Diplomacy is Cool

When Barack Hussein Obama won the Presidential election in 2009, the United States became a different country overnight. Americans had elected a bi-racial man—the child of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya; a political figure who, as Obama puts it, did not look like or come from a background similar to the men displayed on American currency. Obama’s victory was not only symbolically significant, but also politically momentous. His approach to governing and his view of the U.S. in the world stood in stark contrast to that of George W. Bush, whose presidency was shaped by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and whose subsequent foreign policy doctrine would end up re-defining the U.S.’s role in the world during the first eight years of the 21st century.

President Obama brought a new perspective to foreign policy and a different approach to diplomacy. Some may call it “hip” or “cool,”—words commonly associated with the man himself—but what does cool diplomacy look like, and does Obama’s diplomacy actually fit that description? My investigation into this topic looks at four main questions. First, what does it mean to be cool, and what is the role of the United States diplomatic corps? Second, how does the diplomatic corps view political power: monolithically or pluralistically? The answer to this question effectively determines the answer to the third question: what kind of diplomacy does the diplomatic corps emphasize: track-one or track-two? And finally, how can new approaches to diplomacy (social networks, town halls, etc.) be used in a way that actually makes diplomacy cool?

To be Cool

What is actually considered “hip” or “cool” will vary from person to person and community to community. Depending on the generation in which someone grew up, the culture in which they live, and their ability or interest to stay connected with evolving trends will determine whether or not wearing Chuck Taylors and shuffling around the dance floor to the electric slide is still considered cool. Coolness can be found in cultural elements such as fashion, music, cuisine, language, and technology. Coolness can also be found in political elements such as policy positions, campaign strategies, and party or candidate branding.

Particulars of coolness aside, however, there are some elements of the word that I find to be universally understood. Being hip or cool means (1) challenging societal norms and customs in a way that exposes new forms and modes of expressing one’s self; (2) these modes of expression are found seductive even to those who feel threatened by such trends; and (3) these modes of expression tap into a zeitgeist, which gives being hip a revolutionary and transformative power that goes beyond the individual and actually impacts a collective identity.

In the United States, hip and cool conjure up a list of things like rock and roll, blue jeans, and motorcycles. The Obama presidential campaign can now be added to that list. The Obama campaign was hip because it challenged traditional modes of political organizing. Instead of centralizing the campaign around a core group of political insiders, the Obama campaign was decentralized and gave a lot more control and strategic leeway to organizers at the state and local level. It was hip because the convincing and creative branding that was applied to the campaign seduced even those who were, until 2008, wrapped in a thick layer of political cynicism and considered politically apathetic. It was hip because it tapped into a zeitgeist of change—a desire to re-fashion the U.S. into a more tolerant, peaceful, and cosmopolitan nation.

Organizing a political campaign is quite different from running a government, however. Political campaigns can form and evolve organically, providing more space for elements of cool to take shape. Governing, on the other hand, places a winning candidate into an already existing structure, steeped in tradition, protocol, and bureaucracy. This is the challenge of taking the Obama campaign’s cool and translating into hip governance and diplomacy.

Hips Dips

The United States Department of State “manages America’s relationships with foreign governments, international organizations, and the people of other countries… they carry out the President’s foreign policy and help build a more free, prosperous and secure world.”¹ Four main goals fall under this mission: protect America, advance global interests, gain international understanding, and support foreign and civil servants.²

The idea of a hip diplomacy is most relevant to the goal of promoting international understanding of American values and policies. In this context, the U.S. becomes a brand and diplomats are marketers, finding creative and convincing ways to promote the American brand across the world. In such an effort, attention must be given to the most powerful drivers of brands—civil society and young people.

Peacebuilding practitioner John Paul Lederach defines civil society as "…a web of human relationships made up of individual people, their networks, organizations, and institutions around which social and community life is built. It is dynamic, adaptive, at times nebulous, at times well structured, though much of it is informal. The only thing civil society is not is the formal structures of official political governance, particularly at national levels."³

Hip diplomacy finds ways to effectively engage these networks, understand their motivations, and establish positive brand recognition so that American values and interests are absorbed and accepted by communities, rather than rejected.

An increased attention on civil society as drivers of social and ideological brands, however, does not come naturally. It requires a shift in how government’s have traditionally viewed political power.

Power Trips

Gene Sharp, the famous political theorist of civil resistance and nonviolent conflict, outlines two ways of viewing power: monolithically and pluralistically. He defines monolithic power as “beingcentered at the top of a solid, unchanging power structure… people are dependent upon the good will, supportand decisions of the power holder and the ruler determineshow this power is to be exercised.”⁴ Pluralistic power, on the other hand, views power as “residingamong the people throughout society, with the power holder able toexercise only that power that the people permit.”⁵

Even though Sharp’s theories of power are normally applied to understanding nonviolent conflict, they can also help frame an understanding of diplomacy. Savvy diplomacy entails that diplomats view power pluralistically and, in turn, shift the focus of diplomacy away from government elites who may have decision-making power, but may not be the best conduits through which diplomats can gain a greater understanding of a nation’s zeitgeist or learn what individuals and populations within that country would consider cool. If viewed through a lens of pluralistic power, hip diplomacy would then require less emphasis on track-one diplomacy and more emphasis on track-two diplomacy.

Track-one diplomacy “involves negotiation among the official representatives to the parties to the conflict and is essential in producing and implementing policies that make and support peace.” In certain conflicts, however, “track-one diplomacy has proven ineffective—in particular those conflicts dealing with issues of identity, survival, and ethnic fears of “the other.”⁶ Track-one diplomacy is what one normally associates with diplomats and diplomacy. But there are other forms of diplomacy that carry just as much, if not more, influence in achieving diplomatic goals.

Track-two diplomacy, or “citizens” diplomacy, “brings together influential members of the parties to a conflict in an unofficial capacity for joint analysis of the problem and joint problem solving… the idea is to involve members of the community who will be able to replicate and advance the diplomatic process after the facilitated sessions are complete.” Track-two diplomacy holds greater potential for being cool because it understands power as pluralistic, and engages the drivers of political, social and ideological brands.

Tools for the Cool

There are a number of tools and approaches that allow diplomats to reach out to members of civil society and young people. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other online social networking tools have provided individuals, organizations, companies and government departments with a new way to brand themselves and reach people who may be interested in their ideas, mission, product, programs, and so forth. Using these tools effectively, however, can be quite difficult for government bureaucracies in particular.

Online social networking has blossomed because it is, for the most part, a free exchange of ideas and communication. One of the key elements behind web 2.0 platforms (social networking, blogs, wikis, etc.) is that they provide an online space that allows users to create and/or organize content, while also helping shape the conversation that is generated around that material. The medium is fed by user-generated substance, not company generated material. Any attempt at the latter is doomed to fail as a web 2.0 experience because it ceases to be organic and instead becomes programmed. It is very difficult for governments to fully adopt this citizen-driven mindset when using these tools. Diplomats are required to guard and defend American brand—and a social network can pose serious threats to that control.

The same goes for town hall meetings. In some cases, attendees and questions are pre-screened to ensure a certain message is conveyed. When such protocol is not followed it can leave diplomats vulnerable to unforeseen criticism and steer the event into off-message conversations. It can also provide unforeseen opportunities, as well. During President Obama’s April 2009 trip to Turkey, for example, he conducted a town hall meeting with students and community members. After the meeting, 24-year old student Ece Basaran and a group of her friends started a Turkish-American friendship club at her university.⁷

This unscripted moment is a positive outcome from what I would consider hip diplomacy—adopting tools and methods of engaging with non-governmental, ordinary people while at the same time adopting the mindset that make those tools powerful.

Since the Obama campaign was so cool, his presidency runs the risk of falling flat. Can American actions and policies during an Obama presidency match its rhetoric? Can diplomatic attempts to engage a greater number of civil society members and young people be done in an effective and genuine way? When power is viewed pluralistically, more track-two diplomacy is pursued, and the power and freedom of social networks are allowed to unfold organically, then I believe a hip and cool diplomacy will emerge as a defining element of Obama’s presidency.