W3: Cultural Diplomacy Should be Better Utilized

One of the most striking things about how cultural diplomacy was discussed this week was its connection to a country’s soft power.  I wonder how much of this influence is necessarily imposed, however, and outreach efforts are actively pursued; or rather, whether such influence is attributed to stereotypes given by various organizations or media outlets from within a country.  Those groups inherently promote certain aspects or patterns from their host culture and the world designates it as that culture.  For example, as Schneider’s article stated, the United States of America is the “country with the most influential culture in the world” “that least acknowledges and uses its persuasive powers.”  She pointed to the U.S. born “jazz music” and television shows “Dallas” and “Friends.”  My cousins in France always used to ask me about the accuracy of these types of stereotypes, mostly from various TV shows, or whether I ate hamburgers every day or even rode horses to school (I grew up in Texas).  I think that culture (and especially one’s perception of another’s culture) has an enormous amount of possible influence or change, and absolutely should be utilized in public diplomacy efforts.

One of the questions this week asked whether cultural diplomacy should be distinguished from other public diplomacy efforts.  I definitely think so.  As Nick Cull’s article states, “cultural diplomacy is a type of public diplomacy.”  Capitalizing on a particular country’s cultural traits can bring an entirely new dynamic to diplomacy, to events sponsored in-country, and can additionally help find similarities between cultures that may allow work to be done on another level.  I would argue, however, that shows like American Idol, although great for apparently promoting “equal opportunity, merit-based competition, and selection by voting” in and of itself is not cultural diplomacy (Schneider).  Unless of course, that TV show were to travel to another country through a non-profit or other organization or embassy, and bring U.S. artists to meet and interact with local counterparts, exchange opinions, and share their talents and culture with each other. 

One of my favorite articles this week was the compilation of best practice organizations by the U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy, which highlighted how each group worked on international cultural engagement.  They argue that this concept has never been more important, with “the reliance of identity politics (national, regional, ethnic, and religious) and sub-state actors on cultural symbols and creative expression; and the increased importance of cultural products and services in global commerce and trade,” among other things.  Through music, film, dance, writing – you name it – these groups travel around the world to bring these aspects of American culture to them, and most of the time learn from the local culture at the same time.   The dialogue and interaction opens minds, allows for enhanced creativity, and encourages cooperation on another, very personal level than the generic political or business meetings where these interactions normally occur.

To bring this a step further, I loved Dr. Sherry Mueller’s description of citizen diplomacy, which I would argue is absolutely an integral part of cultural diplomacy.  “One handshake at a time,” she says that individuals are empowered to shape and strengthen foreign relations.  The International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) works at this as well, by allowing visitors to additionally interact with U.S. citizens “‘beyond the headlines’ and help them develop a more realistic and nuanced understanding and appreciation for the history, heritage, democratic institutions, and fundamental values of the United States.”  Her claim that the “home hospitality” visits are the favorite and lasting memories from a visitor’s trip is incredibly important, and truly highlights the effectiveness of personal, cultural interactions.

Week 2: Further thought on What we can Learn

In Kim’s entry this week she highlighted the element of “listening”. As we highlighted last week, and she discussed this week through her discussion of the case studies, this is truly a critical aspect in ensuring PD is successful. Through “listening” those managing PD strategy are more likely to create a locally appropriate and tailored message.  As Kim pointed out, this led to a much more powerful and successfully PD campaign in Pakistan by using Urdu versus English. 

Similarly, I was fascinated by the Bahrain case study. Although the situation within the country situation was extremely tense, the term “sectarian” violence was being used, and international media was being restricted, the US Embassy was able to respond with a media campaign that eventually integrated social media. By effectively utilizing both English and Arabic, and responding to the multiple waves of violence, the US Embassy proved how a responsive PD can be as a foreign policy tool.

I also appreciated  Kim’s point about creative alternation projects. I believe she summarized a lot of the case studies with this concept. As a development practitioner, these case studies provided creative ideas without needing significant amount of money.  Some of the easiest to implement – YouTube series, Alumni Outreach, Facebook/Twitter.

PD in organizational and institutional contexts

Public diplomacy faces many of the same challenges that any program or initiative tied to the government faces in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.  However, organizations and bureaucracies though generally considered with a negative connotation are necessary to gather and distribute resources. In the context of public diplomacy, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) provides a means, albeit arguably cumbersome, to directly engage foreign audiences with journalistic content. The role of the BBG in public diplomacy like any organization tied to the government is less than optimal in many ways and short of the ideal, yet provides a mechanism which otherwise may not exist.

Assessing the impact that the broadcasters are having is an extremely difficult task to undertake and likely part of the reason that the BBG is seen as being organizationally challenged. Although there are metrics showing measures of performance, namely the numbers of people each of the broadcasters reach, measuring the effectiveness of any messaging is significantly more challenging.  To improve this, one potential solution is to develop more discrete objectives for each of the broadcasters. Vague high level objectives such as “promoting U.S. interests abroad” or “advancing vital U.S. interests” cannot be measured in a way that provides a strong argument in support of or against the performance of the BBG in public diplomacy.

One solution to the perceived weakness of the BBG is to have major broadcast companies (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN) appoint members to a newly designed board of governors. This though implicitly assumes that those organizations are inherently better at promoting U.S. interests abroad than the broadcasting organizations that have been doing it for decades. Furthermore, in this suggestion, there is no empirical evidence that these organizations can do anything other than attract U.S. viewers/listeners and also limited evidence that this new governing model would enhance the journalistic integrity of the existing broadcasters. 

Week 2: What we can learn from PD Case Studies

Related to the point about “listening” that I discussed in my blog entry last week, I found that one of the central lessons that PD practitioners discovered was that their efforts were most successful when actually thinking about what the local population wants, or how they think about and interpret different ideas, instead of focusing only on what the U.S. policymakers are dictating.  Having a better understanding of the local culture and the local population is invaluable, as it gives these officers insight into better handling their work and what will be the most successful way to interact with the public.  Walter Douglas’ explained his experience in Pakistan, and he noted how many communications specialists’ lack of understanding or listening, and instead, their jump to engaging and informing, hoping that those steps will automatically lead to influence.  His discussion of the embassy realizing the need to delve into Urdu instead of relying on only English sources (to get a real sense of what was going on in Pakistan) was a perfect example of how a lack of understanding can lead to misguided policies.

Another lesson I discovered from reading the various studies involves that of using one’s resources wisely and to their utmost capabilities.  The lack of money or funding for PD efforts in certain countries is absolutely limiting, but I thought there were some very creative alternative projects undertaken that didn’t necessarily involve the more typical exchange programs to the U.S. 

One of my favorite case studies in Kiehl’s book was the chapter by Elizabeth McKay on her work in Turkey.  She gives very clear, specific and incredibly creative examples of actual public diplomacy projects that were started in-country and how their initiatives really tried to cater to what their audiences wanted from them.  She described the Youth Innovation and Entrepreneurship Program (YIEP), that involved working with local public schools and specifically communities “where students would otherwise have little to no opportunity to participate in a USG program or would have little direct exposure to Americans and not know America beyond conventional stereotypes.”  They trained teachers, organized hands-on experience for students, provided technological opportunities to learn, and held a regional business fair for the high school teams to compete in and share products and ideas.  Another project was the Youth Filmmakers, that gave young people an opportunity to convey their views on an international stage on issues they cared about, a program incredibly well-organized and with a widespread and continued impact post film screenings.

In terms of making public diplomacy efforts more successful, I think the new law requiring information released by embassies to be closely monitored by Washington is somewhat dangerous to the goals.  As the U.S. Embassy in Iraq experienced, the ability to speak freely and have conversations through immediate forums like social media sites is important, and although there should certainly be a balance to ensure security, rigid monitors can provide a particular handicap to PD effectiveness.  I also felt that working “across lines” was necessary to make PD more successful.  It is okay to have different “lanes” for the various roles performed by information officers, cultural officers, political officers, etc., but working cohesively as a unit to promote public diplomacy (which touches all of those fields) is also incredibly important.  This cohesive attitude, however, goes beyond the inner dynamics of the embassies and the government agencies involved in that country, and should reach beyond, partnering with non-profits, academia, foundations, the private sector, etc.  The Brazil case study explained this well.  This can also address my earlier point about financial restrictions, because partnering with other organization can present new funding opportunities, but also support in other resources that could allow more creative ideas for PD outreach.

The Importance of Public Diplomacy
The term public diplomacy (PD) has evolved in both definition and application since its conception. While current understanding of PD is more nuanced than the early Cold War PD, which established the field’s foundation, it is important to understand the back ground and mission of PD from 1953 – 1999. Following World War II, and with numerous recommendations to President Eisenhower, the United States Information Agency (USIA) was first charged with “executing U.S public diplomacy efforts to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics in promotion of the U.S. interests, and to broaden the dialogue between Americans and foreign publics (Nakamura, 10).” Essentially, this era of PD was intended to provide shaping information to foreign countries about the U.S., while providing the U.S. government information about foreign attitudes that assist with foreign policies and decision. This period of PD particularly struck me as it was indicative of the Cold War, early PD to be essentially trying to win hearts and minds through information sharing.

            Although USIA’s functions were officially transferred to the US State’s Department (DoS) in 1999, the overall intent of PD is still vital. Leading the efforts for the DoS is the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. While this position has been vacant 30% of the time since its conception, the role and mission of PD has shifted, perhaps decreasing the need for a PD. I think Gregory may have said it best “public diplomacy is now so central to diplomacy that it is no longer helpful to treat it as a sub-set to diplomatic practice (Gregory, 353).”

            So what is PD today, and how does it affect foreign policy? While it appears there is some debate over the specific terms used to appropriately describe today’s PD (Gregory), there are common themes that prove the relevance of PD in today’s context. The definition that best embodies today’s PD is provided by Gregory – PD has come to mean an instrument used by states, associations of states, and some sub-states and non-state actors to understand cultures, attitudes and behavior; to build and manage relationships; to influence thoughts and mobilize actions to advance their interests and values (Gregory, 353). However to ensure PD is relevant within greater foreign policy today, and reaching beyond USIA’s mandate, the elements of engagement, listening/understanding and establishing a communications goal are critical differentiators.

            The authors we read provided numerous best practices and key attributes of modern PD, however engagement, listening/understanding and establishing a communications goal, really solidify PD in the current administration and global context. As pointed out by Wallin, the Military has been communicating the majority of the American policies overseas the last decade. Neither bad nor good, this is this a perfect example that PD is truly a daily engagement. Although more effective when the engagement is strategic and targeted, PD can come in any shape and size. If engagement such as our military can serve as PD, then it is critical that messages are crafted with care and precision to ensure that wide dissemination is available. Additionally, understanding a target audience and listening to that target audience. Wallin’s point that listening is active and proves two way information is critical. Looking again at the military example, specifically the two wars over the last decade, we should consider the impact PD could have played with successful understanding and listening (real listening). Finally, by establishing a communications goal, practitioners within the field of PD can establish tangible goals and measure against these goals. Where PD has been weak to link their successes to foreign policy achievements, metrics may further emphasize the importance of this field within today’s context.

            Under the Obama Administration, and shown through Gregory’s article, PD is seen as a responsibility of every citizen and diplomat. That being said, it is still a critical field that needs to be measured and understood. It needs careful messaging developed for in order to maintain relationship, build new ones, and understand perceptions worldwide. 

Public Diplomacy: Its Importance and Challenges

The term and concept of public diplomacy has varied a bit throughout the years, especially in the United States, and can be defined slightly differently depending on the era, according to James Pamment.  However, Pamment even agrees with the other authors in its core components: listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, exchange diplomacy and international broadcasting.  Matthew Wallin uses the definition: “communication with foreign publics for the purpose of achieving a foreign policy objective.”  He also adds “psychological warfare” to the list of core components that Pamment recognized.  Nakamura and Weed note, in other words, that public diplomacy can be used by governments to “interact directly with foreign citizens, community and civic leaders, journalists and other opinion leaders,” and convince those individuals through lasting relationships and better understanding that its policies are justified and should be locally supported.

The problem with this tool, however, is that it can often be criticized as a form of propaganda, and without the proper credibility behind or follow-up to the government’s proposed actions, public diplomacy can create a bad reputation for the United States and limit its policy options.  Public diplomacy in practice is therefore incredibly important, and should be used simultaneously with all policy decisions affecting a particular foreign country.  Without it, U.S. national security (or other international) efforts can absolutely be undermined, as we’re seeing throughout the Middle East, with the U.S. image largely unchanged and counter to its development and conflict resolution efforts.  Yet, not everyone agrees with PD’s importance.  Wallin effectively depicts its main challenges as: “under-financed, under-resourced, under-led, and under the radar.”

One core principle that I personally felt was slipping through the cracks (in terms of achieving effective public diplomacy) is the “listening” component.  Having recently taken a course on culture and conflict resolution, I was immediately reminded when reading these articles about the need to go into other countries open-minded and willing to try and understand the way their public sees the world.  Although the U.S. recognizes that “resentments prevent collaboration” and that it should therefore constantly work at maintaining a good reputation and image among the people and leaders of other nations in order to achieve its goals, the U.S. doesn’t seem to be practicing this notion at all.  Reading through several case studies pointed out that the U.S. is not doing nearly enough listening, but is rather largely preaching what it sees as right for the other country.  These situations only foster resentment and frustration with the United States, and make foreign publics (and their leaders) hesitant about working with us or supporting our policies, and even skeptical about our real motives whenever a policy seems to be good.

Public diplomacy can be a great tool to accomplish our goals abroad, but the U.S. must stop acting primarily for its own interests without regard to another country’s, or especially choosing a U.S.-centric style of addressing issues that is not in balance with the customs of the foreign country.  For example, many approaches to problems in the Middle East have been seen and acted upon through a predominantly U.S. lens, and our continued negative perception despite all our efforts throughout the years highlights this lack of understanding. 

Describing Public Diplomacy

At a high level, public diplomacy is a tool governments use to engage and influence foreign populations.  It is accomplished through direct diplomatic efforts, broadcast media, new media, and a variety of other mechanisms. Public diplomacy relies on a clear objective or objectives toward the targeted audience, and a strategy designed to meet those objectives. From a US perspective, public diplomacy can be used at multiple levels of government including at the national strategic or White House level, and also it can be used by other government departments/agencies to meet their operational and tactical objectives.  The objectives at lower levels should align with the higher level strategic objectives to avoid complications. Additionally, a constant objective of public diplomacy is to influence populations in other countries into supporting or not opposing US policies.

Public diplomacy is a critical tool the US government to use at a variety of levels to engage foreign populations and influence foreign perceptions of US policy.  Potentially more important than using public diplomacy is having a coherent strategy.  Any lack national level public diplomacy strategy risks miscommunication at lower levels of government, or even the messaging of one organization within the government countering the goals of the other due to misaligned public diplomacy objectives and strategies. Overall, public diplomacy is a tool that the government can and should use, but before using it, there should be a lot of thought into the short-, medium-, and long-term implications of adopting a particular public diplomacy strategy.  

Test

Test to see if blog works and/or what it looks like...