Thursday, February 28, 2013

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.

Friday, February 22, 2013

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?

"All communication is inherently about identity"

Rohnda Zaharna in her 2010 chapter "Communication, Culture, and Identity in Public Diplomacy," states, "all communication is about identity." She discusses the incredibly influential role that culture and identity play in both the formation and reception of a message and is quite critical of the United State's communication strategies with other cultures. She states that biases and stereotyped  no matter how one tries to hide them seep out in communication and the very way one forms what they see as an unbiased message is influenced the information they gather, interpret, and communicate to the other. 

It seems as though the U.S. is becoming more sensitive to this. Adam Clayton Powell II in his USC blog post notes that nine years after hard criticism from an evaluation of Al-Hura it has made some critical changes and doubled its viewership in Egypt and now reaches eight million viewers. 

Friday, February 15, 2013

On the Annenberg School of Public Diplomacy's blog, Philip Seib lauded Hillary Clinton's  legacy on the field of public diplomacy by actively participating with and listening to global publics.  Following up on George Packer's article on Clinton in The New Yorker, Seib notes how Clinton wholeheartedly and effectively put Obama's policy of engagement into practice.  In the course of his argument, he flippantly disregards the role of monologue in the diplomacy, stating "one-way communication is archaic and ineffective."
 
I take issue with the idea of diplomacy going solely towards public diplomacy.  As Ameilia Arsenaut and Geoffrey Cowan noted in their article "Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy," one-way communication plays a pivotal role in diplomacy that can never be truly overturned by reaching out through collaboration and engagement--no matter how vital those roles are.  Some of history's greatest moments are cemented in our memories through well-crafted, epic lines delivered though a monologue speech by a prominent figure.  Take President Reagan's iconic line, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" While the quote is under 160 characters, it was not a tweet and the physical circumstances added to the weight of his words.

While Clinton was an expert at using engagement in the form of public diplomacy, she did not use that to the exclusion of monologue.  For example, in her October 14th speech to the the New York Economic Club, she clearly and eloquently outlined her bold vision of economic statecraft and morphing the State Department into a dynamic organization that interfaced aptly with various strata of society.

While I certainly agree with Mr. Seib that technology and engagement are dramatically and critically altering our perspectives and practice of diplomacy, it is yet one of many tools in our toolbox.  

Friday, February 8, 2013

China - Japan - Russia


Making recent headlines has been a long-standing dispute between Japan and Russia over the southern Kuril Islands in the Pacific Ocean. BBC  has described the exchange between them as “heated”. Japan’s Prime Minister called a Russian presidential visit to the islands last year an “unforgivable outrage”; Russia’s Foreign Minister called that response “clearly undiplomatic”. They have yet to sign a peace treaty officially ending WWII.  (source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12379331).
Similarly, Japan and China are dealing with territorial disputes of their own. Viewed as a threat to each country’s sovereignty, the disputes call for extensive negotiation between diplomats. As Pamment stated in “Perspectives on the New Public Diplomacy”, public diplomacy is integral to diplomatic practice since it lays the groundwork for negotiation. Pamment describes PD practioners as “communication strategists”, which is exactly what Japan needs to resolve this dispute peacefully and strengthen ties to both Russia and China. Arsenault and Cowan describe three layers of public diplomacy that suggest that monologues may present opportunities for dialogues, which in turn can foster collaborations. For Japan, China and Russia, this seems easier said than done, but cooperation remains inherently necessary in order to counter the escalating tension and avoid conflict.