Answer of the Russian Embassy Video

Public diplomacy and soft power

In my opinion the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is the public diplomacy. It is for me the most important feature because public diplomacy has consequently brought with it the significant intervention and role of the NGO’s and also the conference/multilateral diplomacy which had a tremendous impact in the conduct of diplomacy. Some may argue that public diplomacy is just a polite way of doing propaganda, although it might be quasi-accurate, the important point is that diplomacy proved its flexibility “since propaganda can be based on fact, public diplomacy can be equated with propaganda i.e. ideas, information, or other material disseminated to win people over to a given doctrine.” (http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/1.htm) Without the so called “propaganda”, the states would have a harder job in promoting its soft power. The relation between public diplomacy and soft power is intimate. Public diplomacy provides a perfect platform for the enhancement of a country’s soft power.


Diplomacy took a step forward when it started to address to publics of other states. While doing so it enabled an easier access of NGO’s in multilateral conferences. Thus, it can be argued that the most important feature of the new diplomacy, the public diplomacy, has consequently highlighted the role of NGO’s and inclusive multilateral conferences.
It is also of great importance analyze the relation of public diplomacy with soft power, which “is a directing, attracting and imitating force derived mainly from intangible resources such as national cohesion, culture, ideology and influence on international institutions” (Gill, 2006, 17). In another words, it is a method of attraction rather than coercion. It is concerned with cultural attraction and ideology, along with agenda-setting. “Soft power is an essential component of public diplomacy in the world. Without gaining influence through Soft Power, a country is simply left to use Hard Power, which means a never-ending series of battles and wars with your hostile neighbors.” (http://www.cgp.org/index.php?option=article&task=default&articleid=314).



Thus, public diplomacy is an excellent way to appeal for attraction. One of the examples that support this idea is the American state department using technology to reveal its history and encouraging young people with political grievances to find outlets for their protests other than violent extremism.

Gill, B. & Y. Huang, (2006) ‘Sources and Limits of Chinese Soft Power’ in Survival, Vol. 48, No. 2
http://www.cgp.org/index.php?option=article&task=default&articleid=314
http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/1.htm

The evolution of diplomacy or a transformed diplomacy?

The information revolution and the diplomatic institutions under pressure brings out the question if diplomacy has faced just a mere evolution or if it has gone to a total transformed stage.

The railways provided a great mobility to diplomats, the electric telegraph, radio, telephone, television, all of them enabled faster communication, while it weakened the diplomatic independence. But neither of them evolved so fast paced and challenged diplomacy practice as Information and Communication Technology is doing. Once was the government responsibility to have the capacity to control the distribution of information, it was defined by the government how much information their citizens should have access to. However, this scenario is in a fast transition

The reach of knowledge has increased, therefore, the individuals become more active in foreign policy matters. Better informed individuals could be an obstacle to diplomacy (diplomats ‘sell’ information), yet, a better knowledge means a faster and easier explanation of the considerations in any government’s foreign policy. A more informed international community, “linked by greater and faster information flows, provides a better stage in which diplomats can operate than one where information is restricted”

Although, the recent developments in technology have led to a more informed public, it does not have the capacity to lead diplomatic issues in secrecy, which is one of the most valuable privileges that traditional diplomacy has. And a diplomat also “has learned that not only are the best results obtained through confidentiality and privacy, but that often results can be obtained in no other way”

Global information infrastructure is just providing diplomacy new instruments and venues to undertake traditional diplomatic functions. Instead of replacement, the Information technology and traditional diplomacy can co-habit and be productive

The Information and communication technology is far from excluding diplomacy, instead, it offers diplomats new ways to gain information, coordinate national positions, make connections and exert influence. In order to achieve a sustainable future between them, diplomacy must be flexible enough to interpret their representation in new ways.

One of the examples of how diplomacy has evolved and how it has balanced traditional diplomacy and cyber one is the Russian embassy in London. Where we were asked to post a video online in order to raise questions

Tribute to Fred Halliday

Hey! guys, I would like to pay tribute to Fred Halliday an International relations scholar and expert on the Middle East, who died last week aged 64. He had contributed massively in the study of IR. Therefore as IR students, we should all pay him tribute by writing a sentence or more about him (condolences) either on this page or in our New Diplomacy blog. For more information about him, please visit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/apr/26/fred-halliday-obituary Regards!