Monday, May 24, 2010 - 5:24 PM

Secretary Clinton visited the Expo 2010 world's fair in Shanghai this Saturday, where you could hear "scattered calls" of "We love you, Hillary!" according to the Washington Post. Above, she greets Haibao, the Expo's mascot. Below, she checks out the logo-festooned USA Pavilion.
U.S. law makes government funding of an American pavilion difficult, so Clinton used her fundraising skills to bring in private money for the USA Pavilion. (See the March FP article, "A Sorry Spectacle." For fairness, check out the rebuttal piece "Defending the USA Pavilion.")
The result: an ugly USA Pavilion.
After mentioning that "corporate America" ponied up $60 million, the Washington Post describes the USA Pavilion this way:
[The USA Pavilion] resembles more a convention center in a medium-size American city than a national showcase -- a warren of dark rooms with movie screens that pales in comparison to the ambitious pavilions of, among others, Saudi Arabia, which features the world's biggest Imax screen, and Germany, festooned with hundreds of giant red balls.…
In addition, the message Clinton experienced at the American pavilion was so larded with corporate advertising that even some of the visiting U.S. officials appeared to have been taken aback.
One film on the creative power of children featured interviews with representatives from corporate powerhouses Chevron, General Electric, Pepsico and Johnson & Johnson, with Habitat for Humanity and the University of Washington thrown in for good measure. That film was aired in the Citicorp room.
A film featuring a girl making her dreams come true and song lyrics that went, "You've got a dream, so plant it in your heart.… You can make it bloom so all the world will see," flashed this message in Chinese on the screen as it was ending, "This film was made by Pepsi."
Still, the USA Pavilion has proved popular among the Chinese. (The pavilion doesn't mention anything about democracy and freedom of expression, with the head of the pavilion's steering committee telling the Post that a main goal was not to be "insulting" to the Chinese.)
When asked her opinion of the Expo in its entirety, Clinton appeared moved and said,"It's so much of a tradition of these expos, all the way back to St. Louis or New York.… It's like a coming-out party for countries and cities. There's a real historical significance."
Asked about the USA Pavilion in particular, she said less enthusiastically, "It's fine."
Well, if corporate America paid for it, then it only makes sense that it should be a "corporate America" pavilion.
US Pavilion: stalking horse for a privatized public diplomacy
Most critiques of the US Pavilion -- and there are plenty -- focus on its uninspiring architecture, its organizers' self-promotional style, the commercial nature of its contents (purchased at an exceedingly high price), and the muffed process that resulted in the private sole-sourcing of the assignment to create the US Pavilion to an inexperienced team with insider connections in the government.
Shanghai correspondent Adam Minter has been attentive to these issues on his well-regarded blog, Shanghai Scrap and in a tipping-point article on Foreign Policy, "A Sorry Spectacle," March 8, 2010.
I've taken another tack. I'm most concerned about the privatization of American public diplomacy that the US Pavilion represents.
Public diplomacy is America's only available alternative to war for making our way in the world. "Blackwatering" public diplomacy is in no one's best interest.
The US Pavilion, I contend and the evidence seems to bear out, was intended to spearpoint of this strategy. The Bush Administration bungled it so badly, however, that it required newly appointed Secretary Clinton to execute, which she did, in effect selling the US Pavilion to corporate sponsors (even before the pavilion organization had applied for or received tax exempt status). She also created the Global Partnership Initiative to ensure that Corporate America assumes more of the State Department's public diplomacy responsibilities.
FP readers are referred to three articles I published on HUFFINGTON POST that lay out the issues and recommend solutions, beginning with the US Pavilion and ending with a prescription for a more vital American public diplomacy. They are, in chronological order:
1. "'Blackwatering' Public Diplomacy: The US Pavilion at the Shanghai World Expo," May 3, 2010. The basic argument.
A complaint has been filed with the IRS that asks, "When the US Government outsources a government function to a private firm, does a tax exemption automatically transfer with it? Even if the private firm's primary function is to promote commercial corporations, their brands, and products using the imprimatur of the American people?" The complaint is available online here.
I'm available for comments and questions at bluefire@well.com.
The article states, "U.S. law makes government funding of an American pavilion difficult, so Clinton used her fundraising skills to bring in private money for the USA Pavilion."
This is not true. U.S. law makes government funding of an American pavilion simple. All it requires is for an Administration to ask the Congress for funding. Neither the Bush nor the Obama Administrations did so.
Why might that be, except to trade on the US Pavilion for political and financial favors?
(2)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE