Kony 2012 – Activism that Has Our Attention

If you haven’t been visited Twitter or Facebook recently, you may have missed the news: The Kony 2012 campaign has set the Internet on fire. While in its early stages, it’s fascinating to see how much attention the movement has garnered and to speculate as to where its headed.

Kony 2012 has lit up Twitter and Facebook over the past few days

The movement is the latest and most public undertaking  of  Invisible Children, an NGO founded by Jason Russell and Laren Pool with the mission of ending the campaign of violence perpetrated by the Lord’s Resistance Army in Central Africa. Kony 2012 is a social media campaign engineered to draw attention to one man in particular: Joseph Kony, the LRA’s leader. Kony was indicted by the International Criminal Court in 2005 for war crimes, which include the brainwashing of thousands of children into child soldiers, rape, and mutilation.

This is the logic of the campaign. To bring Joseph Kony to trial at the ICC, he must first be captured by the Ugandan military. In order for them to catch a man who has been a guerrilla fighter for more than 20 years, they need military and technical support that was publically first provided by the United States in 2010. For Congress to authorize continued US involvement in Uganda during a time of economic crisis, they must be pressured by the American people… but for the people to pressure Congress they must first know who Joseph Kony is. Despite his notoriety with international justice bodies, the average American has no idea who the leader of the LRA is or what he has done over the past two decades.

Jason Russel is Co-Founder of Invisible Children and producer of the Kony 2012 Campaign Video

Kony 2012 seeks to mobilize public attention by gaining the attention of two groups: “culture makers” and “policy makers.” 20 celebrities, actors, talk-show hosts and athletes were targeted as social media amplifiers, who will theoretically campaign for public awareness of the issue. Pop star Rihanna has already mentioned the campaign on her twitter account. The second targeted group, the policy makers, are a group of 12 current and former officials ranging from Condaleezza Rice to Bill Clinton who will hopefully exercise their influence within Congress for the cause. The movement also calls for a poster/sticker/word of mouth campaign, scheduled to climax on April 20th, when involved activists are instructed to “Cover the Night” and launch a massive poster campaign designed to get the attention of everyone not already clued in by social media.

The source of this energy and enthusiasm? One very well produced internet video.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc]

The goal of the campaign is to achieve “500,000 shares” within the span of its lifetime, and its producers are well on the way to achieving that goal. At the time of this writing, the video has already achieved more than 3 million views, with the vast majority of those occuring over the past two days. It’s an Internet firestorm, and its sudden surge of popularity has sent the Kony 2012 website reeling off and on.

While the movement is certainly gaining attention and notoriety, it also has its critics. Mark Kersten argues that the Kony 2012 campaign is awash with an “obfuscating, simplified and wildly erroneous narrative” that implicitly places legitimacy with the official Ugandan government. That sort of support is ill-placed, states Kersten, because the Ugandan government is similarly guilty of “collective torture” and “blurring of the perpetrator-victim binary”. From the the perspective of the Kony 2012 detractors, the campaign is a viral oversimplification of an extraordinarily complex conflict, and the simple idea of “making Kony known” is hardly the means to stop a war when both sides are guilty of harming civilians.

Said Laura Seay in one impatient tweet: “My basic premise is that the awareness of American college students is NOT a necessary condition for conflict resolution in Africa.”

Kersten believes the makers of Kony 2012 are biased towards the Ugandan government

Others are critical of Invisible Children’s methods – Samual Gebru, president of the Ethiopian Global Initiative, argues that it is the Ugandans on the ground who should be supported, not an NGO primarily involved with building schools and only minor direct influence on the conflict. Others challenge the idea that even killing Kony will be effective since the atrocities of the war are rooted in the structure of the conflict, rather than a single individual.

Time will tell whether this initial burst of attention – enthusiastic on one end and critical on the other – will translate into action at the congressional level. But in terms of simply focusing the world’s attention on an issue, the campaign should already be considered a success.

In his video, Invisible Children founder Jason Russell makes the argument that the way that social networks and activism have the power to change the way that national policy is created – transferring influence from a limited few with great resources to a like-minded and mobilized collective. If true, it has staggering implications for the way the world works in this new era. We’ll be watching the playing out of this viral activist campaign with great interest.

Patiently Build a Narrative for Military Action against Iran

President Obama bought some time in his meeting this week with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to see if diplomacy and sanctions can pressure Iran to change course. This time would be well spent to build if not a regional consensus for military action, at least broader public acceptance of the need to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. To do that, the administration should draw some lessons from past interventions, lessons to be both followed and avoided.

The first is to recognize that Iran can’t be Libya. U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder and Supreme Allied Commander Europe Admiral James Stavridis termed Libya a “model intervention.” It was, but as we have seen with Syria and most likely with Iran as well, it may be a one-off that will not soon be repeated. The Arab League is not likely to support a military strike against Iran publicly, even though many regional governments will privately welcome such a step. Prospects of a UN Security Council resolution are uncertain. But it will be vital to achieve the strong sense of legitimacy that gave the Libya intervention its strength.

Kosovo is a better model to consider. Russia blocked an authorizing UN Security Council resolution, so the Clinton administration sought authority from NATO to force Serbia out of Kosovo. In the end, former UN Secretary General Kofi Anan called the operation “illegal but legitimate.” Regarding Iran, the IAEA can help validate that Iran’s failure to meet its international obligations and that Iran is moving towards a breakout capability.

Military force must be viewed as a last resort to be credible. In upcoming negotiations, the so-called P5+1 must be viewed as the reasonable actor. Recall the power of the last-minute negotiating session in Geneva between Secretary of State James Baker and his Iraqi counterpart Tariq Aziz prior to the First Gulf War. The international community was viewed as going the extra mile to avoid conflict.

That did not happen with the Second Gulf War. The Bush administration put significant pressure on the United Nations to uphold a series of UN Security Council resolutions, and it netted meaningful concessions from Iraq including the reintroduction of UN weapons inspectors. But the United States appeared to the rest of the world to be rushing to war, which ultimately undercut its legitimacy.

More than anything else, patience will be vital as the United States and the international community works through his complex challenge. It needs to build a convincing narrative that Iran poses a clear danger not just to the United States and Israel, but to the region as a whole; that Iran is in fact determined to build a nuclear weapon, not just generate civilian energy; that it is taking action that the Ayatollah himself termed a “sin”; that the international community has patiently attempted to resolve this through diplomacy and sanction; and if necessary military action is necessary and limited.

The President said this week there is too much “loose talk of war.” He was right to quiet the drumbeats for the time being, but now he must lead a sustained and patient dialogue with a newly energized and empowered “street” across the Middle East that military action, while the last resort, may be necessary to resolve this problem once and for all.

Public Diplomacy vs. Propaganda – in the Civil War

It’s an honor to be one of the regular contributors to Take Five, the IPDGC’s new blog.  While our goal is to generate discussion on the most contemporary issues in public diplomacy and global communication…it never hurts to start off with a bit of history.

Last October the New York Times published a delightful article about the early days of U.S. public diplomacy – in 1861, to be exact.    The article, “Vive l’Union” describes the fruitful partnership between John Bigelow, an American journalist sent abroad by President Lincoln to help sway European opinion in favor of the Union cause, and Professor Édouard-René Lefèbvre de Laboulaye, a French scholar whose admiration and respect for the American republic grew into an effective campaign for hearts and minds.

As the article notes, Laboulaye had begun his career lecturing and writing on America and its model Constitution, but soon Napoleon III came to power and began “a dark new era of political repression and intellectual censorship,” prompting Laboulaye to retreat to the safer academic field of ancient Roman history.   However, the crisis of the American Civil War rekindled Laboulaye’s determination, as it “threatened to prove the entire experiment in self-government a failure.”  He began lecturing on the U.S. conflict, and quickly found that “the American question” created an arena within which liberals could safely talk about France’s central political issues of the day — by talking about America.  His audience of students, scholars, and political commentators grew rapidly.

