It was more appealing when it had kittens...

Can't say I'm overwhelmed by M.I.A.'s new Born Free video, in which a group of American guards tromps through a dusty dystopia to round up a busload of unfortunate redheads and subject them to a bit of ultraviolence.

Musically, it's not her best by a long shot, and the video, skillfully directed by Romain Gavras has top-notch production values, but little to say about violence that hasn't already been covered by the hip-hop video medium.

You can take a gander below, but this is not even remotely safe for work--or any location that frowns upon nudity, violence or four-letter words.

M.I.A, Born Free from Romain Gavras on Vimeo.

It's a solid video, although I don't think I'd call it a "tough little masterpiece." Nonetheless, it's hard to look at this week without reflecting on Arizona's new immigration law. Unfortunately, I don't think any of the bill's supporters are going to be moved by the connection.

There's also the disturbing fact that anybody with passing knowledge of M.I.A.'s background knows of her connections to the Tamil Tiger rebels, although she's denied accusations that her work tacitly supports their cause. The video includes one scene involving a carrot-topped sect whose members have, like the Tigers, embraced violence as a means of resistance.

Ultimately, the video isn't complex enough to make a meaningful contribution to the problem it addresses. Which is a major issue with the Arizona bill as well. Fortunately, that bill is turning out to be as popular as sunburn, so there's hope that it may be overturned. While a stalwart few insist that the bill is necessary to counter the evils of illegal immigration, the bill has widely been decried as an unconstitutional racial profiling measure.

Illegal immigration has caused significant problems in the United States, most of which are borne by border states. Racial profiling is ineffective form of institutionalized racism. And genocide is a horrifying reality. None of this is news.

In the end, Born Free and SB 1070 suffer from the same shortcoming. Namely, they draw attention to an important problem, without offering any meaningful solutions on how to improve cross-cultural (or intra-cultural) communication.

Pope on the Ropes

As a brief follow-up to my recent post on Vatican public diplomacy, I'm posting this classic advice from American visionary Tom Lehrer, who suggested the Vatican could do wonders for its public image by simply goosing up some of its music:



And while we're on the topic of sound advice, here's some from the Daily Show's resident expert John Hodgman:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
You're Welcome - Church Scandal Prevention
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Maybe we should reconsider the Coke-buying strategy...

The pre-Internet era was characterized by borders, international strife and undemocratic politics. And rumors of its death have been greatly exaggerated.

Earlier this month, I posted some preliminary stats suggesting that Internet access does not promote global goodwill toward the United States. Evgeny Morozov elaborates on that theme in Foreign Policy, where he argues that the Internet has done little to usher in an era of peace and global harmony.

Morozov also notes that Twitter has not unseated any dictators: "Tweets don't overthrow governments; people do. And what we've learned so far is that social networking sites can be both helpful and harmful to activists operating from inside authoritarian regimes." Take note, unreserved advocates of social media for international communication.

Nor can the Internet be relied upon to ensure government accountability or improve political participation. The Internet is an extension, not a revolution.

For All the PD in China

How do you say "public diplomacy" in Chinese? The Washington Post reports on a massive, $6.6 billion PD expansion effort, with PRC-funded information and broadcasting services spreading around the globe:

At a time when the Western media are contracting, China is pushing its government-run news services to expand from America to Zimbabwe. The Chinese are creating TV networks, pouring millions into English-language newspapers, leasing radio stations on all continents and broadcasting TV news to a worldwide audience in six languages.

Soon the state's official news agency will have twice as many U.S. bureaus as any Western agency has in China, generating print, audio, visual and new media products with the blessing of the Chinese government. The move is part of an open attempt to increase the country's soft power and thus its global influence. But the article claims China's early efforts are as much Rube Goldberg as 1984.

A friend of mine recently visited the Chinese Embassy to learn more about the country's public diplomacy and received a bone-white book the size of a dictionary for her troubles, so I'm willing to believe that China's still working out some of the kinks in its PD. But I also know enough about China to believe the country is capable of creating and maintaining a formidable public diplomacy machine--and the words "New World Information and Communication Order" may take on a whole new meaning.

Clash of the Titan

Different cultures have different customs. We have different understandings of how close to stand when talking, how frequently to make eye contact, how long to pause for a response before continuing to speak.... And culture clash is inevitable in war zones, where solutions are expected from people with very different backgrounds, objectives and expectations.

So it should be no surprise that U.S. efforts to supply power in Kandahar are being undermined by cultural differences--not between Americans and Afghanis, but between the U.S. military and U.S. diplomats.

The difference boils down to cultural understandings of solutions and timetables. The U.S. military wants action now, before troop withdrawal begins in July 2011. Providing electricity is not only a useful service for the people of Kandahar, it will generate goodwill for the U.S. agents who help to bring it about. So $200 million for generators and fuel will demonstrate that the United States is capable of rapid solutions to real problems. Take that, Taliban!

On the other side of the fence are U.S. diplomats, who will remain in Afghanistan long after the troops have left. They see the project as unsustainable--just one more development program the U.S. sets up and abandons without in-country infrastructure to support it.

Surely there's a middle ground. Perhaps a smaller-scale community project could be attempted for immediate impact, while plans are made to implement regular, sustainable updates in the near future?

Such an effort would require collaboration between the military, the diplomats and the people of Kandahar. Just one more example of the need for coordination in U.S. public diplomacy. If we can't resolve the cultural differences within our own PD bodies, how can we expect to negotiate the treacherous terrain with foreign populations?

Lost in Translation

After a week of papers, posters and presentations, I'm in a burned out lazy mood this morning, so today's blog is little more than a shout-out to Engrish.com, one of my favorite sites, for regularly showing, with succinctness and flair, the importance of cross-cultural communication.