Embracing Collaborative Power and Accountability

Following Slaughter and Fisher, can the idea of "Power Over" be reconciled with an ethic of "Power with?" Put another way, can public diplomacy practitioners truly embrace “collaborative power” and still be accountable?

In capitalizing on the use of social media tools in an ever-globalized and interconnected world, can public diplomacy practitioners truly embrace Ali Fisher’s “facilitative approach” and emphasis on the periphery as well as Anne-Marie Slaughter’s “collaborative power” and still be accountable?

As Gary Weaver keenly observed, “When people communicate, they send messages, not meanings” (“The Re-Entry Process,” 1987). The narratives constructed through the use of collaborative power often will take on a life and meaning of their own, resulting in offshoots organizations, visions, and narratives. While the merits of top-down relational power practices will continue to shine and suit certain contexts, as Fisher points out, other contexts may require practitioners to engage in “power with” foreign, third-party partners. In such a scenario these practitioners may stand to gain greater credibility in the eyes of their partners, but they are no longer solely responsible for the outcome that results from embracing collaborative power. Instead, they are part of a much larger phenomenon of collective engagement and empowerment, which shares collective narrative and accountability in influencing the images, meaning, and understanding of messages.

Fisher highlights how, in the practice of public diplomacy, there is a “division between those that seek to exert ‘power over’ a target audience and those that intend to engage or empower a community” (“Looking at the Man in the Mirror,” pg. 273). The former tendency is often associated an organization’s core or top-down approach of exercising influence, while the latter is often practiced on the margins or periphery of a network.

Fisher also points out that the difference between ‘power over’ versus ‘power with’ is rooted in a number of issues, namely: (1) The struggle to align an organization’s messages and actions (contradictions and discrepancies between the two threaten credibility); (2) the dynamics of “state-based author-audience power relationship” and influence of domestic constituents; (3) the pressure to home one’s public diplomacy focus on “self-centered language rather than genuine engagement” with foreign publics; (4) identifying power relationships—whether core or periphery—within a network; and (5) defining and measuring success.

In seeking to articulate the modern “phenomenon…[of] networked, horizontal…and sustained application of collective will and resources” in this age of Twitter and other powerful social media tools, Slaughter seeks to complement Joseph Nye’s theory of relational power by articulating a theory on “collaborative power” and distinguishing it as one categorical form of soft power (The Atlantic, November 30, 2011). As Slaughter points out in her article, Nye defines relational power as the “capacity” to take action and achieve desired outcomes in certain social situations. His argument features three facets of relational power—the ability to command change, control agendas, and shape preferences—all facilitated through a top-down approach.

In contrast, collaborative power emphasizes the strength of open-sourced networking and the influence of “community organization” and empowerment. In Slaughter’s words, “collaborative power” is defined as “the power of many to do together what no one can do alone.” Collaborative power, or the power-with approach has the power to effect positive change through mutually beneficial partnerships--one case illustrating this is developing relationship between the United States and Myanmar's burgeoning democracy. Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton's admiration of, direct engagement, and partnership with democratic opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has certainly empowered and quickened the process of democratization in the Southeast Asian country. With Western support and co-coordination, the Burmese were able to successfully hold parliamentary elections earlier this year.

Fisher and Slaughter make several interesting observations. One key observation is a reminder of how long ago, Karl Deutsch underscored the importance and significance of “community” (288). Sophisticated yet informal community organizing and use of “collaborative power” when well-placed has the potential to achieve tremendous outcomes. We see this when Anne-Marie Slaughter buttresses her argument with the example of Andrew Carvin’s #FreeMona hashtag, which trended worldwide on Twitter soon after its creation and helped to publicize and track the activist’s story—all while likely influencing global perception of the horrors of Mubarak’s administration. A second observation Fisher shares is the need to oscillate between the core-centric approach of the old-fashioned hub-and-spokes style of public diplomacy (and control of information exchange) and the newer peripheral practice or “facilitative approach of niche diplomacy where the benefit comes from helping others to achieve their goals” (281). Finally, he emphasizes the importance in recognizing the “importance and influence” of those on the periphery of communication networks (288). While both the “core and the periphery have vital roles,” it is evident that those who are marginalized, beyond the pale, or in the periphery are likely to first adopt an innovation and become “boundary spanners.”

In other words, the periphery is open soil in what Fisher identifies as the rich “inflow and outflow of knowledge and innovation” can take root and flourish. Throughout history, marginalized individuals have succeeded in gaining ground through collaborative networks of power and community organizing—to use post-colonial examples, Frantz Fanon, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. were all those once located on the periphery, beyond the pale.

To ensure their credibility in their embrace of collaborative power, public diplomacy practitioners must look to foster what Fisher terms as genuine dialogue, for which there must be “an element in which both sides are prepared to shift their position” (278). The key to influencing hearts and minds, it seems, lies in empowering publics to be open to change and/or new understandings of identity. In an ideal world, public diplomacy practitioners, boundary spanners, and partners alike would all gladly be held accountable for opening channels of exchange.

When Everyone and No One Has the Power

Anne Marie Slaughter makes a compelling argument for the advantages of collaborative power, or “power with” rather than “power over.” She defines collaborative power as “the power of many to do together what no one can do alone.” This is an attractive notion that on the surface describes exactly what the new public diplomacy seeks to do. It challenges the traditional paradigm of power in PD, which characterizes PD practitioners as actors sending messages to passive audiences. Even when conceptualizing PD communication through network theory, the tendency is to envision PD actors at the center.

With collaborative power, then, individual actors pursue their own interests. As Ali Fisher puts it, all of the network nodes interact as peers. This might be jarring for policy makers and PD practitioners, especially in the United States where the M.O. is usually to take the lead. It is even somewhat contradictory to the idea that public diplomacy is an attempt to manage the international environment. The word manage implies having power over others, not with them. It’s important to note that as Slaughter describes it, collaborative power does not belong to anyone. Rather, it is a property that can be released under a certain set of circumstances to mobilize, connect, or adapt.  

So, the question must be asked: can facilitative public diplomacy forward foreign policy goals? I think that it can. Fisher says the facilitative approach of public diplomacy gives the appearance that PD organizations are acting beyond national interest and for the betterment of foreign communities. The key here is the appearance of acting beyond national interest. Those two goals aren’t mutually exclusive. To look at the case of the United States, there are many opportunities to practice facilitative public diplomacy that forwards American foreign policy goals. If we consider that spreading the values of democracy, freedom, and social justice abroad are in the U.S.’ national interest, then it is clear that empowerment in these areas benefits both the U.S. and foreign publics. Of course, there are exceptions. The “power with” approach works when PD organizations are targeting potential supporters, not when policies or cultures clash.

The more prevalent challenge to collaborative power is for PD practitioners to maintain legitimacy while supporting grassroots initiatives. Peter Van Ham quotes Daniel Etsy as saying “democratic legitimacy depends on decision makers being seen as acting on behalf of a community.” Legitimacy does not only have to come from the top down. In other words, collaborative power can be an asset for PD practitioners as well. I would argue that the ethic of “power with” leads to a greater legitimacy for PD practitioners because foreign publics are more likely to engage when they are equal partners in the action and narrative, as Fisher explains. Collaborative power, just like hard power and soft power, is only one part of the public diplomacy equation, one more way of conceptualizing influence. Slaughter’s point is well taken. Collaborative power can be a healthy complement to other PD strategies. 

The New Age of Social Media Diplomacy

The New Age of Social Media Diplomacy

Who would have thought that social media would have the impact that it does today...In an age where information is spread through new outlets of technology, social media has now become not only a lens into other worlds, but has also acted as a tool of influence for public diplomacy. Social media has become the new mechanism in which the three types of public diplomacy: monologue, dialogue, and collaboration have come to fruition on an individual and global scale. 

Monologues are meant to be a one-way form of communication between a speaker and an audience. They can be used to convey information or inspire an audience. Social media is an outlet where monologues can be spread for all those to see. YouTube has helped spread these powerful monologues across borders, not only can the State of the Union address be viewed in the United States, but those interested in American domestic politics can view it from around the world. Where television can spread news, ideas, and culture, sites such as YouTube achieve the same type of exchange.

Monologues are not limited to the speeches of those in powerful leadership roles, but can emphasize an individual voice in civil society. Blogging allows for the quick dissemination of opinions to a public audience. Blogs are used by governments, embassies, cultural institutions, advocacy organizations and more to convey opinions, raise issues, or spread ideas. Social media has become a tool for diplomacy. 

Blogging and YouTube have also been used as a realm for dialogue where a post/video that starts off as a one-way form of communication can involve into a discussion of opinions. Both of these sites allow for users to post their comments or feedback on what they have seen. Blogs can enter into community blogs where posts can be reviewed by community members.

Social media can inspire advocacy at the grassroots level and thus fueling collaboration between individuals on an online realm as well as creating a sense of community. For example, during Obama's presidential campaign, the youth vote was considered unreliable. However, through social media, which is most commonly used by young voters, Obama was able to establish a grass roots campaign that spread his campaign ideas through platforms such as twitter and Facebook. Linux and wikipedia both open source operating platforms have created a community of collaboration where the users work toward a common goal. Social media used in such a way creates a community of collaboration.

Though social media can be used to promote the three types of public diplomacy, it is still a tool to aid it and should not replace traditional types of face-to-face diplomacy. Social media has its benefits for the realm of public diplomacy, but also its negatives. Business can use social media to control and influence the masses. In the case of the SOPA/PIPA campaign, sites such as Google and Facebook used social media to garner support among the public to protect their first amendment rights, but as similar legislation passed that did not affect the profits of their business there was no further campaigning against this. Social media though an effective tool to diffuse ideology and culture can also be used to promote propaganda or dangerous ideology such as that of al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations. It is important to remember that social media, though a powerful tool can be wielded by both sides of public diplomacy and propaganda.

"New Diplomacy?" I think not

What does it mean for diplomacy to be a "behavior" as much as an "institution?" What does this mean for public diplomacy?

Kelley’s argument about the evolution and pluralization of diplomacy is a firm reminder to us all that despite what purists may think, diplomacy—like many arts or sciences—is a living, breathing craft capable of change, improvement, and progression—or even regression. It is also a craft and tool that can be acquired by all those who are willing to learn to wield it. Thus, agenda-setting and action are no longer in the hands of state actors, Kelley argues.

He fails to make note, however, that agenda-setting and actions never were entirely in the hands of state actors. Thus, it’s not that the gaping chasm of unequal influence of nation-states and non-state agents has healed itself, it’s just that as ICTs continued to develop and accessibility to these technologies begun spread in the 21st century, technological diffusion takes place. The quill pen gives way to the wing of an electronic Tweet. More people have access, and access helps to empower, and empowerment certainly sways influence, however, this phenomenon does not replace the functions of diplomacy as an institution.

Instead, Kelley’s brand of “new diplomacy” is not a new mode of behavior; it is an improved means of communication, networking, and negotiating in the globalized dynamics of our modern world.

Critical to note is Kelley’s point about populations and their identification with transnational concerns. In our globalized world, political, economic, and social concerns are no longer local, but international—and in being international, they transcend traditional boundaries set forth by the nation-state. As a result, the global public is increasingly likely to “‘relocate’ authority to a non-state entity or figure, which in turn enables the non-state actor to amass moral legitimacy and to influence the behavior of states from the outside” (289). Kelley calls these non-state actors the “new diplomats.”

While they do maneuver “within the state system and command authority across it,” these non-state actors highlighted in the article are not diplomats in the traditional sense, period. They are also not the “new diplomats,” as Kelley is fond of labeling them. Calling these non-state actors ‘diplomats’ is a misnomer. Instead, these non-state actors are tremendous networks of influence—but they are not diplomats. They are polymaths, masters of their technological savvy, and well-connected free agents eager to secure their own agenda through diplomatic behavior and engagement. In the 21st century they continue to engage in diplomacy just as they always have, except now they are armed and more deeply embedded in the minds and hearts of the public through their activity with social media and ICTs.

In repeatedly highlighting the demise of diplomacy as an institution and its proliferation as a behavior, Kelley reveals his epiphany while seemingly ignoring how throughout history, non-state actors—such as corporate actors—have always had a hand (or a fist) in negotiating (and racketing) policy in international affairs. The institution of diplomacy is open to progression, improvements, and technological diffusion. Non-state actors have gained greater primacy and strength in their ability to positively contribute to their public diplomacy of choice, but they have not replaced their official counterparts. Diplomats continue to function as official representatives of their states abroad, constrained always by protocol, but distinguished by their responsibility to serve and their ability to discern and navigate the delicate negotiations that must take place at the decentralized table of modern diplomacy.

Social Media & Communication Flows of Public Diplomacy

Despite assumptions regarding social media as a space meant for the proliferation of pointless quips and equally pointless content, the mere fact that civil society now has the ability to interact on these platforms without the control or approval of the state provides an entirely subversive aspect to state-controlled public diplomacy, an area of both national and international importance.

As author Peter Van Ham notes in Social Power in International Politics, the public diplomacy environment formerly mediated much at the hands of state actors is now being altered into a more multi-directional scene where the state, NGOs, international orgs, individuals and other actors can produce and consume information directly, thereby weakening state control. Often this process plays out in social media technologies where actors can take messages into their own hands.

However, the state should not be discounted in the social media realm. In fact, the state or other actors can take on a mediator role in all three typologies of public diplomacy, as outlined by Cowan and Arsenault in Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: Three Layers of Public Diplomacy. This is because the three typologies are based upon communication strategies that can be easily employed by any entity engaging with a foreign public. I’ll describe how each typology can engage publics with social media: 

Monological 

Although monological or one-way communication where one entity transmits a message to an audience may seem to contradict the very nature of social media it actually can be an effective way of engaging with foreign publics. Making the choice to participate in social media platforms does not automatically open up the way for dialogical or collaborative forms of public diplomacy. An actor can create an account on a social media platform such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr or Pinterest and solely utilize that platform to amass a following and promote information carefully crafted in tune with their particular interest.

Monological communication on social media is advantageous because actors can target audiences according to these particular interests and goals, gain heightened visibility fast and reach a wide swath of active users. Although there can be commentary or feedback given to the actor by its community, the actor has control over the choice to reciprocate or not.

The downside to monological communication is that the information promoted isn’t able to be contained within the confines of the group. Social media is meant to be shared and users can/will disseminate messages further to estranged groups that may not have the desired reaction. A way the actor can assuage a hostile reaction to their public diplomacy effort is to ensure prior to sending out the initial communication many various viewpoints and perspectives are considered. An actor can also provide carefully crafted responses back to users, but this would break the monologic aspect of the public diplomacy effort. 

Dialogical 

Dialogical public diplomacy works well with social media because of the necessity to create a conversation between the actor and audience. Social media features like commenting, re-tweeting, ‘liking’, instant messaging and texting can help actors gauge public opinion surrounding their perspective as well as the importance foreign publics weigh on certain topics. This could be a good method for an actor to get ideas flowing for a project or a way to foster intercultural exchange. Again, this is advantageous to actors because dialogical communications can be targeted to interested groups where the actor can initiate and steer the dialogue in certain directions.

The negative aspect of dialogical public diplomacy is that, again, the communications can be driven away from the control of the actor and may veer off in a separate direction than originally intended. There are also competing dialogical conversations that are started within many other contexts that may tangentially or directly influence or challenge the goals and perspectives of an actor.


Collaborative 

Certain types of social media outlets are uniquely appropriate for collaborative public diplomacy. Because the goal in this effort is to produce a product from the contributions of many, open-source projects like the Linux operating system or the Drupal content management system are particularly relevant. In these, any users who are interested are encouraged to assist in the creation and maintenance of the product. The public diplomacy goal that results from collaboration is a sense of common ground and shared loyalty/experience to a goal by all members despite observed differences.

Easy ways to utilize collaborative public diplomacy is in working with wikis, file-sharing systems like Google Docs and mass-multiplayer role-playing games like Second Life or World of Warcraft. Each of these allow for users to personally take on responsibilities and contribute to the building or maintenance of a greater initiative. The potential downside to collaborative public diplomacy is that users must be involved from the ground floor or else they will not establish the necessary trust and social capital needed to foster the bond. Ensuring the collaborative project forces cross-cultural groups to view issues in a different light is particularly challenging, but if done correctly and assist in such areas as conflict resolution.

I think it is imperative to understand that social media is not a magic bullet for public diplomacy. Social media is the next innovation following other revolutionary technologies such as radio, television and the Internet. Although it has brought all actors in society closer together at an unprecedented rate, it is best to realize these capabilities are only as effective as the actors that use them. As Van Ham notes, technological progression must be met with human agency and the correct political economy to flourish.

Public Diplomacy and Online Communication

Image courtesy of BIOtechNow

Cowan and Arsenault identify three layers of public diplomacy in their article titled “Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration.” The first layer is monologue, or one-way communication. Monologue is what traditional PD did best. There is still a place for monologues in public diplomacy, for instance the advocacy of an official state policy. Any type of social media could be used for this type of PD. One example is a YouTube video of an official speech. A diplomat or policymaker delivers a message and puts it online for others to hear. Viewers can still comment on the video, share it, or even appropriate the content to create new media. But after the initial posting of the video, the official is no longer part of the conversation if he or she chooses not to be. There will always be a place for this type of PD, which is better suited to traditional state actors.  

As Cull, Melissen, and others have described, the “new public diplomacy” seeks to move away from the conventional monologues. NGOs, private sector companies, and even celebrities benefit from greater engagement with the public. Dialogue, the second layer of PD, refers to two-way communication. Social media can easily be adapted for dialogue by PD practitioners posting messages online and asking for responses, thereby generating dialogues. This is simple enough, and many embassies are already doing this. A way to improve upon these online dialogues might be to invite local opinion leaders to contribute to a blog. This gesture eliminates the current hierarchic structure of one post by a diplomat which audiences then comment on. Guest columns reinforce the notion of an even playing field where all opinions matter. This is an important way for PD to utilize social media.

Finally, Cowan and Arsenault’s third layer is collaboration, “initiatives in which people work together on a joint venture or project.” While the most meaningful collaboration comes from person-to-person engagement, social networking is also advantageous for this type of PD and can even be an initial step toward larger projects. Kelley explains that with the use of ICTs, citizens and non-state actors can draw attention to global issues like climate change. The simplest way they can do this is through sharing information on sites like Facebook and Twitter. One prominent example is KONY 2012. Despite the video’s criticisms and flaws, the fact remains that Invisible Children successfully used social media to spread awareness and garner support for an issue. Another example is the State Department’s text Haiti campaign. The same principle could be executed via social media.  

The three layers of public diplomacy are each relevant to public diplomacy. I believe that social media are valuable to each, but primarily as supplements. Tweeting at someone and sharing links are low-risk methods of communication. By this I mean that most people are more comfortable writing something online than saying it face-to-face. Social media tools are vital for long-distance communication, but they don't replace real contact. New diplomats must remember that the objective of dialogues and collaborations is to foster relationships. The most meaningful relationships will be made in person, not online.  

Blurred Lines Between Propaganda and Public Diplomacy

When we think of propaganda our thoughts might turn to those of WWII filled with images of Nazi Germany or North Korea, yet is there any real distinction between propaganda and public diplomacy aside from one typically having a positive connotation than the other? In this technological age with the increasing ease of access to information, have the lines between propaganda and public diplomacy become blurred?

Black presents a myriad of views on the meanings of propaganda ranging from the immoral persuasion intending to control individual views to propaganda being sociologically embedded that propaganda is no longer distinguishable. Yet, all of these views bear striking similarities with the definition of public diplomacy. Black does not give a clear distinction, but rather promotes the grey area between two ideas.

Public diplomacy aims to “touch the general public and the elites of other countries in a way that generates more understanding and support for one’s own interests, ideas, and values.“ Qualter, on the other hand, defines propaganda as “the deliberate attempt by some individual or group to form, control or alter the attitudes of other groups by the use of the instruments of communication with the intention that in any given situation the reaction of those so influenced will be that desired by the propagandist.” There is no doubt that both propaganda and public diplomacy echo similar goals of self-interests in either conveying a cultural identity or promoting an ideology.

However, I believe that the key determining factors in the difference between public diplomacy and propaganda is first the intent of the persuader. A second distinguishing characteristic is if the persuader’s actions affect an individual’s mental freedom in which to keep an open mind and independently form an opinion. 

