The US and Cuba 50 years later

Posted on May 21, 2013 by Exchange Journal

By Sarah Blanchard, Public Diplomacy student, Syracuse University

Recently, American singers Beyoncé and Jay-Z went to Cuba to celebrate their fifth wedding anniversary. This tropical nation full of white sand beaches and clear water from

AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa

the Caribbean Sea attracts tourists from all over the world. The trip by the couple made the United States remember that Cuba is important, and used to be extremely important in recent history. It also sparked controversy about a policy implemented over 50 years ago, intended to drive the Castro regime out of power, of which has had many negative unintended consequences, including the continued existence of the communist Castro government. Hence, the mayhem, as the musicians seemed to be acting as “tourists” in Cuba, which is not one of the 12 legal reasons that Americans are allowed to travel to Cuba. (They actually traveled to Cuba in the name of cultural exchange and education.)

The controversy surrounding the trip has sparked calls for an update to the US foreign policy concerning Cuba. However, as journalist Sandra Guzmán has pointed out, engaging in dialogue is difficult, as “the few but very influential pro-embargo lobby have put a stranglehold on a lucid discussion surrounding Cuba.”

There are strong criticisms of the Cuban-American interest groups that have upheld a failed policy for multiple decades. In order to be successful, in this instance and in US foreign policy in general, politicians need to realize that there are adults who did not live in a time where communism was a serious threat. There are those who have only experienced the Cold War and its tension through the history textbooks. High school graduates in the US this year were born in 1995, four years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. Those that want to continue support the embargo and travel restrictions to Cuba need to change the rhetoric to reflect this change in the realities of many young Americans, Cuban and non-Cuban.

Those that want to support the embargo need to demonstrate a serious effort for change in Cuba. Maintaining the status quo is easy, even if ineffective in this case. It is hard to support an embargo that restricts travel but hasn’t produced much change and doesn’t generate any new ideas on alternative options for inducing change. To convince new generations of Americans who were born after the end of the Cold War to support an embargo, it requires a shift in the dialogue, away from the tired, estranged buzzwords of communism, Cold War, and communist. Most importantly, it should include alternative proposals for regime change in Cuba and the accompanying incentive for politicians to react.

Posted in Cultural Diplomacy, news, Regional Studies | Leave a comment

Moms- The Perfect Public Diplomat

Posted on May 13, 2013 by Exchange Journal

By Nicole Audette, Editing Manager, Public Diplomacy student, Syracuse University

As my Twitter and Facebook feed was blowing up with Mother’s Day wishes, I was struck by how all the descriptions my friends were giving of their mothers resembled the top qualities of a great public diplomat. They are respected worldwide, frame and build agendas, practice two-way symmetrical communication, use both hard and soft power, and understand more than the average person. This blog is dedicated to looking at these qualities and what we can learn from our closest role models.

Moms are respected the world over: Almost everyone around the world has a mom. From a small village in Africa, to the streets of New York, moms work tirelessly to raise their children into the best people they can be. They exude love and grace thanklessly for years. Although they come in many different varieties with varying strengths and weaknesses, the one thing they have in common is that they love their children. This purpose to love and guide their children crosses all ethnicities, all religions, all nationalities, and all politics; it is universal. Their tireless efforts unite mothers around the world with an understanding that gives them insight about issues often overlooked by those on the outside. This ability to be respected worldwide, to understand deeper than the average person, to be diverse, and to engender qualities recognized and cherished world round are the starting points of a good public diplomat.

moms and babies

Moms are master agenda-framers: Mothers have figured out the art of making connections among content to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation, or solution. They know how to frame an agenda by choosing the meaning their audience (their child) is going to get out of a story. Mothers, when we are young, decide which morals and skills to instill through the people they trust enough to be in our lives and by sharing their lens on the world with us.

Moms are master agenda-builders: Agenda building deals with how issues are created and why some controversies or issues gain attention and concern from people while others do not. Our mothers are the ones who decide as a child what makes our agenda. They decide the TV shows we watch, the music we listen to, the toys we play with, and activities we do. As we get older, they continue to bring things to our agenda’s whether it’s a global issue they care about being shared during a phone call or the invitation to an annual family reunion.

Moms are masters of two-way symmetrical communication: Although when we are younger it may seem like a one-way communication model, the truth is mothers listen better than anyone else on earth does. They hear what their children are saying and adapt to the needs their children are identifying. Additionally, establishing mutual respect and understanding is a crucial element to a mother-child relationship. Anyone, who has ever had a debate about curfew, knows that mothers are willing to negotiate and compromise on some things but not everything. Mothers, through their adaptive listening, are the best two-way symmetrical communicators who ever lived.

Moms are masters of hard power: We all know that our mothers have their own “carrots and sticks” to get their children to do what they want. How many children have lost phone privileges, been grounded, or lost an allowance because of something they did? As we grow older however, this hard power tends to give way to soft power which relies on the admiration and respect between the child and mother.

Moms are masters of soft power: Defined by Joseph Nye as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than through coercion”, it is easy to see this as a top quality of mothers. Our admiration of our mother’s values, culture, and personality, leads us to often do things for them that may not be our choice if it wasn’t them asking. Additionally, as we get older our choices in life may be a reflection of our desire to be like our mothers, or to fulfill their expectations of our lives.

Moms are masters of understanding: Sometimes it can seem as though our mothers know us better than we know ourselves. They know what information we need to know, and what we don’t. They know how to activate us when we appear apathetic and how to persuade us when we seem stubborn to our ways. Moms protect their families, often understanding which actions need to be taken better than anyone else. Mothers know how to get their children to do things without being asked and think it was their idea.

my mom and i

Moms are the best role models for a public diplomat—so anyone looking to go into the field, look to your moms. Learn from them, appreciate them, and hold them close by your side. Recognize like no mom, no public diplomat will be perfect, but what matters is that you are truthful and understanding; that you are multifaceted and adaptable; that you listen instead of always talking; and that you realize you are part of something bigger than yourself.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The trouble with red lines

Posted on May 7, 2013 by Exchange Journal

By Kevin McElligott, Public Diplomacy graduate student, Syracuse University

After much talk of whether North Korea, and Iran before it, had crossed the ambiguous “red line” demanding a military response, the Obama administration faces much deeper tests of resolve and its broader diplomatic commitment in its dealings with Syria. That commitment has come under fire in recent days, on the heels of evidence that Syria has used chemical weapons to quell the ongoing rebellion there. Indeed, Obama faces a delicate balancing act between standing by his tough talk and acquiescing to pressure from a public weary of military engagement.

The Syrian independence flag behind a Free Syrian Army fighter. Photo courtesy Freedom House via Google Images/Creative Commons.

But what brand of diplomacy is appropriate in a situation where the public believes the aggressor can be contained, both sides are prone to rhetoric and pragmatism occasionally goes by the wayside? Obama has already begun to dial back his initial statement that the use of chemical weapons is a “game changer,” calling instead for harder evidence, a move echoed by the U.K. amid pleas by other Middle Eastern nations for the U.S. to assume a more active role in the conflict.

In the short term, the U.S. is finally poised to arm Syrian rebels. Sanctions and no-fly zones around rebel-held areas have also been discussed, but we must not assume that sanctions would be instantly effective: the crippling autonomy of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stands in direct contradiction to the limits of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and comparing the two in advocating for Syrian sanctions could backfire. Instead, Obama has set about using his recent successful trip to Israel to introduce stability in the region and begin private talks with the Syrian military and neighboring nations.

But the elephants in the room remain Israel and Russia. Last weekend’s Israeli attack on a suburban Damascus scientific research center to stop the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah prompted foreign correspondents to wonder if pressure on the U.S. has lifted. But Israel can’t go it alone, nor would we want them to: such Israeli involvement could spark retaliation from either al-Assad or Ahmadinejad and a broader Middle East conflict that Obama in particular is desperately seeking to avoid.

