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?