Facebook has come under fire by Washington lawmakers and the American public in recent months for their apparent involvement in the 2016 election. It has been discovered that Russian disinformation operations paid for targeted Facebook ads that promoted Donald Trump and sowed divisions in the electorate by touching on cultural wedge issues.
Facebook’s leadership failed to identify and curve these propaganda operations on their site, raising questions about the company’s ability to independently maintain a truthful and fair media platform for Americans to get information.
While this problem seems uniquely American, we need to point out that Facebook is a global website. Nations across the world have experienced Russian disinformation campaigns through Facebook over the past two years. It has been discovered that the Brexit campaign in the UK was plagued by Russian social media influence, as well as the French presidential campaign.
While it’s majorly important that Russian intelligence is interfering in the elections of Western democracies, there are places in the world where groups utilize Facebook for much more dangerous outcomes. In Myanmar, the militant government in power is engaging in ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims. This brutal violence against the Rohingya has been fueled, in part, by misinformation and anti-Rohingya propaganda spread on Facebook.
In countries like Myanmar, social and governmental instability means that traditional news outlets like newspapers and cable TV have much less sway with the public, something both Patricia Kabra and Louisa Williams spoke to when visiting our class. Without these forms of media, the public forum moves to open social media platforms like Facebook. Facebook has become the primary news source for most citizens of Myanmar.
This sets up a huge problem: Facebook creates a massive, open public sphere and leaves everyone else to deal with the consequences. As the New York Times put it: “Correcting misinformation is a thorny philosophical problem for Facebook, which imagines itself as a neutral platform that avoids making editorial decisions.” Unfortunately, like we saw with fake news in the US presidential election, people seem to have a willingness to accept what they see on Facebook as true. This means the government of Myanmar has been extremely successful in alienating the Rohingya through misinformation campaigns.
For PD practitioners, this represents an information crisis. On one hand, Facebook is an essential tool in the modern age to reaching broad audiences that you would normally not reach with traditional media. On the other hand, Facebook is an untrimmed landscape ripe for misinformation and deceit by those who want to manipulate public opinion.
Battling social media disinformation will likely become a common practice of public diplomats around the globe. US envoys who want to maintain the US’s image abroad will most likely have to deal with Russian backed anti-American propaganda campaigns. Additionally PD practitioners will have to learn how to deal with the social and political upheaval that comes when disinformation campaigns are successful in their host countries.
Resource: Facebook as a Tool of Global Propaganda
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/29/business/facebook-misinformation-
abroad.html?_r=0&referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author(s). They do not necessarily express the views of either The Institute of Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or The George Washington University.
Imagine being a 25-year-old adult who has moved out of your parents’ house and is successfully living on your own only to find out that your parents are spying on you and reading your text messages. It’s pretty egregious and a violation of trust. That is exactly how Germany feels toward the United States.
The pinnacle of relationships in the international community built from decades of diplomatic partnerships, economic growth, and most importantly, trust, is now chipped away because of American surveillance scandals.
Trust began to fade precipitously around the time of the Edward Snowden leaks, and the policies and political behavior of the Trump administration further aggravate the U.S.-German relationship. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the German public and leadership to trust American messages, which can make it difficult for U.S. public diplomacy officials to succeed in their work.
The State of Things
There are two stark perceptions of the U.S.-German relationship among both national publics. A Pew study conducted just this past February shows that while 68% of Americans view the relationship between the United States and Germany as good, 56% of Germans view the U.S.-German relationship as bad. And to make matters worse, Germans now trust the United States as much as they trust Russia (which is a stunning low of 21%). Over the past few years, German public opinion of America is dwindling, threatening the stability of diplomacy in the international community. As grave as that is, not all hope is lost. A significant portion of Germans still believe that the U.S. is an important partner in foreign affairs. But if the Germans don’t trust us, how can we succeed in bolstering a relationship that is faltering?
Growing Up, Germany
In Germany’s “coming of age” story, the United States played a big role in developing this now European powerhouse. Germans widely trusted the United States and creating a quasi-parental narrative, as America offered guidance to help rise from the ashes of a nation divided. As the country grew to once again become a prominent force in European politics, Germany also became one of the United States’ closest and strongest allies in Europe.
Though relations between the U.S. and Germany started back in 1790, the modern U.S.-German relationship began with the implementation of the Marshall Plan providing economic aid to Western Germany, but not the East. That parental aspect comes really kicks into gear during the Cold War, where the U.S. acted as the protector from the Soviet Union and developed West Germany into a budding democracy. The U.S. seems to always have had Germany’s best interest at heart as evidenced by the Berlin Airlift. Here, Western allies airlifted supplied to West Germany in response to the Soviet blockade of Berlin, keeping Berliners equipped with daily necessities such as food and fuel until the Soviet Union lifted the blockade in spring 1949.
While the U.S. had a helping hand of grooming Germany to take the lead in European politics and be a democracy on its own, today the U.S. seems to be overstepping their stake in the relationship. Due to recent surveillance efforts by the United States, that alliance might not be as strong and close as we would like. Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Agency employee, leaked information showing that Germans had been a target of American surveillance programs, spurring outrage and distrust among the German people.
The Parental Image, Quashed
Unsurprisingly, Germans were angry that one of their closest allies was spying on them. Matters only worsened when it was revealed that the Obama administration listened in on Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone calls. This struck a chord with the Germans as they viewed the U.S. favorably and in the parental role, but now—this was a breach of moral authority – the parent now ceased to be the guiding hand and is now the overbearing dad overstepping boundaries.
More so now in the Trump era, German trust in the United States is on a steady decline, coming to an all-time low. President Trump’s “America First” and nationalist policies threaten the international balance in the global economy, which would directly affect German economic stability. In his first year in office, he has demonstrated unpredictability and his lack of experience in political affairs worries the German public. The actions from Washington in conjunction with the surveillance efforts now leaves the role of the trustworthy parent in shambles and now means nothing to the Germans.
The United States is now attempting to transform the parental narrative to be more of a partnership rather than something hierarchical. An example of this is the Young Transatlantic Innovation Leaders Initiative, a State Department and German Marshall Fund effort to develop and cultivate relationships among emerging European and American leaders. Even though this initiative includes young leaders from many European countries, for Germany, this conjoined effort is meant to evoke the spirit of the Marshall Plan and strengthen transatlantic cooperation.
And with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s planned visit to the White House this week, it seems like an ideal opportunity for the United States to further articulate a long-standing alliance and interest in Germany’s well-being. Even still, the balloon of trust between these two nations has a small puncture hole and is deflating – merely putting tape over it won’t gain that trust back.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not necessarily express the views of either The Institute of Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or The George Washington University.
Metaphor is a central part of how national narratives are constructed. If, as cognitive linguist George Lakoff suggests, we view the United States (US) as a family and the world as a community, then public diplomacy professionals are like family counselors and town criers rolled into one. US public diplomacy (PD) professionals are dedicated to the important task of informing and influencing foreign publics about American values, culture, and policy goals and objectives. In our current moment, however, this task is at perhaps its most challenging.
Wikimedia Commons | President Donald Trump evokes the Nation as a Family metaphor common to American political rhetoric.
In recent years, diplomats have seen, among other startling developments, a proliferation of media sources and communication tools, the rise of anti-globalist movements, and the election of Donald Trump. How can these professionals continue to strengthen “the relationship between the people and Government of the US and citizens of the rest of the world” under a globally unpopular president who defies norms, shirks protocol, and governs through tweets?
Using Lakoff’s body of work on metaphor as a guide, PD professionals can find a way to positively convey the US and President Trump himself to the global community. Metaphors work by framing abstract or complex ideas in terms of concrete and relatable concepts. They are understood by the individual experience or quality they evoke. For example, while international relations (IR) realists might view the world as a chess game, IR liberals view it as a marketplace.
The current Administration poses a challenge for diplomats in its external unpredictability and internal inconsistencies. However, Lakoff’s metaphor model and analysis reveal that core to President Trump’s messaging and policymaking is the American Conservative concept of the Nation as a family led by a strict parent. The following is a list of metaphors that stem from the Conservative strict parent concept.
1. Moral Strength: The strict parent must teach morality to their dependents. The concept of moral strength centers on self-discipline and dominance over “evil.”
What Trump says: In an April 2018 speech on Syrian military strikes, President Trump said, “The evil and the despicable attack left mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air.” Within the moral strength metaphor, President Trump is taking action against evil and demonstrating self-discipline.
What you can say: “The US is dedicated to promoting a world in which all citizens feel protected and secure.”
2. Moral Authority: The strict parent must project the values it teaches dependents: morality, self-discipline, and strength.
What Trump says: At the 2016 Republican National convention, then-candidate Trump said, “I will work with, and appoint, the best prosecutors and law enforcement officials in the country to get the job done. In this race for the White House, I am the Law And Order candidate.” By framing himself as the law and order candidate, Trump claims his moral authority as a leader.
What you can say: “President Trump serves his role as Chief Executive by working to ensure the safety of US citizens.”
3. Moral Self-Interest: The strict parent family emphasizes personal responsibility and interest in one’s own well-being. Within this framework, if everyone seeks their own well-being, well-being will be maximized for all.
What Trump says: During a 2016 campaign rally in Arizona, then-candidate Trump argued, “Let me tell you who [the US immigration system] doesn’t serve: it doesn’t serve you, the American people. When politicians talk about immigration reform, they usually mean the following: amnesty, open borders, and lower wages. Immigration reform should mean something else entirely: it should mean improvements to our laws and policies to make life better for American citizens.”
What you can say: “The Trump Administration emphasizes personal responsibility and economic opportunity for all US citizens.”
4. Moral Order: The strict parent teaches respect for authority figures and hierarchy. Failure to obey this teaching results in immorality. In US Conservatism, this hierarchy typically follows the traditions of Western Christianity.
What Trump says: In the 2018 State of the Union Address, President Trump evoked the nation as a family metaphor directly when illustrating his concept or moral order, “In America, we know that faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, are the center of the American life. Our motto is “in God we trust.” And we celebrate our police, our military, and our amazing veterans as heroes who deserve our total and unwavering support.”
What you can say: “The US is home to a diverse group of individuals all committed to higher values and objectives, including justice and freedom.”
5. Moral Health: The strict parent may compare immorality to a contagious disease. To avoid raising immoral children, strict parents closely monitor the types of people and information their children are exposed to.
What Trump says: While attending a 2018 law enforcement roundtable, President Trump discussed “removing” members of the MS-13 gang from the US, making comments such as, “MS-13 recruits through our broken immigration system, violating our borders. And it just comes right through — whenever they want to come through, they come through.” This presents the gang as an invasive disease, poised to overtake American “health.”
What you can say: “The Trump Administration is committed to maintaining the ideals that form the foundation of US democracy, including the concept of ‘domestic tranquility’ outlined in our constitution.”
Although President Trump often rocks the diplomatic boat with inconsistencies and improvisation, he mostly adheres to the metaphors that have long governed American Conservatism. Diplomats should focus on the metaphorical thread that connects President Trump’s messaging rather than the unconventional way in which he might project it. Doing so will make explaining Trump’s behavior and comments much simpler for diplomats working in a variety of cultures and contexts.
Caveat: The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not necessarily express the views of either The Institute of Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or The George Washington University.
Why are so many Muslim women in Europe susceptible to ISIS propaganda? Many of them join ISIS to commit jihad, or violence in the name of the “sustained struggle” to advance Islamic extremism. In 2014, about 18 percent of all European ISIS members were female. As of August 2017, experts believe the total number of women is more than 550. But are women brainwashed by the Islamic State or choosing jihad of their own free will?
Many Muslim women in Europe are enticed by ISIS’s recruitment videos and social media presence. ISIS portrays the Caliphate as a utopian land where ISIS’s very narrow view of Islam is strictly enforced. ISIS uses Hollywood-level video production and a social media strategy which rivals any Silicon Valley startup. On social media, women members of ISIS promise their women viewers a fulfilling life married to a devout Muslim man in the Caliphate. These women leave discrimination and alienation in Europe to support jihadis in Syria—or to take jihad into their own hands.
But why are ISIS recruitment efforts so effective? Answering this question requires an overview of how Muslim women are excluded from European society. For example, many French people do not consider a Muslim immigrant living in France to be “French, ” regardless of citizenship. A “French” identity includes Western clothing, language fluency, and a desire to assimilate. The French government and mainstream media view national identity narrowly—“traditional” so as not to make white French citizens uncomfortable.
Immigrant Muslim women are marginalized and their religion, way of dressing, and race are always at the forefront of their minds. They are forced to define their “Muslim” identity as incompatible with their “French” identity. Many choose to perceive themselves as “Muslim” rather than “French” in a nation that shows them time and time again that they do not belong. Taub calls this phenomenon “identity choice.”
ISIS uses these cleavages created by the French government to target French Muslim women who want to wear religious coverings and marry a devout Muslim man without being cast as a social pariah. Recruiters appeal to women fascinated by extremism and enamored with escaping France to join the Caliphate. By creating media channels apart from the French mainstream, ISIS can control the slant and message of their posted content to target and lure.
The divergence of media outlets can explain why recruitment videos spread like wildfire.
The fork in the road: ISIS creates a sophisticated rival of mainstream media, which garners attention from the women who embrace this romanticized extremism
However, ISIS’s savvy productions only explain part of the phenomenon.
ISIS’s chosen messenger? Other women.
British women recruiters are master strategists at romanticizing life under ISIS: they catch more flies with honey than they do with vinegar. ISIS women reach out to other women by creating News Frames of the propaganda. Through a process called framing, they shape and interpret the content of ISIS videos and social media posts to win the upper hand in reaching French Muslim women—their target audience.
The most powerful way to frame ISIS propaganda is to create a utopian image of the Caliphate that is consistent with what many Muslim women have already determined to be their ideal society.
Women recruiters can frame ISIS propaganda to convince a woman that joining is in her own best interest. Here’s three ways how:
They display their elite status in the Caliphate as wives and mothers and invite other women to emulate them.
They provide detailed instructions on how to use weapons, travel to Syria, and even commit jihad.
They distort the concept of women’s “empowerment” to mean challenging western gender norms and joining all-women brigades.
By glorifying this active role for women, recruits develop an affinity for a Caliphate ready to welcome them with open arms.
Despite its recent territory losses, ISIS still manages to release a few recruitment videos. Nations committed to countering violent extremism cannot fight fire with fire: instead of sensationalizing the videos and perpetrators to the public, European officials and mainstream media outlets must disseminate content that exposes these recruitment tactics that put women at risk.
In addition, French society must broaden their definition of “European” to include Muslim immigrants. In order for this shift in public opinion to occur, European mainstream media needs a new approach: discussing Muslim women as French citizens or residents, not permanent outsiders. Media accomplish this goal by at the News Frames stage of the model above.
Elected officials in Europe must rise to their higher calling as public servants and unite citizens of all religions and national origins under a new “European” identity. Factionalism may be good for getting votes, but this tactic has succeeded at the expense of Muslim women’s livelihoods. This is the most difficult and far-reaching change to implement, as the model suggests.
If France better integrates its immigrant communities, French Muslim women can emerge from the margins of society. ISIS’s power to prey upon these women diminishes when women can practice their religion, wear garments of their choosing, and access education and employment opportunities.
ISIS’s glossy social media images will lose their luster for the many women they once seduced. The news frames won’t be as effective for Muslim women immigrants once Europe stops treating them as “the other.”
Caveat: The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not necessarily express the views of either The Institute of Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or The George Washington University.
Chinese students attend an Education Fair at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing to learn more about study abroad programs in the U.S.
U.S. public diplomacy efforts are about attraction, rather than coercion. A major variable in measuring “attractiveness” of the U.S. is through attitudes of potential foreign exchange students. The ability of the U.S. to attract bright minds from around the world has bolstered the country’s development since its inception and fuels the U.S. “melting pot” narrative. China is now the primary source of these foreign exchange students. The recent release of Institute for International Education’s 2016 Report revealed that numbering almost 330,000, Chinese international students comprise 31.5 percent of the total number of international students in the U.S. Sheer volume holds weight, but from a public diplomacy perspective, the numbers are less important than the attitudes behind them. Why do Chinese students choose to study abroad in the U.S.? Will this trend last? Research I conducted in 2015 concludes that unless the U.S. sees major education and public diplomacy policy shifts, we have reason to doubt it will.
In 2015, I completed an in-depth study of the evolution of Chinese students’ motivations to study abroad in the U.S. Its findings highlighted a need for the U.S. to foster policies that attract foreign talent as the web of international politics becomes increasingly multipolar. These conclusions ring true today.
The rapid influx of Chinese exchange students, who make up the majority of foreign students in the U.S., will play an unprecedented role in Sino-U.S. relations, as well as in the U.S. economy as potential future skilled immigrants. Through historical contextualization, observations at U.S. Consulate Guangzhou, as well as primary interviews of study abroad participants from the 80s, 90s, and today, my research concluded:
In comparison with students from the 1980s, 1990s, and even early 2000s, today’s Chinese students have a greater freedom of choice and the economic means to take advantage of that freedom of choice. To date, that choice has overwhelmingly been to study abroad in the U.S., but both quantitative and qualitative data suggest that trend is waning as students begin to consider other countries in place of or in addition to the U.S. as study abroad destinations.
Though modern-day students make the decision to study abroad out of desire for a better education and personal development, practical factors dictate which study abroad location and program students choose. Factors that may affect a student’s decision include the cost of a program and a country’s immigration policies, which may become even more important in the future as developed countries reach equilibrium in terms of education quality.
The student exchange trends described above call for the U.S. to adjust its education policies to continue attracting foreign talent, a factor that is crucial to the economy’s continuing success. Giving international student policies a more important role is not a betrayal to the “America First” rhetoric on the rise. In a recent interview, Thomas Friedman described his new book as a “manifesto for the eye people”. The “eye people” are those who thrive in the middle of the hubbub of globalization and interconnectedness and draw power from it. The “wall people” are those who withdraw into extreme nationalism. To thrive, the U.S. needs to maintain its status as a hub of global leadership. America’s largest group of international students is beginning to perceive the eye-to-wall shift. When will we?
From his decision to host Chinese president Xi Jinping at his home in Mar-a-Lago Florida to his apparent refusal to shake Angela Merkel’s hand during her recent visit to the White House, President Trump has been forging his own path when it comes to US foreign relations, bucking tradition and instead providing his own personal brand of public diplomacy. The same says-what-he-thinks, does-what-he-likes mannerisms that propelled him to victory in the 2016 elections are now being used in the White House to greet foreign dignitaries and leaders alike.
While such unpredictability may have connected with American voters, President Trump may not always have the luxury of an American audience. As he gets further into his administration, the time may come when President Trump is expected to deliver a set of remarks in front of a foreign audience. Whether he gives just three speeches abroad, like President Bush, or a dozen, like President Obama, there are a few lessons that President Trump can learn from previous administrations experiences abroad. Here are the four things President Trump should remember for his first speech abroad.
1. Choose a good location
First things first — choose an appropriate location for your speech. Visuals matter. Ronald Reagan’s speech in West Berlin, for example, was amplified by the choice of his location. His challenge to Secretary Gorbachev to “tear down this wall” was made more powerful because the chosen location for the speech.
President Reagan speaking in front of the Berlin Wall. Photo courtesy of the White House Press Office.
He allowed audiences viewing the speech live, as well as those watching from around the world, to see the very wall to which he was referring; to view the physical boundary that separated the East and West. By remembering that speeches are not only heard, but also watched, a speech can become more powerful and more poignant.
2. Speech should be connected to policy
In Matthew Wallins’ blog post for the American Security Project (ASP), he states that matching action to words is a critical factor in maintaining the credibility for public diplomacy officials. When the president goes abroad, he is, in effect, acting as the US’s most powerful public diplomacy official; thus, his words must be connected to US policy action in order to maintain credibility.
During his historic trip to China, President Richard Nixon’s primary policy goal was to normalize relations and communications between the two nations.
President Nixon toasting with Premier Enlai. Photo courtesy of the White House Press Office.
The toast, which he gave at a banquet in Peking, emphasized Nixon’s desire to exist in peace with China, while more subliminally promising to the Chinese people that the US would not try to influence their system of government.
Speeches provide a unique opportunity for presidents to address a captive international audience, as well as communities that they may not otherwise have access to. Though it may be uncomfortable at times, the best way to capitalize on the audience’s’ attention is to be forthright about the issues you want them to pay attention to. Wallin also makes this point in his ASP blog; transparency is key.
For example, when President Obama gave one of his first international speeches at a university in Cairo, he did not attempt to shift away from the significant policy issues that divided the Muslim world and the US. While the purpose of President Obama’s strategy in the speech was to open a new dialogue with Muslim communities, he went about this effort in two ways: the first method was to admit and apologize for what he perceived to be the previous administration’s mistakes; the second, was using his platform to address the contentious issues between the US and the Muslim communities. He openly condemned attempts by Muslim leaders to deny the Holocaust and 9/11. He rejected the use of violence by Palestinians.
President Obama addressing the crowd in Cairo. Photo courtesy of the White House Flickr.
By seizing upon his position and his audience to address the actual issues facing the two sides, President Obama was able to turn the page on one chapter of Islamic/ American relations, and have the new beginning he sought.
4. But make sure your message doesn’t fall on deaf ears.
Like any public diplomacy officer, presidents must first understand the cultural context of the country they are walking into, before they can expect to be listened to by the general public. At the end of the day, if no one in the audience is listening, the speech will have no impact. It is therefore important that President Trump connects with his audience, and shows some understanding and appreciation for the history and culture he’s addressing.
Each speech requires a different method of connection. In his Cairo speech, for example, President Obama used personal testimony to engage with the Muslim audience he was attempting to reach by describing the deep ties to Islam that his Kenyan family has, as well as his own experiences living in Indonesia as a young boy. In the first President Bush’s address to the people of Leiden, he connected the history of the early Pilgrim settlers to the proud history of the Dutch people. President Kennedy, meanwhile, in his famous “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech, used the German language to demonstrate his efforts to understand the position of the people of Berlin and of Germany more broadly. Even these small acts can have profound effects on the reception of the speech.
Caveat: The views expressed in this blog are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.
It’s no secret that the prominence and importance of social media has grown tremendously in the last decade. Facebook, Instagram and particularly Twitter have become key tools in political engagement of all sorts. Candidates, journalists and extremist groups alike have seen the outreach level of Twitter, and have used this engagement to build networks and create a narrative for themselves. Donald Trump has been revolutionary in his use of Twitter by engaging with his electorate directly. We haven’t seen a president use Twitter this much and by his own hand. Due to Twitter’s international presence, his tweets can have an enormous impact on the United States’ diplomacy initiatives worldwide. Therefore, we offer his team some guidance about how to potentially better their messaging abroad.
While many have criticized President Trump, few have presented real solutions. I believe that the issue isn’t with Trump’s use of Twitter, but how he uses it and the impact of his word choice and slant. In order to make Twitter a public diplomacy tool, President Trump might step back and consider editing his tweets with a foreign as well as domestic audience in mind. This would require input from officials closer to foreign audiences We offer some examples of potential edits to some of Donald Trump’s more challenging tweets.
Tweet:
Donald Trump in this tweet defends his executive order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”. The media largely covered the executive order as a ban on Muslims. His tweet, whether purposefully or not, continued the media narrative instead of projecting President Trump’s intent, which is well defined in the order name. Due to its perpetuation of a ban and not an action taken in the name of national security, Donald Trump’s tweet fails to counteract the prevalent narrative. This tweet creates a mismatch in rhetoric regarding the intentions and logistics of the executive order.
Edit:
This kind of language helps clarify the intention and helps elucidate and promote a narrative of protecting the nation from dangers abroad. It also directs away from the media narrative of discrimination on the part of the executive branch. This tweet also steered away from the use of the term “radical Islamic terrorism”. This key erasure of Islamic from that term points to the root of the problem this order aims to solve, which is violent extremism, and the danger it poses to the United States.
Tweet:
Here, President Trump reacts to the 9th circuit court decision to not reinstate his executive order. The intent behind this tweet is decently sound, however the word choice and combative nature give it a harsh undertone. In his questioning of this decision, the tweet challenges the checks and balances system of our three-branch model of government. Donald Trump demonstrates a doubt in the structure of the US government, which could potentially compromise our confidence and high ground when fighting for true and functional democracies internationally.
Edit:
First and foremost, this revision comes out and expresses Donald Trump’s respect for the court system that his original tweet calls into question. This way, he is not only showing respect for the system, he remains a part of it by expressing his intent to continue in the constitutional process. The edit expresses his commitment to the initiative, as it keeps the original language of the second part of the tweet.
Tweet:
In this tweet, Trump compares the meetings his staff had with Russian officials with formal meetings between two presidencies. He diminishes the strength of the presidency, as he questions the legitimacy of the enumerated power of the president to act on the part of the United States internationally. Without these powers, the public diplomacy initiatives worldwide are compromised, as the executive is the key to these processes. This poses a threat to his own presidency, as it reflects on the branch overall, and less on the Obama administration individually.
Edit:
In the realm of public diplomacy, it is important to make the distinctions between diplomatic relations and potential international tampering. This Tweet isn’t the best reflection of President Trump’s dedication to preserving to dignity of the office of the presidency. We recommend against posting it at all, especially given the current ongoing investigation.
I hope President Trump can take these instances into account moving forward. It is a new reality with Twitter right at our fingertips, and adjusting is an important part of a presidency. Bringing in a communications team to fully develop these messages before they click send should become a consistent plan going forward. I hope President Trump can take into account the public diplomacy implications of these 140 characters.
Caveat: The views expressed in this blog are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.
Just a day after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from any investigations into the Trump’s campaign contact with Russia, the Institute for Public Diplomacy & Global Communication partnered with the Walter R. Roberts Endowment to host a lecture and Q & A with former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. McFaul’s lecture explored what had ignited the U.S.’ new Cold War with Russia – and what had changed after nearly 30 years of relatively constructive relations. In his lecture, McFaul outlined three possible explanations for the faltering relationship and Russia under Vladimir Putin.
Credit: Logan Werlinger
We cannot blame international politics
Firstly, McFaul discussed why the inherent structure of international politics doesn’t account for Putin’s interest in expansion or the strained relationship the U.S. has with Russia now.
“There’s this idea that this is just a natural correction. That Russia is a great power and is acting like a great power,” McFaul said.
But if that were the case, that Putin being more aggressive is just a natural correction, a similar pivot would have happened with Japan and Germany after World War II. At that time, great powers had fallen, but with U.S. aid and investment in each country’s ability to establish a democratic government, each country became a global power without becoming aggressors towards the U.S. If Russia were simply building up to become a major power again after the fall of the Soviet Union, there wouldn’t be a need for a strained relationship between the U.S. and Russia. Instead, perhaps the two countries could have worked together to establish a stronger democracy in Russia. According to McFaul, an error the U.S. made was not investing enough in Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed.
Up until 2013, the world seemed to think that Russia was just becoming a more mature, global power. It wasn’t until Putin’s plans shifted so wholly that the rest of the world started to take notice that Russia was becoming an aggressor, not a peaceful power.
But it wasn’t until 2013 that the rest of the world started seeing a real shift in Putin’s plan. In 2013, Putin was concerned with the Eurasian Economic Union. He wanted the Ukraine to come on board with the EEU, rather than join the West to make the union large enough to be sustainable. Furthermore, up until 2013, Putin seemed to be going in a positive direction on the world stage mostly because of the olympics. The Sochi Olympics was Russia’s time to export a “new Russia” to the rest of the world. Putin’s administration reclaimed authors and artists that were excommunicated during the Soviet Union, and presented Russia as an inclusive country.
“They released Khodorkovsky. [Russia was] essentially saying, ‘We’ve had a rocky space. This is a signal to you, the United States, to have a new relationship with us’,” McFaul said.
Soon after the Olympics’ closing ceremony ended, though, Putin invaded Crimea.
If international politics was the real reason the new Cold War began, it would have started far before Putin decided to invade Crimea because simply the idea of Russia becoming a great power isn’t a threat to the world order or balance of power.
Credit: Logan Werlinger
And it’s not U.S. Policy
Another theory McFaul was quick to dismiss is that Russia has to be aggressive towards the United States because U.S. foreign policy pushed it into a corner. But to Putin, the U.S. seemed to be an emerging threat around in the early 2000s and into 2013. NATO’s expansion, the U.S.’ invasion of Iraq, the NATO bombing in Serbia in 2013 and U.S. support for color revolutions all could have been perceived as Western aggression towards Russia. According to this theory, “We are too demanding of Russia, we were lecturing them, we support color revolutions. Putin had enough and his actions are a reaction to what we did”.
However, after these perceived threats the U.S. and Russia began a reset designed to be a win-win relationship between the U.S. and Russia – the idea was that through a strategy of active engagement, the U.S. and Russia would find common interests to strengthen both countries. It is important to note that at the time of the reset, Medvedev was president, and seemed more open to more open relations with the U.S. According to McFaul, this worked for the most part. The new START treaty was put into force in February 2011, and it called for nuclear limits on both countries, eighteen on-site inspections of both countries and no constraints on missile defense or conventional strikes. During the reset, the Iran deal was also signed, which worked in both the U.S. and Russia’s interest to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, the reset also included the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), which supplied material to forces in Afghanistan in a combined effort on the war in Afghanistan.
“At the height of the reset, sixty percent of Russians had a positive view of Americans, and sixty percent of Americans had a positive view of Russians. That was five years ago,” McFaul said.
U.S. policy aided Russia during the reset – and it showed in approval ratings. The economies of both countries were steadily rising and there was more support of American-Russian relations than had been in years. If U.S. policy were to blame, how could one explain all of the positive developments in the relations after the perceived threats? According to McFaul, there is only one last narrative that could explain today’s tensions.
Russian Domestic Politics – it starts at home
When power shifted from Medvedev to Putin, the U.S. incorrectly thought that nothing should really change, according to McFaul.
“We all knew that Putin was doing everything behind the scenes anyway. We didn’t think anything would change,” McFaul said.
However, internal pressures created Putin’s aggressive pivot towards the West because he needed someone to blame the conflict on. Putin saw the U.S. supporting the revolutions in Egypt and Libya – and in his view in Russia too. Putin viewed demonstrators as traitors. Once Putin’s ally and Ukrainian leader Yanukovych fell in 2014, Putin pivoted completely against the U.S. as he saw U.S. ideology threatening his reign. The demonstrations in the Middle East and in Russia between 2011 and 2012 forced Putin to try and look stronger in his own country.
“The good news is, I don’t think Putin has a master plan to recreate the Soviet Union,” McFaul said. “There’s no evidence that that’s what he’s doing. The bad news is that Putin’s not changing. He can be in power legally until 2024, and Putin needs an enemy.”
As long as Putin feels threatened by revolutions and demonstrations in his own country and in those immediately surrounding Russia, the U.S. will continue to be his enemy. And, according to McFaul, a Trump presidency that is friendlier towards Russia won’t do much to change that.
Trump’s hothead meets the Cold War
Trump speaks about Russia as if the goal is to be Russia’s friend, McFaul theorized, and that could backfire.
According to McFaul, President Trump was confusing goals with means. “The job of a diplomat is to represent your country’s interest in another country. Not to be that country’s friend,” McFaul said.
Because of the Trump Administration’s recent controversies, like Sessions’ recent recusal and Russia’s interference in the 2016, Trump will have difficulty making any headway in Russia–U.S. relations. As of now, it might be politically impossible for Trump to grant any significant concessions to Russia without the exchange looking like political favors.
Furthermore, according to McFaul, there’s not much Russia can give us in negotiations.
“They could lift the ban on adoptions, but on bigger things I’m less optimistic. Our overlapping interests are much smaller than they used to be,” McFaul said.