Bigelow, having met Laboulaye and discovered an immediate philosophical rapport, persuaded the scholar to revise, expand, and publish one of his earlier essays on the American war and the Union cause.  Bigelow then ensured that Laboulaye’s pamphlet was delivered to political figures, journalists, and scholars throughout France, and even elsewhere in Europe.   This essay had a major impact on French public opinion, which up until that point had been largely pro-Confederacy.  Laboulaye continued to write and lecture, and Bigelow made sure his essays were published widely and even translated into English.   French support for the Union cause solidified.

In other words, their collaboration became the very definition of a win-win public diplomacy partnership.

A closer look at the article yields some nuances, such as the fact that Bigelow had been equipped with financial resources to pay writers and editors for pro-Union viewpoints (although Laboulaye refused any payment, accepting only the gift of some books), and that the American journalist’s real purpose at the U.S. Embassy in Paris was kept sub rosa, under a more traditional diplomatic cover.

In other words, the original U.S. plan envisioned the sort of behind-the-scenes propaganda approach that all nations have used at one time or another, especially when at war.  Nicholas Cull also mentions this “propaganda war” in the prologue to his book The Cold War and the United States Information Agency, noting that during the Civil War “the U.S. minister to Belgium … bribed journalists and even subsidized the European newspapers that supported his cause [while] Britain became a key theater for the Union’s propaganda war with the American South.”

However, I see Bigelow and Laboulaye’s partnership as demonstrating the strength, depth, and long-term impact of true public diplomacy – that is, open and mutually beneficial collaboration between two like-minded partners sharing the same goals.  Certainly in the partnership with Laboulaye, the effect was more than Bigelow, or the U.S. officials who sent him to Paris, could ever initially have hoped for.

In any case, please do read the New York Times’ fascinating and richly detailed article!

Catholicism and Social Media

In a time when it seems that the Catholic Church is more prominent than ever in the news and politics of the United States, it is intriguing that there are reports about the Pope’s Twitter account. This Huffington Post article says that the Pope’s Twitter account is being used to “share Lenten messages” but also notes that is has been in use since before Ash Wednesday.

Based on the Pope’s Twitter handle “@Pope2YouVatican“, it seems the reason behind the Pope being on a Twitter is a diplomatic one.  While the name “@Pope2YouVatican” sounds rather odd, if we dissect it, “Pope2You” sounds as if they are trying to use unidirectional messages to relay the information they’d like to get across.  Based on recent research, it is clear that unidirectional message are not the only way to do diplomacy and are clearly not the best way.  In the world of social media, where responses can be instantaneous, it is important to have two-way conversations with followers instead of just pushing messages through.

The Vatican says that the messages will be posted in different languages.  This is crucial to relate to Catholics across the world.  What is most important is to have whoever is monitoring this account be able to speak the languages so they they can respond to those who retweet or direct message the Pope with useful comments. This renewed effort to pass the message on in several languages relates directly to the recent changes made to the English version of the Catholic mass.  These changes were an attempt to unite Catholics, no matter what language they speak, by making all language translations as close as possible to the Latin text and to one another.  By using this Twitter account, the Vatican is attempting unite Catholics in new technology, thus creating a network of Catholics that can be a very powerful voice for the Church.  This follows Ann Marie Slaughter and Clay Shirky’s ideas that the network will be the tool of future diplomacy.  By using new media to its advantage, the Vatican is piling up resources and preparing this network for a battle against possible controversial policies. While this is a good start, the Vatican has more work to do if it is serious about using the Pope’s Twitter as a public diplomacy tool.

Welcome to the Take Five blog!

Welcome to Take Five, the new blog of GW’s Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication (IPDGC)! The purpose of this multi-authored blog will primarily be two-fold.

~ To comment on the most interesting developments in the practice of public diplomacy (PD) and global communication.

~ To discuss relevant scholarly research in both of these fields, as befits our academic home. Take Five will thus join a growing body of scholarly blogs that serve as layperson-friendly bridges to academia. Here we follow especially in the footsteps of the award-winning blog founded by our GW colleagues in the Political Science department,  The Monkey Cage.

