People to People Diplomacy
Cultural and public diplomacy have become increasingly important in international relations which once relied solely on traditional diplomacy for its interactions. People to people diplomacy has also become an important factor in cultural and public diplomacy. According to the American ambassador to Panama Linda E Watt, ‘the multifaceted subject of people to people contacts includes the role of nongovernmental players in the world, private citizen groups, academics, business people, civic organisations, religious institutions, etc.’ (panama.usembassy.gov) She continues to explain that with the growing influence of non-state actors ‘an ambassador is now but one of many figures and forces influencing relations between nations and peoples.’
Over the past year, people-to-people diplomacy achieved important results in strengthening solidarity, friendship and cooperation with people in neighbouring, regional and traditionally friendly countries, mobilising and gaining support from international friends, according to the report of the Party Central Committee’s Commission for External Relations presented at the conference.
In a conference held in Hanoi on March 15 to review people-to-people diplomacy in 2010 and discuss activities for 2011, it was discussed how ‘through external activities, mass and people’s organisations joined hands with relevant agencies to fight erroneous acts, and to promote the rights of women, children, the disabled and the elderly. All activities were applauded and supported by international countries and organisations.’ (english.vovnews.vn)
Public opinion holds more sway now than at any previous time in history. Information and communication technologies are cheap and ever-present. A dense network of private companies, non-governmental organizations, and social movements exert ever more influence relative to governments, according to Kristin M Lord. The USA is taking full advantage of this to ‘strengthen efforts to engage, persuade, and attract the support of foreign publics’ by the creation of the USA-World Trust. The USA-World Trust will draw on the enormous goodwill, creativity, knowledge, and talent of the American people and likeminded partners overseas to
- present a more accurate and nuanced vision of America to counterbalance the one-sided views sometimes promulgated by popular culture and foreign media
- contribute to an environment of mutual trust, respect, and understanding in which cooperation is more feasible
- promote shared values and their champions
- inform and support our government’s public diplomacy efforts through the sharing of knowledge regarding communication, public opinion, foreign cultures, and technology.
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century, foreign policy at brookings.edu
We are now living in a multi-polar world where public opinion is more bearing than ever. It's a world in which constructive informational, cultural and educational exchanges are vital. Despite the fact that diplomacy is still, and probably will always be associated with politics, diplomats and foreign office officials, we can not ignore the fact that cultural and public, especially people to people diplomacy are increasingly relied upon to change or introduce the image of a country.
Transforming role of a Diplomat
Guerilla Diplomat
This is an interesting idea of a need for a changing nature of the conventional diplomat into a more, in my understanding: “people’s diplomat”, which Daryl Copeland termed as the “Guerilla Diplomat”. Copeland is the major supporter of Public and Cultural Diplomacy, who argues that the sole use of military force in conflict zones will not solve the problem, but instead worsen the conditions and endure the issue even further. Thereby, he argues for a more pacifist nature of problem solving-through negotiation, persuasion and communication.
Consequently, he argues for the need of “Guerilla Diplomats”, who are substantially different than that of traditional diplomats in a sense that “Guerilla Diplomats” are given more freedom to rely on their own judgment and rationality without being commanded hierarchically, more interaction in the "out and about" rather than that of working through the office only, adaptation into the environment to the greatest possible extent so that there will be less need of guardians and more ability to engage with the people more freely without being isolated by the security forces. The tools of the “Guerilla Diplomat” are the uses of public diplomacy mixed with “classic qualities of guerrilla warfare: improvisation, self-sufficiency and popular support”.(Copeland, 2008, p293)
“To all of the core attributes associated with public diplomacy-networked communications, relationship-building, cultural ease and creativity-the guerilla diplomat would highlight the importance of abstract thinking, advanced problem-solving skills and rapid-adaptive cognition” (ibid)
The description of the “Guerilla Diplomat”, if simplified into a particular association, comes analogous to the role of the “Avatar”, whose main aim was, as far as I understood, to learn from the local inhabitants and report on strategic actions.
Consider for example the competencies required for a potential “Guerilla Diplomat” extracted from Copeland’s description:
• Local knowledge, cultural sensitivity, language and communications ability
• Irregular representational capabilities and characteristics
• Rapid-adaptive functionality in conflict situations
• An affinity for collaboration and teamwork
• A value premium placed on the generation and use of intelligence
• Autonomy, agility, acuity, self-reliance and resilience. (Copeland,2008, p295).
This illustrates the greater need and call for the use of public diplomacy through “Guerilla Diplomats” in dealing with contemporary issues: whether it is the struggle with terrorism or development.
Copeland, Daryl and Potter, Evan (2008) “Public Diplomacy in Conflict Zones: Military Information Operations Meet Political Counter-Insurgency” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy No:3, p-277-297.
Selective Public and Cultural Diplomacy
I’ve been trying to understand the case in which Monitor Group, a Massachusetts based PR company, has been severely criticized in the press recently and admitted “(we) made serious mistakes entering into a multimillion dollar contract with the Libyan regime to portray Muammar Gaddafi to the west in a favorable light.” (1) Monitor Group promised the regime a “regular flow of high quality visitors” to Tripoli, selected for the “strength of their influence in guiding US policy” (ibid) Monitor has been quoted as saying they thought these visits would bring Gaddafi “closer to the west” (2)
Among the “high quality visitors” were Francis Fukuyama, author of The End of History, Richard Perle, Neo-con advisor to George W. Bush and high profile academics such as Robert Putnam, Benjamin Barber and Joseph Nye. Nye was forced to justify his participation by declaring “As someone who writes on international politics and leaders, I was curious to see what he was like.” And “There is no doubt Gaddafi) acts differently on the world stage today than he did in decades past. The fact that he took so much time to discuss ideas with a visiting professor suggests that he is actively seeking a new strategy.”
The London School of Economics has been similarly criticized for it’s dealings with Libya, leading to the resignation of its director Sir Howard Davies. This is for the “mistake” of concluding a £2.2 million pound deal to train hundreds of future Libyan elites. Surely, with what we know of cultural and public diplomacy, there is nothing here that should raise concerns. In a number of deals with different institutions, Libya proposed to send 400 young Libyans to London for leadership training, 90 diplomatic exchanges with the US and send 70 judges to Britain to study English and international law. We know that cultural exchange and having foreign elites train in or visit your country is one of the most effective forms of diplomacy. The British government has been dealing with Gaddafi for many years now, our oil companies are doing huge amounts of business in Libya. So why the concern now? Gaddafi has been “rehabilitated” in recent years, as shown by this Telegraph article of 29th May 2007 by David Blair,
But Mr Blair's meeting with Col Gaddafi was designed to drive home the transformation of Libya's relations with the West.
In December 2003, Col Gaddafi handed over his stocks of chemical and biological munitions and his entire nuclear weapons programme to British and American experts.
This crucial step marked the culmination of years of diplomacy, during which Col Gaddafi also stopped sponsoring terrorism and paid compensation to the families of the 270 people who died in the Lockerbie bombing.
Last year, America formally removed Libya from its list of state sponsors of terrorism and resumed diplomatic ties.
Mr Blair regards these developments as one of the key foreign policy successes of his premiership. (3)
I would contend that this is an ongoing strategy to demonize Gaddafi. The British and US governments have seen an opportunity where they may be able to rid Libya of Gaddafi’s influence, foment civil war and consequently gain control of Libya’s sweet crude oil. The propaganda machines of both countries have gone into overdrive to persuade the peoples of Britain, US and the Arab world that any military intervention would be for “humanitarian reasons”. BBC Radio 4’s 6 o’clock News (5th May) reported a “massacre” of 30 people by pro-Gaddafi troops outside of Bengazi, but the killing of 29 people by the US led puppet regime in Iraq on 26th February, (4) was apparently not a “massacre”, in fact it was very under reported in the mainstream media. The reporting of Libyan government air force jets bombing rebel populations is only based on hearsay as this extract from the 1st March, US Department of Defense news briefing, with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chief of Staffs Admiral Mike Mullen shows,
Q: Do you see any evidence that he actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent
SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.
ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.
Q: Mr. Secretary, could you give us your assessment of the situation on the ground? How bad is it? Can the rebels take Tripoli? Are thousands dying?
SEC. GATES: Well, the -- I think the honest answer, David, is that we don’t know in that respect, in terms of the number of casualties. In terms of the potential capabilities of the opposition, we’re in the same realm of speculation, pretty much, as everybody else. I haven’t seen anything that would give us a better read on the number of rebels that have been killed than you have. And I think it remains to be seen how effectively military leaders who have defected from Gadhafi’s forces can organize the opposition in the country. And we are watching that unfold, as you are.
Melissa.
Q: Do you have any requests from rebel leaders for air strikes from NATO -- have you heard of any of that?
SEC. GATES: No.
(5)
This seems to me to have been written before. In George Orwell’s 1984, the Big Brother government would have an ally one day then re-write history to make them into an enemy the next day.
The West’s military Industrial Complex has the smell of sweet crude in its nostrils, blood is sure to follow.
Sports Diplomacy
Sports diplomacy is a theme which is not discussed quite as often as other kinds of diplomacy. Nevertheless, it does play quite a big role when it comes to diplomacy. However, it is not as direct as other forms of diplomacy. Sport is one of those things that trespasses borders, language barriers, and other differences. It is indeed a very good tool and can be quite successful if implemented correctly.
One of the examples of sports diplomacy is the Rugby World Cup which took place in South Africa in 1995. Nelson Mandela had just become president and South Africa was in a very difficult situation, with far right terrorism against the new democratic order. South Africa’s hosting of the Rugby World Cup could not have come at a better time. People from everywhere in South Africa joined together as they had the same interest, for their team to win. And this is when nationalism plays an important role too. Nationalism drew everyone together in the hope and support of the South African team; the hope of them winning the Rugby World Cup. At this point, it did not matter whether one was black or white; they were all South Africans cheering for the same team and for one purpose. Apart from improving things at home, it also sent a positive image of South Africa to the world. It was a new and different South Africa. As Mandela once said, “Sport has the power to change the world, to inspire, to unite people in a way that little else can.” And not to forget that South Africa ended up winning the Rugby World Cup that year.Another example of sport as diplomacy is what is called the ‘Ping-Pong Diplomacy’ between the United States and China in 1971. The United States had a blockade towards the Peoples’ Republic of China at the time. The Table Tennis World Championship was taking place in Japan, and China invited the American team for a visit. The U.S. was invited to China for a few friendly matches (or exhibition matches) of table tennis. This was an opening of a new chapter in the relations between China and the U.S. It is halfway through the Americans’ visit in China that the United States lifted the 20 year old trade embargo against China. Indeed, the following year Chinese players went to United States for a few exhibition matches as well. And it was in February 1972 that Nixon visited China, the first ever American president to do so.
One of the more recent examples is that of China hosting the 2008 Olympic Games. All eyes were on China and how prepared they would be. This indeed provided more opportunities for China’s diplomatic practices and they did not fail. The Beijing 2008 Olympic Games were a success and promoted a new image of China.
The United States have several diplomatic envoys who are athletes, such as Michelle Kwan (figure skater), Barry Larkin and Joe Logan (baseball players). Michelle Kwan was appointed as envoy in 2007 and has visited Argentina, Russia, Singapore, South Korea and Ukraine among others.
The United Kingdom is now investing a lot into the London 2012 Olympic Games. This event will focus the world’s attention on Britain and have them re-examine their views and opinions about the UK. The Foreign & Commonwealth Office describe it as “a remarkable opportunity to demonstrate the open, connected, dynamic and creative country that is Britain today” and they their challenge is “to improve perceptions of Britain – and thereby increase the UK’s power to influence.” All eyes will be on London in the summer of 2012.
Sports diplomacy is indeed a big part of public diplomacy. Its advantage lies in the fact that sports is something universal and which has the capacity to unite people in one way or another.
Here is the link to title sequence for the London 2012 Olympic Games handover show first shown in Beijing 2008:
