Public Diplomacy

Public diplomacy is very important because provide necessary information and help to build relationship and positive image in a particular country.

Leonard points out: “The purpose of public diplomacy is to influence opinion in target countries to make it easier for the British Government, British companies or other British organisation to achieve their aims.” (Leonard, 2002, 1)

British institutions, such as the British Council collaborate with institutions abroad and help to develop long-term relationship though scholarship, exchanges of experts, support training activities where are involved British lecturers etc.

Leonard argues: “In fact public diplomacy is about building relationships: understanding the needs of other countries, cultures and peoples; communicating our points of view; correcting misperceptions; looking for areas where we can find common cause.  The difference between public and traditional diplomacy is that public diplomacy involves a much broader group of people on both sides, and a broader set of interests that go beyond those of the government of the day.”

The importance of public diplomacy is possible to demonstrate on the terrorist act on 11^th September. Public diplomacy was necessary and important not only during days after 11^th September but also before war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Leonard points out: “In the immediate aftermath of the September events, NO 10 took over direct control of news management, working closely with the FCO to create an incident room to manage the day to day control of crisis.

Within hours, BBC World Service started a 45 hour news programme their longest ever.

Within three months, the British Council had identified £2m saving and developed initial ideas for Connecting Futures, a programme of action specifically aimed at connecting the Muslim and Christian worlds.

Over the next three months, the British Council continued to operate in Pakistan and processed 20,000 exam candidates and 5,000 Chevening scholarship applications.

The US Public Diplomacy Reaction to September 11^th was next:

From September 12^th, every key government speech and policy statement was produced in six languages on the day of publication and in up to 30 languages by a few days later.

‘Leaflet bombs’ dropped on Afghanistan, each with 100,000 flyers depicting, e.g. Taliban beating a group of women and bearing the message, “is this the future you want for your children and women” in Pashtun and Dari. (Leonard, 2002, 34-35)

Increased importance of public diplomacy is seen also on increased expenditures for public diplomacy after 11^th September.

Leonard next points out: ”Planed US public diplomacy expenditure for FY 2003 is $595,711,000, which represents a 5.4 per cent increase over the FY 2002 funding level, and from this amount $287,693,000 is for public diplomacy activities within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs.” (Leonard, 2002, 36)

White argues: “The war against terrorism after 11 September 2001 has posed a major challenge to the role of diplomacy in global politics. This challenge has been framed within a debate about the appropriate relationship between hard and soft instruments of power.”(White, 2005, 396).

Importance of public diplomacy is seen also on visit of Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State of the US, in Pakistan where she met with Community leaders to build better relationship with the Muslim world.

In addition, President Obama during his recent visit of Indonesia proclaimed an interest of the US to improve relationship between the US and Muslim countries.

“Mr Obama finished his visit to Indonesia, where he spent four years as a boy, by acknowledging the hard work America had to do to repair relationship with Islam.

A crowd of more than 1,000 cheered as Mr Obama spoke at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta. The President used Indonesian words and phrases, and said: “Indonesia is a part of me.”

His speech was an update to the address he gave 17 months ago in Cairo, when he declared a “new beginning” in US-Muslim relations to overcome tensions over the 9/11 terror attacks and the Bush government’s response.” (Bull and Zengerle, 2010, 22).

JAKARTA, INDONESIA - During its two-year wait for a visit from President Obama, Indonesia found other ways to celebrate the country's most famous former resident. Indonesian authors produced dozens of Obama books, one of them 5,400 pages. (WASHINGTONPOST, 2010)

Building relationship is important to prevent possible terrorist attacks. For example, British Prime Minister David Cameron as a response at recent Cargo bomb plot proclaimed in the Commons:

“It is clear that we must take every possible step to work with our partners in the Arab world to cut out the terrorist cancer that lurks in the Arabian Peninsula.” (Higginson, 2010, 4)

To sum up, public diplomacy is very important for creation of positive image and building relationship not only to prevent possible terrorist attacks but also to make it easier for the British Government, British companies or other British organisation to achieve their aims.

References:

Leonard,M. et al (2002). Public Diplomacy, The Foreign Policy Centre, London

White, B in Baylis & Smith (2005).The Globalization of World Politics,3^rd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Bull,A. and Zengerle,P. (2010), “We must heal rift with Islam Says Obama as he visits childhood home”, The Evening Standard, November 10^th,22

Higginson,J. (2010), “Terrorist cancer ‘cannot be left to spread in the Arab Peninsula’”, The Metro, November 2^nd, 4

Further Resources - Websites

(WASHINGTONPOST, 2010). Obama’s visit to Indonesia mixes pride with a dose of reality, available at: <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/connect/article/2010/11/08/AR2010110805103.html> [13 November 2010]

A Saving Face of Public Diplomacy

The public diplomacy is a powerful tool which constructs international relations for better or for worst. It is considered to be the 'soft power' in political practise, indeed, a smart way to gain self interests and strengthen national influence in international system; promoting national culture, values, and development. It might be observed as far more open, peaceful, democratic diplomacy, however, at the same time, it can be very manipulative performing in the direction of nation state's interests, or emerging need to mislead vulnerable society, gaining support for the governmental actions.

The public diplomacy could be widely disregarded. From one hand, it could give a bad name to diplomatic practise, on the other had, it may be suggested, perhaps it is inevitable knowing that politics is likely to have a strong origin of nationalism, which spreads 'disease' in international relations.

This blog will try to look at one element of the public diplomacy – individual representatives and their importance in shaping world politics.

If the public diplomacy is to one side of the ‘soft power’, the US President Barack Obama perhaps the best representative of its practise:

Obama jokes at White House Correspondents' dinner:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rONk7YLtaLc&feature=related

President Obama plays a key role in the US foreign policy making, which is more or less successful from side to side building effective public diplomacy.

Like most of the world leaders, with goals to be a good representative of the nation, promoting its culture and values, building good international relations, and negotiating for the best deal of the state interests, indeed, public diplomacy is a significant, essential tool in modern diplomatic practise.

However, the public diplomacy is seemed to be very diverse in the sense of who is behind the scene and what a purpose of use is. For instant, diplomats or elected representatives can be seen as the public ‘face’ of the state or organization chosen for specific purpose to fill needed role. In this matter, individual representative can’t be detected as the ‘body’ of the organisation and this suggests the possibility of being manipulative organism, which doesn’t illustrate the true leaders behind the action.

Although, extraordinary individual qualities of President Obama have helped to aid the US international relations and increase trust of American government among people home and abroad, especially after the end of the Iraq War, reminds that personality matters shaping diplomatic cooperation, building prestige and peace. However, successful outcomes come to straight decisions making of the agreed strategy, not just attractive, sympathetic talking.

Few issues:

• "Outcome of G20 summit in Seoul in doubt after talks between US and Chinese leaders to end tensions over trade…The Beijing leadership criticised the Obama administration as pursuing policies harmful to free trade and today stepped up the attacks.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/11/g20-trade-deal-doubtful

Also:

· There are many questions on the will Obama face a primary challenger on expected re-election campaign in 2012 - “The guessing game goes on President Obama, weakened by his midterm “shellacking,” has to worry both about the newly empowered Republicans and about the possibility of a primary challenge from his left.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/1109/Will-Obama-face-a-primary-challenger-in-2012

The public diplomacy could help to increase international cooperation, fairer understanding of the international issues and the common interests, open negotiations with NGO's and other non-sate actors, also increase public awareness and engagement in politics, and perhaps the most importantly it is more open diplomacy with en area of the certain level for criticism towards decision making, etc.. However, it also raises production of the international propaganda, which weakens international security and relationship between sates, spreads competition, and ‘game strategy ’using media and other tools to influence international society wining public support or the best seat in international 'market'.

My point is that public diplomacy can be very diverse with conflicting outcomes. It might suggest that in the end, the building international reputation and prestige is not the most important aim of diplomacy. Finally, it might be, that to the day diplomacy will keep its practise based on national interests and ‘zero-sum' game, without effective actions working on international common goals and minimization of nationalism, there will be lack of encouraging transformation in international system, what it may be the major goal of diplomacy in its nature.

To end, just a suggesting idea, not a fact:

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1921867

Public diplomacy

The BBC's director of global news, Peter Horrocks, has delivered a warning about the impact of government cuts on the BBC World Service, which operates in 32 countries. According to Horrocks, reduction of 25% could have bad consequences,as "the importance of communications, as a component of public diplomacy and 'soft power', has risen commensurately.( http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/12/bbc-world-service-peter-horrocks)


This blog will examine the question of how important public diplomacy is in world politics and what consequences the reduction of investment in ‘soft power’ may have.


The conflict in Afghanistan between NATO and Taliban troops has shown , that modern wars can not be won solely by using hard power anymore . NATO forces have been for almost ten years in Afghanistan now, but the great instability and anarchy remain the reality of the state. Bombs and guns are simply not effective enough, because, as D.Hofman notices, “the more force is used to retaliate, the more fuel is added to terrorists” ( Hofman,83, 2002). Many people in the Muslim world still consider O.bin Laden to be “a holy man” . (Hofman , 83, 2002). Meanwile , USA remains an evil enemy. Unless these perceptions are overcomed, the victory against fundamentalism is impossible. Therefore the outcome of the war on terrorism depends not on the successes or failures in the battlefield, but on ability to win people hearts and minds.

The solution is using “soft power”, which is about changing people minds and perceptions. It is about getting others to want same outcomes you want. “Soft power “ can be exercised in many different ways, such as supporting democracy, civil society and economic growth in the Muslim world. H. K . Feinn argues , that cultural exchanges and reforming educational systems in Arab states are of paramount importance( Feinn, 16-17, 2003) . Nye argues, that many Arabs misunderstand , fear or oppose American policies, but they share values such as religious belief, family and desire for democracy( Nye,121, 2004). In other words, all the necessary conditions to exercise “soft power” in the Arab world exist.However, USA failes to use this opportunity.

In order to shape positive image of USA and Western world , words are no less important than actions. In 1930’s Roosvelt administration realised that “ America’s security depended on its ability to speak to and to win support from other countries”( Nye, 101,2004) . As a result intstitutions , responsible for public diplomacy were established ; Radio American Voice and Radio Free Europe were set up . After 9/11 G.W. Bush attempted to revive this policy , but he failed. Firstly, G.W. Bush Administration’s public diplomacy was based on counterpropaganda (Hofman, 85, 2002). However, propaganda may have been effective in the Cold War era, but not in “the age of information” anymore. Secondly , President’s words differed from his actions( hard power). Finally, the President’s Administration failed to understand that public diplomacy is a two-way process, which involves not jus talking, but also listening. On the whole, public diplomacy was used as tool to support government’s policy. The fact, that in the eve of the invasion to Iraq, 88% of Americans believed that Baghdad supported terrorist organizations is a shocking proof…( Dumbrell,2005, 36).

However , media remains the vital tool to pursue “Soft power”. According to Hoffman , the key in the fight against terrorism is supporting open media( Hofman, 88, 2003). Thefore , USA should support independent media in all Muslim states, including Afghanistan . These channells may not be very friendly to the USA. However, objective and independent journalism is able to refute anti- American propaganda, which is created by some Muslim states’ national televisions . Besides, the freedom of expression and independent media creates conditions for democracy, or at least reduces extremism. It encourage people to think critically , and to get rid of ideological indocrination. Also , the USA should broadcast its own programmes such as American Radio, which would be free of open counterpropaganda.


Note: All three scholars , who were cited in this blog(J.S. Nye in the book “Soft Power: the means to success in world politics” , D.Hoffman in article “ Beyond public diplomacy” and H. K. Finn in article “Case for cultural diplomacy - engaging foreign audiences ) agree, that USA has reached so little progress on the war on fundametalism because it failes to use the opportunities of “soft power” and public diplomacy. One of the reasons why it failes is lack of financial investment after the Cold War.

Even though the blog examined the policy of USA , the conclusions can be applied to every state, including the United Kingdom. Every pound spent on public diplomacy today, may help to save hundreds of pounds on military budget tomorrow, as the one may help to prevent wars.Therefore UK government should think very carefully before making decision to cut expences on BBC World Service.

Public Diplomacy

Public diplomacy refers to government efforts to promote their national interests through direct outreach with the citizens of a foreign country. The United States government used the United states Information Agency (USIA) to help combat soviet propaganda during the cold war but after the Soviet Union dissolved, the USIA’s role dwindled and eventually was abolished in 1999 and then merged into the state department. After the 9/11 attacks, the United States strengthened its public diplomacy efforts when it waged war on international terrorism. In recent years there have been many calls upon the U.S administration to improve its public diplomacy. The Public Diplomacy Council says, “Effective public diplomacy is vital to a successful American foreign policy. In the war on terrorism, public diplomacy can play a critical role combating misinformation, enabling us to better understand our world, providing accurate information about the U.S. and helping people around the globe to understand this nation, our values and our policies.” - (http://publicdiplomacycouncil.org//uploads/Call_for_Action_2d_Ed_Oct_05.pdf).

However, U.S diplomacy isn't all about the war against terror. President Obama and his wife, Michelle Obama, began a ten day trip to Asia on 6 November 2010 to encourage India to open its markets and thus create more jobs for America. During their stay they were taken on a tour of the Taj Mahal and Pictures appeared all over the newspapers and internet of the president and his wife dancing with children at a high school in Mumbai during Diwali celebrations.

Obama paid his respects to victims of the terror attacks, praised India on their economic rise and backed India’s bid for a UN permanent seat.

The President was clearly determined to win the trust and respect of India and conveyed this in his speeches. At one point he made a reference to one of India’s most influential figures, Mahatma Ghandi saying, "I am mindful that I might not be standing before you today, as president of the United States, had it not been for Gandhi and the message he shared and inspired with America and the world." It is not the first time the president has made an effort to reach out to the Indian population. In a speech that demonstrates the revolutionary changes of communication, in 2009 the white house posted a video message of Obama wishing a happy Diwali.

Public Diplomacy

According to the definition of public diplomacy it is the political knowledge of America. To promote the good things about America and represent it to other countries. In my opinion the television show ‘Friends’ is a good example of public diplomacy. The amazing creators are David Crane and Marta Kauffman. The story between six friends and every day social life. The actors who played in the sitcom are :

Jennifer Aniston
...
Rachel Green (238 episodes, 1994-2004)

Courteney Cox
...
Monica Geller (238 episodes, 1994-2004)

Lisa Kudrow
...
Phoebe Buffay (238 episodes, 1994-2004)

Matt LeBlanc
...
Joey Tribbiani (238 episodes, 1994-2004)

Matthew Perry
...
Chandler Bing (238 episodes, 1994-2004)

David Schwimmer
...
Dr. Ross Geller (238 episodes, 1994-2004)

In this series there is a lot of political undertones relating specifically to public diplomacy. The theory is shown by the use various techniques giving opinion on what America thinks about other counties like Russia. It also gives underlying opinion on different faiths including Judaism, Catholicism and various traditions like “Thanks Giving and Christmas”. It is really worth to watch.

Public diplomacy really is ‘soft diplomacy’ and looks to persuade but unlike propaganda it uses subtle subconscious techniques.

The reason I’ve mentioned friends is because Communist dictatorships such as North Korea would see a TV show such as this as pure propaganda and would think it was created by the American capitalists to spread their agenda and disrupt the communist rule, therefore taking the power away of the dictatorship, which of course is what a dictatorship fears most. Loss of power.

So one country’s propaganda is another country’s Public diplomacy!

To illustrate the point, even recently it was widely reported that the North Korean dictatorship told it’s citizenry that North Korea won 3-0 against Brazil in the world cup, when, in fact, they lost. Could this be viewed as Communist Public diplomacy??

Out of the two, I know which type of public diplomacy I prefer.
http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/about/what_is_pd
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108778/

A diplomatic historical event...

Since appearing, the League of Nations has been the gateway of diplomacy since 1919. Before the league of nations Old diplomacy or traditional diplomacy was the usual political intercourse between governments.
Ambassadors or ministers were given tasks as both intermediaries and informants. As an informant, the ambassador or minister had to talk about the internal conditions of the country he was in. As an intermediary, ambassador or minister he had to present the interests of his hosts and the country he was in.

It was and still is a very prestigious job to be a diplomat. Diplomats of traditional diplomacy often came from a good, well-mannered schools. Although a criticism of such diplomacy could be that only rich people can become diplomats. Also, the Old diplomacy had characteristics of being behind closed doors and secret. They usually held conferences between great powers in Europe.

There were two international conferences in 1899 and 1907 in the Hague which changed the course of international diplomacy.

Critics charged that the conferences were a failure and the implementation of the “Hague System” was prevented by the war but some of its elements can be seen in the League of Nations.

There was another organisation created after the outbreak of war in 1914. A group of prominent public leaders such as William Howard Taft, founded the League to Enforce Peace in 1915. The League to Enforce Peace pressed for the submission of future international disputes to arbitration and for sanctions against those countries who refused to submit their disputes to the pacific settlement. Citizens in Great Britain organised other similar organisations, like the League of Nations, which were in the interests of the Fabians. They were many other organisations developed also.
It purely says that League of Nations were a victim of Old Diplomacy. I do think the old or traditional diplomacy has a contemporary relevance judging by the outcome of United Nations.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/E/league/leaguexx.htm

Would there ever be an egg without the chicken?

Explaining the contemporary relevance of the Old Diplomacy.

Due to the rapid wide development and consequent changes of our lives introduced throughout the 21^st century, the conduct and character of Diplomacy as such has naturally changed. Globalisation, IT progress, summitries, international organisations, NGOs, journalists and secret agents performing a sort of low diplomacy work instead of the actual diplomats, the threat of a global cyberwar - those are just a few factors that have had impact on the traditional diplomacy.

But are really resident missions over? Do states no longer need embassies in the form of official physical buildings? Is the once widely used diplomatic secrecy policy obsolete?

Looking at the historical evolution described by Berridge and Leguey-Feilleux in their textbooks, one can clearly see that diplomacy has been altering since the very first day it appeared. Yes, significant adjustments appeared over time, such as the replacement of the envoys by permanent embassies in the second half of the fifteenth century (Berridge, G. R. 2005: 109). As Berridge clearly points out, ‘The transformation of diplomacy into a profession was a slow and fitful process’ (2005: 112). However, there was no point in the history where diplomacy completely changed its character, leaving all tradition and original rules behind.

Let’s have a look at the features the ‘New Diplomacy’ has retained from the ‘Old’ one.

First of all, the protocol. Needed as a basic procedure to make meetings easier and enable the officials to concentrate on problematic issues, the protocol is still necessary and therefore commonly used. Here comes an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8VRLEPWnyY&feature=related.

In addition, as special envoys and later resident diplomats in the medieval times were expected to be of a certain social status in order to represent the prestige of the prince, we have well-trained and in case of the US Ivy League Schools-educated diplomats today.

It emerged naturally that as the number of nation states increased, bilateral diplomacy shifted to a ‘multilateral’ one, after the First World War in particular (Berridge 2005: 114). On the other hand, bilateral diplomacy cannot be viewed as completely forgotten. Even if unsuccessful, bilateral diplomacy is still used. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a good example.

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=95181207

Another retained factor is immunity. As set by the VCDR (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations), diplomatic agents still remain immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state. One of the examples would be the case of the former KGB official Andrei Lugovoi, who is believed to cause the polonium poisoning and consequent death of Alexander Litvinenko. In attempt to end the sanctions imposed by the Labour Government 4 years ago, as well as heavy visa restrictions on Russian officials visiting London, Russia has recently proposed William Hague the honour of direct talks with Dmitry Medvedev. The Crown Prosecution Service is demanding the extradition of Lugovoi, whom it wished to charge over murder. Russian response is that would be against their constitution. Here comes the link:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8bd9b2d4-d313-11df-9ae9-00144feabdc0.html

Berridge points out the argument that the technology of travel and communications has advanced to a degree where resident embassies are no longer needed. The international mass media, internet and phone calls might be sufficient. The counterargument to this is the role of local representatives, diplomats who acquire the local culture, language, and become familiar with domestic issues that have impact on a country’s foreign policy. The personal relationship, which career diplomats create between them, often influences the negotiation process. This can be clearly viewed for instance in Leonard Woodcock’s career.

http://chinabusinessreview.net/public/0103/wood.html

At last but not at least, the secrecy within diplomatic relations comes to mind. One could argue it has disappeared and is no longer used. But do/will we not need secret talks in case of a webwar? The cyber threats become more dangerous with every little IT advance. How about the blast in Siberia in 1982; the penetration of Central Command in late 2008 (wars in Iraq and Afganistan); or the online violations performed by Russia during the conflicts with Estonia and Georgia? In fact, it is not precisely known what capacities such attacks may have and who would win a hypothetical cyberwar. Iran, Russia, China, American CIA, or...someone else (The Economist, “War in the fifth domain”, July 3^rd 2010)?