150 likes | 162 Views
This seminar, presented by Nick Cull, explores the concept of public diplomacy in countering violent extremism (CVE). It discusses the components of public diplomacy and its application in both single-actor and multi-actor approaches to CVE. The seminar concludes by questioning the current understanding of violent extremism and suggesting a rethinking of CVE strategies.
E N D
Colombo Defense Seminar, 2017 Public Diplomacy in CVE Nick Cull cull@usc.edu
Overview: • What is Public Diplomacy? • Components of PD • Precedent: COIN • Single actor approaches to CVE (US case) • Multi-actor approaches to CVE • Conclusion: Rethinking CVE.
What is Public Diplomacy? • Traditional Diplomacy = an actor’s attempt to manage the international environment through engagement with a foreign actor. • Public Diplomacy = an actor’s attempt to manage the international environment through engagement with a foreign public. • BUT New Term for five old practices…
Components of Public Diplomacy • Listening
Components of Public Diplomacy • Listening • Advocacy
Components of Public Diplomacy • Listening • Advocacy • Cultural Diplomacy
Components of Public Diplomacy • Listening • Advocacy • Cultural Diplomacy • Exchange Diplomacy
Components of Public Diplomacy • Listening • Advocacy • Cultural Diplomacy • Exchange Diplomacy • State-Funded News/ International b’casting
Components of Public Diplomacy • Listening • Advocacy • Cultural Diplomacy • Exchange Diplomacy • State-Funded News/ International b’casting • US invents term: PD
Components of Public Diplomacy • Listening • Advocacy • Cultural Diplomacy • Exchange Diplomacy • State-Funded News/ International b’casting • US invents term: PD • All enhance SOFT POWER of attractive values/culture
Precedent: PD dimension to COIN • Listening: to isolate the enemy from their host pop. • Advocacy: for a better future • Culture: ensure help fits with local cultural values • Exchange: work with the host population to build links • IB: Fight with an eye to the outside media image. • UK did it right in Malaya • US did wrong in Vietnam
Single Actor: recent US approaches • Listening: too little, too late • Advocacy: ‘Think again, turn away’ but not State Dept. not credible • Culture: use of music (including US Muslims) • Exchange: aim for youth & women • IB: Al Hurra, Sawa & websites. • BUT problem of domestic politics • Priority = impress home audience • Reality = no one has the resource or credibility to act alone.
Multi-Actor: The Collective Cure? • Integrate a unified govt. “hub” • Listen first and know your audience • Understand recruitment • Empower communicators who are credible to your target audience. • Create/translate messages that they can pass on as memes • Build a networks practice (Strong Cities Network & EU’s RAN) • Don’t do hard power things that make the situation worse.
Conclusion: Rethinking CVE • Question: What if violent extremism is a symptom NOT the disease? • What if issue = nihilism and lack of ‘future’ to believe in? • What if VE has same root as new nationalism/strong man? • How to counter the victim narrative? • The world needs a greater idea and a common goal. • Challenge for everyone’s PD
Thank You Nick Cull (cull@usc.edu)