Defining Public Diplomacy...measuring effectiveness

Definitions…

Our discussion on Gilboa's article "Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy" made me think about the problems in making a definition for a fluid process. The continuing dialogue to define PD is a reflection of the complexities of PD as a concept. Maybe its definition lies within an ongoing discussion of how to define it. One note that I think is interesting is how PD as an academic discipline has the potential to build bridges between fields of study, which reflects the goals (hopefully) of practitioners of PD to build bridges between people/nations.

The Robin Brown blog post that Prof. Hayden sent to us speaks to the challenges in defining PD and also to the necessity of finding a definition in order to deepen our analysis constructs. The comments from Dan Sreeby (Foreign Service officer at IIP) are interesting, where he proposes general pd (lower case) versus government official PD (uppercase). He also makes the point that when speaking about PD, each person should first clarify what it means to him/her. Jared Cohen, who was at policy planning at State and just moved over to run Google Ideas, makes a distinction between PD and 21st Century Statecraft, where he sees the latter as a tool to empower people by putting apps into their hands for development/security and PD as very specifically about a government getting its message out.

Syracuse has answered one of the calls of Gilboa’s article by creating a Journal of PD last fall, which I found through the Robin Brown comments section. The student editor for The Exchange, at Syracuse, offered a simple diagram on PD. I think it is a nice breakdown in terms of communication flows, but it does not provide answers in terms of models and measures.

Effectiveness and how to measure it…

Gilboa's article specifies how it is useful to have some concrete, agreed upon definitions in order to facilitate analysis about effectiveness of PD efforts. However, even with an agreed upon definition, there are so many variables, that measures for how PD is working seems difficult at best.

Prof. Hayden looks at measuring effectiveness in his posting in October 2010, which addresses the importance of looking at the context for practicing PD in the first place. Hayden’s posting brings up interesting points in terms of measuring effectiveness of PD and what it means in terms of ethics and ideology, where the fact of PD programs and trying to influence other people is in and of itself an important concept to examine.

Stuck Between a Rock and a Hard Layer

It is timely that this week we discussed Geoffrey Cowan and Amelia Arsenault's article Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy, in which they consider the strengths and limitations of each of these three layers. With the movement in Egypt at the forefront of the news, the article is a propos, as it helps contextualize the diplomacy conundrum the US finds itself in with respect to Egypt at the moment. The United States is at a crossroads, where our traditional diplomacy objectives in the Middle East are currently at odds with our public diplomacy interests in Egypt, with likely spillover, since our actions don't take place in a vacuum, and the world is watching.

According to the article, critics frequently take issue with the United States’ reliance on one-way communication to advocate foreign policy strategies. Ironically, right now the Egyptian public (not to mention the American public) are crying out for just that - a decisive MONOLOGUE-type statement from the White House, declaring the United States’ unity with the protesters in support of legitimate democracy in Egypt. To a certain extent many members of the government have publicly stated that they support reform and democracy in Egypt, and condemn violence from any side. Oh, did I forget to mention the people specifically want to hear the words “Mubarak should resign immediately,” preferably from Obama’s himself in a live broadcast? And here we have the point of contention. Watch Press Secretary Robert Gibbs below, as he not-so-gracefully does the dance of ambiguity just a few days ago in a White House press conference on the Egypt protests.



Later, in the same press conference Gibbs notes the importance of engagement on a face to face level between the President and his counterpart in Egypt. In other words he evokes the importance of DIALOGUE. As Cowan and Arsenault state “Transnational monologues, dialogues, and partnerships take place every day, both within and outside of the boundaries of official government-initiated or sponsored public diplomacy,” and in certain circumstances, can undermine the government’s goals. If the US government’s goal is to avoid alienating a long-time ally (you know, just in case he stays), then it is indeed important for President Obama to mitigate the public rhetoric.

