Here's one for Cultural Diplomacy

Dominique Lopes

SIS-628-02 Applied Public Diplomacy

Craig Hayden

11/29/12

The importance of Cultural Diplomacy

The question was brought up in class of whether or not Cultural Diplomacy should be practiced. In light of the difficulty to measure and evaluate its outcomes and impacts and on the various ways to define “culture”, Cultural Diplomacy can be seen to be an irrelevant avenue for the policy persuasion attributed to public diplomacy practitioners.  However, I believe that Cultural Diplomacy allows PD officers a unique outlet for interacting with foreign publics on a very basic level. Arts, food, and local folk lore are common to every nation and therefor present an informal gateway for persuasion.

Cultural Diplomacy initiatives for the most part can take a long while to come to fruition, but this does not mean that they are impossible to measure and evaluate, nor does this mean that they must always take time to achieve an impact. One of our readings this semester used the example of the Smithsonian, an American arts organization, partnering with Haiti after the earthquake. The Smithsonian came in to give guidance and support to Haitian arts organizations who were trying to rebuild and re-claim their cultural heritage after the devastation. This partnership was a cultural exchange under the heading of culture defined as arts and education. It was a one off whose impact immediately transpired in the knowledge that the Haitians received and the art works that they were able to recover. Quantitative and qualitative measurements could easily be evaluated right after the exchange in the favorable opinion towards the United States and the numbers of arts organizations that were able to re-build.

Cultural programs also offer venues for policy makers from different countries to come together outside of government meetings. These occasions allow the officers to talk informally and perhaps more personally about important initiatives. The “last three feet” concept is most apparent during these times. The parties are relaxed and come together for conversation, not debate. It is very hard to talk at someone about policy decisions while say learning how to dance a traditional hula. Dialogue is sparked and people begin to see each other as equals, if not friends, making coming together on certain policies more likely.

Cultural Diplomacy is important because culture in all its many forms is important to every country. When we can come together and learn more about each other we see each other less as the “strange other” and more as individuals much like ourselves. Though it is hard sometimes to pin point exact impacts directly related to specific cultural diplomacy programs, these initiatives open up more realms for two-way dialogue than any other tool in a PD’s toolbox.    

My "State of Public Diplomacy" Address

As we approach the end of the semester (and unfortunately the end of our class), I really like this week’s overarching blog question - What are the main challenges and opportunities for practitioners of public diplomacy?

Here are a few of the challenges I see for PD practitioners in the field today:

• Definition of Public Diplomacy – There is still no unified definition of public diplomacy. This means that practitioners or their supervisors must infer the meaning that fits best for them. Furthermore, the term “public diplomacy” is a paradox in and of itself. Conceptually, diplomacy has an air of secrecy and discretion and conjures up an image of diplomats meeting behind closed doors. So if diplomacy is meant to be public and openly address any audience, then can we still call it diplomacy? It is misconceptions like these that necessitate the creation and adoption of a common definition among the practitioner community.
  
•  Smith Mundt Act – The Smith-Mundt Act is an outdated artifact from the Cold War era. American audiences have grown much more discerning over the information they receive and are more equipped to assess whether something is propagandistic or not. The idea that we need to “shield” our citizens from the messaging we are sending abroad makes it seem like the U.S. government has something to hide. It taints the message’s credibility and contributes to the image that the government is closed off from its constituency. How can you expect to rally support for public diplomacy initiatives if you cannot generate support for these programs at home? The American public is denied access to all the great PD things our government is doing abroad.
  
• Training and Professional Development – While specific training for PD has begun to take root at the Foreign Service Institute, there are still very few chances for practitioners to gain applicable knowledge and skills outside of their pre-departure training. Most of their learning occurs “on the job.” The State Department encourages practitioners to share best practices, but situations and cultural contexts vary so significantly that a “one-size-fits-all” solution would be fairly impractical. Therefore, periodic, skills-based professional development would be a great way to encourage practitioners to devise innovative solutions tailored to their specific circumstances and needs.

Despite these challenges, there are still a number of opportunities out there from which PD practitioners can benefit:

• Public-Private Partnerships – The impending fiscal cliff and across-the-board budget cuts may seem like it would incite a mild panic in the PD world. However, when government support is inadequate for PD programming, private corporations can step in to fill in the gaps – whether they are knowledge gaps, resource gaps, or funding gaps. Corporate entities with a good reputation and a wide global reach can provide a gateway for the U.S. government to reach foreign publics in countries where diplomatic relations have originally failed. In a sense, the collaborative efforts by both public and private actors legitimizes each of their actions and can ensure the U.S. messaging is clear and consistent across the board.
  
• Social Media – Social media provides a great platform to reach global audiences directly. While there is still some bureaucracy involved (abiding by clearance processes and adhering to talking points), in general, e-diplomacy offers a more “humanized” version of the federal government. Ambassadors can showcase their personalities through tweets or Facebook posts and are available to answer questions directly from their constituencies (and not just from the host country’s official representatives). Social media is also particularly appealing to a younger generation, and the State Department’s online presence is a major revitalization effort to be hip and cool in the eyes of that audience.
  
• Cultural Diplomacy – People-to-people connections through culture are a vital piece to the PD puzzle. This can take the form of food, art, theater, or music. Gastrodiplomacy is just now hitting its stride with the addition of food trucks with foreign cuisines in almost every major city in the United States. The art and theater camps sponsored by either the State Department or other nonprofits expose kids in other countries to American culture and have them draw comparisons to their own. In terms of music diplomacy, Act of Congress had a powerful story to tell about how their collaboration with musicians in Southeast Asia. The experience not only changed how Americans are perceived abroad but it also opened the door for further collaboration and the development of lasting relationships.

These are just some of my thoughts/ramblings about the “State of Public Diplomacy” today. I would love to hear your thoughts on what challenges PD practitioners face and where the opportunities lie for them to overcome these obstacles.

Where do we go from here?

Challenges and opportunities for the future

Dominique Lopes

SIS-628-02 Applied Public Diplomacy
Craig Hayden

11/15/2012

"What are the main challenges and opportunities for practitioners of public diplomacy?"

Throughout this semester we have tried to define what public diplomacy is and what its practitioners are expected to accomplish. The definitions vary slightly from one another.  Public diplomacy can be simply the “communication with foreign publics for the purpose of achieving a foreign policy objective” as Wallin defines it, or it can be “national self-advertising” as per Philip Taylor. However you define public diplomacy does not necessarily matter, what does are the tools implemented in the process. Today’s practitioners of PD are faced with changing technologies, intense globalization, and the need to remember that though the world is changing there is still no substitute for the face to face conversation.

New social networking platforms have allowed public diplomacy practitioners to directly contact their public. By using Facebook, Twitter, and Tumbler PD has come out of the brick and mortar of yesterday and left the closeted confines of aristocracy. These tools, if used well, allow PD practitioners to talk to the everyday person, connecting with them on their level. Social networking platforms, however, can propose a difficulty among public diplomats who feel that these tools are simply an add-on to speak at the public. These tools must be used as a way to speak WITH the public. There are too many twitter feeds and Facebook pages clambering for attention to risk poor usage of these platforms. We live in a twenty-four hour news feed with thousands of pieces of information being pushed at us every hour that practitioners of public diplomacy must learn how to direct their conversation properly and then go to social media as an outlet, not the other way around.

Intense globalization has occurred in part because of these social media networks. We can now connect with anyone around the world in seconds. This also means that everything is up for public scrutiny. Any miss step by a government or public diplomat can cause a foreign public to lose confidence in a country. Legitimacy, trust, and integrity are the most important things in turning a foreign population towards a country’s foreign policy objectives.

Finally, there is no substitute for the “last three feet”. Engaging a foreign public directly, looking them in the eyes as you talk with them not at them has the ability to make all the difference. Listening and conversing are key. There is a tendency to equate this aspect of PD with hostessing, or being soft. Well, when boiled down soft diplomacy is a type of hostessing; making your guest comfortable, listening to them, and understanding their individual points of view will allow for more effective policy initiatives.     

Where does Public Diplomacy go from here?

If there are but a few core things I have learned about about PD during my time in this course it’s

-          The study of public diplomacy is a relatively new

-          There is an acknowledgement that America’s core public diplomacy strategy is weak

Then, of the interested PD practitioners we have the Sharks and the Jets – the academics that focus much of their work to analyses of foreign relations and the field workers that get involved actively in campaign work on the ground. Two groups, barely at the edge of understanding one another, are of the opinion that each faction is neither helpful nor necessary to the cause.

