Being Invisible 2.0

Fri, 01/09/2009 - 9:49am

In a major speech at the beginning of December outlining his vision for "Public Diplomacy 2.0", Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy James Glassman argued that "in the war of ideas, our core task... is to create an environment hostile to violent extremism."

Israel's war on Gaza has done quite the opposite. It has unleashed a tsunami of outrage in the Arab world, with every Arab and Islamist trend jockeying for position in the rapidly reshaping landscape. Al-Jazeera has dominated the media landscape, not just over the satellite TV airwaves but across the new media spectrum. Al-Qaeda has made an aggressive bid to frame the crisis as part of the general war between the West and Islam. The Saudis, Egyptians, and other forces aligned on the anti-Hamas side of Arab politics have struggled with limited success to blame Hamas for the carnage. The center of political gravity in the region has shifted palpably away from so-called "moderates."

This is the "war of ideas" at its most intense, its most urgent, and its most visceral. So surely the United States has been fully engaged, since everyone agrees that the "war of ideas" is the "central front" in the "war on terror"?

Um, no. To my eye, at least, American public diplomacy has been virtually invisible in this crisis. I suppose that Alhurra [sic], the hugely expensive but little-watched American Arabic-language TV station, is still broadcasting (just as trees continue to fall in empty forests). "DipNote", the State Department's blog, has barely registered: it posed an open question about how to "resume a path toward Israeli-Palestinian peace" on December 29 and on January 7 posted the text of Secretary of State Rice's statement on a ceasefire (ditto for the Twitter feed). There's no evidence of senior officials speaking to the Arab media (I don't recall seeing any on al-Jazeera, and couldn't find any transcripts on al-Arabiya, the usual preference for such appearances, though I could easily have missed something). There are no recorded statements from Glassman's office since December 1. Perhaps there is activity in the much-hyped "Public Diplomacy 2.0" realm -- Facebook pages, engagement with youth groups or whatnot (the sort of stuff Israel and supporters of the Palestinians are doing aggressively)-- but if so it has singularly failed to catch my eye in my daily tracking of Arab media old and new. (UPDATE -- see State Department adviser Jared Cohen's take on the impact of online media on the debate over Gaza... and try to spot the U.S. in his account.) 

This isn't simply an indictment of public diplomacy -- the problem starts at the top. For all of Barack Obama's repeating the mantra of "one President at a time", in this crisis the U.S. seems to have no President at the worst time. The absence of public diplomacy and effective engagement in the evolving arguments in the Arab and Islamic worlds over Gaza is only a symptom of that larger problem. Policy comes first, and throughout most of the crisis the U.S. has had no evident policy to defend before Arab and Muslim publics. 

But that is the problem, not an excuse. For public diplomacy ever to be effective, it needs to be integrated into the policy formation process from the outset -- not tacked on at the end to sell a policy made in complete isolation from its likely reception by relevant audiences. This is one of those moments that shines a cruel light on the failure to translate into effective action the emerging consensus about the centrality of soft power, and the need to integrate communications and policy. I fear that the United States will be paying the costs of this failure for years to come, and that the legacy of this month could prove crippling to the incoming administration's hopes to start a new relationship with the Muslim world.

For those interested in such questions, allow me to extend an invitation to a talk being given next week by Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Jim Glassman next week at George Washington University's Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communications (on the 6th floor of the Elliott School of International Affairs, Wednesday, January 14 at 10:00). He will be laying out his vision for the future of public diplomacy, I will be moderating, and I expect a lively discussion.  



Advertisement

 

Glassman is so nervous about

Glassman is so nervous about Gaza that they have ordered everyone not to talk about it. To speak out about Gaza means engaging with hostile audiences and that is something that has always made the powers that be very nervous. An official might come across sounding sympathetic to the suffering Palestinian people of Gaza (without supporting Hamas) and who knows where that will lead?

Glassman always was a bit of a con and all that PD 2.0 was a dodge that appealed to some bloggers (sorry, Marc) but it was really a repeat of a mantra heard often in the death throes of USIA that somehow technology was a substitute for resources and for actually engaging people face to face. The man is actually an articulate (to Americans) cifer.

Arab satellite television is supreme in such events and that is where the Americans have been conspicious by their absence. Wasn't there a media hub in Dubai once? Interestingly enough, the Israelis have been really active, especially on Al-Jazeera, with everyone including Peres and Netanyahu going on there. Even though I don't believe a word he says, that young, aggressive, Arabic speaking IDF officer they've used is very impressive. Very sharp. Damage control is never easy in the best of times and this tired US administration isn't even trying.

TY

Great post - both outlining what should be done, and how we're not doing it.

war of ideas

Professor Lynch,

Thank you as always for your enlightening comments.

Technology's titillations are, of course, no substitute for the substance of policy. Mr. Glassman, inside-the-beltway smart operator that he is, is no doubt aware of this, and all the social-networking talk coming from his Public Diplomacy office at the State Department increasingly appears to be a way, as the Bush administration rides into the sunset, of avoiding basic, unsettled questions about America's role in the world -- given how disastrous (as is generally acknowledged) our foreign policy has been for the past eight years, a policy which has turned the U.S. into a pariah state for many across the globe, including, needless to say, in the Middle East.

I note you put "war of ideas" in quotation marks. This infelicitous term, something of a relic from the Cold War, has been resuscitated by said Mr. Glassman, as I point out in my piece on the subject at http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/58654.html.

Clearly, by using an antiquated slogan -- "war of ideas" -- Mr. Glassman and his entourage have run out of ideas themselves. So, could it be that, in desperation, they are turning to electronic gadgetry to "explain our policy" (i.e., "beef up" the "war of ideas") since they don't know (or really want to discuss publicly) what our "policy" is? Twitter limits messages to 1,400 words, if my memory serves me right. Perfect way to avoid a real dialogue.

In the spirit of constructive criticism as a taxpayer may I propose to the Under Secretary, instead of "war of ideas," the dull but perhaps more hopeful: "understanding through ideas."

Size of demonstrations

I would be wary of taking those numbers seriously. Most news organisations in this part of the world have no notion of how to count crowds. Whenever I go to a protest I find that news reports exaggerate the turnout, generally by a factor of 10. This is especially true of AFP and AP. I wasn't in Alexandria on Friday but no protest in Cairo has exceeded 2,000 people. Maybe disappointing but true.

Most news organisations in

Most news organisations in this part of the world have no notion of how to count crowds. Whenever I go to a protest I find that news reports exaggerate the turnout, generally by a factor of 10.

In the USA also, crowd size estimates by the news media tend to be about 10 times those by the police.

But who to believe? Should we believe the media or the police? Should we believe the media or you?

It helps when the media actually publish a photograph of the whole crowd, as they did for the crowd that so famously pulled down Saddam's statue right after the US troops took Baghdad. With a photo you can count the heads, unless of course the photo has been doctored. And the doctoring often shows up.

correction re twitter

Correction: In my comment, "1,400 words" should of course be "140 characters." Apologies.