Review of Report: “National Framework for Strategic Communication”

This report focuses on the way in which the United States government will go about Strategic communication in the fiscal year of 2009. It outlines the objectives, responsibilities and intended outcomes of the new communication policy.

The report in its entirety reads more like a correction to a mistake than to a clear vision for the future. While it is known that the United States has not always done well communicating its interests to its citizens and the rest of the world, readers of this report would get the feeling that that would be changing, however, as with any report, it does present its problems and does not guarantee that what is written is what will actually happen.

The beginning of the report starts by defining the terms that the report focuses on, as if to get everyone on the same page. It is stated that the use of these terms has meant multiple things in the past so the definitions have become cloudy at best. Through spending time defining what is meant, additional clarity is provided going into the rest of the report and there is no confusion as to the meaning of the tasks.

The report uses the phrase, ‘intended audience’ numerous times and it is made clear that there is an intended audience for this strategic communication and while all foreign peoples are named, extremists are named often as the target of this specific type of communication. An aim for the communication is, “they should also focus on articulating what the United States is for, not just what it is against” (p. 5). This statement is important to the way the foreign public view the United States because it needs to see the United States supporting things other than their own military actions.

This report is very heavily focused on Public Diplomacy and the way in which audiences perceive the actions of the government. It clearly outlines the responsibilities of all parties involved and outlines that it is the Department of State that is responsible for the Public Diplomacy. It also laid out the objectives of the strategic communication and stated that it wants foreign people to be able to recognize the common interests they have with the United States, to see the United States holding a ‘constructive’ role in the affairs of the world, and to see the United States as a respected partner in the global arena.  

The report, while going into the measures of success, says that measuring the effectiveness of communications is difficult because it is up to the public perception of whether or not something works. This report clearly has good intentions and constructs a step-by-step plan of how this ‘new strategic communication’ is to work, with objectives and responsibilities, but it seems when reading the report that they are using a trial and error method to see what will work. While this may be the true way to evaluate the success of communications, more concrete methods need to be outlined in order to make it work. While it is also understandable that there are parts of the communication policy that average citizens are unaware of, it is still important to allude to some deeper policy. The strategy outlined in the report makes a good case for the use of Public Diplomacy and does a good job outlining the aims regarding to it. Despite any possible shortcomings of the report it is clear that everyone has a specific role and that inter-agency communication is the first step to strategic communication and public diplomacy. Until better inter agency communication is established, public diplomacy will always pick up the pieces of the misunderstood communications.   

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/pubdip.pdf 

Review of Report: “Foreign and Commonwealth Office Public Diplomacy: The Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012”

Summary

This report describes and analyses the proposals by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for the Olympics games and what gains they will bring to the UK in terms of public diplomacy.

The report has three chapters: chapter one is the introduction which outlines the event which is under scrutiny and the areas that have been considered during the report. Chapter two considers public diplomacy in the UK by looking at the current international reputation of the country, the impact of nation branding and the impact that the Olympics has had on other nations that have hosted it. Chapter three considers the FCO’s strategy for the 2012 Olympics, how these strategies will impact on the UK in terms of public diplomacy and how they will be put into place.

Analysis and opinion

The report produces a number of clear conclusions which are the basis for the strategies suggested for using the games for public diplomacy benefits. The report suggests that the government should give urgent thought to holding a trade event prior to or during the event. The report produces no evidence that suggests that this would be financially beneficial and also there is no evidence that any of the other recent hosts held such an event. It seems that the UK would be better to spend their resources, which the report itself notes may be stretched given the recent budget cuts, ensuring that the main aspects of the games themselves are a success because it will be this that the rest of the world will see first and foremost.

The report concludes that the current message portrayed by the FCO in relation to the Olympics is ‘bland and ill defined’ (p.22) and that the FCO should focus on the idea that the UK is ‘generous’ (p.22) as this would help to ‘redress some of the long-standing misconceptions of the UK’ (p.22). Earlier in the report Simon Anholt is quoted who identifies the negative images of the UK as being ‘arrogant, stuffy, old-fashioned and cold’ (p.12). While I do not dispute that it is better to have one overall goal in terms of image that should be the focus of the games, I am a little sceptical that defining the UK as ‘generous’ and promoting this idea will be a suitable tactic in order to overcome the negative images associated with the UK that Anholt identified earlier.

The report also urges that the FCO should be prepared to act if there are negative stories that appear in the media in relation to the UK during the games. It is clear that the games, while offering a chance to enhance the country’s reputation, can also do damage to it if certain aspects of public diplomacy and the media are not handled appropriately. It seems sensible and a reasonable conclusion that the FCO should prepare for the negative stories and how they would be addressed.

The report also recommends that the FCO prepare some form of back up plan involving central financial funding if there are cuts to the Olympic’s public diplomacy work. I feel that this is a solid recommendation as the UK has invested a lot of money in the Olympics and pulling out financial support for certain areas at this stage would no doubt undermine some of the work and positive benefits that were highlighted to the Government when the decision was made to make a bid for the Olympic games.

A further recommendation is that the games should be promoted as an event hosted by the entire UK rather that the only as the London Games. While the logic behind this is evident; the entire country should benefit from this where possible, the practicality of this suggestion is questionable. The games are marketed as one city; the city is the one that bids for the games, and that is how they are known in the international community. Additionally, the majority of the investment (the new Olympic site etc) is in London in relation to the games. Indeed the only events that I can find that are hosted outside of London are some elements of football, sailing, rowing and kayak events. With over 85% of the events, and therefore 85% of the attraction held in London, promoting the games as UK wide will be difficult. Having said that, from a public diplomacy point of view, the success of the Olympic games will be likely to have an impact on the image of the UK as a whole rather than just London as there are few who would separate London and the rest of the UK when considering their opinions of the country.

In summary, the report itself is well written and appears to have been thoroughly researched as there is significant evidence provided for some of the key assertions and strategy recommendations that are put forward. However the report should be viewed from the perspective of a public diplomacy approach because otherwise it may appear that the report is focusing on using the Olympics as a marketing or public relations tool at the expense of all other aspects of the games.

Report access:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmfaff/581/581.pdf

Review of Report: “Citizen Diplomacy Organisations Throughout the World: Opportunities for Cooperation”

The report here reviewed is the result of a roundtable discussion with international participants at the 2010 Summit on Citizen Dipomacy by the US Center for Citizen Diplomacy and is concerned with the work of citizen diplomacy organisations and how cooperation among these organisations can be furthered.

The main body of the report is divided into seven chapters in which it first gives an overview of the aim of the report (p.2) and provides detailed definitions of the themes addressed. It then describes the importance of “trust” and the importance of cultural relations in building it. In Chapter IV, the idea of a “Cultural Relationship Index” is presented, a concept developed by the British Council to measure the stage of cultural relations among countries. Having established that cultural relations are vital for building trust, Chapter V of the report examines the importance of partnerships between different organisations working in “people-to-people” or citizen diplomacy. On the basis of the results of consultations with four organisations involved in citizen diplomacy and the promotion of cultural relations (the Goethe Institute (Germany), the Japan Foundation (Japan), the Mickiewicz Institute (Poland), and the Yunus Emre Institute (Turkey)), the final section of the report evaluates the possibilities for cooperation among these organisations by comparing their aims and practices and gives recommendations for increasing people-to-people relations across the world.

The extensive appendix contains figures on levels of trust in people and government of a country, which demonstrate that there is a strong correlation between trust and the desire to become involved in cultural relations with a particular country. Further, Appendix 3 lists the precise answers given by the above-mentioned organisations on their aims in promoting cultural relations.

The report makes some very interesting and relevant observations about the importance of trust in the relationship among nations and their people, as well as that of improving cultural relations, which are of high importance for overcoming “prejudice and mistrust” (p.6). The stronger the links of a person to a particular country, especially those created through language, family- or friendship-ties or having visited the country, the more trust the person will have in that country and its people (Appendix 2). This trust then creates a more positive image of the country and its policies.

Nonetheless, one thing remains puzzling: The report defines “citizen diplomacy” using the definition provided by the US Center for Citizen Diplomacy (USCCD), “the concept that the individual has the right, even the responsibility, to help shape… foreign relations ‘one handshake at a time’” (p.3). According to the USCCD, any person who is “motivated … to engage with the rest of the world in a meaningful, mutually beneficial dialogue” can be a citizen diplomat and the difference between “citizen” and “public” diplomacy is that the former is conducted primarily in the private sector and on a voluntary basis, while the latter are government sponsored activities to engage with foreign publics (US Center for Citizen Diplomacy, 2011). All four organisations reviewed in this report do engage in public and cultural diplomacy and support very interesting programmes (as can be seen in their statements in Appendix 3). However, these are government sponsored organisations and there is very little mention of any programmes actually carried out by “motivated” citizens who engage on a voluntary basis and whose actions are often not even seen as being acts of “diplomacy” in any sense, which is what makes them so powerful.

There is certainly a connection between the four organisations and the people-to-people approach, mainly because all these institutions work to promote language and culture of their home country and in doing so, they seem to provide a framework in which actual people-to-people diplomacy can take place. However, the report fails to make a clear connection between the institutions and the “citizen diplomats” or to provide examples of “citizen” instead of “cultural diplomacy”. While the authors may argue that definitions are not of prime importance (p.3), there is a difference between the two which should be taken into account.

Report:

Culligan, Kieron; Dalton A J; Kneale, Andrew and Leight, Naomi (2010) “CitizenDiplomacy Organisations Throughout the World: Opportunities for Cooperation”, U.S. Summit & Initiative for Global Citizen Diplomacy, Roundtable Chair: Sharon Memis, November, http://uscenterforcitizendiplomacy.org/images/pdfs/summit-reports/Roundtables/RT_Citizen-diplomacy-orgs-around-world-mod.pdf (accessed: 9.4.2011, 20:40)

References

- US Center for Citizen Diplomacy (2011) “What is Citizen Diplomacy?”, http://uscenterforcitizendiplomacy.org/pages/what-is-citizen-diplomacy/, accessed: 1.5.2011, 19:31

Public Diplomacy and NGO's

In today’s globalised world more than just the government representatives occupy the international political spectrum; there are many actors and different interests that are represented during international negotiations and international diplomacy. Of these, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) now play an increasingly important role in international politics. Although this is not true of all NGOs, many are totally independent from a state or government (including funding) and can present ideas and opinions that do not align with those of the country from which they originate. In this sense an NGO can be invaluable in highlighting causes that may otherwise be overlooked by a government.

NGOs also have the advantage of carrying very little political baggage and as such they can often more easily gain the trust of the local affected. Many NGOs are international and have representatives from all across the world with a key focus of supporting the people that they are attempting to help. The NGOs have the advantage of not having more than one issue to consider; whereas a government may have to consider a multitude of stakeholders in any given negotiations along with the political implications of any decisions, an NGO does not have this concern.

The impact of NGOs in international diplomacy is not always clear cut; while many do not rely on state funding they can often act as a positive reflection on the country from which they originate. Conversely, by having minimal ties to a state an NGO may criticise the actions of a government relating to a specific cause and provide negative international coverage on an issue, contradicting the views of politically minded representatives and potentially damaging the government’s reputation and their global image. The NGOs are often on the front line of any situation and have the upper hand when it comes to providing views and opinions; it is this direct experience that is seeing the work and the opinion of the NGOs representatives being increasingly more sought after. Governments are beginning to recognise the importance of the work of NGOs and the benefits that they may gain from involving them in discussions and engaging with them; a positive contribute to their public diplomacy strategy.

Reference:

Zatepilina, O. (2009), “Non-State Ambassadors: NGO’s Contribution to America’s Public Diplomacy”, in Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol.5, No 2, 156-168

Can sports really be a useful and long lasting diplomacy tool?

“Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. It has the power to unite people in a way that little else does. Sport can awaken hope where there was previously only despair. Sport speaks to people in a language they can understand.” Nelson Mandela

I think that few of us would argue with the words of Nelson Mandela regarding the importance of sport in uniting nations and overcoming some of the issues that exist between nations and within nations.

Sport is becoming an increasingly important tool in a country’s public diplomacy strategy. Academics and politicians alike have recently hailed the success of the Beijing Olympics (2008), the Football World Cup in South Africa (2010) and the Cricket World Cup in India (2011) as spectacular exhibitions that have transcended national issues and political problems.

While there is no doubt that these events have been a spectacular success with nations from across the world competing, it is perhaps more important to ask about the lasting impacts that these events have had. China certainly has a legacy from their hosting of the Olympics, however the Olympics has not succeeded in having any significant improvement in human rights in China. It has also not succeeded in preventing media censorship as the recent arguments with Google have so clearly shown.

It is also clear that events such as these can be used as a diplomacy tool, which provides an insight into the country, their people and the culture. It is perhaps no surprise then that before the 1936 Olympics in Berlin there was a significant ‘clean up’ operation ordered by Hitler and the Nazi party (who had come to power after the awarding of the Olympic Games to Berlin). They removed all anti Jewish slogans and arrested around 800 gypsies and kept them under guard until the games were finished. During this time the construction of concentration camps had already began and less than three years later Hitler had exterminated many Jews and had invaded Poland. While the games can bring countries and nations together, it can also provide a dangerous false impression about a country. For the viewers at home the experience of the Olympics can be one of fascination and awe; the reality can be very different.

While it is true that 1936 was a long time ago and the presence of the media and international awareness has improved significantly since then, it remains that sport is sometimes not able to overcome the difficulties that exist internationally, and at times is not allowed the opportunity to do so. Before the draw for the qualifiers for the 2012 European football championships, UEFA (the governing body) announced that the draw would be set to ensure that Azerbaijan would not meet Armenia, and Russia would not play Georgia. This was because of the political tensions that existed between the respective countries. While this may not have received significant press coverage, it is clear that this is a significant instance where sport is unable to transcend the political barriers that many claim it does so well. It is also clear that politics has become involved in the football world, and when sport is no longer politically neutral, its benefits may begin to decline.

Sport certainly has a place in fostering dialogue between nations and helping to instill solidarity in a nation however its ability to achieve foreign policy objectives remains questionable; does sport really bring about long term, sustainable changes? The evidence presented above would suggest not. It is important to note that while sport can, and should, be used to help improve diplomatic relations; it should not be seen as a ‘quick-fix’ to diplomatic problems and used as a substitute for institutional change.

References:

Aliyev, E. (2009), “Azerbaijan, Armenia not to be drawn together in Euro qualifiers”, News.Az, http://www.news.az/articles/4359, accessed 03.04.2011

Ndlovu, S. M. (2010), “Sports as cultural diplomacy: the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa's foreign policy”, Soccer & Society, Vol.11, No 1-2, 144-153 [online]

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a917874446&fulltext=713240928#references, accessed: 03.04.2011

The Journal of Public Diplomacy Exchange (2010), “The Power of Sport: Should sport and diplomacy mix?” http://www.exchangediplomacy.com/the-power-of-sport-should-sport-and-diplomacy-mix, accessed: 03.04.2011

The Nazi Olympics Berlin 1936 (2010), “The Façade of Hospitality”, http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/olympics/detail.php?content=facade_hospitality_more, accessed 03.04.2011

Sung-joo, H. (2009), “Sports Diplomacy and the World Cup”, Korea Focus http://www.koreafocus.or.kr/design2/layout/content_print.asp?group_id=102687, accessed 03.04.2011

Walters, C. (2007), “Sports Diplomacy is the New Comeback Kid” University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School, http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/070803_sports_diplomacy_is_the_new_comeback_kid/, accessed 03.04.2011

India and Pakistan’s Cricket Diplomacy

Sports have long been viewed as a way to overcome differences and foster good relationships among countries (Naess-Holm, 2007:4). During the Cold War, the United States and China engaged in so-called “ping-pong diplomacy” via the exchange of ping-pong players as a means of overcoming animosities (Naess-Holm, 2007:30). Now, last week, the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, spontaneously invited his Pakistani counterpart, Yousuf Raza Gilani to India to watch this week’s cricket semi-final between India and Pakistan (Yardley, 2011).

It is not new that India and Pakistan have attempted to engage in “cricket diplomacy”. Both in 1987 and in 2005 the countries’ respective leaders met over a cricket match (Yardley, 2011). Such meetings are thought to be very important for building confidence among the two countries, who have fought three wars since 1947, are both nuclear powers, and continue to argue about a number of issues, especially the region of Kashmir (Croft, 2005:1041). Diplomatic efforts to negotiate about these issues have continuously come to a halt because of strong disagreements oras a result of terrorist attacks, most recently the 2008 Mumbai attacks, after which relations were frozen (The Times of India, 2011).

This year India and Pakistan decided to re-establish relations and continue the dialogue about peace and security in the region. Early this week, the countries’ home secretaries met to discuss various problems (Shah Singh, 2011). On top of this, the last-minute invitation issued by Mr. Singh, was seen as a gesture of good will towards Pakistan. The prime ministers watched the game together and held talks afterwards (Barman, 2011).

There is some criticism to this: some argue that Mr. Singh simply wanted to distract from the corruption charges against his government, while others point out that Mr. Gilani is really not very powerful in Pakistan and cannot make any important deals. Further, past cricket diplomacy efforts might have been hailed a success at the time of the meeting, but relations deteriorated soon afterwards (Yardley, 2011).

Nonetheless, cricket is a sport loved dearly by both Indians and Pakistanis and it provides an ideal platform to re-build relations on the basis of a common interest. Meeting for a few hours over cricket will certainly not solve the dispute over Kashmir or the question of arresting those responsible for the 2008 attacks, but it can help the leaders build trust by non-political means. This trust, as well as the ability to communicate (be it over political issues or cricket) will be the most important factor for India and Pakistan to come to any agreement in the future.

Watch this debate on the invitation issued by Mr. Singh – it includes some interesting arguments by both sides, but at the same time demonstrates how easy tensions between the two countries rise (as the experts end up fighting over politics).

References

- Barman, Abheek (2011) “Cricket Diplomacy: India, Pakistan make significant gains at Mohali“, The Economic Times, 31^st March, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/cricket-diplomacy-india-pakistan-make-significant-gains-at-mohali/articleshow/7831148.cms, accessed: 31.3.2011, 11:05

- Croft, Stuart (2005) “South Asia’s Arms Control Process: Cricket Diplomacy and the Composite Dialogue“, International Affairs, Vol.81, No.5, pp.1039-1060

- Naess-Holm, Arne (2007) “Batting for Peace: A Study of Cricket Diplomacy Between India and Pakistan”, Master’s Thesis for Peace and Conflict Studies, Oslo University, http://www.duo.uio.no/publ/statsvitenskap/2007/60148/Battingforpeace.pdf, accessed: 31.3.2011, 11:20

- Shah Singh, Harmeet (2011) “India, Pakistan in Talks Ahead of Cricket-Diplomacy Summit”, CNN, 28^th March, http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/28/india.cricket.diplomacy/index.html?eref=edition, accessed: 31.3.2011, 11:04

- The Times of India (2011) “’Cricket Diplomacy’ as India Beat Pakistan”, 31^st March, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-31/news/29365785_1_cricket-diplomacy-yousuf-raza-gilani-pakistani-leader, accessed: 31.3.2011, 23:28

- Yardley, Jim (2011) “Cricket Offers Chance for India-Pakistan Diplomacy”, The New York Times, 29^th March, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/asia/30india.html?_r=1, accessed: 31.3.2011, 11:04

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