Friday 29 July 2011

Palestinian business leaders seek to create ‘national brand’


The PLC is listed by both United States and Israel have both listed the political group as being terrorist group, this certainly does not help in terms of image for Palestine and the initiative to brand is therefore a very good idea. As the head of PADICO would agree that: 'there is a lack of knowledge and understanding about how we operate and behave, and what we believe in… Outside Palestine, people either see us as a primitive community and a third world country, full of gangsters and terrorists. Or they don’t have an impression at all.’


The world needs to know what Palestine is about and who are Palestinians, the negative image attributed to the country of extremism, violence and hunger long shown by the media or NGOs, will be a challenge before it to be turned into something positive.
Nation branding has played vital role in economies of countries, it is the way that a country is perceived that motivates investors or even holiday makers to visit or pay for services in or for a particular country. This has created competition for countries selling themselves like brands more than ever before.

Google executive says social networking was vital in Egyptian revolt


What the world is going through is certainly the age of social networking. This interconnectedness that social networks bring to the world shows how public and cultural diplomacy has a place in world politics. What started as a small campaign on Facebook spread not only in Egypt but across North Africa and elsewhere.


As the google executive who started the campaign stated: 'You can't keep a dictatorship alive in the highly connected century'. The egyptian sent a strong message, the one that public opinion is what matters the most. There are certainly waters and mountains separating citizens of the world, this great tool called social network brings them closer together in oder to act united. For instance in Egypt, the article states 'the internet was so pivotal to the revolt that Mubarak's forces cut access to citizens in a futile attempt to suppress dissent. Google was able to get around the internet censorship by enabling a phone to tweet service' which is a positive point for human development.



Communication is a vital tool in PCD if not the only one, finding ways by which to communicate effectively with people is what will give PCD its leading role in world politics, social networks are not just useful to individuals but also governments. Not only has twitter served for the great change in Egypt but it showed to what extent state boundaries between people of different nations are becoming slightly non existent.


President Obama before and after his campaign has shown how useful social networking was, and most recently with him answering questions live on Tweeter in the White House. If he can understand and see the opportunity that these forms of communication hold then it certainly shows that the world has found important tools by which people can share values, cultures and much more, it therefore should not be undermined.


BIBLIOGRAPHY


Read more: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2073381/google-executive-social-networking-vital-egyptian-revolt#ixzz1TU0IOQ3L


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/05/egypt-rebirth-of-a-nation

Barack Obama faces first Twitter 'town hall' questions

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/07/27/youtube-twitter-the-new-age-diplomat’s-tools.html


Wednesday 1 June 2011

Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century (report review)

The context in which this report has been written is one year after Barack Obama has been elected as the new President of the United States of America for the four years presidential mandate. also, in November 2008, it has been already 7 years of American presence in the Middle-East (war in Iraq and Afghanistan) – and still no action form the US government to withdraw their troops from the region, despite what Obama promoted during his campaign – and with it, the rise of American unpopularity.

It is important for a country to have a good image in the international arena. A way to achieve this, as stated in this report and as seen throughout this module, is the through the promotion of that image on the foreign public opinion. Thus, the aim of this report is to found new ways of improving and enhancing the American image worldwide, despite the government policies, for the new area of the 21st century with all the challenges it presents.

Indeed, the Internet and the rise of non-state actors acting in the international sphere have an important influence on the foreign public opinion. To counter this, this report recommends to create a non-profit organisation, the USA-World Trust, which would support the American government in its efforts of public diplomacy. Indeed, a way to do this would be to use the American citizen themselves to promote a good image of the United States in order to counter-balance the image it has gained with the conduct of the war, to promote American values and principles that are known, or thought, to be appealing in most parts of the world (democracy, liberty, freedom, partnership and good relations with allies). This report introduces as well the relatively new topic of the importance in communication in regards to achieve these aims: technology and communication must be the principal means in which this plan will be conducted. Moreover, it emphasises on the importance of non-state actors help such as non-governmental organisations and private actors – companies, business corporations and citizen included. Cooperation and partnership between all those actors are emphasised urged in order to achieve this plan with success, putting an even more focus on the citizen, since ‘Americans themselves are the [government]’s greatest national asset’.

Kirstin M. Lord, Voices of America: US Public Diplomacy for the Twenty-First Century, Brookings Institute, 2008, available at www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/11_public_diplomacy_lord.aspx

Friday 20 May 2011

Films: a tool to Public Diplomacy for Foreign Policy conduct.

According to Nicholas J. Cull, public diplomacy is ‘an international actor’s attempt to conduct foreign policy by engaging with a foreign public’ and covers five activities: Listening, Advocacy, Cultural diplomacy, Exchange, International news broadcasting (Osgood and Ethridge, 2010: 258).

However, for him, ‘films’ are difficult to put into one of these categories, although they are a tool used by governments to conduct public diplomacy.

Talking about this is all the more relevant in regards to United States of America. United States not only has its glittery Hollywood, but seem to have known for long the importance of the image! Moreover, as Cull explains it, films figured in American public diplomacy during the First World War (Ibid.: 259), with the aim to promote their foreign policy, their own views on the international happenings of the war and different political games, as well as, as an ultimate goal, for the promotion of their own way of life. Indeed, during the period of the two Great Wars, the role of US films was very much of advocacy to Western Europe, as well as the ‘newly liberated countries’ (Ibid.); they would show their life style in different formats (from people living in the countryside, to immigrants arriving in urban areas and how to integrate) (Ibid).

For instance, the Committee on Public Information during the First World War, with its particular function of promoting the American involvement into the war to its own citizen, they also realised different films which first audience was that of overseas, in order to depict to the foreign public the US involvement in the war; Cull talks about Pershing's Crusaders and America’s War (Ibid.).

Nowadays, such methods are still used, and it is very much interesting. There have been movies on past wars, such as Apocalypse Now (1979) depicting the Vietnam War, or more recent one about the latest Iraq War in The Hurt Locker. However, those which are even more interesting are the movies relating the situation of the United States post-9/11. For instance, all those movies about terrorism, infiltrated CIA agents in terrorist cells, or movies that could be ethically controversial with the morality of the movie being ‘it is worth to kill one person in order to save thousands’ are very interesting. For instance, the movie Rendition (2008) depicts exactly that situation. Moreover, those like Five Fingers (2006) or Unthinkable (2010) too. Those movies seem very much to put the United States into a victim position... since they depict a threatened country by a global force which the government does not seem to clearly know how to tackle and fights against... However, what those movies also show, is that force and the nation always come first (be it depicted as a negative American image like in Rendition, or on the contrary, like in the two last movies mentioned).

Moreover, the fact that the American are depicted as always being the ones attacked (a tourist couple being shot in Babel (2005) or the US President being attacked during a public apparition in Spain in Vantage Point (2008)), poses an implied justification for any attack from their government in order to protect their citizen.

However, what I have found even more interesting is that ‘saviour’ image that the United States has... In my opinion, it has to do with two things: firstly, that image of the ‘US saviour’ has to do with the end of the Second World War as a whole: the European liberator and the introduction of the ‘generous’ Marshall Plan (Ibid.: 260) towards Europe, showing to the world their power. Therefore, when an asteroid will potentially strike the Earth and wipe out any form of life, this will happen in the US (victim position of the natural catastrophe), which then shows a heroic image of them when they manage to divert its movement axis by drilling it (Armageddon (1998)).

I will not even mention the position in which those movies put people from the Muslim world, with a very specific physical aspect, clothes and behaviour. However, in Five Fingers, the turnaround of the situation is very interesting (even though it shows at the same time that the United States are even more in danger since the ‘enemy’ is not that identifiable anymore... since the terrorist in that movie, in the end, is Ryan Philipp, blond actor having the role of a Dutch, and not Lauren Fishburne appearing as the ‘terrorist stereotype’).

As a conclusion, one can say that films are very much used to promote a government’s foreign policy... Be it funded, subsidised or promoted by the government – like during the two Great Wars in the United States with the Committee on Public Information for instance, as well as with Nazi and Communist propaganda movies promoting their lifestyle and telling lies about the enemy – or not, with Hollywood movies.

This topic seems to present a similar dilemma as ‘citizen diplomacy’: can ‘citizen diplomacy’ or ‘public diplomacy’ through films and movies be called that only when there is a government involvement? As I have already argued regarding citizen diplomacy, I do not think it is the case, and in my opinion, in this particular case of movies and films, through the movies took as examples, I have definitely shown that it is not the case.

Morality: enjoy movies, but as everything, 'don't buy it without thinking twice about it'.


Osgood, K.A., and Etheridge, B.C. (eds.), 2010. The United States and public diplomacy : new directions in cultural and international history. Brill: Leiden. Available online: http://www.londonmet.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=635073&

Thursday 19 May 2011

The significance of Radio Free Europe (RFE) in Czech land

During the Cold War, the United States focused on international broadcasting, including RFE. Although, the Cold War era does no longer exist, RFE plays vital role in 21 countries worldwide. As the RFE/RL President Jeffrey Gedmin states: “Although the technology has changed -- we augment radio now with content delivered online, by video, and on television -- the mission of surrogate broadcasting is still the same. RFE/RL remains one of the most effective and cost-efficient programs the United States can support in order to promote democracy and advance U.S. national security interests."[1] The current international system and the US as a leader needs to present truthful messages, because the international system is constantly in anarchy, whether it is related to religious, ethnical, or other issues.

