The Soft Power Differential

A recent Huffington Post article talked about the importance of soft power and cultural ties in China's and Brazil's bid for investing in Africa.

Although China has far more economic resources than Brazil, the first seems to be presently losing the battle to the second because of bad reputation and, essentially, a lacking soft power. Brazil, on the other hand, is seen as a friendly trust-worthy nation with strong cultural ties to Africa. And, Brazilian companies don't mistreat their African workers like some Chinese have done so.

It's interesting to think that the measure of soft power may be decisive in how much influence each country will be able to yield over time in Africa. China has many problems in that area not only in Africa, but in the U.S. (remember their campaign in Times Square?), and I would dare say nearly all over the West.

African countries are pushing back against a so-called new imperialism that they see with China's presence in the continent, whereas Brazil is seen as engaging with the population and having an interest in cooperation.

Can soft power really decide the outcome of grand strategies like this, going beyond monetary resources? It's an interesting phenomenon to analyze.

Kenya's Re-branding Challenge

Kenya, a country placed in the international spotlight recently due to its elections last month, has a branding problem.  According to an opinion piece in Kenyan newspaper The Star, “for 50 years, Kenya’s branding challenge has remained remarkably the same: how to diminish - to insignificance - the ugly in the beautiful.  Or, to use a more graphic, if somewhat revolting metaphor, how to avoid the ‘fly in the soup’ curse.”

To go along with the metaphor, the “flies” in Kenya’s history include corruption, detentions and torture, and ethnic division.  The “soup” has alternated between a reasonably professional Cabinet and civil service that laid the foundation for a capitalist economy, expanded education, emphasis on infrastructure, and the call for a new constitution.

Still, the image of the fly is more striking than that of the soup, making it so that the tag of Kenya as “a poorly and corruptly-led beautiful country of dynamic and friendly people” sticks.

The article in The Star compares Kenya’s predicament with that of internationally renowned Switzerland, which has “strong public associations with the attributes of stability, efficiency, and quality.”  Such an image dominates, because “Switzerland has successfully diminished to insignificance the brand of a country where illegally acquired wealth (inluding Nazi loot) is secretly kept.”

While I do not believe that international scrutiny of Kenya’s political, economic, and social ills should cease (neither should scrutiny of Switzerland’s holdings of illegal wealth for that matter…), I do believe Kenya is justified in wanting to remove the “fly in the soup” and rebrand the country to promote the positive aspects within it. 

Pumping up the (soft) Power

In the article Soft Power in Chinese Discourse: Popularity and Prospect, Li Mingjiang argues that “a grand Chinese soft power strategy is still in its embryonic phase, despite the painstaking efforts of Chinese strategists to devise various proposals” (1).  Soft power is therefore China’s “weak link” in its comprehensive power, preventing the country from converting its hard power into international influence.  As my studies on public diplomacy have shown thus far, international influence is largely dependent on foreign perceptions.  It is for this reason that Mingjiang insists that China’s recent emphasis on soft power is undergirded by an understanding that “first and foremost, soft power is intended to shape a better perception of China by the outside world” (15).      

The unfolding crisis with North Korea and its missile threats presents a perfect opportunity for China to improve its international image.  China has a unique relationship with North Korea as it is Pyongyang’s sole major ally and aid provider; a role China has held since the 1950-53 Korean War.  As such, China seems to be one of the only countries that can penetrate the threats of nuclear war by North Korea’s young and elusive leader, Kim Jong-Un.  


U.S Secretary of State John Kerry and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing during their diplomatic talks on the North Korean missile crisis. April 13, 2013. The Washington Post.
 

Although China seems reluctant in using its leverage over North Korea, it has expressed a willingness to work alongside the United States to defuse nuclear tensions on the Korean peninsula during Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent visit to Beijing.Tackling an international crisis in a diplomatic and transparent way, in accordance to mainstream international opinion, is exactly what China must do to enhance its soft power. 

Born the year of the Tiger, a new Tiger? Possible branding opportunity for China?

There's a new golf sensation. At fourteen years old and in his first professional tournament, China's Guan Tianlang is the youngest Master's participant in history.

