Not Joseph Nye!

I was rather blown away by the Zahran and Ramos article, "From hegemony to soft power," a Gramscian interpretation of the ideas put forward by Joseph Nye. I should say that Nye's ideas have always resonated with me, maybe especially as someone who has been on the soft power side of things for quite some time. Nye's ideas as expressed in his book Soft Power (2004) being made up of a country's culture, its political values, and its foreign policies, and his combined strategies of daily and strategic communications as well as building long-term relationships with key individuals seems a logical if not simplified way to provide an overview of co-optive (non-coercive) power and how it is actually used in the real world.

Not that I think that hard and soft power should be separated out--they both have their place and are part of the toolkit (hate the word arsenal) that the State has at its disposal to be persuasive, and to promote its interests. Nye's article entitled "Public Diplomacy and Soft Power" (2008) reinforces this idea--that "smart power," or the use of all persuasive tools at our disposal is the way to go. He seems right on to me in saying that soft power is squandered quite easily by bad policy decisions, just as it is weakened by propaganda that lacks the credible backbone of well-thought out policy, and messages that are either too far from the policy they purport to explain or inappropriate for a particular audience.

Got it. Like it. Understand it. I'm with you, Nye.

Then Zahran and Ramos come along and try to explain in Gramscian terms that Nye is simply a tool of the system, an "organic intellectual" whose ideas work in support of a "globalist historic bloc" that found a way to stay in power across countries and cultures by implementing neoliberal economic policies, satisfying an elite liberal class, and throwing just enough privileges to certain groups in the underprivileged classes. The authors say that this group was doing all right until "private interests" in the financial sector tried to take too much, and and Bush swept into the White House with his cronies from the Cold War era and right-wing church-goers.

Fine, I get that, but...how in the world do the authors make the stretch to say that Nye is actually supporting this apparatus of idiots? Of course, we all have embedded perspectives, and Nye does, too, but I don't see his theories as those in support of the public policy he has clearly criticized. These authors really had to take a shoehorn to fit Nye into that role.

I would put someone like Jeffrey Sachs into the role of organic intellectual in support of such a neoliberal agenda right away (He fits perfectly! It snagged him a great job, and even some globetrotting gigs with Bono)...throw Bono in there, too--the guy goes between Louis Vuitton glossy ads and yapping about the misery of the inhabitants of the third world)--but not Nye.

But...I'm trying to keep an open mind about all of this. I am continually intrigued by what Gramsci has been intrigued about--how a privileged social class stays in power without being coercive, and, as Zahran and Ramos assert in their article, how those in power manage hegemony over the underprivileged by presenting their ideas as "universal." I also like the way they took the discussion outside of the boundaries of states and into the global sphere. Maybe they're onto something on a number of points, but I'm skeptical. The argument sounds like a dependentista conspiracy theory to me.

I would've like to have known more about the ideas of Gramsci before tackling this one. Would love to hear other's views on this article.

The Middle East's PD Powerhouse

Over the past few days I have been riveted to various news outlets covering the situation in Egypt, but none has been more comprehensive than Al Jazeera. Of course numerous articles have already been written about the network's success in covering the recent events but it is important to remember that Al Jazeera is based in Qatar and was originally largely funded by the Emir of Qatar. Qatar, a small country that occupies a small peninsula surrounded by the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia has rapidly raised its global profile in the past decade. With a population under 2 million, Qatar, flush with oil and natural gas money, continues to punch above its weight on the global scale, recently winning the 2022 World Cup bid. As Philip Seib notes in an article on the Huffington Post, Al Jazeera in its various incarnations serves as a virtual ambassador for Qatar. Although Qatar does participate in traditional diplomacy, hosting peace talks for Lebanon and Sudan as well as a host of conferences, Qatar's public diplomacy mainly focuses on creating and sustaining an image as a dynamic modern nation that still manages to balance the demands of religion and tradition, and Al Jazeera certainly fits this message.

