Upcoming APDS Event: Guest Lecturer William Kiehl

“The Last Three Feet: Utilizing New Approaches and New Media in Public Diplomacy Worldwide”

Thursday, November 10, 2011 – 7 p.m. Newhouse II, Room 141

Bill Kiehl is founding President & CEO of PD Worldwide, consultants in international public affairs, higher education management, and cross-cultural communication. Dr. Kiehl is the Editor of the journal American Diplomacy, published by the American Diplomacy Foundation in cooperation with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He served as Executive Director of the Public Diplomacy Council from February 2004 through April 2007.

Dr. Kiehl has taught public diplomacy at the Foreign Service Institute and has lectured at a number of colleges and universities in the U.S. and abroad. He holds his Doctorate in Higher Education Management from the University of Pennsylvania; his dissertation was “The Influence of Campus Internationalization on Local Communities.”

 Follow the discussion on twitter: #last3feet

APDS Symposium Tomorrow!

The day has finally come! Tomorrow, starting at 7 pm, APDS will hold their annual Public Diplomacy Symposium. The event will feature many fascinating panelists and lively discussions on issues facing public diplomacy today. For more information about the panelists click here. The schedule of symposium events is as follows:

Thursday, October 27th, 2011 – The Herg Auditorium, Newhouse III
7:00 p.m. Opening Remarks
7:15 p.m. Crafting An Image: Fine Arts and The Government
8:15 p.m. Hors d’Oeuvres

Friday, October 28th, 2011 – Public Events Room, Eggers
10:00 a.m. Light Breakfast
10:30 a.m. Exchange Launch
Editor-in-Chief Comments and Author Presentation
11:00 a.m. Borrowing A Voice: Domestic Public Relations Firms and The Government
12:15 p.m. Catered Lunch
1:30 p.m. Covering A Country: International Media and The Government
2:45 p.m. Lending A Hand: International Aid and The Government
3:45 p.m. Closing Remarks

Humanitarian Aid as a Strategic Obligation to the People of Libya

Over the past few days the world has witnessed horrible images and stories of the death of former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi at the hands of Libyan rebels. I will not describe this below. The biggest fear now must be that this act of lawlessness may be foreshadowing the future chaos to come. The world cannot afford this to happen.

Protests against the regime—and the regime’s reaction—began months before military intervention. However, Gaddafi’s fall was likely accelerated by that military intervention by US-led NATO forces, best characterized by strategic bombings. Now, the oil-rich nation with no recent history of meaningful political process or participation is left with a power vacuum and infrastructure reconstruction. In order to prevent the nation from falling into the hands of another dictator like Gaddafi—and perhaps worse—NATO and the US have an obligation to provide humanitarian aid to the people it had just bombed.

After bombing began, President Obama citied humanitarian concerns for intervening in Libya. He stated a desire to protect the protestors from the brutal hands of a dictator known to have a low tolerance for political dissent. While the US domestic political climate will not tolerate another Iraq—US troops occupying and rebuilding a foreign nation on the ground—our reasons for entering will be compromised if our foreign policy ignores Libya. The state may fall into the hands of a new regime looking to capitalize on the nation’s oil wealth and continue to ignore  the concerns of the Libyan people.

As such, I call on the US and NATO to provide humanitarian relief in the form of medicine, food, water, and other basic supplies much like the Chinese have begun doing. The US should also emphasize other programs such as financial and technical support for rule of law initiates, security, civil society, and governance programs. In short, we need to win “hearts and minds” of the Libyan people.

While this is partly a moral obligation, it is also a strategic obligation. In the coming months and years the people of Libya will be faced with choices—such as their views of the US and whether they wish to be an ally in the fight to bring democracy to the Middle East and North Africa. How we treat the people of Libya—indeed, our public diplomacy in that nation—may determine foreign policy choices of the next Libyan government. While it cannot be said that the future of Libya hinges on US public diplomacy and humanitarian aid, we can play an important role in the outcome of Libya, especial at this most critical hour. Whether the US is seen as liberators or evil-doers, it is imperative that we show the people of Libya that in the end we did not care about killing Gaddafi or access to oil, but that we cared about helping the people of Libya.

 

International Media and Government

I have always favored cyclic recurrences: be they in fine literature or real-life routine. I started 2011 in Bonn, Germany, interning for the Ukrainian Bureau of Deutsche Welle, Germany`s foreign radio service (which now widely utilizes Internet and online TV providing coverage in 30 languages). Now, when the year has almost flown by, I am looking forward to learning more about International Broadcasting from the public diplomacy perspective at the second annual symposium “Building Bridges: The Tools of Public Diplomacy,” organized by the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars of Syracuse University.

