Neon Tommy- A Policy for the Cuban People by Danielle Skloven 3.31.10

A Policy For The Cuban People
by Danielle Skloven 

Contributor

Creative Commons Licensed (Franco Cheung)

Throngs of protestors turned out for marches in cities around the world (includingLos Angeles) last weekend to draw attention to the plight of political dissidents in Cuba. These demonstrations followed an event on Thursday of last week in Miami attended by tens of thousands and led by Cuban-American musician Gloria Estefan.

The protests were spurred by an incident that took place a week ago in Havana. Cuban security forces attacked the so-called "Ladies in White"--mothers, daughters, and wives of political prisoners--and dragged them off the streets into awaiting vans. The Ladies were walking silently holding flowers as they do each year to commemorate the anniversary of "Black Spring," the day the Cuban government jailed 75 human rights activists.

Will the increased level of clamor from abroad push Cuban leadership to rethink its policy? Not likely. Although Obama openly condemned the regime's repressive tactics last week, only time will tell whether or not these words are supported by substantive deeds. Earlier in his term, Obama hinted at a rapprochement with Havana by easing restrictions on Cuban-American travel to the island and initiating talks on migration issues and resumption of direct mail service. Obama's stick-and-carrot strategy of relaxing some policies while maintaining a message of disapproval for Cuba's human rights record has failed to engage leaders in Cuba.

Raul Castro has repeatedly attacked Washington for its (often secret) support of Cuban dissidents, labeling the U.S an imperialist force bent of regaining control over Cuba. Such imagery finds sympathy in the hearts of many Cubans, who easily recall American military forays into various Caribbean nations throughout the twentieth century. Meanwhile, it is widely recognized that the State Department funds opposition groups within Cuba and in Miami--a constant stick in the eye of the Cuban Communist party.

The recent death of a dissident after a prolonged hunger strike illustrates the unwavering obstinacy of the Cuban government to give in to pressure -- either internal or external.  Rather than provoking the ire of the regime through inflammatory Martí broadcasts (which are mostly blocked by the Cuban government and thus a drain on U.S. funding) and pro-democracy leaflets, U.S. efforts should be focused on providing basic needs to the Cuban people - not political ideology. 

By offering the citizens of Cuba much-needed medical supplies, food, and other necessities, the U.S. will be implicitly illustrating the merits of democracy. Furthermore, such policies would undermine Cuban officials' constant effort to vilify the U.S. as the source of the island nation's woes.

If the current tension in Washington-Havana relations can be lowered, the possibility of allowing American tourists back on the island may ultimately become a reality. In November, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar (R-IN) and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) drafted a bipartisan Senate bill calling for an end to the ban on Americans traveling to Cuba. If such a policy became law, people-to-people contacts between the two nations would increase exponentially. Ordinary American citizens are often the most effective ambassadors, and such contact would do much to eliminate distrust between the two nations. 

Danielle Skloven is in her second year of the Masters of Public Diplomacy program. She has worked in international advertising and PR as well as with the World Trade Center-LA. Danielle received a BA of International Relations from USC as well. 

This op-ed is part of a partnership between Neon Tommy and the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars.


http://blogs.uscannenberg.org/neontommy/2010/03/a-policy-for-the-cuban-people.html

The Huffington Post- This Isn't Your Parents' Cultural Diplomacy by Tala Mohebi 3.26.10

Tala Mohebi

Posted: March 26, 2010 03:32 PM

This Isn't Your Parents' Cultural Diplomacy

It used to be that Dizzy Gillespie was dispatched by the U.S. Department of State to play overseas and Cold War divisions were gently eased. In 1956, this simple offering allowed foreign publics to find new ways to relate to Americans and their musical ingenuity. Similarly, the Ping Pong diplomats of the 1970's that took sports culture and broke down hardened barriers of entry into China proved to be a great and often cited success of cultural diplomacy functioning for policy. While these traditional types of exchange continue to supplement state-to-state diplomatic relations, communicating with foreign publics needs to adapt to the ever-changing communications landscape.

The end of the Cold War signaled many changes in the offices charged with conducting public and cultural diplomacy. Significantly, the budgets set aside for cultural programs have tended to decline while the demands of engaging broader (including more age-diverse) publics have continued to increase. This paradox has been especially apparent through haphazard and compulsive cultural programs put forward by the United States. Alternatively, many countries have used the post 9/11 period to pursue innovative programs working with new technologies and communication networks.

As an example, the Nigerian film industry, known as "Nollywood," has come to play a significant role in representing the country both regionally and internationally. Nollywood came to prominence in the early 1990's and has since become the second largest movie industry in terms of annual production, overtaking Hollywood in the process. The types of films produced vary in their genres and stories, but a significant element of creating over 1,000 movies annually, is the ability to represent stories from this African country from the viewpoint of its inhabitants. No longer is the image of Africa solely shown through the lens of Western media. Changing the storyteller's perspective has broadened and balanced the realities of life in Africa. Recognizing this opportunity, the Minister of Information and Communication of Nigeria enlisted Nollywood in 2009 to serve as part of its rebranding project. Using film as a central part of this initiative, the Nigerian government hopes to distinguish its country and reveal the cultural assets it can offer. Nollywood films are available in remote areas of Africa and to American viewers through Internet and satellite connections. The opportunities for rebranding Nigeria's image and opening space for dialogue about the art coming from Africa are precisely what makes Nollywood a prime example of a new wave of cultural diplomacy.

While Nigeria directly reached out to its Nollywood community for assistance with public diplomacy programs, other countries have begun to recognize the power of their cultural assets. Japan has recently begun to harness the vast amount of interest and excitement generated by its manga (comics) and anime (animated film) arts. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) has recently tapped into this wealth of curiosity to incorporate its public diplomacy messages into the dissemination of these art forms. Initiatives have been launched to promote Japanese language studies as well as travel and tourism to Japan through various expos and other pop-culture events. Additionally MOFA has made direct use of these cultural assets by appointing, for example, an anime Ambassador who has hosted nearly 120 screenings of anime movies in over 60 cities around the world. These programs are not intended to replace other, more traditionally focused elements of public diplomacy, but the openness to engaging with younger generations interested in this aspect of Japanese culture points to the adaptability and potential for furthering Japanese cultural diplomacy programs.

Present day cultural diplomacy bears the characteristic mark of being influenced by ever-greater and more physically distant individuals connecting through new forms of communications technologies. The Internet and tools of social networking create real-time dialogue that relays messages and responses in addition to channeling visual and audio materials that previously would have been filtered through television or radio outlets to determine if they would ever be made available to the public. In the new communication landscape, as the amount of cultural content available broadens its content becomes more diverse.

Cultural diplomats may raise eyebrows about the particular arts and content being used today. But as always, the subjective nature of culture leaves endless room to debate each item a country presents as representative of its nation's offerings. The value of a cultural diplomacy program can only be gauged by its ability to engage with foreign audiences and adapt to their means of communicating in meaningful ways. Nigeria and Japan, as two of countless countries that can be selected for their innovative programs, have proven yet again that the role of culture in public dialogue cannot be overvalued. Promoting understanding through the sharing of cultural programs continues to be a vital element in the promotion of a state's interests no matter how different the content may look over the years.

Tala Mohebi is a graduate student in Masters of Public Diplomacy program at the University of Southern California. She is Editor-in-Chief of Public Diplomacy Magazine, a bi-annual publication that brings together works from scholars and practitioners in the field of public diplomacy.

CPD/APDS Blog- Korean Tacos and Kimchi Diplomacy by Paul Rockower 3.25.10

KOREAN TACOS AND KIMCHI DIPLOMACY
MAR 25, 2010Posted by APDS Bloggers
All posts by APDS Bloggers


APDS Blogger: Paul Rockower

“Food is our common ground, a universal experience.”
- James Beard

South Korea has recently launched a serious re-branding effort. The South Korean government has been worried that the country’s brand has been underperforming in years past, and not at the level befitting a country that is the solid middle power that South Korea believes itself to be. There was consternation at the fact that Korean brands had better awareness recognition than the country, or that often, when recognized, Korean brands were mistaken for Japanese models.

Seoul has held public diplomacy commissions and brought in the experts to discuss how to raise awareness of Korea in the international community. The government tried various slogans with the appropriate buzzwords that never exactly connected or meant anything (‘Sparkling'? 'Be Inspired'? Really?).

One area that the Korean government has recently chosen as a target for outreach is the realm of gastrodiplomacy. Gastrodiplomacy, simply put, is the act of winning hearts and minds through stomachs. The technique of gastrodiplomacy was perfected by Thailand as it used its kitchens and restaurants as outposts of cultural diplomacy. Given the growing popularity of Thai restaurants around the globe the government of Thailand implemented the “Global Thai program” in 2002 as a means to increase the number of Thai restaurants worldwide.

The Thai government’s rationale, The Economist noted, was that the boom in restaurants would, “ not only introduce delicious spicy Thai food to thousands of new tummies and persuade more people to visit Thailand, but it could subtly help deepen relations with other countries.”

More recently, the Los Angeles dining scene has been abuzz with Korean-Mexican fusion cuisine. The Kogi Taco Truck, which sends out its location via Twitter and features Korean-Mexican fusion fare, has become a veritable cult phenomenon on the LA dining scene. When it first opened, lines snaked for up to two hours, as hungry diners waited to eat barbecued beef tacos slathered in Korean “salsa roja,” and topped with cilantro, onions, cabbage slaw and soy-sesame chili. The Los Angeles Times comments on the popularity, “perhaps it’s the exquisite cultural co-mingling inherent in the food that draws the crowds; the only-in-LA combination of two of the city’s most beloved ethnic cuisines.”

According to Kogi owner Roy Choi, the idea, “was to bring his ethnic background together with the sensibility and geography of Los Angeles, where Koreatown abuts Latin-dominated neighborhoods in midcity, and where food cultures have long merged. Former Mexican restaurants, now Korean, serve burritos, and Mexican workers populate the kitchens of Korean restaurants.” The popularity of Kogi and Korean-Mexican fusion food has led to a mushrooming of Korean taco trucks getting involved in the act, although Kogi is still the best (in my opinion). Korean taco trucks have now also begun to pop up in New York.

Moreover, other ethnic foods are also pushing fusion cuisine like the Indian-Mexican tikka tacos and chicken masala quesadillas available at 23rd Street Café near USC, Japanese tacos found in Little Tokyo and Chinese tacos fromDon Chow’s (the ginger lime-marinated tofu tacos are incredible). Most recently, I found a Mexi-terranean taco truck called Kabob Express that served shwarma tacos.

The point of this blog is not to cause hunger pangs, but to point out one of the most serious and central components of Public Diplomacy: listening. When public diplomacy actors pay attention to local and global public opinion rather than gluttonously engaging in advocacy, they are more adept at taking advantage of unorthodox openings created by authentic cultural innovations to carry out enhanced public diplomacy.

At present, the preponderance of various fusion food trucks led to an LA Street Food Festival. It would have been a wise PD investment for the Korean Consulate of Los Angeles to help sponsor such an event, or try to push something similar. For all that Korea is spending trying to rebrand itself and push Korean gastrodiplomacy, it would be better served listening and looking for examples of organic, authentic and homegrown outlets of cultural gastrodiplomacy like the Korean taco truck. My advice is not free, mind you - the Korean Consulate may kindly pay my consulting fees in the form of bulgogi tacos covered in kimchi.

---

Paul Rockower, gastronomist, is a candidate for a Master’s of Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California. He is the Communications Chair for the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars (APDS) and a Contributing Researcher at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/korean_tacos_and_kimchi_diplomacy/

CPD/APDS Blog- Google Diplomacy by Peter Winter 3.25.10

GOOGLE DIPLOMACY
MAR 25, 2010Posted by APDS Bloggers
All posts by APDS Bloggers


APDS Blogger: Peter Winter 

Is Google bold? It takes some serious courage to stand up to the gatekeepers of the world’s biggest market. By refusing to kowtow to the Chinese censors, the tech company that built its fortunes on the free flow of information stood up for its business model, not to mention the ideals of its home country.

Even the act itself was elegant. Rather than simply shutting down its Chinese website, Google transferred all visitors to the censorship-free Hong Kong website. It is still China, right? This “diplomatic” approach allowed the Silicon Valley giant to cross the cavernous fault line between morality and business.

Or is Google dumb? The Chinese powers that be have already hit back, charging Google with breaking its written promise to the country and acting as a White House pawn. The company’s hopes of protecting its advertising and research divisions within China are fading fast as state media and government officials lash out.

You often hear about how important “face” is in China. Similar to one’s reputation in the West, the concept has a more collectivist tint in the Middle Kingdom. People will go to seemingly absurd lengths to save face - if you have ever seen a street side shouting match in Beijing, then you have some sense of just how important one’s public appearance is to the Chinese.

Perhaps the worst possible way to get the Chinese government to change is by making them lose face. In almost every diplomatic tussle between the two countries, a head-on approach invariably leads to both sides digging in. There is a saying popular among American diplomats in China: It means “steadfast and unwavering,” and is regularly evoked in regards to the U.S.’s One-China policy (there is only one China on either side of the Strait). The same idiom perfectly captures China’s central government: while U.S. foreign policy can be stubborn, Chinese foreign policy is downright immovable.

The best approach is to push China’s leaders from the side, deflecting their energies toward more beneficial ends. Rather than confront the government outright, Google could have better served its own interests through quiet, backdoor negotiation. Perhaps Silicon Valley has a ways to go in its foreign policy.

What is unclear, however, is how Google’s move is influencing the Chinese public. Are ordinary people content without a free flow of information? The flowers left at the company’s front door make me think no. It’s not that Google’s move is an “Oh my god! We are being censored!” moment, but it may serve as the tipping point for an already simmering public, ready to join the modern, technology-open world.

---

Peter Winter is a second year student in the Master of Public Diplomacy program, and managing editor of US-China Today.

http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/google_diplomacy/

Neon Tommy- The Broadband Dilemma by Brian Tenenbaum 3.23.10

The Broadband Dilemma
TrackBacks (0) Comments (1) 

by Brian Tenenbaum
Contributor

Creative Commons Licensed (Daniel R. Blume)

If you watched the Superbowl this year, or happen to be a die hard Luke Wilson fan, you may have noticed the corporate flame war that has erupted in advertising between cell phone providers AT&T  and Verizon Wireless. Both companies contend that their respective networks provide superior coverage. However, the issue at hand is the ability of these providers to boost their network capacity to handle the spread of smart phones. 

Last year AT&T briefly halted sales of the iPhone in New York City due to rolling blackouts in service. Customers using the popular smart phone made up less than ten percent of local subscribers, yet were using a majority of the available network capacity to access the Internet. 

AT&T and Verizon are faced with the daunting task of building competitive high speed Internet and telecommunications networks to meet the needs of the growing smart phone market. Many smart phones currently have the ability to tether, which allows other devices, such as laptops, to access the Internet through the phone. AT&T has shut off this feature in its smart phones because its network cannot handle the additional load. Customers may not tolerate restricted functionality for long when premium data plans can cost up to an additional $80 a month. 

Verizon is in the midst of an $18 billion network upgrade, but this will only benefit 18 million home subscribers. For its part, AT&T has boosted spending on infrastructure development, but it is not enough to meet future demand. Both companies have scrambled to install newer and more advanced cell phone towers in big cities like New York and San Francisco, but this is only a temporary fix. 

The reality is that the cost of upgrading the telecommunications networks that provide Internet, television, and cell phone service in the United States is too costly for any one company to do by itself.

Yet in the recently released National Broadband Plan, the Federal Communications Commission recommended to Congress that boosting competition between telecommunications providers will push the market to upgrade. So far the competition between AT&T and Verizon has produced a price war over data plans and cell service, but no progress on upgrading their respective networks for the long term. 

Americans are increasingly conducting financial transactions and streaming high definition video using mobile services. Mobile productivity boosts the productivity of subscribers, and with greater network capacity, costs can be reduced drastically. 

The Obama administration, Congress and the FCC should consider providing greater incentives and regulations to foster a comprehensive upgrade to the nation's broadband networks. In South Korea, consumers enjoy the fastest cell phone networks and Internet access in the world. Unlike in the United States, the telecommunications providers are state-owned.  

The U.S. government may not be ready for a broadband society, but the consumer surely is. 

Brian Tenenbaum is a first-year progressive student in the USC Public Diplomacy program. He is actively researching virtual education and exchange in the context of cultural diplomacy. 

This op-ed is part of a partnership between Neon Tommy and the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars.

http://blogs.uscannenberg.org/neontommy/2010/03/the-broadband-dilemma.html

CPD/APDS Blog- What's Past is Prologue: SFRC on the Future of PD by Alexis Haftvani 3.18.10

WHAT’S PAST IS PROLOGUE: A SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE REVIEW OF THE FUTURE OF U.S. PD
MAR 18, 2010Posted by APDS Bloggers
All posts by APDS Bloggers


APDS Blogger: Alexis Haftvani

Last week, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee convened a hearing entitled “The Future of U.S. Public Diplomacy”. The stated objective of the hearing was to assess how U.S. public diplomacy initiatives of the past could be used to inform U.S. public diplomacy activities of the future. Three former Under Secretaries for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs appeared before the committee: Evelyn Lieberman, Karen Hughes and James Glassman. They were followed by current Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Judith McHale—speaking to Congress for the first time since her department’s completion of an 8-month review of its public diplomacy efforts.

Clearly, this was a hearing many in the public diplomacy community had long been waiting to watch. But after two hours of testimony, it is one that ultimately left a lingering question: is the U.S. government ready today to take the critical steps needed to address the past and current shortfalls of U.S. public diplomacy?

The answer remains unclear.

From the former Under Secretaries came a necessary but almost painful recapitulation of so many of the most common critiques of U.S. public diplomacy as well as a long list of challenges faced by the State Department’s public diplomacy professionals. Of the three, Glassman’s remarks appeared to be the most candid—as well as the most pessimistic. He stated emphatically in his opening remarks: “This hearing asks us to address the future of public diplomacy. That future, in my view, is in doubt.” He carried this point further by stating simply that, “the tools of persuasion and inspiration are not being considered indispensable.”

This point was consistently reinforced throughout the hearing. All three officials, who served across a time period spanning from 1999 to 2009, made the same arguments about the state of U.S. public diplomacy and their recommendations overlapped on almost every major point.

For example, each of the former Under Secretaries underscored the fact that U.S. public diplomacy needs to include more listening as well as more conversation with foreign audiences. This requires recognition by U.S. policymakers that there will inevitably be less room for control. Each former Under Secretary also reminded Committee members that some of the most powerful tools of U.S. public diplomacy remain exchanges, English language training programs, and other educational and cultural activities. They called, in turn, for greater investment in these types of programs. They also stressed that American public diplomats cannot be walled off from the audiences they are trying to engage and influence. On the contrary, they must have spaces that allow them to be as accessible and open to local communities as possible.

The most compelling argument found throughout the former Under Secretaries’ statements was, perhaps, this: public diplomacy must have an advocate at the White House. All three former officials made this point clear. Only with such an advocate, they contended, will the tools of public diplomacy be fully incorporated into the policy formulation process. Only with the support of the President will public diplomacy professionals be able to convince others in government that public diplomacy can achieve national security goals.

Following the remarks of her predecessors, current Under Secretary of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale had an unenviable task ahead of her. Would her remarks answer that nagging question: can and will the U.S. government address the long-standing shortfalls of U.S. public diplomacy once and for all?

In some ways, her testimony appeared promising.

Portions of Under Secretary McHale’s testimony invoked a needed sense of urgency. On formulating a new public diplomacy imperative, she stated: “We must act boldly and decisively to develop a clear, consistent and comprehensive approach.” In closing, she declared, “I believe this is a moment of great opportunity to redefine our relationship with people around the world and to build bridges of knowledge and understanding with people everywhere.”

She outlined several fresh policy approaches including the creation of new public diplomacy posts at the State Department—a Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Media Support and a Deputy Assistant Security for Public Diplomacy for each regional bureau. McHale also highlighted plans to broaden cultural activities, expand language and teacher training programs and revitalize American Corners.

On the whole, however, her introduction of the State Department’s “New Global Strategic Framework for Public Diplomacy” seemed vague and may do little to answer the most pressing questions about the future of U.S. public diplomacy. Few details were provided on how a more robust listening and dialogue component will be integrated into public diplomacy programming; how American public diplomats will get out from behind their walls; where new resources and funding will ultimately go; and whether public diplomacy really will be taken seriously at the highest interagency levels.

In each of these cases, details are of great significance. And in the words of Senator Roger Wicker, present at the hearing that day, “Believing is simple; translating into action is more difficult.” Those of us interested in the details and in the action will have to wait a little longer to see more emerge from the “New Global Strategic Framework for Public Diplomacy.”

---

Alexis Haftvani is a second year student in the Masters of Public Diplomacy program at the University of Southern California. Prior to joining USC, she served four years as a U.S. Naval Intelligence Officer with tours in the Middle East and Asia. Her primary interests lie in U.S. foreign policy, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.


http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/whats_past_is_prologue/

Neon Tommy-Turkey and the Genocide Question by Sona Krikorian 3.15.10

Turkey And The Genocide Question
TrackBacks (0) Comments (2) 

by Sona Krikorian
Contributor

Creative Commons Licensed (nuakin)

There are two instances when Armenian-Turkish relations surface in the collective consciousness of Americans: election years (when candidates promise US recognition of the genocide) and whenever a resolution is introduced to the House or Senate.

Over fear of irreparable harm to U.S.-Turkish relations, these resolutions are always blocked either in the Senate or by the President.  Recently, the issue came to light as the House Foreign Affairs Committeevoted in a nonbinding resolution to call the acts perpetrated against Armenians in 1915 a genocide. The vote set off a wave of protests by the Turkish government towards the US and Armenia.  Turkey recalled its ambassador for "consultation" in Ankara. As per the usual sequence of events, the day after the vote, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the recognition bill would be, as always, killed in transit.  

Meanwhile, Turkey continues to deny that there was in fact a genocide. Armenians, mostly in the diaspora, continue to provide evidence and arguments to justify the Armenian, and largely international, claim that a genocide took place.  

The subject at hand is not whether or not there was indeed genocide, as my grandparents were survivors.  I have heard first-person accounts of the atrocities my grandparents witnessed. I have conducted academic research regarding diplomatic dispatches and Turkish documentation of the events as race extermination. 

One could argue that the more interesting topic is genocide denial as the national policy of Turkey.  The greatest problem for Armenian-Turkish relations is not the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, but rather the lack of discourse and the institutionalized nationalism in Turkey.  If a state-sponsored assassin, such as 17-year-old Ogun Samast, can murder Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink because he called for open discourse, or a Nobel Laureate, such as Orhan Pamuk, can be prosecuted and jailed by the Turkish judicial system for being critical of the state, where does that leave Turkey in its ambitions toward EU membership?

The recognition of the Armenian Genocide pales in comparison to the depths of Turkey's national and international problems. Turkey's denial and protests are only to its detriment: recognition of the Armenian Genocide is precisely what would lend Turkey not only legitimacy in the international realm, but also open the doors to open discourse in the state, and perhaps even steps toward a real democracy.  

The creator of modern Turkish identity is Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He came into power after Turkey's defeat in WWI, and is still praised as the man who "westernized" Turkey.  It is no secret that modern Turkish governments are well aware of the events of 1915, and in hushed circles, admit to the wrongdoing as constituting genocide. In fact, the incoming government was so appalled by the actions of the Young Turks that one of Ataturk's first courses of action was to order the leaders of  the Young Turk movement (Enver, Talaat & Jemal Pashas) to stand trial for their crimes. Until ten years ago, official archives in Turkey held records of not only the accusations of genocide made by Ataturk and his supporters, but also evidence collected by his government for use in the prosecution of the Young Turks, which showed the names of the victims, the total number of deaths per village and the official documents ordering the total annihilation of a population as a racial extermination campaign.

Turkish citizens today are taught only the virtues of Turkish history.  Any citizens or visitors uttering statements that might be negative about the Turkish government, or mentioning genocide are swiftly prosecuted under Turkish Penal Code 301, which prosecutes anything deemed insulting to Turkish identity.  There is little space for public discourse, which would allow for discussion of the Armenian Genocide, and other political disputes (such as the Kurdish question) that mire the Turkish government's accession to the EU.

Although Turkey harbors ambitions of EU membership and leadership in the Muslim world, these roles cannot be claimed simply. They must be earned. Unfortunately, Turkey's track record of press freedom, freedom of expression, judicial practices and the protection of dissent leave much to be desired.

But there is a clear path to Turkish reform. The first step is owning up to its own past.

http://blogs.uscannenberg.org/neontommy/2010/03/turkey-and-the-genocide-questi.html

CPD/APDS Blog- Iran and the Internet by Melanie Ciolek 3.15.10

IRAN AND THE INTERNET: BURDENED BY GREAT EXPECTATIONS?
MAR 15, 2010Posted by APDS Bloggers
All posts by APDS Bloggers


APDS Blogger: Melanie Ciolek

Since the violent aftermath of Iran’s presidential elections, American policymakers have struggled with how best to approach the opposition Green Movement without jeopardizing U.S. efforts to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions. There are signs that an increasingly popular approach might not be more sanctions – but fewer, at least when it comes to Internet technologies.

The current Iranian regime’s jamming of BBC and Voice of America signals and its decision to ban Gmail have deepened the link between censorship issues and U.S. policy toward Iran. Few would argue that improving the Iranian public’s access to online information is an unworthy goal. But at the same time, it may be impossible to predict the effects of such a policy, partly due to uncertainty about the democratic movement’s strength and Iranian attitudes in general.

The perceived role of social media in the protests that rocked Tehran in June 2009 helped spark discussion about the utility of the internet as a tool against oppression and prompted the U.S. Senate to pass the VOICE Act, which allocated funds to assist Iranian victims of censorship. In January 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered remarks on U.S. support for the principles of Internet freedom which, though not focused on Iran, endorsed the importance of the free flow of information and the ability of technologies to empower individuals.

Momentum has been growing behind calls to put the internet freedom agenda into practice in Iran. Headlines have proclaimed “Bombard Iran…with Broadband” and “Supporting Dissent with Technology,” calling for the U.S. to provide satellite internet to Iran and trumpeting U.S. government efforts to support the development of technologies to evade censorship and surveillance. Various op-ed columns endorse a State Department proposal to waive U.S. Treasury restrictions on the export of technology to Iran, which would make it legal for U.S. companies to provide resources from social networking programs to encryption software that could protect the identities of dissidents.

Adjusting U.S. policy to eliminate barriers to Iranians’ access to online technologies could help empower a broader range of voices in the Iranian public. But are the expectations for the effects of less restricted Internet access in Iran unrealistic?

Though YouTube and Twitter announced the existence of the Green Movement to the world, there has been increasing uncertainty about the actual strength and breadth of the opposition within Iran. Recent reportsquestion whether the protests that drew thousands into the streets of Tehran were inspired by vast numbers of Twitter users based inside the country, or if the voices of very few activists were amplified by sympathizers abroad. The lack of protests around the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution suggests a lack of cohesion within the Green Movement, or at least that its ability to mobilize its supporters through online networks has been exaggerated, if not significantly frustrated by the regime.

To add further confusion, while the controversy persists over the June election results that prompted the protests, a recent analysis of several pre- and post-election polls casts significant doubt on the claim that most Iranians favored regime change. While this is just one gauge of public opinion inside Iran, it only complicates perceptions of the popular mood when compared with the images of thousands who took to the streets.

If the effects of Twitter and other online media have overstated the existence of a technology-driven democratic opposition movement in Iran, what does this mean for policies intended to expand Internet freedom there?

Following the challenges to the online roots of the Iranian protests, critics of “techno-utopianism” have issued warnings about characterizing new technologies as natural allies of democracy and emphasize that while the Internet can facilitate communication in decentralized organizations, “one can’t have a revolution without revolutionaries.” Evgeny Morozov also warns against the danger of associating Google, Facebook, YouTube and other tools with democracy or the State Department at the risk of automatically creating an association between their users and dissidents, which could prohibit their use all together or pose severe risks to users in authoritarian countries.

It’s debatable whether U.S. policymakers need this kind of reality check about the inherent nature of technology. There does not seem to be any illusion within the State Department that the internet can only be used for good. In Clinton’s Internet freedom address, she clearly noted the dual nature of new technologies and stated they are not “an unmitigated blessing.” One only need look to al Qaeda for ways in which online technology has been used to incite violence – and the current Iranian regime provides its own examples of employing technology to limit access to information.

In any scenario where Iranians gain greater access to online technologies, it is safe to assume that a more diverse array of voices would be heard. What cannot be predicted is whether the State Department will like what these voices have to say.

Any expectation that aggressively pursuing internet freedom for Iran will automatically result in a bolstered democratic movement would be overly optimistic – such efforts may not even produce a regime that would abandon Iran’s nationalism-driven nuclear ambitions.

At the same time, if U.S. policymakers can commit to pursuing Internet freedom for Iran in principle, they may succeed in providing Iranians with the tools to help determine their own fate. But they will have to avoid giving the impression that a policy of Internet freedom is intended to enable a U.S.-backed movement to take power. Iranians may be divided on many issues, but they tend to reject the idea of U.S. intervention in their internal affairs.

The Internet freedom agenda may not provide an instant or certain resolution to the U.S. policy dilemma on Iran – but it may be the best option for now.

---

Melanie Ciolek is a first year student in the Master of Public Diplomacyprogram at the University of Southern California, and interns for the public diplomacy evaluation project at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Before arriving at USC, Melanie worked for the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) in Washington D.C., a global public opinion research think tank which manages the WorldPublicOpinion.org project. This article stems from a paper written for Matt Armstrong’s “Public Diplomacy 510: Public Diplomacy & Technology” class.


http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/iran_and_the_internet_burdened_by_great_expectations/

CPD/APDS Blog- Fly me to the Moon...No? by Justin Rashid 3.11.10

“FLY ME TO THE MOON… NO?” THE EFFECT OF NASA’S BUDGET CUT ON U.S. SOFT POWER
MAR 5, 2010Posted by APDS Bloggers
All posts by APDS Bloggers


APDS Blogger: Justin Rashid

On February 1, President Barack Obama released his $3.8 trillion Federal Budget, which has been criticized for driving record deficits even higher. One agency not receiving extra spending from Obama’s plan, though, is America’s space agency, as NASA’s budget has been cut; (in theory, it’s increased from the previous year, but in practice it’s lower). Huh?

Much has already been reported about the operational effect of Obama’s plan, notably the cancellation of NASA’s Constellation Program, but very little has been written to date about the political consequences.

On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush’s administration articulated a new vision for space exploration which appeared to be the practical follow-up to an uncharacteristically poetic quote from 2003: “This cause for exploration and discovery is not an option we choose; it is a desire written in the human heart.” The manifestation of this vision was NASA’s Constellation Program – a human spaceflight program to replace the imminently retiring Space Shuttle with ambitions to return to the Moon and to send humans to Mars.

In brief, the Constellation Program involves the development of Orion – the next-generation crew exploration vehicle – that would be launched into low Earth orbit (LEO) by the new Ares I rocket. Once in LEO, Orion would rendezvous with the Ares V rocket and Altair (the new lunar lander module) in the Earth Departure Stage (EDS). The EDS will take Orion into lunar orbit and the crew will descend from there to the surface of the Moon in Altair. And then return at some point, presumably. The Mars vision is obviously built into the program given that ‘Ares’ was the Greek God of War whose Roman equivalent was, of course, Mars.

Instead of this visionary exploration, however, NASA is now charged with facilitating the growth of the commercial space industry and pursuing the development of technologies that would make space travel more affordable. Members of Congress, on both sides, have criticized Obama’s plan, with Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) saying, for example, that, “NASA will no longer be an agency of innovation and hard science. It will be the agency of pipe dreams and fairy tales.” But no-one has yet asked the question, “What are the consequences of that image of NASA?”

NASA was created in 1958 in response to the Sputnik Crisis, which was the perceived threat to America’s security and technological leadership resulting from the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik 1, the world’s first man-made satellite. So began the Space Race – the ultimate Cold War battle for technological supremacy. The United States eventually won the Space Race in 1969 by landing Apollo 11’s Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on the Moon. This unprecedented feat of human achievement consolidated America’s technological superiority which it retained through to the end of the Cold War, and arguably ever since.

There is no doubt that this technological leadership, with its associations of enterprise and innovation, has been a positive aspect – perhaps the most consistent positive aspect – of America’s image to the world. America’s image suffered during the latest Bush years, 2001-2009, mainly as a result of its foreign policy. But it regained ground with the election of Barack Obama. It is ironic, therefore, that Obama appears to be dealing a lethal blow to that positive aspect (even more ironic that Bush was the most recent space visionary). One defence of Obama’s position could be that, by supporting the private space industry, he is encouraging enterprise and innovation in a ‘truly American’ egalitarian way.

Obama is missing the point, though. A nation’s image is built more on what the state itself achieves than what its private individuals do (a state is not just the sum of its individuals). Most of the nation’s citizens , who may never make it into space themselves, would prefer the administration that they elected to lead the way to the stars rather than the businessman next door who happens to have a spare billion dollars.

So, in effect, not only is Obama disabling NASA, he is undermining a cornerstone of his country’s soft power. Furthermore, he is handing the initiative to other states that are quietly (or not) developing their own space programs apace. China is shooting for the Moon. India has madebreakthrough discoveries in lunar exploration. Even North Korea and Iranare launching rockets regularly.

On his November 2009 visit to Beijing, Obama talked about co-operation rather than competition with China in space . The new budget now makes co-operation the only option for the U.S., besides ceding the frontier of space to China altogether. But we all know that it is competition that facilitates creativity (in spite of those who would argue the opposite). In any case, America has lost the initiative.

What the U.S. needs is another Cold War Space Race – some focus, some drive, some competitive spirit – but instead it has relegated itself to the sidelines. The only way that the U.S. government can demonstrate technological superiority now is through its military; (computing, Internet, and other technology-based fields are already outsourced to private industry).

The military, of course, is the very opposite of soft power, so Obama has effectively robbed himself of attractive diplomatic currency. But even on the hard power front, the U.S. may also lose out if China chooses to militarizespace in spite of the U.N.’s Outer Space Treaty. The U.S. could only militate against that scenario if it had its own independent presence in space. But that presence, for the time being, will have to remain a pipe dream.

---

Justin Rashid is a graduate student in the USC Master of Public Diplomacyprogram. His background includes psychology, diplomacy & operational analysis. This article stems from a paper written for Matt Armstrong’s “Public Diplomacy 510: Public Diplomacy & Technology” class.

Read Comments (2) | Add Your Own
http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/to_the_moon/

Neon Tommy- Progress in Afghanistan: Don't Believe the Hype by Justin Rashid 03.11.10

Progress In Afghanistan: Don't Believe The Hype
TrackBacks (0) Comments (1) 

by Justin Rashid
Columnist

Creative Commons Licensed (isafmedia)

The media have had nothing but good news to report lately, with tales of drug busts, fallen strongholds, and a supposedly successful campaign known as Operation Mostarak.

Operation Moshtarak was the February 2009 coalition offensive against the insurgency in Afghanistan's southern Helmand province. It was unique not only for being the biggest operation of its kind to date, but also for the unprecedented amountof publicity surrounding it.

Why so much publicity? Two reasons. First, Marjahwas touted as the last major Taliban stronghold in southern Helmand. President Barack Obama's 30,000-troop 'surge' seems more acceptable if there is "just one more thing left to do". Second, much was made about the name "Moshtarak". Almost every report in the Western media about the operation explains that Moshtarak (مشترك) means 'together' inDari, one of the two major languages of Afghanistan. The implication being that the West is working together with the Afghan population against the Taliban, to build a democracy, and so on.

The Western public is still, after eight years, unaware of exactly who the Taliban are and what they want. Even people who have had close contact with the Taliban comment about how hard it is to understand them. Given this lack of understanding, it is unsurprising that most of the Western public are also unaware of lesser details -- like in most of southern Afghanistan, and particularly Helmand province, very few people actually speak Dari. Most in that region speak Afghanistan's other official language, Pashto. So, are we demonstrating 'togetherness' with the local population in Marjah? Hardly.

In fact, journalists themselves sometimes recognize that it is hard to be sure of the extent to which the Afghan population is being brought together by the operation since journalists are typically only embedded with the coalition forces and not the insurgents, thus they only receive one side of the story.

Why was the operation given a Dari name? Because most of the Afghan National Army battalions taking part in the operation came from the northern and eastern parts of the country where they do speak Dari. The argument could be made that we are demonstrating 'togetherness' with the Afghan troops. That's a slightly better point, but using Afghan National Security Forces from other regions hardly demonstrates togetherness with the local population because, historically, the country is so culturally fragmented.

The prominent role of the Afghan security forces in Operation Moshtarak is supposedly another reason for the operation's uniqueness. Afghan security forces comprised about 60 percent of the operation's 15,000 troops. In fact, coalition troops have been working with the Afghans for quite a while now, in operations such as Operation Panchai Palang (Panther's Claw) -- a similar offensive to wrest territory from insurgents in the summer of 2009. Incidentally, using panchai palang to mean 'panther's claw' also only works in Dari.

How have the Afghan security forces fared with their expanded role? We know very little because of the way the media has reported it. Naturally, we're more concerned about our own (British and American) boys and girls out there, but we should also be hearing about the Afghan troops with whom we're in this "together" with. The UK's Telegraph paper provided one of the better reports, quoting an Afghan General. But the subhead of the article still reads, "...after thousands of British and American troops attacked in the early hours." Where were the Afghan troops at this time?

Did Operation Moshtarak take down the last Taliban stronghold? Actually, the significance of Marjah was overstated. But in any case, the Afghan flag was raised as a symbol of the op's success, so technically it was a victory. Was the Taliban destroyed, though? No (not least because the Taliban senior leadership, The Quetta Shura, is based Pakistan). Many insurgents probably fled the area before the troops arrived -- which is one of the stated reasons to advertise the operation beforehand, i.e. to reduce the fighting.  

What is also probable, though, is that those who fled are the commanders who actually represent the insurgency. Many of those who stayed and fought were probably from Marjah and had nowhere else to go, or else they were teenage "$10-fighters" who were not fighting for ideology, politics, or religion, but rather for ... $10. These are hardly the extremist Taliban that we wished to eliminate.

The flag-raising imagery represents something meaningful only if you come from the Eddie Izzard school of flag imperialism. But most of the Western public is not familiar enough with the nuances of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan for them to realize this.

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, has re-defined the situation in Afghanistan as a 'war of perceptions', but it is unclear exactly whose perceptions are the most important. The Western public's perception is important, of course, because its support is needed to justify NATO's continued investment in Afghanistan. But the Afghan public is also important, because, we're led to believe, all of this is for them.

So, what do the Afghans think? Actually, they're wondering what all the fuss was about in the first place.

Justin Rashid is a graduate student in the Masters of Public Diplomacy program.

http://blogs.uscannenberg.org/neontommy/2010/03/progress-in-afghanistan-dont-b.html