As an intern for the Meridian International Center this past summer, I was asked to research Qatar and its funding avenues, particularly the Qatar Foundation chaired by the Emir's second wife, Sheikha Mozha. The QF certainly plays a large role in Qatar's overall public diplomacy efforts, particularly in its management of Education City which covers 14 square kilometers and houses educational facilities from school age to research level and branch campuses of some of the world's leading universities such as Carnegie Mellon and Georgetown. While this and many other projects are noteworthy, it is important to remember that Qatar's rapid ascent and robust public diplomacy efforts are only achieved due to the country's wealth. While Seib is correct in suggesting that Qatar may be a new model of global power by using its wealth rather than force, its hard to identify many nations with the amount of capital necessary to to follow this template outside of the Middle East. Perhaps it would be more practical to look at Qatar as a model for other Middle Eastern nations in general rather than other small but wealthy countries.

Seib's article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-seib/qatars-wellfunded-public-_b_808181.html

Just as I finished writing my post, I came across a great article from the guardian that addresses Qatar's incessant efforts to boost its image, although the author's inclusion of Qatar's shortcomings in the areas of human rights are an indication that perhaps Qatar's strategy of throwing money at PD projects may not be enough to cover up less pleasant aspects areas of the country's affairs. The article does highlight however the emphasis on education and culture that permeates Qatar's public diplomacy and how intriguingly, the relative absolute quality of the Emir's power may in fact be responsible for the liberalization of this society.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/23/qatar-film-festival-gulf-emirate

Made in the USA - Not so good for business overseas?

I'll be discussing this article, and the protests in Egypt in general today.

Even as the protests in Egypt gains more and more popular support (as shown by the apparent support of the Egyptian Army), the question remains: what does this mean for the rest of the world? The United States in particular has helped prop up the Mubarak regime for the last 30 years, and the Obama administration is now in a particularly difficult position; do they continue supporting what has been a US (Policy) Friendly regime, or do they herald the popular movement as a legitimate and valid expression of discontent? So far, the response from the State department has been tepid, at best. This response is somewhat understandable, considering the realities of foreign policy and the global community. Responsible First World nations are expected to keep their promises to their allies and maintain good relationships with long-time partners, so it is perhaps no small wonder that there has been little official response aside from general wishes for a quick resolution and little bloodshed.

But Egyptians are not taking this as a sign of good faith. Instead, the USA's history in the area speaks louder than any monologic (to use a term from Arsenault and Cowen's "Three Layers of Public Diplomacy") statements the State department might make, short of explicit and tangible support for the protesters. According to the above article, the Egyptian citizens are outraged at the US for supporting Mubarak, with the plain evidence of such on each and every rubber bullet and tear gas canister that are launched at the crowds. If the United States wants to save some face in this situation, it will need to step up and not only take back control of its monologic statements (of which the casings sadly fall under), but it will need to create actual dialogue with the protesters - proving that it is listening to their desires and needs, and not just covering its own interests. While I'm sure that the State department is working to formulate policy when/if Mubarak is removed from power, it might behoove them to start supporting the popular movement now, before the opportunity for a new start is lost.

Slumdog Tourism???

In our discussions, many classmates have brought up the element of tourism as a means of Public Diplomacy (PD). Are exchange programs a component of PD? Is recreation or leisurely travel a form of PD? If so, what is the impact of such tourism?

As someone who has traveled extensively abroad, especially to many impoverished and/or developing nations, I can see potential benefits and damages depending upon the type of tourism. 

A few months ago, The New York Times published an op-ed decrying tourists who visit slums (see link below). The author, a former citizen of Nairobi, claims those who wish to see firsthand the utter destitution and squalid conditions of others show a grave insensitivity, perhaps even act exploitively. He views that the temporary visit(s) exposes the embarrassing conditions others live with, albeit the tourists can quickly huddle back into their chartered buses/tours. He felt like he was on display, like an animal in a zoo. 

