U.S. Public Diplomacy Requires a Paradigm Shift

The public diplomacy challenges that the United States is currently facing cannot be resolved in one new initiative or more effective use of social media but require a complete paradigm shift in the way the US government views the purpose of foreign relations and its own presence abroad. There is evidence that indicates a general lack of appreciation for the inherent value of engagement and dialogue between nations. For example, State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher has said, "Engagment and dialogue is not an end in itself. Engagement and dialogue is a means to achieve U.S. interest..."[1]  When government officials are making statements like this one, any later effort to reach out to a foreign body will inevitably be perceived as somewhat insincere. It is this commitment to furthering our own agenda that may have been responsible for some of our successes in other areas, but ultimately leaves us struggling when it comes to developing relationships. If the United States were able to take a different position on public diplomacy, perhaps some of these problems could be prevented and our approach would not have to be so reactionary. A greater interest in understanding the viewpoints of those we hope to work with might help us to be more effective in developing partnerships. In order to achieve this, it’s imperative that we understand that our policies or thoughts may change and bend with this interaction. It is not enough to assume that our way is correct, and we must simply change the way others see it.

However, there are a few steps that we could take to make our current work more successful. Ideally, a larger percentage of the budget would be devoted to public diplomacy. The amount of funding that is directed towards hard power forces such as the military greatly outweighs that intended for public diplomacy, and that speaks volumes about what the United States values and understands to be strength. As noted above, any public diplomacy solutions should be thought of in a long-term way. A more sustained interest and effort in building and maintaining relationships would make any initiatives more effective.

---

[1] U.S. Department of State Archive. 7 October 2004. http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2004/36917.htm

The limits of country branding

Country or Nation-branding is not a term liked by many in the International Relations community. Many decision-makers left aside for many years those “marketing campaigns” that equalized sovereign countries with commercial trademarks. Does Japan need a brand to compete against Toyota? Or South Korea needs a logo to compete against Samsung? Isn’t Mexico a middle power recognized for its culture, its mariachis and tequila? Does it need a new brand?!

However, most countries have realized that branding it is not only about having a commercial logo or a catchy slogan. Peter van Ham, in “Social Power in International Relations,” makes a good effort to explain how country’s leaders have ended up to accept that since every country has a brand, it is better to invest in a good campaign instead of becoming silent in a competitive world.

Image and reputation are parts of the brand, but it is Simon Anholt who has developed a complex hexagon with areas that should be analyzed in order to build up a nation-brand. Future Brand, a consultant firm specialized in branding has also developed its Country Brand Index following a few indicators,[1] which are essentially the same as Anholt’s: culture, people, investment environment, exports, tourism, and governance.

It is true that country or place branding is limited and it does not provide all the possibilities of Public Diplomacy, especially the possibility to interact with others. Nevertheless, it has become a must for every country and a more accepted term nowadays. The question now relies in whether in a world where everyone is investing in its own brand, a small or middle power can really make a difference – i.e. how to successfully exploit those advantages that should help a country to differentiate and construct a comparative advantage. I am thinking in those available “natural” resources that a country is blessed with like Brazil’s soccer player and Carnival’s garotas; Argentina’s Leo Messi; or Peru’s Machu Picchu. But I am also thinking in those created products such as Korea’s K-Pop, Venezuela’s “telenovelas” and India’s Bollywood films.

Public Diplomacy is certainly more complex and rich than country branding, because it implies a real engagement with other countries and cultures, although some strategies of country-branding can boost Public Diplomacy efforts when carefully considered. The issue at stake will always be how to establish a credible image. Mexico is a good example of a country that is investing a lot in country branding[2] in order to reestablish its reputation as a friendly country after many years of continuous violence. Unfortunately, the best country brand campaign will not help to clean the blood in Ciudad Juarez - not the next President nor the Virgen of Guadalupe, are capable of those miracles.

Who can help to hide those? 

---

[1] www.futurebrand.com

[2] MexicoToday.org 

Middle Power's Soft Power

In reading this week’s articles, it became obvious that middle powers are in a unique position because while they are present and involved in different issues, they are oftentimes not on a level in which they are able to compete with major powers. Being removed from this competitive context allows them to relate to major powers in a non-threatening way. This can be both positive and negative for the country’s soft power.

On the upside, it means that the country can approach mediation for other countries in a more objective way. For example, South Korea is not on the same plane as China and Japan from an economic or militaristic viewpoint, so as far as hard power goes, it can’t compare. However, its soft power is respected. According to a survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, South Korean soft power is viewed more positively by both China and Japan than they view each other’s soft power (Lee, 4). If South Korea continues to be viewed as an approachable outside observer, it could use that quality to play a role in important Northeast Asia mediations, and potentially even turn those discussions in ways that would have benefits for South Korea.

Further, South Korea’s relatively recent development into a middle power means it can play the part of an accessible role model to other countries who hope to progress similarly. By building strong relationships and extending assistance to other developing nations, it will increase its soft power with smaller countries who may be intimidated by larger powers. This strategy is important in order to create networks of small and middle powers.

Like South Korea’s proximity to China and Japan, Mexico is a middle power that is located very close to a much stronger and stable power, the United States. However, Mexico’s soft power strategies have not been as defined or successful as South Korea’s. One of the dangers of being a middle power is marginalization. In 1990, the international cultural exhibition, Mexico Splendors of Thirty Centuries, did much to present Mexico in a positive light but did not seem to have a long-term or deep impact in the way foreign publics perceived Mexico. It is important for a middle power to avoid the trap of being seen as purely exotic and entertaining, as this makes it more difficult for it to seriously contribute to global affairs in a substantive way.

As we can see from these two middle powers, being in the middle can have its advantages. While they may not be calling the shots, they’re in a position to build strong relationships with those both more and less powerful than they are, if they can establish themselves as a sophisticated state.

Measured, Success

Unlike China, the other Asian behemoth India has strong, if not always consistent, public diplomacy tools at its disposal.  This is not to say that it’s perfect, but it is able to make several claims to support its positive role both as an agent of change and as a stable actor in the world community. 

India often lays claim to being the “world’s largest democracy”.  In an era where the move towards freer forms of democracy is healthy - as evidenced by the Arab Spring of 2011 and the “color revolutions” of the mid-aughts – this is an important distinction, and one that sets it well apart from China and Russia, two of the other “BRICS” and it’s main geopolitical competitors.  The embrace of India’s heterogeneous make-up (“unity out of diversity”) also serves to act as a positive image to other nations.  A diverse ethnic and religious tableau working within a democratic framework is a positive influence on the world stage.  Finally, Bollywood, the most active entertainment sector in the world, and a strong popular musical presence allow India to spread informal PD throughout the region and other parts of the world, while Indian universities are quickly making a name for themselves.  Add in the fact that many, at least educated, Indians speak the current lingua franca, and it is ripe for imparting a positive image of itself both to its own citizens and to the world at large.

There is, of course, some tarnish on the silver.  Having such a large population of relatively unskilled and uneducated people, and a poverty rate over one quarter, is a major issue for India moving forward.  It seems especially that the highly-touted Indian democracy has not been able to keep up with the Chinese miracle going on next door, which can and will make it difficult to act as a developing world alternative to the Beijing Consensus.  A throwback to near-dictatorial times, the bureaucracy is almost as creaky as some of the colonial-era infrastructure, both of which the country rely upon heavily.  Both will need to be modernized and made more lithe and adaptable to change the perception of India into that of a vibrant, soft-powerful nation. 

These are not insurmountable obstacles, and overall India is making positive, if quiet, headway in projecting itself as a country on the way up, and one that is happy to support others of a like mind to do so.

China's Take on PD

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

As China (and it’s 1.3 billion residents) has evolved into a world superpower, its soft power and public diplomacy has remained inherently tied to their level of power.  While other countries rely on being culturally sophisticated, financially secure, or great for tourists, China seems to project only one thing: its rise into economic (and political) superpower status. 

To more developed countries, such some European nations, Japan, and the U.S., China portrays itself as a collaborator in the “harmonious society” of states, and an equal among many in a multilateral world.  Non-threatening, the new and bountiful China, it is assured, will benefit all and contribute positively to the development of the global economy and community. 

China also hopes to leverage its soft power with sometimes overlooked or oppressed countries in Africa and South America.  Here, the rise of China marks a shift away from “imperial” relationships, and demonstrates a new model to emulate: “Beijing Consensus”.  As Lee points out, the PRC provides money to countries that others in the global community refuse to invest in, mostly due to human rights concerns.  Countries want to get on the good side of the future(?) superpower, win early advantage as their designated importer of copper, soybean, or bauxite, and gain influence through their new ally.  Many companies and countries are willing to take losses to maintain these ties, in the earnest belief that they will pay off in the end. 

Although some other aspects of soft power are trickling through – growing numbers of students learning Chinese as a second language, interest in Pacific-centric international groups and organizations – they all stem from hitching onto China’s rise.  Other countries are looking to China, not to emulate their culture, their politics, or their economic model that but to maximize their economic potential.  Even the “Beijing Consensus” concept is from Western academics, not Chinese public diplomacy.  Within the discourse of a necessarily powerful, but peaceful, China it seems that other factors – poor human rights, environmental degradation, mistreatment of minorities – have been ignored.    

And this may be the point.  China wants to maintain focus on the one, big net positive, which is its economic potential.  This may be as much, if not more so, for domestic consumption than for the usual realm of public diplomacy.  By shouting about its economic rise, China tries to drown out any opposition to other facets of soft power, and of its government practices.  Whether this PD tactic can remain viable in the long run remains to be seen, and whether China will be able to rely on more than the world’s largest consumer base to ensure soft power in the future.

Incredible India? Incredible Brand!

In Nicholas Cull’s Public Diplomacy: Lessons from the Past, he broadly defines public diplomacy as “an international actor’s attempt to manage the international environment through engagement with a foreign public" (12). By this definition, nation-branding might be considered public diplomacy. Especially because one of the distinctions between typical public diplomacy and the “new” public diplomacy is that international actors increasingly come in nontraditional forms, I can see how there would be a new space for hired marketing firms in this way.

However, there are a few facets of nation-branding that don’t quite fit with the view of public diplomacy:

1.  PURPOSE: The approaches of country branding seem to be more driven by investment and tourism than political gains. According to India Wants to Be Your Friend: India and the “New Public Diplomacy”  by Elizabeth Hanson, the 2002 “Incredible India!” campaign increased the number of tourists from 2.3 million to 6.3 milllion in 2011. Of course, while having a positive image in the world will no doubt reflect well in the political arena, this appears to be more of a byproduct than the original intention. Nation-branding aims to create a broad, optimistic and memorable impression, but I see public diplomacy as more informative and based on factual evidence and actions.
2. ENGAGEMENT: Nation-branding does not involve the foreign public in any kind of dialogue or discussion, but instead pushes information out without inviting a response. This is antithetical to the new public diplomacy model that has emerged. Instead of seeking any kind of feedback from the public of the foreign nation, the main purpose of nation-branding is to spread a carefully constructed positive image of the country.

Ultimately, nation-branding can be considered public diplomacy, but I don’t know that it is more effective. That depends on how you measure success, and as I discussed above, the goals of nation-branding are often very different than other means of public diplomacy, which makes it difficult to draw a meaningful comparison.

Chinese Soft Power: A Latin-American (Peruvian) perspective

"All countries can gain from finding attraction in one anothers’ cultures. But for China to succeed, it will need to unleash the talents of its civil society. Unfortunately, that does not seem about to happen soon."[1]

(Joseph Nye, Why China is Weak in Soft Power, NYT, January 17 2012)

Many experts consider China has a difficulty to expand its soft power. In the United States and Europe, as well as in other Asian countries, China is perceived with fear and mistrust. Chinese soft power seems to be in trouble. Nevertheless, China projects a positive image in Latin-America. Whether a Bolivarian country such as Venezuela, Bolivia or Ecuador that sympathizes with Chinese political system and its emergence as a global power against the “imperialist” power of the United States; most liberal countries such as Peru or Chile, who have benefitted from Free Trade Agreements; or even Brazil and Mexico that want to join –especially the former – China as a regional power; there is a common trend: everyone admires China’s rise.[2]

In my personal perspective, it might be more interesting to see how Chinese soft power has worked positively instead of focusing in other regions or countries – eg Europe or Japan - where I believe the Chinese soft power is being contested for another reason: fear of their hard power. In this, I will try to focus on my personal perspective on China’s image and recent activities to promote its standing in Peru, where Confucius Institutes are gaining a greater audience, Chinese-Peruvian food is a must, and many businessmen are trying to learn some basic Chinese to communicate with their main buyers and trade partners.

Chinese “coolies” arrived to Peru and other parts of South America by the middle of the 19^th century to replace slaves and work mainly in the coastal fields. Many died in the way to Peru and those who arrived did not have an easy time. Over the years Peruvian-Chinese gained a reputation for being hard workers, excellent clerks and cooks. It is said that there is a Chinese store in every corner, as well as a “chifa”[3] (Chinese-Peruvian restaurants were always common, even though now it is a more sophisticated version that we can find in Lima). Nevertheless, despite this historical presence of “chinese,”[4] China as a country did not have an especially powerful presence or image in the Peruvian public opinion. It is clear that recent Chinese economic growth has helped to support its image, but it is also necessary to emphasize that China is investing a lot of resources in projecting itself as the new global power.

In Evan Ellis´s case study on Chinese Soft Power in Latin America there are several examples on how China is investing resources on building up a reputation as a power, but projecting itself as a partner that is closer despite the distance of a Pacific ocean between China and Peru. In recent years China has been promoting several cultural activities and is trying to present itself as a peaceful culture, paralleling China’s imperial time with Inca’s culture, as can be seen in many promotional publicity, including the Chinese Embassy’s webpage.

However, as Ellis says, “one of the most significant barriers between China and Latin America is language,” that is why it is very interesting to see how Confucius Institutes[5] have been opened in recent years not only in Lima but also in some important provinces. Many universities and schools are offering classes of Mandarin as the “business language” and even though English remains the most popular language to learn, Chinese is somehow becoming trendy. We will see if in the years to come this heavy investment on Chinese Soft Power makes the Chinese a more palatable language and China keeps its positive image in the region. Keeping a good reputation sometimes can be harder than building up a new one.     

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/opinion/why-china-is-weak-on-soft-power.html

[2] Even though we will focus on China’s PD in Latin America, we consider extremely interesting the overall evaluation of Chinese Soft Power made by Yiwei Wang, especially regarding the difficulties that China faces in order to build up a positive reputation worldwide.

[3] “Chifa” etymology comes from chi fan: basic words for “to eat a dish”

[4] In Peruvian slang, Chinese is a common way to refer to everyone with Asian features (by instance our former President Alberto Fujimori, from Japanese descent, was called “Chino”) and is mostly used as an affective adjective.

[5] http://confucio.pucp.edu.pe/

Translating "Soft Power" into Chinese

The concept of “public diplomacy” seems grossly misunderstood in China. While most of the world uses this term to express the relationships built between nations through engaging foreign publics, this concept is a difficult one for China to grasp. According to Yiwei Wang in “Public Diplomacy and the Rise of Chinese Soft Power,” the term has been interpreted in China as the endeavor to convince the Chinese public of the legitimacy and importance of China’s foreign policies, rather than directing their efforts to the citizens of other nations.

But the publicizing and manipulating of information to its own public is not a new procedure to China. China’s long practice of internal propaganda has essentially been expanded to external audiences, but this is not in the same spirit as traditional soft power philosophies. In this way, China takes a more monologic approach to public diplomacy, rather than opening a dialogue, which seems to be the growing trend in other parts of the world. Whereas other countries understand that scrutiny and criticism are a natural and inevitable part of the discourse and transparency that come with public relations, China fights this at every level, even from the journalists and television newscasters who censor themselves on a daily basis.

China seems preoccupied with advancing its own economic and political agenda, but little else. In his article, “Chinese Soft Power in Latin America: A Case Study,” R. Evan Ellis reports that Chinese companies have proven to be “poor corporate citizens, reserving the best jobs and subcontracts for their own nationals, treating workers harshly, and maintain poor relations with the local community” (91). China has demonstrated that it has no interest in building strong, mutually beneficial relationships with other states by ignoring otherwise generally agreed upon standards. For example, it has repeatedly loaned money to developing countries with no provisions regarding the impact on the environment or human rights. While this policy may seem freeing to those countries receiving the financial assistance, this strategy undermines the legitimacy of the regulations set by other development actors and does a disservice to the international community in terms of environmental degradation and human rights violations. Wang asserts that one of the underlying assumptions in Chinese public diplomacy is that a country’s power is a direct result of its size and strength, which I think explains part of their struggle with the understanding of soft power. 

Power with (versus?) Power over in a Lego World

The real revolution of social media has been the possibility that has been given to almost everyone to connect and have a voice. Thus, the international arena has dramatically changed from a State-centric world to a multi-dimensional network where diverse regional, sub-regional and personal actors interconnect and inter-act. As Anne-Marie Slaughter depicts it, we have left a world formed as a billiards set where only States/billiard balls played a role, to a Lego World, where still States are important, but their multiple components can also interact and play their own individual role. 

In this Lego World, new technologies allow everyone to interact, thus giving a chance to individual actors to add their own personal capital - and relatively small power - in order to reach collective goals. This, for Slaughter is collaborative power: the chance to mobilize and connect with others, adapting one own's preferences looking for a collective action before a problem. This is what she considers the new way to exercise "power with" others.

I believe that this is entirely true. We are living a time where States are almost obliged to engage with different other multiple actors - including individuals - because social media have empowered everyone. Nevertheless, I doubt whether the real goal of States would be reinforce this "power with" leaving aside their ultimate goal of exercising "power over" others. What I perceive is that some States - principally the United States - are able to utilize social media and new tools in order to give the perception that everyone is empowered and that they are open to a dialogue to work "with" everyone. As Alec Ross said in a recent discussion on Digital Diplomacy, technologies are value-neutral, but they are important when they allow the United States to make concrete their own foreign policy goals. A foreign policy objective of the United States is to promote democracy all around the globe. For this specific purpose, social media is a great tool. Where the jury is still out is how other State-actors (i.e. a European, Latin-American, African or Asian country) can benefit from these tools in order to promote their own objectives. 

What I mean is that the United States has seized the opportunity of social media and is working "with" many others in order to work out its influence and to have "power over" other actors. It still has a big chunk of the Lego game within. It is still to see if it also works for other States which are only learning to play with the Lego. In the meantime, every individual has the chance to have a little bit more of voice and power, That is already a good thing. But watch out! Lego can be built in a collaborative positive way but it can also be used for some other actors - I am thinking i terrorist groups, by instance - to create dangerous networks. 

And whether we like it or not, States are still the only actors that have the monopoly on the use of violence and a responsibility to protect. Those are still the rules of the game even in a Lego world.

Soft vs. Social Power

While soft and social power are both getting at a similar idea of furthering an agenda through non-coercive means (which Peter van Ham defines as without the use or threat of military force) the terms themselves carry slightly different implications. It seems that social power is more useful as it can stand on its own, and not in opposition to “hard” power. As hard and soft are so directly related as antonyms, it suggests a dichotomy that is not the case in diplomatic practice. In fact, it is often important for hard and soft, or social, power to work together and complement each other to strengthen an actor’s overall mission. For example, a country’s use of soft power through a good reputation and credibility can provide legitimacy to their military intervention. In addition, the use of the word “soft” in this context is so broad that it loses all substantive meaning and exists only to differentiate an action from that which would be considered “hard” power.

Furthermore, I think that using the term “social” power draws on two particular connotations which are relevant to this discussion. The first that is worth mentioning here is that related to human welfare. Social power is more likely to utilize and find value in intangible resources such as social networks, respect, authenticity, and knowledge. This focus on community and legitimacy is not just applicable to foreign policy-makers, but agents of change in development, as well. However, the term “social power” is obviously not limited to this function. The second and more important connotation in “social” is the emphasis on interactions with others and communication. This aspect of the concept is also reflected in Nye’s “relational power” and Slaughter’s “collaborative power.” The reliance on the cooperation of many players is indicated more clearly in these terms. It can also refer to the control of interactions, communications, and the framing of situations that are such a large and integral part of this kind of power. Broad and yet precise, “social power” is a far more effective term than “soft power.”

