Come Together

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:

1. An articulated PD strategy to guide the government's actions and identify their targets, objectives and methods;
2. Better coordination with private sector, civil society, academia and the media;
3. More listening, research and dialogue;
4. More relationship-building and collaboration;
5. 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.

The Best Laid Plans

A recent article in Slate discusses the impact of political unrest on Thailand's sex industry. The Washington Post has a piece on how the flotilla debacle has updated the relationship status of the U.S.-Israeli to "It's complicated." And a Wall Street Journal article on the Hungarian economy uses "Greece" as a synonym for financial meltdown.

All three articles illustrate an important point: A major crisis can quickly eclipse a nation's public diplomacy efforts. I'm using the term "public diplomacy" very loosely here, to cover all attempts at national branding and image building abroad. While Thailand may not benefit politically for its reputation as a haven for fast and loose hedonism, sex tourism is a significant contributor to the national economy, and the ongoing riots have introduced a libido-chilling element of complication and danger to the nation's image. Israel's global reputation has taken a sharp knock since its deadly response to the Turkish flotilla and its international relationships and policies have all been affected. And the Journal is hardly the only publication to use "Greece" as shorthand for fiscal ruin in recent weeks, showing how difficult it can be to shake a bad reputation, once acquired.

Every year, nations invest billions of dollars into public diplomacy efforts in an attempt to curry favor with foreign publics, improve national reputations and facilitate international policy. But even the best efforts can be undermined if the attention of the world's media is diverted by a catastrophe. To some extent, governments can compensate with typical damage control activities, but ultimately it is the actual policies and formal responses that will carry the most weight.

When it comes to crises, actions speak louder than words.

Citizen Diplomats

More from the news of nation-branding: In a new television campaign, Israel encourages its tourists to embrace citizen diplomacy when they travel abroad. In The Globe and Mail, Patrick Martin notes that the ads demonstrate "the Israeli government wants the world to know Israelis don't ride camels or eat only kebabs."

I'm all for citizen diplomacy, but I'd be willing to bet that among the sources for negative perceptions of Israel, "excessive dromedary transportation" and "stick-based comestibles" rank fairly low.

The ads expose an important element of nation-branding and public diplomacy in general: the need for targeted and specific outreach, based on authoritative and accurate knowledge of the target audience. Now these ads are aimed at Israeli citizens, but the ultimate targets of the diplomacy effort are non-Israelis with negative opinions of the country. They may succeed in raising awareness among citizen ambassadors, but whether heightened consciousness will translate into improved sentiment abroad is another matter entirely.

Public diplomacy is an incredibly important (and, in my opinion, under-utilized) foreign policy tools. I believe that PD, whether traditional or the "2.0" variety that uses interactive communications technology to engage foreign publics, is absolutely essential. But I also believe that it's significantly compromised when the methodology is not supported by 1) clear and valid foreign policy objectives, and 2) an understanding of the intended audience. I'll withhold judgment for the moment, but I'm not entirely sure Israel's hit the mark on this one.