President Obama’s presidency began with a drop in America’s image, ridicule from foreign audiences and the questioning of America’s morality in preserving world peace. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before President Obama’s reign had strategically devalued American vision on: Peace, Power, Principles and Prosperity which in turn dismantled the machinations of Public and Cultural diplomacy. The report offers strong evidence in the change of perception by foreign audiences in their view of what America is and stands for. However, remarks of increased optimism by approval of the masses in Bahrain (33%), Kuwait (19%), Egypt (12%) and Morocco (10%) are a controversial thesis which does not provide a true representation in the Middle East. Most of the countries mentioned are strategic American allies in the war against terrorism. For example: ‘Bahrain constitutes US fifth fleet and U.S. Marine Central Command (Forward) is headquartered in Bahrain’.
Economic injections have been the main source of bilateral agreements which has driven the economies in all those ‘friendly states’ which has also reflected employment in local economies just like US military bases in Germany have helped local economies. American images in the following countries: Syria, Iran, Iraq, Palestine and Yemen reflect different images which are constructed on the grounds of apathy in American foreign policies.
The criticism of ‘many policy makers seeking support for their missions complain that traditional public diplomacy fails to adequately grapple with vital, urgent challenges to American interests’ is a flawed analysis in contextual composition. Without understanding of the vehicle on which public diplomacy is utilized, state bodies are likely to underestimate its importance. The cold war propelled the use of public diplomacy in a different context which has no resemblance to contemporary politics. Cultural diplomacy has become the linchpin of public diplomacy, a structural mechanism which was absent in the cold war. A US advisory committee advised on the effective use of Cultural diplomacy that it: ‘demonstrates our values, and our interest in values, and combats the popular notion that Americans are shallow, violent, and godless’. The importance of America been religious through
Cultural diplomacy improves America’s stand on moral issues in foreign countries.
James K Glassman a former under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy emerged as a passionate advocate of what he called Public Diplomacy 2.0’. Internet-based dialogues are a commendable area which he rightfully identified. In The Middle East where more than half of the population use social media network platforms to utter their views is key in identifying, regulating and executing US Public and Cultural diplomacy policies. Civil unrest in the Middle East recently utilized Social Network platforms to strategically out manoeuvre state security apparatus. In past decades where access to the internet was denied in these societies, civil unrest was a trademark of Western nations. Social Networks has proofed to be a dynamic platform for oppressed populations to destabilize government arms. Channel 4 news assessed the effects and formulated: ‘Amid a near-total media blackout the internet has played a major role in distributing video, pictures and information about the ongoing unrest in Libya’.
‘It remains absolutely vital to understand the perceptions and priorities of the audience in question’. Much often, Public and Cultural diplomacy have disregarded the audience it formulates the policies to. The world does not see the world as a small city as America sees it. There are contrasting deliberations on politics, economics and social factors in regional and international relations and the execution of foreign policies. The State Departments’s oversight on information transmission should be curtailed by creating an internal body which is proficient in analyzing, transmitting and executing Public and Cultural diplomacy.
President Obama and America’s image is interdependent on the transmission of American policies through strong Public and Cultural diplomacy machinery which knows the strategic advantage it could achieve. Unless Congress funds an effective Institutional body to formulate American Public and Culture diplomacy, the struggle for a positive image will regularly be scrutinized.
Bibliography:
Bahrain, (2011), Foreign Assistance to Bahrain, (online), Available at: http://foreignassistance.gov/OU.aspx?FY=2011&OUID=252 Date accessed: 25/03/2011 at 19:47
Al Defaiya, (2011), $19.5 US Military Aid to Bahrain, (online), Available at: http://www.defaiya.com/defaiyaonline/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=916%3A195m-us-military-aid-to-bahrain-&catid=49%3Abahrain&Itemid=27&lang=en Date accessed: 28/03/2011 at 20:29
US State Department, (2005), Report of the advisory committee on Cultural Diplomacy, Washington
Channel 4, (2011), Arab Revolt, Social Media and the People’s Revolution, (online), Available at: http://www.channel4.com/news/arab-revolt-social-media-and-the-peoples-revolution Date accessed: 27/03/2010 at 23:21
Paul.C, (2010), “Strategic communication is vague: saywhat you mean,” Joint Force Quarterly, New York
U.S. Advisory Commission,(2008), "Getting the People Part Right: A Report on the Human Resources Dimension of U.S. Public Diplomacy"
US Commission on National Security, (2001), As recommended by the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, New York
No comments:
Post a Comment