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/