Category: public diplomacy

Terrorist organizations know no boundaries. This becomes especially evident in the recruitment of children. Deemed “cubs of the caliphate,” child soldiers are integrated into the same military ranks as adults. Their recruitment happens with and without parent involvement, but frequently ends in an untimely death. As seen in Malaysia, ISIS utilizes social media to persuade young children to join their jihadi movement in acts that include suicide bombing missions and targeted attacks. ISIS appeals to the utopian fantasies of young people and offers an escape from Western frustrations, but also from the turmoil of the Middle East, meaning that they have multiple narratives that need to be countered.

One program designed to counter violent extremism is Peer to Peer (P2P).  P2P is a partnership supported by the Department of State which seeks to encourage young people to become actively involved in the global CVE effort. P2P is structured as a competition between student groups from universities and colleges around the world. The program’s key strength lies in its flexibility in providing the student groups loose guidelines, but allowing creativity to direct the CVE initiatives. The program partners, EdVenture and Facebook, each supply an initial grant to help initiate the campaigns. All projects are 100% driven and created by passionate students. The winners receive additional grant money to continue their campaign, though all participants are encouraged to develop their campaigns beyond the P2P program. The participants measure the varying success of the outreach by documenting participant actions and noting how many people are drawn to their websites, social media platforms, and other digital medium. Because college students are the ones developing the outreach and media campaigns, their target audiences are generally their peers or adults with whom they can relate as opposed to younger generations who also need greater exposure to CVE messaging. . Where P2P needs further cultivation, is in the appeals and focus on young children in elementary through high schools.

One P2P program did develop a counter terrorism curriculum for use in elementary school classrooms. A team from MSU, created a united campaign encouraging multi-ethnic collaboration within Generation Z to fight terrorism. The team noticed that even young children were susceptible to targeting by extremist groups and responded to the need for CVE education in the classroom. The campaign included lessons, games, and videos which seek to educate youth on the dangers of terrorism and how to be safe online. The brand is known as One95 and has continued to be developed after the initial P2P success. The Center Extremism Project has adopted the One95 brand and is continuing and modifying the brand in addition to the original platforms which are still operational.

Possibly one of the best examples of a campaign aimed at children that counters the alluring images and narratives created by terrorist organizations, is Burka Avenger. Burka Avenger is a Pakistani television program created to direct children away from becoming radical terrorists, by pointing out the hypocrisies and dangers of terrorism. The protagonist is introduced as having suffered through a terrorist attack in which she lost her family—the reason for her current campaign against terrorism. Burka Avenger fights with books, and pens, symbolizing the way that education is the key to combatting terrorism, and the alter ego of the hero is a female school teacher. The terrorists are portrayed as foolish, stupid, and corrupt, and the societal issues mentioned in the show, such as the role of women and attacks on girl’s schools are very blatant. These types of images, along with the cultural norms presented, resonate with the Pakistani community who face these issues every day. To reinforce the importance of all members of society in the CVE effort, the show has a very diverse cast. The overall message of faith and hope are very uplifting and can speak to the larger CVE narrative of simply staying hopeful and not turning to terrorism. The very first episode ends with a powerful message about how education is the best defense against adversity, regardless of whether you are a boy or a girl. To support the messages of the show, there are various Burka Avenger apps, games, and apparel.

Prevention is an important defense measure against terrorism and one of the best ways to implement a prevention strategy, is to protect the young generations from the messaging that will seek to corrupt them. Following in the example of One95 and Burka Avenger, CVE education for children should teach safe practices online and on social media to keep children out of the clutches of violent extremists. Moreover, there should be a greater push to expose children to programs like Burka Avenger and start a dialogue regarding the content. Teachers and parents should lead discussions on the ways in which a young person can avoid being misled, how they can stay safe, and what the alternatives are. By elucidating the dangers and hypocrisies of terrorism like Burka Avenger, youth CVE messaging can counter the false narratives put forth by organizations like ISIS. CVE messaging also needs to follow the example of The Truth anti-smoking campaign which produces and disseminates images created by young people for their peers. The Best Buddies alliance program is perhaps an ideal model for a school based advocacy program that involves students lead campaigns directed at high school students.

Several weeks after 9/11, the world, once again, watched in horror as a series of anthrax-tainted packages mailed to two U.S. Democratic Senators killed five civilians. Since the deadly attacks, numerous U.S. government efforts such as the Joint FBI-CDC Criminal and Epidemiological Investigations have been established to predict and prevent incidences of bioterrorism. While the U.S. government has established protocols for the ‘weaponization’ of bio agents, there has been little consideration to use health diplomacy as a tool to prevent violent extremism.

 Former Secretary of State, John Kerry, at White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism (on usa.gov)

According to Wallin, part of being credible in U.S. public diplomacy (PD) is matching actions to words. Ironically, U.S. diplomats have previously addressed the importance of global health initiatives, but they appear to have fallen short on matching deeds to rhetoric. In 2009, Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones confirmed the explicit connection between global health and extremism. She revealed, “ better global health promotes stability and growth, which can deter the spread of extremism”. However, eight years have passed since that declaration, and little has been done to turn those words into practical diplomatic programs.

In our increasingly globalized world, infectious diseases ignore the Westphalia system of order: mosquitoes are not required to show their passports and American Exceptionalism is nullified. Currently, the U.S. government’s diplomatic programs do not mimic the shift in global health from this-is-your-country’s-problem to a global human security issue.

What is Global Health Diplomacy?

The Science and Diplomacy Report, “ Bridging Public Health and Foreign Affairs” loosely defines global health diplomacy (GHD) as “a political activity that meets the dual goals of improving public health infrastructures and strengthening relations among nation states”.

The definition of GHD highlights Nye’s concept of soft power diplomacy. In contrast to hard power, which is rooted in coercion and force, soft power is the ability to co-opt countries and set the agenda through attraction to shared values. A 2015 report by the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism argued that soft power initiatives are more effective at deterring terrorism than hard power ones as the programs are designed to understand the reasons behind extremism. If executed with respective cultural sensitivities in mind, GHD’s soft power approach could engage developing nations, rather than alienate them.

 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Global Health Security Campaign (usa.gov)

 The Connection Between Violence and Epidemics:

One reason to explain why GHD has been overlooked is because the explicit connection between extremism and epidemics has not been extensively examined.

A recent Foreign Policy article: “ The Ebola Rape Epidemic No One’s Talking About” captures this grave oversight. Once the World Health Organization declared that the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa was contained, the region saw an immediate surge in gender-based violence. Monica Onyango, professor of global health at Boston University, claims that epidemics create permissible conditions for internal hostility. She states: “you have a loss of governance; you have chaos and instability”- the state of the post-epidemic environment leaves the population vulnerable to violence.

While NGOs and other nonprofits may be constrained by funding and have to vacate the area once the epidemic is declared to be ‘contained’, GHD could have an immediate impact on diminishing the rise in violence that occurs in a post-epidemic setting.

Why the Global Health Diplomacy Framework is Different:

Georgetown University recently published one of the first explicit reports on countering violent extremism through the use of the public health model. A significant finding: the GHD Framework is different because it uses both a multi-sector and non-discriminatory approaches to counter violent extremism (CVE). Moreover, the report found that violent extremists are often drug users. Applying the public health model to CVE addresses structural social issues for violent extremism. Additionally, public health models aim to mitigate immediate risks such as rehabilitating drug users.

The Build Resistance Against Violent Extremism (BRAVE) public health model in Maryland uses both a multi-sector and non-discriminatory approach to CVE. This framework goes beyond profiling specific individuals and focuses on multiple risk factors including specialized treatment plans for drug abusers, health education, poverty, literacy, and social inclusion. Contrary to the targeted U.S. Homeland Security initiatives to CVE, BRAVE allows anyone to participate in the program regardless of their race and religious backgrounds. This inclusive approach mitigates threats that do not fit a standard profile. The Georgetown Report concludes that the BRAVE model had a “positive effect on 12 of 14 CVE-related indicators in individuals”.

Although BRAVE is only a case study, it demonstrates that there is a potential place for GHD in CVE.

 Recommendations:

U.S. Global Health Diplomats exist, but they are few and far between. Dr. Deborah L. Birx, is the current U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and U.S. Special Representative for Global Health Diplomacy.

Dr. Deborah L. Birx, current U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and U.S. Special Representative for Global Health Diplomacy with Former Secretary of State, John Kerry (usa.gov).

Her esteemed diplomatic status of Ambassador-at-Large could indicate that the State Department has an appreciation of GHD. However, from an operational perspective, the State Department offices do not always have the necessary expertise to converge global health and diplomacy: the expert epidemiologists are not always aware of the tools that are at their disposal.

In order for GHD to counter violent extremism:

• More high-ranking Global Health Diplomats are required, specifically, more joint collaboration between U.S. Security Departments and Health Departments need to be established.
• More GHD attachés are needed to coordinate the large sums of funds from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
• In order to counter violent extremism through GHD, more coordination between the World Health Organization, nongovernmental organizations and the State Department is needed.

A priority for the new U.S. government is to deter violent extremism both at home and abroad. Before Congress approves the budget to cut the funding for the U.S. Agency for international Development’s health programs, they should reconsider these development projects as they may have the potential to thwart violent extremism.

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.

The use of technology and social media has become a valuable, quick, and convenient way for people to view both information and news at any given moment. Placing news on the Internet instead of just print has made reading easier because people can frequently check news stories and their developments. Russia Today (RT) is a prime example of a news organization that solely uses the Internet.

RT’s overall goal is to denigrate the West. Headlines and articles may be exaggerated and stretch the truth in order to achieve this goal, and a classic example of propaganda is in the Internet. Russia’s communication strategy narrative is based upon the idea that the US is trying to rule the world, and that only Russia is brave enough to stop it. The goal of their propaganda is not to persuade anyone, but to keep the viewer hooked and distracted- to disrupt Western narratives rather than simply provide a counter-narrative.

RT has used their website and visuals to their advantage to “frame” their messaging to other countries, including the United States, as opposed to their home audience of Russia. RT’s goal of denigrating the West is clearly displayed through the articles that are chosen to be presented on the front page.

To study how Russia and RT’s communication strategy is displayed through the RT website, I analyzed the website over a period of several weeks to compare and contrast the format and types of stories that were presented to the Western news site CNN. The RT and CNN pages from March 30 which I examine below provide a good example of my findings.

The ways in which RT effectively presents their propaganda messaging is through the use of strategically selecting eye-catching headlines with complementing visuals. Each headline selected places the United States in a negative light, creating a false impression of those societies to its Russian audience. The headlines on the front page are about the Senate hearings on Russian hacking. The headline on CNN’s website is informative and appealing because it reveals that Russian hacking is not only connected to the election. The headline on RT’s website, though, takes a different approach by mentioning the Cold War tensions between Russia and the US, drawing a connection between an accusatory and high-tension time and creating a negative connotation towards the US. The wording of the headlines are designed to invoke an emotional response because research shows that stories that invoke such a response have a higher retention and reading rate. The headlines and complementing visuals emphasize the various problems facing each country with little to no stories that reflect a positive image.

In this example, both RT and CNN have a front page dedicated to the Senate hearings about Russian hacking. Although the topic is the same, the visuals depict a different message. Both photos of the Senate hearing have an upward facing camera angle, demonstrating the power of the Senators on the panel. The difference between the two visuals, though, is the connotation. CNN’s visual reveals authority from the upward facing camera angle and that the hearing is discussion-based. The visual on RT’s website, however, has a negative connotation. The image is taken from the perspective of someone in the “hot seat.” There is finger pointing and distressed-looking panelists, demonstrating to the viewer that the Senators on the panel are threatening and interrogating the person on the other side.

The  “power” of these images are its ability to trigger certain responses from its audience, creating the effect of RT emphasizing the negatives of a certain country or region which will indirectly present Russia in a positive way.

After analyzing the front page of both websites, I then analyzed the specific article that was presented on the front pages of  RT and CNN.

The difference in visuals and content continues into the articles themselves. Both articles have one main image and, like the front page, each image reveals a different type of message. The image on CNN’s website is of an interview with a Senator on the Intelligence Committee. The image for RT’s article is of a large bronze statue looking like it is gliding through the night sky with the moon shining bright in the background. The difference between the selection of images is about messaging. CNN’s image is consistent with their message of reporting the news and providing as much information as is available. RT’s message of portraying Russia as a strong and brave country able to stop the US from taking over the world is clearly identified through the selection of this image. This image does not relate to Senate hearings about Russian hacking in any way, yet it is the largest image throughout the article and the only image used besides screenshots of tweets.

RT and CNN reflect both Russia’s and the United States’ foreign policy and communication goals. The news websites offer a perspective of that society and other societies that are reported, which gives the global audience a unique opportunity to form impressions. The features and presentations of RT and CNN have become increasingly important in this regard as it is a vital tool for Russia and the United States to present their narratives to their global audience with continuous updates to reinforce their narrative.

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 easy to scroll past social media posts, barely reading what the words say. Even while trying to be attentive, the massive amounts of existing information make it hard for people to tell which information is worth paying attention to. This influx of information makes it more important than ever for the government to be creating engaging content. There needs to be something separating the information the government is providing from the sea of social media content, so that the public is motivated to get their news directly from the source.

There are many ways to create engaging content. For example, statistics show that people are 18% more likely to click on tweets with images than without images. Another way to create engaging content is to simply add a hashtag, so that social media users can track what others are saying about the topic, as well as participate in the dialogue.

Here, we see President Barack Obama tweeting.

To create more long term effects, however, the government should be creating more social media movements that people can participate in over time. These movements are meant to be means of achieving government initiatives, as they provide people an easy way to be a part of whatever the government is talking about, rather than simply discussing the information. Below are three examples of successful social media movements.

1. Find Your Park

This campaign was created to encourage more people to visit the national parks in the United States. The website allows users to search the national parks they can visit, links to get involved through volunteering or donating, a store, and a #FindYourPark link where the posts of the hashtag are all proudly displayed for the site users to see. The website itself is extremely engaging, and has links to many videos encouraging people to be a part of the initiative. Here is an example of one of those videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ykvO8UN3g0

2. #ReachHigher

The Reach Higher initiative was created to encourage students to pursue higher education degrees. To be a part of this movement, students share a photo wearing their new school shirt or colors using the hashtag #ReachHigher, as the promotional video of First Lady Michelle Obama explains. The twitter for the page can be found here, and it features #ReachHigher hashtags as well as the hashtag #CollegeSigningDay. Both are meant to celebrate students’ pursuit of higher education. There are videos available to watch as well, such as this one.  Finally, to expand this initiative, the Reach Higher career app challenge was created. This was a part of the initiative to support career and technical educations, recognizing that the typical college experience is not right for everyone. The app challenge provided $225K to the winner who designed the best app.

3.  Government Challenges, Your Solutions

This is a website that allows citizens to solve the problems that the government is working on. Participants create a challenge.gov account, and from there, can participate in whichever challenges they want. There is also a way for agencies to list what challenges they are having to then be posted on the website, allowing the users to work on the issue. People compete for the best solution, which awards them a monetary prize. This connects people who normally wouldn’t be connected to create results.

Now, it’s important for these domestic social media successes to lay the framework for international examples of similar things. The public diplomacy field should be creating similarly engaging social media movements that will create long term, trackable results, and that people will enjoy being a part of. Below are three examples of potential international social media movements.

1. #GiveLove

One of the objectives of the state department is to provide humanitarian responses to reduce the costs of displacement, natural disasters, and conflict. To involve everyday citizens in such initiatives, a website could be created in which people have easy access to different organizations supporting different causes around the world. In a format similar to the UNICEF website, people would be able to learn about different causes around the world and choose which causes and organizations they want to donate to. This could include any event the state department recognizes as needing humanitarian response, such as raising money for materials for refugee camps and sending aid to areas struck by natural disaster. After donating, the website could encourage people to share their involvement online through the use of the hashtag #GiveLove. The idea would encourage people to feed into positive interactions as an opposition to the negative nature of today’s news.

2. #OurKitchen

To increase positive outlooks on cultures around the world, a website could be created in which people submit their favorite recipes. The website would include countries all over the world, and would be available in different languages. There can be a section for community discussion if people have questions about the recipe, tips about how to make the dish, or thoughts on how it was after making it. As a subsection of this, social media accounts such as Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter would be created. Here, users would find images from people trying out the different recipes. Pictures would be found by the people in charge of those accounts by looking through the OurKitchen hashtag. This brings light to new cultural experiences while connecting people to one another.