Couple that with China's ongoing push for public diplomacy, such as this news article from a Chinese paper earlier this week. And China's history of PD involvement, such as the article we read for class this week by Zou Quinan and Mo Jinwei.  They point out how China has been actively engaging in PD since the late 1990s as its image has not grown at a rate consistant with its economy.  As a result many Chinese scholars began strategically studying the role of soft power and public diplomacy.  That being said, the Chinese concept of PD is different than that of the US.  While Americns focus on engagment, inform and influence on behalf of US interests, the Chinese are much more interested in communicating their culture through media and internet.

So, during the Masters this year, Guan is all over the media and internet.  He's the subject of multiple sports columns and articles such as this one, in which the reporter writes, "I thought of the warm, engaging boy with the majestic swing who routinely occupied the driving range stall next to my own." "Golf had been banned in China until 1984, but now is growing amongst China's middle class, and Guan is the face of that.  I'm looking forward to seeing how China capitalizes on him to help brand itself internationally.

Becoming part of the conversation... literally.

Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Tara Sonenshine's latest speech on Public Diplomacy and Counterterrorism mentioned projects in which the U.S. government are activelly engaging in discussions on Al-Qaeda online forums. This is an attempt to get the "other side of the message" out. According to Sonenshine, the logic behind this approach is this:

"By targeting the hardliners, we are really trying to reach the middle grounders, the fence sitters, the sympathizers and passive supporters."

That seems plausible if it weren't for this - if someone has gone through the trouble of finding said forums and engaging there, they are probably past the point of being "fence sitters", and it would be, arguably, far more unlikely that adding a different perspective would change their hearts and minds.

What is the actual success rate of approaching this kind of group, or rather, how can one measure whether opinions have changed? The U.S. government should focus on ordinary citizens - those, it seems to me, are actually far more likely to change their minds about terrorism and the way they perceive the United States. 

These online forums can be useful for intelligence gathering and pin-pointing actual members of terrorist organizations, but they just don't seem like the best place for conducting public diplomacy.

Zimbabwe Poets for Human Rights

Our class discussion on cultural diplomacy reminds me of conference I attended last month where I was introduced to Zimbabwean slam poetry artist, Michael Mabwe.

One of the State Department’s cultural diplomacy initiatives is the International Visitors Leadership Program (IVLP), a program that facilitates professional exchanges between the U.S. and other countries. Through my internship, I had the pleasure of attending a conference in February honoring the work of past IVLP participants where I met Michael Mabwe. Having participated in the IVLP in 2008, he took the “best practices” he learned during the exchange to advance his cause back home in Zimbabwe in his organization, Zimbabwe Poets for Human Rights. As a human rights activist, Mabwe organizes community arts forums to promote tolerance and encourages discussion of controversial topics such as corruption, media freedom, democracy, and good governance. Among other things, Mabwe volunteers his time as the Director of the Zimbabwe-United States Alumni Association, where he works to dispel myths about the U.S. prevalent in Zimbabwe. The State Department invited him to return to the U.S. in February where he performed and spoke of his work at home.

Michael Mabwe presents and exceptional case where exchanges can advance bilateral goals of mutual understanding. The first minute of the video clip captures a beautifully crafted poem from his organization. Certainly, I encourage you to watch it in its entirety, but if you can only watch a little bit, watch the first few minutes to get a taste of the emotional appeal of cultural diplomacy.

Emphasizing the “Public” in Public Diplomacy

Yesterday, President Obama gave a speech in Jerusalem to a mostly college-age audience.  The speech is noteworthy primarily because it is an example of the American President bypassing direct communication with Israeli heads of government in order to directly speak to the Israeli public.  President Obama’s terse relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is widely publicized.   Despite efforts to portray a seamless alliance between their respective nations, Obama and Netanyahu continue to clash on issues pertaining to nuclear capabilities, Iran, Syria, and of course Palestine. 

 

Thus far, heads of state have not been able to remedy Israel’s most salient problems, which are obviously of great consequence to the U.S. as well.  So, who might be best equipped to address these problems?  Obama’s direct appeal to Israel’s youth seems undergirded by a recognition that the best means for change and influence is through foreign publics; specifically young foreign publics.  Such an appeal represents the crux of Public Diplomacy efforts today.   

Whereas personal strife may hinder direct communication between Netanyahu and Obama, the Israeli public is always accessible to the President via satellite television, social media, and other technological advances.  Such easy access has created the condition that publics now expect to be acknowledged and directly addressed. 

