public diplomacy – Page 7 – IPDGC Smart Power

How Anti-Americanism in Pakistan can be mitigated through Diplomacy and Public Diplomacy

April 28, 2018January 11, 2019Asia, India, public diplomacyLeave a Comment

US-Pakistan

Image Source: “U.S. – Pakistan Relationship.” Chappatte Globe Cartoon, Chappatte in International Herald Tribune, 30 May 2012, www.chappatte.com/en/images/u-s-pakistan-relationship/.

Pakistan is the 7^thlargest country in the world in terms of its population and a country that holds a negative view of the United States. The United States and Pakistan have been strategic allies on multiple occasions; however, the increasing distrust between the two countries due to conflict of national interests in the war on terror in Afghanistan has caused tensions in their pre-existing complex relationship.

The U.S. was among the first of nations to ally with Pakistan after its independence in 1947. The United States provided economic and social assistance to the newly independent country and still maintains vital military relations. In return, Pakistan proved to be a valuable strategic ally of the United States in the cold war against the Soviet Union and helped the U.S. in driving Soviet forces out of Afghanistan. Pakistan continues to hold a strategic position in the United States’ interests in the Central and South Asia region. However, unlike prior to 1980s where the relationship was based on mutual benefits and good will, the post 9/11 basis of partnership has been mainly transactional between the U.S. and Pakistani military, which is given aid by the U.S. to support its efforts in Afghanistan. This transactional relationship stemmed from a trust deficit caused by the both countries’ conflict of narratives as a result of their history regarding their national interests and motives in the region.

The growing perception of “Anti-Americanism” in Pakistan is primarily due to the U.S. security strategy concerns in Afghanistan and Pakistan that Pakistan feels undermine Pakistan’s efforts to fight terrorism, leaving the country feeling underappreciated by the U.S. This contributes to fostering a negative image of the United States in Pakistan. In current circumstances, with Pakistan being a strategic ally, the U.S. can use diplomacy in conjunction with public diplomacy to turn the tide in a relationship with Pakistan.

Currently, there is a decline in Pakistani public support of American cooperation with its military and for U.S. assistance and humanitarian aid in areas where extremist leaders operate. Also, there is less inclination towards the U.S. to continue providing intelligence and logistical support for Pakistani troops fighting extremism. Pakistanis feel that the U.S. doesn’t take Pakistan’s national interests into account and doesn’t give it sufficient credit for its contributions to the war in Afghanistan.

The U.S. led drone strikes are a major contributor to this sentiment. According to Pakistan, drone strikes targeting extremist leaders result in more collateral damage of civilians and are mostly carried out without the consent of the Pakistani government that threatens country’s sovereignty. Regardless of how the U.S. views drone strikes in North Waziristan area and how effective they are in targeting extremists, the collateral damage in form of civilian causalities and social structure raises questions about the outcomes of drone war on Pakistani soil. The unified objection of the unauthorized U.S. led drone strikes from the Pakistani government and the Pakistani military further fuels the Pakistani narrative that the U.S. only cares about pursuing its own objectives even at the cost of threatening country’s sovereignty.

To mitigate this major issue, the U.S. needs to work with the Pakistani government and its military on a new bilateral drone strikes strategy that considers both countries security concerns in mind so the major point of tension between them is resolved – the public diplomacy alone will not solve the problem. Despite of the U.S. and Pakistan history of distrust, consensus on drone strikes strategy may have a positive effect on their relationship. Once a consensus is reached, the U.S. can work with the Pakistani government to gain public support by communicating the drone attacks in a way that is transparent to the Pakistani public. The U.S. can also work with the Pakistani government to prevent civilian casualties or find/invest in alternatives to drone attacks such as Aware Girls to combat extremists, which instills a positive sense of perception in Pakistani public that the U.S. is not showing negligence in addressing their concerns. So far all the public diplomacy efforts made by the U.S. in Pakistan through bridging cultural gaps with programs like Fulbright Scholar Program and funding literacy education for underprivileged children or providing social and economic development opportunities to the private sector have been ineffective due to focus on the drone strikes. Mutual agreement of the countries on the use of drone strikes will pave the way for the better reception of the U.S. public diplomacy efforts in Pakistani public.

Over the years the relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan has been complex and ridden with distrust due to conflict of narratives regarding history and their roles in addressing security concerns in the region. The U.S. engagement in Pakistan is mostly highlighted in relations to the military, so every shift in that relationship affects the perception of the U.S. in Pakistani public. To counter the negative image building, the U.S. can use public diplomacy to mitigate Anti-Americanism caused by the U.S. foreign policies by reaching consensus on drone strikes with the Pakistani government and highlighting its role in social and economic development in Pakistan, thus signaling the desire for improving relationship to the Pakistani public.

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

Venezuela and its ‘’victim’’ narrative

April 27, 2018January 11, 2019Latin America, public diplomacy1 Comment

The Washington Post reported a couple of weeks ago that Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, referred to the international coverage of Venezuela and its problems as ‘’propaganda against our country’’ and that international media is waging a ‘’psychological war’’. This language sounds familiar when one thinks about how similar regimes usually refer to the United States and the ‘’West’’ as ‘’interventionist’’ or ‘’imperialistic’’. However, it is not by coincidence that a country like Venezuela, with a tight relation of coexistence with Cuba, would construct such a narrative portraying Venezuela as the ‘’victim’’ of the United States and the West.

