Non-state actors.. Their/Our role in diplomacy

As we discussed during the previous weeks, many changes occurred within diplomacy. Diplomacy suffered a radical change particularly in the 20^th century from multilateral negotiations, open discussions, increasing presence of non-state actors until the enhanced importance of public diplomacy. Although it has occurred many changes in diplomacy, I believe non-state actors are the most important achievement of modern diplomacy. The social, historical and technological developments of the past century allowed the formation and improved importance of non-state actors. Moreover, during the lecture related to these actors it was distinguished six non-state actors: religious actors, sub-state units and international organizations, terrorist/rebel groups, multinational corporations, non-governmental organisations and individuals. Despite of the presence of many non-state actors in diplomacy I consider the last three more relevant in its radical change. Therefore, the last three will be developed throughout the blog entry. Furthermore, these actors are crucial to raise awareness regarding critical issues involving society. For that reason they gain credibility and support from the public which confers them power against governments.

Multinational corporations’ importance within politics has been increasing due to their expansion across the world. Consequently, nowadays some of these corporations have more resources than some states. Nevertheless, these corporations lobby governments influencing them on their policies. This influence can be used for their own self-interest (which frequently it is) but also for good causes. Also, business can have an important role to avoid international conflict, since usually countries that trade with each other do not resort to war. In a speech given by a representative of the German business community in a UN Security Council meeting he stated business in partnership with public partners has a critical role in battling violence, anarchy and terrorism all in favour of civilization, freedom and prosperity. (2007:53). This is a positive change of mindset in multinationals. Recently, there has been a rising cooperation between NGO’s and MNC’s to standardise corporations’ policies, their intention is to avoid lawsuits or other consequences that could harm the companies’ reputation. A few years ago in a lecture the Attorney Owen Pell gave an example regarding the new alliance between NGO’s and MNC’s:

“In the case of the Cocoa Harvesting Accord, NGOs united companies representing 99 percent of cocoa buyers to form a cartel to negotiate child labor practices. The MNCs agreed to buy cocoa only from areas with minimal use of child labor, as determined by a survey of local labor markets funded by the MNCs. Ultimately, around 20 African states agreed to participate in the program.”

For the previous, reasons I believe it is important to mention MNC’s role in diplomacy not only for their negative actions (as usually they are) but also for their recent positive contributions in world affairs.

Furthermore, non-governmental organisations are one of the most important non-state actors in world politics. They are usually specialized in different issues such as human rights, environmental issues, and so on. Usually these organisations have some advantage over states since they have credibility, expertise in specific issues, resources and representation in many places. Their importance has been rising in the last century, especially because globalization allows them to reach people faster. Therefore they can easily persuade public opinion and important issues related to civil society. Due to the increased importance of these organisations they are now accepted by states to provide information about specific issues of their expertise. Some even argue they are absolutely crucial to help states in particular issues such as environmental problems (2007:55).

Nevertheless, individuals are also very important non-state actors. There are two types of individuals involved in diplomacy: the common citizen or celebrities. Celebrities are a new trend within diplomacy. They use their influence to support causes and influence governments. Usually politicians like to be photographed with them to improve their image and also for public diplomacy. For example, George Clooney had the honour to address the UN Security Council regarding the genocide occurring in Darfur. It is rarely given access for common citizen to approach the supreme body of UN but an actor has a status and connections which allows him to do it. Nonetheless, organizations use these people to be “the face” of their causes raising people awareness of different issues. Therefore, celebrities often represent organizations and raise supporters for their causes. Furthermore, celebrities are important in shaping diplomacy but nevertheless non-famous citizens have the power to change diplomacy. Although sometimes people’s demonstrations have no influence in changing policies made by the government (the demonstrations against the Iraq War around the world are a good example), there are some crucial individuals that were successful in fighting for their causes. These people made themselves heard around the world due to their persistency and some examples are Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. These people were common John Does who became known for their actions and values. Therefore, despite of the importance of celebrities as non-state actors, common citizens can also fight for their causes and principles.

In conclusion, there were many changes within diplomacy. However, I believe the emergence of some non-state actors was the most important change since it raised awareness of issues that we would not be aware otherwise. This encourages us to practise an active role as citizens within world affairs.

With effort from these non-state actors the world is gradually changing...

I found this video online and decided to share with you. Great example.

.

