Clinton and Japan

I was very interested in Hilary Clinton's choice to go to Japan as her first official international visit as Secretary of State. I came across a video of her the other day giving an interview on Japanese TV. She seems very relaxed, smiling, and seems to stand in for an image that promises to reassure Japan about their international concerns with the United States.

The issue that is highlighted in this video clip would be the abduction issue that occurred by North Koreans several years ago. Most Americans are unfamiliar with the backstory, but it's a heated cause for debate amongst the Japanese. In my opinion, this is understandably so. A few decades back, several Japanese were illegally taken from Japan, kidnapped, and transported to North Korea. Some of them have managed to get back, but several haven't. One particular victim was a 13 year old girl, who was kidnapped while walking back on her way from her after school badminton club. Since then, no words remains on her whereabouts from the North Koreans, and she hasn't been allowed back to Japan since. It's a highly emotional issue for many Japanese, with television melodramas having been produced, comics, and books chronicling the issue. Consequently, it remains a persistent roadblock when it comes to discussions on the North Korea issue involving Asia as a whole. President Bush met with the parents of the abducted girl, but little progress was made with the North Koreans on the issue of the abduction. Clinton seems to take a different approach to this issue and seems to stress this during her interview. She recognizes that the problem has many different facets, and emphasizes how she understands the problem from the perspective of a mother, daughter, and family member. Whether or not actual progress will be made remains to be seen on the issue. Yet, she seems to have reassured Japan of US involvement in the case, and watching her, I can understand why. The video also ends with a very cute, Japanese-style discussion on smart power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBAYqSv4KV0&eurl=http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=8928

This other article from blog WhirledView also talks about how Clinton seems to be making a difference. I know that in Asia, Clinton is well respected because she seems to exemplify the ideals of a good wife, mother, and woman. Many think highly of Clinton because she has pulled herself together after the Monica Lewinsky incident, has raised a good daughter without the fallout the Bush twins faced, and has also successfully created a name for herself as well. I can understand why Asia is going crazy about her. It makes me wonder just how much personal reputation and a kind of "celebrity" status among high ranking diplomats affects geopolitical relationships between countries.
http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2009/02/clinton-style-bodes-well-for-the-obama-message-2.html

In this picture, Clinton certainly seems to be smiling and portraying a good image. The article mentions how Rice almost never smiled. The more I thought about it, the more their point was understood. What do you all think about personal mannerisms, appearance, and character in the role of public diplomacy?

White Oak Recommendation

"White Oak Recommendations on Public Diplomacy"

"Nothing New in White Oak Recommendations on Public Diplomacy" by Steven Corman

"A Proposed Strategy for Public Diplomacy" by Spencer Ackerman

"White Oak Recommendations: Rethinking Public Diplomacy" by Matt Armstrong

"Reinventing America's Public Diplomacy 2009: Step by Step" by Pat Kushlis

"White Oak: We're Going to Need a Bigger Boat (PD") by Craig Hayden

Recently, a group of seventy diplomatic leaders conferred in White Oak to devise the public diplomacy plan for the new Obama administration and this past week they submitted their recommendations.  While some critics claim that the recommendation did not include an action plan or means to reach the prescribed goals, the proposal does shed light on the next four to eight years.  Instead of holding the ideas set forth to a vote, the commission reached a consensus.  This brings together the factions of opinion that have popped up in the last administration, signifying a unified step forward and newfound attention on public diplomacy.  Under the leadership of a charismatic and visible leader, public diplomacy has gained a new position.  The "White Oak Recommendations on Public Diplomacy" stress the need for a concerted, planned, funded, and leadership driven approach to public diplomacy.  While our class may find the ten recommendations obvious, the coming together of experts and the dedication to increasing funds has put a spotlight on public diplomacy. 

