public diplomacy – Page 27 – IPDGC Smart Power

International Visitor Exchanges: Short-Term Visits, Long-Term Impact

March 23, 2012public diplomacy1 Comment

Roughly three weeks ago, the Huffington Post blog featured an article that highlighted a program given too little attention in the public diplomacy debate—international visitor exchanges. Sparked by the visit of Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping to the United States, the article by President and CEO of the Meridian International Center Stuart Holiday highlights the long-term value of these exchanges.

This visit to the United States was not Mr. Xi’s first; he traveled to the United States for the first time in 1985 as a provincial official, where he studied Iowa’s agricultural policies as part of a Chinese delegation. According to the Huffington Post, the vice president’s warm feelings toward the United States were the direct result of his previous visit to the country 27 years ago. Although the visit lasted only a short amount of time, the time was sufficient to create a lasting impression of the United States and its people.

In a time when political tensions run increasingly high, programs such as these allow government officials (and, more broadly, countries) to develop long-term, meaningful relationships.

The State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP), launched in 1940, has aimed and continues to aim to “build mutual understanding between the U.S. and other nations through carefully designed short-term visits to the U.S. for current and emerging foreign leaders.”

Over the years, the IVLP has hosted leaders from the public and private sectors as well as 330 current and former Chiefs of State and Heads of Government and thousands of cabinet-level ministers. As stated on the IVLP website, these visits “reflect the International Visitors’ professional interests and support the foreign policy goals of the United States.”

In other words, these international visitor programs are mutually beneficial and can have a significant impact on all parties involved. “Exchanges offer an in-depth experience with a foreign country, its culture, its systems, and most importantly, its people. Exchanges provide a substantive and long-lasting connection.” This instrumental public diplomacy tool allows governments to establish connections with those parties it believes could become vital partners in the future.

As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, international visitor exchanges will allow us to form substantial connections across the globe, reinforcing those relationships already established and creating the core foundations for new ones.

Hip Hop Diplomacy

March 21, 2012public diplomacyLeave a Comment

Dan Sreebny (@pd_dan) has had a couple of interesting tweets lately about various cultural diplomacy programs by the State Department featuring Hip Hop music and dance. In Egypt, the U.S. Embassy and the Brooklyn Academy of Music teamed up to bring the Rennie Harris Puremovement Dance Company (RHPM) to perform as part of a Middle Eastern tour. In Lebanon, Chen Lo and the Liberation Family performed as part of State’s Rhythm Road program, which sends American bands around the world.You can get a sense of Chen Lo’s group from this concert in Algiers:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef5Oirc4T10&w=420&h=315]

These efforts are part of a long tradition of using music as an integral part of U.S. public diplomacy efforts abroad. This blog’s name is an homage to those programs, which in their earliest days featured “Jazz Ambassadors” like Dave Brubeck and Louis Armstrong. A major underlying rational for these programs is that music and other arts are seen as being less overtly political than traditional diplomacy and thus able to bridge gaps created by policy differences between the U.S. and other countries, something USC’s Phil Seib blogged about last week.

Hip Hop is in many ways ideally suited to these programs because of its wide appeal to young people (and some of us older folks) around the world.

That said, as Seib intimates, it’s obviously a bit ridiculous to pretend that art, music very much included, is apolitical. Furthermore, from the earliest days of post-war American public diplomacy the art and artists State has chosen to export through these programs have often been chosen expressly because of their political value. Much has been written, for instance, about the debates in U.S. policy circles about which art to include in the famous American Exhibition in Moscow in 1959 (famous for the Kitchen Debate). And even the Jazz Messengers were seen by President Eisenhower and others as helping to counter America’s well-deserved bad reputation regarding race, while at the same time potentially opening up politicized critiques of American hypocrisy.

Hip Hop, of course, is also no stranger to political firestorms, and the best of it — like the best of virtually all artistic genres and mediums — is often overtly political, especially about culture. Whether it’s Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power,” NWA’s “F*** tha Police,” or Jay Z’s “99 Problems,” (all links very much NSFW) Hip Hop (and Rap) frequently touch on important themes of racism, police brutality, and economic disenfranchisement.

