|
 |
Main Page | Month Archive | Email Updates | RSS Feed | Print Version
The Public Diplomacy Blog is intended to stimulate dialog among scholars, researchers, practitioners and professionals from around the world in the public diplomacy sphere. The opinions represented here are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School.
PART TWO: WHAT IF THE PRESIDENT REQUESTED YOUR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ADVICE?
SEP 21, 2006 - 10:45AM PDT
Posted by Alvin Snyder
All posts by this author
Here is more from those who played along with our fantasy of receiving a call from the president -- this or any president -- who then asks advice on how to improve America’s public diplomacy.
As President Theodore Roosevelt once observed, those who choose to go "in the arena" experience both "victory and defeat," and we have, each of us, had our share of the latter, but happily some of the former, so why not share our experiences for those now in the arena?
Our initial posting of comments from battle-wisened hands were published even as additional remarks came forward.
And so this is to submit further comments from those who served (some still serve) their country as PD practitioners, in and outside government, women and men who know about victory and defeat for a worthy cause, first hand, as President Teddy Roosevelt had said.
Someone in the arena now -- more than one arena, actually -- is Sherry Mueller, who serves as both president of the National Council for International Visitors citizens group and co-Chairperson of Co-Lead, the Coalition for American Leadership Abroad, which coordinates several non-governmental organizations involved in exchanges. Ms. Mueller underlined the theme of many recent comments transmitted to us by public diplomacy veterans, apolitically. And that is, public diplomacy can be most effective when practiced "people-to-people," and over the long-haul, not as a quick fix.
Ms. Mueller said, "At its best, public diplomacy -- whether conducted by PAOs and other official diplomats or by the citizen diplomats in the United States who host exchange program participants -- is a long term investment in building relationships. These relationships constitute a web of human connections that provide a more receptive context for other interactions -- negotiating a trade agreement, crafting a security arrangement, or tackling a global problem.
"America's tattered image abroad was captured in a devastatingly stunning graphic on the cover of the May 29 New Yorker that depicted Uncle Sam without a face. The extent to which the United States has "lost face" is profoundly disturbing. No wonder we yearn for a silver bullet solution. However, we would use our sadly limited resources for public diplomacy more effectively if we candidly acknowledged that there is no quick fix. There is only gradual, cross-generational reclaiming of our ideals and communicating them to others around the world on a person-to-person basis.
"A key dimension of public diplomacy advice to the president must be to champion and support citizen diplomacy. Citizen diplomacy is the concept that the individual citizen has the right -- even the responsibility -- to help shape U.S. foreign relations, 'one handshake at a time.'
”Some Americans are already active citizen diplomats. Many are volunteers who belong to nationwide networks of nonprofit organizations such as the National Council for International Visitors, People-to-People International, Sister Cities International, and Friendship Force International.
”Citizen diplomats give their time, leadership skills, and dollars to support international exchange programs of all types. They are among our greatest assets in the battle for “hearts and minds” of people around the world. As noted long ago by the authors of The Ugly American, a novel still relevant, 'American citizens are the best ambassadors a country can have.'"
Former Foreign Service Officer Stanley Zuckerman, who now produces documentaries for public television, stressed the importance of media exchanges.
He wrote that “As far as democracy building is concerned, it would be wise to revert to the approach of inviting as many journalists, academics and politicians from the Middle East to witness our democratic institutions in action.”
Retired Foreign Service Officer Fred Coffey also noted the important personal interaction in public diplomacy. He said the reason why America is not understood abroad “lies in the void between genuine public diplomacy and public relations' branding. Public diplomacy is an inexact science slowly developed officially since before WW II. Its embryonic but valid thesis was to reach opinion leaders with ideas and constructive dialogue. Dialogue means earning credibility followed by listening, learning and then persuasive discussion and mostly in the local language. This is not done by one liners from Washington. Credibility is built by developing and nurturing meaningful contacts in our field posts while employing the valuable tools of outreach which include exchanges, hi- tech information centers, books, exhibits, special programs for journalists, professional local staff employees, etc. A credibility base is essential. Without credibility, public diplomacy becomes public relations, oft-times shallow and in the mid- and long term, counter productive.”
Perceptions from outside media observers abroad are always valuable, of course. Jonathan Marks, former long-time creative director of Radio Netherlands, cautioned against a quick fix for America’s PD, which was a commen thread seen in prior comments.
“I’m not sure (PD) needs a single propaganda blitz,” he wrote. “Global networks will quickly spot what's going on and work out a counter strategy. In fact, since distance is dead, an approach whereby you share Voices of Americans, rather than a single Voice of America would show that the U.S. can be culturally sensitive.”
And Mr. Marks included an afterthought: “Oh, and revise the policy of making all foreign journalists get a visa to visit the US -- the US consulate in Amsterdam demands 20 dollars to get a question answered or an appointment.... What a change from the days of USIA libraries.”
All this carries forth the spirit of what President Teddy Roosevelt believed was essential for American public diplomacy: “(The) chief of blessings for any nations is that it shall leave its seed to inherit the land.”
Read Comments (7) | Add Your Own
 Read Comments:
Carol Doerflein on September 21, 2006 @ 7:50 pm:
Interesting ideas from all of you, and I agree with each of you. Now, if only the President, or at least Karen Hughes, might be convinced to read what you have written. From my perspective, it all started falling apart when USIA began to dismantle its libraries and cultural centers, along with its English language programs, and to convert our large public establishments into "information resource centers" available only to elites. That kid from some Middle Eastern or North African country who once had a chance to spend all day perusing US magazines or to read US books in translation or to see an American documentary or even a popular movie--where did he go for his information and his perspectives on the world, once he was no longer welcomed by us because he wasn't important enough?
Alan Simpson on September 22, 2006 @ 11:29 am:
People stop waiting, the phone will not ring. Here in Washington reality, and the pipe dreams of earlier Public Diplomacy practitioners diverge even further. Few see their past tenure with anything but disdain and believe it's the time for action not more abstract theories of media persuasion. The world has long since moved on from the confused attempts of twenty years ago. USIA failed because the people producing the product did not understand their global audiences, and still don't. The product was, and still is, what cloistered producers believe should portray their idea of America the world needs to watch with awe. Impressing the White House and the Hill trumped the needs of the audience and the task. Over the years I have watched tens of thousands of hours of WorldNet programming and the number of missed opportunities should be in the Guiness Book of World Records.
The academic qualifications of the media managers of the past years are impecable, but their worldly knowledge, global travel and cultural understanding of the global media world is abysmal. Today loyalty to the Commander in Chief is the only criteria, knowledge and understanding of the audience totally rejected. The current attack on VOA to be more of a NeoCon propaganda machine is a good example.
Students should look at the direction, and efforts of Al Qaeda to create an effective media machine and examine their global metrics. Then consider the potential of a public/private WordNet 2 built with modern technology and people who understand the product and audience. When the US strikes Iran there better be a plan in place to manage the media devastation better than bribing freelance journalists, planting fake stories to be rejected, or phoning past practitioners who got it terribly wrong when they were in office. Come on USC instead of dreaming about the failed "Good Old Days", where is the blueprint for the future. The Buggy is broken, now describe the new Automobile to me.
Michael Cotter on September 22, 2006 @ 3:15 pm:
Carol Doerflein is right on target. We should never have gotten away from the tools that allowed USIS access to those who most need to be influenced by us.
For instance, when we opened embassies in Central Asia in the 1990s people in those countries had about the same knowledge/understanding of the U.S. as did Africans in the early 1960s. Yet we no longer sponsored libraries or offered English language programs. Instead we had Worldnet T.V. dialogues with U.S. officials that may have reached a few members of the elite.
John Ferguson, American Voices on September 23, 2006 @ 5:11 am:
As Executive Director of a non-profit organization devoted to cultural diplomacy through highly focused and targeted music and dance programs, American Voices, I work with approximately 35-40 US Embassy and Consulate posts per year and speak and consult with many more. The unfortunate over-arching impression I get from so much direct contact is that 'it ain't pretty out there'. We have a situation where audiences are clamoring for MORE of the U.S. - our artists, intellectuals, atheletes and Break Dancers, you name it. The performing arts and sports are so in demand and so popular, especially in countries in Central Asia for example. But State dithers and Embassies get their budgets cut. U.S. Foundations and corporations rarely want to get involved in supporting international cultural diplomacy. Meanwhile the British Council and the Alliance Francaise program circles around us in Kazakhstan and Tajikistan.... Not to diminish the other elements of Public Diplomacy, but the performing arts are such a good place to start digging ourselves out of the hole we find ourselves in. Yes, things were better in USIS days, when there was funding. But until Embassies get some program budget to work with again, PD is going nowhere fast. I have seen program budgets in key countries in Central Asia be whittled away by 50% over the past 3 years. Such a shame.....
Claudia Crawford on September 24, 2006 @ 11:26 am:
Ms. Mueller's comments are solid and shake one out of the moment so as to have just enough distance to remember, that it is about the past and the future, not just the moment. We need to keep that persepctive so as garner all of our resources to continue the work of citizen diplomacy.
The son of Palestianian friends of mine, a student in Paris, has been charged approximatley $30 every time he has a question regarding obtaining a visitor's visa--he wanted to visit his girlfriend in Detroit, an American citizen. He was turned down. No reason.
peter m herford on October 8, 2006 @ 4:13 pm:
The negative image of the US abroad is not an image, it is a fact. There are hundreds, even thousands of well meaning, hard-working individuals around the world trying their best to hold up a better image. Their efforts cannot gain traction as long as the lone figure of Tony Blair is the only support US foreign policy has gained.
USG monies have been politcized to the point where many NGOs have been sucked into the vortex of failure.
US Embassies are now fortresses that can be entered with great difficulty and at high cost; often only to find out that visas are unobtainable.
The list can go on and on, and there is no effective counterbalance. Hymns to past success are comforting only to those who enjoyed those past successes.
The US is in its current untenable position because of policies, strategies, and tactics that continue to be pursued by the current administration. If there is to be change, change must begin at the top.
Barry Volkman on March 18, 2007 @ 5:57 pm:
Where do find/reach/communicate with Stanley Zuckerman, please.
Add a Comment:
 |
|
|
SEND TO FRIENDS
