|
||
Improving America's Reputation -- McCain Would Lecture, Obama Would Listen
Since 2003, international polls have consistently revealed worldwide distaste for American foreign policy in the Middle East; the Bush Administration's "war on terror"; the Iraq war; and the American disregard for international conventions regarding detainee treatment. In combination with recent concern among foreign publics that the United States adversely affects their own national economies, these views amount to the collapse of America's reputation around the world.
Despite the clarity with which foreign publics express their reasons for the downgrade, we Americans have, until recently, been bewildered by our loss of stature. We continued to wonder "why they hate us" and to assert our general good will in the world. To an extent, it's no wonder we've been puzzled: mainstream media tends to short-circuit the context of global news, and censor the American role in foreign disquiet. Add to this an administration that intentionally feeds only "good news" stories to both domestic and foreign presses, and a five second cut of angry foreigners burning American flags on the nightly news definitely presents as a non sequitur.
But recent polls of Americans on our own reputation abroad show we're catching on. We have made the connection between foreign perceptions and our own ability to thrive in the foreseeable future. A poll completed at the end of August by the United Nations Foundation and its associated organization, the Better World Campaign, revealed that 78% of American voters "believe that America's reputation has suffered in the world" and that the issue should be addressed.
A World Learning/ Aspen Institute poll in January 2008 showed we perceive concrete repercussions for a bad reputation, including a weakened ability to gain support for diplomatic and military goals among foreign governments, and a heightened risk of terrorist attacks. Eighty eight percent of those polled said it is "very important" that others view Americans in a good light.
The presidential candidates know there is a problem too. McCain observed at the end of 2007 that, "the United States is more unpopular now than at any time in history and increasingly viewed as pursuing its narrow self-interest." For McCain, those who hold such views are flat out wrong. But he concedes that, "it is incumbent upon us to ... rebuild those damaged relationships...." Obama lays blame for the faltering national reputation at the feet of the Bush Administration. But he too, stresses the need to "rebuild[ ] our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century"
High-flown rhetoric about winning "hearts and minds" is easy; concrete programs that would measurably improve how others view the United States are more challenging. Nevertheless, both presidential candidates have put forth several concrete actions they will take to improve the American position. Their platforms can sounds similar--both recommend revitalizing public diplomacy, for example
Yet a close look reveals a basic difference in how each candidate envisions communication. McCain advocates making sure the American message, and our "positive image" gets to foreign publics; Obama advocates forging a dialogue with foreign publics to create a joint narrative about a shared future. McCain believes the United States leads by moral fiat based on its intrinsic leadership role; Obama believes the United States should lead by the example of its own behavior. McCain has said that cross-cultural knowledge can be weaponized to undermine violent extremists; Obama has suggested by example that cross-cultural knowledge can be used to understand and address societies where extremism has taken hold. McCain is into telling; Obama thinks we should listen first.
Regardless of the appeal of either or both messages, the multi-vocal, transnational communications environment in which we all live is such that Obama's dialogic approach has a more realistic chance for succeeding. The days have passed when the U.S. could claim singular moral authority, or command enough airwaves, to simply silence competing points of view. It has little choice but to listen, if it wants its reputation back.
Disposition of Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility
Intended to communicate American seriousness about combating terrorism when it was established, Guantanamo Bay has instead become a standing symbol of a Kafkaesque doctrine that is alien to democratic ideals and international laws. It reminds the world that the United States, like the undemocratic governments it deplores, practices indefinite detention and torture.
Both McCain and Obama recommend closing the facility and, with it, closing down one of the most visibly negative symbols of the American intentions toward others. Obama's reasoning relates to moral leadership: In March 2007, Obama told a Texas audience of his intention to "lead by example--by not just word, but by deed" by closing Guantanamo and restoring habeas corpus.
McCain reasoning on Guantanamo, although he has deplored torture in other contexts, relies less on condemning practices there than on the need to compromise in a multilateral world, in which, "our great power does not mean that we can do whatever we want, whenever we want."
Public Diplomacy
Public diplomacy, broadly defined, is the government's direct communication with foreign publics, as well as positive communication between citizens of different countries. Both modes are designed to explain and promote U.S. positions. In 1998, the agency in charge of public diplomacy, the United States Information Agency (USIA) was closed, and its functions rolled into the State Department. There is currently no agency dedicated to public diplomacy, although there are a number of discussions in Washington afoot about what a new agency dedicated to communications with foreign publics might look like.
McCain believes that the 1998 decision to close USIA was wrong, and has promised to "work with Congress to create a new independent agency with the sole purpose of getting America's message to the world -- a critical element in combating Islamic extremism and restoring the positive image of our country abroad. "
Obama believes that efforts at public diplomacy in the Bush administrations State Department have been misguided and has promised to reignite public diplomacy efforts that recall the activities of USIA: "We will open "America Houses" in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America's Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs."
Obama also wants to initiate an " America's Voice Corps" through which "we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with -- and listen to -- the people who today hear about us only from our enemies." Finally, he has offered to personally speak to a "major Islamic forum" in the first 100 days of his administration, and "redefine our struggle" to communicate to foreign publics that, "your future is our future."
Combating Violent Extremism through Cross-Cultural Communicate
Both candidates see the ability to communicate across cultures as an important aspect of combating violent extremism. McCain has committed rhetorically to educational exchange programs as part of a battle against "terrorist networks," noting that "scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs" as a way to win hearts and minds. In a Foreign Policy article at the end of 2007, McCain outlined a number of steps to enhance Americans' foreign cultures' knowledge, calling it "not a luxury, but a strategic necessity." His specific recommendations include installing foreign language programs in civilian and military schools, and linking greater understanding of foreign cultures to combat and intelligence aims. He has offered to create, for example, "a new specialty in strategic interrogation" so that interrogators could use "advanced psychological techniques" rather than pressure designated as torture by the Geneva Conventions.
In keeping with his recommendation that the United States lead by example, Obama has used his own cross-cultural knowledge to inform his counter-extremism platform. In an address in February 2008, Obama related his experience as a child in Muslim Indonesia. He analyzed the consequences of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and Indonesia's subsequent vulnerability to aggressive Saudi aid practices that imposed a more strident version of Islam on the country.
As he related to his audience in February, Obama used this cross-cultural understanding as the basis for suggesting that the U.S. could improve its reputation among all but hardline jihadists by cracking down on Saudi human rights violations, investing in education and development in countries like Indonesia, and ensuring it adheres to its own best values.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Bravo, Dr. Zalman. This is the first comparison I have seen between the likely approaches of senators McCain and Obama to public diplomacy. It should be clear to any objective observer that Senator Obama's strategic instincts are more likely to help improve the US image among critical populations around the world.
Very perceptive mrs Zalman: winning a war by not waging a war but by constructive engagement and looking for a political solution.
In terms of countervailing power a more modest role and a more reasonable stance taking into account the adversary's interests too, will most probably dramatically decrease the requirement for military force.
"War on terror" seems just as successful as the "war on drugs" or the 1930 prohibition.
It is a key policy difference between McCain and Obama indeed.
Such voice of reason as mrs. Zalman gives some hope for the US.
This is the first article I've read that clearly draws contrasts between McCain's and Obama's foreign policy approach. McCain's approach is too similar to Bush's who has spent billions of dollars on PR overseas to change America's image. What neither McCain nor Bush seem to understand is that "image" is based on deed not rhetoric.
We need a leader who will calmly listen to others. I've seen nothing that suggests McCain will listen. All I've heard from McCain is undisciplined bellicose rhetoric.
The only way we will improve our "image" is thru open dialogue, diplomacy, listening and last, but by no means least, our actions. The disrespect the bush administration has shown toward the world community greatly damaged America's standing on the world stage. Obama understands how the nation interacts with the world community matters. McCain doesn't.
Words alone do not change minds, deeds do.
your premise is wrong........the people that don't like us.......don't like us for tons of reasons........from freedom to religion.......who cares.......it just does not matter
"the United States is more unpopular now than at any time in history and increasingly viewed as pursuing its narrow self-interest." That and immigration reform, just two things Johnny has managed to forget in his hopeless pursuit of moronic voters.
i don't care about the world's opinion of us........they should worry more about their own country
Maybe you don't but I do! And you should, we are in the 21st Century and a global economy, America must have allies in the rest of the world. Are you an Obama supporter? Your thinking seems so republican. Obama supporter generally have open minds.
How can they when we interfere to their detriment. Take a modern history class and find out what we've done not just in the ME and SEA but in Latin America also. It's a wonder our so called moral authority lasted this long.
Gen. Smedley Butler once said that the American military acting on behalf of corporations could have taught Al Capone a thing or two (paraphrased).
Our enlisted men and women are being used to advance multinationals financial interests.
So here I am, sitting around worrying about my own country.
Canada as it happens.
Specifically I'm worrying how we were going to get out of Afghanistan.
We're fighting in a war over there you see. We have been for 7 years now. Our allies asked for our help, and we agreed that Afghanistan represented a grave threat. (funny thing how we refused to join you in Iraq despite MASSIVE pressure from your Government.)
And it's been costly. We've lost 96 men and women. By population, this is twice the USA's casualties.
You better believe that I'm hoping that your Country veers off of it's suicidal foreign policy course.
Because I want to stop worrying about my own Country.
You are rather ignorant and one day you will care like it or not.
why, because i disagree with you and that one........I'm rather ignorant.......wow
Knowledge is knowing what to say, and wisdom is knowing when to keep your mouth shut.
...and Obama has both.
Yes he does!
Obama has huge ambitions for the good of the world and truly understands America's place in it - and for that I love him dearly.
He believes that together with the support of the people he can succeed in this monumental task, and I sincerly pray that he has the right circumstances to achieve his vision.
Hello to all commentators,
All the commercials, pundits, gaffes, personal attacks, and the MSM will not dictate the outcome of this election. THE GROUND GAME IS WHERE ELECTIONS ARE WON, AND LOST!
Before you go to the next left leaning article to comment on, or right leaning article to start an argument with a republican (which will no doubt end with them calling you an unpatriotic socialist wimp) May I suggest that you get in the game.
Please visit my personal fundraising page below:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/craigcubberly
If you cannot afford to donate money there are many other ways to help below :
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/statepages
Take a look. It is a lot of fun, and very satisfying to get involved. You will really feel as though you are making a difference.
Thanks Craig
As with the previous posters, I think Dr. Zalman has written eloquently in driving to the heart of the matter. In fact, it strikes me that McCain's approach to interaction is still driven by what could essentially be called a "mass consumption" or broadcast view of communications. That is no longer a model for interaction. It's a telling sign that not only have the issues that drive the world changed since McCain came of age, but the modalities by which people deal with them have fundamentally changed as well. Wonderful insights in this essay...keep it up!
Here's an interesting quote from Professor Michael Wesch, the digital ethnographer and cultural anthropologist from the University of Kansas (the guy who made "The Machine is Us/ing Us"), that I think speaks to your point about modalities:
"People often focus on the content without recognizing the broader impacts being caused by the media itself."
Obama's people (his staff and close supporters) seem to understand the importance of media (or modalities) and how the way in which we receive our information affects us in ways we need to appreciate.
I was just reading along and then I read that McCain advocates the use of "advanced psychological techniques" because it isn't against the Geneva Convention. Okay, but that is like finding a loop hole in the governance. Anytime you start using "advanced techniques" you are walking that thin line that can be easily be taken to the dark side...as in Abu Ghraib.
Why in the world would you not want to talk to your "enemies". Threats just do not work, I think that has been proven in Iran and N Korea. In a world where we have lost our moral authority, threats are useless...any country in the world knows that our military is stretched thin, so their "fear" of attack from us is meaningless...that doesn't mean that they want a war, it means that they know that it is merely sabre rattling...
Why would you stress that you would train the military to speak foreign languages, why not your basic American who could go into a foreign country. Those non-military have a better chance of getting basic services up and running than sending in the military.
John just doesn't get it...in the 21st century, the military is not the answer to (most) everything...and to constantly use the words: Fight, Fight, Fight is no longer a viable theme.
Excellent points.
McCain never raised above the level of a leader of a tactical element focused on the execution of a straightforward mission. He does not even really understand the difference between strategy at the geopolitical level and tactics. Look at his campaign "strategy": a serial change of momentarily opportune tactics
America's reputation around the world has been severely damaged for the past 7+ yrs, because the occupant of the White HOuse has been the posterboy for "The Ugly American" (50's book of the same title)...Dubbya most likely never even heard of the book, and while taking up space in the corridors of Yale University, while three sheets into the wind most of the times...... (by his own admission)..
George W. Bush must be the only person alive who emerged a mental midget from Yale, a prestigious Institute of Higher learning.....It is past High Time for America to have a President who is capable of speaking in clear, concise, coherent sentences, which he wrote himself...!!!...Would that Dubbya could bring himself to ask the country:..Has we learned sumpin' these last 7+yrs....?
The scholarships vs smart bombs thing actually makes sense! Why is McCain trying to scare me instead of telling me something of substance?
Obama is a true leader. Leaders listen more than they speak. They want to hear what everyone has to say. All points of view. McCain unfortunately only wants to hear what he has to say. Palin - that is another story. She has absolutely nothing intelligent to say in the first place.
Ms. Zalman has written a timely and insightful piece. The American people have indeed begun to internalize what those of us living abroad have experienced first-hand - that the USA has lost its moral standing in the world under the leadership of George W. Bush. More than any single policy espoused by Obama during the present campaign, it is his approach to dialogue that makes him a candidate with the potential to transform not only inter-governmental relations, but indeed the way ordinary citizens around the world relate to ordinary US citizens.
Dr. Zalman is one of the clearest-thinking analysts of US public diplomacy, and her assessment of the likely difference in engagement among the two presidential candidates rings true and reminds us of how high the stakes are.
Earlier this year she assessed the state of US public diplomacy in the Muslim world, and her conclusions are sobering. See http://logosinstitute.net/blog/2008/07/06/worth-reading-countering-violent-extremism-beyond-words-by-amy-zalman-phd/. As she points out in that assessment, "“Good communicators reveal, in speech and action, that they understand the motivations and aspirations of their audiences—and it is via this understanding that they gain their sympathies.”
An approach that listens, takes seriously the needs of stakeholders, and chooses words based on their likelihood to persuade, is far preferable to pushing "message" or the rhetorical equivalent of chanting "USA! USA!"
I always look forward to her work, and commend the Huffington Post for giving her a platform to share her insights.
Helio Fred Garcia
Executive Director
Logos Institute for Crisis Management & Executive Leadership
New York City
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
