Can diplomacy resolve anti-Americanism?
Ghazanfar Ali Grewal
The new public diplomacy has drawn significant attention in the studies
of international relations in post 9/11 era. Edmund Gullion, former
American diplomat coined the term public diplomacy in mid 1960s. Paul
Sharp defines public diplomacy as “the process by which direct relations
with people in a country are pursued to advance the interests and extend
the values of those being represented”. It’s a long-term process which,
is based on consistency. The key function of it is to win “the hearts
and minds” of foreign publics to resolve the “image problem” of a
nation. Public diplomacy is an instrument of soft power which is an
inclusion of cross cultural activities, student exchanges, and food,
music, and tourist activities. The new public diplomacy is a two-way
engagement among the diplomats and the foreign publics. It is an
evolutionary form of traditional diplomacy, which is being used by the
state for achievement of certain foreign policy goals or national
interests.
However, the major main difference between traditional diplomacy and
public diplomacy is that the former is among the two governments where
as the latter is between the diplomats and the non officials (NGOs and
Civil Society etc) of the target nation. The aims of public diplomacy
cannot be achieved if they are believed to be inconsistent with a
country’s foreign policy or military actions. Recently, the U.S. is
suffering from “image problem” in most of the Muslim states. Therefore,
the U.S. policy makers are very much concerned how to improve the image
problem around the world, particularly in the Muslim dominating states
such as namely Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq and Indonesia etc. Analysts
view that anti-Americanism in the Muslim world can be divided into two
categories: attitudes towards American culture and society and attitudes
towards American policies. Evidence indicates that Obama administration
could not mitigate anti-Americanism in the Islamic countries. Joseph
Loconte, a senior research fellow at the King’s College in New York
City, states that “Islamic countries distrust the United States under
the leadership of President Obama about as much as they did under
President George W. Bush. Many people in Muslim-majority states believe
the United States is playing a largely negative role in the world,
according to a survey, 72 percent in Turkey say the United States is
playing a mainly negative role, 69 percent in Pakistan, 67 percent in
Egypt, 53 percent in Iraq, and 39 percent in Indonesia”. However when
President Obama was elected to lead the United States, there was a hope
in Muslim countries that the United States will change its policies and
would take concrete steps to ward off the perceptions that the U.S. war
on terror is in fact a war against Muslims. But with the passage of
time, disillusion among the Muslims has increased.
Anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is based on multi factors namely
Iraq and Afghanistan wars; “War against Terrorism” is perceived as war
against Muslim, the U.S. backing for authoritarian regimes, the U.S.
double standards on core Muslim issues like Palestine and Kashmir etc.
Last but not least, the U.S. aid for human development and democracy is
not free from foreign policy objectives and not bases on altruism. As a
result the U.S. public diplomacy approach remain unable to “win hearts
and minds” of public. Therefore, very recently Pakistani’s
disappointment with the United States’ policies has been reflected in
their opposition to the Kerry Lugar Bill. According to this Bill the
U.S. would provide $ 1.5 billion annually for the next five years. This
aid is meant for social development and to strengthen democracy in the
country. But, this aid program has conditions some of which (nuclear
related activities and involvement in military affairs etc) have been
criticized by majority of population. Most of Pakistanis consider such
conditions as interference in the domestic affairs of the country. As a
matter of fact the introduction of this bill has been a classic case of
the failure of U.S. public diplomacy in a country which has remained an
important ally of the United States for over many decades. The issues
concerning Muslim world, including Palestine and Kashmir, require
immediate U.S. attention. If the United States can take impartial stand
and help resolve these issues in a fair and just manner, the US standing
among the Muslim populations will certainly get positive boost. The US
can also enhance its image among the Muslim populations by quickly
ending its occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. As long as the US troops
are stationed in these countries and civilians are being killed by the
US troops operations, hatred against the US policies will keep fueling
Muslim hatred against the U.S. There should be consistency between the
public diplomacy and the foreign policies. Among the Muslim countries,
the double standards of the U.S. are the major cause of anti
Americanism. Muslims believe that the U.S. actions do not match with its
claims. The U.S. should involve middle class, civil society, NGOs and
other welfare organizations to improve the “image problem”. Recently,
Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State, visited Pakistan to engage
with public. It is a part of public diplomacy to improve the image
problem. She interacted with students, civil society members,
journalists and business community to develop two-way engagement as a
pillar of public diplomacy. She emphasized over long term interaction
among the two nations. Pakistani public appreciated this effort and
expected deeper relationship on equal footings between the two
countries. But, the U.S. has to do a lot to remove the main causes of
anti-Americanism.
Trust deficit is to be removed for the achievement of better outcomes,
which is not possible without outreach programs. But in turn effective
out-reach programs cannot be devised without bridging the gap between
root causes of anti-Americanism and policy measures taken by the U.S. To
conclude, it can be said that public diplomacy can be used as an
effective tool to isolate the hardliners from the main stream and the
former would be defeated easily. One major reason of the failure of U.S.
efforts so far against hardliners is that the U.S. has remained unable
to effectively employ public diplomacy techniques along with eradicating
basic factors of anti-Americanism. There is no short cut to win “the
hearts and minds” of the Islamic public, but fair resolution of all the
concerns of the Muslim world.
|
