Does Egypt is destroying its image or endorsing its countries stereotypes? Nation branding.

Recently I read very interesting article about “Middle Eastern countries polishing their images”. The article talks about how Middle Eastern countries, like Egypt and Israel, for last couple year are trying to rebuild its global image. They spend big amount of money and higher specialists just to change their “hotbed of religious extremism, war, terror and political repression, the region naturally seems to be fertile soil for rabid image wizards” reputation. I found it very interesting, especially, after our conversation in class about national branding, while experiencing the present situation in Egypt.

Eytan Gilboa in his article “Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy” as one of the contributions to public diplomacy mentions branding. Nation branding is an action which creates the way how the country wants to be seen by the people nationally or globally. As “Middle Eastern countries polishing their images” article mentions Egypt was trying its hardest to change its nation appearance to more democratic country. However, today’s situation in Egypt is showing us how easy it is to create, sustain or change impressions about country. As of now it is obvious that Egyptian government is not fallowing democratic values. Well it brings up the question, why would they put so much effort to be seen as a democracy, and were building their countries new branding? All brings to public diplomacy and its influence on international relations. However present situation in Egypt shows how badly Egyptian government uses its public diplomacy tools in crisis situation. Therefore, Egyptian government by not very well considered “monologue” confirms a negative reputation about of the country.

Nevertheless, the Egypt’s example also presents how nation branding is important in today’s public diplomacy and such a big impact it has on countries international relations.

http://nation-branding.info/2011/01/15/middle-eastern-countries-polishing-their-images/

140 Characters to Public Diplomacy

John Brown, former US diplomat and current Public Diplomacy blogger extraordinaire has emphasized the United States’ decreasing use or acknowledgement of Public Diplomacy as an important tool of the government for the diplomatic sphere. Instead, Brown posits, the United States has begun to leave Public Diplomacy in the hands of the people. “For the people, of the people and by the people” has never been so true. The current Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Judith McHale has stressed the use of development or U.S. foreign assistance as a way to foster goodwill and promote values of the United States. (Brown, 27 Nov.)
Of course, it is true; the world has changed due to the international communication revolution. A message from one side of the world takes mere seconds to reach the screen of a relative, friend, or stranger on the other side of the world. Personal interaction through social media sites cannot be underestimated. Public Diplomacy is not only the work of the government, but now an unconscious side effect of easy international communication. Oglesby presents this view of a very public, Public Diplomacy in Joseph Nye Jr.’s definition of “new public diplomacy” as “building relationships with civil-society actors in other countries and about facilitating networks between nongovernmental parties at home and abroad” (Oglesby 8). This definition of “new public diplomacy” further develops the theory of public diplomacy moving beyond traditional means into the realm of NGOs, private companies and regular citizens. Again, there is an emphasis placed on the expansion of the players in the Public Diplomacy field and how the players interact.
Though the international communications revolution gave the ability of regular citizens to perform Public Diplomacy, it has also transformed the way governments perform Public Diplomacy. A new study found that more children were able to use a computer than tie their shoes at a young age; to engage these future Internet diplomats, the state has had to take on a greater involvement in new social media.
Arsenault and Cowan describe the different ways one may conduct Public Diplomacy. In the world of Mark Zuckerberg and “Facebook,” this means dialogue. Queen Elizabeth II, though not the political ruler of the United Kingdom, does in many ways represent the values, tradition and history of the UK; she also has a “Facebook” page. Now, people around the world may enter a dialogue with the Queen. Argentinians, Chinese, Americans, Brits and more have all “liked” her page. Though she will not reply back to comments left on her “wall” (including those full of admiration for her ‘luv teh queen <3’), she will provide information on her schedule, pictures and a link to her “YouTube” videos. However, one can still use monologue in the Public Diplomacy of the digital age. In 140 characters one can read brief updates from the White House. “President Obama on the phone with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt in the Oval Office, VP Biden listens,” was one of the many tweets on January 28, 2011. A “twitpic” was included and suddenly anyone could read or see the diplomatic skills of the United States in action.
The communications revolution has changed the way diplomacy is practiced. The realm of diplomacy and the boundaries of states are in flux in the limitless world of the Internet. NGOs, companies, and regular citizens have a chance to voice their opinions and represent their countries as diplomats of the digital age. Governments must also adapt their Public Diplomacy initiatives to cater to the new generations of the Internet savvy. Governments no longer stand alone as the sole purveyors of Public Diplomacy and must come to terms and learn to use the powerful ways of the Internet. Perhaps states do have something to learn from non-state entities on the power of the Internet. Lady Gaga does have the most Twitter followers…

Muslim Brotherhood using PD?

The people of Egypt have been protesting for nearly a week now in order to end Mubarak’s thirty-year presidency. Cairo has been in chaos but in the midst of this chaos the Muslim Brotherhood has been doing something quite intriguing. They have been trying to gain support and woo more people to join their cause and they have been doing this by means of public diplomacy.

According to an article put out by STRATFOR the Muslim Brotherhood in an attempt to gain favor and support has been systematically adding to the chaos, but as the same time helping to protect citizens. The STRATFOR article states that the group is supplying demonstrators with food, beverages and first aid. In addition to these actions they have also been organizing groups to protect public property, like the Egyptian Museum. This does not seem like a benevolent gesture to me, but a precise calculated move. Goals of PD are to influence and persuade by means of engagement and soft power. It seems that the MB are doing just this in hopes to gather more followers among the protestors, most of who are not protesting on religious grounds. Their actions have not been labeled as a PD effort, but it is interesting to see the similarities between what governments would do and what a small group can do for PD or PR purposes to gain favor.

The link to the small article is below:
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110129-red-alert-hamas-and-muslim-brotherhood

PROPAGANDA GOOD OR BAD?

Pondering about our last class in which we discussed the Propaganda use I came to the conclusion that propaganda is unavoidable and it is everywhere. Nevertheless, we cannot take it for granted because it can have its positive connotations as the negative. Everything in the world has its spectrum so as propaganda. Moreover, Feelings that we have towards actions, words, or object will be differentiated depending on a personal, cultural or historical point of view. Videos that we watch in class were a great example of many uses of propaganda. Both of the videos had the same goal, to influence the public with some sort of ideas or feelings. Nevertheless, should it be taken in the negative way? Should we consider propaganda as something harmful? Well, we should say yes and no. The idea of propaganda and its implications would differentiate depending on its purpose. The examples that were seen in the movie, “Sea of Flags,” or the way propaganda was used among the Soviet Union countries to control the society, could be considered as a very negative tool. However, not all of the propagated actions are negative.

A good example of positive use of propaganda could be sine in the movie produced in 1951 by the American government, which tries to influence kids with good habits of eating food. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x79vkw_1951-good-eating-habits-government_news

On the other hand, propaganda is very often used for other purposes not as noble. Judging from the Polish native perspective propaganda is perceived with very negative connotation basing on its use during communism. In Poland propaganda was used by the Soviet Union to spread misleading information and facts. Intention of those actions was to create an image of a perfect country that Poland could become under the rule of Soviet Union. Unfortunately, none of that was truthful. Nevertheless, we should not think about propaganda as used only to harmfully influence the society. People should be aware of its existences and as inelegant beings make decisions based on our own personal believes, analyzing the both sides of the spectrum.

Propaganda for the democratized?

When viewing the powerful documentaries of Leni Riefenstahl, one cannot help but be amazed. The precision, the force, the sheer enormity of Nazi rallies, it is difficult not to be impressed by the coordination of such events. Those and similar military parades in modern day North Korea, which depict thousands of soldiers and citizens parading for the glory of their country are not only somewhat frightening, but also mesmerizing. Needless to say, these mass rallies and Riefenstahl’s documentaries are made for use as propaganda.

