Public Diplomacy

The Council on Foreign Relations’ campaign website published a great synthesis of interviews with the international press corps at the Democratic National Convention in Denver to find out how their national publics views of the US presidential debate. CFR.org interviewed reporters from Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, Kuwait, Germany, Denmark, among others. It’s a great read.

The interview cites a finding from a Pew survey showing that 83 percent of Japanese citizens expressing interest in the campaign, compared to 80 percent of U.S. citizens (!).

Apart from the press corps, there were also many international politicians visiting the Democratic National Convention this week. Public Radio International’s “The World” program spoke with a few of these foreign observers about what they wanted to hear from Senator Obama’s convention speech. The interviewer speaks with an Indonesian politician, a Member of Parliament from Afghanistan, the Jamaican Ambassador to the US, among others. The theme was a desire for the US to cooperate more with other nations in its foreign policy.

Watch The World’s correspondent’s search for international press at the convention here:

Almost immediately after Senator Barack Obama named his running mate veteran news media began delving into newly-named Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s foreign policy outlook. There is a lot ot cover, thanks to his 36-year career in the Senate and his long-standing seat on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, which he currently chairs. 

First, an article in yesterday’s New York Times:

“Both [Obama and Biden] fit into the mainstream of Democratic thinking on foreign policy and national security, which emphasizes working with allies and using force as a final recourse.

Mr. Biden is widely seen as a liberal-minded internationalist. He has emphasized the need for diplomacy but has been prepared at times to back it with the threat of force. An early advocate of military action to quell the ethnic fighting in the Balkans, he has not been averse to American military intervention abroad. As the debates over Kosovo and later Iraq showed, he has been loath to give the United Nations a veto over American policy decisions. But he has also sought to ensure that the United States acted in concert with other nations.

During his long Senate career, Mr. Biden has developed an extensive track record. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has presided over more than 50 hearings since January 2007. He oversaw many more during his three previous stints as chairman of the panel’s subcommittee on European affairs.

According to committee records, Mr. Obama, who holds Mr. Biden’s old post as chairman of the Europe subcommittee, has presided over only three hearings: sessions that were convened to approve ambassadorial appointments.

Much of the focus during Mr. Biden’s early career was on arms control. During the Reagan administration, he argued for strict adherence to the 1972 antiballistic missile treaty with Russia, which President Ronald Reagan’s aides sought to loosely interpret, to make way for a space-based missile defense program…

…“Fundamentally, Senator Biden believes that American engagement in the world can make a big difference,” said James P. Rubin, a former adviser to Mr. Biden and Clinton administration official. “But because he is a realist, he believes it is far better to take such actions with the support of our friends and allies.”

Yesterday the Los Angeles Times also weighed in on Biden’s foreign policy history:

“Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. joins the Democratic ticket as an acknowledged foreign policy sage whose 36-year record has won him bipartisan praise as a liberal internationalist who generally hews close to his party’s center. But he has sometimes found himself at odds with members of his own party as well as with Republicans.

Biden has frequently favored humanitarian interventions abroad and was an early and influential advocate for U.S. military action in the Balkans in the 1990s. He also advocates U.S. action to stem the continuing bloodshed in Darfur.

What appears to bind Biden and Obama in the realm of foreign affairs, however, is a shared belief in strong cooperation with America’s traditional allies and in the use of force only as a last resort. The Democratic standard-bearers reject the belief of President Bush and some other conservatives that the United States should not hesitate to act unilaterally if other nations demur.

John Isaacs, executive director of Council for a Livable World, which advocates arms control, said the Delaware Democrat “is someone who won’t give the neocons the time of the day.”

In addition, Biden, who claims close relationships with many foreign leaders, has demonstrated a readiness to cooperate with Senate Republicans in search of compromise — a trait that meshes with Obama’s pledge to reduce the level of partisan conflict and stalemate in Washington.

Now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the famously talkative Biden has cooperated with influential Republican conservatives, such as the late Sens. Jesse Helms of North Carolina and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, as well as moderates, such as Sen. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the committee.”
Two trusted sources also published backgrounders on Biden’s foreign policy track record.

The Council on Foreign Relations complied a lengthy analysis of Senator Biden’s stance on a wide variety of foreign policy issues, including the United Nations, democracy promotion in the Arab world, terrorism policy, among many others.

Finally, the US Center for Global Engagement’s website offers some great videos of Senator Biden in action, in addition to an analysis of this foreign policy-making career.

The Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine released their fourth annual Terrorism Index yesterday. An article about the study has been published in the Sept/Oct issue of Foreign Policy Magazine, it can also can be read here. View the complete topline results here.

The study surveyed American foreign policy experts on a slew of important national security issues (such as the those pictured at left).

But throughout the materials summarizing the results of the survey, there is no mention of an important finding. The foreign policy experts polled were asked to choose from a list of US policy objectives which one the believe is the most important to achieve in the next five years. The most commonly selected objective was “Winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim world,” which beats halting Iran’s nuclear program, the next most important priority, by a full 7 points.

I hope Undersecretary Glassman reads topline results of this survey, he certainly has his job cut out for him!

After a few months of observing the global phenomenon that is Obamania, I thought I would put forth a few theories on why Senator Barack Obama is so strongly favored as the next US President by people living outside the US.

First, a note on why people outside the US care about the US election at all. After all, they can’t vote, why bother paying attention? The simple answer is: what the US does, both domestically and internationally, affects people around the world. This is not to be taken as arrogance—as if to say that when the US commands everyone falls into line.

Rather, the economic, political and military influence that the US has in the world, combined with the processes of globalization that make states more interdependent overall, means that the decisions made by the man sitting in the oval office affect not only Americans, but a great many non-Americans too. This characteristic of the currently “unipolar” international system is observed by both foreigners and Americans alike.

So, if Mr. President is going to effect you, why choose Senator Obama over Senator McCain? And to such a great degree? Here’s a list of five factors I see contributing to foreign publics’ preference for the presumptive Democratic candidate over his Republican counterpart.

First, foreign audiences perceive Senator Obama as giving them what they want—a change in US policy. Those people around the world who support Senator Obama believe his promise of change—and want him to make good on it.

The second factor flows from the first: Senator Obama is, plain and simple, not George W. Bush. Then again, neither is John McCain. But thanks to the American political spectrum being so narrow, it’s safe to say that Senator Obama represents the antithesis of the current President.

The next two factors share the same logic: foreigners choose Senator Obama because they want Americans to choose him too, because doing so would give off positive signals about the current character of American society.

First is the symbolism of electing an African American President. To elect Obama would paint American society as mature and tolerant. It would demonstrate that the American public possesses qualities that people abroad want it to posses (which are, not coincidentally, qualities that American society itself claims to posses).

Second, electing Senator Obama could reaffirm foreign publics’ faith in another element of American society: its ability to reason. Back in 2004, to many people abroad, Americans failed to choose the right candidate. Many abroad didn’t like George W. Bush even in 2000, and chuckled at the irony that a few dimpled chads prevented even a great democracy such as the US’s from holding a fair election.

Then, after President Bush started a war in Iraq for what seemed to them like all the wrong reasons, people abroad thought surely Americans will take the opportunity in 2004 to vote in a new president. When Americans re-elected Bush, to a certain degree foreign publics lost faith in the American people to make good choices.

In this way, if Americans in 2008 end up electing the candidate that foreign publics see as the “right” choice, Americans could be seen as rational again. And, given the degree to which the US stands to affect their lives, they certainly want to believe Americans are rational.

My final theory on why the world wants Obama is the most mystical of all. Senator Obama’s hybrid, international, identity seems to magically appeal to people all over the world all at the same time—without even trying. His international upbringing makes him into a chameleon, from which foreign publics can pick and choose which “Obama” they identify with most—the Muslim, Asian, or African, etc. The monkey idol key chain is a great example of this phenomenon.

(If only, instead of appealing to people across Asia, Africa and Europe, Senator Obama’s chameleon identity could appeal to people across “middle America.” Then it would really be magical!)

What does this all add up to? If the world gets the candidate they ask for, one thing’s for sure: they will expect President Obama to deliver on his campaign promises of change. If he doesn’t enact the changes he has promised he could loose their support and a considerable amount of US soft power—power that is already on the wane.

But, as I discussed above, there are some positive changes in people’s perceptions of the US that could come about even if Senator Obama doesn’t act on his promises. That is, if Americans make the “right” choice…

How will the Georgian conflict involve and influence the U.S. Presidential election campaign? What efforts are governments undertaking in this conflict to influence international public opinion?

This subject spans the topic headings of several categories of our “Foreign Policy Blogs” — but let’s consider briefly the public information dimension.

Against the backdrop of a real military conflict, the political battle for the U.S. Presidency highlights every nuance of the candidates’ responses to international crisis. This year, this is the particular legacy of Hillary Clinton’s “3 a.m.” TV ad campaign during the Democratic primaries attacking Barack Obama for being inexperienced in international crisis management. Given a real — not hypothetical — crisis, McCain and his handlers have been eager to copy a page from Hillary’s playbook and depict McCain as the knowledgeable and experienced statesman whose skeptical view of Russia is borne out by Russia’s behavior in Georgia.

This is superficial, opportunistic — but well within bounds as far as political campaigns go.

Of more substantive concern is the trend for presidential candidates to actually contact foreign actors in an ongoing crisis. John Edwards started this trend last December when he telephoned Musharraf to warn him against cracking down on Pakistan’s democracy. Both McCain and Obama continued the trend this week in their multiple calls to Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia’s president. The desire for the candidates to act and be seen as acting “presidential” risks verging on disregard as to possible other, international consequences. Has Saakashvili misinterpreted statements of support from U.S. officials and politicians in calculating his actions in South Ossetia? The Bush Administration was quick to applaud Georgia’s “Rose Revolution,” with Bush traveling to Tbilisi in May 2005 to address a cheering crowd, but did it allow these public acts of diplomacy to be misconstrued as security guarantees?

Our Russia blogger, Vadim Nikitin, rightly notes that American cable news networks have been compliant in following the U.S. government’s view of the conflict. But this was not propaganda, just the operation of the 24-hour news cycle. When all the networks have crews on the ground, you can expect more in-depth reporting. Yes, residents of South Ossetia included those with grievances against the Georgian government, but this certainly looks like a conflict that Russia was eager to have. As the NYT reported, in the weeks before the military conflict started, the Russian government was already attacking Georgian cyberspace. A special Web site appears to have been set up for foreign propaganda as well.

Russia is, after all, in a good position not just to manage the message, but the media as well.

According to public diplomacy expert Nicholas Cull, (see this review of his new book) the very act of listening is one of the primary functions of public diplomacy. As an example Cull cited the US Information Agency’s research and analysis of foreign opinion, which the director shared with policy makers.

More recently, former Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes frequently conducted “listening tours” in regions of strategic concern for the US. Hughes explained: “I ]believe public diplomacy is a dialogue, not a monologue, and I have actively continued my “listening tours.”

In a separate speech she said : “An important part of telling America’s story is learning the stories of others. Our interaction with the rest of the world must not be a monologue. It must be a conversation.” Out of the two candidates running for President, who, once in office, will be a much more important listener that the mere Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, how well might he listen to foreign publics?

Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama recognize that the world’s opinion of the US (Pew) and its foreign policies are at an all-time low. That’s an important first step. But what else do we know thus far in the campaign?

Senator Obama said during a speech to the Unity Conference in July:

“[We must] make certain that we project ourselves on the world stage with a sense of humility, a sense that we are listening to others”.

ANd then there’s Senator McCain. Here’s an excerpt from an article founding his foreign policy platform , titled “An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom,” published in Foreign Affairs’ Nov/Dec 2007 edition:

“Polls indicate that the United States is more unpopular now than at any time in history and increasingly viewed as pursuing its narrow self-interest. The people who hold these views are wrong.”

Wrong, huh? So it appears that McCain listens, but that does’t mean he’s going to accept what he hears. Deep sigh. One might take this to mean that the Undersecretary of Public Diplomacy will have a tougher job to do under a Republican administration than a Democratic one.

This post will conclude this blog’s three-part discussion of Senator Obama’s trip overseas. Rather than look at the foreign reaction, let’s consider what effect the trip had here at home.

Here’s what the Senator said he took away from his travels upon arriving back to the US:

“One of the key insights that I come away with is, it is very difficult for us to meet these 21st century challenges unless we get more effective partnerships with our allies in other countries overseas. And I think they are ready for it.”

But most importantly, after all the hype about the trip abroad fades from our collective consciousness, has the Senator’s “rock star” reception abroad made anyone more likely to vote him?

Fox News put this question to Americans themselves. Their poll (question 31) conducted July 22-23rd found that plurality Americans (41%) said that Obama’s popularity overseas would make “no difference” on their opinion to vote for him.

This is not a surprising conclusion; a President’s likability abroad doesn’t trump characteristics like “Presidential-ness” or great plans for health care, reducing oil costs, or fixing the economy.

