The New Diplomacy at any costs?

A prime factor of the new diplomacy is its inclusive and open character. More actors, such as NGOs can take part in the diplomatic process and negotiations, or at least their results, are made open to the public through the mass media. As a result, it has been argued, the wider public is integrated and diplomacy becomes more democratic.

However, recent development might just go a step too far. Wikileaks, an internet platform on which anonymous documents can be published to reveal unethical conduct of governments, announced that starting today they will release a quarter-million of American diplomatic cables.

Over the weekend, The Guardian, the New York Times, and the German newspaper Der Spiegel already released some of information about the content of the documents, giving a premonition of what the US will face throughout the next days and weeks.

The White House already contacted its allies warning them about the release of the cables, stating “We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorised disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information” (New York Times).

The documents contain the daily communication between the US embassies around the world and the US State Department, most of them sent over the last three years.

Despite almost insulting descriptions of other leaders, such as Putin the “alpha-dog”, Afghan President Hamid Karzei as “driven by paranoia”, and Angela Merkel as “rarely creative”, the documents also comprise the US strategies and evaluations of sensitive contemporary issues in World Politics.

In the documents, Pakistan’s instability is discussed, as well as the US battle against al-Qaida in Yemen. So is highly suspicious behaviour indicating corruption in Afghanistan, as Vice President Massoud carried 52 Million Dollar in cash around when he visited United Arab Emirates last year. The US will also owe the United Nations an explanation, why Hillary Clinton signed a directive instructing 30 ambassadors to spy on UN officials and diplomats.

The next days will show how much the disclosure of these documents will really affect American diplomatic relations. Berlusconi, for example, seemed to have a good laugh reading about himself being incompetent, snobbish and ineffective. If other countries will share Berlusconi’s humour and treat the documents lightly is uncertain.

Nevertheless, it remains highly questionable if the inclusiveness of diplomacy should go that far. If diplomats are no longer able to act freely and if they cannot build on confidentiality, it might just come to diplomatic standstill. Secrecy, as much as openness, can be a bad and a good force. Secrecy can cover unethical conduct, but it can also be the only solution in situations of conflict to find a compromise which is saving everyone’s face and is avoiding diplomatic crisis.

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy

The face of diplomacy has changed with valuable constant face lift. The old doctrine is still existent in terms of secrecy but the field of employing diplomacy has gone through important transformations.

Diplomacy has gone through refined and inspiring channels to promote state interests in the 21st century.

Public diplomacy has for example: given a strategic definition of countries in the sense of rebranding, realignment and reconstruction. This particular type of diplomacy has shaped the perception of countries in the international system and continues to do so. Obama’s speech like I discussed last week was a practical tool to publicly reshape the perception of the Islamic world into a proponent of better cooperation with America stating: ‘America is not an enemy of Islam’. This in my opinion is a very critical statement at a time of Islamic fundamentalism. The Geo-political position of Indonesia was a suitable stage to declare a new form of American – Arab relationship. Analysts responded: ‘ this will be his most high-profile attempt to engage the Islamic world since a landmark address in Cairo in June 2009’. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11723440
There is no better way of declaring a new era of cooperation than the use of public diplomacy in this instance to avoid cultural and social anarchy as the world has become anarchic in theories of realist conceptions.

Multilateral diplomacy defines the fundamental interconnectedness of the global world. Multilateral diplomacy projects not only politics but relations and ethical barometer to measure and secure balances of mistrust, abuses and war critiques. This type of diplomacy has a human face as I always explain to my peers. It is has a functional capacity to provide hope and stability across boundaries.

