The other day, our readings in class focused on how an increasingly media-infiltrated world was affecting the daily life of the average citizen, and how these tools can be used in the public diplomacy sphere. I found it interesting when the readings mentioned how peer-to-peer technology was really changing the future of the Internet, and how it was the forefront to technological change and communication. I found a free program the other day that Japan's Ministry of Internal Affairs is testing out, using P2P technology. This project called, " KeyHole TV" allows Internet users to watch Japanese TV in real time, with a selection of the major television channels in Japan. Currently, the project is causing a stir among language learners, but I think that it's also indicative of Japan using its "soft power" of entertainment and media influence to broadcast a little more widely to the world. If anyone is interested, here is the address:
http://www.v2p.jp/video/
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Nation Branding
While waiting for divine inspiration to strike and inform me as to what, exactly, I would be writing a blog post on this week, I started doing a little research for my country profile, and played with typing in a few keywords into my google search bar. First thing I typed in: "Swiss branding". I was met with a direct link to the Victorinox Swiss Army Website. Ok, enough of that. I then typed in "Swiss nation branding" and was given a link to Simon Anholt's blog. I believe that we have discussed a little about him in our class- or at least some of our reading referenced him, but if you would like to find out more about nation branding, I recommend a quick browse of his site. Along with the much too wordy heading (Simon Anholt's Placeblog: "The place for anyone who's interested in national image and identity, place branding, public diplomacy, and anything to do with the reputations of countries, cities and regions; how they're formed; how they're measured and how they are (mis)managed."), you can find a link to many of his nation branding guides as well as just about any form of media he's been in in the last few years. No matter what your opinion of nation branding is, it definitely holds a place in Public Diplomacy. Whether or not it is effective is another question.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Cricket: Pakistan's Soft Power
The image or word that many have when
In a region where terror has tainted virtually everything, cricket has retained an enviable immunity, making the stadium an unlikely but reliable venue for what became known as "cricket diplomacy" between
Even in a region where discord is prevalent, cricket has allowed for cooperation among countries through the medium of sport competition.
Matches can turn ugly, but very often seemingly insurmountable tensions melt away by the time trophies are handed out, and touring spectators marvel at the hospitality of their hosts.
Due to other internal and external factors, cricket diplomacy is failing in
This is a huge blow to
While this statement may be somewhat exaggerated, in the case of
NOTCFL and Chinese Language documentary film
When I was researching information about The National Office for Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language (NOTCFL, known as Hanban in Chinese), I was quite impressed of how this office is related to so many government agencies. As its website introduces, this office was created in
Most recently, the NOTCFL organized a strong producing leadership team and spared no efforts in creating the grand long documentary film “The Chinese Language of Five Thousands Years” (Hanzi Wuqian Nian) of eight humane themes. I found People’ Daily (CCP’s official newspaper) comments (I am translating), the aim of this painstaking program is to promote the Chinese knowledge among the Chinese and abroad, thus provided a modern and also historical and cultural book that demonstrates and further raises China’s international image up …When it was first broadcasted on CCTV (China Central Television), it received huge applauds among the audience.” I noticed that this documentary film has also been shown on CCTV-4 (an international channel targeting foreign audience) based on Beijing, London and New York times.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Cultural Diplomacy through Hollywood films
Exporting Hollywood films to other countries can promote a better understanding of the American culture. In our class discussion we touched the issue of film a couple of times in the context of soft power and cultural diplomacy. And yet, while the medium film itself has a great promise to capture an audience, there is another component that should not be overlooked. When screened in other cultural contexts, the impact of a film can alter from offering an insight to American culture to arousing negative emotions and, in the worst case, offending another culture.
Last week, a Hollywood delegation was invited to join the Iranian Cinema Association. AP reported on March 2:
The group includes the President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Sid Ganis; actors Bening, and Alfre Woodard; producer William Horberg; AMPAS Special Events Programmer and Exhibitions Curator Ellen Harrington; and Tom Pollock, the former Universal Pictures chairman.
Although, from a cultural diplomacy viewpoint, it was a valuable gesture to invite the Hollywood delegation to come to Iran, the meeting also provided an opportunity for Iranians to communicate specific problems that the culture has with some Hollywood movies.
An adviser to Iran's president has demanded an apology from a team of visiting Hollywood actors and movie industry officials, including Annette Bening, saying films such as "300" and "The Wrestler" were "insulting" to Iranians.
Without an apology, members of Iran's film industry should refuse to meet with representatives from the nine-member team, said Javad Shamaqdari, the art and cinema adviser to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Iranians mainly criticized two Hollywood films: 300 and The Wrestler.
The film "300," portrays the battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., in which a force of 300 Spartans held off a massive Persian army at a mountain pass in Greece for three days. It angered many Iranians for the way Persians are depicted as decadent, sexually flamboyant and evil in contrast to the noble Greeks.
Iranians also criticized "The Wrestler" starring Mickey Rourke as a rundown professional wrestler who is preparing for a rematch with his old nemesis, "The Ayatollah." During a fight scene, "The Ayatollah" tries to choke Rourke with an Iranian flag before Rourke pulls the flagpole away, breaks it and throws it into the cheering crowd.
This recent example underscores the impact of cultural predispositions on the way films are perceived and interpreted and shows that cultural diplomacy is never just about show casting a blockbuster. One problem lies in the few options to control this process. “Neither movie was shown in Iran”, states the AP coverage. And yet, new technologies and communication structures have made it possible for Iranians to access the movie.
Hollywood movies are produced for a mass audience which is first of all an American audience. In a second step the movies are exported to other countries – and this mainly for profit and not for diplomacy reasons. While Western countries, such as Germany, might have a similar cultural background and therefore share some overlapping values and reactions to the movies, other countries, which are more different from the US, might refer to a different value system and therefore react differently to the films.
Overall I think it is a complex process. Hollywood movies offer a great promise to bring American culture to other countries; however, they can also reinforce negative impressions and perceptions that other cultures have about the US.
Last week, a Hollywood delegation was invited to join the Iranian Cinema Association. AP reported on March 2:
The group includes the President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Sid Ganis; actors Bening, and Alfre Woodard; producer William Horberg; AMPAS Special Events Programmer and Exhibitions Curator Ellen Harrington; and Tom Pollock, the former Universal Pictures chairman.
Although, from a cultural diplomacy viewpoint, it was a valuable gesture to invite the Hollywood delegation to come to Iran, the meeting also provided an opportunity for Iranians to communicate specific problems that the culture has with some Hollywood movies.
An adviser to Iran's president has demanded an apology from a team of visiting Hollywood actors and movie industry officials, including Annette Bening, saying films such as "300" and "The Wrestler" were "insulting" to Iranians.
Without an apology, members of Iran's film industry should refuse to meet with representatives from the nine-member team, said Javad Shamaqdari, the art and cinema adviser to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Iranians mainly criticized two Hollywood films: 300 and The Wrestler.
The film "300," portrays the battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., in which a force of 300 Spartans held off a massive Persian army at a mountain pass in Greece for three days. It angered many Iranians for the way Persians are depicted as decadent, sexually flamboyant and evil in contrast to the noble Greeks.
Iranians also criticized "The Wrestler" starring Mickey Rourke as a rundown professional wrestler who is preparing for a rematch with his old nemesis, "The Ayatollah." During a fight scene, "The Ayatollah" tries to choke Rourke with an Iranian flag before Rourke pulls the flagpole away, breaks it and throws it into the cheering crowd.
This recent example underscores the impact of cultural predispositions on the way films are perceived and interpreted and shows that cultural diplomacy is never just about show casting a blockbuster. One problem lies in the few options to control this process. “Neither movie was shown in Iran”, states the AP coverage. And yet, new technologies and communication structures have made it possible for Iranians to access the movie.
Hollywood movies are produced for a mass audience which is first of all an American audience. In a second step the movies are exported to other countries – and this mainly for profit and not for diplomacy reasons. While Western countries, such as Germany, might have a similar cultural background and therefore share some overlapping values and reactions to the movies, other countries, which are more different from the US, might refer to a different value system and therefore react differently to the films.
Overall I think it is a complex process. Hollywood movies offer a great promise to bring American culture to other countries; however, they can also reinforce negative impressions and perceptions that other cultures have about the US.
Implications of the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore
About a dozen militants armed with rocket launchers, grenades, and AK 47s attacked the team bus carrying the Sri Lankan cricket team en route to play a match at Lahore's Qaddafi Stadium. It was a brazen commando-style operation killing six police officers and wounding at least six cricketers before fleeing in motorized rickshaws. The attack struck not only a major Pakistani city but also the country’s most popular sport — a game followed with near-obsessive fascination by many in the region. Helicopters evacuated the uninjured Sri Lankans from the stadium after the attack to be be flown home as soon as possible.
Tuesday's attacks highlight the internal chaos in Pakistan and add another layer to the various crises that have unfolded in recent weeks including the Taliban truce in the Swat Valley and emergency rule in Punjab following the infighting between Nawaz Sharif and the PPP led government. Although this is not the first time the security concerns have affected cricket, it is the first time that cricketers have been specifically targeted. Teams have refused to tour Sri Lanka in the past because of the civil war and the England team pulled out of India last year after the Mumbai attacks only to return after been guaranteed improved security. The Australian team was playing in London just miles away from the site of the scene during the 7/11 attacks on the London transit system but stayed on.
In recent years, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand have refused to play in Pakistan because of the security situation. The Sri Lankan team is only in Pakistan as a last minute replacement because of the Indian team's pulling out of their scheduled tour following the Mumbai attacks. One can only imagine how devastating the implications would have been if there was an attack on the Indian team. Advocates of cricket in Pakistan insisted that extremists would never attack cricket because it would erode any goodwill and sympathy the public had for them in a region where cricket is followed like a second religion. But they have been proven wrong. Militants, in an attempt to grab headlines, have dealt a huge blow to cricket and Pakistani cricket and will perhaps contribute to the downfall of the sport in the country because no team would want to visit anymore. In addition to grabbing headlines, another justification for an attack on cricket can be an effort to attack a tool of diplomacy. Indeed, in 2004, cricket was used as a tool of diplomacy when the the sports ties between India and Pakistan were revived after Prime Minister Vajpayee of India offered a "hand of friendship" to Pakistan and a series of confidence-building measures. The Indian team toured Pakistan to play a "friendship series" highly successful in winning the hearts and minds of the Pakistani public, and Pakistani hospitality, in turn, winning the hearts and minds of the Indian public. But for militants who do not want to see peace, the breaking of sporting ties is a breakdown in diplomacy and friendship.
Tuesday's attacks highlight the internal chaos in Pakistan and add another layer to the various crises that have unfolded in recent weeks including the Taliban truce in the Swat Valley and emergency rule in Punjab following the infighting between Nawaz Sharif and the PPP led government. Although this is not the first time the security concerns have affected cricket, it is the first time that cricketers have been specifically targeted. Teams have refused to tour Sri Lanka in the past because of the civil war and the England team pulled out of India last year after the Mumbai attacks only to return after been guaranteed improved security. The Australian team was playing in London just miles away from the site of the scene during the 7/11 attacks on the London transit system but stayed on.
In recent years, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand have refused to play in Pakistan because of the security situation. The Sri Lankan team is only in Pakistan as a last minute replacement because of the Indian team's pulling out of their scheduled tour following the Mumbai attacks. One can only imagine how devastating the implications would have been if there was an attack on the Indian team. Advocates of cricket in Pakistan insisted that extremists would never attack cricket because it would erode any goodwill and sympathy the public had for them in a region where cricket is followed like a second religion. But they have been proven wrong. Militants, in an attempt to grab headlines, have dealt a huge blow to cricket and Pakistani cricket and will perhaps contribute to the downfall of the sport in the country because no team would want to visit anymore. In addition to grabbing headlines, another justification for an attack on cricket can be an effort to attack a tool of diplomacy. Indeed, in 2004, cricket was used as a tool of diplomacy when the the sports ties between India and Pakistan were revived after Prime Minister Vajpayee of India offered a "hand of friendship" to Pakistan and a series of confidence-building measures. The Indian team toured Pakistan to play a "friendship series" highly successful in winning the hearts and minds of the Pakistani public, and Pakistani hospitality, in turn, winning the hearts and minds of the Indian public. But for militants who do not want to see peace, the breaking of sporting ties is a breakdown in diplomacy and friendship.
US-UK Relationship
The BBC published a story about PM Gordon Brown's visit to the White House today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7918345.stm
The article points out that the Brown-Obama meeting took place in a formal setting in the White House, which is a complete change from many of the meetings and press conferences that Bush-Blair had. I feel like these Brown-Obama meetings are set up this way to show US-UK citizens that our leaders are actually accomplishing things. This not only will improve both Obama-Brown's images at home, but it will certainly win favor abroad as well, as the US and the UK are arguably the two most powerful nations in the world.
Another thing that I feel the BBC inadvertently points out is how we view the UK. Obama and Brown both talk about their nations as having a "special relationship" and an "unbreakable bond," and I think that their words here are particularly important. Although they use the word ally, it's always in addition to a phrase that adds something extra to it so as to differentiate this relationship from our relationships with our other allies. I think that Obama and Brown's choice of words in talking about our relationship is vitally important to understanding how we interact with one another and how the citizens of both the US and the UK view one another as opposed to how we view the citizens of other countries with whom we don't have this "special relationship" with.
The article points out that the Brown-Obama meeting took place in a formal setting in the White House, which is a complete change from many of the meetings and press conferences that Bush-Blair had. I feel like these Brown-Obama meetings are set up this way to show US-UK citizens that our leaders are actually accomplishing things. This not only will improve both Obama-Brown's images at home, but it will certainly win favor abroad as well, as the US and the UK are arguably the two most powerful nations in the world.
Another thing that I feel the BBC inadvertently points out is how we view the UK. Obama and Brown both talk about their nations as having a "special relationship" and an "unbreakable bond," and I think that their words here are particularly important. Although they use the word ally, it's always in addition to a phrase that adds something extra to it so as to differentiate this relationship from our relationships with our other allies. I think that Obama and Brown's choice of words in talking about our relationship is vitally important to understanding how we interact with one another and how the citizens of both the US and the UK view one another as opposed to how we view the citizens of other countries with whom we don't have this "special relationship" with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
