, but in the case of human rights abuses like those we've seen documented in Libya and Bahrain, it's hard to be sympathetic.

I touched on the theme of international cooperation in yesterday's post, and it's one I've written on before. Multilateral action is an important component of traditional and public diplomacy because it promotes legitimacy (or at least the appearance of it), creates international bonds, and assists in the establishment or promotion of values and norms (van Ham's "social power"). And in terms of international norms and values, the UDHR principles have got to be at the top of the list.

Maybe it's my American upbringing, but in a word association test, the phrase "human rights" conjures up an instant response of "inviolable." The benefits of democracy and equality, and the human right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are truths that I've always held to be self-evident.As Secretary of State Clinton has said, "In democracies, respecting rights isn't a choice leaders make day by day; it is the reason they govern."

America, the Exceptional

2011-05-10T19:23:00.001-04:00

A provocative quote from Richard Cohen's essay in the Washington Post: "Therein lies the danger of American exceptionalism. It discourages compromise, for what God has made exceptional, man must not alter. And yet clearly America must change fundamentally or continue to decline. It could begin by junking a phase that reeks of arrogance and discourages compromise. American exceptionalism ought to be called American narcissism. We look perfect only to ourselves."

It's a tough point to sell. What politician would cop to being unexceptional, let alone unamerican? But exceptionalism is a problematic concept -- particularly when it's applied to justify unilateral action or arrogance, or when it limits diplomatic negotiation. There's nothing wrong with celebrating national values and characteristics, but there is a problem with overlooking the benefits of collaboration, cooperation and compromise.

Give Us This Day Our Daily Blog

2011-05-05T13:38:00.000-04:00

The Vatican may be many things, but a public diplomacy power house it is not (see my previous comments on the subject here and here).

Just over a year ago, when the Vatican stepped forward to address not a new manifestation of the Catholic church's sexual abuse scandal but the pop contributions of the Beatles, I made this observation: "The Church needs decisive action and rapid responses. Otherwise its message will be shaped, distorted and dispersed by a sea of snarky bloggers before it can even begin, and the Vatican will find itself writing the words to a sermon that no one will hear."

Evidently, someone up there is listening.

The Vatican this week invited those snarky bloggers into the fold by hosting its first ever blogging summit. According to USA Today, this is part of a larger digital outreach effort: "The Vatican has taken several steps to promote and use Web tools in recent years, attempting to clear up miscommunication on false rumors like 'Pope okays condoms' and using the outlets to spread Catholic teaching and news."

Summit organizers underestimated the interest, and were only able to host 150 of the estimated 750 bloggers who expressed an interest in attending. So is the Vatican embracing Faith 2.0? Will the Holy See acknowledge the importance of rapid communication by establishing a cyber-campaign? While the blogging campaign represents a nod to the importance of modern communication technology, it seems to be just that--a nod. The article stresses that the Vatican has no plans to coordinate Catholic bloggers or start a blog of its own.

On the other hand, summit speakers did reflect an awareness of some of the Church's PD weaknesses. Fr. Antonio Spadaro began the panel by saying "the Church needs to listen" to the blogosphere. So it looks like a mixed bag at the moment. I'm curious to see how this plays out, and will definitely be checking in to see how it develops.

Check out blogger feedback on Twitter (hashtag #vbm11).

Dual Britannia

2011-05-04T20:20:00.002-04:00

This flawless smile defies you to
make a British dental joke. Source

Is this the face that launched a thousand tweets?

It is! About 237 per second just before the service, if you trust the London Telegraph.

But if the royal wedding didn't slake your thirst for all things British, rest easy! Anglophiles will be delighted to hear that the wedding--which attracted about 2 billion viewers, inspired millions of Facebook status updates, and brought an estimated £630 million into the British economy--was little more than an appetizer, a teaser, a "dry run" for 2012.

According to the Bearsden Herald, British Prime Minister David Cameron believes the London Olympics and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee will present "a fantastic opportunity next year to show all faces of Britain both modern and traditional."

Oooooh, modern and traditional? Be still my corn-oil-clogged American heart! Kudos to the PM for recognizing the importance of branding and public diplomacy. And kudos for emphasizing multiple aspects of the nation's appeal. But let's hope Cameron navigates the rocky terrain of public diplomacy more successfully than Tony Blair.

In the 1990s, Great Britain--no doubt tired of its reputation as a dentally-challenged nation of stodgy, old-fashioned corgi-worshipers and cow-maddened, Cure-loving soccer hooligans--embarked on an ill-advised nation-branding campaign. (No, I'm not payed by the hyphen. But after that last sentence, I kind of wish I were.)

"Cool Brittania," as the campaign was dubbed, quickly became known as the Waterworld of nation-branding efforts: expensive, flashy and laughably unsuccessful.

From the Public Diplomacy wiki's entry on Nation Branding: "Intended to reinvent the U.K.’s image as an energized and liberalized nation, the campaign attempted to shed the traditionally formal image of Great Britain as well as reflect the shifting political model of the Blair administration... Despite the millions of dollars poured into the initiative, however, the campaign is largely considered a failure because of its limited focus, lackluster results, and the general perception, both within Britain and abroad, that the campaign’s gimmicky approach had actually hurt the nation’s international image."

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Can Cameron avoid the pitfalls of his predecessor? Will the Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee drive up the nation's global stock? It's hard to say. Judging from purely superficial early speculation, London hasn't truly grasped the full potential of branding. Let's consider just for starters the 2012 Olympic logo--a nearly illegible jumble of numbers that looks sort of like a tangram after a long night at the pub--and the mascots--which Jon Stewart described as "creepy one-eyed circumcised penis monsters."

OK, so they've got some room to grow. But still, by all accounts, the royal wedding was a great success--not just for the happy couple and their families, but for the nation as a whole. With a little bit of coordination, Cameron can keep the anglophilia going. But that's the catch, of course. You can't just rest on your laurels and assume that big events = big publicity = big love. You've got to put some work into it.

Just ask Kevin Costner.

On PD and Communication

2011-05-03T15:58:00.001-04:00

It's not whether you win or lose... Source

Today is World Press Freedom Day and National Teacher Day -- two events that encourage us to honor two professions that influence communication flows and shape our understanding of the world.

With that in mind, I've been thinking about my last unofficial class in graduate school. Last Thursday, Chayden arranged a role-playing exercise for the last meeting of our Public Diplomacy class. Given his interest in LARPing, we were a little nervous about how the class would unfold, but we needed have worried.

With the assistance of PD blogger Chris Dufour, Chayden divided the class (or the meager portion that actually showed up -- the rest were presumably finishing the final paper) into four groups: public affairs, public diplomacy, traditional media and angry public/interest groups. Then they presented us with a scenario: Hours before the royal wedding, U.S. security forces apprehend a U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent in London, in connecting with a bomb threat. They gave us a few details about his contacts (in Virginia, Guantanamo and Yemen) and set us to work to prepare our communication strategy.

We'd spent the semester studying public diplomacy, not crisis management, so there were a few stumbles. But for the most part, the students instantly adopted the communication personalities of their groups--with considerable creativity and humor. In the aftermath of the weekend's big news stories, a few of us have been talking about the exercise. Most of us were impressed by the prescience of the exercise. And to some extent we were impressed by our own ability to anticipate the official and unofficial responses of the public to a major development on the U.S. security battle--a success that might reflect as much on the predictability of those groups as on our own genius.

It was a fun class. People got really involved in their roles and came up with some very clever and very funny messages. I think the take-away Chayden wanted us to leave with was a greater appreciation for the complexity of the information environment. Public affairs and public diplomacy professionals can't control the narrative any more than they can control the news, not completely at any rate, because the world is constantly changing and new crises and victories and opinions and issues are constantly arising. To some extent, that's half the fun.

I'm starting to think PD isn't really a field for people who are focused on Winning, because it's so difficult to measure success and there's no easy rubric for gauging progress. I'm not saying that success is unattainable or that the end goal doesn't matter. I'm saying that the process is the most important thing. That's why it's essential to have confidence not just in the end product, but in the act itself -- the constant process of communicating and building relationships.

Ta-da!

2011-05-01T19:26:00.002-04:00

Ta-da! Source

As many of you are already aware, I completed the final requirement of my Master's program on Friday by dazzling Craig Hayden (professor of Public Diplomacy and International Communication) with my command of the International Communication field.

The aforementioned requirement was not to dazzle per se, but rather to demonstrate competency in discussing trends and thoughts in International Communication over the course of an hour-long conversation with one of the program's core faculty members--a process known as the oral comprehensive exam, or the "oral comp." I assume my conversation was dazzling because Chayden signed the form and I am now set to graduate and have already begun encouraging my friends to address me as "Master."

As a soon-to-be-graduate, I am currently residing in the harrowing halfworld between student and professional, so if your organization is in the market for a dazzling public diplomacy enthusiast, do give me a call. In the meantime, I'm celebrating my freedom by helping others celebrate theirs. Specifically, I'm volunteering at World Press Freedom Day this week.

After a day spent stuffing stylish totes with free press swag, I headed home to rest before an early morning shift tomorrow. Tragically, this means I departed before hearing PD maven Judith McHale address the masses during the opening ceremony. I'd hoped to follow from home, but didn't realize until I arrived that the livestream isn't operating until tomorrow morning, so I was reduced to re-tweeting choice nuggets from the State Department, such as "RT @WPFD2011 Under Secretary McHale: protecting the rights of a free press is the responsibility of every citizen. #wpfd #pressfreedom." Try not to envy my rock star lifestyle.

I'm thrilled, of course, to see public diplomacy front and center at the conference. As McHale herself says:

"Compelling ideas are infectious. They always have been. Today, immediate and widespread access to information allows ideas to circulate virally. It empowers people to participate in the public lives of their countries. It equalizes voices. The Internet has made it possible to reach more people in more places. But it has also shifted power and influence to such an extent that it is necessary to engage with a much wider spectrum of public voices worldwide. So we, at the Department of State, are doing everything we can to connect with people — all 6.8 billion of them — to create a new environment that will better ensure the stability and security of our country, our region, and our world. We take this mission very seriously. We recognize that government-to-government diplomacy by itself is no longer enough."