Propaganda, the pejoratively tinged word, which conjures up the images of Stalin-led USSR and Franco’s Spain... Propaganda as defined by Leonard Doob cites the “control of individuals through the use of suggestion…regardless of whether or not the propaganda intends to exercise the control” (Black 123). Edgar Henderson elaborated on the definition of propaganda, listing several requirements for a piece to be considered as such. Henderson concludes that propaganda works to affect an individual in a certain way “before he can deliberate freely” (Black 123). It is therefore safe to say that documentaries like Riefenstahl, which shock and overwhelm the viewer with the enormity of the Nazi party’s purpose, can certainly be defined as propaganda.

However, is propaganda useful in countries where there is no other choice of politic, but the one presented? Is propaganda not more useful in democratized countries, where one may voice a plethora of different opinions, possibly destabilizing the government or balance of power? Leni Riefenstahl films did earn numerous accolades in Nazi Germany, but regardless, citizens were not allowed to protest the government. Besides strengthening the support of known followers and converting those unsure of the party’s goals, one could say the films were a bit superfluous.

Thus, is public diplomacy the “propaganda” of democratized states? Is public diplomacy the Anakin to propaganda’s Darth Vader? Cull breaks down the definition of public diplomacy into several components; listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, exchange, international broadcasting and the half-cousin of public diplomacy, psychological warfare (10). Cull outlines several examples of good acts of public diplomacy…Switzerland’s “listening” to UK citizens who saw the Swiss as conservative, due to their support of the Conservative Party and thereafter saw the switch of Swiss support to the Labour Party (29), etc. Though public diplomacy serves as a positive reinforcement of a country’s image, one cannot help but wonder if propaganda would be far more useful, especially in democratized states. If the progressive initiatives of the democratic-majority Congress (before the midterm elections) were propagandized, would a greater amount of legislation have been passed, with speed and consensus? Instead of disunity and strife, if the ideals of the democratized nation were propagandized, could there be positive results? Of course, the use of propaganda is a double-edged sword and one with a sharp point, so perhaps it is better to leave it in the belt and continue to use the olive branch of public diplomacy.

Propaganda or Public Diplomacy--What's the Difference?

The opening class discussions and readings have been about the differences between propaganda and public diplomacy. Over the years each term has been defined in various way, which link them both to be one in the same or to be completely different things. The bottom-line being that both public diplomacy and propaganda are created with the intention to transmit a certain message in order to alter or influence the opinion or ideas of the target audience, but in different ways.

The idea that the Beijing opening ceremonies were propaganda was intriguing because prior to this class I had never thought of them in that manner but after watching the Nazi propaganda movie and the opening ceremony clip, the similarities were startling. When I watched the first time I was just in awe of the beauty and precision of the spectacle, thus their propagandistic show worked on me temporarily, but not entirely. The opening ceremony did not mask their human rights violations, but it made some forget about them and it showcased their organizational skills. Our class categorized the opening ceremony as propaganda because it had an aggressive militaristic feel and the Chinese had obvious goals that they were trying to accomplish by this great show. Some would disagree with that classification and say it was just a public diplomacy effort to showcase Chinese culture.

So what is the difference between propaganda and public diplomacy? Is it just merely that propaganda has a negative connotation? According to Doob, cited in the Black reading, defined propaganda “as an attempt to affect the personalities and to control the behavior of individuals…”, which suggests that there is an element of mind control that is not present in public diplomacy. In the Van Ham reading, Bruce Gregory gives a good definition of public diplomacy, he states is a means by which a state or non state actors understand cultures, expand, manage and build relationships, which sounds much more benign than propaganda. But what really is the difference? From what I have read and experienced public diplomacy is a tool that nations use to educate others about their country and culture through engagement, which is distinct from propaganda because public diplomacy engages people in a positive way for a positive purpose.