Environmental diplomacy has proven that it is here to stay. It is an uber-relevant issue that concerns every human being on this planet. It is said that President Obama discusses the issue of climate change with every political leader that he meets. The G-8 summit is not solid without an agenda item on the threats against our environment. However, many green activists argue that environmental diplomacy is a cause without concern (see http://www.aicgs.org/documents/environmentaldiplomacy.pdf).
I found an interesting journal discussing two processes of globalisation taking place at the sae time.
1. The process of economic globalisation that is induced by the worlds industrial corporations
2. The process of ecological globalisation pushed by world’s environmentalists (Ibid)
The first point is driven by the northern markets and those sources are now drained. This has subsequently put us in a position were we are desperate to find new markets.
The second point pushes states, NGOs, MNCs and green activists to find competitive advantages in large scales. This has been made possible by the explosive growth of technology.
At the same time, ecological globalisation is being pushed by the fact one’s production and consumption have escalated to the stage where what one does in one country can reap severe repercussions for someone in a neighbouring country.
China is dominating trade and has become a pivotal player to climate change. Innovation is key and Chinas increasing demand for energy is growing at a faster speed than ever before whilst the US worries those greenhouse gas regulations will stand in the way of an already fragile economic growth.
New and innovative clean technology is building great hope for future low-carbon growth but most has yet to reach the public and once they do that introduces a new task of making them lucrative in order for them to drive down costs. This results in them doing very little to compete with traditional fossil fuels.
Chinas unprecedented domestic market provides the basis in which they could be the ultimate real world laboratory for experiments in clean energy innovation with potential winning ideas reproduced on a scale large enough to drive down costs worldwide (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-firger/hus-washington-visit-and-_b_809134.html).
Now to bring it back to diplomacy, it is the responsibility of worldwide diplomats to work as pressure groups to further encourage China to take their responsibility serious. There are discussions regarding potential sanctions if China does not fully engage in its potential to help fight climate change.
Also see: http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/EnvironmentandStatecraftbarrettJune9th.pdf
Tuesday 18 January 2011
Go NGOs!
The word 'diplomacy' has historically refered to negotiations on behalf of sovereign mainly covering goverment to government negotions conducted by aristocrats but has over the last 60 years evolved.
It is difficicult to evaluate the evolution of diplomacy as it is an ongoing matter still very much open to scruteny and debate. The most significant alteration to the conduct of diplomacy in my opinion is the emergence of non governmental organisations and multinational corporations and their growing importance on the stage of global politics.
It is however important to note that the importance of multinational corporations in diplomacy stem back to the rise of liberalism as business and economi inevitably have layed at the core of governmental negotiations.
With that said I believe the most significant change to diplomacy is the emergance of NGOs from low politics to high politics and I believe the evolution can be illustrated by the different classifications. Today there are three statuses achievable by NGOs:
General consultative status- In 1946 ECOSOC granted 41 NGOs with consultative status. These organisations covered a majority of the agenda items of ECOSOC and were large and established with significant geographical reach. The number of consultative NGOs have steadily grown since the 40s.
Special consultative status- given to NGOs is more of a recent phenomena. This status is not easily aquired and is granted to organisations with expertize within a one or a few economic or social area.
Roster status- is given to organisations that do not fit the above mentioned but are deemed to occasionally be useful within the narrow remit of expertize that they possess.
The only thing that is growing faster than the number of civil society actors is their influence. These actors are not only more visible in the political west but are steady gaining grounds in the Global South and Soviet bloc.
In Transnational Associations Kerstin Martens argues that it was the end of the Cold War that gave the opportunity for NGOs to enter center stage with states on the global and political platform (2003, p1)
In some instances NGOs as independant organisation hold governments to account but NGOs are not always opponents to governmental institutions and do not always challenge their policies. Rather, they are often directly involved in the design of policies and may shape political processes from inside the official arenas. For example, at the United Nations, NGOs are significantly involved in the activities and performances of the intergovernmental organizations (Ibid).
Their ability to aquire, detailed and accurate information, mobilise big crowds, raise awareness, network across borders and stay current and up to date makes up for their lack of legal enforcement rightfully give NGOs a essential role in 21st century politics.
The link takes to to the memoars of former diplomat WR Roberts where he talks about the evolution of diplomacy from a diplomats perspective:
http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=7&paper=2712
Videos on the importance of NGOs
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=importance+of+ngos&hl=en&sa=X&prmd=v&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=VIP6TIWQMMWXhQe14u2dCw&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=7&ved=0CCcQqwQwBg
Journals
Transnational Associations Kerstin Martens, 2003, p1
It is difficicult to evaluate the evolution of diplomacy as it is an ongoing matter still very much open to scruteny and debate. The most significant alteration to the conduct of diplomacy in my opinion is the emergence of non governmental organisations and multinational corporations and their growing importance on the stage of global politics.
It is however important to note that the importance of multinational corporations in diplomacy stem back to the rise of liberalism as business and economi inevitably have layed at the core of governmental negotiations.
With that said I believe the most significant change to diplomacy is the emergance of NGOs from low politics to high politics and I believe the evolution can be illustrated by the different classifications. Today there are three statuses achievable by NGOs:
General consultative status- In 1946 ECOSOC granted 41 NGOs with consultative status. These organisations covered a majority of the agenda items of ECOSOC and were large and established with significant geographical reach. The number of consultative NGOs have steadily grown since the 40s.
Special consultative status- given to NGOs is more of a recent phenomena. This status is not easily aquired and is granted to organisations with expertize within a one or a few economic or social area.
Roster status- is given to organisations that do not fit the above mentioned but are deemed to occasionally be useful within the narrow remit of expertize that they possess.
The only thing that is growing faster than the number of civil society actors is their influence. These actors are not only more visible in the political west but are steady gaining grounds in the Global South and Soviet bloc.
In Transnational Associations Kerstin Martens argues that it was the end of the Cold War that gave the opportunity for NGOs to enter center stage with states on the global and political platform (2003, p1)
In some instances NGOs as independant organisation hold governments to account but NGOs are not always opponents to governmental institutions and do not always challenge their policies. Rather, they are often directly involved in the design of policies and may shape political processes from inside the official arenas. For example, at the United Nations, NGOs are significantly involved in the activities and performances of the intergovernmental organizations (Ibid).
Their ability to aquire, detailed and accurate information, mobilise big crowds, raise awareness, network across borders and stay current and up to date makes up for their lack of legal enforcement rightfully give NGOs a essential role in 21st century politics.
The link takes to to the memoars of former diplomat WR Roberts where he talks about the evolution of diplomacy from a diplomats perspective:
http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=7&paper=2712
Videos on the importance of NGOs
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=importance+of+ngos&hl=en&sa=X&prmd=v&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=VIP6TIWQMMWXhQe14u2dCw&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=7&ved=0CCcQqwQwBg
Journals
Transnational Associations Kerstin Martens, 2003, p1
Diplomacy for me Today
The first association my mind makes when it hears the word 'diplomacy' today is- the art of negotiations. The ability to achieve high-stake goals with an evidence based approach to the matter by a charismatic and confident person or group. A country is represented by multiple entities; its flag, currency, culture, sitting government, national anthem and sport etc. But individuals residing outside state boundaries carry a notion of representation- whether they want to or not. The power of the individual has been acknowledged since the beginning of civilisation and hence the state desire for diplomats.
They are individuals just like you and me but with skills of persuasion and expertise. That I believe has not and will not change. However, the way they conduct their business, the means they adopt to chief their goals has changed. This I believe is a natural transition as the state threats have changed. With the end of the Cold War the world saw a significant alteration in security threats, with phenomenas such as state-sponsored terrorism and terrorist franchise, we saw the phenomena that is globalisation introduce new depths of interdependence and the explosive emergence of the internet that made the impossible possible and that brought the far near and we saw free trade zones.
