WhirledView

Back to English Comp: Notes for a Public Diplomacy Primer

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

Shortly after the presidential election results were in, a friend of mine who’s in touch with members of the Obama transition team asked me to help him think up Public Diplomacy programs to be aimed at Muslims. He wanted things like “Seminar on Topic X,” “Conference on Topic Y,” "Web Chat on Topic Z.”

Just like that! Specific programs ready for delivery on Day One after inauguration. Programs like OTC medicine. Glibness incarnate.

I was, briefly, flattered and tried to comply, following my friend’s example. He’d sent me a list of his own inspirations. Since he’d actually been a PD man before going into private sector public relations, the list was superficially more than plausible.

In no time, however, I had to say Whoa! I can’t do this. I can’t design PD programs with any hope of impact until I know a few very important things.

Policy Precedes Program

For instance, what’s the Obama policy spectrum, domestic and international, going to be? If the new president, like the outgoing one, wants America to be in the business of preaching democracy, what will his administration do, and quickly, to rectify the damage to our own democracy? Right now, America isn’t a very good example, despite the ground-breaking biracial heritage of the president elect. The torture policy, the rejection of the Geneva Conventions, the suspension of habeas corpus, the extraordinary power grab by the executive, the anti-democratic provisions of the so-called Patriot Act, the unwarranted secret spying on ordinary Americans—all this and more comes to mind. Each of these Bush era innovations must be quickly abrogated if the U.S. is to become a leader in the realm of human rights, civil rights and democracy promotion. Another concern: if America is going to continue to preach free market economics, what will the new administration be doing to make markets attractive again? Free enterprise, at the moment, is looking decidedly scarey, and America isn’t looking very wise. Are we capable of leading the world toward an economic system that rewards creativity even as it curbs capitalism’s tendencies toward strangle-hold monopoly and Gilded Age corruption and excess?

In short, under an Obama administration, will self-confident, forthright public diplomacy be possible again? Or must our PD practitioners continue the Bushian duplicities that ended in a PD disaster that will go down in history: the infamous shoe throwing.

The Muslim Grab Bag Fallacy

Once the critical matter of who we are as Americans is positively redefined and convincingly acted upon through legislation and executive order, it still won’t be easy to create effective PD programs for the “Muslim world,” because there is no such thing, any more than there is a homogenous “Western world” congruent with an equally uniform “Christian world.” Furthermore, to design respectable programs for Muslims of any sect or any ethnicity or any nationality or any degree of modernization or secularization or any combination of the foregoing, PD strategists and programmers need to know what understandings of Islam, past, present and future, the Obama administration will be basing its policies on. In short, to whom do our new leaders think they will be talking—and, equally important, what will be the American stance during these exchanges? Will the Obama administration address its Muslim audiences as equals or as clients to be tutored? Will we be engaging in substantive conversation or will we be preaching and making demands? The Bush administration couched most of its conversations domestically and internationally as “musts.” X must do this! Y must do that! Needless to say, George W. Bush didn’t get much cooperation. That being obvious, we still don’t know the voice in which the Obama administration plans to address the world.

The Makings of a Deal?

by Cheryl Rofer

The United States and Russia have been talking about extending the START I agreement to keep track of nuclear weapons reductions leading to the 2012 deadline for the Moscow Treaty.

The Moscow Treaty did not contain any verification provisions, because George Bush didn’t want any treaty at all, since (he said) friends don’t have treaties on such things. So the provisions of START I have been used for verification of the Moscow Treaty reductions. Ronald Reagan, whose inheritor Bush seems to believe he is, said “Trust but verify.” That is actually a Russian saying, and they still believe it, so they have been pushing to extend START I, which lapses at the end of 2009. The US has been as finicky about the talks as North Korea has been about its nuclear talks, but one more session was held just before the holiday break.

I found most news reports on the session confusing, but I think I have deciphered them, with Walter Pincus’s help. There are aspects that remain confusing, but we have to consider that this is the Bush administration we’re talking about.

The bottom line is that the American proposal was surprising to the Russians (and to me as well), and that the talks are dead until we have a new president. To greet that new president, Russia has offered some carrots and some sticks.

What the US Proposed

Ruthenia, Ruthenium: Russia’s Contributions to Chemistry and Geology Names

by Cheryl Rofer

Paul Goble notes that Ruthenia, now part of Ukraine, is the most recent potential breakaway republic to be encouraged by Russia. That reminded me of ruthenium, one of my favorite elements. It’s a favorite because it sits in the middle of the transition series, just below iron, and both of them have a wild variety of chemical transformations they can go through, which (she says glibly*) makes them good components of catalysts.

I love the history that the periodic table (click to enlarge) embodies. As the various elements were discovered, and as they were fitted into that then-mysterious system, many were named for the places where they were found or isolated, or for the people who discovered them. Since Dmitri Mendeleev was one of the developers of the periodic table, it’s not surprising that Russian and European places and people contributed to those names. Mendeleev himself has an element named after him, mendeleevium, number 101, one of those synthesized in particle accelerators.

Samarium was found in samarskite, which was named for 19th-century Russian mine inspector, Col. Samarski, about whom not much seems to be known.

Snow-Ku

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

Clouds having a pillow fight.
Feathers.
Feathers.
Fea-
thers.

Hands mitten-warm.
Nose, cheeks
stung
by sleet.
I’m alive!

Walk shoveled.
Drive shoveled.
Car swept clean.
Tomorrow
more snow.

Crisp and crunchy outside.
Moist within.
Is snow
like bread?

Big heavy truck
in the ditch.
Black ice.
So hard to see.

Boots,
gloves,
parka,
hat.
Body under wraps.
Face never.

Walking in the snow.
Leaving footprints.
Me
tracking
me.

Nukes for Sale

by Cheryl Rofer

And it's the United Kingdom that's selling them. To the United States. Nuke plants, that is.

British Nuclear Fuels has sold its one-third share in AWE Management Limited to the California-based firm Jacobs Engineering. AWE stands for Atomic Weapons Establishment, which manufactures the UK's nuclear weapons. One-third is held by Lockheed Martin, also American, and a business services group, Serco, from some small island nation. (BBC, Independent)

Jeffrey uses this occasion to observe that the UK's nuclear establishment has always been, er, close to the US's. That's true, but I think there's another point to be made.

Lockheed Martin runs part of the American nuclear complex, most notably Sandia National Laboratory, the non-nuclear laboratory of the weapons triad. It also contracts for a plethora of other weapons.

Jacobs is a more diversified company, listing its markets as aerospace and defense, buildings, consumer and forest products, environmental programs, oil and gas, refining, automotive and industrial, chemical and polymers, energy, infrastructure, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, and, just in case they left something out, technology.

The US Air Force, a while back, mixed up some parts numbers and sent classified nuclear weapon components to Taiwan. What happens if someone at Jacobs gets confused and sends some AWE nuclear weapons plans to their automotive division? Or if Jacobs's equivalent of A. Q. Khan sees a way to make some really big bucks?

The further the nuclear weapons plants are removed from government control, the more likely it is that such things will eventually happen. And putting people from one country, even if it's a friendly and (mostly) competent one, in charge of another's nuclear weapons program seems to be asking for trouble.

Tuesday Photos

by Cheryl Rofer

We've had another overnight snowstorm, for which last week's photo will probably suffice. Most of last week's snow melted during the week, but now it's back. A bit of blue sky showing toward the north, but they say that another storm is coming in. The worst part of all this snow is that Tuesday is garbage day, and my garbage can now contains three weeks' worth.

The good side is next spring's wildflowers and we're past the solstice, so the days are getting longer, which should be noticeable when the clouds clear.

A couple of photos I couldn't resist today.

Brought to us by the editorial board of the New York Times, who caption it an odd moment in history. That's Belgrade 1999, from left to right

Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, who was later charged with war crimes but died before his trial ended; the Rev. Jesse Jackson; and U.S. Rep. Rod Blagojevich, who is now governor of Illinois and facing federal corruption charges for allegedly trying to sell Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat, among other things.

And now here's something that's more fun, especially for those of us dealing with snow.

Those are peace pandas being sent from China to Taiwan.

Legacies and Regrets

by Bill Stewart

The presidency of George W. Bush is drawing to a close. It is clear in his recent interviews and trips abroad that he is in a nostalgic mood. And why not? Eight years is a long time. It has been for him and certainly has been for us. They have been tumultuous years, beginning with the September 11 attack and finishing with the collapse of the nation’s economy. It is clear that those years have taken their toll. He is grayer and lacking in energy. Though he is still the president, Bush has almost disappeared from the national scene. The president-elect seems to be our commander in chief.

Bush is not a man given to reflection or introspection, no matter the issues or the times. That is not his nature, and intellectually he is ill-equipped for such a journey. But he is a man of essential personal good will; that comes across. It probably lies at the heart of why the country voted for him, not once but twice. But accomplishment, leadership and the overall record are all so abysmal that it is clear he will never make it into the Hall of Fame. On the contrary, his presidency is a failure of historic proportions, and it’s doubtful that George W. Bush will ever understand why. He will not go there, because he cannot, not now, probably not ever. Instead, he wants to go back to the ranch, clear brush and chop wood. In that, one wishes him well. The nation, as a whole, will heave a sigh of relief.

Two Kinds of Bloggers

by Cheryl Rofer

I mentioned in passing last week, maybe in WhirledView Choice, that I have my doubts about what I might call "institutional" bloggers. There are scads of "blogs," for example, at the New York Times, some of which occasionally have something worth reading. That's about once a week, although I have to admit I don't scan all of them.

Then there's the problem I mentioned (must have been in a post; too many words for WV Choice) about the conflict between what a reporter might put in a blog post and what would go into a story, or just the issue of time, if it's reporters doing the "blogging." I like McClatchy's Nukes and Spooks, for example, but they frequently go for days or even weeks without a new post. Ditto for the New Yorker's suite of "blogs." Come to think of it, I may like these "blogs" for what I think they might someday reveal, rather than anything I've actually read there.

A couple of exceptions I can think of are James Fallows's blog at the Atlantic, and Scott Horton's at Harper's. Both actually contain content (although Fallows's can be thin) and relatively regular posts.

A blowup at the Center for American Progress over one of Matt Yglesias's opinions exemplifies the fundamental problem, though. The sponsoring organization has one set of interests; the blogger has another. This is inevitably true no matter how closely the two agree on issues. The sponsoring organization lives in a network of power and money relationships that will sometimes conflict with a blogger's opinions. This sort of heavy-handedness will affect what a blogger chooses to write if he is getting paid for his blogging (and yes, it's usually he/his). Or just a mild word might do.

I've linked to Ezra Klein, writing for The American Prospect, because he sort of explains it. Reading Ezra's post and his links, along with a selection of the too-many-to-read comments, will give you the idea. Matt wrote something that the CAP management didn't like. They placed a disclaimer on his blog. But of course he's still free to write whatever. It's just that it's not CAP's view.

Perhaps this is persuasive to some, but I've had people with authority over my salary gently suggest that perhaps I had overstepped some bounds, not a problem you know, but just might be good to think about such things. It activates that little censor in your head.

What I like about blogging is that I'm not reading The Offical Version. And, having worked for an organization, I know that what they approve of will be The Official Version. So I'll continue to prefer the independent bloggers.