Objectives Matter

The use of social media technologies signals a great transformation in improving the work of public diplomacy, but should not alter its objectives. Social media should only be used as a tool to enhance and amplify core values that already exist.  Developing tools and strategies to better communicate with all demographics is not only important, but is increasingly necessary. The State Department must be more relevant now than ever before in order to effectively respond to the demands and challenges posed by the global landscape. The only thing that is constant is change and institutions must evolve or die.

Public Diplomacy is an integral component of communicating foreign policy. Therefore public diplomacy must reflect foreign policy objectives, but the medium should never overshadow the message. Mobile technology and social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter are a source of power, but should not alter national objectives and priorities. Traditional public diplomacy greatly relied on face- to- face communication and personal exchange. However, a more networked and digital society has afforded diplomats and other state actors the opportunity to communicate with publics via virtual exchange.  The key objectives of U.S. public diplomacy is to inform, engage and influence foreign audiences. We must make sure that our social media outreach is used strategically so that our information is both accurate and trustworthy. There is a clear difference between being effective and efficient. Efficiency means doing things in the right manner and effective means doing the right things. The use of social media for the purpose of public diplomacy requires finding a perfect balance between the two, so that the message does not get lost in trying to navigating the medium. Framing a national narrative cannot be accomplished through a tweet, and advancing a national objective will not be met through posting a Facebook status, however the medium does help to cultivate an image and create a conversation. Social media has definitely altered our approach to public diplomacy, but should not change our core objectives.

Soft Power and Hard Work

1) Do you feel the New Persuaders report provides a good measure of a nation-state's "soft power?" What works, and what do you think the measure misses?


I think McClory was on point in proclaiming that while there is a growing acknowledgement of the importance of soft power, the result of that is a lot of people jumping on a popular bandwagon without realizing what to do with it or knowing what it is about soft power that makes it so effective. I particularly agree with this point:

"For governments to effectively leverage their soft power assets, they need first understand what exactly those assets are, whether they can be mobilized by the state, and if so, where they might be deployed. In short, policy makers are in danger of rushing to answer the question 'how can we use our soft power?' before understanding 'what soft power do we actually have?'

I don't believe there is much dissension as to the importance and influence of soft power in current practices of public diplomacy; however, it cannot be relied on solely to solve problems of this nature. McClory mentions International Relations as a "constant struggle between realism, liberalism and a host of other critical theories." The least of these being the failed reconciliation of propaganda with modern foreign diplomacy. But I feel that soft power will never feel the effects of the "death of propaganda" as we know it. The two things are fundamentally different, as soft power is not about obfuscating the truth or influencing hearts and minds so much as winning then. To put it more eloquently, McClory says:

"In a soft power context, culture is defined as the set of practices that create meaning for a society..."When a country's culture promotes universal values that other nations can readily identify with, it makes them naturally attractive to others."

What I also like that McClory mentions is the cultural gap between nations that can serve as barrier between successful cultural exchange, which just bolsters the argument that utilizing soft power alone is not enough.

I think a potential solution could be found within the writings of Sharon Memis and the highly organized, carefully executed work of the British Council. Through the explanation of the campaign there appears to be an intrinsic understanding that along with a creative, compelling campaign must be a structured plan where the underlying work is being done.

Hollow Pursuaders

Joshua Midgett

SIS 628

Applied Public Diplomacy

Professor Hayden

             The "New Persuaders" takes on the challenge that has been present since week 2 of this class to me, and likely long before this to the rest of the Public Diplomacy world: How does one measure who has 'soft power' and how much do they have? McClory boldly attempts to subtract the subjective from measurement and achieve an objective quantification of what is otherwise rather opaque and elusive. This is done by refocusing on the contributors to soft power and building an index to track these inputs in various countries, compiling them and then building a formula with which to rank them.

             This seems like trying to insert math into magic. To strip away the personal ideologies and experiences of the individual discard the majority of what makes up 'soft power'. Were soft power to be defined as the potential positive influence one government has within a foreign public, it is inherent that the public's opinion and subjective thoughts are at its core. This leaves the measurement detailed within the study fairly hollow. The reduction of varied subjective responses in such categories as International Purpose, Cultural Output, Global Leadership, Soft Power Icons, Cuisine, National Airline, and Commercial Brands to simple digits seems to strip the usefulness of what is attempting to be measured away. 

            While the effort is courageous and inspired I think it is lacking a flexibility that is necessary in such a measurement. Much how quarterbacks are measured by completion percentage, TD-INT ratio, as well as the comprehensive QBR, I feel that this measure could at best be a piece of the puzzle. I do enjoy how their are multiple measurement within different categories, but I would prefer measurements on the same data via different methods. The more directions that the information is viewed from the better chance there is to have a comprehensive understanding of the true soft power landscape. 

Measuring Soft Power

International politics is experiencing an unprecedented shift with the rise of global networks, technological advances, and the surge of public opinion. Victory is now given to those who can win the debate, shape the frame, and control the message. This strategic way of exerting soft power has greater significance and implications more than ever before. Governments could greatly benefit from a system put in place to measure their soft power and overall global effectiveness. Jonathan McClory points to several indicators that contribute to a nation’s soft power, which include government, culture, diplomacy, education and business innovation.

 

Leveraging soft power assets is extremely essential for diplomats, elected officials, foreign ministries and any entity in the business of public diplomacy. Shaping world opinion is a powerful institutional asset needed to strengthen nation branding strategies and influence negotiation. Soft power enables a country to exert the energy necessary to gain popular and positive attraction. While likability provides leverage in exerting influence, it does not always achieve strategic objectives. The complexity of the global political landscape allows for competing interest to exist. Regardless of how much a particular country is liked among the masses within the foreign public, if the decision makers are not on the same page negotiations will not be expedient.

 

Governments must also make a strong effort to balance public perception with their own domestic audience. Conflicting messages from a country can be perceived as a weakness when there is dissension between the public and those that are framing the message.  Although the IfG-Monocle Soft Power Index provides a comprehensive analysis on a country’s outputs based on strategic indicators, this tool does not automatically equate to influence. This tool could be expanded to show how well these indicators impact or meet strategic objectives and foreign priorities.

 

a search for a better measurement

Dominique Lopes

SIS-628-02 Applied Public Diplomacy
Craig Hayden

 Do you feel the New Persuaders report provides a good measure of a nation-state's "soft power?" What works, and what do you think the measure misses?

In the New Persuaders, Jonathan McClory, presents “soft power” as a multidimensional approach to foreign diplomacy. Increasingly today foreign nations respond more favorably to soft power tactics than the traditional hard power of military, hard coercion, and GDP. Therefore, we must look into culture, education, diplomacy, how our government is perceived by foreign populations, and whether our business models are attractive to foreign investment in order to raise our attractiveness on a global scale. I believe that McClory does present a decent set of measurements for soft power, both those just stated and those in the subjective category, and by explaining that measurement of “soft-power” is inherently subjective we understand that this will be an ever evolving process.

Expanding Joseph Nye’s three main sources of soft power: culture; political values; and foreign policy, to the five more substantive categories of culture, education, diplomacy, government, and business/innovation the New Persuaders gives a broader definition of how we think about countries abroad. In the example of Ai Wei Wei, the arrest of the artist still effects the perception of China on a global scale. Though McClory sites this as a snapshot example that is hard to measure using these indices, I believe that the categories of culture and government give a great framework of China’s soft power. The arrest of the controversial artist portrays the country’s government as counter to social/human-rights norms causing a dent in the government’s soft power. This is admittedly a Western concept, but because we think of a government’s soft power in these western ideals until this changes China will be subject to these parameters. However, because of the artistic magnitude of Ai Wei Wei, his very existence is a boon to China’s cultural soft power.

McClory, I believe, could strengthen his measurement evaluation by expanding on how the different categories affect one another. He briefly mentions the importance of culture and education, but could benefit from an assessment of which is worth more or how one can trump the other. The New Persuaders report exhibits a start in a long process of fully understanding how to measure “soft power”, so in that light I believe that McClory has done a good job in providing a base measurement.

Quantifying Soft Power

Joseph Nye defines soft power as “the ability of one state to achieve preferred outcomes by changing the preferences or behavior of another state through the co-optive means of framing the agenda, persuasion and positive attraction” (8). However, due to its subjectivity, soft power is extremely difficult to measure, count, or analyze. The relational nature of soft power also complicates cross-national comparisons seeing as perceptions in one country may be significantly different from that of others. Up to this point, there has been no set methodology for measuring soft power beyond surveys like the Gallup Global Attitudes Survey and other types of opinion polling.

To fill this gap, the New Persuaders II Report aims to shed light on the resources that contribute to a nation’s soft power, and provide a comparative snap-shot of those resources through a composite index. Their index is comprised of five objective sub-indices (Government, Culture, Diplomacy, Education, and Business/Innovation) as well as seven subjective indicators (International Purpose/Role, Cultural Output, Global Leadership, Soft Power Icons, Cuisine, National Airline/Major Airport, and Commercial Brands). This type of quantitative analysis works in that it makes the case for public diplomacy. For practitioners, the report provides a bargaining chip with which to highlight the high-scoring areas and to advocate for future public diplomacy funding. It also shows them what resources they have and could lead to brainstorming of how to better use those resources. For policymakers and funders who may be unfamiliar with soft power, the report offers an easier conceptual presentation and translation of its components.

Unfortunately, the report lacks any real utility for foreign affairs ministries, especially when it comes to the report’s public diplomacy measures. Public diplomacy is considered to only be a soft power tool and is ultimately only a small sliver of the entire analysis. Even though public diplomacy is captured in the “diplomacy” index, it actually affects more than just that one category.  Furthermore, the report’s author, Jonathan McClory, admits that the analysis does not capture developments occurring in real-time such as short-term shocks or trends in social media. McClory also states that he was forced to rely on proxies because there is no perfect data, which ultimately constraints what the report is able to explain and limits its “usability.”

While the New Persuaders II Report's index has its limitations, it marks an important step forward in how we go about measuring soft power. Overall, the report is a good supplement to the previous literature, underscoring the need for both objective and subjective analyses of soft power.

R's Take on Collaborative Diplomacy

On Wednesday, I was fortunate enough to hear Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Tara Sonenshine speak at the inaugural event of the Public and Cultural Diplomacy Forum at American University.

A major theme throughout her remarks was the notion of collaborative diplomacy. Using the analogy of Hollywood, she elaborated that, just as a movie needs writers, agents, producers, a director, and a crew in order to be made, public diplomacy also requires the same amount of teamwork through public-private partnerships or social networks. In the words of Secretary Clinton, “it takes a village” to implement public diplomacy well.

Collaborative diplomacy is critical today because, in a world of growing complexity and connectivity, no one person or entity possesses all the capabilities and resources to solve crosscutting issues like terrorism, climate change, or energy security. This is especially true for the Department of State, whose overseas spending accounts for only one percent of the federal government’s operating budget. With such limited funding, the State Department must come up with “creative, innovative, and efficient” ways to identify, attract, and collaborate with partners who can help plan and fund projects.

Under Secretary Sonenshine discussed at length how partnerships impact State Department operations (moving from one-way dialogue to two-way dialogue and eventually to multidirectional dialogue). In particular, she highlighted the SelectUSA Initiative and GIST (Global Innovation through Science and Technology) as two public-private partnerships that exemplify this mindset. However, while she made a case for the value of collaborative power, I am left wondering how collaborative partnerships impact the actual implementation of public diplomacy. Do these partnerships make U.S. public diplomacy more effective?

Then, there is also the issue of evaluation – how do evaluate what works and what does not work in public diplomacy when there are multiple actors involved? Should you attribute success to an actor’s contribution or to the end result? Moreover, how do you quantify something that may be unquantifiable (such as feelings, values, or norms)? Although the Under Secretary addressed many of the concrete questions surrounding what the State Department is doing for public diplomacy, I feel that many conceptual questions still remain up in the air.

To read the entire transcript of the Under Secretary’s remarks, click here.

Institutionalizing Virtual Exchange

In order to be globally relevant and effective, public diplomacy must continue to expand its social media presence. Nothing will ever replace The Last 3 Feet, but there still needs to be a presence where no feet exists. The State Department has the opportunity to capitalize on new technology and to interact with those audiences that will never be able physically experience America. Mobile phones and other electronic devices have unlimited potential to increase educational exchange, promote peace and foster economic development. The State Department recently hosted a 24- hour college fair, which offered an online space for over 200 U.S. colleges the opportunity to present information to foreign students. Programs like the virtual college fair can be potentially at risk of being terminated if the priorities and political influence in Washington change drastically. Institutionalizing virtual public diplomacy is the most sustainable route to make sure that online dialogue and exchange continues to have a presence.

Institutionalizing virtual exchange requires a deep commitment on behalf of Foreign Service officers serving abroad. These individuals must make a serious effort familiarize themselves with these new forms of digital media in order to train the local communities in which they serve. Additionally, there must be special emphasis on training foreign nationals how to use new technology as a medium for foreign exchange. Foreign Service officers serve for a maximum of 3 years in a particular country, and sometimes are replaced by individuals that may not have similar ideas and methods to promoting communication exchange. If virtual exchange is institutionalized at the grassroots level and channeled through foreign nationals, communication can be sustainable and will allow local communities and institutions to define their own destiny. Proactive steps can be made by establishing partnerships with foreign schools and other academic institutions to make virtual technology a long- term priority when implementing their curriculum. There has been too much progress made with virtual exchange for the communication platform to be threatened by changes in Washington, budget cuts, or the rotation of Foreign Service officers. Tara Sonenshine, undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs is absolutely correct when she argues that there is no substitute for the give- and- take of real encounters between people. Nothing will ever replace organic knowledge sharing. I also suggest a more collaborative public diplomacy that harnesses the strength of physical and virtual interaction. In order to ensure that this type of exchange continues to exist for future generations, it must be institutionalized in the academic curriculum of our foreign audiences

Just a little tired of the Twitter Machine

Dominique Lopes

SIS-628-02 Applied Public Diplomacy
10/11/2012

Blogs and Bullets 2 Report and the Jillian York offer a healthy dose of skepticism about the role of technology in the Arab uprisings. How does this skepticism affect your views of social media in the service of PD?

  Twittering Machine, Paul Klee 1922 

Where York claims that new social media and technological networking were the obvious stars to rise out of the Arab spring, myself and the authors of the Blogs and Bullets 2 Report are a little more skeptical. While social media sites like Twitter and Facebook played a role in allowing for information to be disseminated more widely, they were not the keys to the revolutions the Arab nations witnessed in the spring of 2011. Social media allows for wider audiences virtually, but it can never replace the face to face, and to suggest in order to make real change we must update our blog or get one more a hundred or so words out there is missing the point of Public Diplomacy.

In the Blogs and Bullets 2 Report the authors rightfully, I feel, point out that social media is a tool, one among many. There are many more steps and apparatuses that a public diplomat must utilize in his or her position. For example, today I sat at a panel discussion with two musicians who were acting as public diplomacy officers. Both women were from the Middle East and spoke on the role of social media for their countries and their line of work. Both admitted that social media allowed them to get started, but pointed out that it was the music that allowed them to be successful public diplomats and not social media. They set down with other musicians from countries around their home of Pakistan and were embraced, because in this “last three feet”, whether or not they had a Twitter feed became a non sequitur.  

Honestly, I am very weary of social media. It has its place, especially in today’s social world, but we should never use it as a substitute for face to face interactions. It is quick and can be informative and must remain just one of many tools for public diplomacy. 

The Tweets and Status Updates Heard around the World

There is much debate about the role social media played in the revolutions of the Arab Spring. I primarily side with the analysts who say that its role was essential. The digital networks of Facebook and Twitter made the protests possible by breaking down the barriers to free speech and allowing information to spread within as well as between countries. The governments of Syria, Egypt, and Tunisia, who typically fear large, organized groups, severely underestimated the power of individual communication via social media. As a result, these platforms transmitted details and images of the protests, which were then picked up and broadcasted to the rest of the world by television and traditional media outlets.

Clicks by Location (Figure 2 from the Blogs and Bullets II Report)

Conversely, the social media skepticism of Jillian York and the Blogs and Bullets II Report also bring up some interesting points. Both argue that, while social media was influential in organizing the protests, it was not the catalyst. Rather, the revolutions were “the culmination of nearly a decade of efforts” (York). In this light, pre-existing conditions such as unemployment or human rights violations, topped with the shocking self-immolation of Mohammed Bouazizi, are what spurred citizens to take to the streets. As the Blogs and Bullets II Report notes, social media may have helped project the call to action to the outside world, but it did not serve as an internal battle cry to action.

What the skeptics seem to overlook is establishing the proper lens through which to analyze new media. They are focused on studying the episodic, short-term impact of social media content. Yet, a revolution is much more than just a series of specific events. It is a complex, long-term process resulting in not only a regime change but also a systemic change. Therefore, the social media of the Arab Spring should be analyzed through a long-term, process-based lens. Rather than assessing social media’s impact in isolated episodes, social media should be studied as a sum of its parts. All of the photos, videos, blogs, and tweets aggregated together make up the new virtual participatory network that has facilitated a far-reaching information system to rival that of traditional media and diplomacy. Social media gives grassroots citizens a voice where they would not have it otherwise. The debate has been focused on the impact of social media on the uprisings, but the question I would like to pose is this: could the Arab Spring have occurred without the use of social media?

Slacktivism vs. Activism

Social media and advanced technology has indeed created an environment where individuals and networks can connect across geographical boundaries. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have assisted in bringing international attention to global atrocities and horrendous acts of violence. However, in our praise of the Internet, we must be sure not to dismiss the painful years of blood, sweat, and tears that made the Social Media Revolution so powerful during the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring did not happen because social media amplified the voice of bloggers and journalists. Instead, the Arab Spring gained international exposure because bloggers and journalist in the Arab world had been preparing for that moment and social media just served as a tool to leverage their voice.  The uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia were the result of activism and not slacktivism. Slacktivism is when social media is used alone with hopes of effectuation change. Activism consists of on- the ground action that has been in the works for a significant period of time.

Social media in the service of PD offers a wide array of benefits. However, before assigning a social media solution to every situation, context must be considered. The use of social media can be beneficial depending on the particular country. The reason why social media worked in Tunisia is because citizens spent over a decade building online networks and relationships. Social media outreach did not fair too well in Syria because internet penetration is not as high and anti- opposition is strong. Internet freedom plays a huge role in measuring how well social media is compatible to the work of PD.  In order to strengthen the work of PD, it would be beneficial to work diligently toward the goal of making sure that citizens have the right to express themselves freely through digital networks.  Journalist, bloggers and social activists already have the tools to effectuate change. Social media would only provide a mechanism to give them a voice where they have traditionally been silenced.

Collaboration is Power

The entire notion of “collaborative power” is based on the idea that power is “networked” rather than polarized among the superpowers of the international system. Building off of Joseph Nye’s theory of “soft power,” Anne-Marie Slaughter asserts that in today’s globalized world “the measure of power is connectedness.” In other words, the state with the highest quantity and quality connections is primed to be the central player. Unlike the “power over” dynamic of soft power, collaborative power has a “power with” mentality, meaning that no one actor can control the agenda. Instead, an actor can only unlock or guide the conversation in the process of building a relationship.

If an international actor cannot control the narrative, how then will states tap into and cultivate collaborative power to its benefit? Since collaborative power is heavily influenced by informal networks, it leads me to believe that it should be practiced less by traditional state actors and more by non-government actors. Cross-sector partnerships among artists or performers, activists, academics, policy makers, and PD practitioners are critical to developing what Robert Albro calls “applied humanities networks.” A perfect example of this is the American Music Abroad program administered by the Association of American Voices in conjunction with the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The program fits perfectly with the collaborative performance paradigm – the goal is “to better appreciate how other people express themselves and what this might mean for how they are currently thinking about themselves, their circumstances, and their worlds” (Albro).

Act of Congress just finished their American Music Abroad tour to Southeast Asia. They're a great band and great cultural diplomats. Check them out here and on iTunes or Spotify!

There should also be a shift away from the pursuit of national self-interest toward “mutualism” and closer inter-relationships. Times have changed – portraying culture in a “monolithic way” will not work like it did during the Cold War. Concerns over messaging and branding seem almost unnecessary within the collaborative framework. Instead of simply being “models of display,” public and cultural diplomacy should aim to impart agency to others. The concept of co-creation, through teaching or mentoring, is powerful and could have many applications, such as country development or conflict resolution.

Collaborative Power Can Save a Life

                            Anne- Marie Slaughter defines collaborative power as the power of many to do together what no one can do alone. In her article, she cites how American blogger and columnist Mona Eltahawy tweeted a plea for help to her more than 60,000 followers after she had been beaten and arrested in Cairo. Her tweet sparked an international movement and the #FreeMona  hashtag was seen by millions of users.  Hours later, the State Department had been contacted and Mona was released. An ongoing debate has surfaced regarding whether or not Twitter was responsible for her release.  Collaborative power would argue that twitter alone did not free Mona, but her networks and spheres of influence played a huge role. Twitter only served as the catalyst that organized and energized the movement.  Mona Eltahawy was not your typical twitter user with hundreds of followers.  She in fact had thousands of followers who were well connected and could collaborate to effectuate change instantaneously. Her direct and indirect networks consisted of the State Department, international bloggers, policy leaders and a host of other journalists. If a different person would have tweeted the same message, it may have not produced such an effective response.  

                           This case speaks directly to Slaughter’s point regarding mobilization. Collaborative power is activated by a call to action and not a command.  In contrast to soft power, which deals more specifically with control over others through threat and command, collaborative power views influence as being shared.  While calling for democratic institutions and universal values, soft power seeks to coerce to action through seduction. Through collaborative power, as seen in the Mona Eltahawy example, mobilization was not at all about seducing those in authority to release her, but more about a group of people with a shared interest to demand justice. This is a prime example that political power does not depend on how well a group can coerce or control another.  Political influence is about how well a group can organize and be on the same accord. Collaborative power is based on networks, information and the ability to capitalize on connections and resources.