From the sound of it, McHale could have done pretty well on the oral comp herself.

For those of you who are curious, May 3 is WPFD proper, a day "to evaluate press freedom around the world, to defend the media from attacks on their independence and to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession."

Branding and Beyond

2011-04-25T18:33:00.000-04:00

And the hype continues for Morgan Spurlock's new documentary. I know I'm a little slow in posting this, but my video watching has taken a bit of a hit as the semester nears a close. Now I don't agree that nation branding and soft power strategies should simply reproduce corporate branding strategies on a global scale, but I do think it's worth evaluating those strategies to see how they work.

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Morgan Spurlock

www.colbertnation.com

Video Archive

COD -- Conversations on Diplomacy

2011-04-24T14:10:00.000-04:00

Forget the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner! There's a new hot ticket in D.C.

According to the State Department's website, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is holding a series of mediated "Conversations on Diplomacy" with Former Secretary Henry Kissinger, the man who literally wrote the book on diplomacy.

The first of these conversations was held on April 20 and was "open to a limited number of invited press." So, short of calling up the Salahis, how exactly does one finagle an invitation to this event?

Fear not! For those of us whose wonkish bona fides didn't merit an invitation, Reuters provides a little teaser and the welcome news that PBS will broadcast the event on Wednesday. Plus, the transcript is available online.

Here are some highlights:

On diplomacy:

Clinton: "In this first part of the 21st century we clearly continue to spend an extraordinary amount of our time on state-to-state relationships. But we increasingly are focused on networks, on multilateral relationships and organizations, on charting the changes that are sweeping the world, many of them driven by technology and trying to understand the implications of those changes for the decisions that we make here."

Kissinger: "The art of foreign policy is to operate at the limit of your power but not to go beyond it, and to recognize that other countries must feel they’re part of the international system or the tensions become unmanageable."

On China:

Kissinger: "Normally, the emergence of new powers has led -- has been characterized by enormous rivalries. And there are points where we impact on each other in a way that could generate rivalries. On the other hand, there is no constructive outcome to a long, drawn-out contest between the United States and China. So both of our countries have an obligation to try to construct an international environment in which parallel evolutions, I don’t say necessary, but parallel evolutions we contribute to peace -- to peace and progress. And that has difficulties because our societies have had quite different origins."


A Secretarial Conversation: Source

Clinton: "My first trip to China as Secretary of State, I’m sitting there with the foreign minister. He says we think it’s a very unfortunate decision that the United States has made and reflects on our relationship that you’re not participating in the Shanghai Expo. First of all, I didn’t know there was going to be a Shanghai Expo...And a decision had been made in the prior administration that we don’t do expos anymore. So here’s China about to hold this very significant expo, and we and I think Andorra are the only countries not participating. And to explain to a group of high Chinese officials that it wasn’t a decision that carried with it anything other than our Congress’s allergy to expos anywhere in the world was nearly impossible. So I spent the first six months putting together an expo, something that was not in the job description. But it was a very important signal of our commitment to the relationship even though it doesn’t fall into one of the 10 or 20 issues that we might be listing."

On communication:

Clinton: "The flood of information that now comes to us, not just from traditional media but from all of the new forms of media, we’re just as likely to see events starting from Twitter feeds as from the statements of heads of state. And, therefore, we’ve had to adjust, and it has been one of my goals as Secretary of State to really look at 21st century statecraft and to recognize the increasing role that people-to-people diplomacy plays in assisting the United States in understanding trends, and in influencing decisions."

News Bits

2011-04-23T14:56:00.001-04:00

What's new in the world of public diplomacy? I'm so glad you asked!

Hasbara 2.0

Evidently the Israeli consulate in LA is embracing new technology by phasing in tablets (this kind, not this kind) to replace heavy and cumbersome print media. To jump start the process, the consulate is giving away a special Israeli Edition custom Kindle.

Maybe they should try gargling...

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argues that the VOA's voice is drowned out in a competitive international media environment as news agencies from China, Russia and the Middle East are expanding. The Wall Street Journal notes, "If public diplomacy helps determine which countries are on the way up and which are on the way down, U.S. actions speak louder than the broadcasts themselves." Forget gargling; how about funding?

Peking news update

Andy Yee reports on the same story from a different angle, highlighting the Chinese media expansion as part of a targeted government effort to increase soft power. However, as Yee notes, suspicions surround the effort--particularly in light of continual problems related to credibility and unpopular domestic policies.

Atomic/ping pong

The U.S. and China emphasize the importance of sports exchanges and ping pong diplomacy, and the U.S. extends support to Japan in the wake of its earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis.

Friends with benefits

While soft power and public diplomacy are complicated pursuits, aid is one important component of the equation. Although the bank head of P.S. Suryanarayana's article trumpets that France has provided more assistance than the United States to Japan in addressing its nuclear crisis, the article fails to persuade that this translate into a significant public diplomacy win.

Return of the Blogger

2011-04-22T09:38:00.000-04:00

Salad is pretty much the most hilarious thing women can think of: Source

As I mentioned in my last post, my life has been a little hectic lately and shows no sign of calming down until my thesis is bound, my oral comps passed and my final paper submitted. So you can expect sporadic posting until then.

In the meantime, die-hard fans of the blog can check out some of my inspired posts for the bizarro blog I've been keeping for my PD class (with help from the group 4 bloggin' corps, of course). Last night's class was my last ever as a graduate student, and after a stressful week of job interviews I was a wee little bit punchy, as you could probably determine by taking a quick look at the live blog I maintained during the lesson (part I, part II).

Last night in class, Prof. Hayden raised the question of whether or not we dilute the concept of diplomacy by constantly sticking a hyphen in front of it. It's a great question, although in the interest of grammatical and syntactical accuracy, I feel compelled to point out that most instances of hyphen diplomacy tend to eschew the hyphen in favor of compound words or portmanteaus, as in the case of sports diplomacy, arts diplomacy, panda diplomacy and gastrodiplomacy.

(Speaking of gastrodiplomacy, perhaps Paul Rockower could investigate the diplomatic and branding potential of salad, which women everywhere find irresistible, as evidenced by these photos. Failing that, perhaps we could harness the manic appeal of yogurt.)

OK, gastrosnarkiness aside, let's look at that question: have we diluted the concept of diplomacy, or does this verbal expansion represent a fundamental shift in the nature of diplomacy itself? Or perhaps the shift hasn't affected diplomacy so much as our understanding of it? Hayden promised to reveal his own take in a forthcoming essay, but I'm going to start the ball rolling now. I think the nature of diplomacy has changed.

Diplomacy today is less tied to the rigid state-emissary-to-state-emissary structure of the past. Today's diplomacy involves multiple stakeholders, multiple interests and multiple agendas, all competing in a fast-pasted technology-enabled environment that introduces agendas and issues faster than most bureaucratic structures can respond to them.

States have adapted--some by suppressing the technology that they view as enabling dangerous dissent, others by promoting that same technology in the interest of promoting democratic ideals. And most are working to improve the speed and effectiveness with which they communicate. That means new technology, new tactics, new blood -- and it's all making for a new diplomatic environment.

So what is the impact of this generally hyphen-less hyphen diplomacy? I think we still haven't fully seen it, but I do believe it reflects a more diverse, more open, more democratic diplomatic environment. And I'm looking forward to watching its continual evolution.

People Power

2011-04-21T17:30:00.000-04:00

Greetings, manICateers! And apologies for my irregular posts this month. As graduation looms, I've been swamped with oral comps, thesis shenanigans and job hunting hijinks. And now, to add insult to injury, I'm going to cross-post from my class blog:

"Leadership in a global information age is less about being the king of the mountain issuing commands that cascade down a hierarchy than being the person in the center of a circle or network who attracts and persuades others to come help. Both the hard power of coercion and the soft power of attraction and persuasion are crucial to success in such situations. Americans need better to understand both these dimensions of smart power." -- Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

I think the quote above, taken from Joe Nye's recent article in Foreign Policy, succinctly summarizes one of the main points we've been discussing about smart power this semester, namely that hard and soft power together are stronger than hard power or soft power alone, and that current technologies have increased the need for networked communication, as opposed to hierarchical.

Manuel Castells makes a similar point in Communication Power, where he argues that new technologies have given rise to what he calls "horizontal communication networks" that empower individuals and challenge state autonomy in new ways. We've seen evidence of this in recent months, most obviously in Egypt, but we've also seen evidence of its limitations. Cohen and Schmidt address this to some extent in their article in Foreign Affairs, when they discuss the impacts of varying degrees of connectivity and freedom, and while they only provide a quick summary, I think they do a good job of underscoring why Internet freedom doesn't always automatically translate to successful revolutionary action.

Nonetheless, as Cohen and Schmidt, Castells, Secretary Clinton and many of the other people we've read this semester have pointed out, individuals can be powerful, particularly when they work together and when they have access to appropriate technology.

Recently at a University event, a prospective student asked me why I thought the field of Public Diplomacy was growing and whether I thought it reflected a change attitudes about diplomacy in general within the United States. While it's impossible to determine the effects of new attitudes, I do think it's fair to say that U.S. attitudes about diplomacy have changed significantly in recent years, and that Obama and Clinton have adopted a much more expansive, citizen-focused view.

Maybe it's just Spring in the air, but that makes me feel optimistic.

Everybody Loves English

2011-04-14T16:45:00.000-04:00

I saw this article on a friend's Facebook page and was intrigued. Like my friend, I am a former Teacher of English as a Foreign Language (or TEFL), a job I've never entirely left in my past.

The article references a report on English proficiency. and while I don't intend to recap the entire report here, I do want to highlight one of its arguments here: "Today, English proficiency can hardly be thought of as an economic advantage at all. It is certainly no longer a marker of the elite. Instead, it is increasingly a basic skill needed for the entire workforce, in the same way that literacy was transformed in the last two centuries from an elite privilege to a basic requirement for informed citizenship."

English, it seems, is regarded as a key tool for innovation, investment and success. This reminds me of something another TEFL friend used to say all the time: "Speaking English is a privilege." He didn't mean it the way my elementary school teachers did when they used to inform us that recess was a privilege, not a right. He meant that it made everything easier, and that we were incredibly lucky to grow up speaking it as our first language.

Surely the ubiquity of the English language has some soft power benefits for English-speaking countries. But, at the same time, English is increasingly a second language. As the report notes, "Most communication in English today is between non-native speakers, who usually accept non-standard grammar and pronunciation as long as communication remains clear." So the English language, like Japanese pop culture, is increasingly de-territorialized, suggesting that its soft power benefits aren't as straightforward as they might first appear.

I'd encourage you to read the report, if you're at all interested in language learning. I've only touched on a bit of it here, but it's a really fascinating read.

News from the World of Nation Branding

2011-04-13T09:40:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I raised a bunch of questions about nation branding in a world where savvy consumer-citizens are bombarded with branding from corporations, civil society, academia, nations ... pretty much everywhere, really. Today I'm taking a look at how three nations are rising to the challenge.

Winning Hearts and Tongues

Gastrodiplomat and Friend of the Blog Paul Rockower urges India to pursue gastrodiplomacy to promote its nation brand. In the Huffington Post, Rockower writes: "In an age of increasing obesity and heart disease in the West as related to Western diets, as well as diseases outbreaks like BSE, E. coli and salmonella that have plagued meat supplies, India's more healthy vegetarian diet could be a source of soft power for India."

Temple Time

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Korea launched its Presidential Council on Nation Branding in 2009, and while some of its initiatives could use a little work (Only 18 likes on Facebook? Really?) the Council has made moves to support some innovative strategies, such as a new cultural diplomacy initiative to promote Buddhist temples abroad. OK, so it's not exactly groundbreaking stuff. But it's definitely better than the 2009 claims that kimchi could protect people from H1N1 influenza.

Smells Like State Spirit

NationBranding.info reports that Lithuania recently launched a nation-branding perfume, evidently operating on the "to smell us is to love us" plan. The privately funded effort has produced about 1,000 bottles of "Smell of Lithuania." Fortunately for the United States, Stephen Colbert is already working on a counter-scent: "I Smell American and So Can You."

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Lithuania Perfume

www.colbertnation.com

Video Archive

The Eagle Has Branded

2011-04-12T13:09:00.000-04:00

The Greatest Movie Ever Sold is hitting cinemas soon, and Morgan Spurlock is doing his promotional tour. I haven't seen the film yet, but I caught an interview with Spurlock on the radio as I was driving in this morning and it piqued my curiosity.

Spurlock's primary target is corporate branding, of course, and film industry branding in particular, but I'd be surprised if the documentary doesn't have messages that are applicable to nation branding as well. One of the points he made this morning was that advertising is all but inescapable. So in a world where people are constantly bombarded by brands, what can branding campaigns do to succeed and how do they do it?

The premise reminds me of one of my favorite Czech documentaries, 2004's Czech Dream, which follows the process of two young filmmakers launching an elaborate advertising campaign for a product that never exists. If we believe that nations aren't simply geographic spaces, but imaginative spaces -- that is, that the United States isn't simply a large land mass sandwiched between Canada and Mexico, but the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave -- I think both of these documentaries raise some good questions for national branders and PD practitioners: What is a brand? How is it promoted? And how does branding succeed in a savvy, saturated and suspicious environment?

No answers today, just lots of questions, but feel free to weigh in if you've got any ideas.

Baby, I'm in the Mood for Hu

2011-04-07T16:45:00.001-04:00

Protest rocker Bob Dylan performed a government-approved set in Beijing this week. As the Washington Post reported, "There was no 'Times They Are a-Changin’' in China. And definitely no 'Chimes of Freedom.'"

I think its fair to say that Dylan's brand is tied up with the U.S. image of people power and government-tolerated dissent. His songs represent revolutionary change and personal freedom, so the PRC-approved set list doesn't seem to be entirely in keeping with his ideals--or with those of the nation he represents.

The Post story emphasizes China's human rights situation, an issue I highlighted not too long ago in this blog. It reminded me of yesterday's Doonesbury, in which former revolutionary Mark Slackmeyer interviews former pop legend Jimmy Thudpucker about performing gigs for Gaddhafi and other dictators. The punchline, of course, rests on the premise that Thudpucker's social justice repertoire isn't exactly a top seller with oppressive regimes.

Dylan is of course an individual citizen and not a public diplomat. He's an artist and to some extent a businessman. Nonetheless, as a global celebrity, he is viewed as a representative of the United States and his actions contribute, even in a small way, to global attitudes. Cultural exports like Dylan have more to do with Soft Power than with Public Diplomacy, but I'm curious about what his compromise suggests about both his and the nation's brand.

Does China's PD Have a PD Problem, or a China Problem?

2011-04-02T10:29:00.000-04:00

Image from China Daily.

Cross-posting this week.

We've been reading about China in class this week, and one of the questions that's arisen for me is to what extent China's public diplomacy difficulties are really public diplomacy difficulties.

Case in point, Wang states that "Misperceptions about China have formed through an interactive process. Both China and international society bring misunderstandings to the table. International society does not understand China’s national conditions, ideological estrangements, or distrust; China does not pay enough attention to the outside response and is not good at promoting itself. Realizing the limited understanding of international society, the Chinese government has actively released White Papers to explain China’s policy positions." He gives the example of a 2004 White Paper on China's human rights record, which lists international conventions China has joined, and concludes that "Such papers have successfully reduced foreign public criticism of the Chinese government and promoted China’s international image."

Of course, such a strategy is based on the assumption that attitudes about China's human rights record are formed by "the limited understanding of international society," and not, say, a very expansive and accurate understanding of China's human rights abuses.

I wrote a paper on China and Amnesty International my first semester here, and one of my findings was that China frequently pays lip service to the international community in order to reduce international pressure, but rarely makes significant concessions towards improving its human rights practices. So what one scholar might see as an attempt to correct the ignorance of foreign publics (arising, no doubt, from our tragically limited understanding) another scholar might see as an attempt to mislead them with words that obscure a true domestic policy problem.

Much as I've enjoyed this week's readings and the repeated assurances of many of the writers that China's rise is peaceful and beneficial for all, I can't help but wonder if some of them may protest too much. A common theme in many of these writings seems to be disconnect -- between China's goals and its actions, between its actions and its explanations, between its intentions and foreign understandings of them, between global values and Chinese values, and on and on.. and it seems to me that the field for resolving the conflicts may not be Public Diplomacy, but Cross-Cultural Communication and traditional Realist Political Science.

Nation Branding: Libya

2011-04-01T12:05:00.006-04:00

Hope everybody saw this, since it's so pertinent to discussions on nation-branding. John Oliver offers tips for re-branding Libya ... or should I say Zazzistan?

Rebranding Libya - Ali Suleiman Aujali

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Best of Russia

2011-03-31T11:49:00.000-04:00

The Best of Russia 2010 photography contest is showing at the Winzavod Center for Contemporary Art.

A domestic contest showing at a domestic venue, the Best of Russia sneaks its way into my IC blog by dint of its having been lauded in Russia Beyond the Headlines, a print-based tool of Russian ~~propaganda~~ public diplomacy and PD body Russky Mir.

But perhaps it's not fair to equate it with straight-up propaganda, since it's trying so hard to be fair and balanced.

As the RBtH article boasts: "The exhibit is far from an endorsement of the official view of 'the Russian way of life.' There are plenty of pictures among the winning photos that do not reflect mainstream views."

Check it out for yourself. The photos are really excellent.

We're Jamming

2011-03-28T20:31:00.000-04:00

"Wherever people long to be free they will find a friend in the United States."

Sitting on the couch with The Dog tonight, and while her rapt attention seems to be devoted to the question of whether or not I'm going to finish that ravioli, mine is on the television, where President Obama is engaging in some monologic diplomacy and demonstrating, once again, that Obama diplomacy is generally public diplomacy.

I'd use the term nation branding, if I had more faith in it, but we'll avoid it right now and just point out how he's framing his argument. American is in Libya because that's Who We Are. We are drawing on a history, a culture, a value system that demands our presence there, "born as we are, out of a revolution, by those who longed to be free...."

He's also drawing some pretty stark contrasts with the previous administration's unilateral actions, pointing out that the current U.S. presence in Libya was both requested and sanctioned by the international community. And of course, the U.S. is not leading the operation, but assisting with aspects like surveillance, search-and-rescue and communications jamming. The last of these is particularly relevant because of its PD potential, or rather, its anti-PD potential. By jamming Ghaddafi's communication, the U.S. and its allies can prevent the spread of the regime's messages and values and, consequently, promote their own.

So, I'm sure the professional pundits will have all sorts of opinions on the highs and lows of the speech, but in strictly PD terms, I thought he did a great job. And now, much to The Dog's disappointment, I am going to finish that ravioli.

Social Power

2011-03-23T09:53:00.004-04:00

The Wonk's Target: Auntie Em

Media Matters, the latte-swilling, sushi-eating, leftward-leaning media watchdog, is training liberal wonks in the art of winning hearts and minds in America's heartland -- or at least not getting vaporized on Fox News.

The Washington Post ran a story on it this morning, which I read with my morning coffee--which was not a latte, for the record, but a simple cup of joe (milk, no sugar). Although in the interest of full disclosure I should report that it was made by my British roommate in a french press manufactured by a Swiss-based company because my kitchen may as well be the United Nations, evidently.**

The story grabbed my attention not because of my well documented fondness for lattes and sushi, but because of its focus on using soft power and social power to promote policy objectives. No surprise, as one of the course leaders is Matthew Kohut, former speechwriter for the illustrious Joe Nye.

