CPD/APDS Blog- Herbert Hoover and the Origins of American Public Diplomacy of the Deed by Paul Rockower 5.12.10

A piece for the USC Center on Public Diplomacy that came out of my recent travels up to NorCal.

HERBERT HOOVER AND THE ORIGINS OF AMERICAN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY OF THE DEED
MAY 12, 2010Posted by APDS Bloggers
All posts by APDS Bloggers


APDS Blogger: Paul Rockower

With the recent earthquakes that devastated Haiti and Chile, the concept ofaid diplomacy has arisen in the global consciousness. Aid diplomacy is predicated on the notion that in times of crisis, nations can do well in public diplomacy terms by doing good works for those in need.

Recently, as I wandered around Stanford University, I was reminded of what might be the first case of American aid diplomacy.. On display at the museums and library of Stanford’s Hoover Institution and Hoover Tower is a moving reminder of the remarkable example of aid diplomacy carried out by Herbert Hoover.

With the outbreak of the Great War, the engineering magnate Herbert Hoover undertook efforts to organize relief and transports for Americans stranded on a European continent descending into strife. As bloodshed and chaos played out in the northern European theater of Belgium, global attention turned to care of the starving women and children in the battlefield that the country had become. Hoover’s previous efforts of organizing logistics for relief efforts for those Americans trapped in Europe led the American Ambassador to Britain to ask him to organize theCommission for the Relief of Belgium (CRB).

Hoover answered the ambassador’s request, and went on to found and direct what was termed: “[a] pioneering effort in global altruism.” Under Hoover’s leadership, the CRB fed and cared for Belgian women and children who were starving under German occupation as well as from the British naval blockade. The CRB provided food, medicine and clothing to millions of Belgians as well as those in Northern France on a daily basis until the war came to a close.

The museum offers moving anecdotes related to the CRB’s efforts, stating that the Belgian children were: “shivering, grasping bowls and pitchers and the precious little cards that would guarantee them a meal. Upon receiving his or her allotment, each would pause, bow and utter a single word: Merci.”

Meanwhile, when America entered the Great War in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson appointed Hoover as head of the U.S. Food Administration. With the war’s conclusion, Hoover served as the director general of the American Relief Administration (ARA), Hoover coordinated humanitarian relief to more than 20 countries. The ARA even conducted a massive famine relief effort in Bolshevik Russia from 1921 to 1923, and fed more than 11 million people a day at its height.

On display at the Hoover museum and libraries are various remembrances of the aid efforts and its public diplomacy value seen in the “Save the Children of Belgium” posters alongside pictures of Belgian appreciation rallies and letters of friendship to honor American fidelity to the people of Belgium. There were other pictures of later orphan efforts carried out by the ARA in Poland, Austria and Lithuania. Alongside the pressed flower gifts sent as thanks by children in Belgium, there were numerous “Thank You” letters featuring the American and Belgian flags together. Meanwhile, there were sacks of grain in bags declaring the contribution’s provenance from Southeast Iowa or stating its nature as a gift contributed by the People of Kentucky to Belgian noncombatants.

“An American epic,” was what Hoover termed his efforts and declared that it demonstrated American responsibility to the people of Europe. The example offered by Herbert Hoover’s aid efforts are a stirring reminder that the existence of a friend in need is the possibility for good public diplomacy of the deed.

---

Paul Rockower is a graduate student in the Masters in Public Diplomacy program at USC and a PDiN research intern at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. He graduates this week and will miss CPD :(. You can follow his misadventures at: http://levantine18.blogspot.com.

CPD/APDS Blog- A Report on the AUD-USC Exchange by John Nahas 5.10.10

A REPORT ON THE AUD - USC EXCHANGE
MAY 10, 2010Posted by APDS Bloggers
All posts by APDS Bloggers


APDS Blogger: John Nahas

In late March, twelve students from the Masters in Public Diplomacy (MPD) program at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism participated in a weeklong conference in Dubai as part of a student exchange with the American University in Dubai’s (AUD) Mohammed Bin Rashid School for Communication (MBRSC).



The focus of the week was on Middle Eastern politics, media, and culture, and the students had an opportunity to gain an Arab perspective on critical issues facing the region. The group was initially welcomed by AUD President, Dr. Lance de Masi, who spoke about the mission of AUD and its role as an American educational institution in the UAE.

