tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73476313944035056122024-03-21T19:22:01.533-07:00A Hard Look at Soft Power: Global Public DiplomacyQuestions, comments and perspectives from a group of American University graduate students regarding global shifts of communication and information.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-17341681661935172952012-06-29T06:54:00.001-07:002012-06-29T06:54:16.530-07:00US Public Diplomacy: The Future Is Now<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
For United States diplomats and civil society actors alike, the future is most certainly now. We're beyond feelings of resistance to public diplomacy, or even conceiving of public diplomacy as something separate from diplomacy, as Bruce Gregory indicated in his work, <i>American Public Diplomacy: Enduring Characteristics, Elusive Transformation</i>. Although traditional government-to-government and diplomat-to-diplomat high level communications are still occurring every day, it is the outreach to public that solidifies power and influence of one state "over" another or "with" another.<br />
<br />
Public diplomacy is the diplomacy of both the current age and of the future for not only the US, but for the world.<br />
<br />
With heightened world presence, other powers such as China, Japan, India, Brazil and South Korea are progressing in their own public diplomacy strategies, which puts the US in an interesting position. More or less the primary source of political, economic and informational influence in the world following WWII, the US is now coming to terms as other nations, many of which have received assistance from the US for development purposes, innovate and develop in sectors that the US does not have the capacity to manage as succinctly. Some of the Scandinavian countries as well as South Korea have better Internet penetration. Education systems are competing to be internationally accredited and attract US students to their countries. Nations are banding together in regional coalitions to gain multilateral power and authority able to coincide with international bodies.<br />
<br />
Appropriately enough, this message came through in a meme shared by non-profit organization <a href="http://other98.com/">The Other 98%</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijRBSs93kX1Lik8mbRE6kanoVhYOon-6GFAJx74taNmuzdLs7J72bJqNrz6HHTxNrwUqEkp57Xjm83SU0RVt8BQFzULFhyphenhyphenPCwT9d8OWhcVhi_KkZxH4n11-KIuTD5X5RvTZWWi4GMQxtIE/s1600/552480_454557497888567_1958506172_n.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="345" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijRBSs93kX1Lik8mbRE6kanoVhYOon-6GFAJx74taNmuzdLs7J72bJqNrz6HHTxNrwUqEkp57Xjm83SU0RVt8BQFzULFhyphenhyphenPCwT9d8OWhcVhi_KkZxH4n11-KIuTD5X5RvTZWWi4GMQxtIE/s400/552480_454557497888567_1958506172_n.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
The question becomes: how does the US reposition itself in the international arena? This is where some of the initiatives of the Obama administration have come in, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senior Adviser for Innovation Alec Ross' notion of 21st Century Statecraft. This strategy utilizes public diplomacy and information communication technology as a central driver to maintaining a foothold in the world. By being the world's largest and most powerful advocate for the right to 'connect,' the US has been able to improve its international image, but even this has had some cracks.<br />
<br />
State Department stance on Internet freedom, for example, has been influential in countries like Egypt, Iran and Burma, but while this stance is projected, the battle over intellectual property rights online sees the US seizing both onshore and offshore websites engaging in "questionable activity". In this instance, there needs to be a consistency in message and action, a strategy the US must utilize given we are in an age where information is so free-flowing and transparent.<br />
<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-75352614644519085692012-06-28T20:52:00.002-07:002012-09-10T19:09:19.078-07:00Transforming U.S. public diplomacy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<b>Given the lessons learned from practice abroad and from conceptual/theoretical proposals, how should the United States respond to the challenges facing its public diplomacy? </b>
<br />
<br />
Gregory makes the argument that since “public diplomacy is now so central to diplomacy …it is no longer helpful to treat it as a sub-set of diplomatic practice. The term marginalizes what has become ‘woven into the fabric of mainstream diplomatic activity’” (Gregory, 353). Indeed, the influx of technology, research, and the Obama administration’s framing of public diplomacy has helped evolved our conception of public diplomacy’s role and place in U.S. foreign policy. Gregory makes the astute observation that public diplomacy is no longer a sub-set of diplomacy, is an absolute “mindset” required of all multilateral diplomatic actors in the future.
<br />
<br />
It is clear that as an institution, public diplomacy has become a multi-stakeholder instrument that has been integrated into modern diplomatic practice. As a result, U.S. public diplomacy’s institutions, methods and priorities require transformation rather than adaptation, Gregory argues. He has a litany of areas for improvement: “Rethinking fortress embassies, the role of foreign ministries, risk assessments for diplomats among the people, recruitment, training and professional education, resource limitations, Congressional oversight, legal and regulatory authorities, international broadcasting and inter-agency direction,” to name a few.
<br />
<br />
Now and in the future, I believe American fortress embassies are a reality we must contend with—but there should be accommodations made in areas where it is reasonable. In 2009, during my internship at the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh, I observed that the newly-built embassy featured a playground for children and wide lawns, with a slatted iron fence instead of the typical reinforced concrete walls that often surrounded the latest generation of U.S. embassy structures. The fence had large spaces between in the slats and the embassy grounds hosted a garden easily viewed from the sidewalk. The Public Affairs Section also hung artwork from a student contest on the embassy fence, making the fence seem less like a barrier and more of a formality.
<br />
<br />
The United States is rich in its numbers of social entrepreneurs, start-up business owners, and tech-savvy players. As a part of its efforts to foster a long-term vision of public diplomacy, U.S. public diplomacy practitioners would do well to listen to and network with what Gregory deems as “voices outside government,” people who “are exploring ways to leverage civil society’s knowledge, skills and creativity through a new independent, non-profit institution — a networked capacity that is intended to enable government instruments, not to duplicate or compete with them” (Gregory, 368).
<br />
<br />
On the subject of recruitment, the U.S. Foreign Service needs to look like the rest of America. As Ambassador Ruth Davis has <a href="http://wws.princeton.edu/wws-news-magazine/summer05.pdf">pointed out</a>, the Foreign Service should recruit members that are representative of the United States people, paying particular attention to fostering diversity by recruiting people from different backgrounds, walks of life, areas of the country, and with (non-traditional policy) expertise. Fellowship programs such as the Thomas R. Pickering and Charles B. Rangel fellowships provide young people--especially minorities and women--with invaluable opportunities to apply their talent and skills for a career in public service. The government would do well to continue to fund such opportunities.
<br />
<br />
Finally, members of Congress should have long-term interests in supporting the transformation of U.S. public diplomacy and its institutions. Going forward, Congress should reauthorize the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy and authorize larger amounts of funding and research so that the function of public diplomacy will be funded almost as much as the amounts dispensed to its military counterpart.</div>
MJ Phamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08981369409863794961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-33903477128625415712012-06-28T20:13:00.000-07:002012-06-28T20:13:03.587-07:00My Reply to "Improvements to US Public Diplomacy"http://haydenpd.blogspot.com/2012/06/improvements-to-us-public-diplomacy.html?showComment=1340939459919#c7574556137774286800Christina Dinhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06660924667613212402noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-85326880031941270422012-06-27T13:41:00.000-07:002012-06-27T13:41:00.578-07:00Tips for Success: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The 21<sup>st</sup>
century has changed the game of public diplomacy by injecting more players and new
tools. During the first twelve years of the new century, the U.S. has learned
several lessons about how to succeed in public diplomacy with these new rules. Alec
Ross presents one of the lessons – the lesson that technology is a neutral
tool. Developments in the Middle East during and after the Arab Spring highlighted
that technologies can be used to enforce existing ideologies. They are just as
potent for protesters as for authoritarian governments. A second lesson is that
public information is global information. The traditional separation between
U.S. public diplomacy and public affairs is impractical and illogical. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Knowing
all of this, U.S. public diplomacy faces a host of challenges, ranging from
organizational issues to the rise of citizen diplomacy. A condensed list might
look like this, with each item building on the previous: <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span class="apple-converted-space" style="background-color: white; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">National strategy</span></span></li>
<li><span class="apple-converted-space" style="background-color: white; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Organizational issues</span></span></li>
<li><span class="apple-converted-space" style="background-color: white; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">More stakeholders</span></span></li>
</ul>
<!--[if !supportLists]--><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The first
challenge is the lack of a national strategy for public diplomacy. Many
observers have commented on the Obama administration’s philosophy of
engagement. As Bruce Gregory notes, it is not entirely clear what engagement
should mean. He cautions that it has many opportunities to fail, for instance if
engagement reinforces negative stereotypes. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The
second challenge includes the organizational issues inherent in how the U.S.
conceptualizes public diplomacy. Nakamura and Weed note that the hierarchy of
public diplomacy officials implies a lack of importance. They write that making
the PD leader an undersecretary reporting to the Secretary of State makes
public diplomacy seem inferior to traditional diplomacy. Another related issue
is the ambiguous role of other agencies such as the Department of Defense and USAID.
Without a national strategy to guide coordination, messages might be mixed
and/or conflicting. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Finally,
the third overarching challenge is the influx of public diplomacy stakeholders.
The traditional diplomats are no longer the only actors. Aside from civil
society groups and the private sector, average citizens are empowered by their
technologies. The current administration embraces people-to-people diplomacy.
As Gregory points out, citizen diplomacy might not always accomplish the
government’s goals. American citizens’ opinions could likely contradict U.S.
foreign policies. On a related note, U.S. public diplomacy practitioners have
not yet grasped the nuances of networks. Ross calls networks a “defining
feature in the new global power structure.” Not understanding the structure and
dynamics of networks will be very damaging to U.S. public diplomacy. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">To resolve
these problems, Gregory asserts that the United States needs to transform the
way it does public diplomacy. This transformation includes changing the mindset
of always needing to be in control. U.S. public diplomacy needs to insert
itself into the global networks of citizens and civil society. Top-down or
one-way communication is no longer an option. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">One of
Gregory’s main points is absolutely on target. The U.S. needs to devote more
resources to evaluating its efforts. The difficulty of measuring success is a
problem for any state. A different approach could be spend more time evaluating
programs before they are implemented. Questions to ask include: Which agency is
best equipped to address this need? How can other state agencies and public
diplomacy actors complement their efforts? <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Another
solution is to be prepared for international developments. Ross says that
public diplomacy practitioners must respond to the disruptions in international
relations caused by technology. The U.S. should take this notion a step further
by preempting the disruptions. Gerald Howarth, Britain’s Minister for
International Security Strategy, spoke yesterday at CSIS. His speech centered
on defense, but the major points can easily be applied to public diplomacy.
Howarth spoke of “meeting challenges upstream.” What he meant is that so many
world events come as a surprise. If the U.S. were to devote more resources to
research, in Washington and abroad, there would be greater potential to
anticipate. In addition, focusing so much attention on one region at the expense
of others is a flawed concept. After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. turned its
attention to an area of the world that it had previously ignored. Having its
pulse on every region of the world could let the U.S. be proactive rather than
reactive.</span></span></div>Gabby LaVerghettahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09564751953885732205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-41297383090658912552012-06-21T18:40:00.000-07:002012-06-21T18:42:12.804-07:00Defining Nation Branding in Middle Power Public Diplomacy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;">Geopolitics have consistently evolved since the Cold War,
and have given rise to a large number of nations which ascribe to a status
referred to as a ‘Middle Power’. These nations, South Africa, South Korea,
Canada and Australia among them, have attained a level of stability, ingenuity
or leadership in a certain domestic sectors, which enable them to compete with
superpowers such as the United States and China. However, these nations are
still dealing with internal or international development in other facets.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">One way in which middle powers can attempt to assert
themselves against conceptions of inferiority is nation branding, or the
process of acutely strategizing information, products and practices that
positively affect how other countries view them. These branding strategies are
oftentimes synonymous with other diplomatic or public diplomacy efforts.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">In my opinion, nation branding retains the ability to be
classified as or synonymous with public diplomacy only if it meets certain
conditions. If the intention behind the nation brand is to advance a state’s
foreign policy agenda (whether that be through multilateral partnerships, soft
power strategies, economic ties, etc.) then I believe it should be considered
an arm of public diplomacy, as it does assist in the control over image,
message and attractiveness of a state.
Ideally, the nation brand reflects an accurate depiction of the country.
When this image is not depicted correctly, there can be disagreements from such
parties as the foreign public, the international media or the domestic public. This is exemplified in the</span><a href="http://brandkenya.co.ke/" style="background-color: white;"> Brand Kenya</a><span style="background-color: white;"> campaign, where Kenyan nationals are shown to not have a high level of
patriotism due to internal conditions like importation, violence and
corruption.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">What I do not believe is public diplomacy is when a national
branding strategy is created for purely commercial purposes. Within this
context, nation branding is more closely related to propaganda or advertising,
as there is not always the guarantee of legitimacy or credibility behind the
image or message and there may not be ample space for dialogue within the
strategy. Association is also a factor. Brand Kenya, although a legitimate
nation brand, was crafted by PR firm </span><a href="http://www.interbrand.com/en/our-work/clients.aspx" style="background-color: white;">Interbrand Sampson</a><span style="background-color: white;">, which also has commercial
products such as AT&T and Wrigley in their repertoire. Eytan Gilboa
reflected on this when he noted that nation brands must be prepared to be very
flexible with their product, as public diplomacy is a fluid process.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">I think it is also crucial to consider intention of nation
branding strategies that do not have foreign policy goals besides increasing
international recognition and attractiveness. Popularity in the international
arena is not public diplomacy because it should not be an end in itself, but
rather a means to an end of specific foreign policy objectives.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">It may be easy for a ‘middle power’ to consider their nation
branding strategy a form of public diplomacy, despite the fact there are purely
commercial entities conducting it. As is also described by Gilboa, middle
powers are characteristically strapped for resources in public diplomacy, yet
must constantly strive to remain sustainable and influential within their
sector, lest succumb to the fluidity of the geopolitical sphere. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-75103365421847403642012-06-21T13:27:00.001-07:002012-06-21T13:27:15.721-07:00My response to "The Limits of Country Branding"<a href="http://intwitivas.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/tourism-logos.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="532" width="400" src="http://intwitivas.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/tourism-logos.jpg" /></a>
<br>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<b>"<a href="http://globaldiplomats.blogspot.com/2012/06/limits-of-country-branding.html#comment-form">The Limits of Country Branding</a>"</b>
<br>
<br>
<b><i>My response to classmate Alejandro Neyra's post found by <a href="http://globaldiplomats.blogspot.com/2012/06/limits-of-country-branding.html#comment-form">clicking here</a>.</b></i>
<br>
<br>
The Boston Globe makes note of the nation-building as a trend, reporting on how “the last few years have seen an explosion of ‘nation-branding,’ shorthand for coordinated government efforts to manage a country's image, whether to improve tourism, investment, or even foreign relations” (Risen, 2005). As Alejandro points out, Mexico, South Korea, and other middle powers are no exception. These middle powers are invested in gaining soft power, 'top of mind awareness,' cultural leverage, and a means to foster mutually beneficial relationships with its own constituents, prospective investors, potential customers, and/or other countries. Cesar Villanueva Rivas highlights how some countries, such as Mexico, are compelled to remake its image in effort to dispel the negative press that has plagued the country since it experienced a surge in "narco-violence." Other developing middle powers, such as South Korea, are trying to polish their public image to foster their influence. This is illustrated in Sook-Jung Lee's briefing on "South Korea's Soft Power Diplomacy," where he underscores how "South Korea’s national image and values for [the brand concept of a] Global Korea should be prosperous, democratic, modest, nonthreatening, and culturally syncretic, since many Third World countries see South Korea as a model with its simultaneous achievement of development and democratization” (Lee, 2009). One tactic indispensable to South Korea's branding strategy relies on translating its commercial and private sector success--Samsung's or LG's brand power for example--into soft power. The other tactic that is critical to South Korea's branding strategy is that it must follow through with the realization that branding, to put it in Alejandro's words, "is not only about having a commercial logo or a catchy slogan," but about building trust and fostering a credible rapport with the public.
<br>
<br>
This tactic goes beyond branding and moves into the realm of public diplomacy, which not only promotes the understanding of a nation's brand, but also the understanding of its culture, heritage, and people. In a sense, governments seeking to create their own brands and grow brand value also want to “develop [an] emotional, positive reaction between their part of the world and citizens...[they] want to make or re-make their image in the world to gain clout vis-à-vis their neighbors to achieve certain political ends” (Youde, 2009). In order to pique and develop the public's empathy for and/or sense of connection to a brand, a nation must look to its public diplomacy programming. As Alejandro also notes, public diplomacy is intrinsic to branding—and not secondary to it—because it provides various groups with the possibility to interact with, learn from, and connect to others. In other words, branding alone has its limits, but when combined with public diplomacy and people-to-people initiatives, the two have the power to building bridge across cultures, fostering mutual understanding within a larger regional or global community.
<br>
<br>
Just as branding is indispensable to shaping and communicating brand value, so too is public diplomacy to “helping audiences identify with” nation-states and “encouraging them to buy its products and services” (van Ham, 2002). And just as Lee emphasizes how “the soft power of a country operates in constant interaction with its hard power,” so too does public diplomacy operate in tandem with nation-branding.MJ Phamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08981369409863794961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-65530138925311220092012-06-21T12:41:00.002-07:002012-06-21T12:41:52.564-07:00The Critical Role of Public Diplomacy to Middle Powers<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt;">In
the realm of international relations, middle powers face several challenges in
respect to their representation, influence, and legitimacy. Middle powers have
limited resources, yet they aspire to influence central events and processes in
contemporary international relations [Gilboa: 2006, 27]. In order to have a say
in international relations, middle powers use public diplomacy as a tool to
engage with the public about their initiatives, national identity to increase
global awareness about their status and garner support for their goals.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Canada
used a global initiative in order to strengthen their soft power outreach as
well as global leadership skills through public diplomacy. Canada undertook a
campaign to ban landmines despite opposition by larger powers. By taking on
this initiative, Canada was able to connect with like-minded states and
increased their global presence by employing public diplomacy to raise
awareness. [Gilboa: 2006, 25]<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Using
the tool of public diplomacy is important in enhancing a middle power’s ability
to influence foreign affairs. Where middle powers might lack the economic,
resource, and military might of those of the larger powers, they rely heavily
on public diplomacy to carefully craft their image and at times likeability to garner
external support. The United Nations Security Council provides one example
where states with strong public diplomacy efforts can affect a state’s ability “in
shaping global agendas and responding to global issues, to engage and negotiate
with significant international powers on a regular basis, and consequently to
raise their own medium and long-term international profile and standing.” [Bryne:
2011, 7] <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt;">In
the case of a non-permanent UNSC seat, the competition is fierce and candidates
must secure at least two-thirds of the available and eligible General Assembly
votes of about 128. [Bryne: 2011, 12] Thus, other state’s perception matters
greatly in matters such as these and tools of public diplomacy can be used to
help secure votes to help increase a state’s global influence. Countries such as South Korea also use their
public diplomacy efforts to support their “footprint” in both the region and
globally.[Lee: 2009, 2] <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Middle
powers are generally viewed as having less material resources and global
influence than great powers and must rely on tools of public diplomacy to
advocate their country initiatives, national identity, and increase global
awareness of their work as good global citizens and mediators. Where these
states lack in material resources they must compensate for promoting their
self-image to gain participation in international relations.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>Christina Dinhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06660924667613212402noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-89522875105141978372012-06-20T19:05:00.000-07:002012-06-20T19:05:19.975-07:00Middle Powers and the Limitations of Public Diplomacy<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Eytan Gilboa defines middle powers as
states that lack the resources of great powers but provide multilateral
leadership on global issues including “economic development and foreign aid,
and human rights, human security, environmental protection and health.” There is
not unanimous agreement on which states qualify as middle powers, and as Andrew
Cooper notes, global power dynamics are in a constant state of flux. However, some
of the commonly agreed upon middle powers include Canada, Australia, and
Mexico. Because they lack the resources of great powers, public diplomacy is a
major asset for middle power diplomacy. These middle powers are often ignored
or pigeonholed by the rest of the world. Public diplomacy offers an efficient
way to gain attention and influence. Despite many success stories, the cases of
Mexico and Australia show us the limitations of public diplomacy.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Mexico shows us public diplomacy’s
inadequate powers in the face of serious domestic problems. Pamela K. Starr provides
a list of the obstacles facing Mexico’s influence and reputation. What is most
damaging to its national reputation is the violence resulting from the drug
war. To compensate for the homicides and horrors, Mexico has tried to promote
itself as a beautiful tourist destination and the birthplace of a storied
culture. While they might succeed at generating interest in Mexican beaches and
art, these public diplomacy initiatives can’t support Mexico’s diplomatic goals.
As countless public diplomacy scholars have pointed out, foreign publics aren’t
stupid or naïve. They won’t be fooled by attempts to cover up crime and
corruption with culture and cuisine. Even the slickest public diplomacy
campaigns can’t gloss over the tens of thousands of deaths Mexico has seen over
the past several years. The solution lies in policies that put an end to the
violence and not in public diplomacy. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Caitlin Byrne’s chronicle of Australia’s
campaign for a seat on the UN Security Council brings up a host of other shortcomings
of public diplomacy for middle powers. Caitlin Byrne’s publication on the bid,
announced in 2008, hints at the challenges of proving oneself to the world. Middle
powers, by their very nature, are limited in the scope of their international
involvement. And yet to win a spot on
the Security Council they need to sufficiently impress at least two-thirds of
the General Assembly to earn their votes. It’s difficult to launch a global
campaign since certain messages play better with certain audiences. Secondly,
depending on the type of public diplomacy, it may be too long-term for the
immediate diplomatic agenda. Cultural exchanges, for example, are very
effective public diplomacy tools and help to foster international relationships.
Yet they aren’t particularly useful when campaigning for a seat on the UNSC. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">In
effect, the limits of public diplomacy operate across the board. Good PD is not
a substitute for good policy. The same messages and values that attract some
might alienate others. And long-term initiatives are not always an appealing
strategy for reputations that need immediate bolstering. Even the great powers
have had to understand this. The United States is an apt example. For so long
Americans have considered freedom and democracy to be universal values. Only
recently has the U.S. started to realize that those words hold different
meanings for different cultures. Spreading that message to some areas of the
world but not others would be hypocritical, and abandoning the message
altogether would be disingenuous. <o:p></o:p></span></div>Gabby LaVerghettahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09564751953885732205noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-64135670830163453842012-06-15T23:00:00.000-07:002012-06-16T07:21:53.354-07:00New Resources, New Challenges for Indian Public Diplomacy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
There is no such thing as a seamless public diplomacy strategy. Throughout our readings and research we have seen that in the process of projecting an attractive and legitimate image to a foreign public there has always been some internal or external factor that inhibits its full effect. In the case of China, the deterrent was its history of human rights abuses and stifled response to crises. In Taiwan, it was a lack of involvement on the international stage in multi-lateral relations and associations. In Japan, it was too much focus on spreading popular culture and not enough on promoting their foreign policy agenda.<br />
<br />
Now we have India, the world's largest democracy, that is dealing with its own set of unique opportunities and pitfalls in public diplomacy. I will detail these as "resources" and "challenges".<br />
<br />
Resources:<br />
<br />
India has a very advanced IT sector, which puts it in a great position to use this as leverage for public diplomacy strategies. Examples of utilizing this strength come in the form of adaptation to e-diplomacy, e-governance, ICT4D and digital diplomacy via social networks or other means of transnational communication. The Ministry of External Affairs <a href="http://www.indiandiplomacy.in/default.aspx">website</a> exemplifies many of these characteristics as they reach out via Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, have enabled platforms for Indian diasporics to connect and publish content regularly.<br />
<br />
Another resource is what is referred to as the "soft" aspect of their hard power. Politically, they are the world's largest democracy and a long-standing one at that. Although it hasn't been widely noticed on a global scale, it has had an affect on regional democracy building in places like Nepal and Pakistan. India is in a position to use their history to actively promote politically to some of the world's most sensitive areas like Iran and Syria, which aligns India closer in relations to the US.<br />
<br />
Jumping off of that point, India still maintains its appeal to developing states. Because India is still in many ways developing itself, it can easily reach out and form relationships with Asian, Middle Eastern or African countries for purposes of mutual development. This has already been started with the <a href="http://2billiondreams.in/">Indiafrica</a> project, seeking to build relations between African countries and India.<br />
<br />
Challenges:<br />
<br />
One glaring challenge for India is that it is late in the game of public diplomacy. Although their presence is definitely felt in, they only began implementing public diplomacy in 2006 and are still experimenting with how exactly to apply it in an Indian context that will encapsulate the state.<br />
<br />
This presents another issue for India, diversity. Attempts to brand or project a unified India are extremely difficult due to a diverse and complex demographic, consisting of many ethnic groups, languages, religions, castes, political groups and economic statuses. This harkens some of the same troubles even the US has in nation-branding, as it houses an array of citizens and many times it is difficult to convey one image or culture to foreign publics.<br />
<br />
As is the case with many states, there is confusion between the foreign and the domestic audience in public diplomacy. India seems to be targeting Indians for development purposes as well as foreign publics who they would like to be aware of what is happening in the state. However, the question then becomes whether their credibility is being compromised by doing this. Internal studies show that Indians do not feel their country is strong or powerful enough to have influence over other nations, which indicates that different narratives need to be employed for foreign and domestic audiences.<br />
<br />
Finally, India has followed in the footsteps of Japan and South Korea by overtly projecting culture and tourism to foreign audiences rather than taking a stance on foreign policy or even integrating that stance into their cultural communications. The Incredible India campaign has been very popular and visitors to India have increased significantly, but is this public diplomacy or is this tourism? Can it be both? This goes along with their soft power approach, and it has had some success, but in continued efforts there should be some policy backing. Otherwise India will be liked but not seen as powerful or influential, which is the opposite intention of PD strategy.<br />
<br />
In a quick summation, I would argue that India needs to engage its domestic audience in a nationalistic campaign, uniting them under one India and boosting self-image. This is a key starting point before public diplomacy will function for them. Then, once this is improved, India can begin engaging their citizenry or government with foreign publics using their advanced IT arena, not only promoting culture but backing that up with a democratic or developmental goal. This way, other nations will look to India for influence or aid when it comes to political or economic factors, thereby giving India a large foothold. The effect should be cyclical, as this increased attention will strengthen India's name and importance on a global scale while simultaneously improving self-image.<br />
<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-41020755800224639992012-06-14T20:26:00.001-07:002012-06-14T20:26:56.493-07:00Leveraging "Cool Japan"<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">How has the notion of
“Cool Japan” been leveraged to promote Japan’s public diplomacy initiatives?</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Japan’s main public diplomacy objectives are to “ deepen
understanding of Japan among people in other countries and boost Japan’s image
overseas”. Anime and manga have both been two cultural tools used by the
Japanese to leverage their soft power influence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The concept of “Cool Japan” has had a large
attraction overseas. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Japanese traditional as well as contemporary values are
reflected in its “Cool Japan” brand. As more and more people become aware and
familiar with cultural aspects such as anime, manga, and K-pop, Japanese
cultural values become more accessible to the outside world. “Cool Japan” works
as a branding instrument for soft power where it presents a unified, cultural
message of Japan.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Anime and manga have also influenced Japanese language
initiatives between the United States and Japan. For example, the popularity of
anime has extended to countries where Japanese is not the prominent language,
thus needing to be dubbed to be understood. Instead of waiting months for
language dubbing, anime has acted as a catalyst to promote Japanese language
interest among students who would wish to watch anime in its original context. The
increase in language exchange programs would thus create greater
people-to-people connections and inherently increase a state’s soft power
capabilities in the long run.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also used “Cool Japan”
as a way to bring together people from diverse backgrounds. In the case of the
Third International Manga Award competition, participants came from all over
the world. Exhibitions such as the World Expo provide public diplomacy
opportunities where Japan can not only showcase the anime and manga popularity,
but also Japanese cultural traditions as well. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the international realm, it has been difficult for Japan
to overcome the negative aspects of its colonial past. Tensions between South
Korea and China regarding past historical events will take greater public
diplomacy efforts than just “Cool Japan”. It will be interesting to compare the
Chinese and Japanese diplomacy efforts and changing economic situations. Will
Japan’s public diplomacy efforts be enough to escape the shadow of a rising
China?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>Christina Dinhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06660924667613212402noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-70229642371436033022012-06-13T14:03:00.000-07:002012-06-13T14:04:49.247-07:00India should balance capacity and capability<a href="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcShGe-JZa8mHTWmhP1uRpUeQwIXd0n72V01VKytPlpNtlRiDnXIsJz-VPH8" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="197" width="256" src="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcShGe-JZa8mHTWmhP1uRpUeQwIXd0n72V01VKytPlpNtlRiDnXIsJz-VPH8" /></a>
<br>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
In his article on “India’s Soft Power: Prospects and Limitations,” Christian Wagner examines India’s soft power in several contexts—the U.S.-dominated military context; our contemporary globalized context with empowered nation-states and non-state actors; and the ever important international economic context. By providing several categories for understanding “soft power capacities”—culture, political values, and foreign policy—Wagner highlights India’s immediate advantages in its public diplomacy practices. He does so by underscoring its strong democratic traditions in a post-colonial society, Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy of non-violent engagement and peaceful conflict resolution, its promotion of India as a global technology hub and investment destination, its storied engagement in multilateral diplomacy, and its increasingly popular Bollywood film industry.
<br>
<br>
He concludes that while positive perceptions of India’s social and political values assist in fostering its soft power, such perceptions are only a stamp of approval and not an acknowledgement of influence. In other words, although India has incredible brand power and potential, it currently lacks the star-appeal of other soft-power giants for a few reasons: (1) India’s values and practice of democracy are not perceived as models for the rest of the world; (2) India favors attracting foreign direct investment to its own land and is very slow in fostering its own political, social, and/or economic investment in other countries that could benefit from its leadership; and (3) Indian society is just beginning to comprehend its diversity and its identity.
<br>
<br>
While it is evident India boasts a number of strengths in effectively leveraging soft power to project its desired image of a tech-savvy and sexy investment destination, the regional hegemon is missing critical foreign policy considerations and long-term strategies in its public diplomacy vision and practice. These missing long-range considerations will give rise to foreign policy challenges that India will likely face down the road. One limitation to India’s soft power capacity is its emphasis on capacity over hard power capabilities. Moreover, its use and aims of soft power seem to stray from its menu of hard power.
<br>
<br>
Second, India is the world’s largest democracy—heir to the storied legacy of Gandhi—and yet it has been shockingly slow in seeking to promote its democratic ideals abroad and exert influence. Despite its strategic location bordering Burma (Myanmar), India failed to step forward to strongly support Aung San Suu Kyi’s democratic minority and “missed the Burma bus”—allowing regional competitor China to seize influence instead. All this, despite India’s experience as a strong multilateral player.
<br>
<br>
Wagner highlights how India specifically uses its soft power—by way of its industry, economy, political and social values—to build up its image rather than to exert its influence on foreign policy. However, these factors are capacity-enablers, not capability promoters. As Wagner notes, a nation’s soft power capability allows it to effectively channel its capacities or resources into instruments or initiatives of foreign policy. As I previously emphasized, India could stand to improve a number of its soft power outlets. However, there is one soft power medium India’s public and private organizations could more easily restructure for everyone’s benefit—Bollywood.
Wagner is ambiguous when he describes “Bollywood as a quasi-global dream fabric.” It is not clear what he means by this, but I imagine he is trying to describe Bollywood as a medium that delivers the Indian Dream—the endless opportunities for freedom, innovation, romance, and prosperity found in India. As Wagner notes, Bollywood films compared to “Hollywood…do not reflect or promote a universal model for political or cultural development and should therefore be seen as mere entertainment.” While Bollywood films depict the energy and drama of different classes of Indian society and daily life in a glamorized fashion, its soft power influence seemingly pales in comparison to South Korea’s popular K-Dramas.
<br>
<br>
South Korean dramas have had an extraordinary influence in shaping the country’s national image around the world—even in North Korea, where South Korean materials are verboten but immensely popular. One North Korean defector told the New York Times how influential the K-Dramas were in shaping her perception of the world outside Pyongyang. Popular Korean dramas often feature the newest technologies on their sets—brand new kitchens, electronic accessories in bathrooms—and the characters in most shows often showcase the most luxurious accessories. Although they are just TV dramas, these South Korean productions have ignited a wave of South Korean popularity throughout Asia and Latin America. And while a TV show may just be a fragment of reality, its soft power capital has the potential to change lives, as evidenced by Ahn Mi Ock’s defector story. If India can mimic and invest in a balance between capacity and capability, it will stand to benefit in the long-term.MJ Phamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08981369409863794961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-78552815913690449912012-06-13T05:50:00.000-07:002012-06-13T05:50:06.177-07:00The Limited Diplomatic Potential of "Cool Japan"<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Cool Japan” is a new public diplomacy program focused on
the promotion Japanese pop culture. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)
promotes various elements of Japanese subculture including pop music and
fashion. The two most famous cultural components are anime and manga. Cool Japan is an intelligent move by MOFA. As
Nakamura writes, the government was able to harness the already existing popularity
of anime and manga comics. From this perspective, the program has been
successful in promoting attractive aspects of modern Japanese culture. Japan
appointed the character Doraemon as an Anime Ambassador. Many American
bookstores feature manga sections, which is an important indicator of
popularity. Considering the domination of Hollywood films and English-language
music on the radio, the U.S. entertainment market is not an easy one to break
into. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another piece of evidence in support of Cool Japan is the ability
of pop culture to generate further interest in Japan. Kenjiro Monji, former
director of the Public Diplomacy Department of MOFA said interest in anime and
manga inspires fans to study the Japanese language. Furthermore, some fans
travel to Japan to visit the sites from their favorite comics or films. In this
way, Cool Japan serves as a gateway to greater exploration of Japanese culture. Nakamura also quotes
Joseph Nye, who says that a country that utilizes popular channels of
communication is more likely to be successful in spreading its messages. Cool
Japan leverages its public diplomacy initiatives by appealing to the general
public, which is highly effective in terms of the new public diplomacy.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Nakamura writes that some critics find fault with Cool Japan
because of its limited appeal. While anime might have many fans, there are just
as many people who might find it “frivolous.” This isn’t the most compelling
argument, since the same thing could be said about any cultural program in any
country. Also, Nakamura focuses his article on anime and manga, which do
attract a specific fan base. But there are other aspects of Japanese pop
culture that attract different audiences. The <a href="http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/ed20120610a1.html">newest initiative
from Cool Japan</a> will be recreating parts of Tokyo in other cities around
the world. This will be no small feat. But even a handful of “Little Tokyo’s”
would introduce foreign audiences to a more conventional slice of life in
Japan. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So far we can see
that Cool Japan has been successful at generating interest in Japanese culture
and highlighting the country’s distinctive elements. However, these aren’t
Japan’s only diplomatic objectives. Japan wants to demonstrate leadership in
international affairs, which includes earning a permanent spot on the UN
Security Council, and disseminate a peaceful national image. It is unclear as
to whether Cool Japan has the capacity to increase Japan’s soft power to the
point of fulfilling these goals. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Nakamura and Kenijo
described one argument for Cool Japan as an indicator of leadership. Some
Japanese public diplomacy practitioners believe that developing countries, for
example Iraq, are interested in emulating Japan’s postwar comeback. According
to this view, such countries admire Japan for its ability to modernize while
still retaining its culture. Kenijo considers that malleability to be a
strength of Japanese culture. That’s an interesting point, but it’s probably
not the type of leadership the Security Council regards most highly when
evaluating potential new members. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Interestingly enough, while Ogawa writes that Japan sees itself
as a source of inspiration for this reason, it is Japan’s very postwar
“comeback” that presents a major soft power problem in places like China and
South Korea. As Nakamura details, it remains very controversial as to whether
Japan issued a proper official apology for its wartime aggressions. This is no
small soft power obstacle. Anime and J-pop are fun, maybe even enlightening,
but they can’t erase the memories of war. Cool Japan is not enough to realize
Japan’s major public diplomacy goals. If Japan wants to be seen as an
international leader of harmony and peace, it must atone for its conduct in
World War II with an apology and leadership in humanitarian issues. Until then,
Cool Japan will only generate a more superficial soft power based mostly on
commercial entertainment. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>Gabby LaVerghettahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09564751953885732205noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-90700157264738080802012-06-08T23:30:00.000-07:002012-06-10T05:49:03.068-07:00Another View: Interpreting Chinese Soft Power<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A major theme in public diplomacy, or international communication writ-large, is the conception of 'the other'. Scholar Edward Said had articulated 'the other' as a battle between the Western worldview and the Eastern worldview, with history regarding the Western tradition as of late.<br />
<br />
We see this pattern in public diplomacy strategies around the world. Democracy has taken hold in many nations and the strong influence (whether intentional or not) from the United States has had a vast Westernizing effect where, not by coercion but by attraction, nations have jumped on the American model. However, China and Chinese soft power is now beginning to play counter to that notion.<br />
<br />
According to Yiwei Wang's "Public Diplomacy & The Rise of Chinese Soft Power" the cultural characteristics of collectivisim have dictated the methodology of Chinese soft power. Whereas the Western tradition of public diplomacy has the tendency to be splitting, identifying the differences of other parties and seeking to assimilate them, the Chinese tradition is to be introspective and multiplicitous, seeing many versions of 'other' and seeking to change themselves to adapt to the environment.<br />
<br />
This deeper-level philosophy would seem to work very well in public diplomacy, as other nations would appreciate China not seeking to change them, but rather altering themselves and engaging in such things as cultural exchange to gain influence. These messages are also coming from a highly centralized and strong (politically and economically) government, so their communications are far-reaching and backed by plenty of resources. <br />
<br />
However, there have been many setbacks in China that have conflicted with this understanding of public diplomacy.<br />
<br />
For having a society based upon morality, exchange and understanding China has had a number of human rights issues in such areas as the workplace, social roles and natural disaster management. There is also a complete disconnect in the realm of media diplomacy, which is popular in the Western tradition but is only starting to catch on in China with agencies like CCTV. China has a history of engaging in censorship of information for the protection of their own citizenry, but as of late this has become more of a problem for the Chinese government to control given the opening of information access worldwide.<br />
<br />
I think China's interpretation of soft power is so widely talked about because its political and economic sectors are so strong. However, because initial studies have shown Chinese soft power strategies are not having a positive effect, I think it is safe to say their conception of public diplomacy needs tweaking and must become consistent with their domestic efforts in order to provide a harmonious message to the world. This must also be considered a long-term effort, despite China's realtively quick rise politically and economically. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-12125659945985670612012-06-08T20:44:00.002-07:002012-06-08T20:44:59.716-07:00Taiwan's Public Diplomacy Challenges and Opportunities<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
p.MsoNoSpacing, li.MsoNoSpacing, div.MsoNoSpacing
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">What are the
challenges and opportunities for Taiwanese public diplomacy?</b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Gerald Chan best described Taiwan’s situation as
“financially rich but diplomatically poor”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>While Taiwan has built a strong economic foundation, this financial
stability does not translate into soft power. The concept of soft power can be
drawn back to Joseph Nye, where “public diplomacy helps transform soft power
resources into tangible improvements in the international state” (Rockower, 110)
However, Taiwan faces several challenges, the main difficulty being the issue
of Taiwan’s legitimacy and its international recognition. Yet, Taiwan’s
democratic identity help enhance its public diplomacy efforts as a means of a
shared cultural identity with other democratic nations. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Taiwanese
Ministry of Foreign Affairs helps conduct polylateral public diplomacy within
global civil society. (Rockower, 110) The MOFA has helped Taiwan increase its
public diplomacy efforts by facilitating people-to-people diplomacy. One of
these strategies has been through international language and cultural
exchanges. These exchanges will help the diffusion of Taiwanese cultural values
and increase people-to-people contact. Taiwanese exchange programs are also
common with those from democratic nations who </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Taiwan’s investment in gastrodiplomacy is an opportunity
that will help support the establishment of Taiwanese restaurants abroad in an
effort to mimic the success of Thailand’s gastrodiplomacy strategies. Gastrodiplomacy
can help publicize Taiwanese national brands.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Taiwan biggest challenge is its lack of recognition from
the international community under that shadow of China’s economic and political
dominance. Taiwan only has formal diplomatic relations with 23 minor powers and
does not have any formal relations with any major power. (Rawnsley, 1) Taiwan
lacks the international clout demonstrated by China, but also a distinct,
unified national image to promote themselves with.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Taiwan also lacks the hard power capabilities
to that of China and any public diplomacy effort that might upset China puts
Taiwan in dangerous territory. </div>Christina Dinhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06660924667613212402noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-80181891234899608532012-06-07T21:50:00.001-07:002012-06-07T21:50:24.636-07:00Taiwan: Shadow or Nation?<b>What are the challenges and opportunities for Taiwanese public diplomacy?</b>
<br>
<br>
Paul Rockower outlines a number of suitable opportunities for Taiwan to seize as it continues to address the challenges posed by the People’s Republic of China next door. He suggests that Taiwan embrace and advertise its cultural offerings—by assembling a traveling night market—as well as its strategic geopolitical location, democratic values, and economic strength.
