Strategic communications in international relations: practical traps and ethical puzzles.

Abstract

Effective communications are today recognised as central not simply to achieving foreign policy or diplomatic success, but to realising any and all strategic aims. Consequently, strategic communications professionals play a critical role in a wide range of government agencies. In the light of an ever-transforming global media ecology, and the proliferation of state and non-state political actors who are able effectively to intervene in this fluid communications space, this observation has rising salience for international relations as a whole. Faced with rising geopolitical tensions, and public anxiety associated with terrorism, strategic communications has been viewed as an essential component of an effective response to campaigns by hostile state and non-state actors seeking to shape public opinion and attitudes in pursuit of their own strategic objectives. This article asks whether NATO members have given sufficient thought to the ethical puzzles raised by the changing landscape of strategic communications for international relations practitioners, and seeks to shed light on the practical ethical challenges faced by all strategic communicators in international relations today. We argue that effective strategic communication is an action that necessarily takes place within, and draws its efficacy from, ethical architectures that are settled constitutive features of international practices.

Securitizing cyberspace: Protecting political judgment

“…Within the framework of cybersovereignty, scholars resolve this conundrum by arguing that virtual state boundaries should be understood as the sovereign potential to “alter the cyberspace experienced by its own citizens” (Demchak and Dombrowski, 2013: 31). A much-favored method among securitizing actors in democracies is the use of “strategic communication” 6 (Frost and Michelsen, 2017). As Monroe E. Price states, strategic communication becomes a way of exercising “authority in a world in which the large-scale strategic communication of others (including other states) becomes a defining factor in establishing a state’s legitimacy” (Price, 2015: 19).…”

“…A report published by NATO StratCom, for instance, describes the threat as encroaching upon “the sovereignty of the state, and the legitimacy of open and free debate,” portraying legitimate political discussion as dependent on cybersovereign boundary-drawing (Pamment et al, 2018: 7). Securitizing actors embracing such conceptions turn to popular practises like “strategic communication” (Frost and Michelsen, 2017) or the production of “positive” narratives (Missiroli et al, 2016: 24) in their efforts to safeguard the open democratic conversation online.…”

Facilitating inclusive citizenry engagement in a provincial government

“…As a context to strategic communication, it is, therefore, suggested by some scholars that what sounds easy and straightforward is one of the key problems of strategic communication and management. In this regard, more scholars specialising in the strategic management of communication question the ability of actors to act rationally in a contingent environment (Frost & Michelsen 2017;Okigbo & Onoja 2017;Lock et al 2020;Singh 2014;Haywood & Besley 2014;Balogun 2006;Holtzhausen 2002).…”

Editorial: Communication, power and creolization

“…The rise of a digitised, networked media ecology has made communication appear increasingly important to achieving political outcomes in international politics. Increased connectivity, the proliferation of social media and the development of 'Big Data' are thought to help state, non-state and private actors make their communications more personalised and therefore more powerful than ever before (Frost and Michelsen, 2017).…”