cultural diplomacy – IPDGC Smart Power

Beyond Zero Sum Cultural Diplomacy

April 29, 2013Cultural Diplomacy, Global Communication4 Comments

By Max Entman

In a recent speech at the 2012 Institute for Cultural Diplomacy conference, former Canadian Minister of Foreign Trade Stockwell Day argues that cultural diplomacy can be used to advance certain broad principles that can help alleviate poverty around the world. Day posits that the existence of three essential freedoms – of enterprise, of religion, and of self-determined governance – can dramatically increase the likelihood that a given country will help its citizens out of poverty. Day suggests that the promotion of these principles by developed countries in developing countries is a cultural-diplomatic mechanism for sowing seeds of prosperity. Day’s assumption of consensus on these principles may be flawed, but it begs the question: is there a way for states to better coordinate cultural diplomatic efforts to achieve shared goals like poverty alleviation?

One answer to this question would be to create a new network of cultural diplomats that crosses national boundaries. Ideally, this “Conference of Cultural Diplomats” would be a diverse, collaborative network with the primary goal of sharing best practices in channeling cultural diplomatic efforts toward helping people in need. Admittedly, foreign ministries of many countries might have concerns about sharing their approaches with diplomats from other nations. However, cultural diplomacy is not a zero sum game. The whole point of such an initiative would be to find ways that the cultural diplomacy efforts of multiple nations can have positive impacts that are mutually reinforcing, not undermining. Such a network would take years to build, and would likely require the financial and organizational backing of an existing NGO in order to get off the ground. The potential benefits would dramatically outweigh these costs.

In recent years, much has been said about the power of “network public diplomacy,” as enabled by the Internet and other information and communication technologies. However, even advocates for this more relational approach have begun to recognize that it is not a catchall solution for all of the problems facing public and cultural diplomats. Professor Rhonda Zaharna of American University recently identified four fallacies in the prevailing discussion of “network public diplomacy.” In essence, she argues that “network public diplomacy” as an overarching concept is not valuable when it lacks specificity, and further that the network model is not always the best approach in all scenarios. In this spirit, let me be clear about the specific type of network approach I am proposing. In Zaharna’s typology, the “Conference of Cultural Diplomats” would be a “network of collaboration that strives to generate value-added information” for its members and the world at large. It would achieve this by leveraging the insights of its diverse membership. This network structure would not mean a dogmatic adherence to a “network communication” model of public diplomacy by members of the network.

In his 2002 book Elusive Quest for Growth, William Easterly argues that investment in the generation of knowledge has become especially valuable in the age of globalization, as knowledge is more likely than ever to leak from one person to another. These leaks can lead to “virtuous cycles,” which can dramatically speed economic development in poor countries. Cultural diplomats and the governments they represent are in a position to aid the creation of more of the “virtuous cycles” that Easterly discusses. Through networked collaboration, a “Conference of Cultural Diplomats” could amplify the effectiveness of existing cultural diplomacy efforts, while simultaneously spurring innovation. Moving beyond the zero sum cultural diplomacy paradigm will likely be difficult, but the rewards will be worth the trouble.

Max Entman is a graduate student at the George Washington University. His piece forms part of Take Five’s series of student reflections on aspects of cultural diplomacy as communication.

Should We Even Be Studying Public Diplomacy?

April 24, 2013Cultural Diplomacy, public diplomacy1 Comment

by Anna-Lena Tepper

Former NBA player Dennis Rodman’s recent visit to North Korea came to many as a surprise. Along with an entourage of fellow basketball players from the performance group Harlem Globetrotters, Rodman went to visit the most oppressive country in the world, but his intentions weren’t politically motivated. His mission was simply to share the joy of basketball with the North Korean people. In his few days there he did not only initiate several friendly games between American players and North Korean teams, but he also had several friendly encounters with the country’s dictator Kim Jong Un. He left with a great impression of the country and its people and they also seemed to have enjoyed his visit. Upon his return to the States, Rodman’s advice to the President was that he should just call his Communist counterpart to sort things out. This sounds almost too good to be true and very easily done. The question arises, if maybe this approach might yield better results than the ones initiated – or in the case of US-North Korean relationship “non-initiated” – by the international community. After all, Rodman managed to have friendly encounters with one of the US’s biggest enemies.

The field of public or cultural diplomacy has received major academic attention over the last few years. People are not just studying public diplomacy, they also try to analyze, standardize, optimize, generalize, and define it. In an attempt to engage foreign audiences and develop a deeper relationship with them, based on shared interests and common ideas, governments spend millions of dollars each year to implement programs that can facilitate these engagements. However, despite countless highly sophisticated programs – ranging from student and leadership exchanges to a variety of cultural events – that are tailored to different audiences, too often neither scholars, nor policy makers can determine a cause-effect relationship between the programs they implemented and approval rates abroad.

And then there is Dennis Rodman, who travels to North Korea without a plan and manages to leave the country a few days later and everyone, including the country’s communist leader that hasn’t had any friendly encounters with an American in as long as anyone can remember, is all smiley faces. No science behind it, just what seems like intuition, and it worked – apparently. However, some argue that Rodman’s visit was actually counterproductive, as his approval of Kim Jong Un directly legitimized his questionable leadership.

Still, the question arises if maybe American scholars are sometimes overanalyzing public diplomacy and therefore, often miss their set goals (or can’t detect it). Many argue that Dennis Rodman’s visit was just staged and now that he has gone nothing has changed. Those people have a point. Kim Jong Un has just threatened the United States with a nuclear war again. Politically, Rodman’s visit hasn’t changed anything. However, he still managed to open North Korea to an American visitor for a friendly encounter with the leader for first time in decades, and that is something neither politicians nor scholars have been able to achieve.

Fact is, public diplomacy needs to be very targeted in order to be successful, but at the same time, PD scholars and practitioners should also keep in mind that sometimes intuition is a good indicator of what is a good approach and what is not. Especially in the case of North Korea, maybe a mix of intuitive steps and targeted PD programs is going to lead to a change in the near, or not so near future.

Anna-Lena Tepper is a graduate student at the George Washington University, and is posting as part of Take Five’s ongoing Student Perspective series.

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.

Cultural Diplomacy and non-government organizations: Who is a diplomat?

April 9, 2013Cultural Diplomacy, public diplomacyLeave a Comment

As J. Michael Waller (editor) notes in The Public Diplomacy Reader, the definition of public diplomacy has evolved over time and people view it in different ways. The link between all these definitions is that the audiences involved come from different cultures and backgrounds. Cultural diplomacy, by the very nature of the work, is done by many different organizations in many different sectors of a given country. Because cultural diplomacy encompasses so many different subcategories of diplomacy- arts diplomacy, educational exchanges, speaker series, etc.- there is a wide open field for those that can and do conduct these programs. This brings up a larger question of exactly who is considered a diplomat.

Like the definition of public diplomacy, the definition of who is a diplomat has also evolved over time. Of course everyone is going to have an opinion on where to draw the line between diplomat and non-diplomat, but I’d like to propose some questions in order to draw some rough boundaries. With the increase in the amount of people that can do and are doing diplomacy, there is the possibility, as Robert Albro suggests, of “interest-free cultural diplomacy”. People are more likely to engage if there is not a hidden interest or if the organization conducting the program is not affiliated with the government. These possibilities exist with the advent of new diplomats other than those belonging to the Foreign Service.

If you, or the organization you work for, represent a country and not a government are you a diplomat?

This question depends on the situation. You, as a singular person travelling abroad for pleasure, do not constitute a diplomat. If that were the case, then everyone who travels internationally would be considered a diplomat. That would be unproductive because then there would be no point to identifying organizations and people who are part of the Foreign Service as diplomatic representatives for a specific country. We would no longer need the Foreign Service Officer Test and we would no longer need the Foreign Service Institute. The sheer ubiquity of international travelers would diminish the value of having that position as a job. Everybody who travels internationally cannot be considered a diplomat even though each person would be representing a country.

However, as part of an organization, there is a possibility that you could be considered a diplomat depending on the type of organization and the nature of the work you are doing. An Armenian NGO called OST Armenia-Cultural Center of the East, acts as a cultural representative for Armenia with countries of the East according to their website. Their “About the Organization” section says that they are funded by “membership dues, donations and sponsorship funding.” From their website, it seems that they are not affiliated with the government of Armenia and are truly committed to advancing cultural diplomacy initiatives. In this case, people who work for this organization are doing the same type of work that we traditionally consider diplomats to do; thus I see no reason not to consider them diplomats. They are representing Armenia without representing the government, but are still conducting diplomatic work. Of course, there may be something in their operational policies that we are not aware of that links them to the Armenian government, but, for all intents and purposes, they are representing a country without representing a government and are on their way to conducting interest-free cultural diplomacy. .

If your organization is not representing or promoting a country then are you still a diplomat by virtue of working for/ representing this other type of organization internationally?

A related question that needs to be addressed in partnership with the above one is: What kind of organization does not represent/ promote a country? Many people will argue, and correctly so, that even if the organization is a true NGO, the country that the organization is based in is still going to be somehow represented. The challenge in this question is finding a truly international organization. For purposes of this discussion, I have chosen Greenpeace. According to their website, Greenpeace was founded by a group of Canadian citizens, is currently headquartered in Amsterdam, and has 2.8 million supporters worldwide and regional offices in 41 countries. In this case, Greenpeace is promoting a cause, not a country, and does not represent a government. Having its headquarters in a different country than where it was founded takes away that problem of the country still being reflected within the organization. So here is an organization that has essentially no ties to government or country, yet they are doing international work. Does this make the organization and its members diplomats? Due to the lack of ties to a country or government, they come even closer to Albro’s interest-free diplomacy idea, but is their work really diplomacy?

To me, the crux of public diplomacy is creating the space for dialogues which hopefully lead to relationship building. Greenpeace’s website says that their “solutions work promotes open, informed debate about society’s environmental choices, and involves industries, communities and individuals in making change happen.” I think they reach the dialogue state of public diplomacy, but I don’t know whether or not they reach they state of building partnerships.

Where do non-government organizations that are contracted by the government or partially funded by the government fit into this?

There are many examples of organizations doing diplomacy that are not government entities but are still funded, at least partially, by a government. These organizations do not really reach the notion of interest-free diplomacy and are not really NGOs, but fall somewhere in between. They do diplomacy such as exchanges, arts diplomacy tours, and more, and so the people of these organizations are diplomats by the nature of their work.

To reach Albro’s interest-free diplomacy, do you have to be independent or just come across as independent?

L’Alliance Française purports to be independent even though it really isn’t (see the official charter, in French but translatable) but you have to do some serious digging to discover this. The average person is not going to go to through the founding documents and will only see the website for their local chapter such as this one for L’Alliance DC which says that “L’Alliance Française de Washington, D.C. is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-governmental organization that is not subsidized by the French government. It is an educational, cultural association headed by a Franco-American Board of directors.” Therefore, the organization comes across as independent without actually being independent. There is no question that that they are doing cultural diplomacy activities, but it is very much a projection of the French government. As Albro notes, interest-free cultural diplomacy often engages more people because they do not see it as a government trying to push its views on others. To most people, L’Alliance and other examples, such as the British Council and Goethe Institute, appear to be furthering the goals of their respective nations while being less-affiliated with government than other government organizations such as the Foreign Ministry. While this is not exactly interest-free, it is getting closer.

In summary, NGOs can be invaluable resources when it comes to public diplomacy measures. NGOs can range on a sliding scale from interest free to closely associated with a government. Depending on where they fall on this scale, they are free to express alternative views and have more freedom with their online presence, official statements, and programming efforts. This helps to reach a broader audience that may or may not agree with the views of a given country’s government, but may still be interested in that country’s culture. NGOs potentially have the power to reach an audience that may have been absent from the discussion when governments were solely involved in diplomacy. Depending on the context and the work of the organization, people and their organizations can be diplomats without being part of a country’s official government initiatives. However, one must be careful when considering NGOs to be interest-free.

Beauty Pageants as an Environmental Public Diplomacy Platform

April 3, 2013Cultural DiplomacyLeave a Comment

by Katherine Cincotta

The Miss Earth Pageant: A prime example of cultural diplomacy used to increase awareness of environmental issues, or a standard beauty pageant that only pays lip service to environmental issues?

The pageant, held annually in the Philippines, has two primary goals. The first is to “…have its candidates and winners actively promote and get involved in the preservation of the environment and the protection of Mother Earth.” The pageant winner, chosen from a group representing nearly 100 nations, agrees to commit a year of service promoting environmental projects around the world, such as cleaning up beaches or planting trees with a community.

Environmental diplomacy is what first comes to mind when I hear “Miss Earth;” a pageant that showcases the environmental concerns and projects from diverse countries.

In prior years the pageant did a fair job of incorporating environmentalism into its production. The 2008 pageant, for example, included montages of the contestants’ projects, as well as questions directly related to the environment. In 2012, however, much of the environmental focus in the pageant had been cut down. There were several shorter montages of contestants mentioning their environmental goals briefly. Overall, the pageant generally progresses as any other would, with an assortment of clothing changes, and not much else. The sole question asked of the contestants in the 2012 pageant was: “what would you consider your defining moment as a woman?” Consistent with the rest of the pageant, the word “environment” was barely mentioned in the responses.

The second goal of the pageant is to “…showcase and promote various tourist destinations.” The promotion of diverse destinations would give each location an opportunity to showcase how they are specifically impacted by environmental issues. Thus far attempts to hold the pageant in locations outside of the Philippines have generally fallen through. Going into the thirteenth year of the pageant, Miss Earth has only successfully been held outside of the Philippines once; when it was held in Vietnam in 2010.

As one of the largest pageants in the world, behind Miss World and Miss Universe, Miss Earth has the potential to draw a large audience. In addition to the potential economic benefits, hosting the pageant would allow a country to highlight its culture, as well as its own specific environmental concerns. For example, if the pageant were held in Haiti, the country could convey their struggle with natural disasters and how they have been impacted by climate change.

