Improvements to US Public Diplomacy

-          Given the lessons learned from practice abroad and from conceptual/theoretical proposals, how should the United States respond to the challenges facing its public diplomacy?

One of the biggest concerns in U.S. public diplomacy is consistency.   As Nakamura states in the 2009 article on Current issues in public diplomacy, there are some people that are concerned that touting American values is ineffective.  Many of the values such as human rights that America supports are also things that foreign publics either don’t agree with or think that the U.S. doesn’t uphold.  Political incidents like Stuxnet and Guantanamo make the U.S. appear deceptive.  When people are able to cite specific examples of the U.S. violating its own principles they question everything that is said.  Using these American values, while effective in the past, can create more mistrust.

                I think a greater focus on how individual Americans can shape public diplomacy would be much more effective.  It can be difficult when people generalize a whole population’s attitudes and actions based on one individual that they meet.  However this can also be beneficial when they meet someone they really like.  With globalization and new technologies more and more people are affecting public diplomacy.  I think that one of the best ways to improve our public diplomacy is by educating Americans on other people.  Having a greater understanding of the people and cultures that we interact with online, and visit on vacation will make it much easier to make a good impression.  People all over the world view American movies, but when it comes to foreign audiences Americans are clueless.  I think a greater effort could be made to make people more aware of the impressions they make on others when they are abroad and how this affects the overall American image.  Even doing something like partnering with airlines, so that when someone books a ticket somewhere they receive an email with information on the cultural background, history, current events, maybe even a video with how to say the five most important phrases in x language.  Informing people will make them better able to present the U.S abroad.  Since information people receive from an unofficial source is often seen as more trustworthy.

                Most importantly I think work can be done to improve the programs in place.  Ensuring that student and professionals that come here leave with a positive image of the U.S.  Being abroad away from your support network can be very difficult. Leaving the transition up to a certain company or organization can have hazard results. Doing things like organizing fun events with people from their home country and Americans interested in learning about that place could help people feel more engaged.  Even trying to pair someone with an American with similar interests that is trying to learn their native tounge, but who also serves as an insider into navigating a new place.  Having insider advice on places to visit in a city, or someone you know immediately who you can grab coffee with on a bad day, can really make a different when going through culture shock.  I think greater efforts can be made to make those living here from abroad feel apart of a community, which will improve their opinion of the U.S.

The strengths and weaknesses of India's PD

What are the principal challenges and resources available to India’s public diplomacy efforts?

India has a population of over a billion people. And its geographic location makes it capable of great influence in its region.  This presents a great challenge to India but with work it could also be one of its greatest strengths in promoting its public diplomacy agenda.  One of the influential aspects to India’s public diplomacy is its cultural resistance to influence.  India’s decision in 2005 to join the UN democracy fund is an example of this dualism, a desire to modernize and take on an active role internationally and a belief in not forcing your ideology on others.   In his evaluation of India’s public diplomacy Christian Wagner notes that “India’s new engagement seems to be a compromise between growing Western demands for a more pro-active policy to support democracy and the Indian approach of not ‘exporting ideology’”.

              There are three major problems for Indian public diplomacy.  The most prevalent is the lack of consistency between the messages being sent and reality.  For example, according the Freedom House study India’s Press is considered only partly free.  This contradicts the message that India is trying to send of being the worlds’ largest democracy and helping to shape other countries systems.  In order for India’s public diplomacy to be more effective they also must make internal ajustments.

              Secondly a major deterrent to expanding their pubic diplomacy programs is a lack of staff in government positions.  They are barely able to keep current programs running, let alone having the time to develop new programs or expand current ones.  They simply lack the time to implement creative solutions to expanding their public diplomacy.  This leads to the final problem, the population size.  The limit of the government to expand its public diplomacy is due in part size and the sheer number of people requiring services.

              While the large population is a deterrent to the growth of India’s public diplomacy it is also its greatest assets.   It’s large diaspora community is already inadvertently conducting citizen diplomacy.  India has an enormous youth population and by mobilizing them and creating opportunities for citizen participation they could reach many more people.

              India’s rapid population growth has also led to rapid development.  There are many NGO’s in India’s cities that have successfully helped managed this development.  Their successes can be shared with other developing nations as was recommended by the project lead Maya Babla in the study on India’s public diplomacy.  Their nation’s relative success in handling the many pressing issues brought about this rapid population growth, and also their failures presents a unique opportunity to connect with other nations experiencing similar difficulties in order to share ideas on tackling the problems created by a population boom.

              Finally India needs to focus more attention on their unique culture.  While Bollywood produces more movies than Hollywood they aren’t effective in articulating the same cultural goals that U.S. movies do.  By utilizing the “robust media system” that they already have in place internally they can better promote India. They just need to coordinate more with those locally that are already conducting or have the ability to conduct Public Diplomacy in order to turn these local programs into something that can influence the international community.

Cat robots and other Japanese pop culture

Question 2 

Japan’s public diplomacy has changed and adjusted to a world where PD is influenced by regular people and not just governments. The soft power of a country is determined more by citizens of other countries, along with their governments, instead of just their governments. According to Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “The reason for this is that the world has become increasingly democratized. That is, public opinion enjoys much greater influence on diplomacy than before. … What we have now is an era in which diplomacy at the national level is affected dramatically by the climate of opinion arising from the average person” (quoted in Nakamura). 

Because of this, Japan has begun to reach out more to people through its pop culture. This includes building a Japan Creative Centre (JCC) in Singapore to promote Japanese culture and ideals throughout Asia. It also includes a national Manga award that is given to people who promote manga outside the country and finally, a cat robot Anime Ambassador.

One of the first objectives Japan wants to address with its pop culture diplomacy is the idea that Japan is a good model of a country that became developed and is prospering economically and socially. Japan wants its culture and value system to be seen as useful to other countries. Pop culture obviously represents their culture, but it also portrays a culture with a focus on creative arts and a culture in which people have time in their daily lives for leisure to enjoy this culture.

Japan also wants to show other Asian countries they are an important partner economically and socially. Pop culture does exhibit a certain economic prosperity, but it is also simply not enough to convince others that they are a crucial ally. You can’t guarantee that everyone will even like their pop culture. I for one am not a big fan of anime and I think in many parts of the world, it can carry a bit of a nerd stigma.

And finally, Japan wants eradicate all the negative images of an imperial, war-mongering country that it picked up during WWII. But as Nakamura says, pop culture will also not be quite enough to erase such a negative perception. For one, some people feel Japan is ignoring the entire issue. By neither addressing nor apologizing for their involvement in the war, they are angering some countries. It’s also difficult to get by on such an insubstantial PD strategy when other countries, like China and South Korea , actively use Japan’s involvement in the war as part of their own PD strategies.

Overall, pop culture definitely adds ways Japan can leverage their public diplomacy, but it cannot by any stretch support a public diplomacy program on its own. 

Taiwanese Public Diplomacy

In his article Gary Rawnsley discusses Taiwan’s approach to public diplomacy.  He begins by framing the argument in terms of what countries should be focusing on.  One of Taiwan’s major challenges is gaining recognition in the international community.  In order to do this they need to focus more on the appeal that they have to Western nations. 

This is the tactic that Joseph Nye argues will work the best because currently it is Western countries, like the U.S. that are dictating the global norms.  “The countries that are likely to be more attractive and gain soft power in the information age are those with multiple channels of communication that help to frame issues; whose dominant culture and ideas are closer to prevailing global norms.”  Basically if Taiwan wants gain recognition they need to be focusing their public diplomacy on the characteristics that will appeal to the West.

For Taiwan they need to be emphasizing their democracy over other characteristics. By doing this they will be more appealing to other countries and will have greater success in raising their profile internationally.  Previously they had focused on the idea that they were preserving the traditional Chinese culture, but this is something that is going to be harder to understand for western audiences.

Most importantly Taiwan needs to scale back its public diplomacy focused on culture.  Rawnsley describes Taiwan as having “electoral volatility”, the polarization of their parties makes it difficult to create a cohesive Taiwanese identity.  There is no clear vision on what being Taiwanese is.  There is revolving debate about who it is that gets to create this identity.  As the parties in power change so does the current identity; making it incredibly difficult to place brand.

As a result Taiwan hasn’t been utilizing soft power to its full extent.  By focusing more on characteristics that appeal to the West it has a chance of regaining ground.  Especially for a smaller country like Taiwan, soft power and public diplomacy is one of the best ways they can gain influence.

