Viktor Koretsky, “Africa Fights, Africa Will Win” 1968
For many decades communists were the only political group in South Africa who were prepared to treat Africans as human beings and their equals; who were prepared to eat with us; talk with us, live with us, and work with us. They were the only political group which was prepared to work with the Africans for the attainment of political rights and stake in society. Because of this, there are many Africans who, today, tend to equate freedom with communism.
– Nelson Mandela
Over the last few months the relationship between the United States and Russia has grown tense. Between the ongoing NSA/Ed Snowden saga, strongly enforced anti-gay and anti civil liberties laws by President Vladimir Putin, and concerns about terrorism at the Sochi Winter Olympics, one would get the impression that the Cold War didn’t really end in 1991.
Of course we all know the tension between the two countries goes back to the original start of the Cold War in 1947. At that same time the Non-Aligned Movement in the colonial world and the American civil rights movement were both in their infancy. The Soviet Union was looking for a way to communicate the message that the racial struggles of people of color worldwide were connected with the evils of capitalism and imperialism. This would become one of the most enduring propaganda projects in Soviet history.
Ukrainian graphic designer Viktor Koretsky (1909–1998) created passionate political posters during this era that communicated the idea that communism and multiracial cooperation can work together against the global threat of greed and aggression.
Take for instance the poster above. It signifies a black man “breaking” the chain, denoting the colonial struggles in Africa, as well as battling against Jim Crow in the United States. Also, the man is looking towards his left, symbolizing a new direction towards communism.
Here are some of Koretsky’s most memorable posters, which also use symbols of breaking away from a struggle.
Viktor Koretsky, “You will not strangle the freedom of the Arab peoples” 1958
The struggle Koretsky is referring to here is the 1956 Suez Crisis, when Egypt decided to nationalize the Suez Canal and started building stronger ties with the Soviet Union and China. The poster shows an Arab man trying to keep the hands of Britain and America from joining together (and taking back control of the Suez Canal). The handcuffs symbolizing both American dollars and British pounds and the man looking sternly at the American hand. This was a nod to Nasserism and Pan-Arabism.
Viktor Koretsky, “A Solid Peace for the World” 1965
This poster symbolizes a multiracial coalition looking right, or looking towards the West. The Soviets wanted to stressed that all men were equal and to fight the “struggle” against capitalism together. (The Soviets were way ahead of “United Colors” of Benetton!)
Viktor Koretsky and Evgeny Abezgus , “Equality” 1963
This is another symbol of racial equality and mutual respect in fighting against capitalism together.
Viktor Koretsky, “American Policy (Domestic/Foreign)” 1970
Aggression and race rears its ugly head in this poster, demonstrating the communist vision of both domestic and foreign policy in the United States. On the left a black man is beaten by the police during a civil rights protest. On the right, American soldiers looking over a dead body presumably during the Vietnam War.
Viktor Koretsky, “Justice American Style” 1960
Here is another symbol of racial struggle, this time a black man about to be lynched with a rope resembling an American dollar sign. The man is looking to his left (communism) for help. It also imposes a larger conversation about how racism has supported capitalism during slavery.
Victor Koretsky, Untitled, c. 1960s.
A terrifying image of racism through the eyes of a young black person, who sees a Klansman and tears streaming down the face.
Viktor Koretsky, “Twins in Spirit and Blood” c.1960s
Koretsky equates American racism (Klansman) with the nuclear arms race (atom bomb).
Viktor Koretsky, “Freedom In America” c.1970
A group of African-Americans chained in front of police with the backdrop of the New York City skyline and the home of Wall Street. It is also symbolizes the hostile relationship between blacks and the police. NYC’s Stop and Frisk policy comes to mind here.
In preparation for my “busy season” – UN Week – I do my usual research on the latest trends in public diplomacy, media development and strategic communication. As you may recall from last year, I did some interviews with those working in those fields and wrote an article on how technology is redefining diplomatic relations. New media has created some opportunities, as well as new challenges, for public diplomacy officers worldwide. However, in order to understand the future of this ever changing field, you have to also understand the history of strategic global communications, especially with regards to the United States.
Public diplomacy is a very broad term, and means different things in different countries. For the purposes of this article, I will use definitions used by the U.S. State Department over the years.
The United States Information Agency (USIA), the U.S. government’s public diplomacy arm and, from 1953 to 1999, the largest full service public relation organization in the world said this about their mission: “Public diplomacy seeks to promote the national interest and the national security of the United States through understanding, informing, and influencing foreign publics and broadening dialogue between American citizens and institutions and their counterparts abroad.”
Also, “Public Diplomacy refers to government-sponsored programs intended to inform or influence public opinion in other countries; its chief instruments are publications, motion pictures, cultural exchanges, radio and television,” according to the 1987 edition of the Dictionary of International Relations Terms.
According to Empire of Ideas, the United States unofficially started doing public diplomacy with China in 1900 through educational exchanges in accordance to the Open Door Policy of 1899. However, American public diplomacy began in earnest following the Buenos Aires Conference in 1936, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy in Latin America. The policy was an effort to project the United States as a promoter of goodwill instead of the commonly held view at the time that it was the “Big Stick” interventionist to the North.
It was interesting to read that there were many discussions at the time about what that goodwill should look like. Should the United States promote high culture (poetry readings, art exhibits) or popular culture (jazz music)? Vice President Henry Wallace championed the need for more technical assistance over educational exchanges, as most of the Latin American populace worked in the agrarian sector. Coincidentally, Wallace, a former Security of Agriculture and a farming business owner, introduced the Honeydew melon to China in the 1940s where it is still referred to today as the Wallace melon. Wallace’s technical assistance proposals made an impact in how U.S. development aid is orchestrated today.
Since the beginning of the “America Century,” public diplomats have had to straddle the fine line between information sharing and propaganda. There was always this dilemma of at what point does information become disinformation and a loss of credibility. Should unfavorable information about America be countered with favorable information, avoid any appearance of justification, or should it simply be ignored? Should American public diplomats distribute unfavorable information about America if domestic and/or foreign media is or isn’t reporting about it first?
The overarching unfavorable information the United States had to deal with internationally over the years is its dark racial history. During World War II public diplomats had to grapple with the hypocrisy of promoting the United States as a beacon of democracy and equality to the world while at the same time treating African-Americans poorly under Jim Crow. American public diplomats were the first U.S. policymakers to address the negative effect of American racism on the country’s image because they were the first to methodically look at image as a foreign policy issue.
The Office of War Information (OWI) created films like “The Negro Soldier” and “Negroes and the War,” as well as a 70-page pamphlet to go with the latter film, to present better images of African-Americans and boost morale. “Negroes and the War” was intended to show white Americans the important role black soldiers played in World War II, while getting African-Americans to support the fight and this idea of “democracy.” The OWI spent more money on “Negroes and the War” than on any other wartime material at the time. However, it back-fired as African-Americans found it patronizing and white Southerners thought it was promoting “racial equality.” Meanwhile, “The Negro Soldier” is now considered a breakthrough film that not only rallied civilians of all races to enlist at the time, but it also changed the way African-Americans were portrayed in films going forward.
Likewise, OWI had to deal with how people of color around the world viewed the United States. Japanese public diplomats advertised their country as the “champion of the darker races” and were fighting to expel Western colonialism to audiences in other Asian nations and, to a lesser extent, African-Americans.
Not only were American public diplomats not able to defeat Japan’s “empire of ideas,” but they were never able to effectively deal with the racial and colonial politics in the postwar era and the emerging Cold War.
When Mao Zedong’s Chinese Revolution happened in 1949, American public diplomats didn’t know how to deal with it and, in a really bad move, treated the rise of China and its concerns as if they were the same concerns as other poor countries. Also, America’s Euro-centric approach to foreign policy didn’t help things either. When the United States developed the Marshall Plan for Europe, the colonial world viewed the project as an effort to strengthen Western colonial powers and embolden American interests. Soviet public diplomats were able to seize on this opportunity to undermine America’s credibility by promoting the idea that the United States didn’t care about advancing the economic and development interests of the Third World.
American public diplomats also struggled with the hypocritical idea of “democracy” during the McCarthy era, when books written by suspected Communists were censored or banned altogether in USIA overseas libraries, and Congressional hearings investigated alleged Communists working for Voice of America. Public diplomats also attempted to censor Hollywood films that portrayed America in a negative light.
Today with all the new technologies available, it is easier for the U.S. government to strategically reach previously untapped populations worldwide. From President Obama’s Cairo speech to Arab audiences, to Twitter and Facebook chats hosted by U.S. ambassadors, the Obama administration has run the most tech-savvy public diplomacy campaign in American history.
While the communication tools may have changed, the message remains the same. Nonetheless, American public diplomats today still have to deal with going around the same unfavorable information. Despite having an African-American president, the Trayvon Martin case and New York City’s “Stop and Frisk” policy convey to the world that America still has a race problem. The United States promotes this idea of “democracy” and human rights, but many people around the world still believe the United States is a neo-colonial “big stick” interventionist. The United States government promotes the idea of protecting the civil liberties of its citizens, while it allows its National Security Agency to spy on the emails and phone calls of ordinary Americans.
President Obama’s recent trip to Africa is a perfect example of modern American public diplomacy. The main goal of the trip was to promote better economic and development ties with the continent; however, there were a few teachable moments. The first one happened in Senegal when Obama held a very awkward joint press conference with the country’s president, Macky Sall. A day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); Obama took the opportunity to say that Africa should also embrace gay marriage and human rights for LGBT individuals. To the contrary, President Sall said that the Muslim country is tolerant, but doesn’t condone homosexuality. Furthermore, Sall pointed out that Senegal has eliminated the death penalty and that the United States hasn’t, and that both countries should respect their differences. Many Senegalese applauded Sall standing his ground.
Obama’s faux pas can be viewed in two ways: one, by Obama imposing his own values onto another country and not understanding the full cultural context of that country; and two, Obama’s assumption that gay marriage is a universally accepted human right. Interestingly, it is hard to find any online video of the Obama/Sall exchange. And it is also not surprising to find very little video footage – and American media coverage – of the anti-Obama protests in South Africa. Finally, Obama’s US$7 billion energy plan for the continent can be viewed as a goodwill contribution, or a desperate effort to catch up with the growing Chinese dominance in Africa.
So what does this all say about the future of American public diplomacy? In order to create an effective public diplomacy campaign, the United States might need to seriously re-evaluate its own domestic and foreign policies that create unfavorable information. As the old saying from Winston Churchill goes: “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Bunker Hill Community College held the opening reception Feb. 9 for its latest exhibit “That’s a Fact: Young, Gifted and Black.” Many of the area’s best and brightest artists, filmmakers, musicians, writers and photographers were invited to display and celebrate their art. It was exciting to attend because it almost looked like a modern day Harlem Renaissance gathering.
During the 1920s and 1930s many African-Americans moved to the North as part of the Great Migration. Many of those migrants had creative aspirations and made their way to Harlem. These artists used their work to express the new black identity; many of them influenced by self-determination, the Jazz Age and the racial bigotry of the time. Like their Harlem forefathers, the young artists in this exhibit are expressing their own black identity, only this time their influences are hip-hop culture and their pride in having a black man in the White House.
Two white men were found guilty and received life sentences for the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the black teenager stabbed to death by five white youths at a London bus stop in 1993. Nearly two decades on, the verdict may have brought some closure to a case that put a spotlight on racism and criminal justice in the United Kingdom. I was a teenager myself at the time and remember hearing a little about this case, but it wasn’t until I viewed the BBC film The Murder of Stephen Lawrence when I got the whole story of the case and how England is so not “postracial.”