Contrary to the purported apolitical intent of many cultural diplomacy programs involving the arts, I think their value lies precisely in their manifest and latent political content. Sure, State isn’t about to send Nas on a world tour (though that would be awesome on many levels…), but there is still a great value in not being afraid of a musical genre just because it has a negative stereotype among certain circles in the U.S., including many political circles.

Yet these same domestic political issues force the State Department to walk a tightrope with these programs: They can’t promote even remotely controversial artists lest they raise the hackles of members of Congress who control the purse strings for such programs. This is especially difficult for public diplomacy programs because, for many reasons including their long-term effects horizon and measurement issues, it is often difficult to “prove” their worth empirically to legislators looking for reasons to slash budgets. Programs tainted with being “politicized” are especially likely to receive scrutiny.

Yet I’d argue that perhaps the greatest value of the Jazz Messengers was precisely that they sparked conversations about America’s race problem, something many Americans would prefer to ignore, while at the same time celebrating not only American culture generally, but African American culture specifically. In that case, there was also an added benefit of subtly demonstrating American values by opening up such a discussion of race, something that shows, I think, the difference between good public diplomacy and propaganda.

All of this will be front and center, by the way, at next Tuesday’s IPDGC conference “Hip Hop Diplomacy: Connecting Through Culture,” from 2-5 at the State Room at the Elliott School for International Affairs on the GWU campus. RSVP now because seats are limited!

The Troubling Power of the US Military over Foreign Policymaking

March 16, 2012Middle East, public diplomacy3 Comments

In reading about the difficulties confronting American policymakers in Afghanistan, one point struck me as especially troubling. The New York Times reported:

“Any accelerated withdrawal would face stiff opposition from military commanders, who want to keep the bulk of the remaining American troops in Afghanistan until the end of 2014, when the NATO mission in Afghanistan is supposed to end. Their resistance puts Mr. Obama in a quandary, as he balances how to hasten what is increasingly becoming a messy withdrawal while still painting a portrait of success for NATO allies and the American people.

The Times is reporting that the “resistance” of the Pentagon to what many of the president’s civilian advisors are saying creates a dilemma for him. This quandary arises because open knowledge of Pentagon resistance forces the president to balance his administration’s apparent desire to “hasten” US military withdrawal against his need to maintain support from NATO allies and American citizens—support that would be undermined were the commander in chief to appear to overrule the Pentagon’s “stiff opposition.” In other words, the military’s willingness to publicize its opposition to civilian policymakers creates pressure to which the president must respond.

"The military’s willingness to publicize its opposition to civilian policymakers creates pressure to which the president must respond."

Is it healthy for a democracy when elected leaders worry about winning the military’s support as much as winning that of the country’s citizens’ or allies’?

Not only does it seem problematic for the military to implicitly threaten open opposition should the president choose a policy the Pentagon dislikes. It’s also worrisome because any seeming “Pentagon” consensus in opposition might be nothing of the sort. The institutional voice of the Joint Chiefs could largely reflect who won out in bureaucratic maneuvers, turf battles and individual jockeying for career advancement. The Pentagon’s stands do not necessarily reflect rational deliberation or application of neutral technical expertise.

America’s unhappy experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq could yield at least one benefit if they spurred systematic renewal of mechanisms ensuring civilian control of the US military.

Diplomacy in the Digital Age

March 10, 2012Middle East, public diplomacy, Social MediaLeave a Comment

Do a web search for the Egyptian Influence Network and what emerges is a visual depiction of the social network that helped bring down President Hosni Mubarak a year ago. The United States government knew about broad public discontent, but did not have a meaningful relationship with these new digital elites. It certainly underestimated their power.

Invisible Children's Jason Russel is trailing behind U.S. Policy

Earlier this week other digital actors released a dramatic film on the Lord’s Resistance Army, called KONY 2012. It instantly went viral; the State Department learned of it via the daughter of its Deputy Spokesman (in the interest of full disclosure, my former deputy). In this case, Jason Russell, the film’s producer, is trailing U.S. policy. The government months ago deployed military advisors to help improve the ability of regional governments to defeat the LRA.

