Cull defines public diplomacy as “an international actor’s attempt to manage the international environment through the engagement with a foreign public”. (2009: 12) Due to changes in the way public diplomacy is practiced, many now speak about the New public diplomacy. The shifts include; the emergence of non-traditional actors such as NGOs, new and faster technology available to the actors which has blurred the clear lines between the domestic and international news spheres, new terms within public diplomacy such as “soft power” and “branding”, and people to people diplomacy where the international actor simply facilitates the communication. The new diplomacy’s focus is seen as attempting to build relationships between an actor and a foreign audience, or between two foreign audiences. However, the aim is still to manage the international environment. (Cull, 2009) These shifts and developments, together with the global issues we face today, would suggest that governments need to change the way public diplomacy is practised if it is to be effective. That would entail making the new public diplomacy a tool of governments’ foreign policies as well as cooperation between governments and non-state actors. Today’s common problems, such as climate change, diseases, terrorism, need a common awareness and approach.
However, these issues have a lot to do with culture and different people’s beliefs and values, which is what causes difficulties in tackling these problems in a coherent manner. This, together with the question regarding governments’ roles and their influence is the challenge for practitioners of public diplomacy today. (Evans, Steven, 2010)
In the case of terrorism and in particularly Al-Qaeda, it is a minority of people that uses the weapons of new diplomacy and technology to promote its beliefs to an international audience. “Bin Laden is the quintessential public diplomat, not least in how he speaks past governments”. (Evans, Steven, 2010: 20)
So therefore the main question seems to be how states can change and adapt public diplomacy to combat these new issues, as well as how they can form coalitions which also include non-state actors. (Evans, Steven, 2010) In the matter of global terrorism, states might try to use public diplomacy (and cooperation) to deal with certain issues before they arise and worsen; for example by trying to influence political structures, and through development assistance in politically unstable states and regions where terrorism might be more prone to develop and escalate.
After the Cold War, the focus on public diplomacy and its funding, especially in the Islamic world, was reduced as there no longer was a Soviet threat. (Critchlow, 2004) Ignoring public diplomacy in a time of peace or when there is no greater enemy may leave some regions weak and vulnerable to other influences, such as terrorism. If there is cooperation between international actors and a consistent focus on public diplomacy and cultural exchanges, it may help to prevent violent actors being successful in shaping public opinion.
Critchlow, J. “Public Diplomacy during the Cold War: The Record and Its Implications”,
Journal of Cold War Studies, Vol. 6, Number 1, winter 2004
Cull, N. J. “Public diplomacy: Lessons from the past”, 2009, USC Center on Public Diplomacy (accessed on 11/05)
Evans, A. and Steven, D., ‘Towards a Theory of Influence for Twenty-First Century Foreign Policy: The New Public Diplomacy in a Globalized World’, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2010
I agree particularly with the issue of terrorism and how public diplomacy needs to be incorporated in initiatives to combat it. Smart power, incorporating soft power tools, such as public diplomacy, alongside military tactics is neccessary to combat terrorism but still little focus goes on reaching out to foreign nationals who may otherwise may be one over by fundamentalist ideas.
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton recently expressed grave concerns about the decreasing investment and funding of the BBG who she accuses of uncoordinated mismanagement of US international broadcasting. The BBG, along with the BBC, have significantly cut back on most of its international broadcasting particularly in the middle east, a prime target audience when it comes to terrorism. At the same time China and Russia are increasing their broadcasts in the region, an additional indication of the regions importance in trade and commerce as well as security.