The Road Ahead…. NATO and Afghanistan

Posted on May 17, 2012 by Roxanne Bauer

Written by Roxanne Bauer, Editor-in-Chief

 

World leaders are preparing to meet later this month, and expectations are high for all.  The United States will host the G8 Summit at Camp David on May 18-19 and will then host North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) meetings in Chicago on May 20-21.

The war in Afghanistan will be on the top of the agenda.  G8 countries and NATO are attempting to formulate plans and build an Afghan army that can defend the country after around 130,000 international troops leave. 

One of the critical issues is funding the Afghan security forces that will assume its place in the country’s defense structure.

Earlier this month, France held presidential elections in which Socialist Party leader, Fracois Hollande, was elected.   Hollande has stated publicly that he will announce a majority of French troops will withdraw by the end of the year, despite NATO protestations that it remains committed to Afghanistan.   Hollande’s withdrawal of the bulk of French troops comes at a time when the European Union is instituting austerity measures and facing a deteriorating euro.

The United States, for its part, sympathizes with these issues, and has expressed concern about potentially having to pay the total, or around $4.1 billion a year.  Debt reduction and fiscal responsibility are key points of debate in US politics and will definitely be a contentious issue as the US presidential election continues this year.

This may be one reason why many non-NATO countries, including Japan, were invited to attend the summit.  More than twenty countries have already promised to support the Afghan army and more expected to agree to help fund the cause in Chicago. So far, the UK offered 700 million pounds a year Germany offered 150 million euros a year, and Australia agreed to 100 million Australian dollars a year. However, it is obvious that the US and others are looking for support from countries far removed from NATO.

So at a moment in which austerity measures are being instituted and the US is struggling to cope with its financial commitments, it seems responsible to try to spend more efficiently and with better returns.  The upcoming G8 Summit and the NATO summit in Chicago may be pivotal in terms of international initiatives and their funding.  The NATO summit, in particular, will be a crucial turning point in the war in Afghanistan and may be the most important summit in regards to the future of Afghanistan.

 

Image taken by  Joshua Treadwell (U.S. armed forces) and released by the United States Navy with the ID 101108-N-5208T-004

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in economics, Foreign Policy, NATO | Leave a comment

Geopolitical Evolution: Time Will Tell

Posted on May 9, 2012 by Cameo Cheung

Written by Cameo Cheung, Articles Manager

I have a geopolitical question: What do you think the world is going to look like at the end of your lifetime? Do you think we’ll see the consolidation of states into regions that are more like the United States or the European Union?

Presently, international organizations require the cooperation of their constituent countries, which is unlike governments that have the resources and authority to commit those resources to causes without consulting their constituents.

I ask this question because the world is changing. The last century has borne witness to a geopolitical evolution at a rate unparalleled in recorded history. Most notably perhaps, this century has seen the rise of transnational organizations that unite nation states in ways unlike the empires of the past. This includes the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization of American States, the African Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and others. Unlike imperial powers of history, these organizations are comprised of states that are nominal equals, each are members of their own volition. Treaties and negotiations are conducted to the theoretical satisfaction of both parties. Countries are intended to work together rather than against one another. At least, that is the future they supposedly support.

That being said, new states are also gaining independence from declining empires and forming out of areas historically rife with conflict (e.g. South Sudan, the world’s newest country in central Africa). This seems to indicate that the world is becoming more fractured rather than more united. Governance is becoming more local and people have more autonomy and more access to participatory opportunities than before.

Let us look at Syria as an example. For months now, the Syrian government and anti-government protesters have been at war. From early in the conflict, officials of the United Nations noted the potential for the country to descend into violent internal conflict. Yet it was not until late March, nearly than five months after this initial observation by Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, that the United Nations actually reacted to the situation in Syria. In the intervening five months, cities became war zones, people were cut off from critical supplies, and the government brutally suppressed protests. Stalled by the vetoes of Russia and China of Security Council resolutions, the UN was unable to act. The UN’s ineffectiveness in responding to international events in a timely manner does not speak well to the organizations ability to unite the nations of the world.

Time will tell.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in blog, Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, Middle East, NGOs | Leave a comment

The Challenge of Making NATO’s Voice Heard

Posted on May 3, 2012 by Exchange Journal

Written by Dr. Stefanie Babst, NATO’s Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy

NATO must continue to connect to the digital global village to make its voice heard

Question: how many videos do you imagine are watched on YouTube each day. A few million? A couple of hundred million? The answer is actually 2 billion – and growing.

In 2007, Twitter saw 5,000 tweets a day. Today Twitter counts over 300 million registered users.

In 2012, the most popular social network, Facebook, reports more than 800 million active users. It is the world’s most visited website, accessible in 70 languages and consuming 700 billion minutes per month.

Nowhere is the rapid pace of change more visible than in mass communications. Thanks to digital cameras and mobile phones, photos and videos are spread within seconds across the globe, turning millions of people into information providers.

In the past years social media outlets have increasingly demonstrated their mobilizing effect on thousands, if not millions of people. This, in turn, has changed the way people interact with each other, news is made and information and opinions are disseminated.

Meanwhile numerous compelling examples show that the digital world can also have a say on international and domestic politics. Without the growing number of Russian bloggers and their thousands of followers behind, President Medvedvev and Prime Minister Putin would perhaps not have agreed to make time to meet with them and discuss the state of democracy in Russia. But they both did already a few times.

The so-called Arab Spring is another case in point. From the very early hours Facebook, Twitter and YouTube played a crucial role in organizing public demonstrations and keeping the news content fresh, and they still do all the way from Egypt, Yemen to Syria. People use their laptops, blackberries and I phones to inform themselves, connect to like-minded friends, raise awareness of local and global events, discuss policy issues, organize public protests in support or against the national governments and wherever needed, circumvent state censorship. In particular, young activists, academics, NGOs, journalists and policymakers in the broader Middle East have come to take advantage of Facebook and other social networking sites. The Arab Social Media Report of the Dubai School of Government impressively reveals the growing impact of social networking on civic mobilization in the Arab world.

There is no doubt: in spite of efforts to ban or interrupt internet traffic in some countries, social networking is on the rise everywhere.

Unsurprisingly, public institutions and governments find it hard to adjust to the growing power of the web 2.0. communities. Although many of them now use online tools to promote their messages, governmental communications channels rank among the least trusted.

There are still considered to offer only ‘propagandistic’ information and news, which are specifically designed to support a respective policy message of a government or organisation. In addition, many official online channels are primarily used for marketing and publishing purposes and lack opportunities for the public to interact directly with the political leadership.

As the internet consumer ultimately decides where he/she wants to seek information, it does not come as a surprise that official online channels have a hard time to establish themselves as credible voices in the digital global village.

So where does NATO fit in this? How has it fared in engaging people off- and online?

The “Transatlantic Trends” carried out by the German Marshall Fund in 2011 gives us a few clues about public perceptions about the Alliance. It found that majorities (62%) in 11 European countries and the United States (62%) still believe that NATO is essential for their security. The exception is Turkey where only 37% believe NATO is essential.

But the NATO Allies would be well advised not to take public support for NATO for granted.

The NATO-led operation (ISAF) in Afghanistan remains a critical political and communications challenge. More than half of West Europeans want to see their troops withdrawn from or reduced in Afghanistan with Poland being highest (73%) and Turkey lowest (with 43%). Support for NATO’s operation in Afghanistan has also decreased in the United States, where 66% want their troops home or numbers substantially reduced.

Convincing national legislators and their constituencies that the strategy of gradually handing over security responsibility to the Afghan authorities is successful and works according to plan, poses already a critical communications challenge. But at the same time the Alliance needs to tackle another fundamental challenge. Bluntly, NATO must better explain what it stands for today and how it seeks to fulfil its missions: protecting the populations and territories of its member’s countries and enhancing international security through cooperation and partnerships with others.

This is not an easy task. National and international surveys demonstrate clearly that the public at large, and particularly the post-Cold-War generation, has only foggy ideas of the NATO’s raison d’être, its missions and policies. While there still is a considerable degree of trust and confidence in the organisation as such, many people neither relate NATO to global security threats such as cyber defence, energy security or piracy, nor can they see a link between the Alliance and their individual security and day-to-day concerns.

The later aspect can be easily understood. Faced with the fallout of the current economic and financial crises, the publics, lawmakers and governments alike could be said to be “somewhere else”. For most of them, legitimately, NATO is not their number one concern.

The sad fact, however, remains that our connected and globalise world has even become more fragile after the end of the Cold War.

Terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts and threats posed to our energy security, information infrastructure and commercial shipping is just some of the pressing security challenges that require urgent responses. More than ever, governments and other players in the international arena need to work together to address these challenges, to find support for solutions and change.
The Alliance remains an important organisation to do exactly this: a place, where member states discuss with partner countries, other international organisations and NGOs how to effectively protect against global and regional threats to our security and how to make a meaningful political and, if need be, military contribution to enhancing international security.

Now how does this narrative translate into NATO’s public diplomacy efforts?

For sure, the Allies have come a long way in embracing a new and modern understanding of their common communication policies. Transparency, responsiveness, accuracy of information and direct engagement with people across Allied territory and beyond have become core pillars of NATO’s public diplomacy.

More than ever, journalists, think tankers, decisions-makers and NGOs can be found in NATO’s Headquarters’ corridors or meeting with NATO civilian and military experts in public gatherings.

The Alliance has also become more accessible for average citizens. Every year thousands of visitors come to the Headquarters to discuss the transatlantic security agenda with national and NATO officials and, if he is around, even with the NATO Secretary General.
And NATO does not avoid critical questions. In recent years, we have especially reinforced our efforts to reach out to the young generation, by facilitating networks among students and young political leaders, offering summer schools and fellowships and organising seminars and workshops across NATO and partner nations.
We have also overhauled our technological capabilities, bringing the NATO website and other audiovisual tools and products up to scratch. In order to give NATO’s digital programmes in proper framework, we have elaborated a dedicated Digital Strategy together with Social Media Guidelines that govern the official and personal use of social web activities for all NATO employees.

Online lectures, videos and discussions have made NATO’s interface to the outside world more transparent. There are no taboos: topics range from the new Strategic Concept, relations with Russia all the way to the challenging operation in Afghanistan. NATO Secretary General Rasmussen’s digital activities are closely aligned to those of NATO as an organization. The Facebook, Twitter and YouTube channels are fed with press statements, news stories and interesting background videos on a daily basis. All important NATO official meetings and public events are now reported on social media networks.

Nowadays nobody can claim that NATO hides behind diplomatic brick walls. What we are doing, what we are thinking and with whom we are doing business – it is all out there. Online. Accessible to whoever has the time and the interest to follow us.

But we have started to do more. We continue supporting existing online communities such as www.atlantic-community.org, encouraging them to have discussions on NATO’s role in Afghanistan, relations with Russia or gender issues in military operations. We even went as far as inviting the internet community to discuss our new Strategic Concept online. During the first six months of 2010 we hosted online discussions and chats with people from across the NATO family to debate how our future Strategic Concept should be shaped and which burning issues it should address. NATO’s online discussions about the new Strategic Concept found a broad echo and demonstrated that transatlantic security issues must not and should not just be discussed by a the small community of so-called ‘movers and shakers’ in defense and security.

As we move towards the NATO Summit in Chicago in May this year, digital outreach will play a prominent role in our communications campaign both during the run-up phase and on the margins of the event itself. We will design dedicated event pages on Facebook, #hashtags for Twitter and special play lists on YouTube featuring NATO videos showing what the Summit aims to achieve. Moreover, we have created a special ‘WE NATO’ platform that allows netizens to post their comments and viewpoints and engage directly with NATO representatives on Summit-related topics. In addition, a group of young people, so-called NATO I Reps, has been invited to report directly from the Chicago about the Summit, and perhaps most importantly, we will engage directly with bloggers and citizen journalists from NATO member countries, Russia, the Middle East and elsewhere. .

To be frank: not all NATO member countries have come to realize the potential power of social media. There are still quite a few in the NATO family who think Facebook and Twitter are alien to international diplomacy, but they are outnumbered by the many thousands who follow NATO’s policies and actions through the social web. For the Alliance, Facebook & co is not a question of ‘either-or’ but a useful complement to other, more traditional communications means. To use them professionally, an organization needs to put adequate staff, financial resources and more importantly, a well-defined social media strategy in place. We have done all this and we will learn and adapt as we go along. Our aim is to become a credible voice in the global village.

Ultimately, however, the Alliance’s political credibility can never be constructed through public diplomacy efforts alone, be they on- or offline. It needs to be earned through convincing policies and political actions – and this is exactly what the 28 Allies are trying to achieve together on a daily basis.

For more information about NATO’s digital outreach, please visit http://we-nato.org/.

 

Dr. Stefanie Babst is NATO’s Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy. In the past years she has been responsible for NATO’s communications strategies and has energetically driven NATO’s digital outreach. The views represented in this article are solely her own and are not NATO’s official positions.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in blog, Cultural Diplomacy, Featured Articles, Foreign Policy, Media/Technologies, new media, Public Diplomacy Theory | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Nationalism in Norway: One Year after the Oslo Massacre

Posted on April 30, 2012 by Tammy Mehdi

Written by Tammy Mehdi, Web Manager/Designer

Last week, Anders Behring Breivik’s trial began on charges of voluntary homicide and committing acts of terror. He gave an account of what went through his head as he set off a bomb outside the government headquarters in Oslo, Norway, before slipping away and gunning down teenagers on Utoya Island. In total, 77 people lost their lives on July 22, 2011.

This was not your typical spur- of- the- moment massacre – this had been in the works for many years – and Breivik said that he had been learning to “desensitize” himself for about 5 years. Some methods of “training” included playing videogames to improve his marksmanship, studying Al-Qaeda, and watching documentaries about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, all the while figuring out what had been done right and what had been done wrong.

His account is nerve-wracking, to say the least. He admitted to having second thoughts, but justified his actions by telling himself, “It is now or never.” It might be a little comforting to know that he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, and to be criminally insane. However, Breivik denies this and said that he would do anything to not be sent to a mental hospital. At the same time, he called Norway’s maximum prison sentence of 21 years “pathetic” and said he would “respect” the death penalty more.

As an anti-Islamic fanatic, this massacre was his way of attempting to ethnically cleanse Norway, which he fears has grown too multicultural. To him, these were not innocent children, they were “a political youth movement similar to the Hitler youth” and Utoya was “an indoctrination camp.”

His story is a complex one, but this case brings to light the harsh realities of nationalism, racism and xenophobia. It also highlights the dangerous influence that media may have on an individual.

Some may argue that it is not our job as public diplomacy students or practitioners to combat xenophobia that takes place in other countries. I would argue that it is exactly our job – whether their hate is directed at the US or not, we have a duty to try to understand and combat racist, discriminatory and outright bigoted sentiments that cause bodily harm to both our allies and foes. We all are human, after all, and no life is worth more than another.