Above is a picture of a meal from the Philippines.

3. Alternative Energy Contest

In an effort to achieve the United Nations’ goal of creating a world with more clean and sustainable energy, a worldwide contest could be created to see who can come up with the best idea and design for an alternative energy source to be put into place in different cities around the world. Not only does this work to better the health of the planet, but it fosters the connection of the scientific community, as well as supporting up and coming entrepreneurs in their ideas. These ideas could all be submitted to a website, where there will be different rounds of the competition, until a winner is chosen.

Social media campaigns like these real and hypothetical ones provide global connections, solutions to problems, and potential positive attitude changes that encourage people to be hopeful about the future of the world, while taking part in the shaping of it.

In October of 2016, I found myself in Thessaloniki, Greece for an academic conference and was doing some sightseeing around the city with a Greek friend before it began. To visit the historical Ano Poli (“Upper City”), we had to take a taxi when I had the pleasure of practicing my Greek with our driver, who was an older man. As we talked about mundane usual topics, the US election and the two front-running candidates had eventually come up. Unsurprisingly, the taxi driver began to tell us about his shock that, out of all people in the country, the best that Americans could choose were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. I had to do a double-take as he then began to say how Vladimir Putin didn’t seem like that bad of a guy and was a strong leader. Initially I thought this was probably just an isolated opinion; however, when we took a taxi back to the conference hall, a younger man than our other driver began to talk to us about US politics again. His words were eerily similar to our first driver, expressing dismay about the two candidates and expressing an equal affection for Putin. We walked around the city again later that night, and I couldn’t help but notice Russian and Greek crossed flags or Cyrillic writing in several locations. Finally, my interest was fully peaked – why does Russia have such an influence in this city, and does this extend to the rest of Greece?

Post-World War II, Winston Churchill had agreed with Joseph Stalin on how much influence the West would have versus the Soviet Union in certain countries. It is surprising, then, that Greece, a country that Churchill fought to keep in the Western orbit, has such a strong pro-Russian, anti-EU sentiment today – with 63% of Greeks favoring Russia and only 23% holding a positive view of the EU, in a poll highlighted in the BBC in 2015. In addition, Russian names are still very popular names for parents to give their children in Greece.

Both sides of the political spectrum had and still have reasons to like Russia. Greece fostered a popular left-wing sentiment after being suppressed by the British once Churchill had gained this influence in the country, while right-wing politicians identify with the shared Orthodox heritage between the two countries. A secondary reason that could be just as important is that Greeks have a long history of immigration to Russia and the former Soviet Union, resulting in a now sizeable population of ethnic Russian-born Greeks currently living in the Russian Federation. These facts serve as a fairly solid base for understanding why Russia might now have effective tactics for public diplomacy in Greece today.

Russo-Greek relations are currently overwhelmingly positive and have forged cooperation on many different issues. Thessaloniki is particularly attractive due to its railway system and its port, Greece is flirting with Russia for potential help with its debt crisis, and more recently the two countries have been in talks about energy cooperation. The most striking feature of Russia’s popularity with Greece, however, is their command of public diplomacy. Already earning respect among the Greek left-leaning Syriza party, Russian diplomats such as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov make frequent visits to Greece and put their host country in a positive light, emphasizing the importance of civil society and bilateral cooperation. One can see these tactics as part of Russia’s overall PD goal with Greece, as the Russian Embassy often posts praising summaries of events such as the Greek Civil Society Forum. Likewise, the language used in the Greek Foreign Ministry’s descriptions of history with Russia is affectionate and innocent. Because of the shared Orthodox heritage, the Greek Orthodox Church is a powerhouse for diplomacy and has more influence than many non-governmental institutions in the region, establishing connections and influencing foreign audiences in what is known as “Church Diplomacy.” Russia uses similar tactics and plays on their faith to gain additional favor from the Greek public and government.

