Suchergebnisse

This book addresses how digitalization has influenced the institutions, practitioners and audiences of diplomacy. Throughout, the author argues that terms such as 'digitalized public diplomacy' or 'digital public diplomacy' are misleading, as they suggest that Ministries of Foreign Affairs (MFAs) are either digital or non-digital, when in fact digitalization should be conceptualized as a long-term process in which the values, norms, working procedures and goals of public diplomacy are challenged and re-defined. Subsequently, through case study examination, this book also argues that different MFAs are at different stages of the digitalization process. By adopting the term 'the digitalization of public diplomacy', this book will offer a new conceptual framework for investigating the impact of digitalization on the practice of public diplomacy. Ilan Manor is Researcher at the University of Oxford, UK, studying the use of digital diplomacy in times of crisis

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

A technological approach allowed the authors of the article to understand public diplomacy in a new way. As a result of the research, the essence and potential of public diplomacy technologies were identified, their specific features were identified and characterized. The authors demonstrated that public diplomacy technologies are innovative means of competition for influence in the international arena. Technologies of public diplomacy not only influence the thinking and behavior of political leaders and activists of other countries, but also act as a driver of a full-fledged anthropological project for the formation of a modernized transnational human consciousness. That is the main source of support and legitimacy of the cultural, economic and geostrategic interests of the country that is the subject of public diplomacy. Successful implementation of public diplomacy technologies is not so much about winning hearts and minds, as well as establishing institutional channels for fruitful lobbying of their own interests anywhere in the world.

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 ...

"Politics has become a contest of competitive credibility", argued Nye in Soft Power. Indeed, being perceived as honest and reliable is a necessary condition for obtaining and holding the attention of target audiences, as well as for effective persuasion, which is the objective of strategic communication. This task has become all the more difficult with the explosion of information sources and the discreditation efforts of opponents, but it is an essential element in the conduct of public diplomacy. How, then, do states and other international actors go about establishing their credibility while undermining that of opponents? This article employs rhetorical theory, impression management theory, and account theory to situate contests of credibility within the broader context of the accountability of social conduct. The theoretical part discusses the rhetorical strategies that actors use to credit their accounts and discredit those of their rivals. The empirical part addresses the debate between Israel and human rights groups over the Qana bombing incident of July 2006. The analysis of the blame imposition strategies used by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and the accounts offered by Israel, indicates the range and variability of credibility talk and the rules for crediting accounts that underlie it. Adapted from the source document.

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.

During the Cold War, u.s. and Thai leaders invested in public relations programs to win the hearts and minds of the people of Thailand. Changes in Thailand between the years 1957 and 1963, which gave rise to Thai General Sarit Thanarat and King Bhumibol Adulyadej to positions of political authority, strengthened u.s.-Thai relations. To project their power, Washington and Bangkok relied on practicing public diplomacy through the United States Information Agency (usia) to demonstrate the benevolence of the United States, the army's paternalism, and the god-like image of the king. The period from 1957 to 1963 saw the beginnings of a strong u.s.-Thai relationship and the creation of a stable anti-Communist, military-monarchical government that lasted until the end of the Cold War.

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.

Abstract'Politics has become a contest of competitive credibility', argued Nye inSoft Power. Indeed, being perceived as honest and reliable is a necessary condition for obtaining and holding the attention of target audiences, as well as for effective persuasion, which is the objective of strategic communication. This task has become all the more difficult with the explosion of information sources and the discreditation efforts of opponents, but it is an essential element in the conduct of public diplomacy. How, then, do states and other international actors go about establishing their credibility while undermining that of opponents? This article employs rhetorical theory, impression management theory, and account theory to situate contests of credibility within the broader context of the accountability of social conduct. The theoretical part discusses the rhetorical strategies that actors use to credit their accounts and discredit those of their rivals. The empirical part addresses the debate between Israel and human rights groups over the Qana bombing incident of July 2006. The analysis of the blame imposition strategies used by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and the accounts offered by Israel, indicates the range and variability of credibility talk and the rules for crediting accounts that underlie it.

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: