IS NATION BRANDING EVERYTHING?

  

Nation branding is a process by which nations put into place steps enabling them to be perceived in a positive light by the outside world. There are many ways and means of achieving this. The political structure of the country, its social and cultural structure and tourism are all tools used by nations with the benefits and advantages that each of these aspects brings to the economy of that nation.

            Nation branding is not a new concept and not a phase but a necessity in this globalised world. The way you are perceived has direct bearings on your social and economic development. To give a simple example; the way you advertise your country could attract lots of tourism and investment which would impact positively on your economy. But nation branding is not simply a slogan or a simple advertisement. There must be cogency, power and influence between your establishments, which should be compatible with one another. If today Libya placed a nice tourism advertisement and tried to insist that it is the best place to go for a holiday there would not be any dynamism there.

            In general human nature pertains to being biased so it is important to brand your nation positively to attract the right social and economic investment. Years ago someone asked me where I am from and I told them I was from the Unga Bunga islands and the person surprisingly commented how beautiful this country, which does not exist in the world, was. Probably the word ‘island’ depicts visions of sea, sun and enjoyment, therefore it must be beautiful. Similarly if we mention Afghanistan it is likely to conjure images of bombs, terrorism and repressed women, yet if we asked its geographical location within a map of the world lots of people would not be able to tell you.

            Today nations set up specific organisations to market their country positively. An example is India which has launched an organisation called “Brand India”. There are over 100 people working within this organisation to give the world a positive image of India. (http://nation-branding.info/)

China has branded itself as a country where labour force and production costs are cheap. However cheap manufacturing evokes the perception of poor quality products. According to research done by IMB Business school, American society does not tend to buy computers or any computer devices from Chinese owned Lenovo. But very interestingly IBM (International Business Machines) managed to sell it all over the world successfully. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/) This shows the positive branding of the US over China.

            Even the United States (US), as the leading country of the world, still aims to prove itself to the world to justify and not lose that position. Since the Second World War, the US has tried to depict an image that it is foremost a democratic country and that foreign policy steps are done in the name of democracy. US perception was damaged during the tenure of the Bush administration. However since Obama’s term, the world has united in support of the US and there is less US antipathy today. Basically leadership plays an important role in nation branding. Similarly Denmark damaged their brand by cartoons of Muhammad. Denmark is one of the most beautiful and democratic countries in the world but once that message was misconstrued that positive image was tarnished. This had the knock on effect of Danish originating products being removed from shelves and Danish websites being hacked. The export of this country’s goods to Muslim countries has fallen 35 % and risen to European countries by 10 % (http://news.bbc.co.uk)

            In general it can be argued that the brand of a nation within the global world is crucial in terms of its economic and social wellbeing. Collectively the social, cultural, political and economic image of a country is perceived by others and, depending on whether the branding is positive or negative, can have a constructive or destructive effect on all these areas. Branding is the perceived first impression of a country without the impact and insight gained from physically visiting it and this affects its whole structure.

                                                BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akoitia, M, Nation Branding: What is nation branding. Available from http://nation-branding.info/2010/02/17/what-is-nation-branding-brand-ghana-ceo-writes/ (Accessed 18.03.2011)

Anderson B. T, 3^rd October 2006,BBC News: Denmark Row, Available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5392786.stm (Accessed 20.03.2011)

Yaqub, A, Foreign Policy: Foreign Policy and Nation Branding Program, Available from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/advertising/mag_nation.php (Accessed 18.03.2011)

Israel Public Diplomacy: A step forward?

Given that from this week we will start to explore some case study of public diplomacy in relation to particular countries, I have decided to introduce one more to the list. I would like to spend a couple of world about Israel’ Public Diplomacy.
It has been forcefully argued that Public diplomacy was the missing component of Israel’s foreign policy, that since the second intifada in September 2000 Israel’s international reputation has heavily deteriorated, and that Palestine was winning the PR battle against Israel (Gilboa, 2006). It has also been suggested that this was mainly due to fact that Israel missed the importance of the role of PD (ibid.).
However over the past years Israel has completely changed its attitude towards PD, and has greatly enhanced it. First and foremost Israel has re-branded itself as desirable tourist destination, stressing its beautiful beaches, beautiful women and wild nightlife.
Moreover Israel has gone so far in enhancing its PD that it has even used the smart tools of the new media and the social networks. Striking is the case that the Israeli MFA has, among others, twitter, facebook, you tube accounts. (have a look at the video on you tube where a Israeli representative of government explains Israel's PD at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQfgaqy3K4 )
The step from zero to hero that Israel has done in the field of PD is impressive.
However Israel PD is not without criticisms.
In fact, first of all it has been noted that it targets mainly the USA and EU publics, while the Arab world - which probably should be regarded as the most important target - is either dismissed or written off as an implacable enemy. Noteworthy is the fact that in the Israeli MFA website there is a window devoted solely to the “Iranian threat” (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs), which quite clearly exacerbates tensions rather than promoting understanding between the two countries.
The second weakness of Israel PD is the fact that often it is completely disconnected from its foreign policy. In the MFA website there is a section entirely devoted to Israeli peace process, which present the Arab world as unwilling to do peace negotiations, but for instance it makes not mention of the fact that Israel did not stop building settlements in Palestinian lands, or that it maintains a suffocating blockade of the Gaza strip so leaving Palestinians in desperate poverty (Amnesty International, 2010).
It is undeniable that the situation of Israel in relation to its regional context is a thorny one. However a good deal of PD could help to smooth the tension over there.
The fact that Israel has done so many progresses in its public diplomacy strategy toward Europe and America should be the spur to progress its PD in the Arab world as well. Quite obviously PD has to be supported by deeds, and the Israeli political and military elite should make an effort to promote dialog with the Arab world rather than constantly blame, and physically attack it.
PD won’t be the solution for this century-old conflict, but it could be a step forward, therefore it must be recognized as a starting point.

Amnesty International on Israel blockade of the Gaza strip at http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/israel039s-gaza-blockade-continues-suffocate-daily-life-20100118

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs at http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/

Gilboa, 2006, Public Diplomacy: The Missing Component of Israel’s Foreign Policy at http://arcdc.org.il/attachments/article/24/gilboa_israel_publicdiplomacy_Oct06.pdf.

Israeli Foreign Minister explains Israel’ PD at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQfgaqy3K4.

Citizen diplomacy in post-modern times


Globalization, the Internet, cheap travel, student and cultural exchanges. The world is becoming a smaller place and people all over the world are increasingly interconnected. Thanks to the new technology, now people from different countries can undertake peer-to-peer relations.
This is a great achievement in terms of human development, as it enhances the possibility to build cultural relationship beyond state boundaries, to promote understanding among different cultures, and to allow people to express themselves in first person.
Quite obviously this has political effects as well. As J. Nye puts it, “ face-to-face relations have more cross-cultural credibility than do government broadcasts” (Nye, 2010), as it can promote a good image of a country in a foreign country with a minimal state‘s intervention so enhancing credibility.
J. Nye puts a great deal of emphasis in the role of ordinary people in shaping international relations. We can note this when he states that “effective public diplomacy involves listening as well as speaking, that is why exchanges are more useful than broadcasting” (Nye, 2004, 111), or when he argues that even though political leaders are friendly, their leeway may be limited if their public have a negative perception of the other country (ibid. 105).
However more recently Nye has acknowledged that public diplomacy conducted by people, the so called citizen diplomacy, is becoming increasingly difficult in a global information age. He makes the instance of the pastor who threatened to burn the Koran in Florida (Nye, 2010).
Another striking example of citizen diplomacy going wrong is the case of the Danish cartoons published in 2005, which undermined the relations with the Muslim world.
This little framework shows that citizen diplomacy can be a double-edge weapon in terms of building international relations and promoting cross-cultural understanding.
The world is becoming an increasingly difficult place to live in, and whether citizen diplomacy represents a post-Westphalian development or the reinforcement of the Westphalia system is to be judge in the following time.
However the paradox of citizen diplomacy demonstrates that the project of modernity, rooted in the Enlightenment period and which emphasises human rationality, is showing its weaknesses; rationality is loosing its luxury position giving way to a chaotic world.
Der Derian rightly noted that “modern history never seemed fully to awake from the Enlightenment dream” (Der Derian, 2000, 778), and probably this is due to the fact that we are progressing in terms of technologies but our consciousness can‘t keep up with it.
The fact that the new technology has broken time and space barriers means also that we have less time to rationalize events all over the world, and the fact that we can respond and react simultaneously to these events means also that emotionality can take over rationality.
Diplomacy must involve a great deal of rationality in order to be effective and the fact that ordinary people have been granted the prominet position of citizen diplomats means that they have to be more rational in conducting their “diplomatic” actions if they really want to promote understanding across the world.


Der Derian J., 2000, “Virtuous War/Virtual Theory” in International Affairs, Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 771-788.

Nye J., 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/opinion/05iht-ednye.html

Nye J., 2004, “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics”, Public Affairs, New York.

A Sinister Equation

Following the Wikileaks Watergate there has been an increased concern over the Internet, its political and social effects, and its potentiality in damaging states’ image.
Therefore, as it has been highlighted during last seminar, there is an increased will to regulate this media at the international level. It seems that there has been a proposal to put it under international regulations. This is also the result of China’s and other countries success in restricting the access to the Internet for their own people.
Today I came across an interesting news, that made me link this apparently good will to matters of power politics.
The Italian online newspaper Peace Reporter published on the 4th of March an article that highlights that the US is concerned over that fact that it is loosing the information war vis-à-vis Russian, Chinese and Arabs media. The USA is worried that its monopoly over the international media has been eroded and that these alternative sources of information undermine US image, as they do not portray America as the US public diplomacy does.
With this preoccupation in mind, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has proposed new funding for the Broadcasting Board of Governors (Bbg), an organization responsible for all non-military media sponsored by the US government, which controls, among others, Radio Free Europe, Voice of America and Radio Martì.
The aim of this new funding is to allow the Bbg, and I translate the quote, “to promote and sustain liberty and democracy spreading accurate and objective information about the US and the world“.
Once again we face the idea that the US model is the best one and the fittest for all the world. However do we really want the US model of liberty and democracy?
Just to make an instance of how democratic the US is, there the media, neuralgic centre of a well functioning democracy, is completely in the hands of media-kings such as Rupert Murdock, they fight for audience and advertisement and infotainment is the rule rather than exception. Not to mention the “democratic” Iraq war, or the social inequality.
Coming back to the Bbg, Peace Reporter notes that the Washington Post has highlighted the necessity that the Bbg has to work “on a daily basis in order to allow its radio, internet and television networks to reach the public in those countries where they are blocked, damaged or outlawed”.
There we go the equation is completed now. The US feels that it is loosing the information war vis-à-vis the new Russian, Chinese and Arab media; its governmental information cannot reach the public in countries where the internet is restricted, so diminishing the number of people that it can influence (or manipulate, according to your perception of the US); therefore it is putting forward discourses of democracy and liberty in order to push to open up the media in those countries that limit them, thus enhancing its possibility to regain terrain in the information war.
Here the old question that everybody keeps on asking re-emerges: is public diplomacy mere propaganda? Is it just an embellished word for a concept that is unthinkable in democratic societies? Will America ever learn from its past?
I am absolutely impressed how the “mamma” of democracy, as the USA is often referred to, can transform such a valuable discourses as democracy and liberty, in a mere tool to pursue its interests at the international level.
Will the USA, and the followers countries, learn that democracy is not made by words but by deeds? Saying that a country is a democratic one does not make it such, democracy is not a “speech act”, democracy must be a concrete, palpable form of government, not a poltergeist that never materializes.





http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2009/jun/30/internet-freedom-of-information for countries restricting internet contents concerning politics.

http://it.peacereporter.net/articolo/27200/Usa%2C+la+nuova+propaganda for the article published by Peace Reporter. (Please contact me if you want the some more translation of this article)

THE ROLE OF UNITED STATES IN ARAB CHAOS

           The events in the Arab world will contribute greatly to the democracy in the Muslim world. The issues raised will help them to progress, bringing with it the opportunity for change and improvement. These changes will not influence only the Arab world but have an effect on the whole interdependent global world.

            The changes are important from two perspectives. It is important in terms of democracy and development and in terms of America’s role in the Arab world and the Middle East. It is crucial to understand this important and fundamental uprising and how it results in the formation of a democracy. One of the key questions I have contemplated and am still asking is why it all happened so suddenly, significantly  and at the same time in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Algeria. During the cold war there was a domino theory of communism and we can assume the same domino theory applies to democracy. Initial thoughts were the influences of America where each finger of this nation’s invisible hand poked one country. Looking at it more closely you have to consider Mubarek’s usefulness in the Middle East from America’s perspective. He has been a good ally in the Middle East enabling America to implement their policies, so why should they want to topple his administration?

            Time alone resolves situations so we will leave this question to be answered by the passage of  time. The second important thing is the influence of the uprising for democracy, development and political consciousness. Both Mubarek and Gaddafi have been in power for decades, unanswerable to their people for years and their complete absence of loyalty has fuelled the situation. The recent rebellions shows that any dictatorship can be questioned and deposed and that the collective voice of the people can prevail in a political atmosphere. Questioning governments will provide more accountability, approachability and awareness. Reactions have already been seen, for example Saudi Arabia proactively introduced some new policies such as child benefit and unemployment benefit. This proves that reactions may cause developments.

            Needless to say, the United States (US) took advantage of this unfolding state of affairs to oversee and try to police the situation. It warned of dictators such as Mubarek and Gaddafi and asked them to step down and listen to their citizens. Likewise, Cameron also made same comments. This inspires my question: Did they listen equally to their citizens when tuition fees were raised or when society reacted to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Another question; does America intervene because it believes in democracy or does it intervene because of it’s desire to control the wealth achieved from oil? With regards to the British nation’s involvement with the colonisation of Africa and Britain’s decision to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan – was this to promote democracy or was there an ulterior motive? Today in the Ivory coast, Zimbabwe and Burma undemocratic politics are in operation and people are killed. Why is America not so keen to intervene there but very keen to exert it’s presence in the Arab world?

To summarise, the most important and biggest step towards the development and success of the economic, political and social aspects of the Arab world is the need to depose the dictators and let the people have their say. The positive concept of democracy is promoted by America and Western countries.  America has always manifested it’s priority as a democracy although peace, prosperity and democracy are all coded propaganda concepts.

How important is public diplomacy for the EU?


The European Union is increasingly seen as an attractive institution for European countries for the very reason that it is perceived as a guarantor of stability, security and prosperity (Commission of the European Community, 2009, 2).
However it has been pointed out that the expansion of the EU might jeopardize its internal order, create new divisions on the European continent and foster instability in the whole Europe (Sjursen, 2002, 491). Despite these concerns it is the case that the EU did not close its barriers, and even encourage enlargement, because of material utility, i.e. political and economic interests, common identity with European countries not yet members of the EU, and universal moral values such as justice and the “good life” (ibid. 494).
For the reader of international relations who sees the world in terms of real politik it is hard to take the last two views, and those who prefer a constructivist approach would reject the hypothesis that the EU enlargement is just a matter of material interests.
The three elements can be reconciled though. In fact even if some might argue that there is no common identity among European countries (Paschke, 2010), and that national interests matter more than everything else, it must be acknowledged that the creation of a common identity among people from the European continent, thus the enlargement of the EU, might further national interests of different countries in Europe. Firstly it can promote peace, stability and prosperity for new members, secondly it enhances the possibility to improve standards of leaving for many people, so leading to further regional stability, finally, and probably more important, it will strengthen the role of the EU in world affairs (European Commission, 2002).
Given the benefits of enlargement, the EU must take the task to create a common identity among European people. Here public diplomacy comes to play its role.
The communication strategy of the EU is directed both at EU citizens and at people from applicant countries, it is decentralized and emphasises a two-way approach, meaning that it does not aim just at spreading information, but also at giving the people the possibility to express their perceptions and concerns about the EU (Kirova, 2010).
Therefore it can be argued that the EU has found a way to avoid the fallout of enlargement. Firstly it has set up precise requirements candidate-states have to meet, secondly it has enhanced communication with the public to integrate new members (Commission of the European Community, 2009, 2) and possible future members.
The EU communication with people from the EU and from candidate-countries takes the form of publication of brochures, internet server, television service, question and answer service, and video broadcaster service (Kirova, 2010).

To draw a conclusion, the European Union has undertaken a grand task, bringing together different nation-states under one umbrella. This could result in conflicting national interests and national identities. However the EU adopted a public diplomacy strategy in order to unify the people of different countries in a common European identity. Even though the great majority of the people in Europe define themselves in terms of their specific nationality, the EU public diplomacy has been able to reach out them to explain EU policies and intents, thus cooling would-be nationalistic sentiments which could have undermined the stability of the EU itself.
Moreover the EU public diplomacy addresses also people of applicant countries so smoothening their integration into the EU.
The final point is that thanks to its public diplomacy the EU is building a European identity, which is the basis of a stable and prosperous institution.

PS. I have based this post on what can be called “common sense”, in fact I am a Euro-sceptic, therefore I hope to attract some comments which dismantle this argument of the European identity.


#

##Commission of European Community, 2009, “Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2009-2010” http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2009/strategy_paper_2009_en.pdf

European Commission, 2002, “Basic Arguments”, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/press_corner/basic_arguments_en.htm

#Kirova, 2010, “Public Diplomacy Towards Member-Countries and Candidate Countries”, http://publicdiplomacy.wikia.com/wiki/European_Commission_Policies_and_Initiatives#Public_Diplomacy_towards_Member-Countries_and_Candidate-Countries

Paschke, 2010, “Report on the Special Inspection of 14 German Embassies in the Countries of the European Union”

Sjursen, 2002, “Why Expand? The Question of Legitimacy and Justification in the EU’s Enlargement Policy”, in JCMS, Vol.40, No. 3, pp. 491-513.

The Role of The British Council in Promoting UK's Image Abroad

The British Council is UK’s international cultural body. It is funded by government grants, most of which from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
The main task of the British Council is to build engagement and trust for the UK trough the exchange of knowledge and ideas between people worldwide. Although funded by the government, the British Council is operationally independent, and is classified as a charity organization, which enables it build a trust and long term sustainable relations with the foreign public.

According to 2009-2010 Annual Report, the British Council has managed to reach 652 million people worldwide, trough the web, radio and television and have directly interacted with 18.4 million people from all over the world. The British Council invests in the UK’s most attractive assets, namely education, sport, and culture, which are the most appealing to foreign citizens and leaders. Many initiatives in promoting this assets have been undertaken by the organization.
In Afghanistan, for example, the British Council has helped 10 000 English teachers to develop their classroom skills, by providing them with up-to-date teaching from the UK. Active Citizens programme across Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal have been launched, which is assisting more than 17 000 volunteers in developing their leadership skills, so that they can contribute towards the sustainable development of their countries
UK is also using its world – class expertise in education to provide countries like Iraq, Rwanda, Sudan, Burma with opportunity to develop their education system in a manner that would enhance their ability towards sustainable development.
The promotion of sport have also been in the agenda of the British Council. Well known sports figures such as David Beckham, Dame Tanny Grey- Tompson, Sir Chris Hoy and Colin Jackson have been employed as an International Inspiration Ambassadors to maximise the impact of the official international sport legacy program of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympics Game.

There are many more initiatives and programmes continuously orchestrated by the British Council. Inevitably, such cultural relations provide very effective alternative to other forms of international relations. This represents the increasing importance of public and cultural diplomacy, where government to government or government to people methods of distributing a message to global audience is shifting towards people to people two way engagement and dialogue. Mutual understanding can lead to cross cultural collaboration in resolving and preventing global security issues, such as human right, climate change, ethnic conflict, etc. The new direction can not only serve as a promoter of state values and interests, but it can also contribute in the building cultural relations as a force for global good. In this sense, it could be argued that The British Council plays a key role in enhancing UK’s image abroad, and at the same time helps fulfil UK's superpower obligation of providing guidance and assistance to states in need of development support.


http://www.britishcouncil.org
http://www.britishcouncil.org/new/PageFiles/13001/2009-10%20Annual%20Report.pdf

Public and Cultural Diplomacy and the Practitioner

I have always wondered how public and cultural diplomacy is managed in a practical field aside the more rhetoric analysis in foreign policies. Caroline Cannelle – Jaine gave a very good insight in the field that most at times is associated with foreign and domestic perception.

Caroline’s most important assertion was that: ‘Public and Cultural diplomacy gives a country a strategic advantage’. This in practical theory is very true as I have been assessing for myself, that even foreign aid that a country gives to another after crisis or disasters propels the aid givers strategic advantage. Let’s take the case of US aid to crisis areas around the globe. The rice or maize bags are always in scripted with bold letters reading ‘USAID’.

It is however very amazing how people in despair change their attitude immediately after seeing USAID and embrace America as a humanitarian saviour. Even though the food handouts change foreign audience views, it constitutes as part of a long term action plan for strategic advantage.

The process of Public and Cultural diplomacy according to Caroline, goes through different dimensions and the outcomes are quiet innovative.

She analytically puts together:
Strategic Aim, Analysis, Plan, Action and evaluation as topical tenets of policy.

In the second part, She identifies:
Change, History, Method, Taking action, Agreement, Research, How to influence,
Regional stability, Budget Timescales,Immigration obstacles,Trade Risks and Channels.

The conclusive part constitutes:
workability, Delivery and Any lessons learnt.

To make the outcome effective and presentable to the audience,media engagements,events, expos and campaigns are the proponents to make a policy workable. The whole idea can however backfire as most audiences are suspicious of foreign influences.A test case of Pakistan's Waziristan region infamously associated with the Taliban. The Talibanization of this region is however in practical sense penetratingly viable if a more convincing Public and Cultural diplomacy is utilized as elaborated above.Expos and campaigns could target youth groups through cricket or hockey (a sport loved by all in Pakistan).

No matter how a society views Public and Cultural diplomacy,the dynamism of transformation it propels is evidently fascinating.

Gov. Bill Richardson & Wolf Blitzer’s Public and Cultural Diplomacy Trip to N. Korea.

Public and cultural diplomacy have become instrumental in foreign relations and is considered as the most influential tools in shaping foreign policies. Do the functional elements work? Does it have checks and balances? These two questions wallowed through my mind when I watched a documentary on 05th of March 2011 on CNN regarding a US delegation to North Korea (Six Days in Korea).

Governor Bill Richardson orchestrated a very diplomatic engagement with the Koreans, telling them to use more diplomatic engagement, less military options and more statesman approach. Bill Richardson tried to sell to the Koreans a positive image of the US indicating that: the US and its people didn’t want war but a healthy relationship safeguarding peace amongst the two clashing fronts (North and South Korea) after the North attacked a South Korean island (Yeonpyeyong). The North Korean high ranking military officials indicated after the shameful act: ‘We want the world to know that we are not provokers, we will respond if this goes on’.
Bill Richardson on a cold morning meeting presented to the ‘Dear Leader’ through the Vice Minister of North Korea a gift consisting of five movies from New Mexico, because of the Dear Leader’s love for ‘American movies’, to let the North Koreans know that America and South Korea wants a peaceful co-existence.

The Koreans deliberately turned the US approach around and moved swiftly to show the American delegation North Korea’s power and might with a tour through town and the subway system. North Korea’s vice president further invited Wolf Blitzer for a proper visit to Pyongyang whenever he wants to come back for a proper visit. The Koreans elaborated that, it was the Americans who invaded them and therefore refusing to recognize that North Korea is a peace loving nation. The Koreans even made it possible for the reporters to tweet, Skype and email, a luxury not available in North Korea.

So why did Governor Richardson take on tour with him, Gay Dillingham, Energy Advisor? Perhaps, his move was to assure the Koreans of American expertise on energy as North Korean homes has consistently been tormented by severe cold weather in a nation where many homes do not have proper heating in contrast to official buildings which are provided with good heating.

Wolf Blitzer in his final conclusion indicated: ‘We have been notified by Korean officials that, North Korean Officials and the ‘Dear Leader’ absolutely love Parliament, Camel and Marlboro cigarettes and will be a dignifying gift for the next visit’. I guess, the highly in demand ‘American’ cigarettes will surely entice officials for more propaganda in exchange for US public and cultural diplomacy.

Public and Cultural diplomacy is very instrumental in political engagements. However, propaganda could trigger a non -constructive policy outline.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/02/16/exp.tsr.blitzer.nkorea.wed.mov.cnn?iref=allsearch

Public diplomacy or propaganda does it really matter if we all benefit? Building global democracy?

In the recent events in the Middle East the international community has once again prepared to mobilize for the action in order to facilitate the democratic transition in Middle Eastern countries. The uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have a violent nature. Hence it calls for the use of hard power and therefore resurgence of real politic. So where does public diplomacy lie in that context of affairs?

Perhaps the core values of PD are exemplified in the upraising of the Arab people in those countries. Through the channels of public diplomacy i.e. broadcasting, the Arab world no longer wants to be subject to suppression and violation of human rights. The ideas of democratic society have perpetrated the Arab world through TV programs, radio, magazines and the internet.

The task of the Western countries that are prepared to act and to remove the oppressive governments is not an easy one. Furthermore, in order to avoid repeating mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan, the UK and the United States must take into account the opinions of foreign audiences when dealing with this issue.

Genuine listening to foreign audiences as N. Cull suggests should be at the centre of Public Diplomacy. Perhaps the democracy in the Muslim world would be different to western model. Hence the task of the West is to be able to listen to their views of democracy and stop imposing the democracy as a ‘one model fits all’. J. A. Scholte suggests some principals towards a global democracy and one of them is a cultural aspect. We live in an integrated world and if small minorities are not recognised within a state how could we expect egalitarian global society. Moreover he suggests encouragements of diversity, trans-cultural communication, and reciprocal learning in order to shift from state centric approach to more people power. (from the A.J. Scholte's lecture at LSE 22/02/11)

Brown, J.,(2005) ‘Should the Piper be Paid? Three Schools of Thought on Culture and Foreign Policy During the Cold War’, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 4

Cull, N. J.,(2010) ‘Public Diplomacy: Seven Lessons for its Future from its Past’, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 6, No. 1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12480844 accessed on the 2/03/2011

http://www.buildingglobaldemocracy.org/ accessed on the 2/03/2011