Public Diplomacy in Tragedy

I was unsure whether or not to post this for fear of appearing crass or insensitive. So upfront I would like to say this blog post is not intended to belittle the tragedy at Boston, the anniversary of the tragedy at Virginia Tech, or any of the tragedies that I mention (or any I don’t). I merely wish to explore an idea in writing.

This morning I overheard a girl talking on Skype to an Egyptian friend about what had happened in Boston. The Egyptian girl was interested both out of reasons of compassion and because as she stated “What the US does and how the US reacts affects us.” This statement of course comes in the context of US intervention in the Middle East as part of the War on Terror, and the Egyptian girl is right that oftentimes even domestic issues in the US become important for the whole world.

That same morning my Facebook newsfeed, while filled with support and condolences for Boston, also had quite a few posts that went like this, “Boston was terrible but yesterday X happened in Y and no one is talking about.” While I don’t think moral superiority in the face of a tragedy is an effective way to communicate a message, or particularly compassionate, I also don’t think that was the message many of the people were trying to convey. Rather they hoped to use this opportunity of a public out pouring of compassion to highlight other areas and issues in need of attention.

These experiences and others over the past few days affected me in many ways but I want to explore one thought here.

How does public diplomacy interact with tragedy?

A few weeks earlier I wrote an article about Japan’s public diplomacy in relation to its remilitarization. In that article I argued (among other things) that the source of popular domestic support for this remilitarization, being from the military’s execution of humanitarian efforts with the Fukushima Disaster, would make Japan’s remilitarization follow a humanitarian path often for public diplomacy purposes.

I did not explore the idea that after the 2010 earthquake and tsunami there was a slightly contentious dialogue from Japan concerning humanitarian aid. Some parts of Japanese society did not want to be perceived as a needy country depending on Western benevolence. Was this rejection of aid (which happened more discursively than an actual rejection of aid) a public diplomacy act asserting Japan’s power status?

What does that mean for countries actively pursuing aid after an economic disaster? Are, for example, the charities following the Earthquake in Haiti to receive aid from abroad and provide humanitarian assistance in Haiti bad for Haiti’s public image? Does that even matter for most countries following a disaster?

An interesting note is that many of the methods for getting aid internationally look a lot like public diplomacy. There are public private partnerships, international cooperation, and direct outreach to publics in both countries. Media frames, media content, and media control, are also very important often affecting what we know to be a tragedy and we do not. Networks, influence leaders, and the social ties all also come into play when doing this sort of social work.

But for who is this public diplomacy? The states providing the aid? USAID puts American Flags on all its rice bags, among other things and US aid is seen as a key part of many diplomatic strategies. Oftentimes humanitarian aid offers the best opportunities to reach out to the public directly.

For the country where the tragedy occurs though I think the issue is more complex. First off often times the need for aid is much greater than such a question. But for instance in the case of Japan the call to refocus not on monetary and physical aid but on compassion and Japan’s human relationships. I think while almost certainly not an intentional public diplomacy act, it had positive public diplomatic effects. It showed national strength and courage, while reminding people to keep Japan in their thoughts and encouraging a positive human view of the country from the outside world.

For countries that must pursue aid though it is equally concerning that shortly following the disaster attention to these countries often drops off rapidly. To again reference Haiti, this has been one of Haiti’s key problems after numerous disasters. International focus, contributions, plans and then a lack of follow through after the initial crisis is solved leaving poor Haiti still unable to handle the next one (notice how I unintentionally slipped into categorizing Haiti as a victim which shows perhaps the validity in Japan’s strategy in terms of protecting their national image).  But perhaps by viewing disaster relief through the same technical lens with which we view public diplomacy Haiti may be able to develop more long term and sustained aid efforts that will help it address long term issues.

This post was perhaps a tad disjointed, but hopefully not disrespectful. I merely hoped to relate a few thoughts on public diplomacy to these events that all too often occur. Tragedies must be responded to depending on their situation so I shy away from offering any sort of best practices. But suffice it to say that the world often notices them, and when presented with tragedy there is usually an outpouring of compassion from the global public. With a complete lack of cynicism I would recommend that in interacting with that global public, countries affected by tragedy should keep public diplomacy methods in mind because that is what they are for.

And I’ll close with a quote that I’m sure many of you have seen but seems particularly relevant to a discussion of aid and tragedy: “When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, “Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.”- Mr. Rodgers

JP