Tag: diplomacy

George W. Bush’s first appointee to the Undersecretary of Public Diplomacy, Karen Hughes, has taken her first trip abroad to try and understand better the plight of women in Arab and predominently Muslim Countries.

Public diplomacy must be taken seriously by any administration to regain and/or retain the trust and respect of countries worldwide. It is based on the concept of “soft power,” as coined by former Undersecretary of State to Bill Clinton, Joseph S. Nye, Jr. It is because of “soft power” that America is known worldwide for the 3 M’s – McDonalds, Microsoft, and Michael Jordan – three entities that did more for the American purpose and image than any “hard power” – or military force – could ever do.

A report released today by the State Department’s Advisory Committe on Public Diplomacy pointed to “the erosion of our trust and credibility within the international community must be reversed if we hope to use more than our military and economic might in the shaping of world opinion,” the report said. “Culture matters.”

“[Soft power] is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies. When our policies are seen as legitimate in the eyes of others, our soft power is enhanced.”, Nye writes in his book.

Karen Hughes is not being received very well in the Middle East. This should serve as a big lesson as to why public diplomacy must be brought to the forefront of U.S. foreign policy to express global understanding, and a respect for the well-being of all.

Americans and global citizens alike view Karen Hughes mission as “propaganda.” I personally don’t think the Bush Administration requires a diplomat for the purposes of spreading propaganda – it seems to be taken care of naturally. Hughes responds: ?Some skeptics say this visit is all about public relations and image. But I don?t see it like that. Government policies really affect people?s lives.?

Hughes met with women’s rights advocates in Istanbul today, and was greeted with harsh criticism. They condemned the arrests and shoving aside of Cindy Sheehan, and proclaimed that war is responsible for the onset of poverty and the denouncing of women’s rights. Hughes reacted that nobody likes war, but the women in Iraq are much better off now, to which one human rights activist grew responded disturbedly: “In every photograph that comes from Iraq, there is that look of fear in the eyes of women and children. . . . This needs to be resolved as soon as possible.” Another women’s rights advocate proclaimed “”This war is really, really bringing your positive efforts to the level of zero.”

In Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, it was clear that it would be tough for Hughes to discern exactly what freedom means to women abroad. One woman remarked: “I don’t want to drive a car,” she said. “I worked hard for my medical degree. Why do I need a driver’s license?”

To be continued….

Christopher Hitchens lampooned Michael Janofsky’s coverage of this past weekends “protest” in of the New York Times. In an essay on Slate, Hitchens writes if readers should feel cheated by the Times’ failure to expand their report of the “wide range of progressive political objectives” of International ANSWER and United for Peace and Justice, the two most prominent sponsors of the rally. Hitchens would continue to point out – as if he’s the only one in the world who knows – several of the disturbing and controversial agendas that these organizations have been involved with.

Hitchens’ retort, like many of his musings in the past month, have an underlying tone of angst and frustration that obscure his astute insight. Instead of informing his audience, he degradingly paints them as clueless, uninformed poseurs. Shame on these people for getting out on a Saturday and indiscriminately marching to express their personal if not selfish motives. And shame on The New York Times for failing to divulge the alarming and disturbing details that would have brought a lifetime of nightmares to some readers, while others would have concluded that NYT was participating in some leftist conspiracy theory.

It is extremely to blame Janofsky for being shallow in his vague description of ANSWER et al?s political objectives. Hitchens should be thanking Janofsky for providing the grounds on which to take the Times to task. His informed disclosure of the crooked objectives of Int?l ANSWER and United for Peace in the Slate essay are chilling and appreciated. Hitchens should NEVER take for granted how lucky he is that he?ll never have to write light and fluffy filler for a daily newspaper!

Write an editorial on it instead Hitch, just don?t shit on the readers!

Truth is, while Hitchens couldn’t contain his response to the New York Times omission of these details, he was far from the first person to note the conspicuous coincidence of Answer International and United for Peace?s sponsorship of the “anti-war protest.” In fact its been long debated by numerous blogs including those of Hitchens’ peers, leftist moms, and even High-school conservatives. Instapundit chimes in and alludes to ProteinWisdom, who extends the argument question Hitchen’s basis for arguing.

Christopher Hitchens may be losing himself inside voice. Now in his mid-50s, Hitch is looking worse for the wear and has adopted a mid-day Manchester (UK) pub-fight-seeking demeanor. His series of articles in The Nation after 9/11 were brilliantly inspired, and documented the beginning of his conversion to take-no-prisoners contrarian advocacy. After all, Hitchens was the brains behind “The Minority Report” in The Nation for twenty years.

While Hitchens presents himself as the absolute antithesis of lip-flapping liberals suchGeorge Galloway andMichael Moore, ironically, it seems he’s becoming that which he despises – putting himself on a pedestal beyond even his own consciousness. Hitch far too brilliant and knowledgeable to permit his voice to crash down on the under-informed masses as indictments of naivete criticism of free thinking. Forget the red/blue dichotomy and say it straight!

Hitchens lives and breathes ?history? to the point that he seems to have displaced himself from the present. Whenever he is challenged about G.W. Bush?s inability to caputer bin-Laden, he counters that G.H.W. Bush and Clinton both could have done away with Osama bin-Laden. A more convincing answer would allow that the current administration STILL has three years to get him. If Hitchens? contrarianism banks on the War on Terror he can?t be disqualifying the war?s still infantile progression with a shrug.

The War on Terror was originally announced by President Bush following the 9/11 attacks. Terror itself has been around forever, and it is now apparent that the war against it will perpetuate long past the tenure of George W. Bush. To preserve the credibility of their pro-war message, Hitchens and his ilk should take a big shot of reality and quit defending George W. Bush as the messenger.

Keep your head, Hitch ? maybe just step back and write another book, bring on the book reviews and come back in a bit. I trust that next time you?ll leave that goon Galloway muttering contradictory sweet nothings to himself on the streets of London.