Public Diplomacy: Its Importance and Challenges

The term and concept of public diplomacy has varied a bit throughout the years, especially in the United States, and can be defined slightly differently depending on the era, according to James Pamment.  However, Pamment even agrees with the other authors in its core components: listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, exchange diplomacy and international broadcasting.  Matthew Wallin uses the definition: “communication with foreign publics for the purpose of achieving a foreign policy objective.”  He also adds “psychological warfare” to the list of core components that Pamment recognized.  Nakamura and Weed note, in other words, that public diplomacy can be used by governments to “interact directly with foreign citizens, community and civic leaders, journalists and other opinion leaders,” and convince those individuals through lasting relationships and better understanding that its policies are justified and should be locally supported.

The problem with this tool, however, is that it can often be criticized as a form of propaganda, and without the proper credibility behind or follow-up to the government’s proposed actions, public diplomacy can create a bad reputation for the United States and limit its policy options.  Public diplomacy in practice is therefore incredibly important, and should be used simultaneously with all policy decisions affecting a particular foreign country.  Without it, U.S. national security (or other international) efforts can absolutely be undermined, as we’re seeing throughout the Middle East, with the U.S. image largely unchanged and counter to its development and conflict resolution efforts.  Yet, not everyone agrees with PD’s importance.  Wallin effectively depicts its main challenges as: “under-financed, under-resourced, under-led, and under the radar.”

One core principle that I personally felt was slipping through the cracks (in terms of achieving effective public diplomacy) is the “listening” component.  Having recently taken a course on culture and conflict resolution, I was immediately reminded when reading these articles about the need to go into other countries open-minded and willing to try and understand the way their public sees the world.  Although the U.S. recognizes that “resentments prevent collaboration” and that it should therefore constantly work at maintaining a good reputation and image among the people and leaders of other nations in order to achieve its goals, the U.S. doesn’t seem to be practicing this notion at all.  Reading through several case studies pointed out that the U.S. is not doing nearly enough listening, but is rather largely preaching what it sees as right for the other country.  These situations only foster resentment and frustration with the United States, and make foreign publics (and their leaders) hesitant about working with us or supporting our policies, and even skeptical about our real motives whenever a policy seems to be good.

Public diplomacy can be a great tool to accomplish our goals abroad, but the U.S. must stop acting primarily for its own interests without regard to another country’s, or especially choosing a U.S.-centric style of addressing issues that is not in balance with the customs of the foreign country.  For example, many approaches to problems in the Middle East have been seen and acted upon through a predominantly U.S. lens, and our continued negative perception despite all our efforts throughout the years highlights this lack of understanding.