Public Diplomacy

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term Public Diplomacy ( PD ) was coined in the USA at the beginning of the 1960s and describes the orientation of modern diplomacy , which is addressed in particular to foreign publics . Public diplomacy thus represents a mixture of foreign propaganda , political marketing , international understanding and cultural diplomacy. It aims to improve the image of one's own country in the perception of other countries.

Definitions

Hans M. Tuch defines public diplomacy as a "communication process between a government and foreign publics with the intention of creating understanding for the ideas and ideals of one's own country, its institutions and cultures as well as for its national goals and current political guidelines."

Signitzer (1995) describes two basic functions of public diplomacy : On the one hand, there is the “hard school” of public diplomacy - political information. It is the influencing of foreign target groups by means of persuasion. This is mostly about the short-term declaration or defense of specific positions and behavior by governments. On the other hand, there is the "soft school" of public diplomacy , which aims at mutual understanding in presentations of society as a whole or of parts of it, which are more long-term oriented.

A US State Department publication describes public diplomacy as follows:

Public diplomacy encompasses US government actions aimed at understanding, informing and influencing foreign audiences through international exchange programs, international information programs, media research and surveys, and support for non-governmental organizations. Public diplomacy strengthens relationships with America's allies, seeks to inoculate others with American values, and promotes mutual understanding between the United States and other societies. Properly done, PD diminishes the potential for military, political, and economic conflict and dispels negative ideas about the United States. Public diplomacy is an inexpensive but very effective means of promoting American principles and interests abroad.

Other authors, however, dismiss this state-centered definition as “unreflected”, since it equates public diplomacy with public relations. Recently, however, the non-state actors have been emphasized as public diplomacy actors, such as civil society actors or multinational corporations. The "establishment of rules, norms and values ​​as an instrument, but also the goal of foreign and security policy, move into the center of [...] [the] considerations". Public diplomacy can thus also be understood as a network-based concept, "as diplomacy by rather than of publics".

In addition, public diplomacy also has a domestic political component to which more and more importance is attached in specialist literature (cf.: Huijgh 2013: 59ff .; Lucarelli 2006: 13). In this way, the outward behavior is also reflected inward and is evaluated and, conversely, influencing others is only formed and determined internally. Civil society actors and the media have a special role to play here because they now have more opportunities to influence, as public opinion has become faster and easier to form due to the development of the Internet and general advances in communication and locomotion technology, and has thus become more important ( see: 'CNN effect' Hocking 2005: 30; Gilboa 2008: 63f .; Bollier 2003: 7).

Public diplomacy and soft power

Joseph Nye also takes a public diplomacy approach. He connects this with the concept of soft power that he has coined . In order to understand public diplomacy, it is explained deductively. At the beginning he describes the term power as follows: "Power is the ability to influence others in order to get the results you want." A distinction is made between "threats of coercion (sticks), Incentives and payments (carrots) and attraction that let others want what you want ”. The latter point is to be assigned to Nye Soft Power, which, in addition to the first two differentiations of power, is important not through coercion, but through attractiveness.

“Soft power is an integral part of daily democratic politics. The ability to create preferences tends to be associated with intangible assets such as an attractive personality, culture, political values, institutions, as well as policies that are considered legitimate. "

Nye describes public diplomacy as “a tool that governments use to mobilize these resources, communicate with them, and attract more publics from other countries than their governments. Public diplomacy seeks to attract attention to these potential resources through broadcasting, cultural export, arranging exchanges, etc. "

The three important dimensions of public diplomacy

  • Daily Communication (explaining foreign and domestic politics)

→ Targeted and strong involvement of foreign media after decisions, in order to a. Not to make domestic political decisions abroad look wrong

→ Well-prepared crisis management: quick reaction to crises by (as many as possible) responsible persons in order to immediately prevent the spinning of false narratives, because the media cannot wait for their stories

  • Strategic communication (set of political and advertising campaigns)

→ symbolic events to attract, strengthen and control the attention for certain topics

→ Agenda setting abroad

  • Development of lasting relationships (with key people and stakeholders)

→ through scholarships, exchanges, seminars, conferences and access to media channels

→ Generates a greater understanding of one's own decisions, brings security of expectation, generates entanglements and more credit with the other party

The three dimensions are to be seen in a chronological order from short to medium to long term and for that reason alone are necessary as a supplement.

In addition, communication is never a one-way street. Listening is just as important as speaking. You can't sell anything that completely bypasses the other. Despite their own values ​​and other unity, everyone sees and interprets through so-called "cultural glasses": different countries, different customs.

Further delimitations

In contrast to “normal” diplomacy , public diplomacy is not only aimed at state actors, but also at the population of other states. In the new literature, more importance is attached to domestic society and its actors, whether as an operator of public diplomacy or as a recipient (cf.: Hocking 2005; Gilboa 2008; Huijgh 2013)

The term propaganda is also not to be equated with the term public diplomacy . Propaganda is mostly carried out by state actors or on behalf of state actors. In addition, propaganda is an instrument that is mainly used in times of war, while public diplomacy is mainly used in times of peace. In practice, however, the terms propaganda and public diplomacy cannot always be clearly distinguished from one another.

Public Diplomacy in the Information Age

The goal is unchanged according to the above definitions. However, the environment has changed extremely quickly and diplomacy and thus also public diplomacy have to adapt to these circumstances. Through the waves of democratization , but also through globalization and the associated digitalization , the possibilities have increased many times over. On the other hand, attention must be paid to the considerable transparency, which can have both positive and negative effects. Information has long known no borders.

“Information is power and today a much larger part of the world's population has access to that power. [...] When people are overwhelmed by the volume of information they are confronted with, it is difficult to know what the focus is on. Attention, rather than information, is becoming a scarce resource. "

In addition to transparency, the flood of information is particularly important. This often leads to overload and is counterproductive. The challenge is to be able to determine which information is released and when. Agenda setting is just as demanding to assess as the way it is designed. Moreover, public diplomacy does not always have to go in opposite directions. Often times, both parties can benefit. Personal reputation is becoming more and more important. Governments fight for credibility with the media, companies, NGOs, intergovernmental organizations and networks of scientific communities.

German Public Diplomacy

A race for opinions in other countries is also beginning for German foreign policy. It is equally about selling networks and the existing design requirements as well as a possible reluctance to German foreign policy. The German government also knows that political communication is “no longer the exclusive domain of states”. The growing criticism of the opacity of German intentions does not diminish in the course of increasing responsibility.

With the Review2014 - Foreign Policy Thinking Ahead Process of the Federal Foreign Office, Germany has succeeded in a unique trick in its self-portrayal. This resulted in an advertising campaign with a series of symbolic events and over 50 international experts who were involved in German foreign policy. In the process, German views were playfully sold, long-term partnerships established and, if possible, new stakeholders of German foreign policy gained abroad.

Digital diplomacy

Further opportunities to communicate to the outside world naturally arise through the daily press work of the federal government and the embassies, the partly existing social media pages of the representations, but also special ones such as "OSCEChair'16Germany". There they regularly try to provide information about domestic and foreign policy.

"While public diplomacy used to be very target group-oriented and focused on individual and high-level discussion groups, the message is now required to be broadly communicated." This requires an online strategy from the Federal Foreign Office, from the embassies online presences that are relevant to new media such as Customize Facebook and Twitter. In addition, with the change from embassies to “service facilities”, it requires an adjustment to the times. In addition to the online strategy, training, but also technical development in terms of software must be guaranteed and bureaucratic hurdles and concerns removed in order to achieve a leading role in Europe.

The new media must be used consistently and complementary and there must be no “either or”. Despite the additional effort, it should be noted that not only a large number of young people are addressed, but a large number of people of all age groups can be involved, who would never be reached in personal contact. A constant exchange with the foreign population should not be an exception, but should be treated like a personal inquiry on site: prompt, independent and simple. “The digitization of communication should therefore be given very high priority, online communication must be taken seriously and must not be an orphaned by-product of public diplomacy as occupational therapy for the youngest employees of the embassy.” The German diplomats and representations still have a big one The need to catch up is already starting with the classic online presence, the website, which in many places is not only supplemented with new content not only daily or not weekly, but often only irregularly. But even with the existing social media channels, the use by German diplomats "[...] is not effective enough when it comes to listening to the people 'on site' or learning from them in relation to developments 'on site', to create real networks and send assessments to Berlin, which can then be included in the planning process. "

“Despite the rapid growth in importance of social media and online communication, classic public diplomacy should not be shaken to its foundations and reshaped. Rather, it is essential to wrap the tried and tested concepts and structures of diplomatic communication in new clothes and thereby modernize and restructure them in a contemporary way. "

Partner and intermediary organizations

For strategic and long-term communication internationally, Germany relies on many partners and their foreign offices. These are partner organizations, but also intermediary organizations. These represent and convey Germany, its politics, values ​​and interests. According to Nye, they stand for German soft power (cultural diplomacy). The Goethe-Institut, the DAAD, various chambers of commerce, German schools, Deutsche Welle and German NGOs are particularly well represented. The German NGOs include church development services, the Maltese , the German Red Cross and political foundations . In purely formal terms, the latter are not government organizations, but get the majority of their income from state subsidies. Furthermore, they are said to be very close to the party and so the KAS can be assigned to the CDU and the FES to the SPD . What is special is the worldwide uniqueness of party foundations of this type, their networks and influence. The networking of like-minded parties and elites, contacts and other stakeholders, which is particularly strong in Europe, is extremely important for German foreign policy. In addition, they have enormous leeway in their work if government intervention would be “politically risky” or useless.

Private companies and their products can also be particularly significant for German public diplomacy, as the “Made in Germany” seal of quality stands for global quality. Companies like Siemens AG enjoy an excellent reputation around the globe and are spread across the entire continent. Siemens AG, for example, has been active in Iran since 1868 and was therefore very interested in lifting the sanctions against the country. This also shows the strong entanglement of business and diplomacy. Companies sometimes have divergent interests or views and have to find their place at the table. One-time events can have a long-term effect. The 2006 FIFA World Cup, under the motto “The world to make friends”, is an important milestone for German publicity.

Public Diplomacy in Business

Public diplomacy is also practiced on an economic level . The example of the takeover of the French group Alstom from General Electric was particularly clear: Here the French state intervened massively in the negotiations between General Electric and Alstom, as it had a great interest in controlling its own important commercial enterprises. It is precisely this point that illustrates the fluid boundaries between lobbying and public diplomacy . In France in particular, large companies such as EDF , Total , Citroën or Alstom play an identity-creating and, last but not least, patriotic role for the country. As a result, people in France feel responsible for French companies across all parties and do not hesitate to support them financially. Just as Apple , Coca-Cola or Google are perceived as American companies, the French public perceives companies like Alstom as traditionally French. Politicians in France provide this support because they know that there is no better poster or advertising for a country than successful and powerful companies with a national identity. The French Minister for Economic Affairs, Montebourg , said in this context: "The choice we have made is a choice for economic patriotism". This intervention implies the special form of public diplomacy that the French state pursues. He wants to send a clear political signal. On the one hand, the image of a strong state is sent to Europe and the world and, on the other hand, the image of a solid French economy is propagated. The French state also wants to show its citizens that jobs are secured. In the future, lobbying will be an increasingly central aspect in order to enable politics to implement a national and international corporate strategy or public diplomacy on an economic level. This enables states, such as France recently, to significantly influence the choice of location for companies. In addition, this indirectly gives every individual citizen the chance to participate in the central decisions of large corporations.

