public diplomacy
- Also called:
- people’s diplomacy
public diplomacy, any of various government-sponsored efforts aimed at communicating directly with foreign publics. Public diplomacy includes all official efforts to convince targeted sectors of foreign opinion to support or tolerate a government’-s strategic objectives. Methods include statements by decision makers, purposeful campaigns conducted by government organizations dedicated to public diplomacy, and efforts to persuade international media to portray official policies favourably to foreign audiences.
There are two basic kinds of public diplomacy. The first is branding, or cultural communication, in which the government tries to improve its image without seeking support for any immediate policy objective. States use branding strategies to foster a better image of themselves in the world. Ideally, branding creates general goodwill and facilitates cooperation across a variety of issues. It also helps to maintain long-term alliance relationships and undermine enemy propaganda.
During the Cold War, for example, the United States used public diplomacy to persuade European audiences that the foundations of democratic government and capitalist enterprise were superior to Soviet alternatives. The Voice of America broadcast directly into the Warsaw Pact nations of eastern Europe to dispel myths about the West. At the same time, the U.S. State Department built and maintained reading rooms in Allied countries, replete with books about American history and culture. The department hoped that exposure to American principles and ideas would reinforce broad support for U.S. policies.
The second type of public diplomacy includes various strategies designed to facilitate more rapid results—a category sometimes called political advocacy. Whereas branding is meant to affect long-term perceptions, political advocacy campaigns use public diplomacy to build foreign support for immediate policy objectives. Foreign publics may be encouraged to support or oppose the leaders of other states. Sometimes states need to quickly convince foreign audiences to support costly military alliance strategies. Foreign leaders may want to cooperate with alliance plans but fear domestic reprisal for agreeing to unpopular actions. Under these conditions, public diplomacy may help those leaders cooperate by reducing the threat of backlash at home.
This type of political advocacy is illustrated by Kuwait’s efforts in 1990 to gain U.S. popular support for an attack against Iraq. In late 1990, Kuwait hired an American public relations firm to convince U.S. voters that liberation from the dictator Saddam Hussein was worthwhile and morally correct. Americans had mixed feelings about intervention, and most voters knew little about Kuwait. U.S. Pres. George H.W. Bush worried that he lacked the public mandate to act firmly against Iraq. Kuwait therefore undertook a carefully orchestrated political advocacy campaign to demonstrate the scope of Saddam’s cruelty and gain American sympathy.
In other cases, states use public diplomacy to discredit adversaries. Countries tacitly or explicitly urge foreign publics to oppose leaders who do not share the sender’s strategic interests. This strategy has two goals. First, it attempts to encourage cooperation by pressuring recalcitrant foreign leaders who rely on popular support. Second, when prospects for a change in policy are minimal, it encourages foreign audiences to revolt against their leaders. Neither strategy has a long history of success, probably because public diplomacy campaigns are often received with skepticism. In addition, leaders who are the targets of such campaigns can limit and distort outside information before it reaches the public.
Skeptical commentators have suggested that public diplomacy is simply a euphemism for propaganda. Scholars sometimes use the terms interchangeably because, in practice, it is difficult to distinguish one from the other. Professional diplomats recoil at this suggestion, however, because of the negative connotations associated with propaganda. However, the difference between the two can be tenuous. For this reason, public diplomats actively work to avoid the perception that they are mere purveyors of propaganda.
In the years before World War II, for example, Great Britain waged a quiet but effective campaign to rally American popular support for its cause. Many Americans felt that Britain had exaggerated the German threat in World War I and had needlessly drawn the United States into that conflict. Hence, British public diplomats slowly cultivated their message while being cautious not to rouse accusations of propaganda. To do so, they built relationships with members of the U.S. press corps, who had more credibility with American audiences. They also restricted direct broadcasts from the British Broadcasting Corporation into the United States.