In public discourse about Islam, “Wahhabi” is usually a synonym for intolerance, misogyny, and extremism.  Though this is sometimes true it is an over-generalization.  In this paper we contrast two very different forms of Wahhabi Islam focusing on education, religious pluralism and gender relations. The first is the Wahhabism of the Saudi state. Saudi Wahhabism couples this theological orientation with intolerance of all other forms of religion and a vision of moral order that includes severe restrictions on the role of women in public life, with gender segregation and discrimination being a central part of the Saudi Wahhabi moral vision.

The second is that of a mid-sized Wahhabi oriented pesantren (Islamic school) in Indonesia.  Though it is as firmly rooted in al-Wahab’s theological vision as any Saudi school, its brand of Wahhabism could not be more different from that practiced in Saudi Arabia. It allows for diversity in ritual practice on controversial issues, readily interacts with other Muslim and non-Muslim religious communities, and teaches that the state does not have the right to establish one religion or a single interpretation of Islam as “official.” It also is equally progressive on gender issues and does not define rigid gender segregation as a component of moral order.

We show that core Wahhabi religious teachings are as compatible with religious tolerance and gender equity as they are with religious exclusivism and misogyny.  Our larger purpose is to question conventional wisdom linking religious doctrine with specific modes of cultural, social and political practice.

Related posts:

1. Contesting New Media: Indonesia vs. the Muslim World League By Mark Woodward and Inayah Rohmaniyah* Earlier this month (December...
2. Zawahiri’s Curious Recollection of Karbala in Bin Laden Eulogy by Jeffry R. Halverson The Karbala master narrative is one...
3. Extremists Stoking Religious Violence in Indonesia by Chris Lundry Violence between Muslims and Christians broke out...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

ASDA’A Burson-Marsteller, “Arab Youth Survey 2012,” May 2, 2012.  In this fourth annual survey of young Arabs in 12 countries, 82 percent say economic concerns, “fair pay and home ownership,” are their top priority, displacing “living in a democracy” as their greatest concern.  Other findings: optimism about the future and trust in government have increased; lack of democracy and civil unrest are viewed as obstacles to progress; the UAE is seen as a model country; views of France, China, and India are more favorable; and “news consumption skyrockets” with TV viewership declining and online activity up dramatically.  A 24-page White Paper, “After the Spring,” discusses the survey’s findings and methodology.

Robin Brown, “The Four Paradigms of Public Diplomacy: Building a Framework for Comparative Government External Communications Research,” Paper delivered at the International Studies Association Conference, San Diego, April 2012.  Brown (University of Leeds) urges a comparative research agenda that looks at why public diplomacy is the way it is — an approach he distinguishes from an agenda grounded in how to make it better.  He discuses four ideal types that give rise to fruitful propositions about the purposes and nature of public diplomacy and how it should be conceptualized:  (1) public diplomacy as an extension of diplomacy; (2) public diplomacy as national projection, now viewed as nation-branding; (3) external communication for cultural relations; and (4) external communication as political warfare.  Brown discusses the utility of these paradigms for understanding organizational differences and mapping changes across time and countries.

Caitlin Byrne, “Public Diplomacy and Constructivism: A Synergistic and Enabling Relationship,” Paper delivered at the International Studies Association Annual Conference, San Diego, April 2012.  Byrne (Bond University) looks at ways in which constructivist theories of international relations can inform public diplomacy practice.  She draws on Australia’s approach to diplomacy and explores what diplomatic practice offers as “a vehicle for operationalizing constructivist approaches.”  A diplomacy practitioner turned scholar, Bryne approaches the connection between theory and practice “with an element of caution” and keen awareness of its possibilities.   

Derek Chollet and Samantha Power, eds., The Unquiet American: Richard Holbrooke in the World, (Public Affairs, 2011).  Chollet (author of The Road to the Dayton Accords: A Study of American Statecraft) and Power (founding executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard University) compile essays by Holbrooke’s colleagues, journalists, and others who had a special relationship with him.  Includes contributions by Kati Marton, Strobe Talbott, E. Benjamin Skinner, Jonathan Alter, Gordon M. Goldstein, Roger Cohen, Derek Chollet, James Traub, John Tedstrom, David Rhode, and Samantha Power.  The essays provide insights into Holbrooke’s personality, opinions, diplomatic skills and style, and events in his life and career.  For an essay-length critique of the book and an argument that “Holbrooke’s actions and philosophy were problematic,” see Ted Galen Carpenter, “The Hagiography of Mr. Holbrooke,” The National Interest, Number 119, May/June 2012, 71-80.

Eliot A. Cohen, Conquered Into Liberty, (Free Press, 2011).  Cohen (Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies) looks at how two centuries of conflict among British, French, Canadians, Americans, and Indians in the corridor between Albany and Montreal shaped a “distinctive American way of war.”  Because Americans episodically “discover” public diplomacy in wartime, there is much of interest to diplomacy scholars and practitioners.  An early French advantage over the English in woodland diplomacy and propaganda.  Lessons learned by the American colonies from British mistakes.  Canada’s “practical anthropology” skills in engaging Indian cultures.  Mastery of Indian languages by French Jesuits.  America’s use of armed conflict as an instrument of democratization.  In a public letter distributed widely to the citizens of Quebec, Congress wrote: “You have been conquered into liberty, if you act as you ought.”  Instructions to Benjamin Franklin for his diplomatic mission to Canada in 1776 contain this early “say-do” gap in American diplomacy:  “You are to establish a free press . . . and give directions for the frequent publication of such pieces as may be of service to the cause of the United Colonies.”

Edward Comor and Hamilton Bean, “America’s ‘Engagement’ Delusion: Critiquing a Public Diplomacy Consensus,” International Communication Gazette, March 28, 2012.  Comor (University of Western Ontario) and Bean (University of Colorado, Denver) challenge the central concept of engagement in the Obama administration’s diplomacy.  Their claim: engagement’s conceptual emphasis on dialogue and interaction masks intent in practice to use social media and other tools of engagement to persuade audiences to support US policies.  An “ethical public diplomacy,” they contend, should embrace genuine rather than contrived dialogue.

Creating an Independent International Strategic Communication Organization for America: Business Plan, SAGE: Strengthening America’s Global Engagement, Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, March 2012. The SAGE business plan offers a roadmap for creating a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation — a “flexible, entrepreneurial, and tech-savvy partner” that will complement government public diplomacy.  The plan draws on recommendations in reports by the Brookings Institution, the Defense Science Board, the Council on Foreign Relations and others.  It was developed by five nonpartisan working groups consisting of some 80 former government practitioners and experts from the private sector and civil society.  It was launched in Washington on March 26, 2012, at meeting hosted by Woodrow Wilson Center President Jane Harmon with a panel that included former US Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky, former State Department Director of Policy Planning Anne-Marie Slaughter, former Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs Goli Ameri, and SAGE Project Director Brad Minnick.  For a brief summary and comment, see Matt Armstrong’s Mountain Runner blog of March 27, 2012.

“InterMedia’s Ali Fisher Discusses the Changing Digital Landscape,” Intermedia, December 21, 2011.  In this brief video interview with Wilton Park Chief Executive Richard Burge, Fisher (InterMedia’s Associate Director of Digital Media) discusses advances in social media, tools that enable digital programming by non-specialists, and anticipated changes over the horizon.

John Lewis Gaddis, George F. Kennan: An American Life, (The Penguin Press, 2011).  George Kennan, widely acclaimed as one of America’s most accomplished diplomats, is not usually thought to have contributed to the rise of public diplomacy in the second half of the 20th century.  In this masterful biography, however, Gaddis (Yale University) shows there is much that public diplomacy scholars and practitioners can learn from Kennan’s career, organizational changes in the Department of State, and events with which Kennan was associated.  Examples include:
– Kennan’s views on the psychological effects of actions, particularly his view that racism at home undercut diplomacy and America’s standing abroad.
– His entrepreneurial diplomatic style and willingness to take personal and professional risks in the field and Department of State.
– His public speaking in the United States at the request of Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs William Benton.
– A strong belief in professional education as a necessary complement to training.
– His storied role in creating a grand strategy studies curriculum for soldiers and diplomats at the National War College.
– His contributions to the creation of the National Committee for Free Europe and Radio Free Europe.
– His founding role and effective use of the State Department’s policy planning office as an instrument of strategic planning.
– State’s one time insistence on education as well as training.  Kennan as a junior officer was sent to Tallinn and Berlin not only to learn Russian but for post-graduate studies — with instructions to gain “an education similar to that which an educated Russian of the pre-revolutionary era would have received.”
And much more.

Fergus Hanson, Revolution @State: The Spread of EDiplomacy, Lowy Institute for International Policy, Sydney, Australia, March 2012.  Written while on a four-month professional Fulbright research project in Washington, Hanson (Research Fellow and Director of Polling, Lowy Institute) enthusiastically contends the “US State Department has become the world’s leading user of ediplomacy.”  His study examines State’s use of Ediplomacy in eight program areas, with knowledge management, public diplomacy, and Internet freedom taking the largest share of resources and staff.  Hanson’s sweeping and problematic conclusion:  “State now operates what is effectively a global media empire, reaching a larger direct audience than the paid circulation of the ten largest US dailies and employing an army of diplomat-journalists to feed its 600-plus platforms.”  He argues that Australia’s foreign ministry has “some catching up to do.”

Craig Hayden, “Audience, Mechanism, and Objective: A Comparative Framework for Soft Power Analysis,” Paper presented to the International Studies Association conference in San Diego, April 2, 2012.  Hayden (American University and Intermap Blog) offers an alternative to categories of resources and behaviors in Joseph Nye’s analytical concept of soft power.  Hayden’s constructivist methodology seeks an understanding of soft power through a pragmatic and contingent perspective grounded in three categories: (1) audience and scope, or the subjects and objects of soft power; (2) mechanism, the ways actors connect resources to behaviors; and (3) objectives, or the range of outcomes anticipated from effective uses of soft power.  His article explores his reasoning in brief case studies of uses of soft power by the US and China.  He examines what he calls “the facilitative turn” in 21st century networked diplomacy and provides helpful references to current literature in public diplomacy scholarship.

Nat Kretchun and Jane Kim, A Quiet Opening: North Koreans in a Changing Media Environment, InterMedia, Washington, DC, May 2012.  In this report, Kretchun (Intermedia) and Kim (East-West Coalition) show “how North Koreans’ growing access to a range of media and communication technologies is undermining the state’s monopoly on what its citizens see, hear, know, and think.”  Drawing on research among refugees, travelers and defectors from North Korea, the authors conclude that despite lack of evidence that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un plans to loosen state control of media and information, the reach of uncensored media is expanding and giving many North Koreans alternative news and views.

Teresa La Porte, “The Legitimacy and Effectiveness of Non-State Actors and the Public Diplomacy Concept,” Paper delivered at the International Studies Association Conference, San Diego, April 2012. La Porte (University of Navarra) examines the rise of civil society organizations as public diplomacy actors.  She proposes an approach to public diplomacy that goes beyond dialogue and networking in state-centric terms to include actions by non-state actors.  Her paper explores what this might mean in terms of analytical concepts and boundaries.  She calls for taking analysis beyond a focus on actors as “subjects” to a focus on the “objects” of their actions.  Two such objects, the “legitimacy” of actions and “perceptions of effectiveness,” she argues, are important pre-conditions to recognizing civil society organizations as diplomatic actors.  She discusses these pre-conditions in the context of two practice scenarios and the European Union’s public diplomacy.

Marc Lynch, The Arab Uprising: The Unfinished Revolutions of the New Middle East, (Public Affairs, 2012).  Lynch (George Washington University) brings scholarship, Arabic proficiency, his standing as a leading voice in online discourse, policy advisory connections, and a deep understanding of the Arab public sphere to this account of the origins and implications of changes in the Middle East.  Hard power and wealth will continue to matter, he argues, but loosened state control, independent mobilization of activists, and unification of Arab political space are generating three challenges that will matter more: (1) the ability to credibly align with the Arab public on its core issues will become a greater source of influence; (2) unified political space will increase linkages between issues in the region; and (3) the ability to intervene in the domestic politics of others, while resisting penetration of one’s own politics, will determine whether a state is a player or an arena for the proxy wars of others.  Lynch’s pragmatism and historical insights form the basis for an assessment of America’s grand strategy and public diplomacy in the region. 

Meridian International Center and Gallup, “US Global Leadership Track,” The U.S.-Global Leadership Project, April 20, 2012. Findings in Gallup’s third annual survey of international perceptions in 130 countries show median global approval of US leadership at 46%.  Three countries “experienced double digit gains.  Many more showed double digit losses.  Africa gave US leadership the highest median approval rating, while the Americas gave it the lowest. In Europe and Asia, approval ratings held relatively steady.”

Metzgar, Emily T., “Public Diplomacy, Smith-Mundt and the American Public,” Communication Law and Policy, 17:1, 67-101.  Available online: January 9, 2012.  Metzgar (Indiana University) explores political, legal, policy, conceptual, and practitioner issues relating to the US statutory ban on domestic dissemination in the Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 as amended (aka, the Smith-Mundt Act).  Her article, framed in the context of US international broadcasting, looks at consequences of continuing or ending the ban and potential policy advantages that might result from its repeal.  Includes numerous references to current and historical literature.

Joseph S. Nye, “Soft Power — Culture and Society,” Keynote address at the launch of Macquarie University’s Soft Power and Advocacy Research Center (SPARC), Sydney, Australia, April 17, 2012. Nye (Harvard University) discusses concepts of soft power in the context of the “rise of China,” US relations with China, and evolving relations between China, India, and Australia.  His address (with Q&A) is available as a 90-minute ABC “Big Ideas” video and audio webcast.  Macquarie’s SPARC Center seeks to advance the study and practice of soft power and public diplomacy through research, education and training, post-graduate courses in public diplomacy, and other initiatives.

Office of Inspector General, US Department of State, “Inspection of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs,” Report No. ISP-I-12-15, February 2012.  In a 68-page report (some sections redacted), State’s Inspector General concludes that the Department’s exchange programs “enhance mutual understanding” and “are increasingly aligned with foreign policy priorities.”  Their effectiveness is undermined, however, by “long-standing institutional weaknesses.”  Key judgments include employee resistance to changes “fundamental to operating efficiently,” needed senior management restructuring, “unfettered growth and weak regulation” of the Summer Work Travel program, inadequate strategic planning, and deficiencies in program monitoring and evaluation.

PBS NewsHour, “China’s Programming for U.S. Audiences: Is it News or Propaganda?” March 23, 2012. The NewsHour’s Ray Suarez reports on CCTV’s news programs for American audiences recently launched from a state-of-the-art broadcast studio in Washington, DC.  Includes views of CCTV America’s director Ma Jing and news anchor Philip Yin and analysts Susan Shirk (University of California) and Philip Cunningham (Cornell University).

Shawn M. Powers and William Youmans, “A New Purpose for International Broadcasting: Subsidizing Deliberative Technologies in Non-transitioning States,” Journal of Public Deliberation, Vol. 8, Issue 1, 2012, 1-14.  Powers (Georgia State University) and Youmans (George Washington University) argue “a scaled down standard of deliberation is appropriate” in failed or failing states that lack advanced communication infrastructures, high literacy rates, and other elements of highly developed public spheres.  Their paper examines the potential for international broadcasting strategies that seek to complement traditional roles by finding new purpose in “the development and promotion of deliberation technologies.”

Gary Rawnsley, “Approaches to Soft Power and Public Diplomacy in China and Taiwan,” Paper delivered at the International Studies Association Conference, San Diego, April 2012.  Rawnsley (University of Leeds and Public Diplomacy and International Communications Blog) analyzes Taiwanese and Chinese views of soft power, their adaptation of the Anglo-American model of soft power, and their contrasting public diplomacy strategies and practices.  He argues each faces different challenges that undermine their soft power capacity: Taiwan’s need to acknowledge limitations of its cultural approach to soft power and China’s struggle to bridge gaps between its outputs and how audiences perceive their credibility.

Philip Seib, Real-Time Diplomacy: Politics and Power in The Social Media Era, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).  Seib (University of California) uses the Arab Awakening of 2011 as context for analyzing two questions.  How have the speed and reach of information flows changed theories and practices of diplomacy?  And how are social media affecting political structures and activism?  His book provides an overview of political and media revolutions in the Middle East, comparisons of traditional and “rapid-reaction” diplomacy, a discussion of expeditionary diplomacy and public diplomacy, and analysis of debates on how social media tools are changing networks and creating ripple effects beyond the Arab world and beyond politics.

Science & Diplomacy,Center for Science Diplomacy, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). In this new online quarterly journal, the AAAS provides “a forum for rigorous thought, analysis, and insight to serve stakeholders who develop, implement, and teach all aspects of science and diplomacy.”  Articles in the first edition include: “Science and Diplomacy: The Past is Prologue,” “Science Diplomacy and 21st Century Statecraft,” “Nunn-Lugar: Science Cooperation Essential for Non-proliferation,” “South African Science Diplomacy,” and “Rediscovering Eastern Europe for Science Diplomacy.”  The editors (Vaughan Turekian, Tom C. Wang, and Caitlin Jennings) welcome submissions from scholars and practitioners.  (Courtesy of Alan Kotok)

James Stavridis and Evelyn N. Farkas, “The 21st Century Force Multiplier: Public-Private Collaboration,” The Washington Quarterly, Spring 2012, 7-20.  Admiral Stavridis (Supreme Allied Commander Europe, NATO, and Commander, US European Command, EUCOM) and Farkas (Senior Advisor for Public-Private Partnership) discuss growing US collaboration with private sector and civil society organizations to leverage their expertise and skills to mutual advantage in defense, diplomacy, and development.  The authors view this “whole of society” approach as a step beyond an interagency “whole of government” approach.  The biggest obstacle to such collaboration: “the mindset, mainly on the government side.”  The biggest gain: enhancing US innovation, efficiencies, and effectiveness.

Strategic Public Diplomacy, Proceedings of the CEI Dubrovnik Diplomatic Forum, May 20-22, 2010, sponsored by the Diplomatic Academy, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, Republic of Croatia in cooperation with the US Embassy in Zagreb.  In these conference proceedings, recently published online, diplomats from US and European countries explore issues and challenges in the study and practice of public diplomacy.  Topics include public diplomacy in support of EU membership, nation branding, the role of cultural diplomacy, the Internet and social networks, and international foundations.  The purpose of the Dubrovnik Diplomatic Forum is to encourage international debate from practical and academic points of view and to promote understanding of concepts, methods, skills and techniques of diplomacy and diplomatic training.  (Courtesy of Mladen Andrlic and Tihana Bohac)

Gaye Tuchman, “Measured and Pressured: Professors at Wannabe U,” The Hedgehog Review, Spring 2012, 17-29.  In one of several essays on “the corporate professor” in this edition of the Review, Tuchman (University of Connecticut) explores ways in which professors “have bought into or been shaped by the corporate culture of the university and seem strangely inarticulate about the purposes and worth of higher education.”  She finds professors anxiously pursuing the metrics of productivity and impact often with more enthusiasm than administrators.  Frank Donoghue (Ohio State University) in “Do College Teachers have to be Scholars?” (pp. 29-41) focuses on the motives of adjunct and tenured faculty and the consequences of the surge in adjunct hires for learning, scholarship, and society.  Ethan Schrum (Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture) provides “A Bibliographic Essay on the University, the Market, and Professors” (pp. 43-51).

“U.S. International Broadcasting: Impact Through Innovation and Integration,” Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), 2011 Annual Report, Released April 16, 2012.  The BBG’s report summarizes activities of US funded broadcasting services: Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio and TV Marti, Radio Free Asia, the Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa, and the International Broadcasting Bureau. 

Guido Westerwelle, “Explaining Europe – Discussing Europe,” Federal Foreign Office, Federal Republic of Germany, February 29, 2012.  Germany’s Foreign Minister outlines “a new concept on communicating Europe” in a paper presented to the Federal Cabinet.  He argues it is time to look beyond Europe’s debt crisis to the future of “Europe as a political project,” because “there can be no bright future for Germany without a united Europe.  The paper discusses three communication themes: building confidence among European neighbors, promoting Europe in the world, and campaigning for Europe in Germany.  (Courtesy of Anna Tepper)

R. S. Zaharna, The Cultural Awakening in Public Diplomacy, CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, Paper 4, 2012, April 2012.  Zaharna (American University) looks at culture as an under-examined force relevant to every aspect of communication between nations and publics — and to every aspect of public diplomacy “from policy, to practice, to scholarship.”  In part one of her paper, she discusses the importance of culture as a fundamental dimension of public diplomacy that nevertheless “gets lost in political, economic, and bureaucratic factors.”  In part two, she explores ways to “develop cultural awareness and knowledge [of others and self] and learning how to recognize culture’s eloquent signs in communication, perception, cognition, values, identity and power.”  Her study does not focus on culture as a tool of public diplomacy.  It is about awareness of the intersection of culture and public diplomacy and implications for study and practice.

Ethan Zuckerman, “A Small World After All?” The Wilson Quarterly, Spring 2012, 44-47. Zuckerman (Center for Civic Media, MIT) sees a central paradox in an age of connection:  “while it’s easier than ever to share information and perspectives from different parts of the world, we may be encountering a narrower picture of the world than we did in less connected days.”  Studies of social media find a locality effect in which users are more likely to connect with those in close physical proximity.  “The Internet has changed many things,” he argues, “but not the insular habits of mind that keep the world from becoming truly connected.”

Robert Albro, “Aspiring to an Interest-free Cultural Diplomacy?” April 26, 2012.  “Cultural Engagement as Glocal Diplomacy,” May 12, 2012.  Posted on the CPD Blog and Public Policy Anthropologist Blog.

Craig Hayden, “Terministic Compulsion” [on definitions and terms in public diplomacy], April 13, 2012. “Some Lessons from ISA 2012,” April 10, 2012.  Intermap Blog.

Matt Armstrong, “Public Diplomacy Achievement Awards 2012,” May 8, 2012.  See also Public Diplomacy Alumni Association website. “Science and Technology for Communication and Persuasion Abroad: Gap Analysis and Survey,” May 1, 2012.  MountainRunner Blog

P.J. Crowley, “Actions in Beijing Speak Volumes,” May 7, 2012.

Mary Jeffers, “Everybody’s Talking About World Press Freedom Day,” May 3, 2012.

William Lafi Youmans, “The Transitive Problem,” April 25, 2012.

Take Five, The IPDGC Blog on Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.

George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” (December 11, 1945) pp. 954-967 in John Carey, ed., George Orwell: Essays, (Alfred A. Knopf, 2002). Orwell’s classic essay continues to serve as a superb guide to good writing for students and scholars.  His insights on problematic political uses of “meaningless words” such as “freedom” and “democracy” — words for which there is “no agreed definition” and each user “has his own private definition” — also continue to prompt reflection.  What is the point of using such words, he asks, other than as perhaps some kind of general praise or framing of a positive good?  Such words whose multiple meanings cannot be reconciled, Orwell argues, allow countries and individuals to use them for purposes that lack meaning and mask differences in application and intent.  Orwell’s views come to mind at a time when US broadcasters (and other public diplomacy practitioners) proclaim the following mission statement: “To inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.”

____________________________________

*Bruce Gregory is an Adjunct Professor at George Washington University and Georgetown University, and publishes this list periodically via mailing list.  We reprint it here as a service to our readers.  Bruce can be reached by email via bgregory at gwu dot edu

ASDA’A Burson-Marsteller, “Arab Youth Survey 2012,” May 2, 2012.  In this fourth annual survey of young Arabs in 12 countries, 82 percent say economic concerns, “fair pay and home ownership,” are their top priority, displacing “living in a democracy” as their greatest concern.  Other findings: optimism about the future and trust in government have increased; lack of democracy and civil unrest are viewed as obstacles to progress; the UAE is seen as a model country; views of France, China, and India are more favorable; and “news consumption skyrockets” with TV viewership declining and online activity up dramatically.  A 24-page White Paper, “After the Spring,” discusses the survey’s findings and methodology.

Robin Brown, “The Four Paradigms of Public Diplomacy: Building a Framework for Comparative Government External Communications Research,” Paper delivered at the International Studies Association Conference, San Diego, April 2012.  Brown (University of Leeds) urges a comparative research agenda that looks at why public diplomacy is the way it is — an approach he distinguishes from an agenda grounded in how to make it better.  He discuses four ideal types that give rise to fruitful propositions about the purposes and nature of public diplomacy and how it should be conceptualized:  (1) public diplomacy as an extension of diplomacy; (2) public diplomacy as national projection, now viewed as nation-branding; (3) external communication for cultural relations; and (4) external communication as political warfare.  Brown discusses the utility of these paradigms for understanding organizational differences and mapping changes across time and countries.

Caitlin Byrne, “Public Diplomacy and Constructivism: A Synergistic and Enabling Relationship,” Paper delivered at the International Studies Association Annual Conference, San Diego, April 2012.  Byrne (Bond University) looks at ways in which constructivist theories of international relations can inform public diplomacy practice.  She draws on Australia’s approach to diplomacy and explores what diplomatic practice offers as “a vehicle for operationalizing constructivist approaches.”  A diplomacy practitioner turned scholar, Bryne approaches the connection between theory and practice “with an element of caution” and keen awareness of its possibilities.   

Derek Chollet and Samantha Power, eds., The Unquiet American: Richard Holbrooke in the World,(Public Affairs, 2011).  Chollet (author of The Road to the Dayton Accords: A Study of American Statecraft) and Power (founding executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard University) compile essays by Holbrooke’s colleagues, journalists, and others who had a special relationship with him.  Includes contributions by Kati Marton, Strobe Talbott, E. Benjamin Skinner, Jonathan Alter, Gordon M. Goldstein, Roger Cohen, Derek Chollet, James Traub, John Tedstrom, David Rhode, and Samantha Power.  The essays provide insights into Holbrooke’s personality, opinions, diplomatic skills and style, and events in his life and career.  For an essay-length critique of the book and an argument that “Holbrooke’s actions and philosophy were problematic,” see Ted Galen Carpenter, “The Hagiography of Mr. Holbrooke,” The National Interest, Number 119, May/June 2012, 71-80.

Eliot A. Cohen, Conquered Into Liberty, (Free Press, 2011).  Cohen (Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies) looks at how two centuries of conflict among British, French, Canadians, Americans, and Indians in the corridor between Albany and Montreal shaped a “distinctive American way of war.”  Because Americans episodically “discover” public diplomacy in wartime, there is much of interest to diplomacy scholars and practitioners.  An early French advantage over the English in woodland diplomacy and propaganda.  Lessons learned by the American colonies from British mistakes.  Canada’s “practical anthropology” skills in engaging Indian cultures.  Mastery of Indian languages by French Jesuits.  America’s use of armed conflict as an instrument of democratization.  In a public letter distributed widely to the citizens of Quebec, Congress wrote: “You have been conquered into liberty, if you act as you ought.”  Instructions to Benjamin Franklin for his diplomatic mission to Canada in 1776 contain this early “say-do” gap in American diplomacy:  “You are to establish a free press . . . and give directions for the frequent publication of such pieces as may be of service to the cause of the United Colonies.”

Edward Comor and Hamilton Bean, “America’s ‘Engagement’ Delusion: Critiquing a Public Diplomacy Consensus,” International Communication Gazette, March 28, 2012.  Comor (University of Western Ontario) and Bean (University of Colorado, Denver) challenge the central concept of engagement in the Obama administration’s diplomacy.  Their claim: engagement’s conceptual emphasis on dialogue and interaction masks intent in practice to use social media and other tools of engagement to persuade audiences to support US policies.  An “ethical public diplomacy,” they contend, should embrace genuine rather than contrived dialogue.

Creating an Independent International Strategic Communication Organization for America: Business Plan, SAGE: Strengthening America’s Global Engagement, Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, March 2012. The SAGE business plan offers a roadmap for creating a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation — a “flexible, entrepreneurial, and tech-savvy partner” that will complement government public diplomacy.  The plan draws on recommendations in reports by the Brookings Institution, the Defense Science Board, the Council on Foreign Relations and others.  It was developed by five nonpartisan working groups consisting of some 80 former government practitioners and experts from the private sector and civil society.  It was launched in Washington on March 26, 2012, at meeting hosted by Woodrow Wilson Center President Jane Harmon with a panel that included former US Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky, former State Department Director of Policy Planning Anne-Marie Slaughter, former Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs Goli Ameri, and SAGE Project Director Brad Minnick.  For a brief summary and comment, see Matt Armstrong’s Mountain Runner blog of March 27, 2012.

“InterMedia’s Ali Fisher Discusses the Changing Digital Landscape,” Intermedia, December 21, 2011.  In this brief video interview with Wilton Park Chief Executive Richard Burge, Fisher (InterMedia’s Associate Director of Digital Media) discusses advances in social media, tools that enable digital programming by non-specialists, and anticipated changes over the horizon.

John Lewis Gaddis, George F. Kennan: An American Life,(The Penguin Press, 2011).  George Kennan, widely acclaimed as one of America’s most accomplished diplomats, is not usually thought to have contributed to the rise of public diplomacy in the second half of the 20th century.  In this masterful biography, however, Gaddis (Yale University) shows there is much that public diplomacy scholars and practitioners can learn from Kennan’s career, organizational changes in the Department of State, and events with which Kennan was associated.  Examples include:
– Kennan’s views on the psychological effects of actions, particularly his view that racism at home undercut diplomacy and America’s standing abroad.
– His entrepreneurial diplomatic style and willingness to take personal and professional risks in the field and Department of State.
– His public speaking in the United States at the request of Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs William Benton.
– A strong belief in professional education as a necessary complement to training.
– His storied role in creating a grand strategy studies curriculum for soldiers and diplomats at the National War College.
– His contributions to the creation of the National Committee for Free Europe and Radio Free Europe.
– His founding role and effective use of the State Department’s policy planning office as an instrument of strategic planning.
– State’s one time insistence on education as well as training.  Kennan as a junior officer was sent to Tallinn and Berlin not only to learn Russian but for post-graduate studies — with instructions to gain “an education similar to that which an educated Russian of the pre-revolutionary era would have received.”
And much more.

Fergus Hanson, Revolution @State: The Spread of EDiplomacy, Lowy Institute for International Policy, Sydney, Australia, March 2012.  Written while on a four-month professional Fulbright research project in Washington, Hanson (Research Fellow and Director of Polling, Lowy Institute) enthusiastically contends the “US State Department has become the world’s leading user of ediplomacy.”  His study examines State’s use of Ediplomacy in eight program areas, with knowledge management, public diplomacy, and Internet freedom taking the largest share of resources and staff.  Hanson’s sweeping and problematic conclusion:  “State now operates what is effectively a global media empire, reaching a larger direct audience than the paid circulation of the ten largest US dailies and employing an army of diplomat-journalists to feed its 600-plus platforms.”  He argues that Australia’s foreign ministry has “some catching up to do.”

Craig Hayden, “Audience, Mechanism, and Objective: A Comparative Framework for Soft Power Analysis,” Paper presented to the International Studies Association conference in San Diego, April 2, 2012.  Hayden (American University and Intermap Blog) offers an alternative to categories of resources and behaviors in Joseph Nye’s analytical concept of soft power.  Hayden’s constructivist methodology seeks an understanding of soft power through a pragmatic and contingent perspective grounded in three categories: (1) audience and scope, or the subjects and objects of soft power; (2) mechanism, the ways actors connect resources to behaviors; and (3) objectives, or the range of outcomes anticipated from effective uses of soft power.  His article explores his reasoning in brief case studies of uses of soft power by the US and China.  He examines what he calls “the facilitative turn” in 21st century networked diplomacy and provides helpful references to current literature in public diplomacy scholarship.

Nat Kretchun and Jane Kim, A Quiet Opening: North Koreans in a Changing Media Environment, InterMedia, Washington, DC, May 2012.  In this report, Kretchun (Intermedia) and Kim (East-West Coalition) show “how North Koreans’ growing access to a range of media and communication technologies is undermining the state’s monopoly on what its citizens see, hear, know, and think.”  Drawing on research among refugees, travelers and defectors from North Korea, the authors conclude that despite lack of evidence that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un plans to loosen state control of media and information, the reach of uncensored media is expanding and giving many North Koreans alternative news and views.

Teresa La Porte, “The Legitimacy and Effectiveness of Non-State Actors and the Public Diplomacy Concept,” Paper delivered at the International Studies Association Conference, San Diego, April 2012. La Porte (University of Navarra) examines the rise of civil society organizations as public diplomacy actors.  She proposes an approach to public diplomacy that goes beyond dialogue and networking in state-centric terms to include actions by non-state actors.  Her paper explores what this might mean in terms of analytical concepts and boundaries.  She calls for taking analysis beyond a focus on actors as “subjects” to a focus on the “objects” of their actions.  Two such objects, the “legitimacy” of actions and “perceptions of effectiveness,” she argues, are important pre-conditions to recognizing civil society organizations as diplomatic actors.  She discusses these pre-conditions in the context of two practice scenarios and the European Union’s public diplomacy.

Marc Lynch, The Arab Uprising: The Unfinished Revolutions of the New Middle East, (Public Affairs, 2012).  Lynch (George Washington University) brings scholarship, Arabic proficiency, his standing as a leading voice in online discourse, policy advisory connections, and a deep understanding of the Arab public sphere to this account of the origins and implications of changes in the Middle East.  Hard power and wealth will continue to matter, he argues, but loosened state control, independent mobilization of activists, and unification of Arab political space are generating three challenges that will matter more: (1) the ability to credibly align with the Arab public on its core issues will become a greater source of influence; (2) unified political space will increase linkages between issues in the region; and (3) the ability to intervene in the domestic politics of others, while resisting penetration of one’s own politics, will determine whether a state is a player or an arena for the proxy wars of others.  Lynch’s pragmatism and historical insights form the basis for an assessment of America’s grand strategy and public diplomacy in the region. 

Meridian International Center and Gallup, “US Global Leadership Track,” The U.S.-Global Leadership Project, April 20, 2012. Findings in Gallup’s third annual survey of international perceptions in 130 countries show median global approval of US leadership at 46%.  Three countries “experienced double digit gains.  Many more showed double digit losses.  Africa gave US leadership the highest median approval rating, while the Americas gave it the lowest. In Europe and Asia, approval ratings held relatively steady.”

Metzgar, Emily T., “Public Diplomacy, Smith-Mundt and the American Public,” Communication Law and Policy, 17:1, 67-101.  Available online: January 9, 2012.  Metzgar (Indiana University) explores political, legal, policy, conceptual, and practitioner issues relating to the US statutory ban on domestic dissemination in the Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 as amended (aka, the Smith-Mundt Act).  Her article, framed in the context of US international broadcasting, looks at consequences of continuing or ending the ban and potential policy advantages that might result from its repeal.  Includes numerous references to current and historical literature.

Joseph S. Nye, “Soft Power — Culture and Society,” Keynote address at the launch of Macquarie University’s Soft Power and Advocacy Research Center (SPARC), Sydney, Australia, April 17, 2012. Nye (Harvard University) discusses concepts of soft power in the context of the “rise of China,” US relations with China, and evolving relations between China, India, and Australia.  His address (with Q&A) is available as a 90-minute ABC “Big Ideas” video and audio webcast.  Macquarie’s SPARC Center seeks to advance the study and practice of soft power and public diplomacy through research, education and training, post-graduate courses in public diplomacy, and other initiatives.

Office of Inspector General, US Department of State, “Inspection of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs,” Report No. ISP-I-12-15, February 2012.  In a 68-page report (some sections redacted), State’s Inspector General concludes that the Department’s exchange programs “enhance mutual understanding” and “are increasingly aligned with foreign policy priorities.”  Their effectiveness is undermined, however, by “long-standing institutional weaknesses.”  Key judgments include employee resistance to changes “fundamental to operating efficiently,” needed senior management restructuring, “unfettered growth and weak regulation” of the Summer Work Travel program, inadequate strategic planning, and deficiencies in program monitoring and evaluation.

PBS NewsHour, “China’s Programming for U.S. Audiences: Is it News or Propaganda?” March 23, 2012. The NewsHour’s Ray Suarez reports on CCTV’s news programs for American audiences recently launched from a state-of-the-art broadcast studio in Washington, DC.  Includes views of CCTV America’s director Ma Jing and news anchor Philip Yin and analysts Susan Shirk (University of California) and Philip Cunningham (Cornell University).

Shawn M. Powers and William Youmans, “A New Purpose for International Broadcasting: Subsidizing Deliberative Technologies in Non-transitioning States,” Journal of Public Deliberation, Vol. 8, Issue 1, 2012, 1-14.  Powers (Georgia State University) and Youmans (George Washington University) argue “a scaled down standard of deliberation is appropriate” in failed or failing states that lack advanced communication infrastructures, high literacy rates, and other elements of highly developed public spheres.  Their paper examines the potential for international broadcasting strategies that seek to complement traditional roles by finding new purpose in “the development and promotion of deliberation technologies.”

Gary Rawnsley, “Approaches to Soft Power and Public Diplomacy in China and Taiwan,” Paper delivered at the International Studies Association Conference, San Diego, April 2012.  Rawnsley (University of Leeds and Public Diplomacy and International Communications Blog) analyzes Taiwanese and Chinese views of soft power, their adaptation of the Anglo-American model of soft power, and their contrasting public diplomacy strategies and practices.  He argues each faces different challenges that undermine their soft power capacity: Taiwan’s need to acknowledge limitations of its cultural approach to soft power and China’s struggle to bridge gaps between its outputs and how audiences perceive their credibility.

Philip Seib, Real-Time Diplomacy: Politics and Power in The Social Media Era, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).  Seib (University of California) uses the Arab Awakening of 2011 as context for analyzing two questions.  How have the speed and reach of information flows changed theories and practices of diplomacy?  And how are social media affecting political structures and activism?  His book provides an overview of political and media revolutions in the Middle East, comparisons of traditional and “rapid-reaction” diplomacy, a discussion of expeditionary diplomacy and public diplomacy, and analysis of debates on how social media tools are changing networks and creating ripple effects beyond the Arab world and beyond politics.

Science & Diplomacy,Center for Science Diplomacy, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). In this new online quarterly journal, the AAAS provides “a forum for rigorous thought, analysis, and insight to serve stakeholders who develop, implement, and teach all aspects of science and diplomacy.”  Articles in the first edition include: “Science and Diplomacy: The Past is Prologue,” “Science Diplomacy and 21st Century Statecraft,” “Nunn-Lugar: Science Cooperation Essential for Non-proliferation,” “South African Science Diplomacy,” and “Rediscovering Eastern Europe for Science Diplomacy.”  The editors (Vaughan Turekian, Tom C. Wang, and Caitlin Jennings) welcome submissions from scholars and practitioners.  (Courtesy of Alan Kotok)

James Stavridis and Evelyn N. Farkas, “The 21st Century Force Multiplier: Public-Private Collaboration,” The Washington Quarterly, Spring 2012, 7-20.  Admiral Stavridis (Supreme Allied Commander Europe, NATO, and Commander, US European Command, EUCOM) and Farkas (Senior Advisor for Public-Private Partnership) discuss growing US collaboration with private sector and civil society organizations to leverage their expertise and skills to mutual advantage in defense, diplomacy, and development.  The authors view this “whole of society” approach as a step beyond an interagency “whole of government” approach.  The biggest obstacle to such collaboration: “the mindset, mainly on the government side.”  The biggest gain: enhancing US innovation, efficiencies, and effectiveness.

Strategic Public Diplomacy, Proceedings of the CEI Dubrovnik Diplomatic Forum, May 20-22, 2010, sponsored by the Diplomatic Academy, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, Republic of Croatia in cooperation with the US Embassy in Zagreb.  In these conference proceedings, recently published online, diplomats from US and European countries explore issues and challenges in the study and practice of public diplomacy.  Topics include public diplomacy in support of EU membership, nation branding, the role of cultural diplomacy, the Internet and social networks, and international foundations.  The purpose of the Dubrovnik Diplomatic Forum is to encourage international debate from practical and academic points of view and to promote understanding of concepts, methods, skills and techniques of diplomacy and diplomatic training.  (Courtesy of Mladen Andrlic and Tihana Bohac)

Related posts:

1. Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #60 by Bruce Gregory* Morton Abramowitz and Mark Lowenthal, “Restocking the...
2. Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #59 by Bruce Gregory Asia Foundation, Afghanistan in 2011: A Survey...
3. Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #58 by Bruce Gregory* Manan Ahmed, Where the Wild Frontiers Are:...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) has released a short monograph, De-Legitimizing al-Qaeda: A Jihad-Realist Approach, by sociologist Paul Kamolnick, a professor at Eastern Tennessee State University. Kamolnick criticizes current US efforts to counter al-Qaeda’s messaging and recruitment strategies as ineffective, and proposes an alternative two-fold solution to marginalize and defeat al-Qaeda. However, Kamolnick’s proposed strategy is problematic for several reasons.

In the first component of his proposed strategy, Kamolnick suggests that since Islam (specifically Sunni Islam) is a religion of orthopraxy and law, American policy makers and strategists should determine how Islamic jurispru­dence, specifically discourses on jihad, “may be leveraged for, and not against, vital U.S. national security interests.” It is unclear what exactly this “leveraging” entails. But he does warn that the US government must do so in secret (deferring “open association” until a later time) so as not to taint the legitimacy of potentially helpful sharia scholars and their formulations.

These formulations should ideally come from “credentialed actors of immense statue and learning.” And these jurists would reaffirm how Islam and the sacred texts prohibit things such as killing non-combatants indiscriminately. He is particularly interested in what he calls “jihadi-realist” scholars, meaning militant Islamists (such as Sayyid Imam, aka Dr. Fadl) who have rejected terrorism as a strategy to bring about change. By “leveraging” this sort of work (how remains unclear) for “vital U.S. national security interests” the US can create a narrative (my wording, not his) that portrays the US as a country “on the side of the lawful and just” against those who violate sharia (i.e., al-Qaeda).

The truth is that there is no shortage of Muslim scholars, jurists, preachers, activists, and so on, who have condemned terrorism and al-Qaeda’s violent strategies – despite the bizarre yet common refrain in America that no one in the Muslim community has done so. The traditional rules of warfare in Islam, such as prohibitions against killing civilians or women and children, are also already commonly known among Muslims. Therefore, I’m not sure how having the US secretly “leverage” these condemnations will harm al-Qaeda. When it comes to fatwas (Islamic juridical rulings) it only takes one to justify a practice or behavior. And there have been plenty of bizarre and isolated fatwas out there justifying abhorrent behavior.

It must also be said that while sharia is important to Sunni Muslims, especially Salafi and other über devout people, Kalmonick’s emphasis on the resounding mass influence of sharia on the decisions people make, especially the youth, seems exaggerated. At the end of the day, someone bent on committing an act of violence won’t stop because someone gave a ruling that it was a sinful or bad idea. Aspiring perpetrators will either find a ruling to support them, make their own ruling, or dispense with a juridical ruling altogether and act anyway. They could even invoke a dream where the Prophet Muhammad told them to act – which is not as far fetched as it sounds.

Another issue on the topic of sharia and fatwas is that even seemingly clear-cut issues can be stretched, twisted, and overturned by using a range of well-established juridical principles. That’s why most everyone knows that killing civilians is forbidden, but al-Qaeda still manages to win some people over. For example, it is a well-established belief in Islam that suicide is forbidden. Suicide is a grave sin.

There are numerous hadiths that describe the truly horrific punishments that someone will receive in Hell if they commit suicide. We can also find countless rulings by Muslim jurists that prohibit suicide. These positions are well-known. So why do we have some Muslims committing suicide by strapping bombs to their bodies or crashing airliners into buildings for al-Qaeda? It could suggest that religio-legal justifications aren’t that important when it comes to people seeking vengeance or justice for outstanding sociopolitical grievances.

But more to the point, extremists also utilize concepts like niyya (intention), darura (necessity), and reciprocity, among others, to neutralize these prohibitions against suicide or whatever else goes against their preferred strategy or plan of action. For example, al-Qaeda might claim that a terrorist who blew himself up at a military outpost in Iraq did not commit suicide because his intention was to attack and inflict harm on the enemy. After all, the Prophet once said: “All actions are judged by intentions.”

For al-Qaeda, it only counts as suicide if the person was lost in despair and their intention was to end their life. That was not the intention though, it is argued, and thus the prohibition is nullified. Instead, the terrorist is a celebrated battlefield martyr. The core of the matter is that sharia is always the product of interpretive agents; meaning people devise the divine rules according to their own subjective human interests and goals. So I wouldn’t invest too much in the restrictive powers of Islamic law as a counter-terrorism strategy.

The second part of Kalmonick’s strategy is a radical shift in US foreign policy and military policy in order to fundamentally alter perceptions of US intentions in the Muslim world. No specifics are given. “No amount of spin or messaging matters,” he writes, “when daily life and its common-sense interpretation contradict official pretensions and pronouncements.” I can agree with this statement, but then again he doesn’t provide any specifics. And let’s get real. Given the various special-interest groups and ideological trends currently entrenched in the US political system, this part of Kamolnick’s strategy is probably even less plausible than his problematic covert sharia ideas.

Major changes in US foreign and military policies might help alleviate some of the serious grievances among Muslims that al-Qaeda invokes in its messaging against the US. And I think most scholars would agree with that. But Kamolnick does not specifically discuss what changes should be made – maybe a compelling US push to establish a two-state solution along the 1967 borders to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Nor does Kamolnick address how the memories of past events still influence the present. For example, ending the Crusades centuries ago hasn’t stopped it from being invoked (as a narrative system) at every opportunity.

Regardless, it is extremely unlikely that the US government will ever make major changes to address Muslim grievances, such as the annexation of East Jerusalem or Russian control of Chechnya. More importantly though, the intention or meaning behind any changes to US foreign policy are still entirely subject to interpretation, despite US intentions or what Kamolnick calls “common-sense interpretation.” Those interpretations, typically conveyed as narratives, can vary widely among different audiences.

For example, if the US withdraws from a country (e.g. Iraq) under the pretense that the mission was accomplished and it has no interest in occupying the country, al-Qaeda disseminates a narrative that the US withdrawal was a “retreat” and a victory for the mujahideen over the “Crusaders.” This is the business of narrative, and human beings, regardless of religion, love and live by their stories. And do not think for a second that “leveraging” condemnations of al-Qaeda by some credentialed Muslim jurists or “jihadi-realists” won’t fall victim to al-Qaeda’s narratives either. Sayyid Imam, aka Dr. Fadl, was dismissed by Zawahiri and other extremists as a sell-out and someone who gave into torture in prison. Extremists discredit and condemn Muslim scholars and jurists who oppose them as hypocrites, apostates, heretics, Zionist agents, even as the “magicians of the Pharaoh,” every day. And this sort of rhetoric existed long before al-Qaeda ever took shape in Afghanistan.

In the final evaluation, I did not find anything that is particularly new or plausible in Professor Kamolnick’s approach to dealing with al-Qaeda’s messaging and recruitment strategies. In fact, I fear that his dismissal of the importance of narrative and counter-narrative strategies would set the US back in this ongoing struggle and make his own strategy suggestions all the more untenable.

Related posts:

1. Has al-Qaeda Become a Toxic Brand? by Steven R. Corman In business marketing, branding means creating...
2. Yes, Extremists are Paying Attention by Chris Lundry Last year, my colleagues Steven Corman, Jeffrey...
3. Another Bombing in Indonesia, Another Struggle over Framing by Chris Lundry On Sunday, September 25, a lone suicide...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The CSC has an article in the current issue of Studies in Conflict and Terrorism on casualty inflation by the Taliban in the Afghanistan conflict.  The abstract follows, and the full text is available here (subscription).

Cooking the Books: Strategic Inflation of Casualty Reports by Extremists in the Afghanistan Conflict

Chris Lundry, Steven R. Corman, R. Bennett Furlow, & Kirk W. Errickson

Islamist extremists in Afghanistan and elsewhere are exaggerating their successes in inflicting casualties on American and other International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) forces. This article quantifies the exaggeration for the month of November 2010, putting the claimed casualty rate at approximately one-half battalion per month. It provides an analysis of how and why this is occurring, and links this extremist strategic communication effort to dominant historical master narratives in the region that may produce sympathy among intended recipients of the messages. The authors argue that these measures undertaken by the extremists can be countered successfully through the use of similar story forms, more timely reporting, use of side-by-side comparisons, and use of similar reporting venues. These steps could challenge the credibility of the Taliban reports, reduce sympathy, and diminish potential recruitment.

Related posts:

1. Ten Years Later, Our Narrative Remains Murky to Afghans by Steven R. Corman Last Friday the always-excellent PBS Newshour...
2. Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #60 by Bruce Gregory* Morton Abramowitz and Mark Lowenthal, “Restocking the...
3. Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #59 by Bruce Gregory Asia Foundation, Afghanistan in 2011: A Survey...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Rhetorical Charms: The Promise and Pitfalls of Humor and Ridicule as Strategies to Counter Extremist Narratives

In this article we provide a brief account of the uses of humor, in particular satire and ridicule, to counter extremist narratives and heroes.  We frame the appeals of humor as “rhetorical charms,” or stylistic seductions based on surprising uses of language and/or images designed to provoke laughter, disrupt ordinary arguments, and counter taken-for-granted truths, that contribute to new sources of influence to the globally wired world of terrorism.  We offer two recent examples of how the Internet in particular changed the narrative landscape in ways that offer potent evidence of uses of humor to remake extremist heroes into objects of derision.  We also caution those who would make use of humor as a strategic communication device to take into account the negative side effects and unexpected consequences that can accompany such uses.

Related posts:

1. Implicit Master Narratives in Extremist Website Launch by Jeffry R. Halverson If you’ve read our book Master...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Morton Abramowitz and Mark Lowenthal, “Restocking the Toollkit,” The American Interest, Winter, January/February, 2012, 57-64.  Abramowitz (Century Foundation) and Lowenthal (Intelligence and Security Academy) lament two decades of US overreliance on military force and call for a stronger “array of diverse tools to influence events abroad.”   Critical weaknesses include lack of well informed political intelligence; failure “to mobilize a genuine vision of an active and efficacious diplomacy;” too many closed-off embassies and passive diplomats; government wide public information programs that are “stale, balkanized, and underfunded;” insufficient diplomatic focus on political opposition groups and a broad range of civil society institutions; and an American Foreign Service Association with too little enthusiasm for transformational change.  The authors frame their case for the 2012 political campaigns and the next cycle of foreign affairs reform.

Matt Armstrong, www,MountainRunner.us. Guest posts on the future of US international broadcasting, February 2012. Armstrong’s website provides a convenient platform to view a lively debate among current and former US broadcasters on the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ 2013 budget request and Strategic Plan, 2012-2016.  Includes:

Alex Belida, “Reforming U.S. International Broadcasting: A New Mission Statement,” (2/13/2012), “Reforming U.S. International Broadcasting (Part Two): What to do About the BBG?” (2/15/2012), “Reforming U.S. International Broadcasting (Part Three): A New Structure” (2/16/2012), and “Blind Ambition,” (2/16/2012).

Kim Andrew Elliott, “US International Broadcasting: Success Requires Independence and Consolidation,” (2/14/2012)

Alan Heil, “Whisper of America?” (2/14/2012)

David Jackson, “The Future of International Broadcasting,” (2/15/2012)

Caitlin Byrne, Campaigning for a Seat on the United Nations Security Council: A Middle Power Reflection on the Role of Public Diplomacy, CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, Paper 10, 2011, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.  Drawing on her academic research and prior experience as a practitioner in Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Byrne (Bond University) argues that Security Council candidate nations must combine their intense lobbying in the UN with a broader range of efforts focused on reputation, image, and significant engagement and persuasion of international audiences.  Using Australia’s Security Council aspirations as a case study, Byrne looks at how and when middle powers might use public diplomacy strategies to supplement traditional diplomacy and achieve broader soft power outcomes.

Alan L. Heil, Jr., “All Quiet on the Western Front: 2012 Challenges and Opportunities in the Five-Year Strategic Plan for U.S. International Broadcasting,” American Diplomacy, December 2011. Heil (a former VOA deputy director and author of Voice of America) examines challenges facing US and European international broadcasters and the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ 2012-2016 strategic plan.  His assessment provides a detailed summary of recent organizational and functional changes in US broadcasting.  Can the new plan “meet and master the challenges?”  Heil’s answer is “Hopefully, yes.”

Michael Ignatieff, “The Return of Sovereignty,” The New Republic, February 16, 2012, 25-28.  The former leader of Canada’s Liberal Party returns to academe and uses his review of Brad R. Roth, Sovereign Equality and Moral Disagreement, (Oxford University Press, 2011) to argue that “Sovereignty is back.”  Ignatieff’s essay is a thoughtful reflection on the relationship between sovereignty and law, emotional identification of people with the sovereign, appropriate limits to lawful coercion to prevent chaos, and sovereignty’s continued relevance in the deep waters of global commerce.  “Sovereignty has returned,” Ignatieff argues, because citizens need a principle of authority more stable than price signals and government alone.  His essay offers a paradoxical conclusion: if we want justice in our political and diplomatic decisions to intervene in revolutions, and global markets that deliver jobs and take responsibility for their risks, then we need stronger, more capable, and more legitimate sovereign authority.

Charles Kupchin, Rosa Brooks, Rachel Kleinfeld, Tom Perriello, and Bruce Jentleson, “First Principles: America and the World,” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, No. 23, Winter 2012, 8-45. The contributors to this collection of essays offer principles for a progressive foreign policy.

Charles Kupchin (Georgetown University) in “Grand Strategy: The Four Pillars of the Future” outlines key elements of a strategic alternative to isolationism and neoconservative adventurism.

Rosa Brooks (Georgetown University Law Center) calls for a humbler, more patient approach to democratization in “Democracy Promotion: Done Right, A Progressive Cause.”

Rachel Kleinfeld (Truman National Security Project) argues the US must facilitate connections with and among civil societies in “Global Outreach: Speaking to the Awakening World.”

Tom Perriello (a former member of Congress) in “Humanitarian Intervention: Recognizing When, and Why, It Can Succeed” examines issues and criteria relevant to the legitimate use of force.

Bruce Jentleson (Duke University) discusses foreign policy for a world where the US is “not at the center” in “Accepting Limits: How to Adapt to a Copernican World.”

Rebecca MacKinnon, Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom, (Basic Books, 2012). Drawing on her experiences as CNN’s Beijing and Tokyo bureau chief and work at Harvard’s Berkman Center for the Internet and Society, the co-founder of Global Voicies explores central issues in cyber power and Internet governance.  MacKinnon gives life to her analysis with stories of protest movements, policy debates, and uses and abuses of government and corporate power.  Public diplomacy enthusiasts will find particularly useful her accounts of digital empowerment in the Arab Spring, China’s Internet dilemmas, Wikileaks, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Internet freedom policy, and the contrasting views of Internet experts Clay Shirky, Evgeny Morozov, and Ethan Zuckerman.

Petar Petrov, Karolina Pomorska, and Sophie Vanhoonacker, Guest Editors, “The Emerging EU Diplomatic System,” Special Issue of The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 7, Nos. 1 2012. In this issue of HJD, the editors (Maastricht University) compile articles by scholars and practitioners that examine political, policy, organizational, legal, and contextual issues in the post-Lisbon EU diplomatic system. Includes:

Petar Petrov, Karolina Pomorska, and Sophie Vanhoonacker, “Introduction: The Emerging EU Diplomatic System: Opportunities and Challenges After ‘Lisbon.’”

Daniel C. Thomas and Ben Tonra, “To What Ends EU Foreign Policy? Contending Approaches to the Union’s Diplomatic Objectives and Representation.”

Jan Wouters and Sanderijn Duquet, “The EU and International Diplomatic Law: New Horizons?”

Edith Drieskens, “What’s in a Name? Challenges to the Creation of EU Delegations.”

Kolja Raube, “The European External Action Service and the European Parliament.”

Federica Bicchi, “The European External Action Service: A Pivotal Actor in EU Foreign Policy Communications?”

Simon Duke, “Diplomatic Training and the Challenges Facing the EEAS.”

David Spence, “The Early Days of the European External Action Service: A Practitioner’s View.”

“Public Diplomacy in the Age of Social Media,” New America Foundation, Washington, DC, February 16, 2012.  In this 90-minute YouTube video, Alexander Howard (Government 2.0) moderates a panel of mid-career US Department of State officers on social media trends and practices.  Panelists:  Suzanne Hall (Senior Advisor, Innovation in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs), Nick Namba (Acting Deputy Coordinator for Content Development and Partnerships, Bureau of International Information Programs), and Ed Dunn (Acting Director, Digital Communications Center, Bureau of Public Affairs).

Olivier Roy, “Breakthroughs in Faith,” World Policy Journal, Winter 2011/ 2012, 8-13.  Roy (European University Institute, Florence, and author of Holy Ignorance) challenges dominant “clash or dialogue of civilizations” theories of the “return of the sacred” in diplomacy and global politics. Both “clash” and “dialogue” analysts err, Roy argues, in framing religion as transmitted identity rather than chosen faith.  Rather, the fundamentalist impulse in many religions is driven by rising secularization, not by resistance to modernization.  This gap between faith and identity has strategic consequences in the context of the Arab Spring, the role of Al Qaida, and rise of new religious movements as international actors disassociated from a given culture.

Barry Sanders, American Avatar: The United States in the Global Imagination, (Potomac Books, 2011).  Sanders (UCLA) looks at historical origins and recent manifestations of a broad array of complex and contradictory images of the United States.  His self-referential assessment (“The United States bears the world’s hopes and dreams as no other nation in history.”) examines a variety of psychological and cultural explanations for these images and the “slender connection between America and views about America.”  Sanders emphasizes Western perspectives and frames his interpretation of American exceptionalism as the “expectations and longings among foreigners in their expectations of the ‘American Dream.’”  He urges caution in using opinion polls, which are volatile and superficial, in analyzing attitudes and instead focuses on more deeply rooted predispositions and stored images.  His concluding chapter offers five positive images that matter in foreign policy and in “messages” that “can be sent by the practice of public diplomacy.”

Paul Sharp and Geoffrey Wiseman, eds., American Diplomacy, (Brill, Martinus Nijhoff, 2012).  Sharp (University of Minnesota, Duluth) and Wiseman (University of Southern California) compile essays by scholars and practitioners that “examine questions arising from the Obama administration’s efforts to revive American diplomacy and its response to the ways in which diplomacy itself is being transformed.”  Originally published as a special issue of The Hague Journal of Diplomacy (Vol. 6, No. 3-4, 2011), the book includes a new conclusion and index.  For an annotation of the content, visit “Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #59.”

Jonathan Spalter, “Open-Source Diplomacy,” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, No. 23, Winter 2012, 59-70.  Spalter (Chairman, Mobile Future) uses Eric Raymond’s essay, “The Cathedral and the Bazaar,” to frame an approach to US diplomacy that embraces open source technologies.  Spalter, a former USIA and National Security Council official in the Clinton administration, calls for “a more adaptive, technologically engaged, and diversely skilled professional foreign policy corps.”

Tara Sonenshine, “Engaging a World in Transition,” US Institute of Peace, January 23, 2012.  The nominee for US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs discusses her views on public diplomacy, foreign and domestic challenges to US foreign policy, funding for diplomacy and development, leveraging the power of technology, and the need for increased “understanding of American values.”

Janice Gross Stein, ed. Digital Diplomacy in the Digital Age: Essays in Honour of Ambassador Allan Gotlieb, (Signal, 2011).   Essays by scholars, diplomats, and journalists look at diplomacy’s future and pay tribute to one of Canada’s leading diplomats.  Stein (University of Toronto) organizes their contributions in four sections:  “Diplomacy with the United States in the Age of Wikileaks,” “The Professional Diplomat on Facebook,” “Diplomacy in the Age of Twitter,” and “Where is Headquarters?”  Allan Gotlieb’s career and book, ‘I’ll Be With You in a Minute, Mr. Ambassador’ (see “Gem from the Past” below), are pioneering contributions to the study and practice of diplomacy.

“Sun Tzu and the Art of Soft Power,” The Economist, December 17, 2011, 71-74.  Drawing on the views of scholars and Chinese political leaders,The Economist looks at strengths and limitations in China’s increasing use of Sun Tzu as a tool in its soft power strategy.  

US Department of Defense, Sustaining Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,  January 2012.   With cover letters from President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, this 8-page “defense strategy” seeks to frame US national security interests, advance the Defense Department’s efforts to “rebalance and reform,” support deficit reduction through less defense spending, and profile the primary missions of US armed forces.  Although President Obama’s letter makes passing reference to strengthening all the tools of American power, “including diplomacy and development, intelligence, and homeland security,” the report makes no reference to strategic communication and information operations capabilities.

US Government Accountability Office, Broadcasting Board of Governors Should Provide Additional Information to Congress Regarding Broadcasting to Cuba, GAO-12-243R, December 13, 2011.  GAO finds that a strategic plan for US broadcasting to Cuba — submitted by the BBG in response to a Congressional directive in August 2011 –  lacked key information necessary for Congress to exercise it oversight responsibilities.  GAO recommends that the BBG provide an analysis of estimated costs and cost savings of sharing resources between the Office of Cuba Broadcasting and the Voice of America’s Latin American Division.  Report Summary.

Richard Virden, “Diplomacy and Public Diplomacy in One Country: Poland During the Cold War,” AmericanDiplomacy.org, December 21, 2011.  Retired diplomat Dick Virden provides insights into US public diplomacy in Poland during and after the Cold War.  His narrative looks at contrasting social and political environments in Poland during the 1980s and 1990s and implications for US public diplomacy tools and methods.

Vivek Wadhwa, “The First Brain Drain in the United States,” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Winter/Spring 2012, 89-96.  Using data gathered by a research team at Duke, Harvard, and UC Berkeley, Wadhwa argues that very few international students plan to stay in the US after completing their degrees due to flawed US immigration policies and better opportunities in their home countries.  “The world’s best and brightest now view the United States as a decreasingly attractive place to live and work.”

Jian Wang and Shaojing Sun, Experiencing Nation Brands: A Comparative Analysis of Eight National Pavilions at Expo Shanghai 2010, CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, Paper 2, 2012, USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Jay Wang (University of Southern California) and Shaojing Sun (Fudan University) explore how Chinese visitors “experienced the branded space of national pavilions” at the Shanghai Expo and how this “brand experience” might have shaped or re-shaped their perceptions of the sponsor countries.  Drawing on surveys of visitors to the pavilions of Brazil, India, Israel, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States, the authors provide a wide ranging discussion of nation-branding as a concept, its use as an instrument of public diplomacy, China’s role as sponsor and target of public diplomacy, and the institutional value of World Expos.  Their  comparative study finds value in the “brand experience” framework, assesses the impact of the national pavilions, offers insights to Expo practitioners, and identifies areas for future research.

Wilton Park, “Putting the Power in Soft Power,” Conference Report, WP1117, October 12-14, 2011. In this online report, conference rapporteur Jayne Luscombe summarizes key points and views expressed by practitioners, scholars, and policymakers attending a three-day conference on soft power.  Wilton Park is associated with the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Jillian York, “The Arab Digital Vanguard: How a Decade of Blogging Contributed to a Year of Revolution,” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Winter/Spring 2012, 33-42.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Jillian York looks at the evolution of the Arab blogosphere, the unique impact of its common language in creating “a transnational community of sorts,” and the variety of digital tools used for citizen activism.  Her optimistic account shows that what seemed sudden “was in fact the culmination of nearly a decade of efforts.”

Blogs of Interest

Robert Albro, “Models as Mirrors or Cultural Diplomacy?” Public Policy Anthropologist, February 15, 2012.  Albro (American University) offers comments on findings from a cultural diplomacy survey of scholars, policymakers, practitioners, and cultural producers who attended conferences on cultural diplomacy at AU.  Posted also on the USC Center for Public Diplomacy’s CPD Blog.

Daryl Copeland, “Canadian Public Diplomacy, Then and Now,” The Mark, January 3, 2012, and “A Future for Public Diplomacy” The Mark  January 12, 2012.  Copeland (Ottawa University and the author of Guerrilla Diplomacy) writes that Canada “once a pioneer in public diplomacy” now faces an “uphill battle” and is “trailing most of its diplomatic competition.”

Helle Dale, “Fill the Public Diplomacy Leadership Vacuum,” WebMemo, February 3, 2012 and “Quieting the Voice of America,” February 23, 2012. Dale (The Heritage Foundation) questions leadership, organizational, and budget deficiencies in the Department of State and US international broadcasting.

Gem From the Past

Allan Gottlieb, ‘I’ll be with You In Just a Minute, Mr. Ambassador,’ The Education of a Canadian Diplomat in Washington, (University of Toronto Press, 1991).  When Canada’s Allan Gottlieb arrived in Washington in 1981 to begin a seven-year tour as Ambassador to the United States, he anticipated most of his time would be spent in diplomatic formalities and meetings in the Department of State.  He quickly discovered that diplomacy’s radical transformation required the talents of an effective lobbyist and, in the words of former US Secretary of State James Baker, an ambassador who is “an insider” and who “knows how to work the system.”  Gottlieb’s book was and is a pioneering contribution to “the new diplomacy.”  This new diplomacy, he wrote, “is, to a large extent, public diplomacy and requires different skills, techniques, and attitudes than those found in traditional diplomacy, as it is practiced in most countries, including Canada.”
____________________________________

*Bruce Gregory is an Adjunct Professor at George Washington University and Georgetown University, and publishes this list periodically via mailing list.  We reprint it here as a service to our readers.  Bruce can be reached by email via bgregory at gwu dot edu

Related posts:

1. Public Diplomacy Books, Articles, Websites #57 by Bruce Gregory* Intended for teachers of public diplomacy and...
2. Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #59 by Bruce Gregory Asia Foundation, Afghanistan in 2011: A Survey...
3. Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites #58 by Bruce Gregory* Manan Ahmed, Where the Wild Frontiers Are:...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

NSI has just released a new edited volume (PDF here) that should be of interest to COMOPS Journal readers.  Entitled Countering Violent Extremism: Scientific Methods and Strategies, it contains the latest thinking on the subject, including a chapter on narrative by yours truly.  The contents are listed below.

Foreword (Brig. Gen. John N.T. “Jack” Shanahan)
Preface (Diane DiEuiliis)
Executive Summary (Laurie Fenstermacher)

Section 1: Current Insights into Violent Extremism

• Not All Radicals are the Same: Implications for Counter-Radicalization Strategy (Tom Rieger)
• Countering Extremist Violence (Marc Sageman)
• Understanding the Role of Narrative in Extremist Strategic Communication (Steven R. Corman)
• Tracking the Spread of Violent Extremism (Dipak Gupta)
• Violent Extremism in Algeria: A Quest for Identity from Colonization to Globalization (Latefa Belarouci)

Section 2: Prevention of Violent Extremism

• Forecasting Terrorism, Predicting its Nature, and Driving Innovative Responses: “At-Risk Group Identity” as a Pivotal Concept for Understanding Political Violence (William D. Casebeer)
• A Strategic Plan to Defeat Radical Islam (Tawfik Hamid)
• Prevention of Violent Extremism: “What Are The People Saying?” (Alexis Everington)
• Countering Violent Extremism: Shifting the Emphasis towards the Development Paradigm (Ziad Alahdad)
• Partnering with Muslim Communities to Counter Radicalization (Hedieh Mirahmadi & Mehreen Farooq)
• The Role of Non-Violent Islamists in Radicalization and Counter-Radicalization: The European Debate (Lorenzo Vidino)

Section 3: Delegitimizing/Minimizing Popular Support for Violent Extremism

• The Mechanics of De-Legitimization (Cheryl Benard)
• Exploiting Al-Qa’ida’s Vulnerabilities for Delegitimization (Eric Larson)
• Arab Satellite Television and Popular Culture (Evelyn A. Early)
• The Role and Impact of Music in Promoting (and Countering) Violent Extremism (Anthony Lemieux & Robert Nill)

Section 4: Pursue and Protect/Risk Management/Deradicalization

• Using Citizen Messengers to Counteract Radicalism (Qamar-ul Huda)
• Evaluating the Effectiveness of De-Radicalization Programs: Towards A Scientific Approach to Terrorism Risk Reduction (John Horgan & Kurt Braddock)
• Battling the “University of Jihad:” An Evidence Based Ideological Program to Counter Militant Jihadi Groups Active on the Internet (Anne Speckhard)
• Mediation and Civil Wars Involving Terrorism (Karl DeRouen & Paulina Pospieszna)
• Deterrence, Influence, and Violent Extremist Organizations (Paul Davis)
• Coercing Violent Non-State Actors (Troy Thomas)

Related posts:

1. Extremism and Contested Tunisian Identity in Kairouan by Jeffry R. Halverson I recently traveled to Tunisia where...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Friend-of-CSC Steve Tatham has co-authored a new book with Major General Andrew Mackay entitled Behavioural Conflict: Why Understanding People and their Motivations Will Prove Decisive in Future Conflict.  I have not yet seen the book, but it will be on my reading list.  All proceeds from book sales go to Help for Heroes, a charity benefiting wounded veterans.  Info from the flyer is below is included below, for your reading enjoyment.

Whilst geopolitics, economics, religion and ethnicity all play crucial roles in starting and sustaining conflict this book advances the idea that it will be people’s behaviour, and the West’s ability to understand, interpret and influence that behaviour which will become the defining characteristic of resolving future armed disputes. This seminal study draws directly on the authors’ operational experiences in Sierra Leone, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan. Includes a chapter by behavioural scientist Dr. Lee Rowlands and an introduction by the BBC Radio 4 “More or Less” presenter Tim Harford. The foreword is by former ISAF commander General (ret.) Stanley McChrystal.

UPDATE January 21, 2012

Steve reports that an official launch of the book last night at the Royal Institute in London was well attended, including by special guest former UK Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox MP.  You can listen to a BBC Radio interview about the book here.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The CSC has released a new white paper entitled A New Cultural Path for Indonesia’s Islamist PKS? by Mark Woodward, Ali Amin, Inaya Rohmaniyah, and Chris Lundry.  The executive summary is as follows:

With the commencement of Indonesia?s transition to democracy, following 32 years of rule by the military dictator Suharto, political space has opened for dozens of political parties to form and regularly contest elections. The Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (the Prosperity and Justice Party, PKS) is an Islamist party that emerged following the first post-1999 democratic elections, with roots that extend to the pre-Suharto era. Although Indonesia has a history of Islamist political parties that goes back to the founding of the nation, since democratization they have never garnered much support, despite Indonesia?s nearly 90 percent Muslim population.

Political parties are interested in mobilizing the highest number of supporters in order to create legislation that reflects the parties? ideological underpinnings. Often these same ideological underpinnings are tempered in order to broaden the support base of a given party. We show that PKS has faced a dilemma. Sticking with a rigid interpretation of its Islamist foundation alienates some voters who may be sympathetic to a less rigid platform, therefore broadening the party?s base and increasing its electoral success may include tempering its ideological strictness. On the other hand, as a strict Islamist political party, its core supporters are those who agree with its rigid ideological stance. Tempering this stance may alienate the hard core of supporters.

We show that there is increasing tension in the PKS leadership between the two camps over the issue of base broadening. The “justice” faction favors stricter Islamist ideology, and the “prosperity” faction favors tempering the Islamist message in order to draw more electoral support. This tension became manifest during the PKS national convention in February 2011. The convention was held in Yogyakarta, an autonomous region in Central Java that is considered the home of traditional Javanese culture (including mysticism – anathema to the PKS position on religious practice, and a sultan who is traditionally viewed as a caliph). The notion of “culture” in the context of the PKS meeting, therefore, was a fulcrum for party leadership, with the “justice” cadres on one side, and the “prosperity” cadres on the other.

It may be that the apparent embrace of culture is simply a result of the party?s gradualist approach to change. This makes it possible for party cadre to advocate and practice “deculturalized” Islam while their leaders state publically that PKS is “open to culture” and not opposed to traditional practices.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The CSC has released a new white paper entitled The Tariq ibn Ziyad Master Narrative by Jeffry R. Halverson.  The executive summary is as follows:

Master narratives provide important insights into the cultures and societies that analysts and diplomats encounter on a daily basis. Understanding how those narratives are utilized by factions hostile to the interests of the United States can be the difference between successful diplomacy and international catastrophe. Given the current geo-political climate, master narratives employed by Islamist extremists are among the most important. Many of those narratives are recorded and analyzed in the book, Master Narratives of Islamist Extremism (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). This paper addresses an additional master narrative employed by extremists, albeit less frequently than those included in the book.

The Tariq ibn Ziyad master narrative relates the conquest of Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal) by the Berber commander, Tariq ibn Ziyad, in 711. The master narrative posits a champion archetype (Tariq) as a conquering hero who ventures to a new land, strikes down the infidel tyrant (King Roderick), and ushers in a kingdom of righteous and just rule. The master narrative, as it is utilized by extremists, typically exists in a radically simplified form. It ignores many of the inconvenient details of history that problematize the message of the extremists, such as the role of Tariq and Musa?s Jewish allies.

The Tariq ibn Ziyad master narrative is viewed an exemplary model for jihadist action against “infidel” or “apostate” dictators and governments, especially in the West. Due to the historical connections of the narrative to North Africa, the master narrative is most commonly found among Islamist extremists in that region, such as al-Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQLIM).

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.