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