HD VIDEO UNICEF: Goodwill Ambassadors : Ewan McGregor

In the last few weeks we have seen that many aspects of diplomacy have changed. Although some traditional aspects remain, new forms of diplomacy have appeared and have shaken the way negotiations have been done. First, let’s look at the new information technology revolution at the end of the twentieth century, how it has re-shaped the world we live in and the way the flow of information has changed diplomacy forever. Consequently we can then see how globalization might have changed diplomacy and look at the importance of economic diplomacy. Thirdly we will see the rise of NGOs and the place they now occupy along side state actors. And finally we will look at celebrity diplomacy, is it a new diplomatic way per se?

The apparition of the World Wide Web has without a doubt change the way people communicate and gather information. When states wanted to know what was going on in the other side of the world, they used to rely on their ambassadors to gather information and report back to them, which might have taken a while… Now you receive information in minutes via Internet and live broadcast keep people informed wherever they are. Any information is available on the Internet for everyone to see. E. Gilboa explains that the media is used in three different ways in diplomacy. He argues in “Diplomacy in the Media Age: Three Models of Uses and Effects” that the new diplomacy is “exposing diplomacy to the media and public opinion”. He first mentions public diplomacy or how states and non-state actors use the media and choose the information to promote a certain image abroad. The media is used as a mean to influence citizen opinions to then influence their government. He then goes to the concept of “media diplomacy”, often mixed up with public diplomacy but different in the way that the media is used to promote foreign policy and conflict resolution. Media diplomacy is more politically orientated. His third point “media-broker diplomacy” concerns journalists and how they can themselves in some situation have the role of diplomats in “pre-negotiation” stages and “track-two diplomacy”. In this last argument the media is used as a third party in international conflict (Gilboa, E., 2001, pp1-28). New technologies have revolutionized diplomacy, if the Internet carry messages, it might be seen as a global ambassador…

One of the other achievements of the Internet in bringing the world together is often described as the concept of globalization. Another aspect of the changing diplomacy in that regard is as Wiseman argues a shift from “national interests” only to “global interests” (Wiseman, G., 2004, p37). National interests are still very much the main goals of diplomacy but global interests have to be considered. The main concern for every country is trade. An article in Le Monde Diplomatique describes the phenomenon as “economic diplomacy”. It shows how diplomats have become salesmen and how it is now all about the market. The world depends on the meetings of the WTO, the G8 and the IMF (Ross, G, 2000). Economic diplomacy implies a money-orientated business and adds a bit of a negative notion to diplomacy.

The rise of IGOs and NGOs is a direct effect of the utilisation of new technologies and is an important feature of the so-called new diplomacy. IGOs and NGOs have a growing role in international relations. The first ones are the continuation of the state and its policy although working multilaterally, but here we will focus on the importance of the second ones. The figures show that in fifty years the number of NGOs went from 997 to 7261 (Saur, 2005). Such a rise especially since the 90’s has proved the efficiency of the use of new technologies. NGOs bring together citizen networks from around the world and together they can have a voice in some negotiations. Cooper and Hocking have shown that the states have less means to gather information (financial, time, training) and that is where the NGOs have filled in. They are better at using the new technologies and are now used as an official source of information gathering. NGOs have the expertise in the domain they specialise in and consequently can bring something to the states. In their article Cooper and Hocking quote Sir Peter Marshall (a former diplomat): “good governance depends increasingly on non-governmental factors”. Indeed states can no longer ignore non-state actors but have to work along side with them. Governments often have to work with them since NGOs mobilize public support. NGOs have different roles and even if they are not diplomats they nevertheless have a place on the world stage, sometimes more important than governments, notably on Human Rights matters (Cooper, A., F., 2000, pp361-371).

Celebrity diplomacy is another new trend in diplomacy. It is not completely new, but it has a growing importance and more and more celebrities are having a go at defending good causes or representing their country. An article in The independent ironically points at the number UNICEF goodwill ambassadors, so many celebrities are doing it, we don’t even know most of them! Although the article argues that the celebrities don’t have the legitimacy of diplomats, it shows that they clearly have an influence on world affairs. The European Director of Data said: “celebs don’t have national interests to represent, they are seen to represent the voice of the public, and they amplify it”, (Vallely, P., 2009). Well he does work for Bono so that’s what he would say. Some might argue that the VIP might have ulterior motives but they have a certain transparency being in the public eye and being rich already. We have to acknowledge that Bono and Bob Geldof have pushed the agreements on debt reduction at the G8 summit in Scotland and achieved something when meeting with leaders. If they weren’t celebrities and hadn’t the media and popularity among the public that probably wouldn’t have been the case.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QWKpzlf3vUw&feature=channel

The new diplomacy is a direct consequence the new media and Internet technologies. While the Internet has changed the way people communicate, information is conveyed in minutes via e-mails, international broadcasting has definitely transformed diplomacy. In one hand, the mass communication has brought diplomacy to the public and in the other hand states are using public diplomacy through the media to promote themselves. Economic diplomacy, NGO diplomacy and celebrity diplomacy are all showing how diplomacy has changed with Internet and the Media and seems to have become much more open.

