Brother Blue and Peggy Melanson at findingcourage.com

Dr. Hugh Morgan Hill also known as Brother Blue, passed away on Nov. 3, 2009 at his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His wonderful storytelling throughout Cambridge and Boston, Massachusetts will be greatly missed, especially his versions of Shakespeare and King Lear.

Brother Blue doing a piece of King Lear

Brother Blue frequently dressed in all blue and drew pictures of butterflies on his hands and face. His brother’s love of butterflies lead Mr. Hill to use it as an important symbol in his storytelling which often included themes of personal transformation. He wore a blue cap with butterfly and peace motifs pinned on it. He brought joy, happiness and whimsy wherever he went. Just seeing him walk through Harvard Square in his colorful dress made you smile. He was a modern day troubadour and shaman.

As the New York Times obituary stated,

Mr. Hill regarded storytelling as a sacred duty and a path to universal harmony.

“When you tell a story, you tell it to all creation,” he once said. “It’s cosmic. It never goes away.”

Children and adults who heard Brother Blue’s parables and stories will remember his inspirational and thought provoking tales. His wife of 59 years, Ruth Edmonds, who is curator at the Schlesinger Library at Radcliffe, frequently accompanied him during his storytelling performances.

Brother Blue and his wife Ruth Edmonds: www.artofstorytellingshow.com

Brother Blue, thank you for all the years of storytelling you brought to the world. You also motivated many young people to take up the craft of storytelling to the next generation.

For more information about Brother Blue, see www.brotherblue.com.

Cambridge Community Television created a tribute to Brother Blue.

No, not many other people know who she is either ... yet

As the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, a little reflection into the perception of the European Union as a global power as seen almost five years ago (2005).  A bit of nostalgia but may be an appropriate starting point to assessing where the EU is now, and where it might be going.

INTRODUCTION

That the European Union (EU), being the world’s largest economic entity, has influence in today’s world is generally without doubt, but to be a true global actor requires influence across a wide spectrum.  In defining it as a global actor, one should consider seven, often interdependent, aspects to be fundamental in affording the EU any global influence.  These are: economics; international or regional cooperation; promotion of human rights, democracy and good governance[1]; prevention of violent conflict; fight against international crime and terrorism; and military capability.   Each should be examined so as to assess how far the EU can currently be considered a global actor. However, regardless of the EU’s potential capacity in these areas, economic, political and military weight count for little on the world stage without the political will to engage that weight and the capacity for, and autonomy of, decision-making[2].

ECONOMICS

With an annual GDP of almost 11 trillion euros, accounting for, on average, some 25% of world GDP, contained within a unique and successful customs union, in economic terms the EU can be seen as a superpower, with undoubted global influence.  Via the customs union it has largely pooled the economic trading capacity of its member states, such that it is the world’s leading exporter of goods, services and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and the main export market for some 130 countries around the globe[3].  Through the European Community pillar, it possesses its most powerful foreign policy instruments: the capacity to enter into trade, economic cooperation and development agreements with other economic entities, national or regional, especially through the European Community’s General System of Preferences (GSP); and direct financial assistance to third countries[4].  Its very success in regional economic integration is held up as an example across the world, allowing for some degree of influence globally.  Its sheer trading power, economic capacity and prominence make it easy to regard as a global actor in economic terms.

With its significant economic power, it has considerable influence with the global institutions (International Financial Institutions – IFIs) which influence global trade and finance regulations, such as the World Trade organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  This is regardless of the lack of an EU seat, but due to the fact that cohesion and concensus is relatively strong over trade issues[5].  Yet, there are brakes upon the already significant EU influence, but these are less a fault of the EU than the rigid and hierarchical structures of such bodies[6].  Further, the EU is often seen as falling foul of WTO rules, being a respondent in disputes almost as often as a complainant, but this does not diminish the EU’s global influence and possibly proves its existence[7].  Regardless, technically proficient in economic management and with competent control mechanisms, expressed exclusively through the Commission, the economic weight of the EU is by far its biggest ‘stick’ and ‘carrot’, available for exercise outside the strictly economic sphere.

REGIONAL COOPERATION

Closely aligned to economics, in regards to international, or more specific to the EU, regional cooperation, the EU is most exemplary, largely through its own identity and origins.  Relying on legal frameworks and diplomacy, it rather uniquely fosters regional cooperation within its own neighborhood and further afield, to a degree that few can match[8].  With cooperation agreements between the EU and Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Andean Community, African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP)[9], the Central American Community, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Mercosur, there is now also a plethora of regular high level political meetings between representatives of the EU and other regional groups across the globe.  In this, the EU has considerable international profile and a modicum of global influence.

However, whilst the will is there, there is a growing ‘capabilities-expectations’ gap, in which EU institutions are finding it difficult to address all groupings, ‘to the detriment of Europe’s international profile’[10].  Further, this ‘new regionalization’, although largely driven by the EU[11], is only incumbent upon the trend of globalization which is by no means irreversible.

HUMAN RIGHTS, DEMOCRACY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

The promotion of human rights, democracy and good governance is seen as a significant

Talking of good governance ...

element of the EU’s international image, although rather more reactive than proactive[12].  However, detailed analysis reveals limits.  Having looked at these issues relatively late on, other European organizations stole a march on the EU and feature heavily in promoting common European standards.  The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a creation of the Council of Europe, to which the individual EU member states have signed up.  The Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE) also plays a significant part the promotion of democracy. Although the ideals of the ECHR have been incorporated into EU charters and conventions, they tend to be non-binding and have little legal basis, providing limited legitimacy when it comes to addressing the issue on a global stage.  Similarly, with the EU being accused itself of a ‘democratic deficit’, legitimacy here is also sketchy and good governance is difficult to codify anyway.

Although other organizations crowd into this field, the EU does possess powers unavailable to them through its economic and political weight.  The use of conditionality, the provision of aid (via the EU’s European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)) and diplomatic instruments are the EU’s strong hand.  However, conditionality can be difficult due to existing member state, especially ex-colonial, bilateral ties, EIDHR’s budget is paltry and security concerns over hasty democratization bringing civil strife mean that EU policy in this area is fairly inconsistent and decision-making is hampered.

Yet, there is a collective will, based upon largely shared history, development of common values and a perception of insecurity in not doing so, within the EU member states to promote human rights, democracy and good governance.  If the practicalities prove difficult there is a global platform which proves more amenable to the EU itself: the United Nations.  Despite recent rifts over Iraq, there is increasing convergence of EU member state voting in the UN General Assembly, approaching some 85%, making it an effective machine within the UN[13].   Despite it being accused of being mostly reactive, the EU has been seen to be a powerful UN actor when cohesive and committed, such as over the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court (ICC)[14].

CONFLICT PREVENTION

The EU itself can be seen from its inception as a mechanism designed to prevent conflict in Europe and the concept is now enshrined within the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).  Outside its own borders, the EU has become increasingly involved as a mediating element in conflicts within its neighborhood, such as the Former Republic of Yugoslavia and in FYROM, with varying success, and the Mediterranean. Increasingly, the EU features as a party, within a larger grouping, normally including the US, to conflict resolution and/or prevention, such as efforts in the Middle East[15].  However, US interests cause EU influence to wane over distance, inherently displaying the EU’s limited global scope.  Aside the Middle East and Central Asia, Africa does appear to be progressively showing on the EU’s radar, with growing commitment, although far short of direct intervention, being promised from the Council[16].  The EU’s provisions for conflict prevention have improved considerably, with the Goteberg European Council of June 2001 sparking a drive towards coherent policy in this area.

Yet, despite impressive improvements and significant will, the EU’s conflict prevention capacity is diplomatically weak.  Despite the political influence afforded by the EU’s economic standing, conditionality and sanctions often fail in poverty stricken and violence ridden areas and limits have been apparent with more developed states, such as between India and Pakistan in May 2002.  The Iraq crisis presented the epitome of a lack of vigourous and clear diplomatic signals from the EU; signals most necessary in conflict management.  Yet, some see the EU’s ‘soft’ power, without the threat of military force, as its unique strength in conflict prevention[17].

TERRORISM AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

Although international terrorism is nothing new to the EU region, the full impact of international organized crime was only fully realized as the Cold War ended, allowing infiltration of crime syndicates from the former Soviet Bloc.  Thus, whilst national policies developed, the EU has had a late start in this field. Through the provisions of EUROPOL, the Schengen Agreement, European Judicial Cooperation Unit (EUROJUST) and other capabilities within the third pillar, Justice and Home affairs (JHA), the EU’s capacity in fighting international crime and terrorism, within its own borders, has been improved, especially since the events of 11 September, 2001[18].  In November 2002 EUROPOL’s competences were expanded: it is now authorized to participate with member states in joint investigation teams and request member states to initiate investigations. In February 2002, EUROJUST was established to coordinate cooperation between prosecution authorities in EU member states.  These are largely of an internal dimension but provide for some high levels of coordination, which have eased cooperation with other national governments and crime-fighting authorities.  In December 2001, the EU’s impact upon global crime and terrorism issues expanded through the signing of cooperation agreement with the US, demonstrating a new emphasis on its external crime-fighting remit, which extend to judicial cooperation, immigration and asylum[19].

The diplomatic instruments of dialogue and conditionality, such as use of GSP, are also major features of the EU’s commitment in tackling these issues.  However, JHA is largely internal and effectively tackling international organized crime and terrorism requires the evolution of significant cross pillar coordination, which is proving slow.  As a global player in this field, the EU has still further steps to make.

MILITARY POWER

Nice ... but not NATO

The legacy of the Cold war, in which Western European states, EU or not, relied upon NATO, remains problematical for the EU in terms of developing its own globally capable military capabilities.  The EU lacks deployable forces for expeditionary warfare, that is, forces for worldwide combat missions. The member states of the European Union have approximately 1.7 million men and women under arms but are capable of deploying only approximately 10 percent of these forces for missions abroad, largely through a lack of strategic resources, such as airlift capacity[20].  The’ headline goals’ of the Rapid Reaction Force (RRF) and development of the more realistic battlegroup concept show commitment to the idea of EU military capability but compared to a truly global military machine, the US, the effort is rather small scale and the will to follow this path is confused by the NATO aspect.  Hence the view that the EU is still a military midget with grand aspirations.

However, many of the armed forces of the EU member states, are relatively capable in terms of the missions required of a global actor, ideally suited to and with considerable experience in peacekeeping and policing missions.  As such, EU missions to the Democratic Republic of Congo (Artemis) and Macedonia (Concordia) have demonstrated this limited but competent global capability.   Whereas the RRF may find itself vying with the embryonic NATO Response Force (NRF), the Battlegroup concept, allowing the EU much more flexibility, realistic force generation options and simpler command and control issues, from political to tactical, may allow for a truly global military capacity, worthy of a global ‘soft’ power.  Ironically, some see this ‘militarization’ of the EU as a direct threat to its agency as a ‘soft’ power and to its identity, if fragile, as a ‘civilian power’ based upon liberal humanitarian principles[21].

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

Endorsing a policy of ‘effective multilateralism’, the EU’s ethos is well suited towards the ideals of global governance.  As previously mentioned, the EU does have influence within various global institutions such as the WTO.  Within the UN, where broad EU member state concensus exists, which, although overshadowed by high profile rifts, is common, considerable pressure can be brought to bare, especially when a powerful, if temporary, EU ‘caucus’ exists within the Security Council[22].  In the fast-growing relationship between the EU and the UN, to the extent that the multilateral UN is shifting towards a ‘soft’ power approach to global issues, the EU is seen as a major contributor to the agenda[23]. Now, as the combined contributions of the EU and its member states make the EU the largest contributor to UN programmes, the authority and recognition of the EU as a major global actor within the UN is widely recognized[24].

CONCLUSION

The EU is not a traditional global actor in realist terms, which the US epitomises, but in a relatively short time span it has developed significantly its international reach and as a ‘soft’ civilian power it has considerable global weight, across a wide spectrum[25].  Much of its weight rests upon its massive economic consequence in world terms, which is a mighty instrument capable of use outside the economic sphere.    Such use is dependent upon the cohesion of perspective of its member states but with such a concrete economic basis, it is developing politically as a global player, even though it is hampered a hazy sense of identity and interests and by the weakness of its foreign policy institutions and decision-making processes.  Despite this, although recent years have seen fragmentation, a general will to maintain cohesive foreign policy, supporting its global influence, is being maintained[26].  Many have played down the EU’s global influence, yet its development as a global player does continue, although often at a glacial rate.  Even so, the EU’s global influence across the spectrum is currently patchy, partly due to its own priorities, inherent capabilities, member state inconsistencies and external agency.  Further, its autonomy in exerting influence remains indeterminate.  In allowing the EU to exert some wide authority, some parts of the globe and some global issues are much more difficult than others.  These areas and issues are defined by the global actor: the United States.

[2] Coolsaet and Biscop, (2004), p. 7.

[3] ‘Making globalisation work for everyone: The European Union and world trade’, European Commission Information Brochure, December 2002.

[4] Smith (2003), p. 53.

[5] This is relative, as there remain several disagreements, not least over agricultural products.

[6] ‘Critics claim structures are rigid, outdated and overly hierarchical and that working practices lack transparency and openness to input from non-governmental players.Pascal Lamy, after Seattle, described the WTO as “medieval” while Franz Fischler, after Cancun, stated that there needed to be an overhaul of WTO structures.’ Cameron (2003), p. 13.

[7] Alasdair R. Young in ‘The EU and World Trade: Doha and Beyond’, Cowles & Dinan (2004), pp. 213-5.

[8] Smith (2003), p. 95.

[9] Linked together via the 2000 Cotonou Agreement, replacing the Lome agreement of 1975. Nugent (2003), pp.433-4.

[10] Regelsberger, cited in Smith (2003), p. 91.

[11] Gilpin (2001), p. 341.

[12] Smith (2003), p. 121 & 144.

[13] Johansson-Nogues, ‘The Fifteen and the Accession States in the United Nations General Assembly,  CFSP Forum, Vol 2 Issue 1, January 2004, p. 10.

[14] Cameron (2003), p. 15.

[15] Anand Menon in ‘Foreign and Security Policies of the EU’, Cowles & Dinan(2004), pp. 231-2.

[16] Smith (2003), p.151.

[17] Smith (2003), p.170

[18] Smith (2003), p.175

[19]John D. Occhipinti in’Police and Judicial Co-operation’, Cowles & Dinan (2004), pp. 192-3.

[20] de Wijk, ‘European Military Reform for a Global Partnership’, The Washington Quarterly,  Winter 2003-04, pp. 197–210.

[21] Peterson & Sjursen (1998), p. 179.

[22] Dedring, Reflections on the coordination of the EU member states in organs of the United Nations’, CFSP Forum, Vol 2 Issue 1, January 2004, p. 3.

[23] Graham, (2004), pp. 14-15.

[24] Laatikainen, ‘Assessing the EU as an Actor at the UN: Authority, Cohesion, Recognition and Autonomy’, CFSP Forum Vol 2 Issue 1, January 2004, p. 4.

[25] Peterson & Sjursen (1998), p. 184.

[26] Hill, ‘Renationalizing or Regrouping? EU Foreign Policy Since 11 September 2001’, Journal of Common Market Studies Volume 42, Number 1,  March 2004, pp. 160-62.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cameron, Fraser. The European Union and Global Governance European Policy Paper No 7, November 2003.  Available at http://www.epc.orgp.

Coolsaet, Rik and Biscop, Sven.  A European Security Concept for the 21^st Century, Egmont Paper 1 Royal Institute for International Relations (IRRI-KIIB) Brussels, April 2004.  Available at http://www.irri-kiib.bep.

Cowles, Maria Green and Dinan, Desmond,  Developments in the European Union 2  Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

Dedring, Juergen.  ‘Reflections on the Coordination of the EU Member States in Organs of the United Nations’, CFSP Forum, Vol 2 Issue 1, January 2004.

de Wijk, Rob. ‘European Military Reform for a Global Partnership’ The Washington Quarterly  Winter 2003-04.

Gilpin, Robert.  Global Politcal Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Graham, Kennedy. Towards Effective Multilateralism – The EU and the UN: Partners in Crisis Management European Policy Paper No 13, November 2004.  Available at ^http://www.epc.orgp.

Hill, Christopher.  ‘Renationalizing or Regrouping? EU Foreign Policy Since 11 September 2001’, Journal of Common Market Studies Volume 42, Number 1. March 2004.

Johansson-Nogues, Elisabeth. ‘The Fifteen and the Accession States in the United Nations General Assembly,  CFSP Forum, Vol 2 Issue 1 January 2004.

Keens-Soper, Maurice.  Europe in the World: The Persistence of Power Politics  Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1999.

Laaitkainen, Katie Verlin. ‘Assessing the EU as an Actor at the UN: Authority, Cohesion, Recognition and Autonomy’, CFSP Forum, Vol 2 Issue 1, January 2004

Nugent, Neill.  The Government and Politics of the European Union (Fifth Edition) Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

Peterson, Jogn and Sjursen, Helene.  A Common Foreign Policy for Europe: Competing Visions of the CFSP  London: Routledge, 1998.

Smith, Karen E. European Foreign Policy in a Changing World  Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003.

‘Making globalisation work for everyone: The European Union and world trade’ European Commission Information Brochure, December 2002.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivers remarks at the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) Article XIV Conference at the United Nations headquarters during the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York City, New York, September 24, 2009. (U.S. State Department photo/Public Domain)

It’s time for Congress to finally ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) that was signed by the U.S. in 1999 but derailed under the Republican-majority Senate in 1999 when they failed to ratify it. It is also time to implement all measures of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and for the U.S. and other nuclear nations to comply with Article VI of the treaty.

In order for the U.S. to be a believable agent of change in the nuclear regimes around the world, it must lead the way in showing good faith to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and then move swiftly to eliminate nuclear weapons through taking concrete steps and encouraging other nuclear nations to follow suit.

It is time for countries to use their precious financial and natural resources for purposes other than preparing for war. Far too much money is spent on nuclear weapons and other weapons of destruction. If we spent a small percentage of the money used to fund the wars around the world, we could eliminate poverty, illiteracy and hunger.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Global Military Expenditures set a new record in 2008 totalling an estimated “$1464 billion. This represents an increase of 4 percent in real terms compared to 2007, and an increase of 45 percent since 1999.”

“The USA accounted for the majority (58%) of the global increase between 1999 and 2008, with its military spending growing by $219 billion in constant 2005 prices over the period.” (SIPRI)

‘The idea of the “war on terror” has encouraged many countries to see their problems through a highly militarized lens, using this to justify high military spending,’ comments Dr. Sam Perlo-Freeman, Head of the Military Expenditure Project at SIPRI. ‘Meanwhile, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost $903 billion in additional military spending by the USA alone.’ (SIPRI)

Nuclear Weapons are a Danger to All Humanity

Nuclear weapons are a danger to all humanity and it is time to stop refining and redesigning them. The U.S. National Ignition Facility and Stockpile Stewardship Program have been used by those wishing to continue nuclear weapons development as a means to keep the wheels of technology moving forward for the next generation of nuclear weapons.

Enough.

We do not need these weapons. There are so many nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the nuclear-nation arsenals to annihilate the world several times over. Instead, we should be using our scientists brain power and our resources to find clean energy for every possible use and wean ourselves from polluting fossil fuels. We must solve the problem of why we need these horrible weapons of death in the first place and instead, focus on working together with other nations to solve our common problems such as the destructive effects of global warming.

President Barack Obama promised to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and work towards the elimination of all nuclear weapons. There are many level-headed scientists that support this philosophy, especially those scientists who created the first nuclear weapons through the Manhattan Project.

President Obama Calls for Elimination of Nuclear Weapons in Prague

While in Prague on April 5, 2009, President Obama said before a crowd of 30,000 people in a public address in the Czech capital:

“As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it; we can start it,” Obama said.

“So today, I state, clearly and with conviction, America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

Obama Presided Over Historic UN Security Council Summit on Nuclear Disarmament

At the United Nations Security Council Meeting on September 24, 2009, President Barack Obama stated:

It is the story of a world that understands that no difference or division is worth destroying all that we have built and all that we love. It is a recognition that can bring people of different nationalities, ethnicities and ideologies together. In my own country it has brought democrats and republican leaders together. Leaders like George Schultz, Bill Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn who are with us here today.

And it was a Republican President, Ronald Reagan, who once articulated the goal we now seek in the starkest of terms: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”

That is our task. That can be our destiny. And, we will leave this meeting with a renewed determination to achieve this shared goal.

The problem is: Indian foreign policy still is – beyond comprehension – influentially, if not largely,  wedded to the banner slogan “uphold high morality”. That was one of the reasons post independence, Jawaharlal Nehru confidently walked India into non-aligned movement during cold war as he though it was not good to align with either the US or the Soviets. Of course neutrality matters; it helped few European countries. However, this failed policy of Nehru even today influences the Indian foreign affairs establishment – i.e. to only think in terms of being pro-someone/anti-someone or neutral (unlike these select few European countries, Nehru made indefinable moral grounds as the anchor). Ironically, it ignores how such “real neutral” countries have, in a way, built their economies by selling arms and/or protecting inbound “savings” money that particularly fuel violent conflicts across the globe and/or help perpetuate corruption by providing safe havens for “safe banking”, all in the name of being neutral. At least, such countries thrive [at least in the past] economically by providing phenomenal socioeconomic structures for their citizens; for what reason does India “uphold high morality”, I wonder. Even worse, few among these few neutral countries claim (not restricted to Europe):

Soft Power
The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting piece on the challeneges facing the just- nominated head of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), America’s top foreign assistance program and a key part of efforts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan.

Counter Insurgency
Fertilizer bombs are now the most lethal weapon used against U.S. and NATO troops in southern Afghanistan, Dexter Filkens reports in a New York Times story on the seizure of half a million pounds of ammonium nitrate and about 2,000 bomb-making devices.

International Crime
Pirates off the coast of Somalia are at it again. Voice of America reports a cargo ship with 22 crew members has been seized.

Iniziamo con un gustoso antipasto.

“Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty da voce, come uno sfogo, a milioni di persone che altrimenti non l’avrebbero.”

“Voice of America e Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (…) portando informazione tempestiva, basata sui fatti, a popolazioni che altrimenti sarebbero tenute all’oscuro.”

“E mai prima nel recente passato c’è stato un momento più necessario per commercializzarla con un nuovo marchio e lasciare che il mondo sappia veramente che l’America è quella che, splendida, chiama con un cenno sulla collina.”

“Vaclav Havel ha detto che Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty fornisce nutrimento intellettuale, ispirazione morale ed i veri semi della società civile e della crescita e sviluppo democratici.”

“[In Bielorussia] Un capo dell’opposizione ha paragonato Radio Liberty all’aria che respiriamo.”

“La nostra più grande esportazione è la speranza.”

“La storia di Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty è un racconto sulla libertà umana, con i capitoli cruciali che non sono ancora stati scritti.”

“Le notizie possono essere buone, le notizie possono essere cattive. Noi ti diremo la verità.”

“Noi tutti siamo molto orgogliosi del nostro ruolo nel portare la luce negli angoli bui e, nel caso di Voice of America, aiutare milioni di persone a vedere l’America e gli Americani come siamo veramente.”

“L’informazione, l’ossigeno della libertà.”

Lo scorso 23 luglio, Jeffrey Gedmin e Dan Austin, rispettivamente presidente di Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) e direttore di Voice Of America (VOA), sono stati protagonisti di un’audizione presso il Subcomitato per l’Europa della Camera dei Rappresentanti USA, i cui atti sono stati successivamente diffusi con il titolo di Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty e Voice of America: potere morbido e la libera circolazione dell’informazione.
Durante la Seconda Guerra Mondiale, quando ancora la CNN, Fox News Channel e le altre televisioni via cavo non esistevano, furono RFE/RL e VOA ad “accendere la luce su ciò per cui l’America combatteva”. Oggi, nella loro essenza, sono “strumenti di marketing”: a prescindere dall’argomento di cui si occupano, RFE/RL e VOA “vendono e commercializzano gli Stati Uniti d’America”. “Ogni giorno esse sono sulle linee del fronte per dare forma a ciò che il mondo pensa di noi”.
In questo senso – considerato anche il calo della reputazione che gli USA godono in giro per il mondo – è fondamentale “il lavoro che [RFE/RL e VOA] stanno facendo per raggiungere quegli ascoltatori che hanno un’esposizione limitata all’esperienza americana ed ai media occidentali”.
L’importanza vitale del migliorare l’opinione mondiale circa gli Stati Uniti è dovuta al fatto che “noi siamo sicuramente i leader del mondo, ed abbiamo necessità di amici a livello governativo nei nostri sforzi in tutte queste nazioni. Questo significa invariabilmente che questi governi hanno bisogno del sostegno dei loro popoli. RFE/RL e VOA ci aiutano a costruire questo sostegno”.
Questo serrato (ed illuminante) ragionamento chiude l’introduzione fatta dall’onorevole David Scott ai due interventi dei prestigiosi ospiti di giornata.
Primo a parlare è Jeffrey Gedmin, che prima di assumere l’incarico di presidente di RFE/RL nel 2007, è stato direttore dell’Aspen Institute di Berlino, e prima ancora ricercatore presso l’American Enterprise Institute e direttore esecutivo della New Atlantic Initiative dove “egli collaborava con politici, giornalisti ed uomini d’affari per rivitalizzare ed espandere l’Atlantismo democratico”.
“Sono passati venti anni da quando un Presidente invocò un’Europa unita e libera, e siamo circa a metà strada. Forse siamo al 60%, od al 47%. C’è un immenso lavoro che deve essere fatto. Io penso che noi giochiamo un ruolo importante”. Infatti.
Attualmente RFE/RL hanno trasmissioni per 21 Paesi ed in 28 lingue, ed uffici in 19 nazioni. Le trasmissioni raggiungono Russia, Ucraina, Bielorussia, l’Asia centrale, il Caucaso, alcuni importanti Paesi dell’Europa orientale, Afghanistan, Iran ed Iraq, con il prossimo obiettivo delle aree tribali del Pakistan.
Per quanto riguarda la Russia, Gedmin sottolinea che “un’informazione indipendente ed affidabile” è assicurata da un gruppo al lavoro a Praga (dove RFE/RL ha sede) affiancato da un ufficio a Mosca e da una rete di giornalisti freelance presenti in tutte le 11 zone di fuso orario del Paese. Lamenta comunque la perdita di una ventina delle emittenti “affiliate”, la maggior parte “a causa di pressioni politiche”. Inspiegabilmente, perché – afferma Gedmin – non facciamo propaganda, né programmazione antirussa: al contrario, “I colleghi del nostro servizio russo sono patrioti”. Nella vicina Estonia, poi, l’attuale Presidente Tom Ilves è un ex giornalista della radio.
Per quanto riguarda i Balcani, il Congresso può essere certo che RFE/RL aiuterà i leader ed i cittadini di Bosnia, Croazia, Serbia, Macedonia.. a procurarsi quelle “notizie ed analisi affidabili necessarie per prendere decisioni informate circa le loro vite ed il futuro”.
Spostandosi più ad oriente, nel Caucaso ed Asia centrale, vanno stigmatizzate le “tendenze illiberali” in Russia che hanno effetto anche nei Paesi confinanti. Su RFE/RL si può comunque contare, “noi rimaniamo in corsa, anche quando gli altri perdono fiducia”.
In Afghanistan, la sezione radio locale (conosciuta come Radio Azadi, con trasmissioni nelle lingue dari e pashtun) ormai raggiunge quasi il 50% della popolazione adulta con le sue “solide analisi sulla lotta contro le risorgenti forze talebane”. In Iran, anche per colpa del governo che interferisce con il segnale radio e blocca il sito web, l’audience di RFE/RL è minore.
Le ultime parole di Gedmin sono dedicate alla nuova sede della radio, una struttura a sei piani di quasi 21.000 mq provvista di studi di registrazione multimediali ed una moderna sala stampa. “L’edificio è efficiente dal punto di vista energetico. Cosa più importante, è sicuro”.
Tanto che qualcuno l’ha paragonato ad un carcere di massima sicurezza.

Secondo testimone dell’audizione Dan Austin che, prima di diventare direttore di Voice Of America nel 2006, ha trascorso 36 anni alle dipendenze di Dow Jones & Company. Egli ha lavorato anche per il Wall Street Journal, arrivando a ricoprire le cariche di vice presidente e direttore generale. Non prima di essere stato pluridecorato veterano di guerra nell’esercito statunitense impegnato in Vietnam.
A differenza di Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Voice of America diffonde le proprie trasmissioni sia per radio che per televisione ed attualmente è la più grande emittente USA a livello internazionale. Si stima che ogni settimana 134 milioni di persone nel mondo siano raggiunti dai suoi programmi, diffusi in 45 lingue diverse. 69 di questi 134 milioni sono spettatori delle trasmissioni televisive diffuse via satellite in 25 lingue.
Ovviamente, non è dato pensare che “ad ognuno di questi 134 milioni di persone piacciano l’America o le politiche americane”. In ogni caso, abbiamo “una credibilità presso le nostre audience che permette loro di farsi spazio nel chiasso di una penetrante propaganda ed attraverso la nebbia della cattiva e falsa informazione che oggi giorno caratterizza così tanti media mondiali”.
VOA può vantare 1.300 dipendenti e centinaia di corrispondenti occasionali e contrattisti in tutto il mondo, il cui lavoro costituisce la base delle sue 1.500 ore di programmazione settimanale.
In Kosovo, ad esempio, ben il 64% della popolazione adulta assiste alle trasmissioni radiotelevisive diffuse a partire dall’Albania. In Russia, causa “stretto controllo governativo”, VOA è organizzata come programma multimediale a partire dalla rete telematica, con una media di 60.000 visite mensili al proprio canale YouTube dedicato. Sono 4,75 milioni settimanalmente gli spettatori in Ucraina, mentre in Armenia ad assistere quotidianamente ai programmi tv di VOA è il 46% della popolazione adulta.
In Azerbaigian, dall’inizio del 2009 è in vigore un divieto di trasmissione che ha spinto i responsabili di VOA a diffondere i programmi radio in onde corte e quelli televisivi via satellite. Anche in Uzbekistan tira cattiva aria, tanto che la programmazione televisiva in lingua locale – l’unica prodotta da un emittente internazionale – è trasmessa da una stazione in Kirghizistan. La signora Rebiye Kadeer, leader esiliata della minoranza Uiguri in Cina, ha pubblicamente ringraziato VOA “quale fonte di informazione dalla quale tutti noi Uiguri dipendiamo”.

I bilanci annuali di RFE/RL e VOA ammontano, rispettivamente, a 90 e 201 milioni di dollari. “Noi crediamo che, dollaro per dollaro, siamo uno dei migliori investimenti che i contribuenti americani possano fare” dice Jeff Gedmin.
L’America sarà anche messianica – come sostiene, fra gli altri, Aymeric Chauprade – ma i suoi ideali coincidono con i suoi interessi.
E proprio “lì sta il motore della sua intima proiezione di potenza”.

Distinguished professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Joseph Nye talks about South Korea’s future direction lies ahead

South Korea has turned into an important middle-ranking power in global affairs.  World sees Korea discount now changing to  Korea premium. Having seen South Korea as the 13th national power country amongst G-20 evaluated by the Hansun Foundation, Not just hard power, soft power also has been being improved.  Professor Joseph emphasized the importance of strengthening soft power. He said now it’s time for Korea to jump up with more strengthened sophisticated and efficient soft power, such as ODA or successful democratic political system, etc.     See more from scmp.com

November 8th 2009, Mysore

In a climax of compelling speakers, TED India got everyone out of bed (no mean feat when the final night was such a riotous affair) and back into their increasingly delirious brains. A lack of sleep, a lack of food because there was just no time to eat, somehow the intellectual sustenance remained the food for thought. The ability to let us listen to stories. Stories which have the power to transform.

The girl inside

I have to start with Eve Ensler, and her vibrant description of what it means to be a girl in “I am an emotional creature”. She roused the stage with her passionate description of a society which had stolen its girl side, both men and women, and left itself inept and broken by placing value only on those hardened characteristics which associate themselves with male victory. The language that correlates vulnerability and emotion with weakness has been displaced. The language that allows men to sell women and their daughters has been strengthened. The verb “to please” which is encouraged  in women from such a young age that they forget to defy, create, activate has been planted. Eve’s declaration that being a girl is so powerful that the world has had to teach everyone not to be like that struck a strong chord. She talked about the mass rape of women in the DRC, and their use of taboos and traditions to force peace talks onto the table. She talked about the Masai father who was ready to sell his daughter to an old man for some cows and blankets, and disfigure and disempower her with mutilation as part of the bidding, a father who was proud of his daughter when she ran away to seek help and returned a year later, educated and with new ambition, promising never to cut her whilst she promised to fight her father’s corner always.

Soft power and the cellphone revolution

Soft power.

The subject of Shashi Tharoor’s talk, a charismatic compelling political speaker who painted a picture of a world in which India’s ability to use its influence and values to attract others could be a force for good. He described India as a country which works  partly because of its government, and partly in spite of it. A country which has been selling fifteen million mobile phones per month, emerging from a country where the phone was a rare luxury just a couple of decades ago. Who is carrying those cellphones, he asked? The man who climbs a coconut palm to bring down the right number of coconuts, the fisherman out at sea who can get the best price for his wares in the best market, and the farmers (who have been committing suicide in mass droves) who also can find a way to sell their produce more efficiently.

Soft power. The ability of Bollywood and Indian music and television to have the same influence that MTV, Hollywood and McDonalds have had for the United States. The popularity of Indian entertainment, for example, in Afghanistan where the country stands still enough for robbers to know when to strike, as everyone sits down to watch the Indian equivalent of Eastenders. The economic value of Indian restaurants in the UK who now employ more than the coal and mining industries together.  

He talked about Indian influence in the region through its pluralist democracy, in a country which an Italian-origin Roman Catholic woman, Sonia Gandhi, was elected with a Sikh Prime Minister, sworn in by a Muslim President. That, he said, was India being itself, sustained above all else by its pluralist democracy.

He is right, of course, and he used the power to tell stories compellingly. They are all true, although as previous articles will tell you, I fear that India’s ability to propagate is pluralist democracy without coming to terms with its State-sponsored violence and failure to account to itself and its people is also its biggest barrier to progress. You can’t please all the people all of the time, but you have to ensure at the very least that you don’t kill them.

 The power of children to transform society

Soft power, through Sesame Street, or Galli Galli Sim Sim, changing children’s lives across the sub-continent.  Soft power through the Riverside school in Ahmedabad, set up by Kiran Sethi whose favourite word “contagious”, in these days of swine flu, has inspired her to allow children to make a change, shutting down the city’s main streets once a month to allow it to be transformed into a children’s playground, inspiring children to teach their illiterate parents in rural Rajasthan to read and write, bringing children out onto the streets to demand an end to child poverty by making the pupils roll incense for eight hours so they understand what it feels like.

The power of children and sport, developed by Matthew Spacie who founded Magic Bus, who in searching for a way to engage girls in the slums, developed a football league for their mothers, which led to the grandmothers demanding their won league and ultimately which led to them coaching the very daughters they initially sought to engage.

Ring the bell and end domestic violence

Bell Bajao. An advertising campaign encouraging neighbours to ring the bell when they hear the strains and shouts of domestic violence from the next door house or street. Step in. Help. Don’t leave everything to the State.

Will you change my world?

Change the world, or let the person next to you change it for you, if you are open enough, said  Balasubramanian, an installation artist, painter and sculptor who sought to answer philosophy through sculpture hanging off the walls of a gallery. How do shadows define our sense of self? Where there is dark, must there be light?

And where there is blindness, individuals with passion can bring light to thousands of people in one of the most inspiring talks of the session. Ravilla Thulasiraj whose Aravinda eye hospitals have been inspired by the founder’s philosophy to create a McDonals of eye care, breaking down access barriers to the poor in innovative ways that reduce budgets and costs dramatically, provide transportation where required for hospital treatment and using technology to deliver telemedicine in the most rural places.

The power of serenity

And finally, to His Holiness, the 17^th Gyalwang Karmapa, who brought serenity to our twisting minds at the end of the conference, looking for positivity out of negativity. Talking about the Bamian Buddha statues which had been felled by the Taliban, he talked of looking for the positive, as though the action may bring about some peace between two religious communities helping them to understand each other without the barrier of a physical wall.

He told us that we had taken a million collective breaths this week, and although we may not see coarse changes, we needed to watch out for the subtle changes. The little symbols of happiness in every breathe that we took. He asked us to take the good, the momentum, the positivity of the fortune of such a diverse group of people coming together to form a strong approach, and to plant those qualities in every corner of the world.

And so these are not the articles to consider more deeply the consequences both of what we heard and what we did not hear. This is the place simply to note some of the people who left the biggest footprints this week. It has been an intense learning experience from which I am bound to take the positive.

The future beckons and India is ready to take her place at the front of it. There are people ready to seek creative solutions to seemingly intractable problems that perpetuate and expand poverty, whilst recognising that there is a long way to go. There are people all over the world who seek a common framework of inspiration.

I am not ready to leave, but I am certainly ready to sleep.

I am all for the soft power of new friendships and transforming ideas.  Stories which have the power to transform.

 I am a girl, an emotional creature.

Food for thought, indeed.

(updated below)

A year ago tonight, Barack Obama stood on a stage in Chicago’s Grant Park to claim victory in the 2008 presidential election.  The atmosphere was electric, the excitement was palpable, and the expectations for his presidency were very high.

President-Elect Barack Obama in Grant Park

A year removed, that feeling has subsided substantially.  Many of the promises of the campaign remain unfulfilled, leading some to question the President’s commitment to getting things done.  While a drawdown is underway in Iraq, the American involvement in Afghanistan seems more protracted and prolonged than ever.  Health care reform has become a wedge issue polarizing American citizens and poisoning our political civility.  After a few initial overtures, little has been done about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and Guantanamo Bay.

It’s true that there have not been any monumental pieces of legislation signed into law or any peace agreements shook upon.  Yes, the Obama presidency thus far has been rather dull.  This has led to growing disillusionment and disappointment.  But where others may be concerned, I am still cautiously optimistic about this presidency.

The political climate in Washington has changed considerably under the new Administration.  The White House has launched a number of transparency initiatives that mark a noticeable departure from the Plame-gate days of Bush II.  The Justice Department has got back to the rule of law and away from pushing political agendas.  But most importantly, the stance the United States has adopted in regard to the rest of the world has changed drastically.

The Bush Administration made a few friends (NOTE: Kenya in 2007) and many enemies through it’s aggressive assertion of a moral agenda into foreign policy.  The Obama presidency has thus far been one of overtures to allies past and potential.  The result has been a significant increase in both goodwill toward the United States abroad and soft power that the United States is able to leverage in forging partnerships and isolating threats.

Global attitudes toward the United States are shifting.  We are once again viewed as a legitimate and responsible actor that views stability and cooperation as international ideals.  This systemic shift in attitudes is our best weapon against agents of terror and chaos – a world that views the United States as moral and just is less likely to foster the atmosphere of resentment that ideologues focus and shape in order to breed the type of malcontent that perceives the United States as sole creator of the world’s ills.

Furthermore, the world trusts America to a far greater degree than under the previous Administration:

Source: Pew Global Attitudes Survey

As Daniel Drezner puts it, this indicates that the world views the United States as a more competent partner in global affairs.  The Nobel Prize would seem to confirm this.  And if we’re going to make real progress on the global issues that confront us – ranging from climate change to proliferation to Iran to the war in Afghanistan – the return of American soft power and legitimacy as a competent and just actor are as important a foundation as any President could have built.  A year after the 2008 election, that is cause for great celebration.

UPDATE: I find myself agreeing completely with the remarks given by Marc Lynch in Foreign Policy’s presidential report card:

The administration has moved from the initial period of “reset” to the tougher period of implementation. A lot of people focus on the inevitable lack of immediate progress — some because they want change and are growing frustrated, others because they oppose his agenda and seek every opportunity to declare failure. I get frustrated, and I’ve been critical of some of Obama’s tactics and priorities. But stepping back from the day-to-day triumphs and frustrations shows an administration which has come a long way in less than ten months.

Much more succinct, but my sentiments exactly.

Local revitalization

Sanriku Railway Co. has hosted a symposium on local revitalization using anime character figurines modeled on female employees from railway companies across Japan.

Tetsudo Musume/鉄道むすめ

The “Tetsudo Musume” (Railway Girls) series, produced by toy manufacturer Tomytec, features female figurines wearing uniforms of local railways around the country.

Railway hopes uniform-clad anime figurines will revitalize local areas, Mainichi, November 4, 2009

See Also : Tales of Ugo ~ Local Moe Warfare, Moetization and Economic Survival in Hard Times, Rumoi Moekko Furi Kippu, Getting Out of Recession ~ The Akiba Lessons

Edited by Watanabe Yasushi and David L. McConnell

Pages : 329

Contents :

List of Tables and Figures
Foreword : Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
Acknowledgments
Introduction : Watanabe Yasushi and David L. McConnell

Part I: Perception
1. Anti-Americanism in Japan
Watanabe Yasushi
2. Japan’s Image Problem and the Soft Power Solution: The JET Program as Cultural Diplomacy
David L. McConnell

Part II: Higher Education
3. Higher Education as a Projection of America’s Soft Power
Philip G. Altbach and Patti McGill Peterson
4. Facing Crisis: Soft Power and Japanese Education in a Global Context
Yonezawa Akiyoshi
5. Nurturing Soft Power: The Impact of Japanese–U.S. University Exchanges
Ellen Mashiko and Horie Miki

Part III. Popular Culture
6. The Attractions of the J-Wave for American Youth
Anne Allison
7. Shared Memories: Japanese Pop Culture in China
Nakano Yoshiko
8. Japan’s Creative Industries: Culture as a Source of Soft Power in the Industrial Sector
Sugiura Tsutomu
9. Baseball in U.S.-Japanese Relations: A Vehicle of Soft Power in Historical Perspective
Sayuri Guthrie-Shimizu
10. American Pop Culture as Soft Power: Movies and Broadcasting
Matthew Fraser

Part IV: Public Diplomacy
11. Wielding Soft Power: The Key Stages of Transmission and Reception
Kondo Seiichi
12. Official Soft Power in Practice: U.S. Public Diplomacy in Japan
William G. Crowell
13. Japan Does Soft Power: Strategy and Effectiveness of Its Public Diplomacy in the United States
Agawa Naoyuki

Part V: Civil Society
14. Mr. Madison in the Twenty-first Century: Global Diffusion of the People’s “Right to Know”
Lawrence Repeta
15. Soft Power of NGOs: Growing Influence Beyond National Boundaries
Imata Katsuji and Kuroda Kaori

About the Editors and Contributors
Index