858359
Description
Mind Map by tiffragbourne, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by tiffragbourne
almost 11 years ago
|
|
soft power, diplomacy + wiki-leaks
- Diplomacy
- INCREASINGLY framed as soft power
- increasingy used by non state policies
- 1)EU Commission delegations
2)Indigenous diplomacy
3)Paradiplomacy
- 1)EU Commission delegations
2)Indigenous diplomacy
3)Paradiplomacy
- means to inform and
influence foreign publics
- increasingy used by non state policies
- public diplomacy
- practise of embbasses
- complex relationship between three major
components: 1)the government 2)the
media 3)public opinion’
- practise of embbasses
- theorising diplomacy
- Systematic reviews of the
location of diplomacy
(Henrikson, 2005)
- Where diplomacy takes place is significant
- Effected by: 1)territortial +
2)history of diplomacy
- GLOBALISATION = Need for diplomatic
contact increased = world Leaders require
international connections; personal
contact = ‘a place to sit together’
- Past = Eurocentric Now = centered towards US
- Past = Eurocentric Now = centered towards US
- Meeting vary; constructive to
confrontational or worse; does
the geog effect this?
- CREATE map = that describes GEOG
ofdiplomatic behaciour = predict
cooperation/conflict
- HYPOTHESIS
- 1)Diplomatic encounters
at borderlines/geographic
periphery-focused =
conflictual = inherently
divisive
- 2) ‘crossroads’/ Geographic
centered focused negotiations
= cooperative Shift with time
e.g. globalisation and so the
location should change also
- 1)Diplomatic encounters
at borderlines/geographic
periphery-focused =
conflictual = inherently
divisive
- OUTCOME
- With this 12
diplomatic sites
distinguished
- 1) your place – bilateral relations – one of the parties home nation – cost/inconvience of tranvelling
OR symbolic issues; deference is shown to the other side by the gesture of journeying all the way
2) my place – territorial dominace, control the conditions of the interplay 3) our places - 4) neutral
places 5) halfway places – common border location or intermediate site 6) metropolitan places –
involves a great power in its primary city – possible sponsorship by its national governement
7) everyones place – ancient/classical site OR HQ of internation organisations (multilater/universal)
8) dangerous places – relates to a dramatic event e.g. military battle/natural disaster or continuing
international disturbances e.g. truce village of Panmunjom (border N/SKOREA) – easing tension and
reducinglocal frictions 9) safe places – find security in remoteness or low visibility 10) exotic places –
recreational , exploration 11) demonstration plintrinsically related to thematic issues
- 12) no place – use of modern telecommunications –
make diplomacy possible to occur without reference to geography at all
- 12) no place – use of modern telecommunications –
make diplomacy possible to occur without reference to geography at all
- 1) your place – bilateral relations – one of the parties home nation – cost/inconvience of tranvelling
OR symbolic issues; deference is shown to the other side by the gesture of journeying all the way
2) my place – territorial dominace, control the conditions of the interplay 3) our places - 4) neutral
places 5) halfway places – common border location or intermediate site 6) metropolitan places –
involves a great power in its primary city – possible sponsorship by its national governement
7) everyones place – ancient/classical site OR HQ of internation organisations (multilater/universal)
8) dangerous places – relates to a dramatic event e.g. military battle/natural disaster or continuing
international disturbances e.g. truce village of Panmunjom (border N/SKOREA) – easing tension and
reducinglocal frictions 9) safe places – find security in remoteness or low visibility 10) exotic places –
recreational , exploration 11) demonstration plintrinsically related to thematic issues
- With this 12
diplomatic sites
distinguished
- HYPOTHESIS
- CREATE map = that describes GEOG
ofdiplomatic behaciour = predict
cooperation/conflict
- Effected by: 1)territortial +
2)history of diplomacy
- Where diplomacy takes place is significant
- Case studies of particular diplomatic
contexts and negotiations (e.g. Campbell,
1999; Dahlman & Ó Tuathail, 2006;
Newman, 2002).
- Quantitative studies of diplomatic
connections (Neumayer, 2008; van der
Wusten & van Korstanje, 1991),
- Systematic reviews of the
location of diplomacy
(Henrikson, 2005)
- INCREASINGLY framed as soft power
- challenges to diplomacy/state sovereignity
- wiki-leaks
- wikileaks words:
not-for-profit media
organisation. Our goal is to
bring important news and
information to the public.
evidence of the truth
- A breach of external sovereignty?
- disclosure of info to those who
never meant to see it
- players had a glimpse of other cards
- players had a glimpse of other cards
- disclosure of info to those who
never meant to see it
- new soverignity challenges
- ii. TRANSPERENCY
and ACCOUNTABILITY
- MORE POWER =
MORE
TRANSPERENCY
- states need
diplomatic privacy
- fostering mutual trust
- wikileaks =
challenging
authority
- 'not in my name'
- 'not in my name'
- wikileaks =
challenging
authority
- fostering mutual trust
- MORE POWER =
MORE
TRANSPERENCY
- i.CYBERSPACE reshaping
traditional ideas of soverignity
- wiki=NEW GEOG =internet
- destalising hegemony of state
power/stateless/new soverign authority
- encryption technologies taking away
adv of state actors over subjects
- soverignity outsourced/deployed
- soverignity outsourced/deployed
- encryption technologies taking away
adv of state actors over subjects
- destalising hegemony of state
power/stateless/new soverign authority
- wiki=NEW GEOG =internet
- ii. TRANSPERENCY
and ACCOUNTABILITY
- Julian Assange = founder =
critised and praised
- -ve BRADLEY MANNING
- arrested in May 2010 in Iraq Adrian Lamo = computer hacker in US
= provided information to Army Counterintelligence that Manning
had acknowledged passing classified material WikiLeaks. =charged
with 22 specified offenses e.g. communicating national defense
information to an unauthorized source e.g. 2)aiding the enemy.
2013 - Pleaded guilty to 10/22 Trial- july 2013 – cleared of= aiding
the enemy; guilty for 5/6 espionage counts; 5/6 theft specifications;
2 computer fraud specifications + multiple military infractions 2013
- Manning was sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment – reduced
ranking
- Assange given = diplomatic assylum
- Assange given = diplomatic assylum
- arrested in May 2010 in Iraq Adrian Lamo = computer hacker in US
= provided information to Army Counterintelligence that Manning
had acknowledged passing classified material WikiLeaks. =charged
with 22 specified offenses e.g. communicating national defense
information to an unauthorized source e.g. 2)aiding the enemy.
2013 - Pleaded guilty to 10/22 Trial- july 2013 – cleared of= aiding
the enemy; guilty for 5/6 espionage counts; 5/6 theft specifications;
2 computer fraud specifications + multiple military infractions 2013
- Manning was sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment – reduced
ranking
- -ve BRADLEY MANNING
- threat to internal sovereignty?
- FACTs
- Fildes (2010) started in
December 2006
- split opinions: future of investigative journalism; it has been
described as the world's first stateless news organisation. BUT
governments and corporations whose secrets it exposes - it is a risk.
- Fildes (2010) started in
December 2006
- wikileaks words:
not-for-profit media
organisation. Our goal is to
bring important news and
information to the public.
evidence of the truth
- wiki-leaks
- POWER
- Hard power vs soft power
- HARD POWER
- carr 1939- Military/economic might
- Inducements or threats
- Coercion + commands – change
what others do
- Hitler/Stalin – tried to develop myths of
invicibilty or inevitability to attract others
- Establishing empires + institutions which set agendas for
smaller states e.g. USSR over countries in eastern europe
- Establishing empires + institutions which set agendas for
smaller states e.g. USSR over countries in eastern europe
- CHALLENGE BY SOFT POWER
- Hitler/Stalin – tried to develop myths of
invicibilty or inevitability to attract others
- carr 1939- Military/economic might
- Inducements or threats
- Coercion + commands – change
what others do
- SOFTPOWER
- ability to obtain what one wants
through CO-OPTION and ATTRACTION
- all actors in international politics, not just states
- DEPENDENT ON 3 = 1) culture 2)
political values 3)foreign
policies
- DEPENDENT ON 3 = 1) culture 2)
political values 3)foreign
policies
- all actors in international politics, not just states
- LIMITATIONS
- 1) effects depend on
acceptance by
receiving audiences
- 2)Long time to see results
- 3)confusing concept - can
all power have a ‘soft’
element
- =Hard to measure e.g.
attraction
- INTERPLAY
- Interplay: Reinforce or infer =Popular countries
resistant to use hard power when required to
OR Weaker state join to limit power that stronger
state threatens
- EXAMPLE = 2003 Iraq war = Motives for war were
based on detterent effect of hard power e.g.
Rumfield wanted to reverse reputation – wanted us
to be seen as strong power - EXAMPLE 2) Americas victory in
first gulf war = produced the oslo process in the
middle east peace = Deterent to future support of
terrorism + Soft reasons = export democracry to Iraq
and transform politics of Iraq
- EXAMPLE = 2003 Iraq war = Motives for war were
based on detterent effect of hard power e.g.
Rumfield wanted to reverse reputation – wanted us
to be seen as strong power - EXAMPLE 2) Americas victory in
first gulf war = produced the oslo process in the
middle east peace = Deterent to future support of
terrorism + Soft reasons = export democracry to Iraq
and transform politics of Iraq
- Interplay: Reinforce or infer =Popular countries
resistant to use hard power when required to
OR Weaker state join to limit power that stronger
state threatens
- =Hard to measure e.g.
attraction
- Limits global transformation of power
- Today = power less coercive
among advanced democracies –
but lots are not democracies
- e.g. African + middle eastern
countries = pre industrial agricultural
economies, weak insitutions,
authoritarian rulers
- failed states = somalai,
congo, sierra leone, Liberia =
venues for violence
- Today = power less coercive
among advanced democracies –
but lots are not democracies
- 1) effects depend on
acceptance by
receiving audiences
- EXAMPLES
- 1)RADIO
- global information age
- Voice Of America = strives to represent
- (BBG Mission and
Strategic goals annual
report 1999-2000)
- represent: US culture, policies ,
news=effectively/balanced/objective = to
audiences in their own language
- HISTORY = RAPIDLY GREW
during/post WWII = source of
PROPAGANDA = persausion over air
- (BBG Mission and
Strategic goals annual
report 1999-2000)
- Voice Of America = strives to represent
- global information age
- 2)Confucius Institutes
- 1)Language teaching 2)Chinese
culture courses 3)Partnerships
with foreign universities
- positive image of china
- positive image of china
- Strengthen exchanges e.g. with china
- run by chinese gov =
enhances legitimacy
- BUT embellishes communism
- given investent to set
up schools
- BUT embellishes communism
- 1)Language teaching 2)Chinese
culture courses 3)Partnerships
with foreign universities
- 1)RADIO
- change what others want
- ability to obtain what one wants
through CO-OPTION and ATTRACTION
- SMART POWER
- learning better how to
combine our hard and soft
power
- economic + social trend continue
= soft power increase = globalisation = beg of 21st =
us power increased – but with spread of
technology – becomes relative = information
revolution = ‘virtual communities’ – transcend
national borders NEED ALTERNATIVE
- military, soft and economic power remain
relevant current =
- learning better how to
combine our hard and soft
power
- HARD POWER
- Changing nature of power -
ALWAYS depends on the context
in which it exists
- PAST =4 centuries ago -
Niccollo Machiavelli ‘more
important to be feared than
loved’ NOW – loved important
- global information age :
knowledge = POWER
- Traditionally = power = seen as property,
as something which is possessed
- corresponds to the idea
of centralised power
- corresponds to the idea
of centralised power
- Traditionally = power = seen as property,
as something which is possessed
- changing definition/contested
- Power = ability to influence the
behaviour of others to get the
outcomes you want
- without
commanding
- So = possession of resources that can influence outcomes =
Country powerful = extensive = pop, territory, natural resources,
economic strength, military force, social stability=measurable +
predictable BUT – RESOURCES– doesn’t necessarily mean =
more POWER e.g. Vietnam war –US=more reeouces= but LOST
e.g. 9/11 – 2001 – US = only superpower = couldn’t prevent
- Historically= population = largest source of power
EXAMPLE - 18th century (1700) – Europe –
population – basis for taxes + infantry recruitment
- 3) SO with resources need –
well designed strategies and
skilful leadership - Problem of
leaders – saddam Hussein +
Hitler So need to find resource
which provides best basis for
power
- Historically= population = largest source of power
EXAMPLE - 18th century (1700) – Europe –
population – basis for taxes + infantry recruitment
- So = possession of resources that can influence outcomes =
Country powerful = extensive = pop, territory, natural resources,
economic strength, military force, social stability=measurable +
predictable BUT – RESOURCES– doesn’t necessarily mean =
more POWER e.g. Vietnam war –US=more reeouces= but LOST
e.g. 9/11 – 2001 – US = only superpower = couldn’t prevent
- without
commanding
- Power = ability to influence the
behaviour of others to get the
outcomes you want
- Nye (2004)
- PAST =4 centuries ago -
Niccollo Machiavelli ‘more
important to be feared than
loved’ NOW – loved important
- global information age :
knowledge = POWER
- Hard power vs soft power
Media attachments
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.