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.