Russia’s real motivations are nevertheless underhanded: prying Greece away from the EU. Unlike much of the rest of Europe, thanks to Syriza, Greece’s tone towards Russia is much more amicable, which makes them more prone to be Russia’s ally against NATO and EU influence, a Russian objective. This also helps Russia economically, as Greece, with the backing of its citizens, would be an open advocate within the EU for lowering sanctions against Russia. Vladimir Putin, through appeals to civil society, common identity by immigration and religion, and a friendly façade by flirtation with the idea of easing Greece’s economic burden, has made his country appear to be the strongman who fights for the security and sovereignty of his country, unlike the consequently weak US and Europe. This is significant for the West because it could lead to an EU-member state fighting against sanctions on Russia and supporting Russian military expansion as was seen with the annexation of Crimea, which puts the NATO Alliance at risk of losing crucial influence.

There is a slight, recent caveat: the changing nature of Greek domestic politics. Very recently the Syriza party has been gradually overtaken in popular opinion by the right-leaning New Democracy party and its President, Kyriakos Mitsotakis. As Prime Minister Tsipras’ popularity falls, this could mean a possible change in the future after Greece’s next election and a different course being taken with Russia. Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that Greek public opinion is still on Russia’s side compared to the rest of Europe. Only in July 2016 by the organization ProjectEU, it was shown that 71% of Greeks disapproved of continuing sanctions of Russia, and 65% disapproved of using military action to stop Russia in Ukraine. Likewise, in a poll researched by Pew Research Center in July 2016, 69% of Greeks had an unfavorable opinion of NATO compared to 19%-35% in other EU nations.

What is left for the US and EU to do in response to Russia’s successful public diplomacy strategy and winning over the hearts and minds of the Greek public? A useful first step would be for the State Department and foreign ministries of Europe to understand the reasons why those taxi drivers in Thessaloniki feel the way that they do about the US versus Russia and how they can be brought out of Russia’s sphere. In order to counter the seemingly natural bonds that Russia and Greece have established with each other, the West will need to continue pushing with their own brand of public diplomacy involving a relational framework of cultural exchange and partnership to push common goals and mutual interests in such a way that can outweigh the potential benefits of moving closer to Russia. For example, the US has had a long history of Greek involvement in programs such as the Fulbright Scholarship and the Transatlantic Innovation Leaders Initiative (YTIL).  Moreover, the high number of Greek Americans currently living in the US may serve to push a narrative of success stories and support for American interests, which could then rival the similar influence that Russia has in Greece. The goals that current American PD is aiming to reach can also be achieved in tandem with other means such as the economic – sweetening the partnership with perks that Russia perhaps cannot provide with its sanctioned state, such as when the US themselves contributed in the negotiations of Greece’s debt crisis. If the West cannot continue on this path and even increase their efforts, then they must ask themselves what is worth more: a pro-Russian anti-NATO advocate in the EU or extra leverage against Russian interests in Europe.

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.

Over the past eight months, Russia’s state-sponsored news media have provided extensive coverage of Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Many scholars have argued that this coverage may be an attempt by the Kremlin to undermine western democracy and the U.S. electoral process. But one potential objective has been ignored: distraction. Russia appears to be consciously feeding the narrative that it interfered in the U.S. election, while also burying news of its recent aggression in Libya and Egypt. While the U.S. continues to focus exclusively on Russia’s electoral meddling, Moscow’s attempts to fill the Middle East power vacuum have gone unchecked.

Following the inauguration of President Trump, the Putin regime ramped up its efforts to further Moscow’s influence in the Middle East. Russia has been particularly involved in the ongoing civil war in Libya. The Kremlin has backed Marshal Khalifa Haftar, a former Ghadafi-loyalist who opposes Libya’s UN-backed government in Tripoli. Russia views Fayez al-Sarraj’s Tripoli-based government as a NATO puppet regime installed to help the West gain access to Libyan oil fields. Haftar has visited Moscow twice this year and Russian Special Forces have been spotted on an Egyptian military base near the Libyan border. Analysts say that with Russian military assistance, the Libyan National Army may be able to take over the country and institute a military-led regime.

Moscow’s influence in Egypt also appears to be growing. The Kremlin recently increased its arms sales to the country and Russia’s state-run nuclear energy company, Rosatom, was contracted by the Egyptian government to construct a power plant along the Egyptian coast. Russia has also continued to cultivate relations with Turkey, recently inviting President Erdogan to talks on Syria while excluding the U.S.

While Russia has been pursuing further geopolitical influence in the Middle East, the Kremlin and its state-run media organizations have remained largely silent on the topic. President Putin has yet to comment on whether Russia’s military is supporting the LNA, and the only official Kremlin statement that has been issued came from the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Igor Konashenkov, who told RIA Novosti, “Certain western mass media have been stirring up the public for years with such false information from anonymous sources.” The Kremlin’s major state-sponsored media organizations, RT and Sputnik, have provided sparse coverage of Russia’s involvement in Libya and Egypt. RT wrote only three articles in March about Russia’s intervention in Libya while Sputnik featured 10. In comparison, Sputnik wrote 937 articles in March about Russia’s military involvement in Syria. Eight of the 10 articles in Sputnik alleged that a report Reuters published about Russian military sightings along the Libyan border were “grossly inaccurate.” U.S. Africacom later confirmed the validity of the Reuters report. The other two articles claimed that Libya was in a state of chaos and emphasized the growing levels of violence in the country. Both RT and Sputnik referred to the UN-backed Libyan government as “illegal armed groups” and “militants” and stressed the need for stability in the region.

Despite RT and Sputnik’s limited coverage of Russia’s actions in Libya and Egypt, they have both extensively covered the investigations into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In March, Sputnik published over 387 stories about the House Intelligence Committee hearings and Russia’s involvement in the U.S. presidential election. The majority of the articles about the investigation focused on the undemocratic nature of the hearings and criticized FBI Director Comey’s lack of transparency. The Putin regime has also begun to publicly insert itself into the conversation on Russian electoral interference. During a CNBC-moderated panel on March 30, President Putin said, “All those things are fictional, illusory and provocations, lies. All these are used for domestic American political agendas.” Two days later, the Russian Foreign Ministry set up an automated telephone switchboard for embassies as an April Fools Day prank that included a fake voicemail offering services of “election interference” and “hackers.” The recording said, “To arrange a call from a Russian diplomat to your political opponent, press 1. To use the services of Russian hackers, press 2. To request election interference, press 3 and wait until the next election campaign.”

Throughout the past few months, the Kremlin’s spokespeople and state-run media organizations have overwhelmed audiences with hundreds of stories about investigations into Russia’s involvement in the U.S. election. The Kremlin has also begun to actively insert itself into U.S. news stories through strong denials of responsibility and April Fools Day pranks. At the same time, RT and Sputnik have written only a combined 18 articles about Russia’s actions in Libya and President Putin has yet to publicly address the issue. It seems as if Russia is attempting to distract attention from its actions in the Middle East by keeping Western focus on Russia’s electoral interference.

So far, it appears to be working. The United States has done little to address Russia’s aggression in Libya. While the U.S. State Department repeatedly expressed its “deep concern over the escalation of violence” in Libya during the final months of the Obama administration, it has not commented on Russia’s aggression in Libya since February 11, 2017. As a result, the U.S. media have maintained its focus on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and have spent little time covering Russia’s actions in the Middle East. If the United States hopes to maintain its influence in the region, it must challenge the Kremlin’s information campaign by addressing Russia’s actions in Libya, Egypt and Turkey.

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.

Public Diplomacy is a tool that is needed more than ever in the current digital age, where the abundance of information makes it increasingly difficult to have one’s voice heard. Time brings about change and public diplomacy officials have been and are continuing to adapt to the changing environment that we are in. However, these officials need to look no farther than the field of opera,  where the approach of attracting and maintaining an audience is drastically different than 50 years ago..

Every year there are a multitude of articles posted about how opera in the United States is a dying art form. From the cost of attendance to the ‘elite’ nature of the music, many believe that opera is on its way out. However, the artistic directors and executive directors of opera companies don’t want to see their industry die. They have begun to innovate and are attempting to reach out to different demographics that other directors have previously neglected. Their creative solutions can and should be used by other industries to constantly bring in new “people to the seats”. Here are five ways that public diplomacy officials can learn from opera companies.

1. Spontaneity

(Eliud Pacheco/ Secretaría de Cultura Creative Commons)

The power of surprise is one that Opera Philadelphia heavily relies on. They constantly bring their art to audiences without the people suspecting or immediately recognizing what is happening. “Flash Mobs” started in the dance world but Opera Philadelphia uses this concept to introduce people to their art form and their upcoming season. The company goes into tourist areas in Philadelphia and performs a famous opera aria (song) which consistently delights the crowd. (You can see a video of it here.) By using spontaneity in a creative way, public diplomacy officials can brighten someone’s day but also give them information about the United States. An example could be bringing in a food truck to a busy tourist street and offering free food from the truck. The truck as well as the food wrapping could have facts about the United States on it. Thus, the action is spontaneous and interactive and potential consumers do not feel as if they are being beat over the head with information.

2. Change the Venue

(Mrs. Gemstone Creative Commons)

Opera Companies are quickly learning that young people are not interested in sitting in a stuffy theater for two hours. Instead, during the summer and fall months, companies have begun to live cast an opera in a popular public place. Washington National Opera live casts an opera in Nationals Park as a part of their Opera in the Outfield program. The Metropolitan Opera puts on Opera in the Park. Companies that don’t have access to an outdoor venue have begun to even change the theater venue of their performances. San Francisco Opera has introduced the concept of an Opera Lab where there is a relaxed atmosphere and the hall even has a bar. Public Diplomacy officials are at a great advantage because their programming does not have to be limited to a single location. Have a talk on the beach. Sponsor a karaoke night at a bar. Offering a lighter atmosphere where foreign nationals can engage in the culture of the United States increases the opportunity of having a large crowd.

3. Use the Culture of the Country You Are In

A constant international criticism of the United States is that “It is All America, All the Time.” Public Diplomacy officials must be able to tap into the cultural values of the country they are stationed in. Opera Companies are recognizing that as well and attempting to use the neighborhood they are based in to draw in a unique audience. In the United States, there is a sizable Hispanic population. Lyric Opera of Chicago sees this and implemented a program to attempt to attract Hispanics as consumers of their good. Their program showcased the connection between mariachi music and opera in a Hispanic neighborhood. With the sphere of the influence of the United States being ever reaching, diplomatic officials should have no problem identifying an area in their stationed country and putting on a program to highlight the connection of values between that country and the United States.

4. Visuals! Visuals! Visuals!

English National Opera, based out of London, is the best opera company when it comes to changing their visuals. Research has shown that a captivating image can draw in a consumer to the message. Once that visual is made, it must be displayed on all available platforms that public diplomacy officials have available to them. This includes on social media and mobile sites. When the English National Opera introduced this concept, the average age of their customer dropped from 55 to 30. Embassies need to invest more in graphic designers because sometimes all it takes is one image to get someone previously not interested in your message to join you.

5. Remember the Youth

To continue to combat terrorist ideology, diplomatic officials are going to need youth engagement. For opera companies to continue, they are going to need young people to fall in love with the art form. Young people buying in is the key to the success of any brand. Opera companies are letting young people ‘buy in’ by making them the content creators. The Royal Opera encouraged young people to design a mobile game that centered on the plot of an opera. They even commissioned a young composer to write a fanfare that played when patrons walked up to the theater. Even if embassies don’t want to use young people directly, they can allow a space for them when putting together programs targeted at their parents. Vienna State Opera pitched tents for children and in the tents, they performed scaled-down operas. If embassies were to have children-friendly areas, these spaces could have coloring books dedicated to United States foreign policy and toys that when pressed could issue a fact about the US’ foreign policy.

(Rachel Andrew Creative Commons)

Public Diplomacy officials must be creative in how they attract new consumers to their message. Various United States’ embassies abroad have started to recognize the power of flash mobs with Armenia and Belize as good examples. People love to be entertained and watch spectacles.

In thinking about events, it is important to take an all-inclusive mindset to programming. Instead of giving a speech in an auditorium to celebrate Earth Day,  members of the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo volunteered and cleaned up trails in a park. Not only did the Embassy have a program outside, they also showcased cooperation in working with the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina to clean up their national park.

By continuing to use 21^st century strategies similar to opera companies, embassies can begin to see an immediate shift in who their message reaches.

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.