Saturday, April 29, 2017

Difendersi dalle menzogne: in Israele c'è un apposito Ministero che si occupa di hasbarà, guidato da Gilad Erdan


informazionecorretta.it

Analisi di Angelo Pezzana

Testata: Shalom
Data: 28 aprile 2017
Pagina: 14
Autore: Angelo Pezzana
Titolo: «Difendersi dalle menzogne»
Riprendiamo da SHALOM di aprile 2017, a pag. 14, con il titolo "Difendersi dalle menzogne", il commento di Angelo Pezzana.

Angelo Pezzana

Immagine correlata
Gilad Erdan
Una delle ultime invenzioni della propaganda contro Israele è stata la cosiddetta “settimana dell’apartheid”, una delle conseguenze del movimento BDS (boicottaggio, disinvestimenti, sanzioni), ramificato ormai a livello internazionale. Leggere la parola ‘apartheid’ attribuita a Israele è, più che una menzogna, un nonsenso, lo capirebbe chiunque dotato di una minima conoscenza dello Stato ebraico. Eppure è riuscita a infiltrarsi anche nelle università, attraverso una serie di manifestazioni genericamente cultural-politiche, chiassose quel tanto che basta per apparire nelle cronache dei media. Israele è stata spesso criticata per non avere attribuito una dovuta attenzione alla propaganda di delegittimazione che in questi anni ha agito senza che ne venissero analizzate le dinamiche per farvi fronte.

Persino a livello diplomatico, anni fa era stato sconsigliato l’uso della parola ‘hasbarà’ (letteralmente ‘spiegazione’) per definire le iniziative di contro-informazione a favore di Israele. Hasbarà sapeva troppo di propaganda, al punto che venne sostituita da ‘public diplomacy’, che voleva dire tutto e niente, quindi incomprensibile ai più. Come sconfiggere l’accusa di apartheid con la public diplomacy? Hasbarà aveva un sapore forte, è possibile, ma è con la forza – abbinata con l’intelligenza - che si vince, non con la debolezza, per quanto intelligente possa essere. Alla fine però anche il governo israeliano ha deciso che una risposta sul piano dell’informazione doveva essere trovata e l’incarico è stato dato al Ministro della Sicurezza Pubblica, degli Affari Strategici e, appunto, dell’Informazione, Gilad Erdan. Che ha dato al compito ricevuto la massima attenzione, predisponendo iniziative da realizzare sia attraverso le rappresentanze diplomatiche israeliane che con incontri nelle sedi politiche internazionali, Unione europea, Onu, ecc.
Immagine correlata
Se prima il suo incarico governativo non lo esponeva più di tanto, dal momento che ha iniziato a muoversi con risolutezza nel campo dell’informazione, le critiche sono arrivate da quel fronte variegato che lega le attività delle varie Ong pacifiste che operano all’interno del Paese, ai media che tengono il governo sotto tiro giorno dopo giorno, come avviene in tutte le democrazie, in particolare in Israele, dove il bersaglio preferito non è solo più Netanyahu e il governo nel suo insieme, ora c’è l’aggiunta di Gilad Erdan, il cui attivismo nel rovesciare l’approccio passivo precedente verso la delegittimazione in una battaglia a viso aperto lo ha reso l’obiettivo perfetto del campo pacifista.

Haaretz è arrivato a chiedere le sue dimissioni, accusato di essere la causa della distruzione della società democratica israeliana, i toni sono persino più accesi di quelli abituali a disposizione dell’opposizione. La critica libera è il sale della democrazia, ma il sale, in dose eccessiva, può essere dannoso alla salute del Paese. Difendersi dalle menzogne, combattere i movimenti di fatto complici di una violenza ancora più pericolosa di quella che usa le armi, lavare i cervelli propagandando una Israele che non esiste, con iniziative sempre più capillari in Europa e negli Usa, richiedeva un cambiamento. A giudicare dalle critiche che Gilad Erdan sta ricevendo, vuol dire che ha imboccato la strada giusta.

Per inviare a Shalom la propria opinione, telefonare: 06/87450205, oppure cliccare sulla e-mail sottostante

Media development, DAC, and China: different approaches, same public diplomacy


Valerie A. Cooper, tandfonline.com

image (not from entry) from

ABSTRACT

More than US $441 million was spent on media development worldwide in 2012, with African countries receiving 28%of that amount. This funding came from a variety of sources, including both established Development Assistance Committee (DAC) countries and emerging donors such as China. These countries and their funds represent a plethora of diverse governmental systems as well as media systems, such as public service broadcasting, privatised media, community media and, in the case of China, state-run media. This paper looks at the divergent approaches to media and development promoted by both DAC countries and China, and how ideologies have led these actors to pursue similar styles of public diplomacy and political intervention through the front of media development aid.

Valerie A. Cooper

Valerie A. Cooper is a PhD candidate at Hong Kong Baptist University. She earned her master’s degree in media and international development from the University of East Anglia and previously taught in the communication for development programme at the Catholic University of Mozambique. Her research interests focus on public diplomacy, media development, and international development in sub-Saharan Africa.

U.S. Mission to Pakistan: Engaging Local Audiences through Interactive Programs


Ritu Saini, www2.fundsforngos.org

image (not from entry) from

Deadline: 26 June 2017
The Information Resource Center (IRC) in the Public Affairs Section of the U.S. Embassy Islamabad of the U.S. Department of State (hereafter referred to as “IRC Islamabad”) is seeking applications for its program entitled “Engaging Local Audiences through Interactive Programs”.  This funding opportunity is part of Mission Pakistan’s support for public diplomacy programming in Pakistan.
PAS Islamabad’s programming in Pakistan:
  • Strengthens people-to-people ties between the United States and Pakistan through shared information, experiences, exchanges, and/or expertise.
  • Strengthens local institutions to build long-term, self-sustaining relationships and institutional linkages between U.S. and Pakistani organizations, including capacity building support for Pakistani organizations as needed.
  • Expands media outreach by amplifying U.S. diplomacy activities and programs on social and traditional media platforms.
  • Enhances community engagement through positive messages and tolerant perspectives that enhance and amplify community-based efforts in a wide range of areas.
Project Objectives
  • Library and Educational Spaces
  • Educational and Leadership Programming
Participants and Audiences
This NOFO seeks organizations equipped to provide exceptional opportunities reaching Pakistani youth, from upper primary school students to adults, particularly girls and women; youth from low-income families and areas; disabled people, and other disadvantaged groups.
Funding Information
Grant budgets will be between $30,000 and $50,000, with project duration of up to one year
Eligibility Criteria
  • All U.S. and Pakistani registered non-profit, non-governmental organizations with relevant programming experience are eligible to apply.
  • This experience should be documented in the organization’s proposal.
  • Organizations must provide proof of registration and non-profit status with their proposal application.
  • U.S.-based organizations should submit a copy of their IRS determination letter.
  • Pakistan-based organizations should submit a copy of their certificate of registration from the appropriate government organization.
How to Apply
Applicants must submit all application materials electronically via given website.
Eligible Countries: United States and Pakistan
For more information, please visit Grants.gov.

Echo Chambers, AI & Bot-Driven Disinformation: New Challenges in PD



Date:
5/9/2017 - 5/9/2017
Time:
10:30 AM - 12:00 PM

RSVP: http://go.gwu.edu/echochambers

This session will examine how public diplomacy practitioners need to adjust strategies and tactics for the modern information ecosystem, including understanding echo chambers, automated disinformation, algorithmic bias, and the proliferation and diversity of foreign propaganda efforts.

Congressman Mike Rogers (retired), former Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, will keynote the event, followed by a panel featuring the following speakers:

Tom Cochran, Former White House, State Department Technology Lead and Acquia’s Vice President and Chief Digital Strategist
Nash Borges, Chief Technology Officer, Global Engagement Center (Invited)
Matt Chessen, Foreign Service Science, Technology and Foreign Policy Fellow @ GW
Ethan Porter, Assistant Professor, GW’s School of Media and Public Affairs
Ory Rinat, State Department Transition Team Digital Lead

Follow on Twitter: @IPDGC, #echochambers
Location:
Foggy Bottom

Foggy Bottom - 1957 E Street NW  (View Map)
Washington, DC 20052

Foggy Bottom - 1957 E Street NW  (View Map)
Washington, DC 20052
Room: 602
Contact:
Laura Brendle
2029948137
ipdgc@gwu.edu
This event is open to:



  • Alumni





  • Community





  • Employees - All





  • General Public





  • Media





  • Parents





  • Researchers





  • Students - All

  • US, China public diplomacy


    pakobserver.net
    Saman Fatima
    Rawalpindi
    image (not from entry) from

    Countries are always concerned about their reputation and how the other countries take them, the way other nations think about domestic perceptions of culture, intentions and policies. The article majorly focuses on the constructivist school of thought, the identity can change by incorporating cosmopolitan values in the society which in turn will bring a change in the minds of public, resulting in favourable and positive image projection of the state which is the primary aim of public diplomacy. Public diplomacy can be successful by addressing the construction of cosmopolitan ideas and identities in their societies and cultures.

    In public diplomatic terms, this would indicate emphasizing the long-term foreign policy goals and objectives, where countries do not expect to become friends with each other overnight or immediately, actually trying to encourage and engage their societies to join in a process of societal exchanges and common understanding where team-play and non-violence are the norm.

    The image of a nation is critical in the conduct of international relations. As an emerging and rising power, China is continuously and increasingly concerned about its image, due to which it is increasingly investing and advancing into its public diplomacy. Public diplomacy has become one of the important parts of China’s overall diplomacy in last few years. China recognize the international environment potentially aggressive, and China wants to be seen by the outside world as a peaceful, friendly and reliable partner. Although the non-Chinese address its focuses on exchange, mutuality, and reciprocal communication, China is more concerned with getting its message out and convincing world of its benign, soft and gentle intentions.

    The People’s Republic of China is a great example to understand the process of identity change through socialization. The public diplomacy efforts of China are directed at representing China as a country with Cosmopolitan values and a vision of peaceful rise rather than portraying it as hegemony. China despite the fact it issues warnings against nations who claim their rights in South China Sea and in addition having their naval forces there, they still claim themselves to be a peacefully rising nation. China’s rise as peaceful is also effectively being portrayed by using economic opportunities to other businesses abroad and creating a positive image in their minds rather than a threat. China uses its public diplomacy to be seen as striving for a harmonious world and to give its people a better life and to be seen as a reliable, stable economic power that does not have to be feared.

    US Army Europe Band and Chorus (via FB friend Rick Barnes)

    BRAVO to the U.S. Army Europe Soldiers' Chorus on tour in Tallinn, Estonia.
    T H I S . I S . P U B L I C . D I P L O M A C Y !!!
    :-)
    US Army Europe Band and Chorus in Tallinn, Estonia.
    April 23
    The U.S. Army Europe's Soldiers Chorus preforming during the rock concert “Veterans’ Rock,” in Tallinn, Estonia in honor of Estonia's commemorations of Veterans Day.

    Like
    Comment

    What We Have Here Is a Failure to Communicate


    P. J. Crowley, politico.com

    Image (not from article) from [see highlight at the end of entry]


    The Trump administration’s foreign policy pronouncements are all over the map. But it’s far more than a messaging problem.

    The United States shares a 4,000-mile mainland border with Canada. The two countries do more business with each other than with anyone else. There are synergies — cars are exported north and oil south. There are rivalries—Washington and Ottawa are still alive in the Stanley Cup playoffs, although both will be challenged to prevent Pittsburgh from winning again.

    But notwithstanding the close proximity, shared commerce and culture, deep friendship and occasional friction, it appeared that when the leaders of the two countries, Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau, spoke earlier this week, they were not just on different pages, but parallel universes. Or so it seemed from the divergent written readouts released from both capitals.

    The White House acknowledged the call and little else. “The two leaders discussed the dairy trade in Wisconsin, New York State and various other places. They also discussed lumber coming into the United States. It was a very amicable call.”

    The terse statement did not mention that the United States had just imposed a 20 percent countervailing duty on Canadian softwood lumber, the latest round in a longstanding trade dispute going back to the early 1980s. The lumber tariff was retaliation for recent changes in Canada’s pricing of domestic ultra-filtered milk that greatly reduced the market for U.S. exports from northern tier states—think Wisconsin—that were crucial to Trump’s presidential victory.

    Written readouts of presidential calls, usually filled with benign language that stresses the importance of a bilateral relationship and shared interests, are a staple of American public diplomacy. Hundreds of them were issued by the Obama White House over eight years. They were generally longer than the Trump statement and tended to emphasize areas of agreement and the prospect of joint action.

    And Canada isn’t the only example where the Trump White House has issued unusually curt statements. Days before his call with Trudeau, Trump spoke with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe—and the White House said only that the two men had “addressed a range of regional and global issues of mutual concern.” One would have had to peruse the Japanese government’s website to know that the true subject of the call was “an in-depth exchange of opinions on the North Korea situation” and that the two leaders agreed to “strongly urge North Korea … to exercise self restraint.”

    Abe’s statement also noted that Japanese naval forces were conducting joint exercises with the USS Carl Vinson, an American aircraft carrier. Over several days, the Trump administration gave conflicting accounts of the actual location of the Vinson carrier group, which is now finally within range of the Korean Peninsula.

    While the White House has been steadily ratcheting up its rhetoric on North Korea since taking office, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson took diplomatic brevity to a whole new level after Pyongyang launched another intermediate range ballistic missile. “The United States has spoken enough about North Korea,” the secretary suggested in a written statement. “We have no further comment.”

    Amid a burgeoning diplomatic showdown with Pyongyang that has many Americans on edge, it’s puzzling that the White House wouldn’t want to share even the barest outlines of its discussions with U.S. allies about how it is tackling the problem.

    Again, White House readouts have never been fulsome, novelistic accounts. As a general rule, diplomats prefer to make critical comments in private while using more constructive language in public. Discerning audiences are usually able to read between the lines: Where a disagreement is clear, they allude to “a frank and candid exchange of views.” Diplomatic practice is to put the best face on even the toughest of meetings, although leaders’ body language can speak volumes, as occurred between Presidents Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin, or more recently between Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

    Words can’t mask reality in all instances.

    In the case of Canada, there was of course far more to the call and the potentially disruptive Trump trade policy behind it than the White House’s “amicable” label. In a Roosevelt Room meeting with the secretary of agriculture and a delegation of farmers, with television cameras on hand, President Trump said that “Canada has been very rough on the United States… they’ve outsmarted our politicians for many years.” He vowed that “we’re not going to put up with it.”

    As for Prime Minister Trudeau, while he reiterated the importance of the U.S.-Canada trade relationship and agreed to maintain a dialogue with his American counterpart, he returned fire, highlighting that the dairy trade between the two countries is heavily weighted in favor of the U.S. Its concerns about lumber are “baseless” and its retaliation “unfair.” Canada, Trudeau said, will “vigorously defend” its interests.

    Both countries are experiencing political whiplash. Just two months earlier, Trump and Trudeau met at the White House and pledged to work together to create more jobs on both sides of the border. At the time, Trump’s trade tirades were directed at Mexico, and his solution was a great wall and a tax on Mexican imports, or perhaps on Mexican migrants’ remittances sent home from the United States. Trump still wants to build the wall, although it’s unclear whether Congress, never mind Mexico, will pay for it. And he has evidently abandoned the border adjustment tax in favor of a broader reduction in the corporate tax rate.

    It’s not hard to find other examples of this sometimes muted, frequently conflicting and always chaotic messaging from the White House. On Syria, North Korea, China, Russia—or pretty much any major foreign policy problem you can think of, really—the Trump administration is all over the map. So what is going on?

    Some of this can be attributed to the Trump administration’s slow start at actual governance. Cabinet officials, particularly in the national security realm, are home alone. Yes, they are backed by a highly qualified career force, but the White House and its political appointees generally view such “holdovers” with suspicion. As a result, the circle of advisers that the White House trusts and listens to is still remarkably small as it passes the quarter pole of its first year. The so-called deputies process by which policy ideas bubble up from the bureaucracy, are ratified in the Situation Room, and then communicated back down the chain for implementation is nowhere near up to speed.

    The absence of an adequate Trump national security team, particularly a bench of mid-level staffers, slows the completion of necessary reviews and decisions on what the actual Trump policies are. Without a team, a process and a policy, it’s hardly surprising that the Trump administration has failed to generate a coherent and consistent message.

    But the ultimate source of the problem is clearly the president, who lacks a strategic foundation and the discipline to stick to a coherent set of ideas, even if he had them. There are strategic thinkers around him, but he is driven by political impulse. His regular Twitter storms—and his careless pronouncements on the world, like his candid admission Friday that he won’t speak again with the president of Taiwan because it would anger his new friend Xi Jinping of China—are cases in point.

    Fundamentally, Trump is not serious about the world. His presidency is a reality show where politics, not policy, is the priority. He keeps coming back to the issues that dominated his presidential campaign—trade, the wall and the Muslim ban foremost among them—in the process passing off tough rhetoric as results. So far, his base continues to cheer him on.

    Consider what happened this week: Trump was apparently poised to formally withdraw from the North America Free Trade Agreement—a move that would be hugely disruptive, and likely deeply harmful to the U.S. economy—as the crowning “achievement” of his first 100 days in office. He was persuaded to renegotiate instead, but not because it would put a substantial dent in the administration’s fanciful economic growth projections. He reversed course because it would hurt many of the states that helped elect him. All presidents govern with an eye on the electoral map, but Trump is waging a permanent political campaign.

    On Thursday, in his interview with Reuters, even as he acknowledged the growing danger of a “major, major conflict” with North Korea, he inexplicably questioned why the United States should have to pay for South Korea’s defense. Then came another blast, not at Kim Jong Un, but at the U.S. free trade agreement with South Korea, which he called “a horrible deal” and “a Hillary Clinton disaster, a deal that should never been made.”

    There it is again, the campaign he won, but can’t seem to move beyond. So what if this leaves the world confused. As the president said more than once on the campaign trail, he actually wants to be unpredictable. Well, mission accomplished!

    P.J. Crowley is a former assistant secretary of state. He is now a professor of practice  [JB: ? ] at The George Washington University and author of Red Line: American Foreign Policy in a Time of Fractured Politics and Failing States.