Credibility is Key

In a recent post by Marc Lynch, he writes about U.S. public diplomacy in the Arab countries and towards the Muslim population in general. Lynch discusses how the U.S. has been successful in their PD efforts, which is quite a positive view in my opinion because more often I have heard negative feedback from the wake of the post-Cairo speech agenda. The U.S. is due some credit because we have taken strong steps by way of engaging youth, focusing on entrepreneurship and science and technology promotion in Arab nations. As Lynch indicates, “there are pockets of progress, but overall public diplomacy in the region has been distressingly weak”, thus what is the next step for the U.S.?

Recently, at the U.S. Islamic-World Forum, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, set forth her vision on how to deal with the changes that resulted from the uprisings. In her speech, Clinton stated that the United States would stand firm with the people of Tunisia and Egypt to ensure their rights and liberties, which is an important message for the people within those countries to hear. It is important for our PD efforts to say this, but words are not the only important thing. Rhetoric only goes so far. Like with Obama’s groundbreaking Cairo speech, which promised new beginnings, there needs to be significant action behind our rhetoric to ensure we maintain the credibility of our PD. Credibility is vital because without the efforts of the U.S. mean nothing. Post-Cairo speech, there was disappointment because many felt that the U.S. had not lived up to Obama’s many promises. The U.S. has made strides in engaging the Arab and Muslim world, but there is still a lot that needs to be done. Thus Secretary Clinton’s words are powerful, but there needs to be visible action behind them if the U.S. really wants to make progress in the Middle East.




Related Links:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/04/160642.htm

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/14/135405357/foreign-policy-how-the-us-got-arab-diplomacy-right

..and Congress Saves our PD

Tensions were running high on Friday as Congress was still in a stalemate and the hours drew nearer to the deadline that would result in a government shutdown. Domestically the shutdown would have been a terrible experience, which would have resulted in, for example, national parks and the Smithsonian’s closing. Though there was a silver lining in that restaurants were advertising discounts or Z-Burger said they would be offering free burgers to all government employees. That aside the government shutdown would have reached beyond our borders. It would have meant that embassies and consulates were closed and all programs and events that were planned would not be allowed to go on, which would have been awful PD for the United States. What example would we have been setting for the rest of the world? When we try to export democracy and try to be the shining city upon the hill, it is contradictory when we cannot even pass our own budget. It would have been detrimental to our PD efforts if everything would have had to been stopped, no programs or embassy services, American centers closed, it would have looked very bad.

Congress pulled through at the eleventh hour with a proposed compromise and passed a continuing resolution that would keep our government funded for a little bit longer. If there was a shutdown, I think this would have hurt the credibility of our PD because we are promoting ideals and trying to portray a stable image of our country to the world, but then in the case of the shutdown, it would have contradicted all of these things. It would have hurt our image as a nation and negatively impacted our PD efforts, but also our image to foreign visitors who would not have been able to visit the Smithsonian’s or would have been shut out from seeing something like the Grand Canyon. Luckily, this did not occur, but it is interesting that something that seems it would only cause problems domestically actually has a much farther reaching impact zone.

Social Media and the Czech Republic: Is anybody listening!?

I have been researching social media in the Czech Republic as a part of my group project. This has been an interesting topic because the Czech Republic has been really trying to revamp their PD efforts and become a presence on the world stage. Thus far Czech PD is currently utilizing Facebook, Twitter, Flickr and Youtube with varying degrees of perceived success. The Czech Republic has the right idea in that they need to be utilizing this new social media in order to compete in the PD world, but the real question here is: is anyone out there listening??

As it has been mentioned before social media is not an immediate fix for a nation’s PD problems, thus it seems that he Czech Republic is trying but they do not have that many followers, tweets or likes. In the twitter department they are being beaten by Hugo Chavez and Georgetown Cupcake, just to name a few, though its not hard to beat around 56 tweets and roughly 600 followers. The Czech Republic needs to be active in engaging people on social media platforms, not just posting things because if one just keeps posting items, nothing is accomplished unless their messages are actually reaching an audience. Engaging with other on the web is key and also making it known that these types of sites exist for your nation because the numbers of people who follow the Czech Republic on these forums is disproportionate to the number of exchange students the Czech Republic claims to have because exchange programs would be a great starting point for them on social media because chances are that most if not all of those students utilize at least one or two forms of social media.

Overall the Czech Republic has great potential, but in order to realize it to its fullest extent they need to be engaged in their social media PD if they are going to have it because if they do not do this, what is the point of having it? If it is not working in their favor it is silly to put forth effort if no results are coming back and no one is listening.

CZECH out some of their pages:

Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/46170110@N05/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/CzechOfficial

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Czech.cz?v=wall&ref=ts

Hello Czech Republic: http://czech.cz/

You can even make Czech Republic e-cards!!!

Food Diplomacy: The Way to the Public's Heart is through their Stomach

The expression goes, "A way to a man's heart is through his stomach," this also holds true with the general public. Malaysia has recently caught on to this great idea of food diplomacy. What better way to promote your country than via food?? I found this article by Paul Rockower while searching for something interesting to put in this week's blog entry. Rockower outlines the gastrodiplomacy strategy of Malaysia, which is quite ingenious and successful. Malaysia was not the first country to do this, Thailand was, but they have experiences much success. This is an incredibly strategy to engage foreign publics in a non-controversial way and to foster a real affinity for your nation via your delicacies. Malaysia has been quite innovative and has set up a food truck in New York City because that seems to be the latest obsession in the U.S. This is a fantastic PD tactic that appeals to a broad audience and will undoubtedly have a positive influence on whoever decides to nosh on some Malaysian treats.

This concept coincides with the Anholt reading we had for this week about nation branding and what makes a successful nation branding is a good reputation and credibility. In fact, according to the article, Malaysia launched a branding campaign in 2006 to be known as the center for halal food in the Muslim world. According to Anholt, the reputation of a nation comes from the products and images that people associate with it, thus Malaysia’s gastrodiplomacy is a great tactic to bolster their image and reach out to a larger group of people. This is also a great way for Malaysia to promote their nation in a unique way that is more accessible to the general public than via art, literature or music.

Food diplomacy is a great tool and should be utilized more by nations in their PD campaigns because I think it is one of the most successful forms of PD.

Article Link:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-29/malaysia-jumps-on-gastrodiplomacy-bandwagon/#

PD in the New Egypt

I found this article on The Huffington Post quite interesting. It outlines what needs to be done in order for the U.S. to rebuild its relationship with Egypt. This is intriguing because still in recent memory is the June 4, 2009 Cairo speech that Obama gave which promised a “new beginning” and there was much hope brought by his inspiring words not only to Egypt but to the Muslim world. Mutual respect and understanding were major points and there was promise that we were on the brink of a major breakthrough. However, this was not entirely case. Some strides have been made in improving the relationship but one sore spot was never addressed until the revolution, the fact that we had continued to support Mubarak in spite of his actions of oppressing his fellow Egyptians. This was a major contradiction between our words and our actions; the U.S. did not live up to their promises, which has put us in a harsh light.

U.S. PD in Egypt is having a credibility crisis because we have not followed through on our words, which makes our PD efforts ineffective, as the article states, “But it cannot do so as long as much of U.S. public diplomacy is seen by the rest of the world as self-serving propaganda”. This is a huge problem and it invalidates our PD efforts, we must be sincere and credible because without those aspects our PD will accomplish nothing. The article states that, “the philosophy of U.S. public diplomacy should be altered to put greater emphasis on service to the individuals around the world”. The U.S. must realign their PD efforts to match our promises because credibility makes all the difference.

Article Links:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-seib/us-public-diplomacy-and-t_b_823002.html

@america in Indonesia: Changing Perceptions?

I came across this article this week when looking for an interesting topic to blog about. This article from the New York Times discusses the new American cultural center that just opened in Jakarta, Indonesia. The center called, @america, is in a mall and has many interactive and high-tech displays about American culture and history. In my opinion this is a great way to educate people about the U.S. and show them a positive representation of who we are as a nation. The number of cultural centers has been on the decline since the 1970s, as guest speaker John Brown mentioned. This is a step in the right direction and to show the people of Indonesia what America is.