Both cases underscore the dynamism of the digital age and the pressures it places on U.S. diplomacy. More and more people will have access to the kind and quality of information that was previously reserved for governments. Digital media do not fundamentally change the diplomatic process, but it expands the number of influencers, accelerates the process and can generate sudden shifts in public opinion.

As cell phones and other technologies become even more ubiquitous – equipped with cameras and connected to the Internet – everything we say and do will be increasingly visible. Government bureaucracies are going to struggle to keep pace and respond meaningfully in real time.

The State Department is already aggressively expanding its use of social media to communicate beyond governments directly to the people in multiple languages. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review has created a vision of a new breed of ambassador who will be more visible and more empowered than ever. Recently minted Ambassadors Robert Ford and Michael McFaul in Syria and Russia respectively are great examples of “early adopters” who have led significant engagement campaigns using social media.

But they are still the exceptions, not the rules. It will take some time to change bureaucratic culture whose first instinct is to carefully control the flow of information. But the global information infrastructure is simply too advanced to be controlled. The new digital elites must be engaged.

This will require both cultural and process changes to empower more leaders to willingly and effectively communicate with key audiences around the world. It will take a new generation of Foreign Service officers for whom information and communications technology is second nature. This will involve more engagement, more risk taking and greater focus on global public opinion.

Given what we are seeing in the Arab Awakening, public opinion will shape policies and diplomatic options in more countries of consequence to the United States. Policies are going to be more populist – the immediate impact of the Koran burning is another recent case in point.

Technologies are transformed much faster than cultures. They will change diplomacy, but it will take a while.

R we there yet? A look at the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy (and Public Affairs) (mountainrunner.us)
Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #60 (IPDGC Home)
Kony 2012 – Activism that has our Attention (Take Five)

Learning Public Diplomacy in Europe — China: Still Center of Controversy

March 9, 2012public diplomacyLeave a Comment

In Paris, whenever I’m asked where I am from, I have difficulty in giving a short answer. I am a Chinese national, which is apparent from my Asian face, but I’m also on exchange to a French university from an American graduate school. For many, however, the fact that I’m studying public diplomacy (PD) in France, a fancy new subject that is coined by an American is more confusing than my trajectory of school life.

Here I am in Paris, attending a class called “Public diplomacy and international communication”. Unlike in the Elliott School where my classmates were mostly either from Asia or the US, here in my public diplomacy class in Sciences Po (Paris), the classroom is composed of students from all over the world including India, Canada, Columbia, Nigeria, France, Britain, the US, China, etc.

The benefit of a diverse class background is that I can always hear an insider explaining the public diplomacy of his or her country, as well as their views on China. These opinions, which arise in almost every class and form a fierce debate afterwards, however, have shocked me from time to time.

Controversy #1: “PD in a non-democracy never works.”

My first day of the class started with the comment “PD in a non-democracy never works” from an American classmate. I was sitting in the front row, blushed and shocked. I didn’t take it personally, but I was quite disappointed that in later classes, this sentiment was expressed repeatedly among my classmates.

When we covered the practice of nation branding in PD, the Olympics in Beijing was cited as an example. A Canadian classmate then negated China’s Olympics showbiz with reference to China dubbing the voice of the girl who sang a nationally reputed song. I was surprised to realize that for an emerging power like China, whenever it tries hard to prove itself, people in the west will still link its action with the governing ideology. Under such circumstances, they will be most easily impressed with the scandal the smears China’s entire image. Hence, China’s display of its ancient culture is swamped under such mindset.

Controversy #2: China + Syria = China’s failure in PD

Right after China vetoed the UN resolution to request the Syrian president to resign, every time I walked in the 13th quartier in Paris which is full of Arabs, I was afraid I would be kidnapped. This fear converts to the anxiety of being attacked verbally in my PD class. Neither of these happened, but China and Syria was constantly brought up in the class as well as the French media.

Once we had Bernard Kouchner as a guest speaker, who was the former French Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, who is certainty furious at how “our friend China” has obstructed the French active negotiation to pass the resolution on Syria, and under this comparison, China is easily depicted as the irresponsible, self-interested power. I’m not defending China’s stance here, but I have to point out that the fact that the world lacks knowledge about why China is against international action against Syria IS an example of China’s failure in public diplomacy.

Comics on China and Russia vetoing UN resolution on Syria France 24, the French international news channel. Retrieved on 03/03/2012.

Though this is quite sad, I have found that people regardless of their nationality have formed their opinions on current affairs based on media coverage. Criticism against China is prevailing in the western media, while China’s voice of defense is usually ignored or given limited coverage. In fact, every non-Chinese I have talked to has a duplicated mindset of what’s on the media, that is, China is letting civilians dying in Syria while holding its vested geopolitical interests. In the United Nations, every country has been acting on behalf of itself, while concerned with the safety of others in the world. Do the western powers like France, which has been trying to reestablish itself internationally and the US have no individual agenda in mind?

I try to explain things in China to my classmates when they express hostile opinions. Their overwhelmingly negative evaluation of China is due to China’s Communist root (usually perceived as contrary to democracy), one-party system, and the lack of a strong, credible international media. As an exchange student studying abroad, I myself is part of the practice of public diplomacy. And at present, I’m enjoying my role that transcends Chinese media such as CCTV (China Central Television) English and the 24-hour English Channel CNC (China Xinhua News Network Corporation) who are perceived to be propagandists among those who have heard of them.

Hip Hop, Soccer, and Women’s Voices

March 8, 2012public diplomacyLeave a Comment

It’s March 8 — International Women’s Day — and a great occasion to introduce two remarkable women who will travel to Washington DC later this month to speak at George Washington University.

Tumi Mosadi, not yet 30, directs GlobalGirl Media in Johannesburg, South Africa, teaching social media and video-journalism skills to high school girls who are struggling against stacked odds: poverty, disease, violence. Through Tumi’s dedication, these girls find their voices. They learn to tell their own stories, and the stories of those around them. When South Africa hosted the 2010 soccer World Cup, Tumi helped the girls talk about what this remarkable event meant for them as citizens of South Africa, even if soccer is not traditionally a girls’ game there. Since 2011, Tumi has helped the girls find their voices to talk about HIV and AIDS.

Soultana, at 25, is a Moroccan rap star, still a rarity in that North African country. With fellow members of the trio “Tigresse Flow” she won several national music awards in Morocco, including the prize for best emerging talent at the prestigious annual Mawazine festival. Last year, Soultana released a solo music video: “Sawt Nssa” or “The Voice of Women.”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK9Pcvf8CG4]

Soultana raps about poverty, double standards, and exploitation. She sings “The woman’s voice is what I’m calling / The girl’s voice that is lost in my country / The voice of those who want to talk, who want to say: a voice of all women who want a sign.”

So what do these remarkable women have in common? And what brings them together at GWU later this month?

What Tumi and Soultana share is their embrace of cross-cultural dialogue and international partnerships — and specifically their participation in programs that are part of United States cultural diplomacy.

Global Girl Media works to give girls a journalist’s voice, with programs in Los Angeles, South Africa and elsewhere. U.S. Embassy public diplomacy grants help send American volunteer mentors/trainers to South Africa. At the U.S. Consulate in Johannesburg, I saw clearly the thirst for such programs and opportunities, and their potential for great impact. But Tumi herself can speak from the inside, can talk about what she’s learned as a trainer and mentor about effectiveness, and about the changes she has seen in the lives of the participating girls.

Half a continent away, Soultana came to know several young U.S. Fulbright researchers who were studying hip hop culture in Morocco, and helped guide them through Casablanca’s complex cultural scene. Last year, she visited the U.S. via the International Visitors Leadership Program, adding on an artists’ residency and New York festival performance. At the U.S. Embassy in Morocco, I saw first-hand the emerging power of young aspirations and voices in that country, which, just as in the U.S., are so often expressed through music. But Soultana herself can speak about how it feels to be a young, pioneering woman expressing the concerns of a generation. And her prior experience in America will help her to tell us these things in our own language of cultural understanding.

The best news is that both of these remarkable individuals will be featured speakers at “Hip Hop Diplomacy: Connecting Through Culture,” a conference the IPDGC will host on March 27, from 2:00 – 5:00 pm at the Elliott School of International Relations. Click on the link for details, and to RSVP. We hope to see you there!

Was the Arab Awakening a Spring Without Flowers?

March 8, 2012public diplomacyLeave a Comment

In celebration of International Women’s Day, the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center has released an interesting report, “Reflections on Women in the Arab Spring.” The report consists of short commentaries from women who were key participants and observers of the various protests that have swept the MENA region over the last year.

Many of those contributing to the report are pessimistic about the future for women in many of these societies, and a mood of bitterness and even betrayal underlies a lot of their observations. Some of this, to be sure, reflects the same feelings that many of the protesters in places like Egypt have expressed as they’ve seen their own power usurped by conservative political parties and even old foes like the Army. Last April I conducted some journalism training at the American University in Cairo right next to Tahrir Square, and already this pessimism was palpable in the conversations I had with students, faculty, and even those still gathering in the square.

But as the report makes clear, there are unique concerns among many women, and their male supporters, that the new political systems in these countries are not an improvement, and in some cases could even create a worse environment for women than existed under the old dictatorships.

This is all the more distressing given the powerful role many women played in these revolutions, and, for many, the sense of empowerment the protests gave to these women. As Moushira Khattab, a former Egyptian Ambassador to several countries and former Minister of Family and Population, says in the report:

Women rallied around the cause of pushing the train of political change. One year later,
Egyptian women find that the train of change has not only left them behind, but has in fact
turned against them. It is ironic that the revolution that empowered a country, and made every
Egyptian realize the power of their voice, stopped short of women’s rights. Sadly, the only
march that was kicked out of Tahrir Square was that of women celebrating 2011 International
Women’s Day. Women were beaten, subjected to virginity tests, and stripped of their clothes in
the very same Tahrir Square.

An important underlying theme of the report, from both an academic and a social movement perspective, is that political processes and political parties are ultimately more important for securing rights and freedoms than revolutions. Many of those quoted in the report lament the failure to live up to the promise of female representation in legislative bodies, and the frightening way in which these male- and often conservatively-dominated legislatures are trying to roll back the rights of women by, for example, legalizing polygamy or trying to reinstate female genital mutilation.

This isn’t just about Islamism, either. As Rend Al-Rahim, Executive Director of the Iraq Foundation, points out:

A similar retreat in the civil and human rights of women may well occur, as constitutions are
written and laws are passed. It’s not an issue of Islam. Though the Salafist trend denies rights
for women, the Muslim Brotherhood, less extreme and more numerous, fielded women
candidates for parliament in Egypt (and before that in Iraq). The retreat in women’s rights has
more to do with the resurgence of patriarchal, narrowly conservative, social mores embedded
in ancient tribal customs than with religion. Shari’a is only a convenient peg for the deeper
instinct of male dominance.

Successful social movements, particularly revolutionary ones, have always faced difficulties as they transition from protest to political process, in large part because the latter doesn’t reward idealism and non-hierarchical structures. The problem is, process is where real change occurs, or where it gets squashed. For women in the MENA region, and elsewhere, there are worrying signs, but there are also hopeful ones. To end on a more positive note, here is a cautiously optimistic forecast from Farzaneh Milani of the University of Virgina:

The massive participation of throngs of women, walking shoulder to
shoulder and side by side with men, is a turning point in the contemporary history of the
region. It is indeed a revolution within revolutions. Although there will be many challenges
ahead, particularly for those women who have transgressed all conventional boundaries and
traditional spaces, the genie is out of the bottle.

Baby You Can Drive My Car. Please.

March 7, 2012public diplomacy1 Comment

Americans tend to think—and politicians tell them at almost every opportunity—that theirs is the greatest, richest, freest country in the world. Leaders seem to consider this description so self-evident that they rarely provide evidence, nor do their audiences demand it. A major reason is the absence of truly “global communication” in most American households. Most Americans seem utterly unfamiliar with the public polices, political practices, daily lives and living standards even of this country’s closest allies. When messages about France, Germany, Norway, Spain and even the UK do reach US media, their main purpose is often to disparage these countries—again without much evidence.

A lot could be said about this but for now consider the car. I just spent 6 weeks in Madrid and had time to ponder why so many European cities seem so much more charming and livable than just about any American city. I think it’s got a lot to do with cars, specifically the paucity thereof.

In Madrid, just like DC, there are plenty of wide boulevards, where car traffic is heavy at rush hour. But there are also many, many pedestrian passages, plazas and narrow medieval streets that cars never or rarely traverse. At least in the center, you can walk for several blocks, or sit out at a café on a plaza like the one I lived on (Plaza de la Paja, the oldest in Madrid—see picture) for an hour and not see or hear a car. You can enjoy being outside, as Madrileños do even when it’s cold, soaking in sun and (fairly) fresh air, communing with other people. No need as in DC to will yourself to block out the noise and aesthetic assaults generated by automobiles and trucks. In this dimension, Madrid offers a great, rich (indeed priceless, unobtainable) experience in daily living, one most Americans are not free to enjoy whatever their income level.

Of course there are a hundred reasons for the greater charms of European capitals (not to mention the smaller towns). Some relate to cars and public policy (high gasoline taxes, heavy investment in mass transit enabled in part by far lower investment in military infrastructure), most to history, climate and many more factors.

My points in bringing up cars and comparative living standards are three: 1) The arguments for Americans reducing reliance on cars are numerous and thoroughly familiar to readers of blogs like this: augmenting national security; reducing the trade deficit; cutting the indirect funding that guzzling gas provides to terrorist organizations and nasty regimes; slowing climate change. What’s significant is how marginalized—to the point of invisibility—such reasoning is in the public discourse of 2012.

2) This in part reflects one area where America may indeed be the leader among affluent countries. I’d hypothesize (I’m not sure) that we enjoy the dubious distinction of the greatest isolation of citizens from globally communicated information and globally shared (at least among the wealthy democracies) cultural assumptions. Among many other areas, this manifests itself in the political impossibility of even mentioning the option of raising gasoline taxes to, say, half of what Europeans pay. Gasoline here in Berlin runs about 1.6 Euros, around $2.12, per liter—about $8 a gallon. The difference between that number and what Americans pay is mostly tax.

3) Americans’ isolation from two-way global communication both reflects and reinforces their impoverished sense of such words as “greatest,” “richest,” and “freest” when applied to the US.

I’m not saying this is anyone’s fault. Politicians and media can’t attack conventional notions of the normal until enough citizens share some assumptions and perceptions to make sense of the attacks. But citizens can’t develop such thinking unless their leaders and media provide the basis. If Americans could somehow plug into global communication more than they do now, perhaps the vicious circle might be interrupted.

Patiently Build a Narrative for Military Action against Iran

March 6, 2012public diplomacyLeave a Comment

President Obama bought some time in his meeting this week with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to see if diplomacy and sanctions can pressure Iran to change course. This time would be well spent to build if not a regional consensus for military action, at least broader public acceptance of the need to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. To do that, the administration should draw some lessons from past interventions, lessons to be both followed and avoided.

The first is to recognize that Iran can’t be Libya. U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder and Supreme Allied Commander Europe Admiral James Stavridis termed Libya a “model intervention.” It was, but as we have seen with Syria and most likely with Iran as well, it may be a one-off that will not soon be repeated. The Arab League is not likely to support a military strike against Iran publicly, even though many regional governments will privately welcome such a step. Prospects of a UN Security Council resolution are uncertain. But it will be vital to achieve the strong sense of legitimacy that gave the Libya intervention its strength.

Kosovo is a better model to consider. Russia blocked an authorizing UN Security Council resolution, so the Clinton administration sought authority from NATO to force Serbia out of Kosovo. In the end, former UN Secretary General Kofi Anan called the operation “illegal but legitimate.” Regarding Iran, the IAEA can help validate that Iran’s failure to meet its international obligations and that Iran is moving towards a breakout capability.

Military force must be viewed as a last resort to be credible. In upcoming negotiations, the so-called P5+1 must be viewed as the reasonable actor. Recall the power of the last-minute negotiating session in Geneva between Secretary of State James Baker and his Iraqi counterpart Tariq Aziz prior to the First Gulf War. The international community was viewed as going the extra mile to avoid conflict.

That did not happen with the Second Gulf War. The Bush administration put significant pressure on the United Nations to uphold a series of UN Security Council resolutions, and it netted meaningful concessions from Iraq including the reintroduction of UN weapons inspectors. But the United States appeared to the rest of the world to be rushing to war, which ultimately undercut its legitimacy.

More than anything else, patience will be vital as the United States and the international community works through his complex challenge. It needs to build a convincing narrative that Iran poses a clear danger not just to the United States and Israel, but to the region as a whole; that Iran is in fact determined to build a nuclear weapon, not just generate civilian energy; that it is taking action that the Ayatollah himself termed a “sin”; that the international community has patiently attempted to resolve this through diplomacy and sanction; and if necessary military action is necessary and limited.

The President said this week there is too much “loose talk of war.” He was right to quiet the drumbeats for the time being, but now he must lead a sustained and patient dialogue with a newly energized and empowered “street” across the Middle East that military action, while the last resort, may be necessary to resolve this problem once and for all.

Public Diplomacy vs. Propaganda – in the Civil War

March 5, 2012public diplomacy2 Comments

It’s an honor to be one of the regular contributors to Take Five, the IPDGC’s new blog. While our goal is to generate discussion on the most contemporary issues in public diplomacy and global communication…it never hurts to start off with a bit of history.

Last October the New York Times published a delightful article about the early days of U.S. public diplomacy – in 1861, to be exact. The article, “Vive l’Union” describes the fruitful partnership between John Bigelow, an American journalist sent abroad by President Lincoln to help sway European opinion in favor of the Union cause, and Professor Édouard-René Lefèbvre de Laboulaye, a French scholar whose admiration and respect for the American republic grew into an effective campaign for hearts and minds.

As the article notes, Laboulaye had begun his career lecturing and writing on America and its model Constitution, but soon Napoleon III came to power and began “a dark new era of political repression and intellectual censorship,” prompting Laboulaye to retreat to the safer academic field of ancient Roman history. However, the crisis of the American Civil War rekindled Laboulaye’s determination, as it “threatened to prove the entire experiment in self-government a failure.” He began lecturing on the U.S. conflict, and quickly found that “the American question” created an arena within which liberals could safely talk about France’s central political issues of the day — by talking about America. His audience of students, scholars, and political commentators grew rapidly.

Bigelow, having met Laboulaye and discovered an immediate philosophical rapport, persuaded the scholar to revise, expand, and publish one of his earlier essays on the American war and the Union cause. Bigelow then ensured that Laboulaye’s pamphlet was delivered to political figures, journalists, and scholars throughout France, and even elsewhere in Europe. This essay had a major impact on French public opinion, which up until that point had been largely pro-Confederacy. Laboulaye continued to write and lecture, and Bigelow made sure his essays were published widely and even translated into English. French support for the Union cause solidified.

In other words, their collaboration became the very definition of a win-win public diplomacy partnership.

A closer look at the article yields some nuances, such as the fact that Bigelow had been equipped with financial resources to pay writers and editors for pro-Union viewpoints (although Laboulaye refused any payment, accepting only the gift of some books), and that the American journalist’s real purpose at the U.S. Embassy in Paris was kept sub rosa, under a more traditional diplomatic cover.

In other words, the original U.S. plan envisioned the sort of behind-the-scenes propaganda approach that all nations have used at one time or another, especially when at war. Nicholas Cull also mentions this “propaganda war” in the prologue to his book The Cold War and the United States Information Agency, noting that during the Civil War “the U.S. minister to Belgium … bribed journalists and even subsidized the European newspapers that supported his cause [while] Britain became a key theater for the Union’s propaganda war with the American South.”

However, I see Bigelow and Laboulaye’s partnership as demonstrating the strength, depth, and long-term impact of true public diplomacy – that is, open and mutually beneficial collaboration between two like-minded partners sharing the same goals. Certainly in the partnership with Laboulaye, the effect was more than Bigelow, or the U.S. officials who sent him to Paris, could ever initially have hoped for.

In any case, please do read the New York Times’ fascinating and richly detailed article!

Related articles