Michael Jackson: American Soft Power
(Various Papers)
By Frida Ghitis
(Amsterdam) Watching the reading of the Michael Jackson trial verdict from Europe, I found myself bracing for more of the same. After all, every time the world turns its collective eyes and stares intently at America these days, you can predict what comes next: criticism, condemnation and ridicule of the United States.
But something rare and remarkable happened this time: The world watched and, strangely, identified with the US.
Reaction across the globe looked much the same as it did in America. Many expressed relief that Jackson would not go to prison, while others wondered openly about his innocence. Jackson impersonators in full King of Pop regalia appeared on Dutch television to praise their beloved icon, and fans from Calcutta to Kuala Lumpur pondered Jackson’s eccentric ways, much the way his admirers did in Columbus or Kalamazoo.
This was a giant departure from that other side of America that consumes withering international attention. It was hard to believe that the acrimonious talk about the treatment of US prisoners in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib and the Michael Jackson story all dealt with America’s system of justice.
The reaction to the trial verdict brought to mind the ideas of Harvard’s Joseph Nye, who talks about America having two kinds of power: hard power, from its military might, and soft power, from the attraction of its culture and its ideas.
The tribulations of Jackson’s trial spawned an international wave of American Justice 101 seminars in the media. From Al Jazeera to BBC World and channels in a multitude of languages, viewers in every time zone heard scholarly explanations of how a jury trial works in the United States.
Newspapers in Pakistan, Peru and the United Arab Emirates discussed the concept of “burden of proof.” And just about everyone heard of the reaction from the defeated prosecutor, accepting his defeat. The government, the experts explained, simply did not make its case.
The talk may be about the inconsequential trial of one man, but in some places a statement like that is truly revolutionary.
In some countries, the government never loses its case.
How many millions in State Department public diplomacy funds would it take to promote the American system of justice around the globe? How much to talk about the concept of a fair trial, where both sides walk away accepting the ruling?
There were, of course, many cynics, who rightly pointed out the flaws in the system. But most of the criticism came from the US itself. Television stations across the seas carried clips from America showing man-in-the-street interviews, where some noted dismissively how in the US the rich can always buy justice. Then there were the deadpan quips, that if Michael Jackson had been black, he would have been convicted, and the one about Saddam Hussein now wanting his trial moved to Santa Maria. Those came from Leno and Letterman, respectively, both shown on Dutch television.
Newspapers around the planet devoted massive space on their front pages to the Jackson verdict. And everywhere readers complained that at a time of war, hunger and disease, paying attention to the trial of one man, even if he is Michael Jackson, is some kind of a news atrocity.
Jackson, of course disagreed. As reporters from Soweto to Berlin reported, barely containing their amusement, Jackson, judging by his website, apparently views his acquittal as a major historical milestone, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the release of Nelson Mandela from prison. So, maybe Michael thinks a little highly of himself.
This was an interlude of minor importance, albeit high public interest, during a turbulent time in history. But even Michael, who crowned himself the King, might be pleased to know that in all his 100 pound heft, for a moment at least, he was projecting the power of a nation. And it was, perhaps appropriately, America’s soft power.
(Amsterdam) Watching the reading of the Michael Jackson trial verdict from Europe, I found myself bracing for more of the same. After all, every time the world turns its collective eyes and stares intently at America these days, you can predict what comes next: criticism, condemnation and ridicule of the United States.
But something rare and remarkable happened this time: The world watched and, strangely, identified with the US.Reaction across the globe looked much the same as it did in America. Many expressed relief that Jackson would not go to prison, while others wondered openly about his innocence. Jackson impersonators in full King of Pop regalia appeared on Dutch television to praise their beloved icon, and fans from Calcutta to Kuala Lumpur pondered Jackson’s eccentric ways, much the way his admirers did in Columbus or Kalamazoo.
This was a giant departure from that other side of America that consumes withering international attention. It was hard to believe that the acrimonious talk about the treatment of US prisoners in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib and the Michael Jackson story all dealt with America’s system of justice.
The reaction to the trial verdict brought to mind the ideas of Harvard’s Joseph Nye, who talks about America having two kinds of power: hard power, from its military might, and soft power, from the attraction of its culture and its ideas.
The tribulations of Jackson’s trial spawned an international wave of American Justice 101 seminars in the media. From Al Jazeera to BBC World and channels in a multitude of languages, viewers in every time zone heard scholarly explanations of how a jury trial works in the United States.
Newspapers in Pakistan, Peru and the United Arab Emirates discussed the concept of “burden of proof.” And just about everyone heard of the reaction from the defeated prosecutor, accepting his defeat. The government, the experts explained, simply did not make its case.
The talk may be about the inconsequential trial of one man, but in some places a statement like that is truly revolutionary.
In some countries, the government never loses its case.
How many millions in State Department public diplomacy funds would it take to promote the American system of justice around the globe? How much to talk about the concept of a fair trial, where both sides walk away accepting the ruling?
There were, of course, many cynics, who rightly pointed out the flaws in the system. But most of the criticism came from the US itself. Television stations across the seas carried clips from America showing man-in-the-street interviews, where some noted dismissively how in the US the rich can always buy justice. Then there were the deadpan quips, that if Michael Jackson had been black, he would have been convicted, and the one about Saddam Hussein now wanting his trial moved to Santa Maria. Those came from Leno and Letterman, respectively, both shown on Dutch television.
Newspapers around the planet devoted massive space on their front pages to the Jackson verdict. And everywhere readers complained that at a time of war, hunger and disease, paying attention to the trial of one man, even if he is Michael Jackson, is some kind of a news atrocity.
Jackson, of course disagreed. As reporters from Soweto to Berlin reported, barely containing their amusement, Jackson, judging by his website, apparently views his acquittal as a major historical milestone, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the release of Nelson Mandela from prison. So, maybe Michael thinks a little highly of himself.
This was an interlude of minor importance, albeit high public interest, during a turbulent time in history. But even Michael, who crowned himself the King, might be pleased to know that in all his 100 pound heft, for a moment at least, he was projecting the power of a nation. And it was, perhaps appropriately, America’s soft power.
posted by fridaghitis @ 2:26 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment