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
No comments:
Post a Comment