Middle Powers and the Limitations of Public Diplomacy

Eytan Gilboa defines middle powers as states that lack the resources of great powers but provide multilateral leadership on global issues including “economic development and foreign aid, and human rights, human security, environmental protection and health.” There is not unanimous agreement on which states qualify as middle powers, and as Andrew Cooper notes, global power dynamics are in a constant state of flux. However, some of the commonly agreed upon middle powers include Canada, Australia, and Mexico. Because they lack the resources of great powers, public diplomacy is a major asset for middle power diplomacy. These middle powers are often ignored or pigeonholed by the rest of the world. Public diplomacy offers an efficient way to gain attention and influence. Despite many success stories, the cases of Mexico and Australia show us the limitations of public diplomacy.

Mexico shows us public diplomacy’s inadequate powers in the face of serious domestic problems. Pamela K. Starr provides a list of the obstacles facing Mexico’s influence and reputation. What is most damaging to its national reputation is the violence resulting from the drug war. To compensate for the homicides and horrors, Mexico has tried to promote itself as a beautiful tourist destination and the birthplace of a storied culture. While they might succeed at generating interest in Mexican beaches and art, these public diplomacy initiatives can’t support Mexico’s diplomatic goals. As countless public diplomacy scholars have pointed out, foreign publics aren’t stupid or naïve. They won’t be fooled by attempts to cover up crime and corruption with culture and cuisine. Even the slickest public diplomacy campaigns can’t gloss over the tens of thousands of deaths Mexico has seen over the past several years. The solution lies in policies that put an end to the violence and not in public diplomacy.   

Caitlin Byrne’s chronicle of Australia’s campaign for a seat on the UN Security Council brings up a host of other shortcomings of public diplomacy for middle powers. Caitlin Byrne’s publication on the bid, announced in 2008, hints at the challenges of proving oneself to the world. Middle powers, by their very nature, are limited in the scope of their international involvement.  And yet to win a spot on the Security Council they need to sufficiently impress at least two-thirds of the General Assembly to earn their votes. It’s difficult to launch a global campaign since certain messages play better with certain audiences. Secondly, depending on the type of public diplomacy, it may be too long-term for the immediate diplomatic agenda. Cultural exchanges, for example, are very effective public diplomacy tools and help to foster international relationships. Yet they aren’t particularly useful when campaigning for a seat on the UNSC.

In effect, the limits of public diplomacy operate across the board. Good PD is not a substitute for good policy. The same messages and values that attract some might alienate others. And long-term initiatives are not always an appealing strategy for reputations that need immediate bolstering. Even the great powers have had to understand this. The United States is an apt example. For so long Americans have considered freedom and democracy to be universal values. Only recently has the U.S. started to realize that those words hold different meanings for different cultures. Spreading that message to some areas of the world but not others would be hypocritical, and abandoning the message altogether would be disingenuous.