I really like the readings this week concerning the idea of two-way communication, especially the Deos and Pigman piece on "Sustainable Public Diplomacy," and drove home what I've always hated about that "winning the hearts and minds" notion that U.S. PD was pushing around time of the Iraq war--it was a completely one-way message that was being sent out, almost love us or we'll gun you down kind of thing. I found it offensive and simplistic, something that no one was ever going to buy.
I also think that they make the point that soft power can be had on the cheap, so we'd better not think that it's something that we can somehow buy with our endless military resources. It's not, as Al Qa'eda has proven. The other notion I found intriguing, and am still mulling over, is what the limits of PD are in cases for example when you're not dealing with state actors, which is simply the world we live in now--is it PD when you're dealing with terrorists, or is it then some kind of unofficial mission or covert operation?
I find these questions particularly intriguing, and have been thinking about them in the case of our group's country study on PD in Pakistan. For example, with the problems in Kashmir, how do you begin changing the situation if you don't deal with the people who need to change and evolve, i.e., known terrorists? You simply have to deal with them somehow, even if through outside actors initially, and eventually find a way to bring them into the discussions.
That reminds me of the ex-combatants and child soldiers that I interviewed for USAID while working in Sierra Leone. Dialoguing with these groups was very difficult at first, and happened through humanitarian and religious organizations, those front line folks who are willing to integrate themselves into somewhat dangerous communities for long periods of time to gain both an understanding of local people to understand why they do what they do, and also to gain their trust as someone who genuinely wants to help make things better. In conflict situations, people are often motivated by how they can best make a living, and the best way to make a life for themselves and their families, which are very normal types of motivations. However, at the poorest levels of society they can be manipulated by the lure of more money, a better life, a better life in heaven if they're a martyr, etc. Once people start making decisions that are detrimental to themselves or others like committing violent or repressive acts, it requires a great deal of psycho-social counseling to get them back on track.
So where does the PD work come into all of this? The humanitarian aid that often includes psychosocial counseling is pretty much at the bottom of the chain, at the grass roots level, and the diplomats are often closed up in their embassies, or operating at the elitist level, far removed from such interventions.
So how can a PD expert hope to do his or her job without an understanding of all of this? Daryl Copeland urges diplomats to get out of their sheltered environments and muck around, and to establish connections at all levels in order to be able to effectively communicate out, and effect change. Says Copeland, "The art of persuasion and the identification of shared needs and interests will be key if the playing field is to be leveled and confidence, trust and respect, the pre-requisites of political progress, are to be nurtured."
I think the PD expert has to be in touch with everyone, from their counterparts in the host country government to businesspeople to farmers and excombatants, as in the case of many in Sierra Leone. Through effective interventions though, many excoms eventually became farmers, which was a small victory in many ways, and led them to a slightly better, and definitely more stable, more peaceful life.
Maybe in the Kashmir region of Pakistan, the dialogue has to start with terrorists, who if interventions are effective may also eventually become farmers, or businesspeople, or educators. The PD expert cannot do this work, but they should know about the issues and through effective communication with the people who are doing the work so that they can lend support to these societal transformations.
I know, I know, I'm such a damn Polyanna, but if the aims of diplomats overseas are ultimately to help people with issues relate to development and security, and an enlargement of the resource base for any given population--i.e., working in partnership with the people in the countries where diplomats serve to resolve these issues--then yes, I think that effective, informed PD to key audiences should be able to help us deliver those results. In the case of people actively at war, or terrorists plotting their net move, my problem solved is your problem solved, so to speak. If we can figure out what's going on and then figure out how to communicate that back and up effectively, then maybe we can in some ways help to level the world's playing field.
No comments:
Post a Comment