As Miskimmon and O’Loughlin argue, Strategic Narratives are ‘’a means for political actors to construct a shared meaning of the past, present and future of international politics to shape the behavior of domestic and international actors’’. In this shared meaning, the Venezuelan regime aims to extend its influence at home and abroad by portraying the United States and the ‘’West’’ as the bad guys, and countries like Venezuela as the ‘’victims’’. From an initial analysis, the United States’ strategy, from a communications point of view, does not help counter the Maduro regime’s narrative as recent sanctions to key Venezuelan politicians feed the discourse of ‘’victimization’’. However, it is difficult for any country to avoid policies, in such circumstances as Venezuela is facing today, which will not have an impact in the country’s victim narrative. In my opinion, as the situation in Venezuela keeps deteriorating and the regime’s policies have caused the crisis to become not only political, but most importantly humanitarian, countries’ foreign policies’ towards Venezuela will inevitably become stricter as a response. Although these needed reactions will feed the ‘’victim’’ narrative that the Venezuelan regime will tighten its grip to, as it will not take the blame for what’s happening, weaker or subtle actions by foreign countries are not sufficient any longer.

Since 1999, Hugo Chavez – who is Maduro’s predecessor, leader of the ‘’Bolivarian Revolution’’ and of the ‘’Socialism of the XXI Century’’-, started developing a victim narrative that would grow stronger as his policies converted the country into the dictatorship that it is today. Chavez took direct advice from Fidel Castro and the Cuban regime to shape many policies and characteristics of the Venezuela he wanted to create. Among these, was the victim narrative in which the United States and the West are to blame for a big part of the country’s problems. Although for many years Chavez was able to not only convince a large part of Venezuelans that his policies were ideal and that the United States and the West were at fault for many of the country’s problems, he was also able to gain followers across the region who used the same policies and narrative. However, this is not the case anymore. With Maduro, the situation in Venezuela has deteriorated and the support from countries across the region has decreased, as many blame the Maduro and his regime for the crisis.

Such was the case of last week’s Summit of the Americas, where Bolivia and Cuba were among the few countries that backed up the Venezuelan president and rejected all the other countries’ declarations against the regime. Although Maduro’s allies were loyal to the Venezuelan government in the Summit, there was a majority of opposition to the current policies by the Venezuelan regime, as well as to the upcoming elections for being unconstitutional and in favor of the regime. Maduro was disinvited to the Summit of the Americas by the host country, and although he had previously said that he would still attend, Maduro announced a couple of days before that he would not be attending. Peru disinviting him, the U.S. and regional countries’ declarations during the Summit against the regime and upcoming sanctions by the U.S., EU and other countries from the region, all feed the ‘’victim’’ narrative that the Venezuelan government is using more and more. However, such policies are what neighboring countries should keep doing to allow for democracy to be restored in Venezuela.

The next few months will be crucial to Venezuelans, and to the country’s relations with the region and the world. Moreover, the next few months will be critical for the international community to establish appropriate policies against the Venezuelan regime and in favor of its people. As Venezuelans are fleeing the country in mass, the crisis keeps deepening and spreading across its borders. It will become very hard for the Venezuelan ‘’victim narrative’’ to keep being successful, especially as so many Venezuelans, now considered refugees, have migrated to the region, the U.S and Europe, and are giving first hand testimony of the miserable conditions in which Venezuelans are living. If Venezuelans were happy and able to lead normal lives in their home country, they wouldn’t be leaving Venezuela to find opportunities elsewhere. Although policies against the Venezuelan regime might seem to help the ‘’victim narrative’’ this narrative is no longer sustainable and foreign countries should follow the steps of those countries that rejected the Venezuelan dictatorship at the Summit of the Americas.

I Spy With My Little Eye – How U.S. Surveillance Punctured German Trust

April 27, 2018January 11, 2019Europe, Global Communication, public diplomacy5 Comments

us-de-darts Imagine being a 25-year-old adult who has moved out of your parents’ house and is successfully living on your own only to find out that your parents are spying on you and reading your text messages. It’s pretty egregious and a violation of trust. That is exactly how Germany feels toward the United States.

The pinnacle of relationships in the international community built from decades of diplomatic partnerships, economic growth, and most importantly, trust, is now chipped away because of American surveillance scandals.

Trust began to fade precipitously around the time of the Edward Snowden leaks, and the policies and political behavior of the Trump administration further aggravate the U.S.-German relationship. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the German public and leadership to trust American messages, which can make it difficult for U.S. public diplomacy officials to succeed in their work.

The State of Things

There are two stark perceptions of the U.S.-German relationship among both national publics. A Pew study conducted just this past February shows that while 68% of Americans view the relationship between the United States and Germany as good, 56% of Germans view the U.S.-German relationship as bad. And to make matters worse, Germans now trust the United States as much as they trust Russia (which is a stunning low of 21%). Over the past few years, German public opinion of America is dwindling, threatening the stability of diplomacy in the international community. As grave as that is, not all hope is lost. A significant portion of Germans still believe that the U.S. is an important partner in foreign affairs. But if the Germans don’t trust us, how can we succeed in bolstering a relationship that is faltering?

Growing Up, Germany

In Germany’s “coming of age” story, the United States played a big role in developing this now European powerhouse. Germans widely trusted the United States and creating a quasi-parental narrative, as America offered guidance to help rise from the ashes of a nation divided. As the country grew to once again become a prominent force in European politics, Germany also became one of the United States’ closest and strongest allies in Europe.

Though relations between the U.S. and Germany started back in 1790, the modern U.S.-German relationship began with the implementation of the Marshall Plan providing economic aid to Western Germany, but not the East. That parental aspect comes really kicks into gear during the Cold War, where the U.S. acted as the protector from the Soviet Union and developed West Germany into a budding democracy. The U.S. seems to always have had Germany’s best interest at heart as evidenced by the Berlin Airlift. Here, Western allies airlifted supplied to West Germany in response to the Soviet blockade of Berlin, keeping Berliners equipped with daily necessities such as food and fuel until the Soviet Union lifted the blockade in spring 1949.

While the U.S. had a helping hand of grooming Germany to take the lead in European politics and be a democracy on its own, today the U.S. seems to be overstepping their stake in the relationship. Due to recent surveillance efforts by the United States, that alliance might not be as strong and close as we would like. Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Agency employee, leaked information showing that Germans had been a target of American surveillance programs, spurring outrage and distrust among the German people.

The Parental Image, Quashed

Unsurprisingly, Germans were angry that one of their closest allies was spying on them. Matters only worsened when it was revealed that the Obama administration listened in on Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone calls. This struck a chord with the Germans as they viewed the U.S. favorably and in the parental role, but now—this was a breach of moral authority – the parent now ceased to be the guiding hand and is now the overbearing dad overstepping boundaries.

More so now in the Trump era, German trust in the United States is on a steady decline, coming to an all-time low. President Trump’s “America First” and nationalist policies threaten the international balance in the global economy, which would directly affect German economic stability. In his first year in office, he has demonstrated unpredictability and his lack of experience in political affairs worries the German public. The actions from Washington in conjunction with the surveillance efforts now leaves the role of the trustworthy parent in shambles and now means nothing to the Germans.

The United States is now attempting to transform the parental narrative to be more of a partnership rather than something hierarchical. An example of this is the Young Transatlantic Innovation Leaders Initiative, a State Department and German Marshall Fund effort to develop and cultivate relationships among emerging European and American leaders. Even though this initiative includes young leaders from many European countries, for Germany, this conjoined effort is meant to evoke the spirit of the Marshall Plan and strengthen transatlantic cooperation.

And with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s planned visit to the White House this week, it seems like an ideal opportunity for the United States to further articulate a long-standing alliance and interest in Germany’s well-being. Even still, the balloon of trust between these two nations has a small puncture hole and is deflating – merely putting tape over it won’t gain that trust back.

The Pyeongchang Narrative Olympics: Win, Lose, or Draw?

April 27, 2018December 19, 2018public diplomacy2 Comments

The Olympics are known for bringing the world together. They unite people of all demographic backgrounds and nationalities around sport.

While most people are focused on the sports, world leaders are focused on the politics. This is especially true of the host country. If they are smart, the host country will use the world stage to promote their strategic narrative. A strategic narrative is constructed by political actors to form a shared meaning of international politics. An example of this is President Trump’s “America First”.

South Korea hosted the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang. They used their platform and the opening ceremony to promote their image as a major player (pun intended) in the international arena. However, they weren’t the only ones. Since the best part of the Olympics is the competition, let’s keep score of the narrative competition.

The First Quarter: Pre-Olympic events

North Korea and South Korea got a lead early on. By choosing to unite and form a joint women’s hockey team each promoted the narrative they wanted to dominate the Games. In a time where tensions with their Northern neighbor were high, South Korea presented themselves as a mediator and key player on the international stage. +1 point South Korea

Joining the South Koreans, North Korea presented itself as cooperative and willing to participate in the international arena. This was important on multiple levels. First, forming a team with the South Koreans helped form a relationship and cut tensions (at least briefly) on the peninsula. Second, it sent a message to the international community that North Korea is willing to participate in international events. Third, the new story gave North Korea positive media coverage. +3 points North Korea.

The United States spent the time up to the Olympics threatening North Korea with “fire and fury” and referring to Kim Jong-un as “little rocket man”. -1 points United States.

Wikimedia Commons—A united Korean team enters the opening ceremony

The Second Quarter: The Opening Ceremony

South Korea put on an elaborate opening ceremony. The event depicted the history and culture of the host. It reminded the world that South Korea is a legitimate player on the international stage. Again, South Korea portrayed its role as a mediator when a South Korean and North Korean athlete carried the torch to the Olympic flame together. +2 points South Korea.

North Korea gained media coverage by sending Kim Jong-un’s sister, Kim Yo-jong to attend the ceremony. Again, pairing with South Korea assisted the North in international reputation. +2 points North Korea.

The Trump administration sent Vice President Mike Pence to represent the US at the ceremony. Pence made the news cycle for snubbing Kim Yo-jong. -1 points United States.

Halftime Score

South Korea +3

North Korea: +5

United States: -2

The Third Quarter: During the Games

South Korean athletes performed well with their home-court advantage. Overall, they came in sixth in the medal count. The performed especially well in speed skating and short track. Off the court, South Korea also succeeded. Between attending the competition, President Moon held diplomatic talks which ended with North Korea being willing to sit down and further discuss its nuclear situation. +2 points South Korea

North Korea did not perform well but did gain media attention for its unique cheering section. Also by engaging in diplomatic discussion with the South they appeared more reasonable than President Trump portrayed. +1 point North Korea

The United States performed well placing fourth in the medal count. However, any diplomatic action occurring at the Olympics was over shadowed by domestic news of was overshadowed by the resignation of Rob Porter and the democratic memo on FBI surveillance of the Trump campaign. These cancel out, 0 points United States.

The Fourth Quarter: The Closing Ceremony to Today

South Korea hosted a successful Olympics. Media coverage was generally positive and did a good job of spreading the narrative of unity and South Korea as an international actor. After the Games a delegation from South Korea met with Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang. The Olympics and this meeting set the stage for the current condition of relations. + 2 points South Korea.

North Korea successfully participated in an international arena. They may not have won any medals but they were successful in the diplomatic arena. They created a new narrative portraying themselves as rational actors. Since the Games they have met with South Korea and have agreed to meet with President Trump. This has caused the US to switch to a more diplomatic approach and President Trump to soften his tone. +2 points North Korea.