Alternatively, the article presents some criticism of the center. One complaint about the center is that there is heavy security that one must go through to gain access to the center, which sends out a strange image to Indonesians and makes it seem like the U.S. does not trust them. This is always the fine line that U.S. PD has to walk between safety and a positive message with no contradicting actions, “The tension in American public diplomacy — the desire to reach out versus the fear of becoming a target — was evident in @america’s entrance: located in a discreet corner of the third floor, it offered no spot to peek into what lies inside.” As the quote from the article states, the U.S. really does want to reach out to the public but the sad reality of the world we live in makes it necessary to pass through body scans and metal detectors, which is something that PD has been struggling with. Safety cannot be forfeited completely, but this has not sat well with some Indonesians who have gone to the center. Despite the positive message within the center, it has not made them change their opinion nor has it made them less skeptical of the U.S. The center has sparked to urge to travel to the U.S., which is one of the center’s goals.

I think the center will have a positive impact on U.S. opinion in Indonesia, but that reaction will not be instant. As the article said, “…Mr. Marciel said, adding: “I think it can help, but the fact is, a lot of Indonesians are still a little bit skeptical of the United States, and that’s built up over many years. And our challenge is to steadily chip away at that.” That is exactly what the U.S. needs to do, slowly chip away at the skepticism to make way for a new positive opinion. Overall, I think this is a step in the right direction for our PD.

Article Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/world/asia/06indonesia.html

China's PD Issues

Recently, I read a very interesting Stratfor article about the link between China and the unrest in the Middle East. China has been attempting to shape its image abroad through extensive PD programs, such as the movie loop that plays in Time Square, which shows pictures of famous Chinese people. China has been attempting to portray their nation as a great nation filled with extraordinary people and emphasizing their rich culture. This has been an obvious effort to take the focus of most people off of some glaring issues that China has and the criticisms from the international community.

The article discusses how China is watching the Middle East unrest closely because they are afraid their own people will see what others are doing abroad to overthrow their dictatorial regimes, yet at the same time China has been striving to portray themselves in a positive light and not as a dictatorial, oppressive nation. I think China is worried because the Middle East unrest has shown the world what grass roots movements can do and how powerful they can be and this is threatening to the rigid government of China. It will be interesting to see if China alters its PD message and strategy in light of these events in order to bolster its image as a good and free nation. It is also interesting to see how events in one nation affect the PD of another nation and how world events just tend to domino nowadays.

Article Link:

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110223-dispatch-middle-east-unrest-and-chinas-resource-interests

Social Media and Public Diplomacy

Last week our class had an AWESOME guest speaker, Christopher Dufour, who discussed the role of social media in PD. Du4 explained that social media on its own will not be the saving grace for U.S. PD or PD run by any other nation. It was interesting to hear him speak honestly about social media because often I feel that people say that if the program uses Facebook or Twitter it will be an automatic success, which in reality is not the case. Du4 said that Facebook and Twitter are just tools, which can help facilitate PD, but alone do not suffice. Social media will not change the world on its own but it depends on what the people do who are behind those platforms. These electronic mediums will not and cannot replace the human element that is necessary to make PD a success.

Currently, the U.S. is utilizing all forms of social media, but according to some we are coming up short on our PD efforts in comparison to China’s aggressive PD programs. I found an intriguing article on the Huffington Post, which discussed how the U.S. is not prepared to compete with China and according to Senator Lugar, "our nation is not doing all it can to prepare for the increasingly prominent role China will play in our economic and foreign policy." The article discussed the coordinated Chinese PD strategy and how they are convinced to do all they can to get to their goal, which could be frightening or remarkable according to how you view China. So what does this mean for the U.S.? Do we need to focus on building more American centers and spaces like the Chinese are doing with their Confucius Centers, which are dramatically growing in number. Do we need to use social media more aggressively to show the world our message and positively promote our culture? Personally, I agree with Du4 and I do not think that social media is a panacea. Gladwell brings up this point in his article, “Small Change.” Gladwell discusses that social media alone cannot foster the same amount of change that a protest can cause, it can help organize those activities but the social media itself cannot cause the desired change to occur. So what does this mean for U.S. PD?

