Suchergebnisse

The variable "public diplomacy message strategy" (or "public diplomacy approach") refers to public diplomacy efforts in a given country in order to investigate how and with which goal public diplomacy is strategically communicated in the given context. The variable reflects the communication style of a specific actor (a politician, government, or country). Field of application/theoretical foundation: Analyses of public diplomacy message strategies or approaches mostly build on the taxonomy of public diplomacy (Cull, 2008) or the proposed categories of public diplomacy by Fitzpatrick (2010). References/combination with other methods of data collection: Public diplomacy message strategies can, in addition to content analysis, be analyzed by conducting interviews or surveys with public diplomacy actors, which allow validating the results from content analyses. Example study: Dodd & Collins (2017) Information on Dodd & Collins (2017) Authors: Dodd & Collins Research question/research interest: Comparison between public diplomacy approaches between Central Eastern European (not explicated) and Western countries (Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States) Object of analysis: Twitter content posted by 41 embassy accounts (not explicated) Time frame of analysis: March 2015 Information about variable Variable name/definition: Public diplomacy practices: Communication strategy Level of analysis: Tweet Values: Building on Cull's (2008) taxonomy of public diplomacy: (1) Listening (attempts to collect and collate information about foreign publics and their opinions) (2) Advocacy (activities that promote the country's policies or general interests among foreign publics) (3) Cultural (efforts to promote cultural resources and achievements of a country) (4) International (activities that involve sending national actors abroad or receiving international actors to strategically manage the international environment) (5) News (use of radio, television and digital media to inform and involve foreign audiences) ...

Modern international relations are in the process of constant transformation. Since the appearance in the political discourse, public diplomacy has undergone a great evolution. If initially this term was understood as a propaganda euphemism, today it implies a developed multi-channel system of bilateral communication between societies of different countries. In connection with the evolution of the global communication context (the cheapening of communication technologies, the spread of the Internet), the great powers are no longer the only actors capable of disseminating information around the world.

This article draws one of tools of public diplomacy is NCOs directed to create an information environment

Deglobalization is a current phenomenon. The downturn in global trade, the rise of populism and nationalism, and the new barriers to cosmopolitanism have led to the need to redefine the dynamics and scope of public diplomacy. Using Cull's taxonomy, it is possible to observe how deglobalization is affecting different public communication strategies, deinstitutionalizing the profession, and jeopardizing best practices. Accordingly, this article attempts to explain why, because of growing mistrust and suspicion, these are complicated times for public diplomacy, whose ethos has been distorted by the political structures of deglobalization, and to confirm a basic trend: the growing relevance of global political communication for international relations.

Countries struggle to find ways to be perceived as trustworthy by people around the world because trust is linked to efficiency, business opportunities and political influence. This paper is based on case studies of five Public Diplomacy activities: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's letter in The Washington Post (2013); Denmark's trust-building effort in Pakistan following the so-called "Muhammad crisis" (from 2010); The British Council's strategy for trust-building in China (2012); Russian President Vladimir Putin's letter in The New York Times (2013), and the USA's trust-building effort in Turkey (from 2006). The best results have been obtained where Public Diplomacy has been linked to successful traditional diplomacy at state-level (Iran) or has created a framework for people-to-people relations (Denmark, UK and USA). A backlash was experienced in the case where a foreign state leader patronized the national leader (Russia). In all cases, respect for people in other countries despite differences in culture seems fundamental for a Public Diplomacy initiative to succeed. A central concept in the paper is International Trust as described by Brewer, Gross, Aday and Willnat (2004). ; Countries struggle to find ways to be perceived as trustworthy by people around the world because trust is linked to efficiency, business opportunities and political influence. Social trust is also important for democracy to function. A central concept in this paper is International Trust as described by Brewer, Gross, Aday and Willnat (2004). The paper is based on case studies of five Public Diplomacy activities: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's letter in The Washington Post (2013); Denmark's trust-building effort in Pakistan following the so-called "Muhammad crisis" (from 2010); The British Council's strategy for trust-building in China (2012); Russian President Vladimir Putin's letter in The New York Times (2013), and the USA's trust-building effort in Turkey (from 2006). The best results have been obtained where Public Diplomacy has been linked to successful traditional diplomacy at state-level (Iran) or has created a framework for people-to-people relations (Denmark, UK and USA). A backlash was experienced in the case where a foreign state leader patronized the national leader (Russia). In all cases, respect for people in other countries despite differences in culture seems fundamental for a Public Diplomacy initiative to succeed. From a social responsible perspective journalists may have a role to play in creating international trust, and Public Diplomacy staffs consider it already important

Designed as an exploratory study, this dissertation consists of a policy analysis of German and U.S. American approaches to public diplomacy 2.0, understood as public diplomacy by means of social media. The study's main argument is that in spite of claims to the contrary, social media did not substantially change the practice of public diplomacy. No digital turn took place: Both countries' governments act according to their respective foreign policy tradition and public diplomacy doctrines and, by doing so, confirm a historical institutionalist view on politics. After developing public diplomacy as an integrated concept that incorporates facets of several other related ones like propaganda, branding and cultural relations, it will be demonstrated that public diplomacy remains an instrument of power employed by a given state to reaffirm its might; it is not destined to empower other groups. It will also be shown how social media's premises like transparency and decentralization clash with those of public diplomacy and government administration, and how this impedes public diplomacy's operationalisation on the Internet. It will be explored how that contradiction affects the practice of public diplomacy 2.0 and how its stakeholders deal with given implications by laying out a methodological framework based on historical institutionalism that combines content analysis and expert interviews. On a doctrinal strategic level, the dissertation will then show how the U.S. public diplomacy endeavour is strategically embedded into a wider concept, driven by post-9/11 feelings of vulnerability and the desire to win back hearts and minds. The German approach, on the other hand, refuses such a take, which is partly due to the country's history and negative experiences with propaganda especially during World War II. To Germany, distancing itself from its eventful past through presenting the country as a peaceful, stable democracy is paramount. Combined with the process of coming to terms with the major shakeup the country's ...

China's foreign policy has acquired more visibility and capacity for initiative in recent years, adapting both to the needs of its economic boom and the changing circumstances of international society. Besides playing a greater role in world affairs through the more discrete channels of inter-governmental diplomacy, China has undertaken a series of activities with an eye to world public opinion, renewing or strengthening existing tools and creating others that are new. Among the former, official visits have multiplied –with China either making or receiving them– and the country has intensified and modernised its use of the news media. Highlights among the new thrusts include hosting major international events (the Shanghai Universal Exposition and the Olympic Games) and the implementation of an assertive policy of spreading China's language and culture on the international stage.

National leaders struggle to communicate in ways that are perceived as trustworthy by citizens of other nations because trust is linked to efficiency, business opportunities, and political influence. In this article, four recent public diplomacy activities are analyzed from a trust-building perspective: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's letter in The Washington Post, The British Council's strategy for trust building in China, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin's letter in The New York Times, and the USA's trust-building effort in Turkey. The analyses are based on already publicized descriptions of public diplomacy activities, public polls, and scholarly literature. Public diplomacy ideas discussed include lightshow, hand-on cooperation, win-win projects, and the creation of frameworks for self-expression. A central concept is international trust as described by Brewer, Gross, Aday, and Willnat. Based on the analysis it is suggested to amend the concept, to distinguish between trust in foreign people and trust in foreign governments. ; National leaders struggle to communicate in ways that are perceived as trustworthy by citizens of other nations because trust is linked to efficiency, business opportunities, and political influence. In this article, four recent public diplomacy activities are analyzed from a trust-building perspective: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's letter in The Washington Post, The British Council's strategy for trust building in China, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin's letter in The New York Times, and the USA's trust-building effort in Turkey. The analyses are based on already publicized descriptions of public diplomacy activities, public polls, and scholarly literature. Public diplomacy ideas discussed include lightshow, hand-on cooperation, win-win projects, and the creation of frameworks for self-expression. A central concept is international trust as described by Brewer, Gross, Aday, and Willnat. Based on the analysis it is suggested to amend the concept, to distinguish between trust in foreign people and trust in foreign governments.

In a world changing with globalization, governments have to use soft power to be able to take place in international politics. Public diplomacy, which is the field of soft power application; is the transformation of negative perceptions into positive perceptions, the establishment and execution of inter-communal relations and the creation of the country's image. By using public diplomacy, which is the soft power key, governments reach their goals, stay on the agenda in international politics and influence other countries. Public diplomacy uses the many fields of activity to deliver the messages that it wants to convey. Sports organizations, concerts, festivals, international congresses and international cultural and artistic activities have the feature of being an important field of activity in this sense. Sports organizations, among these activities, have become a field used in the transfer of many political messages over the past century and will continue to exist today.

