Public Diplomacy

It is a great “green” coincidence this week marked with the USA- Russia new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) on nuclear arsenal and the Earth Day on the 27th April when one hour without lights is dedicated to the planet for less carbon dioxide (CO₂). I am writing my blog on Public Diplomacy on a green energy light at the same time as writing and searching for news on the laptop- two inventions but of different generations.


Picture available at at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2009/jul/06/russia-obama-administration?picture=349891252


I believe that with this action I will make the Earth with small amounts reduced CO₂ emissions as well as my belief is the same regarding the new START Treaty between Russia and USA. The information technologies are playing a huge role in the world (e.g. my belief that I will decrease CO₂ with turning off the lights).
As CSIS expose on their website: “The intent of public diplomacy is to communicate with the people, not the governments, of foreign countries.”

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/071106_csissmartpowerreport.pdf

“A smarter public diplomacy is one that shows respect toward other countries and a willingness to understand local needs and local issues.” (John Zogby-ibid)

This statement is very well illustrated in the Barack Obama speech on nuclear Treaty: “...I stated America’s intention to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons...”, “...when the US and Russia can cooperate effectively, it advances the mutual interests of our two nations, and the security and prosperity of the wider world.”

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/03/2010326153215998861.html

In the high politics, this Treaty is promoting a greater security, for the “global” citizens it is given credence to promote less funds for the military and respectively more funds for development in general in the other fields including environment and poverty. But how this news reached my ears? To understand more, I visited a Russian website where it was written: “MOSCOW -- for the past two days the city’s downtown language was English. If you were grabbing a coffee or dining with friends, local waiters rarely bothered to switch to Russian, even with Russians. Obama brought an unprecedented 600 advisors, media, and assistants with him.”

http://www.russiablog.org/2009/07/obama_in_moscow_reset_yuri_mamchur.php

It is possible not to be true, however this is the power of the media, but the important fact is that public diplomacy played its role successfully not only making gratified the world governments, but the non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, citizens etc, too.

Public diplomacy needed in contemporary world politics

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 Afghanistan for 8 years with no real sign of victory, the approach now being used is about winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. This is the very definition of public diplomacy as they are trying in a very real sense to engage with Afghan public.

The United States cannot defeat al-Qaeda by military strength alone. It must also get to grips with the root causes of radicalisation. How can this best be accomplished? What strategy should the United States adopt for what is often called the "war of ideas" against radical Islam?

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 United States’ approach to the war of ideas, compared to the Bush administration. This has been done by an attempt to use diplomacy and soft power, rather than hard power and “you are either with us or against us” tactics.

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.

Public Diplomacy, Propaganda or Soft Power?

According to Berridge, Public Diplomacy is simply the current name of white propaganda contrary to Cull who sees it as an invitation to influence as many people as possible from foreign countries as it seeks to achieve over them (Berridge, 2010, pp 179-182).
Mark Dillen argues in his article ‘’US Public Diplomacy, Back to the Future’’(11.03.2010) on Public Diplomacy website that the State Department is strategically trying to revive US Information Agency (USAI) policy ten years after its closure by communicating and influencing foreign publics. Therefore key diplomatic positions will be upgraded and other strategic public positions ceded to the Pentagon in the past will be reclaimed. If successful this will definitely reduce the influence and the authority of US embassies abroad. For example there is a new plan underway in Pakistan called the ’’Pakistan Plan’’ which has four objectives: increase the media audience, fight against terrorist propaganda, increase communication network and have a direct contact with the local population by increasing positive American presence on the ground in Pakistan with more non-official contacts between Pakistanis and Americans in Pakistan. Thus Secretary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan in October 2009 was planned according to the set objectives. (http://publicdiplomacy.foreignpolicyblogs.com) [accessed 26.03.10].
This new strategy in Pakistan and the change of tone of American Foreign Policy shows the US is adopting to another form of Public Diplomacy: Soft Power by both President Clinton and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton according to Kim Ghattas’s article on BBC News, Washington posted on the 18 October 2009. For Ghattas, Hillary Clinton feels her schedule with ‘’Soft’’ events during which she meets students, women activists or human rights advocates contrary to her predecessor Condoleezza Rice who conducted her foreign policy in a more rigid academic style, sticking mostly to official meeting during short trip that were run with military precision. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/831293.stm) [accessed 26.03.10]

Public Diplomacy, Propaganda or Soft Power?

Once upon a time when even public diplomacy is useless

Since the end of the Cold War, American public diplomacy has seemed to be in its decline as the number of American exchange students has been very low and the end of organisations as USIA. But 9/11 gave a new strong motivation for a new public diplomacy and many voices in the USA started calling for a renewal of USIA and a better engagement in public diplomacy. But is it really public diplomacy that failed?
Lets look first at a simple statement given by a director of USIA in 1963 “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”. After 9/11, the USA lost its truthfulness that people around the world had in the USA. The fake reasons behind the invasion of Iraq and dubious event of 9/11, were just some of the reasons, for which people around the world lost its trust in the USA. Over thousand of Architects and engineers signed a petition for a new and proper investigation of 9/11 in February 2010 (1). There are thousands of American websites and books showing many mistakes in official report on 9/11 and many of them asserting that 9/11 was a “false flag operation” carried out by the USA government or that invasion of Iraq was just about oil or about a hidden agenda for a world government. People asserting those issues against the USA government are, among others, many doctors, engineers, judges, politicians and many other scholars. There is a huge number of movies exposing the frauds carried out by the US government as for instance “”Fall of the Republic” that has been already seen by 1 500 000 people on youtube and websites as for instance infowars.com that are visited by about hundred thousand people every day. Unless the USA government refutes all the accusations, there is no chance to succeed in public diplomacy and persuade people that the USA helps people around the world and protects only its country against terrorists. It is also interesting that in this case, the USA government must also fight own citizens against contrary public diplomacy

(1) http://www.ae911truth.org/

Public Diplomacy

Public diplomacy cannot be regarded just as PR or propaganda. As for the US it is a very good way to reconstruct and to gain leverage in the world.

The role of USA in the world was not only about its military power - it was goin along with culture and values. We all know brands such as McDonalds, KFC, Nike Inc.; we celebrate Halloween and Valentione's Day. The influence the United States has on the rest of the world is huge. American politicians regard Public Diplomacy as integral for Foreign Politics. The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs is responsible for this area of politics.

"The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs leads America's public diplomacy outreach, which includes communications with international audiences, cultural programming, academic grants, educational exchanges, international visitor programs, and U.S. Government efforts to confront ideological support for terrorism. The Under Secretary oversees the bureaus of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Public Affairs and International Information Programs, and participates in foreign policy development." ( http://www.state.gov/r/ )

Currently, the Under Secretary position is held by Judith McHale, since May, 2009. She was talking about the Public Diplomacy and how it is connected with national security, in June, 2009 in Washington. I find this very useful in order to understand why is Public Diplomacy so important. She emphasises the role of technological development in spreading information all over the world. The important point she makes, is that "traditional G2G diplomacy is not enough". There are two different levels of public diplomacy mentioned: communication and engagement.

Public diplomacy in contemporary world politics.

Kind of negative public Diplomacy :(

Public Diplomacy in contrast to “traditional” diplomacy is about communication with citizens. Public Diplomacy includes dialogue between individuals and various institutions including non-governmental as is often referred to as a “two-way street” for credentials of the dialogue.

‘The basic premise of public diplomacy is that by engaging in a country’s political and social debates, you can create the intellectual and political climate in which your specific policies can flourish.’ (Riordan, S. (2004) The New Diplomacy: 122) Those engagements can be cultural and educational programs, seminars engaged to certain theme, TV documentaries, interviews and articles. Public diplomacy aims to create a positive image of the advocate country within the target community or country; however this is not always in positive manner, but could be with the aim to create a negative image as well. This blog would argue that there is a fine line between public policy and targeted propaganda and is often somehow fused together.


There is an interesting video showing how Israel is using new technologies to improve the image of the Israel. Technologies that Israeli diplomats are using are i.e. Twitter, Facebook or YouTube. It is interesting how by using the internet can help to change the perspective of the one country in the globalised, interconnected world with help of advanced technology and can reach the targeted group of people within seconds.
Please watch this video on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujYb0dCWVDc

This blog would argue that the most profound example of the public diplomacy in the use of public diplomacy in the time of Vietnam war, when Americans did realize the importance of the support of the Vietnamese citizens and more recently the same situations occurred in Iraq. There is interesting interview led by a Yemeni-born British television news reporter and interviewer Riz Khan on subject of the public diplomacy of the USA in Iraq. Watch at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fHn97YoQ14