Public diplomacy has become an essential subject for both practitioners of foreign policy and scholars of international relations/world politics. The more the term achieves popularity and is used in policy papers, magazines, academic books, and articles, the greater the number of different definitions of the concept. Unfortunately, no universally agreed-upon definition exists. With regard to the international relations debate on the “-isms,” some researchers claim that public diplomacy is part of constructivism. Yet, while it may be appropriate to categorize public diplomacy as constructivist for norm-oriented reputation politics such as “naming and shaming,” many realists working from the rationalist paradigm have recognized the importance of public diplomacy in international relations. Recently, beyond discussions on definitions and scope of public diplomacy, many data-oriented, empirical studies have been published on the subject. For instance, moves have been made to rank which state can achieve the greatest level of soft power through the effective practice of public diplomacy. Moreover, quantitative text analysis (QTA) or content analysis frameworks have frequently been utilized to study how international media focus on controversial diplomatic issues between states. Even tweets and social networks are being studied to reveal what types of international diplomatic communications are supported and opposed by third-party domestic audiences. Rapid developments continue to be made in the methodological sophistication of public diplomacy studies.
Public diplomacy has become an essential subject for both practitioners of foreign policy and scholars of international relations/world politics. The term has garnered wide popularity and is frequently used in policy papers, magazines, academic books and articles. Indeed, the more popular the term becomes, the more diverse and in some cases contradictory definitions of the concept appear. Unfortunately, no agreed definition exists. In particular, it is important to clarify the similarities and differences among the related key concepts of international relations, such as soft power, propaganda, and nation-branding.
With regard to debates within the international relations community on the nature of the “-isms,” some researchers claim that public diplomacy is part of constructivism. Accordingly, other researchers, such as those from the realist school, may choose to ignore it. While it may be appropriate to categorize public diplomacy as constructivist for norm-oriented reputation politics, such as “naming and shaming” (e.g., Hafner-Burton, 2008), many realists working from the rationalist paradigm have recognized the importance of public diplomacy in international relations.
Recently, many data-oriented, empirical studies on the subject have appeared. For instance, moves have been made to create data to rank which state can achieve the greatest level of soft power through the effective practice of public diplomacy. Moreover, quantitative text analysis (QTA) or content analysis frameworks have frequently been utilized to study how international media focus on controversial diplomatic issues between states. Even tweets and social networks are being studied to reveal what types of international diplomatic communications third-party domestic audiences support and oppose. Rapidly increasing methodological sophistication in the study of public diplomacy continue to be seen.
Finally, experiments are a promising and perhaps the most advanced technique in studying public diplomacy. In particular, by using online survey experiments and providing different types of public diplomatic messages as key manipulations, it is now possible to measure the degree to which third-party domestic audiences (studied through online survey respondents) can be influenced through international diplomatic communications.
Scholars have provided a variety of definitions of public diplomacy. 1 For instance, Nicholas J. Cull argues that public diplomacy is an international actor’s attempt to conduct its foreign policy by engaging with foreign publics (Cull, 2008, p. xv). Also, he emphasizes that public diplomacy is traditionally regarded as government-to-people contact. Propaganda wars by American and Soviet governments during the Cold War are typical forms of government-to-people information transmission, with the aim of influencing how foreign nationals think (positively in terms of their own country; negatively in terms of the opposing country). According to Cull, public diplomacy during the Cold War had five core components: listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, exchange diplomacy, and international broadcasting. Cold war public diplomacy was largely characterized by a top-down process whereby governments distributed information to foreign publics using capital-intensive methods such as radio, exhibitions, and libraries. State-centric viewers of international relations would consider this to be a traditional and authentic definition of public diplomacy.
Since the end of the Cold War, however, some scholars have started to argue that public diplomacy has entered into a new phase. For instance, Gregory considers public diplomacy to be an “instrument used by states, associations of states, and some sub-state and non-state actors to understand cultures, attitudes and behavior; build and manage relationship; and influence thoughts and mobilize actions to advance their interests and values” (Gregory, 2011, p. 353). 2 This new definition came into being after the dynamic of public diplomacy shifted toward a more horizontal structure in which people began connecting with each other in international networks aided by new technologies. Therefore, a debate over definition of the concept has arisen between the traditional school, the name Cull gives to the traditional view of government-to-people contact, and the new school, which emphasizes the roles of emerging nongovernmental actors in public diplomacy.
No matter which definition scholars use, the instruments of public diplomacy, according to Gilboa (2008), include advocacy, broadcasting, public relations, cultural diplomacy, exchange, and national branding. Advocacy and broadcasting can be categorized as immediate, reactive forms of public diplomacy; news management would be a typical example of these forms. Governments would send advocacy information through a statement issued by a press secretary and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. State media would air their political position in English, as the Japanese government under Prime Minister Abe funded public broadcasting (through Nippon Hoso Kyokai: NHK) to strengthen Japan’s English programs abroad (through NHK World) and as Chinese state media Xinhua increased funding for a similar effort in their English broadcasting programs.
Besides such direct and immediate management of information by the state, there are also longer, more time-consuming expressions of public diplomacy; Gilboa (2008) categorizes these as public relations and presents them as proactive, strategic forms of communication with the aim of increasing the favorable view of a nation. Foreign visits by state leaders can be used as an intermediate public diplomacy instrument. President Obama’s visits to Vietnam and to Japan in May 2016 are excellent examples. Obama’s visit to Vietnam was hugely popular with the local people. A large crowd on the streets in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City welcomed him. Positive comments about Obama embracing the local culture, food, and his open and relaxed style were all over the news media and Facebook positing (Bui & Vu, 2016). Moreover, President Obama’s historic visit to Hiroshima, where he made a sort of “non-apology apology,” generated both nationwide general public and Hiroshima-residing respondents overwhelming positive perception toward the United States and its president (Tago & Inamasu, 2016).