<br>
<br>
With its robust economy and classification as a middle power, Taiwan’s political capital and opportunities rest largely on its promotion of a democratic model, allocation of foreign aid, foreign direct investment, and engagement in polylateral and track II methods of diplomacy as well as on its strategic location vis-à-vis U.S. interests in safeguarding its Pacific presence.
<br>
<br>
Opportunities for elevating Taiwanese soft power and influence abound: not only could Taiwan construct interactive outposts, online Taiwan Academies and promote gastrodiplomacy programs to represent its interests, heritage, and cultural importance as the true heir of Chinese culture—it could increase its soft power and influence through the expanding on the niches available. Taiwan would reap rewards for pivoting its terms of diplomatic engagement to focus on two key areas, international communication technologies (ICT) and urban housing and development design. Its expertise in these two indispensable topics would likely be universally appreciated.
<br>
<br>
Since 2007, Taiwan’s sphere of legitimate influence has steadily shrunk, however, despite the government’s efforts at checkbook diplomacy and aid engagement. For example, the government of Costa Rica, which recognized Taiwan as sovereign for over several decades, suddenly switched its allegiance to the PRC overnight—perhaps because it was attracted to Beijing’s offer to build the Costa Rican national stadium in San Jose. Today less than 25 countries officially recognize Taiwan.
<br>
<br>
Taiwan will continue to face the threat of an ever-expanding China whose enormous assets (i.e. ICT company Huawei Technologies) and mammoth influence will become increasingly difficult to compete with, given its size and scope. And although Taiwan’s aid program managed to broker diplomatic ties throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the same judgment cannot be made today. As R. Ellis highlights, global perception and reception of China is changing for a number of reasons. A growing number of developing countries especially are attracted to China because they bear “hopes for future access to Chinese markets and investment,” interest in China’s role as a possible “counterweight to the United States and Western institutions, and admire its successful economic development model.
<br>
<br>
As fewer and fewer countries recognize Taiwan and as it is forced to manufacture a “Chinese culture with Taiwanese characteristics” for public consumption, it is evident that Taiwan’s weight is not what it once was. Only time and strategy will tell whether Taiwan will be able to meet the difficulties posed by its neighbor.MJ Phamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08981369409863794961noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-17243045860292887672012-06-07T20:32:00.002-07:002012-06-07T20:32:39.817-07:00Soft Power - not as black and white as we thought<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Soft power and public diplomacy have
been interpreted distinctively in China. To understand the differences, it
first helps to consider how the Western world defines the concepts. Public
diplomacy can be simply explained as seeking to manage the international
environment through listening and advocating. Soft power, as originally put
forth by Joseph Nye, is an attractive power that co-opts people rather than
coerces them. While we tend to think of these concepts as standard, in reality
they are Westernized notions. The distinction can be seen clearly with China. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Yiwei Wang, in “Public Diplomacy and
the Rise of Chinese Soft Power,” provides an interesting analysis of how China
understands the terms. The first notable distinction he mentions is the Chinese
attitude toward propaganda. What has become a dirty word in much of the Western
world has a positive connotation in China. Already this presents a huge gap in
understanding and creates mistrust from foreigners. Similarly, the country’s
early attempts at public diplomacy by instituting news spokesmen were aimed at
spreading messages internally. This can be chalked up to translation problems,
i.e. mistaking the “public” in PD to mean the Chinese public. It is also a
result, as Wang explains, of the Chinese rule of virtue. The first instinct is
for self-reflection and not outward examination. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Secondly, China also understands
public diplomacy to be primarily about people-to-people diplomacy. A recent
official report advised China “to enhance culture as part of the soft power of
our country to better guarantee the people’s basic cultural rights and
interests.” This is a significant contrast with U.S. public diplomacy efforts. The
emphasis on people and culture is different from the American approach to
public diplomacy which relies on media messages. Cultural diplomacy, while
still important to the U.S., is seen as more frivolous and harder to measure.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Finally, Wang describes China’s
difficulty with conceptualizing soft power in Western terms. Power in China, he
says, relates to morality, and in practice it is connected with strategy.
According to Gary Rawnsley, this is where China’s understanding of soft power
falls short. He says China fails to understand that soft power is an intangible
attraction. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Looking at it objectively, the Chinese
blend of propaganda and public diplomacy is pretty logical. It makes sense that a state’s messages to the domestic public and foreign publics would be the same.
