Communication – IPDGC Smart Power

Student Spotlight: Gabrielle Stall

September 18, 2023September 18, 2023Global Communication

By Alexis Posel, IPDGC Communications Assistant

1. Can you tell us a bit about your background (where you’re from and/or grew up) and what brought you to GW?

I’m from Dallas, Texas born and raised. I lived there all my life and then went to my undergraduate institution, the University of North Texas, where I got my degree in peace studies and conflict resolution. It was a very different field compared to Global Communication which I’m currently doing at GW as a master’s student. What got me interested in Global Communications was learning about the impact that media and media’s effect had on peace negotiations and peace processes either as spoilers, inhibitors, or something that helped further negotiations. It also really brought on my interest in a two-party system, learning about how important it is for an individual and for citizen diplomacy. After I knew that I was really interested, GW had one of the best programs for Global Communications and it was one of the only schools where I could focus on and do something in public diplomacy.

2. What drew you to pursue a graduate degree in Global Communication?

I was drawn to doing a graduate degree in Global Communication because it’s so versatile. Working with media and news outlets, and even how you produce images and content is how building a positive perception in international affairs is run. Global Communication is a way that you get to influence and create those perceptions and that’s something that I feel is widely ignored and not acknowledged in international affairs. I think Global Communication is such a great program where I can touch on so many things but still have my own perspective on a variety of topics.

3. How has your experience at GW prepared you for a career in international affairs and public diplomacy?

My master’s program is enhancing and building on skills that I’ve already learned in past internships or fellowships. I’ve gotten to build upon what I learned in my undergraduate degree which was stuck inside of theory and now at GW, I’m getting to be in classes where I’m learning practical skills. I get to be in classes that simulate working in an embassy, writing press memos, doing speech correspondence, and pretending to prepare ambassadors on press releases. These are all opportunities that I was not able to do before coming to GW, and these are skills you can put on a resume that any employer is looking for.

4. What specific courses or projects have you found most impactful during your Global Communication program?

I think the most impactful project I’ve done so far is my Embassy project that I’ve been doing in my Public Diplomacy seminar. I am doing mine on the U.S. Embassy and Turkey and it is a semester-long project where I’m getting to simulate and work like I’m in an embassy in the public diplomacy sector. In this project, I’m getting to write press memos, prepare a media strategy, and create a perception of what we want to do at the Embassy. I am able to propose my ideas and engage with the rest of my class and it’s been great getting all the feedback from my fellow students. Also, it’s great having a professor who has done this for a career in the Middle East and Africa.

5. What advice do you have for future students who are interested in pursuing a Global Communication graduate degree?

I think what is important for someone wanting to pursue a graduate degree in Global Communication is to try out a lot of different areas of communications. I think that either working in media, international exchange, or working in programming and public engagement on an international scale is helpful. I’ve done things ranging from political advocacy to congressional relations while also doing programming and public engagement on the nonprofit level. These experiences give you an understanding of all aspects of the field and it broadens your knowledge when entering a master’s degree so that you’re able to contribute to your class, and your education by having all of these different experiences.

Gabrielle was interviewed by GW undergraduate Alexis Posel. Alexis is a political science major working with IPDGC as a Communications Assistant.

Orientation Day activities

September 13, 2023September 13, 2023IPDGC

It was a warm welcome for the incoming graduate students to the Elliott School late last month. The students heard from Dean Alyssa Ayres, met with their Program Directors, and attended sessions with academic advisors, career coaches and student panels. The day ended with a Welcome Reception where the new students met and mingled with faculty, administrators and fellow graduate students.

The Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Studies set up a table at the Engagement Expo. With the help of student Pablo Molina Asensi, 2^nd year student in the Global Comms MA program, spoke to many students about the public diplomacy and global communications activities we organize throughout the academic year.

This year (2023-2024), IPDGC will be organizing a cultural diplomacy program primarily for students at the Elliott School and the Corcoran School for Arts and Design to teach the process and practical aspects of developing cultural diplomacy and engagement programming. There will be student career talks, film and book events, and presentations by our Visiting scholars.

Our partnership with the Public Diplomacy Council allows us to host First Monday Forums with leaders and practitioners in US public diplomacy and international engagement. As always, the Walter Roberts Endowment will support the Annual Lecture and the Award for Congressional Leadership in Public Diplomacy for 2023-2024.

If you are in the Global Communications MA program or any of the Elliott School programs and would like to participate or volunteer for these events, get in touch: ipdgc@gwu.edu

Yasukuni Shrine

April 5, 2023April 10, 2023Asia12 Comments

By Izzy Angeli, MA Media and Strategic Communication ’23

Historical Context

China considers Tokyo’s Yasukuni Shrine—which honors 2.5 million war deaths, including convicted war criminals—as a symbol of Japan’s wartime militarism. The shrine was founded in 1869 by Emperor Meiji to commemorate Japanese people who lost their lives from the Boshin War (1868-1869) to the First Indochina War (1946-1954).

Beijing views visits by Japanese ministers and lawmakers to the Tokyo shrine as symbolic of a lack of remorse over Japan’s wartime aggression. China and South Korea, which Japan colonized from 1910-1945, regularly protest such visits. China has also called the shrine an expression of shameless nationalism and revisionism.

Just one example of this is when former Prime Minister Koizumi visited the shrine for the fifth time since taking office in 2005 just days before then Japan’s Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura was scheduled to visit Beijing to strengthen Sino-Japanese relations. In response, the PRC canceled the visit.

This reaction would also explain why no Japanese prime minister has visited the shrine since December of 2013 when then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sparked diplomatic outrage. The Chinese government issued a statement accusing Japan of whitewashing its history of aggression, imperialism, and undermining regional stability. South Korea’s then-President Park Geun-hye had a similar reaction, calling the visit an “anachronistic act.”

Current State of Affairs

Abe’s successor, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, has not visited the shrine and does not plan to, for good reason. He did, however, send a ritual offering in the form of a tree-like ornament called “masakaki,” which is said to represent valor, wisdom, and benevolence. Kishida did this once before, when he was foreign minister in 2021, and invoked just as strong of a reaction as Abe’s 2013 visit did. China released a statement expressing opposition and indignation.

TORU YAMANAKA/AFP/Getty Images — Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visits the controversial Yasukuni shrine on December 26, 2013, exactly one year after he took office.

Clearly, the shrine itself is a sensitive issue among Japan’s neighbors that extends far beyond visits. This is shown by China having the same reaction to Kishida sending an offering to the shrine as if he actually visited. Both sides typically advocate for regional stability and cooperation, but incidents surrounding the shrine are so inflammatory that these peacekeeping narratives are often overshadowed by ones rooted in China’s simultaneous superpower and victimhood. There are three main narratives that Japan needs to consider when discussing or making decisions about the shrine:

Master / Identity Narratives: narratives that are rooted in a nation’s history and self-identifying characteristics

System Narratives: narratives that describe a nation’s standing in the rest of the world

Issue Narratives: narratives that are in reference to current events in nation(s)

China’s Narratives

Master & Identity Narratives	System Narratives	Issue Narratives
Superpower Confucian values Victimized Modernizing power Anti-Western	The world is at the mercy of autocracies Harmonious relations with neighbors	Visits to shrine: a. Disrespectful to Chinese historical greatness b. Threatens harmony and stability in Asia c. Japan is not sorry for victimizing China d. Honoring China’s victimization undermines modernizing power Japan is becoming more like its Western allies

As Miskimmon et al stated, “Superpowers are not just those states with the most military might or economic dominance. They are also those states that are able to construct and disseminate strategic narratives that shape perceptions of reality and legitimize their actions” (Miskimmon et al, 2013, p.102). As such, the world is made up of autocracies and democracies but to China, the world is at the mercy of autocracies. Because of the shrine’s honoring of the people who brutalized millions of Chinese soldiers, this undermines and disrespects China’s historical greatness.

China has historical ties to Confucianism and it is deeply ingrained in Chinese life through government, education, social order, and ethics. It teaches harmonious relations with neighboring nations and cooperation. Japan taking such an inflammatory measure of praising the shrine threatens the stability and harmony in East Asia.

As great as China sees itself being, it also adopts the identity of victimhood. This shows up in many ways, the Opium Wars, Japanese invasion, and the Western powers’ colonization of Hong Kong and Macao. Therefore, honoring these dominations by foreign powers shows that the opposing nations are not sorry for the pain they’ve caused.

Despite Western colonization, China likes to boast its modernizing power when compared to Western nations. Glorifying the persecution of China is inherently undermining its modernizing power. Japan does rely on a lot of Chinese trade for certain imports. In that sense, China views Japan as becoming more like its Western allies— becoming arrogant about their economic and modernizing influence.

Whether it be through a speech at a bilateral meeting or simply by not engaging with the shrine, Japan should play into each and every one of these narratives.

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.

Battle of Narratives between Canada and Quebec over immigration and identity

April 5, 2023May 5, 2023North America6 Comments

By Antoine Morin, GW Exchange Student, Spring 2023

This past month, the normally welcoming and multicultural Canada took the difficult decision to
close Roxham Road – a road that generated extensive media coverage because it was a site of
irregular migration to Canada from the United States. Joe Biden’s visit to Canada prompted a
new agreement stating that illegal migrants caught within fourteen days of crossing the Canada-
US border would be sent back to the other country.

The crux of the Roxham Road diplomatic crisis was between Quebec and Canada. Given the
country and the province’s conflicting narratives, it took the Trudeau government years to fulfill
the wish of its province to close Roxham Road, and it is likely that many other immigration and
identity disputes will arise.

Canada’s Narrative

Canada is known for its values of multiculturalism, inclusion, and diversity. Being an alliance of two nations and two official languages, Canada is proud of its liberalism, individual rights record, and its efforts to become a fully bilingual country.

Quebec’s Narrative

The French Model

Canada’s nationalist province wants to protect its language and culture at all costs. As the French language is declining in Quebec and Canada, Quebec turns to France to find solutions to counter trends that could threaten the survival of the nation. Its recent secularism law stating that government employees cannot wear religious symbols was directly inspired by France. Bill 21 is now being contested at the Supreme Court of Canada, which has to determine the validity of such a law. The rest of Canada almost universally condemned Bill 21 as it does not fit Canada’s multiculturalism narrative.

Interculturalism

While Canada is supremely unconcerned about the integration of immigrants, Quebec is keen on ensuring that all newcomers learn the language and culture of the province. North America’s France equivalent believes in interculturalism – a doctrine promoting cross-cultural exchanges instead of self-segregation within cultures. To achieve interculturalism, a nation must reduce immigration and better integrate its immigrants. In Quebec, this means ensuring that all newcomers learn the common language of the nation – French.

The Superpower Nation

With the decline of the French language and globalization, Quebec must act if it wants to remain a distinct and unique nation within Canada. Although Quebec successfully forced Ottawa’s hand on the Roxham Road case, immigration will remain a crucial point of contention between the two governments for the near future. Canada’s second most populous province remains a superpower on the national scene because of its political power and natural resources. The threat of another referendum on Quebec independence must also still be on the back of Canadian politicians. This battleground province has voted for all four major federal parties in the last decade.

Quebec	Master & Identity Narratives – How Quebec views itself	System Narratives – How Quebec views the world	Issue Narratives – How Quebec views the issue
	Importance of France to identity Superpower on the national scene “Welcoming fewer immigrants but taking care of them.” Affirmation of Quebec as a nation within Canada.	Interculturalism Nationalism Separation between the state and religion Belief in the importance of nations to preserve their culture, language, and heritage. Nations should protect their own interests first.	Quebec does not have the capacity to welcome all these migrants. Closing Roxham Road set a good precedent. The nation will fight back against Trudeau’s loose immigration policies. Immigration has contributed to the decline of French in Quebec

The Roxham Road closure is a short-term victory for Quebec. However, the wider narratives that caused the dispute will not change in the coming years and could become even more relevant. According to Statistics Canada, Canada is the fastest-growing G7 country in terms of population. Immigration was responsible for 95.9 % of last year’s 2.7 % population increase. Migration should thus remain a central issue in a country on track to double its population before 2050.

Canada has announced ever-increasing immigration levels for the coming years, an approach consistent with its welcoming, diverse, and multicultural image. Roxham Road or not, I suspect Quebec will still be reluctant to welcome a large number of migrants (illegal or not). Capacity issues, the decline of French in the province, and Quebec’s insistence to stick to an integration model (interculturalism) and not a multicultural approach are the main reasons.

While all these recent debates, laws, and policies around immigration, language, and religion have taken place under a Liberal government, it is difficult to see how a potential Conservative government would help solve identity issues between Quebec and Canada. The Conservative Party of Canada is as pro-immigration as the liberals, and the party’s right-wing agenda would not resonate well with Canada’s most progressive province. Unfortunately, the most likely outcome is that as many identity disputes between Quebec and Canada will continue to take place in the coming years, and La Belle Province may be headed toward another independence referendum.

The full report is available here.

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.

Strategic Communications and Foreign Policy: A Conversation with an NSC Press Spokesperson

October 31, 2016Events, Global Communication, IPDGCLeave a Comment

Emily Horne in Conversation with Janet Steele, ESIA, October 2016 — Emily Horne in conversation with Janet Steele, ESIA, October 2016

In a conversation moderated by IPDGC’s program director Janet Steele, National Security Council Press Spokesperson Emily Horne answered questions about her role in the NSC, its media strategy, and elaborated to students about her career path. Students, faculty, and industry professionals attended this event and were invited to join in for the second half of the conversation.

Emily Horne is currently an Assistant Press Secretary and Director for Strategic Communications at the National Security Council, where she serves as spokesperson for a range of foreign policy issues and advises White House and other senior U.S. government officials on media and strategic communications. Before joining the National Security Council she was the director of communications for General John Allen, the Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, where she built the communications strategy for the Obama Administration’s counter-ISIL efforts and traveled to over 30 countries supporting international efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL. She has also served as Spokesperson for the State Department’s Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, including temporary tours as spokesperson for the U.S. Embassies in Sri Lanka and Nepal. She began her career in government as an unpaid intern in the State Department’s Office of the Historian.

War Fatigue vs. the President’s Syria Strike

October 7, 2013Middle EastLeave a Comment

When President Barack Obama delivered his September 10, 2013 speech on Syria, his policy aim was articulated clearly:

after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.

This speech had a more immediate target however: the American public’s reluctance to support a limited and narrow strike on Syria. Polls showed substantial public opposition despite the horrific images of chemical weapon attack victims in Ghouta just weeks before. Support for a Syria attack was lower than it was with previous, similarly “limited” actions in Grenada (1983), Kosovo (1999), Haiti (1994) and Libya (2011).

Facing the apparent unpopularity of the proposed military action, the President decided to seek Congressional authorization rather than taking unilateral moves against Syrian military capacity.

His speech was meant to turn the tide in support of Congress’s approval. While there is survey evidence that the speech persuaded some of those who watched it, it still only led to an aggregate split in public opinion. Striking Syria simply did not resonate with a majority of Americans even though an estimated 32 million viewers tuned in and many more read and heard his arguments.

We know that the President’s power to persuade the public on foreign affairs is strongest when there is an elite consensus back his policies. While there were voices of dissent in the House, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ultimately endorsed what the President sought: a resolution authorizing military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government. This signified a growing elite consensus.

TV news media were largely supportive of the President. As Robert Entman has proposed in the “cascading activation” model, lower-tier elites, and news media, echo the policy frames of the upper echelons in the executive branch. After Obama first proposed a strike was necessary in late August, cable news channels were far more likely to feature pro-intervention messages than views opposed, according to a content analysis conducted by Pew Research. This is evidence of news media echoing officialdom.

Yet, House opposition to the President’s proposed course of action was considerable. Factions in both parties, both liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans, voiced objections to the attack. It was not certain that the resolution would have passed through the House. At the time of the speech, CNN estimated 179 “no” votes to 25 “yes” votes. 223 were yet undecided. This can’t be chalked up to deeper partisan polarization. Members of Congress reported hearing universal opposition from their constituents. The public’s complaints overwhelmed the President’s position and undermined the dominant theme of news media coverage.

A Russia-proposed chemical weapons deal ultimately postponed consideration of a Congressional resolution, thereby preventing a test of whether the President was going to win on this. Still, we witnessed a unique case of public opinion opposition to, and mobilization against, a President’s proposed foreign military action.

Perhaps it can be attributed to something deeper in American political culture. As Charles M. Blow suggested in The New York Times, “America may have lost its stomach for military intervention.” After war of more than a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans may just be tired of getting into new skirmishes that could easily lead to deeper commitments. Just five years into the Iraq war, US news media were barely covering it and Americans tired of hearing about it. There is scant mention and public discussion of the war in Afghanistan today.

The idea of “war fatigue” is not a novel one. It was widely believed that after the Vietnam War a syndrome set in: Americans were thought to be more likely to oppose to new wars out of a risk aversion resulting from the costly, bloody and protracted conflict in Vietnam. Marvin Kalb argued the current form of this syndrome was apparent just from President Obama’s nominations of John Kerry and Chuck Hagel as secretaries of state and defense, respectively.

Curious about whether American views on the previous wars impacted their positions on the proposed Syria strike, I ran a study to measure what impacted American opinion. I tried to figure out how important various factors were: demographics, support for the president, prior positions on the Iraq war and how attentive they were to the President’s September 10th speech — to see how the President’s persuasive powers stacked up against war fatigue.

I asked 265 respondents on two separate days, September 9 and September 13, 2013, whether or not they support a US military intervention in Syria. I asked different samples, one before the speech and one a few days after. I found the following (shown in an OLS regression model).

Model		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
Model		Beta	t	Sig.
	(Constant)		1.469	.143
	AGE	.120*	2.142	.033
	INCOME	.079	1.350	.178
	EDUCATION	-.086	-1.492	.137
	RACE	.017	.302	.763
	GENDER (Female)	-.180***	-3.213	.001
	PID	-.028	-.369	.713
	Sharing President Barack Obama’s views in general	.331***	4.456	.000
	Became more or less supportive of the US IRAQ war?	.293***	5.211	.000
	Watched or saw reports of President Obama’s speech on Syria?	.100	1.794	.074

(Adjusted R² = .213)

Of traditional demographics, age and gender were significant predictors. Older individuals and males were more likely to back a strike. It is worth noting that party identification was not an important factor — when controlling for these other factors — despite being a usual factor in evaluating presidential policy proposals. While it could be due to the break down in partisan lines on this issue, at least until the Russia deal, it’s likely not a factor because the most powerful variable — generally agreement with Obama on other issues — captures partisan differences. [Without partisan ID, the findings and model fit don’t change much].

Despite being an “anti-war” candidate when he was first elected, Obama enjoys the unwavering backing of loyal supporters. Being inclined to generally agree with him on issues was an expected, powerful predictor of being with him on Syria. It was the strongest factor in the model.

As for non-Obamaniac tendencies, war weariness seems to matter. Becoming less supportive of the war on Iraq over time (my gauge of war fatigue) correlates with being less likely to back the strike. The result is the same, though a bit weaker, if I replace Iraq with Afghanistan, also. Rather than seeing Syria as a new and distinct issue, this finding suggests people interpret it within the context of prolonged and increasingly unpopular military commitments in the region.

Prior views on Iraq also matter more than does partisanship. I ran the model with partisan ID, but dropped the tendency to agree with Obama. Declining support for the Iraq war over time was twice as powerful a predictor than was partisanship.

Back to the model above, we can see that changing support for or against the war on Iraq over time was a more powerful predictor than being attentive to the President’s speech. His ability to persuade the public through strategic political communication was a less potent a force than the unpopularity of the wars of the past decade. Even if the proposed strike was being sold as limited and narrow, it did little to relieve the public’s fear of deja vu.

1 girl 5 gays, MTV Canada, and cultural diplomacy

April 16, 2013Cultural Diplomacy, Global CommunicationLeave a Comment

by Brad Gilligan

Last month, advocates of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights deployed thousands of supporters to the grounds outside the U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments in two landmark cases. A Pew Research Center poll demonstrates the dominant frame being deployed by media to tell the story. “Growing Support for Gay Marriage: Changed Minds and Changing Demographics,” the headline reads.

While the pro-equality campaign in the U.S. may represent a real sea change in our national public opinion, other countries’ perspectives vary by degrees. Under Hillary Clinton’s leadership, the State Department annually documented the status of LGBT people around the globe in its report on human rights practices. Memorably, Clinton said in a speech at the United Nations that “gay rights are human rights.” These remarks were coordinated with a memo from President Obama in the same week that detailed the first ever US government strategy to deal with human rights abuses against LGBT citizens abroad.

In parts of the world, perils faced by LGBT citizens are well known: In Uganda, the parliament proposed a bill which would make some homosexual acts a crime punishable by death. While in New York, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad infamously commented “we don’t have homosexuals like in your country.” And in Russia, parliament is considering a nationwide ban on ‘gay propaganda’ to minors—in the same year that international attention was drawn to members of the feminist, pro-LGBT, punk-rock collective Pussy Riot after they were jailed by the Putin government.

U.S. Ambassador Eisen marches in Prague's 2012 Pride Parade — U.S. Ambassador Eisen marches in Prague’s 2012 Pride Parade

When the State Department promotes gay rights abroad, cultural diplomacy acts as one of the primary drivers of that agenda. Cynthia P. Schneider describes the relationship: “Public diplomacy consists of all a nation does to explain itself to the world, and cultural diplomacy—the use of creative expression and exchanges of ideas, information, and people to increase mutual understanding—supplies much of its content.” Through partnerships with regional and local civil society groups, the Department engages communities in dialogue about the value Americans ascribe to all people, no matter who that person is or whom that person loves.