The United States big play came late in the game. A softer approach and assistance from South Korea led to the current situation. Until the outcome says otherwise, the possibility of a meeting between Kim Jong-un and President Trump should be counted as a positive. As of early this week Mike Pompeo, current CIA director and future Secretary of State, had met with the Kim Jong-Un +2 point United States.

Final Score

South Korea: +7

North Korea: +8

United States: 0

South Korea used their arena(s) to remind the world of their relevancy. Not only with gold medals and K-Pop performances, but with strategic diplomatic action. Acting as a unifier, and using the Olympics to discuss greater issues with visiting representatives, opening the door for further discussion. The home team was only beat by their neighbor to the north.

North Korea won the Olympic narrative game because they were able to change their image. They went from being portrayed as a rogue nation to being cooperative. The media still cited the strict nature of the state, but it came as an afterthought. Successfully changing their narrative and setting themselves up to continue this route in the future was a winning game plan.

The United States lost because it did not take advantage of the Olympic stage like its competitors did. However, it should not be counted out. Its success will be determined by the outcome of the next meeting in the form of diplomatic talks, or lack thereof.

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

When a Handshake Isn’t Just a Handshake: Breaking Down the New French-American Dynamic

April 26, 2018December 19, 2018public diplomacy2 Comments

It was the cracking of knuckles heard around the world. During a visit to France, Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron put their relationship on display for the entire world as an extended, strong handshake exemplified the close bonds between France and the United States. as well as the opposing points of views held by the two leaders—at least, that’s how the internet saw it.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOf9FqsLfA8]

That handshake went viral, with many seeing it as an example of how the two Presidents were in opposition to one another. After all, each had been a part of a contentious election that pitted ethnonationalism against traditional liberalism. Each represented a different side of that fight, and each had come away with the win.

However, time has shown that the handshake was not a display of anger or contention—it was two men showing their respect for one another, as Macron and Trump have defied the narratives put on them by so many citizens of their respective countries, surprising the world with their close relationship.

The French and U.S. alliance traces all the way back to when the French supported the American revolutionaries and were then inspired to have their own Revolution, establishing their own democracy, even if in a slightly bloodier manner. Over the centuries, the countries have worked together time and time again, teaming up in the World Wars, officially allying through NATO, and working together in the Persian Gulf war. While relations fluctuated, the friendship has been generally strong with each country having its own political dynamics but working together and remaining allies. It is a historic friendship, with connections that go back centuries.

The United States elected Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016, a win for populist nationalism and a defeat of a liberal dynasty. And France, not even a year later, elected Emmanuel Macron over Marine LePen, a rebuttal of her nationalist politics and a win for centrism. Many Americans discussing the French election seemed to be living vicariously through it, seeing Macron’s win as a rebuttal of Trump’s. While that does not necessarily make logical sense, the emotions are understandable. People were so shocked by Trump’s election that they wanted to see something that fit into their schematic perspective of the world around them. Macron’s win made sense, made them happy.

It was that same emotional attachment to the election that made so many Americans sure that Macron and Trump would be bitter rivals. But that narrative, of the French election as a direct rebuttal of the American one, was simply false. Taking a step back, it makes sense that no European leader, particularly not a young newcomer like Macron, would ever seek to make an enemy of the United States. Upon his first visit to France, Trump and Macron shared the infamous handshake, and while the internet read it negatively, it has proven to have been the beginning of a strong relationship. It was not unintentional. Macron understood that it was the small things that would gain Trump’s respect—things like a tough handshake with unbroken eye contact.

It did not happen by accident. Macron has been said to have studied videos of Trump’s handshakes and greetings, so he knew exactly what the man was looking for. He even has aides monitoring the most accessible thermometer of Trump’s mood, his infamous Twitter feed, so that he is constantly aware of the mood of the President.

Macron understands Trump, potentially better than many American liberals do. He loves the pomp and circumstance of the presidency more than the actual lawmaking, so Macron made sure to pull out all the ceremonial stops for him on the first visit. The trip included everything from a tour of Napoleon’s tomb to a military parade. Additionally, that handshake showed Trump that Macron was not the weak sort of liberal he so often decries, but a man worthy of his friendship, one who would not break a handshake.

TrumpMacronFriends

This week, Macron is on his own visit to the United States, and already Trump is replicating the ceremony of his own trip to France, welcoming Macron and his wife with open arms, presenting him with a ceremonial welcome that includes a “Review of the Troops,” complete with 500 American service members, and a tour of Mount Vernon.

Now, Trump probably thinks this displays his own strength to Macron. However, Macron has quickly taken on the title of the Leader of the Free World, and his youth, good looks, and close relationships with both Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama, show that Macron is clearly the one in control of this relationship. This further empowers Western Europe, who is now the world leader in the main issues of the 21st century, such as climate change, on which the United States is lagging desperately—and obliviously—behind.

Their physical closeness has continued, with Trump even feeling comfortable enough to flick a piece of dandruff off of Macron’s suit—and announcing it to the room, and then saying: “We have to make him perfect,” he said. “He is perfect.” Donald Trump, who has struggled to find allies among his friends and advisors, is showing an affection for the French President that virtually no one else gets, and it is all because Macron played his cards perfectly.

Emmanuel Macron seemed to many like a neophyte who happened upon a moderately powerful job, but he has shown himself to be much more masterful than that. And his surprise friendship with the President of the United States shows that he is creating personal allies that will serve him well as he seeks to increase France’s power on the world stage.

5 Ways to Talk about Trump: Explaining President Trump through Metaphor Analysis

April 24, 2018December 19, 2018Global Communication, public diplomacy3 Comments

Metaphor is a central part of how national narratives are constructed. If, as cognitive linguist George Lakoff suggests, we view the United States (US) as a family and the world as a community, then public diplomacy professionals are like family counselors and town criers rolled into one. US public diplomacy (PD) professionals are dedicated to the important task of informing and influencing foreign publics about American values, culture, and policy goals and objectives. In our current moment, however, this task is at perhaps its most challenging.

Wikimedia Commons | President Donald Trump evokes the Nation as a Family metaphor common to American political rhetoric.

In recent years, diplomats have seen, among other startling developments, a proliferation of media sources and communication tools, the rise of anti-globalist movements, and the election of Donald Trump. How can these professionals continue to strengthen “the relationship between the people and Government of the US and citizens of the rest of the world” under a globally unpopular president who defies norms, shirks protocol, and governs through tweets?

Using Lakoff’s body of work on metaphor as a guide, PD professionals can find a way to positively convey the US and President Trump himself to the global community. Metaphors work by framing abstract or complex ideas in terms of concrete and relatable concepts. They are understood by the individual experience or quality they evoke. For example, while international relations (IR) realists might view the world as a chess game, IR liberals view it as a marketplace.

The current Administration poses a challenge for diplomats in its external unpredictability and internal inconsistencies. However, Lakoff’s metaphor model and analysis reveal that core to President Trump’s messaging and policymaking is the American Conservative concept of the Nation as a family led by a strict parent. The following is a list of metaphors that stem from the Conservative strict parent concept.

1. Moral Strength: The strict parent must teach morality to their dependents. The concept of moral strength centers on self-discipline and dominance over “evil.”

What Trump says: In an April 2018 speech on Syrian military strikes, President Trump said, “The evil and the despicable attack left mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air.” Within the moral strength metaphor, President Trump is taking action against evil and demonstrating self-discipline.

What you can say: “The US is dedicated to promoting a world in which all citizens feel protected and secure.”

2. Moral Authority: The strict parent must project the values it teaches dependents: morality, self-discipline, and strength.

What Trump says: At the 2016 Republican National convention, then-candidate Trump said, “I will work with, and appoint, the best prosecutors and law enforcement officials in the country to get the job done. In this race for the White House, I am the Law And Order candidate.” By framing himself as the law and order candidate, Trump claims his moral authority as a leader.

What you can say: “President Trump serves his role as Chief Executive by working to ensure the safety of US citizens.”

3. Moral Self-Interest: The strict parent family emphasizes personal responsibility and interest in one’s own well-being. Within this framework, if everyone seeks their own well-being, well-being will be maximized for all.

What Trump says: During a 2016 campaign rally in Arizona, then-candidate Trump argued, “Let me tell you who [the US immigration system] doesn’t serve: it doesn’t serve you, the American people. When politicians talk about immigration reform, they usually mean the following: amnesty, open borders, and lower wages. Immigration reform should mean something else entirely: it should mean improvements to our laws and policies to make life better for American citizens.”

What you can say: “The Trump Administration emphasizes personal responsibility and economic opportunity for all US citizens.”

4. Moral Order: The strict parent teaches respect for authority figures and hierarchy. Failure to obey this teaching results in immorality. In US Conservatism, this hierarchy typically follows the traditions of Western Christianity.

What Trump says: In the 2018 State of the Union Address, President Trump evoked the nation as a family metaphor directly when illustrating his concept or moral order, “In America, we know that faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, are the center of the American life. Our motto is “in God we trust.” And we celebrate our police, our military, and our amazing veterans as heroes who deserve our total and unwavering support.”

What you can say: “The US is home to a diverse group of individuals all committed to higher values and objectives, including justice and freedom.”

5. Moral Health: The strict parent may compare immorality to a contagious disease. To avoid raising immoral children, strict parents closely monitor the types of people and information their children are exposed to.

What Trump says: While attending a 2018 law enforcement roundtable, President Trump discussed “removing” members of the MS-13 gang from the US, making comments such as, “MS-13 recruits through our broken immigration system, violating our borders. And it just comes right through — whenever they want to come through, they come through.” This presents the gang as an invasive disease, poised to overtake American “health.”

What you can say: “The Trump Administration is committed to maintaining the ideals that form the foundation of US democracy, including the concept of ‘domestic tranquility’ outlined in our constitution.”

Although President Trump often rocks the diplomatic boat with inconsistencies and improvisation, he mostly adheres to the metaphors that have long governed American Conservatism. Diplomats should focus on the metaphorical thread that connects President Trump’s messaging rather than the unconventional way in which he might project it. Doing so will make explaining Trump’s behavior and comments much simpler for diplomats working in a variety of cultures and contexts.

How “America First” is Ruining US-German Relations

April 24, 2018December 19, 2018public diplomacyLeave a Comment

Trump’s foreign policy centers on “America First,” which is a drastic shift from the way the United States has handled foreign relations in the past. Over the past few decades, the United States has been the leader in building democracies, protecting the rights of minorities, and standing up for equality. Under the new policy, the United States would essentially withdraw from their hegemonic position by putting international issues on a lower priority than domestic ones and encouraging allies to increase their involvement in areas like defense and humanitarian aid, so the U.S. can decrease theirs.

This new structure of America First is arguably needed for the United States. The strategy of maintaining global leadership, supporting humanitarian interventions, and providing military operations cannot be sustained forever and has certainly taken a toll on our current financial and political circumstances. Domestically, America First is not in conflict with traditional American master narratives, such as American exceptionalism or good vs. evil, which makes it digestible and appropriate to internal audiences. From an inside prospective, it seems like it could work.

However, America First falls in the same trap as nearly all of Trump’s proposals: it speaks directly to his base and fails to recognize the variety of audiences. But instead of creating internal conflict and partisanship, with domestic audiences like many of his programs do, America First has a much broader reach. It represents our foreign policy and therefore has to be able to be tailored to abroad communities, which unfortunately, it cannot.

And while America First is generally not well-received by any ally, it is particularly in conflict with one of our strongest partners: Germany. The America First narrative disrupts Germany’s view of America and traditional German narratives and will continue to deteriorate US-German relations, which have already declined over the past two years. A Pew study on US-German relations this past February found that the majority of Germans (56%) have a negative view of the relationship, encompassing Trump’s first year as president. In comparison, the same study cited that 93% of Germans had a positive view of the United States during Obama’s first year.

How America First threatens this relationship is its break from America’s traditional narrative and role in relation to Germany and its endangerment of several key global master narratives from over the past generation:

Liberal World Order

America’s post-Cold War narrative focused on the strategic leadership of democracy in the Liberal World Order, where democracy, capitalism, and global values thrived. Under this global narrative, Germany prospered, directly benefitting from the free trade and liberal ideas.

America First, and other movements like Brexit, now threaten this foundation as seen through Trump’s withdrawal from key agreements, like the Paris Accord and the Pacific trade deal. Germany is now left alone on the democratic world stage, as Chancellor Merkel is labeled the new “leader of the free world,” despite Germany’s reluctance to accept the global position.

America First and the rise of Trump in general also endanger the Liberal World Order with the spread of populism as it rejects a global economy, minimizes support for marginalized groups, and thrives on fear and dissidence. The idea of populism even manifests itself through division – individuals feel betrayed by a liberal government favoring minorities or feel angered with “big government,” and therefore support individuals who act as a champion vowing to resolve this resentment.

Like many countries, Germany is struggling with this rise in populism as seen with the new far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. This internal conflict is only amplified by Trump’s successful win as it proves that populist leaders can gain the traction and votes to make populism possible, and the ideology challenges the Liberal World Order that Germany has known, and thrived under, since the Cold War.

Protective Big Brother

Similarly, the United States, during and after the Cold War, has protected Germany from the communists and has been a reliable partner and ally.

Trump is now shifting this view with America First by withdrawing America’s position in the global world order. This is especially disruptive to Germany as the protective, big brother is no longer there or on the same team to support key issues, from Russia’s involvement with Syria or their spread of disinformation to the Paris Accord. As Merkel stated in a rally in May 2017, “The times in which we could completely depend on others are…over.”

Again, this leaves Germany to be a global leader – something they are not even sure they want – while their key ally for the past few decades is nowhere to be found.

Responsibility to Protect

To understand Germany’s narrative is to understand its history, as the country will always experience a shadow of guilt and shame for their involvement in World War II. That said, Germany thus places a strong emphasis on actively reestablishing itself as separate from its past, and part of that is seen through its commitment to humanitarian efforts.

Germany’s responsibility to protect (R2P) and support of humanitarian issues have steadily increased over the past few decades, as seen with their 2015 decision to keep borders open to refugees, taking in around 530,000 Syrians. This is something they have had in common with the United States for years, as the U.S. has also intervened in critical humanitarian crises, from Korea to Kosovo to Libya.

However, America First now abandons R2P as the United States restricts access to immigrants, threatens allies with the holding of humanitarian aid, and remains silent on current crises like the persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar. This conflicts with Germany’s feeling of its “sense of duty” to protect others and their decision to become more invested in R2P. So as Germany continues to value R2P, the United States is now abandoning it or using it as a threat, which puts America and Germany at opposite ends of the table as they struggle to understand each other.

—

Unfortunately for America First, key international issues such as the Iran nuclear deal, the continued turmoil in the Middle East, and the uncertainty with Russia, China, and North Korea are still very real threats to American society and moving into an unknown and unstable future with disgruntled allies would end with America Last.

In the next few weeks, Chancellor Merkel is expected to visit the White House hopefully to improve the fractured relationship, and Trump would be smart to do so. But without recognizing and adjusting America First to fit within traditional German narratives, the prospect looks dim, and America will be alone – without one of their strongest allies.

How RT is Exploiting Grievances in Catalonia and Dividing Europe

April 23, 2018December 19, 2018public diplomacyLeave a Comment

23628067908_d60723af96_b — Aftermath Of The Catalonian Independence Referendum by Sasha Popovic | https://www.flickr.com/photos/68637044@N05/23628067908

Populism represents the newest challenge facing the European Union. In the past year, a string of elections and referendums in Italy, Spain, Germany, Czech Republic and Austria elevated anti-establishment and nationalist sentiments.

The shift in international order threatens the status quo, and western leaders are suspicious of Russian influence. Last year, United Kingdom Prime Minister Theresa May accused Russia of meddling in elections and spreading fake news to sow discord in the west. May acted on the allegations this January, announcing the creation of a department to curb fake news and social media influence campaigns.

The tweets from RT, a Russian news outlet, seem to confirm May’s claims that the Kremlin seeks to sow discord around the world. RT’s coverage of Spain’s latest attempt to quell the independence movement in Catalonia, Spain’s wealthiest region, overwhelmingly supported secessionists and highlighted division between European allies.

The Catalan Crisis

Catalan secessionists believed the Spanish government in Madrid taxed the region too much without putting sufficient investment back into Catalonia. Catalans mobilized and voted in an illegal referendum on October 1, 2017, with 90 percent voting in favor of independence. However, less than half of the electorate showed up to the polls.

Catalan lawmaker Alejandro Fernández, who opposed the independence referendum, said, “This movement is textbook populism.”

After the Spanish government invoked a rare measure to assert authority in Catalonia, secessionist leaders, including Catalan president Carles Puigdemont fled to Belgium seeking asylum.

At the end of March, German authorities arrested Puigdemont at the German-Danish border. Spain asked the German government to extradite him on embezzlement and rebellion charges. But on April 6, a German court decided to release Puigdemont on bail. The decision tested EU member state relations and dealt a major blow to Spain as it tries to prosecute others involved in the illegal referendum for Catalan independence held last fall.

Introducing RT en Español

To understand how Russian outlets covered Puigdemont’s arrest, I followed RT en Español for one week leading up to and following the German court’s decision on Puigdemont’s extradition. Pro Puigdemont and divided Europe messages saturated RT tweets, amplifying populist rhetoric and reinforcing discord between European countries.

History shows Russia seizes on opportunities to amplify crises through the spread of false information. Russian disinformation is characterized as high volume as well as rapid, continuous and repetitive. The textbook definitions of Russian disinformation are consistent with my findings. In seven days, the account released 1,900 tweets, tweeting an average of 270 times per day. I identified 60 tweets about Spain, as RT en Español also covers news from Latin America.

Tweet Breakdown — Tweets collected using Social Feed Manager from the GWU Gelman Library

About 80 percent of these tweets either mentioned or referred to the crisis in Catalonia or secessionist leader Puigdemont. The sheer magnitude of tweets on Catalonia in a week is surprising. To be fair, the German court’s decision to not extradite Puigdemont, was a big development in the story. It was covered in other Spanish news outlets and is part of the reason why I started looking at RT tweets around the time of the decision. However, this wasn’t the only big story happening in Spain, yet it is the story RT heavily amplified.

When we look at the composition of the Catalonia tweets, we find them to be overwhelmingly pro Puigdemont.

RT tweeted several quotes from Puigdemont’s remarks after his release from jail. While there are other voices in this conflict, such as the Spanish government in Madrid, the only voice represented by RT is Puigdemont. It is actually consistent with populism to focus on a charismatic leader. RT’s constant coverage of Puigdemont bolsters this.

The second most popular tweet of the week was a pro Puigdemont announcement of his release from prison, including a particularly happy photo of the former Catalan president.

pro puigdemont tweets — Translation: “The German court charged with the decision about the extradition of Carles Puigdemont to Spain has to decided to release on bail the ex-president of Catalonia.”

The slant is clear, by only highlighting Puigdemont, RT omits a big part of the Catalan crisis from its coverage, the Spanish government.

About a quarter of the Catalonia tweets were about divisions within Europe, and these tweets tended to perform the best, receiving hundreds of likes and retweets.

This tweet, for example, was the most popular of the week – with 852 retweets and 911 likes.

tweet division example — Translation: “The respect for Germany in the Spanish establishment seems to be directly proportional to Puigdemont’s proximity to jail.”

And this one.

popular tweet example — Translation: “Belgium will investigate Spain for installing a geolocator in Puigdemont’s car.”

Showing significantly lower engagement than the previous tweet, this tweet was the third most popular, with 153 retweets and 159 likes. However, it shows the growing rift between Spain and its European allies.

The Catalan crisis tested relations between Spain and the EU, Belgium and now Germany. Coverage of strained relations emphasizes a breakdown in EU member state cooperation, an institution that is supposed to be built on shared interests, sovereignty and tolerance.

While we have no direct way of testing the effects of RT’s pro Puigdemont and divided Europe messages, the content of the messages and the nature by which they were disseminated seem to undermine the status quo in favor of a new world order at best or chaos at worst.

The Catalan crisis is just one opportunistic example where Russia benefits by upending the status quo and dividing allies. A deeper look at other European populist movements could reveal even more efforts to sow discord in the west.

Trump’s Dangerous Narrative

April 23, 2018December 19, 2018public diplomacyLeave a Comment

America First really means America Alone. It is a narrative in conflict with the contemporary American identity, harkening back to the isolationists of the 1940s.

Before Trump, the predominate American narratives about its place in the world were hegemonic. We, without irony, referred to the president of the United States as the leader of the free world. It comes from the same narrative that explains why we call the MLB champions (featuring only North American teams) the World Series champions. We believe in American exceptionalism and manifest destiny, that America is strongest when we lead. Those ideas are in direct conflict with Trump’s “America First” doctrine.

And because of that, Trump’s narrative threatens the continuance of the liberal international order. Some observers have noted that, in Trump’s America First approach to public diplomacy, “the art of persuasion… is absent.” And others have argued that our continued prestige will rest on “American arts and intellectual life [and] American education,” not on Trump.

When a world power like the United States fades, it’s usually because of overreach (like the Soviet Union after the Cold War) or the emergence of stronger powers (like France after WWI). But Trump’s new America First narrative has pioneered a third way—forfeiture. This isn’t a novel realization, Fareed Zakaria has dubbed it “the rise of the rest” and Richard Hass has called it the “Great Abdication.”

What these previous analyses have missed is how American narratives explain this shift. Previously dominant narratives like internationalism, the Cold War consensus, or the War on Terror had brought order to an otherwise chaotic world. That doesn’t mean they were perfect. Bush’s War on Terror had inarguably negative consequences, but it at least fit with existing narratives about America’s role in the world.

America First is in conflict with our dominant narratives. Trump’s America First rhetoric—inarguably a self-serving and arrogant approach—regarding foreign policy has been cited by experts as a major reason for America’s decline in soft power. This is because America First is in conflict with three particular American narratives that supported America’s image around the world: globalism, multiculturalism, and freedom.

Perhaps most clearly, it’s in conflict with the American globalist narrative. That narrative—dominant in the halls of UN in New York and Facebook in the Silicon Valley—is an elite narrative. It says: “The world is better when it’s open and connected. The future is global, security is shared, and technology has no borders.” It’s perhaps an idealistic one but has become a consensus among the bicoastal elite and Bobos in Paradise of David Brooks’ imagination.

Multiculturalism, too, is in direct conflict with an America First narrative that dictates border walls and tariffs. That narrative—engrained in our Statue of Liberty and the identity politics of Democrats—is dominant. In fact, it reinforces other American narratives like individualism, as one can maintain one’s own culture and still be an American. It says: “America is a nation of immigrants. We are strong because of our diversity; our melting pot is only possible because of it. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.” And that brings us to America First’s most detrimental conflict: freedom.

If America has one dominant narrative that transcends time and partisanship, it’s freedom. It’s the idea that led to the American Revolution, to the Civil War, and has driven us to become the world’s police force, fighting for freedom around the world. It drove us to globalism and multiculturalism and defines our being. It is why we call our president the leader of the free world. It’s a narrative—defended by our soldiers and dominant is our rhetoric—that defines the American identity. It says, like Lincoln did, that “those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”

But America First says “only we deserve freedom.” That is not an American narrative; that is in direct conflict with one. America First is dangerous, but if our history is predictive, it won’t last for long because if you deny freedom, America will come for you.

Reed Elman Waxham studies media & strategic communication in the School of Media & Public Affairs at the George Washington University. Follow him @reed_elman. The views expressed in this blog are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of TakeFive or the Institute for Public Diplomacy & Global Communication.

Five Reasons Why China’s Cross-Strait Communication Is Losing Ground

April 20, 2018December 19, 2018public diplomacy1 Comment

Since the beginning of 2018, dark clouds have been gathering above the Taiwan Strait. From China opening the controversial M503 flight route (see the route map below) to the U.S. Congress passing Taiwan Travel Act, to the military exercises in the strait, recent developments of the fragile cross-strait relations have stirred up new waves of speculations on a potential military conflict in the region. Beijing’s cross-strait communication is facing the biggest challenge in years.

What is the Mainland’s Taiwan narrative?

Beijing’s Taiwan narrative asserts that: (1) The fellow Chinese living on both sides of the strait share a bond of kinship and the common mission to work for the nation’s greater good. (2) The conflict with Taiwan will be solved in a peaceful process under the recognition of “one China.” (3) China’s sovereignty over Taiwan is indisputable and it will never tolerate any activities promoting “Taiwan independence.” However, for five reasons, Beijing’s narrative is gradually failing to achieve its strategic communication goals.

Reason one: Taiwan’s changing identity

One of the assumptions of mainland China’s narrative about identity is that the mainlanders and Taiwanese people belong to the same identity group. By reminding the Taiwanese of historical facts, the Mainland hopes to shape their behaviors and make them aspire to unification, without considering the memory gap between the two sides due to the civil war ended in 1949, the Japanese occupation of Taiwan, and a different democratization process on the island. In the time of isolation, the old Taiwanese identity, which Beijing kept recalling, was reconstructed to a new one. As a result, a decreasing number of Taiwanese compatriots identify themselves as Chinese or Chinese/Taiwanese at the same time. While Beijing designs the narrative based on the experience of its own identity group, Taiwan has activated its own reasoning process that people from other groups will not necessarily understand. Therefore, Beijing’s narrative is not culturally congruent to Taiwanese people and is speaking a language that does not fit into the changing Taiwanese identity. Thus, a large part of Taiwan does not share the vision of unification with the Mainland.

Reason two: the dilemma of the One-China policy

Narratives have to be sufficiently flexible to allow description so that when events threaten to contradict the narrative, it can be seen to be unaffected. But for China, such flexibility is off the table. On the one hand, territorial sovereignty is a non-negotiable issue for Beijing, who repeatedly emphasizes its hard position on “there is only one China”, which is the essence of the One-China policy and a precondition for any official dialogues. On the other hand, several Taiwan Democratic Progress Party leaders have publicly refused to accept the one-China claim, resulting in the shut-down of official communication channels. If the two parties do not talk to each other, establishing a mutual understanding can be extremely difficult.

Reason three: the narrative contestation

The reception of Beijing’s narrative is subject to contestation because actors with different agendas compete to win over the Taiwanese audience, taking advantage of the ideological disjuncture. For example, in January 2018, China opened the M503 civil flight route to ease the air traffic congestion near its southern coast. The action was framed by the ruling party in Taiwan as a “military provocation.” The politicians injected their counter-narrative to harness support for upcoming elections and to save the plummeting approval rating.

Reason four: the different information infrastructures

Political actors must take into consideration the information infrastructure and information consumption behavior of the audience. The two sides of the strait have different TV networks, different printed media, and different social media. More importantly, the news outlets are controlled by entities with different agendas. The evolving communications technology should facilitate connectivity between leaders and the public. However, China’s semi-open Internet environment is far from promoting the effective dissemination of its narrative in Taiwan because people from the two sides are still confined in separate echo chambers and are receiving different messages. The Mainland needs to break those walls to insert its narrative into Taiwanese people’s lives.

Reason five: the U.S. factor

To Taiwan, the U.S. is a strategic partner that supports its secessionist activities by selling arms and offering military protection (but only enough to maintain the status quo). To China, the U.S. is a competitor who attempts to contain Chinese nation’s rising power. The Taiwan issue has been the largest stumbling block in the U.S.-China relations. Despite the potential trade war, China is more concerned about America’s recent moves regarding Taiwan, including the passing of Taiwan Travel Act, which enables high-level official visits from both parties. In response to the increasing American support for Taiwan, the Mainland announced it will hold live-fire military exercises in the Taiwan Strait.

Is assertiveness plus military might the right formula for peaceful unification? Looking back into history, national assimilations always happen when economic integration and cultural amalgamation are combined. To achieve that, China needs to foster a more complex understanding of strategic narrative, which should be audience-based and culturally congruent. A successful narrative must inspire the Taiwanese people to a future where their identity remains intact, where they enjoy prosperity, where they share the same vision with brothers and sisters in mainland China.

Category: public diplomacy