The Public Diplomacy Journal staff is working hard at revamping the site and coming back with a brand new design, new features that will foster user interactivity, and a continued commitment to high quality commentary on Public Diplomacy.
We will announce the official launch of our revamped site in the coming weeks.
"Young people such as you are blessed with sources of information on the internet and the TV, increasingly on the internet, that will make you even more sophisticated people who cannot be influenced one way or the other by the newspaper or a news show or radio talk show. You have access ... I call it the wiki-ing world"
-- Colin Powell, former U.S. Secretary of State, speaking to students at Chapman University --
"The world said yes to climate change, now governments must follow"
--World Wildlife Fund --
The success of Earth Hour 2009 serves as an example of the power of public diplomacy to mobilize global publics around an issue that transcends national borders. The initiative seeked to raise awareness about the dangers of global warming by asking individuals around the world to turn off the lights for an hour at 8:30 p.m.
From New Zealand, around to the Pacific, people across time zones made a public statement about a global issue from their homes. They were joined by local governments and organizations which turned off the lights of landmakrs and monuments, from the Great Pyramids of Egypt to the Empire State Building.
An initiative that based its success largely on the ability to connect publics throughout the globe, owes much of that success to its effective use of new media. With a campaign in which users could post photos on Flickr, receive updates through Twitter, friend each other on Facebook, or watch videos on YouTube, the mobilization of audiences that are defined not by nationality, but rather by a common interest, could have not been possible without an strategic use of new technologies.
Hopefully, the impact of this symbolic gesture reaches Copenhagen in time for the climate change negotiations in December.
The most popular online video site, YouTube, has been blocked in China, according to parent company Google. The action, which has not been explained by the Chinese goverment, is rumored to be a response to the posting of a video by the Tibetan government in exile in which Chinese police officers are shown aggressively beating Tibetans after riots last year. This is the video rumored to have sparked the controversy:
The images in the video above are very poignant, and have started to receive substantial attention throughout the web. China's response to the accusations, rather than publicly denying them or offering an official response, seems to have been to block the medium through which its citizens could access and view the video. This response suggests a lack of understanding of public diplomacy dynamics
For starters, the gap between govermental and non-govermental actors as communicators has decreased significantly in the age of public diplomacy. The democratization of media production allows anyone with a recording device to create a video and distribute it widely across the world. Individuals have a much greater potential to impact international affairs than they have ever had. The idea that it is an appropriate response for a goverment to simply dismiss a public accusation in order to prevent it from garnering public attention is most commonly wrong in today's world.
Goverments no longer have exclusive dominance over the public debate, not even in the realm of international affairs, and as such, they must be ready to fight in the war of ideas. China's lack of willingness to defend itself from an accussation that is now being discussed in important international news outlets, conveys a limited understanding of the impact of new media in international affairs.
More so, in the age of public diplomacy, increasingly, publics are not defined by their national affiliation, but rather by similarities that often transcend national borders. The communication, whether through text, images, or video, between individuals in different parts of the world had resulted in a reconfiguration of global publics. Yet, with this action, China once again seems stubbornly determined to break up publics by the national borders that no longer serve to contain them.
The Chinese goverment's eager desire to dominate the public debate within its borders, not by winning the war of ideas, but rather by blocking and banning messages that it deems negative for its internal image is worrisome. The fact that the goverment would rather limit its citizen's ability to access information than to persuade them, gives the impression internationally that China is trying to hide its actions instead of standing by them.
Futhermore, the futile attempt to clearly divide its citizens from other publics abroad, can lead to an isolation of Chinese citizens, who may wonder without fully understanding, why people around the world think about their country the way that they do.
China can keep pretending like Chinese affairs are only discussed internally, it can keep trying to contain its publics within its borders, it can keep trying to regulate their citizens' access to new media content, but sooner or later public diplomacy is going to knock on the door, and China won't have any other option but to open.
Stephen Colbert proves once again the power of new media as a tool of mobilization. The host of "The Colbert Report" asked his viewers to write-in his last name in NASA's online contest to name a new room at the international space station. Users could vote for one of NASA's four suggested names, or write-in a name of their choice. Colbert won the contest with 230,539 votes from users around the the world.
While NASA won't announce until April whether it will use the name, Colbert's ability to mobilize audiences through television and the internet, and impact a decision of this nature, serves as proof of the media dynamics that have allowed for the emergence of public diplomacy and the legitimization of its influence.
In what can only be described as a public diplomacy blunder, South Africa has denied the Dalai Lama a visa to attend a peace conference, the BBC reports. The conference, which was also set to include Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and F.W. de Klerk was part of a set of events linked to the 2010 Soccer World Cup which will take place in the African country.
The visa denial has caused De Klerk and Archbishop Tutu to back out of the conference --where they would discuss the role of soccer in helping to fight racism and xenophobia-- and to release strong statements of disapproval towards the actions of the South African government.
In turn, Thabo Masebe, the spokesman for South African president Kgalema Motlanthe has responded by saying that a visit by the Dalai Lama "would not be in the interests of South Africa" and it would shift the attention from South Africa to issues related to China and Tibet.
Well, the attention has shifted.
Unfortunately for the South African government, by denying the Dalai Lama entry to their country, they have attracted substantial negative coverage, and they have strained their relationship with the Norwegian Nobel Committee and the important international public figures that compose it.
With a major international sporting event in the horizon, it is quite unfortunate that South Africa has failed to capitalize on the remarkable public diplomacy opportunity that this conference offered, and instead, has allowed this incident to taint the public perception about its ability to host events of this stature. More so, all the press coverage about this incident suggests that South Africa's reason to deny entry to the Dalai Lama is its close economic ties with China, giving the impression that South Africa has compromised its sovereignty when conducting international relations.
So let's recap:
Publicly rejecting Nobel Laureate / Spiritual leader: CHECK!
Pissing off international public opinion leaders: CHECK!
Not apologizing for it: CHECK!
Appearing incapable of hosting an international sporting event: CHECK!
Giving the impression of compromised sovereignty: CHECK!
Not knowing how to handle public diplomacy: CHECK, CHECK, CHECK!
"What the NFL does abroad is a part of public diplomacy. To try to use sports and sports diplomacy to present the values we stand for, to give people a little different outlook at what we stand for (as Americans). America's game, I just know, will be one day an international game of some proportion."
--Condoleeza Rice, Former United States Secretary of State, speaking to the NFL--
In one of the best examples of Public Diplomacy in action, Barack Obama reached out to Iranian leaders through an online video. Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed Obama's invitation to engage in dialogue. While Obama may have failed from a foreign policy perspective, he succeeded in the realm of public diplomacy.
In a subtitled video posted Thursday on the White House's website and official YouTube channel, Obama congratulated the Iranians on the occassion of the Nowruz ("New Day") holiday, and expressed a willingness to improve bilateral relations.
Most relevant to public diplomacy, Obama publicly addressed Iranian citizens, not just their leaders. In the 3 minute 20 second video, the American president highlighted the similarities between Iranians and Americans, and pledged to see "engagement that is honest, and grounded in mutual respect."
The Iranian supreme leader responded Saturday defiantly. "He (Obama) insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day. If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it clear for us what has changed," said Khamenei.
It may seem initially that Obama's innovative attempt to appeal to Iranian leaders failed. Yet, the seeming short-term foreign policy failure does not outweigh the substantial public diplomacy success he has achieved.
Obama may have not gotten a good reception from Iranian leadership, but that was not the only audience targetted by the video. Obama may have very well succeeded at communicating with three main audiences: American citizens, Iranian citizens, and international publics.
In his presidential campaign, Obama had pledged to the American electorate he would attempt to engage with nations such as Iran. If nothing else, with this video, he has realized that promise, and has legitimized the notion that he was indeed committed to the process.
Similarly, Obama has proven to international audiences, both the leaders and the citizens of nations around the world, that he was open to engaging with Iran in dialogue and to seek reconciliation of differences. Future American foreign policy approaches to dealing with Iran that may focus less on diplomacy and more on the exercise of hard power can always be explained as a result of Iranian lack of willingness to cooperate, even when given the chance.
Most poignantly, by using an internet video, Obama reached out to not only Iranian leaders, but also to many Iranian citizens. While it is challenging to accurately measure the impact of Obama's message throughout Iranian civil society, his conciliatory tone must have allowed him to connect with many.
Even though a video message will probably not be enough to fully transform the views of Iranians that perceive the United States negatively, many others may start reconsidering whether the blame of strained bilateral relations truly lies on American shoulders. Iranians who reacted positively to Obama's message may now be frustrated by their leader's response. If that is the case, Obama will have effectively applied public diplomacy skills to engage with foreign citizens in a way in which it slowly alienates their nation's top leadership. This may eventually allow for the members of that leadership to be deemed as too radical and too unrepresentative of the voices of their fellow citizens.
In that sense, Obama may have achieved more with a 3-minute YouTube video than many diplomats have in years of foreign policy efforts. Welcome to the age of public diplomacy!
"In the midst of a severe recession, with two wars overseas, a new president is unavoidably going to be at the center of the news universe. Obama has taken this intense public interest to a new level -- encouraging a highly personalized, uncommonly intimate presidential image"
The article then presents several of the dangers of having a president who wants to be "the Oprah of politics", such as overexposure, or failing to balance the dignity of the highest office of the nation with the ordinary humanity of the individual holding the office.
While those critiques are reasonable, one could also argue that in a democracy in the public diplomacy age, elections and policy-making are highly dependent on successful personal branding.
In that sense, Obama and his team ought be concerned about effectively dominating the fluid public perception about him and his policies through every medium possible. If that requires having his image appear on everything from Men's Journal, to T-shirts, to Twitter, then so be it.
More so, one could also argue that in the age of public diplomacy, leaders that are elected democratically will always have to be concerned with how they are personally perceived. Obama, for instance, cannot simply be understood by global audiences through his policies. The way individuals around the world consume and respond to his public image will always be influenced by his own personal narrative.
Nonetheless, President Obama must be careful. As Public Relations teaches us, building a good reputation and personal brand can take a lot of effort, resources, and time; destroying that reputation can take only a second.
The line-up for Jay Leno last night included Garth Brooks and... the President of the United States Barack Obama. President Obama made history by being the first sitting U.S. president to appear on late night network television. His appearance highlights the importance of public diplomacy as a necessary exercise in policy-making.
The coverage of Obama's visit to California truly demonstrated how much the world has changed. If Obama ever blurred the lines between president and celebrity, no previous example could quite match his most recent escapade to the land of the Governator.
While his appearance on the Tonight Show was no surprise, watching comedian Jay Leno compare the president's security entourage with Mariah Carey's, and then actually seeing Obama sit in the same chair reserved for popular culture stars promoting their latest projects, seemed peculiar, at the very least.
Kevin Eubanks, Leno's sidekick and band leader, might've conveyed it best by shocking the host with his attire. "I've never seen you in a suit," Leno exclaimed, while hardly containing his laughter. In many ways, Eubanks' attempt to dress up for the President reflected the stretching of boundaries that Obama's visit caused.
Unfortunately, the media coverage of Obama's interview with Leno has been dominated by a critique of the President's regrettable gaffe in which he described his unsatisfactory bowling skills as being "like the Special Olympics or something." His slip of the tongue exemplified one of the main challenges of communicating to publics (or, in the case of the President, constituents), through a medium like the one he chose.
Nonetheless, even beyond the short-term controversy caused by his gaffe, Obama's appearance on Leno serves as definitive proof that, in the 21st century, the President cannot only be Commander-in-Chief, but rather must also be Communicator-in-Chief.
Obama is well aware that his ability to conduct policy-making is inherently connected with his personal political capital. Not unlike a movie star whose popular public persona serves to catapult a film to the top of the box office, Obama seems keenly aware that the success of his administration's policies is highly reliant on his own public persona and his ability to communicate effectively with publics.
Obama's willingness to appear on Jay Leno, or to create an NCAA bracket with ESPN, are not, as naive observers may claim, signs that the President is wasting his time, but instead, they serve as prime examples that in today's world policy-making is as much about making policies as it is about effectively using public diplomacy to assure the policies' approval and potential success.
Critics will undoubtedly criticize Obama for avoiding the "true" responsibilities of his office. Those who do so, fail to realize that, unlike his predecessor, Obama understands that in order to fulfill the responsibilities with which he has been charged, he must adapt to fit current patterns of media consumption, thus heightening his chances to shape and influence debate in the public sphere.
Others will accuse the president of making his administration more about him than about the office he holds. Then again, those critics will have failed to acknowledge that Obama could've not been elected if it weren't for an effective construction and communication of a popular public persona, and that, as a public figure, he is not unlike any other public figure, competing for the attention of audiences. In the age of a crowded marketplace of ideas, the presidency is as much, or more, about Obama's persona as anything else.
Lastly, other critics may accuse Obama of delegitimizing and demystifying the highest office in the United States. They may claim that by joking with Jay Leno about "life in the bubble", or by comparing Washington to an American Idol full of Simon Cowells, Obama is weakening the perception of a role that has been historically understood to be grand and extraordinary. These critics miss the value of conveying transparency, accessibility and humanity, particularly when the person doing so serves as a role model and a leader.
Yet, most importantly, all of those critics fail to see that after Barack Obama, every president will necessarily have to be Public Diplomat-in-Chief.
In the current global context, we are no longer confined within national borders. Everything, from the construction of our identity, to business, occurs at a transnational level. Governments no longer have sole control over the way in which nations, and the individuals of whom they are comprised, understand and interact with one another. Instead, we all do.
Public Diplomacy is based upon the belief than in the 21st century world, relationships, whether between communities or nations, are influenced substantially by people's everyday experiences. You and I, and the interaction we are having, are now an important part of today's diplomacy.
Public Diplomacy Journal will offer daily commentary on all those ways in which WE have become an essential part of today's diplomacy. Welcome!
Editor's note:Please bare with us as we work on the layout design, the featured gadgets, and the content's structure, and please do not hesitate in sending your feedback to PublicDiplomacyJournal@gmail.com. Thanks!
In the current global context, we are no longer confined within national borders. Everything, from the construction of our identity to business, occurs at a transnational level. Governments no longer have sole control over the way in which nations, and the individuals of whom they are comprised, understand and interact with one another. Instead, we all do.
Public Diplomacy is based upon the belief than in the 21st century world, relationships, whether between communities or nations, are influenced also by people's everyday experiences. You and I, and the interaction we are having, are now an important part of today's diplomacy.
Public Diplomacy Journal will offer daily commentary on all those ways in which WE have become an essential part of today's diplomacy. Welcome!
Posts
