Public diplomacy

That’s what it is called, public diplomacy. That telecast forum Hillary Clinton held at the University of Sto. Tomas, was public diplomacy in action.

In the past, diplomacy was conducted in highly formal settings, often behind closed doors. Diplomats met with their counterparts, discussed matters of mutual concern and arrived at agreements away from the public eye. Diplomacy was directed at governments and political leaders.

Before the dawn of the communications age, there was little demand for transparency in the conduct of international affairs and foreign policy. Citizens were generally excluded from the discussion of matters of state. They were informed after decisions were made, to be sure, but were rarely considered partners in the forging of international policies.

In this age, however, it is difficult to continue conducting diplomacy in the traditional way. Publics have to be involved. In democracies, particularly, ordinary citizens are to be considered co-makers of policy. They demand to be informed. They want to ask questions directly and have their concerns addressed directly as well.

Diplomats had to adjust their craft and their own personal skills to suit the age of multimedia. They need to learn the language of common citizens, reach out to them and influence their perceptions of the world.

It was not usual, for instance, in the previous century to poll citizens of many nations and measure their disposition towards, say, the United States or the war in Iraq. Today that is being done regularly, the results influencing the behavior of leaders and governments anxious to be in touch with their publics.

For example, when polls showed citizens opposed to their government’s involvement in Iran, several European governments began to scale down their participation in the allied effort. Washington could do little to prevent that. They ought to have tried to address the concerns of citizens of their European partners and tried harder in shaping their opinions. Governments can only follow the prejudices of their electorates.

Remember when US ambassadors to the Philippines were uniformly balding white men who always looked stern and spoke like they were reading a script. They rarely ventured out of the confines of the embassy except to meet with their counterparts or attend diplomatic functions.

By contrast, Ambassador Kenney is often seen in tee-shirts and jeans, overseeing programs in the most remote communities. She is comfortable in large crowds and engages ordinary citizens in conversations they appreciate. She still does speeches, of course. But more frequently, she comes to us by way of soundbites in the news, always looking earnest and happy.

She is a master of public diplomacy. She is probably the best-loved American ambassador we had. Too bad, her tour of duty is about to end and we can only hope the State Department is not going to send us yet another dour bureaucrat dressed in a suit.

Hillary Clinton, too, is polished in the art of public diplomacy. She has incredible charisma. She is witty, funny and incredibly capable of translating complex issues into language that students could comprehend.

She was a hit when she met with students last Friday. Her dialogue with them summed up the major positions of US foreign policy at this time without sounding like a boring briefing. Since the forum was telecast, it reached a broad audience that tuned in to observe this incredible woman.

The Filipino public has never been so well briefed in such large numbers as they were last Friday. The concerns and views of the Obama administration were delivered with such great skill and such effectiveness by Hillary.

Not everyone agrees with all the major positions of US foreign policy. But we do not need to agree in order to understand what these positions are and what assumptions underpin them.

Not everyone was happy with the evident success of Hillary’s exemplary demonstration of public diplomacy. The radical leftists were angry. A motley crowd of militants were screaming in the streets, outside the site of the forum, trying to grab their share of media attention. They came across as an oddity, stubborn residues from the hysterical ideological battles of the Cold War era.

What a contrast: in the forum, there was civility, clarity and conversation. In the streets, there was intolerance, blind hatred and mindless chanting.

The television imagery said it all. In the multimedia age, the subtext is more powerful than the text.

One radical spokesman, foaming in the mouth, denounced the fact that Hillary was made to respond to questions about her childhood crushes and favored basketball team rather than confronted with the agenda of hatred and wild accusations the radicals had on their placards. They miss the most powerful ingredient of public diplomacy.

Public diplomacy is at once official and yet personal. The person conducting public diplomacy must come across as a real human being, varied in interests, multidimensional and conversant at many levels.

Diplomacy in this form fails if the messenger is wooden, one-dimensional and impenetrable as human beings. That is exactly what the radicals were: walking caricatures, mouthing standard slogans and arguing in fixed formulas.

Has they paused from their hyperventilation and bothered to listen to the forum, they might have learned a thing or two about public diplomacy from a master practitioner of the art.