Public Dipolmacy: A Force for Good

Public diplomacy has become a very significant facet of world politics. Many states have used public diplomacy in an attempt to influence the population of another state in their favour. This is not by any means a new phenomenon. According to Joseph Nye, “In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, France promoted its culture throughout Europe. French not only became the language of diplomacy but was even used at some foreign courts,...After its defeat in the Franco-Prussian war, the French government sought to repair the nation’s shattered prestige...through the Alliance Francaise...” (Nye, 2004: p. 100) Being a citizen of a former British colony (which was under French rule on seven occasions spanning about 200 years and as a result of fourteen wars being fought), I can attest to the use of French public diplomacy via the Alliance Francaise. In my country, the French are generally viewed as a generous, caring and helpful people because of the work done through the Alliance Francaise and because of our close relations with neighbouring Martinique. Through the Alliance Francaise, the French government has undertaken a number of initiatives including offering free French classes to the public. The Venezuelan government through a sub-office of its embassy called the Venezuelan Institute operates in much the same way as the Alliance Francaise, providing services to the public while promoting its culture. My country has benefited greatly from many of the developmental initiatives offered by these two countries, and enjoys good relations with both of them.

www.alliance-francaise-antilles.org/en/saint-lucia/about-us.html

“The Pyramid” Alliance Francaise Building, Pointe Seraphine, Castries, Saint Lucia

A fairly recent development in the sphere of public diplomacy is celebrity diplomacy. I believe celebrity diplomacy is rather significant because of its potential to reach much further than conventional means of diplomacy. Since many people only participate in politics on a superficial level, they find it easier to embrace an issue if it is brought to their attention by a celebrity they admire than they would if it came from a politician . Since celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt have lent their voices to environmental issues, there has been a rise in awareness of environmental issues even though scientists and NGO’s such as Greenpeace have been talking about them for years. Another celebrity, John Legend has also, been actively singing the praises of the Millennium Promise initiative, aimed at ending extreme poverty in our generation, through his Show Me Campaign. All of these celebrities and others not mentioned here are using their status to mobilise the otherwise inactive citizens to pay attention to and to take part in the process of addressing and in some cases solving these issues, not only in their respective countries but all over the globe.

Brad Pitt

Leonardo DiCaprio

John Legend

www.leonardodicaprio.org/

www.showmecampaign.org/

Public diplomacy: Write about a recent event or development which illustrates the importance or otherwise of public diplomacy in contemporary world po

To be able to have indirect influence on foreign governments, public diplomacy has been the best tool in contemporary world. The usage of British councils in commonwealth countries for example indicates how liberal democratic principles and values have been exported into these former British colonies. Having different style of operation and any kind of political agenda, British councils in commonwealth countries has not only exported liberal democratic values to these countries. It has also built mutual beneficial cultural and educational relationships between the UK and its former colonies. The sharing of cultural practices has enlightened commonwealth citizens. Dissidents in authoritarian countries have also been able to air their views to the global world through the council’s technologies such as providing free Internet for the citizens of the resident countries. Being detached from the regular high commissions, British councils are more approachable to residents and are probably to remain opened even if the regular high commission is forced to close. Its branches in Ghana for example have been providing anti terrorism literature's to school and educating students about the rise of radicalization by Muslim extremists. Such programmes indicate how terrorism is being tackled in the grass root level through public diplomacy.

A brand new 550 sqm Britian Council Building in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Barack Obama and the importance of public diplomacy

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8082676.stm).This link is for the speech president Barack obama made to the Muslim world in Cairo Egypt 4 November 2009. In is speech president obama called for a new beginning in USA relation with the muslin world.The president also said Muslim perceptions of the US must change.
"Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire."
Mr Obama said America was not at war with Islam, but would confront violent extremists who threatened its security. i will see this as the recent event that most influenced the importance of public diplomacy in contemporary world politics. according to Joseph Nye"Soft powers works by convincing others to follow, or getting them to agree, norms and institution that produce the desire behaviour" (S.Riordan,2004, page120). I will agree that president Obama uses soft power to impose is policies. write now one of Obama's main aim is to fixed the America's bad reputation and the way the world sees it.the war and market exploitation, made many states to lose faith on the USA.Obama is trying to change that. but is it not as easy going to does leaders say sorry and peace. no because of globalisation the world is more united people in different states parts of the world share information and culture in seconds via media or internet. if a leader is hated abroad that may effect is popularity in is own state.for this reason Obama is using public diplomacy as is main weapon to clean America's reputation. the speech he made to muslin world is very powerful tact for public the diplomacy. this will help restore trust of the muslin people and even government. I think that international public relation is a very important virtue for a leader. and Obama is proving that using public deplomacy is a very important tact in today politics. he is now popular all over the world and he is also trusted by many nations.

Write about a recent event or development which illustrates the importance of public diplomacy in contemporary world politics.

The definition of public diplomacy is as complex as determining the actual date when the term started to be used within the art of diplomacy. Jan Melissen points out that „there is no one-size fits all model for public diplomacy“ /Cooper, Hocking, Maley, 243, 2008/. Some scholars think about public diplomacy as a tool of soft power, others refer to it as propaganda used for political ends. Factors such as media development, spreading of democracy, and increasing elements of globalization contributed to the acceleration of the public diplomacy, which plays inevitable role in which not only non-state and state actors are engaged, but also individuals as such.

Image of the country is important for foreign relations, therefore the role of media in public diplomacy can destroy or contribute towards the image of country. The release of pictures from the prison Abu Ghraib which were taken by American soldiers did not contribute to a good image of the United States.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

The other example of the power of media within the public diplomacy in the world politics is the case of using Google in China. Media can influence public to a great extent, and therefore China has been trying to keep its population far from reaching the information that is available online, because the truth is that the information provided by media is not always credible, but manipulative.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35981427/ns/technology_and_science-security/

Sweden is the first European country that created a virtual online embassy. This project supported by the government is a very good example of the public diplomacy, meaning that through this project Sweden has improved its public diplomacy.

http://www.sweden.se/secondlife

The public diplomacy in Norway has a few aspects. First of all, Norway is considered to be one of the biggest contributing countries in the matters of humanitarian aid during peace-keeping operations. Some scholars even compare Norway to „a humanitarian superpower“, even though it is a small country with no significant interests, such as for instance the United States has. Norway through its peacemaking policies shows the world what Norway wants to achieve. This type of public diplomacy ensure the positive image of Norway in the globalized world.

To conclude, the public diplomacy involves building up relationships between state and non-state actors. Governments need to inform the public about the strategic goals of foreign policy, avoid any misinterpretations which would further lead to worsening of the image of country, and also indirectly influence foreign governments. The examples in the presence support the argument that the public diplomacy is extremely effective tool in conducting public opinion.

A Development that shows the need for Public Diplomacy in Contemporary World Politics

The Importance of Public Diplomacy for the United States and its Allies Regarding International Terrorism post 9/11

The impact that the events of September 11th 2001 have had on contemporary world politics cannot be underestimated. The fact that the United States was attacked on its own soil from fanatical, foreign non-state actors not only proved the need for effective techniques to combat international terrorism, but it also proved that public diplomacy strategies had to adapt to a new world, as Bruce Gregory argues:

‘States are not what they used to be. Governance is provided increasingly by political actors above, below, and around the state. Thick globalism, non-state actors, a mix of secular and religious "big ideas," digital technologies, and new forms of communication have transformed the old world order. Network societies challenge organizational hierarchies. Attention – not information – is today's scarce resource. And we confront insurgents and terrorists in a new paradigm of armed conflict fought within civilian populations by contestants with local and global reach.’ (Gregory, B, 2008)

The 9/11 commission provided a ‘three-dimensional’ strategy for combating international terrorism that clearly included aspects of public diplomacy. It stated the need to ‘communicate and defend American ideals in the Islamic world, through much stronger public diplomacy to reach more people... Our efforts here should be as strong as they were in combating closed societies during the Cold War’ (Waller, JM, 2007). All this is very well, but the ‘promotion of American ideals’ after the incredibly unpopular decision to invade Iraq in 2003 is arguably an incredibly difficult task, and a pretty hypocritical one at that.

The Obama Effect:

One way in which you could argue that the U.S has made progress in its public diplomacy is the election and actions of its current President (and therefore it’s Chief Diplomat). Obama has made the decision to pull combat troops out of Iraq, refocus on the Taliban in Afghanistan and made numerous speeches showing his desire to reach out and influence those in the Muslim world. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/NewBeginning/transcripts (notice the amount of languages you can see it in) and http://www.whitehouse.gov/video/President-Obama-Gives-Ramadan-Message.

Whether the United States has developed appropriate public diplomacy strategies to deal with the threat from terrorism is up for grabs. However, I would argue that events such as 9/11, the London bombings of July 7th 2005, and the subsequent views of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq clearly illustrate the need for effective public diplomacy on the part of the United States and its allies.

Bibliography:

Gregory, B. (2008), ‘Public Diplomacy and National Security:Lessons from the U.S. Experience’, Public Diplomacy Alumni Association (Formally USIA Alumni Assoc.) http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/100.htm

Waller, J.M. (2007), National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (2004), The Public Diplomacy Reader.

public diplomacy

Public Diplomacy deals with public opinion that has increase the way how diplomats make their negotiation through communication. They play an important role in the political life in a state. In fact, diplomats affairs are more exposed through media when it comes down to interviews and shows talks. Also, sometimes when a state has issues and they can not solve the problem by themselves, then some other state comes along through a diplomatic talk.

http://www.euronews.net/2010/01/14/israel-apologises-to-turkey-over-public-snub/

Does the old diplomacy have any contemporary relevance?

There have been radical changes on international relation over the last few years, social and political change has combined to undermine the traditional assumption of diplomacy (S.Riordan,2003,the new diplomacy). Its is also assumed that the old diplomacy could not cope with the new dilemmas of of globalisation that brought easy access of communication.we agree that most of the principal of the old diplomacy were overshadowed by the principal of the new diplomacy(S.Riordan,2003,the new diplomacy).but if we we still define diplomacy as "application of intelligence and tact to conduct of official relation between states governments"(E.Satow,1964,A guide to diplomatic practice, page1), this make has agree that even there were many significant changes on diplomacy, the old diplomacy still as contemporary relevance in today's diplomacy. this is because there are still many old principal and tact of old diplomacy being used today. states still use secrecy and bilateral meetings when possible,in some parts of the world diplomacy is still political motivated,military secrets between states, there are many secrets allies states have that they don't share with other states this including military secrets, for example the military secret of NATO are not shared with states like IRAN or North Korea, and military force is still used in times of political crises. today bilateral diplomacy is mostly used to by a state that are acting as middle man for two states who don't have good diplomatic relations, to bring relation to this two states(S.Riordan,2003,the new diplomacy).

Public diplomacy in contemporary world politics.

Public Diplomacy in a contrast to “traditional” diplomacy is about communication with citizens. Public Diplomacy includes dialogue between individuals and various institutions including non-governmental as is often referred as a “two-way street” for credentials of the dialogue.

‘The basic premise of public diplomacy is that by engaging in a country’s political and social debates, you can create the intellectual and political climate in which your specific policies can flourish.’ (Riordan, S. (2004) The New Diplomacy: 122) Those engagements can be cultural and educational programs, seminars engaged to certain theme, TV documentaries, interviews and articles. Public diplomacy aims to create a positive image of the advocate country within the target community or country; however this is not always in positive manner, but could be with the aim to create a negative image as well. This blog would argue that there is a fine line between public policy and targeted propaganda and is often somehow fused together.


There is an interesting video showing how Israel is using new technologies to improve the image of the Israel. Technologies that Israeli diplomats are using are i.e. Twitter, Facebook or YouTube. It is interesting how by using the internet can help to change the perspective of the one country in the globalised, interconnected world with help of advanced technology and can reach the targeted group of people within seconds.
Please watch this video on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujYb0dCWVDc

This blog would argue that the most profound example of the public diplomacy in the use of public diplomacy in the time of Vietnam war, when Americans did realize the importance of the support of the Vietnamese citizens and more recently the same situations occurred in Iraq. There is interesting interview led by a Yemeni-born British television news reporter and interviewer Riz Khan on subject of the public diplomacy of the USA in Iraq. Watch at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fHn97YoQ14

Does the "Old" Diplomacy have Contemporary Relevance?

I most certainly agree that old diplomacy has contemporary relevance. Diplomacy – like every other facet of International Relations – has undergone an evolution. While the principles of the old diplomacy have been overshadowed by the principles of the new diplomacy, this does not mean that it is any less relevant or present in contemporary International Relations. A key feature of new diplomacy is transparency. Under new diplomacy, diplomatic relations are supposed to be conducted openly so that among other things, certain failings of the League of Nations will not be repeated. An example would be the Abyssinia Crisis of the 1930’s. Despite the fact that Ethiopia was also a part of the League of Nations, this state was forsaken and was not granted the protection that was its right under the agreement of the League of Nations. This occurred partly because of secret agreements between the Great Powers.

Haile Selassie - Last Emperor of Ethiopia

The transparency highlighted by new diplomacy appears to only apply to the various international summits and conferences which are constantly taking place. A more recent example of the secrecy of old diplomacy in practise would be the fact that some European states still rely on the gathering of intelligence in order to conduct their diplomatic relations with other European Union states. While former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in the documentary “How to be Foreign Secretary”, chose not to speak on the matter, another former Foreign Secretary quite openly admitted that intelligence was gathered on Britain’s closest neighbours. While some would argue that new diplomacy has replaced old diplomacy, (and in some respects, such as the move away from elitism, it has been) it is becoming more apparent to me that old diplomacy is still alive and well, simply wearing new garments.

TRADITIONAL DIPLOMACY

TRADITIONAL DIPLOMACY
DO YOU THINK THE “OLD DIPLOMACY HAS ANY CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE?

Many would believe that "old" diplomacy where secrecy and states lead the negotiations has little relevance in an era of rapid communication dominated by multilateral diplomacy and public scrutiny. However, I would say that bilateral meetings are very much present in what is suppose to be Multilateral for instance two representatives would negotiate while their having their lunch instead of in the presence of all the others. Furthermore, if as Berridge claims “secret diplomacy can mean keeping secret all or any of the following: the contents of a negotiation; knowledge that negotiations are going on; the content of any agreement at all has been reached”(2005: 110), one could argue that secrecy is still in tradition because even if the public is informed about the agreement reached, they are not engaged the negotiations and the diplomats will not limit their freedom of action by revealing their intentions or the contents of their negotiations and take the risk of damaging their chances of representing their countries.
"Old" diplomacy is the basis for diplomacy therefore it will always complement and be the point of reference. States are still the central actors when taking decisions of course non-States actors have a very important role today in pushing and influencing the agreements but at the end the States take the decisions according to their national interest as we saw with the Copenhagen summit on environment.

Do you think the „old“ diplomacy has any contemporary relevance?

„Secrecy is the very soul of diplomacy“, this is the statement made by Francois de Calliéres in 1716. Secrecy, high politics, and exclusiveness are the main theoretical foundations of the „old“ diplomacy. This blog argues that the „old“ diplomacy is relevant in the 21st century, even though diplomacy, as an art which uses ways and means to preserve peace, has been transformed.

The main theoretical foundations of the „old“ diplomacy are closely inter-related. Secrecy is very important element in order to achieve the goal which is needed. In the traditional system, diplomacy was made only in secrecy, which meant that the actors were able to negotiate more easily in a sense that they could adapt their requirements. In the 21st century, secrecy is present in diplomacy, for instance when Norway was conducting top-secret diplomacy when resolving conflict between the Tibetans and the Chinese authorities. This example confirms the fact that secrecy within diplomacy is important in order to fulfill its main functions, which is preserving the peace.

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=21531&article=Norway+trying+to+broker+peace+between+China+and+Tibet&t=1&c=1

In the times of „old“ diplomacy, bilateral diplomacy was the dominant, while the multilateral diplomacy was very rare. In the 21st century, bilateral diplomacy has not been replaced by multilateral, as some might argue. These two types of diplomacy co-exist along with each other, and therefore bilateral diplomacy is relevant nowadays, for instance between the Great Britain and France when British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, offered „Entente Formidable“ to French President, Nicolas Sarkozy. This bilateral summit, which also included political aspects, confirms the necessity to develop limited relationship between two parties. The reason are easier negotiating and keeping secrecy.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/priorities/brown-sarkozy-seal-entente-formidable/article-171188?_print

The „old“ diplomacy is relevant in the contemporary diplomacy, because without the foundations of the „old“ diplomacy, „new“ diplomacy would not emerged. In the attached video, Hillary Clinton points out that diplomacy in the 21st century has been challenged by technology and communications. It is true, however, secrecy and exclusiveness will always remain the significant factors for functioning diplomacy even in the globalized world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6PFPCTEr3c

'Old' in 'New'

The 'old diplomacy' is based on the bilateral negotiation between two states where they have a secret conversation. The diplomats used to travel to have indirect negotiation, so the aim for the diplomats at the time was to be sent abroad to negotiate, nowadays the diplomats do not need to travel to get to one end of the world. The reason is that now there is the Internet that has change the way in which the diplomats communicate, but still it is relevant to the 'old diplomacy'.

Before the Cold War, the negotiation was due through secrecy when the states used to meet to discuss about an issue. When the states wanted to have meetings that others should not know they had that secret meeting between them. However, in the 'old diplomacy' embassies played a big role in when it came to negotiation or sharing information about the place they were representing. Sometimes the embassies are used to be the intermediate in a negotiation when countries are not able to solve a problem.

When conflicts occurs in countries there need to have one other country to play the intermediate. So they will need to use the diplomacy talk or talk to one country first and later to talk to the second country to end the dispute among them. In the case of Israel and Lebanon where there was a conflict, later on the U.S.A had to intervene to find a diplomatic solution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7817135.stm


Since the United Nations was created which followed by the Second World War, then 'new diplomacy' had challenged many view of the 'old diplomacy'.

Traditional diplomacy; do you think the ‘old diplomacy has any contemporary relevance? Explain why you hold your view and refer to contemporary or his

Traditional diplomacy has been the underlying structure in which modern diplomacy has thrived upon. In spite of the emergences of multilateral and public diplomacy, traditional diplomacy is still relevant in contemporary world due to the important tasks it performs such as representation, negotiating, clarifying intentions and gathering information on economic and military intelligence.
As promoting national interest abroad is the core function of diplomacy, a state’s representative options is broadened when embassies exist. On occasions where a senior government minister could not travel abroad on representative duties, the resident ambassador deputise on that minister’s behalf as good embassies honour local customs and make extensive social contacts.
At the funeral of the former soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in Moscow 1982, heads of government who could not attend were represented by their resident ambassadors to show their respect as failure to send a representative would have been deemed as lack of respect by the soviets.

Funeral of former soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in 1982

Pre negotiation is another important role of traditional diplomacy. Through the usage of its embassies, pre negotiations tend to influence the atmosphere in which negotiation is conducted. For instance the International Road Transports agreement between Turkey and the United Kingdom in 1977. The commercial counsellor of the British Embassy in Ankara had negotiated an interim agreement in February 1976 and made all the preparations for the visit of the negotiating team from the British Department of Transport.
Finally, a resident ambassador can explain a written message with an oral explanation and be more appropriate than a special envoy. An ambassador’s presentation would reinforce the message due to the local reputation the ambassador has earned.
With the above arguments, it has been demonstrated that traditional diplomacy still has relevant role to play in today’s world.

Yaw

What you consider to be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy

Diplomacy is "the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between the government of independent states" (S.Riordan, 2003, page 12). There are debates on what to to be considered the most significant change in diplomacy. Many people look at diplomacy as just a theory or maybe ideology but I look at it as an action or attitude towards another state, this action depends on the predicted effect of a reaction of another state. This why in my point of view the most significant change in diplomacy is the creation of the new diplomacy. The change from old to new, before diplomacy was more bilateral secretive, and states used high politics and threat of force, at this time diplomacy was only between states that share the same political ideologies, feared each others military, or were depending on each other for trade, the other states were considered possible threats and any mistakes will lead to a war. This lead to the brake out of the two world wars. today we are experiencing the new diplomacy where a state like USA will need to use diplomacy to resolve crises with a small state like Cape Verde. The new diplomacy is more open inclusive, as low politics and more efficient in solving diplomatic crises, this diplomacy contains suctions instead of military force, which I believe to be the reason for the absence of another world war. There are also debates on the reason and motives that lead to the change in diplomacy. As I stated before diplomacy is an action or attitude towards another state, action and attitudes towards others change we with time this why diplomacy will continue to change. the main reason on the change in diplomacy is fear of the cost of conflict, before only western states had strong military power so they went bullied and colonised other states at that time war with a week state will benefit them, when they realised that this wars started to course them lives and money bringing less international support they started valuing diplomacy over conflicts. Another t important reason is the advance of globalisation, with globalisation cheaper transportation cost, the internet, the media easy access of communication, uniting nations, increasing tourism and immigration people are now living in deferent parts of the world having family members in many other states. sports also plays a major role , players playing abroad getting fans from all over the world ,the media and global information, the creation of organisation like UNA acting as middle man in diplomatic crises , multinational companies opening in many other states and acting as noon governmental player of diplomacy. For this reason the attitude to others states changed. For example it was not in the political benefit of Israel to have GAZZA independent but because of the pressure of the international community they opted for diplomatic negotiations. Diplomacy is not at its perfect stage yet, international foreign policies act only for the benefit of some strong states. Diplomacy will keep changing and what we today call the new diplomacy one day we will call it the semi new diplomacy.