According to Edward Murrow the former director of the USIA ‘public diplomacy differs from traditional diplomacy in that it involves interaction not only with governments but primarily with non-governmental individuals and organisations.’ (Speaking as director of USIA in 1963) (fpc.org.uk) In an article by the foreign policy centre ‘public diplomacy’ it explains that public diplomacy became more important after the cold war with ‘the spread of democracy, the media explosion and the rise of NGO’s’ according to the article these have changed the ‘nature of power’ and as a result governments have needed to ‘invest’ just as much in ‘communication with foreign publics’ as they do with the ‘governments that represent them’ in order for state or governmental objectives to be achieved. (fpc.org.uk) This is to say that in order for the goals of the state to be achieved outside its own borders, these goals being that of promoting states ideals, then it is important that these goals be communicated to the people of that state and not just the officials of the state or states in question. The article goes on to explain how the attitudes of foreign peoples abroad can determine or shape foreign policy objectives of a given state. Media broadcastings of human catastrophes around the world, the humanitarian crisis in Somalia and Kosovo for example resulted in widespread public outcry and so obliging their governments to take steps of intervention. Global anti-capitalist demonstrations have also managed to determine the foreign policy of a state by ‘illustrating a new diplomatic environment where state and non-state actors compete for the publics attention.’ In such cases ‘perceptions of Britain and other countries combine to create an enabling or disabling backdrop for each situation.’ (fpc.org.uk) In addition the article refers to American academic Joseph Nye who has stressed that ‘the power of attraction can be an important complement to more traditional forms of power based on economic or military clout.’ According to Nye ‘soft power works by convincing others to follow, or getting them to agree to, norms and institutions that produce the desired behaviour’ or outcome. (fpc.org.uk) The article acknowledges that most of peoples perceptions come from sources outside of national government control such as, books, films, music, brands or consumer products with national association, television programmes etc. ‘and so the activities of governments and other organisations are only going to impact the margins, seeking to clear paths and give impetus to the positive messages for mass audiences while working directly on niche audiences.’ (fpc.org.uk)
According to a paper presented to the International Conference on Multi-stakeholder Diplomacy by Jozef Batora, ‘power no longer stems solely from persuasion or coercion, but increasingly from information sharing and attraction. And so it is the promotion of such soft power that is the essential purpose of public diplomacy.’ (Bator: 2005: diplomacy.edu) Batora acknowledges the confusions that lie within public diplomacy and what exactly comprises public diplomacy. He poses the question of ‘how does one differentiate between “just any” international activities by societal actors with impacts on foreign audiences, and those activities of societal actors which would qualify as public diplomacy.’ He answers this by suggesting that ‘public diplomacy comprises all activities by state and non-state actors that contribute to the maintenance and promotion of a country’s soft power.’ (Batora: 2005: diplomacy.edu) However, according to the U.S. Department of States’ dictionary of international relations, ‘public diplomacy refers to government sponsored programs intended to inform or influence public opinion in other countries.’ (publicdiplomacy.org)
The notion of public diplomacy has evolved significantly since it was first coined in the 1960’s in order to ‘distance governmental activities overseas from the term propaganda’, which during the cold war era held negative connotations. Public diplomacy was ‘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.’ Since 9/11 however, public diplomacy has been broadened and is no longer viewed as an ‘activity unique to sovereign states.’ This new and evolving notion of public diplomacy ‘aims to capture the emerging trends in international relations where a range of non-state actors with some standing in world politics – supranational organizations, sub-national actors, non-governmental organizations, and (in the view of some) even private companies – communicate and engage meaningfully with foreign publics and thereby develop and promote public diplomacy policies and practices of their own.’(uscpublicdiplomacy.prg)
http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/1.htm
Public Diplomacy Alumni Association, ‘About Public Diplomacy Alumni Association’, 5 January 2008
http://www.diplomacy.edu/conferences/msd/papers/batora.pdf
‘Multi-stakeholder Public Diplomacy of Small and Medium Sized States: Norway and Canada Compared’, Jozef Batora, Paper presented to the International Conference on Multi-stakeholder Diplomacy, Mediterranean Diplomatic Academy, Malta, February 11-13, 2005
http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/35.pdf
The Foreign Policy Centre, ‘Public Diplomacy’, Mark Leonard, Catherine Stead, Conrad Smewing, 2002
No comments:
Post a Comment