The Broadcasting Board Of Governors (BBG) is an U.S led initiative, which aims to disseminate unbiased information through the means of radio and more recently other mediums of technology to enhance US relations with countries who have little democracy, highlighting the importance of freedom of press in geographical areas where totalitarian governments heavily censor all media that enables dialog between the masses. The goal of the BBG is to ensure that there is free and independent news flows thus allowing citizens to engaging in dialogue, sharing legitimate stories of issues affecting their societies and thus combatting censorship. Some of the radio stations founded by the organisation are Voice of America (VOC), Radio Sawa and Radio Free Asia (RFA)
When reading through the BBG 2011 report, one can clearly see the good works that have been produced by this organisation who have been very instrumental in various part of the world such as the Middle East, Cuba and Burma and Africa but to name a few, and thus have now created a large following.
The BBG because of its successes has entered a public diplomacy frenzy in the various countries the organisation works within, in order to “invite external input and to improve understanding of the BBG mission and role” (http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/media/BBG2010AnnualReport.pdf) and further following through with the BBG’s statutory requirements by providing credible news, demonstrating a complete view of American society and also to present and discuss U.S policy.(http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/media/BBG2010AnnualReport.pdf).
VOC one of the stations created by the board enables journalist in non-democratic states to report on content that would otherwise be censored, the report notes down the various countries where BBG local journalist working on behalf of the radio stations operate are faced with increasing threats such as being beaten, tortured or killed. However, the report fails to address ways of how to protect the journalist working on behalf of the organisation, I would argue that if BBG and the stations that operate under its umbrella are to highlight public diplomacy and encourage good views of American society surly the welfare of external journalist should be addressed, after all US journalist do not face the same crises in their own country. Understandably when foreign journalist enter tyrannical states they face the same threats, however there seems to be little concern regarding the magnitude of local journalist facing daily intimidations whilst directly gather news for those within their communities and in-directly gathering news for American researchers on how to promote US public diplomacy.
Further, the report emphasises on continuing to enhance technological advancements on stations such as VOC, Radio Sawa and RFA, which is useful information as previously they have faced criticism for a “long-standing issue of overlapping language service (where two languages broadcast in the same language to the same audience)” (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-711T), further criticism relate to the inability of the organisation to reach a greater audience. However, the report does suggest that necessary steps have been taken to address such issues, from the report one is able to deduce that mobile phone applications have been made available to listeners, social media (Facebook, Youtube and Twitter) to facilitate engagement with the younger listeners supported in an array of languages.
These platforms of sharing information sound like a worthy scheme, and although the report demonstrates the growing rate of audience numbers tuning in, it fails to mention how this has impacted the relationship between the US and the various states the organisation works within (have state relations and understanding improved or have is not?). Where these projects have been established, no facts or figures relating to this have been provided in the paper. As to be expected, the reader is only informed of how well the stations are doing, however, the stations preforming well has no reflection on local opinion of the US society, culture and policy.
The BBG have done well in creating a democratic space for free dialogue in the countries they operate in, however it would appear that the main objective of the organisation is somewhat blurred the BBG must “strengthen the boards strategic planning and performance by placing a greater emphasis on results” (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-711T), in fairness the board have begun to take the steps towards this but until such strategies are developed and fully implemented the ultimate goal of pulling communities together in hopes of achieving US public diplomacy may be to some extent futile.
References:
http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/media/BBG2010AnnualReport.pdf
I believe that over the weeks we have come realise the significance that cultural and public diplomacy play in state relations and interactions. Over the years we have seen how particular countries within the Middle East have been able to market themselves to the world by focusing attention to something that may be so unique to their culture.
Gareth Evans describes niche diplomacy or as some may put it, middle power diplomacy as “concentrating resources in specific areas best able to generate returns worth having rather than trying to cover the field” (http://www.gevans.org/speeches/speech441.html)
Qatar has been very successful in this department building its brand as the Middle Eastern mediator during the Lebanon peace talks, which was hailed as a diplomatic success, considering it helped to stop Lebanon from entering a civil war which various western countries as mediators had failed to do, now the state is considered to be the peacemaker and the neutral regional power. Qatar has been praised over the years in assisting various countries by taking on the role as mediator and this has further given the country recognition on the world stage opening up new avenues to market the country. Much of this is said to be the work of the Emir, H.H Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani who has worked relentlessly since his leadership in 1995 to boost the countries economy and political interactions with the world.
Qatar has further assisted with mediation in Morocco, Sudan, Palestine, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and also the Philippines, as a country who lived in obscurity Qatar has now used niche diplomacy and nation branding to lay its foundations as a serious diplomatic nation, raising its profile, thus allowing the country to seek and secure confident foreign direct investments and political notoriety. (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=/data/opinion/2010/December/opinion_December142.xml§ion=opinion)
Since Qatar is a small country, in order to be seen by the world the government bolstered the state on to the global stage by concentrating on the attributes that were special and unique to the state, it is said that the country has the third largest natural gas reserves and is also a significant exporter of oil (Young, 2011). Qatar seem to have focused on the things that they do best, the Qatari government have been very smart with the management of their diplomacy and international relations which has allowed them to build good relations with states such as America.
Al-Jazeera, the international Qatari news network has boosted the country further by also playing the fair mediator that exposes various corrupt Middle Eastern governments and played a significant role in televising the Arab spring, some may argue that the new network is the only one that is able to connect with the plight of those in the Middle East, it has been further suggested that Al-Jazeera success in covering the war to liberate Kuwait is similar to that of CNN’s coverage during the first Gulf War (http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/middle-east/661). But whatever individual thoughts and opinions may be, Al-Jazeera has certainly taken its place as one of the most respectable news networks in the world.
Qatar is a good example of how niche diplomacy can work for a small obscure country, it is of great importance that states are able to gain support within our globalized world but further it is important for states to have the ability to stand on their own feet, to know what works for them in order to create a stable and viable economy. It is impossible to please everyone, however Qatari’s have done well in gaining support for their diplomatic works and rightly so as they have assisted many in avoiding serious conflict. In my opinion that is something worth praising.
References:
http://www.gevans.org/speeches/speech441.html
http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/middle-east/661
http://publicandculturaldiplomacye.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/qatar-shining-star-on-stage-of-public.html
http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~bmomani/documents/ISA2010-Qatar.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/world/middleeast/09qatar.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.qnaol.net/QNAEn/Qatar/Foreign_Policy/Pages/QatarDiplomacy.aspx
http://georgetown.academia.edu/MehranKamrava/Papers/1139165/Mediation_and_Qatari_Foreign_Policy
http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~bmomani/documents/IS-Qatarandsmallstatediplomacy.pdf
http://arabsthink.com/2011/11/21/qatars-trailblazing-diplomacy/
The debate on whether sport should be mixed with diplomacy is very crucial, especially in this 21st century. Most countries today are aware of the usefulness of sports diplomacy. In the United States for example, the Department of State often times make use of the services of ‘sports envoy’ such as, the former baseball player Cal Ripken Jr and the former figure skater Michelle Kwan to participate in sport diplomacy (Keech & Houlihan, 1999).
However, there are those who argue that sport and diplomacy should not mix. The opposition leader in Lok Sabha, Sushma Swaraj argued that sport and diplomacy should not be united with a common purpose. She further said that ‘sport should remain a sport,’ it should not be transformed into controversy. And that cricket diplomacy between India and Pakistan does not serve a good purpose, but inflicts significant degree of pressure that will inhibit the players from playing freely.
There is a strong argument for the need to mix sports and diplomacy, but there is another side of the debate of sport diplomacy that is not elegant. As a result, those who argue in favour of sport diplomacy tend to ignore that part of the debate.
Despite the explicit approval by men of great influence, like the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. He said, “Sports is a language every one speak, and its power as a tool in a country’s public diplomacy arsenal is being increasingly recognised. Mixing sport and diplomacy can help meet various foreign policy objectives: to bring about regime change, open the door for dialogue when it is closed to politics and to arouse a sense of national pride” (Kristen Livingston, 2011).Yet there is numerous situation that discredit mixing sport and diplomacy. For instance, in South Africa, football and politics seem to be intertwined for some reason. And during the years of apartheid rule in South Africa, they were prevented from participating in international competitions. This shows how international sporting events can be used to express dissatisfaction.
According to S.M. Ndlovu (Ndlovu, 2010) sport has proven to be a fundamental oppositional tool against dissatisfaction and in this case the apartheid regime in South Africa.
In conclusion, one might argue that sport diplomacy is an essential tool to bridge the gap between two countries that have experienced hostilities, but sport itself cannot find all the solution to the disagreements on the globe.
Bibliography
Keech, M. & Houlihan, B (1999): “sport and the end of Apartheid. The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Relations. Vol.88, No.349, Pg. 109-121.
The Power of Sport: should sport and diplomacy mix?
http://www.exchangediplomacy.com/the-power-of-sport-should-and-diplomacy-mix
By. Kristen Livingston
Ndlovu, S.M (2010):” sports as cultural diplomacy: the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa’s foreign policy,” Soccer and Society. Vol.11, No.1-2, Pg. 144-153.
Traditionally, countries raced to build better militaries and powerful economies to race to become the most powerful, however in the information-oriented aged of today, power politics is about whose story or narrative is accepted by the international community. countries today tend to struggle to increase their credibility by promoting their own agenda or narrative over that of their rival country or organisation. The role of non state actors has increased greatly in the recent years. international organisations and multi national corporations have totally transformed the way public diplomacy was carried out in the past. This is due to the fact that the international organisations have greater access to audiences in other countries therefore these organisations play a vital role in public diplomacy today.
The ability of non-state organizations to use their networks to access the foreign audiences has led this form of diplomacy to be named as the ‘new public diplomacy.’ New public diplomacy is more than just promotion campaigns and governmental communication with foreign publics. It is about creating bonds with civil society members of other countries as well as facilitating the creation of networks between domestic non-governmental parties and foreign ones.The members could include heads of large private companies, trade organisations and other industries.
New public diplomacy also suggests aiming government policy at enhancing and becoming part of such networks created by these organisations rather than opposing it. The transformation of public diplomacy into the new public diplomacy signified that interaction with foreign publics was no longer one way. This meant that publics were now part of the communications. In recent years, countries have increasingly relied on soft power to win create a better environment in other countries for foreign policy to be carried out. Soft power means using the power to influence other countries instead of using force. For example the series of standoffs between the governments and their publics in the middle east saw a crucial role played by Facebook, twitter and other social networks.
In todays era, hard power alone is not a solution to ending international or domestic conflict and soft power associated with the new public diplomacy will have an increasing role to play in the future. For example the most important international issue today is the fight against terrorism and in order to address is properly, winning hearts and minds is a vital step. As globalisation increases, so does the connectivity between people worldwide with the creations of new networks such as the internet, email, cellphones etc. Non state actors have an increasing role to play in international relations in the years to come.
This term is often referred to as the practice whose objective is to not only measure but also manage and build the reputation of countries. The last half century saw a dramatic increase in the importance and use of this terminology. The Idea behind nation branding is to create an image of a country in the international community. Today, the international image of a country and the perception other countries and non-state actors have about that country matter the most. The reasons for this are many however one of the most important one would be that a better image of a country attracts increased amounts of international tourism, foreign investments, and exports. A country with better image is more likely to receive developmental loans etc.
There are instances of countries today that have large amounts of resources allocated towards improving and promoting their international image. The aim is to not only attract capital and tourism, but also an innovative workforce that could benefit the economy. Apart from this, the influence of country in terms of public and cultural diplomacy also tends to increase. Nation branding has also been related with product branding on several occasions. Some argue that the idea of nation branding has emerged from product branding and that just how a product receives a better environment to be marketed in, countries with a better reputation also gain success in the international arena. Nation Branding might incorporate the corporate branding techniques to brand countries similar to branding products but it aim differs from its corporate use. 
Simon Anholt is a British independent policy advisor and has been well affiliated with the ideals of nation branding. According to him, country do not realise the true importance of their brand value as an asset. Apart from advising countries on how to improve their nation brands he also pioneered the concept of measuring global perceptions of a country. This nation brand index includes has several factors which affect the measurement such as government of a country, exports, people, political stability, immigration and investments.
Since the past decade, emphasis on Nation Branding and Public Diplomacy has risen so much that many countries today resort to hiring firms to manage their public image and nation branding. While in the past, the aims of nation branding might have simply been to attract tourism, today countries tend to hire huge organisations to promote branding campaigns aimed at attracting foreign investment, increasing political influence, improving trade and even creating better economic competition.
Developing countries tend to be attracted to this idea the most on the basis that a better image will create a suitable environment for their economy to prosper. Some analysts are also of the view that developing countries that do not manage their branding properly might end up spending their resources at the expanse of the economic development that could have taken place. In the era of globalisation and increased connectivity, nation branding and international image are extremely important.
In the age of today, ideas make a difference. a country that is able to influence other countries by promoting its beliefs and ideals to citizens of that country can almost certainly advance its national interests. The United States’ leaders should learn lessons from the country’s information campaigns that took place during the Cold War in order to devise a better public diplomacy strategy for the future. The US public and cultural diplomacy seems to have been much more effective and well organised as it is today.
The United States’ public diplomacy campaign contributed greatly towards the ultimate dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989. Both Soviet Union and the US were locked in a struggle to spread their ideology throughout the world. During the course of the Cold War, organisations such as Radio Free Europe, Voice of America and United States information agency made a great effort towards forwarding the ideals democracy, liberty, individual rights and free market. This communication of information proved to be vital in the end as it contributed towards the collapse of communism.
However, it must be noted that after the fall of Berlin wall in 1989, The United States decided to totally sideline Public Diplomacy. This has led many to speculate and develop a connection between the 9/11 incident and the United States’ reluctance to continue its public and cultural diplomacy campaign after the Cold War. After 9/11, The United States did seem to have stepped up its efforts in regards to Public and Cultural diplomacy. However, the United States has been unable to address the Islamic world effectively due to which both have their differences with each other. Also, the extremist elements of the Islamic world result in working against the United States.
The United States to draw lessons from the Cold War and better communicate its ideas to the Islamic world in order to create a better understanding with them. This would contribute greatly towards eliminating terrorism and the extremist elements.
The media is a force to be reckoned with, continuous advancements in technology world-wide enable public access to 24/7 news with different varieties to choose from, the speed at which up to the minute information is accessed is incredible and through this medium simple civilians and politicians alike are able to access breaking news, Lewis Friedland further states that:
“The world television system has begun to supplant traditional diplomatic activity. The use of international news systems as a medium of public diplomacy is not a novel: by the end of the 19th century, some critics where complaining of the influence of newspapers on world diplomacy”. (1992:41)
News media works in such a way that can sweep one single story into the limelight and highlighting stories that pull on the heart strings of the masses moving public opinion and forcing governments to take action, this term has been coined as the ‘CNN affect’ where 24/7 news channels are able to take a story from the most remote part of the world and enable it to become the number one news story.
When CNN covered the 1992 famine in Somalia there was an outcry from the public for politicians to get involved, and so the US government did exactly that, working closely with the United Nations to not only try to solve the issue of bringing in food stuff to the starving but to also to mediate between the two warring fraction in the failed state. However, during the Rwanda genocide CNN televised the event non-stop, pictures of civilians being hacked to death and images containing seas of decapitated bodies in one single village as far as the eye could see did not arouse public opinion in the US as one would have suspected. It is said that Americans watched diligently but there was only a real response to the tragedy when images were shown of refugees and starving children. (http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=3572)
What is interesting with this case, is that just two years later the same American citizens that bellowed for troops to be sent out to assist the Somali state bellowed with anger once again for their troops to come home placing enormous pressure on their government when the corpses of American troops were televised being dragged around by rebels. The American government were quick to respond and soon after took their troops out of Somalia, here shows how the American government acted in accordance with public opinion.
Friedland states that “world television not only reflects and shaped public opinion, but can actually channel events themselves.” (1992:42)
In relation to television news being used as a form of public diplomacy, it was argued in 2004 that the international Arab news network Al-Jazeera was partially responsible for anti-American perceptions as the network would have first-hand access to videos secretly dropped to their offices containing speeches by the late Osama bin Laden which were frequently aired on the network. America has gone to great lengths investing in public diplomacy in the Middle East with hope of altering perceptions and to also attempt to prohibit the spread of Al-Qaeda’s message to the Muslim world of Anti-Americanism. This is significant as arguments suggest that television news “has become a direct and perhaps even dominant actor in the formulation of policies in defence and foreign affairs” (Gilboa, 2002 in Nisbit et al, 2004: 16).
Some news national networks are considered repressive, such as Channel One in Russia whose journalist lack the freedom to report news as it is, suppression isolates the public to issues that impede their democracy and possibly detrimental to their perceptions of reality; television news mobilises and arms the masses with political information if done correctly allowing the public to think and act independent from their governments by developing their own opinions through a democratic media or otherwise. In order for public diplomacy to be affective within a news medium, news networks themselves need to practice impartiality and governments should to a great extent not interfere with organisational matters of the news network unless the network misguides the public or is undemocratic within its practices.
Reference:
Friedland. A, L (1992), Perspectives On The News covering The World International News Service, A Twentieth Century Fund Paper, Library of Congress Cataloguing In Publication Data.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-3577.2005.00211.x/full
http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=3572
http://ics01.ds.leeds.ac.uk/papers/pmt/exhibits/2088/PDTV.pdf
http://publicdiplomacy.wikia.com/wiki/Al_Jazeera
It seems there is some kind of link between sports and public diplomacy. On the one hand, there are writers, theorist, journalist, academics, etc., who claimed that sport diplomacy is an essential tool to facilitate dialogue. And on the other hand, others have argued that sports and diplomacy should not be mixed.
However, the idea of sports diplomacy is not new, it goes as far back to the era of the ancient Greeks. Sports diplomacy was identified as a mechanism of diplomacy. The Greeks originally instituted the Olympic competition in order to pay recognition to the Greek gods, Zeus. The Olympic was held every four years and it lasted for about three months. The period of the Olympics was seen as a great opportunity to peacefully negotiate the inter-city animosities. http://www.nostros.com/olympics/
Nowadays, more states are aware of the usefulness of sports as a safer and reliable instrument to foster and formulate diplomatic relations.
One of Africa’s greatest statesmen and former President of the Republic of South Africa Nelson Mandela once said of sports diplomacy, “sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. It has the power to unite people in a very way that little else does, sport can awaken hope where there was previously only despair. Sport speak to people in a language they can understand.” http://www.exchangediplomacy.com/the-power-of-sport-should-and-diplomacy-mix
If sport has the potential to do all these things, then sport has a significant role to play in public diplomacy in terms of formulating relationships between different cultures and nations. And it can provide a sort of useful vehicle to cultivate relations between two countries or states that have suffered from long-standing hostilities. A very good example that demostrates the usefulness of sports in public diplomacy is between China and United States. A group of Americans first entered China for the first time in 1971 for a series of Ping-Pong matches between the Chinese and Americans. Ping-Pong was used to reopen the lines of communication between China and America once again, (Itoh,2011, Pg.179-180).
And a more recent example that gives insight into the strong capability of sports in diplomacy is illustrated in the case of the India and Pakistan cricket diplomacy. India and Pakistan have suffered years of animosities including the 2008 Mumbai terrorists attacks, but they were able to utilise sport to bridge the gap between the two countries and formulate favourable atmosphere (Rupert,2011).
To a certain extent, sports can be utilised in public diplomacy to unlock doors of opportunity and stimulate some kind of dialogue, wherein all else have failed. Kristen Livingston argued that sport diplomacy is just like other platforms that can facilitate dialogue, “can be used as a force for good as well as bad,” Livingston said further said that has the potential to encourage positive change and unlock doors for dialogue and at the same time maintain “boundaries and identities.”
The current United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said of sport diplomacy, “sport is a language every one of us can speak, and its tool in a country’s public diplomacy arsenal is being increasingly recognised. Mixing sport and diplomacy can help meet various foreign policy objectives…..”
References:
A brief history of the Olympic Games.
http://www.nostros.com/olympics/
Accessed 30/04/2012.
Cricket Diplomacy May Smooth Tension Between India, Pakistan
By James Rupert
Accessed 30/04/2012
Itoh, M (2011) The Origin of Ping-Pong Diplomacy: The Forgotten Architect of Sino-US Rapproachement
The power of Sport: Should sport and diplomacy mix?
http://www.exchangediplomacy.com/the-power-of-sport-should-and-diplomacy-mix
By Kristen Livingston.
Accessed 30/04/2012.
Critical Review
From Telegraph to Twitter: Arms Control Diplomacy in the Information Age.
Remarks by Rose Gottemoeller
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance.
This report aims to demonstrate the changing nature and formational shift in the way technology is being used as both ground for and facilitator of dialogue in statecraft in the 21st century. Treaties and agreements are no longer contrived in seclusion but rather in the open. The revolution of the information age has altered the way diplomats carry out diplomatic affairs, diplomats now have to reconsider their tools of engagement and explore the best way to reconcile and flourish under new circumstances.
In order to illustrate the fact, the writer examines the revolution of the 19th century diplomatic technology – the telegraph. Back then the rest of the world depended on the telegraph for international diplomacy, but it was a very costly method of diplomatic practice. Aside from the cost involved, there were other defects such as, increased pressure for pressing acknowledgement and feedback, and the workload to code and decode telegrams. And it also brought about the emergence of electronic espionage.
In the report Rose Gottemoeller talked about the biggest changes in the way the State department did business, in terms of the negotiations between the United States and Russia on arms control. She said, the revolution of technological advancement was demonstrated first hand during the negotiation of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).
As a result of the growth of social media and improved webpage, the Arms Control, Verification and Compliance Bureau have been able to make information about the work they do more precise, up-to-date and attainable.
It seems the transformation of the information age has penetrating and significant effects on public diplomacy and politics for that matter. And to a certain extent, the revolution of the internet age has inhibited the competence of traditional public diplomacy and in the process unlocks new opportunities for the practice of diplomacy.
From the report, we learnt that the invention of the telegraph led to significant changes in the way diplomacy was practiced, but the introduction of technology has lengthen the strides of information and Communication Technologies, it has now become even cheaper and attracts a never ending audience. All this change was brought about mostly by the internet.
The revolution of the Internet brought within it the tools to make possible the free flow of information, as a result, information is no longer controlled by government officials but can be attained by the general public. In essence, governments have lost the monopoly they had over the control of information, and this has led change from secrecy to transparency. Diplomats now have the enormous responsibility to take into account the opinion of the general public.
The revolution of information has made it possible for the internet to become a powerful platform to effect change in the domain of foreign affairs. But it has also brought about side effects that are fundamental in the practices and characteristics of diplomacy. One of the side effects is speed, worldwide media have the capability to provide news from faraway places within a matter of seconds and instigate immediate diplomatic response, as a result diplomats are under tremendous obligation to respond swiftly as in the invent between the United States and Russia in their negotiation of a new START treaty.
The other side effects is security, just like in the days of the yesteryears with the telegrams, there is tendency for information sent via email, tweets,etc, to become lost or even corrupted. And finally the tendency to be misunderstood. Diplomats must be very careful when communicating with the general public, otherwise the misconception of their message can have damaging effects.
“FCO Public Diplomacy: The Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012.”
A report by House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2010–11 (by authority of the House of Commons London 🙂
The aim of this report was to help the Foreign Office on how to promote the UK national interest, by using the advantages of the Olympic games, and also what lessons can Britain learn from the former big game hosts such Beijing Olympics, or FIFA World Cup in South Africa. The City of London in Great Britain will host the world’s favourite games “Olympics” in July 2012 which roughly are a few weeks away. The British government and its people are looking forward to welcoming the whole world into their country with open arms. Above excitement of the game’s and the economic prosperity that the game will undoubtedly bring to Britain, however, the main focus of this report was much more than that. The UK government are using this once in a generation opportunity to boost their public diplomacy in order to improve their national reputation to the rest of the world and pursue their national interest. The expectation is that the game will maintain and strengthen the UK diplomacy to enhance and captivate the attention for the international audience. Furthermore, the committee has advised on the FCO to continue the temptation to the international community to be inspired for the excellent British cultural and its values. So the FCO must capture this opportunity and use to promote the British Culture.
The report indicates that the term public diplomacy has been using for around half a century and the need for the City of London diplomacy is ever increasing, therefore, the committee has highlighted a number of key issues that need to be considered. “The concepts of ‘public diplomacy’ and ‘soft power’ have developed over the past fifty years. Public diplomacy has been defined as: the transparent means by which a sovereign country communicates with publics in other countries aimed at informing and influencing audiences overseas for the purpose of promoting the national interest and advancing its foreign policy goals.” (Foreign Affairs Committee second report 2010-2011) As public diplomacy is not anything but to promote the state interest and to have an influence on the other sovereignty states, the committee report has setts out four main strategies which are security, national interest, prosperity and a cross-government approach. Security: it is the number one priority for the British government to make sure that everyone feels secure and safe while they remain in UK during the Olympic Games, and anything that compromises the safety of the people will jeopardize the stat’s reputation and its image to the rest of the worlds. Therefore, it is important that the government should tighten its national security. “To enhance our security by harnessing the global appeal of the Olympics, particularly among the young, to reinforce values of tolerance.” (Foreign Affairs Committee second report 2010-2011)
National Interest: to establish a strong foreign policy, the UK government is using the Olympics to promote their culture. “To contribute to UK foreign policy goals by using the profile of the Olympics to promote British culture and values at home and abroad.” (FAC report, 2010-2011) Prosperity: Under the global economic difficulties Britain is looking forward to gain economic prosperity during the Olympic Games, and the report emphasised how important it is for the British business to target more commercial opportunity. Cross-Government: Report notified that to enhance the co-operation between The UK government and the other stat’s are important, in order to protect the common global interest. Finally, the report concluded “that the Olympic Games in 2012 are once in a generation opportunity for the UK to attract the attention and interest of the entire global community.” (FAC report, 2010-2011)
Follow the link to see the full report.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmfaff/581/581.pdf
Liberia and Sierra Leone are two countries situated on the west coast of Africa. They share common border, culture, languages, etc. They had different colonial masters, and a few other things in common in terms of culture.
However, both countries have a dark past in terms of the decade of civil wars and violence that affected the citizens and infrastructure in both countries. These civil wars damaged their reputation and image amongst African countries and the entire globe. Even though the wars have ended, they have struggled to rebuild and change the worldwide perception through various means.
Simon Anholt argued that against the idea of “nation branding” even though he was the one that coined the phrase “nation branding” in 1996 (Anholt, 1998). He said the phrase is dangerously misleading as a result of the distortion by governments that are naive and consulting firms. But Simon argued further that, “countries are judged by what they do, not by what they say, as they have always been; yet the notion that a country can simply advertise its way into a better reputation has proved to be a pernicious and surprising resilient one.”
In my opinion, I think countries can utilise the techniques used by companies to rebrand their products. In essence, nations have the capacity to rebrand their image and reputation if it’s been damaged and destroyed as in the case with Liberia and Sierra Leone in the early 1990s. The opinion and perception of these two countries (Liberia and Sierra Leone) has been very negative because of the nature of the civil war.
In the case of Liberia, the violence inflicted on the innocent civilians became the order of the day. At one point during the war, the rest of the world became a spectator to the ruthless assassination of one of their former President Samuel K. Doe. But more recently, Liberia has emerged from obscurity and made significant changes. The citizen of that nation has rebuilt an image that is enviable by African countries if not across the globe. Liberia has had two successful free and air elections as declared, in which they have elected and re-elected the first woman in Africa as president (President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf). She has built a reputation for Liberia that was once known for severe and extreme violence. She was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her role in the peace process in Liberia, and amongst other things, she has made considerable efforts to bring Liberia back into the international folds and perhaps reopen Liberia to the world market. http://potatoegreens.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/post-conflict-liberia-search-for.html
Sierra Leone is a country in Africa went through circumstances and situation similar to Liberia. Sierra Leone also endured civil war, violence and political unrest from the early 1990s that lasted over a decade. Before all these calamities, Sierra Leone was well known for the quality of its education and resources, for that matter it was nicked named the Athens of Africa. But the decade of extreme violence severely affected how individuals worldwide viewed Sierra Leone.
However, Sierra Leone has emerged from those dark days and stands out as an example of positive change in Africa. Sierra Leone today has enjoyed over ten years of peace, and the political climate has been impressive. The soldiers in Sierra Leone were once considered Africa’s worst armies as a result of the extreme violence they inflicted on the innocent civilians, but today they have turned over a new leaf. They have drawn about 160 of its soldiers that were once considered “Sobels” “soldiers by day and rebels by night,” to contribute to the mixed forces of soldiers and police in the UN and African Union peace process in Darfur, Sudan. http://www.economist.com/node/15825772
If this is not a rebranding of these two nations, Liberia and Sierra Leone, then am not sure what to call it. But as far as Anoush Rima Tatevossian is concern, she argued that there are two types of nation branding, and that it is very essential to distinguish between the two types (Tatevossian, 2008). Anoush argued that the first of nation branding is “when a nation seeks to reposition itself or correct pre-existing/out-of-date notions about the state in order to reflect fundamental political, economic and/or social changes that have emerged in the country.”
References:
Anholt, S (1998) “Nation-Brands of the Twenty-First Century,” Journal of Brand Management Vol.5, No.6, Pg.395-406
Tatevossian, A.R (2008) “Domestic society’s (often-neglected) role in nation branding,” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. Vol.4, Pg.182-190
From the onset the report emphasises on the theory and strategy of communication in a bid to harmonise interagency coordination. The report takes a clear stand by explaining that a change in strategic communication is a ‘shared responsibility’ which has produced some crucial results. The author appears not to be convincing in terms of the nature of these results as “we still have much ground to cover”. This suggests that the success of these changes is much mitigated. Although the report advocates for more integration and close working relations between interagency, thereby conveying ‘credible and consistent message’, it falls short in defusing the ambiguities surrounding the term ‘strategic communication’ http://work911.com/articles/comstrat.htm . This is certainly because the notion is socially constructed and fit for a purpose hence a deliberate communication engagement is expected to be sending a specific message easily decoding by the interagency working group.
The report failed to adequately consider the fact that by using a deliberate communication tactics, it is actually justifying the creation of new capabilities as new elements come into the picture when decision-making is in process (Mitchell D. and Massoud, T.G. 2009:278). The reason behind this logic is that synchronising words and deeds between different governments’ agencies necessarily entails a minimum of renovation within one or two agency. The report has several realist scents within it. Furthering the US government’s interests, policies and objectives might be the ultimate goals of interagency but this attitude is narrow and selfish considering the wider sphere and definition of public diplomacy and moreover considering the intended audiences which is global.
Building on the theory of communicative strategy, the author highlighted the necessity for ‘traditional and non-traditional partners’ to influence common goals. This means that a great amount of civilians efforts are in symbiosis with military one as it constitute the grand vision of the US national security goals which are a long term project. Analysis of the discourse of national security through the strategy for deliberate communication and engagement shows that the US stance on this matter is ambivalent. First this strategy is based on mutual respect between the US and the Muslim Communities for instance. Second, this strategy, while preaching peaceful dialogue, mounts serious counter-action against violent extremism. This example shows that ‘efforts to communicate and engage’ are part of the planning communication and the strategic planning which are ongoing process and are the ambit of the Strategic Communication Interagency Policy Committees (IPCs). While communication and engagement are the first step towards the evaluation on an in-depth security mechanism based on information, research, intelligence and analysis, it also provides useful and comprehensive policy goals. Practical issues such as the fight against terror, discrediting Al-Qaeda and violent extremist ideology although part of the synchronisation contain credible message value on which the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council heavily rely on.
The report is very articulate and used direct arguments, backed up with example to depict the role and responsibilities of each agency and each government official. The powerful writing style makes it difficult to gauge the success of the communication and engagement strategy. The report on this point acknowledged that the success of this method is somewhat difficult to assess due to parameters related to audience’s perceptions and certain margins of error. Given the sensitivity of the subject, it could be argued that the report does not present the bigger picture, selecting particular snippets of information, designed to manipulate the audience into a certain mind-set.
References:
Bacal & Associates, Special Report: Internal Communication Strategies – The Neglected Strategic Element available at http://work911.com/articles/comstrat.htm Accessed on 20th April 2012.
Mitchell D. and Massoud, T.G. Anatomy of Failure: Bush’s Decision-Making Process and the Iraq War in Foreign Policy Analysis 2009, Issue 5. Bucknell University Press.
To begin with, it is important to highlight what is nation branding in order to answer the question. Bear in mind that the concept of the nation branding is new and therefore, it would be difficult to give a clear definition. However, the nation branding can be said it is way of country represented itself to the outside world by promoting its culture; build its reputation with an aim of influence her foreign affairs as well as the promotion of the soft power. It can be argued nation branding is one of the powerful elements of the public cultural diplomacy, so it is important to keep rebranding the nation as the message reaches simultaneously both the citizen of the other state and their government, so the government should not only targeted the other government but to the public as well. According to Anholt “The idea of public diplomacy is that government need to represent their countries to foreign publics and not only to other governments.” (Anholt and Hildreth 2010 p, 49) therefore, targeting the audience from the other states will boost and improve the reputation of the state. Furthermore, the spread of the globalization is affecting fast to the whole world, and the world becoming a global village so the nation branding is extremely essential to the country power and its ability to act and influence to the rest of world. “Today the world is one market. The rapid advance of globalization means that every country, every city and every region must compete with every other for its share of the world’s consumers, tourist, investors, students, entrepreneurs, international sporting, and cultural events, and for the attention and respect for the international media, of other government and the people of other countries.” (Anholt 2007, P. 1) therefore, it is important that the country to keep rebranding its image, and the more the state improved its brand is more the country receives respect and influence the other states. “The aim is to create a clear, simple, differentiating idea built around emotional qualities which can be symbolised both verbally and visually and understood by diverse audiences in a variety of situations. To work effectively, nation branding must embrace political, cultural, business and sport activities” (www.bura.brunel.ac.uk, 2006) Therefore, one can argued that the nation branding plays an important role for the state to enhance its competitions to the other world and to hold its position. So to conclude the nation branding has a huge impact for the country reputation and influence to great extent for the image of the state.
Bibliography
Anholt, S. and Hildreth, J. (2010) Brand America, The making, unmaking and Remaking of the Greatest national Image of All Time:
Published in London, United Kingdom by Marshall Cavendish
Anholt, S. (2007) Competitive Identity: The new Brand management for Nations, cities and Regions.
Published in New York, United States of America by Palgrave Macmillan.
Fan, Y. (2006) Branding the Nation: What Is Being Branded?
Journal of Vacation Marketing, (2006) 12:1, 5-14. (Available online at) http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/1286/3/BrandingNat.pdf
Published in London, United Kingdom by Brunel Business School, Brunel University
The key objectives for nation branding are: export promotion, tourism promotion and attracting inward investments. Although there are other reasons behind individual nation-branding campaigns i.e. attracting skilled labour, positioning the nation as the best place to study and attracting foreign students by encouraging competiveness in high education. Of these three, tourism promotion is the activity that has traditionally been the most adapt in using the traditional techniques of brand management and brand strategy. However, export promotion and inward investment are also crucial as recently, nations are beginning to realise the importance of establishing a positive country reputation (Anholt, 2002:36). In terms of exports for example, there is a need to promote the maiden mark, for example
the ‘made in Japan’ adds value and it’s also a sign of prestige and good quality, whereas the ‘made in China’ 
has not yet achieved the same status. More so, countries need to position themselves as an attractive place to invest in business and to engage in joint ventures and so on.
Culture can and do often play a vital role in nation branding and promoting the image of a country; i.e. it is a necessary component, especially in countries that suffer from negative image (China) or countries whose image is largely/exclusively centred on tourism (France).
Cultural tourism is one of the highest-yielding, fastest-growing aspects of tourism because a rich cultural life is a better reward that just a simple destination (Dinnie, 2007:59). For example Spain
in 2009 (Travel and Tourism Competiveness Index and Tourism Brand Dimensions Ranking 2009).
Most developed states have a range of cultural attractions through historical and heritage sights, for example UK’s Buckingham Palace 
and Live 8 Concerts. However, for a cultural attraction or event to be a brand-magnet, it has to have ‘a mature pulling power’ built up through years of excellence or in the case of the relatively new Live 8, be so unique and irresistible in its captivating influence (Papadopoulus, 2009:98)
The fundamental attractions of cultural sights/events are: they give people a great experience and great stories to tell others through original, first-hand take on events, which in-turn becomes unforgettable and irresistible in self-propel others to partake. This is indeed a classical, cost-effective medium for marketing products/ideas to a mass public.
References:
Dinnie, K. Nation branding: concepts, issues, practice, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007
Anholt, S. Nation Branding, Journal of Brand Management Volume 9, Issue 4 and 5 Henry Stewart Publications, 2002.
Papadopoulos, N. Place branding and product-place image effects, London: Henry Stewart Talks, 2009
At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, many people throughout Europe were familiar with the term ‘The Sick Man of Europe’ and they would have readily been able to identify that as The Ottoman Empire, modern day Turkey. Today, because of the Eurozone crisis, there are several countries perceived as ‘Sick Men of Europe’, but the one which is probably thought of as the sickest, is Greece.
The Greek ‘brand’ has been hijacked by one single issue – that of the Euro – and current perceptions seem to be wholly refracted through that issue. Diplomacy itself seems to have been also hijacked by it, through the media and the ratings agencies such as Standard and Poors.
Set against this, are efforts by business and community leaders in Greece, launched in December 2011 by The Athens Chamber of Commerce, through a newly formed organization ‘Repower Greece’. Adopting a multilayered programme of grassroots campaigns, public relations and public diplomacy, it undertakes what is described as ‘Our duty to redefine the role and advance the prospects of Greece through results oriented perceptions’, (IRDS 2011). There is a clarion call to members of the public in many walks of life to engage in a personal and organizational diplomacy. The website proclaims ‘Repower Greece offers to everyone the opportunity to support the campaign and became an ambassador of a country that moves on, evolves, corrects its mistakes and reclaims its role and influence on the international chessboard’, according to the Institute of Regional Dialogue and Strategy.
This raises questions as to the extent to which such personal and non-governmental organizational ‘diplomacy’ at a micro level, can succeed. Clearly in an age of enhanced interpersonal and organizational communication there are greater opportunities than ever
And ‘Repower Greece’ suggests using ‘the social networks that you use, you can suggest to your contacts/friends to Like Us on Facebook. Join us on LinkedIn and follow us on Twitter’.
This view is predicated upon the infinite possibility of change but Greece already has a strong image – the Greek ‘brand’ and its national features are well known. The Greek situation is not that it lacks a strong identity, but that it has one, but that many of its characteristics are seen as negative. These include perceptions of Greeks being noisy, anarchic, and disorganized – memories of the Olympics and Athens’ traffic abide.
Critics of attempts to either pretend these characteristics do not exist, or can be changed say this is not credible. They cannot be changed. Public diplomatic activity would be much better expended and be received with far greater credibility if such attributes were tackled not denied. What is a negative characteristic in one context can be very positive in another. For example, Greek joie de vivre, heroism, hospitality and entrepreneurial spirit. Dealing with problems, in relation to tourism, talking of lifestyle, and doing business respectively they become very positive attributes. The Greek characteristic of improvisation is very positive when seen as resourcefulness in different situations. The image of noisiness can be seen as characteristic of people who discuss and exchange ideas – having the largest proportion of newspapers per capital in the world.
The best use of new opportunities for people-to-people diplomacy is clearly uncertain.
References
Institute of Regional Dialogue and Strategy, 2011, ‘Repower Greece’, available at: http://www.ipedis.org/details.php?id=406&lan=en, (Accessed 03/02/2012)
2011,‘Repower Greece: The Initiative’, Available at: http://www.repowergreece.com, (accessed 03/02/2012)
Public diplomacy is the conduct by governments, of international relations through public communications media, face-to-face interaction, and educational exchanges with a wide range of bodies such as multinational businesses, trades unions, interested parties in other countries in order to influence other governments and their actions, according to Prof Alan Henrikson of Tufts University. (Szoydi 2008)
Clearly at its simplest, the internet provides further means of communication in addition to the traditional and long established ones of television, radio, and newspapers. But does the internet herald a completely new set of possibilities, quite different to these established ones?
Internet search engines, Facebook, Twitter, and blogging: theoretically, this is a form of globalization, insofar as it removes barriers to international interaction in terms of communication. This theoretically free flow of communication ought to have an impact on public diplomacy.
Naturally though, what is sauce for the individual goose is also sauce for the corporate and governmental gander. Everyone uses them, in pursuit of their causes. In theory, anything that anyone puts out on the internet can be disseminated, and accessed if they wish it to be.
Optimists might argue that it fosters the principles of Francis Bacon who wrote in the 17th Century: ‘If a man be gracious and courteous to strangers, it shows he is a citizen of the world, and that his heart is no island cut off from other lands, but a continent that joins them’. (Montagu1859:1)
These two positions indicate that the internet is both a medium which in theory can be used to access everyone who uses it, but also that this is a community of individuals as well. Bacon’s quotation is predicated upon the principles of courteousness and graciousness. In other words a disposition towards a set of actions which will bring about the situation that ‘his heart is no island cut off’. The task then for governments and their conduct of public diplomacy is how to create that disposition where individuals will seek out and become involved in the output of governments and their various organs. Elliott Schrage, Facebook’s Vice President of Global Communications, in an interview said;
‘The State Department is now Twittering. From an outreach perspective it seems like there’s a problem or at least a limitation for governments wanting to use these sorts of social networking technologies, because the people signing up for their feeds or their fan pages are going to be the people who want to be hearing that government’s message anyway’. (Schrage 2011)
So, in Bacon’s terms, there is the problem. It’s that disposition to want to care about a particular issue or message or government policy.
Single issue politics and social action linked to Facebook are common: Schrage cites the way the worldwide Columbian community was marshaled to protest against the activities of FARC, the Columbian militants or President Obama’s six million supporters in relation to his re-election campaign.
The question is how to grow a community of involvement in supporting your issue: friends of course on Facebook disseminate to their friends and so there is the possibility of a kind of ‘virus of interest’.
Social networks then, are available but the governmental strategies for using them are probably in their infancy. Radio television and newspapers are unidirectional. They deliver but they can only limitedly interact. That is the task facing governments in their utilization of the internet for public diplomacy. All those Baconian Islands, waiting to be out-reached. If governments become really subtle, that is a somewhat alarming thought. With information derived from internet based commercial sources and Facebook itself, focused targeting on individuals could become a key weapon in the soft-war of insinuated disinformation based on knowledge of individuals or group’s predilections.
The National Trust in Great Britain who have conducted a recent unsuccessful campaign against new planning regulations affecting the countryside know all too well though that at the end of the day, often hard power and finessing away the key opposition points of objection still gets you what you want.
References
Gyorgy. N, 2008 ‘Public diplomacy and Nation Branding: Conceptual Similarities and differences’(online: published 08/2008), Available at:
http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2008/20081022_pap_in_dip_nation_branding.pdf (Accessed 18/02/2012)
Montagu, B. 1859, ‘The Works of Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor of England’, Vol. 1, Parry and McMillan
Schrage, E. 2009 ‘New Media Tools and Public Diplomacy’, http://www.cfr.org, (online: published 11/05/2009), Available at:
http://www.cfr.org/public-diplomacy/new-media-tools-public-diplomacy/p19300, (Accessed 24/02/2012)
Exchange programs have provided a much underrated contribution towards achieving US foreign policy objectives since WW2. The Informational and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 was marshalled by Representative Karl E. Mundt and Senator H. Alexander Smith to promote, through educational and cultural exchange “a better understanding of the United States in other countries, and to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries” (http://us-code.vlex.com/vid/congressional-declaration-objectives-19201023 ). This act established the International Visitors Program (IVP) in 1952, a professional exchange program funded by the US Department of State Office of International Visitors in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. Although the IVP has no written statement of purpose, Dr. Sherry L. Mueller, identified 2 main goals: 1. To connect foreign leaders with their American counterparts, by providing a strong professional experience and thorough exploration of vital matters and diverse a balanced approach(s) in resolving them. 2. To enable visitors gain better understanding of the American history and heritage and a better knowledge of Americans and their values (Mueller, 2006:63).
During the 1980s Britain was a vital strategic ally for America in regards to NATO modernization and transatlantic relations. Therefore the fact that the Labour Party expressed hostility was a matter of deep concern for US Policy-makers, especially as the Labour government favoured unilateral nuclear disarmament. The U.S. sought to tackle this concern by employing the IVP to introduce new ideas to Labour and develop a better understanding of Americans among Labour members (Scott-Smith 2006:229). The US Embassy political officers targeted their invitations to aspiring Labourites who displayed the potential to modernize or atlanticize the party. According to Political Officer Robert Hopper, the aim was “to try and get Labourites to be more internationalized” or Atlanticize (Hooper, 2006:353). The US achieved this by offering among others Gordon Brown a place in the IVP in 1984.
According to the US Embassy, Brown was “already being seen as a leading light” and hence he has never been to America, “the IVP will give him an ideal opportunity to learn first-hand about US politician systems and meet his American counterparts”. This is not only ideal for professionals (Brown) to enhance their careers and status, more importantly, it is ideal for generating empathy with US interests, establishing “channels of communications with specific audiences” thus reaching a wider public (Mueller, 1982)
References:
- Hooper, R. ‘Political Officer, US Embassy London 1982-1986’ in Osgood, K. A. The United States and Public Diplomacy: New Directions in Cultural and International History. Martinus Nijhoff, 2010.
- Mueller, S and Kiehled, W. P. Professional Exchanges, Citizen Diplomacy and Credibility in Dialogue with the World, Washington DC: Public Diplomacy Council 2006.
- Mueller, S. “US Exchange of Persons Programs: A question of Quality” paper given to the Conference of the International Studies Association, Anneheim, 28 March 1982.
- Scott-Smith, G. “Searching for the Successor Generation: Public Diplomacy, the US Embassy’s International Visitors Program and Labour Party in the 1980s”. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 8 2006 pages 214-237.
- US Code- Title 22: Foreign Relations and Intercourse: http://us-code.vlex.com/vid/congressional-declaration-objectives-19201023 Accessed on 5 April 2012
“Any attempt to manage a nations’ image needs to be grounded in reality and resonate with the identity and self-perception of the nation”
(Werther, C, 2011:1)
New Labour came into power in 1997 and with it came a bundle of new ideas and innovations of how Britain could market itself in the international arena, after the think tank Demos stated that “Britain image is stuck in the past”, the Government felt it was time for Britain to unloosen its tie and do away with the comfy slippers and smokers pipe that were usually required for quiet evenings in front of the fireplace.
In its attempts to rebrand itself New Labour came up with a slogan and image for Britain simply noted as ‘Cool Britannia’, which Labour thought would catapult the country in to the realm of absolute hipness, Britain was to be branded on being trendy, new and in vogue representing British art, music, food, fashion and all those other things concerning popular culture that one would not solely associate with a states strengths.
The one sided campaign of Britain, attracted many critics who felt that other industries such as manufacturing and technology were excluded from the campaign which unquestionably also has a very important role in British economy.
It was all rather one-dimensional and the British media also demolished this concept at every given opportunity. Continuing on from its lack of diversity, ‘Cool Britannia’ seemed to be focused on London rather than United Kingdom as a whole. Moreover, critics proclaimed that even representing ‘London’ has failed. However, Cool Britannia even failed to represent real Londoners who like the rest of England felt totally disconnected to the campaign. I would argue that nation branding should capture the very essence of the nation in its entirety; nation rebranding is not a task that can be performed over night and requires great effort to ensure that all are included and represented.
One cannot brand a nation, as one would do with Dior’s new summer collection or Tesco’s new and improved fish cakes, there is far too much to consider. Arguably with a nation as matured as England branding should focus and expand on the positive things that people associate with the country other than trying to make the nation appear to be something that clearly everyone knows it is not, there is no reason why modern and traditional Britain cannot be branded together appealing to a greater audience. Dr Ying Fan of Brunel University states that “the product-country image is imbedded as part of the product brand, and is meaningless if separated from the product” (2006:2).
Yes Britain produces some of the finest artsy stuff, but Britain has a broad external audience who are interested in various aspects of the country, getting rid of the traditional elements (which I must say still keeps vast amounts of tourist flooding into the country every year) whilst bidding to sell the country to a young audience was not the best avenue for New Labour to take. It is unlikely that a 60 year old couple from Americas Mid-West would solely visit Britain because of the popular 90s band Oasis or with visions of meeting Ginger Spice.
Cool Britannia failed to tune into what was really British by doing away with traditional British imagery associated with the country and selling itself on one global sub concept.
There are great places to shop in Britain and fantastic places to hang out to make yourself look cool, but, tourists visit England because it is England and supposedly somewhat unique to where they have come from. There were many issues with the Cool Britannia campaign, a lack of time, understanding and realistic goals were additionally fundamental to its failures.
Nation branding is a new concept, arguments fly about continually relating to weather it is possible to nation brand or not…well I think it is, but it takes time to implement any new concept.
For branding to be a success, one must have essential understanding of the nation itself, I mean…if you can’t sell a nation to its own inhabitants then how on earth will you sell it to those externally?
References:
Click to access BrandingNat.pdf
http://ojs.ub.gu.se/ojs/index.php/modernasprak/article/viewFile/664/616
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society/politics-policy-people/sociology/re-branding-britain
Dinnie, K, 2008, Nation Branding – Concepts, Issues, Practice, Elsevier LTD, Oxford
Reading some thoughtful and highly interesting posts and literature on citizen diplomacy, I felt the urge to dwell into this academic field myself, focusing on the more theoretical and ethical aspects of it. There is something about this topic that makes it provocative, if one likes. Whilst public diplomacy clearly challenges boundaries of traditional diplomacy, citizen diplomacy seems to cut across even more layers in terms of how we perceive diplomacy and the actors able to conduct it. The phenomenon of celebrities engaging in diplomatic work resembles one aspect of the broader debate on global governance and transnational civil society (Stein 2008), as these actors sometimes work close to some of the most powerful decision-makers. As such, it forces us to discuss what role these actors should and can play in effecting policy-making.
Advances within technology and information have enabled ordinary individuals to organize, spread their word and gain attention on an international scale (Cooper 2007: 5-6). It has also changed the environment in which celebrities operate in, with the development of social media and the current 24/7 media reporting. Celebrity diplomats have managed to make use of this environment in order to raise attention to issues stretching beyond the boundaries of their celebrity hood – advocating humanitarian causes and talking about issues relating to poverty, migration and debt relief, to mention some examples (Stein 2008: 2).
With the background of what seems to be an increasing global dissatisfaction with current international organizations to effectively deal with issues such as poverty and inequality – the large demonstrations during WTO and G20-meetings prove this point (Hamill 2009) – celebrities have tried to ‘skip over the classic structures and target problem-solving effects directly’ (Stein 2008: 21). If one views these actors as part of a global civil society, which aims to balance the power of governments and work as a democratic element in international politics, they do offer some opportunities and benefits.
(no reference information given)
One of the strengths that celebrities have vis-à-vis governments, is that they do not have the same type of national strains that politicians do: they are not required or expected to push for a certain agenda or to represent the interests of one country. As such, they can talk more freely, perhaps more genuine some would say, and speak in favor of those whom otherwise may remain unheard. Further, because of their celebrity status, they have the ability to attract media in ways that ordinary individuals do not. Some scholars are positive about this development and sees the opportunities that celebrity diplomacy offers: ‘Bono – or as it can be recast, Bonoization – remains extremely well suited to vie successfully with those images that have traditionally occupied the elevated spaces on the global stage’ (Cooper 2008: 271). Others have suggested that it may change the image of celebrities and give the industry a social and ethical touch to it – promoting ideals such as environmentalism to its audiences (Tsaliki, Frangonikolopoulos, Huliaras 2011: 9).
Yet, there are areas of concern. In a highly competitive environment, celebrities gain attention and receive media attraction by appealing to basic instincts and feelings. Just like celebrities need to compete for attention with others in issues such as fashion, the same conditions apply ‘to humanitarian issues on the global stage, which must compete for attention within a mediated environment driven by ratings and funded by advertising’ (Tait 2011: 158). These conditions may result in oversimplification of highly complex issues such as poverty alleviation and aid. Yes, celebrities definitely have the ability to raise awareness about certain issues, but the understanding it brings about may be very superficial. (Dieter, Kumar 2008: 260-261) Some make the example of U2’s singer and celebrity diplomat Bono’s constant focus on increased aid as an instrument for poverty alleviation in African countries, without acknowledging the argument that aid perhaps hurts more than it helps (ibid).
A more recent example resembling this type of complexity is the campaign “Kony 2012” initiated by the organization Invisible Children (2012). Several celebrities, such as Rihanna, George Clooney, and Bono, have shown their support to the campaign (ibid), to help raise awareness of this issue. However, in its simplicity, the campaign fails to inform about the complexities of the problem, as well as to discuss the broader political implications of a possible military intervention in Uganda (Cohen 2012). As such, one may argue that celebrities sometimes take on too much responsibility while lacking the adequate competence.
Whilst this is an important aspect of the difficulties with celebrity diplomats, there are other aspects that perhaps deserve even more attention – problems relating to crucial democratic processes such as representation and accountability (Cooper 2007: 18-19). As mentioned above, one of the benefits that celebrity diplomacy offers, is that celebrities do not have to act according to a certain national agenda and that they therefore can speak in favor of the broader public. However, one may ask who they truly represent. Can they really claim to represent the “world’s poor” when nobody have elected them for this job? And how do we hold them accountable if we do not agree? Further, in the literature on celebrity diplomacy, most celebrities that are mentioned seem to be from the global North. One may discuss whether this affect the type of opinions that are put forth, but it is a point that clearly deserves attention and consideration.
Whilst there are huge disagreements between people in regards to the need for, the effectiveness of, and the legitimacy of citizen diplomacy, it seems inappropriate to simply write it off and disregards its potential. However, as have been elaborated on above, there are some clear areas of concerns that need to be considered when discussing the role that celebrities should play in the field of diplomacy. When a certain group of people gains more power and influence in international politics, it should be accompanied with a certain degree of accountability and responsibility as well – it is time we start requiring this.
References
Cohen. N, 2012, “A Video Campaign and the Power of Simplicity”, The New York Times, online: published 11 March 2012, Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/business/media/kony-2012-video-illustrates-the-power-of-simplicity.html, Accessed: 3 April 2012;
Cooper. A. F, 2007, “Celebrity Diplomacy and the G8: Bono and Bob as Legitimate International Actors”, Working Paper: The Center for International Governance Innovation;
Cooper. A. F, 2008, “Beyond One Image Fits All: Bono and the Complexity of Celebrity Diplomacy”, Global Governance, vol. 14;
Dieter. H, Kumar. R, 2008, “The Downside of Celebrity Diplomacy: The Neglected Complexity of Development”, Global Governance, vol. 14;
Hamill. S. D, “Pittsburgh Seeks 4,000 Extra Police Officers to Help With the Group of 20 Meeting”, The New York Times, published 22 August 2009, Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/us/23pittsburgh.html, [Accessed 3 April 2012];
Invisible Children, 2012, online, Available at: http://www.invisiblechildren.com/ [Accessed: 3 April 2012];
Stein. T, 2008, “Global Social and Civil Entrepreneurs: An Answer to the Poor Performance of Global Governance?”, Discussion Paper: Social Science Research Center Berlin, Available at: http://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2008/iv08-304.pdf, [Accessed: 3 April 2012];
Tait. S, 2011, in Tsaliki. L, Frangonikolopoulos. C, Huliaras. A, 2011, eds, Transnational Celebrity Activism in Global Politics: Changing the World?, Intellect;
Tsaliki. L, Frangonikolopoulos. C, Huliaras. A, 2011, Transnational Celebrity Activism in Global Politics: Changing the World?, eds, Intellect
Article review
The EU Insight (July 2010)
This article defines public diplomacy from the European point view. It states clearly the role of the EU Public Diplomacy model in carrying this important task of promoting Europeans image abroad and also to achieve their foreign affairs policies. Moreover, the Europeans relies on ‘soft power’ to accomplish their aims, they engage with both foreign public and policy makers in foreign states so they can build a lasting and a sustainable relationships. the EU goals are achieved not only by setting different policies that promotes European values, economic, and culture with foreign population and states, but also by integrating policies internally to have the best approach and support to many global challenges that need global approach such as climate change, security, poverty, hunger and diseases.
Moreover, the EU commit itself to reach set target’s through diplomatic activities such as building influence with both EU member states and non-EU member states, diplomatic actions are aimed to improve awareness and the overall understanding of the EU. To accomplish this targets the EU engage with the EU citizens by monitoring their opinions, explaining any taken decisions, stimulate public debates on different matters and set extensive educational exchange between students of EU member states. In non-EU countries the EU initiated more than 130 EU delegations to promote EU values and engage with citizens and decision makers of the host countries, the Europeans aim is to enhance the understanding of the EU.
Engaging with the decision- makers
As a result of the communication revolution of our era, this has transformed both transmission and the access to information forever as this article highlights, therefore, reminds us of the role of the internet and its impact by shifting the decision makers from traditional concept to new form where the people of country could influence decisions, a task facilitated by the rise in use of social networks. Therefore, the EU public diplomacy tries to anticipate any events by paying attention to all social groups and by recognising that global issues they not only needs a dialogue with the elite’s but also with any interested pressure groups in any country in the world.
Public diplomacy and the Lisbon treaty
The Lisbon treaty came into force on 01/12/2009 to enhance the EU public diplomacy department by the creation of the European External Action Services (EEAS). Its main target is to support a single treaty strategy of effective diplomacy, therefore, to unify EU public diplomacy and smooth the path for collective actions.
The delegation of the European Union to the United States
The main part of this article focuses on the EU public diplomacy actions directed to the US government and citizens represented by a delegation that had an office in Washington since 1954. Not only presents the EU to the US administration and the congress, but also engages with political actors, the media, academia, business circles and civil society. Its activities include:
Long-term Relationships Building
- The EU visitors program is a study visit directed to promising young leaders.
- The annual press visit for graduate journalism students.
- The European Union Delegation Internship Program that offers new college student and recent graduate the opportunity to work in the EU most active diplomatic missions.
Academic Programs
- EU Fellows program is a partnership with American universities that hosts EU students.
- Euro Challenge is an annual intellectual completion that promotes the understanding of the EU.
- Erasmus Mundus program which offers non-EU students a scholarship in European universities.
- Atlantis program aimed for student exchange between the US and the EU.
- EU centre of excellence that supports 10 centres in universities throughout the US.
- Jean Monnet program which funds university level teaching on European integration.
Cultural programs
- Kid’s euro fest is a collective program that involves all the EU member states with major cultural institutions in Washington DC.
- Europe week is a celebration that takes place every year in May where EU embassies welcome the general public.
- EU film Showcase is an annual cultural program presented by the American Film Institute (AFI).
Media relations
- The delegation helps the development of well informed media coverage’s of matters relating the EU-US relations.
Outreach
- Missions and speaking engagements
- Getting to know Europe
Information Programs
- Web the EU maintains a comprehensive website.
- Publications are the prints and electronic papers produced by the EU Delegation to increase the understanding of the EU.
- Public Inquiries the EU delegation’s provides detailed information about the EU.
Website
http://www.eurunion.org/eu/images/stories/euinsightpubdipl-7-10.pdf
Lord’s (2008) report Voices of America aims at highlighting those aspects of American public diplomacy that can be improved in order to better deal with the challenges America faces in regards to its negative image in many parts of the world. The underlying idea is that due to the increase of democratic states, the importance of ideologies in today’s conflicts, the global nature of today’s challenges, and the importance of soft power, foreign publics and opinion are more important than ever. At the same time, the revolution in technology and information has empowered the individual as well as enabled the development of non-state actors and networks operating across national boundaries. Lord’s report aims to identify what new types of strategies and tools are required when engaging with foreign audiences in this new political environment that the United States is operating in. (Lord 2008: 8-9)
These strategies include co-operating with non-state actors, employing new technology – such as using the Internet and social media, focusing on long-term strategies, as well as listen to – and try to understand – foreign audiences. Based upon these factors, Lord’s suggestions seem to coincide quite well with the ideas of the so called new public diplomacy, mainly elaborated on by Melissen (2005). The new public diplomacy stresses the importance of two-way communication and the need to engage in an honest dialogue with your audience in order to fully understand their perspectives (ibid: 182). If a message is to be perceived as credible, the carrier needs to listen alongside simply talking (Cull 2010: 12). Further, a crucial recognition made by Lord in the report is the need to increase the congruence between policy and practice. It is impossible for the United States to be seen as credible and honest when it, on one hand claims to stand for freedom and human rights, and on the other hand, gets accused of severe human rights violations in one of its own prisons at Guantanamo (Lord 2008: 31).
(no reference information given)
However, while the report does recognize these important aspects, it misses one crucial point. It seems to take for granted that traditional American values – such as ‘liberty, equality, justice and tolerance’ (Lord 2008: 44) – are defined as and viewed upon in the same way by other people (ibid: 4). The report is based on the idea that America’s winding image across the world partly is the result of misunderstanding. If the United States understands others, others will understand the United States, seems to be the line of thought. Whilst realizing that ‘we cannot remind ourselves enough that others do not see the world as we see it and may interpret our statements or actions in ways we never intended’ (Lord 2008: 38), the report does not discuss the – perhaps very difficult – question of whether these traditional American values really are universal, in the sense that they are defined and prioritized in the same way by different people in different places at different times. Perhaps this is the most important question the United States needs to discuss and take into consideration when communicating with foreign audiences that may share values, or perceptions of these, that are different from American ones.
As long as it refuses to acknowledge and consider the fact that universal may be considered as American by foreign audiences, it will struggle dealing with its image as ignorant. Further, the way that Lord believes that ‘the unique nature of the United States equips us better than any other nation to use public diplomacy well’ (2008: 13) and that resentment from foreign publics to a certain extent is a necessary evil when being a leading power (ibid) will neither help in bettering its image as being respective towards other cultures.
In regards to its overarching image among Muslims, Riordan (2005) has made an excellent point – one that should be more emphasized in American public diplomacy in the future.
Successful engagement must be built upon a genuine dialogue that accepts that Islam is different and has its own values and historical and cultural traditions; that the West does not have all the answers and that, while maintaining its own values, it accepts that not all of them are universally valid for everyone everywhere; and that there any many paths to democracy and civil society (ibid: 182).
References
Cull. N. J, 2010, “Public diplomacy: Seven lessons for its future from its past”, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, vol. 6, nr. 1: 11-17;
Lord. K. M, 2008, Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century, Brookings Institution, Available at: http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/~/media/D96E2EB53570448BA526E4C20D590EC3.ashx, [Accessed: 1 April 2012];
Melissen. J, 2005, The new public diplomacy: soft power in international relations, ed, Palgrave MacMillan;
Riordan. S, 2005, “Dialogue-based Public Diplomacy: a New Foreign Policy Paradigm” in Melissen. J, 2005, The new public diplomacy: soft power in international relations, ed, Palgrave MacMillan.
Definitions
- A nation is characterized by the history, language, culture and also the common economy of its people as well as by the borders of its territory.
- A place is a particular position, point, area or a land and also it could be a city, a town or a building.
- Branding is the activity of giving a particular name and image to goods and services so that people will be attracted to them and want to buy them.
According to Birgit Stober (2007) place branding is a soft governance technique on the rise, cities, countries and group of countries uses selective images of geographical localities to target audiences and to attract the attention of outsiders. Moreover, place branding plays a persuasive role by using advertisement aimed to create attractive image either true or false as long as the targets are achieved and it is always connected to strategic use of communication mediums such as news paper, radio, TV and the internet (Stober, 2007, pp.169-170).
The features that “nation brand” share with commercial brands
- Nation branding provides a space to everyday living of its citizens who are likely to share the same values and therefore tightens the social links.
- It integrates anyone that comes cross (acculturation).
- It promotes economic, social and cultural development.
- It leaves an imprint on the minds and sometimes on the body.
- It has its representative in the quality of the head of State as all other trademarks.
- It is structured hierarchically.
- Its duties are performed in an architecture built in its intention.
- It is organized around laws and regulations that define rights and duties of its citizens.
- It is animated by a desire to expand which in the past led to colonialism and its current form is economic patriotism.
- It constructs a visual identity in the form of a logo and a currency.
- It promotes its own identity symbols such as flags and clothing.
- It holds its own media mediums such as news paper, radio, television, and websites (Stober, 2007, pp.169-187).
The Berlin case
In the Berlin case and because of its tarnished previous image especially during the Second World War and the cold war era, different initiatives were launched by the succeeding governments in order to reconstruct that image and then build a new brighter face to the city. Berlin Abstraz organisation was founded to create economic ties between West Berlin and the rest of the federal republic. This initiative grew in importance and became more relevant after the construction of the Berlin wall in 1961. However, after the re-unification of Berlin and the not an easy situation for the promotion of the city that resulted, it was a necessity to found another organisation (Stober, 2007, pp.170-173).
The Partner fur Berlin (PfB) initiative was set to re-image Berlin and to provide it with another reputation by following a ‘history less’ marketing strategy. The partner for Berlin program evolved from other initiative that goes back to the 1951 where Berlin was a divided city into two zones (east and west) (Stober, 2007, pp.170-173).
The Partner fur Berlin (PfB) is a limited company its task is the promotion of the new unified Berlin brand as a commercial product, its main concern is by addressing image creation and identity building. Also its targeted audience is both local citizens of Berlin and foreign visitors. This initiative was focussed exclusively on the period that came after the end of the cold war or post 1989 New Berlin and also it was based on certain sectors such as science, culture, and creativity arts (Stober, 2007, pp.170-173).
The concept ‘nation branding’ is said to have been coined in 1996 by Simon Anholt, today considered one of the fathers, and gurus, of nation branding, partly as a result of increased ‘homogenisation of markets on the one hand and in the increasing sense of national identity on the other’ (Szondi 2008: 4). As such, it emphasizes the competitive global economy with its interdependence and the need this creates to “stand out” and be attractive in the eyes of foreign audiences. However, it should not be understood as a way for a nation to brand itself, but rather as the process where a nation uses the techniques that are used in branding in order to alter a nation’s image in a more favorable light (ibid: 5).
Nevertheless, there are limitations to the practical use of nation branding. An image of a nation is far more simplistic than reality and cannot capture the complexities and diversity of people and opinions within its boundaries – trying to do so may well undermine these characteristics as well as a country’s credibility (Riordan 2004: 9). This is not to suggest that one’s perception of a country is irrelevant. I doubt that there is anyone who has never been affected by ads, slogans, or simply a recommendation from a friend. Whether this is about a product, a vacation spot or an actual person, it will most likely have an impact on your perception of it, whether you want so or not as Caroline Jaine’s (2012) research clearly suggests.
(no reference information given)
Yet, the question remains of how important these perceptions are in changing peoples’ political opinions. It seems as if nation branding can play a great role in regards to tourism as well as attracting foreign investments and selling products abroad. United States’ declining popularity has made it more difficult for American multinational corporations to conduct business, which proves this point (Murphy 2004: 4). Yet, as easily discovered, these issues all belong in the economic sphere. None of them are relevant to the broader foreign policy issues that States need to gain support for, such as policies regarding environmental degradation, terrorism and civil conflicts to mention some examples (Evans 2010). Thus, nation branding’s direct relation to the area of marketing, makes me question the role it does, and more importantly, should play in the broader field of public diplomacy which is about communicating. Further, while public diplomacy is about gaining influence and support for specific policies, nation branding seems more focused on establishing an overarching positive image.
(no reference information given)
Nation branding excludes the aspect of two-communication which is necessary in order to understand your audience and which today is important in order to gain credibility and respect. In regards to American public diplomacy, it has been suggested that it needs to ‘ recognize that the United States’ constituents are ‘publics’, not ‘markets’, and that an effective public diplomacy model must be one that is not propaganda or market-oriented advocacy, but one that is based on two-way symmetrical communication and community-building’ (Kruckeberg 2005: 303). Clearly, the failure of the Bush administration to gain support for its “war on terrorism” and its attempts of marketing America as the land of the free and the liberator of democracy, illustrates this example. This also proves the necessity of having policies that clearly coincides with your words. If a country wants to be perceived in a positive way by foreign audiences, it needs to convince them that their policies are “good” and this requires implementing policies that these people perceive as good, not only performing a nice sales talk. This difference can be seen in the example of “niche diplomacy” which clearly differs from nation branding in that it requires states to focus resources and adapt policies into one certain field in order go gain influence within it – a process that requires more than an effective marketing strategy.
While acknowledging that people to a great extent are affected by stereotypes and simplified images, I believe that public diplomacy has to deal with issues that are far more complex than nation branding alone can handle. Whilst the former can go a long way without having to use the latter, the latter cannot exist without the former.
References
Evans. A, 2010, “Towards a theory of influence for twenty-first century foreign policy: The new public diplomacy in a globalized world”, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, vol. 6, no. 1;
Jaine. C, 2012, “Smoke Without Fire: A Look at Influence, Trust and Media-Built Perceptions”, blogs.worldbank.org, (online: published 20 March 2012), Available at: http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/smoke-without-fire-look-influence-trust-and-media-built-perceptions, [Accessed: 28 March 2012];
Kruckeberg. D, 2005, “Public relations, not propaganda, for US public diplomacy in a post-9/11 world: Challenges and opportunities”, Journal of Communication Management, vol. 9, no. 4;
Murphy. J. E, 2007, “Preface” in U.S. Department of State, 2007, Private Sector Summit on Public Diplomacy, Available at: http://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/PrivSectorSummitPaper.pdf, [Accessed 28 March 2012];
Riordan. S, 2004, “Dialogue-based Public Diplomacy: A New Foreign Policy Paradigm”, Clingendael Discussion Paper in Diplomacy, no. 95, Available at: http://129.11.76.45/papers/pmt/exhibits/2113/riorden.pdf, [Accessed 28 March 2012];
Szondi. G, 2008, “Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding: Conceptual Similarities and Differences”, Clingendael Discussion Paper in Diplomacy, no. 112, Available at: http://ts.clingendael.nl/publications/2008/20081022_pap_in_dip_nation_branding.pdf, [Accessed 28 March 2012].
For an emerging global power like China, soft power and image management are vital as it makes China’s rise palatable to the world, as well as creating understanding, regard and crucial support for China’s political model and economic policies. China is deeply sensitive to foreign opinions of China and its policies that foreign evaluations of its diplomatic executions and negative views on its domestic state are frequently cited in the Chinese press (Melissen, 2005:98). The western media is responsible for creating this negative image. While visiting Moscow in 2003 the Minister of State Council Information Zhao Qizheng claimed that western media controls and harms China’s international image “using their media dominance in stressing the negatives in China without highlighting recent positive developments” (‘Beijing lashes out at western media coverage of China’ Agence France Press 22 August 2003).
China understands the power of good foreign press in influencing ideas/opinions. In mid-1930s the Chinese government invited American journalist Edgar Snow to report on the civil war. Snow’s book Red Star Over China on Mao Zedong’s struggle with Nationalist party portrayed Zedong as a hero and a victim of foreign aggression was an international success. This book was very influential in gaining western understanding and sympathy for China. Perhaps more significantly is the fact that it was instrumental in winning over tens of thousands of urban Chinese youths to the Communist side (TIMOTHY TUNG New York Times, February 26, 1989). Additionally, Snow’s status as an international journalist not previously identified with the communist movement gave his reports the stamp of authenticity. For Robert Jervis, a desired image and reputation in world affairs can often be “of greater use than a significant increment of military/economic power” (Jervis; 1970:6).
Based on the Amiti Etzioni’s conceptualization of the three dimensions of power-coercive, normative and remunerative, David Lampton introduced ‘ideational power’; the power to create and disseminate ideas/knowledge as a broader and somewhat different theoretical construct from ‘soft power’ (Lampton, 2008:67). How a country is viewed abroad is a significant aspect in the symbolic domain of national power. According to Tucker et al it signifies the presence or absence of international legitimacy bestowed to nation-states (2004:22). This is a classic illustration of China’s PD.
References:
- Beijing lashes out at western media coverage of China’ Agence France Press 22 August 2003
- Jervis, R. The logic of images in international relations. Princeton University Press, 1970.
- Lampton, D. M. The Three Faces of Chinese Power: Might, Money and Minds. Berkeley University of California Press 2008
- Melissen, J. The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007
- Timothy Tung New York Times, February 26, 1989. ‘Red Star Over China’ http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/26/books/l-red-star-over-china-977389.html accessed on 28/03/12.
- Tucker, R. W and Hendrickson, D. C. The Sources of American Legitimacy. Foreign Affairs 83, no. 6 2004
The world is addicted to celebrity to such a degree as never before, many individuals obsess every waking minute of their lives…which, yes I agree is a little unsettling but what the heck they sells newspapers, magazine, lifestyles and diplomatic endeavours.
So, for this very reason alone celebrities are used to endorse products, however, boundaries have been pushed and celebrities can now have a shot at being diplomats if they fancy adding it to their CV of roles played, and would you look at that such an important job with no formal qualifications or experience to back it up…oop’s steady on old girl sounding a little bitter there. But such amateurism can be a cause of concern, Ginger Spice didn’t seem to last very long in her role as UN Goodwill Ambassador for reproductive and sexual health which in my opinion went a little over her head.
Christopher Smith from the USC Centre on Public Diplomacy stated that “as the 60s progressed celebrities became even more overt and radicalised with their politics”, and thus “this had led to a demise of appreciation for legitimate political figures in the domestic context”. (http://www.learcenter.org/pdf/celebritydiplomacy.pdf)
The most apparent reason for this trend of the celebrities working as part -time diplomats is to endorse and publicise a political agenda just as they would do with any product, however, I shouldn’t be so flippant as many celebs do have a great passion for this side of their work. Celebrities such as Bono, Sir Bob Geldof, George Clooney and the likes of Angelina Jolie do play an important role as celebrity diplomats, they “can connect immediately with a range of audiences…celebrity diplomats – provide a multitude of connections to a global audience beyond the imagination of a few decade ago” (Cooper, A, F, 2007:6).
So, to say that celebrities are a pointless tool would be a little harsh, however, arguably celebrity competencies are questionable. A 2008 article by Heribert Dieter and Rajiv Kumar raises some important issues concerning Celeb diplomacy and argue that Bono’s on-going campaign to raise money for impoverished communities in African may do more good than harm. The two authors contentions are that continuous aid through such charities established by Bono only proliferates the poverty trap, i.e. aid does not allow for self-determination as a dependency is generated on aid.
“Aid may paralyze the initiative of the individuals rather than empowering them. It may even produce a beggar’s mentality, where the poor expect the solution to problems from foreign donors rather than from one’s own society”
(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7055/is_3_14/ai_n31151488/)
There is also the case of Sir Bob Geldof’s 1985 Live Aid rock concert charity funds being spent of weapons for warlords in Ethiopia, which demonstrates that more effort is required when celebrities step into waters they are unsure of, they should also not fail to understand that the task of the diplomat is a very complex one and not simply another role to perform in front of the camera.
References:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7055/is_3_14/ai_n31151488/pg_2/?tag=content;col1
Cooper, A. F., ‘Celebrity Diplomacy and the G8: Bono and Bob as Legitimate International Actors’ CIGI Working Paper No. 29, 2007
Click to access celebritydiplomacy.pdf
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259061/Sorry-Bob-Geldof-Band-Aid-millions-DID-pay-guns.html
Much of the literature on public diplomacy focus on major powers and states with great economic and military resources – one need to only have a glance at the reports available on USC Center on Public Diplomacy to see the overwhelming material about the United States (USC Center on Public Diplomacy 2012). To look at and analyze the way that smaller states conduct public diplomacy is thus both interesting and crucial in order to see if there are any immediate differences.
Due to smaller states’ size, they often lack the visibility and recognition by foreign public. The information people get on smaller states may be limited in both quantity and quality and easily be based upon prejudices. As such, these states need to struggle to gain international attention in the first place. Whilst major states already have an audience and a large supply of images and notions that foreign public associate them with, they tend to focus their diplomacy on advocating and explaining their policies, as well as engaging in re-branding. (Bátora 2005: 6-7)
(no reference information given)
Considering the fact that smaller states may be viewed as “lagging behind” its bigger counterparts, one may ask how they can make up for it? One approach states have taken is so called ‘niche diplomacy’, defined in simple terms as specializing and focusing its resources within one area so to yield the best returns (Henrikson 2004: 67). Thus, this entails focusing on an area that is recognized and viewed in a positive light by the international community so to increase the chances of earning influence. An example of a country that has managed to do so in a very successful manner is Norway.
Norway, a small country in Scandinavia, a non-member of the European Union and distinct from the rest of the world linguistically, has managed to gain the title as ‘the international capital of peace’ (Bruni 2002). Hosting the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize, being involved in the Oslo peace process – trying to mediate peace between Israel and Palestine in 1993 – and being part of the negotiations between the Philippine Government and Communist rebels, as well as the FARC movement and the Colombia Government are a few examples of acts that have put Norway on the humanitarian map. Despite the fact that not all of these attempts have been successful (the Oslo peace process being a clear example), it has still made Norway a leading power in the field of peace negotiations. The question is, how has this been possible?
(no reference information given)
In 1980, Jan Egeland – a Norwegian politician – articulated the concept of “peacemaking diplomacy” to create a strategy for Norway to adopt (Bandarage n.d.). During the years to come, the “Norwegian model” for conflict resolution aroused which include some of the following aspects: (a) close relationships and co-ordination with NGOs working both internationally and domestically (b) acting impartial: Norway has managed to gain a reputation of impartiality – partly a consequence of its non-colonial history as well as its detachment from the European Union – which has made it possible for it to participate in negotiations without suspicions of imposing its owns agenda nor that of a greater superpower and (c) relations with more powerful international actors and mediators which has increased its own leverage (Bauer 2005: 3-4).
Another reason to why Norway so successfully has made a name for itself within the area of peace mediation is to its large domestic support. While the concept of public diplomacy to a large extent focuses on the relationship between domestic governments and foreign public, the relationship between the domestic government and its domestic public is an important one as well. Without having domestic support and its own people behind your back, it is difficult to create a unite and cohesive message to the rest of the world.
However, there has been some critical voices raised, warning for the difficulties that Norway may come across (Bandarage, n.d.). Awarding Barack Obama with the Nobel Peace Price in 2009, created an international debate on the appropriateness of the decision and some suspicion that Norway tried to please the United States, which affects its image of impartiality. Its tradition with whaling has also come under critique and often so from the same people that support their peace work (Moore n.d.). Further, the way the political climate is constantly under change, with an increase of non-state actors, information flowing across borders and identities becoming more dynamic, it may be difficult to remain a specific niche during a long period of time (Henrikson 2004: 72).
Yet, Norway’s strategy seems to overcome these challenges. It has chosen a niche that is considered to be serving more interests than only Norway’ s own national interest – but instead the international community as a whole. Further, as its domestic audience supports this it enhances the credibility and enables them to allocate a great amount of resources to this area and to act in a quick and effective way (Bauer 2005: 4).
As such, Norway’s model offer some helpful ideas for similar smaller states to adopt in order to increase their influence on the world’s stage. Despite the fact that it may not be as “altruistic” as it sounds – choosing to specialize in the area of peacemaking diplomacy – but instead a tool to serve national interests in the first hand: niche diplomacy may increase the incentives for states to focus on areas stretching beyond borders: making peace and co-operation far more attractive than war and disagreements.
References
Bandarage. A, n.d, “The Norwegian Peacemaking Model”, Best Thinking, (online: no publishing date available), Available at: http://www.bestthinking.com/articles/politics_government/international_politics/the-norwegian-peacemaking-model, [Accessed 22 March 2012];
Bátora. J, 2005, “Public Diplomacy in Small and Medium-Sized States: Norway and Canada”, Clingendael Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, vol. 97, Available at: http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2005/20050300_cli_paper_dip_issue97.pdf, [Accessed 20 March 2012];
Bauer. J.H, 2005, “The Norwegian ‘model’ for conflict resolution”, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (online), Available at: http://www.ipri.pt/eventos/pdf/Jon%20Hanssen-Bauer_2005.pdf, [Accessed 20 March 2012];
Bruni. F, 2002, “A Nation That Exports Oil, Herring and Peace”, The New York Times, (online: published 21 December 2002), Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/21/world/a-nation-that-exports-oil-herring-and-peace.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm [Accessed 19 March 2012];
Henrikson. A. K, 2004, “Niche Public Diplomacy in the World Public Arena: The Global ‘Corners’ of Canada and Norway, in Melissen. J, ed, 2004, The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, Palgrave MacMillan
Moore. T, n.d, “Norway’s Focused Communication Strategy”, American Diplomacy – Foreign Service Despatches and Periodic Reports on U.S. Foreign Policy, (online: no publishing date available), Available at: http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2010/0912/comm/moore_norway.html, [Accessed 22 March 2012];
USC Center on Public Diplomacy, 2012, Resources – Reports and Papers, (online), Available at: http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/resources/reports_papers [Accessed 22 March 2012]
“In recent years the State Department has relied on performing artists to act as cultural ambassadors, sending dancers and musicians around the world to show people that America is more than just Hollywood movies.” (http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org) Although the importance of the Citizen diplomacy cannot be disregarded and it is important as it’s the visual Art, Yet, visual Artists is far more effective than the ordinary citizens acting as the ambassador of the country. For example, as an ordinary citizen the message that one person can deliver is very limited, so conversation between two people or with a small group may not have an impact or change anything the perception or the broad ideas that the country as a whole have on your country. Whereas, the Visual Artists for the larger audience whether is music performance or display piece of painting it targeted all type of the society, such as the academics, politicians, the youth and ext. Hip-Hop music is more powerful than any other Cultural Diplomacy, American Hip-Hop dominated the world even in the most bazar places where anti Americans is sore the Hip-Hop music has its room to stay. So the State Department of the US is using the opportunity and since 2000 the Rap music has replace the jazz Diplomacy during the cold war. Therefore, it can be argued that art was always part of the Cultural Diplomacy and play an important role to promote the culture far more beyond than the politicians and individuals can do.
“Cultural diplomacy, which has been defined as the exchange of ideas, information, art, and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples in order to foster mutual understanding” (Diplomacy Report US state Department 2005) Therefore, if the cultural Diplomacy is exchanges of ideas than the Music and other form of arts explored the culture and exchanges information and it built bridges between states and connects people and creates mutual understanding.
http://www.melodydialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/symposium_nu.pdf
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/54374.pdf
Diplomacy Report of the Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy U.S. Department of State September 2005, Cultural Diplomacy The Linchpin of Public Diplomacy.
“Public diplomacy is one of the most silent political communication issues in the21 century. It is revival arises within the context of September 11/2001 declaration of war on terrorism largely aimed at radical, anti-American/West Islamic militants and manifested via military interventions in the Muslim majority countries of Afghanistan and Iraq.” (Snow and Taylor 2009, page IX) Therefore, Public diplomacy it’s a new phenomenon that has arises its height after the September 11 attacks in the USA. Although it can be argued that it has exist before 9/11 and has been used before, especially during the cold war, whereby the state was the major actor of the public diplomacy which also can be said it was mainly propaganda. Yet, it was not significant as it become post 9/11. Scholars often argue on how to define, where to draw the line and to what extent could it be argued that the diplomacy is purely propaganda. Nevertheless, it would be fair to say that diplomacy it is the interrelationship between states or two nations. In another word it is the way the state distinguished her-self from the rest of the world, or how particular nation branding themselves to the others. “In the past few decades, public diplomacy has been widely seen as the transparent means by which a sovereign country communicates with publics in other countries aimed at informing and influencing audiences overseas for the purpose of promoting the national interest and advancing its foreign policy goals.”(http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/about/what_is_pd/)
Juergen Kleiner also supports the idea of that diplomacy it’s just another version of foreign policy and its advances and manages the goals of the foreign policy. “Diplomacy attempts to manage the goals of foreign policy, mostly by implementing goals but also by preparing foreign policy decisions.” (Kleiner 2010 page, 2) Therefore, diplomacy is part of government foreign affairs manifesto and propaganda is heavy involve directly or indirectly since it’s very hard to distinguished from the foreign office policy.
this is not my blog and not my paper, however, i thought it could be similar to today lecture and seminar topic and also it is a good example of cultural diplomacy. if you would like to go to the original website, you could through this link diplomatie.gouv.fr
Who has never heard of Plantu? Or rather: who has never smiled at one of his cartoons, published daily in the newspaper Le Monde? Fewer people may realise, however, that the cartoonist was behind the project Cartooning for Peace, which brought cartoonists together at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York in 2006 for the first time to discuss the role of press illustration and caricatures as a means of expression and communication. Three years on, he has produced an initial assessment.
History was made in November 1991. The cartoonist Plantu, whose drawings had been published in Le Monde since the early 1970s, was in Tunis for an exhibition of his work. During his trip, he met Yasser Arafat and asked the Palestinian leader for a spontaneous reaction to his drawings. Yasser Arafat rose to the challenge, adding a Star of David to the Israeli flag Plantu had drawn.
The following year, Plantu met Shimon Peres in Jerusalem. He handed him a pencil and got the scoop of his life: for the first time, the signature of the head of the PLO and the leading figure in Israeli diplomacy appeared on the same document, a year before the Oslo Accords of 1993.
This incredible encounter – made possible by a pencil – marked a turning point in the history of press illustration, which had never before had such a direct contact with history. Even in the 19th century, the golden age of caricature – thanks to the expansion of the press, which had been galvanised by the Industrial Revolution and technical innovation – cartoonists were content with giving readers something to think or laugh about by soaking their pencil lead in vitriolic humour, as practised so expertly by Honoré Daumier, the illustrator alter-ego of another Honoré, the brilliant writer Balzac, author of the colossal Comédie Humaine. Plantu is far from colossal: he is a slim, discreet and almost timid man. But his plans for his art are huge: he has set himself the goal of restoring dialogue between cultures through the medium of drawing which, freed from linguistic barriers, has the immediate advantage over words of being immediately accessible to everyone.
By bringing Arafat and Peres together around a single drawing, Plantu laid the foundations of a new mission for the cartoonist: one that the Reuters news agency neatly summed up as “Cartoon diplomacy”. Plantu lays claim to this ‘diplomacy at a pencil stroke’, in which the cartoonist is not merely a spectator but a real player in the world: “When Yasser Arafat wanted to meet me in Tunis,” he explains, “I didn’t know he would use the cartoon to recognise the Israeli state. It was a surprise for the kind of cartoonist I am. I realised that drawing could be used as a way of trying to move things forward…”
This initial experience formed the basis of the Cartooning for Peace project. The first event, held at the headquarters of the United Nations in autumn 2006, brought together 12 cartoonists from all over the world in support of peace and tolerance. A risky gamble shortly after the so-called “Danish caricatures of Mohammed” affair, which at the time was inflaming the minds of those with little inclination for cultural dialogue and mutual understanding: “The Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, suggested that we organise our discussions around a unifying educational theme: unlearning intolerance,” explains Plantu. It goes without saying that the game was not over at that point… For the last two years, however, exhibitions and debates organised worldwide, and on every continent, have provided ample evidence of the interest aroused by the initiative. Despite the risks artists sometimes incur, and the manipulation that can happen in a world in which the Internet plays a part in diluting and sometimes even distorting messages, fundamentalists who ask cartoonists to change or withdraw a particular drawing, and the censorship and taboos found in Western democracies concerned with “political correctness”, Plantu has never strayed off course. “Every time I have a discussion with a colleague, I get a clearer perception of the problems they face and a better understanding of what freedom of opinion really means.” Always in the knowledge that the fate of the cartoonist is a very accurate barometer of such freedom.
Marie-Michèle Martinet
In the last few years, the role of non-state actors have been very effective in international global world politics in the area of public diplomacy. Their role seems to be very effective in public diplomacy in terms of influencing foreign audiences and the general public in different countries. Perhaps there has been a fundamental shift from government to non-state actors in terms of influencing foreign audiences or in public diplomacy.
According to Zatepilina, (Zatepilina, 2008) foreign publics are generally of suspicious nature of governments public diplomacy. And Melissen have argued that influencing foreign publics has been very challenging for foreign diplomats, and the reason Melissen argued was as a result of ‘combined forces of globalisation and the democratization of access to information.’
Furthermore, foreign audiences seemed to be more inclined to identify and demonstrate more trust in non-state actors, because they tend to be more independent from government control. And Muhittin Ataman argued that foreign audiences respond better to non-state actors based on the idea that they are neutral and have the capability to maintain different opinions on government’s policies, (Ataman, 2003). But Ataman also argued that in most cases foreign publics are unaware that non-state actors have tendencies to pursue their own interest just like governments. So it seems from these arguments the general public of foreign audiences should have a cautious approach, as some non-state actors can pursue interest that are aimed at benefiting an organisation, a country or an ideology.
A typical example that illustrate the usefulness of nonstate actors in public diplomacy is demostrated in the case of human rights violation in Myanmar. The issues of human rights violations were not brought to the knowledge of the international world until some NGOs with the help of the international media began reprting on the issues. As a result, the interestin working on human rights issues grew even stronger amongst European NGOs, (Eysink, 2006, pg.22).
