Is Chavez the Public Diplomacy Exemption?

Based on the article, “Chavez Insults Colombian Minister”
BBC News; 26 October 2009

Written by Olivia Franken

Colombia’s Defense Minister, Gabriel Silva, made comments recently about Venezuela’s failure to eliminate international drug routes that pass through Venezuela. In response, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s president, commented on his weekly television program, Alo Presidente, that he thought Colombia’s Defense Minister was “mentally retarded.”

Initially one would think that comments as inappropriate as this are commonplace when hearing about Chavez and that’s just who he is. However, this leads me to an even greater question: how is Chavez so successful when he defies all public diplomacy rules. Despite the fact that these frequently public comments are brash, radical and largely unfounded, Chavez has held the presidency for a decade and looks very comfortable with where he is at as President of Venezuela.

In the United States, President Obama is attacked and looses support because he wants to speak to children in schools. Yet, when Chavez calls someone “mentally retarded” on public television, it gets written off as routine. If any other president had said those words, they would be getting protests from a variety of groups internationally.

Chavez is a colorful character in the international stage and is known specifically for his blunt, irrational comments. While many people dismiss his crazy tirades, he has numerous followers that believe he speaks the gospel truth and is the only politician willing to do so. This gives Chavez enough influence within his country and in the international community to be heard and to stay in power. However, his internal support has been dwindling over the years according to the Pew Global Attitudes survey and it may turn out his blunt commentaries work against him in the long run.

Still, it is evident that Chavez’s outlandish comments are what make him well known. For a politician, it is better to be known for something, sometimes anything, than to be a part of the great unknown and unheard of. If Chavez were to fall of the international radar, he would lose much of his influence in the international community, especially because many of his allies turn up due to his anti-American sentiments. It is true Chavez’s image has worked thus far but only time can tell if his good fortune will continue.

Olivia Franken is a graduate student in the Public Diplomacy program at Syracuse University. As part of the program, she is a candidate for an MS in Public Relations from the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications and an MA in International Relations from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

“Seeding a Safer World”

Written by Lianna Marmor
Response to an article from The Guardian UK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/16/hillary-clinton-food-security.

Abstract of Article:
Food security is in the interest of all. Food security means confronting global hunger by “empowering the world’s farmers to sow and harvest plentiful crops, effectively care for livestock and catch fish, and then ensure that the food they produce reaches those who need it.” The article notes that more than three-quarters of poor people around the world rely on farming as their main source of income. When people cannot produce or sell their crops either because of flooding, drought, scarcity of resources, or a declining market, people lose that source of income. When people are hungry, mal-nourished, and impoverished this “can lead to tension, conflict, even violence. Since 2007, there have been riots over food in more than 60 countries.”

The Obama administration considers food security and chronic hunger as a high priority in its foreign policy agenda. The administration plans on confronting the issue from a bottom-up perspective, acknowledging that no outside source can know the situation in the respective country better than the locals do. This approach will enable the administration to provide help in the form of an investment rather than aid.

A five principal food security initiative has been created by the administration combat global hunger. The five principals are as follows:

1. There is no one size fits all model for agriculture. We will work with partner countries to create and implement their plans.
2. We will address underlying causes of hunger by investing in everything from better seeds to insurance for small farmers. And we leverage the skills and perseverance of women, who are the majority of the world’s farmers.
3. We will emphasize co-ordination on the country, regional, and global level, because no single entity can eradicate hunger on its own.
4. We will support multilateral institutions, which have unmatched reach and resources.
5. We pledge long-term commitment and accountability, and will invest in monitoring and evaluation tools that make our efforts transparent.

My Reaction:
First, I am surprised that Hillary Clinton published this article in a prominent UK newspaper. Why? I have not seen this article domestically. I understand that in international diplomacy it is important to tap into the issues that other countries are interested in and let them know that our country is also interested in those issues. Perhaps this is why Mrs. Clinton published in the UK.

Second, public diplomacy is intrinsically related to global security. I can think of no better connection than that of food security. I am actually wondering why this issue has not come up sooner? We often talk about war and conflict in public diplomacy, but we are less apt to talk about the sources of these conflicts. As the article points out, there have been over 60 riots over food in the past 2 years. People cannot think about politics or the welfare of the environment if they are hungry or if they cannot provide for their families. I would love to see more discussion on the sources of conflict and how public diplomacy can help.

Third, I want to know how the Obama administration plans on assuaging the food problem that we have within the United States. There is a major issue of food overproduction, corn that is left in warehouses to rot, lack of water for crops in California, and exporting corn and rice to countries that use those as their major exporting crops therefore devaluing their commodities, to name a few. In my opinion, the United States contributes too much of the food issues internationally. I wonder if the Obama administration is willing to admit its stake in the issue and try to remedy it.

Last, I am tremendously impressed by what Mrs. Clinton has promulgated on behalf of the Obama administration. If this food security plan is carried out I believe it could have significant impact on world hunger. Overall, I love the idea of it, but right now, it is only talk, and I’ll believe it when I see it.

Lianna Marmor is a graduate student in the Public Diplomacy program at Syracuse University. As part of the program, she is a candidate for an MS in Public Relations from the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications and an MA in International Relations from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

As Public Diplomacy becomes a Common Practice question of Unity Arises

Here is a question that is more relevant to Public Diplomacy practitioners from the government side as well as that of NGOs than to private sector PR experts. The very unique attribute of PD is the ability to have direct p2p or G2P communications. This enables both governments and organizations to tap on their audience directly and convey their message in a more coherent way. And this indeed can become very efficient and effective for all sides. But what happens if the message, well communicated and received, comes in contrast to messages coming from no less effective sources? For instance, a well formed message coming out of a prominent NGO in a country and which represents policy. If a country does so much to improve its image and global reputation, how would it see competing voices from within? Should a country strive to have a unified voice in its efforts to reach out over the diversity it offers its own constituencies?

Israel for instance is known for its ups and downs in terms of world image and scrutiny of its actions. In the past few years heightened attempts to improve its image, reach out, and focus on culture, tourism and technological perspectives when putting a spotlight – have all taken place. But if you are an outside viewer looking into learning more about Israel, you will turn perplexed and confused due to the overwhelming amount of voices reaching out in representation of different policies for Israel. Similarly the U.S is involved in various activities around the world encompassing diverse policies and global affairs. How does one create his or her own perspective of a country where multiple sources exist? Additionally, how do you make sure that your foreign-policy PD efforts are not shadowed by any cultural, tourist, or educational campaigns and vice versa?

A country can create its image from various standpoints. But it is the policymaking and policy promotion that requires the most effort to maintain its appeal to the world. A democracy is characterized by pluralism of ideas and opinions and the practice of expressing them. The challenge begins when these ideas that oppose a country’s policy are communicated better than those that belong to the administration itself. Israel has a unique PD system where beyond its national institutions it maintains a strong lobby body in D.C. Recently, the well established body, called AIPAC, has realized its got a competing Public Affairs organization, called JStreet. Israel is struggling for its image, policies, and actions. In this situation it cannot afford to be questioned in credibility by its own PD practitioners. The process of reaching out to publics seems potentially destructive for the end goals.

To that end, I would like to bring up the issue of a unified message. Unity in a communicated message is a basic principal in efficient PR and communication management. It is only natural that PD adheres to it as well. In terms of a country’s PD though, the process of PD cannot harm democracy and diverse opinions must be heard. Nevertheless, I argue, a country must realize the essential role of its PD efforts. It should make the resources available to the PD practitioners and their initiatives. Allocation of resources is not an issue to undermine as you do not compete with external counter framing but also, apparently – with internal ones too.

 

Nati Katz is an M.A International Affairs, M.S Public Relation Candidate, 2011. Public Diplomacy Program at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Syracuse University.

Joint PD Campaign; making the case for U.S-Israel, Part I

Two countries struggling for their image, better off joining hands

In today’s New York Times, writer Bronner Ethan writes about the triumph of force over diplomacy in the Middle East. Essentially he argues, whereas the 90’s were known for their extensive diplomatic activity between Israel and the PLO, their failures have led to two bloody Palestinian uprisings. Both sides have suffered from the diplomatic results as suicide bombers blew up on buses, restaurants and teenage clubs in Israel. Palestinians lost jobs due to limited mobilization, extensive checkpoint lifestyle, and lost hope for development towards democracy as Hamas, the terrorist organization, rules the Gaza strip. Bronner’s point thus, is -look how better a living Israelis gained in the recent decade with force and definitive action in the territories, Gaza, south Lebanon, and even Syria – benefiting from military action that ultimately brought quiet to its northern borders, relative endurance in the southern part, and deterrence among its neighboring tyrants. Force, he writes, has triumphed over diplomacy. So why return to the negotiation table? I argue, -the end of diplomacy can be the beginning of Public Diplomacy. Because it’s the source of the quiet life Israel has gained – that hurts its global image.

Since the end of the Oslo accords and the failures of Camp David summits led by President Clinton, Barak and Arafat and numerous other initiatives, Israel has been struggling with a declining image within the international arena. All it sought after was quiet and security for its citizens, in the single Jewish country surrounded by 22 Arab states. Despite ongoing wars and military operations ever since founded in 1948 which have brought partial success, Israel strived for peace through negotiations and diplomacy. That did not go well. Security had to be reached through the traditional ‘hard power’. It took a while, but here we are. Terrorism activity has been going on extensively in the background, with preemptive and defensive measures which thwarted perpetrators from reaching their terrorist goals. So good, why so bad? Israel’s image is probably in its lowest level in positive scales in the world. You just cannot claim your positive sides whatever they might be, while you are seen as an aggressive, colonizing, and abusing actor. People are not responsive to your tourism attractions, high tech primacy, innovative human resource, or growing economy when you are accused of being an occupier of foreign territory. Let alone cultural diplomacy.

At this point, Israel has its own unique case and challenge as stated above. But consider a military triumph in Afghanistan and Iraq some five years ago. Imagine the soldiers coming back after a clear decisive accomplishment in its original military mission in both countries. Would America still be obsessive with its image had it been as negative in the world as it was prior to Obama’s election into office? I would claim, probably not. When you achieve your goals you are less prone to deal or care with world opinion. But unfortunately its when you accomplish your military goals that you are most required to address your image. In addition to that, the reality is – America’s mission was not successful.  

My feeling is, both the U.S and Israel share a similar case. They might be better off pushing for positive reputation together. Nationalism has risen again. Countries push for their own reputation. What happened to ‘West’ and ‘East’? The ‘Western’ world with its freedoms, rights, free markets and democracy Vs. the ‘East’ practicing less freedoms, less pluralism and more tyranny at some cases. The ‘west’ is now only a handful of countries with “the rest” accounting for what used to be the east, and its associations. What if this “west” claims shared values again? Wouldn’t it be better off advocating these values together? Must the U.S show divestment from Israel in order to win Arab and Muslim support? If the U.S believes Israel is a strategic partner it should engage a ‘Soft Power’ campaign with cultural emphasis in conjunction with Israel’s efforts. Western culture and values are still intact. Leverage on them. 

Nati Katz is an M.A International Affairs, M.S Public Relation Candidate, 2011. Attending the Public Diplomacy Program at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Syracuse University, and acting APDS Officer for 2009-10

“Obama opts for compromise on Sudan”

Written by Olivia Franken
Based on an article by BBCNews and also based on readings from the State Department, NPR, and the New York Times.

Everyone has known that the situation in Sudan has been a genocide for years but the word ‘genocide’ is not something spoken in political circles for fear that if recognized then something must be done. This standard was set as a part of the creation of the United Nations following World War II and the horrors that occurred during that time. However, instead of making genocides nonexistent, this just made utterance of the word forbidden.

Therefore, when I first saw (on Twitter) that Obama had declared the genocide in Darfur, something that must be stopped, my thoughts were that this was not news but should be considered common knowledge. While the genocide may be well known, even if not discussed, it was important for a country like the United States to publicly recognize the problem and demand action. Last night, Hillary Clinton and the US representative to the UN, Susan Rice, in part laid out the course of action the United States would like to take to help bring an end to the genocidal situation in the Darfur region of Sudan.

According to the Special US envoy to Sudan, General Gration, the goal of this change in policy is to change the situation within Sudan for those that are suffering due to the conflict and to help improve their lives. Clinton stated in her speech to the press that “sitting on the sidelines is not an option” a clear understanding of the administrations thoughts and strong opinions on the issue. While the details of the plan set forth by the Obama administration are not clear, it is certainly a part of the carrot and stick form of diplomacy. Bush was fond of the stick (something he was known and criticized for), and it appears that Obama will be fond of the carrot. Gration claims that the carrot and stick method has always been central in the role of diplomacy. While this may be true, it also seems to be a little short sighted.

It is interesting to note the difference in statements for those within the Obama administration. Gration states that we are seeing the “remnants of genocide” and in an interview with NPR found it impossible to use the word genocide, even when asked directly if he agrees with Clinton. This is in contrast to the United States Representative to the United Nations, Susan Rice who adamantly states that the genocide is still going on. However, there is little room for dispute over the fact that an estimated 300,000 people have been killed directly due to this conflict since 2003 and millions have lost their homes and become refugees.

Susan Rice cited that there would not be any rewards for maintaining the status quo, something that has been prominent in the international management of the situation in Sudan. Rice also claims that there must be tangible and measurable improvements. This is critical not just for Sudan but also for the role and standards of American public diplomacy. This is equally important when recognizing the years that peace has been discussed but little progress has ever been made. According to Rice “for years paths to peace have been littered with broken promises and unfulfilled commitments by the government of Sudan.”

Genocides are messy and challenging to deal with in the international community, like most things of necessity in international politics and human rights. This may not be the correct course of action for Sudan, but for those in the human rights community, this is certainly a step in the right direction. The methods that have been used by past administrations and the United Nations are exhausted and with no progress to show for the years of effort. Therefore, it is necessary to attempt something else and hopefully this plan set forth by the Obama administration is what is needed to begin some improvements within Sudan and specifically Darfur.

Olivia Franken is a graduate student in the Public Diplomacy program at Syracuse University. As part of the program, she is a candidate for an MS in Public Relations from the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications and an MA in International Relations from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

Soft Power World Recognition comes early, Big Promise

A few weeks ago an IR practitioner friend of mine from Israel wished to share his thoughts on the UN General Assembly speech delivered by Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu. The speech, which in Israeli-Palestinian conflict terms can be considered historic, dealt with the recognition of a two-state solution. Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s commitment towards just peace, the development of the people of Israel and their relations with their neighbors. As good and powerful as it was my friend was not impressed. “He is a man of words” he said. “When it comes to actions he always does the wrong thing”. My response was that there is a whole new framework in diplomacy, where results are not merely assessed by hard actions but rather through the level and means of communication around the issue. Apparently, the Norwegian committee who nominated President Barack Obama for a Noble Peace Prize shares the notion.

Directed by the will of Alfred Nobel, the awards are given to those who “in the preceding year have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind” in his own words. In regards to the Peace Prize in particular, Nobel added that the awarded persona would have “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”. And indeed throughout the year this will had been implemented more easily for the scientific fields and a little harder when choice was made for the Peace Prize. Debate and dispute were evident in numerous occasions over the Norwegian committee’s choices where the awarded was less associated with peace than he was with the actions of conflict or war. And therefore the committee always made sure their nominee for the prize had contributed significantly for any progress in a given peace initiative rather than accomplishing a lasting agreement. Despite argument over their last choice for the prize, I am fond and supportive of their recognition to what we are seeing as the promotion of Soft Power and engagement through communication.

President Barack Obama may have not planned this, but through his style he had tapped on a whole new arena within statesmanship and diplomacy. Whereas publics like to make a clear distinction between his predecessor and himself, the real difference springs from the fact that this present President practices what we call ‘Public Diplomacy’ or ‘Soft Power’ diplomacy. In essence, there is nothing “soft” about ‘Soft Power’. It is still a tool meant to make differences on the ground. Only within this framework it achieves it not through coercion but cooperation, not through impositions but through co-option, and not through a sole belief in your way but rather an agreed upon direction reached through listening, dialogue and communications. President Obama so far did exactly that on every front. The Middle-East process was addressed in this manner, the Iranian threat was engaged in this direction and the domestic politics around health care were also carefully dealt with through extensive dialogue.

The 2009 Peace Prize award is not an ideal choice in terms of practicalities. One can easily relate to people’s natural response as if this is some kind of joke or mockery to the establishment of the Nobel Prize Awards. But it should be seen as a great incentive, and stimulating progress within the arena of Public Diplomacy. The recognition to the notion of world affairs addressed through a ‘Hard Power’ -deviated manner clearly states the future of diplomacy and the interactivity between nations and peoples. And as the Nobel committee explained- “Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics… as… Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts”. Hence Israel PM Netanyahu is indeed on the right track, but that’s to be addressed separately…

Nati Katz is an M.A International Affairs, M.S Public Relation Candidate, 2011. Public Diplomacy Program at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Syracuse University.