In what some herald as a return to the spirit of the good old days of U.S. public diplomacy, the State Department is pursuing expanded means of establishing exchanges. There is a portal for interaction that allows over 8,000 members from 170 countries to post and view content. In one of the latest projects, members could contribute, view, and vote on videos for the My Culture + Your Culture = ? Contest. I will withhold comment on the membership of the "expert panel" that selected the finalists and allow you to draw your own conclusions there.
Interesting little factoid shows that, as of November 2008, there were 66 Chiefs of State/Heads of Government around the world that are alumni of Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) programs.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Can Cultural Dip & Branding Rescue Israeli PD?
An interesting NY Times article today probes Israel’s “crisis of isolation” since the Gaza conflict, detailing how the Israeli Foreign Ministry is considering fresh PD initiatives that are nevertheless running into far denser barriers of political reality:
Israel...is facing its worst diplomatic crisis in two decades. Examples abound. Its sports teams have met hostility and violent protests in Sweden, Spain and Turkey. Mauritania has closed Israel’s embassy...Global opinion surveys are being closely examined and the Foreign Ministry has been granted an extra $2 million to improve Israel’s image through cultural and information diplomacy. “We will send well-known novelists and writers overseas, theater companies, exhibits,” said Arye Mekel, the ministry’s deputy director general for cultural affairs. “This way you show Israel’s prettier face, so we are not thought of purely in the context of war.”
Yet, much like Kraidy’s analysis of the fundamental deficit of US PD in the region (“Policies Before Values: US policies and perceptions of these policies, and not a difference of values, are the root cause of the US image problem in the Arab world”) current Israeli image efforts face a minefield of facts on the ground:
[F]or Israel’s critics, including those who firmly support the existence of a Jewish state, the problem is not one of image but of policy. They point to four decades of occupation, the settling of half a million Israeli Jews on land captured in 1967, the economic strangling of Gaza for the past few years and the society’s growing indifference toward the creation of a Palestinian state as reasons Israel has lost favor abroad, and they say that no amount of image buffing will change that. Israel’s use of enormous force in the Gaza war in January crystallized much of this criticism.
The new thinking in the Israeli Foreign Ministry seems to be a need to sidestep the political realities behind a sinking image in foreign publics, however:
Some Israeli officials say they believe that what the country needs is to “rebrand” itself. They say Israel spends far too much time defending actions against its enemies. By doing so, they say, the narrative is always about conflict.
This is one of the clarion calls from PD communities in disarray--for unity of message. We’ve see this formulation before in the Shared Values Campaign. Unfortunately, Israeli PD professionals seem to be making the same mistakes in assuming foreign publics are empty vessels waiting to receive the magic-bullet message of a ‘more complete’ picture.
“When we show Sderot, others also see Gaza,” said Ido Aharoni, manager of a rebranding team at the Foreign Ministry. “Everything is twinned when seen through the conflict. The country needs to position itself as an attractive personality, to make outsiders see it in all its reality. Instead, we are focusing on crisis management. And that is never going to get us where we need to go over the long term.”
Not surprisingly, Gilboa rejects the quick fix marketing strategies of a Domestic PR-esque model for Israel. To fail to engage the self-defense argument or ignore the Israeli daily reality of war and terrorism is to concede the (contentious) PD high-ground for the niceties of soft power. The solution for Gilboa is perhaps more funding for a well-rounded policy that accepts the limitations of unfavorable policies and actually engages them in the discourse:
“People here feel that no matter what you do you are going to be blamed for all the problems in the Middle East,” said Eytan Gilboa, a professor of politics and international communication at Bar Ilan University. “Even suicide bombings by Palestinians are seen as our fault for not establishing a Palestinian state.”...Mr. Gilboa, the political scientist, said branding was not enough. “We need to do much more to educate the world about our situation,” he said. Regarding the extra $2 million budgeted for this, he said: “We need 50 million. We need 100 million.”
Israel...is facing its worst diplomatic crisis in two decades. Examples abound. Its sports teams have met hostility and violent protests in Sweden, Spain and Turkey. Mauritania has closed Israel’s embassy...Global opinion surveys are being closely examined and the Foreign Ministry has been granted an extra $2 million to improve Israel’s image through cultural and information diplomacy. “We will send well-known novelists and writers overseas, theater companies, exhibits,” said Arye Mekel, the ministry’s deputy director general for cultural affairs. “This way you show Israel’s prettier face, so we are not thought of purely in the context of war.”
Yet, much like Kraidy’s analysis of the fundamental deficit of US PD in the region (“Policies Before Values: US policies and perceptions of these policies, and not a difference of values, are the root cause of the US image problem in the Arab world”) current Israeli image efforts face a minefield of facts on the ground:
[F]or Israel’s critics, including those who firmly support the existence of a Jewish state, the problem is not one of image but of policy. They point to four decades of occupation, the settling of half a million Israeli Jews on land captured in 1967, the economic strangling of Gaza for the past few years and the society’s growing indifference toward the creation of a Palestinian state as reasons Israel has lost favor abroad, and they say that no amount of image buffing will change that. Israel’s use of enormous force in the Gaza war in January crystallized much of this criticism.
The new thinking in the Israeli Foreign Ministry seems to be a need to sidestep the political realities behind a sinking image in foreign publics, however:
Some Israeli officials say they believe that what the country needs is to “rebrand” itself. They say Israel spends far too much time defending actions against its enemies. By doing so, they say, the narrative is always about conflict.
This is one of the clarion calls from PD communities in disarray--for unity of message. We’ve see this formulation before in the Shared Values Campaign. Unfortunately, Israeli PD professionals seem to be making the same mistakes in assuming foreign publics are empty vessels waiting to receive the magic-bullet message of a ‘more complete’ picture.
“When we show Sderot, others also see Gaza,” said Ido Aharoni, manager of a rebranding team at the Foreign Ministry. “Everything is twinned when seen through the conflict. The country needs to position itself as an attractive personality, to make outsiders see it in all its reality. Instead, we are focusing on crisis management. And that is never going to get us where we need to go over the long term.”
Not surprisingly, Gilboa rejects the quick fix marketing strategies of a Domestic PR-esque model for Israel. To fail to engage the self-defense argument or ignore the Israeli daily reality of war and terrorism is to concede the (contentious) PD high-ground for the niceties of soft power. The solution for Gilboa is perhaps more funding for a well-rounded policy that accepts the limitations of unfavorable policies and actually engages them in the discourse:
“People here feel that no matter what you do you are going to be blamed for all the problems in the Middle East,” said Eytan Gilboa, a professor of politics and international communication at Bar Ilan University. “Even suicide bombings by Palestinians are seen as our fault for not establishing a Palestinian state.”...Mr. Gilboa, the political scientist, said branding was not enough. “We need to do much more to educate the world about our situation,” he said. Regarding the extra $2 million budgeted for this, he said: “We need 50 million. We need 100 million.”
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Internet and Anti-Americanism
Reflecting on our class discussion on why internet somehow relates to more anti-Americanism, this question leads me to connect the internet-users with the class issue. Even today, as the London-based Economist points out, anti-Americanism is partly a class issue: Poor and less-education Britons like America lot more than their richer compatriots…Upper class anti-Americanism may be surrogate snobbery. So what is the linkage here between internet and class? Unlike the easy access to internet for most of the people in the US, not everyone in other parts of the world has equal access to internet, especially in developing countries. So I tend to believe that internet users in the world are at least the middle-class who has time to surf the internet and care about these issues, like the Iraqi War, which tarnished America’s image abroad to a great degree. Poor people’s priority concern is surviving, let alone what is going on in the foreign world. Nye calls this class-related snobbery intellectual snobbery which also accounts for the anti-Americanism.
This also makes me think of the Chinese Anti-CNN movement, escalating during the Tibet riot issue last year. It illustrates how internet makes it so easy for the Chinese intellectuals (most of whom are university students who has easy access to internet) to get messages out and motivate more people into this movement. Angered by several Western media’s one-sided reports on the Tibetans’ “protests”, “crackdown” of Chinese government and the highlighting of western countries’ (notably UK, France, and U.S.) pro-Tibet activists’ boycott of 2008 Beijing Olympics, mainland Chinese and the well-established overseas Chinese online community was instantly filled with emotional protests and fervent calls for action. In China, www.anti-CNN.net and www.anti-CNN.com website are actually established mostly by university students, which states that: “this website is established to expose the lies and distortions in the western media. The site is maintained by volunteers, who are not associated with any government officials. We are not against the western media, but against the lies and fabricated stories in the media. We are not against the western people, but against the prejudice from the western society.” On their websites, they put more comprehensive pictures in contrast with CNN’s selective use of pictures which only highlight the injuries of Tibetan monks without much depiction of Han Chinese victims in order to create a “crackdown” image of Beijing government. Facebook interestingly is another important online tool for voicing out their protest. Infuriated by a German N-TV’s borrow of a picture with Nepal policemen beating the protesters in Nepal to “justify” that Chinese government is using forces to “crackdown” the Tibetan protesters, the overseas Chinese formed numerous online groups on Facebook to further expose some Western media’s biased reports, such as “Condemn Jack Cafferty's Hatred and Racist Remarks on CNN” and many others.
This case just illustrates how internet quickly makes the anti-CNN movement into such a “vogue” especially among the young intellectuals who are also the largest group of internet users in China.
Reflecting on our class discussion on why internet somehow relates to more anti-Americanism, this question leads me to connect the internet-users with the class issue. Even today, as the London-based Economist points out, anti-Americanism is partly a class issue: Poor and less-education Britons like America lot more than their richer compatriots…Upper class anti-Americanism may be surrogate snobbery. So what is the linkage here between internet and class? Unlike the easy access to internet for most of the people in the US, not everyone in other parts of the world has equal access to internet, especially in developing countries. So I tend to believe that internet users in the world are at least the middle-class who has time to surf the internet and care about these issues, like the Iraqi War, which tarnished America’s image abroad to a great degree. Poor people’s priority concern is surviving, let alone what is going on in the foreign world. Nye calls this class-related snobbery intellectual snobbery which also accounts for the anti-Americanism.
This also makes me think of the Chinese Anti-CNN movement, escalating during the Tibet riot issue last year. It illustrates how internet makes it so easy for the Chinese intellectuals (most of whom are university students who has easy access to internet) to get messages out and motivate more people into this movement. Angered by several Western media’s one-sided reports on the Tibetans’ “protests”, “crackdown” of Chinese government and the highlighting of western countries’ (notably UK, France, and U.S.) pro-Tibet activists’ boycott of 2008 Beijing Olympics, mainland Chinese and the well-established overseas Chinese online community was instantly filled with emotional protests and fervent calls for action. In China, www.anti-CNN.net and www.anti-CNN.com website are actually established mostly by university students, which states that: “this website is established to expose the lies and distortions in the western media. The site is maintained by volunteers, who are not associated with any government officials. We are not against the western media, but against the lies and fabricated stories in the media. We are not against the western people, but against the prejudice from the western society.” On their websites, they put more comprehensive pictures in contrast with CNN’s selective use of pictures which only highlight the injuries of Tibetan monks without much depiction of Han Chinese victims in order to create a “crackdown” image of Beijing government. Facebook interestingly is another important online tool for voicing out their protest. Infuriated by a German N-TV’s borrow of a picture with Nepal policemen beating the protesters in Nepal to “justify” that Chinese government is using forces to “crackdown” the Tibetan protesters, the overseas Chinese formed numerous online groups on Facebook to further expose some Western media’s biased reports, such as “Condemn Jack Cafferty's Hatred and Racist Remarks on CNN” and many others.
This case just illustrates how internet quickly makes the anti-CNN movement into such a “vogue” especially among the young intellectuals who are also the largest group of internet users in China.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Talking with the Taliban?
Looks like the say-do gap might be closing a bit after all. According to a New York Times article published today, President Obama might be willing to actually talk with the Taliban. In an interview that covered additional topics (i.e. the U.S. economy), the President "opened the door to a reconciliation process in which the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban, much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq." The BBC's reporting of the NYT interview focused on this open door and even quoted Afghan President Hamid Karzai who supported Obama's possible talks. "'This is the Afghan government's long stand,' he [Karzai] said. 'We wanted this and we support and stand with them to bring peace and stability to this land.'"
While these potential talks may be considered traditional diplomatic efforts, one can't help but see the strategic public diplomacy angle behind this announcement. By having the President cautiously discuss this potential option with reporters, the Obama administration is now prepared to gather public opinion and feedback on this new foreign policy effort. Additionally, Obama continued to prove his own credibility, using a strategy never accepted by George W. Bush, by bluntly commenting on the military's current presence in Afghanistan:
Asked if the United States was winning in Afghanistan, a war he effectively adopted as his own last month by ordering an additional 17,000 troops sent there, Mr. Obama replied flatly, “No.”
How's that for honesty?
I'm curious to see how the public responds to Obama's suggestion over the next few weeks. While open discussion with 'the enemy' was an ideal for which Obama was criticized and praised during his run for office, what will the American people think now? While our class discussions generally lead to support for efforts to enhance the U.S's international credibility and gain back the chance to get a 'pass' on foreign policy blunders, is Obama pushing his luck by announcing his intents to the world? I fear that as the President's celebrity status and momentum of hope wears down, once his Roman Candle of optimism burns out, support for efforts so drastically different from those of the Bush administration will dwindle as well.
On a less related topic, I thought Obama's comment on his trust in blogs was interesting. I guess he won't really be reading what I say here anyway:
Mr. Obama rode to the White House partly on his savvy use of new technology, and he has a staff-written blog on his presidential Web site. Even so, he said he did not find blogs to be reliable, citing the economy as one example. “Part of the reason we don’t spend a lot of time looking at blogs,” he said, “is because if you haven’t looked at it very carefully, then you may be under the impression that somehow there’s a clean answer one way or another — well, you just nationalize all the banks, or you just leave them alone and they’ll be fine.”
While these potential talks may be considered traditional diplomatic efforts, one can't help but see the strategic public diplomacy angle behind this announcement. By having the President cautiously discuss this potential option with reporters, the Obama administration is now prepared to gather public opinion and feedback on this new foreign policy effort. Additionally, Obama continued to prove his own credibility, using a strategy never accepted by George W. Bush, by bluntly commenting on the military's current presence in Afghanistan:
Asked if the United States was winning in Afghanistan, a war he effectively adopted as his own last month by ordering an additional 17,000 troops sent there, Mr. Obama replied flatly, “No.”
How's that for honesty?
I'm curious to see how the public responds to Obama's suggestion over the next few weeks. While open discussion with 'the enemy' was an ideal for which Obama was criticized and praised during his run for office, what will the American people think now? While our class discussions generally lead to support for efforts to enhance the U.S's international credibility and gain back the chance to get a 'pass' on foreign policy blunders, is Obama pushing his luck by announcing his intents to the world? I fear that as the President's celebrity status and momentum of hope wears down, once his Roman Candle of optimism burns out, support for efforts so drastically different from those of the Bush administration will dwindle as well.
On a less related topic, I thought Obama's comment on his trust in blogs was interesting. I guess he won't really be reading what I say here anyway:
Mr. Obama rode to the White House partly on his savvy use of new technology, and he has a staff-written blog on his presidential Web site. Even so, he said he did not find blogs to be reliable, citing the economy as one example. “Part of the reason we don’t spend a lot of time looking at blogs,” he said, “is because if you haven’t looked at it very carefully, then you may be under the impression that somehow there’s a clean answer one way or another — well, you just nationalize all the banks, or you just leave them alone and they’ll be fine.”
Britain to Resume Talks with Hezbollah
John F. Burns
New York Times
Two days ago, England lifted a four-year dialogue ban with the US-named terrorist organization Hezbollah. At the request of President Bush, Britain cut its ties with the Iranian organization known for initiating violent actions against Israel. England and Iran have a checkered past, with England regularly blamed for atrocious acts against the Islamic Republic and English involvement in the overthrow of Iranian leaders. This surprise shift in diplomatic relations indicates a new willingness of Britain to reach out to the Middle East. It also labels the old style of isolating noncompliant countries ineffective. The rationale for opening relations was pointed out in a New York Times article summarizing Foreign Officer Bill Marteson's comments that, "Britain aimed at moving Hezbollah toward becoming a nonviolent political party with policies focused on Lebanon, and not on undermining Israel."
Earlier this week, Gordon Brown visited the White House. Since the Obama administration took hold of Washington DC, the US has sought to better relations with Muslim countries and the Middle East. This outpouring of support has occurred in two branches with Obama speaking on Al Hurrah television and Congressional visits to Palestine. The rest of the world watched the hegemon and waited for the cue. Yesterday, one of the most influential countries opened its doors to discussions with one of the largest labeled terrorist organizations.
The extent of the US influence on Britain's change can only be speculated. I predict that Obama requested that Britain serve as an intermediary between Hezbollah and the United States. Since the US could not exactly reopen talks with an open and militant opponent of Israel, the US looked to its closest ally for assistance. How Hezbollah will be used is still up for deliberations, is the goal Iran, Israel or Lebanon? If Iran is the true goal, this could be the time to initiate change. With the re-election of Ahmadinejad, who is criticized for his inability to control inflation and strict oil rationing policies, he may be forced to foster a congenial relationship to face the prospect of re-election. If Israel is the focus of the attention, the temporary but fragile peace with Palestine could force many players to the table. Maybe the direction is shifting towards Lebanon, and the British want to make the new state effective.
While the political intent of the change is open to debate, Britain recognizing Hezbollah gives the country a new look. It shows an openness and willingness to collaborate that has not been seen since 2001.
Additionally, this change in England's practices reflects a changing Western view. The US is not seen as "going alone" at opening relations with the Middle East but rather at seeking the support and acceptance of the international community. Maybe the US will see itself accept a more multilateral approach to foreign relations. That is a big maybe.
Lastly, I wonder how Israel will respond to England's policy change. For the past eight years, Israel has seen unprecedented support for its often controversial practices by the United States. Now that Obama and Brown have opened their countries to talks with the Middle East, Israel will feel insecure. How will Israel brand itself in the next four years?
Friday, March 6, 2009
Al Jazeera English Struggling to Gain a Foothold in the U.S.
While doing some research about international news broadcasting, I noticed that Al Jazeera English has recently been pushing for greater availability in North America. NPR’s Morning Edition recently did a story about the channel struggling to gain a foothold among U.S. television audiences. Reuters also reported on Al Jazeera English’s public relations campaign:
“Al Jazeera is starting a public relations campaign to dispel what it calls myths and misperceptions that have prevented it from reaching more U.S. and Canadian viewers, the international television news network said on Tuesday.
Al Jazeera's English-language service is starting a website called IWantAJE.net, offering news the Qatar-based network produces and a list of ‘Hits and Myths’ knocking down statements about the network that it says are untrue.”
“The websites will ask people to e-mail to their cable and satellite providers asking them to carry the channel. Viewers can also watch the channel live on the website and read bulletins with the day's top stories.”
“Al Jazeera has said that gaining access in the United States has been hampered by what it calls misperceptions that it supports al Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden, that it is anti-Semitic and anti-American, that it shows beheadings, and that it has an anti-Western agenda.
‘We don't wear horns. Osama bin Laden does not have a weekly interview show,’ said Tony Burman, managing director of Al Jazeera English and former editor in chief at the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.
When former U.S. Marine Corps Captain Josh Rushing, now a reporter for Al Jazeera, went with a TV crew to Golden, Colorado, to cover the Democratic presidential convention last year, Al Jazeera's presence sparked protests from local motorcycle gangs.
‘People who have never watched it have a super-strong opinion about this thing they've never seen and don't want it on their airwaves,’ Rushing said.”
Since its launch more than two years ago, the channel is now available in about 140 million households in more than 100 countries and has 69 bureaus worldwide. According to IWantAJE.net, the Al Jazeera English Web site receives 22 million visits every month, with about 50% of its traffic coming from the U.S. and Canada. Even so, the channel is still hardly available anywhere in the U.S.
One of the basic rules of effective public diplomacy is listening and having a dialogue. Why then is Al Jazeera English, a channel providing a voice for billions of people around the world, not widely available in the U.S.? It’s not a hard question to answer actually; misconceptions about Al Jazeera aside, even Western international news channels such as BBC World and the American-owned CNN International are hardly available in the U.S.
Of course, no news outlet is completely unbiased; everyone ultimately has a point of view. But, by listening to different points of view, television audiences can get more of a complete picture of what is happening around the world. For example, Al Jazeera was the only English language network reporting from inside Gaza during the recent conflict there.
Being able to watch some BBC and Al Jazeera English would lead to a much more informed audience than by switching between MSNBC and Fox News. This, in turn, might just lead to a boon in U.S. public diplomacy.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Diplomacy by Invitation
Secretary Clinton means business in redefining the role of the Secretary of State. With one of the Secretary's new tools, anyone can get on the Internet and keep track of the Secretary's carbon footprint (she's up to 57,944 miles traveled thus far). In case you were curious to know where she calls home, you can't miss the only American flag visible from space which marks home at the headquarters.
Seriously, though, this is a pretty powerful tool that allows you to access the Secretary's itinerary as well as links to related material on the trip. This is important because it definitely diminishes the traditional distance that stands between the everyday person and their representatives. Here, you have a tool that caters to domestic and foreign "publics" alike.
The Secretary is distinguishing not only the Office of the Secretary of State, but also herself as Secretary of State. This innovation atop the Department sets a high bar for the lower level PD folks.
UPDATE:
Hillary Clinton wows young Europeans at a town hall meeting with 1,000 attendees locally, but interactive connection through Adobe Acrobat Connect to attendees at 39 embassies. I am not altogether familiar with this application, but from the description, you can literally host real-time discussions using graphics that can be displayed and edited in real-time amongst participants at remote sites. It's commonly used for distance learning programs and the like. You gotta love how she has covered so many thousands of miles to reach out to a diverse range of publics and still she comes across this guy:
One European observer said: "I'm relieved she didn't get the nomination, she's not as good as Obama. But still, a class act."
Thank you One European Observer, may I have another.
Seriously, though, this is a pretty powerful tool that allows you to access the Secretary's itinerary as well as links to related material on the trip. This is important because it definitely diminishes the traditional distance that stands between the everyday person and their representatives. Here, you have a tool that caters to domestic and foreign "publics" alike.
The Secretary is distinguishing not only the Office of the Secretary of State, but also herself as Secretary of State. This innovation atop the Department sets a high bar for the lower level PD folks.
UPDATE:
Hillary Clinton wows young Europeans at a town hall meeting with 1,000 attendees locally, but interactive connection through Adobe Acrobat Connect to attendees at 39 embassies. I am not altogether familiar with this application, but from the description, you can literally host real-time discussions using graphics that can be displayed and edited in real-time amongst participants at remote sites. It's commonly used for distance learning programs and the like. You gotta love how she has covered so many thousands of miles to reach out to a diverse range of publics and still she comes across this guy:
One European observer said: "I'm relieved she didn't get the nomination, she's not as good as Obama. But still, a class act."
Thank you One European Observer, may I have another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
