Category: public diplomacy

By Saori E., MA Media & Strategic Communication

COVID-19 is rampant in the world today. The virus, which originated in Wuhang, China, is being successfully contained in China. However, its neighboring country, Japan, is struggling to prevent people from getting infected with the new virus partly because of the government’s different ways of controlling their message compared to China. The reality and government’s message should always be balanced out to mitigate issues.

Effects of COVID-19 in Japan

On March 14, the President of Japan, Abe, enacted the Special Measures Act, which allowed him to issue an Emergency Declaration. Once the Emergency Declaration is issued, it would enable the government to regulate public behavior by law.

In Japan’s case, the government aims to build a stronger economic environment through the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. Because of this, the president hesitated to undertake the process for an emergency declaration. This declaration would hinder industries involved in Olympic preparation which were supposed to host the Olympics this summer, and lead to the delay of the preparation. However, since the Tokyo Olympics is likely to be postponed to 2021 in any event, the government decided to issue this declaration.

Comparison of The Governmental Reaction To COVID-19

The governments of China and Japan have reacted differently to the Coronavirus with their measures reflecting each country’s priorities, those which ended as a success and failure respectively. China maintained the balance of reality and message by controlling the reality itself to fit with their ideal message, whereas Japan did not change their message even when the reality changed.

China:

The Chinese government’s major priority was to prevent their people from causing panic resulting in the government losing trust and to maintain the national stability. Their reaction to the COVID-19 was forceful, which manipulated the reality to balance out with the message that the government was willing to spread to their people. The way China took control of the reality was as follows:

1. No restrictions on people from travelling around the world during the Lunar New Year holiday
2. Management of major social media such as Wechat and Weibo to prohibit people from spreading false news

Since the rise of COVID-19 was right before the Lunar New Year holiday, the government did not restrict people from going to other countries because they did not want sudden restriction of travelling to cause panic for people going overseas. Such an action by the government could lead to the rise of a negative impression towards the government by Chinese citizens.

Additionally, the Chinese constitution clearly states that although people have rights of freedom of expression on online networks, the government can infringe upon this in order to maintain the safety of the people; this enables the government to encroach into people’s privacy more than other countries. This allowed them to warn their people that they will be punished if they spread false information.

This focus on the organization of people was due to the China’s priority of maintaining the people’s trust in the government. The fact that the government was able to manage people’s movements resulted in the decrease in infection. The match of the reality and message supported the government’s original priority which is to prevent people from causing panic.

Japan:

The Japanese government’s major message for the people has always been based on their focus on fiscal reconstruction, and the Tokyo 2020 Olympics was their major priority for that. They did not change this way of messaging even when COVID-19 went rampant, and as a result, the changing reality undermined the government’s message. The policies that Japan issued along with their message to maintain Japan’s economic level and not controlling the reality is shown as of below.

1. No restrictions for Chinese tourists visiting Japan during Lunar New Year holidays.
2. No legal penalty for spreading false information online

The Abe cabinet has been focusing on the fiscal reconstruction from the beginning of their tenure, and in order to do so, he has been trying to build a stronger relationship with China. Because of this, Japan could not restrict the Chinese tourists from coming to Japan during the Luna New Year holidays even if they knew the risk of accepting people from China with regard to COVID-19. Rejecting people from China at the end of January would not have given a good impression for the Chinese government.

The Japanese government was focusing too much on economic aspects and did not restrict online information. This caused false information to spread, and the government was not able to deliver their message effectively. Because of the flooding information online, various realities were created and Japan was not able to clearly deliver its message to the people.

Even when the reality was changing, Japan kept on sending out messages based on their focus on economic aspects, which led to the unbalance of reality and messaging, resulting not only to the loss of control in COVID-19 but also the postponement of the Tokyo 2020 Olympics itself.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

By Oryza Astari, M.A. International Affairs ‘20

Rainforest Action Network’s “Indonesia, Climate Change, and Rainforests” report describes destruction of Indonesia’s rainforests as one of the leading causes of climate change. Furthermore, Greenpeace describes Indonesia as one of the “top tier emitters of global greenhouse gas emissions” due to deforestation.

This environmental narrative—accepted widely by the international community and particularly by the European Union (EU)—conflicts with Indonesia’s own version of the story.

On March 25, the Tanah Merah project in Indonesia’s easternmost province of Papua officially began, as it cleared out rainforests to make way for palm oil. Mongabay and the Gecko Project, two media companies that focus on conservation, report that the project is estimated to generate US$6 billion in timber and create a large palm oil plantation “almost twice the size of London.” Clearing Papuan rainforests will emit immeasurable amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, exacerbating the climate crisis.

The EU, an international leader in international environmental efforts, introduced its latest Renewable Energy Directive, dubbed RED II, in response to the deforestation in Indonesia. RED II introduces a new approach to biofuels based on the concept of indirect land use change (ILUC). ILUC is the transformation of carbon-rich forests, wetlands, and peatlands, into land(s) used to produce crops for biofuels, resulting in the vast release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The EU argues that ILUC risks “negating” the savings that result from the use of biofuels; thus, the use of such “high risk” crops as palm oil will be phased out by 2030.

Below, I will present the Indonesian perspective on the issue, followed by the EU response to the Indonesian narrative. Finally, I will conclude by presenting the winner of the narrative battle.

The Indonesian government’s strategy in its narrative battle against the EU involves evoking emotional content and controlling the process of the project.

First, Indonesian officials invoke inflammatory words when describing RED II. Such words evoke a particular narrative that engages audiences on an emotional level, bringing out emotions such as anger or even disappointment, particularly for the Indonesian audience. For instance, Former Trade Minister Enggartiasto Lukita called the move protectionist, arguing that the policy is aimed to support European biofuels producers of rapeseed and sunflower oils.

Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Mahendra Siregar concurred, calling it a “‘structured and systematic’ campaign to block palm oil” from competing with European-grown biofuels. Vice Minister Siregar furthered his argument by concluding that the environmental concern of RED II was simply a façade, a “guise,” for protectionism.

Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo took it a step further, calling the policy an “act of trade war.” Not only is President Jokowi evoking emotional content, he is also controlling the process of projection.

President Jokowi took the lead by repeatedly calling the EU policy a “palm oil ban.” His position, as the highest government official and the leader of the country, lends legitimacy and credibility to his message. As such, his cabinets followed his lead, and began invoking similar inflammatory words such as “discrimination” and “protectionism,” as illustrated above.

Furthermore, President Jokowi’s invocation of “trade war” puts the focus on EU-Indonesian trade on palm oil, rather than the environmental issue. In 2018, the European bloc reportedly consumed more than 7 million tons in palm oil biofuels, with 65 percent used as energy. It is evident that palm oil biofuels trade is lucrative both for the European bloc and Indonesia, pointing to the EU’s hypocrisy on the palm oil issue. Thus, the obvious response—and remedy—for Indonesia, after months of failed negotiations with EU officials, was to bring a lawsuit to the World Trade Organization in December 2019.

In response, the EU focuses their narrative argument on the epistemological and informational content. RED II was accompanied by a report with available, consistent, scientific data from 2008 to 2015. The European Commission reiterates that it arrived at the decision based on the given scientific data, which shows that palm oil has been associated with high risk of deforestation.

Furthermore, the EU invokes the identity narrative of an “Energy Union”—a bloc with a strong commitment to sustainability—in its response to Indonesia. This invocation strengthens the EU’s position, as it illustrates to the audience that the policy is harmonious with the EU’s values and identity as a champion of energy and the climate targets.

While the WTO suit will take years to be decided, in the battle of messaging between Indonesia and the EU, the winner is clear. The EU’s new policy is harmonious with its identity; its claims backed by nine years’ worth of scientific evidence. The relationship between the EU identity and scientific, enlightenment thinking makes for a cohesive, persuasive message that is consistent with the EU’s narrative.

On the other hand, Indonesia’s counter-messaging campaign on the “palm oil ban,” although strong for the local audience, has been unsuccessful. Indonesia’s lack of response on deforestation claims is dissonant with the wider environmental messaging, which have been accepted by the scientific community and international audience. More importantly, Indonesia’s latest Papua shows that its loss was not simply due to the EU’s more persuasive message, but because its narrative simply does not match its reality.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

By Barbara Alberts, M.A. Media and Strategic Communication ’20

In February, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte announced he intended to terminate the 1998 Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and the United States. The VFA allowed the United States to station military forces in Philippine military bases, and the two militaries to execute joint military exercise and operations in the country. The U.S. military presence in the Philippines was also seen as a “security blanket” for the Philippines against China’s growing naval presence in the South China Sea. The termination would leave the United States with no legal or operational standing in the Philippines, but for some politicians in the Philippines, the ending of the agreement is seen as a step toward an independent Philippines divorced from the United States and its fate.

The image of the U.S. as a protector and ally of the Philippines has been rejected recently by Philippines government officials, citing the U.S. military as an unwelcome presence on the islands that perpetuates the idea of the United States as the Philippines’ colonizer rather than ally. The desire for independence from the United States that resulted in Duterte’s decision to terminate the Visiting Forces Agreement has roots in a deep master narrative of independence in the Philippines. A master narrative is a, “transhistorical narrative that is deeply embedded in a particular culture,” (Halverson 2011). According to Halverson, “our understanding of ourselves…who we are, what we are here for, what makes us unique, and so on, is entirely bound up in the narratives we grow up hearing and the stories we connect to them,” (Halverson 2011). When it comes to public diplomacy and communication with the Philippines, understanding the master narrative of independence in the Philippines is the first step in helping understand Duterte’s foreign policy decisions as they relate to the United States.

Independence: A Philippines Master Narrative

Since Duterte took office in 2016, he has been vocal about the Philippines becoming more independent from the United States. However, his decision to terminate the VFA is also part of a slow-moving process the Philippines has taken to distance itself militarily from the United States which began in the 1990s.

Historically, the United States has exerted its power through its military bases on the Philippines. U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay, located about two and a half hours outside of Manila, was one of the US’s largest overseas military bases before it was decommissioned in 1992, when the Philippines Senate rejected a treaty that would have seen the United States provide $203 million in aid in exchange for a 10-year lease on the base. At the time, Philippine senators saw American military presence in the Philippines, “as a vestige of colonialism and an affront to Philippine sovereignty,” (Sanger 1991).

The desire for separation from the United States is part of a greater master narrative in the Philippines of independence. In the Philippines, independence is a deeply rooted value, and gaining it has been a constant battle throughout its history. There is an abundance of independence stories in the Filipino culture. First, it was the quest to gain independence from Spain, which initially colonized the islands. Then, it was the struggle to shake the United States’ rule of the land. After the Philippines gained true independence from the United States in 1946, the drive for independence turned inward during the Marcos regime from 1965-1986, which ended when he was ousted during the People Power Revolution and Corazon Aquino took office. Now, the focus has shifted outward again, with Duterte seeking military independence from the United States.

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Populism in the Philippines has been trending upward since Duterte took office (Bieber 2018), and despite the majority of Philippines citizens preferring a stronger relationship with the United States over China, and nearly 70% of Philippines citizens believing the United States would defend them from China, Duterte has spurned any sort of U.S. involvement in the Philippines.

With memories of colonization still felt in the Philippines today, moving forward, the United States should make a concerted effort to approach any treaties, agreements, or negotiations with the Philippines as an interaction between two independent countries. The United States would benefit from emphasizing Philippine independence, and respecting the country’s movement toward independence. In terms of future military agreements, should the United States propose a new military partnership, they need to frame it as partnership between equals. The United States cannot achieve its military goals in the South Pacific without the cooperation of the Philippines, and the Philippines has benefitted from U.S. military presence in keeping China’s naval presence in the South China Sea at bay as well as helping with counterterrorism efforts in the country’s southern islands. By understanding the Philippines master narrative of independence, the United States can better communicate with their oldest ally in Asia.

 Works Cited

Bieber, Florian. “Is Nationalism on the Rise? Assessing Global Trends.” Ethnopolitics, vol. 17, no. 5, 2018, pp. 519–540., doi:10.1080/17449057.2018.1532633.

Goodall, Jr, H.L., and Steven R. Corman. “What Is a Master Narrative.” Master Narratives of Islamist Extremism, by J. Halverson, Palgrave Macmillan, 2015, pp. 1–9.

Sanger, David E. “Philippines Orders U.S. to Leave Strategic Navy Base at Subic Bay.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 Dec. 1991, www.nytimes.com/1991/12/28/world/philippines-orders-us-to-leave-strategic-navy-base-at-subic-bay.html.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.