Speaking specifically on the need for a more flexible approach to negotiating with Palestinians, Obama said that Israeli and Palestinian leaders “will never take risks if the people do not push them to take some risks. You must create the change that you want to see. Ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things.”    

In addition to exercising the full meaning of Public Diplomacy with foreign publics, President Obama has also extended his PD outreach to domestic publics. He has made extensive use of Twitter and other social media outlets to get the voices of the American people heard. 

 

As stated by Ellen Huijgh in her article Changing Tunes for Public Diplomacy: Exploring the Domestic Dimension, “for better or worse, [Ministries of Foreign Affairs] have learned through experiences that domestic public support for a government’s international policy choices and positions is crucial to the MFA’s legitimacy at home and abroad” (64).  Domestic PD efforts do not yet seem to be as institutionalized as foreign PD, but it may prove to be a pertinent strategy in the years to come.

The Team: Sports Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution

We are familiar with the Olympics and other large sporting events as an opportunity for of cultural diplomacy.  Dr. Geoffrey Pigman discusses some of the benefits of sports diplomacy in his article, “Crouch, Touch, Pause, Engage!: Moving Forward In the Scrum of International Sport and Public Diplomacy.” He explains that sport can be used as an opportunity for nation branding or security-related objectives along the line of haute politique. Of interest in this post, he states, “In a more troubled diplomatic relationship, governments may choose to communicate to a foreign public as part of a strategy, seeking to influence a population’s government” (pg. 82).

Only governments? Only states? I feel that the world of public diplomacy is expanding beyond the traditional governmental framework. Not only are governments that are capitalizing on the diplomatic aspects of culture, but non-profits are too.

One particular instance of this is the award winning television and radio series, “The Team,” created by Search for Common Ground (SFCG). SFCG is a non-governmental organization (NGO) specializing in conflict resolution and reconciliation. They noticed the global love for soccer, or football, and have cultivated it for the purposes of peace-building. In particular it has been designed with the goals of encouraging dialogue as opposed to violence, increasing tolerance, cooperation, and national unity in conflict weakened societies, and finally developing the capacity of local writers. Correspondingly, it focuses on topics such as corruption, xenophobia, religious tolerance, and citizen, civil society, and government collaboration. The series is developed on a country-by-country basis, and is specifically designed to address the conflicts that are pertinent to the community.  

Through “The Team” and other programs, SFCG is recognizing the potential that sports and other aspects of culture play in the societies with which they are working. Through employing the unifying aspects of sports, SFCG is encouraging dialogue and track II diplomacy by cultivating tolerance in areas where ethic groups experience deeply troubled diplomatic relations.

Check out this clip from The Team (Cote d'Ivoire): 

Harlem Shaking Tunisia

I was watching Fareed Zakharia on GPS last Sunday, and he ended the program with a bit on the way the recent “Harlem shake” fad is impacting Egypt and Tunisia, calling it a “potent symbol of protest, revolt and defiance”. While it has no connection with Harlem or the original Harlem shake, this version, recorded by a Brooklyn DJ last spring, has taken on a significance of its own in Tunisia, prompting government action.

Tunisian students posted their own version of the shake online, provoking a violent backlash by conservative Muslims, including the Minister of Education who condemned the videos. It has become a symbol igniting the battle between secularists and Islamists as they determine how the post-revolutionary country will move forward. (source)

This phenomenon, driven by the youth and social media in the country, is reflective of the way social media was used to push forward the revolutionary political movement the country experienced a couple years ago, gaining international attention. This speaks to our class discussion on the central role media play in shaping discourses.

Although no one is certain how long this fad will last, it does raise questions concerning American culture and how it is decontextualized once it crosses borders and new meaning is attached to it. 

The Pope as Diplomat

A recent article in Foreign Affairs, The Pope as Diplomat, reviewed Pope Benedict XVI's tenure through a diplomatic lens. It discusses that during his time as Pope, Benedict established full diplomatic relations with the United Arab Emirates, Malasia, Montenegro  South Sudan, Russia, and Botswana. He appointed the first Vatican envoy to Vietnam, a step towards full diplomatic relations. One of his goals was to engage in better Catholic Muslim Dialoge. As part of this he moved towards a "genuine encounter" with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia who personally visited the Vatican. While Saudi Arabia is not open to full diplomatic relations with the Vatican and still does not allow Catholic churches, last year King Abdullah formed a foundation to improve inter-religious understanding.

