Review of the GAO’s Report to the Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. Engaging Foreign Audiences: Assessment of Public Diplomacy Platforms Could Help Improve State Department Plans to Expand Engagement – July 2010

This report identifies the outreach platforms (broad range of venues, both physical and virtual to engage foreign audiences outside of embassy compounds overseas) the US uses to engage foreign audiences, but due to attacks against US embassies and safety measures, it has had to confine these to embassies or consulate compounds and often moved to the outskirts of the city, making them not as accessible to foreign audiences. Thus, this report tries to identify alternatives to these platforms and come up with new ways to expanding the ways in which the US can conduct public and cultural diplomacy in an attempt to engage foreign audiences.

The report goes on to identify that one of the key aspects of public diplomacy is engaging directly with the public audience in foreign countries, and this has not been used to its full potential. Some of the outreach platforms reviewed are social media efforts such as Facebook, American Centres, Binational Centres and others. This report goes on to further describe the external outreach platforms the Department of State currently uses overseas, examines the challenges and opportunities the State faces in maintaining these outreach platforms, reviews the possibility of expanding these outreach platforms and assesses the extent to which the Department of State has evaluated these outreach platforms. The fieldwork was conducted in Brazil, Indonesia, and China where they met with US embassy officials and representatives of several foreign cultural organisations. The GAO teams also travelled to Mexico and Pakistan to for other engagements in relation to this report.

The report goes on to further identify each outreach platform, what it does and how many of each are there overseas. The outreach platforms identified are: Information Resource Centres (180 worldwide), American Presence Posts (9), American Centres (39), Binational Centres (123), American Corners (401), Virtual Presence Posts (42) and Social Media Efforts such as Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and blogs which vary according to each tool. [230 Facebook accounts, 80 Twitter feeds, 55 Youtube channels, 40 Flickr sites, and 25 active blogs]

These figures certainly show that the US is putting a lot of effort into conducting public diplomacy and through various means, and is definitely keen on staying with the changing times and becoming active through the internet and social media. Yet, due to budget cuts, certain constraints have to be made and it has been identified that social media efforts are one of the best ways to keep engaging foreign audiences and reaching large audiences which otherwise could not be reached.

Some of the challenges faced by the centres are the fact that they may be attacked, and technical problems related to social media efforts as the systems used by the centres or embassies are sometimes incompatible with the new updated social media networks.

Some of the opportunities identified are using social media effort such as Facebook and Twitter and text-messaging which has proven to be rather effective in South Africa. The advantage of social media is that all one does is post something and then that information is in turn shared by a large amount of people and thus the information is transmitted to a larger audience than one could ever imagine.

Another opportunity identified is working with NGOs or private organisations as well as with language centres such as the British Council.

In conclusion, this report provides a large amount of information on what it is these outreach platforms do and how useful they really are. But it also highlight that the US cannot rely on social media alone and thus should concentrate on APPs.

Nation Branding - How to correct a negative image - The case of Thailand

Brand, as defined by the American Marketing Association dictionary is ‘a name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other sellers.’ This does not only apply to items, but to nation states as well. When one thinks of France, what comes to mind? Fashion, baguettes, berets... And what about Spain? Relaxing on the beach, drinking sangria, flamenco.. Germany? It is known for manufacturing good quality cars such as Volkswagen for example. These are things and ideas associated with places. They can generally be positive or negative. The problem is how can one re-brand a nation or a place that has a negative image?

Nuttavuthisit explores the case of Thailand and its negative image of sex tourism. ‘Branding Thailand’ is a study that aimed at gathering the perceptions people all over the world have of Thailand, from its best and most positive ones down to the worst. It was seen that Thailand apart from being known for the hospitality of its people, was also known abroad for its sex tourism industry. Thailand has beautiful beaches and holiday resorts, but then the prostitution factor comes in the picture. And to make things even worse, there is child prostitution as well. And thus, the latter overshadows the former. The solution presented is that Thailand needs to work both on ‘real improvement’ via government policy and ‘image improvement’ via place branding strategy. Nuttavuthisit argues that in order to correct the situation of Thailand being related to the sex industry, the government should develop a branding strategy to correct the present image of Thailand and reshape perceptions. Furthermore, direct action should be taken against sex tourism via government policy simultaneously.

More emphasis should be place on the natural landscapes Thailand has to offer, the mountains, the beach etc. And thus, emphasise on adventure holidays for tourists so it could be one of the main attractions. Also, it is recommended to try stay at home holidays with Thai people to show their friendliness and their good nature. One wants to targets specific types of people, those who are not interested in sex tourism and one has to highlight all the things that Thailand has to offer as to push away that negative image.

As part of the tourism campaign, places often have slogans and even though it is the word ‘exotic’ which is mostly related to Thailand, this word can have a negative connotation and should thus be avoided. Further on, words such as warmth and friendliness may be related to characteristics of the prostitutes. Hence, these words are not of a positive image either. Place branding communication tools usually have an image to accompany the country. Such as the Great Wall of China and the Eiffel Tower in Paris. With Thailand, one has seen flight attendants trying to portray the image of Thai peoples’ hospitality. Yet, this is a very borderline image as it can be related to the sex industry and the prostitution sector once more. As one can see, Thailand is a very tricky situation when it comes to trying to get rid of a country’s negative image. It will definitely take time and a lot of effort for Thailand to be able to get rid of the negative image it has been given thus far, and a lot of cooperation will be needed from the local residents, the government and also the tourists as it is also due to the tourists that in fact go to Thailand for sex tourism which feed that industry. Hopefully Thailand will be able to overcome its present situation and find a way to highlight all the good and beautiful things it has to offer as a country. As seen, re-branding a nation is certainly a difficult task and one which needs a lot of time to be fulfilled. 

Review Report “Another U.S. Deficit- China and America- Public Diplomacy in the age of the Intern

The report mainly gives an analysis of how China’s growing economy is affecting the US. It states that many American’s accept now that China has started to become more important than Europe, and this is a truly historic shift.

The report is mainly divided in three main parts. The first part mainly is a letter from a member of a Congress addressed to his colleagues who raises the concerns of Chinas growing powers, in economy, military and public diplomacy. The author gives examples of how China using is promoting its public diplomacy by using modern tools and censoring the internet. The second part gives an executive summary of the whole report. Through the summary the stress falls on how china’s power is rising in different sectors, such as military, trade, technology and the raising concerns of the USA that China is taking over. The main body addresses the issue as why China badly needs public diplomacy with the main reason being that China needs to look good in the eyes of the world, seeking to avoid the appearance of an aggressive or hostile country since a bad image will harm its economic expansion. To do so, China relies on the early part of its 4,000 years of cultural history to form the core of its public diplomacy. One of the other methods used by Chinese to promote its public diplomacy is to open many of the so called “Confucius Institutes’ ‘throughout the world that provide classes in Chinese language, literature and China’s arts. Only in America are counted about 70 institutes in general, there is less efforts by the USA to do the same. The report comments that the history of the “Confucius Institutes’’ are a version of the British Councils. By doing so, China hopes to convey a thoughtful, innovative, responsible and, most importantly, peaceful friend to all nations. A graph to show how the “Confucius Institutes’’ has drastically increased since 2004 is also given.

The report mentions that American Public Diplomacy in China is too Small, too few to matter. China currently has 71 Confucius Centres in the U.S., while the U.S has only five public diplomacy spaces in China – for a country of some 1.3 billion. The report also gives a chart of how the American Peace Volunteers has changed since 1993-2010.

It is analysed how China has tried to portray a different image to the world by the Olympic Games and the increased presence in U.N. peacekeeping operations. A chart which shows the increase in number of Chinese peacekeepers in years is given. The article also mentions about the official press agency of the Chinese government, which will soon be allowed to open a multi-floored office in Times Square and how the Chinese government has limited the Voice of America to a single, two-person office there, blocks the opening of a VOA bureau in Shanghai.

The report makes huge comments of how China controls the Web by using its official Golden Shield Project Internet software (more commonly known as the Great Firewall of China) in order to stop the people from outside from intruding with its own citizens. This has lead to websites such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Blogspot, Voice of America, and Radio Free Asia to be banned in China. Chinese officials are quick to point out that their citizens have a home-grown search engine – Baidu – that is just as efficient as Google as well as online market places – AliBaba and TaoBao – that compete toe-to-toe with Amazon and EBay.

The report ends giving an expensive a list of Confucius Institutes in USA, U.S. Legislation Regarding Funding of International Expositions, Foreign Film Box Office Gross in China 1999-2010, and Committee to Protect Journalists 2010 List of Imprisoned Chinese Journalists and Screen Shots of Baidu Searches as Seen from Inside the Great Firewall

Findings, Observations and Recommendations

The author makes many recommendation and observations raised in the main body. It recommends that the fact that China has opened its press offices in the USA and has blocked the VOA and RFA’s websites via its ‘‘Great Firewall,’’ is something which can be challenged. To challenge the so called “Confucius Institutes’’ the USA has begun to assist American universities who have pre-existing programs in China in opening more Centres for American Studies at Chinese universities. The report gives a very impressive example when stating the China’s moves toward a greater market-oriented economy should not be understood as for the Communist Party’s willingness to tolerate organized political opposition by providing a comparison that “an iPhone does not equal democracy!”

The report recommends that current U.S. Peace Corps program in China of some 140 ‘‘Chinese-American Friendship Volunteers’ which is primarily engaged in English-language instruction provides valuable, long-term interaction with American citizens and should be expanded to more volunteers. China continues to harass, prosecute and imprison bloggers and journalists on a routine basis there are over 1,400 political prisoners in China as of the date of this report.

Report Access-“Another U.S. Deficit- China and America- Public Diplomacy in the age of the Internet-http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1574605/Blog/Reports/20112%20Another%20US%20Deficit%20-%20Public%20Diplomacy%20in%20the%20Age%20of%20the%20Internet%20%28SFRC%20report%29.pdf

Celebrity Diplomacy

In the recent years celebrities have become political actors engaging in domestic and international affairs. Ernest Gigilo argues that Hollywood and Washington D.C have created a relationship that is best “expressed in terms of political campaigns and elections, support for issue orientated causes, ally and partner with government during the national crisis.[1] However, on the other hand Cooper argues that any individual can be a diplomat; celebrities are a particular population that can embrace the role of the diplomat. The message projected by these individuals is often undiplomatic and they do not usually have any formal training. Rather than interacting through state embassies celebrity diplomats deliver their messages to the public through the use of old and new media forms and performances through concerts.[2]

Moreover Cooper argues that celebrity diplomacy has become more famous since 21^st century for three reasons: firstly because there is a psychological and emotional development link to celebrity culture that lends their credibility, secondly globalisation and the advancement of information technology and finally, since the Post Cold War Era diplomacy itself is more scrutinised subject in international relations. Celebrities have long been involved in varying political and humanitarian issues. Celebrities have been deemed “Diplomats” by the press, government officials, multilateral institutions (e.g. United Nations) or non profit organisations engage in many of the same activities that “official” diplomats perform as part of their professional duties.[3]

In the past few years, celebrities like Bono and Angelina Jolie have been gracing the covers of magazines not for their accomplishments as artists, but for their accomplishments as activists on global issues. This isn't a new phenomenon, of course - before the Live 8 or the MTV specials in Kenya, Audrey Hepburn was traveling to Ethiopia for UNICEF and Princess Diana was calling attention to landmines in Angola. [4]But there seems to be a trend of increasing celebrity participation in world affairs. Because of their status as public figures, celebrities have the ability to draw attention to causes that ordinary citizens can’t easily achieve. Actors, musicians, and professional athletes have a global reach, so combining that with a sense of purpose makes a powerful tool for change.[5]

Those that can be defined as celebrity diplomats tend to “combine assertive individualism of the West with and appreciation of universal cosmopolitan values”. In other word, celebrity diplomats openly adhere to and support Western nation’s values of community, political, social and justice and human rights as universal.[6]The common factor in all that is what Professor Cooper calls "entrapment", by which he means that the celebrities placed their fame at the service of a charity or institution, which then shaped the nature of their activism.[7]

Bibliography:

· Cooper, A.F, “Celebrity diplomacy and the G8: Bono and Bob as legitimate international actors”. - Waterloo: Centre for international governance innovation , 2007.

· Eric, F, “ How insiders view the issues facing Celebrity Diplomacy” USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School, Norman Lear Center, 2009.

· Alleyne M.D, “The United Nations' Celebrity Diplomacy”, , Sais Review, Vol(25) No(1)2005,175-185.

· Wheeler, R., “ The connected celebrity and non-profit advertising”, 2002, Routledge.

· Public Diplomacy Website-http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/research/project_detail/the_public_diplomacy_role_of_celebrity_diplomats/

· USC Centre on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School- Celebrity Diplomacy – YouTube Video-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX_DEs9Ro4k

---

[1] Public Diplomacy Website-http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/research/project_detail/the_public_diplomacy_role_of_celebrity_diplomats/

[2] Cooper, F, A, “ Celebrity Diplomacy”, USA, Paradigm Publishers, 2008, p. 15.

[3] Eric, F, “ How insiders view the issues facing Celebrity Diplomacy” USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School, Norman Lear Center, 2009.

