... (DOT DOT DOT)

The Digital Outreach Team (DOT) seems to be the manifestation of Cull's assertion that successful public diplomacy needs to include visible listening, and that the future of public diplomacy lies in re-orienting toward the modern digital age, and engaging through non-traditional platforms where people interact, like social networking and online video games. The DOT, is a team of civil servants comprised of native speakers of 'critical languages' who work on public diplomacy at the state department, engaging users on American foreign policy, notably in the Middle East. They do this through public sites like blogs and social networking sites, and identify themselves by name as representatives of the State Department, assuming transparency translates to credibility. Mark Leonard and Evgeny Morozov offer the opposing perspective that governments should be covert about to preserve credibility. According to Leonard “If a message will engender distrust simply because it is coming from a foreign government, then the government should hide that fact as much as possible." But the DOT’s policy to openly identify their posts, seems to rely on the theory that it is not about who puts out the information but rather about making connections. This is in line with Cowan and Arsenault's description of dialogue as a level of public diplomacy, as a multi-directional exchange between parties, sharing of perspectives, and most importantly building connections by the act of communicating for the sake of communicating, not necessarily with the aim of conveying specific messages.

According to a NY Times article, several analysts said having State Department employees on the Web helps counter the assumption that Washington is too arrogant to listen to the grievances of ordinary Arabs, which can lead to radicalized approach that violence is the sole means to attract attention. So my thoughts are that while transparency does not automatically beget credibility, dissidents would not know they were engaging in dialogue if the DOT operated covertly. And this show of active listening and dialogue can effectively build credibility. Whether or not the actual content of the messages is effective at swaying public opinion, is examined by Khatib, Dutton, and Thelwall in Public Diplomacy 2.0: An Exploratory Case Study of the US Digital Outreach Team, who conclude that to win hearts and minds in the Middle East, credibility needs to also come from linking words with policy actions.

Gladwell gone wrong...

Gladwell questions whether the people who log on to their Facebook page are really the best hope for us all? His assertion being that the kind of activism associated with social media doesn’t develop the sort of social ties that are necessary to create real change in high risk areas. Perhaps the present events occurring throughout the Middle East has Gladwell reevaluating his thesis.
Social media has become a coordinating tool for nearly all of the world's political movements (Shirky). Within the last month the world has witnessed this actuality, the power of individuals coming together via Facebook and Twitter to organize for overthrowing their dictatorial governments. Therefore, I present two theories for your consideration…
First, what we have witnessed is the disproval of Gladwell’s hypothesis; that the platforms of social media are built around weak ties which seldom lead to high-risk activism. Gladwell expressly states that social networks are not particularly effective at increasing motivation. “In other words, Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice.” Like the civil-rights movement’s high-risk activism (to whom Gladwell refers ad nauseum ), Tunisian, Egyptian, Libyan, Iranian (etc.) protestors also exercise “strategic activism: a challenge to the establishment mounted with precision and discipline.”
Second, even if Facebook and Twitter have had less of an effect on other countries uprisings, it is well established that it had a large organizing effect on Tunisia and Egypt, which has had an echoing throughout the rest of the Middle East. Meaning that social media sights have not only a direct effect on organizing protest and forming the social bonds necessary to create change in high risk areas; these sites also helped create change in more liberal countries like Tunisia and Egypt, which are now fueling protests in more repressive and hostile regimes.

In Belarus, Radio Still Matters

This past summer, I interned at the State Department in an office that deals with the continually-troubled nation of Belarus (in addition to other former Soviet republics). Having worked on a couple of related projects while there, I am now a self-professed Belarus junkie. (A year ago I never would have placed the words "Belarus" and "junkie" in the same sentence describing myself, but I digress.) Thus, while scrolling through John Brown's daily roundup, this short piece by Kim Andrew Elliott caught my eye. I was heartened to read that there's currently a bill in the House calling for renewed and continued American support for RFE/RL, VOA, European Radio for Belarus (ERB) and Belsat (the Belorussian satellite radio network) programs in the country. Although recent rumblings in Belarus have been understandably overshadowed by the much bigger rumblings in the Middle East in the past month, the current political situation there shows just how necessary independent media is for the present and the foreseeable future. Aleksander Lukashenko is a dictator who routinely quashes democracy-themed protests with violence and brutality, most recently after the corrupt presidential elections in December, and controls all media within the country--sound familiar? Also worrisome is the fact that Belarus borders EU member state Poland, and two Belorussian companies have provided petroleum and fertilizer to many member states--partnerships that have now been frozen in retaliation for Lukashenko's recent crackdown on protests.

All excellent reasons why the United States should continue to fund RFE/RL, VOA, ERB, and Belsat broadcasts and programs to the country. After reading Gladwell's piece "Small Change" on the exaggerated (in his mind) role of new media in public diplomacy, and feeling disheartened that so many in government seem to be putting all their eggs in the Facebook and Twitter basket, I was really glad to see that Congress still considers radio a worthwhile investment and highlighted its importance in this case. It shows their comprehension that in places like Belarus, these organizations' mission--which still considers radio essential to their success--is key to US engagement. Although the bill (H.R. 515) does mention "Internet broadcasting" for Belarus in addition to radio and TV, my work this past summer has shown me that radio is still immensely popular and often the most trusted source of information for Belorussians. I think this re-authorization bill shows that the US has indeed been listening--part of Cull's definition of public diplomacy.

Finally, today I was reading Walter Isaacson's speech for class this week. Isaacson, the head of the BBG, focused on new technologies in his speech, urging the creation of "a great virtual global news service that can provide reliable reporting for every medium...by our audience, by our listeners." I think what he was getting at here was citizen diplomacy, but to me it got a bit lost in all the enthusiastic talk about the Internet, including, yes, Facebook and Twitter. I'm all for using new technologies to help these countries access independent media, of course--but I would also tell Isaacson not to get the message lost in the medium. Belarus needs RFE/RL, VOA and the rest, and not just Internet broadcasting, either. Radio is still incredibly important, and I hope Congress continues to recognize that importance.

All things 2.0 and coordination of efforts

One of the questions that our guest speaker, Chris Dufour, brought up in class was if there can be a coordinated web 2.0 effort (in terms of PD). I think that there is a coordination to have 2.0 as a goal, but that one of the fundamental aspects of 2.0, whether web, government or diplomacy is a de-centralization, which is difficult to coordinate and control. But maybe this is the point! If the State Department is the “convener” than its goal is not to control, but rather to bring people together and let them then take the projects into their own hands and run with them. While maybe this has unintended consequences, the point is to decentralize control and let other actors have more agency.

Relating this to Clay Shirky’s Foreign Affairs Jan-Feb 2011 article, this convener approach does consider his “environmental” view of statecraft. How and what does this mean? My understanding of Shirky’s article is that he wants the state to focus less on a view of the Internet as simply access to information, and to instead look more at creating an effective public sphere. He believes that the “instrumental mode of internet statecraft” focuses too much on Internet access as a way to communicate ideas from the west instead of allowing for the development of social media tools and how they can help “local coordination”. He advocates an approach that gives people on the ground integral involvement in the development of tools that address their specific goals and needs. I think that this relates to our discussion of Web 2.0 tools and our guest speaker’s question. Because if the US, as a PD strategy, supports on the ground interactive collaborative web 2.0 tools, it will mean less central coordination, but perhaps more local networked activism coordination.

And I don’t think this idea works in opposition to Gladwell’s October 2010 New Yorker article, where he looks at past activist models such as the civil right’s movement as successful because they were defined by cause rather than by tools. If the US supports tools in an “environmental” way as proposed by Shirky, the stronger ties Gladwell articulates as necessary for high- risk activism will be in place. This also relates to Robin Brown’s article “Diplomacy, Public Diplomacy and Social Networks”, where he looks at how diplomacy is embedded in a social network. Diplomats and activists are more effective and active when they are working in embedded networks because the stronger ties do give actors more influence. As Brown points out, diplomacy involves coalition building, and actors are more likely to join when they trust other actors already in the network. In the Web 2.0 environment, this may mean that diplomats are more able to join into local networks and have access to local activism and debates in areas of interest.

USA World Trust... Worth the Hassle?

As Lord mentions in her policy brief on the power of network diplomacy, even the Sec of Defense along with the Sec of State have recognized the need to strengthen civilian institutions of diplomacy in order to respond to the security challenges of our age. This recognition is a great first step towards making changes in the right direction, especially when public diplomacy experts such as Chris Dufour note how the bureaucratic and illegitimate nature of government driven diplomacy efforts are not nearly as successful as private acts of public diplomacy. But how can we strengthen civilian institutions? What would this look like? Lord discusses the intricacies of a new agency called USA World Trust that she believes can be a successful way to articulate the new vision of network diplomacy.

This new organization would use the power of the private sector to pursue the objectives of the State Dept more credibly and help create an environment of mutual trust. It would be given five core missions and serve as a "hub of collaboration between government agencies and private sector." However, shouldn't these missions of building relationships, creating trust, amplifying the US voice and strengthening public diplomacy be what the State Department is already doing? Even if this new organization is private in order to be perceived as more legitimate and credible, it's ideas must still be reflected by the US government anyway or else it too will lose legitimacy.

Lord does a good job of covering all bases however, and recognizes that this organization must be supported by the government without being soiled by it so that it does not lose its power among foreign audiences. She also gives a good explanation why creating this organization may be more useful than strengthening the State Department, using other organizations and their governmental 'counterparts' as examples of how they may work together to accomplish more.

While this all seems like a good idea on paper, my thoughts are that instead of running to create something new when government agencies prove dysfunctional, the reasons of dysfunction should be analyzed instead and improved upon. Instead of creating the USA World Trust, why not send State Dept workers through more training that will teach them the core concepts of network diplomacy and allow them to work with the private sector to better accomplish objectives? To me the bottom line is that the US simply needs to work more on its image and proving itself credible around the world, because without that, anything it touches will be tarnished and new organizations may not prove to be successful in the long run.


Sources:
Lord, Kristin M. Engaging the Private Sector for the Public Good: The Power of Network Diplomacy. Policy Brief, Center for a New American Security (CNAS), January 2011

its not a "yes" or "no"

o one can question that networking technologies, especially social media have not impacted our global society as a whole. I agree with our professor that this notion is not a two-way argument. Even though some scholars remain with the perception that these technologies either solve or do not solve our problems (Ex. Malcolm Gladdwell notes that social media sites do not engender the bonds that allow motivation for serious movements), this notion is actually more nuanced.

As Clay Shirky notes in The political power of social media subtitle: technology the public sphere, and political change, technology will not solve our public diplomacy problems, but it might feed into the objectives and public diplomacy potential. He notes the ability of the public to use social media to coordinate massive and rapid responses and the Internets ability to increase the global networked population.

The notion of social power, global networking, and social media could not be more relevant than with what is currently occurring in the Middle East. The use of social media and global networking in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are great examples that these networking technologies are not solving the problems of the middle east, but they are being used as a lever to help organize, expedite and propell changes to occur. The social media sites can help drive the uprisings.

Social media sites also allowed people from other parts of the world to help those in the middle east carry out some of these uprising. Emails from The Daily Beasts demonstrated that Facebook took unusual steps to protect the identity of protests leaders during Egypt’s uprising. To me, what is most important out of this notion with Facebook interfering, is that connections are being made from across the globe for people who do not even know each other to help each other; For the ability to allow people to connect and hear each other pleas.

Wikileaks and Foreign Policy

The Harkin article questions whether "Twitter [has] the power that is claimed for it"? As of late

we have witnessed the power of the media on organizing the protest in the middle east. What is

of interest to me is the connection between the Wikileaks and these subsequent uprisings.

From November 2009 to April 2010, Private First Class Bradley Manning allegedly downloaded tens of thousands of diplomatic cables to a CD-RW disc at an Army outpost in Iraq, and passed those electronic records on to self-described freedom-of-information activist Julian Assange and his website, WikiLeaks (Calabresi, 2010). On November 28^th, 2010 “Wikileaks” released the first of these cables, over 251,000 U.S. “secret” diplomatic documents. This marked the largest unauthorized release of contemporary classified information in history; containing 11,000 documents marked secret; the release of any one of them, by the U.S. government's definition, would cause "serious damage to national security" (Calabresi, 2010). Of these releases, some were also published in the New York Times, and the Guardian, among many other media sources. The release of these documents revealed various aspects of U.S. foreign policy throughout the world. Many of these releases have been embarrassing and possibly may have even jeopardized U.S. foreign relations.

The Wikileaks have been praised for their “unabashed morality” in arguing for transparency and shedding new light on the U.S. foreign affairs. But what are the repercussions for valuing transparency over privacy? While, the impacts of the Wikileaks are not yet fully understood; these leaks have been linked to a variety of recent events. In the U.S., the leak forced a clampdown on intelligence sharing between agencies and new measures to control electronically stored secrets (Calabresi, 2010). Diplomats from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the lowest political officers have worked to diminish the disclosures' impact on foreign counterparts (Calabresi, 2010). In the beginning of February 2011, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, summoned more than 260 US ambassadors and envoys from around the world for a week of meetings in Washington. There are speculations that this meeting has been called in response to various diplomatic crises, likely at least exacerbated by the WikiLeaks.

Strategic Influence and US Credibility

According to Corman, Hess & Justus; credibility impacts persuasiveness and is therefore an important element of communicating and influencing foreign audiences. The United States does not fare well with many foreign populations because of historical inconsistencies between our words and actions –we do not appear to be genuine. As Americans, we tend to be aware of these sentiments, yet the government does not appear to understand how we should go about reversing them and creating better more credible relationships with other countries.

I believe that the more important question we should be asking right now is not ‘how can the US affect the decision making of other countries?’, but ‘how can the US strengthen its credibility abroad?’ This second question is vital to the success of the first, yet is overlooked as a means of making public diplomacy more effective.

Corman, Hess and Justus give some recommendations for improving credibility; however, I do not agree with them completely and see areas of their recommendation that could use improvement or more research. They suggest that planners understand that this will not be an overnight process, that no matter what policy or programs are implemented, credibility will not happen quickly. It will take time to create trustworthy relationships, this is certain. But how they suggest we go about trying to create trust and credibility is questionable. Involving sympathetic Muslims and using lower level officers to relay messages for example seem to me as transparent ploys. Just as I can look at commercials and advertisements and tell that it was created to appeal to me as a woman, as an African American, or whatever; I think that audiences will not just fall for hearing the same messages from a different messenger. This is especially true if there is obvious connection between these messengers and the US government. Perhaps the most successful way to build credibility is without direct government involvement –afterall, some of the most successful public diplomacy is implemented by non-governmental groups and organizations. This gets very tricky though, because it IS the government that needs to establish the credibility, not just the American people. It seems to me that government agencies need a renewed focus on cross-cultural communication techniques, understanding perceptions and the importance of relationship building. From guest speakers in class as well as the readings, I have gathered that the government does not like to focus on cultural aspects… probably because the results are not quickly or easily assessed. However in order to create a more credible US, we must listen to what foreign audiences are saying and analyze the root issues that will allow our influence to be stronger and more credible.

Sources:

Steven Corman, Aaron Hess, and Z.S. Justus. “Credibility in the Global War on Terrorism: Strategic Principals and Research Agenda”. Consortium for Strategic Communication. Report #0603. June 9, 2006

Is Culture a Dependent Variable?

I can appreciate the fact that Kelton Rhoads has reservations towards considering culture as the primary factor of consideration in strategic communication and influence efforts. In The Culture Variable in the Influence Equation, he plays devil's advocate to the primacy-of-culture "bandwagon." While recognizing that culture is important, he does not think it is the only and most important factor. On this point, I agree. However, in some of his examples on viewing universals as cultural specifics, I think he discounts culture too much, failing to recognize that degrees of difference matter, essentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Of one analyst's findings on key problems with US public diplomacy and the US military Rhoads argues that it is equally true in the US as in the Arab world that: face-to-face messages trump mass-media appeals; dialog-style influence is superior to monologue for persuasion; metaphors and analogies are preferred over facts and statistics; direct, confrontational speech in public settings is considered face-threatening. I would agree these are all true, BUT the analyst's point was not to determine what works better everywhere. The point was to show that certain methods of communication work particularly poorly in Arab culture, and thus would be a waste of resources, might make situations worse, and should be avoided altogether. In the example of two Taliban who were killed in Afghanistan and cremated by US forces, Rhoads does not understand how this constitutes a cultural blunder. I think it is quite clear that for Muslims the burning of bodies is taboo in a way that is different from America, where cremation is accepted, practiced, and has its own industry.

Recently in my Cross Cultural Communication class (incidentally), our professor asked if any of the Middle Eastern students in our class could offer a possibly unique perspective on the uprisings sweeping the Arab world. One of our classmates shared an enlightening insight on culture which helped me relativize the situation. She stressed that in her culture, people are not accustomed to challenging their leadership and openly questioning authority, so the fact that people were demonstrating out in the streets was a sign that they were truly fed up. She said we should understand this to mean that the situation had reached a point of no return, and the protesters would not back down until Mubarak resigned. If I was considering the protests from my American or French perspective (and the French do love to take to the streets for just about any reason), then I might not understand the gravity of the situation, or even think that the whole thing might just blow over.

For Policymakers it is important to understand this type of cultural context in terms of public diplomacy. For the US government it would make a difference in how they might communicate about the protesters' cause, knowing that anything short of regime change was unacceptable. This is why early statements from the US government saying that we did not support any particular outcome, or that the Egyptian government should make reforms, were deemed insufficient. Rhoads concludes that cultural tuning becomes more important when it comes to message delivery, but I think it is equally important in the earlier stages of determining when and how to craft strategic messages.

Yes on that Secretary of Culture, please, already.

In our class last week we discussed whether the US should have a Secretary of Culture. I wrote briefly on this topic in my blog for the International Communications class in Nov. 2010. http://icgroupfour.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-11-03T19%3A00%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=7

Here is an excerpt: Probably the most effective way to build soft power would be for the US government to truly provide funding for the arts in the education system, in grants, for international exchanges, and for the State Department. And to have a cabinet member - Secretary of Culture, as many have suggested. The State Department does fund a number of artistic and educational exchanges, but it does not receive enough funding. If Diplomacy is going to shift to include more non-state actors, then non-state actors who create the tools of public diplomacy (music, dance, film, other media) need to be supported and valued as not just as creators of products of commercial enterprise, but also as part of our diplomatic and public policy planning. (But, then that would shake up the the WTO debate about how to have media and other cultural products considered with the same laws as other products.)

I went to the North Carolina School of the Arts in the early 1990s to study European classical piano performance. This was during the Jesse Helms (NC Senator at the time) near slashing of NEA funding and the first Gulf War. I remember in particular one huge poster with replications of statues (the David), which Helms had identified as pornographic, hanging in our commons area as a protest to his policies. I also participated in organizing a protest against the first gulf war, which culminated in Bread and Circus like puppet creations to take to the DC march. There were many discussions on campus about the lack of value placed in the arts and anxiety about how to get funding in the future, as well as the roles artists play in raising political awareness in the public sphere for international events and policies.

After class discussion, I put out an email to some of my friends from this school, as well as film-makers in LA to get their opinions on having a Secretary of Culture in the US and how that would affect the image of the US abroad (and domestically, because after all PD shouldn’t PD also be internal in scope?), as well as how they think it would affect art production and value.

One of my film director friend’s in LA sent me this link to one of his friend’s blogs. I think he makes a good point about how important it is to foster creativity in order to, among other things, remain competitive economically.

http://richarddemato.posterous.com/why-isnt-there-a-department-of-creativity-in

This is a website devoted to developing future Christian leaders in the US. It is interesting to read how the author takes this idea and promotes Christian patrons of the arts, kind of goes back to the earlier European model, where artists were either supported by the church or by individual patrons. Considering how strong the base of Christian based voters is, I thought this was important to include in this post.

http://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/1130

Lee Rosenbaum of “culture grrr” vehemently opposes having a secretary of culture because she thinks it would negatively affect creativity.

http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2009/01/in_defense_of_disorderly_cultu.html

If we follow Christopher Paul’s prescription for a whole of government approach to public diplomacy, we acknowledge that the US government is constantly communicating and shaping how US culture is disseminated. Even the choice to not have a Secretary of Culture shapes how US culture is perceived and distributed internationally. I don’t think that having a ministry of culture would take over the private market approach to the arts, which is so established anyway. I do think that sending a message to not only international publics, but also our internal public, that creativity is valued and supported is vital for not only PD, but also our ability to innovate and compete in the international markets.

It was interesting that someone in class mentioned that maybe she would want to support taxes going to the arts, but that maybe a neighbor would not. My reaction is that we all don’t support everything that our lawmakers decide to do with our tax dollars, but this doesn’t prevent us from having Secretaries that oversee those activities we may not agree with. I think that having a Secretary of Culture would not take away from how art is currently produced or discount the commodity side of the arts. Instead, I think it would strengthen our ability to support artists and creative endeavors, whether these messages are effective PD technique consistently or not.

Media: increasing or decreasing credibility?

Credibility is one of the most important objectives of Public Diplomacy and strategic communication for any nation or group. The article Credibility in the Global War on Terrorism: Strategic Principles and Research Agendas affirms three key dimensions that make up credibility: trustworthiness, competence, and goodwill. These characteristics impact persuasiveness. Importantly noted, these dimensions are perceptions that “can be created, managed, and cultivated…[requiring] a coordinated approach to message design, delivery, and –-most importantly—adaptation to the given audience and current media situation.”

Ones credibility can be extremely influential and impacted by the media. It must be recognized how people use media outlets to construct their own frames to interpret events and create judgments.

I have always found the flotilla incident as discussed in class extremely interesting. The flotilla incident which occurred on May 31, 2010, was a conflict between the Israeli military and six ships from the Free Gaza Movement which was carrying humanitarian aid/money to Gaza, intending on breaking Israel’s blockade of the Gaza strip. The two sides met and violence then occurred. Both sides were able to provide documentary evidence to retell the incident and present their side of the story through videos you-tube. They each framed the incident and demonstrated their opposing views of who was at fault through the media. Each side tried to lessen the credibility of the other side.

Like the article notes, “different media may cause unique factors in perceptions of credibility.” The youtube videos, allowing multiples views, allowed both sides of the incident to loose credibility. No matter which side a viewer believed, the question always remained what was missing and if the truth was actually told from either end. I remember when this incident occurred, I did side with one of the groups, but certain questions did remain in my mind. I did not question who was right or wrong, but I did question how much I should actually trust the side I chose to believe. We get a lot of our information from the media and it remains a constant dilemma of whether or not we can trust that information.

Pop Goes American Culture

In Culture and Constructivism, Peter van Ham states that "our experiences and identities are informed by mass-mediated images that are rapidly becoming key frames of reference for self and others." However, I am not convinced that even in America our popular culture really shapes our attitudes and behaviors. This would presume that just by watching a lot of MTV programming like Real World or Jersey Shore, I would be more likely to consume large quantities of alcohol and act promiscuously. This is reminiscent of the hypodermic needle effect, and I'd like to give viewers (and myself) a little more credit than that. I think we are complex enough to recognize certain products as pure entertainment, especially when they are novel.

