City Diplomacy: The Increasing Role

City Diplomacy: The Increasing Role of Cities in International Politics

Over the past several decades, there has been a tendency for cities to be involved internationally and this is stated to demonstrate that demonstrates that the maintenance of international relations is no longer exclusively the domain of national governments. This is because cities are beginning to step into their own place on the international stage. The following thesis focuses on city diplomacy and the increasing role of cities in the use of diplomatic tools in the international relations arena. Relations among states are managed through diplomacy and by diplomats however, diplomacy is also used by local governments in their defense of certain interests in the international community.

Cities, ruled by local governments, have gained acceptance worldwide for the establishment of international relations by foreign policy development in cooperation with local governments approach through setting up lobby networks to make their work visible in the international community. In addition, local governments feel the responsibility and see the advantages of contributing to democratic development elsewhere. Therefore, local governments participate in international cooperation projects and share in the experiences of their colleagues abroad. This kind of reasoning comes from two sides, since governments are more than ever facing a situation of internal conflict or war they are increasingly asking their counterparts to support them in dealing with the accompanying problems. As government tiers closest to the citizens, local governments feel responsible for creating and maintaining a safe and peaceful environment for their citizens.

II. Purpose of Study

The purpose of this present study is to fill in the gaps in the academic literature on diplomacy toward supporting the belief that city diplomacy is a professional pragmatic and upcoming diplomatic activity on the international political stage, which is changing and will continue to change current diplomatic processes.

III. Significance of Study

The significance of this study is the additional information that will be added to the already existing base of knowledge in this area of study.

IV. Research Questions

The research questions is this study are those of:

(1) Is diplomacy only the domain of states?

(2) What is the role of the cities in international politics and international relations?

(3) Does the role of cities in international activities influence or affect the states' role in these activities?

V. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical approach of the thesis in this study is based on paradiplomacy which is a new concept in international politics. The concept of paradiplomacy refers to the international relations conducted by subnational, regional, local or non-central governments on their own, for the purpose of promoting their own interests. Paradiplomacy appears to be an aspect of the overall globalization process in which various non-state actors play an increasing and influential role in the international arena. Regions, federal states, provinces and cities seek their way to promote trade, investments, cooperation and partnership in a long list of subjects and account for a significant part of today's cross-borders contacts.

The work entitled: "Transnationalism and Subnational Paradiplomacy: Is This Perforated Sovereignty or Are Democracy and Civil Society Just Reaching Across Borders?" written by Matthew S. Mingus, Assistant Professor, School of Public Affairs and Administration for Western Michigan University states that the nation-state "...has not always been the dominant conduit for collective action and may give way to developing forms of collective organization as the world progresses." (2003)

Mingus holds that in the moment networks and network structures are holding things together reasonably well without having to abandon the nation-state model." (Mingus, 2003, p.1) Mingus explains that it has been suggested that a "patchwork of network structures may be emerging in the 21st century with a degree of sovereignty that rivals or exceeds that of 20th century nation-states." (Mingus, 2003, p.1)

Mingus relates that the traditional perspective of the relationship of two "sovereign nation-states is that diplomats for the national units of government serve as the primary interface with politicians showing up to close deals and shake hands in front of the cameras." Then as the issue is seen from a more technical or scientific perspective there is the requirement for public administrators to become involved in assisting politicians and diplomats in the development of policies and clearing up the detail work." (Mingus, 2003, p.1)

Mingus states that state and provisional governments have been enabled to become players on the international level through globalization of the economy and the "ease of international communications and reduced shipping costs..." (Mingus, 2003, p.1)

CITY DIPLOMACY: THE INCREASING ROLE OF CITIES IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Chapter Two: Literature Review

I. Literature Review

The work of Rogier van der Pluijm and Jan Melissen (2007) entitled "City Diplomacy: The Expanding Role of Cities in International Politics" states that the assertion is often made that modern diplomacy "characterized by the establishment of permanent missions that are resident in the capital of a foreign country, finds its origins in the Peace of Westphalia. However, the foundations of diplomacy as such were established long before 1648, in times when states as they are known now did not yet exist and cities pioneered as foreign policy entities. Diplomacy existed therefore prior to t he existence of states. One example stated is that in ancient Greece, "city-states like Athens and Macedon were regularly sending and receiving embassies of an ad hoc character and appointed ambassadors to engage in negotiations on behalf of the city-at-large." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

Additionally it is stated that in Renaissance times, "powerful Italian city-states like Venice and Milan were the first to establish permanent diplomatic missions abroad and to create an organized system of diplomacy." (Nicolson, 2001: 6-33 in: van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007) Following the Treaties of Westphalia, cities such as Venice were no longer to hold their monopoly in the areas of foreign policy and diplomacy because these became "the domain of the newly established European states." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1) State-centeredness was further intensified by standardization of diplomacy following the 1815 Congress of Vienna "in both the theory and practice of international relations in general and of diplomacy more specifically." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

It is reported as well in the work of van der Pluijm and Melissen (2007) that while it could be held that foreign affairs at the beginning of the 21st century is "still primarily a task of national governments and their ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) the state is no longer the only actor on the diplomatic stage. Associations of states, NGOs and multinational corporations, for example, increasingly play a role in diplomacy." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

In the year 2007, there were more people living in urban areas than live in rural areas for the first time in history. Globally, more than 100,000 individuals each day move to cities and this emphasizes the fact that cities "now matter more in the world than ever, making some even term cities as the one socio-political unit that is growing in power in the era of globalization." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

Van der Pluijm and Melissen (2007) state that cities "operate in multilayered diplomatic environment[s]" and ask the question of "how could the term of city diplomacy be further conceptualized?" In an answer to this question van der Pluijm and Melissen state that a discussion involving diplomacy "should first of all distinguish between the content -- that is foreign policy and the way in which this concept is 'sold'..." (2007, p.1)

It is important to understand due to the interrelatedness of these two concepts that "the diplomatic process tends to change in with any change in foreign policy goals." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1) There are many existing definitions of diplomacy and these definitions have undergone changes in the past decade in alliance with the changes occurring in the international political system.

Melissen and Sharp (2006) state that diplomacy could be "in very general terms...defined as the institutions and processes by which states and other represent themselves and their interests to one another." (in van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

City diplomacy could be defined according to van der Pluijm and Melissen (2007) as "a form of decentralization of international relations management, choosing cities as the key actors." Key actors in city diplomacy are mayors, "given they are often responsible for the international relations of their city." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007) It is stated however, that "alderman, councilors, municipal civil servants and municipal advisers representing the city at large also engage in city diplomacy." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

It is reported that citizens as well may unite in citizen movements however; they are not actors of city diplomacy, "unless these movements represent the city at large." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1) Citizens may however, engage in relations with other actors "on the international political stage through two-sided or multiple-sided interactions. Two-sided city diplomacy is a diplomatic process in which two parties are involved, of which; at least one is representative of a city. The goals at which this process is aimed can concentrate on creating benefits primarily for one party or on creating benefits for both parties.' (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

Multiple-sided city diplomacy is a "diplomatic process in which more than two parties are involved, representing various cities." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1) van der Pluijm and Melissen state that associations of municipalities "such as United Cities and Local Government (UCLG), Eurocities or the Association of Palestinian Local Authorities are often one party in such multiple-sided processes of city diplomacy." (2007) van der Pluijm and Melissen state that the definition of city diplomacy leads to the question of how it is that the diplomatic activities of cities "relate to the diplomatic activities of state actors in general and more specifically, MFAs as the main carriers of states' diplomatic functions." It is stated that some believe that the activities of cities in diplomacy serve to infringe upon the central government role and results in the creation of "an adversarial relationship between cities and state actors such as MFAs." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

Yet another view on the city-state actor relationship is that instead of striving against one another over the same piece of property that both actors should engage in activities of diplomacy that are complementary to one another. (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, paraphrased) The power of the state in overseeing and management of international activities has been significantly weakened by the rise of a global economic infrastructure "a phenomenon known as the defective state proposition." (Wang, 2006 as cited in van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1) City actors are the entity that is able to take the place of the state in fulfilling its tasks in political areas where the state is no longer able to do so efficiently and effectively. The effect of city diplomacy on the state and city actors' relationship is stated to lay "somewhere in the middle of the two views" described. (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

The need for coordination of the activities of cities and states in diplomacy is important sine foreign policy is known to derive the greatest benefit "from coherence and continuity." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007) Vertical disintegration is said to occur from city involvement in foreign policy since what results in foreign policy being created and executed from more than one level. It is related that cities such as "the municipality of Amsterdam, understand the importance of preventing this, and stress the necessity of local international policy being in line with the international policies of other involved actors, such as embassies, ministries other local authorities and municipal associations. (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

The traditional idea of diplomacy or that in which "the conduct of international relations of states is the main focus-various functions of diplomacy are distinguished. Bull for example distinguishes between the functions of facilitating communication, negotiating agreements, gathering information, preventing conflicts and symbolizing the existence of an international society." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007) City diplomatic behavior is stated to be of the nature that can be compared to the behavior of state diplomats, even though city diplomats are not "officially accredited diplomats and therefore are not part of the official system." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

