Public Diplomacy or Propaganda?

"Public diplomacy . . . deals with the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies. It encompasses dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy; the cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries; the interaction of private groups and interests in one country with those of another; the reporting of foreign affairs and its impact on policy; communication between those whose job is communication, as between diplomats and foreign correspondents; and the processes of inter-cultural communications. Central to public diplomacy is the transnational flow of information and ideas."

This was the definition given by The Murrow Centre in one of its earlier brochure when defining 'public opinion'. The interesting buzz surrounding updates on public diplomacy has been differentiating it from propaganda. The fact that propaganda can be evidence or fact based blurres this distinction. Therefore state sponsored diplomacy using ideas, information, or other material to win people over to a given doctrine can and should be viewed critically. That’s why it does not come as a surprise to me that a lot of my fellow students view the use of public diplomacy with scepticism. I found two interesting cases that illustrate the potential similarities between public diplomacy and propaganda:

• In 1955, Oren Stephens, author of Facts to a Candid World: America's Overseas Information Program, called such programs (now known as "public diplomacy"), "propaganda." He referred to the Declaration of Independence as being "first and foremost a propaganda tract."

• In 1961, Wilson Dizard, in the first book to be written specifically about USIA, which was then about eight years old, wrote: The United States has been in the international propaganda business, off and on, for a long time . . . propaganda played a crucial role in the war of independence." (see http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/07/internet_diplomacy)

Unlike traditional diplomacy that mainly dealt with state-state business contemporary diplomacy is forced to encompass the newly emerged actors on the political stag. It deals not only with governments but essentially with non-governmental organizations and individuals. I believe a key feature to public diplomacy is the flow of information. The internet has taken away g

over government monopoly on what information actually reaches the public and I believe a good and recent example of that is the WikiLeaks and the leakage of diplomatic confidential information. Before the press and the respective editors controlled what information they wanted to leak and what data would be too sensitive to give to the public- now 22 year old hackers can choose to publicise highly confidential information regading corruption in Kenya, Sara Palin's, financial improprieties in Iceland, procedures of detainees in Guantanamo Bay as well as secret footage from Iraq (see http://www.economist.com/node/16335810).

Another good illustration of the growing relevance of public diplomacy is the American proposition of 'Radio Free Europe' which was thought of as a forum for the government to give out accurate and relevant information by the US government, which was originally paid for by the CIA. But now, just as during the Cold War it is highly difficult to fund a state broadcaster without jeopardising its credibility.

After the election in Iran last summer the State Department asked twitter to postpone a scheduled service interruption and either State or Twitter leaked the request (see http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/07/internet_diplomacy).

''…the kind of message that it sends to the rest of the world—i.e. that Google, Facebook and Twitter are now just extensions of the U.S. State Department—may simply endanger the lives of those who use such services in authoritarian countries. It's hardly surprising that the Iranian government has begun to view all Twitter users with the utmost suspicion; everyone is now guilty by default''

(see full quote on http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983004575073911147404540.html

Alec Ross, senior advisor for innovation to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is a candid speaker on public diplomacy and he said this about (check out the youtube link below for full speech):

...even last year, in this age of rampant peer-to-peer connectivity, the State Department was still boxed into the world of communiqués, diplomatic cables and slow government-to-government negotiations, what I like to call “white guys with white shirts and red ties talking to other white guys with white shirts and red ties, with flags in the background, determining the relationships.”

You don’t get it, old man. This is the internet. Everything’s different now.

Check out Alec Ross, Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen debate 21st Statecraft and public diplomacy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C6_uRGSqtM