The Public Diplomacy Blog: Arab

Showing posts with label Arab. Show all posts

Sunday

No discussions in India on US State Department's 'Country Report on Terrorism'

The US State Department’s ‘Country Report on Terrorism’ received considerable news coverage in India media last week. The reason being, the report's finding that India witnessed the third highest number of terrorist attacks in 2016, which is just behind Iraq and Afghanistan. To the surprise of many, Pakistan was behind India in the fourth position. Almost all media outlets in India carried this news. While the news was covered, discussions on the issue following the news were few and far between.

The report stated that India registered a total of 927 terror attacks in 2016 with the highest percentage, not surprisingly, were from Jammu & Kashmir (19%) which is fast sliding towards becoming the latest haven for Islamic fundamentalists in South Asia.

The country reports on terrorism can be found here.

This is not something new. Different research findings in the past, including that of the Global Terrorism Index have consistently put India among the top 10 countries most affected by terrorism. While such reports and consequent reportage in news media is a more recent phenomenon, the scourge of terror has been mainstream news in India since 1989. If there is a country that can be considered a repository of knowledge on dealing with terrorism, it is India - not something to be proud of but - this is how it has been.

While the release of the 'Country report on Terrorism' received good visibility in news media, it was disappointing to note that there were not many follow up informed discussions on the topic. Developments such as these are great proof points for the Indian state to strengthen it's own point of view in the international fora with regards to terrorism. We haven't seen it happen yet. It is also of strategic advantage on issues pertaining to internationalization of bilateral disputes such as that of Kashmir. Indian media, can be a great ally, given its dynamism, reach and influence worldwide to give shape to this debate.

Hopefully soon!

Tuesday

The politics of perception in Charlie Hebdo

As world media discusses and debates the impact of Charlie Hebdo massacre on freedom of expression, Noam Chomsky, offers, as always, a point of view that is unique.

Chomky brings to our attention a serious concern with regards to the dominant media narrative on the Charlie Hebdo incident. Speaking on the commentary that followed, Chomsky writes,

“The crimes also elicited a flood of commentary, inquiring into the roots of these shocking assaults in Islamic culture and exploring ways to counter the murderous wave of Islamic terrorism without sacrificing our values. The New York Times described the assault as a "clash of civilizations," …

Chomsky juxtaposes this against media commentary that followed recent act of violence across the world such as:

NATO missile attack on the headquarters of a Serbian TV station, termed as an "enormously positive development" by Richard Holbrooke
July 2011 massacre of 77 people by Anders Breivik, a Christian Ultra Zionist in Oslo
Assault on Fallujah by US Marines, and,
Recurring themes such as Israeli violence against Palestine.

All the above incidents were marked by violence against civilians, public institutions, journalists but never quite qualified to feature in narratives of attacks against freedom of expression, freedom itself, or even narratives of outrage and concern on a scale similar to reactions received by the Charlie Hebdo incident.

It's only sensible to wonder why.

In the politics of narrative and perception, Chomsky’s position is significant. The “media power structure” of our world is no different and is the same as the political power structure in international politics. We don’t often realize this, but as stories compete, some voices tend to get lost or are never expressed.

Chomsky states,

“These few examples illustrate a very general principle that is observed with impressive dedication and consistency: The more we can blame some crimes on enemies, the greater the outrage; the greater our responsibility for crimes -- and hence the more we can do to end them -- the less the concern, tending to oblivion or even denial.”

This awareness surprisingly resulted in some Middle Eastern states like Qatar to take the initiative and establish their own international media outlets (Eg. Al Jazeera).

However Middle East’s media landscape, as I experienced in the last couple of years, is completely dominated by experienced professionals from the West or from Asia, who come with great knowledge, but not necessarily always with a “contextual perspective” that is required to tell a story of the “other”.

Coupled with controls over free media in the entire region, difficult questions remain unasked; indigenous experiences remain hidden and the introspection that is required to understand “why is it happening to us” never happens.

Instead, people are told what is wrong with them, often by groups who have no context. The tradition of the story is alien.

As Chomsky states,

Contrary to the eloquent pronouncements, it is not the case that "Terrorism is terrorism. There's no two ways about it." There definitely are two ways about it: theirs versus ours. And not just terrorism.

Sunday

Public Diplomacy 2.0: Social Media's Spiral of Silence

A major insight into human behavior from pre-internet era studies of communication is the tendency of people not to speak up about policy issues in public—or among their family, friends, and work colleagues—when they believe their own point of view is not widely shared. This tendency is called the “spiral of silence.”

The above was quoted in a report published in August, 2014, by the Pew Research Center and Rutgers University. The report was a the result of a survey of conducted by these institutions that "sought people’s opinions about the Snowden leaks, their willingness to talk about the revelations in various in-person and online settings, and their perceptions of the views of those around them in a variety of online and off-line contexts." (as quoted in the report).

According to the authors of the report, the key takeaway from the survey, and as cited by the New York Times later, was the finding that social media seems to have "diminished rather than enhanced political participation." Social media seems to be silencing debates by encouraging a "group think mentality" where people restrain from expressing opinions within their social networks, for fear of social exclusion, if they perceive that their network may not share their opinion. As per the theory of "Spiral of Silence" it reflects a dominance of the majority point of view over a minority's.

(Source: communicationtheory.org)

This survey can potentially burst the social media bubble among Public Diplomacy fraternity. For PD practitioners who are in countries or focusing on countries with restrictions on media, the dominant view of looking at social media as the alternate platform for a more broad based engagement the finding hopefully would encourage a "re look" into their strategy.

I look at this as primarily an opportunity to introspect and assess the real impact of social media in the process of political mobilization and dissent.

Is there self censorship and group think in social media debates?
Will a minority group be vocal against a majority group on social media platforms?

The second question is more interesting I guess, as internet is known for it's unshackling tendency and its ability to disrupt. When we apply it in the context of the Arab Spring, as most experts rush to establish the correlation, what we may be overlooking is the fact that the Arab Spring was the rage of a powerless majority against a an elite minority that controlled all power. Maybe that's the reason why the spiral of silence did not occur in Egypt and social media was highly effective in mobilizing dissent.

A different point of view, as seen in the Columbia Journalism Review, stated that,

"A hesitancy to share online could actually be a valuable restraint for someone who would otherwise have shot an unthinking opinion into the digital ether, safe in the knowledge their network of followers would agree with their views."

"... When the web is saturated with opinions on the news, restraint and thoughtfulness—regardless of whether followers agree or not—matter too."

Saturday

Of social media, anti-rationalism and low expectations

'Social Media Detox' is good. I say this to all those of you who checked on me to figure what happened to my blog and where was I to be found on social media. If you write on a topic that is not necessarily mainstream, the 'noise' in social media and the content blitzkrieg, indeed gets to you.

We tend to lose sense of what's important and what's not, what's relevant and what's not.

photograph of Independence Square, Kiev, Ukraine

TIME ASIA COVER MARCH 10, 2014

Recently, I got a taste of what I was missing as my reading habits became increasingly 'social'. It was on a long flight back to India where I happened to pick up the TIME magazine as I settled on my seat after dinner. Years ago I was a regular reader of the magazine and was now shocked to see now how much the magazine had shrunk!

It almost seemed like a pamphlet, the last few pages of a news magazine trying to hold its own against social media onslaught.

I don't really know how the magazine is doing in its digital format, but I as read through the stories, news analysis and updates it was the magazine I always knew - solid research, impeccable reporting, depth of analysis but most importantly stellar news judgement and news selection. The role of an editorial team in planning and presenting content was but obvious.

It's not the digital bit that I am wary about, but the social bit.

Social media not only makes us publishers of our content but also offers us more choices in terms of what we read. But our reading habits and information gathering skills again, sometimes, are limited by our awareness or the lack of it, exposure, biases and habits. We may not always make the best choices in what we read and sometimes, as I realized while reading the magazine on my flight back, it's good to have professionals to help keep our focus on topics that are important. We need our editors and reporters back and find a way to keep them at the job they do for us and not let the social media deluge take over completely.

The competitive noise of social media has its own place but is definitely not an answer to everything. I leave you with this editorial from the The Washington Post: The Dumbing of America, by Susan Jacoby that has interesting insights into how the proliferation of video content potentially affects how we make sense of our world.

"(We are)...in danger of losing our hard-won cultural capital to a virulent mixture of anti-intellectualism, anti-rationalism and low expectations."

Sunday

A communication approach for the United States in the Middle East

Reuters today filed a story with the headline: “Western embassies on alert as Muslim anger simmers over film”. As I read the news, picked up by all major newspapers of the world, my thoughts go back to the Arab Spring when it started. With the fall of dictators, there was hope all around. Finally, the Middle East seems to be opening up to newer possibilities. I remembered my college history lessons and felt that newer possibilities may not necessarily be what we think or want them to be. A year later, the mood has changed indeed, in US and also in the newly liberated and fledgling ‘democracies’ of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt.

The recent crisis has actually increased the importance of communications for the United States. It’s a new reality, an uncertain environment. The luxury of stable dictatorships to engage with is no longer there. Unpredictability will reign.

I believe communication and engagement efforts of United States should just focus on 3 things:

Institutionalize internal ‘dialogue’ on foreign policy: Sun Tzu said, “Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster”. Americans, for the power and influence they wield over the world, are surprisingly ill informed and inward looking. Maybe it results in situations where responsible exercise of influence becomes difficult. Maybe it’s time to institutionalise a process by which Americans realise the depth and breadth of their engagement across the world and what it means for the average American. It’s time the West learns to ‘make a point without making an enemy’.
Do not roll back ‘engagement’: Policymakers should not operate under the premise that being democratic doesn’t mean a natural affinity to American values and way of life. Political systems are reflective of local milieu, and democracy in Middle East will look radically different from, say, in India or US. For example, India and US differ strongly on their approach to 'Freedom of Expression' but both are successful democracies and free societies. This calls for consistent monitoring of conversations and constant engagement The bad news is that in person engagement becomes tougher. The good news is that social media seems to work very well in the Middle East as demonstrated again by the crisis!
Communicate ‘Access’ and ‘Proximity’: Explain to audiences how an open society enable access to free societies abroad, be it the West or United States, where Muslims have lived and done well. Create narratives for the ‘indivual’ and not ‘sermons’ for their ‘societies’ on how a partnership with the United States can better their lives.

What do you think?

Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

-- Madhur

Wednesday

Assassination, symbolism and implications for Public Diplomacy

5389! Yes, that’s the number of articles a simple Google search shows as I surf the web now to read about the assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya. It is reflective of the immense symbolism of the incident across the world, especially in the Arab world currently undergoing significant political transformations. The world awaits the American reaction, and, maybe a lot of us are expecting spectacular retributive justice from the Americans. It makes for a good show!

This unfortunate incident was powerful for its immense symbolism. Real close to the anniversary of 9/11, in a country recently ‘liberated’ from a dictator, in the lands of the Arab Spring with aspirations of becoming free and open societies. It is indeed great media fodder, especially the imagery of protests, the burning of the American flag and civilian assaults on the American embassies. An American response has to take into account this context and maybe a measured response will be beneficial if the United States wants a long term strategic involvement in the region.

Palestinians burn the US flag during a demonstration against an anti-Islam on September 12, 2012 in front of the UN headquarters in Gaza City. Source: www.presstv.com

In my previous posts I had written about the possibility of a counter reaction to the Arab Spring in the next few years. Viewed in context of the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, and rising tide of millenarian aspirations post the fall of the older political order, incidents such as these can play on popular imagination and provide the reactionary forces with just the ammunition to seize power. Enhanced strategic communications is now more important for United States than ever to counter such a possibility. This will call for more action from State Department to build ‘networks of influencers’ and deepen engagement rather than going out all guns blazing. Can these story tellers be crisis managers? Can PD/ Public Affairs be expected to manage such conflicts?

Policymakers must not lose sight of the fact that this battle will be fought over ‘24 hour media’ all across the world. This will be as much a battle of ideas and attitudes. Every action by both the parties will create different narratives that would shape perceptions, form opinions in societies currently undergoing tremendous change. The implications will be significant and it might help if policymakers indulge in some ‘scenario gaming’ from this perspective.

Can there be an internal foreign policy dialogue in the United States? While freedom of expression is sacrosanct, does it give the right to pull down other faiths, beliefs and way of life? Especially in a country that is committed to protect every community, every faith, and every belief in its land? If the action of a minority in the name of freedom of expression can bring mayhem, war and destruction to their own people what good is the right? Is the principle of “reasonable restrictions”, as it exists in Indian legal system, the answer to these issues that arise out of such incidents in the western world?

In an age of pervasive media and ‘continuous conversations’ these are important questions. I don’t know the answers, but what I would like to stress is that this is not a job for the marines alone, but communicators of the State Department have a battle in their hands too! A protracted struggle!

Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

-- Madhur

Tuesday

'Emotional connect' in the elections in Egypt

So we all know the results of the elections in Egypt. Muslim Brotherhood leads with radical Salafists coming a close second. In fact Islamist parties cornered two-thirds of the votes in the elections. On March 21, 2011, I had clearly written in my blog that it is too early to write off Islam as a political force as a result of the Arab Spring. In a bit of kamikaze thinking, I also applied the Gartner Hype Cycle to explain why religion might become central to Arab political discourse after the Arab Spring. You can read the post here - Revolutions and emotions in Middle East. By this time we also know that Tunisia has turned 'green' and Libya intends to do so as well.

History has showed us time and again that revolutions often lead to 'millenarian' expectations that often results in it becoming reactionary or throwing up results that maybe unanticipated. This is not to suggest that the victory of Islamists is a reactionary development; it might be good for those countries and the world in general. They were elected by a democratic process. Just that we don't know yet.

Religion is emotional and appeals to the heart and so has wider appeal than political concepts. It can be felt and doesn't need to be learnt unlike a political concept. Besides, religion promises final salvation, the education and training for which begins at home. It is also not alien and is instead steeped in the local customs, culture and folklore. It is familiar, pure and can be trusted. It is what in communications we call the 'emotional connect.' In societies where religion has always been central it is no surprise that people have expressed their faith in Islamists. Congratulations to the people of Egypt for successfully electing a government of their choice!

Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

-- Madhur

Saturday

The Arab Spring and minorities

In one of my previous posts - Revolutions and emotions in the Middle East - I had written how it may be too early to write off Islam as a political force in the Middle East after the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. Taking the discussion forward I would like to bring to my readers' notice a recent opinion piece by Rene Guitton in Hindustan Times.

In the piece - 'A major change' - Rene writes that,

"New regimes will be judged by how they treat their ethnic and religious minorities. It is by the space allowed for these various minorities to live and flourish in their societies that we will judge the true nature of the Arab Spring"

Rene argues that so far the uprisings in the Arab world has not "led to xenophobia, anti-western demonstrations or a breakthrough for Islamists" however the true nature of these revolutions are yet to be unraveled. In the article he also draws attention to the attack on a Coptic Church in Alexandria in 2010. There are numerous minorities in the Middle East - Christians, Jews, Hindus and a significant number of people from different Muslim sects in South Asia. Political transitions sometimes are hard on minorities and it would be the true test of the Arab uprisings.

Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

-- Madhur

Wednesday

The New Arab World Requires New Public Diplomacy

Egyptian protesters on the street. Source: The Huffington Post

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

I tend to agree with the observation that it might be worthwhile to reorient the focus of PD efforts towards service (measurable objectives?) rather than pure 'branding.' While branding might be important at certain times for visibility and recall, the "age of conversations" actually offers meaningful opportunities to "talk about actions" as well. In a political and economic culture driven by conversations and information, PD should reorient itself towards facilitating such conversations and information that strengthen such actions, rather than just 'advertising.' However, I tend to disagree with Philip on the use of social media and I think it can be a powerful medium on a case to case basis. In some countries, social media is more democratising and empowering (sometimes) than any other medium. The world wide web in class ridden (even if politically democratic) and in closed societies, is empowering and equalizing simply because it makes information accessible to who ever is looking for it. Some BRIC countries are managing social media in a way that would help create more equitable societies.

Pages

Sunday

Tuesday

Sunday

Saturday

Sunday

Wednesday

Tuesday

Saturday

Wednesday