Hollywood Diplomacy

The United States in order to protect Capitalism and liberal democracy, and undermine the international role of Communism, have developed a method to influence public opinion through the use of mass media. Radio, cinema, books, were used in order to protect the national interests.

In this background, especially the film industry had played a crucial role.

Hollywood, in fact, was able to spread the ‘American way of life’ all around the world.

The Hollywood film industry, because of its global reach, represents an extremely successful example of public and cultural diplomacy. It is argued that through Hollywood the US has been able to conquer heart and minds of the global population. As evidence, it could be reported the fact that in the 1990s, before 9/11 and the War on Terror, America was admired by most of the global population as an example of freedom and democracy. Surely, the film industry played an extremely significant role in furthering this image. Generally the masses around the world are not well aware of current affairs and do not have any solid knowledge on international political issues; on the contrary, if not in all at least in several countries, they watch and know Hollywood movies. The missionary aim of Hollywood has therefore been able to conquer those hard human terrains that could not have been conquered by the simple admiration of institutional diplomacy and politics.

Then, Hollywood indoctrinating action is probably deeper than any other else. The reason resides in the fact that movies can act on the subconscious of the people. Films are able to touch inner feelings, they generate and modify desires. In other words, they can play with emotions. For instance, the war propaganda the war movies has been furthering was considered by many analysis and psychologists extremely effectual on the subconscious of children.

references

Belmonte, L. A.(2010) Selling the American Way: US Propaganda and the Cold War

Emergency, an Italian case of alternative Diplomacy making.

This post aims to explore the connection that subsists between Emergency and Italian public and cultural diplomacy.

First of all, Emergency is an Italian-based Non Governmental Organisation that since 1994 deals with health issues in countries affected by war and social disorder. Mostly it has to do with the construction of health infrastructures (ranging from general hospital to more specialised centres such as surgical ones) and with the providing of medical assistance. Thanks to its operate, it is supposed to further an image of solidarity. It functions worldwide, it then contributes to the building of the Italian image on a global-scale. Emergency is finalised to the creation of a global culture of peace.

The means through which the NGO attempts to achieve its ends are not exclusively health related, but also are represented by a series of public activities made of conferences, seminars, workshops, etc. Emergency, for the sake of spreading its educative message, uses to participate to many demonstrations and protests organised by the anti-globalisation movement. For instance, you could easily see members of the association marching in the streets of Genoa during the no-G8 protests in 2001. This underlines the fact that Emergency is really concerned about its pubic image in order to promote its mission of peace.

As far as public image is concerned, Mr Gino Strada, founder of Emergency, plays an extremely significant role. Gino is in fact a popular figure in the Italian public scenery, and day by day is gaining importance and recognition as well on the international scene. Mr Strada is so popular because of his strong personality and charisma. He is conscious of this, therefore he attempts to take advantage and use the fashion of his own image for the cause of the NGO in particular, and of global peace more in general.

In light of this, it can be said that Emergency has an extremely influential image. However, its diplomatic function goes well beyond that one of being simply a cultural agent. It sometimes plays quasi-governmental functions too. For instance, in the case of Daniele Mastrogiacomo’s kidnapping (2006) Emergency was recognised by the Talibans as the only legitimate intermediary. Where the institutional Italian government could not arrive, Emergency could. This represents an extraordinary case of alternative diplomacy.

The negative impact of Berlusconi's image in promoting Italian public diplomacy

Nowadays, in a global context in which information can be spread worldwide and easily controlled by an always increasing number of people, governments consider the role of public diplomacy crucial in order to design new communication strategy for promoting their culture, setting up long-term relationships with the public abroad, but also achieve some national interests. With the advent of globalisation, the classic governments vis-à-vis confrontation has been integrated with new practices; communication and engagement with foreign publics are in fact considered essential.

According to the Foreign Policy Centre and its report “European Infopolitik: Developing EU Public Diplomacy Strategy” ‘public diplomacy will be the new tool for International Affair in the global information age”. Therefore to support their image and culture abroad European countries are currently involved in many programmes, sometimes promoted directly and indirectly by governments, other times by independent institutions or No-governmental Organisations,

Alongside these countries there is Italy, which promotes many programs in order to relaunch Italian culture and language around the World; more than 80 institutions operates around Europe and the US protecting and, at the same time, promoting Italian culture and identity. These institutions are mostly concerned with cultural issues, or scientific exchange programs; they have been working for decades communicating with foreign publics; they present a country where higher education and preservation of arts and classic culture were part of the national tradition; a long tradition that finds its roots in the Italian Renaissance, considered by several as a crucial political and cultural historical period for the development of modern Europe.

However, considering Italy today, the image that comes out from the previous consideration is unreal and it presents a country that does not exist anymore. International broadcasting and Internet show a different face of the Bel Paese; Italian political class and its main exponent Silvio Berlusconi, in few years have been able to destroy and redesigned the Italian image in the world. Berlusconi leadership and his maintaining of power, despite all his standing trials (in the last weeks he was accused of paying for sex with an under age prostitutes) have shocked the foreign public opinion. For the public opinion, the contemporary image of Italy is mostly linked with the image of Berlusconi, and his related performances. Foreigners does not understand how is it possible in a western democratic country that Berlusconi is still on power and why Italian public opinion still support him. Reality shows that Italy is, maybe, the most corrupted country among the developed western democracy, and Berlusconi is the result of decades of mal governo (bad governance) within Italian politics and society. He reflects an image of a country where the relationship mafia/state are nowadays been confirmed by final condemn sentences against member of the Senato, Marcello Dell’Utri, Giulio Andreotti, and where the political class keeps in its hands unaccettable priviliges.

This is the real Italy, a county where traditional cultural values have been substituted by mass hedonistic values and wrong cultural models. The true problems of the country are hidden behind the mask and habits of his ambiguous President Berlusconi.

In conclusion, it can be said that because of the inopportune behaviour of its president, Italy has been furthering a negative image of itself. It results that any judgement on Italy’s public and cultural diplomacy is jeopardised by the magnitude of Berlusconi’s scandalous deeds. In other words, any positive outcome that Italian public and cultural diplomacy activities may achieve are anyway obscured by the prominent image of its President, which without any doubts does not seem to offer a good image.

Report Critique: Fake Aid

In September of 2009, the International Policy Network, a think-tank based in London, published a report titled “Fake Aid.” In it, they alleged that the UK government had spent more that 1 billion pounds on “fake aid.” The allegations of this report have a strong impact on the UK’s public and cultural diplomacy. Today, the giving of foreign aid is a major part of public and cultural diplomacy. Allegations that the UK’s foreign aid practices are not legitimate damages their standing within the international community. Additionally, the report argues that some of the funding, intended for NGO’s, actually go to practices that “smack of propaganda” and actually have domestic political involvement. These allegations are also damning.

The report focuses on the spending of the Department for International Development. The spending of this department is split into four different sectors: Partnership Programme Arrangments, Civil Society Challenge Fund, Development Awareness, and Strategic Grants. The first of these , Partnership Programme Arrangements, describes the spending directly intended for development support work. The report criticizes the DfID for its organization in choosing the NGOs that benefited from this aid. The report states that only 8 of 27 member NGOs were “assigned funding through accountable tendering procedures, while the majority

were simply hand-picked by DfID,” (Boin 2009, 8). Furthermore, they argue that the DfID stopped accepting new applicants, with the same few organizations sharing the growing amount of funds. The also argue that DfIDs requirement that funding is dependent on NGO’s “significant engagement in DfID policy formulation.” (Boin 2009, 8) politicizes the supposedly autonomous organizations.

The report further lambasts the DfIDs funding of the Development Awareness Fund. The purpose of this fund is to promote awareness in the UK of international development issues, “primarily to people in Britain,” (Boin 2009, 15). Funding for this purpose amount to approximately 6 million pounds in the 2008-2009 year, and has amounted to over 50 million pounds since 1999. The report says of the DAF, “It is unclear how these projects improve the lives of people in poor countries. They smack of propaganda.” (Boin 2009, 15). However, they acknowledge that the purpose of spending lies in domestic awareness and motivation. It cites various student programs and organizations, and well as programs designed to motivate people toward more international development based thinking, like buying Fair Trade goods. Essentially, the report seems to be arguing that spending on domestic awareness is “fake”. However, it is arguably a vitally necessary part of foreign aid donation towards international development. In order to be able to keep giving aid from taw-payer dollars, the state must have the support of its citizens, so they must make its necessity a part of the public consciousness. Additionally, domestic awareness programmes like student and youth programmes ensure that there is a future generation who are active in foreign aid work, which in necessary. However, the report seems to be criticizing any student or youth involvement as indoctrinization of youth involvement.

The report further criticizes spending for Strategic Grants, which are grants to organizations “international development is not their main focus,” (Boin 2009, 17). The report argues that such spending is directly against the purported goals of international development. For example, they criticize the donation of fund to the domestic Trade Unions Congress. However, they fail to consider that some organizations, like the TUC, who might not have the express purpose of international development, may be able to make policies which benefit such development. For example, while the TUC is a national council, it also supports international trade union rights, (Trade Union Congress). Meanwhile, it is able to make domestic policies that could benefit economic development, like policies that support fair trade institutions.

Essentially, the entire report seems to be criticizing the very institution of foreign aid in the UK, with out explicitly saying so. They use particularly aggressive and inflammatory language, and over dramatize the quantity of spending. However, they do not propose specific changes or offer a proposed reasonable spending amount. Some of their criticisms of the DfID, like its need to have more fair tendering process in choosing NGOs for PPA funding, do seem legitimate. However, their argument against Domestic Awareness funding simply does not address its logical necessity, and therefore costs it credibility. In general, while this report may ruffle some feathers domestically, and cause for some restructuring of the DfID, it will have little impact on the UK’s foreign aid reputation in the international community.

Work Cited

Boin, Caroline, Julian Harris, and Andrea Marchesetti. Fake Aid. London: International Policy Network, 2009. Print.

Trade Union Council, http://www.tuc.org.uk/. London, 2011. Website.

Art in Cultural Diplomacy: Miss Van

The role of art as a tool in the field of public or cultural diplomacy has always been hotly debated. Much of this debate comes down to one of the most enduring, unanswerable questions: what is art? Many believe that true art can only occur when it is free of outside influence, such as government control. Therefore, government mandated pictures or sculptures aren’t free art so much as a paid advertisement. The question then becomes, can free, independent art have a diplomatic impact? One example that springs to mind is the work of modern “graffiti” artist Miss Van.

The idea of graffiti as art has itself been controversial, with critics arguing that it amounts to little more than vandalism, while supporters see it as the very epitome of artistic expression of the everyman. Graffiti art’s relationship with government is even more clouded, as on a very real level, governments frequently make the decision of whether or not street graffiti should be destroyed, or whether they should be preserved as artistic expression. Furthermore, graffiti tends to address many political or social attitudes towards government, and can be seen everywhere from Israel to Iran to Peru.

Pivotal figures such as the enigmatic Banksy have propelled the relationship between government and graffiti art to the headlines.

Work by Banksy, Photo by Q Ladaa. http://qews.info/wordpress/?attachment_id=3196

For her part, Miss Van has brought graffiti across many borders. Originally spreading her work along the streets of Toulouse, France, Miss Van brought some of the first overtly feminine overtones to the mostly male dominated world of street art. She has been a topic of some debate for feminists, some of whom praise her for bringing a feminine influence to this type of art, while others criticize her for her overtly sexualized and infantilized representations of women. She saw her work as a challenge to censorship. “When I started, you could say I had a somewhat rebellious heart. I also find that painting in the street, because it is forbidden, is a lot more exciting. Painting on walls, you’re able to hold on to your freedom, and since it’s illegal, there’s no censorship.”[1]

During her career, she has moved throughout Europe, painting on public street walls, or showing in galleries, moving fluidly between the two very different artistic worlds. As governments of countries she graces with her work determine whether or not it should remain on the street walls in which it has been painted, they are now many international and political nuances, which are all presented in a real-life public forum. The ideals of feminism and non-censorship travel with her paintings, but it is difficult to determine if those ideals are actually a form of public or cultural diplomacy, as they are only tangentially affected by government or state influence.

Work by Miss Van. From UK Show ‘Lovestain’, October 2009. Picture provided by UK Street Art. http://www.ukstreetart.co.uk/2009/09/diary-date-october-1-miss-van-private-view-at-stolen-space/

---

[1] Magda Danysz & Marie Noelle Dana “From Style Writing to Art: a Street Art Anthology” pp. 262 - 273

The Olympics and Cultural Diplomacy

Every couple of years, all the nations of the world gather together to do battle in front of the entire international community. I am referring, of course, to the Olympic Games. Every four years, athletes from every nation come together in the spirit of global competition. At home, citizens gather around televisions to cheer on their national team, hoping they will bring home victory and national pride. The Olympics have also begun to have a huge impact in the world of international politics. Though it would seem silly, this athletic competition has become a major determination of a government’s power. In the field of public and cultural diplomacy, the Olympics have become a key forum for countries to gain or assert what Joseph Nye refers to as “soft power”.

In the Olympic games, countries are given many opportunities to gain soft power. The first of these comes in hosting. The honor of hosting the Olympic games is decided by the International Olympic Committee. It is a testament to how important and influential hosting the Olympics can be, that the International Olympic Committee has been riddled with corruption and favoritism, and states do everything to be the ones to host, (BBC 1999). It is easy to understand he incentive. Host nations have the eyes of the world on them, which gives them a chance to shine, as well as promote a favorable national image. This can have various levels of success. In 1936, Nazi Germany had the opportunity to host they Olympics, and attempted to use the attention to promote an image of socialism as a peaceful, (Findling & Pelle 2004, 107). China was able to achieve significantly more success in its own efforts in 2008, impressing the world with its incredible stadium and intimidating performances in its opening ceremonies, and giving an impression of strength and development, (Cull 2008). Host nations are able to highlight their cultural appeal, and also benefit from increased tourism, as thousands will attend the games, and even more will choose to visit the nation that receives so much positive media attention.

Performance at the games is another way for a country to show its strength. The more a nation’s athletes succeed, the more impressive and imposing their nations appear. The athletes’ high performance are a testament to the resources of the nation, which facilitates their training, States have historically pushed their athletes to do well, in order to cement their national image as winners. “Societies like Mussolini’s Italy and Lenin’s Soviety Union emphasized sport and physical culture as symbols of the virility of their political system, and achievement in Olympic competition became a profound concern of governments,” (Cull 2008, 120). In more recent years, the USA’s consistent accumulation of gold medals have cemented its status as a great power, as well as inspiring international envy. In 2008, China seemed almost desperate to succeed, resulting in controversy over the ages of the gymnasts it sent to the competition, with many alleging that Chinese officials had changed the official documents of their ages, (Nichols 2008).

Throughout the Olympics, there is a free exchange of culture, with athletes coming together in competition, but forming strong bonds. Strong personalities and athletic celebrities from Yao Ming to Shawn White, garner international attention, bringing celebrity diplomacy into the forum as well. With the Olympics growing more and more competitive and impressive, is will be very exciting to see how nations like the UK and Russia do with the spotlight, and how much gold each nation amasses. Accordingly, it will be interesting to observe the impact on their public and cultural diplomacy in the internal forum.

Works Cited

BBC News, “World Timeline: Olympics Corruption Scandal.” BBC Online Network. 1999. Web Article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/297030.stm

Cull, N.J. “The public diplomacy of the modern Olympic Games and China’s soft power strategy.” From Owning the Olympics: Narratives of New China by Price, M. E. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor, MI. 2008. Pgs. 117-144.

Findling, J. E. and Pelle, K.D. Dictionary of the Modern Olympic Movement. Greenwood Press. Westport, CT. 2004. Pg, 107.

Nichols, P. “Olympics: Chinese gymnasts accused of being under minimum age.” The Guardian. Guardian.co.uk. Aug, 2008. Web Article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/aug/18/olympics2008.olympicsgymnastics

Humanitarian Aid and Public Diplomacy

In recent years, public and cultural diplomacy has been deeply affected by the idea of humanitarian aid. Unfortunately, the past few years have seen several devastating natural disasters, like the earthquakes in Haiti and more recently Japan, and the Indian Ocean tsunami that hit Indonesia and India. In each of these situations, existing aid organizations rushed to help survivors recover, and new aid programs were developed. Celebrities brought together their star power to raise money for those suffering, like the “We Are The World” single sold on Itunes to send money to Haiti, or the “Songs for Japan” album, also sold on Itunes, which sent proceeds to Japan. Direct foreign aid supplied by governments, as well as these non-governmental aid organizations and programs, have had a huge impact in the discussion of public and cultural diplomacy.

The idea of foreign aid as a diplomatic tool is much newer than it seems to be. In fact, the very concept of countries donating aid to other countries has only been around since after World War II, (Lancaster2007, 25). Nowadays, however, foreign aid is a huge part of political discourse. Foreign aid can range from “billion dollar reconstruction projects in war-torn countries like Iraq and Afghanistan,” (Lancaster, 2007, 25). to small aid donations like the “Texts for Haiti Relief” program, where individuals donated 10 dollars per text. Some would argue that the different natures of these programs, from government organizations, to NGOs and international organizations, to individual, personal aid activities, prevents them from being considered as tools of public diplomacy, as they do not form a unified, collective policy controlled by the state. They would argue that international and personal aid programs do not conduct such activities out of political motivation, or to enhance the reputation of any country, even their host. In fact, many critics of government based aid argue that it should be left up to such international aid organizations and personal actors. However, the donation of aid has demonstrably achieved diplomatic aims. For example, the U.S. first began donating aid during the Cold War, when they were attempting to prevent countries from falling to Communism. Some countries, like Denmark, have made donation of humanitarian aid a large part of their international “image” gaining esteem in the international community, (Lancaster 2007, 190).

These unfortunate recent disasters have highlighted the relatively new idea of humanitarian aid, and its use as a diplomatic tool. The programs that have arisen to address them have also put a lot of emphasis on direct person-to-international organization contact. For example, the Texts for Haiti Relief program raised over 30 million dollars from American citizens donating to the Red Cross, (Choney 2010) Perhaps, in the future the affect of foreign aid on public and cultural diplomacy will be based less on the actions of state government, but on the actions of the state’s domestic citizens.

Works Cited

Choney, S. “Mobile giving to help Haiti exceed $30 million.” MSNBC. Jan, 2010. Web Article. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34850532/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/t/mobile-giving-help-haiti-exceeds-million/

Report of the Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy

US Department of State, September 2005

CULTURAL DIPLOMACY: THE LINCHPIN OF PUBLIC DIPLOMACY (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/54374.pdf)

Through culture, can a nation truly and honestly promote itself and reflect its values and ideals to the outside world. Cultural diplomacy can do what many other efforts are unable to do, namely secure national interests and security with a lasting effect. The ‘war on terror’ has turned the world against the US, viewing it as more of a danger for the rest of the world more than anything else. The trust and credibility previously enjoyed by the US has been lost and needs to be regained, military and economic matters will not be enough, but through the promotion of culture as the way forward. During times of war, cultural diplomacy has always been considered essential, but as soon as wars are over, cultural diplomacy is moved to the backseat, and therefore the Advisory Committee highlights the need and importance of employing cultural diplomacy and to make it last in the long-term, and realize the importance of cultural diplomacy on US national interests. Cultural diplomacy is important for many reasons, namely because it can provide for ‘a foundation of trust’, counter stereotypes and promote understanding, creates bonds between people that are lasting but also gives American citizens the chance to get to understand other cultures as well and avoid misunderstandings. The Advisory Committee therefore made recommendations of the measures that need to be adopted to the Secretary of State, which included most importantly funding, which needs to be increased for public and cultural diplomacy in general and the need for the expansion of international cultural exchange programs in persons, skills and knowledge. ‘Winning the hearts and minds of people’ won’t happen overnight, but it needs to be consistently applied in the long-term. This needs to be a central effort of US diplomacy in the 21^st century.

The Advisory Committee notes that there has first of all been a lack of adequate funding for cultural diplomacy, but also a lack of understanding the importance of it. It is hugely important to listen and react to how the world and other cultures view American culture. US policies have ‘damaged America’s credibility and power to persuade’. A survey conducted in 2003 and 2004 revealed that for a large part, people ‘view George W. Bush as a greater threat to the world order than Osama bin Laden’. Influencing world opinion about the US cannot be done militarily, but through culture and ‘cultural engagement’ applied consistently, that will make a difference in the end. An extremely important element must therefore be listening, and through that understanding for cultural diplomacy to be effective, as it is a ‘two way street’. Cultural diplomacy is also important to balance the policies that have influenced public opinion in the world, and the Committee stressed the fact that right now, there is ‘no cultural counterweight to our foreign policy’.

US cultural diplomacy in the era of the ‘war on terror’ would have been extremely essential. Many people lost the ability to distinguish between policies and people, and since there was nothing to balance out the effects of the policies on world opinion, hostility towards the US was inevitable. The US made the mistake of not listening, and giving the impression of complete disregard for all others and cultures and values, highlighting and imposing its own as the only way to go. The way to ‘win hearts and minds’ is to listen and understand others, and through mutual understanding, it is only possible to overcome issues. Basically, the report highlights the need for a ‘permanent structure’ for US cultural diplomacy especially during the ‘war on terror’ but also beyond, for the future, since it has never existed but only during times of war has cultural diplomacy been applied. Cultural diplomacy needs to be made an essential effort for the future, because it is so important in today’s world to advance mutual understanding by listening and understanding others as well, and only through this to better be able to influence and be a part of the global debate.

Celebrity Diplomacy

Today most of the capitalist and developed nations suffer from the negative attitude towards them which are originated from the underdeveloped countries. The underdeveloped countries blame the capitalist ones for their suffering. In the recent years, celebrity diplomacy gained momentum with the presence of Angelina Jolie, Bono and George Clooney as the celebrities who devoted themselves to the public diplomacy. I believe they cannot change the image of the whole country but they have chance for a better image. For instance Lady Diana was very successful for representing her country. But can Angelina Jolie change the public image of George Bush or Obama? No she cannot. But they may create a new perception in the world which will be limited but at least they try to make difference. For instance, they made declarations that blame the military intervention or they went to middle of the war in order to show how they feel. Sean Penn wrote an open letter to President Bush in order to change his mind. So celebrity diplomacy is a new unconventional tool for promoting the culture of the state But it seems that Angelina Jolie has to do more instead of adopting children otherwise she will need to adopt every Iraqi child in order to save them.

Bibliography

Cooper, A. 2008, “Celebrity Diplomacy”. http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/library/reviews_detail/celebrity_diplomacy/

Cold War Public Diplomacy with James Bond

The American public cultural diplomacy peaked during the Cold War because United States perceived Soviet Union as a threat for them. One cannot deny that United States used every policy tool in order to promote American culture to the society. It is possible to argue that Hollywood used to be a policy tool for United States public policy. Cinema had a crucial importance for the daily life of American people so they were fascinated with idea of James Bond who was fighting against Soviet secret service. British agent fought against communism and he represented the good side in order to give the message capitalist America is the good side in this war whereas communism is a threat for the American values. It is possible to state that the mass media has an influential role on the society and United States government used mass media in order to reflect the ideas of the U.S. government. It would be naive to think that the Hollywood movies did not have the aim of making propaganda. Unite d States government used James Bond movies in order to create a public opinion on behalf of United States against Soviet Union. The line between fiction and reality disappeared when Hollywood entered to the war with United States against Soviet Union. Also it is possible to say that Cold War contributed to the popularity of James Bond because citizens were attached to him based on the reason they share the same ideals.

Bibliography

Shaw, T. “Hollywood’s Cold War”.

“James Bond in the Cold War”. 2009. BBC Home. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A51925962

U.S. Public Cultural Diplomacy after 9/11 Public cultural diplomacy: historical perspectives Many Tools To Use...

It is possible to define cultural diplomacy as “a domain of diplomacy concerned with establishing, developing and sustaining relations with foreign states by way of culture. It is also a proactive process of external projection in which a nation’s institutions, value system and unique cultural personality are promoted at a bilateral and multilateral level.” So, from a general perspective cultural diplomacy is promotion of values. It is possible to claim that cultural diplomacy gained momentum with the Cold War in United States because United States fought with Soviet Union at every level. And it was important for her to promote her culture against communist culture. So it will be wrong to think the states will adopt conventional methods in order to spread culture to the world. There are several examples for evaluating this claim, Hollywood cinema used to be a proxy for American Cold War propaganda, using sports as a diplomacy tool or making propaganda by celebrities. So it seems that there are many tools to be obtained and if they are adopted they have high chance of being successful. For instance, someone cannot deny the success of Hollywood for making anti-communist propaganda, or Angelina Jolie as “UN Goodwill Ambassador”. But today United States has an image of being an oil hunter so none of the tools to be working compared to earlier times. We may blame technology for showing us the truth!

See definition of cultural diplomacy retrieved from Ivey, B. and Cleggett, P. “Cultural Diplomacy and the National Interest: In a Search of 21st Century Perspective”. The Curb Center For Art. http://textus.diplomacy.edu/textusBin/BViewers/oview/culturaldiplomacy/oview.asp?FilterTopic=%2F38139

Public Cultural Diplomacy after 9/11: A Failure

After 9/11 U.S. Public Cultural Diplomacy may be accepted disappointing from several aspects. Although the channels of communication were accelerated but as critics argued that there are several problems with the public policy. Now United States has a new enemy: extreme Islamists. But although United States was a victim of 9/11, United States continue to have a negative image in the globe. The reason of that negative image further supported with Wikileaks scandal. International arena has negative towards United States. United States tries to explain her motives by emphasizing on 9/11 whereas she loses thrust with American popular culture, operation to Iraq and so on. Statistics show that there are other reasons of the failure with regard to public cultural policy:

1) USAID scholarship for foreign students declined from 20.000 to 900

2) Funding for cultural exchange programs declined

3) There is no a contra opinion in the State Department, i.e. no Muslim staff

So what can be done? United States should make cultural exports in order to change the perception of United States in Middle East. During Cold War United States used to be perceived as the representative of freedom but today she is perceived as an imperialist enemy. United States shouldchange that perception otherwise she will continue to suffer from negative attitude.

Bibliography

Ivey, B. and Cleggett, P. “Cultural Diplomacy and the National Interest: In a Search of 21st Century Perspective”. The Curb Center For Art. http://www.interarts.net/descargas/interarts673.pdf

ROLE OF NATIONAL EMBASSY WEBSITES IN CULTURAL & PUBLIC DIPLOMACY NORWEGIAN vs. CANADIAN EMBASSIES IN LONDON

ROLE OF NATIONAL EMBASSY WEBSITES IN CULTURAL & PUBLIC  DIPLOMACY  

NORWEGIAN vs. CANADIAN EMBASSIES IN LONDON

Cultural and public diplomacy (CPD) is about all to inform and influence foreign publics in the best interests of the nation state and  CPD  activities can be classified into 5 categories: listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy , exchange diplomacy and international broadcasting.

Both Norway and Canada are relatively small powers in the public diplomacy arena. Desire to be noticed and for the right reasons is one of Jan Melissens crucial point for small and middle powers and this is done by embassies and their websites. Working with limited resources is another important factor. Or even relying on ingenuity and networking which some great powers lack which can lead to coalition building.

This form of speciality is what is known as niche diplomacy. Niche diplomacy involves concentrating resources in specific areas best able to generate returns worth having, in these regards , the embassies.

Norway’s situation is one of central diplomacy. It is not a recognized. That being said , there is a clear issue of lack of recognized identity. How does Norway play into the public diplomacy field with help from the embassy website ?

The Norwegian embassy website in London points out categorically that the Embassy's main function is to promote Norwegian interests in the United Kingdom and further develop Norwegian-British relations. It talks about what each embassy section does including, the political/economic section, consular section, and press/information and cultural section as well as the commercial/tourism section .It gives names and email / telephone contacts of responsible officers. It talks also about the role and contribution of Norway in the UN with special emphasis on poverty reduction worldwide, its contribution in the areas of democracy and human rights as well as world peace. The website invites subscription to the Norwegian embassy newsletter.

Norway’s reputation for public diplomacy via the embassy is largely along the lines of international aid. Cooperation with the Red Cross and peace agencies. Norway is also renown for the Nobel Peace Prize, which plays some significance depending on how it is perceived in the international scene.

Canada on the other hand is rather different . It is relatively more known than Norway for its Public Diplomacy. The Canadian (High Commission) embassy website in London ( which is bi-lingual : English/French ) features a lot of information about the visa/immigration, studying in Canada, doing business in Canada and about Canada itself. It talks a lot about the UK-Canada bilateral relations in various areas including economic , political , defence and security, as well as academic and cultural . It also gives information about the Canada- EU relations.

Canada has a more open approach to how it tackles cultural diplomacy. They use Nicholas Culls one of the five tools of diplomacy and that’s advocacy. Both Canada and Norway tackle issues of human security.

Report Review: US State Department’s Annual Report on Tibet Negotiations, March 2009 – February 2010 (http://tibet.net/en/pdf/usaTibetReport2010.pdf)

A brief overview of the China-Tibet conflict is directly related to China’s claim that Tibet is a part of China. The Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) representatives indicate that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) suppress the Tibetan people’s religious, linguistic and traditional heritage. The US State Department’s report is focused upon official relations between China and Tibet, indicating that the US recognises Tibet as the TAR of China and acknowledges that the Dalai Lama is not pursuing state sovereignty or independence and is instead seeking to retain cultural, linguistic and religious traditions that make up the Tibetan lifestyle. The report outlines that US foreign policy is to focus on the encouragement of “substantive dialogue” between the PRC and FAC, believing progressive relations to have an overall stabilising effect for China and that China’s failure to respond in an appropriate manner is likely to lead to future problems, both internally and externally, that may hinder “social and economic development”. The US indicate that they do not engage in direct diplomatic relations with the Dalai Lama as Tibet is not an independent state but they do have relations through political and non-political groups, with President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton meeting with the Dalai Lama in February 2010 as a “religious leader”. The Dalai Lama is not referred to as the leader of Tibet, but rather as a voice of the Tibetan people and a reflection of their views and desires. The Dalai Lama’s White House visit on 18 February 2010 saw praise given to his “Middle Way” approach, with Obama reinstating support for the Tibetan people and their unique way of life. China is said to have urged the US not to meet with the Dalai Lama at this time and is subsequently criticised for exercising a negative rhetoric toward the Tibetan religious leader. This, along with a statement outlining China’s continued repression of Tibetan religious freedoms in 2009 are the only time criticisms of this type are made toward the PRC. The report outlines China’s need to uphold human rights, to recognise religious and ethnic minority groups within China (with Tibet a specific focus in this aspect) and also consistently emphasises the need for continued dialogue between the PRC and TAR.

US Ambassador-designate to China, Jon Huntsman, is given as advocating for human rights and dialogue at the US Embassy in Beijing and US Consulate General in Chengdu, aimed at Chinese officials and US officials are permitted to travel from China to Tibet to monitor the situation, reporting limited access to some areas in Tibet. Although this is state-led, it represents efforts of the PRC to work with US officials and potentially improving their public image abroad. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) recently announced the government’s approval of private visits to China of Tibetan “compatriots”, although the Dalai Lama himself was excluded from entering China until such a time as he publically announces Tibet as a part of the PRC. While the report highlights the government permission of US officials and Tibetan representatives into other areas of the TAR for monitoring purposes, it makes no clear indication of findings or evidence to support or deny claims of Tibetan cultural suppression. 2002 saw the Dalai Lama’s brother visiting China as a representative of the TAR, with the report indicating that after 17 years of continual tension, was hoped to ensue a significant improvement in relations, however, the outbreak of protests and riots in Tibet in 2008 disproved such notions. China is given as suggesting that such protests were aimed at diminishing their Beijing Olympic efforts. The report states that the PRC perceive Tibet’s engagement with international organisations as an expression of separatist tendencies, even when undertaken within a peace-building capacity as illustrated by the Dalai Lama’s involvement with the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy (www.imtd.org 2011).

Overall the report consistently cites dialogue between the PRC and TAR as a key tool for moving forward, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the Dalai Lama or affiliated officials as a government-in-exile. This can be seen to perpetuate China’s claim toward Tibet, along with Taiwan, as being part of China and the PRC subsequently refuse to engage in talks that suggest otherwise. The US talks with the Dalai Lama (as a ‘religious leader’) ultimately encourage his current “Middle Way” approach whereby Tibet is accepted as a Chinese autonomous region, although the Dalai Lama urges for “genuine autonomy that will enable the Tibetan people to govern themselves in accordance with their own needs”, something which the PRC has been reluctant to do so far and hence the 50 year stalemate between the two sides. While the PRC has made token-gestures to promote the Tibetan lifestyle and livelihood, it does so within a restrictive state-led strategy that places China’s economic and social prosperity above that of the Tibetan’s. In March 2011 China published a ‘manual on Tibet’ which is aimed at offering basic information about Tibet, although the publication was not available from the Chinese Government’s official website (www.gov.cn 2011). The US report, while illustrating historic and continual tensions between the PRC and TAR, appears to skirt-over many of the more pressing issues such as economic development, environmental degradation, human rights abuses and progressive steps to ensure the retention of the Tibetan way of life. The report instead, consistently urges for dialogue between the two sides, as well as stating that whenever US officials have the opportunity, they will publically call for China to engage in dialogue with Tibet and respect minority rights. The report lacks adequate evidence, solutions or suggestions of an alternative approach that would see future progressive developments and appears to condone China’s position toward Tibet, while at the same time offering its sympathies to the Tibetan people. In this manner, the report adopts an observatory role and can be seen to offer very little in relation to public and cultural diplomacy efforts of either side. Having said this, it can perhaps be argued that as the Dalai Lama is not considered an official government representative, only a religious leader, that all of China’s activities in relation to the TAR are undertaken within a cultural diplomacy manner as they are working toward, albeit not very successfully, cultural understanding and engagement with Tibet.

Sources:

·Chinese Government’s Official Web Portal, ‘China Publishes Manual on Tibet’, available as of 14 April 2011 at http://www.gov.cn/english/2011-03/22/content_1829276.htm

·The Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy: Peacebuilding through Collaboration, ‘Country Project: Tibetan Government and Community in Exile’, available as of 13 April 2011 at http://www.imtd.org/country-projects/government-of-tibet-in-exile/

China’s soft power strategy

China is given as transitioning through various forms of public and cultural diplomacy efforts, with the latest evident within a soft power capacity as illustrated by Joseph Nye’s works. Nye indicates that “threats of coercion (“sticks”); inducement or payments (“carrots”) and attraction” make others behave in desirable ways that allow for favourable outcomes for the soft power user (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2008). While Nye is discussing China’s role within the 2008 Olympics and the subsequent success of the event for China’s global image, he indicates that soft power strategies have allowed for some 110, 000 foreign students to be enrolled in the country, 17 million visiting tourists per year, as well as over 200 Confucius Institutes to be established globally (ibid). Nye also highlights broadcasting efforts whereby China Radio International were now broadcasting in English 24 hours per day, compared to the Voice of America’s reduction in China from 19 to 14 hours daily. Such strategies can be seen to operate within the latter ‘attraction’ of Nye’s three illustrations of soft power, with Kurlantzick (2007) suggesting that Nye focuses on this aspect far more than ‘carrot’ or ‘stick’ methods and which he himself gives greater attention to, perceiving them as a crucial factor in China’s success so far.

Kurlantzick places greater emphasis on China’s use of carrot and stick strategies in developing countries as a means for gaining greater soft power success. In this manner China’s heightened presence in Thailand following the Asian Financial Crisis, when the US are given as largely withdrawing financial support, saw the spread of Chinese studies centres and consulates along with economic ties between China and Thailand. Kurlantzick refers to such practices as China’s ‘charm offensive’, although outlining that very little is actually known about their strategic approach and diplomatic methods, as well as extensive information regarding aid figures and how China’s soft power diplomacy is received by recipient citizens. A 2003 visit of then US President George Bush is said by Kurlantzick to have been received by a hostile public and parliamentary audience due to the American use of hard power in relation to the (then) recent invasion of Iraq. Whereas China’s President Hu Jinato’s subsequent visit is said to have received a warm welcome, with the leader spending longer in the country and the trip finalised by the signing a Free Trade Agreement with Australia, with the first round of negotiations taking place in May 2005 (http://www.dfat.gov.au/ 2011). Australia and China have a history of public and cultural diplomacy as represented by the 1978 introduction of the Australia-China Council (ACC), designed to “promote mutual understanding and foster people-to-people relations” (ibid). The ACC offers grants and funding opportunities for various schemes that are associated with promoting the Council’s aims, operating via institutions or individuals in areas such as education, economics and cultural sharing, including student exchange programs.

China’s inclination toward “coercive economic and diplomatic levers like aid and investment” (Kurlantzick 2007: 6) are seen as outside of the traditional soft power approach, which Nye perceives as geared more toward the promotion of a positive value base, leading to nation-branding attractiveness, and can perhaps be seen in the context of overseas volunteers or academic exchange programs, something in which China is becoming increasingly involved with. In this context China’s soft power approach can be seen to include “anything outside of the military and security realm” (ibid). China is keen to promote an image of a ‘peaceful rise’ as represented by its engagement with the UN and ASEAN to utilise diplomatic measures, with the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties and Treaty of Amity demonstrating the progression from maritime disputes over the South China Sea between China, Vietnam and the Philippines (http://www.clingendael.nl/ 2010). Nye (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2008) outlines how China carried out regional soft power strategies initially and, with successes in this area, moved its attention globally within a cultural diplomacy context. The “Voyage of Chinese Culture to Africa” and “China-Africa Youth Festival” in 2004, as well as the establishment of the Forum on China-Africa Co-operation (FOCAC) in 2000 can all be given as examples of public and cultural diplomacy with the intent of increasing relations, dialogue and economic ties (http://www.chinese-embassy.org.za/ 2004). China has been keen to market historic exploration to the Middle East, Africa and Asia by Zheng He and Cheng Ho as “encountering but never conquering other nations” (Kurlantzick 2007: 62). China’s more recent involvement in developing countries (especially within Africa) whereby aid is given without restrictions, unlike the imposed conditionality’s of Western aid providers and further perpetuates the ‘peaceful’ image China wishes to portray.

China has, however, come under heavy criticism for its apparent involvement in the supply of arms that helped fuel the 2008 conflict in Darfur, despite a UN arms embargo. The BBC’s Panorama programme reported the use of Chinese supplied tanks and armaments, as well as training given to pilots of Chinese A5 Fantan fighter jets (http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/ 2008). China was said to have not publically responded to the Panorama allegations and had previously spoken of its strong economic ties with Sudan (China is the main purchases of Sudan’s oil) and that the country needed support in the form of business partners, development and peaceful relations with Darfur, instead of “confrontation and sanctions from the West” (ibid). In this manner China’s soft power can be seen to ignore numerous human rights violations, both at home and when dealing with global trading partners and exposes a darker, economically-focused strategy that turns a blind eye to a country’s domestic issues in return for almost exclusive trading rights. In this manner, Nye is keen to outline how the US is still (at the time of the article in 2008) perceived as the dominant soft power user and that China should now focus on “free expression” within the country in order to continue their efforts of global acceptance and legitimacy as a superpower state (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2008). Nye also indicates that soft power can, and usually is, conducted by both state and non-state actors but that China, with its controlling Chinese Communist Party (CCP), all too often operates at the state level and carefully constructs the image portrayed to the outside world.

It has been noted, however, that the US are mistrusting China’s ability to rise peacefully and some argue that “history and international relations theory shows that tensions and war are often associated with the rise of a new great power” (Jentleson 2007: 322). China is also given as the only country whose missiles target the US (Segal in Buzan and Foot 2005) and its more recent move toward military development is somewhat suspiciously observed by the US. Although, China is given as spending (US) $80 billion annually and, compared to the US amount of $400 billion per year, is not a significant threat to US security (Kurlantzick 2007). Theorists such as Buzan (2009) have indicated that there is a difficulty in distinguishing between offensive and defensive military strategies as the procurement of arms, for either purpose leads to a fear of attack and “...in the process of providing various forms of security, insecurities are also reproduced” (Dalby in Krause and Williams 1997: 13).

Hence, China can be seen as following all appropriate frameworks that favour regional stability, the promotion of public and cultural diplomacy and are also working hard to ensure that their rise is not perceived as a threat to the prevailing status quo. China’s continued economic growth and ability to align itself with developed and developing countries alike sees that its utilisation of soft power has not only been deemed a success, but has led to a debate over ‘the Washington Consensus versus the Beijing Consensus’ (in Africa) in relation to the best economic model for development. However, China’s main criticism and subsequent limitation surrounds the inability of the CCP to loosen the grip of state control and, as Nye has suggested, China requires greater concentration on domestic freedoms in order to sustain and expand its global aims, which are inherently based (for now at least) on economic domination and increased global cooperation.

Sources:

·Anderson, H., ‘China is fuelling war in Darfur’, 13 July 2008, BBC News, available as of 9 April 2011 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7503428.stm

·‘Australia-China Council’, Australian Government: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, available as of 8 April 2011 at http://www.dfat.gov.au/acc/index.html

·‘Australia-China Free Trade Agreement Negotiations’, Australian Government: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, available as of 8 April 2011 at http://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/acfta/

·Buzan, B. and Foot, R., Does China Matter? A Reassessment: Essays in memory of Gerald Segal, Routledge 2004, Oxon

·Buzan, B., People, States and Fear (2nd edition): an agenda for international security studies in the post-cold war era, ECPR Press 2009, Colchester

·Dalby, S., ‘From Strategy to Security: Foundations of Critical Security Studies’ in Krause, K. and Williams, M., Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, UCL Press Ltd 1997, London

·‘Exchanges between China and Africa’, Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the Republic of South Africa, available as of 10 April 2011 at http://www.chinese-embassy.org.za/eng/znjl/t177585.html

·Jentleson, W., American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century (3rd edition), Norton and Company. Inc. 2007, London

·Kurlantzick, J., Charm offensive: how China’s soft power is transforming the world’, Yale University 2007, New York

·Nye, J., ‘The Olympics and Chinese Soft Power’ 24 August 2008, The Huffington Post, available as of 4 April 2011 at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/the-olympics-and-chinese_b_120909.html

·‘The rise of China: setting alarm bells ringing?’, Clingendael: Netherlands Institute for International Relations, The Newsletter, No. 53, Spring 2010, available as of 10 April 2011 at http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2010/20100301_ciep_review_bbuijs.pdf

A Critical Analysis Of The Duncan Hunter Defense Act

The Duncan Hunter National Defense ACT: A critical review

Tensa Rwegasira

The Duncan Hunter National Defence Act, Is from Biden (US Vice President) and Pelosi (Speaker) to Obama (USA President). In it they discuss the best means of improving America’s public and cultural diplomacy.

The Duncan Hunter National Defence Act is a report on a comprehensive interagency strategy for public diplomacy and strategic communication. This is done by two means, synchronization and deliberate communication and engagement.

Synchronization

Synchronization here means coordinating words and deeds including the active consideration of how American actions and policies will be interpreted by public audiences as an organic part of decision making which is seen as important task. America’s notion is that what we do is more important than what we say because actions have communicative value and send messages. How this will be obtained? By means of fostering a culture of communication that values this type of synchronization and encourages decision – makers to take the communicative value of actions into account during their decision making.

Deliberate Communication and Engagement

America has put up programmes focused on understanding, engaging, informing, influencing, and communicating with people through public affairs, public diplomacy, information operations and other efforts. This will improve America’s government’s ability to deliberately communicate and engage with intended audiences.

This is intended to bolster communication, data collection and help with security threats and strategic planning. It is also to avoid the past incidents during the cold war, where congress fought with developmental agencies for example USAID. Also to improve the notion of the American foreign policy neo – conservative paradigm in which America tends to focus on the elites rather than the people being ruled by the elites. The need for legitimacy is key for American foreign policy because you can only flex your muscle power so much. With legitimacy comes international support and assistance. The revival of soft power and cultural diplomacy is seen as important for American foreign policy.

This report has some strength; but it also has some weaknesses. First the strengths.
 The major positive aspect of this report is the focus on interagency coordination and collaboration, which are seen as key to American foreign policy. This is intended not only to foster interagency collaboration but also to minimize interagency friction and wasteful rivalry. Emphasis has also been put on communication and engagement to avoid explicit propaganda and one way communication. This was a lesson learned during the cold war era of public and cultural diplomacy. 

However the same report has some weak aspects. It is silent about the vision, which is supposed to give overall guidance to the strategy formulation. What type of public and cultural diplomacy is envisioned by the USA in this post-cold war era? This should have been given first. The lack of a shared vision can undermine the effectiveness of the public and cultural diplomacy programs to be undertaken in the future. A common vision would also be a coordinative mechanism not only among different programs but also among various governments departments and agencies. This is one lesson, which should have been learnt from the cold war era public and cultural diplomacy. Vision in terms of guiding the strategy is not clarified well. Also goals and objectives are not categorically outlined. On top of that, strategy success indicators are not discussed.

The outcome is that, with the goals and objectives not thoroughly discussed, the suggested measures of performance and measures of effectiveness as milestones of performance in the implementation of the suggested strategy may not be well designed or talked about.