In a world changing with globalization, governments have to use soft power to be able to take place in international politics. Public diplomacy, which is the field of soft power application; is the transformation of negative perceptions into positive perceptions, the establishment and execution of inter-communal relations and the creation of the country's image. By using public diplomacy, which is the soft power key, governments reach their goals, stay on the agenda in international politics and influence other countries. Public diplomacy uses the many fields of activity to deliver the messages that it wants to convey. Sports organizations, concerts, festivals, international congresses and international cultural and artistic activities have the feature of being an important field of activity in this sense. Sports organizations, among these activities, have become a field used in the transfer of many political messages over the past century and will continue to exist today. Article visualizations:

International affairs with many centers of power interacting are guided by diverse interests form a hierarchically polycentric structure. According to G. Kissinger, world order is getting constantly transformed to ensure the sustainable development of the relationship and avoid conflicts. Diplomacy is a tool to achieve the common goals of peace and prosperity. G. Palmerston said about Great Britain: ―We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.‖ According to G. Morgenthau political international power relies on the psychological influence of those who have it and those who do not. The powerful party can control the actions of the weak party: and it is called ―smart power‖.

Indonesian public diplomacy has been understood as an effort to attach a certain image like a moderate, democratic and progressive image. Nevertheless, the image is not always present in bridging Malaysian bilateral relations. In Malaysia Malaysia's bilateral relations practice, public diplomacy reveals itself in a different face. This article places public diplomacy not only as an effort to maintain the image in rationalists view, but public diplomacy as an effort to maintain relationships through shared identity. Through Indonesian diplomatic studies on Malaysia's three main issues over the past 15 years, it was found that public diplomacy was present as an effort to maintain relations through the shared identity as the Bangsa Serumpun (One Kin) or known as Kinship. Although Malaysia social economic context has changed, Indonesia still believes that the obligation to place the stability of relationships is a priority. Self-refrain and encouraging public dissemination become the practices of Indonesian public diplomacy towards Malaysia. Through qualitative methods, Indonesian policy documentation studies of three major bilateral issues found that Kinship is still the main reference for Indonesia in maintaining bilateral relations although it's practiced differently. Key Words: Public Diplomacy, Shared Identity, Kinship.

In a world changing with globalization, governments have to use soft power to be able to take place in international politics. Public diplomacy, which is the field of soft power application; is the transformation of negative perceptions into positive perceptions, the establishment and execution of inter-communal relations and the creation of the country's image. By using public diplomacy, which is the soft power key, governments reach their goals, stay on the agenda in international politics and influence other countries. Public diplomacy uses the many fields of activity to deliver the messages that it wants to convey. Sports organizations, concerts, festivals, international congresses and international cultural and artistic activities have the feature of being an important field of activity in this sense. Sports organizations, among these activities, have become a field used in the transfer of many political messages over the past century and will continue to exist today.

Can stories succeed where traditional forms of diplomacy have faltered? This study examined whether a primetime drama could impact American viewers' knowledge, attitudes, and behavior with respect to U.S. foreign policy and funding by surveying 173 viewers of an episode of Law & Order: SVU ("Witness"). Additionally, this study sought to uncover which theoretical construct — involvement with a specific character or involvement with the narrative more generally (transportation) — best predicted impact. The fictional character in question was Nardelie, a woman forced to flee the Democratic Republic of the Congo after repeated rape by militias vying for "conflict minerals," so named because control of these valuable minerals has triggered numerous conflicts. Separate regression analyses suggested a positive relationship between impact of the storyline and both theoretical constructs. However, when both constructs were entered into a single regression, involvement with Nardelie was the stronger predictor of knowledge (e.g., conflict minerals, sexual violence, and asylum issues) and current or future behavior (i.e., discussing global health) while transportation was the stronger predictor of attitudes (i.e., support for aid). This suggests that, while correlated, these constructs do not completely overlap. Implications of these results and the use of entertainment education in public diplomacy are discussed.

The paper presents the phenomena of hasbara, an Israeli method of conducting state's public diplomacy. For Israel public diplomacy is a part of national effort, perceived as a tool to increase Israel's status on the international arena and recognition from the international community. Therefore, it is a topic of utmost importance among Israeli society and scholars. The aim is to uncover trends in thoughts and opinions on the studied subject. Qualitative research methods were adopted, including historical, institutional and comparative approaches as suitable methods to describe complexity of such phenomena as hasbara. Research techniques included content analysis and case studies to uncover trends in thoughts and opinions on the presented subject. In this paper an answer to the research question on the conduct of Israeli public diplomacy is provided through deep analysis and synthesis of the author's findings, with the said findings being presented by confronting them with main assumptions of the prior research on Israeli public diplomacy and posing questions for further research. Israeli public diplomacy is based on the idea of demonstrating that there is much more about Israel than conflict, tension and fighting terror to fight with the preexisting national stereotypes. A major paradigm shift has to be noticed here as it is no longer a discourse on the right of Israel to exist on the international arena (apart from Arab states and Palestinians), but it became a question of what Israel did and continues to do as an existing state to maintain its existence.