Category: Public Diplomacy

War News Radio

~ Matt Armstrong

News brief for those interested in information communication technology and cultural diplomacy. A recent story on NPR’s Day to Day highlighted a college’s attempt to reachout and communicate directly with Iraqis.

War News Radio uses Skype and Yahoo messenging, and their respective directory systems, to contact English-speaking Iraqis. This type of grassroots outreach demonstrates more than journalism adapting to technology and barriers to interview (another story on NPR’s Morning Edition interviewed a reporter who no longer interviews the "person on the street" due to security problems). Technology may enable the so-called CNN Effect, but it also facilitates this type of peer to peer grassroots communication.

The online awareness and recruiting the led to the "Battle in Seattle", cultural diplomacy outreach could be advantaged by leveraging these technologies at the individual level. The Cold War United States Information Service facilities, vast (and less micromanaged) VOA broadcasts, and other cultural reachouts (thanks to the Honorable Helms) may be past relics, but these technology options may fill an important niche in the modern security-challenged era.

Technorati Tags: ICT, Public Diplomacy, Technology

Mother Jones Interview with Marc Lynch – Voices of the New Arab Public

~ Matt Armstrong

News brief: I had the opportunity to speak at length with Marc recently about the Middle East (and other topics). The recently unmasked blogger, Abu Aardvark, has some very interesting and intriguing thoughts and ideas on the Middle East. A recent Mother Jones interview is available, which is a good read. Also, check out Marc’s blog on the book and the press it has received.

Technorati Tags: Public Diplomacy, Middle East

Islamic Republic News Agency (Iranian official news) reaches out

~ Matt Armstrong

I have a GoogleAlert for “public diplomacy” and it gave me a link the following headline: UK Foreign Office urged to improve public diplomacy. What is interesting about this post is the source is the Islamic Republic News Agency (English version). The IRNA site is offered in nine languages: English, Russian, Chinese, Serbian, Spanish, Turkish, Arabic, and Farsi. The content changes based on the language, presumably to provide targeted information to the national audience of the selected language. The Iranians have the outreach down far better than most government communication services, Western or otherwise. Very impressive and deserving of a deeper discussion on their own efforts at media diplomacy through this site.

Technorati Tags: Public Diplomacy, Iran

CIA Torture Flights… UK Memo

~ Matt Armstrong

News brief from the Scotsman:

Memo points to more ‘rendition’ flights: A leaked memo from the Foreign Office to Downing Street last night revealed uncertainty in Whitehall over the number of so-called
"rendition" flights operated secretly by the US through British
airspace.

The Scotsman.com is a great resource for information. They exploit internet technology the way it should be. Here is a page of dynamic Scotsman.com content on the CIA flights and the RSS feed for same.

China’s Africa expansion

~ Matt Armstrong

News briefs from UPI and People’s Daily Online. First, the raw story, later an analysis.

First, from UPI: China’s Africa expansion
 

Over
the last decade China and the continent of Africa have gradually been
building diplomatic and economic ties in the hopes of further advancing
globalization and enjoying mutually beneficial cooperation. But now
with a mounting global oil crisis and reforms underway at the United
Nations, China has emerged as a growing ally to most of the 57 African
territories, stepping up efforts to expand its ties to the continent,
host of the world’s least-developed countries.

Continue reading “China’s Africa expansion
“ →

Public Diplomacy brought to you by the Department of Defense, not State

~ Matt Armstrong

News brief from Yemen:

US Troops help animals in Yemen. More than 780 animals were treated as part of a free veterinary project by American forces last week, the US military news agency reported. Local veterinarians joined with civil affairs team members from the US Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa to treat herds in the villages of Bani Mamoon, Thula and Hababa. Animals were given vitamins and anti-parasitic medication and were checked for any other problems. While the number of animals treated was lower than in past held by the task force, team members said they felt the mission was succesful, according to the American Forces Press Service. "We made a big difference for probably 700-plus families, each with their own work animal," said Army Major Jim Riche, a veterinarian and civic action team leader. "Each animal was extremely valuable to the owner, so we had a larger effect on the human population owning these animals than we originally expected." In addition to helping the villagers, team members shared and learnt techniques with the local vets they worked with. "They were a lot of fun, even if communication was a little difficult at times," said Riche. "There were a lot of tools we use that they weren’t familiar with, and techniques they use we’ve never seen before, so the experience improved the profession on both sides."

