Posted on 11/21/2005 8:54:40 AM PST by Valin
America has an image problem. While the problem is serious, it is complicated by more variation than is usually ascribed to it. For example, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey of June 2005, the “U.S. image [is] up slightly, but still [is] negative.” This variation is further reflected by the fact that in two of the world’s potentially most important triangular relationships — namely, those between China, Japan, and the U.S. and between India, Pakistan, and the U.S. — it is the United States that is regarded as most friendly by the other two members of each triad.
America’s image problem is especially acute in the Middle East and among predominantly Muslim populations. Recent polls highlight the depth and breadth of the animus. In 2002, Gallup conducted a poll of nearly 10,000 residents in nine Muslim countries. By an average of more than 2:1, respondents reported an unfavorable view of the United States. The prevalence of an unfavorable view in Iran is unsurprising because that country has had an adversarial relation with the United States for more than 20 years. More troubling are the results from ostensible allies. Only 16 percent of respondents in Saudi Arabia, supposedly one of America’s long-standing allies in the region, held a favorable view, while 64 percent reported an unfavorable view. Results from Kuwait were even more disconcerting. In a country that the United States waged war to liberate a decade earlier, only slightly more than a quarter of those polled expressed a favorable view of the United States.
This displeasure cannot be easily dismissed as vague and loose views held by those in remote lands whose attitudes and behavior are immaterial to the U.S. It may not foreshadow calamitous outcomes for the U.S., but it hardly provides reassurance that such outcomes will not ensue. As President George W. Bush plainly stated the task, “We have to do a better job of telling our story.” That is the job of public diplomacy.
The term “public diplomacy” was first used in 1965 by Edmund Gullion, a career foreign service diplomat and subsequently dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, in connection with establishment at the Fletcher School of the Edward R. Murrow Center for Public Diplomacy. The Department of State now defines “public diplomacy” as “government-sponsored programs intended to inform or influence public opinion in other countries.” But it can perhaps best be understood by contrasting its principal characteristics with those of “official diplomacy.” First, public diplomacy is transparent and widely disseminated, whereas official diplomacy is (apart from occasional leaks) opaque and its dissemination narrowly confined. Second, public diplomacy is transmitted by governments to wider, or in some cases selected, “publics” (for example, those in the Middle East or in the Muslim world), whereas official diplomacy is transmitted by governments to other governments. Third, the themes and issues with which official diplomacy is concerned relate to the behavior and policies of governments, whereas the themes and issues with which public diplomacy is concerned relate to the attitudes and behaviors of publics.
Of course, these publics may be influenced by explaining to them the sometimes-misunderstood policies and behavior of the U.S. government. Additionally, to the extent that the behavior and policies of foreign governments are affected by the behavior and attitudes of their citizens, public diplomacy may affect governments by influencing their citizens.
In this article, we consider how to inform and persuade foreign publics that the ideals that Americans cherish — such as pluralism, freedom, and democracy — are fundamental human values that will resonate and should be pursued in their own countries. Associated with this consideration are two questions that are rarely addressed in most discussions of public diplomacy: Should the U.S. government be the only, or even the main, transmitter of public diplomacy’s content rather than sharing this function with such other potential transmitters as nongovernmental (nonprofit) organizations and responsible business, labor, and academic entities? Should public diplomacy transmissions and transactions be viewed and conducted to encourage dialogue or “multilogue” (for example, through call-ins, debates, structured “cross-fires”) rather than as a monologue through one-way transmission by the U.S.?
Private goods and public goods
our linked propositions — each of questionable validity — have, implicitly or explicitly, motivated the U.S. to energize and improve its “public diplomacy.” Partly reflecting these propositions, Newton Minow has forcefully advocated the need for this improvement:1
Prevalence of anti-Americanism abroad — especially but not exclusively in the Middle East and among Muslims more generally — is partly due to the inability of “the United States government to get its message of freedom and democracy out to the one billion Muslims in the world . . . [and] to explain itself to the world.”
Lack of success in conveying the U.S. message has ensued despite the fact that “our film, television, and computer software industries dominate these markets worldwide.”
A potential remedy for the failure of our public diplomacy may be found in the “American marketing talent [for] . . . successfully selling Madonna’s music, Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola, Michael Jordan’s shoes and McDonald’s hamburgers around the world.”
Linking these propositions, it might be inferred that America’s “marketing talent” should enable our public diplomacy — “the process of explaining and advocating American values to the world,” as a Rand paper succinctly characterized it — to be more effective in combating anti-Americanism and promoting more positive views of the United States.......(snip)
---------------------------------
Charles Wolf Jr. is senior economic adviser and corporate fellow in international economics at the Rand Corporation and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Brian Rosen is a doctoral fellow at the Pardee Rand graduate school and an attorney. This essay is drawn from their “Public Diplomacy: How to Think About and Improve It,” Rand OP — 134 — RC, 2004.
The Germans and the Japanese didn't like us.
Yes?
America’s image problem is especially acute in the Middle East and among predominantly Muslim populations.
Then re-read my post. The news seems to be that our enemies don't like us.
And I hope you won't say that not all Muslims are our enemies. 'Cause I disagree.
IMO (freely give and worth almost that much) Too many people are thinking WWII when they should be thinking Cold War.
This whole "Public Diplomacy" thing is something I've thinking about for a while now. We really need to be doing more on this front. I know some here don't want to hear it, but a large part of this war is "Hearts & Minds" and Nation Building.
I look at the images of America on TV, Movies, and ask myself if this was the only thing I knew about America what would I think of America.
And I hope you won't say that not all Muslims are our enemies.
ME! Say something like that?....never :-)
What is this, some sort of international popularity contest?
Funny how they are never concerned with the image of Muslims in the US.
I'd say it's holding pretty steady at negative.
What is this, some sort of international popularity contest?
No. It's about getting the truth out.
I got bored before I got to the comparison between King and Mandella. IMO the two should never occupy the same sentence. King was a man of peace ,Mandella a terrorist murderer.
That's because they have access to all our porn. If that's all I read about a country, I figure the girls would be easy too.
People around the world have figured out we are obsessed with opinion polling. The polls are a good way of expressing everything from the minor annoyances of visa requirements and airport security checks to blood feud type outrage 'cause cousin Jihadi Brahim got his brains blown out in Fallujah. If you want to see how they really feel about America, check out the air conditioners in their cars and homes, the blue jeans they're wearing, the cell phones they carry, the hip hop music they listen to, and the shopping malls at which they bought the aforementioned items.
Mr. Swofford maintains it is an accurate depiction of his military experience, from boot camp -- where he claims to have been abused and belittled by a maniacal drill instructor
I would hazard a guess that there was a reason that the DI's were....harsh to him.
From what I've read it's a REAL bad movie.
Thanks!
Looks like we got some work to do.
This has NOTHING to do with popularity. It has to do with getting the message out as to who we are, what we are doing, why we are doing what we're doing it. And counteracting the negative image of America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.