Amid the many reports of foreign audiences going ga-ga for Obama, one foreign policy expert issues a strong warning against thinking that a President Obama will solve the US’ global image problem, or make public diplomacy any easier.

John Brown, a 20-year veteran of the US Foreign Service and currently a senior fellow at the University of Southern California's Center on Public Diplomacy, reminds us in a recent article published in the Guardian newspaper that:

“Any new administration must work under the assumption that whatever honeymoon the outside world will have with a “non-George Bush” in the White House will be short-lived. Though Obama is generally well liked overseas, foreign leaders and publics do harbour concerns about his experience and prejudices about his ethnic background. In an era of instant communication - and revelations - no national leader today can expect permanent world popularity.

The new administration should also not give overseas audiences the false hope that its arrival on the world scene will mean a sudden, drastic departure from the policies of Bush, despite his low reputation at home and abroad. The American political system, which leads presidential candidates to adopt “centrist” positions, leaves the options for restructuring American foreign policy limited. This includes Iraq, a fiasco that will take years to settle.

While not pretending to offer a totally revamped foreign policy, the upcoming administration should, however, immediately focus on results-oriented overseas initiatives (such as closing Guantanamo, allowing far more Iraqi refugees into the US and making US embassies appear less like fortresses) that would win the approval of world foreign opinion. Unconditional overseas disaster-relief assistance, including for food, should be given the highest priority, making sure such aid is not a one-shot, made-for-US-TV publicity stunt, but a firm commitment to help countries in distress for as long as America can.”

This is a very important and sobering reminder of what challenges lies ahead for the next president–whether he be Obama or McCain. Brown goes on to give important advice for how to restore American's “soft power” in the next administration.

But his comments that Obama might be “leading the world on” to think a new President will be a fix-all for the US’ image woes leads me to ponder what the world really expects from the next President. Is the “Obamania” from abroad spiked by Obama's policies or his symbolism? If the latter case is true, Obama's foreign supporters might not be as dissappointed as those in America if he didn't enact these policies. In that case they may not feel that they have been given false hopes after all, since they were paying attention to the person, not the policies, all along.

It all comes down to this: are global publics more impressed when the US implements foreign policies they deem responsible, or when the US simply elects a leader they deem responsible? How do we differentiate how much the world likes Obama for who he is, rather than what he stands to change? Furthermore, how can we tell how much the world loves Obama simply because he represents break from the past? 

These are all questions that political psychologists would themselves grapple with. But the personality versus policies debate plays out in domestic politics as well. For example, it is often said that Americans want to elect a candidate that they can “sit down and have a beer with,” someone who understands them. But this determination competes with voters’ approval of the candidates’ policy platforms.

Here's a hypothetical situation that might illuminate this query: Given Obama's high approval ratings going into the election, if Senator McCain were to end up wining the Presidency and then magically fixed all of the foreign policy ”blemishes” that global publics claim dampens their opinion of the US (closing Guantanamo, getting tougher on climate change, choosing cooperation over acting unilaterally, etc.), would McCain's approval rating reach the same levels of a President Obama who achieved the same goals?

It's a tough question, but I would have to go with “No.” It appears to me that the Obama's supporters around the world are paying less attention to his policies and more to his personal characteristics. And I think the idea of a “non-Bush” in the White House‚ whoever he may be‚ also factors in to Obama's popularity. I would guess that this would give Obama the edge over McCain even if their policies equally pleased our global compatriots.

But what does this mean for US public diplomacy efforts, where those who criticize its failures consistently cry: “It's the policies, stupid!” and “You can't put lipstick on a pig!” It means that influencing global opinion, a primary goal of public diplomacy, is a complex process‚ certainly much more complex than whether or not people in Moscow, Islamabad, or Chiapas want to sit down and have a beer with the US President. This means that public diplomacy is an activity that is much more challenging than it is sometimes given credit for.

For those interested in some constructive steps towards improving American public diplomacy, I urge you to continue reading John Brown's column.

It is natural, at a time of low approval ratings for the United States overseas, to ask again whether it made sense in 1999 to dismantle the U.S. Information Agency and move parts of it into the State Department. As Melinda points out in her post (below), John McCain has weighed in on the subject, saying he regrets having supported the measure. Madeleine Albright, who pushed the idea to its fruition, now waffles when asked whether it was the right thing to do.
Like many other “veterans” of USIA, I recall that questions about the Agency's organization and status were always being raised, throughout the USIA's history, both in and outside the Agency, and in and outside Government. Most of us at USIA wanted some independence from the State Department bureaucracy, but we also wanted State to pay attention to our recommendations. Some believed that if we could just get the organization right, our public diplomacy problems would be over, and foreign public opinion would reliably support the United States. Tinkering with structure and lines of authority was a way of sidestepping the awkward truth that, without good policies, even the best public diplomacy organization is ineffective.

Lately U.S. government public diplomacy has taken a beating — due to its message, not its media. Having said that, recent coverage of the US Government's TV broadcasts to the Middle East shows that even when the USG has a good story to tell, it's easy for Washington to stumble as it tries to get the word out.

Better policies, and better public diplomats with more funding, is the way forward. Don't look for this to be an election issue, but it would be nice to see a McCain or Obama transition team take the matter seriously.

I have mentioned before on this blog the newly-released Pew Global Attitudes Project's global poll on views of the United States. Now they have produced this handy interactive map that overlays not only views of the US but also nations’ views of the US Presidential Candidates.

Above is a picture of the map. To enjoy its interactive features click on this link.  Go to the bottom and click on the Bush, McCain and Obama tabs and watch the red (unfavorable opinions) vanish. It's amazing!

(Hindu God Hanuman)

The BBC reports today that a group of Indians are planning to present a statue of the revered Indian monkey God, Hanuman, to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

According to the report:

“The group decided to order the idol after they read a magazine report saying that Mr Obama carried a good luck ‘monkey king’ charm…

Hindus revere monkeys which they believe are descendents of the monkey God Hanuman. The two-foot tall, 15kg gold-polished, brass idol has been made as a present for Mr Obama because “he will be good for India if he becomes the next president,” according to Brij Mohan Bhama, leader of the group.”

One representative of the group said: “Senator Obama has a good luck charm. We don't know whether it is of Hanuman. But the people here think it is Hanuman.”

Another representative, Brij Mohan Bhama says he is “an ardent supporter of Mr Obama - even his email identification is bhamaforobama.”

“Obama stands for change. We are hoping that he will bring about change so that oil and food prices come down,” he said. “India will progress if he comes to power.”

Senator John McCain has stated that if he were elected President, he would re-establish the US Information Agency as an independent office. The merging of the US Information Agency into the State Department is a sore subject for many public diplomacy watchers. The efficacy of the merge, which took place under the Clinton administration, to is hotly contested to this day.

A long-standing member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator McCain has weighed in on this issue before he begun his presidential campaign. Now that he is bidding for the White House, here's what Senator McCain has to say about USIA in a 2007 op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel:

“Although there are many facets in the struggle of ideas against violent Islamic extremism, there is one critical step we can take right now to improve our position. If elected president, I would establish a single, independent agency responsible for all of America's public diplomacy. And that agency would report directly to the president.

During the Cold War, the United States Information Agency, or USIA, was responsible for providing citizens across the globe with accurate information about what America stood for and enabling first-hand exposure to all things American. In 1999, I supported a plan to integrate USIA into the State Department. In theory, this reform was supposed to ensure the coordination of our public diplomacy with our government-to-government relationships. In practice, it made public diplomacy an orphan.

Dismantling an agency dedicated to promoting America and Americans amounted to unilateral disarmament in the struggle of ideas. Communicating our government's views on day-to-day issues is what the State Department does. But communicating the idea of America, our purpose, our past and our future is a different task. We need an independent agency with the sole purpose of getting America's message out in a factual and persuasive manner: managing radio and TV broadcasts to those in need of objective news; establishing American libraries with Internet access throughout the world; sending Americans overseas and sponsoring foreigners’ visits to America for educational and cultural exchanges; and creating a professional corps of public-diplomacy experts who speak the local language and whose careers are spent promoting American values, ideas, culture and education. And it should recruit the best and brightest not just from the ranks of the Foreign Service but from business, academia and the media.”

This subject was recently breached in an interview with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on the Global Wire, the US Center for Global Engagement's new web-based show which interviews policy makers about the US role in the world.

The show's host asked Albright to give the incoming President advice on which bureaucratic structure best suits the US's public diplomacy operations for the 21st century. Here's how the discussion went:

“Host: The U.S. Information Agency, when you were at the State Department, which you oversaw this process, it was merged‚ the U.S. Information Agency was merged into State. Senator McCain wants to recreate USIA, and your advice to him on that would be?