If US public diplomacy in Egypt is precarious at the moment, at least there is evidence of some contra-flow of public diplomacy taking place. The American public seems to be identifying now more than ever with the Egyptian people over the shared ideal of democracy and solidarity is growing. I suspect that through social media, Americans feel connected to the movement, by tweeting, joining groups in support of the cause, and mobilizing for local protests (I personally am receiving multiple invites every day). This creates a sense of COLLABORATION through a focus on advancing a shared vision- democracy- with the Egyptian people.

One of the main takeaways of the article is that each layer has value and is applicable in the appropriate time and place, depending on the context of the situation. For those keeping track, in just this short discussion on Egypt, we successfully moved from monologue, to dialogue, to collaboration.

The Need for a Revised US Monologue in Egypt

So. Egypt. There's been a lot going on there in the past week. At least 100 people have died in Cairo, the result of violent protests calling for the removal of President Hosni Mubarak. Given the United States' close relationship (at least until now) with the controversial leader, striking the right chord in our communications with the Egyptian government and the country's people is incredibly important. As my colleague Laura McGinnis stated in her most recent post, taking sides could prove dangerous for the US. So far, however, the US's statements have been underwhelming, even taking their abject neutrality into account. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying that "we are not advocating any specific outcome" in Cairo? How nice. How carefully worded. How bland.

Like Laura, I don't think explicitly siding with the protesters OR the government is a good idea. No use burning bridges when we obviously don't know what the next few days, weeks and months will bring. But from a public diplomacy perspective, statements like Clinton's simply don't create positive feelings from Egyptians toward America. Monologue, as stated in Geoffrey Cowan and Amelia Arsenault's excellent article about the three layers of public diplomacy, is an integral part of outreach to foreign publics. In my view, monologue is perhaps the best form of PD in this situation; Egyptians are looking for a strong response from other governments, and statements with a bit more heft from the State Department and/or the White House would go a long way toward showing America's support for democracy in Egypt--and I think it would be possible to do so without condemning Mubarak outright.

Philip Seib, the Director of the Center on Public Diplomacy at USC, would seem to agree. In his article "Obama's Missed Opportunity in Egypt," Seib critiques the president's "overly cautious" stance of the past few days and indeed the past two years, starting with lack of follow-up after his landmark speech in Cairo in the spring of 2009. He argues that a bit more risk in monologues and their follow-ups--which includes not worrying about offending Mubarak--would lead to a more integral role for the US in building a strong democracy in Egypt: "With Mubarak's departure, the United States will lose an ally who has been pliable and reliable, but if the United States helps Egypt move smoothly into its new era, the loss of Mubarak will be mitigated by new friendship with the Arab people." I think that monologues with a bit more presence would help to achieve this friendship and build trust on the part of the Egyptian people toward the US, which could lead to an integral role in democracy-building. As we've discussed a bit in class, forming a relationship of trust is an extremely important part of public diplomacy, and doing so with Egypt via statements and other monologues could prove to be a great success--if the White House and State Department are willing to step up to the plate a bit more in those monologues and not be so cautious about stepping on dictators' toes.

I Like My Propaganda Synchronized

Following our discussion of China's efforts to use the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games as a tool for public diplomacy, I cannot help but think about North Korea. Whereas we have been reflecting on the subtle and debatable nuances of what does or does not constitute propaganda versus public diplomacy, it is helpful to examine a clearly failing example of public diplomacy, which most consider to be blatant displays of propaganda used by the government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The government stages the elaborate Arirang Mass Gymnastics games. Much like China's opening ceremonies, Arirang is meant to showcase North Korea's organizational capacity and display a harmonious society. In the last decade they have become increasingly open to documentation by foreign journalists, have become a showcase event for visiting dignitaries and tourists, and recently even Americans have been allowed to attend.



By Hans Tuch's definition of public diplomacy as "a government's process of communicating with foreign publics in an attempt to bring about understanding for its nation's ideas and ideals, its institutions and culture, as well as its national goals and policies" (Ham, p.115), the government of North Korea is indeed making an attempt to practice public diplomacy by using social networking sites likes Twitter and YouTube. That's right, if you are reading this, then you too can follow @Uriminzok! Ironically, North Koreans cannot, as the majority of the country is without internet access. So make no mistake, these initiatives are specifically directed at foreign publics.

Yet North Korea remains arguably one of the most poorly viewed countries in the current international arena. Echoing views expressed about China, these carefully crafted government initiatives do not eclipse what we already know, such as the censorship and human rights violations in North Korea. Although admittedly impressive, Arirang is equally unsettling as you begin to think about the kind of regimented control and abandonment of individualism required to produce such a perfectly synchronized spectacle. Furthermore, North Korea's self-isolation prevents new public diplomacy through dialogue and exchanges between non-state actors. The government seems to recognize the important role of technology and new media, but insists on controlling the message, rather than allowing networks of communication to form organically. The content that is communicated lacks credibility and thus seem more like manipulation and deception, characteristics typically associated with propaganda. This will continue to hurt rather than improve the image of North Korea with foreign publics.

When You Ride Alone You Ride With Hitler!

Propaganda defined as information spread for the purpose of promoting a cause is not only used by countries or governments to persuade the ideas and actions of another. In some cases, governments use propaganda to spread ideas to their own countrymen, which then portrays a picture of unity and togetherness to the outside world. We saw an example of this in class as we watched the Germans gather solemnly and in massive numbers to symbolically portray their pride in Hitler's regime. The United States however, also has created advertisements and slogans of all kinds to rally the American people together for or against an idea.

A few weeks ago I visited the Smithsonian museums for the first time and was truly entertained when I stepped into a room that displayed the memoirs and scenes of times in the U.S. during WW II. There were army vehicles and displays of what the typical soldier's barracks looked like. But even more interesting were the walls full of posters and signs that were directed at the every day American, showing them how they can do their part to help their country win the war. Of course 'help America win the war' is never directly stated... instead we see posters that portray a daughter and her mother in the kitchen packing preservatives with a caption that says 'We'll have lots to eat this winter won't we mother?' This family scene is really portraying the importance of stocking up on food in preparation for the worst that could happen during war time. Another poster shows a smiling man driving in his convertible with the outline of an invisible Hitler in the passenger seat. The caption for this scene says 'When you ride ALONE you ride with Hitler: Join a car-sharing club today!' This scene is portraying the importance of preserving gasoline and oil during time of war. There were so many different 'happy' scenes and messages that were well framed to make an audience believe that they could do these easy things and make a big difference for their country.

To me, these posters were obvious examples of propaganda... but it may not have been so obvious to the people during that time. It makes me think about American life today and the messages we see so frequently about a 'war against terrorism' and others. We too are no doubt hit with a barrage of words that are packed with ideology but presented in the most common and care-free tone. I wonder what the display will look like in twenty years at the Smithsonian to portray this time in our history depicting the country at war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other middle eastern countries...

The Importance of Dialogue in Public Diplomacy

While studying at HELP University in Malaysia in the summer of 2008, I had the unique experience of being involved in ones of the US embassies youth enrichment programs . My American colleagues and I were a part of an English camp in the town of Kuantan on the east coast of Malaysia and were involved in a full day dialogue session with students from the University of Malaya of Pahang, that discussed and compared student life in Malaysia and the United States. The program was sponsored by the Public Affairs Office of the US Embassy, the NGO Era Consumer of Malaysia, and the University of Malaysia Pahang. The day was developed in order for Malaysian students, to have an open dialogue with American students so that their views of Americans were not solely from the media.

