Nation branding complications for China and Israel

Continuing from my last post, and discussion with American University researcher Efe Sevin, I thought it would be worthwhile to share two news items I read on the relation between soft power and nation branding efforts by countries. 

Bloomberg view columnist William Pesek, in his piece Even $3 Trillion Can’t Buy China Love or Good PR talks about China's difficulty in sustaining a favorable image of itself in the light of the recent controversies, in his words, 

"the Bo Xilai scandal, the diplomatic gymnastics over Chen Guangcheng, propaganda attacks on U.S. Ambassador Gary Locke, tossing out Al Jazeera’s lone Beijing correspondent and bullying the Philippines over a cluster of rocks in the ocean"

He talks of China as an insecure power, uncomfortable with the publicity that it's massive investments in soft power is garnering for the nation and not very successful at managing the perception of a 'peaceful rise'.

On the other hand, writing for the Foreign Policy magazine, Aaron David Miller in the article, Israel's image revisited, tries to analyse why does Israel get bad PR consistently and the consequent erosion of it's image in the international stage. He states,

"In the eyes of the world, Israel has shed its image of a small state struggling against impossible odds. Israel now has "security needs" and "requirements" rather than existential fears; its power obligates it to be more magnanimous and forthcoming on peace issues; its strength should produce restraint, not excess"

and adds that the asymmetry of power that exists between a nation with GDP per capita of USD 31,000, 100 listed companies in the NYSE and a nuclear power that too, vis-a-vis its neighbors in the Arab world, strapped  for resources and mired in political conflicts, significantly contributes to the erosion of Israel's image. 

Both writers state that irrespective of what the world media has to say, true soft power is only  gained by actions - by what these countries individually do. No amount of branding exercise can help their image if not backed by actions. 

In marketing communications, we believe that you cannot sell a bad product. Once a good product is developed, marketers have to ensure it is 'seen' (hence promote) to generate demand. So nation branding technically can be an exercise in futility in political terms (focused efforts like investor relations or tourism etc can reap some benefits)

Now this is a tricky situation for both China and Israel. One can't help notice that both these countries are very unique politically,

1. China remains an authoritarian socialist state controlled by one party with limitations on freedom
2. Israel, on the other hand, is the only other country apart from Pakistan, in this world, that was born on the basis of religious identity (different from a theocratic state). In the history of the nation state, formed on the basis of cultural or linguistic identity, Israel remains 'exclusivist.'

In this context note that they are mostly talked about by an all powerful global media based in, and, controlled by liberal democracies be it in United States, Europe or India; for consumers with starkly different political attitudes when compared to both these countries. So the definition of a "good product" and a "bad product" is contentious. In addition, the standard of evaluation is distinctly different from the "Political Brand DNA," if I may use the term, of both China & Israel. This is a very pertinent example of how media becomes an independent power center in  international politics and how nation branding for countries is a complex task. To shape the narrative, you have to become a part of the story...and get trapped!

Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

-- Madhur

Public Diplomacy vs Nation Branding

We often tend to use Public Diplomacy (PD) interchangeably with Nation Branding. While there are definitely certain overlaps, a clear distinction does exist between both the practice areas. That's why I found Daryl Copeland recent post on the CPD Blog: PUBLIC DIPLOMACY, BRANDING, AND THE IMAGE OF NATIONS, PART II: MORE OF THE SAME, OR DIFFERENT? very interesting. In this very well written post, Daryl explains some fundamental distinctions between PD and nation branding and aptly states that,

"If public diplomacy is thought of as a nations’ book, then a nation’s brand is something like its cover, designed to appeal viscerally to the consumers of international policy by encouraging potential buyers to open the book (or visit the country, buy the product, or support the international policy objective). But because the market evolves quickly, the cover’s design may need attention even before the book requires revision and a new edition can be released."

He explains that PD is characterized by meaningful dialogue and relationship building and not based on "information dominance" or "message dumping." An alternative policy instrument in the hands of governments today, PD is central to managing international issues through consistent engagement, in which, communicating a point of view is as important as listening to a point of view. PD can be one of the approaches for nation branding and consists within itself  host of activities focused on communications, stakeholder engagement, collaboration and influencing public opinion. With such an approach PD seems to be the application of public affairs and strategic communications to the practice of international relations (as I always maintained in this blog). Daryl also tends to agree when he says that PD has more in common with public relations as a practice. This was also underlined in the Report of the Defense Science Board (US Department of Defense, 2004) in which it clearly stated that,

"In an age of global media, the internet revolution and powerful non-state actors - an age in which almost everything governments do and say is understood through mediating filters of news frames, culture, memory, and language - no major strategy, policy, or diplomatic initiative can succeed without public support. Fulbright scholarships, youth exchanges, embassy press briefings, official websites in language versions, and televised interviews with ambassadors and military commanders are examples of public diplomacy."

To cite an example in the context of India, "Incredible India" , is more of a nation branding campaign while the distinguished lecture series organized by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) is more of a PD exercise. PD as a practice has recently been growing and one of the primary reason is the media proliferation and information revolution (This was however was overlooked in the reasons given for a PD resurgence in the above mentioned blog post.).That's the reason why strategic communications form the core of PD.

Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

-- Madhur

US Ambassador Nancy Powell's video introduction

The US embassy recently released  a video introduction of Ambassador Nancy J. Powell who replaces Timothy J. Roemer as the new US envoy to India. It is a pretty simple video but what's good is the simplicity,  personal touch and easy language. It seems to have captured the ambassador as 'a person' and not 'another official.' Given the fortress like presence of the US embassy in Delhi, this seems to be a sincere outreach to connect with Indian people ...even if its in the virtual world!

Apparently this video has been dubbed into 10 other Indian languages. The embassy was discussing ways to overcome the challenge that India's linguistic diversity presents to integrated communication efforts and going heavy on audio and video is a nice 'walk around.'

While I was not too sure if its standard practice in US embassies all over the world to introduce Ambassadors through such multimedia initiatives, fellow PD enthusiast, Akash in DC, (@akashhhhh) mined  six of those on YouTube. He shared the ambassador introduction in Russia with me,

This effort is interesting for the potential it has to bring foreign policy and related discussions down from the ivory towers. Timely, in  a world that is increasingly interconnected!

Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

-- Madhur

@IndianDiplomacy posts on Twitter

India's Ministry of External Affairs' (MEA) is known to be quite active on Twitter compared to other ministries. The ministry also used Twitter quite productively for the evacuation of Indian nationals from Libya during the NATO led war.

@IndianDiplomacy currently has 26, 774 followers with 1,855 tweets posted till date. Indian diplomats and the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), as well, routinely tweet on foreign policy matters now. As one of the followers, I  receive regular updates from the ministry on my Twitter feed. One can't help but notice that most tweets remain in the form of notifications or announcements and are primarily in the 'broadcast mode'. While this is not bad in itself, in order to leverage Twitter, or for that matter any digital platform, it helps to switch to the 'engagement mode' where an action or a response is sought to a post and more and more two way communications happen. It may be a good idea to personalize it a little bit and not make it look like an information window of the government. While one may find lot of interesting information or updates, most of the times one may get the feeling 'so...why should I care?' This  is the question @IndianDiplomacy should seek to address. What is also required is better usage of hashtags and even some basics such as usage of bit.ly etc.

I personally think former Foreign Secretary and current Ambassador to United States, Ms Nirupama Rao is doing a fabulous job on Twitter. Not only her posts have a personality but the tone and overall nature of tweets are very engaging. Her Twitter handle is @NMenonRao. How do we add personality to a Ministry? That is another interesting challenge altogether.

Some useful resources:

• How to Write a Great Twitter Post

• How To Write The Perfect Tweet

• Tweets that click

Suggestions/Critiques welcome

-- Madhur

Why is Chappel whining again?

Greg Chappel today mutilated memories. Of a game, of victories, of celebrations, of a culture, of Australia. His disturbing comments on Indian psyche, Indian culture was uncalled for and coming from a sportsman - known primarily for physical prowess and 'effective hand-eye coordination' or something like that - reflected a lack of intellectual capacity. Unfortunately, his comments take us back to a time when we were discussing in India about 'White Australian' bias against people of color, including Indians. This was just after a spate of violence against Indians in Australia. Sons of Australia, it seems, rarely do their country proud. Maybe their parents would do well to exercise more control.

Chappel's dismissal of the colonial experience of India as something inconsequential was really alarming. 

"Poms really taught them how to keep their heads down"

This is Chappel's sense of history of one of the most brutalizing experiences in human history. The indigenous population of Australia too were victims. Of Chappel's ancestors. The British violated every principle of the rule of law and gentlemanly conduct they tom-tom about to colonize through craft, not might. They did it again, just before the Iraq war, shamelessly lying to the world. They only understood force, and blood; they did not understand non-violence. They left.

What does Chappel or Australian cricketers think is the ideal way for Indians to conduct themselves? What is their frame of reference? Who has given them the right to do it for us?Why should we? No, we will not sledge, no, we will not behave like juveniles in a cricketing field. Remember two of our most mild-mannered and gentlemanly cricketers crushed your team at Kolkata in 2001? Maybe its not required. Maybe its not the Indian way. We have won two World Cups, been the number one Test team, won the T20 World Cup, we have done it all following the Indian way. Why should we be like you? Why should your way be the only way? 

This actually smacks of aversive racism and an attempt to redefine the narrative. Trying to understand the native through your own prism and getting the 'other' to become like 'you' so that subjugation and superiority is complete. Yes Mr Chappel, British did that too and I am sure your ancestors did that in Australia, but hey it is 2012 not 1850. In your mind we are still the subject. You came on a civilizing mission as the coach of the Indian team only to realize that times have changed. Not on a professional assignment. Maybe there was a conspiracy against you, maybe you were being taken for a ride, but for you it was unfathomable that 'natives' do not listen to you anymore. I hope I am proven wrong, your remarks nonetheless, brings to my mind thoughts such as these. Of you, of Australia. It also brings to my mind an Australian verse. Yes, Australian,

No more woomera, no more boomerang,
No more playabout, no more the old ways.
Children of nature we were then,
No clocks hurrying crowds to toil.
Now I am civilized and work in the white way,
Now I have dress, now I have shoes:
‘Isn’t she lucky to have a good job!’
Better when I had only a dillybag.
Better when I had nothing but happiness
(*Noonuccal, ‘Then and Now’, in My People, (Milton, 1981), p. 91.)

When it comes to being respectful of cultures, Indian cricketers have behaved nearly impeccably in public glare, thanks to Indian parenting that Chappel scoffs at. Parents do and can teach a thing or two, including sensitivity and good behavior. Chappel apparently learnt nothing. Wonder what Chappel taught his kids?

Regarding the mental toughness of Indian cricketers, Chappel is very well familiar what it takes to make it to the final playing XI in a country of 1 billion, where everyone aspires to become a cricketer.  The sacrifices, heartbreaks, difficult playing conditions, lack of cricketing facilities, opaque systems - you have to really overcome all. Ask a Sehwag or a Munaaf Patel or an Irfan Pathan or a Dravid. They have all gone through that. I might be wrong, but I don't think any Australian cricketer can survive that. 

Isn't it time the Australian cricketing establishment clearly lay down rules of responsible conduct for current cricketers and ex-cricketers like Chappel, and, 'hammer' it into their heads (apparently they are all thick headed) that they need to behave responsibly because they represent Australia? 'Its just the Aussie way' doesn't help because Chappel's rants can be just dismissed as the 'Indian way' that he either takes or leaves but do not whine. Media loves the culture of sound bytes, do not feed them because they are only around until someone else comes up with a better one.

Chappel's book launch was a PR disaster for letting the press conference go out of control. India, today has a population of nearly 350 million English speaking middle class out of which even if there are 1 million  'readers,' that's a market you do not alienate. Indians are a proud lot when it comes to their culture and way of life and controversies like these can get you ink but trust me Mr Chappel, not the money. Should we call for a boycott of your book and exalt you to the status of a Rushdie? I don't know much about your writing abilities but what you have done is definitely Satanic. Have you, Mr Chappel, forgotten that the buyers of the world are now in India? Have you, Mr Chappel, forgotten that cricket and English language are two things we snatched away from your colonizing ancestors in England?

Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

-- Madhur

Pakistan's true-face programme

Former Pakistani diplomat Inayatullah's column in The Nation yesterday referred to Pakistan' Information Minister, Dr Firdous Ashiq's 17-point Pakistan's true-face programme. The programme is aimed at rebuilding Pakistan's image and "correcting" world's perception about Pakistan according to "actual ground realities."

Inayatullah, while welcoming the idea, correctly put it in perspective stating that Pakistan needs to put its house in order first before venturing on a charm offensive. The Pakistani establishment can only ignore at its own peril the fact that the country is synonymous with anarchy, international terrorism and is referred to as a 'failed state.' Nonetheless, the move does bring into focus a very important question related to Public Diplomacy. 

1. Can PD stand up to the challenge and contain the damage to Pakistan's tattered reputation? 
2. Is PD irrelevant without concrete  policy actions and results to show for?
3. Can Pakistan afford to ignore PD?

I hope the information minister is not living in denial and decides on a course of action that is 'real.' If the world media has portrayed an image of Pakistan - and that means hundreds of reporters from all across the world - it is a reality check for its policymakers. A realistic appraisal of the ground realities, acceptance of the problems and a strong policy partnership with the foreign ministry, armed forces, interior ministry can go a long way in the creation of a narrative that would find acceptance in media discourses. Since Pakistan's polity is highly fragmented it would be quite  a challenge to achieve the policy partnership with other ministries, nonetheless is worth a try. PD is not about propaganda, not about creating an image alone but also about shaping discussions, influencing conversations and creating perceptions to achieve strategic goals. There is plenty of scope for Pakistan to undertake PD exercises in this context. Media (i.e. journalists) loves conflict and I do see plenty of opportunities for 'a ray of light in the abyss of darkness' stories for Pakistan to dish out among numerous other activities that it can undertake to generate real conversations. 

For this to happen, Pakistan has to find the budget to 'indulge' in PD. Can a country that survives on aid, cannot feed its own population or fight its own wars afford to put money into PD? 

Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

-- Madhur

Justice Katju, Salman Rushdie and the Jaipur Lit Fest

Press Council of India chairman, Markenday Katju's observation that Salman Rushdie is a "poor" and "sub-standard" writer generated considerable debates over the last three days. While Justice Katju was voicing his own opinion on Rushdie's writing (I remain a Rushdie fan) he raised interesting questions about the Jaipur literary festival.

'Jaipur Lit Fest' (JLF) as it is popularly called, has become a platform for India's public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy initiatives in the recent times. However, Justice Katju observed that during the festival,

"there was not enough serious discussion about indigenous literature at the festival, naming Kabir, Premchand, Sharat Chandra, Ghalib and Faiz as writers whose works could have been discussed."

Justice Katju criticised educated Indians and stated that they “suffer from the colonial inferiority complex” and have a fascination for writers (Indian origin writers) based out of London or New York. I had written a post on the CPD Blog of USC Annenberg where I talked about the potential of India' regional literature to influence global popular culture . Justice Katju's observations are significant in the context of the participation of the state in discourses in such platforms. He may not be off the mark completely. I subscribe to the Hindustan Times, which among other things, boasts of an edit team with 'evolved literary sensibilities'. The newspaper has dedicated a separate section for the Lit Fest and unfortunately most of the writers featured there happen to be the "Indian origin writer from the East Coast" or foreign writers of repute. Considering the fact that JLF is also a media spectacle it is not surprising. However we need to introspect if Indian literature stops at that and also how do we use a platform like JLF to tell India's story from a public diplomacy perspective.

Nonetheless, to be fair to Hindustan Times, I was glad to read Amit Chaudhuri's comments on the Rushdie controversy and JLF in the opinion pages today. Commenting on the very closed world of Indian liberals, Chaudhuri observed,

"Liberalism is not just a matter of solidarity, but of an openness to people, even strangers, of disparate social backgrounds, who haven't necessarily been domesticated into the mainstream, and who come together out of a shared respect for the realm of ideas. One has to admit that this isn't the case in India; that our liberals are too over-familiar with one another, and comfortably so. An idea of freedom that emerges out of a closed world, from a sense of entitlement rather than from constant intellectual striving, can experience its crises with only so much urgency."

Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

-- Madhur