Obama’s Asia Tour & Public Diplomacy

Continuing the trend from my previous post on President Obama’s Asia trip, I find myself pleasantly surprised that democracy promotion continues to be a public subject of this tour.  Most recently the President spoke in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim state, and a center of democracy in South East Asia.  While in Indonesia, Obama praised the country as an example of how developing nations could improve the lives of citizenry by embracing the principles of democracy and diversity.

Contrary to the focus on trade and economics during his trip to India, the President’s speech in Jakarta focused primarily on the subjects of democracy, development and religious tolerance.  Not only did his speech bring the subject of democracy in development to the forefront, but of at least equal importance, it returned to past efforts by the administration to strengthen the US relationship with the “Muslim world”.  Who can say for certain if there’s much tangible worth to these latest comments on the role of religious tolerance in foreign policy? I would argue that there is value,  but that’s an easy conclusion to reach given my appreciation for public diplomacy.

As in the President’s call for a new beginning between the US and Muslim communities last year in Cairo, the Jakarta speech displayed the innate value of public diplomacy.  Often we who study this field argue that public diplomacy and rhetoric without substantial change to support it is effectively meaningless, but I disagree, particularly in situations of ideological struggle.  I would assert that the promotion of democracy and religious freedom is worthwhile regardless of tangible changes to policy, due to its ability to influence the populace, if not the policy makers.  There is substantial value to discussion of these subjects, and to the continued support of our allies abroad who uphold religious freedom.  Further, in light of our own issues with religion and freedom of expression, it is important that policy makers continue to make clear that the US led struggles in the Middle East are not struggles against Islam.

Regardless of its relative successes, Indonesia’s history of tolerance and human rights is far from spotless. As such I’d hardly be surprised to see criticism of Obama’s words in praise of the country, either by his domestic and international political opponents, or human rights activists.  Many of the criticisms of Indonesia’s history of tolerance will be valid, a weakness of public diplomacy, which necessitates strong often hyperbolic statements contrary to the minutia of realities on the ground.