Not to say that the U.S. does not receive its own share of criticism for its domestic LGBT policy: an interactive display from The Guardian documents the variability of gay rights, state by state. Until a 2003 Supreme Court ruling, sodomy laws remained on the books in 14 states. Today, others still prohibit adoptions by gay couples or permit dismissing workers on the basis of gender identification.

To focus on the theme of LGBT rights, and the practice of cultural diplomacy worldwide, I began with a small exercise in role reversal: How does one country (I selected Canada) work inside the U.S. to promote its foreign policy?

In 1995, a review of Canadian foreign policy granted culture new status, erecting it as a third pillar in the country’s diplomatic priorities, beside security and the economy. The report praises its culture as a potent force for the nation’s international reputation. “Our principles and values—our culture—are rooted in a commitment to tolerance; to democracy; to equality and to human rights”. Among the recommendations made in the document, it elevates the potential of mass media (e.g. television, film, and radio) in particular to reach audiences outside of Canada’s borders.

Like the BBC, the CBC (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) operates as a public entity. The government approves and funds programming consistent with the mandate to, among other stipulations, focus on Canadian content. For instance, the broadcasting license for MTV Canada requires that a minimum of 68% of daytime and 71% of prime time programming be of Canadian origin. The network describes itself as offering a “distinctly Canadian interpretation of the MTV brand across multiple platforms,” in 171 territories around the world.

One such program, airing since 2009, is 1 girl 5 gays. The 30-minute talk show sees host Aliya-Jasmine Sovani asking 20 questions about love and sex to a rotating panel of gay men from the greater Toronto area. Toronto holds a reputation as a vibrant center of gay life in Ontario; Church Street, especially, has a rich cultural history and has been depicted before in popular media exported south of the border.

Logo TV, a US gay and lesbian-interest channel, picked up 1 girl 5 gays in 2010. The first season increased ratings in its time slot +55% compared to the network’s Q4 2010 average.

Pew’s poll, referenced earlier, found that roughly a third (32%) said their views changed because they know someone who is homosexual. Mass media may well be another variable at play, subbing for physical one-to-one contact. The show builds relationships on this principle, between the host and panelists (and the audience by proxy).

A rudimentary content analysis of episodes from 1 girl 5 gays’ first season begins to generate a map for how dialogue can be used to strategically shift opinion about LGBT rights. In any one episode, an average of five questions conjure pointed images of gay sexual experiences (“Do you have a gag reflex?”) while the remainder are interchangeable to hetero- or homosexual couples (“If your sex life was a colour, what colour would it be?). The majority have nothing to do with sex at all (“Whose autograph have you asked for?”).

Especially notable, the show frequently inserts a question in the final segment looking inward at the program or at common LGBT experiences: “How do you feel gay men are represented on this show?” “Does the pride parade reinforce stereotypes?” “If there was a pill to make you straight, would you take it?”

Statistical wizard Nate Silver points out how demographics and population density are likely indicators of support for same-sex marriage. It would be overdrawn to say 1 girl 5 gays answers this problem intentionally by increasing the opportunities for exposure to discussion of LGBT experiences; but, as a byproduct of capitalism (i.e. the proliferation of broadcasting in the U.S. via for-profit cable TV), the amplification of Canadian commitment to tolerance aids the cause of LGBT rights in the U.S., and represents one instance of successful cultural diplomacy in action.

Brad Gilligan is a graduate student in the Media and Public Affairs program at the George Washington University.

Democracy and 21st Century Statecraft

March 18, 2013Cultural Diplomacy, public diplomacy, Social Media2 Comments

Tallying election results with the aid of cellphones in Kenya

By Rebecca Woodward

The recent presidential elections in Kenya served as a platform to showcase mobile technology as a medium for transparent and fair processes in a country troubled by election violence and fraud in the recent past. There are roughly six billion mobile phones in the world, in Kenya over 75% of the population uses cell-phones, so drawing upon technology already in use as a tool for institutional accountability is a logical choice. Much has been said and written about the Obama administration’s approach to digital government, and it has mostly revolved around former Secretary of State Clinton’s plan for 21^st century statecraft. This novel approach of Government using technology as the building blocks and foundation to reach out and connect with friends and (not-so-friendly) partners, has meant rethinking many of the tenets of diplomacy up until now.

The U.S. State Department has developed several programs, which have revolutionized traditional diplomacy; among them is TechCamp, which is a program within the Civil Society 2.0 initiative. Since 2010, there have been over 15 TechCamps held all over the world, from Santiago (Chile) to Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina), aimed at educating civil societies around the world providing them with stronger technology skills, which in turn will lead to more transparent governments and empowered citizens, ultimately strengthening democratic institutions.

Other countries have similar initiatives using technology as a key component of their diplomacy toolkit, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), for example, has a wide array of programs across the world which use basic SMS to request service from government agencies, report service interruptions or lack of service in order to keep governments accountable. In the U.S., organizations such as the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), among others have been active in democracy promotion for many years, and as technology has become ubiquitous in our daily lives, it has also become part of their programs. More recently, organizations such as Code for America have begun expanding internationally to partner with local governments worldwide to provide them with the tools and insights needed to bring technology to their citizens.

The TechCamp initiative differentiates itself from other organizations in that it brings together people from varying socio-economic backgrounds around technology, whereas NDI or SIDA bring technology to specific groups with common interests (teachers, economists). TechCamp reflects the values of 21^st Century Statecraft touted by the Obama administration: openness, transparency, and engagement. TechCamp reflects these values in its entire organization; the website provides “TechCamp in a box,” which includes all the tools needed to start a TechCamp, the planning process, as well as solutions which are documented (both in English and other languages) through TechCamp Wiki.

TechCamp Mumbai Tries Out the Harlem Shake — TechCamp Mumbai tries out the Harlem Shake

Through TechCamp, the U.S. is not only sharing cultural norms and values (including the Harlem Shake), but is also establishing valuable ties and on-going relationships with the future decision makers around the world. Finally, the recent TechCamp in Philadelphia is an interesting addition to the TechCamp curriculum. Having the domestic component could be interpreted as a signal to the rest of the world that the U.S. is not just exporting the program without applying it at home, but also to showcase work being done overseas by the State Department to U.S. taxpayers.

Countries using culture and diplomacy to advance democracy abroad, such as the U.S., need to take advantage of their privileged positions with regards to access to technology, communication channels and international presence. The U.S. could focus on strengthening the programs it has started to develop over the last four years and incorporate them into its diplomatic toolkit for future democracy promotion around the world. Programs such as TechCamp need to multiply at every level, promoting a grassroots approach to technology. As NGO’s move forward with successful results using technology platforms to promote transparency and civil society engagement; at the state level, cases such as Kenya illustrate the many uses technology can have in promoting democracy worldwide.

Rebecca Woodward is a graduate student in the Global Communication program at the George Washington University with a focus on Communication and Information Technology.

The above post is from Take Five’s new Student Perspective series. Graduate students studying Cultural Diplomacy as Communication at the George Washington University are encouraged to think about themes such as youth, gender, health, climate, free press, and democracy, and write on how these themes relate to cultural diplomacy and to communication. The posts involve thoughtful commentary on the writer’s chosen theme, linking to class readings and discussions.

How Does Cultural Diplomacy Communicate? Let Me Count the Ways

February 7, 2013Cultural Diplomacy, Global Communication, in the field, public diplomacy1 Comment

U.S. senior diplomat Robert Jackson and Casablanca high school research team at Rabat Environment Eair, 2010 — Opportunities to Engage: U.S. senior diplomat Robert Jackson with Casablanca high school research team members (Morocco’s Earth Day Network Fair, 2010)

Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Tara Sonenshine, who delivered the annual Walter Roberts Lecture at George Washington University last Thursday, comes from a serious press and media background. She is the recipient of 10 News Emmy Awards and other awards in journalism for broadcast programs on domestic and international issues. She has also worked as strategic communications adviser to Internews and the International Women’s Media Foundation, among a number of other international organizations.

So it was all the more striking how prominently cultural diplomacy featured in her comments last Thursday, just as it does in many of her other communications — including the U.S. public diplomacy highlights she publishes every few weeks.

This is a reminder that the Under Secretary recognizes and embraces the fact that cultural programming IS communication. It is an essential diplomatic tool that enables the U.S. to persuade influential people to listen to us with an open mind; allows us to share knowledge and skills with potential international partners and allies; and helps us attract positive attention via mass media and digital media.

As Harvard scholar Joeph Nye has noted, the scarcest information resource in the 21st Century is likely to be the audience’s attention span. Here in the U.S., despite the plethora of contemporary media distractions, most citizens still pay some attention to what our own government says, because we know it might affect us directly, and also because we conceive of every citizen having a watchdog role. Certainly U.S. journalists see scrutiny of government as an obligation.

cross cultural iceberg — THE ICEBERG MODEL This graphic shows why direct messaging – via print or audio-visual media – can so easily fail to reach its target.

But it would be a mistake to think that official U.S. statements and policy explanations get even the modest automatic hearing abroad that they do at home. People are certainly interested in what the U.S. is up to, but they have a host of non-U.S. sources for that information that are more familiar to them, more trusted, and frequently more accommodating to their preconceptions.

Overseas, it takes creativity and insight to increase the chances that people will listen to U.S. officials with an open mind, and be prepared to respond accordingly.

This is why public diplomacy practitioners know that cultural programming is increasingly vital to the achievement of foreign policy goals. Some cultural programs serve as the proverbial “picture worth a thousand words,” projecting the essence of American policies, principles, and values via local mass media and fast-growing new digital media. Some cultural programming works as a powerful teaching tool to help influential people abroad understand (if not necessarily accept) both U.S. foreign affairs priorities and fundamental American principles.

More fundamentally, cultural programming fosters relationships and understanding between foreign officials and U.S. diplomats who will be called on, sooner or later, to work on contentious issues across the table from one other. It helps sustain generalized affinities even as individuals come and go in the diplomatic service. And it helps connect the real global communicators of the 21st century: journalists, activists, scholars, researchers, teachers, writers, artists, scientists, and entrepreneurs, as well as young people just joining the conversation.

The following recent U.S. public diplomacy highlights show the variety of ways in which cultural programming communicates. These highlights, published in January by the Office of the Under Secretary, are here sorted into three categories: Talking, Teaching, and Spreading the Word.

1) Talking — recognizing the people who are (or are likely to become) influential, and bringing them together across borders for focused and purposeful exchange of ideas.

Alumnus Hassen Ould Ahmed was recently appointed Deputy Director of Mauritania’s Cabinet. Ahmed was a 2008-2009 Hubert H. Humphrey Fellow at Penn State University. Meanwhile, Armenian political magazine De Facto named Edmon Marukyan, an alumnus of the Hubert H. Humphrey Program 2010 and previously the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP), “Member of Parliament of the Year.” Marukyan was elected to parliament in spring 2012.

Public Affairs Section Jerusalem hosted Oberlin College Professor of History Dr. Gary Kornblith, who spoke on American democracy at An-Najah University, Birzeit University, and Al Quds Open University. Dr. Kornblith also discussed the possibility of establishing an American Studies Program at the universities, meeting with university staff and academics at an Embassy reception designed to nurture cultural dialogue and advance the pursuit of American Studies.

At Rich Mix, East London (U.K.), playwright Wajahat Ali participated in an evening monologue and discussion with members of the Muslim arts community. The event attracted artists, writers, students and community leaders, including many women. An accomplished Muslim-American writer and an engaging speaker, Mr. Ali is comfortable with both his American and his Muslim identities, and there was much discussion about the contrast between American and British Muslims on that topic.

On January 5-6, while India and Pakistan faced each other on the cricket pitch, teams of exchange program alumni from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh engaged in the xBorder Games. Using social media tools like Google+, Storify, and Twitter, two teams comprised of alumni from each country competed in a digital scavenger hunt. The xBorder Games connected 45 alumni separated by geographic, cultural, and linguistic lines, created new friendships, and increased cross-cultural understanding. U.S. Embassies Islamabad, New Delhi and Dhaka organized the event.

Paralympian and Fulbright Scholar Yevgeniy Tetyukhin spoke about disability policy to an audience of special education teachers and administrators at the University of Guam. A professor, two-time Paralympian, and lifelong disability advocate, Tetyukhin is spending a year at the University of Hawaii at Manoa’s Center on Disability Studies, researching disability policy in the context of globalization and multicultural diversity.

Unconventional artists and activists narrate their own stories on a new VOA program that seeks to connect underground communities in Iran and the rest of the world. The twice-monthly TV and web program called ZirZameen is produced by Voice of America’s Persian Service and is available in both English and Farsi editions. The show, hosted by Mehrnoush Karimian, premiered in December and is available on social media sites, the VOA Persian satellite stream and on Livestation, a 24/7 Internet streaming platform.

The U.S. Ambassador to Korea hosted a New Year’s party for the Embassy’s online friends. Out of 35,000 people who follow the post’s various social media accounts, a diverse group of 20 were invited based on their online activity. The Ambassador blogged about the party, and the Embassy will post an “Ask the Ambassador” YouTube video highlighting the event. The Ambassador will continue this type of online-offline engagement with innovative netizens in the future.

2) Teaching — transferring knowledge and skills that are essential in civic life, political life, and international relations. Cultural programming promotes retention and “useability” of new knowledge through dialogue, debate, and learning-by-doing. Two-way knowledge transfer and “paying know-how forward” are frequent outcomes of cultural programming.

Pilarani Phiri from Zodiak Broadcasting radio station in Malawi – a participant in the State Department Foreign Press Center’s (FPC) 2012 Elections program for visiting journalists – reported that he secured the first live phone interview with a Malawian president as a result of his U.S. program experience. In his words: “one thing I learned while covering the elections is that the American President is always scrutinized by the public. Immediately I arrived home I got in touch with our ‘White House’ to have the President answer questions from the public. I am proud to announce that on December 31, I was the first Malawian journalist to have a live phone interview with the President where people posed questions to [him], a thing that has never happened before in my country.”

For four months, hundreds of Indonesian English teachers gathered every Saturday morning to take part in the series “Shaping the Way We Teach English,” taught by the [U.S. Embassy] Regional English Language Officer and English Language Fellows. The teachers came to @america [the high-tech American Center] in Jakarta or participated via digital link from the Consulate in Medan and the American Corner in Yogyakarta.

U.S. Embassy Kampala’s Information Officer gave a presentation at the “Writing Our World” (WOW) workshop at Makerere University, coaching participants on using social media to broadcast their voices and market their writing. Facebook, Twitter, and blogging were introduced as tools to expand the young writers’ network and increase attention to their work. The Embassy has also given grants to facilitate the activities of Writing Our World through readers and writers clubs in 10 schools. WOW’s leader is a member of the Embassy’s Youth Council.

Jerusalem: The board game Monopoly has proven a potent tool in fostering the entrepreneurial spirit among Palestinian youth, while simultaneously introducing a mainstay of American culture. American Corner Salfeet hosted 20 undergraduate students from Al Quds Open University for a discussion about business plans, barriers to entry, and board games with a visiting U.S. diplomat.

Seven officials from Zambia’s Ministry of Tourism traveled to the U.S. in January on an IVLP program to enhance their planning of the 20th session of the United Nations World Tourism Organization General Assembly, which will take place in Zambia in August 2013. During the program the officials examined how to plan a world conference, including best practices, leveraging partnerships, and capitalizing on them for longer-term benefit beyond the conference.

3) Spreading the word – via local media coverage or on digital media. While the previous two genres of cultural programming are designed to make a significant impact on the immediate participants, the purpose of this third type is to spark positive interest among the many.

U.S. Embassy Caracas held its annual “Baseball Visa Day” during which Venezuelan players in the U.S. major leagues and their family members obtain visas for the upcoming season. This year some 40 major leaguers and their families visited the Consular Section for their visas, and afterwards participated in a brief ceremony and reception with coverage by multiple print and television media outlets. Chargé d’Affaires (CDA) James Derham reminded those present that baseball is just one of many historic and cultural ties uniting Venezuela and the United States, and congratulated the players for an unprecedented season in which one Venezuelan won the batting Triple Crown, one pitched a no-hitter, another pitched a perfect game, and nine played in the World Series. During this event, Embassy Caracas took the opportunity to promote its youth outreach program “Béisbol y Amistad” (Baseball and Friendship), now in its seventh season.

In the lead-up to the U.S. Presidential Inauguration, Consulate Hong Kong began a social media project that included photos, videos and travelling cardboard cutouts of President Obama and the First Lady. Consulate Hong Kong Facebook posts of “President Obama” riding the Mid-Levels Escalator and standing in a Mass Transit Railway (MTR) station generated 42 comments, and 213 likes. Public Affairs Section Hong Kong will complete the project on January 21, 2013 with a video montage of the cutout President’s “tour” of Hong Kong.

The Innovation Generation Facebook page of State Department’s IIP Bureau hosted Monica Dodi, co-founder of MTV Europe and The Women’s Venture Capital Fund, on its “Ask the Entrepreneur” series, which features accomplished American entrepreneurs. The discussion sparked questions from around the globe including from India, Indonesia, Mauritania, Mexico, and Pakistan.

The U.S. Consul General in Munich spoke to students and faculty of “Berufsschule 4,” an off-the-beaten-track school in Nuremberg. He addressed U.S.-German relations, the U.S. presence in Bavaria, and economic and commercial ties, and tackled tough questions about car emissions, Guantanamo, gun control, and social media topics. The MeetUS speaker program is a core part of Mission Germany’s youth outreach, and the discussion was live Tweeted to highlight the event to a broader audience.

Bosnian Brooklyn Nets Player Interview Makes Front Page: The State Department’s New York Foreign Press Center assisted the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo in securing an interview with Brooklyn Nets player Mirza Teletovic – a Bosnian basketball star who has recently joined the NBA – in Dnevni Avaz (Daily Voice), the leading Bosnian newspaper and news website.

In January, [State Department] hosted 20 Youth Ambassadors from Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Panama for a reception and meeting with the Acting Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA), which promoted the event on social media along with the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and the relevant U.S. Embassies; Embassy San José alone received nearly 6,000 Facebook page views and 300 likes.

All the above constitute just a few of the highlights shared by the Under Secretary’s office for January alone. January’s highlights in turn constitute a tiny sliver of the cultural programming that takes place week in, week out at every U.S. Embassy and Consulate around the world. Most of it is targeted to advance specific foreign policy goals, and just about all of it is conceptualized strategically.

Each example is also a reminder that cultural diplomacy IS communication. The U.S. can only benefit from greater use of cultural programming to advance U.S. foreign affairs priorities.

21st Century Visual Culture, NGOs, and Public Diplomacy

December 20, 2012Cultural Diplomacy, Global Communication, public diplomacy1 Comment

An early Christmas present arrived in the mail today – a new book called Sensible Politics: The Visual Culture of Nongovernmental Activism (Meg McLagan and Yates McKee, eds., Zone Books, 2012.)

The “visual culture of nongovernmental activism” seems like an important topic for U.S. public diplomacy practitioners to consider. Even though public diplomacy isn’t exactly nongovernmental, neither does it represent the prevailing governing power of the countries in which public diplomats work. And in “making the case for America” in those foreign lands, we are very much activist, vying for attention along with non-governmental (and other-governmental) efforts of every stripe. We may ally ourselves enthusiastically with some causes, for example women’s empowerment. We may argue against others, for example restrictions on free speech deemed blasphemous. But we are always one voice among many, without the authority (however defined or felt) that a government body carries in its own country.

And of course, one of public diplomacy’s key resources is visual culture. From the first great expansion of U.S. public diplomacy during the Cold War period, the U.S. looked for ways to make visual our ideas, our values, our culture. Jazz Ambassadors did not tour just so people could hear their music; these mega-stars were sent abroad so that their photos would be on the front page of every newspaper, perhaps shaking the hand of a prime minister or jamming with local musicians. Jeeps and trucks carried USIS officers to remote areas with movies and portable generator-run projectors. Every month USIS distributed glossy color-photo magazines in Russian, Arabic, Spanish, French, and other languages. U.S. cultural centers were and are full of posters, photographs – even décor – supporting our particular “cause,” i.e., America itself. With the advent of satellite television in the 1980’s, USIA under Charles Wick eagerly embraced the opportunity to engage via this new medium. Interestingly, the first and most prominent use of USIA’s “Worldnet” television was to bring together multi-country audiences in mutual discussion and debate.

In the past couple of decades, non-governmental and civil society organizations have proliferated across the globe. In wealthier countries, philanthropy and sometimes government grants provided support. In the developing world, international donors channeled development assistance funds to and through such groups. Even before the Internet became widely accessible, NGOs expressed their activism visually, via photography, posters, videos, theater. Some development agencies ventured deep into visual culture territory, funding local NGO partners to produce films and television programs designed to promote positive actions such as conflict resolution or combating HIV/AIDS. Non-governmental organizations around the world became sophisticated in working with visual culture. Under-funded public diplomacy organizations have felt the pressure.

Today, we all continue to be amazed at the impact and promise of digital media. Digital and social media most certainly multiply our ability to communicate, but they expand the opportunity exponentially to those who may not have much in the way of funds, but who do have the passion, energy, and creativity to produce powerful images that draw us to their message. In this significantly more crowded visual-culture landscape, the U.S. will likely continue to focus on innovative ways to maintain our profile and to partner with other visual-culture organizations to tell America’s story. But this new book is a reminder that in the 21st century, communicating “who we are” is losing ground to communicating “what must change” — with real implications for public diplomacy.

In any case, it’s exciting when a book provokes so much thought via the title alone. And now I see that already on p. 14 there’s a discussion of Walter Benjamin on the “’aestheticizing of politics’ by fascism” in the 1930’s, which somehow got me thinking about the global reach of U.S. consumer culture and how this also shapes the landscape in which we public diplomacy practitioners work. Sounds like a topic for a future blog post!