literature

  • Thomas Klöckner: Public Diplomacy. Foreign information and cultural policy of the USA. Structural analysis of the organization and strategies of USIA and USIS in Germany . Nomos VG, Baden-Baden 1993, ISBN 3-7890-2941-6
  • Michael Kunczik : The manipulated opinion. National image politics and international public relations . Böhlau, Cologne 1990, ISBN 3-412-08089-6
  • Sebastian Lange: The Success of "Public Diplomacy": A Theoretical Analysis Using the Case Study Germany . VDM, Saarbrücken 2007, ISBN 978-3-8364-4650-1
  • Holger Ohmstedt: From Propaganda to Public Diplomacy. The self-portrayal of the United States of America abroad from World War I to the end of the Cold War . Dissertation, University of Munich 1993
  • Daniel Ostrowski: The Public Diplomacy of the German diplomatic missions around the world. Theory and practice of German public relations work abroad . VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2010, ISBN 978-3-531-16959-0
  • Hansgert Peisert: The foreign cultural policy of the Federal Republic of Germany. Social science analyzes and planning models . Klett, Stuttgart 1978, ISBN 3-12-910160-8
  • Kristina Schlachetzki: Public Diplomacy - the US-American international broadcaster as an instrument of foreign policy , University of Cologne, Seminar for Political Science 2005, ISBN 3836459868 , ISBN 978-3836459860
  • Antje Scholz: Understanding as a goal of intercultural communication. A communication science analysis using the example of the Goethe Institute . LIT-Verlag, Münster 2000, ISBN 3-8258-4890-6
  • Benno Signitzer : Public Relations and Public Diplomacy . In: Walter A. Mahle (Ed.): Germany in international communication . UVK-Medien, Konstanz 1995, ISBN 3-88295-236-9
  • Benno H. Signitzer: Comments on the conceptual and functional world of public diplomacy . In: Wolfgang Armbrecht u. a. (Ed.): Image and PR. Can image be the subject of a public relations science? Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1993, ISBN 3-531-12466-8 , pp. 199-211.
  • Benno H. Signitzer, Timothy Coombs: Public relations and public diplomacy. Conceptual convergences . In: Public Relations Review , Vol. 18 (1992), pp. 137-147.
  • Nancy Snow: Brainscrubbing. The failures of US public diplomacy after 9/11 . In: David Miller (ed.): Tell me lies. Propaganda and media distortion in the attack on Iraq . Pluto Press, London 2004, ISBN 0-7453-2201-8 , pp. 52-62.
  • Tim Stiehl: Public diplomacy equals nation branding? A theoretical delimitation of two concepts for the external representation of states . VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, Saarbrücken, 2011, ISBN 978-3639344844
  • Hans N. Tuch: Communicating with the world. US public diplomacy overseas . St. Martin's Press, New York 1990, ISBN 0-312-04809-2

credentials

  1. ↑ Orig .: "Public diplomacy is a government's process of communicating with foreign publics in an attempt to bring about understanding for its nation's ideas and ideals, its institutions and cultures, as well as its national goals and current policies."
  2. ↑ Orig .: "Public diplomacy involves US Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics through international exchanges, international information programs, media research and polling, and support for nongovernmental organizations. Public diplomacy solidifies relations with America's allies, seeks to inculcate others with American values, and promotes mutual understanding between the United States and other societies. Done properly, it reduces the potential for conflict - military, political, and economic - and dispels negative notions about the United States. Public diplomacy is an inexpensive, yet highly effective, way to promote American policy and interests overseas. " - United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy: Consolidation of USIA Into The State Department: An Assessment After One Year (October 2000; PDF; 183 kB), p. 5.
  3. ↑ Consolidation of USIA Into The State Department: An Assessment After One Year (October 2000), p. 5
  4. ^ Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616 (1), 55-77.
  5. ↑ Auer, Claudia (2015): Public Diplomacy: A Conceptualization Proposal. In: Romy Fröhlich and Thomas Koch (eds.): Politics - PR - Persuasion. Structures, functions and effects of political public relations, 143-167. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
  6. ^ Hocking, Brian (2005): Rethinking the 'New' Public Diplomacy. In: Jan Melissen (ed.): The new public diplomacy. Soft power in international relations. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 28-46.
  7. ↑ Göler, Daniel (2015): When normative power becomes a geostrategic challenge. Reflections on the current Ukraine crisis, in: Zeitschrift für Politik, 62 No. 3, pp. 289–305.
  8. ^ Hocking, Brian (2005): Rethinking the 'New' Public Diplomacy. In: Jan Melissen (ed.): The new public diplomacy. Soft power in international relations. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 32.
  9. ↑ Public Diplomacy's Domestic Dimension in the European Union 2013 pp. 57–84 in Cross, Melissen (ed.) 2013 - European Public Diplomacy
  10. ^ Values ​​and Principles in European Union Foreign Policy 2006
  11. ^ Hocking, Brian (2005): Rethinking the 'New' Public Diplomacy. In: Jan Melissen (ed.): The new public diplomacy. Soft power in international relations. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 28-46.
  12. ^ Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616 (1), 55-77.
  13. ↑ David Bollier: The Rise of Netpolitik How the Internet Is Changing International Politics and Diplomacy. 2003, accessed April 4, 2020 .
  14. ↑ a b c d e f g h Joseph S. Nye: Public Diplomacy and Soft Power . In: The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science . tape 616 , no. 1 , March 1, 2008, ISSN  0002-7162 , p. 94-109 , doi : 10.1177 / 0002716207311699 ( sagepub.com [accessed September 14, 2016]).
  15. ↑ a b c d Daniel Ostrowski: The Public Diplomacy of German diplomatic missions worldwide - Springer . doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-531-92263-8 ( springer.com [accessed September 14, 2016]).
  16. ^ Rethinking the 'New' Public Diplomacy 28-46 in Melissen (ed.) 2005 - The new public diplomacy
  17. ^ Searching for a theory of public diplomacy 2008
  18. ↑ Public Diplomacy's Domestic Dimension in the European Union 57-84 in Cross, Melissen (ed.) 2013 - European Public Diplomacy
  19. ↑ http://www.bpb.de/apuz/31364/auswaertige-kulturpolitik-und-propaganda-in-den-usa?p=all
  20. ↑ Manuel Adolphsen: Communication Strategies of Governments and NGOs - Springer . doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-658-05504-2 ( springer.com [accessed September 14, 2016]).
  21. ↑ Review 2014 - Review 2014 - Foreign Policy Thinking ahead. (No longer available online.) In: Review 2014. Archived from the original on September 13, 2016 ; accessed on September 14, 2016 .
  22. ↑ OSCEChair'16 | Germany (@GER_OSCE) | Twitter. In: twitter.com. Retrieved September 14, 2016 .
  23. ↑ a b c d How modern does public diplomacy have to be? (No longer available online.) Archived from the original on September 16, 2016 ; accessed on September 14, 2016 .
  24. ↑ a b c Diplomacy in the 21st Century. (No longer available online.) Archived from the original on September 16, 2016 ; accessed on September 14, 2016 .
  25. ^ A b Wolfgang Ischinger, Tobias Bunde: New German Diplomacy? In: Journal for Foreign and Security Policy . tape 8 , no. 1 , January 8, 2015, ISSN  1866-2188 , p. 313–333 , doi : 10.1007 / s12399-014-0462-4 ( springer.com [accessed September 14, 2016]).
  26. ↑ Sebastian Bartsch: Political Foundations . In: Handbook on German Foreign Policy . VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2007, ISBN 978-3-531-13652-3 , p. 280–289 , doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-531-90250-0_20 ( springer.com [accessed September 14, 2016]).
  27. ↑ Siemens: The group benefits from business with Iran - WELT. In: THE WORLD. Retrieved September 14, 2016 .
  28. ↑ NEW CPD Perspectives, “Public Diplomacy in Germany” | USC Center on Public Diplomacy. In: uscpublicdiplomacy.org. Retrieved September 14, 2016 .

Web links