CITIZEN DIPLOMACY engaging, informing, infuencing

In discussing the development of public diplomacy and diplomacy as a whole, an overview of citizen diplomacy will help to give some perspective in which to consider the major changes that have recently taken place in the field of diplomacy. The argument is as Brian Hocking suggests, to first see diplomacy in an evolutionary sense. The ‘new’ diplomacy reflects changes brought by globalization. There has been a transformation from old-secret style diplomacy carried out by the elites to a new - ‘open’ diplomacy, a result of the spread of communication technology - 24/7 TV and news coverage, Internet, mobile phones , just to mention a few. This shift also reflects changes in the world order and its interconnectedness leading to internal issues becoming externalized and external issues internalized. There has been a growth in the influence that ordinary people have in managing the map of international affairs. Never before had public the ability to influence foreign policy formulations. The reviewing of diplomacy shows a new dimension of diplomatic dialogue carried out by the ordinary citizens. The increase in the direct involvement and the role of citizens in diplomacy bring new communications architecture to the discipline. Behind this lies a phenomenon of ‘Citizen diplomacy’, also known as ‘Track two’ diplomacy which refers to a diplomatic communication achieved through an unofficial channel. ‘Track two’ diplomacy is also seen as a precondition to ‘Track one’, the official conduct of diplomacy. Some ask whether an ordinary citizen can be a diplomat. It is nowadays necessary to acknowledge a big value in this revolutionary form of communication. Citizen diplomacy builds bridges between people and nations, often more effectively than governments’ efforts. It often becomes useful in situations when diplomatic communications between countries have broken down. The links created through language, family, friendship, warm handshake create trust, which in turn produces positive image of 'us', our nation and its policies. It is because people to people diplomacy first and foremost important dimension is dialogue. Citizen diplomacy fosters mutual understanding. Broadly speaking, this can lead to changing peoples’ perceptions about ‘the other’. It’s a step towards creating new identities and deconstructing stereotypes, fears and enemy images.

The United States places great importance in citizen to – citizen diplomacy, defined by US Centre for Citizen Diplomacy (USCCD), which states that 'the individual has the right, even the responsibility to help shape (...) foreign relations 'one handshake at a time'..(by students, teachers, artists, business people) (http://uscenterforcitizendiplomacy.org/pages/what-is-citizen-diplomacy/, 2011). National Council for International Visitors Programme - the U.S. Department of State’s is a premier professional exchange program; which connects current and emerging foreign leaders with their American counterparts through short-term programs that ‘foster greater coordination, communication, and collaboration on foreign policy issues’.

http://exchanges.state.gov/ivlp/ivlp.html

Also,the International Visitor Leadership Programme, a non-profit membership association for citizen diplomats, currently marking 50 years of its existence provides a great platform for cooperation. NCIV helps build person-to person relationships ‘one handshake at a time’.

http://www.nciv.org/

The main goal of the above presented initiatives undertaken in the U.S is to broaden the concept of statecraft, promoting not just government to government communication but people to people communication. So far, over 200.000 people have participated in these programs and the results of engagement have been enormous: greater understanding and greater commitment to peace between people of different nations. Those are fundamental goals of public diplomacy.

Brian Hocking, "Reconfiguring Public Diplomacy: From Competition to Collaboration," in Engagement: Public Diplomacy in a Globalized World. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, United Kingdom, 2008, 63-75.

Nye, Joseph, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/opinion/05iht-ednye.html

Nye Joseph, 2004, “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics”, Public Affairs, New York.

ANOTHER U.S. DEFICIT -CHINA AND AMERICA- PUBLIC DIPLOMACY IN THE AGE OF THE INTERNET – February 15th 2011

This is a recent report for the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate. As a whole the report is rather adolescent towards China’s public diplomacy. It recognises that China has started using public diplomacy in their foreign relations but see them as stealing yet another Western idea. It is highly critical of the one way exchange, feeling hard done by, that while the Chinese are able to use public diplomacy in the US they give the US less routes in China in return.

The report tries to down play the use of China’s public diplomacy initiatives, accusing it of attempting to portray a message whilst acting on another. It is true that many Westerners are appalled by China’s human rights records but there are still plenty of other areas where China appear to excel and they are playing these strengths to their advantage having studied the use of public diplomacy by other nations. China’s Confucius Institutes, China’s version of the British Council, are currently located in 96 countries spanning every continent and continuing to grow steadily.(1)
• China currently has 71 Confucius Centres in the U.S., while the Untied States has five Public Diplomacy spaces in China – for a country of some 1.3 billion.(2)
China is internationally recognised as an economic hub and they continue to increase their influence worldwide through new business ventures and trade. China has been using these tools within their own borders for years, and although it can be seen as a kind of propaganda, i.e. limited internet and regulated birth control, they have been steadily rising as a super power and opening outwards. China has invested heavily in parts of Africa and South America and their role in the United Nations have been expanding, with an increasing presence in peacekeeping.(3)

