Public Diplomacy vs Propaganda

Propaganda may well be the most ancient and widely applied strategic tool in political history, serving to consolidate or influence through the manipulation of information and perception. Public diplomacy and propaganda are two linked concepts in the global political arena. However many supporters of public diplomacy argue that propaganda it’s a tool of foreign policy that can win the struggle for hearts and mind. On the other side many critics argue that propaganda it’s a term used instead of manipulation.

Gullion’s treatment of public diplomacy makes it clear that while public diplomacy does contain elements of propaganda, it is not identical to it. Interestingly, some compare propaganda to pornography: you can tell it when you see it, but you can’t define it. In contrast, public diplomacy, as a rule, does not evoke such a reaction, but it too doesn’t have a universally accepted definition. In order to examine the differences between public diplomacy and propaganda we first need to examine what they do. Public diplomacy and propaganda are seen as two circles which do intersect but neither circle is within the other. One circle is public diplomacy at its best; the other is propaganda at its worst.

Brown describes the major tensions in the field of public diplomacy. First, there is the debate over the information role being neutral or propaganda. Brown states that the view expressed in the media is that public diplomacy is a euphemism for the black art of national propaganda promotion. For instance the VOA and other propaganda were important outlets in winning the Cold War as Soviet Union and Eastern Europeans were targeted with a simple message: “Your government is lying to you. (Brown, 4).

In action, the better public diplomacy is, and the worst propaganda is, the intersection of the two circles diminishes proportionally. It is seen that the multitude of tools used by public diplomacy and propaganda are identical such as mass media. Although it is better to focus on what public diplomacy at its best, and propaganda at its worst, do. However, it should be clear that the intent of the practititioners of public diplomacy and propaganda may be the same. Moreover, the beneficiaries of these two activities are those carrying them out. Neither public diplomacy nor propaganda is altruistic. Both public diplomacy and propaganda are used as state instruments; they serve a country’s interests. But at their best and their worst, they do so in different ways. At best , public diplomacy provides a truthful, factual exposition of a nation’s foreign policy, encourages international understanding, listens and engage in dialogue and displays national achievements overseas. On the other hand at its worst, propaganda forces its messages on an audience by prepetition and slogans, misrepresents the truth, and simplifies complex issues.

However, both public diplomacy and propaganda, at their best or their worst, can achieve credibility with their audience. But, the best public diplomacy achieves credibility through careful presentation of fact and thoughtful argumentation, while the worst propaganda achieves credibility by falsification. Public diplomacy at its best is believed in the long run, while propaganda at its worst is believed only for a short period of time. The best public diplomacy convinces audience that its content and purpose it is honest, while the worst propaganda makes audience to believe that its content does not present its true purpose and therefore it is dishonest.

References:

Waller, M, J. (2007), “The Public Diplomacy Reader”, USA, The Institute of World Politics Press.

Piggman, A, G. (2010), “Contemporary Diplomacy”, Cambridge, Polity Press.

Public Diplomacy Association Website: http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/1.htm

Melissen, J. ( May 2005), “Wielding Soft Power: The New Public Diplomacy” The Hague, Netherland Institute of International Relations,