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
No comments:
Post a Comment