Cooper, A.,F., Hocking, B., “Governments, Non-governmental Organiations and the Re-calibration of Diplomacy” in Global Society, Vol. 14,No.3 (2000), pp361-376, assessed online: http://0-web-ebschost.com.emu.londonmet.ac.uk/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=105&sid=78f3214b-87a2-4efa-881c-ec08955

Gilboa, E., “Diplomacy in the Media Age: Three Models of Uses and Effects” in Diplomacy and Statecraft, Vol.12, No.2 (June 2001), pp1-28, assessed online: http://0-web.ebshost.com.emu.londonmet.ac.uk/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=105&sid=e5197ea7-7efc-4526-ac41-4f7f548f

Ross, G., “Business is our only business” in Le Monde Diplomatique, August 2000, assessed online: http://mondediplo.com/2000/O8/09ross

Saur, K., G. in Berridge, G., R., Diplomacy theory and practice, 2005, third edition, Palgrave Macmillan, p152

Vallely, P., The Independent, 17/01/2009, assessed online: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/from-alister-to-aid-worker-does-celebrity-diplomacy-really-work

Wiseman, G., “Polylateralism and new modes of Global Dialogue” in Jönson, C., and Langhorne, R. (eds), Diplomacy: Volume III: Problems and Issues in Contemporary Diplomacy, assessed online: http://www.un-ngls.org/pdf/polylateralism_and_new_%modes_of_global_dialogue.pdf

Polylateralism: the new music of diplomacy

Polylateralism is central to any understanding of contemporary or New Diplomacy. This is the relationship between the state and other entities. The importance of transnational organisations in the mix of modern state affairs is increasingly important. Geoffrey Wiseman mentions that the United States has, on the face of it, differing diplomatic accentuations in Los Angeles, New York and Washington DC which is due to emphasis and centres of power. New York is host to the UN and other institutions so is polylateralist, Washington DC is bilateralist by nature because many embassies are bilateral and exhibit an older diplomatic raison d'etre. Los Angeles is modern and scattered and has strong links to big transnationals so is polylateralist. However one cannot make this an easy case for explanation because as it happens the World Bank and the IMF are in Washington and a plethora of institutes, think tanks and lobbysists. On closer examination though bilateralism dominates Washington they are all examples of complex polylateral networks. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the gradual emergence of developing states as regional powers the idea of polylateralism has taken root.

Four models have grwon out of these trends:
1)Non state actors: NGO's
2)Deregulation across borders
3)Ethnic and religious tensions have emerged within states as forms of conflict
4)Information based and technological advances have accelerated

(Wiseman)

These developments have shunted bilateral and multilateral methods into the background. The lines of demarcation have become blurred as the state sovereignty has become diffuse. This posits the idea that we are now in a Post-Westphalian world of governance because of the influence of trans-national actors.

This has given rise to a multitude of new diplomatic labels and has seen like modern music a fracturing of genres of diplomacy:

1. “triangular diplomacy” (statestate,

state-firm, firm-firm relations);

2.“multilayered diplomacy” (involving

noncentral governments);

3. “second track diplomacy” (methods of diplomacy

outside the formal governmental system, often initiated by nongovernmental

actors and involving diplomats in their personal capacity);

4.“multitrack diplomacy” (an extension of the second-track concept, which

includes a wide range of societal groups engaged in peacemaking activities);

5.“niche diplomacy” (the ability of small and middle powers to provide

initiative and leadership in specific international areas);

6.“preventive diplomacy” (action designed to prevent existing disputes from escalating

into military conflicts);

7.“virtual diplomacy” (a process of direct global

and transnational communication and bargaining between non-state

groups and individuals made possible by new technologies, such as the

Internet).1.

To further stretch the music metaphor further it was appropriate that a baby boomer American president William Jefferson Clinton, who could play the saxaphone, emerged just after the Cold War ended and just as these changes were taking place to take advantage of the winds of change. Bill Clinton was also forced to change direction in his first term of office which kept him sailing into a second term. A polylateral President emerged into the polylateral age.

So where now will these powerful winds of change take diplomacy now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4RjJKxsamQ

 International Affairs, vol. 68, no. 1Localizing Foreign Policy: Non-Central Governments and “Polylateralism” and New Modes of Global Dialogue 53

final_chap43.qxd 18/05/2004 6:44 PM Page 53

Multilayered Diplomacy

, London: Macmillan, 1993; Louise Diamond and John McDonald,

Multitrack Diplomacy

(ed.),

Violent Conflicts: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy

Institute of Peace Press, 1996; Kevin M. Cahill (ed.),

Before They Start

Advent of Netwar

on “virtual diplomacy” in Washington DC in April 1997. The keynote speeches are

available on the Institute’s web site, www.usip.org. For a sceptical view of the impact of the

internet, see George P. Shultz, ‘Diplomacy, Wired’,

adapted from Shultz’s keynote speech delivered at the USIP conference.

, 3rd.ed., West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1996; Andrew F. CooperNiche Diplomacy, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997; Michael S. Lund, Preventing, Washington, DC: United StatesPreventive Diplomacy Stopping Wars, New York: Basic Books, 1996; John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, The, Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1996. The US Institute of Peace convened a conferenceHoover Digest Selections, no. 1 (1998),(

Wiseman

 1. Susan Strange, ‘States, firms and diplomacy,’

(January 1992); Brian Hocking,

Evolution and Change: Wikileaks, Diplomacy gets skinned

 http://gu.com/p/2ye3m 

The age of the internet has heralded in a fragile element to the process of diplomacy. Voluntary board member of Wikileaks Julian Assange is the front of house spokesman for the company that releases leaked  internet documents  belonging to governments. The agency has released sensitive documents which are getting the headlines and feeding the world press. So far this has been at the major expense of the US administration. 'There are no fewer than 251,287 cables from more than 250 US embassies around the world, obtained by Wikileaks.' The Guardian 29/11/2010

This is a factor in the development of Diplomacy which is acutely sensitive. One can be sure that character assassinations in print are quite normal in diplomatic circles but what is new is the escaping of this information in a flawed security system that is meant to protect politicians, diplomats and government agents. It covers documents covering the sensitive subject of Iran's nuclear programme and what strategy should be employed to deal with the crisis. Israel saying they want to knock out the Iranians nuclear plant and the Saudi Arabians wanting the same approach.

 After all I have experienced identity theft myself. In this instance the raison d'etre of the diplomatic establishment itself is being 'stolen' with the aid of mischievous elements or weak security. It is unfortunate when subversive elements get hold of it to aid the pricking of the delicate levels of diplomacy. In this instance we are reading information that relates to America's allies, puppets and enemies. It would be interesting to be the fly on the land line listening in to the apologetic diplomats.

'The leaked cables range up to the "SECRET NOFORN" level, which means they are meant never to be shown to non-US citizens.' The Guardian 29/11/2010

These original documents were leaked by a young soldier called Bradley Manning who is quoted in todays Guardian as saying:

"Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public ... Everywhere there's a US post, there's a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed. Worldwide anarchy in CSV format ... It's beautiful, and horrifying."

He added: "Information should be free. It belongs in the public domain."
It was said to be easy.
"I would come in with music on a CD-RW labelled with something like 'Lady Gaga' … erase the music … then write a compressed split file. No one suspected a thing ... [I] listened and lip-synched to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history."
I wonder which track he erased to do this! But seriously how can security services be so lax as to put peoples lives, ie agents and spies. at risk by being so incompetent with such important information.
The consequences for security and its ability to shield diplomats are serious. The content is revelatory and great material for a student of diplomacy. The New Diplomacy is having its skin pulled inside out in the process rather like a rabbit being skinned.

Link to 'Yes Prime Minister'. Sir Humphrey Appleby on Britain, Europe and Diplomacy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZUOkGxGUVs

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy

There is no doubt that the "new diplomacy" brought about many phenomena completely new to the traditional perception of diplomacy. It would be too far- fetched though to say that the old diplomacy is obsolete now, Putting it colloquially, it would be more accurate to say that if films went 3d then diplomacy went multi-d. One of the dimensions that I consider to be of significant importance is public diplomacy.
One of the reasons for my view is tht public diplomacy offers something that on such a large scale and in such direct ways was absent in traditional diplomacy: a dialogue with foreign public. The new public diplomacy engages in a chain of interactions with its target audience and transforms according to public's reactions. It allows a long- term relationship (either good or bad in some cases) to be created which always allows a better understanding of the agent's (wheter it's a state or not) policy or cultural heritage (in case of states).
Here another reason is revealed: in the times of globalization, public diplomacy makes the network system of states' promotion easier, especially the promotion of cultural diversity. As James K. Glassman decribes it in his speech as U.S. undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs in 2008 (can be accessed on: http://www.cfr.org/publication/16719/public_diplomacy_in_the_twentyfirst_century.html), nowadays the most important public diplomats are actually the citizens of the state themselves. That is an immense transition in comparison to diplomacy's roots of secrecy and aristocracy.
Exchange programmes, language and teaching programmes are just a few examples of wht Glassman mentions as the new strategies for U.S.'s public diplomacy. What is more, I think public diplomacy is an excellent example of how many new tools were possesed by diplomacy on the spectrum of years. Complex websites or also mentioned by Glassman video conferences providing information about state and sending abroad groups of well- trained experts from various fields are the common means of contemporary public diplomacy.
Another important aspect of public diplomacy is its war on terror, also known as The Long War which started directly after the 9/11. I do not think that any other aspect of the new diplomacy played such an important role in the process of "fighting" the terrorism. So far, it was not highly successful, even though the struggle lasts longer than World War 2 but many theorists claim that it is the fault of the nature of democratic politics in contemporary world (Taylor, 2008). However, public diplomacy remains the vital element of the war on terror and it is very unlikely that it will be dropped, it is rather going to evolve and develop more but this is for the future to show.

The Public Diplomacy

We may find a few significant methods used in conducting The New Diplomacy. These are ,for instance, The Public Diplomacy, The Multilateral diplomacy and The Paradiplomacy of Non-State Actors. Each of them plays an important role in striking the balance in the international politics and developing the relations among states. It is difficult to indicate which aspect of The New Diplomacy is the most influential one. Still, I personally consider The Public Diplomacy to have the greatest meaning for the civilization of the 21st century.

First and foremost, nowadays, when the media seems to be extremely powerful in terms of shaping people’s opinion, the fact that so many issues of worldwide importance are broadcast by Television, radio, Internet and newspapers is quite risky. Nevertheless, it proves of a huge progress in relations between political institutions and public opinion. Therefore, as citizens, we are given an enormous opportunity to get involved into world’s politics. It allows us to express our stance freely, to judge decisions and criticize measures. Today, unquestionably, the public participation has a huge power which can easily contribute to decision-making processes at each political level.

Yet, not only is the public diplomacy about facilitated accessibility of information but also about the ability of a state to promote itself. Numerous official institutions are strongly backed up by the PR agencies. That may question the creditability of particular politicians and their statements. They not seldom do both conceal and reshape some information and facts. There appeared several critical statements condemning public diplomacy for its propaganda-style character. On the other hand, though, undoubtedly it is extremely useful in building long-term relations in the international field.

Moreover, I need to emphasize the increasing role of embassies. Their work on creating the best possible image and publicity of their home state is significant. They do that using various methods. One of the most popular one is simply spreading the culturalattractiveness , meaning educational possibilities, travelling, art and many other. The Foreign Affair policy is much more efficient when conducted through means ensured by embassies. They are placed in the receiving state, therefore they can maintain friendly relations on a daily basis and quickly response to any confusing situations.
To conclude the above arguments, I am convinced that The Public Diplomacy is an inseparable feature of modern civil societies. Its effectiveness depends on the scope of participation of people. Fortunately, more and more citizens want to have impact on local, state and world politics. Thanks to this kind of diplomacy we can get truly involved in worldwide issues, influencing the direction of world’s development. This proves that despite some noticeable flaws, there is a considerable need for conducting The Public Diplomacy.

The Multilateral Umbrella

The technological revolution in the 1970’s has, indeed, carried with it a range of legacies whose impact on world affairs can hardly be adequately emphasised.
However, it is within these legacies, or an elaborate combination of them, that leap out and communicate the very essence of the new diplomacy, that of multilateralism. Although I continue to recognise the necessity of bilateral negotiations and agreements, under the global umbrella of economic interdependence and political overlaps, it appears that multilateralism has once and for all changed the very nature of diplomacy.
My reasons are deeply embedded in the international events that have made the headlines worldwide within a remarkably short period of time. It ranges from the negotiations in the trade war between the United States and China at the G20 Summit in Seoul (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328995/G20-Seoul-Summit-World-leaders-pledge-ceasefire-currency-war.html) to the historical line-drawing between past and future in the partnership between NATO member states and Russia (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_68876.htm), removing the iron curtain by the roots.
It seems that multilateral cooperation has been recognised as mutually beneficial resulting in constraints on unilateral behaviour.
Nevertheless, multilateral diplomacy still deals with dominant actors- strong states- in the process of negotiations and it is fair to say that weaker states are constraint in their influence on the outcome, a suggestion that power politics remains a producer of unfavourable outcome for those who are less powerful (Walker, 247). However, it is a problem that demands to be addressed by those in charge and ought to find its remedies in reforms of international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) (www.hks.harvard.edu/visions/publication/keohane_nye.pdf) and the United Nations (articles) and adjustment in the cooperative behaviour of states.
The trade war between the United States witnesses the downside of multilateral diplomacy evident in the deadlock in negotiations whose reason relates to previously mentioned power politics. The reluctance by both states to compromise on such an essential matter finds its explanatory power in the economic power that is more or less equally distributed.
I substantiate my argument for the crucial existence of multilateral diplomatic resolutions, partly, in its inevitability in the presence of political and economic integration, but mainly because security issues and peaceful solutions are only appropriately met in a global cooperative manner.
Furthermore, multilateral diplomatic trends of increasing, although not carried out to completion, transparency, which has allowed for the vigorous participation of NGOs and civil society, encourage future prospects of the legitimacy- the ingredient international regimes are often accused of lacking.

I believe there exists a mutually reinforcing power between states and international regimes, because the latter is impossible without the former, but that the latter, simultaneously, operates as a cooperative educator to the former and, thus, represents the slow, but steady, adjustment process the former will need to follow.
Few changes are painless affairs and backsliding can only be expected. But multilateral diplomacy is here to stay, despite the many lessons ahead.

The new diplomacy: what in your opinion is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy? Explain your reasons.

Contemporary diplomacy is a diverse network of negotiations and communications between states and non-state actors. It still maintains traditional features like secrecy and bilateral diplomacy as essential foundation, however, since the world has become more globalised in different aspects, there is a necessity of global solutions to deal with the increasing number of global issues. Therefore, the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is the emergence of multilateral and conference diplomacy. The evolution of technology and communication in diplomacy, the growing number of international organisations and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), development of public diplomacy and global concerns on security and environmental issues, all these factors have reflected the importance of multilateral diplomacy in world politics. This entry will provide the main reasons in order to explain why the new diplomacy would be ineffective without multilateral diplomacy.

Typical models of multilateral and conference diplomacy are international organisations such as the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or the  Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). All these organisations have a large membership and significant influence on the international relations. Each of them aim for different objectives, for instance, the UN aims to maintain international peace and security, the EU to peace and prosperity for their citizens while the WTO seeks to support international development. However, they share a common viewpoint on multilateral diplomacy as an effective device to pursue their goals. Multilateral diplomacy through multinational conferences and negotiations offer states better conditions to achieve agreements on issues that require a global participation. States benefit from multilateral diplomacy in various aspects as they can participate in pooling international information which might be related to their domestic affairs, through the joint management of resources they can then find an effective method to pursue their own objective. States can also influence the behaviour of other states or obtain mutually beneficial agreements through the multilateral system (Walker, 2004, pp. 16-18). On the other hand, multilateral conferences offer occasion for states which have no diplomatic relationships or conflicts with each other to meet up and discuss solutions for their bilateral affairs beyond the initial particular issue of the conference. In international conferences of the UN, EU and WTO, member states have equal votes which provide opportunities for developing states or states with less significant political position to express their viewpoints on global affairs.

Furthermore, non-state actors like NGOs also play an important role in multilateral diplomacy and have contributed considerably to the development and solutions of certain global issues, such as environmental and human rights issues. In contrast to states, which are the main decision-making bodies, NGOs often do not have the formal voting authority in international conferences. However, NGOs can effectively engage in international affairs and shape the negotiations process by lobbying the state, providing information or helping in drafting the decisions. Take the Kyotol Protocol negotiations on global climate change as an example. Environmental NGOs "were successful in achieving their goals by working behind the scenes to raise concerns about issues and influence the positions of key states" (Betsill and Corell, 2008, p.12). In other words, the involvement and contribution of NGOs in multilateral diplomacy is undoubtedly necessary, as their particular concerns on environmental or human rights issues are useful in order to reach a global solution to these problems. Despite the fact that NGOs might not have the diplomatic authority in international negotiations, they are an essential part of the multilateral diplomacy.

In conclusion, the increasing number of global issues that require multinational negotiations, has made multilateral and conference diplomacy the most important factor of contemporary diplomacy. Multilateral diplomacy is significant as it contains within itself other fundamental elements of the new diplomacy, such as diplomatic negotiations or public diplomacy. In general it has strengthened the relationships among states as well as their collaborations with nongovernmental organisations.

Bibliography:

Betsill, M. M. and Corell, E. (ed.) (2008), NGO Diplomacy: The Influence if Nongovernmental Organisations in International Environmental Negotiations, The MIT Press, USA.

Leguey-Feilleux, J. R. (2009), The Dynamics of Diplomacy , Lynne Rienner Publishers, London.

Walker, Ronald A. (2004), Multilateral Conferences: Purposeful International Negotiation, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11741674 - G20: Leaders' statement from Seoul summit. It shows how states can achieve agreements in multilateral conferences.

Questions & Answers revealed for the real people with powers!