Nevertheless, I question my views on a distinction between the two as Black’s argument delves into the role of media and society. He further blurs the lines between propaganda and public diplomacy when he states “people need media to provide them with predigested views because they can’t experience all of life first hand…propaganda thus becomes inevitable.” Most of the information we receive is disseminated from the media, but in trying to simplify the multitude of information results in a sense of propaganda. Is public diplomacy a more optimistic viewpoint of propaganda? Has propaganda become so embedded in society that people are influenced without the indication of propaganda?

What do you mean when you say this picture is propagandistic?

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

In the post-Cold War era, the word ‘propaganda’ still casts a long, dark shadow in the English language. As Black highlights in his article, “Semantics and Ethics of Propaganda,” the term often brings to mind a practice that is sinister and unethical, despite its origins as a moral duty in the Roman Catholic Church. Propaganda—as it is understood in the aftermath of the Cold War—is seemingly inseparable from “manipulation and control, if not outright coercion,” and an unfair “power imbalance…between propagandists and propagandees” (121).

By exploring “how people perceive the world and how they subsequently communicate their perceptions or misperceptions,” Black’s analysis identifies more commonalities than differences between propaganda and public diplomacy (130). Black’s exploration of propaganda underscores how difficult it is to disentangle the two terms, since both practices are nuanced, varied, and dependent on individual orientations and belief systems.

In considering whether or not public diplomacy is distinct from propaganda, I conclude that it depends on the number of the aforementioned factors. The most primary factors are: (1) The intention of the information communicator(s) and (2) The belief systems of information receiver(s). How does the information communicator package information? Do they attempt to package it in a non-propagandistic manner? In turn, how do information receivers seek and process their information? Do they seek varied sources of information (as Rokeach’s open-minded individual would) and question what they learn? Or do they seek a monochromatic source of information and accept what they learn without question?

Ultimately, in U.S. democratic society, public diplomacy programs—be they U.S. or foreign—are recognizable competitors and contributors to the pluralist marketplace of ideas. They embody forms of “propagandas that challenge all of us—producers and consumers—to wisely sift and sort through them” (135). This is not likely the case in a closed society, such as Iran or North Korea. Therefore, the term ‘propaganda’ has a wide spectrum of nuanced significance, striking positive, negative, and all connotations between.

While Black concludes that propaganda is characterized by at least six specific characteristics, I believe whether or not public diplomacy fits the definition of propaganda depends entirely on how an individual, organization, or country elects to execute its public diplomacy program. If a public diplomacy program does possess all of the six characteristics, then it certainly seems heavily propagandistic. However, if a public diplomacy program such as the U.S. Embassy of Vietnam’s public diplomacy program—which elects to not emphasize the catastrophes of the Vietnam War—upholds a “time perspective characterized by an overemphasis or under-emphasis on the past, present, or future as disconnected periods rather than a demonstrated consciousness of time flow”—is it not also a bit propagandistic?

Perhaps, as Black suggests, an overemphasis or underemphasis on history may be intentional. It may also be unconscious, rooted in a certain view of the world, particular belief systems, “their personal and institutional loyalties, and their semantic behaviors” which may have propagandistic tendencies (135). Propaganda and public diplomacy cannot be understood in binary terms. Instead, they are very much nuanced, varied, and dependent on the orientations and tendencies of information senders and receivers in each unique communication exchange.

Propaganda or Public Diplomacy? An Analysis of Critical Factors

In the realm of public diplomacy, the battle over foreign hearts and minds can all too often seem akin to the familiar tactics of the advertising and marketing agencies that inundate American culture. There are advocates of traditional diplomacy that warn the practices of public diplomacy and the “new public diplomacy” fall too heavily on the side of propaganda, which has a much more contentious connotation.

However, when juxtaposing Semantics and Ethics of Propaganda, a piece by Jay Black, with the public diplomacy contributions of Melissen, Gilboa, and Cull, the fine lines that separate the two fields become a bit clearer. Black articulates historical conceptions of propaganda, noting that it has always been associated with negative aspects of power. This is now extended to the process of introducing ideas and information to a group with the intent to have them react the same way both psychologically and in their actions. It is here that propaganda may be confused with public diplomacy, where information and ideas are being introduced to foreign publics with the intent to ultimately provide a favorable view of the of the state.

