U.S. public diplomacy in the Muslim world<\/p>\n
Muhamad Ali, Jakarta<\/p>\n
This is a constructive criticism of how, until recently, U.S.
\nforeign policy and public diplomacy have failed to win the hearts
\nand minds of the Muslim world. U.S. politicians and diplomats,
\ngenerally, have done nothing of significance that they should
\nhave been doing since September 11, 2001. Instead, they have
\ncontributed to the increased sense of threat of U.S. hegemony
\namong 1.2 billion people in the Muslim world.<\/p>\n
Muslims, like other people in the world, expressed horror and
\nsympathy at what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. Indonesian leaders
\nwere among the first to express that sympathy. Middle Easterners
\nwere no exception in mourning the victims and blaming the
\nevildoers. Soon, a "war on terrorism" was waged, but continued to
\nbe handled badly and ineffectively.<\/p>\n
U.S. leaders indicate self-denial of American "imperialism".
\nPresident George W. Bush keeps denying that the attack in Iraq
\nwas driven by imperialist motives. He denied the war was like the
\nU.S. war in Vietnam. But people in the Muslim world could not
\neasily place their trust in what the U.S. elite had to say.
\nAction speaks louder than words. The U.S. attacked the wrong
\ntarget -- Iraq.<\/p>\n
And now, Moqtada al-Sadr, the young cleric who had nothing to
\ndo with the U.S. before, became involved in what he has called a
\n"holy war against the invaders". Not religious bigotry, but a
\nsense of anticolonialism, the nature of which was not that
\ndifferent to conventional anticolonialism, has emerged. While
\nmany hope that no more wars will occur in Iraq given the
\ninfrastructural damage and thousands of innocent victims, the
\nimplications of such wars in Iraq are hardly positive in the
\nminds of the majority in the world.<\/p>\n
War images in Baghdad, Najaf and other cities are viewed and
\nperceived by Muslims in schools, mosques and streets as an attack
\non their Muslim brothers and sisters. What Americans see as a war
\non terrorism, many Muslims perceive as a war on Islam and
\nMuslims. Such images and perception still prevail strongly, but
\nU.S. public diplomacy has not coped with this effectively.<\/p>\n
A number of concrete programs can be proposed that might
\nimprove such poor U.S. public diplomacy.<\/p>\n
First, because Americans are overwhelmingly Christian and are
\nperceived by others as a Christian nation (despite its internal
\nreligious pluralism), interfaith dialog within the U.S. and
\nabroad should be the first priority in U.S. public diplomacy. As
\nSamuel Huntington recently argued in his recent book, Who Are We?
\nThe Challenges to America's National Identity (2004), American
\nnational identity is religiously Christian. Thus, I would argue,
\nAmerican religious leaders should take the initiative to further
\ninterfaith dialog within and outside the U.S.<\/p>\n
Second, there should be much more educational and cultural
\ninterchange without a political impulse to tell others what to
\nbelieve and what to do. Education and cultural exchange are the
\nheart of public diplomacy. But the principle should be
\nintercultural learning in equality, not indoctrination and
\nimposition of American national values. Americans have the right
\nand obligation to promote the image and democratic values of the
\nU.S. around the world, but this should involve and respect the
\nvalues of others.<\/p>\n
Humankind, by its very nature, has self-dignity, and is
\nnationalistic, has ethnic ties or is religious. People normally
\nfeel deeply committed to their indigenous culture, tradition and
\ninstitutions and hence often resist efforts to change them by
\noutsiders from alien cultures.<\/p>\n
Therefore, rather than emphasizing the promotion of "freedom
\nand democracy" abroad, two abstract values that can be
\ninterpreted differently by different people, the U.S. should
\npromote intercultural dialog within the context of dynamic global
\nmulticulturalism. Besides, as Huntington pointed out, whatever
\nthe goals of the U.S. elite, the American public has consistently
\nranked the promotion of democracy abroad as a low-priority
\nforeign policy goal.<\/p>\n
According to Huntington, there are three broad concepts of the
\nU.S. in relation to the rest of the world. The U.S. can embrace
\nthe world, that is, open the country to other peoples and
\ncultures (the cosmopolitan, universalist view), or it can try to
\nreshape other peoples and cultures in terms of American values
\n(the imperialist view), or maintain a society and culture
\ndistinct from those of other peoples (the nationalist view).<\/p>\n
Cosmopolitanism and imperialism attempt to reduce or to
\neliminate the social, political and cultural differences between
\nthe U.S. and other societies, but neither the universalist nor
\nthe imperialist impulse will work well in the world of the early
\n21st century.<\/p>\n
Third, public diplomacy requires resources. There should be an
\nincrease in budget to finance educational and cultural programs.
\nAs reported by the Washington Post (Aug. 19, 2004), the U.S. has
\nredirected funds and designed a wide range of political,
\neconomic, educational and aid programs to improve lives, achieve
\npress reform and burnish the image of the U.S. as an ally to
\nMuslims in more than 50 countries. Yet, these efforts are
\nunderfunded. Only US$79 million goes to education and cultural
\nexchanges and the number of people reached directly by key U.S.
\nprograms is extremely small.<\/p>\n
Fourth, given all the mistakes, the U.S. should end its
\noccupation in Iraq as soon as possible. The U.S. presence there
\nhas further divided Iraqis, rather than unify them. The longer
\nU.S. troops stay there the worse the damage will be for the Iraqi
\npeople and the more difficult for the U.S. to convince the world
\nof its goodwill.<\/p>\n
Also, in the long run, the U.S. should support a peaceful
\ncoexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. The U.S. should
\nserve as mediator-facilitator rather than a close ally of one
\nside. However familiar it may be, this is still the bottom-line
\nissue in U.S.-Muslim world relations. If this is not dealt with
\nproperly, other attempts at public diplomacy are more likely to
\nfail.<\/p>\n
How can the U.S. undertake the task of winning the hearts and
\nminds of the Muslim world? Well, everybody knows the U.S. has all
\nthe necessary resources: goodwill, capital and smart people.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic
\nUniversity (UIN), Jakarta. He is pursuing a PhD in history at the
\nUniversity of Hawaii. He can be reached at Muhali74@hotmail.com<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/us-public-diplomacy-in-the-muslim-world-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}