Hyunjin Seo and Stuart J. Thorson, Networks of Networks: Changing Patterns in Country Bandwidth and Centrality in Global Infrastructure, 2002 -2010. Journal of Communication, 62 (2012) 345-358.
Argue that ‘communication infrastructure and political processes evolve together.’ Point out that most of the studies on Arab spring have referred to the increased interconnectivity in the region that is facilitated by Internet and social media. Seo and Thorson study seeks to verify that assumption by documenting the pattern of interconnectivity in the global community and specifically within the MENA region. Bandwidth correlates with traffic.
‘The structural analysis of the global Internet network in this study provides an important foundation for subsequent behavioral analyses [messaging content and patterns] of the role of social media in political movements. ‘ p354
Seo and Thorson found that ‘global internet connected has grown significantly between period of 2002-2010 and has done so in ‘interestingly patterned way.’ P.354
‘In general, countries that were central in 2002 remained so in 2010. Include US, UK, Germany, France, China, Italy and Singapore. ‘ p354
‘The rich-getting –richer phenomenon in naturally occurring networks (Barabasi, 2002). Important implications for diplomacy, trade and global activism … suggests that ocutnries that use these technology effectively will, ceteris paribus, gain long-lasting and growing advantages if they do so sooner rather than later.’ P354
‘Importantly, several countries in the MENA region have become more central in the global Internet network in 2010 than they were in 2010 – include UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia’ p354
‘Egypt has increased its centrality in the network over the past decade. Egypt has become more connected with other countries (degree) and has become increasingly directly connected with important countries within the network (eigenvector centrality). P354
Tunisia’s international Internet bandwidth has grown considerably between 2006 and 2010.’
“Network-induced changes have important implications for diplomacy, trade, and global activism.” P.355
As Slaughter (2009) puts it ‘connectedness’ is ‘the measure of power’ in this world,
Thus, Seo and Thorson say, ‘it is essential to understand how different types of contexts are initaitied, developed and maintained in this information age.’ P. 355.
“As countries develop, they make strategic choces about whether to invest in infrastructure that routes traffic from their exchange points to those of their immediate neighbors or to more distant countries.
Journal – Networks and Communication Studies
Newman, M. E. J. (2010). Networks: An introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Benkler, Y. (2011) Networks of power, degrees of freedom. International Journal of Communication 5, 721-755.
Valente, T. (1993). Diffusion of innovations and policy decision-making. Journal of
Communication, 43(1), 30–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01247.x.
Hafner-Burton, E. M., Kahler, M., & Montgomery, A. H. (2008). Network analysis for
international relations. International Organization, 63(3), 559–592. doi:
Carpenter, C. R. (2007). Setting the advocacy agenda: Theorizing issue emergence and
nonemergence in transnational advocacy networks. International Studies Quarterly,
51(1), 99–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2007.00441.x.
Barnett, G. A., & Sung, E. (2005). Culture and the structure of the international hyperlink
network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 217–238. doi:
Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for
exploring and manipulating networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and
freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
This from AlJazeera - Headline
Demonstrations and Clashes continue in Homs/
تواصل المظاهرات واشتباكات بحمص
caption about the repression on the chest of the activists قمع جثم على الصدور يقول الناشطون إنهم لن يعودوا عن ثورتهم إلا برفعه (الجزيرة)
Am trying to figure out the angle for how this photo was taken with all the other boots so casually poised.
Redefinging Cultural Diplomacy: Cultural Security and Foreign Policy,
Political Psychology, 20, 4 (Dec. 1999) pp. 677-699
linkages between culture and foreign policy are changing in a context of growing cultural insecurity
In the past, foreign policy made “instrumental” use of culture to support generally political and economic objectives, whereas today it finds itself in the often uncomfortable position of having to openly
intervene in the cultural sphere.