Climate change is currently one of the most pressing environmental concerns globally. Many of the countries that are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as Bangladesh, Malawi and Madagascar, would benefit from hosting Miss Earth to draw attention to the concerns and cultures of their small country. Assuming the pageant airs internationally, it has the potential to reach millions of viewers. This begs the question, which countries actually broadcast it? The Miss World Pageant is viewed by an estimated 2 billion people a year globally, and over 1 billion watch Miss Universe. The numbers on Miss Earth, meanwhile, are much more difficult to track down. Though the pageant claims to be one of the largest in the world, how many people globally are aware that it exists? What can be done to increase its viewership?

One reason that Miss Earth may not yet have reached its full viewership potential is funding. Of the five main sponsors of the pageant, Hewlett Packard is the most notable. As one of the Top 25 “greenest” companies in the world according to Newsweek, HP has the ability to influence and collaborate on pageant events. If other green corporations were similarly willing to sponsor Miss Earth, the necessary funds may allow the pageant to be held in a variety of locations, and to reach its full potential as an environmental public diplomacy platform. Other companies that made Newsweek’s list include Google and McGraw-Hill, two companies that would be able to use their marketing platforms to help promote the pageant.

In addition to funding, another constraint that would prevent some countries from hosting Miss Earth is cultural barriers. In particular, many Muslim countries (such as Bangladesh) have outlawed pageants altogether. Though it may not be possible for every country to host the pageant that does not mean citizens of every country cannot get involved. In 2003 Miss Earth made headlines when Miss Afghanistan, Vida Samadzai, became the first Afghan woman to participate in a beauty pageant in 30 years, particular notice was given to her participation in the bikini portion of the pageant. In moderate countries, could it be possible to adapt the pageant to fit cultural norms? As the main goal of the pageant is spreading environmental awareness, could it still be effective? It may be beneficial if the pageant was first held in more liberal and environmentally conscious societies, such as Brazil so that smaller or somewhat more conservative countries could see the benefits that the pageant can bring with it.

Because pageants are popular globally, and young girls aspire to be like pageant contestants, Miss Earth could create a platform for environmental diplomacy, particularly for the younger generations. Perhaps in part due to funding constraints and cultural barriers, the pageant unfortunately has not yet been able to reach its full potential public diplomacy and awareness-raising potential. In turn, the pageant overall currently seem somewhat superficial.

If changes were made, Miss Earth may have the potential to act as a subset of Cosmopolitan Constructivism, which Cesar Villanueva Rivas describes as “constructing long-lasting friendly relations among states by inviting their societies to learn from each other in the construction of cosmopolitan cultural attitudes.” In other words, with increased funding and more emphasis on environmentalism during the show, the Miss Earth pageant could allow people of different countries and cultures to establish common environmental interests or concerns. Could this realization of shared goals in turn lead to the creation of a platform on which environmental collaboration could take place?

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.

Confronting Development Challenges with Celebrity [Chef] Diplomacy

March 29, 2013Cultural Diplomacy, Social Media2 Comments

Some of José Andrés’ more than 100,000 twitter followers congratulate him on being named an “Ambassador of the Spanish Brand.”

by Max Entman

In the last decade, the definition of cultural diplomacy has been expanding. This expansion has been especially noticeable in the realm of the culinary arts. The recent launch of the “Diplomatic Culinary Partnership” by the U.S. Department of State is one of many examples of this phenomenon. Though food has featured to some degree in traditional diplomacy for centuries, these new initiatives go beyond state dinners to harness the power of food as an instrument of cultural engagement. Beyond creating sustained cultural engagement around food, these new efforts can also play an important role in raising the profile of policy challenges that align with the interests of a new generation of culinary diplomats.

Why this focus on food now? One key reason is the explosion of the celebrity chef phenomenon during the past decade. Around the world, chefs have stepped out from the behind the stove to become media moguls and full-fledged entertainment personalities. This raises the question of how particular chefs may fit into existing thinking about the impact of so-called celebrity diplomats. Professor Andrew Cooper has done the definitive work in this field. In a recent article on the topic, Cooper suggests that “the feature that does more to define celebrity diplomats than anything else is their focus on access to state leaders and key ministerial and bureaucratic policymakers.” As a result, Cooper argues that only three celebrities – Bono, George Clooney and Angelina Jolie – have achieved true celebrity diplomat status, whereas other politically active celebrities are merely activists. However, the emergence of a variety of renowned chefs as government-affiliated advocates may challenge this assertion.

The person that best personifies this new chef-as-diplomat archetype is José Andrés. Based in DC by way of Asturias, Spain, Andrés is widely credited with popularizing Spanish cuisine in the U.S. In addition to a growing restaurant empire and successful TV shows in the states and in Spain, Andrés is a leading member of the State Department’s American Chef Corps and the founder of World Central Kitchen, a non-profit organization that seeks to combat hunger. Andrés was also recognized recently as an “embajador de la marca de España” (honorary ambassador of the Spanish brand) by the Leading Brands of Spain Forum, a government-affiliated organization.

Caption: Iron Chef Masaharu Morimoto was similarly honored for “overseas promotion of Japanese food,” by the Consul General of Japan in New York City.

In both his adopted home and in his country of origin, government officials have taken note of Andrés’ leadership in both the culinary and development fields. For the United States, Andrés is a valuable partner because his gastronomic renown and his personal commitment to addressing development challenges make him a strong non-traditional advocate on development policy issues including the alleviation of hunger. In essence, his fame for haute cuisine can be leveraged to raise the profile of development issues (e.g. clean cookstoves) among audiences that may not be moved to action otherwise. For Spain, as his brand ambassador award suggests, Chef Andrés serves a simpler nation-branding

function by elevating the worldwide prestige of Spanish cuisine. These examples suggest that Andrés

has the very type of access which Professor Cooper says is the defining feature of celebrity diplomats, if perhaps at a lower level than Bono. Though Andrés is the most prominent example, numerous other chefs have developed similar relationships with government leaders that open the potential of their serving as diplomatic actors.

In the piece referenced above, Andrew Cooper concludes by saying “[t]he major questions will be whether the small cluster of top-tier celebrity diplomats will expand, and whether they will supplement their fresh sense of energy with a repertoire of enhanced substantive content.” Although he is best known for his avant-garde interpretations of Spanish cuisine, Andrés’ substantive efforts to combat global hunger and environmental degradation suggest that the expansion of celebrity diplomacy surrounding development policy issues may be starting with chefs.

Harlem Shake: Arab Spring Protest Edition

March 25, 2013Cultural Diplomacy2 Comments

by Kate Shriver

First, there was Gangam Style, the epic YouTube video by South Korean pop sensation Psy that swept the world in 2012 and currently has over one billion views, making it the most viewed YouTube video of all time. Anyone who was anyone made a spinoff or parody of their own.

Now, there is the Harlem Shake. Here’s the premise: in an approximately 30 second long video a single person dances for roughly 10-20 seconds on their own (usually in a mask or helmet of some sort) while everyone else around them carries on with their own business, essentially ignoring the lone dancer. When the music “drops,” the video cuts to everyone in the room dancing basically just any way they want, though it typically involves a lot of gyrating, hip thrusting and a variety of masks, costumes and other props. The accompanying music is by US artist Baauer—and depending on whom you ask—the initial video was posted in early February by a group of young men in Australia, or it was posted by these guys somewhere else.

In reality, the Harlem Shake in its first form was a dance that characterized the New York neighborhood of the same name in the 1980s. This information aside, the modern day Harlem Shake has taken off at lightning speed with hundreds of new versions posted to YouTube every day. The craze is starting to wind down in the US and the West, though the fad has not come without a few brushes with the authorities: in the US, the FAA is investigating an incident which involves posted Harlem Shake video that appeared to show the crazy dancing taking place on a plane that was in flight. There have been reports of students being suspended for filming their own versions in school. In Australia, a group of miners were fired and reportedly banned from all mine sites after authorities discovered their Harlem Shake video, which they apparently shot while on their work site—in a mine! One of the most popular versions, with over 50 million YouTube views, was created by members of the Norwegian Army who are featured dancing around in the snow after breaking formation.

While the meme may be wearing out its popularity in the West, it is just beginning to get going in the Middle East: Cecily Hilleary of Middle East Voices (A VOA powered initiative) has compiled a list of Middle Eastern countries where the dance craze has gone viral, from Algeria to Yemen. But it is in Tunisia and Egypt—the hotbeds of the Arab Spring—where the Harlem Shake meme is taking on new meaning. The dance seems to have morphed into a form of social protest against the respective governments who have, in response, cracked down hard on some of those who created the videos.

In Tunisia, where there has been a split between secularists and ultra conservative Salafis since the fall of the regime of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali over 2 years ago, a group of students at a high school in Tunis filmed a version of the Harlem Shake in which some students danced in their underwear, dressed up as Salafis with fake beards, or as Gulf emirs (among other costumes). The provocative nature of the dancing caught the attention of the Salafis, who decried the video as indecent. Minister of Education Abdellatid Abid, angrily denounced the video as indecent also, and ordered an investigation of the school’s principal. Skirmishes have erupted elsewhere in Tunisia as conservative Muslims attempt to stop youth from partaking in other Harlem Shake videos—with one student in coastal Mahdia purportedly receiving 12 stitches on his head after being beaten in one such clash.

A video linked to the original Tunis high school Harlem Shake video is titled “The Harlem Shake: Attacked by Salafis Edition” which appears to show a schoolyard where students are about to do the dance, and are then attacked by Salafis. In some of the skirmishes the Salafists have reportedly shouted at the students “Our brothers in Palestine are being killed by Israelis, and you are dancing.”

Only a few days ago a mass protest/Harlem Shake dance was planned in Tunis in front of the Ministry of Education. Thousands said they would participate, but the rainy weather appeared to have dampened the turnout, with only a few dozen students taking part in the protest with shouts of “freedom, freedom.” In a Washington Post report, students stated their own reasons for participating in the dance: one said the dance represented a way to vent and take a break from the stresses of the past year, and another reported that he wanted to take advantage of the newfound freedoms thanks to the revolution after years of harassment and repression. In additional reporting on the mass protest, a student said he was there to make the minister of education understand that he cannot stop the dancing – “This policy of suppressing rebellious spirit is no longer acceptable.” The initial video and the backlash have only served to produce even more Harlem Shake videos, and the meme and its meaning continue to flourish in Tunisia.

In Egypt, where there are strict public indecency laws, four pharmaceutical students were arrested after posting a video of themselves doing the dance semi-naked in a middle-class Cairo neighborhood. Students in Egypt have also posted videos of the Harlem Shake being done in front of the Pyramids (it is unclear whether the Pyramid video is the same one that resulted in the arrests).

Following the arrests of the four students, somewhere between 70 and 400 protesters showed up outside
the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo to stage a Harlem Shake dance/protest. The dance was organized to be a peaceful protest of the ruling party and President Mohammed Morsi, and a lighthearted moment in an Egypt that is still reeling from its transformation. A unique twist in the Egypt story: a member of the Muslim Brotherhood created his own Harlem Shake video in response to the protest, in which he and other people wear masks featuring the faces of opposition party members. The video has apparently since been taken down.

What is particularly interesting about the way the Harlem Shake is being used in Egypt, is that the protest outside the Muslim Brotherhood headquarters was organized by a newly formed group called “The Satiric Revolutionary Struggle” which has
its own Facebook page with over 1,000 likes. The Verge reports that the group was started by 17 year old Mahmoud Tabei and three of his friends so that they could work on making political statements through humorous demonstrations. Tabei said that he had seven friends who died in the Arab Spring violence in Egypt and that another of the aims of the newly formed group is to raise morale and “refresh minds.” The next event the group is working on is a marathon that will start at the headquarters of the National Democratic Party (the party of deposed autocrat Hosni Mubarak), and end at the Muslim Brotherhood’s headquarters. The Verge writes that “it’s a path meant to symbolize Egypt’s political trajectory from Mubarak to Morsi. Its message, according to Tabei, should be clear: ‘They are the same. Nothing has changed.’”

So what does all of this mean for cultural public diplomacy? It appears that the Harlem Shake meme was an inadvertent export of Western culture (particularly U.S. culture) that hit the Middle East and transformed from something that was initially fun and lighthearted, into something more meaningful and useful to politically active youth, especially in Egypt and Tunisia.

Can the US government or an NGO or another some other PD actor harness the power and popularity of the meme in any way? Perhaps a rapid response digital media team at the State Department could message words of support for the dancers citing freedom of expression? It certainly doesn’t look good for the either the Tunisian government or the Egyptian government to crack down violently on the dancers, so that is something that the State department could monitor and then respond to if necessary.

It could also be true that this type of super fast social media movement is impossible to control or use in any way for cultural diplomacy. It seems that in the ever important short/mid/long term goals of public diplomacy, and particularly cultural diplomacy, that this sort of meme presents an “instant” goal of some sort—something that can be recognized and addressed.

Where a real opportunity lies is with the newly formed Satiric Revolutionary Struggle group founded by an Egyptian teenager and his friends. This is a group with robust backing on Facebook, and something that could be assisted with support from the USG directly, perhaps through a program that brings comedy troupes or political satirists from the US to Cairo to teach the group some of the “tricks of the trade.” Or an NGO or other organization could reach out to the group and show them similar skills they could use, as well as other popular media they could use in order to satirize the government. It is obviously still quite risky to criticize the government in Egypt, so the newly formed group should also receive training on how to avoid conflict, etc.

Perhaps the most important point to consider in this case is the US and its foreign policy remain largely unpopular in much of the Middle East—so any overt help given by the USG could be outright rejected, or worse: it could be seen as foreign meddling likely to result in a total shut down of whatever initiative it was trying to assist with in the first place. Thus the name of the game is “indirectness” – assistance in the form of things the group may actually want or need (e.g. a good piece of technological equipment to assist with video production or editing).

Sure, the Harlem Shake is probably not a highlight of US culture that the government would choose to export: it is not a gem like jazz or classical dance or paintings. But it is something that has a wide appeal to a huge youth population in the still evolving Middle East, and it is something the USG could potentially use to provide “helping” public diplomacy.

Kate Shriver is a graduate student in the International Affairs program at the George Washington University with a focus on the Middle East.

Analyzing “Cultural Diplomacy in Africa” through the IR Positioning Spectrum

March 20, 2013public diplomacy1 Comment

In his piece, “Schools, Hospitals or Cultural Relations?” John Worne outlines the “crude version” of the International Relations Positioning Spectrum (IRPS), a continuum that illustrates international relations as falling somewhere between aid and military power. As he defines it, the IRPS is “giving, helping, sharing, boasting, shouting, fighting.”

However, just as people have different conceptions of what “culture” means to them, a (cultural) spectrum, of sorts, can also vary in meaning. For example, Nick Cull, in his response to John Worne’s spectrum, argues that a more appropriate spectrum might fall: “listening – facilitation – exchange – cultural diplomacy – broadcasting – advocacy.” When using this spectrum in analyzing diplomatic efforts, though, understanding Cull’s classification of cultural diplomacy is crucial. As Cull defines it, cultural diplomacy is “an actor’s attempt to manage the international environment through making its cultural resources and achievements known overseas and/or facilitating cultural transmission abroad.” In this sense, his definition most closely aligns with Worne’s “boasting” in the sense that an actor is promoting, or projecting, its own society to others.

Each spectrum, regardless of their respective labeling, contains similarities that are interesting when applied to a case study, such as “Cultural Diplomacy in Africa: A Forum for Young Leaders.” Cultural Diplomacy in Africa: A Forum for Young Leaders (CDA) is a network of students, young professionals, and cultural practitioners from across the world “who share an interest in the African continent.” Housed and run within the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, the CDA believes in the significance of cultural diplomacy as a tool for policy and uses it to address the challenges currently faced in Africa. Further, the network “conducts ongoing activity aimed at supporting development and strengthening relations between different countries and cultural groups within Africa, and between Africa and external partners…[and] provides an opportunity to network and experience the vibrant city of Berlin.” The Forum’s objectives are defined as follows:

Establish a long-term, interdisciplinary network of young leaders that contributes on both a professional and personal level to exchange within African states;

Educate, enhance, and sustain African relationships through the empowerment of the participants;

Support valuable contributions to civil society in Africa through “Leadership Initiatives” that the young leaders will organize as part of the program;

Provide the participants with fresh insights and new perspectives to deepen their understanding of the economic, political, cultural, religious, and social frameworks of the African Project; and

Strengthen professional, economic, cultural, political, and scientific cooperation through close personal and professional relationships.

As is fairly evident in its description (and in its many objectives), the CDA Forum is composed of a number of cultural diplomacy programs and initiatives. First, the CDA Forum greatly focuses on the role of African leaders within its program. These speakers, involved in lectures and discussions include “leading figures from the fields of politics, diplomacy, academia, civil society and representatives from the private sector.” Each speaker is expected to bring his or her own insights on the theme of the Weeklong Seminar. These activities of the Forum seem to fall nicely under Worne’s “sharing” or “boasting” category of the spectrum, but the nature of program will obviously affect the classifications. For example, lectures might align more closely with “boasting,” while discussion-based programs involve more “sharing.” One note of importance is that Worne astutely observes that some words might be better suited for describing various activities than others. For instance, he states, “‘Exchanging’ is perhaps a more accurate term than ‘sharing’ because it is more actively mutual and more purposeful. ‘Telling’ is perhaps fairer than ‘shouting’ to encapsulate diplomacy and campaigning…The intent behind it and the way it is done make the difference.” Therefore, lectures may be better classified as “telling,” since speakers are sharing their insights and experiences, whereas seminars and workshops are more about the mutual exchange of information. In addition to the speakers, the program provides opportunities for the participants to network with other attendees and explore the cities in a new setting. According to ICD’s website, social and cultural activities range from film nights to debates to group dinners to visiting historical sites. Although these visits provide an outlet for the attendees to meet informally with one another, the ICD website clearly notes that during group visits, participants “are able to see the city from a different perspective. They will be able to experience all that Berlin has to offer, as well as partake in visiting Germany’s top institutions, including foreign offices, the city hall, the German parliament, and various embassies throughout the city.”

review-2010-06 — source: culturaldiplomacy.org

Looking at the program from this angle shows that the CDA Forum through Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, in addition to supporting efforts aimed at African civil society and its overall development, is also an opportunity to promote the German culture to participants. This element of the Forum’s activities would fall farther to the right of the spectrum—perhaps under boasting or shouting, but what components are necessary before an initiative is classified as ‘shouting’ versus ‘boasting’? Determining whether participants felt like a significant portion of the program was geared toward German society would be interesting to examine within this context. Worne notes in his piece that “at its best, cultural relations means more ‘helping and sharing’, less ‘shouting and fighting’ and maybe one day a less urgent need to ‘give.’

This is a fair point, but it’s difficult to know the relationship between these points within the context of the CDA Forum because there is little knowledge on the CDA Forum’s participants. Although the website classifies them as “students, young professionals and cultural practitioners,” there are great differences between the former category of students and the two latter categories.

Is this Forum primarily composed of students trying to learn and “take it all in,” or is it composed of individuals who can take the knowledge they learn and actually apply it in their home countries? Both classes are extremely important, and relationships need to be built with each group, but there is a difference when considering the short and long-term implications of exchange programs. Ultimately, when looking at the elements of the CDA Forum, each of the tactics could be placed at different points along Worne’s—and along Cull’s—International Relations Positioning Spectrum. The cultural diplomacy elements of the program attempt to build relationships with African leaders, create networks (and lasting relationships) among today’s young leaders, and even promote the German lifestyle and culture through history, tours and dinners.

Although I tend to believe that multidisciplinary initiatives with numerous aims might have a greater chance of success, do multiple aims have the ability to dilute the central, core purpose of an organization or an enterprise? Does the Forum’s focus on multiple areas mean that this particular initiative has a greater or less likelihood of experiencing success, or does the spectrum not matter not matter as much in the grand scheme of things?

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.

Denmark’s Green Vision

March 7, 2013Cultural Diplomacy, public diplomacyLeave a Comment

The following reading 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.

By Kalyani Phansalkar

The potential of cultural diplomacy, at least in the US, is hampered by the lack of coordination between private and public entities in creating a coherent strategy. Scholars such as Cynthia Schneider argue that a lack of “interagency strategy for cultural exchange and diplomacy [marginalizes] arts, culture, and media…and limits the potential of existing programs.” In the age of Web 2.0, the cost of gathering content and coordinating programs has diminished significantly, opening up a space for cultural programming to take a more significant role in diplomatic issues. However, without the presence of a robust cultural diplomacy framework, these fragmented digital interactions will have a limited effect.

In some ways, Denmark has harnessed the new technologies and facilitated cooperation between public and private sectors to create a cultural program that raises awareness about climate change. The Culture | Futures Network, a growing collaboration of cultural actors and private enterprises, strives to educate and engage the global population on issues of sustainability and the human ecological footprint. This network serves as a kind of umbrella for smaller cultural and creative groups that specialize in film, art, dance, drama, or graphic design. By joining different, often fragmented efforts, the Culture | Futures Network is able to most effectively translate the message of environmental sustainability across borders.

It has recently launched an Earth Day 2013 Art Campaign called the CO2 Drive that leverages the use of new technologies, including the smartphone, to create art and raise awareness about climate change. The CO2 Drive creates GPS-based paintings, using cities as “canvases” and smartphone technology as “paint” as people around the world promote climate-friendly transportation. In essence, the GPS paintings will look like CO2 tags around the world. Furthermore, the network also promotes film screenings about environmental issues around the world. A recent screening included Vertical Cities – a film about a large slum settlement outside Mumbai. Films, productions, dramas, and other exchanges followed by debates offer a forum to discuss environmental issues through the prism of culture.

The issue of climate change is not tangible, in the sense that it cannot be given, traded, exchanged, stolen, etc. Unlike poverty or disenfranchisement, it cannot be ameliorated through donating food or demanding rights, respectively. Therefore, it needs to be resolved through a mean of cultural exchange that empowers citizens to take ownership of their surroundings and reduce their environmental impact. According to John Worne, “strong, effective cultural relations mean ultimately we will need less guns and fewer food parcels because sharing knowledge and ideas between people worldwide is among the best antidotes to conflict and giving people access to skills, languages, jobs and opportunities.” In essence, programs that empower global citizens enable enduring efforts across the globe to resolve large-scale problems.

The Danish Cultural Institute, along with various other parallel organizations, has formed bridges with private and NGO groups in order to facilitate a cultural dialogue on environmental issues and climate change. These organizations include the British Council, Culture Center of Spain, The Goethe Institute, International Federation for Arts Councils and Cultural Agencies (IFACCA), and The Asia-Europe Foundation. By offering avenues for different art projects, the Culture | Futures Network strives to make climate change a relevant part of one’s identity and culture. For instance, the network recently launched the Roskilde Festival, which asks participants to produce original works of art from garbage and recycled material. Therefore, participants from around the globe can imbibe their meanings and tradition of art into a concept that strives to raise awareness about environmental issues and climate change. This cultural resonance will make environmental sustainability a prominent issue on the global stage.

Furthermore, the Culture | Futures Network ties with a larger Danish foreign policy initiative called Global Green Growth Forum. The 3GF strives to explore avenues for a new green economy that sustains industrial growth, but curtails greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the “3GF seeks to become the leading international venue for public demonstration of leadership and cooperation on green growth by top-level global decision-makers.” Therefore, this cultural framework brings together participants from all across the globe around the environmental issues, while at the same time, promoting Denmark’s vision about a new industrial revolution that will “effectively realize the potential for long-term global green growth.”

Kalyani Phansalkar is a second year graduate student at the George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs.