Spreading the Truth or Lies in Disguise - Essay Example

?Public Diplomacy: Spreading the Truth or Lies in Disguise? Introduction This paper discusses the notion of public diplomacy, its varied definitions,how and why people confuse its intended nature and its distinction from common misconceptions. It looks at why public diplomacy has grown in importance and provides examples of how it has been carried out by nations in cooperation with social institutions and individuals. Speaking of the one remaining business where the British aristocracy would be useful, Bagehot argued it would be in “the business of diplomacy… Nations touch at their summits. An ambassador is not simply an agent: he is also a spectacle...sent abroad for show as well as for substance...to represent the Queen among foreign courts and foreign sovereigns. An aristocracy is...trained to the theatrical part of life; it is fit for that if it is fit for anything.”1 This quote by the prominent 19th century intellectual, businessman, and journalist who was part owner and editor-in-chief of the weekly newspaper The Economist, wittily and summarily captures the essence of diplomacy in general and that of its sub-specie, public diplomacy, which is the subject of this paper. Diplomacy is an important part of relations among nations, and because nations are primarily its peoples who fight over territory and wealth and so do not agree over a range of matters trivial and not, the relationship among nations is carried out with the valuable help of the diplomat’s craft, which is both science and art. It is “science”, because it demands order, intellection, and a deep sensitivity to causes and effects. It is at the same time “art”, because diplomacy requires creativity, imagination and a tremendous dosage of heart, and the ability to suppress the latter’s deepest stirrings for the superiority of one’s national interests. What is Public Diplomacy? As applied to the field of international relations, the most concise definition of public diplomacy is that of “government-sponsored programs intended to inform or influence public opinion in other countries.”2 This definition is the closest to that proposed in 1965 by Edmund Guillon, Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and, according to Snow and Taylor,3 much debate on a definition of the term could have been avoided had the majority accepted it. This definition of public diplomacy is concise because it contains three elements that mark its specific role in the over-all practice of international relations and that would serve as a limiting aspect of the study contained in this paper. Government-Sponsored It is “government-sponsored.” This term limits the scope of the practice of public diplomacy to that which is carried out by the government. While private corporations and institutions also carry out activities that achieve the same objective of informing or influencing public opinion, it could be said that the more important activity of public diplomacy, especially in recent years, is that which nations and states carry out. In the United States, for example, public diplomacy is carried out by the Department of State through its U.S. Information Agency, with the help of many other public and private institutions, such as universities, cultural associations, aid agencies, and its military, among others. In the United Kingdom, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office carry it out with the help of the British Council, the BBC World Service and private think tanks such as the Foreign Policy Centre, again among many other institutions equipped for the task. Every government carries out a substantial amount of public diplomacy which is different from the common understanding of diplomacy because the normal channels of top-level government relations are not enough for any state to handle the scope and amount of work needed to pursue its strategic interests. Traditionally, international relations to pursue a nation’s strategic interests involved only the political, economic and military aspects. Lately, however, with the advances in information technology, there has been an explosion in the volume and depth of publicly available information channels and contents that states had to use all available channels to get their messages through.4 Programs to Influence Public Opinion Public diplomacy consists of a program of activities, which means that it is coordinated well with respect to an over-all strategic plan which it supports. The government draws up this strategy in line with its desire to achieve over-arching goals, such as to preserve national security or improve its economic standing. It then identifies activities, specific and clear targets and timelines, to achieve those goals, with the immediate goal of influencing public opinion, i.e., to garner the understanding and acceptance by the public of the government’s strategic goal. The goals of public diplomacy must be consistent with the government’s strategic goals. Otherwise, rather than supporting the goals, the programs would be counterproductive and, instead of being part of public diplomacy would be perceived by the foreign public as propaganda or lies. This is how public diplomacy is distinguished from propaganda: the first makes abundant, real and actual information available and attractive to the public, while the second “beautifies” or “idealizes” what is false to make it attractive to the public. A key aspect of public diplomacy is to craft a message that would spread the truth and make it more understandable, so that those in other countries can make an enlightened and free decision to either accept of reject the truth behind the message. While it may not be possible to let everyone in the world accept the truth that are taken for granted in the home country, such as what the people consider the best form of government, better information always help people in making better and freer decisions. It may be difficult, if not impossible, to gain universal support in a foreign country of the home country’s strategic goals, in the same manner that such would not be realistically possible even among its own people. For the same reason that democratic states form coalitions among multiple parties that agree to cooperate in government, the realistic goal of public diplomacy has to do with shaping public perception that would make cooperation possible. One problem, however, is the relative definition of truth that some people have, which leads them to doubt the information being shared by the agents of public diplomacy. Disinformation may still exist in this era marked by the availability of widespread information, but if people have access to the right information, they can perceive consistency between information and experience, and could better discern what and when to believe. During the Cold War, there was a tremendous amount of public diplomacy taking place between the two camps, East and West. The East was presenting an image of utopia and clamping down on information, while the West presented an image of wealth, happiness and freedom. The East or the communists lost because the image and information were different from the experience and the reality, and when the people were given an opportunity to get out, they did. Through those years, though, the better-informed citizens, such as scientists, intellectuals, and writers grabbed the opportunity to defect to the West and succeeded. Others who had the means, such as athletes, also left their propagandizing home countries. Another example is when a government wants to attract foreign scientists to work in or decide to migrate to the country. It could identify several programs to achieve that goal with the immediate object of helping foreign scientists see the available opportunities. The state could offer scholarships to PhD candidates or fellowships, propose available university openings to qualified scientists, be more lenient in offering visas, provide other incentives like citizenship or financial remuneration, or send its best scientists on lecture or study tours to meet other scientists who could then be enticed to come over. There are varied types of programs and activities that could be considered a part of public diplomacy. These programs would depend on the country’s strategic goals. When it wanted in the 1970s and 1980s to attract more students to its universities that were running out of students because of a drop in the school-going age, Germany increased the number of scholarships it offered to qualified students from developing countries, like China. When the Chinese economy opened in the late-1970s, the scholars from that country went back to China and facilitated economic ties between the two countries,5 which can explain in some way the economic success of German firms in China during the latter’s economic boom in the 1990s and up to the present. Foreign People as Audience The message of every public diplomacy exercise is geared towards the people outside the home country. This is also one major difference with “traditional” diplomacy, which has as its object the top or official levels of a foreign government, which includes its diplomatic corps. While actions of traditional diplomacy are often enveloped in flowery, nice-sounding and dramatic language that diplomats already know may mean nothing; public diplomacy is more truthful and closer to the heart. A crucial aspect of public diplomacy is that the message addressed to people outside the country need to be consistent with the message that the government addresses to the people within the country, an activity that is classified by the term public affairs. If these two messages are not consistent, there will be general unrest, dissatisfaction and even a revolution. This was the recent experience in Egypt, where early this year its President for the last thirty years was overthrown by popular protest amidst widespread social unrest. The trigger of the incident was the disjointed external image of Egypt as a sea of stability and peace in between two regions (Middle East and Africa) marked by tension and its internal reality of instability marked by growing unemployment, poverty and a lavish government. The rulers lost their credibility and the people decided to depose them.6 A recent example of public diplomacy are the performance tours of well-known artists or orchestras, such as the February 2011 trip to Kazakhstan of an ethnic song and dance ensemble from China’s Hainan Province. This was part of an agreement to strengthen cultural ties that was signed by the Presidents of the two countries in August 2007, which in turn is part of a mega-deal to build a gas pipeline from Kazakhstan to China.7 The over-arching goal of energy supply for China and economic benefits for Kazakhstan was supported by the public diplomacy of carrying out cultural exchange between the two countries. Another good example of public diplomacy that worked was the formation of the European Union that contributed to the end of the Cold War. Traditionally, the countries of Europe have been at war for centuries. Diplomacy during and after the Second World War transitioned into the Cold War between the east and west. The leaders of the European nations determined that strengthening the economic and political linkages among these nations would help support their unity and preserve the peace. This was a challenge because the leaders of the European Community, the precursor of the European Union, were at odds with each other. Just a century earlier, in the 1800s, France and England were at war, and just a few years before, in the 1940s, England and France were fighting Germany. In the 1950s, these three nations were the leading economies in an emerging European continent. By making the formation of the EU a common strategic goal of these and the other EU countries, they worked to achieve military (through NATO, with the leadership of the Americans), political (with the formation of the European Parliament in 1979 although the concept was existing since 1962), and economic unity (culminating in the launch of the Euro currency in 1999) over four decades. The discussions during those years were not always peaceful and diplomatic, but the commitment to a concept of a United States of Europe helped for fifty years to preserve peace and economic prosperity in Western Europe, which was in turn very instrumental in causing the downfall of communism in Eastern Europe.8 Factors for the Rise in Public Diplomacy Public diplomacy has grown in importance in recent years for several reasons, among which are the increase in information channels, the rise of terrorism, globalization of cultures, growing mistrust of government and the rise of the non-governmental organizations or NGOs.9 The increase in information channels, such as satellite and cable TV and the Internet, and the growth in journalistic freedom are both boon and bane. By making information readily available to anyone with access to these channels, the growth of information is a boon. But it is also a bane, because the information posted may not be true, leading to confusion or, if the person who absorbs the information is easily impressionable or does not bother to view the information with a critical mind, the result could be grave disinformation or the formation of an opinion that is the opposite of what public diplomacy aims to achieve. This is one reason that contributed to the rise in terrorism. Increased information channels not only allow terrorists to communicate and coordinate efforts but also allow massive disinformation exchange among various parties and individuals. Unlike in the past when one’s message of hate or violent perception of the truth can be kept within a small “circle of hate”, now it could be broadcast to a global audience, captivating minds and hearts in a radical, misinformed way. Public diplomacy, therefore, aims to address this massive wave of terror-driven and terror-inducing information, whether good-intentioned or not, in order to paint a more balanced picture that would help peace-loving individuals to make objective decisions, such as informing their authorities of growing vile intentions, or to help their colleagues in their perception of truth. The globalization of cultures has led to various developments such as the uniformity of cultural expectations (What is beauty? What is freedom?), the standardization of economic standards (status symbols and definitions of personal identity), and the rising cult of celebrities (George Clooney and Bono). These celebrities are getting admired in other countries and tend to be more credible than their official government counterparts. This makes them ideal instruments of public diplomacy for messages that are consistent with their celebrity image; Clooney can address the United Nations to do something about genocide in Darfur and Bono talks about debt forgiveness. The globalization wave also led to the widespread availability not only of the medium, i.e., channels of information and transnational media groups, but also of the message. One can understand, therefore, that the growing popularity of the Al-Jazeera network lies in a continuum that stretches from the classic media icons Voice of America and Radio Free Europe to the modern day icons such as the BBC, CNN and Fox. As Seib10 argued, however, the growing mistrust of government and journalism can be traced to the shifting standards of objectivity and accuracy employed by both journalists and the government media outfits that engage in public diplomacy. Thus, its audiences become either critical to any message or adopt the opposite stance: what the government says must be the opposite of what is true. This is why public diplomacy, which makes use of a wide range of non-government channels such as artists, movies young people, entrepreneurs, etc. has grown in importance. These alternative channels are more acceptable and, therefore, perceived as having a better chance of getting the message across and influencing public opinion. The non-government organizations or NGOs have likewise increased in influence in recent years, because they are seen as more objective, better intentioned and less corrupt than governments. Some NGOs such as that headed by Dr. Yunnus of Bangladesh and groups such as the Medicins Sans Frontieres have even won the Nobel Prize for Peace and enhanced their image of well-intentioned groups who want to help. These NGOs have become useful and effective tools for public diplomacy, and governments can “ride” on the goodwill these NGOs create by becoming supporters, albeit in a subtle manner, to score points with the public. In these cases, it is best that government support is made in a low-key manner and, as a necessary precaution, by stating the absence of conditionalities that would restrict the usufruct of the aid provided or this public diplomacy tool can backfire. Conclusion The growing importance of public diplomacy highlights the importance of consistency and a unity between the starting and end points of the exercise to communicate a message. The starting point, the government in the case of public diplomacy, originates and packages the message and chooses the medium or media through which the message is transmitted. The end point, the foreign audience or external public, is the intended recipient of the message. However, while the internal public is not included in this equation, they also play an important role, since the factors that contributed to the growing popularity of public diplomacy are also the same factors that affect its utility or not. This is the reason why there must be consistency between the reality and the message and media used. The message need not be an idealization of reality, but realistic enough so that it could be perceived as objective and sincere. The support of the internal or local public is crucial in this regard, because any messages of inconsistency from this public can do great harm to the message crafted by those who carry out the work of public diplomacy. There is likewise a need to respect the foreign audience’s response. When they do not absorb the message nor change public opinion or, perhaps even worsen it, public diplomacy becomes more crucial and important. Its goal should not be to get everyone to think alike, but rather to help others develop a balanced view of how a country sees its goals as mutually beneficial. Public diplomacy can effect a change in strategic goals if needed. Reference List Asser, Martin, “Q&A: Egyptian protests against Hosni Mubarak”, BBC Online News, February 11, 2011, Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12324664 [April 29, 2011]. Bagehot, W. 2001, The English Constitution, Oxford University Press, Oxon, p. 92-93. Bolewski, W. 2007, Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations, Springer, New York. European Commission. 2007, A Glance at EU Public Diplomacy at Work: The EU’s 50th Anniversary Celebrations Around the World, European Communities, Luxembourg. Hayhoe, R. 1984, “A Comparative Analysis of Chinese-Western Academic Exchange”, Comparative Education vol. 20, no. 1, Special Anniversary Number (8): Education in China, pp. 39-56. Mu Xueguan, “Chinese artists perform ethnic dances, songs in Almaty”, Xinhua New Agency, February 17, 2011, Available from: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-02/18/c_13737244.htm [April 30, 2011]. Seib, P. 2009, “Public Diplomacy and Journalism Parallels, Ethical Issues and Practical Concerns”, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 772-786. Snow, N. and Taylor, P.M. (Eds). 2008, The Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, Routledge, London, p. 73. The Foreign Policy Centre. 2011, “Public Diplomacy”, Available from: http://fpc.org.uk/topics/public-diplomacy/ [April 29, 2011]. U.S. Department of State. 1987, Dictionary of International Relations Terms, State Department, Washington, D.C., p. 85. Read More