Suchergebnisse

One of the biggest questions in the field of international security today, perhaps even this century, is whether Sino-US rivalry will metastasise into war. Taiwan is one of the most likely flashpoints. Will the People's Republic of China (PRC) absorb the island state against its will, or will America commit whatever it takes for Taiwan to remain free to determine its own course? Responses to these questions from all sides are rendered in some form of strategic ambiguity. Each of the big players involved—Taipei, Beijing, and Washington, DC—eschews clarity and keeps the others guessing on key elements of its policy. Taipei is ambiguous about the form of independence it claims. Beijing is ambiguous about when it will consummate a unification it calls 'inevitable'. Washington, despite President Biden's May and September 2022 statements that US forces 66Defence Strategic Communications | Volume 12 | Spring 2023DOI 10.30966/2018.RIGA.12.4would defend Taiwan, is ambiguous about what it would be prepared to do to prevent a forceful takeover by the People's Republic. But how much of that ambiguity is truly 'strategic'? Do some benefits of strategic ambiguity come at the expense of good strategic communications?

This paper emphasises significantly on public relations strategic planning in public participation to gain organisational effectiveness. Grunig (1992) describes organisation's decision affects public and in turn the public affect the organisation's decision. This paper discusses the Situational theory of publics (Grunig, 1992) and highlights communication programmes for public participation in the development of slope area in Bukit Antarabangsa, Selangor. This paper suggests a framework of public relations strategic planning for public participation in MPAJ based on findings obtained from multiple methods of data collection.

The aim of this paper is to contribute to scientific research in the field of examining the shortcomings in the use of strategic communication for armaments. A comprehensive approach that rationalises the political, military, economic and technical decision-making process, as well as appropriate strategic communication with stakeholders, is required for the procurement of military equipment for the armed forces. The paper first analyses the existing shortcomings in the use of strategic communication in support of armaments, and then recommends a model for the adequate use of it. The results of a questionnaire survey and structured interviews with specialists in strategic communication and armaments show a high level of support for the use of strategic communication. However, the selected case studies on the Pandur and BVP modernization projects did not confirm the assumption of an improvement in the ability of the Czech Ministry of Defence to acquire new military equipment.

The article deals with the concept of the strategic communication in NATO counterinsurgency operations. As this is a rather new concept surrounded by many ambiguities, the primary goal of the article is to introduce the concept and outline the boundaries with its related concepts (public diplomacy, psychological operations, information operations etc.). The main aim is to assess the role of the concept in the official NATO documents and in the Alliance's counterinsurgency operations (ISAF mission). The paper discusses as well whether the Alliance used the strategic communications successfully and alternatively, what were the limitations of using the concept. The text based on the available data sources arrives to the conclusion that the Alliance did apply the concept of StratCom and it was done in harmony with its counterinsurgency strategy and its comprehensive approach to crisis management. However, the concept was so far adopted only at the highest level of the organization and furthermore it was not adopted by all member states. Even though the concept did address some of the earlier failures and shortcomings of the Alliance in the information sphere, some of the limitations inherent even in the structure of the NATO itself remain and lead to a question whether any to-be execution of the strategic communication by the Alliance is actually feasible.

This article explores the ways in which C-suite executives are using corporate communications to execute strategy. Over the past two decades, we have seen a profound shift in how leaders view communications within organizations. This shift has moved from a tactical and superficial focus (speech writing, media placements) to a more strategic and elevated level (developing and implementing strategy through communication, sophisticated measurement using big data to understand constituencies and influence reputation). Thus, the central research question in this article is focused on the following theme: "How do leaders use communications to execute strategy in the 21st century?" Through a review of current literature on the topic and synthesis of both published and newly conducted interviews, the article provides a snapshot of leadership communication in organizations today as it relates to the execution of strategy.