Taiwan's Soft Power Potential

Taiwan is a really unique country when it comes to the practice of public diplomacy. Many of its challenges come from the fact that it is not internationally recognized by any of the major global powers. Very few countries recognize Taiwan at all as a nation. It’s also not included as a part of most international organizations. It basically has a lack of international status. Taiwan also has this conflict between its national identity: are they Chinese or Taiwanese?

Besides all the issues that come from their history and lack of i9nclusion in the international power structure, Taiwan also has a big challenge when it comes to soft power because of its highly competitive elections. That means that domestic popular opinion is extremely important within Taiwan. Many of their soft power decisions are based not upon foreign policy, but rather domestic election issues. So instead of focusing on contentious issues for their soft power, they focus on culture. As Rawnsley says, they portray themselves as the preserver of traditional Chinese culture. They emphasize going beyond democracy for their soft power. The problem with that is that they are wasting a lot of soft power opportunity.

The biggest opportunity Taiwan has is that they can promote themselves as democracy, something China is obviously not. It is something the major powers, like the U.S. often stress, so Taiwan should be capitalizing on it more. The reason they don’t is often because they don’t want to offend anyone in domestic election. Rawnsley suggests they should take a more “holistic” approach towards their soft power and include politics and history, as well as culture. Then they wouldn’t just be focusing on contentious political issues, but they also wouldn’t be wasting their soft power potential. This could possibly have more tangible results than culture on its own could have. It would also prove to be less objective. Those are both complaints that Rawnsley and others have about Taiwan’s current soft power strategies.

China's Discourse on Soft Power & Public Diplomacy

(Week 4) Blog Response - Question 4:


In the realm of international relations (IR) today, every strategic decision and new foreign policy agenda created, like a chess game, is greatly weighed upon the move of one's opponent.  For China in particular, viewing the U.S. and many other prominent nation-states as competitors on the international stage, was one of the major reason's for China's embark on its own discourse of public diplomacy (PD).  


China's forwardness to engage in PD, is a notably new attempt made by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to utilize the soft power approach of engagement with other nation-states around the world, while promoting a positive image of China.  In an effort to promote soft power, and the attractiveness of Chinese culture, the CCP established the Confucius Institutes in 2004.  These institutes have been very successful in providing foreign publics with an opportunity to gain a better understanding of both Chinese culture and language.  However, while popular in certain nation-states, the Confucius Institutes have not assisted CCP in tackling one of China's major hurdles of establishing a strong sense of trust with many Western nation-states, specifically Western European nations.  In this aspect, China's soft power approach and methods appears self-limited because the CCP does not effectively utilize soft power (Craig Hayden 2012, p. 172).  Soft power, is an agglomeration of many elements of a state and the society (Shanthi Kalathil 2011).  The CCP, is a perfect case example of a state government trying to utilize soft power in transforming its foreign relations via communications to a connected global network, and not choosing to explore additional soft power concepts that would recommend placing a stronger emphasis on civil society engagement and public activeness.  As stated in an ISD (Institute for The Study of Diplomacy) report, China's Soft Power in the Information Age: Think Again, the CCP can not unilaterally decide to accrue soft power, because soft power is not solely generated by the state, but also by its culture, businesses, and most importantly, its people (Kalathil 2011).  


From my analysis on the readings, recent news reports, journal articles, and academic books, soft power effectiveness works best in a nation-state with strong governmental body, and an engaged civil society.  Deemed as a collective society by nature, the CCP in my opinion needs to re-assess the roadblocks that it faces from its present soft power approach and incorporate new diverse elements; such readdressing whom its soft power approach will be directed towards specifically.  As previously stated earlier, the CCP is working towards establishing a positive image of itself as a strong part of its foreign policy agenda. China, already enjoys, close-ties with developing nation-states in Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Yiwei Wang 2008, p. 264).  These nation-states, view China positively compared to its regional neighbors (ie. India, Korea, and Vietnam) and Western nations (ie. France, Germany, and the UK), whom are worried of China's rapid rise on the international stage.  In targeting nation-states, in which China currently does not have close-ties, the CCP's soft power and PD initiatives should be focused on reaching out to European nations, individually.

As a nation-state with an abundant amount of resources politically, economically, and culturally, utilizing all three within its continued PD efforts and soft power framework, would be a most suited supplement to the traditional hard power approach, once commonly practiced.  But, overall, the CCP must work to overcome its own constraints (ie. collectivism ideology) in its usage of soft power, and be open to providing support to Chinese businesses, domestic non-governmental organizations, and maybe even its civil society, in being actively engaged in soft power usage.  This might greatly assist in reducing outside perceptions of a "China threat", which presently proves to be one of the major obstacles preventing China from being viewed positively.  However, realistically thinking, this would be a major step for the CCP to take, especially since their perception of 'openness' and 'public engagement' are quote "Western ideals and values", and not considered the Chinese approach, or style in IR.  

Works Cited: 
Craig Hayden (2012) “China: Cultivating a Global Soft Power” in
Rhetoric of Soft Power, Chapter 5. 

Shanthi Kalathil (2011) “China’s Soft power in the Information Age:
Think Again” ISD Working Papers in New Diplomacy. Pages 1-12.


Yiwei Wang (2008) Public Diplomacy and the Rise of Chinese Soft Power,
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616. Pages 257-273.

Soft Power in China vs U.S.

Question 1: How has the concept of soft power and public diplomacy been interpreted in the context of China? How is it distinct? 

            The concept of soft power and public diplomacy is typically interpreted in the context of China through the “China threat theory” (Yiwei, 258). If you view international relations from our Westernized viewpoint (which it typically is), we usually interpret China’s sustained high rates of economic growth and technological development, as a threat to our “superpower position” in the world.  However how does their public diplomacy and soft power play a role in the hierarchical structure of our global society?

For China itself, how public diplomacy is viewed, promoted, and maintained is quite different than what we do to promote our ideals in Western countries.  There is a huge distinction between how China believes they can achieve their foreign policy goals, and in actuality how it is interpreted and translated to not be inline with the beliefs in most Western societies.  The Chinese assume that Chinese concepts are too culturally specific to be understood by Westerners, but if the Chinese government expresses itself like other countries through international relation jargon, they will lose their authentic Chinese characteristics and will be criticized by the Chinese people for being too Westernized. This is because there is a huge differentiation between how China is traditionally a collective society and the West is more individualistic. Ellis makes a good point in his article when he states that soft power is based on perceptions and emotion, and not necessarily on objective reality.  Though we believe that the “China threat theory” is largely due to their sustained market growth, part of their soft power and public diplomacy efforts is projecting themselves as a strong, big nation with a long history that can combat with a strong, big nation like the United States. 

Social Power and Diplomacy

(Week 3) Blog Response - Question 2:


Measured in all shapes and sizes, power exists within all elements of the state.  Its measurability however is not pre-determined, but can be viewed long-term by its positive or negative effects.  


Soft power, (a term coined by Joseph Nye) is an essential power that all nation-states hope to utilize alongside with their own foreign policies.  Many nation-states within the last few decades have chosen to use soft power as an alternative to raw power politics (Nye 2011), strengthening  their national image, by spreading their culture and values.  While both a useful and strategic power for foreign-policy makers, soft power can not be solely controlled by the state itself.  Here in lies soft power limitations.  Soft power, can be generated or developed only in part by what a state chooses to pursue through its policies and Public Diplomacy (PD).  Initially, pursuing its own national agenda when engaging in the  use of soft power, states must now be open to integrating third-party actors, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),  and private corporations as prospective partners, to achieve an effective soft power approach.  The strong reasoning behind the increase in partnerships, was addressed in the 2011 Wilton Park Conference Report, which openly stated that the dissemination of soft power assets relies heavily on networks, including those provided by non-state actors.  Therefore, expanding one's network, has become a recently viewed trend in how most states conduct their PD, and foreign policy engagements today.  


While networking can be considered a limitation for states, it can also be viewed as an asset to the game of politics. Soft power, in regards to networking, builds off of a social power approach toward engagement.  According to  Alain Touraine referenced by Peter van Ham in his book Social Power in International Politics, all social relations include power relations (van Ham 2010).  Social power, similar to soft power relies on and is also molded by culture, and values.  Open to non-state actors, and not only so-called 'classical players' of international politics, social power could be considered a most-suited term, and approach for the rise of active engagement of states in incorporating non-states actors into diplomacy, more so than soft power. 


In a social power approach, power moves via communications and relations.  Social power, lies within not only an individual, but a states interactions, communications, relationships, and institutions.  As a power that lies beneath the surface, a states social power influence can be measured on a global scale, by a states relations with other states, both on a public and official level.  In the case of the U.S., the U.S. possesses a strong social power influence abroad with popularity in many other states (i.e. Canada, France, South Korea) on a public  level where the civil society  is enthralled by U.S. culture (i.e. fashions, tv shows, food, etc.), and on an official level where the U.S. maintains close diplomatic ties.  But, overall, social power influence, is heavily weighted on the maintenance of close relations, interactions, and communications with other states, by both states themselves and non-state actors who are becoming more influential agents.  Lacking visibility, but continually important for all future engagements, social power should remain an ever-present element consistently incorporated within a state's foreign policy agenda. 


Works Cited:
Joseph Nye. (2011) “Soft Power” in The Future of Power. Pages 81-109.
“Putting the Power in Soft Power” (2011) Wilton Park Conference
Report. Pages 1-7.
Peter van Ham. (2010). Social Power in International Politics. Chapter 1.

Behavioral Public Diplomacy

Diplomacy is described by Kelley as being a behavior not just an institution.  What he is discussing  is the way that diplomacy has changed over the years with the increased involvement of non-state actors.  This increased involvement has taken the ability to manage diplomacy out of being strictly a state institution but has made it more of a dialogue.  These non-state actors have created a challenge for states. 

Diplomacy today isn’t just about what a government acts on but its about the way that governments interact with non-state actors and with other states.  The game is no longer limited to a few select players but to anyone really.  Actors have started taking up certain causes along side NGO’s and drawing attention to problems that were not a high priority for states.  In many ways diplomacy has become a kind of business for NGO’s and as a result they are being shaped by current policy so that they always taking actions that will support their long term goals.  I believe this is what Kelley means by diplomacy as behavior.  Diplomacy has become a component of all international business and there are now so many actors that it has created new ways that states handle situations.  These new actors are termed “new diplomats by Kelley.  He says “For our purposes, New Diplomats are mobilised by moral legitimacy supplied by a collective, stateless will to somehow reorient the ethical foundations of states, and to change state behaviour in a way that is desirable to the represented movement.”  Essentially the influence has become multi-directional.  It isn’t just states influencing eachother but now there are NGO’s that are influencing states.

In terms of public diplomacy I think that this is significant because it means that it’s going to be harder to get across your message.  With states and NGO’s playing in the same field as well as other New Diplomats there are now a lot of competing voices.  A state’s own NGO’s may being trying to change a certain behavior and as a result is sending out contradictory messages abroad.  This can negatively affect the image of the country.  I think there will have to be more energy put into cooperating and meeting the needs of NGO’s in order for states to have successful public diplomacy programs abroad.  While a state has a certain legitimacy that an NGO’s don’t have, they also have obtained a moral authority.  The idea that they are fight for what is right, this can be very powerful especially to the right audience.  In some instances it can be even more so than the voice of a state.

Soft Power

2. Is "soft power" a useful term for foreign policy-makers? Why or why not? What are the limitations? Is social power a better term?

In our era of globalization, foreign policy-makers realize that “hard” power is not the best way to achieve foreign policy goals, due to its commonly perceived connection with military power. “Soft” power, on the other hand, is a fluffier, descriptive term, but is not a concrete concept.  Nye states that the three sources of soft power are a country’s culture, political ideals, and foreign policy legitimacy.  These are all aspects that are socially constructed through attraction and persuasion to garner favorable public opinion.  This can be achieved through programs such as foreign exchanges, broadcasting and foreign assistance (Nye, 95). Due to the fact that soft power is a socially constructed ideal, I do think that social power would be a more appropriate term.  However in the foreign policy world, it’s not just the soft power, socially conscious image of a nation being the “cool” but rather the combination of hard and soft power that helps achieve foreign policy goals. Heng describes this as the largest differentiation between Japan and China.  While Japan possesses the greatest soft power potential in Asia, it faced legal, constitutional, and public barriers on hard power. Though this made Japan experienced on using soft power, some argue it allows China to soon overpower them (p 283).

I think that since soft power itself is not absolute, and it is not easily associated with a firm end goal, it a useful term for foreign policy makers because it does not hold them accountable to what “soft power” is being used for.  It seems at times to be a filibuster.  Yes, soft power helps advance our foreign policy agenda but unless it is associated with a country’s hard power, it is an abstract concept without any firm military, constitutional, and legal “muscle” to back it up. 

Relational vs. Collaborative Power

          Week 3 - Question 1
  I think sometimes we all get caught up in labeling things. We expect to have things fall neatly into different categories and public diplomacy is no exception. We separate between hard and soft power. And now, with these two articles by Slaughter and Fisher, we are differentiating “power over” from “power with.” I think we can definitely reconcile the two ideals of power. While I recognize the differences between the two, I also think they most commonly overlap and act in tandem.

            Last week many of our articles discussed the new public diplomacy, with a large focus on discussion and talking with, instead of at, the target audience. In many ways “power with” is an extension of that. We discussed how practitioners of public diplomacy can’t completely rule out talking at their audience, but they also can’t completely rely on it anymore. It’s the same idea for “power over.” Some “power over” will need to remain to keep things running smoothly and to keep public diplomacy as a field accountable. But practitioners also need to be open to the idea that collaborative power will open a lot of doors that “power over” might not open. Practitioners will have to be willing to share some of the power and simply be an important cog in the machine of making things happen in collaboration with many other players.

            The question was whether relational and collaborative power can be reconciled. And I think the answer is pretty much that they have to. It would be difficult for most practitioners, especially those in free countries, to stop collaborative power from happening. The Slaughter article discusses collaborative power through Twitter. Practitioners can’t and shouldn’t want to stop that. They should just strive to be a part of that process. So just like proponents of hard power have had to adjust to the use of soft power, practitioners of relational power, will and can adjust to working under collaborative power, and they will also continue using relational power where it is appropriate. 

There is no "new public diplomacy"

I disagree with the idea that there is a "new public diplomacy". In every field the practitioners are constantly evolving to incorporate new ideas and philosophies in order to be successful.  One of the largest drivers of change in the field of Public Diplomacy has been online media and social networking sites.  As political centers try to hold on to control the way public diplomacy happens has changed.  What was once a field that primarily disseminated information is now engaging in dialogue with people.  This means utilizing online media and resources in order to reach their target group.

Most importantly this has resulted in a change in the actors.  People involved in Public Diplomacy are no longer just appointed officials but are exchange students and members of NGO’s, to immigrant populations.  As the world has become more connected via technology there are infinite actors in Pubic Diplomacy.

The way that Public Diplomacy is being addressed is a natural evolution in response to the current political and technological environment.  As Nicholas Cull mentions in his piece entitled “Lessons From the Past” the way public diplomacy is done really hasn’t changed that much.   Public Diplomacy’s goal “of managing the international environment remains consistent.” The biggest change is that the structure is now horizontal and the tactic is to build relationship instead of just sending out messages.  However these changes I think are due to social media.  People’s use of social media has shown that they are looking to engage with other people.  People are no longer satisfied with the TV version of getting information they want the interaction and the sense that they have a voice .

Soft & Smart Power for Public Diplomacy

(Week 2) Blog Response - Question 1:

In recent years, many nation-state governments have embarked on new collaborative modes of public diplomacy (PD) practice, to engage with foreign populations. These new approaches, have transcended the traditional monologue, and dialogue layers of diplomacy, by expanding even further in developing closer-ties and co-partnerships with other nation-states, private sector industries, NGOs, non-state actors, etc.  By shifting away from engaging in PD only on a official level, nation-states are exploring various types of 'power' that can work well, and best suit various PD goals. 

Two case examples below on types of 'power' include: Soft and Smart power.

Example 1. Soft Power. 

Since the late-1990s to early 2000s, South Korean culture vastly grew in popularity when it began to air some of it own TV Dramas (commonly known as K-Dramas) abroad in Asia.  Receiving accolades after its K-Drama debut showings, the Korean Wave, or also known Hallyu manifested and snowballed into a mainstream limelight success, with a globally expanding fan-base network.  Taking the initiative to utilize the popularity of  K-Dramas, which portrayed both  traditional & modern-day  Korean way of life, the South Korean government promoted Hallyu as a soft power mode in portraying a positive image of Korea.

Example 2. Smart Power.

For the U.S. embarking on new collaborative modes of PD practice, has become a dire facet for being at the forefront of the informational age.  In a recent news report, on the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference Gala Dinner this past Wednesday (5/23/12) at the Tampa Convention Center, U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, spoke to an audience of Special Operations Force leaders from around the globe (Altman 2012).  At the dinner, Secretary Clinton, applauded these leaders for exemplifying, and embodying the smart power PD practice from their dedication toward forming closer partnerships, by working together with one another.  The smart power method of choosing to engage in stronger relations, has become a commonly practiced approach for many nation-states, including the U.S.  The pursuit of engagement via international cooperation, ties in closely as a counter method in facing international threats, or global issues multilaterally. 

These two case examples of powers of PD,  display the differences of PD, as well as, each methods individual significance.  According to Brian Hockings (2005), PD certainly has become more important than nation-states had first realized, especially in new PD methods being implemented that were not originally assumed.  In the examples provided, for South Korea, its K-Dramas opened the doors for South Korea to portray itself to the global community and develop a positive national image of itself.   At the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference Gala Dinner, all of the global leaders present, signified their national openness toward engagement for future partnership, and continued relations. 

While both of these modes of (soft and smart) power are distinct, when applied to the practice of PD a new collaborative method of PD is created.  These collaborative modes of PD, do not deliver the same level of effectiveness due to the differences in applied approaches, however they mutually seek to engage in relations with foreign populations, and groups. 

Works Cited:

Altman, H. (2012, May 24). Clinton: U.S. emphasizing 'Smart Power'. The Tampa Tribune. Retrieved from: https://bitly.com/JOR8Yl.

Hocking, B. (2005) “Rethinking the New Public Diplomacy” in J. Melissen The New Public Diplomacy.

A Collaborative Form of new Diplomacy

(Week 2) Blog Response: Option 3 – Extra Credit  

Now in its 9th year, the U.S. State Department has recently announced the two winning websites for its "2012 Doors to Diplomacy Award", which was co-sponsored with Global SchoolNet, a non-profit, Internet-based education program (RTTNews).  The joint academically based e-project, inspires middle school and high school students around the world, to construct websites that can teach citizens world-wide about the importance of international affairs and diplomacy (Global SchoolNet).  This year, the contest participants, ranged from ages 11-18, were grouped into 225 teams, and came from 38 countries.  The two winning websites were: "Water, the New Petrol", was built by a group students from CEP Santa Rosa Brothers Marist School in Sullana, Peru, and "The Haiti Ocean Project", was built by a group of students from Rivera Beach Maritime Academy in Riviera Beach, Florida (RTTNews).

This collaborative award project by the U.S. State Department and Global SchoolNet is a continual form of Public Diplomacy (PD) engagement, directed toward domestic and foreign youth populations.  The Doors to Diplomacy initiative, utilizes the 3rd layer of PD (Arsenault and Cowan 2008) via collaboration projects.  These collaborative projects create a basis of understanding on both present and future concerns that should be addressed, and receive more awareness.

In responding to the transnational concerns of the global youth populations, the U.S. through its State Department Bureaus (i.e. Bureaus of Public Affairs and Educational and Cultural Affairs) is building a bridge of connectivity with local communities abroad, through its partnership with Global SchoolNet.  Supporting continued collaboration, the e-projects provide an open and transparent window for encouraging thoughts and ideas, by mobilizing students globally to express their own shared interests, and values.  A congruous, and positive approach to new diplomacy, e-learning creates an open-source environment in engaging the next generation of future world leaders.  

Works cited:

Amelia Arsenault & Geoffrey Cowan (2008), “Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616: 10-30.

Water, The New Petrol,' 'The Haiti Ocean Project' Win Doors to Diplomacy Award. RTTNews. (2012, May 22). Retrieved from http://bit.ly/KdjDxD.

Doors to Diplomacy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://bit.ly/JV1h6q.