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

Review: America’s extended Hand: Assessing the Obama Administration’s Global Engagement Strategy by: Kristin M. Lord and Marc Lynch

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

Another US Deficit - China and America - Public Diplomacy in the Age of the Internet

Critical Review of a Government Report


On the 15th of February 2011 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released a report, commissioned by Senator Richard Lugar, which presents the disparities between China’s and America’s public diplomacy (PD), and calls the US government to reinvigorate US PD, particularly bestowing the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) a prominent role within it. In fact the report stresses that the rise of China on the international stage poses new questions for the US economic and military security, therefore the US has to address the issue as soon as possible to avoid predicaments.

The report offers an insight into China’s PD, which relies mainly on its ancient culture, on language teaching institutions, the Confucius Institutes and Classrooms, and its increasing role in the UN peacekeeping operations, where China does not sent combat but engineers. This is all part of the public diplomacy campaign that China inaugurated in 2005 called “Peaceful Rise of China”. However the report stresses that the success of this campaign, which has also been supported by the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games and the 2010 Shanghai Expo, plays down the possible negative effects of China’s rise. In fact China has a number of liabilities, from poverty to environmental degradation, from corruption to poor working conditions and from abuse of human rights and harassment of journalists to territorial issues and its support for suspicious regimes. The Foreign Relations Committee is also particularly concerned over the fact that while China enhances its PD, it also restricts the American voice to reach Chinese people, limiting American platforms for PD in its territory both physically - resisting further opening of US public diplomacy facilities - and virtually - censoring the internet. China is alleged to take advantage of America’s openness while skewing America’s efforts to reach the Chinese public.
In order to tackle this predicament the US relies on a limited number of US citizens working in China and on still limited, but increasing, student exchanges. However the report stresses the necessity for the US government to supports the Internet Censorship Circumvention Technology (ICCT), and this task must be enforced by the BBG rather than the State department because the former is immune to political pressures and already uses on a daily basis ICCT

The report offers a valuable asset to assess the recent developments of China’s PD, it identifies the major problem confronting US PD, the censorship of the internet, and therefore proposes a possibly successful strategy to tackle the issue without further deteriorating China-US relations.
However it is clearly politically motivated insofar as China is portrayed as a potential enemy which the US has to get ready to fight against. Of particular concern is the association of China to the Soviet Union, and the fact that the report envisions a US-China confrontation not only in the economic sphere, but possibly also in the military field.
Moreover the focus on internet restriction in China and the concern it rises for the US suggests that the latter is still clearly interested in sending its message out there rather than engage with the people. In fact despite the fact that China’s restriction of internet freedom is deemed to be worrying in many respect, the US should focus mainly on long-term engagement with the Chinese people, especially through cultural exchanges. As the report notes, the US has already an embryonic settlement in China constituted by the US Peace Corps Program, and President Obama has expressed the will to increase the number of Americans studying in China, therefore the US PD should concentrate on this aspect which can offset internet restriction. Relying on American people in China the US puts down allegations of propaganda that often sprang from governmental communication in foreign countries, does not risk to upset the Chinese government, and enhances the possibility to build long-term relations between the two countries.

Sources:

Armstrong M., 2011, “Another US Deficit - China and America - Public Diplomacy in the Age of the Internet” at http://mountainrunner.us/2011/02/Lugar_US_Deficit_China_America_Public_Diplomacy.html.


Lugar R., 2011, “Another Us Deficit - China and America - Public Diplomacy in the Age of the Internet”, at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1574605/Blog/Reports/2011-2%20Another%20US%20Deficit%20-%20Public%20Diplomacy%20in%20the%20Age%20of%20the%20Internet%20%28SFRC%20report%29.pdf

Cultural Diplomacy Is Ours

Globalization is a highly contested concept. It is an uneven process, it is quite unclear if it benefiting or harming people across the world, it is not clear-cut whether is bringing a new world order, characterized by multi-polarism, or reinforcing the old hegemonic one. Globalization rises many questions which for the time being are still unanswered. However what is self-evident about globalization is that it is driven by the technological revolution. This is the underlying force of globalization that allows “time-space compression” (Harvey quoted in Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2008, 17), in the form of international flights, international communications and information, the internet as so forth. Globalization is bringing people from different parts of the world closer to each other, and whether this would result in a clash of civilizations, as Huntington foresees, or in greater cross-cultural understanding, as liberals would claim, is still a matter of debate.
It can be argued that cultural diplomacy has a paramount role to play to build bridges of understanding among different cultures and avoid a clash of civilizations. Cultural diplomacy is often referred in the literature as a feature component of public diplomacy (Bound, Briggs, Holden, Jones, 2007; Mark, 2009), or as a form of soft power (ICD, 1999). This implies that cultural diplomacy is a tool in the hands of governments. However this is a major mistake of our century, for the very reason that people around the world are increasingly coming to see governments as a corrupt form of power, and there is a strong tendency to mistrust their activities. As Bound, Briggs Holden and Jones remark, cultural institutions work better than diplomats in times of political difficulties ( 2007, 56). Nevertheless they maintain that these cultural institutions must be underpinned by “strong governance arrangements” (ibid. 64), and this does not solve the general mistrust against governments.
The focal point is that people have been provided with the channels to cut distances, especially through the internet, and we can be diplomats on our own right. This is particularly relevant for two main reasons: firstly within a state can coexist different nations, each of which with different cultures, and governmental cultural institutions often tend to promote the dominant culture at the expense of minorities and to foster homogenization of culture within a state, reinforcing the Foucaultian relation of knowledge and power and therefore non-governmental cultural institutions are better deemed to promote cultural heterogeneity and plurality; secondly the intentions of ordinary people to promote their culture are often more genuine that those of governments, because the latter are mainly concerned with national security, while the former are often moved by the desire to know what is behind their spatial barriers for personal curiosity, will to understand the world and entrepreneurial aspirations.
I know that all this can sound very utopian, but states and governments have been proved wrong in many respects, moved by ideological concerns as it was during the Cold War or by economic motif that have not benefit the people but the elite in power. Culture is ours, of the people, and now we have the means to promote our cultures by ourselves, not to enhance our government image, but to build bridges of understanding among us. Culture is a fundamental defining feature of our identities and I am sure that a great majority of the world population does not accept that governments make of this another instrument for power politics as it was in the case of America during the Charlotte Bear era. The freedom to promote our culture for our sake rather than for governments’ sake could be the key for a pacified world inhabited by different cultural identities that accept and respect each other.

Sources:
Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2008, The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bound, Briggs, Holden, Jones, 2007, “Cultural Diplomacy”, Demos, at http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Cultural%20diplomacy%20-%20web.pdf?1240939425.

ICD, 1999, “What Is Cultural Diplomacy?” at http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en_culturaldiplomacy.

Mark S., 2009, “A Greater Role for Cultural Diplomacy”, Clingendael Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, at http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2009/20090616_cdsp_discussion_paper_114_mark.pdf.