But to a Western PD culture that neurotically tries to separate the two,
China’s philosophy appears wrong – so wrong that we cannot accept it. The
overarching distinction between conceptions of PD and soft power in China and
the West is the difference in credibility. For China, credibility comes in the
form of a top-down, official government message about government business. For
the West, that’s propaganda and it’s bad. For China, credibility comes in the
form of pandas at international zoos. For the West, those pandas are cute and
cuddly and couldn’t be more different from the harsh Chinese authoritarian
government. While there shouldn’t be a
problem with various conceptions of public diplomacy, when credibility doesn’t
translate, the PD is in vain. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>Gabby LaVerghettahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09564751953885732205noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-89394912177407769952012-06-01T17:48:00.000-07:002012-06-01T17:48:29.027-07:00Collaborative Power in Public Diplomacy: Easy Sell, Hard Practice<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
There is a puzzling and particularly difficult separation in the conception of power in public diplomacy today. As Joseph Nye put it, wielding soft power (or using attention, persuasion and communication to meet some form of foreign policy end) comes in two different forms: "Power Over" and "Power With," with particular emphasis on the former.<br />
<br />
In "Power Over," the primary actor implements the public diplomacy strategy with the intent to exert influence over other actors from a centralized effort, excluding influence or suggestion from the target audience prior to implementation. In addition, there is a motive of controlling or at least directly influencing the behaviors/outcomes of the strategy over the target audience.<br />
<br />
In "Power With," all the actors are of equal standing in the public diplomacy strategy. In this model, there is no actor that reserves authoritative control or influence, rather, each actor contributes to the strategy and all parties are expected to let other opinions influence their own goals as well as have their goals influence others'. Results or outcomes of the strategy are of equal credit.<br />
<br />
Ali Fischer conceived of these two models as a choice between leadership or empowerment, and noted that the classification of intent be seriously considered prior to the implementation of any public diplomacy strategy because mixed messages lead to communication failure between actors.<br />
<br />
Finally, Anne Marie Slaughter, in response to Nye's preference of "Power Over" suggested a comprehensive move in public diplomacy towards what she deemed "collaborative power" more along the lines of the "Power With" model. <br />
<br />
Now, the problem lies in how to put these approaches together, if at all.<br />
<br />
Slaughter mentioned an Egyptian-American blogger being arrested in Cairo, and being released shortly after because she tweeted her situation her followers, who used their various network associations to create a call to action. This isn't the only instance of Twitter working towards the benefit of collaborative power, as <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/10/kyrgyzstan_twitter_journalism?page=full">a similar situation occurred in Kyrgyzstan</a>. Personally, I'm very thankful for and impressed by this form of collaborative power, but the fact that it occurred organically makes it extremely difficult to apply it to an actor that has a motive of gaining influence via the "Power With" model, whether its up front or not.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, both of these models can be employed by any actor at the
same time, but it could come at a high cost to the actor's credibility
and also depends upon certain factors such as the level of visibility
and importance the strategy to international relations. <br />
<br />
Certain public diplomacy initiatives like creating an open-source website, user-focused content production, virtual exchange and other such ventures lend themselves more to collaborative power because they are easily completed by a group of distributed participants and may not have as high of visibility, but in order for it to jive with the "Power With" model there needs to be a willingness on all sides to have their contributions or goals altered for the good of the group.<br />
<br />
The only way I can conceive of both models working together is if an actor presents themselves as extremely eager to begin the process of collaborative power with other actors and sticks to that strategy. If one actor initiates the discussion or conversation or inclusion of other actors and emphasizes the collaborative aspect of the work, I think the other actors may come to their own view of the initiator as influential. Of course, I frame this against the backdrop of timing of soft power in public diplomacy, which focuses on lasting relationships, and so this process of letting other actors eventually come to their own conclusions about who to look to for influence may take a very long time.<br />
<br />
Overall, I think that striking a balance between "Power Over" and "Power With" depends upon the level of importance of the strategy, which could also be muddled with political and economic factors. My suggestion for putting these together would be to institute collaborative power strategies when you can (most likely smaller, micro-level public diplomacy) and exert influence more directly for larger foreign policy objectives. This could have drawbacks, such as foreign and domestic publics easily recognizing the vacillation between the two, but they are difficult concepts to combine without showing some cracks.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-76235964488151346602012-06-01T15:27:00.000-07:002012-06-01T15:28:34.339-07:00Social Power vs. Soft Power in the Realm of Foreign Policy<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
p.MsoNoSpacing, li.MsoNoSpacing, div.MsoNoSpacing
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Joseph Nye describes soft power as “the ability to get
what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments.” As the
world advances to a globalized community with greater access to communication
tools, soft power has become a dominant force in every day life. However, is
soft power the best term in foreign policy makers? In the sphere of foreign
policy, social power can better categorize the actions and intentions of
foreign policy makers. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Soft power focuses more on the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">diffusion</i> of culture, political ideals, and policies, which can help
promote a state’s international image, but in the realm of foreign policy, soft
power is too <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">passive</i>. Social power on
the other hand, which Van Ham describes as “the ability to set standards and
create norms and values that are deemed legitimate and desirable without
resorting to coercion or payment” is more suited to the realm of foreign policy
making as it takes more of an active role. Social power is more proactive as it <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">advocates</i> new standards, norms, and
values, which is a large part of foreign policy making. Soft power is more
“being “ than “doing”, and traditional foreign policy methods encourage direct behavior
in achieving certain objectives.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Soft power has 3 key limitations that might deter foreign
policy makers: the issue of time, control, and credibility. Soft power is a
central aspect to foreign policy and public diplomacy efforts, but the
effectiveness of soft power is difficult to measure and most often the effects
seen after long periods of time. As Wilton indicates, soft power can be
difficult for policy makers as “it
offers less scope than harder instruments to demonstrate achievements in foreign
policy goals”. As is such, soft power results offer the long term do not serve
well for the short-term elected officials who often demand short-term
accomplished goals to promote to the public. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Once soft power has been unleashed, it is difficult to
control it as the “success in terms of outcome is more in the control of the
target than often the case with hard power” (Nye). The diffusion of a certain
culture or government policy leaves the perception and opinion to the targeted
audience. Whether it is received positively or negatively depends on the
public. For foreign policy makers, the lack of control on the outcome of an
initiative rooted in soft power is difficult to grasp. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
In order for soft power to be effective, the perception
of credibility/legitimacy by the public is paramount. If the people do not
legitimately recognize a state often, its attempt of soft power is viewed as propaganda
efforts to influence the public. The role of the government is to empower the
citizens to create communication lines to increase the powers of attraction. Also,
as soft power needs the cooperation of international players such as NGO’s,
trans and supranational network, legitimacy first needs to be established.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Soft power can be an effective tool, but might not be the
best term to adequately apply to the foreign policy realm. As social power
supports a greater sense of advocacy and the establishment of international
norms it is better suited. Van Ham’s assessment of social power in the
international realm is very comprehensive but he lacks a clear distinction
between soft power and social power. Soft power though a great tool for
promoting ideas can also be very limiting to policy makers in the issue of
time, control, and legitimacy.</div>Christina Dinhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06660924667613212402noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-71801891668968092002012-05-30T20:53:00.000-07:002012-05-30T21:02:45.407-07:00Embracing Collaborative Power and Accountability<b>Following Slaughter and Fisher, can the idea of "Power Over" be reconciled with an ethic of "Power with?" Put another way, can public diplomacy practitioners truly embrace “collaborative power” and still be accountable?</b>
<br>
<br>
In capitalizing on the use of social media tools in an ever-globalized and interconnected world, can public diplomacy practitioners truly embrace Ali Fisher’s “facilitative approach” and emphasis on the periphery as well as Anne-Marie Slaughter’s “collaborative power” and still be accountable?
<br>
<br>
As Gary Weaver keenly observed, “When people communicate, they send messages, not meanings” (“The Re-Entry Process,” 1987). The narratives constructed through the use of collaborative power often will take on a life and meaning of their own, resulting in offshoots organizations, visions, and narratives. While the merits of top-down relational power practices will continue to shine and suit certain contexts, as Fisher points out, other contexts may require practitioners to engage in “power with” foreign, third-party partners. In such a scenario these practitioners may stand to gain greater credibility in the eyes of their partners, but they are no longer solely responsible for the outcome that results from embracing collaborative power. Instead, they are part of a much larger phenomenon of collective engagement and empowerment, which shares collective narrative and accountability in influencing the images, meaning, and understanding of messages.
<br>
<br>
Fisher highlights how, in the practice of public diplomacy, there is a “division between those that seek to exert ‘power over’ a target audience and those that intend to engage or empower a community” (“Looking at the Man in the Mirror,” pg. 273). The former tendency is often associated an organization’s core or top-down approach of exercising influence, while the latter is often practiced on the margins or periphery of a network.
<br>
<br>
Fisher also points out that the difference between ‘power over’ versus ‘power with’ is rooted in a number of issues, namely: (1) The struggle to align an organization’s messages and actions (contradictions and discrepancies between the two threaten credibility); (2) the dynamics of “state-based author-audience power relationship” and influence of domestic constituents; (3) the pressure to home one’s public diplomacy focus on “self-centered language rather than genuine engagement” with foreign publics; (4) identifying power relationships—whether core or periphery—within a network; and (5) defining and measuring success.
<br>
<br>
In seeking to articulate the modern “phenomenon…[of] networked, horizontal…and sustained application of collective will and resources” in this age of Twitter and other powerful social media tools, Slaughter seeks to complement Joseph Nye’s theory of relational power by articulating a theory on “collaborative power” and distinguishing it as one categorical form of soft power (The Atlantic, November 30, 2011). As Slaughter points out in her article, Nye defines relational power as the “capacity” to take action and achieve desired outcomes in certain social situations. His argument features three facets of relational power—the ability to command change, control agendas, and shape preferences—all facilitated through a top-down approach.
<br>
<br>
In contrast, collaborative power emphasizes the strength of open-sourced networking and the influence of “community organization” and empowerment. In Slaughter’s words, “collaborative power” is defined as “the power of many to do together what no one can do alone.” Collaborative power, or the power-with approach has the power to effect positive change through mutually beneficial partnerships--one case illustrating this is developing relationship between the United States and Myanmar's burgeoning democracy. Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton's admiration of, direct engagement, and partnership with democratic opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has certainly empowered and quickened the process of democratization in the Southeast Asian country. With Western support and co-coordination, the Burmese were able to successfully hold parliamentary elections earlier this year.
<br>
<br>
Fisher and Slaughter make several interesting observations. One key observation is a reminder of how long ago, Karl Deutsch underscored the importance and significance of “community” (288). Sophisticated yet informal community organizing and use of “collaborative power” when well-placed has the potential to achieve tremendous outcomes. We see this when Anne-Marie Slaughter buttresses her argument with the example of Andrew Carvin’s #FreeMona hashtag, which trended worldwide on Twitter soon after its creation and helped to publicize and track the activist’s story—all while likely influencing global perception of the horrors of Mubarak’s administration. A second observation Fisher shares is the need to oscillate between the core-centric approach of the old-fashioned hub-and-spokes style of public diplomacy (and control of information exchange) and the newer peripheral practice or “facilitative approach of niche diplomacy where the benefit comes from helping others to achieve their goals” (281). Finally, he emphasizes the importance in recognizing the “importance and influence” of those on the periphery of communication networks (288). While both the “core and the periphery have vital roles,” it is evident that those who are marginalized, beyond the pale, or in the periphery are likely to first adopt an innovation and become “boundary spanners.”
<br>
<br>
In other words, the periphery is open soil in what Fisher identifies as the rich “inflow and outflow of knowledge and innovation” can take root and flourish. Throughout history, marginalized individuals have succeeded in gaining ground through collaborative networks of power and community organizing—to use post-colonial examples, Frantz Fanon, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. were all those once located on the periphery, beyond the pale.