 

Photo By seljes Oskar Seljeskog http://flic.kr/p/abAqVo

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in blog, Cultural Diplomacy, Nation/Place Branding, new media, news | Leave a comment

Formula for Controversy

Posted on April 24, 2012 by Blake Stilwell

Written by Blake Stilwell, Public Diplomacy graduate student, Syracuse University

This Sunday saw the run of the Bahrain Grand Prix. This is (usually) one of the biggest things to happen in the small Gulf nation. It’s become an integral part of Bahraini culture and national identity. It is so culturally linked to the country that the Bahrain International Circuit is featured on the Half-Dinar note, putting it on par with King Hamad, Bahraini Pearl Divers, and the country’s first oil well, all images on other denominations of currency. The cultural and economic importance of this event, combined with everything that’s been happening in Bahrain in recent weeks, means the F1 season opener was bound to cause a stir. It had all the requisite ingredients for strife: F1 drivers were concerned for their safety. Sponsors were concerned for their image. Anti-government demonstrators were angry at the regime’s use of repression and violence. Pro-government demonstrators were angry with anti-government demonstrators for impeding the economic development of the country. Even the hacktivist collective Anonymous made their presence known as they attacked and brought down official Formula One racing websites and defaced fan sites.  There were many cooks stirring this pot.

The recipe for this international PR disaster goes beyond a simple international competition or bad timing. The real crux of the issue is the will of the people in Bahrain. There are one and a quarter million people living on the island. Most of these are Shiites, ruled over by a Sunni monarchy. The religious makeup of the people contributes to what I think is one of the more difficult aspects of this situation and one of the things shaking the country: its mixture of cultural and socio-religious identity. However, this divide can’t be reduced. Let me clarify.

While the people do identify as Sunni and Shia and class cleavages do exist as a result, the one thing both sides – Sunni/Shia or Anti/Pro-Government – will always agree on is that they love their country. They love Bahrain. They love being Bahraini. The only flag flying at Bahraini demonstrations is the red and white Bahraini flag, unlike in Libya, where the resistance created a new flag, a new identity and a new government. There is no transitional council based in Awali. King Hamad is not shelling Budaiya like Asad is shelling Homs. Manama is not running out of water while al-Qaeda rebels are sacking towns in the desert area. “DOWN IRAN” can be found spray-painted on walls in all areas of the cities: rich and poor, Sunni and Shia. None of the ideologies reflected in this conflict would be willing to destroy the county in order to “save” it. There will be no civil war in Bahrain. King Hamad will never have to flee. Pearl Roundabout could never have been Tahrir Square. The closest the uprising in Bahrain ever came to critical mass was when the GCC intervened across the King Fahd Causeway. There has never been an escalation or concession from either side since. This situation will always be simmering and may never boil over.

After being invited to Bahrain earlier this year, and being immersed in the cultural, political, social, economic, and daily life of the country, I found myself falling in love with the country. The streets are clean, the infrastructure is modern, the people are educated, the scenery is beautiful and their ancient, unique culture is intact.

This perception was unfortunately undercut every night when I stepped off the bus at my hotel in Manama, when my nose would begin to run as the tear gas from miles away permeated the evening air. I am loathe to use the word insidious, because it is unfair to the people of Bahrain who opened their hearts and their homes to me in order to demonstrate their love of country. But the appearance of success comes at the price of democracy and human rights. Inequality does exist. It pervades the culture so much that one side can’t even see it at this point. Neither side of the democracy debate understands the intentions or the mindset of the other, nor do they seek to understand. The average pro-government Bahraini believes the demonstrators simply want the King to be removed or killed, or that the demonstrators are puppets of Iranian infiltrators. Al-Wefaq, the main opposition movement, once controlled a large number of seats in the elected Council of Representatives, but withdrew its support for the government some time ago. I am by no means advocating violence or civil war as a means to an end. The issue of democracy in Bahrain can be solved by plain and deliberate discussion, because there needs to be some kind of general consensus. If the pro-democracy movement wants a change of government, what will that government look like? Will supporters of the monarchy accept that government? What of the radicals on both sides? Will they ever accept a moderate, meaningful change? The lack of will to sit down and understand and engage the other side amounts to an unwillingness to solve the problem.

Al-Jazeera calls the Bahraini uprising a “revolution abandoned by the Arabs, forsaken by the West, and forgotten by the world.” I find this statement overly dramatic and possibly misleading, especially for a news organization that is usually very informative and trustworthy. The general American population is paying as much attention to Bahrain as they ever have (I’ll let the reader determine how much that might be). Meanwhile, much of the rest of the world’s attention is focused on Syria, where they’re continuing to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Hama ’82 by systematically turning every city into Hama, starting with Homs. People are dying in Bahrain, no doubt, but unlike in Libya and Egypt, nothing is happening in Bahrain to bring the situation to a head and break the impasse of ideology which prevents them from moving forward. Until one side reaches a tipping point, the bloody stalemate is likely to continue.

By the way, The Bahrain Grand Prix is a race, as it turns out, and was won by Germany’s Sebastian Vettal, which made him the only winner in Bahrain this weekend.
Photo By Andrew Griffith from United Kingdom (IMG_2566) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in blog, Cultural Diplomacy, news | 1 Comment

Training the Watchdog – A Free and Fair Press

Posted on April 23, 2012 by Nadia Hakim

Written by Nadia Hakim

When discussing the issues in Africa, most immediately think of development and stability in the region. A free and fair press usually does not make it across as a pressing problem.

I know that I never gave it much thought until I attended a presentation by Ken Harper, a photojournalism professor at the Newhouse School of Public Communication. He travels to Liberia and trains journalists in the capital, Monrovia. After decades of civil war, the country is on the road to recovery.

In the United States, and most other successful democracies, there is the prominent belief that the media serve as a watchdog for its citizens. Journalists are supposed to present the news in an objective manner, and the people should be able to make their own decisions based on this information. In theory, this is how it works.

Liberia just received broadband a couple of years ago. Journalists are threatened, many critical newspapers and radio stations become targets of destruction, and less than 60 percent of the population is literate.

However, there are positive changes arising from their hardship as well. Liberian journalist Mae Azango, recently went into hiding after reporting on the tradition of female genital mutilation in the country. For the first time in Liberia’s history, the government took a public stance on the ritual and officials voiced their desire to stop it. A recent headline reads, “In Liberia, journalist Mae Azango moves a nation.”

So what to do? It will take more than delivering donated equipment and wishing them well to prepare Liberian journalists for the task of informing the people.

“Freedom of the press is not restricted to the operation of linotype machines and printing presses. A rotary press needs raw material like a flourmill needs wheat. A print shop without material to print would be as meaningless as a vineyard without grapes, an orchard without trees, or a lawn without verdure. Freedom of the press means freedom to gather news, write it, publish it, and circulate it. When any one of these integral operations is interdicted, freedom of the press becomes a river without water.” – Justice Musmanno

For more photos and information on Ken Harper’s Together Liberia project, please visit togetherliberia.org.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in blog, Media/Technologies | Leave a comment

WikiLeaks founder’s new TV show makes for Engaging, Shaky Journalism

Posted on April 20, 2012 by Jacob Kriss

Written by Jacob Kriss

 

It’s been a few months since we’ve heard anything from Julian Assange, the flamboyant founder of anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, but apparently the global flag bearer of the open information movement just can’t stand to see himself out of the headlines. So I wasn’t surprised to read a few days ago that the controversial figure had landed himself a new gig, one he could pull off despite being under house arrest in Britain: hosting a TV show.

The show, called “The World Tomorrow,” is scheduled for weekly broadcasts on state-funded Russia Today for 12 weeks, and was billed by WikiLeaks as hosting, “an eclectic range of guests, who are stamping their mark on the future: politicians, revolutionaries, intellectuals, artists and visionaries.”

As a former journalist relatively well-acquainted with Assange’s tumultuous past, I was intrigued to see Assange try his hand at, well, something like journalism. Revered by some and reviled by others, Assange is known for championing a progressive cause, and I seriously doubted the level of objectivity he could bring to substantive political and social dialogue in the form of an interview show.

The results, I came to discover, were a mix of what I expected and some surprises. True to form, Assange pulled no punches on his first episode, featuring Hassan Nasrallah, secretary general of Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, political party, and, according to most Western governments, terrorist organization. As Nasrallah’s obvious opposition to Israel seemed much in line with Assange’s support for Palestinian causes, I expected Assange to lob his questions over the plate – but that wasn’t quite the case.

Instead, Assange began with pointed questions for Nasrallah, including topics such as reported corruption in Hezbollah and accusations of indiscriminate Hezbollah attacks against Israeli civilians. Assange also addressed Hezbollah’s unwillingness to openly support efforts by Syrian rebels to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power, despite Hezbollah’s support of Arab Spring uprisings in other nations. Was there a limit to civilian deaths, Assange asked, that must be reached before Hezbollah could no longer support efforts to negotiate a political settlement?

Still, the questioning could hardly be described as truly pressing, and later lines proved a bit more revealing of Assange’s obvious bent. For example, why did the United States government ban and “fear” Al-Manar, the Lebanon-based, pro-Palestinian satellite TV network, when it purported to advocate free speech, and how did Nasrallah find the ability to his inspire followers?

However, no can deny Assange’s charisma, and ultimately, the inaugural episode proved more geared toward objective discussion than what I expected. There’s no doubt Assange’s high profile will draw further big names in international politics (they’re not announced yet), and after one viewing of “The World Tomorrow,” I’m more to apt to pay attention than I thought I would be.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in blog, Media/Technologies, news | Leave a comment

Mali Tuareg rebels Declare State of Azawad

Posted on April 11, 2012 by Roxanne Bauer

Written by Roxanne Bauer

 

Mali is breaking up… with itself.  The northern half of the country declared independence from the southern portion and would like to be recognized as Azawad from now on.

On Friday, April 6, Mailan Tuareg rebel spokesman Mossa ag Attaher, announced on France 24, “We declare the independence of Azawad from this day on,” and requested a unilateral ceasefire.   This came after the Tuaregs successfully secured control the territory of Mali north of the Niger River.

The Tuareg rebel group also requested that the international community formally recognize its independence to hasten the process of state- building. Attaher continued, “Now the biggest task begins.”   While it is unclear what form of government will be pursued, who the lead executive will be, or how other institutional services will be implemented, it is clear that the fighting is not over.  A military coup in Mali’s government two weeks ago,  the possibility that al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb may attempt to interfere, and food shortages in Western Africa all threaten to undermine the situation.

The revolutionary spirit is likely to spread as more disenfranchised groups take note of recent events like the Arab Spring.  Indeed, it should be noted that the Tuareg success in Mali is in part due to the demise of Qaddafi last summer who incorporated Tuareg soldiers into its armed forces.  When he fell, these fighters returned to Mali with weapons and military knowledge.

From a public diplomacy standpoint, much can be done in the area to ensure that US interests are not lost in the region.  Public diplomacy initiatives can reinforce US relations; aid in the state-building process, if it is undertaken; and support emerging leaders once they are elected in Mali and Azawad.  These leaders will need help, not manipulation, to support the development and construction of democratic institutions. Public diplomacy should work to prepare new and groundbreaking regimes for change and the slow process of stabilization.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in blog, news, Regional Studies | 5 Comments

BRICS: Silent on Pakistan

Posted on April 9, 2012 by Roxanne Bauer

Written by Roxanne Bauer

 

The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) recently held a summit in New Delhi on 29 March in which they issued a variety of statements, including the possibility of establishing a development bank that would offer credit from  multi-lateral lending agencies in local currencies, the promotion of peace, social progress, and IMF reforms.  Their main objectives were provided in the Delhi Declaration. In particular, the summit seemed to be useful for the relationship between China and India.

The discussions in Delhi extended beyond the confines of multilateral agreements and also made assertions regarding the future of this political bloc and of its members’ security.  An article published by ChinaDaily entitled, “Charm diplomacy bears fruit”, outlines China’s recent activities to increase its reach through diplomatic methods.  Among other points, it states that:

China and India share common interests in a variety of areas and despite their border dispute, the two countries can reach consensus and make concerted efforts to tackle key international and regional issues, such as the global financial crisis and climate change. The two countries have been maintaining close contact on various multinational occasions including the trilateral meeting between China, India and Russia, and the BRICS summit.

Nevertheless, despite multilateral agreements and statements of cooperation, China and India still seem to suspect one another. The string-of-pearls theory, first coined by Booz Allen; issues regarding Tibet; and safety concerns all pressure the respective governments of China and India.

China’s diplomatic strategy, and its recent ‘charm diplomacy’ demonstrate that the country is working to further secure its place as a leading military power.  China’s hard power resources are increasing as it continues to invest in its military. Its declared military budget for this year is $106.4 billion, an increase from around $91.5 billion in 2011.  It is also expanding its cruise and ballistic missile arsenal, and introduced a new stealth fighter and aircraft carrier.

However, in my opinion none of these factors are as important as the one played by Pakistan. After the US assassinated Osama bin Laden, China was the only power to openly express its support for Pakistan.   China also agreed to provide Pakistan with 50 new jets under a co-production agreement following the assassination.

The ongoing stability in Pakistan is a threat to South Asia and also makes India an important player in the region. It is not ridiculous to suppose that China is using Pakistan to counter Indian power in the region, providing it with space for diplomatic maneuvering.  China uses Pakistan as a pawn to pursue its larger strategic objectives.

India and its intelligence community should work harder to study China.  No doubt, Pakistan’s usefulness for China is massive and likely to increase.  India needs to address this reality and work more strategically with its neighbor.

Both countries share the objectives of political stability in Pakistan and the security of its nuclear weapons.  In addition, Pakistan’s lack of action regarding terrorism is a problem for both China and India.

Certainly, it is telling that the Delhi Declaration issued at the BRICS summit did not contain a reference to Pakistan while mentioning Afghanistan, Iran and other issues of instability.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in blog, Foreign Policy, Regional Studies | Leave a comment

Borat: Cultural Learnings at Arab Shooting Championship in Kuwait

Posted on April 3, 2012 by Tammy Mehdi

Written by Tammy Mehdi


Everyone knows the 2006 spoof- film, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, starring Sacha Baron Cohen as Borat Sagdiyev. This film follows Borat, a Kazakh journalist, to the U.S. as he learns about American society and culture. Followed by a documentary crew, he decides to go on a road trip across the country as part of quest to find and court Pamela Anderson after watching Baywatch.

There is no arguing that it is a funny film. But, unfortunately, for those who have no knowledge of Kazakhstan, it created the image of a backward, violent and oppressive place that bears no resemblance to the real country. People in Kazakhstan were deeply offended after the film’s release, and it was banned there, as well as in certain nations across the Middle East.

So when the national anthem from the film blared at the Arab Shooting Championship in Kuwait on March 22, you can imagine the outrage. Kazakhstan’s gold medalist Maria Dmitrienko stood with her hand over her heart at the podium, but you could see her progressively getting more and more uncomfortable as the lyrics, “Kazakhstan’s prostitutes are the cleanest in the region, except, of course, for Turkmenistan’s. Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan, you very nice place… come grasp the mighty penis of our leader from junction with testes to tip of its face,” played.

Kuwait’s defense? The organizers downloaded the wrong version off the Internet. The film is banned in Kuwait, after all. While it was obviously an accident, and the Asian Shooting Federation president apologized to the team, it should not excuse them. I find it hard to believe that no one double-checked something as important as a national anthem. No, wait – scratch that – I find it hard to believe that no one checked the anthems at all. You just have to listen to it once to figure out that it is obviously not the right one. I should mention that they got the Serbian national anthem wrong too.

Is messing up a national anthem as bad as desecrating a flag, and is this going to affect Kuwait-Kazakhstan relations?

 

Watch Dmitrienko’s reaction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vtpKSMMhF0

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in blog, Cultural Diplomacy, Nation/Place Branding | Leave a comment