While I sympathize with this man's perspective, I disagree with his opinion. While he's correct in the facts, many tourists do make an effort to socialize with the locals. Some go as far as volunteering or donating money. Additionally, young folks (like me) can make career altering decisions based upon reflecting on their experiences in places like Nairobi. An impetus to matriculate into the School of International Service was based greatly on my eye-openeing travel experiences. I hope to make an impact in towns like Nairobi someday, so although some tourists may disgustingly gawk, or ridicule, I walked away appreciative and motivated. Therefore, opening up greater access for tourism can have more than just immediate economic effects. It can be a form of long-term PD, hoping those who are witnesses return as activists. 

Link - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/opinion/10odede.html

Why All Nations Can Have Soft Power

When reading Joseph S. Nye’s Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, I was struck by his focus on the U.S. He does propose a sort of universal framework in which foreign policy, domestic values and policies, high culture, and pop culture are all sources of soft power. However, he never really tries to apply that framework to another country. There is an underlying assumption that something about the U.S. makes it have eminently greater soft power than others might. Zahran and Ramos quote him as saying “the United States benefits from a universalistic culture.”[1] Step back for a second and suppose that you are a leader of a state that is far from universalistic. In fact, many around the globe may revile your state. Since you don’t have a universalistic culture, should you just forget about trying to generate soft power? The answer is no.

A couple months ago, I was watching a documentary on the History Channel based on the book Killing Pablo, by Mark Bowden. Pablo Escobar was of course an infamous drug lord during an especially blood-soaked epoch of Colombian history. Yet, Colombians elected him to the legislature. Certainly, many feared him, but that alone cannot explain the vote. Escobar had built soccer fields in some of the poorest parts of the country that the government neglected. Through the hard power of drug money, he built an air of magnanimity, turning himself into a Robin Hood figure.

If someone like Escobar can pull off a feat like that, then surely all nations, not just democracies can exercise soft power. They can do so by focusing international attention on aspects that their audience would see as positive, just as Escobar influenced his domestic audience. China for instance, likes to win friends in international forums by promoting its ideal of non-interference in other’s affairs. That idea appeals to regimes which face a lot of criticism internationally. Crucially, the Chinese don’t have to convince the populations of these often authoritarian regimes of anything, but only have to reach the elites.

As Brian Hocking notes in Rethinking the ‘New’ Public Diplomacy, states regularly try to create, in the minds of others, a gap between their rival’s image and deeds. However, if states can do that to rivals, logically, they should be able to close the gap between the perception and reality of their own state. That is why the public-relations framework that Gilboa talks about is a useful way to help understand PD. Public relations, in either a one-way or two-way communication, focuses audience attention on the aspects of reality most beneficial to your brand. So, there is hope after all for un-free societies to have soft power.

---

[1] “From Hegemony to Soft Power”, Zahran and Ramos, 24

In Defense of (Part of) the Smith-Mundt Act

If you read The Mountain Runner blog, one of the items the authors discuss most is the Smith-Mundt Act. Indeed, the Act came in Armstrong’s discussion of The Daily Show episode featuring the VOA-produced Parazit, a Farsi doppelganger of the John Stewart’s routine.[1] The Daily Show, according to the law, should not have been to show the clip from Parazit. That is because the Smith-Mundt Act prohibits the government from broadcasting its own information products to an American audience, or even distributing for private use on request.[2] Therefore, the Act is an inconvenience to the practitioners of American public diplomacy. As Armstrong notes in his post, if the American media cannot fully grasp and analyze their government’s public diplomacy, then the opportunity for an independent critique is lost. In a field such as public diplomacy where there are not set rules of what “works” and what does not, the lack of constructive criticism is not helpful. However, to categorize the act as completely asinine would be foolish because it still serves some necessary functions.

Chief among those functions is to keep the U.S. government from propagandizing against its own citizens. Certainly, no one is advocating that we allow the VOA or RFE/RL to target Americans, if that is the right verb. However, we should be leery of any trend in that direction. If we accept the notion that government broadcasting can influence people, than we should be loath to have domestic government broadcasting in the style of the VOA. (yes, I know we already have PBS and NPR) What Sure, the VOA and other agencies like may not take order directly from the President, but they don’t come off as strident forums for opposition to the U.S. either. Since they have a tradition of echoing the government’s line, they would continue to do so if allowed to give out content domestically to diaspora communities, as almost happened in Minnesota to a Somali community. Essentially, there are two, conflicting and equally legitimate needs. The first need is to advance American interests abroad through propaganda, and allowing the domestic audience help mold and tailor PD messages best serves that end. The second need is to makes sure that the government is affecting its own tax-payers with its own self-aggrandizing propaganda.

A compromise solution that would both boost American public diplomacy and keep our democracy safe would be to maintain the ban on direct government broadcasting to American citizens, but allow private media, organizations, and individuals to request those public diplomacy products. That way, there will always be a set of critical eyes on government broadcasting, but American citizenry will be spared the effects of their own government’s propaganda.

---

[1] http://mountainrunner.us/2011/01/voa_on_The_Daily_Show.html#more

[2] http://mountainrunner.us/news/wpr-reformingsm.html”

Whatever Happened to the Politics of Credibility?

Just read John Robert Kelley's article, "Between 'Take-Offs' and 'Crash Landings'" about the threats and opportunities that international actors are constantly making use of--either in proactive or reactive ways--to try to promote their interests through public diplomacy. Kelley gives three approaches to public diplomacy: information, influence, and engagement, all of which are legitimate, and can be used effectively depending upon the particular situation and rhetorical context.

That's all fine and good, but in the end, the effectiveness, and the view of the credibility that a messenger and the message have with a particular audience depends upon effective policy that backs it up--that's what gives our messages legitimacy. As with the striking example that Kelley uses of Edward R. Murrow, director of the USIA from 1961-64, who had no idea the the Bay of Pigs invasion was going to take place and so famously said, "If they want me in on the crash landings, I'd better damn well be in on the take-offs," it was obvious that Murrow had to deal with the fallout from a political event that was by all accounts poorly planned and executed, and that he obviously knew nothing about it beforehand.

How could anyone, even a seasoned journalist like Murrow, make the Kennedy administration's bumbled attempt at deposing Castro look good to the outside world?

In Bruce Gregory's article "Public Diplomacy: Sunrise of an Academic Field," Gregory reminds us that technology now allows us to put out information faster than you can blink; if the message put out in the name of public diplomacy is off the mark, or too far removed from the reality of a situation or the decisions made by certain political actors, then when the veil is abruptly removed (because ya know, someone standing there certainly took a photo with their iphone, or shot off a text), it will immediately be identified by the term "propaganda," or "disinformation," and either get virulently criticized or completely dismissed.

Gregory quotes Joesph Nye, who echoes the importance of the "politics of credibility," especially in a world where information is quickly exchanged, and state actors compete with non-state actors in attracting people's attention and having credible voices. Because information spreads so quickly, the messages, even if they "reframe" the situation, had better line up with the reality on the ground or they simply won't be palatable to the outside world. Otherwise (think Wikileaks) we maybe shouldn't say anything. Cuz as John Brown suggests in his public diplomacy blog, just ask Barry Zorthian how much positive press he was able to spin in Saigon during the Vietnam War.

I know I'm workin myself out of a job (it wouldn't be the first time), but forget all of the soul searching and the public diplomacy identity crisis. Better, as Zorthian himself suggests, that as Americans we do a little less public diplomacy and simply try to live up to our own proclaimed values. Wouldn't that get us a lot more mileage with regard to our country's standing in the world?

Opening the Gates to Cuba.

Take a look at this article, which I'll be discussing in this post.

