Public diplomacy in comparison to Propaganda

Trying to differentiate Public Diplomacy from Propaganda may prove to be a not so straight forward task.
Firstly the whole concept of propaganda seems to be linked with a part trying to “sell” its ideals to other audiences. The simple fact that propaganda has as its main goal the influencing of peoples opinions, its itself a clear indicator of the lengths some nations are institutions are willing to go in order to win heart and minds of other people and nations.
On the other hand Public diplomacy when rightly applied focuses on a most informative Agenda. While Propaganda focuses on persuasion, Public Diplomacy has a more “neutral” role.
Public Diplomacy aims to inform/educate the audiences by providing third parts with accurate facts that reflect the reality of a country the way they are instead of reflecting it the way a nation would like it to be.
It provides information about the background and current reality of a determined nation to a foreign audience, affecting the formulation of foreign opinion instead of influencing it, so people can build an opinion regarding a certain country based on neutral information.
Public Diplomacy can and is applied both in home or foreign soil, being the latter the main focus of the nations practicing it.
According to a document written by the American National Security Decision in March 1984, the USA considers the role of Public Diplomacy extremely important in regards to its National security policy and strategy, public diplomacy is a “strategic instrument to shape ideological trends” (National Security Decision Directive 1984)
As mentioned before, the main difference in the practice of booth Public Diplomacy and Propaganda is the impartiality and accuracy of the information provided to a foreign audience, “the fundamental purpose of U.S. international information programs is to affect foreign in ways favourable to U.S National interest. Such programs can only be credible and effective by respecting accuracy and objectivity”
Unlike propaganda, the practice of Public Diplomacy is more concerned with providing information rather then influencing ones opinion, “ we are better at the inform than we are at influence”, Charlotte Beers[1].

References
J. Michael Waller, (2007)The Public Diplomacy Reader

[1] former Under secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

NGO’s and other Non Governmental actors in public Diplomacy

It is argued that Non State actors have the potential to influence policy or even the outcome of Diplomatic negotiations both in home and foreign soil, but how effective is the role of NGOs in conducting public Diplomacy?
Non state actors face numerous challenges to achieve their goals, being the issue of legitimacy one of the most common of all. This issue is frequently stressed by some governments whose policies and methods are challenged by NGO’s.
According to an article written in 2003 by Henri Rouille d’orfeuil and Jorge Eduardo Durao (coordination SUD) , some Governments with more conservative characteristics often try to discredit NGOs by raising questions regarding their legitimacy, representativeness, diversity and their funding.
Not being recognised as a legitimate organization is definitely a big problem for some NGOs, if they are not recognised as such, then their credibility is automatically in jeopardy, which between some other aspects is one of the most important characteristics of an NGO.
On the other hand, when it comes to addressing foreign audiences Non Governmental organizations have an upper hand on Governments, their independency and Non Governmental involvement makes them more credible, since they are not “supposed” to be representing the interests of any particular government.
People tend to be more receptive to NGOs for the simple fact that they don’t represent the interests of a certain nation or government but often defend and represent the interests of the common citizen in other words; they don’t have a hidden Agenda or at least that is what they claim, since politics is a tricky field with a great potential for unlawful and immoral practices.
This supposed detachment from a certain Government makes NGOs more credible in the eyes of the common population.

References :
Articles
• Non-state ambassadors: NGOs' contribution to America's public diplomacy (http://www.palgrave-journals.com)

• The Role of NGOs in the public debate and international relations (http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/pdfs/ngo_public_diplomacy.pdf)

Book
• Michele M. Betsill and Elisabeth Corel. NGO DIPLOMACY, 2008

Non-States Actors and Public Diplomacy

Non-States Actors and Public Diplomacy



The research of engagement of non-state actors in public diplomacy reminded me that, I - must admit – am still in contention between the definition of public diplomacy as the conduct of foreign policy by engagement with foreign publics and the definition by Professor Berridge as: ‘a euphemism for propaganda conducted or orchestrated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), directly as well as via the diplomatic missions under its control.’ (Berridge 2005:17) Nevertheless, would non-state actors and NGOs be engaged in state’s propaganda? I leave this question unchallenged.
The involvement of non-state actors in diplomacy started with the participation of the NGOs as technical experts. It is often argued that the common journey of non-state actors and diplomacy started at the beginning of 1970s.
Professor Peter Willetts views Stockholm Conference 1972, ‘as a watershed event in terms of NGO involvement in global governance.’ (Betsill & Corell 2008:1) In resent decades the number of NGOs rapidly expanded from just 8000 in 1978 to 21000 in 2006.* From the Stockholm Conference the involvement of NGOs in decision-making process of international politics was mainly related to environmental sphere. ‘They are particularly active in open societies, and cover a broad spectrum of human activity.’ (Leguey-Feilleux 2009:104)
One could argue that the environment and sustainable development was a perfect platform for non-state actors to be involved, especially within public diplomacy. This was and is an unadulterated policy area where non-state actors do possess often different methodologies, different data and expertise that give them advantage against governmental bodies; but more importantly it is the trust, which non-state actors gain easier to compare to governments, and it is ‘trust which is essential especially for effective public diplomacy.’ (Leonard 2002:54) Further on Leonard argues – and there is no doubt about his argument – that it is much easier for NGO’s to communicate with civil societies in other countries because NGOs have three key resources; credibility, expertise, and appropriate networks. There is no diplomatic mission, embassy or the MFA which would be capable to influence the public opinion or society in any country as much as NGOs. Transnational NGOs are often effective partners to governments in operations engaged with public diplomacy. ‘Foreign Office seconding and then permanently taking on employees of certain environmental NGOs, people from Amnesty International in its human rights sections, and even recruiting its Head of Policy Planning from Oxfam.’ (Leonard 2002:56) However, capabilities of NGOs differ, smaller NGOs lack recourses or facilities, nonetheless in the recent years they benefited in influencing the public around the globe through the development and use of the Internet. ‘The Internet allows NGOs to set up and operate their own Web pages at relatively small cost; moreover it is two-way electronic street, which permits public to react via e-mail and other channels.’ (Dizard 2001:9) It is because of the Internet, telecommunication development and other already mentioned advantages that NGOs can mobilize public opposition or support, and diplomats often seek this support from NGOs.
‘The international campaign in the mid-1990s to ban landmines shows how NGO mobilization of support led to the historic landmine treaty, against the opposition of major states, including the United States.’ (Leguey-Feilleux 2009:106)
*Source: Union of International Associations

Side effects of Public Diplomacy, or rather, differentiating Public Diplomacy from Cultural Diplomacy

The main purpose of this blog is to invite people to contribute to this idea, put forward by Tamir Sheafer and Shaul Shenhav in “Mediated Public Diplomacy in a New Era of Warfare”, who argue that public diplomacy instead of creating a positive image of a state, public diplomacy results in delineation of states as a consequence of cultural proximity.

The main emphasis is upon the centrality of cultural resonance in mediated public diplomacy. It is argued that the success of public diplomacy depends on the cultural resonance, simply because: “the greater the cultural resonance is between two countries, the more a government will successfully “push” its frames into the second country’s media, and the better that country’s image is among the second country’s public”(2009: p276). Similar to the basic communication patterns between people of the same background or cultural beliefs, who find it easier and more comfortable while interacting, whereas people with different cultural beliefs find it a lot more difficult to find a common ground with each other.

Thereby, the main argument is that:

While the main assumption behind the theoretical writings on public diplomacy is that states search for positive resonance with other states, we wish to suggest that in real-life public diplomacy, exactly the opposite goal is sometimes undertaken, and states seem to “move away” from other states rather than bringing them closer. In these cases governments apply public diplomacy to draw lines and borders by positive and negative discourse, to ratify and redefine collective communities in the international arena. P-279.