Social Media in Public Diplomacy

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

As Cowan and Arsenault describe, “each of the three ‘layers’ of public diplomacy—monologue, dialogue, and collaboration—is essential at certain times and under certain situations. Nothing can match the poetry, clarity, emotional power, and memorability of a beautifully crafted speech or proclamation. Nothing helps build mutual understanding as well as a thoughtful dialogue. And nothing creates a sense of trust and mutual respect as fully as a meaningful collaboration” (p.11).  What’s interesting to me when thinking about these layers is that social media tools can be utilized for all three levels to effectively complement each other, reaching a wider audience and spreading cross-cultural communication in ways that evolve by the moment.

Monologue is perhaps least compatible with the spirit of social media, but this one-way, self-contained communication outlet could still be achieved through, for instance, a blog post with the option for commenting disabled.  In contrast, dialogue (encouraging the participation in the exchange of ideas and information) can be easily facilitated by allowing for free-flowing commentary on that blog post (with opportunity for the author to clarify and respond to readers), as well as through tools like Twitter or open online discussion forums.  Collaboration (the “third layer”) refers to initiatives and outreach campaigns that feature an effort by citizens of different countries to complete a common project or achieve a common goal.  Collaboration serves public diplomacy by promoting the building of trust and social capital, which are key elements that build cross-cultural understanding. 

Though monologue and dialogue are not in opposition to each other, social media can play an incredible part in turning monologue into dialogue.  Though it’s impossible to control what Cowan and Arsenault refer to as incendiary dialogue, “by expanding the range of voices and opinions that flow across borders, governments may help to contain negative opinion of state governments while retaining positive perceptions of the nation as a whole” (15).  Voice of America multi-lingual programming successfully shifted from monologue to dialogue with the use of technology, starting back in 1994.   The “live” nature of social media could be seen during the events of the Arab spring and reports of the uprising spreading through Egypt through young people’s Twitter postings – truly a beautiful example of the power of the ease of intercultural communication through social media.

Each of these layers of public diplomacy described are heavily contingent on the needs of the moment, the characteristics of the communicator and the target audience, and the conditions of their interactions: to me, the beauty of social media as a tool of PD is the flexibility and ability to adapt to and represent the current moment and reach across international audiences. Cowan and Arsenault say that “communication formulated by a president has different implications than one issued by a media celebrity or social advocate, and people from different backgrounds, different governmental systems, and different religions receive it differently;” (p.12) the power of social media is that ostensibly, an average college student has the capability to have their voice and views reach a comparable audience to that of the President of the United States.  In the spirit of collaboration, including these new voices can be an incredibly powerful tool in spreading diplomacy.

Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: Where Does Social Media Fit In?

In Cowan and Arsenault's 2008 article, Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy, it is argued that all three methods of communication mentioned in the title are necessary in effectively reaching the people of other nations. With the rise of websites such as Facebook and Twitter, public diplomacy practitioners are increasingly moving their initiatives to the social media arena. But does it always work?

Monologue 

By definition, social media is not meant for monologue. The ability to comment and to voice one’s opinion on a subject is what makes websites likes Twitter and Facebook so popular and interesting to millions of users. In this way, it is more difficult to control how a message will be received and understood by an audience that can be as diverse and spread out as anyone with internet access. This lack of control can unnerve those who might be more accustomed to “older” forms of public diplomacy, but I don’t think it needs to, if we approach it with the right expectations. Public diplomacy initiatives must have a space in social media, because that is where populations in 2012 are effectively congregating, but the way that these populations are addressed needs to change to fit the method of communication. 

Dialogue 

Social media is used much more comfortably when managed as a dialogue with the anticipation of a response. For example, because social media allows others to respond instantly, it can hold public diplomacy practitioners to higher levels of accountability. Transparency becomes even more important when there is less control over the message. However, as is true of any dialogue, it’s not always positive or productive, but if communicators believe in the entity they represent, it gives them the greatest ability to connect confidently and honestly with the public. It’s also important to recognize that in many cases, for every negative remark, there will also be a supporter waiting to defend and champion your cause.

Collaboration 

Perhaps most interestingly, public diplomacy initiatives have found ways to incorporate social media into collaborative efforts between nations. In Fall 2007, an initiative funded by the State Department brought American University students in the School of International Service in Washington, D.C. into contact with students studying at the Modern College of Business and Science in Oman and the University of Bahrain. In this online course co-taught by Prof. Alexandra Parrs and Prof. Bram Groen, the students were required to work together across cultures and time zones. The students used facebook, email, and skype to complete the assigned projects and communicate about their research. While they certainly encountered challenges related to cross-cultural communication, as well as a few struggles with the technological aspects of the course, it seemed to be a good experience that will prepare them well for their future professional endeavors. The professors agree that this type of partnership is growing and the students seem to have benefitted from building academic relationships with those in a vastly different culture. It is their hope that associations such as this one continue to expand and receive state and institutional support. (For more on this particular project:  http://www.american.edu/sis/imi/imq/upload/GroenParrsIMQFall2010.pdf)

Diplomats will evolve...but will survive!

“No government could survive without champagne. Champagne in the throats of our diplomatic people is like oil in the wheels of an engine.” (Joseph Dargent, 1953)

I must start with a caveat. I am myself a diplomat. And I do not consider myself as a dillettante. In commenting Kelley's excellent article on the challenges of diplomacy today, I must say that most people still has in mind the stereotype of the diplomat as a classy man with refined manners, a  bon vivant who speaks French perfectly in nice ballrooms where champagne and caviar is equally enjoyed by Ambassadors and beautiful mysterious women - most of them spies. I certainly had the dream of being at least once in one of such reunions. But that diplomacy has - fortunately? - almost disappeared. What a pity!

Those nice old times...

Diplomacy certainly has evolved in the last years and I am sure that will continue doing so. And it is not only the existence of new actors and new ICTS and social media. As Kelley suggests, the State itself has evolved and today many issues that were considered as clear attribution of its power has diluted into a new world where TNCs and NGOs have a say in those issues. This has created a radical change in the way to make diplomacy and probably this is what Kelley does not explain in depth. Within the State there are many new agencies, ministries, and institutions that did not exist many years ago in charge of problems that did not exist many years ago. States have sometimes lost its overall power on every single issue but at the same time have evolved into a complex machinery with many inter-related actions to operate. This has challenged diplomacy since most of these new issues have also become global. This is what I perceive as a first challenge in the evolution for Diplomacy. "New" issues relate to trade, environment, health, labour, etc. Diplomats now share responsibility for negotiating a whole set of new issues with experts of other agencies. This is a first crisis. 


Only as a second step comes what Kelley identifies as new actors and new media. And I concur that the state is ceding ground to non-state actors - although I have some doubts about the real value of celebrities' diplomacy and popularizing the term "Ambassador"- and I certainly believe that the five features that he identifies for the future of diplomacy are already on the minds of every "new" diplomat, being part of the diplomatic service or part of another interest. But as Kelley also states, "transition are a fixture of modern diplomacy." Diplomats are already aware that in a world where almost everyone has access to the same information at the same time and can also express ideas at the same time, their "expertise" must be sufficiently real for them to be heard. 


I believe new generations of diplomats are already thinking in the new role of Diplomacy in the XXI century. As Kelley explores, this is specially true for Public Diplomacy, that has regained importance. New diplomats are using already new technologies to communicate. I believe, as a "Peruvian" diplomat, that our challenge is to find ways in which these technologies can also serve "our" national interests - such as connecting our diaspora, expressing our ideas or promoting our country. But for us the challenge is also to understand that these technologies are value-neutral (Alec Ross commented this in a recent remark) and that if Diplomats will survive is because they are still relevant. 


I believe that unless a dramatic transformation on the nation-state occurs, diplomats will still be relevant, certainly sharing a space with other "new" diplomats. Nevertheless, I think at this moment all diplomats - being those officials or "new" diplomats - are still struggling with realizing the real role anyone can play in the international arena and what their behavior should be. And in this world of doubts, at least "official" diplomats have the certainty of what interests we are pursuing. So, to end with relief, I can just quote Gloria Gaynor: I will (hopefully) survive.   

Propaganda or Public Diplomacy?

How does Black's extensive exploration of propaganda help us understand its distinction - if any - from public diplomacy?

Looking at the six key characteristics of propaganda techniques that Black outlines, the very first one listed (“heavy or undue reliance on authority figures and spokespersons, rather than empirical validation, to establish its truths, conclusions, or impressions”) is in some ways quite similar to Public Diplomacy in a practical sense.  In many applications, we tend to be very reliant on a singular representation to mass influence opinion.  For instance, through a program like IVLP (the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program), often one person or one group of people will help to inform their host community’s views about their visitor’s nation.  Similarly, images in the media, such as the fame of a certain pop music star, can also influence the international arena’s view of that personality’s nation, unfairly or not, and whether or not the star’s countrymen like or agree with this representation of themselves.  

However, further down the list of propaganda techniques, true differences between propaganda and public diplomacy are apparent.  Engagement with a foreign public through Public Diplomacy can easily avoid propaganda’s characteristic “reduction of situations into simplistic and readily identifiable cause and effect relations, ignoring multiple causality of events,” and most certainly is in opposition to placing “a greater emphasis on conflict than on cooperation among people, institutions, and situations.”  One of the core goals of PD could be seen as the cooperation among institutions through international communication, and with that, an increase in cross-cultural understanding.

Black also discusses the semantics of propaganda and concepts for what he calls “sophisticated (sane) language behavior.” Included in this is an awareness that people will view the world differently, as well as the awareness that not every idea must be true or false nor every behavior right or wrong.   These behaviors are keys to Public Diplomacy as well, which aims to promote foreign policy through engagement of foreign publics.

Jay Black makes several interesting points in his discussion about the history of the concept of propaganda that point to another key difference between it and public diplomacy on a semantic level. Spearheaded in the 1600’s Roman Catholic Church, the aim of propaganda was to “spread ideas that would not occur naturally, but only via a cultivated or artificial generation.”  By the 1800’s, the term shifted and became value-laden, and ethically immoral.  This semantic value is distinct from the value associated with the concept of Public Diplomacy, which, overall, lacks a strong negative public connotation.   From my perspective, even the term “diplomacy” itself brings to mind an image of calm, fair negotiation-but perhaps as we continue with our readings and course materials I will change this opinion!

One last interesting idea Black presents (from Ellul, 1965) that is especially thought provoking is the view that people need media to provide “predigested views because they can’t experience all of life firsthand.”  Do people need to be propagandized?  

Is there a "New" Public Diplomacy?

I believe that Public Diplomacy has evolved in recent years basically in terms of tools, through new ICTs. As Gilboa, Melissen and Cull try to explain, there has been a change in Public Diplomacy, but I think that change can be found also in the change that Diplomacy has suffered in the last fifty or sixty years. Traditional or Old Diplomacy has been evolving because the international arena has turned into a "polyteral" world, with a multiplicity of actors and voices different than State actors. This has been more evident in recent years with States dealing and even negotiating with NGOs and transnational corporations, media, etc. but has accelerated because of the fast speed of technological change, especially the Internet, social media and new platforms and tools - what many call Digital Diplomacy or Diplomacy 2.0-. Public Diplomacy - the ability to reach broader audiences around the world different that the classic State actor and its official representatives -, has become more relevant but if a recent progress must be identified I would tend to associate it with the technological progress rather that with new diplomatic objectives or goals.

In this regard, Diplomacy itself is suffering an identity crisis in which diplomats - that had to inform about other countries gaining a perspective that only could be obtained "on the field" - have many competitors in an ultra-connected globalized world where almost everyone can dispatch information from everywhere in real time. This has not changed the traditional way of making diplomacy but I believe has brought many difficulties and new challenges to this old métier. Thus, citizens are also reporting and informing in a better and more efficient manner than diplomats, thanks to the better utilization of new tools. I personally found Cull's comparison between Old and New Public Diplomacy (figure 1) extremely useful, although more under a theoretical than a practical approach since diplomats are still doing basically what they have been always doing, as some stereotypes of the Diplomat as a bon vivant spy still survives.

What Diplomacy is about

Coda: Although it is related to another question, I have doubts about a real difference between Propaganda and PD. Propaganda earned a bad name as Black explains, but I believe only through examples we will be able to understand why is so. Nowadays, there is an extraordinary exhibition at the Holocaust Memorial Museum on Nazi Propaganda. I was able to go and I would recommend everyone to visit it in order to understand better what Propaganda - maybe an old banned name for PD - is.

Nazi Propaganda