[4] USC Centre on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School- Celebrity Diplomacy – YouTube Video-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX_DEs9Ro4k

[5] Cooper, A.F, “Celebrity diplomacy and the G8: Bono and Bob as legitimate international actors”. - Waterloo: Centre for international governance innovation , 2007, p 23

[6] Alleyne M.D, “The United Nations' Celebrity Diplomacy”, , Sais Review, Vol(25) No(1)2005,175-185.

[7] Wheeler, R., “ The connected celebrity and non-profit advertising”, 2002, Routledge.

Public Diplomacy and Propaganda.

Since Public Diplomacy has been studied, there have existed controversy debates over the comparison of propaganda versus public diplomacy. Many scholars distinguish public diplomacy from propaganda based on the principle that propaganda is by definition deceptive and manipulative. [1]

Advocates of public diplomacy maintain that creating a connection between governments and foreign nations is decisive and is best achieved through honest and open communication about a country’s foreign policy goals. A considerable number of public diplomacy experts stress that dialogue is also significant component of Public Diplomacy that separates it from propaganda. They highlight that to be effective, public diplomacy must be seen as a two-way street. It engage not only shaping the message that a country wishes to present abroad but also analyzing and understanding the ways the message is interpreted by varied societies.[2]

Propaganda may well be the most ancient and widely applied strategic tool in political history, serving to consolidate or influence through the manipulation of information and perception. Public diplomacy and propaganda are two linked concepts in the global political arena. However many supporters of public diplomacy argue that propaganda it’s a tool of foreign policy that can win the struggle for hearts and mind. On the other side many critics argue that propaganda it’s a term used instead of manipulation.[3]

Gullion’s treatment of public diplomacy makes it clear that while public diplomacy does contain elements of propaganda, it is not identical to it. Interestingly, some compare propaganda to pornography: you can tell it when you see it, but you can’t define it. In contrast, public diplomacy, as a rule, does not evoke such a reaction, but it too doesn’t have a universally accepted definition. In order to examine the differences between public diplomacy and propaganda we first need to examine what they do. Public diplomacy and propaganda are seen as two circles which do intersect but neither circle is within the other. One circle is public diplomacy at its best; the other is propaganda at its worst.[4]

Neither public diplomacy nor propaganda is altruistic. Both public diplomacy and propaganda are used as state instruments; they serve a country’s interests. But at their best and their worst, they do so in different ways. At best , public diplomacy provides a truthful, factual exposition of a nation’s foreign policy, encourages international understanding, listens and engage in dialogue and displays national achievements overseas. On the other hand at its worst, propaganda forces its messages on an audience by prepetition and slogans, misrepresents the truth, and simplifies complex issues.[5]

Finally, both public diplomacy and propaganda, at their best or their worst, can achieve credibility with their audience. But, the best public diplomacy achieves credibility through careful presentation of fact and thoughtful argumentation, while the worst propaganda achieves credibility by falsification. Public diplomacy at its best is believed in the long run, while propaganda at its worst is believed only for a short period of time. The best public diplomacy convinces audience that its content and purpose it is honest, while the worst propaganda makes audience to believe that its content does not present its true purpose and therefore it is dishonest.[6]

Bibliography:

· Brown, J, “ Public Diplomacy and Propaganda: Their Differences”, - Available online at - http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2008/0709/comm/brown_pudiplprop.html

· Snow, N, & Taylor, M, P, “ Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy”, USA, Routledge, 2009.

· Jowett, S, G, &Don, O, V, “ Propaganda and Persuasion”,4^th ed, UK, Sage Publications, Inc, 2006.

· Melissen, J. ( May 2005), “Wielding Soft Power: The New Public Diplomacy” The Hague, Netherland Institute of International Relations.

· Waller, M, J. (2007), “The Public Diplomacy Reader”, USA, The Institute of World Politics Press, p, 54.Piggman, A, G. (2010), “Contemporary Diplomacy”, Cambridge, Polity Press.

---

[1] Jowett, S, G, &Don, O, V, “ Propaganda and Persuasion”,4^th ed, UK, Sage Publications, Inc, 2006, p. 12.

[2] Waller, M, J. (2007), “The Public Diplomacy Reader”, USA, The Institute of World Politics Press, p, 54.

[3] Piggman, A, G. (2010), “Contemporary Diplomacy”, Cambridge, Polity Press.

