By Brigitte L. Nacos
At the end of a lengthy interview with Ayman al-Zawahiri
that was posted on extremist web sites last weekend, al-Qaeda’s own media
production company As-Sahab announced that the terrorist organization’s second
in command was inviting questions via an Islamist media center to be admitted
within the next month. According to the announcement, these questions will be
sent to al-Zawahiri and answered in another video-taped appearance. It seems
that al-Qaeda wants to imitate CNN’s YouTube campaign debate format. TechCrunch’s
Duncan Riley calls al Qaeda’s latest propaganda approach “bizarre.” Bizarre
indeed, but this latest scheme is actually just one more example for the fact
that al-Qaeda, like-minded groups, and terrorist organizations in general
exploit all media and communication means for propaganda purposes.
As I have argued before, governments have not been savvy and
innovative in developing and testing new public diplomacy approaches in order
to counter the public relations assault from terrorist extremists. This is an
excerpt from what I wrote in an article just published by the online journal Perspectives
on Terrorism:
“Recently,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called on the U.S. government to spend more money and yield to “soft power” because “the military
alone cannot defend America's
interests around the world.” Spending
more money and placing more effort into “soft power,” will not assure a more
effective “public diplomacy” in the Middle East and among Muslims and Arabs. Even if the United States Information Agency were
revived and its once excellent parts revitalized, these vehicles of public
diplomacy would not be successful in current target regions as they were during
the Cold War when they were working within a far more limited and controlled
communication environment. In today’s global setting, most people of the world
know almost instantly what happens elsewhere around the globe. They no longer
need the Voice of America or Alhurra TV as their primary source of information.
It is unlikely that they will react positively to Americans selling U.S. culture
and values and the advantages of democracy and freedom.
When
foreign governments decide to utilize strategic communication in order to
convince the American public and elite alike to support or oppose particular
policies, they do not rely on their own public relations, publicity, public
diplomacy, or propaganda. Instead, they hire leading and well-connected
Americans in the most prestigious firms to promote their interests. For
example, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the Kuwaitis hired and paid many millions of dollars to Hill and
Knowlton, a large American public relations firm, to push the “Free Kuwait”
cause in the United States.
This action ultimately influenced America’s decision to enter the
first Gulf War.
While
one would not want to repeat the tactics used in the Kuwaiti public diplomacy
campaign, the advantage of using homegrown public diplomacy experts is
indisputable.”
Comments