Public Diplomacy

Last February, I wrote a post entitled “The Whole World is Watching,” using the slogan from the street protests outside the 1968 Democratic Convention to try to convey how intently the world was now watching the 2008 Election campaign.  In 1968, it was rather fanciful to think that the “whole world” was following closely what happened in American politics.  Today, however, this blog (and countless others) are a running narrative that demonstrates how  American politics are at the center of the world’s concerns.

And now, beside the elections, it’s the economy.

After the turmoil on financial markets and Washington’s response to it, you can be certain that American politics are preoccupying the rest of the world’s leaders and publics.  On NPR this morning, calls were heard from Australia to Germany, imploring America’s leaders to take action on the crisis on Wall Street.  Don’t just play politics, they seem to be saying, do something.

Foreign audiences, as much as Americans, are puzzling over what should be done about the crisis.  But just as in the case of the elections, they have no vote.  So they watch, and they worry.

Viewed in political terms, the failure of yesterday’s $700 billion rescue bill in Congress reflects poorly on the White House, the leadership of Congress, and, to a certain extent, on the presidential candidates.   John McCain, in particular, looked inept yesterday when he congratulated himself on helping to steer forward a bill that was promptly defeated by members of his own party.

Foreign observers can easily understand how George W. Bush may not muster votes on Capitol Hill, but when the Republicans’ freshly-minted presidential candidate cannot get his party to follow him, what is going on?

Much in international politics awaits the outcome of November 4th.  It is useless to expect much movement on international trade, climate change, the hot spots of Southwest Asia, until there’s a new occupant of the White House.  It will be for that American leader — either McCain or Barack Obama — to try to put the country’s financial house in order and thereby set the stage for a more ambitious international agenda.  To use another slogan from the long-ago ‘68 elections, the world is looking for someone to “Bring Us Together.”  If you think that’s a long-shot, think again.  The potential economic crisis that would affect the entire world, should remind us all that we’re all in this together — even if we can’t all vote on who should lead us out of it.

PS:  If the world could vote, the vote would probably turn out like the Economist’s predictions, right here.

A while back I addressed a popular reaction to Senator Barack Obama’s broad popularity outside the US: why does it matter what the world thinks?

Here are two perspectives from foreign Obama-supporters themselves. British columnist Jonathan Freeland sent Americans an ominous warning in an opinion piece published by the UK’s Guardian newspaper, titled: ”The world’s verdict will be harsh if the US rejects the man it yearns for.” He argues:

“…Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama.

The crowd of 200,000 that rallied to hear him in Berlin in July did so not only because of his charisma, but also because they know he, like the majority of the world’s population, opposed the Iraq war. McCain supported it, peddling the lie that Saddam was linked to 9/11.

Non-Americans sense that Obama will not ride roughshod over the international system but will treat alliances and global institutions seriously: McCain wants to bypass the United Nations in favour of a US-friendly League of Democracies. McCain might talk a good game on climate change, but a repeated floor chant at the Republican convention was “Drill, baby, drill!”, as if the solution to global warming were not a radical rethink of the US’s entire energy system but more offshore oil rigs.

If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.”

Strong words, and even more so considering the unpleasant shift in popularity American has already seen in recent years. 

A slightly less partisan observer from Britain also uses his plume to call attention to the importance of world public opinion in the US election. Gideon Rachman, foreign correspondent for the Financial Times, wrote an opinion piece titled: “World opinion counts too in America’s poll.” His tone is less scolding than Freeland’s, but it is quite pessimistic about Obama’s chances for victory:

“Both main candidates for the White House have outlined foreign policy platforms that stress the need to rebuild American alliances. With Wall Street in meltdown and the American military overstretched, the days when a new US president could confidently promise to “pay any price, bear any burden” are long gone. The next occupant of the White House is going to want to do a bit of burden-sharing. And he will have to turn to the Europeans - feckless and irritating though they may be - first of all.

There is little doubt that a President Obama would start with much more goodwill than a President McCain - and that would be a big advantage. But either candidate is going to have a chance to introduce himself to the world in the first few months of the presidency. Both would find it useful to be as charming as possible. So here are some suggestions - one for a putative President McCain and one for a would-be President Obama.

Mr McCain would be up against the impression that he is just another George W. Bush. So it would be important to him to make a couple of dramatic gestures that reversed unpopular Bush policies. He has promised to close Guantánamo and to take climate change more seriously. It would be a good idea to move fast on both issues.

