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.