New Public Diplomacy is built upon traditional public diplomacy. Although in many ways, new technologies brought about this change, New Public Diplomacy is not just about using the Internet. It’s also characterized by different types of actors, relationships and goals.
First, the tools for public diplomacy have changed and that
is related to the Internet and information technologies. A lot of public
diplomacy happens through new media now. Exchanges have become much easier with
cheaper and faster modes of communication. From e-mail to social networks, the
Internet has changed all communication and that of course applies to public
diplomacy. Van Ham even writes about online role playing games being used for
public diplomacy, such as Sweden
setting up an embassy on Second Life (pg. 134). Additionally most governments
now use social media to further public diplomacy goals. This recent report from the Lowy Institute covers all of the social media the U.S. State Department utilizes, with a large
focus on public diplomacy.
In terms of actors, public diplomacy is no longer just
contact between a government and another state’s people (Cull pg. 12). It has
evolved to include many more actors, including NGOs, international
organizations and corporations. Even individuals can play a part in public
diplomacy. One reason for this is the technology that allows anyone to have a
voice via the Internet. But another reason is that goals and objectives have
also changed.
Whereas as many might argue that old public diplomacy had
similarities with propaganda, because it aimed to speak AT people to convey a
message, New Public Diplomacy is about speaking WITH people. It’s about
creating dialogues and conversations, which means more actors will naturally be
involved in the process. Practitioners of public diplomacy have found it more
productive to focus on relationship-building instead of top-down communication
(Cull pg. 13). Cull also emphasizes the importance of listening and responding
to what you learn, instead of just attempting to plow through with your
message. In the new information age, it is much easier to communicate and carry
on these types of conversations as a tool of diplomacy.
I think you highlight some of the key distinctions.. namely, the "at-with" distinction and the rise of ICTs for PD. You also note the plurality of PD actors. This is discussed at length in Melissen's piece and in this week's Polylateralism essay on diplomacy. But you are right to also note the "new" PD is not necessarily NEW. It's a continuation and an adaptation.
ReplyDelete