Europe – IPDGC Smart Power

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.

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.

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