My view of diplomacy today

Some time last October we had our first lesson about diplomacy and we were asked to write down our first impressions about what “the new diplomacy” might mean. Today our answers were handed back. I can still remember how difficult that tiny task was and to be honest I sat at least half of the allocated time staring at an empty paper, but to my great surprise I had actually managed to write down something (I had completely forgotten this and thought I had handed in an empty paper) and here is what I thought back then;

“…the concept of diplomacy is changing or has changed from what it traditionally used to be. The new part being the emergence of new actors including international organisations and trans-national corporations, which have such a huge importance in the modern world that they cannot be ignored…”

It was far from a complete or perfect answer (!) and after twelve weeks of intensive lectures about the subject, plus the seminars and numerous chapters from various books accompanied by a pile of articles I would not be so sure about the changed nature of diplomacy. It seems that in both, in my first impression –note and also in my original ideas for the first blog post (about the most important change in the nature of diplomacy) I was hoping to find some massive and radical changes if not a complete revolution. However, today I am willing to conclude that even though diplomacy has evolved a lot (and as a result of this the term new diplomacy might be beneficiary in describing the point where it is today) it has also kept many traditional aspects. Thus I am not even sure that there is such a thing as the new diplomacy, instead we are at the phase of diplomacy that is suitable for today’s world order and as long as the world keeps changing, diplomacy keeps evolving in response. Even the “new” actors, namely non-state actors including international non-governmental organisations (not just any organisations!) are simply a part of this process and maybe one of the catalysts for the changes in the very nature of diplomacy. In the beginning of the course I was expecting the “old” and “new” diplomacy to be radically different but instead they seem to co-exist peacefully and means of both are used when needed.

During the twelve weeks I have managed to learn a great deal about diplomacy and broaden my perspectives about it. I must admit that conference and summit diplomacy had rarely passed my mind, with their advantages of openness and inclusiveness of most (if not all) of the states as equals in negotiations. But next to this openness still remains the need for back channels and a great deal of secrecy, a traditional parts of the “old diplomacy” that seems to be as necessary as before, especially in times of crisis. However, what I found most interesting topic of the course was the area of public diplomacy, which some argue is simply a fancy new name for propaganda. I do not completely agree with this view and believe that there is much more to it, from promoting once country to actually aiming to achieve long lasting friendly relationships. It is thus important to remember, that selling a bad product (as would be the case with propaganda) will not work in the long run!

Funnily enough, when I was about 7 I once told my aunt that when I grow up I wanted to become a diplomat and I would love to know what the 7 year old me thought was the concept of diplomacy! While diplomacy might no longer remain my dream career it has definitely been a fascinating area to study, not least because of its complexity and at times I still find it hard to define what is actually within the discipline and what is not. I cannot but wonder for example whether Bono is a diplomat (of some sort) when travelling around the world and meeting with some heads of states or simply a star on a fascinating journey. There obviously is no clear answer.

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