國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
12
As Jan Melissen describes it: “public diplomacy collaboration between states and non- official actors is probably more flexible and results- oriented than states and official non- state entities working independently. This could be seen as a symptom of a rising collaborative public diplomacy, boiling down to more official cooperation with non- state actors and greater involvement by civil society. Such development presupposes the acceptance of less governmental control in public diplomacy”.7
As presented before the sources of a country’s soft power are maintained but a greater emphasis is now given to determine new limits to what it can be considered public diplomacy and who can be responsible for it. Additionally technology and the use of social media is an important part in the new public diplomacy.
Fergus Hanson of the Lowy Institute of International Policy Australia in his 2011 paper
“The New Public Diplomacy” presents a new take on the dimensions that can define public diplomacy 'E-diplomacy is not a boutique extra for foreign ministries and increasingly will be central to how they operate in the 21st century. 8
Public diplomacy, soft power and new public diplomacy are concepts that only enhance the work of traditional diplomacy that states are engaged in. There are presented in order to better understand further in the paper the possible recommendation given in the case of Romania regarding its public diplomacy challenges. For the same consideration a brief history of ideas surrounding public diplomacy is given.
4.3 History of Ideas
Looking at traditional diplomacy, propaganda and public diplomacy we can see the shift in what it is considered source of power for a state and what are the ways a state can obtain this.
7 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
8 Fergus Hanson, “The New Public Diplomacy,” Lowy Institute of International Policy, 2011, accessed December 11, 2012, http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/new-public-diplomacy
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
13 4.3.1 Traditional Diplomacy
The term "diplomacy" refers to the interaction between nation-states. Traditionally, diplomacy was carried out by government officials, diplomats, who negotiated treaties, trade policies, and other international agreements.
The process of negotiations ranges from very formal to informal, but it tends to be fairly adversarial and competitive, relying on distributive or positional bargaining strategies that assume a win-lose situation.
The goal is to maintain power over weaker nations and a balance of power with nations of equal status. Although conflict resolution theorists have developed a multi-faceted understanding of power, diplomacy still focuses on the "power over" approach.9
4.3.2 Propaganda
Propaganda is source-based, cause-oriented, emotion-laden content that utilizes mass persuasion media to cultivate the mass mind in service to the source’s goals. Its utilization is not good or bad as all social institutions (government, commercial, citizen-based) use propaganda for their own purposes.
The ethical questions associated with propaganda involve its means/ends agreement or lack thereof and its asymmetrical exchange of information that always favors the sponsor of propaganda. At its best, propaganda involves pro-social causes that do not stray too far from the truth. At its worst, propaganda serves strictly a pro-source function that uses whatever means necessary to fulfill its goals.10
Propaganda is an instrument of war used by a government, primarily but not exclusively, against a present or possibly future enemy.
9 International Online Training Program on Intractable Conflict, “Official Track One Diplomacy,” Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, 2005, accessed January 4, 2013,
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/track1.htm
10 Nancy Snow, “Public Diplomacy and Propaganda: Rethinking Diplomacy in the Age of Persuasion,”E- International Relations, 2012, accessed December 13, 2012,
http://www.e-ir.info/2012/12/04/public-diplomacy-and-propaganda-rethinking-diplomacy-in-the-age-of-persuasion/
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
14
White propaganda is correctly attributed to the sponsor and the source is truthfully identified. Gray propaganda, on the other hand, is unattributed to the sponsor and conceals the real source of the propaganda.
The objective of gray propaganda is to advance viewpoints that are in the interest of the originator but that would be more acceptable to target audiences than official statements. Black propaganda also camouflages the sponsor's participation.
But while gray propaganda is unattributed, black propaganda is falsely attributed. Black propaganda is subversive and provocative; it is usually designed to appear to have originated from a hostile source, in order to cause that source embarrassment, to damage its prestige, to undermine its credibility, or to get it to take actions that it might not otherwise. Black propaganda is usually prepared by secret agents or an intelligence service because it would be damaging to the originating government if it were discovered.11
4.3.3 Public Diplomacy and Cultural Diplomacy
Effective public diplomacy provides the groundwork necessary between state and society for the acceptance and legitimacy of a country's policy actions and outreach. Effective public diplomacy can make the crucial difference in the attraction, rejection and perception of how a country, its people and its policies can influence and alter others' attitudes and decisions.
If mishandled, public diplomacy can morph disastrously into propaganda, dismissed at home, and open to ridicule around the globe.12
For foreign policy strategists, cultural diplomacy has great value as a trust-builder, providing groundwork on which broader, non-arts initiatives can be constructed. Among the
11 John Brow, “Propaganda, Public Diplomacy and the Smith-Mundt Act,” Huffington Post, May 26, 2012, accessed January 20, 2013,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-brown/propaganda-public-diplomacy_b_1547214.html
12 Jill A. Schuker, “The Challenges of Public Diplomacy and the Role of Government,” USC Center on Public Diplomacy, 2008, accessed December 9, 2012,
http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/the_challenge_of_public_diplomacy_and_the_rol e_of_government/
‧
instances, but governments around the world take advantage of this belief.13Who you are, how you are seen, and what you do, are all questions which are intimately and perhaps inextricably linked, which is why no state can hope to achieve its aims in the modern world without a mature and sophisticated fusion of PD and nation branding.14
Yet, what is the art that people call public diplomacy? It is not traditional diplomacy, which consists essentially of the interactions that take place between governments. The practitioners of traditional diplomacy engage the representatives of foreign governments in order to advance the national interest articulated in their own government’s strategic goals in international affairs.
Public diplomacy, by contrast, engages carefully targeted sections of foreign publics in order to develop support for those same strategic goals. The practice of public diplomacy by professionals, including U.S. ambassadors, has changed dramatically with the proliferation of communications technology and the equally remarkable increase in global mobility.15
Public diplomacy is generally believed to refer to a national government’s efforts to influence international opinion on its domestic or foreign policies through public relations activities or intellectual exchanges targeting the media or citizen groups.
Public diplomacy is therefore not the same as cultural diplomacy, in that the former is always closely associated with a well-defined political objective and aimed at certain pre-determined goals, while the latter is not necessarily linked to a specific political objective. The
13 Philip Seib, “Making Sense of Cultural Diplomacy,” USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School, 2012, accessed January 6, 2013,
http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/making_sense_of_cultural_diplomacy/
14 Simon Anholt, “Public Diplomacy and Place Branding: Where’s the Link?,” in Place Branding 2, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd, 2006, p. 271, accessed May 2, 2013,
http://www.palgravejournals.com/pb/journal/v2/n4/pdf/6000040a.pdf
15 Christopher Ross, “Public Diplomacy Comes of Age,” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, 2002, p. 75.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
16
two sometimes overlap, however, because public diplomacy can include efforts to improve the nation’s image by means of cultural activities.16
Since much of cultural diplomacy consists of nations sharing forms of their creative expression, it is inherently enjoyable, and can therefore be one of the most effective tools in any diplomatic toolbox.17
National branding programs need to be managed between the public and private sectors through small, dedicated and highly coordinated groups that take a long-term view. It is essential to remember that the national/domestic audience has to understand and support the programme, and that means engaging and getting support from the media. There has to be a will on the part of significant organizations representing specific segments to take part in the programme.
Cultural, tourist, sport, fashion, arts and other organizations must be prepared to cooperate with chambers of commerce and government, so that the national promotional effort is properly coordinated. All this takes time, money, enthusiasm and tenacity.18.
While the engagement of civil society, non-state actors, the private sector, and a range of non-governmental organizations and policy institutions are crucial to the effective operation of public diplomacy, it is, at core, a function and responsibility of government.
Therefore, it must be supported by government in word and deed, with resources that enable public diplomacy to be taken seriously and viewed as essential to both the policy process and to the public interest.
16 Kazuo Ogoura,“From Ikebana to Manga And Beyond: Japan’s Cultural and Public Diplomacy Is Evolving,” Global Asia, Vol. 7 No. 3, 2012, accessed March 11, 2013,
http://www.globalasia.org/V7N3_Fall_2012/Kazuo_Ogoura.html
17 Cynthia P. Schneider, “Culture Communicates: US Diplomacy That Works,” in The New Public Diplomacy, Soft Power in International Relations, ed. Jan Melissen, New York Palgrave Macmillan Pub. 2005,
p. 147.
18 Wally Olins, “Making a National Brand,” in The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, ed. Jan Melissen, New York, Ed. Palgrave, 2007, p. 178.
‧
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