I was just reading Schneider’s’(2004) ‘Culture Communicates: US Diplomacy that Works,’ and was reminded of a basic point, but one which must always be kept in mind.
Diplomacy that works is where a mutual dialogue occurs. There must be listening and respect, but just pushing one’s message. The second point is questioning the relationship between public diplomacy and the government.
Schneider discusses cultural diplomacy as an attempt of a nation to ‘explain itself to the world’ and she illustrates this attempt of the U.S. to explain its culture to the world through soft power. Why some programs were so successful was due to their reciprocal nature. For example, programs during the Cold War where American and Russian writers met seemed to be successful because both parties listened to each other. Most striking was how Russian counterparts were most persuaded about American culture, at least according to accounts by the American writers, who recalled that the Russians were stuck by the freedom of speech accorded to the American writers as they criticized their government. Through witnessing American writers openly speak their mind about the government, Russians understood the freedom of the US. This same realization could not have been attained, I argue, simply by the US government telling Russians about freedom of speech and how great the US is; this is pure propaganda. Instead, Russians truly saw the reality of free speech by witnessing for themselves American writers such as Arthur Miller and John Steinbeck. This can only occur through mutual exchanges where both parties listen to each other.
Today, the U.S. has a ‘utilitarian approach’ to cultural diplomacy. The current trend is that cultural diplomacy programs in the U.S. are funded and supported by the government more when they can be used to achieve a policy goal. Such short-sightedness is extremely problematic, and one can argue for the need for cultural diplomacy programs to have independence from foreign policy. Cultural diplomacy programs are there to share a country’s culture, not only government. The British Council is seen as existing at an arms’ length from the government and is there to share UK culture despite whichever party is in power in the government. With great distrust towards the U.S., U.S. sponsored public diplomacy programs may also be distrusted. Remember how the revelation of CIA support for cultural diplomacy programs led to immediate distrust of these programs.
If the U.S. could adopt a similar approach to the British Council, it may have a better chance to begin to slowly rebuild public opinion of the U.S., or at least begin to opinion that the U.S. is solely interested in its own policy agenda (which perhaps sadly it is).
The U.S. government appears to believe in cultural diplomacy the most when there is a crisis, such as the Nazi threat, the Cold War, and 9/11. However, this reflects the aforementioned view of cultural diplomacy as simply a means to achieve policy goals. Cultural diplomacy and soft power effects are not immediate, but take years to develop and are difficult to measure. It is difficult to quantify and measure the value of the arts, for example, but keep in mind a telling comment made by the president of South Africa that his USIA-sponsored visit to the U.S. was the ‘defining event’ that changed his ideas about blacks and whites living together.
The U.S needs long term cultural diplomacy programs which are to some degree independent from the government.
