Essay Question is:

How and why do non-state actors become involved in public and cultural?
Diplomacy?

I need a coherent well-researched and well-referenced essay to my above question. I should contain 2500 words. An essay written in very clear standard, plain British English and first or second class. The 2500 words should be excluding the references. There should not be traces of plagiarism as there is very strict rule of it. Reference type is Harvard style and must contain same of these books:

1. Cowan, G. and Cull, N. J. (eds) (2008) Public Diplomacy in a Changing World, Sage: London
2. Snow, N. and Taylor, P. (eds) (2009) The Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, London: Routledge
3. Welsh, J, and Fearn, D. (eds) (2008) Engagement: Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World, London: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
4. Louw, P. E. (2010) The Media and Political Process, 2nd edition, London: Sage
5. Freedman, D. and Thussu, D. K. (eds) (2012) Media and Terrorism: Global Perspectives, London: Sage
6. Cooper, A. F. (2008) Celebrity Diplomacy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm
7. Wheeler, M. (2013) Celebrity Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Please, written below are very important points you need to keep in mind when writing this essay. These points will give you an idea about what to include and focus and what not to:

Non-State Actors in Public Diplomacy
• The ‘threads of public diplomacy’ (Hocking):
• ‘Open diplomacy’ with public oversight
• Globalisation and a networked world
• ICT and NGO activism
• The global media and the ‘post-CNN effect’
• Concern with credibility (cf. soft power)
• Concern with national image/brand
• The public: from targets to generators of diplomatic activity (the ‘privatization’ of PD?)
• Social (not non-state) actors (Shirky): cars are ‘horseless carriages’

States and non-state actors
• Three possible relationships:
• Conflict/competition: networked non-state actors as creators of soft power (Zaharna)
• Cooperation: sharing resources for access
• Cooption: both non-state actors and states vulnerable to ‘capture’, undermining credibility

When is it PD and not mere transnational relations?
• When there is an element of state involvement (Arndt, Cull, etc.)
• When NSAs contribute to the soft power of a state (Bátora)
• When NSAs work in state interests or identify with states (Gienow-Hecht and Donfried)
• When NSAs seek international outcomes (La Porte)
• When NSAs work for global governance (Gregory)

Three PD scenarios for NSAs
• Public diplomacy through NSAs
• The public diplomacy of NSAs
• Citizen diplomacy: the diplomacy of publics and track II and III diplomacy

Advantages of engaging NSAs
• Credibility and legitimacy: individuals and NGOs more trusted than MNCs and states
• Efficiency, flexibility and cost considerations
• Expertise
• But will relationships be with state or the NSA? Questions of control, accountability and conflicting missions (Fitzpatrick). And most NSAs have own agendas and mission (Gienow-Hecht and Donfried) – neutral and legitimate?

The PD of non-state actors
• ‘Non-state actors … engage in public diplomacy while pursuing governance activities that were once the domain of states’ (Gregory, 2008: 241)
• Medicin Sans Frontier: challenge to Red Cross
• National Endowment for Democracy
• UN Dept for Public Information, network of 63 UN Information Centres and Goodwill Ambassadors

‘Public diplomacy’ EU style
• A soft superpower / normative power without image management
• Unity only in the Ryder Cup
• Multi-level public diplomacy: tensions?
• EU Visitors Programme and Erasmus Mundus
• Activities of EU delegations abroad
• EUNIC (EU National Institutes for Culture)