A Short Brief on Rethinking Public Diplomacy
By Nancy Snow
Snow linked public diplomacy with power. especially “Soft Power” i.e. in tangible or indirect influence such as culture values and ideology that first coined by Nye in 1990. Nye said: the richest country in the world could afford both better education at home and the international influence that comes from an effective aid and information program abroad. Nye define power as : the ability to influence the behavior of others to to get the outcomes one wants. and there are three ways to do that: 1. coerce with threats; 2. include behavioral change with payments or 3. attract and co-opt. Woody Allen said: the central nervous system of this cultural soft power exist in LosAngeles that include Hollywood. Wyne discuss 3 dimension of measuring soft power advantage: 1. When culture and Idea match prevailing global norms. 2. When a nation has greater access to multiple communication channel that can influence. 3. When a country’s credibility is enhanced by domestic and international behavior. He mentioned around 2005 our new thinking in public diplomacy must involve a motto-shift from “Telling America’s story to the world” to “ Sharing values, hopes, dreams and common respect” with the world. Traditional diplomacy is Government to Government and Government to Global Public, but in recent form it is Government, Private individuals and Groups to public attitudes of other foreign policy decision-making. it makes two camps of for and against point of view. US response to 9/11 was: more information about us leads to better communication. the purpose of public diplomacy is to exert an influence on attitude of foreign audiences using persuasions and propaganda
A Short Brief on Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication
By Philip M. Taylor
Taylor starts with a historical approach that discuss before and he comes to the points of propaganda in negative contain and positive one and stated that it refer to who use it.the real difference between terrorist propaganda and the western approach to information operation, psychological operations, public diplomacy, and public affairs (the four “pillars” of strategic communications) lies in the emphasis given to a long term approach to achieving their retrospective vision in the information age. He mentioned US invasion to Afghanistan and Iraq and The Bush Doctrine and said: What people in the Muslim world were really not buying was the Bush Doctrine, not the United States of America and its Universalist values.The third element of the Bush Doctrine, the selling of democracy, was almost as defective as the “to know us is to love us” approach to public diplomacy. Taylor argues about the present and wrote: There are now signs of recognition that western strategic communications needs a clearer vision, that its pillars are in fact more horizontal than vertical. he concludeNow that countries like China and India, but also Muslim countries like Malaysia,are prospering from economic growth,messages that suggest that they forego their new- found wealth by not buying gas-guzzling SUVs when the West has been polluting the atmosphere with them for a century and a half will only be greeted with skepticism. They will sound like a new form of neo cultural imperialism, of imposing western values and views, and will be seen as yet another example of western hypocrisy and selectivity.
A Short Brief on Public Diplomacy before Gullion
The Evolution of a Phrase
By Nicholas J. Cull
The essay starts with Gullion’s concept which is: Public diplomacy . . . deals with the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies. It encompasses dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy; the cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries; the interaction of private groups and interests in one country with another; the reporting of foreign affairs and its impact on policy; communication between those whose job is communication, as diplomats and foreign correspondents; and the process of intercultural communications. Gullion was the first to use the phrase in its modern meaning, it also reveals that Gullion’s phrase was not so much a new coinage in 1965 as a fresh use of an established phrase. Ironically, this new use of an old term was necessary because the even older term propaganda, which Gullion confessed he preferred had accumulated so many negative connotations.
A Short Brief on Public Diplomacy as Loss of World Authority
By Michael Vlahos
Michael Vlahos in his essay on Public diplomacy as loss of World Authority make an example of Global War On Terrorism or GWOT and the reasons of American failure by the false propaganda , public diplomacy or strategic communication. He discuss the Global War on Terror as a world Revision.as US wants to have the full control on the show he uses some sentences like: “go about your business” to their enemies and lets their allies to have shares.Americas had to be sold on the metamorphosis of their own world authority. old style public diplomacy was no more than an ornament of a grand strategy of persuasion at home and force major abroad, but in the invasion on Iraq, public diplomacy transformed. He uses historical point of view like Napoleon in France and Showa in Japan. he use these three example as all have the same objective : Changing World Order. the he mentioned all these three example follow the same and shared character: ( Page 28) “ Shock and Awe” Authority, It’s All About Your Own, Designed for Self Defeat, Hegel’s Reality Distortion Field and Submission is the Best Relationship. As conclusion he reprised the question of why the Bush administration follow the well-worn, tried and true failure path of Napoleonic France and early Showa in Japan? in answer he mentioned three issue: 1- impossibility of releasing domestic persuasion from external persuasion. 2- public diplomacy took a back seat in grand strategies that relied on the power of deed. 3- while pursuing the strategic goal of relationship they all adopted strategies of submission. Then he shortly mentioned three dominance in this regard; A Dominance of Domestic Persuasion , A Dominance of Action and A dominance of Submission.
A Short brief on Public Opinion and Power
By Ali S. Wyne
Wyne Starts with raising a question which is how does this State of affairs impact American foreign policy? and mentioned as an answer Nye’s “Soft Power” theory. he focused on more elaborates by the title of Origins and Characteristics of World opinion. he starts with comparing Storing Data Cost and the Rate of Internet Users from 1992 to 2002. the percentage of Internet User Distribution is another Statistics that he brings. He mentioned the number of players in the court of global public opinion has risen dramatically, and their demographics and characteristics are much more diverse. As A Profile of World Opinion, he discuss how should be the response of the United States to this issue? he discussed some surveys in which foreign policy based on public opinion doesn't go well. he discuss While it has unquestionably exacerbated the Chasm between United States and the global community, current opposition to American power appears to have deeper roots. he mentioned some Consequences of World Opinion on American Foreign policy and Categorize them into three groups of Military, Economic and Political. He roses this idea that this anti americanism spread out even in people sense. he defined anti Americanism as haters of world opinion about invading to Iraq and New York Times define two super power which was United States and World Opinion against each other. his definition is: as disdain for American Culture. he talk about Anti Americanism in Mainstream Scholarship and make an example of Keohane and Katzenstein. they arguing that Anti Americanism ultimately reflects American Society’s polyvalence, as manifest in its values of hedonism, religiosity, and openness. on the other hand he mentioned there are some scholars who support the vice versa idea. as conclusion he said traditional tripartite conception of power is passing into obsolescence. it would seem that US could accomplish its objectives more efficaciously if it simply pursued its own course.