Public Diplomacy – State business or not?

Public diplomacy is a very debated term in the 21^st century, mostly because its definition is actively contested. Traditionally it was state-centric, and was connected to a state’s foreign policy goals. However, non-state actors slowly became actively involved in conducting public diplomacy, therefore a revision of the concept is now required. The globalization and evolution towards democracy of international society has brought about the advent of other actors, who, for the moment, are referred to with the generic term ‘non‐state’, and have global interests and the will to make them felt on the world stage (La Porte, 2012).
The idea of public diplomacy is still contested, and some determine it by its objectives and strategies, and some determine it by its actors (Zatepilina, 2010).

There are largely two main groups who with their own definitions of public diplomacy.
Firstly, there are those who define public diplomacy as a state-centered, official communication channel (McPhail, 2011) and those, who define it as a communication channel “with foreign peoples, with the aim of affecting their thinking and, ultimately, that of their governments.” (Malone, 1985) The second group allows for non-state actors to be involved in public diplomacy as they regard it as they define the goal that it aims to achieve rather than an instrument used by states.

Some regard these two groups as an evolution of public diplomacy as a whole and call the second group as ‘new public diplomacy’.

Today public opinion matters more than ever before, therefore non-state actors’ activities must not be overlooked by states, giving legitimacy for NGOs to be involved in public diplomacy. Although states are still the most important actors of public diplomacy, they unlikely the most influential ones in the long run. As governments are elected every four to five years, their political agenda changes, but NGOs primarily focus on certain issues for decades. States are oftentimes limited to domestic boundaries and NGOs demonstrate more effectiveness in many instances, such as humanitarian catastrophes. Furthermore, they do not oppose a direct or military threat to other states and state sovereignty, and are able to contest and challenge governments (as there are no political consequences involved, such as diplomatic crisis or war).

Obviously the state still holds a certain amount of power that non-state actors cannot take, but lots of its powers now are shared with these actors. The change in public diplomacy demands a change of governmental relations as well. Previously states developed bilateral or multilateral relations with other states, but now Wiseman (2004) introduced a new model called polylateralism to cater for new public diplomacy and allow for a room for non-state actors.
These changes thus prove that generally non-state actors are accepted members of conducting public diplomacy, however there are lots of issues around the legitimacy of these new actors.

The main problem is that in diplomacy, representatives that negotiate have power vested in them by their own nation. They are using such powers because their citizens legitimately chose them for these positions. When NGOs sit at these negotiating tables, it is extremely difficult to describe the source of their power. Consequently, nor is it clear what powers their representative has in diplomatic negotiations or how they can guarantee that agreements will be observed (Langhorne, 2005). NGOs also are less accountable for their actions than governments.

It may be claimed that their legitimacy comes from their efficiency: NGOs managed to become influential actors of public diplomacy for a reason: the global vocation of some NGOs surpasses the narrow‐minded national interest of some governments; the business volume of some multinationals place them ahead of many countries on the planet, they have greater margin for maneuver, adapt better to new world realities, make better use of new technologies and can develop strategies for effective influence. (La Porte, 2012).
Although non-state actors lack democratic legitimacy, their legitimacy derives from the support of citizens, which some governments may lack at times. NGOs funding for example comes from donations. If they did not enjoy the trust of citizens, they would not receive donations therefore would not be able to play a role in public diplomacy.

New public diplomacy involving non-state actors is a much better and evolved version of public diplomacy restricted to states. NSAs contributions are paramount to the international community, and their existence assist in addressing key issues faster, as they adapt to new scenarios easier than states.

 

 

Bibliography:

Langhorne, R. (2005) ‘The Diplomacy of Non‐State’, Diplomacy and Statecraft, 16: 331‐339

La Porte, T. (2012), ‘The Legitimacy and Effectiveness of Non-State Actors and the Public Diplomacy Concept’. University of Navarra, San Diego.

Malone, G. D. (1985). ‘Managing Public Diplomacy.’ Washington Quarterly 8(3):199-213

McPhail, T. L. (2011). ‘Global Communication: Theories, Stakeholders, and Trends’. Wiley.

Wiseman, G. (2004) ‘Polylateralism’ and New Modes of Global Dialogue’ in Christer Jönsson and Richard Langhorne (editors) Diplomacy, vol. III, London: Sage, pp. 36‐57.

Zatepilina, O. (2010). ‘Why U.S.-Based Nonprofit Organizations Have a Stake in the U.S. Standing: A Case Study in Public Diplomacy’. Syracuse University, Ann Arbor.