Is the US military really the best tool for public diplomacy? Initial PD makes sense, especially in war ravaged or dangerous regions. But there must be follow through folks.

Technorati Tags: Public Diplomacy, 4GW, Yemen, Horn of Africa

DOD as our public diplomat in Pakistan

~ Matt Armstrong

The headline Schoomaker champions Pakistan relief mission is just further emphasis of the empty promises of the Karen Hughes public diplomacy and the emphasis by the military on public outreach (see US Military rates PD higher the USG). True, the military is a branch of the USG (US Government), but the paltry sum the USG itself dedicated to cultural diplomacy compared to sustained efforts and funding by the military, instead of USAID or other services / functions / paths, is not to lauded. The fact the military is the outreach is great, but is the military liason w/ the civilian sector going to build the long-term relations we want? Is that the image of America we want the locals to have? Do we really want the children equating America w/ Chinooks? Is that worse or better than McDonald’s?

The Army’s role in providing aid to earthquake survivors in Pakistan “might be the most important bullets that we’re firing in this global war on terror,” said Chief of Staff. Gen. Peter Schoomaker Jan. 12.

The Army’s senior officer visited Pakistan as part of a tour through the Central Command area of responsibility over the holidays, and was struck by the positive impression U.S. soldiers were leaving on the local population.

…

“The most popular toy in Pakistan today is the little plastic Army Chinook,” he said, referring to the CH-47 lift helicopter that is delivering much of the U.S. aid in the stricken regions.

Once again, heeeeeeeere’s al-Jazeera

~ Matt Armstrong

Eccentric Star has a posting with articles on al-Jazeera’s postive (from our perspective) on Arab (not Islamist) publics. I have heard (and received) arguments that al-Jazeera is a mouthpiece for Islamism and anti-Americanism. Eccentric Star’s article demonstrates the US is not the only target of AJ which I wrote about in the context of public diplomacy, or lack of. Possibly the Bush Administration, in its failure to take Egypt to task on the unfair elections and its continued reliance on an unpopular government that contributes to the perception of a double-standard US, see al-Jazeera attacks on Egypt as attacks on the Administration?

Did Bush really suggest bombing al-Jazeera?

~ Matt Armstrong

The news of the "al-Jazeera Memo" in the UK is a transcript of a meeting between Prime Minister Blair and President Bush in April 2004. The subject of a Freedom of Information Act request in Britain, the release of the memo (that has been officially acknowledge as existing) is the subject of a case going before the court tomorrow. Two men in the UK are charged with violating the Official Secrets Act.

The memorandum is actually a five-page transcript stamped "Top Secret." It describes a meeting at the White House on April 16, 2004, between President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair. At that meeting, which took place while desperately hard fighting was in progress in the Iraqi town of Fallujah, Bush mooted the idea of taking out the headquarters of Al Jazeera in Doha, Qatar. The network’s correspondents inside the city had been transmitting lurid footage of extreme violence. The exchange apparently puts Blair in a good light, in that he dissuaded the president from any such course of action and was assisted in this by Colin Powell, who was then secretary of state.

Slate also reports that Colin Powell may have had some difficulty later on in remembering the meeting, which BlairWatch digs on. Based on Powell’s profile and past soldierly commitment to the Chief, I would suggest that either he honestly did not remember or did not want to remember because anything he could have honestly said would have reflected poorly on his boss. The still diplomatic answers he gave a recent BBC interview continues to confirm this.

A little background on where al-Jazeera is:

The state of Qatar, which though a Wahabbi kingdom has a free press and allows women to run and to vote in elections, has not been the host of just Al Jazeera since the network’s predecessor was kicked out of Saudi Arabia. It has also been the host of United States Central Command, and of many American civilians.

This memo, if it comes out to be a)existant and b)accurate would fit in with a growing opinion of the Bush Administration’s "unitary executive" methodology in all things it does.

Millions not a couple of dozen Americans “sucked into the vacuum”

~ Matt Armstrong

ABC’s Nightline had an NSA whistleblower alleging illegal spying (the link has the Nightline video) could have eavesdropped on millions of Americans. As the source for the NY Times article blowing the cover of the operation (thoughts and implications here), he is apparently the target of rage by the Administration on the leaking of the program.

The damage to domestic and foreign credibility may be severe,
although not to those who feel "no holds barred" is the name of the
game. "Do as we say, not as we do" is not a good motto for a role model.

Meanwhile, Opinio Juris notes a number of "prominent law scholars and attorneys" rejected the Administration’s claims to have the right to conduct this surveillance in a letter:

The letter critiques the Department of Justice’s legal justifications
for the NSA wiretapping program, in particular, the U.S. government’s
reliance on the Sept. 11 Resolution authorizing military force, to
circumvent or avoid the restrictions created by the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Of course it is well-crafted,
reasonable, and persuasive. It takes a couple of unnecessary shots at
John Yoo, I think, but it is still very sensible in focusing on the
statutory rather than constitutional arguments. But while I am halfway
persuaded, I do wonder if the law prof letter relies too heavily on a
FISA provisions limiting wiretaps to 15 days after the declaration of
war.

The argument against the right to do anything hinges on what the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) comprises:

[E]ven where Congress has declared war—a more formal step than an
authorization such as the AUMF—the law limits warrantless wiretapping
to the first fifteen days of the conflict. Congress explained that if
the President needed further warrantless surveillance during wartime,
the fifteen days would be sufficient for Congress to consider and enact
further authorization. [footnote omitted] Rather than follow this
course, the President acted unilaterally and secretly in contravention
of FISA’s terms. The DOJ letter remarkably does not even mention FISA’s
fifteen-day war provision, which directly refutes the President’s
asserted "implied" authority.

The Spivak Conspiracy

~ Matt Armstrong

Hmmm… a public relations campaign that could easily explode. The foreign press, if they picked up on this or will pick on similar cases in the future, will distort and blow up the misguided and foolish attempts to boost an exec’s year-end bonus. In light of the expanding Abramoff scandal today is a story a few months old called the Spivak Conspiracy:

A pharmaceutical consultant secretly commissions a novel about terrorists poisoning Americans with medicine from Canada, then backs out and inadvertently spawns a thriller pillorying his own industry.

This is no pulp-fiction farce. Call it bookgate, an impossible-to-make-up public-relations disaster now dogging the pharmaceutical industry.

Its real-life cast includes a deputy vice president of the country’s drug lobby, a celebrity divorce lawyer, a tell-all book publisher, and even former New York Times fabricator Jayson Blair in a cameo.

"It’s a nightmare beyond nightmares," admitted Mark A. Barondess, the consultant who initiated the book deal and now calls it a mistake.

Media Influence and Misinformation

~ Matt Armstrong

An example of how disinformation becomes reality from the WashingtonPost.

A White House official said last night the administration was confident that press reports changed bin Laden’s behavior. CIA spokesman Tom Crispell declined to comment, saying the question involves intelligence sources and methods.

The article demonstrates how OBL’s use of a cell / satellite phone was in the public domain before 9/11 and before the "press blew the lid".

Britain: imperial nostalgia

~ Matt Armstrong

Link: Britain: imperial nostalgia.

Britain not only conveniently still forgets the crimes of its imperial past, but it has also again begun to romanticise its colonial achievements and declare them a proper source of pride.

Without spending too much time on various Western — I am thinking of French, German, Belgian, Dutch, and British here — protestors disengaged the present from the past, I would like to remind them of Africa, the ‘Middle East’, and their involvement then and today.

Chinese and the Horn of Africa

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

News from the Horn of Africa is diverse and found along many paths. To start, US troops in the Ogaden area rescued two abused and endangered cheetah cubs late last month (Nov 2005) while the Taipei Times is reporting the Chinese navy is "flexing its soft power" as part of an "assertive foreign policy…connecting Chinese seaports with the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. Its strategy: to build up sea power, measured in ships, bases and alliances. Energizing a populace accustomed to thinking of China as a land power is one crucial element of Beijing’s new maritime diplomacy." The sea-based public diplomacy is integral to Chinese expansion in the Middle East region as Iran seeks to seal a deal with China next month (Jan 2006):

Continue reading “Chinese and the Horn of Africa
“ →

Chinese Public Diplomacy via UN Peacekeeping

~ Matt Armstrong

The Chinese state media has highlighted an interesting point as part of their growing public diplomacy campaign to win the hearts and minds of the world, and not least of the impovrished and non-G8 that have important resources China needs. In the last six months, China has had generally 1,000 troops or police on United Nations peacekeeping missions.

