Making American Story Win!

Joseph S. Nye Jr. in his article entitled Public Diplomacy and Soft Power says that the soft power of a country rests on three resources: its culture, its political values, and its foreign policy (p. 96). The article discusses the public diplomacy of the United States, especially after the 9/11, which changed the world for ever.

9/11 was a wake-up call for the U.S. which had abandoned public diplomacy soon after the end of the Cold War. But its initial reaction was counter to public diplomacy when President George Bush used the word Crusade for war on terror which carries a religious connotation. Similarly, he set the U.S. on the path of unilateralism by raising the slogan of 'either with us or against us', using phrases like 'axis of evil' for Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

President Ronald Reagan had called the Soviet Union an 'evil empire'. This shows the Cowboy nature of the U.S. diplomacy which can be traced back to its Calvinistic history. President Bush in one of his national addresses had used the word 'evil' for no less than 14 times. Guantanamo and Abu Ghuraib damaged the high moral standard of the U.S.

These initial missteps of the U.S. tarnished its image as custodian of democratic values and human rights and supporter of democratic forces across the world. In Third World Countries, where dictators had always been supported by the U.S. for its strategic interests, democratic forces found themselves orphaned in the absence of moral and political courage from the world's largest democratic power.

However, all these foul-ups swung the U.S. into action and it set on a damage control trail to win 'hearts and minds' of the Muslim world. In the past few years the U.S.'s ratings have soared in the Muslim world, especially in the wake of the 2005 tsunami, when America contributed generously to the rehabilitation and reconstruction in the affected countries.

Recently, when devastating floods hit Pakistan, the U.S. was the largest contributer while its armed forces open-heartedly helped in rescue and relief goods' delivery efforts. By opening a special office in the State Department for winning over the people of the Muslim world is also paying in dividends. But, still, the U.S. has to do a lot to live up to its image of being a friend of democracy everywhere. It has to shut Guantanamo, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan after shoring up democracies in those countries.

Simply toppling dictators like Saddam Hussein and ruthless rulers like the Taliban is not enough. Replacing them with a democratic set-up, restoring their autonomy and helping them to stand on their own feet is the best public diplomacy which can restore the image of the U.S. and make the world more safer. The U.S. needs to make sure that its story wins, not that of the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban who thrive on American excesses in Muslim countries.

Flaws in the pragmatic complexity model

I consider that the article “A 21st Century Model for Communication in the Global War of Ideas” (Corman, Trethewey, Goodall) is successful showing that the message influenced model is simplistic. However, in spite of the fact that the pragmatic complexity model is better, it is not good enough to explain the complexities in the effort of an effective communication.

Taking into account the characteristics of this blog and the fact that its goal is to discuss about the paper we read for our classes, I just would like call the attention to the fact that the pragmatic complexity model minimize the importance of the message and the way is elaborated and sent, as well as the sender, in favor of the reality that the listener and/or decoder is very important and “create meanings from messages based on factors like autobiography, history, local context, culture, language/symbol systems, power relations, and immediate personal needs.”

Probably one of the reasons of such a mistake is the wrong assumption that “As several decades of communication research has shown, the message received is the one that really counts.” (page 7). Certainly we will be in disagreement with such statement if we think in people like Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Luther and their messages. They obtained changes in basis of their ideas and believes and their capacities to transmit them. In other words, in order to be 'well received' the message must be 'well elaborated', meaning -among others- using the 'right' words; establishing the necessary rapport; addressing the 'right' issues; been the 'right' person to address them; directed to 'right' segment of public opinion; using the 'right' language according with receiver (metaphors, rhetoric, etc.); using the right channel of communication; having good enough doses of visual, kinesthetic or auditory language; taking into account the values and believes of the receiver, as well as the uses, custums and traditions; the timing, etc.
Agustin Fornell

The Al-Qaeda Media Nexus

It is an interesting study of the virtual network behind the global message of Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization that uses the modern media with a medieval mindset. Mr. Daniel Kimmage finds out in this study that the "original" Al-Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden accounts for a mere fraction of jihadist media production.