However, I would agree with Ham that popular culture communicates important norms and values which can influence our conception of what constitutes "success" and "the good life." Ironically, in keeping with the subject of television, a lot of reality television programming presents us with images that are not reflective at all of what is actually perpetuated in daily life. Chronicles of celebrity lives, The Real Housewives of (fill in the blank), Cribs, Million Dollar Listing - all of these are exceptions to the norm, and are popular for providing an incite into what most of us do NOT get to experience. Yet, it is inevitable that being flooded with images of wealth and opulence would result in relativizing what we aspire to, or even contribute to a skewed perception of what is normal in terms of status.

This goes for the image of America we send overseas as well. While overseas, and upon learning that I hailed from California, I have literally been asked if I a) surf to school? b) know any celebrities? It is safe to say I can thank Baywatch and the greater Hollywood machine for this exchange, which leads me to question whether I really want American popular culture to precede me abroad. But at least it is an American cultural product representing (or misrepresenting America) abroad, whereas in the US, it is Hollywood predominantly shaping how other cultures are perceived, whether they like it or not. The same industry which leads some to think California is all beach, and Texas all cowboys, is also responsible for promulgating cultural archetypes like the Frenchman on a bicycle with a beret and his baguette, or more detrimental, the Russian/Arab/Chinese villain.

In the absence of a Ministry of Culture, the United States by default relies on the market for the dissemination of its cultural products. What is the easiest and most profitable thing to market? Why popular culture, of course. This explains why American culture is often viewed as low-brow, as opposed to most other countries, who have a Ministry of Culture to promote high-art for culture's sake, not for profits' sake. If we were to follow suit, I fear it would result in even more backlash against US presence abroad. If the US were to establish a Secretary of Culture responsible for promoting American cultural products which are not commodities, quick would come the accusations of cultural imperialism and American hegemony. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Winning Hearts and Minds Cont....

Last week I discussed the Government's (ours and others) use of victims of 9/11 to aid in diplomacy efforts. A quick recap: governments are using victims of 9/11 and/or their family members to speak to various groups regarding their experience with the the terror attacks in order to help stem terrorist radicalization. I wanted to continue my discussion of this policy and soft power with this weeks readings of The Unbearable Lightness of Soft Power.

Layne critiques Nyes version of soft power, arguing that it is not the correct way in which to judge America's foreign policy. Layne summarizes Soft Power in Diplomacy as merely marketing, that has little actual effect on improving us relations. A better approach in Layne's view Hard Power has more substance and should be conserved and utilized only in an effective way.

Under Layne's critique, this policy of utilizing 9/11 speakers would be yet another instance of the U.S. attempting to spread its message of the benevolent hegemon, which will ultimately have little effect. However, in direct contrast, the Mattern article, Why Soft Power isn't so Soft, seems to take the opposite position. Mattern asserts that Soft Power can be used to foster feelings of attraction that can be called upon in an "as needed" basis (as opposed to feelings of fear, which may diminish). Furthermore, these feelings of attraction, although possibly hegemonic, are not only effective, but are preferable to acts of violence. Under Mattern's perspective, the utilization of 9/11 speakers could be used to form a foundation of attraction which will have then intended outcome, over time, of diminishing radicalization.

In Kolkata, Another Lesson about Cultural Diplomacy

After John Brown's visit to our class last Thursday, and our discussion about the US's continued ineptitude in cultural diplomacy, reading Patricia Sharpe's piece about the American exhibit at the Kolkata Book Fair was all the more telling. The exhibit, which according to Sharpe was way too big compared to the others and had the attractive lighting of a bat cave, was meant to showcase American literature. However, it aimed to do so almost entirely via computers, which, as she notes, "aren't exactly novel, even in India, and...weren't set up to entice interaction from the uninitiated or the jaded." A book fair via computers--I don't think this is a bad thing per se, but it depends what's actually on them and what they are presented with. In this case, there actually were books lurking on shelves in the background, but in the dim light, of course, they would have been very difficult to read. She also notes that at the end of the exhibit, a big flat-screen TV set above eye level hawks the benefits of joining the American Center (which in and of itself is good news, as there aren't many anymore)...for a "cut rate." I was shocked. If the United States wants to attract visitors to its American Centers and Corners to expose them to American values and culture, should they really be charging them to walk in? Especially in a developing country like India? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my previous studies of American Centers--which had an especially robust presence worldwide during the Cold War--I don't recall reading about membership rates or fees.

The less-than-enticing exhibit layout--Sharpe observes that most people didn't even look up at the TV on their way out, so far above eye level was it--and the idea that cut rates to the American Center would inspire great enthusiasm are another indicator, as Brown noted last week, of the US's ignorance about cultural diplomacy and intercultural relations in general. For example, the big Capitol dome replica that housed the exhibit--which stood in contrast to the more to-scale exhibits of other countries like the UK--simply confirmed many international audiences' ideas of the US's need to do everything bigger and better than everyone else. In perhaps the strongest echo of our discussion with Brown last week, though, Sharpe discusses the exhibit's lack of focus on high culture, which to her lessens America's credibility in India: "I'd been told that the American public diplomats currently posted to Kolkata aren’t interested in purveying literature or lecturers or any kind of boring intellectuality. Just fun stuff for cool Under Thirties...Anyway superficiality is the order of the day, it seems. Although India has great writers and world class universities along with a vibrant print and electronic press employing courageous editors and many fine investigative reporters, the recently hired top local for the PD section in Kolkata used to head.... a fashion magazine!"

Like Russians--the focus of Brown's discussion--Indians place great value on their culture, including their food, literature, and film industry. By not instituting more "intellectual" programming in the country, American public diplomats are making it harder for Indians to understand US culture and thus decreasing chances for tolerance and acceptance of that culture. Yes, computers and more specifically social networking may be the new trend in public diplomacy, and I don't see anything wrong with using them as a tool to promote cultural diplomacy. But when the intellectual meaning of that cultural diplomacy gets lost in an attempt to create a slick exhibit with mood lighting, flat-screen TVs, and free T-shirts for those who sign up for the American Center membership (yes, T-shirts...not books, oh no), the US loses a perfect opportunity to really influence hearts and minds in India, and across the world.

Open Source philosophy as new PD

I had the pleasure of attending the tech@state open source conference on Friday Feb. 11^th and the “unconference” the following day, hosted by NDI. The event was organized by the Office of eDiplomacy, which I conducted a case study on in Fall 2010. As the “think/do” tank and implementation office for Alec Ross’ innovation office and the new 21^st Century Diplomacy, Richard Boly heads up this dynamic team with a Silicon Valley entrepreneurship style that is refreshing and forward thinking.

Other conferences run under “tech@state” include “Civil society 2.0”, which had a follow-up tech camp in Santiago, Chile where NGOs and private sector companies came together to problem solve technology solutions for development efforts.

The attitude of the eDiplomacy people I have met has been that State should simply act as a facilitator, in the background, bringing different sectors together in order to foster partnerships and dialogue to problem solve technology solutions that address issues pertinent to local communities. I would argue that this is a new form of PD. While the State Department does differentiate PD from these programs, calling them “21^st Century Statecraft”, I think they have the potential to bring changes that traditional PD programs may not be succeeding in. In addition, the Open source coders are themselves engaging in a form of collaborative PD, where coders from different countries not only share code, but also participate in the communities around specific languages (Python, PHP, Drupal). One of the women at the conference had spent a lot of time in Egypt, where she formed friendships with coders. She is a web developer and involved in several of these virtual communities, where ideas about coding and life philosophy are exchanged.

Here are some of the insightful comments I heard from speakers:

• We can share costs and create a hybrid ecosystem so that the open source gets more sophisticated and gets more specialized.
• You can build the economy around open source software (localized support)
• There is a link between open source and open government, where open source models encourage transparency and accountability

In my other life as a composer in California, I worked with a lot of computer programmers and did some programming with open source programs to create music. Some of the underlying philosophies in the open source community are very relevant to discussions about how to conduct PD.

1. COLLABORATE -- Share information and give back (don’t just take code and use it, improve on it and give it back to the community).
2. OPEN and TRANSPARENT - make your code accessible and understandable to everyone so that is it easy to build from it (know the standards and use them!)
3. Avoid Duplication of effort - don’t try to create code that is already out there. Be informed and involved in the community so that your efforts contribute to moving society forward.

How does this pertain to PD?

1. Collaborate in order to learn and share information for the benefit of everyone.

2. Transparency, as part of the new PD, will create more trust and openness.
3. Don’t duplicate efforts in PD programs- but also don’t be intimidated by what other creative people are doing. There is room for all the approaches and I don’t think that one should take over the other, but there should be communication between the different stakeholders to make sure that efforts aren’t duplicated and confused.

See this coverage of the conference by O’Reilly tech writer, Alex Howard.

Is this really how we are presenting ourselves?

Every time I have lived or traveled outside of the country, I am amazed what American television shows or movies I find on the television. Once in a while, I will find a solid movie or a television show I like, for example reruns of ‘friends’ or ‘When Harry Met Sally;’ But most of the time, the American shows or movies that are aired are either extremely dated, or just to put nicely, horrible. I find that most of what is aired either demonstrates incredible violence or totally unrealistic lifestyles like ‘The OC’ or ‘the real housewives or New York’.

I really dislike what is being shown to illustrate Americans and American culture in other countries. As Public Diplomacy practitioner John Brown noted in our class yesterday, unlike Russians or citizens of some of the Mediterranean countries, Americans do not define ourselves in terms of culture, but rather ideas. Even though I do care greatly about American ideas and ideals, I think Americans need to care more and put in a greater effort to make sure that these misrepresentation of American culture are either not sent to other countries for their use, or that there is a little more balance in what is presented to other nations.

As many communications scholars affirm, culture is a means of power, and how it is communicated is extremely important. Peter Van Ham notes in Social Power in International Politics, that social power involves “uploading norms and values”.[1] Exporting cultural products like movies and television shows is very powerful. Van Ham states that American popular culture “been instrumental in constructing roles and expectations in international politics, shaping identities of people as well as of states and governments.”[2]

Also, scholar Rhonda Zaharna notes in Communication, Culture, and Identity in Public Diplomacy, the act of communicating is extremely important and there are implications when the way that American culture is being presented through others is through their horrible entertainment.[3]

The exporting of Culture including through forms of entertainment can be a lever to bind people together, create repect and understanding of another way of life. I don’t think one could say that a TV show or Movie about another culture will have the overriding influence on ones own political/ foreign policy decisions, but one cannot deny that it does not have power.

---

[1] Peter Van Ham “Culture and Constructivism” in Social Power 47

[2] Peter Van Ham “Culture and Constructivism” in Social Power 53

[3] Rhonda Zaharna. “Communication, Culture, and Identity in Public Diplomacy” in Battles to Bridges: US strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy after 9/11 (2010).

Cultural Diplomacy: the Answer for World Peace?

This week former Cultural Diplomacy Officer John Brown spoke to our class about his experiences in Russia and the importance of culture and diplomacy. Because Russia places a high importance on their national culture, Mr.Brown recognized that the US must reflect a similar pride in our culture in order for Russians to identify with and respect us. Could cultural diplomacy be the key to ending terrorism and creating world peace? "Absolutely not," Brown says. However, a very key factor to relationships between different states and cultures is cultural awareness -exposing yourself to other artifacts of high culture and accepting/appreciating those of other cultures. What this does is build understanding, which leads to more genuine and trustworthy relationships between states.

So why are Americans so reluctant to rely on culture as diplomacy? Brown noted the struggle to get the money he wanted in his budget to hold events and culturally related expos in Russia. The US embassy was looked upon strangely for holding so few events while other countries were doing exactly the opposite. Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that Americans have a hard time describing their OWN culture; because they only note their culture when introduced to a completely different one, there is no cultural literacy, no awareness of how different cultures around the world really are. I think we have a tendency to assume that everyone else is just like 'us' deep down, but this is far from true. The US should implement cultural literacy in schools. While the majority of culture is values and subconsious beliefs, if we can understand how we do things in comparison to other countries, we will find cultural diplomacy to be more important. Books such as Weaver's America's Mid Life Crisis, the Future of a Troubled Superpower would really help American's to understand the importance of culture by gaining a better understanding of their own.

Winning Hearts and Minds via "Credible Messengers"

The other morning I heard a story on the Morning Edition of NPR News, titled Agencies Aim To Counter Threat Of Online Extremism by Deborah Amos (you can listen to it here). The story describes how Carie Lemack, (whose mother died on Sept. 11 aboard American Airlines flight 11), was invited to speak in Saudi Arabia regarding terrorism.

“Lemack is often called on to talk to youths who are considered susceptible to violent ideologies. When speaking recently to a group in Britain that tries to de-radicalize kids, Lemack says, she had to convince one group that her mother had actually died in the Sept. 11 attacks…. ‘They were shocked because they had been told that there were no passengers on the planes… and they hadn't heard from someone who had actually lost a loved one." Lemack is what is now being called a "credible messenger. “Richard Barret, coordinator of the U.N.'s al-Qaida/Taliban monitoring team, says finding messengers is a new trend in fighting terrorism.” They believe it will help dissuade people from being recruited into terrorism.

Which got me to thinking, what kind of activity is this? Is if soft power? A state’s soft power is founded upon acceptance, attraction and legitimacy, and in this instance the state is utilizing Lemack to exert soft power. In other words, it could be argued that Lemack is attempting to affect these students, on the state’s behalf, in order to convince them not to become radicalized, by personalizing her story to them, rather than through coercion or payment. But this begs the question, “what is coercion?”

If “any rupture of consent brings forth elements of coercion”, how can there be soft power without coercion? My understanding is that in Zahran and Ramos’s conception of hegemony, unlike Nye’s construction of soft power, coercion and consent are interconnected; “hegemony is the purist for consent where it doesn’t exist.” Does this therefore mean that Lemack is a tool for spreading hegemony, and if so is that negative?

Perhaps the problem here is, “the assumption that universal values exist.” While universal values may not exist, it remains clear that the US government wants to win the “hearts and minds” of populations. So whether we label Lemack’s utilization by the Saudi/American government(s) as “soft power” or “hegemony”, I’m sure that we can (almost) universally agree that it beats dropping bombs.

IF ONLY IT WERE AS SIMPLE AS MAKING US POLICY THE "TOY" IN FOREIGN HAPPY MEALS

In his discussion of hard, soft, and sticky power as it relates to PD, Brian Hocking brings up the fact that foreign publics can very well accept and appreciate American culture, like music and movies, as well as consume products like Coca-Cola and McDonald's, while still resisting global policies coming from the government. I had the chance to experience this in Europe leading up to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. People I spoke too were easily able to compartmentalize their feelings about American culture versus American Foreign Policy, and in the same conversation praised our pop-culture, while criticizing President Bush. This proves Hocking's point that soft power will not help our PD efforts if our policies (and the way we carry them out) are antagonistic.

I did notice an interesting contrast in that Americans, led by policy-makers in Washington, had a different reaction, hence the 'Freedom Fries' debacle, where French culture was boycotted for political reasons. Perhaps American business leaders recognized the flaw in this perspective, and this is what led to the creation of Business for Diplomatic Action, a non-profit, private-sector organization, which addressed concerns over anti-American sentiment. BDA tried to provide constructive business solutions for public diplomacy programs and initiatives. In their words:

Our mission is to enlist the U.S. business community in actions to improve the standing of America in the world with the goal of once again, seeing America admired as a global leader and respected as a courier of progress and prosperity for all people.

Note: the operations of Business for Diplomatic Action (BDA) were discontinued as of December 31, 2010. Their website will remain live through May 31, 2011, or check out their Facebook page.

Assuming soft power is a contest of credibility where we leverage cultural values, the legitimacy of our foreign policy actions, and political values, then it makes sense, as Hocking describes, that BDA was born out of reaction to the policies of the Bush administration. It was a recognition that cultural affinity, per Nye's argument, was not enough to get people to do what we want. I think it is telling that BDA (may it RIP) lasted 8 years, and I suspect that its recent cessation of operations is a testament to the improvement of our foreign policy credibility under President Obama's new administration.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Hocking for frustrating my concept of public diplomacy, just when I thought I was starting to make sense of everything. Who are the actors and who are the targets? Depending on who you ask, the answer to either might be governments, corporations, citizens, or technology, to name a few. Is the relationship between soft power and public diplomacy positive or negative, complimentary or opposing? Soft power is not public diplomacy, or vice versa, yet they rely on each other, but they do not have a linear cause and effect relationship, and in fact can be detrimental to each other, such as when public diplomacy efforts utilize hard power, which can hurt soft power. I think in his chapter Rethinking the 'New' Public Diplomacy, Hocking shows that if it seems clear cut, then you don't understand the complexities of PD. This makes me feel better about not being able to answer the question raised in class: what isn't public diplomacy?

Weighing in on Egypt...

Prof Michael C. Hudson gives a nice background for how Egypt has been a point of stability for the US and Israel in the region.

To follow up on our class discussion about Egypt: What are the missed opportunities for PD in Egypt during these last weeks? What are the options going forward?

From a government to government standpoint:
One thought- if we set the precedent of supporting a leader and then pulling our support, who will trust us? The US leadership has accepted certain regimes because of how they think those leaders will support US interests. If the US government pulls that backing, future leaders will wonder about the sincerity of the formal exchanges of support. Ultimately, for long-term diplomacy and stability, our top leaders should make sure to support leaders that are backed by their own people.
From a government to public standpoint:
What has the US been doing in the past to show the Egyptian people that the US is supportive of their economic and social needs? From a PD standpoint?
During the demonstrations, the US government has certainly not been expressing support except in vague terms. I especially noticed the State Department did not step in to ensure access to the Internet, which was in contrast to how they made sure Twitter was working for the Iranians during the elections. This does not send a signal of support to the people who are protesting.
From a public to public standpoint: during these last weeks? What are the options going forward?

How have NGOs and the private sector been reaching out to the Egyptian people? I know some groups, such as moveon.org, sent open letters of support that were printed in local papers. But, I wonder how this kind of action helps if our government doesn’t then follow up with action.

Check out this blog from Darren Krape on his November visit to Cairo. He has his power point linked as well from the presentation he gave on social media. It sounds like he had interesting discussions, the kind that do create more understanding, hopefully. He works for the Department of State.

I had to copy this image from his site:

What Campaign?

I am very curious about the discussion over power as examined by Peter Van Ham in Social Power in International politics. He explains that power is all around us, its not solely coercion, as well as that power is also not necessarily visible. Van Ham goes on to talk about social power specifically, however I was struck by the notion of how power is not like a resource like money; its not something that one can always draw upon, because unlike other resources, power depends on perceptions of others. I find this notion very interesting for it demonstrates the complexity of power; that the same action can have totally different effects on different people depending on their perception of the action.

I want to use the example of China’s public diplomacy campaign that is being shown in New York Times square and other American News Television stations like CNN, trying to promote there national image. I’m curious if this 30-second campaign called “Experience China” which features the countries celebrities and nationals from all walks of life, is actually making any different in the perceptions of China here in the United States.

I want to compare my sister and myself with how we each perceive the campaign. My sister used to work in the entertainment industry and has now switched gears and is becoming a nurse practitioner at NYU, while I am in my last semester of my master program in International Communications. When I asked her about the ad, she first asked what the heck was I was talking about. This is nothing against my sister, but first as a New Yorker, she rarely ever goes to Time Square, and second, she never watches the news or channels like CNN, where the campaign is also shown. Then she said, "so what about the campaign?" I asked her, “well, they are showing it in time square, don’t you think it’s a big deal or feel like they are invading your city?” My sisters response was, “No. Who cares, we have American images, commercials, movies, songs all over the world. Makes no difference.” To my sister, this campaign doesn’t effect her, or change her perception of China at all. She could care less, and doesn’t feel like this is China asserting any power by having this campaign in the United States.

However, I have a different view of the campaign. This campaign made me more curious about China and the famous people they showed. I also definitely feel like China is trying to show and prove themselves to the Americans. They are showing us that they are not only on the world stage economically, but also culturally and I feel like it is just another form of asserting their power.

Taliban's Effective use of Propaganda

In 2009 there were over 500 bombing is Pakistan, including suicide bombings committed by children. On Ted.com, filmmaker Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy uses “propaganda” footage of a Taliban training camp, to address how the Taliban convinces children to become suicide bombers. Through her interviews, with children from poor families (who attend these training camps/”schools” where they get free accommodation, food and perhaps a stipend) Ms. Obaid-Chinoy puts forward a five step process by which the Taliban has “perfected” the recruitment and training of children suicide bombers. Step one: prey on the poor, and underprivileged, and separated the children from their parents. Step two: use religion, they “teach” the children the Koran, in Arabic, which is a language Pakistani children to not normally speak; which allows the Taliban to distort the message of the Koran. Additionally, they do not allow any other information to be accessed by the students. Step three, facilitate hate: the training camps beat and starve the children. Step four: promise better things to come: the Taliban teaches the students that although their life on Earth is horrible, after they commit a suicide attack they will be rewarded in the after-life. Step five: the Taliban preaches that the West doesn’t care about civilian deaths, so they shouldn’t either. They show the children videos of the West bombing Arab nations as proof. Throughout the video Ms. Obaid-Chinoy uses the words “propaganda” and “brain washing”, and these words clearly have a negative connotation, yet even after our class and discussing the meaning of these words I still feel like (although they are perhaps dubious) they are the best label for actions such as the Taliban’s systematic method of training.

Independent Diplomat

‘Public diplomacy’ is described by our readings in a variety of ways. According to Gregory, “Public diplomacy is a political instrument with analytical boundaries and distinguishing characteristics”. Gilboa states that public diplomacy is “the way in which both government and private individuals and groups influence directly or indirectly those public attitudes and opinions which bear directly on another government’s foreign policy decisions” And according to John Brown, the state department defines it as "engaging, informing, and influencing key international audiences".

Under each of these definitions, Carne Ross’s work, through Independent Diplomat (http://www.independentdiplomat.org), would be considered ‘public diplomacy’. Ross was a member of the British Foreign Office and worked as a British diplomat from 1997 to June 2002. He also served as the UK delegation's expert on the Middle East at the United Nations and specifically on the U.N. Security Council. However, in while working at the U.N. Ross recognized the organization works primarily with Nation States and that there was a lack of dialogue between the United Nations and various sub-national groups in troubled nations. In other words, often those individuals who are most effected by the actions of the Security Council were not invited or heard by Security Council members. In order to help remedy this problem, Ross founded Independent Diplomat, with the goal of creating an exchange, where interested parties in troubled areas could meet with U.N. members, “to sit down” and “explain what they both want”. (For more information: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/951)

It seems that in contract to the Untied Nations usual approach to addressing security concerns, Ross’ organization seeks to create at least a dialogue, or perhaps even a collaboration between these parties. By bringing effected parties face to face with U.N. Security Council members, Ross hopes uses ‘public diplomacy’ to "engage, inform, and influence” both parties, in order to reach a better more complete understanding of their situations.