So President Obama has opened the gates to American travel and business in Cuba, at least in part. The specifics of the new policies allow both accredited religious and educational institutions to sponsor travel to Cuba, as well as opening the possibility of sending small remittances for religious or economic reasons. Given the USA’s policy history with Cuba, it is not surprising that there is a good deal of criticism of this change in policy. The intent of the policy, of course, is to engender a sense of appreciation in the Cuban people for American generosity. The actual effect - as the author of the article, Michael O’Connor, describes - could boil down to increased monetary support for the Castro government, through now legal transactions to low-level officers and party members.

How could President Obama have prepared this policy better? One major way would be more effective targeting. Many Cuban exiles in the United States are vehemently against any sort of positive engagement with Castro’s Cuba, which means that while Obama could possibly be creating positive feelings in Cuba, he is losing out on the home front. The most generous donations and expeditions to Cuba will, of course, be sympathetic to Castro’s regime, something that rankles anti-Castro Cubans and politicians alike. Since this piece of Public Diplomacy is intended to bridge the gap between the two nations (in a democratic, Pro-USA manner), it is perhaps already going off the rails. In many ways, this is a continuation of the United States' failure to understand effective Public Diplomacy. It is not enough to simply open the gates to the American market and expect that the business flowing to the new location will bring American Democracy with it. Certainly, the failure to address the concerns of Cubans living in the US, as well as ignoring their experience with the cultural, political, and interpersonal ties of Cubans and Cuba-oriented organizations was a mistake.

Going Direct

A featured article on The Huffington Post today details the usage of Twitter as a direct social media outlet utilized by The State Department. As discussed in class, it's important in a pluralistic society - with many venues to acquire information - for the government to connect directly with the public. This streamlining of information allows The State Department complete autonomy over their message. Instead of pundits vetting the information first, citizens receive updates in real time via Twitter. It's a step in the right direction for control over diplomatic messaging.

Lost in Translation?

I was doing my daily news sweep a couple days ago and came across a few articles on China’s new Public Diplomacy campaign in Times Square. The campaign was launched in coordination with the Chinese premier, Hu Jintao’s state visit. It involves about 6 large video screens in Times Square, some staying red at all times with the Chinese characters for friendship on them, and others showing a 60 second video. The video itself features a few dozen Chinese celebrities in a wide range of fields, each group accompanied by the phrase “Chinese (insert quality/specialty). The video is supposed to air 15 times an hour, 300 times a day through the end of the Chinese New Year in mid-February.

The intent of the campaign, to present China as a country filled with talented individuals seeking friendship with the US, may have been well though out but the execution was not. After watching the video, the comments made by many writers who covered the topic (the articles I read will be listed below) definitely made sense. To the ordinary American only 2 or 3 are remotely familiar such as basketball player Yao Ming, pianist Lang Lang and actress Zhang Ziyi.

This particular mistake was probably caused by a lack of listening, as defined in Cull’s pamphlet reviewing lessons of past Public Diplomacy operations. As the comments on many of these articles show, the Chinese government did quite a poor job of collecting data of what Americans currently thought of them. If they had listened well, they would have known that video screens showcasing China’s wealthy and famous would not be the most useful way to change American opinion so heavily influenced by scores of reports on China’s human rights abuses and censorship. This is clearly a case of China speaking to the American public without engaging them first by listening.

Journalists were even quicker to point out that many of these “celebrities” featured in the video were either American citizens, green-card holders or Hong Kong citizens whose family members hold foreign citizenship. I personally think that at a time when many Americans are being hounded by articles warning of China’s increasing dominance, the advertisement compounds this apprehension by showcasing the very strengths and achievements that give them cause for concern.

Articles:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/chinas-publicity-ads-arrive-in-times-square/?partner=rss&emc=rss (New York Times)

http://behindthewall.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/20/5886169-beijing-boasts-in-times-square-but-are-they-really-chinese- (NBC)

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/01/18/pro-china-ad-makes-broadway-debut/?KEYWORDS=%22new+york%22KEYWORDS%3D%22new+york%22 (Wall Street Journal)