Chapter 1 I De÷nitions of Public Diplomacy
Using conventional de÷nitions of diplomacy, it is possible to determine without dif÷culty the distinction between traditional and public diplomacy: the former is concerned principally with governments inøuencing governments, the latter with governments inøuencing publics. Using the more inclusive de÷nitions of Melissen and Saner somewhat clouds the picture Õ which, they would argue, offers an accurate depiction of the fuzzy world of postmodern transnational relations, in which most actors are not as much in control of events as they would wish.21
1.6 The three dimensions of public diplomacy One possible way of mitigating the difference between the traditionalists and those who argue for a more øexible interpretation of diplomacy is to consider separately the three dimensions of public diplomacy identi÷ed by Joseph Nye (whose concept of soft power we shall be looking at in Chapter 2).22 Nye asserts that all three dimensions of public diplomacy are important, and that they require different relative proportions of direct government information and long-term cultural relationships. The ÷rst and most immediate dimension is daily communication, which involves explaining the context of domestic and foreign policy decisions to both the domestic and international press. The day-to-day dimension also involves preparation for dealing with crises and having a rapid response capability for countering false charges or misleading information. The second dimension identi÷ed by Nye is strategic communication (i.e. public diplomacy campaigns), in which a set of simple themes is developed, focusing on particular policy initiatives, much as in a political or advertising campaign. The campaign plans symbolic events and communications over the course of a set period to reinforce the central themes, or to advance a particular government policy.23 NyeØs third stage of public diplomacy is the development of lasting relationships with key individuals over many years through scholarships, exchanges, training, seminars, conferences, and access to media channels. It is here Õ although not exclusively so Õ that there is clearly the greatest scope for involvement by non-state actors, even if Õ as Nye argues Õ an element of state funding is desirable. Each of these three dimensions of public diplomacy plays an important role in helping to create an attractive image of a country that can improve its prospects for obtaining its desired outcomes. But, as Nye stresses, even the best advertising cannot sell an unpopular product: a communications strategy cannot work if it cuts against the grain of policy. Actions speak louder than words: public diplomacy as mere window dressing for hard power projection is unlikely to succeed. Policy and diplomacy must match Õ and effective public diplomacy is a two-way street that involves listening as well as talking.24
21 Jan Melissen (ed), 2005. 22 Joseph S. Nye Jr., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, New York, Public Affairs, 2004. 23 The example Nye quotes is the public diplomacy action that accompanied the implementation of NATOØs two-track decision to deploy missiles in Western Europe, while negotiating to remove existing Soviet intermediate range missiles. The Soviet Union launched a concerted campaign to inøuence European opinion and make the deployment impossible. The United StatesØ response stressed the multilateral nature of the NATO decision, encouraged European governments to take the lead when possible, and used non-governmental American participants to counter Soviet arguments. 24 Joseph S. Nye Jr., 2004. 23