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