<br>
<br>
To ensure their credibility in their embrace of collaborative power, public diplomacy practitioners must look to foster what Fisher terms as genuine dialogue, for which there must be “an element in which both sides are prepared to shift their position” (278). The key to influencing hearts and minds, it seems, lies in empowering publics to be open to change and/or new understandings of identity. In an ideal world, public diplomacy practitioners, boundary spanners, and partners alike would all gladly be held accountable for opening channels of exchange.MJ Phamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08981369409863794961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-28745019765044124732012-05-30T20:27:00.002-07:002012-05-30T20:27:13.128-07:00When Everyone and No One Has the Power<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Anne Marie Slaughter makes a compelling argument for the
advantages of collaborative power, or “power with” rather than “power over.” She
defines <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/11/a-new-theory-for-the-foreign-policy-frontier-collaborative-power/249260/">collaborative
power</a> as “the power of many to do together what no one can do alone.” This is
an attractive notion that on the surface describes exactly what the <a href="http://publicdiplomacysummer2012au.blogspot.com/2012/05/whats-so-new-about-new-public-diplomacy.html">new
public diplomacy</a> seeks to do. It challenges the traditional paradigm of
power in PD, which characterizes PD practitioners as actors sending messages to
passive audiences. Even when conceptualizing PD communication through network
theory, the tendency is to envision PD actors at the center. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With collaborative power, then, individual actors pursue
their own interests. As Ali Fisher puts it, all of the network nodes interact
as peers. This might be jarring for policy makers and PD practitioners, especially
in the United States where the M.O. is usually to take the lead. It is even
somewhat contradictory to the idea that public diplomacy is an attempt to
manage the international environment. The word manage implies having power over
others, not with them. It’s important to note that as Slaughter describes it,
collaborative power does not belong to anyone. Rather, it is a property that
can be released under a certain set of circumstances to mobilize, connect, or
adapt. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, the question must be asked: can facilitative public
diplomacy forward foreign policy goals? I think that it can. Fisher says the facilitative
approach of public diplomacy gives the appearance that PD organizations are
acting beyond national interest and for the betterment of foreign communities.
The key here is the <i>appearance</i> of
acting beyond national interest. Those two goals aren’t mutually exclusive. To
look at the case of the United States, there are many opportunities to practice
facilitative public diplomacy that forwards American foreign policy goals. If
we consider that spreading the values of democracy, freedom, and social justice
abroad are in the U.S.’ national interest, then it is clear that empowerment in
these areas benefits both the U.S. and foreign publics. Of course, there are
exceptions. The “power with” approach works when PD organizations are targeting
potential supporters, not when policies or cultures clash. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The more prevalent challenge to collaborative power is for PD
practitioners to maintain legitimacy while supporting grassroots initiatives.
Peter Van Ham quotes Daniel Etsy as saying “democratic legitimacy depends on
decision makers being seen as acting on behalf of a community.” Legitimacy does
not only have to come from the top down. In other words, collaborative power
can be an asset for PD practitioners as well. I would argue that the ethic of “power
with” leads to a greater legitimacy for PD practitioners because foreign
publics are more likely to engage when they are equal partners in the action
and narrative, as Fisher explains. Collaborative power, just like hard power
and soft power, is only one part of the public diplomacy equation, one more way
of conceptualizing influence. Slaughter’s point is well taken. Collaborative
power can be a healthy complement to other PD strategies. <o:p></o:p></div>Gabby LaVerghettahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09564751953885732205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-14888105444757914172012-05-24T19:12:00.000-07:002012-05-24T19:12:11.343-07:00The New Age of Social Media Diplomacy<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img height="301" id="il_fi" src="http://www.prlog.org/11593579-socialmediaicons.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding-bottom: 8px; padding-right: 8px; padding-top: 8px;" width="300" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The New Age of Social Media Diplomacy</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
Who would have thought that social media would have the impact that it does today...In an age where information is spread through new outlets of technology, social media has now become not only a lens into other worlds, but has also acted as a tool of influence for public diplomacy. Social media has become the new mechanism in which the three types of public diplomacy: monologue, dialogue, and collaboration have come to fruition on an individual and global scale. <br />
<br />
Monologues are meant to be a one-way form of communication between a speaker and an audience. They can be used to convey information or inspire an audience. Social media is an outlet where monologues can be spread for all those to see. YouTube has helped spread these powerful monologues across borders, not only can the State of the Union address be viewed in the United States, but those interested in American domestic politics can view it from around the world. Where television can spread news, ideas, and culture, sites such as YouTube achieve the same type of exchange.<br />
<br />
Monologues are not limited to the speeches of those in powerful leadership roles, but can emphasize an individual voice in civil society. Blogging allows for the quick dissemination of opinions to a public audience. Blogs are used by governments, embassies, cultural institutions, advocacy organizations and more to convey opinions, raise issues, or spread ideas. Social media has become a tool for diplomacy. <br />
<br />
Blogging and YouTube have also been used as a realm for dialogue where a post/video that starts off as a one-way form of communication can involve into a discussion of opinions. Both of these sites allow for users to post their comments or feedback on what they have seen. Blogs can enter into community blogs where posts can be reviewed by community members.<br />
<br />
Social media can inspire advocacy at the grassroots level and thus fueling collaboration between individuals on an online realm as well as creating a sense of community. For example, during Obama's presidential campaign, the youth vote was considered unreliable. However, through social media, which is most commonly used by young voters, Obama was able to establish a grass roots campaign that spread his campaign ideas through platforms such as twitter and Facebook. Linux and wikipedia both open source operating platforms have created a community of collaboration where the users work toward a common goal. Social media used in such a way creates a community of collaboration.<br />
<br />
Though social media can be used to promote the three types of public diplomacy, it is still a tool to aid it and should not replace traditional types of face-to-face diplomacy. Social media has its benefits for the realm of public diplomacy, but also its negatives. Business can use social media to control and influence the masses. In the case of the SOPA/PIPA campaign, sites such as Google and Facebook used social media to garner support among the public to protect their first amendment rights, but as similar legislation passed that did not affect the profits of their business there was no further campaigning against this. Social media though an effective tool to diffuse ideology and culture
can also be used to promote propaganda or dangerous ideology such as
that of al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations. It is important to remember that social media, though a powerful tool can be wielded by both sides of public diplomacy and propaganda.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>Christina Dinhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06660924667613212402noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-65142364548563874392012-05-24T18:30:00.002-07:002012-05-24T18:31:19.162-07:00"New Diplomacy?" I think notWhat does it mean for diplomacy to be a "behavior" as much as an "institution?" What does this mean for public diplomacy?
<br>
<br>
Kelley’s argument about the evolution and pluralization of diplomacy is a firm reminder to us all that despite what purists may think, diplomacy—like many arts or sciences—is a living, breathing craft capable of change, improvement, and progression—or even regression. It is also a craft and tool that can be acquired by all those who are willing to learn to wield it. Thus, agenda-setting and action are no longer in the hands of state actors, Kelley argues.
<br>
<br>
He fails to make note, however, that agenda-setting and actions never were entirely in the hands of state actors. Thus, it’s not that the gaping chasm of unequal influence of nation-states and non-state agents has healed itself, it’s just that as ICTs continued to develop and accessibility to these technologies begun spread in the 21st century, technological diffusion takes place. The quill pen gives way to the wing of an electronic Tweet. More people have access, and access helps to empower, and empowerment certainly sways influence, however, this phenomenon does not replace the functions of diplomacy as an institution.
<br>
<br>
Instead, Kelley’s brand of “new diplomacy” is not a new mode of behavior; it is an improved means of communication, networking, and negotiating in the globalized dynamics of our modern world.
<br>
<br>
Critical to note is Kelley’s point about populations and their identification with transnational concerns. In our globalized world, political, economic, and social concerns are no longer local, but international—and in being international, they transcend traditional boundaries set forth by the nation-state. As a result, the global public is increasingly likely to “‘relocate’ authority to a non-state entity or figure, which in turn enables the non-state actor to amass moral legitimacy and to influence the behavior of states from the outside” (289). Kelley calls these non-state actors the “new diplomats.”
<br>
<br>
While they do maneuver “within the state system and command authority across it,” these non-state actors highlighted in the article are not diplomats in the traditional sense, period. They are also not the “new diplomats,” as Kelley is fond of labeling them. Calling these non-state actors ‘diplomats’ is a misnomer. Instead, these non-state actors are tremendous networks of influence—but they are not diplomats. They are polymaths, masters of their technological savvy, and well-connected free agents eager to secure their own agenda through diplomatic behavior and engagement. In the 21st century they continue to engage in diplomacy just as they always have, except now they are armed and more deeply embedded in the minds and hearts of the public through their activity with social media and ICTs.
<br>
<br>
In repeatedly highlighting the demise of diplomacy as an institution and its proliferation as a behavior, Kelley reveals his epiphany while seemingly ignoring how throughout history, non-state actors—such as corporate actors—have always had a hand (or a fist) in negotiating (and racketing) policy in international affairs. The institution of diplomacy is open to progression, improvements, and technological diffusion. Non-state actors have gained greater primacy and strength in their ability to positively contribute to their public diplomacy of choice, but they have not replaced their official counterparts. Diplomats continue to function as official representatives of their states abroad, constrained always by protocol, but distinguished by their responsibility to serve and their ability to discern and navigate the delicate negotiations that must take place at the decentralized table of modern diplomacy.MJ Phamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08981369409863794961noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-22017861600014246782012-05-24T05:53:00.000-07:002012-05-24T05:53:08.668-07:00Social Media & Communication Flows of Public Diplomacy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Despite assumptions regarding social media as a space meant for the proliferation of pointless quips and equally pointless content, the mere fact that civil society now has the ability to interact on these platforms without the control or approval of the state provides an entirely subversive aspect to state-controlled public diplomacy, an area of both national and international importance.<br />
<br />
As author Peter Van Ham notes in <i>Social Power in International Politics</i>, the public diplomacy environment formerly mediated much at the hands of state actors is now being altered into a more multi-directional scene where the state, NGOs, international orgs, individuals and other actors can produce and consume information directly, thereby weakening state control. Often this process plays out in social media technologies where actors can take messages into their own hands.<br />
<br />
However, the state should not be discounted in the social media realm. In fact, the state or other actors can take on a mediator role in all three typologies of public diplomacy, as outlined by Cowan and Arsenault in <i>Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: Three Layers of Public Diplomacy</i>. This is because the three typologies are based upon communication strategies that can be easily employed by any entity engaging with a foreign public. I’ll describe how each typology can engage publics with social media:
<br />
<br />
<b>Monological </b><br />
<br />
Although monological or one-way communication where one entity transmits a message to an audience may seem to contradict the very nature of social media it actually can be an effective way of engaging with foreign publics.
Making the choice to participate in social media platforms does not automatically open up the way for dialogical or collaborative forms of public diplomacy. An actor can create an account on a social media platform such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr or Pinterest and solely utilize that platform to amass a following and promote information carefully crafted in tune with their particular interest.<br />
<br />
Monological communication on social media is advantageous because actors can target audiences according to these particular interests and goals, gain heightened visibility fast and reach a wide swath of active users. Although there can be commentary or feedback given to the actor by its community, the actor has control over the choice to reciprocate or not.<br />
<br />
The downside to monological communication is that the information promoted isn’t able to be contained within the confines of the group. Social media is meant to be shared and users can/will disseminate messages further to estranged groups that may not have the desired reaction. A way the actor can assuage a hostile reaction to their public diplomacy effort is to ensure prior to sending out the initial communication many various viewpoints and perspectives are considered. An actor can also provide carefully crafted responses back to users, but this would break the monologic aspect of the public diplomacy effort.
<br />
<br />
<b>Dialogical </b><br />
<br />
Dialogical public diplomacy works well with social media because of the necessity to create a conversation between the actor and audience. Social media features like commenting, re-tweeting, ‘liking’, instant messaging and texting can help actors gauge public opinion surrounding their perspective as well as the importance foreign publics weigh on certain topics. This could be a good method for an actor to get ideas flowing for a project or a way to foster intercultural exchange. Again, this is advantageous to actors because dialogical communications can be targeted to interested groups where the actor can initiate and steer the dialogue in certain directions.<br />
<br />
The negative aspect of dialogical public diplomacy is that, again, the communications can be driven away from the control of the actor and may veer off in a separate direction than originally intended. There are also competing dialogical conversations that are started within many other contexts that may tangentially or directly influence or challenge the goals and perspectives of an actor.<br />
<b><br /></b><br />
<b>Collaborative </b><br />
<br />
Certain types of social media outlets are uniquely appropriate for collaborative public diplomacy. Because the goal in this effort is to produce a product from the contributions of many, open-source projects like the <a href="http://www.linux.org/">Linux operating system </a>or the <a href="http://drupal.org/">Drupal content management system</a> are particularly relevant. In these, any users who are interested are encouraged to assist in the creation and maintenance of the product. The public diplomacy goal that results from collaboration is a sense of common ground and shared loyalty/experience to a goal by all members despite observed differences.<br />
<br />
Easy ways to utilize collaborative public diplomacy is in working with wikis, file-sharing systems like Google Docs and mass-multiplayer role-playing games like <a href="http://secondlife.com/">Second Life</a> or <a href="http://us.battle.net/wow/en/">World of Warcraft</a>. Each of these allow for users to personally take on responsibilities and contribute to the building or maintenance of a greater initiative.
The potential downside to collaborative public diplomacy is that users must be involved from the ground floor or else they will not establish the necessary trust and social capital needed to foster the bond. Ensuring the collaborative project forces cross-cultural groups to view issues in a different light is particularly challenging, but if done correctly and assist in such areas as conflict resolution.<br />
<br />
I think it is imperative to understand that social media is not a magic bullet for public diplomacy. Social media is the next innovation following other revolutionary technologies such as radio, television and the Internet. Although it has brought all actors in society closer together at an unprecedented rate, it is best to realize these capabilities are only as effective as the actors that use them. As Van Ham notes, technological progression must be met with human agency and the correct political economy to flourish.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-77781179554618141252012-05-23T18:27:00.002-07:002012-05-23T18:27:56.990-07:00Public Diplomacy and Online Communication<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx_sRFZcC08hDjqiVP4WF1k8unkUX8NSfMpvRABqT6PiB28kq_36OjcGVGeBt9Pl7VKp_Ntv9AVoRWVhgnPuTu7xUXX5AbGSW9kt0husNR1qJ2r0czHqM21o7o6naC68fn-MRDmPW3nq8/s1600/biotech.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="254" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx_sRFZcC08hDjqiVP4WF1k8unkUX8NSfMpvRABqT6PiB28kq_36OjcGVGeBt9Pl7VKp_Ntv9AVoRWVhgnPuTu7xUXX5AbGSW9kt0husNR1qJ2r0czHqM21o7o6naC68fn-MRDmPW3nq8/s320/biotech.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image courtesy of BIOtechNow</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.25in; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">Cowan and Arsenault identify
three layers of public diplomacy in their article titled “Moving from Monologue
to Dialogue to Collaboration.” The first layer is <i>monologue</i>, or one-way communication. Monologue is what traditional
PD did best. There is still a place for monologues in public diplomacy, for
instance the advocacy of an official state policy. Any type of social media could
be used for this type of PD. One example is a YouTube <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_889oBKkNU">video</a> of an official
speech. A diplomat or policymaker delivers a message and puts it online for
others to hear. Viewers can still comment on the video, share it, or even appropriate
the content to create new media. But after the initial posting of the video,
the official is no longer part of the conversation if he or she chooses not to
be. There will always be a place for this type of PD, which is better suited to
traditional state actors. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.25in; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">As Cull, Melissen, and others
have described, the “new public diplomacy” seeks to move away from the
conventional monologues. NGOs, private sector companies, and even celebrities benefit
from greater engagement with the public. </span><i style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">Dialogue</i><span style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">,
the second layer of PD, refers to two-way communication. Social media can
easily be adapted for dialogue by PD practitioners posting messages online and
asking for responses, thereby generating dialogues. This is simple enough, and
many embassies are already doing this. A way to improve upon these online
dialogues might be to invite local opinion leaders to contribute to a blog. This
gesture eliminates the current hierarchic structure of one post by a diplomat
which audiences then comment on. Guest columns reinforce the notion of an even playing
field where all opinions matter. This is an important way for PD to utilize
social media.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.25in; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">Finally, Cowan and Arsenault’s
third layer is </span><i style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">collaboration</i><span style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">, “initiatives
in which people work together on a joint venture or project.” While the most
meaningful collaboration comes from person-to-person engagement, social
networking is also advantageous for this type of PD and can even be an initial
step toward larger projects. Kelley explains that with the use of ICTs,
citizens and non-state actors can draw attention to global issues like climate
change. The simplest way they can do this is through sharing information on
sites like Facebook and Twitter. One prominent example is </span><a href="http://www.kony2012.com/" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">KONY 2012</a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">. Despite the video’s criticisms
and flaws, the fact remains that Invisible Children successfully used social
media to spread awareness and garner support for an issue. Another example is
the State Department’s </span><a href="http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/disaster_haiti" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">text Haiti</a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">
campaign. The same principle could be executed via social media. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.25in; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">The three layers of
public diplomacy are each relevant to public diplomacy. I believe that social
media are valuable to each, but primarily as supplements. Tweeting at someone
and sharing links are low-risk methods of communication. By this I mean that
most people are more comfortable writing something online than saying it
face-to-face. Social media tools are vital for long-distance communication, but
they don't replace real contact. New diplomats must remember that the objective
of dialogues and collaborations is to foster relationships. The most meaningful
relationships will be made in person, not online.</span><span style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;"> </span></div>
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">
</span>Gabby LaVerghettahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09564751953885732205noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347631394403505612.post-19065894845584844552012-05-17T20:07:00.000-07:002012-05-17T20:15:06.972-07:00Blurred Lines Between Propaganda and Public Diplomacy<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
p.MsoNoSpacing, li.MsoNoSpacing, div.MsoNoSpacing
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">When we think of propaganda our thoughts might turn to
those of WWII filled with images of Nazi Germany or North Korea, yet is there any
real distinction between propaganda and public diplomacy aside from one
typically having a positive connotation than the other? In this technological
age with the increasing ease of access to information, have the lines between
propaganda and public diplomacy become blurred?
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Black presents a myriad of views on the meanings of
propaganda ranging from the immoral persuasion intending to control individual
views to propaganda being sociologically embedded that propaganda is no longer
distinguishable. Yet, all of these views bear striking similarities with the
definition of public diplomacy. Black does not give a clear distinction, but
rather promotes the grey area between two ideas.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Public diplomacy aims to “touch the general public and
the elites of other countries in a way that generates more understanding and
support for one’s own interests, ideas, and values.“ Qualter, on the other
hand, defines propaganda as “the deliberate attempt by some individual or group
to form, control or alter the attitudes of other groups by the use of the
instruments of communication with the intention that in any given situation the
reaction of those so influenced will be that desired by the propagandist.”
There is no doubt that both propaganda and public diplomacy echo similar goals
of self-interests in either conveying a cultural identity or promoting an
ideology. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">However, I believe that the key determining factors in
the difference between public diplomacy and propaganda is first the intent of
the persuader. A second distinguishing characteristic is if the persuader’s
actions affect an individual’s mental freedom in which to keep an open mind and
independently form an opinion. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Nevertheless, I question my views on a distinction
between the two as Black’s argument delves into the role of media and society.
He further blurs the lines between propaganda and public diplomacy when he states
“people need media to provide them with predigested views because they can’t
experience all of life first hand…propaganda thus becomes inevitable.” Most of
the information we receive is disseminated from the media, but in trying to
simplify the multitude of information results in a sense of propaganda. Is public diplomacy a more optimistic viewpoint of propaganda? Has
propaganda become so embedded in society that people are influenced without the
indication of propaganda? </span></div>Christina Dinhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06660924667613212402noreply@blogger.com1