Defining Public Diplomacy
Public diplomacy is the direct and indirect engagement of global audiences to further America’s national interest. Public diplomacy is about marshaling the resources of the Government, its people, and proxies to engage foreign publics, including current and future foreign public opinion leaders, through communications, exchanges and other activities.
Public diplomacy is based on building trust and credibility to establish relationships with ideas and people over the long term through consistent activities. Public diplomacy is only effective when in support a foreign policy that is, on its own, agreeable by relevant target audiences constituted less by geography and more by shared experiences and sympathies enhanced by global connectivity fostered by travel and “now media.” Public diplomacy is conducted both directly by Americans and by, with, and through foreign populations.
Public diplomacy is dependent on the “first three feet” of the “now media” information environment that virtually eliminates time and space. The truth may be the greatest ally in any struggle to change minds and affect the will to act, but the truth is useless if it is not known or trusted. The United States cannot and should not be the sole interpreter of events. It is said that news organizations write the “first draft of history,” but today’s combination of a near real-time media environment and the persistency of information accessed through search engines and linked web pages, the time and space for drafts and revisions has largely evaporated. Those who are first out with the news, particularly those in the “first three feet” of contact with an event, create the “facts” from which subsequent reports rely on or are compared to. Those on the other side of these “facts” are immediately placed on the defensive as there is less time to challenge or corroborate in the competitive information space. The result is that first impressions matter more than ever. Policies must be developed and implemented with an understanding of their effect and adoption in the global information environment. Relying on engagement in the “last three feet” to give context is often too late.
Public diplomacy does not operate in a vacuum. It must proactively, as well as reactively, engage global audiences in a struggle for minds and wills. It is how we combat misinformation and distortion so that our smart foreign policies can be seen for what they are: beneficial for the affected population(s). Public diplomacy is also about exposing the real world to local audiences to empower them into making informed local decisions. Public diplomacy is about bolstering morale and extending hope in depressed areas in support of a variety of efforts from education to capacity building to the establishment of an independent and vibrant media.
Properly funded and conducted, public diplomacy provides the “feel for the street” and connections to current and future public opinion leaders. The failure to provide this today, as a result of budgetary constraints and other pressures, has allowed, even required, the intelligence community to step in. In other words, American public diplomacy wears combat boots and a cloak. Public diplomacy is about more than countering violent extremism just as America’s national security is dependent on more the use of arms.
Proper public diplomacy creates transparency of action for to create awareness and accountability. The bifurcation of the global information environment into a US and a non-US sphere not only prevents Americans from knowing or understanding what is done overseas in their name and with their money, but it prevents indirect enlistment of people within the borders of the US, including Americans and foreign ex-patriots and foreign media, into the “by, with, and through” engagement.
In rethinking public diplomacy in the global “now media” information environment, it is time to reconsider the label “public diplomacy.” Public affairs would be a better label but for all its baggage today. This is, after all, what public diplomacy was called before those in Washington needed to distinguish it further as its purpose was evolving in the 1960s. A better term for the present and future is “global engagement.” This describes both the purpose and goal of what we today describe as either public diplomacy or strategic communication.
See also these posts:
- Public Diplomacy is not Public Relations
- Defining Public Diplomacy: Preparing for a new Administration
- Stop saying “Hearts and Minds”, you don’t mean it
- Understanding Public Diplomacy
- Understanding the Purpose Public Diplomacy
- Principles of Strategic Communication
- A Theory of Strategic Communication
- Arming for the Second War of Ideas: the Department of Global Affairs
Leave a comment
Follow on Twitter
Who's Reading
Refreshed Daily, Reset Monthly
To me, this is the definition of PA as well. I agree with you that PAs should be trained like PDs rather than journalists (Smith-Mundt Symposium discussion). This definition is inline where PAs should be going, the old paradigms of Media relations, community relations and internal information need to be reshaped to fit New Media (which I prefer to call Now Media, an idea from Dr Mark Drapeu). As you say, “Public diplomacy is based on building trust and credibility to establish relationships with ideas and people over the long term through consistent activities.” This is true of PA as well, about the only difference would be a domestic vs. foreign audience, but as we see time and time again, PAs work with state more and more like PDs in the deployed environment, I have 7 doing that now.
I agree entirely. PAOs for Generals to Ambassadors must be trained in public diplomacy and international relations, not just journalism and public relations. Public diplomacy includes the tools of public relations, but it is not public relations. Public diplomats must be aware of how the media operates, but they are not journalists.
Matt: your definition raises the question of how do you differ between "public diplomacy" and "strategic communication"? Do you use them interchangably, as I do? If not how do you divide them? The one point I'd revise in your definition is to change "government" to "nation", since I believe there are many ways that the US--or any other nation, since everyone conducts it--engages in global influence that extend well beyond the narrow bounds of the government.
Dan, I prefer the term "global engagement" over both public diplomacy and strategic communication. Public diplomacy, however, is a tainted word and the term strategic communication, while definitionally global, implies unidirectional lines of activity.
With apologies to Edmund Gullion who coined the modern phrase public diplomacy in 1965, I'd rather use 'public affairs' because it is the nearest thing in the pure interpretation to what we need to do, but the techniques, training, and practices of public affairs has long ago diverged from public affairs of forty to sixty years, before we had "public diplomacy."
In the AF, we merged our Strat Comm function back into PA, to me strategic comm is a process, not and organization or an office. If you are doing PA right, the strategic aspect of what you do will occur.
I respectfully disagree with Alan on combining the facets of public diplomacy with public affairs, and changing the mission and outlook of public affairs. The problem is it's easy to say, but becomes a slipperly slope where too many people will be tempted to lie "for the greater good." Even if they aren't lying, when there is an appearance of misleading, or an assumption -- right or wrong -- you lose all credibility. I'm reminded of Rumsfeld trying to create his office of disinformation, and then commanders in the field pairing public affairs with psychological operations. They can work together in certain areas, but not all the time, and they don't just automatically go together. You can't force a square peg in a round hole, and it certainly isn't the answer to all of the woes in DoD public affairs. I do agree with Alan that we need to embrace new media and take risks, but not at the expense of doing away with the basics (internal, community and media relations) that works well when it's done well.
Disinformation