While in Dubai the group met with leading individuals in the Emirate. One of the first meetings was with the U.S. Consul General in Dubai, Justin Sibarell, who spoke about U.S. efforts in the UAE and the broader region. Observing the varied roles and operations of a U.S. Consulate was an insightful experience, and the group discussed many issues with the Consul General pertaining to U.S. Public Diplomacy and the work of the Consulate.

Later on in the week, UAE Minister of State H.E. Reem Al-Hashimy welcomed the MPD students for a discussion about the UAE and broader Middle East (see above). The Minister spoke about the vision of Dubai and the UAE, its Public Diplomacy efforts, and the successes and setbacks that it has incurred over the past few years. The MPD students’ discussion with Al Hashimy involved ways to improve U.S.-UAE and Middle East relations and the possible public diplomacy efforts that can be undertaken by both parties, who have positive relations, to help facilitate mutual understanding between other parties in the region.

The group had a chance to travel to the Abu Dhabi Media Company and visit the offices of the English-language newspaper The National and meet with its executives. Back in Dubai the group got to tour the MBC Group and its pan-Arab television news station Al-Arabiya where they had a chance to sit with its Executive Editor. In addition to visiting these two Arab media institutions, the group also observed various panels with other media figures and journalists, gaining important insights into how to address Arab publics, as well as the issues that face Arab media and its viewership. Overall, the MPD students got to observe the growing importance of Arab media as an international broadcasting actor and its role in local and international affairs in the region.

In addition to politics and media, the group got an understanding of Middle Eastern culture from leading academic, government and media figures. Talks regarding the history, economy, religion and culture of the region helped give the MPD students a richer understanding of the complexities that make up the Middle East. As a complement to the formal meetings, the American University in Dubai organized trips to the Sheikh Zayed Mosque. The MPD group also joined AUD students on a desert safari. In addition, the final two days gave the USC group an opportunity to explore Dubai and its numerous tourist destinations.

Shortly after the graduate students returned, six undergraduates studying film and communications at AUD visited USC as a reciprocation of the student exchange. The students sat in on classes at Annenberg and the USC School of Cinematic Arts, and toured both schools and their facilities. They also met with numerous USC administrators and faculty, and spent time with the MPD group that participated in the Dubai exchange.

This exchange was a success on many levels. It gave the MPD students an in-depth, behind–the-scenes understanding of Dubai and the region, through their numerous interactions with leading individuals. In addition, a relationship was fostered between both groups of students which will continue to enhance the understanding and the institutional relationship between both USC and AUD.

---

John Nahas graduated from the University of Southern California with a bachelor's degrees in Political Science and Communication with an emphasis on Middle East politics and American Foreign Policy. He is currently in his second year of the Master of Public Diplomacy program at USC and recently concluded an internship at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Middle East Center in Beirut, Lebanon. John is also the President of the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars and is a Senior Editor for PD Magazine .
http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/a_report_on_the_aud_-_usc_exchange/

CPD/APDS Blog- Arizona's New Immigration Law: How State Politics Can Inhibit Public Diplomacy by Hilary Tone 5.8.10

ARIZONA’S NEW IMMIGRATION LAW: HOW STATE POLITICS CAN INHIBIT OUR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
MAY 8, 2010Posted by APDS Bloggers
All posts by APDS Bloggers


APDS Blogger: Hilary Tone

On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1070 into law, legalizing one of the harshest immigration enforcement laws this country has seen in decades. SB1070, dubbed by some as the “Papers, Please” law, is a hefty piece of legislation whose creators claim that the unprecedented crack down on illegal immigration will lead to safer neighborhoods in Arizona.

In the past few weeks, this law has spurred controversy and outrage across Arizona and the United States. There have been countless protests, rallies, marches and in some cases, vandalism (a swastika made of refried beans was found smeared on the doors to the Arizona Legislature ). Supporters of this law say that it is necessary, that the time for real law enforcement is long overdue. Critics say that it is a violation of basic human rights and will inevitably lead to racial profiling in the state.

Though there has been much debate about this law’s impact on both Arizona and the rest of the U.S., its potential consequences have yet to be explored in a key area: its effect on our public diplomacy with Latin America, and most significantly, Mexico. It is no secret that bad domestic policies can lead to bad public diplomacy, and given the national and international nature of this law, U.S. public diplomacy is in a prime position to suffer as a result of Arizona’s actions. The federal government must take swift action to address the discriminatory elements at the core of this law, lest we further strain our relationship with our southern neighbors.

Amidst other things, this law requires that all documented immigrants in Arizona carry their alien registration paperwork at all times. It also stipulates that any law enforcement official has an obligation to stop people and ask for their documentation should the official have “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally.

Critics have decried this idea of “reasonable suspicion:” what does an “undocumented” person look like, exactly? Is there a particular “undocumented” behavior that law enforcement officials will be able to identify? How can law enforcement officials suspect illegal status on any basis other than race, color or national origin? Immigrant and human rights advocates throughout Arizona and the U.S. have raised these and other questions in opposing this legislation and its predisposition to racial profiling of people of Hispanic descent.

Activists on this side of the border aren’t the only ones outraged - and here’s where public diplomacy comes into play - various foreign countries have expressed their disappointment and indignation. Cognizant of the fact that many of their citizens now reside and work in Arizona, the governments of Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador have issued harsh statements against this law.

Since Mexico’s national image has been dealt the heaviest blow as a result of this law, its response, not surprisingly, has been the most critical. Five days after SB1070 was signed, the Mexican government issued a travel warning to its citizens, stating "there is a negative political environment for migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors" in Arizona.

Upon hearing these statements, SB1070 proponents would probably argue that Mexico’s response is unlikely to go beyond words because of its financial and economic dependence on the U.S. Though the U.S.-Mexico relationship will probably survive this law, it does appear that President Felipe Calderón’s government is more likely than previous administrations to take action in the face of legislation that specifically targets so many of its people.

In fact, Mexico has already begun putting its outrage into action beyond the initial travel warning. For instance, Guillermo Padrés Elías, the governor of Sonora, Mexico, canceled a bi-national trade and tourism meeting of the Arizona-Mexico Commission; no such cancellation has happened in the last 50 years. In addition, at least one Mexican airline, AeroMexico, plans to cancel flights to Phoenix. These items accompany national and international calls for a boycott of Arizona.

For those who are skeptical about how much the U.S.-Mexico relationship depends on the politics of Arizona and other Border States, consider the following numbers and statistics:

• More than 30% of Arizona’s population is of Hispanic descent.ⁱ

• “Each day, more than 65,000 Mexican residents are in Arizona to work, visit friends and relatives and shop, according to a University of Arizona study sponsored by the Arizona Office of Tourism.” ⁱⁱ

• “While [in Arizona], Mexican visitors spend more than $7.35 million daily in Arizona's stores, restaurants, hotels and other businesses.” ⁱⁱⁱ


These numbers illustrate two important points:

1) This law is going to harm and discriminate against people of Mexican descent who have a right to be in the U.S. whether through tourist visas, green cards or work visas.

2) Both nations have something to gain economically from an amicable relationship. Therefore, both also have something to lose from the fear-provoking, hostile elements of Arizona’s new law

Yet another point about SB1070 that could severely harm our public diplomacy is the issue of safety for Latin Americans living and working in Arizona. Law enforcement priorities will likely undergo a shift from policing our neighborhoods and communities to enforcing immigration law, which should be a federal responsibility. This shift in policing raises a red flag for both human rights advocates and law enforcement: what will happen in our communities if people are too scared to report crimes for fear of being deported themselves, or for causing the deportation of a neighbor, relative or friend? Though this law is intended to protect Arizona, it may lead to an increase in crime if there is a policing shift from crime to immigration. SB1070 also stipulates that Arizona residents can legally sue law enforcement officials for not doing their jobs. If we don’t protect the people who immigrate to this country from around the world, we certainly won’t be able to “win their hearts and minds” through public diplomacy.

The final nail in the coffin (and a piece of legislation not many have heard about) is the Arizona ban on ethnic studies classes. On April 29, 2010, the Arizona Legislature passed HB2281, a bill that would ban all ethnic studies(read: Chicano studies) classes from the state. Apparently, “schools will lose state funding if they offer any courses that ‘promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.’” If there was any doubt regarding the true political agenda of Arizona’s legislators, HB2281 certainly makes it clear. If requiring every person with brown skin to carry his/her papers won’t make our public diplomacy with Latin America more difficult, surely prohibiting public education about students’ Hispanic heritage and culture will.*

Our future ties with Latin American countries hinge on the consequences of Arizona’s law, and in no country is that more true than Mexico. The rumors that other states, like Oklahoma, may try to implement similar legislation will only hurt our ability to foster beneficial relationships with our southern neighbors. Given the various factors that have plagued the U.S.-Mexico relationship over the years, including drug wars, arms control, and border violence, SB1070 and its inevitable consequences do not seem like a risk we should be willing to take.

Should SB1070 survive its pending legal challenges, the U.S. has much diplomatic work ahead to clean up Arizona’s mess before the law takes effect on July 28. We will be hard-pressed to restore our image with Mexico and other Latin American countries in the wake of such misguided domestic policies. The time for critical words and harsh jabs has passed; the time for real action and reform is now.

---

Hilary Tone is a 2009 graduate of the Master of Public Diplomacy program at USC. She currently lives in Tucson, AZ and is the Communications Coordinator for Border Action Network, a nonprofit human rights organization that works in immigrant and border communities across Arizona to ensure that their rights are respected and dignity upheld.


i. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html
ii. http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_897e9ba9-5baf-53e8-8e64-ed3d4573e8bd.html
iii. Ibid. 

* At the time of posting, Governor Jan Brewer had not yet signed or vetoed HB2281.

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

Neon Tommy- The Message is not the Message by Mariana Gonzalez Insua 5.4.10

The Message Is Not The Message
TrackBacks (0) Comments (0) 

by Mariana González Insua
Contributor

Creative Commons Licensed (Bernardo Londoy)

President Hugo Chávez' tight grip on Venezuelan media threatens to reach new levels. The Venezuelan leader's recent announcement that every country needs to regulate the Internet and the launch of his "guerrilla" communicational campaign have sparked fears that his control over the media might be extended to the online world.

Chávez' dominance of traditional forms of media in Venezuela is unquestionable. Not only does the Venezuelan leader have his own weekly show, but he is the brain behindTelesur and Radio del Sur, television and radio channels aimed at exporting the Venezuelan "socialist" model beyond Venezuela's borders while reinforcing Chávez' message at home. However, what has caused even more alarm are his outright attempts at media censorship.

Chávez' media presence is not limited to the traditional media landscape. The leader's radio and television initiatives have their own corresponding webpages. Chávez has flooded the web with sites that promote his message. He even has his own facebook page.

But while successful at establishing a strong presence in cyberspace, Chávez has not been able to prevent the opposition from spreading its own message through the Internet, a source of considerable irritation for the Venezuelan leader. The opposition's avid use of social networking sites and the popularity of its twitter tag during the protests over press freedom in late January led Chávez to lash out against the famous microblogging site, calling it a "tool of terrorism." (Ironically, less than three months later, he opened his own Twitter account). 

Noticiero Digital, an online news service, was the next victim in Chávez' string of attacks for featuring false rumors (posted by users) on the death of two of Chávez' ministers. Even sites that are critical of both the government and the opposition, like the popular El Chigüire Bipolar (a Venezuelan website of satirical videos and photo montages of political figures), have been lambasted by the President and his supporters.

In the wake of the incident with Noticiero Digital, Chávez declared: "The Internet can't be something free [...] every country has to impose its rules and regulations." While he later denied his intentions to control the online space, Chávez announced he would start blogging from the Presidential Palace, establishing his "own trench on the Internet," inaugurate new Internet Centers for people to access the web freely and launch the "Communicational Thunder" campaign (creating "guerrilla groups" to propagate Chávez' message through different media, including the Internet). The blogger-cum-President's measures thus re-ignited the opposition's fear that the proposed telecommunications reform, which would establish one point of entry for the Internet controlled by the state (much like Cuba does), might become a reality. 

Currently, the Internet is the only free medium where the opposition can express itself. The television and radio sphere is clearly controlled by Chávez, and competing messages hardly pose a threat to the Venezuelan leader's dominance of traditional media. BBC Spanish broadcasts do not air in Venezuela, and its English version as well as CNN en Español, can only be seen through cable networks. VOA has a number of radio and TV programs but this handful of short programs are no match for Chávez' ubiquitous media presence. If the Venezuelan leader were to control the Internet, the opposition would hardly have any room left to breathe. 

Upper class Venezuelans, who for the most part oppose Chávez, are financially able to access cable TV, and as adept users of social media they can see a different reality of Venezuela and the world than that portrayed by the state-controlled media. Poorer Venezuelans, traditionally staunch supporters of the President, however, are mostly subjected to the leader's message. Opening Internet centers, carrying out "Communicational Thunder," tweeting regularly (hegained more than 79,000 followers the day his account was created) and regulating the Internet would allow Chávez to exercise virtually complete control over a large portion of the population.

Denying the opposition the cyber component of their protests will not eliminate demonstrations. In fact, it might cause them to multiply. Applying restrictions on the Internet will not prevent the opposition from getting its message out, either. It will only be a matter of time until a Venezuelan counterpart to Cuba's Yoani Sánchez emerges. 

The truth is that actions speak louder than words: Chávez' inability to prevent power shortages and to do away with poverty, among other domestic issues, will continue creating problems regardless of the message the Venezuelan leader is able to convey through the media.

A version of this article originally appeared on the blog www.mountainrunner.us.

Mariana González Insua is a first year student in USC's Masters of Public Diplomacy program. She is originally from Argentina and recently completed a Masters in Latin American Studies at Stanford University. This oped is part of a partnership between Neon Tommy and the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholar.

http://blogs.uscannenberg.org/neontommy/2010/05/the-message-is-not-the-message.html

CPD/APDS Blog- Argentina at the Smithsonian, 2010 by Mariana Gonzalez Insua 5.3.10

ARGENTINA AT THE SMITHSONIAN, 2010
MAY 3, 2010Posted by APDS Bloggers
All posts by APDS Bloggers


APDS Blogger: Mariana González Insua

Argentines do not make up a particularly large percentage of the Latino population in the US. The results of the 2010 Census will certainly provide more accurate data, but a 2007 Pew Research Center project established that, though it is the third most populous country in Latin America, Argentina does not figure into the top 10 countries of origin for Hispanic residents in America, lagging behind in fourteenth place and making up a mere 0.06% of the US population. Given the average American’s slim chances of crossing paths with an Argentine in the US, coupled with Argentina’s remote location at the far south of South America, it is not surprising that few people in the US are acquainted with Argentine culture.

Argentina’s recent Oscar success has certainly drawn attention to the country. At this year’s Academy Awards ceremony, where most film experts placed their bets on the German film The White Ribbon, people were surprised when Argentina’s The Secret in their Eyes was announced as the winner in the best foreign language film category. Now playing in major theaters across the US, the movie promises to bring a little piece of Argentine culture to American audiences and possibly spark new interest in the Southern country among the American public.

Given this happy coincidence, the recent launch of “Argentina at the Smithsonian 2010” could not have been timed better. Organized by the Smithsonian Latino Center in partnership with the Secretariat of Culture of the Nation of Argentina, the Embassy of Argentina in DC and other institutions, the series of events consists of a variety of free and ticketed programs and exhibits scheduled to take place throughout the year in the different museums that make up the Smithsonian in Washington DC.

Envisioned as a celebration of Argentina’s bicentennial, “Argentina at the Smithsonian 2010” seeks to highlight the country’s historical, artistic and cultural richness. The holistic approach embraced by its organizers, who have strung together various events distributed throughout several months into a comprehensive and unique program, will allow for synergy among the different exhibits and activities, and possibly attract more attention to the program as a whole. Offering free public events in addition to ticketed ones will certainly ensure a higher turnout, as will the fact that shows and exhibitions are not targeted at a single audience, but instead aim to reach out to adults, children and entire families. At the same time, events are not limited to a particular type, but include activities that range from a simple museum exhibit to a hands-on crafting experience with native Argentine designers.

Beyond the characteristics that seem to point at the program’s success, the reason why “Argentina at the Smithsonian 2010” is particularly interesting is that it features elements of traditional Argentine culture alongside more recently developed cultural expressions and trends. In this sense, music shows are not limited to the well-known tango genre, but they also extend to Argentine rock. And while “The Story of Argentine Wine” may not be new to wine-connoisseurs, lectures and films on Afro-Argentines, often ignored in the study of the country, may expose many Americans to this part of Argentina’s history for the first time. The list goes on, including exhibitions of emerging Argentine photographers, a visit by famous contemporary artist Guillermo Kuitca, and a lecture on Argentine poets in the US. The delectable diversity of Argentine cuisine will feature prominently, demonstrating that Argentina has more to offer beyond outstanding beef. If events in Holland are any indication, empanadas and facturas go hand in hand with the effort to win hearts and minds, as the Prince of Holland’s marriage to Argentine Maxima Zorreguieta was accompanied by a sharp uptick in the popularity of Argentine restaurants in Amsterdam.

While this cultural diplomacy initiative is confined to the Washington Beltway, it has the characteristics necessary to generate interest in Argentina among Americans who visit the events. Hopefully, this program marks the beginning of a series of cultural events that will continue beyond the celebration of Argentina’s bicentennial and generate ongoing interest in the country.

---

Mariana González Insua is a first year student in USC's Masters of Public Diplomacy program. She is originally from Argentina and recently completed a Masters in Latin American Studies at Stanford University.
http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/argentina_at_the_smithsonian_2010/