GW – Page 4 – IPDGC Smart Power

Statehood for Puerto Rico

April 11, 2021May 10, 2021Global Communication22 Comments

By Jowen H. Ortiz Cintrón, MA Media and Strategic Communication, 2022

Three Things that statehooders should fix in their narrative

Puerto Rico is not legally a country but is the longest-standing colony in the world that has its own culture and national identity. Since 1898, it’s been a territory of the United States, as little has been done to change that at a federal level.

After plebiscites where Puerto Ricans asked for statehood, the New Progressive Party has built a narrative where Puerto Ricans have called on the United States, the banner of democracy, to allow Puerto Rico to join the United States as a state. They have appealed to the Republican’s patriotic sense, recalling the service of Puerto Ricans in the military and contributions to the victories and defense of the U.S.. For Democrats, they mention the commitment that the United States maintains with human rights, reminding them that respecting the democratic rights of Puerto Ricans is part of the human rights that the United States must defend.

While those factors are true, their narrative has big flaws that makes it difficult to garner support behind the cause from both sides of the aisle. Here are three aspects of the pro-statehood narrative that must repaired for a successful pro-statehood campaign.

The claim: Puerto Ricans have democratically chosen statehood

*Resident Commissioner Jenniffer González present the results of the 2020 plebiscite and ask Congress to consider statehood for Puerto Rico.*

One important aspect of the pro-statehood narrative is that Puerto Ricans have asked for statehood in different plebiscites (2012, 2017, 2020). In those three democratic exercises, statehood has won the popular vote. In 2012, statehood won with 61%; in 2017, with 97.18%; and in 2020, with 52%. While it does seem like statehood enjoys wide support in Puerto Rico, the plebiscites have been ridden with controversy over the way the choices were phrased, and over the lack of participation.

This has led politicians, like Ocasio-Cortez and Velázquez, to not trust the results, because they question if it is truly democratic to let less than half of the population decide the future of an Island. In this way, questions are raised as to whether statehood is actually the desire of Puerto Ricans.

By not correctly acknowledging the lack of participation in the democratic process, the promoters of Statehood have allowed a narrative to be drawn where the low participation is attributed to a decline in support for statehood. This has distanced highly valued progressive Democratic voices from supporting statehood projects, and they have preferred to present the Self-Determination Act.

The Messengers: NPP’s history of fraud and corruption

The supporters of statehood in Puerto Rico are aligned with the New Progressive Party (NPP). The party proved to be a political force. However, in recent years, support for the party has waned.

The history of corruption the party carries is a reason for the loss of support. The party has been marked by arrests of mayors, representatives, senators, heads of agencies, and other public employees accused and convicted of embezzlement, theft, and corruption of power. During the four years from 2016 to 2020, after Hurricane María and other crises in Puerto Rico, then-Governor Ricardo Rosselló was forced by the people to resign due to a large number of cases of corruption and nefarious handling of the country’s public funds and recovery aid, worsening the crisis that Puerto Ricans are experiencing, among other reasons.

*Jorge de Castro Font is a former NPP senator arrested in 2008 on charges of fraud and conspiracy. The following year he pleaded guilty to 21 counts. He was sentenced in 2011. Source: Primera Hora*

“Public corruption poses a threat to our democratic institutions and erodes trust in government.”
– US Attorney Stephen W. Muldrow about corruption in Puerto Rico.

The corruption and the great public debt of the archipelago have given Puerto Rican politicians a bad name at the federal level, in which it is questioned what could be the value of such a corrupt country to the democracy of the United States. This thought is shared by members of the Republican party mainly, who strongly oppose statehood for Puerto Rico3.

Opposed Narratives: “More federal funds for Puerto Ricans”

A campaign promise by everyone running for office in the NPP is that, with Puerto Rico being a state, citizens would have access to more federal aid.

*Tweet motivating Puerto Ricans to vote yes for statehood promising more federal funds for Puerto Rico. Source: Pedro Pierslui/ Twitte*r

During the recent natural disaster crises in Puerto Rico, Governor Pierluisi, Resident Commissioner González and other statehood allies in Congress, have emphasized the importance of helping the American citizens on the island with statehood and more federal funds for education, Medicaid and crisis relief expenses.

While this narrative resides in the hope of appealing to the Democratic base, it further alienates Republicans. Publicly building a narrative in favor of increased federal funding has caused the “welfare queen” narrative to take a new angle against Puerto Rico and statehood. It had demonized the idea behind delivering more help to Puerto Ricans. Given the island’s history of embezzlement and poverty, Republicans have identified the island as a monetary burden and have repeatedly opposed the idea of giving more funds to the island.

The call to solve Puerto Rico’s status situation has been long and overdue. To solve it, political leaders should present a narrative strong enough to appeal to United States’ politicians. Nonetheless, the supporters of statehood haven’t been able to build a cohesive narrative that delivers a proper claim, with a credible messenger, and that coexists with the narratives of the United States. The narrative fails to appeal to Democrats and Republicans alike, creating riffs in what is supposed to be a human rights decision.

For a detailed analysis by the author on the subject, 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.

ICC Probe Investigating Israel: The Divergent Narratives Within

April 11, 2021May 10, 2021Global Communication, Middle East15 Comments

By Basil Awartani, M.A. Media & Strategic Communication, 2021

Two years ago, International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda announced that the court had uncovered evidence of war crimes committed in the West Bank and Gaza by Israel. Based on these initial findings, Bensouda called for a thorough investigation into the incidents. Initially this process was delayed when the Israeli government challenged the ICC’s jurisdiction over the matter, arguing that the court does not have the authority to make such a ruling in the Palestinian Territories, which do not qualify as a sovereign state. In early February, 2021, this objection was overruled, clearing the way for the Hague chief prosecutor to open the war crimes probe. This announcement triggered backlash from Israeli officials who argued that the ruling was an attack on Israeli sovereignty but was welcomed by Palestinians hoping to hold Israel accountable in criminal court.

The competing strategic narratives put forward by Israeli and Palestinian leaderships play a critical role in shaping both policy and media response to the ICC probe. Strategic narratives are a means for political actors to construct a shared meaning of the past, present, and future to shape the behavior of domestic and international actors. Another important element in interpreting events through the lens of a particular narrative is framing. According to Robert M. Entman “To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem, definitional, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment.”

I use Entman’s model to illustrate Israel and Palestine’s divergent strategic narratives regarding the ICC probe which is critical to understanding their respective positions on the issue. Further, Entman’s framing model is also essential for understanding the ideological and strategic underpinning of Israel’s stance, which it maintains even in the face of substantial evidence. Entman’s model has four moves: problem, cause, evaluation, and solution. Depending on one’s narrative, different elements are assigned to each move as illustrated in the example below.

Palestinian Narrative

In a statement, the Palestinian Authority’s foreign ministry welcomed the ICC investigation and considered it a “long-awaited step that serves Palestine’s tireless pursuit of justice and accountability.” Hamas, a Gaza-based militant group, also welcomed the decision, though they, too, are under investigation. Overall, the ICC investigation is consistent with the Palestinian narrative and is considered part of the solution.

Problem	Cause	Evaluation	Solution
Israeli human rights abuses	Military occupation and a culture of impunity	An independent ICC investigation is a step-forward towards justice	Accountability through the ICC

Israel/Netanyahu’s Narrative

Legal ramifications aside, the ICC probe cuts deep through one of Israel’s primary identity narratives which holds that they are a humane actor in this conflict, defending themselves against unprovoked aggression. To accept the ICC probe in any shape or form would cause dissonance within many of Israel’s narratives.

Problem	Cause	Evaluation	Solution
ICC probe	Antisemitism/unfairly singling out Israel Palestinians politicizing the court	Palestinian Authority is not a state Israel is not a member of the court. The probe is an affront to Israeli sovereignty.	Not cooperate with the ICC, fight the decision.

This chart demonstrates how Israel’s framing of the ICC probe reinforces its own narrative. The Israeli government has different channels/messengers to disseminate and re-enforce such state narratives. One of its chief messengers is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“The court established to prevent atrocities like the Nazi Holocaust against the Jewish people is now targeting the one state of the Jewish people.”
-Bibi Netanyahu

By tying the ICC to the horrors of the Holocaust, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu invokes one of the key events shaping Israel’s master narratives. He condemns the ICC probe, calling it “undiluted antisemitism” and vows to fight the decision. By invoking such an emotional frame Netanyahu not only targets foreign publics but also domestic Israeli audiences, framing himself as the protector of Israel against a hostile world.

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on the other hand, tackles the issue using a legal framework, citing the fact that Israel is not a member of the court and that the Palestinian Authority is not a state to de-legitimize the probe. This defense differs from the former (Netanyahu’s) because it acknowledges that the emotional frame is not itself enough to defend against a robust legal argument. The two approaches have different purposes but intersect over the issue of Israel’s right to a state and state sovereignty.

Dissonance between the US and Israeli master-narratives.

In May 2020 the Trump administration warned the ICC against asserting jurisdiction over Israel, saying the US will “exact consequences” for any “illegitimate” investigations. This threat materialized in September 2020 when the Trump administration sanctioned ICC senior officials including chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, accusing the court of “illegitimate attempts” to subject Americans to its jurisdiction. The US has traditionally treated Israel as a strategic partner, aligning itself with the narrative that frames Israel as a victim rather than an aggressor.

The Biden administration inherited this issue and maintains Trump’s opposition to the ICC probe into Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza. Unlike the Trump administration, however, current U.S. President Joe Biden has vowed to make human rights and multilateralism central to his approach to international affairs. This stance made it difficult for the Biden administration to oppose the ICC as aggressively as Trump because sanctioning a court responsible for investigating human rights abuses is inconsistent with the US identity narrative that promotes human rights as a pillar of U.S. foreign policy.

Biden’s Dilemma

The existence of two contradictory narratives presents a challenge for the Biden administration. While the US has framed itself as an ally of Israel committed to upholding the country’s sovereignty, it does not want to appear as if it is coercing an international court to not investigate human rights abuses. For the time being, Biden tries to take a middle road, publishing a press release opposing the ICC investigation but ending the Trump era sanctions against the ICC.

In the end, the case of the ICC probe leaves the Biden administration trying to reconcile policy that is not inconsistent with its current identity narrative. As the State Department stated in its announcement ending sanctions against ICC personnel, “We believe…that our concerns about these cases would be addressed through engagement with all stakeholders in the ICC process rather than through the imposition of sanctions.”

For a detailed analysis by the author on the subject, 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.

Battle of Narratives in the Fight for Kosovo

April 8, 2021May 10, 2021Europe12 Comments

By Sydney Booker, MA Media and Strategic Communication, 2021

Kosovo and Serbia have been engaged in a battle of narratives for hundreds of years. In recent years, that battle has entered the world stage. While Serbia holds onto their narrative that Kosovo belongs to Serbia, Kosovo has evolved their narrative from that of a separatist movement to one of peace. To understand the battle of narratives between Kosovo and Serbia, we must first go back to the year 1389 and the origin of the Kosovo myth. The Kosovo myth is the idea that Kosovo is destined to be a part of Serbia due to a divine sacrifice. This originates from the battle of Kosovo between the Ottoman Empire and Christian forces which resulted in the defeat of the Serb-led Christian army and paved the way for the Ottoman empire to take over the Balkans. This was viewed by the Serbs as sacrificing their mortal land in order to gain heavenly entrance.