Multilateral diplomacy has paved the way for the pursuit for peace, security and understanding key characteristics of functional aspects of different countries, indeed, the stakes are high but multilateral diplomacy is truly of great importance in a world of colliding cultures and constant changes. Asian migrant workers for example had been experiencing domestic abuses in Saudi Arabia but the use of multilateral diplomacy quelled off violent tensions. ‘President Yudhoyono of Indonesia expressed his anger and told his ministers that he wanted “all-out diplomacy.” And the article continues: ‘Diplomacy has multiple channels. Reaching bilateral agreements is desirable due to their direct nature, but since the odds are stacked against Indonesia, multilateral diplomacy should be the top priority’.http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/multilateral-diplomacy-is-the-key-to-protecting-the-rights-of-migrant-workers/408741. Track II diplomacy has also reshaped the new future of the new diplomacy.

Track II diplomacy in theory has changed the face of diplomacy in a humane way. This type of diplomacy involves retired military and civil officials, public figures, social activist and academic scholars. The in-depth skills/outcome attributed to this type of diplomacy is very effective but it lacks credibility as it operates outside official government parameters, many will argue. However, it should not be sidelined for lacking government influence. An article from the Clingendael institute’s Dalia Dassa Kaye gave constructive arguments for the ‘use of this kind of diplomacy to achieve the Oslo accords between the Israelis and Palestine’s’. http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2005/20050601_cdsp_paper_diplomacy_3_kaye.pdf

Adversaries could use this type of diplomacy and find lasting solutions to discuss issues affecting them in a personal way. Track II diplomacy plays a very vital role in the finding of solutions to regional conflicts. Greater appreciations for stakeholders are guaranteed through the use of Track II diplomacy in conflicts deeply rooted on ethnocentric or religious lines.

To conclude, open diplomacy has paved a very healthy path for all stakeholders including, NGO’s, Multinational co operations and social groups to interact with government on all levels for a better organized world. Secrecy in the old type of diplomacy indeed marginalized the international system, coherently, activating for example: Islamic Fundamentalism. I have always argued that, if the International system was quiet open like now, many stakeholders on the ground through the use of multilateral and Track II diplomacy could have long ago identified the up rise in factionalism and fundamentalism.

The new diplomacy

The very concept of the new diplomacy it seems to me has been formed with the intention of challenging the idea of(national) sovereignty exercised by the sates. The public has been given(apparently) the chance to have a say in the debates, decisions, human rights infringements. In other words to take active actions again ts all this. Nevertheless it must be mentioned that this liberty that has been given to the public it is very rarely taken into consideration and that it is merely an illusion rather then a exercisable right that can be put into practice by the public opinion( disagreement or agreement). The New Diplomacy is still evolving,it is far from being at its peak. From this concept of new diplomacy, the public opinion being given the chance to question,many issues are arising which are debating, questioning, doubting, criticizing the very idea of the legitimacy of a state s intervention in another states internal affairs and decision taking in matters of national security. Many argue that sovereignty is the only mean by which the international chaos can be avoided, some argue that behind the concept of sovereignty(national) many unjust acts are taking place and many infringements of human rights along with the abuses of power are taking place.( http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/Volume5/June-August2000/VolumeVN2EdwardFinn.pdf).
The concept of new diplomacy is but another way by which the media, news papers and television are controlling the public opinion.It is a concept that has at its basis the sharing of power between the state rulers and the ruled, a shared sovereignty between the public and the state representatives. Jean Jacques Rousseau has proposed that the only way that a society can function well and in the strict interest of their citizen is by educating their opinion and by allowing them to take active part in the state decisions.(Rousseau,2007). This concept of new diplomacy is also about making the knowledge and the access to information accessible to every single one of us with the ultimate goal of transparency in the political affairs and actions of a government.
Nevertheless another question is arising from this very concept of shared power, many argue that the public cannot nor does it have the proper interpretation of the political issues in order to decide effectively on the matter. The Norwegian play writer, Henrik Ibsen, in his play" An enemy of the people" , has challenged this very concept of the rightness of the majority over the rightness of the individual.
In his play, Ibsen suggest that more often the individual is more often right then the mass(the majority)of the people which are often easily influenceble and manipulated by propaganda. That fore it is very doubtful that the new diplomacy can have good results as more often the majority of the public opinion is more easily controllable especially in our modern days.


Ibsen,H(1997)"An enemy of the people".London:Faber.

Rousseau,J.J.(2007)"The social contract and Discourses".US:BN Publishing.

http://www.asil.org/ajil/jackson.pdf

http://eadi.org/gc2005/confweb/papersps/Fredrik_Soderbaum.pdf

http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/Volume5/June-August2000/VolumeVN2EdwardFinn.pdf

The new diplomacy

As a continuation of my previous posting i would like to clarify that i recognize the potentiality of a very strong influential public opinion.

The Multilateral Vs. Conference Diplomacy

Many people think that multilateral diplomacy and conference diplomacy is the same thing, they are conducted with some similarities through meetings and voting in some circumstances. however, they are two different practices diplomacy. Moreover, the multilateral is defined as the practice in which three or more groups are taking part in the negotiations. Therefore, head of states or states officials arrange a meeting to negotiate about an issue that involves a group of countries, states which form a Union like the (EU), or states that are part of a coalition like (NATO). They do meet in public and open to the all media like talks, votes, etc. However, most of the negotiations are conducted in secret in the corridors of the meeting venue, others during lunch breaks. As well, most of the lobbying is done before or in between the meetings where pressure groups attempt to influence decision makers. Therefore, like in the “old” diplomacy, secrecy still in use every time it is needed.
Now we talk about the conference diplomacy. It means, a large number of officials meeting. Not necessarily like in the multilateral diplomacy. The conference diplomacy meeting do not have to be between more than three states. Moreover, it could involve only two states but with large number of officials. As well, conferences could last for few days continually. Moreover, officials with the same work interests come together, not to negotiate issues as in multilateral practice but they come together to discuss their views about important topics that they have in common. Therefore, the state officials meet to have a formal discussion in order to find better solutions, which will then be advisable to executives in the states involved in such meetings to achieve good outcomes when applied in all aspects.
Conferences as well, are practiced openly in front of public and the media. However, the secrecy element is used a lot. Moreover, most of the decisions are taken behind closed doors. Where the discussions are may be less conferential but more bilateral, multilateral, etc. Moreover, officials give their views to each other more clearly and they do the lobbying either to pass or to stop resolutions. Jeff Berridge claims that officials cannot negotiate in the open and in public. However, they should negotiate in secrecy. Therefore, if they give concessions to the other parties, they do not get pressure from the public which could be unbearable in the posit situation.

Public Diplomacy

"Public Diplomacy is the modern name for white propaganda directed chiefly at foreign publics".( Diplomacy, Theory and Practice 4th edition, G.R. Berridge, page 179) I would like to mention that public diplomacy is something similar to propaganda, but it is not the same thing. About recent events which shows the importance of public diplomacy i would like to mention about the spread of Islamist thinking, which was mainly focused on influencing the West. Especially after 9/11 events the opinion about Muslism was hugely damaged, Al-Qaeda and its header Usama Bin Laden, then the London underground bombings 07/07/07 where lots of innocent people died and also 11 march 2004 train bombings in Madrid , after these accidents the opinion about Muslims changed dramatically, the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" was linked only with Muslims , and i think these associations were hugely impact by Internet resources, Internet spread information quickly and because of internet and television many people learned information about what did terrorists do. But its clear that media shows what it wants to show, and it does not show what it is not in its interests, so therefore it is obvious that USA influenced the media and regulating media. After watching what Al-Qaeda with Usama Bin Laden did to twin towers in New York and also bombings in Madrid and later in London, changed many peoples thinking about Muslim world, majority of people when heard word Muslim or something related with it automatically had bad association with it. And its all work of Media, media created notorious opinion about Muslims. So what i wanted to say is , that Public diplomacy had played role in some dramatic developments , examples are shown above . "The sudden increase of the workload of information officers in Denmarks embassies, especially in Muslim states, following publication of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper in early 2006, it is not difficult to imagine".( Diplomacy, Theory and Practice 4th edition, G.R. Berridge, page 189) Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten , the newspaper announced that that publication about Prophet Muhammad was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam. After these posting in Danish newspaper the world Muslims started to protest against this magazine, and many Muslim countries called back their embassy representatives in Denmark. "Public Diplomacy" is what we call our propaganda; "propagand" is what the other side does. It remains true that this activity , the aim of which is to influence foreign governments by trying to win over their own people, varies enormously in both its character and its targets". ( Diplomacy, Theory and Practice, 4th edition, G.R. Berridge, page 190).

The Legitimate Place of NGOs in Diplomacy

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) have an important role on International Relations in this era. their work vary from charities, associations, lobbying groups etc. In general, they are the pressure groups and the interest groups, which are independent from any governmental involvement in its running and finance. As well it is not profitable like companies and corporations. Therefore, these groups rely entirely from donations they receive from benefactors. Some NGOs are very successful economically like Green Peace, which it has offices in many countries and have a big work force. Moreover, NGOs like we already mentioned, do not accept funding from governments, political parties, or corporations. Their job is to investigate, expose and confront any abuses that occurs in any field they covered. It depends of each organisation speciality. They are recognised by the UN and they do consultative work for the international organisation departments. The UN laid the platform for them to grow in numbers, there is more than two thousands NGOs recognised by the UN now days. NGOs job varies from different fields of concern, they cover issues like the environment, world poverty, women’s rights, racism, etc.

Many oppressed minorities in the world rely on the help of NGOs to carry their concerns to the international community. Some groups depends entirely on them, like the Polisario in Western Sahara. They are the last colonised country in Africa. moreover, they have only minor representations in the big capitals and some countries know only what NGOs collect and report about them. The Tibetans matter as well rely on NGOs organisations which are concerned about them. NGOs are pushing and lobbying in their governments to put pressure on China for the release their oppressed people. The NGOs played big role in changing world regulations on environment, aid and refugees rights. They became very important, popular and much trusted by publics, therefore, many world organisations start to see their importance nationally and internationally, they seeking to build good relations with them to gain some of their legitimacy.

The UN definition of an acceptable NGO

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) statute and the way it has been applied embodies six principles:

• An NGO should support the aims and the work of the UN. However, it is very rare that objections are made to political purposes of NGOs.

• Officially, an NGO should be representative body, with identifiable headquarters, and officers who are responsible to a democratic policy-making conference. In practice, many highly prestigious NGOs, particularly development and environment NGOs, are not membership organisations.

• An NGO cannot be a profit-making body. Individual companies cannot gain consultative status, but trade federations of commercial interests are recognised as NGOs.

• An NGO cannot use or advocate violence.

• An NGO must respect the norm of ‘non-interference in the internal affairs of states’. This means an NGO cannot be a political party, but parties can, like companies, form international federations. Also, NGOs concerned with human rights should not restrict their activities to a particular group, nationality, or country.

• An international NGO is one that is not established by intergovernmental agreement. (Peter Willetts in Baylis and Smith.2008.The Globalisation of World Politics. Chapter 19. Pp.340)

Influencing The public through 'Propaganda'.

When world politics was conducted in the spirit of savagery and wars, many felt let down by policy makers and their cohorts. This formed the danger to appeal to the masses in a coherent dimension, directing world affairs unto the doorsteps of the population. Edward Gullion is thought to have coined the term of public policy and elaborated: ‘it is the manipulation of foreign public’. Public democracy could be described as one of the most fundamental pillars to reach out to foreign publics to consider or justify your actions. I strongly believe that, public diplomacy has strong values of propagatory characteristics which could be analysed as pure propaganda. This kind of diplomacy has changed world politics because, it has gradually shifted the strength of commercial diplomacy to the periphery. Fundamental thesis on this topic derives its understanding from 3 central tenets: 1. Identity creation 2. Managing reputation 3.Image projection. There has also been situations were public diplomacy was considered as an important mechanism in the following case studies: The Netherlands has always been known in global politics as a country with civil liberties and undisputedly championed human rights. The world condemned The Netherlands when they legalized: same sex marriage, prostitution, hard drugs, abortion and euthanasia. These critical issues hadn’t even been considered in the US where civil morality was perceived to be on all time low. The decision to legalize all these ‘taboos’ was criticized in conservative countries but, the Dutch had already masterminded how to explain and justify their actions through the use of public diplomacy all over the world, convincing foreign publics that, the existence of humanity comes with certain civil liberties which it had reflected by legalizing its policies. Austria in another case had distanced itself publicly from the Waldheim affair. Kurt Waldheim was active member of the SS during the rule of Adolf Hitler. Austria made sure it played politics of the masses by trying to appease them and their thoughts through public diplomacy. One surprising twist ensued in 1986 –1992 when he was elected President of the same country which had rejected him as UN Secretary General between 1972 - 1981. Wikileaks publications has also pointed out Pakistan’s staunch support for the Taliban and providing them with logistical support. After floods hitting Pakistan, most countries turned their backs on them for supporting the Taliban but Pakistan stepped forward and requested external support in exchange to battle terror networks, which I perceive as politics of opportunism to appease western public to change their mindset about Pakistan’s role in the war against terror. There are corrosive misapplications when the case of Pakistan is for instance mentioned. Long term use of public diplomacy tends to self-destruct in this case within a period of time, whilst short term public diplomacy identifies underlying issues in the fabric of this particular dispensation. Another thesis is the underestimation of self advertising, which could totally backfire at the hands of assertive post – modern publics. US policy has mostly failed in the Middle East because, it has failed to recognize a new generation who are deep rooted or traumatized through conflicts by US – Israeli alliance. President Obama reached out to the Islamic world, through a speech in Indonesia saying: ‘I have made it a priority to repair this relationship. United States is committed to human progress. America will never be at war with Islam’. This is a typical diplomatic outreach to a particular public by addressing their issues at heart knowing this carefully chosen public could catapult American public policy in a world where mistrust is key. Obama knew the crowd in Indonesia reflected Islamic moderatism and could use such audience to counter balance the power struggle with Islamic fundamentalism.

Obama, the "Softy" of World Politics?

Vast improvements of ICT and the spread of democracies enabled the media and other non-governmental organisations of society to communicate and reveal information about governments and their actions constantly. As Nye argued “information is power, and today a much larger part of the world has access to that power” (Nye, 2004, 105). In this context it has become crucial for governments to work on their reputation and to put more emphasis on soft power in order to enhance the image of their country for the domestic and foreign audience. Soft power does not include the use of force. Quite the opposite, through constant communication and the development of long-lasting relationships governments try to frame an “enabling environment for government policies” (Nye, 2004, 1007). The idea is that states are more likely to affiliate with another state when that state is appealing or attractive to them, creating a desire to be alike by following the same policies. Public diplomacy in one of the means through which soft power is applied. The aim of public diplomacy is to influence foreign governments by reaching out and win over foreign public opinion bypassing their government.

Especially since the events of 9/11 the US government recognised the need for public diplomacy. There was this overwhelming question “Why do they hate us?” and an attempt to answer it by a new approach: the long-term transformation of the Middle East. However, as Nye argued political leaders often mistake culture differences for a lack of information (Nye, 2004, 111). He argued it is crucial to understand the audience; therefore listening can sometimes be more effective than sending out a message. Even though Condoleezza Rice stated in her speech after her nomination as state secretary “If our public diplomacy efforts are to succeed, we cannot close ourselves off from the world... public diplomacy will be a top priority for me”, during the Bush administration the budget devoted to producing soft power remained only 4% of the national’s international affairs budget (Nye, 2004, 123). This was probably mainly because the Bush administration counted on close relationship only with the leader of states.

However, the real change to American public diplomacy came about by President Barack Obama, who is impersonating the soft power approach. He is addressing the public in foreign countries directly bypassing obstacles that the US government might have with foreign governments. Obama's address to the Iranian people on Nowruz, the Iranian new years, is an example of his approach to public diplomacy. In his speech, Obama is making a clear difference between the people and leaders of Iran. Whereas he highlights the communalities between American and Iranian culture in the value of family and the importance of religious holidays, he reminds the Iran leaders of their responsibilities to cooperate in order to engage in the international community.

In its public diplomacy the Obama administration is also using all the new means of communication brought about by the revolution in ICT. The White House has now a Facebook account , a Twitter account and a youtube account. So the public does not even have to buy a newspaper to get the latest on Barack and Michele Obama’s visit to India.

Even though, Obama most certainly has broaden the reach of his messages in terms of the audience and the means of communication, the benefits and the impact of his public diplomacy remain uncertain.

Public diplomacy by all means has its limits. If public diplomacy is not coherent with the policies of a country, the audience will quickly see through that and the country will lose its most important good in nowadays: credibility.

As Joseph Nye suggested, Obama has changed the tone of American policy, but the problems such as Afghanistan are not yet solved (see bbc-link). If his soft power approach will be successful in the long-run remains to be seen. In nowadays where it is almost impossible to keep information secret, public diplomacy is doing first and foremost one thing: it is making governments more accountable and more credible to the picture they are trying to create and sell to their own people, as well as to the foreign audience.

BBC Radio: Is soft power working for Obama?

A German Newspaper "created" Facebook profiles for Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Silvio Berlusconi and Mahmud Ahmadinedschad (to see the other profiles, just click on the picture):

http://sz-magazin.sueddeutsche.de/statisch/fakebook/1

Somebody...Try And Stop Me!!!

"As president, I have a responsibility to support jobs and opportunity for the American people, and I believe the U.S.-India economic relationship can and should be a 'win-win' relationship for both of our countries."

President Barack Obama

President Obama’s visit to India is one that is of great interest to me.

India and the US over the last few years have started to build their relations, with closer defence and trade ties not to mention the civilian nuclear co-corporation accord that was signed in 2008 (by Bush). This deal meant that the US would grant India access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel ...but of course just like many other states the Yanks never do anything for nothing. This was granted on the condition that India would allow the US to inspect its civilian (but not military) nuclear facilities...oh the pressures one faces when one refuses to signs the NPT.

So what’s it all about, I hear you ask...

Well...let me enlighten you my precious...most believe it’s to do with the economy...the American economy that is. The US is facing a real problem with the lack of jobs at the moment which has understandably led many US citizens to lunacy and a lack of confidence in their president’s ability... (No need to mention the mid-tern elections or the Tea Party then!).

The fact of the matter is that India are doing very well and are producing their own global giants which are giving American companies a serious run for their money, 20 years ago India had very few global companies that were of any real creditability in the global market.

Obama’s goal partly is to revive the US economy and gain the public support he once had, in this case India are able to help him with this by securing an estimated $10bn in deals which could untimely create 100,000 jobs for the American people. As it stands India is America's 14th largest trading partner, up from 25th in 2003, no wonder why Obama went on the “public diplomacy/PR” charm offense by making the decision to lift controls on transfer of technology and also massaging the Indians desires and having them salivate over the possibility of becoming members of the United Nations Security Council with Obama’s backing. This was described as a “full endorsement” and also by Brahma Chellaney, professor at the centre for policy research as “not really a genuine assurance”, “These kinds of complexities are all going to be lost in the media reaction. In India we have a tendency to believe the hype".

This visit has not gone without its critics. Pakistan’s government were greatly disappointed in Obama’s support for the Indians in the Security Council as it is said that India have failed to adhere to the UN charter principles by carrying out human rights violations in Kashmir and had also ignored the UN resolution on the region. As the good book say’s “you can not serve two masters”, it is important that the US also focus on building good relations with Pakistan especially in terms of protecting US security...it appears that Obama has decided to play mediator between the two states saying that “Pakistan and India, needed to reduce tensions and resolve their disputes.

I can see a real need for public diplomacy; in this new age it is a necessity. To be taken note of, to have point put across everything needs to be advertised and publicised, the media has become a vital tool and transparency is welcomed amongst the public. Public diplomacy is about gaining support from every angle possible to sustain personal and collaborative interest. This goes beyond support of a government, equally as important is the support of the public whether at home or abroad, public opinion matters. Globalisation has changed the world massively, power is based not solely on the amount of warheads one may have but on the strength of ones economy (as we have seen) and the strength of state relations. Which somehow falls in to a popularity contest as a marketing machine is used to sway public onion. Whether right or wrong, I believe public persuasion is imperative when playing the game of politics ...can we call this propaganda...yes we can.

For further stories and videos relating to this fascinating tale, please check out the following links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1N8Mrk9Gkw (Very interesting watch)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSIo6Xj_NvQ

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Obama-backs-India-for-UN-seat/articleshow/6891755.cms

Hope you enjoyed the read....

LaLa Lola x

Traditional diplomacy

Diplomacy has changed dramatically after the Cold War, due to fast technological advances diplomacy is improving very rapid." Technological development contributes significantly to the evolution of diplomatic method, particularly in the field of communication- and there is much more to come. Chief decision-makers are able to interact directly and almost instantly when the need arises". ( The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux, p 46) These facts shows that in our days "new" diplomacy improving too fast and in that process technological issue plays huge role. "Diplomacy today is made even more complex also by the advent of transnational actors, whose intervention potential is magnified by communication technology, which mobilizes support around the world and wields political power itself. Many NGOs intervene in the diplomatic process in international conferences or as mediators in international conflicts". (The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux, p 46) It is fact that new diplomacy began to emerge in the early 1990s when the era of internet began as well. I think the difference between the "Old" and the "New" diplomacy is in that "old" diplomacy policymaking was more under governmets control, usually governments decided what to do, but under the "new" diplomacy citizens have more rights and have a greater role in influencing the International agenda and the diplomatic relations between countries. Diplomacy was always changing it was always under improving, and developing process, i think that the "old" diplomacy has some relevance to the nowadays diplomacy, because if we look back to history for example: Ancient China, Ancient Greece, Rome and other ancient empires we would find that all that empires had regimes where they have had diplomatic representatives who were trying to establish diplomacy inside the country, and expand the good relationship with other countries, same we can see now in " new" diplomacy where modern diplomats are negotiating with each other in order to improve relationships between countries and also improve their political and economic relations, this is all diplomacy. Although in our days diplomacy improved very much due to the rapid technological investments , there are still something in common with the "old" diplomacy.

Public diplomacy

Public diplomacy.

"THE MOST POTENT WEAPON IN THE HANDS OF THE OPPRESSOR IS THE MIND OF THE OPPRESSED" Steven Biko
Human mind is susceptible to any message transmitted with a lot of passion, however the truth it is not important, public diplomacy has been always used with the sole purpose to influence ideas, perceptions and actions. Either positive or negative, propaganda is a weapon most efficient when it comes to influencing the public opinion.
Having said that i am using this cited in order to accentuate the proportions that a subliminal message can have on human minds.

In his book"The twenty years'crisis", E.H.Carr speaks about propaganda(public diplomacy), as being:"the organized use of power over opinion as a regular instrument of foreign policy is a modern development".(Carr,2001.p121).
However i think that propaganda has been used in the past by many rulers and states. Once its power has been discovered it has become an indispensable tool for the governments that were trying to promote their wars, interests, and future trade interests.
Hitler has used propaganda as a way of communicating with the people (masses), not with the intellectuals. Hitler thought of propaganda as a weapon to manipulate the public.In his book "Mein Kampf", he has dedicated an entire chapter to this aspect of diplomacy and public influence.
States to this present days is using public diplomacy as a non violent way in which countries can be conquered.
I would like to clarify that for me; public diplomacy, is the synonym of propaganda. Having said that i am not implying only a negative side, under contrary it can have and it can be used both ways. As the public does not have a power of decision on the matters concerned with public diplomacy, nor does it have the power to vote against something or for something, is only reduced to watch, analyze and interpret events, political or any other.
In history means of persuasion have always been used, who can deny that, if we look at the history of religion and the way it has been promoted over the years we would clearly see that influencing the public opinion has been always present, perhaps at a lower or a less developed level, nevertheless it has been used.

The question is not whether propaganda should be used, the question is why and how it is used. The very concept of propaganda is seen as being negative,however how is one to promote their interest and their ideas if not by conveying them to the public and by promoting them in order to achieve followers, so the problem stems from the reason that propaganda has been used so far and the purposes that are hidden behind this concept. It is the negative way in which the concept is put into practice, is as if the public is being used and not informed in a manner that would lead to a truthful conclusion. Public diplomacy is as if is void of any traces of veracity and substantial meaning. Is the public to be treated as objects in order to achieve justification for the unjust acts or power abuses that a government or a political leader is to commit?, is the public to be mislead by the so called national interests, peace and security ideas or ideals? The reason why the public reacts strongly against propaganda is this; the mass manipulation with the intention of negative suppressing and diminishing of the truth and of public meaningful contribution.

A good example would be the way in which the media has handled the case of Milosevic and his trial in Hague. In this matter the way that Milosevic was presented by the media as a major and sole responsible for war crimes have influenced the way in which he is perceived by the public. No one can deny that Milosevic was responsible for many miss deeds, however he was not alone in this matter. The intervention made by USA in his country had the same effect and the ultimately lead to the same damaging and distractions. In the article written by Edward S. Herman he elaborates on the way in which public diplomacy/ propaganda was used in this case:"feature of the U.S. system is that this propaganda service is provided without government censorship or coercion, by self- censorship alone, with the truth of the propaganda line internalized by the numerous media participants. This internalization of belief makes it possible for media personnel to be enthusiastic spokespersons in pushing the party line, thereby giving it a naturalness that is lacking in crude systems of government-enforced propaganda."(www.globalresearch.ca/index. accessed 18/01/2011).


In general it is believed that public diplomacy it is often used by governments in order to promote the needs and the views of the respective government and all this in the name of national interest or even at a larger scale(globally).

The concept of public diplomacy is very convoluted and often the subliminal messages that are hidden behind it are so strong that it is very difficult to distinguish among the reality of a fact or the implication that it has entirely.
The concept of public diplomacy in our time has become a system, and often USA(great powers) is accused of using it because it is believed that it appeals to a large portion of the public. It is believed that the majority of the public " doesn't recognize the media's propaganda role, and accepts the media's own self-image as independent, adversary, truth-seeking, and helping the public to "assert meaningful control over the political process".(www.human-nature.com/reason).


Public diplomacy has been recently used to clarify and to help improve the image of the USA trough the recent elected President Obama. He has been awarded the peace Nobel price before he had made any concrete foreign policy achievement.(news.bbc.co.uk).
The award that has been given to President Obama it is believed to have been in order to improve the unpleasant image that the previous presidency have had, in other words:a positive image is created for USA trough the means of the Peace Nobel Prize. President Obama has been offered this distinction based solely on the promise that he will change the foreign policies of USA and that he is to promote peace and not war. The fact that he is awarded is part of the subterfuge that is used here to create and to promote the concept of a better state of affairs universally and not only at a national level(not only to improve USA s image).
The public(people) generally likes symbolism's, that fore the award is like a catharsis for the USA and also creates the impression that there will be something positive,that there will be a radical change at all levels:cultural, economic and so on. The abuses of power that have been taking place so far are to take an end with the election of the new President.
Super powers and generally speaking the countries have often recurred to such subterfuges in order to gain the good opinion of the people.



E.H.CARR(2001)"The twenty years'crisis".New York,Palgrave.

Hitler A(1999)Mein Kampf.Boston: Houghton.

http//news.bbc.co.uk

www.human-nature.com/reason/01/herman.

www.globalresearch.ca/index.