All aspects of new diplomacy are arguably indispensible within the institution. However the most important aspect in this case is public diplomacy – as this is reflected into the definition of new diplomacy. It is defined as a phenomenon in which citizens play a greater role in impacting international relations. Moving away from the tradition of secrecy, which was embedded in the old form of diplomacy, towards an era where the ordinary people not only have the opportunity to campaign for what they believe in, but also participate in influencing political decisions through peaceful means.
In general, public diplomacy helps promote its national interest through strategic communication and influencing foreign public attitude. This has proved to be working in many cases including the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, the campaigns against the Darfur crisis and the war in Iraq. However, there are various conflicting opinions about public diplomacy; many scholars believe that it is very similar if not the same as propaganda. Since propaganda can be based on facts such as communication, information and ideas to win people over a given doctrine, it could be equated to public diplomacy.
Given the fact that public diplomacy deals primarily with non-governmental individuals and organizations, its activities often present many differing views – but not necessarily propaganda. Public diplomacy is sometimes as simple as arranging student exchange programs between countries to help strengthen their relations henceforth. The idea that new diplomacy is a euphemism for propaganda is quite dated, and as we are moving from old to new diplomacy, we should also move away from the assumption that public diplomacy equal to propaganda.
I like the way you argue that public diplomacy is not the same as propaganda. It is probabaly quite easy for people to understand the two terms as having the same meaning, and therefore to put public diplomacy in a negative light. I guess that it depends on how you view the nature of diplomacy; either as being able to be conducted by actors other than official representatives of the state, in which case you're more likely to challenge the idea that public diplomacy equals propaganda, or vice-versa.
ReplyDeleteI agree, people often confuse the two terms (Public diplomacy and Propaganda), which is why I tried to write it in a more explicit and simple way so that everybody can understand my argument. Although many academics believe that 'public diplomacy' is nothing but a nice way of saying 'Propaganda', one still believe as you rightly argued, that these terms shouldn't be confused.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about citizens and their role in participating in politics; the increase in number of NGos give them ( us ) the opportunity to take part in the process of governing, maybe not directly, but our ability to influence governors is much bigger. I have to admit that i share your idea about making a distinction between two terms - public diplomacy and propaganda. As Mario rightly noticed, it might be a tool of propaganda, but those terms shouldn't be interchangeable.
ReplyDelete