Granted, this story's focus is a little more domestic than items in this blog tend to be, but I think the message behind it has larger implications. From the article: "The class leaders...projected an image of a middle-aged woman--one of the instructor's aunts, grinning in a kitchen--and then explained that the entire point of the course was to win over swing-voting aunts nationwide. The key, they explained, was to ooze likability and reasonableness, and make their opponents seem otherwise. A talk-show host acts as a proxy for the viewer, they counseled, so it was critical to maintain a good rapport" (emphases mine, of course). A solid message, delivered credibly, makes Auntie Em happy.

It's good advice, regardless of political affiliation. And it's good advice for PD as well, although swing-voting aunts aren't the main target abroad. But while the target and message may change, the keys to success are the same: Do everything within your power to appear more likable and more reasonable than your opponents, and maintain good rapport with gatekeepers and decision-makers.

** The British roommate has asked me to point out that the coffee is Cuban.

Come Together

2011-03-18T11:52:00.000-04:00

I'm not exactly cross-posting, but I am lifting liberally from the Occasionally Clever blog today:

I've been doing a lot of research on Israel's public diplomacy this month, and one thing that's struck me about it is its almost exclusively unidirectional nature. Neal Rosendorf makes a similar observation in a recent blog post, saying that "Israel needs to engage directly with the region's increasingly politically empowered peoples."

As Rosendorf notes, Israel's PD often targets U.S. and European audiences, a focus emphasized in a 2009 study on Israeli public diplomacy led by Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Neaman Institute for National Policy Research. That same study tends to characterize Arab countries not as potential audiences but as creators of counter-messages.

This attitude underscores what I see as the chief drawback of Israel's public diplomacy, namely a heavy focus on message transmission (hasbara, or "explaining"), and an undervaluing of dialogue and collaboration. Rosendorf recommends engaging neighboring communities by promoting the development of Arab civil society and entrepreneurship, and by fostering "a widespread sense of regional interdependence, in which peace and prosperity are embraced by the great majority of citizens as a common good."

My classmates and I are drawing up our own recommendations for Israel's PD for a paper we're presenting next week, and we're still hashing out our ideas. But I think the lack of engagement stems from some underlying flaws in Israel's public diplomacy strategy, so in addition to Rosendorf's suggestions, our preliminary recommendations include the following:

An articulated PD strategy to guide the government's actions and identify their targets, objectives and methods;
Better coordination with private sector, civil society, academia and the media;
More listening, research and dialogue;
More relationship-building and collaboration;
Policies, branding efforts and programs that reflect an awareness of the nation's PD strategy and attention to the information gathered through its listening and research efforts.

@america

2011-03-07T11:12:00.001-05:00

According to the New York Times, the United States opened its first cultural center since September 11, 2001 in Jakarta this past December, and the tech-heavy hot spot has attracted thousands of curious students, but its influence on perceptions is unknown.

From the article: "The technology on display — a giant, supercharged version of Google Earth called Liquid Galaxy, scores of iPads that are available to test, interactive monitors explaining Black History Month — thrilled the teenagers. It was unclear whether the center had changed their perceptions of the United States, though."

According to the center's website, "@america is a one-of-a-kind, high-technology cultural center where visitors can explore, experience, and express their interests about the United States in fresh and exciting ways. In the physical and virtual spaces of @america, you can experience cool and cutting-edge technology, interactive games, and live events designed to generate interest and create communities."

The emphasis on new technology and interaction would no doubt make Ali Fischer happy. But how much are people participating? An online poll center with three poll (open from September 2010 to November 2011) included only 26 votes when this blogger checked it around 11a.m. The reluctance to vote may stem from the fact that voting requires registering--a tall order in a largely Muslim community where many people believe the U.S. is anti-Islam.

However, as the article quotes Ambassador Scot Marciel, "a lot of Indonesians are still a little bit skeptical of the United States, and that’s built up over many years. And our challenge is to steadily chip away at that."

At first blush, @america seems to be well designed, engaging and open. It's not going to revolutionize attitudes about the U.S. overnight, but I hope it may stand as an example of U.S. innovation, technology, openness and information-sharing. But, of course, the best and worst enterprises will be eclipsed by the influences of U.S. policy, so I may do better to hope that domestic and foreign policies demonstrate the country's commitment to those ideals as well.

PD for the Jilted Generation

2011-03-07T10:52:00.000-05:00

Jilted.

Cross posted from Occasionally Clever:

Ali Fischer's Music for the Jilted Generation is the reason I got interested in public diplomacy. In it, he makes a great case for the collective action of "bazaar" PD while pointing out the flaws of more traditional, hierarchical models.

Ultimately, he argues, the goal of public diplomacy should not be to persuade somebody to agree with you, but rather to achieve shared goals together, or to convince others to work towards your goals by helping them work towards theirs.

It's not applicable to every situation, of course. Nobody's going to argue that the best way for the U.S. to promote democratization in Iran is to help Iran achieve their goal of becoming a nuclear state. Well, nobody outside of Ahmadinejad's entourage, that is. But I think identifying common ground and compromises is the essence of all diplomacy--public, traditional or otherwise.

Fischer argues for an adaptive, engaging form of diplomacy that emphasizes partnership, both online and on the street, and while I may not believe that setting up a SecondLife embassy is the best way to win hearts and minds, I do think there are valid reasons to both widen the circle of engagement and adapt information and communication technology to diplomatic purposes.

Daryl Copeland's paper made less of an impression on me. His argument that diplomats should be "globalization managers" struck me as too broad and vague to be truly practical. There are so many arguments about what globalization means, and what it means to different audiences, for that term to have significant applications. Nor do I believe that the first duty of diplomacy is to manage discontinuity. The first duty of diplomacy is diplomacy. By all means, conduct diplomacy within the context of globalization. Indeed, it would be almost impossible to do otherwise, but be clear about what that means.

Copeland gets around to the point eventually: build relationships and promote development and security -- but how are these goals different from the goals of traditional diplomacy? And his argument that diplomats should innovate and adapt the theory and practice of transformational PD is once again vague.

In my opinion, the best way to promote transformational diplomacy would be to increase collaborative engagement. Social media would be helpful for this, but I think traditional methods of collaboration and interaction are even more important. Exploit the "last three feet" and create meaningful relationships and partnerships to create a base for cooperation and information exchange.

There's nothing particularly radical about the suggestion. Which is probably why PD practitioners have been making it for decades.

Five Questions for Chris Dufour

2011-03-02T20:14:00.001-05:00

Chris Dufour wants to be AWESOME. The outspoken blogger, owner of @Du4.llc, and frontman of what might best be described as a rock parody tribute band visited AU last week to shower our class with wisdom. I caught up with him afterwords to pick his brain about public diplomacy:

manIC: You recently said a PD career was the occupational equivalent of a double facepalm, but you're clearly enthusiastic about the subject. What fuels your interest/frustration in PD?

Du4: If there's something we as Americans do particularly well it's create culture that influences. We brought you Mad Men. We brought you Hollywood. We brought you Bob Dylan. PD, for the longest time, seemed to be the only place from which one could, theoretically, coordinate and leverage America's culture of AWESOMENESS into a global influence strategy. You saw elements of this with the old "jazz diplomacy" tours USIA instituted. The problem now is that in a Web 2.0, social world where we are ALL as interconnected as we want to be, EVERYBODY becomes a cultural influencer. US PD and communication agencies are poorly situated to deal with, much less take advantage of this social change.

As an expert in all things AWESOME, what is the most awesome change you've witnessed in USPD over the past decade?

Tough question. Jim Glassman is about as good as it ever got, and how he TOOK OWNERSHIP of the "War of Ideas" as opposed to the photo ops State PD does now. Even then, however, I think there were plenty of problems in the way Glassman executed things.

You're on the Board of citizen diplomacy organization Sister Cities International. What advice do you have for citizen diplomats who aspire to be awesome?

ENGAGE, ENGAGE, ENGAGE. Learn foreign languages. CONNECT with people. Start the easy way: via social media. Find like minded individuals in other countries and start building relationships. Share what YOU think is awesome with THEM and take in what THEY think is awesome. Share THAT back with organizations, corporations, everyone. BUILD something from those relationships that not only contributes to a socially AWESOME goal (free education apps! group buying systems! software dev training plan!) but also makes some money and contributes to a networked economy.

In your blog, you recently predicted that "Funding for [US] PD initiatives will continue to stagnate while implementers will find more creative methods of achieving strategic PD goals, mostly via the private sector tech sector and citizen diplomacy organizations. China and some European countries will continue to lead with non-obvious but concerted national efforts in global influence, the effects of which will remain undiscovered by their targets (i.e., US) for years." To what extent do you believe the U.S. public is influenced by the PD of China and other countries?

I think we are MASSIVELY influenced by other countries and we don't know it. How many products do you own that say "Made in China?" You probably own those because of a concerted manufacturing strategy laid out by Chinese economists 10-20 years ago, a currency valuation plan executed to this day by the Chinese government, and marketing & advertising schemes bought and paid for through American companies with Chinese dollars. I know that sounds reactionary and little paranoid, but all the evidence is there for people to see. It just takes a STRATEGIC eye to see how each continuum of influence (communication, economics, finance, legal, etc) works collectively to achieve a long-term goal. I actually don't think we know to what extent we're being influenced externally, be it by China or others.

How would you describe USPD using only rock lyrics? (Why can't we be friends? I want you to want me? One thing I can tell you is you got to be free?...)

"Little by little, we gave you everything you ever dreamed of.
Little by little, the wheels of your life have slowly fallen off."

-- "Little by Little," Oasis

Rock Me, State Department

2011-02-24T09:29:00.001-05:00

Gearing up for class tonight, so I checked out the latest postings from Christ Dufour over at Must.Be.AWESOME!!!

Du4 makes the case for government coordination as a key element of successful PD: "If any of us PD 'professionals' had a whit about us, we would (re)read Unrestricted Warfare by Senior Col Qiao Liang and Senior Col Wang Xiangsui and understand that global communication, global influence, requires the strategic, national integration of ALL government branches and agencies and their communications initiatives. It requires, to borrow an analogy, for America to conduct herself as a composer would an orchestra, creating multitudes of musical movements that all combine into one big, beautiful symphony."

Now, I'm a sucker for a nice symphony metaphor. But, as I posted in the comments, I do think that strategic, national integration cannot be the ONLY element of public diplomacy, if for no other reason than that the U.S. government has been known, from time to time, to have some credibility issues with certain audiences. Shocking, I know, but true. So, by all means, coordinate. But leave some space for non-government PD initiatives from NGOs, private sector reps and citizens for those cases where attitudes toward the USG are suspicious enough to compromise communication.

I cite, as an example, the recent Masrawy.com conversation, for example, might have invited less skepticism has Secretary of State Clinton not been behind it. As The Washington Post reported, Clinton invited Egyptian revolutionaries to submit online questions and received more than 6,500 responses from various social networks. The responses "revealed both Egyptians' newfound sense of freedom and their enduring skepticism of U.S. foreign policy, including Washington's relations with their former ruler." (Emphasis mine.) This is one instance where the appearance of less government coordination might have increased confidence from the other participants in the conversation.

Of course, actions speak louder than words no matter who's doing the talking, and nothing is quite as convincing as a U.S. foreign policy that marries actions and words together. To that end, a little coordination would be just the thing.

Dip Notes

2011-02-23T09:13:00.000-05:00

It's a jungle out there.

Let's start today's news roundup with Libya, where Moammar Ghaddafi's refusal to concede power and his decision to open fire on his own citizens from the skies is of a piece with his 41-year authoritarian rule. Protests continue, but Ghaddafi's response seems more Tiananmen than Tahrir.

A few days ago, a friend and co-blogger asked how China could continue to wield soft power when its global credibility--particularly in terms of human rights and free speech--is so low. I think the answer is the same for China and Libya: a combination of hard power resources and an indifference to the pressures of international norms. It's good for the government, but bad news for the public.

For the record, it's worth noting that these protests erupted despite heavy blocks on media and communication technology, which supports my argument yesterday (courtesy of Malcolm Gladwell) that weak ties are best adapted to influencing information and idea flows, but that strong ties are necessary to promote the changes that translate into action--in short, technology has a role to play, but political revolutionary change occurs beyond the digital realm.

And speaking of the digital realm, Egyptian political parties are starting to organize as "the seismic force of the Egyptian revolution has shaken them out of years of [enforced] somnolence." Some of these efforts, according to The Washington Post are relying on Facebook and other social media platforms for organization, which supports Clay Shirky's assertion that the Internet can be used to promote the growth of a vibrant public sphere, which is necessary for the endurance of democracy.

Next up, Pakistan, where scores of citizens took to the streets to applaud the United States for its diplomatic efforts--in a dream Dick Cheney had one time, probably. In real life, the streets are full of anti-USG protesters whose frustration with U.S. activity in the country has been inflamed by the recent revelation that diplomat-turned-robbery-victim-turned-vigilante Raymond Davis is actually a CIA operative. This is a messy case because of all the uncertainty (Is Davis a diplomat or a spook? Is he a victim or a criminal? And what about the two men he shot?) but it's clear that the case has increased tension between the U.S. and the Pakistani public, and that suspicion of U.S. diplomats has grown as a result.

This is a story many of my blogging colleagues have been covering (see here, here and here). As Jacob observes, the U.S. response will require a combination of both traditional and public diplomacy, an option that is only available for states, although "the promise of network diplomacy and public-private partnerships that target diffuse groups should not be ignored."

And it appears that the Voice of America website was hacked on Monday (possibly by Iranian supporters) asking, "Mrs. Clinton Do you want to hear the voice of oppressed nations will from heart of USA?" [sic]. CNN reports that the Iran cyber army has claimed responsibility, in response to what it labeled "interference," espionage, and misinformation from the United States.

PD 2.0 and the Strength of Weak Ties

2011-02-21T16:58:00.002-05:00

Perhaps it's simply a reflection of my narcissism, but I keep finding connections between the readings and my day-to-day life.

This week it was the PD 2.0 article, which had some eerie parallels with a paper I wrote last year on the disadvantages of unidirectional U.S. broadcasting in Iraq and Afghanistan. (I've linked to it here just in case this blog and our weekly classes are insufficient to satisfy your no doubt unslakable thirst for my opinions on public diplomacy.) Essentially, the paper talks about the historical U.S. tendency to employ unidirectional communication in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the problems that accompany that--most significantly that it results in a tendency for all parties to view the other as less legitimate, thereby undermining communication success. That's a 30-page paper in a nutshell right there. It loses some of its nuance in the truncation.

Khatib and co haven't really convinced me that the Digital Outreach Team is the solution, and I don't think they intended to. As they note, the DOT are up against a lot of challenges, and a small, reactive, government-sponsored body isn't strong enough to force a sea change in opinions that have been long formed by attitudes toward U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The authors suggest that greater cohesion between words and deeds in that policy would do a lot more to change attitudes, and I think there's sense in that argument, but it also got me thinking about one of the other writings, namely Malcolm Gladwell's on Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.

Full disclosure here, I'm a big time Gladwell fan, ever since reading Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg. But, bias aside, I think this essay makes a really great distinction between weak and strong ties and the actions to which they're best suited. Weak ties, Gladwell says, are best adapted to influencing the flow of information and ideas. This is the DOT's realm. But strong ties are necessary to promote the changes that translate into action, and that's beyond the DOT's reach. So the DOT and other social media may be useful in introducing new ideas into the public sphere, but those new ideas are unlikely to translate into meaningful change without some help from trusted people on the ground.

Ask Facebook

2011-02-17T16:39:00.000-05:00

More from the Internet Revolution files: The debate about the influence of the Internet and social media on revolutions continues, and while there is some disagreement about the extent to which these tools have been involved in recent revolutions, there does seem to be some consensus that they function more as facilitators to organization and idea sharing than impetuses to revolt. (But just wait until the folks at IBM give Watson a "revolution" switch....)

From The Weekend Read:

Anderson Cooper 360 Interview With the “Google Ghandi”, Wael Ghonim

BLITZER: Wael, this is Wolf Blitzer in Washington. So first Tunisia, now Egypt. What’s next?
GHONIM: Ask Facebook.
BLITZER: Ask what?
GHONIM: Facebook.
COOPER: Facebook.
BLITZER: Facebook. You’re giving Facebook a lot of credit for this?
GHONIM: Yes, for sure. I want to meet Mark Zuckerberg one day and thank him, actually. This revolution started online. This revolution started on Facebook. You know, I always said that if you want to liberate a society, just give them the Internet. If you want to have a free society, give them the Internet.

From The Huffington Post:

The Islamists did not instigate these protests in Tunisia or Egypt. In Tunisia, the agent provocateur was a young merchant who immolated himself in protest against the indignity and injustice meted out by local officials. In Egypt, it was a group of secular 20-30 year old internet-savvy Egyptians fed-up with the status quo in which Egyptians were treated as though they were servants to the pharaoh. They wanted to reclaim their role as citizens - that is, as owners of the land and of the public space.

From al Jazeera:

The so-called "Facebook revolution" is not about people mobilising in virtual space; it is about Egyptian internet cafes and the youth and women they represent, in real social spaces and communities, utilising the cyberspace bases they have built and developed to serve their revolt.

From abc.net.au:

Internet is for Arabs what cafés were for the French in 1789, an open space where aggrieved citizens can share their frustrations and work together towards an alternative. Social media did not cause the protests in Egypt and Tunisia, but it facilitated them.

The Wall of America

2011-02-16T10:31:00.000-05:00

Evidently the Broadcasting Board of Governors (the organization that controls US-owned media broadcasters like Voice of America and al Hurra) has begun using Facebook and other social media sites to extend their audience reach in "repressive countries." (Thanks to professor and blogger extraordinaire Craig Hayden for the link.) From the article:

"Facebook is blowing up in Indonesia, said Rebecca McMenamin, the new media director of the International Broadcasting Bureau, so the Voice of America set up a Facebook page for its Indonesian service that’s now got 278,000 Likes and counting. In Iran, Radio Farda, the Persian-language branch of Radio Free Liberty/Free Europe, has been uploading photos and videos of the past few days’ protests in Iran and sharing them on Facebook and Twitter, said Golnaz Esfandiari, who edits the service’s Persian Letters blog."

To some extent, this reminds me of Slate's occasional updates from Barack Obama's facebook feed ("VOA tags Iranian dissidents in a photo: [mass uprising]." "Iranian government gives Iranian dissidents a gift: [incarceration].") but I definitely support free speech, public diplomacy and the use of multiple platforms to spread the message, so at first blush, I like the sound of this--even if my doubts about Facebook are well documented.

If Secretary of State Clinton has similar doubts, she tends to downplay them in speeches on the importance of Internet freedom, like the one she delivered yesterday. In fact, I think she addressed some of those doubts very nicely. From the speech:

"What happened in Egypt and what happened in Iran, which this week is once again using violence against protesters seeking basic freedoms, was about a great deal more than the internet. In each case, people protested because of deep frustrations with the political and economic conditions of their lives. They stood and marched and chanted and the authorities tracked and blocked and arrested them. The internet did not do any of those things; people did. In both of these countries, the ways that citizens and the authorities used the internet reflected the power of connection technologies on the one hand as an accelerant of political, social, and economic change, and on the other hand as a means to stifle or extinguish that change.

There is a debate currently underway in some circles about whether the internet is a force for liberation or repression. But I think that debate is largely beside the point. Egypt isn’t inspiring people because they communicated using Twitter. It is inspiring because people came together and persisted in demanding a better future. Iran isn’t awful because the authorities used Facebook to shadow and capture members of the opposition. Iran is awful because it is a government that routinely violates the rights of its people."

Clinton addresses the challenges of striking a balance between liberty and security, transparency and confidentiality, free expression and civility, concluding that achieving that balance and protecting Internet freedom is one of the great challenges of our time.

Inspiring words, but for the record, I'm not entirely sure that the debate about the Internet's use is entirely beside the point. The fact is that the Internet can be used for both liberation and repression, and while I believe Clinton is right to encourage greater Internet freedom for all, I think it would be foolish to press ahead without acknowledging and preparing for its negative applications.

The Social Network?

2011-02-12T10:05:00.000-05:00

From today's Washington Post:

On Thursday night, a protester at Tahrir Square scrawled a joke on a placard, imagining a reunion among Mubarak, Nasser and Sadat in heaven. When the two deceased rulers met Mubarak, the joke went, they asked him: "Was in poison, or did it happen on a stage?" Neither, Mubarak responded. "Facebook."

And there we have an assumption that wields enormous influence over contemporary U.S. public diplomacy -- or 21st century statecraft or PD 2.0 or PD with new media or whatever you want to call it. The revolution may not be televised, but can it be tweeted?

On the one side of the equation, we have people like Jared Cohen, Clay Shirky, Alec Ross, James Glassman and Hillary Clinton, who (as James Harkin notes) argue that social media are inherent democratic, anti-authoritarian and conducive to facilitating leaderless social coordination. They cite examples like the Colombian Facebook movement to oppose the guerrilla organization FARC and the use of Twitter in the Iranian revolution--often hedging their bets by noting that social media can be used by both sides and is more a platform than a panacea.

On the other side of the equation, we have people like James Harkin, Evgeny Morozov and John Brown (diplomat and blogger extraordinaire, who was kind enough to address our class last week), who express extreme skepticism about the power of new media to effect real and meaningful change. To say nothing of Jon Stewart, who recently asked: "If two speeches and a social media site is all we needed to spread democracy ... why did we invade Iraq? Why didn't we just, I don't know, poke them?"

It's a question I've asked before, in this and my own blog, and I'm still trying to come up with an answer that makes me sound outrageously clever and authoritative, but I'm not confident that I will. I certainly haven't yet. And if I'm even unfortunate enough to run for office, my opponents will find plenty of evidence of waffling in the back-and-forth musings I've posted. I agree with Shirky that the new media can facilitate coordination, and I agree with Ross and Glassman and Clinton that new media has been involved in some impressive pro-freedom and pro-democracy movements. But I'm going to hedge my bets here and say that I think they're helpful, but not essential. That's right, I'm siding with Team Local Conditions.

New technology, as Kelton Rhoads says about culture, is one of many important variables in the pursuit of influence.

News Bits

2011-02-09T11:23:00.000-05:00

News from the world of diplomacy, in easily digested soundbites:

Public (Diplomacy) Enemy Number One?
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on diplomacy: "I personally think — it's kind of an old-fashioned thought — that private diplomacy is preferable," he says. "Public diplomacy can have the effect of letting the world know what you think; it can have the effect of satisfying your own personal views and playing to your base, wherever you are, but it may have just the opposite effect in the country where you're making comments about."

Batter Up!
The U.S. is exporting its national pastime--in the form of baseball greats Barry Larkin and Joe Logan--to Seoul, for a visit that will involve baseball clinics and conversations about diversity. No word yet on whether the visit will involve country music or apple pie...

Everywhere You Want to Be
Former British diplomat Michael Reilly received the Friendship Medal of Diplomacy from Taiwan for promoting positive relations between the two nations. Reilly's achievements include encouraging exchanges and visa-free privileges, increasing visits and mutual understanding.

The Limits of Power

2011-02-07T10:48:00.000-05:00

Image source

I picked up a copy of David Finkel's The Good Soldiers at Politics and Prose this weekend (because a girl can't read Austen all the time) and I haven't been able to put it down. At the same time, I can't read too much of it in one sitting because there's a lot to absorb, so I've been forcing myself to lay it aside at the end of each chapter.

Finkel follows the soldiers of the 2-16 Infantry Battalion through their 15-month deployment in Baghdad as part of the surge in Iraq, and he captures the mixture of optimism and fear, boredom and danger, confusion and conviction, potential and futility in a way that evokes Michael Herr's Dispatches (my favorite war memoir). As a student of diplomacy and cross-cultural communication, I can't read it without observing how Finkel depicts the limitations of U.S. power -- hard, soft, smart or otherwise -- in counterinsurgency. The Good Soldiers is about good people with good intentions, people who are patriotic, optimistic, determined and skilled, in a bad situation.

Finkel describes the various ways in which the soldiers attempt to win hearts and minds and ensure their own security, from patrols and radio broadcasts to ostentatious displays of power and gifts of soccer balls, and the cultural divisions that impede their progress.The counterinsurgency strategy mixes hard and soft power, and emphasizes the importance of winning public support.

In the second chapter, Finkel exposes the oversimplified expectations and limitations of the battalion's public diplomacy efforts in a few sentences: "For now, Kauzlarich [the battalion leader] thought that giving soccer balls to Iraqi children ... was having an effect. A child would take home a soccer ball; his parents would ask where it came from; he would say, 'the Americans'; the parents would be delighted; their confidence would increase; they would be more willing to make the difficult decisions of reconciliation; Baghdad would become secure; democracy in Iraq would thrive; the war would be won. Eventually, Kauzlarich would give up on soccer balls."

The book covers a period from 2007 to 2008, and since then the situation in Iraq has changed in some ways and in others not. The number of U.S. troops in the country has decreased, and now questions surround the future of U.S. diplomacy in that country--what is its role, how important is it, and can it survive with limited security? These are excellent questions, but as Finkel's book demonstrates, there are no easy answers.

Food for Thought

2011-02-05T12:26:00.000-05:00

The challenges of grad school are all made tolerable by quotes like this:

"Our identity is not simply a nice question of where we feel comfortable. Our identity is about who we would kill, who we would kill for, what kind of moral community we identify with, or to touch on the greatest taboo, whom we would eat."

I love everything about this quote, courtesy of Chris Farrands via Rhonda Zaharna--from its inconsistent grammatical accuracy to the silliness of its conclusion. One moment I'm humming to myself as I noodle along through my weekly readings. I'm naive! Innocent! Foolishly presuming that I'm in touch with my cultural identity! The next moment I'm brought up short by the realization that I do not know whom I would eat. Until this moment I have never known myself.

All snark aside, I actually liked the argument Zaharna raises later in the chapter, namely that cultural differences could limit U.S. communication credibility. The U.S. has a fairly individualistic culture, whereas the majority of the world has a more collectivist culture. This results in different attitudes about the role of the individual and the group within society, how identities and relationships are formed, how stability is maintained, how truth is defined and how power is determined.

Culture isn't just an export to influence soft power, but a determinant of its formation. So whether or not we know whom we would eat, having a better understanding of the intrinsic elements of U.S. and other cultures could improve our ability to communicate.

Or, as Zaharna says, "All of the differences in cultural patterns have the potential to cause misunderstanding and misperceptions of U.S. public diplomacy. The more that is known about the underlying cultural assumptions that shape U.S. public diplomacy, the more culturally alert U.S. officials will be to potential unshared communication assumptions that can cause a public diplomacy initiative to fail, or worse, backfire."

More Fun with Ngram

2011-02-04T12:57:00.002-05:00

One more astonishing discovering from Google's Ngram:

This one is really uncanny. A comparison of "the best of times" and "the worst of times" shows considerable variability over time, with optimism on the rise for over a century. But the real kicker here is the overlap, exactly once, in what appears to be 1859: the year Charles Dickens published A Tale of Two Cities. (Cue Twilight Zone theme music...)

On the Rise

2011-02-03T12:25:00.001-05:00

Google's got a fun new tool called an Ngram viewer, which essentially lets you chart the popularity of a word or phrase over a specific time period. It does this by measuring its occurrence in its reserves of digitized English-language books. (It came to my attention via this article.)

So just for fun, today I plugged in the terms "public diplomacy" and "soft power" and traced them from 1970 to 2008, the last year for which Ngram has results. See the chart below (and yes, I do realize it's difficult to read. You can see the original here).

And check out the results for diplomacy v. propaganda, over a larger time span:

And here are some interesting parallels between the rise and fall of democracy and propaganda's popularity:

Of course, it would take additional research to determine what -- if any -- significance the trends show. But I encourage you to try it. And if you come up with any interesting charts, be sure to let me know.

Rage (or Reason) Against the Machine

2011-02-02T10:36:00.000-05:00

Image Source

NPR had a fabulous story on communication, counter-terrorism and public diplomacy this morning. I'll summarize below, but I highly recommend visiting the source.

The story discusses the dual nature of information and communication technologies, citing examples where they've been used to promote and challenge democracy--and terrorism as well.

It also discusses "credible messengers," or people like Carie Lemack (the daughter of a 9/11 victim) or Abdullah Kemal Sharayed (a former al Qaida operative) whose perceived credibility enables them to reach out to potentially marginalized groups and counter misconceptions and conspiracy theories. This is seen as part of a larger fight against terrorism and the misinformation available online.

The key to their success is their perceived credibility, and it speaks to the realization that public diplomacy cannot be carried out by governments alone--particularly in environments and among people where governments have little credibility.

I've been reading a lot lately on the theory (or lack thereof) of public diplomacy and the importance of credibility is a recurring theme. But another major theme is the difficulty in identifying PD's actors. There are many different perspectives on whether PD involves governments, militaries, citizens, NGOs or private sector reps--and even more perspectives on whether it should.

This story demonstrates that fuzziness surrounding that question beautifully. Here we have private citizens working with counter-terrorism officials and NGOs to promote a shared foreign policy goal (discouraging terrorism) in a multi-national context. It's a mess.

But nobody ever said international affairs was a straightforward business.

Putting the "Dip" in Diplomat

2011-02-02T09:47:00.001-05:00

It's been a while since we here at manIC have nominated anybody for a GOB Award. The GOB, named for Will Arnett's character in Arrested Development, recognizes ill-conceived diplomatic actions and is awarded periodically to dips who "have made a huge mistake."

Today's candidate: The unnamed Russian diplomat Ireland booted off the island for identity theft. Read about it in the New York Times. Evidently this diplomat stole six Irish identities and handed them over to Russian spies in the U.S. in what is both a horrendous breach of diplomacy and really incredible set-up for an offensive ethnic joke. (So a Russian spy walks into a New York bar with an Irish passport....)

Kudos, anonymous Russian diplomat. This one's for you:

Sphinx Diplomacy

2011-01-31T10:32:00.000-05:00

Regular readers of this blog (or, as I like to call them, my family) know that I'm a big fan of dialogue as public diplomacy, but I recently read a paper that made me rethink that stance. The piece, by Geoffrey Cowan and Amelia Arsenault, argues that PD has three levels, each of which has its own benefits and disadvantages: monologue, dialogue and collaboration.

I'd been in the habit of equating monologue with not listening, but Cowan and Arsenault argue that it can be particularly advantageous in clarifying a government's stance, for example in Kennedy's Berlin address or Reagan's demands that Gorbachev "tear down this wall." So far, so good. But what are we to make of a monologue that adopts a less clear stance? I'm thinking in this case of Hillary Clinton's recent statement that "We are not advocating any specific outcome" in Egypt.

I recognize the difficulty of taking sides in this matter, but I do think there is room to identify specific outcomes without necessarily isolating either the government or the people of Egypt. For example, we advocate an increase in democratic representation, the free flow of information and a swift return to peace. U.S. representatives have made many statements along these lines in recent days--all examples of clear monologic messages.

For the record, I'm not entirely convinced that the United States should advocate for a specific outcome in Egypt as there are clear disadvantages to taking sides. I generally believe that public and traditional diplomacy work best when they work together, but this particular instance may be a case where taking a firmer stance might make for stronger public diplomacy, but less effective diplomacy overall.

I'm sure you can tell that I'm still working out my opinions on this, so I'm open to other ideas. What do you think? Should the U.S. government take a firmer stance?

British Broadcasting Catastrophe

2011-01-27T09:50:00.002-05:00

There's a hackneyed joke about cutting hair that says the cutting is the easy part; what's hard is knowing what to leave on. Somebody should tell William Hague.

The decision of Hague's office to inflict "savage cuts" upon BBC World Service funding has sparked a firestorm of protests in Great Britain. Read the coverage in The Daily Mail here. According to the article, the BBC World Service--widely regarded as one of the country's most influential cultural diplomacy tools--will have to cut about 650 jobs over the next three years, or 25% of its staff.

"This will make the corporation drop five of its language services, end radio programmes in seven languages affecting major countries such as China and Russia, and reduce broadcasts of most short wave and medium wave radio services."

Politicians of all stripes have criticized the cuts. The Telegraph reports that right wing Tory representatives have suggested moving funding from the budgets for overseas aid or international development. To be fair, aid and development can be used for public diplomacy purposes as well, although their scope and purpose are widely different.

It's not clear is how Hague and his staff will respond to the uproar. Budgeting is difficult in the UK, as it is everywhere, and cuts must be made. But the Foreign Secretary's commitment to public diplomacy and his strategy for promoting it may adopt many different forms. One thing, however is very clear: There's a good deal of truth in the advertising slogan, "One wants one's BBC."

Snow Falling on Senators

2011-01-26T15:07:00.001-05:00

We're having a good old fashioned DC-style freak out on account of some wintry weather today. And while snow hysteria tends to make many DC residents grouchy, I've always enjoyed it. Maybe it's different if you're transplanted from a region that actually gets enough snow to justify having fancy equipment to clear it, but as one of the rare breed of Beltway-born, snow and collective hysteria go hand-in-hand for me. It's as much a part of winter as marshmallows in my cocoa.

So nothing academic today! Just best wishes to all my friends and family who are trying to beat the rush hour madness to shelter in place tonight.

From xkcd.

A Passage to (and from) India

2011-01-25T13:17:00.000-05:00

Are India and China's soft power resources growing? One pundit argues that unified national vision is increasing the strength of both nations.

I know I've been throwing a lot of Stewart clips at you this week, but I can't help it! The man keeps talking about public diplomacy. This week, he interviews writer Anand Giridharadas, who discusses the Indian diaspora and changing cultural attitudes. Giridharadas argues that most Americans view India and China as economic threats, but the real challenge in confronting them relates to their national attitudes. In terms of international dominance, national unity and consensual vision are spreading through India and China in a manner that will challenge any nation with serious internal division:

"These countries pose a challenge of culture and spirit.... India and China, for all of the work that lies ahead for them, are starting to create cultures of hope and cultures of creation, where there's a consensus on saying 'How do we create something extraordinary?' And we need to be worried not about an economic threat but the threat of that spirit in about two and a half billion people."

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Anand Giridharadas

Domodedovo

2011-01-24T16:00:00.000-05:00

Today's terrorist attack on the busy Domodedovo airport in Russia is a tragedy, and it highlights the challenges states face in protecting their citizens from malicious attacks.

U.S.-Russian cooperation on counterterrorism in the past decade has included bilateral action, such as the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, and multilateral efforts. The nations have much in common, although their counterterrorism strategies are not always in sync.

In combating terrorism, it would behoove both nations to diversify their strategies, employing both hard and soft power resources. New and traditional public diplomacy tools should be directed at counterterrorism efforts. Terrorists have proven to be very savvy at using modern technology to spread negative information about their foes. While military and financial resources are essential components of foreign policy, soft power tools are particularly well suited to fostering dialogue, promoting goodwill and countering misinformation, and should be included in counterterrorism initiatives.

Of course, today's events don't represent the failure of public diplomacy or foreign policy. They are appalling, contemptible, criminal activities and should be treated as such. Stepping up public diplomacy efforts is not a panacea to end violence. It is simply a necessary, if insufficient, step in the right direction.

Propaganda and Prejudice

2011-01-23T14:52:00.001-05:00

So, continuing this week's investigation into the overlap between PD and propaganda, I'm linking to this fabulous online exhibit (courtesy of the U.S. National Archives) called Powers of Persuasion.

Most of these posters targeted a domestic audience, but they contain a lot of information about U.S. attitudes toward other countries--particularly the Axis powers. The objective of the posters was to increase public support for the war abroad, and the selected images demonstrate different tactics the government employed--including promoting interracial unity, inciting emotional responses and using humor or symbolism.

From the exhibit: "The Government tried to identify the most effective poster style. One government-commissioned study concluded that the best posters were those that made a direct , emotional appeal and presented realistic pictures in photographic detail. The study found that symbolic or humorous posters attracted less attention, made a less favorable impression, and did not inspire enthusiasm. Nevertheless, many symbolic and humorous posters were judged to be outstanding in national poster competitions during the war."

The Rockwell "Four Freedoms" posters were inspired by a Franklin Roosevelt speech on the same topic, a masterful peace of public diplomacy unto itself, as it addressed domestic and international audiences, contrasting the values of the United States with the power struggle ambitions of the Axis countries.

Of course, the Yankee propaganda machine had an extremely effective Nazi counterpart. (Check out this website for an extensive listing of Nazi propaganda tactics.) The image shown here looks kind of like an advertisement for repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but is actually emphasizing the solidarity of both soldiers and workers.

The use of propaganda by the Nazis and the Soviets, as well as a general belief by the U.S. public that the benefit of our national values should be self-evident (and not, therefore, in need of hard sell tactics) partly explains legislative aversion to funding anything that smacks of propagandistic influence--particularly when it has a domestic focus.

Laughing in the Dark

2011-01-21T15:13:00.000-05:00

I'm keeping a blog on public diplomacy for my course, and as I'm not above poaching my own material, I'm reprinting today's entry below:

Thursday night on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart interviews Kambiz Hosseini and Saman Arbabi of Parazit, a VOA-sponsored Iranian satirical news show:

Exclusive - Kambiz Hosseini & Saman Arbabi Extended Interview

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

These men have not only exquisite taste in both trousers and blog hosts, but a passion for addressing tyranny and hypocrisy, with humor. In terms of reaching an audience, the men say people either love them or hate them. The people they try to reach are in the first category, and the people in the second category tend to be the subjects of their show.

As a public diplomacy vehicle, VOA is regarded by some as propaganda and by others as legitimate journalism, but by other measure, the men behind Parazit have made major strides over the past two years -- and not just because they get free kebabs at restaurants now. They've attracted a diverse and growing audience and earned a reputation for even-handedness in their coverage of the news. As an August 2010 PBS interview of the duo reported, "When audiences tune in, they understand that no one is beyond the reach of the show's biting wit."

I've frequently expressed dubiousness about the effectiveness of Twitter and other social networking sites in bringing about change, and I don't think these men are going to start a revolution overnight. Still, as Mark Twain wisely noted, "The human race has only one really effective weapon, and that is laughter."

Hu2

2011-01-21T14:40:00.000-05:00

And here's Jon Stewart's take on U.S.-Chinese relations:

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The Socialist Network

Hu's on First?

2011-01-20T16:12:00.001-05:00

The People's Republic of China has been donning its glad rags and batting its eyes at the international community in a targeted charm offensive, as this blog has noted before (here, here and here).

In honor of President Hu's visit (and, let's be honest, because I will accept the flimsiest excuse to put a panda picture on this blog), manIC takes a look at some recent PD efforts and boils them down to palatable and calorific soundbites and assigns them a grade.

What: Times Square Advertisement
Description: A 60-second spot in Times Square features images of dozens of prominent Chinese people, helpfully labeled for the many viewers who have no idea who they are. I can say nothing about it that Isaac Stone Fish's critique in Newsweek does not say better, so I highly recommend reading it.
Grade: C+. The ad is bland and the message is unclear. While it does nothing to work against China's interests, it does little in terms of goodwill promotion, policy clarification or cultural education.

What: Panda Diplomacy
Description: No need for Mei Xiang and Tian Tian to hire a real estate agent! Hu extends their stay at the National Zoo for another five years.
Grade: A. This is a devious arrangement. For a mere $10 million (for conservation research), the U.S. gets the privilege of feeding and sheltering these adorable animals which, as animal critic Jacob Lentz notes, invest so much energy in digesting bamboo that they have little left for non-essential activities such as mating, a situation that "could be Nature kind of hinting around the fact that they should collectively shuffle off this mortal coil." The animals get excellent care, China gets research funding, and the U.S. gets to feast its eyes on this.

