Behavioral Public Diplomacy

Diplomacy is described by Kelley as being a behavior not just an institution.  What he is discussing  is the way that diplomacy has changed over the years with the increased involvement of non-state actors.  This increased involvement has taken the ability to manage diplomacy out of being strictly a state institution but has made it more of a dialogue.  These non-state actors have created a challenge for states. 

Diplomacy today isn’t just about what a government acts on but its about the way that governments interact with non-state actors and with other states.  The game is no longer limited to a few select players but to anyone really.  Actors have started taking up certain causes along side NGO’s and drawing attention to problems that were not a high priority for states.  In many ways diplomacy has become a kind of business for NGO’s and as a result they are being shaped by current policy so that they always taking actions that will support their long term goals.  I believe this is what Kelley means by diplomacy as behavior.  Diplomacy has become a component of all international business and there are now so many actors that it has created new ways that states handle situations.  These new actors are termed “new diplomats by Kelley.  He says “For our purposes, New Diplomats are mobilised by moral legitimacy supplied by a collective, stateless will to somehow reorient the ethical foundations of states, and to change state behaviour in a way that is desirable to the represented movement.”  Essentially the influence has become multi-directional.  It isn’t just states influencing eachother but now there are NGO’s that are influencing states.

In terms of public diplomacy I think that this is significant because it means that it’s going to be harder to get across your message.  With states and NGO’s playing in the same field as well as other New Diplomats there are now a lot of competing voices.  A state’s own NGO’s may being trying to change a certain behavior and as a result is sending out contradictory messages abroad.  This can negatively affect the image of the country.  I think there will have to be more energy put into cooperating and meeting the needs of NGO’s in order for states to have successful public diplomacy programs abroad.  While a state has a certain legitimacy that an NGO’s don’t have, they also have obtained a moral authority.  The idea that they are fight for what is right, this can be very powerful especially to the right audience.  In some instances it can be even more so than the voice of a state.