Importance of Public Diplomacy - Assignment Example

Importance of Public Diplomacy Unit Since the dawn of the First World War up to the Second World War to the new wars currently mounted to curb terrorism as well as alleviate terror groups, man has still failed to learn that better ways exist to address disagreements. From this non-understanding on how to resolve conflicts, the concept of public diplomacy was hatched. According to the American Dictionary of International Relations (1987), Public Diplomacy is defined as “government-sponsored initiatives aimed at informing or influencing public opinion in other states.” (p. 85). Also, According to Edward R. Murrow’s Centre for Public Diplomacy, Edmund Gullion takes public diplomacy as “Through public diplomacy people understand the means by which private groups, governments, and individuals influence the opinions and attitudes of other people and governments in a manner to exercise impact on their foreign policy conclusions.” What stands out in these two definitions for Public diplomacy is that it has to involve mechanisms that will affect the attitudes as well as opinions of other people, countries and governments. This paper will examine the reasons that have led to the clamour for public diplomacy especially in recent times during the 21st century by looking at specific examples. Public diplomacy becomes the next frontier in the study and practice of diplomacy. The “ancient” diplomacy style has been supplanted with “fresh”, free American-style diplomacy (United States. (1987)Several states have advanced beyond upholding open diplomacy on the face of the world to using public to secure and promote their national interest overseas. Theory of diplomacy Public diplomacy was a principally salient government quest during the Cold War era when ideologies contest, communism versus democracy, was at the peak. Bipolar quality of public diplomacy throughout the period of the cold war has been replaced by several nations involved in public diplomacy as central securities in soft power have risen. Wang (2011) outlines the theory of soft power as an international image, specifically highlighting the values underlying the interest of a particular government. For instance, United States soft power is the capacity to convince others through the acceptability of its actions. The connection with public diplomacy rests between the concept of theoretical international relations of several “forms” of power and the concrete elements of the manner in which states improve or expand the capacity of their soft power. In as much as public diplomacy has materialized to be a critical factor in the international operations of most states, not all nations exercise public diplomacy and diplomat’s role as an interlocutor between states has not shrink. The advent of public diplomacy in anyway does not exclude the necessity of traditional diplomatic relations. Most of current diplomacy takes place in front of cameras and microphones, but the element of closed-door diplomacy is still intact (Rosen, & Wolf 2004).The ancient role of the primacy and the diplomat on bilateral relations has not dwindled in terms of importance; instead, this role has been enhanced by the wants of public diplomacy. Substance and image have turned to be knotted. The modern diplomat must be informed of this aspect minus losing the durable focus on bilateral diplomat in any diplomat relations. An ideal theory regarding the exercise of public diplomacy is founded on the notion of “credible public diplomacy”, defined by Murrow in his articles. The open diplomacy inbuilt in public diplomacy, as has been characterized, hinges on Wilson ideals concerning openness and democracy (Melissen, 2005). It implies that, states involved in public diplomacy as a result of idealistic purposes would envisage their operations as founded upon and promoting freedom ideal. In Facts to a candid World: America’s Overseas Information Program, Stephens characterized United States Information program as a mere propaganda (Stephens, 1955). Likewise, the USIA; the first official public diplomacy instrument of the United States steadfastly placed America in the bustle of ‘international propaganda businesses (Stephens, 1955). Dissimilar from idealism, the foundation of public diplomacy is regarded in this context be deception and self-interest. For some reasons, the perception of idealistic inspirations for public diplomacy must encounter a final challenge. It seems as though public diplomacy maybe understood minus a democratic ideal active in communist states like Russia and China. Several studies have revealed that governments exercise public diplomacy primarily due to rational benefits, not ideals of openness or democracy; nevertheless, a general social trend do exist as anticipated by normative growth understood by the constructivist, sociological theories, aimed at the practice of public diplomacy. Public diplomacy is no longer exclusively the quest of Western nations and major powers, as the exercise of public diplomacy has turned to be prolific extending to other countries regardless of limits in the number of years a nation has been engaged in the UN, the democratic nature of a state, and the number of missions abroad. As a matter of concern, there is an overpowering impetus for nations universally to add more on their public diplomacy exertions. According to Gunaratne, successful public diplomacy is shifting to an increasingly vital asset in a globalized universe. Current economic and technological changes reveal that a pressing need for practical and active public diplomacy do exist (Gunaratne, 2005). The United States, Canada and European nations all have several case studies in the sector of public diplomacy. Nevertheless, there is a current need to add more attention on the public diplomacy exertions of non-traditional superpowers like India, China, Brazil, South Africa and Singapore among others. Public diplomacy remains the next edge in the practice of universal diplomacy, and the study of public diplomacy should match the growth of public diplomacy in innovativeness. Public diplomacy in China Public diplomacy is not be a new term to China. Behaviours and perceptions of both China’s international and domestic audiences are having an increasing effect on China’s foreign policy. Emerging to undertake a more considerable role in world economics and politics, and regularly feeling misjudged by the international community, the Chinese government is increasingly making effective use of public diplomacy techniques to define China’s image that according to them ensure more justice to reality. Painting, cinema and calligraphy, Nobel Prize (literature), acupuncture, Chinese cuisine, martial arts and traditional medicine have captured the world minus deliberate action by her government, but are very powerful assets in maintaining a positive image abroad. Two aspects make the nation’s public diplomacy particularly fascinating: the element that China is a one-party state with a centralized authoritarian system that has far-reaching control over public diplomacy instruments; and the element that China can build on a tradition of political propaganda. The two characters explain both China’s weaknesses and strengths with consideration to its public diplomacy. China’s authorities recognize and address the necessity of both foreign and domestic audiences, but their foreign policy strategy focus is solely on formal intergovernmental connections; this puts china’s case an outstanding example of what Enfant terms “strategic public diplomacy.” This is when a country’s government applies strategic political communication to impact opinion in another (Enfant, 2007). Taking an active role in a global policy network with private and public players is an issue for the future, as China’s civil is cautiously developing and leaders in China do not permit independent players to engage in foreign policy. China’s development in public diplomacy hardly can be detached from China’s rapid development in diplomacy as a whole in the last decade, which, at the end, cannot be separated from the enormous political and economic alterations that have taken place and are continuing to take place in the China. Present China is a booming commercial nation with a logical outlook in the world arena. In increasing and choosing upon the nation’s public diplomacy activities, a primary responsibility is reserved for the State Council Information Office. The council’s main work was to promote China as a stable nation in reform process, a republic that takes good care of its citizens, not excluding the minority and strives hard to do away with poverty (Stephens, & Oren, 1955). Apart from this state council, China went ahead to form several cooperation to deal with the issue of diplomacy outside China. China may not yet have a “grand public diplomacy strategy”, but considering the scope and several of Chinese public diplomacy and looking into how well-thought out many of the actions are, one may not but accomplish that China is doing great and even in front of many western nations in terms of public diplomacy. However, China needs public diplomacy urgently: most nations in the world still ‘suspect’ China. Asia is worried about China’s political and economic rise; Europe is mainly concerned about the country’s violation of human rights, and the United States is concerned about both. China’s leaders are also concerned with the nation’s image universally. The nation tends to involve external links in most of it activities such as the 2008 Olympic Games where it engaged the help of international companies to aid in the tournament. American diplomacy. The roots of modern public diplomacy and the current debates to have more public diplomacy are generally dominated by the experience of the United States. Around mid-1960, the term “public diplomacy” was purportedly coined by a former US diplomat and the appointed dean at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Edmund Gullion. In the subsequent years, its practice closely became linked to the US (Melissen, 2005). Contrary to Cold War backdrop, most public campaigns were all aimed at communicating the American lifestyle to foreign publics. Promotion of culture and public diplomacy were closely connected and served the same purposes. Public diplomacy criticism as the soft part of foreign relations was muted by cold war demands but acquired strength after its demise. One of the main driving forces behind the integration of the US information Agency (USIA) into a State Department in mid-90s was budget cuts. This was when the Cato Institute claimed that ‘public diplomacy is greatly irrelevant to the types of challenges that were facing US. The post-cold war against public diplomacy in fact reinforced the ever-existing bureaucratic pressures. It has always been had to give public diplomacy priority on the State Department’s itinerary. As is very well known, 11 September 2011 tragedy changed public diplomacy fortunes against the fall of a troubled relationship between the world of Islam and the West together with the war of terror declared by President Bush. Interestingly, whenever soft powers are to be exercised, US have unparalleled assets that are accompanied, as it has emerged, with an unequalled capacity to manage a free fall into the abyss of external perceptions. Other nations may learn from the weaknesses and strengths of the United States diplomacy. The aims of public diplomacy are unachievable if they are believed to be inconsistent with a nation’s military actions or foreign policy. United States policies towards the Middle East or the presence of its military in Iraq, for example, undercut the credibility of public diplomacy. The United States experience as well reveals the necessity of coming up with a long-term public diplomacy approach with principal harmonization of policies. Problems evidently exist within United States executive branch of government, but it does not go on to take much to realize that several other countries have only started to think about such matters. Furthermore, US experiences with public diplomacy reveal that practices and skills from the corporate division, in specific from the disciplines of public relations and marketing, can be predominantly useful in campaigns of public diplomacy (Rosen, & Wolf 2004). Canada and Norway diplomacy. Two nations that have, extraordinarily and also inevitably, often acted in ‘altruistic’ way, for genuinely noble purposes as well as for self-advancing, are Canada and Norway (Leonard, Small, & Rose, M. 2005). At one point, Canada was described as the “Stern Daughter of the Voice of God” by former US secretary of state, Dean Acheson. Actually, it has created a good image of international citizenship. Partly owing to its dual French and English heritage, it is an active member of most international organizations including La Francophonie and Commonwealth. May be most notably, it has pioneered in peacekeeping arena. Canada has also been in the frontline in terms of donating to poor nations. Canada is also known for leading in international efforts in a bid to ban anti-individual landmines (the Ottawa process). Meanwhile, Norway which is historically recognized for peace Nobel Prize is as well a generous aid contributor to developing nations. Its level of giving, as a percentage of national income, is one of the highest globally. Even much remarkable in the demesne of diplomacy is its work in facilitation of peace, its famous effort being aimed at the Middle East (the Oslo Process) (Stephens, & Oren, 1955). Norway and Canada, although on dissimilar continents and unequal in size, form a pair. The two nations have regularly collaborated in international activities, both consensually and in formal and informal multilateral sceneries. The two nations are among the ‘like-minded’ in their mutual methodologies to regional and global issues. Canada and Norway, together with other Northern nations have common features to an extent of forming a council that is mandated to looking into their regional matters. Both Norway and Canada have been public opinion adroit users, for the two have had to depend on the others’ goodwill, furthest as well as near, instead of their own physical strength, to uphold their wider influence and national independence. Norway’s and Canada’s public diplomacy, in which both nations invest heavily, seems to be prototypical, for both the nations have for long enjoyed high international respect. For both the Norwegian and Canadian governments, the success of diplomatic efforts has involved direct engagement with civil society and adjacent collaboration with non-governmental organizations. Norwegian and Canadian officials and envoys are master networkers, and they have used their contacts to significant advantage. Conclusion. In as much as governments perceive their capacity to deliver swiftly what is expected of them in the foreign and domestic spheres continuously decreased, there is still more that is demanded of them. Public diplomacy plays a vital role in ensuring an orderly universe where human beings can freely interact with any part of the world; this can be steered by the efforts of state governments. In order to increase business ties, Public diplomacy plays a great role in ensuring that the world is settled on a uniform system of trade which changes the life of human beings positively. Inter-reliance has introduced a joint dimension into diplomacy and as Melissen puts it, ‘public diplomacy is an indispensable ingredient for such a collaborative model of diplomacy’ (Melissen, 2005). An enhanced and reformed public diplomacy should be accompanied by limited expressions about what it can achieve. A lot of issues are emerging such as the war on terror, which international diplomacy can be used as one of the weapons to combat the battle. Nations are keen to ensure that their images are well portrayed globally and foreign governments do have a positive perspective of what is taking place in those governments. For the universe to be orderly, the answer is public diplomacy. References Melissen, J. (2005). The New Public Diplomacy.Soft Power in International. Wang, J. (Ed.). (2011). Soft power in China: Public diplomacy through communication. Palgrave Macmillan. Stephens, Oren. (1955) Facts to a candid world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gunaratne, S. A. (2005). Public diplomacy, global communication and world order: An analysis based on theory of living systems. Current Sociology, 53(5), 749-772. Rosen, B., & Wolf Jr, C. (2004). Public Diplomacy: How to Think About and Improve It. Rand. org. Leonard, M., Small, A., & Rose, M. (2005). British public diplomacy in theage of schisms. London: Foreign Policy Centre. Definitions of Public Diplomacy.(n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2015, from http://fletcher.tufts.edu/Murrow/Diplomacy/Definitions United States. (1987). Dictionary of international relations terms. Washington, D.C.?: Dept. of State Library. Peterson, P. (n.d.). Public Diplomacy and the War on Terrorism. Retrieved March 29, 2015, from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/58247/peter-g-peterson/public-diplomacy-and-the-war-on-terrorism Enfant Gâtée sans frontière.. (2007, April 3). Retrieved March 29, 2015, from http://enfantgateesansfrontiere.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-has-public-diplomacy-become.html Tuch, H. N. (1990). Communicating with the world: US public diplomacy overseas. Macmillan. Signitzer, B. H., & Coombs, T. (1992). Public relations and public diplomacy: Conceptual convergences. Public Relations Review, 18(2), 137-147. Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 55-77. Malone, G. D. (1988). Political advocacy and cultural communication: Organizing the nations public diplomacy (Vol. 11). Univ Pr of Amer. Ross, C. (2002). Public diplomacy comes of age. Washington Quarterly, 25(2), 73-83. Cull, N. J. (2009). Public diplomacy: Lessons from the past. CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, 12. Potter, E. (2002). Canada and the new public diplomacy. International Journal, 43-64. Szondi, G. (2008). Public diplomacy and nation branding: Conceptual similarities and differences. Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael. Hocking, B. (2005). Rethinking the “new” public diplomacy. The new public diplomacy: Soft power in international relations, 28-43. Riordan, S. (2004). Dialogue-based public diplomacy: a new foreign policy paradigm?. Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael. Read More