Public d i plomacy

CAITLI N BY R N E
0 <I ,0 ,0 • • e . 0 I I . O O • • .o. 0 o " 0 0 0 o • 0 . ' • • • • 0 • o o . 0 <I .. 0 I • 0 • 0 0 • • 0 0 1 0 0 o • <I O O t O O . •O O O • . 0 o ,0 0 f O O . • o o ,t <I I O t .I, • • o • 0 . 0 9<

Chapter contents
Introduction 1 68
The origins and evolution of public d i plomacy 170
Defining the new public d iplomacy 172
Theorizing public diplo macy 176
Public diplomacy in action 179
Public diplomacy 2.0 1 82
Conclusion 1 83

Reader's guide
Public dipfomacy-simply described as diplomatic engagement wlth people-has
been revived over the past decade.. Most nations-large or small, liberal or au­
thoritarian-understand that image and reputation are sources of power in today's
globatized world. Governments realize tl'lat to generate and exert this power they
must not only consider, but also lnOuence and mobil ize public opinion This means
engaging public audiences-including civil society representatives, opinion leaders,
jo,Jrnalists, scholars, students, and ordinary citizons-bolh at home amJ abroad in
the conduct of foreign policy.
This chapter introduces public diplomacy as an essential foreign policy i nstru­
ment for the contemporary world. It begins by looking at public di ptomacy's ori­
gins and modern evolution, driven in particular by the American experience It then
explores pubtlc diplomacy's theoretical foundations, paying particular attention
to its soft power underpinnings and constructivist tendencies. f=inally, ft turns to
public diplomacy in action, highlfghting key approaches and instruments to illus·
trate the broad diversity of public diplomacy's project. To conclude, the chapter
draws attention to the inescapable role of new media technologies in extending
the reach of public df plomacy and drawi ng foreign policy more than ever into the
public domain.

Introduction
Public di plomacy's revival began in the aftermath of 1 1 September 200 1 . The attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon shocked the world-not just because of the sheer
scale of their destruction, but because they represented a.n attack on the American identity
itself. For American politicians, analysts, and ordinary citizens alike, the rea lizatfon that their
 C HAPTER 9 P U B L I C D I P L O M AC Y 1 69

country-its ideals, values, institutions, and foreign policies-could be the subject of such vio­
lent hatred was incomprehensible.
'Why do they hate us?' (Bush 2001 ; Zakaria 2001 ) was the question most Americans
were asking. The answers to follow revealed a deep and cumulative resentment felt­
particularly across the Arab world-towards America and everything it stood for. The
nation had, by virtue of its long-ti me strident fo reign pol icy agenda, crafted a reputation
not only as a superpower, but also as super bul ly. Rather than winning the sympathy and
support of opinion leaders, i ntellectuals, and citizenry around the world, America had
begun alienating them.
State Department officials and policy makers soon realized that, in order to address and
reverse America's image problem, they needed to put more attention and effort into com ­
m u nicating with publics around the world-telling and selling the American story. Attention
quickly turned to America's lagging public diplomacy efforts, and ignited broader academic
discussion and scholarship along the way.
Within a few years pu blic diplomacy had become the hottest topic on the diplomacy
studies agenda, giving rise to robust new debate about the role and relevance of publics and
public opinion in the conduct of foreign policy. A 'new' public diplomacy emerged-marki ng a
fresh approach for the new millennium. Scholarship and practice conti nue to evolve, moving
in lockstep with the proliferation of global actors, the emergence and spread of new media
technologies, and the rising expectations of hyper-connected, globally mobile public audi­
ences. Public diplomacy, or the pursuit of direct relations with ord inary people at home and
abroad to advance the i nterests and values of those being represented, appeared to be, as
Paul Sharp (2007: 1 06) wrote, 'an idea whose time has come'.
U nlike many other areas of i nternational relations (IR), public diplomacy in the twenty-first
century had a m ultidisciplinary appeal, attracting input from across a wide range of discipli nes,
most notably psychology, history, communications, media, marketi ng, and public relations.
Each of these disciplines has contributed to and enriched the field, and many continue to do
so. Yet, in terms of discipli nary groundi ng, this chapter firmly posits public diplomacy within
the diplomacy studies field. The distinction is an important one, not only because it locates
public diplomacy within the broader domain of statecraft, but also because it identifies public
diplomacy's contribution to contemporary diplomacy's wider evolution.
While public diplomacy differs in methodology, it is neither separate from nor merely an
add-on to traditional diplomacy. Where traditional diplomacy utilizes official government­
to-government channels to manage and influence the external environment, public diploma­
cy i nvolves public audiences in the process. It is both com plementary to and deeply integrated
in trad itional diplomacy. Engaging with publics can lay the groundwork for diplomacy's more
traditional pursuits, whether they be establishing diplomatic relations or progressing bilat­
eral or m ultilateral agreements between states. It can have a cushioning effect, mitigating
against the negative impact of difficult or deteriorating official relationshi ps. Equally, public
diplomacy can facilitate more resilient relationships during the in-between times. People-to­
people interactions fostered through cultural and educational exchanges activate and sustain
diverse channels of engagement with and between pu blics, even when official diplomacy is
not possible. These connections and relationships humanize the foreign policy objectives of
states and other actors, facil itate avenues fo r non-contentious dialogue, and even offer the
possibility of collaborative problem solving, particularly when it comes to shared issues such
1 70 CA I T L I N B Y R N E

as climate change o r responses to pandemics. Public d iplomacy by its very nature engages
people directly and indirectly in the dialogue of nations.
The d istinction between official and public diplomacy, though convenient, is becoming
harder to justify. Jan Mel issen (2013: 1 96) observes that public diplomacy 'is not a freestand­
ing activity. . . but has an "epiphenomena!" nature-that is, it accompanies wider developments
in contemporary diplomatic practice'. As a result, public diplomacy is firmly aligned-in both
substance and positioni ng-to foreign pol icy decision making and delivery. The very fact that
public diplomacy has been added as a chapter i n the third edition of this text is an indication
of this shift. However, it has not always been the case. Revisiting the origins and evolution of
public diplomacy is an important step in more fully understanding public diplomacy's role
and relevance in contemporary global politics.

