Communication is vital in international relations since it is the tool to negotiate, and exert influence. As noted by Holsti “in seeking to achieve objectives, realize values, or defend interests, governments must communicate with those whose actions and behaviour they wish to deter, alter, or reinforce (1992:132). Diplomacy, “the conduct of business between states by peaceful means” is the best way to exercise influence on foreign states, in an era dominated by fast communication and wide spread of liberal democratic ideas the pubic plays an important part in shaping policies which justifies the attention on public diplomacy that is becoming essential to the processes of state-run promotion. If traditional diplomacy focus on influencing foreign governments’, public diplomacy is “the art of communicating with foreign publics to influence international perceptions, attitudes and policies” (Waller: 19). New diplomacy is the vehicle that countries like The United States traumatised by the 9/11 tragedies chose, to transform the image of arrogance and imperialistic that most countries have of the US. But, Whereas, the Bush era was dominated on secure associations with the heads of government, president “Obama’s rhetoric is aimed at the ruling elite and the common citizen alike” to whom he lecture to directly in prestigious local Universities in Cairo and Moscow to “highlight the importance of future generations that are growing more interconnected and interdependent by the day”. Communicating directly with the public of other countries Obama increases his credibility as he appears more sincere because the public is been given importance, he shows them that their voice matters. As he demonstrated in Prague when he claimed” that’s why I’m speaking to you in the centre of a Europe that is peaceful, united and free- because ordinary people believed that divisions could be bridged, even when their leaders did the not”( Zubrow, 2009)
I do generally agree with my colleague, with the point that public diplomacy is a phenomenon, which attempts to change perception of the public in other countries with the aim to gain their support for their own goals, but I can not agree that Bush’s administration focuses on secure associations with the heads of governments. What about U.S. diplomacy trying to influence and democratize the Iraqi public before and during the conflict, what about innumerous trips of Condoleezza Rice to the region, what about the trips of many cultural and educational personalities into the region? On the other hand I would be careful to highlight Obama’s rhetoric; his foreign policy is not the most successful one and rhetoric is far away from the action.
ReplyDeletei am sorry mario that you do not agree with me but i would say that trying to impose democracy on people that did no ask for it does not define public diplomacy. in this case, i believe it was more propaganda that everything else. the public opinion was not considered it was just a one way message.that was saying our way of life its better than yours so we will set you free. these people were denied dialogue or choice and their way of life and their safety were neglected in the process. and the trips of many cultural and educational personalities their aim was not to dialogue but to manipulate.
ReplyDelete