Volume 2 (2007)
Issue 1
Issue 1 at Brill.comContents
Tatiana Zonova
Abstract
Diplomacy is an international institution, although national and regional diplomatic services keep their own intrinsic identity. Existing differences occasionally interfere with mutual understanding as an essential requirement for overcoming today's instability. Comparative analysis of Western and Russian diplomacy enables deeper insight into some essential reasons for existing differences. The modern model of diplomacy was formed because of the Renaissance, which was characterized by a process of secularization. In Russia this process was delayed by the Byzantine tradition of 'symphony'. From Tsar Peter's era, however, a gradual rapprochement can be observed between the two systems of diplomacy — Western and Russian. However, within new parameters, the ghost of Byzantium appeared now and again. Even under Soviet-imposed atheism, diplomacy was viewed as a tool for a new Messianic universalism (as it was in pre-Petrine times), expressed in terms of 'proletarian internationalism'. New and dramatic events placed an urgent need for a qualitatively new type of diplomacy on the agenda: the European experience, with its emphasis on a solid juridical basis, rationalism and human rights; and the Russian experience, with its universalism that is attentive to existential problems and traditional values. Diplomacy of the future should be based on a synthesis of both European and Russian historical experiences.
Karolina Pomorska
Abstract
This article analyses the process of adaptation of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to EU membership and participation in CFSP, both before and after EU accession. It addresses changes in organizational structure, but also in institutional culture and everyday practices. Despite the initial ambiguity, Polish decision-makers tend to perceive CFSP as an opportunity rather than a constraint on national foreign policy. It is argued that the turning point of the Europeanization process took place in 2003, when Poland became an active observer to the EU and its diplomats were allowed to attend meetings inside the Council. The article also identifies and analyses the gaps in experience and knowledge between the diplomats posted to Brussels and those that stayed in Warsaw. Finally, it examines the various challenges that EU membership held for the MFA and how they have been dealt with so far.
John Robert Kelley
Abstract
The post-'9/11' revival of interest in US public diplomacy encompasses a wide variety of opinions, all overwhelmingly critical. In view of falling global favourability towards and the foreign policy challenges of the United States during this period, the purveyors of these opinions ultimately agree that US public diplomacy efforts are flawed and ineffective. Of these critical observations, it is interesting to track a thread of logic that yearns for the restoration of public diplomacy's Cold War-era standing, which holds that the spread of liberal democracy behind the Berlin Wall owes a debt to the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, that cultural exchanges with influential members of Soviet society helped to create the groundswell that undermined the communist regime, and that public diplomats made these outcomes possible by being equipped with the necessary tools of statecraft, as well as by wielding an important measure of influence over policy-makers. The fall of the Soviet Union merely underscores their notion that public diplomacy during the Cold War was a success. It would thus seem that the problems of today could be remedied by adopting lessons from the past. This article explores the viability of this claim by reviewing the ongoing debate on how the historical memory and lessons of Cold War-era public diplomacy may be applied to the challenges of the post-'9/11' era. Of particular importance is ascertaining the degree to which the Cold War's campaigns of information, influence and engagement could be viewed as a success. By subdividing public diplomacy's activities in these ways, greater potential exists to attribute these activities to more compelling determinations of success or failure.
Randy Rydell
Abstract
The world has been trying to eliminate weapons of mass destruction (WMD) — nuclear, biological and chemical arms — for over half a century. Yet many such weapons remain, and progress in nuclear disarmament has been especially disappointing. The chronic failure to achieve agreed WMD disarmament mandates has prompted the creation of several independent international commissions to find some solutions. The WMD Commission created by Sweden in late 2003 was the latest such venture, and its 2006 report has received international acclaim. Chaired by Hans Blix, the Commission covered disarmament, non-proliferation and counter-terrorism issues, and did so from a variety of policy dimensions, from unilateral action through fully multilateral cooperation. Written by a member of the Commission's secretariat staff, this article tells the story of the Commission: how it conducted its work, what it proposed and what impacts it has had — and may yet have — in revitalizing WMD disarmament efforts.
Gonnie de Boer and Frans Weisglas
Abstract
Parliamentarians have for decades been present and active in the international arena. 'Parliamentary diplomacy', however, has only quite recently become the common term used to describe the wide range of international activities undertaken by members of parliament in order to increase mutual understanding between countries, to improve scrutiny of government, to represent their people better, and to increase the democratic legitimacy of inter-governmental institutions. It is perhaps a sign of the times that this term has now been coined. The increased blurring of boundaries between national and foreign affairs means that parliamentarians must consider issues put before them with a global mindset. Correspondingly, the significance of international parliamentary contacts is growing, and it is unlikely to cease to do so in the coming years.
Publication date: 1 January 2007
Issue 2
Issue 2 at Brill.comContents
David Lovell
Abstract
Activities by one state to promote democracy in another are now more visible and systematic than they have ever been. Numerous governments, international organizations and private associations spend billions of dollars to build, deepen and defend democracy around the world. Promoting democracy elsewhere forms the centre piece of the foreign policies of the United States and the European Union, and is used to justify a wide range of actions, from election observation to education of public officials, but also includes the controversial 2003 US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. To judge from the rhetoric, promoting democracy elsewhere has become a guiding theme both of the foreign policies of liberal democracies and of international relations more generally.This article draws chiefly on the experiences of the United States and the European Union — the two most important democracy promoters. It suggests that the prominence given to promoting democracy elsewhere as part of the foreign policies of liberal democracies tends to diminish the challenges of democratization and has the potential to exacerbate international tensions, bring democracy itself into disrepute, and diminish the role of traditional diplomacy in managing differences between states.
Geoffrey Allen Pigman and John Kotsopoulos
Abstract
Since the G7/G8 was created at Rambouillet in 1975, it has evolved from being only a venue for diplomacy to becoming a diplomatic actor in its own right. Heads of government, foreign ministers, finance ministers, sherpas, and later other ministers who started meeting and communicating annually at G7 summits, began to generate shared meanings and form a collective identity, even if shifting, that was different and distinct from the identities of the member governments. Participating in the G8 has over time changed the interests of its members, including those of its most powerful member, the United States, across a whole range of issue areas. For example, Britain's leadership of the G8 in 2005 and agenda-setting for the Gleneagles summit pushed poverty reduction in Africa to the fore as a policy priority for G8 members, without which it would have fallen much farther down the foreign policy priority ladder, particularly in Washington. The British G8 agenda facilitated activism by anti-poverty NGOs and eminent person diplomats in raising global social consciousness on the issue and demands for change. The effect of G8 agenda-setting supports the argument that the evolution of multilateral organizations into diplomatic actors in their own right has changed the character of contemporary diplomacy in important ways.
David Hastings Dunn
Abstract
This essay is written in response to John Young's article in issue 1:3 of this journal, 'A Case Study in Summitry: The Experience of Britain's Edward Heath, 1979-1974', which chronicles the period's face-to-face meetings between heads of government. In his analysis, Young uses the definition of summitry that I set out in my 1996 book Diplomacy at the Highest Level: The Evolution of International Summitry. And yet in applying this definition of summitry as he does, he demonstrates the limitations of both this definition and indeed this approach to the study of diplomatic history in general.This article presents a critique of Young's use of summitry as a tool for understanding the diplomacy of the Heath administration in particular and diplomatic studies in general. It argues that the use of summitry in this way is a distorting lens through which to approach such an analysis. The article argues that Young's approach both overprivileges actual meetings as opposed to other executive involvement in diplomacy and downplays more significant activities, which fall outside this definition. If casual courtesy visits are to be included as summits, there is clearly something wrong with the definition being used. If this definition were to stand, then the term 'summit' and the use of summitry as a device for understanding diplomatic activity would be rendered meaningless. The article ends by suggesting new ways of defining summitry and pointing to the need for new research in this area.
Shaun Riordan
Abstract
New technology, new actors, new issues and the breakdown of distinctions between foreign and domestic policy have undermined diplomats' monopoly over international relations. Foreign services have been overtaken by these changes and are no longer up to the challenges of defending and promoting national interests in the twenty-first century. They need radical reform of their structures, culture, recruitment and training. Above all, they need to reinforce their capacity for medium- and long-term geopolitical analysis and strategic thinking and introduce greater flexibility into their operations. Nevertheless, an effective foreign service is ever more essential to a country's security and economic and social welfare. Governments should give higher priority to foreign service reform. This article suggests specific areas to consider.
Karl Theodor Paschke
Abstract
Even in foreign services that, like Germany's Auswärtiges Amt, follow a generalist principle in their human resources' management, individual careers are shaped by specific experiences. The author uses his own curriculum vitae as a case in point: he served many years in Press and Public Affairs at the German Embassy in Washington DC and as Foreign Office Spokesman in Bonn; he also acquired solid expertise in Personnel and Administration and headed the German Foreign Ministry's Central Department. He was later selected for an assignment as the United Nations' Inspector-General.Paschke feels that interaction with the media, administrative matters and oversight in international organizations are as challenging and attractive as any other diplomatic activity. His professional expertise continues to be in demand even after his retirement.
Publication date: 1 January 2007
Issue 3
Issue 3 at Brill.comContents
Kathy Fitzpatrick
Abstract
As public diplomacy assumes a more prominent role in the diplomatic affairs of nations, scholars and practitioners are challenged to define the 'new' public diplomacy's purpose and goals, to develop the theoretical foundations of the discipline, and to articulate principles of practice for effectively and ethically achieving a nation's foreign affairs' objectives. This article demonstrates the potential for the public relations theory of relationship management to advance contemporary thought and practice in public diplomacy. The study finds that by defining public diplomacy's central purpose as relationship management, unifying the functions under one overarching concept, adopting a management (rather than communication) mindset, and recognizing the importance of diplomatic deeds that support communication practices, practitioners will be better equipped to conduct public diplomacy effectively.
R.S. Zaharna
Abstract
This study posits that advocacy NGOs are successfully creating soft power using relational, network-centric public diplomacy. The United States, on the other hand, struggles to wield its soft power and continues to apply the outdated information, media-driven approach to its public diplomacy efforts. This article suggests that a public diplomacy strategy that tailors itself to the dynamics of the international context will prove most effective in achieving its tactical goals. The first section highlights changes in the international arena since the end of the Cold War and their corresponding impact on communication dynamics. The second section delineates the critical features that define mass communication and the network communication approach. The third examines specific applications of both communication approaches, drawing on examples from the US's post-'9/11' public diplomacy in the Arab world and those from advocacy NGOs. The paper concludes with implications of the differences between wielding versus creating soft power for state actors.
Craig Hayden
Abstract
Since 2002, US communication-based foreign policies have resulted in the launch of two high-profile international broadcasting stations — Radio Sawa and al-Hurra television — as well as other failed ventures such as the 'Shared Values' documentary campaign and the Hi Arabic youth magazine. These policies have, at best, delivered mixed results as a form of public diplomacy for the United States. The principal objective of this article is to illuminate how governing beliefs about public diplomacy might have mitigated its success, by identifying the implicit policy imagination revealed in policy arguments. This article investigates the discursive imagination behind US international broadcasting programmes and how public debate outlines an 'argument formation' for US foreign-policy rhetoric. Three episodes of policy argument between 2001 and 2005 are assessed as demonstrative of a rhetorically constructed policy imagination that prompted a broadcasting strategy that was incompatible with the communicative norms of its targeted foreign audience.
Pierre Pahlavi
Abstract
The new operational environment generated by the mass media revolution and the advent of the global information society lays the ground for a generalized re-emergence of public diplomacy (PD). After having been dismantled during the 1990s, this branch of foreign policy is undergoing a redevelopment phase within the chancelleries of many states around the globe. The growing salience of public opinion and the exponential development of the new information and communication technologies predispose this diplomacy of persuasion to play an increasing role at the forefront of twenty-first century international relations.Inspite of the increased importance that public diplomacy is acquiring, the question of its real effectiveness nevertheless remains unanswered. For the moment, governments are still unable to determine to what extent their PD initiatives are able to influence foreign audiences or contribute to the achievement of their foreign policy goals. Without a valid evaluation tool, PD will remain condemned to play a secondary role within states' foreign policy systems. This article addresses the main aspects of this issue by analysing the many technical and methodological problems that are attached to PD evaluation, exploring research avenues that could remedy these gaps, and thus helping to resolve a problem that is still underestimated yet bound to become increasingly important in the 'hyper-media' age of international relations.
Giles Scott-Smith
Abstract
This article examines the linkages between diplomacy and public diplomacy activities by tracing the promotion of American Studies in the Netherlands against the backdrop of US-Dutch diplomatic relations. The development of American Studies within the university systems of other nations has been a central part of US public diplomacy strategy since the Second World War. The belief has always been that this will contribute towards foreign publics being well-informed about the United States, its people and policies. By providing opportunities for research and teaching in the United States, and ultimately by establishing permanent positions, an academic community could be nurtured whose members would function as interpreters of all things American within their national environment. In this way a cross-border cultural affinity can be cultivated to provide a positive context for the practice of diplomatic relations. The case of the Netherlands demonstrates the interlinkage of short-term and long-term interests in pursuing this approach.
Barry Fulton
Abstract
The paper suggests a radical redefinition of public diplomacy, asserting its primary role should be to stimulate the imagination of those who make a difference within their own cultures — to give them the means and motivation to address the global requirements of the 21st century, therein enhancing security for the sponsoring nations. Public diplomats also have an ancillary role in supporting other elements of international engagement, including promoting foreign investment, new energy resources, developmental assistance, education, medicine, and law.A three-point agenda for reforming the conduct of public diplomacy is proposed: reach beyond short-term parochial interests by providing knowledge to the curious, the innovative, and the restless. Hold public diplomats responsible for enabling connectivity and serving as cultural interpreters. Recruit and train artists, scholars, and scientists as public diplomats to engage actively in indigenous social networks.The article concludes by citing famed American journalist and former distinguished director of USIA, Edward R. Murrow: "There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference." To join this battle, public diplomacy can best honor its past by rethinking its future.
Publication date: 1 January 2007