In the article Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy, Geoffrey Cowan and Amelia Arsenault, explain how effective public diplomacy should include communication through dialogue. They talk about the three layers of public diplomacy, monologue, dialogue and collaboration and how each are essential tools that should be used; they also continue to include that one needs to be able to distinguish and recognize when each is most appropriate as well. My involvement in the English camp is a great example of the use of dialogue, for it allowed my fellow Americans students as well as the Malaysian students to build and have a mutual understanding of each other and our lifestyles.

The Malaysian students were extremely curious throughout the whole program and were not shy about asking a variety of questions that ranged from rules on university campuses to if we really do have cheerleading teams. It was sometimes very challenging to be the only American representative at a table with 10 Malaysian students, but I tried to be as honest and realistic with my answers. I found it fascinating to see how curious the Malaysian students were about the United States, demonstrating the great impact the United States has not only on foreign government levels, but individuals as well.

I was also very surprised at the amount of knowledge the students had about American politics, however I despised the impressions they had about Americans from the media and I tried to give them a more realistic view of what it is really like to live in America. When I asked my table their impressions of American lifestyle, they brought up Orange County California, huge SUV’s and mansions, and a life with barely any rules. I then had to explain that even though some people in the United States do live this way, many live more simplistic lifestyles than they see on TV shows, and Americans do work extremely hard and long hours.

Just like Cowan and Arsenault note, messages that are designed for domestic consumption will reach international audiences who will interpret or misinterpret them according to their own experiences and culture (14). Hence, the United States must be wary of what exactly is being transported to represent our country around the world. I see the spread of American TV shows as an example of a monologue, and my experience with the Malaysian students as an example of dialogue, where we were able to help overcome stereotypes and forge real relationships.

Communication and collaboration and the use of dialogue in the realm of public diplomacy is extremely important. This incredible experience taught me the importance of dialogue and the amount I was able to learn and teach the Malaysians just from simple conversations and interactions.

Awareness of continuum for PD

In “Semantics and Ethics of Propaganda”, Jay Black lays out six descriptions for how semanticists look at language (p. 131-32). One his “awareness” bullets suggests looking at concepts in a continuum rather than in a true/false or black/white manner. This seems particularly relevant in looking at how to approach public diplomacy. I often think about the importance of considering a continuum when I hear people say “The Muslim World” in discussion about how to reach people in Muslim countries. Saying “The Muslim World” is problematic because how can you reach people if you are already lumping them together? And when the media and scholars say “The Muslim World”, do they really mean the Middle East? The problem is that saying “The” implies there is only one definitive Muslim perspective. Saying “World” implies that there is another reality that exists for all Muslims, and that it is in opposition to another world. In order to truly reach out and collaborate with Muslims around the world, the US and Europe must look at Muslims as part of the same continuum as all humanity. This may be obvious, and this is not a new concept. As the Toronto Sun editorial by Salim Mansur pointed out in September 2007, “The Muslim world is not a monolith, and Muslim understanding of their faith-tradition -- Islam -- in lacking a centre analogous to the Vatican, remains widely dispersed.” In my own experience of traveling in Turkey, Morocco and living in Senegal, I have seen how diverse the practices of Islam can be. I saw women as business and political leaders, had discussions with women about their choice to wear or not wear a veil, and was also welcomed into many homes. One time, I met a religious leader in Morocco, and in his tradition, the men and women don’t shake hands if they are not in the same family. However, because he knew I was from the US, he shook my hand to open up dialogue and make me feel welcome. That simple gesture exemplifies how open many people are to making connections, even if it means taking actions that are not normally practiced.
If when people say “The Muslim World” and they mean the Middle East, then we should specify that in our conversations. The Middle East makes up about 15% of the world’s population of Muslims (see chart):

http://btw.imb.org/news_map.asp
















While I don’t expect the media to point this out in every broadcast, there does seem to be a disconnect between some of the facts of demographics and the way language is used. This makes the “awareness” points that Black highlights even more crucial in creating more understanding between people. He also includes the idea that the semanticist has an awareness of the limitation of humans where “the world is in a constant process of change, that our perceptions are limited, and that our language cannot say all there is to be said about a person or situation.” In addition, there needs to be a conscious communication with a receiver of our communications that “a fact is not an inference and an inference is not a value judgment”. All of these levels of awareness are not necessarily achievable in the daily interaction between people, but they are goals to reach toward in our PD efforts.
In “Social Power in International Politics,” Peter Van Ham points out that Zogby International, the opinion research group who conduct regular surveys in the Middle East, “suggests that the top five Muslim values are faith, family, justice, ambition, and knowledge.” While in the US the top five are “freedom, family, honesty, self-esteem, and justice.” (p. 125). I wonder how these surveys were conducted and how these concepts were defined and by whom? How were the questions framed? I think it is useful to try and figure out what people think about and value, but it is hard to quantify and measure accurately. Van Ham looks at how the public diplomacy efforts of the US focused on the shared values of family to try and reach out to connect with communities in the Middle East after 9/11. I think that the failures in the US PD efforts come from a lack of understanding of what people is the communities in the Middle East are actually dealing with on a day-to-day basis. And even thinking of the Middle East as one block is misleading as there are complex multiple cultures and societal structures within each country in the region. As Cull speaks to so eloquently, PD efforts must be based on receptive listening and collaboration. However, in order to do this, the participants in PD efforts have to first evaluate their own misconceptions about the communities they want to communicate with. Ultimately, the goal of the US diplomacy efforts is to have a stronger and safer nation. In order to achieve this, we have to understand the subtleties of the many Muslim communities around the world as part of our same continuum.

From China, with Love?

With Chinese president Hu Jintao's visit to Washington this week, there's been a lot of attention paid to the way China presents itself to other countries--especially the United States--in hopes of changing the way people think about it. As we discussed in class yesterday, China's rebranding began in earnest, with maniacally smiling drummers and massive scrolls, at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. It's continued since then with various public diplomacy techniques, including the "China Today" supplements in the Washington Post and other newspapers. The Chinese's newest effort to alter US public opinion about them comes in the form of a sixty-second ad that will air twenty hours a day on six huge screens in Times Square. It started running this week in Times Square, and will be seen both there and on CNN until Valentine's Day. A Reuters article (http://tinyurl.com/4ck8dg7) linked to via John Brown's PD blog details this new campaign and the continued skepticism that permeates many Americans' feelings toward China.

The ad features Chinese celebrities--NBA star Yao Ming, astronaut Yang Liwei, pianist Lang Lang--as well as ordinary people, all happy, smiling, and promoting China's economic prowess, natural beauty, and multifaceted talents. When I watched it, my first reaction was, unsurprisingly, that it was technologically well-done (should we expect any less after the technical engineering spectacle of Beijing's opening ceremonies in 2008?). However, other than that I wasn't overly impressed; I didn't want to go off and learn Chinese (which according to the article you'll soon be able to do at government-sponsored Confucius Institutes worldwide), nor were my existing perceptions of China as an economic powerhouse with some questionable records on human rights and minorities changed. In fact, although it may sound harsh, I saw some parallels between this and the old Soviet-style propaganda of the Cold War. China has some pretty significant issues that the world is aware of. The fact that its public diplomacy gurus continue to ignore them in these glitzy campaigns--as the Soviets did in their failed cultural diplomacy campaign showing cheerful, brightly costumed minorities--seems dishonest to me because they do not portray Chinese society truly accurately.

Obviously, every country wants to put its best foot forward in its public diplomacy strategy. But given the continued vocal controversy over China's human rights record, Tibet, and other issues, this new campaign is in my mind made less effective as a result. As one interviewee stated in the Reuters article, " [I] could not ignore 'how they treat their own people.' " I think China does realize the extent to which their controversies have affected foreign publics' perceptions; the fact that they continue to gloss over it so completely in their public diplomacy may come back to haunt them.