That About Sums It Up

by Caitlin Morrison

For my final essay, I wrote about the cultural diplomacy of the Goethe-Institut.  I wanted to post my concluding analysis here in case anyone was interested.

The Goethe-Institut is one of the world leaders in cultural diplomacy programming.  After World War II, cultural diplomacy practitioners in Germany did not need to look far to find new and inspiring theories on cultural engagement from their own Lord Dahrendorf, or to have the importance of culture in international affairs be named as one of the three pillars to foreign policy by Willy Brandt.

German cultural diplomacy also finds credibility in the way it is situated administratively.  As Cull explained, the target audience best accepts cultural diplomacy work when it is seen as distant from the government of the country it is associated with.  German public diplomacy, and specifically cultural diplomacy as a subset of public diplomacy, is perfectly situation to be accepted by foreign audiences given the distance it has with the federal government.  The Basic Agreement between the Goethe-Institut and the Federal Foreign Office secures this distance and grants the institute the autonomy it needs to be credible on the global stage.

In terms of its methodology, the Goethe-Institut certainly accepts the instructions of Lord Dahrendorf and most of today’s scholars as well in promoting engagement over exportation, all while continuing to adhere to their three-pronged mission.  Language instruction, what the institute is primarily known for, is part of engagement as well, in that the courses offered provide not only formal language instruction but also a shared space for ideas and conversations.  In an interview with the author, American student S. Spencer explains:

Whereas I have put a lot of effort into individually learning Danish, Denmark […] has no ‘language’ or cultural arm into the world beyond its standard embassies. If I want to take really comprehensive classes or take an official exam, I need to do it in Copenhagen, which is a time drain, expensive, and a paperwork hassle. Having the Goethe-Institut up and running really shows that Germany/Germans are putting an investment into getting people learning about their culture and culture and learning their language. On a practical level, it attracts Germans visiting or living in DC and also makes it easier to meet them. [Just] putting the time and money to get speakers, films, etc. over here builds a sort of good will I think, because they’re doing a lot of the work for me [and] meeting me halfway.[1]

Beyond typical classroom activities, German examinations are administered worldwide that can be used as professional certifications and there are extensive support programs for teachers of German.

Along similar lines as engagement, collaboration is also key to successful cultural diplomacy, and is something the Goethe-Institut has an impeccable record of doing successfully.  Large multi-partner program examples such as the ‘Schools: Partners for the Future’ program, and smaller endeavors such as the ‘Neighborhood X.0’ exhibit showcasing work from a Bulgarian-Greek-Turkish project, show the range of collaborative powers that the Goethe-Institut has.[2]

These collaborations are necessary for the sustained future of the Goethe-Institut.  Unfortunately, with constant global economic issues, government funding to public diplomacy projects is often one of the first things to be reduced.  The Goethe-Institut often sees budget cuts and must close offices.  With continued use of strategic partnerships, the institute will not only be able to continue forward with steady momentum, but will continue to expand its horizons and audiences.

Another area of focus that the Goethe-Institut has adopted and is critical to public diplomacy today is engagement of youth worldwide.  Although educational aspects are divided amongst different organizations in Germany, the Goethe-Institut is an important partner in enacting international education programming.  Again, the ‘Schools: Partners for the Future’ is one lofty illustration related to education, but there are countless small programs on the ground connecting youth globally in a myriad of ways.  The Goethe-Institut, for example, hosts a portal for German and Russian youth interested in journalism to discuss timely topics.  The most recent topic at hand is the 2012 apocalypse predictions.  In this virtual the students discuss their thoughts on these predictions and make their own.[3]  There are similar youth engagement platforms for students in a number of other countries as well, from China to the Czech Republic.

Based on the information outlined in this essay, the Goethe-Institut is undoubtedly a forerunner of cultural diplomacy, among the ranks of the world-renowned British Council.  Every center is a hub of language learning, cultural expression, collaboration, and bonding.  Their situation in Germany along with their extensive system of partnerships makes the institute extremely capable of credibly conducting cultural diplomacy globally.  Despite the possibility of continued budget cuts or freezes, there is very little doubt that the network of Goethe-Institut enthusiasts will ever let them fail.

---

[1] S. Spencer, Interviewed by Caitlin Morrison, Personal interview, Washington DC, December 10, 2012.

[2] “Immersion,” Goethe-Institut, http://www.goethe.de/uun/bdu/sze/en10023857.htm (accessed December 10, 2012).