What does this have to do with Public Diplomacy? Pope Benedict's formal background was that of a scholar, not a political statesman like several of his predecessors. As the article points out, this lead to his having a different approach to foreign affairs, and at times lead to political missteps and misunderstandings. Despite snaffles, Pope Benedict found a way to open relations with other countries and areas. Through this action he served as the center in what Ali Fisher discussed in his article Looking at the Man in the Mirror as the hub or star of a leadership network. In this model, the metaphor of a wheel is used to convey the idea of a core "hub" person or people that connect one group of people to another. It is not a hierarchical structure, rather the hub is just an access point that must be opened in order for communication to be better enabled. Often when people, myself included, think of the Catholic Church hierarchy is one of the first things that comes to mind. This is a bit different, though. Using the Pope as a way to open up diplomatic relations is a way to open up a massive group of people, such as Catholics, to issues that the Pope has decided to pursue. In this case more envolved Muslim-Christian dialogue .

Moving from Monologue to more Monologue…and Staying There.

This past Tuesday, I chit chatted with a few of my classmates as we waited for our Global Perspectives on Public Diplomacy class to begin.  In the midst of our spirited discussion about the measly percentage of the U.S. budget allotted to the State Department (we are students of international studies after all…), one of my classmates looked at her phone in surprise and informed the rest of us that Venezuelan President, Hugo Chávez, had died.

While I generally knew about Chávez, his revolutionary tendencies, and his disdain for the United States, I found myself interested in his leadership style and in the way such a style affected Venezuela’s public diplomacy.  After doing a quick internet search, I came across a NY Times article on 10 MemorableHugo Chávez Moments.  One of the top moments occurred on Chávez’s weekly television show, Aló Presidente!  According to the article, this show is the only one in the world in which a head of state regularly invited cameras to follow him as he governed. The show featured Chávez singing, dancing and interacting with supporters for hours at a time. The only television show in the world in which a head of state regularly invited cameras to follow him as he governed, it often featured singing, dancing and interaction with supporters.

During this particular taping of the show, BBC journalist John Sweeney asked “Chávez’s TV show Aló Presidente!  Chávez’s TV show Aló Presidente!  10 Memorable Hugo Chávez MomentsWhy does Venezuela not spend its money in Venezuela?”

Mr. Chávez responded, “That is a stupid question. I cannot answer a stupid question because whoever tries to answer a stupid question would sound stupid.”  Mr. Chávez then pointedly told Mr. Sweeney that only “someone stupid would ask such a stupid question.”

I was incredulous at Chávez’s audacity and his complete disregard for being politically correct; a practice I see as customary for good public diplomacy. 

Even beyond his obvious outrageousness, Chávez’s weekly television show was a wider example of how “the nature of the global communications environment makes it inevitable that (sometimes for better, sometimes for worse) one-way messages are transmitted on a daily, hourly, and even minute-to-minute basis.”  These are the words of Geoffrey Cowan and Amelia Arsenault in their article Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy (p. 13). 

Depending on the context, Cowan and Arsenault argue that one-way communication is often necessary when “a nation wants the people of the world to understand where it stands.”  The implication is that one-way communication is one tool in a larger effort to also engage in dialogue and collaboration with other nations.

The public diplomacy model incorporated by Chávez however, disregarded these other two layers of public diplomacy, especially when they pertained to the United States and its allies.  After being called “stupid” on such a public platform, I doubt Mr. Sweeney left Venezuela with any positive perceptions of Chávez.  Surely such treatment does not open a path for dialogue and collaboration between Venezuela and the UK.  Now that Chávez is gone, it will be interesting to see whether Venezuela maintains or abandons the public diplomacy culture initiated by Chávez.

Diplomacy and Engagement – at home

Engagement may be a new buzzword that has reached the State Department. It is often used as a term that signifies some of their strategies to reach foreign publics. Last week, on his first major speech, secretary of state John Kerry set out to engage citizens back home instead, in a push to strengthen American ambitions abroad. This reminded me of some of the readings a few weeks back about the domestic aspect of PD.

Secretary Kerry delivered the speech  at the University of Virginia, ahead of his first trip overseas. This symbolic move – as a newly appointed Secretary of State speaking first to the American public – aimed to emphasize the role of American citizens in Diplomacy.

The American public’s interest in foreign affairs, in recent decades, has dropped to worrisome levels. Some argue that this has always been the case within American society, but Kerry’s words were an attempt to begin to turn it around by hitting Americans where it hurts: the economy.

The average American may not normally make a direct connection between the State Department and job creation, but that’s what former senator Kerry brought out in his speech. This parallel stresses the importance of investing in a robust foreign policy apparatus that, as two wars come to an end, can expand its focus to other areas.

At a time where the economy is slumping and budget wars may ensue, his argument makes a lot of sense by trying to get ahead of events.

But regardless of timing, in an age where U.S. embassies around the world engage foreign publics through social media platforms, among many other avenues, diplomacy cannot forget to pursue such a connection at home too.

Changes in society impact foreign policy. Diplomats – and public diplomats, as well – need to be attuned to the evolutions in the society they are based on if they want to be at all successful.

Living in the Glittering Consumer Paradise

 

“Culture has less ‘power over’ other actors, but rather the ‘power to’ establish frames that shape the way we see the world, telling us what is important, and informing us about options and solutions…” (48)

These are the words of Peter van Ham in his book Social Power.  I was not very surprised to read about the power of culture in shaping our intersubjective understandings of the world.  Such a truth seems intuitive.  What did pique my interest however, was his commentary on what he calls the “social power of consumption.”  According to van Ham,

“What makes the social power of consumption unique is that it affects all of us: we are all consumers and although we may have widely differing purchasing powers, we all make consumer decisions on a daily basis” (57).

Could it really be that the there is a new cosmopolitanism centered on a culture of consumption?  After thinking about arguments on Americanization/Westernization, I would answer "yes."  I consider many existing arguments on the decline of American hegemony as it was hitherto known to be valid; but I would not say that American cultural dominance is in decline.  Many countries may not like America politically, but I can almost guarantee that most of their populace loves Hollywood movies, technological gadgets, flashy cars, and mansions as much as any American.  If they do not have a passion for these things in particular, they have a passion for similar products conducive to their cultural contexts.  Still, the theme of consumption is the same.

Thus, the very essence of what we know as “the American dream” – the opportunity for prosperity and success – has been codified around the world as the opportunity to enter a “glittering consumer paradise” in the words of van Ham (52).  I would not say that it is positive for the world to share in a culture of consumption.  It does show however, that sometimes, we are all able to relate on the broadest and most superficial of levels.      

Emerging Economies and Social Power

I recently attended a presentation by Professor Miles Kahler who is currently working on a project on emerging economies and global governance at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. His presentation on the three biggest leading emerging economies, China, India and Brazil, reminded me of our reading on the notion of social power by Peter van Ham. Van Ham defines social power as “the ability to set standards, and create norms and values that are deemed legitimate and desirable, without resorting to coercion or payment” (p.15). Essentially, social power is the ability to set the rules of the games. Van Ham describes paradigm-shifting events, such as financial or economic crises, as opportunities to define new norms. Leading emerging economies like China are gaining attention because they survived and recovered from the Great Recession of 2008 faster than advanced economies. The global worry is that, rather than accepting and complying with the rules, these emerging economies may weaken or reject the rules in favor of their national policies. China, India and Brazil have the potential to become the rule-makers, rather than the rule-takers, in global governance.

Professor Kahler stated that, for now, these emerging economies appear to be working within the rules of the game. He cited that their domestic problems (problems pertaining to persistent poverty, growing inequality, domestic fragility, etc.) serve as obstacles to mobilizing their capabilities. Van Ham suggests that “social power is derived from social capital” (p.8), of which these emerging economies would need to accumulate. Although they have tried to expand their capabilities through regional coalitions, that has its limitations, as well. Moreover, combined with counter-strategies from leaders like the U.S., emerging leaders have a difficult time leveraging their social power.

Can China and India re-claim their share of the global GDP and social power? As these emerging economies move towards economic convergence and gain more power, the likelihood of global conflict increases. Does this create a stronger need for public diplomacy?