The implication is that these are some of the side effects of public diplomacy, since instead of bringing the states together into cooperation; it rather alienates them from each other.

This is suggested to be a major consideration upon the current struggle with the “war on terror”, as they argue that little research or “there are very few studies that actually evaluate its effects…”, which is indeed “surprising” given the “identity-oriented political violence” (2009:p276).

Consequently, it could be implied, that there is a major difference between public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy, which suggests that these two should be approached differently and yet coherently, as they go alongside each other.

Sheafer, T. and Shenhav S. (2009) “Mediated Public Diplomacy in a New Era of Warfare” The Communication Review, 12:272-283.

Nation Branding

The idea that peoples thoughts and perceptions of a region, country or city can be influenced by various types of communications, comes from the ‘logos and slogans’ school of thought, something that Anholt contests as he argues the ‘policy based’ approach which states that products and corporations are separate from the reputations of places. He argues that trying to change someone’s perception of a place is a waste of time and that these perceptions come from the reality of the place rather than any other sort of communication or advertising. (Anholt, 2009, p31) In order to change any sort of perception governments would have to change the thing that created it in the first place. Nevertheless, Anholt does acknowledge that public perception can change through the means of dialogue and cultural relations. (Anholt, 2009, p32)

The ‘branding Thailand’ study showed the competitive positioning of Thailand in the global marketplace; however it also drew attention to the negative image associated with Thailand and its problem of sex tourism. Anholt claims that negative branding makes news as opposed to ‘positive qualities’, therefore it is essential that Thailand works hard in addressing the root cause of their sex trade and provide conditions to eliminate this. (Krittinee Nuttavuthisit, 2006)

It is clearly difficult to change public perception if this perception is a negative one, Denmark for example, as a result of numerous studies is known amongst its European neighbours as the country whose people are the happiest, however, Denmark is now associated as the place where a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed was published in the news, causing outrage across Muslim communities around the world, therefore overshadowing any positive image of Denmark. This further emphasises Anholt’s claims that negativity makes news whereas positive aspects aren’t as intriguing. Nevertheless, what a country does to eliminate or change the root cause of the negative branding can help bring the positive aspects to the forefront.

Anholt, S. ‘Places : identity, image and reputation’ Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan, c2010

Anholt, S ‘Competitive identity : the new brand management for nations, cities and regions’ Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan, 2007

Nuttavuthisit, K., ‘Branding Thailand: Correcting the Negative Image of Sex Tourism’, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2007

Sports Diplomacy

Sports diplomacy is a theme which is not discussed quite as often as other kinds of diplomacy. Nevertheless, it does play quite a big role when it comes to diplomacy. However, it is not as direct as other forms of diplomacy. Sport is one of those things that trespasses borders, language barriers, and other differences. It is indeed a very good tool and can be quite successful if implemented correctly.

One of the examples of sports diplomacy is the Rugby World Cup which took place in South Africa in 1995. Nelson Mandela had just become president and South Africa was in a very difficult situation, with far right terrorism against the new democratic order.  South Africa’s hosting of the Rugby World Cup could not have come at a better time. People from everywhere in South Africa joined together as they had the same interest, for their team to win. And this is when nationalism plays an important role too. Nationalism drew everyone together in the hope and support of the South African team; the hope of them winning the Rugby World Cup. At this point, it did not matter whether one was black or white; they were all South Africans cheering for the same team and for one purpose.  Apart from improving things at home, it also sent a positive image of South Africa to the world. It was a new and different South Africa. As Mandela once said, “Sport has the power to change the world, to inspire, to unite people in a way that little else can.” And not to forget that South Africa ended up winning the Rugby World Cup that year.

Another example of sport as diplomacy is what is called the ‘Ping-Pong Diplomacy’ between the United States and China in 1971. The United States had a blockade towards the Peoples’ Republic of China at the time. The Table Tennis World Championship was taking place in Japan, and China invited the American team for a visit. The U.S. was invited to China for a few friendly matches (or exhibition matches) of table tennis. This was an opening of a new chapter in the relations between China and the U.S. It is halfway through the Americans’ visit in China that the United States lifted the 20 year old trade embargo against China. Indeed, the following year Chinese players went to United States for a few exhibition matches as well. And it was in February 1972 that Nixon visited China, the first ever American president to do so.

One of the more recent examples is that of China hosting the 2008 Olympic Games. All eyes were on China and how prepared they would be. This indeed provided more opportunities for China’s diplomatic practices and they did not fail. The Beijing 2008 Olympic Games were a success and promoted a new image of China.

The United States have several diplomatic envoys who are athletes, such as Michelle Kwan (figure skater), Barry Larkin and Joe Logan (baseball players). Michelle Kwan was appointed as envoy in 2007 and has visited Argentina, Russia, Singapore, South Korea and Ukraine among others.

The United Kingdom is now investing a lot into the London 2012 Olympic Games. This event will focus the world’s attention on Britain and have them re-examine their views and opinions about the UK. The Foreign & Commonwealth Office describe it as “a remarkable opportunity to demonstrate the open, connected, dynamic and creative country that is Britain today” and they their challenge is “to improve perceptions of Britain – and thereby increase the UK’s power to influence.” All eyes will be on London in the summer of 2012. 

Sports diplomacy is indeed a big part of public diplomacy. Its advantage lies in the fact that sports is something universal and which has the capacity to unite people in one way or another. 

Here is the link to title sequence for the London 2012 Olympic Games handover show first shown in Beijing 2008:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz47ZQlBwmQ

People to People Diplomacy

Cultural and public diplomacy have become increasingly important in international relations which once relied solely on traditional diplomacy for its interactions. People to people diplomacy has also become an important factor in cultural and public diplomacy. According to the American ambassador to Panama Linda E Watt, ‘the multifaceted subject of people to people contacts includes the role of nongovernmental players in the world, private citizen groups, academics, business people, civic organisations, religious institutions, etc.’ (panama.usembassy.gov) She continues to explain that with the growing influence of non-state actors ‘an ambassador is now but one of many figures and forces influencing relations between nations and peoples.’

Over the past year, people-to-people diplomacy achieved important results in strengthening solidarity, friendship and cooperation with people in neighbouring, regional and traditionally friendly countries, mobilising and gaining support from international friends, according to the report of the Party Central Committee’s Commission for External Relations presented at the conference.

In a conference held in Hanoi on March 15 to review people-to-people diplomacy in 2010 and discuss activities for 2011, it was discussed how ‘through external activities, mass and people’s organisations joined hands with relevant agencies to fight erroneous acts, and to promote the rights of women, children, the disabled and the elderly. All activities were applauded and supported by international countries and organisations.’ (english.vovnews.vn)

Public opinion holds more sway now than at any previous time in history. Information and communication technologies are cheap and ever-present. A dense network of private companies, non-governmental organizations, and social movements exert ever more influence relative to governments, according to Kristin M Lord. The USA is taking full advantage of this to ‘strengthen efforts to engage, persuade, and attract the support of foreign publics’ by the creation of the USA-World Trust. The USA-World Trust will draw on the enormous goodwill, creativity, knowledge, and talent of the American people and likeminded partners overseas to

• present a more accurate and nuanced vision of America to counterbalance the one-sided views sometimes promulgated by popular culture and foreign media
• contribute to an environment of mutual trust, respect, and understanding in which cooperation is more feasible
• promote shared values and their champions
• inform and support our government’s public diplomacy efforts through the sharing of knowledge regarding communication, public opinion, foreign cultures, and technology.

Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century, foreign policy at brookings.edu

We are now living in a multi-polar world where public opinion is more bearing than ever. It's a world in which constructive informational, cultural and educational exchanges are vital. Despite the fact that diplomacy is still, and probably will always be associated with politics, diplomats and foreign office officials, we can not ignore the fact that cultural and public, especially people to people diplomacy are increasingly relied upon to change or introduce the image of a country.

People to People Diplomacy Remarks by Ambassador Linda E. Watt American Society Installation Dinner – United States Embassy, Panama June 12, 2003

http://panama.usembassy.gov/sp061203.html

Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century

Diplomacy, International Relations, Foreign Policy, U.S. Department of State

Kristin M. Lord, November 2008

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/11_public_diplomacy_lord.aspx

People-to-people diplomacy helps country’s achievements VOV News 16/03/2011 http://english.vovnews.vn/Home/Peopletopeople-diplomacy-helps-countrys-achievements/20113/124801.vov

Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding: Their relationship.

Both nation branding and public diplomacy have been defined in such a way, which make them open to a wide range of interpretations. Their relationship suffers from poor conceptualisation as well as from misunderstanding between international relations scholars and marketing communication scholars.

The theory and practice of Public diplomacy has an American origin, whereas nation branding has a more European root with a clear British dominance. Simon Anholt and Wally Olins the advocates of nation branding who have largely contributed to its evolution and practice are both British. British marketing and branding agencies are prime providers of nation branding services to countries and their governments. However there are dozen books that deal with the theory, practice and history of public diplomacy, but there are only few books devoted to the concept of nation branding, mostly authored by Simon Anholt “the father” of nation branding.

Public Diplomacy dates back to the middle of the 19^th century. In the mid 1960’s the term acquired a new meaning when Edmund Gullion referred to public diplomacy to describe the influence of public attitudes on the formation of foreign policies. Based on the Gullion’s concept public diplomacy “encompasses dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy; the cultivation by governments of public opinion in their countries; interaction of private groups and interests of one country with another; communication of diplomats and foreign correspondents. On the other hand the practice and theory of nation branding its new although some practitioners (Olins 2002) argue that countries have branded and re-branded themselves thought the history, therefore nation branding it is not a new concept but just a new term. Nations have long engaged in image cultivation and image management. Bolin has examined the World’s Fairs as a long-standing tool of nation marketing from the middle of 19^th century.

Public diplomacy is rooted in conflicts and related to different levels of tension between states and other actors; a peaceful political environment it is not necessary condition for engaging in public diplomacy, which is not the case with nation branding. However nation branding can be conceptualised as a special area of place branding. Nation branding concerns applying branding and marketing communication techniques to promote a nation’s image. (Fan, 2006; 6). This definition highlights that nation branding is concerned with image promotion. Gudjonsson (2005) states that: “Nation branding occurs when a government or a private company uses its power to persuade whoever has the ability to change a nation’s image. Nation branding uses the tools of branding to change the behavior, identity or image of a nation in a positive way. (Gudjonsson , 285). He also argues that nations cannot be branded per se, however governments and other public institutions can use the techniques of branding. Nation branding however can be conceptualised independently from branding. It can be defined as a strategic self-representation with the aim of creating reputational capital through economic, political and social interest promotion at home and abroad. Widler concludes the distinction between nation –as- state and nation-as- people is vague and it is not clear what exactly is exercised in the course of nation –branding.

Public diplomacy means government communication aimed at foreign audiences to achieve changes in the “heart or mind “of people. Public diplomacy can also refer to domestic public in two ways: either as a domestic input from citizens for foreign policy formulation or explaining foreign policy goals and diplomacy to domestic public. Earlier definitions of public diplomacy evolved strategies of promotion and persuasion and were related to self-interest and impression management. Public diplomacy also describes activities directed abroad in the fields of information, education and culture, whose objective is to influence foreign governments by influencing their citizens. It could therefore be said that the cultural diplomacy forms a part of the public diplomacy. However public diplomacy is linked to conflicts and tensions between sates. Frederick (1993) positions public diplomacy as one of the means of low intensity conflict resolution. According to his approach public diplomacy is not practiced in peaceful relations but in a certain degree of conflict. Public diplomacy is based on three dimensions: the first dimension is the condition in which the communication occurs the relationship between the communicating and target country. The second dimension refers to the levels of the objectives of communication from persuasion to relationship building. The third dimension is the power defined, as the ability to affect the outcomes one wants. Soft power conceptualised as a power of attraction has become central to public diplomacy.

There exist five different views for the relationship between nation branding and public diplomacy. According to the first one these concepts are unrelated and do not share any common grounds. In other views these concepts are related and it is possible to identify different degrees of integration between public diplomacy and nation branding. In the final version the concepts are exactly the same, public diplomacy and nation branding are the same, public diplomacy and nation branding are synonyms for the same concept. Moreover it is argued that public diplomacy and nation branding has different goals, strategies and actors. Branding is very much image-driven with the aim of creating positive country image. It is a one-way communication where he communicator has control over the message and leaves no space for dialogue. On the other hand public diplomacy relies on two-way communication. A core idea of nation branding is to identify the “uniqueness” of the country, people and culture and draw on features that distinguish different nations, opposed to public diplomacy, which tries to identify those elements of history, culture and people that unite rather than separate “us”. Nation branding has more visibility as it relies on visuals and symbols, unlike public diplomacy, which is a more subtle operation, which relies more on behavior rather than symbolism. Under particular circumstances nation branding is more accountable and transparent than public diplomacy.

Moreover, nation branding is considered as an instrument of public diplomacy. Peter Van Ham is one of the first international relations scholars who argued that branding can be used in international relations as well as public diplomacy. Also, nation branding could be conceptualised as the economic dimension of public diplomacy or as the public dimension of economic diplomacy. Economic diplomacy aims “to promote national prosperity and to conduct a foreign economic policy”.

References:

Szondi, G. ( October 2008), “Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding: Conceptual Similarities and Differences.”, The Hague, Netherland Institute of International Relations.

Anholt, S. ( 2008), “Place Branding : Is it marketing or isn’t it? “, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol (4) , p 1-6.

Simon Anholt blog website: http://www.simonanholt.blogspot.com/

Public Diplomacy vs Propaganda

Propaganda may well be the most ancient and widely applied strategic tool in political history, serving to consolidate or influence through the manipulation of information and perception. Public diplomacy and propaganda are two linked concepts in the global political arena. However many supporters of public diplomacy argue that propaganda it’s a tool of foreign policy that can win the struggle for hearts and mind. On the other side many critics argue that propaganda it’s a term used instead of manipulation.

Gullion’s treatment of public diplomacy makes it clear that while public diplomacy does contain elements of propaganda, it is not identical to it. Interestingly, some compare propaganda to pornography: you can tell it when you see it, but you can’t define it. In contrast, public diplomacy, as a rule, does not evoke such a reaction, but it too doesn’t have a universally accepted definition. In order to examine the differences between public diplomacy and propaganda we first need to examine what they do. Public diplomacy and propaganda are seen as two circles which do intersect but neither circle is within the other. One circle is public diplomacy at its best; the other is propaganda at its worst.

Brown describes the major tensions in the field of public diplomacy. First, there is the debate over the information role being neutral or propaganda. Brown states that the view expressed in the media is that public diplomacy is a euphemism for the black art of national propaganda promotion. For instance the VOA and other propaganda were important outlets in winning the Cold War as Soviet Union and Eastern Europeans were targeted with a simple message: “Your government is lying to you. (Brown, 4).

In action, the better public diplomacy is, and the worst propaganda is, the intersection of the two circles diminishes proportionally. It is seen that the multitude of tools used by public diplomacy and propaganda are identical such as mass media. Although it is better to focus on what public diplomacy at its best, and propaganda at its worst, do. However, it should be clear that the intent of the practititioners of public diplomacy and propaganda may be the same. Moreover, the beneficiaries of these two activities are those carrying them out. Neither public diplomacy nor propaganda is altruistic. Both public diplomacy and propaganda are used as state instruments; they serve a country’s interests. But at their best and their worst, they do so in different ways. At best , public diplomacy provides a truthful, factual exposition of a nation’s foreign policy, encourages international understanding, listens and engage in dialogue and displays national achievements overseas. On the other hand at its worst, propaganda forces its messages on an audience by prepetition and slogans, misrepresents the truth, and simplifies complex issues.

However, both public diplomacy and propaganda, at their best or their worst, can achieve credibility with their audience. But, the best public diplomacy achieves credibility through careful presentation of fact and thoughtful argumentation, while the worst propaganda achieves credibility by falsification. Public diplomacy at its best is believed in the long run, while propaganda at its worst is believed only for a short period of time. The best public diplomacy convinces audience that its content and purpose it is honest, while the worst propaganda makes audience to believe that its content does not present its true purpose and therefore it is dishonest.

References:

Waller, M, J. (2007), “The Public Diplomacy Reader”, USA, The Institute of World Politics Press.

Piggman, A, G. (2010), “Contemporary Diplomacy”, Cambridge, Polity Press.

Public Diplomacy Association Website: http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/1.htm

Melissen, J. ( May 2005), “Wielding Soft Power: The New Public Diplomacy” The Hague, Netherland Institute of International Relations,

Non-state actors in public diplomacy: compatible or incompatible?

After the end of the Cold War and the turn of attention towards everyday threats, such as employment, food, violence, political oppression, environmental hazard etc. the practice of diplomacy had to rearrange with these changes from inter-state to including intra-state affairs and actors. As Jan Melissen states: “the new public diplomacy [is] not just a stand-alone phenomenon but rather an expression of broader patterns of change in diplomacy, in which diplomats are inevitably dealing with different governmental and non-governmental actors” (Melissen, 2005: 4).

Thus, dealing with the public, the non-state actors (NSA) are regarded as better placed because of their built during the years credibility, impartiality from belonging to any political ideology and in the majority of cases successful stories. Mark Leonard in his article in Foreign Policy gave an example consolidating the mentioned above. He showed a survey conducted in developing and developed countries by the Canadian polling company Environics International that the majority of the surveyed (65%) trust non-governmental organisations (NGOs) “to work in the best interests of society, while only 45% trust national governments to do the same” (Leonard, 2002: 54).

If states are to lead successful public diplomacy they have to play together with NSA (Melissen, 2005: 12). The former have to accept that the international arena has changed and is including not only state officials. It is not an easy step to do, given the fact of the prevalence of realist ideology into the international relations scene. Nonetheless, diplomats would benefit from their relations with NSA and build up effective links with foreign audiences.

However, this faith in NGOs would not be fully achievable without minimum interference of governments’ diplomats and governmental organisations. Leonard advises governments to be cautious about their relationship with NSA because of the latter “way of doing things” and tendency “to work on a ‘want-to-know’, rather than a ‘need-to-know’, basis” (Leonard, op. cit.).

It could be argued that these different “cultures” are complementary and gathered together would carry a successful public diplomacy. One first step was made when the NSA were given voice (even only consultative) as included in (and working together with) the United Nations (UN) Charter in Art. 71. Both actors can learn from each other and both can lead a dialogue in the international affairs with states (where state actors are better placed) and with the public (where NSAs are better placed) informing and influencing foreign audiences.

Bibliography:

Ø Melissen, J. and Gonesh, A. (2005), Public Diplomacy: Improving Practice, Available at: http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2005/20051000_cdsp_paper_diplomacy_5_gonesh_melissen.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2011)

Ø Leonard, M. (2002), Diplomacy by other means, Foreign Policy, Issue 132, pp. 49-56

Nation branding: how much and is it worth it?

Simon Anholt compares branding a nation with branding a company, a successful or not so successful story (Anholt, 2006). But, is selling a nation's image similar to selling a car?

Some may argue that both subjects of selling resemble - depending on their reputation, e.g. Mauritius islands and Bentley cars. Others may disagree differentiating nation and market as two separate entities seeking different goals.

However, whether branding a nation or branding a company, in the base stands dealing with human beings. This latter feature makes common the subjects of branding.

One interesting instance is "The Borat effect", an article by Felix Stock (Stock, 2009: 180-191) which exemplifies the outcome of a mediated Kazakh fictional character , made to the state of Kazakhstan. The consequences are rather and surprisingly happy-ending. The intriguing part of the story is how a fictional character could cause real troubles. For a majority of people in the Western countries the popularisation of Borat, a TV Kazakh reporter, was a first contact and first impression of the state of Kazakhstan. Borat and the Kazakh diplomats started to lead a war of influence and reputation improvement - whose one will prevail? As mentioned above, the effect was unexpected - increased interest in Kazakhstan, growth of its tourism sector, therefore boosting its economy.

As a result, a pejoratively represented state in the media could start to interest adventurous tourists searching for new destination. This story could be an example of how to achieve a successful (or not so) nation branding - through balance between information and influence. If one prevails over the other, it might reach Berridge's propaganda model of public diplomacy (Berridge, 2010: 179), but if balanced it could lead to successful nation branding.

• Anholt, S. (2006), "Is place branding a capitalist tool?", Place Branding, vol.2, 1, 1-4
• Berridge, G.R. (4th ed.) (2010), Diplomacy Theory and Practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
• Stock, F. (2009), "The Borat effect", Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, vol. 5, 3, 180-191

Transforming role of a Diplomat

Guerilla Diplomat

This is an interesting idea of a need for a changing nature of the conventional diplomat into a more, in my understanding: “people’s diplomat”, which Daryl Copeland termed as the “Guerilla Diplomat”. Copeland is the major supporter of Public and Cultural Diplomacy, who argues that the sole use of military force in conflict zones will not solve the problem, but instead worsen the conditions and endure the issue even further. Thereby, he argues for a more pacifist nature of problem solving-through negotiation, persuasion and communication.

Consequently, he argues for the need of “Guerilla Diplomats”, who are substantially different than that of traditional diplomats in a sense that “Guerilla Diplomats” are given more freedom to rely on their own judgment and rationality without being commanded hierarchically, more interaction in the "out and about" rather than that of working through the office only, adaptation into the environment to the greatest possible extent so that there will be less need of guardians and more ability to engage with the people more freely without being isolated by the security forces. The tools of the “Guerilla Diplomat” are the uses of public diplomacy mixed with “classic qualities of guerrilla warfare: improvisation, self-sufficiency and popular support”.(Copeland, 2008, p293)

“To all of the core attributes associated with public diplomacy-networked communications, relationship-building, cultural ease and creativity-the guerilla diplomat would highlight the importance of abstract thinking, advanced problem-solving skills and rapid-adaptive cognition” (ibid)

The description of the “Guerilla Diplomat”, if simplified into a particular association, comes analogous to the role of the “Avatar”, whose main aim was, as far as I understood, to learn from the local inhabitants and report on strategic actions.

Consider for example the competencies required for a potential “Guerilla Diplomat” extracted from Copeland’s description:

• Local knowledge, cultural sensitivity, language and communications ability

• Irregular representational capabilities and characteristics

• Rapid-adaptive functionality in conflict situations

• An affinity for collaboration and teamwork

• A value premium placed on the generation and use of intelligence

• Autonomy, agility, acuity, self-reliance and resilience. (Copeland,2008, p295).

This illustrates the greater need and call for the use of public diplomacy through “Guerilla Diplomats” in dealing with contemporary issues: whether it is the struggle with terrorism or development.

Copeland, Daryl and Potter, Evan (2008) “Public Diplomacy in Conflict Zones: Military Information Operations Meet Political Counter-Insurgency” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy No:3, p-277-297.