US CULTURAL DIPLOMACY AFTER 2003 : STRATEGIC SHIFTS

In 2005, The U.S. Department of State wrote the following phrase: ‘The erosion of our trust and credibility within the international community must be reversed if we hope to use more than our military and economic might in the shaping of world opinion. Culture matters.’ The aftermath of U.S. intervention in the Middle East paved the way for a new era of foreign policy; cultural diplomacy.

Cultural Diplomacy and the Cold War

Cultural diplomacy can be shortly defined as cultural practices that are exchanged by states to foster mutual understanding. The first examples of cultural diplomacy performed by the United States can be traced back to the Cold War period, where the United States established and promoted cultural channels to combat ideological bipolarism. A concrete example is the Fulbright Scholarship, designed to attract top students and allow them to study in the US, becoming ‘indirect’ ambassadors for the country upon returning home. Additionally, by sending more than 100 acts to 89 countries during a four-year period in the Cold War the US has collaborated frequently with jazz artists, abstract expressionists and modern literary critics.

Therefore, cultural diplomacy as a foreign policy mechanism for the United States signified what Josef Joffe labeled as ‘HHMMS – Harvard and Hollywood, McDonald’s and Microsoft Syndrome’. This generalized definition of US cultural diplomacy touches upon the institutional leadership of US on certain global markets: intellectual and educational capacity (Harvard), cinema and art (Hollywood), the food industry (McDonalds) and technological innovation (Microsoft). Thus, for a long period, US cultural diplomacy served as a means of showcasing US

‘primacy’ with regard to developing countries and the ‘Third World’. This unilateral mindset of US foreign policy would be met with strong contention and a popular anti-US sentiment abroad, which became widespread after the invasion of Iraq. After 2003, US Department Of State would take a different approach to cultural diplomacy to resolve this disdain towards traditional ‘Cold War’ diplomacy.

Re-Branding the US in the Middle East

During the US military action in Iraq, several critical incidents, such as the conditions at the Guantanamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib Prison’s publicity, caused a steep decline in the US public image in many states. Not only within the Middle East but also within close European allies, the neutral or even positive view of the US in the 80s and 90s was replaced with hostility towards US military actions starting with the Gulf War. To restore the negative perception of US foreign policy, cultural diplomacy started to be used in a more practical framework.

Nation-Branding

One of the pillars of 21st century cultural diplomacy is nation-branding. This term explains the articulation and projection of a national identity to market to foreign soil by utilizing public diplomacy channels. It accentuates, in limited social realities, a constructivist approach to cultural diplomacy. In the US’s case, it enabled a foreign policy that focused on ‘nation rebranding’ by disseminating, through embassies and diplomatic missions, a positive image of US.

Top-Down Media Tools

A more practical approach to cultural diplomacy was through top-down media tools. After 2003, cultural diplomacy changed its course from cooperation and dialogue through various art forms to journalism, state media, and research with policy-driven initiatives. US cultural diplomacy in the Middle East became a major contributor in responding to new political realities in the region.

One of the examples is ‘Al Hurra’ a US government-funded media and news channel in Arabic. Even though it didn’t create the anticipated effects on media coverage, it still showed the persistence of US cultural diplomacy and its efforts to rebrand its image in the Middle East.

The Thin Line Between Cultural Diplomacy and Propaganda

Cultural diplomacy differs from propaganda by a single distinct methodology; while cultural diplomacy aims to inform, educate and inspire an audience to enlarge their perspectives, propaganda tries to curate information to complement state policies. Hence, top-down and fast processes to brand a state in a certain way often results in backlashes from the audience that receives it.

To prevent cultural diplomacy from being disregarded as a propaganda, a state must invest in long-term policies. As a foreign ministry official declares: "Public diplomacy is not really about getting things in the press. It's about long-term engagement. It can't be just about supporting the policy— it has to be deeper than that."

Conclusion

In conclusion, cultural diplomacy is filled with different paradigms and practical differences. As seen in the US case, the strength of this type of diplomacy is that it is the most crucial tool for addressing national interests in foreign countries and sustaining mutual dialogue. US policies in the 2000s regarding cultural diplomacy show a deficiency in establishing long-term relations and promoting cooperation without waiting for short-term gains.

Cultural diplomacy, as a concept, requires an attentive approach to the audience it tries to reach out to. For a country as influential as the US, each of its actions will be met with a predetermined resistance and skepticism by smaller countries. Thus, the US must follow a surgical procedure within its cultural diplomacy practice; instead of using channels linked with the US government, it should cooperate with actors outside of its political establishment, such as foreign NGOs, artists, journalists and cultural organizations to appear more benevolent and neutral.

Bibliography

U.S. Department of State. (2005). Cultural Diplomacy The Linchpin of Public Diplomacy (Report of the Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy)

Schenider, C. P. (2006). Cultural Diplomacy: Hard to Define, but You’d Know It If You Saw It. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 13(1), 191-203.

Cummings, M. C. (2003). Cultural diplomacy and the United States Government : A survey Washington/D.C., Center for Arts and Culture, 2003, ca. 14 S., (Cultural diplomacy research series)

El-Affendi, A. (2005). The conquest of Muslim hearts and minds: perspectives on US reform and public diplomacy strategies. The Brookings Institution

Grincheva, N. (2024). The past and future of cultural diplomacy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 30:2, 172-191, DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2023.2183949

Melissen, J. (2005). The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554931