Soft power and public diplomacy: The new frontier for public relations and international communication between the US and China

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 643-651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Servaes
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
International Communication ◽  
New Frontier ◽  
The Us

scholarly journals The Secrecy and Publicity of Diplomacy: Questions to the Theory of Public Diplomacy

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 199
Author(s):  
Witri Elvianti
Keyword(s):  
Soft Power ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
Terrorist Attack ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Muslim World ◽  
Way Of Life ◽  
The Public ◽  
George Bush ◽  
The Us ◽  
Democratic Nation

Just a few weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, and soon after US troops started to attack Afghanistan, George Bush expressed his disappointment toward the way the Muslim world perceives the American way of life and culture. Assuming that the 9/11 terrorist attack was a symbol of struggle against America’s hegemony Bush blamed the failure of US public diplomacy to promote to the Muslim world the image of a friendly and democratic nation state. It sent a message that both promoting positive image and controlling the message are a highly complex task. The complexity of public diplomacy consequently raises such a theoretical dispute. From a traditional perspective, scholars have questioned the suitability of public diplomacy to promote a states’ soft power, and have cited US public diplomacy as an example of failure. The revisionists, on the other hand, seek to maintain and even improve the practice of public diplomacy by arguing that it is more that it is more pertinent to comprehend the strategy rather than to perpetuate the blame.  The dispute on public diplomacy is threefold: first, whether public diplomacy is defined as any diplomatic activities of or by the public; second, whether diplomacy should really be addressed to the public; and third, if the public is always diplomatic. This essay will argue that while the traditionalist criticisms could be valid, particularly in the context of the US experience, these arguments do not reduce the value of public diplomacy. Such diplomacy requires a two-way relationship and integrated approach.

American Exceptionalism and US Foreign Policy: Public Diplomacy at the End of the Cold War. By Siobhàn McEvoy-Levy. New York: Palgrave, 2001. 256p. $75.00.

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 693-694
Author(s):  
Francis A. Beer
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
American Exceptionalism ◽  
International Communication ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
The Cold War

Public diplomacy, or foreign policy rhetoric, is an increasingly important dimension of international relations. As modern media extend their global reach, they bring national foreign policy actions out of the diplomatic closet into full public view. Public relations experts market foreign policy as they do other products and services. Foreign policy marketing uses rhetoric strategically to legitimize national actions, mobilize support from allies, and counter the propaganda efforts of opponents. McEvoy-Levy's work contributes to the growing literature of such modern international communication.

America’s Contemporary Roles in Southeast Asia

2020 ◽  
pp. 62-104
Author(s):  
David Shambaugh
Keyword(s):  
Southeast Asia ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
Northeast Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Importance ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
The Us ◽  
Traditional Pattern ◽  
Trump Administration

This chapter discusses America’s “contemporary” roles in Southeast Asia. It examines the Obama and Trump administrations’ policies and actions in the region, and considers three categories of the US footprint at present: commerce, security, and soft power/public diplomacy. For Southeast Asia, the United States continues to be an important guarantor of regional security and stability—but its commercial contributions and soft power appeal are also strong attractive features. If America has a pronounced weakness in the region it is in the area of diplomatic engagement. This is not new—as the strategic and economic importance of Northeast Asia and the “tyranny of distance” to Southeast Asia have long conspired to limit Washington’s attention span. The Obama administration was the exception to the rule, as it prioritized ASEAN as never before. The Trump administration does seem to have relatively downgraded the region when compared with the Obama years. Still, this has been a relative downgrading—and, if anything, a return to the more traditional pattern of episodic US (in)attention.

scholarly journals Media diplomacy in public administration: analysis of the effectiveness of Ukrainian national branding

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 120-127
Author(s):  
Volodymyr Shypovskyi
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
The State ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Strategic Communications ◽  
The World ◽  
The Government ◽  
Military Relations

