Looking at the new aspects that are included in “new” diplomacy, I would have to say that the most important one has to be the emergence of non-state actors in diplomatic processes. Public diplomacy appears to be, in many ways, propaganda, but with a new name. NGOs mostly work on issues multilaterally, so multilateral diplomacy goes hand in hand with the fact the NGOs are more influential in international relations today. This is just another evolution of diplomacy, as the world changes throughout time, diplomacy has to follow. One may argue that, because of NGOs involvement in diplomatic processes, this might threaten the power of the state, as diplomats traditionally have been government officials. But due to the NGOs growing popularity and ability to push issues on the agenda and be heard, states have been “forced” to include them. This does not necessarily threaten the state, but gives the state a new partner to communicate and negotiate with. That I think is important, that states and NGOs work together, as they have different abilities and approaches. Also, they usually have different interests; governments tend to be driven by national interests, while NGOs tend to be driven by a cause that they are fighting for. The most important thing the NGOs do, in my opinion, is that they are able to mobilize public support for important issues that otherwise may not have been high up on the agenda. There are many examples of this, but a very good one is the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. If it hadn’t been for a collective effort by different NGO’s pushing this campaign, there probably would not have been much achieved on this issue. Their campaign eventually led to the treaty to ban landmines in 1997 in Ottawa, and as of 20th March 2006, 154 countries have signed up to the treaty.
http://www.handicap-international.org.uk/page_391.php
Interestingly though, the United States have chosen not to sign it…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1SU5LGj6_E
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Irma, great piece, however I am wondering whether public diplomacy could so easily be categorized as propaganda? From your blog commentary, I understood you perceive the emergence of non-state actors as one of the most important aspects of new diplomacy. I would argue that (new) public diplomacy is a demonstration of how the practice of diplomacy has become more concerned and oriented towards these non state actors. In this sense, pubic diplomacy is not equivalent to propaganda, but instead a means for reaching out to these new actors.
ReplyDeleteHi Nilo,I understand your point, and agree to a certain extent. However I still feel that many times public diplomacy is propaganda; the governments who use public diplomacy to reach out to the NGOs are in a way forced to do so! The governments do not necesserily bring up important issues (poverty,human rights, etc) beacuse they sincerely wish to, BUT because they are forced to address these issues due to the NGOs ability to influence and educate the public regarding these kinds of international problems. Therefore politicians have to adreess such issues in order to get public support, which in my opinion, is more propaganda. Especially before an election...
ReplyDeleteHey guys!
ReplyDeleteI also cosider the emergence of new participants in international relations as the most important aspect of the "new" diplomacy. Their influence on states' behaviour and negotiations is significant. What I would also underline would be wider area of states' activities ( like environment, social issues, humar rights, etc ) and using new technologies, like videoconferencing, in order to simplify contact between states or other participants of international relations.
In terms of your little argue about concerning public diplomacy as propaganda or not, I cannot agree with any of you, although I understand your points. I think that public diplomacy is not exactly the same as propaganda is, but it might be considered as its 'tool'. We have to remember that there are three types of propaganda:
- black ( source is unknown or false, information is often a lie )
- grey ( the source is not specified; it is often a "group of specialists" or "an expetr" )
- white ( source is known and information is true ).
If we would like to think of public diplomacy in terms of propaganda, we should think of the white one. I think that if any of the states would use lies or deceit to improve its position, it would rapidly come out, and that country would be in trouble.