References:
Ataman, M. (2003): ‘The impact of non-state actors on world politics: A Challenge to Nation- States’ in Turkish Journal of International Relations Vol.2 No.1
Eysink, S (2006): “Human Rights Dialogue in Asem; Do NGOs Have a Role to Play” in Netherlands Institute of International Relations. Clingendael Paper No.7
Melissen, J. (2006): Reflection on Public Diplomacy today.
Retrieved 16/03/12, from Netherlands Institute of international Relations Clingendael: http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2006/20060206_cdsp_online_melissen.pdf
Zatepilina, O. (2008): Non-state ambassadors: NGOs contribution to America’s public diplomacy. Retrieved 16/03/2012, from Place Branding and Public Diplomacy: http://palgrave-journals.com/pb/journal/v5/n2/pdf/pb200827a.pdf
The Concept of Public Diplomacy
Public diplomacy as a concept was coined by Edmund Gullion of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Subsequently, the study of public diplomacy commenced with research led by both John Lee; a journalism professor and Arthur Hoffman from the United States Information Agency. Lee’s research paper ‘The Diplomatic Persuaders: New Role of the Mass Media in International Relations’ articulates that we are living in an era of public diplomacy, whereby people-to-people communications are more important than dialogues between governments. Lee asserts that hence (democratic) governments often abide/rely on public opinion; consequently, public/international opinion holds incredible power.
Conversely, Hoffman in his paper ‘International Communication and the New Diplomacy’ contends that the revolution of mass communication gave rise to public diplomacy whereby government, individuals and groups have a direct/indirect influence on public opinions/attitudes which bear directly on other states’ foreign policy-making. Diplomacy Scholar Paul Sharpe defines public diplomacy as “the process by which direct relations with people in a country are pursued to advance the interests and extend the values of those being represented” (Sharpe in Melissen 2007:106).
The foundational elements of public diplomacy are listening- engaging a foreign public by collecting and analyzing its opinions and feeding that to both the formation and policy; advocacy- through direct representation of information and policy; cultural diplomacy- the participation in and facilitated export of culture; exchange diplomacy- the mutual exchange of personnel with foreign partner; international broadcasting- engaging foreign audiences through direct broadcasting of news. All these components Joseph Nye famously termed ‘soft power’ work together with policies and cultural values of the society (Nye, 2004:89).
Public diplomacy is one of soft power’s key instruments and has since been recognized before the contemporary debate on public diplomacy. So much so that during the Cold War, both the US, Soviet Union, Britain, France and Germany invested heavily in their communications with the world. According to Cooper successful diplomacy “means openness and transnational cooperation” (Cooper, 2003:78). Therefore, given that public diplomacy is an indispensible requirement for a collaborative model of diplomacy, openness and multi-level cooperation is crucial for a successful diplomatic relations.
References:
Cooper, R. The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-first Century. Atlantic Books, 2003
Hoffman, A. S et al, International Communication and the New Diplomacy, Indiana University Press 1968
Lee, J. D. The Diplomatic Persuaders: New Role of the Mass Media in International Relations. Wiley, 1968
Nye, J. S. Soft power: The Means to Success in World Politics, Public Affairs 2004
Sharp, P in Melissen, J. New Public Diplomacy: The Soft Power in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005
(Dunand, n.d)
Last week, the American presidential election was in the spotlight as it was time for one of the most important dates: the ‘Super Tuesday’, on which primary elections in ten states were held. Yet, despite the obvious and immediate importance this event has on the continuous campaign, one should stop for a moment and consider how it may be used as a tool to establish communication with foreign audiences. Due to the great impact that American policy has internationally, the election is an event followed with curiosity around the world. Thus, it provides the government with great opportunities to speak to foreign audiences as well as domestic ones by engaging in public diplomacy. Still, the question remains on how this ought to be done.
Philip Seib (2012) offers some interesting opinions relating to this question. He suggests that the government should encourage a bigger amount of international news channels to report on the election, as well as encourage them to offer viewers access to more professional sources of information such as academics and politicians that could help explain how the process of the American presidential election works in further detail. Also, Seib (ibid) suggests the usage of online communication and social media forums in order to establish contact with young activists fighting for democracy in regions that may have been neglected in media due to the uprisings in Northern Africa, such as countries within Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
The American election can thus be used as an “inspirational” example of a democratic and peaceful event in countries where elections are accompanied by military presence and suspicions regarding outcomes, and utilized in order to establish contact with foreign public engaged in democratic reforms in their own countries. Yet, the focus ought not to be to “sell” an image of America, but instead to provide activists with tools that they can utilize in ways that fits them.
What is particularly interesting about these ideas is that they are long-term strategies – establishing dialogues through online platforms – rather than short-term ones – such as solely sending out a message to its listeners. This latter way of conducting public diplomacy may be one of the reasons for the failure of the Bush administration to gain support for its foreign policy conducted in the aftermath of 9/11, and what led American scholars to ask themselves what went wrong with their public diplomacy (Kruckeberg, Vujnovic 2005: 297). One of the reasons may be that it was too simplistic: focused on delivering a self-created image of a “good” America across the world whilst ignoring the person that the message was delivered to (Kruckeberg, Vujnovic 2005). This way of conducting public diplomacy neglects the importance of two-way communication and the need to engage in listening and understanding if one wants to create mutual support.
As such, this reflects a more innovative and modern view on public diplomacy – and one that may change peoples’ opinions about the way that America engages with foreign public. Telling people how to conduct their domestic politics is one thing; showing them how America conducts theirs is another. The presidential election seems to offer perfect opportunities for doing this. At the end of the day, it may be that ‘the golden rule of public diplomacy is that what counts is not what you say but what you do’ (Cull 2010: 13).
References:
Cull. N, 2010, “Public Diplomacy: Seven lessons for its future from its past”, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, vol. 6 (1): 11-17;
Dunand. E, n.d, “A polling station in Cambridge, Massaschusetts on Super Tuesday”, (photograph online), Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/06/super-tuesday-voting-day-live, [Accessed 12 March 2012];
Kruckeberg. D, Vujnovic. M, 2005, “Public relations, not propaganda, for US public diplomacy in a post-9/11 world: Challenges and opportunities, Journal of Communication Management, vol. 9 (4): 296-304;
Seib. P, 2012, “U.S. Presidential Politics as Public Diplomacy”, Huffington Post, (online: posted 3 March), Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-seib/us-presidential-politics-abroad_b_1178779.html, [Accessed 7 March 2012]
Jazz ambassadors represent a golden age of American public diplomacy, the prominence of Jazz artists such as Dizzy Gillespie and Louis Armstrong was crucial in the early days of the cold war, although, success for the United States in that period of time to build an image of tolerance and freedom was not an easy challenge. However, this rise in importance of Jazz music as a tool of influence occurred as a result of two facts, in one hand, the confrontation on the ground of values with the Soviet Union during the cold war, and in the other hand, only a very small number of players in the public diplomacy could coordinate extremely effective actions (Von Eschen, 2006, pp.1-3).
It was in the 1956 and under the directives of President Dwight D. Eisenhower that USIA (which stands for the United States Information Agency) launched its first cultural initiative by organising the jazz ambassador’s tour in the world. It lacked at the time support from the domestic public opinion of the United States as the idea of releasing a governmental budget to promote black musicians abroad caused reluctance within the most conservative senators and in addition, segregation was still rampant. An incident occurred on the first of December 1955, known as the ‘Montgomery bus boycott ‘, where Rosa Parks refused to leave a seat reserved for whites. That was the founding event of the black freedom movement led by Dr Martin Luther King. The coverage of that incident and the protest movements that followed undermined the image of the United States, not least among African countries (Von Eschen, 2006, pp.2-4).
Furthermore, the US government in order to create “a vision of color-blind American democracy” sought to promote a cultural element that highlights their artistic originality to European countries that were used to denigrate the “subculture” of Americans and also associate themselves to the classical music which was identified with European culture. Americans also feared not being able to compete in this area with the Soviets. For these reasons, the idea of jazz or a popular music carried by Blacks was a symbol of the triumph of American democracy that started to mark that era (Von Eschen, pp.4-5).
Dizzy Gillespie was the ideal figure to carry the message of the US freedoms. A black trumpeter, famous for inventing the bebop, became the leading figure in jazz. Moreover, in April 1956, Dizzy began a tour of ten weeks in India, the Middle East and the Balkans. The tour was not directly sponsored by the USIA, but rather was indirectly sponsored by the American National Theatre and Academy (ANTA) (Von Eschen, p.6).
Furthermore, Louis Armstrong or the great “Satchmo” was another Jazz ambassador during that period. He also decided to perform a tour outside the US specifically in Ghana in 1956, even before the success of Dizzy Gillespie tours. Armstrong went to Ghana in a very particular time. It was a key period where the country was in the middle of its emancipation from the British colonial control, a process starting by the elections of 1954 and ending in March 1957 with the independence of Ghana. The American jazz could not find better ground to express its symbolic power of influence (Von Eschen, 2006, p.12). But his most famous success was when he performed in Zimbabwe in 1960 in front of an audience of more than 75,000, where whites and blacks sat together. Nonetheless, and unlike Dizzy, the Armstrong initiative to go to Africa was of his own, and by doing so, he integrated without even knowing it in a US strategy of public diplomacy. As a result, Louis Armstrong became eventually an official member of Jazz ambassadors of the USIA (Dizard, 2004, p.193).
Both mentioned Jazz ambassadors and many others that performed abroad not only helped the internationalization of Jazz music but also helped the shaping of a new image of America in order to win more foreign audiences or to convert them to the “ American way of life”. Those early years of the cold war were a turning point in the practice of diplomacy.
Bibliography
- Dizard Jr, W. P. (2004). Inventing Public Diplomacy, he story of the U.S. Information Agency. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
- Von Eschen, P. M. (2006). Satchmo Blows Up The World, Jazz Ambassadors Play the Cold War. London: Harvard University Press.
From USIA (1953-1999) to IIP today
Is there an exact definition of “public diplomacy?
Most International Relations scholars agrees that in one hand “traditional” diplomacy expresses a State effort to rally to its cause another State or group of States, in the other hand “public” diplomacy is for a State to get its point of view heard within the population of another State or group of States. That is why ‘Culture’ could therefore, play a central role in this approach; the objective is the conditioning in a positive way the opinion of a foreign audiences. However, all depends on the level of the targeted population reaction or how much attention will the targeted population pay to this foreign State message. Thus, this level will be much higher if the message is indirectly relayed by cultural activities that are not directly owned by State organs of the message issuing country, such as the big role played by the ambassadors of jazz during the cold war era. That cultural exchange program was initiated by the US government through an agency that was dedicated to the design of a certain image of the United States to the world opinion; it is known as the United States Information Agency (USIA, 1999).USIA 1999
Also the cold war was a cultural war; each block did try hard to mobilize their entire means that could be associated with any idea that will win hearts and minds. If the Soviets sought to create the association between Communism and the idea of peace, the Americans sought to associate the capitalism with the idea of freedom. That is why in 1953 the US government created a special agency to conduct public diplomacy and to support US foreign policy. The USIA mission was to “understand, inform and influence the foreign publics in promotion of US national interest, and to broaden the dialogue between Americans and US institutions, and their counterparts abroad” (USIA, 1999)
Under President Carter, USIA temporarily took the name of US International Communications Agency (USICA) but because it was too close to “US – CIA” (it is there argument) in 1982 the Agency resumed its name to USIA again but only before completely disappearing in 1999 due to the creation of another structure called the International Information Program (IIP) which was dependent on the State Department and supervised by an Under-Secretary of State for public diplomacy and public affairs (USIA).
Taking account of the end of the cold war, IIP however, continues the powerful work of public diplomacy of the early 50. This is how its activity is described “The Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) communicates with foreign opinion makers and younger audiences about US policy, society and values. IIP engages foreign publics through a range of multimedia and print outreach materials in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Persian, Russian, and Spanish” (USIA). Because of these actions of communication and influence, IIP had to be deployed in another context than that of the USIA.
Now, in contemporary world politics, there is a feeling of confrontation between states in terms of public diplomacy as a result of the emergence of multiple actors. Moreover, any country concerned about its international image start using public diplomacy to reinstate its best image or completely create a new image. Among those emerging countries, India and China which are becoming very active after they learnt the importance of the Public Diplomacy (USIA, 1999).
references
- The USIA, overview http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/usia/usiahome/overview.pdf
- The United State Information Agency, a commemoration (1999) http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/usia/abtusia/commins.pdf
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judith-mchale/gIQAcXpBAP_topic.html
Welcome to Public and Cultural Diplomacy, a group blog by students on the eponymous module at London Metropolitan University. Please leave them some comments on their work. They will be pleased to hear from you and to know that their work is being read beyond the campus.
Thank you.
Steven Curtis (s.curtis@londonmet.ac.uk)
Welcome to Public and Cultural Diplomacy, a group blog by students on the eponymous module at London Metropolitan University. Please leave them some comments on their work. They will be pleased to hear from you and to know that their work is being read beyond the campus.
Thank you.
Steven Curtis (s.curtis@londonmet.ac.uk)
Public and Cultural Diplomacy 1 