http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/ A blog by public diplomacy professionals, theorists and practitioners, published by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy en USC Center on Public Diplomacy Copyright 2012 2012-05-20T14:14:58+00:00 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/http://uscpublicdiplomacy.orghttp://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/favicon.ico http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/_EqFmqJSUcA/ #When:14:14:58Z On Thursday, May 17, 2012 I attended the discussion on “Digital Diplomacy: A New Era of Advancing Policy” at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington and on Twitter at #digidiplomacy. Carnegie had already posted video and audio of the event by early afternoon. USC MPD alumnus Matthew Wallin blogged his assessment of the discussion shortly there after. Being the academic dinosaur that I am at heart, I came home typed up all my notes. Then, as an exercise to help me develop my social media skills, I compared my notes to the Twitter feed. My next step was to construct a theoretical framework around that comparison. Yes, I really am an academic. And, having had the luxury of further scholarly reflection, I was struck by several ironies. Some of the ironies are captured in the tweets. Irony #1: Social media -- the antithesis of diplomacy? Yesterday’s ambivalence about the use of social media was palatable. On the one hand, there was a sense of excitement. Martha Boudreau, of Fleishman-Hillard and co-sponsor of the event, opened by capturing the promise of what the buzz of new media is all about. Martha Boudreau @FHDC: Social media is a broader way to practice statecraft & create relationships #DigiDiplomacy Boudreau shared some of the mind-numbing numbers on social media, but said its relevance to diplomacy goes beyond numbers. For Mexico’s Ambassor Arturo Sarukhan, social media was not just about relevancy, social media was a necessity. He shared his adaptation of an old Mexican saying to underscore his point. It used to be, “If you moved, you were not in the picture.” He up-dated that saying for Twitter: @Arturo Sarukhan:"if you don't tweet, you are not in the photograph." meaning if you aren't using social, you aren't relevant diplomatically #digidiplomacy On the one hand, there was excitement. Like the new toy on the block, all the kids are asking, what is it? Can I play with it too? Then, on the other hand, there was the wariness. Alert to the apprehension, or perhaps skepticism, the panelists seemed on the defensive from the get go. Alec Ross, the guru of social media @State and first of the panelist to speak, immediately introduced what became the mantra echoed among the discussants: “social media is a TOOL.” He emphasized that by saying he was a Medieval History major. He wasn’t interested in technology, but in advancing policy interests. Using social media was a tool for advancing policy interests. All the panelists repeated the mantra at least once or twice each time they spoke: “social media is a TOOL.” Nevertheless, the very first question from the audience was a not so much a question but a statement about the failings of social medial as a substitute for personal contact in diplomacy. Why the mantra of “social media as a tool” may fail to resonant or have difficulty taking hold with the diplomatic community may be because of the contrasting images of social media as a tool of the fast and furious and the image of diplomacy in unhurried lap of pearls and dark suits. Both images may need updating or refocusing. However, the contrasting images that linger were captured in a statement by panelist Sarah Wynn-Williams and a reflective observation by discussion moderator Tom Carver. “Another motto at Facebook: ‘Move fast and break things.” -- Sarah Wynn-Williams, former New Zealand diplomat and current manager of public policy at Facebook To which, Tom Carver of the Carnegie Endowment, who was moderating the discussion observed: “That’s the opposite of what diplomacy is: “Move slow and be careful not to break anything.” Viewed in this light, the ambivalence of social media makes sense. Social media could be seen as the antithesis of diplomacy. Irony #2: Social media -- promoting anti-social behavior? @AlecJRoss "Social media tends to punish moderation. "#DigiDiplomacy Ross made the comment in the context of speaking about the tension between representative democracy (i.e, Congress) and direct democracy, or citizen using social media to make their voices heard. Ross remarked, “Social media punishes moderation – those who seek compromise – and amplifies extremism on both ends.” On the surface, that sounds true. In a crowded platform, the extreme voices stand out. They get the visibility or listened to. Moderate voices are easily drowned out. Several researchers have been studying how the media tools/conventions are contributing to a more polarized atmosphere in U.S. politics. Which, going back to diplomacy, may be another reason to be leery of social media. If diplomacy about building relations, compromise and accommodation to others is at the core. Also, compromise and learning to modify one’s behavior in relation to others is at the core of social behavior. Also, while moderate voices may be easily drowned out, they nevertheless tend to resonate with the widest audience. How ironic it would be if social media is promoting anti-social, uncompromising behavior. Having pondered these ironies, I am now the more curious about social media’s evolving role/s in public diplomacy. Yes, Phil Seib, your new book on social media and public diplomacy is next on my reading list. R.S._Zaharna, Americas ]]> 2012-05-20T14:14:58+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:14:14:58Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/LbKkKNCs8Z8/ #When:20:45:07Z In a couple of recent postings I have tried to elaborate the notion of a nation brand, to identify some of the salient issues surrounding the relationship between public diplomacy and branding, and to illuminate the more subtle distinctions. In this entry, I would like to drill down further into each of these, and several related issues. Branding guru Simon Anholt has developed a hexagonal model that sets out the principal elements of a nation’s brand, including tourism, exports, policies, investment and immigration, culture and heritage, and people. This has become the industry standard. While Simon and I concur on many points, but we do not agree on everything covered in the continuing debate. As far back as 2006, he wrote me to say “I dispute… your contention that branding is fundamentally a monologue. The best brand theory - and the best brand practice - today sees brand as the common purpose or shared vision that unites businesses with their staff, suppliers and customers, and so is in every sense parallel to (e.g. the British Council's insistence on) the mutuality of public and cultural diplomacy. A brand is also … as much an invitation to complain as it is a promise of quality, so even in that rather literal sense it must always be about two-way communication… Brand is very much more than ‘image’ and the communication, management or promotion of image. Brand strategy is almost synonymous with corporate strategy, and at least in theory, there is a parallel notion in nation branding. Most firms these days would describe their brand as their relationship with their market and their other stakeholders.” My response? Let one hundred flowers bloom. But when it comes time to pick the bouquet, it seems worth remembering that if branding is about selling dreams, public diplomacy is about sharing them. De-mystifying the distinction A nation’s public diplomacy should support its brand, and vice versa; it is not a matter of which is subsumed by the other. If anything, branding may be a somewhat more expansive concept, in that while all PD, in one way or another, contributes to the brand, not all branding – for instance, uni-directional communications – can be considered part of PD. And although the connection is not continuous, which it should be in the case of PD’s continuous conversation, branding, with its reliance upon market testing, client feedback and customer satisfaction, seems to me rather more responsive to changes in the environment. At the end of the day, much of the PD vs. branding competition is rather sterile. Suffice it to say that the two concepts are intimately related but distinct. More important is the observation that they converge around the conviction that a country’s international image and reputation requires active, ongoing management if international (and, by extension, domestic) policy are to be developed successfully. That said, even with best efforts, the experience of using branding efforts to support public diplomacy has been mixed. The “Cool Britannia” campaign launched by the UK in the late 1990s received much attention at the outset, but the novelty melted away as quickly as the ice cream it was named after and the exercise ended in a media circus of scorn and ridicule. Much less attention was received during several attempts to use public diplomacy to burnish the Canadian brand; the Think Canada Festival in Japan (2001) and the Upper North Side campaign in New York (1998-99) achieved little of lasting value. Nor have attempts to apply private sector approaches to public sector challenges always produced the results desired. Selling foreign policy, after all, is not like selling soap, especially if the policy on offer is wildly unpopular. In the wake of 9/11, marketing executive Charlotte Beers, whose previous job was Chair of the advertising giant J. Walter Thompson, was asked by Colin Powell to sell “Brand America” in the Middle East. Beers’ multi-million dollar budget and Madison Avenue tactics, used in the campaigns “Shared Values” and “Muslim Life in America”, dissolved in fiasco; although there were many complicating factors, she resigned less than a year into her appointment and the ads were pulled. All of this underscores the point that it is not enough to pump out the messages or know how, technically, to connect. You must understand the culture and values of those you are trying to influence. R.S. Zaharna is excellent on these matters. Mind the gap I have emphasized that PD is most effective when meaningful exchange is wed to policy development and state behavior. Avoiding the perilous say-do gap requires not only standing up for one’s country abroad, but, when necessary, standing up to one’s country - pushing back – at home, especially when international policy is incongruent with the inputs supplied by public diplomacy. In this sense, public diplomacy has much more in common with dialogue than does branding, which does not typically incorporate the active feedback dimension and is more about diktat and promotion than meaningful exchange. As instruments and elements of international relations, both public diplomacy and branding are techniques of statecraft, not unlike international PR as practiced by governments. But they are also something more, part of a larger international policy process which works at various levels, time frames and dimensions. An integrated, coherent public diplomacy and branding strategy will adopt the ecosystem approach to help condition attitudes and sustain an environment conducive to influencing behavior and achieving international policy goals. That said, amidst all the boosterism, a note of caution is warranted before climbing onto the bandwagon; it would be unwise to slip entirely into promotional mode. Public diplomacy and branding are innovative, evolutionary additions to the diplomatic wardrobe, but they are not cure-alls suitable for all circumstances. While very useful, there are real limits to what can be achieved with either. Good public diplomacy can’t compensate for bad policy, and the most sophisticated branding campaign will come up short if unaccompanied by facts and behavior supportive of the brand. As suggested above, any gap between what a country says and what it does can be terminal. Embedded in each are also a number of inherent contradictions, or, to be charitable, paradoxes. We will return to those matters in the next entry. Daryl_Copeland, Americas ]]> 2012-05-15T20:45:07+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:20:45:07Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/Q5U8P7rrOmA/ #When:14:00:32Z If we do not highlight it often enough, cultural diplomacy promotes the creation of transnational social spaces of engagement and interaction. And, even as they are often identified with particular cultures or countries, cultural diplomatic interventions are also unavoidably cosmopolitan in nature, insofar as they move between, confront, and conjoin multiple social worlds. In this way and even when carried away by the worst excesses of national chauvinisms, cultural diplomacy is inherently a transnationalist project of sorts. How does the work of cultural diplomacy account for its perpetual context of “transit”? But nor do events and expressions of cultural diplomacy occur in an internationalist ether so much as in specific places and informed by particular historical conditions of possibility. This specificity includes the ways that “global” concepts and practice engage “local” ones or the ways “foreign” ideas and values mix (or not, as the case may be) with “national” ones. How these elisions occur is not often enough a focus of attention but it is also a fundamental question for understanding how cultural diplomacy is received and how it resonates with people’s meaningful horizons. Perhaps it is time for us to think of cultural diplomacy in more “glocal” terms. Here I am not so much referring to the popular mantra, “think globally, act locally,” as pointing to the ways that the expressive content of cultural diplomacy: is not self-evident; circulates among publics in particular ways; is often understood by audiences in terms of already familiar and available concepts, beliefs, or values; and if it resonates, is typically appropriated into local frameworks of meaning and relevance. It is impossible, in other words, to understand the extra-local content of cultural diplomacy apart from its local context. The British cultural theorist Stuart Hall’s discussion of encoding/decoding is helpful here. Hall helps us to appreciate the extent to which the coding of any given message does not dictate its reception, which is perhaps an unfortunate inconvenience for the advocates of strategic communication. Hall undermines confidence in any notion of communication that mistakenly adopts a straightforward or linear “sender-message-receiver” model. Instead, Hall insists, the two moments of “encoding” and of “decoding” are relatively autonomous from each other, and differently determinate in any process of communication. In other words, any given public, if an intended audience for the work of cultural diplomacy, is also an important source for the meaning of that same cultural work. And as such, Hall encourages recognition of the “struggle over meaning,” not as zero-sum but as fundamental to all communication. Another way of putting this is that whatever the intention of cultural diplomacy interventions, publics for whom they are intended will always actively make sense of them in terms relating to their own interests. Here I am not referring to any so-called “realist interests” – the rational calculus of political self-interest or practical advantage – but to the cultural grounding of ideas, concepts, values, or commitments that people everywhere use to evaluate the meanings of statements, and which invest the views people have about the world around them with significance. Interests, in the more encompassing second sense, most often take shape amid regular traffic along frontiers of interaction between the global and the local. We can consider the significance of cultural diplomacy, then, along a glocal gradient. Take the example of “McDonaldization” as a case of the global circulation of American popular culture. Much attention has been given to whether the ubiquity of McDonalds franchises worldwide represents the triumph of the attractiveness of American fast food (and its associated model of economic efficiency) or is primary evidence for the predatory qualities of American cultural exports that threaten to displace local cultural diversity with a shallower and more monochromatic cultural globalization. In fact neither story adequately captures another tendency, as colorfully reported in Watson’s Golden Arches East: the burger franchise effectively plies its trade along a global-local frontier that it constantly negotiates, and where the global and the local are brought together in diverse ways. While McDonald’s serves beer in Germany, does not offer beef in India, and offers seasonal “tsukimi” burgers in Japan to celebrate the harvest moon, this is not just an example of catering to local tastes. Franchises are turned into “local” institutions by patrons in a myriad of ways. In this sense, they are not altogether perceived as “American,” but in significant part as different kinds of neighborhood haunts. How a global franchise becomes a local haunt is about what Japanese do with a McDonalds to make it “theirs.” Another illustration is human rights discourse and practice, which is a regular dimension of U.S. public diplomacy efforts. Typically the U.S. asserts the universal aspirations of human rights, promotes human rights in conjunction with secular and individual freedoms of equality and choice, and disregards cultural frameworks when advancing human rights goals. Nevertheless, international human rights law typically comes to matter to peoples around the world only once it has – in the words of researcher Sally Merry – been effectively “remade in the vernacular,” often in locally contingent and fragmentary ways. Merry is clear that, to be most effective, human rights advocacy must be appropriated, translated, and framed in local terms. This might include human rights concepts about the nature of the person, the community, or the state, which do not travel easily from one setting to another. Instead of the more prevailing understanding of culture by international human rights activists as a retrogressive and anti-modern “custom” and as a ready excuse for non-compliance, Merry encourages attention to the ways transnational human rights ideas and institutions are made meaningful using cultural images, symbols, and narratives – in places like Fiji and India often couched in religious rather than secular terms – that help to articulate specifically local conceptions of social justice that do not simply echo international human rights covenants. Instead they are articulated, for example, in relationship to prevailing kinship obligations, culturally-defined ideas about the body; or particular historical contexts, such as long-term struggles over land ownership, among others. As a recent lucid essay by Charles Kupchan argues, the contemporary world is not best met with the expectation of “conformity to Western values,” but instead through recognition of the proliferating hybrid modernities that characterize it. In glocal terms, whether dealing with global popular culture or with the universalizing discourses and practices of human rights, we should be considering how the subjects, recipients or audiences of these culture industries, global discourses and frameworks, are also at the same time agents of them, sources for them, and authors of them. Promotion of a more “glocal diplomacy” – the translation of the global and its often creative elision with the local – remains mostly disregarded, given the constant pressure to “control the message.” Robert_Albro, Americas, Asia Pacific, South Asia, Europe ]]> 2012-05-12T14:00:32+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:14:00:32Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/gO6tM-THho0/ #When:21:38:39Z APDS Blogger: Oscar Castellanos del Collado Between January 29 and May 6, 2012, posters of Frida Kahlo’s self-portrait were hung from light posts around Los Angeles. The portraits served as invitations to “In Wonderland: the Surrealist Adventures of Women Artists in Mexico and the United States,” the first co-organized exhibition by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and Mexico’s Museum of Modern Art. APDS_Bloggers, Americas ]]> 2012-05-09T21:38:39+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:21:38:39Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/Q7UxTl8onAY/ #When:20:18:03Z Although democracy retains its allure, the Arab uprisings that began last year were about democracy primarily as simply a means to an end. The real goal of those who took to the streets was to grasp a better future for themselves and their families. Having a job, getting enough to eat, being assured that children could receive decent education and medical care – these constitute the substance of everyday life that so many in the Arab world had long been denied and were determined to claim. As the political transition within Arab states continues, young people in that region are looking ahead toward an unsettled future. A survey of 18 to 24-year-olds in 12 Arab countries conducted by ASDA’A Burson-Marsteller found that “living in a democratic country,” which was the top aspiration in last year’s survey now ranks third, behind “being paid a fair wage” and “owning my own home.” Respondents cited the high cost of living as their biggest concern, and said that civil unrest and lack of democracy are the biggest obstacles facing the region. Social unrest and economic challenges are closely related, particularly in terms of the flow of foreign capital into the region. During 2008, foreign direct investment into Arab countries totaled US$92 billion; in 2012, the figure is expected to be US$29 billion. As part of their public diplomacy efforts, the United States and other countries have encouraged entrepreneurship, particularly among young Arabs, but additional incentives need to be offered to private sector investors to help keep Arab economies from slipping into chaos. If greater economic disarray occurs, political turmoil will follow, and the only beneficiaries will be extremist groups skilled in taking advantage of frustration and fear. Despite the dark clouds that are gathering, the survey found that the “Arab spring” is regarded as a positive development, and that it has stimulated belief among a solid majority of respondents that their countries are now moving in the right direction. Political opinions such as this one are influenced by a surge in news consumption by young Arabs. To the question, “How often do you update yourself on news and current affairs?” the response “Daily” rose from 18 percent in early 2011 to 52 percent this year. Reliance on television news has dropped markedly, while use of online news sources has climbed significantly. Pulling together these survey results helps define a general portrait of Arab youth. They retain considerable optimism about their countries’ political futures in the aftermath of the dramatic events of 2011. But as they look at their own lives, they perceive – quite rightly – that they will face enormous challenges. Their increased attentiveness to news might exacerbate their impatience as they become better informed about how people live in the rest of the Arab world and beyond. All this is useful information for the United States and other countries engaged in public diplomacy toward Arab populations. Public diplomacy involves long-term strategies, and the mix of hopes and concerns so clearly reflected in the responses to the Arab youth survey should be integrated into the planning of public diplomacy programs directed at this part of the world. Philip_Seib, Middle East ]]> 2012-05-06T20:18:03+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:20:18:03Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/Qm5W7KVeBUU/ #When:17:00:40Z APDS Blogger: Emina Vukic Ever since the Lumiere brothers gave their first show of projected pictures to an audience in Paris in 1895, there was “a keen awareness of the fundamental and open-ended relationship between the formation and articulation of identity-whether personal, national or European- and the moving image.” European cinema has over the course of the last century gone from having a seminal role in the invention of the new art form and dominating the international markets, to falling into the shadow of the financially incomparably more viable Hollywood films that proved to be more satisfying to the masses. Nonetheless, European cinema with all its strengths and weaknesses plays a major role in integrating and creating our individual understanding of ourselves and the world we live in. Of all the components of cultural diplomacy, especially when targeted at external audiences, nothing bears a European adjective as strongly as European cinema, which continues to mirror the European identity. Although Europe presents an uneasy and fragile allegiance of diversities, shaped by linguistic, political, and cultural differences, European cinema, demonstrates “key trends and concerns visible across different national and regional cinemas that enable us to identify certain key characteristics.” These include cultural and historical traditions, as well as the new and complex notions of identity, new voices, gender issues, sexuality, immigration, exile, conflict, and change. These themes strongly communicate about Europeans and others in the multicultural context and allow a new insight into an idea of European identity which “openly acknowledges multiplicity, instability and fragmentation.” European films have had a history of tackling very sensitive issues in the global, postmodern world like collaboration with the Nazis (Louis Malle, Au Revoir Les Enfants, 1987), assessment of national guilt in relation to its colonial history (Denis, Chocolat, 1988) as well as challenges to European preconceptions of place and identity (Kassovitz, La Haine, 1995). All these films, however, play a “dynamic role in representing and re-evaluating Europe’s complex past and more importantly in suggesting new routes to future understanding.” European cinema is often equated with “art cinema and high culture for the cultural and historic traditions it depicts” and it is suggested that in order to be successful, European directors must learn to satisfy the audience. It is precisely this personal/local (parochial if you like) character of European films that distinguishes European films from the uniformity of Hollywood blockbusters, that adds a special flair, sensibility to them and contributes to their “Europeanness.” Films like The Full Monty, Trainspotting, Billy Elliott, East Is East are all low-budget films, dealing with personal, local, regional, or national viewpoints and contain unfamiliar languages, cultural habits, and ideas. They offered something original, quirky and unpredictable to the audiences satiated with Hollywood predictability and uniformity which in turn brought them an extraordinary international success. The directors’ intention was not to satisfy the audience, but to show that films have a role to play which is beyond pure entertainment. They were not afraid to challenge, provoke and inspire which proved to be all the more rewarding. Nonetheless, the European film production cannot ignore the mainstream U.S. cinema domination of Europe. Very few home-produced films make it to the top 10 anywhere in Europe. The market share of European films in EU cinemas has fallen to a mere 23% in 2000. In the words of Pierre Sorlin, “Europeans create images of the world through Hollywood’s lenses.” In turn, there are many constraints that limit the number of foreign films screened in the U.S. The severely underfunded European film industry cannot compete with mainstream Hollywood. Whereas the Americans consider film a commodity, the Europeans consider films as “cultural good with a symbolic significance that cannot be reduced to a mere commodity.” Unfortunately, in cinema, it is the profits not the richness, diversity, and quality, that ensure the survival of film production. Also, it seems that the European films don’t travel well due to their linguistic, national, and cultural differences that complicate the circulation of films. Dubbing or subtitles are demanded from European films by different national audiences. That is one of the reasons why European films haven’t been able to exploit the EU market as one of the largest markets in the world. It seems that European films are a more viable component of cultural diplomacy toward external audiences that recognize the originality and sensibility of European films and interpret them as conveying European identity as opposed to internal audiences that often see the films as belonging to their country of origin. European films should be tirelessly used to promote the European cultural identity by offering a range of important new cultural perspectives and depicting universal concerns through intimate lenses. Europeans need more than ever their own images to tell their stories and to explore their myths and identities, to look afresh at themselves and others. As such, European films are an unalienable source of identity and means of its articulation. Emina Vukic is an Annenberg scholar graduating with a Master's in Public Diplomacy degree from USC in May 2012. Born and raised in Croatia, she has worked for the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Bosnia for several years as a human rights activist after the war, the Hague Tribunal office in Belgrade, and USAID's Local Government Reform Program in Serbia. Her public diplomacy interests lie in nation branding, primarily of post-conflict countries through cultural diplomacy efforts. APDS_Bloggers, Europe ]]> 2012-05-04T17:00:40+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:17:00:40Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/55J0MhWivhE/ #When:17:00:11Z Author’s Note: This blog is the edited version of a speech I gave at the recent NATO conference on The Power of Soft Power. When Joseph Nye first coined the term soft power over 20 years ago, the United States and Europe were in a different place than they are today. We felt we knew the enemy – Russia - and therefore why NATO was required. The world had a clear pecking order, with the U.S. at the top followed by its close friend, Europe. The cultural domination of the U.S. was unchallenged (even in Russia) because of the strength of Hollywood, McDonalds and a powerful English language media which was reinforced by the United Kingdom's BBC. We lived in a largely unquestioning hard power culture, where guns - if not guns and money - shaped and controlled the world. Globalization was unfolding on hard power terms, giving rise to an anti-globalization movement (very confusing to those of us who believed passionately in growing connectivity and global citizenship). Within this transatlantic culture, soft power was offered as a complement to hard power – another means to the same end of getting our way in the world, albeit slower. Instead of armies, we actively shipped artists, products, legal systems, video games – anything that might carry the values and templates of the world we wanted – to capture the imaginations of those abroad and give us access to their decision making processes. America’s soft power was projected upon the black and white backdrop of a world split into good and evil, winners and losers. It painted the picture of a good winner: one you wanted to be friends with. Today is a different world, however. The global culture and broader context for the exercise of soft power has changed significantly in at least 10 ways: First and foremost, our ways of communicating have changed so radically that any person with a computer and Wi-Fi can project an idea into minds all over the world; The public sharing of breakthroughs in science, medicine, psychology, economic theory, game theory, and political thinking makes it more difficult to monopolize and manipulate national and global narratives; The rise of media awareness: we now know we are told stories by people with agendas, because we can do it ourselves; The rise of emotional intelligence makes us less easy to manipulate; The change of gender balance in the public space, allowing feminine values and modes of operating to challenge the hegemony of masculine ones; Increased exposure to different cultures, allowing competing values to parachute into our previously hermetically sealed space; A loss of confidence, post 9/11, in the idea that someone is in charge. This fosters a culture of fear, but it does not give anyone carte blanche to assuage it: we remain on our guard against expectations of continuity; A loss of confidence in the institutions, structures and authorities that make promises they cannot keep; New exposition of network values – relationship, reciprocity, and distributed leadership. This constitutes a revolution in our understanding of agency; Open source technology has given rise to a generation of activists. The changes in global communications and soft power have resulted in more people taking turns in leading debates. Different stories about our shared space and its apparatus have arisen over the years and taken hold in the public psyche. Many of these ideas are not simply old debates between warmongers and peaceniks, but show a constant reframing of our common reality, sometimes prompted by scientific developments or social science. Unlike the old stories shared on the margins amongst activists, this is the new common wisdom and can have an impact on stock markets, voting patterns, as well as life trajectories in the private sphere. In my recent speech to NATO, I explored new stories about war, heroism, masculinity, and violence, and how these stories will make it increasingly difficult for politicians to send their troops into conflict zones in the future. These shifts and turns in our shared global space of ideas and story lines add up to a slowly softening culture. Guns and money still rule the roost, but they are neither trusted, respected, nor loved the way they once were. Instead we have a world that is increasingly self-mediated and hence self-conscious. Individual – as well as group, national, and business - empowerment is built on the ability to connect: to engage, to make relationships. Leadership has gotten flatter as more of us take our chances in the marketplace of ideas and initiatives. So where does NATO sit in this new world? If soft power is attraction, how can NATO draw people towards itself – how should it reflect these new values and practices and recommend itself as an institution to trust? NATO needs to tell a new story about itself that mirrors the global developments we are witnessing. Here are five thoughts for those in charge: Reframe NATO's history as arising in a time of early globalization. Allow a narrative of diminishing violence and moving away from war. Be interested in the repurposing of the army in a future culture of global interdependence. It's possible to acknowledge the common desire for peace without losing any power. Tell a new story about the future of growing alliances and relationships: it's all about friends. Consider creating new roles for women in a gender specific way, using their relational skills. Women taking on traditional male roles in the army does not sit comfortably with the majority. Move away from the closed world of NATO; be wary of the NATO world view arising in messages. Most of the people you want to be friends with are not in your club and can't understand your rationale – you have to understand theirs. Acknowledge that in a world of growing complexity, networks, and relationships, the ultimate counter-logic is drone warfare. This is NATO's Achilles heel – the ultimate disconnected weapon of death. Like torture – it is on the list of deal breakers. Create more initiatives like “We-Nato” where Stephanie Babst created a hospitable, welcoming space. People don't want to live in a world of fear, we prefer a world of increasing knowledge through engagement. There are some that ask why should NATO care? Ultimately, in their view, the only relationship that matters is between military and political leaders. NATO doesn't need to attract the public because only those in power will ultimately understand the reality they face on the global stage and they make the decisions. To them I would say, observe our changing world. It is common knowledge that the biggest constituency in the world is public opinion. Politicians – from small dictators to leaders of the biggest democracies – know they will not be voted in to make their decisions without public approval, something they simply cannot manipulate the way they once could. What used to be a cozy partnership between governments and the military is fast becoming a ménage a trois – the public has moved in and the politician has been seduced. Ignore the public at your peril, but befriend them for a more secure world. To receive a copy of this speech in it’s entirety, send an email to: IA@softpowernetwork.com Indra_Adnan, Europe ]]> 2012-05-03T17:00:11+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:17:00:11Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/LqKmbXd6sFk/ #When:17:50:52Z One of the defining attributes of being in a center of global commerce and culture is the feeling you get when walking down the sidewalks. In London, I found the experience of strolling a few blocks from where I was staying to the downtown campus of UEA London, in large part along the fabled Brick Lane, to be a source of energy and inspiration. Now back in Ottawa for a month, I find the contrast especially striking. Almost painful. The narrow, crumbling sidewalks along the anonymous streets in the Canadian capital’s exquisitely excrescent central business district seem to drain any joy or enthusiasm. With each step, you can feel the spirit ebbing. Whereas London is a great place to be in the midst of, Ottawa is a great place to leave. Fortunately, that is easily done, and its wonderful environs make the prospect irresistible. Both London and Ottawa have brands. London is a world city and global network node, less an exemplar of things English or British than a vibrant cosmopolitan crossroads that just happens to be the capital of the UK. Ottawa is a blandly pleasant frontier town and bureaucratic outpost on the fringe of the settled part of the North American continent. All of which is to say that brands, not least because they exist mainly in the minds of the beholders, have personality and complexion. And on that note, I would like to return to, and weave further a few of the analytical threads comparing branding and public diplomacy (PD) first presented in Chapter 10 of Guerrilla Diplomacy. Public Diplomacy vs. Branding With the notable exception of Canada, public diplomacy most everywhere is enjoying somewhat of a renaissance, with interest and activity at levels not seen since the end of the Cold War. Why the resurgence? I have not seen much research on that issue, but the renewed commitment may be associated with the spread of democracy, which means that public opinion, and relations with civil society generally, are more important to governments in their efforts to exert influence in a globalizing world. The accelerated levels of PD programming on the parts of China and India have had a major impact across the board. Meanwhile, a major assault on Western values has been launched by jihadists; al Qaeda’s call cannot go unanswered. Military responses, however, have proven exceptionally costly in every respect. This has heightened interest in an examination of the alternative international policy instruments. Finally, complex interdependence and the transnational nature of many pressing global issues – management of the earth’s commons, genomics, environmental collapse, to name a few – have combined to heighten the general efficacy and appeal of public diplomacy. At the highest level of analysis, the idea of a nation brand aligns closely with national image or reputation, and attempts at international branding with the practice of public diplomacy. That said, as soon as you begin to drill down, the differences can be seen to outweigh the similarities. Public diplomacy is rooted in the need to address issues non-violently, and at its best is characterized by dialogue, meaningful exchange and relationship building rather than monologue, information dominance or message dumping. It is associative rather than assertive, to use my colleague R.S. Zaharna’s apt terminology. In this regard, and after Kathy Fitzpatrick, PD has more in common with public relations than it does with lobbying or advocacy. The latter two practices are in my view more akin to branding, which I see as device to narrow the distance between perception and reality and to keep pace with identities in constant evolution. Branding is a private sector import, and its corporate origins and provenance may explain its tendency towards the use of broadcast means to achieve economic and commercial ends. Like PD, branding relies on ideas, intelligence, cultural knowledge and market or audience research. Yet in my estimation, public diplomacy differs from branding mainly in that it is on “receive” at least as much as it is on “send” mode. Listening is critical. Using meaningful exchange with public constituencies to exert indirect influence on governments and decision makers, public diplomacy is a sophisticated form of triangulation, an approach to the peaceful practice of international relations that has at its centre not compulsion but partnership and persuasion. This is a description that does not fit branding, which in political terms more closely resembles propaganda.   Public diplomacy might be defined as the sum of efforts by government to promote policies and interests abroad by connecting with populations, building coalitions, creating networks and in so doing influencing public opinion. A brand, on the other hand, consists of the shared perception of a place, product or person around which those interested can congregate. Hence the importance of logos in branding campaigns. These are part projection, part reaction, and accordingly are more concerned with matters pertaining to image shaping and reputation management than is PD. The distinction, though far from absolute, is nonetheless worth pursuing. No logo? A brand is what sets you apart, what makes you distinct, what differentiates you from others. Good brands are suffused with attitude. They are positive and convey promise. They have soul and seek to establish or maintain an emotional attachment. Nation branding involves telling a unique story, and expressing that story as an integrated narrative with clear form and direction. The resulting brand, and the “re-brands” which may follow, will represent the distillation, crystallization and projection of that story in a manner supportive of national values, policies and interests. Brands take years to build but are easily damaged and will erode if not cultivated constantly. When the image, or brand, is positive, it will be immeasurably easier to draw others into the conversation. When countries fail to live up to the brand promise being promoted, they risk losing credibility and running down their soft power. If public diplomacy is thought of as a nations’ book, then a nation’s brand is something like its cover, designed to appeal viscerally to the consumers of international policy by encouraging potential buyers to open the book (or visit the country, buy the product, or support the international policy objective). But because the market evolves quickly, the cover’s design may need attention even before the book requires revision and a new edition can be released. Engineering a positive predisposition - that is, when association with a specific nationality evokes in the first instance a smile rather than a scowl - is the end of nation branding; through dialogue, public diplomacy seeks to produce results in support of identified objectives and in service of national interests. By virtue of its origins in marketing and advertising places and products, branding is reliant more upon projection and is less dependent upon genuine two-way communications. If branding means consistency, conformity and staying on message, and the communications content is paramount, then public diplomacy means explaining the message, asking for comments, and reporting the response. It enlarges understanding by creating a shared frame of reference, and weds communication to action - the demonstration effect, diplomacy of the deed. It might be an oversimplification to suggest that branding has more to do with spin and PD more to do with engagement, but I will pursue that line of argument in the next installment. Daryl_Copeland, Europe ]]> 2012-05-02T17:50:52+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:17:50:52Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/OVU_8aPHuh8/ #When:17:20:42Z I have spent some time as of late picking through the now infamous train wreck that was the American pavilion at Shanghai. Cynthia Schneider offers her opinion on what went wrong here. Here’s my take: The fellow appointed commissioner general, Jose Villareal, was a former fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. He helped raise the $61 million required for the creation of the American pavilion. We do not know what he did as commissioner general because the whole pavilion had been outsourced. The U.S. government had nothing to do with this. Why? Because they didn’t pay for it. In 2010, somebody in the State Department gave two people the authority to raise the money for the pavilion in Shanghai. But these two could only raise a few million. Hillary enters the picture and raises around $60 million. She says thanks very much to her chief fundraiser Villareal by appointing him Commissioner General of the United States Pavilion at Shanghai. Taking nothing away from him, as I’m sure he’s a very respectable person, he in due course welcomes all these Chinese businessmen into the Commissioner General’s lounge, on behalf of the American government. But there is no government. It’s all been outsourced, or “Blackwatered” as Bob Jacobson chillingly described it. So, these two folks I just mentioned go to an outfit on the West Coast called BRC Imagination Arts. They do theme park entertainment. They did the Aichi fair in 2005 which featured an actor dressed as Ben Franklin riding…a Segway. BRC first came into the picture in 1992 when they were hired to design the U.S. pavilion at Seville, the beginning of the handing over of government control of these events to the private sector. Also, for Shanghai the American organizers brought in Clive Grout, a Canadian architect and designer. Hey, I’m no xenophobe, but couldn’t we at least have found an American architect for the job? You know, national pride, American visionary entrepreneurialism at work and that sorta thing? So what’s going on here? It’s very interesting that BRC is the same group who would tackle the American pavilion project at Shanghai. And of course, they themselves were beholden to over 60 corporations who wanted a piece of the pavilion’s limelight. I am not sure what the exact laws are with Congress forbidding appropriations that would enable the U.S. government from participating in world expos. Why didn’t President Obama pressure Nancy Pelosi for funds for Shanghai? It’s legal, as far as I know. Fairs, expos, and international exhibitions offer a unique place for connections, individual connections on a scale of great magnitude. But did we reach out at Shanghai? Sure, we had Chinese-speaking guides, but did they engage the Chinese audiences? A guide could say to someone on line, “hello, what province are you from?” We shouldn’t just say, “Look at me, I speak Chinese,” which is tantamount to what was actually on display in the American pavilion: video loops of the President and Kobe and others saying “hi.” Big deal. We should have been saying, “what are your feelings about the United States? What do you like about us? What do you hate about us?” China is the future. Apparently, we do not know what we are. In past years, the USIA effectively oversaw the design aspect of international exhibitions, starting with the Brussels Expo in ’58, the American National Exhibition in Moscow in ’59, Montreal ’67 and Osaka ’70. But the government was effective for this reason: first, the government paid for these endeavors, which is a small price to pay in my opinion for brilliant cultural diplomacy; second, there is a history here in which these experts (government representatives who had expertise as designers such as Jack Masey,) drove content. Since the Seville 1992 Expo, the story has been the entropy of USIA’s capabilities in this arena. Basically, we always had someone on the inside who understood what they were doing. In Shanghai we did not. It is obvious the Feds don’t have anyone who is really serious about doing this stuff right. The Office of Public Diplomacy, which has been limping along, really hasn’t distinguished itself. From a recent interview I conducted with Jack Masey, he noted, concerning Shanghai: If I even remotely had a hand in this, knowing how turned on the Chinese are by basketball, if indeed you wanted to do a video or a movie presentation, I would have gotten the Harlem Globetrotters and let them do a 15-minute segment of what they do best. You would drive their audience over the edge. And you’d really do it right. It’s easy. If we do a repeat of Shanghai and outsource the American pavilion again for the Milan 2015 Expo, we will have no control over the content. Let’s stop wasting these “last three feet.” Andrew_Wulf, Americas ]]> 2012-04-28T17:20:42+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:17:20:42Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/_l4FGNAN58Y/ #When:02:40:06Z When I hear from people about the relative advantages of cultural diplomacy, they often point to the apparent “neutrality” or “apolitical” basis of, say, cultural exchange. Coming from an anthropological background, this often advanced claim has always puzzled me. At least historically, when anthropologists have talked about cultures – for example, in the typical mode of cultural relativism – they have referred to the ways that different cultures are either configurations of specific “values” or interpret the world around them in distinct ways. And, if this is not exactly how I would encourage us to think about the culture concept today, it is precisely because the meanings people ascribe to things in the world vary so much across cultures that we seek to take account of cultures in the first place. When we refer to “neutrality” in the context of cultural diplomacy, then, it is often unclear how this reconciles with cultural difference. I am actually pretty sure that the problem of cultural difference is not intentionally being dismissed by these frequent assertions about the relative neutrality of cultural diplomacy. But, I do think that we might be mixing things up here and that we could more rigorously sort out what in fact we are talking about. Respondents to a cultural diplomacy survey I conducted described some of its advantages this way: Cultural diplomacy is successful because “it is not there to sell a product.” And there is “no message control.” It is typically “most effective when it is politically neutral, non-confrontational and non-ideological.” It is effective when it is “free of state-to-state interests.” And it tends to be ineffective or it fails when trying to “push a policy position” or “when deeply contested interests limit the impact of cultural diplomacy activities.” In a nutshell, the idea is that when cultural diplomacy efforts are perceived as too obviously entangled with “interests” they run the risk of illegitimacy, and so, ineffectiveness. Policy recommendations for cultural diplomacy also reflect this equation. A White House conference on cultural diplomacy in 2000 touts its advantages because cultural diplomacy “relates to human creativity beyond the scope of politics.” The Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy’s 2005 report confidently notes the ways cultural diplomacy “creates a neutral platform for people-to-people contact.” A 2007 Demos report likewise asserts, “The value of cultural activity comes precisely from its independence.” As such, culture is a “safe space for unofficial political relationship-building.” And as a 2010 report by the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation on cultural exchange programs recently emphasized, these exchanges can “remain apolitical.” “Neutral,” as these several reports make clear, is most often contrasted with “political.” As Cynthia Schneider suggests, the advantage of cultural diplomacy – particularly in the form of citizen diplomacy – is that it provides an “alternative to the official presence of America.” And, indeed, critics of government-sponsored U.S. cultural diplomacy have pointed to the ways the involvement of the State Department – or during the Cold War, the CIA – have tended to politicize, and so undermine the credibility of, U.S. cultural diplomacy. Neutral-as-apolitical, then, is set against the perception of the pursuit of so-called “national interests” in the competition among nations. But if we are not careful, neutral-as-apolitical can invite confusion, as seems to be the case with Joseph Nye’s counterintuitive conclusion in his most recent treatment of the problem of power, where he observes that “the best propaganda is not propaganda.” We think we know what Nye probably means here: cultural diplomacy is effective when the “culture” part of the intervention is understood to be authentic and credible. It cannot be viewed as contrived or as having an ulterior motive – as Frances Stonor Saunders’s story of clandestine CIA sponsorship of American artists and intellectuals during the Cold War makes clear. Indeed, as Richard Arndt and others have reminded us, it is important to try to rescue “the diplomacy of cultures from the embrace of propaganda.” However, we also need to take account of the fact that at least beginning with the end of the Cold War the “culture” of diplomacy has significantly changed its location as well as its meaning. If the 2000 White House cultural diplomacy conference unproblematically assigns culture to the activities of “human creativity,” a 2008 report by the Curb Center points to a more recent trend of the supplanting of a cosmopolitan notion of “culture” as the output of artistic and intellectual elites by an increasingly pervasive understanding of “cultures” in the anthropological sense. This shift is evident, for example, in the recent multilateral promotion of the concept of “intangible cultural heritage,” as generationally transferrable and community-based, over and above the previous international consensus for tangible heritage represented by such landmarks as the 1954 Hague Convention. And when culture – as universal creative expression – is folded into an anthropological conception of different cultures, cultural diplomacy becomes more like an ongoing series of transactions across frontiers resembling intercultural communication. On either side of these frontiers, we suppose, are relatively different configurations of cultural values. Part of what is conveyed in claims about the potential neutrality of cultural diplomacy is that we can sort out expressions of culture from the narrow pursuit of interests or political advantage, in the competition among nations. But, while realist accounts of international affairs often assume that politics are driven by competitive self-interest, it is nevertheless a mistake to assume any such interests are at the same time value-neutral. In his classic discussion, the American anthropologist Marshall Sahlins demonstrated the impossibility of, in his words, separating out the “utilitarian postulates of practical interest” from the “system of symbolic valuations” – i.e. culture – that invest such an interest with meaning. The politics of our own culture wars in the U.S. should serve as a ready reminder of this. The very notion of a culture war is based upon the premise that so-called “values voters” are motivated to patrol the borders of a particular definition of moral community in ways commensurate with public life in an otherwise diverse society. When controversies over the public appropriateness of cultural expression are touched off in the U.S., as with the case of the Sensation art exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum several years ago or in the more recent decision by the Smithsonian Institution to censor the video artwork “A Fire in My Belly,” the difference between what constitutes public interest and what, cultural values, is nowhere to be found. And, of course, it is also that way everywhere else in the world. Put another way, rather than understanding “interests” to be value-neutral, and as distinct from more authentically credible expressions of culture in diplomacy, we might do better to give our attention to the ways that values determine interests. We might consider how cultural expressions in international affairs are value-laden. In other words, proceeding as if cultural diplomacy is a relatively neutral and apolitical way to build bridges that enable later and more frank dialogue about national interests is likely to cause us to ignore some of the unexpected cultural value commitments – if not narrow national interests, interests nonetheless – that account for the differences we are seeking to bridge in the first place. The difference between propaganda and an interested or value-laden cultural diplomacy is that the former seeks to manipulate publics, often through purposeful distortion or by withholding key facts, to the end of control. Perhaps, then, the important distinction is not between neutral or apolitical, on the one hand, and interests or values, on the other, so much as between interests or values and manipulation or control. Cultural diplomacy cannot honestly avoid the former – and why should it? But it should take no part in the latter. Robert_Albro, Americas ]]> 2012-04-26T02:40:06+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:02:40:06Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/kyLpR4AxcIc/ #When:17:52:00Z APDS Blogger: Aparajitha Vadlamannati At USC on April 6, the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars held a conference on the Future of Public Diplomacy. Experts, academics, and practitioners gathered to discuss what lies ahead for the field of public diplomacy. There were a couple of major takeaways from the conference. First, new technology, with its power to create networks, has also enabled individuals to gravitate to others with similar beliefs, creating “silos” of people sheltering themselves from cross-cultural, collaborative dialogue. The creation of these “silos” has made the task of bridging gaps and creating new conversations more difficult. Consequently, public diplomats must work harder to converse. Second, public diplomacy must foster intelligent dialogue, not just engagement, between a multitude of emerging actors. If public diplomacy utilizes listening, then the next step is to take the information and cultivate focused and constructive policy change. The great benefit and challenge of public diplomacy is its ability to create dialogue between analogous and contradictory groups. Due to the development of new technology and networking, this dialogue is more easily facilitated. However, the multitude of voices present due to this development makes dialogue difficult. Additionally, search engines like Google present people with the most popular information, not necessarily the most accurate. The keynote speaker for the conference, Ben Hammersley is the United Kingdom Prime Minister’s Ambassador to East London Tech City. The room was abuzz when he remarked, “Your foreign policy is whatever Google says it is.” Taking Hammersley’s point into account, PD practitioners must work even harder to ensure their messages are crafted precisely through careful listening. To facilitate the creation of these messages, several techniques have been developed to track and capture authentic voices as demonstrated by Dr. Taha Kass-Hout of the U.S. Center for Disease Control, Beth Haber of Lieberman Research Worldwide, and Anoush Rima Tatevossian of UN Global Pulse. The dashboards and evaluative processes the panelists utilize daily track everything from correlating symptom searches on Google with the next flu pandemic to market research answering the fundamental question of “so what?” – why should we listen and what do we gain. If public diplomats get better at listening, they can tailor thought provoking messages which encourage informed dialogue about policy issues. Dr. Nicholas Cull's opening address at the conference reinforced the importance of adapting new tools for listening because according to him “public diplomacy of the future is about connecting.” Connecting is a complicated process that is easier said than done. Elizabeth Linder of Facebook pointed out that every organization varies in who they determine to be their audience and how they connect with them. However, she also emphasized that it is crucial for actors to avoid the pitfall of having an online presence with no purpose. A purposeful online presence includes having a meaningful dialogue or conversation with an audience. Furthermore, Geoff Anisman of the Bureau of International Information Programs at the U.S. State Department agreed and said, “technology must be used as an amplifier” of policy and vital messaging. Traditionally underrepresented actors are now taking the idea of amplification further through both new technology and traditional public diplomacy campaigns. Ellen Huijgh, researcher at Carleton University, shared her study of how “public diplomacy [today] gives power to those with traditionally little power.” Through purposeful and directed communication sub-state actors, such as Quebec in Canada and Catalonia in Spain, are getting creative by identifying engagement strategies utilizing key partnerships for maximum impact. These sub-state actors are also conducting public diplomacy to ensure their policy positions are being heard. The final panel, which was exceptionally multicultural, was composed of traditional actors in public diplomacy discussing their activities. Brazilian cultural attaché Sergio Mielniczenko talked about hosting a radio show to connect with listenership interested in Brazil. Chinese cultural attaché Zhaohe Che highlighted finding commonalities to create connections. Finally, Vera Mejojlic, founding Director of the South East European Film Festival, showed the importance of building a strong festival with the buy-in of large sponsors to reach as many people as possible for cross-cultural dialogue. We may not have prognosticated the prospects of public diplomacy, however, we certainly have an idea. The future of public diplomacy will be about the following: Being in on the first wave of new technology and communication Experimenting with multiple communication techniques to grab attention Messaging more intelligently and tailoring it to niche audiences because the global public is smart and proficient in online communication Breaking the “silos” to foster cross-group dialogue that can influence policy There is certainly a vivid future for public diplomacy and as a public diplomat in training, I am excited to be a part of it. Aparajitha Vadlamannati is a Master’s of Public Diplomacy student at USC, graduating in May 2012. She is also the President of the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars and a senior editor on the Public Diplomacy Magazine board. Aparajitha is interested in studying U.S.-India relations and Indian government public diplomacy. APDS_Bloggers, Americas ]]> 2012-04-20T17:52:00+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:17:52:00Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/sF5M25VXUgw/ #When:18:21:31Z WASHINGTON --- America’s image abroad remains strong, retaining its post-Bush worldwide increase in 2009. But in new survey data released here this morning by Gallup, the U.S. has lost significant support in the past year in Africa and Latin America. Meanwhile, worldwide views of Germany have soared, and that country now leads all other major powers, including the U.S., in global favorability scores. Germany improved its positive rating from 40% to 47% worldwide, while the U.S. remained more or less level, off slightly from 47% to 46%. China and Russia are far behind Germany and the U.S. China lost ground and, despite being viewed as an economic superpower, its leadership is viewed positively by only 32% worldwide. Approval of Russia is even lower – 28% worldwide. Major declines in support for the U.S. came from African countries. Survey data from South Africa, for example, show a one-year plunge in positive views of the U.S. from 92% favorable last year to 74% now. And in Liberia, approval of the U.S. dropped even more, from 90% to 65%. China may have been a beneficiary of America’s decline, scoring major gains in many African countries, up more than 20 percentage points in Ghana, Kenya, and Senegal. In Mali, 94% of the population view China favorably. Ghana and Senegal also saw major increases in support for Russia – up 29 percentage points and 32 percentage points, respectively, in the past year. In Latin America and the Caribbean, region-wide, U.S. support dropped from a peak of 53% in 2009 to 40% in the new report, with major declines in Chile (down from 62% to 41%) and Panama (down from 60% to 36%). In Mexico, U.S. approval is off by fourteen percentage points. Major increases in U.S. approval came from Belgium, Britain, and Cambodia. Approval of U.S. leadership surged in 2009, when positive approval of U.S. leadership soared from 34% to 49%. Since then, worldwide support has remained more or less flat, drifting down to 48% last year and then to 47% now. Gallup also tested global opinion in another way, asking whether respondents were willing to leave their homes and move to another country – and if so, to which country. The U.S. came out on top by far, with 150 million people worldwide wanting to move to America. Britain was second, with 45 million wanting to move there. The largest numbers of people wanting to move to the U.S. were from China, Nigeria, and India. But adjusting for population and looking at the percentage of a nation’s population that wants to move to the U.S., the leaders were Liberia (37%), Sierra Leone (30%), the Dominican Republic (26%), and Haiti (24%). Turning the lens 180 degrees, Gallup also measured America’s view of the world. The countries viewed most positively by Americans are Canada (96% approval), Britain (90%), Germany (86%), Japan (83%), India (75%), France (also 75%), and Israel (71%). Mexico dropped to 51% approval, a decline from 74% in 2005. At this morning’s briefing, Jim Clifton, Gallup’s Chairman and CEO, said the decline in Americans’ view of Mexico has been devastating. “Business implications are staggering,” Clifton reported, noting sharp declines in tourism and in willingness by business executives to visit Mexico – and invest there. Ambassador Stuart Holliday, President and CEO of Meridian International, commented on the survey results at this morning’s briefing. He said the numbers show that people around the world have a “lack of confidence” in leadership of all countries. He noted that worldwide approval of the U.S., at 46%, matches almost perfectly President Obama’s approval rating in the U.S. The ambassador called for “three P’s” to improve America’s standing in the world: “partnership, private sector investment, and principles.” Holliday and Clifton agreed that job creation is key to more positive approval, especially in Africa and Latin America. Clifton has written a book on the subject, “The Coming Jobs War”, and Holliday presented this today as a challenge and an opportunity. “We have an opportunity not just to extract resources, but to invest in long-term job creation,” he said. Ambassador Holiday also said the tone of America’s internal political debate is contributing to perceptions of American weakness. “We are talking about our own decline more than anyone else,” he said. Adam_Clayton_Powell_III, Americas ]]> 2012-04-19T18:21:31+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:18:21:31Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/Gy2AXQ13OCw/ #When:18:00:43Z APDS Blogger: Riccardo Ruffolo On the last day of the Masters of Public Diplomacy delegation’s visit to Washington D.C., some of us had the opportunity to visit the Delegation of the European Union to the United States. The delegation included University of Southern California alumna and Senior Communications Advisor, Stacy Hope; Assistant Press Officer, Ren Althouse; and three Press & Public Diplomacy (PPD) interns. From our visit, we learned that the PPD’s program is wide-reaching. The initiatives which target audiences of different age groups from all over the U.S., range from cultural programming to information outreach, and from academia to media relations. The main areas which the EU Delegation’s public diplomacy targets are: programs targeting American youth, collaboration with EU member states’ embassies and consulates, and social media outreach. One of the main objectives of the public diplomacy strategy of the Delegation is to foster a long-term relationship with young professionals and future leaders. This is conducted through programs such as the EU Visitors Program (EUVP), which invites young professionals from countries outside the EU to visit Europe and learn about its goals and policies, and through annual press visits to Brussels. Even younger age groups are targeted. The Euro Challenge (modeled after the Fed Challenge) engages high school students in simulations about the European economy. Moreover, the delegation organizes a yearly Kids Euro Fest, one of the largest children’s festivals in the U.S., held in Washington D.C. in collaboration with EU member states embassies. The coordination between the EU member states embassies and consulates was another major theme in our discussion. The EU Delegation hosts meetings with embassy representation regarding policies and joint events, and with member states’ ambassadors on a monthly basis. The best example of this collaboration in public diplomacy is the preparation for the Europe Day on May 9. On this occasion, ambassadors and consuls travel to different cities around the U.S. to visit schools to raise awareness about the EU, its structures and policies. Additionally, all of the embassies in Washington D.C. organize an open house event with a specific theme for Europe Day. The theme of this year will be ‘Europe and our country,’ in line with the European motto ‘unity in diversity.’ The EU Delegation to the U.S. is on the forefront of using web technologies to conduct outreach. Even though the website is undergoing construction, the delegation’s Facebook page and Twitter feed are extremely active and looked at as a model for other delegations around the world. Moreover, affirming this shift and attention towards social media, the head of the delegation, Ambassador João Vale de Almeida, has recently joined Twitter. In a Q&A session, which concluded our meeting, we had the opportunity to ask what had become a leitmotif for our visit to Washington D.C.: how does the delegation evaluate its PD outreach strategies? Ms. Hope’s answer highlighted a crucial challenge in the evaluation of PD campaigns. While quantitative evaluation matters, diversifying and getting the public involved in different activities is even more crucial. The visit to the EU delegation clearly marked a highlight of our D.C. trip. Considering the PPD unit’s diverse initiatives which engage with American audiences of different ages and social groups though various communication outlets, the EU delegation to the U.S. has one of the most impressive and innovative public diplomacy programs I have encountered. Riccardo Ruffolo is a first-year candidate for a Master of Public Diplomacy at USC.  Originally from Italy, Riccardo completed his B.A. in International Studies at the University of Florence in 2011. As an undergraduate, he spent three semesters studying abroad in Paris, France as an exchange student at Sciences Po (IEP). While in Paris, Riccardo interned with the UNESCO communication and information sector. His main interests are human rights, transnational organizations, and the role of innovation in international relations, while his regional focus is on Europe (emphasis on the European Union). APDS_Bloggers, Americas ]]> 2012-04-11T18:00:43+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:18:00:43Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/3wutYiqfQ-4/ #When:18:52:25Z One of the most significant factors shaping foreign visitors’ opinions is the way they are received when entering the country. For advocates of U.S. public diplomacy, this is particularly important because of the value of having outsiders come to America to gain an appreciation of the freedoms and lifestyle enjoyed here. Many of my Arab friends will not travel to the United States because they have had bad experiences in the past, facing overt hostility from officials at entry airports due solely, they allege, to their being Arabs, and therefore being perceived as potential terrorists. This notion may be racist, but it endures. During a recent trip to Dubai, I talked with an Arab business executive about this. Although he had been educated in the United States, he had not come to the country for the past nine years because he had been harassed during his last visits. But he said that given the time that had passed since the 9/11 attacks, he hoped that the hostility had diminished. Unfortunately, I recently found that this is not the case. Several weeks ago, I arrived at Los Angeles International Airport on a flight from London. As I went through the customs and immigration entry point, the officer examining my passport, after discovering that I am a university professor, said to me, “Maybe you have friends in high places. Please tell them that Muslims do not have Constitutional rights. Islam is not a religion and so Muslims should not have rights. It is a cult and they want to destroy us.” In my astonishment, and to my discredit, I argued only feebly with him, particularly because several hundred anxious passengers (the flight had been several hours late) were queued behind me. I said only that American Muslims had the right to practice their religion, and he forcefully disagreed, reiterating that Islam is not a religion. I have no idea what brought on the officer’s diatribe, and I do not know if he subjected others to it. I should have reported him to a supervisor then and there, but frankly I succumbed to the lateness of the hour and worries about being held up indefinitely if I made a fuss. I regret that decision. Presumably, the training of the men and women working at U.S. entry points includes instruction in the religions and cultures of the people they will encounter. In this case, at least, the training didn’t work. The larger issue is the damage done to the United States by behavior such as that of the entry official at LAX. I assume that his inappropriate actions are not widespread, but just one official, interacting with hundreds of visitors, can undermine American efforts to reach out to the rest of the world. Even top-level policymakers should be concerned about this. Public diplomacy efforts to showcase the United States to the world are doomed if the first American a visitor meets is ignorant and hostile. Philip_Seib, Americas ]]> 2012-04-10T18:52:25+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:18:52:25Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/wXEcNSU9lJQ/ #When:18:29:35Z CPD Blog Manager: Naweed Lemar CPD Blog Manager’s Note: Here at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, we encourage individuals to write about the effects of public diplomacy around the world. Public diplomacy, traditionally the purview of governments, has grown and branched out and is now being conducted by a variety of actors. In an effort to share with our readers a larger set of public diplomacy-related material, the CPD Blog is producing a periodic column, “Recent Blogs of Note.” This column will feature blogs from a number of institutions and individuals. If you are interested in having your blog featured in Recent Blogs of Note, please email cpd@usc.edu for more information. World Learning Partners with AMIDEAST to Strengthen Mideast English Teaching An interesting new blog post from the U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy discusses World Learning’s recent partnership with America-Mideast Educational and Training Services, INC. (AMIDEAST). Through this partnership, World Learning, a non-profit organization that provides education, exchange, and development programs, will offer their internationally recognized Professional Certificate in English Language Teaching (PCELT) program to teachers across the Middle East and North Africa. Carlos Sosa, the World Learning education director, highlighted the importance of the project when he stated that “while English is increasingly seen as a necessary skill to get ahead economically, high-quality English teaching was once only available to elite private language schools, World Learning is proud that, through this partnership, we will be able to work with local public school teachers and universities to make quality instruction available to all of the regions youth.” World Learning’s initiative with AMIDEAST demonstrates both the importance of a language teaching and training programs which provide valuable skills to a target audience and directly outreach to the youth populations. This model of a public diplomacy program, developed and conducted by two NGOs, provides a valuable service to a foreign public while at the same time shares and imparts American values to the audience it is reaching. The World Learning and AMIDEAST partnership program is an example of public diplomacy which should be replicated. ‘Lets’ Win Juarez’ Event A Success for Partners of the Americas Another interesting blog post from the U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy reveals that the Partners of the Americas recent program, “A Ganar Juarez” (Let's win Juarez), a program implemented in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico had the goal of helping young adults, find jobs and develop entrepreneurial skills. Of the 685 teenagers that participated, 75 have internships, 60 have found a job, 109 are continuing academic studies and 335 participants are still a part of the “technical capacitation” component of the program. By many measures, this public diplomacy program is a success. Partners of the Americas, with their headquarters in Washington D.C., mission is to connect individuals, volunteers, institutions, businesses, and communities to serve and to change lives through lasting partnerships. Similar to the World Learning’s initiative with AMIDEAST, this undertaking by Partners of the Americas emphasizes the significance of providing useful skills to a target audience and the importance of incorporating the youth in a public diplomacy campaign whenever possible. Blog_Manager, Americas ]]> 2012-04-04T18:29:35+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:18:29:35Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/dO09DCOb65Q/ #When:21:08:30Z The American Music Abroad program is designed to communicate America’s rich contributions to the global music scene as it fosters cross-cultural communication and people-to-people connections to global audiences. Today, American Voices is proud to administer the American Music Abroad program on behalf of the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs for the 2012-2013 touring season. To project the full spectrum of the American musical landscape, any talent representing characteristically American musical genres were invited to apply for the American Music Abroad program. This included, but was not limited to Blues, Bluegrass, Cajun, Country, Folk, Latin, Native American, Gospel, Hip Hop, Indie Rock, Jazz, Punk, R&B and Zydeco. In short, any musical traditions that can claim roots in the diverse American musical canon were welcome to apply.   Working together, American Voices and the U.S. Department of State helped get the message out in a fashion any Master of Public Diplomacy student should recognize from PUBD 504: we focused on potential partners and the best ways to multiply our message. We advertised in music magazines aimed at particular genres, and tapped into networks by contacting music associations, record labels, talent management, music social networks, State and City Arts Councils, artistic foundations and institutes, and civil society organizations, and got them to help spread the word. We reached out the old-fashioned way by making phone calls and sending scores of emails, but also using e-blasts and social media outlets. When the dust had settled, the American Music Abroad program had received nearly 300 applications, more than double the previous year. Music ensembles applied from over 40 states, as well as Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and represented a tremendous variety of musical styles and world-class experience. From the first round of applications, 40 groups were selected by a diverse panel of judges to conduct live auditions in mid-February. From these live auditions, 12 ensembles were chosen to represent American music and culture throughout 2012 and 2013 to over 40 countries around the world. The selected groups include: Act of Congress (Americana/Acoustic Rock, Alabama) Audiopharmacy (Hip Hop/Dub, California) Boston Boys (Soul/Country, Massachusetts) Cathy Fink & Marcy Marxer with Barbara Lamb (Folk/Roots, Maryland) The Clinton Curtis Band (Rock/Blues, New York) Della Mae (Bluegrass, Massachusetts) Keola Beamer & Jeff Peterson, with Moanalani Beamer (Hawaiian Slack Key Guitar/Hula, Hawaii) Kyle Dillingham and Horseshoe Road (Heartland Acoustic, Oklahoma) Mahogany Jones (Hip Hop/Soul, Michigan) Matuto (Americana, New York) PROJECT Trio (Jazz/Classical/Hip Hop, New York) Real Vocal String Quartet (Classical/World Strings, California) As part of the American Music Abroad program, the Department of State and American Voices will create a series of international musical exchange tours. International touring activities will include public concerts, master classes, lecture-demonstrations, workshops, jam sessions with local musicians and media outreach. Ensembles will travel around the globe for approximately one month each between May 2012 and May 2013. During their respective tours, each ensemble will visit four to six countries. American Music Abroad activities focus on younger and underserved audiences in countries with little or no access to live American performances. As part of the American Music Abroad @Home portion of the program, ensembles will also conduct workshops and performances at local schools, community centers and other venues in the Washington, D.C. area.   We invite you to follow the upcoming tours virtually on the American Music Abroad website. Paul_Rockower, Americas ]]> 2012-04-03T21:08:30+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:21:08:30Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/z7p-ErfMako/ #When:18:21:51Z BRUSSELS --- Since its founding in 1949, NATO has been a bastion of hard power, first as an alliance arrayed against the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies, and more recently as a manifestation of Western muscle in conflicts such as Kosovo in 1999 and Libya in 2011. Coming off its decisive performance in helping to end the rule of Muammar Qaddafi, NATO seems to be happily basking in macho glory. NATO has a public diplomacy department staffed with smart and dedicated people, but it became apparent at a conference on “The Power of Soft Power,” held recently in Brussels, that this contingent is increasingly lonely. As NATO prepares for its summit conference in Chicago in May, the organization needs to do much more to address the strategic realities of soft power in the digital communication era. This involves NATO assembling the tools to allow it to convince as well as coerce. NATO recognizes the need to keep pace with changes in communications. Its media activity includes a TV channel, presence on Twitter, Flickr, and Facebook, and a video blog for its secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasnussen. But aside from its public diplomacy specialists, NATO does not fully grasp the ramifications of the technology-enabled networks that connect so many people, as could be seen during the Arab Awakening that began last year. If NATO’s use of hard power is to be seen as justified, it must make its case through soft power. Like many governments, NATO is slow to recognize the empowerment accompanying the public’s unprecedented access to information. Acquiring knowledge about events near and far is no longer seen as a luxury but rather a right, and the interactive connectivity of social media extend the significance of this change. If NATO and other international organizations are to fulfill their missions and retain their legitimacy, they must respect this altered balance of information-based influence. It is understandably difficult for a hard power organization such as NATO to adapt to the demands of a world in which soft power is becoming more important, but NATO’s future depends on its ability to adapt. Through soft power it must lay the foundation for an answer to the question, “If NATO were to disappear overnight, would the world be changed?” That question may have been unthinkable during the Cold War, but among some it has resonance today. NATO is like the Tyrannosaurus Rex – a fearsome fighter wielding unmatchable hard power. Of course, for the Tyrannosaurus hard power was not enough. It became extinct. NATO is still with us…for now. Philip_Seib, Europe ]]> 2012-03-29T18:21:51+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:18:21:51Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/2w79jBFk4dE/ #When:19:24:53Z WASHINGTON --- Tara Sonenshine, nominated to serve as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, offered advice this morning to public diplomacy observers: Watch China. “We are challenged every day by what the Chinese are doing in public diplomacy,” she said. Speaking at the U.S. Institute of Peace, where she is Executive Vice President, Sonenshine pointed to China’s paid print supplements in the Washington Post and other newspapers, including the New York Times. “You may not read it,” she said, but readers are “embraced” by the paid supplements, which Sonenshine called “brilliant.” These supplements have not been