US Action in Libya: Moral, Diplomatic, or Both?

In the past few days, the United States, along with a coalition of other allied nations in the UN, has finally made the decision to launch airstrikes on Libyan President Moammar Qaddafi's forces. Although the the Joint Chiefs were relatively tight-lipped about the ultimate purpose of the airstrikes, it is clear that primary goals are the elimination of Qaddafi's aircraft and vehicles, and the establishment of a no-fly zone.

Really, though, the ultimate goal of the US and other coalition nations is to create a Libya that is more stable, predictable, and will be friendlier to the international community as a whole. Of course, a possible added benefit would be oil prices lowering due to an end to hostilities in Libya. Really, the fact that the UN has come in at this stage in the conflict is very much a "strategic communication" concern. If the UN were to intervene too early, it would be universally deemed a tool of imperialism; too late, and it would run the risk of being completely ineffective, while still losing face with both Qaddafi and the opposition forces.

Members of the opposition forces do seem to be grateful, if the Washington Post's account is accurate, but they do express some disappointment that the international community feels that they are incapable of winning on their own. It is most likely for this reason that UN coalition forces are not targeting Qaddafi himself. Assuming that Qaddafi is ousted by the opposition and a new government is created in Libya, the best the US and other nations can hope for is that the gratitude for UN assistance plays a role in whatever regime takes command. The US and other nations need to tread very carefully with whatever they do, and make sure to maintain a strong dialog with the opposition leadership, and whatever government emerges from the conflict, to ensure that there is as little sense of "foreign occupation" as possible. China and Russia, which abstained from the UN vote, have already lodged criticism of the military action as similar to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: violations of sovereignty. But the only people whose opinion really matters in this regard are the Libyans.

Cultural Diplomacy for Pakistan--Where Would One Start?

I enjoyed the candor of Richard Arndt's "The Hush Hush Debate," and his ideas on how one would set up shop as a cultural diplomat in a new country. Arndt says one would start by assessing: "1) relations that are flowing well and need no intervention other than awareness, back-pats and social interaction; 2) relations which have been established but which are not working as well as they should, requiring delicate reshaping and deepening over time; and 3) relations which are not yet in place, yet important enough to warrant pump-priming and jump-starting efforts to start things moving—a perfect example, five decades ago, might have been a genuine and widespread dialogue on Islam and its relationship to other religions, political systems and ideologies (it is not too late, by the way)."

Although our group work will focus on Pakistan-U.S. relations since the U.S. is such a major donor to Pakistan, several ideas come to mind, some of which concern Pakistani-U.S. relations, some of which don't, but all can be cosidered in trying to improve, encourage, or establish cultural exchanges that would enhance Pakistan's PD.

One of the ideas that came out in our group discussions, and something that Joseph Nye also advocates, was giving a voice to the Pakistani diaspora in the U.S.--it's probably the easiest way to have exchanges with elites and decision-makers, and it would be with people who could talk about Pakistani culture in way that would help Americans understand it better.

Another U.S.-focused initiative could be cultural performances and exhibitions, something along the lines of the series of events recently held at the Kennedy Center in DC to celebrate Indian culture, dance, music, film, and other trditional arts.

In addition, educational exchanges would be great, in particular bringing Pakistani university students and other leaders would promote better dialogue and understanding across cultures. Even military exchanges would be great, and might help promote trust where it is now clearly lacking.

The other direction where Pakistan could benefit from cultural exchanges is in its dealings with India. Here, Pakistan could work to strengthen and legitimize the cultural and educational exchanges that are already taking place. There is still an elitist attitude toward such people-to-people exchanges as not influencing country relations, but that is erroneous, and could be corrected with some historic knowledge of other exchanges that helped ease tensions between countries such as the twin cities and other cultural and educational exchanges that happened between France and Germany shortly after World War II.

Cultural exchanges that promote the arts, music and dance are also now being used in post-conflict environments to promote understanding as well as psycho-social healing, and to diffuse tensions. This might apply in Kashmir and in some of the border areas between Pakistan and India where tensions are high.

In addition, creating forums for religious dialogues that promote tolerance and greater understanding between Muslims, Hindus, Christians and people of other faiths would also help the India-Pakistan relationship, as Arndt also suggests. Such exchanges might have to take place in a third country, and in a well-structured and moderated context.

However, in our group discussions, we shot down almost every one of our own proposals because we concluded that the ideas would not be prioritized since internal security concerns take the upper hand in Pakistan right now, and people-to-people exchanges are poo-pooed by the elite as something the "common classes" might do, but that all of that isn't much connected to elites and their politics. I think though that we are being a bit defeatist. There are such divisions that these ideas might be a place to start, and to do, as Arndt suggests, some "pump-priming and jump-starting" to begin exchanges that are peaceful and constructive, and that humanize the "other" and promote greater understanding across cultures.

Luxembourg Promotes Sharia-Compliant Financial Instruments..hmmm...

I am researching many things that have to do with Luxembourg these days, and here's a tidbit that I found quite interesting--Luxembourg has been promoting itself (to Islamic countries I assume) as a country that has Sharia-compliant financial instruments. It is a shareholder, and its central bank a member of the International Islamic Liquidity Management Corporation (IILM). Other central banks involved are those of Indonesia, Kuwait, Iran, Malaysia, Mauritius, Niger, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkey, and the UAE.

So why am I mentioning this? I am of course wondering what the PD ramifications of these partnerships are. They are obviously promoted to Islamic countries, but I am imagining that Luxembourg doesn't brag about those partnerships outside of the specifric countries mentioned, otherwise what is obviously benefitting them financially could certainly begin to raise eyebrows with regard to this activity, and a tool designed to ease international financial flows between these particular states.

But the more I've been reading about Islamic finance, it actually has some pretty cool features. Interest is not allowed, and a contract based upon the occurance or non-occurance of future events is also not permitted. In addition, capital should have a social or ethical purpose beyond merely piling on more returns, and speculation is strictly forbidden. So Islamic financial instruments involve for example profit-sharing, joint ventures, asset-backed securities, buying and leasing equipment for a rental fee and so on, to respect these basic tenets. In principle, these are all non-risky ventures that should inspire investor confidence.

But then there's the stuff specifically linked to Islam: no financing of anything involving pork, alcohol, or gambling. Okay, whatever. But there's nothing really radical about these instruments. And with the exception of the pork thing (which even after living in Islamic countries for nine years I never have understood), the funds sound much like the U.S. equivalent to socially responsible investments.

Luxembourg also offers the advantage of "light regulation" and "unique advantages" with these instruments. Says Jean-Florent Richard, a senior associate who mans the Dubai desk at Loyens & Loeff Luxembourg, a Luxembourg investment firm, "Luxembourg is positioning itself as the first mover in the European Islamic finance sector in general, and Sharia’a-compliant investment funds in particular."

It's just that they SOUND bad--sharia-compliant investments? Yikes! Although the Luxembourg Government is said to be openly concentrating efforts to promote the development of Islamic finance, it doesn't loudly promote these (the investments do not appear in any obvious place on the official Luxembourg government website, even where private sector interests are promoted) but rather like the above example from a Luxembourg financial firm they appear to be letting the private sector do the promotional work for them. Businesses though are openly concentrating on these instruments.

In any case, it seems to be working for Luxembourg. More of their PD efforts specifically target Islamic countries of interest for these types of investments. Luxembourg could also be said to be differentiating itself in the financial sector through these partnerships--Switzerland, for example, is not on the list of countries involved. It also may help promotionally that Luxembourg still has a royal family...for those parts of the Middle East that have not yet undergone radical transformation, that is. Still, the sector is supposed to grow over the next ten years, and Luxembourg appears well-placed to take advantage of these investments.

Familiarity and Contempt

“Familiarity breeds contempt,” goes the saying. Looking back at the material we have covered so far, one of the central tasks for practitioners is to walk the fine line between making their culture available to others and respecting other countries cultural space. John Brown illustrated the later when he told us about the flood of B-movies going into Russia in the 1990’s. Those movies represented America just as much as any orchestra or dance-troupe.

Unfortunately, the model of PD that Peter Kovach illustrates in “Out from Under the Proscenium: A Paradigm for U.S. Cultural Diplomacy,” goes too far in the other direction. The problem with programs like the basketball trip and the musician exchange is that the more organic they become, the more they lose their message. Presumably, the PD is about building support for specific policies, or engendering a future atmosphere in which a nation’s freedom of action is greater. How exactly the two programs achieved such an objective is unclear. Making friends on a small scale with foreign publics, while a laudable goal, is not necessarily PD unless it fulfils those two aforementioned objectives.

US Cultural Diplomacy: Overlooking opportunity?

I'll be discussing Richard Arndt's blog post "The Hush-Hush Debate: The Cultural Foundations of U.S. Public Diplomacy" in brief.

Arndt enters into a fair bit of detail about the chronological decline of cultural diplomacy/policy in American foreign policy and public diplomacy programs. To me, the most interesting points raised in his post revolve around untapped and underutilized student and university programs. Or, more accurately, programs that are failing to remain relevant with the times. I find Arndt's proposition that the government promote the creation of new overseas outreach and development programs for graduate students particularly intriguing. With the economy the way it is right now, I can imagine that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of students that would jump at the chance to travel overseas and gain real experience in their field of study. By leveraging the student population, the US would have an enthusiastic, energetic, and competent diplomatic force abroad. Of course, this would require some baseline cultural training for the student ambassadors, to maximize their effectiveness in their host countries. Part of the cultural training would also necessarily include a test of "American" culture; not to create a cookie-cutter ambassador, but to ensure that we don't send people who are ethnocentric or parochial in their cultural views. The absolute best result would be a corps of ambassadors that are representative of American values and interests, without obviously being mouthpieces of the US government.

Commercial Diplomacy

I'm about to depart to Mexico for a week in the sun. And on TV coincidentally is a commercial marketing Mexico as the premier destination in the world. What's fascinating, is the news story I'm watching between commercials is describing the escalating violence enveloping much of the nation. Yet, wait for the commercials and you see a different Mexico altogether, one immune from the harrowing attacks. Interesting. Someone told me that the Mexican violence is largely sensationalized via U.S. media to scare American travelers enough to cancel Mexican excursions in favor of domestic vacations. Hence, the U.S, tourism lobby could potentially be lobbying media outlets, funneling negative stories to sabotage Mexican travel.

Wonder what I'll see in Mexico...

What International Broadcasting and the NFL Have in Common

For those who follow the NFL, the Jets-Patriots game was arguably the most compelling story line of the post season. All of the trash-talking in the media made the game so much better. While no one can “prove” that the Jets' trash-talking affected the outcome of the game, it got into the Pats' head. Wes Welker was uncharacteristically verbose and his coach benched him for the first series. Jets Coach Rex Ryan has a lot teach US officials, such as Walter Issacson, about international broadcasting.

Issacson, BBG chairman, says the “free flow of information will promote forces of tolerance and democracy.”[1] Certainly, an important element of IB is the transmitting of values. But values are but a thin veneer over the essential nature of IB At its core, though, IBis not that different from the swaggering, expletive-laden locker-room interviews and press conferences of the NFL. Teams talk up their skills and personal because if their opponents start thinking “hey those guys really are good” then the battle is already over. Similarly, nations want to extol their own values virtues and greatness to convince others of their own inferiority.

Furthermore, broadcasting on enemy countries shortcomings such as crime problems or poverty is really just a more sophisticated version of a meat-headed rant against another player. By getting into the opponent’s head, you make him question himself, disrupt his thought process, and make him engage in self-destructive behavior.

In light of these similarities, any compelling explanation of international broadcasting must recognize it as a tool of psychological warfare, not far removed from real conflict.

---

[1] Celebrating 60 Years of RFE , Remarks by Walter Isaacson, Chairman, Broadcasting Board of Governors, President/CEO, Aspen Institute. 9/28/10, Washington, D.C>

Photo Credit: deadspin.com