An Obama administration could capitalise on the fact that Mr Obama is half politician, half rock-star. At the Democratic convention in Denver he was preceded on stage by other rock stars such as Stevie Wonder and Sheryl Crow.

In the first few months of an Obama administration, the US government should arrange a huge open-air concert in London, featuring all these artists - with an Obama speech as the last act on stage. It would draw a crowd far bigger than the 200,000 that came to see Mr Obama speak in Berlin. It would reintroduce Europe to the idea that America - and the American president - can be cool. Shame that it seems unlikely ever to happen.”

What do you think of that idea? Use Obama as a rock star to rekindle the transatlantic relationship? Well-intentioned, but a little too gimmicky, as I see it. I might be biased, but I don’t think the Senator needs to be featured in a rock concert in order to look cool. McCain might, in which case the government should make sure he doesn’t take dance lessons from Karl Rove.

Stepping back, these two foreign observers hope that Americans will consider the broader context in which this US election occurs. Unfortunately, I see this is increasingly unlikely, as the American economy falters; it is times like this when Americans become even more introverted.

The folks at PBS’ “Frontline/World,” a national public TV series that focusing on global issues, have been producing material that is highly relevant to this blog’s scope. Their “The World is Watching” series investigates global views of the US presidential election.

For example, the site features reporting on the US elections in Afghanistan:

“The elections are a huge story here in Afghanistan,” says Kabul-based journalist Danesh Karokel. “What happens in the U.S. has a direct impact on Afghans. The U.S. affects Afghanistan in so many ways — the U.S. troops we have here, the aid we receive to help fund our development. Every Afghan has an opinion about the November elections.”

Which candidate Afghans would like to win is becoming a major topic of conversation…”

The site also has an interesting report from Iran:

“…As for the presidential election, some didn’t think either candidate would change the relationship between Iran and America much. Others were excited about a Barack Obama presidency because he would bring change and open dialog with Iran. Some preferred John McCain because they felt that he is more experienced. If their opinions sound like the two sides of American cable news, it’s because they are watching it on illegal satellite dishes, which are nearly ubiquitous.

The most interesting opinions came from unexpected places. A carpet dealer in Tehran’s main bazaar told us McCain clearly had the face of a president. And a brilliant young scientist, invited to do medical research at MIT, told us many young Iranians like Obama because his name, when transliterated into Persian, sounds like “U-ba-ma,” which roughly means “he is with us.”

Whatever their political preferences, the Iranians we met were hopeful for a better relationship with America - Republican, Democrat, or otherwise.”

Fromtline/World also has a useful guide to foreign election-watchers on the Web. My favorite is Watching America. It gathers and translates top-notch foreign reporting about the US. Here are two interesting articles: a take on the effects of the financial crisis on the election from Morocco; and a letter to “candidate McCain” from Japan.

The Guardian reports from Brazil:

“Welcome to Obama-mania, Brazil-style. Few countries have embraced the idea of the US’s first black president as enthusiastically as Brazil, a country with one of the largest Afro-descendant populations on Earth yet where black faces remain a minority in politics. Obama T-shirts are everywhere while chat shows and newspaper columns are filled with talk of the 47-year-old Illinois senator.

Now even Brazil’s politicians are lining up for their piece of the pie. Due to a quirk of Brazilian law, candidates are allowed to run under the name of their choice. As a result, at least six Brazilian politicians have officially renamed themselves “Barack Obama” in a bid to get an edge over their rivals in October’s municipal elections.”

“In truth it was an accident,” says Belford Roxo’s Obama, an IT consultant who is bidding to become the city’s first black mayor. “I’d been on the television wearing a suit and people thought I looked a bit like him so they started calling me Barack Obama. They’d see me in the street and shout: ‘Hey! Barack!” So I decided to register it.”

…He admits he has also been looking to his namesake’s speeches for inspiration. “I say the same things. I talk about political renewal, change, about transforming the city.”

Despite their similarities the two Obamas have yet to meet although the Brazilian Obama says that as mayor he would “extend an invitation” to the real Obama to dine in Belford Roxo. “It would be great if he could come and see our reality,” he beams. “Just imagine.”

Just imagine…

An international poll released last week shows that there is no consensus outside the United States about who was behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. From the press release:

“A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 17 nations finds that majorities in only nine of them believe that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

In no country does a majority agree on another possible perpetrator, but in most countries significant minorities cite the US government itself and, in a few countries, Israel. These responses were given spontaneously to an open-ended question that did not offer response options.

On average, 46 percent say that al Qaeda was behind the attacks while 15 percent say the US government, seven percent Israel, and seven percent some other perpetrator. One in four say they do not know.”

This is shocking. How are we to muster support from our allies to fight against Islamic extremism if some of their own citizens doubt who and why we are even fighting? Sure, these folks would probably agree that terrorism is bad, but it sounds like we may have some difficulty agreeing on who the terrorists actually are.

What to do? How do we adjust people’s disparate versions of the truth? Wait there’s more, again from the press release:

“Though people with greater education generally have greater exposure to news, those with greater education are only slightly more likely to attribute 9/11 to al Qaeda. A stronger correlate of beliefs about 9/11 are respondents’ attitudes about the United States. Those with a positive view of America’s influence in the world are more likely to cite al Qaeda (on average 59%) than those with a negative view (40%). Those with a positive view of the United States are also less likely to blame the US government (7%) than those with a negative view (22%).”

In short, a person’s view of the US affects how they interpret the US’s narrative, or story. If people don’t believe the US’ “we’ve been attacked, now we must retaliate” narrative, they are more likely to interpret the “war on terror” as one big act of aggression. This then bolsters their negative views of the US in the first place, and it just becomes a vicious cycle that continuously turns perception into reality.

[This is why I get so irked when people cast aside negative views of the US as unimportant, wrong, simply “a beauty contest,” or”fluff.” There is much more to these attitudes than just good versus bad. They are just the tip of the iceberg.]

Public Diplomacy has, as its stated goal, “Engaging, informing, and influencing key international audiences.” The slogan for America.gov, the department’s online portal for engaging international audiences, is “Telling America’s Story”. Clearly, out of all government agencies, the burden of countering these misperceptions falls on the PD department. Here’s one example of how they are already doing so.

But there is clearly much more work to be done. At a blogger roundtable today, I asked Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy James K. Glassman the question at hand: how do we use public diplomacy tools to address the problem of 9/11 denial?

His answer was less than satisfying. He reacted by saying that the above findings show what he and his team are “up against,” but didn’t offer any constructive measures on how to deal with the problem. Perhaps if he had been given more time to respond he would have crafted a more complete answer…

Clearly there is much work to be done in the credibility-building department. This will take time—much more time than it took us to tarnish our reputation (remember when, on September 12, 2001, the international headlines read “We are all New Yorkers”). Let’s hope that our Public Diplomacy bureau—our chief international persuader—can sharpen the tools in its box and take on the US image problem and the misperceptions it can foster.

For another take on this poll form a veteran public diplomacy-watcher, click here. Here is another veteran public diplomacy watcher who disagrees with me. Also, here is more bad news.

A poll released yesterday by the German Marshall Fund basically echos one released the previous day, and, for that matter, echoes most other polls conducted on the subject of world views on the Presidential candidates. From the press release:

“A survey released today shows that nearly half of Europeans (47%) believe that relations between the United States and Europe will improve if Senator Barack Obama is elected the next U.S. president, compared with 29% who believe relations will stay the same, and 5% who believe relations will worsen. If Senator John McCain is elected, only 11% believe that transatlantic relations will improve, compared to 49% who believe relations will stay the same, and 13% who believe that relations will worsen.”

But as the polls continue to verify the same result, that people around the world prefer Barack Obama to be the next President of the US, the “so what?” question gets raised more and more vociferously. (My critics will be elated to see that I am finally raising this issue on the blog). That is, why does it matter that people abroad prefer one candidate over the other?

Take this example. The BBC 22-country poll released this week, which found (surprise, surprise) that the respondents for the most part prefer Obama, was the subject of harsh criticism from the Daily Mail newspaper in London for wasting lots of money on a “meaningless poll.”

The Mail explains “the move has created anger from critics who claim the entire project is a massive waste of time as it is only the views of Americans that matter. They also point out that the US presidential elections are already the subject of endless polls in the US, which provide much more useful information.”

I would have to say that this Daily Mail article, rather than the poll, was a waste of time. I could launch into a long diatribe about why world public opinion is extremely important to take into account. For now, here’s my short answer.

First, it should be noted that most international respondents in each international survey about the US elections did choose to express a preferred candidate, as opposed to choosing neither or either candidate (as if to say, it doesn’t matter because the two candidates do not differ significantly). While the American political system is known for its narrow political spectrum, these results show that in this election, there is a palpable difference–even to foreigners (and I mean that in the best way)–between the two candidates.

Second, not only did the BBC poll ask which candidate people preferred, they also asked whether the respondent feels an Obama or a McCain presidency would improve US relations with the world, worsen US relations with the world, or have no effect. This is where the survey connected the respondent’s electoral preferences to the election’s impact on the rest of the world.

Now that is useful because this election serves as a much needed turning point in the US’ relationship with the rest of the world. That people abroad think an Obama presidency would improve US relations with the world will have no effect on American voting patterns in the least, but it will serve as an important indicator of how we can expect the world to sit with our decision, or what foot Obama or McCain will start off with–whichever candidate we choose.

What do you all think? Please chime in with your views; give me some better reasons why world opinion of the US presidential candidates matters, or why you think it doesn’t matter all. Here’s someone who agrees with me; here’s someone who disagrees.

A new poll published yesterday by the BBC World Service, GlobeScan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes asked publics in 22 countries three key questions about the US Presidential election.

First, who do you prefer be the next US President, McCain or Obama?

Second, what effect do you think each candidate’s eventual Presidency have on America’s relations with the rest of the world?

Finally, would the election of Barack Obama, because he is an African American man, “fundamentally” change your view of the United States?

Here’s the results, straight from the horse’s mouth.

The First Question:

“All 22 countries in a BBC World Service poll would prefer Democratic nominee Barack Obama elected US president instead of his Republican rival John McCain. Obama is preferred by a four to one margin on average across the 22,000 people polled.The margin in favour of Obama ranges from just 9 per cent in India to 82 per cent in Kenya. On average 49 per cent prefer Obama to 12 per cent preferring McCain. Nearly four in ten do not take a position.”

The second question: “In 17 of the 22 countries surveyed the most common view is that, if Barack Obama is elected president, America’s relations with the rest of the world are likely to get better. If John McCain is elected, the most common view in 19 countries is that relations will stay about the same as they are now.

On average 46 per cent think that US relations with the world would get better with Obama, 22 per cent that relations would stay the same, and 7 per cent that they would get worse. However only 20 per cent think relations would get better under McCain. The largest number – 37 per cent – think relations under a McCain presidency would stay the same and 16 per cent think they would get worse.

The countries most optimistic that an Obama presidency would improve relations are America’s NATO allies - Canada (69%), France (62%), Germany (61%), United Kingdom (54%), Italy (64%) - as well as Australia (62%) and the African countries Kenya (87%) and Nigeria (71%).”

When asked whether the election as US president of Barack Obama, an African-American man, would “fundamentally change” their perception of the United States, 46 per cent said it would while 27 per cent said that it would not.”

For more details, click here.

Following up on my recent post investigating Sarah Palin’s foreign policy experience, the Washington Post reports the Republican vice presidential candidate is getting some training from her fellow GOP, and Independent colleagues:

“Lieberman, who was the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee but is now an independent, has helped introduce Palin to officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the leading pro-Israel lobby. In a meeting Tuesday, the day before she delivered her prime-time address at the Republican National Convention here, Palin assured the group of her strong support for Israel, of her desire to see the United States move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and of her opposition to Iran’s aspirations to become a nuclear power, according to sources familiar with the meeting.

The exchange offered a brief glimpse into the views of the one-term governor of Alaska, who has virtually no record on foreign policy and has not traveled extensively outside the United States.

As governor, she made two foreign trips last summer, one of which was to Canada. On the second, sponsored by the Pentagon, she traveled to Kuwait and Germany–and made a short stop at a “military outpost” in Iraq — to visit members of the Alaska National Guard deployed there, according to Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella. Comella added that Palin may have visited Mexico on a personal trip.”

The report continues:

“Campaign officials and McCain foreign policy advisers called Palin a quick study who has sound judgment that will serve her in good stead on national security issues. But privately, some in the GOP foreign policy establishment voiced concern that McCain has turned to a relative neophyte on national security matters at a time when the United States is facing challenges ranging from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the nuclear activities of Iran and North Korea.”

Looks like Palin’s foreign policy training committee has some work to do before the first VP debate in less than a month. We hope to see this site’s section on Palin’s foreign policy record filled in the coming weeks.

Or, (waning: cyber-sarcasm approaching) if you want to wipe away all you doubts about Palin’s foreign policy experience, read this article by Tom Gross published on the National Review online.

(Jim Wilson/The New York Times)

This week two public radio shows delivered interesting segments on global views of the Republican ticket.

