Such an awesome post! I agree that communication is very powerful. I have witnessed the power of communication in the workplace via emails and presentations on a regular basis. I’ve actually started studying presenting and slide design on my own.
Without reliable command, communication, and control, power centers cannot effectively manage their peripheries. However, every communication system also empowers the peripheries. Print, for example, facilitated the political and cultural hegemony of the West from 15th century onwards, but its spread also gave rise to increasingly potent resistance via nationalist movements throughout the world.
On the other hand, global communication is empowering hitherto forgotten groups and voices in the international community. Its channels have thus become the arena for contestation of new economic, political, and cultural boundaries. Global communication, particularly in its interactive forms, has created immense new moral spaces for exploring new communities of affinity rather than vicinity. It is thus challenging the traditional top-down economic, political, and cultural systems. In Iran, it facilitated the downfall of a monarchical dictatorship in 1978-1979 through the use of cheap transistor audiocassette recorders in conjunction with international telephony to spread the messages of Ayatollah Khomeini to his followers within a few hours of their delivery from his exile in Paris (Tehranian, 1979, 1980, 1993). In the Philippines, the downfall of the Marcos regime in 1986 was televised internationally for all to witness while alternative media were undermining his regime domestically. In Saudi Arabia, a BBC-WGBH program on "The Death of a Princess," banned by the Saudi government as subversive, was smuggled into the country by means of videotapes the day after its premier showing on television in London. In China, despite severe media censorship, the democracy movement in Tiananmen Square spread its message around the world in 1989 via the fax machines. In the Soviet Union, computer networkers who opposed the Moscow coup of 1991 and were sympathetic to Yeltsin, transmitted his messages everywhere despite severe censorship of the press and broadcasting (Ganley & Ganley 1987, 1989; Ganley 1992). In Mexico, the Zapatista movement managed to diffuse its messages of protest against the government worldwide in 1994 through the Internet. In this fashion, it solicited international support while embarrassing the Mexican government at a critical moment when it was trying to project a democratic image for admission to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In Burma or Myanmar, as it is officially known, both government and opposition have employed the Internet in their political struggles. E-mail has been used to achieve rapid global mobilization for withdrawal of Western companies from Myanmar in protest against the government's repressive policies (The Economist, August 10, 1996: 28).
Learning the history of the USA is impossible without getting introduced to Anglo-Saxon culture. Therefore, history teachers often assign Anglo-Saxon essays. If you are having difficulties on how to write it or you’d like to get fresh ideas, read our example below. From it, you’ll see how a paper of this kind should look. Also, you can use certain facts presented in our sample for your work. However, you should refrain from plagiarizing so that you won’t have problems in your educational affiliation. If you are eager to take some ideas from the sample, you should interpret them in your original way. One more reason why reading the example can be profitable for you is that it can help you to expand your vocabulary.
These are only a few examples. However, they demonstrate that accelerating technological advances in telecommunications and their worldwide dissemination are profoundly changing the rules of international relations. On the one hand, they are facilitating transfers of science, technology, information, and ideas from the centers to the peripheries of power. On the other, they are imposing a new cultural hegemony through the "soft power" (Nye 1990) of global news, entertainment, and advertising. Globalizing the local and localizing the global are the twin forces blurring traditional national boundaries. The conduct of foreign relations through traditional diplomatic channels has been both undermined and enhanced by information and communication resources available to non-state actors. The emergence of a global civil society in the form of over some 30,000 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) alongside nearly some 200 state actors as well as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), transnational corporations (TNCs), and transnational media corporations (TMCs), has added to the complexity of international relations (Commission on Global Governance 1995). Telecommunications is contributing to changes in the economic infrastructures, competitiveness, trade relations, as well as internal and external politics of states. It also affects national security, including the conduct and deterrence against wars, terrorism, civil war, the emergence of new weapons systems, command and control, and intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination. The Persian Gulf War provided a glimpse of what future wars might look like. The emergence of an international politics of cultural identity organized around religious, ethnic, or racial fetishisms suggests what the future issues in international relations might be.
Global communication is thus redefining power in world politics in ways that traditional theories of international relations have not yet seriously considered. More specifically, it is bringing about significant changes in four major arenas of hard and soft power (Nye & Owens 1996; Cohen 1996). Hard power refers to material forces such as military and economic leverage, while soft power suggests symbolic forces such as ideological, cultural, or moral appeals. Major changes seem to be taking place in both hard and soft power conceptions and calculations. First, information technologies have profoundly transformed the nature of military power because of emerging weapons systems dependent on laser and information processing. Second, satellite remote sensing and information processing have established an information power and deterrence analogous to the nuclear power and deterrence of an earlier era. Third, global television communication networks such as CNN, BBC, and Star TV have added image politics and public diplomacy to the traditional arsenals of power politics and secret diplomacy. Fourth, global communication networks working through NGOs and interactive technologies such as the Internet are creating a global civil society and pressure groups (such as Amnesty International or Greenpeace) that have served as new actors in international relations. Although no grand theoretical generalizations on the dynamics of hard and soft power are yet possible, trends indicate that the latter is assuming increasing importance.
International Relations theory has been dominated by five major schools of thought: Realism, Liberalism, Marxism, Communitarianism (also known as Institutionalism), and Postmodernism. Table 1 provides a synopsis of the major propositions, principles and processes, units of analysis, and methodologies of these schools. Realists have primarily focused on the geopolitical struggles for power, employed the nation-state as their chief unit of analysis, considered international politics as devoid of moral consensus and therefore prone to violence, and argued that the pursuit of national interest in the context of a balance of power strategy is the most efficient and realistic road to international peace and security (Morgenthau 1985; Kissinger 1994).
In the military arena, the "double sword" feature of communication technologies has led to the paradox of "more is less": More security has meant less security. A few examples illustrate the point. Nuclear weapons have been assumed to be a powerful deterrent force. However, their proliferation has created a greater probability of accidental or intentional nuclear war. Remote sensing by satellites has created a global surveillance system at the disposal of the superpowers. But commercialization of such information is now leading to its availability to those adversaries who can afford the price. Moreover, direct broadcast satellite communication through such global television networks as CNN and BBC is bringing the news of adversaries' strengths and weaknesses to each party far more quickly than was ever possible before.
In warfare, technology is having two contradictory consequences. The conduct of war and resistance against domination are both becoming increasingly robotized and globalized. This is so because the technology is at once global and local as well as both powerful and vulnerable. Terrorism, as the weapon of the weak, has thus been on the ascendancy locally and globally--on the West Bank as well as at the New York World Trade Center, in the Armenia-Azerbaijan region as well as at Turkish and Armenian embassies around the world, at the Oklahoma City Federal Building as well as in Washington, DC.
The idea that stockpiling weapons of mass destruction can gain commensurately higher levels of security for those who possess them is thus proving to be problematical. As military technologies have augmented their hit/kill ratios and communication technologies have improved their powers of surveillance, conditions of permanent insecurity seem to have become more prevalent at the centers as well as at the peripheries of power. The policy implications of this phenomenon for the pursuits of power and peace are far reaching but, for reasons of space, cannot be addressed here.
In addition to traditional intergovernmental diplomacy, global communication seems to have generated three new types of diplomacy, which may be labeled public, people, and virtual diplomacy. The global reach of broadcasting by such networks as CNN, the BBC, Star TV, the Voice of America, Radio Moscow, and Radio Beijing, seems to have led to a shift of emphasis from power politics to image politics (Tehranian 1982; Livingston & Eachus 1995). Public diplomacy has thus assumed an increasing importance in the conduct of foreign policy. Realists such as former Ambassador George Kennan (1993) and former U.S. Secretary of State James Schlesinger (1992) have, in fact, decried this tendency as tantamount to emotionalism in the policy process. James Schlesinger (1992: 17) has argued that the U.S. policies in Kurdistan and Somalia were, in particular, driven by the impact of television images of those human tragedies. John F. Kennedy once summed it up: a videotape is more potent than ten thousand words.
Views of the international system and its most urgent reform needs are thus as fractious as the world itself. The complexities of the world demand international relations theories that can focus on both growing gaps and interdependencies, conflicts and cooperation, violence and peace-building. They also call for policies recognizing that global communication plays a central role in problem definition and negotiation for solutions. But meaningful international communication calls for technical competence and equality of access to the means of communication--a requirement that is sorely lacking in today's world. For example, so long as the whole continent of Africa has fewer telephone lines than the city of Tokyo, global communication will continue to be largely a one-way flow. Industrial countries as a whole have over 18 times more telephone lines per 100 people than all the developing countries (UNDP 1996: 193). Since telephones are the linchpin of the emerging global communication system, this situation exacerbates the existing communication gaps in the world. Theory building in international relations clearly requires greater multicultural dialogue in order to build bridges among the competing cultural constructions of world conflicts.
I do believe in the power of words and languages. I’m a french guy, living in Paris, working as a communication executive. I know so many people that could not access the knowledge and the wisdom offered by a few like yourself because they feel stuck or are too lazy to learn, travel and live experiences abroad. Learning and pushing everyday to master the Engilsh (and even the French) language has brought me so much knowledge and connection to this world. Thank you for sharing. Your work is inspirational.
In contrast to public diplomacy, which is essentially top-down, people diplomacy is a bottom-up process. Improving global transportation and telecommunications have increasingly made it possible for ordinary citizens to engage in a game that has been historically reserved for foreign policy "experts." In efforts to mediate and resolve international conflicts, such prominent citizens as Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, and Ramsey Clark have provided examples of the possibilities and constraints of people diplomacy. Numerous other individuals and groups are also engaged in such efforts. The best known of such groups is Amnesty International, an organization devoted to the freedom and humane treatment of political prisoners around the world. Such interventions in the foreign policy process are often resented by the foreign policy establishments as intrusive. However, people diplomacy can serve as a corrective to the governments' narrow or nationalist objectives (Mandelbaum 1966; Hoffmann 1966).