Can Celebrities be Diplomats?

The world is changing and so is diplomacy. Globalisation has had a major impact on the way diplomacy is carried out, not least because there is now a whole range of non-state actors, who engage in “diplomatic” activities. Among these new actors are celebrities, some of whom have increasingly become active in promoting and raising awareness about humanitarian causes, as well as directly lobbying state leaders about policies.

Enthusiasts of “celebrity diplomacy” argue that this kind of activism holds great potential for drawing the world’s attention to issues that might otherwise go unnoticed. When George Clooney goes to a barely accessible Sudanese village to speak to people about their problems, CNN follows, and later on people will read about this village not in academic journals, but in the tabloids (Avlon, 2011[1]). When United Nations Goodwill Ambassador Angelina Jolie can barely suppress her tears as she relates the story of a poor refugee boy from Iraq who will never be able to become a doctor unless we help him, it is powerfully moving (Clinton Foundation, 2007[2]).

A new level of celebrity diplomacy was reached by Bono, who has established personal relationships with global leaders and has been travelling to G8 summits and other high-level meetings lobbying for debt relief in Africa (Dieter & Kumar:260). Celebrities, like NGOs, are argued to fill a gap that is left by traditional institutions in that they enable people to identify with them and their causes through emotional attachments (Cooper, 2007a: 17).

Nonetheless, as ideal as this seems to be, there are critics who believe that taking celebrity activism seriously or even calling it “diplomacy” is dangerous (Cooper, 2007a:12). The reason is simple: Celebrities are not elected, but usually self-appointed and it is questionable where they derive their legitimacy from. Not only this, but it is never quite clear what their actual motives for action are – is it genuine concern or is it another way of promoting themselves? Furthermore, it is often held that celebrities are promoting a one-sided, oversimplified, possibly even “dumbed down” view of a particular situation, which can worsen it in the long-term. Thus, Bono’s efforts to increase Aid have been criticised as undermining the ability of people to learn to help themselves while reinforcing an unjust status quo (Dieter & Kumar, 2008:260-262; Cooper, 2007b[3]).

So: Should we view celebrities as a new “generation” of diplomats? Well, it is a difficult question to answer. We seem to take NGOs, who are equally unelected and self-appointed seriously when they lobby for a cause - so why not celebrities? They do have the enormous benefit of being unrestrained by any governmental or institutional rules and to attract the media’s attention easily. But do they actually know what they are talking about? Do they understand the depth of the issues they are campaigning for? Maybe not, but those celebrities who have shown great dedication and commitment to their causes, like Bono or Angelina Jolie, actually have specialist advisors around them and make no claims to expertise (Valley, 2009; Dieter & Kumar, 2008:261).

It seems difficult to draw the line between “advocacy” and “diplomacy” in the case of celebrities and it is surely valid to say that not every celebrity who engages in humanitarian work can be described as a “diplomat”. Nonetheless, if celebrities ensure that they are well-informed about the causes they are promoting, and are dedicated to this work, their activism carries with it enormous potential in terms of visibility and outreach and should not be brushed off. If “ordinary” people and NGOs can engage in diplomacy to lobby for policy changes – why can’t celebrities?

---

[1] http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/20/a-21st-century-statesman.html#

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H00apInuAjg&feature=player_embedded

[3] http://www.cigionline.org/articles/2007/12/celebrity-efforts-will-redefine-diplomacy

References

- Avlon, John (2007) “A 21^st-Century Statesman”, Newsweek, 21^st February, http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/20/a-21st-century-statesman.html#, accessed: 26.3.2011, 23:23

- Clinton Foundation (2007) “Clinton Global Initiative 2007: Angelina Jolie Makes Impassioned Plea for Refugees“, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H00apInuAjg&feature=player_embedded, accessed: 29.3.2011, 17:08

- Cooper, Andrew F. (2007a) “Celebrity Diplomacy and the G8: Bono and Bob as Legitimate International Actors”, The Centre for International Governance Innovation, Working Paper No.29, September, http://www.cigionline.org/publications/2007/9/celebrity-diplomacy-and-g8-bono-and-bob-legitimate-international-actors, access: 27.3.2011, 22.20

- Cooper, Andrew F. (2007b) “Celebrity Efforts Will Redefine Diplomacy”, The Centre for International Governance Innovation, 3^rd December, http://www.cigionline.org/articles/2007/12/celebrity-efforts-will-redefine-diplomacy, 27.3.2011, 22:31

- Dieter, Heribert and Kumar, Rajiv (2008) “The Downside of Celebrity Diplomacy: The Neglected Complexity of Development“, Global Governance, Vol.14, pp.250-264

- Valley, Paul (2009) “From A-lister to Aid Worker: Does Celebrity Diplomacy Really Work?”, The Independent, 17^th January, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/from-alister-to-aid-worker-does-celebrity-diplomacy-really-work-1365946.html, accessed: 22.3.2011, 16:08

Leading through civilian power: an overview

Last year I purchased a copy of the journal 'Foreign Affairs', whilst expensive, a must have in my opinion. In this particular volume (November/December 2010) there was an article written by Hillary Rodham Clinton, entitled Leading through civilian power, redefining American Diplomacy and development.

In her article Mrs Clinton outlines that "increasing global interconnectedness now necessitates reaching beyond governments to citizens directly and broadening the US foreign policy portfolio to include issues once confined to the domestic sphere". In her suggestion it is clear that this is a reference to a new understanding of the importance of public diplomacy in a new world within which a realisation has occurred, that groups must work together in solving problems. Whilst Mrs Clinton's article was interesting it focused little however on public diplomacy and predominantly on the benefits to the USA's development agenda in utilising this new form of interaction however it did highlight the importance of this evolution in diplomacy reinforcing the idea of the Canadian ambassador Allan Gotlieb who stated "the new diplomacy, as i call it is to a large extent public diplmomacy" (CSIS, Reinventing diplomacy in the information age, p35).

This shift, as even Mrs Clinton accepts is largely due to Globalisation, which, through the growth of NGO's and MNC's, the rise of new technologies, notably the internet, and increased interconnectedness, that it has developed have provoked diplomats and diplomatic institution to rethink their approach to the diplomatic process as a whole, as Berridge stated "international society keeps changing and diplomacy keeps evolving".

'Everybodys worried about World War 3': Joseph Nye and Okinawa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trO1RY3KC44

Goin' back down to Okinawa
Sorry, baby, but I can't take you
You better stay at home in California
There's nothing over there that you can do


Goin' back down to Okinawa
Ain't gonna do me like you've done before
They treat me like a king down in Okinawa
And I may never come back no more


It's just an island floating in the sun
Everybody is having so much fun
Pretty mamas laying in the sand
Sure to know how to treat your man
Okinawian baby, won't you come by me ?
Sun going down in the China Sea
Making love on the beach all night
Okinawa moon is shining so bright


Folks in Okinawa sure have fun
They get together when the working day is done
Drinking cheap wine. and making romance
While some old man's doing the Okina dance


Back in the days of World War II
Fought against the Japanese like me and you
Everybody's worried âbout World War III
Okinawa's just the place where I'm gonna be


Going back to Okinawa
Sorry, but I can't take you
Never coming back no more, baby
Ry Cooder, Going Back to Okinawa [ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/r/ry_cooder/going_back_to_okinawa.html ]

In 1995 Joseph Nye produced a strategic  document for the East-Asia Pacific region for President Clinton. This proposed a halt to former President G.H.Bush's measured troop reductions and whacked up the troop numbers to 100,000 ( similar to Cold War numbers) in Japan and South Korea with those countries expected to contribute from their own forces. This was to enable, in Nye's words, a place at the Asian table and 'to protect our interests'. Okinawa was one of these places where troop numbers would be sustained at high levels (at between 30,000 to 50,000). The Governor of Okinawa, Ota Masahide, rightly took exception to this arrogant assumption of ownership as if it was a US fiefdom.  The residents of Okinawa having been humiliated in 1952  when mainland Japan offered the island as a base in return for its sovereignty had hoped for a withdrawal of troop numbers. Months later protests reached fever pitch with the news of  US military personnel inflicting a vicious sexual assault on a pre-teen girl. In 1996 Clinton agreed to move the marines out of Futenma whilst the construction of another base was completed. However, the mainland Japanese authorities offered the US a harbour port with a coral reef of sensitive environmental importance. To the US the coral was a nuisance and they had tried to blow it up previously. Money not defence became the driving force. It is ironic that Japan's first instinct after reconstruction was to make sure that economics replaced an absent military strength and that this would in turn help in terms of leveraging a better position and more equal status with the US. (G.Austin & S.Harris,2001) Community leaders decried the Japanese and US willingness to act as if it were Okinawa's drug dealer. 'It is as if the Japanese government has made Okinawa a drug addict, and the US government takes full advantage of the addiction, in order to maintain its military presence'. (Miyazato Seigen) The proposed development was estimated to cost $16 billion and it has been keenly contested at every stage by the Okinawans. In  2008 Nye returned to the fray in style by saying that any changes to his proposals would be seen as that scarily worn-out old chestnut (my words); 'anti-american'.

In Japan the ruling Democratic Party which had won in 2009 caved in and morphed into a pale copy of the previous Liberal Democrat government effectively pledging blind allegiance to Washington. Obama was happy to give Prime Minister Kan a photo shoot at the Toronto G20 and so was Kan. The outcome has the warming effect of giving the US hawks Japans highly effective 240,000 forces under its broad wings. The new Henoko base is thus a trivial arrangement in comparison but not to Okinawans. In early 2010  90,000 islanders protested demanding the closure of Futenma and the halting of work on the proposed base at Futenma. In one poll 84% opposed the new base.

Japan is effectively a client state of the US; 'One that enjoys the formal trappings of a Westphalian sovereignty and independence, and is therefore neither a colony nor a puppet state.' (McCormack)Japan has ended up paying the US for the privelige of letting them occupy Okinawa and dominating the Meiji era elite who have ruled Japan. Somehow because of their submissiveness to the US the Japanese have signed up to the G.W.Bush's globally created 'war on terror' even though Islam is and never has been a threat to Japan. Meanwhile Japan has no independent foreign policy of its own and the protests in Henoko continue.

Meanwhile, China having got used to 6 decades of neighbourly stability, have started to be concerned with the US presence in Japan. Senior Chinese leaders have often voiced their opposition to the idea of foreign military occupation such as in Okinawa. The US-Japan alliance effectively dictates how China and Japan see each other in military terms. Japan in turn has not been afraid to stand up to China and has often voiced its concerns over China's 'missile diplomacy' with Taiwan and its objections to China's nuclear testing. (G. Austin & S.Harris, 2001)

In conclusion it is evident that there is a total absence of public diplomacy or soft power initiatives alongside Nye's diktats and very little noticeable cultural diplomatic effort to win the Okinawans over. One wonders what exactly Joseph Nye would call his strategic aims in academic terms but they are in fact unmistakeably Neo-Con Imperialist in my view.  'Over exposure with regard to the internal affairs of another country.... is liable to produce an unintended public diplomacy consequence which can be corrosive to the legitimacy of the actors.'
(http://www.blogger.com/postedit.gblogID=3691872501256573949&postID=1339426805892855573) 
This quote referred in its original form to the relationship between Pakistan and the US and it should act as pre-cautionary principle. The situation in Okinawa discredits both actors; Japan and the US .

'The successful diplomat is part analyst, part advocate, part policy-maker and part communications strategist.' http://www.blogger.com/postedit.gblogID=3691872501256573949&postID=1339426805892855573
The 'successful diplomat' across the region covered by Nye's strategic document will struggle to persuade even in 'soft' terms that there is anything in it of comfort to a Ryukyuan fisherman whose village, harbour and local atoll is about to be bombed and filled in with concrete in the interests of US hegemony in the Far East. In this respect 90,000 protesting Okinawans could make life very hard for the US on the beach when the moon shines bright. Never mind World War Three!

It would also help if the Japanese government reviewed its policy of following the US on the 'war on terror' which serves no purpose for Japan in the short term but could do real damage to it in the long term in Islamic countries where their public and cultural diplomacy has up until now been valued or been seen as neutral. 'The ecology of public diplomacy can be characterised as a series of contests of competitive credibility, as Joseph Nye put it, where success is measured by ‘whose story wins’.' (1)Or alternatively, and in simple layman terms, whose strategic document is pro-American enough to win.
Gavan McCormack 'Obama v Okinawa' New Left Review Issue 64 July/Aug 2010
G. Austin  & S. Harris, (2001) Japan and Greater China, C. Hurst & Co, London
Open University:
(1)http://www.blogger.com/postedit.gblogID=3691872501256573949&postID=1339426805892855573  

Japanese-style diplomacy

Japan’s cultural diplomacy throughout the years since the Second World War makes good sense. In his book Japan’s Cultural Diplomacy Kazuo Ogoura, President of the Japan Foundation, makes distinctions between public and cultural diplomacy, stating that the former is directed “at certain pre-determined targets” and is used to “enhance a nation’s political influence" whereas the latter has “less precise goals.”

When participating in cultural activities abroad, the Japanese government believes in simple traditions as the tea ceremony and ikebana (flower arrangement) - to symbolize Japan’s peace-loving nature to the world. Interestingly, whilst researching Japanese diplomacy, I came across an article on how sake is gradually increasing its presence at Japanese government banquets hosting foreign dignitaries.

Japanese cultural diplomacy includes:

• · Art and cultural exchange programs
• · Teaching the Japanese language abroad by dispatching specialists and training local language teachers.
• · Encouraging Japanese studies overseas and intellectual exchange between Japan and other nations.

Such activities are carried out by institutions like the Japan Foundation, who also organize special events like film screenings overseas, anime and manga exhibitions. In recent years these have attracted a massive following worldwide and are regarded as the “main” culture that represents Japan and its soft power.

The Japanese have a strong cultural ideal of mutual respect, thus when entering political debates or discussions they believe in showing understanding and a sense of affirmation about the other side’s views. When reaching a standstill, the nemawashi (根回し) starts. Both sides seek a hint of common ground to start with and proceed gradually, continuing as far as possible. If no further progress can be made, both sides then attempt to concede ground in order to meet the opponent halfway out of courtesy. As you can see, it’s very different to the Western Socratic method of debate (which is synonymous with developing critical thinking). Simply dismissing one’s views or even firing questions at the argument to expose the weaknesses as we’d more likely be inclined to is perceived to be rude.

Kaplans diagram deals with patterns of speech and argument across language groups

The goal of Japanese cultural diplomacy is to “not only propagate Japanese thought and traditions to the world but also aim at introducing non-Japanese culture to Japan to enrich the cultural heritage of the world.”

Somewhere between public/political culture and private interactions, the idea of balance is clearly important to a nation not only striving to make it’s imprint on the world but to amalgamate that which it finds useful to its own culture.

Contemporary Notions of Public Diplomacy

Based off the discussions that we have had both in seminar and lecture as well as the independent readings I have done myself, I am learning that Public Diplomacy cannot be carried out without some notion of Cultural Diplomacy involved. In today’s society it is every hard to get away from the fact that we are living in a multi-cultural world no matter where in the world you come from. With that being said, how can you conduct diplomacy without taking those cultural differences into account. The more that I study the topic of Public and Cultural Diplomacy the more that I am seeing the undeniable links that the two share with each other rather than perhaps being two separate entities.

Public Diplomacy is meant to have an impact on those peoples in other countries in order to influence their thoughts on the country which is approaching them. When looking at London for example, there are so many different cultures represented that a diplomatic campaign that was successful and well thought out could have wide-spread implications for Britain with many other countries. The problem is too often that the people in charge of such campaigns and those higher above them are thrown into a tight window of opportunity and are told to perform at the best with what they have. This makes you wonder, what if anything, what these people expect to get done.

Public Diplomacy, with Cultural Diplomacy enveloped in that term, is becoming an increasingly important field in which more money and attention should be paid because of the potential benefits that could result from a long-term, well financed plan of action. Perhaps with a long-term plan, more people would come to understand each other, their home countries and boundaries would be broken down between states. This in the even longer term could pose benefits for avoiding conflict and for better relationships overall.

In conclusion, I believe that Public and Cultural Diplomacy go hand in hand and each needs to account for the other when carrying out diplomatic plans. The study of these two topics can only further benefit the field of diplomacy simply because they are still very new and complex topics. 

-Meghan H.

Image is everything these days...

(re)Branding Africa is a challenge

What are a lot of people’s first thoughts when hearing the word ‘Africa’?

Instability caused by war? Widespread poverty? Starving children, and primitive people living in huts? An exaggeration perhaps, but as someone who grew up in Africa and has lived in London for years now, I know this to be a genuine perception/misconception. This could be blamed on both personal ignorance and Western media portrayal of Africa.

Mainly we see Africa in the news when there’s some sort of crisis. In the competitive climate of the global market place, African countries are lagging in terms of investment, tourism, exports and employment.

Nation branding can certainly help African countries develop a more positive image and give them a chance to increase foreign direct investment, and tourism. I read an article in the journal Place Branding and Public Diplomacy entitled ‘Branding African countries: A prospect for the future’ by Evalyne Wanjiru, that suggests the utilisation of customer relationship management (CRM) to ‘gain a competitive differentiation’. CRM is about managing customer relationships and understanding customers’ needs. Simon Anholt believed CRM can work when branding nations with a ‘viable target market’.

Interviews were carried out with experts in country branding, African development and CRM for the paper, and one interviewee interestingly stated that Africa suffers from ‘continent brand defect’, meaning the continent as a whole is seen as a single brand. Johnston of Brand South Africa believes that rebranding could end ‘Afro-pessimism’.

The paper goes into more detail regarding branding, CRM and the challenges of branding Africa however they can be overcome with the right policies in place and the right (re)branding campaign, especially through the use of CRM.

I personally think that branding Africa through CRM could work well.

As an Ethiopian, I know that my country could benefit from further tapping into the market available from their ideological link with the Caribbean and Rastafarianism. For example, an annual high profile music festival including prominent artists not only from Africa, but also around the world is a viable possibility that could boost tourism, and aid in the construction of a more positive image for both Ethiopia and Africa.

Public Diplomacy: Modern Approaches

The events of September 11^th changed the way that many countries carry out their public diplomacy campaigns. This is particularly true in the USA where it became clear that their image in the Arab World was extremely negative and had played a part in motivating those behind the attacks.

The post 9/11 era saw beginning of “the battle for hearts and minds” (Leonard, Stead and Smewing, 2002: 2) of those in the Middle East. The USA began new instruments of public diplomacy including the broadcasting of Radio Sawa (Radio Together), which plays Arab and Western pop music to a listener base across the Arab world. Additionally, the Government funds and supports Alhurra Television (The Free One) to the same target audience. This aims to spread the image that the USA is not the enemy of the East and to portray the positive aspects of American multicultural society.

However, despite the efforts of the American government to improve their image in the Middle East, they are perhaps undermining their work through their policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestine-Israel conflict. The propaganda in the Arab World finds the American invasion of Iraq and the civilian causalities in Afghanistan an easy target for the development of anti-American feeling. So while their diplomacy efforts have improved, their message appears to be inconsistent with some of their actions in the East.

Indeed, the majority of respondents to a survey in five Muslim countries in the Arab world stated that if the US hopes to improve its image in the Arab world then it must back up the public diplomacy efforts with changes in their policies on the ground, and adopt an even-handed policy on the Palestine-Israel conflict. (el-Nawawy, 2006)

The USA is not the only example of a country becoming more concerned with their image in the East post 9/11, and most countries in Europe have made attempts to ensure that they develop a more positive image in the region. A clear example of the impacts of a poor image, aside from 9/11, is the reaction to the Danish cartoons of prophet Muhammad in 2005 and 2008 (when they were reprinted). A series of protest started in the Middle East, Danish products were boycotted and embassies were attacked.

After the first incident the Danish Government failed to act in a way that dissipated the row: refusing to meet with 11 ambassadors that were representing over half a million Muslim people (Hervik, 2006). In the aftermath of the second printing the Danish government appears to have been more aware of the negative impacts of a poor image in the East and it reacted to the crisis with transparency, open dialogue and the involvement of locally based immigrants from the Arab world which proved effective at reducing the tension created (Andreasen, 2008)

In stark contrast to the modern public diplomacy policies that can be seen in the US and the rest of Europe, France is risking provoking negative reactions and criticism from the Muslim world through the banning of full-face veils in public. This law does not come into force until April 2011 but it will be interesting to see if this legislation has a negative impact on France and their relations with the Muslim world.

Bibliography

Andreasen, U. (2008), “Reflections Public Diplomacy after the Danish Cartoon Crises: From Crisis Management to Normal Public Diplomacy Work” in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 3, No 2, 201-207

BBC News Europe (2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11305033, 14^th September, accessed 12.3.2011

Collins, S. (2003) “ Mind Games”, NATO Review, http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2003/issue2/english/art4.html, accessed 12.3.2011

El-Nawawy, M. (2006), US Public Diplomacy in the Arab World: The News Credibility of Radio Sawa and Television Alhurra in Five Countries” in Global Media and Communication, Vol. 2, No 2, 183-203

Hervik, P. (2006), “The Predictable Response to the Danish Cartoons” in Global Media and Communication, Vol. 2, No 2, 225-230

Leonard, M. Stead, C. and Smewing C. (2002), Public Diplomacy, The Foreign Policy Centre: London

A Great Book

Dear all,

I'm not sure if all have but I know of a few that have told me they have read this. Public Diplomacy by Mark Leonard gives a good analysis of what Public Diplomacy is, using examples of real events and knowledge from practitioners, it was published by the Foreign policy centre. I would recommend it to anyone looking for a better understanding of what Public diplomacy is and how it is used.

News Management in Public Diplomacy

There has been and continues to be a lack of consensus on the meaning of public diplomacy, however it can be argued that, as suggested by its name Public diplomacy refers to a change in the target of diplomacy from the nation state to the people within it, as Sir Michael Butler , a former British representative to the EU stated "The purpose of public diplomacy is to influence opinion in target countries", this refers not to private exchanges with foreign governments and their opinions but instead the opinions of the people of that state, as Edward Murrow said "not only with governments but primarily with non-governmental individuals and organisations".

In light of this definition there are three areas which can be seen as tools in this form of diplomacy, News Management, Strategic communications and relationship building.

-News Management

This aspect has become very important since the rise of the television media as it is now possible to view news from around the world in real time such as the movements in Libya and Egypt. A good example could be Zimbabwe, as the news shows us that the situation in Zimbabwe is dangerous and unstable this forms the basis for a view of that state, but if in the example of the USA the media portrays the land of the free, we instantly could believe that the USA is a good state and we will favour it. In this way the news must now me managed in order to ensure that the image of any state is one that will inspire confidence in another and therefore cultivate a friendship or favour. This does not have to purely political, in fact an insight into the public life can be more useful in allowing people to see what a state is really like and form an opinion.