[4] Melissen, J. ( May 2005), “Wielding Soft Power: The New Public Diplomacy” The Hague, Netherland Institute of International Relations,

[5] Brown, J, “ Public Diplomacy and Propaganda: Their Differences”, - Available online at - http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2008/0709/comm/brown_pudiplprop.html

[6] Snow, N, & Taylor, M, P, “ Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy”, USA, Routledge, 2009, p.338.

What is cultural diplomacy and what role does it play?

It is argued that cultural diplomacy is one of the crucial foundations of 21^st Century international relations. In most countries today cultural relations are considered as the fundamental third dimension in relations between states. It is regarded as the “third” because they accompany politics and trade. Willy Brandt in 1996 stated that culture was “the third pillar of foreign policy”.[1]Moreover, UNESCO, in its 2002 Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity described culture this way: …“culture should be regarded as the set of distinctive spiritual, material , intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyle , ways of living together , value systems , traditions and beliefs”.[2]

If we analyse the above definition then it can be argued that cultural diplomacy and cultural relations can be seen in the context of work to convert traditional prejudices into the approach of understanding and co-operation. It is also considered as a potential tool on managing difficult situations between states and minimizing tensions within the regions.[3]We can also think of cultural diplomacy as one facet of international relations, as one of the “soft” aspects of living together on the planet. However in a very narrow sense cultural diplomacy is a tool of governmental policy like any kind of diplomacy.[4]

Cultural diplomats engage with another country where relations are aggressive, weak or non-existent or they work to maintain relations where they are basically sound but need reinforcement. They can also help counteract negative perceptions with positive models. Moreover, cultural diplomacy is a powerful instrument in the hands of diplomats to pursue national interest in an intelligent, persuasive and gainful manner. Culture is operating in bilateral and multilateral diplomacy in order to promote intercultural understanding and significant dialogue between nations.[5]

In 1972, following secret communications between the USA and China through third parties, where neither side wanted to blink first in public, the actual break-through which led to the Nixon/Mao meeting took the form of a table tennis tournament. If ping pong is a form of culture, this was an outstanding example of cultural diplomacy.[6]

Finally, the development of new technologies has possibly had the most intense effect on the conduct of cultural diplomacy. The development of new technologies including telecommunication, electronic mail, and audio video conferencing has made it possible for adherents to conduct cultural diplomacy without ever meeting, in a physical sense.[7]

Bibloography:

· Ross, S, R, & Changbin, J, “ Re-examining the Cold War:U.S- China Diplomacy , 1954-1973”,USA, Harvard University Press, 2001. Laos , N, “ Foundations of Cultural Diplomacy: Politics among Cultures and the Moral Autonomy of the Man”, USA, Algora Publishing, 2011.

· Hecht, G, E, J, & Donfried, C, M, “Searching for a Cultural Diplomacy”, UK, Berghahn Books, 2010.

· Matthes, D, “Culture , Globalisation and International Relations” International Symposium on Cultural Diplomacy 2010.

· Junker, D, “ The United States and Germany in the era of Cold War, 1968-1990: A handbook”(ed) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 280.

· Yusuf, A, A , “ Standard- Standing in UNESCO: Normative action in Education, Science and Culture”, UNESCO , United Nations, Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Vol(1), 2007, p. 161.

· Soft Power Explained" - A Video Lecture By Harvard University Professor Joseph S. Nye Jr- Available online at - http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/index.php?Soft-Power-Explained- Retrieved on 15/04/2010.

---

[1] Junker, D, “ The United States and Germany in the era of Cold War, 1968-1990: A handbook”(ed) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 280.

[2] Yusuf, A, A , “ Standard- Standing in UNESCO: Normative action in Education, Science and Culture”, UNESCO , United Nations, Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Vol(1), 2007, p. 161.

[3] Hecht, G, E, J, & Donfried, C, M, “Searching for a Cultural Diplomacy”, UK, Berghahn Books, 2010, p. 93.

[4] Soft Power Explained" - A Video Lecture By Harvard University Professor Joseph S. Nye Jr- Available online at - http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/index.php?Soft-Power-Explained- Retrieved on 15/04/2010.

[5] Matthes, D, “Culture , Globalisation and International Relations” International Symposium on Cultural Diplomacy 2010.

[6] Ross, S, R, & Changbin, J, “ Re-examining the Cold War:U.S- China Diplomacy , 1954-1973”,USA, Harvard University Press, 2001, p. 154.

[7] Laos , N, “ Foundations of Cultural Diplomacy: Politics among Cultures and the Moral Autonomy of the Man”, USA, Algora Publishing, 2011, p. 208.