Public diplomacy deals with the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policy. It encompasses dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy such as:

1. The cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries
2. The interaction of private groups and interests in one country with those of another
3. The reporting of foreign affairs and its respective impact on policy
4. Increased public communication between diplomats, politicians, non-state actors, and journalists of different countries.

Public diplomacy as a new diplomatic tactic requires different skills, techniques and attitudes than those found in traditional diplomacy. This specific nature of public diplomacy makes it useful for non-state actors too. Moreover, a number of over-arching trends have increased the importance of both public affairs and public diplomacy in contemporary diplomacy which makes these qualities available to several actors. These include:

1. The increased importance of public opinion
2. The rise of more intrusive and global media
3. Increased global transparency brought by advances in communications and the related phenomenon of a more activist civil society
4. The rise of a global culture leading to a reflexive desire to protect cultural diversity. In a globalized world, public opinion matters more than ever.

The Case of Flotillas

The Middle East, because of its many conflict zones, has become a testing ground for new methods of diplomacy, such as President Obama’s speech to the Islamic world broadcast from Cairo. However, one of the best examples has come from independent non-state actors. During the end of May and the beginning of June 2010, Israel naval forces intercepted Turkish and Irish nongovernmental humanitarian aid vessels bound for Gaza and ordered them instead to dock in Israeli ports. The Turkish vessels refused and Israeli naval forces boarded one of the vessels, killing 10 and injuring many others. The Irish vessel complied with Israeli orders and never arrived in Gaza. The political mission of these flotillas was certainly achieved: the raid has provoked a firestorm of international criticism and has drawn attention to the stalled Middle East peace process.

This incident reveals something important about how public diplomacy can affect politics on a domestic, regional, and international level. The operation has triggered a political debate inside Israel between those who feel that Israel’s increasing isolation over the Gaza issue is dangerous versus those who think any weakening of resolve is dangerous. It has proven that Israel is locked into a course that gives it freedom of action depending on its feeling of indecency especially concerning security affairs. Israel is far less dependent economically on United States or Europe. The quantity of aid supplied to it has shrunk in significant as the Israeli economy has grown. Israel is now a member of OECD. Actually, this incident has arguably strengthened the Netanyahu administration as he campaigned against what he saw as dangerous concessions by previous government.

Recent affairs are also showing limited American influence over Israeli policy, undermining the trust Arab countries place in US promises relating to Israeli behavior. Israel refuses to be bound by US promises relating to the peace process. This might be a viable short term political strategy, but in the long run a split from the US would be extremely significant, and change the balance of power in the region.

To most analysts, defusing the current crisis would seem to be a long-term strategic necessity for Israel. In the meantime, the profound divisions in the Arab world both protect Israel and make diplomatic solutions to its challenge almost impossible. It seems like the Palestinian division between Fatah and Hamas is only one element that hinders the peace process. The most important change for Israel would not be unity among the Palestinians, but a shift in Egyptian policy and its military capability. For example, if Turkey aligned with Egypt, and helped speed an Egyptian military recovery, this will create a significant threat to Israel. Turkey’s emerging power combined with a political shift in the Arab world could represent a profound danger to Israel since the two nations no longer enjoy friendly relations. The politico-military consequences of public opinion is also a key question and it is in this context that Israel must evaluate its split with Turkey.

Conclusions

The Flotilla incident has helped develop the way public diplomacy can affect international politics, especially from a non-state perspective. Yet the central weakness of public diplomacy is its limited capability in dealing with long-term policy goals. Non-state actors, however, can also use the mass media to engage in public diplomacy across a wide range of issues. Overall, the efficacy of public diplomacy depends on the capacity of a given actor in mixing hard power with soft power in the Joseph Nye formula of ‘smart power’. Attracting and persuading public opinion has only a short term effect as it can change quite quickly and is not an important factor in the foreign policy of states. The flotilla NGOs have proven their ability to mobilize public opinion but couldn’t go further to achieve diplomatic solutions. This is the domain that non-state public diplomacy should work on.

Posted on July 22, 2010

comments