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