The New Public Diplomacy: Britain and Canada Compared

Abstract

This article examines the ways in which diplomacy is adapting in the information age, to the increased pressures and opportunities that changes in information and communication technologies and capabilities provide. The interaction of technological, economic, political and social changes, such as globalisation, the development and rapid expansion of information and communication technologies, the increasing ability of citizens and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to access and use these technologies, and the rise of transnational and co-operative security issues, are affecting the ways in which governments conduct their diplomacy. These changes are giving rise to what might be termed a 'new public diplomacy'. This can be characterised by a blurring of traditional distinctions between international and domestic information activities, between public and traditional diplomacy and between cultural diplomacy, marketing and news management. The article focuses on a comparison of Britain and Canada. It argues that, in Britain, the new public diplomacy features a repackaging of diplomacy to project a particular image to an overseas audience, which is largely treated as a passive recipient of diplomacy. However, in Canada the new public diplomacy is characterised by a more inclusive approach to diplomacy, enabling citizen groups and NGOs to play a greater role in international affairs.Diplomacy has traditionally been thought of as the development and implementation of foreign policy by diplomats (James 1993). However, states and their officials are no longer the only actors in diplomatic relations. There is an increasing opportunity for and emphasis on the role of the public in diplomacy, not only as recipients of diplomacy-the traditional understanding of 'public diplomacy' as a government's process of communicating with the public of another nation in order to influence its opinion-but also as actors in diplomacy. Put simply, the public dimension of diplomacy has been increasing in importance. Walter Wriston explains that 'there was a time when diplomats were the sole interlocutors between countries. Now, unmediated dialogue and information exchange between citizens from around the world occurs 24 hours a day' (Wriston 1997). Indeed, 'diplomats remark increasingly, even plaintively, that advanced communications and other aspects of the information revolution are altering the nature of diplomatic time and space-they are quickening the tempo of diplomacy and forcing open its once largely closed processes' (Ronfeldt and Arquilla 1999, 2). As a result of this, diplomacy is undergoing a radical rethink today, with repeated calls for diplomacy to be 'reinvented' to take account of the information revolution (Fulton, Burt and Robinson 1998, x;Ronfeldt and Arquilla 1999). Under New Labour, Britain has started to rethink traditional notions of diplomatic conduct (Leonard and Alakeson 2000), and there has even been the suggestion of an end to foreign policy as we know it, with an increased role for the public in the develo...

Bridging the Theoretical Gap between Public Diplomacy and Cultural Diplomacy

“…Melissen (2005) successfully adopted communications into public diplomacy by stressing its importance as a revolution in international relations. It was enough to fill the gaps in Rhiannon Vikers' (2004) blurry distinction between traditional diplomacy and 'new' public diplomacy. Since then, communicative aspects of public diplomacy have become important parts of the discourse among IR scholars and have been integrated into conceptualizations of the new public diplomacy.…”

The 4D Model of the country image: An integrative approach from the perspective of communication management

“…A positive country image and reputation is seen as a means of building common understanding in the international system (Wang, 2006), thereby increasing the political action ability of a nation-state (Vickers, 2004). The central aspect is often seen in the affective image component or a country's 'ability to attract' as it constitutes a nations 'soft power' in the international system (Nye, 2004).…”

“…Within the subfield of international relations country images are studied mostly with regard to the concept of public diplomacy, i.e., the strategic communication of a nation-state aimed at enhancing the country's reputation among foreign publics (see Leonard et al, 2002;Schatz and Levine, 2010;Vickers, 2004). A positive country image and reputation is seen as a means of building common understanding in the international system (Wang, 2006), thereby increasing the political action ability of a nation-state (Vickers, 2004).…”

The constitution and effects of country images: Theory and measurement of a central target construct in international public relations and public diplomacy

“…Integral to the country image are the relationship between countries (Cottam 1977;Jervis 1976), the strengths and weaknesses of a country and its status as an enemy (Boulding 1956(Boulding , 1959Cottam 1977;Holsti 1967;Shimko 1991;Silverstein, Holt 1989;White 1965). Cuddy et al (2007) and Fiske et al (2007Fiske et al ( , 1999 In political science, country images are researched mostly in the subfield of international relations, often with regard to the concept of public diplomacy (Leonard et al 2002;Schatz, Levine 2010;Vickers 2004). A positive country reputation facilitates common understanding in the international system (Wang, 2006) and increases the political action ability of a nation-state (ibid.).…”

“…the strategic communication of a nation-state aimed at enhancing the country's reputation among foreign publics (see Leonard et al 2002;Schatz, Levine 2010;Vickers 2004). A positive country image and reputation is seen as a means of building common understanding in the international system (Wang, 2006), thereby increasing the political action ability of a nation-state (ibid.).…”