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]

Czech Republic: A brief case study of public and cultural diplomacy


Pic.1: Map of Czech Republic[1]

The Czech Republic became independent in January 1993, when Czechoslovakia split up into two countries. Since then, the country has developed various strategies, including public and cultural diplomacy initiatives, which main role is to make the Czech Republic more attractive to foreign publics and to enhance its image. This blog will briefly analyze and explain the most successful steps of public and cultural diplomacy in the Czech Republic. It is a small state, and therefore public and cultural diplomacy is “an opportunity to gain influence and shape international agenda in ways that go beyond their limited hard power resources (related to size, military and economic strength)”.[2]

From the institutional point of view, the latest news state “the Czech Foreign Ministry has established a new section of public diplomacy. The public diplomacy section replaced the former section for culture, communication and presentation. It will cooperate with NGOs and the Czech Centres, which promote the country abroad.”[3] The Czech Centres play an important role, for instance in the United Kingdom, “the aim is to actively promote the Czech Republic in the UK by introducing the Czech Republic, Czech culture, and various opportunities to the British public and professionals to support mutual collaboration and exchange ”.[4] Agencies supported by ministries, as well as number of non-governmental organizations have been contributing to improving the image of the Czech Republic. For instance, The Nati­o­nal Infor­mation and Con­sul­ting Cen­tre for Cul­ture (NIPOS), The Arts Institute, and so on. The evidence from number of countries shows that international broadcasting is a very effective tool of public diplomacy. And therefore, the Radio Prague is used to bring near the Czech Republic as such through broadcasting into six languages. The citizen diplomacy is no longer underestimated and since 1997, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Czech Republic has annually awarded the Gratias Agit prize, which is “becoming an ever more prestigious prize for the voluntary activities of people committed to working for the benefit of the whole society, for the promotion of friendship among nations and for the promotion of the good name of the Czech Republic in the world”.[5]


Pic.2: Logo of Czech Centres[6]

The Czech Presidency of the Council of the European Union in 2009 seemed to be a great opportunity of nation-branding, selling the image of the country to the rest of the European countries. It certainly enhanced its image. However, the internal domestic affairs have harmed the public and cultural diplomacy of the Czech Republic. During the Presidency of the Council, the continuous and constant instability of the Czech national government influenced the image negatively, as well as the recent events, when the Czech President Vaclav Klaus was caught on camera when ‘stealing’ the pen. This certainly has not helped to improve the image of the Czech Republic. On the other hand, as they say, even negative advertising is still advertising, which makes people to think about the Czech Republic as such.


Vid.: Watch how Vaclav Klaus is ‘stealing’ the pen[7]

To conclude, the Czech Republic, which is a small state, certainly needs a strategic public diplomacy. The reason is that “the smaller powers do not enter the global public discussion unless a crisis or scandal envelops them. It is unfortunate, but these seem to be the events that attract the global media and interest the mass audiences to which they cater. Perhaps it is for this very reason that smaller powers need public diplomacy programs”.[8]


[1] Picture available from: http://www.parcel2ship.co.uk/acatalog/Parcel-Delivery-Czech-Republic.html. [Accessed: 17 May, 2011]

[2] Batora, J. (2006). ‘Public Diplomacy between Home and Abroad: Norway and Canada’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 54-55

[3] Prague Daily Monitor. (2011). Foreign Ministry sets up public diplomacy section. [Online] Available from: http://praguemonitor.com/2011/02/11/foreign-ministry-sets-public-diplomacy-section. [Accessed: 17 May, 2011]

[4] Czech Centre. About Us. [Online] Available from: http://london.czechcentres.cz/about-us/. [Accessed 17 May, 2011]

[5] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. Gratias Agit Award. [Online] Available from: http://www.mzv.cz/jnp/en/foreign_relations/culture_czechs_abroad/gratias_agit_award/index.html. [Accessed: 17 May, 2011]

[6] Picture available from: http://london.czechcentres.cz/about-us/. [Accessed: 17 May, 2011]

[7] Video available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd_vS01VJZs. [Accessed: 17 May, 2011]

[8] Smith, P.H. (1998): ‘Public Diplomacy’, paper presented to the International Conference on Modern Diplomacy, February 12-15, 1998, Malta. Available at: http://www.diplomacy.edu/Books/mdiplomacy_book/smith/regular/default.html. [Accessed 17 May, 2011]

Is gastro-diplomacy an effective way how to brand your nation?

"Food is our common ground, a universal experience." -- James Beard

Kimchi diplomacy, dim sum diplomacy, samosa diplomacy…What do these terms evoke? Food. This blog will explain how a relatively new concept within cultural diplomacy, so called gastro-diplomacy, is effectively used by governments in number of countries as a tool of nation-branding.

Whether one calls it gastro or food diplomacy, the principle is the same. To use national cuisine as a tool to improve image of a country, influence and attract foreign publics. Despite of the fact that nation cuisines have been spreading all over the world for centuries, as a result of migrations and other social aspects, the official use of gastro diplomacy was used by Thai government in 2002 – 2003. The campaign, known as Global Thai had many implications, not only rapid increase of Thai restaurants worldwide, but as The Economist stated, “it not only introduce delicious spicy Thai food to thousands of new tummies and persuade more people to visit Thailand, but it could subtly help deepen relations with other countries.”[1] Certainly, food is one way how to catch attention. Public diplomacy as such is not meant to look like propaganda, and therefore gastro-diplomacy seems like an effective way of influencing foreign publics without pressuring any message.


Pic.1: Logo for the Thai festival in Trafalgar Square, London, 2010[2]

Vid.: Watch the Thai festival in Trafalgar Square, London, 2010

“What nation branding concerns is the image and reputation that a nation enjoys in the world. A nation’s image is defined by the people outside the country; their perceptions are influenced by stereotyping, media coverage as well as personal experience”[3]. And therefore, media coverage of gastro-diplomatic campaigns, as well as personal experience in trying out the country’s cuisine, influence the image and reputation of a country abroad. Countries such as North Korea, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and most recently Taiwan have learned from this successful experience of nation-branding. For instance, “the President of Taiwan, Ma Ying-jeou has ordered his envoys to start talking the language of food by launching a £20m “gastro-diplomacy” campaign in the UK and elsewhere.”[4]


Pic.2: Steve Chen, in the centre, Taiwan’s economic consul in London[5]

To conclude, gastro-diplomacy is a way how to brand one’s country. Although, it is argued that “the biggest challenge in nation branding is how to communicate a single image or message to different audience in different countries”[6], introducing national cuisine via government campaigns is a friendly approach applicable in every possible country. However, one needs to bear in mind that certain countries had to fight over the origins of some of their food. Successful gastro-diplomacy leads to better understanding of culture and so the country as such, improving of economy because businesses and tourism are boosted, and the most importantly it increases attractiveness of a country. It can be assumed that in the future, gastro-diplomacy will become a common tactics of nation-branding. The aim of public diplomacy has always been ‘winning hearts and minds of foreign publics’. An assumption that nation-branding is a part of public diplomacy leads to a conclusion that gastro-diplomacy is a way how to win hearts and minds of foreign publics via their stomach.


[1] USC Center on Public Diplomacy. (2010). Korean Tacos and Kimchi Diplomacy. [Online]. Available from: http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/korean_tacos_and_kimchi_diplomacy/. [Accessed: 17 May 2011]

[2] Picture available from: http://www.verythai.co.uk/event_info.php?event=51. [Accessed: 17 May 2011]

[3] Fan, Y. (2010). Branding the nation: Towards a better understanding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. Vol. 6, 2, p. 97-103

[4] Booth, R. (2010). Taiwan launches ‘gastro-diplomacy’ drive. Guardian. [Online]. August 8. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/08/taiwan-launches-gasto-diplomacy-drive. [Accessed: 17 May 2011]

[5] Picture available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/08/taiwan-launches-gasto-diplomacy-drive. [Accessed: 17 May 2011]

[6] Fan, Y. Op.cit.