Afghanistan: the weak link in a stronger global chain?

The war in Afghanistan may not end well for the US; history has not been kind to foreign forces. But there are signs that it will become the key linkage in the Obama administration's attempts at redefining US foreign relations.

NATO announced today that it was restoring high-level contacts with Russia. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that, amongst others, Afghanistan was an issue of "mutual concern." She also expressed her support for a conference on Afghanistan that would bring together all of the key stakeholders in the region, including Iran. From the BBC:

"If we move forward with such a meeting, it is expected that Iran would be invited as a neighbour of Afghanistan," she said.

The challenges posed by Afghanistan are shared by each country in the region (whether there by geography, choice or military alliance). Beyond the obvious interest of each stakeholder in the country's success, Afghanistan may provide the conduit for a diplomatic thaw in US-Russia (a "reset"), US-Iran relations (a handshake, maybe?). Stay tuned...

Public diplomacy in the new administration

Is it just me, or does the term “Public Diplomacy” seem to buzzing all over DC these days? Particularly since the election of President Barack Obama, there has been a renewed discussion of how the new administration could/would/should rebuild America’s image abroad. And for those who are only convinced by concrete rankings… the GAO recently listed “improving the United State’s image abroad” as No. 5 on its list of urgent issues for the new administration.

Traditionally, public diplomacy has been seen as “the transparent means by which a sovereign country communicates with publics in other countries aimed at informing and influencing audiences overseas for the purpose of promoting the national interest and advancing its foreign policy goals.” This typically includes activities such as exchange and visitor programs, language training, and cultural events- all activities that tend to be one-way communication. While it is undeniably important for the United States to educate other populations on American interests, culture and policy, I would argue that today public diplomacy serves an even greater purpose: creating a relationship between Americans and people of other nations.

Personally, I like the approach taken at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Professor Nicholas J. Cull describes public diplomacy as being made up of 5 main practices:

1. listening
2. advocacy
3. cultural diplomacy
4. exchanges
5. international broadcasting

Of these, I consider LISTENING to be the missing link in current US public diplomacy efforts. The development world seems to have a similar fault… too much talking and “teaching” and not enough listening and learning. Diplomacy should be, and can be, a two-way interaction. Mr. Michael Doran, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Support to Public Diplomacy, nails it:

It’s our view that excessive focus on us [the United States] is
counterproductive… In the current information environment a lot of strategic
communication is talking to foreign audiences about themselves – giving foreign
audiences information about themselves. That’s different than sending a U.S.
government message.

When interacting with foreign audiences we need to focus less on talking about ourselves, and more on what is most relevant to our audience: themselves. Of course, it is in our interest as a country to fund programs and campaigns around the world that will improve the image of the US- it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise. BUT, as Mr. Doran so astutely pointed out, making this the focus of public diplomacy programs is often counterproductive. Outside of the United States, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone who cares (or, frankly, believes) any message the US government would attempt to disseminate. The credibility of the US government abroad is, as we are all so often reminded, questionable at best, especially in the Middle East.

The best thing we can do for our image abroad at this point, is to stop focusing on articulating the message of the US and spreading specifically American values, and focus instead on giving people the knowledge and tools they need to improve their societies within their own cultural context. In her confirmation hearing Hillary Clinton stressed the importance of collaboration and cooperative engagement in today’s global environment, and highlighted the importance of bringing people together by investing in the bond of humanity (I know, cliché, but still…):

We must find common ground and common purpose with other peoples and nations so that together we can overcome hatred, violence, lawlessness, and despair… The
Obama administration recognizes that, even when we cannot fully agree with some
governments, we share a bond of humanity with their people. By investing in that
common humanity we advance our common security because we pave the way for a
more peaceful, prosperous world.

She went on to emphasize the “importance of a ‘bottom-up’ approach”. Public diplomacy efforts, particularly in the Middle East, have the potential to do a lot of good- but they can also do a lot of harm. While it is logical that the US government would focus on public diplomacy, I would argue that the best public diplomats are American citizens. Just as career diplomats play a critical role in government to government strategic communications, shouldn’t strategic communications with the general public be people to people?

While traditional approaches to public diplomacy are unlikely to change much, perhaps for its next public diplomacy strategy the US government should launch initiatives that encourage American citizens to engage directly with their peers in other countries. Microfinance, especially in the Islamic world (no-interest loans are highly palatable in the Muslim world), is a perfect way to encourage this type of interaction. And the reason I love this idea so much is that it essentially cuts out the government from the process, and allows individuals with resources to create a relationship with individuals with ideas (and no resources). What better way to encourage a “bottom-up” approach to diplomacy?

