Critical analysis of the report “Voices of America” by Kristin M. Lord.

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 21^st 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.