3. A Paradigm Shift: The (New) Public Diplomacy
3.4 Challenges for the (New) Public Diplomacy
3.4.3 Institutional Organization
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
31
traditional actors-states. International conferences and symposiums can be a good tool public diplomacy, sponsored by governments or organized by non-state actors, connecting foreign publics as a part of “white glove” diplomacy.76
3.4.2 Tension between the Traditional Diplomacy and New Public Diplomacy
One of the current challenges for public diplomacy is the tension between the traditional diplomacy and New Public Diplomacy which should coexist and supplement each other. On one hand there is the thread of democratic accountability, openness and transparency which is required and indispensable in the politics of 21st century. On the other hand, diplomacy has always been part of the secret and hidden politics, made behind the closed doors. International publics are asking for more transparency and the question is whether or not there should be limits. Should or should not, traditional diplomacy, even though certainly modified, retain its privileges and standard modus operandi?77
3.4.3 Institutional Organization
Another problem in many countries is organizational. States are not fully prepared to operate in public diplomacy, especially smaller countries which are not so powerful and able to adapt quickly. In the case of the big powers, the problem might be too many, not well organized and overlapping structures not united and not coordinated properly and efficiently.78
3.4.4 The network model
According to Hoffman there are two worlds of public diplomacy that intersect, overlap and cooperate in many contexts. The first one underlines the centrality of the intergovernmental relations. The primacy tends to be on the top-down process which is
76 Leigh-Phippard, H., 1999. The Influence of Informal groups in Multilateral diplomacy. In: J. Melissen, ed. Innovation in Diplomatic Practice. Hampshire: MacMillan Press LTD, p.94-111.
77 Cull, N. J., 2009. Public Diplomacy: Lessons from the past, Los Angeles: Figueroa Press.p.53.
78 Leguey-Feilleux, J.-R., 2009. The Dynamics of Diplomacy. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. p.139.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
32
reflected in the approaches to public diplomacy. It is important to note, as Hoffman suggest, that the new public diplomacy is no longer only about image managements. New public diplomacy is now believed to be an “applied transnational science of human behavior” which is much more sophisticated than image influencing and foreign publics suggests. “It implies a high level of awareness of the varying attributes of human behavior determined by culture and patterns of media usage as well as a deep knowledge of overseas news organizations and political systems.”79
A different rather important fact in modern public diplomacy is that the traditional, hierarchical conception is colliding with the new “network” diplomacy.80
The network model displays a fundamentally different picture of how diplomacy works in the 21st century. To understand better the notion of network (public) diplomacy we should first define the term “Global Public Policy” network which Reinecke defines as a
“relatively stable relationships which are of non-hierarchical and interdependent nature linking a variety of actors who share common interest with regard to a policy and who exchange resources to pursue these shared interests acknowledging that cooperation is the best way to achieve common goals”81
Ann-Marie Slaughter believes that globalization has shown governments deficiencies and therefore it is important to combine public and private sector in the above mentioned networks. The more diverse membership and non-hierarchical qualities of public policy networks promote more cooperation and learning and speeding up the acquisition and processing of knowledge.82 Challenged by increasingly complex agendas, there is a need to establish policy networks of varying scope and compositions which might bring together different actors such as governments, civil society organizations (NGOs) and business.
79 Hoffman, D., 2002. Beyond Public Diplomacy. Foreign Affairs, 81(2), p.85.
80 Metzl, J. F., 2001. Network Diplomacy. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Issue Spring/Summer, p.77-87.
81 Reinecke, W., 1998. Global Public Policy: Governing without government?. Washington DC: Brookings.p.14.
82 Slaughter, A.-M., 2004. A New World Order. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.p.14.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
33
This form of diplomacy has also been called a “catalytic diplomacy”.83 In such diplomacy, hierarchical flows of information are replaced by very fissile and multidirectional flows and it is increasingly hard to define the target audiences. Hoffman notes that “reflecting the permeable nature of public diplomacy in the networked diplomatic environment in which transnational coalitions range alongside governments in the quest for policy influence, this apparently quintessential manifestation of soft power is, in fact, becoming hard power because it is often used coercively in the pursuit of policy objectives.84
The networked structure of, not only, (public) diplomacy is one of the characteristics of the new world and it influences all aspects of politics and international relations. Public diplomacy is not an exception and it will probably have to adapt to the new circumstances.
We might suppose that the new public diplomacy is on the table as a vital part of the future of diplomacy even though there are still many questions and challenges which need to be answered and examined. (New) public diplomacy is almost certainly going to be essential for many states´ diplomatic strategy of this century, especially in the case of smaller states which is going to be examined further in the subsequent chapters.
83 Hocking, B., 1999. Catalytic Diplomacy: Beyond "Newness" and "Decline". In: J. Melissen, ed. Innovation in diplomatic practice. Hampshire: MacMillan Press, p.21-43.
84 Hoffman, D., 2002. Beyond Public Diplomacy. Foreign Affairs, 81(2), p.87.
‧
4. The Concept of empirical study
4.1 Smaller States and Public Diplomacy
For the purpose of this study, smaller states will be defined as states with limited resources and, therefore, with a limited reach of diplomatic efforts. Thus, they have two interrelated central characteristics: “Their public diplomacy efforts are concentrated in several key areas and in several key countries, and knowledge about them and their image becomes significantly more blurred as one moves further away from their immediate region.”85
Small states can be defined and categorized in many different ways, depending on the point of view and character of the research and there is a rather wide debate among academics and scholars to this arbitrary categorization as Kevin D. Stringer asserts.86 Maas states that
“there has been a lack of consensus amongst theorists as to “what type of criteria, quantitative or qualitative, is appropriate to characterize ‘the’ small state.”87
Thorsallson classifies the small states as actors with limited capabilities and influence.88 Other authors like David Vital, apply parameters such as population, geographical size, Gross National Product (GNP) or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or military power, to define such a states.89
One of the links is the uniqueness of the challenges common to these states due to their small size. As put by the Joint Task Force Report “what makes small states different is their special development challenges which render them more vulnerable than larger states.”90
85 Snow, N., 2009. Rethinking Public Diplomacy. In: Routledge Handbook of Pulic Diplomacy. New York, p.3-12.
86 Stringer, K. D., 2011. Honorary Consuls in Small States Diplomacy: Through the Lichtenstein's lens: Clingendael (Netherlands Insttute of International Relations).
87 Maass, M., 2009. The Elusive Definition of the Small State. International Politics, Volume 46, p.65-83.
88 Thorsallson, B., 2000. The Role of the Small States in the EU, Aldershot: UK Ashgate.
89 Vital, D., 1967. The Inequality of States : A Study of the Small Power in International Relations. s.l.:Oxford University Press, Inc.
90 Lee, D. & Smith, N., 2010. Small State Discourses in the International Political Economy. Third World Quarterly, 31(7), p.1091-1105.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
35
The crucial problem in the case of defining the small powers is where to draw to boundaries and how do distinguish them from the middle-sized counterparts.
For that reason, this thesis will not use the term “small” state but instead the expression “smaller” state will be employed. It is generally agreeable that all the case studies don’t fall within any other category. For better illustration, the “superpower” is defined by Alice Lyman Miller as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemony”91 The emerging powers’
“fundamental characteristic is that it is also an emerging economy, being that economic development is necessary and preliminary to political and military emergence.“92 The definition of “middle powers” is also debatable as some authors such as Segal93, Shearmen94 and Sperling95 refer to Germany, Japan, France, Russia or United Kingdom as such.The three case studies used in this thesis, definitely don’t fit within the category of super or emerging-powers and their place in the category of middle emerging-powers is questionable.
Therefore we will label these states as “smaller” than the other super, emerging or middle/big powers. Referring back to Vital72, it is recognizable that Norway, Taiwan and Slovakia do not comply with at least one or more conditions characterizing great to middle powers.
The key challenge for “smaller states” is the competition for attention in the global public sphere, and their main handicaps are small size and sometimes also limited financial resources, coupled with little interest in their foreign policy. As M.H. Kabir points out, they face particularly large difficulties in conducting public diplomacy in the big powers that
91 Miller, A. L., 2006. China an Emerging Superpower?. [Online] Available at:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/6.1.03_miller.html, [Accessed 13 3 2014].
92 Kennedy, P., 1987. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers:Random House.
93 Segal, G., 1999. Does China Matter?. Foreign Affairs, Volume September/October.
94 Shearman, P. & Sussex, M., 2004. European Security After 9/11:Ashgate, p.1.
95 Sperling, J., 2001. Neither Hegemony nor Dominance: Reconsidering German Power in Post Cold-War Europe. British Journal of Political Science, 31(2), p.389-425.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
36
“matter” because their publics know less about the “small-er state” and are less inclined to learn more, but also because they have to navigate a more complex media scene.96
Bátora also highlights the fact, that foreign perceptions of small and medium-sized powers are usually characterized by lack of information and at best by long-established stereotypes. This author also suggests that the main difference between the small states and big states public diplomacy is in its “mission”. For the superpowers, the main focus is on explaining, advocacy and possibly re-branding while in the small and medium power diplomacies the focus lays on catching the attention.97
Public diplomacy is one of the possibilities for the small states to achieve their goals in the international arena. For small and medium sized powers, public diplomacy presents a unique opportunity to shape international agenda in a way that they could not have otherwise especially because of their limited resources.98
As Szondi remarks: “It is important to note that public diplomacy is just one of the wide range of techniques employed by small states to manage their reputations, including PR practices, country branding, cultural diplomacy, international broadcast, and perception management, which seek to manage the best out of the limited funding by careful targeting, creative approaches, “niche diplomacy” and holistic approach.99 All of these are the imperative essentials of the public diplomacy practice. Each country employs different types of foreign strategy and public diplomacy according to their character, goals and possibilities in order to achieve the maximum results with minimal inputs.
96 Kabir, M., 2007. Diplomacy at Bangladesh’s Missions Abroad: A Practitioner’s View. Journal of Diplomacy, Volume 2, p.
299-302.
97 Bátora, J., 2005. Public Diplomacy in Small and Medium-sized States, Hague: Clingendael.
98 Ibid.
99 Szondi, G., 2009. Central and Eastern European Public Diplomacy: A Transitional Perspectiveon National Reputation Management. In: N. Snow & P. M. Taylor, eds. Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy. New York: Routledge, p.292-314.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
37
4.2 Case Study
For the purpose of this study three countries which are considerably different in their nature, geographic location, history, political situation, institutional structures and social- economic systems, have been selected in order to examine better the impact of the change in the external environment at the beginning of the 21st century.
All of the three representatives of smaller states used in this thesis fall within our previously selected definition. They are certainly small in size of their territories and in the case of Slovakia and Norway also in the aspect of the size of their population.
The financial and natural resources of Norway are not quite limited nowadays but 40 years ago, when this Nordic country started its first significant foreign aid programs which are the central pillar of their “niche” diplomacy, they were. Taiwan is a very specific phenomenon in international relations but it will provide a study of unorthodox forms of diplomacy and a substitution of conventional diplomatic practice. Slovakia as a member of the European member and with its history as a part of the Soviet Bloc provides an opportunity to contrast the propaganda used for almost half the century with the modern practice of public diplomacy and illustrate an example of a country which had to face the transition to democracy at the same time as adapting to the completely new world of the 21st century.
Even though the specific selection of these trio might be debatable, based on the unique attributes possessed by each of the research subjects, the author of this thesis believes that this choice provides a spectrum of essential aspects important for smaller states as whole.
Every single example is of distinct character and holds different position in international affairs and thus various types of public diplomacy might be observed and analyzed.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
38
5. The Kingdom of Norway
5.1 Introduction
Norway is one of the wealthiest nations in the world and one of the most prominent foreign aid donors. This Scandinavian country is very rich in oil and gas reserves and the major part of its profits comes from trade with these commodities. Interestingly, Norway is not a member of the EU, but maintains close relations with this organization and forms part of the Schengen Zone. It is a member of other important international institutions like United Nations, NATO, OECD, EEA, World Bank and International Monetary Fund.100
Norway became politically independent from Sweden just over a century ago, in 1905.
It is one of the four developed countries with the world's lowest population densities, having only sixteen people per square kilometer. Norwegians like to think of themselves as close to nature but live mainly in urban areas. An important element is that this Scandinavian country controls a large area of ocean: Norway's exclusive economic zone101 is the 13th largest in the world.102
The Kingdom of Norway is considerably small in size but rather significant regarding its economic stand as a country with the fourth highest income per capita in the world. It is a highly developed European democracy with the highest Human Development Index score on the entire planet. It is also ranked as the most democratic country according to the democratic
100 CIA Factbook, 2014. CIA Factbook: Norway. [Online] Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html [Accessed 17 1 2014].
101 An exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a seazone prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea over which a state has special rights over the exploration and use of marine resources, including energy production from water and wind.[1] It stretches from the baseline out to 200 nautical miles from its coast ("Part V - Exclusive Economic Zone, Article 56". Law of the Sea. United Nations. Retrieved 2014-05-01.).
102 Langmore, J., 2011. Learning from Norway. Griffith Review, May.Issue 32: Wicked Problemss, Exquisite Dilemmas.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
39
index and the first one to introduce women’s suffrage in 1913.103 In fact, Norway ranks first in the World Happiness Index.104
5.2 Norwegian Foreign Policy & Public Diplomacy
According to Prof. Butenschøn, since 1905, when Norway achieved its independence from Sweden, Norway’s foreign policy orientation has been formed by the interplay of three conflicting operation codes: First, an insistent foreign policy based on a strong pursuit of Norwegian national interests, especially maritime interests. Second, a more defensive character based on the idea that the best foreign policy a country like Norway can have is not to have a foreign policy. Small countries, like Norway, should avoid conflicts and if possible participate in building bridges to adversaries who otherwise would threaten their security. It should also contribute to the establishment of an international legal order that provides a protection to small states. Third, Norway’s interests are best served if its policy contributes to peace and justice in the world, both within and outside its own region.105
Norway’s commitment to development has become an indispensable part of its international image and the most essential characteristic. In the past thirty years Norway has become one of the biggest aid donors. Norway is a leading example both in the field of official development aid and in the so called “niche diplomacy” arena in which this kingdom has gained a reputation of the world’s “peacemaker” or “foreign-aid superpower”.106
Norway created its brand around its humanitarian image and it has been a very successful strategy for Norway’s foreign policy to use this method as a part of its public diplomacy. In general Scandinavian countries are seen as the moral guides for the rest of the
103 OECD, 2008. Norway Development Assistance Comittee Peer Review of Norway. [Online] Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/dac/peer-reviews/norway2008dacpeerreviewofnorway-mainfindingsandrecommendations.htm [Accessed 18 1 2014].
104 FutureBrand, 2013. Country Brand Index 2012-13. [Online] Available at:
http://www.futurebrand.com/images/uploads/studies/cbi/CBI_2012-Final.pdf[Accessed 6 5 2014], p.28.
105 Butenschøn, N., 1997. The Oslo Agreement in Norwegian Foreign Policy, (CMEIS occasional paper No. 56, January 1997), 11., p.1l.: CMEIS.
106 Bátora, J., 2005. Public Diplomacy in Small and Medium-sized States, Hague: Clingendael, p.11.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
40
world as a result of an image created by a cluster of “moral” projects and their aspect of an international good citizen. Norway has been seen as a major player in conflict resolution (Oslo Accord, Nobel Prize, and Middle East) and also as a world peace and development contributor. From the public diplomacy perspective, main aims of these policies are visibility, prestige, unique profile and importance on the international scene since Norway is a small country with no significant power position in the international arena.107
However, Norway has a voice and presence on the international stage out of proportion to its modest position. It has achieved this presence through aggressive pursuit of niche (public) diplomacy, and a ruthless prioritization of its target audiences. Norway’s concentration on a single message – Norway as a force for peace in the world – and on ameliorating the effect of two negative images, which are the lack of influence in Europe through non-EU status and attachment to whaling, has allowed it to communicate much more effectively.108
Norway’s primary goal in securing this international visibility around the issue of peace and conflict prevention is twofold. Firstly, it allows Norway to gain a general profile it
Norway’s primary goal in securing this international visibility around the issue of peace and conflict prevention is twofold. Firstly, it allows Norway to gain a general profile it