Chapter 3 - International developments in public diplomacy
3.1
The growing body of international opinion holds that public diplomacy plays
a critical role in establishing a country's standing in the world and in achieving
real objectives.[1]
A recent conference in Geneva, at which 30 foreign ministries were represented,
concluded that foreign ministries world-wide are 'actively engaged in a complex
process of change and adaptation to an international environment that is
volatile and unpredictable'. Participants recognised that public diplomacy was
a central consideration in this changing environment.[2]
3.2
This chapter considers the increasing attention being given to public
diplomacy and why it has assumed such importance in today's foreign relations.
Soft Power
3.3
It is useful in any discussion of public diplomacy to refer to the
broader context of the exercise of 'hard and soft power'. Joseph Nye, Professor,
Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, described hard power as the
ability to produce results through force or coercion. According to Nye, hard
power grows out of a country’s military and economic might. In contrast, he
defined soft power as the ability to influence others to secure the desired outcomes
through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion or payments. He
explained:
When you can get others to want what you want, you do not have
to spend as much on sticks and carrots to move them in your direction.[3]
3.4
Nye argues that soft power is 'more than simply ephemeral popularity; it
constitutes a means of obtaining desired outcomes'.[4]
According to Nye, a state derives its soft power from three sources—culture,
political values and foreign policy. The strength of a country's soft power
rests on the extent to which its culture, political values and foreign policy
attracts or repels those of the targeted country.
3.5
Public diplomacy is a practical manifestation of the use of soft power.
It revolves around a country using non-military force to attract rather than
coerce in order to influence the views and behaviours of others. The following
two examples show public diplomacy as an exercise of Australia's soft power.
3.6
In February 2007, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Alexander
Downer MP, wrote an open letter to the people of the Solomon Islands in an
attempt to neutralise attempts to diminish the reputation of the Regional
Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI). The letter was intended to reach
beyond the government to influence the attitudes of the general population
toward RAMSI and more broadly, Australia. In this letter, the Minister stated
that he felt it was important to place before the people of Solomon Islands
'accurate information about the views of Australia'. He offered assurances
that:
Australians and indeed your regional neighbours who make up
RAMSI remain committed to working with you to prevent a return to those bad old
days; we remain committed to keeping RAMSI in place, so that Solomon Islands
can continue to move forward.'[5]
3.7
The Minister was also critical of a number of developments in the
islands such as endeavours to undermine the work of government institutions
that were 'designed to ensure the government and people are accountable for
their actions'.
3.8
The letter was published in three newspapers and, although it was condemned
by the Prime Minister of Solomon Islands, 'there was, according to DFAT, a
broad acceptance of the letter from the Solomon Islands community'.[6]
3.9
The second example relates to government funding for madrasah schools in
Indonesia. The Australian Government recognises the important role mainstream
Islamic organisations play in the provision of basic services and in the
development of a democratic and religiously tolerant society in Indonesia. [7]
To help raise the standard of mainstream Islamic education and contribute to
the security and stability of the region, in 2004–05 AusAID implemented the
Learning Assistance Program for Islamic Schools. During its first 12 months of
operation, the project mapped the immediate and longer-term needs of more than
800 madrasah schools and provided support to meet some immediate needs.[8]
3.10
AusAID also co-hosted, with the Indonesian government, the International
Dialogue on Interfaith Cooperation in Yogyakarta. Faith leaders from around the
region joined discussions on the role of religion in addressing the issues of
religiously diverse communities, including peace and conflict prevention.[9]
The growing awareness of the role of public diplomacy
3.11
The substantial and growing body of international literature on public
diplomacy, together with the number of international conferences or seminars
devoted to discussion of this subject, testify to its emerging prominence.
Furthermore, governments are increasingly finding that they cannot downplay the
importance of public diplomacy and are taking a serious look at their public
diplomacy policies: public diplomacy is now seen as a major investment in a
country's future. Countries including the US, UK and Canada have commissioned
independent and comprehensive reviews of their public diplomacy activities.
Indeed, Bruce Gregory, Director of the Public Diplomacy Institute, the George Washington
University, stated that the US had reached the point of 'report fatigue'.[10]
3.12
As noted in chapter 1, public diplomacy has become 'the hottest topic
under discussion in the world's diplomatic services'.[11]
Mr Mark Leonard, Director of the Foreign Policy Centre, in his comprehensive
2002 review of public diplomacy argued that it can 'no longer be seen as an
add-on to the rest of diplomacy—it has to be seen as a central activity which
is played out across many dimensions and with many partners'.[12]
He identified the spread of democracy, the media explosion, the rise of global
NGOs and protest movements as key factors behind the growing importance of
public diplomacy.[13]
Carmen Calvo, Spanish Minister of Culture, also cited the changing nature of
international relations and globalisation as major considerations for
governments today:
Some years ago, the issue of ‘country image’ began to take
centre-stage in diplomatic and many other circles, among other reasons because
we are in an increasingly interconnected world and also, in a way, one that is
increasingly homogeneous and globalised, where every country needs to identify
itself and offer its own unique and differentiating aspects. A country’s
international image is now managed in a very different way than before.[14]
3.13
Canada is an example of a country that is taking its public diplomacy
seriously. In its International Policy Statement, it noted that 'modern
diplomacy is increasingly public diplomacy'. It stated that Canada would
re-invest in its public diplomacy and make it 'central' to its work.[15]
Germany is also aware of the importance of increasing its appeal as a means
of pursuing its interests. Rainer Schlageter, Director of General
Communication, Public Diplomacy and the Media, German Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, noted that 'a modern, strategic and coordinated Public Diplomacy
can—in the long term—enrich and strengthen Germany’s reputation abroad'.[16]
The importance of public diplomacy
3.14
The reason public diplomacy is now afforded a high priority in foreign
relations is the growing realisation that it is an indispensable tool in the
toolbox of international politics: that effective public diplomacy can and does
place a country at an advantage in advancing its national interests. Mark Leonard
explained why public diplomacy is important to a country:
Public diplomacy is based on the premise that the image and
reputation of a country are public goods which can create either an enabling or
a disabling environment for individual transactions. Work on particular issues
will feed off the general image of the country and reflect back on to it—in
both positive and negative directions.[17]
3.15
He gave the following practical examples of where the attitude of
overseas populations have played a determining role in a government’s ability
to pursue its foreign policy objectives:
The Afghan and Kosovo conflicts saw powerful military coalitions
risk defeat, not in the field, but in the media battleground for public
opinion. In Rwanda ethnic conflict was mobilized through inflammatory radio
broadcasts rather than military command chains. The global anti-capitalist
demonstrations have illustrated a new diplomatic environment where state and
non-state actors compete for the public’s attention. During the British BSE
crisis the French government, in breach of EU law, banned British beef largely
in response to public fears about its safety.[18]
3.16
He elaborated further on the reasons why a country's reputation matters
in today's world:
In each of these cases perceptions of Britain and other
countries combine to create an enabling or disabling backdrop for each
situation. It is clear that propaganda will not persuade populations in
reluctant countries to support the war against terror—but perceptions of
Western motivations as imperial or self-interested can damage chances of
success, and divergent national debates can cause tensions which could
eventually break up the international coalition. Independent or national
sources of news will not block out calls to arms from tribal radio stations,
but they can act as a counterweight by presenting a calm overview of the
ongoing tensions and giving access to information which may be of critical
importance (Rwanda had only 14,000 phones but some 500,000 radios). Promotional
campaigns for British beef have a limited impact on the fears of consumers, but
work to show the quality of British science and the integrity of our vets did
play a role in assuaging the French public’s suspicion. And many studies have
shown that campaigns to change the perceptions of countries like Ireland, Spain
or New Zealand can create a premium for products and services as well as
playing a role in attracting investment and tourists.[19]
3.17
Clearly, a country's reputation is significant both politically and
economically. It can be an asset or liability in pursuing foreign political
objectives or attracting overseas investment, students and tourists or in
gaining access to markets. The importance of public diplomacy is particularly
evident where traditional diplomacy is not working or relations with another
country have soured. In this regard, Ambassador Mohamed Al-Orabi pointed to the
valuable role of public diplomacy:
All these [public diplomacy] tools assure continued linkages
between countries of the international community, even when
government-to-government relations are disrupted. Public diplomacy and
inter-cultural diplomacy, not only helps traditional diplomacy to succeed by
creating opportunities for person-to-person contacts that can lead to better
official ties, but it also makes up for the failures of traditional diplomacy
by allowing human interaction to continue, when formal negotiations are
suspended or terminated.[20]
3.18
China, in particular, stands out as a country that is awake to the
importance of public diplomacy as an enabling device for a country to pursue
its interests. It has recently embarked on a significant public diplomacy
campaign to improve its global image and to influence world opinion. It wants
to allay concerns over its emerging influence by convincing other countries of
its 'peaceful rise' or heping jueqi.[21]
The committee recently reported on China's concerted efforts to present itself
as the 'good neighbour' as a way to ensure its intentions, policies and acts
are interpreted elsewhere as well-meaning.[22]
3.19
Numerous commentators have noted the success of what they term China's
'smile strategy' or its 'charm offensive'. One analyst described China's
diplomatic skill and grace as 'a thing of beauty'.[23]
China has clearly placed public diplomacy at the forefront of its foreign
relations. It is energetically and deliberately cultivating better relations by
using the political and diplomatic tools at its disposal to gain the confidence
of its neighbours.[24]
3.20
China demonstrates the potency of an effective public diplomacy strategy
in gaining world attention and influence as a means of promoting a country's
own interests.
The contest to be heard
3.21
Public diplomacy, however, is not solely the domain of the large and
more influential countries. Many countries are putting a great deal of effort
into developing public diplomacy strategies and capabilities of their own. Without
doubt, public diplomacy is becoming a fiercely contested activity. Rainer
Schlageter, German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, used his country as an example
of one of the many facing increased pressure to engage actively in public
diplomacy:
Whether it is in the dialogue with Islamic societies, in
competition for global markets, in the discussion on the further development of
the European Union and the United Nations, Germany has to mark out its
position. We want to explain to foreign audiences our values, our democratic
system, our social market economy, our human rights concept. And we want to
anchor Germany in the minds of people as a partner for solutions to problems,
now and in the future.[25]
3.22
Indeed, smaller and medium-sized countries have a vital interest in
securing a presence on the global stage. Philip Fiske de Gouveia, Senior
Research Associate at the Foreign Policy Centre, noted that most countries—big
and small—conduct public diplomacy:
Despite the fact that available literature and journalism
sometimes give the impression that the US, and several of the major EU states
including the UK, are the only countries engaged in public diplomacy
initiatives, almost everyone is. For example, countries like Botswana, Bahrain
and Uganda have so-called ‘nation-branding’ initiatives, the Indonesian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a Public Diplomacy department, Turkey has been
looking to raise US$25 million from Turkish businesses to support a charm
offensive in Europe in advance of EU accession, and China is establishing
dozens of Cultural Relations Institutes in major cities all over the world. In
a way, those of us working in this field are witnessing what we might call the
globalisation of Public Diplomacy. Today, it seems everyone wants to develop
and exercise their ‘soft power’. This is a trend that can only intensify. In a
globalised world, international communications, and their impact on attitudes
and behaviour, have profound economic and political implications. States
realise this and are acting accordingly.[26]
3.23
He concluded that:
Policymakers are going to see countries, including those in the
Developing World, as well as supra-national organisations like the European
Union, taking strategic communications and public diplomacy more and more
seriously.[27]
3.24
Increasingly, small and medium-sized
countries face stronger competition in gaining the recognition they seek on the
global stage.[28]
This need to be noticed creates fierce competition among countries. As Philip Fiske
de Gouveia observed:
...if states ramp up their public diplomacy efforts in order to
try and capture a share of foreign publics’ goodwill, they will increasingly
compete for what is essentially a finite resource.[29]
3.25
He predicts that aggressive, more competitive public diplomacy 'may well
be something those working in this field have to learn to live with'.[30]
Professor Melissen similarly noted:
A major challenge for all foreign ministries is what Joseph Nye
calls the ‘paradox of plenty’: diplomats must gain attention in a world where
there is an abundance of information. But the paradox of plenty hits different
countries in dissimilar ways. Some of them are desperate to be noticed in the
first place, or not to be confused with states that look all too similar to
outsiders (the Slovak Republic, or Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania respectively),
others do not want to be noticed for the wrong reasons (Balkan countries that
have emerged from the war) and there are even those that see the absence of
news as ‘good news’ for their international reputation (countries as diverse as
Israel and Sudan).[31]
3.26
Ms Pamela H. Smith, Minister-Counselor for Public Affairs, US Embassy, London,
underlined the particular challenges faced by less influential countries in
being noticed:
Generally, the smaller powers do not enter the global public
discussion unless a crisis or scandal envelops them. It is unfortunate, but these
seem to be the events that attract the global media and interest the mass
audiences to which they cater. Perhaps it is for this very reason that smaller
powers need public diplomacy programs, just as major powers do. The task for
the smaller powers is to be heard on the stories that matter to them, to
explain their positions and aspirations during non-crisis moments, and to do so
in a way that captures attention.[32]
3.27
This contest for limited space means that countries are under pressure
to make themselves visible and heard. With limited resources they compete not
only with each other but with larger political and economic forces including
the US and China. Jozef Bátora, Research Fellow, University of Oslo, also noted
the difficulties less influential countries have gaining attention:
While major powers usually have a broader cultural impact and a
larger reservoir of messages and images that they represent and that represent
them, the smaller countries, who have been successful in getting an
international profile, usually focus their public diplomacy efforts at a few
niche-areas...While such orientation on a few niche messages and values enables
small states to capture attention, it also has to do with the more general
foreign policy tendency of small and medium-sized states to concentrate their
scarce resources on a few niche areas which provide them with comparative
advantages in international affairs.[33]
3.28
In 2004, the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jan Petersen, noted
that 'visibility and a clear profile' were essential if Norway were to gain
acceptance for its political views and be regarded as 'an interesting and
reliable partner'.[34]
Indeed, Javier Noya, Senior Analyst, Image of Spain, Elcano Royal Institute, singled
out Norway as a medium-sized country that has used public diplomacy strategies
that have 'over time made them into champions of peace, sought-after mediators
in a range of national and international conflicts'.[35]
Mark Leonard also cited Norway as a country that has succeeded in proving its
relevance by concentrating on niche diplomacy:
Norway is a good example of a country that has a voice and
presence on the international stage out of proportion to its modest position
and unpromising assets. It has achieved this presence through a ruthless prioritisation
of its target audiences and its concentration on a single message—Norway as a
force for peace in the world. Positioning as a contributor to world peace
enables Norway to achieve greater visibility than its size would otherwise
warrant and rebuts accusations of isolationism. Main activities in this field
are conflict resolution activity in the Middle East (the Oslo Accords), Sri
Lanka and Colombia, and Norway’s large aid budget. Norway also operates a
‘rapid-reaction force’ to assist in election monitoring and conflict
prevention...[36]
3.29
As noted earlier, public opinion and international reputation matter to
a country whether it is seeking to gain access to new markets or protect
existing ones, attract foreign investment, negotiate trading agreements, gain
political support in multilateral fora, or secure its own national security.
The problem for smaller and medium-sized countries is to distinguish themselves
from others—to stand out from the crowd. Philip Fiske de Gouveia observed that
many smaller countries have begun employing international public relations
companies and branding consultants to design and do their public diplomacy for
them:
Public affairs companies have understandably identified states’
new taste for public diplomacy as a significant commercial opportunity and have
moved in hard and fast. The consequence, in part, has been the stealthy
privatisation of some elements of public diplomacy. This trend looks set to
continue, to the extent that even established players like the UK and US are increasingly
turning to the private sector for help.[37]
3.30
In today's world, public diplomacy is becoming big business with many
countries investing substantially in promoting their reputations. They
recognise that political and economic advantage goes to the country whose
public diplomacy provides an environment that enables it to pursue its foreign
policy objectives with the support of other countries.
Conclusion
3.31
The committee notes the important role of public diplomacy in promoting
a country's interest and of the contest among countries to be heard. It is
central to a country's foreign policy and works in tandem with traditional
diplomacy.
3.32
Public diplomacy is not just the domain of large and influential
countries. There is general acceptance that managing overseas perceptions is
not easy and that small and medium-sized countries face particular challenges
in securing a presence on the international stage. They must compete against
one another to be noticed. Although they have less visibility than larger and more
influential countries, they may achieve the international engagement they seek with
strategic and well targeted public diplomacy programs.
3.33
It is in this context of the growing significance of public diplomacy
and the fierce contest between countries to establish their reputation that the
committee considers Australia's public diplomacy. Clearly it is in Australia's
interest to make sure that its public diplomacy programs are effectively
meeting their objectives: that it is strategically and deliberately tailoring
its public diplomacy in support of long term foreign policy objectives.
3.34
The following chapter looks at public diplomacy in Australia and provides
an account of Australia's major public diplomacy activities.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page