[3] “To4ka-Treff: Austausch Und Junger Journalismus Auf Deutsch Und Russisch,” Goethe-Institut, http://www.goethe.de/ins/ru/lp/prj/drj/top/wel/deindex.htm (accessed December 10, 2012)

Public Diplomacy as a National Security Necessity

by Marc Hedman

National security is the single biggest selling point to Americans. We’ve been sold all kinds of nonsense in the name of national security. In the case of public diplomacy, however, it is not too much of a leap of faith to say that it is needed to shore up national security. In the case of counter-terrorism especially, public diplomacy can be a potent deterrent to prospective extremists or those with an axe to grind.

The common argument that hard power (violence used as control) can and does create more possible terrorists than it deters has become a kind of common wisdom. This is a big part of President Obama’s strategy of low-impact precision strikes using drones. Although many of the same rules are being broken, fewer people are affected than with large ground troop numbers. But there is a very strong argument that public diplomacy activities are more helpful still.

It’s clear from Richard LeBaron’s speech (http://mountainrunner.us/2012/06/public-diplomacy-instrument-counterterrorism/#.UL997mcgkfd) that the current administration is aware of the importance of being present in conversation spaces. This includes popular and niche conversation spaces. In the context of counter-terrorism, the most important niche space exists in extremist forums where the United States has the ability to counter prevailing narratives that paint the U.S. as an evil empire.

In addition to simply being present and providing a voice for the U.S. government and people, it is important that public diplomacy practitioners working in these spaces provide an accounting of U.S. interests and seem to be honest and thus credible.  However, the goal is not necessarily to make friends, but to disarm enemies. This means that giving potential terrorists options and presenting them with an alternative to extremism is also necessary. This can come in many forms, such as information, training and resources for disengaging with extremists. In this way, the United States not only acts as a deterrent for extremism, but can actively help those disenfranchised individuals escape from the circumstances that led them to consider extremism in the first place.

In these ways it is imperative that public diplomacy practitioners at State provide evidence for the counter-terrorist utility of PD and show that is not only more effective than the use of violence, but more cost-effective as well.

Reciprocally Rewarding

by Odna Brinsly

This week’s readings on cultural diplomacy were particularly interesting as it brought to fore the various means by which cultural diplomacy could be expressed. I was particularly fascinated by the varying definitions of culture, cultural diplomacy and its connotations. Robert Albro dwelt quite a bit on this area.  I was drawn to some words in his writings, “dialogic engagement.” I thought, perhaps I should investigate the definition of cultural diplomacy. In so doing, I came across the definition of this term by  Dr. Milton  Cummings . This time I was drawn to the word “exchange.”

Dialogic engagement with exchange!  To give and receive reciprocally, ideas!  I couldn’t help but consider some of the examples given by Cynthia Schneider on this topic cultural diplomacy, and dialogic engagement with exchange. What jumped to my mind in particular, was the visit of the Alvin Ailey Dance Theater to Tanzania. I know there have been other more recent events of music cultural ambassadors visiting foreign nations but this event was particularly instructive.

It was interesting to read the impact that the visit had on both the American dancers and Tanzanians. Perhaps the observed mutual impact can serve as a kind of measure for the cultural diplomacy event? Anyway, the artists seemed to absorb aspects of each others culture and reflect it in their art. For the Americans, some of their compositions had a Tanzanian flavor and likewise for the Tanzanians, their compositions/routines assumed some American flavor. This communication through culture for both groups resulted in an exchange of ideas that had a positive impact on their lives as evidenced in their representative art works.

Such memorable events add so much to the beauty of culture exchange, making it a mutually enriching and rewarding experience.

Make Em Laugh

by Caitlin Morrison

Humor is a seemingly obvious means to bring people together.  However, humor does not always translate well, as it is extremely culturally and contextually based.  I think this may be why comedy tours aren’t as high up on the list of DOS sponsored cultural diplomacy tools (although there was the Make Chai Not War tour sent to India).

Regardless, I was recently drawn to a NY Times Opinion piece by comedian Aman Ali.  He tells stories of how nervous he was to bring his act to a number of European countries that he knew very little about.  What Ali did know was that there have been many recent reports of anti-Muslim sentiments across Europe, and in particular in Germany, where he was set to perform. “I was nervous. I’m a practicing Muslim, and I didn’t know how a German audience would react to an awkward, hairy brown kid,” Ali writes.