Serbian President with Bishop Teodosije near Mitrovica, Kosovo

Today, this narrative makes it difficult for Serbia to recognize Kosovo as an independent country. The Kosovo myth has been an underlying part of Serbian narratives for centuries and has not developed through time to meet Kosovo in the present.

Kosovo Serbia War

In the 1990’s, Kosovo and Serbia tensions escalated and ethnic Albanians were opposed to the ethnic Serbs and the Yugoslavian government in Kosovo. In 1996 the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) attacked Serbian police and politicians. By 1998, violence had escalated to an armed uprising and Serbian and Yugoslav forces attempted to reassert control over the region. This conflict led to intervention from the US, Germany, Britain, Italy and Russia. They demanded a cease-fire but the KLA rearmed. Eventually the UN intervened but tensions continued and riots happened into the 21st century. Kosovo narratives during this period were that the independence of Kosovo was the will of the people.

Kosovo Independence Narratives from Kosovo

Kosovoans used the “will of the people” identity narrative to support their master narrative of Kosovo independence. This was demonstrated by Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci in his speech declaring the independence of Kosovo by elected leaders which reflected the will of the people in 2008. Further demonstrating this narrative is a quote in the New York Times that said, “Independence is a catharsis…Things won’t change overnight and we cannot forget the past…” This quote is representative of citizens voicing the narratives of the countries they identify with. The quote represents the hope of a future in a sovereign Kosovo held by the people of an independent Kosovo.

Kosovo Independence Narratives from Serbia

Serbia continued the narrative that Kosovo was a part of Serbia and not independent even after normalization talks led by the UN in 2012. The New York Times quoted a Serbian living in northern Kosovo , “I will stay here forever. This will always be Serbia.” We can again see the continuation of these narratives through statements made by former Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, where he asserted Serbia’s stance on not admitting Kosovo is an independent state ahead of a trip to the mainly Serbian northern Kosovo.

The battling narratives regarding independence of Kosovo can be broken down to Independence is the ‘Will of the people of Kosovo” versus the rights of Serbia to land that they claim is a part of Serbia and will always be. But, we can see that the Kosovo narrative has been more effective on the world stage, as many countries, including the US, also subscribe to the will of the people narrative and have recognized Kosovo as an independent nation.

Role of the US in the Narrative Battle

The US plays an important role in the current narrative battle between Serbia and Kosovo. As a leader of the Western world, the US showed support for Kosovo in 2008 by recognizing the country. During UN proceedings to decide the legality of Kosovo’s independence, US support was necessary as other western nations like Spain refused to support Kosovo’s independence. That support was also crucial for future assistance due to the weak economic conditions in Kosovo that required help from stronger nations.

Recent issues bringing the US into the Serbia-Kosovo narrative battle include President Biden’s letters to Serbia and Kosovo, which used the phrase “mutual recognition”. Furthering these narrative issues between the US and Serbia, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that reaching an agreement between Kosovo and Serbia, focused on mutual recognition, will require flexibility and willingness to compromise. Kosovo agrees with this sentiment but mutual recognition for Serbia would imply that Kosovo was an independent state. Serbia and Kosovo signed economic agreements in 2020 and have continued to follow these agreements but Serbia will not formally recognize Kosovo so as not to legitimize their sovereignty. Despite US statements on wanting more formalized relations and pushing hard steps are necessary to gain European integration, Serbia has not wavered.

Narrative Mistakes

Many of the narrative mistakes between the two countries can be seen on the Serbian side. Serbia has not updated their narratives in order to join in the modern conversation. They have held onto their narrative that Kosovo is destined to be a part of Serbia, while the people of Kosovo have demonstrated that the “will of the people” narrative is far more effective, especially on the world stage. The US has been used by both countries to further their issue narratives but the US has continued to keep their narrative of peace between the countries as the best way to move forward, both for stability in the Balkans and for EU membership. But, this narrative has required the US to play both sides of the issue and has led to some mistakes, as was seen in President Biden’s letter to Serbia. Kosovo has evolved their narratives from a separatist movement before independence to a country that is fighting for sovereignty and an entrance to the world stage, while being bullied by Serbia and its ally, Russia. This narrative has played effectively and played into larger issues between the US and Russia.

In the narrative battle between Kosovo and Serbia, there is no clear victor. But, we can evaluate the effectiveness of some narratives and the failures of others that have been used. Kosovo has been more successful in the narrative battle because of their ability to adapt their narrative to target the strongest allies. If a country is to win the battle, they will have to make sacrifices that will go against what they have presented and what each country believes is in their best interest.

For an in-depth analysis by the author on the subject, 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.

Dueling Messages: anti-Turkish Narrative and Counter-narrative in the Libyan War

April 7, 2021May 4, 2021Disinformation, Europe18 Comments

By Richard Outzen, retired U.S. army officer

Experts have come to recognize that international competition in the Internet era includes a continuous struggle to define conflicts and outcomes through messaging on social and mass media. When actors define a situation by publishing messages – data, images, words for framing and narrative – they are competing to shape interpretations among target audiences. This battle of narratives, or contestation, is not primarily a search for truth or reporting of fact; it is the interplay of stylized stories that incorporate facts and interpretations to persuade for political purposes. Armies, diplomats, and corporations help states determine outcomes in international relations, but so, too, do narratives.

Developments in Libya during 2020 exemplify how narrative contestation can complement or eclipse other tools of statecraft during interstate conflicts. At the beginning of 2020 one side in Libya – Khalifa Hafter’s LNA, backed by France, the United Arab Emirates, and Russian mercenaries – sought to convince world leaders that only the fall of Tripoli could bring stability. The other side – The Government of National Accord (GNA), backed by Turkey and recognized by the United Nations – sought to defeat Hafter and to convince Libyans and world leaders that only a compromise settlement could end the war.

Turkish intervention in Spring 2020 led to Hafter’s defeat, a new ceasefire, and calls to resume negotiations. The LNA and its allies unleashed a blistering critique of Turkish actions, arguing that Turkey’s role was illegitimate and illegal, and the Turks should have no role in Libya’s future. The stakes were high: if major international players saw Turkey and the GNA as theproblem and Hafter as the solution, their military success would be irrelevant. What happened instead was military de-escalation, a UN-brokered agreement, elections, and a unity government.

Formation of the Narratives

France, supported by Egypt and the Gulf, attacked Ankara’s role in Libya as a “dangerous game,” a tragedy for which Turkey bore “historic and criminal responsibility,” and as a risky intervention likely to backfire. Egypt, Greece, and the Gulf monarchies (minus Qatar) issued a Cairo Declaration calling for Libyan unification on Hafter’s terms, with departure of Turkish and Turkish-supported forces. Turkish President Erdogan was portrayed as irresponsible, dangerous, and extremist.

Ankara’s counternarrative relied on three key factors: assertion of Turkey’s historical ties to Libya, UN-conferred legitimacy of the GNA, and portraying Hafter and his backers the real aggressors. Image 2 below shows an image popular in Turkey and Tripoli – Ataturk in Tripolitania during the 1912 war against Italy.

Turkey emphasized Turkish ties to Libya. Pictures of Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) assisting Libyan fighters against Italian forces in 1912 were used to reinforce the narrative.

Projection of the Narratives

The U.S. Department of Defense Africa Center’s study of messaging by both sides in the Libyan Civil War noted that foreign disinformation campaigns created a “fog of disinformation” around the fighting. The LNA relied on a Russian-supported disinformation campaign designed to obscure, confuse, and overwhelm Libyan digital spaces. Saudi and Emirati networks of fake Twitter accounts began lionizing Hafter in 2019. Egyptian firms and the Russian Wagner group employed digital experts familiar with Libya to sow disinformation resonant with local audiences.

GNA backers, notably Turkey and Qatar, relied on traditional state-backed television and media. Two factors made this effective. First, given mounting empirical evidence linking Hafter to mass killings and other abuses, the GNA/Turkey felt less need to manufacture outrage. Second, local Libyan influencers – individuals, academics, and militia affiliates – already provided rebuttal of the more outlandish pro-Hafter, anti-GNA/anti-Turkish messaging. Turkey also benefited from the impressive visuals associated with drone strikes against Hafter’s forces.

Bags containing bodies are pictured during the exhumation by members of the Government of National Accord’s (GNA’s) missing persons bureau, in what Libya’s internationally recognized government officials say is a mass grave, in Tarhouna city, Libya October 27, 2020. Picture taken October 27, 2020. REUTERS/Ayman Al-Sahili

Turkey and GNA published images of effective drone attacks on LNA forces to bolster the counter-narrative of professional, precise defensive operations.

Reception of the Narratives

Because key international players ignored the characterizations of Turkey as the real villain in Libya, the United States and Russia, Italy and the United Kingdom and Germany continued to treat Turkey as a partner in resolving the conflict, and dismissed the Cairo Declaration. By August, the “rogue Turkey” narrative had petered out. Washington-based think tanks panned the Cairo Declaration and attempts to bypass the UN, while other observers ridiculed Macron’s statements of execration against Turkey.

Miskimmon, Roselle and O’Loughlin provide a useful framework for analyzing narrative contestation. For a narrative to dominate in a contested information environment, it must outperform rival narratives in formation, projection, and reception. The chart below applies the framework to narrative contestation in Libya in 2020.

Aspect of Narrative Contestation	French Narrative	Turkish Counter-Narrative
Formation/Content	Turkey portrayed as aggressive, irresponsible, and extremist; no legitimate role in the future of Libya.	Turks focused on historical ties with Libya, on UN recognition of GNA government, and on LNA as actual aggressor/war crimes perpetrator.
Projection	Russian-supported disinformation campaign, supported by UAE/Egypt, plus public statements from Cairo/Paris.	Turkey/GNA relied on traditional state media plus local non-government influencers. Utilized string of impressive military victories, enabled by Turkish drones.\
Reception	Failed to persuade significant portion of GNA supporters in Libya or international actors outside.	Libyan and European social influencers (e.g. Wolfram Lacher, Emadeddin Bali) and European leaders maintained critical, but balanced approach toward Turkey and the GNA.

Verdict

The narrative to anathematize the GNA and Turkish intervention failed. A friend of Turkey became interim head of government, while Hafter was marginalized, while key international actors moved toward a compromise settlement that did not exclude Turkey. The key takeaway from Libya’s 2020 battle of narratives is that sometimes “less is more” – a torrent of disinformation and malediction won’t convince skeptical observers when your armies are losing territory and moral high ground at the same time.

For an in-depth analysis of Turkish narratives and recommendations for U.S. public diplomacy, 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.

Main photo: Macron, the Russian Wagner Group, and other Hafter patrons constructed a narrative based on the extremism of the GNA and Turkey.

