Public diplomacy

The effectiveness of public diplomacy is measured by minds changed not dollar spent or slick production packages
-Joseph S. Nye Jr.
Public diplomacy deals with the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies. It encompasses dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy; the cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries; the interaction of private groups and interests in one country with those of another; the reporting of foreign affairs and its impact on policy; communication between those whose job is communication, as between diplomats and foreign correspondents; and the processes of inter-cultural communications. In the past few decades, public diplomacy has been widely seen as the transparent means by which a sovereign country communicates with publics in other countries aimed at informing and influencing audiences overseas for the purpose of promoting the national interest and advancing its foreign policy goals
Recently, and notably since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington DC, public diplomacy has attracted increased attention from both practitioners and scholars from many parts of the world. After the 2001 attacks, people around the world expressed shock and support
For the U.S. government. Since then, however, negative attitudes about America have
Increased and become more intense, not just within Muslim populations, but worldwide Today, there is a realization that strong negative public opinion about the United
States could affect how helpful countries will be in the war on terrorism
Public diplomacy is transparent and widely
Disseminated
It’s also important that we expand our connections beyond government- to- government...think of new ways to connect with people... having a real dialogue and listening as much as talking. So we are committed to using these new tools in public diplomacy.”
-Hilary Clinton

http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/1.htm
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32607.pdf

The evolution of diplomacy

Since the aftermath of the world war II, diplomacy has changed in a very significant way it is no longer a government to government affair it has broaden to government to international (foreign ) people connection which is commonly known as public diplomacy. When the Second World War ended, an amazing development occurred.
Diplomacy was re-established, but the government-to-people programs, previously confined to wartime, and continued. There are several theories as to why this happened. The two most often cited are that the war had speeded up
the information revolution, which now dominated practically the entire globe,
and that the world was basically divided into Western and Soviet orbits, with
both trying to extend their influence
http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=7&paper=2712
Initially diplomacy was all about states using diplomacy to protect their own interest but now it is not solely the case because with the presence of private organizations such as the non-governmental organizations (NGOS) things have taking a new shape , Globalization during the 20th century gave rise to the importance of NGOs. Many problems could not be solved within a nation. International treaties and international organizations such as the World Trade Organization were perceived as being too centered on the interests of capitalist enterprises. In an attempt to counterbalance this trend, NGOs have developed to emphasize humanitarian issues, developmental aid and sustainable development.
http://www.nonprofitexpert.com/ngo.htm
Diplomacy has changed significantly and the effectiveness of (NGO’S) is one of such reasons and most importantly public diplomacy as a whole is one of the major factor that differentiate the old diplomacy from the new diplomacy.

Propaganda...... sorry I mean public diplomacy!!!

public diplomacy is just a polite word for propaganda, both can be defined as "institutionalised spreading of information designed to persuade its intended audience to think and behave in a certain manner"(businessdictionary.com). The fact that the word propaganda has a bad reputation is in my opinion the only difference between the two terms. The word propaganda is usually associated with lies and deceit because of the historical context in which it was used, propaganda was mainly used during conflict period such as the world wars and the cold war, due to this the word propaganda is usually associated with conflict periods and subversion , so to escape from this association the term public diplomacy was coined up by people who want to use propaganda techniques on their public or publics in foreign countries without the negative connotations associated with propaganda.

Me and Diplomacy.

Until recently my opinion on diplomacy was mostly based on various multilateral negotiations attempting to resolve major conflict in the world. Was i right...? Well i guess part of my opinion was. Today i might see diplomacy maybe in other different ways. Most of my ideas on "new diplomacy" were negotiation and made through multilateral organization, more public and using an inclusive system. i actually think today that diplomacy can be a mixture of both new and or old!! For many different reasons as i mention in earlier post blogs is that the old and new diplomacy should be more considerate as process of "continuity" and that this whole concept of ld and new should be more considerate as an evolution! However I strongly believe that in diplomacy today major actors today in diplomacy are many private cooperation or and nongovernmental organization. They in fact play a very dynamics role and are even able to transcend national boundaries and where government cannot really intervene or play part efficiently on human rights or global issue. Major events have actually attracted attention on diplomacy today it could be environmental issues, or 9/11 event that involves serious negotiations were not only sovereign states attempt to find ways to come to an agreements but others as I mention play part to engage , communicate with the foreign policies to promote public diplomacy. The importance of the media in diplomacy has also evolved in a way where it use to be secret and discreet, today major of these diplomacy are shared to the rest of the world.

My understanding of Diplomacy today

My initial understanding of diplomacy was a mixture of Old and New Diplomacy. I had a vague image of diplomacy characterized by secrecy, high and low politics and several actors. Throughout this module I feel that this vague image of mine has become quite clear. Firstly, I have learned about the history of diplomacy and how it has evolved. I find it incredibly interesting that diplomacy has continuously adapted itself to changes in the system of international relations. Secondly, I have gained a greater understanding of the role of NGO’s and the difference in how they are greeted by developed and developing states. While NGO’s have increased in importance, it is still clear that their ability to act is based on how far nation-states allow them to. Third, I have gained knowledge about how multi-lateral conferences actually work and the immense work that goes into it, both before and after, by diplomats. For me personally, the most interesting aspect that I have studied has been diplomacy within the European Union. It fascinates me that though there has been a domestication of foreign relations amongst member states, the functions of European Union Bilateral Missions remain inevitable, though for different reasons. Furthermore, I am intrigued by the way in which the Commission’s external delegates have, through developing a niche, introduced both consumer-oriented and structural diplomacy. I don’t believe that my opinions about the role of diplomacy in world politics have changed much. However, I now have, after studying diplomacy, even more respect for the role and function of diplomats.

Public Diplomacy - The most important aspect of New Diplomacy

"By the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more together than we can alone"

– Tony Blair

Public Diplomacy strives to attain the impossible. Politics isn’t just Westminster, Pennsylvania Avenue, Rosenbad or the Leinster House. Political change, in the form of social action, can arise from any aspect of society. If passion for local, national or international issues can be ignited, the general public will be more likely to be aware of and involved in political discourse, alter the opinions of those in positions of influence and “place their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day”. Public diplomacy is founded on the idea that, given most populations has the ability to legally overthrow their government at election time, people are the basis of power and influence. It is a battle for hearts and minds whereby the rules of engagement are fluid and confrontations can occur in a structured form or through the utilisation of guerrilla tactics.

The use of heightened emotions and a desire to act following 9/11 serves as a fruitful example of the ability to utilise both the zeitgeist and the public to achieve an ends. Perhaps the greatest illustration of the politicisation of public emotion is Tony Blair’s October 2001 party conference speech. Similar to Bush, although with somewhat more skill, Blair used embracing, comforting rhetoric to corral the public and direct them towards the path of action he deemed necessary. The power of public diplomacy comes from its flexibility. Largely free of the strict governing rules and procedures which impede other forms of diplomatic engagement, persuasive techniques may be applied in a variety of forms and contexts. This is clearly shown in the build up to the invasion of Afghanistan. Here we saw the leaders of two of the most powerful nations in the world playing off the concern and compassion of their people, and of the global community, to gain support for their arguments.

However, the very administrations that had shown masterful use of public diplomacy years prior soon forget the extent of its importance. The Bush administration’s over-emphasis on physical force and divisive rhetoric in the build up to the Iraq war left it vulnerable to failure from the outset. Neglect of the power of the public would soon prove to be far more dangerous than may have been expected.

No force, no matter how great, no matter how strong their arsenal can eliminate a deviant subgroup of a society without the support of the society as a whole. In fact, as was shown in the tribal regions of Afghanistan and in certain areas of Iraq, the neglect of the battle to win hearts and minds served in some way to strengthen the cause and level of support for the very individuals that the allies sought to isolate and exterminate. This was not a wasted lesson however as the Bush administration and the current Obama administration both have included- personally and financially supported- acts of public diplomacy as part of and alongside military action (as illustrated in the image below).

In fact, the Obama administration has relied heavily on public diplomacy from the inception of its campaign. What began as a mission to convince and rally the American people with a message of hope and collective responsibility continued to become a call to action for those in far off lands and on distant shores.

Obama style public diplomacy incorporates not just political actors but also citizens. Although involved through marriage, it should be remembered that Michelle Obama is not an elected official. Yet she too is offered as a diplomatic tool to conjure support for the American outlook.

Does Traditional Diplomacy have any contemporary relevance?

In today’s world, issues increasingly stretch beyond national borders. These issues include drug cartels, environmental degradation, the economy and terrorism. This global interconnectedness has therefore necessitated multilateral action. Furthermore, complex interdependence, blurring the distinction between domestic and international issues, has led to the traditional notion of diplomacy coming under challenge. Traditional diplomacy, characterized by bilateral negotiations, secrecy and a focus on high politics, hasproven inadequate to deal with the challenges of the 21^st century. Emphasis on multilateral negotiations, openness and low politics, termed New Diplomacy, has developed in response to globalization.

The diplomatic agenda has expanded, for example to include the promotion of trade and this has become one of the Embassy’s primary tasks. Furthermore, the technology and communication’s revolution has had an impact on the conduct of diplomacy. Technological advances in the field of aviation, the telephone, fax and internet have led to the capability for rapid information sharing and consultation between the embassy and the home government. As a consequence, the foreign office is able to assert itself to a higher degree than previously by providing diplomats with continuous detailed instructions. In addition, the technology revolution has also enabled various government departments to maintain direct relations with their counterparts in other states, thereby bypassing the diplomatic channel. One of its major changes, however, is that summitry has gained widespread practice. Since the early 1970’s heads of state/governments and senior officials have become increasingly involved in diplomacy.

When looking at the surface it appears that old diplomacy has little relevance in the 21^st century, however, one should be wary about drawing such a shallow conclusion. By scratching the surface it becomes apparent that while old diplomacy has adapted to the requirements of the 21^st century, it is by no means outmoded. Secrecy continues to be a key element of diplomacy. It is about not losing face, the attempt to avoid unnecessary conflicts, complications and influence. If certain negotiations were done publicly, they may never have taken place to begin with. A prime example of this is Henry Kissinger’s secret talks to China which ultimately led to US recognition of the government of Beijing and diplomatic relations to China.

Another example is the 30 years ongoing talks between King Hussein of Jordan and Prime Minister Rabin of Israel. These culminated in a signed peace agreement 1995. What is clear, while other factors must be addressed, is that in order to progress the Israeli Palestinian Issue secret negotiations will play a vital role as public distrust and other external forces have historically and currently impede negotiations. Once secret negotiations have addressed some key areas of disagreement, addressing the concerns of these minor factors will prove easier.

Moreover, while the diffusion of actors in diplomacy is undeniable, one ought to be cautious to equal that to direct influence. Non nation-state actors do play a greater role today than 40 years ago. It should be noted however, that their level of influence is based on the willingness of nation-states. Despite heavy emphasis on multilateral treaties, bilateral agreements are still an important part of diplomacy. This is exemplified by the US pursuing bilateral immunity agreements with ICC signatories to avoid any jurisdiction whatsoever by the Court. Furthermore, permanent embassies remain a vital part of the diplomatic landscape. Though some of its functions have been altered, the embassy is still the central manager of foreign relations. When compared to its traditional functions, it is apparent that while heads of states/government take greater part in negotiations, diplomats provide a supportive role from beginning to end. Additionally, rather than collecting information, the embassy analyses the information by placing it into context for its home government.

Moreover, traditional functions still prove highly relevant. The embassy serves to cultivate contacts and identify such contacts to be cultivated for the future. The embassy serves as an early notification system to the host country of the desires, positions and thoughts of the home government regarding actions and positions of the host country. Recently, the Swedish ambassador in Kampala warned the Ugandan government that if Bill 18 – the anti-homosexuality bill- was passed, Sweden would not only publicly denounce it, but also withdraw development aid.

The importance of Public Diplomacy

Decades of interference in and neglect of the global community culminated in the Bush administration’s destructive foreign policy. This approach damaged the public’s image of the US and significantly undermined the country’s reputation in the global community. It ultimately lead to countries, once allied with the US, such as France and Germany, to question and openly oppose US actions.In recognition of this, President Obama has employed public diplomacy to restore America’s benign image worldwide. In the President’s inaugural speech, he decisively moved away from direct threats towards named individual nations to offer dialogue to those who “unclench their fists”. Furthermore, President Obama broke with convention (established by previous American Presidents) of visiting the Department of Defense. Instead, his appearance at the state department marked a shift from US emphasis on hard power to an increase focus on soft power. President Obama’s public campaign continued to the Middle East. In Cairo, Obama addressed the public directly. He emphasized “mutual interest and mutual respect” between the US and the Middle East.Although media and public reaction to the speech was polarized with some claiming it heralded a new era of hope and others holding judgment until tangible actions are taken, in terms of public diplomacy it succeeded by dominating news cycles and sparking debate globally.

The Chinese government is also aware of China’s image worldwide, tainted by the lack of human rights and democracy as well as minorities’ issues such as Tibet. Determined to address its problematic image, China is actively pursuing public diplomacy. Recently, China’s foreign minister Yang Jiechi stated that Chinese diplomats are now encouraged to actively court the public. Furthermore, Chinese culture is promoted through the Confucius Institute’s educational institutional partnerships worldwide. Moreover, in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, China took an unprecedented move. She opened up to foreign assistance and allowed journalists to report with almost no restrictions. These moves successfully served to place China’s image in a positive light. In addition, China used the Beijing Olympics 2008 to launch a massive public diplomacy campaign. As the largest global media event, the Olympics serves as a “platform that connect audiences globally”. China efficiently used the Olympics by loosening restrictions on media coverage and impressing foreign publics with its display of modernity, wealth, organization and maintenance of cultural values. All these different instruments of public diplomacy serve to promote China as a benign world power that is of no threat to other nations. Additionally, it aims to promote Chinese culture as admirable and China as being in the process of reform.

Arguably, it is evident that public diplomacy is important and does matter. Having said that, it is the extent to which the influence and impact of public diplomacy stretches is up for debate.

My view now...

My opinions of diplomacy have broadened significantly as a result of this module. Before taking the module, I was under the impression that diplomacy was simply the art of conducting peaceful negotiations. Since that first lecture I have learnt that there are many aspects of diplomacy that I previously knew nothing about. For example, the huge role played NGOs, especially in areas of the environment, is vital to the success of the new diplomacy. In addition to this, I always imagined diplomacy to be a secretive and closed-off state of affairs, and now know that multilateral diplomacy and conference diplomacy are also vital to achieving success. Further to this, I was under the impression that diplomats were concerned only with negotiations, but have now seen that they are also involved in many other areas, for example, within a public diplomacy role their tasks can also include promoting a good image of the country they represent. It seems that diplomacy is a far more complex art than I first imagined, and is a vital part of a states' foreign affairs.