The importance of public diplomacy in the context of political, militrary and development effort in Afghanistan can not be underestimated. In an article, 'Public Diplomacy: Challenges and Opportunities for International Engagement in Afghanistan', M. Ashraf Haridari argued how public diplomacy can help establish long lasting peace in Afghanistan. But Haridari argued that international effort in Afganistan lacked effective public diplomacy strategy to listen to the Afghan people and deliver on their very basic expectation.
Haridari wrote that article in late 2008. Now he may be pleased to know that there is arguably an intetresting development of public diplomacy in Afganistan. Operation Moshtarak in Afghanistan is very different from other operations carried by the International Stabilisaton Force in Afghanistan (ISAF). Operation Moshtarak which means 'together' is people centred operation. The aim is to chase as many Taliban as possible and keep the fighting and the civilian casulties to a minimu. The hope is to win the support of local residents even at the expense of letting Taliban get away.
http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/challenges_and_opportunities_in_afghanistan/
Friday, 26 March 2010
Thursday, 25 March 2010
Public diplomacy or manipulation of the masses
According to the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, the latter is a "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"(http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/about/what_is_pd/).
Adopting a realist point of view on the international relations and taking for granted that every nation state is seeking its own national interest in a system that is by nature anarchical, public diplomacy appears as a legitimate follower to colonization. The only difference between public diplomacy and colonization would then be the means by which national interest is achieved. For the former it would take place through an indirect brain-wash of the masses by the spread of information and for the latter it would take place by a direct imposition of force.
Both public diplomacy and colonization can be seen as ways to promote national image in an economically profitable way. Public diplomacy seeks to influence people all over the world to think in a specific kind of way by at the same time attracting investments and tourism where colonization does nearly the same (trade agreements, cheap importation, promotion of national values abroad, etc...). However, where as the former is accepted the latter is condemned.
The difference between the two lies therefore in the modern Western public opinion deeply interconnected by what is considered right or wrong as related to democratical ethics.
Two examples of what seems to illustrate the modern hypocrite way of thinking are the condemnation of colonization by the United-States in the years following the end of World War II and its cultural, economical and military domination of the world in the second part of the 20th and the 21st century through hard and soft powers.
As well as the promotion of equality of states in the United Nations, and its obvious attempts of imposing democracy and its liberal values on nations that may not be interested in them (mainly by the 5 permanent members of the Security Council).
Public diplomacy seems to be a perfect way for governments to make people think in a specific kind of way. The attempt to boycott the Olympic Games in China (Beijing 2008) illustrates perfectly my latter points. (http://www.rsf.org/-Anglais-.html). How can states like the US, France or Great-Britain condemn the undemocratic China when they themselves are often blamed for selling a wide range of military technologies to dictatorships or else way undemocratic and doubtful states? Public diplomacy would then be just another way to hide the ugly truth and promote utopia.
Public diplomacy has on the other hand, a high potential for accomplishing good. It could be used in order to promote ecological awareness throughout the planet. An exceptionally good idea would be to use public diplomacy in order to promote environmental sustainability in massive international events such as the football World Cup 2010 in South Africa or the next Olympics in London in 2012.
To summarize, public diplomacy is a very effective tool in an intertwined world system. However, it is currently mainly used for the wrong purposes which makes it appear as just another form of colonialism. Since it has such a huge repercussion on nations all around the globe, it should be used to promote modern issues that concern us all, as well as our children, such as the environment.
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
The importance of public diplomacy in the contemporary world
The importance of public diplomacy:
In the present contemporary world with the spread of democracy has created a new environment in the international system to win hearts and minds of people by governments. This is what public diplomacy does by trying to influence foreign nationals and the public with values, policies and actions of their governments to be supported. Public diplomacy can be defined as the efforts of one nation to influence public or elites of the next nation for the purpose of using foreign policy to its target. Governments always attempt to communicate with foreign public to export their ideas, its institutions and culture, as well as national goals and current policies.
Public diplomacy looks at promoting its culture for long term aims while short-term when it comes to current foreign policies and can also be looked at as propaganda for a nation state by improving its image abroad which will be favourable to the state. The importance of foreign public diplomacy is that it is influenced by soft power rather than use of force or hard power and has brought dependency of citizens on their governments and the local press for information on foreign events and increased potential targets for direct communication of diplomatic messages.
Another important point is that distribution of information around the globe is not restricted due to new technology that can transmit messages around the world in seconds like with fighting terrorism in an age of global real-time television and the internet. Public diplomacy also serves both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy in the sense that they are intended for national interest like in the quest of investment, promotion of trade, and international tourism which is also referred to as branding and also creates cooperation and interaction. Example can be seen in the Canadian and Norwegian experience with the Ottawa process on landmines which shows how collaboration between the domestic and international policy arenas and the public and private spheres.
link to resent event through public diplomacy
Foreign Policy Blogs Network: AfghanistanAfricaAmerica in TransitionBangladeshBrazilCaucasusCentral AsiaChildrenChinaClimate ChangeCorruption and AccountabilityCubaCurrent ConflictsCybersecurity and Internet CommunicationsEast AsiaEnergyEuropean UnionForeign Policy AssociationForeign Policy BlogsGlobal CurrentsGlobal EngagementGlobal Film ReviewGlobal Food SecurityGlobal MarketsGlobal PostsHuman RightsIndiaIranIraqIsraelLatin AmericaLaw and Security StrategyLebanonMedia and Foreign PolicyMexicoMiddle EastMiddle East MediaMigrationMusic and Global AffairsPakistanPhilanthropyPublic DiplomacyReligion and PoliticsRising PowersRussiaSoutheast AsiaTerrorismThe ArcticTransatlantic MediaTransitional StatesU.S. DefenseU.S. DiplomacyU.S. Role in the WorldVenezuelaWar CrimesWomen and Foreign Policy
Public Diplomacy
The World Affairs Blog Network
FPB HomeAboutBloggersResources
U.S.-Muslim Engagement ProjectBy Melinda Brouwer Monday, October 13 1:38 pm EST
The Washington-based non-profits Search for Common Ground and the Consensus Building Institute have produced a major new leadership group report on improving U.S. relations with the Muslim world. Titled “Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World,” the two groups released the report last month to a packed house at the National Press club.
The report presents the consensus of 34 American leaders in the fields of foreign policy, national security, politics, business, religion, education, public opinion, psychology, philanthropy, and conflict resolution on how to improve dialogue between the U.S. and the Muslim world. Some of these include former diplomats Madeleine Albright, Richard Armitage, Dennis Ross, among many other distinguished leaders.
According to the report's authors, “the primary objective of the report is to provide new strategies for reducing tensions with Muslim countries and communities around the world. The core point of the report is that it is possible to meet both U.S. interests and the interests of the vast majority of Muslims around the world who seek peaceful coexistence, by addressing the main sources of tension in new ways.”
From the Executive Summary:
1. Elevate diplomacy as the primary tool for resolving key conflicts involving Muslim countries, engaging both allies and adversaries in dialogue
•Engage with Iran to explore the potential for agreements that could increase regional security, while seeking Iran's full compliance with its nuclear nonproliferation commitments
•Work intensively for immediate de-escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a viable path to a two-state solution, while ensuring the security of Israelis and Palestinians
•Promote broad-based political reconciliation in Iraq, and clarify the long-term U.S. role
•Renew international commitment and cooperation to halt extremists' resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan
•Provide top-level U.S. leadership to resolve regional conflicts and to improve coordination with international partners
2. Support efforts to improve governance and promote civic participation in Muslim countries, and advocate for principles rather than parties in their internal political contests
•Build the capacity of government institutions to deliver services, and of citizens to participate in governance
•Advocate consistently for nonviolence, pluralism and fairness in political contests
•Use U.S. leverage with authoritarian governments to promote reforms in governance
•Assess the value of engagement with political representatives of armed and activist movements case-by-case, based on their principles, behavior, and level of public support
•Support political transitions and the consolidation of reforms in countries at critical "turning points"
3. Help catalyze job-creating growth in Muslim countries to benefit both the U.S. and Muslim countries' economies
•Support policy reforms to secure property rights, facilitate transactions and promote investments
•Partner with governments, multilateral institutions and philanthropies to make education a more powerful engine of employment and entrepreneurship
•Use public-private investment partnerships to reduce risk, promote exports and fund enterprises
•Use trade agreements to reward economic reform and spur investment
•Manage energy interdependence and diversify resources
4. Improve mutual respect and understanding between Americans and Muslims around the world
•Use public diplomacy to reinforce changes in policies and actions
•Dramatically expand cross-cultural education, people-to-people and interfaith exchange
•Promote greater depth and accuracy in news coverage and programming
•Invest in cultural diplomacy through arts and entertainment programs, to deepen mutual understanding and challenge stereotypes
•Involve the Muslim-American community as a bridge
Here's a great documentary video about the present state of U.S.-Muslim relations, and the engagement project on media partner LinkTV.
This is a very important report that couldn't come at a better time in U.S.-Muslim relations. I look forward to following the actions of this group.
In the present contemporary world with the spread of democracy has created a new environment in the international system to win hearts and minds of people by governments. This is what public diplomacy does by trying to influence foreign nationals and the public with values, policies and actions of their governments to be supported. Public diplomacy can be defined as the efforts of one nation to influence public or elites of the next nation for the purpose of using foreign policy to its target. Governments always attempt to communicate with foreign public to export their ideas, its institutions and culture, as well as national goals and current policies.
Public diplomacy looks at promoting its culture for long term aims while short-term when it comes to current foreign policies and can also be looked at as propaganda for a nation state by improving its image abroad which will be favourable to the state. The importance of foreign public diplomacy is that it is influenced by soft power rather than use of force or hard power and has brought dependency of citizens on their governments and the local press for information on foreign events and increased potential targets for direct communication of diplomatic messages.
Another important point is that distribution of information around the globe is not restricted due to new technology that can transmit messages around the world in seconds like with fighting terrorism in an age of global real-time television and the internet. Public diplomacy also serves both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy in the sense that they are intended for national interest like in the quest of investment, promotion of trade, and international tourism which is also referred to as branding and also creates cooperation and interaction. Example can be seen in the Canadian and Norwegian experience with the Ottawa process on landmines which shows how collaboration between the domestic and international policy arenas and the public and private spheres.
link to resent event through public diplomacy
Foreign Policy Blogs Network: AfghanistanAfricaAmerica in TransitionBangladeshBrazilCaucasusCentral AsiaChildrenChinaClimate ChangeCorruption and AccountabilityCubaCurrent ConflictsCybersecurity and Internet CommunicationsEast AsiaEnergyEuropean UnionForeign Policy AssociationForeign Policy BlogsGlobal CurrentsGlobal EngagementGlobal Film ReviewGlobal Food SecurityGlobal MarketsGlobal PostsHuman RightsIndiaIranIraqIsraelLatin AmericaLaw and Security StrategyLebanonMedia and Foreign PolicyMexicoMiddle EastMiddle East MediaMigrationMusic and Global AffairsPakistanPhilanthropyPublic DiplomacyReligion and PoliticsRising PowersRussiaSoutheast AsiaTerrorismThe ArcticTransatlantic MediaTransitional StatesU.S. DefenseU.S. DiplomacyU.S. Role in the WorldVenezuelaWar CrimesWomen and Foreign Policy
Public Diplomacy
The World Affairs Blog Network
FPB HomeAboutBloggersResources
U.S.-Muslim Engagement ProjectBy Melinda Brouwer Monday, October 13 1:38 pm EST
The Washington-based non-profits Search for Common Ground and the Consensus Building Institute have produced a major new leadership group report on improving U.S. relations with the Muslim world. Titled “Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World,” the two groups released the report last month to a packed house at the National Press club.
The report presents the consensus of 34 American leaders in the fields of foreign policy, national security, politics, business, religion, education, public opinion, psychology, philanthropy, and conflict resolution on how to improve dialogue between the U.S. and the Muslim world. Some of these include former diplomats Madeleine Albright, Richard Armitage, Dennis Ross, among many other distinguished leaders.
According to the report's authors, “the primary objective of the report is to provide new strategies for reducing tensions with Muslim countries and communities around the world. The core point of the report is that it is possible to meet both U.S. interests and the interests of the vast majority of Muslims around the world who seek peaceful coexistence, by addressing the main sources of tension in new ways.”
From the Executive Summary:
1. Elevate diplomacy as the primary tool for resolving key conflicts involving Muslim countries, engaging both allies and adversaries in dialogue
•Engage with Iran to explore the potential for agreements that could increase regional security, while seeking Iran's full compliance with its nuclear nonproliferation commitments
•Work intensively for immediate de-escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a viable path to a two-state solution, while ensuring the security of Israelis and Palestinians
•Promote broad-based political reconciliation in Iraq, and clarify the long-term U.S. role
•Renew international commitment and cooperation to halt extremists' resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan
•Provide top-level U.S. leadership to resolve regional conflicts and to improve coordination with international partners
2. Support efforts to improve governance and promote civic participation in Muslim countries, and advocate for principles rather than parties in their internal political contests
•Build the capacity of government institutions to deliver services, and of citizens to participate in governance
•Advocate consistently for nonviolence, pluralism and fairness in political contests
•Use U.S. leverage with authoritarian governments to promote reforms in governance
•Assess the value of engagement with political representatives of armed and activist movements case-by-case, based on their principles, behavior, and level of public support
•Support political transitions and the consolidation of reforms in countries at critical "turning points"
3. Help catalyze job-creating growth in Muslim countries to benefit both the U.S. and Muslim countries' economies
•Support policy reforms to secure property rights, facilitate transactions and promote investments
•Partner with governments, multilateral institutions and philanthropies to make education a more powerful engine of employment and entrepreneurship
•Use public-private investment partnerships to reduce risk, promote exports and fund enterprises
•Use trade agreements to reward economic reform and spur investment
•Manage energy interdependence and diversify resources
4. Improve mutual respect and understanding between Americans and Muslims around the world
•Use public diplomacy to reinforce changes in policies and actions
•Dramatically expand cross-cultural education, people-to-people and interfaith exchange
•Promote greater depth and accuracy in news coverage and programming
•Invest in cultural diplomacy through arts and entertainment programs, to deepen mutual understanding and challenge stereotypes
•Involve the Muslim-American community as a bridge
Here's a great documentary video about the present state of U.S.-Muslim relations, and the engagement project on media partner LinkTV.
This is a very important report that couldn't come at a better time in U.S.-Muslim relations. I look forward to following the actions of this group.
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY - Influence versus Coercion
Public Diplomacy is the way in which states promote their culture to foreign citizens, in the hope that it will influence and improve foreign public opinions, gaining a good reputation and enhancing their global status. This is done in many different ways such as foreign exchange programmes, international broadcasts, and presidential addresses aimed at foreign nationals (government to people) to promote themselves in a systematic form of lobbying e.g. Obama addressing the Iranian people.
With non-state actors having more of an influence in international affairs and the escalating spread of information communications technologies i.e. internet and 24hour news broadcasts, it is increasingly important that political leaders speak honestly as the truth will always come out. Edward R. Murrow, in May 1963, as the Director of United States Information Agency - USIA at the time, acknowledged this, "American traditions and the American ethic require us to be truthful, but the most important reason is that truth is the best propaganda and lies are the worst. To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as simple as that."
During the Clinton and Bush administration public diplomacy rapidly declined and the focus was on what the public internally thought about the government and not the public opinion abroad. For example after 9/11 George Bush acted swiftly to find fault elsewhere, his war was aimed at terrorism but many bore the brunt of Bush’s wrath. In September 2001, directly after 9/11 Bush stated "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." The lack of indifference here and with many of the other comments George W Bush made and acted upon did not help win him support from overseas. He was demonstrating hard power when he went into Iraq and Afghanistan and lacked the backing of the people with a lack of soft power and public diplomacy.
Public Diplomacy has played a key part in Obama’s foreign policy and it is becoming more important in an era of globalisation where gaining the trust and spreading your word to foreign nationals is as equally as important as state to state discussions. If foreign nationals back you and understand you then their leader will be more inclined to negotiate with you.
The Ghanaian High Commission showed a fine example of Public Diplomacy during the visit last week. They behaved with typical Ghanaian mannerism by providing food and were friendly, informative and hospitable. In doing so they were promoting their own culture to a group of students from all around the world. Had they been blunt and rude it may have been assumed that the whole of Ghana was blunt and rude?
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY - Influence versus Coercion
Public Diplomacy is the way in which states promote their culture to foreign citizens, in the hope that it will influence and improve foreign public opinions, gaining a good reputation and enhancing their global status. This is done in many different ways such as foreign exchange programmes, international broadcasts, and presidential addresses aimed at foreign nationals (government to people) to promote themselves in a systematic form of lobbying e.g. Obama addressing the Iranian people.
With non-state actors having more of an influence in international affairs and the escalating spread of information communications technologies i.e. internet and 24hour news broadcasts, it is increasingly important that political leaders speak honestly as the truth will always come out. Edward R. Murrow, in May 1963, as the Director of United States Information Agency - USIA at the time, acknowledged this, "American traditions and the American ethic require us to be truthful, but the most important reason is that truth is the best propaganda and lies are the worst. To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as simple as that."
During the Clinton and Bush administration public diplomacy rapidly declined and the focus was on what the public internally thought about the government and not the public opinion abroad. For example after 9/11 George Bush acted swiftly to find fault elsewhere, his war was aimed at terrorism but many bore the brunt of Bush’s wrath. In September 2001, directly after 9/11 Bush stated "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." The lack of indifference here and with many of the other comments George W Bush made and acted upon did not help win him support from overseas. He was demonstrating hard power when he went into Iraq and Afghanistan and lacked the backing of the people with a lack of soft power and public diplomacy.
Public Diplomacy has played a key part in Obama’s foreign policy and it is becoming more important in an era of globalisation where gaining the trust and spreading your word to foreign nationals is as equally as important as state to state discussions. If foreign nationals back you and understand you then their leader will be more inclined to negotiate with you.
The Ghanaian High Commission showed a fine example of Public Diplomacy during the visit last week. They behaved with typical Ghanaian mannerism by providing food and were friendly, informative and hospitable. In doing so they were promoting their own culture to a group of students from all around the world. Had they been blunt and rude it may have been assumed that the whole of Ghana was blunt and rude?
With non-state actors having more of an influence in international affairs and the escalating spread of information communications technologies i.e. internet and 24hour news broadcasts, it is increasingly important that political leaders speak honestly as the truth will always come out. Edward R. Murrow, in May 1963, as the Director of United States Information Agency - USIA at the time, acknowledged this, "American traditions and the American ethic require us to be truthful, but the most important reason is that truth is the best propaganda and lies are the worst. To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as simple as that."
During the Clinton and Bush administration public diplomacy rapidly declined and the focus was on what the public internally thought about the government and not the public opinion abroad. For example after 9/11 George Bush acted swiftly to find fault elsewhere, his war was aimed at terrorism but many bore the brunt of Bush’s wrath. In September 2001, directly after 9/11 Bush stated "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." The lack of indifference here and with many of the other comments George W Bush made and acted upon did not help win him support from overseas. He was demonstrating hard power when he went into Iraq and Afghanistan and lacked the backing of the people with a lack of soft power and public diplomacy.
Public Diplomacy has played a key part in Obama’s foreign policy and it is becoming more important in an era of globalisation where gaining the trust and spreading your word to foreign nationals is as equally as important as state to state discussions. If foreign nationals back you and understand you then their leader will be more inclined to negotiate with you.
The Ghanaian High Commission showed a fine example of Public Diplomacy during the visit last week. They behaved with typical Ghanaian mannerism by providing food and were friendly, informative and hospitable. In doing so they were promoting their own culture to a group of students from all around the world. Had they been blunt and rude it may have been assumed that the whole of Ghana was blunt and rude?
Friday, 19 March 2010
Obama addressing the Iranian People
This is the link for the video that we didn't have time to watch in class. Look at some of the comments...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY_utC-hrjI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY_utC-hrjI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