In the wake of NATO attack on Afghanistan followed by the U.S. assault on Iraq Al-Qaeda has seized to exist as a centralized organization; it has metamorphosed into real hydra-headed monster. Many small organizations with presence in remote corners of countries like Pakistan have hitched themselves to the Al-Qaeda bandwagon.

Many of them work under the cover of charity organizations. These so-called charity and welfare organizations have their own newspapers, magazines and other publications that openly espouse jihadist agenda. Pakistan has one of the largest chain of publications which promote a warped world view.

These publications try to demonize the Western world and glorify jihad (sacred war) against non-Muslims everywhere. Some of these newspapers have entered the ranks of mainstream Pakistani press with large circulation. These publications proliferated especially after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in the United States as an “alternative” to the mainstream Pakistani media.

Every school of thought as well as every jihadist group in Pakistan has its own newspaper or magazine to promote its respective ideology and to present its own world view on different issues—both national and international. The distinctive feature of these newspapers and magazines are their very names, which are themselves militant or religious in connotation, like Zarb-i-Momin [the blow of the Muslim], Ghazwa [holy war], Shamsheer [sword] and Islam etc.

These publications do not publish human pictures, which are considered un-Islamic. They do carry pictures but of inanimate things like buildings, roads and tanks etc. The editorial contents of these newspapers are mostly religious in nature or concerning Muslim hotspots the world over like Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Kashmir and Chechnya etc.

The jihadist newspapers often engage in advocacy journalism, which takes a position on the issues of the day by editorializing them and promote specific religious or sectarian views. Such newspapers reinforce the prejudice or bias of the readers. This levels ground for Al-Qaeda to have a voice of its own in different garbs.

If the scope of Kimmage's study is extended to print media too, the Al-Qaeda media nexus may come out to be a mesh-mash of a wide network that spans both the landscape of media and geography.

“Media coverage carries clear and significant political effects.” The fishing boat incident happen China and Japan is a very good example. The news broadcast of this incident created very big political effects. It made the relationship between China and Japan became worse than before. Lots of demonstration could be seen in China. Chinese living in Japan were warned by organizations to be careful about what they say. The old issue about this island about where it belongs to, was brought back again by this incident. All of these could only happen if we have the communication technology and made the media today.

Al Qaeda Inc.

While the United States government would like us to believe that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are dangerous, but still on the fringe, the truth is a bit more alarming. Al Qaeda, and other affiliated terrorist groups are adopting modern professional information networking techniques in order to not only legitimize themselves, but to extend their recruiting capabilities. Daniel Kimmage highlights these methods in his article "the Virtual Network Behind the Global Message.

One of the key reasons that these terrorist groups are having so much success with their network approach is that they are not using centralized, formal methods for information dissemination. For example, each organization can create forums on the internet for discussion of techniques, coordination, and recruitment tactics. This makes them very hard to track, and even harder to catch. I should point out that the same techniques that some Chinese citizens use in order to avoid censorship and internet filters could just as easily be used by jihadist internet users attempting to avoid identification by governments searching for clues.

According to Kimmage, though, the primary method of publicity for these groups is actually print media. This encompasses journals and periodicals, as well as fliers and pamphlets. What terrorist groups are taking away from journalistic work, however, is the methodology of attribution and confirmation, which allows for greater credibility when one group claims to have performed a particular attack, or when there are reported injustices by enemies. It is interesting that there is so little discussion of this new kind of networking in either the US government or US Media. I imagine that neither wishes to give publicity or credence to the threat, nor do they want to talk about something that they could not provide definitive or concrete information about; despite studies like Kimmage's, there is little understood about how and where these electronic and print materials are being organized and created. We may never really know, or be able to stop such efforts, either.

Because of the nature of terrorist organizations - that they are not necessarily based in state or centralized power structures - it is unlikely that every single member of Al Qaeda or any other group like it can be found and captured. The decentralization inherent in these groups makes them particularly suited to evading detection and capture, as much in cyberspace and print media as on the battlefield.

Al-Jazeera Provides a Bridge to Cross

Al-Jazeera has become a force to contend with on international matters. Loved and hated, there's no denying its influence. The fact that Al-Jazeera is regarded positively in the Arab world and widely considered trustworthy speaks to its success. The article by Powers and Gilboa attributes Al-Jazeera's "New Public Diplomacy" for its rise to the ranks of international contenders in the world of broadcast journalism.

Powers and Gilboa describe new public diplomacy as, "a set of communicative activities that are utilized by states and nonstate actors in the international sphere in order to effectively communicate with and persuade any number of foreign audiences." With transnational media organizations like Al-Jazeera, the two elements of effective communication are two-way communications and actor-branding.

The managing director of Al-Jazeera English, Nigel Parsons, has said that Al-Jazeera is "a conduit to greater understanding between different people and different cultures." Al-Jazeera succeeded in branding itself as a "public diplomat in the international sphere," and as a representative of the voice of the Arab world. This gives credibility to Al-Jazeera among Arabs, because they know that their voice is being heard.

The motto of Al-Jazeera, "the opinion and the other opinion," conveys a democratic approach to broadcasting. This in turn provides credibility for an international audience, in that Al-Jazeera represents a large proportion of the opinions of Arabs. However, in the United States, Al-Jazeera is often criticized, despite its democratic approaches to reporting.

Al-Jazeera has been criticized in the United States for showing footage thought to be "inciting violence" and "endagering the lives of American troops" in Iraq. This is because footage not allowed to air or that is deemed appropriate in the US is often not as controversial in the Middle East. While as an American I understand the politics and reasons for not showing explicit violence of the war in the United States, I can understand from a cultural point of view that it would be normal in the Middle East. I would think that since people in the Arab world are exposed to much more violence everyday than the average American, ignoring footage of violence would seem like trying to cover it up. People see it happening everyday. This is a dilema that Al-Jazeera constantly faces, how to walk the thin line between representing the Arab world and pleasing the international world.

As every news station must hold some degree of bias, be it for geographical or political reasons, I think its unreasonable for the United States to expect Al-Jazeera to be completely neutral. After all, they are an Arab news station. I think that using Al-Jazeera has a way to understand and communicate with the world would be extremely beneficial to the United States, as Al-Jazeera is providing, "a bridge to the Arab world." I think it would be impractical in terms of Public Diplomacy not to cross it.

Public diplomacy 2.0 as a soft power resource

Soft power is no easy feat to accomplish. Rather, to me, it seems like a balancing act, making sure you are generating a positive image without being coercive. Joseph Nye explains soft power as "getting other to want the outcomes that you want," which is obviously helpful in that "if I can get you to want to do what I want, then I do not have to force you to do what you do not want." Nye continues to say that soft power is more than persuasion, but is the ability to entice and attract.

James Glassman, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, said Public Diplomacy 2.0, consisting of social media, is an approach, not a technology. He believes this approach can combat terrorism and Al-Qaeda by "creating an environment hostile to extremism and encouraging young people to follow productive paths that lead away from terrorism." He hopes that the interactivity of social media will provide a conversation that will engage, inform, and influence foreign publics.

I think public diplomacy 2.0 will give an outlet to foreign audiences to voice perceptions and values that they share with the American public, but maybe didn't realize. One example of this is a contest the State Department formed with other partners like NBC Universal consisting of video entries with the title "Democracy Is...". Entries were 3 minutes long and a visual representation of what people believe democracy is. Entries can contain many different cultural perceptions and values while all pertaining to the idea democracy. This collection of entries can show others how one idea of "democracy" is shared by many, but perhaps through different means of achieving it.

The State Department also has a Digital Outreach Team who engages conversations with foreign audiences in Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu about U.S. policies. I think it is important for the U.S. government to take this proactive approach in telling foreign publics that we care about what they are thinking, and that we want to understand them better. Conversation can lead to the identification of common value and perceptions, which is the root of achieving soft power.