It is the culture, stupid. It always has been.
As a currently applicant for a Boren Scholarship, a Fulbright one-day-hopeful, and engaged student of International Studies, cultural diplomacy and the idea that communication through non-political means can bring about change from the inside of rigidly anti-American societies is my raison d'etre.
However, the conference we attended two weeks ago, and this article, highlight the importance of what has in the lag 1970s Moscow st decade been considered a diplomatic relic of the Cold War. This is abhorrent. What makes the story of Voice of America antiquated?
Dr. Schneider's article echos my sentiments exactly.
I encourage interested classmates to also read this Foreign Affairs article, which underscores many of the same sentiments: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/59359
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think it would be helpful if you elaborated more on your point of view in this post.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the short tidbit that you attached, I disagree with some of the author's conclusions, especially in regards to her remarks on radical Islam. She says that American policymakers have become too comfortable in using military force to respond to radical Islam, and that cultural diplomacy should be more thoroughly employed to sway the moderate elements in "societies vulnerable to radicalism." However, for cultural diplomacy to be effective the issue that has to be resolved is an ideological one. If successive American governments were not propping up unpopular regimes that suppressed democratic and market activity, then I found it doubtful that radical Islam would be as big an issue that it is today. The problem is not so much ideological as it is political and economic. Cultural diplomacy can not hide the devastating effects of American policy.