Public diplomacy,new approaches

The relationship between states has improved considerably in the 21st century, with the development of common interest economically and even politically; but every country is in pursuit of its own interest as realists argue and in order to achieve that,it need to demonstrate its commitment and reliability to the other parties where their interests lie.This is where public diplomacy come to play as it aims at getting through to governments through their people via different the media, universities etc... Their understanding of foreign policy and cultures can win their hearts and minds and change their perception of other societies which is vital in a time when public opinion is an important tool to influence government policies. The High Commissioner of Ghana , Professor Kwaku Danso-Boafo, stressed the importance of promoting countries interests in areas such as tourism to attract potential investors in Ghana, for the development of Trade and Investments sector. Even the USA is adopting new approaches to their strategic communication and public diplomacy. This link contains videos in relation to these strategies.http://www.gwu.edu/~ipdgc/events/index.cfm.

Subtle attack

CNN, BBC and many other local and international broadcasters, allow people all over the world see many things by just changing the channels on the television. While this is the role as a well established broadcaster’s duty but along the way it not only promotes public diplomacy that affects many nations all over the world. As most states are interdependent yet when it comes to their own states interests many states would use public diplomacy.

According to the US Department of State public diplomacy is the government sponsored programs intended to inform or influence public opinion in other countries. The best example in the recent history was the ‘War on Terrorism’ how United States used an advertisement to promote the fact that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. In an article written by Peter Baker for the Washington Post on September, 12th in 2007 and he starts his article with these lines. “The television commercial is grim and gripping: A soldier who lost both legs in an explosion near Fallujah explains why he thinks U.S. forces need to stay in Iraq. They attacked us," he says as the screen turns to an image of the second hijacked airplane heading toward the smoking World Trade Centre on Sept. 11, 2001. "And they will again. They won't stop in Iraq." In the following paragraph he continues to write “Every investigation has shown that Iraq did not, in fact, have anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks. But the ad, part of a new $15 million media blitz launched by an advocacy group allied with the White House, may be the most overt attempt during the current debate in Congress over the war to link the attacks with Iraq.” Even though this was an advertisement that was shown only in USA it still did have an impact on the way people (Public in United States) approached the War on Terror.

As countries pursue their own goals in this complex world, most broadcasters are only eager to either give it more coverage through which governments do hope to reach masses. As research show common citizens are easily persuaded and can be directed otherwise. Although most governments do what is best for the state and its people majority tends to manipulate and misdirect the public for their own interest.
Public Diplomacy in that sense has reached a broader arena where the public has an impact on the state compared to traditional diplomacy where the focal discussions where only conduct by the governments and most areas of discussion were rather obscure to the public. While public diplomacy is a new technique in bringing down the enemy, it also does promote things such as Human Rights, Good Governance and also it merely defines that states can be a victim of public diplomacy.

Taking in to consideration the gravity of public diplomacy it should be noted that in traditional diplomacy states did try to resolve issues through discussions while media, internet(Barrack Obama campaign) and many other sources can be used in a way of promoting state goals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3NU4d81Ps4

public diplomacy in contemporary world politics

Public diplomacy can be defined as; manipulation of public opinion through mass media for political goals, it can be either honest or dishonest, for long term or short term. Also public diplomacy can be used to change foreign public opinions as well as the domestic opinion.

As an example we can take Turkey’s image on abroad. Generally, traditional, practical historic expressions, broadcast and entertainment media in European countries tend to introduce Turkey “Islamic”, beyond Europe and repressive. For example; the movie Midnight Express’ negative effects on Turkey and Turks are inevitable and the damage caused by the movie still continues to effect the image of Turkey.
Although the prime minister ( Recep Tayyip Erdogan) ‘s wife’s scarf reinforced the “Islamic” impression about Turkey, Turkey is neither as “religious” as European people perceived nor militarist, repressive and easternal. There is a huge gap between the reality and the image.
Therefor, as public diplomacy Turkey started to organise various activities in different countries.

To put an end to the lingering conflict between Turkey and Armenia, Turkey has billed a film festival in Armenia. At the same time, one of the other aims of the festival is to introduce the real Turkey to Armenia. One of the festival’s organizers, Gevorg Vanian stated:
“Such a dialogue is important because we know only one Turkey, the one that we have created based on our dogmatic perception of that country; whereas we have to see the real one - today’s Turkey, which we, practically, know nothing about,"

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/civilsociety/articles/eav032610a.shtml

There is an another example to this is the festivals which takes place in USA every year in New York (Turkish Days in New York), Washington DC (Washington Turkish Festival), Boston ( Boston Turkish Art and Culture Festival) and Houston ( Houston Turkish Festival).

festcom@atahouston.org
http://turkishdaysinny.org

www.turkishfestival.org

public diplomacy or propaganda?

In the past few decades the idea of diplomacy has been officially to promote the national interest of a country trough different means such as information, influencing foreign policy. The idea of public diplomacy with the time has seen as the transparent means where a sovereign country communicates with each other in order to inform influence foreign policies. Yes these definitions seem to be perfect but how can we explain public diplomacy without stating the word propaganda. I believe that everything restarts after the September 11 where the United States appears to win ideologically and culturally the cold war, they now fear to lose this war against terrorism if they don’t achieve to seduce the foreign opinion beginning with the Arab/ Muslim population. I certainly believe that this can be clearly illustrate today by numerous examples with Obama and his famous speech he made in Cairo where he attempt to battered reputation of the united states in the middles east or Hillary Clinton in Islamabad where she meet the leaders of Pakistan to discuss on the war on terrorism.


In fact after the attacks of 911 public diplomacy has attracted more attention the idea of public diplomacy becomes a broader concept where not only sovereign countries seems to be the only actors , others like non states actors that plays a global role , or nongovernmental organisations communicate and engage actively with the foreign publics and develop and promote a sort of public diplomacy policies through media and communication technologies which is a great force that has greatly empower the non states actors.


Source: http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/about/what_is_pd/

Will the EU have a new member?

Turkey's membership in European Union is an ongoing topic not only within the EU but also overseas, in the US. However, there is a clear division between those who support Turkey on their way to Europe and those who strongly oppose the idea of Turkey in the EU. Please check the following short movies:

Obama on Turkey membership

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw2hHcWI7PY

Sarkozy on Turkey membership
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=3rzBlZhD48M&feature=related

Merkel on Turkey membership

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZGnkMozW10&feature=related

Turkey's future in the EU is not only a concern of the major western powers such as Germany or France but also their citizens. Euro barometer polls show that the share of the EU population that opposes Turkish EU membership has risen steadily over the last decade, and since 2005 it has exceeded 50 per cent (Zaunbauer, 2008). Furthermore, the Poll from June 2007 found that only 16 per cent of French voters were for Turkish accession and in Germany support for Turkish membership was at the level of mere 21 per cent. (Zaunbauer, 2008) This state of affairs exists because for an average European, Turkey is a good place for a vacation but often there is nothing much beyond that. Turkey continues to be branded as a country that is still far from meeting the EU norms and values and too culturally different to ever join the European club. Unfortunately, for far too many people, Turkey is a place where human right are violated, women are marginalised and there is no freedom whatsoever. Moreover, cases of honour killings make things even worse and badly damage Turkey's reputation. According to the government figures, there were more than 200 cases of honour killings in 2008 which represented half of all of the murders committed in the country (Paul, 2009).These arguments indicate only one thing, namely, that if Turkey wants to join the EU it needs to work really hard on its image abroad.
In 2008, the Turkish government established a Public Diplomacy Agency (PDA) geared toward transmitting Turkey’s foreign policy perspectives. The new agency serves currently as a network between the government, NGOs and think tanks as well as implies a variety of tools including publications, seminars, television programs, and film in order to inform and influence foreign publics (Balci, 2008). The Turkish PDA also has a department which specifically focuses on accession to the European Union. In 2009 Turkish Foreign Ministry announced that Turkish public diplomacy will be supported by strategic communication tools including social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. Moreover, on Jan 30th, 2010, Turkish PM issued a circular order, underlining the importance of public diplomacy and announcing the new official Public Diplomacy initiative. Summing up, even though Turkey experienced great deficit in the area of public diplomacy, it looks like they really try to change things for better. However, how successful their public diplomacy will be, only their EU Membership can prove it.

Sources:
Wolfgang Zaunbauer, ‘Die öffentliche Meinung zum EU-Beitritt der Türkei’, Österreichisches Institut für Sicherheitspolitik, November 2008

Paul A., Turkey’s plummeting image in the EU, 13 May 2009, Wednesday, http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/columnists-175119-turkeys-plummeting-image-in-the-eu.html

Balci K., Gov’t goes on public diplomacy offensive, 28 April 2008,
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=140284

The Importance of Public Diplomacy

One recent event that can be used as a good example for successful public diplomacy, is the presidential election campaign and subsequent election of Barack Obama. In the run up to his inauguration Barack Obama used numerous methods in order to persuade not only the US public, but also audiences all across the globe, that he was the right man for the job. Upon election, Obama realised the importance of this 'public diplomacy', and the power that it has in making or breaking a nation. Subsequently, since his election there have been numerous examples of public diplomacy on behalf of the US (Hillary Clinton's trip to Islamabad is one example, information about which can be found here: http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_hillary-clinton-says-us-willing-to-consider-nuke-cooperation-with-pak_1362477).

As well as its successes, public diplomacy can also encounter failures, some of which can have disastrous effects on a nation's image. One of the most obvious examples of this can be seen in the failed attempts of the Bush administration to 'win the hearts and minds' of the Muslim population not involved in the Jihadist attacks of 9/11.
Although this is not a success story, I feel that it shows the importance of the correct use of public diplomacy in creating and maintaining a credible image as a state. The failed and somewhat laughable attempts of the post 9/11 public diplomacy, ultimately leading to a 'war on terror' which is still continuing today, illustrates just how important it can be to get it right and also how consequential it can be if you get it wrong. Public diplomacy is far greater than just influencing public opinions. When used correctly it can enable the international acceptance of widely shared beliefs, and when used incorrectly it can lead a nation into international ridicule.

For more information on the effects of public diplomacy and also the distinctions between PD and propaganda, this might be a useful site: http://www.diplomaticourier.org/kmitan/articleback.php?newsid=483

Public Diplomacy to be cooked in 21st Century!

Expansion of public diplomacy in a globalised world has brought lot many isssues in forefornt.

Look at today’s biggest global issues – climate change, pandemics, energy security, terrorism and other ‘shadow sides’ of globalisation – and it’s striking that the challenges governments find it hardest to deal with are highly diffuse, involving the actions and beliefs of millions of people. Refering to below video, It true that it is vital to see how the world looks likes when seen from eyes of different viewer with different perception

As issues have become increasingly distributed, the way governments work is having to change too. But there are still hard questions for governments to consider about their role in a globalised world. What influence do they have? How can they best exert it? How do countries integrate all aspects of their hard and soft power? And how can they animate loose coalitions of state and non-state actors in pursuit of a common goal? It is these questions that lie at the heart of today’s public diplomacy.

The new public diplomat are putting efforts to the task a willingness to pull together all the tools of international relations and mix them together cook well to create a coherent whole. Overall is seems that the aim is to blend analysis, policy-making and communications; the focus is more on what the country does than on what it says.

However, change is inevitable, so it is clear that Governments face a series of sprawling and complex challenges in an international sphere they no longer monopolise. But after going through below linked article it is quite clearly mentioned the goals aimed for New public diplomacy which are,

• Shared awareness – a common understanding of an issue around which a coalition can coalesce.
• Shared operating system - that distributes our response to a risk, and is flexible enough to evolve as that risk evolves.
• Shared platform - to build a network of state and nonstate actors around a shared vision or set of solutions: something a bilateral programme will seldom be able to do.

For more please click, http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/publications-and-documents/publications1/pd-publication/21c-foreign-policy

Universal peace!

Traditional ways are still being practised even today not for the sake of preserving them but also with the hope of having distinguished methods allowing states and people to establish their own identities among various communities in the world. Traditional diplomacy has no vast contrast with new diplomacy which evolved during the late 1945.

Post Second World War era saw a rapid change in the way the things functioned in the diplomatic world while issues such as Human Rights, Fair Trade and various other universal issues gained momentum. Even still the roles played by the diplomatic missions have yet to be changed and the spearheading more discreet methods of eradicating war was used.

Traditional diplomacy according to Shaun Riordan in his book, “The new diplomacy “ states, traditional diplomacy has been associated with......Formal presentation, protocol and participation in the diplomatic circuit of a national capital or international institution continue as important elements in state sovereignty and as part of the notion of international society. For me traditional diplomacy looked at ways in which states managed to maintain its peace with other states while in the same books it’s noted that much of business in diplomacy is concerned with the management of short term routine issues in bilateral and multilateral relations (co-ordination, consultation, lobbying, adjustment, and the agenda of official or private visits).

Communication has played a major role in way diplomacy was handled from which modern day diplomacy changes vastly with regard to the way business is done. Internet, skype, email and various other forms of communication has made the role played by the diplomat easier while still the traditional ways in which diplomacy was conducted is still use through face to face discussions. According to diplomats the direct communication has its perks.

As Shaun Riordan explains in his book diplomats are weak at taking responsibilities of their actions and they tend to blame it on the politicians and also he points out that sanctions are used by states when there is no other solution to be found. While in traditional diplomacy, discussions between diplomats situated in each embassy handled small issues that don’t need state intervention. While traditional diplomacy focus was mainly on states and their bilateral agreements globalization and internet most states are inter linked through various other ways.

In ancient Italy embassies was setup, which even to this day continues as a mode of communication between states. Embassies represent their own state in each country and among its duties being issuing visas and exchanging communiqués. Maintaining an embassy is very costly yet most states tend to continue holding offices in states for the historical connection such as colonised states and other being modern day trade. For traditional diplomats duties of maintaining the state connection through various forms played a vital role but even to this day this role continue to be a crucial one in maintaining a global peace.

States are eager to focus their attention more on the links that need to be kept in the hope of maintaining universal peace. While this was not one of the main points that was ideally being tackled by the traditional diplomacy although it need to be noted compared to new diplomacy which focused vastly on universal peace has failed compared to traditional diplomacy which attended to maintaining peace through bilateral agreements rather than multilateral.

THE RELEVANCE OF OLD DIPLOMACY
The term “New” diplomacy, we use to describe the diplomacy which is used today, is a reasonable term beacuse the diplomacy has changed after the Worl War 1 but in a way how new is it? As the new diplomacy shares the fundamentals of the old one, it is inevitable to see relevance between them.
Although we can not ignore the improving technology’s effect on diplomacy such as; it made the communication a lot easier between the countries as Per Augustsson, during our visit to Swedish Embassy, said: “ Before, when the letters were carried by men on horses, it was uncertain that the message was received but today we can even follow the events from Financial Times.” On the other hand not all the information can be shared or the important decisions can be made by
the phone or through the internet. As an example; Turkey and Armania had a meeting to solve their problems in Switzerland, 10.10.09.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299712.stm
Secondly; with the “New Diplomacy” the importance of embassies has reduced ( beacuse of the new ways of communication) and the secrecy has no longer exists ( at least it supposed to be). However, in some aspects in terms of the relations between countries bileteral embassies are still considered as key points.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8550928.stm

For example; when US congressional panel has voted in favour of ‘Armenian Genocide’ (05.03.10), Turkey has called their Washington ambassador Namık Tan back to Turkey to disscus. As we can understand from this, in some occassions embassies are still very important, otherwise why would Turkey called their ambassador back. Also there is another point of this issue which is even though there should not be ‘secrecy’ and things should be open to public there is not much information about what’s going on and ‘the discussion’, so yes, I think ‘old’ diplomacy has contemporary relevances

Better the devil you know...?

The terms old diplomacy and new diplomacy are very misleading and problematic when it comes to understanding the relevance of diplomacy. Diplomacy it self is a modern phenomenon, the establishment of embassies and a separate policy for foreign policy constitutes one of the most important innovations of european civilization. Resident embassies were first introduced in the mid 14th century,foreign ministries developed at a later stage and some would argue diplomatic protocol was consolidated in 1815 at the congress of vienna. From this you could argue that the old diplomacy is a relatively new development. However one can't ignore the influence and impact of technology on diplomacy The world has become more inter-connected through the spread of the internet and globalisation, and this has had an effect on the routines and procedures of diplomacy, but the basic principles of diplomacy as a basis for negotiations between nation states have an enduring validity. You could argue that this demonstrates a continuity and evolution of diplomacy rather than a revolution in the development of diplomacy. The work that foreign embassies do is still relevant today, with regards to promoting national interests abroad and providing valuable information for national companies that are looking to invest abroad. I personally think old diplomacy has contemporary relevance , because to say otherwise is to dismiss the relevance of diplomacy as a whole.

Sasson Sofer, Old and new diplomacy: A debate revisited

http://www.jstor.org/pss/20097144

The Old Diplomacy and its Continuing Relevance

It has often been argued that the pluralization of international relations has lead to a substantial transformation in the practice of diplomacy. The role of the ambassador has gone from one of high politics to one of low, the framework of diplomacy has gone from bilateral to multilateral and negotiations have gone from exclusive to inclusive and open (Rana, K. 2005). With this in mind then, it would be easy to think that the 'Old Diplomacy' has no contemporary relevance in the practice of International Relations. However, many would disagree. One of the essential elements in the functioning of international society today is the role played by embassies, however embassies stem from the beginning of modern diplomacy, and from the start of the Westphalian system itself. In addition to this, the sending of emissaries to open negotiations was common practice among quite primitive peoples. In fact, it has often been noted that there is evidence of ambassadors as far back as the time of the Spartan-Athenian war, perhaps even earlier (Roberts, I. 2009). Further to this, it is fair to argue that the 'Old Diplomacy' acts as a basis for the 'New Diplomacy', and that many if not all of the 'New Diplomacy' practices have their foundations in 'Old Diplomacy', ensuring continued contemporary relevance of the 'Old Diplomacy'.

One recent example of the continued use of 'Old Diplomacy' in a 'New Diplomacy' context can be seen in the Copenhagen Summit. This was intended to be a multilateral, inclusive conference on climate change, with representatives from many different states all negotiating together.















However, this was not the only negotiating to be done. As you can see in the picture below, the two leaders of the most powerful states in the world were holding private, exclusive talks and negotiations, in order to try to realise their own interests.

This is not a typical feature of 'New Diplomacy', but in fact is a practice of the 'Old Diplomacy', and for me acts as a good example of its continuing relevance.






Image can be found at: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/_img/87/i51/obama_wen.jpg

References:
Rana, K. (2005) The 21st Century Ambassador: Plenipotentiary to Chief Executive. (India: Oxford University Press.)
Sir Ivor Roberts (ed.), Satow's Diplomatic Practice, 6th Edition. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) Chapter 1.

traditional diplomacy, what's the relevance?

The many changes that occured over the past since the eighteenth century did affect the nature of diplomacy considerably, from "old" to "new" diplomacy and there are many evidence to support them. However, it would be naive to undermine the role of old standard methods of international negotiations, especially the role of institutions such as embassies. Diplomacy is no longer limited to high level government officials sitting opposite each other in negotiations(Diplomatic courier article). It is often said that with the development of communication, the role and function of an ambassador have been diminished even more so with the introduction of summitry and shuttle diplomacy. Indeed the international relations have been faced with various challenges that affected the diplomatic community globally but the structure of the old diplomacy remains in format. The old principle of that negotiations depends on reliability and confidence is an eternal principle that has not lost its significance (Nicholson,h. vol40 n1,1961). Globalisation has led to evolution in diplomacy and technology has favored easy and quick exchange of information and negotiation between states but the fact remains that old institutions such as embassies are still indispensable. The representatives still play a key role in those negotiations, for example in the study of local conditions, assess areas of susceptibility, form personnal relationship with local officials in the country where they are based, in order to advise the men at the top on how far to trust their counterparts. Again it is about the creation of confidence and credibility which are the basis of traditional diplomacy. The meeting between israeli ambassador, Ron Prosor with the foreign ministry heads following the use of British passports in the Hamas commander assasination, just goes to show how important these institutions are , the presence of representatives could help negotiate an issue more promptly. The New dipolmacy is more of a make over of the "old", with a more modern approach and with adaptation to contemporary demand.

Nicholson,h., "Diplomacy there and now"in foreign affairs, vol40, n1,1961
Joel Hainsfurther,"will globalisation end?", diplomatic courier 2010

"Old" or "New" what's the difference?

According to many writers there are two distinct explanations about the relevance of the old diplomacy in a modern era. One of them explain that the end of World War II has been the turning point for a new diplomacy , and the second tend to prove that diplomacy was more in a process of evolution rather than dramatic changes. To give an opinion on it i believe that this whole debate on “old” and new” diplomacy” should be more considerate as a process of “continuity” and evolutionary rather than an important change in the expansion of diplomacy. Although new procedures and new actors are present nowadays, the same basic concept of negotiating and keeping relations between states is still relevant in the new diplomacy. Furthermore in this idea of evolutionary process, diplomacy appears to be more flexible in the last century with the revolution of technology that plays a major role in the relation between the states with the new means of communication that have facilitate their interaction. It can be absolutely wrong to say that no changes has occurs in the diplomatic system for example the presence of a resident embassies is one of the main innovation in the Europe civilisation, the open negotiation of the states, the involvement of new actors and the separate bureaucracy for foreign policy has proven that the diplomatic system has shifted but i believe that the “old” diplomacy is more a new development of the system rather than a complete change in its structure.

Source:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/20097144

Old is GOLD But today is SOLD

It is very truely said that Old is Gold. Nevertheless, The threat to today's world is War which the most paniciking the weapon which will shake the World peace. On the other hand diplomacy is the weapon of first choice. At the same time it must be realized that Diplomacy and War two different sides of same coin. We learn from the past , implement in present for better, safe and secure future. Here I really mean to say is the because of old diplomacy excited in past we can frame new diplomacy by plus and minus points from the old ones. In other words, Both the expressions ' Old and New are born from each other but in reality their is no relations, commented Jules Cambon. The following video in very funny manner explains the protocol of British Diplomacy traditionally i.e about 500 years and their strategic plans.

Somehow, It is very true that Under the old diplomacy, global policymaking was more strictly the purview of governments. Also going through article guardian artcile 'This is not any old summit. Poker diplomacy has to end' also opens another window of our mind. I will be posting one more example soon , I just couldn't get hold of that article but as soon as I have it will be posting it, but my question still remains who do they both exist ?

Hence, everthing that shines and sparks is not a gold. There are lot many articles which I gone through that confused me to decide contemprary relevance of old Diplomacy.

‘Old’ diplomacy? - Yes !

It would be extremely ignorant to say that when the world is changing, the technology advances and we have access to the Internet and 24/7 world news, the institution of diplomacy and the diplomatic methods remain untouched by these forces. Just, please, check out these two images. Only by looking at these diplomats’ clothes and items around them we can see that things have certainly changed :)

Indeed, the old style of diplomacy does not have much in common with the contemporary diplomatic practices just like clothes of these two fellows from the image above have nothing in common with Armani suits.

To your surprise, I will not dedicate this blog to the study of the development in diplomatic fashion trends but I will focus on the revolution in communication technology as, in my opinion, with no doubt, it redefined diplomatic practices. Here, I mean the real-time television. This development, namely, has enabled the communication to become a major player in the arena of foreign policy. Already M. Albright, while having been U.S Ambassador to the UN, claimed that ‘there is no question that television has become the sixteenth member of the (UN) Security Council (Ammon, 2001:68). Moreover, just having a look at the example of the Gulf War, the real-time television brought literally war into people’s homes. A viewer could follow events at the same time when they occurred in a real time. Have a look at these short movies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlC60Kef9Mg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJGs2BDKq5g

The real-time television has with no doubt challenged diplomats’ methods of information gathering. Moreover, during the Gulf War, the key foreign policy-makers admitted that media were, in fact, their primary source of information (Ammon, 2001). The statement of one US diplomat will be the best summary of this point: ‘There is a diminished value in classical diplomatic reporting. If you had a choice between reading the [diplomatic] cables in your box and tuning into CNN three times a day, you’d tune in to CNN’(Ammon, 2001:67).

In addition, more generally, the innovations in communication technology have enabled masses to be in constant touch with world affairs whereas earlier only elites were the best informed. Moreover, the revolution in communication technology has enabled people to participate in processes of policy making and this is probably the most important phenomenon which changed the ‘old’ diplomacy forever. Namely, under old diplomacy, global policymaking was strictly at the hands of governments whereas in the era of the Internet people have their say in politics and can influence policies which do not suit their interests.

Sources:
Global television and the shaping of world politics: CNN, Telediplomacy, and Foreign Policy, Royce J. Ammon, 2001

Grant R., ‘The Democratization of Diplomacy: Negotiating with the Internet’, Clingendael Discussion Paper in Diplomacy, No. 100, 2005, available at: www.clingendael.nl/cdsp/publications/discussion-papers/archive.html