Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Blog Page 265

GORAN TEŠIĆ: JAVNA DIPLOMATIJA, MEKA SILA I BIG DATA

četvrtak, 21 novembar 2013 13:38

Javna i digitalna diplomatija i korišćenje Big data u funkciji meke sile predstavljaju danas važne instrumente u borbi za uticaj u svetu
U poslednje vreme u javnom društveno-političkom životu pojavljuju se termini kao što su javna diplomatija i meka sila. Da vidimo šta se krije iza njih.

JAVNA DIPLOMATIJA I MEKA SILA Javna diplomatija se razlikuje od tradicionalne po tome što se tradicionalna diplomatija sprovodi posredstvom ljudi koji imaju profesiju kao što su diplomate, političari i obaveštajci, dok u slučaju javne diplomatije jedna država utiče na drugu preko pojedinih instrumenata društva te druge države da vodi politiku u željenom pravcu, pri čemu ljudi koji se bave tim poslovima ne pripadaju obavezno pomenutom krugu profesionalnih diplomata, političara ili obaveštajaca. U te instrumente, uopšteno govoreći, spadaju elementi nevladinog sektora, kao što su registrovane i neregistrovane nevladine organizacije, udruženja građana i pojedinci.

Sam termin „javna diplomatija“ predložio je 1965. godine američki diplomata Edmund Galion, dekan Flečerove škole prava i diplomatije pri Taft Univerzitetu. On je javnu diplomatiju smatrao eufemizmom za propagandu. U ruskom jeziku termin propaganda nema negativno značenje, dok u engleskom ima, i podrazumeva laž i nepoštenu komunikaciju. Javna diplomatija se kao termin odnosi prema propagandi kao što se termin obaveštajac odnosi prema špijunu – to jest naši su obaveštajci, a strani su špijuni.

Termin javna diplomatija se najviše koristio za vreme hladnog rata, da bi po njegovom završetku više počeo da se koristi termin – meka sila (soft power). Autor termina meka sila je Džozef Naj sa Harvardskog univerziteta, koji je bio i član administracije Bila Klintona. Neki svrstavaju Naja u najuticajniju petorku politikologa 20. veka. Prema Naju, meka sila je sposobnost dostizanja svojih ciljeva uz pomoć privlačnosti, a ne putem prinude, tojest da drugi rade kako ti hoćeš, a ti ih ne prinuđuješ na to (vojno, ekonomski). Ali to ne znači da ta strategija nije povezana sa novcem. Bogatije zemlje raspolažu većom mekom silom. Iz ovoga je očigledno da su javna diplomatija i meka sila komplementarne.

Danas se govori o „novoj javnoj diplomatiji“, koja uzima u obzir sve promene koje su se desile krajem 20. i početkom 21. veka, a tu spadaju:

1) Promene u globalnom komunikacionom kontekstu – pojava satelitske televizije, kanala Al Džazira, interneta. Proizvodnja informacija je praktično postala svima dostupna, a ne samo specijalizovanim informativnim kućama. Tako se, na primer, za vreme rata u Iraku, u trenucima napada na Bagdad, u gradu nalazio bloger koji je širio vesti o tome šta se dešava na licu mesta. Pratilo ga je oko hiljadu čitalaca, a on je posle svega postao kolumnista lista Gardijan. Iz toga vidimo da se sve više gubi razlika između profesionalnih novinara i blogera. To je sve išlo u korist promena u globalnim međunarodnim komunikacijama. Šta je to značilo za javnu diplomatiju? Devedesetih godina prošlog veka bilo je neophodno da se bude velika država da bi se širile informacije – da bi se povećavao tiraž štampanog materijala, da bi se jačali signali radio i televizijskih stanica. Danas to nije potrebno. Dovoljno je imati računar sa osnovnom pratećom opremom i možete postavljati video snimke na Jutjub. U tom horu narodnih glasova države moraju da se bore da budu u prvom informativnom planu;

2) Promene u svetskom političkom kontekstu – pojava raznih NVO, alternativnih pokreta i terorističkih grupa koje su i ranije postojale, ali sada ih ima neuporedivo više i imaju nove komunikacione kanale za izražavanje svojih stavova, što dovodi do toga da oni koji su do sada imali monopol nad proizvodnjom informacija ne samo da treba da se staraju kako će da ih publikuju već treba i da slušaju odgovor onih kojima su ih uputili i da posmatraju šta oni konkretno rade;

3) Uloga nevladinih organizacija i orijentacija na meku silu – ciljevi javne diplomatije su se izmenili tako da pored ideološke komponente, koja je dominirala u ranijem hladnoratovskom periodu, pojavili su se i drugi parametri. Prema Džozefu Naju, meku silu čine tri glavne komponente: politička dejstva, kultura i vrednosti. Efekti koji se postižu dejstvom po ovim komponentama sa razlikuju po vremenu. Posmatrajući politička dejstva, uzmimo na primer spoljnu politiku. Ona može da se izmeni za nekoliko godina. Kultura može da se promeni za nekoliko decenija, a vrednosti mogu da se promene na rasponu života nekoliko generacija. Kada se drugim državama i društvima govori o nečijim vrednostima, to ne može da bude kratkoročni projekat. Nije dovoljno prikazivanje jednog filma da bi se drugima predstavio nečiji sistem vrednosti. Radi se o dugoročnom projektu koji treba da se odvija u fazama, gde treba da postoje konkretni zadaci na kojima rade timovi specijalista. Ako je reč o kulturi, neophodno je organizovati izložbe, koncerte i slično;

4) Brendiranje država – radi se o koncepciji koja dolazi iz sfere marketinga prema kojoj je država „brend“. Ovde postaju važne stvari poput popularnosti turizma, investiciona privlačnost i slično, a veliku ulogu igraju biznis i poslovni kontakti.

Na osnovu svega ovoga možemo zaključiti da javna diplomatija nije samo propaganda već mnogo više od toga i da njen značaj sve više raste.

KO SE BAVI JAVNOM DIPLOMATIJOM? Javnom dimplomatijom se praktično bave svi oni koji učestvuju u međunarodnoj komunikaciji. Pre svih tu je, naravno, sama država koja se bavi spoljnom politikom. Pored države, javnom diplomatijom se bavi i biznis. Pri tome spoljna politika jedne države može da utiče na poslovne rezultate kompanija. Kao primer možemo da uzmemo promene u stavu Amerikanaca prema Francuzima. Od 2003. godine primećena je tendencija značajnog pada pozitivnog stava, koja je 2008. došla do maksimuma koji se čak mogao okvalifikovati kao mržnja. To je bilo povezano sa ratom u Iraku, gde Francuska nije podržala poziciju SAD. Amerikanci su bili uvređeni i smatrali su Francuze izdajnicima, što je dovelo do toga da su u Americi bili učestali pozivi da se ne kupuje francuska roba. Usled toga Francuzi su registrovali pad prodaje svojih proizvoda u SAD za 13 odsto tokom pola godine.

Ovde treba reći da, iako su danas mnoge kompanije multinacionalne, one se često asociraju na neku nacionalnost. Tako na primer u video reklami automobilske kompanije Volkswagen Das Auto rečca Das pokazuje da se radi o nemačkom proizvodu.

Pored čisto ekonomskih razloga, sprega politike i biznisa ima i drugu dimenziju koja se naziva – korporativna društvena odgovornost. U tom segmentu države se trude da rad njihovih kompanija van svojih granica ima i komponentu javne diplomatije, to jest da kompanije ne predstavljju samo sebe, već i državu iz koje dolaze. Tako se na primer 2009. godine Hilari Klinton sastala sa čelnicima američkog biznisa i razmotrila sa njima pitanje uticaja biznisa na imidž zemlje u inostranstvu. Pri tome se u poslovnu agendu kompanija ugrađuju pozitivne vrednosti kao što su demokratičnost, ekologija, sponzorstvo i drugo.

Još jedna značajna pojava u sferi korporativne društvene odgovornosti je lobiranje. Uzmimo primer organizacije Foreign Investment Advisory Council (FIAC), koja postoji od 1996. godine. U sastav ove organizacije ulaze inostrane kompanije koje rade na ruskom tržištu. Predstavnici FIAC se sreću sa predsednikom, predsednikom vlade, pomažu rusku nauku i obrazovanje. Tako je na primer FIAC podržao rusku Višu školu ekonomije kroz finansiranje istraživanja pojave koja se naziva paralelni uvoz. O čemu se radi? Primećeno je da se neki predstavnici ruske države vraćaju sa poslovnih sastanaka iz Londona sa laptop računarima marke Sony, što jeste bio paralelni uvoz, a što je suprotno pravilima, to jest kompanija Sony nije imala zvaničan ugovor sa vladom Rusije. Isti slučaj je bio i sa i-fon uređajima, pri čemu su zvanični dileri bili ti koji su bili pogođeni, pa su tražili da se takve pojave zabrane. Zato je Viša škola ekonomije finansirana od FIAC uradila istraživanje kao podršku ideji zabrane paralelnog uvoza u Rusiju. A to upravo jeste lobiranje.

Javnom diplomatijom se bave i univerziteti koji su u principu registrovani kao neprofitne organizacije, ali koji imaju svoje fondove iz kojih se deo sredstava koristi za privlačenje stranih studenata. Privlačnost univerziteta za studiranje, tojest uslovi i nivo obrazovanja koji se na njima stiče takođe govore o zemlji u kojoj se nalaze. Kao dokaz uspešnosti univerziteta prave se liste najboljih po određenim kriterijumima i, iako te liste nisu zvanične, one u moru informacija ostavljaju određeni utisak.

Postoje i takve pojave kao što su privatne ambasade. Tu se može uzeti primer Republike Srpske, koja nije međunarodno priznata nezavisna država, već deo Bosne i Hercegovine, ali koja propagira svoje političke i druge interese kroz privatnu kompaniju koja je postala njeno nezvanično predstavništvo.

Naravno, u sferu javne diplomatije spadaju i svima dobro poznate fondacije i organizacije kao što su Britanski savet, fondovi Fridrih Ebert i Konrad Adenauer, USAID, Rossotrudničestvo, Institut Konfučija i drugi.

DIGITALNA DIPLOMATIJA I „BIG DATA“ Svet se radikalno promenio pod uticajem tehnologije, digitalizovao se. Silicijumska budućnost je počela. U skladu sa ovim promenama, menja se i oblik diplomatije. U junu 2012. godine na savetovanju ambasadora predsednik Rusije je okarakterisao digitalnu diplomatiju kao jedan od najefektivnijih instrumenata spoljne politike, pa je u tom smislu pozvao ambasadore da više koriste nove tehnologije u promovisanju državnih interesa.

Pored očiglednih mogućnosti za direktnom komunikacijom sa auditorijumom korišćenjem raznih internet kanala poput blogova, diskusionih grupa, Fejsbuka ili Tvitera, važan segment digitalne diplomatije predstavlja i analiza dostupnih podataka. Tu dolazimo do pojma Big data. Big data je termin koji se koristi za veliki i složen skup podataka koji je teško procesirati korišćenjem klasičnih baza podataka zasnovanih na SQL jeziku ili tradicionalnim aplikacijama. Najveći izvor tih masivnih nestrukturiranih podataka je upravo internet. Izazovi obrade Big data uključuju njihovo dobijanje, smeštanje, pretragu, deljenje, analizu i vizuelizaciju. Na internetu se danas dešava kolosalno vrenje iz koga treba izvući korisne informacije pomoću kojih bi mogli da se predvide događaji. Tako na primer, ako bi na osnovu jedne takve složene analize bilo moguće predvideti kada i gde će doći do terorističkog napada, to bi bio veliki pomak za bezbednost u svetu. To za sada ipak nije moguće. Ali na procesiranju Big data nastavlja intenzivno da se radi. Godine 2001. Gartner grupa (tada META grupa) sastavila je izveštaj u kome je analitičar Dag Lejni definisao porast količine podataka kao trodimenzionalan, pa je tako nastala shema 3Vs kao opis Big data – Volume, Variety and Velocity, to jest – obim, raznovrsnost i brzina.

Naravno Big data je moguće koristiti u raznim oblastima kao što su nauka, biznis, medicina, politika i drugo. Tako je na primer 2012. godine Obamina administracija u Americi je predstavila Big Data Research and Development Initiative, koja je trebala da istraži kako bi Big data mogli da budu iskorišćeni za rešavanje važnih problema sa kojima se suočava vlada. Ta inicijativa je dala dobre rezultate u kampanji za reizbor Baraka Obame za predsednika SAD iste godine. Takođe, u američkoj saveznoj državi Juta je od strane National Security Agency (NSA) formiran centar za obradu podataka koji će, kada bude završen, imati mogućnost da obradi ogromnu količinu informacija sakupljenu od strane NSA preko interneta.

ZAKLJUČAK Javna i digitalna diplomatija i korišćenje Big data u funkciji meke sile predstavljaju danas važne instrumente u borbi za društveno-politički uticaj u svetu. Svako ko želi da ostane u igri mora da razume značaj pomenutih kategorija i da ih koristi.

Evroazijska Srbija

http://www.standard.rs/goran-tesic-javna-diplomatija-meka-sila-i-big-data.html

Review – The Comparative International Politics of Democracy Promotion

The Comparative International Politics of Democracy Promotion
Edited by Jonas Wolff, Hans-Joachim Spänger, and Hans-Juergen Puhle
London: Routledge, 2014.

Despite more than two decades of extensive policies and scholarly research, democracy promotion still remains a field with a number of unanswered questions. On an empirical level, still little is known about which democracy promotion strategies may result in the democratization of target countries. While not so much interested in the strategies, Wolff, Spänger, and Puhle aim to understand the beginnings of democracy promotion by looking into the process and rationale behind elevating democracy promotion into a foreign policy priority. While democracy promotion rhetoric has been present in foreign policies of many democratic states, it has often yielded to more strategic objectives. Understanding the factors prevalent in developing democracy promotion and balancing out of “material incentives, on the one hand, and normative dispositions, on the other” (p. 3) is the main objective of this edited volume. By means of 12 case studies and systematic comparison, the book analyzes “conflicting objectives” within the policies of democracy promoters and factors that may encourage or hinder democracy promotion.

Asking “how democracy promoters deal with conflicting objectives” (p.3), the book focuses on democracy promotion by the United States and Germany. The book obviously contributes to comparative democracy promotion studies, which would still greatly benefit from insightful contributions. By focusing on the United States and Germany the book adopts a state-centric approach. Although Germany may not cover the same ground with its democracy promotion programs as the United States, these two cases are argued to be comparable and represent two divergent sides of the democracy promotion spectrum: while Germany is argued to be an example of a civilian power, the United States is argued to embody a freedom fighter approach. It also goes beyond existing comparative literature on democracy promotion and avoids the lightly beaten track of comparing the United States to the other most visible democracy promoter—the European Union. A sui generis organization (p. 18), the European Union may match the breadth and depth of United States programs by the plethora of its own policies. However, at the same time, it can influence the outcome of democracy promotion by offering the membership perspective, thus rendering the comparison largely invalid. Nevertheless, to some extent the conclusions on Germany may also be applied to the European Union, which has also repeatedly been called a civilian power.

The choice of the research issue, the democracy promoters, and the six recipient countries as targets of democracy promotion also dictate the structural division of the book. The first three chapters are combined in Part I and present the research agenda (Wolff and Spanger), introduce two democracy promoters (Poppe, Woitschach and Wolff), and outline the determining factors in the choice of democracy promotion strategies on the norms-interests divide (Schewe and Wolff). Paving the way to the empirical chapters, the authors outline 12 pairs of states and configurations of the determinants of democracy promotion: relative power, security interests, economic interests, special interests, political culture, and international norms. Depending on promoter-recipient configuration, the determinants of democracy promotion are also expected to diverge. Part II consists of country chapters, which analyze democracy promotion by two promoters in Bolivia (Wolff), Ecuador (Wolff), Turkey (Karakas), Pakistan (Graf and Wurm), Belarus (Babayev), and Russia (Spanger). Each empirical chapter contrasts the determinants of the democracy promoters and juxtaposes those with the behavior of recipient countries. Part III concludes the book, presenting theoretical and practical implications.

Wolff, who contributed to most of the chapters of the book, concludes that “democracy promotion is a complicated business” (p. 253). One of the important contributions of the book, and the conclusion written by Wolff, is the acknowledgement that instead of straightforward questions and answers, democracy promotion research needs “a broad overview” (p. 253). This argument demonstrates that democracy promotion is a nuanced endeavour with complex patterns of strategies and actions. While the book mainly analyzes the development of democracy promotion by focusing on conflicting objectives of the democracy promoters, it prepares a fertile ground for understanding the whole process of democracy promotion, especially its implementation. The book makes a timely contribution of connecting the developmental and implementation parts of democracy promotion, which may potentially lead to understanding specific strategies and their outcomes. The analysis of specific case studies and the introduction of an analytical framework should be of interests to scholars and students of democracy promotion and foreign policy and can rightly find their spot in relevant graduate and post-graduate curricula.

—

Dr. Nelli Babayan is a researcher at the Freie Universität Berlin.

The power of ideas vs the limits of innovation: Andreas Sandre at TEDxStockholmSalon 2014

Published on Jan 22, 2014

Andreas Sandre is a Press and Public Affairs Officer at the Embassy of Italy in Washington DC. He is the author of “Twitter for Diplomats” (February 2013) and he has contributed articles on foreign policy, innovation, and digital diplomacy to numerous publications, including the Huffington Post, the Global Policy Journal, and BigThink.

In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

 

Activism in the Internet Era: Russia, China and Cuba

Scheduled for Feb 27, 2014

Engaging in activism online has become standard practice around the world, even in countries where repressive regimes try to clamp down on these digital voices. Sites such as Facebook and Twitter have created new online communities and play a critical role in modern activism, perhaps most clearly seen in the Arab Spring uprisings. How do individuals make use of these tools in countries that seek to control online content and often punish those that speak out against their government? Authoritarian governments still try to control what information their citizens have access to and isolate individuals from one another to prevent popular uprisings, even as social media makes this task next to impossible. China offers a clear example of this struggle, with bloggers often censored or jailed. New rules to prevent online rumors or slander could land convicted offenders behind bars for up to three years. In Russia, censorship is less prevalent, but anti-government comments can lead to harsh punishment and Cuba’s internet remains one of the most restricted in the world. However, in each of these countries, dissidents remain active, finding and creating communities online and speaking out against injustices. Emily Parker will share stories of online activists in Russia, China and Cuba and discuss how social media remains a powerful tool in the fight against repressive regimes.

Emily Parker is a Digital Diplomacy Advisor and Future Tense Fellow at the New America Foundation.

