25. Analyze the changes in the public diplomacy policy of us after 9/11. 3

After 9/11, the United States has invested vast effort at external PD. In 2001–03 almost a score of administration, congressional, ought to do. New organizational structures were created and billions of dollars were spent. A PD coordinator was placed in the White House, and new TV and radio channels vied for the attention of target audiences abroad. Arab and Islamic states were the prime target, with initiatives such as the “Sawa” and the “Hurra” TV networks. But the results have not matched expectations, in terms of winning over audiences to the US viewpoint. Clearly, PD is neither a quick fix nor a substitute for policy change.

Some concepts are sophisticated. One US diplomat explained that when they encounter critics in the Arab world, they try to show them how their ideas match those of Americans who have similar dissenting views about US policy: “This gets them to hate the policy and not the country.”

US PD has failed on one important count. Communication is a two-way process. If the United States wants to gain sympathy, it must also listen to its critics and consider policy changes of its own. Without this, the entire effort becomes one-sided propaganda. This was especially true of the George W. Bush administration (2000–08). High technology and large resources even became counterproductive. Under the Obama administration PD has been revamped; Web 2.0 is used extensively, and this hinges on interactive communication.

In its own way the Al Jazeera network run out of Qatar has something to teach. Al Jazeera, started in 1997, operating initially out of a small broadcasting base that President Mubarak of Egypt described as a “matchbox,” has taken the Arab world by storm; it became a must-see network, offering something hitherto unknown in the Arab world, dominated by TV monopolies, that is, unbiased news, equally critical of all. Between 2001 and 2004, the US administration unsuccessfully applied pressure on Qatar to try to persuade it to tone down Al Jazeera’s criticism. The irony in seeking such censorship is obvious; it helped the network to gain greater prominence.

26. Explain the meaning of 'funeral diplomacy'. 1

State funerals are a unique protocol event, where a foreign ministry must handle, at almost no notice and often in a high pressure situation, anywhere from a dozen to several score of incoming heads of state and government, besides countless ministers, who almost invariably fly in on their special aircraft, for short visits of a few hours, or a day or two. Of course, visiting dignitaries and their protocol staffs make allowance for the special circumstances, but basic standards of protocol and meticulous arrangements have to be maintained.

Leaders often use such visits for their own bilateral discussion with other visiting heads, again on an informal and flexible basis, in what is called “funeral diplomacy.”

27. Give a list of methods many countries used in the past decade to change the way foreign public see them? Give examples. 2

• The Canadian method has involved domestic communication, with innovative outreach at local levels, and an effort to carve a distinct identity—both of which have attracted wide attention as models for middle-states. This is an innovative and a decentralized model, which others have tried to emulate.

• The British take a pragmatic approach. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) chairs a periodic meeting with all the relevant agencies, including the autonomous ones like the BBC, the British Council, Visit Britain (the Tourism Agency), besides the relevant government departments. Voluntarily, they work together for a unified, coherent message. The French use a similar mechanism. This is a public-private partnership model. Many Western MFAs now interchange staff with major NGOs, in modest numbers.

• The Chinese have used PD as an outlet for public grievances, via internet websites and vigorous communication with those interested in foreign affairs issues; in 2004 the Foreign Ministry created a PD Department. Publics have been used for calibrated pressure on issues (e.g. Japan’s war guilt). Externally, China has long practiced astute PD—witness its management of China scholars, controlling their access to source material, in effect encouraging them to apply self censorship.

• In India, at the end of 2003, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) coalition government launched its “Shining India” campaign, seeking domestic political mileage from its undoubted success in restoring the country’s economic growth momentum during its five-year rule, on the eve of the May 2004 elections.

The effort backfired; given a half-full–half-empty situation in India’s socioeconomy, the opposition made capital of the “un-shining” elements, including poverty and hunger, and this surely played a role in the BJP’s defeat.

• An increasing number of countries in Africa, the Caribbean, East Europe, and elsewhere are starting to work with think tanks, academia, and civil society on external issues, to improve their external footprint, and to win home support. They are on the PD learning curve. What they need to do more actively is to nurture institutions and build domestic nonofficial communities, which can take part in international exchanges.