Engaging Southeast Asia through Public Diplomacy - Seventh Indo-ASEAN summit

The seventh India-ASEAN summit was held in October, 2009, at Hua Hin in Thailand. At the summit Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reiterated India’s commitment to engage ASEAN nations and also outlined India’s vision of an Asian economic community based on an “open and inclusive” architecture.

Keeping with India’s “Look East policy,” public diplomacy initiatives are high on the agenda to connect India with Southeast Asia; rather emphasize the fact that India had always been connected closely with Southeast Asia through its people, culture and also geography and shared history (See me previous post on Northeast India in this blog). Prime Minister Singh suggested something interesting at the summit along the lines of the theme of ASEAN summit this year – “Enhancing Connectivity, Empowering Peoples."

The year 2012 will see the commemoration the 10th anniversary of India's participation as a summit level partner of ASEAN, and 20 years as a sectoral dialogue partner. These are significant milestones that need to be feted and also publicized. Prime Minister Singh suggested that India and ASEAN could jointly consider organizing a commemorative ship expedition in 2011-12 on the sea routes developed during the 10th to 12th centuries linking India with Southeast Asia and East Asia. He said that the sea route could cover modern and ancient ports in ASEAN countries, and other East Asian countries as well. This proposal was one of the five initiatives (economic and political) that the Prime Minister suggested to further strengthen links between India and ASEAN.

China too, as part of its public diplomacy efforts, had done something similar. It organized exhibitions in museums of Malaysia and Singapore to celebrate the anniversary of the voyages of Zheng He, a Chinese admiral who took his fleet across Asia and Africa, exploring cultures, establishing linkages between Chinese and Southeast Asia cultures in the 14^th or 15^th centuries. Zheng He's expeditions, the Chinese claim, were peaceful exploratory voyages not aimed at conquest.

While these attempts to establish a cultural and historical connect is significant by the Asian giants, what can tilt the balance in India's favor is its impeccable democratic credentials, respect for diversity and resilient political framework in an otherwise unstable region and also vis-à-vis China.

Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

-- Madhur

"Indian Portrayal of terror wins accolades across Arab nations" - Outlook magazine (India)

Interesting article in the Outlook magazine on Bollywood's reach and influence in certain regions of the world. Most importantly, entertainment industries like the Bombay film industry ( I hate using the word "Bollywood." Hindi Film industry or Bombay Film industry seems a better term) play an important role in portraying a non-western point of view to contemporary happenings. It also reflects India's soft power prowess.

Read it here: Al Hind: a Relook

New York’s (The movie) Middle East Success Story

• Released in theatres in UAE and Bahrain with 32 prints
• Took one of the biggest openings for a film in the region
• Grossed US $1.5 million in the Middle East box office
• Pirated DVDs of the film spread widely in Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia
• Estimated to have lost over a million dollars to piracy across the region
• Opening film at the Cairo International Film Festival 2009, the oldest and most significant film festival in the Middle East

Enjoy the read!

-- Madhur

Pesta Blogger 2009: Broadening the scope of Public Diplomacy

As we discuss the need & possibility of broadening the understanding of Public Diplomacy in India, there have been some interesting developments around the world with PD 2.0 worth taking note of.

Last week, I received this interesting bit of information from the US state department that the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, is sponsoring Pesta Blogger 2009 - Indonesia’s only national-level bloggers’ gathering for the second consecutive year. The bloggers gathering took place on Oct. 24, 2009 in which four US bloggers including Arsalan Iftikhar, prominent American Muslim blogger and Mark Frauenfelder, founder of a leading technology blog participated. The US embassy in Jakarta has also been sponsoring a series of blogging workshops in 10 cities across Indonesia attracting more than one thousand people. The idea is to encourage people to blog and impart the principles of citizen journalism. U.S. Ambassador Cameron R. Hume said: “The Embassy is proud to support and sponsor Pesta Blogger for the second year running. Freedom of expression is an integral part of any sustainable democratic system. Indonesia has a strong, vibrant democracy, and the robust growth of its blogging community indicates this.”

Tristram D. Perry at the US embassy in Jakarta (whom I had emailed) said that the state department is doing a lot with social media worldwide but in every country the strategy differs as per the local conditions. He said, “Different cultures and nations are unique in their use of technology, so that for example, in Indonesia, while Facebook enjoys almost 10 million members here (of a total 30 million people actually on the internet monthly or more frequently) podcasts or webchats are very rare. I can only really speak to Indonesia, but as you can see we are right on the ground floor of the most socially active segment of online society. For whether it is having an impact, I would have to refer you to the Pew Global attitudes poll.”

“Blogger relations” is commonly practised in corporate communications. I personally feel it’s innovative to engage bloggers and package it with promoting “freedom of expression” and “democracy” ( common themes in US foreign policy communications). This willingness to try different mediums, irrespective of the ability to accurately measure impact and facilitate discussions, conversations on topics of “one’s own choosing” can actually work wonders in advancing “influence”. Its an attempt to go beyond and being proactive.

Suggestions/Critiques welcome

Madhur

Towards a broader understanding of Public Diplomacy

The recent controversy between India and China over the alleged intrusions by Chinese soldiers into Indian territory, disregarding the LAC (Line of Actual Control), attracted considerable media attention in both countries. China claimed these were baseless allegations by the Indian media, designed to discredit China and whip up anti China sentiments in India. The Chinese envoy, accustomed to a state controlled media at home, was reported to have asked the Indian media to listen to its leaders (The Hindustan Times). The China Daily is reported to have said in an editorial, "If you are a regular reader of reports in the Indian media, you can be excused for thinking a war is imminent between India and China. For the past few months, the Indian media have been trying to fan passions on both sides." I found another news item in Zee News where Chinese leaders asked Indian media to exercise restraint.

The wide reporting on this issue on both sides of the border highlights the key role of the media in international relations today. State actors are forced to react to situations/opinions formed as a result of media’s reporting and that creates a situation where media relations, media perception audits, media analysis becomes crucial professional skills that diplomats need.

As I had written before, the understanding of Public Diplomacy needs to be broadened and go beyond attractiveness of a nation’s brand, norms and values as explained by Joseph Nye. Perception includes all these and anything other than that. Public Diplomacy is not about charming alone, but also, has a lot to do with shaping and managing perceptions and INFLUENCE.

ATTRACTIVENESS → INFLUENCE

Indian policy establishment also need to move from focusing on “attractiveness” to “influence” if it’s serious about donning a larger role in the international system. Like global media, other elements like business, non-governmental actors, investment diplomacy et al need to co opted into a broader public diplomacy strategy. China is successfully doing it and results are there for all to see.

Suggestions/critiques welcome.

Madhur

China according to The Global Times

I read the Global Times fairly regularly. I find it an interesting public diplomacy initiative of the Chinese. The Global Times, the Chinese say, is an attempt to promote an “accurate” image of China abroad since international reporting, especially the Western media, on China is often flawed, lacking in understanding of China and the Chinese culture. Almost Al-Jazeera like, its an attempt to get a share of voice in a world dominated by Western media conglomerates and present the Chinese viewpoint on important developments. Intended for an international audience/readership, the Global Times also tries to allay fears of a resurgent China threatening to disturb the present international order.

Editorials in the Global Times make it very clear that the newspaper has an agenda. Two editorials caught my attention recently: 60 foreigners who helped shape China's 60 years (Sep. 18, 2009) and Editorial: What China can contribute to the world? (Aug. 24, 2009) Both the pieces convey the image of a China that is open, freely engaging with the rest of the world, borrowing ideas to build itself and also actively contributing towards other cultures. Through such writings the newspaper argues China is not a closed society but has always been open and globalised … its just that the political system is unique when compared to the West, of which, the Western world, obviously has no understanding of.

The “60 foreigners” editorial was widely reported in the Indian press because Nehru and Tagore were included in the list of foreigners who helped shape modern China. The list was prepared based on an internet poll by the newspaper. It states, “Looking back on the nation's 60 years of tremendous changes, it's evident that foreigners have been much more than witnesses in the development of the People's Republic of China. Whether intentionally or accidentally, directly or indirectly, positively or negatively, they have become important pieces of the China puzzle – helping shape and globalize the nation… Marx and Lenin enlightened China; Richard Nixon and former Singapore president Lee Kuan Yew promoted China; Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton have impressed generations of Chinese; and Michael Jordan and Bill Gates became idols of young Chinese, to name a few.”

In What China can contribute to the world, the edit clearly aims to reassure the world that a rising China stands for a harmonious world and Chinese culture can enrich other cultures. Unlike Western cultures, Chinese culture is best suited to create “a harmonious world” as unlike Western cultures it doesn’t operate within the binaries of “good” and “evil”. The edit concludes: “The fundamental reason is that Chinese culture is advancing with the times and willing to absorb ideas from other cultures to enrich itself. It is open rather than closed; inclusive rather than exclusive. Chinese culture is part of Asian culture. With the rise of the Asian region, maybe it is time for Chinese culture to make greater contributions to the world. In the 21st century, what China could contribute to the world is probably not made-in-China products, but Chinese culture.”

Recently, there have been a plethora of articles in the newspaper that attempts to portray a China that is open with free flow of ideas unlike Western media’s perceptions of it being a closed society. It’s just a unique culture with a own unique political system that seeks to participate in the new world order based on the 2000 year old Chinese principle of “Harmony in Diversity.” What’s worrisome is the tonality in such articles which tends to assert, very subtly, the superiority of the Chinese culture. In politics it can be dangerous.

Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

Madhur

A Public diplomacy strategy for India

In a recent speech - Why Foreign Policy Matters - An Indian Perspective, - Dr. Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State, Foreign Affairs, Government of India observed that there is a need to “develop and exploit India’s considerable soft power, by making this integral to the work of (the) territorial divisions” within the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and called for the development of a “coherent public diplomacy strategy” that can bring together efforts of diverse institutions like the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) and the Public Diplomacy Division within the MEA. He called for an effective diplomacy strategy and public diplomacy planning to increase India’s influence abroad. Nirupama Rao, India’s new foreign secretary who took charge in August, too, stated that Public Diplomacy should receive more attention from South Block.

India needs to be seen, heard, felt and India needs to woo, engage and ideate. Policy makers seem to have recognized this. Readers would recollect that I had written about the need for a Public Diplomacy strategy to promote brand India better abroad much earlier. In the 2008 Anholt’s Nation Brand Index India ranked a lowly 27^th and was ranked low in all categories like perceptions of culture, tourism, governance, Investment brand etc. At a time when India is aspiring to be a global power and when the focus of India’s military doctrine happens to be “power projection” there is a need to complement these efforts with an effective soft power strategy.

Dr. Tharoor, in his speech, took a limited view of Public Diplomacy and confined it to areas like music, culture, literature, food etc. Any strategy for India, should in fact try to widen this definition of Public Diplomacy and also include elements like foreign aid, bilateral co-operation especially in Southeast Asia, media relations, leveraging Indian media conglomerates, using social media etc. The goal should be to project power and dominate the sphere of ideas and increase mindshare among global audiences.

A limitation for India is the lack of strong think tanks, universities, thinkers practicing Public Diplomacy. The Indian Foreign Service (IFS) too, for long, has operated in silos with lateral entry & exchanges between government and academia being few and far between. Scholars of International Relations and Diplomacy in India have focused overwhelmingly on studying conflict and security rather than public diplomacy, dynamics of north-south relations, developing area expertise other than on Pakistan or South Asia, international relations theory, multilateralism etc. Coupled with this is the lack of good communication schools in India with interdisciplinary focus. The number of communication schools can be counted on finger tips and not all of them are engaged in communications research. If one looks at US, some of the leading Public Diplomacy schools like University of Southern California, Syracuse University etc. run their public diplomacy programs in collaboration with the communication schools in those universities. Indian foreign policy establishment should understand that that the theory and practice of public diplomacy is as much a function of communications as it is a function of diplomacy.

Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

Madhur

The Independent Florida Alligator: News - Demonstrators gather to protest Islam on Sept. 11

The Independent Florida Alligator: News - Demonstrators gather to protest Islam on Sept. 11

A news piece I found while browsing. I have been thinking about the war of ideas between Islam & the West for sometime and wonder if developments such as these are helpful in any way.

With the wide reach of media nowadays (I am sitting in India - a country with the second largest Muslim population in the world - reading about some small towners in Florida protesting against the religion of Islam - 'Islam is of the Devil' - they are saying) I wonder how Muslims in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and American allies Saudi Arabia will react to this, considering the fact that the US government is on a mission to 'woo' Islamic nations and prove that it is not at war with Islam.

The bigger question is how will American Muslims react to this? The number of American Muslims is significant - estimated to be 7 million (President Obama's Cairo speech) (The Pew Research Centre however in a 2007 survey estimated it to be 2.7 million instead)

Also, is America a secular democracy or a Christian nation?

Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

Madhur