The report recommends the US increase its public diplomacy initiatives in the region to counteract the rising dominance of China but it plays largely on scaremongering tactics, referring to China as the new Soviet Union under ‘repressive Communist government’(4) and base much of the report on China’s internet control uses. It barely tackles how the US will neutralize China’s upsurge through their own initiatives, instead relying heavily on criticising China’s domestic issues and untactfully accusing it of wishing to return to its Ancient past as the Worlds hegemonic power(5), suggesting it will bypass any country that stands in its way. The report advises that Chinas internet control makes it difficult for the US to communicate freely with Chinese citizens, making it difficult to utilize Public Diplomacy in the region. Is this not the same nation that is cutting back on their news broadcastings throughout Asia and the Middle East while China is developing and expanded their influence in these regions? This important fact is barely mentioned; instead the focus is on censorship in China itself making it difficult for the US. The report mentions the Google-ization of internet freedom(6) where Google shut down their pages in 2010. It may seem unjust for such controlled censorship in this day and age but don’t all countries operate some level of censorship? The case was ultimately between an American company and the Chinese government.

The two advantageous platforms that the report highlights for the US in China are the Expos and Peace Corps. It admits neglecting expos in recent years, where the rest of the world continued using them, and is now taking a fresh look at using these to there benefit again. The US Peace Corps are also considered to be a great tool for people to people diplomacy and the report highlights they are a great tool on the ground interacting within China. As we’ve learnt in class word of mouth is much more influential and trustworthy than any other interaction and this is an area where the US is keen to keep investing.

China has been steadily growing inwardly but now their output is becoming substantial and the US still continues to criticise their domestic policies instead of addressing their international aims. As long as they continue to do it would seem they will only harm their own international image whilst China continues to expand.

Overall without wanting to come across pro-Chinese I think the report channels too much time criticising a nation that has generally always been inward thinking but innovative. It is true to say that many would consider the nation and governance ‘authoritarian’ but there is also growing respect for the nation who set to re-introduce itself to the world using the Beijing Olympics as their platform. It may be tougher for the US to win over the hearts and minds of the Chinese people with internet restrictions in the country but by channelling and following a bad rhetoric about China, accessible to everyone else, they are focussing too much negative energy on China instead of positive energy on themselves, ironically somehow hindering their own Public Diplomacy inventiveness if anything.

Please also take a look at this blog by Joseph Nye on the rocky Chinese-American relations - http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/nye80/English

(1) http://www.chinese.cn/college/en/node_1979.htm
(2) http://lugar.senate.gov/issues/foreign/diplomacy/ChinaInternet.pdf p.19
(3) http://lugar.senate.gov/issues/foreign/diplomacy/ChinaInternet.pdf p.30
(4) http://lugar.senate.gov/issues/foreign/diplomacy/ChinaInternet.pdf p.18
(5) http://lugar.senate.gov/issues/foreign/diplomacy/ChinaInternet.pdf p.15
(6) http://lugar.senate.gov/issues/foreign/diplomacy/ChinaInternet.pdf p.45

Another U.S. Deficit: China and America- Public Diplomacy in the Age of the Internet

The report is made by the One Hundred Twelfth Congress of the US to the Members of the US Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations. The report discusses the public diplomacy relationship imbalance between the US and China. It is contended that just as the American- Chinese trade is unfair and is leading to American job loss and export decrease, (presumably due to the Chinese’s government alleged practices of artificially keeping its currency low in order to boost its export led economy); the US public diplomacy efforts are also being damaged by the Chinese communist undemocratic controlling party.

In essence the report argues that the US government is finding it extremely difficult to communicate with Chinese audiences due to the censorship placed on potential public diplomacy means, these entail: American cultural centres in China, the American film industry, and the daily tampering by Chinese government officials of internet broadcasting sites such as Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America. There is also a concern for all the Chinese pro-democracy journalists, bloggers, and human rights activists detained and often tortured as a result of expressing their discontent with the Chinese communist government.

Conversely the Chinese government has been successful in promoting their public diplomacy in the US. The report advises the US to intensify public diplomacy efforts in China, it effectively encourages the US to develop new technologies such as the Internet Censorship Circumvention Technology to avoid Chinese internet censorship; this could allow potential Chinese audiences the ability to freely access information as if they were in the US.

There are also requests for the US government to increase funding to American universities with pre-existing programmes in China, and to open Centres for American studies at Chinese universities. This measure is a direct response to the Chinese government decision to only allow 5 American Centres in China; this is a big contrast particularly when the American government allows any Chinese Centres in their soil, there are about 70 Confucius Institutes throughout the US. Furthermore, there are also calls to increase the number of US students in China, this could indeed benefit citizen diplomacy efforts and also allow US citizens to know better the country which will become in the next few years their main rival for world supremacy.

The report suggests that the Chinese public diplomacy campaign the “Peaceful Rise of China” is not a true reflection of Chinese current domestic and international affairs. For instance, there is heavy criticism for their human rights record, corruption, its increasing military expenditure, and close relationship with undemocratic governments such as Iran and North Korea. It can be suggested that the report reflects on the US anxiety over the Chinese influence in the world economy and politics, the US appears incredibly frustrated with the Chinese government censorship over their public diplomacy efforts. Nonetheless, it can be noted that despite relative Chinese success at communicating with US public, the Chinese public diplomacy campaigns lack credibility in the US; this is mainly because campaigns that are state controlled are generally perceived as propaganda, thus it decreases its success.

It seems that the US public diplomacy efforts will always be challenged as long as the Chinese communist ruling party controls power. These two countries have different political systems and it is not convenient for the Chinese government to allow free internet access and democratic values into their society, it could threaten their position in power. Perhaps the best opportunity the US has to promote their public diplomacy campaigns is to rely on citizen diplomacy. There is evidence in this report that this initiative has not been sufficiently supported by any US government. As a result, more funds should be invested in exchange programs, more information should be distributed to the American public to encourage them to study and work in China, and above all interact more with the citizens of a nation that without a doubt will challenge the US for world supremacy in the next few years.

Bibliography

1.One Hundred Twelfth Congress of the US . (2011, February 15). Another U.S. Deficit: China and America- Public Diplomacy in the Age of the Internet. Retrieved May 2, 2011, from US Senate Committe on Foreing Relations: http://foreign.senate.gov/download/?id=208AEC06-D0CF-4EBD-9FCB-BB3CF4AA9181-

Review of a Report: “Voices of America: US Public Diplomacy for the Twenty-First Century”

This report looks at how the United States (US) can engage, persuade, and attract foreign publics to cooperation; as well as offering concrete steps on how to improve the efforts to do so. The US has to improve its existing abilities because of the growing complexities in the global environment, most notably; the growth of new powers and actors and their influence on public opinion, and the new ways of communication. These new conditions challenge the traditional policies and practices of public diplomacy (PD). (Lord, 2008: 9-11) Public opinion is more important today than ever before, and conducting PD effectively is vital to the US being able to achieve its national interests. The recommendations which are presented in this report put forward a vision which is possible to achieve in the future by following certain steps, and is based on wide-ranging research and analysis.

Lord calls for the establishment of a new independent, public-private organisation; The USA World Trust. The goal of this organisation would entail strengthening US’ relations with foreign publics. This includes effective communication through the use of new media and technologies, strengthening the government’s voice, as well as including and empowering the private sector and the people. (Lord, 2008: 11) This idea also encourages changes within current government agencies in order to build up US public diplomacy, and in order to fit in this new organisation into a broader US strategy. This recommendation therefore does not require a huge amount of organisational change as it does not call for a new cabinet-level government agency which would be time consuming and a huge cost to resources; but it is rather a way of enhancing existing government agencies’ efforts in the practice of PD. (Lord, 2008: 3-4)

This new non-profit organisation would;

• Present a more accurate view of America to counterbalance the one-sided views sometimes presented by popular culture and foreign media
• Contribute to an environment of mutual trust, respect, and understanding in which cooperation is more likely
• Promote shared values
• Inform and support the US government’s PD efforts

This will be done through;

• Research and analysis based on the knowledge of experts and expressed in a form useful to practitioners of PD
• Including the private sector and engaging NGOs, companies, etc.,
• Providing grants to initiatives which advance the objectives of the USA World Trust
• Development and use of new technologies and media products that support US PD and strategic communication
• Addressing PD and strategic communication challenges by bringing together practitioners from the government, scholars, and visitors from the private and non-profit sectors

Through these activities, the new organisation will be a good resource to both the government and private groups which aspire to improve the image of the US, strengthen its relations with foreign publics, and also fight against anti-American ideologies. (Lord, 2008: 1-2) The USA World Trust would be there to complement government agencies rather than to compete with them, and there is a need for reallocation of resources as the amount devoted to PD does not reflect its importance (compared to military expenditure). (Lord, 2008:14-17, 36)

Lord restated the same recommendation in a policy brief (Lord, 2010); the need for a USA World Trust, “which would unleash the power of the private sector to further America’s PD interests”. (Lord, 2010:2) Her arguments on how the creation of such an organisation would complement the State Department, while being independent and including the private sector, are convincing. The evidence would suggest that there is a need for reform and new approaches if the challenges in today’s environment are to be met. The massive flow of information, as well as the diffusion of power to many different players, would indicate that governments need new approaches in order to reach their audiences, and the credibility may be enhanced if there is an independent organisation created which complements government efforts. The Council on Foreign Relations, Defence Science Board Task on Strategic Communication, CSIS Commission on Smart Power, and others, have published reports with similar recommendations. (Lord, 2010)

The report

Lord, Kristen M., “Voices of America: US Public Diplomacy for the Twenty-First Century”, Brookings Institute, 2008, available at www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/11_public_diplomacy_lord.aspx

References

Lord, Kristen M., “Engaging the Private Sector for the Public Good: The Power of Network Diplomacy”, Policy Brief, Center for a new American Security, January 2010, available at http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/QDDR_Lord_Jan2010_code213_policybrf_0.pdf

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)