The EU and Russia: Narratives Collide Over Belarus

April 5, 2021May 10, 2021Europe, Russia15 Comments

By Madelyn Berner, MA Global Communication, 2022

*Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meets with EU High Representative for Foreign Policy Josep Borrell. | EFE via EPA*

The European Union and Russia have long held competing narratives that prohibit the two sides from closer political cooperation. The EU is a supranational body of 27 member countries, founded on cooperation, solidarity, and protection against authoritarianism. This all contrasts sharply with Russia, which has maintained a more isolationist master narrative on the world stage. The glaring discrepancies in these two narratives make the international playing field increasingly difficult to maneuver.

Young and Old, Open and Closed

Russia’s master narrative has roots going back thousands of years, through a long and thorny history of vanquishment, collapse, and meddling from outside countries. Thanks to these struggles, Russia has developed into a more isolationist nation, or an “independent center of power on the world stage.”

In contrast, the master narratives driving the European Union are those of mediator, team player, and global policeman. By the end of World War II, the Soviet Union had already established itself on the world stage, but the EU was in its infancy, born out of this dark, divided period. Today, the bloc boasts a credo that emphasizes international cooperation and the stalwart defense of democratic values. Under the leadership of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the EU has established itself as a beacon of cooperation and inherent goodness. Its diplomats preach this identity around the world through its own system narratives. This is exemplified through its unwavering support for institutions like the United Nations and World Health Organization, as well as its commitment to delivering aid to struggling countries. From the bloodshed of the previous century to Donald Trump’s presidency, it is not surprising that the EU wants to be viewed as this generation’s global defender of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law – a supranational policeman protecting people from repression and violence.

Instability Opens a Narrative Vacuum

These narratives clash in Belarus, a fledgling nation previously under Soviet control and still feeling the weight of its shadow. Because of this, Belarus is still searching and formulating its own master narrative, leaving it vulnerable to outside influence. The EU enters wielding its narratives of rule of law and democratic values. Russia follows suit with its own narrative of protecting against outside influence.

*Embattled Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko speaks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. | AFP via Getty Image*

Last summer, Belarus became mired in protests following an election widely believed to have been rigged in favor of incumbent leader Alexander Lukashenko. This instability has created a glaring chasm in the Belarusian identity – a prime opportunity for Russia to present itself as the answer to the West’s crooked influence. Putin has said that he wants Belarus to reactivate stalled plans for more integration with Russia. He even offered to set up a police force to support Lukashenko. Belarus is a middle-man country for Russian oil flowing West, and Moscow views Belarus as a buffer against encroaching NATO power. To protect itself from what it thinks is a Western threat to Russian sovereignty, Moscow is attempting to manipulate this situation to its benefit.

On the other side of this moral divide, proclaiming its devotion to democracy and the rule of the law, stands the EU. The situation in Belarus is attractive to the EU’s master narrative as international mediator and its system narratives of international cooperation. It is the largest donor of financial assistance to Belarus, and its success is important to stifling Russian influence in Eastern Europe. The EU has condemned the elections as unfree and unfair. EU leaders have been vocal in their opposition to Lukashenko, releasing statements, implementing sanctions, and supporting opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya. Unlike Putin, the EU has not promised any military intervention, hoping its diplomatic, mediating role will quell the need for further violence. Reducing political chaos in Belarus is also essential to maintaining a workable rapport with Russia, as several EU countries still depend on it economically – another system narrative.

The Battle Rages On

An unstable political situation in one country can help launch a proxy war between larger powers attempting to install their master narratives as the superior one. The narrative battle between the EU and Russia has serious implications for international affairs. The EU has been working to establish itself as a potent superpower intent on defending human rights and the rule of law for all. As it integrates more countries into its democratic web, this massive supranational bloc inches closer to Russia’s borders. In response, Russia remains apprehensive over how the West’s encroaching influence could stymie its own journey toward global primacy. After all, repeating history is not an option. Belarus shows us what happens when these two contrasting identities meet. Which narrative will prevail? The answer could influence other Eastern European nations to stand against Russia – or drive the rise of Soviet Union 2.0.

For an in-depth analysis by the author on the subject 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.

Main photo: A demonstrator waves the historical white-red-white flag of Belarus during a demonstration in Minsk, Belarus. | Reuters

From “Regional Bully” to “Benign Hegemon”

April 5, 2021May 6, 2021Asia, India18 Comments

By Saiansha Panangipalli, MA Global Communication, 2021

Projecting India as an Alternative to China

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, an association of the U.S., India, Australia and Japan, is committed to a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” Given that China concerns itself with geography and economic growth, its next-door neighbor and aspiring regional superpower, India can potentially be projected as an alternative to China. However, India has some way to go before its economic standing can match that of China. Further, to be a true alternative to China, India needs to position itself as less of a “regional bully” and more of a “benign hegemon” and reembrace the democratic values of freedom of expression and religion that it has traditionally stood for.

The U.S.-based Freedom House downgraded India’s status from “Free” to “Partly Free” in its annual report. Further, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended Congress to mark India as a “Country of Particular Concern.” To project India as an alternative to China, the U.S. can tap into Indian master narratives and engage with Indian publics to renew India’s commitment to freedom of expression and religious harmony.

Indian Master Narratives

India has three key narratives that shape Indian public opinion: Mahatma Gandhi, the Partition of India in 1947, and the Hindutva ideology.

Mahatma Gandhi’s approach of non-violent civil disobedience in opposing British rule is a staple of Indian textbooks. It is difficult to talk about inter-religious harmony, unity among diversity, abolition of caste-system – narratives that form the master narrative about the modern history of India – without talking about Gandhi’s role in advocating for these tenets.

