The main contribution of new diplomacy, in my opinion, is that it has brought the diplomatic sector closer to the general population rather than a small elite.
This change has happened because of several reasons, however, in a globalized age symbolized by the evolution of communication through internet and other forms of mass media, people feel closer to each other than ever before and are generally aware of what is happening in other regions of the world.
Diplomacy therefore needed to adapt from its old form adapted to bilateral agreements between states to a new form that could survive in a very interconnected and multilateral world.
Since diplomacy has without a doubt become more accessible to people generally, the most important aspects within new diplomacy would then be people-to-people /government-to-people relations (concept by Jarol Manheim), or public diplomacy.
Because as Nye stated, "information is power" (Nye, 2004:1) and people are globally more and more informed, governments need to give more importance to public relations and improve their image around the globe. Lee argued that "people-to-people dialogues have become more important than communicating between governments because governments, and especially democracies, are frequently obliged to abide by public opinions". http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/pdfs/Stacy_Literature.pdf
Public diplomacy can also be considered as the most important factor within the new diplomacy because it can raise awareness in support of different causes such as terrorism, poverty or environment throughout the world by either states or multilateral organizations.
Many blamed the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on the fact that the foreign policy of the United-States in the 1990's was almost non existing thus sending a false (arrogant and hypocrite) image of the nation to other parts of the world resulting in incomprehension and hatred.
Thus a successful public diplomacy, without falling into propaganda, can avoid conflicts around the globe because of its capacity to inform.
Finally, global issues such as poverty, racial or sexual discrimination and the degradation of the environment can only be fought internationally. Thus, public diplomacy is once again the solution because it touches nations from all around the world and is not limited to state boundaries (see the United Nations Development Programme [http://www.undp.org/]).
For all those reasons, the most important factor of new diplomacy has to be its public diplomacy. In an intertwined international system, problems tend to become global and can only be fought globally which makes public diplomacy its only remedy.
I agree that public diplomacy is an important aspect of the new diplomacy, but drawing the conclusion from what you've said, it can be useful and genuine IF it does not fell into propaganda. In my view this is a very important issue since I see that governments are very entrenched in the minds of their citizens. I mean that governments play a fundamental role in shaping their own people perception, thus shaping the perception of the people of other countries they communicate to. if you see my point, I just wanna say that public diplmacy in my view is not a genuine communication, but is distorted by governments. And as you said nowadays people are more informed that before, but we must bear in mind that information is highly controlled and manipulated, and that often alternative sources of information are dismissed or disregarded.
ReplyDeleteI see your point when you said that public diplomacy is closer to the population rather than small elites and that is a great improvement, now lets try to allow a freerer information. China is teaching as an impressive lesson about it, as well as some islamic countries where "the protocol of the elders of zion" is taught in schools. I'm sure that this does not help an understanding between Israelis and Muslims. this digress was just to show that information is controlled and that this does not help communication and understanding between populations.
I do agree of your point when multilateral diplomacy has represented the general population rather than the elite and this we can see through public diplomacy but at the same time I think you do contradict yourself when you say "has to adopt from bilateral in the sense that people to people" is still being carried out bilaterally and to me its the best form of negotiation when it comes to trust and mutual understanding. In general, I think both bi and multilateral diplomacy have to work side by side.
ReplyDeleteHi Joe,
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to stress on your point about public diplomacy can be successful if it does not fall into propaganda because of its capacity to inform. I think that because of public diplomacy's capacity to inform, propaganda and public diplomacy are the same-they are both one-way communication, although, yes, public diplomacy does differentiate from propaganda only in few cases, but mostly they are both the same.
Also I agree with Federica's point that governments play an influential role in building their populations' perception, it is true especially in closed societies with no access to independent sources of information or even the internet.