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.

Mind the God Gap

America has been portrayed as a nation of Bible-thumping teetotalers sandwiched between two coastal slices of godless hedonism, but the truth is obviously much more complex than that. Nonetheless, a new study shows that a spirit of "uncompromising Western secularism" is hampering U.S. foreign policy efforts abroad. David Waters reports on the issue in today's Washington Post:

American foreign policy is handicapped by a narrow, ill-informed and "uncompromising Western secularism" that feeds religious extremism, threatens traditional cultures and fails to encourage religious groups that promote peace and human rights, according to a two-year study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs... "[The 'God gap' is] a hot topic," said Chris Seiple, president of the Institute for Global Engagement in Arlington County and a Council on Foreign Relations member. "It's the elephant in the room. You're taught not to talk about religion and politics, but the bummer is that it's at the nexus of national security. The truth is the academy has been run by secular fundamentalists for a long time, people who believe religion is not a legitimate component of realpolitik."

In other words, U.S. foreign policy is developed and carried out without adequate attention to the religious cultures that influence the values and actions of many people in the world, for whom customs are often more powerful than laws.

The Chicago report recommends (among other actions) addressing and clarifying the role of religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy. But this is easier said than done. At the heart of the issue are some persistent and complex issues about faith:

• Is faith a private matter, or something to be proclaimed from the mountaintops?
• How does one adhere to one's own faith while respecting the beliefs of others?
• While religious beliefs are likely to unite those of common faith, does it not risk isolating others?
• And what exactly is the role of faith or religion in American politics -- at home and abroad?

There are many in the "render unto Caesar" crowd who might argue that faith is faith and politics politics, and never the twain shall meet. As a fan of the separation of church and faith, I'll confess I feel more than a little reluctance toward using faith as a political tool. But closing the God gap doesn't have to mean manipulating faith for political ends. Past efforts to address the problem (as the article notes) include passing the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998 and increasing outreach to religious groups in other nations--moves that suggest openness, religious tolerance and a "God loves the equitable" spirit.

Meeting this issue head-on doesn't have to be revolutionary. An important first step could simply involve increasing awareness of and sensitivity to various religious beliefs. And as Lao Tzu said, "A journey of 1,000 miles...."

News Bits

News from the world of public diplomacy shows that deep down inside, every nation just wants to be loved:

This Brand is Your Brand: A Duke, a strongman and a kilt designer walk into a bar. Nope, not a joke. They're all part of Scotland's new nation branding campaign, which uses 14 "real Scots" to sell the nation's virtues to potential visitors. This effort has a definite tourist flavor to it, but political missions could potentially benefit from a similar strategy.

Spit and Image: Want to clean up your image? Use a handkerchief. There's "phlegm a-plenty" in this Chinese city, according to Al Jazeera's report, but authorities are cracking down on excessive expectoration in hopes of shining up their image before the Asian Games.

Love in the Time of Canada: At least one Canadian has been won over by Yankee friendliness at the Winter Games, citing the positive coverage of several U.S. commentators. Brownstein seems surprised that Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert has revised his opinion on the "ice-holes" and "syrup-suckers" to our North, but any devout member of the Colbert Nation knows its leader wants nothing more than for the rest of the world to love the United States as much as he does.

To Russia, with Love: The Heritage Foundation offers several tips for countering Russian anti-Americanism: 1) Use PD (and information and communication technology) to counter Moscow propaganda, 2) audit Russian info ops, 3) keep funding freedom- and democracy-promoting programs.

This Brand Was Made for You and Me

Today's topic is ripped straight from the discussion board of my Public Diplomacy class, with a special thanks to alert classmates F. Garcia, and K. Gwira for the links.

Our focus today is nation-branding, which, for the purposes of this blog post, refers to strategic efforts to define a country's image for foreign audiences. Please note that the objectives of nation-branding are not necessarily related to achieving foreign policy objectives, and are frequently related to attracting tourists or foreign developers. According to Mathias Akotia, CEO of the Brand Ghana Office, a brand is "a country’s identity that has been proactively distilled, interpreted, internalized and projected internationally in order to gain international recognition and to construct a favorable national image. A country brand strategy therefore is a plan for defining the most realistic, most competitive and most compelling strategic vision for the country."

Like college freshmen who dream of ditching their high school nicknames and starting anew, countries around the world are working to redefine themselves. So what countries are taking a stab at being BMOC, and how are they doing it?

Abu Dhabi: Fast cars and loose planning characterize the nation’s push for greater prominence. But skepticism remains about its ability to pull off the essential infrastructure- and recognition-building efforts.

Australia: Malcolm Long argues that nation-branding efforts in Australia are both essential to its success and poorly coordinated. Better cohesion could improve its economic and diplomatic outlook.

France: Many of you have already seen this article on the French government's efforts to export French culture to foreign audiences. According to the article, France spends about $1.4 billion every year on cultural and linguistic diplomacy. Ooh la la!

Kosovo: Time magazine describes a government decision to hire an advertising firm to re-brand the nation as a land of hot, young Europeans -- a sort of Baywatch for the Balkans. But the campaign is generating heat within Kosovo's own borders from young Kosovans who resent what they see as an inaccurate depiction.

---

And on a lighter note, the following were coined in response to a 2008 Washington Post contest to come up with humorous nation branding slogans.

• Austria: No Kangaroos (John Alvey)
• China: Come Visit Your Money (Ira Allen)
• Greenland: Site of the 2060 Summer Olympics (J. Larry Schott; Elwood Fitzner)
• Iran: World's Largest Non-American Theocracy (Ira Allen)
• Tajikistan: Stan of Opportunity (Cy Gardner)

And my personal favorite:

• England: Lie Back and Think of Us (Tom Murphy)

Full list available here.

An Ounce of Prevention

I had the pleasure this evening of listening to John Trattner (of the Council for Excellence in Government) speak about public diplomacy. He raised many interesting points, two of which I'll highlight here.

The first regarded the relationship between journalism and PD. Like Philip Seib, Trattner argues that successful public diplomacy and successful journalism rely on many of the same characteristics, including clarity, consistency, credibility, accuracy, fairness, knowledgability and integrity.

His second point focused on the relationship between PD and policy formation. Communicators, he said, think differently than their colleagues. They have greater awareness of how policy announcements are likely to be received by the public. And for this reason, they ought to be included in the policy process from the beginning, and not treated like a haz mat crew whenever toxic reactions catch policymakers off guard.

The fact of the matter is, diplomats (both public and traditional) are likely to have a better understanding of attitudes within a country than politicians who have never visited it and whose attention is divided between multiple competing interests. By weighing in at the front end, they could provide valuable insight into probable responses to foreign policy announcements before they're made.

Chossudovsky: U.S. Propaganda "Out of Whack"

As I've argued before in this space, the disconnect between language and action in U.S.-Iran interactions has created room for broad (mis)interpretation. If the United States wants its message abroad to be clear, the language and actions of its representatives must be coordinated and consistent.

On RT, Canadian Michel Chossudovsky argues that the United States is beating the drums of World War III--specifically by stockpiling weapons and building public support for military activity.

What [the United States, NATO and Israel] want is to essentially have the support of public opinion, present Iran as a threat to global security due to its alleged nuclear weapons, which it doesn't have, and of course present a justification and a pretext for humanitarian intervention on behalf of the international community.... It's a clear case of distortion and double standards, it's to build a war pretext. And I think what is very serious here is that any kind of military action directed against Iran will immediately lead to escalation...

Those who decide on these military actions believe their own propaganda. They actually believe that they are going to make the world safer by waging a nuclear attack on Iran, and they may also believe that Iran is a threat. And so the whole propaganda ploy which is presented in the Western media has gotten completely out of whack.

I may not agree with Chossudovsky's analysis--but others clearly do. While some U.S. politicians have advocated for dialogue and an open hand, others have adopted what is clearly being interpreted as an aggressive tone. Is there a solution? I would argue that there is a great need for clarity and cohesion in traditional and public diplomacy efforts, to reduce the risk of misunderstanding. And, as always, targeted public diplomacy outreach could go a long way towards generating goodwill and better understanding of U.S. objectives abroad.