What: The Confucius Peace Prize
Description: Shortly after discovering that the Nobel Peace Prize had been bestowed upon human rights activist Liu Xiaobo, a rival emerged: The Confucius Peace Prize. This was one small part of China's cranky overreaction to a symbolic gesture.
Grade: E. Let's not forget that domestic actions influence PD too. By treating the Nobel Peace Prize like an act of war, China's response made it as petty and over-the-top as a bully on Glee, doing nothing to benefit its international image.

***

Update: 1/21/11

I had it in my head yesterday that there were four things I should highlight, but when I got through the first three I simply could not remember the fourth. Lucky for me, it happened to come up in class last night, and it's so obvious, I can hardly believe I managed to forget it.

What: The Opening Ceremonies of the Beijing Olympic Games
Description: With percussion that was more reminiscent of the orc battle drums in The Lord of the Rings than your friendly neighborhood drum line and a fantastic display of human coordination, China scared the bejeezus out of Bob Costas and more than a few armchair observers.
Grade: A. The opening was nearly flawless and China presented an image of a nation united, coordinated, powerful and vaguely menacing.

The Unbearable Lightness of Peacebuilding

2011-01-18T15:10:00.000-05:00

I was kind of mystified by the tone of Aaron C. Davis's article in the Washington Post this morning, which seemed to suggest that American troops, their intellects no longer challenged with the tasks of violence, are overcome with boredom by the dull prospect of peacemaking.

To wit: "Assassinations, bombings and gun attacks have killed scores of Iraqi police, civilians and government officials since the beginning of the year. U.S. forces have not been asked to assist in any of them. Rather, from behind concrete blast walls, in security bubbles that can seem deceptively safe, the end of the Iraq war has for most U.S. soldiers become a monotonous farewell mission of goodwill, a last good deed, impression or chance to set things right." (Emphasis mine.)

Davis dismisses the army's soft power excursions as chats over tea and coffee, and the opportunity to teach Iraqis a "nifty" American-style "trick,"although he does acknowledge that they occasionally have strategic advantages. Perhaps Davis has been influenced by the attitudes of the American troops stationed in Iraq, one of whom he quotes as saying "My job is still needed [in Afghanistan]; my job doesn't exist here anymore."

The U.S. armed forces are well trained and incredibly skilled, but work that does not provide an immediate outlet for those skills should not be dismissed as boring or unnecessary. It is true that members of the U.S. military have unique skills which would be of great value in Afghanistan, but it's not fair to say that troops in Afghanistan are doing more to serve the country than troops in Iraq. They're not fighting a better war, they're fighting a different war, at a different stage, with different tools and objectives. The military has an important role to play in public diplomacy, and in regions like Iraq they are better prepared to play it than many private sector or NGO representatives. There is still work to be done in Iraq, work which could provide challenging opportunities for creative solutions--but only for those who are willing to recognize it.

Prop Two

2011-01-17T18:47:00.000-05:00

Even more from the Propaganda files:

In commemoration of the Blitz, the London Transport Museum screens newsreels, documentaries and feature film clips used for propagandistic purposes during World War II.

A new art exhibit in Moscow features state-commissioned art from North Korea, but the entries tread a fine line between art and propaganda.

Emerging markets adopt "financial propaganda" to promote their currency.

South Korea dismisses North Korea's offer for unconditional talks as propaganda and not a serious attempt at bilateral dialogue.

And, just because, this link.

Propaganda

2011-01-16T13:55:00.000-05:00

"The educator tries to tell people how to think; the propagandist, what to think." -- Everett Martin.

As graduation and my inevitable return to the real world loom in the future, the only things standing between me and them are my thesis and Craig Hayden's course on public diplomacy. We kicked off our first week with a 2001 reading called "Semantics and Ethics of Propaganda," in which Jay Black discusses, as you might assume, the semantics and ethics of propaganda. Black takes a fairly broad view of the word, listing the following as essential components:

Heavy reliance on authority figures in forming beliefs and opinions;
Greater reliance on unverified abstracts, as opposed to empirical validation, in forming beliefs and opinions;
Division of the world into simplistic binaries;
A tendency to see events in simple cause-and-effect terms, overlooking complicated, multiple causes;
Rigid understanding of time that overlooks time flow;
Emphasis on conflict over cooperation.

Black concludes that "what many call propaganda...becomes part of that open marketplace of ideas," noting that pluralism of views is desirable in democratic societies. But the media environment he describes seems remarkably similar to the one America has embraced in recent years and decried in recent days, as the Tucson shooting has led people to question whether the vitriol of public discourse can exhort people to violence, followed by questions of whether the media is really responsible for the behavior of madmen, followed by questions of whether civil discourse isn't superior to toxic partisanship regardless of whether it contributes to violence or not.

The fact of the matter is that people tend to seek out information that reinforces existing beliefs, and vitriol, while temporarily unpopular, still sells. In terms of international conversations, this underscores the need to listen and determine what beliefs exist in other countries as the United States attempts to start dialogues to further foreign policy goals. But it's important to remember that domestic discourse has international repercussions as well.

Whatever opinions our media and politicians take, it behooves them to do so in a manner that promotes U.S. values: free speech, transparency and open-mindedness. Failure to do so presents an image of the nation as a house divided, closed to the possibility of cooperation and compromise.

PD in a Nutshell

2011-01-12T10:32:00.000-05:00

A PD news roundup from around the world:

Bamboo, Not Bombs

The London Telegraph offers a history of Panda Diplomacy, which manIC readers will recognize as a favorite topic of this blogger.
Sample grab: "In 1991, Ming Ming arrived from China and Bao Bao from Berlin Zoo. However, the couple fought savagely and produced no cubs. They were sent home in 'disgrace' in 1994."

Disaster, Dinner and Diplomacy
From the Washington Post, The Reliable Source discusses the tricky business of providing a political dinner after an appetizer of disaster.
Sample grab: "Even in the wake of a national tragedy, the business of diplomacy goes on."

Ambassador Cosby
From the Huffington Post, Azeem Ibrahim makes the radical suggestion that blending narratives can bridge divides between diverse communities.
Sample grab: "On both sides of the cultural divide, certain extremist voices have hijacked national tragedies to promote their simplistic, black and white narrative where the other exists only as the enemy and all nuances, color and shades of gray are removed from the storytelling. Amidst these poisonous stereotypes, however, exciting new narratives are emerging from a globalized generation that reflect the messy, complicated but successful co-existence of Muslim and Western cultures."

PD 101
The Hindu highlights major points from a recent conference on public diplomacy featuring Philip Seib and Nicholas Cull, among others.
Sample grab: "The link between public diplomacy and foreign policy formulation is inextricable. If policy is flawed, projection alone cannot help. Therefore, senior public diplomacy officials should have a seat on the policy-making table."

But Can She Stick the Landing?
Today Online reports on PD ambassador Michelle Kwan's visit to Singapore.
Sample grab: "Arms stretched out, left foot bent back and with most of her weight shifted on her right foot for balance, American figure skating queen Michelle Kwan cut a near perfect pose."

A Fair Day's Work

2011-01-10T10:54:00.001-05:00

With my winter break drawing to a distressingly rapid close, I've been trying to cram in all the haymaking I can before the academic clouds gather.

One of the nice things about living near D.C. is that there's plenty of free entertainment in the form of museums, including the National Building Museum, which I visited last Friday. The museum is currently running an exhibition called "Designing Tomorrow: America's World's Fairs of the 1930s," and while the exhibit's focus is primarily domestic, it does have some public diplomacy significance.

World's Fairs, as Armand Mattelart has noted, are elaborate metaphors with global symbolic significance. The Fairs of the 1930s, set against the backdrop of the Great Depression and World War II, emphasized the role of science and consumerism for national ascendancy, themes that survived World War II and the Cold War and continue to influence public discourse today. The exhibit's design is engaging and includes posters, still photographs, models and films--my personal favorite features a Typical American Family marveling at a wisecracking, cigarette-smoking robot named Elektro (portending, evidently, a future in which tobacco products are plentiful and Cs in short supply).

As the exhibit notes, "In the midst of the Great Depression and with Fascism on the rise in Europe, these fairs depicted a world of plenty and freedom--a hopeful vision of modern life in America. Civic leaders and businessmen hoped the fairs would stimulate local economies. Corporations were eager to showcase their products and have them associated with themes of a better future and an American way of life. And federal officials all the way up to President Franklin Roosevelt hoped to restore faith in the nation's economic and political systems."

A museum blog offers more information about the Fairs' international aspects. World's Fairs and Expos continue to serve as tools of nation branding. However, the U.S. withdrew from the Bureau of International Expositions in June 2001, due to a lack of Congressional funding, and has not rejoined, leaving private enterprise to fill the void. The exhibit runs through mid-July and admission is free.

PD Grab Bag

2011-01-04T13:06:00.000-05:00

The Smithsonian Institute is looking for an Associate Director for its Folklife Festival, a longstanding public diplomacy tool.

The JFK documentary/PD masterpiece Years of Lightning, Day of Drums is screening at the AFI Silver theater in downtown Silver Spring on January 13. Tickets are only $5.

And the Spring 2011 issue of the Journal of International Service (featuring a paper on public broadcasting co-authored by this blogger) is now available online. Other manIC-relevant topics include Venezuelan Oil Diplomacy and the Zapatista's Embrace of Strategic Communication.

Inaction: Loud and Clear

2010-12-17T13:07:00.000-05:00

This is not even remotely funny, but I think that's his point. Last night, Daily Show host Jon Stewart lambasted Republican Senators for filibustering a bill that would provide health benefits for 9/11 first responders. As Stewart notes, "The party that turned 9/11 into a catch phrase, are now moving suspiciously into a convenient pre-9/11 mentality when it comes to this bill." Stewart also ripped the media for providing minimal to no coverage of the bill's troubles, noting that Al Jazeera had provided more information than many of the U.S.'s major networks:

9/11 First Responders React to the Senate Filibuster

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>