HAMID SHEIKH, NEWHAM’S FIRST DEPUTY YOUNG MAYOR in 2007

I have managed to find truth about the office of Young Mayor of Newham. Young people have the right to speak for themselves on how they want their community in Newham to be. This is what used to happen with the old Youth Parliament. It may not have worked perfectly, but at least there was some structure in place to give young people a voice. Now the youth parliament has been scrapped. The only right young people have now is to vote in an annual talent show for a Young Mayor who will make decisions on their behalf. Let me answer Rebecca’s points one by one.

“A democratic election contest for the Young Mayor and Youth Council gives

every young person the opportunity to take part in local decision-making.”
Yes, the Young Mayor elections are fair and democratic. However, the Youth Parliament – an elected assemble of young Newham residents – was a much better system. That was direct democracy. All the young people had full power to express themselves. Having a Young Mayor removes their right to speak for themselves. I don’t agree to having one person to represent all the young people in the borough, elected by a one-off snap popularity poll. The danger is that if the young person occupying this position is speaking to an MP or a minister, he or she won’t have the confidence to stand up for the young people of Newham, unless they are given a script. They can become puppets or hostages.

“Through the Young Mayor’s budget and Youth Opportunity and Youth Capital Funds the Young Mayor and Youth Council have initiated youth-led projects across the borough.” Young people make up half the population of Newham. The Young Mayor’s budget comes to £25,000 – less than one thousandth of the total council budget! If we include the funding from the Youth Opportunity Fund, it is still no more than 1.5%. It is true that the council spends hundreds of millions on education and other youth services – but young people have no say in how that money is spent.

Candidates “campaign to win support from their friends, neighbours, classmates and peers”. Elections should not be a glorified talent show, a popularity poll based on how many friends you have, or block voting by schools and colleges. Does this really

“reinforce our accountability to the community”? There is no way to hold the Young Mayor to account. Once he or she is elected, that’s it. It’s a one-term position, so they never stand for re-election.

Sir Robin Wales talks about “the indifference felt by a small minority of young people towards the 2008 Young Mayor Election”. There are at least 35,000 people aged 11-17 living in Newham. On top of that, there are many more young people who are working or studying in Newham. All of these are eligible to vote. How many actually voted in the Young Mayor election? Even this year, only around 8,000. So who are the “small minority”? The voters or the non-voters?

“Your article quotes election slogans taken out of their original context... These slogans and statements are necessarily inspirational.” Many young people considered these slogans not “inspirational”, but meaningless sound-bites – an insult to their intelligence. Young people in Newham have real problems! None of the manifestos which I read for the Young Mayor in 2009 offered a serious programme on how to tackle youth unemployment, the shortage of college places, lack of free sporting and recreational facilities, or gun and knife crime. Newham’s young people deserve better than an annual game show. They need to get organised!

Click Here to see Angelica Lukauskas's Manifest, now is this achievable? does she have a clue that she is just another poppet of the bigger people with powers out there who are just controlling her?

It’s just another political game by the people with powers...

The Young Mayor of Newham is the council’s flagship initiative for working with local young people. By putting power to influence decision-making directly into the hands of young people, the Council is strengthening local democracy and reinforcing an inclusive community spirit, which is the lifeblood of our vibrant and diverse borough. A democratic election contest for the Young Mayor and Youth Council gives every young person the opportunity to take part in local decision-making.

Young people participate as nominees, candidates, election agents, and of course as voters. The Council acknowledges critique of the initiative as a valuable form of participation which reinforces our accountability to the community. Young people possess a range of talents and interests and we recognise the role of Young Mayor or Youth Councillor will not appeal to everyone. We provide a vast range of other activities for young people to take part in.

Young people’s opinion piece described the indifference felt by a small minority of young people towards the 2008 Young Mayor Election. The annual Young People’s Survey which was generated by the Newham Council shows strong and growing support among young people for the Young Mayor and Youth Council scheme. The Young Mayor website is the primary source of information for young people to find out how to get involved and keep up to date with the work of the Young Mayor and Youth Council.

Newham’s young people are able to make informed choices when electing their representatives. The aims of all the candidates for Young Mayor are widely publicised through posters, leaflets, PowerPoint presentations, DVDs and video manifestos available in schools, colleges and online. All nominees and candidates are supported to lead their election campaign to win support from their friends, neighbours, classmates and peers.

As part of their election campaign, each candidate develops a manifesto based around their priorities for young people and how they will make positive changes to the local area. The new elected Young Mayor’s article quotes election slogans taken out of their original context within manifesto statements. These slogans and statements are necessarily inspirational.

They are written by young people for whom this is usually their first experience of standing for election. Young people decide at the ballot box which manifestos resonate best with the concerns that matter to them.

The Young Mayor and Youth Council may be judged on their delivery of positive changes during their term in office. In the last year they have focused on three key priorities: tackling crime and fear of crime, building sustainable communities and increasing opportunities for young people. These priorities have informed their decision-making in spending the Young Mayor’s budget of £25,000, guiding the allocation of Youth Opportunity and Youth Capital Funds worth £400,000, and influencing over £490 million of Council investment in services for children and young people.

On crime and fear of crime, the Young Mayor has strengthened relations between young people and the police. On building a sustainable Newham, the Young Mayor has led the campaign to raise awareness of recycling and energy efficiency. On increasing opportunities for young people, the Young Mayor and Youth Council have engaged local young people in shaping Newham’s Olympic legacy.

www.newham.gov.uk/youngmayor

EUs Democratic Surplus

International institutions have often suffered the aggravating description of being in ’democratic deficit’ among which the European Union has equally occurred, but with an increasing public awareness of political affairs, there is hardly any doubt that bureaucratic illnesses need immediate treatment. Being a cluster of democracies, the very absence of this characteristic in the institution itself appears rather self-contradictory.
The ‘democratic deficit’ carries with it a legacy of legitimate decline and has, fortunately, resulted in the European Citizens Initiative (ECI) introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, an answer to the constant interpellation by citizens in an information age.
The process itself reflects the dominant role of the internet which proves to be a direct tool in diplomatic relations as ordinary citizens, a million of them, now posses the possibility of participating in the implementation of laws, a unprecedented progress towards direct democracy.
"not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties." (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/10/116&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en)
The quarrels regarding the sufficient number of support the ECI will need among member states to attain adequate legitimacy witnesses the diffusion of power as it seems to emphasise the delicate balance between public influence and political latitude.
However, MEPs, through which ordinary citizens have a voice, insist on ‘’public hearing as the appropriate filter’’ in the implementation of law and policy proposals and, thus, represents, hopefully, enough pressure to influence the outcome.
Nevertheless, there remains doubt about efficient results, evident in the belief that only governments posses the power to truly change structures within the EU.
No matter what the ECI will, finally, entail of results, the initiative itself represents a great deal of what The New Diplomacy is fundamentally all about. Shifting from predominant bilateral negotiations between states to multilateral consultations and summits, the ECI embraces public opinion as a link in decision-making and creates hope for further public engagement in the future.
International regimes, whose transparency is often in question, experience more pressure than ever before from interest groups, NGOs and civil society to a degree that makes them difficult to ignore.

In an era of growing economic interdependence where decisions on top have increasing influence in every corner of the world- or Europe at least, public participation and influence ought to be a matter of course and political processes should, thus, not be kept from the political agenda.
Additionally, more than being a public diplomacy tool, it invests in direct participation by citizens within the EU and hopefully, the discourse the ECI represents will amplify and obtain greater recognition in other international institutions whose accountability is equally important.
It is ’the power of people’, a power that deserves more attention than ever before.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11773647

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/10/116&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0389+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

The G20 Summit In Seul

In order to tackle the worldwide issue of the financial and economic crisis, in November in Seul the G20 members met to strengthen international cooperation and gather some new solutions to be taken in the future in terms of improving the global situation and maintain further growth and development.

Today, there are available numerous articles and comments on the above top forum. The final statement by G20 leaders has been made available to public opinion. It is rich in expressions showing strong unity and unanimity among the leaders. They state their common attitude towards overcoming the appalling economic (and not only) conditions. The official website provides updated information and documents prepared during the meeting, for instance the Communique. It makes clear that the states are ready to join their efforts and carry out the proposed solutions. International media spread pictures of personable representatives standing together, proud of themselves and glad to have accomplished the set goalsYou can check it here. Doesn’t it look perfect? Even too perfect? Still, we have to bear in mind that setting particular objectives is not enough. The public opinion is more looking forward to seeing any visible effects of the G20’s work in reality rather than on paper. We are all awaiting to discern changes in our countries concerning the everyday living. Unfortunately these expectations are not always satisfied. It usually takes a lot of time for the new regulations, solutions and ideas to be implemented and finally to work. Therefore it is not really that beautiful as we may conclude from the given documents.

Giving the above example of a recent event, I did not want to say that public diplomacy is worthless as it not seldom presents untrue facts shaped by governments’ PR agencies. I underlined one of its disadvantages but in general, I strongly believe that public diplomacy plays a huge role in nowadays’ world.
Many authorities like Mark Leonard mentioned in the Nye’s book ‘Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics’ as well as Berridge (2010;p180) claim that public diplomacy is a kind of propaganda. Still Nye strongly disagrees (2004;p.107). I would support the Nye’s view that apart from trying to create the most positive image in media, public diplomacy ensures almost ideal conditions for maintaining healthy and continuous relationships among states.

The G20 summit is a great chance for the most influencial states in the world to exchange views on the most current affairs, reach agreements and cooperate for the sake of billions of people in the world on behalf of – again- billions of people. Thus, public diplomacy is significant in terms of international partnership. Moreover it makes us –citizens- feel more or less secured. What I am trying to emphasize is that this PR work has an enormous psychological influence on us. We know that in times of crises we are not left ourselves but that there are institutions which always take care of appearing problems. In addition, the states’ willingness to meet and work together proves that we may not expect any third world war in the near future.

MI6 Boss Sir John Sawers Gives First Public Speech By Serving Head Of Br...

'Je t'aime moi non plus' v. 'Your 'avin a larf aintcha!' - Anglo-French Defence Agreement-

BBC coverage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOdSWZDyNgU

ITV coverage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5855wHTApnE






The recent treaty agreements between France and the UK (http://gu.com/p/2kzf8 ) has emerged out of a certain amount of economic necessity. The economic down turn has got strategic heads turning where some tentative costings can be made to some very large military budgets. After all the UK and France are the 3rd and 4th largest military forces in the world. Somehow both leaders have forged ahead to sign this treaty which will allow for a 10,000 expeditionary force, an aircraft carrier and joint nuclear testing. Cameron had to re-assure the US/the Pentagon, who suspected the motives for such a move, that the UK would still be under the US nuclear umbrella and that we would continue to buy American nukes. The treaties also allowed France to rejoin the NATO command structure for the first time since 1958 when De Gaulle protested at Eisenhower's control of the organization and left NATO to become independent of US control. Sarkozy has now decided that France should stop isolating itself and has been happy to make ouvertures toward a soupcon of military cooperation with 'Les Rosbifs' as they affectionatly call us. It also allows for the UK to act independently if it likes even though in recent history this has happened only twice; in Sierra Leone and in the Falklands. This is a brave new forging of a newly minted limited edition Anglo-French warrior on the world stage. However even this small step has raised the ire of Cameron's backbenchers one of whom Bernard Jenkin, a former shadow Tory defence minister, said that  "We cannot have a strategic fusion with a country that has historically, and still has, diametrically different strategic objectives on the world stage."

3. Public Diplomacy

According to Berridge (2010,p180), public diplomacy is just a new form of propaganda. It is used by nations to show their good sides, to promote themselves, it is not necessarily untrue but not always that accurate. Whilst keeping Berridge's point of view in mind, I would rather use the definition of Potter (2002, p179) who thinks of it as “ the effort by the government of one nation to influence public or elite opinion of another nation for the purpose of turning the policy of the target nation to advantage”. Furthermore, public diplomacy will be used to show a certain image of a country to all nations, not always for policy making, but maybe to show some of the country’s values , or to defend itself.

A recent event that I think illustrates well the importance of public diplomacy and its misuse is when three weeks ago, the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, Sir John Sawers gave a press conference to explain the way Britain conducts itself in the secret services (guardian.co.uk, 28/10/2010). It was the first time ever a serving head of MI6 was giving a public speech. I found it rather surprising, what would he want to share with the British and the rest of the world? Well Sir John gave a really deep speech on how even when dealing with terrorists, the British remained truly British and insisted that all intelligence gathering was done in accordance to Human Rights, “lawful and ethical” at all times and insisted on the “ strictly no torture” policy. The latter point was definitely the highlight of the speech broadcasted on every news channel. This media intervention seemed like a bit of a clumsy way to promote Britain and its values, I was sceptical but couldn’t help than thinking well done! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4ahH3iKJwQ

Unfortunately, this weekend revelations about the torture of Iraqi prisoners in a British base darken the portrayal made by John Sawers a few weeks ago. The Guardian article reveals the extent of the abuse inflicted to the prisoners (Cobain, 6/11/2010). The Joint Services Intelligence Organization was in charge of the interrogation centre on the base. More than a thousand videos of interrogation sessions have been recorded and some of the former inmates have passed on the videos to lawyers to press charges. Not only torture was used in the British detention centre, but the Ministry of Defence is trying to block the public enquiry in a high court hearing. The basic Human Rights of the prisoners (most of them later released without charges) were breached and the efforts to hide the affair to the general public at home and abroad reinforce the gravity of the matter. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/06/iraq-prisoner-abuse-court

In light of these events the former attempt of Sir John Sawers to reassure people of the way Britain conducts itself abroad seem a bit hypocritical. Was he not aware of the fact then? Very unlikely, he is the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service and the same The Guardian article shows that the affair has been going for a few years. The bad publicity from the USA Abu Ghraib might have still been echoing in his ears and maybe it was a way for the government to distance itself from the facts or to act like a pre-emptive coup, putting this out there before the storm.

There is a close link between foreign policy, diplomacy and intelligence and to come back to Berridge view. Sir John Sawers was ambassador for Britain to Egypt and has worked for Blair has an adviser on foreign affairs, are we being fooled with the “transparency” of the British secret service? The attempt to show that the British politeness remains at all times, a nation that promotes Human rights all over the world but not in the Iraqi camps.

Berridge, G.R, Diplomacy: theory and practice, 4^th edition (Bakingstoke: Palgrave 2010)

Cobain, Ian, The Guardian, 6/11/2010

Guardian.co.uk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/28/mi6-chief-torture-john-sawers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/éà&à/nov/06/iraq-prisoner-abuse-court

Potter, Evan H., Cyber-diplomacy managing foreign policy in the twenty-first century ( McGill-Queen’s University Press 2002)

Public Power

At the very top of the mountain of superpowers the United States of America has attained a rather prominent position. Accordingly, initiatives concerning public diplomacy would often have only weak tools at their disposition without American participation, which is why I argue that the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), launched by Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, formulates the important prospects and essential ambitions of public diplomacy.

The QDDR is an acknowledgement of the crucial necessity of international cooperation to combat the global challenges with an engaged American public which has led to a comprehensive structural rebuild of the agencies within the United States such as the State Department and the USAID.
The mutually reinforcing roles of diplomacy and development call for fundamentally changing roles of US ambassadors as these will now need to approach not only foreign governments but engage in activities that will strengthen the appeal to the civil society, the pivotal pawn in advancing development efforts.
I believe that this kind of diplomatic approach to development propounds positive aims and sustainable goals as it reflects a shift from the top-down strategy that has often characterised diplomatic relations. But with a strong and energetic civil society that enhances American efforts in foreign states, public diplomacy reveals its initial objectives and most positive sides.

Procedures familiar in the Structural Adjustment Programs embrace only economic aspects of development and fail to reach the public and the circumstances in which they operate better. Furthermore, SAP’s may quickly generate attitudes that the United States only concern is to create markets that favour the American economy rather than an establishment of sustainable economic efforts in the given country, which easily undermine the use of soft power that is also employed.

The QDDR enables US diplomats to get the necessary understanding of the needs in every corner of civil society and, most importantly, show that these are equally important for development.
The cultural comprehension of legality and economic growth is rarely achieved with top-down policies, because these exhibit no understanding of the political and social context.in which they take place.
NGO’s and local expertise provide these tools of understanding and it is, thus, essential that US ambassadors get involved with them to build sustainable bridges between civil society and the government.
Furthermore, a civil society that embraces US efforts and recognises the genuine concerns of the American government and public are, in future aspects, more likely to favour American values and can work as a pressure on its own government to accept US foreign policies.
In this respect, the United States’ national security and stability priorities appear more realistic due to a global public opinion that will protest against rather than support hostile governmental attitudes towards the US.
This was for instance the case in Liberia where the cooperation between military forces and civilian power produced adequate pressure for Charles Taylor to resign. The effort paid off and resulted in peace agreements that ensure the continuation of UN and US focus on Liberian stability.

The democratization of nondemocratic states has never been an overnight task but is, nevertheless, extremely important for the recognition of American values and the expansion of the capitalist market economy.
When the United States experiences successful attempts in reaching publics abroad with what looks more like a bottom-up policy, the QDDR and public diplomacy will have fulfilled its duty as cooperation at all levels operate in conjunction.
http://www.state.gov/s/dmr/qddr/


http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66799/hillary-rodham-clinton/leading-through-civilian-power


http://www.modernizingforeignassistance.org/blog/tag/qddr/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/state-department-should-h_b_739041.html

Public diplomacy: recent events or developments which illustrates the importance of public diplomacy in contemporary world politics

Public diplomacy can be described as a process, through which states influence and shape foreign public attitudes in order to achieve their international strategies and policy, as well as promote their nation brandings. In comparison with the traditional G2G (government to government) channels, public diplomacy seems to be more effective in engaging the public and building up relationships between states. Public diplomacy is mainly realized through the use of soft power, such as media, movies, radios, campaigns and exchange programmes, which many would see as propaganda. However, as there is no approved international standard to distinguish public relations and propaganda, this entry will refer to some constructive elements of contemporary public diplomacy, such as educational and cultural exchanges.

The Chevening programme is a major project funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) which offers scholarships and fellowships for postgraduate students and researchers across the world to study in the UK (www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/what-we-do/scholarships/). On the one hand, the scholarships provide educational opportunities for foreign students, potential future leaders and support students who come from low-income backgrounds in developing countries. On the other hand, the programme also promotes British culture and image by encouraging the scholars to participate in daily social affair and events. As a result, the programme, beyond its educational purposes, has created better interactions and sympathy between foreign individuals and the British government, as well as strengthened relationships between Britain and the students’ home countries. 

Similarly, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan offers an annual study tour of Japan for young people from European countries. During the tour, the participants will be introduced to Japanese culture, history and its economic and political systems. In public relations aspect, such exchanges aim for long term benefits as according to the Japanese Foreign Ministry: "the deeper understanding of Japan gained by the participants of this tour will encourage them to contribute to the strengthening of ties between Japan and European countries in the future" (Embassy of Japan in the UK, study tour). Mark Leonard also affirmed the importance of individuals' experience acquired during the exchanges: "It is important not just to develop relationships but to ensure that the experiences which people take away are positive and that there is follow-up afterwards" (2002, p. 18). Therefore, it can be argued that exchanges and scholarships are an essential part of public diplomacy in building relationships and shaping public opinion, especially of the young generations.

Besides developing relationships, public diplomacy can also be used to rebrand and promote a state's image. It is not surprising that the USA has invested a large amount in public diplomacy in order to restore its image in the Islamic community after leading two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. For example, through the use of soft power, such as media, broadcastings and radio, the USA has promoted itself as a country supporting democracy and where Muslims are well treated. With the establishment of new channels such as Radio Sawa (which replaced the Voice of America Arabic in 2002) or Radio Farda (targeting the Iranian citizens), the U.S. aimed to change its negative image as well as engage more Islamic audiences (Nye, 2004, p. 123). These actions could be considered as propaganda, however, whether they are or not, they represent good attempts to diminish religious conflicts by promoting cooperation between the U.S. and the Islamic community.

In conclusion, public diplomacy can be used for many constructive purposes, such as promoting states' images, developing relationships between states as well as improving the governments' relations with the public. Therefore, it is an essential part of contemporary diplomacy and should be carried out to maintain its beneficial goals.

Bibliography:

Leonard, M. with Stead, C. and Smewing, C. (2002), Public Diplomacy, London, The Foreign Policy Centre.

Nye, J. S. (2004), Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, New York, Public Affairs.

" Chevening scholarships 2011/12 and beyond", Foreign & Commonwealth Office,

< http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/what-we-do/scholarships> (6 Nov 2010).

" Study Tour of Japan for European Youth", Embassy of Japan in the UK,

< http://www.uk.emb-japan.go.jp/en/study/study_tour.html> (6 Nov 2010).

The importance of public diplomacy:

Public diplomacy in the 21st century is hoped to be seen as the influence and informing of foreign publics from a state government. In most liberal democracies this is encouraged as it is seen to present an image and build relationships from governments to publics.

On the 8th of November Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, demonstrated a medium and long term dimension of public diplomacy. As part of President Obama’s 3-day visit to India he addressed the Indian parliament and peoples with a speech, which its key feature was to tighten ‘U.S. -Indian relations and raise the U.S. influence in Asia.’

The Indian public and government where spectacle about the President’s visit, due to the military collaboration of Pakistan, in Afghanistan. Through public diplomacy President Obama declared for the first time that the U.S backs India’s bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations. Furthermore, Barack Obama also made a public statement to ‘ease restrictions off high-tech exports to India.’ Post visit, the Indian media said that it has been a positive visit, this illustrates the importance of public diplomacy and the success of public diplomacy as prior to visit the public were spectacle.

On the other hand one may see this proactive style of publicity to be propaganda and an attempt to get the Indian public on America’s side to pursue the U.S interests and undermine Indian government agendas. Some of the actors within the Indian state were critical. National secretary D. Raja said the U.S president in his address to Indian parliamentarians was " pursuing the known US positions and protecting the interests of his country."

Moreover, this is exampled by the fact that hat the 10 billion dollar deals with India would create 50,000 jobs back in the U.S. Here it must be noted that the lack of jobs in the U.S was a highlight of campaign during recent Congressional elections and Obama’s party lost seats due to this factor.

Another feature which should be noted about President Obama’s public diplomacy is the use of sound bites, and in particular the use of the adjective ‘incredible.’ Media reports have stated ‘In all it came up at least 19 times in six of his seven public events.’ It could be suggested that Obama’s aim was to leave the public of India an image of the U.S thinking that their state is ‘incredible.’ This is a part of a long-term dimension of public diplomacy as intentions are to improve existing relationships within India.

In conclusion, President Barack Obama’s visit to India was a clear illustration that public diplomacy is important within democracies in the 21st centuries, it allows foreign states to make clear what agenda they within a particular state and the type of relationship one state will have between another. One may argue that is can undermine states which do not agree on certain policies as public opinion may shift towards an idea which is not of interest to heads of states. In the contemporary world of politics it is crucial more than ever for transparency and creditability of government agendas between states, I think that public diplomacy is a good way of exampling this, however I also note there must be a credible media to complement this.

For further reading on Obama’s public diplomacy in India please follow these links:
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/111081/text-president-barack-obamas-address.html
http://www.merinews.com/article/barack-obama-and-incredible-india/15834657.shtml

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-11/10/c_13599021.htm