The Partition of India in 1947 is one of the bloodiest and most traumatic events in Indian history. Once the British decided to grant British India independence, it advocated the “Two Nations” theory: one nation for the Hindus and one for the Muslims. This proposition led to rising anti-Hindu and anti-Muslim sentiments, changing borders and steadily increasing cross-border movements, in turn resulting in the displacement and deaths of millions. The trauma and resentment from this event continues to spur and cause Hindu-Muslim communal tensions today.

Finally, Hindutva – or “Hinduness” – is the dominant form of Hindu nationalism. One of the most significant ways the Hindutva ideology has impacted contemporary politics is by supporting the building of Hindu monuments and reclaiming important sites. The Hindutva ideology entered into the mainstream with the landslide electoral success of the current Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. Any critique against Hindu/Hindutva rhetoric is labeled by its proponents as “sickular” (secular), unpatriotic and anti-nationalist. Individuals who question Mr. Modi may even be called traitors and be arrested for sedition.

It is these master narratives – causing the Hindu-Muslim communal tensions and repression of freedom of expression – that the U.S. must counter to project India as a “benign” alternative to China.

Freedom of Expression – Redefining What Is “Anti-Indian”

In 2020, India ranked #140 in the World Press Freedom Index because of the growing repression of journalists and media critiquing Mr. Modi. These journalists and their critiques are labeled as “anti-national.” The U.S. can disrupt the analogy by arguing that dissent or critique of Mr. Modi is not “anti-national” or unpatriotic. Rather, it is the suppression of dissent or critique that is anti-Indian, since colonizers used the same tool to suppress demands for independence and self-determination that are intrinsic to India’s identity.

Further, the U.S. can emphasize that freedom of expression and independence of the media make both the U.S. and India vibrant democracies that celebrate “unity in diversity.” Suppression of freedom of expression and media, however, weakens India’s democracy, eroding the unity in diversity that Mahatma Gandhi advocated.

Lastly, the U.S. can specify that it is possible to challenge critiques of Mr. Modi through the ideals that Mahatma Gandhi advocated – civil discourse and non-violence – rather than through the tool of the colonizers: repression and silencing.

Hindu vs Muslim – Decompressing History and Redefining the “Us” vs “Them”

The U.S. can ease communal tensions by “decompressing” Hindu nationalist narratives by outlining history beyond the traumatic Partition of India. It can argue that India’s history stretches beyond the two-centuries-long struggle for independence and colonial rule, and includes nearly two centuries of Mughal rule that made India one of the most prosperous lands of that time. The “us” vs “them” is not about Hindus vs Muslims – rather, it is about anyone who would challenge the unity in India’s diversity.

The colonizers propagated the “Two Nations” theory that led to the Partition of India. They introduced separate electorates for Muslims and Hindus, which Mahatma Gandhi opposed as he believed it would lead to inter-religious disharmony. The fear of being seen as succumbing to British rule caused Indian madrasas to reject introduction of rationalist subjects in their curricula – dividing Hindu-Muslim communities on the basis of education. Lastly, the colonizers used the “divide and rule” policy to prevent Hindus and Muslims from joining forces against the British.

Thus, the U.S. can emphasize that neither Hindus nor Muslims are the out-group. Rather, it was the British in the past and anyone who impedes Hindu-Muslim unity today that is the out-group and the “anti-Indian.” Hindu-Muslim brotherhood existed before colonialism and was only challenged by outside forces who did not have India’s best interests at heart. Hindu-Muslim brotherhood – referenced in a popular Hindi couplet – is what makes India such a vibrant democracy.

Deploying Counter-Narratives

The U.S. can deploy these narrative contestations by engaging with civil society – NGO’s, think tanks, women’s rights organizations, LGBT groups, legal experts and academicians – by organizing speaker series, educational exchanges and policy collaborations with the aim to persuade the Indian judiciary to take a stronger and more independent role in protecting the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and independence of media.

The counter-narratives may not sway Hindu or Muslim extremists, but can be dispersed to educate and sensitize students and populations at risk of radicalization. The U.S. can again engage the civil society through lectures and exchanges to facilitate inter-religious partnerships in developing and disseminating textbooks, modernizing education in madrasas, and preventing radicalization as a tool to answer and solve systemic and practical problems.

For an in-depth analysis by the author on the subject, 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.

U.S. Pro-Democracy Narratives on Bolivian Coup are Heavily Contested Due to Their Anti-Democratic Results

April 2, 2021April 5, 2021Disinformation, Global Communication, Latin America13 Comments

By Ben Gutman, MA Global Communication ’22

Throughout the Cold War, U.S. presidential administrations and other federal departments weaponized the idea of anti-communism to dominate media frames and discourage dissent. U.S. government officials have successfully employed a “spread of democracy” frame to justify proxy wars, covert intervention, and regime change against leftist Latin American governments with developing democratic processes. This frame has facilitated the projection of the U.S. master narratives of American exceptionalism and free-market capitalist individualism onto other sovereign nations.

One useful way of understanding narrative contests is Entman’s Cascading Activation Model, which describes how government frames are pushed down to other elites, news organizations, and the public. Entman uses the real-world cascading waterfall metaphor to highlight the hierarchical stratification of the cascade, which makes it easier to spread frames down the cascade rather than up.

Following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and an increase in U.S. interventionism in the Middle East, the U.S. paid less attention to Latin America. This allowed many Latin American countries like Bolivia to develop their democratic political systems. The strengthening of Bolivian representative democracy was highlighted by President Evo Morales’ creation of the Plurinational state in 2009, which guaranteed political representation to all indigenous Bolivians. A relatively healthy democratic process in a socialist state with control of valuable natural resources like Bolivia, presented multiple narrative contestation problems throughout the U.S. government’s quest for regime change, despite access to elite institutions used to spread its frame of choice: election fraud.

Narrative used to justify U.S-backed coup in Bolivia met with undeniable contestation

First, the U.S. state narrative found pervasive contestation through informational content produced by academics, progressive journalists, and non-profit organizations within the Western and Bolivian media ecology. On Oct 20, 2019, the U.S. proxy Organization of American States (OAS) issued a report alleging “intentional manipulations” and “serious irregularities” in the Bolivian presidential election of Evo Morales.

Screenshot of the misinformation that fueled the 2019 coup

These claims were immediately debunked and repeatedly proven to be a false narrative designed to endorse an anti-democratic seizure of power. The election fraud narrative was in congruence with mainstream media motivation and uncritically re-published by the New York Times. On Nov 10, 2019, Jeanine Áñez’ white supremacist, Christian neo-fascist dictatorship took power in a military junta.

Second, despite U.S. domination over Western media infrastructure, viral social media content of violent government oppression contested the pro-democracy U.S. narrative. Throughout eleven months of economic mismanagement, extreme corruption, and brutal repression against indigenous protesters resulting in dozens of extrajudicial murders, the U.S. state narrative grew less and less compelling. However, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continued to voice strong support for the military coup and the “return of democracy”, the OAS continued to deny its involvement, and Western mainstream media continued to whitewash the Áñez regime’s crimes.

While the messaging campaign was successful in its short-term regime change goals, it was unsuccessful in its impact on Bolivian public opinion and international solidarity with the Bolivian people. Mass public uprisings and grassroots worker movements forced new elections and on Oct 18, 2020 another socialist, Luis Arce, was elected.

Continued pro-coup regime narrative hampers Bolivian drive towards justice

Despite frame contestation from influential voices in the Western media ecology and emotional-triggering online content displaying the coup regime’s savagery, the vast majority of mainstream publications continued to reinforce a damaged and hypocritical pro-democracy U.S. narrative. On March 13, 2021, Bolivian authorities arrested Áñez and charged the coup leader with terrorism and sedition, the same charges previously levied by Áñez against former president Morales. Two days later, the OAS released a statement expressing concern “about the abuse of judicial mechanisms” as a “repressive instrument of the ruling party”.

This narrative of “rule-breaking” and “revenge”, revolving around the Áñez arrest, functioned as another anti-democratic assault against an elected socialist government and its ability to exercise sovereign control over its rule of law. On March 18 the Washington Post Editorial Board wrote that “Mr. Arce appears to have reverted to a more one-sided and vengeful leadership style characteristic of Mr. Morales” and referred to Áñez as the “conservative then-interim president”.

A March 15 CNN analysis mentions the invalidation of the 2019 election results, but fails to include any reference to the invalidation of the report used to invalidate the election results. The article continues with a section titled “vague charges” that characterizes the charges against Áñez as “broad” with “proof scant”. However, an Áñez decree that gave immunity to all deployed military personnel culminated in the massacre of more than thirty protesters, in addition to a plethora of other human rights abuses.

The blatant dishonesty and bad faith framing from mainstream media sources on Bolivia is rooted in the U.S. government and OAS’s persistent use of the same pro-democracy narratives that yield anti-democratic results. The OAS has never admitted to its role in the 2019 coup, has never apologized to the Bolivian people, and has even continued to spread misinformation on the Bolivian political process. Unfortunately, Biden’s State Department under Secretary of State Antony Blinken has continued to weaponize the U.S. master narratives of “democracy” and “human rights” to persecute a perceived hostile government for its role in attempting to deliver justice for the victims of the coup’s violent crackdown.

Recommendation

The Biden administration’s State Department should stop reinforcing a heavily contested framing of the Áñez arrest as a human rights and due process issue. This frame has cascaded to mainstream media, which continued an unconvincing pro-coup regime narrative. This narrative violates the Arce government’s sovereign democratic right to prosecute Áñez in accordance with Bolivian law and helps deny Áñez’ victims justice, but also adds to an increasing resentment from Latin Americans towards “pro-democracy” US interventionism.

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.

Building Enduring Networks: The ECA

April 1, 2021April 2, 2021Cultural Diplomacy, PDx, public diplomacy

By Brian O’Rourke

Established in 1961, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs works to establish cultural exchanges between the United States and other countries around the world. Through academic, professional, athletic, and artistic exchanges, the ECA allows people from around the world to experience life in the United States and Americans to experience life in a variety of other countries. Through these exchanges the ECA fosters deep, meaningful relations between countries and is able to advance diplomacy through genuine connection between cultures.

In this PDx interview, GW third-year student Brian O’Rourke talks to Acting Assistant Secretary Lussenhop about the importance of cultural exchange programs in US diplomacy at large and the role of public diplomacy in strengthening relationships between countries.

Matthew Lussenhop serves as the Acting Assistant Secretary of the ECA. He has served as a Foreign Service Officer since 1990. His career in Public Diplomacy has extended from serving as Public Affairs Counselor in the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan to the Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy to Belgium. And he has held positions in various US embassies including Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Kuwait; Muscat, Oman; Rabat, Morocco; Sofia, Bulgaria; and Manila, Philippines.

Lussenhop also discusses the importance of cultural exchange programs in US diplomacy at large and the role of public diplomacy in strengthening relationships between countries. He explains how the ECA’s cultural exchange programs have been impacted by COVID 19 and his own experience as a Foreign Service Officer.

Enjoy the PDx episode: Building enduring networks: The ECA

Brian O’Rourke is a student in the SMPA 3350 Public Diplomacy class taught by Public Diplomacy Fellow Emilia A. Puma. He is an undergraduate student in International Affairs and Political Communication, Class of 2022.

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

Re-Constructing Democratic Narratives to Foster Pro-Israel Support in the U.S.

April 1, 2021May 10, 2021Global Communication, public diplomacy18 Comments

By Nikki Hinshaw, M.A. Global Communication, ’22

Narrative Challenge: Anti-Israel Sentiment [1] in the United States

Growing anti-Israel sentiment has appeared globally, including in the United States, over the past few years. While the roots of such sentiment span as far back as the beginning of the Jewish state and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, more recent controversial domestic policy decisions in Israel such as settlement operations in the West Bank have further exacerbated the issue.

This escalation of anti-Israel sentiment in the U.S. can be found in political platforms and leaders that advocate for anti-Israel boycotts and sanctions, but also through the changing opinions of everyday Americans.

Pew polling[2] detailed in the graphs on the right reveals the extent to which American publics demonstrate diminishing support for Israel. While Republicans have steadily grown their support following 9/11, Democrats—and especially the more liberal segments of the party—have consistently reported lower rates of sympathy and support.

Also of note is that more than 50 percent of American Jews—who serve as significant targets for Israeli public diplomacy efforts—identify with more liberal segments of U.S. politics. Furthermore, the more progressive side of U.S. Democratic politics comprises nearly 50 percent of the party, with a large portion of that camp being young, white college students. This data showcases the segments of American society with which Israel’s existing narrative framework is ineffective. It is within these same segments of society where domestic U.S. narratives are waning as well.

Narrative Contestation in the U.S. and Israel

The U.S. and Israel are connected not only through shared geopolitical concerns in the Middle East region, but also through shared identity—or master—narratives, which connect citizens of a nation under a set of deep-rooted values and characteristics that have been consistently reiterated over time. Both the Israel and the U.S. view themselves as narrative heroes who overcame exceptional obstacles, persecution and occupation only to create flourishing, liberal democracies that serve as international beacons of democratic values and human rights. These narratives have been crafted through historical examples such as the U.S.’s triumph over British rule in the American Revolution, or the creation of the Jewish state following devastating persecution of the Jewish people through the Holocaust.

However, in the modern day, these narratives have become less salient. In order for narratives to be widely accepted, they must be convincing, appealing, and genuine. When narratives fail to encompass these aspects, they can be contested. At the root of Israeli and U.S. identity narrative contestation is epistemological contestation, meaning that the way in which the world has come to understand the situations underlying their narratives is incongruent with the narratives they provide.

For example, within the U.S., the narrative of American exceptionalism drives a vision of the nation as a global leader that holds unique, aspirational, and liberal values. However, the recent Capitol riots, coupled with a summer of protests for civil rights, were seen as evidence of the failure of American democracy by domestic and foreign audiences alike.

As demonstrated through the aforementioned polling on American support for Israel, the view of Israel as a liberal, democratic leader has also diminished, especially through its treatment of the Palestinians and global image as an occupying power. The declining support for Israeli and U.S. master narratives indicate a need for new or altered narratives in both nations; a shared need that could prove useful in Israel’s mission to combat anti-Israel sentiment.

Re-Constructing Democratic Narratives

To garner support across the United States, Israel can capitalize upon recent U.S. reckonings with democratic freedoms and civil rights and lean into shared narratives of the complicated and ongoing process of managing a diverse, democratic state.

As the United States is experiencing similar challenges with leading as an idealistic, Democratic state globally while great injustice occurs at home, Israel should work alongside the U.S. in redefining their democratic identity narratives to reflect the idea of the “great democratic experiment.” This entails the two nations reaffirming their commitments to such values while acknowledging the constant evolution a democratic state must undergo to best uphold those associated values, which is a timely challenge in both countries. In making this change, they will project a narrative that has stronger epistemological congruency than existing identity narratives – such as American exceptionalism – that outright reject any valid criticism of evident anti-Democratic political and social challenges.

Educational Exchange as Narrative Re-Construction

Israel engaging in this narrative re-construction alongside the U.S. serves to illuminate any hypocrisies American publics project when criticizing Israeli actions, as it prompts reflection on the social and political challenges the U.S. experiences itself, especially considering its legacy of racism and slavery. In order to advance this re-construction, I propose further investment into educational exchange programs between Israeli and American youth focused on topics such as democracy, human rights, protest, and more. Such programs can both target the segment of the U.S. population who espouse strong anti-Israel sentiment; young, liberal, college-aged students, and also connect young activists in both nations who are not ignorant to the challenges their nations face, but who are committed to helping their nations reach aspirational democratic goals.

Encouraging open, honest conversation about Israel, what it means to live in a democracy, and the challenges and benefits to such a system will introduce the U.S. and the rest of the world to a new narrative of Israel that is consistent with the complex conditions of its role in the international system today.

For a detailed analysis by the author on the subject, Click Here.

[1] Anti-Israel sentiment is defined in accordance with the Anti-Defamation League, referring to both legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Israel, the Israeli government, and its policies: https://www.adl.org/resources/tools-and-strategies/what-is-anti-israel-anti-semitic-anti-zionist

[2] Pew Research Center bears no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations of the data presented here. The opinions expressed herein, including any implications for policy, are those of the author and not of Pew Research Center.

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.

Students: a notice about grants for summers internships and the PD Student Award

March 25, 2021May 3, 2021Education, Global Communication, IPDGC, public diplomacy

https://blogs.gwu.edu/ipdgc/2021/03/25/walter-roberts-endowment-announces-grants-for-summer-internships-and-the-public-diplomacy-student-award/