2005; accepted 30 January 2006 Summary Public diplomacy represents an opportunity for smallandmedium-sizedstates to gain infl uence and shape international agenda in ways that go beyond their limited hard power resources (related to size, military and economic strength). Th e literature on public
Charter and, in particular, the attempt to get the smaller states to accept the right of veto of the permanent members. Had the P5 simply forced the veto into the Charter, chances are that the smallerandmedium-sizedstates would never have signed up to the Charter: hence, to create the organiza- tion
and their interests are in any case well safeguarded. The Chairmanship has in practice become a mechanism for raising the profile and advancing the interests of smallandmedium-sizedStates. Such States apply for the job for a variety of reasons - to improve their political image, to prove that they
andmedium-sizedStates have been influential in the development of the organisation, putting certain topics on the agenda, providing necessary resources, and promoting compromise between the big powers.
This goes back to the Helsinki Final Act, where neutral states played an important role in
groups, it would be vastly harder, as 71) See http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/ediscussion08a/resources-en.aspx. 72) See Jozef Bátora, ‘Public Diplomacy in SmallandMedium-sizedStates: Norway and Canada’, Cling- endael Discussion Papers, 2005. See also Jozef Bátora, ‘Multistakeholder Public
legislation established mandatory and consistent foreign policies and pro- tected governments from the heavy external pressures usually exerted at that time on smallandmedium-sizedstates. One example worth recalling is that of the pressures, combined with promises, exercised to get participants at the 1960
longer be any question of the subordination of specifically national interests to the inter- national interests of the Soviet Union. This touched on a major plank of his thesis, that smallandmedium-sizedstates could play a positive role in bridging differences between the super- powers during periods
mediumsizedstates can, in partnership with global civil society, overcome great power opposition”, and “traditional diplomatic for a and mechanisms can and should be subverted where they represent an obstacle to the achievement of policy goals that are widely demanded by world opinion”, p. 13; see also
cases, seldom using military means and economic pressure ( Manners, 2002 ).
Another approach by Alison Brysk classifies some smallandmedium-sizedstates as ‘global good Samaritans’, that is states that promote human rights worldwide. The defining principle of a Good Samaritan is that they identify
, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Public Aﬀairs, 2004), p. 5. 14) Nye, Soft Power , p. 7. 15) Nye, Soft Power , p. 6. 16) Examples include Jozef Bátora, ‘Public Diplomacy in SmallandMedium-SizedStates: Norway and Canada’, Discussion Papers in Diplomacy , no. 97 (The Hague