This year, RFE celebrates 60th anniversary in the Czech Republic. The President Vaclav Havel in his congratulating message admits the significance RFE played when Czechoslovakia existed and when the communist ideas had to be fought. However, he also states: “I hope that RFE/RL will continue to pursue in the post-modern and politically unstable world the same goals for which it was established, and which the radio faithfully and steadfastly served: defense of human rights, civic rights and human dignity.”[2]

One cannot disagree that RFE does not play important role in the globalized world. US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, put it very simply: “"RFE/RL is smart power. It represents everything we are trying to achieve."[3]



[1] Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty. (2010). RFE/RL Marks 60 Years of Fighting For Freedom. July 2. [Online]. Available from: http://www.rferl.org/content/RFERL_60_Year_Anniversary_press_room_press_release/2089487.html. [Accessed 17 May, 2011]

[2] Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty. (2011)..Havel Congratulates RFE On Anniversary of First Czechoslovak Broadcasts. May 12. [Online]. Available from: http://www.rferl.org/content/off_mic_havel_congratulates_rfe_on_60th_anniversary/24099525.html. [Accessed 17 May, 2011]

[3] Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty. (2009). Hillary Clinton:”RFE/RL is smart power”. April 8. [Online]. Available from: http://www.rferl.org/content/pressrelease/1604641.html. [Accessed 17 May, 2011]

Wednesday 18 May 2011

Review of the report: FCO Public Diplomacy: The Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012

Second Report of Session 2010–11

House of Commons

Foreign Affairs Committee

For London, the year 2012 is expected to be the year of new opportunities and, among others, also a chance to enhance nation-branding and improve public diplomacy. The aim of this report[1] is to emphasize the importance of the Olympics in London for enhancing the UK’s reputation.

The report consists of a summary, conclusions and recommendations and three chapters. The first chapter is an ‘Introduction’, the second chapter is ‘Public Diplomacy and the UK’, and the third chapter is ‘The FCO’s strategy for the 2012 Olympics’.

The first chapter introduces the following chapters, which are the core of this report. The second chapter firstly defines two concepts, public diplomacy and soft power. The consensus on what is public diplomacy has never been reached among scholars or governments, and therefore everyone understands it differently. And therefore, it is interesting that the definition of public diplomacy in this report is the definition provided by the University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy, not a definition provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which on their website defines public diplomacy as “a process of achieving the UK’s international strategic priorities through engaging and forming partnerships with like-minded organisations and individuals in the public arena”.[2] Further on, the report shows the importance of nation-branding as part of the UK’s public diplomacy. It discusses the research done by the FCO, in which the UK’s perception was viewed as positive abroad. However, even the written evidence at the end of the report fails to provide important information about the research, such as location of research, the age group, ethnicities, and other variables which can play significant role when doing any research. Learning lessons from other countries which held the major sporting events, is another part of the report. This part is very important, because learning from the past experience can help the 2012 Olympics to enhance the UK’s reputation to its full potential. Although the report mainly emphasizes the fact that big sporting events were mostly successful, it also shows the possibly negative impact of the World Cup in South Africa in 2010. However, the report fails to provide any specific information regarding negative experience that the Olympics 2012 should try to avoid in order to secure positive impression of this sport event among people.

The third chapter focuses on the FCO’s strategy for the 2012 Olympics. The objectives of the Olympics campaign are stated very clearly. However, there are no further steps explained about how they should be approached and what tools should be used to achieve those objectives. Further on, the campaign and its funding are explained. The campaign seems to be very well planned, although all the mentioned aspects of it seem to be only in English language, which may be a disadvantage for those, who do not speak English. Nation-branding as such should be approached from every angle, and maybe the Olympics 2012 may be a step for some to be influenced by the UK’s image and then start to learn English. Further on, the report explains how the Olympics 2012 should be approached environmentally friendly, and therefore this green approach is a great way to promote not only ‘green UK’, but also more environmentally friendly approach as such, which those who will attend the Olympics have not known before. The end of the chapter three briefly mentions potential risks and negative image that could come out as a result of the Olympics. This is important sub-part, because the FCO needs to be aware of the fact that not everything may go the right direction.

To conclude, this report is a good presentation of the campaign and aim that the FCO wants to achieve by hosting the 2012 Olympics in London, which hopefully will become a great tool for nation-branding of the UK, not only London.



[1] Parliament UK. FCO Public Diplomacy: The Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012. [Online]. 26 January 2011. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmfaff/581/581.pdf. [Accessed 17 May, 2011]

[2] Foreign & Commonwealth Office. Global Issues. Available from: http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/what-we-do/public-diplomacy/. [Accessed 17 May, 2011]