Exposed to the wrath of globalization, states are more now than ever joining forces through organizations (such as the United Nations) in order to benefit from collective security for its economic and political welfare, in lieu of full sovereignty. This marks a precedent for the modern era, as never in history has a state been so willing to compromise any degree of its sovereignty. It signifies the evolution of political geography as states succumb to the wave of globalization.
One of the problems is an apparent lack of strategic communication not only with foreign relations, but within our own bureaucratic infrastructure as well. Public diplomacy, the way in which it is employed today, is synonymous to a dog chasing its own tail. Public diplomacy is often associated with Public Affairs, Psychological Operations, and simple diplomacy. As a result, it is often seen as an immediate course of action, or reaction, and rendered as such. The State Department often uses Public Affairs to advance its public diplomacy strategy. This is reiterated by the Defense Department as they have incorporated public diplomacy into their psychological operations which is primarily used in the course of warfare.
For example, after the September 11th attacks Bush was able to appeal to the mass public opinion by manipulating their feelings of fear and paranoia in claiming a full-fledged war on terrorism. A general consensus supporting a strong domestic and international response set in motion the administrative decisions that ultimately led to the formation of the Bush Doctrine as the primary national security strategy of the United States.
The Doctrine contains three key elements:
• The United States retains the option of unilateral action
• The United States retains the option of preemptive action
• The United States retains the power to dissuade others from surpassing or rivaling its power through the use of force
The Bush Doctrine provided the American people with the security of knowing that the United States interests would be protected against future threats. However, although it served the purpose of ensuring national security, its third element is indicative of a separate agenda. Although it is arguably situated as a means of enforcement, it seems as though its purpose is overstretched beyond the realm of securing the threat against terrorism. The right of retention of power implicates ensuring the united States own interests rather than embracing integration through global collaborative efforts.
However, power politics has been an essential tenet of realism which has been one of the primary foci of states foreign policy in general. Power determines ‘who gets what, ‘ similar to early theories of Social Darwinism. States are the most important actors in realist ideology, and are thus viewed as unitary actors pursing their own national interest. Competition for resources such as oil, water, and territory is equivocal to attaining power. Their struggle in a self-help system, hence ‘survival of the fittest’ motivates them to maintain a balance of power as a means of survival and security.
With realism’s emphasis on securing national interests, States are conversely compelled to turn away from isolationism and build alliances through supranationalist organizations. These alliances have benefits such as scientific and technological advances which often outweigh the costs of compromised sovereignty. Additionally, States are more inclined to pursue a wide range of policies that it can tailor to its needs while at the same time adopting multilateral institutional initiatives, such as human rights. In spite of the conflictual nature of realism, states entrapped in ‘game theory’ are thus more likely to seek out diplomatic relations in order to avoid conflict. At this point, the door opens allowing for dialogue.
Contrary to public opinion, dialogue extends far beyond the scope of communications and interaction. Although dialogue requires these things it is defined by an ongoing effort aimed at achieving an end result, rather it is success or failure. The success or failure of dialogue rests on several barriers and virtues which provide obstacles that are overcome by understanding and fostering differences in culture and identity. Dialogue is rendered an important concept by scholars of international communications as it is viewed as a vehicle which motivates parties to engage in communication that leads to exploration, discovery, and understanding. Additionally, the spirit of dialogue creates an environment that is free of prejudice, judgment, and inequality granting all sectors of society an open forum in which to express their concerns and interests. The significance of this concept is great as in an open-ended communicative approach we can grasp a mutual understanding and eliminate differences and barriers to development and growth in a globalized world.
References:
Brzezinski, Z. (2007). Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Member States. (n.d.). United Nations.
How we work with others. (OHCHR). (2009). How we work with others. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Singh, B. (2001). Dialogue Across Cultural and Ethnic Differences. Educational Studies, Vol. 27(3).
Snow, D. (2005). United States Foreign Policy, Politics Beyond the Water’s Edge: Third Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
