GW – Page 2 – IPDGC Smart Power

Brazil’s Rising Tides

April 18, 2023May 10, 2023Latin America5 Comments

By Grace Martinez, Masters in Media and Strategic Communication ‘23

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and President Joe Biden walk next to the Rose Garden after their
meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C. (Jonathan Ernst/Pool via AP)

On Friday, February 10th — Brazil’s newly elected president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, met with President Joe Biden at the White House in Washington, D.C. The two heads of state spoke of the multilateral relations between the two countries and of their shared interests as the ‘largest democracies in the Western Hemisphere’. The story sold to the public was one of partnership and prosperity, and the presidents spoke of their joint plans for peace, security, and respect. And the visit was a success. Namely for one individual in particular: Brazilian President Lula da Silva.

Now in his third term as president (first in-office 2003–2010), President Lula da Silva has a clear vision for Brazil; as a new world order emerges, Brazil is positioning itself to be seen as an emerging global power. The country views itself as a representative at-large for developing countries—also, a diplomatic leader, defender of multilateralism, and friend to all.

In a speech Lula da Silva gave at the World Economic Forum (2010)^[1], he outlined the country’s vision:

“I have lately seen many international publications say that Brazil is fashionable nowadays. Allow me to say that, although that is a kind expression, it is not appropriate. Fashions are fleeting, ephemeral things. Brazil wishes to be and will be a permanent player in the new world scene. Brazil, however, does not wish to be a new force in an old world. The Brazilian voice wants to announce, loud and clear, that a new world can be built. Brazil wishes to aid in the construction of this new world…”

The bolded sentences above represent Brazil’s narrative, and how they view themselves fitting into the new world order. So, for Brazil the meeting at the White House was a major step toward achieving its two main goals of creating a new, widely accepted identity abroad and having a greater role to play in shaping the future world order. So, why is the country’s path forward still so complicated?

Contradicting Motives

Brazil views its narrative as being dependent on idea that they are a friend to all. To be seen as a diplomatic leader, emerging power, and as a country with international influence, a close relationship with the United States is critical. But alternatively, Brazil wants the freedom to pursue its own interests even as they interfere in the country’s relationships with countries located in North American and Europe. Brazil’s actions take on a narrative of their own, one that contradicts the idea that they are friendly with everyone. This is exemplified by Brazil’s close alliances with both the United States and Iran.

Earlier this year, Brazil’s personal interests were put on display when the country allowed the Iranian warship, IRIS Makran, to dock in their waters’. Brazil ignored requests from the United States and several other western countries to block the presence of the Iranian warship in the Western Hemisphere, with these countries citing that it granted their unfriendly military a strategic foothold.

Photo caption: Iranian warship, IRIS Makran, docked off the Brazilian coast (AP Photo/Silvia Izquierdo)

For Brazil, a close relationship with Iran is viewed as a way to help developing countries in Africa and the Middle East. President Lula da Silva has placed a high value on the partnership between the two countries because Iran helps Brazil to identify as a representative at-large for developing countries and showcases the economic and political influence they have globally.

The way Brazil’s narrative creates conflicting relationships with such as the U.S. causes confusion and unnecessarily puts the country’s motives into question. This flaw is detrimental to the overall goals of the country, instead of building trust and showcasing power, the convergence of values makes Brazil look ineffectual and untrustworthy.

Moving Forward

At this moment, Brazil’s is focused on becoming a permanent player in the new world order and acting as a pseudo representative-at-large for developing countries. The country’s identity narrative is that they are a friend to all, but its long been observed that rising powers are often in conflict with existing ones – as is exemplified by the tensions between U.S. and Brazil regarding Iran.

Brazil find itself in a grey area between where they want to be and where they are. When you are working to gain power it is important to have alliances everywhere, but as you take on a new identity in the new world order conflict will rise – often surrounding the decisions you have to make. Brazil is still able to relate to its old identity while pushing for others to accept its new one but for how long and at what cost. In the end, the country’s growing list of contradictions will harm its narrative.

Here is the full report.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

^[1] Speech by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva at the World Economic Forum – Davos, January 29th, 2010. Ministério das Relações Exteriores. (n.d.).

Countering Three Key GOP Narratives on Ukraine

April 17, 2023May 8, 2023Europe, North America, public diplomacy5 Comments

By Andrew Sugrue, MA Media and Strategic Communication, 2024

**Photo Credit: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images. This image** **appeared** **in *The Wall Street Journal*, captioned “Most House Republicans Applaud Zelensky.”**

When Russia first launched its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, outrage was nearly unanimous from U.S. politicians and citizens across the political spectrum. This reaction facilitated the transferal of crucial funds and military hardware to the Ukrainian resistance, helping the country battle Russia to a draw. Now, 14 months later, support for Ukraine aid remains robust on the whole — however, public opinion among Republican base voters is beginning to slide, and the GOP’s rightmost flank is growing increasingly outspoken in opposition to aiding Ukraine.

In January, Gallup found that a plurality of Republican voters (47%) believed the U.S. was providing “too much” support to Ukraine, while 32% said current support was “the right amount” and 18% deemed it “not enough”.

Thus far, Ukraine has excelled at framing its narrative in a way that broadly appeals to American shared identity— but to lock in that 32% of Republicans and prevent that 47% figure from growing, GOP narratives must be understood and addressed with more specificity and precision.

**Image Credit: Gallup, “One Year Later, Americans Still Support Ukraine,” Feb. 6, 2023.**

Establishment Republican officeholders — e.g., Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, Sen. Mitt Romney, and House Foreign Affairs Chairman Mike McCaul — largely support funding and arming Ukraine. However, officials in the ascendent “Trump wing” of the GOP have been either skeptical toward this assistance or opposed to it altogether. When addressing voters, these anti-assistance officials tend to frame their stance in alignment with one of three general narratives.

Narrative #1: Fiscal conservatism

Criticizing Democrats for spending taxpayer money is a primary line of attack for the GOP, especially against the Biden administration. Giving money to foreign countries is also a common issue in this narrative — foreign financial aid often polls poorly among Republicans.

In a Ukrainian context, the fiscal conservatism narrative has been mainly championed by Trump-wing figures like Kari Lake, who told an audience of conservative activists, “We are living on planet crazy where we have hundreds of billions of dollars of our hard-earned American money being sent overseas to start World War III.”

Narrative #2: “America first”

This second narrative opposes American international involvement more broadly, especially in the context of putting boots on the ground. For example, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has accused Democrats of “funding a proxy war with Russia” and prioritizing opposition to Russia over keeping the U.S. out of a nuclear war. This narrative is less opposed to targeted foreign military operations (e.g., taking out Osama Bin Laden) as it is to involvement in state-building, and it also tends to channel opposition to “globalist” organs of the postwar world order like the U.N. and W.T.O., as well as free-trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Narrative #3: “What about problems here at home?”

The third narrative paints a picture of American prosperity being the opportunity cost of foreign engagement. It tends to follow a pattern of: “Democrats want to spend taxpayer money on [foreign policy item] instead of spending it on [domestic policy item] here at home.” In his pursuit of the Speakership, GOP leader Kevin McCarthy appealed to Ukraine skeptics in his caucus by using this narrative, saying: “I think people are going to be sitting in a recession, and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine.”

Countering GOP Narratives with Public Diplomacy

To understand how public diplomacy can counteract GOP narratives on Ukraine, it is first crucial to avoid placing all GOP voters in the same basket as highly controversial Republicans like Lake and Greene. Aside from being disingenuous, it is also deleterious to effective public diplomacy — public diplomacy practitioners must understand voters’ narratives and then frame an argument in those terms.

There are some useful examples of American political figures framing support for Ukraine in accordance with the aforementioned GOP narratives. After meeting with President Zelensky in Kyiv, former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo offered full-throated support for Ukraine aid on the basis that stopping Russia’s aggression now can prevent a costlier war and economic disruption later. Continued promotion of this kind of message by the Ukrainian government to a U.S. audience will be critical.

Additionally, “America first” narratives can be countered by drawing a distinction between U.S. involvement on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the support from afar that the U.S. is currently giving Ukraine. In a speech to Congress, Zelensky likened American assistance to the WWII-era Lend-Lease Act; this is a prime example of an effective counterframe that contends with anti-direct involvement American narratives.

The what-about-here-at-home argument is more difficult for Ukraine to cauterize. Countering this narrative will depend on U.S. political figures promoting Ukraine aid as not burdening taxpayers.

While these counterframes may not make a dent in Trump-wing opposition to Ukraine, they can help persuade some mainstream Republican voters to stay in the pro-Ukraine camp — thereby making contested primaries more survivable for pro-Ukraine GOP officeholders.

In short: to ensure that the U.S. continues to arm Ukraine, it is critical to arm pro-Ukraine GOP officials with counterframes that decrease the odds that their voters will boot them from office.

The full report is available here.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

TriNet: Nailing Jello to the Wall

April 10, 2023May 11, 2023China, Europe, Global Communication, North America5 Comments

By Dominique A. Piñeiro, MA Media and Strategic Communication ’23

An A.I.- generated photograph capturing the surreal and symbolic
concept of the “TriNet,” representing a narrative contest among the
U.S., the European Union (E.U.), and China. Each international player
seeks to promote its approach to Internet governance and digital
policies on the world stage. The image portrays three distinct data
streams flowing through an ethereal cyberspace landscape filled with
vibrant neon colors and intricate geometric patterns. (Dominique A.
Piñeiro via MidJourney)

The Internet is evolving into a “TriNet” model, with three distinct approaches: China’s strict government control, the E.U.’s focus on data protection and privacy, and the U.S.’s market-driven approach emphasizing profit and competition. This shift alters the Internet’s original principles of openness and accessibility, raising concerns for human rights, democracy, and the free flow of information.

The “TriNet” model represents a narrative contest among the U.S., the European Union (E.U.), and China. Each player seeks to promote its approach to Internet governance and digital policies on the world stage. This narrative contest involves asserting the superiority of their respective models, with the opportunity to shape international norms and influence other countries’ adoption of similar frameworks.

The U.S. promotes a free and open web, believing global Internet access would spread rights, freedom, and democracy. However, the U.S. model is primarily driven by private businesses, leading to the rise of tech giants like Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft. These companies accumulate profits and power without sufficient regulations to protect users, potentially undermining American democracy and other countries.

A striking example is Meta’s (formerly Facebook) role in the 2017 Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, where its platform was used to incite violence and discrimination. Although not intentionally designed for this purpose, Meta’s focus on engagement and data collection contributed to spreading harmful content. In the Myanmar example, the U.S. effectiveness in influencing global Internet policies might be hindered by the issues arising from the largely unregulated tech industry and increasing calls for data privacy and antitrust regulations, which the E.U. is happy to lead.

The E.U.’s alternative also seeks to spread rights, freedom, and democracy. Still, it emphasizes data privacy, with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) harmonizing data privacy laws across member states and offering individuals greater control over personal data. While not explicitly addressing human rights, GDPR provisions can prevent the misuse of data that leads to situations like Myanmar’s crisis. The GDPR sets a worldwide data privacy standard, contrasting with the U.S.’s fragmented approach, which includes sector-specific regulations like HIPAA and COPPA.

While the E.U. model and GDPR significantly improve data protection and privacy, there are also potential disadvantages. A specific example would be how GDPR imposes compliance requirements on businesses, which can be interpreted differently by E.U. member states, and is an expensive process, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises.

China’s approach contrasts sharply with the U.S. and E.U. In a 2000 speech, President Bill Clinton questioned China’s ability to control the Internet effectively:

“Now, there’s no question China has been trying to crack down on the Internet – good luck. That’s sort of like trying to nail jello to the wall. But I would argue that their effort to do that proves how real these advances are and how much they threaten the established order of things, especially the government’s tight information control.”

His remarks were meant to convey that the Internet’s decentralized nature makes it difficult for governments to control or censor information effectively. Ironically, his statement foreshadowed what was possible. The Great Firewall of China, or Golden Shield Project, demonstrates a sophisticated censorship and control system. China emphasizes sovereignty and states’ rights in information and communication, enacting policies to realize its vision.

China exports its internet censorship and surveillance technology to other countries, promoting its regulated Internet model worldwide. Since the 2021 coup d’état, Myanmar has been increasingly cutting off its population from the Internet, causing concern that the regime could become a model for other authoritarian governments if not economically crippled.

China’s strict government-controlled Internet model could be framed as a solution to promoting a harmonious society. The government would control information dissemination significantly, limiting public knowledge of ongoing events and potentially suppressing information. This type of control could appeal to illiberal democracies and autocrats alike. It’s also important to note that a highly controlled internet can monitor and target specific ethnic or religious groups by a government to identify, suppress, or persecute vulnerable populations, potentially leading to or worsening a genocide.

The U.S. and E.U. value free speech and human rights and view China’s controlled and regulated Internet model negatively. However, China’s economic and technological prowess could attract some nations seeking to emulate its success or strengthen political control over their populations. China’s influence may grow in authoritarian countries or those seeking alternative models to Western Internet governance.

The evolving “TriNet” model’s distinct approaches—China’s stringent control, the E.U.’s emphasis on data protection and privacy, and the U.S.’s profit-driven strategy—raise concerns over human rights, democracy, and information flow. The Rohingya crisis in Myanmar exemplifies how American tech giants’ practices and China’s internet control technology can have devastating consequences for vulnerable populations. While the U.S. approach to the Internet has flaws, it’s vital to contemplate the ramifications of a world where China sets the standards for digital governance. A free and open internet enables individuals to express their opinions, share ideas, and access diverse perspectives without fear of censorship or persecution.

The full report is available.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

In addition, the opinions and characterizations in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Government.

Yasukuni Shrine

April 5, 2023April 10, 2023Asia12 Comments

By Izzy Angeli, MA Media and Strategic Communication ’23

Historical Context

China considers Tokyo’s Yasukuni Shrine—which honors 2.5 million war deaths, including convicted war criminals—as a symbol of Japan’s wartime militarism. The shrine was founded in 1869 by Emperor Meiji to commemorate Japanese people who lost their lives from the Boshin War (1868-1869) to the First Indochina War (1946-1954).

Beijing views visits by Japanese ministers and lawmakers to the Tokyo shrine as symbolic of a lack of remorse over Japan’s wartime aggression. China and South Korea, which Japan colonized from 1910-1945, regularly protest such visits. China has also called the shrine an expression of shameless nationalism and revisionism.

Just one example of this is when former Prime Minister Koizumi visited the shrine for the fifth time since taking office in 2005 just days before then Japan’s Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura was scheduled to visit Beijing to strengthen Sino-Japanese relations. In response, the PRC canceled the visit.

This reaction would also explain why no Japanese prime minister has visited the shrine since December of 2013 when then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sparked diplomatic outrage. The Chinese government issued a statement accusing Japan of whitewashing its history of aggression, imperialism, and undermining regional stability. South Korea’s then-President Park Geun-hye had a similar reaction, calling the visit an “anachronistic act.”

Current State of Affairs

Abe’s successor, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, has not visited the shrine and does not plan to, for good reason. He did, however, send a ritual offering in the form of a tree-like ornament called “masakaki,” which is said to represent valor, wisdom, and benevolence. Kishida did this once before, when he was foreign minister in 2021, and invoked just as strong of a reaction as Abe’s 2013 visit did. China released a statement expressing opposition and indignation.

TORU YAMANAKA/AFP/Getty Images — Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visits the controversial Yasukuni shrine on December 26, 2013, exactly one year after he took office.

Clearly, the shrine itself is a sensitive issue among Japan’s neighbors that extends far beyond visits. This is shown by China having the same reaction to Kishida sending an offering to the shrine as if he actually visited. Both sides typically advocate for regional stability and cooperation, but incidents surrounding the shrine are so inflammatory that these peacekeeping narratives are often overshadowed by ones rooted in China’s simultaneous superpower and victimhood. There are three main narratives that Japan needs to consider when discussing or making decisions about the shrine:

Master / Identity Narratives: narratives that are rooted in a nation’s history and self-identifying characteristics

System Narratives: narratives that describe a nation’s standing in the rest of the world

Issue Narratives: narratives that are in reference to current events in nation(s)

China’s Narratives

Master & Identity Narratives	System Narratives	Issue Narratives
Superpower Confucian values Victimized Modernizing power Anti-Western	The world is at the mercy of autocracies Harmonious relations with neighbors	Visits to shrine: a. Disrespectful to Chinese historical greatness b. Threatens harmony and stability in Asia c. Japan is not sorry for victimizing China d. Honoring China’s victimization undermines modernizing power Japan is becoming more like its Western allies

As Miskimmon et al stated, “Superpowers are not just those states with the most military might or economic dominance. They are also those states that are able to construct and disseminate strategic narratives that shape perceptions of reality and legitimize their actions” (Miskimmon et al, 2013, p.102). As such, the world is made up of autocracies and democracies but to China, the world is at the mercy of autocracies. Because of the shrine’s honoring of the people who brutalized millions of Chinese soldiers, this undermines and disrespects China’s historical greatness.

China has historical ties to Confucianism and it is deeply ingrained in Chinese life through government, education, social order, and ethics. It teaches harmonious relations with neighboring nations and cooperation. Japan taking such an inflammatory measure of praising the shrine threatens the stability and harmony in East Asia.

As great as China sees itself being, it also adopts the identity of victimhood. This shows up in many ways, the Opium Wars, Japanese invasion, and the Western powers’ colonization of Hong Kong and Macao. Therefore, honoring these dominations by foreign powers shows that the opposing nations are not sorry for the pain they’ve caused.

Despite Western colonization, China likes to boast its modernizing power when compared to Western nations. Glorifying the persecution of China is inherently undermining its modernizing power. Japan does rely on a lot of Chinese trade for certain imports. In that sense, China views Japan as becoming more like its Western allies— becoming arrogant about their economic and modernizing influence.

Whether it be through a speech at a bilateral meeting or simply by not engaging with the shrine, Japan should play into each and every one of these narratives.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

Battle of Narratives between Canada and Quebec over immigration and identity

April 5, 2023May 5, 2023North America6 Comments

By Antoine Morin, GW Exchange Student, Spring 2023

This past month, the normally welcoming and multicultural Canada took the difficult decision to
close Roxham Road – a road that generated extensive media coverage because it was a site of
irregular migration to Canada from the United States. Joe Biden’s visit to Canada prompted a
new agreement stating that illegal migrants caught within fourteen days of crossing the Canada-
US border would be sent back to the other country.

The crux of the Roxham Road diplomatic crisis was between Quebec and Canada. Given the
country and the province’s conflicting narratives, it took the Trudeau government years to fulfill
the wish of its province to close Roxham Road, and it is likely that many other immigration and
identity disputes will arise.

Canada’s Narrative

Canada is known for its values of multiculturalism, inclusion, and diversity. Being an alliance of two nations and two official languages, Canada is proud of its liberalism, individual rights record, and its efforts to become a fully bilingual country.

Quebec’s Narrative

The French Model

Canada’s nationalist province wants to protect its language and culture at all costs. As the French language is declining in Quebec and Canada, Quebec turns to France to find solutions to counter trends that could threaten the survival of the nation. Its recent secularism law stating that government employees cannot wear religious symbols was directly inspired by France. Bill 21 is now being contested at the Supreme Court of Canada, which has to determine the validity of such a law. The rest of Canada almost universally condemned Bill 21 as it does not fit Canada’s multiculturalism narrative.

Interculturalism

While Canada is supremely unconcerned about the integration of immigrants, Quebec is keen on ensuring that all newcomers learn the language and culture of the province. North America’s France equivalent believes in interculturalism – a doctrine promoting cross-cultural exchanges instead of self-segregation within cultures. To achieve interculturalism, a nation must reduce immigration and better integrate its immigrants. In Quebec, this means ensuring that all newcomers learn the common language of the nation – French.

The Superpower Nation

With the decline of the French language and globalization, Quebec must act if it wants to remain a distinct and unique nation within Canada. Although Quebec successfully forced Ottawa’s hand on the Roxham Road case, immigration will remain a crucial point of contention between the two governments for the near future. Canada’s second most populous province remains a superpower on the national scene because of its political power and natural resources. The threat of another referendum on Quebec independence must also still be on the back of Canadian politicians. This battleground province has voted for all four major federal parties in the last decade.

Quebec	Master & Identity Narratives – How Quebec views itself	System Narratives – How Quebec views the world	Issue Narratives – How Quebec views the issue
	Importance of France to identity Superpower on the national scene “Welcoming fewer immigrants but taking care of them.” Affirmation of Quebec as a nation within Canada.	Interculturalism Nationalism Separation between the state and religion Belief in the importance of nations to preserve their culture, language, and heritage. Nations should protect their own interests first.	Quebec does not have the capacity to welcome all these migrants. Closing Roxham Road set a good precedent. The nation will fight back against Trudeau’s loose immigration policies. Immigration has contributed to the decline of French in Quebec

The Roxham Road closure is a short-term victory for Quebec. However, the wider narratives that caused the dispute will not change in the coming years and could become even more relevant. According to Statistics Canada, Canada is the fastest-growing G7 country in terms of population. Immigration was responsible for 95.9 % of last year’s 2.7 % population increase. Migration should thus remain a central issue in a country on track to double its population before 2050.

Canada has announced ever-increasing immigration levels for the coming years, an approach consistent with its welcoming, diverse, and multicultural image. Roxham Road or not, I suspect Quebec will still be reluctant to welcome a large number of migrants (illegal or not). Capacity issues, the decline of French in the province, and Quebec’s insistence to stick to an integration model (interculturalism) and not a multicultural approach are the main reasons.

While all these recent debates, laws, and policies around immigration, language, and religion have taken place under a Liberal government, it is difficult to see how a potential Conservative government would help solve identity issues between Quebec and Canada. The Conservative Party of Canada is as pro-immigration as the liberals, and the party’s right-wing agenda would not resonate well with Canada’s most progressive province. Unfortunately, the most likely outcome is that as many identity disputes between Quebec and Canada will continue to take place in the coming years, and La Belle Province may be headed toward another independence referendum.

The full report is available here.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

The Cooperative Narratives of the EU, NATO, and the Netherlands

April 18, 2022May 10, 2022Europe, Russia6 Comments

By Yael Velvel, MA Media and Strategic Communication ’23

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (Ukrainian Presidential Press Office/AP)

The Netherlands has historically served as a humanitarian home for political and religious refugees. Following the Second World War, the country recognized the need for a strategic alliance with its neighboring countries in order to preserve this identity, and became a founding NATO member in 1949. Despite the Netherland’s size, it took on an unusually large role in preserving peace and international order for the new alliance of nations.

While Russia portrays the Ukrainians as a Nazi-infested government, the Ukraine’s goal to elicit Western support prior to Russia’s invasion has proven fruitful in the West. Unsurprisingly, the Netherlands’ diplomatic narrative stands in solidarity with Ukraine, the EU, and NATO, and in stark opposition to that of Russia.

As Russia loomed outside of Ukraine in February, 2022, threatening to invade, Dutch Prime Minister of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Marke Rutte met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv to celebrate the upcoming 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relationships between the two countries. Together, they expressed ongoing support for mutual interests – a key strategy of Ukraine’s to elicit support and legitimize its democracy in the eyes of the West. In a joint statement, Prime Minister (PM) Rutte expressed his unwavering support for Ukraine in its efforts to combat Russian aggression at its borders, and both leaders emphasized the importance of a peaceful solution. PM Rutte vocalized his appreciation for Ukraine’s allied efforts and supported Ukraine’s EU aspirations.

The Netherlands echoed the EU and NATO’s contestation of Russia’s narrative. In their official statements, the Dutch government framed the conflict as an illegal act of aggression and an attack on Western Europe’s democratic values. It is an open contestation of Russia’s narrative, which argued that their invasion is a strategic military operation to free the Ukranian people of a fascist, Nazi regime, and expressed its desire to re-absorb the nation into Russia. NATO’s official statements framed the invasion as an attack on democracy and internationally recognized borders. In her first statement following the invasion, EU President von der Leyen framed the invasion as an attack on Europe, European stability, and international peace.

The Dutch statement on PM Rutte’s visit with President Zelenskyy underscored the nations’ concurrent values and identity narratives. In their meeting, the two leaders underscored that their alliance is based upon “shared values and principles of freedom, democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights”. These values are part of the Netherlands’ core identity as a liberal democracy, and the statement evidences the Ukrainian government’s commitment to instilling these values into the identity of their own young nation. Even more, it demonstrates Ukraine’s attempt to raise its status in the new global order. Dutch support for Ukrainian resistance to an invading nation also taps into their own historical identity: the Dutch, although swiftly defeated by German forces, were committed to resisting foreign occupation during the Second World War.

When Russian forces invaded Ukraine, the Netherlands joined their defensive allies, the United Kingdom and Canada, in releasing a joint statement. The trilateral statement condemned Russia’s violations of international law and reiterated their unwavering support for Ukrainian resistance. As a member nation of the EU and NATO, the Netherlands’ statements closely resemble the rhetoric and stance of the EU and NATO in combating Russian aggression and supporting Ukraine. The Netherlands underscored in the trilateral statement the importance of humanitarian action to protect Ukraine’s most vulnerable populations: women, children, and the elderly. Its identity as an EU and NATO member nation is also demonstrated in the trilateral statement with its strategic defense partners, the United Kingdom and Canada. The three NATO nations’ shared identities as free, democratic nations and history as cooperative allies during WWII undoubtedly influenced their commitment “to sustain and coordinate the political, humanitarian, economic and defence support that is so vital for a free and independent Ukraine.”

Dutch membership of NATO and the EU demonstrates cohesiveness between national identity narratives and global system narratives. The Netherlands’ joint statements with President Zelenskyy, and the U.K. and Canada, tap into the core qualities of NATO and EU: the importance of democracy, independent sovereignty, and peaceful resolution; as well as NATO and the EU’s desire to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty.

NATO and the EU operate as global peace keepers, and proponents of democracy and liberal society. Following the Cold War, the EU’s primary strategy to stabilize Europe was to expand its membership and encourage neighboring nations to adopt EU values. Although Ukraine is not an EU member, it has made its intentions to join the EU exceptionally clear. The EU has not been unsupportive of Ukraine’s intentions, but has expressed that certain reforms must be put into place before Ukraine has the strength and values of an EU member nation.

Moreover, the Netherland’s individual statements are strategically aligned with the narratives of Ukraine, NATO, and the EU in stark contestation to Russia’s. Given the Netherland’s historic ties to NATO and the EU, it is highly unlikely they will stray from the approved messaging frame, and will continue to be a cooperative player in the war against Russia.

For more on the topic by the author, please click here.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

Narrative Misalignment on the Ireland/UK border

April 16, 2022May 10, 2022Europe6 Comments

By Julie Harrington, MA Media and Strategic Communications ’23

The border dividing the Ireland from the UK is an international border that has become fiercely important in terms of the EU and Brexit negotiations. Since 2005, the border has been almost nonexistent as the security and checkpoints were removed due to the Good Friday Agreement signed in 1998. The lack of a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is vitally important for the peace of both countries and the greater UK. Throughout what has been dubbed “the troubles”, or the series of conflicts in Northern Ireland from 1960s – 1990s, bridges and roads were closed and patrolled by police with comprehensive security checks that disrupted daily life and restricted those who lived close to the border. Most bombings, shootings, and violent acts took place near the border and a policing culture shaped the area for nearly 30 years. A soft border has ensured peace among all parties.

Policy debate regarding the border has risen recently. There are several narratives that are being contested in the media by the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Great Britain, which are all examined below. Each country is promoting their own desire regarding the border, with deep histories underlaying their messages.

The Irish Narrative

The Republic of Ireland believes that the UK has always involved itself in Irish affairs when it is not welcome, and there is a long history of abuse that leaves most Irish people believing that UK involvement is never welcome. The President of Ireland cites British imperialism frequently, as it is a vital component of their past and therefore current relationship.

Great Britain Counter Narrative

The British Parliament and non-state actors have publicly said several times that the UK does not intend on installing a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and they want to maximize trade among the three countries. Nobody outside of Britain seems to believe this is true, thinking that Britain will take any loophole it can to somehow hinder the relationship between Northern Ireland and Ireland by disrupting the lack of border and the Good Friday agreement.

Northern Ireland Narrative

Northern Ireland projects the fear of a hard border the loudest in the media; they claim the border is a highly volatile place for the trade and security purposes, and both Ireland and the UK have means and intention to exploit Northern Ireland and the on-going policy debate for personal gains. Political party representatives are extremely vocal in the media, with rallying cries in the papers as well as protests happening in cities and on border lines.

Aspect of Narrative Contestation	Irish Narrative	GB Counter-Narrative	Northern Irish Narrative
Formation/Content	The UK has always meddled in Irish politics and trade and should leave Ireland alone	The UK does not intend on installing a hard border, and wants to maximize trade with Ireland/Northern Ireland	The border is a highly volatile place for the island of Ireland. Both GB and Ireland could try to exploit it for their personal gains.
Projection	Irish politicians such as the President speaking about this only when asked	Non-state actors such as professors, business leaders, etc. publicly speaking upon this narrative	Political party representatives (ie, unionists, democrats) putting forth rallying cries in the news and protests.
Reception	The Northern Irish are weary of Ireland’s messages, thinking that Ireland is trying to secretly advocate for a United Ireland	Most people believe that the UK will not try to disrupt the Good Friday agreement	Their message is received broadly as the UK and Ireland pushing NI out of the way for trade purposes

In sum, it is a complicated clash of narratives for a few countries with dark, complex histories. Where there really should only be two narratives (The UK and Ireland), there are three, due to Northern Ireland’s own history as part of the UK. The intricacies in messaging around this policy issue are sensitive, and state agents need to navigate this conflict carefully to not evoke a hostile war of words.

The narrative within Great Britain must be one that holds empathy for the very recent political trauma that plagues both Northern Ireland and Ireland. The people who experienced the political warfare and terrorism at the border are still alive today, and the “UK as an interventionist” narrative has not yet ceased. The same narrative advice can be applied to Ireland; they must speak with caution, understanding that Northern Ireland is still slightly volatile due to modern history. The most encouraging narratives to these countries will be narratives that promote collaboration, allyship, and free-trade; narratives that paint all countries as winners and none as losers will promote peace and prosperity in this tumultuous policy discussion.

For more on the topic by the author, please click here.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

Turkey’s Use of Narratives to Counter Anti-European Union Membership Narratives

April 14, 2022May 10, 2022Europe6 Comments

By Alexis Searfoss, MPA, MA Media and Strategic Communications ’23

The Republic of Turkey has been waiting decades to be moved from candidate for membership in the European Union to full member. As of 2016, accession talks were put on hold by the European Council but it still remains a top priority for Turkey. A member of NATO and prior iterations of European organizations, Turkey sees its future as a strategic partner for Europe, but, as it has shown in recent years, it is not willing to give up its sovereign rights to get there. If anything, Turkey is positioning itself to strengthen the reason why it should be granted membership.

The EU’s predominate narratives against Turkey gaining membership center around human rights, rule of law, media freedom, and accusations of democratic-backsliding due to a presidential system that has become more powerful in response to an attempted coup in 2016. These narratives target very real issues that have taken place including the treatment of Syrian refugees, jailing of Turkish nationals who speak out against the government, and the targeting of journalist alongside the pro-government takeover of media outlets.

To counter these narratives, Turkey is using its own to push back on the EU to emphasize its position as a country that the EU needs. Turkey has long highlighted its role as a bridge between Europe and Asia, messaging rooted in its former role as the once-powerful Ottoman Empire which was eventually forced, by Europe, to give away territory. Turkey is using its status as a majority Muslim country and willingness to work with countries that do not have strong relationships with the West as an invaluable benefit that it would bring to the EU and to entities looking for access to the West. These relationships could benefit European counties by expanding trade partners and, for Turkey, this showcases it as a powerbroker – a nod to its past as the Ottoman Empire.