As Hilary Clinton noted during her hearing, President-elect Obama’s mother (Ann Dunham) was a pioneer in microfinance in Indonesia… just some food for thought.

To the shores of Tripoli...

Condi Rice arrived in Libya today to meet with the country's leader, Col. Muammar Qaddafi. Though he may not house pirates, and is no longer an official terrorist, Libya is still a country with a long way to run. Encouraging as it is that Rice is the first American official to visit since Nixon in '57, the meetings will not, and should not, be all hassa.

Don't get me wrong, Libya is one of the most successful revisions of the past twenty years. Transitioning from nuclear armament and state-sponsored bombings to an embrace of capitalism is a mighty task in any society. But like Cuba, Libya is another example of an authoritarian state embracing market reforms. Leezza, as Qaddafi apparently calls her, must keep in mind that despite their leader's recent change of heart, the Libyan people still face a startlingly high level of oppression.

While it is true that Italy's recent colonial apology "smacks of self interest", that does not mean it should be ignored. Strategically speaking, the US would be irresponsible to ignore Libya's tack to the center just because of Qaddafi's continuing rule. The country controls too much gas and oil that Continental Europe and China are actively pursuing. The US should take measured and sensible steps to engage in this process. Rice must normalize diplomatic relations so American firms can actively participate in the run for foreign investment but attach conditions (human rights, greater press freedom, etc) to any direct government aid. While it may be unsettling for an older generation that remembers Pan Am 103 or, like McCain, the Tripoli pirates (too harsh?), to get used to the idea of Libya as a trade partner, we must welcome Qaddafi into the fold of global capitalism and use the subtle sway of our dollars to encourage greater transparency and freedom.

I personally will follow this with cautious optimism and hope that this story serves as a model for today's failed states that look like Libya did 20 years ago. I'm talking to you North Korea.

Russia-EU relations: a bang or a whimper?

The Russia-Georgia war continues to have repercussions: EU leaders gathered in Brussels today for an emergency summit on the state of relations with Russia. Last month, I attempted to apply a rudimentary public choice model to the major players in the conflict. At the time, for simplicity’s sake, I treated the EU as a single entity with a unified policy position. In reality this could not be further from the truth. There are hawks, such as the previous Warsaw Pact members and the UK, and there are doves, such as Germany and Italy. In determining a member nation’s stance, it is useful to look at two metrics in particular: history and energy. Specifically, has the country been pushed around by Russia in the past (pretty much all of Eastern Europe)? And how much Russian energy does the country import? Personal relationships also play a role: Vladimir Putin and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi are close friends, for example.

Where do the Russians stand? I’m troubled by the implications of their explicit declaration of ‘spheres of interest’. However, I still think it’s possible to at least partly understand Russia’s motives through the looking-glass of its leaders’ personal incentives. This is a view that I first heard espoused by Garry Kasparov in 2007 and again last week by Richard Baldwin. It’s certainly true that Russia’s political elites are making an enormous amount of money off of the country’s economic expansion, and they’re aware that war would disrupt this trend. As a friend of mine once put it, capitalism in Russia is like the Wild West: poorly regulated, corrupt, winner-take-all, and unprotected from government intervention. In such circumstances, powerful political actors are well-positioned to get rich. While stoking the fires of nationalism will help solidify their leadership, outright war is undesirable because Russia might lose and the economy might tank. Thus, I suspect that Russia’s leaders won’t push things too far (I’m being purposefully vague), as doing so would be against their own interests. In any case, Russian stock markets have already been majorly spooked by the war and other recent events.

And where does this leave us? For the time being, I suspect that ‘pragmatism’ on all sides wins the day. The EU stopped short of applying sanctions: the last thing that leaders in flagging economies want is to be on the wrong side of high-stakes energy diplomacy. Still, the rarity of such emergency EU summits signals that they’re taking this seriously. Russia, in turn, is quite reliant on the EU for its export market (which feeds into the reasons mentioned above). Is this the right policy for the EU to be pursuing? It’s doubtful: I think the EU ought to be taking a tougher line, and it still might if it can get its own ducks in a row on the appropriate policy response. This is something to keep watching.

(photo by dbarronoss)