On NPR this morning, Michael Sullivan reported on how McCain has found support from an unexpected foreign source:

“Republican presidential hopeful John McCain spent years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. You might think people there would be less supportive of McCain because he is a conservative who backs the war in Iraq and was in the U.S. military during the Vietnam war. But McCain has a lot of supporters in Hanoi.”

Listen here.

Public Radio International’s “The World” program broadcast a great segment last night, interviewing foreign reporters on how the publics in their countries perceive newly-named vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Interestingly, a British journalist likened Palin to Margaret Thatcher. Have a listen.

As you all know, this is a blog about the US Presidential candidates’ views on the world, and vice versa. Last week we explored the foreign policy outlook of the Democratic vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden. Now that Senator John McCain has named his pick for vice president, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, it’s her turn.

With all due respect, this may be a bit of a short post, since, as the Associated Press recently quoted a Republican spokesperson, “Palin has more experience catching fish than dealing with foreign policy.”

Seriously, I set out to write a fair and balanced post about the Republican vice presidential candidate’s foreign policy outlook, and as it turns out I can’t find much to report–even what comes out of McCain’s mouth isn’t very promising. For example, read the conversation on this page that Senator McCain’s had with Chris Wallance on Fox News Sunday. Wallace really drills McCain on his claims that Palin suffices in the foreign policy department:

“WALLACE: You have criticized Obama as being, quote, “dangerously unprepared to be president.” In the sense of national security and foreign policy specifically, isn’t Sarah Palin even more dangerously unprepared?

MCCAIN: Oh, no. Look, she has got the right judgment. She has got the right judgment. She doesn’t think, like Senator Obama does, that Iran is a minor irritant. She knows that the surge worked and succeeded, and she supported that.

Senator Obama still, still to this day refuses to acknowledge that the surge has succeeded. She has been commander-in-chief of the Alaska Guard, that has served back and back (ph). In fact, as you know, she has got a son who is getting ready to go.

But she has had the judgment on these issues and — that Senator Obama has not had in the — he has had all the wrong judgments. And Governor Palin understands these issues, and she understands the challenges that we face.

So she has had 12 years of elected office experience, including traveling to Kuwait, including being involved in these issues. And look, I’m so proud that she has displayed the kind of judgment and she has the experience and judgment as an executive. She has run a huge economy up there in the state of Alaska. Twenty percent of our energy comes from the state of Alaska, and energy is obviously one of the key issues for our nation’s security.

WALLACE: But, Senator, you talked about her years of experience. Ten of those years were as a city councilwoman and mayor of a town of 9,800 people. And in terms of foreign policy, in March of 2007, after, two months after the surge had started, she was asked about it, and she said: “I’ve been focused on state government. I haven’t focused on the war in Iraq.” Understandable for a governor; not understandable for a vice president.

MCCAIN: Well, by the way, also she was a member of the PTA. I think it’s wonderful. But the point is she has been to Kuwait. She has been over there. She has been with her troops, the National Guard that she commands, who had been over there and had the experience. I’m proud of her knowledge of these challenges and issues…”

To be fair, much, much more is known about Joe Biden’s worldview because of his 36 years of service in the Senate. Furthermore, one of the major reasons Senator Obama chose Biden for the post was this very foreign policy experience. According to Congressional Quarterly, McCain had different motives when choosing Palin.
I’ll continue to monitor the situation to see if any more information about Sarah Palin’s foreign policy credentials crops up.How about international views of McCains pick? In this department there is some news; now that the news of the Republican vp candidate is beginning to sink in, the international voices are beginning to chime in.

Over the weekend German broadcaster Deutche Welle cited Josef Braml, an expert on US affairs with the independent think tank German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), said “McCain’s choice was unexpected, but inspired: It enabled the candidate to avoid some political pitfalls, take on the mantle of change, and open up the Republican tent in one fell swoop.”

Geoff Elliott Washington correspondent of The Australian worries that McCain’s pick might be bad for Australian-US relations:

“Australia, rightly, has no say in the electoral process in the US. We are observers. But this is a poor decision. The Howard government and now the Rudd Government have had to do some hefty political lifting at home to ensure that, despite the mistakes in Iraq and the unpopularity of the Bush administration, the alliance with the US remains core foreign policy. As an ally who has fought alongside the US forces in every conflict America has been involved in for the past 100 years, there is reason to be worried. As an ally, we deserved better than this from McCain.”

Side note: A mildly humorous (if it weren’t true) debate going on in the press, some are arguing that Sara Palin has foreign policy experience simply because Alaska is located geographically next to Russia. Read here if this story piques your interest.