Public Diplomacy: credibility for effectiveness.

According to the USC Centre on Public Diplomacy at the University of South California (USA), Public Diplomacy (PD) is something that is widely seen as ‘the transparent means by which a sovereign country communicates with publics in other countries aimed at informing and influencing audiences overseas for the purpose of promoting the national interest and advancing its foreign policy goals’ (USC Center on Public Diplomacy).

Different ways are implemented by governments to reach these goals. One of them is student exchange programs. This can be seen as a ‘good way’. Indeed, Leguey-Feilleux sees PD as a synonym for public relation which for him is ‘an extension of the diplomatic mission’ (2009, p.154). On the contrary, Berridge relates public diplomacy to propaganda, which widely and commonly refers to manipulation of public opinion through mass media for political ends (2010, p.179). One example of this could be the activities implemented on PD by the United States after the 9/11 attack.

According to the 2006 CRS Report for Congress U.S Public Diplomacy: Background and the 9/11 Commission Recommendation, during the time prior to 9/11, Congress focus was on political and military power. As the result of that, the U.S Information Agency (USIA), the primary public diplomatic agency, was abolished in 1999 (CRS, 2006, p.2).

Furthermore, several decisions taken by the Bush administration damaged foreign opinion of the USA in both Arab and Muslim world and among several closest allies. Among other reasons, this is due to US refusal of signing several international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Chemical Weapons Ban (Ibid.).

Therefore, ‘new funding designated for public diplomacy within State’s Diplomatic and Consular Programs account has been added through both supplemental and regular appropriations’ (Ibid. p.8). In the 2000’s, governmental funding of public diplomacy is 15% higher than in the 1980’s, when the figure was of $518 million (Ibid. p.7).

‘One of the most visible examples of public diplomacy soon after the September 11th attacks was Secretary of State Colin Powell’s appearance on MTV in February 2002, reaching out to, and candidly answering questions from young people around the world about what America represents. MTV at that time reached 375 million households in 63 countries worldwide’ (Ibid.p.11).

Despite this rise of expenditure to do better in regards of public diplomacy activities, the USA does not seem to understand that public diplomacy is not only a ‘monologue’ and is less an intensive campaign. Moreover, in order for US PD to be effective, they need to establish a dialogue and understand other countries point of view/misunderstanding on their foreign policy and image. For instance, as states the CRS Report, despite the fact that in 2004 Egypt was the second larger recipient of US assistance, 85% of Egyptians had an unfavourable view of Americans (Ibid. p,14).

In this case, we can see that the damages caused in the Muslim world by US administration will demand them much more effort if they want to regain their prestige and the trust they seem want to have from the Muslin world.

‘Recent worldwide polls show that the United States government continues to be viewed with scepticism by much of the world, not just among Arab and Muslim populations. When the message isn’t consistent with what people see or experience independently, many assert, public diplomacy is not effective’ (Ibid, p.15).

Public Diplomacy can only be effective if it is credible.

Having said this, we might have found an explanation to Nicolas Sarkozy’s failure in regards of French public diplomacy in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Indeed, in May 2006 when he was the Minister of the Interior, he clearly stated in Bamako (Mali) and Cotonou (Benin) that the Franco-African relationship needed to change: Africa needed better governance, and France will not be a close companion into that path, but just a simpler observer (Goueset, 2010). However, the following day he stated that the French government would support, via development aid, those African countries which defend democracy and fight corruption (Ibid).

Nevertheless, just a year after that, in his controversial speech in the Cheikh Anta Diop Unversity in Dakar (the French government addressing the Malian people), he said that France would support the African continent to go into a path of an ‘African Renaissance’.

First of all, these two foreign policies towards Africa are opposed and secondly, his try of engaging a good public diplomacy activity in Dakar failed by what he said and his presentation, according to critics. The purpose of such speech was to reconsolidate the basis of the relationship between France and Africa. But since he arrived in a white suit, like the colons at the time, and clearly showed during his speech that he misunderstands everything about the African population and its cultural heritage. Indeed, this can be noticed when he talked about the French refusal of ‘repentance’ in regards of colonisation and slave trade, ‘the need for Africa to go back to earth and imagine a future that it will be capable of’ and ‘stop feeling nostalgic of its Golden Age, because such period did not exist in Africa’ (L’express, 2007).

According to the French President, the biggest mistake made by Africa and its populations has to do with ‘the African drama’ which is related to the fact that ‘the African man has not entered, penetrated as required, the world History’ and that ‘a population that is in such accordance with the nature, does not have place for innovation, ideas nor progress’. (Heams, 2007). Such address from the French government to the African population might explain why since then, the French government has focused more in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership which involved a lot more the Maghreb region.
--> 'The African man has not sufficiently entered the History'. Henry Guaino.

As a conclusion on this matter, I would say that public diplomacy can only be effective if it is credible and if it is in line with the country acts, behavior and foreign policy, in which case it would be close to 'public relations'. On the contrary, it would just be propaganda, as argues Berridge.

To read Sarkozy’s speech translation in English: http://marian.typepad.com/marians_blog/2008/04/africa-outside.html

To read it in French: http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/interventions/2007/juillet/allocution_a_l_universite_de_dakar.79184.html

Bibliography

- Berridge, G.R., Dilplomacy: Theory and Practice, Palgrave Mc Millan, Basingstoke, 2010 (4^th ed.)

- CRS Report for Congress, ‘U.S Public Diplomacy: Background and the 9/11 Commission Recommendation’, Updated May, 1 2006. Available Online: http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RL32607.pdf

- L’Express, ‘L’Afrique a sa part de responsabilite dans son malheur’, L’Express.fr, July, 27 2007.

Available Online: http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/l-afrique-a-sa-part-de-responsabilite-dans-son-malheur_465757.html
- Goueset C., ‘La Françafrique de Nicolas Sarkozy, changement… et continuité’, L’Express.fr, February, 25 2010. Available Online : http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/afrique/la-francafrique-de-nicolas-sarkozy-changement-et-continuite_851223.html

- Heams, T., ‘”L’Homme africain...”. Le Grand Soir Info, August, 2 2007. Available Online : http://www.legrandsoir.info/L-homme-africain-Retour-sur-le-discours-de-Nicolas-Sarkozy-a.html

- Legueux-Feuilleux, J.R., The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder. 2009

- Mbembe, A., ‘Nicola Sarkozy’s Africa’ Le Messager, August, 1 2007, Available Online : http://www.metamute.org/en/Sarkozys-Dakar-Speech

- USC Center on Public Diplomacy, ‘What is Public Diplomacy’. Available Online: http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/about/what_is_pd/