The Office of Global Communications

[Dave_Stewart_v3.0]

The Washington Post’s website article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18822-2002Jul29.html

Bayarea.com’s article:

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/3762089.htm

From CNN’s website:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/wh.image.office/index.html

The White House has decided to make permanent an effort that began after the September 11 terrorist attacks, setting up a new public diplomacy office to counter growing anti-American sentiment overseas, the administration said Tuesday.

The new office is to be called the Office of Global Communications," said Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary, at his daily briefing.

“What led to this is the president’s belief, as he put it in the State of the Union, that America is such a force for good around the world, and yet we hear messages from other nations that they don’t see what the American people see in our country,” Fleischer said.

There is more at each site: the Washington Post’s article is the most comprehensive. I first heard about it reading the South China Morning Post. Some people might recall a brief discussion about the US government approaching Hollywood to get tips on improving its image, early last year. IIRC Collounsbury offered his insights as to how poorly this would go down in Middle Eastern states.

One of the concerns which the new Office is seeking to redress is:

…there continues to be a strong anti-American sentiment in various parts of the world, especially the Middle East, where many people view the United States as being too pro-Israel and not even-handed in its approach to the peace process

I view this new Office with some concern. The Economist recently quoted Winston Churchill’s quip, “One can always count on the United States to do the right thing - once it has exhausted all of the alternatives.” This statement pretty much sums up my personal feelings on the US’s foreign policy: I regard the United states as essentially benign, but look at its conduct abroad with healthy skepticism, especially in the Middle East.

With this in mind, I am already faced with overly sympathetic views to US policy and positions through American news providers, and have to go to the BBC website or cable TV station to find something more even-handed. This new Office of Global Communication seeks to advance American strategic concerns through persuasion of public opinion abroad, and is backed by American diplomatic and economic muscle.

I have no difficulties with buying American goods, being immersed in American pop culture, and having American warships in victoria harbour. As an English speaker in a part of China, I even find all of that a little reassuring. But to have a specific office to advocate American propaganda on a global level bothers me.

This is from the Washington Post’s story:

In a promotional prototype of future programming, Mohammed, an Arab youth, calls a radio talk show to say: “I want to know why the United States is fighting a war against Islam.” In response, the station plays an excerpt from one of many Bush speeches on the peaceful nature of Islam and the ways in which terrorists have perverted it.

I fully understand and appreciate the Bush Administration’s desire not to be perceived as the bad guy in Middle Eastern affairs. Perhaps I’m influenced by the fact that I don’t think the US is even-handed in Middle Eastern affairs that makes this concept so unpalatable.

I suppose I should be grateful that the US government has decided to care about the opinion of non-voters - specifically, non-Americans (surely a realisation resulting from 11 Sept.).

[Sparc]

Good intentions, as they are, notwithstanding, I see a problem of perception here. Not only in the Middle East will this be swallowed with some difficulty, but in many places across the world.

It’s yet another ‘in your face’ action, although not intended as such. The problem lies in that it is easily perceived as an effort to promote Americanism and anyone opposed to this will view it as a yet another imperialist effort of the US to assert itself as the world-dominating nation. This, quite obviously is highly counterproductive since these are the elements and emotions that the effort aims to quench.

I would rather request some subtlety in the approach and instead of asserting Americanism; assert the principles of freedom and equality that America stands for. There are many ways towards this, not the least being through the UN, but we know Dubya’s position on this institution by now. What will have true effect is if America starts walking the walk in this respect and not only talking the talk. Other efforts, less formal and more directed at the individual that have worked in the past such as the Voice of America should be intensified as alternatives to the solution now adopted.

I see in this yet another proof of the inherent problems of nationalism that I have posited elsewhere. Instead of embracing ‘the principle’ it embraces ‘the nation’, coupled with the recent signals of non-cooperation at the UN, this is sure to have exactly the reverse effect to the intended.

It is sad to see that yet again Bush is adopting a full on confrontational approach in international relations, especially in this case where the cause is highly commendable and whould serve towards greater stability in the world, not only by thwarting anti-American sentiment, but also by heralding the universal principles of humanity that America is founded upon. It is remarkable that this confrontational approach is now transported into communication directed right at the individual.

America is lovable, and admirable, but no one begins to love by being told that they must.

Sparc