Public Diplomacy and NGO's

In today’s globalised world more than just the government representatives occupy the international political spectrum; there are many actors and different interests that are represented during international negotiations and international diplomacy. Of these, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) now play an increasingly important role in international politics. Although this is not true of all NGOs, many are totally independent from a state or government (including funding) and can present ideas and opinions that do not align with those of the country from which they originate. In this sense an NGO can be invaluable in highlighting causes that may otherwise be overlooked by a government.

NGOs also have the advantage of carrying very little political baggage and as such they can often more easily gain the trust of the local affected. Many NGOs are international and have representatives from all across the world with a key focus of supporting the people that they are attempting to help. The NGOs have the advantage of not having more than one issue to consider; whereas a government may have to consider a multitude of stakeholders in any given negotiations along with the political implications of any decisions, an NGO does not have this concern.

The impact of NGOs in international diplomacy is not always clear cut; while many do not rely on state funding they can often act as a positive reflection on the country from which they originate. Conversely, by having minimal ties to a state an NGO may criticise the actions of a government relating to a specific cause and provide negative international coverage on an issue, contradicting the views of politically minded representatives and potentially damaging the government’s reputation and their global image. The NGOs are often on the front line of any situation and have the upper hand when it comes to providing views and opinions; it is this direct experience that is seeing the work and the opinion of the NGOs representatives being increasingly more sought after. Governments are beginning to recognise the importance of the work of NGOs and the benefits that they may gain from involving them in discussions and engaging with them; a positive contribute to their public diplomacy strategy.

Reference:

Zatepilina, O. (2009), “Non-State Ambassadors: NGO’s Contribution to America’s Public Diplomacy”, in Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol.5, No 2, 156-168

Can sports really be a useful and long lasting diplomacy tool?

“Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. It has the power to unite people in a way that little else does. Sport can awaken hope where there was previously only despair. Sport speaks to people in a language they can understand.” Nelson Mandela

I think that few of us would argue with the words of Nelson Mandela regarding the importance of sport in uniting nations and overcoming some of the issues that exist between nations and within nations.

Sport is becoming an increasingly important tool in a country’s public diplomacy strategy. Academics and politicians alike have recently hailed the success of the Beijing Olympics (2008), the Football World Cup in South Africa (2010) and the Cricket World Cup in India (2011) as spectacular exhibitions that have transcended national issues and political problems.

While there is no doubt that these events have been a spectacular success with nations from across the world competing, it is perhaps more important to ask about the lasting impacts that these events have had. China certainly has a legacy from their hosting of the Olympics, however the Olympics has not succeeded in having any significant improvement in human rights in China. It has also not succeeded in preventing media censorship as the recent arguments with Google have so clearly shown.

It is also clear that events such as these can be used as a diplomacy tool, which provides an insight into the country, their people and the culture. It is perhaps no surprise then that before the 1936 Olympics in Berlin there was a significant ‘clean up’ operation ordered by Hitler and the Nazi party (who had come to power after the awarding of the Olympic Games to Berlin). They removed all anti Jewish slogans and arrested around 800 gypsies and kept them under guard until the games were finished. During this time the construction of concentration camps had already began and less than three years later Hitler had exterminated many Jews and had invaded Poland. While the games can bring countries and nations together, it can also provide a dangerous false impression about a country. For the viewers at home the experience of the Olympics can be one of fascination and awe; the reality can be very different.

While it is true that 1936 was a long time ago and the presence of the media and international awareness has improved significantly since then, it remains that sport is sometimes not able to overcome the difficulties that exist internationally, and at times is not allowed the opportunity to do so. Before the draw for the qualifiers for the 2012 European football championships, UEFA (the governing body) announced that the draw would be set to ensure that Azerbaijan would not meet Armenia, and Russia would not play Georgia. This was because of the political tensions that existed between the respective countries. While this may not have received significant press coverage, it is clear that this is a significant instance where sport is unable to transcend the political barriers that many claim it does so well. It is also clear that politics has become involved in the football world, and when sport is no longer politically neutral, its benefits may begin to decline.

Sport certainly has a place in fostering dialogue between nations and helping to instill solidarity in a nation however its ability to achieve foreign policy objectives remains questionable; does sport really bring about long term, sustainable changes? The evidence presented above would suggest not. It is important to note that while sport can, and should, be used to help improve diplomatic relations; it should not be seen as a ‘quick-fix’ to diplomatic problems and used as a substitute for institutional change.

References:

Aliyev, E. (2009), “Azerbaijan, Armenia not to be drawn together in Euro qualifiers”, News.Az, http://www.news.az/articles/4359, accessed 03.04.2011

Ndlovu, S. M. (2010), “Sports as cultural diplomacy: the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa's foreign policy”, Soccer & Society, Vol.11, No 1-2, 144-153 [online]

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a917874446&fulltext=713240928#references, accessed: 03.04.2011

The Journal of Public Diplomacy Exchange (2010), “The Power of Sport: Should sport and diplomacy mix?” http://www.exchangediplomacy.com/the-power-of-sport-should-sport-and-diplomacy-mix, accessed: 03.04.2011

The Nazi Olympics Berlin 1936 (2010), “The Façade of Hospitality”, http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/olympics/detail.php?content=facade_hospitality_more, accessed 03.04.2011

Sung-joo, H. (2009), “Sports Diplomacy and the World Cup”, Korea Focus http://www.koreafocus.or.kr/design2/layout/content_print.asp?group_id=102687, accessed 03.04.2011

Walters, C. (2007), “Sports Diplomacy is the New Comeback Kid” University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School, http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/070803_sports_diplomacy_is_the_new_comeback_kid/, accessed 03.04.2011

India and Pakistan’s Cricket Diplomacy

Sports have long been viewed as a way to overcome differences and foster good relationships among countries (Naess-Holm, 2007:4). During the Cold War, the United States and China engaged in so-called “ping-pong diplomacy” via the exchange of ping-pong players as a means of overcoming animosities (Naess-Holm, 2007:30). Now, last week, the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, spontaneously invited his Pakistani counterpart, Yousuf Raza Gilani to India to watch this week’s cricket semi-final between India and Pakistan (Yardley, 2011).

It is not new that India and Pakistan have attempted to engage in “cricket diplomacy”. Both in 1987 and in 2005 the countries’ respective leaders met over a cricket match (Yardley, 2011). Such meetings are thought to be very important for building confidence among the two countries, who have fought three wars since 1947, are both nuclear powers, and continue to argue about a number of issues, especially the region of Kashmir (Croft, 2005:1041). Diplomatic efforts to negotiate about these issues have continuously come to a halt because of strong disagreements oras a result of terrorist attacks, most recently the 2008 Mumbai attacks, after which relations were frozen (The Times of India, 2011).

This year India and Pakistan decided to re-establish relations and continue the dialogue about peace and security in the region. Early this week, the countries’ home secretaries met to discuss various problems (Shah Singh, 2011). On top of this, the last-minute invitation issued by Mr. Singh, was seen as a gesture of good will towards Pakistan. The prime ministers watched the game together and held talks afterwards (Barman, 2011).

There is some criticism to this: some argue that Mr. Singh simply wanted to distract from the corruption charges against his government, while others point out that Mr. Gilani is really not very powerful in Pakistan and cannot make any important deals. Further, past cricket diplomacy efforts might have been hailed a success at the time of the meeting, but relations deteriorated soon afterwards (Yardley, 2011).

Nonetheless, cricket is a sport loved dearly by both Indians and Pakistanis and it provides an ideal platform to re-build relations on the basis of a common interest. Meeting for a few hours over cricket will certainly not solve the dispute over Kashmir or the question of arresting those responsible for the 2008 attacks, but it can help the leaders build trust by non-political means. This trust, as well as the ability to communicate (be it over political issues or cricket) will be the most important factor for India and Pakistan to come to any agreement in the future.

Watch this debate on the invitation issued by Mr. Singh – it includes some interesting arguments by both sides, but at the same time demonstrates how easy tensions between the two countries rise (as the experts end up fighting over politics).

References

- Barman, Abheek (2011) “Cricket Diplomacy: India, Pakistan make significant gains at Mohali“, The Economic Times, 31^st March, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/cricket-diplomacy-india-pakistan-make-significant-gains-at-mohali/articleshow/7831148.cms, accessed: 31.3.2011, 11:05

- Croft, Stuart (2005) “South Asia’s Arms Control Process: Cricket Diplomacy and the Composite Dialogue“, International Affairs, Vol.81, No.5, pp.1039-1060

- Naess-Holm, Arne (2007) “Batting for Peace: A Study of Cricket Diplomacy Between India and Pakistan”, Master’s Thesis for Peace and Conflict Studies, Oslo University, http://www.duo.uio.no/publ/statsvitenskap/2007/60148/Battingforpeace.pdf, accessed: 31.3.2011, 11:20

- Shah Singh, Harmeet (2011) “India, Pakistan in Talks Ahead of Cricket-Diplomacy Summit”, CNN, 28^th March, http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/28/india.cricket.diplomacy/index.html?eref=edition, accessed: 31.3.2011, 11:04

- The Times of India (2011) “’Cricket Diplomacy’ as India Beat Pakistan”, 31^st March, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-31/news/29365785_1_cricket-diplomacy-yousuf-raza-gilani-pakistani-leader, accessed: 31.3.2011, 23:28

- Yardley, Jim (2011) “Cricket Offers Chance for India-Pakistan Diplomacy”, The New York Times, 29^th March, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/asia/30india.html?_r=1, accessed: 31.3.2011, 11:04