Smart Power Blog

Unfortunately, it seems as though 'Never Again' has the upper hand in this battle. It is incredibly easy for people to apologize after the fact, while organizing a public diplomacy campaign requires effort and actual work. One would think that having already stated Never Again, that any subsequent apologies would not be accepted. However the leaders, once again, found an easy way to work around this issue.

In the case of Darfur, no one is apologizing. Instead, they insist that they are doing all that they can. So when leaders are presented with questions regarding the current genocide, the response is generally an ambiguous statement which only somewhat reflects the actual policy. For the most part, most responses just tiptoe around the issue at hand. It is truly disgusting that governments are, at least so it seems, satisfied with their minimal contribution to ending the genocide. It is evident that such minimal efforts are incredibly ineffective, but the leaders act as though there is nothing more that they can do.

Of course they are aware of other ways to contribute, but getting involved in issues of genocide are always tricky. There are many articles and publications which outline 'suitable' types of intervention during, if you will, varying levels of genocide, such as the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty's report titled "The Responsibility to Protect." However, not only does intervention require effort, there is also a significant risk involved. The international community has a difficult time coming to a consensus on which conflicts require intervention. If no consensus is made regarding a particular conflict, then obviously any state that did want to intervene would risk suffering the consequences of failing to get international approval.

Granted there is also a risk in saying one thing, (i.e. Never Again) and then doing another (i.e. doing minimal or nothing at all). But when it's all said and done, unfortunately it is much easier for a government to be seen as a hypocrite rather than face accusations of breaching another's sovereignty. In the end, since most governments are hypocritical regardless, their soft power is somewhat preserved by choosing to do little or nothing to help over actively engaging in the conflict resolution. Now of course it would be a tremendous boost in soft power if their actions actually led to a resolution in conflict, but no one's willing to put their neck on the line.

Basically all roads lead to this: damned if you do, damned if you don't.

This is a very important question. This question is driving much of our diplomatic outlook even today.

Ok, so what does Public Diplomacy do in the face of ruthless, deep-seated evil?

My answer would be that Public Diplomacy creates the legitimacy necessary to deal swiftly and vigorously with evil. The better a country is at articulating a credible point of view, the easier it will be to rally others to its side, or at least to have others stand by idly, when it backs up its assertions with force.

Think, for example, of the difference between Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia and Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Now there are obviously many factors that are different, but one important one is that the international community was all on the same page regarding Hussein, whereas there was less consistency re: Hitler. Specifically, the U.S. was very, very late to enter the effort against Hitler. This was, we might say, lousy diplomacy on the part of Britain/France. Except, from a state-to-state point of view, their diplomacy was pretty good. FDR was convinced war was necessary long before the American people.

This is hardly the only factor in this complex case, but yes, Hitler could have been stopped earlier if there was more agreement about just how evil he was and what he was doing during the 1930's. If the world had been "on the same page," Czechoslovakia might have been protected.