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/