 

The Areas Addressed in the Recommendation:

-         stakeholder: holistic approach

-         outreach: holistic approach

-         clear structure

-         well-qualified and staffed personnel

-         increase reliance on technology/ communication

-         international exchanges

-         role of citizen diplomacy

-         increased funding

-         role of Congress

-         leadership and organization

Food Diplomacy

I’d like to propose a toast… to food diplomacy! On this topic, PD scholars seem surprisingly quiet. Here are a few examples of the role food can play in PD:

1) Food as aid. While other countries send cash, America ships food around the world stamped with USA. Our method has drawn criticism from many but satisfies American agribusiness and shipping companies. Click here to see a Business Week article on the problems with America's food aid, a key element of soft power.

2) Winning hearts, minds and stomachs in other countries. According to an article in Korea’s JoongAng Daily, the popularity of Korean food abroad is (quite literally) fueling diplomatic efforts. The article mentions gifts of Kimchi to Colin Powell, "known to be a kimchi maniac." Currently, Korean officials are planning food-related events in Mexico, Dubai, and Egypt.

3) Globalization of food--accidental PD. Sasha Issenberg’s book The Sushi Economy describes the journey of sushi around the world. Sushi is often reinterpreted and recreated to match local tastes. Can favorable views of Japanese food lead to favorable views of Japan?

4) Hunger and poverty. On a more serious note, food highlights the paradoxes in our world- the challenges of abundance in some countries and the reality of chronic hunger in others. These present long-term challenges for NGOs, governments, and individuals.

I’m only scratching the surface here… health, security and energy issues are all connected to the politics of food. In fact, last summer, the LA Times did an entire series on food diplomacy.

Any other examples of food in public diplomacy?

ICFJ Puts Public Diplomacy to Work

While researching international journalism, I came upon a very interesting exchange program run by the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ). If you’re not familiar with ICFJ, according to its Web site, “The International Center for Journalists, a non-profit, professional organization, promotes quality journalism worldwide in the belief that independent, vigorous media are crucial in improving the human condition.”

The program, called the International Journalism Exchange, seems highly effective and engaging, promoting American ideals of freedom of the press and the American journalistic standards of objectivity and professionalism. The argument can be made that these standards are not always abided by in U.S. media sphere, but these are the ethics taught in journalism schools across the country and many journalists strive to abide by them.

Here is a description of the program from the ICFJ Web site:

“The International Center for Journalists’ International Journalism Exchange brings ten or more newspaper or online editors with at least five years’ professional experience from the developing world to the U.S. in October and November every year.

Participants first take part in a week-long program orientation in Washington, D.C. where they attend seminars and workshops conducted by seasoned media executives, practitioners, and other experts on a wide range of topics, visit major U.S. newspapers such as The Washington Post and USA Today, observe press-government relations, and learn about the fundamental principles and current trends of U.S. journalism. Then, they head out to different parts of the country to work at a newspaper of comparable size as their home publication or online news outlet in their country. There, the editors spend three weeks to gain hands-on, all-around knowledge and experience of U.S. newsroom operation and management, as well as exposure to the social and cultural life in a U.S. community. The participants then reconvene in New York, where the program concludes with a debriefing and evaluation. In addition, participants get to visit major media organizations such as The New York Times and the Associated Press, as well as experiencing the vibrancy and cultural richness of the largest city in the U.S.”

Participants from the 2008 program came from every corner of the globe: Pakistan, Argentina, Kenya, the Philippines, Croatia, Macedonia and South Africa. According to ICFJ, “More than 200 editors worldwide have participated in the International Journalism Exchange since its inception in 1984.”

This journalism exchange is just one of the many small examples of American public diplomacy at work by the non-governmental sector. It is well known that the media has a profound effect on societies, culturally, politically and economically. Although the benefits of an exchange program such as this certainly take time to develop, the International Journalism Exchange works to create cross-cultural understanding and higher quality journalism over time. It allows the participants to take what they have learned with them and strive to improve their work as journalists in their home countries. The end result benefits the U.S. and the world as a whole.

Clinton and soft power

There is a transcript of Clinton's remarks en route to South Korea yesterday posted on the State Department website. The remarks are label "Putting the Elements of Soft Power Into Practice".

Clinton remarked that she and her delegation had engaged in both government-to-government relations as well attending civil society gatherings and appearing on television shows.

And I really believe that it's that kind of outreach that we've got to do everywhere. Some settings are more susceptible than others, but there's a real hunger for the United States to be present again. I was so struck when the Secretary General at ASEAN said that he thought that the United States had just been absent. And showing up is not all of life, but it counts for a lot. And especially when you are the most powerful country in the world, if you're not paying attention, people are going to feel like somehow they're not important to you.

Her use of the term "susceptible" strikes me as a bit of wanting to have it both ways. To describe places as more susceptible than others seems to indicate a monologue, rather than dialogue, approach to public diplomacy which the target is to full or trick the receiving country into accepting the accepting US outreach. Yet, she goes on to remark how the US needs to rejoin the world table, pay attention to what the rest of the world's countries have to say, and general show the world that we care.

At the end of the remarks is where she really gets into her perception of soft power and the use of public diplomacy by the US.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Indira, I think that every one of those events had a much broader audience. Obviously, the Tokyo town hall was on Tokyo television. The program this morning is one of the most popular programs in Indonesia. And so everything that I do, which does connect with people who are receptive has ripple effects. And Andrea said something about public diplomacy. We haven't done a very good job. And we have such a great story to tell about who we are as Americans and what we believe in and our desire to help other people be empowered.

Some of you walked through that neighborhood with me, I mean the United States aid programs, paid for by American taxpayers, are hooking people up to clean water, for example. And it's the kind of incremental change that if properly explained and highlighted, can give meaning to what America is to people who may have no opinion or a slightly negative opinion. We are in a struggle over ideas. And one of the points that the civil society people were making to me last night is that Indonesia is going to turn into a real battleground for the future of democracy and Islam and women's rights. And we need to be there. We need to be supporting the forces within Indonesia who care deeply about all of those values.

And I think our failure to engage on that level going back years, partly because we didn't realize it was going on right underneath our noses, and then when we did, we didn't exactly connect with the right messages for people in a way that they accepted. So we've got a lot of work to do. I mean, I have no illusions about how high a hill we have to climb here to inspire confidence and respect in people's minds again.

But I have found that in not only my personal encounters, but in every public research survey I've ever read that anybody's ever done, that people still really want to like America and they want to know what we're doing and what we stand for.

And take Indonesia; because of the war in Iraq and some other things, the attitude of people in Indonesia toward the United States was very negative. And then the tsunami hit, and we helped. You know, the United States showed up. The Navy showed up with supplies. President Bush sent my husband and his father, and they were visibly there, and then Bill went back time and again. And all of a sudden, people said, "Oh, well, they don't need to do this, but here they are, they're helping." And favorability toward the United States went up.

I mean, in Africa, in some of the sub-Saharan countries, where the favorability toward the United States has remained high, it's because of President Bush's PEPFAR program, that "the United States is here to actually do something good for us." So this to me is what diplomacy is about, because it doesn't just operate, as I said, government-to-government; it operates people-to-people. And when every single person that I met with said to me they wanted more student exchanges so that Indonesian students could study in the United States, or the President would say, "I studied in the United States, "or the Secretary General of ASEAN said, "I was an AFS student," – you know, for a lot of people those were transformative events. And we kind of cut back on that and we made it very difficult for people to get visas after 9/11, and so instead of coming to the United States, ambitious students went elsewhere.

So we have to rethink this and try to get back on the track of reaching out and being inclusive and giving more people a chance to see who we are.

How do you think of Clinton's explanations of soft power, public diplomacy, and how the US utilized them in the past and should utilize them in the future?

Can't Get Enough of these Lists!

We all might be a bit exhausted of lists given Pratkanis's love of the structure in last week's reading, but this one is worth some consideration. Just because he knew I needed something to post on, John Brown outlined the "Ten Reasons Why We Don't Need an Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs," in the Huffington Post this afternoon. Several of his points are almost too cynically obvious to mention (i.e. 1. Nobody with a normal jaw can pronounce this title, a mouthful of a name that is a bureaucratic offense to the English language.), and some are a bit too paranoid (point 10), but point 9 on the merits of exchange programs is surprisingly relevant. To what extent is the legitimacy of an exchange program compromised when it is government sponsored? Although I tend to believe that a scholar on a Fulbright would not be perceived as hampering public diplomacy initiatives (and here I would love for Andrew or any other classmates who have participated in government exchanges to comment), is it valid to be concerned about our exchane program credibility?

Directed and Non-Directed Cultural Exchange

A big topic this week has been whether different cultures share the frame of reference needed to make soft power or PD effective. In addition to that more existential question, Andrew's post below about the logistics and security involved in making cultural exchanges effective raises a good point.

I found a couple of articles regarding cultural exchanges, both of which popped up when I googled "orientalism" after our discussion about culture on Tuesday. The first is by an Indian filmmaker, K. Hariharan, who hated "Slumdog Millionaire" (I haven't seen it, by the way). He complains that the movie has done so well in the West because it appeals to our preconceptions about third-world squalor and presents this ridiculously optimistic fairytale story that doesn't resonate much with Indians, let alone Indians in the slums. He also says that this projection goes both ways:

"This reflects in the way Indian audiences choose to watch only those films from Hollywood which show crashing cars and sizzling pyrotechnics when the reality of the average American city is far from it. . . The real ‘American’ films by Woody Allen and the Coen brothers would make no sense to Indian viewers while the typical Bollywood melodrama would make no sense to the west."

We've talked a little about PD via "market-forces," which is one way to look at the international film industry. Films get shown overseas if they sell, and Hariharan suggests, rather in line with Janice Mattern's take on the lack of shared frames of reference, that this is not an effective way to influence people or build real ties, as what sells often reinforces stereotypes.

I also found an article about a British Council art exhibit touring the Middle East, from the UAE's The National. The exhibit, called "Lure of the East," consists of the exact kind of colonial travel painting that inspired Edward Said's original Orientalism. The exhibit, when it opened in the UK at the Tate Gallery, prompted critical and popular reaction full of post-colonial discomfort and liberal guilt (largely based off of Said's ideas about how stuff like this justified colonialism), and yet:

"The Tate has taken Britain’s uneasy conscience on tour, first to Turkey and now, as of today, to the Sharjah [UAE] Art Museum. In the process, the pat polarity of East and West has been complicated in interesting ways – not least by emphasising the point that art-buyers in the Muslim world seem to like some of the stuff."

Up to a thousand people a day went to see the exhibit in Istanbul, and the curators in Sharjah were eager to acquire the exhibit. The British Council is also staging a public debate about the artwork at the museum in Sharjah in a couple of weeks. That I think is particularly interesting in terms of PD, you'd think the colonial era, cultural domination and all that would be something British PD would avoid at all costs. But at first glance at least, it seems like a very interesting way to bring up some of the important questions in the countries' long-term relationship in a fairly non-threatening atmosphere (it also, as per Andrew's post, makes the artwork accessable, unlike the American strategy of letting Hollywood handle it).

I think the difference between these two versions of cultural exchange (granted one is planned and one is spontaneous) is especially interesting in light of the debate about cultural frames of reference. The Hollywood/Bollywood interaction assumes similarity but reinforces stereotypes, while the British Council effort sends over something deliberately meant to spark debate about subjectivity, bias, domination, and all of that stuff. By acknowledging the difference and making it something interesting to look at and talk about, the British Council takes some of the political sting out of the issue, which may be a valuable PD objective in and of itself.