The object of international outcry for its continuing support of the Assad regime, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has dealt with waning influence in the Middle East following the U.S. involvement of the past decade. Domestic troubles also could be necessitating his hard-line tactics both globally and toward the U.S. specifically (witness last year’s expulsion of USAID for “violating Russian sovereignty”).

For the U.S., however, Russian involvement remains critical if we are to have any hope of ending the bloodshed. But as with China’s anger over North Korea’s sudden escalation, our most effective response here might be standing by and subtly encouraging Assad’s self-destruction. The embarrassment factor, even for the increasingly authoritarian Putin, could eventually prove too much to bear, and increased rebel pressure on Assad could hasten that realization. Russia’s respect for nations’ internal affairs in this context, and its disdain for U.S. violations of them, is well known. But if its true concern is stability in the Middle East, one would think it would eventually wish to play a part.

Regardless of Russia’s involvement or Obama’s stepped-up rebel aid, though, decision time is fast approaching for the U.S. on foreign policy in a multitude of areas, a reality the administration has stealthily avoided for the better part of four years. The coming months will reveal whether the red line rhetoric bandied about by politicians and media pundits alike has truly backed the country into a corner at the most inopportune time. At minimum, it’s advanced the likelihood of the “all or nothing” approach and damaged our chance to make public overtures without appearing weak.

Still, Obama’s uncertain foreign policy legacy will be decided at least in part by his tentative approach in Syria. It’s time for America to abandon its self-imposed isolationism and take a stand on something, anything, once again. Whether we’ll like it is another story.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, news, Protest | Leave a comment

Space: The new frontier for public diplomacy?

Posted on April 29, 2013 by Exchange Journal

By Kelly McCray, public diplomacy student, Syracuse University

This weekend I attended the Conference on Diversity in International Affairs in Washington, DC. The conference was organized by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Global Access Pipeline and the International Career Advancement Program. The conference brought together practitioners from a variety of different international affairs careers, at a variety of different levels with a variety of different backgrounds.

Charles F. Bolden Jr., the Administrator at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), was invited to speak about international cooperation at NASA. In addition to giving some insight about the wonders of space, Administrator Bolden discussed the workings of public diplomacy in space. He compared the international space station to a microcosm of the United Nations, and emphasized the importance of partnerships in guaranteeing the greatest potential for success in space explorations. Despite national allegiances, conflicting interests and other issues that may arise, every country represented at the international space station must collaborate and work together to obtain, disseminate and archive data and materials.

Sourced from: http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-110210a.html

NASA’s Open Data project provides an avenue for the public to have access to the research and data that comes from the international space station. Since everyone benefits from the scientific and technological advances that come from space exploration, it is in every country’s best interests to work together to collect as much research data as possible, to share observations, and to build research on top of one another’s research. This ensures the best information is procured for the public.

This same idea can be applied to diplomacy here on earth. We are all affected by the actions and reactions that come from countries’ diplomatic efforts (or lack thereof). It is in all of our best interests to cooperate and collaborate with one another. The result could be a world that is better for all.

As near-space exploration wanes and deep-space explorations burgeons, there are even more opportunities for international cooperation and diplomacy. New space explorations reveal further opportunities for cooperation– In a speech given at NASA, President Obama promised and committed resources to the advancement of the mission to land on and move an asteroid by year 2025. After a meteor entered Earth’s atmosphere and hit Chelyabinsk, Russia, injuring thousands, this mission became even more important and critical.

A mission of this magnitude requires the participation and cooperation of many different countries, including Russia, Japan, Canada and the European Space Agency. Administrator Bolden was confident that agreements could be reached and perhaps even a coalition could be formed.

Since the first successful mission to outer space in 1942, we have been consumed with by the enigma that is space, not only its mysteries, but also its resources and the answers it can reveal. Technology from space and space exploration is being used to produce improved firefighting equipment, environmental monitoring systems, for expedited medical research data and more. With NASA’s Open Data project, all have been able to benefit from the results of this research and technology. The information is free and open to all. If we are able to fulfill the mission of landing on an asteroid, yet another opportunity to explore unchartered territory will arise. There are still more chances for countries to come together and utilize diplomacy skills in space. If only those same lessons could be applied here on Earth.

Posted in Cultural Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, United Nations | 1 Comment

China’s Public Diplomacy Runs on a One-Way Street

Posted on April 23, 2013 by Exchange Journal

By Yao Xiao, Syracuse University public diplomacy student

As a firm embracer of two-way symmetrical communication theory, I discovered, with sadness, that China’s public diplomacy efforts have long been following a one-way communication model.

There are five events you will never miss in the case study box, if you open a Chinese Public Diplomacy textbook: 1) the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, 2) the 2010 Shanghai World Exposition, 3) the 2011 “Experience China” video in New York Times Square, 4) the establishment of Confucius Institutes overseas, and 5) the establishment of China Central Television international branches. All these efforts fit right into the Chinese definition of public diplomacy, which is “a way of building positive national image and increasing transfers of information through non-governmental channels” (though all of the above are government funded).

Excessive resources have been used on increasing Western media attention on modern China, yet inadequate energies have been put into changing the policies causing the negative perception of China that foreign publics hold. A giant 60-second video of smiling Chinese celebrities can hardly reverse a preconceived impression, nor can it present the modern Chinese civil society, given some scholars argue that the image of a nation does not equal to the image of its government. The majestic Olympic opening ceremony succeeded in bringing cultural symbols to international audiences. But does it mean the negative political associations, such as the bloodshed in Tiananmen Square and the strict media censorship, are wiped off foreign publics’ minds? As Gady Epstein in Forbes says, a “larger philosophical question” is raised from the campaign, “especially in the case of human rights, of whether China has an image problem with the West, or a reality problem.”

It’s not that Chinese Public Diplomacy practitioners do not see the issue. Shen Xin, secretary general of the China Friendship Foundation for Peace and Development, think that the achievements of Public Diplomacy tend to be overshadowed by political events, such as territorial disputes. However, they do not seem to have an influence in policy-making.

China

Posted in Public Diplomacy Theory | 1 Comment

North Korea and cultural diplomacy

Posted on April 16, 2013 by Exchange Journal

By Maggie Moore, Article Co-Manager and Syracuse University public diplomacy student

So much for improving relations with People’s Republic of North Korea and its young leader, King Jong Un. Only a month ago Dennis Rodman traveled to the country with several Harlem Globetrotters, a spectacle deemed “basketball diplomacy”. At the time of the event many, including Andi Baldwin (see thoughts here), were skeptical of whether this could be called diplomacy. I’m inclined to agree; in my opinion diplomacy usually requires at least tacit approval of both governments. Rodman’s trip was not arranged by the U.S. government and falls more into the categories of celebrity publicity (Rodman) and propaganda (DPRK). In fact, the U.S. State Department Deputy Spokesman Patrick Ventrell tried to avoid taking a position at all on the trip, calling it a private affair in a press briefing on February 28, 2013.

But sports diplomacy has been successful; the obvious example is the ping pong diplomacy between the United States and China during the Nixon Administration. In 1971, the Chinese government invited the U.S. table tennis team to come to China and play their Chinese counterparts. It was the first time that China had allowed Americans to enter the country since the communist government can into power in 1949 and was seen an important step to normalizing relations between the United States and China. This opening was followed swiftly with another American visit to China: President Richard Nixon.

In a general sense, sports diplomacy is the practice of using athletes and sporting events to engage, inform and create a favorable image among foreign populations in an attempt to create an environment that is more conducive to the government’s foreign policy goals. Sports are popular and unthreatening; a person can like a team or a celebrity or a sport and sports diplomacy tries to connect that positive opinion with a government to create goodwill.

Photo taken by Blake Stilwell, SUPD 2013, during his trip to DPRK in 2012

That said, I don’t think that cultural diplomacy with North Korea and the United States will improve the relationship between the two governments. King Jong Un might like Rodman, basketball and Disney, but he has clearly separated culture and government into two distinct entities. Despite the recent goodwill trip, Kim Jong Un has ratcheted up tensions with South Korea and announced his desire to destroy the United States with the nuclear weapons his country is trying to manufacture. In addition, the American and international media coverage of North Korea is dominated, almost to the point of exclusion, by the nuclear issue. Against the roar of the crowd, how could cultural diplomacy ever hope to change the stereotypes held by the general public of either country?

It seems to me that in order for sports diplomacy to be successful both countries need to avoid any detrimental incidents for a significant period of time—an unlikely achievement in the near future between these two countries. The goodwill generated by soft power is small, accrued slowly like layers of sediment. On the other hand, a military threat is large and washes away any goodwill as swiftly as a large wave destroys a sandcastle. For those individuals who implement goodwill trips, it must be extremely frustrating and disheartening to see their hard won efforts swept away. It’s hard for outsiders understand the value in continuing these efforts, asking for justification for the costs in time and labor required.

Rodman has announced his intentions to return to North Korea in August. If I were in the educational and cultural exchange branch of the U. S. Department of State I would try to persuade him to cancel that trip. It is unlikely to improve relations; the nuclear and military threats are just too big to be overcome by a minor celebrity. It could even hurt the United States. Rodman might be a non-official, non-governmental individual, but celebrities are public figures and his visit could be interpreted by the international media, and the public, as legitimacy-bestowing propaganda for Kim Jong Un’s regime despite the distinctions that Mr. Ventrell would like to make.

Posted in Cultural Diplomacy, Geopolitics, Sports Diplomacy | 1 Comment

Government interests and media intertwined?

Posted on April 9, 2013 by Exchange Journal

By Omnia Al Desoukie, Newhouse graduate student, Syracuse University

In late March 2011, CNN’s reporter Amber Lyon and crewmembers traveled to Bahrain in order to produce a one-hour documentary on the use of Internet and social media during the uprising there. After detainment by the Bahraini government, the crew decided to change the documentary’s topic by interviewing different activists to account with the injustice they face by the Bahraini government. Despite internal pressure by CNN employees and external recognition of the documentary, the video was never played on CNN. According to a Guardian article, CNN’s business affairs office called Lyon’s acting agent and threatened to terminate Lyon’s insurance and severance payments if she continued exposing CNN’s decision to halt running the documentary.

On May 25, 2012, around 108 people died in the Houla massacre in Syria. It was a dreadful event that has caused uproar within the international media. But, the way various news organizations dealt with the crime was different. The U.S. media blamed the Shabiha, pro-government forces in Syria, as the slaughterers. Many of the U.S. media labeled the killings a “massacre”. The New York Times wrote an editorial to blame Syria’s president Bashar El-Asaad as responsible for killing the people of Syria. Meanwhile, the Chinese media displayed a different picture of the event. They downplayed the killings. Later in May, China’s state newspaper The People’s Daily published a report that claimed anti-Asaad forces were responsible for the killings, arguing that the forces that committed the crime aimed to topple the Syrian government.

Sourced from: http://intelligentsingaporean.wordpress.com/the-digital-age/

These examples demonstrate how government’s policies influence the way media looks at news events and the decisions they make to run certain pieces of information or not, or in some cases how will they frame the news in a way that is aligned with the government’s foreign policy towards an issue or the other.

We can say that media content is influenced by social, political, and ideological context in which the media operate. Therefore, contrary to the widely believed concept, this makes media organizations non-objective entities. The question then is how far will a government’s policies keep intervening in the way that news organizations look at the events? It is quite vague where the line between media’s autonomy and the government’s influence on the media is drawn. In this case, I am not only talking about the U.S. and/or Chinese governments, but other governments worldwide. Looking at the current events around the world, it is very clear that the sphere of deviance, what the media hides from the public to maintain the status quo, is still valid up to this date even with the entrance of the new media. This raises another question of whether the new media has the ability to act as a tool for citizens worldwide to shed the light on news that are hidden in order to maintain the status quo i.e. whether the people will be able to disrupt government’s interests worldwide using new media?

