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.

Secrecy in Diplomacy

The Old Diplomacy is defined (following Richelieu) as the maintenance of constant bilateral negotiation (with the establishment of Embassies) on high political issues, such as war and peace, based on the following values; secrecy, honesty, integrity, trustworthiness and equality (Jean-Robert Leguey, 2009, Chap2). Therefore, professionalism is required (from the “diplomatic corps”) and the establishment and respect of the protocol, developed in the aim to assure equality and avoid cultural clash between nations.

The relevance of the old diplomatic principle and practice in the 21^th Century stand still. Constant collaboration and cooperation (negotiations) between nations on a bilateral (and multilateral) level is indispensable in a globalized world. “High politics” dialogues between the US with the USSR and China were what had permitted to keep the “Cold War” cold. Kissinger uses of “back channels” (secretive negotiations) had successfully led to the detente period in the 1970s (G.R. Berridge,2010 , 68). Until today, the “Cold War Diplomacy” is use during crisis like the recent confrontation between North and South Korea (bbc news, 21/07/10; Korea war game, sign of growing tensions, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10712664). Without our diplomats’ professionalism, cooperation and assistance between states would be replaced by direct confrontation and constant cultural clash between our nations, and the cold war could have turn “hot”.

Nevertheless, the value of secrecy in the old diplomacy is challenged by democratic principles, the new technologies in telecommunication and the Media (Richard Grant, (2005);Democratization of Diplomacy).

Indeed, in a democratic society, the people, who elect their political representatives, may claim a transparent and open policy from the politics towards the public. Moreover, as Richard Grant says, the rapid evolution of the new technologies in telecommunication has made available a cheap and easy access to information. Therefore, the population considered granted the right to know (R. Grant, 2005, 12). On the top of that, nowadays the media can report instantly the major event in the world. So, the diplomats are not as useful as before to know what is going on abroad. So, what is the legitimacy for a secretive diplomacy?

Some argues that the public pressure during an open debate can undermine the negotiation. Secondly, external actors can compromise to the success of the negotiations, if they consider it as a threat to their own interest (G.R. Berridge, 105, 2010). To add, open negotiation can jeopardize the national security of the parties involved if confidential information is revealed to the public.

From my view, these are reasonable justifications to conduct secretive negotiations between two parties. The pacts and treaties resulting from these negotiations can be public, as long as it doesn’t jeopardize the national security. Concerning the “Old Diplomacy” in the 20^th and 21^thcenturies, it is clear that we need the experiences and principles of the old to build up the “New diplomacy”, which finally seems to be the natural evolution of the former.

Traditional diplomacy in today's world

Do you think the ‘old’ diplomacy has any contemporary relevance?

Diplomacy, nowadays, is a mixture of old and new diplomacy if we consider the characteristics of each one. Making any distinction between "old" and "new" diplomacy does not mean that diplomats must choose between one of them. We can consider that traditional diplomacy is still relevant in the sense that all diplomatic negotiations take some pieces from the old and the new diplomacy. For example, bilateralism is a key feature in the old diplomacy and multilateralism in the new diplomacy. However, bilateral and multilateral negotiations are interconnected one another. Many times, multilateral negotiations success because there have been bilateral negotiations between the different parties before all parties start to negotiate in common.

If we think in the relevance of the "old" diplomacy nowadays, there are at least two highly important things:

1) The strong power of the protocol. Protocol does not only mean the way in which diplomats and heads of state interact, but also the use of structures to have high level relations, such as the embassies. Embassies are a key point in the traditional diplomacy. They are used to interact with other states, to negotiate treaties and to provide assistance to the fellow citizens. Nevertheless, even thought nowadays, technology could substitute embassies, it is not happening since embassies are not only used to negotiate or to provide assistance to citizens or to interact. They are a strong symbol of power.

2) The strong power of the face-to-face. Technology can be used in negotiations and it can save millions of pounds every year to governments. However, the use of technology such as video-conference in diplomatic negotiations could have unexpected consequences in the developing of the negotiations. It does not create the same impact in a negotiation if a head of state stands up and goes, rather than if a head of state switches off the video-conferences. Switching off the video-conference could be seen by the other parties as a failure in the software or in the internet or many other things. Standing up and going, however, has only one meaning. Thus, face-to-face relations become even more important in the contemporary world.

Old Diplomacy and contemporary relevance

Does ‘old’ diplomacy have any contemporary relevance?

So long as we have nation-states we will continue to have Diplomacy, because it facilitates states to interact on political, economical and social issues. The 18th and 19th century characteristics of old diplomacy continue to be applied within contemporary society.

States have maintained their embassies and resident diplomats abroad. Although financially costly, embassies have remained relevant for several reasons. For example, they provide timely and accurate information on local matters, to their home ministries. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot solely rely on information that is provided by foreign states or journalist because such information may be subjected to censorship. Also, the role of embassies has broadened to include administration of visa and travel documentation processing for local residents. Embassies provide tourist advice to their visiting nationals and they can liaise with local officials when problems arise.

A core element of traditional diplomacy is bilateral negotiations. Bilateral diplomacy remains active and key for securing meaningful agreements between two states. Recent bilateral agreements between Sri Lanka and the Ukraine, strengthening their military ties and a similar agreement between the USA and Montenegro illustrates the continued importance of bilateral diplomacy.

The traditional practice of conducting negotiations in secrecy still prevails. ‘If interested parties are aware of what is being negotiated, they might well be able, and would certainly try, to sabotage the talks’ (Berridge, 4th edt, p105). Within contemporary society, secret negotiations are routinely conducted on neutral territory. Like the recent Israeli and Turkish talks which took place in Brussels in July 2010 as a result of Israel’s naval raid on Turkish ships in the Gaza strip (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10471551). Secret diplomacy is particularly important in helping to maintain world peace.

A conventional feature of diplomacy is diplomatic protocols. Whilst some may argue that the pageantry of formal ceremonies, diplomatic ranking and precedence at events, privileges and immunity, is no longer conducive to modern society, they continue to be strictly adhered to by all states, thus providing consistency within the diplomatic community. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 (http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf)
and The Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1233500&ActiveTextDocId=1233502&filesize=24448 reinforces the importance of diplomatic protocols within contemporary society.

Conventional diplomatic issues of preventing wars and maintaining peace remains as relevant today as it did in previous centuries. Although, the threat of war between states has significantly reduced, attacks and acts of aggression inflicted by dissident groups are the ‘new war’ being fought by states with the aid of traditional mechanism and processes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq3FtHZwzZo&feature=related discusses the current violent capabilities of one dissident group.

As with old diplomacy, reinforcing and promoting national interests abroad is still important. Whilst traditional trade diplomacy, was used to influence the outcome of negotiations and secure and strengthen alliances, it is now coupled with commercial diplomacy (which involves the use of diplomatic resources to secure business opportunities in the host nation for small to medium enterprises at home) as states seek to expand their exports markets within host nations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Wq71iuuOo&feature=related is a Bloomberg TV interview with Suresh Kumar on USA-India trade & commercial diplomacy.

The above illustrates that overall the original structure, processes and agenda issues of old diplomacy has continued to survive in modern society, and they also accommodate contemporary issues. Hence, old diplomacy has contemporary relevance.