soft power, diplomacy + wiki-leaks

tiffragbourne
Mind Map by tiffragbourne, updated more than 1 year ago
tiffragbourne
Created by tiffragbourne about 6 years ago
148
1

Description

degree Political geography Mind Map on soft power, diplomacy + wiki-leaks, created by tiffragbourne on 05/11/2014.

Resource summary

soft power, diplomacy + wiki-leaks
1 Diplomacy
1.1 INCREASINGLY framed as soft power
1.1.1 increasingy used by non state policies
1.1.1.1 1)EU Commission delegations 2)Indigenous diplomacy 3)Paradiplomacy
1.1.2 means to inform and influence foreign publics
1.2 public diplomacy
1.2.1 practise of embbasses
1.2.2 complex relationship between three major components: 1)the government 2)the media 3)public opinion’
1.3 theorising diplomacy
1.3.1 Systematic reviews of the location of diplomacy (Henrikson, 2005)
1.3.1.1 Where diplomacy takes place is significant
1.3.1.1.1 Effected by: 1)territortial + 2)history of diplomacy
1.3.1.1.2 GLOBALISATION = Need for diplomatic contact increased = world Leaders require international connections; personal contact = ‘a place to sit together’
1.3.1.1.2.1 Past = Eurocentric Now = centered towards US
1.3.1.1.3 Meeting vary; constructive to confrontational or worse; does the geog effect this?
1.3.1.1.3.1 CREATE map = that describes GEOG ofdiplomatic behaciour = predict cooperation/conflict
1.3.1.1.3.1.1 HYPOTHESIS
1.3.1.1.3.1.1.1 1)Diplomatic encounters at borderlines/geographic periphery-focused = conflictual = inherently divisive
1.3.1.1.3.1.1.2 2) ‘crossroads’/ Geographic centered focused negotiations = cooperative Shift with time e.g. globalisation and so the location should change also
1.3.1.1.3.1.2 OUTCOME
1.3.1.1.3.1.2.1 With this 12 diplomatic sites distinguished
1.3.1.1.3.1.2.1.1 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
1.3.1.1.3.1.2.1.1.1 12) no place – use of modern telecommunications – make diplomacy possible to occur without reference to geography at all
1.3.2 Case studies of particular diplomatic contexts and negotiations (e.g. Campbell, 1999; Dahlman & Ó Tuathail, 2006; Newman, 2002).
1.3.3 Quantitative studies of diplomatic connections (Neumayer, 2008; van der Wusten & van Korstanje, 1991),
2 challenges to diplomacy/state sovereignity
2.1 wiki-leaks
2.1.1 wikileaks words: not-for-profit media organisation. Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. evidence of the truth
2.1.2 A breach of external sovereignty?
2.1.2.1 disclosure of info to those who never meant to see it
2.1.2.1.1 players had a glimpse of other cards
2.1.3 new soverignity challenges
2.1.3.1 ii. TRANSPERENCY and ACCOUNTABILITY
2.1.3.1.1 MORE POWER = MORE TRANSPERENCY
2.1.3.1.2 states need diplomatic privacy
2.1.3.1.2.1 fostering mutual trust
2.1.3.1.2.1.1 wikileaks = challenging authority
2.1.3.1.2.1.1.1 'not in my name'
2.1.3.2 i.CYBERSPACE reshaping traditional ideas of soverignity
2.1.3.2.1 wiki=NEW GEOG =internet
2.1.3.2.1.1 destalising hegemony of state power/stateless/new soverign authority
2.1.3.2.1.1.1 encryption technologies taking away adv of state actors over subjects
2.1.3.2.1.1.1.1 soverignity outsourced/deployed
2.1.4 Julian Assange = founder = critised and praised
2.1.4.1 -ve BRADLEY MANNING
2.1.4.1.1 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
2.1.4.1.1.1 Assange given = diplomatic assylum
2.1.5 threat to internal sovereignty?
2.1.6 FACTs
2.1.6.1 Fildes (2010) started in December 2006
2.1.6.2 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.
3 POWER
3.1 Hard power vs soft power
3.1.1 HARD POWER
3.1.1.1 carr 1939- Military/economic might - Inducements or threats - Coercion + commands – change what others do
3.1.1.1.1 Hitler/Stalin – tried to develop myths of invicibilty or inevitability to attract others
3.1.1.1.1.1 Establishing empires + institutions which set agendas for smaller states e.g. USSR over countries in eastern europe
3.1.1.1.2 CHALLENGE BY SOFT POWER
3.1.2 SOFTPOWER
3.1.2.1 ability to obtain what one wants through CO-OPTION and ATTRACTION
3.1.2.1.1 all actors in international politics, not just states
3.1.2.1.1.1 DEPENDENT ON 3 = 1) culture 2) political values 3)foreign policies
3.1.2.2 LIMITATIONS
3.1.2.2.1 1) effects depend on acceptance by receiving audiences
3.1.2.2.2 2)Long time to see results
3.1.2.2.3 3)confusing concept - can all power have a ‘soft’ element
3.1.2.2.3.1 =Hard to measure e.g. attraction
3.1.2.2.3.2 INTERPLAY
3.1.2.2.3.2.1 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
3.1.2.2.3.2.1.1 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
3.1.2.2.4 Limits global transformation of power
3.1.2.2.4.1 Today = power less coercive among advanced democracies – but lots are not democracies
3.1.2.2.4.2 e.g. African + middle eastern countries = pre industrial agricultural economies, weak insitutions, authoritarian rulers
3.1.2.2.4.3 failed states = somalai, congo, sierra leone, Liberia = venues for violence
3.1.2.3 EXAMPLES
3.1.2.3.1 1)RADIO
3.1.2.3.1.1 global information age
3.1.2.3.1.1.1 Voice Of America = strives to represent
3.1.2.3.1.1.1.1 (BBG Mission and Strategic goals annual report 1999-2000)
3.1.2.3.1.1.1.2 represent: US culture, policies , news=effectively/balanced/objective = to audiences in their own language
3.1.2.3.1.1.1.3 HISTORY = RAPIDLY GREW during/post WWII = source of PROPAGANDA = persausion over air
3.1.2.3.2 2)Confucius Institutes
3.1.2.3.2.1 1)Language teaching 2)Chinese culture courses 3)Partnerships with foreign universities
3.1.2.3.2.1.1 positive image of china
3.1.2.3.2.2 Strengthen exchanges e.g. with china
3.1.2.3.2.3 run by chinese gov = enhances legitimacy
3.1.2.3.2.3.1 BUT embellishes communism
3.1.2.3.2.3.2 given investent to set up schools
3.1.2.4 change what others want
3.1.3 SMART POWER
3.1.3.1 learning better how to combine our hard and soft power
3.1.3.2 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
3.1.3.3 military, soft and economic power remain relevant current =
3.2 Changing nature of power - ALWAYS depends on the context in which it exists
3.2.1 PAST =4 centuries ago - Niccollo Machiavelli ‘more important to be feared than loved’ NOW – loved important - global information age : knowledge = POWER
3.2.1.1 Traditionally = power = seen as property, as something which is possessed
3.2.1.1.1 corresponds to the idea of centralised power
3.2.2 changing definition/contested
3.2.2.1 Power = ability to influence the behaviour of others to get the outcomes you want
3.2.2.1.1 without commanding
3.2.2.1.1.1 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
3.2.2.1.1.1.1 Historically= population = largest source of power EXAMPLE - 18th century (1700) – Europe – population – basis for taxes + infantry recruitment
3.2.2.1.1.1.2 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
3.2.3 Nye (2004)
3.3
Show full summary Hide full summary

Similar

Prática para o TOEFL
miminoma
A-level Psychology Key Terms & Definitions
Andrea Leyden
Psychology flashcards memory
eharveyhudl
Romeo and Juliet: Key Points
mbennett
PSBD TEST # 3_1
Suleman Shah
An Inspector Calls - Quotes
jaynejuby
Guia rápido: Bem-vindo a GoConqr
miminoma
RUPTURA PREMATURA DE MEMBRANAS
GINA DANIELA TABLA GERENA
LINEA DEL TIEMPO DE LA EVOLUCION DEL MICROSCOPIO
Joaquin Calderon
MAPA CONCEPTUAL DE PROCESOS PSICOLÓGICOS BÁSICOS
Ximena Paz
Primera Guerra Mundial
lali dominguez