Since 1991, the Ukrainian authorities have repeatedly changed the vector of the country's development depending on the views and intentions of the ruling politicians, which has led to negative consequences for the development of all spheres of activity of Ukrainians. One of these consequences is a decrease in the country's authority in the world community. Among the threats facing our state on the way to protection of national interests and national security, the most vulnerable link was the information sphere. It should be noted that the issue of coordinated and proper use of communication opportunities at all levels of public policy – public diplomacy, public relations, military relations, information and psychological operations, measures aimed at promoting the goals of the state has always been acute. Public diplomacy is the realization of the soft power of the country in the international arena, the promotion of the interests of the state in the world by mobilizing the support of the foreign community. This support is achieved by stimulating the desire of the foreign community to consume the ideals of democracy, good governance, integrity, prosperity, security, success and unlimited opportunities for human development. Public diplomacy is one of the components of strategic communications, which has a key task – the formation of the image of the state and its institutions at the international level, the consolidation of important brands in the global information space. The development of state branding should be based primarily on the formation of the state/institutional narrative and broadcast to different target audiences. Thus, public diplomacy involves the formation of the image of all institutional components of the state. The success of economic growth and the dynamic development of relations with other countries largely depends on how the country's brand is formed and promoted in the domestic and global markets. Creating a positive image of the country should be the subject of special attention of the Government and any composition of the Supreme Rada of Ukraine. The most effective tool of public diplomacy is the media and social networks, which, as mass media, should work to promote national ideas among the population of the country and outside Ukraine.

Social Media and Soft Power: Positioning Turkey’s Image on Twitter

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nur Uysal ◽  
Jared Schroeder ◽  
Maureen Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
International Community ◽  
Building Relationships ◽  
National Image ◽  
Turkish Government ◽  
Social Media Tool

This paper explores how Turkey is using social media via Twitter, a public relations strategy, to spread its messages and to establish itself within the international community. Turkey appears to be situating itself as a European, progressive, democratic, secular and Muslim nation that has the potential to influence nations in the Middle East. The rise of social media has revolutionized the way states communicate with the international community. To that end, this study analyzed three top Turkish governmental officials’ personal and official Twitter accounts to examine how Turkey is cultivating its national image using Twitter. The findings suggest Turkey is wielding its soft-power in both the West and the Middle East/North Africa regions. Yet the quantitative analysis reveals that the western emphasis is more prominent in the messages. In its Twitter messages, the Turkish government follows an image cultivation and information subsidy approach in public diplomacy. Contrary to the highly interactive features of this social media tool, Turkish bureaucracy is not engaged in building relationships with its publics through Twitter.

An Analysis of UN Peacekeeping as Pakistan’s Soft Power Asset

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ume Farwa ◽  
Ghazanfar Ali Garewal
Keyword(s):  
Soft Power ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
Protective Role ◽  
International Community ◽  
Conflict Zones ◽  
Hard Power ◽  
Power Resources ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
The People ◽  
Peacekeeping Missions

The power of attraction and admiration is soft power. Generally, it is perceived that hard power cannot generate soft power, but the protective role of military in humanitarian crises and conflicts negates this prevailing misperception by specifying their contexts and effective utilizations; hard power assets can be transformed into soft power resources. This paper argues that the United Nations (UN) peacekeeping missions are the source of soft power and Pakistan, being an active participant in this field, can utilize this asset for shaping the preferences of others. Overall, it did earn admiration from international community and managed to build its soft image abroad through peacekeeping missions. Pakistani blue helmets not only earned the admiration and appreciation of the people of the conflict-zones and earned praises, but from international community also. However, to what extent has the country utilized this asset of soft power to exercise its influence in the global arena remains debatable. Although Pakistan’s UN Peacekeeping missions have been an instrument of building the country’s soft image, it is publicized in a far less productive manner. Peacekeeping can be used as a means to enhance the country’s presence and the level of participation in both international and regional organizations. By effective application of soft power strategy in tandem with public diplomacy, Pakistan’s UN peacekeeping can provide the country with the platform where its narratives can be projected effectively and its influence can be exercised adroitly.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document