Most important aspects of the new diplomacy

Mulitilateral diplomacy usually includes bilateral diplomacy somehow within its own framework in how negotiations are carried out,the forming of blocs within individual interests can be seen to happen and to a certain extent undermine the multilateral aspect of diplomacy.

States need to consult individual embassies that they may have set abroad before actually raising important suggestions at these multilateral diplomatic conferences and hence the inclusion of bilateral diplomacy within the framework of multilateral diplomacy.

It is also important to note that the emergence of multilateral diplomacy is not only beyond the twentieth century but dates back to earlier examples from the persian world fourth centuries BC (watson,p85-8).Within the European system of states,somewhat chaotic multilateral conferences devoted to peace settlements were a feature of the 17th century(Berridge,p151).

However with the evolving nature of the international system mutliateral diplomacy has certainly evolved in its forms of inclusion and openess,whether it can be seen to bypass bilateral diplomacy is arguable, i argree more with the aspect that the two go hand in hand and it is almost impossible to completely override bilateral diplomacy.

After the cold war and events leading further on into the September 9/11 attacks on the United states of America the most important changes to diplomacy can be seen as the inclusion and openess of multilateral conferences.It is important to note that this does not mean multilateral diplomacy has been overtly successful as most important descisions and negotiations do happen bilaterally as with example of the UN security council.

The inclusion of NGOs within multilateral negotiations is also an important aspect within the new diplomacy although they may not have the same weight as other state actors they raise important awareness to certain issues due to their levels of expertise within a particular subject as with, the environment that state actors may overlook.

Frank

Less glamour- multitasking

In a technologically advanced world, states and citizens are becoming more integrated. Therefore, it could be argued that diplomacy is also affected by this process and it has lost its privileged status due to this integration. Bolewski argues that changes in the character of diplomacy are due to several factors such as “accelerating globalization, new participants in globalized world and internationalization of domestic politics."(Bolewsi 2007: 16). I would argue that one of the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is the fact that “diplomat no longer has a controlling monopoly in carrying out diplomatic tasks” (Roberts 2009: 20). Indeed, diplomacy can be conducted not only by state institutions but also by non-governmental organizations, activists, businessmen, artists or academics. If diplomacy is as Satow states “conduct of business between states by peaceful means” (Roberts 2009: 1) then these actors definitely help to build peaceful bridges and promote a good image of their state. Diplomats have to be more prepared when addressing their communication skills than before because establishing good relations and contacts with media can be sometimes as difficult as dealing with the foreign government. New diplomacy has to be more flexible as is the environment which surrounds it- global network society. As Riordan points out,
“ Economy, trade, finance, human rights, the environment and organized crime are all issues that we now have to deal with at the international level... this represents a major intrusion into the diplomatic word of domestic politics and political agendas” (Riordan 2003:3). To sum up, new diplomacy addresses more issues, it is conducted by a broader range of actors and it is constantly “in the spotlight”.

Wilfried Bolewski, Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations, (Berlin: Springer, 2007)
Sir Ivor Roberts (ed.), Satow’s Diplomatic Practice, 6th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)
Shaun Riordan, The New Diplomacy (Cambridge: Polity, 2003)

Aspects of New Diplomacy

The international political system, of the post cold war era created a process that breed a new form of diplomacy that challenges the conception of national sovereignty together with the structures of traditional diplomacy. Unlike traditional diplomacy, it needs to be emphasized that this new form of diplomacy emerged out, but not moulded from the development of a sovereign state, instead, it can be argued that the forces of globalisation induced new diplomatic structures that invaded the principles of a sovereign state to set the rules of its economical and political systems, to determine the behaviours of its own people, and the structures of its foreign policy. Although the old diplomatic structures are still withstanding in the new global political system – the strength of their role has been weakened by unconventional new diplomatic conduct of non-state actors to the point of the inquest of their relevancy in the modern international system.

New diplomacy of non-state actors (NGOs, Pressure groups, Multinational corporations) has bypassed the traditional state embassy and penetrated to the core areas of bilateral and multilateral negotiations between states on the range of international issues such as; cultural, environmental, trade, financial, security, humanitarian and human rights. Globalisation created a global nomadic lifestyle for international citizens in searching for; advanced knowledge, business opportunities, settlements, attractions and employment. The advancement in technology has allowed information to be transmitted faster to the international public making it insignificant for citizen to contact their embassies for information of a foreign country. Embassies are no longer the sole distributors of foreign information. For example, Google map technology - allows potential visitors to view the geographical location of the destination in another country. Diplomats of new diplomacy utilises this technology to create global network for interacting, campaigning, lobbying and negotiating about a range of international issues.

Diplomacy within the public eye

The international system is an essential part in looking at the extent to which globalisation anarchy and interdependence have lead sovereign states to communicate and relate with each other through public diplomacy.

Challenges that have faced the United States and mainly the west such as the Cold war and the September 9/11 attacks can be viewed as bringing a greater importance and transforming public diplomacy.

The war on terror that was lead by President George Bush during his time in office saw the invasions of Iraq and subsequently Afghanistan.The extents and consequences of these wars have seen questions arise not only in the eyes of the world but very importantly in the minds of people duelling in the countries involved.

Clarification is required through diplomacy towards these countries in order to bring about an understanding and bridge the negativity that may tarnish the images of these countries invading their territories.

The recent unexpected visit of Prince Charles to Iraq to enlighten the troops fighting in Basra was deemed as not welcome by the lay people of Basra due the occupation of British troops in their motherland.

Whether the visit was superficial and mainly for his own benefits as said by some of the locals,an important form of public diplomacy can be seen as he managed to meet with senior members of the community such as Basra's governor Abdull Latif and the Archbishop Gabriel Kassab of the Christian community.

The risk of Prince Charles being in Iraq was imminent hence the secrecy prior to his visit meeting with local community bridges some misunderstandings and may clear critics about his visit within the local community and uplift the general view of the local people to the troops in this area of Basra.

http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20040210074636257

Frank

Recent Development that illustrates the importance of Public Diplomacy in Contemporary World Politics

End of the Cold War: Creating Bonds and reshaping the Image.

Two superpower rivalries during the Cold War created mutual aggressions between the nations and divided the international state system into blocs. Propaganda became highly popular in shaping an image for both sides. Thus, since the end of the Cold War, with the collapse of the Soviet Union it has become important to remove the previously “built-in” and mainly negative images from the publics of each conflicting sides. Even though it is considered that the United States of America has greatly reduced its spending on propaganda after the Cold War, as in “emasculating the USIA <(United State Information Agency)> and paring the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe down to almost residual proportions” (Leonard, 2002, p-2), the U.S. is still investing a great amount of attention into shaping or reshaping its image abroad. In order to remove aggressions and create mutual understanding, in pursuit of its own national interest, ofcourse! the U.S. has made an effective use of Public Diplomacy.

As the main aim of Public Diplomacy is to influence the governments of the opposing states indirectly through the publics of these governments, it is possible to see how much the U.S is investing in Public Diplomacy by the amount of funding it provides for scholarships, exchange programs, visits and etc. For example, the exchange program, FLEX (Future Leaders Exchange) Program, sponsored by the Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, that was established in 1992,

http://exchanges.state.gov/youth/programs/flex.html illustrates some of the main aspects of Public Diplomacy and in particular, Relationship Building. First of all, as Steven Curtis was mentioning at the lecture, even the name of this program reinforces Steven’s point that this exchange programs are mainly aimed for Long-term benefits as it is anticipated that these exchange students will become influential individuals with a positive attitude towards the country. Consequently, “it is important not just to develop relationship, but to ensure that the experiences which people take away are positive and that there is a follow-up afterwards”. (Leonard, 2002, P-18). If you have noticed from the information on the website, these exchange programs usually require that the students take active role in sharing their experience after the end of study programs. The program also entails in itself, that the image of the country not always or necessarily brings in itself an “Ideal and Flawless” state, but instead it allows to see the state from a different perspective with all of its “warts and all”, which complexify individuals understanding of the country. Thus, these programs enables the “students to leave with a much more sophisticated ideas of … strengths and weaknesses”. (Leonard,2002, p-18)

As a result, as this program does, Public Diplomacy impacts in the following ways:

o Increases people’s familiarity with one’s country

o Increases people’s appreciation of ones country

o Engages people from one’s country

o Influences people (Leonard, 2002, p-8-10)

Thus, after the Cold War, Public Diplomacy has been important in developing understanding and cooperation between the U.S and the former Soviet Union countries in particular.

Bibliography:

Leonard, M., (2002) Public Diplomacy available at http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/35.pdf

Public diplomacy: propaganda/public relations

Public diplomacy. It is often difficult to define. It is one state trying to get the public to agree on a certain issue, or inform them about it. But at some point, in informing the public, they try to convince them. This has been seen a lot recently with the public opinion becoming very important and influential. Politicians have to get the public onto their side. As well as diplomats. It is about improving the image of your country.

An example of public diplomacy is Barack Obama's speech on nuclear weapons in Prague in April 2009. It is about going to another country and making it known where the U.S. stands in relation to nuclear weapons. The fact that Obama said he would like to see his grandchildren or great-grandchildren live in a world free from nuclear weapons raised the United States' image because it encouraged people that the U.S. has a goal which the people side with, and gave them a positive view of the U.S. And the fact that it was held in Prague, he was addressing people not only in the Czech Republic, not only in Europe but people all over the world. Public diplomacy rests on getting the public to follow one's ideas, acts, or such. This speech got a lot of support from the public and from people everywhere.

This is the link where you can see Obama's speech:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7984353.stm

Public diplomacy has a strong relation to soft power. As Joseph Nye says, 'soft power the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments.'

Propaganda might seem like a strong word for public diplomacy, but it is correct to a certain point. Public relations is yet another accurate word because you are trying to establish a bridge of communication between the public and the state. But it could be said that in the end, public diplomacy is selling an image. As Berridge says," 'Public diplomacy' is what we call our propaganda; 'propaganda' is what the other side does."

Public Diplomacy

Public diplomacy can be seen as a strategy of building bridges of ideas, images and cultural practices by altering the concept of predictive perceptions of the public in foreign country. In the world of new technology ideas, governments through various agencies, groups and individuals engage the foreign public to question their understanding and grievances towards a particular country. During his visit to Egypt, President Barak Obama directly addressed the students of Cairo University as part of his public diplomacy to the Muslim world. This approach was designed to show the consistency of America’s values and mutual respect to the public but also, to create a war of ideas that undermine those who are hostile to United States America.
In Ghana, President Barak Obama used public diplomacy to promote Americas’ democracy and values by encouraging the young people follow the right path.
The concept of public diplomacy is becoming influential to post conflict states. In sub Saharan Africa, there are a growing number of countries such as Angola, Uganda, Nigeria and Kenya rebranding their images through government sponsored organisations and media (CNN) to inform, engage and influence the public in foreign countries – with the expectation of developing their economies through inward investments and tourism. Nigerian goverment set up a department to over see that campaign and make sure that Ctizens in foreign countries took different views of the perceptions they had about the country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2009/10/091021_rebranding_nigeria.shtml