The most striking thing about his recount of the evening in Berlin was not that the performance went over well as a whole, but a specific one-on-one interaction he had after the show with a man who came to say that he really enjoyed the performance.  What follows is citizen diplomacy at its finest.  The man, David, hesitantly admits to Ali that he has never met a Muslim before, and has been afraid of Muslims living in his country due to the negative images that are perpetuated through the media (particularly in Germany).  But through hearing Ali’s stories, he found common ground.  Ali’s tales of his father reminded David of many of his childhood experiences.  “I realized I forgot that we are all human beings. Now I feel ashamed to have ever been afraid,” David said to Ali.

This quote gets at the very core of PD’s mission. A single Muslim man talking about his life experiences changed another man’s perceptions of the entire Muslim population.  So while humor may be hard to translate, storytelling at the very least has a profound impact.

Here is a short shtick by Aman Ali for your enjoyment:

Along the Road

by Odna Brinsly

A sentence or phrase that occurs frequently in conversation, “the world has become a global village”, reflects on how extensive the way we communicate and carry on various activities have changed.  With globalization and the revolution of communication technologies, individuals have become more empowered. They seek platforms that promote engagement, symmetrical communication; they want to have a conversation. This presents both opportunities and challenges for the public diplomat.

For the public diplomat, it offers the advantages of using technological advances in building relationships and spreading influence. Through networking with target audiences and opinion leaders, they can exchange knowledge and share ideas that result in mutual benefit. This may be through working to solve mutual challenges such as climate change. An issue like climate change cannot be easily addressed by home governments alone. But by collaborating with foreign governments through its citizens, a greater effect may be achieved. Taking the time to build relationships with foreign audiences also gives messaging more credibility. The public diplomat can leverage on people engagement through common interest to search for solutions to common challenges.

A challenge faced by the public diplomat is the ability to effectively use technological advancement in public diplomacy activities, most especially fast-paced social media technologies. Audiences want a conversation and also demand instantaneous responses to their comments, views or questions. The public diplomat needs to strike a balance on what kind of response should be given to certain messaging and the timeliness of the response. The response made and its timing could make a huge impact that could be positive or negative.

The Low Down

By Amy Wozniak 

I have had many conversations with fellow students about public diplomacy over the past year and a few things have become clear. Although there seems to be growing interest into the discipline from academics and government officials, we seem to be stuck in a constant state of trying to define what one mean’s when they say “Public Diplomacy.” For instance, even though the United States has been practicing public diplomacy since the Cold War (some argue before), last week I was at an event where each practitioner defined “Public Diplomacy” in their own words. PJ Crowley stated that Public Diplomacy should “bridge the gap between words and deeds,” while Paul Foldi stated that the goal of Public Diplomacy is, “to get the benefit of the doubt.” Finally, James Glassman  bluntly stated that public diplomacy is “influencing foreign publics to achieve national interests” and that explaining or arguing is not effective public diplomacy. 

 

Without a clear, agreed upon, SIMPLE definition the public diplomacy discipline will be stuck in a constant state of trying to explain itself to others who don’t understand it or “Get It.” It seems ironic that James Glassman stated explaining or arguing is not very good PD, yet a lot of what we do is explain what public diplomacy is and argue for its existence. This is a huge challenge for the field, and one where I don’t see much movement in the future. 

 

However, there are huge opportunities for public diplomacy (which I will define as any activity used to inform, engage or influence foreign publics for the purposes of promoting national interests.) Technology today has broadened the reach of information to the outskirts of society. Governments no longer have to go through other governments in order to reach foreign populations. The internet has created a truly public forum where citizens of any nation can search for information (sometimes secretly). It has created more touch points for PD practitioners, and expanded the number of individuals that can DO public diplomacy. 

 

This leads to another challenge though, and that is the paradox of plenty. How do you get someone’s attention in a crowded marketplace? How do you counter all the false information there is about you? Although public diplomacy certainly implies government interaction, one opportunity is the expansion of citizen and developmental diplomacy. When an American goes abroad, for travel or to volunteer, the relationships he or she creates are no longer fleeting, they can actually be sustained through social media and VOIP technologies. The creation of these networks expands the flow of credible information across national boundaries. In the future, I think, we will see the expansion of public diplomacy from a strictly governmental activity to one in which citizens actively take part and contribute to. 