With this said the transformation of diplomatic conduct from 'old' to 'new' I believe was called for. The previously stated phenomenas has made it possible for the average Joe to stay up-to-date with the latest international/national news and this has breeded a generation of people that want to be involved, that want to be consulted and that oppose secrecy. This generation has with the help of the internet and the media turned itself into a governmental pressure group and a force to be reckoned with- the Wikileaks showed us that.
The significant increase of summits and international forums come as an answer to the publics demand to remain in the light of whats is going on politically and whether or not the real decisions are being made in the public eye or not I believe is irrelevant- the fact that they exist is the point. Heads of State and their respective governments are making huge efforts and spending a lot of resources to maintain the illusion of public involvement. This does however not change the fact that secrecy and private portals remain at the core of decision making and this I believe will not change.
They are individuals just like you and me but with skills of persuasion and expertise. That I believe has not and will not change. However, the way they conduct their business, the means they adopt to chief their goals has changed. This I believe is a natural transition as the state threats have changed. With the end of the Cold War the world saw a significant alteration in security threats, with phenomenas such as state-sponsored terrorism and terrorist franchise, we saw the phenomena that is globalisation introduce new depths of interdependence and the explosive emergence of the internet that made the impossible possible and that brought the far near and we saw free trade zones.
With this said the transformation of diplomatic conduct from 'old' to 'new' I believe was called for. The previously stated phenomenas has made it possible for the average Joe to stay up-to-date with the latest international/national news and this has breeded a generation of people that want to be involved, that want to be consulted and that oppose secrecy. This generation has with the help of the internet and the media turned itself into a governmental pressure group and a force to be reckoned with- the Wikileaks showed us that.
The significant increase of summits and international forums come as an answer to the publics demand to remain in the light of whats is going on politically and whether or not the real decisions are being made in the public eye or not I believe is irrelevant- the fact that they exist is the point. Heads of State and their respective governments are making huge efforts and spending a lot of resources to maintain the illusion of public involvement. This does however not change the fact that secrecy and private portals remain at the core of decision making and this I believe will not change.
Exploitation of Natural Resources
The exploitation of whales has been a fact for many centuries, from coastal to international waters, from one side of the pole to the other. Despite excessive devastation of species it was not until quite recently that states and non-governmental organisations attempted to regulate whaling on an international level.
Intergovernmental agreements closely followed the 1930s competition between whaling companies that competed in the Antarctic. These agreements together culminated the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling in 1946 which created the International Whaling Commission.
The term ‘common interest’ appeared quite early in international treaties and mainly dealt with the exploitation of natural resources. The Convention for the Regulation of Whaling states in its preamble “the interest of the world in safeguarding for the future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks” and that it is beneficiary for all of mankind to achieve restore the level of whale stocks as rapidly as possible (Segger, 2004:121).
The exhaustion of fish resources started off as a local issue, but in the late twentieth century it gained ground and grew in dimensions and has since then caught the attention of the states whom have acknowledged that it is in the interest of all to measure and maintain a maximum sustainable yield (Ibid:122).
The Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes states that “water resources shall be managed so that needs of the present generation are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”
The Law of Sea Convention 1995 (LOSC) brought with it a number of radical elements its’ core purpose was still to implement the 1982 Convention. Article 117 imposes on all member states the individual and joint duty to take the necessary measures for the conservation if the living resources of the high seas.
Article 118 imposes a correlative duty on states to cooperate in the conservation and management of high seas living resources.
There is a general consensus that the position of the duty in conservation is a primary duty. This is strengthened by Article 119 which provides the means and structure for the member states to act in a way which is compatible with the primary obligation (Boyle, 1999:146). This same Article requires the member states to take measures to ‘maintain and restore populations of harvested species at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield’. The problem with this is that these measures are based on the scientific evidence, which at its best according to E.D Brown is “rather vague figures” (Ibid: 147).
Statistics show that whales reproduce between 1 per cent and 4 per cent of the total population every year, while the money from a dead whale would most likely reap approximately 10 per cent interest in the bank (Gillespie, 1997:58).
If we were to look at this purely economically, it would be more logical for the whaling industry to hunt and kill as many whales as possible, reinvest the proceeds and with that maximise the profit, sustainable harvesting could not compete (Ibid.).
Therefore in striking a balance one could not look to the heads of the commercial industry for incentives for conservation as the outcome would at its best be minimal.
Furthermore, there is a major problem with ecological economies that result in ‘interchangeable natural capital’ de to fluctuating economic value. Such problems highlight the reality that ‘nature’s services will be at times made redundant or substituted’ (Ibid: 50).
Fluctuation in economic value may also be damaging in other ways, an example is; in the mid 1980s when the whaling moratorium entered the market the price of whale teeth went from next to nil to over two hundred dollars each and it is these prices that are the driving force behind the process of extinction (Ibid.).
The protection and maintenance of culture is recognized as a legitimate pursuit by the international community (ibid: 99). Notably, the international community and their representing diplomats have openly promoted widening participation within culture and gone further to demand respect for diversity and its enhancement. It has strongly been argued that as the result of cultural consideration, special arrangements should be made to exempt certain states from environmental objectives. This has mainly been argued by the Inuit, Norwegians and the Japanese in the area concerning whaling (Ibid: 100).
Japan has accumulated a questionable reputation and created protest within the international community due to its whaling program in the Northern Pacific Ocean. It is anticipated that a full scale trade war will set off as a response to Japans refusal to reform its whaling practises. The conservationists alongside the international community allege that Japan is violating the conventional and environmental regulations/laws. Japan is denying defiance and is defending its whaling practises as compatible with the regulations set by the International Whaling commission which is the body that has been given the role to govern international whaling policy.
In September 2004 the US responded to the public outrage by attempting to pressure Japan to re-examine its whaling policy by limiting Japanese fishing rights within the American exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The US went even further and considered imposing trade sanctions but never enforced it; the suggestion is however still on the table. The Japanese diplomats have contested the potential US sanction and have argued that it would be in breach of the requirements of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
If a party state grants permission for scientific whaling research, the IWC does not explicitly need approve. However, the IWC has passes numerous resolutions criticizing Japans whaling activities. Japanese diplomats stick to their early justification that the main purpose for whaling is to examine the impact of whales on the resources of fisheries in the North Pacific where whales and humans compete for the same fish. They claim they have legitimate claim as it is interfering with the business of human resources for food. Furthermore, they argue that non-lethal tests and photography would not provide them with the sufficient data required to carry out that research. Japan has continued to object the critique regarding its whaling practises by stating that bryde’s whales and a small take of sperm only will have a negligent impact on the whale stocks.
Intergovernmental agreements closely followed the 1930s competition between whaling companies that competed in the Antarctic. These agreements together culminated the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling in 1946 which created the International Whaling Commission.
The term ‘common interest’ appeared quite early in international treaties and mainly dealt with the exploitation of natural resources. The Convention for the Regulation of Whaling states in its preamble “the interest of the world in safeguarding for the future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks” and that it is beneficiary for all of mankind to achieve restore the level of whale stocks as rapidly as possible (Segger, 2004:121).
The exhaustion of fish resources started off as a local issue, but in the late twentieth century it gained ground and grew in dimensions and has since then caught the attention of the states whom have acknowledged that it is in the interest of all to measure and maintain a maximum sustainable yield (Ibid:122).
The Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes states that “water resources shall be managed so that needs of the present generation are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”
The Law of Sea Convention 1995 (LOSC) brought with it a number of radical elements its’ core purpose was still to implement the 1982 Convention. Article 117 imposes on all member states the individual and joint duty to take the necessary measures for the conservation if the living resources of the high seas.
Article 118 imposes a correlative duty on states to cooperate in the conservation and management of high seas living resources.
There is a general consensus that the position of the duty in conservation is a primary duty. This is strengthened by Article 119 which provides the means and structure for the member states to act in a way which is compatible with the primary obligation (Boyle, 1999:146). This same Article requires the member states to take measures to ‘maintain and restore populations of harvested species at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield’. The problem with this is that these measures are based on the scientific evidence, which at its best according to E.D Brown is “rather vague figures” (Ibid: 147).
Statistics show that whales reproduce between 1 per cent and 4 per cent of the total population every year, while the money from a dead whale would most likely reap approximately 10 per cent interest in the bank (Gillespie, 1997:58).
If we were to look at this purely economically, it would be more logical for the whaling industry to hunt and kill as many whales as possible, reinvest the proceeds and with that maximise the profit, sustainable harvesting could not compete (Ibid.).
Therefore in striking a balance one could not look to the heads of the commercial industry for incentives for conservation as the outcome would at its best be minimal.
Furthermore, there is a major problem with ecological economies that result in ‘interchangeable natural capital’ de to fluctuating economic value. Such problems highlight the reality that ‘nature’s services will be at times made redundant or substituted’ (Ibid: 50).
Fluctuation in economic value may also be damaging in other ways, an example is; in the mid 1980s when the whaling moratorium entered the market the price of whale teeth went from next to nil to over two hundred dollars each and it is these prices that are the driving force behind the process of extinction (Ibid.).
The protection and maintenance of culture is recognized as a legitimate pursuit by the international community (ibid: 99). Notably, the international community and their representing diplomats have openly promoted widening participation within culture and gone further to demand respect for diversity and its enhancement. It has strongly been argued that as the result of cultural consideration, special arrangements should be made to exempt certain states from environmental objectives. This has mainly been argued by the Inuit, Norwegians and the Japanese in the area concerning whaling (Ibid: 100).
Japan has accumulated a questionable reputation and created protest within the international community due to its whaling program in the Northern Pacific Ocean. It is anticipated that a full scale trade war will set off as a response to Japans refusal to reform its whaling practises. The conservationists alongside the international community allege that Japan is violating the conventional and environmental regulations/laws. Japan is denying defiance and is defending its whaling practises as compatible with the regulations set by the International Whaling commission which is the body that has been given the role to govern international whaling policy.
In September 2004 the US responded to the public outrage by attempting to pressure Japan to re-examine its whaling policy by limiting Japanese fishing rights within the American exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The US went even further and considered imposing trade sanctions but never enforced it; the suggestion is however still on the table. The Japanese diplomats have contested the potential US sanction and have argued that it would be in breach of the requirements of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
If a party state grants permission for scientific whaling research, the IWC does not explicitly need approve. However, the IWC has passes numerous resolutions criticizing Japans whaling activities. Japanese diplomats stick to their early justification that the main purpose for whaling is to examine the impact of whales on the resources of fisheries in the North Pacific where whales and humans compete for the same fish. They claim they have legitimate claim as it is interfering with the business of human resources for food. Furthermore, they argue that non-lethal tests and photography would not provide them with the sufficient data required to carry out that research. Japan has continued to object the critique regarding its whaling practises by stating that bryde’s whales and a small take of sperm only will have a negligent impact on the whale stocks.
Public Diplomacy or Propaganda?
"Public diplomacy . . . deals with the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies. It encompasses dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy; the cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries; the interaction of private groups and interests in one country with those of another; the reporting of foreign affairs and its impact on policy; communication between those whose job is communication, as between diplomats and foreign correspondents; and the processes of inter-cultural communications. Central to public diplomacy is the transnational flow of information and ideas."
This was the definition given by The Murrow Centre in one of its earlier brochure when defining 'public opinion'. The interesting buzz surrounding updates on public diplomacy has been differentiating it from propaganda. The fact that propaganda can be evidence or fact based blurres this distinction. Therefore state sponsored diplomacy using ideas, information, or other material to win people over to a given doctrine can and should be viewed critically. That’s why it does not come as a surprise to me that a lot of my fellow students view the use of public diplomacy with scepticism. I found two interesting cases that illustrate the potential similarities between public diplomacy and propaganda:
• In 1955, Oren Stephens, author of Facts to a Candid World: America's Overseas Information Program, called such programs (now known as "public diplomacy"), "propaganda." He referred to the Declaration of Independence as being "first and foremost a propaganda tract."
• In 1961, Wilson Dizard, in the first book to be written specifically about USIA, which was then about eight years old, wrote: The United States has been in the international propaganda business, off and on, for a long time . . . propaganda played a crucial role in the war of independence." (see http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/07/internet_diplomacy)
Unlike traditional diplomacy that mainly dealt with state-state business contemporary diplomacy is forced to encompass the newly emerged actors on the political stag. It deals not only with governments but essentially with non-governmental organizations and individuals. I believe a key feature to public diplomacy is the flow of information. The internet has taken away g
over government monopoly on what information actually reaches the public and I believe a good and recent example of that is the WikiLeaks and the leakage of diplomatic confidential information. Before the press and the respective editors controlled what information they wanted to leak and what data would be too sensitive to give to the public- now 22 year old hackers can choose to publicise highly confidential information regading corruption in Kenya, Sara Palin's, financial improprieties in Iceland, procedures of detainees in Guantanamo Bay as well as secret footage from Iraq (see http://www.economist.com/node/16335810).
Another good illustration of the growing relevance of public diplomacy is the American proposition of 'Radio Free Europe' which was thought of as a forum for the government to give out accurate and relevant information by the US government, which was originally paid for by the CIA. But now, just as during the Cold War it is highly difficult to fund a state broadcaster without jeopardising its credibility.
After the election in Iran last summer the State Department asked twitter to postpone a scheduled service interruption and either State or Twitter leaked the request (see http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/07/internet_diplomacy).
''…the kind of message that it sends to the rest of the world—i.e. that Google, Facebook and Twitter are now just extensions of the U.S. State Department—may simply endanger the lives of those who use such services in authoritarian countries. It's hardly surprising that the Iranian government has begun to view all Twitter users with the utmost suspicion; everyone is now guilty by default''
(see full quote on http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983004575073911147404540.html
Alec Ross, senior advisor for innovation to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is a candid speaker on public diplomacy and he said this about (check out the youtube link below for full speech):
...even last year, in this age of rampant peer-to-peer connectivity, the State Department was still boxed into the world of communiqués, diplomatic cables and slow government-to-government negotiations, what I like to call “white guys with white shirts and red ties talking to other white guys with white shirts and red ties, with flags in the background, determining the relationships.”
You don’t get it, old man. This is the internet. Everything’s different now.
Check out Alec Ross, Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen debate 21st Statecraft and public diplomacy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C6_uRGSqtM
My understanding of Diplomacy today
What i understand under Diplomacy. First i would like to give a short definition of Diplomacy. Actually there is not exact definition of "Diplomacy" but i will try to explain in my own words. Diplomacy is the area of politics where negotiations play a key role in order to resolve all tiny and big problems between governments. My understanding of Diplomacy is wide, there are too many factors and issues in diplomacy. If we compare the diplomacy in previous times , for example about 40-50 years and now, there is big difference, and it is because of the technological advances, technology innovate new things due to which , diplomatic relations became more mobile and easy accessed. Computers,mobile phones are all made life easier, but they have disadvantages as well as advantages. For example : electronic spying. "British spying on UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was revealed in late February 2004 in an interview with Clare Short, an outspoken former member of the Tony Blair cabinet who resigned in the summer of 2003 and who has called on Blair to do the same". (Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean Robert Leguey-Feilleux, page 94) This fact shows us that technological advances could damage politicians reputation as well, spying issues could easily be hidden in all buildings. Another example is the US embassy in Moscow. "In 1985 , after a further 7 years , when the building was nearing completion, the whole project came to a shuddering halt: US security experts discovered tens of thousands of microscopic listening devices embedded in the concrete walls of the eight-story structure".( Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean Robert Leguey-Feilleux, page 95) Now i would like to move to the role of non-state actors such as NGOs and MNCs in diplomatic relations, NGOs has its influence on governments decisions and also may affect the diplomatic processes as well. NGOs at the same time doing good job in establishing relationship with states, but it depends on NGOs not all of them want to participate and negotiate with governments. "When NGOs could not reach an agreement , they served as invaluable back channels, letting both sides know where problems lay and where a compromise might be found". ( Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean Robert Leguey-Feilleux, page 107) NGOs also participated in UN conferences and to some extend succeeded there. In short, NGOs has its bad and good sides for Diplomacy. "In the countries in which they operate , MNCs provide new technology" MNCs also provide jobs: they employ more than 73 million people". ( Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean Robert Leguey-Feilleux, page 115) International organizations and groupings also are key actors in International relations and in diplomatic relations. Today diplomatic relations are existed in order to create opportunities and chances for negotiations between governments and countries , in order to establish strong political and economic relations.
The New Face: Public Diplomacy
The technological advances over the last decade ushered in the start of the communications age. This was significant for diplomacy as it had a new tool to utilize, and suddenly the notion of ‘soft power’ became attractive and obtainable. This new public diplomacy consisted of created a brand for a state or individual and incorporated a role for the public which would be to determine the credibility of the actor being branded. If we look at Barrack Obama’s election campaign, he seemed to strike the perfect balance of hard and soft power, creating a brand for himself unlike any other presidential candidate before him. He was kind, fatherly, patriotic but from a mixed religious background – something which worked both in his favour and against him. He was an eloquent speaker and well educated and spoke in a language which everyone could understand. He represented hope and progress and his face was adorned on billboards, badges and even t-shirts worn by Beyonce and Katy Perry. He had actors, singers, politicians and civilians singing his praises – he epitomised what successful public diplomacy should look like. Unfortunately for Obama however, it seems that once in office, he has relied a little too much on his brand and use of soft power and has since found himself heavily criticised. Obama was credible to start, however as his term continues, he is viewed to have made little real significant change and his image is slowly beginning to tarnish (www.whitehousedossier.com).
Joseph Nye acknowledges the potential problems with public diplomacy. He explains that the chain of communication can have a Chinese whisper effect, as he puts it ‘its weakness is its inability to influence how the message is perceived’. Nye also asserts that public diplomacy can be used in the wrong way, in the instance of China for example, who attempted to use public diplomacy as a tool for damage control. China tried to boost its soft power image after the widely publicised repressive action in Tibet by holding the 2008 Olympics. The conflict in Tibet saw Tibetan monks being assaulted leading to the involvement of Tibetan civilians. Chinese state officials and media vowed to ‘resolutely crush’ any pro-independence protesting or campaigning, this use of harsh vocabulary doing nothing for their image (http://news.bbc.co.uk). However as many academics would agree, one of the limitations of public diplomacy is that it is nearly impossible to sell a bad or problem product, this being such a case. Public opinion of China and its human rights abuse record remained unchanged after a spectacular Olympic show. Nye believes that for public diplomacy to work, the use of ‘smart’ power is favourable. This smart power, he believes, understands when soft or hard power is needed but also acknowledges the importance of promoting something credible and the importance of the role of civil society in helping to generate soft power. Nye uses terrorism as a clear example of when smart power should be used. As Nye argues, military power is not enough to combat terrorism, instead what is needed is to target the minds and hearts of these individuals to prove you to be credible, introspective and empathetic. Ultimately, military power beats machines, not minds and opinions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7299221.stm (2008), China and Tibet, accessed 12/01/2011.
www.whitehousedossier.com/2010/10/20/obamas-attacks-fail-brand-ruins/ Koffler. K, (2010), Obama’s attacks fail, and his Brand is in Ruins, accessed 12/01/2011.
www.project-syndicate.org Nye. J, (2010), The New Public Diplomacy, accessed 08/11/2010.
Image 1 'Fail', accessed on 12/01/2011 at roguejew.wordpress.com
Image 2 'Con-Man', accessed on 12/01/2011 at: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/
Image 3 'Conflict Olympics', accessed on 12/01/2011 at: http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/39000/Conflict-Olympics-39248.jpg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)