Public diplomacy is just as imperative as state-to-state diplomacy became a few centuries ago. Publics are here, they have power, they must be engaged in a sensible way.
I attended a session today (along with some of my "smart power" colleagues) on how to make public diplomacy a bigger part of the 2008 presidential campaign. It was a productive and interesting session, but I couldn't help but feel like it missed the mark in one important way.
As we've discussed on this blog before, public diplomacy is fundamentally about communicating with foreign publics. I would like to argue that there are basically two reasons we should bother doing this: the imperfect power of foreign governments, and the enormous expense of military action...
Rather than go into detailed arguments in support of these assertions I will simply try to clarify them in a way that is productive for discussion.
1. Public diplomacy matters because foreign publics have power that is not entirely controllable by foreign governments. One has regular diplomacy, obviously, to influence foreign governments. But we do not try to influence foreign governments by code or convention, we try to influence them because we believe they have power.
Yet as we have learned with VIetnam, Afghanistan, 9/11 and now Iraq just to name a few -- it is simply unrealistic and foolish to think that governments always have all, or even a majority, of the relevant power. People can act, often both dramatically and with sophisticated coordination, without approval of a government. The combination of new technology and a more global, interconnected world means has only increased this capability. If you are concerned about the actions of non-governments, you believe that public diplomacy is important.
2. Public diplomacy matters because war is expensive. It is expensive financially, it is expensive politically, and it is expensive morally -- every human life is precious. So if there is a way to accomplish something without using violence, that is preferable. Currently, we have two ways of engaging with foreign publics directly. We can physically dominate them with violence or we can communicate with them. To the extent to which you believe that war is costly, you believe public diplomacy is imporant.
These points are fundamental and obvious, but I do think we sometimes forget them. We talk about techniques for getting people to like us or understand us as though this is public diplomacy. This would be the equivalent of saying state-to-state diplomacy is about "treaties" and "ambassadors." Yes, sometimes. But it is also so much more than that. So public diplomacy is much more than PR campaigns and television programs.
Public diplomacy is a tool of power, one which, as I tried to demonstrate in this simple analysis, comes with a fairly clear scope of effectiveness. That is, it's not hard to figure out when it would be really helpful and when it wouldn't matter as much. The fact that neither political party has thus far shown any aptitude for wielding this power does not mean it is any less potent. We should remind people of this.
Comments (3)
Well said Drew. Key to your two points - especially the second of the two - is that they can be translated into political arguments around U.S. foreign policy. We can sit across a table from "Candidate X" and explain the value of public diplomacy, but how will it help him or her in Iowa or New Hampshire? Whether we like it or not, if our goal is to make public diplomacy part of the political dialogue over the next 14-15 months, we need to figure out how to make these connections. I think that process is starting, and it really is up to us to keep it moving.
Posted by Ted R. | February 16, 2007 9:21 AM
Posted on February 16, 2007 09:21
Great point, Ted. I think we should all discuss this more, but if I had 5 minutes with a candidate, this is what I would say:
Security -- national and personal -- is the dominant issue in this presidential campaign. Right now, no party and no candidate is seen as particularly credible on this issue. Concretely, no one is offering a clear, comprehensive and plausible plan on Iraq and the Middle East as a whole.
A major reason for this gaping hole is that no candidate is considering how the world has fundamentally changed, and thus how the tools of power have changed. We still haven't completely internalized the lessons of 9/11. Every solution you hear is a reconfiguration or recombination of the use of military force and the use of state-to-state diplomacy. But our failures in Iraq and in the region have little to do with our use of force or our ability to persuade governments. Our troops have done their job over and over again -- taking the same city sometimes 2-3 times. We have cajoled and persuaded the Iraqi ministers repeatedly. They share our goals. And yet the situation deteriorates.
Perhaps this is a sign that it is an unsolvable problem. This is, I think, a comprehensive and plausible framework a candidate may take to the American people. Let's just get out and leave them to kill each other/sort it out -- let the region handle it however they may. In other words, if both force and diplomacy are insufficient to solve an international problem, it is unsolvable. But if this is true, we are forever beholden to every weak regime and unsupervised border in the world.
This is a depressing thought, but in a way it is also heartening, because it shows that if a candidate CAN offer a plausible, hopeful alternative, he/she has a damn good chance of winning. What is the alternative? IMPROVE PUBLIC DIPLOMACY. What is public diplomacy? It is when our government addresses the people of other nations directly. Here are some examples:
-- Training their militaries (yes, this is PD)
-- opening dialogue with local/community leaders , i.e. entering into relationships with people who have POWER, not just people in the government
-- getting into local newsmedia in legitimate ways
Those are just a few examples. It should be clear from them, however, that we have done a terrible job of all of these things over the last 6 years. That we have done them badly is no comment on the strenght, committment or talent of our military and our men and women in uniform. They have done everything they've been trained to do, everything we've asked them to do, impressively and heroically. No, we have done them badly because these are fundamentally not military functions. And they are not diplomatic functions, in the state-to-state sense, either. These things are about influencing citizens of other countries. Not thwarting them with violence or persuading their government, but offering them the chance to work with us toward common goals, like stable, well governed homelands.
We have been operating in the new world as though it were the old. So yes, the problem might be unsolvable, or, maybe, we have just been ignoring a key component of the solution. We've been making our solutions conform to the tools we had rather than shaping our tools to fit the solutions we need.
Posted by Drew | February 16, 2007 10:14 AM
Posted on February 16, 2007 10:14
Excellent point about costs. We spend 300 billion for hard power and we get [X] amount of security. We spend one tenth that on diplomacy and soft power, and get more 'bang for the buck'. Both are imperative, but as you suggest, lets keep the cost benefit ratios in mind too.
Yes, the key is to get diplomacy and soft power into campaigns. In most past campaigns, these 2 are non-starters. In this campaign, there is an opportunity to push them up toward the top of the agenda. IF the candidates and their advisors are convinced of their importance.
Posted by ernie | February 20, 2007 11:30 AM
Posted on February 20, 2007 11:30