Me, a Diplomat. You, a Diplomat. Facebook, a Diplomat?

With the agency of civil society on the rise, diplomacy is operating in unparalleled openness. This begs the question, who gets to be a diplomat? As John Robert Kelley notes in The New Diplomacy: Evolution of a Revolution, diplomacy is no longer an institution, it is now a set of actions. So perhaps it is not a question of who, but rather what actions constitute diplomacy. Furthermore, with everything and everyone communicating something, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, the real question becomes: what isn't public diplomacy? In today's globalized world defined by connections and communications networks, what isn't diplomacy?

I have a difficult time answering this question, but I can reflect on the more specific issue of how new social media in particular is affecting diplomacy. By using the internet we each individually project things that potentially affect our country's image, and in addressing this, I can't help but consider the way certain sites in particular play a role. For me personally, Facebook has become an integral part of my day for socializing and leisure, but also for official correspondence and connections to academic and business resources. Almost every company, agency, business, and even government office has a presence on the site.

Tim Wu's article asks the question “Does facebook have a foreign policy?” While I was expecting the article to discuss how Facebook's user-generated content have framed a new set of actions that affect diplomacy, it actually focuses on Facebook's policies on censorship and privacy settings. Wu notes that on the heels of Yahoo in Europe and Google in China, the way in which Facebook proceeds as it enters foreign markets will define its position on these issues. However the article focuses too much on the whether Facebook will succeed as a business in hostile oversees markets. On the actual topic of foreign policy, I think it would have been much more a propos for the article to discuss how Facebook privacy policies and other standards represent a Western or even American value system and the implications of Facebook, as an American company, gaining popularity worldwide.

new PD- expansion on older post

I have to comment on my open source blog I wrote back in February because after reading Ali Fisher’s article, “Music for the Jilted Generation: Open-Source Public Diplomacy”, I feel that I should tie in my ideas to his article.
Fisher calls for using open source philosophy as a framework for PD. Obviously I agree with this, as it was the topic of my posting on February 24^th, 2011.

His article highlights four aspects of open source philosophy as a framework for PD. I am using his framework for a paper looking at some new programs at the State Department and how they fit into this structure. The four attributes he pulls out of the open source approach are: Direct involvement (users as co-developers), resonance (peers no outsiders), history (don’t reinvent the code) and transparency (share your work, make it available), and interest (involve enthusiasts at the planning stage and let their interest be a relevance test). All four of these categories have some overlap, but are essential to a new PD approach based on ideas instead of image.

I find it interesting that a lot of these ideas about a “new” PD echo literature in the development communication literature, where new development work moves away from the modernization top-down paradigm into emphasizing participation and collaboration from the communities where programs are in place. The effect seems to be a more sustainable approach, where if communities can take ownership of an initiative, that they will then be more likely to continue it.

Fisher’s article looks at how development should be done in an open and based on the community that it hopes to serve and its needs. He also emphasizes that in this form of PD that other people will “advocate your needs (not because they are yours, but because they are also their ideas.” (p. 13) This seems to be central to achieving effective PD. If you try to push ideas out onto people, they are not going to take those ideas in unless they are in line with their own ideas and needs. While this seems obvious as I write it, the actual PD programs and policy actions of the US have not seemed to take this into account. (Bush era pushing out of US agenda in the Middle East for example).

All of these ideas also relate to Cull’s article “Lessons from the Past”, where he looks at how the “new” PD in the UK emphasized ideas rather than ownership.

It is lovely to think of how people can share ideas and build networks of trust in which they feel inspired to share because of how efforts are multiplied. I hope that this kind of attitude can be fostered and grown in not only the structures of PD programs, but also in the minds of politicians and policy decision makers.

Comment on what caught Liza's eye this week:

Liza, I wanted to respond to you question regarding whether we are all now diplomats. I don’t disagree that “Diplomacy is beginning to be redefined into how we as individual diplomats are helping solve global problems.” But I would caution that this new era of individual diplomacy and this “global environment that [has] altered the practice of traditionally diplomacy,” has resulted in a world where misinformation is spread even at the highest levels. Consider the following statements:
U.S. Department of State: “Trafficking is now considered the third largest source of profits for organized crime, behind only drugs and weapons, generating billions of dollars annually” (Department of State).

