Chapter 4. The Position and Impacts of National News Networks (CNN and Russia
4.1. CNN as a Building Mechanism of International Relations
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
and new public diplomacy or PD 2.0, nation branding and nation-state’s control over media to support the details of this thesis. This part also includes the research scope and limitation, main research questions to defense and literature review.
The second chapter “Theoretical Foundations of Public Diplomacy” introduces an overview of the evolution of theoretical foundations of public diplomacy, consisted of two subsections:
2.1. “Public Diplomacy” and its Basic Concepts” is devoted to the history and theoretical approaches to the PD in world politics.
2.2. “Public Diplomacy in the US and Russia” is about the main characteristics and examples of American and Russian public diplomacy.
The third chapter “Media as a Non-state Actor in Public Diplomacy of Foreign
States” is about an in-depth analysis of mass media as a non-state actor in PD of foreign
states and also consists of two subsections:3.1. “Media as an Actor of the World Public Diplomacy” deals with the role of mass media in communication among foreign countries, and creating their national image, where media got the name of the fourth estate. Being an organizer of information flows, media participates in the development of international affairs and, thus, considered to be a non-state actor in the international arena. This section also emphasizes the media functions as a subject of world politics and its role in world politics.
3.2. “The Concept of “Telediplomacy” in Contemporary International Relations”
focuses on the concept of telediplomacy, its key objectives in global television policy. It also deals with the “CNN effect” and potential global television abilities.
The fourth chapter “The Position and Impacts of National News Networks (CNN
and Russia Today) in Contemporary International Relations” has two subsections,
describing the position of national news networks (CNN and Russia Today) in contemporary international relations.4.1. “CNN as a Building Mechanism of International Relations” describes the history and principles of CNN broadcasting system, based on the concept of news exclusivity. In this part, CNN is also seen as a mechanism, capable of influencing the outcome of world events, through broadcasting news about domestic and international armed conflicts and wars, giving the examples of CCN role during the Gulf War41, the crisis in the Balkans in 199942, the
41 The Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991), codenamed Operation Desert Shield (2 August 1990 – 17 January 1991) for operations leading to the buildup of troops and defense of Saudi Arabia and Operation
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Genocide in Rwanda43, etc. Finally, it addresses the role of CNN in promoting US foreign policy.
4.2. “Russia Today and its Role in International Relations” introduces the history of Russia Today news network. It is supposed to form an alternative view of international relations, which, somehow, destroys the monopoly of the Western television networks about the interpretation of what is happening in the world. This part also claims that RT is the information tool of Russian foreign policy, influencing not only on people engaged in the areas of a decision-making process but also on a wide audience.
The fifth chapter, or conclusion, addresses the research questions, summarizing the
major attributes, evaluating strength and weaknesses of national news networks impact on international relations and comparison of merits and demerits of CNN and RT.Desert Storm (17 January 1991 – 28 February 1991) in its combat phase, was a war waged by coalition forces from 34 nations led by the United States against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait.
42 The Yugoslav Wars were ethnic conflicts fought from 1991 to 2001 inside the territory of the former Yugoslavia. These wars accompanied and/or facilitated the breakup of the country, when its constituent republics declared independence, but the issues of ethnic minorities in the new countries (chiefly Serbs in central parts and Albanians in the southeast) were still unresolved at the time the republics were recognized internationally. The wars are generally considered to be a series of separate but related military conflicts which occurred in, and affected, most of the former Yugoslav republics.
43 The Rwandan genocide, known officially as the genocide against the Tutsi, was a genocidal mass slaughter of Tutsi in Rwanda by members of the Hutu majority government. An estimated 500,000–1,000,000 Rwandans were killed during the 100-day period from April 7 to mid-July 1994, constituting as many as 70% of the Tutsi and 20% of Rwanda's total population.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 2. Theoretical Foundations of Public Diplomacy
2.1. “Public Diplomacy” and its Basic Concepts
The need to build a favorable international image of a nation-state is one of the most urgent and important tasks in diplomatic practice. A positive image of any nation-state is a significant tool, which gives an access to the community of civilized democratic nations and international business structures. A nation-state's image is inextricably linked to public diplomacy and represents a major component, contributing to the strengthening of country’s geopolitical status on the world stage, its security, protection and promotion of national interests. In the context of changes in the global geopolitical picture under the influence of diverse international processes, PD, as an important additional tool for achieving foreign policy goals of any state, becomes especially immediate. That is why, nowadays, governments of different countries pay a great attention to the development and improvement of their public diplomacy.
Speaking about the evolution of the term, first of all, there is a need to mention about its origins. The founding director of the Master of Public Diplomacy program at the University of Southern California Nicholas Cull1 found the first mention of this term in the British press in the middle of XIX century, where it actually meant a respectable diplomacy.
A bit later, PD occurred in the American press and meant an open diplomacy, which is now known as public diplomacy (Cull, 2006a).
The authorship of PD in its modern meaning belongs to the former Dean of the oldest in the US professional school of international relations – the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy2 – Edmund Gullion. In 1965 he defined public diplomacy as "the means by which governments, private groups, and individuals influence the attitudes and opinions of other peoples and governments in such a way as to exercise influence on their foreign policy decisions" (McPhail, 2002; p. 89). It is worth mentioning, that by this term, E. Gullion tried to change the negative associations with the word "propaganda".
1 Nicholas J. Cull is a historian and the director of the Master's in Public Diplomacy program at the Center on Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California.
2 The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University is the oldest school in the United States dedicated solely to graduate studies in international affairs. Fletcher is regarded as one of the world's foremost graduate schools of international relations. The school’s alumni include hundreds of sitting ambassadors; award-winning journalists and authors; leaders of international peacekeeping, humanitarian and security initiatives; heads of global nonprofit organizations; and executive leadership of some of the world’s largest for-profit companies.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
In general, there are several groups of specialists, who have determined the development of the scientific discourse and practice of modern public diplomacy. The largest group includes the "traditional" experts in the field of PD, or, to be more specific, diplomats and journalists, many of whom began their careers during the Cold war period. That time public diplomacy was characterized by a high level of state-centered policy (Dolinskiy, 2011).
In the context of the low permeability of the borders, a state was the only actor capable of carrying out international communications both systematically and qualitatively (Heywood, 2014; p. 128). Such a situation led to the appearance of new generations of international journalists and diplomats, for whom public diplomacy was exclusively a nation-state’s one, mainly implemented by the government agencies or private contractors hired by them. Among them were those who organized cultural exchanges and activities at embassies;
journalists, worked in the state newspapers, magazines and radio stations, targeted at foreign audiences, as well as the organizers of educational exchanges (Kelley, 2010; p. 288-289).
In 1990 the American political scientist, a professor at Harvard University J. Nye3 formulated the concept of soft power, summing up the Cold war and describing not fundamentally new, but an old-established phenomenon, which, however, did not have an academic definition (Nye, 1990). Nye described it as an approach to international relations, involving the use of economic and cultural influence. As a result, understanding of soft power as an ability to achieve the desired without using the methods of coercion or bribery, but with the help of state’s attractiveness, became a key theoretical foundation of public diplomacy in the framework of political science. If soft power is an ability to achieve desired political outcomes with the help of authority and attractiveness, then PD is a tool for increasing attractiveness and enhancing authority in this scheme4.
Joseph Nye also stresses that public diplomacy is one of the most effective methods of building the American "soft power" (Nye, 2004). The central role in its implementation belongs to the information resources and control over information flows. He also distinguishes three dimensions of PD:
1. Daily communication, including the explanation of domestic and foreign policy decisions, and also the preparation for crises response.
3 Joseph Samuel Nye, Jr. is an American political scientist. He is the co-founder, along with Robert Keohane, of the international relations theory of neoliberalism, developed in their 1977 book Power and Interdependence.
Together with Keohane, he developed the concepts of asymmetrical and complex interdependence. They also explored transnational relations and world politics in an edited volume in the 1970s. More recently, he pioneered the theory of soft power.
4Futurecasts, Book Review: Soft Power by Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (2004). Retrieved October 25, 2016, from http://www.futurecasts.com/book review 6-4.htm
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2. Strategic communication, which implies a focused discussion of the most important political topics, like political or advertising campaigns.
3. Development of strong relationships with key individuals by virtue of scholarships, exchange programs, training, seminars, conferences and access to media channels.
Public diplomacy can be seen as actions aimed at building long-term relationships, the protection of national foreign policy objectives and a better understanding of states’ values and institutions abroad. PD promotes national interests and ensures national security by examining the attitude of foreign public opinion, informing them and impacting on those who form this attitude.
Thus, we can identify the main objectives of public diplomacy, such as:5
• ensuring national interests, protecting the national foreign policy objectives and national security;
• strengthening of the targeted impact on the foreign audience, establishing a better understanding among people of different nationalities;
• formation of positive attitude of the foreign audiences toward goals and progress of the domestic and foreign policy implementation by a particular state;
• improving countries’ image and attractiveness.
J. Nye also stresses that relations between PD and soft power do not have a simple linear character (Nye, 1990). Firstly, public diplomacy can not only strengthen soft power, but also reduce its force, because PD is a communication mechanism, and, hypothetically, can transmit a wrong message, and thus inflicts harm to the attitude towards one’s country.
Secondly, public diplomacy is just one of the factors which influence the formation of opinion towards one’s country. Thirdly, critics of the concept of soft power argue that changes in the international public opinion do not have a significant effect on the specific policy decisions made by countries6. Consequently, going back to the definition of soft power as the ability to make others act, one can assume that PD, which helps to improve attitude toward a particular state, does not necessarily contribute to the achievement of specific policy results.
Many critics of the soft power concept claim that it is quite difficult to evaluate the real ability of one actor to influence the others, focusing on soft power only (Dolinskiy, 2011).
5Krajnc, K. (2005). Public Diplomacy: Basic Concepts and Trends. Retrieved October 25, 2016, from http://www.ifimes.org/en/8020-public-diplomacy-basic-concepts-and-trends
6 Dutta, A. (2002). The Concept of Soft Power: A Critical Analysis. Retrieved October 25, 2016, from http://www.ia-forum.org/Content/ViewInternalDocument.cfm?ContentID=8393
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Nye, when addressing to this criticism, says that it is important to distinguish the resources, which any state is based on, and the actual power itself, i.e. the ability to influence the behavior of other actors. According to him, the difference between the attitude toward one’s state in any foreign society and the immediate ability of any state to motivate a society to support its desired policy is the same as between, for example, the amount of military equipment of the warring parties and victory in war (Nye, 1990). When assessing the potential of different parties, observers will be based on available data on the quantity and quality of military equipment and soldiers, but the real result of any conflict may differ from the forecasts. He gives the example of the UK and France, which in 1940 had more tanks than Germany, but still lost the confrontation (Nye, 2010a).
Another almost classical example is the dynamics of Indonesian attitude change to the United States in 2003. The US invasion of Iraq brought down America's popularity in the largest Muslim country from 62% to 15%. In 2004 the United States took an active part in eliminating the consequences of the tsunami in Southeast Asia7, which increased the percentage of a positive attitude toward the USA in Indonesia but only up to 38% (Green, 2008; p. 194).
Another significant source of soft power is an attitude towards state’s culture. In this context, culture is understood as a high art and mass culture, including the mode of dress, cuisine, etc. The attractiveness of culture, of course, is a source of soft power, but, in this case, links between them are less clear. Critics of the concept stress that a good attitude to the American movies does not prevent Kim Jong-un8 from developing the DPRK's nuclear program. This and many other similar observations are intended to demonstrate the inherent inability of public diplomacy to solve the problems caused by or associated with the hard power (Robin, 2005; p. 351).
Besides traditional experts in the field of PD and academics, working in the fields related to soft power, there are new specialist-practicians, who came into public diplomacy from the academic science, commercial marketing and political consulting (Krivonosov, 2014;
p. 70). This was due to a sharp increase in the popularity of topics of PD after the tragedy of
7 The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake occurred on 26 December with the epicentre off the west coast of Sumatra, Indonesia. The shock had a moment magnitude of 9.1–9.3. The undersea megathrust earthquake was caused when the Indian Plate was subducted by the Burma Plate and triggered a series of devastating tsunamis along the coasts of most landmasses bordering the Indian Ocean, killing 230,000 people in 14 countries, and inundating coastal communities with waves up to 30 metres (100 ft) high. It was one of the deadliest natural disasters in recorded history. Indonesia was the hardest-hit country, followed by Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand.
8 Kim Jong-un is the Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea and supreme leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), commonly referred to as North Korea.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
September 11, 2001, terrorist attack9, carried out by almost a few dozen people, who were not nationals of the great powers. It led to the discussions on how to prevent such tragedies in the future.
That time governments faced a new state’s international communication task. They wanted to learn how through foreign society to influence not only the governments of other countries but also directly the people as actors of world politics. There was a need to build a broader bilateral dialogue with foreign societies that required the involvement of multiple actors of both sides. It led to the appearance of new several terms related to public diplomacy.
1. Citizen diplomacy (or people’s diplomacy)10
It was intended to denote international communication at the level of individuals.
However, this term was not quite new. In the middle of 20th century, it was used to mean the involvement of NGOs in the diplomatic negotiations (Marshall, 1949; p. 89).
In 1997 one of the leading experts in the field of public diplomacy and the former member of the US Information Agency Nancy Snow11 raised objections, concerning the work of the Agency. The main one was its inability to provide two-way communication between foreign societies and the US society, although the explanation of the world community’s position to the American population was one of its major functions. One of the reasons for such claims was the Smith–Mundt Act12, which prohibits governmental agencies to distribute the information, aimed at foreign audiences, among the American population. In theory, this restriction intended to protect the US citizens from the government propaganda, but, in practice, it led to the fact that over the decades of its existence the US Information Agency was unable to work out a system of informing the public about the opinions in other countries (Snow, 1997).
In her subsequent works Snow already gives specific answers to the question of how this problem can be solved in the interests of the American PD. From her point of view, the
9 The September 11 attacks (also referred to as 9/11) were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda on the United States on the morning of September 11, 2001.
10 Sometimes can be describe as civic diplomacy, which involves “people to people” contact through all means, involving social media and conventional media (press diplomacy) with particular emphases on social (humanitarian) and concrete cultural activities.
11 Nancy Snow is Associate Professor of Public Diplomacy at Syracuse University's Newhouse School of Public Communications. Snow writes on issues related to international communications, public diplomacy, media reform and activism, and persuasion and influence. Her research focuses on anti-Americanism and global media as well as ways modern American presidents have used propaganda and persuasion to set national and international policy.
12 The US Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (Public Law 80-402), popularly referred to as the Smith–Mundt Act, specifies the terms in which the United States government can engage global audiences, also known as propaganda.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
solution would be to involve more non-governmental organizations and individuals in foreign policy cooperation, in order to conduct communication, not through the "state – foreign societies" line, but through the format "society – society", where a state can only play the role of guide, facilitator, organizer of such interactions (Snow, 2006).
Sherry Mueller13 gives a quite similar interpretation of citizen diplomacy, where she describes it as an interaction among countries on the level of individuals, which subsequently creates a context for the formal dialogue and negotiation (Mueller, 2009; p. 102.). All the terms, describing the citizen diplomacy, have one undeniable thing in common: it can be a part of public diplomacy organized by a state.
2. Cultural Diplomacy
"Cultural Diplomacy may best be described as a course of actions, which are based on the exchange of ideas, values, traditions and other aspects of culture or identity, whether to strengthen relationships, enhance socio-cultural cooperation, promote national interests and beyond; cultural diplomacy can be practiced by either the public sector, private sector or civil society" (Institute for Cultural Diplomacy). This is a classic definition of cultural diplomacy, given by Milton C. Cummings and placed on the main page of the Berlin Institute for Cultural Diplomacy website. With this definition, one can conclude that this kind of
"Cultural Diplomacy may best be described as a course of actions, which are based on the exchange of ideas, values, traditions and other aspects of culture or identity, whether to strengthen relationships, enhance socio-cultural cooperation, promote national interests and beyond; cultural diplomacy can be practiced by either the public sector, private sector or civil society" (Institute for Cultural Diplomacy). This is a classic definition of cultural diplomacy, given by Milton C. Cummings and placed on the main page of the Berlin Institute for Cultural Diplomacy website. With this definition, one can conclude that this kind of