Public Diplomacy

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/display/web/2008/06/10/obama_doll/

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.

(United Evening News, Taipei, Taiwan)

Continuing the theme of the global reaction to Obama’s clinching the Democratic nomination for President, this time courtesy of Media Bistro. The US-focused media industry website collected front page covers from news dailies around the world. Click here for the full spread.

PS: the front page covers were originally collected by the Newseum, the new Washington-based museum dedicated to all things journalism.

When Senator Obama clinched the Democratic nomination last week, the BBC, by far the oldest and most global news network in the world, broadcast reactions to his feat from four areas of the world: China, Russia, India and Britain.

In the segment about Chinese views on the election, the BBC’s Beijing correspondent conceeds that most Chinese doesn’t know much about the US Presidential Candidates. Rather he focused on the role China will continue to play in keeping the US economy afloat. He declares: “What happens here in China may effect how the next President gets on.”

The BBC’s reporting on the Russian view of the US Presidential election focused on the Russian government’s Presidential preferences. The Kremlin has historically preferred Republicans, but this government is reportedly leaning left because of open criticism the presumptive Republican candidate John McCain has made about the Russian government. On the other hand, the correspondent reported that most in Russia don’t know what to make of Senator Obama.

In India, the Delhi correspondent spoke of the Indian public’s admiration for Senator Obama, as they say he has broken through a “color barrier.” The best way for Senator McCain to win over the Indian populace?  Appoint Indian-American Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal as his running mate.

Last but not least, in Britain Senator Obama’s accomplishment has made a big splash in the news. The correspondent notes that the US election will be closely followed, as the upcoming British general elections will follow along similar lines: what she calls the “experienced” candidate versus the “youthful enthusiasm.” 

Next week my nephew Nathaniel graduates from High School. He was born the year I graduated from High School. But more momentous than the fact that I’m getting really old! is that he was the first member of my immediate family who wasn’t born in Guyana, our “Caribbean” homeland at the tip of South America.

Nate came along the year that I moved to New York to join my three older sisters, and to start college, not realizing that my parents and brother would soon also leave Guyana diminishing my reasons for calling it “home.” His adulthood feels like the beginning of the last chapter of our Guyana story and the true launch of our American adventures. You see, Nathaniel doesn’t have the hybrid identity of most of the adults in my family (me included) who precipitously balance becoming American with staying Guyanese, holding on for deal life to the latter. Nate is, undoubtedly, All-American. So the pride I feel this week is bittersweet. I’m happy for our American son, and sad for Guyana. And I have to admit, I hadn’t prepared myself for this. I just didn’t realize it would mean this much to me.

I had another, similar epiphany this week as the news of Barack Obama’s ascendancy to nominee of the Democratic party really started sinking in. I’ve covered politics for many years, so I’ve followed this process many times. In fact I had become fairly sure of the outcome of this contest when Hillary Clinton started the downward spiral into negative politics. So the creeping, emotional pride that has been taking over me these last few days is a complete surprise. You see, Obama’s historic achievement feels personal and I really didn’t realize it would mean this much to me— personally.
In Guyana I grew up with a President who was Black like me, and Black, White, Indian and mixed-race Members of Parliament, Professionals, Businesspeople. It was a multicultural (but very Brown and Browner) citizenry. There, I was very sure I could be President.

In the United States, that confidence retreated quite a bit but I tried to take solace in the fact that this was a country of immigrants, with a multicultural identity. That was pretty hard to buy into when the country’s chief representatives were all White, Male and Privileged. In fact, I now realize that perhaps I didn’t really, truly believe in the melting pot promise of equality until this week and Obama’s moment. (As a woman, I’m fairly sure that I would be experiencing similar feelings if Hillary were the nominee).

I’ve been fielding calls from friends and family, also immigrants, who want to talk about what Barack should do next. Who should he pick for a running mate? Can he beat McCain? Their interest—their investment—in this election is palpable and urgent.

For them (and me) it’s like coming to America all over again; a rebirth of promise and expectations. And it means a lot.

Kim Ghattas, the BBC’s US correspondent, recently reported on global views of the presidential candidates, though before Obama’s recent leap across the primary finish line. But the reporting is still relevant. Ghattas underscores that anticipation for a change in administration on the part of the global public has already caused attitudes toward the US to turn more positive.

She also interviews Kurt Volker, Acting Assistant Secretary of State. Volker says it would be a shame if views of the US turn more positive simply because the Bush administration is on the way out. While the Presidential candidates present a “new face,” he says there will still be a lot of “continuity” in terms of how the US will have to deal with the rest of the world.

PS: I found this clip on the Japanese-language edition of YouTube.

Senator Obama’s clinching the Democratic nomination for President made headlines not only in the US, but around the world. It’s fair to say that in most parts of the world the reaction is overwhelmingly positive.

But the world is a complicated place, so for the next couple of blog posts we’ll try to capture different reactions to this landmark event in American History. We’ll also look at how these reactions are shaped by each country’s historical relationship with the US and the socio-cultural and political dynamics currently in play.

I’ll begin with a radio program that interviewed journalists in France, the Middle East, Israel, Russia, Israel, Kenya and Venezuela about the reaction of those nations’ publics to news of Obama’s primary campaign victory.

A former US Bureau chief for the French news-daily Le Monde  tells the host that newsthat Obama garners support from across the political aisles. All look forward to seeing the change Obama promises realized.

But the French correspondent notes that most of all the French look forward to a break from the “horrible Bush times.” It is worthkeeping in mind, as the outpouring of enthusiasm for Obama comes in from abroad, that global publics could be more favorable to Obama simply because he represents a change from the current American establishment, and not because of his inherent qualities.

But there is of course, much more to it. For example, the next guest, a professor of Middle East affairs who just returned from a trip to the Middle East spoke of hoe publics in the Middle East also share the hope that Obama will chart a new course for American policy. But he emphasized that this hope is trumped by fear and suspicion that Obama will not be able to enact this change, in the face of the “traditional political mechanisms” within the American political system.

Interestingly, the professor explained that in the Middle East the US is not seen as a foreign power, rather a “regional, Middle Eastern power,” and that what happens in the American political system often has a direct effect on their livelihood.

He went on to comment that Obama is Bin Laden’s “worst nightmare.” He cannot say the same thing about Obama that he does about Bush–leader of an empire, tyrant, etc. He said that the symbol of Barack Hussein Obama, even though he is a Christian, will resonate strongly with the Islamic world, and will enable him to begin the “healing” that needs to happen between the US and that part of the world.

On the alternative candidate, the professor explained that Republican presumptive nominee John McCain is seen as an “extension” of the Bush administration, and a “hawk” who would likely escalate the violence taking place in the Middle East.  

The most heart-warming story of the program was the Christian Science Monitor reporter based in Kenya who told of the reaction of Senator Omaba’s “Granny” in his family’s home town in the West of the country. Granny watched her grandson clinch the victory on a solar powered television, the only one in the village.

He also made an interesting observation about how Obama’s victory comes as a breath of fresh air to the wider African continent. According to the journalist, the rise of a new face with powerful agenda for a change in policy is certainly the exception to the rule, in a continent where cronyism and tribal ties tend to dominate the political scene.

Very interesting stuff. I’ll let you all listen to the program in its entiretly.

We have speculated before — along with many others — about Obama’s impact on foreign attitudes toward the United States. But with the Democratic nomination now safely in his hands, this is no longer an academic question. As many foreigners as Americans seem to have celebrated the milestone that Obama’s victory represents, encouraged by worldwide media coverage that resembled more a general election victory than a party nomination.

As the Washington Post and many others reported, there was an atmosphere of excitement around the world when the news finally broke. Obama’s grandmother in Kenya speaking movingly about the long road traveled, West Europeans declaring that Obama’s victory restores their faith in America’s values, Indonesians claiming him as a native son, Japanese excited because they have a city whose name is Obama (!).

This is clearly much more — or less — than a reaction to Obama’s political views. Muslims tuning in from the Middle East had to take note that the “presumptive” candidate’s first act was to address the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, and declare his “unshakable commitment” to Israel’s security. It was a speech whole sections of which, mutatis mutandis, could have come out of the Bush White House. Note, in fact, how the drumbeat of anti-Muslim insinuation against Barack Hussein Obama forces him to dial up his pro-Israel rhetoric:

I will bring to the White House an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security. That starts with ensuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat - from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As President, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade - investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.

Of course, Barack Obama does emphasize diplomacy — “clear-eyed” and “aggressive” — and does not talk, as his erstwhile opponent did, of “obliterating” Iran with a nuclear reprisal. However, at a time when Israeli Prime Minister Olmert stands accused of taking money under the table from an American businessman, a year after President Katsav plea-bargained and resigned his way out of sexual harassment and rape charges, there are more than a few things wrong on the Israeli side of the agenda. Such things do not get mentioned when talking to AIPAC.

Fareed Zakaria was right to note that we are doubtless witnessing a temporary phenomenon in the world’s reaction to Barack Obama — a celebration of the man, rather than his policies. It is a moment when, because of Obama’s remarkable personal story and inspirational rhetoric, we have an opportunity to restore America’s credibility. But whether we do so will depend on policies and their execution, not just an impressive biography and commitment to change.

Senator John McCain’s major speech on May 15^th , in which he outlined what he “would hope to have achieved at the end of my first term as President” in 2013, made international headlines. Most of the international news reports focused on McCain’s vision of Iraq in 2013.

For example, two weeks ago the Guardian published an opinion piece titled “McCain’s Iraq fantasy.”  Authored by Dylan Loewe, presumably an American, the piece inspired 177 comments from the newspaper’s British readership.

But missing in all of the reports from abroad that I looked at was even a mention of one the “big picture” foreign policy ideas McCain also spoke about last month. Here’s what he predicted the League would achieve in the year 2013, in his May 15^th speech:

“After efforts to pressure the Government in Sudan over Darfur failed again in the U.N. Security Council, the United States, acting in concert with a newly formed League of Democracies, applied stiff diplomatic and economic pressure that caused the government of Sudan to agree to a multinational peacekeeping force, with NATO countries providing logistical and air support, to stop the genocide that had made a mockery of the world’s repeated declaration that we would “never again” tolerant such inhumanity. Encouraged by the success, the League is now occupied with using the economic power and prestige of its member states to end other gross abuses of human rights such as the despicable crime of human trafficking.”

Wow, a newly-formed US-led League of Democracies, working in concert with NATO, solves one of the most protracted conflicts in modern history? And, more broadly: a League of Democracies outperforms the United Nations?

McCain and his advisors have pronounced their desire to form a “League of Democracies” among likeminded nations, led by the US, since the very beginning of his Presidential campaign. And presumably from these pronouncements the din of policy debate has followed: the idea is being discussed by academics and policy makers, debated by campaign advisors, written about in countless American news dailies, blogs, opinion pages, newswires, and journals. Given that this institution would be multi-lateral, and not a one-member club, it’s curious that one doesn’t see more talk of a League of Democracies in the international media. Why don’t other potential members of the League seem to be joining the debate?

Thomas Carothers offers an answer—as well as a strong case against the formation of the league—in a piece he authored for the Washington Post titled “An Unwanted League.” This piece is based on the longer policy brief he authored for his employer, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Carnegie hosted an event at its Washington location last week, in which Carothers and two Presidential campaign advisors (one who advises Obama, the other McCain), a high-ranking public official serving in the Clinton , Nixon and Johnson administrations, debated the idea.

At the event, Carothers noted that during a recent visit to Europe he couldn’t detect a “trace” of interest among European diplomats for joining a league of democracies. He said one European diplomat who is active in democracy issues asked him “why did you waste more than 5 minutes on this policy brief?”

It’s not as if McCain hasn’t yet courted foreign audiences. In March he extolled the virtues of the League to European audiences via an op-ed in the Financial Times:

“Americans and Europeans share a common goal – to build an enduring peace based on freedom. Our democracies today are strong and vibrant. Together we can tackle the diverse challenges we face… But the key word is “together”. We need to renew and revitalise our democratic solidarity. We need to strengthen our transatlantic alliance as the core of a new global compact – a League of Democracies – that can harness the great power of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.”

In the interest of improving America’s image, someone should have banned coverage of Saturday’s meeting of the Democrats’ Rules and Bylaws Committee in Washington. There were insults, snide remarks, grandstanding and pettifoggery during the six-hour meeting — and that was just the participants. The hundreds of partisan onlookers behaved much worse, yelling taunts and threats and destroying any sense of decorum.

As the Washington Post’s Dana Millbank aptly recalled, it was the American humorist Will Rogers who once said, “I’m not a member of any organized party — I’m a Democrat.” Not much has changed since Rogers made that quip seventy years ago. The same lack of discipline that created the problem that Saturday’s meeting was intended to resolve, made it impossible to reach a solution that all sides could be counted on to respect.

Meanwhile, various pollsters and foreign opinion leaders continue to write about which candidate for President is most popular among various foreign publics. I’m glad that there continues to be grist for this mill, but I worry that once foreigners realize how disorganized and illogical our political process has become, their respect for us will fall as low as George Bush’s ratings.

How are we to explain the fact that the final three primaries — supposedly decisive — include a territory where the citizens can’t vote for President, and two states (Montana and South Dakota) that are among the least populous (44th and 46th, respectively)?

Foreign publics and pundits have been rather decorous so far. Yesterday, Fareed Zakaria, in his new show on CNN, Global Public Square, queried a panel that included Christianne Amanpour, on foreign opinion on the U.S. election. The consensus? Europe is still quite taken with Obama, and China is now more curious about him. This, of course, as Obama seems to be finally wrapping up the nomination.

There are many more episodes to run in our great national election drama before November. So far, our three contenders have aptly used the Bush Administration and its low international prestige as a foil to project their own competencies. But if the blood-letting among Clinton and Obama partisans continues, foreigners may well conclude that the party that wants to clean up the mess in Washington will first have to clean up the mess in its own ranks.