The U.S. needs to amp up its PD to be able to compete with China because according to some we are falling behind. But what do we need to do? I think we need to devote more people and resources to PD in order to stay competitive, but with this year’s budget still hanging in the balance, I am not sure what we will be able to do.

Article Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-seib/lugar-report-offers-neede_b_825436.html

American Pop Culture and Public Diplomacy

This past week Dr. John Brown, former Foreign Service officer and blogger, came to class to discuss cultural and public diplomacy. Through his animated and engaging stories the disparity of cultural understanding between Americans and Russians became evident. Russians value culture and it is a huge part of their society, where it is also important to Americans, but not exactly in the same way. We don’t memorize poetry or songs the way the Russians do Brown explained. Russians value high culture where as most Americans ascribe to popular culture, which is not bad, just a different mindset. Thus when doing PD with nations who value high culture, a different approach needs to be taken. Throughout Brown’s talk the ways in which America was lacking in cultural diplomacy were clear.
The U.S. has a huge media presence, which accounts for some of the stereotypes of Americans around the world. Peter Van Ham discusses the idea of cultural and media diplomacy in his chapter entitled, Culture and Constructivism. Van Ham writes that Hollywood can exercise America’s social power easily through films and TV shows because they are easily available to watch and they appeal to a wide audience. This can have both positive and negative effects depending on the film or TV show. Van Ham discusses a survey taken in 2003 in which teenagers in twelve countries associated America with sexual amorality, materialism and violence…just to name a few things (Van Ham 54). That shows that many people have no idea about the positive aspects of American culture Van Ham concludes that characters like Tony Soprano may be as much to blame as the Iraq war (54). That is a very interesting statement that shows America’s image is just as connected to a fictional character as it is with our foreign policy.
The next season of Jersey Shore is going to be filmed in Italy, which may be a good or bad idea depending on your impression of the show. It will be interesting to see what happens as they start to film the next season and what impact it will have on the U.S. image for better or for worse, we shall see.

U.S. Dialogue Shift...Soft Power Potential?

Yesterday, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton announced that the U.S. will stand behind the Egyptian people and give them support to guarantee their desires for free and fair elections and the other freedoms they have been deprived of. This is a dialogue switch from prior statements that were made by the U.S. government. Hilary stated that she wants to ensure a peaceful, smooth transition to a transparent government.

It seems that the U.S. has learned from past revolution disasters, such as the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which stemmed from discontentment with the U.S. backed Shah. Thus instead of backing Mubarak strongly, they are opting for a “new beginning”, which harkens back to Obama’s June 4^th 2009 speech in Cairo, which promised a fresh start for U.S. relations with the Middle East and the Muslim world. Until now Obama has not kept the many promises he made in that speech, but now his words may be holding true.

The U.S. favors an orderly transition because it will give the government and people time to process the change, rather than a violent ousting of Mubarak, hence why the U.S. is softly urging him to start transitioning out of office. Alternatively a very slow transition in which Mubarak stays in power until September would not be ideal either because it would give the Muslim Brotherhood more time to gather support. In a Washington Post article Secretary of State Clinton stated that Egypt’s leadership should seek dialogue with the opposition, but as of yet no progress has been made on that front.

It will be interesting how the U.S. will handle this transition because Egypt has been an ally, but at the same time the Egyptian people have been cheated and deprived of their rights. Thus the U.S. cannot be too harsh in their dialogue, but they cannot be too weak because the people of Egypt are looking for support in their fight for freedom. To reference our class discussion about soft power last week, this is a prime opportunity for the U.S. to exercise our soft power. The Egyptian people want freedom and the U.S. has the opportunity to foster freedom and fair government within the nation. The U.S. has the potential to be a hero in this situation and exercise a fair amount of soft power but will the U.S. take the bait?

Links to the articles:

http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE71175920110206?WT.tsrc=Social%20Media&ca=rdt

http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/update_egypt

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/05/AR2011020501707_3.html?wpisrc=nl_headline&sid=ST2011020402531

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.