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)
No comments:
Post a Comment