Introduction
As a working definition, ‘cultural diplomacy’ means the exchange of information, art, ideas, and other facets of culture within nations and their people in a bid to foster and strengthen mutual understanding (Cummings, 2003). Taking this into consideration, the term may come across as a simplex, rather than a two-way, interactive exchange exhibited when a single nation puts all its effort in promoting its national dialect, elucidating its policies as well as point of view to the outside world. Essentially, public diplomacy is the lynchpin of a nation’s image and representation, public diplomacy.
On the United States
The values brought to the fore by the US’s Founding Fathers, ideals held sacred in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, assume fresh life in American traditions of art, literature, jazz, film, and dance. This continuously inspires people from all corners of the globe even though there are clear political differences in the country.
From the 1930s, these ideals have given form to the fabric that gives citizens a feeling of freedom and equality. The underlying aspect of US cultural diplomacy is trust, a foundation for economic, military, and political agreements. Externally, other nations give the US benefit of the doubt when it comes to certain policies or collaboration requests as parties presume shared interests. Any relationships forged transcend changes in the sitting government (Arndt, 2006).
Localizing this scope to the United States, public diplomacy aims at meeting three key objectives:
- To foster understanding of the United State, its people, institutions, and culture; and derive overseas support for United States foreign policy;
- Advise United planners and leaders concerned with foreign policy on opinion trends and foreign attitudes towards the United States as well as its policies;
- To achieve deeper mutual understanding through encouraging the private sector (in the US) to widely involve peoples of foreign countries (Hitchcock 2009).
America and soft power
It is an open secret that anti-Americanism has grown exponentially in the recent past. Moreover, the US’s soft power, that is, its capacity to attract other nations via the legitimacy of its policies and its underlying values, is consequently in steep decline. Polls conducted by Gallup International indicated that pluralities in twenty-nine countries believe that policies drawn by Washington have had adverse effects on how they view the US ((McNeely 2006).
To reinforce this, a poll held by Eurobarometer revealed that a significantly large majority of European inhabitants believe that Washington and its policies have hindered efforts in the fight against global poverty, protection of the environment, and the maintenance of peace ((McNeely 2006).
It is these attitudes that undercut America’s soft power, thus reducing its ability to meet its goals and objectives without using payment or coercion (Nye, 2004).
Skeptics characterize popularity as ephemeral, and necessarily must not act as an aid to foreign policy. Furthermore, they believe the US has the strength to act as it pleases, whether or not it has the world’s consent. Being the globe’s sole superpower, as Donald Rumsfeld put it, the US dos does not require permanent allies; issues should define coalitions, not the other way round.
That said the dwindling attractiveness of the United States is cause for concern. In the past, the US recovered from unfavorable policies, for instance, those touching on the Vietnam War. However, that was characteristic in the Cold War, a time when other nations lived in fear of the Soviet Union.
It is a modern-day truth that the sheer size of the United States and its linkage to disruptive modernity will elicit a degree of resentment. The best way of reducing the antagonisms engendered by these realities is to formulate wise policies. The period just after the Second World War depicts this. The United States made effective use of soft power to bring other nations into a concrete system of institutions and alliances lasting more than sixty years.
A careful combination of hard power and soft power birthed a containment strategy that brought the Cold War to an end (Nye 2004). The US cannot effectively deal with the blood-curdling reality of terrorism if cooperation from other nations is overlooked.
The 9/11 attacks served as a chilling reminder that the perpetrators of such acts do not discriminate. The extent of the cooperation mentioned is a factor of the US’s attractiveness, which in turn is a function of the effectiveness of its soft power. Therefore this type of power cannot be reduced to popularity stakes; it is the vehicle by which the United States will obtain its stated outcomes.
When the popularity of this superpower makes pro-Americanism a death sentence in other nation’s domestic politics, it is highly unlikely that foreign leaders will make useful concessions. The defiance of Turkey, Mexico, and Chile in March 2003 is a testament to this. As the policies written by the US leaders lose legitimacy in the international domain, distrust grows markedly, reducing the US’s leverage as far as international affairs are concerned (Nye 2004).
Conclusion
Taking into account the inescapable reality of globalization and the heavy presence of technology, the world is essentially a global village. Nations have formed economic partnerships; partnerships based on trust and goodwill, driven by sound cultural diplomacy and to a larger extent public diplomacy. Every nation, more so the superpowers must portray an attractive image for useful alliances to develop and grow.
When President Obama gave his inauguration speech, he referred to the United States as a friend to all, reinforcing commitment to cooperation with other countries. This is an indicator of the value of soft power and the importance of well-designed public diplomacy policies. In some oratories, leading to that historic occasion, he revisited the achievements of the nation’s Founding Fathers and the identity of the United States. The way the citizens rallied behind their leader takes the argument back to cultural diplomacy and the vibrancy and diversity of the people. The fact the whole world stood back to look, listen and learn, was a manifestation of the efficaciousness of soft power.
Perhaps the question that revolves around the minds of many is what is the one unifying theme of the cultural diplomacy of the United States? For starters, cultural diplomacy, its multifaceted nature notwithstanding presents a vital, perhaps even the finest, implement for communicating those subtle elements that have ensured that the United States remains a great nation: opportunity and justice for all, individual freedom, tolerance, and diversity.
These are the very tenets that our founding fathers fought so hard to have enshrined in the constitution and bill of rights, and which every American of all walks of life identifies with. These tenets, one would these then, are the very themes that unify America.
Works cited
Arndt, R.T. The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century. Washington, DC: Potomac Books 2006, Ch. 1.
Cummings, Milton. ‘Cultural diplomacy and the United States: a Survey’, (Center for Arts and Culture: Washington D.C., 2003). Web.
Hitchcock D. I. “Making U.S. Public Diplomacy Work” Public Diplomacy Alumni Association (2009). Web.
McNeely, Darris. Pride of America’s power: How Long Will It Last? 2006. Web.
Nye, J. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs 2004, Ch. 1-3.