Wikileak has demonstrated that, when there are multiple partners involved as there is international stage, you can’t combine trust and secrecy in the new diplomatic age. Now, every diplomat will have to be careful on the content of his e-mail, daunted by its possible publication by the media.

State official describe the leak as reckless and damaging to the national security. This is the White House statement:

- "Such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government.” (BBC World News: 29.11.2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11860435)

Somehow, could we compare it to the publication of Drogheda Committee’s blue book, in the 50s? (Berridge, 2010, 180) As said Berridge, in his book “Diplomacy in theory and practice”:

- “Public diplomacy is what we call our propaganda; ‘propaganda’ is what the other side does.” (Berridge, 2010, 190)

Therefore, which kind of “propaganda” Wikileaks is and whose’ interests does it served? Moreover, what is its purpose? Accordingly to its website, it says that Wikileaks stands for defending the 29^th article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the freedom of speech and access to information (Wikileaks.org, 29.11.2010: http://www.wikileaks.org/media/about.html). In Diplomacy, we were familiar with three lines of communication, Government-to-Government, Government-to-People and People-to-People. Wikileaks is similar to a P2P relationship, However, I reckon that it does address to the government too, (P2G). Now, with Wikileaks, the people hold a part of the government’s monopoly over information flows and secret document release. Therefore, states authorities are more exposed to the public opinion than ever, which can be damaging to politician when nearly half of the world regimes are democracies (J. S. Nye, 2004, 105).

But is Wikileaks a real threat to national Security? Some voices in America already summon the White House to include Wikileaks on the list of terrorist organisations (The BBC World News, 29.11.2010: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11860435) Comparing to Al Qaeda which focus 90% of its resources on propaganda through the media and 10% on the mass murder of the innocent, Wikileaks’ strategy is the one hundred per cent efficient use of the media. Indeed, “propaganda broadcasting is cheap and virtually impossible to block” (Berridge, 2010, 183).The US government seeks to maintain its control over the flow of information, making its computer systems “more secure” (BBC World News, 29.11.10: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11860435).

Nonetheless, those leaks are not a threat to the US governdment alone. For instance, the Iranian government dispute the revelation that Arabs countries urged the US to force Iran to stop its nuclear programme by military means. Here, common enemies, the US and Iran, have found one common threat, Wikileaks. Multilateral cooperation between states is required to prevent further leaks, and to enhance state-to-state information exchange and collaboration. Then, paradoxically, Wikileaks may weaken the relationships between governments and on the same time force them to collaborate more to keep their “secret diary” safe.

I conclude that Wikileaks contributes to the empowerment of the voice and opinion of the people in the international community. States are being and will be forced to collaborate more if they want to maintain their monopoly on information. They could be seen now as one single group in retreat on the international stage, facing new actors, like the people. Or will the states be forced to breach the right of free press and liberty of expression through repression, as shown in the comic above...?

Different elements in the new diplomacy

Public diplomacy and multilateral diplomacy are key elements in the new diplomacy as well as the “paradiplomacy” of non-state actors. None of these three kinds of diplomacy is more important than any other. None of them has more impact in the international system than the others because they all have their own role to play in what is called diplomacy.

The introduction of non-state actors in the international system such as multinational corporations, NGOs, celebrities or international organizations, among many others, has helped weak states and minorities to be heard and taken into account in the international community. Moreover, non-state actors are, sometimes, more concerned about citizens, environment and improving quality of life rather than states’ national interests. A clear example of this is the recent announcement of some food companies such as Carrefour or Lidl which says that they will stop selling tuna in order to preserve the species.

Non-state actors have a huge impact in the international arena. They are used as intermediaries by many states as a way to keep relations with enemies or non-recognized governments. Besides, they are used as partners by international organizations since non-state actors can provide expertise, information and legitimacy. Thus, the “paradiplomacy” of non-state actors benefits the world by maintaining and promoting peace.

Public diplomacy also has its own and important role in diplomacy. It is used to build relations between different states and to react against bad press. Furthermore, public diplomacy helps in the modeling of state’s image in the world. States want to have a good image so that they can attract investments and tourism and export their culture, values and products around the globe. However, if public diplomacy is not used correctly, it can have deep effects in the way a country is seen by the others.

Multilateral diplomacy is essential for any state in the globalized world that we are currently living. International problems require international solutions and states by their own can no longer solve problems that affect different states at the same time. The eradication of species, for example, can only be solved by cooperation between states. So, throughout the years we have seen an increase of multilateral conferences and negotiations in order to solve problems and avoid conflicts.

Thus, as a conclusion, it is not possible to determine which one is more important since they all are interconnected, interdependent and have their own role in diplomacy.

New Diplomacy

The most important aspect of the New Diplomacy

It is recognised that the nature and dynamics of diplomacy has changed immensely since the ending of the cold war and the rise of globalisation. In agreement with Leguey-Feilleux comments, the traditional diplomatic agenda of military security, ideology and territorial rivalry has broadened and now includes a wide range of issues, such as, problems of the environment; depletion of energy resources, concerns of pandemics, the rise of international crime and terrorism and improving human rights across the world (Leguey-Feilleux, J-R., The Dynamics of Diplomacy, 2009, p 60-61). And it is internationally accepted that no one state has the resources to single-handily solve any or all of these problems. In the past, states have been dismissive and slow to react towards many of these ‘new’ problems and it could be argued that, if it wasn’t for external civil intervention many of these issues would not be on the ‘new’ diplomatic agenda.

It is therefore believed that the most significant changes to the practice of diplomacy have been the achievements and influence of non-state actors, in particular non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

NGOs have used their expertise and resources to raise public awareness on issues that governments either do not want to discuss or are slow to recognise as problem areas. NGOs have also made great use of the information communication technology systems and the media in promoting issues and their interests, mobilising public support and established international networks.

In recent years NGOs have successfully set the international agenda and lobbied governments on issues such as human rights, the environment, gender equality, child labour and child soldiers, trade and development and the campaigned to ban landmines and a host of other issues.

Their 1990s confrontational image and reproach towards states, government and multinational corporations have been transformed. Many NGOs now hold formal advisory roles within the international community and within many postmodern states. For example, the NGO Working Group on the United Nations Security Council meets regularly, with senior council ambassadors, to discuss humanitarian relief, disarmament, global governance and development.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/major-ngo-campaigns/ngo-working-group-on-the-security-council-4-24.html

‘When crises seem to lie beyond the control of governments or the
relevant intergovernmental organisations, “non-state” actors come
to play significant roles. They appear in the familiar guises of non-governmental
organisations, corporations, and intergovernmental organisations and
they promise levels of efficiency and responsiveness that transcend the
constraints of the state’
(Langhorne R, The Diplomacy of Non-State Actors, Diplomacy and Statecraft, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2005).

Highly influential and internationally recognised NGOs have provided guidance on how best to present and implement sensitive policies. And as such they are increasingly emerging as consultative partners within international diplomacy. It is believed that NGOs are increasingly participating in mediation and conflict resolution because they are seen as being more credible and trustworthy than most governments and official diplomats and as a result they are generally able to achieve greater progress and agreement between warring parties and on controversial issues. Recent examples of joint NGOs and international efforts are the Kimberley Process diamond certification scheme, the establishment of the International Criminal Court and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.

Despite their influences, successes, advisory and mediation roles it remains that NGOs do not have diplomatic rights, privileges or immunities, and state officials remain responsible for international and diplomatic affairs. That said, NGOs have undoubtedly contributed towards opening up the diplomatic agenda and their efforts in my opinion is the most important aspect of the New Diplomacy.

New Diplomacy: The Role of NGO’s, Multilateral and Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century.

Since the inception of the New Diplomacy; which includes Open, Public and Multilateral negotiations amongst nations, there is no denying that relationships between countries have improved. Government and non-governmental organisations have employed the use of diplomacy, to improve their relationships with public of other countries, thereby helping in the improvement of human rights for different people in different countries of the world.

Take Yemen for example; its government have given into calls from United Nations and other human rights activists to improve its human right laws. In showing its willingness to embrace human rights for its people, the Yemeni government went as far as establishing a human rights ministry, which is the first of its kind in the Arab region, and are making plans to make the next step of establishing an independent national human rights institution in accordance with the Paris Principles. (Sweeney 2006).

All this would undoubtedly be impossible to achieve without the involvement of multilateral discussions between countries in organisations like the United Nations, to find ways to improve the ways of life of other people. The role of NGO’s in diplomacy cannot be overemphasised, as they are leading negations with the military governments of Burma, for the release of its political prisoners and the improvement of human rights of the Burmese people. (U.S Department of State 2010).

Evidently, New Diplomacy brought about a peaceful way of resolving conflict, “diplomacy, not war”. Imagine a world were countries maintained their isolationist status, a world where there is no consideration for the impact of global warming on developing countries? The answer would have been that only rogue states would be in existence as their will be no multilateral commitment to fight terrorism, cyber crimes, human rights violations. As for climate change, countries in the Sub-Saharan Africa would be in extinction as they will not be able to cope with the impact of global warming on their own.

Thanks to conference diplomacy, their is an opportunity for participants to discuss matters outside the formal agenda, and also an avenue for powerful negotiators to be involved in kick starting, and then discreetly shroud, a series of bilateral negotiations taking place elsewhere. (Berridge 2010, 145). Countries and peoples can be rest assured that they are not alone in whatever they might be going through. Examples of such conferences are: the G20 Summit 2009 to discuss the world recession, the Copenhagen Summit of 2009, to discuss global warming, the recent NATO Summit, to discuss the exit strategy in Afghanistan, and other security issues in the world.

In conclusion, it is imperative to note, that the world has indeed become a better place with the introduction of a contemporary approach to diplomacy, which entails involving the public’s of other nation, participation of non-governmental bodies, governments of different countries coming together to discuss issues that are of common interest.

Free Myanmar

Censorship and Public Diplomacy in Burma

I was so delighted to learn about the recent release of the Democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi this third weekend of November 2010. What was said by the former UK’s PM, Sir Gordon Brown, was:

- She is “THE” leader of the Democratic World, after standing so firmly against the military Junta for 20years now.” (BBC World News, 13.11.10: Aung San Suu Kyi release long overdue, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11750146)

He pledged his sustain support and close relationship with her to defend the democratic cause in Myanmar. David Cameron also supported her cause and greeted her release with joy after the announcement. During her first meeting in the NLD central office, she met the diplomats and reporters who have supported her for more than 15years. Would she have had the capacity to resist the Junta pressure without the international public support? I am not putting into question her determination to achieve her political ambition in Myanmar, no. Here, I am underlying the consistent international support for her cause. This could be compared to the case of Ingrid Betancourt in Colombia, who was released in July 2008 (BBC World News, 13.07.10; Betancourt hails “perfect” rescue; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7487026.stm). Serious collaboration between French and Colombian authorities under intensive diplomatic support permitted the operation, which led to her release.

Now, it’s all about how she will manage her new role in the public world, outside of detention. She calls for a peaceful revolution in Myanmar and direct dialogue with the ruling generals, knowing the regime brutality, for instance, against the monk protest in 2007. However, what are the real intentions of the Junta? BBC reporters already see her release as a threat to their military rule in Burma. Weirdly, the Chinese media didn’t cover the subject.

Indeed, looking at Xinhuanet web site for the last two days, since Aung San Suu Kyi release, they haven’t mentioned what’s been happening in Myanmar (Xinhuanet, 14 & 15.11.10: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/asiaoceania.htm). The Chinese authorities could fear the “white propaganda” (Berridge, 2010, 179) from the Western countries, a direct threat to the authoritarian communist party in China. Other Asian countries reacted carefully after the announcement. Only Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia made clear statements supporting the democratic process in Myanmar. On the other hand, China congratulated the Burmese authorities after the fake election they (the ruling generals) had organised which ended only 6 days before Aung San Suu Kyi’s release. The Chinese government called it “a great leap forward” for democratic rule. Furthermore, it seems bizarre that this was happening just after President Barack Obama’s tour of Asia, deeply marked by his speech in India and Indonesia, promoting them as major world democracies (BBC World News, 9.11.10; Obama in Indonesia, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11334555). The promotion of democratic values in Asia looks similar to the politics of contentment underpinned by the US during the Cold War against the USSR, but in this case encircling China. Cameron’s allusion to the Human Right during an official speech to the Chinese communist party was the only direct communication to the Chinese people on democratic values (BBC World News, 9.11.10, Cameron raises Human Rights in China talks; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11715216).

Public diplomacy in the “Ancient Greek style”, People to People (P2P) is seriously undermined when the authorities impose an unshakable censorship, like in Burma and China. Nonetheless, straight after her release, when Aung San Suu Kyi walked to the door of her residency, Burmese’s people bombarded their informal leader with flash photography and recorded the event. We can all expect that they will share their memory with their fellow citizens, but how could the junta survive the pressure from this “soft power”?

From my point of view, it’s now just a matter of time to see Myanmar becoming a new democratic regime in Asia. If it does happen, it will have an impact on Chinese internal policy. Diplomatic support and the use of soft power would have been proven strong enough to bend military rules to the will of the people. However, I will disagree with Berrigde saying that this is “white propaganda” because as said by the American Diplomat in Burma:

- “It is not for the US (or Western countries) to determined … Burma course. It’s for the Burmese people to work that out”. (BBC news, 15.11.10: Aung San Suu Kyi aims for peaceful revolution, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11755169)

Therefore, public diplomacy is not acting in a way to promote our own values abroad, in this case, but in order to defend the interest and will of the people living under oppression and misery.

Public Diplomacy in contemporary world politics

The importance of Public Diplomacy in contemporary world politics

In addition to strengthening foreign military ties and trade relations through bilateral and multilateral agreements, it has long been recognised that winning over foreign public opinion is important and can help to make cooperation at states level much easier. Diplomacy is no longer an isolated ‘Government to Government’ process, whereby foreign ministers and diplomats control all interaction between states. Governments across the globe (have always, and will continue to) seek to influence foreign public opinion via ‘Government to People’ communications strategies. Such as broadcasting information by radio and television; engaging in direct dialogue between diplomatic officials and local citizens; promoting domestic cultural activities overseas and building long-term individual relationships through student exchange programmes and scholarships.

Jamaican students show off their scholarship letters, which were presented yesterday (Aug.17) at a reception held at the Chinese Embassy in Kingston.
A total of 11 students have been awarded full scholarships under the Chinese Government Scholarship Programme to pursue masters and doctoral degrees in China.

http://www.jis.gov.jm/education/html/20100819T100000-0500_25040_JIS_11_STUDENTS_HEADING_FOR_STUDIES_IN_CHINA.asp

As Dr Nicholas J. Cull, Professor of Public Diplomacy at University of Southern California writes ‘public diplomacy is a two-way street’ (http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=7&paper=3028). In addition to communicating a message that will win-over the foreign audience, the communicator must in return listen to the audience’s response, or at least convey that their opinions have been heard. If opinions are ignored, public participation will dissolve and the communication exercise will be ineffective or even cause adverse reactions.

Besides the possibility of losing public support by adopting a one way communication process, the practice of public diplomacy is neither welcomed nor embraced by all states. Some states perceive public diplomacy as a tool for promoting western ideology, propaganda and subversion, and for those citizens who choose to participate they face serious repercussions from their governments.

But whilst public diplomacy is mainly concerned with influencing foreign public opinion, we have recently seen Americas President Obama use public diplomacy to speak directly to the Iranian people and their government, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY_utC-hrjI with the intention of presenting a new open image aimed at winning over the government of Iran.

For several decades America portrayed a strong dominant image across the globe and until 2001 had reduced resources and expenditure on public diplomacy. However, we now have a reversal and a softer image under the current leadership.

President Obama, greets the Indian delegation present at the airport to see him off in the traditional Indian way of namaste as he leaves for Indonesia at the end of their tour of India, at the airport in New Delhi, India, on Nov 9.

Saurabh Das/AP

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/1109/Obama-trip-welcomes-India-to-high-table-of-global-influence

Public diplomacy is a multidimensional tool that is used by most countries to pursue their foreign policy agendas. Consequently, public diplomacy remains important in contemporary world politics.

Public Diplomacy: A recent event or development which illustrates its importance or otherwise in contemporary world politics.

Public Diplomacy is a form of the so called “New Diplomacy” which is to the best of my knowledge not that new. Public Diplomacy at its hub is the communication with the public’s of foreign countries, in contrast to the traditional diplomacy, which consists of communication involving governments. [Waller M.J., 23, 2007]. For most people, Public Diplomacy is a form of PR or propaganda, which is applied by foreign offices through the mass media for political purposes. [Berridge G.R., 179, 2010]. The person at the fore front of Public Diplomacy is usually the foreign secretary, other people like foreign ministers are also been appointed to make the job of the foreign secretary easier.

Different governments are meeting up demands for “Propaganda or PR Diplomacy” by employing the use of media services, 24hours BBC News services in the United Kingdom, and the CNN or VOA in the United States of America. And there must be evidence to show that it is working because it is now the other of the day, for a government to give a media broadcast prior to a foreign trip or whilst on the trip. A recent event that demonstrated the effectiveness of Public Diplomacy could be President Obama’s foreign trips prior to his election as a President; this helped improve his image abroad and portrayed him as a peace maker, in contrast to his predecessor, President Bush. More evidently, just ten months after his inauguration, President Obama was given a Nobel Price for Peace. (He hadn't brought peace to the Middle East but he shows that he is willing to work towards peace by visiting and talking to the people).[Sky News online].

Further to this progress, others may argue that Public Diplomacy is just like a charade, where Core States want to impose their decisions on Peripheral State’s public thorough their governments, and also use the media for their PR stunts. A good example is the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change held in 2009. The BBC listed out 9 reasons why the Conference ended without an outcome, which included that developed nations arrived arguing for a wide range of desired outcomes; during negotiations, positions converged, and a negotiated deal was done, they also pointed out that no deal was reached because of the 24hour News culture.

Before the Copenhagen Conference started, the Obama White House used the media to his advantage, this saw the president announcing a deal live on TV before anyone, (even most of the governments involved in the talks) knew a deal had been done. The news went first to the White House lobby journalists traveling with the president. After the event, of course, journalists pored over the details, but the agenda had already been set; by the time those articles emerged, anyone who was not particularly interested in the issue would have come to believe that a deal on climate change had been done, with the US providing leadership to the global community. Although the 24-hour live news culture did not make the Copenhagen Accord, but its existence offered the White House a way to keep the accord's chief architect away from all meaningful scrutiny while telling the world of his triumph.). [BBC News online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8426835.stm].

In conclusion, just like everything that has an advantage will have a disadvantage, Public Diplomacy can work in some cases, whilst it doesn’t work in most cases, especially when the other party discovers that the intentions behind it is not genuine, as we saw in the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 2009.