The main goal of this blog is to illustrate the many associations or assimilations that are attached to public diplomacy and try to identify whether these are only theoretically different, but in practice, are all the same.
Public diplomacy itself is defined in a variety of ways, but generally, the definition is that of: “Avenue for activities intended to change people’s perceptions in a way that helps sending states achieve their objectives. (Copeland, 2009b, p162)
The very first and the major term that public diplomacy is associated with is propaganda, which is defined as “the deliberate attempt to influence the opinions of an audience through the transmission of ideas and values for the specific purpose, consciously designed to serve the interest of the propagandists and their political masters, either directly or indirectly”.(Melissen. 2005: 17) Due to negative connotations that come with propaganda, it was sought to be relabeled to public diplomacy, which is why Berridge for example, argues that public diplomacy is nothing but a “cosmetic surgery” for propaganda. (Berridge, 2010:181)
Similar origins from propaganda takes, Public Relations, defined as “the management function that identifies, establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the various publics on whom its success or failure depends.” (Watson 2005, P5.) , which is another term closely associated with public diplomacy, due to “Public diplomacy’s emphasis on relationship management and other matters of public relations it is itself best understood as public relations as practiced internationally by governments” whereby Public Diplomats use the tools and tactics of public relations. (Copeland, 2009b,168)
However, Transformational Public Diplomacy attempts to further itself from the above mentioned associations and terminologies, such as public relations, by arguing that public diplomacy is different in a sense that public relations is a one-way information supply that “seeks more to inform than to persuade”, and it is closer to dialogue rather than that of propaganda, which is also only a one-way supply of information often associated with lies and misrepresentation, nor is it similar to information warfare, that seeks to dominate the information exchange during conflicts. Thereby, transformational public diplomacy tries to differentiate itself by arguing that it is taken to the “grass-roots” approach by “taking diplomacy to the people”. (Copeland, 2009a, p-102).
Moreover, there is now The New Public Diplomacy, which is whereas, “Public diplomacy was traditionally directed at foreign audiences, at capturing the minds of those abroad and consequently increasing the soft power of the state abroad”, “the new public diplomacy encompasses a more important role for domestic public affairs” whereby, the state concentrates to work at its image back home in order to be attractive abroad, which as a result creates a circular process, because this in turn enables the state to increase its attractiveness back home. Thereby, “public diplomacy is conditioned by the attractiveness of the state back home and not only by its attractiveness abroad”. (Gonesh, 2005: P7)
Aforementioned terms however, are all summed up under the umbrella of Information Strategy, which Arquilla states as “a process a goal of which is to influence mass publics by weakening the enemy’s will, shoring up one’s own, persuading bystanders of the righteousness of ones cause” (Arquilla, 2007, p6), which is why propaganda is argued to be as a new kind, but recently renamed “in a quest for a less pejorative term” into “perception management”, “public diplomacy” and “strategic communications” . (Arquilla, 2007, p5)
However, due to now numerous arguments towards the necessity for public diplomacy to be committed more to dialogue, two-way communication and thereby, the first function of public diplomacy to be listening… “systematically collecting and analyzing the opinion of foreign publics” (Cull, 2010:p 12) and moreover, as Ed Murrow, Kennedy’s head of the US Information Agency (USIA) demanded for the presentational aspects of public diplomacy to be taken account during the policy development stage” and only thereafter, that “policy formulation should take account of how the policy could be sold later” whereby it should be at the “take-off” rather than at the “crash-landing” (Riordan, 2004:8).
Consequently, the perception of public diplomacy comes into a close association with
Strategic Communication, defined as:
a sustained and coherent set of activities that include: understanding identities, attitudes, behaviors, and cultures; media trends and information flows; social and influence networks; political, social, economic, and religious motivations advising policymakers, diplomats, and military commanders on the public opinion and communication implications of their strategic and policy choices—and on the best ways to communicate their strategies and policies engaging in a dialogue of ideas between people and institutions that support national interests and, wherever possible, common interests and shared values influencing attitudes and behavior through communication strategies supported by a broad range of government and civil society activities measuring the impact of activities comprehensively and over time. Successful strategic communication requires an interactive relationship between senders and receivers. (Defense Science Board, 2008)
These and more terminologies and definitions could also be found on the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUWJm3KOTU4
If there are more, please feel free to add or simply comment on the above-mentioned assimilations of public diplomacy.
Berridge, G. R. (2010) Diplomacy: Theory and Practice Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Copeland D. (2009a) “Transformational public diplomacy: Rethinking advocacy for the globalization age” Vol: 5, 2: 97-102.
Copeland Daryl (2009b) Guerrilla Diplomacy Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc, London.
Cull Nicholas J. (2010) “Public Diplomacy: Seven lessons for its future from its past” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol: 6, 1: 11-17.
Defense Science Board (US), (2008) Report of the Taskforce on Strategic Communication, available at www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476331.pdf
Gonesh A. and Melissen J., (2005) “Public Diplomacy: Improving Practice” Clingendael, December.
Melissen, Jan. (ed.), (2005) New Public Diplomacy: The: Soft Power in International Relations. Studies in Diplomacy and Internaitonal Relations Palgrave Macmillan,
Riordan Shaun (2004) “Dialogue-based Public Diplomacy: A New Foreign Policy Paradigm” Netherlands Institute of International Relatins “Clingendael” November No:95.
Watson, Tom and Noble Paul, (2005) Evaluating Public Relations, Kogan Page Limited , London
No comments:
Post a Comment