without critics, focusing on blurring of editorial and paid propaganda content. And an article on the Nieman website described them as “content-as-advertisement strategy.” That may be good news for China’s public diplomacy -- and confusing to readers who miss the sometimes subtle cues that label these sections as paid advertising. Second, said Sonenshine, are the Confucius Institutes, China-funded centers that have spread rapidly to U.S. universities from east to west and north to south. She said the buildup of the Institutes’ Chinese language instruction programs across the U.S., followed by Institute-produced programs, was a major long-term investment by Beijing to gain influence here. Her third illustration was the Chinese government’s international broadcaster, CCTV. Sonenshine, formerly a producer at ABC News, recently visited CCTV’s new Washington studios, which she described as a major broadcast production center. “This is three floors of a major building on New York Avenue,” she said. “There will be a nightly newscast produced [and anchored] in Washington. This will start just as Al Jazeera did.” Sonenshine said predicted CCTV news will be carried first in just a few markets in the U.S., but that distribution would grow, just as Al Jazeera has grown in the U.S. Al Jazeera’s English-language programming is now carried over the air on broadcast channels in cities including Washington D.C. and Los Angeles. So China has “checked the print ‘box’” and has moved into broadcasting and in-person programs at the Confucius Institutes, she said, all adding up to a powerful public diplomacy force – and a huge investment in public diplomacy. Sonenshine also noted Russia has started to follow China’s PD model in the U.S., with its Russia Now section in The Washington Post and its 24-hour English language Russia Today television channel and website. “Do you want to lose the public diplomacy battle with China and Russia?” she asked. Sonenshine made her remarks at a forum with the Public Diplomacy Alumni Association and the Public Diplomacy Council, of which she is a member. Adam_Clayton_Powell_III, Americas ]]> 2012-03-27T19:24:53+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:19:24:53Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/UY3CKzJFMY4/ #When:18:45:52Z APDS Blogger: Marissa Cruz-Enriquez There has been much discussion recently about social media and the potential role websites such as Facebook and Twitter can play in bringing about actual change in the real world. Individuals the world over constantly share their experiences, feelings, thoughts, and motivations via these online forums and it hasn’t taken long for groups to try to use these networks to unite people under various banners and causes. In early March 2012 the international non-profit organization, Invisible Children (IC), did just that and began an awareness raising campaign to bring African warlord, Joseph Kony, to justice. Joseph Kony is one of the most vilified rebel leaders in the world and is accused of kidnapping countless children in northern Uganda and neighboring countries. He then turns girls into sex slaves and boys into killers. His so-called Christian movement, the Lord’s Resistance Army, has terrorized villagers in at least four countries in central Africa for nearly 20 years and killed tens of thousands of people. Kony has been wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court since 2005. However, Joseph Kony was not widely recognized until March 5, 2012 when Invisible Children, released a 29 minute video. This short movie, KONY 2012 became viral with more than 112 million views in just one week. Invisible Children describes itself as a “global community of young people that galvanizes international support to bring a permanent end to LRA violence through mass awareness campaigns and strategic advocacy efforts.” Members are dedicated to making Kony a household name and bringing him to justice. The video was ideal for sharing via social media on Facebook and Twitter and everyday citizens and celebrities shared the video with followers all over the world. While introducing Kony to many for the first time, the video also spurred a flurry of questions about Invisible Children's intentions, its transparency, and whether the social-media frenzy it created was too little, too late. Beyond criticisms surrounding the organization’s spending and accusations of oversimplification, more serious, pertinent issues were raised by a number of critics. Ben Affleck, in a thoughtful blog in The Huffington Post, explained that “the next step after awareness is action,” which is exactly where the video, KONY 2012, falls short. Raising awareness is certainly a difficult task but the work cannot stop there. Organizing a “day of action” through cities in the U.S. and Europe and showing Kony’s face is not enough to combat the atrocities committed in Central Africa for decades. While Invisible Children and other NGOs have been conducting on-the-ground activism in Uganda for years, KONY 2012 is not a call to action beyond the act of purchasing an action kit, sharing a video, and clicking “Like” on Facebook. Providing assistance to citizens in Africa to take back control over their own futures is where the real solution lies. Any approach that does not consider this aspect is severely misguided. This public diplomacy mandate touches on another criticism leveled against KONY 2012, that of the “White Savior Industrial Complex” where Africa is merely a backdrop for Western egos to be projected upon. The video can be seen as a fantasy of heroism where a “nobody” from the Western world can be a godlike savior in Africa. This is not to say that Americans and other Westerners don’t have a role in this crisis, but instead of merely raising awareness, Western activists and diplomats must conduct effective public diplomacy which involves partnerships with Africans that gives them agency and the necessary resources and support to solve their own problems. With the right resources and help, it is a much more effective solution to have Ugandans bring Kony to justice than Americans. The goal of public diplomacy is to communicate and engage in a meaningful and mutual way with foreign publics. Now non-state actors such as Invisible Children have the ability to do just that. However, with the democratization of information sharing, thanks to new media tools, comes great responsibility. Social media is an excellent tool for bringing together different stakeholders, in this case Invisible Children and its supporters, but there also needs to be more than just raising awareness for real change to occur: raising awareness is a noble cause but it is not enough. Invisible Children’s campaign has proven that social media can be used to spread an idea to all reaches of the world but the danger lies in assuming that social media campaigns alone have the power to bring about concrete changes. Social media present an exciting dynamic in the international arena but it must be coupled with an effective public diplomacy strategy to bridge the say-do gap. Marissa Cruz-Enriquez is a graduate of USC's Master in Public Diplomacy program. Her research interests include digital diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, and international security. She is interested in pursuing a career with the federal government. APDS_Bloggers, Americas ]]> 2012-03-27T18:45:52+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:18:45:52Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicDiplomacyBlog/~3/Gx0cdmIjCXI/ #When:18:00:30Z APDS Blogger: Molly Krasnodebska Throughout the last decade, no message was promoted stronger in the European Union than the idea of a new Europe, which has overcome its past of war and totalitarianism, and has emerged as a normative power standing for international cooperation, democracy, and human rights. And yet when it comes to the recent events in Ukraine, discussed below, European soft power appears rather meager. This summer the 2012 UEFA European Football Championship will be jointly hosted by Ukraine and Poland: An excellent opportunity for the European community to bond over its favorite sport, and for Ukraine, which for a long time has been aspiring EU membership, to promote its image. However, while the football community and its fans are happily preparing for the event, Ukraine’s former prime minister and leader of the democratic Orange Revolution of 2004, Yulia Tymoshenko is being imprisoned in a penal colony. Although suffering from spinal hernia and under constant and intense pain, Tymoshenko is denied the necessary medical treatment available outside of the prison. Her 32-year-old daughter, Eugenia Tymoshenko, has appealed for help to several international authorities, among others the United States Congress, and the European Parliament, claiming that her mother is being held under torturous conditions. Her appeal was received with sympathy by the international community, particularly the EU and the United States. Tymoshenko was found guilty of overstepping her authority during a tense natural gas pricing dispute with Moscow in January 2009. However, as U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs stated, Tymoshenko’s imprisonment was based “on dubious, politically motivated charges, and is unacceptable and antithetical to a free and open system.” But what can open condemnation by Western leaders really achieve when the international community has no power to interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state? Western leaders are also well aware of current Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s close ties with Moscow. There are understandable reasons why the impact of hard politics might be somewhat restricted. In the meantime, there is dead silence where European leaders and the public could truly make a difference, and raise awareness to the corruption in the Ukraine: through the UEFA European Football Championship. Sports diplomacy has the potential to serve as a tool for advocacy and soft power. On the one hand, effective use of sports diplomacy can enhance the image of a country in the eyes of a foreign public, especially for a country that is hosting a prestigious sports event such as the UEFA Cup. The EUOberserver reported that “President Yanukovych is spending $9 billion on new stadiums, airport terminals and fast trains to help people have a good time.” Yanukovych has taken a personal interest in the event and is using it as an opportunity to impress the world. On the other hand, sports diplomacy can also become a tool of exerting pressure, and fostering political change. A famous example of this was the ban of South Africa from various international sporting events as a protest against the country’s apartheid policies. For example, could a boycott of the Euro 2012 have an impact on the Ukrainian government? Meanwhile the European public and media seem ambivalent. Although there is outrage in the media about the Tymoshenko case, little to no connection is drawn to the upcoming UEFA Cup. Other than German football team Borussia Dortmund manager Hans-Joachim Watzke, who told the press he considers boycotting Euro 2012 because of the Ukrainian government’s persecution of Yulia Tymoshenko, few Europeans have similar ideas. After all, the event is held only once every four years. And there is nothing more enjoyable than sitting with your friends in front of the TV or in front of an open-air screen, drinking beer and grilling bratwurst while rooting for your national team. Who would deny themselves such a pleasure? Few Europeans realize that those actions too are sending a political message: one of disinterest and ignorance. For those who are convinced that Europe today stands for the promotion of democracy and human rights should take a moment and reconsider. The upcoming UEFA cup bringing Ukraine to the spotlight in European media provides an excellent opportunity to bring greater attention to the Tymoshenko case and for the public to express condemnation of Ukrainian government’s undemocratic actions. It is an opportunity where public outrage could truly hurt the government’s image and in turn, be a catalyst for change. However, as of now, the European football community and its fans have not recognized the power of sports diplomacy as a tool of advocacy. APDS_Bloggers, Europe ]]> 2012-03-23T18:00:30+00:00 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_main/#When:18:00:30Z