Nation Branding and Public Diplomacy: Related, not Twins

by Marc Hedman

Gyorgy Szondi gives a rather concise definition of nation branding when he writes, “It can be defined as the strategic self-presentation of a country with the aim of creating reputational capital through economic, political and social interest promotion at home and abroad.” (Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding: Conceptual Similarities and Differences, Szondi) Nation branding instinctive feels at least tangentially connected with public diplomacy, but there seems to be several major distinguishing differences between the two.

Before diving into the differences however, let me go over some of the similarities that stand out to me. First, both are clearly rooted in reality but emphasize positively perceived aspects of a home country. Nation branding and public diplomacy with choose attractive aspects of the home country and present them to foreign publics for benefits they hope will redound to the home country’s favor in some way.  Second, both hope to capitalize on the human emotional connection with symbols. Nation branding attempts to tie certain symbols to the conception of the home country, while public diplomacy tries to use symbols to develop connections with foreign publics.

The power locus in both nation branding and public diplomacy seems to live in the minds of the audience. Reputation, credibility and soft power are all perceptions of a given state, culture or population. A nation branding campaign or public diplomacy officer can display whatever home country strengths that they wish. However, if the audience doesn’t recognize them as true, they won’t be very effective. Finally, the main drivers of both are attraction, reputation and attention. A state will use leverage its reputation to attract an audience or use the attention of an audience to make its reputation more attractive. The two concepts are clearly somewhat intertwined but the practice of each is quite different.

For one, nation branding primarily utilizes one-way communication. A state decides which of its characteristics or stereotypes it wishes to capitalize on and then this functions as the brand. The brand is communicated and marketed to publics around the world. Public diplomacy hopes to take advantage of more two-way communication. A necessary corollary of this is that public diplomacy has a very important receptive listening function while nation branding does not.

Another major difference is that nation branding seeks to define a nation with positive characteristics which are relatively static. This message gets spread across all the countries it is trying to garner favor with through a given campaign. Public diplomacy functions through more narrow conduits of communication. Public diplomacy officers have the ability to diversify their presentations and responses to different foreign constituencies. A PD officer in Egypt can emphasize family values, while a PD officer in the Sweden can emphasize pluralistic attitudes toward immigrants. While public diplomacy officers have a template of values that serve as a broad strategic guide, face-to-face communication and digital engagement allow them to focus on the aspects of that template that they feel are going to be most attractive to their audience. Nation brands are less flexible and tend to come as an entire package of marketed values or country characteristics. This ties in with another difference, which are the desired audiences of nation branding and public diplomacy. Nation branding is meant for everyone to see, while public diplomacy hopes to affect smaller, strategically chosen groups or sections of the population.

Finally, nation branding is essentially a marketing strategy that is looking to garner an economic advantage. Nation branding seems to be born out of advertising and hopes to attract people to buy home country products, attract tourism and investment and influence individuals to study and immigrate to the home country. Public diplomacy is more focused on building networks, opening lines of communications and is very much an alternative form of diplomacy. The intention is to connect public diplomacy with foreign policy goals even if public diplomacy can also add other value, such as economic value or function as aid to a foreign population.

There are certainly some big similarities between nation branding and public diplomacy, but the differences outweigh the similarities. Both were born from different disciplines and hope to accomplish different objectives. Sometimes these objectives overlap, but the practice of each relies on different methods of communication and deployment.

JumpForJoyLand

by Caitlin Morrison

It was perfect timing that after last night’s discussions on nation branding, I heard a discussion about a tourism campaign for renaming Iceland on the radio this morning.  Because it was a DC101 morning show, they were not having a serious public diplomacy conversation of course, but the fact that Iceland is taking this seriously enough that it is being discussed on rock radio is definitely noteworthy.  The radio hosts suggested “Niceland” or switching names with Greenland as their names are opposite descriptions of the landscapes.

Upon further investigation it appears that tourists are not actually going to be renaming the island, but rather participating in a special day to celebrate what the world loves the most about Iceland.  Inspired by Iceland’s campaign is merely attempting to have more connection with tourists, by encouraging them to share their experiences.

The naming booth is located in the airport, and a collection of suggestions is available on Inspired by Iceland’s webpage.   According to the Huffington Post, Iceland, and in particular the Inspired by Iceland team, has a long history of creative advertising.  There were recently a series of videos with very personal invitations to Iceland, including one from the President himself who will apparently feed you pancakes!

