The introduction of non-state actors in the international system such as multinational corporations, NGOs, celebrities or international organizations, a
mong 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.
mong 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.
Well said Carles, I just want to add that propaganda has also been employed by various governments in the name of public diplomacy.
ReplyDeleteAgain, as much as it would be easier to say that multilateral diplomacy is the best thing to have happened to international politics, it is important to note that some states e.g the United States (US) are so powerful that they tends to dictates the tone of the music that these organisations dance to, also it is my opinion that some multilateral organisation might be coerced into doing the wrong thing or fighting the worng battles.
Take for example the recent politcal crisis in Ivory Coast; in the news, the United Nations and African Union presented that the winner of the presidential elections was Alassane Ouattara, whilst with the happenings televised on tv, the civilians clearly are saying that they voted for president is Mr Laurent Gbagbo. The civilians have even threatened to kill immigrants if any international force should be deployed to their towns and cities.
Based on this happenings, it can be suggested that multilateral organisations in some cases abuses their powers as it could be possible that the UN declared Mr Ouattara as they winner because they believe he will be more cooperative than Mr Gbagbo.
In conclusion, I would say that if multilateral organisations like the UN, AU and many others are above board in their affairs, they the would would be a more better place to live in.
I do agree with some point that you mentioned above, Carles. Somehow, I think that NGOs and the Civil Society may have more important impact than government and Multinational Companies on the long term.
ReplyDeletePaul Wabner's writings, "Beyond the State", proves it with concrete examples, like Green peace, the feminist movement and other, which have dramatically change the public opinion on many issues.
But as you said above, they all have their own role. So, we could said that the Civil Society (here including NGOs) are more a force for change and progress, while government and Multinational Companies (MNCs) act more like the "executive power", which, without the Civil Society, would be very conservative.
Hello I really enjoy reading your post and agree on what you said about NGOs, also I strongly agree that Public Diplomacy has been used from some states as 'propaganda' to pursue its national interest. However, I'm not quite sure what do you mean when you mention public diplomacy as a trend of the 'new diplomacy'; traditional diplomacy did not had the features of public diplomacy? Is that correct. Thank you!!
ReplyDelete