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.
The G20 Summit in Seoul did, indeed, also catch my attention, since the outcome of the trade war between China and the United States has major influence on all countries involved in the global economy given the increasing interdependence.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with your emphasis on Public Diplomacy which, I believe, is a result of an increasing civil curiosity facilitated by the technological revolution.
However, I must distance myself from the fact that public diplomacy was that evident during the G20 Summit in Japan. Firstly, because no actual solution was found to the problem which reflects great reluctance by economically powerful states, an idea backed up by a Germany whose support one would have thought to be on Obama’s side but turned out not to be.
I regard the G20 Summit in Stewart Patrick’s words: ’’What if the new global leads to an era of multiplicity without multilateralism?’’ (Stewart Patrick, 2010, 46), because this is exactly what the global economy, in this case, tends to generate.
Unfortunately, I consider the G20 Summit a diplomatic deadlock where it appears that states have still not conformed completely to the New Diplomacy as the terms on which states must operate have changed from a bilateral to a multilateral approach to negotiations. Their toolbox must get up-to-date and conform to new international circumstances. Otherwise, I fear that this tendency may be more of the rule than the exception.