The legal framework in which city diplomacy takes place is stated to be one that is clearly outlined and the example stated in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Such legal clarity is lacking in the case of city diplomacy." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007) Stated as the first of reasons that this is so is that there are two distinct legal spheres in which cities operate diplomatically:

(1) the national; and (2) the international. (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

In the national arena it is stated that the legal rules are applicable to the diplomatic cities in a different nature from one country to another and while the city in one country may act in an autonomous manner in its engagement in international political activities a city in a different country may be prohibited by national law from achieving its aspirations on an international scale. However, it should be noted that in both cases cities hold no legal identity at the international level and cities are not recognized by international law as holding any type of legal personality whatsoever. Instead, local governments are treated as "mere subdivisions of states and have neither legal standing nor independent presence in formal international institutions." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

There is a great deal of ambiguity in the case where the city interacts internationally in politics. Stated secondly as reason that there is great difficulty in outline the legal framework in regards to city diplomacy is "that the national and international legal grounds on which city diplomacy is based are shifting. Indeed national laws may hinder cities in their diplomatic activities abroad, but national governments increasingly permit and even encourage local government involvement in foreign policy." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

While cities do not hold legal personality in international government the international legal rules are "increasingly extend[ed] over cities. For example, various UN agencies have been established that centre on issues such as local self-government and decentralization of powers, such as UN HABITAT; cities are increasingly internalizing international norms into their local legal systems and enforcing these norms; various associations that represent local governments in global governance projects are appearing and administrative and judicial bodies that regulate the relations between localities and states have become more prominent." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

There are a multitude of reasons that cities engage in diplomacy. First of all, personal engagement is one very likely reason and political issues on the international level are cited as being "crucial in decisions to engage in city diplomacy. The structures in which city diplomacy occurs are less rigid than state structures. Three specifically stated reasons for engaging in city diplomacy are those as follows:

(1) Cities can engage in city diplomacy in order to serve the interests of their city and its community;

(2) Citizens may force their municipal representatives to engage in specific diplomatic activities; and (3) Cities can engage in diplomatic acts out of solidarity with other cities. (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

The resources commanded by a city is what ultimately determines the diplomatic activity of cities. Included in these resources are:

(1) Intangible resources; and (2) Tangible resources. (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

The most visible city diplomats are naturally those who represent the larger cities. The character of the state system is also an important determinant of the extent to which cities become involved in diplomacy." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1) van der Pluijm and Melissen have noted that there is a variation in autonomy from one to another city and the degree of the city's autonomy is stated to be very much dependent on the extent "to which a culture of devolution exists in the state in question. Such a culture is expressed in a pattern of formal and informal rules impinging on subnational interests and activities in foreign policy issues. In that context, municipalities..." And specifically in the example stated the Netherlands enjoy greater autonomy and have greater powers that their counterparts in Flanders, because of a stronger Dutch culture of devolution on the municipal level." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

Stated as the third factor which determines the involvement of cities in diplomacy is "the linkages between the central government and the cities. In instances where local interests are very much represented by central governments, the perceived need by cities to engage in city diplomacy is more limited than in those instances where local interests are less represented." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1) It is stated that although this factor strongly relates "to the extent to which a culture of devolution exists in a given state, it focuses more on the nature of the means by which local interests are represented by the central government." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007, p.1)

van der Pluijm and Melissen also stated that the state in which the city is located also has a great influence as each state "has "so-called 'core' and peripheral' regions in terms of politics and economics. Subsequently the location of a city in a either a core or a peripheral region generally influences its role on the diplomatic stage." (van der Pluijm and Melissen, 2007) The extent to which the city has linkages internationally additionally affects the pattern of diplomacy's development in the city and it is stated that a great determinate in this areas is geographical location of the city.

The work entitled: "City Diplomacy Conference Report: A Working Conference of United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG). Organized by: The Secretariat of the City Diplomacy Committee, VNG International, the International Cooperation Agency of the Association of Netherlands Municipalities and The Italian Coordination of Local Authorities for Peace and Human Rights' reports a working group of approximately 40 participants that gathered in Perugia, Italy on the 6th and 7th of October 2006 for the purpose of discussing "the scope of the UCLG on City Diplomacy." It is reported that during one plenary, and one working group session, participants shared their view on the "concept of City Diplomacy, based on the documents that were disseminated to the participants beforehand." (United Cities and Local Governments, 2006, p.1)

City diplomacy is stated to be defined as "the tool of local governments and their associations to help local governments in conflict and war by means of concrete and practice city-to-city cooperation with the aim of creating a stable environment in which the citizens can live together in peace, democracy and prosperity." (United Cities and Local Governments, 2006) Three stages of conflict are identified and specifically those of:

(1) pre-conflict;

(2) conflict; and (3) post-conflict during which local governments located outside of the country of conflict may intervene. (United Cities and Local Governments, 2006, p.;1)

It is stated that during these stages local governments "can play different roles and can use various instruments to help local governments in conflict resolution. As proposed, local governments can act as lobbyist, peace supporter, mediator and/or project partner." (United Cities and Local Governments, 2006, p.1) It must be acknowledged that the proposed scope of work of the Committee and the whole concept of 'City Diplomacy' as such is not at all defined and agreed upon yet by the broad network of local authorities, civil society organizations, and other actors that have worked in this working field." (United Cities and Local Governments, 2006, p.1)

The objective of the meeting in Perugia was to "bring together key players from local governments and their associations actively involved in peace building and representatives from international organizations and knowledge institutes, to develop to Action Plan of the UGLG Committee on City Diplomacy and to prepare the ground for UCLGs first World Congress on City Diplomacy and the Role of Local Governments in Peace Buildings, which is to take place in the Hague in the beginning of 2008." (United Cities and Local Governments, 2006, p.1) Stated as specific objectives of the participants contributions were the following:

(1) The sharing of experience of local governments of their contribution to conflict resolution and postconflict reconstruction in countries in conflict and war. What was/is their role in promoting dialogue between different ethnic groups, how did/do they deal with internal armed conflict and how do they see the role of international partners in supporting their initiatives. How can local governments from other counties contribute to conflict resolution; and (2) To share ideas on the First World Congress on the municipal role in conflict prevention and peace building that is to take place in the Peace Palace in The Hague at the beginning of 2008. Shared vision on the concept of this event, what are the objectives, how to involve civil society organizations, etc. (United Cities and Local Governments, 2006, p.1)

Stated as conclusions drawn in the Perugia meeting are those as follows:

(1) Conflict resolution should start in our own cities. There is the issue of the social cohesion in our cities. How do we make our own city conflict-resilient? Many cities have found ways to fight nationalism before international solidarity came about and partnerships with cities from abroad were built. But besides this, there is the issue of building peace and dialogue among different ethnic groups in our own cities, cities of countries that are not at war. Decision makers at local level know as no other the importance of dialogue and the impact of multiculturalism in our cities. Cities deal with this everyday on the streets of our cities, in our municipal schools, in our increasingly multicultural workplaces. The question was raised if we incorporate this work of cities in the scope of work of the Committee.

(2) The working definition of city diplomacy is too limited. There are good arguments to widen the scope of the concept of city diplomacy. At the same time, we have to keep in mind that we do not overlap the working field of the UCLG Committee on Decentralized Co-operation. City Diplomacy can be described as an overall term that entails among others the instrument of decentralized cooperation. Should City Diplomacy also entail:

The fight against terrorism from the local perspective.

Conflict resolution within our own cities, including cities that are not living in countries at war. It was noticed that inside the city there is the infrastructure for Peace and Human Rights, through for example the system of civic defenders, ombudsmen, councillorship, etc.

(3) All agreed that the division of City Diplomacy actions in different conflict situations (pre-conflict, conflict and post-conflict) is not workable and not needed. It is too artificial and it is impossible to make this difference in any conflict situation a country is in.

(4) The practice shows that conflict prevention and conflict management can only be effective, if we have sufficient knowledge of the character of the conflict: the background, the various actors (internally and externally). And even more important, sustainable conflict management can only be achieved through a long-term investment, addressing the root causes of the conflict. Therefore, it is imperative that local authorities, local leaders and local civil society organizations are educated in their role as peace builders and mediators in conflict situations at local level.

(5) International peace building has a substantial tradition in the policies of local governments. Despite this involvement and despite the existing legal bases, these activities are hardly recognized by central governments. It was stated various times that local autonomy means that local governments can develop their own international policy and international relations. National governments are not to interfere in that respect. Local governments have always supported diplomatic actions of states. The intention of our work is not to remove the diplomacy role from states, but provide them with support. Local governments act differently than states in carrying out diplomatic work, they act in situations where states cannot provide security for their citizens'

(6) The immanent threat of terrorism is affecting cities all over the globe. This is a reality we cannot ignore. And we do not want to ignore this. There are no easy answers to these important questions. But when tensions rise and rhetoric dominate the public debate, there can be an important role for cities to provide a platform for dialogue, for exchange of opinions in an atmosphere of respect;

(7) Our concept of city diplomacy is about transparency, is about informing citizens about what is happening and what we, as cities, are doing. Developing educational programs within the framework of city diplomacy is a priority;

(8) When talking about city diplomacy, citizens' participation is paramount and indispensable. For effective city diplomacy, both local government leadership and civil society empowerment are equally important. Innovative models of partnership between local governments and civil society organizations are to be developed.

(9) Despite growing interest, there are limited research or guidance on how to coordinate such work and enhance impact. Sound research is needed urgently. (United Cities and Local Governments, 2006, p.1)

The work of Dalia Dassa Kaye (2005) entitled: "Rethinking Track Two Diplomacy: The Middle East and South Asia" states that track two diplomacy is often defined as the "interactions among individuals or groups that take place outside an official negotiation process." (Kaye, 2005, p.1) Therefore, track one is a reference to diplomacy that is official and governmental in nature. Track two is referred to in the work of Louise Diamond and John McDonald as "non-governmental, informal and unofficial contacts and activities between private citizens or groups of individuals, sometimes called non-state actors." (Kaye, 2005, p.1) McDonald states that track two is "informal and unofficial interaction between private citizens and groups of people within a country or from different countries who are outside the formal governmental power structure." (Kaye, 2005, p.1)

Kaye states that for the purpose of the study reported that track two diplomacy is defined as "unofficial policy dialogue focused on problem solving where the participants have some form of access to official policymaking circles." (2005) Kaye states that obstacles to track two regional security dialogues can be found at three levels:

(1) the participating elites;

(2) the domestic contexts from which track two participants come; and (3) the larger regional environment. (Kaye, 2005, p.1)

Two common problems are stated to emerge at the elite level:

(1) dialogues include the wrong type of people; or (2) they include the right type of people with limited influence on official policy and little legitimacy in their domestic environments. (Kaye, 2005, p.1)

The first problem is stated to relate to "dialogues that are dominated by ideological individuals who do not believe in the value of cooperation with the adversary and merely attend such forums to repeatedly state well-known and deeply entrenched positions." (Kaye, 2005) These individuals are often government officials although they are acting in a capacity that is unofficial while being compelled to stated conventional views and who are careful in their exploration of new and novel approaches "for fear of censure back home." (Kaye, 2005, p.1)

Kaye (2005) states that elites "official and unofficial may also enter such process with skeptical and even hostile positions because they come from security cultures that are adverse to cooperative security ideas." Kaye additionally notes that often the participating elites are "too connected to governments and are thus unable to introduce new ideas in such dialogues..." (2005, p.1)

The chances for track two dialogues being successful is dependent on the ability to find "independent-minded individuals who will clearly express national perspective and perceptions but still be open to listening to the other sides' views...however, the problem is that such individuals usually come from unofficial circles (academia, think tanks, NGOs) and often have limited influence with official policymakers and are disconnected from grassroots groups or other broadly-based societal movements." (Kaye, 2005, p.1)

Even in cases where a group of appropriate individuals is found that is conducive to track two dialogue the participating elites May still reject a cooperative security agenda. Such elites may, through the process of dialogue and interaction in unofficial settings, develop more rather than less negative views of the adversary, or simply fail to buy on to cooperative security concepts." (Kaye, 2005, p.1)

Thonon (2006) defines city diplomacy as "the tool of local governments and their associations to help local government in conflict and war by means of concrete and practical city-to-city cooperation with the aim of creating a stable environment in which the citizens can live together in peace, democracy and prosperity." Thonon states that city diplomacy "applies to both active and collaborating cities [and] aims to ease the causes of armed conflicts while offering resources for confronting armed violence and disarming cities, but without ignoring social cohesion, interculturalism and other internal factors." (2006, p.1)

Thonon states that municipalities are "both in times of peace and times of war...staging grounds for different types of violence. In armed conflicts, which increasingly target civil populations, armed actors willfully attack cities and their inhabitants. Insecurity on the streets, organized crime, social inequality, and discrimination, motivated by a host of reasons are examples of violence that cities experience." (Thonon, 2006, p.1) City diplomacy contains the following specific advantages:

(1) City halls are the public administrations that are closets to the people and the most appropriate fro managing conflict in municipalities and city halls are the public administrations that most accurately understand the needs of the population; and (2) being close to the population, city halls facilitate work in networks with local association. (Thonon, 2006, p.1)

Thonon states that two important points are the following:

(1) city-to-city cooperation permits a development of activities dependent of state political agendas and allows cities and municipalities to better respond to the real needs of the population;

(2) studies that examine the impact of peace initiatives highlight the importance of the local dimension in projects, both in their definitions and in their intermediate and final evaluations. This makes municipalities good mediators. (Thonon, 2006, p.1)

The work entitled: "The Committee on City Diplomacy" (2007) relates that the UCLJ Committee on City Diplomacy was established in Beijing in June of 2005 and in the first committee meeting in Washington in February 2006 the first work program was endorsed by the committee for 2006. It is stated that the committee will go forth with its political work toward promotion of city diplomacy as conceptualized internationally. Stated is the Committee on City Diplomacy's general objective is the creation of a place where local governments confronted with conflict and war can present their problems and where initiatives can be taken to support local gover5nments in difficulty." (Armenian Times, 2006) Specific objectives stated are those as follows which will provide a description for the committee's planned 2007 activities:

(1) International lobby for city diplomacy work in general

(2) Building international city diplomacy network

(3) Take action at the request of members in conflict situation

(4) International lobby for concrete cases. (Armenian Times, 2006, p.1)

Stated as the International lobby for City Diplomacy work in general is gaining recognition from national and international governmental institutions for the role of local governments in city diplomacy and including the development of a shared vision on the phenomenon of city diplomacy. (Armenian Times, 2006, paraphrased) Committee/secretariat activities are stated to include:

(1) The committee will continue to focus on getting recognition from the United Nations for the role of local government in international peace building and reconstruction policies; and (2) the committee will continue to broaden its network and consult international institutions and (civil society) organizations that are active in this field. More concrete, the committee secretariat will conduct the following activities:

(a) To get international recognition for role of local governments in peace building

(i) Draft a strategy paper with regard to lobby activities towards relevant UN institutions (UN

Peace Committee, responsible bodies for UN

Stakeholder conference 2010, etc.)

(ii) Build up working relationship with relevant UN institutions; and (iii) Intensify relationship with UN High Level

Group of the Alliance of Civilizations;

(b) To intensify Research & Development in close

collaboration with international partners:

(i) Finalizing of a concept paper on City

Diplomacy in consultation with committee advisory group and other partners, with the aim to develop a clear understanding of the concept of City Diplomacy from a formal point-of-view of UCLG;

(ii) Development of research papers in cooperation with outsourced organizations and academic institutions;

(iii) Cooperation with The Congress of Local

and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe in the development of a report on city

diplomacy;

(iv) To conduct Case Study:

(vi) Make selection of existing cases provided by international partners and elaborate on those cases;

(iv) At least 10 cases will be ready to be shared widely. (Armenian Times, 2006, p.1)

The second stated committee objective is that of building an international city diplomacy network for the purpose of promoting the role of local governments and increasing the willingness of municipalities to get involved in peace building oriented projects and programs. It is stated that the committee should "be a platform for local governments to exchange experiences with methods of conflict avoidance and conflict resolution." (Armenian Times, 2006, p.1)

The Committee / secretariat activities are reported as follow:

1) The committee secretariat will continue its work to establish several international networks to contribute to the implementation of the committee work program. These networks are:

- A committed committee task force

- The Committee itself

- A small working group that will contribute to the development of various papers on city diplomacy

- An international network that gathered in Perugia

October 2006 and will meet again in Barcelona in September 2007. This network consists of active committee members, representatives from civil society organizations, international organizations and academic institutions.

2) In order to formally define the role of local governments and their associations in conflict prevention and peace building the committee secretariat will organize an ambitious and visible UCLG congress on this theme, scheduled for June 2008. In preparation to this congress, the committee will meet at various occasions to discuss with a broad international network the content of the congress. The following events will be organized:

- A follow-up preparatory congress in Barcelona to the event which took place in Perugia, Italy, in October 2006. During this Perugia congress key players from local governments and their associations actively involved in peace building and representatives from universities, donors and knowledge institutes met and discussed about the role of local governments in peace building. This event was organized by the Italian Coordination of Local Authorities for Peace and Human Rights, in cooperation with the committee secretariat. The follow-up congress in Barcelona will take place on 6 and 7 September 2007 at the initiative of the Province of Barcelona. It will be organized by both the Province and the Municipality of Barcelona in cooperation with the committee secretariat.

- A workshop on City Diplomacy during World Habitat Day (an event of UN Habitat) on 1 and 2 October 2007 in The Hague

- The various documents that are to be developed will be presented during the World Congress of UCLG in Jeju in October 2007. During the committee meeting the outcomes of Barcelona will be presented and the plans for 2008 will be elaborated upon. Jeju is an important event for the City Diplomacy Committee, because of one of the principle themes that was proposed for this event: "Local governments as peace builders: Towards an Alliance of Civilizations." The committee proposes to organize a special session on City Diplomacy during the Jeju congress in the light of this principle Congress theme.

(3) The Third objective of the committee is to take action at the request of members in conflict situation and the committee/secretariat activities include responding to requests from UCLG member for solidarity actions. There was emphasis placed on the role of reacting to UCLG member requests and it was decided that the committee would not act proactively in emerging conflict situations worldwide.

(4) International Lobby for Concrete cases is the fourth objective of the committee with the aim being the lobbying towards the international community for the purpose of raising awareness for situations which threaten local government with war or conflict so as to gain funding for such concrete programs including reconstruction of democratic local government following the conflict of war.

- To establish a good working relationship with the UCLG world secretariat in order to contribute to priority I.4

of the UCLG program of activities for 2007: "City Diplomacy and international solidarity: helping communities to help themselves."

- To cooperate more intensively with the Committee on Decentralized Cooperation.

- To communicate more with the other committees in order to better complement each others work. (Armenian Times, 2006, p.1) D.

The work of Melissen (2005) entitled: "Wielding Soft Power: The New Public Diplomacy" states that it is "tempting to see public diplomacy as old wine in new bottles." After all official communication focused towards foreign publics is nothing new in the area of international relations. Image cultivation along with "propaganda and activities that would now be labeled as public diplomacy are nearly as old as diplomacy itself." (Melissen, 2005) The opinion of the public was almost never ignored in the ancient times and by "prestige-conscious principles and their representatives..." (Melissen, 2005)

When the printing press was invented in the fifteenth century the "scale of official communication with foreign publics potentially altered." (Melissen, 2005) It is stated that at the end of the Middle Ages, the "systematic dissemination of newsletter" had been accomplished by the Venetians. Melissen reports that the First World War "saw the birth of professional image cultivation across national borders, and it was inevitable after the war that the emerging academic study of international politics would wake up to the importance of what is now commonly dubbed as 'soft power.'" (Melissen, 2005, p.1)

One of the key instruments of soft power is that of public diplomacy. Melissen states that the communications revolution that started following World War II "and that experienced massive advances toward the end of the 20th century has enabled citizens to obtain in formation on what is going on in other countries fast, or even faster, than governments." (2005) Melissen additionally notes that as publics have become more distrusting of government and have began to demand a greater level of transparency as well as a greater level of input into policy making decisions, "governments can no longer count on 'spin' to overcome communication challenges." (2005, p.1)

Melissen reports that the best definition of public diplomacy is likely that provided by Paul Sharp who states that public diplomacy is "the process by which direct relations with people in a country are pursued to advance the interests and extend the values of those being represented." (2005, p.1)

The work of Acuto (2009) entitled: "City Diplomacy: Global Governance Beyond the State" states that Urbanization "just like globalization is a fundamental process that affects the present landscape of world affairs: although it does not represent a novel force in history, it defines the human experience in the 21st century as never before." (Acuto, 2009) Acuto states as example that at the beginning of the 2 oth Century only one out of every ten individuals lived in cities however, in today's world more than fifty percent of the entire population lives in metropolitan areas. Acuto states that this "momentous exodus, boosted by a ten-fold multiplication of the urban population during the last ninety years, has resulted in a radical redesigning of most of the world's geography." (2009, p.1)

Both of these processes influence contemporary political relations however, these are "...defined and organized by the emergence of an "urban society" and the possibility of global reach offered by artificial compression of time and space. No political, social, economic or cultural analysis is nowadays free from their effects. Yet, the vast majority of contemporary political analysts are reticent about the presence of 'urban' narratives in their publications. At best, the city is considered a target of top-down policies, or an implementer of governmental frameworks. Biased by a still too state-centric approach to global issues policymakers often forget the possibilities and the potential for effective governance that local governments have in the urban age. Globalization has reduced the state's policy capacity, leaving space for the city's strategic governance role. Cities, incapable of military action, are thus diplomatic actors that rely heavily on the power of association nested in coalition-making and cross-national networking, which they themselves inspire through catalytic diplomacy." (Acuto, 2009, p.1)

Acuto (2009) states that that 'Climate Leadership Group' (C40) was launched in October 2005 through an initiative of the mayor of London at the time and the summit "gathered 18 large cities led by the British capital with the intent of tackling climate change from below. Yet, despite the almost systematic usage of the "from below" argument when dealing with the urban sphere, the case of global cities environmental governance certainly demonstrates that cities are far from being 'below' any other institutional layer. On the contrary, as the C40 example shows, local (urban) actors might be the agenda-setters as much as, if not more than, states and international organizations." (Acuto, 2009, p.1)

London is reported to have acted "as a catalyst" as the group attempted to enact leadership toward the reduction of emissions and to provide stimulation to the private population and the government's action in this area. It is reported by Acuto (2009) that this effort has been successful and that the framework serves to illustrate the capacity of cities "...to cut across the multiple layers of global governance by developing transnational linkages between local governments. Cities in this case have been able to constitute "groups of friends" such as in the case of the M4 cities (London, Berlin, Moscow, and Beijing), in all similar to those within the UN, as well as to interact with international bodies while bypassing their national hierarchy by reporting for instance to the UN Framework on Climate Change's COP11 and MOP1 rounds in Montreal in December 2005. As the then-Deputy Mayor of London highlighted in the first summit: "Leadership from national governments is crucial in tackling climate change, but when it comes to practical action on the ground cities are centre stage." (Acuto, 2009, p.1)

Acuto states that the related case demonstrates that global cities "...are not solely the targets of governance initiatives, but catalysts of political will and "norm entrepreneurs" of environmental regulation capable of connecting the local (domestic) sphere to the international. Through their ability to develop, as well coordinate, worldwide linkages global cities have a considerable normative power and are capable of promoting it through advocacy networks and coalitions such as the C40. Indeed, as Yishai Blank pointed out, local governments are taking up roles within the global legal order as bearers of international rights, duties and powers, objects of international regulation, norms enforcers and, most importantly, "legal creatures" capable of meaningful participation in "international norm generation." They are, to put it simply, sources of global governance beyond the state." (Acuto, 2009, p.1)

According to Acuto (2009) The 'urban sphere' is able to take up solutions on a political scale that are 'at least at an institutional level, much similar to that of the governmental sphere." However, the city is stated to demonstrate "...greater institutional flexibility and adaptability to issue-specific coalitions, possibly resulting from the highly functional basis of the urban as a mode of human aggregation, and the lower degree of formal institutionalization of political processes within city limits. Conceivably, cities are already acting in a political and diplomatic sense as much as states do, moving beyond the pecking order of international relations. If, as much as the debate on 'new' forms of diplomacy tells us, the political actors most likely to become proficient in the management of globalization are those that show entrepreneurial, cosmopolitan and flexible qualities, cities might be a case in point in this venture." (Acuto, 2009, p.1)

The urban capacity to "formulate political will and gather resources" is 'Strongly linked with the facilitating functions and the influence of transnational networks" and this has been overlooked so far. Acuto states that it has been demonstrated by organizations such as "...the Cities Alliance, the C40, or the United Cities and Local Governments (UCGL) Initiative, cities are also particularly prone to co-operation and pluralistic approaches. They are capable of facilitating exchanges of information and expertise across transnational networks, and of carrying out diplomacy vis-a-vis numerous political actors. "City diplomacy" can be conceptualized as a process by which cities engage in political relations not just with their peers (other cities) but also other political institutions such as states or international organizations. Even if we were to reduce the political nature of cities to their municipal governments, the relations between these latter and other spheres of governance will most likely represent negotiated forms of social interaction that can be subsumed under such a definition." (Acuto, 2009, p.1)

According to Acuto if it can be agreed that globalization and urbanizations are "twin vital challenges for the contemporary urban age, global cities stand in the midst of such processes as key political spaces in which a solution has to be found. Global cities can -- and do -- reclaim such spaces with an active presence in the realms of global governance and international affairs. The city can no longer be considered as the sole domain of technical sciences such as architecture; rather, it has to be appreciated for its rightful place in the structure of world politics. In response to this appeal, architectural pundit Rem Koolhaas has pointed out that we can now count on "the first generation of architects that has had a direct experience of working in so many different urban systems at any one time." It is time for the 'architects' of international relations to forge a similar generation through a clear understanding of the urban as a source of political agency, and a dynamic participant in global affairs." (Acuto, 2009, p.1)

The work of Mark McDowell entitled: "Public Diplomacy at the Crossroads: Definitions and Challenges in an 'Open Source' Era" states that over the past ten years there has been a great deal of discussion of public diplomacy however there has been much less in the way of agreement on precisely what public diplomacy is and precisely who can practice public diplomacy. McDowell states that the term public diplomacy was first used in the 1960s and was defined as 'the actions of governments to inform and influence foreign publics." (2008, p.1)

According to McDowell, 'this marked a clear formulation and a tidy parallel with traditional diplomacy, the aim of which was to directly inform and influence foreign governments. A much broader definition is used today by some proponents of PD to include the transnational impact of all government or private activities 'from popular culture to fashion to sports to news to the Internet that inevitably, if not purposely have an impact on foreign policy and national security as well as on trade, tourism and other national interests." (2008, p.1)

McDowell states that public diplomacy of course 'takes place in public' however in order for it to qualify as diplomacy it must include a role for the state or there must be 'an element of government intention and participation -- not necessarily undertaking the entire conception and execution of a project but at least playing a role, working with civil society partners, funding, coordinating, and/or directing. Public diplomacy also has to have a clear goal or message. In the absence of these two elements -- a government role and a conscious message, we are merely talking about the background noise of international communication." (2008, p.1)

For example McDowell uses the following illustration labeled Figure 1 which has been adapted from McDowell's study who states that if there are two states, or A and B, with their respective publics and governments then it is necessary to consider how A might act upon B. McDowell states that the black arrow is representative of traditional diplomacy, the attempt of government A to directly influence government B. through demarches, discussion, and other such formal means. The public in B. is not engaged." (McDowell, 2008, p.1)

Figure 1

Source: McDowell (2008)

The following figure labeled Figure 2 which has also been adapted from McDowell's work features the addition of a blue arrow, which is representative of the attempt on the part of government A to directly inform and influence the public of B. This could be an end in itself (to promote trade, attract tourists, investors, students and immigrants) or it could also be a means to influence government B. indirectly (shown as the dotted blue line)." (2008, p.1)

Figure 2

Public Diplomacy at the Crossroads: Definitions and Challenges in an 'Open Source' Era

Source: McDowell (2008)

McDowell states that government A "...may be promoting a positive self-image with the population of B. In order to pressure government B. To take some action that benefits country A. An early example of this is the effort of Great Britain circa 1940 to tell their story of the unfolding war in Europe to the public of the then-neutral United States. Radio and news reports of British heroism and social solidarity created sympathy for the United Kingdom, a condition that emboldened Franklin Roosevelt to provide military aid to the Allies. With some common PD activities such as cultural exchanges it may not be clear (even in the minds of the organizers) whether the ultimate goal is to influence society B. Or government B. A national branding campaign may be aimed at making country A more attractive as a tourist destination and to increase interest in its products, or it may -- in a more diffuse, long-term way -- be attempting to build amity between the two nations for geopolitical reasons." (2008, p.1)

McDowell states that the weakness of public diplomacy in figure 2 is that it can "...stray into the realm of propaganda. The British in 1940 facilitated the efforts of American reporters to frame the issue of World War II in a way that benefited the British. But Axis attempts to influence U.S. opinion were tightly controlled by Axis governments and were heavy-handed by comparison. Any government attempt to broadcast directly to another society -- literally or figuratively -- runs the risk of this drift into propaganda. In practice, it seems that PD works better when government A is a democracy, perhaps because totalitarian states are not faced with the necessity to communicate persuasively with their own civil societies and thus are not good at messaging to other civil societies." (McDowell, 2008, p.1)

Public diplomacy, according to McDowell (2008) is "most lively and diverse and most credible when conducted by governments in cooperation with civil society." The following illustration labeled Figure 3 indicates a green arrow which represents society A's influence on society B.

Figure 3

Source: McDowell (2008)

According to McDowell (2008) this arrow could represent a "...a touring dance troupe or film festival, or it could also be an NGO or professional association from country A speaking to its counterpart in country B. Certainly such activities can take place in the absence of government, but they become PD only when they are part of an overall plan conceived by (or at least agreed to by) government and are directed at a particular goal." Public diplomacy is stated by McDowell to work best "when the blue, green and black arrows are coordinated. For example, the U.S. And Canada have been at odds for several years over U.S. plans to exploit energy resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). While there was advocacy at the government-to-government level on the issue (black arrow), Canadian Consulates in the U.S. also conducted an active public diplomacy campaign to inform the American public of the adverse effect that exploitation of ANWR by oil companies would have on the ecosystem and inhabitants of the region. To do this, the consulates collaborated with Canadian Aboriginal groups to convey pro-conservation messages. To an American audience, Aboriginal peoples were more credible than Canadian government spokespersons, were more able to speak with first-hand knowledge, and were a unique moral authority." (McDowell, 2008, p.1)

The contribution of the Canadian government included a 2002 speaking tour in the U.S. By Aboriginal individuals from the Yukon (represented by the green arrows) through the dissemination of information about the tour (blue arrow). McDowell states that public diplomacy works the best when government B. is a democracy, "where communication represented by the blue and green arrows (from A to B) encounters few barriers and where society B. can directly influence government B. But the dotted arrows can also be important whenever the government must heed the mood of its citizens. In non-democracies, the mechanisms of PD work differently. For example, Cold War -- era Voice of America broadcasts were aimed at strengthening democratic opposition to repressive communist regimes." (2008, p.1)

Public diplomacy works best according to McDowell when the 'blue, green and black arrows are coordinated." (2008) Additionally McDowell states that it is important to note that public diplomacy may involve working against the policies or even interests of the host government..." (2008) It is the rise of globalism and specifically "information technology and massive flows of international communications and travel" that has served to facilitate movement along the double-lined arrow in the foregoing figure. Counterparts in B. To A are influenced by NGOs and there is an ongoing discussion of "interest and ethnic groups, academics and artists, business people and activists." (McDowell, 2008)

McDowell states that while one might at first believe that "a large state would have an advantage in PD: a large state might have a big foreign service, a specialized information agency (such as the United States Information Agency, or USIA), or a chain of international cultural centers (like China's Confucius Institutes or France's Alliances Francaises), all backed by large financial resources." (2008) McDowell states that one might consider the comparative strength of PD small, medium and large as follows:

Figure 4

Source: McDowell (2008)

McDowell states however, that the irony is that "despite the larger government's greater resources, the small country may be at an advantage because it can control its message. L struggles against broadly held stereotypes, as well as a flood of cultural, economic, and other information flowing from the home country that may be impossible to channel. Think of the fortunes of Chinese PD over the past decade: in the wake of 9/11 the U.S. was alienating friend and foe alike with its security concerns, while optimistic, dynamic China's "charm offensive" seemed unstoppable. But over the course of one short year all that has been unraveled by exports of tainted foods and dangerous toys, as well as news coverage of renewed violence in Tibet. For L. there is just too much information, too much culture, too much trade -- too much stuff -- to be able to keep an audience focused on any one particular message." (2008, p.1)

The large or 'L' according to McDowell combats stereotypes that are broadly held and the "chatter of the information age" while S. might be able to effectively shape foreign perceptions. The capacity of the small, medium and large governments are represented by the red dot, while the green is representative of all the information about small, medium and large that is easily accessed by the target population." (2008, p.1)

While L. fights against broadly held stereotypes and the chatter of the information age, S (a Brunei or a Bhutan, for example) might be able to do much to shape foreign perceptions. In Figure 5 the PD capacity of S, M, and L. governments are represented by the red dot, while the green represents all of the information about S, M, and L. that is readily accessible to the target population.

Figure 5

Source: McDowell (2008)

McDowell states that it is clear that soft power and public diplomacy are interrelated and specifically states that "Soft power (SP), in Joseph Nye's famous formulation, is the ability to get others to do what they would otherwise not do, to act the way you want them to act without coercion or payments, carrots or sticks." (2008) Soft power is stated to have three sources:

(1) a country's culture;

(2) a country's values and ideals; and (3) a country's policies. (McDowell, 2008, p.1)

From the public diplomacy perspective one can see "that the government has a limited impact on the first, acting as one of many promoters of national culture overseas. Normally, the government does not craft values and ideals although it can disseminate and publicize them overseas. And while the third element -- policies -- are generated by the government, they are usually not created with an eye to how useful they may be in public diplomacy. Thus we can imagine a series of concentric circles, with PD forming a subset of diplomacy, which is itself a subset of government activities, which is just one element of a country's soft power." (McDowell, 2008, p.1)

According to McDowell public diplomacy is "...exactly a long-term, diffuse objective such as relationship building that is most difficult to justify in quantitative terms. Whenever PD practitioners gather, they inevitably bemoan pressure from their governments to justify their activities. The ability to quantify and measure results is often crucial in the competition within the government for scarce funding, so how can we measure the effects of PD? Let us first try to disaggregate PD into some of its component parts. The clearest, shortest-term PD goal is advocacy -- the attempt to persuade another government about a specific issue of interest." (2008, p.1)

McDowell concludes by stating that it is the "...narrowing of global vision caused by the so-called Global War on Terror, combined with an increasingly quantitative, immediate-results orientation in government, has also narrowed conceptions of public diplomacy -- what it is and what it can do. But we need not long wistfully for the good old days of Edward R. Murrow's USIA, the Golden Age of U.S. public diplomacy. Today's constraints will eventually be overcome, and meanwhile, the tremendous growth of civil society actors and increasing globalism is providing the PD practitioner with an ever richer, more complex, and yet more chaotic environment in which to work. We have seen above that public diplomacy can take many forms; we are likely entering an age where the PD practitioner may have less and less control over the external environment, but that will not make public diplomacy less important -- just less hierarchal, more fast-changing, more challenging, and ever more interesting." (2008, p.1)

The work of Alan K. Henrikson entitled: "Credible Public Diplomacy: Truth and Policy, Persuasion and People" reports that the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy "...inspired by Edward R. Murrow's statement that "truth is the best pro-paganda," students, faculty, staff, and alumni and alumnae of The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy -- together with colleagues from other parts of Tufts University and also friends from Harvard University -- orga-nized and carried out a two-day discussion of the theme "Credible Public Diplomacy: A Lesson for Our Times" at the 100th Anniversary Edward R. Murrow Memorial Conference held at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy on April 14 -- 15, 2008. "To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful," Murrow memorably said in May 1963 when he was Director of the United States Information Agency (USIA). "It is as simple as that." (Henrikson, 2008, p.1)

This is stated by Hendrickson to be "fundamentally...correct" and notes the advice of the first American diplomat, Benjamin Franklin who stated that honesty "is the best policy." (2008) Hendrickson states that the "actual articulation and administration of a diplomacy based on truth is, however, anything but simple. A nation's diplomacy is based on self-interest as well as on the particular values and historical experiences that shape its identity. Identities are unique; "truth," by contrast, is argu-ably universal -- valid irrespective of nationality, culture, religion, or other differentiating factors among peoples, whose minds are assumed to make the same inherent observations." (2008, p.1)

More is required than fact and logic according to Hendrickson to effectively persuade mediatized pub-lic sphere of today..." depends on more than fact or logic." (2008) It is stated that Chaim Perelman in "The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation" emphasizes the relativism of argument to an audience and states that it is the adherence of the audience instead of the demonstration of the speaker that ultimately results in a persuasive argument. This is stated to be applicable to the "verbal defense of a country's foreign policy as well as to an academic exposition. Close attention to others' beliefs and opinions is essential and respectful. Audiences are specific, with very different preoccupations and receptivity's. Selection of data and what Perelman calls "presence" -- that is, points acting directly on listeners' sen-sibility -- are needed for effective argu-ment." (Hendrickson, 2008, p.1)

According to Hendrickson (2008) the United States as well as many other countries, in the area of diplomacy "...including smaller ones with little or no physical power to rely on, have focused on gen-erating positive images of themselves in the minds of others through "place branding" and other advertising and marketing techniques. Another, more argumentative approach is to try to gain narrative dominance -- to displace existing accounts of a conflicted history or a disputed current event with the country's or group's "own sto-ry." Even non-state actors, with ready access to electronic and other chan-nels of communication, can make winning arguments in today's global public arena."(Hendrickson, 2008) Hendrickson goes on to relate that "...real intellectual conviction may depend "the last three feet" -- on direct representation through international exchange, in face-to-face meeting, and through conversation. "Credible public diplomacy," in the last analysis, connects people and joins minds. Traditional diplomacy does this; public diplomacy can do so as well." (2008, p.1)

It is reported in the work entitled: "Citizen Diplomacy" published November 30, 2009 which states that U.S.-Cuba relations are strong although none of the reasons has anything to do with "government officials sitting across the table from each other." (The Cuban Triangle, 2009)) Stated as examples of what is meant in this statement are those as follows:

(1) weather diplomacy with the U.S. visit of Cuba's top meteorologist Jose Rubiera;

(2) softball diplomacy with Massachusetts seniors in Havana;

(3) Chest diplomacy with the University of Texas at Dallas chess team in Havana; and (4) lost of music diplomacy (and lots of music diplomacy: Cuba's Septeto Nacional just played Miami, Omara Portuondo will play Miami next spring, Kool and the Gang has Havana dates booked in December (h/t Penultimos Dias), and Los Van is planning 70 U.S. concerts). (The Cuban Triangle, 2009, p.1)

The work entitled: "Interaction: Bridging the Cultural Divide" (2009) reports that participants of the "...recent Nilai UC-MOHE Future Leaders Camp 2009 discovered that skills are required to negotiate with people across cultures. (The Armenian Weekly, 2009) It is reported that an individual by the name of Dagogo Opunabo Sele takes it in stride when a Malaysian calls him "negro" -- and advises his fellow Africans to do the same." (The Armenian Weekly, 2009) "For many locals, it's probably their first close encounter with a black person. We tend to be painted as one and the same bad guy because of the actions of a few," says the 27-year-old student who has been studying Business Administration at SEGi University College. Coming from a place with a long history of interracial enmity, he realizes the importance of good intercultural relations." (The Armenian Weekly, 2009, p.1)

The report states that Sele along with approximately 150 other students and 30 private universities and colleges in Malaysia attended the recent Nilai UC-MOHE Future Leaders Camp 2009 "...to hone their leadership skills and cross-cultural relations" and that the participants were from 50 countries that included those of "China, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Zimbabwe, Mongolia, Thailand, Korea, India, Sri Lanka and Singapore." (The Armenian Weekly, 2009) It is reported that an aspect of the human psychology is that of "conflict...we tend to see what divides us rather than what unites. This is where education plays a part to help foster understanding and build ties." (The Armenian Weekly, 2009, p.1)

The work entitled: "Yalanci Dolma' Diplomacy" (Astarjian, 2009) states that a recent meeting took place however, it was not historical in nature but instead was designed for the purpose of "closing the divide" so as the event was named or that of building "cultural bridges between the Armenian Diaspora on one side and the Turkish people on the other, to traverse a colossal gorge, not divide, created by centuries of slavery, abuse, colonization of Western Armenia, and pogroms, which peaked with the infamous genocide of 1915-23." (Astarjian, 2009, p.1)

The First World Conference on City Diplomacy 'Template for a City of Peace' is stated to include the following components of good local policy that serves to provide support for human rights and justice and peace.

(1) Social cohesion is promoted: Everyone works for peace in their own community as it is understood that peace begins at home: A City of Peace promotes social cohesion by alleviating tensions in the community in an early stage. It can do this by starting a dialogue and inviting marginalized groups in the decision-making process. It can set up community relations councils in neighborhoods. It can bring antagonistic groups closer to each other by creating areas in public space (e.g. market place, playgrounds) where they are likely to meet, or create economic opportunities which stimulate economic interdependency of these hostile groups. After a violent conflict a City of Peace takes action to achieve reconciliation and refrains from actions which damage reconciliation: it takes into account the feelings of all sides of the conflict when it decides about the construction of remembrance memorials and repair of (religious) monuments with high emotional value. When there are international refugees from a region where tensions flare up, a City of Peace will start a dialogue with these groups to investigate how this affects these groups and whether it is possible to cooperate for peace;

(1b) Create a culture of peace: The United Nations General Assembly proclaimed the period 2001-2010 as the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World. A City of Peace helps to create such a culture of peace in many different ways. It can organize exhibitions and peace weeks, it can promote peace education and it can support local peace groups. It can start a dialogue with migrant groups and refugees in the community who come from conflict areas and with soldiers who have returned from UN Peace keeping missions and veterans. While it is essential to cooperate with civil society in putting a culture of peace in place, local governments must take the lead. A City of Peace participates in the annual International Day of Peace ( 21 September).

(1c) Peace and development: An important element in working for peace is working for development. A City of Peace embraces the fight against poverty as it is formulated in the Millennium Development Goals. However, the correlation between peace and development is not one dimensional. As a society develops some groups profit more than others, power balances shift, and expectations rise. This causes strains in the social fabric. A City of Peace is sensitive for these developments and will act to counter adverse effects. When it comes to planning and executing concrete development projects a City of Peace checks to see that the spoils do not fall into the hands of one of the parties in a conflict or leave one party out, creating bitterness2. A City of Peace also reacts quickly on negative developments (e.g. quickly repair consequences of destructive acts such as hateful graffiti) and gives specific attention to re-integrate ex-combatants in society; (1d) Take into account gender differences:

In 2000 the UN Security council adopted resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security. A City of Peace will recognize and act upon the analysis in this resolution: "the disproportionate and unique impact of armed conflict on women, & #8230; the under-valued and under-utilized contributions women make to conflict prevention, peacekeeping, conflict resolution and peace-building, and & #8230; the importance of their equal and full participation as active agents in peace and security."

(2) Work for peace internationally: Peace goes across borders. Therefore a City of Peace will help to promote peace, human rights and justice in cities across the world.

(2.a). Set up international cooperation projects with other local governments. A stronger local government makes better policies and provides more services to the citizens. It is also more equipped to prevent conflicts and to manage reconstruction after violent conflict. The peace policy of a City of Peace therefore includes capacity building projects to strengthen partner local governments.

2.b. Stimulate the international cooperation of your community: In a City of Peace the international initiatives at local government level go hand-in-hand with community initiatives. Local groups, schools, local chapters of (inter)national organizations, socially responsible businesses, migrants etc. support counterparts which contribute to peace and development. In a City of Peace local government supports these groups by facilitating their work and by lending legitimacy and publicity to their work. Also a City of Peace will make use of the contacts and the expertise of these groups.

(2.c) Lobby and express solidarity: A City of Peace helps to strengthen the position of parties in favor of peace and gives a voice to those who are threatened. In this way publicity can be generated about conflicts which are neglected by the mass-media. This may cause the international community to take an interest and for those affected it can give moral support. The instruments are the fame of the city and the eminence and the contacts of the local government politicians. The actions include speaking out in public, using high-level personal contacts, participating in solidarity missions, joining the initiatives of UCLG's City Diplomacy Commission, joining national and international peace campaigns (e.g. 2020 Vision Campaign) and to become member of international organizations like the International Association of Peace Messenger Cities and Mayors for Peace.

(3) Give peace-building a structural base in your local authority: Peace is a lasting effort. Therefore a City of Peace takes care to turn incidental peace initiatives into a flesh and bone peace policy.

(3.a) Create structures: A City of Peace creates adequate political and administrative structures for its peace policy. Responsibilities at the political level are defined, staff time is allocated and a budget is approved. A broad political consensus is sought so as to create continuity in the peace policy.

(3.b). Communicate actively: A City of Peace backs up its peace policy by a good communications policy. This is not only important to make the public aware of peace issues, but it is also an instrument in itself when it comes to expressing solidarity and lobbying.

(3.c). Work with the community: A City of Peace creates structures for community groups, NGOs, schools, socially responsible private enterprise etc. which engage in peace building, human rights and justice, be it at home or internationally. This may include providing subsidies, support from staff from the town hall, and making available premises for meetings and the like. (First World Conference on City Diplomacy, 2006, p.1)

The work of Sirianni and Friedland (1995) entitled: "Social Capital and Civic Innovation: Learning and Capacity Building from the 1960s to the 1990s states that in recent years "as part of broader effort to renew the foundations of democracy, social theorists have focused increasing attention on civil society, social capital and deliberative democracy. In this essay, we examine some of these issues in the context of participatory democratic innovation as an historical process of social learning and capacity building from the 1960s to the present in the United States" (Sirianni and Friedland, 1995)

Examined are two specific participatory arenas:

(1) civic and grassroots environmentalism, and (2) community organizing and community development. (Sirianni

and Friedland, 1995, p.1)

It is additionally stated that the "...recent emergence of a civic renewal movement (American Civic Forum, 1994; Gardner 1994; Broder 1994 in (Sirianni and Friedland, 1995) as well as the heightened public interest in questions of social capital and community problem solving, of course, needs to be understood in social and historical context. As a beginning, we focus on several long-term trends, though these are clearly part of a broader crisis of institutions and governance in democratic societies of the West." (Sirianni and Friedland, 1995) Long-term trends identified in the work of Sirianni and Friedland (1995) are the following:

(1) The first is that a newer, elite-directing mode of participation has steadily gained strength relative to an older, elite-directed mode. As Ingelhart (1990) argues, this newer mode is the result of the improvement of individual-level preconditions for political participation (rising levels of education, political information etc.), and a simultaneous decline in the hierarchical organizations (political parties, labor unions, religious organizations) that once mobilized mass political participation so effectively. The profound and systemic disintegration of parties in the United States, for instance, has continued steadily for more than a century, interrupted only temporarily by the New Deal, and is manifest in popular partisan realignment and a declining capacity of parties to aggregate interests (Silbey 1990). The long-term trends that account for this -- the rise of a nonpartisan civil service, the shift from generalized distributive policies to new regulative channels, the increase in the numbers and activities of specialized nonpartisan interest groups -- have been exacerbated by the post-1960s explosion of social movement, public interest and consumer groups capable of lobbying and agenda setting independent of previous elite-directed modes (Ingelhart 1990: 339; Berry 1989; Baumgartner and Jones 1993), as well as by participatory reforms in party rules (Shafer 1983; Polsby 1983; Dionne 1991, 46-50), and by other changes in media and campaign technologies (Ganz 1993). Party loyalty has become increasingly conditional on performance, and cognitively mobilized nonpartisans are a growing group within the electorate, and the basis for ongoing processes of political realignment.

(2) Secondly, the steady rise of an elite-directing mode has also been manifest in the enormous extension of citizen participation rights, especially in the 1968-74 period, which underlay the shift from the New Deal regulatory regime to the public lobby regulatory regime. Some of these rights accrued through the extension of principles of pluralist representation and open deliberation within administrative law. Others were secured through legislation pressed by groups mobilized explicitly around the theme of participatory democracy (Harris and Milkis 1989; see also Melnick 1983; Hoberg 1992). In both cases, the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s had a profound impact. Citizens now have an enormous array of formal rights to voice, as well as an equally formidable range of opportunities to obstruct decision-making and implementation.

(3) Thirdly, the complexity of problems -- and/or our appreciation of their complexity -- has steadily increased, and the capacity of top-down regulatory, redistributive, and professional social welfare techniques for solving these has declined. Rights-based strategies that juridify and bureaucratize schooling, for instance, can undermine essential aspects of responsible and effective teaching and learning (Habermas 1988; Johnson 1990), especially in a complex postindustrial environment that requires flexibility and collaboration (Fiske 1991). In an aging society with increasing chronic illness and long-term care issues, and the steady advance of expensive medical technology that can always promise to improve quality of life and life expectancy at the margins, it is not possible to control health costs -- and, in the U.S., probably not possible to achieve universality -- through redistribution and administrative rationalization alone (Callahan 1993; Gaylin 1993; Kari, Boyte, and Jennings 1994). Top-down regulatory tools can have only limited impact on a whole range of environmental problems that stem from nonpoint sources, require prevention and alternative methods of production, and depend on enhanced learning capacities and cultural changes at the individual and family level, as well as in the broad community of regulatory actors (Roy 1992; John 1994). Professional casework techniques of the "therapeutic state" (Polsky 1991; Stone 1993) or "therapeutocracy" (Habermas 1988) demonstrate limited capacity to solve a myriad of interconnected social problems, from teen pregnancy and alcoholism to family and youth violence, and are purchased at considerable cost to personal autonomy, democratic citizenship, and normative integration by self-regulating communities. ((Sirianni and Friedland, 1995, p.1)

Sirianni and Friedland additionally state that problems such as these which are quiet complex have "called forth civic innovation of various sorts. Learning communities based on collaborative learning, interdisciplinary teams, parental involvement, and organizational flexibility have emerged in an increasing number of schools. Deliberative health values forums and collaborative community health projects have developed in various states to address cost, inclusion, technology, and quality of life. Community dispute resolution, ecosystems management, "good neighbor agreements" and complex institutional collaborations have advanced a distinctively civic environmentalism. And empowerment strategies have continued to spread and challenge the therapeutic techniques and discourses of the social work profession. But civic innovation remains constricted by the dominant form of the newer, elite-directing mode of participation itself, namely public interest group representation. The latter does permit much greater precision and detail in the representation of individual and group preferences through issue-oriented lobbying and agenda setting than does the preceding elite-directed mode. (Sirianni and Friedland, 1995, p.1)

Sirianni and Friedland state of Civil engagement that it "fosters sturdy norms of generalized reciprocity and encourage the emergence of social trust. Such networks facilitate coordination and communication, amplify reputations, and thus allow dilemmas of collective action to be resolved. When economic and political negotiation are embedded in dense networks of social interaction, incentives for opportunism are reduced. At the same time, networks of civic engagement embody past success at collaboration, which can serve as a cultural template for future collaboration. Finally, dense networks of interaction probably broaden the participants' sense of self, developing the "I" into the "we," or (in the language of rational choice theorists) enhancing the participants "taste" for collective benefits." (1995, p.1)

The work entitled: "City Diplomacy, Peace Building and Human Rights" published by the United Cities of Local Governments states in terms of promoting peace and reconstruction that "United Cities and Local Governments can and should play an important and specific role in international cooperation for peace, development and human rights. History shows many examples where city diplomacy, or in other words attention or mediation from local governments in other countries, contributed positively to conflict prevention, resolution as well as peace building in post conflict situations. Local governments have an important role to play in bringing communities together and promoting dialogue between citizens in post-conflict situations, as well as mobilizing support for assistance to communities living in conflict areas." (UCLG, 2009, p.1)

The primary objective stated by the Committee on City Diplomacy, Peace Building and Human Rights, chaired by Jozias van Aartsen, Mayor of The Hague, is to create a place where local governments confronted with conflict and war can present their problems and where initiatives can be taken to support local governments in difficulty." (UCLG, 2009, p.1)

The committee reports that it is working toward obtaining recognition from national governments and international governmental institutions of the role of local governments in conflict resolution, in order to increase the willingness of municipalities to become involved in projects and programs aiming at peace building. In order to achieve this objective, the committee provides a platform for local governments to exchange experiences with methods of conflict prevention and resolution." (UCLG, 2009, p.1)

The work of Sizoo and Musch (2008) entitled: "City Diplomacy" defines city diplomacy as the "role of local governments in conflict prevention, peace-building and post-conflict reconstruction." (p.7) City diplomacy is stated to result "in an increasing amount of hits on the worldwide web. It is a container concept -- used in different ways by various actors and defined according to need and practice." (p. 8) Across the years, various views of city diplomacy have been "couched in other terms, such as municipal diplomacy, citizens diplomacy and city-to-city diplomacy. One of the first users of the term city diplomacy, in conjunction with peace-building was the Glocal Forum, a network of cities." (Sizoo and Musch, 2008, p. 9) A study was published by the Global Forum on glocalization in 2003." (Sizoo and Musch, 2008, p.9) Glocalization is stated to be a term that "points to the link between the globalization of technology, information and economics on one hand and local realities on the other." (Sizoo and Musch, 2008, p.9) Recommended by the forum is a bottom-up system for greater equality in governance of globalization and in which the key actors are local government and there is decentralization and city-to-city cooperation. (Sizoo and Musch. 2008, paraphrased) Stated as a priority is that of city diplomacy with peace-building being one of the things that city diplomacy is actually concerned with.

It is reported that the Committee on City Diplomacy, Peace-building and Human Rights of United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), established in 2005, defined the concept as 'the tool of local governments and their associations in promoting social cohesion, conflict prevention, conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction with the aim to create a stable environment in which the citizens can live together in peace, democracy and prosperity'." (Sizoo and Musch, 2008, p.10)

City diplomacy was defined in 2007 by the Netherlands Institute of International Relations 'Clingendael' as "...the institutions and processes by which cities engage in relations with actors on an international political stage with the aim of representing themselves and their interest to one another'." (Sizoo and Musch, 2008, p. 11) It is stated that there are six things that city diplomacy concerns:

(1) security;

(2) development;

(3) economy;

(4) culture;

(5) networks; and (6) representation. (Sizoo and Musch, 2008, p. 12)

Local governments are stated to be relative newcomers to diplomacy however international relations are stated to be "clearly no longer the exclusive preserve of national governments." (Sizoo and Musch, 2008, p.12) In fact, the world today is one in which "international, national and domestic arenas blur together." (Sizoo and Musch, 2008, p.12)

Michelle Acuto (2009) in the work entitled: "City Diplomacy: Global Governance Beyond the State" writes that urbanization "...just like globalization is a fundamental process that affects the present landscape of world affairs: although it does not represent a novel force in history, it defines the human experience in the 21st century as never before." (p.1) Acuto relates that in the beginning of the 20th century "only one in ten used to live in cities, with London and Beijing representing the only two metropolises with more than one million inhabitants, nowadays half of the human population is settled within metropolitan areas. This momentous exodus, boosted by a ten-fold multiplication of the urban population during the last ninety years, has resulted in a radical redesigning of most of the world's geography." (2009, p.1)

Acuto holds that contemporary political relations are influenced not only by these processes as in the past but that these processes "are defined and organized by the emergence of an "urban society" and the possibility of global reach offered by artificial compression of time and space." (2009, p.1) While there are no analysis of politics, socialization, economics or culture that is free from the above stated effects however, "...the vast majority of contemporary political analysts are reticent about the presence of 'urban' narratives in their publications. At best, the city is considered a target of top-down policies, or an implementer of governmental frameworks. Biased by a still too state-centric approach to global issues policymakers often forget the possibilities and the potential for effective governance that local governments have in the urban age." (Acuto, 2009, p.1)

Globalization is stated by Acuto to have "...reduced the state's policy capacity, leaving space for the city's strategic governance role. Cities, incapable of military action, are thus diplomatic actors that rely heavily on the power of association nested in coalition-making and cross-national networking, which they themselves inspire through catalytic diplomacy." (2009, p.1)

Acuto holds the 'Climate Leadership Group' or the C40 to be illustrative of this fact and states that the C40 was "...launched in October 2005 through an initiative of the then-Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, the summit gathered 18 'large cities' led by the British capital with the intent of tackling climate change from below. Yet, despite the almost systematic usage of the "from below" argument when dealing with the urban sphere, the case of global cities environmental governance certainly demonstrates that cities are far from being 'below' any other institutional layer. On the contrary, as the C40 example shows, local (urban) actors might be the agenda-setters as much as, if not more than, states and international organizations." (2009, p.1)

London is stated to have acted as a catalyst as the group "...sought to exercise leadership in reducing emissions and to stimulate both private and governmental action in this context. Likewise, building on the momentum developed at the summit and furthered in a four-mayor meeting a year later (known as M4), the coalition has successfully attempted to start a long-term international collaboration on environmental governance, which expanded to a much wider membership now known as the Climate Leadership Group." (Acuto, 2009, p.1)

This framework is stated to be illustrative of city's ability to "...cut across the multiple layers of global governance by developing transnational linkages between local governments. Cities in this case have been able to constitute "groups of friends" such as in the case of the M4 cities (London, Berlin, Moscow, and Beijing), in all similar to those within the UN, as well as to interact with international bodies while bypassing their national hierarchy by reporting for instance to the UN Framework on Climate Change's COP11 and MOP1 rounds in Montreal in December 2005." (2009, p.1)

Acuto states that the C40's agency "has gone a long way from this initial rhetoric, demonstrating the ability of global cities such as London to catalyze international action. The Climate Leadership Group has, for instance, gathered the support of the Clinton Foundation's by signing a partnership between the C40 and the Foundation's Climate Initiative in August 2006. The C40 has also undertaken a series of issue-centered programs including both a Ports Climate Conference and a Sustainable Airports initiative, as well as a three-year capacity building program for mega-cities of the global South kick-started in February 2009 together with the World Bank." (2009, p.1)

This illustrates clearly the fact that today's global cities "...are not solely the targets of governance initiatives, but catalysts of political will and 'norm entrepreneurs' of environmental regulation capable of connecting the local (domestic) sphere to the international. Through their ability to develop, as well coordinate, worldwide linkages global cities have a considerable normative power and are capable of promoting it through advocacy networks and coalitions such as the C40." (Acuto, 2009, p.1)

Acuto additionally states that the "...urban sphere is capable of taking up political solutions that are, at least at an institutional level, much similar to that of the governmental sphere. Yet, the city shows greater institutional flexibility and adaptability to issue-specific coalitions, possibly resulting from the highly functional basis of the urban as a mode of human aggregation, and the lower degree of formal institutionalization of political processes within city limits." (2009, p.1) Cities are in fact, "...already acting in a political and diplomatic sense as much as states do, moving beyond the pecking order of international relations. If, as much as the debate on 'new' forms of diplomacy tells us, the political actors most likely to become proficient in the management of globalization are those that show entrepreneurial, cosmopolitan and flexible qualities, cities might be a case in point in this venture." (2009, p.1)

Cities are stated to be linked quite strongly with "the facilitating functions and the influence of transnational networks between major urban settlements worldwide, the urban ability to formulate political will and gather resources has thus far been overlooked. As shown by the proliferation of organizations such as the Cities Alliance, the C40, or the United Cities and Local Governments (UCGL) Initiative, cities are also particularly prone to co-operation and pluralistic approaches. They are capable of facilitating exchanges of information and expertise across transnational networks, and of carrying out diplomacy vis-a-vis numerous political actors" (Acuto, 2009, p.1)

Acuto states that city diplomacy may be conceptualized as "...a process by which cities engage in political relations not just with their peers (other cities) but also other political institutions such as states or international organizations. Even if we were to reduce the political nature of cities to their municipal governments, the relations between these latter and other spheres of governance will most likely represent negotiated forms of social interaction that can be subsumed under such a definition.

Moreover, if we admit that globalization and urbanizations are twin vital challenges for the contemporary urban age, global cities stand in the midst of such processes as key political spaces in which a solution has to be found. Global cities can -- and do -- reclaim such spaces with an active presence in the realms of global governance and international affairs." (2009, p.1)

Acuto concludes by stating that the city "can no longer be considered as the sole domain of technical sciences such as architecture, rather, it has to be appreciated for its rightful place in the structure of world politics. In response to this appeal, architectural pundit Rem Koolhaas has pointed out that we can now count on "the first generation of architects that has had a direct experience of working in so many different urban systems at any one time." It is time for the 'architects' of international relations to forge a similar generation through a clear understanding of the urban as a source of political agency, and a dynamic participant in global affairs." (2009, p.1)

The work entitled: "City Diplomacy Part II: Recommendations on the Seven Priority Sectors of Glocalization" published by the EU effort on Harmonization & Alignment states that city diplomacy and city-to-city cooperation "may be considered as a form of decentralization of international relations management, choosing local authorities as the key actors" and that this type of approach arises from four elements which include those of: