Is Public Diplomacy beneficial for all the participants?

In order to answer to this question we first need to establish what the Public Diplomacy consist of. PD ‘deals with the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies. It encompasses dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy; the cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries; the interaction of private groups and interests in one country with those of another; the reporting of foreign affairs and its impact on policy; communication between those whose job is communication, as between diplomats and foreign correspondents; and the processes of inter-cultural communications’. [1]

This was the definition by The Murrow Centre in one of its earlier brochure when defining “Public Diplomacy”.[2] Traditionally, public diplomacy means one state communicating with the citizenry of another state in order to influence the government’s goal policies. However, during the 20th century ideological wars with fascism and communism, this was called propaganda, a synonymous term with deceit. [3]

Successful public diplomacy is eventually based on listening, getting to know the collaborative partner’s goals and policies and being able to come up to mutual conditions and accomplishments. Openness, dialogue and reciprocity are the key factors in all the successful lasting relations As a result, public diplomacy works in different stages, from more focused strategic communication, which aims to put the country on the map, to more dialogue-based meetings for subsequently creating strong, long-term relations and collaborations.[4]

Today, the key examples are: Goethe Institutes educating about German culture; Alliance Françoise teaching and promoting French language; the Japanese Exchange and teaching Programme introducing Japan; or the U.S hosting foreign elites through the International Visitors Program. A long-term goal of all these programs is more favorable attitudes and more compassionate policies. [5]

Unlike traditional diplomacy that mainly dealt with state-state business the modern diplomacy is enforced to encompass the newly emerged actors on the political stage. With the global development of civil society, with the spread of democracies, and with the latest communications technologies, public diplomacy has become more complicated, adding new actors, targets, and methods to the diplomats' policies. [6]

It is clear that individuals benefit from opportunities to travel, communicate, learn and enjoy. Frequently, the intention is the education but the crucial state goal is to influence another state’s policies by influencing public attitudes. [7] However, national interests differ. American, Russian, German, and Chinese goals or values are not the same. Public diplomacy seeks not just to inform but to create allies inside other states. This can be viewed as the natural competition of ideas, as the enrichment of individuals. It can also be seen as subversive.[8]

Biblography:

• Cowan, G, & Cull, J, N, “Public Diplomacy in a changing World” USA, Sage, 2008.

· Snow, N, & Taylor, M, P, “Routledge handbook of Public Diplomacy”, (ed), New York, Routledge, 2009.

· Speech by Dr. Stefanie Babst, “ Public Diplomacy- The art of engaging and influencing”, NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy Strategy at the NATO PfP Symposium on 22 January 2009.

· Signitzer, H, B, & Coombs, T, “ Public Relations and Public Diplomacy: Conceptual Convergences”, JAI Press Inc, Public Relations Review, Vol (18) No (2), p. 137-147.

· Pigman, A, G, “Contemporary Diplomacy”, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2010.

· Pachios, C, H, “ Communicating Public Diplomacy Objectives”, U.S Department of State, Fabruary 2004- Available online on - http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/state/29213.htm -Retrieved on 10/04/2011.

· Jr, W, C, & Rosen, B, “ Public Diplomacy : How to think about and improve it”, USA, RAND Corporation, 2004, p, 25p.

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

.

---

[1] Snow, N, & Taylor, M, P, “Routledge handbook of Public Diplomacy”, (ed), New York, Routledge, 2009, p.73.

[2] Waller, M, J, “The Public Diplomacy Reader”, USA, The Institute of World Politics Press, 2007, p. 404.

[3] Pigman, A, G, “Contemporary Diplomacy”, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2010, p. 123.

[4] Speech by Dr. Stefanie Babst, “ Public Diplomacy- The art of engaging and influencing”, NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy Strategy at the NATO PfP Symposium on 22 January 2009.

[5] Cowan, G, & Cull, J, N, “Public Diplomacy in a changing World” USA, Sage, 2008, p. 120.

[6] Signitzer, H, B, & Coombs, T, “ Public Relations and Public Diplomacy: Conceptual Convergences”, JAI Press Inc, Public Relations Review, Vol (18) No (2), p. 137-147.

[7] Jr, W, C, & Rosen, B, “ Public Diplomacy : How to think about and improve it”, USA, RAND Corporation, 2004, p, 25p.

[8] Pachios, C, H, “ Communicating Public Diplomacy Objectives”, U.S Department of State, Fabruary 2004- Available online on - http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/state/29213.htm -Retrieved on 10/04/2011.

Critical review of "White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue"

This critical review shall endeavour to explain the report by the Council of Europe entitled “White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue Living Together As Equals in Dignity” with date 7 May 2008. It demonstrates the importance of establishing intercultural dialogue among the European member states and internationally, taking into aspect the globalisation and the facilitated communication facilitated by the latter. The White Paper seeks to advance the features of democracy, human rights and the rule of law through dialogue, the main instrument serving as a base should be the European Convention on Human Rights. The Paper describes the diversity of cultures, ethnicities and past hostile or peaceful history which however could not be viewed as a reason to reinforce state borders. On the contrary dialogue could be reached though willingness on both sides, willingness to eliminate discrimination, disrespect and disagreement.

The main points raised in the report are, in a first place outlining the positive features of intercultural dialogue, namely promotion of democracy, human rights and rule of law. According to the Council of Europe, all public spheres should participate in this dialogue- work place, education, media, politics, civil societies, art spheres. In a second place it defines the risks of non-dialogue. Despite the era of globalisation, interconnectedness and openness among nations, the non-dialogue could lead to segregation, scepticism of these nations about their openness. It would undermine the concept of globalisation at large. The White Paper describes five policy strategies where the intercultural dialogue should be promoted: democratic governance, participation of citizens’ life, learning intercultural capabilities, places where intercultural dialogue will be promoted, and the encouragement of the latter on the international scene. Finally, it presents suggestions for future action. In a first place intercultural dialogue need to be developed in neutral governmental and legal institutions- regional and national; public authorities should have respect for culturally divergent populations and should guarantee it through public services; public authorities should take positive actions to minimise the misrepresentation and estrangement of disadvantaged groups. The Council of Europe proposed to initiate from 2008 “intercultural cities” with the purpose of cultural exchanges, encourage good practice on governance and media.

The Council of Europe addresses to diverse range of groups and public bodies- from governmental to civil societies, youth organisations, educators etc. This technique would deeply embed, not only in national, but on regional level as well. The White Paper explains that “the old approaches to the management of cultural diversity” are inadequate for our modern times. However, it does not mention which are these old approaches in order to, for instance, try to modernise them for the current expectations concerning intercultural dialogue. The culture does not change its entire meaning, in its definition is incorporated a certain degree of tradition, and it is that tradition being part of the culture that should be respected. In changing the approaches to the management of cultural diversity part of the tradition inherent for a given population would be undermined.

The report seems to endeavour replacing if not moving away from “multiculturalism” for the benefit of intercultural dialogue. The scope of multiculturalism appears to be broader and eventually lose its meaning, whereas intercultural dialogue is specifically directed towards interchange, discussion, respect of different cultures. The latter term might be preferred for its narrow and specific goal which has to be interconnected with the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The report is presented as a recommendation how to promote intercultural dialogue and is not seeking to lay down terms. It is a step towards the development, but not a “detailed road map”. The next step is left to governmental bodies, on regional and national level, media, education, civil societies etc. to pursue the dialogue.

Public Diplomacy

According to Edward Murrow the former director of the USIA ‘public diplomacy differs from traditional diplomacy in that it involves interaction not only with governments but primarily with non-governmental individuals and organisations.’ (Speaking as director of USIA in 1963) (fpc.org.uk) In an article by the foreign policy centre ‘public diplomacy’ it explains that public diplomacy became more important after the cold war with ‘the spread of democracy, the media explosion and the rise of NGO’s’ according to the article these have changed the ‘nature of power’ and as a result governments have needed to ‘invest’ just as much in ‘communication with foreign publics’ as they do with the ‘governments that represent them’ in order for state or governmental objectives to be achieved. (fpc.org.uk) This is to say that in order for the goals of the state to be achieved outside its own borders, these goals being that of promoting states ideals, then it is important that these goals be communicated to the people of that state and not just the officials of the state or states in question. The article goes on to explain how the attitudes of foreign peoples abroad can determine or shape foreign policy objectives of a given state. Media broadcastings of human catastrophes around the world, the humanitarian crisis in Somalia and Kosovo for example resulted in widespread public outcry and so obliging their governments to take steps of intervention. Global anti-capitalist demonstrations have also managed to determine the foreign policy of a state by ‘illustrating a new diplomatic environment where state and non-state actors compete for the publics attention.’ In such cases ‘perceptions of Britain and other countries combine to create an enabling or disabling backdrop for each situation.’ (fpc.org.uk) In addition the article refers to American academic Joseph Nye who has stressed that ‘the power of attraction can be an important complement to more traditional forms of power based on economic or military clout.’ According to Nye ‘soft power works by convincing others to follow, or getting them to agree to, norms and institutions that produce the desired behaviour’ or outcome. (fpc.org.uk) The article acknowledges that most of peoples perceptions come from sources outside of national government control such as, books, films, music, brands or consumer products with national association, television programmes etc. ‘and so the activities of governments and other organisations are only going to impact the margins, seeking to clear paths and give impetus to the positive messages for mass audiences while working directly on niche audiences.’ (fpc.org.uk)

According to a paper presented to the International Conference on Multi-stakeholder Diplomacy by Jozef Batora, ‘power no longer stems solely from persuasion or coercion, but increasingly from information sharing and attraction. And so it is the promotion of such soft power that is the essential purpose of public diplomacy.’ (Bator: 2005: diplomacy.edu) Batora acknowledges the confusions that lie within public diplomacy and what exactly comprises public diplomacy. He poses the question of ‘how does one differentiate between “just any” international activities by societal actors with impacts on foreign audiences, and those activities of societal actors which would qualify as public diplomacy.’ He answers this by suggesting that ‘public diplomacy comprises all activities by state and non-state actors that contribute to the maintenance and promotion of a country’s soft power.’ (Batora: 2005: diplomacy.edu) However, according to the U.S. Department of States’ dictionary of international relations, ‘public diplomacy refers to government sponsored programs intended to inform or influence public opinion in other countries.’ (publicdiplomacy.org)

The notion of public diplomacy has evolved significantly since it was first coined in the 1960’s in order to ‘distance governmental activities overseas from the term propaganda’, which during the cold war era held negative connotations. Public diplomacy was ‘seen as the transparent means by which a sovereign country communicates with publics in other countries aimed at informing and influencing audiences overseas for the purpose of promoting the national interest and advancing its foreign policy goals.’ Since 9/11 however, public diplomacy has been broadened and is no longer viewed as an ‘activity unique to sovereign states.’ This new and evolving notion of public diplomacy ‘aims to capture the emerging trends in international relations where a range of non-state actors with some standing in world politics – supranational organizations, sub-national actors, non-governmental organizations, and (in the view of some) even private companies – communicate and engage meaningfully with foreign publics and thereby develop and promote public diplomacy policies and practices of their own.’(uscpublicdiplomacy.prg)

http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/1.htm

Public Diplomacy Alumni Association, ‘About Public Diplomacy Alumni Association’, 5 January 2008

http://www.diplomacy.edu/conferences/msd/papers/batora.pdf

‘Multi-stakeholder Public Diplomacy of Small and Medium Sized States: Norway and Canada Compared’, Jozef Batora, Paper presented to the International Conference on Multi-stakeholder Diplomacy, Mediterranean Diplomatic Academy, Malta, February 11-13, 2005

http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/35.pdf

The Foreign Policy Centre, ‘Public Diplomacy’, Mark Leonard, Catherine Stead, Conrad Smewing, 2002

In search for Cultural Diplomacy

Despite forming part of the modern buzzwords, cultural diplomacy has been into existence since ancient times. One instance is the Olympic Games which were born in Ancient Greece. Athletes represented their city-states and kingdoms in competitions and were regarded as an alternative to military conflicts. It could be argued that cultural diplomacy is a form of “soft power” such as defined by J. Nye: “the ability to persuade through culture, values and ideas, as opposed to ‘hard power’, which conquers or coerces through military might” (cited in Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, available at: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en_culturaldiplomacy). However, this persuasion could raise towards the pejoratively regarded propaganda when the cultural diplomacy is operated by state diplomats. An uncertainty is to be asked- is cultural diplomacy to be considered part of public diplomacy or it should be deemed to be separate from the latter?

Milton Cummings defined cultural diplomacy as “the exchange of ideas, information, art and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples to foster mutual understanding” (M. Cummings, cited in “Culture Communicates: US Diplomacy that Works”, available at: http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2004/20040300_cli_paper_dip_issue94.pdf). Thus, cultural diplomacy should be the linking point among hostile states; it should promote peace and understanding. But how distinct it could be from state funding and could it be, because being independent would equally retreat it from eventual propaganda.

Geoffrey Pigman reckons that cultural diplomacy is linked to public diplomacy but “differs in that it is not generally crafted to have an issue-specific message focus […] Whilst culture is an important tool to use in communicating to a foreign public, public diplomacy uses a much wider range of communicative tools than culture alone” (Pigman, 2010, 181). Events giving the names such as “ping-pong diplomacy”, “cricket diplomacy” eventually helped heal bilateral state relations in the countries concerned with those events, but concern has been throughout regarding the role of the players in the above mentioned diplomacies and how careful the latter have to be not to be associated with politics playing ping-pong or cricket.

It is a diplomacy abounding in successful stories indeed, but there is one fine line where the players of cultural diplomacy should not cross in order not to be connected to politics and I think this fine line is embedded in the definition of culture- “the arts and other instances of human intellectual achievement regarded as a whole” (Oxford English Dictionary for Students, 2005, 239).

· “What is Cultural Diplomacy? A Global Dialogue: It all starts Here”, Institute for cultural diplomacy website, available at: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en_culturaldiplomacy, accessed 19 May 2011

· Cummings, M., cited in Schneider, C. (Sept. 2004), “Culture Communicates: US Diplomacy that Works”, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’, available at: http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2004/20040300_cli_paper_dip_issue94.pdf, accessed 19 May 2011

· Pigman, G. (2010), “Contemporary Diplomacy: Representation and Communication in a Globalised World”, Cambridge: Polity

Image taken from: http://www.balliol.ox.ac.uk/alumni-and-friends/floreat-domus/2007/humanitarian-affairs-and-emergency-relief

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

What is Public Diplomacy?

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