United Nations: “The reality is that human trafficking is a huge global problem. It is the third largest criminal activity in the world after armaments and drugs” (United Nations).


Checking the facts: The assertion that human trafficking is “the third largest” source of profits for organized crime, behind only drugs and weapons is an unfounded declaration thrown around and perpetuated by a variety of sources. A declaration of fact from the U.S. State Department and United Nations obviously carry weight, which likely goes a long way in explaining how this belief has been carried on. However, the foundation for this notion is not substantiated in either of these documents. Both the State Department and the United Nations documents offer no citations for this statistic.

The earliest reference I could find to support these statements goes back at least ten years to Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Harold Koh (in the State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1999) and Senator Sam Brownback (Republican-Kansas)(Story Repeated). Yet again, no substantiating information is provided for this contention in either of these public statements.

The lack of a reliable foundation for claims regarding human trafficking and organized crime has resulted in even more groundless and erroneous statements. The Harvard Journal of Law & Gender has gone even beyond claiming that ‘human trafficking’ is the third largest criminal enterprise, making a grand intellectual leap to assert that the “illegal sex industry” specifically is the third largest organized criminal activity. Similarly, assertions that the “trafficking of women and children” are the “third most lucrative” endeavor for organized crime have also been made. Other sources have even gone so far as to make speculative declares that human trafficking has overtaken arms trafficking, to become the second largest source of profits for organized crime.
Human trafficking is an important yet complicated issue, which requires more than blanketed unsubstantiated statements that obscure the reality of the situation. In this instance even credible sources have repeated a baseless claim, which illustrates the dangers of individual diplomacy in a globalize world; from the comments of Brownback to the statements of the State Department and the United Nations.
If anyone can find substantiating information for these comments I would be happy and amazed.

TPD and Conflict Resolution

As diplomacy becomes increasingly popular, especially with the Obama administration, practitioners verify that they hold the ability to better the reputation of the Western world. But according to Copeland, traditional diplomacy is not enough to tackle the challenges produced by globalization as the relevance of governments diminish from the center stage. Transformational public diplomacy on the other hand, should be understood and utilized globally in order to foster an appropriate environment for effective diplomatic performance in our globalizing society.

Copeland views globalization quite pessimistically, noting that it weakens governments, leads to state failure and is only instrumental to those who can afford the goods it produces. If globalization is creating a bigger need for security and stability, contributing to international development is critical as a means of balancing these threats. The modern diplomat should become a “globalization manager” and embrace “representation reform, the retooling of organizational structure and bureaucratic process, and enlargement of the resource base.” Transformational public diplomacy should be used to inform rather than persuade and spark dialogue that will encourage genuine relationships. Moreover attention should be focused on soft power as an important aspect of using attraction to accomplish TPD.

One of the discussion questions raised by Copeland asks if TPD is suited for application in conflict zones. My reply would be yes, it is during this time of state frailty that international involvement is critical and if carried out correctly can have immense influence upon the relationship between that state, it’s surrounding states and the United States. During times of conflict the world is looking at the US especially to see how it will respond and carry out aid and other needs of the states involved. This is opportune time to incorporate diplomatic efforts with humanitarian efforts in order to portray an appropriate image to the world. Diplomacy will be most efficient if partnered with a commitment to development, and TPD as a contributor to creating stability and resilience can manage the issues that result from globalization and problems of international security.

Source:
Daryl Copeland, "Transformational Public Diplomacy, Rethinking Advocacy for the Globalization Age" Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2009) 5, 97-102

What Caught My Eye This Week

There are two topics that stuck out to me this week. First is the notion that diplomacy is changing and second, the concept of nation branding in the realm of public diplomacy.

Are we all diplomats? The current practice of diplomacy is very wishy-washy in my mind. I have the old sense of diplomatic institutions and lifestyles, but I find that notion changing or one could argue already changed. Diplomacy has an expansive role and has been integrated into many of our own lives. Diplomacy is beginning to be redefined into how we as individual diplomats are helping solve global problems. With our technological advances we each have a greater deal of engagement with the rest of the world.

In Sustainable Public Diplomacy: Communicating about Identity, Interests and terrorism, Anthony Deos and Geoffrey Allen Pigman explain that there are many challenges in the “global environment that have altered the practice of traditionally diplomacy”(154). I think this notion of diplomacy changing is for the better, however one must be careful. I like how the power of diplomacy is now spread out to many individuals, but that also makes it much harder to moderate our diplomatic engagements with the rest of the world.

In terms of nation branding, I am curious how nation branding is built into public diplomacy efforts. The concept of nation branding is fairly new. Simon Anholt, the pioneer of the field, first coined the term ‘nation branding’ in 1998. Anholt, a British marketing consultant, noted that the concept of “country of origin” goes further that places and that nations themselves are brands.[1] Anholt also noted that countries have reputations, which they trying to improve and developing through branding. Now with a global market place, those reputations have much greater significance. Advertising, like TV campaigns is just a small part of the way Nations brand themselves and is all part of their public diplomacy effort. Nation branding is about consistent policies. Anholt believes that “living the brand” and making sure that every government agency is in tune with each other must occur.

Branding can both help and hurt a country. Positive brands can stick with and help a country for a long time, while a country that is branded a ‘rogue’ nation, is very different to undo the damage. Yet, Anholt believes that all of the nation branding in the world won’t help a country that’s selling a poor product.[2]

Countries are hiring media producers to create campaigns about their country. For example, Sherif Sabri, known as the most successful producer of music videos in the Arab world, was hired in 2006 to work on a campaign about Egypt. He stated, “I am branding Egypt.” Egypt, a country with almost 80 million people and known as the land of Pharaohs, is being branded as if they were a product like Coca-Cola or Nike.[3] The campaigns are produced for tourists, investors, and even for Egyptians.

---

[1] Eric Weiner. "Consultants Develop Notion of Branding Nations", npr http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5149506.

[2] Eric Weiner.

[3] Eric Weiner.

Nick Cull, in Jamming for Uncle Sam: Getting the Best From Cultural Diplomacy, explains the four major types of cultural diplomacy, which include: the prestige gift; cultural information; dialogue and collaboration; and capacity building.
In criticizing Michael Kaiser, president of the Kennedy Center, Cull states, “[h]e caricatures cultural diplomacy as ‘sending a symphony orchestra to play for a thousand of the most powerful people in the capital of another nation’ and ignores the true breadth and reach of contemporary cultural diplomacy.” This piece is an important reminder that art can be used to raise awareness of different cultures, promote social cohesion, and strengthen intercultural relations. Art used for diplomacy need not be merely “high culture,” but instead be representative of a culture’s many characteristics in order to create connections between divided societies.

Art can be instrumental in shaping the tone and nature of intercultural relations. But it is important that we understand our target audience. Bluntly speaking, I have very little interest in the symphony orchestra, but I enjoy political art exhibits. Different individuals obviously have differing interests. The advantage of a multifaceted culture, such as ours, is that we have many elements we can utilize for diplomacy.

Furthermore, in one of its latest innovative concepts, the Google Art Project allows people all over the world to explore museums from around the world, and view hundreds of artworks at incredible zoom levels. Like never before, individuals will have the ability to explore other nation’s most precious pieces of art and perhaps in this way we can further transformative role art can play in societies.

Jam Session Diplomacy

In Out from Under the Proscenium: A Paradigm for U.S. Cultural Diplomacy, Peter Kovach advocates for people-to-people diplomacy, through a cultural diplomacy of engagement. The article focuses on the arts as a venue through which international peers can co-create, and in fact is reminiscent of Amelia Arsenault and Geoffrey Cowan's points in Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy.

As opposed to promoting cultural products through the one way, monologue-style communication that is a performance such as a concert, sending an American, for example, to explore an artistic medium in a foreign country avoids evoking notions of cultural hegemony. The benefits of such an approach are two-fold:

1) It validates the country partner
2) It adds to American’s knowledge of the outside world.

In addition to the fact that fusion of culture and creative endeavor is something that enhances both cultures, these support the notion that successful public diplomacy should involve engagement and listening. The collaborative aspect of creating of an end-product ensures that the exchange results in legitimacy and helps build credibility between the two parties.

The prototype of what Kovach advocates follows the scenario of an international jam session that results in a product that is a fusion of the different cultures, which then becomes a tangible cultural product that can be promoted. He gives the example of jazzman Darryl Kennedy, who went to Egypt as a Jazz Ambassador and connected with some local musicians. After jamming with the local group for two months, they cut a joint CD and ended up going on tour in Egypt.