As for the final category, Gilboa (2008) claims that long-term instruments can be used to construct better relations with foreign nations. Mutual trust is the key mechanism, and as such, cultural diplomacy, the exchange of people, and national branding are forms of long-term public diplomacy. The Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme (JET), developed by the Japanese government, is a well-known long-term policy that promotes people-to-people exchange and fosters pro-Japan foreign citizens. And as a national branding policy, the U.K. conducted the “Cool Britannia” campaign during Tony Blair’s premiership.
In making a distinction from other similar concepts such as soft power, note that the famous definition by Nye (2004) suggests that soft power is the ability to shape the preferences of other states through appeal and attraction. It is determined by a country’s policies, culture, or political values, and it is contrasted with hard power, which is based on material capability, coercion, and side payment. In relation to public diplomacy, Nye considers credibility of information to be a crucial base for soft power, and thus propaganda would ruin it. By its nature, propaganda will harm the credibility of a state’s information, at least in the long run. Therefore, soft power is not achieved through propaganda. Furthermore, Melissen (2005b, p. 4) suggests that public diplomacy is one of soft power’s key instruments, as was recognized in diplomatic practice long before the contemporary debate on public diplomacy. For instance, toward the end of World War I in 1917–1918 , the Soviet Union’s leader Lenin and U.S. President Wilson had competed with each other over how old diplomacy had facilitated the onset of war and tried to obtain wider support from both the domestic and the international public on a soft power level. As long as it is an effort to change the hearts and minds of foreign nations and shape the preferences of their governments, an instrument of public diplomacy, including advocacy, broadcasting, public relations, cultural diplomacy, exchange, and national branding, would be crucial techniques for promoting soft power—but it should not be propaganda.
Especially in a traditional school’s definition, the concept of “propaganda” is connected to public diplomacy. As many scholars recognize, public diplomacy can be categorized as an outgrowth of propaganda. Indeed, U.S. and Soviet governments took propaganda seriously during the Cold War, and both utilized international media campaigns, cultural exchanges, and national branding techniques to increase the positive views toward them. As Richard Holbrooke once wrote in the Washington Post, “call it public diplomacy, call it public affairs, psychological warfare, if you really want to be blunt, propaganda” (Holbrooke, 2001). However, according to Melissen (2005b), such a “blunt” view would fail to incorporate the recent diversity and developments of public diplomacy. 3
Indeed, Melissen (2005b, p. 18) argues that propaganda and public diplomacy are similar in their aims of changing what people think, but they are fundamentally different since public diplomacy also listens to what people have to say (i.e., public diplomacy is a form of two-way communication). In particular, new public diplomacy in our age would be facilitated by private entities in addition to governments. By using a variety of tools such as email, web page, and newspaper articles, civil society groups and private companies could contribute to how a particular country would be seen from the outside world. In the age of social media, even an individual may have significant power to influence how an international audience would see a country—they cannot be regarded as propaganda (propaganda, by its nature, is issued by governments).
With regard to the debate on the “-isms” over whether public diplomacy is a part of constructivism and the claim that, accordingly, others from the realist school would choose to ignore it, as a traditional school of thought in international relations, realism would consider public diplomacy propaganda. Such propaganda is based on its state-centric and power-oriented worldview, and thus realism scholars welcome it as an analytical framework (state secrets and deception—propaganda—is a traditional international relations stories that realists would think of as central to international relations). Also, rationalist scholars would treat public diplomacy as a collection of purposeful behaviors in a series of strategic interactions by multiple actors (here, the purposes would be to change what people to think). Thus, it would be possible to utilize formal modeling and experimental methods to figure out how equilibrium can be achieved by rational actors’ interest-maximization choices (see the experimental approach of public diplomacy studies such as Kohama, Inamasu, & Tago, 2017). However, as long as public diplomacy is a simultaneous two-way (or more precisely N-ways) communication at multiple levels and related to a common group perception onto another national group, public diplomacy would be properly understood with a constructivist (i.e., agent-structure and intersubjectivity) way of thinking. In particular, intersubjectivity could be crucial in the effort to determine how a group thinks of others in a certain context.
A social psychological approach is also key to understanding how public diplomacy could work. In the late 1940s, the U.S. Department of Defense commissioned a series of studies to understand the dynamics of propaganda campaigns or old public diplomacy (Iyengar, 2016, pp. 231–233). Yale University’s social psychologists, led by Carl Hovland, conducted a series of experiments to identify the conditions under which people might be persuaded to change their positions and perceptions on political and social issues. Message learning theory, a guiding analytical framework at the time, suggested that attitudinal change depends on the sender of a message, the content of the information, and who is a receiver. Based on the research conducted by social psychologists, there are a variety of media effects on public perception such as priming, framing, and agenda-setting effects. If there are successful public diplomacy engagements, they must be based on these social psychological mechanisms to change attitudes and perceptions.
An example of successful public diplomacy may be national branding through daily exposure to media materials such as TV dramas, movies, animations, and manga. For instance, South Korea has invested heavily in exporting its cultural products and has successfully built its image of a sophisticated, advanced, democratic country. Indeed, after seeing the stylish dramas and movies produced by South Korea, people may even forget that the country had struggled to be democratic until the end of the 1980s and was suffering from financial crisis at the end of the 1990s. In a similar vein, Japan is famous for its animations and manga culture. Productions of Hayao Miyazaki (such as Spirited Away) and recently featured Makoto Shinkai’s Your Name have gathered wide viewers throughout the world and are often thought to enhance the country’s positive image.