By Peter Knoope. Malala Yousafzai a hero in the West and how her impact was killed at home On October the 12^th CNN reported the impressive message of a 16 year old schoolgirl criticizing a world leader. She reflects the thoughts of many when The “Bravest Girl in the World” has stood up to President Barack Obama. Malala Yousafzai, the 16-year-old shot by the Taliban for promoting girl’s education in her native Pakistan, confronted Obama at the White House on Friday about U.S. drone strikes. Yousafzai challenged one of Obama’s premier counter-terrorism strategies saying, “I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impact.” While expressing what many bystanders would feel as just, she may address and resonate with a different audience than she would have wanted. To what extent does she still reflect and speak for a constituency in her own country? While Malala gained fame in the West by addressing the UN in New York, by being honored with the Children’s Peace Prize for her work promoting education for girls in The Hague, by being nominated for the Nobel Peace prize and by criticizing the most powerful of world leaders, in the process she just may have lost her position, status and influence in her own homeland. The real question is what is her impact in Pakistan where it is most needed? We, here in the West, already agree with her work, promoting education for girls, promoting peace, fighting political violence and objecting to drones, because of its counter -productive impact and the killing of innocent people. She, just like us, would like to see education rather than drones. We agree. But the real question is what is the impact of what she says and does in Pakistan, what is her message for the Pakistani people and does that message reach her opponents? If need be, let me be absolutely clear, I fully sympathize with everything that the young girl stands for. But anyone who is really concerned about what her message is and how that lands in the environment that tried to silence her in the most brutal way possible, should take a minute and check what is taking place in her country of origin. In Pakistan the debate about her is fierce. There are those that claim that the mere fact that a 16 year old was seriously considered for the honor of winning the Nobel Peace Prize is significant. Such global attention for a teenager would be cause for national celebration in almost any country of the world. But not in bitterly divided, conspiracy theory-prone Pakistan, because, as could have been expected, the Islamists in Pakistan and the hyper-nationalist Taliban claim that honoring a 16-year-old girl is part of a Western design to impose Western values on Islamic Pakistan. This led to some commentators exclaiming that the criticism from Malala’s Pakistani detractors highlighted the national malaise that young Malala has committed herself to fight! While Malala is defended by some she is attacked on various fronts in Pakistan. Conspiracy theories about her in Pakistan abound, with one doctor claiming in the (Karachi based) Dawn newspaper that he has a DNA report proving she is not a Pashtun and not from Swat. Other outlets claim she is a CIA agent and one of the top five “most hated people in Pakistan”. Sherry Rehman, Jinnah Institute Executive President highlighted the vitriol she receives on both sides of the aisle. The right-wing Islamic militant who spews hatred on the internet, hates everything she stands for and for fighting back. While on the left, commentators resent her commodification by the West. The latter does not necessarily hate Malala, Rehman argues but, “[postmodern leftists] resent her identity as a poster child for resistance to coercion… because she has become a brand bigger than her authentic grassroots self.” What all this shows us is that countering a narrative of violence and hate, promoting peace and human rights, in an environment that is heavily poisoned and in deep political turmoil, is a very complex issue. Countering such a narrative requires more than just enjoying hearing our own opinion reflected by a sympathetic individual. Malala and her side of the story may be right, but that is not enough. Being right is not the same as getting it right and requires more. Credibility is the other ingredient. And maybe she has lost some of her credibility by receiving the various Western accolades and being entertained by Western leaders and institutions. If that is the case we may have managed to save her life but kill her impact.  

By Dr. Huub Ruël, Windesheim University of Applied Sciences – Zwolle.   The future of commercial diplomacy in shifting global economy. Advanced economies as well as emerging economies have placed commercial diplomacy high on their foreign policy agenda. Commercial diplomacy concerns the use of the networks of government and business representatives to support home country international business via the use of diplomatic channels and means. Embassies are key players in the execution of commercial diplomacy. For many advanced economies, promoting home country business abroad, opening foreign markets for national business, and attracting foreign investments, is an important route to regain economic growth. Especially in a global economy with a shifting power balance, and emerging economies showing more and more economic self-confidence. Within this context it is interesting to know how the future of commercial diplomacy may look like? We conducted a study aiming to picture future developments in commercial diplomacy. A group of thirteen commercial diplomats from 10 different countries, Argentina, Germany, United Kingdom, Australia, Italy, United States, Canada, Mexico, and The Netherlands, all based in Canada, were interviewed in two rounds on the future of commercial diplomacy. The first round concerned open questions on expected developments regarding commercial diplomacy actors and activities. In the second round, the experts completed a questionnaire, in which they rated the developments mentioned in the first round with the use of a 5-point Likert scale. The results showed that commercial diplomats interviewed expect that 1. actors will have to work faster, more professionally and efficiently in the future; 2. prominent political figures will be heading trade missions more often; 3. locally hired staff will substitute for diplomats more; 4. foreign ministers’ interest in commercial diplomacy will increase further; 5. Asia will become increasingly important as a region of interest for actors. Concerning the activities of commercial diplomacy, the respondents expect that 1. commercial diplomacy will have a more central role in diplomatic policy and practice; 2. higher service levels will be expected if there are fees for the services; 3. commercial benefit will become a necessity of all embassy-wide activities; 4. Asia is becoming more important as a region of interest for activities; 5. the recession will lead to assigning priority to commercial diplomacy as a specific form of diplomacy. The results provide indications for foreign policy makers in advanced economies as well as emerging economies.

By Paramjit S. Sahai, Former Indian ambassador; DiploFoundation & University of Malta.

India’s Cultural Diplomacy in a Globalised World.

Cultural Diplomacy is recognised as an important instrument of foreign policy in promoting international links among peoples and countries.  In the past, there was an intrinsic link between culture and commerce.  In some cases, culture preceded commerce; while in other cases, it was the other way round. Did this cultural connectivity lead to strengthening of political, commercial and economic ties among countries? Independent India recognised the importance of cultural diplomacy, as an instrument for people to people connectivity. Ministries of External Affairs and Culture share the responsibility for promoting cultural diplomacy. India has signed 126 bilateral cultural agreements and is currently implementing 58 Cultural Exchange Programmes with other countries. Bilateral Agreements, however, are not  prerequisite for the conduct of cultural diplomacy. To achieve this objective, India set up a nodal body, called  the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) in 1950.  Since its creation, ICCR has used a number of instrumentalities, like Cultural Centres, Festivals of India, Chairs of Indian Studies, etc. in promoting not only cultural but broader linkages with countries across the world. There is an expansion of Cultural Centres and Chairs of Indian Studies. The Centres are now treated as ‘cultural hubs’ and not as ‘IndianIslands’. In the 21^st century, which is categorized as an Asian century, there is a spurt in India’s economic and commercial linkages?  How much is this due to cultural connectivity?  Do we see a new dynamism being imparted to age old cultural ties, leading to emergence of cooperation in new areas, like education, information technology, which also fall under the broader definition of culture? Do we need to evolve a new approach on Cultural Diplomacy?  How do we give a push to our cultural activities, as the same are not restricted to the governmental channels only?  The role of Bollywood, Yoga and Indian diaspora becomes important in this regard.  Finally, it would also beg the question, whether there is a new thrust.  If so, then what is the nature and the direction of the same and its impact on overall ties? Any discussion on cultural diplomacy would necessitate our understanding how it is placed in this globalised world.  We would also have to take a fresh look at the concept itself, whether it has undergone any transformation in the process.  Has cultural diplomacy appeared in its new incarnation, as soft diplomacy?  It also raises certain questions, as to whether we are now better connected in a globalised world, which has bridged the communication gap.  If so, then do we still need cultural diplomacy to connect people?  On the other hand, has the world of cultural diplomacy been subsumed into other catchy frameworks, like ‘soft power, ‘public diplomacy’, which are in vogue these days. Are the above terms synonymous with ‘Cultural Diplomacy’?  If not, how do these relate to one another?  Does ‘Cultural Diplomacy’ remain in the governmental domain?  If not, whether other players have emerged and how do these connect with the governmental apparatus.  Has this diluted or circumscribed the role of the government?  All these and more questions would need to be answered, as we move forward. The heart of cultural diplomacy is to promote understanding among people, who come from different backgrounds and hold different values, through the medium of culture. Dr. Karan Singh, President, ICCR states, ‘Culture has no boundaries and using it as a way to interact with the masses has been the most effective way to win hearts in the era of globalization’.  Culture in the context of cultural diplomacy looks at a broader spectrum and is not limited to performing arts only.  It embraces both ‘high culture’ and ‘low culture’ activities. Cultural diplomacy has to primarily grapple with the issue of identity, per se.  It is both at the level of individuals and nations, as even the latter have also acquired their own identities.  At global level, we all are connected and differences tend to disappear, as we watch the same programmes and wear similar dresses.  In fact, the jean has become the biggest leveller, not only among the genders, but also among people across the world.  At the national level, we tend to equate our identities, with the home or the host state, to suit our convenience.  at the local level, we opt for our distinct identity, as we are nurtured by similar values and traditions, which result in our acquiring certain social and cultural traits.  It is, here that we start identifying with the group as ‘we’;  thus seeing ourselves as different from another group, called ‘they’. It is, here that the role of cultural diplomacy triggers in, as a connecting bridge, to understand and respect individuals and nations, as they are. From the above, it should be clearly understood that cultural diplomacy cannot be equated with ‘soft diplomacy’, as coined by Joseph Nye. It has to be remembered that the primary focus of soft ‘diplomacy’ is to influence through means other than military. In the case of cultural diplomacy, it is about ‘dialogue’ and through dialogue to promote understanding. Furthermore, cultural diplomacy also cannot be equated with public diplomacy; even though in practice it is used interchangeably with ‘public diplomacy’, which is the most ‘in-thing’ these days.  Public Diplomacy is definitely about influence; it is about conversion of others into our view point.  Its focus, therefore, is on opinion makers, be it the academia, think tanks, pressure groups, businessmen and other influential elite, which have a say in the formulation of foreign policy and conduct of international relations.  Public Diplomacy is a direct onslaught on the brain (intellect), while cultural diplomacy softly plays on the heart. There is a greater need to make cultural diplomacy more visible in this globalised village, where we need to understand the centrality of the message of Swami Vivekanand that he delivered in 1871 at an International Conference on World Religions at Chicago. He spoke of ‘understanding and not conversion’ across the globe and of ‘acceptance and not protection’ of other religions.  We have to imbibe this message, when civilisational divide separates us more. Universal Man of the dream of Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore is still missing from this global village, as differences are getting accentuated among peoples and nations.  The so called ‘clash of civilizations’ has not receded into the distant past, as mistrust is growing among followers of major faiths. Therefore, a new thrust needs to be imparted to cultural diplomacy, as it assumes its role of a bridge builder among nations and peoples.