objectives, providing both the essential underpinning for actions, and anticipating and explaining the consequences of actions.
The argument has been made here that cultural diplomacy, especially as it regards the arts, should be separate and distinct from public diplomacy. In recent years, cultural diplomacy has become so intertwined with public diplomacy that there is practically no distinction between the two anymore.19
4.4 Critiques
Skeptics treat the term “public diplomacy” as a mere euphemism for propaganda.
Or see public diplomacy merely a public-relations campaign.20
Skeptics among diplomatic practitioners see public diplomacy as interfering with
“the real job”. They coincide with a small cohort of traditionalists in diplomatic studies who prefer to stick to the tried and tested methods of diplomacy. Traditionalists see public diplomacy as a modern name for white propaganda – that is, propaganda admitting its source and directed mainly at foreign publics, but also at the domestic constituency.21
Over the past two decades, the term ‘soft power’ is one of the most accepted concepts in international relations. It is widely used in the international relations’ literature and lists as one of the most popular clichés for policymakers. Despite the growing body of literature on the topic
19 Gregory Weeks and Stefan Stoev, "Crisis, Conflict, and Culture: The Role of Cultural Diplomacy in the European Project," paper presented at the 2011 International Conference on Cultural Diplomacy in the European Union, Brussels, December 6-9, 2011, accessed November 10, 2012,
http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/culturaldiplomacynews/participant-papers/2011-12-cdeu/Bringing-Cultures- Together-Through-the-Arts-to-Facilitate-Cultural-Diplomacy-in-the-Context-of-the-European-Project-Dr.-Stefan-Stoev.pdf
20 Joseph S. Nye, “The New Public Diplomacy,” Project Syndicate, 2010, accessed February 11, 2013, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-new-public-diplomacy#RQ8DuKVViiC2v3p1.99
21 Jan Melissen, “Beyond the New Public Diplomacy,” Netherlands Institute of International Relations
“Clingendael”, Clingendael Papers No. 3, 2011, p. 22, accessed December 9, 2012, http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/20111014_cdsp_paper_jmelissen.pdf
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
18
and the numerous policies that assert some use of soft power elements, there is still no agreement on what exactly soft power is, how it works and how to measure its effectiveness.
The lack of a clear conceptual framework on soft power is evident when the latter is translated into public diplomacy and strategic communication. The way soft power campaigns are conducted depends on the nature of the state that exercises soft power, the type of message that is transmitted and the nature of the target. Recent cases of soft power operations highlight the fact that successful application of soft power is rather limited.22
22 Andrew Liaropoulos, “Being Hard on Soft Power,” Research Institute for European and American Studies, 2012, accessed April 2, 2013,
http://www.rieas.gr/research-areas/global-issues/transatlantic-studies/1519-being-hard-on-soft-power-.html
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
19
5 Chapter IV - Challenges of Public Diplomacy
The main two challenges to public diplomacy presented in this chapter are the lack of national identity and negative news reports in foreign media. Also an example is given in order to show the connectivity between them.
There is interest about East Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union and these countries public diplomacy efforts but there are little articles written about this topic.
The American University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communication, Center on Public Diplomacy has a class on the topic “Regional Issues in Public Diplomacy:
Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia” but the countries taken in consideration do not include the case of Romania.
Romania has a larger problem with its image than most of the latest batch of European Union accession countries. This has not been helped by the media, which tends to concentrate on the worse aspects of a country’s identity.
That is, Romania was a blank page after the Revolution and this was what was first communicated. Communism and its fall-out also exercise a powerful hold over the western imagination. Before a country knows how to project a new image, it must be clear about its identity.
Sincerity and objectivity are essential. Another problem is the vacuum of knowledge the west has of Romania. Part of this problem is that people do not feel responsible for their own actions. But with a country changing so quickly, it is hard for Romanians to be sure of their identity in a country that is not at all united socially.
There is a need to improve this image, for the sake of new investment, increasing tourism and changing Romania’s cultural and political standing in Europe.1
1 The Diplomat Magazine, “Romania’s Makeover Strategy,” The Diplomat, 2006, accessed May 4, 2013, http://www.thediplomat.ro/features_0106_2.htm
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
20
In developing countries and former communist states, no real attempts were made to build a popular consensus for liberal democracy, and reformist governments were expected to persuade their citizens to swallow the bitter pill of structural adjustment without much sugar-coating.2
Regarding public diplomacy the country’s physical proximity is to Russia, more strictly following traditional diplomacy rather than public diplomacy but its projected proximity is to West Europe and the United States that have a more clear approach to public diplomacy.
Having elements of public diplomacy already in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as differentiating public diplomacy actions from cultural diplomacy actions, is a sign that the model of public diplomacy that the government looks up to is that of western countries but the internal challenges pose a threat to its development considering that this is still far from a postmodern understanding of the state and public diplomacy that we can already see in some west European countries.
Both challenges are related to the European context to which Romania belongs to. After 1989 when the political regime changed and up to and after 2007 there were no clear efforts in national identity building and this situation got worse after the European Union acceptance due to higher standards and expectations imposed by the western countries.
Having no clear image projected abroad and being identified with negative images, due to set backs in implementing democratic reforms, presented in the west European news media only accentuated after 2007 when the context changed and Romania became a European Union member.
These two challenges to public diplomacy are connected and pose serious difficulties for the practitioners that are responsible for creating a comprehensive national image that is to be presented to west European countries.