The origins and evolution of public diplomacy

The practice of public diplomacy is not new. Communicating di rectly and indirectly with
public aud iences through image cultivation, cultural and educational exchange, and politi­
cal rhetoric is Ingrained within the fabric of diplomatic tradltion, going back to ancient times
{Melissen 2007: 3). The5e practices have intuitively extended the i nfluence of traditional
diplomacy beyond the realm of official channels and provided the necessary complement
to di plomacy's fundamental purpose: to maintain friendly relations and overcome estrange­
ment between states.
The term 'public diplomacy' first appeared around the late nineteenth century, though its
use was patchy and its meaning ambiguous. Initially 'public diplomacy' reflected a rallying
call for more open and transparent di plomatic practice. It Wa5 i n large piHt r1 response to
the perceived opacity and secrecy of private diplomacy and gentlemen's agreements made
behind closed doors, which had become emblematic of the struggle for power on the Euro­
pean continent. U S President Woodrow Wilson's 'Fourteen Points' speech of January 1 91 8
echoed the call from across the Atlantic, suggesting that 'Open covenants of peace must be
openly arrived at, after which there will surely be no private international action or rulings of
any kind, but diplomacy shall always proceed frankly and in the public view' (Wilson 1 924).
At the same time, public diplomacy came to denote a new kind of showmanship in diplo­
macy. Political and civil society leaders engaged more actively on the world stage, speaking
to the hopes and aspirations of a more global public. Yet, the prospect of this more pub­
lic variant of diplomacy also generated controversy. More d iscerning diplomats, including
renowned British di plomat and founder of diplomatic studies, Sir Harold N lcholson, raised
concerns that such public diplomacy would disrupt the proper order and balance of diplo­
matic practice and argued for a return to private negotiations.
The outbreak of the Second World War and the rise of political propaganda further influ­
enced the meaning and use of the term public d iplomacy. From Britain's efforts to entice
America i nto the war effort, to those of Nazi Germany ral lying public and political support
for Hitler's agenda, propaganda was recognized as an essential and strategic wartime tool.
Though conducted via complex, often covert, operations and characterized by misinforma­
tion, mani pulation, deceit, and emotional pressure, wartime propaganda nonetheless cap­
tured the i nterest of American politicians and foreign policy makers. It played an influential
 C H A PT E R 9 P U B L I C D I P L O M A C Y 1 71

role i n shaping A merica's com m u n icati ons with foreign p u bl ic aud iences d u ring ti mes of war,
and later i nto ti mes of peace.
The US I nfo rmatio n and Ed ucational Exchange Act of 1 948 (also known as the Sm ith­
M u ndt Act) formally recogn ized the engagement of foreign audiences as a core element of
Am erican fo reign policy. Respon sibil ity fo r p rogram mes such as the Vo ice of America (VoA)
sh ort-wave rad io b road casts, Am erican overseas l i b raries, cu ltural exchanges, educational
scholars h i ps, and a raft of med ia- and press- related activities all passed to the State Depart­
ment, and su bseq uently to the US I nformati on Offi ce (US IA). Estab l ished in 1 953 as an i nde­
pendent agency of fo reign affai rs, the USIA had a mandate to p roj ect America to the world.
As the wo rl d moved i nto the Cold War, the USIA became the co rnerstone of America's q u est
for i nformational and ideological d o m i n ance over the Soviet U n ion. With its gaze excl usively
focused towards fo reign publics, the USIA looked fo r access into as many fo reign homes as it
could reach beh i n d the I ron Curtai n. Its aim was to i nfluence household percepti ons, but also
to activate and encou rage resistance from with i n . Drawing on an u neasy blend of i nforma­
tion broad cast, public d i p l o m acy, and pol itical p ropaganda, th e USIA becam e the centre of
America's early struggl e for hearts and m i nds.
It was n ot u ntil 1 965 that the term 'pu blic d i p l o macy' was more firm ly establ ished , bri n g­
ing a fres h outlook and m uch-needed legiti macy to the work of the U S IA. Ed m u n d G u l lion,
a fo rmer Ameri can d i plomat and Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and D i p l o macy at Tufts
U n iversity, faci l itated th is move when he estab l i shed th e Edward R. M u rrow Center for Pu b l ic
D i plomacy. The s h ift i n term i nology was i m portant. As N icholas C u l l (2009a: 21 ) explai ns,
the USIA 'needed an alternative to the anodyne term i nform ation or the mal ignant term
propaganda: a fres h turn of ph rase fro m which it co uld build new mea n i ngs'. Casti ng off the
negative co nnotations of past associatio ns, public d i plomacy was u nderstood to enco m pass
the activities of the USIA as well as the cu ltu ral and ed ucati o nal p rogra m m es that remai n ed
with i n the State Department (see Box 9. 1 ). Fro m that point, the p ractice and language of p u b­
l ic diplomacy became firmly al igned to America's d i plomatic machi nery.
Despite the pos itive s h ift in d i rection, American p u b l i c d i plomacy was marked by ongo i ng
te nsi o n and scan dal. Tensions arose fro m p u b l i c di plomacy's u nshakeable association with
pro paganda. As career d i p lomat Rich ard H olb rooke (200 1 ) wrote, 'cal l it public d i plomacy,

BOX 9 . 1 A' fresti outlool< for pulllic cliplomacy

An early M urrow Center brochure was central to public diplomacy's new o utloo k , d escri bing it in the
following terms:

Public diplomacy deals with the infl uence of pu blic atti tudes on the fo rmation and execution of
foreign pol i cies. It encompasses d i mens ions of i n ternational relations beyo nd trad i tional d i plomacy;
the cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries: the interaction of private groups
i n one country with another: the reporti ng of fo reign affairs and its i m pact on policy; co mmunication
between those wh ose job i s communication, as d i plomats and foreign correspond ents; and the
process of i ntercu ltural com munication.

'What is Public Diplomacy?', Edward R . Murrow Center for Publ ic Di plomacy (http://fletcher.tufts.edu/
M u rrow/Diplomacy).
1 72 CAITLI N BYR N E

or public affairs, or psychological warfare, or-if you really want to be blunt-propaganda'.

Scandal arose from the Reagan adm i n istration's creation of a White House Office for Public
Diplomacy with the purpose of conducting covert domestic political propaganda operations.
It was the end of the Cold War that brought about the decline of modern America's public
dirlomacy. By 1 999 it appeared that the battle of ideas was over and the USIA and most of
its activities were folded back i nto the State Department. The VoA and other i nternation;:il
non-military broad casts were moved into the purview of the newly establ ished independent
Broadcasting Board of Governors in an attempt to protect journalistic q ual ity and protect
agai nst political i nterference.
Although the term public diplomacy was born of a distinctly American heritage, its practice
was not excl usive to the American experience. Others, including the U K , France, Germany,
and Norway, to name a few, had long engaged publ ics in the conduct of foreign pol icy. For
many European states, rebuilding and projecting their national id entity was integral to the
process of national reconstruction following the Second World War. Public di plomacy was
therefore a process of dual di mensions: on the one hand, facing inward and engagi ng domes­
tic p u blics in the development of a coherent and credible narrative of national values, culture,
institutions, and interactions, and on the other, projecting outward to engage the outside
world in understanding and sharing in that same narrative. Though distinct in their orien­
tation, the two d imensions of European public diplomacy were deeply conn ected, existi ng
simu ltaneously, interacting and shapi ng each other. The public d iplomacy institutions that
emerged, from the British Council to the All iance Franc;ais, the Goethe Institute to the Nobel
Peace Prize, all speak to Eu rope's d istinct model of public d iplomacy, with an em phasis on
culture, values, and institutions as platforms for interaction, and active outreach to public
;:iurl iPnres over the long term. Notab ly, thf' F 1 1 ropcan model developed with .:t Llu�e interest
in foreign policy objectives, but institutions maintain an arm's length relationship with their
respective ministries of foreign affairs ( M FA). It is not surprising, then, that European scholar
Jan Melissen (2007: 8) observes public d i plomacy 'is much more than a technical instrument
of foreign policy. It has in fact become a part of the changing fabric of international relations'.
Public di plomacy's revival in the new millennium attracted interest from across the Atlantic
and from other disciplines, generati ng a new wave of debate in the field. Scholars and practi­
tioners interrogated the successes and failings of past practice to develop a more progressive
outlook for scholarship. Knowledge commun ities, such as the U niversity of Southern Cali­
fornia's Centre for Public Diplomacy (CPD), the European U n ion's National Institutes for Cul­
ture ( E U N IC), and even the Korea Foundation's emerging Global Public Diplomacy N etwork
(GPO Net), have all emerged alongside a raft of jou rnals and publ icati ons to bring academ ics
and practitioners together around public d i plomacy's contemporary agenda. Defining public
diplomacy has been central to this p roject.

Defining the new public diplomacy

Scholarship in the twenty-first century has given rise to a d istinction between traditional
and 'new' public di plomacy. It is a disti n ction of convenience. Old-style public diplomacy
e m phasizes state or government control a.nd relies heavily on u n i lateral i nformation trans­
m ission aimed towards foreign audiences. By contrast, 'new' public d iplomacy offers scope
 C H A PT E R 9 P U B L I C D I P L O M A C Y 1 73

for a wide range of state and non-state actors, and engages audiences through two-way
d ialogue and interaction. In reality though, the binary of old and new is not entirely help­
ful. While democratic states tend to be open to public diplomacy's new features, they still
draw on features associated with the old-style practice. Authoritarian states increasingly
engage with public audiences, though in doing so they lean towards public diplomacy's tra­
ditio nal format. North Korea is the exception; operati ng with a Cold War psyche, the regime
relies heavily on propaganda. Even so, North Koreans themselves are increasingly i nvolved
through the public diplomacy of others (see Box 9.3). Public diplomacy may be an evolving
project, yet its core purpose, old or new, is to i nfluence the external policy environment.
It is a practice that incorporates learnings from the past while meeting the challenges of
an ever-changing global landscape, all the while contributing to the ongoing evolution of
contemporary diplomacy.
The commentary and controversy within the field has made it difficult to pin down a single
agreed definition of public diplomacy. The breadth of multidiscipli nary input cou pled with
the scope and dynamism of practice have add to the complexity of this task. Numerous defi­
nltions exist; however, those that h ighlight public diplomacy's contemporary relevance while
accommodating its more progressive consciousness are most useful. To this end, Bruce Greg­
ory (201 1 : 353) broadly describes public diplomacy as 'an instrument used by states, associa­
tions of states, and some sub-state actors to understand cultures, attitudes, and behavior;
build and manage relationships; and i nfluence thoughts and mobilize actions to advance
their interests and values'. Though perhaps cumbersome, this defi nition recognizes several
key features associated with public diplomacy's contemporary project.
First, public diplomacy no longer sits exclusively with states. The proliferation of non-state
actors coupled with the emergence of complex global challenges, including climate change,
global financial crisis, or even the spread of disease within, between, and across states, has wid­
ened public diplomacy's relevance beyond state boundaries. Global actors from the suprana­
tional European Union, to intE?rgovernmental organizations such as the U nited Nations (UN),
the World Health Organization (WHO), the North American Treaty Alliance (NATO), and even
the less formal Group of Twenty (G20) all employ public d iplomacy to develop and consoli­
date public support fo r their policy agendas. Whether seeking to advance new security plans,
promote health and sanitation initiatives, h ighlight carbon emissions reduction targets, build
on economic growth, or implement austerity measures, these actors are keenly aware that
the support and involvement of public audiences is not only important, but essential to deliv­
ering policy outcomes.
Regions and cities are also aware of public diplomacy's relevance, particularly in terms of
building and promoting their brand. For these actors the abil ity to attract and grow trade
and investment, business, tourism, and even i nternational education rests on how well they
project their narrative i n a competitive global environment. Public diplomacy is important
fo r places like Scotland and Catalonia-affirming identity narratives that offer cultural, if not
political, independence. Hosting major events such as the Olympic or Commonwealth games
or a world expo provides cities, regions, and nations with the opportun ity for significant glob­
al visibility, cutting through to public audiences around the world in an otherwise crowded
space. Other, less visi ble mechanisms, such as the development of sister-city relationships
or promotion of student exchanges, can also be effective, particularly at the people-to-peo­
ple level. Ultimately though, as with all public diplomacy, credibility is a critical factor. If the
1 74 CAITLIN BY R N E

message is incongruent with reality, or is not replicated through the experience of publics,
the standing, reputation, and attractiveness of the place will be undermi ned. For example,
reports of labour exploitation and corruption marred New Delhi's hosting of the 201 0 Com­
monwealth Games site, while Brazil's bulldozing of slums ahead of the 201 3 Soccer World
Cup undermined the appeal and credibility of the event and the nation.
Public figures and celebrities from Pope Francis to Angellna Julie use publtc diplomacy,
with or without the involvement of state actors, to advance global policy change. They do so
in different ways. For Pope Francis the Papal Encyclical, a letter of significant authority distrib­
uted through Catholic bishops to the wider Christian community, provides a unique way of
reaching and influencing people around the world. In his 201 5 Encyclical, Pope Francis called
'all people of goodwill' into a dialogue about ecological crisis. His aim was not only to gener­
ate public awareness, but also to build a groundswell of public pressure that might influence
the position of global leaders ahead of the 201 5 UN Climate Change Summit.
As one of several goodwill ambassadors for the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR), global screen celebrity Jolie p resents a public face for the refugee agency
and I ts work. Through her celebrity, popularity, and personal influence.Jolie extends the reach
and visibility of UNHCR messages. Jolie's recent involvement alongside former UK Foreign
Minister William Hague in the campaign to end sexual violence in conflict not only generated
public awareness of this endemic problem, but, more importantly, also mobilized the politi­
cal support necessary for more formal responses.
The second key feature of today's public diplomacy relates to its audience. Traditionally,
public diplomacy was defined by its deliberate engagement of foreign publics. Yet, the
increasing global mobility and con nectivity of publics makes this traditional distinction both
impractiral and counterproductive. Blurred international and domestic policy lines means
that more publics-whether at home or ahrnad-are aware of their nation's diplomatic agen­
da, and often expect to contribute to that agenda. When informed and engaged, domestic
constituencies can lend both support and credibility to a government's foreign policy posi­
tion. They are not necessarily passive audiences, but more likely cast as partners and co­
producers-alongside government- In constructing and projecting the nation's image and
reputatio.n. Occasionally, domestic publics can take on an independent public d iplomacy
role. The public protests of the Arab Spring might be seen in this light. While the mobiliza­
tion of publics by publics is not a new phenomenon in global politics, it is, by vi rtue of social
media, a more challengi ng one because of its inherent unpredictability and the potential for
wider discord and d isorder that it entails.
J ust as the nature of public diplomacy's audience has shifted, so too has the nature of its
engagement. Innovations in media technology, Including the emergence of social media,
have given public audiences real-ti me access to knowledge, along with greater vlsibility,
stronger voices, and more influential netwo rks. With the assistance of technology, publics,
whether at home or abroad, are actively participating to frame issues and set agendas. As Jay
Rosen (20 1 2: 1 5) observes, through social media, 'The people formerly known as the audi­
ence are simply the public made realer, less fictional, more able, less predictable. You should
welcome that . . . But whether you do or not, we want you to know that we're here'. Scholars
such as Manuel Castells (2008: 91 ) take this idea further to describe public diplomacy as the
'di plomacy of the public, that is, the projection in the international arena of the values and
ideas of the public'.
 C H APTER 9 PUBLIC DI PLOMACY 1 75

The challenge for states is not whether, but how, they now participate in this new global
public sphere. MFAs, policy makers, and diplomats within states are recalibrating their gaze
to be multidirectional. Further, they must move from a responsive practice to an anticipa­
tory one. Anticipating the needs of the public means getting to know the public, and that
requires new skills i n listening and u nderstandi ng. Publics are increasi ngly savvy about their
own interests and needs and will look to engage in mutually beneficial relationshi ps rather
than continue to partici pate in one-sided or transactional relationshi ps d ictated by the state.
Building i n dimensions of mutuality will i ncreasingly underpin public diplomacy's relation­
ship-building function.
Third , public di plomacy's emphasis on values extends beyond the parameters of tradi­
tional diplomacy, which is usually focused on issues. A nation's values are constructed over
time to reflect the multifaceted persona of society. They are informed by the many histories,
traditions, cultures, symbols, political foundations, and institutions that constitute a society.
They underpin the collective conception of national identity, describing not only the people
that make up the nation, but also what binds them together and makes them uniq ue. Values
inform foreign policy decision making while directly and indirectly d riving the image and
reputation of the nation.
However, values are no longer confined to the state. In the i nterconnected and globalized
world, a wide range of imagined political com munities exist above and outside the state,
including those based on nationhood, gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. Pub­
lic diplomacy i nfluences the way that i ndividuals come to know, understand, and interact
with each other within these imagined political communities to advance their shared values
and interests. The global movement to advance recognition and acceptance of the lesbian,
gay, transgender, and bisexual (LGTB) community is one such example. Over the past sev­
eral decades, the LGTB global community has gained traction in promoting their concerns
within the wider human rights and equality framework. Some states, most notably the US,
are partnering in this public diplomacy agenda. I nitiatives including roundtables and panel
d1scuss1ons. summits and national dialogue days, cultural events and advocacy campaigns
carried out from across the US d i plomatfc network are intended to inform and educate public
audiences about the legal and social challenges faci ng LGTB people globally, and to promote
understanding and equal treatment. While policy change is slow moving, the stance that
global actors take to.wards recognition of the LGTB community has become a public diplo­
macy measure, reflecting on those actors' wider image and reputation in the global domain.
Public diplomacy, even in its revived format, does not escape criticism. Its very nature chal­
lenges the traditional structures and orientations of diplomacy and the established machin­
ery of foreign policy. Realists find the encroachment of public opinion-often regarded as
ill-i nformed and erratic-into the elite foreign policy domain to be problematic. For these
critics, the engagement of public audiences might bring short-term satisfaction, but gener­
ally i mplies populist decision making and leads to poor foreign policy outcomes over the
long term. Traditional diplomats continue to regard public d i plomacy as synonymous with
propaganda. For them, it is at best a vu lgar spin-off of public relations and marketing and a
distraction from the more im portant aspects of practice, at worst a nefarious practice based
on manipulation and deceit. According to these critics, public diplomacy inevitably erodes
the stability and order of IR. Some critics, and even some advocates. view its practice as large­
ly unrelated to the conduct of foreign policy; nice, but non-essential. For this group, public
1 76 C A I TL I N B Y R N E

diplomacy activities tend to have little tangible impact on states' aspirations and pursuits for
material power i n an anarchic world.
While these criticisms h ighlight important and ongoing areas of tension, the reality is that
p u blic diplomacy is a feature of the global world. Emerging scholarship and literature seek
to counter criticisms by encouraging practitioners to employ public diplomacy with cau­
tion, guarding against wrong-headed attach ment to porulist policy measures or the l u re
of propagandist tendencies. It counsels against mistaking public diplomacy for an altruis­
tic endeavour, affirming its credibility as a tool intended to advance interests and values.
However, more robust arguments will come from the establishment of a sound theoretical
framework within which public d iplomacy practice might be more firmly grounded, inter­
preted, and evaJ uated. As long as gaps persist between theory and practlce 1 criticisms of
public diplomacy will loom large.

Theorizing public diplomacy

Limited attention has been paid to the development of public diplomacy's theoretical under­
pi nnings. This is hardly surprising. The field itself is young and dynamic. Early scholarship
has been consumed by definitional dilemmas. h istorical evol utions, and technologlcal Inno­
vations. Additionally, public diplomacy's multid isciplinary appeal may have downplayed its
relevance to IR theory, the focus of which tends to rest on larger issues of global politics.
For practitioners, the relentless pace at which public diplo macy has developed has made
theoretical discussion almost redundant. However, establishing public diplomacy's theoreti­
cal framPwork lends policy relevance and credibilily lu ils practice, while guarding against the
pitfalls of an otherwise unfettered and ad hoc practice. At thP <;"me time, it offer!; opportu ni­
ties for new thinking, which might contribute to public diplomacy's ongoing evolution.

