Public Diplomacy in Grand Strategy

Abstract

Despite the growing importance of public diplomacy in current international politics, its practice—and particularly its relationship with hard power—remains largely unexplored by diplomatic or strategic theory. This paper applies a grand‐strategic perspective to analyze the challenges of “winning hearts and minds” in the new communications and normative environments. Israel's experience in the second Intifada serves to draw empirically based lessons on the grand‐strategic relationship between propaganda and counterterrorist operations. This relationship, the case study shows, is shaped by the close proximity of tactical‐level events to the “surface” of grand strategy, to which their effects tend quickly to rise in the new communications environment. In this context, the proactive role of public diplomacy becomes a key to grand‐strategic success.

The rhetoric of public diplomacy and propaganda wars: A view from self‐presentation theory

“…Of similar concern to theory is the fact that public diplomacy is embedded within the broader context of foreign policy. Thus, just as the response of individuals to identity predicaments does not consist of presentational elements only, so must one consider, when theorizing at the state level, that because propaganda is but a component in grand strategy, non‐presentational considerations (e.g., security) can further skew the empirical relationship between predicaments and propaganda (see Mor 2006). Clearly, comprehensive explanations of propaganda behavior would have to endogenize such influences, which in turn calls for incorporating what George (1959: 49) has called an elite's ‘operational propaganda theory’– namely a ‘regime's evaluation of the capabilities and limitations of propaganda as an instrument of policy and its estimate of the prerequisites for successful propaganda’.…”

Does Public Diplomacy Sway Foreign Public Opinion? Identifying the Effect of High-Level Visits

“…The study of public diplomacy has bloomed into a substantial literature: an expanding number of academics, along with the high-level officials engaging in public diplomacy, see international public engagement as crucial to achieving a state's foreign policy goals (e.g., Hartig 2016;Mor 2006;Peterson 2002;Wilson 2008). However, other scholars dismiss diplomatic outreach to public audiences, claiming that it lacks credibility, delivers no tangible benefits, or is merely a performance for the benefit of domestic audiences (Darnton 2020;Edelstein and Krebs 2005;Hoffman 2002).…”

Mimicking state diplomacy: The legitimizing strategies of unofficial diplomacies

“…Perceived as a key lever of soft power, and seeing a revival in the post-9/11 era when links were made between international perceptions of the United States and the country's national security (Ross, 2002), public diplomacy is conceptualized as based on ''a complex relationship between three major components: the government, the media, and public opinion'' (Gilboa, 2008, p. 62. See also Melissen, 2005;Mor, 2006). Given the consequent foregrounding of the diplomatic role of culture (Finn, 2003;Kennedy, 2003) and the idea of 'nation branding' (Olins, 2005), scholarship on public diplomacy has been highly multidisciplinary, including contributions from IR, cultural studies, sociology, psychology and public relations.…”