From panda diplomacy to state controlled public diplomacy / propaganda?

China’s communication with international audiences has in the past decades changed faster than the domestic communications. The logic behind the ‘upgrade’ in the way China communicates with the rest of the world is; 1) it has no control over foreign audiences as it has over the domestic (so the methods of communication needed to be improved); 2) propaganda did not appear to be a viable way of reaching the Western audiences, which have been China’s main target since 1978; 3) the need for more sophisticated ways of communication due to not being able to control and censor foreign media as it can the domestic media, and the existence of many different news medias. (Zhang, 2008: 306) According to D’Hooghe, the goals of China’s public diplomacy have been to present China as a country working towards a peaceful society, a trustworthy economic partner, and dependable and responsible member of the international community.

The positive image of its culture, its huge economic growth, and the appeal of its development model to some states are some of the positive features which create opportunities for China. However, it also has limitations on its public diplomacy and soft power; the international concerns over its growing power, the human rights record, legitimacy, and authoritarianism (a problem mainly for the West). China’s public diplomacy efforts have included people to people diplomacy through Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and pro-China associations, exchanges, media and broadcasting, as well as development aids (which, unlike some Western aid, might not have conditions for the aid receiver...). Some authors state that China’s goal has been to portray itself as a model of social and economic success and also build stronger international alliances, and that its efforts to improve its image have to some extent been successful. According to some, this has been thanks to China’s less confrontational and more sophisticated and constructive approach towards the practice of public diplomacy. (Zhang, 2008: 304-307)

However, as we can see, the view that China’s influence on the world is a positive one has decreased considerably since 2005. (BBC World Service poll) (The percentage increased in 2008 when China held the Olympic Games)

Issues regarding human rights and domestic censorship might have something to do with these figures, and whether China may be perceived to be portraying itself as it would like to be, rather than what it actually is. The imprisonment of Liu Xiaobo, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and China persuading states not to attend the ceremony, would indicate that China has a long way to go if it is to be seen in a positive light by foreign (Western) audiences.

Zhang, J., “Making Sense of the Changes in China’s Public Diplomacy: Direction of Information Flow and Messages”, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2008

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8626041.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11974612

(Both web pages accessed on 13/04)

Foreign audiences and Non- State Actors

Generally foreign audiences are very suspicious of government’s public diplomacy efforts (Zatepilina, 2008). I have certainly experienced this whenever I attempt to make a new contact or conduct a talk on the environmental issues caused due to coca production. I have learned that the quicker we established the neutrality of our project, the more attention, engagement, and better rapport we have with audiences. Melissen argues that the combined forces of globalization and the democratization of access to information have made foreign publics tougher targets for foreign diplomats (Melissen, 2006). Moreover, foreign audiences identify and place more trust in non-state actors due to their independence from governments, thus publics respond better to non-state actors neutrality and ability to disagree with governments’ policies.

However, it can be argued that often audiences are not aware that non-state actors also work on behalf of their own interests just like governments do. Whether the non-state’s actor interests are aimed at benefiting the organization, a country, or its ideology; I think it is important that the audiences also become more cautious when encountered with non-state actors, as not everyone engaged in public diplomacy may be as genuine and transparent as they appear to be. This is especially visible during the events organized by the governments interested in promoting their public diplomacy goals; you come across all sorts of individuals and organizations, in my experience the majority of non-state actors that I have come across have been rather positive and interesting to work with. Nonetheless, there have been occasions when you notice and therefore you refuse to have any links with other stakeholders that are evidently involved in public diplomacy because of the opportunity of gaining economic benefits.

Despite of this, many governments acknowledge that their public diplomacy efforts are more successful when they remain in the background (Potter, 2009). In other words, governments are playing the role of facilitators and mediators. This does not necessarily mean that they do not have any input. On the contrary, governments play a strategic role and are rather active in setting the agenda. The majority of governments are no longer willing to impose the top down approach but rather introduce a more collaborative model (Murphy, 2008).

References

1. Melissen, J. (2006, February 6). Reflection on Public Diplomacy Today. Retrieved March 24, 2011, from Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael: http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2006/20060206_cdsp_online_melissen.pdf.

2. Murphy, J. (2008). Engagement Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World. Retrieved April 6, 2011, from Foreign & Commonwealth Office: http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/pd-engagement-jul-08

3. Potter, E. H. (2009). Branding Canada. Montreal: McGill Queen's University Press .

4. Zatepilina, O. (2008, November 10). Non-state ambassadors: NGOs ’ contribution to America's public diplomacy. Retrieved March 22, 2011, from Place Branding and Public Diplomacy: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/pb/journal/v5/n2/pdf/pb200827a.pdf

Turkey's niche diplomacy..?

The bipolarity during the Cold War has changed into multi-dimensional power structures since the fall of communism. The US has remained the most powerful actor from a military and security point of view; however the importance of military capacity appears to have decreased. One of the reasons for this is that the policy agenda since the 1990s has shifted much focus on ‘new’ issues, such as; human rights, poverty and the environment . These issues require problem-solving through coalitions, or established institutions. This new global arena provides opportunities for the middle powers to become involved in policy initiatives. A middle power is one that is weaker than the superpowers but stronger than the small countries (in military and economic aspects). States such as Canada, Norway and Australia have been able to practice this ‘middle power-diplomacy’ by attempting to identify their ‘niche’ by considering their resources and reputational qualifications, as well as the consideration of functional determinants. As these states cannot, and are not expected to do everything, they can be selective and prioritise as to where they put their resources. (Cooper, 1997:1-6) Gareth Evans, the former Australian foreign minister, defined niche diplomacy as; “concentrating resources in specific areas best able to generate returns worth having, rather than trying to cover the field”. (as quoted in Cooper, 1997:5) The changing nature and issues in the international system have suggested that regional politics are becoming more important and subsequently, the middle powers in their respective regions have had the opportunity to become more influential.

A country that has this potential is Turkey, as it can be defined both as a middle power and a regional power. Turkey’s role and power may have a lot to do with its location, and from a Western point of view; the fact that it is a secular Islamic democracy. Turkey is a member of various international organizations such as; United Nations, NATO, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), as well as being a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO). These memberships put Turkey in a unique position as it has the ability to build bridges between different parts of the world. (Muftuler, Yuksel, 1997:184-189) It also has strong political, economic, cultural, and economic ties to the West, the Middle East, the Balkans, as well as Central Asia. (Muftuler, Yuksel, 1997:195) Turkey has in recent years undertaken many internal reforms due to the European Union requirements for membership, however there are still issues regarding North Cyprus and the Kurdish minority within the country. Nevertheless, with its location and international ties, its niche diplomacy can perhaps entail conflict mediation and multilateral diplomacy, if it can find a neutral ground.

“Whether in Afghanistan or the Middle East, Turkey has a credibility that others in the West just can’t hope to have. So I’ve come here to make the case for Turkey to use this credibility, to go further in enhancing our security and working for peace across our world.”

(David Cameron, in a speech during a visit to Turkey, 27 July 2010)

Sport Diplomacy

Mohali Stadium Setting the Arena for Diplomatic Discussion

Last week the much hyped about cricket world cup semi final match took place between India and Pakistan at the Mohali stadium but much of the media attention was surrounding the formal talks, coinciding the match, between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, in what has come to be known as cricket diplomacy. The two prime ministers used the cricket match as a reason to facilitate talks between the two nations for the first time since the Mumbai terrorist attacks of 2008 which had resulted in a deadlock between the two nations in what one could portray as cold peace, which at any moment could escalate back to violence. The two nations have shared a violent history since the region was divided at the end of British rule in 1947, particularly over the Kashmir region which has been fought over for more than sixty years. This is the third time cricket diplomacy has been used before between the two nations since 1987. Whilst some people have argued that it will do little to bring the nations closer to peace (see - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5f5RjFnX3o), it is still a great example of state actors using a public occasion between a shared cultural sport to take part in diplomatic dialogue and surely any dialogue is better than no dialogue.


Rugby World Cup 1995

Another example of sport diplomacy took place in South Africa when Nelson Mandela used rugby to unite the nation after the end of the apartheid regime. Unlike the India Pakistan conflict this took place in one nation and Mandela helped bond a divided population under the new rainbow flag using the slogan ‘One team, One country’. By wearing a springbok jersey, the epitome of the white class, Mandela “captured the hearts of white South Africa. The rugby game was the orgiastic conclusion of the most unlikely exercise in political seduction ever undertaken”(1). The black president managed to do something that for years would have seemed unheard of, unite the country, and he did so using sport.

(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3634426/How-Nelson-Mandela-won-the-rugby-World-Cup.html