Posted in Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, International Broadcasting, Media/Technologies, new media, news | Leave a comment

Migration is Beautiful

Posted on April 1, 2013 by Exchange Journal

By Alexandra Siclait, Public Diplomacy student, Syracuse University

What does the intersection of immigration, the monarch butterfly motif and art mean? Ask Favianna Rodriguez and she will tell you: Migration is beautiful. Through a compelling medium, graphic art, Rodriguez, an artist-activist, taps into her creative inspiration to bring attention to immigration. Specifically, she uses online and offline art to bring changes to inhumane U.S. immigration policy and the perceptions of immigrants.

But what is the significance of this connection between art, migration and the monarch butterfly? In an interview with Latina magazine, Rodriguez, said, “The purpose of the butterfly is to reimagine migration as something beautiful and natural. Like the monarch butterfly, human beings cross borders in search of safer habitats. Like the monarch butterfly, human beings cross borders in order to survive. The butterfly is ultimately about our right to move.” Art is a mechanism to bring a voice to the voiceless, break traditions and redefine an issue.

Rodriguez’ mission to convey the natural movement of populations is not unique to the United States. Movement is ubiquitous to humans. It’s the story of the Chinese in Mexico, West Africans in the Congo, Ethiopians in Israel, Haitians in the Dominican Republic, and the Lebanese in Jamaica. The examples are endless. As both a future public relations specialist and public diplomacy practitioner, I have to strike a balance between my passion to communicate with publics and the execution of foreign policy. And at the core of that, I have to perpetually remind myself about the constant movement of people, goods, and ideas that affect established “national boundaries”, global governance and international intervention.

Favianna Rodriguez

Like an anthropologist, I professionally need to train myself to analyze actions at the “micro-level”, focusing not on the “what” but on the “who” of a project and undertaking that is typically difficult and requires effort and resourcefulness. How I will engage a public will be as important as the message itself. Rodriguez uses a butterfly motif to engage her public. What will be our motif as public diplomacy practitioners, metaphorically speaking?

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Pope Francis and Public Diplomacy

Posted on March 25, 2013 by Exchange Journal

By Elizabeth Howley, Managing Editor, Exchange Journal

The twenty-first century has brought new innovations and unseen events: social media, “smart” phones, global terrorism, civil unrest and rising public participation in developing countries, a black United States president, and an entire aisle at grocery stores dedicated to gluten-free food. The most recent event to engross the global public—one that has not occurred for 600 years–was the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI as head of the Roman Catholic Church. Though the papacy is religious at its core, the role of pope is not only a spiritual leader, but also a political and cultural leader. The pope is an elected leader of a large organization, with constituents all over the globe. The papacy adds its opinions on any number of topics, from abortion rights to marriage laws. The pope and the church have a lot to say, but rarely do they listen.

As a product of many years of Catholic school education, I think the resignation of Pope Benedict and the election of Pope Francis is an exciting turn for Roman Catholicism in the new century. From a public diplomacy perspective, the church would do well to embrace the concept of strategic two-way communication to enhance the relationship with its current members and to establish relationships with other publics. As a religious organization, I understand the church’s need to adhere to its spiritual values and moral codes. However, the strict adherence to outdated traditions could lead to greater membership loss.

I read a recent blog post about the resignation of Pope Benedict, and this line stood out to me: “Open communication is the great un-doer of hierarchy.” This is a very astute assessment of hierarchical institutions like the Roman Catholic Church, but it does not have to continue to be this way. Using the tools of modern public diplomacy, the church can be an open communicator and still maintain its structure. It needs to become a player in an interconnected world instead of standing to the side delivering edicts from lofty towers. The church should seek to understand the complexities of the modern age, where information on one topic is readily available from many sources and where challenges facing its publics are not as black and white such as “what would Jesus do?” For the pope, a goal must be to listen as well as he speaks, not just to the cardinals in Vatican City, but to the tiny church in Mexico, the urban Catholic community in Toronto, and everyone that falls in between. I am hopeful for this embrace of strategic communication; the new pope has already shown his individuality by choosing a name that has not been used by any previous pope—perhaps true change is in the air.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lestudio1/8558736259/sizes/z/in/photostream/

Posted in Cultural Diplomacy, elections, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

No longer for elites: KONY2012, Invisible Children, and new public diplomacy

Posted on March 18, 2013 by Exchange Journal

By Nicole Audette, Public Diplomacy student, Syracuse University

One year ago, KONY2012 became the most viral video campaign in history. Designed to make warlord Joseph Kony famous, the video received over 100 million views in just 6 days. Created by the non-profit Invisible Children (IC), this film and the foreign policy reaction—specifically from the U.S. government, stands as a symbol of the changing world of public diplomacy.

For centuries, diplomacy has traditionally been between the heads of states. Foreign policy was left to the politicians with little input coming from the masses. Today, due to rising globalization, innovative communication technology, and unresponsive governments worldwide, diplomacy has new ambassadors: nonprofit organizations. Organizations whose main strategy is to influence the public on a foreign policy issue and in turn incite the public to call on their own governments to act on the issue. Theoretically defined as new public diplomacy, a prime example of the new central actor is Invisible Children.

Over the past nine years, IC has launched 14 national tours of different documentaries, each of which expose aspects of the war continuing today in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the Central African Republic (CAR) and South Sudan. Through these tours, IC has become a middle-class organization positioned between the government and the public. Its central strategy has been to act on behalf of those suffering from the war in Central Africa, gain influence over the U.S. public and elites on this issue and then use that to influence U.S. foreign policy and gain support from international institutions like the United Nations and the European Union.

In the spring of 2012, IC’s 14th campaign, KONY2012, targeted celebrities, government officials and the general public to take a stand and demand the capture of Joseph Kony by the end of 2012. The narrator of the film and IC founder, Jason Russell, painted a picture of a bad guy whom each one of us could play a role in stopping. The response to the film was unprecedented and a call for justice by America’s youth was being heard throughout every media outlet. As a public diplomacy effort, this response led directly to legislation presented in the U.S. Congress and in institutions throughout the world. The true proof of the power of the people as utilized by IC came at their Global Summit on the LRA in Washington, DC on November 17, 2012.

At this summit a representative from the European Union, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, the Deputy Minister of Defense from South Sudan, a Trial Lawyer from the International Criminal Court, the Minister in Charge of Northern Uganda Recovery, the Special Envoy for LRA Issues from the African Union, the Deputy Minister of Defense from the Central African Republic, and the SRSG and Head of UNOCA of the United Nations all came to stand in front of 10,000 people demanding to know if the world heard their cry for change. Also at this summit there were over 300 lobby meetings with the U.S. Congress advocating for passage of the KONY2012 Resolution, which was introduced in the House of Representatives eight days after the film’s launch in March. In January 2013, Congress passed new legislation, the Rewards for Justice Bill, authorizing a reward of up to $5 million for information that leads to the arrest of Joseph Kony.

Whether you agree with Invisible Children’s mission or tactics, there is no denying that it resembles a shift in the way traditional public diplomacy is carried out. Its ability to communicate with the masses in a way that activates them for change resembles an important shift in the way the world operates. Its newest video attached below ‘What happened to KONY 2012’ shows the highlights of IC’s public diplomacy efforts. It shows that people, even the young generation, now have the power to influence government in a way never seen before. Diplomacy is no longer reserved for the elite.

For more information, please visit the following sources:

Cadwalladr, C. (2013). Jason Russell: Kony2012 and the fight for truth. Retrieved from:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/03/jason-russell-kony-2012-interview

Invisible Children (2012a). KONY2012 Progress: March to May 2012. Retrieved from YouTube: http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW0urVPgLkw&feature=BFa&list=PL3C099B53D7DB6C1D

Huffington Post. (2012). How ‘Kony 2012’ went viral. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/ kony-2012-viral-infographic_n_1421812.html

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments