Governments Use Propoganda example essay topic

How and when is porpoganda used in foreign policy Propoganda is an instrument of policy that governments use to influence a particular group, therefore making that group think what they want them to think, do what they want them to do etc. Although the use of propoganda greatly increased during the twentieth century through the use of mass media (especially through the invention of radio and television) it is not a new phenomenon. Propoganda earliest use was in used connection with religous missionary activities (indeed this is where the word propoganda was first used). On of the earliest users of propoganda was Saint Paul, who established the first Christian churches in Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy. It was Pope Gregory XV who established the Congregation of Propoganda in 1622, hoping that it would help direct the activities of the Roman Catholic Church throughout Europe. Propoganda, before the nineteenth century, was not usually aimed at the population, but at ruling elites.

Policy was made by the ruling elites, normally the monarch, the royal court and their diplomats who did not have to worry about foreign public response - they had to impress their foreign counterparts, not foreign populations. 1 However, since the nineteenth century, people have taken an increasing interest in politics, states have become increasingly democratized, therefore giving more and more people the vote so now that governments have to justify their actions to their population. This means that propoganda, as a tool for foreign policy, has become increasingly useful. For example, if Government X directed propoganda at the population of Government Y, then that population may support Government X and therefore Government Y may pursue a more supportive foreign policy towards Government X. Holsti says that one of the unique aspects of modern international political relations is the deliberate attempt by governments... to influence the attitudes and behaviour of foreign populations.

2 However, it should be noted that public opinion has greater influence on foreign policy in democracies than in authoritarian governments. Propoganda is also frequently used by governments on their own population so as to create or sustain large public support for high defence expenditure. Therefore, Defence policy and foreign policy have become clsoely connected as both demand public support. For example, when Britian's world-wide interests were threatened and she did not have the military resources to defend them, between World War I and World War II, Britain had to pursue a policy of appeasement until rearmament was adequate enough to act.

The problem this posed was how to convince a principally pacifist Britian ravaged by World War I and the economic depression that the government (a government that claimed to be peace loving) needed to raise military expenditure without worrying the public or alerting foreign governments to Britains real plight. This was achieved by the British government persuading people that rearmament was necessary, as Britain Must Be Strong to avoid war. In such an instance, as defence involves a high degree of security, even in free societies, their is legislation involving the curtailment of the press in matters of defence and security. This is considerably easier for authoritarian countries. For example, in the Soviet bloc the media was state controlled and therefore would always tow the official, governments line.

However, for this to be effective, the Soviets had to spend a lot of money in preventing Western transmissions from seeping into the Soviet bloc. Methods used ranged from complex signal jammers to prevent radio and television broadcasts being heard by their population to a ban on certain books and the use of photocopiers 3. Interestingly, the invention of sattelite television meant that many people in Soviet Russia found out about the Chernobyl nuclear accident of 1986 before the Communist government admitted it to them (though they had already admitted the accident to the rest of the world). Propoganda also works at the unofficial level, through pressure groups or movements. Examples of this would be the large Cuban anti-Castro group that has kept pressure on the US to main tian its sanctions on Cuba, the large Jewish lobby that helps make US foreign policy in the Middle East more favourable towards Israel.

Holsti sites the example of when various black people from South Africa toured other countries hoping to raise the awareness of the plight under apartheid. Their hope was that these audiences would then put influence their governments to formulate foreign policy that would put pressure on the South African government. This largely succeed, and many governments around the world put economic sanctions on South Africa until it stopped using apartheid. Propoganda is used only when the particular body using propoganda can successfully influence their target group.

Holsti states that a person has two personalities a nuclear personality and a social personality. There are some beliefs that are instilled in us at an early age by our families - these beliefs are very hard to change, they have effectivley been engrained on us since birth. This is called our nuclear personality. An example of a nuclear personality trait would be if a person was brought up in a racist or homophobic family, they are likely to be either racist or homophobic and these traits would be very hard to change.

However, as an individual grows up, they form new ideas and opinions, and these are likely to conform with th views of their social group. This is called our social personality and it is much easier to influence the opinions of our social personality than our nuclear personality. Furthermore, propoganda will be more successful if the target group already shares at least the very basic belief that you wish to capitalise on. For example Negro-lynching crowds exist because anti-Negro feelings exist. 4 It is clear that the Nazis new that people were more suseptable in a crowd as they organised big rallies in Nuremburg, where party doctrine and ideology was preached - thus appealing to the crowd mentality. 5 Holsti writes that the after choosing which group (s) would be most susseptable to propoganda, they must get their attention.

They do this by attempting to rouse emotion in their target audience. One of the easiest emotions to exploit is hatred, and this is an emotion particularly exploited by propoganda during war time, when hatred of a national enemy becomes a virtue. Indeed, this is evident in the propoganda of both the Germans and the British during World War I, when each attempted to convince their population that the other was evil, therefore justifying the continuation of war. How governments spread their propoganda vs. aires. Most use newspapers, but their are limitations to their success, as foreign governments can easily restrict, censor or ban imports. Furthermore, to large illiterate populations, such propoganda would be useless.

However, radio suffers few of these limitations, as jamming equiptment is expensive and not 100% reliable, and almost everyone now has access to a radio. Therefore, there are many state run radio stations that only transmit to foreign countries. For example, the United States run Radio Marti which is beamed to Cuba, encouraging anti-Castro feelings in Cuba population, or Radio Free Europe, which was aimed at the Communist countries of the Soviet bloc. Television ahs also had an increased significance, which is evident in the fact that almost every state in the world (apart from the United States) have state owned television channels.

This clearly shows that states believe television to be such an powerful medium that they must control it. Indeed, during armed revolutions or coup d etat's television studios and transmitting centers are prime targets to be taken over. The most obvious type of propoganda is war time propoganda. As stated above, governments use propoganda in such times to justify high government military spending to their population. The easiest method of doing this is evoking strong emotions such as hatred of the national enemy, or (more recently) pity for the enemies victims. Therefore, during war, it is often the case for the media to dub the particular enemies leader evil.

For example, before the outbreak of the Persian Gulf Crisis, Iraq was on reasonably good terms with the US, who supported them during the Iran-Iraq war. However, the moment Iraq invaded Kuwiat, the coalitions propoganda machines immediatly went into action, condemning the invasion as the irrational rape of Kuwait independence and the beginnings of Iraqi desire for expansion and dominance of the Middle-East. The general public began to believe that Sudd am Hussein was an insane, irrational and evil dictator. What the were not aware of was the situation in Iraq. After the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq had three million unemployed men between 18 and 35 years old, $230 billion of damage to repair, as well as $5 billion dollars needed for interest collected on debt repayments, $15 billion to pay on loans etc. Hussein asked his oil supplying Arab neighbours to stick to their quotas and not flood the western world with oil, therefore decreasing the price of oil.

For every dollar that was lost on the price of one barrel of oil, Iraq would loose a potential $1 billion of income. However, Kuwait, which owns nearly a third of the globes total oil supplies, continued to supply above its quota. This, coupled with the fact that, with mounting debts the Iraqi government needed an increased income, tat Iraq had an ancient claim to Kuwait and that the Kuwaitis were illegally stealing Iraqi oil pushed Hussein into the invasion. If the western world was made aware of this, do you think it would have been as easy to justify an extremely expensive confrontation with Iraq on the grounds that Hussein was evil and attacking a defenceless country A phenomenon of labelling leaders of countries evil is that now nations can claim that they are not attacking the enemy nation, just the enemy leader. For example, during the Kosovo conflict of 1999, Nato was not at war with Serbia and the Serbian people, but only (as they repeatedly claimed) with Milosevich himself. During the Kosovo conflict, it was also interesting to see the Serbian regimes attempts at influencing Nato members wit propoganda.

For example, western reporters were only allowed to go to sights that the Serbian officials would take them to. Therefore, the news from the bombing campaign was always along the lines of a school being bombed and many children dying or a hospital being obliterated. This was the Serbian governments attempt to make the Alliance populations doubt the necessity of the war. However, these reports were never really taken that seriously by the public - perhaps because they had already been influenced by their own governments propoganda, believing the Milosevich regime to be liars and evil. However, when an incident did occur where there was an accidental bombing of a convoy of refugees, the press did take interest and Nato admitted its mistakes. Military and war time propoganda has always been designed to evoke hatred of the national enemy, sympathy for those suffering because of the enemies actions (such as refugees), and an increase of nationalism and support for the campaign.

This is acheive d through such propoganda techniques as Name-Calling, Glittering Generalities etc. For example the Free World and its fight against Iraqi aggression. However, propoganda can also be used to improve foreign relations. For example, British politicians frequently refer to our special relationship with the United States. By doing so, they are hoping to influence the United States population to a pro-Anglo view, therefore maintaining and improving good Anglo-American relationships. It is clear that propoganda is a tool that is used in foreign relations frequently.

There are many kinds, internal external, as well as those that are military, economic or social propoganda. by Daniel Keys.