'Public Diplomacy'

Just as one is concerned over aesthetic appearances and ‘first impression’, so do 'states' care about their charms and reputations in relations to foreign perceptions. For states, the ‘attractiveness’ is not purely materialistic, but rather a fusion of ideas, attitudes and tastes. Public diplomacy (PD), also known as ‘the new diplomacy’, is a diplomatic relation and cultivation mode, obtained via ‘attractive’ processes labelled by Joseph Nye as, ‘soft power’. Soft power is the ability to get desired outcomes by way of attracting and persuading foreign hearts and minds, rather than by use of coercive ‘hard power’.

According to Nye, a state’s 'soft power' derives from three main assets: its culture; political ideas, and its foreign policies. It can be argues that culture, as well as, language, social traditions and religion, are in every respect the ‘glue’ that holds society intact; precisely what Samuel P. Huntington defined to be as key differences which distinguishes one civilization to the next. These values are integrated in state’s soft power tactic. Public diplomacy chief objective is to influence and adjust the foreign publics’ interpretation and perception of one’s status (state).

Alternatively, as Jan Melissen claims, PD is an affair involving the practices of ‘propaganda, nation-branding and foreign cultural relations’.

‘Propaganda’ upon first glance is most likely to suggest the handling of data manipulation and misrepresentation. However, as far as PD is concerned, such subversive activities are incompatible, since PD’s principle stands at the opposite pole to one which, deliberately attempts to influence the opinions of others via the distributions in form of cocktail-of-ideas, consciously formulated to serve the interest of specific leaders.On the contrary, PD deals with cultural relations and exchange programmes; it aims to actively engage with foreign publics rather than selling them a package of messages. Essences of this contemporary form of diplomatic-conduct, is that it strives to establish durable ties, as opposed to policy-oriented struggles for short-term interests.Moreover, today’s interconnected-world, the shrinkage of ‘space and time’ has enhanced PD’s ‘cause’.

As Mette Lending (in Melissen, 2007: 22) suggests.

'...cultural exchange is not only ‘art’ and ‘culture’, but also communicating a country’s thinking, research, journalism and national debate'.

Therefore, PD mirrors the different changes varying from: communication technologies, transportation, spreading of ideas, and the process of globalization as a whole. PD can be seen as an 'amplifier' od common pursuits, varying from: human rights, democratic values, good governance, significance role of the media in the civil society and so fort. So long as a country's culture incorporates a relative amount of universal values, and its foreign policies promotes values and interests shared by others, the likelihood of its PD's achieving desired ends will for always stand high; this is principally due to the relationships of 'attraction' and duty that it carries (Nye, S. J., 2004: 11). Thus, PD (indirectly) step-by-steps, in a harmonious and attractive manner, sells the country's 'qualities', resulting in it to expand the status quo. Alternatively, one can look at PD as an instrument similar to that of 'sales tactics', whereby- eye candies (or attention-drawing items are used) are employed in order to attract clients, and ultimately, popularity.

Public diplomacy’s imperative feature may perhaps be the requirement which it demands such as broad-skills, attitudes, personalities, charm, unique abilities which produce a sense of distinctiveness. Together they represent PD’s 360° rareness, which differs from the traditional form of diplomacy. New diplomacy is an instrument exercised in order to alter the way in which a ‘state’ is being perceived. Through moderate application of ‘soft power’ preferably in an eye-catching manner, states are capable to slowly re-align perceptions and reaction in foreign lands.

Particular devotions are made in order to ‘understand’ foreign: attitudes, cultures, and societal values; to observe how foreign presses ‘frames’ certain news ‘events’ and ‘issues’ to its public audiences.

However, public diplomacy is not an instrument of ‘daily’ use. Generally such soft power approach is sought when government design specific agendas, and its method of explaining ‘threats’ and ‘opportunities’. In America’s terms, PD is ‘strategic communication’, it highlights on the aim to ‘get the message across’ in such way that it concords with the sender’s original objective.

One may pose the question of whether ‘new diplomacy’ represents a form of official ‘diplomatic affairs’, or if it merely serves as an apparatus used in order to render the ‘harsh’ i.e. foreign policy more charming and sell-able?