Sport and relational public diplomacy: the case of New Zealand and Rugby World Cup 2011

Abstract

Although some have questioned the mixing of sport and politics, sport has always been a part of political life and as such an important factor in diplomacy. Whether or not the resulting outcome is positive or negative often depends on the approach taken. In 2011, New Zealand hosted the Rugby World Cup tournament. The government and Rugby Union along with regional and local governments, and civil society and business networks across the country developed and executed the 45-day REAL New Zealand Festival. By adopting a relational public diplomacy approach, characterized by the development and maintenance of relationships, collaboration across networks and exchange of resources both material and ideational, New Zealand executed what has been broadly acknowledged as a successful sports-diplomacy initiative. The resulting social capital was not due to the product – The REAL New Zealand Festival – itself, but instead of the interactive process that the initiative facilitated between various networks of domestic and foreign publics. Time is still required to assess long-term effects, but initial signs are encouraging that New Zealand succeeded in elevating Auckland's stature as an international metropolis, showcasing New Zealand as a productive, innovative business and investment environment, and bolstering its national brand as a beautiful, rare and 100% pure destination.

Acknowledgements

I offer my gratitude to both Martin Snedden and New Zealand Labour Party MP Trevor Mallard for taking the time to meet and recount the process of bidding, planning and executing the Rugby World Cup 2011 and associated events. I must also thank the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) staff for their correspondence and information as I began this project. Furthermore, I am indebted to the anonymous reviewers for their knowledgeable feedback and critique of the initial drafts of this paper. Finally, I would like to extend my appreciation to both Geoff Pigman and Simon Rofe for their efforts in bringing this edition to fruition and for their support and guidance in the process. Me te mihi nui!

Notes

^1. In 1994, the ‘Olympic Truce’ was revived, when on 24 January the UN, IOC, and a myriad of NGOs relaunched the truce to cover the Lillehammer Winter Games. This is a significant development concerning the influence of the Olympic movement as a diplomatic actor and represents the changed nature of diplomacy regarding both non-state actors and sport in practice (Beacom 2000, 14–16; IOC website ‘Olympic Truce’).

^2. See, for example, Watson (1991, 120–131) and Melissen (2005) regarding discussions on emerging changes in diplomatic practice.

^3. See, for example, Cowan and Arsenault (2008), Zaharna (2010), Melissen (2011), Pigman (2010), Cull (2013), Fitzpatrick (2007), Fischer (2010), Riordan (2003), Melissen (2011); Szondi (2008), Hallams (2010), Pigman and Deos (2008) and Zaharna, Fisher, and Arsenault (2013a).

^4. ‘Ping-Pong Diplomacy’ refers to the visit of the US table tennis team to Beijing, China in April 1971. The US table tennis team members were the first Americans to enter China after the revolution in 1949. During their visit, Nixon announced the relaxation of the US embargo on China and then in February 1972 he travelled to China himself, which permanently changed the strategic environment in Asia. Many report that the visit of the US ping pong team laid the foundation for this diplomatic breakthrough (Cha 2009, 1594).

^5. This instance of ‘hockey-diplomacy’ refers to a period during October 2012 in which youth hockey players from the USA and Russia came together for a training period. This programme was initiated through the US–Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission (BPC) established in October 2009. The initiative allowed young hockey players from the two countries the chance to meet, train and play together (Ronek 2013).

^6. In 1997, the Australian Rugby Union (ARU) and NZRU bid and won rights to host the 2003 RWC jointly. However, in 2001, the NZRU lost their co-hosting rights due to issues around the IRB ‘clean stadia’ rules. The ‘clean stadia’ requirement demands that sporting facilities are devoid of advertising and reserved seating arrangements, except for those exclusively approved by the Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) for the RWC tournament (Snedden 2012, 44; ‘IRB “Forced to Ditch” New Zealand’; ‘WORLD CUP’ 2002; ‘IRB Postpone RWC Announcement’ 2013).

^7. The term ‘societization’, per Melissen (2006), refers to the tightening link between society and diplomacy exemplified by the rise of a collaborative model of diplomacy that includes working with outsiders and operating in diverse networks.

^8. Manaakitanga is a Māori word loosely translated as hospitality. Tourism New Zealand used the term during the RWC and REAL New Zealand festival to refer to a uniquely kiwi-style hospitality ‘summing up the act of giving and how people are made to feel welcome in the country.’