This year the symposium will have a separate International Media Panel, which will be focusing on the role Internet, TV, radio and print plays in establishing mutually beneficial relationships between multiple foreign stakeholders. The panel speakers include: Mr. Edward Dunn, Public Affairs Officer and New Media Advisor for the U.S. Department of State`s Office of International Media Engagement, Mr. Osamah Khalil, Assistant Professor of history with concentration on U.S. foreign policy and the Middle East  at the Maxwell School, Ms. Charlotte Grimes, Visiting Professor at the Newhouse School specializing on political reporting and the role of press in democracy-building processes.

Although I am not yet aware which specific issues speakers will be concentrating on in their speeches, I am assuming that there might be two broad themes discussed, in line with current world news. The first topic might revolve around governments` and activists` use of social media. There is no denying the fact that if it had not been for Twitter and YouTube, the outer world could have not found out what was happening in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria…The second theme might outline U.S.` public diplomacy efforts in the Middle East that, some scholars argue, must include alternative voice to local Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya. No matter how much hard power you possess, communication is key. And it`d better convey  U.S. values and explanation of U.S. policies to the peoples of this strategically important region.

As a freelance reporter for two major International Broadcasters, I cannot wait but ask speakers what impact in terms of exercising soft power this year`s media policies of British and German governments will have on specific regions (e.g. India, East Europe). By these, I imply shutdown of numerous local radio programs and bureaus of BBC and Deutsche Welle, which was explained by ongoing decrease in popularity of the conventional radio formats. As a substitute, the above mentioned media corporations promise to offer more extensive online news coverage. I am curious how the speakers are going to address such a shift in a production paradigm and its potential impact on public opinion in selected countries. No wonder, for decades it was BBC and DW that provided broad strata of population (not always literate and online technologically savvy) with objective and balanced information.

Maybe U.S. public diplomats have to seize upon this kind of opportunities to fill the information vacuum with American media products? Look forward to hearing what real life practitioners have to say!

Putting the PR back in PRopaganda

Among the specializations within most public relations firms lies the expertise needed in developing and executing campaigns. Given that the main goal of public relations is to act as the liaison between an organization (whether it be a corporation, government, agency or individual) and a specific public, the range of work that public relations firms are hired for can vastly vary. If the job is to communicate the message of the client to a certain public, all the public relations firm needs to do is provide the strategy to make it successful, right? If these firms are paid to create a campaign that claims that vanilla ice-cream is made entirely of onions, how does the firm manage to make it a strong campaign if it is something that they may not believe in? Where do ethics come into place? When has manipulation gone too far?‬

‪In 1990 when the world’s largest public relations firm (at the time), Hill and Knowlton was hired to run the “Citizens for a Free Kuwait” public relations campaign by the Kuwaiti government, they were doing what they should have been doing as a leading international communications consulting firm- communicating a message through a campaign in order to influence the public. However, the ethical standards behind the campaign were later found to be shocking. As an opportunity to gain public opinion to build support for the Persian Gulf War, a young girl by the name of “Nayirah” was used to provide emotional testimony to influence the United States’ public. This young Kuwaiti girl claimed that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers come into a hospital, armed, into a room where babies were in incubators. Nayirah then mentioned that these soldiers “took the babies out of incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die.” This story was repeated over and over within a time span of three months taking place between the testimony and the war. This was definitely an engagement between public relations and the government seeing that even President George Bush and the UN Security Council told the story. ‬

‪The message had been spread from one audience to another – from the “Citizens for a Free Kuwait,” a Kuwait-financed group that lobbied Congress for military intervention, to an audience who believed this fabrication thanks to repetition, pathos and consistency. Once the evidence found its way to the table, Nayirah was revealed as the daughter of Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait’s Ambassador to the United States. The girl’s story was merely a ruse given that the girl was coached in what to say and how to deliver her story. The actors behind the curatin included those in Congress who, surprisingly, urged the media not to ask any questions regarding her identity.‬

‪Hill and Knowlton executed its job as a public relations team but what they forgot was how to facilitate their job with ethics and honesty. They deceived their targeted audience- usually seen as a form of propaganda. PR firms will always be asked to tailor stories in a certain way for specific audiences, but my question is, how far is too far? Better yet, should public relations have a role within the government? Stay tuned to find out more on October 28th at the APDS Symposium: International Public Relations and the Government. With four panelists targeting public relations from different angles, you won’t be deceived. ‬

‪http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/opinion/deception-on-capitol-hill.html‬

‪http://blogs.cas.suffolk.edu/fs183a/files/2009/08/macarthur-remember-nayirah-the-new-york-times-op.doc‬

‪http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/~tbivins/J496/readings/PR/ToxicSludge.pdf ‬

‪http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y‬

The Case for Cultural Exchanges

This morning, there was a story in the New York Times that showcased problems with the State Department’s summer work and travel program. That story can be found here.

Cultural exchanges are a great public diplomacy tool, and when successful, individuals come out with a better understanding of the culture in the host country. But on the opposite end, if things go poorly, individuals are left with a negative view of the country. Because of this, it is important that we pay more attention to our cultural exchange programs.

For successful cultural exchanges we need to increase research, monitoring and communication:

Research

Before placing exchange students in jobs or housing situations, we need to determine if the students will be immersed in American culture and able to fully experience the diversity of our country.

At the Hershey plant mentioned in the article, exchange students were isolated from other workers, which limited their chances to socialize with Americans. The supervisor took out unexplained deductions from their paychecks, so the students were unable to afford “tourist wanderings” they were looking forward to.

Monitoring

Throughout an exchange student’s stay, we should be checking in with the student to ensure the experience is positive. At the end of a cultural exchange, the goal should be for the student to return home and speak positively of the experience and the country. Personal experiences and word-of-mouth advertising has the strongest impact on opinions. If exchange students return home with a negative experience, we have failed them and ourselves.

Communication

Tudor Ureche, an exchange student in the article, attempted to contact the State Department to complain about the situation. According to the article, the students did not get the attention of the State Department until they began protesting the working conditions. It sound not take 200 students protesting before they are heard. If we commit to providing a cultural exchange, we should be accessible to the students.

These are my suggestions. Yet, they cannot happen without funding, and currently, cultural exchange programs are being cut from the budget. So our biggest issue is showing the benefit of cultural exchanges. These exchanges can increase understanding with foreign publics and, over time, can improve our foreign image. Once we convince the American public of this and garner more funding we can begin to improve our programs.

 With better programs, we can build greater understanding and stronger relationships between nations.

The Deliberate Use of Art Diplomacy

        Later this month our Symposium, Building Bridges: The Tools of Public Diplomacy, will feature a panel discussing art as a tool of public diplomacy. It must be noted, however, that such public diplomacy must be used carefully.

        The main goal of art as a tool of public diplomacy is to create a common experience among those of different cultures. Art diplomacy doesn’t often have the feel of an imposition of a policy, and often its lack of an explicit governmental message is its selling point. Such a tool can be used to express similar values in those cultures or even as a simple piece over which to have a conversation.

        However, what art we transmit as ‘American’ must be deliberate. If we as a nation transmit caricatures of our culture abroad, such images will be viewed as accurate. Of all the art that originates from America much of it creates caricatures of American life, often for the goal of parody or comedy. However, this may be lost on international consumers who experience such art decontextualized. Sometimes such art portrays Americans as rich, wasteful, spoiled, racist, xenophobic, lazy, or any other negative characteristic.

        What, then, do we do? Should the U.S. government, through media such as Al Hurra, Voice of America, etc., show the world all our art, and hope they draw the conclusions we support? Or, should the government regulate what American art the world sees, and thus censor and control our own image? If the government picks and chooses, should we export high art or popular art?

        In the end, ethical public diplomacy requires us to be honest in our message and reciprocal in our tactics. Art must be no different. Hopefully on October 27^th our questions will be answered.

Symphony Diplomacy: Fine Arts in Public Diplomacy

North Korea hosts U.S. Symphony in 2008

Cultural diplomacy is by no means a new concept. Government officials and diplomats have utilized this strategy for decades, and in many cases have found it to be quite successful. According to the American political scientist and author, Milton C. Cummings, cultural diplomacy may be seen as:

“the exchange of ideas, information, values, systems, traditions, beliefs, and other aspects of culture, with the intention of fostering mutual understanding”. (culturaldiplomacy.org)

This concept can be seen in the exchanges art, sport, literature, music, science and the economy. One specific example of such an exchange was the historic concert by the New York Philharmonic Symphony in North Korea in 2008. As the NY Times reported;

“It was the first time an American cultural organization had appeared here, and the largest contingent of United States citizens to appear since the Korean War. The trip has been suffused with political importance since North Korea’s invitation came to light last year. It was seen by some as an opening for warmer relations with the United States, which North Korea has long reviled.” 

Considering the tense relationship between these two nations, the fact that this event was held illustrates the power of such soft power strategies like cultural diplomacy. This topic will be discussed further at the discussion of fine arts in government during the Oct 27th Symposium held by the Syracuse APDS. To read the NT Times article on the Symphony trip to North Korea click the link below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/world/asia/27symphony.html

To learn more about cultural diplomacy follow this link to the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy’s website:

http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en

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.