A depiction of the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire and its dependencies in 1739.
Source: Wikipedia

Map of the Treaty of Sèvres on the day of its signing (August 10, 1920)
Source: Wikipedia

As a majority Muslim country constitutionally established as secular, Turkey can appeal to countries in the EU looking to better relations with their own Muslim populations. Anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe has been growing in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S. and discovery of terrorist cells in Europe. Anti-Muslim sentiment has also come from European leaders who are cautious of Turkey’s admittance because of their “different way of life.” In response to this sentiment, Turkey has called out efforts by European governments to legitimize anti-Islamic practices to highlight EU member states discriminating against Muslim populations within their own countries. Turkey continues to highlight its role as host to the largest refugee population in the world with over 3.6 million Syrian refugees in cities across Turkey. These issue narratives are used by Turkey to highlight the EU’s hypocrisy and counter the negative narrative of human rights. Turkey projects a frame that if granted admission into the EU, it would show that the EU is not Islamophobic and wants to work with its Muslim populations.

Turkey has also been leaning on its narrative as a world power and tapping into its past as the Ottoman Empire, particularly since the 2016 coup attempt, to emphasize that it will not be belittled. Turkey speaks about controlling both the land and the sea through its “Blue Motherland” vision. In its ongoing dispute over maritime borders with Greece and Cyprus, Turkey is focused on emphasizing agreements that are favorable to it. Turkey is using a rule of law narrative to fit within their desired narrative: Turkey is a maritime power and a larger world power because of it.

Turkey has been working to strengthen its argument as a necessary strategic partner. It broke with NATO allies in acquiring a Russian S-400 missile defense system that Turkey said would allow it to better protect itself. Many NATO members states spoke out against this deal and resulted in the US removing Turkey as a partner from the F-35 program. In Turkey working to normalize relations with Russia, those in the EU called for Turkey to no longer be eligible for EU membership. Turkey has leaned on the narrative that it’s a sovereign nation and world power and, therefore, able to work with any country it wants to in order to protect itself. This also allows Turkey to position itself as a much needed interlocutor with Russia, a role that they have most recently highlighted as the meeting ground for peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.

Turkey’s ability to reframe some of the narratives being used against it shows a shift in thinking about its future. Turkey strongly believes that EU membership is valuable, but it has shifted the frame from one where it seemed like Turkey needed the EU to survive to one where the EU needs Turkey.

For more on the topic by the author, please click here.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

Solidifying Spain’s European State Narrative

April 14, 2022May 10, 2022Europe6 Comments

By Miranda Ewald, MA Global Communications ‘22

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez meets with Moroccan King Mohammed VI, Moncloa (REUTERS)

Spain and Morocco’s Shifting Relationship

Until recently, tensions between Spain and Morocco had been building for decades, particularly over Spain’s lack of recognition for Morocco’s autonomy in the Western Sahara. Spain and Morocco, along with Mauritania, signed a tripartite agreement in 1975 that aimed at stabilizing relations in the Western Sahara region. However, Spain had not formalized or honored its political and diplomatic ties to Morocco. In 2021 Spain welcomed nationalist movement leader seeking independence from Morocco, Brahim Ghali, into its country despite him also being wanted in Spain for crimes against humanity. In retaliation, Morocco then opened its border in May 2021 to Ceuta, a Spanish autonomous city in Morocco, leading to many trying to illegally enter the city and chaos erupting.

Despite the historical tension and recent challenges between the two countries, as of this month, Spain has decided to realign its relationship with Morocco. On March 18 of this year, Spain announced through its foreign minister, José Manuel Albares, that it considers Morocco’s proposal regarding the Western Sahara to be “the most serious, realistic, and credible” plan to de-escalating tensions in the region. The plan involves giving Morocco limited autonomy in the Western Sahara, a region it annexed in 1975, which is inhabited largely by the Polisario Front independence movement. Spain’s backing of the proposal symbolizes a turning point in its foreign affairs with Morocco.

Spain’s Evolving Identity

Spain’s strategic messaging of its newly defined stance with Morocco highlights how Spain is attempting to develop the narrative that it is a cooperative democracy and international partner. Since the end of General Franco’s dictatorship in Spain, the country has worked diligently to democratize and become part of the international system. This however conflicts with Spain’s imperialistic history with Morocco, and until recently, apathetic nature towards mending lingering tensions. In order for Spain to shed its dictatorial and imperialistic ways and prove its relevance as a democratic actor, it needed to readjust its relationship with Morocco. For example, when Spain invited Brahim Ghali into its country, Morocco began portraying Spain as indifferent to crimes against humanity. Spain could not let Morocco continue to capitalize on the meeting with Ghali to maintain its reputation as a democratized state. Moreover, for Spain to appear as a collaborative foreign power, it could not continue to ignore its diplomatic agreements with Morocco in the Western Saharan. Amends needed to be made with Morocco to prevent anything from undermining Spain’s legitimacy and relationships in the international system

Spain made the announcement of the backing of Morocco’s proposal through its highest foreign affairs official to validate its stance further. Albares emphasized the commitment even further by stating that Spain is looking to strengthen cooperation particularly regarding migration in the Western Sahara. Spain’s alignment with Morocco though symbolizes much more than this. In the spring of 2021, Morocco organized mass migration through Ceuta, a Spanish city on the border of the two countries. The weaponsing of migration outraged Spain, but also the EU, which has established that it desires maintaining a strong relationship with Morocco. For Spain, it is important to appear as a cooperative and loyal state, something it was not under General Franco. Therefore, to project this narrative, Spain needed to begin appearing active in working towards resolution in the Western Sahara.

