I was really interested in the case study on Google's Balloon Wifi initiative. While the class in general felt it was a silly experiment, I thought it was a really unique and interesting approach to the issue of the digital divide. I noticed a lot of the criticism with the Google case study was about supplying the materials to the people who were going to actually use them but I find that it is too early in the project to think about supplies. In the google initiative, they have come across some inevitable complications that they must first overcome before they can begin distributing their new technology. We must also look at the potential environmental risks that might come from this initiative. With the google case study, I'd be worried about what affect these balloons might have to the atmosphere at the altitude that they are trying to have them fly. Despite this, I think that all of the initiatives are ambitious attempts to shorten the gap between those with internet assess and those without.
I was really interested in the case study on Google's Balloon Wifi initiative. While the class in general felt it was a silly experiment, I thought it was a really unique and interesting approach to the issue of the digital divide. I noticed a lot of the criticism with the Google case study was about supplying the materials to the people who were going to actually use them but I find that it is too early in the project to think about supplies. In the google initiative, they have come across some inevitable complications that they must first overcome before they can begin distributing their new technology. We must also look at the potential environmental risks that might come from this initiative. With the google case study, I'd be worried about what affect these balloons might have to the atmosphere at the altitude that they are trying to have them fly. Despite this, I think that all of the initiatives are ambitious attempts to shorten the gap between those with internet assess and those without.
3 Comments
I'm quite impressed by the presentations from our IC class. With each presentation, I've gained insight into different forms of communication, and the obstacles faced in implementing programs throughout the world. Many different aspects from the presentations come to mind when looking back and what has been covered thus far. For Tuesday, Dec. 2nd, the first group focused on Internet governance and censorship. We covered Internet governance in length through our readings and discussion with Prof. DeNardis. This particular presentation touched upon governance, as well as other comparative topics. What impacted me were the firewall discussions in China. Chinese censorship methods are controversial, as governance, or rather the country’s government itself, controls what users can see, read, and submit into the World Wide Web. Considering China’s delicate history in regards to Tiananmen Square, or tensions with Tibet and Taiwan, control of a populace (which number over 1.35 billion) is of concern to elites to avoid any disruption to infrastructure (such as uprisings or revolution). However, in this day and age, Internet oppression is cause for concern and to many, a right to free speech. My issue with is how this is being properly implemented in free democracies such as the United States. For many years, we’ve challenged the press and media in correlation to basic human rights. The Internet itself is still new compared to all this, and for that reason it’s still unclear how the digital age is properly being governed. I’m all for the freedoms we have on the Internet and social applications, but one must question a society we consider “free” when we are in fact susceptible to security breaches to our private life & information by third parties. Sometimes it seems, we live in two societies; the traditional one with an organized set of rules we’re expected to follow, and the digital, where certain rules don’t necessarily apply (stealing, identification theft, invasive practices). We have yet to see how our American Government determines what’s “free” in our usage of Internet, and what’s actually breaking the rules of individual rights and freedoms. Another thing I ponder in regards to Internet is how the changes in communication could change our abilities to personally interact with one another without dependence in digital accessories. As the Internet and its global accessibility was a focus of both Dec 2nd presentations; it's interesting to notice the impact Internet has on our everyday lives. Whether it's how we write (my Media Writing professor is shocked at the lack of “grammar” of today’s undergraduates), our attention spans from constant interactive stimulation, or our preference to text as opposed to calling someone, all are examples in how we now interact with one another. I can’t help but be amused when noticing families and friends at a dinner table. It’s not uncommon where everyone’s looking down for a prolonged period of time at their smartphone or device and ignoring everyone else around them. Even as we progress in communication, we lose a sense of humanity in intimate face-to-face interaction. - Allan J. Roberts YALI, or the Young African Leaders Initiative is an effort to strengthen ties between sub-Saharan Africa and the US by empowering Africans to become "better" leaders. YALI provides online courses (MOOCs) to members of the YALI network, as well as physical locations in various countries where members can attend the MOOCs or attend in person trainings and meetups. The available trainings cover a variety of topics, such as entrepreneurship, leadership (both in a business and civic setting), and public management. All of the MOOCs and trainings are taught by Americans.
The program that I'm focused on for this assignment is the Mandela Washington Fellowship, a YALI program for young African leaders (between the ages of 25-35) with a record of leadership to come to the United States for 6 weeks of training on business & entrepreneurship, civic leadership or public management. There is an application process, and 500 applicants are chosen each year to come to the US for the 6 week training. After reviewing the application criteria, it seems to me that while the stated goal is to strengthen ties with Sub-Saharan Africa, the unspoken goal is to strengthen ties with and influence the next generation of upper-middle class African leaders. In order to apply to the program the applicant must be able to speak, read and write in English. This gives an unfair advantage to former British colonies, and excludes anyone who was not able to complete their education. If the applicant makes to the interview round, they need to provide a passport. Though less common now than before, not everyone has a birth certificate. Those who do not would tend to be those who are not well off or do not live in the main cities. While logistically these conditions both make sense, it seems to me that the program is alienating a large group of people who could benefit from the program as well. If the applicant makes it to the program, they will leave home for 6 weeks (which again assumes a certain level of economic stability to be able to leave a job for that long) to be taught by American experts. I also wonder if the trainings take into account the different cultures and values, or if they teach the groups of students American notions of leadership and entrepreneurship. While these concepts might work in the American world, they won't necessarily translate into a different culture without some adaptation. All in all, I do think that this program has a lot of potential and is undoubtedly helping hundreds of young African leaders to further develop their leadership skills however it seems that as it is set up today it may be alienating those who might benefit most from this type of program and perpetuating the idea that only wealthy, educated people can become effective leaders. ~JB Following the US government’s public-private partnership, the TOMODACHI Initiative, the Japanese government created their own short-term exchange program, the KAKEHASHI Project. The KAKEHASHI Project is an exchange program between the US and Japan, sponsored by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), that aims to bridge the youth of the two countries. The main program website says it will promote the Japanese economy, as well as promote an increase in international visitors to Japan while showing them “Cool Japan.”
Each trip is an all-expense paid, ten-day educational trip to the other country for a group of youth. In this context, youth means aged 35 or younger. Many of the trips are themed: high school students, clothing designers, artists, young professionals, or community advocates. While on their trip, the groups spend most of the time visiting schools, learning about the culture, visiting cultural sites, and sometimes even participating in homestays. MOFA has contracted with The Laurasian Institute and The Japan Foundation to plan visits of Japanese youth to the US, and American youth to Japan. Each organization runs the online presence of the individual programs they run. Oddly enough, both websites are severely outdated. Many sections of the website are under construction and other sections have not been updated in well over a year. The Japan Foundation has had better luck with their Facebook Page. The organization updates it almost daily, showing pictures of different dispatch groups as well as gives information as to what the groups learned during their trip. Considering the target audience is the youth of both countries, predominantly using Facebook instead of a website was a wise decision. However, I am confused about the comment of “The project is also anticipated to revitalize and boost the Japanese economy.” in relation to short-term goals. The program brings youth, predominately high school and college students, to Japan. Not only does this group typically not have vast amounts of capital to spend, but the government is paying for every aspect of their trip. Hopefully in ten or fifteen years those same young students will be working in Japan or working in a business that works with a company in Japan, therefore boosting the Japanese economy and making the program worth every penny the Japanese government has spent on it. ~MS The Community Engagement through the Arts is a public diplomacy initiative through the Department of State, which is implemented by Meridian International. The goals of the program include engaging youth, artists and underserved community members in mural arts throughout South and Central America and Africa. The murals address issues within the community, including HIV-Aids prevention, social inclusion, women's empowerment, etc.
It seems that the goals of this program are to help spread awareness regarding community issues while promoting America. Yet something tells me that painting murals is not the way to go about this. I think that this program is a bit silly because I don't see the benefits of painting murals of community issues beyond decoration purposes. To this point, I think displaying murals of HIV-AIDS and women's inequality might be rather insulting and degrading in a third-world country. It is, as if to say, "look at you guys, you have a major Aid's problem and gender issues." What's more, it seems that America is merely confirming that they are the hegemon by showcasing the other's faults. Granted, this is a very cynical view of things, but I just wonder, how many more productive things could America be investing in that does not involve painting pretty pictures? CO.NX is all about virtual engagement. You can access live video feeds, events, and post on social media across multiple digital platforms. The idea is to create a place where conversations can happen and ideas can be exchanged across the world, transcending cultures and geographical limitations. This program is all about the circular audience engagement in media production. The platform is a wonderful way to connect to those in similarly perched countries and governments where citizens have easy access to the internet, especially internet that is not censored. One can easily create global awareness through this one portal and program.
However, there are some drawbacks to a purely digital platform. People that do not have access to the internet cannot access the content of the program. The same applies to those who may only have access to a censored internet system. But, even more importantly, those who cannot access the program indirectly go against the entire purpose of it. The point is to create and facilitate ideas and conversations, but those that are left out of the conversation are indirectly silenced. Their ideas nor their points of view are ever heard, all because CO.NX exists solely in the digital realm. ~Megan Ekhaml In 1996, Colombian officials approached American public diplomacy-guru and marketing consultant David Lightle in a nation branding campaign. After visiting the country’s capital of Bogotá Lightle answered, “Don’t waste your money.” Colombia had seen the worst in a decade of illegal drug trafficking, kidnappings, and civil conflict. The 1993 murder of Pablo Escobar incited a wave of power control and violence between factions and drug lords. Then-president Ernesto Samper even lost his U.S. Visa when it was discovered drug traffickers financed his election campaign. Understandably, Lightle described Colombia as “a mess.” Flash forward to 2004, and acting President Álvaro Uribe not only built an alliance with Washington, but also took a zero-tolerance approach in dealing with traffickers and leftist guerillas. When Lightle was approached again, he changed his tune. Seeing a marked improvement, Lightle worked with ProColombia, the country’s export and tourism agency, and started the logo “Colombia es Pasión!/Colombia is Passion!” I vividly remember 2004 in Medellín, going to Exito (Colombia’s answer to Walmart) and seeing “Colombia es Pasión!” merchandise in every isle. Coffee mugs, t-shirts, key chains, posters were just some examples of what I saw throughout the supermarket. It was as if Colombia was its own sports team and people were cheering themselves to competition. The tourist industry has taken more aggressive steps in erasing Colombia’s notorious reputation of violence and turmoil. The campaign’s slogan “The only risk is wanting to stay” not only shows locals celebrating the country’s food, music, and landscape, but also shows ex-pats happily living as immigrants in their new country. Nearly 250 companies have licensed “Colombia es Pasíon!” and results have taken a positive turn. The logo and tourist campaign has seen tourism rise at an average of 10% per year, with a quarter of all tourists come from the United States (ranking #1 for visiting countries). - Allan Roberts War or peace? Military or self-defense forces? Before the collapse of the Japanese government during World War II, Japan was a powerful country in Asia that threw around its weight with various invasions in multiple countries. The Japanese saw their military as a forceful approach to spread their culture and way of life to any country they could conquer. Following the end of the war, the United States stepped in and helped Japan draft a constitution. One part, Article 9, was written to ensure that Japan could not have a standing military again. Article 9 allows the government to maintain self-defense forces for protection, but a standing military is forbidden. In recent years, some Japanese have called for the government to repeal or amend Article 9 so that Japan can have their own military and then, possibly subsequently, most of the United States military that is stationed in Japan can be moved elsewhere. The public heavily debates this situation; some people want the constitution to remain as pacifist and others want to amend the constitution to keep up with the changing times. One strategic narrative that the pacifist side continually mentions is the humiliation Japan faced while having a military. Citizens are reminded about how Japan ended up in a situation where they not only lost World War II, but they had two atomic bombs dropped on them. This narrative pushes pacifism, and tries to stress the importance of economic relations for foreign policies. The Japanese culture is a high context culture, one that is exceedingly shame-based. A shame-based culture puts a high value on what others think and preserving honor. The humiliation narrative takes the shame-based culture into account because it reminds the Japanese public how the country was embarrassed by their actions before and during the war. It does not let them forget how the world’s opinion of Japan was significantly lowered because of it. Pacifists use this narrative to ensure that the Japanese government does not allow a military to be rebuilt. In a time when most of the Japanese who were alive during and directly after World War II have already passed away, they continue to try to push the narrative that reminds young Japanese of the shame and humiliation that could await them if the military returns. This stance frames the way politicians move towards a change in Article 9. Although some politicians believe Japan needs to stop relying so much on the American military to keep their borders safe, they also don’t want to be responsible for humiliating their own country. I believe that article 9 will soon be amended to include more possibilities for the self-defense forces, but I don’t believe it will be repealed due to the fear of humiliation. I think the humiliation strategic narrative will guide Japanese policies for decades to come. A narrative, simply put, is a story. We are surrounded by narratives: books, movies and TV shows are created for our entertainment and can evoke very strong emotions as we empathize with the main characters. They allow us to experience things we otherwise never would be able to. We identify with the main character, we feel their emotions as they go through struggles, and we get angry at the “bad guys” and form opinions on what they should or shouldn’t do next.
We also use narratives when we talk to people about something that happened to us, or recount travels. We can change the narrative to omit certain details, or frame it certain ways depending on who we’re talking to or what the goal of our narrative is. Governments can also use narratives to strategically frame their foreign policies. Just like any good story, they identify the protagonist (“us”), the antagonist (“them”), the plot or problem that needs to be resolved, and the resolution. The way the government frames their narrative can influence public opinion by setting up an “Us” (that the public can identify with, and empathize with) versus “Them” mentality in the public. The public narrative that the United States government has been telling ever since the end of World War II is that the US is the leader and defender of the free world, and should take charge of containing “them”, whether that be the Soviets, the terrorists, the Chinese or whoever they perceive as a threat at the time. The case of the Soviets is an interesting one; during World War 2 the USSR and the US were allies, and the US government’s narrative had to support that. Shortly after the end of the war, the US had to shift its narrative to frame the Soviets as the ultimate “them”, our sworn enemies and opposite of everything that the United States stood for. This was effective because the United States is a very dualistic nation. We like knowing who is good and who is bad, and we don’t like gray areas. Going back to movies, within the first half hour of an American-made movie we should know who the good guy is and who the bad guy is and we know that at the end of the movie, the bad guy will lose. More recently the US used the same idea to justify going in to war in the Middle East following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. While the connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks was not clear, President Bush made it clear that we were the innocent victims and “they” were evil. He also used the ongoing narrative that the US is the leader of the free world, and can’t be intimidated. Just as the lone cowboy in older American movies, we had to stand up for our American values even if no one else would back us. While the effectiveness of this narrative is debatable, as many people believed that President Bush had ulterior motives for wanting to go to War, this was the official narrative that the US government stood by. Time and again, the United States has used the cultural values of the American people such as freedom and independence, and played up the good versus bad mentality to frame their narrative and to gain the support of the American people for specific foreign policies. ~JB In an article titled Superpowers Don’t Get to Retire by Robert Kagan, the changing perspectives on American foreign policy were linked to the traditional American narrative and the new roles it would like to adopt. It seems the American narrative would like to change from the front man of democracy and the “keeper of the free market,” to a more conservative narrative that is focused on the welfare and interests of the people within the States. As Kagan notes, “At the core of American unease is a desire to shed the unusual burdens of responsibility that pervious generations of Americans took on in World War II and throughout the Cold War and to return to being a more normal kind of nation, more attuned to its own needs and less to those of the wider world.” Kagan is pointing to the intended shift in the American narrative which is being led by the younger generation. Kagan describes the traditional narrative established during the Cold War, in which America was the front man for expansive and active foreign policy that helped establish a “liberal world order.” According to Kagan, these ambitions where fueled by a fear of communism and the rise of the Soviet Union.
The article also mentioned that the younger generation of Americans could not see the benefits of maintaining a free market economy because this new generation has not experienced a world where free economy isn’t dominant. Moreover, this newer generation is not in constant fear of a communist world or an all powerful Soviet Union. Yet, despite the opposition of the younger generation, America has continued to play the superpower narrative, as they carried out military operations in several different countries throughout the 1990s. By the end of the article, the author is not convinced that America will, or can create a new narrative for themselves. In many ways, the ongoing American superpower narrative has limited America’s ability to escape foreign affairs even while many Americans from the up and coming generations see no value in America’s involvement with other countries. It seems that countries wait to see what moves the American government will take before they proceed to make moves themselves. For example, the US was one of the first to take precaution measures to stop the spread of Ebola and soon after, other countries followed suite. In the same sense, the US was also one of the first country to send aircrafts to the conflict in the Middle East, managing to lead by example in the battle against terrorism. -Cat Marte |