The difference between what we refer to as public diplomacy, on the one hand, and propaganda, on the other, is that within public diplomacy there is a notion of mutual influence, rather than one party trying to spread its ideas to the other. The coining of the term ‘public diplomacy’ became the new phrase for the activity in which states engage with domestic and foreign publics. ‘Propaganda’, which sounded negative and was considered a one-way type of information and communication (and in many ways, still is), was rather “left” to the Communists, while the United States conducted public diplomacy in the war of ideologies. (Cull, 2010: 11-12) Although the term ‘public diplomacy’ is fairly new, it is widely used today, but this activity has been practiced for centuries, before there even was a name for it. Berridge claims that ‘public diplomacy’ is only a euphemism for propaganda. (Berridge, 2010: 182) So how do we differentiate the two? The aim of propaganda can be seen as indirectly influencing foreign publics rather than conventional government to government diplomacy (Berridge, 2010: 182), while public diplomacy’s focus lays more in mutual exchange and influence. Cull (2010: 12) names the core practices of public diplomacy as being; listening, advocacy, cultural and exchange diplomacy and international broadcasting. However, if we look at states; is public diplomacy a luxury which can only be practiced by some? A small country (small in “power terms”), if it has the opportunity, can promote itself and its values abroad, for example by giving aid and helping with development projects in developing countries, without this necessarily being considered propaganda or be seen as a wish to influence. Countries that fall into this category can be Sweden and Norway. For a superpower such as the United States, however, the situation appears different. As early as in the late 1930s it was the Roosevelt administration’s realisation that the US had to win the support of foreign populations for its own security. (Nye, 2004: 101)This has affected how the US has acted internationally ever since, as well as how it has been perceived. For example, the US’ focus on ‘public diplomacy’ (propaganda?) seem to have decreased considerably after the end of the Cold War. That would indicate that there may be a focus on influencing foreign publics simply when there is an enemy threat, which does not sound like “mutual influence and exchanges” but rather an attempt to get others on your side. The importance of public opinion and soft power rose slowly again after the terrorist attacks in 2001 and after the realisation that hard power did not seem to be working in the “war against terrorism”. (Nye, 2004: 105) If public diplomacy is mainly utilized when a country’s own interests are at stake, does it not then lack credibility? Is it still public diplomacy or simply propaganda?
G. R. Berridge,” Diplomacy: Theory and Practice”, 4th edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2010,
chapter 11
Cull, N. J., “Public Diplomacy: Seven Lessons for its Future from its Past”, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2010
2004, chapter 4
I do not necessarily agree with the difference you make between public diplomacy and propaganda in your first sentence... Indeed, it is not until the last few years that governments have started to ‘listen’ to the other parties when carrying promoting their own state. A good example of this would be the US government putting in place a ‘chat’ portal with Egyptian citizen after the start of their ‘revolution’ in January 2011. Alec Ross, the...., said that the aim of this enterprise was mainly to listen to Egyptian citizen in order for the US government to push to the establishment, in the Egyptian government, of a positive change that would respond to the national citizen’s demands and complains.
ReplyDeleteOne of course could then argue that this is a strategy carried out by US government to show to the international community, and more specifically to the Arab world, that they are ready to listen and not only ‘tell the world what to do’... strategy that would ultimately of course enhance US image, and enable the American government to put in place a better diplomatic relation with that part of the world, but also with any other party, now that the so-called ‘superpower’ is ready to listen and establish a real dialogue.
Coming back to your point of the difference between public diplomacy and propaganda... one may argue that the main difference would actually be how the public receiving the message of the state carrying out their foreign policy welcomes it in their minds...
I see your point, however are we then arguing that public diplomacy is the same thing as propaganda? I think a message from one government to foreign publics can be perceived differently by different foreing publics, so then that is a tricky way of defining the difference between what is public diplomacy and what is propaganda.I think intention does matter as well.
ReplyDeleteI think both of you (Irma & Irina) raise valid points; I would just choose different examples to illustrate that wouldn’t include the U.S; since for me that are not a good example of public diplomacy but propaganda. For example with regards to your question in the end ”If public diplomacy is mainly utilized when a country’s own interests are at stake, does it not then lack credibility? Is it still public diplomacy or simply propaganda? With regards to the U.S when they won the Cold War they did public diplomacy, but after September 11, and so many unsuccessful campaigns what they did was propaganda. As you pointed out the term was coined during the cold war were the winners U.S claimed that they were doing diplomacy and the communist propaganda. Its my opinion that they both were doing the same (propaganda) but since one was more successful than the other It managed to pin the negative term on the other. So yes in the case of the U.S “public diplomacy” it has only been used when their interests were at stake (Cold War, September 11 attacks); the lack of credibility could been seen in their diplomatic campaigns against terrorism which weren’t successful overall.
ReplyDelete