The Earth Summit - 1992 - Brazil

This link provides a webpage where you can listen to George Clooney’s speech addressed to the UN Security Council.

Reference

Bolewski, W. (2007) Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations

New York : Springer

Others: some parts where referenced with links to its webpages.

NGO Diplomacy

In the past diplomacy was mainly concerned with matters of war and peace (‘high politics’) and it was carried out by expert members of the foreign service. Today it seems that there is no aspect of life that has not been on the diplomatic agenda (‘high’ and ‘low’ politics) and diplomacy itself is carried out by a variety of people, many of whom are not foreign service officers. (Leguey-Feilleux, 2009: 2) Where as, traditionally diplomatic negotiations have been carried out by only a few parties in utter secrecy, today there is a new sense of openness and inclusiveness both in the number and variety of parties and issues. This seems to be one of the most important and interesting aspects of the ‘new’ diplomacy.

As Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux points out, many of the ‘contemporary participants in diplomacy are not even “agents” or “intermediaries” in the traditional diplomatic sense of carrying out orders and implementing policy’. These new “agents” include representatives of international organizations, multinational corporations (MNCs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). (Ibid. 3-5) Especially NGOs have a significant importance in new diplomacy as they do not represent individual states, or greedy corporations, and can be seen as a reliable partner in negotiations.

One reason for states to engage in diplomatic negotiations with a growing number of NGOs is the new interdependence, which has been caused by the proliferation of problems that no single nation can solve unilaterally. It must be noted that the new agents themselves have also been pressing governments to address these problems. (Ibid. 57-61) The new complex interdependence is eroding the freedom of action of sovereign states, it increases the complexity of diplomacy and diversifies the ways to carry it out. One of the strengths of NGO diplomacy is their ability to either rally public support or opposition together with their skills in creating coalitions and using modern technology for networking. (Ibid. 72, 101-6)

The classic example of the importance of NGO diplomacy and its strengths is the campaign to ban landmines, where NGO representatives played a central role from the setting of the agenda until the actual ratification process. Patrick Leahy, US senator even stated that ‘never before have representatives of civil society collaborated with governments so closely, and so effectively, to produce a treaty to outlaw a weapon’. (Ibid. 107) Considering how significant landmines have been for the defensive warfare of numerous states this ban was a huge leap forward and and a massive victory for NGO diplomacy.

NGOs have also actively used all the possible diplomatic means to mediate in conflict situations and bring peace if possible. Even though states have the advantage of offering guarantees and inducements beyond the means of NGOs, it might be easier for the conflicting parties to trust an NGO which is less likely trying to gain some personal advantages, and NGOs can even engage in negotiations with outlawed groups, where as states might be put of because of fears of giving these groups a degree of legitimacy. (Ibid. 111-2)

The opening up of diplomacy to include other agencies, especially NGOs (as MNCs are mainly interested in profit making they cannot be compared with the previous) might be a way towards a more democratic international sphere, as civil society is included as Leguey-Feilleux notes. (Ibid. 113) But there is also a question of their legitimacy because unlike states they represent hazy entities and it is often hard to measure whether they even represent those who they claim to represent. They are not legally bound to act in any sort of ‘public interest’! (Collingwood and Logister, 2005)

Sources:

Collingwood, V. and Logister, L. 'State of the Art: Addressing the INGO Legitimacy Deficit' in Political Studies Review: 2005 VOL 3

Leguey-Feilleux, J. 2009. The Dynamics of Diplomacy. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc

The Importance of Non-Governmental Organisations in The New Diplomacy

The number of Non-Governmental Organisations which are operating internationally is estimated at 40.000.
(http://www.hmceurope.org/.)

The new diplomacy: Following your readings for, and the discussions in, seminars 5 to 7, what in your opinion is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy? Explain your reasons.

When the Iron Curtain fell in 1989, the historic event would soon prove to mark the beginning of an era of strive towards democratization throughout the world as well as a certain rise of civil society. In this way, the number of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) rose significantly following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, which, one may argue, since has changed the procedures of diplomacy significantly (Betsill and Corell, 2008, viii.)
With people obtaining an increased awareness of their surrounding world, many soon turned to NGOs for the trustworthiness which they may have felt that their respective governments lacked (Betsill and Corell, 2008, viii.)
This development forced governments to consider the evolving role of these new, increasingly powerful, actors on the international political scene, a fact which became evident as only 250 NGOs were involved in the The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, taking place in Stockholm in 1972, but an astonishing 3200 took part, on a variety of levels, in The World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 (Betsill and Corell, 2008, viii.)
One may put forth the argument that the reason that NGOs have obtained such credibility, and subsequent responsibility, among people throughout the world, is the way in which they indeed are capable of using soft power efficiently. They positively demonstrate the work which they perform through a whole variety of channels, and they gain citizens’ trust as they prove themselves as experts in their respective fields of work (http://www.interaction.org.)
It is my argument and belief that people, who physically are in a certain situation, know the origins, the course and the potential effects of that situation, and hereby must be considered irreplaceable and essential in diplomatic negotiations towards decision-making and problem-solving of that specific circumstance.
In this way, the American Director of Public Diplomacy for the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs, Bruce Wharton, proclaimed earlier this year:

“NGOs provide an incredible voice and reach beyond traditional audiences by recognizing that not one side fits all. All public diplomacy is local. People on the ground know best.”
(http://www.interaction.org.)

NGOs may not possess direct political power but the pressure which they, strongly backed by citizens, indeed are capable of putting on governments, is arguably so efficient that it can change policies and behaviours of government officials (Betsill and Corell, 2008, xi.) With this, it is arguable that the empowerment of NGOs can be considered one of the most important aspects of The New Diplomacy and that they indeed can, and should, be regarded as legitimate diplomats as they undoubtedly have a significant impact on international diplomatic relations.

Betsill, M. M., Corell, E. ed. (2008), NGO Diplomacy – The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations, MIT Press, Massachusetts.

America's Ambassadors? The NGO Role in Public Diplomacy Discussed at InterAction's 2010 Forum (2010), InterAction, A United Voice for Global Change
http://www.interaction.org/article/interaction-forum-2010-recap-americas-ambassadors-ngo-role-public-diplomay

Non-Governmental Organisations, Harvard Model Congress Europe, Date Unknown
http://www.hmceurope.org/2010/program_info/ngo.aspx

How the Chilean (and One Bolivian) Miners Changed Politics, Diplomatic Relations and a Nation's Image

Chilean President Pinera holding up the note stating that all 33 Miners were alive and well

Chilean President Pinera and Bolivian President Morales showing unity during the crisis

Public diplomacy: Write about a recent event or development which illustrates the importance or otherwise of public diplomacy in contemporary world politics. Provide links to relevant websites and news stories.

When the ramp leading into the San Jose mine, located near Copiapó in Chile, collapsed, leaving 33 miners, 32 Chilean and 1 Bolivian, trapped in a small shelter within the mine, no one could have anticipated the impact the accident would prove to have on politics, diplomatic relations and a nation’s image both nationally and internationally.
The whole world, common populations as well as political and religious leaders, followed closely as a whole variety of states and organisations worked together to reach, and finally after 69 long days, free the miners (www.cnn.com.)
The euphoria which came with the extraordinary rescue effort, leaving all the miners unharmed, promised a new beginning for Chile, as stated by President Sebastian Pinera:

”…The country is not the same after this.”
(www.bbc.co.uk.)

Prior to the San Jose mining accident, one may argue that Chile had quite a tarnished and one-sided reputation, that of President Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship, which the country had found difficulty escaping (www.nytimes.com.)
President Pinochet oppressed Chile throughout his presidency, which lasted nearly two decades and finally ended in 1990. He was accused of numerous human right offenses, including murdering and torturing his opponents, and arguably destroyed Chile’s image throughout the world (www.nytimes.com.)
Chile slowly but surely moved away from the legacy of the repressive regime, but one may put forth the argument that the two months the miners were trapped and the eyes of the whole world were on Chile, positively changed the image of the country more than the efforts of the past twenty years had managed to do. Through very effective public diplomacy and the immense press coverage of the miraculous rescue, both the President, the First Lady and 1500 journalists were indeed present as the miners re-emerged one by one; President Pinera managed to completely transform the way in which the world may previously have perceived his nation. Instead of human right abuses, Chile now became known and renowned for valuing the lives of its population higher than anything. The country proved to the international community that it is now a modern, technologically advanced and all-embracing nation. Chile was unified and successfully portrayed itself as a state worthy of the recognition and respect it had worked towards obtaining for two decades (http://efesevin.wordpress.com.)
In this way, New York Times wrote:

“The rescue of the miners this week shows how much Chile has evolved since Pinochet’s rule ended in 1990.”
(http://efesevin.wordpress.com.)

Besides Chile’s image improving, the country’s international relations were also transformed.
Chile and Bolivia had poor diplomatic relations for more than a century following the War of the Pacific, fought between 1879 and 1883, which resulted in Bolivia losing its coastline to Chile (www.mcentellas.com.)
The relationship between the two nations had been slowly improving throughout the years, but with one of the miners trapped inside the San Jose Mine being Bolivian, the world suddenly saw the two states working effectively together and viewing each other as equals, as neighbours and most importantly as fellow mining nations. This was evident as the Bolivian President Evo Morales travelled to Chile to join President Pinera in greeting the miners, both Chilean and Bolivian, as they were rescued (http://www.msentellas.com/.)

It is truly amazing how a mining accident and the courage of 33 miners have changed the way in which we as common populations, state leaders and an entire international community see one nation.
The efforts of President Pinera can arguably be seen as the very definition of efficient and timely public diplomacy.


Chilean Miners Rescued: Viva Chile (and Chilean Image) (2010), Reaching the Public
http://efesevin.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/chilean-miners-rescued-viva-chile-and-chilean-image/

Bolivia: The Chilean Mining Rescue & A Political Thaw (2010), Pronto
http://www.mcentellas.com/archives/2010/10/bolivia-the-chilean-mining-rescue-a-political-thaw.html

Days 1 through 69: How Best of Man, Machine Saved Chile's Miners (2010), CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/10/15/chile.mine.rescue.recap/index.html

Celebrations as Last Trapped Chile Miner is Rescued (2010), BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11518015

Augusto Pinochet, Dictator Who Ruled by Terror in Chile, Dies at 91 (2006), N.Y. Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/world/americas/11pinochet.html

Aid from you? Thanks, but no thanks!

Public diplomacy it is not a matter of spreading ideas or information to harm or benefit a nation, but it is a way of sharing values with other states and showing them that they are not very different from us. Public diplomacy tries to “win the hearts and minds of people”. However, states can use all kinds of “tactics” to change people’s feelings regarding another country.

The following example caught my attention by the strategy used by the decision-makers, The Hurricane Katrina, which remains fresh in our memory, is a relatively recent event. This incident demonstrated the other side of the USA where racial and socioeconomic differences are relevant. Plus, it made the world question if there actually exists freedom and justice on that country. (2008, p. 224).

Many countries provided aid to the US and Condoleezza Rice asserted that “no offer that can alleviate the suffering of the people in the afflicted area will be refused” (2008, p. 224). Nevertheless, Cuba and Venezuela also pledged help for the hurricane victims. Actually, Castro was one of the first to offer medical supplies and around 1000 doctors to help that region but it was declined because there were already enough American doctors in the area. The offer to provide food, water, and oil by the Venezuelans, despite of the delay, it was accepted by the U.S. government.

Plus, there was an interesting statement of the White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan: “When it comes to Cuba, we have one message for Fidel Castro: He needs to offer the people of Cuba their freedom”. Following Mr. McClellan’s logic the US should not have accepted aid from China, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Or perhaps he thinks that the freedom of people on those countries is less relevant than Cubans’.

The US response, especially to Cuba, promoted these countries as the Good Samaritans and the US as a selfish capitalist. Often public diplomacy is used by these countries to promote themselves worldwide, and domestically it helps them preserve their government. In this case this event only jeopardised and decreased US credibility within that region.

The previous example demonstrates how aid can be used for public diplomacy and how it benefits one country’s image by debilitating another’s. Focusing on authoritarian regimes public diplomacy is extremely important since it promotes the country and their ideals, but also internally it sustains the whole regime.

References

Cowan, G. and Cull, N. (2008) ‘Public diplomacy in a changing world’ in The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol.616

Others: some parts where referenced with links to webpages.

Public Diplomacy

In International Relations, public diplomacy, broadly speaking, is the communication with foreign publics to establish a dialogue designed to inform and influence. According to the USC Centre on Public Diplomacy at the University of South California, Public Diplomacy is something that is 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’ (USC Centre on Public Diplomacy)

Different governments implement different ways to reach these goals. For example, foreign students studying in different countries are a form of public diplomacy. This can be seen as a ‘good way’. Leguey-Feilleux sees Public Diplomacy as a synonym for public relation, which for him is ‘an extension of the diplomatic mission’ (2009,p.154). However, Berridge relates public diplomacy to propaganda, which widely and commonly refers to manipulation of public opinion through mass media for political ends (2010, p.179).

There are many methods and instruments that are used in Public Diplomacy. Nicholas Cull divides the practice in to five elements: listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, exchange diplomacy and international broadcasting. Methods such as personal contact, broadcasters such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, etc. exchange programs such as International Visitor Leadership program which helps people from different countries and continents to interact with one another and understand each other’s countries and culture. The internet is also vital to practice Public Diplomacy depending on the audience to be communicated with and the message conveyed.

Today, Public Diplomacy is used extensively. In his extensive interview with the BBC Persian Television, President Obama responded not only to the Iranian President’s remarks at the UN General Assembly, but also to some of the concerns of Iranians and Afghans with regards to his administration’s foreign policy. The fact that Obama went to the BBC to talk to Iranian people signals the weakness in the US Public Diplomacy apparatus, namely its own international broadcasting to Iran. Since the US government has established its Persian TV service within Voice of America (VOA PNN) and funded it for nearly 15 years, why should the US president resort to another country’s public diplomacy network to speak to a foreign audience? The reason lies in the size of audience one can reach. Obviously VOA has not been able to reach a sizable audience inside Iran. Obama’s BBC public diplomacy indicates another shift and that is a huge step towards the (old) policy of considering Iranian government separate from its people. While early in his presidency, Obama adhered to engagement; realties in Washington, elections in Iran, and problems on nuclear issue soon weakened his political power. In this interview, Obama seems to be following the same path as other US presidents. He stands tough on human rights issues, adheres to sanctions, doe not rule out an Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran, and tries to talk to the Iranian people rather than the government. Thus, we can see that by using public diplomacy ad talking to the people rather than the government, Obama has tried to change the mind-set of the Iranian people. Through his interview, we can see that Obama has washed his hands off the Ahmadinejad government and would rather weaken it by sanctions and support the Green movement in favor of a future change in the political atmosphere in Iran. This kind of public diplomacy is definitely more effective, as by interacting with the people, they can together try to make a change in the government rather that an international coalition trying to change the government in Iran. (BBC News)

However, one can also say that public diplomacy does not always yield results. This can be seen by the execution of Akmal Shaikh, a British citizen arrested in China last year on charges of drugs smuggling. He might not have been executed if the British government had resorted to secretive diplomacy instead of public diplomacy. By bringing his death sentence in China out in the open, the government tried to pressure China to show clemency towards Akmal. However, the Chinese government had to think about their policies as well. If they did show clemency towards Akmal, then the Chinese people would hold that against their government and would always plead for clemency if a similar situation occurred and the government would have to agree to it. If Britain had held secret talks with the Chinese government, then probably Akmal Shaikh might still be alive. (The Telegraph)

Today, public diplomacy plays a huge role in our lives. Most of the countries are now setting up offices for public diplomacy to boost their image internationally as well as to influence their own citizens. India has just created a new public diplomacy division to educate and influence global and domestic opinion on key policy issues and project a better image of the country commensurate with its rising international standing. (The Times of India)

In conclusion, public diplomacy is important today. It is essential to boost or tarnish the image of a country. It is definitely easier to use public diplomacy if you want to influence people. Obama’s public diplomacy on BBC will hopefully have changed at least one person’s mind-set in Iran. Even with that one person’s changed mind, he can talk to people and probably change others mind-set as well. Public diplomacy is most effective if it is credible and if it were in line with the country’s behavior and foreign policy, in which case it would be closer to ‘public relations’ than public diplomacy. However, there is a fine line between public diplomacy and propaganda. If a country blurs the line, then it is not called as public diplomacy; it is propaganda, which is public relations more than public diplomacy. It is easier to use “soft-power” like public diplomacy instead of using “hard-power” like military intervention. It is easier to use public diplomacy where military interventions will not work.

These are some links to videos that I found very useful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC1b8XZpy8c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3NU4d81Ps4

Public Diplomacy and the Case of Nation Branding

Public diplomacy has strong links with the idea of soft power. According to Joseph Nye ‘soft power works by convincing others to follow, or getting them to agree to, norms and institutions that produce the desired behaviour. Soft power can rest on…the ability to set the agenda in ways that shape the preferences of others’. (Riordan 2003: 120)

Public diplomacy tries to influence nationals in foreign countries but much of the effectiveness of this depends on the acceptance of the receiving audience. (Nye 2004: 99)

Public diplomacy involves building long-term relationships to create enabling environments for government policies through both daily and strategic communications. The development of lasting relationships can be build through scholarships, exchanges, training, seminars, conferences and access to media channels. However, a large part of public diplomacy also deals with selling a positive image of a country. (Ibid.107-9)

This idea of selling an image or nation branding was something that I found extremely interesting. Belinda H.Y Chiu has written an eye-opening article about this topic called Brand USA: Democratic Propaganda in the Third Social Space.

At the most basic level there is nothing new about nation branding or the promotion of positive images of one’s country. However, Chiu goes a lot further than this and claims that ‘traditional approaches to foreign relations are being replaced by marketing strategies to brand nations by enriching their image and reputation’. She claims that in fact ‘every nation is already a brand’. She goes on to compare nation branding to traditional consumer product branding, with the only difference being that ‘the consumers are a diversified set of global citizens and politicians, the company is substituted with the state, and the government acts as the management team’. (Chiu 2007)

The use of commercial terms when talking about what seems to be public diplomacy, was very confusing at first. I thought that Chiu might go too far, but yesterday I spent some time reading some of Alexander Stubb’s (Finland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs) articles and there it was... A whole article called Branding Finland! And there were many more. Apparently Stubb has even set up a panel of experts to ‘brainstorm and develop Finland’s brand by the end of 2010’. The results should be published some time soon. Strikingly Jorma Ollila (the chairman of Nokia) was chosen to head the group, with other well-known figures like Martti Ahtisaari (ex president of Finland and a Nobel price winner). Apparently Chiu is not that wrong and Nation branding is serious stuff right now!

Branding Finland:

http://www.alexstubb.com/artikkelit/2009-01%20BW%20Stubb%20Brand.pdf

A general article about the branding project, from the ministry for foreign affairs of Finland web page:

http://formin.finland.fi/Public/default.aspx?contentid=167928&nodeid=15148&contentlan=2&culture=en-US

Apparently, according to Chiu the importance of this branding is that it allows states to influence (or even craft) how others perceive them. However, she points out in many occasions that a strong brand is not misleading! It is crucial that the brand and product must match. ‘From a marketing standpoint, no matter how sleek and sophisticated the packaging, if the product is bad or broken, the brand will not be successful’. (Chiu 2007) I think that this notion of accuracy is very important for both nation branding and public diplomacy in general, as it might be the only thing that sets them apart from propaganda.

Of course, some argue that this is all mere propaganda. G. R. Berridge seems to think that there is no such thing as public diplomacy. He argues that ‘propaganda is the manipulation of public opinion for political ends and that ‘public diplomacy’ is the modern name for this action’. He goes on to suggest that public diplomacy, as a nametag only exists because of the negative association of propaganda with the systematic spread of lies. (Berridge 2010: 179-181)

Sources

Chiu, B., ‘Brand USA: Democratic Propaganda in the Third Social Space’ in The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations Vol. 8, No. 2, Summer/Fall 2007

G.R. Berridge, 2010. Diplomacy Theory and Practice, 4^th Ed. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan

Joseph S. Nye, 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs

Shaun Riordan, 2003. The New Diplomacy. Cambridge: Polity Press

Branding Finland:

http://www.alexstubb.com/artikkelit/2009-01%20BW%20Stubb%20Brand.pdf

http://formin.finland.fi/Public/default.aspx?contentid=167928&nodeid=15148&contentlan=2&culture=en-US

First and foremost, public diplomacy is the term used to describe states behaviour by influencing foreign countries, through media or speeches, their national self interest.
A good example is Obama’s recent visit to India. Not only has he talked positive about India’s progress on the development of their economy he also has welcomed the idea of India’s permanent seat in the Security Council. It does not necessarily mean that they will have a seat but when we take the fact that India has a seat for the next to years in the security counsel into context, it could be argued that President Obama is promoting national interest by praising India. Furthermore, the trip was important for future economic relations as Obama said:

“It is my firm belief that the relationship between the United States and India --- bound by our shared interests and our shared values will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century. This is the partnership I've come here to build. This is the vision that our nations can realize together.”
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11711007)
However, the Republican Senator Ed Royce wrote President Barack Obama:
“As you know, six foreign companies are competing to sell India 126 new multi-role combat aircraft in a deal that could be worth as much as $11 billion. India's selection process for this aircraft is advancing, with two US companies under active consideration,"
Quote (http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/nov/02/slide-show-1-obama-visit-lets-move-india-away-from-russian-weapons.htm)
Therefore, it can be argued that Obama’s visit and the positive promotion of India is some sort of public diplomacy as it builds up the economic relation and helps to boost America’s economy.
India has a long history of Human rights abuses such as unlawful killings, torture, unjust treatment of women, discrimination against other tribes, corrupted use of police force and many more. Nevertheless, Obama has not raised the human rights issue on his trip which led us to understand the importants of public diplomacy. A realist would argue that states on foreign policy do not priorities human rights agenda but solely self interest.
However, according to the BBC website president Obama’s India trip will be followed by visits to Indonesia, South Korea and Japan on a 10-day Asian which was aimed to tighten economic relation and boost US exports.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1325075/Obama-India-visit-Biggest-US-President-40-planes-6-armoured-cars.html#ixzz14ubxNJJ6

Broken diplomatic relations...

Libya and Switzerland had very close bussiness and bilateral relations in the past. Bussinessmen from Libya established bank accounts in Switzerland and Switzerland was oil supplied by Libya in spite of 1982 embargo on Libyan petrol.

After Libyan`s leader son Hannibal Gaddafi and daughter-in-law were arested in July 2008 in luxury Geneva hotel for abusing their servants, the relationship between states got cold. The couple was detained for two days and than after being questioned were released.

Reaction of Libya was prompt. Muammar al-Gaddafi withdraw $5 billion from his

Swiss bank, shutted

down local swiss companies, canceled commercial flights between states and arrested two Swiss bussinessmen, Max Goeldi and Rachid Hamdani, for violation of visa rules. One of them Max Goeldi was in February 2010 sentenced to four months in prison.

To get released Swiss Bussinessmen, Swiss President Hans Rudilf Merz traveled in August 2009 to Tripoli to apologize for arrests, what was criticized by Swiss public, which called for his resignation.Thi Swiss authorities were considering possibility to use secret forces to release Swiss citizens as well.

Max Goeldi was freed from prison in 12 of Juny 2010. On 13 of June 2010 in Tripoli, Libya and Switzerland signed a ‘plan of action’ (Spain and Germany signatores also), to end their bilateral diplomatic impasse.

This plan of action includes:

-a tribunal will be created to investigate the circumstances surrounding the arest in Geneva of Hannibal Gaddafi in July 2008, to which then Swiss President agreed in principle in August 2009

-Switzerland will offer Libya an official apology for the theft of a police mug shot of Hannibal Gaddafi from police files, and for their publication

in the Tribune de Geneve newspaper, and those who stole tha material will be prosecuted

-Max Goledi`s request for a judical pardon from Libya will be expedited

(genevalumch.com, update 3, 14 June Bern, Switzerland)

In November 2009, voters in Switzerland expresed their oppinion in referendum, from which 57

% voted against minarets in Switzerland. Mr Gaddafi had criticised that vote and said, that Muslims have

to boycott Switzerland. "Let us wage jihad against Switzerland, Zionism and foreign aggression," he said, what Swiss Foreign Ministry

spokesman refused to comment.

(bbc.co.uk, Libya's Gaddafi urges 'holy war' against Switzerland, 26 February 2010)

According to thebroken diplomatic relations, in February 2010, Libya has stopped to issue erty visa to national of any european country within Schengen agreement, except United Kingdom, what was related to Switzerland blacklisting 188 high rank officials including Gaddafi and his family.

This never-ending story was result of inadequate behavior of son of Libyan leader. Situation known as “Gaddfi`s affair” simply said, was just revange for arresting of Hannibal Gaddafi by Swiss authoriries. Since that time, Muammar al-Gaddafi did not miss out one situation to hit Switzerland back. According to the view of expert on islam Reinhard Schulze from University of Bern, Gaddafi is trying to present hisself as a leader of muslim world, but majority of muslims do not take him seriously.

Diplomacy : Old? New? Or just a diplomacy?

The two different terms “old” and “new” diplomacy might make us to see the diplomacy as a something what was before and what is already passé. And something brand new what is relevant now. However I would suggest understanding diplomacy in terms of an evolutionary process. [1] Like an organism it is able to adapt to a new conditions. If it would not adapt it would not survive, therefore particular techniques and practices has disappeared and new have come.  

In the old diplomacy there was a tendency to include just diplomats who have the legitimacy to negotiate, those who are representing particular country.  The diplomacy was a mirror of personal relations between ambassadors, foreign ministry and heads of states. Now days in the era of globalization those traditions are changing. The role of ambassador is changing. His power is declining but his functions have been broadened into different spheres (economic, cultural,...)[2] There is also a new trend - conference diplomacy. It is not just two or three states negotiating. Now multilateral conferences held by states are more common. It is argued that continuous, confidential and informed negotiations are now days impossible.[3] More participants of conference make secrets difficult to keep in secret. It also means that diplomacy has more opened to public. Maas media and information technology allow us to find out more.[4] However, this does not mean that all the issues are announced to the public. The selective release of information will still play a role in diplomacy and politics.

In addition there is no condition that the involved actors in conferences are just states representative. There are new actors in diplomacy. The world has recently undergone a boom of non-state actors. It can be argued that along with globalization, global problems emerged. Sometimes those problems are complicated and needs specialists to bring effective and appropriate solution. Specialist can be those above mentioned non-state actors for example the summit in Copenhagen in December 2009. Environmental changes are complex issues. It was not just state representative but also business leaders and scientists, who were contributing to the summit. However there is also argument against. It is claimed that more actors involved in negotiating might make it very difficult to find an agreement. Others are in opposition to this view, they argue that more actors are bringing more information that might be crucial for decision making.

---

[1] R.P. Barston, Modern diplomacy, Harlow : Pearson Longman, 2006, p 4

[2] Ibid p 5

[3] Kenneth W. Thompson, The New Diplomacy and the Quest for Peace, The United Nations: Accomplishments and Prospects (Summer, 1965),Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 394-409  

[4] Department of Communication, Purdue University, Managing reputation and international relations in the global era: Public diplomacy revisited, , West Lafayette, 12 June 2005,

Is it really "New"?

Diplomacy has changed massively in the past century. Many notice the differences between the “old” and the “new” diplomacy. However, many aspects of old diplomacy are still present in the new era. Secrecy, spies, ceremonies are some of the characteristics present in “old” diplomacy and that are present today.

During the past century, secrecy in international relations has been constant present since societies were formed. Civilizations negotiated in secret to achieve a deal sometimes to avoid confrontation with others therefore this feature has always been present in diplomatic negotiations since anyone can remember. Secrecy is one of the main pillars of the “old” diplomacy, but is it present in the “new” diplomacy? We are all aware that states hide information related to negotiations made with other states or organizations, this usual happens because “each side will have to settle for less than its ideal requirements” (Berridge, p. 110). Secrecy is not only involved in international negotiations but also in events “not so positive” for national interest and international reputation. Recently, in the last few months we have heard about Wikileaks which has been revealing documents regarding Iraq War. Lately they released a movie in which the U.S. army, supposedly, executes Iraqi civilians.

Nevertheless, espionage is also present within contemporary world affairs. This practise is very common since biblical times. Though this is not a commented subject by politicians, it is well known the presence of spies in countries around the world. Not long ago, in July, there were a spy swap between Russia and US. Particularly during the Cold War this was a very common method of retrieving information about a country, especially US and Russia.

Another permanent factor in diplomacy is ceremony. This has been constantly present in diplomatic negotiations, obviously it was given more importance during “old” diplomacy whereas “Ceremonial was used to burnish a prince’s prestige, flatter his allies, and solemnize agreements” (Berridge, p. 110). in modern times, despite of being less important for negotiations between states, the “ceremonial aspect (...) makes the multilateral summit ‘real’ to the general public”. (Melissen, p. 16)

Images provided by Google

For the previous aspects of diplomacy which still remain present today. I believe it is possible to argue that there is not a “old” or “new” diplomacy, but there is a EVOLVED diplomacy within diplomatic relations.

References

Berridge, G. R. (2010) Diplomacy Theory and Practice, 4th Ed

Melissen, J. (unknown) Discussion Paper in Diplomacy: Summit Diplomacy Coming of Age

Others: some parts where referenced with links to webpages