A Chinese scholar said Tuesday that China has sent out more than 3,000 troops and policemen to United Nations peacekeeping missions since the late 1980s, reflecting its firm support of the UN’s role in maintaining world peace and security. 
"China has contributed the largest number of troops to UN peacekeeping operations among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council," said Yang Mingjie, a Chinese researcher in international relations…

Chinese peacekeepers have won extensive accolades because of their
strict discipline and high work efficiency. In January 2005, Chinese
peacekeeping riot police in Haiti were awarded a UN peace medal for
their outstanding performance in the crisis-torn country, the highest
honor granted by the UN to peacekeeping missions. [emphasis added]

By the way, the Chinese seem to prefer to participate in African PKOs (peacekeeping operations).

Public Diplomacy by Proxy

~ Matt Armstrong

A recent public opinion poll shows an increasing concern that Washington is too quick to use a military response, including private security companies that augment “real” military force, to foreign policy challenges in lieu of soft
power alternatives. Falling outside of normal legislative oversight,
private military forces are contracted, deployed, managed, and paid
through the civilian leadership of the Defense Department and State
Department and other civilian departments (CACI, the Abu Ghraib
interrogators came in through a Department of the Interior contract).

Much of what the article says has already been written about here on this site, including

  • “Security firms operating in Iraq have been cited for fraud and have clashed with U.S. forces” … see Zapata Engineering story (additional here) for one example (there are more)
  • “critics say, the contractors are expensive, reckless mercenaries who complicate the U.S. mission in Iraq” … see Consequences
  • “The private guards’ sometimes aggressive behavior has created a wellspring of anger at the U.S. presence in Iraq…Countless Iraqis have had to endure the humiliation of being forced to stop or pull off the road as a convoy of unmarked SUVs races past, filled with men waving guns and making threatening gestures….”This is not a particularly effective way to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis,” said Joshua Schwartz, co-director of George Washington University’s government procurement program. “The contractors are making the mission of the U.S. military in Iraq more difficult.” … see Potential Cost and the rest of the Private Military company section on this site.

Afforded perceived deniable accountability back to the White House for private military activities allows a freer hand in engagement policies extending military options in foreign policy without Congressional or public oversight. Clumsy attempts by the civilian leadership to use private military forces as indirect ambassadors and instruments of American foreign policy are paid back with public and embarrassing actions such as those portrayed in the Los Angeles Times article, among many now appearing with increasing frequency in mainstream media.

This Administration really does not get it, as this story about how undersecretary of state for public diplomacy Karen Hughes “believes that how we treat prisoners in the ‘global war on terror’ is unlikely to have a serious adverse effect on how people think of the United States.” The war, as the Morocco Times puts it, “has entered a new phase”:

The US and its allies must learn to separate al-Qaeda from its base of support. I am referring to the base that is not made of terrorists but of millions of ordinary Muslims and Arabs who feel disfranchised and marginalized in their own societies while the US happily supports and makes deals with their oppressors. If it really wants to win over this base, the administration must change its terms of engagement with the Muslim world and begin an honest dialogue. Washington must make serious efforts to alter the common view of decades-long of American exploitation and manipulation….

The administration has systematically ignored the multiple root causes of terrorism and as a result the US will end prolonging the war indefinitely at a terrible and debilitating cost. For this reason, the administration must begin immediately an earnest campaign, as extensive as is necessary, to win the hearts of the masses who now form the essential support for al-Qaeda and other extremist groups. Concurrently, the administration must establish a time-table for complete withdrawal from Iraq and in doing so abandon the illusion that it can bring order there or cripple any terrorist group operating there before it permanently departs.

This should be on Hughes’ reading list, but it probably isn’t. It should be on Rice’s too, but she clearly is not concerned with other points of view, believing foreign policy stems for isolated national interest and “not from the interests of an “illusory international community”

How do we promote our beliefs if we pick and choose very selectively?

When having a secret meeting, keep it a secret

~ Matt Armstrong

When conducting secret negotiations, make sure both sides are entirely clear about what they can disclosure. Do the arm twisting up front. Then again, maybe it was simply posturing on the other side but what could he gain by backtracking? From UPI: Paracha Changes Story on Hughes Meeting:

Paracha initially confirmed that he met last Friday with U.S. State Department Under-Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes and U.S. military officials at Islamabad’s Serena Hotel, according to GEO Pakistan News. The Daily Times reported that following a telephone call from "American officials in Islamabad," Paracha subsequently changed his account of what transpired and said, "I met U.S. businessmen who were visiting Pakistan in connection to the Oct. 8 earthquake. "There was no U.S. government official at the meeting. I was told was that U.S. Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes was also staying at the same hotel. I did not meet her, but saw her from close."

Blair ‘convinced Bush’ not to launch strike at Al-Jazeera

~ Matt Armstrong

From the Scotsman.com website comes an extremely disturbing headline that is likely to cause a huge furor in the United States, Middle East, Europe, and the rest of the world: Blair ‘convinced Bush’ not to launch strike at Al-Jazeera.

TONY BLAIR had to persuade US President George Bush not to launch a military strike on the studios of TV station Al-Jazeera.

New reports claim the two leaders debated an attack on the station which has broadcast video messages from al-Qaida head Osama bin Laden and leaders of the insurgency in Iraq, as well as clips of dead British and US soldiers.

This possible revelation (subject to proven authenticity) would validate (unfortunate) long held beliefs of the targeting of al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi and other press services. The harm to use public diplomacy is going to be beyond compare if this story is not countered with facts. Attacking the media, regardless of the offices being housed in a friendly country, Qatar, is a heinous and reprehensible statement on the democratic tradition of free media. A dichotomy that will not be lost on "America’s enemies" (and friends).

Worse, this story will be more congruent with audiences with the recent public attacks and counter-attacks over charges of intelligence manipulation and increasing revelations and awareness of poor war and post-conflict planning. The Murtha exchanges and the "reprehensible comments" (MSNBC, LA Times, WashingtonPost) will simply make this story resonate all the more with an on the fence or other side of the fence audience.

Going right along with the sinking ship of the Bush Administration’s credibility is the recently (17 Nov 05) announced investigation of Douglas Feith "of manipulating information".

Where does the buck stop?

White phosphorus: who knew what and why? did they care?

~ Matt Armstrong

What do people hear when the news says the "the Pentagon now admits using white phosphorus despite earlier denials"? It sounds a lot like the United States Armed Forces lied. What the public hears, both foreign and domestic, is another cover-up. Critical to the real story, especially this one, is who really said what and what is the "Pentagon".

An analysis on the BBC News website (16 Nov 05) used that exact phrase (emphasis mine):

The Pentagon’s admission – despite earlier denials – that US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year is more than a public relations issue – it has opened up a debate about the use of this weapon in modern warfare.

The admission contradicted a statement this week from the new and clearly under-briefed US ambassador in London Robert Holmes Tuttle that US forces "do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons".

From a news story on the BBC News website the same day (16 Nov 05) (emphasis mine):

The US has now admitted using white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year, after earlier denying it.

In both of these, just two samples among a huge number of news stories and blogs on the subject, switch between military and civilian personnel without care or knowledge.

The Eccentric Star Public Diplomacy blog has an excellent list of news stories on this and some very good analysis about conflicting information within the "monolithic", per foreign audiences, US government. The foreign press and public do not discern a difference between military and civilian in the United States because either a) the military elites are the civilian elites or b) military statements come through civilian channels either implicity or explicitly. In the US, the fraying civil-military relationship pushed the military to make its own statements.

As is the case for the last several years, the civilian leadership disregarded input from the military leadership, likely not even asking about before responding. The Administration’s demonstrated distrust and lack of faith in the military tears at the foundational civil-military relationship on which democracy is built. This situation, if one simply scratches the surface, is indicative of the friction between civil and military leaderships.

The evidence used by the military and the media to show the "US Government" know of the use of "Willie Pete" is a journal article, "The Fight for Fallujah". The public relations "issue" created by the civilian leadership failing to properly research the question led to the negative reaction by the world press and global public. This could have been diffused earlier by establishing credibility and emphasizing the miscommunication.

Rarely included in the news or blogs is a quote by Pentagon spokesman, Lt Col Barry Venable, stating "earlier denials had been based on "poor information"". The public relations problem is mostly because the Administration does not forcefully move to correct the misinformation or, more importantly, lend credibility to the reason why the improper denial was advanced in the first place.