During the reading of “Global Inter-connectivity”, it was refreshing to to be reading that many diplomats and bureaucrats are acknowledging that the use of technology is creating greater transparency and that utilizing these technologies is necessary for their own organisations as well. Which will then force them to adhere to the soft power of many others or else feel increasing amounts of backlash. I think that all major elitist meetings should be recorded and broadcast live with reception of outside viewers sending in questions, comments, and even a recap after the meeting with questions and comments. I feel that there is not only a social responsibilty, but it is also the opportunity to disprove any lingering questions of elitist domination over the rest of the world. A lot of people in media became very critical, especially over the last three years of what’s called the “Bilderberg Group”, meetings. Please google if you don’t know what this is. This strange secrecy of who attends, super tight security and the blocking of the press, really creates much distrust between elitists and the rest of the global population. To disprove any misunderstandings, this organisation and others should just become much more transparent. If they don’t, I feel that within time it will be demanded and there will be no other choice. I think that they should “lead the parade” and become more public with their meetings, but not just this organisation, many others. I just used this one as an example, because it seems like one of the most harshly criticized.
Also during the article, “Global Inter-connectivity”, it is mentioned that diplomacy must be “more grassroots”. I feel that this should have been ahead of the agenda from the beginning. Why are they just now discovering this? Do they not know what diplomacy actually is? It should be at the top of their list, in order to survive they must interact with the majority in open dialogue or else they may be chased out. It seems to common of an experience today, that an embassy is either under attack or high levels of suspicion of an attack. Diplomats must be more aware that the spread of information is vast and whether they want to be more transparent or not, this world is more transparent.
I think that many bureaucrats have over extended themselves and maybe they need to release some of the control and allow spontaneous order to evolve naturally. I felt that during certain parts of the article “Fast Diplomacy”, the tone of some of the bureaucrats mentioned, where scared, angry, confused, and other things. I feel that if bureacrats feel threatened or at a loss of control and they don’t like it, then maybe they need to re-think things, re-tool their processes, and begin a changed mindset that allows for better flow for all. I think the last bureaucrat from the EU of this article summed up much when in his confused state of mind he absurdly says that:
“We’re living in a monitory age. People feel they have the right to monitor decisions. There’s now surveillance as well as
surveillance,” said Daniel Korski, Special Advisor on Communication to EU High Representative for Foreign and Security
Policy Catherine Ashton. “Some of all this change has negative effects, for example governments are more risk-averse. The
modern world has so many actors, and issues are so complex, that the notion that bureaucrats have all the answers and
information is absurd”.
He’s right in admitting that bureaucracies do not have all the answers, but he is wrong in assuming that others want answers. Others want their liberties back, they don’t want to feel constrained by the bureaucracies. He is also admitting that the bureaucracies do not have the capacity, but they want to assume control. It is time for the bureaucracies to release control, release the stress put upon their teams, and have open dialogues, honest messages and policies, and spontaneous order will follow. The bureaucratic machines are breaking down, because they are assuming too much control and are being faced with well informed organized resistance.
I really could not stand to read Josesp Nye’s article. I felt like he was trying to use coercion throughout the entire article, for the readers to buy into his idea of “soft power”. His way of thinking and seeing the world, seemed very archaic and backwards. At times I felt that it was very sociopathic and narrow in appeal.
To elaborate a bit, I’m gonna call this excerpt “Soft Force” not Soft Power, because that’s what he continues to describe. “If I can get you to want to do what I want, then I do not have to force you to do what you do not want”, this just screams sociopath to me. So in some ways, I think he is saying that, we can use threats, and other means to get what you want? Stated another way; if I can get you to accept without evidential physical force that can be proven scientifically, this soft power. This in many ways is still force, we just haven’t been measuring in the Western world the real damage that is being done. Coercing others to change their way of life, can be very detrimental to the world and can throw it out of balance. Many people have been saying to the Western world to back off.
Real soft power, is listening and having respect for all. Not coercion, this is still force. It just hasn’t been measurably proven to many out of touch members of the western society. Real soft power should not have to “entice” or “attract” it should be easily understood, communicated in a way that doesn’t even require the same linguistic skills. The messenger has it all backwards.
I think JFK had it right; “To inspire others is real power”.