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/