With China, it is about quality over quantity. As a part of China's PD strategy, the Chinese government has been funding programming on radio stations that reach out to radio stations in indigenous Arabic communities. The Chinese government has partnered with the Egyptian Information ministry to provide Chinese informational programming about Confucius and Confucius institutes. China has not had whopping outreach in large numbers. They have had an outreach of no more than 5,000 listeners on a regular basis, but they have reached out to Arabic communities that have not had the most positive perception of them. For this reason, this method is more effective than proliferating to a mass audience. They are seeking to strategically target audiences.
One of the main initiatives that China has been displaying their television show "Happy Life" with Egyptian-Arabic subtitles. The show has been airing consistently. This goes to show that niche public diplomacy is perfect for a country like China that is not lacking notoriety, but lacking positive perception in several countries.
Overall, I think China's PD method in Egypt is genius and will set a precendent for the U.S. to make more strategic efforts to partner with governments of concerns for PD efforts.
Monday, April 28, 2014
How DOS promotes intervention
U.S. intervention is always a subject of intense debate. It is almost as if people have to balance our national security interest with ethics. Promoting democratic values are always the fundamental reasons to justify an intervention. In this case, Venezuela has experienced public dissent over the countries rising rate of inflation and less democratic style of governance. When young protesters arrive, government backed security forces come to combat them. For this reason, Secretary Kerry has been a harsh critic of President Maduro.
Kerry states that the State Department is trying to find ways to to get the government of Venezuela to engage with their citizens. The question is "how so?". Taking a stance and fighting for democracy to select countries looks promising to dissenting citizens, but threatening to the governments that did not necessarily ask for the help. I consider this promotion of intervention via U.S. democratic values as an offensive form of diplomacy. It engages in the international community in a way where governments feel the need to defend themselves, instead of speak openly and civil about an issue.
Without clear intentions on why Kerry wants to specifically reinforce a democracy and stability within Venezuela, speculation will occur. Will there be a Coup D'etat against the government? Can they arm protesters? Is the U.S. after resources? These are all widely speculated questions that destabilized governments fear when it comes to U.S. intervention.
Bolivian president Evo Morales believes that the U.S. is trying to intervene in order to take control over oil reserves. He also feels strongly against U.S. capitalism and views their power in the world as colonialism. For wide assumptions such as these, potential U.S. intervention deeply harms our public diplomacy when intent is not clear.
Kerry states that the State Department is trying to find ways to to get the government of Venezuela to engage with their citizens. The question is "how so?". Taking a stance and fighting for democracy to select countries looks promising to dissenting citizens, but threatening to the governments that did not necessarily ask for the help. I consider this promotion of intervention via U.S. democratic values as an offensive form of diplomacy. It engages in the international community in a way where governments feel the need to defend themselves, instead of speak openly and civil about an issue.
Without clear intentions on why Kerry wants to specifically reinforce a democracy and stability within Venezuela, speculation will occur. Will there be a Coup D'etat against the government? Can they arm protesters? Is the U.S. after resources? These are all widely speculated questions that destabilized governments fear when it comes to U.S. intervention.
Bolivian president Evo Morales believes that the U.S. is trying to intervene in order to take control over oil reserves. He also feels strongly against U.S. capitalism and views their power in the world as colonialism. For wide assumptions such as these, potential U.S. intervention deeply harms our public diplomacy when intent is not clear.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Sweden and Switzerland Create Campaign To Help the Chinese Tell Them Apart
Mixing up the names of Sweden and Switzerland in English is a relatively common snafu that happens to the best of us. However, what happens when this mix up becomes so commonplace in other countries that a public campaign is warranted to help clear up the issue? Both the Swedish and Swiss consulates in Shanghai created a joint campaign to help the Chinese differentiate between their two countries in Mandarin. The mix up of the Mandarin words for Sweden (Ruidian) and Switzerland (Ruishi) have become so common that the Swedes and the Swiss decided this situation warranted a public response and a competition for Mandarin speakers.
The Swedish Consul General to China, Viktoria Li, organized
the social media competition with the Swiss in which speakers of Mandarin send
in funny ways to tell the two countries apart. Entrants are allowed to send in
blog articles, cartoons, short films, photos, or any other type of media that
can help separate the two countries in the minds of the Chinese. To advertise
the competition, posters were created to give entrants ideas for their entries.
Two maps were created, one of Sweden and one of Switzerland, and each are
filled with different items or characters that represent each country. The
Swedish map, for example, depicts Pippi Longstocking, a viking, gay marriage,
Swedish meatballs, a moose, Alfred Nobel, and a reindeer. The Swiss map depicts
the Alps, chocolate, fondue, cows, a yodeler, a watch, and cheese.
Over two hundred entries were submitted in November of
last year for the competition, but only eighteen people were chosen as
finalists. On 12 December, the Swedish and Swiss Consulates awarded first place
to Chen Lin for her video titled "I teach you how to tell the difference
of Sweden and Switzerland in 5 minutes". For her efforts, Chen Lin was
awarded a twelve day trip to Sweden and Switzerland, and was asked to write
about her travels in blogs and on Weibo. This campaign was the first joint
venture for Sweden and Switzerland, and an opportunity for the Chinese public
to learn about the individual cultures and characteristics of the two
countries. Clearly, the Swedish and Swiss governments realize that having a foreign
national interpret and report on foreign cultures is much more conducive to
cultural exchange than simply talking at foreign publics. The next project for
the Swedish and Swiss consulates is resolving the same mix up for Spanish
speakers, in which the words are more closely related (Suecia versus Suiza).
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Tony Blair: Who's it gonna be?
Tony Blair gives an urgent request for the U.S., Russia, and China to swallow their beef and deal with the real culprit: Radical Islamists! Tony Blair is frightened by the West's perceived passivity in tackling the growth of jihadist ideals in Western countries. In his eyes, Islamism is able to take control of regions that "want to escape the grip" of Islam because of political restraints. In his eyes, Islam is disturbing the possibility of world peace and co-existence. Instead of worrying among each other, Blair states that western countries should "elevate the issue of religious extremism to the top of the agenda".
Blair's Islamaphobia can be troubling, but is not without merit. In the wake of the 200 school girls kidnapped from a Nigerian school by a Jihadist group, the recent attack to Turkey by the Jihadist group ISIS, and on-going atrocities going in Syria, Blair is not wrong to want to protect western national security. However, further dividing the international system will agitate dissent from Islamic and jihadist groups. Secondly, it is highly debatable that Islam is the highest of the U.S. or any BRICs concern. Jihadist groups definitely have a wide diaspora, but the impact they have had on Western national security is minimal. In other words, Islamism is not a priority or a fear of western governments.
Tony Blair's statements are also troubling because it perpetuates Western Europe's reputation of being xenophobic, discriminatory, and intolerant of immigration. These statements are not the best for British or European public diplomacy. Furthermore, if Russia, China, and the U.S. band-wagon with these statements, it won't be good for their public diplomacy either. The U.S. is already trying to manage public diplomacy to middle east countries. Outward aims to over throw and defeat their beliefs would not be the most sensible choice.
Either way, this policy prescription courtesy of Blair are loaded, and must be repackaged and delivered in a way that is in the interest of the west without offending the east.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14848753
Blair's Islamaphobia can be troubling, but is not without merit. In the wake of the 200 school girls kidnapped from a Nigerian school by a Jihadist group, the recent attack to Turkey by the Jihadist group ISIS, and on-going atrocities going in Syria, Blair is not wrong to want to protect western national security. However, further dividing the international system will agitate dissent from Islamic and jihadist groups. Secondly, it is highly debatable that Islam is the highest of the U.S. or any BRICs concern. Jihadist groups definitely have a wide diaspora, but the impact they have had on Western national security is minimal. In other words, Islamism is not a priority or a fear of western governments.
Tony Blair's statements are also troubling because it perpetuates Western Europe's reputation of being xenophobic, discriminatory, and intolerant of immigration. These statements are not the best for British or European public diplomacy. Furthermore, if Russia, China, and the U.S. band-wagon with these statements, it won't be good for their public diplomacy either. The U.S. is already trying to manage public diplomacy to middle east countries. Outward aims to over throw and defeat their beliefs would not be the most sensible choice.