Albright: Well, I think, I know there's been a lot of criticism about what we did on this. I think we'd have to make sure about what its mandate was. It was very connected with the Cold War. I think it's not so much whether it is a separate agency or not, but whether in addition to delivering a message abroad, it is also listening to what the people on the ground are saying. Otherwise, one of the issues that I've always argued about, what is the difference between public diplomacy and propaganda, and public diplomacy is actually the listening part as well as the telling part of the message.

I don't think that we have the cadre or the group of people that fully understand enough what's happening, let's say, among Muslim communities. And so there has to be a group of people that understand the cultural and religious aspect of societies, then bring them in and have them be capable of talking about it in language that makes sense to the people listening to it. Part of the problem when this administration first took over, they started making movies about Muslims in America that just were, I think, insulting to Muslims that don't live in the United States.

As I mentioned last week, the Pew Global Attitudes Project released a new global poll on a variety of issues. Most useful for our purposes is the poll's findings on global views of the US and US Presidential candidates.

Here's a brief summary of their findings on these two issues:

“Favorable views of the United States have increased modestly since 2007 in 10 of 21 countries where comparative data are available. Perhaps more importantly, the polling finds many people around the world paying close attention to the U.S. presidential election. Moreover, except in countries that are extremely anti-American , those who are paying attention generally believe the next president may well change U.S. foreign policy for the better. In nearly every country surveyed, greater numbers express confidence in presidential candidate Barack Obama than in John McCain”.

Last week the Washington, DC-based think tank the New America Foundation hosted a Pew representative for a discussion of these findings. To view this discussion, which includes commentary from National Journal columnist Bruce Stokes, click below:

Below is a chart from the Pew Global Attitudes Project's recently-released global poll. Note that majorities in eleven countries publics feel that Senator Obama, if President, will “do the right thing”when it comes to US foreign policy. Majorities in no country feel that way about Senator McCain.

Also note that in eleven countries most people to not think that either candidate will do the right thing.

(Obama in Kenya, courtesy of the New York Times)

Barack Obama likes to highlight that his internatinal exposure distinguishes him from his Republican opponent.  His birth in Hawaii, travels to his father's native Kenya, four years spent in Indonesia, and even a college trek through Pakistan and India, have given him quite the international worldview.

Now that he is running for President, having an international worldview appears to be paying off–especially in terms of his reputation abroad. Let's call it travel karma that is now coming back to give him a big boost in the international rankings.

For example, Sara Schonhardt reported this week from Jakarta that:

…..click here to read more

German doll maker Marcel Offermann is used to seizing the day. He has made dolls of newsmakers like Pope Benedict, the Dalai Lama and Princess Diana. So it follows that he would make a Barack Obama doll.

Offermann was interviewd on NPR's Marketplace about the doll which looks more like a boy than a man. It's kind of a male version of those American Girl dolls that are dressed like girls from various historical periods. This “present-day” doll looks eerily like a Diff’rent Stokes-era Gary Coleman. Check it out:

 http://marketplace.publicradio.org/displ…

It pains me to report on this, but I feel it is important to capture the wide variety of reactions to an important moment in American history.

Last week, Die Tageszeitung, a left-leaning German newspaper, ran the following headline when Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, that when translated into English, reads: “Uncle Barack's Cabin.”

It has caused an uproar among Germans. It's been called “tasteless” and “racist” and the German blogosphere is aflame. If images travelled faster across boarders it would have already caused an uproar in the US too. But the paper stands by its editorial decision.

This very interesting analysis of the controversy was broadcast by PRI's radio show The World (scroll down to the entry for June 6th). Without making excuses, it explains a lot more about the cultural context in which it was published.

According to the report, the editor of the newspaper–as any editor who makes a provocative move would–claims that the headline was intended to make people “think” about racial stereotypes. Hmmm… by propagating one? This newspaper also ran a headline when Condoleezza Rice was named Secretary of State that read: “Uncle Tom's Rice”–that went largely unnoticed by Germans.

Germans are apparently all quite familiar with the book and the negative stereotypes it unintentionally spread. The broadcast notes that the paper's decision is quite peculiar because Germans are also reportedly so “obsessed” with Obama, and are also known to embrace the culture of American mintories.

All of us amateur social anthropologists will enjoy listening to the part of the broadcast that suggests that at the root of the controversy–in addition to extremely poor judgment–is the ease with which a message that conveys a certain meaning to those in one cultural context can sound “culturally tone def” to those outside of that context.

That's an understatement to say the least… hopefully everyone will begin re-tuning our hearing as the election wears on.