Category: public diplomacy

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.

Within the first 100 days of office, Donald Trump formally withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and notified Mexico and Canada of his intentions to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

All contending presidential candidates ran on anti-TPP platforms during the 2016 election. In fact, Trump’s pledge to bring jobs back to the states was what attracted his core voter base.

Many oppose multi-lateral trade agreements, such as the TPP and NAFTA, in fear that they will damage our manufacturing sector and enlarge the trade deficit. Others support these agreements in hope that they will grow exports and propel our economy forward.

The difficulty is that there is little alignment between those two groups, and finding common ground on what exactly these trade agreements will and won’t do is extremely complex. Debating the economics behind the deal has proven especially futile and even beside the point.

Today’s trade agreements are rarely about trade alone. Rather, they are long-term public diplomacy efforts which follow a relational framework in bringing nations together.

So, let’s resurrect the TPP for a few minutes and discuss exactly what will happen to those Pacific Rim relationships in our absence.

A primary objective of the TPP was to exert control on China. This objective has been a U.S. foreign policy goal since the Nixon era, and according to The Atlantic, is only becoming more difficult to manage. Of main concern has been the enormous increase in China’s global trade surplus since the 90s, a topic that Trump has not shied away from.

Trump has declared on numerous occasions that China would’ve benefited from the agreement due to back door channels, but by leaving the deal we’ve opened the front door to China ourselves. According to the New York Times, China has much more space to fortify its economic supremacy in Asia with the U.S. in standstill. One Washington Post article found that a deal between China and Japan alone could jeopardize $5 billion in U.S. dollars.

After speaking with experts on the topic, Politifact ranked Trump’s TPP China claim to be “Pants on Fire” false. In other words, it was virtually impossible that China could have taken advantage of the TPP in a major way.

However, what’s potentially more devastating than deserting this longtime foreign policy goal, and aiding China in its newfound economic foothold, is the lack of support we’re showing our allies in the region. As much as Obama worked to control China, he worked to tap a growing region and to forge meaningful partnerships in that area of the world.

The TPP would have been the first time that both small and medium-sized American businesses, and TPP member-state businesses, would’ve had access to nearly half of the world’s economies. The biggest driver for most TPP participants was access to the U.S. market. According to CNN, America’s GDP accounts for 69% of the combined GDP of the member countries. Our departure from the agreement is a major let down to many of these emerging economies.

Opponents of the TPP have called the agreement a “job killer,” but, leaving the deal is exactly what may hinder job growth. As Forbes explains, leaving the TPP may lead to a later trade war wherein prices will shoot up and drive down demand, limiting the spending of American consumers and leading to fewer jobs.

What’s more is that the possibility of a trade war is not entirely outlandish. One New York Times article speaks to our now strained relationship with Japan and the fear that the lack of an agreement will bring on the trade wars we saw in the 1980s, back when our nations saw one another as economic opponents.

Whether or not the TPP would have been as financially fruitful as the Obama administration expected does not get to the heart of the issue. As Defense One explains, free trade deals are most valuable due to their ability to strengthen diplomatic relations and reduce future conflict, not their ability to produce dramatic economic welfare.

TPP was by no means a perfect deal. The agreement became an extremely intricate arrangement concerning pharmaceutical regulations to environmental protections. According to Senator Warren and other elites, the deal even ran the gambit of allowing for corporatocracy through secret tribunal clauses outlined in the deal.

However, by pulling out of the agreement, we’ve not only added to our wavering credibility by abandoning yet another foreign policy objective, but rendered our Pacific Rim allies ripe for the picking.

With all this in mind, it’s important to remember that the TPP was not the only multi-lateral agreement in the works. Coming up next are the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trade in Services Agreement (TISA).

With a delicate global order hanging in the balance, it’s crucial that America does not lag in foreign commitment. Unfortunately, and unless Trump suddenly drops his protectionist stance, pushing for these trade agreements might be almost entirely up to our foreign partners.

To sway public opinion, a departure from the relational framework which grounds these agreements may be best. Instead, our foreign allies should work on deploying multi-platform information campaigns, where they can engage the American public directly and explain to U.S. citizens why free trade is valuable to U.S. foreign policy efforts at large. Better yet, these information campaigns can take a note from Vox and explain how our manufacturing sector has been dying since the 1940s and is not a result of trade agreements between our nations.

Persuading the American people will not be easy. According to Pew, Americans have been wary of foreign engagement since the Cold War. But, if the TPP has taught us anything, it’s that an imperfect situation is still worth exploring.

With stronger social media campaigns, more op-eds from legitimate elites and a proliferation of accessible literature on the issue, foreign entities can control their messaging and begin to alter American perception away from Trump’s.

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.

There is an increasing recognition among public diplomacy (PD) experts that we need to pay more attention to the audience.  In fact, the word audience itself is losing credence as it implies one-directional communication.  Instead, we are urged to engage with our ‘partners’ in an on-going dialogue.  In PD headquarters around the world, there is also a trend to make PD activities more accountable and to build monitoring and evaluation into the design of programs, largely based on the impact the program had on our partners.

The most successful programs are those in which our partners take ownership of United States Government initiatives, resulting in long term institution-wide changes which benefit both sides.

These gauges of successful public diplomacy programs rest on two assumptions.  First, there is the assumption that one has a partner willing to engage and work with us to enact programs.  The second assumption is that the most important successes can and should be measured.  But all PD professionals have had the experience of being directed by headquarters to deliver the unpopular message, knowing it may not necessarily be received well and may even be met by stiff opposition on the part of our interlocutors.  Our success as PD professionals is to deliver this message in as clear and culturally appropriate a way as possible, knowing full well that our interlocutors will disagree at the minimum.  Few of us are adequately trained for this kind of task and usually learn from our own experience.  More importantly these kind of necessary and challenging activities largely go unrecognized and certainly unmeasured as gauges of success.

I was once directed to inform the government in the country I was assigned to that the Department was going to curtail a very popular cultural exchange program.  I practiced my delivery in the local language and marshalled my arguments why this was the best solution for all concerned.  I then made the best case I could at a parliamentary session devoted to this issue.  The response to my arguments was so heated that the chairman informed the other parliamentarians not to kill the messenger.  Had I delivered the message in a different manner, would it have been received more favorably?  One can never know because one can never compare the results of something that happened to something that didn’t.  But I still believe that making the appearance before parliament and taking the heat mitigated the damage in a small way but I could never prove it.

While we always must defend our own government’s policies, maintaining long-term relations requires giving our contacts a fair hearing, even when we disagree. Allowing contacts to vent may indeed be an effective long term strategy and certainly provides a wealth of information which may inform future successful programming.  On her first trip abroad as Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Karen Hughes went on a listening tour of Muslim majority countries  and was met by professional women very unhappy with U.S. policy at the time.  The tour was widely panned in the media as the events did not unfold as anticipated.  Yet many women I met in Turkey, even those who had not attended the programs, were impressed that such a high level official had come to listen and had truly seemed to hear what the audience was saying.  By any surface measurement of press coverage, the trip was seen as a failure but in terms of deep, long term impact it may have been an important success.

Our greatest successes often go unreported, or to state it in another manner, success is sometimes measured in the absence of reporting.  All PD professionals who have worked with the media have had the experience of either correcting the reporting about U.S. officials who were misquoted or ensuring that misstatements by officials do not get covered, because they were just that – mistakes.  This is possible only because the PD office in question has a long term relationship with the media outlet, ensuring continuing cooperation.

There are also occasions when the best strategy may be not to engage.  In one country I worked in, we decided not to engage with the most important and effective anti-globalization NGO.  As a hard opponent with a firmly held ideological view whose very existence depended on opposition to the globalization agenda, they could not be convinced or persuaded in any event.  In addition this group had already twisted the words and not given a fair hearing when the EU had tried to interact with this group.  By any network analysis, our decision not to engage would be viewed as a failure, showing the Embassy as barely connected to the most important player in this subject. But we had made a strategic decision whose effectiveness can never be measured.

In short, as the saying goes not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts.  In an admirable effort to make our efforts more accountable, measurable goals are included in Integrated Country Strategy documents which lay out and justify our efforts for the coming years.  We can make inroads and experience the greatest successes in areas of overlap, where we have parallel agendas with local partners.  But there are many cases, especially in hostile environments, where our most important efforts cannot and should not be measured or even publicized. Just being present and listening may be our most important contribution, which lays the foundation for future measurable successes.

Caveat: The views expressed in this blog are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of State.