John Brown, former US diplomat and current Public Diplomacy blogger extraordinaire has emphasized the United States’ decreasing use or acknowledgement of Public Diplomacy as an important tool of the government for the diplomatic sphere. Instead, Brown posits, the United States has begun to leave Public Diplomacy in the hands of the people. “For the people, of the people and by the people” has never been so true. The current Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Judith McHale has stressed the use of development or U.S. foreign assistance as a way to foster goodwill and promote values of the United States. (Brown, 27 Nov.)
Of course, it is true; the world has changed due to the international communication revolution. A message from one side of the world takes mere seconds to reach the screen of a relative, friend, or stranger on the other side of the world. Personal interaction through social media sites cannot be underestimated. Public Diplomacy is not only the work of the government, but now an unconscious side effect of easy international communication. Oglesby presents this view of a very public, Public Diplomacy in Joseph Nye Jr.’s definition of “new public diplomacy” as “building relationships with civil-society actors in other countries and about facilitating networks between nongovernmental parties at home and abroad” (Oglesby 8). This definition of “new public diplomacy” further develops the theory of public diplomacy moving beyond traditional means into the realm of NGOs, private companies and regular citizens. Again, there is an emphasis placed on the expansion of the players in the Public Diplomacy field and how the players interact.
Though the international communications revolution gave the ability of regular citizens to perform Public Diplomacy, it has also transformed the way governments perform Public Diplomacy. A new study found that more children were able to use a computer than tie their shoes at a young age; to engage these future Internet diplomats, the state has had to take on a greater involvement in new social media.
Arsenault and Cowan describe the different ways one may conduct Public Diplomacy. In the world of Mark Zuckerberg and “Facebook,” this means dialogue. Queen Elizabeth II, though not the political ruler of the United Kingdom, does in many ways represent the values, tradition and history of the UK; she also has a “Facebook” page. Now, people around the world may enter a dialogue with the Queen. Argentinians, Chinese, Americans, Brits and more have all “liked” her page. Though she will not reply back to comments left on her “wall” (including those full of admiration for her ‘luv teh queen <3’), she will provide information on her schedule, pictures and a link to her “YouTube” videos. However, one can still use monologue in the Public Diplomacy of the digital age. In 140 characters one can read brief updates from the White House. “President Obama on the phone with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt in the Oval Office, VP Biden listens,” was one of the many tweets on January 28, 2011. A “twitpic” was included and suddenly anyone could read or see the diplomatic skills of the United States in action.
The communications revolution has changed the way diplomacy is practiced. The realm of diplomacy and the boundaries of states are in flux in the limitless world of the Internet. NGOs, companies, and regular citizens have a chance to voice their opinions and represent their countries as diplomats of the digital age. Governments must also adapt their Public Diplomacy initiatives to cater to the new generations of the Internet savvy. Governments no longer stand alone as the sole purveyors of Public Diplomacy and must come to terms and learn to use the powerful ways of the Internet. Perhaps states do have something to learn from non-state entities on the power of the Internet. Lady Gaga does have the most Twitter followers…
No comments:
Post a Comment