WhirledView

Effective Public Diplomacy in India?

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

WhirledView has taken a generally dim view of public diplomacy leadership in the State Department over the past few years.  Nor have we been impressed, so far, with the pronouncements of Judith McHale, who assumed the portfolio not so long ago.

However, a report by David J. Karl which appears on Asia Times Online says this of Hillary Clinton’s recent trip to India, noting importantly that the media in general confined itself to reporting agreements on nukes and disagreements about global warming.  Herd and horse race journalism!  All too alive and well!  Be that as it may, Karl has studied her schedule in detail, and he's impressed by the breadth and depth of her engagement with India:

Clinton was very attentive to the private-sector and societal linkages that are the foundation for the new era in US-India affairs. Headlines about nuclear cooperation, expanding military ties and convergent geopolitical interests obscure the critical role that these non-governmental connections play in building ties. [During her visit] Clinton spent a good part of her visit away from the Indian capital and made a conscious effort to engage a wider range of people than traveling secretaries of state usually do. For example, corporate chieftains, film stars, village artisans, educators, agricultural researchers, green technology enthusiasts and university students.

All in all, concludes Karl, the trip accentuated

the often-ignored factors that create an important stake in enduring ties, and which limit the risk that momentary political and diplomatic aggravations could disrupt the overall US-India partnership.

I couldn’t have made a better case for persistent, well-balanced public diplomacy myself.

Obviously the mission in New Delhi and its consulates did a good job for Clinton.  I hope she noticed and will work to rebuild PD on the Washington end so that field work can be properly supported.  Even when the boss isn’t around to be impressed.

Ambassadorial Appointments

By Guest Contributor Hans N. Tuch

Hans Tuch retired from the U.S. Foreign Service as a Career Minister in 1985. He also taught at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Georgetown University and the University of Missouri-Kansas City in the disciplines of Public Diplomacy and Inter-Cultural Communications.

A true story, identities and location changed: A friend of mine, serving as chief of mission in an Eastern European country, entertained an American four-star admiral on an official visit in his residence.

The admiral, impressed with the attractiveness of the ambassador's official home, commented that when he retired, he would seek an appointment as ambassador so that he could live in a nice home provided by the US government in a foreign country. The ambassador responded that when he retired, he might ask the president to appoint him commander of the Seventh Fleet so that he could live in the admiral's house on the U.S. Naval Base on Hawaii.

Ridiculous story?

The practice of giving ambassadorial appointments to non-professional people solely as a reward for their political contributions to the president's campaign is as stupid and potentially dangerous to the national interest as if the president were to appoint the contributor to a high command in the military.

The position of US chief of mission in a foreign country requires the training, long professional experience and wide knowledge of American foreign policy as well as acquaintance with the history, culture and current policies of the country of assignment. Appointing an inexperienced person to represent the U.S. in a foreign country merely on the basis of his or her financial contribution for the election of the president may seriously compromise our foreign relations and potentially endanger our security. It may affect negatively our national interests in a manner similar to the appointment of an unqualified civilian to a high military position.

Qualifications and Pertinent Experience Needed

Of course, there have been highly effective and renown non-career ambassadors serving as the president's representatives abroad: Ellsworth Bunker in Vietnam, Mike Mansfield in Japan, Arthur Burns in Germany. But they represented qualities and experience specifically pertinent to the assignment. The president should realize that he is doing a disservice to the country by appointing unqualified persons to represent the United States abroad.

Global Intentions Local Results – Book Review Essay

By Patricia H. Kushlis

The subtitle of William P. Kiehl’s comparative study about the international activities of three Pennsylvania colleges is entitled How Colleges Can Create International Communities. Whether this subtitle should have ended with a question mark and been rephrased to read “How Can Colleges Create International Communities – Or Can They and Should They?” is a question worth asking. Each of the three private colleges in question approaches the problem of internationalization differently.

These colleges range from Dickinson College (Carlisle) with its decades old international orientation which attracts a nationwide student body to Elizabethtown and Gettysburg Colleges both of which have been – and remain - more inwardly focused. This, despite their recent attempts to jump – albeit half-heartedly - on the “internationalization” bandwagon in the aftermath of 9/11. Gettysburg College has been the more successful of the two – but both have far to go before they even reach – in my view - the 50 yard line.

In all fairness, Dickinson’s student body is far more diverse geographically. Students are attracted to the college because of its long term focus on international affairs as opposed to either of the two other colleges included in Kiehl’s study. In contrast, Elizabethtown in particular but also Gettysburg College has mostly appealed to students locally.

Town vs. Gown: Parallel not Mutually Supportive Universes

Minorities, Part Four: The Maoists in Eastern India

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

These masks are used by Chhau dancers in the tribal areas of West Bengal.  Chhau is a very acrobatic dance form which also, often, tells tales from the great Indian epics.  When I made an official visit to Purulia and was invited to see Chhau in situ, we visitors also had to watch out for two off-stage threats: insurgents and/or elephants.  In the midst of a very dramatic after-dark Chhau performance, the news arrived that a small herd of elephants was going to cut me and my party off from the guesthouse where we were to sleep.  We left in a flash—very frustrating!—and never saw the least shadow of an elephant in the teak forest.  No insurgents either.

Hostages for Jharkhand

Later I actually was kidnapped (aka involuntarily detained) by tribals.  It was in 2000.  A big strike for the creation of a new state to be called Jharkhand was underway.  The experience didn’t last more than half a day, and I never told the Consul General, because I knew I’d lose the little freedom of movement I’d retained since he’d arrived to embody, arrogantly, aggressively, the State Department takeover of U.S.I.A.   So far as he was concerned, we public diplomacy people were no longer of any significance to the mission.  (Note to all bosses: if you want to be well informed, treat people with respect.)

What happened that day is this:  I needed to travel from Kolkata in West Bengal to Bhubaneshwar in Orissa, where we were opening an impressive exhibit of photos by an American photographer.  I’d decided to drive—a matter of 5 or 6 hours, as I remember—so I could familiarize myself with a part of the country I’d never set foot on.  Then the strike was called and a road closure was announced, on a portion of the national highway I’d have to traverse.  What to do?  I had to reach Bhubaneshwar, but it was too late to obtain train or air tickets.  “Let’s go,” I said to my driver, who spoke Hindi, Oriya and Bengali as well as English.  “We have Consular Corps plates.  No one will stop a diplomat.”  My driver was game.  Off we drove.

How wrong I was.  We were waved off the road and forced to park in a large muddy area that fronted a cluster of shops, eateries, mechanics, etc., all the usual commercial necessities for travelers.  Several other cars had also been pulled off the road.  My driver explained, in all his languages, the usual rules for diplomats.  Useless.  I looked around to get a better idea of who might be in charge.  No principle of organization was obvious or made known to us.  Some young demonstrators seemed more like university nerds than radicals. Others carried bows and arrows that did not look like toys—or like the archery equipment used in modern competitions.  These were tribal weapons and dangerous.  Machetes were also in evidence.  A noisy procession came along.  We appealed to the woman politician who appeared to be leading it.  All she could think of was the new state.  She couldn’t care less about hostages.  The procession disappeared.  Hours passed.  The experience was fascinating, at first, but  boring as time wore on.  We kept appealing. " I’m a diplomat.  We have to get to Bhubaneshwar, etc."  We didn’t dare to start the car and make a dash for it because I didn’t want to run over anyone and cause a diplomatic incident.  Besides the road was still blocked in both directions.  I wasn’t sure the car could blast through.

Then the drinking began.  Behavior changed.   Respect for womankind disappeared.  A definitely tipsy yokel came up to the car and tried to touch my face.  That was the end of the boredom and the beginning of anxiety.  Drunk demonstrators are definitely not to be trusted.  Finally a couple of the student types in trousers and buttoned-down shirts approached us.  They, too, had noticed the change in mood.  They too were worried.  “Trust us,” they said.  They began shouting and pointing toward the jungle behind the shops.  Then they got into the car and told my driver to steer, not for the road, but into the forest, along a rutted dirt road.  I told the driver to obey.  It was our best hope, even though the potential for ending up in an even worse situation was not absent.  Several bumpy miles later, the young men told the driver to stop the car. They got out.  In two more miles, they said, the dirt road would rejoin the highway. The young men would not accept payment.  They were embarrassed, they said.  “You should not have been detained.”  And then they disappeared. 

Yummy. Economical, Healthy Special Recipe for Santa Fe Farmer’s Market Chicken Vegetable Soup

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

I love to eat soup.  I even like to make soup.  And I adore shopping for fresh vegetables, so Saturday mornings at the Farmers Market in Santa Fe are pure pleasure.   Pleasure for the eye.  Pleasure chatting with farmers and with friends I happen to bump into. Pleasure just sauntering around.  And pleasure anticipating that first spoonful from the soup bowl.

Before I get down to business, let me linger on a few of the sights and sounds of the Farmers Market.  I didn’t buy any flowers today, but I could have---dahlias, zinnias, gladiolas, lavender---plus all sorts of edible or decorative plants for my garden, were I in a dig-and-sweat mood. I gave a wave to the guy who recycles iris tubers.  For practically nothing you can have elegant prize-winning varieties in your own garden.  I stopped to tap my foot in time with the fiddler and grinned at the  jolly fellow singing old Hispanic songs.  Violin case and hat were filling nicely with green stuff, I noted.  Then my mouth was watering full flow as I lingered over fresh pastries and pies, which I usually don’t buy for two reasons.  One, calories.  Two, I do my own baking, except for croissants or the occasional cheese Danish at my favorite breakfast spots.  Bread is another matter.  I can’t improve on the breads I find at Sage Bakery, which also supplies many restaurants in town.

The farmers market is a great place for carnivores as well as herbi-vores.  Free range beef.  Pork from pigs who don’t live in crates.  Poultry from chickens who get to run around all day outside. Plus goat and yak and bison/American buffalo. And if you love cheese,  this is the place.  I’ve served Sweetwoods goat cheese to a Brit married to a French woman and resident in France.  His reaction: nothing better of that particular variety of fromage  in France.     

But today I am mostly buying vegetables, because I am making soup.  I bought a pound of each of the following: baby squash, fingerling potatoes, vidalia onions, carrots, skinny green beans.  Except for the beans, the cost was $2.00 a pound, so that’s $8.00 for the vegetables, plus 50¢ for the celery I had to buy at the super-market and $3.00 more for a half pound of the beans.   Total veggie cost for the soup: $11.50. 

A Tribute to Corazon Aquino – The Philippines Most Unlikely President

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Corazon C. Aquino (1933-2009) was never supposed to be President of the Philippines but she was - from 1986 to 1992. Her candidacy for the country’s highest office – through an election she and her supporters challenged as fraudulent – ultimately broke the back of the seemingly entrenched and generally despised dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos who had been in power since 1965.

This unassuming, attractive, petite, gentle but determined American-educated woman will always be remembered by what came to be known as “People Power” and its symbols: the brilliant yellow color she often wore and Aquino’s own special L-shaped hand sign. The EDSA Revolution as it was also called - named after the major artery where the large anti-Marcos demonstrations were centered - turned into a huge popular outpouring of support – from the left, the poor, the Roman Catholic Church and its leader Jaime Cardinal Sin, the Makati business elite, cultural figures and, of course, academics and students. They came out en masse– especially Manila’s middle classes - when the call came.

The Roman Catholic Church's Moral Authority

The Church’s pulpits and Veritas, its influential alternative radio station, had summoned Filipinos into Manila's streets that February thereby providing the moral force behind the growing opposition to an increasingly unpopular regime. Marcos was already losing power. He had been since at least 1983 when he instigated the murder of (Ninoy) Benigno Aquino, Cory’s husband, on the tarmac at Manila’s international airport as he stepped off the plane from political exile in the US. Ninoy Aquino became the martyr the revolution needed to galvanize the opposition.

California - Ghost of the Future of the U.S.?

By Guest Contributor Wendi Maxwell

Wendi Maxwell retired after 38 years in California state service. Currently, she is a consultant in adult literacy specializing in long range strategic planning and policy development.

The California Legislature recently enacted an $80 billion budget, cutting $23 billion from the previous year - a tricky process that attempted to save the state’s social safety net without raising taxes. After passage by the Legislature, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the budget and used his veto power to impose an additional $500 million in cuts. The budget relied on $8 billion in accounting maneuvers that some analysts call “kicking the problem down the road.” Mike Moritz, the British venture capitalist and former member of the Board of Directors of Google, Inc., called the state the “ghost of the future of the U.S.”

California’s budget balancing problem used to be a source of local embarrassment, an in-joke. This year, as the eight largest economy in the world teeters on the brink of insolvency with a 20 percent deficit – paying its bills with IOUs, laying off untold thousands of teachers, mandating state employees take three unpaid furlough days a month, and the majority leader walking out of budget talks – people outside the state started to notice.

How did California end up here? We went from being the Golden State to being the state that can’t pay its own way. Partisan politics certainly play a role in our current impasse, but there are structural problems that run much deeper and are more difficult to address. The current legislative impasse is a clear warning of what happens when good intentions go awry.

Judith McHale and the White House Press Corps

By Patricia H. Kushlis

In what turned out to be a less than stellar encounter with the White House Press Corps on July 15, America’s new Public Diplomacy Under Secretary Judith McHale fell just short of flat on her face during the Qs and As.

In contrast, her prepared statement that put a positive spin on America’s public diplomacy efforts during President Obama’s Ghana visit was fine. She did what she had set out to do.

But her responses to all but a single follow-up question were lacking. Not as embarrassing as the high profile Karen Hughes flouncing around town in a mud-colored burqa at an Iftar dinner when she was Bush’s Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy – but too many of McHale's responses were not good enough, nevertheless, for someone who has been in the Under Secretary position since early May and is serious about making a difference in how the US is viewed abroad and in improving this country's public diplomacy efforts.

Minorities, Part Three: The Indian Divide and Retain Strategy

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

Practically everybody expected independent India to fall apart sooner rather than later after that proud midnight moment when the British connection was severed in 1947.  Of course, there was a certain sourness even to that occasion.  Pakistan was born at the same time.  Nationalists in both countries felt that the prize of independence had been sullied by a poor deal when the territory was divvied up.  Even India, which got the lion’s share. 

Actually, in all its years of recorded history, the Indian sub-continent had never been wholly or perhaps I should say uniformly united under one ruler or government.  None of the pre-British empires—whether Hindu or Muslim, whether Gupta, Maurya or Moghul—that had managed to control huge swathes of South Asia, often including most of today’s Afghanistan as well, had managed to subdue every inch of territory right down to Cape Cormorin at the southern tip.  And control at the farthest reaches of empire had often involved  the subordination, not the destruction of preexisting states, states which tended to re-emerge when, after a few generations, an empire began to crumble.  Even the English, who did dominate the whole sub-continent—though famously not Afghanistan—found it useful to work through the puppet rulers of once independent princely states in many parts of their colony.

The Hodgepodge

Thus, post-colonial India inherited a patchwork based on at least 14 major languages—major equating to French or German within Europe—and countless locally-treasured dialects and tribal languages, a consequential cultural divide between North and South and a Muslim minority exceeding the population in any Muslim country except Indonesia.  And that’s not even an exhaustive catalogue of the diversity the Republic of India would have to hold together.  

Was it easy to keep the country together?  Not at all.  Almost from the beginning, India has been jiggering its internal boundaries to keep people happy, and the most important principal of re-organization has been linguistic.  In 1956, the Indian Parliament passed the States Reorganization Act which reduced the hodgepodge of A, B and C states inherited from the English period to 14 statutorily equal states.   Today India has 28 states.  How did that happen?  By popular demand, one might say.  Indians learned how to agitate during the independence movement, and they have never forgotten.  In short, India’s reaction to sub-national linguistic and cultural aspirations, unlike China’s, has been to satisfy them—within the Indian union, of course.  That’s the bottom line.

The Fight for Bombay

Bombay state gave rise to one of the first of these crises.  This state, centered around the financial capital now known as Mumbai, was huge in area and contained two major linguistic groups, Gujaratis and Maharashtrians, who wanted separate states.  That was the easy part. Both groups also wanted the city of Bombay.  That was the hard part.  (In those early days, the fate of Bombay seemed almost as fraught as resolving the status of Jerusalem does today.)  As in all subsequent contests over statehood, there were protests, processions, strikes, police excesses, lives lost, but eventually the Center gave Bombay to Maharashtra—and guess what?  The country didn’t explode.  Each group of language-speakers had a state in which children could be taught the local language (along with Hindi and English) and in which local customs could be honored and passed on to the next generation.  Politics continues in Maharashtra and Gujarat, of course, and often it’s a pretty nasty business, but separatism is not on the agenda.

The original state of Indian Punjab was split, not on linguistic, but on religious grounds: the resulting state of  Haryana has a largely Hindu population and the portion still called Punjab is mostly Sikh.  However, when a Sikh succession movement developed, it was crushed.

Europe Breaks the Microsoft Stranglehold; Time for America to Follow Suit

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

Two fascinating stories on the business front this week.  Neither has terribly good new for Americans.  Here are the headlines:

    Dateline Berlin:  To Avoid a New Legal Battle, Microsoft Offers Europe a Choice of Browsers

    Dateline Washington, D.C.:  Antitrust Chief Hits Resistance in Crackdown

The European Union has long accused Microsoft of abusing its dominant position in the operating system market to foist its media players, browsers and other consumer software products on computer buyers, who might prefer other products, if they could be got to run on XP or Vista or any other Microsoft OS without endless annoying complications, thanks to the bundling process, which tangles up code so hopelessly that the non-nerd hasn’t a chance for independence and sticks, however resentfully, with Microsoft.  Result: smaller competitors haven't a hope of succeeding.  The Microsoft position today verges on monopoly, and the Europeans, thank goodness, object to that.  Under threat of a prodigious fine, Microsoft has reached an agreement with the EU.

From now on, computer buyers in Europe (but not in the U.S. or anywhere else outside Europe) will be presented with a ballot screen that will allow them to choose which browser they want to use.  Explorer will be one of the choices, but it will no longer be confusing and time consuming  to choose a non-Microsoft browser.

Microsoft has evidently also agreed to release “confidential technical information worldwide that would help competitors design software” that works more smoothly with Windows and other Microsoft products.  That’s good news for all of us.

I’ve been using Firefox for years and have been totally satisfied with everything about my choice, except the business of disabling MS Explorer and installing Firefox whenever I buy a new computer.  I have go through all sorts of  stupid rigamarole before I can get on the Web the way I want to get on the Web.  Even so, every so often, Explorer breaks through and tries to take over.  I am not amused.

When are U.S. anti-trust authorities going to have the guts to take on Microsoft so that we American computer users can enjoy the same freedom?