This unfortunate for Senator Obama, not because he doesn’t necessarily posses these qualities, or have these plans, bu because in this department the Senator has a clear advantage over his Republican counterpart. According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll (question 21), Americans said–by a margin of two to one–that Senator Obama “would do more to improve America’s image abroad” if elected President, over Senator McCain. That is, regardless of who they plan on voting for in November, sixty-two percent of Americans said Obama is more likely to improve the US image, while 30 percent of Americans chose Senator McCain.

A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll (Q16) conducted in June found a similar result, but with a tighter margin. When asked: “Regardless of your choice for president, who would be best at building respect for the United States around the world: Barack Obama or John McCain?” 49 percent of Americans said Obama while 35 percent said McCain.

It appears as if the Senator’s campaign promise of “listening” to foreign publics has been captured by the memory of both Americans and foreigners. In the end, though–since he needs to get elected before he can do any listening–the Senator would be wise to ignore his popularity abroad and stay focused on the issues Americans say they care about.

But it’s interesting to note that a fair number of Americans do consider improving the US image abroad an important issue. A recent Pew Global Attitudes poll finds that a majority Americans (56%) feel that the US’ loss of respect in the world is “a major problem.” Similarly, according to a spring 2008 Public Agenda poll, strong majorities of Americans say (Q11) they are worried that “there may be growing hared of the US in Muslim countries” (73%) and the US “may be loosing trust and respect of people in other countries” (78%).

Even still, I think it is safe to say that in the US, public diplomacy issues will never, ever, be a deciding issue in a Presidential campaign.

This is the second installment of an overview of global reactions to Senator Obama’s recent travels abroad. In this post I’ll gather some commentary about the European leg of the Senator trip.

First, Peter Schmitz of the German news magazine Der Spiegel describes literally the play-by-play of the Senator’s arrival in Berlin and his now famed Brandenburg Gate speech.

“The people of Berlin experienced the full range of Barack Obama’s charisma on Thursday evening. At times he was reserved, at others engaging. Sometimes combative, and also demanding. Ultimately, though, the message he delivered at the Siegessäule was meant for audiences back home…”

American news radio broadcaster PRI’s “The World” program interviewed both Malte Lehming, the opinion page editor for the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel, and Stryker McGuire, a contributing editor for Newsweek in London, about the speech. You can listen to these interviews via this page.

Lehming remarked that Obama’s speech “electrified the audience” in Berlin and was well received, overall. He said that Obama did seem quite Presidential, as opposed to being “Senatorial.”

McGuire spoke about Europeans’ high expectations for the speech, to the great neglect of Obama’s rival, Senator McCain. He did mention that McCain is well-liked in “establishment circles” throughout Europe.

On to a voice from the Arab world: Palestinian Member of Parliament Mustafa Barghouthi spoke with Steve Clemmons of the Washington Note blog after Obama’s Berlin speech. He was critical of the speech, saying that while he was on the topic of walls that divide people, he wished that the Senator had spoken about the walls dividing the Israelis and Palestinians.

German news daily Deutsche Welle reported that after the Senator’s “rock star” reception in Berlin, Obama was received just as warmly at his next stop, Paris. French President Nicholas Sarkozy greeted him as a “buddy,” and claimed the he was Obama’s first friend in France:

“Obama? That’s my buddy,” Sarkozy was quoted as saying in Friday’s edition of Le Figaro. “Contrary to my diplomatic advisors, I never thought Hillary Clinton had a chance. I always said Obama would be chosen” as the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party.

“I am the only French person who knows him,” Sarkozy said, recounting that he had met Obama during a visit to the United States in 2006, when he was France’s interior minister.”In “Vive la Obama différence!” American online new site Salon.com investigates why the French are so crazy for Obama. Here’s why this Frenchman told Salon he would vote for the presumptive Democratic candidate… if he could:

“I’m not an American … It’s your election first,” twenty-two-year-old Samuel Solvit says. “But I am a world citizen, and what you do will affect us … If we see that the U.S. is changing, it’s good for all of us.” Solvit also believes it’s a Republican thing to say that foreign support is bad. “Everything is moving. He [Obama] is a symbol of this new evolution.”

Salon continues: “A massive throng of cheering French people might have been an image more useful to McCain than the Obama campaign, given the way being “too French” was wielded as a cudgel against the previous Democrat to run for president. Because if anything, the crowds in Paris might have been larger than those in Berlin. In the July 23 Gallup Poll, Obama beat McCain as the preferred U.S. presidential candidate in Britain, France and Germany by lopsided margins. The highest numbers were in France — a stunning 64 to 4 percent.”

The article concludes with a quote from young Solvit: “In France, everyone, of all ages, are for Obama,” Solvit says. “Elite or non-elite, black or white, politically interested or not, people of all different backgrounds. For young people, it’s a new way of speaking of world involvement and politics. It’s a new American dream.” “You American people, it’s your future,” he says. “But it’s also our future.”

I’ll be back soon with a culminating look at the American reaction to the overseas reaction to Senator Obama’s foreign travels.

As you all well know, Senator Obama traveled to the Middle East and Europe in July as part of his Presidential campaign. His tour may not have given him much of a bump in the polls at home, but what did his host publics think about his visits to their respective countries? Here are some highlights from the global media’s reaction to Senator Obama’s overseas trip. 

First, Obama started in the Middle East. A correspondent from Public Radio International’s “The World” radio program spoke with Mustafa Barghouthi, a member of the Palestinian parliament about Senator Obama’s trip.

Barghouthi praised Obama for representing the “highest possibility of change” in American politics. As a Palestinian, though, he said he was disappointed in Obama’s balance between Israeli and Palestinian concerns. On the other hand, he said Senator McCain is overshadowed by the Bush administration, even though McCain’s positions differ from it.

Ramzy Baroud, editor of PalestinianChronicle.com, opined in the Kaleej Times that: Those who count on Obama to drastically shift foreign policy in the Middle East can rest assured that there will certainly be a few cosmetic changes, here and there, but nothing substantial.”

Baroud had harsh criticism for Obama’s meetings with the Israelis during his trip. Specifically, he argued: “Obama insists on disregarding the US official blind spot that has continued to destabilise the Middle East for generations. If he is indeed interested in straightening the distorted course of his country’s foreign policy in the region, then he is certainly viewing it from an Israeli looking glass, the same as used by the Bush neo-conservative clique, which led America into an unrivalled downfall in Mesopotamia.”

While Obama’s stance on Israel is generating heat from the Palestinian intelligentsia, meanwhile in Israel, a majority of Israelis (at least, before Obama’s visit) back McCain. The Politico reported  that: 

“In the past month, one poll  found 36 percent of Israelis preferred McCain, versus 27 percent for Obama, while in another, 46 percent of respondents said a McCain presidency “would be better for Israel,” compared to 20 percent who said the same about Obama. 

“Israelis see Bush as having been better to Israel than almost any president before has been,” said Albert Baumgarten, a Jewish history professor at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat-Gan, Israel. Israelis, he said, “feel almost as if he’s their president.”

Baumgarten, a dual Israeli-U.S. citizen who’s supporting Obama, said Israelis believe McCain is more likely to continue pursuing the Bush administration’s foreign policy agenda.McCain has received mostly positive coverage in Israel, both for his hard line on Iran and for his military service, including his time as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. That’s an experience valued by Israelis, who are required to serve in the country’s armed forces.

 He’s also benefited from the support of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, the former-Democrat-turned-independent, whose Orthodox Judaism and staunch support of Israel make him a popular figure in Israel. Some Israelis, said Jerusalem-based pollster Mitchell Barak, count against Obama “that the Democratic Party is not a welcome place for Joe Lieberman.”

To top off this part of overseas reactions, here is a great article in the Christian Science Monitorrelating the major differences between McCain and Obama on their Middle East policy platforms. In a nutshell the CSM says that “Obama is likely to return US to role of ‘honest broker.’ McCain sees fighting Islamic extremists as paramount.”

Next I’ll take a look at Europeans’ reactions to Obama’s trip, as well as the domestic reaction to the foreign reaction. Be back soon!

Obamania never ceases to stimulate musical innovation. This time, cue the smoke machines and get out your glowsticks! German news site Bild.de is holding a contest for the best techno remix of Obama’s Berlin speech.

Some of the songs are pretty catchy; Dj Moon and Stefan Schmidt’s rendition (numbers 2 and 9) really got my foot tapping. Number 23–the reggae version– is actually really well done. And I particularly like the way number 19 Obama’s words to form a catchy chorus:

“People of the World, Now Do You Duty; People of the World, Look at Berlin.”

As if Obama’s speeches weren’t uplifting enough!

(Thanks to “The Plank” for bringing this to our attention)