This study springs from the idea that this new mission significantly challenges
how the relationship between foreign policy and culture is customarily defined and
The old vision of foreign policy as the expression of an independent
cultural reality is omnipresent in political discourse, where it contributes to the
reification of the national character of this cultural reality, and to the legitimization
of foreign policy as the expression of a national interest profoundly rooted in some cultural common denominator. [American values? ]
The new international cultural agenda is transforming that relationship between culture and foreign policy. The state’s cultural mission on the international scene no longer simply entails promoting an already existing culture abroad. It involves a more visibly active role in protecting and developing national culture,
with such goals as seeking cultural exemption provisions in trade agreements or gaining access to a foreign partner’s telecommunications network.
The data analysis involved identifying in the discourse how the different actors sought to define culture as a subject of intervention for foreign policy, paying particular attention to the relationship between security and culture. p 685
cultural intervention (protection or projection) and the object of intervention (culture as a finality of the action or as an instrument) pp685-686
The place of culture within state foreign policy has changed considerably in
recent years. Until quite recently, cultural diplomacy essentially involved strengthening a country’s cultural influence by funding artists’ tours or by promoting the study of the country’s language and culture in universities abroad (Mitchell, 1986).
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
was then the multilateral arena within which each state could promote, with
East-West and North-South ideological struggles in the background, its particular
contribution to humanity’s cultural heritage. The situation is quite different today.
The international cultural agenda is now structured more by the challenges faced by each culture in the age of globalization, as cultural products are increasingly swept into the transnational communication and economic flows. To be culturally powerful-or even culturally significant-in today’s world, a country must exercise control over these flows (Nye & Owens, 1996; Rothkopf, 1997), which are increasing in tandem with the development of new information and communication technologies (NICTs) and trade liberalization (Kaplan, 1994; Shao, 1995).
“Cultural diplomacy has never been apolitical, even if in general, and quite naturally, it claims to be so.” P. 678
p.694: First, the examination of the process revealed that
Canadian foreign policy was effectively subjected to strong pressures from civil
society to make culture a key instrument in confronting the challenges posed by
globalization. In line with the analysis set out above, one of the ways that was
proposed to integrate culture into Canadian foreign policy was to include culture
in a broader, redefined notion of security and in the policies flowing from such a
redefinition. …..Artists and cultural activists can be tempted by the mobilization potential that can result from linking fears about cultural domination and assimilation with the strong and evocative language of
Zn- domestic factor of foreign policy
the Canadian cultural sector is continuing to demand a more aggressive external cultural policy (ConfCrence
Canadienne des Arts, 1998; New Conversations, 1996). Moreover, their
demands are often couched in the rhetoric of societal security,
Zn- cultural policy / security notes
“societal security” approach, developed mainly by
scholars associated with the “Copenhagen school” of International Relations (see
Huysmans, 1998), to examine the problem of the relationship between foreign
policy and culture (Buzan, 1991, 1993; Buzan, Kelstrup, Lemaitre, Tromer, &
Waever, 1990; Buzan, Waever, & de Wilde, 1998; Waever, 1993)
…. the societal security approach recognizes that the forms of
expression of identity within societies affected by globalization can sometimes give
rise to disputes over the statist model of political organization.
The essential thrust of the societal security approach can be summarized as follows: The principal impact of the cultural aspects of globalization on political societies is that it generates a fundamental redefinition of the problem of security. Although the growing interpenetration of states in the political, military, economic, and even environmental spheres is giving rise to new forms of external threats, these threats are part of the challenge to state sovereignty-that is, to a government’s ability to exercise control over its own territory and institutions. In contrast, cultural interpenetration, whether it takes the form of migration or overriding cultural influence from a dominant culture, engenders threats both real and perceived, not to state sovereignty but to the identity of societies-that is, the sense of belonging or the mode of subjectivization of a society.
Of course, sovereignty and identity are interrelated, if only to the extent that
certain societal identities develop concomitantly with state-building. Nonetheless,
the idea here is that a societal identity can be reproduced independently of a state
and even in opposition to a state mode of political organization (Waever, 1993,
Jennifer Eileen Cross, Ellyn Dickmann, Rebecca Newman-Gonchar and Jesse Michael Fagan Using Mixed-Method Design and Network Analysis to Measure Development of Interagency Collaboration American Journal of Evaluation 2009 30: 310 originally published online 29 June 2009
Zn —- differentiates relational structures between “simple network” and “complex collaboration.” // PD literature on ‘networks’ jumping seem to suggest that ‘network PD’ = collaboration. But, possible to have a string of people ‘connected’ but not working together on same goal. May have a shared interest, but interest not translate to coordinated action or sense of shared purpose.
Zn – “information/communication networks” – “complex relations in collaboration” – shared resources and decision making / consequences and outcome / ownership of the process and product
Zn – note levels of relational differences
Tie Strength pp 312-313
Tie strength has also been identified as a predictor of network functioning and information
exchange. In network analysis, tie strength refers to the relationships between actors (e.g.,
relationships between organizations) and is measured in multiple ways including: closeness,
frequency of interaction, duration of relationship, emotional support, and overlapping social
ties. Marsden and Campbell (1984) found that frequency of interaction and closeness are two
related but distinct aspects of the strength of ties in interpersonal relationships. Applying this
finding to interagency relationships, strength of ties should be measured not simply as
frequency or number of interactions but as the more complex concept of closeness.
One way of conceptualizing closeness in interagency contexts is to consider the degree to
which agencies collaborate or work together. Peterson (1991) has proposed that there are three
types of interagency relationships: cooperation, coordination, and collaboration. More
specifically, Chrislip and Larson (1994) define collaboration as ‘‘a mutually beneficial relationship
between two or more parties who work toward common goals by sharing responsibility,
authority, and accountability for achieving results.’’ They argue that varying levels of
accountability, authority, and shared responsibility distinguish collaboration from other forms
of working together such as networking, coordinating, and cooperating. Expanding on these
frameworks, Hogue et al. (1995) argue that five different levels of collaboration can be
identified by examining differences in the purpose of relationships, the formality of roles of
participating partners, and the processes of interaction.
The Collaboration Framework (see Table 1), published by the National Network for
Collaboration, reflects five levels of relationships, differentiated by purpose, structure, and
process (Hogue et al., 1995). In this model, collaboration is the highest level, where the purpose
is to accomplish a shared vision and build an interdependent system and networking is the
lowest level, where the purpose is communication (Hogue et al., 1995).
Most recently, Bailey
and Koney (2000) have argued that there is yet another, highest level of interagency relationships,
coadunation or ‘‘having grown together.’’ [Zn – EGYPT, networks, social density in traditional societies, highly mobile societies] Frey et al. (2006) have summarized the various
levels of collaboration from multiple authors as including seven levels from coexistence
to coadunation. Although various researchers have used different labels for varying levels of
collaboration, they all describe increasing levels of collaboration as moving from the simplest,
sharing of information, to most complex relations, commitment of financial resources and
integrated decision making.
Zn- measurement focus. American Evaluation Association//
Abstract: In recent years, there has been increasing attention to the importance of interagency collaboration for improving community well-being, environmental and public health, and educational outcomes. This article uses a mixed-methods approach including network analysis to examine the changes in interagency collaboration in one site funded by the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative (SS/HS). Results of the evaluation demonstrated that although intraproject collaboration peaked in the middle of the grant and began to decline during the last year, interagency collaborations continued to grow during the last year of the grant. These results illustrate how network data can easily be collected and used to assess the development of interagency relationships. Keywords: collaboration; mixed method; network analysis; interagency coalitions; community partnerships
Conceptualization and Measurement of Collaboration p. 313
In the field of community interventions, interagency partnerships or coalitions are not
always conceptualized as networks. Instead, interagency relationships are often considered
enduring entities in their own right with a common but general goal and a preference for
‘‘inviting everyone to the table’’ rather than as clusters of groups working on multiple aspects
of the larger initiative (Chavis, 1995; Kadushin et al., 2005). The weaknesses of this conceptualization
are twofold. First, many community coalitions are more accurately described as a
network of many agencies working on multiple objectives rather than a single entity with one
goal. Second, the literature on effectiveness of coalitions suggests that collaborative groups are
most productive when membership is limited to primary stakeholders working toward specific
and time-oriented objectives (Chavis, 1995; Kadushin et al., 2005).
Many evaluation tools accept the conceptualization of community coalitions as an entity
referred to at the ‘‘partnership’’ or ‘‘coalition.’’ These tools fall into three categories: (a) formative
evaluation processes which assess the development of community coalitions (Fawcett
et al., 1995; Goodman & Wandersman, 1994); (b) community readiness assessments (Plested,
Thurman, Edwards, & Oetting, 1998); and (c) surveys that assess the process and effectiveness
of a single collaborative group (Frey et al., 2006; OMNI Institute). One weakness of these
instruments is that they often collect data from individuals representing large and complex
organizations. Individual assessment of interagency relationships are likely to vary widely
based on that individual’s position in the organization (Frey et al., 2006; Spillane, 1998).
Individuals may give an accurate assessment of the relationship between their department
or unit and other organizations, which may or may not characterize the relationship the
organization as a whole to other organizations.
Using a network approach to evaluate interagency collaboration may provide a solution to
both of these dilemmas. First, network analysis can reveal whether any collection of actors,
individuals or groups, is best characterized as a single group or a complex network of
Simon Mark, A Comparative Study of the Cultural Diplomacy of Canada, New Zealand and India.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Auckland 2008
Zn – abstract focuses primarily on Canada and New Zealand.
Zn- aspects of CD – domestic implications – CD as a nation branding (direct) and national pride (indirect) //
Zn - national identity [how nation sees itself] & national image [how others see the nation]
As this thesis has shown, cultural diplomacy has been an under-studied practice of government. As an official practice, it has not been as well understood, or researched, as it warrants. But this thesis has shown cultural diplomacy to be a significant tool of diplomacy. It is a special tool, because cultural diplomacy intersects with national culture, national values, national identity, and with national pride. In recent years, cultural diplomacy has become more linked to the pursuit of those national economic interests which have a cultural aspect to them, and to the defence of national cultural sovereignty. Cultural diplomacy offers a state the chance to show itself to the world in a unique way, much more powerfully than simple promotion, or advertising, or branding. And cultural diplomacy can connect with people from other cultures and other countries in a manner which benefits both the practitioner of cultural diplomacy and the receiver. Cultural diplomacy also has the potential to be used as a powerful tool of domestic politics. Furthermore, this thesis has set out examples of the deliberate use of cultural diplomacy to achieve domestic outcomes. Of all the types of the practice of diplomacy, cultural diplomacy most strongly connects to a country’s sense of what it is, its national identity, and its national values
Zn – Mark discusses differences between national objectives / impact
National objectives –
Andersen “Imagined Communities” – national feel-good factor = national pride
Zn – ISA notes// Canada and New Zealand assertive focus on projecting image; India associative focus on relational spheres // pp. 181-
“ With regard to general insights into cultural diplomacy provided by this examination of India’s cultural diplomacy, three stand out.
First, India’s cultural diplomacy has sought both to enhance mutual understanding and advance India’s interests.
One ancillary reason for the presentation of an image of India as a great country, through the festivals programme, was that of national pride. India’s cultural diplomacy provides a useful contrast to the imperatives which have driven New Zealand’s and Canada’s respective assertions of their contemporary images abroad. The cultural diplomacy of India has not concerned itself with the issue of cultural sovereignty.
India’s cultural diplomacy provides insights as well into more general aspects of the practice, in particular what might be termed ‘old fashioned’ cultural diplomacy. Since its independence in 1947, India’s cultural diplomacy has sought to enhance mutual understanding amongst countries and their peoples. India’s cultural diplomacy was instigated shortly after its independence because India was genuinely committed to rebuilding a post-colonial world on foundations which in its view were significantly different from those which characterised colonialism. This old fashioned-ness has been reinforced by a very noticeable element of reciprocity in India’s cultural diplomacy, especially in the exchange of people and performing arts groups, and the incorporation of elements of India’s civilisational heritage in its cultural diplomacy activities (and other activities which have the feel of a by-gone age, such as, for example, the presentation to other countries of busts of famous Indians such as Mahatma Gandhi). These aspects – its aim of enhancing mutual understanding, a strong emphasis on reciprocity, and the use of its civilisational cultural heritage – provide a fascinating contrast the cultural diplomacy of Canada and New Zealand.
Schneider, Cynthia, The Unrealized Potential of Cultural Diplomacy: “Best Practices” and What Could Be, If Only… Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society39. 4 (Winter 2009): 260-279.
[at a time when] cultural knowledge and understanding lie at the heart of every foreign policy challenge (and many economic ones), and the internet and the global economy have flattened the world to such a degree that young people everywhere need to become global citizens to succeed –
ZN – ties into earlier observation by US Sec of State Baker – that culture would emerge as a dominant realm in foreign policy
ZN- ties to ‘ahh’ and ‘aha’ – inherent power of art
“Creative expression in all its forms taps into emotions and communicates on more than a rational level and can precipitate alternative ways of seeing the world.
ZN – offers 4 best practices then gives examples
Best practices in cultural diplomacy and cultural exchange, it is worth reviewing general characteristics that I believe define success:
1- a two-way engagement that involves collaborative performances, mentoring
or teaching, exchange of information, techniques, perspectives;
2- contextualization, or, what works in Cairo might not work in Caracas;
3- enjoyment—don’t underestimate the importance of young people jamming,
dancing, or singing together, or the pleasure of their parents in
seeing them perform;9
4- flexibility, creativity, and adaptability—all necessities in an era of diminished
ZN- embedded values in CD
Millions’ Poet and Afghan Star (afghan version of American idol) – introduced to their audiences a radical concept in tribal societies – merit-based competition [audience votes for best rather than by tribe] – winners come from different ethnic groups [suggesting people really vote on merit] and grassroots ‘campaigns’ which engage people in civic actions are conducted for contestants – over time, contestants and their supporters have learned to lose gracefully. P. 274
Arabeque: Arts fo the Arab World (Kennedy Center, February 23-March 16, 2009) representation from all 22 countries in the Arab League. 3-week performances 250,000 visitors
ZN – reciprocal, mirror image
“How the world views the US and how Americans view the world”
ZN- calls cultural diplomacy “poor stepchild” to PD
PD has an important function in the State Dept but its poor stepchild, ECA is inadequately staffed and funded …
ZN – makes case for separate entity to conduct cultural diplomacy
Question – whether cultural engagement should be housed within the State Dept where it is unavoidably tied to foreign policy. 276
An organization indirectly linked to the State Dept but operating at “an arm’s length’ [as is the case with the British Council] would be able to realize the full potential of cultural engagement without having to adhere to foreign policy.
‘civilizations don’t clash; they interact’
Susan Wright - senior lecturer in cultural studies University of Birmingham, 1997 president of the Section H of the British Association of the Advancemenet o of Science
- distinguishes between “old culture” and “new culture” in anthropology debates
zNote: old culture = a thing, a bounded entity that is knowable, that can command and control - use to design PD products
zNote: new culture = culture is a continuous process of meaning making
- presents 3 case examples [‘cultural racism’, corporate culture, culture & development]
Wright: The main features of this, still-current ‘old idea of culture’ are:
Idea of a “Contact Zone” -
“Merry (1997) studied 18th and 19th century Hawaii, and found a dizzying array of people from Norway to China were present in what she calls not a ‘local community’ but a ‘contact zone’:
In an unbounded site, this medley of people drew on the practices of their various places of origin, in the light of their current interests, to work out how to organize labour, trade and social relations. Contests took place between people in asymmetrical relations of power, over their multiple and contradictory cultural logics. Each actor endeavoured to manoeuvre, in unpredictable political and economic situations, to define or seize control of symbols and practices. Symbols and ideas never acquired a closed or entirely coherent set of meanings: they were polyvalent, fluid and hybridized. Key terms shifted in meaning at different historical times. When a coalition of actors gained ascendancy at a particular historical moment, they institutionalized their meaning of key terms in law.
Sum - New culture:
- ‘culture’ is a dynamic concept, always negotiable and in process of endorsement, contestation and transformation. - Differently positioned actors, with unpredictable inventiveness, draw on, re-work and stretch in new directions the accumulated meanings of ‘culture’ - including old and new academic ones. - In a process of claiming power and authority, all are trying to assert different definitions which will have different material outcomes.
** sounds a lot like academic framing contest
* Cultural racism - discusses analogies of culture to racism; focus on differences, separateness. Role of power and control, tie to cultural studies.
* Corporate culture - discusses understanding of culture in organizational communication
zNote — good description of challenge in PD collaboration:
Smircich (1983: 351) ‘how to create and maintain a sense of organization, and how to achieve common interpretations of situations so that coordinated action is possible … leadership can best be understood as the management of meaning and the shaping of interpretations’
* Culture and Development
- see UNESCO (1995) Our Creative Diversity
[report argues for 2 definitions of culture - 1) is constructive, constitutive, creative and 2) the world is made up of discrete ‘cultures’ or peoples.
“Marshall Sahlins defines culture as ‘the total and distinctive way of life of a people or a society’ (1994 quoted in UNESCO 1995: 21). This old view of ‘culture’ is supported by a paper by L<130>vi-Strauss (initially written for UNESCO in 1952 and revised in 1973),6 from which the title of the report is drawn. Levi-Strauss put forward what Eriksen (1997) calls an archipelago vision of the world as made up of ‘peoples’ each with a radically different ‘culture’ like a string of separate islands (the view contested by Merry, above). In the report, sometimes a ‘people’ is equated with a country, although it is also said that the world consists of 10,000 distinct societies in 200 states (1995: 16). Unfortunately, according to the report, people are mixing as never before (1995: 9). Instead, their distinctiveness should be encouraged, as it is by looking across boundaries between distinct cultures that people gain ideas for alternative ways of living. The report’s recipe for creativity, experimentation, innovation and the dynamic of progress is a diversity of distinct entities with clear boundaries (1995: 15). Human civilization depends on creative diversity. Wright p12
Levi-Strauss has provide UNESCO with a map of a flat world
zNote - example of the Kayapo in Brazil / Terence Turner 1991
- Kayapo lost 700-800 members to disease, Missionnaires provided medicine in exchange for the Kayapo adopting western clothes, building village along a street, suppressing their ceremonies
- Turner comes to “uncover the lost traditions of the Kayapo
- Kayapo say it was just the way they did things
- They did not have a concept through which to objectify and label their everyday life as a ‘culture’. He argued that they needed such a concept to deal with their situation: to give them an identity and distinguish themselves as a ‘culture’ on a par with other indigenous people
turner their ‘way of life’ to “culture” then turn tables on government to
William 1976:87 - culture one of the two or three most
Am thinking that with the rise in cultural identity in era of globalization that conflicts over cultural heritage will become more political than cultural. Will see the politicization of culture.
“Designation as a World Heritage site brings with it funding, technical and training assistance, in addition to promotional help from UNESCO for the maintenance and preservation of the recognized landmark. It can also heighten international interest and help develop local expertise in the conservation and management of such sites.”
After the signing of the 1993 Oslo accords and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the West Bank, some prominent archaeological sites came under Palestinian control, but other key sites remained under Israeli management, excavated and promoted as Israeli tourist attractions.
Several Palestinian nonprofit groups in the West Bank have in recent years promoted the preservation of architectural landmarks, old centers of towns and villages, and archaeological sites, while trying to raise public awareness of the need to preserve the area’s cultural heritage, which they consider a national asset.
The effort has clear political overtones. “It’s an important part of nation-building,” said Adel Yahya, an archaeologist who heads the Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange, a group that promotes Palestinian heritage and preservation of historic sites. Yahya said that one of the biggest challenges is to halt the looting of antiquities, which he said is driven by economic hardship among Palestinians and the popular perception of archaeology as “a tool of occupation” by Israel.
Khouloud Daibes, minister of tourism and antiquities in the Palestinian Authority, said that through membership in UNESCO, Palestinians will be able to secure international recognition of West Bank sites “as Palestinian cultural heritage, and they will not be listed or claimed as Israeli heritage and part of Israel, as many of our sites are marketed.”
She said that Palestinians did not have access to the findings of Israeli excavations in the West Bank and were seeking the recovery of artifacts removed to Israel.
In 2002, concerned about the destruction of historic buildings during an Israeli military offensive in the West Bank that followed a wave of suicide bombings in Israel, UNESCO sponsored a Palestinian inventory of 20 cultural and natural sites in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with potential for nomination as World Heritage sites. A few of the sites, such as the Qumran caves in the Judean Desert, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, remain under Israeli control.
In Israel, where the Palestinian entry to UNESCO is viewed as a purely political ploy, the government last year put two West Bank shrines — the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem, a site holy to Jews and Muslims — on a list of Israeli national heritage sites slated for renovation and preservation.
On a visit this week to the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Yuli Edelstein, the Israeli minister of public diplomacy and diaspora affairs, said it is important to remind the world of “our connection to this holy site,” which he said Israel maintains as an open shrine for visitors of all faiths. Strict security and prayer arrangements have been in force at the site since a 1995 attack in which a Jewish settler killed 29 Muslims at prayer.
Taha, the Palestinian official, said he viewed Jewish antiquities in the West Bank and Gaza as an integral part of “the mosaic of Palestinian culture.” He said that the Palestinian Authority had in recent years restored the remains of an ancient synagogue in Jericho, which was vandalized after the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in 2000.
“We view it as part of our heritage,” he said. “We will protect it.”
Was looking to find the op-ed piece by the anthropologist and came across piece by Prof. Roberto Gonzalez, an anthropologist suggesting the idea of “preventive diplomacy.” According to Gonzalez, “preventive diplomacy that aims to forestall crises by addressing root causes of political instability and human suffering.”
He gives several examples of analysis by anthropologists were more accurate than government assessment. William O. Beeman on ‘Why they hate us,” also on Aghanistan.
Prof. Gonzalez wants anthropologist to speak out about how US government [military and political] intervention affecting lives of people in other countries.
[z-NOTE: US PD focus on positive intervention, USAID. Gives impression that US helps people, 3 D’s - diplomacy, development, defense. Maybe that defense is cancelling out the diplomacy and development part of equation?]
How Gonzalez describes “preventive diplomacy”
“This work suggests a novel foreign policy in which anthropologists might take the lead: a preventive diplomacy that aims to forestall crises by addressing root causes of political instability and human suffering.
Current approaches based upon gunboat diplomacy and Realpolitik have proven to be unsustainable in economic and humanitarian terms, and indeed survival terms.”
z-NOTE: so not only interventions counter productive in terms of US image, but more costly because over long run may eventually have to bail out]
Sad note — why need anthropologists to speak up in media because don’t have legitimate voice:
“There are formidable barriers to such public engagement. The corporate media is becoming more restrictive and homogenous. TV appearances by independent scholars are rare on CNN and Sunday morning talk shows. Instead, official government spokespersons and self-proclaimed “experts” from privately funded think tanks offer a narrow range of opinions. News editors frequently filter scenes of people who are suffering overseas, particularly if our government’s foreign policy is implicated. The need for anthropological input is greater than ever.”
Roberto J Gonzalez is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at San Jose State U. He is editor of the forthcoming book Anthropologists in the Public Sphere: Speaking Out on War, Peace, and American Power (2004).
Gonzalez, “Speaking Out on War, Peace and Power: Towards a Preventative Diplomacy,” From the November 2003 Anthropology News
*** found the WP piece
William G Mosley, an American professor who formerly worked for Save the Children (UK) on food security issues in Africa, in the Washington Post: Behind Africa’s famine, more than just drought Famine isn’t inevitable, 29 Jul 2011.