Public diplomacy and soft power

Soft power discourse, led by Harvard professor Joseph Nye, provides a much-needed con­
ceptual venue for public diplomacy. Described as the influence and attractiveness a nation
can acquire and wield when others are drawn to its culture, political values, institutions, and
ideas, soft power rests in the ability of states to set the agenda, to attract others to a position or
way of thi n king, and to influence the preference of others (Nye 2004). The soft power concept
reflects and builds upon a well-established body of knowledge relating to power that draws
from all sides of the theoretical debate. For example, soft power satisfies the realist view that
power can be derived outside material sources, including from public opinion. It resonates
with l iberalism's attachment to the power of economic cooperation and exchange. Further,
it aligns with social constructivism's emphasis on legitimacy as a source of power and associ­
ated notions of ideational power that come from the spreading of knowledge and ideas.
Nye's soft power, like public diplomacy. gained traction fol lowing the events of 1 1 September
2001 . ft provided a necessary counterpoint to foreign policy makers' longstanding preoccupa­
tion with the tactics and assets of hard power. Although conceived primarily for the American
context, soft power has a particular and unexpected relevance for middle and smaller powers,
such as Australia and South Korea. Neither large or powerful enough In hard power terms to
 CHAPTER 9 P U B L I C DIPLO MACY 1 77

impose their will unilaterally onto others, nor so insignificant as to escape responsibil ity within
the- global system, middle powers find new opportunities for influence in the global landscape
using soft power. For middle powers especially, soft power levels the playing f1eld.
Soft power also has its critics. For- example, there are those who argue that it is weak and
superficial and has little tangible impact. Traditional diplomats are often ambivalent to the
soft power project. They complain that, while an attractive prospect, soft power is difficult to
harness, particularly as its core re-sources sit outside the control of the state. Even advocates
com plain about its lack of hard-edged appeal ( Seib 201 4 ).
Janice Bially Mattern (2005: 588) makes the important observation that'soft power depends
on the others' knowledge of one's alluring qualities'. Therefore, if not effectively mobilized, soft
power is destined to remain a latent or passive resource. Yong Wook Lee (201 1 : 45) extends
on this point. noting that for soft power to be productive, there needs to be 'some level of
congruence between the sender's projection of the sources of attractiveness and the receiv­
er's approximation of them'. It is at this point that public diplomacy takes its cue. Described
as one of soft power's key i nstruments, public diplomacy connects the sender and receiver
i n such a way as to enable this congruence. Effective public diplomacy therefore enables soft
power, but equally. I neffective or inactive public d iplomacy might undermine soft power.
Soft power does not exist as a homogenous, static entity. New models of soft power
reveal its multifaceted and strategic nature. East Asian scholars Byong-Kuen Jhee and Nae­
young Lee (201 1 ) highlight the particular significance of soft power's affective and normative
dimensions for public diplomacy. Affective soft power. resting in an actor's cultural richness,
economic competitiveness, political stability, and high-quality education, facilitates the emo­
tional attraction of others. It is useful in raising an actor's profile and visibility, and d rawi ng
others i nto its company or position. Australia, for example, is a nation widely recogn ized for
its affective soft power, arising from its attractive natural and built environments , relatively
high living standards, economic stability, and broad access to education.
By contrast, hormative soft power is generated through behaviours and actions , such as the
observation of international norms, responses to international humanitarian disaster, eco­
nomic contributions , and activities aimed at building trust through cooperation. Normative
soft power strengthens the perceptions of an actor's legitimacy and ability. Norway, though
small in terms of hard power, is often cast as liaving normative soft power on the basis of its
longstanding commitment to global peace initiatives. South Korea might also be considered
to have normative soft power by vl rtue of its longstanding assistance to the developing world ,
its contribution to regional trust-building measures, and its commitment to advancing p ublic
global goods, including through public diplomacy.
Both dimensions of soft power hold relevance for global actors. Each dimension draws
strength from the other. However, the features associated with affective power may be pre­
disposed to sharp upward or downward trends, which suggests that its value mi ght also be
erratic. O n the other hand , normative power develops over time through sustained and
repeated actions and esta blished relationships. Consideration of soft power's dimensions has
important impl ications for public diplomacy. While public diplomacy is instrumental to the
pursuit of both d imensions of soft power, different instruments might be considered and
calibrated for each. When considering how public diplomacy might contribute to their soft
power, global actors might be wise to consider whether it is better to be popular or to be
respected i n the arena of global politics (see Box 9.2).
1 78 CAITLI N BYRN E

BOX 9 . 2 Pul>lic i:tiplon1acy, co lal:io ative power, ancl social power

Public diplomacy offers relevance for scholarship extending beyond lhe soft power agenda, towards less
conventional models of power that hold sway it1 a worlct where power is dynP.mic and diffuse. Geoffrey
Cowan and Ame Ha Arsenault (2008) point to public dip1omacys potential as an instrument that might
Pm1ble col laboration among global acto , � Lowards a common good, rather than sustain competition
between actors. Taking inspiration from Lhe transnational Twitter conversations of the Arab Spring.
Anne-Marie Slaughter (201 1 ) , cont:ributes to Lhls idea. She suggests that collaboratio,i offel'S a compe!Hng
and unconventional approach to establishing power with a�hers that 1s d15tmctly different from both
hard and soft poWer (which are generqlly exe(dsed or wielded over o1hers). Slaughter's collaborative
power manifests ln three forms: first through mobilization. or a,, ability, o call others to action; second
through connection, or broadel')ing access lo the circle of power and connecting as many people co one
another and to a common purpose as possible; and thi rd thcough ad�ptation, or being open to engage in
meaningful dialogue withou seeking lo lmpo e a particular view. Unlike more conventional variants of
power. collaborative power rests not W,l th ulngll! person. group, or ins itution, but within a corn pie)( set
of in,t erconneations that migh be unlocked, but filOt possessed.
Collaborative power supports the simil�rly unconventional notion of social power cnaracter;zed by
the 11.mderstandlng tha� power is fluid and non�!lnear and . . rFJOVes hrough relation.ships and com­
munlc.arion' (van Ham 201 4}. The medels of collaborative ahd sodaf power proposed by Slaughter and
van Ham sugges( that, in today's physical and virtual worfds, power IS Increasingly ere ted and sustained
within and through relationships. When supported In a shared leadersh p model, those relationships
naturally converge to advance common goals. Ali Fi her (201 4) takes Lhis thinking a step further He
points to the fes1 1fence of swarm i ntelfigence across various natural and onllne environments and sug­
gests that 'conceptualizing interaction as engaging wl h the swarm is irnportant ror c;:a llaboratjV.e public
diplomacy strategy'
WikirPl"l1a-a portmantei;iu of wlki (collabo1dlllll:! un llrie space) and encydopaed a-presents an alter­
native example of public diplomacy; as a facilitator of collaborative po�er, Remarlrahly pervasi e, it ex�
11'1 more th n lOO languages a'nd brings lntem�I and external communities together to crowd-source ts
global presence through in ehse stigmergic collaboration. Wik1pedia has transformed ofdinary publics
Into ctlve ere tors, coordinators, and collaborators in the development of glob r folksonorn'(' a layered
colfectton of cultural record, knowledge, and narra ive ha contributes to global cultural undemand­
ing ar,q exchange (Byrne and Johnson 201 5). Although Wikipedia is jusi- one exa mple, it is none hele.ss
a compelling example thal provides_ the foundation$ for more provocalive thinking abciu t pub Uc diplo­
macy's role as a facilitator of coll borat ve and social pawar, partic;ularfy in the vrrtual world.

Conn ecting p u b l i c d i plo macy to the d i m e nsions of soft power enables the usefu l teasi ng
out of p u b l i c d iplom acy with i n I R theory-a d iscussion that is only begi n n i ng. Wh i l e both
real ism and li beral ism are focused pri mar ly on the material hard power assets and aspira­
tions of the state, sch o lars from both schools have come to accept public d i p lomacy as one of
the many i n struments available to the state to confront vari ous th reats o r build cooperatio n
to advance nati onal i nterest.
H owever, public d i plomacy's evolvi ng m odel fi nds a natural synergy with the theory of
soci�l constructivism. Constructivism 1s em phas i s on the power of ideas and the i n terplay
between acto rs and thei r social co ntext h o l d s an i m m ediate ap peal. U ke co nstructivis m ,
p u b l i c d i p l o m acy chal l enges the trad iti onal power stru ctu res and mechan isms of foreign
p o l i cy. Constru ctivism brin gs the i nter-subjective d i m ensions of p u b l i c d i p l omacy to th e
fo re. It h igh l ights the potential that exists th ro u gh iterative p rocesses of social i nteraction
 C H A P T E R 9 P U B LI C D I P L O M A C Y 1 79

between participants to build the trust needed to shift embedded perceptions and norms
that might otherwise be a cause fo r tension and hostility. As the public diplomacy par­
ticipants become more open to, and understanding of, each other through the processes
of interaction and dialogue, they can also become more open to exploring shared and
new ideas, and even reshaping their identities. Though not to be overstated, when viewed
through the lens of constructivism, public diplomacy's two-way format holds out potential
for bui lding trust, and even bridging the differences that exist with and between public
audiences over time.

Public diplomacy in action

Public diplomacy practice typically uses the tools of information, education, and culture to
attract and involve public audiences both directly and indirectly in foreign policy debate. I n
practice, public diplomacy is as diverse and eclectic as the nations and actors that use it.
Generally speaking, most actors will consider public diplomacy in a proactive sense-to
advance reputational objectives, explain and advocate for specific foreign policies, or main­
tain lines of communication with strategic public audiences. They will also deploy public
diplomacy on a reactive basis to address or control a political crisis, counter misinformation,
manage the impact of natural disasters, or provide information and guidance to citizens in
the case of a consular emergency. Regardless of the extent to which states or other actors
might proactively or reactively employ public diplomacy, it ls also worth noting a third sce­
nario for public diplomacy, whereby actors might be on the receiving end: that is, when their
own citizens become involved in the public diplomacy efforts of others (see Box 9.3).
I n making the case that public diplomacy is the instrument for wielding soft power.Joseph
Nye identi fied three dimensions of public diplomacy practice: dally communication, strategic
communication, and buildlng lasting relationships. The first of these, dally communication,
simply refers to media management activlties to explain domestic and foreign policy deci­
sions and positions. For liberal and authoritarian states alike, from the US to China, Germany
to Qatar, media engagement and broadcast play a central role in framing and presenting
news, commentary, and opinion on a daily, even hourly, basis to public audiences around the
globe (see Chapter 1 0).
The relentless nature of today's media cycle has prompted global actors to monitor and
respond to negative media or misinformation as part of this dlmension. It is not about pre­
venting news or commentary, but, rather, countering it. For many actors this aspect of public
diplomacy has intensified in the social media era. The US State Department now hosts a digi­
tal outreach team dedicated to writing, following, and commenting on digital media generat­
ed across a range of interactive digital environments, including on line discussion forums and
blog sites. Conducted in Arablc i Urdu, Punjabi, and Somali, the work of the digital outreach
team is not just about countering misinformation about the US, but also about countering
terrorist and extremist narratives. It reflects a distinctly US approach to the online battle for
hearts and minds, and for some sits uncomfortably close to the less benign techniques of
Cold War propaganda.
Nye's second dimension is concerned with advancing specific foreign policy objec­
tives or themes through a campaign approach over a defined medium-term period. The
1 80 CAITLIN BYR N E

eox 9;3 Ttie dia enge o the propagan a state: ortti <orea

North Korea (officially known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or DPRK) poses a challenge
for contemporary public diplomacy, operating in a timf> of its own, driven by Cold War logiL, and closed
to the physical and Virtual worlds outside North Koreans rely upoh the state as their primary source
nf lrtrlh. The Oep,vtmcnt of Propaga1·1da and Agitation oversees the creation and dissemination of
information, education, and culture within the state. North Koreans themselves, not foreign audiences,
are the primary targets of the state-run propaganda machine. and its reac; h and oullook spans from
crad le to grave. The purpose of state propaganda is to secure the population's whole-hearted belief In the
aspira ions of the 'milita ry-fi rst' state, thelr unques ioning adoration of its dynastic leadershlp, and their
rejection of he outside world (Myers 20 1 1 ).
Similarly, North Korea's sparse engagement of the outside world relies on state-run news media, such
as the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), to push out content of dubfous q�ality a nd accuracy, much
of which is focused on the so-cal,led achievernern.s of l<im J0ng-un, the supreme leader. The regi me does
engage friendly foreign audiences through sports. friendship societies, and student exchanges. These
engagements are proactively controlled and often contrived to demonstrate illusory relationships usually
based on forms of ideological tribute.
Despite this deeply embedded propagandist cul ture, North Korea Is increasingly vulnerable
to lhe i nfluences of public diplomacy fmm the o u tside world. Non-official exchanges, nvolv­
ing NGOs, universi ties, and prlva e com pan ies, play a critical role In connecting North Korea to
the rest 0f the world, especially when channels of offic1al diplomacy are l i mited The N GO, led
mapping i n itiative, Engage. DPRK, identifies some 450 bi lateral, multlla1eral, NGO, and for-profit
engagement project5 occu rring In the DPRK between 1 995 and 201 2. With projects ranging
in type and focus across development assistance, humanitarian rel i ef, professional training,
educational assistance, sport. and bus[ness, th is data reveals the current extent and ongoing
potP.nti;:il for engagement with North Ku 1 �d.
Such engagement can only occur with governmem approval. Many projects will offer incentives for
North Korean irWolvement, such as food, fertilizer, or tra. ning in key areas, and this can raise eth ical
concerns about the extent to which such p\Jblic diplomacy might simply benefit an oppressive reg me.
Furthe,more, some engagements are more effective than others. For exam ple, the much-publicized visits
of former NBL basketball star, Dennis Rodman, with North Korea's young and ot herwise unKnown leader,
Kim Jong- un, conducted under the banner of 'basketball diplomacy', delivered minfmal pUbljc: engag�
ment and amounted to little more than outrageous spectacle.
By contrast. science, research, agribusi ness. and environmental exchanges, though less visible, offer
more positive long-term outcomes. CRDF Global, an independent NGO specializing in international
science and techn cal exchanges around the world , has brought a special focus to the value of
science exchanges with Nort h Korea. The direct benefits, knowledge transfer and capacity-building,
are immediately dear. However, the less tangible benefits to flow from exposu re and exploration
of differing perspectives are of equal mportance. As senior CRDF Global official Linda Straheli (201 3)
notes:
Through many conversauons and engagements, we have come to learn that our science colleagues
in the DPRK ar no so d 1 ff rent from us. They wa r rt peace and prosperi ty. respect. and the a b i l i t y
to solve heir o ·111 challenges. Des p ite L 1s dew • the DPR K's isolation means that i t lacks the
abil i ty to tra nsform i ts economy withou t ou tside assistance Development aid. such as fertilizer or
food. has an importan t hu manitarian fu nction and u1n s1.1p po1t r�la ions during negotlat,ons. but
col laboracion with scieniists and engineers 1s fundamen tally necessar to su pport the long·rerm
develo p ment of the state. Engagement on t �hnicat 15.sues 1s thus an essen tial requ irement for
future transformation of the DPRK.
 C H A P T E R 9 P U B L I C D I P LO M A C Y 1 81

above mentioned partnership between U K Foreign M i nister Will iam Hague and celebrity
Angelina Jolie to end sexual violence in confl ict provides an exam ple, d rawi ng on the appeal
and i nfluence of celebrity provided by Jolie and the weight of pol itical authority provided by
H ague. Culminati ng in 201 4 with a global sum m it attended by key high-level politicians, offi ­
cials, experts, and NGOs, the cam paign ended successfu l ly with 1 22 govern ments endorsing the
non - bi n d i ng Declaration of Com mitment to End Sexual Violence in Confl ict. Strategic com mu­
nicati ons can raise public visi bil ity, mobi l ize support, and join effort towards a particular theme
or objective. H owever, sustai n i ng public engagement and pol icy momentu m past the cam ­
paign timeframe can be p roblematic, as aud iences m ove to the next key issue i n the spotl ight.
Nye's th i rd di mension emphasizes the long-term relational view of pub lic diplomacy. It
d raws on the valu e of people-to - p eople i nteractions generated through a range of mecha­
nisms such as cu ltu ra l and ed ucational p rogrammes, scholars h i ps, and exchange. It gener­
ally l i n ks to broad foreign pol icy asp i rations, rather than specific objectives. The idea is that
the personal i nteracti ons, experi ences, and friends h i ps that foster m utual u n derstan d i ng and
trust between ind ivid uals can , over ti me, lead to respect , trust, and dialogu e between nations.
State sponsored educati onal sch olars h ips such as the wo rl d - renowned Ful bright or Cheven­
i ng scholarsh i ps offered by the U S and U K , respectively, have long been recognized for their
public d i plomacy potential . Yet, n ot all practiti oners or scholars are at ease with governments
tying students' education so closely to the advancem ent of national, incl u d i ng soft power,
i nterests (see Box 9.4}. As Nancy Snow (2009: 236) o bseNes, there are those i n the education
field who fi rm ly resist the l i nkage made between edu cation exchange and public d i plomacy,
argu i n g that th e state has no mandate to i nterfe re with the p rivate people-to-people transac­
tions that sit at the co re of such exchange.
Pos i ng a sl ightly d ifferent approach, Rhonda Zaharna (2009) suggests that public d i plo ma­
cy be viewed as a broad spectru m of activity constructed around two co m plementary frame­
works: the i nformatio n and the relation. Zaharna suggests that the i nform ati on framewo rk
focuses on the design and dissemi nation of content- rich messages to advance pol itical o bj ec­
tives. Approaches are characterized by thei r reliance o n information transfer, control over con­
tent and dissem i n ation, and t h e ach ievement of specifi c goals o r o bjectives. A mong activities

eox 9 . 4 ive nctions of pu61ic clip omacy

Nicholas Cull identifies public diplomacy's five funct ions as follows:

• Listening: research, analysis, and the feedback of that information into the policy process, as when a
foreign ministry commissions opinion polls overseas.
• Advocacy: the creation and dissem ination of i11format1on to build understanding of a policy, issue, or
facet of life that is of Signi 1cance to the actor, as when an embassy holds a press conference.
• Cultural diplomacy: the managed export of culture (or other cultural i ntervention) to service foreign
policy ends, as when a state sponsors the teaching of its language overseas.
• Exchange diplomacy the exchange of persons with other actors for mutual advantage, as when one
state funds the exchange of college students with another.
• lnce,national broadcasting: actor-sponsored transmission of information across International
boundaries by radio, television, or lnlemet, as when a state sponsors a short-wave radio station.
1 82 CAITLI N BY R N E

included with in this view are those associated with propaganda and broadcast, political rhet­
oric, and nation-brandi ng.
By contrast, the relational end of the spectrum util izes deep engagement to build on social
structu res that will advance political objectives. Relational approaches are characterized by
the precedence of relationsh ip-building over messaging, coordination over control, and
opportun ities for i nteraction that bui ld o n shared or mutual interests. Not driven to achieve
specific objectives or goals, relationship- building is seen as an end in itself that contributes to
a more manageable international environment. As Jan Melissen (2007: 21 ) observes, 'public
d iplomacy . . . is first of all about promoting and maintai n i ng smooth i nternational relation­
ships'. Activities that promote relationship-building tend to i nclude ed ucational and cultural
programmes and exchanges, leadership visits, development and h u manitarian assistance,
and networking schemes. Each of these activities is recognized as providing various levels of
depth within the relationship-building process, depending upon the level and timeframe of
participation, the scope, and the broad policy context involved.
I mportantly, the developing scholarship and emerging approaches to practice reflect com­
mon and recurring themes. The information framework replicates the characteristics of public
di plo macy's traditional formats, while the relation framework emphasizes the characteristics
of 'new' public di plomacy. Although organized differently, the d ual framework approach taps
into Nye's three dimensions of public diplomacy. I m portantly, too, consistent threads can be
drawn between Zaharna's i nformation framework and more affective soft power outcomes,
while the relation framework tends to support no rmative soft power outcomes. The consist­
ent themes and commonal ities found between theory and practice rei nforce a more holistic
and strategic view of public diplomacy as an i nstrument of statecraft.

Public diplomacy 2.0

The emergence and spread of the I nternet, digital technologies, and social media have fur­
ther transformed the global landscape and added a new dimension of com plexity to public
diplomacy. Publics are more connected than ever to each other. They are engaging in and
influencing foreign policy debates with or without the involvement of the state. The new
media environment, characterized by its speed, culture of sharing, and consolidated channels
of com m unication (Yamamoto 201 1 : 1 44), provides new opportunities for public diplomacy,
giving rise to the concept of public di plomacy 2.0.
Public di plomacy 2.0 reflects another American twist on the public di plomacy theme.
So dubbed by James Glassman, former US Undersecretary of Public Diplo macy and Public
Affairs, public di plomacy 2.0 'is an approach, not a technology' that seeks to leverage the
potential of online social networks (2008). It reflects Glassman's fascination with the power
of social networking sites, such as Facebook, in fighting extrem ism. Nicho las Cull (201 3: 1 26)
identifies the core featu res of Glassman's public d i plomacy 2.0 as th reefold: i) the capacity
to facilitate the creation of relationships aroui nd social networks and online communities;
ii) a dependence on user-generated content; and ii i) an organization around ho rizontally
arranged networks of exchange.
To date, m uch of the debate surrounding public diplomacy 2.0 has focused on the ro le
of social networking platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, as enablers i n
 C H A P T E R 9 P U B LI C D I P L O M A C Y 1 83

the exchange of i nformation, pictures, videos, and opinions between people and with gov­
ernments. While debate has tended to downplay the i mpact of these social networking tools
on public diplomacy outcomes, their role in disseminating information, amplifying key mes­
sages, connecting publics, and focusing global attention contin ues to be affirmed. I mpor­
tantly, by moving actors from a one-to-many communications format associated with radio
and television broadcast, to the many-to-many communications format, social media has
without question transformed interrelationships and dynamics on the global stage.
While the quality and Impact of social media's partici patory capacity may be at times ques­
tionable, and deserving of closer evaluation, its sheer magnitude is not to be ignored. Phil­
lip Sei b (201 2: 9) observes that social media provides the 'infrastructure for influential, wide
spread networks, wlth the capacity to d isplace traditional hierarchies and challenge estab­
lished notions of leadership'. For others, the new media environment reveals a wider poten­
tial of public diplomacy as the 'di plomacy of the public, which might harness the dialogue
between different social collectives and their cultures and in the hope of sharing meaning and
understandi ng' {Castells 2008: 91 ).
Within this sphere, states and their governments are i ncreasi ngly challenged to facilitate,
rather than control, the resultant i nteractions. The US leads the way i n public diplomacy
innovation. Key initiatives, from the 'Your Voice. You r Video' challenge, calling for short films
on the theme of democracy, to Avatar-inspired second life engagements, Google hangouts,
multilingual digital outreach, and promotion of citizen bloggers, all provide opportunities for
participants to work together in a virtual online world. With deeper investigation, though, it
becomes clear that even the US is typically operating to the constraints of conventional prac­
tice: that is, public diplomacy in itiated and managed by the state in the pursuit of national
interests. For some this negates the advantage offered by social media in the first place.

Conclusion
Public diplomacy's dynamic project is both a reflection of and an adaptation to the ever­
changing global environment. It continues to evolve, shaped i n particular by the pervasive
influence of social media and changing public expectations. Public diplomacy's revival owes
much to its American evolution, but has been influenced by the experiences of others. Most
notably it draws a strong cultural orientation from the European experience, while the recent
interest and experience of Asian states demonstrates new models. What becomes clear is that
public diplomacy's diverse agenda holds relevance for a range of state and non-state actors
regardless of political organization or material power.
There is still much work ahead i n teasing out and understanding theoretical foundations
for public diplomacy practice. I m portantly, though. public diplomacy is not a one-size-fits-all
endeavour, and it can produce different outcomes depending upon the nature of the activity
employed. Inherent tensions between the role of information and the nature of relationshi ps
challenge scholars and practitioners alike. Scholars agree that public diplomacy's emphasis is
shifting from the unidirectional i nformation transit towards relationship-building. Yet, prac­
tice suggests that effective public diplomacy must accommodate both approaches i n various
ways. The emergence of social media and potential for crowdsourcing public diplomacy adds
a further complexity, challenging conventional notions of agency in global politics.
1 84 C A I T L I N BY R N E

Key points
The practice of public diplomacy is not new. Communicating directly and indirectly with public
audiences through image cultivation, cultural and educational exchange, and political rhetoric is
ingrained within the fabric of diplomatic tradition, eoing back to ancient times.
• Public diplomacy in the twenty-first century is an inherently social endeavour that places v;iliie on
interacting with. and building relationships with, public audiences.
• It is best described as an instrument used by state and non -state actors to understand, inform,
and engage public audiences in order to shape their perceptions and behaviours in ways that will
advance the Interests and values of those being represented.
• The practice and scholarship of public diplomacy continue to evolve in step with the proliferation
of global actors, the emergence and spread of new media technologies, and the rising expectations
of hyper-connected, globally mobile public audiences.
• Public diplomacy is described as soft power's key instrument. Public diplomacy activities can
contribute to the affective (attractiveness) and normative {legitimacy) soft power of global actors.
• The theory of social constructivism finds an easy synergy with public diplomacy's relational tendencies.
• The emergence of new media technologies, including social media, has transformed the way that
public audiences engage in foreign policy debate and discussion.

Questions
1 . Should ordinary people be involved in the conduct of foreign policy?
2. Why is the American experience so important to understanding public diplomacy today?
3. Is public diplomacy simply a euphemism for propaganda?
4. Is inlernational broadcasting a viable instrument of public diplomacy?
5. What is new about 'new' public diplomacy?
6. Do you th ink that public diplomacy can bring about change in North Korea?
7. How does public di plomacy contribute to power?
8. Does technology make public diplomacy more effective?

Further reading
Cull, N.J. (2009a), 'Public Diplomacy Before Gullion: Evolution of a Phrase', in N. Snow and P. Tayler
(eds), Rot.Wedge Handbook ofPublic Diplomacy (New York: Routledge).
This c hapter sets out a brief history of the term 'public diplomacy' from patchy beginnings through to
the modern coinage of the ph rase.

Cull, NJ. (2009b), 'Public Diplomacy: Lessons from its Past', CPD Perspectives, Paper 2, October.
A typology of public diplomacy's mam functions based o n case studies from the past.

Fitzpatrick, K.R. (201 0), 'U.S. Public Diplomacy's Neglected Domestic Mandate', CPD Perspectives,
Paper 3, October.
Examines the domestic dimensions of public diplomacy, drawing in particular on the American
experience, but holding relevance for a wider context.

Gregory, B. (20 1 1 ), 'American Public Di plomacy: Enduring Characteristics, Elusive Transformation',

HagueJournal of Diplomacy, 6: 351 -372.
An excellent article that defines public diplomacy for the twenty-first century, hTghlights its systemic
features, and identifies those features that are unique to the American experience and evolution of
public diplomacy