CPD Blog

CPD Blog http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/newsroom/pdblog_main A blog by public diplomacy professionals, theorists and practitioners, published by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy en USC Center on Public Diplomacy Copyright 2010 2010-02-03T22:46:00+00:00 APDS Blogger: Paul Rockower As soon as the Fall semester ended, I was on the road. Within days of my last finals, I hopped a bus south from Los Angeles and worked my way to Panama on public transit on a public health/public diplomacy road show. On a trip sponsored by the USC Institute for Global Health as a means to produce a photography exhibition on the world of public health and its intersection with public diplomacy, I went through Mexico and Central America, including Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. I have been backpacking for many years, but this time there was a serious difference: President Obama. Innocents Abroad: Backpacking in the age of Obama APDS_Bloggers APDS Blogger: Paul Rockower

As soon as the Fall semester ended, I was on the road. Within days of my last finals, I hopped a bus south from Los Angeles and worked my way to Panama on public transit on a public health/public diplomacy road show. On a trip sponsored by the USC Institute for Global Health as a means to produce a photography exhibition on the world of public health and its intersection with public diplomacy, I went through Mexico and Central America, including Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. I have been backpacking for many years, but this time there was a serious difference: President Obama.

Rockower at the Miraflores Locks of the Panama Canal

Rockower at the Miraflores Locks of the Panama Canal

I first noticed a change in attitudes while traveling around Japan last summer, but this current trip gave me a real opportunity to check the zeitgeist, the global pulse of attitudes towards Americans traveling abroad. My evidence is anecdotal but reflects a ground-level perspective spent in a multitude of hostels, squalid hotels, chicken buses and vans packed to the hilt. I always travel solo and I am often the only gringo on the local transit.

Being an American traveling during the Bush years was never easy. When I would say I was an American, people would roll their eyes and say "oh…Bush." I would have to put the public diplomacy charm on overload to explain why some had voted for him and why not everyone supported W.

Now, when I say that I am American, I get an "ah…Obama," with a smile and thumbs-up. Everyone I encountered knew of the American president; from the street kids in Managua to the seniors in San Salvador, the American president was held in high regard, and it reflected on his flock.

That dark cloud hovering over Americans traveling abroad has essentially dissipated because the elephant is no longer in the room. The European backpackers have lost that slightly hostile edge towards Americans. The eye-rolling “American” glance that was commonplace just doesn’t happen anymore. Meanwhile, the locals didn’t sneer when it was apparent that a gringo from the north was in their midst. More importantly, on this recent trip I saw a relative dearth of Canadian flags on backpacks, suggesting that those camouflaged Americans finally removed the maple leaf “security” patches from their bags.

Just before my trip, I saw a magnet with a picture of the president and the words, “Obama… it’s okay to be American again,” a sentiment that really proved to be accurate while traveling in the age of Obama. I found it so much more refreshing traveling without having to always explain American foreign policy missteps. Conservative pundits complained that Obama’s foreign policy essentially amounted to apologizing -- but, simply put, because Obama apologized, I don’t have to anymore. No one bothers me anymore about why America is doing what America is doing. Obama's public diplomacy makes my public diplomacy efforts and travel endeavors far easier.

Paul Rockower is a graduate student in the Masters in Public Diplomacy program at USC and a PDiN research intern at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. He has traveled to almost 55 countries around the globe. You can follow his misadventures at: http://levantine18.blogspot.com
]]> 2010-02-03T21:46:00+00:00 As recording artists gather today to re-create ‘We Are the World,’ to benefit Haiti, one cannot help but be moved by America’s continued commitment to sending relief and embracing the world in a time of crisis. Americans from every walk of life, and every level of the economic spectrum, are finding ways to contribute to the relief efforts in Haiti. The current attitude towards global engagement and oneness here locally, however, was a theme strikingly absent from the President’s State of the Union speech last week. The lack of emphasis on America’s role and ongoing efforts globally did not go unnoticed, Secretary Clinton’s absence notwithstanding. In reading through foreign media reaction to the speech this weekend, the disappointment in America from every region was palpable. Many media outlets cautioned the U.S. from becoming too inward-looking at a time when globally we are all feeling fragile, uncertain, insecure, and evermore intertwined. The President’s Cairo speech, the U.S. role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the closing of Guantanamo were mentioned in several Arab media outlets as examples where American deeds failed to live up to the rhetoric. The American government being admonished for its hypocrisy is hardly a new concept, and as a result we’ve all become immune to global criticisms to the point where few Americans choose to tune in and really listen to what the world is saying about us. However, if there were ever a time for self-reflection and assessment it is now. Part of this self-reflection must include listening to the world and taking stock of what’s actually happening on the ground in the various countries around the world where we are engaged. We cannot know ourselves fully and act appropriately on the world stage until we listen and understand the views of others. Listening to the world has also never been easier with resources like WatchingAmerica.com where daily translations of global press coverage of the U.S. is available 24/7, organized by region and for free. If we really are to live up to the promise and premise of ‘We Are the World,’ we should all make a commitment to becoming global citizens: learning, listening and working to understand the world. For an Administration that came to power with such hope and promise, resolutely focused on global engagement as a key pillar of our foreign policy, it is concerning that such themes would not be addressed and underscored in a speech as important as the State of the Union. The global coverage of the State of the Union was in many cases paired with U.S. relief efforts in Haiti. As the Venezuelan media outlet, Ultimas Noticias, noted: “If we were not speaking about the president of a country that has just sent 30,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan and has Haiti kidnapped with a passive invasion of more than 10,000 Marines, I would say that Obama is putting himself in the list of revolutionary leaders of the continent.” Haiti is the current prism through which the entire world is closely watching American efforts. Some heralded our President’s quick response and decisive action; others deride him for going in “too fast” and accused the U.S. of seeking another occupation there. Whether we are doing too little or too much in Haiti remains to be seen. It saddens me as an American to see all the goodwill here at home for finding ways to help in Haiti and then to hear the global press say we are only doing what is in our immediate self-interest. One thing, though, is for certain -- the global collective memory of U.S.-Haitian relations runs deep and their greatest concern on the ground is that we won’t be there for the long haul. Americans are known for being great in a crisis. Where the world sees us falling short is when it comes to providing long-term aid and support, and people’s memories run deep. History matters. Listening to the global street matters. As the Lebanon Daily Star noted in an editorial last week in response to the State of the Union speech, “Until the US formulates a vision for its role in the region based on an objective assessment of realities on the ground, rather than the ideological ramblings of “experts” from the left and the right, and until it develops a real multi-track strategy that seeks to simultaneously address each of the challenges highlighted earlier, American involvement in the region will continue to be disastrous, no matter who is in charge in the White House.” The same could be said for our efforts in Haiti and really anywhere else we are engaged in the world. My hope is that at every level America is listening to the world, really listening this time, and then we can start singing a new tune. We Are The World Cari_Guittard, Americas
The current attitude towards global engagement and oneness here locally, however, was a theme strikingly absent from the President’s State of the Union speech last week. The lack of emphasis on America’s role and ongoing efforts globally did not go unnoticed, Secretary Clinton’s absence notwithstanding. In reading through foreign media reaction to the speech this weekend, the disappointment in America from every region was palpable. Many media outlets cautioned the U.S. from becoming too inward-looking at a time when globally we are all feeling fragile, uncertain, insecure, and evermore intertwined. The President’s Cairo speech, the U.S. role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the closing of Guantanamo were mentioned in several Arab media outlets as examples where American deeds failed to live up to the rhetoric. The American government being admonished for its hypocrisy is hardly a new concept, and as a result we’ve all become immune to global criticisms to the point where few Americans choose to tune in and really listen to what the world is saying about us.

However, if there were ever a time for self-reflection and assessment it is now. Part of this self-reflection must include listening to the world and taking stock of what’s actually happening on the ground in the various countries around the world where we are engaged. We cannot know ourselves fully and act appropriately on the world stage until we listen and understand the views of others. Listening to the world has also never been easier with resources like WatchingAmerica.com where daily translations of global press coverage of the U.S. is available 24/7, organized by region and for free. If we really are to live up to the promise and premise of ‘We Are the World,’ we should all make a commitment to becoming global citizens: learning, listening and working to understand the world.

For an Administration that came to power with such hope and promise, resolutely focused on global engagement as a key pillar of our foreign policy, it is concerning that such themes would not be addressed and underscored in a speech as important as the State of the Union. The global coverage of the State of the Union was in many cases paired with U.S. relief efforts in Haiti. As the Venezuelan media outlet, Ultimas Noticias, noted:

“If we were not speaking about the president of a country that has just sent 30,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan and has Haiti kidnapped with a passive invasion of more than 10,000 Marines, I would say that Obama is putting himself in the list of revolutionary leaders of the continent.”

Haiti is the current prism through which the entire world is closely watching American efforts. Some heralded our President’s quick response and decisive action; others deride him for going in “too fast” and accused the U.S. of seeking another occupation there. Whether we are doing too little or too much in Haiti remains to be seen. It saddens me as an American to see all the goodwill here at home for finding ways to help in Haiti and then to hear the global press say we are only doing what is in our immediate self-interest. One thing, though, is for certain -- the global collective memory of U.S.-Haitian relations runs deep and their greatest concern on the ground is that we won’t be there for the long haul. Americans are known for being great in a crisis. Where the world sees us falling short is when it comes to providing long-term aid and support, and people’s memories run deep. History matters. Listening to the global street matters. As the Lebanon Daily Star noted in an editorial last week in response to the State of the Union speech,

“Until the US formulates a vision for its role in the region based on an objective assessment of realities on the ground, rather than the ideological ramblings of “experts” from the left and the right, and until it develops a real multi-track strategy that seeks to simultaneously address each of the challenges highlighted earlier, American involvement in the region will continue to be disastrous, no matter who is in charge in the White House.”

The same could be said for our efforts in Haiti and really anywhere else we are engaged in the world. My hope is that at every level America is listening to the world, really listening this time, and then we can start singing a new tune.

]]> 2010-01-31T22:45:00+00:00 The other day The Wall Street Journal ran a good summary of China’s conflict with Google. It looks like we’re in for another international war of words but, this time, it won’t be a classic Cold War confrontation over political-military issues, but rather a war of words over words — censorship, to be precise. China’s government mouthpiece, The People’s Daily, fired the latest salvo yesterday: …U.S. media have gone all out to “promote” the “Google issue” and American politicians repeated great “noises” in accusation of China’s internet management policies and insinuate the nation’s restriction on “internet freedom”…These words and deeds, which have taken no heed of reality, are definitely aimed to impair or tarnish China’s image It is not difficult, however, to see the shadow of the US government behind the highly politicized “Google” case. Shortly after Google threatened to quit [China], Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton issued a statement and chastised China on its censorship … Some U.S. political figures would defend in a high-profile manner the “internet freedom” as the “diplomatic strategy,” whose goal is to meddle in other nations’ affairs on the one hand and to consolidate American hegemony in cyberspace on the other hand…. Around the “Google” incident, the United States has not only focused on the commercial interest of domestic companies and safeguard its own national security and interests rights, but also is trying hard to limit China’s cyberspace. This is something totally unacceptable…To date, Google executives have expressed the hope to go on negotiating with the Chinese government and continue to stay in China, and Google has perhaps come to realize that China could do without it, whereas Google will definitely have no future without China [emphasis added]. Among the fascinating and disturbing aspects to this commentary is the way it resembles the rhetoric of the Cold War era, in which a nefarious and “hegemonistic” Washington is depicted as acting in lock step with American corporate interests. The State Department and Google team up to “meddle” in Chinese affairs and monopolize China’s “cyberspace.” The Chinese people are told to be indignant. But the larger point at issue appears to be the unfettered access to the Internet in China. Several years ago, Google agreed to allow some censorship in exchange for the right to run its search engines in China. As a result, more people use Google in China than in any other country except the United States. Google made a profit and many Chinese have more access to information. But this was also a bad deal because it established the precedent of the Chinese government having the right to censor the Internet. Clinton put it this way in her own remarks: In the last year, we’ve seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the internet. In Vietnam, access to popular social networking sites has suddenly disappeared. And last Friday in Egypt, 30 bloggers and activists were detained. As the NYT reported (as also noted by FPA blogger Chris Dolen), the most effective way for the Internet to be censored is through cyber attacks against the computers that support Google’s search engines. This is precisely what happened earlier this month and resulted in what the Times called “[this] ugly exchange of accusations between Washington and Beijing.” No one outside of China knows exactly what happened in the cyberattack against Google’s Chinese computers — only that the “footprint” for the attack was inside China. Perhaps the Chinese authorities had nothing to do with it, but regardless we are faced with the fragility of the the world of Internet-based access to information. If governments may overtly censor topics they consider sensitive, they may also covertly attack the very institutions that make that information available to millions of people. Published in Foreign Policy Association's Blog: "Public Diplomacy: The World Affairs Blog Network", co-hosted by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Just Google “China” Mark_Dillen, Asia Pacific a good summary of China’s conflict with Google. It looks like we’re in for another international war of words but, this time, it won’t be a classic Cold War confrontation over political-military issues, but rather a war of words over words — censorship, to be precise. China’s government mouthpiece, The People’s Daily, fired the latest salvo yesterday:

…U.S. media have gone all out to “promote” the “Google issue” and American politicians repeated great “noises” in accusation of China’s internet management policies and insinuate the nation’s restriction on “internet freedom”…These words and deeds, which have taken no heed of reality, are definitely aimed to impair or tarnish China’s image

It is not difficult, however, to see the shadow of the US government behind the highly politicized “Google” case. Shortly after Google threatened to quit [China], Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton issued a statement and chastised China on its censorship …

Some U.S. political figures would defend in a high-profile manner the “internet freedom” as the “diplomatic strategy,” whose goal is to meddle in other nations’ affairs on the one hand and to consolidate American hegemony in cyberspace on the other hand….

Around the “Google” incident, the United States has not only focused on the commercial interest of domestic companies and safeguard its own national security and interests rights, but also is trying hard to limit China’s cyberspace. This is something totally unacceptable…To date, Google executives have expressed the hope to go on negotiating with the Chinese government and continue to stay in China, and Google has perhaps come to realize that China could do without it, whereas Google will definitely have no future without China [emphasis added].

Among the fascinating and disturbing aspects to this commentary is the way it resembles the rhetoric of the Cold War era, in which a nefarious and “hegemonistic” Washington is depicted as acting in lock step with American corporate interests. The State Department and Google team up to “meddle” in Chinese affairs and monopolize China’s “cyberspace.” The Chinese people are told to be indignant.

But the larger point at issue appears to be the unfettered access to the Internet in China. Several years ago, Google agreed to allow some censorship in exchange for the right to run its search engines in China. As a result, more people use Google in China than in any other country except the United States. Google made a profit and many Chinese have more access to information.

But this was also a bad deal because it established the precedent of the Chinese government having the right to censor the Internet. Clinton put it this way in her own remarks:

In the last year, we’ve seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the internet. In Vietnam, access to popular social networking sites has suddenly disappeared. And last Friday in Egypt, 30 bloggers and activists were detained.

As the NYT reported (as also noted by FPA blogger Chris Dolen), the most effective way for the Internet to be censored is through cyber attacks against the computers that support Google’s search engines. This is precisely what happened earlier this month and resulted in what the Times called “[this] ugly exchange of accusations between Washington and Beijing.”

No one outside of China knows exactly what happened in the cyberattack against Google’s Chinese computers — only that the “footprint” for the attack was inside China. Perhaps the Chinese authorities had nothing to do with it, but regardless we are faced with the fragility of the the world of Internet-based access to information. If governments may overtly censor topics they consider sensitive, they may also covertly attack the very institutions that make that information available to millions of people.

Published in Foreign Policy Association's Blog: "Public Diplomacy: The World Affairs Blog Network", co-hosted by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
]]> 2010-01-29T22:39:00+00:00 The Obama Administration is back to practicing public diplomacy — with the American public. Stung by the loss in last week’s election in Massachusetts, the White House is bringing back public outreach specialist David Plouffe, the mild-mannered star of the Obama election campaign. Plouffe had stepped back from politics after the election to write a book on the campaign. Now it appears the White House needs Plouffe’s grassroots/Internet organizing skills more than ever. As Plouffe put it today in his first email to Obama’s net-roots followers since the end of the campaign, “We’ve hit some serious bumps in the road recently in our march toward change. We always knew it would be difficult, but this past week has definitely been a hard one, for all of us.” Besides the Massachusetts debacle, Plouffe must have in mind the Supreme Court’s sweeping decision last week on corporations and campaign finance. That decision appears to allow unlimited corporate contributions to individual election campaigns — beginning immediately. McCain-Feingold limitations are out the window, and the grassroots, small-donations-by-individuals-via-the-Internet approach to campaigning could be made irrelevant. Suddenly, the United States is faced with speculation about a new political dynamic in Washington — especially on Capitol Hill — as well as new ground rules for how one gets elected. If Plouffe can improve White House communication with the American public, he may not only rescue the White House’s political agenda, but also help restore faith that it is citizens, not corporations, that decide elections. Plouffe’s first task comes Wednesday with President Obama’s State of the Union address, which Plouffe will introduce via conference call to thousands of groups of Obama’s erstwhile campaign volunteers across the country. It is, as Plouffe says, a “pivotal moment.” It’s hard to quarrel with that assessment. Published in Foreign Policy Association's Blog: "Public Diplomacy: The World Affairs Blog Network", co-hosted by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Plouffe, He’s Back Mark_Dillen, Americas book on the campaign. Now it appears the White House needs Plouffe’s grassroots/Internet organizing skills more than ever.

As Plouffe put it today in his first email to Obama’s net-roots followers since the end of the campaign, “We’ve hit some serious bumps in the road recently in our march toward change. We always knew it would be difficult, but this past week has definitely been a hard one, for all of us.”

Besides the Massachusetts debacle, Plouffe must have in mind the Supreme Court’s sweeping decision last week on corporations and campaign finance. That decision appears to allow unlimited corporate contributions to individual election campaigns — beginning immediately. McCain-Feingold limitations are out the window, and the grassroots, small-donations-by-individuals-via-the-Internet approach to campaigning could be made irrelevant.

Suddenly, the United States is faced with speculation about a new political dynamic in Washington — especially on Capitol Hill — as well as new ground rules for how one gets elected. If Plouffe can improve White House communication with the American public, he may not only rescue the White House’s political agenda, but also help restore faith that it is citizens, not corporations, that decide elections.

Plouffe’s first task comes Wednesday with President Obama’s State of the Union address, which Plouffe will introduce via conference call to thousands of groups of Obama’s erstwhile campaign volunteers across the country. It is, as Plouffe says, a “pivotal moment.” It’s hard to quarrel with that assessment.

Published in Foreign Policy Association's Blog: "Public Diplomacy: The World Affairs Blog Network", co-hosted by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. ]]> 2010-01-26T05:27:00+00:00 The global response to the catastrophe in Haiti is reassuring in the sense that it shows governments and people do care about a nation in which they have no strategic interest. If there is still some altruism alive in the world, it can be seen in this relief effort. A year from now, while Haiti continues its long rebuilding process, what will Haitians think of the United States and other countries that have contributed so much so quickly to the impoverished nation? Will the United States follow up on emergency assistance with lasting outreach to the Haitian people, helping Haiti redevelop its institutions and improve its daily life? Will the commitment last ten weeks or ten years? The institutionalization of compassion has always proved difficult. As a political matter, public enthusiasms are usually short-lived; “compassion fatigue” will undoubtedly set in concerning Haiti as has happened after responses to past catastrophes. But if a comprehensive, long-term aid program for Haiti is developed, the United States would be helping itself as well as the people of Haiti. It may seem self-serving to consider these issues, but it’s a tough world out there and winning friends is important. And, as a practical matter, the United States could deliver aid that would seem massive in Haiti for what amounts to pocket change when compared to the costs of fighting wars elsewhere in the world. Public diplomacy involves a country reaching out directly to people, not to their government. This makes sense for a number of reasons in Haiti, and if it is done well in this case, there is no reason that this approach should not be tried more frequently elsewhere, without waiting for humanitarian emergencies. The United States can afford mini-Marshall Plans where need is greatest throughout the world. Although USAID and other agencies do fine work, it is often overshadowed in the midst of the broad array of U.S. policy initiatives. That could be changed, and making such public diplomacy the true centerpiece of American foreign policy would change the way the United States looks at the world and, more important, would change how the world looks at America. Helping Haiti and Doing Public Diplomacy Philip_Seib, Americas
A year from now, while Haiti continues its long rebuilding process, what will Haitians think of the United States and other countries that have contributed so much so quickly to the impoverished nation? Will the United States follow up on emergency assistance with lasting outreach to the Haitian people, helping Haiti redevelop its institutions and improve its daily life? Will the commitment last ten weeks or ten years?

The institutionalization of compassion has always proved difficult. As a political matter, public enthusiasms are usually short-lived; “compassion fatigue” will undoubtedly set in concerning Haiti as has happened after responses to past catastrophes.

But if a comprehensive, long-term aid program for Haiti is developed, the United States would be helping itself as well as the people of Haiti. It may seem self-serving to consider these issues, but it’s a tough world out there and winning friends is important. And, as a practical matter, the United States could deliver aid that would seem massive in Haiti for what amounts to pocket change when compared to the costs of fighting wars elsewhere in the world.

Public diplomacy involves a country reaching out directly to people, not to their government. This makes sense for a number of reasons in Haiti, and if it is done well in this case, there is no reason that this approach should not be tried more frequently elsewhere, without waiting for humanitarian emergencies. The United States can afford mini-Marshall Plans where need is greatest throughout the world.

Although USAID and other agencies do fine work, it is often overshadowed in the midst of the broad array of U.S. policy initiatives. That could be changed, and making such public diplomacy the true centerpiece of American foreign policy would change the way the United States looks at the world and, more important, would change how the world looks at America.
]]> 2010-01-20T16:15:00+00:00 MUMBAI – Earlier this month, attempted murder charges were filed against a man who allegedly broke into the home of the Danish cartoonist whose depictions of the Prophet Muhammad have caused an uproar in the Islamic world. But while the attention of much of the world was focused on the three-year-old Danish cartoon, the work of another editorial cartoonist here in India caused tensions this week between this country and Australia. And that newspaper cartoon is contributing to worries in Australia about that country’s second largest industry, higher education, which is now troubled by a plunge in the number of Indian students who want to study at Australian universities (Disclosure: India sends more than 1,600 students to USC, more than any other country, according to the latest data .) The cartoon was commenting a series of attacks on young Indian men in Melbourne, Australia. In the latest attack last week, the third in ten days, a 29-year-old Indian was doused with flammable liquid and set on fire, and it became the lead story on India’s television news channels and on India’s newspaper front pages. When Australian police officials over the past weekend denied the attacks were specifically targeting Indian men, this too became major news. At one newspaper, India’s Mail Today, the police statement was ridiculed in an editorial cartoon depicting a figure wearing an Australian police badge and unmistakably dressed in the white robes of the U.S. Ku Klux Klan, saying “We have yet to ascertain the nature of the crime.” The cartoon was immediately picked up by Indian television and achieved rapid notoriety. By Friday, the Australian government had condemned the cartoon and its suggestion of racism. "Any suggestion of the kind is deeply offensive,” said Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who added, according to the BBC, that she had not seen the cartoon. Her statement, in turn, caused a reaction here in India, starting with an editorial yesterday [Sunday] in the newspaper that published the cartoon. “This paper has received a torrent of angry mail from Australians because of a cartoon depicting an Australian police officer as a member of the Ku Klux Klan, the white supremacist organisation that did so much to terrorise African Americans in the southern part of the United States,” began the editorial. “Like all cartoons, the depiction was a caricature, an exaggeration if you will. But that is what political cartooning is all about.” “As Mail Today reported,” the editorial concluded, “Indian students comprise some one per cent of the population of Victoria State (whose capital is Melbourne), but they have faced 17 per cent of the total robberies and assaults that have taken place there in the period July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that race is a factor in their being targeted.” And fears that race is indeed a factor in the attacks has “caused diplomatic relations to sour” between India and Australia, according to the BBC. The newspaper cartoon has only increased the tensions between the two nations. But this is not just a journalistic, or diplomatic, debate: this is about big money. Australian government officials are worried the widely reported crimes are discouraging Indian students from applying to universities in Melbourne and other Australian cities, according to reports. And indeed, the Indian government has issued a travel warning to Australia-bound Indian students, and Australian government officials have published data showing the number of Indians who want to pursue their studies in Australia have dropped by almost half. Of the more than 300,000 international students in Australia, more than 70,000 were from India, according to the Australian Tourism Forecasting Committee. After a visit to Australian university campuses last year, I reported on this blog that leaders at universities from Melbourne to Auckland were quite candid about their goals for attracting large numbers of students from Asia – and they were equally candid about the financial contributions those students make to their economies. Australia in 2008 received more than Au$15 billion (US$13 billion) from international students, according to a government report which describes education as the second largest export industry in the country, behind only coal and iron ore. Newspaper Cartoon Aggravates India-Australia Tensions Adam_Clayton_Powell_III, Asia Pacific an uproar in the Islamic world.

But while the attention of much of the world was focused on the three-year-old Danish cartoon, the work of another editorial cartoonist here in India caused tensions this week between this country and Australia. And that newspaper cartoon is contributing to worries in Australia about that country’s second largest industry, higher education, which is now troubled by a plunge in the number of Indian students who want to study at Australian universities (Disclosure: India sends more than 1,600 students to USC, more than any other country, according to the latest data .)

The cartoon was commenting a series of attacks on young Indian men in Melbourne, Australia. In the latest attack last week, the third in ten days, a 29-year-old Indian was doused with flammable liquid and set on fire, and it became the lead story on India’s television news channels and on India’s newspaper front pages.

When Australian police officials over the past weekend denied the attacks were specifically targeting Indian men, this too became major news.

At one newspaper, India’s Mail Today, the police statement was ridiculed in an editorial cartoon depicting a figure wearing an Australian police badge and unmistakably dressed in the white robes of the U.S. Ku Klux Klan, saying “We have yet to ascertain the nature of the crime.” The cartoon was immediately picked up by Indian television and achieved rapid notoriety.

By Friday, the Australian government had condemned the cartoon and its suggestion of racism.

"Any suggestion of the kind is deeply offensive,” said Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who added, according to the BBC, that she had not seen the cartoon.

Her statement, in turn, caused a reaction here in India, starting with an editorial yesterday [Sunday] in the newspaper that published the cartoon.

“This paper has received a torrent of angry mail from Australians because of a cartoon depicting an Australian police officer as a member of the Ku Klux Klan, the white supremacist organisation that did so much to terrorise African Americans in the southern part of the United States,” began the editorial. “Like all cartoons, the depiction was a caricature, an exaggeration if you will. But that is what political cartooning is all about.”

“As Mail Today reported,” the editorial concluded, “Indian students comprise some one per cent of the population of Victoria State (whose capital is Melbourne), but they have faced 17 per cent of the total robberies and assaults that have taken place there in the period July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that race is a factor in their being targeted.”

And fears that race is indeed a factor in the attacks has “caused diplomatic relations to sour” between India and Australia, according to the BBC. The newspaper cartoon has only increased the tensions between the two nations.

But this is not just a journalistic, or diplomatic, debate: this is about big money. Australian government officials are worried the widely reported crimes are discouraging Indian students from applying to universities in Melbourne and other Australian cities, according to reports. And indeed, the Indian government has issued a travel warning to Australia-bound Indian students, and Australian government officials have published data showing the number of Indians who want to pursue their studies in Australia have dropped by almost half.

Of the more than 300,000 international students in Australia, more than 70,000 were from India, according to the Australian Tourism Forecasting Committee.

After a visit to Australian university campuses last year, I reported on this blog that leaders at universities from Melbourne to Auckland were quite candid about their goals for attracting large numbers of students from Asia – and they were equally candid about the financial contributions those students make to their economies. Australia in 2008 received more than Au$15 billion (US$13 billion) from international students, according to a government report which describes education as the second largest export industry in the country, behind only coal and iron ore.
]]> 2010-01-11T16:18:00+00:00 With the rising tide of violence in Pakistan, the controversial surge into Afghanistan, the multilateral meltdown on climate change at COP 15, and tales of possible terrorist plots, it is easy to overlook what has been going on in Europe, where I spent considerable time this fall on a book tour. On November 9th I found myself with friends at the Brandenburg Gate, attending the commemorative ceremony organized to mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, the re-unification of Germany and Europe, and the end of the Cold War. That is a lot to celebrate, but to call the event historic does not quite convey the emotion, the excitement, and the sheer exhilaration that was palpable in the streets. If the rain dampened the numbers, it could not douse the spirit of the evening. Not even close. Gorbachev and Genscher. Medvedev and Merkel. Sarkozy. Brown. Walesa. Secretary Clinton introducing a videogram from President Obama - which elicited the loudest applause of the evening. Imagine. As a symbol of the new Europe, this was a breathtaking sight to behold. Amidst the speeches, music, fireworks and mulled wine, I found myself thinking, what does all of this mean, and where might it be going? Most of the European officials, journalists and students I spoke to were leery, if not jaded about the emergence of the New Europe. Most seemed to have forgotten, amidst the tangle of treaties and the boggle of the Brussels bureaucracy, just how much has already been achieved. Yet these are early days yet for the integration project, which in the space of a scant half century has so tightly bound the destinies of former adversaries that armed conflict is now unthinkable. The latest legal and institutional developments bring the level of integration in the ever-expanding Union to a higher, more political level. The entry into force in late 2009 of the Treaty of Lisbon heralds passage into a new, more advanced phase in the continuing European experiment. The Treaty creates the post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, to which a much expanded European diplomatic corps, the European External Action Service will report. Over the coming months, officials from the European Commission will undoubtedly be meeting frequently with the newly appointed High Representative in order first to design, and then to build the new diplomatic institutions. This, in my estimation, is a linchpin moment, but the broader ramifications of these changes are little understood, either within the EU or, especially, outside it. Indeed, much of the commentary -- provided so far mainly by the Euro-skeptics -- has been dismissive, if not derisive. This is unfortunate, because if properly managed, much good can come of these achievements, both for EU, and for the world beyond. How might Europeans make the most of this historic opportunity to construct a common European foreign and security policy and to maximize their global influence in the 21st century? For the past few hundred years, European statecraft has been concerned mainly with balancing power, first on a multi-polar continent, then in a bipolar world. The vectors of national power - armies, navies, economies, populations, territories - were carefully calculated and then balanced. Alliances were made and treaties entered into for purposes of expressing and extending that balance, and so was world order maintained. From the Congress of Vienna until the end of the Cold War, armed force was the ultimate arbiter. All of this might finally have changed with the advent of American uni-polarity in the early 1990s, but, in large part as a result of disastrous policy choices, this brief period of hegemony flamed out quickly in the wake of a violent starburst of shock and awe over Baghdad in 2004. The mainstream view today is that world politics are now returning to some kind of a multipolar dispensation. But I have real doubts. Why? Because in the era of globalization, the principal sources of power and influence are now both highly dispersed geographically, and, among and between themselves, are fundamentally different in kind. Unlike in the previous eras, the heterogeneous nature of the competing poles renders comparison difficult, and measurement even more so. The USA, for instance, will for the foreseeable future be the world’s leading military, or hard power. Yet its economic and industrial position is in relative terms fading fast, a trend accelerated by the continuing financial crisis and costly foreign wars. Within a decade or two the mantle of leadership, and pride of place as the epicenter of the world economy, will have passed to the Asia-Pacific region generally, and to China in particular - with India not that far behind. Russia seems intent on becoming an energy and resource pole, a status complicated by its residual capacities as a former superpower. Brazil may also emerge as a pole, perhaps of cultural diversity or as the leader of the global south. So, too, with other countries -- Turkey? Iran? -- and regions. The emergence of a hetero-polar world order will call for a new emphasis on diplomacy involving a nuanced, and highly complex balancing between dynamic poles, and knowledge-driven problem solving to address common threats and challenges. Many among this new suite of issues, such as climate change, resource scarcity and pandemic disease, will be rooted in science and driven by technology. What, then, for Europe? If history is a reliable indicator, then it is entirely likely that the integration of the European economy will one day be matched by the consolidation of the European polity. With an increasingly interwoven economic union will inevitably come a higher degree of political influence, and that enlarged political influence will sooner or later translate into increased international sway. To what end? And, just as importantly, how might this be exercised? With its peace, prosperity, safe and livable cities, social safety net, excellent public infrastructure, rich historical heritage and thriving artistic and cultural life, in the era of heteropolarity, Europa seems destined to lead the world in soft power, the power of attraction. The source of Europe’s strength and the basis of its comparative advantage will reside in the demonstration effect, in the ability to project its success by example internationally. And if soft power is the fuel of influence, then innovative public diplomacy - based on meaningful exchange, reputation management and relationship building - will inevitably find application as the primary delivery vehicle. In Guerrilla Diplomacy, I argue that because development has in large part become the new security in the age of globalization, diplomacy must displace defense at the center of international policy. In this regard, Europeans would be well advised to stop fretting over their serial inability to fashion a common defense policy. Bombs and guns, generals and admirals will have a place, but they will not determine the way forward for Europe in a heteropolar world. That enterprise will instead turn on dialogue, on cross-cultural communication, on negotiation and compromise in the management of the Union’s bi- and multilateral relations. Defense departments, although they have been allocated the lion’s share of resources, are, as instruments of international policy, both too sharp, and too dull to provide these kinds of services. You can’t garrison against infectious disease, call in an air strike on global warming, or send in an expeditionary force to occupy alternatives to the carbon economy. Diplomats, on the other hand, with their specialized cross-cultural, linguistic and political communications skills can, and indeed must address these issues. The translation of Europe’s considerable appeal into tangible, progressive influence vis-à-vis the other poles will largely depend, therefore, on the quality, agility and acuity of its public diplomacy. If that idea catches on at the level of decision-makers and opinion-leaders within the European Union, it just might help to re-capture the public imagination which lately appears to have been flagging as regards the integration project - and in so doing assist in taking the entire process to a higher level. In the face of such an outcome in 2010, we would all be more secure. The Year Ahead: A Strategic Opportunity for European Public Diplomacy Daryl_Copeland, Eurasia Pakistan, the controversial surge into Afghanistan, the multilateral meltdown on climate change at COP 15, and tales of possible terrorist plots, it is easy to overlook what has been going on in Europe, where I spent considerable time this fall on a book tour. On November 9th I found myself with friends at the Brandenburg Gate, attending the commemorative ceremony organized to mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, the re-unification of Germany and Europe, and the end of the Cold War.

That is a lot to celebrate, but to call the event historic does not quite convey the emotion, the excitement, and the sheer exhilaration that was palpable in the streets. If the rain dampened the numbers, it could not douse the spirit of the evening.

Not even close.

Gorbachev and Genscher. Medvedev and Merkel. Sarkozy. Brown. Walesa. Secretary Clinton introducing a videogram from President Obama - which elicited the loudest applause of the evening.

Imagine. As a symbol of the new Europe, this was a breathtaking sight to behold.

Amidst the speeches, music, fireworks and mulled wine, I found myself thinking, what does all of this mean, and where might it be going?

Most of the European officials, journalists and students I spoke to were leery, if not jaded about the emergence of the New Europe. Most seemed to have forgotten, amidst the tangle of treaties and the boggle of the Brussels bureaucracy, just how much has already been achieved. Yet these are early days yet for the integration project, which in the space of a scant half century has so tightly bound the destinies of former adversaries that armed conflict is now unthinkable. The latest legal and institutional developments bring the level of integration in the ever-expanding Union to a higher, more political level. The entry into force in late 2009 of the Treaty of Lisbon heralds passage into a new, more advanced phase in the continuing European experiment. The Treaty creates the post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, to which a much expanded European diplomatic corps, the European External Action Service will report.

Over the coming months, officials from the European Commission will undoubtedly be meeting frequently with the newly appointed High Representative in order first to design, and then to build the new diplomatic institutions.

This, in my estimation, is a linchpin moment, but the broader ramifications of these changes are little understood, either within the EU or, especially, outside it. Indeed, much of the commentary -- provided so far mainly by the Euro-skeptics -- has been dismissive, if not derisive.

This is unfortunate, because if properly managed, much good can come of these achievements, both for EU, and for the world beyond.

How might Europeans make the most of this historic opportunity to construct a common European foreign and security policy and to maximize their global influence in the 21st century?

For the past few hundred years, European statecraft has been concerned mainly with balancing power, first on a multi-polar continent, then in a bipolar world. The vectors of national power - armies, navies, economies, populations, territories - were carefully calculated and then balanced. Alliances were made and treaties entered into for purposes of expressing and extending that balance, and so was world order maintained.

From the Congress of Vienna until the end of the Cold War, armed force was the ultimate arbiter.

All of this might finally have changed with the advent of American uni-polarity in the early 1990s, but, in large part as a result of disastrous policy choices, this brief period of hegemony flamed out quickly in the wake of a violent starburst of shock and awe over Baghdad in 2004.

The mainstream view today is that world politics are now returning to some kind of a multipolar dispensation. But I have real doubts. Why? Because in the era of globalization, the principal sources of power and influence are now both highly dispersed geographically, and, among and between themselves, are fundamentally different in kind.

Unlike in the previous eras, the heterogeneous nature of the competing poles renders comparison difficult, and measurement even more so.

The USA, for instance, will for the foreseeable future be the world’s leading military, or hard power.

Yet its economic and industrial position is in relative terms fading fast, a trend accelerated by the continuing financial crisis and costly foreign wars. Within a decade or two the mantle of leadership, and pride of place as the epicenter of the world economy, will have passed to the Asia-Pacific region generally, and to China in particular - with India not that far behind.

Russia seems intent on becoming an energy and resource pole, a status complicated by its residual capacities as a former superpower.

Brazil may also emerge as a pole, perhaps of cultural diversity or as the leader of the global south.

So, too, with other countries -- Turkey? Iran? -- and regions.

The emergence of a hetero-polar world order will call for a new emphasis on diplomacy involving a nuanced, and highly complex balancing between dynamic poles, and knowledge-driven problem solving to address common threats and challenges.

Many among this new suite of issues, such as climate change, resource scarcity and pandemic disease, will be rooted in science and driven by technology.

What, then, for Europe?

If history is a reliable indicator, then it is entirely likely that the integration of the European economy will one day be matched by the consolidation of the European polity. With an increasingly interwoven economic union will inevitably come a higher degree of political influence, and that enlarged political influence will sooner or later translate into increased international sway.

To what end? And, just as importantly, how might this be exercised?

With its peace, prosperity, safe and livable cities, social safety net, excellent public infrastructure, rich historical heritage and thriving artistic and cultural life, in the era of heteropolarity, Europa seems destined to lead the world in soft power, the power of attraction. The source of Europe’s strength and the basis of its comparative advantage will reside in the demonstration effect, in the ability to project its success by example internationally.

And if soft power is the fuel of influence, then innovative public diplomacy - based on meaningful exchange, reputation management and relationship building - will inevitably find application as the primary delivery vehicle.

In Guerrilla Diplomacy, I argue that because development has in large part become the new security in the age of globalization, diplomacy must displace defense at the center of international policy. In this regard, Europeans would be well advised to stop fretting over their serial inability to fashion a common defense policy. Bombs and guns, generals and admirals will have a place, but they will not determine the way forward for Europe in a heteropolar world. That enterprise will instead turn on dialogue, on cross-cultural communication, on negotiation and compromise in the management of the Union’s bi- and multilateral relations.

Defense departments, although they have been allocated the lion’s share of resources, are, as instruments of international policy, both too sharp, and too dull to provide these kinds of services.

You can’t garrison against infectious disease, call in an air strike on global warming, or send in an expeditionary force to occupy alternatives to the carbon economy.

Diplomats, on the other hand, with their specialized cross-cultural, linguistic and political communications skills can, and indeed must address these issues.

The translation of Europe’s considerable appeal into tangible, progressive influence vis-à-vis the other poles will largely depend, therefore, on the quality, agility and acuity of its public diplomacy.

If that idea catches on at the level of decision-makers and opinion-leaders within the European Union, it just might help to re-capture the public imagination which lately appears to have been flagging as regards the integration project - and in so doing assist in taking the entire process to a higher level.

In the face of such an outcome in 2010, we would all be more secure.
]]> 2010-01-05T19:49:00+00:00 On November 18, President Obama announced his nomination of former CNN chairman Walter Isaacson as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. He will also submit nominations for the full complement of seven members of the bipartisan board, including Bush Administration spokesperson Dana Perino as one of the Republicans. The BBG oversees all of U.S. government funded international broadcasting. This includes Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, inc., Radio Free Asia, Inc., Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc., which consists of Arabic-language broadcasters Radio Sawa and Alhurra, and the International Broadcasting Bureau, under which is the Voice of America and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, whose elements are Radio and TV Martí. The new BBG members will need a good diagram. With the present Board, through attrition, down to four members (plus the ex officio Secretary of State), many employees at VOA were hoping the Obama Administration would dissolve the BBG. They are annoyed at the BBG because it has eliminated several VOA language services, mostly to East European countries, and has cut back on shortwave radio in favor of television and the internet. The new members of the Board will not only have unhappiness from the ranks to look forward to. As part of their firewall function, they will also have to fend off, and thus incur the animosity of, members of Congress and administration officials, who might want the elements of US international broadcasting to emphasize this, or to downplay that, or not to interview some insalubrious character. Furthermore, assorted dictators will be irked by the news coverage of the BBG’s entities. All told, given the likelihood of antipathy from above, below, and abroad, membership in the BBG is not for those who crave affection. There is, nevertheless, no substitute for a bipartisan board, with fixed and staggered terms, to protect the independence and thus the credibility of the entities as news organizations. Public broadcasters abroad, including the BBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, etc., are statutory independent corporations, with similar boards, and news output that is respected. The staggered terms of BBG members mean that no one president, at one instance, can change the entire board, which could in turn change the managements of the entities, thus creating a credibility-jarring change of tone with each new administration. That, however, is what just happened, with President Obama nominating all eight members in one fell swoop. This was due to deferred action at the end of the previous administration and the beginning of the present, as well as Senate politics involved with nominations to a bipartisan board. Why go to such lengths to provide this protection for a news operation that will, from time to time, have to transmit news unfavorable to the United States, or not in sync with US policy objectives? Three main reasons. First, it’s necessary to attract an audience, which is seeking reliable news as an antidote to state controlled news in their own countries. Second, comprehensive news is the antidote to disinformation spread by dictators, terrorists, and other global miscreants. Third, providing such a useful news service speaks well for the United States. Inflicting propaganda would do the opposite. There certainly is a place for advocacy on behalf of U.S. foreign policy. It’s the job of the public diplomacy offices of the State Department, including the America.gov website, now in seven languages. International broadcasting and public diplomacy are necessarily conducted by separate agencies, in separate buildings, in different parts of town. The BBG should maintain that distance. Dr. Kim Andrew Elliott reports on international broadcasting at www.kimandrewelliott.com. The New BBG Can Expect Occasional Poor Reception Kim_Andrew_Elliott, Americas
The BBG oversees all of U.S. government funded international broadcasting. This includes Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, inc., Radio Free Asia, Inc., Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc., which consists of Arabic-language broadcasters Radio Sawa and Alhurra, and the International Broadcasting Bureau, under which is the Voice of America and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, whose elements are Radio and TV Martí. The new BBG members will need a good diagram.

With the present Board, through attrition, down to four members (plus the ex officio Secretary of State), many employees at VOA were hoping the Obama Administration would dissolve the BBG. They are annoyed at the BBG because it has eliminated several VOA language services, mostly to East European countries, and has cut back on shortwave radio in favor of television and the internet.

The new members of the Board will not only have unhappiness from the ranks to look forward to. As part of their firewall function, they will also have to fend off, and thus incur the animosity of, members of Congress and administration officials, who might want the elements of US international broadcasting to emphasize this, or to downplay that, or not to interview some insalubrious character. Furthermore, assorted dictators will be irked by the news coverage of the BBG’s entities. All told, given the likelihood of antipathy from above, below, and abroad, membership in the BBG is not for those who crave affection.

There is, nevertheless, no substitute for a bipartisan board, with fixed and staggered terms, to protect the independence and thus the credibility of the entities as news organizations. Public broadcasters abroad, including the BBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, etc., are statutory independent corporations, with similar boards, and news output that is respected.

The staggered terms of BBG members mean that no one president, at one instance, can change the entire board, which could in turn change the managements of the entities, thus creating a credibility-jarring change of tone with each new administration. That, however, is what just happened, with President Obama nominating all eight members in one fell swoop. This was due to deferred action at the end of the previous administration and the beginning of the present, as well as Senate politics involved with nominations to a bipartisan board.

Why go to such lengths to provide this protection for a news operation that will, from time to time, have to transmit news unfavorable to the United States, or not in sync with US policy objectives? Three main reasons. First, it’s necessary to attract an audience, which is seeking reliable news as an antidote to state controlled news in their own countries. Second, comprehensive news is the antidote to disinformation spread by dictators, terrorists, and other global miscreants. Third, providing such a useful news service speaks well for the United States. Inflicting propaganda would do the opposite.

There certainly is a place for advocacy on behalf of U.S. foreign policy. It’s the job of the public diplomacy offices of the State Department, including the America.gov website, now in seven languages. International broadcasting and public diplomacy are necessarily conducted by separate agencies, in separate buildings, in different parts of town. The BBG should maintain that distance.

Dr. Kim Andrew Elliott reports on international broadcasting at www.kimandrewelliott.com.
]]> 2009-12-18T20:03:00+00:00 The year 2009 in public diplomacy was a year for re-branding America in the world. The first African-American in the White House, who also happened to be the most eloquent U.S. President since John Kennedy, would have made for an auspicious year for the international image of the U.S. in any event. In fact, however, it was even more significant, since Barack Obama followed George W. Bush, whose tenure had coincided with a marked drop in U.S. prestige in much of the world. By year’s end, as Obama’s popularity fell at home, his – and America’s – popularity overseas recovered from the “Bush effect.” At home, Obama’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize was controversial; overseas, for many, it was an expression of hope. Obama and Hillary Clinton were an unlikely couple, perhaps, but they “re-set” relations and engaged the world. To achieve this much was a public relations success, one that must now be followed by real political results. Unfortunately, 2009 did not see much progress in more traditional forms of public diplomacy, whether government run, or people-to-people. This should be a focus in 2010. Person of the Year: Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (runner up: Greg Mortenson, author of Stones into Schools.) Most Unexpected Event: The uprising (though predictably and brutally supressed) in Iran What to Watch for in 2010: Revival of U.S. international broadcasting Published in Foreign Policy Association's Blog: "Public Diplomacy: The World Affairs Blog Network", co-hosted by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. The Year in Review Mark_Dillen, Americas The year 2009 in public diplomacy was a year for re-branding America in the world. The first African-American in the White House, who also happened to be the most eloquent U.S. President since John Kennedy, would have made for an auspicious year for the international image of the U.S. in any event. In fact, however, it was even more significant, since Barack Obama followed George W. Bush, whose tenure had coincided with a marked drop in U.S. prestige in much of the world. By year’s end, as Obama’s popularity fell at home, his – and America’s – popularity overseas recovered from the “Bush effect.” At home, Obama’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize was controversial; overseas, for many, it was an expression of hope. Obama and Hillary Clinton were an unlikely couple, perhaps, but they “re-set” relations and engaged the world. To achieve this much was a public relations success, one that must now be followed by real political results. Unfortunately, 2009 did not see much progress in more traditional forms of public diplomacy, whether government run, or people-to-people. This should be a focus in 2010.

Person of the Year:

Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

(runner up: Greg Mortenson, author of Stones into Schools.)

Most Unexpected Event:

The uprising (though predictably and brutally supressed) in Iran

What to Watch for in 2010:

Revival of U.S. international broadcasting

Published in Foreign Policy Association's Blog: "Public Diplomacy: The World Affairs Blog Network", co-hosted by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy.]]> 2009-12-18T19:46:00+00:00 When I was growing up in India, the U.S. Information Services used to serve as ambassadors of American culture, ideas, and ideals. That entire approach to diplomacy was shuttered after the Cold War and even after 9/11 remains moribund. – Fareed Zakaria, “The Post-American World” Since 9/11, the U.S. military for the first time has dramatically expanded its effort to communicate with foreign audiences. But this has created new problems…[and] this “mission creep” has gotten way out of hand. – Amb. William Rugh, “Repairing American Public Diplomacy” I have been looking for a succinct description of where U.S. public diplomacy stands. These two quotes, I think, do the job rather well. The first comes about midway in Fareed Zakaria’s bestseller, the second is from a publication of the American University in Cairo, a lucid analysis by a former U.S. diplomat. It is ten years since the U.S. government reorganized its public diplomacy effort, but we have yet, it seems to me, to arrive at a version of U.S. public diplomacy that is truly effective in both long-term relationship building and rapid transmission of political ideas. Instead, our relationship-building effort relies heavily on academic exchanges while our most noteworthy efforts at getting political information out quickly are taken up by the Pentagon, rather than the State Department. Academic exchanges — better put, foreign study programs — are important. Every year, the Open Door analysis put out by the Institute of International Education makes the case in statistical terms. Millions of foreign students studying in the United States, and millions of American students studying abroad, have created long-term bonds of understanding and influence that go well beyond academic and economic benefit. But the U.S. government has nearly abandoned any effort to project the cultural values of the American people through cultural presentations or full-fledged libraries, relying almost exclusively on provision of informational material via the Internet. Even the laudable “American Corners” — for all their value — are but small parts of larger institutions, such as local libraries, that have their own missions. They can never present American culture the way that USIS libraries and centers once did. Meanwhile, when policy-related outreach is called for, especially to foreign media and government officials, the response is usually too slow and now increasingly directed by the Pentagon, rather than the State Department. Last summer, the House Appropriations Committee took the DoD to task for expanding the budget of its “Information Operations” programs — though that was partly a mistake in Pentagon accounting. As Politico reported in October: [Rep. Jack] Murtha’s preference is that the State Department take more of the lead, although he admits State can’t ramp up fast enough to handle the task this coming year. “They’re going to have to depend on the Defense Department,” he said. “The problem with the Defense Department is they’re not only willing to take care of it; they will push you right aside in order to take care of it.” This is not what Congress intended when it decided to allow the integration of the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) into the State Department ten years ago. The consolidation of foreign information and cultural work into the State Department was supposed to result in more rapid and politically savvy responses by U.S. embassies overseas. Instead, field budgets were slashed, staffs cut relentlessly, and political direction left to a revolving-door succession of Clinton Administration and Bush Administration placeholders. The best known among them, Karen Hughes, took months to assume her duties, then left after barely two years in the job. Similarly, the establishment of a Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) in 1994 was supposed to result in a more professional, more effective approach to international broadcasting. Instead, the BBG began its ill-conceived TV broadcasts to the Middle East via its Alhurra program and canceled broadcasts by radio to countries were it was (falsely) assumed that a free media environment had been safely established. Although hard to measure due to the institutional change, in the past ten years the budget for foreign public diplomacy conducted by USIA and (now) the State Department has essentially remained static at something less than $1b per year. (Given the decline of the US dollar over this period, this amounts to a serious decline in overseas resources.) Defense may spend as much for its Information Operations programs alone, without considering related spending categorized as “public affairs.” The outlook is not entirely bleak. The Obama Administration has recently nominated a first-class public intellectual, Walter Isaacson, to run the BBG. President Obama himself has made an enormous difference in how the world perceives the United States. The U.S. military “gets it” — but that’s not enough. America still lacks a non-military institution that articulates her ideas and ideals overseas and provides timely tactical advice to advance foreign policy goals. Ten years after the end of the U.S. Information Agency, it is fair to ask how so many people could have allowed this to happen. Published in Foreign Policy Association's Blog: "Public Diplomacy: The World Affairs Blog Network", co-hosted by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Why No Change Ten Years On? Mark_Dillen, Americas When I was growing up in India, the U.S. Information Services used to serve as ambassadors of American culture, ideas, and ideals. That entire approach to diplomacy was shuttered after the Cold War and even after 9/11 remains moribund.

– Fareed Zakaria, “The Post-American World”

Since 9/11, the U.S. military for the first time has dramatically expanded its effort to communicate with foreign audiences. But this has created new problems…[and] this “mission creep” has gotten way out of hand.

– Amb. William Rugh, “Repairing American Public Diplomacy”

I have been looking for a succinct description of where U.S. public diplomacy stands. These two quotes, I think, do the job rather well. The first comes about midway in Fareed Zakaria’s bestseller, the second is from a publication of the American University in Cairo, a lucid analysis by a former U.S. diplomat.

It is ten years since the U.S. government reorganized its public diplomacy effort, but we have yet, it seems to me, to arrive at a version of U.S. public diplomacy that is truly effective in both long-term relationship building and rapid transmission of political ideas. Instead, our relationship-building effort relies heavily on academic exchanges while our most noteworthy efforts at getting political information out quickly are taken up by the Pentagon, rather than the State Department.

Academic exchanges — better put, foreign study programs — are important. Every year, the Open Door analysis put out by the Institute of International Education makes the case in statistical terms. Millions of foreign students studying in the United States, and millions of American students studying abroad, have created long-term bonds of understanding and influence that go well beyond academic and economic benefit.

But the U.S. government has nearly abandoned any effort to project the cultural values of the American people through cultural presentations or full-fledged libraries, relying almost exclusively on provision of informational material via the Internet. Even the laudable “American Corners” — for all their value — are but small parts of larger institutions, such as local libraries, that have their own missions. They can never present American culture the way that USIS libraries and centers once did.

Meanwhile, when policy-related outreach is called for, especially to foreign media and government officials, the response is usually too slow and now increasingly directed by the Pentagon, rather than the State Department. Last summer, the House Appropriations Committee took the DoD to task for expanding the budget of its “Information Operations” programs — though that was partly a mistake in Pentagon accounting. As Politico reported in October:

[Rep. Jack] Murtha’s preference is that the State Department take more of the lead, although he admits State can’t ramp up fast enough to handle the task this coming year.

“They’re going to have to depend on the Defense Department,” he said. “The problem with the Defense Department is they’re not only willing to take care of it; they will push you right aside in order to take care of it.”

This is not what Congress intended when it decided to allow the integration of the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) into the State Department ten years ago. The consolidation of foreign information and cultural work into the State Department was supposed to result in more rapid and politically savvy responses by U.S. embassies overseas. Instead, field budgets were slashed, staffs cut relentlessly, and political direction left to a revolving-door succession of Clinton Administration and Bush Administration placeholders. The best known among them, Karen Hughes, took months to assume her duties, then left after barely two years in the job.

Similarly, the establishment of a Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) in 1994 was supposed to result in a more professional, more effective approach to international broadcasting. Instead, the BBG began its ill-conceived TV broadcasts to the Middle East via its Alhurra program and canceled broadcasts by radio to countries were it was (falsely) assumed that a free media environment had been safely established.

Although hard to measure due to the institutional change, in the past ten years the budget for foreign public diplomacy conducted by USIA and (now) the State Department has essentially remained static at something less than $1b per year. (Given the decline of the US dollar over this period, this amounts to a serious decline in overseas resources.) Defense may spend as much for its Information Operations programs alone, without considering related spending categorized as “public affairs.”

The outlook is not entirely bleak. The Obama Administration has recently nominated a first-class public intellectual, Walter Isaacson, to run the BBG. President Obama himself has made an enormous difference in how the world perceives the United States. The U.S. military “gets it” — but that’s not enough. America still lacks a non-military institution that articulates her ideas and ideals overseas and provides timely tactical advice to advance foreign policy goals. Ten years after the end of the U.S. Information Agency, it is fair to ask how so many people could have allowed this to happen.

Published in Foreign Policy Association's Blog: "Public Diplomacy: The World Affairs Blog Network", co-hosted by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

]]> 2009-12-08T17:23:01+00:00