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.

Social Media for all 3 Layers of PD

Question 3

In their article, Arsenault and Cowan introduce what they identify to be the current three layers of public diplomacy: monologue, dialogue and collaboration. While some of these are better suited for utilization through the social media, they can all take advantage of the Information Age in at least some ways.

Monologue possibly benefits the least from social media, but that’s not to say it doesn’t benefit at all. In monologic public diplomacy, it’s all about dispersing a direct message. This can be done through social media, just as it’s done in other forms of the media, such as television. A speech that is broadcast on TV is described by Cowan and Arsenault as monologue public diplomacy, and that speech can also simply be uploaded to a Facebook page or tweeted out. The U.S. State Department operates several official social networking pages that are primarily for official correspondence on Facebook, Twitter, and the official State blog, Dipnote. This is where they put press releases and videos of official speeches, not where they engage in discussion.

Official State Facebook page features speeches, blog posts and press releases. 

That leads us to the second layer, dialogue. Social media is perfect for this layer. The dialogue aspect of public diplomacy is all about engaging in conversation people of different countries. This layer is also very inclusive of government, international organizations, NGOs and regular individuals. Social media has made these discussions much easier than they ever could have been before. Social media sites provide a public platform where these discussions can happen and almost anyone can see them and become involved. The average person from any country has a voice, as long as they have Internet access. Going back to the U.S. State Dept. example, State also operates several Facebook pages that are less about an official message and more about dialogue. These include eJournal USA, Democracy Challenge and Global Conversations: Climate.

States Global Conversations page seeks to initiate dialogue by asking questions.  

Finally, collaboration is similar to dialogue, but instead of just conversation and dialogue, it includes working on a project or initiative with people from another country. Social media can provide a place for that work to happen. That could mean tweeting ideas or articles about a project with a specific hashtag (kind of like our class assignment) or working in a Facebook group. One of the best examples would to utilize Google hangouts on Google+. Venturing a little outside of the realm of social media, it could also include things like using a Google Doc to work on a group paper or using a Prezi to develop a group presentation. 

Google+ hangout with Obama 

Social Media & Smith Mundt

Q3: How do you think social media can be used (or not) for three types of PD identified by Cowan and Arsenault?

Cowan and Arsenault identified the three layers of public diplomacy pillars as monologue, dialogue and collaboration, and there are examples within each layer of how social media can, and is, being used to further the U.S.’s public diplomacy efforts. The authors describes how each layer brings has its own merits to fostering mutual understanding, trust, and social capital that are crucial to public diplomacy goals and build relationships.  In terms of how social media is used for each layer to engage audiences: speeches or major announcements are now live streamed online to view and remarks pushed out through Twitter and Facebook; Tweetathons are held to encourage a dialogue between the governors and the governed; and online gaming sites, such as Peacemaker, encourage active collaboration where players can understand the other side of a conflict zone. 

Social media is dramatically changing how the public diplomacy game is played, and may (or may not) allow the audience to readily identify with our values and cultural identities. For example, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has inducted an initiative called 21st Century Statecraft to fully leverage foreign diplomacy tools, by using the networks and the technologies of our interconnected world to get our U.S. foreign policy messages across to foreign audiences. In addition, it is interesting that the author’s stated that messages, “designed for domestic or private consumption may well reach international audiences who will interpret (or misinterpret) them according to their own experiences, cultures and political needs”(14). This quote is timely because the rules of Smith Mundt Act were changed this week to remove the prohibition on public diplomacy materials not being available to Americans (from the BBG & State Department only).  The “modernization “of this rule is definitely necessary as cited by the aforementioned examples of how social media is already being used in public diplomacy efforts. Today, messages that were never intended for a domestic audience can be easily downloaded, uploaded or Tweeted. So the question remains, will the evaporation of this rule bring any of the previously feared consequences that lead to establishing the Smith Mundt Act in the first place? Or will there be no difference, since everything is online and readily available to U.S. audiences to upload or download anyway?

New Public Diplomacy in a Changing World

(Week 1) Blog Response - Question 2:

"New" Public Diplomacy (PD), which was coined in the post 9/11 period, was created on basis of pursuing a more forward-looking analysis on transnational engagement with other cultural societies.  Moving away from the exclusive traditional diplomacy track once used,  "new" PD was developed to be a more liberally oriented tool for actors to utilize.

As PD underwent a new revision, the actors or revisionists of PD: researchers, consultants, non-state actors, etc., became the practitioners of PD and later advisors. "New" PD was revised, and remained a soft power mechanism for nation-states, to strengthen relations with other nation-states. Over the past decade PD has grown to become an inalienable part of international relations (Jan Melissen 2012).  Possessing a positive and negative aspect, PD  represents an important instrument for nation-states in portraying positive images of themselves to foreign societies, and strengthening reputations.

PD has also become an important tool for relationship-building transnationally.  A communication tool, PD does not support "dogmatism and close-mindedness" (Jay Black, 2001 p.133), but welcomes pluralism.  Utilized as a governmental national strategy, hinders PD's full effectiveness, as mentioned by Dr. Nicholas Cull (Cull 2012).  PD, conducted in Asia, Latin America, and else where contributes to  regional community-building (Melissen, 2012 p.10).  Not used for political interest alone as largely viewed in Western nation-states, PD could be an instrumental tool for so much more.  "New" PD has opened up the doors for collaboration on all levels, in the 5 components named by Dr. Cull in his ICD interview, and additionally in terms of nation-building, and harmonizing state-to-state relations.  But, in order for PD to be fully effective,  civil societies need to be play a more active and engaged role themselves, and there must be government withdrawal in this specific area.

Characteristics of New Public Diplomacy

Discussion Question #2 -

New Public Diplomacy is built upon traditional public diplomacy. Although in many ways, new technologies brought about this change, New Public Diplomacy is not just about using the Internet. It’s also characterized by different types of actors, relationships and goals.

First, the tools for public diplomacy have changed and that is related to the Internet and information technologies. A lot of public diplomacy happens through new media now. Exchanges have become much easier with cheaper and faster modes of communication. From e-mail to social networks, the Internet has changed all communication and that of course applies to public diplomacy. Van Ham even writes about online role playing games being used for public diplomacy, such as Sweden setting up an embassy on Second Life (pg. 134). Additionally most governments now use social media to further public diplomacy goals. This recent report from the Lowy Institute covers all of the social media the U.S. State Department utilizes, with a large focus on public diplomacy. 

In terms of actors, public diplomacy is no longer just contact between a government and another state’s people (Cull pg. 12). It has evolved to include many more actors, including NGOs, international organizations and corporations. Even individuals can play a part in public diplomacy. One reason for this is the technology that allows anyone to have a voice via the Internet. But another reason is that goals and objectives have also changed.

Whereas as many might argue that old public diplomacy had similarities with propaganda, because it aimed to speak AT people to convey a message, New Public Diplomacy is about speaking WITH people. It’s about creating dialogues and conversations, which means more actors will naturally be involved in the process. Practitioners of public diplomacy have found it more productive to focus on relationship-building instead of top-down communication (Cull pg. 13). Cull also emphasizes the importance of listening and responding to what you learn, instead of just attempting to plow through with your message. In the new information age, it is much easier to communicate and carry on these types of conversations as a tool of diplomacy.  

Propaganda & Public Diplomacy=Related?

Discussion Question 1:

Black’s piece on propaganda explains the overall pervasiveness of a communications power imbalance—both of political and social institutions—onto civil society.  I took away two different dimensions to Black’s message in relation to public diplomacy.  In this historical sense, the author utilizes Ellul’s philosophy in his definition. Ellul states that numerous elements of society are oriented towards the manipulation of individuals and groups, including the threads of our sociocultural fabric.  This poses propaganda as a one-way flow of information.  Interestingly, van Ham states in his book this same definition of public diplomacy but posed in relation to foreign affairs.  The author states that the purpose of public diplomacy is to shape a favorable opinion for a foreign policy agenda, and is different from propaganda because it aims to, “create a wider, perhaps even global community, which is susceptible to a way of thinking that is considered desirable” (p 117).  But who, then, considers this particular way of thinking desirable? Why? And who says? This is where the second dimension that I thought was interesting in Black’s article is applicable, where he argues that propaganda is a function of the media.  The media spreads the ideas of the social and political institutions.  Within this process it abates the openness and freedom of expression that is supposed to counter that communication power imbalance.  As U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powel defined American diplomacy as: “We’re selling a product. That product we are selling is democracy.”(van Ham, p 119).  In terms of public diplomacy and propaganda are interchangable, where the media becomes a weapon and battlefield of choice to win over its publics.