Category Archives: General

1914 and all that; Birdsong and War Horse.

Posted on by

Quite by chance I watched Birdsong on Sunday evening and War Horse on Monday afternoon.  Both feature an emotional interest set against the backdrop of the First World War, the Great War. Both derive from best-selling books, by Michael Morpurgo and Sebastian Faulks respectively.  Both are beautifully filmed; neither held my interest for long.

Both sought to show the horror of the Western Front in France; the trenches, the incredible waste of life, the brutality of military life.  Both had moments of sheer horror.. more I must say in BBC Television’s Birdsong rather than Spielberg’s multi-million film epic.  But for me both failed.  Pitching a simplistic emotional tale alongside the war does not work.  I find it hard to recall that my grandfather was there even when I look at the records of his military service in France and hold his medals.

It is just over two years to August 2014.   The centenary of the Guns of August of 1914, the war to end all wars.  Commissioning editors, film producers and book publishers are gearing up for pitches for programmes to be shown in cinemas, on TV, on the internet and for books to read on our Kindles.

I’ve noticed over the last few years that the annual poppy day.. remembrance day in November. has taken on a more militaristic flavour.   Not wearing a poppy shows disrespect to our current military; employers enforce a two-minute silence in their workplaces. Not to take part is unpatriotic.

Remembrance was introduced with two aims.  “Lest we forget”: the fallen; those who were led to death and injury by politicians incapable of finding peaceful solutions.  That laudable aim remains.   August 2014 requires the second aim of remembrance to take equal prominence:  “Never Again” .

Commissioning editors take note.  War means no-one lives happily ever after.

Canada’s changing image

Posted on by

Canada is frequently held up as a model country.  It sits near the top in many global league tables.  But are times changing?  Daryl Copeland (of Guerilla Diplomacy fame) reports that public diplomacy is on the decline in Canada.  Far from maintaining its pioneer role the government is almost ending its PD programmes.

Copeland points out Canada’s leading role in the landmines campaign, in climate and environmental issues.  All now seemingly consigned to history.

Mark Leonard once argued that a country’s reputation internationally was 15 years out of date.  Is Canada now along the way?  Is it any longer demonstrating its progressive agenda as a global leader or reverting to narrow nationalistic interests?

On the environment, and indeed climate change, it has regressed.  Withdrawing from Kyoto (straight after Durban and increasing its oil sands extraction  (a method, according to Wikipedia: If combustion of the final products is included, the so-called “Well to Wheels” approach, oil sands extraction, upgrade and use emits 10 to 45% more greenhouse gases than conventional crude).  As the Arctic warms up it opens up vast swathes of accessible land for Canada to exploit.

Canada has been a leading participant in international military adventures.  One key priority of its remaining public diplomacy programme is to promote its role in Afghanistan.

Changing political priorities are nothing new. When they change so does the politically orientated public diplomacy, public relations programmes and messages.  What needs to change is the impact on reputation.  That takes longer  for Canada to lose its position as a progressive member of the international community.

 

 

Soft power and ideas in action in Egypt

Posted on by

Egypt’s troubled path to from dictatorship to democracy is proving a fertile ground for soft power.  The military-run government was widely criticised for its crackdown on NGOs.  It used a Mubarak era law designed to control foreign funding of NGOs.  Reports indicated that the government wanted to create a wave of anti-American feeling to help it ride out the demonstrations in favour of the Revolution (Known in the west as the Arab Spring).

The irony of the military.. heavily financed by the USA.. seeking to gain political capital out of foreign financing of NGO escaped the government.  However the military took note of the USA’s concerns and agreed to rescind the crackdown.

A few days later the Egyptian government did release details of foreign funding of NGOs. And it makes fascinating reading.  The April 6 movement, a prime player  in the Revolution, received no foreign funding.  Now that must have dented many assumptions.

On the other hand a single Salafi based organisation received a staggering $50m. The money came from Qatar and Kuwait rather than Saudi Arabia, the usual source of Salafi financing.  The Ansar El-Sonna association denied the funding was for political purposes but was for mosques and orphanages. (Update:  the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Egypt explains that the funds went to “charitable societies that care for orphans and the poor”)

The Salafi political party, Al-Noor, of course did exceptionally well in the recent Parliamentary elections with over 20% of the votes so far. It is a serious rival to the more  established Muslim Brotherhood, let alone the centre, secular and liberal parties who collectively did not do well.

USAID was discovered to be providing around $11m to various democracy movements.  The funding from other western organisations was not recorded.

Soft power is the art of influencing others to do what you would want them to do.    The Egypt case demonstrates that direct funding of democracy movements, important though it is, can be dwarfed by a more subtle level of support.  The Gulf based funding coupled with the increasing dominance of the Saudi and Wahhabi based satellite TV channels ensures the ideas and values of the Salafis are being reflected in the votes of Egyptians.

 

2012: A European clash of civilisations?

Posted on by

It’s the time of year for forecasting.  What do you expect. or hope, will happen in 2012?  The European Council for Foreign Relations puts forward  Ten Trends for 2012.    Most are reasonably predictable and safe political points (the standard positioning of the ECFR) but it leads with a very challenging point for those interested in culture in Europe: “the European Clash of Civilisations”.

Although the real cause of the crisis is the structural flaw of designing a single currency without a common treasury, Northern Europeans have tended to explain the euro’s problems as a clash between a fiscally-responsible north and an irresponsible south. Southern countries, on the other hand, feel betrayed by what they see as the limited and conditional solidarity of the north – which they see as part of the problem. They feel they have contributed to Germany’s success during the last decade by buying German exports such as cars. France, meanwhile, is caught in the middle – the equivalent of what Huntington called a ‘torn country’ (like Turkey in the conflict between the West and Islam). It wants to be part of the north – which is where power is shifting – but finds itself in danger of becoming part of the south.
The facts do not always support this cultural reading of the crisis – for example it was the rule-worshipping Germans that broke the Stability and Growth Pact, while the Spanish abided by its provisions – however, like Huntington’s original thesis, it risks becoming self-fulfilling, leading to solutions which may not make sense in economic terms – such as simultaneous austerity by all, which Keynesians argue leads to stagnation.

In the last decade there are have more conferences, papers and seminars on “what is European identity; what is European culture.”.   How effective have they been?  Did any of them come to terms with the deep culture of European citizens?  Now is the time for some serious re-thinking and actions with the whole European project under threat.

So an invitation to those interested and active in European culture: what do you see in 2012?  Has the cultural sector any role in averting a cultural divide in Europe?  Does it remain on the sidelines and content within its own audience and production?    Are there any ideas for the Year of European Citizens. Or will 2013 be too late?

Should citizens take the lead in the Year of Citizens?

Posted on by

The European Commission has proposed 2013 to be the “European Year of Citizens”.    Its aims, sorry, challenges, are to:

  • raise citizens’ awareness of their right to reside freely within the European Union and of how they can benefit from EU rights and policies;
  • stimulate citizens’ active participation in EU policy-making;
  • build debate about the impact and potential of the right to free movement, especially on strengthening cohesion and people’s mutual understanding of one another.

Now most of these “Years” seek raise awareness of  an issue.  The concept is favoured by UNESCO, Council of Europe, various UN agencies as well as the EU.   One major weakness is that very few of the promoters put any money behind them; they expect others to spend their own money to deliver the results.   I haven’t seen any serious long-term evaluation of the years but they seem to be liked by officials and politicians.

The concept of European citizenship is important and in my view a Good Thing. Indeed if we are to survive the eurocrisis over the next few years then a greater shared sense of community amongst voters is essential. We can no longer continue to live in a Europe with its own variation of the Clash of Civilisations.

So how can we be better European citizens and what can the powers that be do?  Here are five ideas:

*  EU citizens living in other EU countries should be allowed to vote in the national elections as well as local and regional. No taxations without representation worked in a country two hundred or so years ago.  Voting is not the end of the world but it indicates a degree of equality and of belonging.

*  If you have a bank account in one EU country then you should be able to able an account in another automatically. No more Catch-22s when moving within the EU.

*  Ministries of Foreign Affairs should be renamed European and Foreign Ministries (some, Austria have done this). Again to demonstrate that being European is not being foreign.

*  The next elections for the European Parliament should be contested in the name of the political groupings in the Parliament with a single EU wide manifesto  and not by domestic political parties.  Citizens should vote for the various presidents directly, of Council and Commission.

* No discrimination in various tax and social security systems between EU citizens and domestic citizens.

There will be more.. please add them

Soft Power? Can it be measured? Part One

Posted on by

This is part one of a series of articles on the topic of whether soft power, or cultural diplomacy, can be measured. The series will look at several attempts to produce an Index and then draw conclusions.   This post looks at cultural factors.

Part two , which looks at a wider soft power approach is here

 

The old cliché rings true “if it can be measured it can and will be managed”.  Since Joseph Nye coined the phrase “soft power” in 1990 there have been few attempts to measure a country’s soft power.  Nye, merged the  background of the Cold War with the USA’s assumption of being the leader in everything to formulate his core idea:   “the ability to affect others to obtain preferred outcomes by the co-optive means of framing the agenda, persuasion and positive attraction”.    Soft power became one of the new touchstones of international relations.  Since 1990 it has been joined by nation brands (and branding) and public diplomacy to add to the long-standing cultural diplomacy and cultural cooperation themes.

The West’s Soft Power was presumed to have helped win the Cold War.   But there have been few attempts to measure soft power and this is the age of measurement.  Now we have a very thought-provoking attempt from the Institute of Government (a private NGO) and Monocle magazine.  The full report (download as pdf here) gives a sound review of soft power theory and the Index used to rank countries. Using 50 indicators covering politics, culture, business,  higher education and diplomacy the Index almost predictably places the USA, UK, France, Germany in the top four places.

It is commendable effort and should prompt a serious review in Foreign Ministries, Cultural institutes and others interested in the practice of those elements which can come under the umbrella of soft power.   Naturally every reader will both agree and disagree with the Index and its components.  To start the ball rolling here are a few of my thoughts.

* Is this an Index of international engagement rather than of soft power?  The 50 items, from number of embassies and cultural institutes to UNESCO World Heritage sites, to international students at universities and tourists certainly reflect the scope and depth of a countries’ engagement.   But do these translate into a soft power paradigm according to Nye’s definition?   It has been long recognised that people can make the clear distinction between a country’s culture and lifestyle and its current political leadership and positioning.   Green card applicants to the USA from Arab countries are not affected significantly by its stance over Israel.  The report does indeed raise this problem towards the end:  China is indeed increasingly its international engagement but given its human rights record, lack of freedom (western definition)  etc does it have the power of attraction?

* The current leader in the international comparison stakes is the Anholt-GfK Roper Brands Index.  Interestingly the top ten countries in this index are almost matched with the IfG/Monocle Index:  Italy and Netherlands swapping places.   The new index looks down on perceptions in favour of objective indicators.  Result seems the same.   This reinforces my view that this new Index is still  more an engagement identifier.

* The report admits it does not fully cover transnational networks.  In my view this is a serious weakness.  In many ways the most important of these networks if we return to Nye’s definition of attracting people to your way of thinking are now religious based.  Turkey’s growing influence is indeed partly based on its expanding international foreign policy. It is based more on its actions at home: a booming mixed economy with an Islamic flavour and the enormous outreach of the Gulen Foundation.  Saudi Arabia’s influence is driven not just by its oil but by the Wahhabi foundations and organisations funding mosques,  books, pamphlets, satellite TV etc.  The immediate evidence is the surprising vote for the Salafi Al-Noor Party in Egypt.  Brazilian politics are increasingly influenced by Christian evangelical organisations who are increasing their international engagement.  The USA’s evangelical movements are in the same direction, especially in Africa.  Western originated transnationals such as Amnesty International and Greenpeace are still influential but no longer have the field to their own in setting  the “values” agenda.  It remains to be seen how effective the loose network of Occupy succeeds in influencing the world away from disastrous neo-liberal economic thinking.  The more official transnational networks.. for example the European Union need bringing into the equation.

Overall much food for thought. As the report points out soft power is exercised over the long-term.  It is not that susceptible to short-term fixes or changes and at its heart it is not based on international engagement but on a countries’ domestic policies and how they are perceived.  The trends in international cultural diplomacy have moved on from the showcasing and overt marketing of a country’s cultural, educational and language assets. There is a far higher mutual engagement with people, co-operation rather than presentation with key topics being addressed, whether conflict resolution, moving to an ecological future, social cohesion.  Relevance to the audience’s needs brings change.   I discussed these developments in a paper to be published shortly by Real Instituto Elcano in Spain.  A version is on my previous website.

 

 

 

 

More culture? Yes but whose culture?

Posted on by

Culture is one of the hardest words to define.  Everyone seems to have a different intepretation.  Sometimes it means the arts, and even there perhaps only the so-called high arts. Sometimes it means everything around us: our ways of living, our view of society, our view of other people, our politics, our religions, our sporting and celebrity culture and our attitude to authority.

So more culture in Europe by all means. The current Eurozone crisis throws up an interesting cultural sub text: attitudes to authority and specificallyaccording to some to paying ones taxes.  This in turn leads to trust in authority, to those in authority. With a political elite establishment, a closed shop, does this mean anything?

And culture closely follows and is intermingled with identity.  Does the Eurocrisis and reactions to it have anything to do with European identity and if so how have the lengthy philosophical debates in recent years been of any use?

Welcome from Steve Green

Posted on by

Steve Green is an independent commentator on culture, politics and international relations with a strong interest in Europe.  He is a member of the Selection and Monitoring Panel for the European Capitals of Culture as a nominee of the European Parliament.

See www.connectCP/stevegreen for more background on his career in international cultural co-operation and cultural relations.

Follow Steve on twitter at @stevegreen39

Continue reading →