Implications for Spain’s Repositioning

Spain’s new positioning will have, and has had, many potential implications for the state. Thus far, Spain’s new positioning has led Morocco to reinstate its ambassador to Spain, which it had previously recalled. This, in addition to other comments made by Morocco, portrays that Morocco is pleased with Spain’s new alignment and is open to working with the state. The EU has also established that it welcomes Spain’s change in stance with Morocco. While Spain has strengthened some of its relationships through this decision, it has also had some negative implications as well. For example, since the Polisario Front is backed by Algeria, Algeria removed its ambassador to Spain because of its decision. Besides this damaging foreign relations between Spain and Algeria, it could also have economic consequences for Spain. Algeria supplies gas to Spain, and given the crisis in Ukraine, Algeria’s supply has become ever more important. Spain could risk increasing gas prices even further if relations are damaged even more with Algeria.

Polisario demonstrators protest against Spain’s support for Morocco’s autonomy plan in Madrid, (AFP).

Going forward, Spain’s relations with other states will shift as well. Some states support Morocco’s proposal and will embrace Spain’s new positioning, such as the US. However, there are other states and international organizations that believe a referendum should occur in the region to decide who is in control. To illustrate its identity as a collaborative and credible democracy, Spain should continue its use of elite officials as spokespeople, remain loyal to and supportive of allies and be proactive in discourse around international issues.

For more on the topic by the author, please click here.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

A Fallen France? French Identity Narratives Viewed through the AUKUS Deal

April 14, 2022May 10, 2022Europe, public diplomacy6 Comments

By Jesse Tanson, MA International Affairs ’22

The AUKUS incident between France, the United States, and Australia occurred due to a contract breach between Australia and France. Australian authorities had contracted France to develop shortfin barracuda submarines to meet its maritime defense needs in 2016 for $38.6 billion. As the deal was delayed and costs increased, the Australian government decided to opt for American-built submarines because they have nuclear capabilities. The abandonment of the deal provoked the removal of the French ambassador to the United States, a first in the history of the Franco-American relationship. Ambassador Etienne returned to Paris for a brief period before returning to his post. The event prompted conversations about alliances and France’s role in the world.

France in the U.S.’ world?

The projection of power was key to the formation of modern France. As an empire, France saw its power expand throughout the world and the country was synonymous with influence.

Until WWII, France saw itself as a world power, influential militarily and culturally. However, its leadership in the world waned as the United States became the world superpower following WWII when the US helped the French fight the Germans, hurting Paris’ pride. Furthermore, the U.S. had obtained nuclear weapons and spread its culture globally, ousting France from the top position. To reclaim its identity as a top contender in a U.S.-dominated world, France developed its own nuclear arms program. In other words, Charles de Gaulle saw it necessary for France to arm itself with nuclear weapons to reassert its dominance in the new world order.

Similarlyfor President Macron, nuclear power is equal to French world leadership. Macron announced a nuclear buildup of 14 generators to reduce carbon emissions and reliance on foreign energy, namely from Russia. Now France also hopes to best the United States and China in the nuclear power race. If France can become Europe’s top nuclear power producer, it can position itself as a worthy adversary of the United States.

Paris still holds onto its former colonies as trade partners, but increased Chinese involvement in the region may drive away French business. The AUKUS deal represented another defeat to French power, prompting it to react strongly. Paris needed to show resolve in the face of its people, Europe, and the world.

A stab in the back?

*French Minister of Foreign Affairs Yves Le Drian (Community Commons)*

The immediate ending of the $38.6 billion deal shocked the world, not least of all the French. French Minister of Foreign Affairs Yves Le Drian called the dropping of France in the deal “a stab in the back.” Following a conversation with the Australian Prime Minister, President Macron alleged that he was lied to about the failed submarine deal. The U.S. actions attacked France’s falling self-image. The deal demonstrated to France that it would be a second-choice partner, behind the United States. As it struggled to reclaim its lost glory, France found its plans thwarted by U.S. enterprise. Furthermore, the failure of the deal demonstrates the American hegemony against which France has fought for several decades. In France’s view, the United States violated norms in pursuit of its interests, slighting its European allies in favor of its Anglophone partnerships. The submarines France intended to sell to Australia were non-nuclear, per agreements to half nuclear proliferation. From this perspective, France sees the United States as violating agreements established by democracies with shared values. Thus the AUKUS deal struck to the heart of France’s identity of a nuclear power with global trade ambitions.

A Simple Mistake?

The AUKUS deal represented a breach of trust for the French and larger European community, an opportunity to better arm itself for Australia, and another means to secure the indo-pacific for the United States. To resolve the issue, President Joe Biden met with President Emmanuel Macron. The two heads of state addressed the deal, with the American leader referring to the turn of events as “clumsy.” President Biden claimed that he was under the impression that France was aware of the switching of clients. The difference in perspective reveals differences in the larger identity narratives of the two countries. France’s concern was its image as a world power, which has dwindled in recent history. The deal, for France, would have returned lost prestige to the country. France falls behind the United States and Russia as the third-largest weapons exporter globally. The United States, possessing the title of the world’s greatest superpower, merely acted in line with its own identity; it sought to ensure security. The fact that France was caught in crossfires was a blunder, as President Biden explained.

*US President Biden and French President Macron (AP Photo*)

Reinforced Cooperation?

Though the AUKUS affair ended with the return of French Ambassador Etienne and the two sides found an agreement, what would this mean for France? France successfully defended itself against the United States and was successful in obtaining an admission of guilt from the American president.

For more on the topic by the author, please click here.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.