Diaspora as a public diplomacy object and subject

Abstract

The article studies diasporas of states that turn into a valid actor in terms of international relations and more of ten become subjects and objects of public diplomacy. Governments of states are trying to adjust efficient communication and cooperation with their diasporas facilitating the institutionalization of their associations through the establishment of government agencies embracing the issues of interaction between the government and diaspora. Diasporas are of a special importance for small countries due to the lack of resources the country might use for carrying out their foreign policy and organizing diplomatic missions. For example, diasporas of Israel, Greece, Armenia etc. in the USA significantly influence the formation of politics of the United States toward their historical motherlands contributing to the development of bilateral relations. The author states that the diaspora studies peaked in the late 1990s, when researchers studied the characteristics of the diaspora as a social entity, and raised the issue of the limits of the diaspora. The Irish, Armenian and Jewish diasporas are classic examples of how the diaspora can represent and promote the interests of its homeland in the American government, while functioning as full-on diplomatic actors in bilateral relations. The paper notes that researchers of the diaspora's role in public diplomacy are paying much attention to China and India, due to their audacious initiatives to institutionalize relations with the diasporas, in order to obtain the potential benefits diasporas can bring for bilateral relations (particularly economic ones) as mediators and catalysts. These initiatives include the establishment of ministries and government agencies to engage and coordinate work with the diasporas. Thus, part of the state apparatus works exclusively with the communities of its country abroad. In China and India, the affairs of diaspora are meddled with on subnational levels with the participation of provincial and local governments. Their diaspora ministries and agencies conduct conferences on diaspora issues within the respective countries and send missions and delegations abroad to organize communication with their diasporas. Diasporas are primarily perceived as a source of information and advice, as well as a means of civic engagement for embassies and ministries/ departments.The author draws the following conclusion: first, today states involve diasporas in fulfillment of their diplomatic targets in terms of public diplomacy to promote national interests and reaching their personal goals; second, the notion of diaspora and diplomacy have been significantly widened lately and third, representatives of different diasporas often address diplomatic practice in official way by appointing honorary consuls or in an unofficial way through the activities of citizens-diplomats.