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?