To combat this perception, there are a few clear differences to note. First, in propaganda the style of communication tends to be one-way from a sender to a receiver. Public diplomacy directly contradicts this notion, as the method by which publics are being engaged is via two-way communications, most notably by emerging and participatory media or information communication technologies. Melissen, a proponent of this concept, noted that a major tenet of public diplomacy is how this builds a relationship between two states where there is mutual gain. Cull compounds this notion by listing ‘Listening’ as the most crucial concept of public diplomacy in the UK. In light of this, we can draw yet another difference: propaganda focuses on identifying conflicts or competition on its audience while public diplomacy strives for cooperation and exchange.

Intention of the message is also a topic of discussion. In propaganda, there is often a clearly defined and easily identifiable goal of the communication, and this goal can be moral or immoral with whatever values laden within it. Public diplomacy also must have a clearly communicated intent or goal, but goals are often not easily attained or identifiable, as international relations is a complex and muddled field that is affected by many other influences such as economic or political conditions. Moreover, Gilboa stated that these conditions are never fixed, as they can be in propaganda.

This leads to the next point, which is the conception of time between the two. Black asserted that propaganda is solely concerned on the implementation of information and persuasion in an immediate or short time frame, while public diplomacy is assumed to be focused on multiple time frames, with short, medium and long term goals in mind.

Despite all of these observed differences, I believe there is a process of unification with the recent developments in communication technology. As was stated, the realms of public diplomacy and public relations are melding, as attractiveness and reputation are becoming the new markers of power in the world. Both Melissen and Black each point out that public diplomacy and propaganda have undergone a critical change with the dawn of the information age in their own field, but I assert these should be thought of together. Propaganda and public diplomacy are now being both produced and consumed not only by states, but by a host of actors, including individuals themselves. It harkens Melissen’s polylateralism, where all entities now have the power to influence foreign publics. We can create our own ad or information campaigns and, depending upon the platform, time, and spread of the information, they can greatly affect international relations or conceptions. I believe this is happening to public relations/advertising and public diplomacy simultaneously, and I think it further complicates the ways in which the two can be separated – who is to say an ad campaign that positively affects a foreign public is not a form of public diplomacy or vice versa?

This will need further analysis as more cases come out, but I wanted to raise the initial question.

What's so new about new public diplomacy?

It seems somewhat peculiar to talk about new public diplomacy, especially because of the enduring difficulty of defining what is just plain public diplomacy. Nonetheless, recent years have displayed obvious changes in the way public diplomacy is being done across the board, which Nicholas J. Cull summarizes in “Lessons from the Past.” These changes are numerous, but they all speak to a new focus on relationship-building.

To the average observer, the most evident changes to public diplomacy are the digital tools being used to communicate. PD practitioners are present on blogs, social networks, and in some cases virtual worlds. These tools have had two profound effects on PD. The first effect is to make communication occur in real time. Audiences expect immediate responses, meaning PD practitioners must be more autonomous. They must also have a presence in the same time zone as the target audience to keep up with the local news cycle. The second effect is the expansion of potential audiences. These digital technologies have created a global networked society, meaning messages aimed at Albania can be read in Alabama.

Another novelty of the new public diplomacy is the increase of actors to include NGOs, private organizations, and even average citizens. The state still plays an important role in PD, but it’s challenge now is to balance its efforts with more actors. For example, an organization like InterAction that has members in the field, engaging with local communities, is an enormous PD resource because of their knowledge and humanitarian work. As Bruce Gregory observed, education and aid are more effective than diplomatic rhetoric. These partnerships will foster greater engagement with local communities.

Finally, the most significant transformation relates to the objective of PD. Top-down communication has become relationship building. The new public diplomacy recognizes that PD is about facilitating a dialogue, not imposing a system of values or beliefs. Building relationships constitutes a much smoother way of applying Nye’s soft power – letting foreign publics arrive at their own conclusions because of the attractiveness of one’s behavior. The future of PD

Overall the new public diplomacy has resulted in questions about who holds the power in these relationships. Power dynamics are changing on both sides with the growing numbers of actors and the tools that give voices to the audiences. Public diplomacy, new or old, means an attempt to manage the international environment. And a more democratized environment means more people to engage with. The best new PD will maximize these opportunities for engagement.