HOW EFFICIENT IS CITIZEN DIPLOMACY?

Citizen Diplomacy is a political term which describes where ordinary individuals can take an active role in promoting their nation through culture and individual efforts. This may be a deliberate action, or as a by-product of some other achievement, such as world recognition of winning a gold medal at the Olympics. The importance of Citizen Diplomacy as a means to propagate a positive world image is vital, especially if that message is meant to credibly portray independence from governmental or institutional control and doctrine.  In general, if a government or institution is seen as dictating how and which areas to promote, there is a lack of belief in the validity of the claims, and more importantly the intentions. Displays or comments from ordinary citizens, on the other hand, give a sense of sincerity and genuineness, as they are perceived as being independent.  So for a nation to be successful in promoting a positive image, it is best done independently through its people. However, there is a notable caviat to this rule when it comes to the US. Because of an increasing negative image of America and its politics, it is even more vital that a counter-image is promoted. Unfortunately, much of this anti-American feeling derives not only from the actions of its government, but of its citizens too. This means that any Citizen Diplomacy practiced would be viewed with suspicion, and this is the barrier the US must overcome.

The US has recognised that neither its government, nor its people as a whole, has a strong positive image. It also knows that to reverse this trend it must practice Citizen Diplomacy much more effectively, and at an individual level. According to the US Center for Citizen Diplomacy it states that

“Citizen Diplomacy is the concept that the individual has the right, even the responsibility, to help shape U.S. foreign relations, ‘one handshake at a time.’ Citizen diplomats can be students, teachers, athletes, artists, business people, humanitarians, adventurers or tourists. They are motivated by a responsibility to engage with the rest of the world in a meaningful, mutually beneficial dialogue.”[1]

This quotation from the document shows just important the role of Citizen Diplomats is the US, and uses the term: “responsibility” to instil an almost evangelical impetus and urgency to the task. That there are many organisations such as the Council for Educational Travel, the Public Diplomacy Council, and the US Center for Citizen Diplomacy, shows their commitment to encouraging individuals to take part to promote US culture abroad.

This approach plays to America’s strengths, in that they already have positive ambassadors abroad thanks to its highly successful film and television industries, and sports. As an example, when Angelina Jolie visited the Turkish border with regard to the conflicts in Syria, she was met with sympathy by Turkish and Syrian citizens. Turkish authorities even went as far as to describe her as the "Goodness Angel of the World."[2]  It is fair to assume that any US governmental authorities would not have been welcomed as much as Angelina. Similarly the Gates Foundation, as directed by Melissa Gates, has been working throughout Africa, helping the development of good health, agriculture and other areas. This work is widely supported by African society, and helps to reduce the US’s negative image[3].

But it’s not just the American film stars and philanthropists who are beginning to build better perceptions of America, other ‘normal’ citizens are also playing their part. When some peace keepers and environmental activists such as Jodie Evans and Medie Benjamin visited Iran, Iranian President Ahmedinejad welcomed them. Again not something that would have been possible without Citizen Diplomacy to connect the leaders of the American Peace Movement and Ahmedinejad[4].

So is Citizen Diplomacy efficient? Certainly in the case of the US where to counter the ever-increasing anti-American sentiment, particularly in the Muslin world, the role of the Citizen Diplomat to connect governments and citizens of other nations is vital. Specifically, the more the sceptical view of the States continues to grow, the greater the weight of individuality of the representative becomes. This is a lesson worth learning by other nations if they want to be seen as credible and open countries.

Baris Akin

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2011, CBC News, Angelina Jolie visits Syrian refugees in Turkey  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/17/501364/main20071886.shtml
(Accessed : 17.07.2011)

Bıll and Melinda Gates Foundationhttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/regions/Pages/default.aspx?4#/?action=region&id=africa
(Accessed : 17.07.2011)

Milazzo. L, 2008, Monthly Review Foundation, US Citizen Diplomats Arrive in Iran, Invited by Ahmadinejad http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2008/milazzo251108.html

A tribute to Citizen Diplomats http://www.nciv.org/category/4-publications.html?download=24
PDF Document (Accessed : 17.07.2011)

---

[1] http://www.nciv.org/category/4-publications.html?download=24

[2] http://www.cbsnews.com

[3] http://www.gatesfoundation.org

[4] http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org

HAS UNITED STATES (US) PUBLIC DIPLOMACY FAILED IN PAKISTAN?

Being a major world power the US, like other world powers, comes under close scrutiny and criticism which is why it has actively sought to create a positive image, specifically since the cold war. To be perceived positively, the US used an efficient Public Diplomacy (PD) over Europe. When world politics changed after the end of the Cold War, the US started to practice its diplomacy over Islamic countries.

Pakistan is a specific example where the US wanted to implement its diplomatic steps. In a speech by Colin Powell, he insisted that the US put in more effort to convince Pakistan that US promotes goodwill saying:

’’US-Pak relationship was not a temporary marriage of convenience, but rather a partnership for the long term [1] ”

However it seems that US diplomacy through music, art or cultural educational programmes does not work in Pakistan as it worked in other nations. The question now is why? here are a few main reasons why US diplomacy is not efficient in this region.

Firstly there is a strong antipathy towards the US, especially following the intervention of Afghanistan and the Iraq war. Similarly when Bush polarized the World into Muslim and Christian ‘clubs’ this further created scepticism and prevented US policies from being implemented. This has now been partly repaired by the Obama administration, and visits by the Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton, however it has not changed much in the long term. According to research during 1999-2000, there was a 74% positive perception in Europe of the US, and 68 % in some Islamic countries. However, the level has subsequently decreased to 46% in Europe, and down to 42% in the Islamic countries such as Turkey, Indonesia and Morocco[2].

The second reason why the US is struggling to practice PD, is because of the existence of terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda in the Muslim states. These insurgent bodies now appear to have more popularity than the government itself, with sympathy for the organisations creating the national and religious goal that Pakistan should unite against “American imperialism”. Because of this ‘Robin Hood Syndrome’, it is easy for Al Quaida to find logistics, money and other resources, while for the US to gain information from individuals or institutions, it is not. An example can be seen in the level of confidence Bin Laden enjoyed at a remarkably high 41% Indonesia, and 38% in Pakistan[3] where Al Quaida is seen as the Saviour of Muslims against American Imperialism.

Because of this very strong belief that the US wants to divide and control Islamic nations, any step taken by the US, regardless of intention, is met with suspicion by Pakistani society thus hampering any it. Also, as the Pakistani society has strong religious faith, it is very easy for religious zealots to win support and mobilize the people through jihads and other religious preachings. For example, in a recent speech Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, warned Pakistan saying that the "US wants to break up this nuclear-capable country and transform it into tiny fragments, loyal to and dependent on the neo-crusaders [4] ".

In summary then, it is true to say that the US has yet to go a long way to practice its public diplomacy in the Muslim region to gain the confidence of that society. While the US homeland popular jingoism may have been sated by the death of Bin Laden, this act, and subsequent American jubilation seems to have backfired and instead strengthened the Pakistani resolve. Unless the US can stop representing all Muslims and Islam as evil, and convince its population to behave respectably and maturely,  it cannot win the hearts of the people of Pakistan, which is the key to winning the intellectual argument.

 

                                                                                BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asghar  R, 2011, University of Southern California, Public Diplomacy : Sorry About Osama can we still be friends? http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/sorry_about_osama_can_we_still_be_friends  (Accessed : 14.07.2011)

Evera. S,V, 2009, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Public Diplomacy: Ideas for the War of Ideas -  http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19550/public_diplomacy.html  (Accessed : 14.07.2011)

Walsh. D, 2009, The Guardian, Bin Laden deputy warns Pakistan the US wants to seize its nuclear Arsenal - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/15/al-qaida-pakistan-us-nuclear
(Accessed : 15.07.2011)

---

[1] http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org

[2] http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu

[3] http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu

[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk

CONGRESSIAONAL RESEARCH SERVICE REPORT FOR CONGRESS

UNITED STATES PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AFTER 9/11

The report focuses on renewed attention to public diplomacy (PD) and its importance in creating foreign public opinion about the United States (US). The report provides a historical background of PD tools such as the creation of the United States Information Agency (USIA) and the role of the Voice of America (VOA), together with other PD policies.

The negative perception of the Bush Administration in entering the Iraq war, as well as refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol and Chemical Weapons Ban created a negative perception of the US and increased the importance of PD particularly coupled with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Over time it became clear that it was necessary to co-operate and introduce America to the world to prevent negative perception. The report mainly focuses on the efforts on Islamic countries to renew the image of the US. In general the US always used PD to formulate public opinion. The Voice of America and the creation of USIA to administer the broadcasting and information programs, which had a huge influence on societies, are some examples. The US spent huge funds on PD but by the end of the 1990s the budget for PD was reduced, partly because of the abolishment of USIA and partly for budget austerity. However, its importance and the budget increased after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The 9/11 attacks pushed the US to reconsider their policies on Islamic countries, specifically on Arabic countries. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which was created during the 108th Congress, aimed to promote free media in Islamic countries and create scholarships for Muslims to attend American sponsored schools. Every possible tool has been used to influence Muslim and Arab populations to combat terrorism. The International Information Programs (IIP) is just one of the diplomatic steps taken by the US. To reach larger Muslim and Arab populations the IIP developed new programs such as printing in Arabic three times more than before 9/11 and promoting an Arabic magazine and the creation of a Persian language website targeting the Iranian society. Similarly the 9/11 attacks forced Congress and the Administration to use Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) more efficiently.

Since the 9/11 attacks the importance of exchange programs has increased. According to the Department of State, about $175 million in funding has supported exchange programs in Islamic and Arabic countries. Similarly 49 Arab women who were politically or socially active in their own countries were brought to the US where they participated in many congressional and political issues. According to reports, religious tolerance has increased. Again, after 2001, the importance of broadcasting and communicating with the Islamic world was reconsidered. For example, the VOA increased its focus onto Afghanistan and the Middle East. Programs were run in Arabic to communicate with Arab society and try to win their hearts and minds. According to a survey conducted by VOA, 80% of adult males in Afghanistan listen to VOA and rank it highly for credibility and objectivity.

Today PD structure has changed and is used as a dialogue rather than a monologue to reach deeper and to rebuild long term relationships and mutual trust between the US and the Islamic world. Again US officials realized that positive public opinion can be very influential in combating terrorism. The efficiency of PD is a debatable subject. Today the importance of the internet and increasing numbers of educated people helps in the understanding of US policies and encourages people to question the reasons behind US efforts in Islamic countries. It seems that the 9/11 attacks cannot change the perception of Islam and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the subsequent response of Bush as, “Operation Enduring Crusade” will not change the Islamic perception of the US.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Epstein. S. B. 2006, US Department of State: U.S. Public Diplomacy: Background and the 9/11 Commission Recommendations, Available from: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/66505.pdf, Accessed (11.05.2011)

Club of Budapest International Foundation - critical analysis of a think tank report

Brief summery of the Foundation:





Ervin Laszlo (left) and Karan Singh (right) at the launching meeting, 28/29 July 2004

Club of Budapest International Foundation

Founded in 1993, the global Club of Budapest is an informal international association dedicated to developing a new way of thinking and a new ethics that will help resolve the social, political, economic, and ecological challenges of the 21st century. The idea of the Club of Budapest was developed in 1978, in a discussion between Aurelio Peccei, a founder and first president of the Club of Rome, and Ervin Laszlo, a systems philosopher and also a member of the Club of Rome at that time. They were convinced that the enormous challenges to humanity can only be dealt with through the development of a cultural and cosmopolitan consciousness. The successful merging of the two cities Buda and Pest is symbolized by the famous Chain Bridge. It visualizes our ambition to build bridges between generations, disciplines and cultures. Therefore, it was selected as the logo and signet for the objectives of the Club.Since 2008 the operational platform of the Club of Budapest is the WorldShift Network, which was established by Ervin Laszlo, Wolfgang Riehn and Johannes Heimrath in 2007 as an international foundation. It has its seat in Germany. In future the WorldShift Network will be responsible for the international projects of the Club as well as for the coordination of the National Clubs.

The four main Mission of the Club of Budapest are:

• Promoting the emergence of planetary consciousness
• Interconnecting generations and cultures
• Integrating spirituality, science, and the arts
• Fostering learning communities worldwide

During the years of 1996-2007 the Club of Budapest has received a serious of awards for the outstanding global consciousness in action. The prizes were in two main categories: Planetery Consciousness Award, and the Change the World-Best Practice Award.

The World Wisdom Council (WWC) has been convened with the Club of Budapest in cooperation of the World Commission on Global Consciousness to advocate that the world can constructively changed by women and men wherever they live, whatever their interests in their lives. The World Wisdom Council (WWC) is politically, socially and culturally non-partisan and it aims to inform people that they can move towards the world, where they can live in peace and harmony.

The Club of Budapest, currently has national branches in several countries, some of them are: Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hawaii, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Turkey, United States, and Venezuela.

On 29 November 2008, the Club of Budapest - with the cooperation of Ervin Laszlo and David Woolfson - worked out the "State of Global Emergency Declaration" by calling attention to the dangers as well as the opportunities that confront the human community. The Club of Budapest will also hold an upcoming event in Berlin on 03 June 2011, together with the European Leadership Academy (ELA) to promote global planetary consciousness in a sustainable world.




referencies:

www.clubofbudapest.org

Interpol: Diplomacy of the International Policing Systems?

Interpol: Diplomacy of the International Policing Systems?

The emergence of transnational criminal actors challenges national law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Global organised criminals are now involved in various crime activities, such as smuggling, theft, drug trafficking, money laundering, and most notably terrorism and cyber crime. These criminals can fuel domestic and international tensions, which undermine states actors and existing policing regimes, and calls for cooperation among various national police organisations.

Brief description of the Interpol:

Interpol – The International Criminal Police Organization - is the world’s largest international police organization, with 188 member countries. Created in 1923, it facilitates cross-border police co-operation and support and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent and combat international cross-border crimes. Interpol’s aim is to facilitate international police co-operation, even when the diplomatic relations do not exist between particular states. Action is taken in the name of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Interpol’s constitution prohibits “any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character”. The President of Interpol and the Secretary General work closely together in order to provide a strong leadership and direction to the Organization. It compromises of 5 of its Constitution: General Assembly, Executive Committee, General Secretariat, National Central Bureaus, Advisers, The Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files.

The Interpol’s six priority crime areas are: drug and criminal organizations, Financial and high-tech crime, Fugitives, Public safety and terrorism, Trafficking in human beings, Corruption. Interpol regularly releases media postings.

I found a really interesting piece on Bioterrorism. Interpol, with the support of the non-profit Alfred P. Sloan Foundation – an organisation that is non-for-profit institution based in New York City, established in 1934 by Alfred Pritchard Sloan, Jr. that support of original research and education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics – has developed a Bioterrorism Prevention Programme that aims to: raise awareness of the threat, develop police training programmes, strengthen and develop legislation, provide useful tools for police bio-related investigations. This Programme was launched in 2005 with the First Global Conference on Bioterrorism.

Bioterrorism is extremely dangerous globalised crime nowadays, with the possibility of terrorist attacks, using biological agents, represent an increasing concern for the involved law enforcement bodies, governments and public health officials around the world. The reason why that is the biological agents – such as bacteria, viruses and fungi – are significantly cheaper, and way easier to produce than those of conventional weapons or nuclear armaments. They are extremely difficult to detect and symptoms may not appear for hours or even days. The threat, posed by potential bioterrorists calls for international co-operation on many levels: from implementing appropriate legislation in order to criminalize bioterrorists acts, to creating teams on the local and national level.

Interpol’s response was to team up with the non -profit organisation to prevent bio-crimes. Interpol has published specific instructions and guidelines on Bioterrorism Pre-Planning, and is available to the Organization’s member countries. They have also created a workshop in October 2010 that had gathered experts from 23 countries, for bioterrorism prevention training for use at police systems worldwide has developed.

Bibliography:

www.interpol.int/Public

www.sloan.org

Michael Fooner: Interpol, issues in World Crime and International Criminal Justice, Plenum Publishing Corporation, New York

Public Diplomacy and NGOs

Medecines sans Frontieres (MSF) is an independent International organisation providing humanitarian medical aid in the countries where poverty, diseases, natural disasters and emergencies occur. It is primarily sponsored by private individuals therefore impartiality is the main characteristics of MSF charter.

Currently MSF have missions in over sixty different countries. Most recent ones include MSF missions in Libya, Ivory Coast, South Sudan, Japan to name a few.

One of the other aspects of the MSF charter is advocacy. From the very beginning of the mission the idea was to ‘speak out of the plight of the victims’ when a group of French doctors and journalists in 1971 helped victims of civil war in Nigeria. Today using advocacy MSF mobilises volunteers and doctors across the world.

Some may argue that public diplomacy is irrelevant to the work of the organisation. Considering that it does not carry any political agenda with its missions being independent and impartial and that its primary goal is to relief pain and suffering of people. However some academics as, for instance, Gregory argues that PD is a tool in the hands of state and non-state actors. Although not backed by government authority MSF has legitimacy and credibility to be part of global governance- actions towards shared values and therefore be part of public diplomacy process (Gregory B. 2008).

MSF workers may be called a citizen diplomats because they bring culture and most importantly the knowledge ( often Western standards) that create certain perceptions of Western culture in the recipient countries.

The following example may demonstrate that NGOs such as MSF play a vital role in international relations and some decisions of the organisation may affect people’s life.

MSF mission in Turkmenistan has been on the ground for 10 years. It has provided trainings for local doctors and nurses, supplied medical equipment and medical drugs and was about to launch a Tuberculosis Treatment Program however did not receive approval by the Turkmen government. After scraping the mission MSF has published a report describing the very poor condition of Turkmenistan Health care system and describing non-cooperation of local authorities with the MSF workers.

That has led to a little improvement in Turkmenistan Health care system. The president Gurbanguly Muhammedov has started a reform and rehabilitation of hospitals and clinics in the country. Nevertheless the changes are cosmetic. This example shows that although MSF has international recognition and credibility in some cases it has not enough power to change government policies.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/article.cfm?id=4363&cat=special-report

http://www.msf.org.uk/about_history.aspx