As modern technology advances, so does the complexity of the world’s concern. As a matter of fact they become so complex, that regardless how powerful a state might be, transboundary issue such as the environment, pandemics, terrorism and more recently, the widespread economic crisis, cannot be tackled meaningfully by unilateral actions. The G-20 meeting in London is an acknowledgment that the old bilateral relations might be on its way to extinction as today’s political networking, occasions in which domestic policies does not have an impact internationally, are estremely rare. Despite that, as Hocking argues, “globalisation has not rendered national governments irrelevant, but it has made its deficiencies more explicit in terms of knowledge, flexibility and speed in responding to global problems. Nicholas Cull has also emphasized this point by stressing that the new era brought about innovation, but has not undermined the relevance of the public diplomacy history.
Scholars now speak of ‘the new public diplomacy’, which involves the proliferation of international actors (including international organisations, non-governmental organisations and corporations); the arrival of global digital and real-time technologies, thus blurring the lines between the domestic and international news spheres. According to Mark Leonard public diplomacy can no longer be seen as ‘an add on to the rest of diplomacy’ because it has acquired central position when interacting in multidimensional spheres with several other actors. The growing concern and interest among the public with diplomatic relations made credibility crucial to the sustainability of the power of soft influence. Non-governmental organizations are usually seen as credible institutions, therefore are becoming increasingly active player in public diplomacy.
Nevertheless, not everyone sees relevance in the non-governmental organization’s role; Berridge, for instance, offering a narrower view of diplomacy, sees it as propaganda or merely public relations. The paradox is that, although there seems to be a consensus about the necessity to spread the power of influence, especially emphasized by the Obama’s administration in the form of smart power, the amount invested in cultivating relationships with the rest of the world has steadily declined. The biggest challenge to public diplomacy is that it requires credibility, which is a virtual image that takes decades and even centuries to be built, but seconds to be destroyed, as Bush and Blair experienced with the invasion of Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe you are right in saying that most often ngo's are seen as credible institutions. I can understand why ngo's that claim to be working for the good of the people, the environment or for the animals would gain sympathy from the public. However, these institutions do not have the same kind of legitimacy that governments, at least in democratic states, have due to the fact that they are elected representatives of the people. I find it interesting how there is always much criticism, and in many cases criticism is rightful, towards governments and what they do or do not do, yet ngo's seem to go clear of much of this form of scrutiny and criticism. Is that because, not being elected to represent the people, then we do not expect the same from them as we would from governments? If that is the case, then it should be worrying that ngo's are gaining increasing influence in political and diplomatic circles. I do not mean to say that ngo's are not to be trusted or that they should not be able to contribute their knowledge and expertise in their respective fields to the general public and to decision makers. I just find it interesting how the question of the legitimacy and credibility of ngo's is one that is so rarely raised.
ReplyDelete