As some of my previous
posts have noted, effective public diplomacy relies on well thought out goals
and objectives, as well as considerable time. Well thought out objectives, and
time are not two characteristics of situations like the Arab Spring or many
other situations where there is existing conflict or political unrest. Public
diplomacy certainly can play a role in enduring conflicts or situations of
political unrest, but dynamic, rapid situations do not yield themselves to
being influenced by public diplomacy campaigns.
Operating under base
assumptions that we are considering an unrest situation from the US
perspective, public diplomacy can play only limited secondary roles. The US
diplomatic bureaucracy typically moves too slowly to react to these situations
and often does not have clear objectives or desired outcomes. If higher order
diplomacy is unable to develop desired outcomes, how can a public diplomacy
program be developed to achieve unclear objectives? For instance in Syria, the
US still barely has objectives or goals and also has no good options. How
should a public diplomacy program be established to create influence in this
situation?
Overall the only way to create a situation where public diplomacy campaigns are effective in dynamic situations is to develop more a planning capacity in the diplomatic community to prepare for these situations. That cultural change though is wishful thinking and is extremely unlikely. Planning though would at least prepare diplomatic decision makers with options and perhaps even before there is nothing left but bad options. In this sense, planning could also identify opportunities where public diplomacy can be used in advance of a crisis situation either creating a potential means to prevent the crisis, or at worst, have more situational awareness
No comments:
Post a Comment