9/11 was the catalyst for public/foreign diplomacy awareness in America – the problem was that people were too eager and too unprepared.  The result is this chasm that currently exists between two integral aspects that are needed to make PD work.

I believe that it goes without saying a solution for this is greater collaboration. Academics should draw their ideas from real case studies, as well as immerse themselves in real-life situations as field-based interviews and discussions as a core part of their study. Likewise, practitioners should actively seek out who study and write about public diplomacy in publicizing and popularizing their work.

The combined strengths from both sides can help to solve many of the problems prevailing within the system, lack of staffing, inadequate training, dwindling budgets, poor communication between field posts and the leadership in Washington, and so on.

This blog post is stating the obvious but most important thing that I believe must be carried over from the classroom out into the field. The structure supporting the system needs to be stronger and that will only happen if there are more people there to make it so.

The Growing Challenge of PD

Public diplomacy is a powerful tool to connect with audiences, influence decision makers and communicate foreign policy objectives. As the field of PD has emerged, many challenges and opportunities have developed. PD practitioners are constantly seeking new, innovative and relevant ways to impact their audience and fulfill foreign policy goals. Practitioners are faced with the challenge of implementing their programs with budget constraints, overcoming technological and cultural barriers, while also communicating a message that is not perceived as propaganda.

Exchange programs have most notably been the most traditional way to influence foreign audiences outside of modern media. As technology has advanced, virtual exchange has become popular and an effective means to influence those that may not have the opportunity to physically visit the United States. Public diplomacy experienced a time where efforts were strictly targeted at foreign governments but now is focusing on influencing civil society and the general community. The motivation behind influencing the wider public is that the foreign government within that country will be more willing to cooperate if their people have an affinity for the United States. Identifying creative ways to influence the public is one of the main challenges to the work of public diplomacy. However, measuring these outcomes is an even more strenuous task that PD practitioners must constantly grapple with. There are many new opportunities available for doing the work of public diplomacy, which include collaborating with local citizens on projects focused on music, food, culture, entertainment and education. The U.S has a growing role of supporting democracy, freedom and equality, which also contributes to public diplomacy efforts. As argued by the Last 3 Feet, public diplomacy practitioners must rise to the challenge and continue to strengthen their personal engagement through more creative means. Social media and the Internet must only be a supplemental component to people- to- people interaction.

A Global Logo Quiz

Joshua Midgett

SIS 628

Applied Public Diplomacy

Professor Hayden

        This past summer, while at a piano dress for Armide, a friend of mine sitting in the row in front of me was playing a fascinating game on their iphone I hadn't seen before. They looked stumped and so they turned back to me to ask for my help. "Do you know whose logo this is?" I looked down at the screen and saw the familiar three striped half-arc belonging to North Face. I told my friend this and asked about the app, which I then proceeded to download and waste a fair amount of my life on. It was impressive to me the sticking power of these simple images and how, more often than not, I equated a lot with them. Sometimes they brought to mind the line of products, but even more frequently they inspired feelings. If it was the golden arches, my stomach might turn. If it was the distorted letters of Playstation I might smile at the memories of all the games of Madden. It was remarkable the staying power of these often simple visual brands.

        It's with this app in mind that I came to the readings on nation branding. I wondered if there were a similar app for the world, and if every country had an image, or if the country's leading suppliers images could be traced to their country of origin, what it would tell us about the soft power of each nation. While there's a large part of the battle that is altering how one might feel about a particular brand, or country, the first step is in being recognized. In doing this, there are nations that are more successful than others. This is what the measuring of nation branding could help the public diplomacy sector decipher: what is the global renown of their nation? 

       It's easy to see this as just a starting point. The first step being just seeing which 'brands' are most recognizable. The next and the next being questions regarding what feelings those brands might elicit and why. The brands are perfect access point. They dance on that small strip of mental land between the conscious and the sub conscious, as we are everyday bombarded with them that we often keep them in our mental periphery, forgetting their importance and all that we attach to them. 

       I believe that nation branding measurement will begin to become vital to measuring public diplomacy and 'soft power', especially as globalization continues to permeate each and every market. The more international products spread across the globe, the more impact their countries of origin will begin to have. Sooner or later, these products will begin to influence the consumers thoughts on the world. Just as one who enjoys scotch will be more likely to think highly of Scotland or want to visit, one who enjoys a Korean company's product will share more good will with that nation then he/she might've otherwise. 

Buy 1 Country, Get 27 Free!

“Nation branding,” a relatively new tool in the soft power toolkit, has emerged as a complement to traditional public diplomacy. It’s a way for a country to boost its public image through advertising techniques in the hopes of creating more favorable conditions for foreign investment, tourism, trade, or even better diplomatic relations with other countries.

When searching the Internet for a concrete example of nation branding, I stumbled up this promotional video by the EU called “So Similar, So Different, So European.” The video goes through a series of images, leading the viewer to think it’s of a Western European country and then revealing it’s actually of a country in the Balkans. The goal is to show how each pair of countries is similar. The Balkan countries, which are frequently associated with wars and political instability, are being marketed as newer and more modern versions of themselves, no longer the threatening “Other” they once were.

It’s clear that the video is targeting Europeans who suffer from what could only be called “enlargement fatigue.” The EU has struggled to cultivate solidarity in the wake of the financial crisis that has called into question the viability of the union itself. Yet, even before the crisis, many EU citizens were against further expansion, seeing the admission of Romania and Bulgaria as untimely. Thus, the overall nation branding objective is to garner support for EU enlargement and this video is intended to get Europeans to get on board with the next round of candidate countries.

For any supranational structure, constructing a community around a shared identity is vital to its branding. So when the EU tries to do this, it has to elevate the similarities of its current and potential constituencies over the differences. However, there is something to be said about celebrating diversity. I take issue with the fact that the video basically “twins” two countries together and plays off of cultural stereotypes. For example, saying …

• Montenegro is just like Sweden (who is known for its fishing and coastline).
• The Serbs are just like the French (which is stereotyped by young girls wearing berets).
• Macedonia is just like the UK (who is world renowned for its colleges and universities).
• Croatia is just like Austria (who is famous for its classical music).
• Turkey is just like Germany (who is thought to be an urban, industrial powerhouse).
• Albania is just like Greece (who is known for its ancient temples).

I understand what this campaign is trying to do, but homogenizing the Balkans with Europe may not be the best tactic. For me, a lingering question to countries seeking EU accession is whether or not they are willing to sacrifice some of their sovereignty and cultural distinctiveness in order join the EU brand.

Branding: created or discovered?

Dominique Lopes

SIS-628-02 Applied Public Diplomacy
Craig Hayden

11/08/2012

In class I brought up the idea that brands are discovered, not created. Many of my classmates disagreed with my assumption, but I believe it was not the assumption that was wrong but the fact that I argued my point very poorly. Therefore, I would like to take this venue to further discuss the idea that an organization, or country can no more create their brand than they can create the world they exist in.

Tim Leberecht, in a TED talk entitled 3 ways to (usefully) lose control of your brand, states, “Your brand is what others say about you when you are out of the room”. Marketers might try to project an image or slogan that they want associated with a specific product. They might even spend millions of dollars to convince a general public that their product is in fact one thing or another; however, this can never work if this image is not already inside the minds of the consumer. A good marketing scheme for branding will only work when the organization has discovered what the public already thinks of them. An example is when Coca-Cola reformulated their recipe. They tried to rebrand themselves as new and fresh but soon realized that the old recipe was too strong of an image in the mind of the consumer, even if consumers chose the new one more constantly in blind taste tests. The old flavor drew associated memories of childhood or summer days. The new flavor did not. This forced Coca-Cola to re-rebrand themselves as Coca-Cola Classic. Millions of dollars could have been saved if Coca-Cola first spent the time with their customers to find out how they perceived the product, what drew them to purchase.

 If a product has a bad connotation marketing Judo, as one classmate put it, can work, but only when a company fully understands what their product’s image looks like. A company could accentuate “positive” facts about a product, a little “look at this hand, not at this one” magic trick. This course of action can never erase the bad connotation though; it just obscures it a bit. The negative image will always live on as a branding within the consumer’s minds, and a company can then only distract from it. A brand exists and evolves within the consumer’s psyche and only once this is discovered a branding campaign can actually work. Nothing comes out of thin air.  

Public Diplomacy vs. Nation Branding

Public diplomacy and nation branding are increasingly being used in the same context. While each has a unique role in communicating a strategic message, the fields differ greatly, but should be used simultaneously in order to effectively coordinate and project a desired image. Simon Anholt would argue that states can be branded similar to products and this strategy would allow for marketing communication techniques to be uses to promote a nation’s image. I agree with this notion that image is the common denominator when comparing the two terms; however, I would not conclude that a product and a country can be treated synonymously in this context. Although the main goal is to promote a favorable image, the core objectives of a product and country will never be exactly the same. A product is to be sold, and a country is to be shared and understood.

Public Diplomacy traditionally has an objective that is more politically motivated and targets influencers, elites, and politicians. Conversely, nation branding amplifies a message and image that is targeted toward a general population and has much more of an economic interest.  Public diplomacy has a role that seeks to find common values, shape beliefs and communicate foreign policy priorities. Nation and place branding views citizens as potential buyers and will specifically target a message to help promote trade and tourism.  One of the main differences between the two fields of study is that public diplomacy practitioners within the government are bound to an agenda and a certain set of guidelines. Public diplomacy messages must be approved through a complex process in order to fit within the national narrative. However, nation and place branding has the option of changing an image repeatedly in order to meet the demands and expectations of a desired public. Nation branding messages can be tested out to see how an audience will respond, whereas a public diplomacy message does not enjoy the same privilege because of potential international complications.

The field of public diplomacy could greatly benefit from nation branding strategies.  Nation branding focuses on mass marketing through a variety of tools and instruments. Public diplomacy could view culture and education as products to be marketed and consumed. Public diplomacy must continue to capitalize on the uniqueness of a particular state without compromising the message and the national narrative.

eDiplomacy: The Twitter Q&A

Under Secretary Sonenshine
responding to Twitter questions

In June, I particapted in a live global Twitter Q&A with Under Secretary of State for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy Tara Sonenshine hosted by the Department of State's official Twitter account (@StateDept). Reaching a global audience of about 16 million people, Twitter users had the unique opportunity to engage with a high-ranking U.S. government official directly, without any of the “bureaucratic red tape.” Yet, in reality, only a select few had their questions chosen by the moderators and answered by the Under Secretary. (Unfortunately, I was one of the many people whose questions were not chosen.)

Using this example, how does a Twitter Q&A rate as a model and tool for spreading democracy? Well, it’s more of an incomplete democracy. Twitter Q&A’s follow the populist tradition in that users have the ability to discuss issues and express opinions all in the hopes of getting the attention of those in the government. Ideally, this type of Internet participation would allow people to speak freely and equally, wrestling control from government institutions and handing it to anyone with a keyboard. However, the undemocratic social and political hierarchies present in the real world also materialize in the online world. Although Twitter Q&A’s do provide a direct line of communication to the State Department and can potentially reach higher branches of government, most tweets fall by the wayside simply because they are not retweeted or replied to by those with more digital clout.

It has become clear to me that technological innovation, in and of itself, cannot achieve foreign policy objectives; human agency does that. In the real world, a lofty goal such as democratizing a political system requires breaking down the barriers of gender, age, ethnicity, income level, or even political ideology that segregate people and ideas. These barriers still exist on the Internet, and as more and more people fight for cyberspace and readership, the idea “trickle-up discourse” becomes lost somehow.

While deliberative technologies may not “democratize” nations by themselves, they enable people to break down these categorical barriers by facilitating cross-society communication. When people participate in these online forums, they are not only conversing with the U.S. government but they are also learning the viewpoints of their compatriots in the process. (For Twitter Q&A’s, you can click on the profiles of users whose questions were selected for the Q&A and you can search the designated hashtag for other comments or questions that weren’t selected.) In other words, Twitter Q&A’s are just a starting point for individuals from diverse groups to jump into a larger conversation and consider the views of others they may not encounter in daily life. Although this may not be an explicit foreign policy objective, I believe that this type of digital engagement achieve implicit objectives under the umbrella of public diplomacy.