Is culture diplomacy enough for the U.S to change it's image?

A cheaper way of doing Culture Diplomacy in the U.S...

It’s not my intention to downplay the role that culture diplomacy can play in people’s lives; It is my believe that through culture diplomacy a country can be more successful in changing foreign audiences perception of itself than the hash use of force. As Joseph Nye would said it’s easier for people to do what you want because they like you; but in present situation of the U.S it’s my opinion they still have to wait for a few years minding their own business, so that people don’t suspect or question about their intentions on their ‘goodwill actions’.
This blog its my view or criticism of Helen Finn article ‘The Case for Cultural Diplomacy: Engaging Foreign Audiences’; as the title states she argues that policymakers in the U.S should seriously consider in investing in culture diplomacy as they did during the cold war. That only through dialogue and not the use of force the ‘hearts and minds of moderate elements in societies vulnerable to radicalism’ can be won. Consequently this would allow changing foreign perception and eventually eliminating the anti American sentiment around the globe especially in the Middle East.

While these visiting centres and libraries around the world where students and journalist can go and learn about America as well as have access to internet may have a positive impact on foreign audiences, the revelation on mass media can counter affect this in a bigger scale. Today we have access to all kinds of websites and information (wiki leaks, whistleblowers, etc), certain information that countries would like to be in public display ‘always’ finds a way to be leaked around the globe and a country like the U.S which through the years has brought a big share of destruction by meddling in other countries business in other to take advantages of certain resources an so on. Through personal experience it’s my believe that this kind of information will have more impact than cultural exchange experiences, people or families who have suffered from Washington greedy policies will most vulnerable for alternative realities (good or bad).

While Helen Finn makes good suggestions about a change in tactics for the U.S in terms of culture diplomacy abroad with regards to the anti-American sentiment around the globe’, she also rightful suggests that an investment in U.S public must also be made so that people are culture aware of what’s going outside their borders. But like any other American article there’s must be an emphasis on American principles, she says that America is the greatest military power since the Roman Empire (true, it’s a fact) and that today it has a significant role in shaping world order as those imperial powers in the past, in other words “as a democratic country and a member of the family of the nations” the U.S has responsibilities.

She suggests that with an annual investment of 2 billion of dollars a year a successful campaign could be done that it would be more successful and cheaper than any war. My suggestion would be for the U.S to mind it’s own business, change it’s policies with regards to meddling in other states affairs, taking care of it’s own people; for example invest in healthcare, education, deal with its ethical division felt around the country, its bureaucratic system an so on. Not only would be more adequate but also efficient. And maybe after this can start doing as they say with regards to their principles. Because the U.S is definitely not a model to be followed and neither the world would be a better place if we all became “mini me” versions of such country. The illusion that media sometime gives is that the U.S is made of New York and California, everything is like Hollywood, but a trip to some conservative areas in the U.S can gives a more accurate view of what the country is like.