To: Google e-mail recipients of the Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review [PD Review]
Note: Pls. see the below sample of Google-emailed items (once a day, ca. 6:00 pm) from the PD Review that illustrate the following five points:
1. Forget about the top three highlighted (in small letters) titles. They don’t lead you to a PD Review text/excerpt, even if you click on them.
2. Click on the highlighted large letters of titles in lower part of the email. They will lead you to a PD Review text/excerpt.
3. Most important: Forget about the texts below the highlighted large-letter headings. As emailed by Google, the texts are often unreadable, due to faulty format (and not as the texts originally appear on the PD Review).
4. If not satisfied with the readability of PD Review texts as seen on the Google PD Review emails, refer to the homepage of the PD Review, where these texts appear, in a readable format (but not as a rule in chronological order or in order of their importance) — and frequently cover more than three entries for a given day.
5. As a general precaution, if you wish to keep up with press/other items re PD, use the Google email messages as a reminder to check such new items in the PD Review via its homepage.
Sample Google e-mailed PD Review entries [note the nutty format]
John Brown’s Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review
|Fri, Mar 1, 6:11 PM (1 day ago)|
|John Brown’s Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review|
- India-Korea bonhomie: ‘Act east’ meets ‘new southern policy’
- The origins of “public diplomacy”
- Senators Portman, Carper unveil report on Confucius Institutes at U.S. schools and universities
|India-Korea bonhomie: ‘Act east’ meets ‘new southern policy’Posted: 01 Mar 2019 02:54 PM PST
John Jojin, koreatimes.co.kr
For an explanation of the above photo illustrating quote ancient Indian-Korean ties, see the below statement: “The visit of the Korean first lady last year on the occasion of Deepotsva celebrations in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, appealed to a large number of Indians, who are otherwise not familiar with either Korea or India-Korea relations. Her visit popularized the Korean myth of a nuptial connection between a Korean king and an Indian princess dating back two millennia, which was hitherto not well known in India. For more details on this relationship, see (where this image appears)
The recently concluded visit of the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Seoul on Feb. 21 and 22, was the latest in a row of many high-profile exchanges between India and Korea. President Moon Jae-in visited Delhi in July 2018, followed by first lady Kim Jung-sook in November. Korean defense and foreign ministers also travelled to India in September and December 2018 respectively to meet their counterparts.
Prime Minister Modi’s visit itself shows the importance of Korea for New Delhi, as it came in the middle of a busy political season in India with a general election expected to happen in two or three months. Modi also broke the pattern of a once a term leadership visit between the two countries. During his previous visit in May 2015, the bilateral relationship was upgraded to a “Special Strategic Partnership.”
During the summit, Prime Minister Modi and President Moon agreed to strengthen the military and defense ties and inked six MOUs including an agreement to set up a Korea Startup Hub in India. The highlight of the visit has been public events of the prime minister, including the award ceremony of the Seoul Peace Prize, which was conferred on Modi last October, a ceremony unveiling the bust of Mahatma Gandhi and a meeting with the Mayor of Gimhae, reflecting an emphasis on the social and cultural dimension of the relationship.
Of late efforts have been made by both countries in reaching out through various means including high-level visits, cultural and public diplomacy initiatives to improve their visibility and in spreading knowledge of India-Korea ties. Well-crafted social media intervention of Prime Minister Modi and President Moon has produced a positive impact in this direction.
The visit of the Korean first lady last year on the occasion of Deepotsva celebrations in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, appealed to a large number of Indians, who are otherwise not familiar with either Korea or India-Korea relations. Her visit popularized the Korean myth of a nuptial connection between a Korean king and an Indian princess dating back two millennia, which was hitherto not well known in India. As a result of many such efforts the optics of India-Korea relations have never been better.
Over the last decade, India-Korea relations have emerged to become a comprehensive and multi-dimensional partnership. Among other things leadership also played an important role. After coming to power in 2014, Prime Minister Modi declared “Korea a crucial partner in India’s economic modernization” and an “indispensable partner” in India’s “Act East Policy” (AEP). President Moon in 2017, announcing the New Southern Policy (NSP), a strategy to strengthen Seoul’s relations with India complemented Modi’s approach.
A new dynamism in bilateral relations, facilitated by the convergence of interests in AEP and NSP was witnessed during President Moon’s visit to India last year. The joint vision document adopted at the July 2018 Summit demonstrated a strong will and determination of the top leadership to advance bilateral relations, with a focus on three pillars, namely, people, prosperity and peace.
Recently Korea has become an important partner in Prime Minister Modi’s development projects including Make in India, Smart City and Sagarmala, marking the emergence of a “developmental partnership” between the two countries. An example of this is the Korean financial support of $10 billion for three mega infrastructure projects in the state of Maharashtra.
Under the Special Strategic Partnership, trade and economic relations have also improved. Bilateral trade has crossed $21 billion compared to $20 billion in 2017 and $15.7 billion in 2016. To further liberalize trade, New Delhi and Seoul are currently negotiating to upgrade the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), which was signed in 2009. An interim agreement of an “Early Harvest Package” was announced during the visit of President Moon and also set the goal of achieving $50 billion bilateral trade by 2030.
As far as investment relations is concerned, Korea is the 13th largest source of FDI in India with an estimated investment of $ 3.2 billion. Of late Korean investment in India is witnessing an upward trend with announcements of new projects including Hyundai Motors’s $1 billion in Chennai, Kia Motor’s $2 billion in Andhra Pradesh and Samsung’s expansion of its Noida plant.
Defense production has recently emerged to become an important sector for bilateral relations, with India looking at Korea as a promising partner for diversifying its defense supplies and modernizing its defense industry, while Korea sees India as a potential defense market. A major highlight of the defence production cooperation is the partnership between India’s Larsen & Toubro (L&T) and Korea’s Samsung-Techwin to produce K-9 Vajra howitzers for the Indian Army. Recently Indian Military selected Korean built Biho self-propelled anti-aircraft defense system as the only candidate qualified for acquisition.
In a context where India and Korea find greater convergence of interest through the meeting of Act East Policy and the New Southern Policy, the visit of Prime Minister Modi provided an excellent opportunity to consolidate the bilateral relations.
The author (firstname.lastname@example.org) is a research fellow at the Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi and coordinates India-Korea track 1.5 Dialogue. The views expressed are that of the author and not of the council.
|The origins of “public diplomacy”Posted: 01 Mar 2019 02:29 PM PST
Daniel Birdsall, February 26, 2019, sites.tufts.edu/fletcheradmissions; see also
If you’ve poked around our website enough, or otherwise have more than a passing familiarity with Fletcher, you’ve likely come across the term “public diplomacy” [JB emphasis] at some point. While it mostly makes intuitive sense to me, I’ve rarely stopped to think specifically what we’re talking about when we refer to public diplomacy. An interesting piece of web content recently trickled down to me by way of one of Fletcher’s longest-tenured faculty members, as well as our Dean of Admissions, which I thought worth sharing. At the risk of becoming an irksome content regurgitator, I’d encourage readers to check out this recent post by former diplomat and current blogger John Brown. Brown highlights the work of Edmund Gullion, a former NATO SACEUR and Dean of The Fletcher School in the 60s and 70s (a general career path shared by our previous Dean, Admiral James Stavridis). Searching for a descriptor for the way nations publicly explain and communicate national policy without the negative connotations of the term “propaganda,” Gullion hit upon “public diplomacy,” which he defined as “the ways in which governments, private groups, and individuals shape those public attitudes and opinions which influence the formulation and execution of foreign policy.” Interested readers can check out the full post for further background, as well as Brown’s own commentary on the history and evolution of the concept of public diplomacy.
|Senators Portman, Carper unveil report on Confucius Institutes at U.S. schools and universitiesPosted: 01 Mar 2019 02:26 PM PSThighlandcountypress.com, February 28, 2029; see also (1) (2)
All but Six U.S. States Have at Least One Confucius Institute on University Campusesimage (not from article) from
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Following an eight-month long investigation, today U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Tom Carper (D-DE), the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), unveiled a new bipartisan report that details the lack of transparency in how American colleges and universities manage Confucius Institutes—which are located at more than 100 American colleges and universities and have received more than $150 million in support from the Chinese government.
These Confucius Institutes are controlled, funded and mostly staffed by the Chinese government. The report also details China’s one-sided treatment of U.S. schools and key State Department programs in China, and documents the lack of oversight by the Departments of State and Education of U.S. Confucius Institutes.
“This bipartisan report documents the stunning lack of transparency and reciprocity from China in how Confucius Institutes operate inside the United States.
As China has expanded Confucius Institutes here in the U.S., it has systematically shut down key U.S. State Department public diplomacy [JB emphasis] efforts on Chinese college campuses,” said Senator Portman.
“We learned that schools in the United States— from kindergarten to college—have provided a level of access to the Chinese government that the Chinese government has refused to provide to the United States. That level of access can stifle academic freedom and provide students and others exposed to Confucius Institute programming with an incomplete picture of Chinese government actions and policies that run counter to U.S. interests at home and abroad. Absent full transparency regarding how Confucius Institutes operate and full reciprocity for U.S. cultural outreach efforts on college campuses in China, Confucius Institutes should not continue in the United States.”
“Given what our country experienced during the 2016 election and what we’re preparing to grapple with in 2020, it is critical that we be vigilant in combatting foreign efforts to influence American public opinion. This bipartisan report highlights the quiet effort by China to improve its image in Americans’ minds through its Confucius Institutes, which operate at our universities and K-12 classrooms across the country,” said Senator Carper.
“While there is no evidence that these institutes are a center for Chinese espionage efforts or any other illegal activity, we must have our eyes wide open about the presence of these institutes in our schools and around young, impressionable students, especially since they were conceived by and are funded by a Chinese government that holds and exports a much different worldview than ours.
“This report raises awareness about Confucius Institutes operating within our country and China’s goals for those centers. It also highlights China’s resistance to our own cultural outreach efforts in their country. I hope this report encourages schools hosting Confucius Institute to evaluate how they impact free speech and debate on campus and take steps to ensure academic freedom remains paramount. It should also propel policymakers to learn how we can fill any gaps that may exist in Chinese language education in the United States to avoid having our schools rely on the Chinese government to assume a role that we should be taking on ourselves.”
Following are the key findings in the report:
• Since 2006, the Chinese government has provided more than $158 million to more than 100 U.S. schools for Confucius Institutes.
• The Chinese government controls nearly every aspect of Confucius Institutes at U.S. schools, including its funding, staff, and all programming. It even has veto authority over events and speakers.
• The Chinese government also funds teachers for Confucius Classrooms in the United States, which teach Chinese language and culture in kindergarten through 12th grade schools. There are over 1,000 Confucius Classrooms worldwide and more than 500 in the United States. Expanding the Confucius Classroom program is a priority for the Chinese government.
• There is little transparency in the selection of Chinese directors and teachers that staff Confucius Institutes. They are vetted and hired by the Chinese government, and U.S. universities choose from a pool of applicants approved by the Chinese government.
• Chinese directors and teachers at Confucius Institutes pledge to protect Chinese national interests. Chinese teachers should “conscientiously safeguard national interests” and their contract terminates if they “violate Chinese law” or “engage in activities detrimental to national interests.”
• Some U.S. schools’ contracts with the Chinese government include non-disclosure provisions and require adherence to both U.S. and Chinese law.
• The State Department does not collect visa information related to Confucius Institutes. As a result, the State Department does not know how many Confucius Institute teachers are here or which U.S. schools house them.
• Since 2017, the State Department issued four Letters of Concern to U.S. schools for inappropriately using J-1 visas related to Confucius Institutes. A total of 32 visas were ultimately revoked. In one case, the State Department revoked 13 visas for Confucius Institute exchange visitors. While the 13 Chinese nationals asserted they were in the U.S. conducting research, they were actually teaching at primary schools. The State Department also found evidence of efforts to deceive its officers.
• U.S. schools failed to comply with statutory requirements to report foreign gifts to the Department of Education. Nearly 70 percent of U.S. schools with a Confucius Institute that received more than $250,000 in one year for Confucius Institutes failed to properly report that information to the Department of Education.
• The Department of Education does not conduct regular oversight to determine the level of compliance with required foreign gift reporting by U.S. schools.
• The Department of Education has not issued guidance on foreign gift reporting by post-secondary schools since 2004. As a result, U.S. schools told the Subcommittee the reporting requirements were unclear and confusing.
• While China expanded Confucius Institutes in the U.S. it fails to provide appropriate reciprocity for U.S. officials and educators in China. The State Department documented at least 80 examples of Chinese inference with American public diplomacy efforts from January 2016 to July 2018. The State Department shut down an entire public diplomacy program that created partnerships between U.S. and Chinese schools in China because of Chinese government interference.
Following are the key recommendations in the report:
• Congress should require all U.S. schools to publish all contracts with foreign governments, including all Confucius Institute contracts, online for students and faculty to review. Those contracts should have clear and irrefutable provisions protecting academic freedom at the school.
• U.S. schools should ensure that Chinese government does not exercise line item veto authority when approving annual Confucius Institute budgets. U.S. schools must ensure that any foreign government funded activities or research do not hinder academic freedom or present one-sided, selective positions to American students.
• U.S. schools should ensure that the Chinese government’s vetting, screening, and interview processes are aligned with their own teacher hiring procedures and protocols. The process of selecting directors and teachers should be fully transparent to U.S. schools. U.S. schools should also attempt to recruit Chinese language instructors outside of the Chinese government’s purview.
• The State Department should review all active Confucius Institutes and Confucius Classrooms for compliance with visa regulations, standards, and practices. The State Department should collect foreign visa information for J-1 researchers or teachers associated with Confucius Institutes in the United States.
Absent full transparency regarding how Confucius Institutes operate and full reciprocity for U.S. cultural outreach efforts on college campuses in China, Confucius Institutes should not continue in the United States.
|You are subscribed to email updates from Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review.
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States|