Public diplomacy. This term is more and more used in common discussions, media and political world politics in general. However are we average citizens of this globalized world aware of what does it actually mean? And more important how it can influence domestic policy and our everyday lives?
G.R.Berridge says that public diplomacy is pure propaganda. Government want their country to appear the best on international stage and uses all of the resources to introduce and proceed their policy. What is very important is the fact that beside traditional methods of diplomacy (these are professional diplomats their contacts and face to face talks) brand new actors are taken into account. Whole media – not only press, television and radio. Recently the most powerful mean of communication and spreading news and opinions around the world is the Internet. However can we really say that public diplomacy is propaganda only? In fact what is wrong in creating country’s the best image possible? Additionally what is very significant public diplomacy is created not only by officials but actually every citizen of every country in the world can shape it.
For instance we could obse
rve it very well during Olympic Games in China. A few months before the Olympics were about to start riots in Tibet broke out. Tibet was under rule of China from 1950 but they wanted to use an occasion to attract world’s attention – Olympics were perfect for this purpose. And in fact it worked. A lot of protests, official letters support from a lot of influential people and fuss in mass media occurred during this period. Case of Tibet was number one in media for a couple of months forcing governments to stand on one or the other side of barricade.
rve it very well during Olympic Games in China. A few months before the Olympics were about to start riots in Tibet broke out. Tibet was under rule of China from 1950 but they wanted to use an occasion to attract world’s attention – Olympics were perfect for this purpose. And in fact it worked. A lot of protests, official letters support from a lot of influential people and fuss in mass media occurred during this period. Case of Tibet was number one in media for a couple of months forcing governments to stand on one or the other side of barricade.Although a number of countries disapproved China’s actions in Tibet the situation didn’t change after the Olympics. People still suffer tortures there and basic human rights are still abused. Tibetans who were jailed during the protests are still in prisons – or dead.
This case shows how unpredictable public diplomacy could be. We believe that people have an influence on the world’s politics. That public opinion can put a lot of pressure on state’s officials. In my opinion it has a real power especially in domestic policy provided that the country is truly democratic. In international politics there are a lot of different factors taken into account and sadly it turns out that countries as powerful as China or USA can do what they want without any serious consequences. Having said that we should not take public diplomacy for granted. As I see it it plays very important informative role in international society. Why don’t just try to be one of “sixty million budding diplomats”? Maybe next time the outcome will be more constructive. Good luck!
Article in The Independent about the prostests:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/antichina-protests-worldwide-as-olympics-begin-889013.html
Very good article about China after Olympics:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china/beijing-olympics-falun-gong-4218.html
Free Tibet:
http://www.freetibet.org/
Daniel you have erred
ReplyDeleteThe Netherlands had a sordid history and I hope that you will read a bit more of the country's slave history. In the 19th century the country pursuued a Cultivation Policy imposed on its colony of Indonesia which effectively turned an entire population of 100 million into slavery by a brutal agricultural diktat to force the Javanese and outer islands to produce agricultural products for the Dutch Stock Exchange irregardless of whether the soil and climate was suitable for growing the crops. There have been gailures in the system and many Javanese died in the famine just to prop up the Netherlands economy after the secession of Belgium. Similarly the King of the Belgians when after being awarded the Congo as its new and only colony turned the country and 40 million of Congolese into slaves to produce rubber for the Brussels stock exchange. Those Congolese who returned with less than their assigned quota had one of their hands chopped off . So the blood and iron slavery colonial policy of both the Netherlands and Belgium is nothing to be proud off . Worst still their policy towards Africans and Javanese were carried on in apartheid South Africa by Dutch settlers , the Afrikaans, and they in turn imported Javanese slaves into the country and turned the black population into a form of slavery for the next 4o years condoned by Western Anglo-American mining interests. There is definitely no public diplomacy in both Dutch and Belgian practice to be proud about given the sufferings of over 150 million natives who are still trying to recover from the colonial trauma up to year 2010 .
Read the CULTIVATION POLICY of the Netherlands and see video by John Pilger on the atrocities committed by the Belgians. Their country's wealth and prosperity today was built on blood and iron .
I like your post, I just wanna say that public diplomacy in terms of Economic interest, in our globalized world means bussiness!!!! if we compare the new diplomacy with traditional diplomacy, there are big differences, as in traditional diplomacy the promotion of cultural values was part of its functions but not the main activity to comply, as these task corresponded to other institutions of the government.
ReplyDeleteHi, I like your point of of view. Personally I think public diplomacy can be extremely effective for states in building the nation's brand, however, it definitely depends on what is it going to be used for. As a tool, public diplomacy can easily turn into propaganda, thus I think what matters the most is the purpose (of the state) for using it.
ReplyDelete