For more information about this event please visit: http://www.worldaffairs.org/events/ev…

 

Israeli students paid to defend country online

Facebook introduces autoplay for videos

After testing the system for a while, Facebook has begun to introduce autoplay videos for mobile and desktop. Earlier in the week, most users on iPhone and Android received the system, which works as follows: as you scroll past a video, a preview begins to play without sound. If you don’t want to watch it, just scroll past. If you do, you can click for the full viewing experience, including audio. Later in the week, desktop users began to notice the same feature, which Facebook will be continuing to roll out to more users.

Facebook release tool for gauging sales
Facebook’s new tool for advertisers, allows them to track users who saw a promoted post and ascertain which of these then went on to make a purchase either online or in a physical store. Retailers can offer Facebook the information they have on customers, including email addresses and phone numbers, and find out which of these have seen a promoted post.

Instagram introduces direct messages
Instagram has added the ability for users to send direct messages. A user can send photos or videos to anyone who follows them, with the two then able to converse underneath the message. If you don’t follow someone, you’ll get a notification to a ‘pending requests’ centre. Instagram announced the changes in a blog post, which included the below video.

Brands have already started using the system too. Fashion brand Gap sent direct messages to the first 15 people to reply to a message; from these, winners were selected to receive a denim tablet case.

Hyatt Hotels have been sending messages to their fans, wishing them a Merry Christmas.

Twitter users can send images in direct messages
Twitter has introduced a few updates to its apps for iPhone and Android, including the ability to send images in direct messages. Messages are also easier to access through a tab at the bottom of the screen, while users can swipe to switch between the ‘Home’, ‘Discover’ and ‘Activity’ sections of the app. For Android only, there is now a star button next to the ‘Follow’ tab, allowing users to receive notifications for whomever they choose, whether it be a celebrity or one of their friends.

Twitter adds ‘Broad Match’ to keyword targeting
A few months ago, Twitter introduced keyword targeting, allowing advertisers to target an audience based on specific words in their tweets, or those with which they engage. Now, the network has added ‘Broad Match’, allowing them to automatically include related terms in the search. Those related words can include synonyms and alternative spellings, as shown in the below image.

 

Twitter reverses ‘block’ button change
Twitter has reversed the changes it made to the ‘block’ button very shortly after their introduction. The new system, which allowed users to RT, follow or reply to those who had blocked them, was met with widespread public disapproval, which Twitter rapidly took on board.

Google+ to serve social ads across the web
Google+ has introduced a new type of ad, called a +Post ad, which will allow brands to promote G+ updates across the ‘Google Display Network’. The ads, which will comprise the ability to +1, comment or share, should serve to greatly extend the reach of branded content on the network, as well as of the network itself.

Live streaming on YouTube
YouTube has announced the ability to live stream, which will be available to verified accounts that are in ‘good standing’. Video manager will contain a button from which account holders can begin a live stream, as well as the ability to launch a Google+ Hangout directly from YouTube.

Kik reaches 100 million registered users
Messaging app Kik has reached 100 million registered users, and is reportedly adding 250,000 every day. The success comes partly due through its anonymity – users go by a username rather than providing their phone number – as well as ‘Kik Cards’, which are basically mobile web applications.

Samsung makes mistake in trying to hush YouTuber

Managing Complaints in Social Media

At some point, almost every marketer will have to deal with someone saying bad things about their brand in social media, regardless of whether the brand actively manages its own social presence.

This can be as simple as someone tweeting that they hate the music in the brand’s new TV commercial, but it might be a critical situation that will have a lasting impact on the business’s bottom line.

Regardless of how serious the issue, though, the most important thing we can do as marketers is to be prepared for such situations before they arise.

This was the topic of my presentation at SES Singapore today, where I outlined We Are Social‘s approach to preparing for, and dealing with, negative issues in social media.

The approach focuses on our simple ’3As’ framework:

  • Alert: identify potential issues as early as possible
  • Assess: determine the severity of the issue, and involve key stakeholders as required
  • Act: manage the issue as efficiently and as effectively as possible.

The complete SlideShare deck above outlines the steps, policies and procedures that will help you to ensure you’re best positioned to manage any potential negative issue, addressing:

  • How to define your social media community ‘house rules’
  • The definition of appropriate roles and responsibilities
  • The importance of social media listening
  • How to classify the severity of a negative incident
  • The difference between a response and resolution
  • How to deliver effective, engaging responses that add business value.
  • The importance of behaving like a brand concierge
  • Ensuring the broader organisation can learn from its mistakes

This document is designed to be a practical guide for preparation as well as live management of any potential issues, so we’re pleased to make it available for free download so that you have immediate access to it wherever and whenever you might need it.

We recognise that every business is different though, so please feel free to email us with any questions, or tweet them to us via @wearesocialsg.

* If you can’t access SlideShare, you’ll find the presentation as a PDF here.

If you liked this post, why not subscribe to We Are Social by or ?

 

tagged: crisis, crisis comms, crisis management, fail, house rules, negative comments, , social media crisis, social media fail

Comments

 



The Power of Non-State Actors **ask for Submition**

The age of globalization and information has led to an increase in the power of non-state actors (NSAs) on the global stage.  Consider this, there are over 40,000 internationally operating NGOs. These NGOs try to shame corporations for poor labor laws, organize demonstrations that states cannot ignore and shape international human rights norms in a powerful way. On the darker side of globalization, the same communication tools used for advocacy have enhanced the power that violent NSAs wield to attract extremists and fundamentalists.  With the power of communication tools, NSAs shape the international system and attract followers like never before. What is clear is that states must share the stage with NSAs whether they consider them to be friends or foes.

The Summer 2014 issue of Public Diplomacy Magazine explores the power NSAs in globalization. It is a common misconception to define NSAs as simply being any actor that is not a state, therefore we want to provide a clear definition to our readers. We adopt Josselin and Wallace’s definition of a NSA as being the following:

“Largely or entirely autonomous from central government funding and control: emanating from civil society, or form the market economy, or from political impulses beyond state control and direction; Operating as or participating in network which extend across the boundaries of two or more states- thus engaging in ‘transnational’ relations, linking political systems, economies, societies; Acting in ways which affect political outcomes, either within one or more states or within international institutions-either purposefully or semi-purposefully, either as their primary objective or as one aspect of their activities” (3-4).

The goal of this broad approach is to highlight the diversity of non-state actors and their power as PD actors. This issue seeks features and case studies on diasporas, NGOs, religious groups, violent non-state actors, multinational corporations, think tanks, media, celebrities and philanthropists.

Case studies may consider the following points:

  • What are the NSA’s norms? What is its code of conduct?
  • How do NSAs use public diplomacy tools to socialize the public to their norms?
  • How do NSAs nurture their international reputation?
  • Does the NSA have a public affairs strategy? Does it differ from its public diplomacy strategy?
  • How does the public influence the NSA? How does the NSA shape the public?
  • How does the NSA shape international politics?
  • What is the NSA’s relationship with state entities?

Please feel free to go beyond these suggestions, but discuss your topic with a member of the editorial board before commencing an article for submission.

Public Diplomacy Magazine will accept two types of submission:

1. Features
2,500-3,000-word essays suited for this issue focus on non-state actors as player in global politics and how they practice public diplomacy. This can be submitted in the form of a theoretical working paper, comparative study or history of non-state actors.

2. Case Studies
Case studies between 1,000 and 1,500 words focused on specific non-state actor.

Public Diplomacy Magazine does not accept unsolicited submissions. Authors interested in contributing to the magazine should contact the Editor-in-Chief about their proposals. Please view our editorial policy in the “About Us”  section for further information.  All submissions must strictly follow the Public Diplomacy Magazine Style Guide. Public Diplomacy Magazine reserves the right to withhold printing any articles submitted.

The deadline for submission is Friday, March 7, 2014.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 9:13 am and is filed under Featured, Lead Article, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Food + Diplomacy = Gastrodiplomacy

By Mary Jo A. Pham
Gastrodiplomacy

Food is the butter to diplomacy’s bread. It is also an incredibly powerful, nonverbal means of communication. Long ago, culinary needs preceded diplomatic needs, opening up ancient trade routes and pathways that eventually shaped the global political and economic landscape of today. Later, in the time of the Silk Road, envoys relied on food and spices for currency, a means for trading, and gifts for strengthening relations with distant powers.

When a nation-state decides to combine food with its public diplomacy strategy, the outcome is gastrodiplomacy. The concept is ancient, but the terminology is relatively new. As Paul Rockower aptly explains, gastrodiplomacy “is the act of winning harts and minds through stomachs.” Culinary diplomacy, on the other hand, as Sam Chapple-Sokol notes, is “the use of food and cuisine as an instrument to create a cross-cultural understanding in the hopes of improving interactions and cooperation” at a higher, government-to-government level (as opposed to government-to-the-public level).

On Tuesday, April 9, 2013, the Public & Cultural Diplomacy Forum at American University is proudly hosting “Gastrodiplomacy: A Panel Discussion and Tasting,” featuring experts Paul Rockower and Sam Chapple-Sokol, esteemed speakers from the Embassy of Peru, Embassy of the Republic of South Korea, and the Embassy of Spain, as well was guests from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States. The panel will be moderated by our very own Ambassador Anthony Quainton, and a tasting featuring wines from Spain and other delectable bites will follow.

So what do Peru, South Korea, and Spain all have in common when it comes to gastrodiplomacy?

A passion for highlighting their country’s unique agricultural offerings, culinary heritage, cultural traditions, and national brand. Here’s a run down of some recent accomplishments and news from these gastrodiplomacy players.

A woman selling potatoes at a Peruvian market.

  • Peru: Home to culinary ambassador and chef Gastón Acurio, 3,000 varieties of potatoes, and the Humboldt Current. The country garnered the first Cultural Heritage Award by the Organization of American States (OAS) in 2011. Most recently in 2012, Peru’s Minister of Culture Susana Baca announced that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) will inscribe Peruvian gastronomy on its List of Intangible Heritage of Humanity. Rachel Wilson published an excellent article with insights into Peru’s gastrodiplomacy campaign.

 

  • Spain: Spain calls to mind the magnificent style of molecular gastronomy at the now closed 3-star Michellin El Bulli restaurant, the brainchild of chef Ferran Adrià. Adrià is friends with José Andrés, another famous celebrity chef who has roots in Spain. Andrés is now part of the U.S. Department of State’s American Chef Corps and is also an honorary ambassador of Spain’s national brand. While Spain’s molecular cuisine seems inaccessible to many, the country is also home to a rich tradition of tapas, world-class hams, and wine. As a part of Spain’s gastrodiplomacy outreach, it hosted a public diplomacy event on “culinary chemistry” in Albuquerque, New Mexico at one of its many Instituto Cervantes.

 

  • South Korea: Click on the following link for the latest gastrodiplomacy campaign news from South Korea, and read on below for a true gastrodiplomacy story. South Korea’s incredible Bibimbap Backpackers team have been hard at work promoting “the beauty of Korean cuisine” around the world since 2011. The above video shares some of their 2011 global tour highlights.

Still don’t believe gastrodiplomacy is actually a “thing?” Perhaps you’ll spy branding efforts and product placements from Spain, Peru, or South Korea on your next trip to the grocery store. Or keep an eye out for pisco sours at happy hours, a new mate de coca on the menu at your local café, or your neighborhood wine shop offering tastings of Albariño and Rioja wines. Or take it from me, personally.

Trips to grocery aisles are always exciting because of the possibility of discovering new continents of flavors, checking out food branding strategies, and maybe getting lucky enough to find beloved food items from far-flung lands on the shelves of the local supermarket.

For many of us in the United States, the wholesale giant Costco is a haven for consumer finds (and lunchtime sampling). Costco, with its strategic focus on the customer experience, is also a leader in ensuring that a little-known product may achieve mainstream success in the national market.

So, imagine my happy surprise when I found that my local Costco in West Springfield, Massachusetts, is stocking “Fully Cooked Mini Wontons” from Bibigo, a division of CJ Foodville, the leading and top-grossing food-service corporation in South Korea.

bibigo

Bibigo has arrived…at Costco!

“Look! It’s Bibigo! This is part of South Korea’s gastrodiplomacy campaign! It’s here, it’s here.” I whispered to passersby, who stepped out of my way.

I doubt anyone who overheard my enthusiasm understood the significance of Bibigo’s product presence on local freezer aisle shelves, nor that they knew this mini wonton concept had traveled 6,800 miles across the world to fulfill diners’ appetizer and snack desires. Bibigo is about so much more than mini wontons, too. (Take a look at their sleek bibimbap chain in Los Angeles and other cities.)

But you, dear reader, you know that gastrodiplomacy is a public diplomacy thing. You will hopefully attend our event, listen to our speakers, engage in conversations with our students and faculty, and you will know how Bibigo’s presence on Costco shelves, is a really, really big deal. You, too, may whisper with excitement when you chance upon gastrodiplomacy discoveries in your local Safeway or Giant.

So, here’s to engaging conversations on gastrodiplomacy! We hope to see you at our upcoming event on Tuesday.

Mary Jo can be reached @pd4socialchange.

This entry was posted on April 5, 2013 by mjpham, in Articles, Uncategorized, Upcoming Events and tagged American University, culture, Diplomacy, food, gastrodiplomacy, PCDF, peru, Public Diplomacy, School of International Service, south korea, spain, strategic communication, taiwan. Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment

[Today in PD] Returning To Mexico: Why Mexican Immigrants Are Leaving The U.S.

WASHINGTON—Last year’s debate on immigration reform centered on discussions on improving border security for the nearly 2,000-mile border between the United States and Mexico by adding new fencing, more electronic detection technology including drones, and beefed-up numbers of security patrol.

These concerns to secure the border presume that large numbers of Mexicans are highly motivated to leave their homeland, come to the United States, and never leave.

A new study challenges that assumption.

“The U.S./Mexico Cycle: End of an Era” concludes that the days of massive legal and illegal immigration from Mexico have ended and are not likely to return. Hence, it is called “the end of an era,” according to Aracely Garcia-Granados, executive director of Mexicans and Americans Thinking Together (MATT), which conducted the study in collaboration with Southern Methodist University.

The study confirms what a Pew Hispanic Center study first reported in 2012: The net emigration of Mexicans to the United States has slowed if not reversed, and that many Mexicans residing in the United States are going back home in historic numbers.

“We are not going to have a tsunami of Mexicans moving to the borders and staying here forever and ever. The numbers show that is not going to happen,” Garcia-Granados said.

Garcia-Granados spoke at the Wilson Center on Jan. 14 and Jan. 17 to report preliminary results on the study that was released in December 2013.

The value of the new report is that it reveals surprising reasons for the new trend in Mexico–U.S. migration. Economic motives for leaving the United States and deportation were not among the top reasons. The reasons were generally much more personal.

The findings are based on interviews with 601 returnees from the state of Jalisco, which has the highest return migrant population in Mexico among the Mexican states. The MATT website states that this is the first study to investigate the factors driving the return of Mexican immigrants to Mexico.

Reverse Migration, 2005–2010

For three or four decades, the pattern has been a cycle of migration with the net result of a record number of Mexicans to the United States. By 2007, there were 12.7 million Mexicans living in this country—most of whom came illegally.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the migration patterns came to a standstill. In the five-year period from 2005 to 2010, 1.4 million people migrated from Mexico to the United States, down from 3 million in the five-year period from 1995 to 2000, and about the same number—1.4 million—moved from the United States to Mexico, up from 670,000 in 1995 to 2000.

By 2010, the U.S.-born population residing in Mexico had increased to 739,000 compared to 343,000 in 2000.

Return Voluntarily: 89 Percent

Some 77 percent of the respondents in the survey were undocumented when they came to the United States. Still, deportation and the fear of deportation were not mentioned very frequently for the reason for returning.

“A full 89 percent chose to return to Mexico on their own despite the general belief that most returned through deportation,” states the MATT website. Only 11 percent had been deported.

The figure of 89 percent in Jalisco may come as a surprise to most observers. Garcia-Granados put it in context when she said that other preliminary data found that states closer to the border had proportionately more deportees among the returnees. However, she estimate that the worst case would still be 60 percent return voluntarily.

The top three reasons for return migration were family reasons (37 percent), nostalgia for their country of origin (29 percent), and difficulty in finding a job in the United States (11 percent). Only 1.7 percent said being discriminated against or racism was a reason for their return.

Mexican migration has always been circular, with most people intending to return to Mexico, according to experts. The MATT survey confirmed this intention with 68 percent of the sample saying they had intended to migrate temporarily. Only 16 percent said they had intended to migrate to the United States permanently.

Nearly one-half of the respondents (47 percent) said that the quality of life improved considerably while living in the United States. “But many are drawn emotionally to return to Mexico after 1–5 years, and most enjoy slightly higher incomes in Mexico upon their return than what they were earning in Mexico prior to migration,” states the study.

“Few receive support services for reintegration from government or community based organizations; most rely on family and friends to help them through the transition,” states the study.

Even though more than one-half of the respondents (54 percent) left family behind, the study found a strong desire to remain in Mexico. According to the study, “54 percent intend to stay in Mexico permanently and 17 percent said they will never return.”

Characteristics of the Sample

Most of the returning Mexicans in the survey said they migrated to the United States to look for employment (64 percent), better work prospects (48 percent), and a better salary (41 percent). These were the reasons most often mentioned.

While in the United States, 91 percent worked and held jobs. The respondents in the survey were almost entirely of working age; 95 percent were between the ages of 18 and 49.

The respondents fell in the lower end of the economic scale, holding low-wage jobs in the states. Two-thirds (66 percent) had only elementary or middle school education. Forty-three percent said they could not read English at all.

More than three-quarters of the sample were undocumented when they first entered the United States. About 15 percent came through a tourist visa.

“Compared with other immigrants to the U.S., Mexican-born immigrants are younger, poorer, less-educated, less likely to be fluent in English, and less likely to be naturalized citizens,” states the study.

Limitations of the MATT Study

MATT’s report is not a full-fledged research report but rather “preliminary findings and insights.” The study is limited to the state of Jalisco in central Mexico because it has the highest return migrant population among the Mexican states. The fact that the interviewees were all drawn from Jalisco means inferences from the sample may not be representative of the whole of returnees to Mexico.

“With its diverse mix of metropolitan, mid-size, and rural cities, Jalisco served as a foundational model for future studies MATT is planning to conduct in additional Mexican states,” states the MATT website.

A sample size of 601 is rather small for making precise estimates of the percentages reported in the study’s findings. If the sampling design is random sampling or approximating a random sampling design, estimates would range between plus and minus 4 percent, while subgroups’ percentages would be still less precise.

MATT does not describe itself primarily as a research organization, but rather as a “bi-national nonprofit, with offices in San Antonio, Texas, and Mexico City, that is dedicated to leading the conversation on the issues that are having a profound effect on both the U.S. and Mexico.”

In other words, it is a kind of civic organization. MATT seeks to design and implement “initiatives for economic development, cultural interaction, education, and social outreach,” according to its website.

 

1...264265266...277Page 265 of 277