Public diplomacy seeks to promote a country’s national interests through understanding, informing and influencing foreign publics. This can be done through different means, such as; government sponsored programmes to influence public opinion in other states, cultural exchanges, internet, television etc. This is different to traditional diplomacy as a government will deal with non-state actors and directly with the public.
The US War against al Qaeda, and terrorism, most clearly illustrates the need for public diplomacy. Having been in
The
There has been a realisation that the protection of the Afghan people must be a priority when it comes to tactics in the Afghan conflict. The following links illustrate this point:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=achpmC.2DSpo
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/world/asia/23policy.html
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/02/23/mcchrystal-apologizes-afghans-civilian-deaths/
The Obama administration has improved on the
The strategy of empowering the Afghan people to provide their own security has been as much a psychological weapon as a physical one. If you want a foreign public’s support and cooperation, you need their trust, respect and a mutual understanding of values.
Indeed, as you wrote, the US with Obama as a leader is working on its damaged image. Unlikely G.W.Bush who used to form his administration round the national security strategy, Obama does not focus on America's military power to force other nations to do what America wants but pays attention to soft power. This can be seen in his approach to Iran. Obama said :' "Strong countries and strong presidents meet and talk with our adversaries. We shouldn't be afraid to do so. We've tried the other way. It didn't work." (Matthews,2009)Nevertheless, winning public support in Afghanistan and also other countries where the US need to work harder on its image could be more difficult then expected. Namely,domestic priorities such as restoration of economy can push plans about new foreign policy futher down on an agenda.
ReplyDeleteObama still needs to spend a lot on creating jobs, rebuilding national infrastructure and more.It is questionable whether he can afford
diplomatic initiatives in place of military operations.(Matthews,2009)There is a serious money involved in reshaping US image especially that the development of diplomacy has been undermined for quite some time. Many believe namely that it should not be expected much from Obama who has too many challenges to face during this presidential residency. Maybe during the next one then ... ?
Sources:
Can Obama Get Results From 'Soft Power'?
By William Matthews, 19 January 2009 (Defense News)available at: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3907876&c=FEA&s=SPE
It is true that Obama has a lot on his plate...not only changing the image of the US abroad but also domestic issues. However, I think this is inevitable when you are the biggest, and only,(military) superpower in the world. But as their image abroad, since 9/11 especially, has very much to do with their national security, it will most certainly be one of the main priorities.
ReplyDeleteGreat article Irma. I agree, the Obama administration has changed the US tone and approach to the middle-eastern states. However, I also believe public diplomacy is not only about winning the “soul and hearts” of a certain population, but also centred on understanding their customs, traditions ideological beliefs and political views. Simultaneously, through public diplomacy one owns views and ideas are presented, thus creating a ground for dialogue and hopefully greater comprehension. Now this is a big task for Obama and his administration to carry through, particularly after the “war on terror” mentality which implied a rather hostile and aggressive attitude to the “Muslim world” (much because many felt that the “war on terror” was a in fact a facade for antagonism towards Islam), and I believe much needs to be done at home base when it comes to “understanding the other”, before any real improved relations can be noticed between the “Oriental” and the “Occidental”.
ReplyDeleteHi Irma,
ReplyDeleteI do agree with your view about the War in Afghanistan and the need to use public diplomacy as the means to bring it to an end. It has been feared for some time now that Afghanistan can become another Vietnam. And everything we have seen so far in this conflict seems to confirm this fear. There is no way of winning this conflict merely by military means. If there would be one, with the military supremacy the USA possess, the war would be over by now. Therefore, i think that there is a need for a new approach, and the use of public diplomacy can be solution here. We all know now that Obama wont simply withdraw the U.S troops from Afghanistan, but in contrast to the Bush Administration, he decided to combine hard power with soft power. If the use of public diplomacy would bring desired effects of winning hearts and minds of Afgan population, he would probably succeed in bringinh stability to the country and, as a result, ending the war.