Unfortunately, it looks like the new Cold War won’t be ending any time soon. But according to McFaul, it’s important to realize that a powerful Russia shouldn’t be a fear. Rather, the more pressing need is to reduce the idea that the U.S. is Russia’s enemy, and that they are ours.
Caveat: The views expressed in this blog are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.
A crowd gathers to protest the Okinawa base relocation.
The U.S. crafted the existing international system after World War II. This system carries on today through existing norms, treaties, and international bodies. In the unique case of Japan, U.S. influence lives on in its very Constitution. It is no coincidence, then, that with such a high level of influence, U.S.-Japan relations remain strong. However, multiple outside influences threaten the U.S.- led world order and challenge U.S.-Japan relations. Examples include the rise of regional powers and a multi-polar system, security threats in the Asia Pacific, and political shifts in the U.S. that normalize isolationist rhetoric and downplay nuclear proliferation. In the transition to the new world order Japan is redefining its identity and national narrative to cope with these changes, rather than recycling the post-War narrative crafted for and at the hands of the U.S. Maintaining one of our strongest alliances relies more than ever on the idea of the alliance itself. How will the U.S. craft its narrative in the face of a shifting international system? The Okinawa base relocation debate is a microcosm of this narrative contest.
Nowhere is Japan’s struggle to come to terms with the post-War world order more pronounced than in Okinawa. The debate over U.S. plans to relocate U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma has lasted over 20 years. U.S. and Japanese governments have been lobbying for the base’s move to Henoko, a more remote part of the island than the central hub of Futenma. However, the larger question is not whether locals support the base move, but whether they support U.S. military presence on the island at all. Okinawa already houses the majority of the American military presence in Japan, which residents feel is an unfair resource burden. Narratives ranging from environmental activism to pacifism have emerged in criticism of U.S. base relocation.
Now, as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe emphasizes normalization and revisions to Article 9 of the Constitution, protests have reached a clarion call. Abe is continuing his campaign to realign Japan with the ever-shifting construct of “the West,” while many in the Japanese general public and the majority of the public in Okinawa prescribe to a divergent vision. Okinawa can be viewed as a microcosm of the narrative contest between traditionally defined notions of the “West” and rising counter-narratives about the West itself, as well as its importance in the multipolar order. Below, we map both pro- and anti-base narratives to depict counter-points and potential areas of collaboration. The outcome of this narrative contestation provides a window into future trends in U.S. – Japan relations.
This post uses the phrases “Base Relocation within Japan” and “Base Removal from Japan” as labels to analyze the broader contesting narratives. However, note that these are simplifications of local narratives with complexities beyond the scope of this post. Sourcing for narrative examples without links can be found in the footnotes.
“Base Relocation within Japan” narratives:
Emphasize the existing tacit understanding of the locals for the need to move the base
Place blame on previous Japanese government for introducing the idea to move the base elsewhere or outside the country all together. Highlight that the base relocation actually has a high level of city government support
Reassure the Japanese public that moving the base to a new location but still in Japan will improve safety, as it will not neighbor a large city
Promote the dichotomous narrative: either move U.S. Marine Corps Air Station to Henoko District, an assumed prerequisite for the continued shift of U.S. military forces to Guam; OR leave the base in Futenma in the midst of a large city and scrap the shift to Guam
In contrast, “Base Removal from Japan” narratives:
Raise concerns about the general safety of the locals surrounding military bases
Stress the impact on the environment
Highlight threat to Japanese history and culture
Generate fears of U.S. spying on Japanese private citizens
Argue for continued U.S. military presence, just not in their own prefecture (the “not in my backyard” argument)
Don’t dispute, but bury regional security issues, including rise in China’s defense spending and increasing aggression in the East China Sea, at the bottom of articles or include caveats
Emphasize the Japanese national government’s distance from and misunderstanding of locals, thereby disputing their legitimacy in implementing local policy
Catalogue the Okinawans’ “battle scars” from repeated instances of violence and war, including experiences with rape and robbery by U.S. soldiers, and U.S. use of Okinawa during the Vietnam War
If Japan’s national government is to achieve public support for the base relocation issue, the U.S. needs to rebrand its military as a force for peace in the region and win the narrative contest. There are some overlapping points between the two narrative camps, notably the consensus on rising regional security threats. However, for those in the “anti- base relocation” camp, the negative portrayal of U.S. soldiers and the linkage of the modern-day U.S. military with collective memory of violence on Okinawa trumps abstract regional threats. In short, the “anti-base relocation” camp does a better job making concerns relevant to Okinawans’ everyday lives. The U.S. needs to do the same, while addressing local needs and concerns.
This can be accomplished through:
More people-to-people interactions: i.e. engineers on base make visits to local schools to conduct classes and workshops
A demonstration of understanding of Okinawans’ experiences during the Vietnam War through events honoring Japanese casualties and memorial sites
Military cooperation with local government on humanitarian aid and disaster response
U.S. military’s direct response to local concerns through town-hall type events with extensive Japanese press coverage
The failure to address the Okinawa base relocation issue leaves space for competing narratives to gain traction. The above actions will contribute to an overall battle to “win the narrative”, not just in Okinawa, but within the U.S. – Japan security relationship as a whole.
The views presented in this post are the author’s own.
“Base relocation within Japan” Additional Narrative Examples:
(March 24, 2013 Sunday ). EDITORIAL; Govt must make utmost effort to realize Futenma relocation. The Daily Yomiuri(Tokyo), Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic
(December 15, 2011 Thursday ). EDITORIAL; Govt must advance Futenma issue to lessen Okinawa’s base burdens. The Daily Yomiuri(Tokyo), Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic
(November 7, 2011 Monday). Leave Futenma base as is? Not an option. The Nikkei Weekly (Japan), Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic
Photo attribution:Protesters raising fists: By Nathan Keirn from Kadena-Cho, Japan (NAK_2421.jpg; to the Commons uploaded by odder) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Crowd gathering: By Nathan Keirn from Kadena-Cho, Japan (Masses.jpg; to the Commons uploaded by odder) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Secretary of State John Kerry jokes with Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta | State House, Nairobi | August 22, 2016 | Photo credit: U.S. Department of State
Derision is a complicated thing. At its most sophomoric, derision is little more than blowing raspberries on the playground – good for a laugh at someone’s expense but without much of a point. When given proper thought and execution, though, derision can deliver persuasive satire or charming self-deprecation, both of which bond audience and humorist closer together.
While diplomats use humor regularly to engage foreign audiences, often with successful results, there is little study of its use as a public diplomacy tool. Unfortunately, there is no formal understanding of the strategic use of humor when engaging foreign audiences. As a result, we see some nightmares when humor is poorly applied. When a diplomat’s joke bombs, the risk of real bombs is greater than when a new stand-up chokes at Comedy Works. It’s like Bono pleading with the UN to send a CVE-comedy task-force to Syria – we seem to know that there’s something there, but we just can’t quite grasp how to harness it.
Let’s talk about the failures of derision in public diplomacy. The most glaring example is “Think Again, Turn Away,” a counter-terrorism effort so poorly conceived that even our own comedians mocked it. In 2013, the Global Engagement Center from the U.S. Department of State launched the video “Think Again, Turn Away” on YouTube, intending to reach the same young audience that ISIS targeted online for recruitment. It wasn’t long before people realized that the snark-filled, sardonic PSA was utterly tone-deaf.
The team that produced “Think Again, Turn Away” undoubtedly understands the situation in ISIS-occupied territories better than most. They just don’t know comedy.
For every joke, there is an in-group and an out-group. These groups may be defined as those who get the joke and those who don’t, or along the classic laughing with/laughing at split. Derision especially lends itself to this split, more so than other comedic styles. Creating distinct in-groups and out-groups can reinforce or undermine existing narratives, depending on how those groups are framed.
Think of it this way: Everyone has a story in their head that tells them who they are. That’s our identity narrative. We have stories about our place in that world. We call those system narratives. In every narrative, there is a protagonist (the in-group) and an antagonist (the out-group). Generally, people like to be the protagonists of their own stories. We make this happen by aligning our identity narratives and system narratives in such a way that we belong to the in-group throughout. So, if we hear a different narrative, perhaps in the form of a joke, that recasts us as members of the out-group, we will reject that narrative. Not only that, we’ll likely cast whoever shared that narrative as a member of the out-group in our own narratives.
Here is a narrative map for a typical ISIS recruit, based on research on ISIS target messaging:
Identity Narrative
System Narrative
ISIS Recruit
Young, over-educated & underemployed, an outsider (perceived or actual) of mainstream society, destined to and/or worthy of greatness
Living in a society that is hostile towards identity, unjust, limited opportunities to advance; the West is keeping true believers down, only the caliphate is righteous
“Think Again, Turn Away” tries to undermine the “righteous caliphate” narrative by using sarcasm to cast ISIS in the out-group. However, the video fails to draw the potential recruits into its in-group. Therefore, it’s mockery only reinforces the theme of separation between recruits and the West present in both narrative levels.
So, if we hear a different narrative, perhaps in the form of a joke, that recasts us as members of the out-group, we will reject that narrative. Not only that, we’ll likely cast whoever shared that narrative as a member of the out-group in our own narratives.
Understanding the dynamics of in-groups and out-groups isn’t just good comedy – it’s good communication. Philip Seib says that successful communication is always audience based and ties into the narratives of that audience’s socio-political context. Obviously, “Think Again, Turn Away” is not audience based. Rather than embrace its target audience, clearly marking themselves as being “on the same team,” or both part of the in-group, the narrator mocks the ideological society that said audience expressed interest in joining. That is why the video targets its specified audience, after all. By mocking the group with which the audience has already identified, even superficially, it casts both in the out-group, cementing the audience’s allegiance to the butt of the joke.
One might have done less damage trying to sincerely persuade potential recruits to join ISIS. John Oliver points out that the State Department is “banking a lot on any potential militants understanding that [“Think Again, Turn Away”] is sarcasm,” the implication being that the intended audience won’t get the joke. Alternatively, the audience might understand the joke, but doesn’t find it the least bit funny. Either way, the video reinforces extremist messaging by squarely casting the audience in the out-group.
Whether or not potential recruits have the capacity or inclination to “appreciate” the video’s try at sarcasm, humans respond to humor cognitively and emotionally. No one likes being mocked; it makes us feel bad. You learned this blowing raspberries on the playground. When the audience you are trying to reach is also the butt of your joke, you have missed the point.
The views expressed here are the author’s only and do no necessarily represent those of George Washington University.
Imagine being a 25-year-old adult who has moved out of your parents’ house and is successfully living on your own only to find out that your parents are spying on you and reading your text messages. It’s pretty egregious and a violation of trust. That is exactly how Germany feels toward the United States.