So the question is, what is Iceland trying to do with its “brand”?  I think it’s fairly clear that these are tourism objectives more than public diplomacy objectives, but it is still worth exploring the branding thought processes here.  Re-branding agendas are obviously easier for small countries, especially ones without anything to hide in their history, so Iceland certainly is the place to try it. But if Iceland is not actually going to change its name to “Landofendlessskyland”, as one German tourist nominated, there is still a strategy behind this exercise.  Maybe it’s that Iceland can be whatever you want to make of it, and that they are not going to define their brand themselves. For what it’s worth, the campaign did make me really want to visit Iceland (or whatever it will be called by the time I ever get there)…

Nation Branding: So Hot Right Now

By Amy Wozniak 

Place branding, or nation branding, seems like all the rage right now. The Nation Brand Index is gaining followers, and countries like Switzerland, the UK and China are paying consultants to revive their “brand” or making it a government priority to promote their brand. However, nation branding does have it’s limitations. 

 

As multiple authors described this week, nation branding means appealing to the masses. While this concept might work for marketing tactics, I do not believe that countries or publics are as homogeneous as these definitions imply. The world is becoming more and more localized and tactics to target specific audiences, and not “masses” need to be applied in public diplomacy. We have more countries today than we did after World War II and we have more television and media channels showing localized content than global content. 

 

I also take issue with Friere’s article this week positing that we live in a classless world where people are basically zombie’s recognized by the brands they wear. While I do agree that brands carry a certain status to them and people do wear things to project that status, the author’s implication that people do not know they are being marketed to is rather offensive. 

 

First off, Friere argues that we live in a post-modern world with a large middle class that has moved beyond social classes in society. This is an entirely western-based argument. Most of the developing world still lives in a class-based society, even if they have been outlawed (think India). Also, although we might not have designated social classes in the western world, the gap between rich and poor has been growing over the past decade even further delimiting that yes, we do have a rich society and a poor society. Also, the middle class Friere touts as being, “so massive that it cannot be qualified as elite” is shrinking. 

 

Nation branding concepts may work well in areas where consumerism is prevalent, mainly developed countries. However, it’s clear these concepts might not work in developing nations where the family and the village are still the center of life, and there is no media to create a separate reality. As public diplomacy shifts it’s focus from western allies to areas like Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East and North Africa, nation branding tools might become less relevant. 

Branded Diplomacy

by Odna Brinsly

The readings this week provide different perspectives on nation branding and public diplomacy. What really is the difference between the two?  Pause and think about it for a moment. Both involve some sort of influence; a nation needs its people to think and feel in a particular way, they want to be viewed in a certain way or a country wants to influence some attitude to achieve some aim/policy objective. Sounds like there are quite a few similarities. There’s an audience, a message needs to be developed, sent across and evaluations made as to “was it successful?” or maybe no evaluations at all.

But on the other hand, when you get down to the specifics of nation branding and public diplomacy, well there may be a re-think.  In the first instance, consider the message. For nation branding it’s a total package and what I mean here is that it’s sent out to the general audience. It’s sent out to everybody, if it’s domestic or beyond the country’s borders, this is the image the country wants to project and wants to be known for. However for public diplomacy, the message is more targeted to specific audiences who have been identified for influence. These audiences have been described by some authors as elites and opinion leaders.

Also distinctions can be drawn from the channels of messaging. While nation branding can be described as one-to-many or a monologue-style of communication,  public diplomacy is more of a dialogue. It emphasizes feedback, outcomes, building relationships, evaluations of the process where possible. This is the more ideal kind of communication and is most certainly so as the world becomes more of a global village with digital technologies.

Another point of difference between the two could be the sponsor of the message and the credibility of the source. Nation branding is most often sponsored by country’s governments. However, public diplomacy has organizations, affiliated with the government, engaging with the target audience. This has been found to give the activities of the organization, most notably if they are NGO’s, a more credible image and better adoption of messaging bythe target audience.

Although several other differences and overlaps abound between public diplomacy and nation branding, what is pertinent is how both these concepts can be used to positively advance a nations ideas and policies to a greater audience to achieve set objectives. A case I found that made good use of these ideas was the Rebranding Switzerland 2000-2007. Even though Switzerland aimed at influencing select minds and audiences by its rebranding strategy, it certainly would not want negative perceptions of the country from the general foreign audience. A phenomenon whereby information is cascaded to audiences through the media and other players could be an anchor towards the success of their campaign.