A brief note about our areas of interest, “public diplomacy and global communication.” Admittedly, these are broad topics. Public diplomacy, sometimes called “soft power,” is a subject rich in history (think: Voice of America, Edward R. Murrow, etc.), but until recently of scant academic interest.

That is changing. At places like GW (which hosted the first course in public diplomacy, taught by IPDGC founder and benefactor Walter Roberts more than 25 years ago), USC’s Annenberg School, Syracuse University, American University, Tufts, and a growing number of places around the world such as the Clingendael Institute of International Relations, PD has become a subject of growing interest in the academic, practitioner, and think tank communities. This gives us a lot to talk about, and an increasing number of people to talk to.

“Global communication” is an even broader concept, but one with a well-established record of scholarly research across multiple academic domains, ranging from communication studies to international relations to sociology and so forth. Yet it, too, is a field changing rapidly with the onset of new technologies that make us rethink old paradigms about media influence, development, and the relative power of traditional nation states versus non-state actors such as terrorist groups.

So at Take Five we are interested in questions like:

  • What role did social media really play in the Arab Spring?
  • Are information and communication technologies (ICTs) empowering the poor in the developing world, or are the rich just getting richer?
  • How effective has the Obama Administration’s effort to create a “whole of government” approach to soft and hard power been, how can it be improved, and what can it learn from the experiences of other countries?
  • Do we need to rethink the very notion of “diplomacy” in a 2.0 world, and if so what would that mean?
  • Does the spread of citizen-generated videos of regime violence in places like Syria and Libya through social media pressure other nations to get involved in those conflicts, especially in an era guided by concerns about “Responsibility to Protect”? And if so, does that mean we are less likely to see more Rwandas, or more likely to see more Iraq-style quagmires?

This is just a hint of what lies ahead. The list of possible topics, after all, is as diverse and dynamic as the internet itself.

About our name: Like many blog titles, “Take Five” is part pun, part inside joke. On one level, we are asking readers interested in these issues to “take five” from their day and read the blog.

On another, the title is rooted in one of the legendary soft power initiatives of the last fifty years: The Jazz Diplomacy tours organized by the U.S. State Department since the early days of the Cold War. Along with Louis Armstrong (AKA: “Ambassador Satch”), the most notable of the musicians who toured the world to share America’s greatest home-grown musical tradition was Dave Brubeck,  who would eventually receive the Benjamin Franklin Award for Public Diplomacy. And of course “Take Five” was probably Brubeck’s most famous song, recorded on the seminal masterpiece “Time Out” in 1959.

This blog will have several main authors, but many other contributors. The primary authors will be the following folks:

  • Myself, an associate professor of media and international affairs at GW and director of IPDGC.
  • Mary Jeffers, the IPDGC Public Diplomacy Fellow, is a public diplomacy practitioner with over two decades of experience in the State Department and (former) U.S. Information Agency. Jeffers most recently served as Public Affairs Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Rabat, Morocco (2008 -11), where “Arab Spring” issues and the impact of social media took center stage.
  • PJ Crowley, currently an IPDGC Fellow, was nominated by President Obama as the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs in 2009 and confirmed by the United States Senate. He served as the Assistant Secretary and Spokesman at the Department of State until March 2011. He was the primary U.S. government interlocutor with major media regarding the release of classified diplomatic cables by Wikileaks.

In addition, contributions will come from many of the other faculty at GW, which has a well-deserved reputation in the study and practice of PD and global communication issues; guest bloggers from prominent members of the scholarly and practitioner worlds; and GW’s own exceptional graduate students, especially those in the Global Communication and Media and Public Affairs Masters programs.

So from time to time during your day, take five and keep up with the latest news, research, and commentary about soft power and global communication. And be sure and follow IPDGC on its Twitter feed: @ipdgc, and visit us at our website: http://www.gwu.edu/~ipdgc/index.cfm.