Either way, this policy prescription courtesy of Blair are loaded, and must be repackaged and delivered in a way that is in the interest of the west without offending the east.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14848753
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Public Diplomacy Tour in Asia
In less than a week, Obama will be touring Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines to speak with foreign ministers and high-level officials. The first thing to note is that in this Asian tour, China is not on the list. One could agree that giving special acknowledgment to these countries is a positive shift in focus from China. The White House says the trip will focus on closer economic ties for the three countries, but regional security - including China's increasingly powerful presence - is likely to dominate talks.
The trip will also reinforce ties with Asia through building a stronger leadership. However, it is reported that the U.S. is going into this Asian diplomacy with a lack of legitimacy. Asian skeptics feel that Obama has competing interests and will not follow through on promises and talks during his tour. Lastly, another important component of this tour is Obama's future attempt to play mediator between Japan and China. Right now, Japan is depending on the U.S. for security, but the U.S. is depending on China for their money. The U.S. has to
If Obama administration wants to be successful at this PD tour in Asia, they must come prepared with specific and strategic goals for each country. These goals should make sense, by having some relation to U.S. national interest also. Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia are unique cases. While the U.S. will be focusing on Japan's security, in Malaysia, he will be speaking with officials about the missing flight, sending condolences and more assistance for finding the flight.
When returning Washington, Kerry should have an official press briefing on his and Obama's visit, recapturing details that was learned and U.S. efforts to foster more cooperation with Asian interest, not pertaining to China.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27116863
The trip will also reinforce ties with Asia through building a stronger leadership. However, it is reported that the U.S. is going into this Asian diplomacy with a lack of legitimacy. Asian skeptics feel that Obama has competing interests and will not follow through on promises and talks during his tour. Lastly, another important component of this tour is Obama's future attempt to play mediator between Japan and China. Right now, Japan is depending on the U.S. for security, but the U.S. is depending on China for their money. The U.S. has to
If Obama administration wants to be successful at this PD tour in Asia, they must come prepared with specific and strategic goals for each country. These goals should make sense, by having some relation to U.S. national interest also. Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia are unique cases. While the U.S. will be focusing on Japan's security, in Malaysia, he will be speaking with officials about the missing flight, sending condolences and more assistance for finding the flight.
When returning Washington, Kerry should have an official press briefing on his and Obama's visit, recapturing details that was learned and U.S. efforts to foster more cooperation with Asian interest, not pertaining to China.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27116863
Russia's Investment diplomacy
Russia's new international policy puts priority on bilateral relations. By 2020, Russia wants to increase the amount of GDP used for international aid from 0.03% to 0.1%. Putin's method behind this is to defend and promote Russia's national interest by focusing on bilateral cooperation. he also wants emphasize return on international aid provided by Russia. This investment will be prioritized to "the bloc uniting Russia’s closest allies among post-Soviet republics" and long-time allies. Konstantin Kosachev makes it clear that this plan is not just for humanitarian purposes, but to infiltrate Russia's national interests.
Anyone who is familiar with Vladimir Putin's style of public diplomacy might consider this 2020 plan a much more holistic approach than what we are used to seeing from Russia. However, I do not think this would necessarily soften his image with the west. In light of recent tensions with the U.S. and the U.S. being unsatisfied with Russian military forces, this announcements of bilateral collaborations won't be enough to impress the West (not to say that's the goal). The regional nature of these bilateral investments emphasizes Putin's conservative and nationalistic approach. Putin is showing that he is willing to collaborate, but only with those he knows are allies, unlike the U.S. that does not always give foreign aid to countries that are favorable with us.
Another plus with Russia's foreign aid strategy is that they do not hide the fact that the purpose is promote its national interests. This is further proof of Russia, let alone Putin's, candid and blunt style of public diplomacy. I do argue that Putin's regime should aim to invest in countries that are not directly in the post-soviet republics. Russia is a world power, but it has not achieved the influence that the U.S. has gained because of certain factors. Investing foreign aid into further countries would be a great strategy to proliferate Russiaa influence worldwide.
http://rt.com/politics/russia-foreign-policy-concept-828/
Anyone who is familiar with Vladimir Putin's style of public diplomacy might consider this 2020 plan a much more holistic approach than what we are used to seeing from Russia. However, I do not think this would necessarily soften his image with the west. In light of recent tensions with the U.S. and the U.S. being unsatisfied with Russian military forces, this announcements of bilateral collaborations won't be enough to impress the West (not to say that's the goal). The regional nature of these bilateral investments emphasizes Putin's conservative and nationalistic approach. Putin is showing that he is willing to collaborate, but only with those he knows are allies, unlike the U.S. that does not always give foreign aid to countries that are favorable with us.
Another plus with Russia's foreign aid strategy is that they do not hide the fact that the purpose is promote its national interests. This is further proof of Russia, let alone Putin's, candid and blunt style of public diplomacy. I do argue that Putin's regime should aim to invest in countries that are not directly in the post-soviet republics. Russia is a world power, but it has not achieved the influence that the U.S. has gained because of certain factors. Investing foreign aid into further countries would be a great strategy to proliferate Russiaa influence worldwide.
http://rt.com/politics/russia-foreign-policy-concept-828/
Iran backs down
After lengthy negotiations and U.S. sanctions that have crippled the economy of Iran, Iran has finally agreed to a settlement. It has agreed to not build new plants and promised to not install new reactors for nuclear missles. They were also given $7 billion in sanctions relief, due to the hit their economy took from U.S. sanctions. Although Iran fought long and hard, Obama saw no other option. He was quoted saying about prior negotiations that "Unless the agreement requires dismantling of Iranian centrifuges, we really haven't gained anything." Not only has Iran agreed to stop proliferation potential, they have even accepted stricter scrutiny by the U.S. to monitor their nuclear weapons programs. France, Britain, Germany, China, and Russia backed the new deal.
Although the Iranian deal is a victory for the U.S., it is unclear if this victory has long term longevity. I argue that despite the immediate safety of U.S. national security is now intact, the scrutiny and harm imposed on Iran won't sit well in the middle eastern communities that we have sought to stabilize for so long. Anything the U.S. does with one middle eastern country seems to have a ripple-effect in the region. This means that neighboring countries to Iran and potential allies will view this victory for the U.S. as another example of their intimidating presence. This may also harms a decrease in legitimacy over whether the U.S. truly wants peace and cooperation with the middle east; to them it can just look like the U.S. wants its way.
I am sure the Obama administration has thought hard about the best way to diplomatically address Iran's nuclear threat. Now that it has been successful, the U.S. has to follow through with it's public diplomacy strategy to stabilize anti-u.s. dissent in the middle east and keep other civil wars and acts of terror from happening. With the damage that the U.S. has done to Iran's economy, the tone is definitely set for strong dissent and retaliation from civilians that are now suffering from it.
Obama may be celebrating a victory, but will have to keep a watchful eye.
Although the Iranian deal is a victory for the U.S., it is unclear if this victory has long term longevity. I argue that despite the immediate safety of U.S. national security is now intact, the scrutiny and harm imposed on Iran won't sit well in the middle eastern communities that we have sought to stabilize for so long. Anything the U.S. does with one middle eastern country seems to have a ripple-effect in the region. This means that neighboring countries to Iran and potential allies will view this victory for the U.S. as another example of their intimidating presence. This may also harms a decrease in legitimacy over whether the U.S. truly wants peace and cooperation with the middle east; to them it can just look like the U.S. wants its way.
I am sure the Obama administration has thought hard about the best way to diplomatically address Iran's nuclear threat. Now that it has been successful, the U.S. has to follow through with it's public diplomacy strategy to stabilize anti-u.s. dissent in the middle east and keep other civil wars and acts of terror from happening. With the damage that the U.S. has done to Iran's economy, the tone is definitely set for strong dissent and retaliation from civilians that are now suffering from it.
Obama may be celebrating a victory, but will have to keep a watchful eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)