Public Diplomacy in a “nutshell”

As illustrated in the previous blog, public diplomacy is perceived in a variety of ways. Despite this however, the following blog is an attempt to summarize the main features of public diplomacy in order to have at least an outline of what public diplomacy is about.

One of the many definitions of public diplomacy is that it 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”(Melissen, 2005: p11-12).

Shaun Riordan argues that the main premise of public diplomacy is that “by engaging in a country’s political and social debates, you can create the intellectual and political climate in which your specific policies can flourish”. (2003, p122) Accordingly, the main goal of public diplomacy is “to have political elites to think in the same lines”(Riordan, 2003, p123), whereby it is “designed to sway the decisions of foreign governments by influencing their polities.”(Copeland, 2009, p163). Pursued objectives could be as varied as “political dialogue, trade and foreign investment, the establishment of links with civil society groups beyond the opinion gatekeepers, but also “hard power” goals such as alliance management, conflict prevention and military intervention.” (Melissen, 2005, p14).

The content of public diplomacy consists of “outwardly directed activities by national representatives aimed at identifying shared objectives and potential areas of collaboration with publics abroad” (Copeland, 2009, p163) through branding, advocacy, lobbying, partnership building, with the help of the tools as varied as “conferences, seminars, newspaper interviews, and articles, and allowing political officers to actively seek to influence their networks of contacts.” (Riordan, 2004, p122)

Thereby, actors involved are that of general population, special interest groups, the media, civil society, business and opinion leaders (Copeland, 2009, p163) which suggests that the broader public diplomacy agenda should involve the whole range of agencies and individuals: governments to educators, schools, NGO’s, business, informal groupings of citizens, to individual citizens. (Riordan, 2003, p123). As a result, this “reflects the move from the old style of state to state foreign policy toward the new style of multimedia, multiparty international policy by engaging both government and non-government actors to connect with other levels of society.” (Copeland, 2009, p162).

Meanwhile, the role of embassies should be apart from cultivating and influencing politicians and journalists, to organize conferences and seminars albeit through encouraging and promoting “academic, private-sector and other non-governmental bodies to organize these events for them” due to suspicious perceptions of governments. (Riordan, 2003, p127) Likewise, the role of government is to promote and coordinate public diplomacy with other actors, such as political parties, NGO’s, foundations, trade unions, schools, the private sector, academia and individuals, but not simply on “narrow foreign-ministry level, but at a higher, more encompassing level”, described as “catalytic diplomacy”. (ibid).

Finally, public diplomacy differentiates itself from other concepts through claiming that it is a two-way communication based on transparency, cooperation, respect and agreement on shared goals and most importantly, it “receives as much as it transmits” (Copeland, 2009, p170).

Melissen, Jan. (ed.), (2005) New Public Diplomacy: The: Soft Power in International Relations. Studies in Diplomacy and Internaitonal Relations Palgrave Macmillan,

Copeland Daryl (2009) Guerrilla Diplomacy Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc, London.

Riordan Shaun (2003) The New Diplomacy Polity Press, Cornwall